Red Hot Lies: no data left to support global whatever

First, watch four minutes of Dilbert.


Now, I hope you can enter this site and see the interview with Christopher Horner of CEI.org. I recommend joining the site. 


Basically, as Horner points out, when East Anglia University's lies were exposed, there was a trumpet cry that there there were three other independent sets of data to support Gore panic. "Hey, what's a few emails!"


Well, there you go again.


The two U.S. sets were not independent and the ongoing climate fraud has been exposed here, as well. NASA's fabrication has been exposed 


Remember I told you about all this.  I don't make things up, usually. The scientists report one thing and Hansen reports another.


Yes, Mr. Hansen who I have been writing about for years, has been exposed. He is a liar, but, not to worry, he is doing well.


NASA is under investigation and is refusing to release data under the Freedom of Information Act.


There is no basis for any legislation or any Chicago exchange for magical gas trading, other than Goldman Sachs and Al Gore have a huge financial interests. Goldman runs the country, via the economy, behind their selection for great leader.  


I am saying there is NO BASIS, not a weak basis.  "Wait!," you say.  "What about Japan!"


I have addressed this too. 


Japan, in its wonderful polite way talks about global warming, but its scientists liken global warming science to "ancient astrology."  It mocks the U.S. ground data. There is no Japanese support to prove the claims of the voracious left and business oligarchy.


This all being so, the administration will move ahead, nevertheless, to reward Goldman Sachs, Al Gore, other fellow travelers who are invested in the Chicago Exchange. This $10,000,000,000,000 mystery-gas market is too big for the president to merely foster for allies, so I suspect he is tied in somewhere. Or, I suppose, he may like having central control over the economy of the United States. He probably thinks this is good Marxism, and it is, and his handlers think it is good for the oligarchy, and it is.


Obama will always be able to pick up his pieces of silver later. 


Oh, I was assuming you knew, you will pay for this RICO scam. How is that "change" working for you?


====


I recommend joining PJTV. It is remarkable.  It makes the stuff I rant about far more interesting.  The interview I mentnioned is by a SNL type perky blonde reporter who is disturbing.

Global lying, revisited

I wish I reported what the WSJ does, below.  Wait!  I did,

I don't think I am a climate scientist and, yet, I could report on what is going on without a UN office and staff behind me.

Now, what do you make of this?  Am I lucky, a genius, or are we being conned?

The UN misquoted 1996 hearsay, used information it knew was wrong to mount a campaign to save the Himalayan glaciers.

I don't think I am a climate genius.

A Glacier Meltdown

The Himalayas and climate science.

• Article
• Comments (354)

MORE IN OPINION »

• Email
• Print
• Save This↓ More
• • 
  • 
  • 
  • 
  • + More
• Text

Last November, U.N. climate chief Rajendra Pachauri delivered a blistering rebuke to India's environment minister for casting doubt on the notion that global warming was causing the rapid melting of Himalayan glaciers.

"We have a very clear idea of what is happening," the chairman of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) told the Guardian newspaper. "I don't know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement."

Then again, when it comes to unsubstantiated research it's hard to beat the IPCC, whose 2007 report insisted that the glaciers—which feed the rivers that in turn feed much of South Asia—were very likely to nearly disappear by the year 2035. "The receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers," it wrote in its supposedly definitive report, "can be attributed primarily to the [sic] global warming due to increase in anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases."

It turns out that this widely publicized prediction was taken from a 2005 report from the World Wildlife Fund, which based it on a comment by Indian glacier expert Syed Hasnain from 1999. Mr. Hasnian now says he was "misquoted." Even more interesting is that the IPCC was warned in 2006 by leading glaciologist Georg Kaser that the 2035 forecast was baseless. "This number is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude," Mr. Kaser told the Agence France-Presse. "It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing."

On Wednesday, the IPCC got around to acknowledging that the claim was "poorly substantiated," though Mr. Pachauri also suggested it amounted to little more than a scientific typo. Yet the error is of a piece with other glib, and now debunked, global warming alarms.

Among them: that 1998 was the warmest year on record in the United States (it was 1934); that sea levels could soon rise by up to 20 feet and put Florida underwater (an 18-inch rise by the year 2100 is the more authoritative estimate); that polar bears are critically endangered by global warming (most polar bear populations appear to be stable or increasing); that—well, we could go on without even mentioning the climategate emails.

For the record, most Himalayan glaciers do seem to be retreating, and they have been "since the earliest recordings began around the middle of the nineteenth century," according to a report from India's ministry of environment and forests. The reasons are complex and still poorly understood, and we're glad to see responsible scientists acknowledge as much. If more of them could help the IPCC get its facts straight, we might put more stock in its reports.

What you gonna do, when the CO2 comes for you?

I was reading in the Telegram (Eurotrash stuff) that a big study, including some work of Oak Ridge partisans, determined that amount of CO2 emissions has been higher than expected, then jumps to the conclusion we are all dead, or some such thing. Things are, you see, worse than we thought, even though they are better.

The writer doesn't seem to see the missing assumption; rather, the paper and the green crew silently assume that higher CO2 is directly related to warmth in this era of cooling. I know pointing out this upside down thinking gets boring, but I figure if I keep pounding on the nails sticking up, it might help point out the poor carpentry.

Dr. Leo Buscaglia (he was a good touchy, feely speechifier) once told the story of his family standing outside the old man's hospital room waiting for him to die. A doctor went in to see how dad's fractured hip was doing after treatment. He came out to the group beaming and announced how well the patient was doing. Get it?

There is an online project regarding CO2 that was knocked off-line for two months by a cyber attack, better to kill the messenger I suppose. This attack silently screams much.

Anyway, this group, among other things is studying the great global warming of the middle ages.

What? There was a global warming without CO2?

Somewhere on this page will be a graph of the number of studies (in red) showing the warming period was hotter than today. Just another item to be ignored by the hip doctors. (MWP stands for Middle Ages Warming Period and CWP for Current...Check the site for the time period - just before the glacial period that is also ignored)

Also, here are the scientists reviewed, since science has become a game of how many experts one has: HERE

The obvious question is, assuming there was a MWP, how is it the early middle ages were hotter than today, since the CO2 level is higher, now?

The answer is: It can only be hotter where the CO2 assumption is wrong.

If you change the argument, you agree; then, we will look at your new syllogism, as believers will not change the conclusion. After all, there has to be some facts that support the obvious conclusion!

If you keep to the argument, you make no sense and have moved over to religious fundamentalism, in which case the rest of us will watch to see if you are going to use the government to support your religion.

I have no delusions, however, that most people will blink and move on, not understanding any of this. Nonetheless, I will just keep hammering the obvious nails while most will read articles like that in the Telegraph and think they actually say something because the missing, convenient assumption is secretly understood to be a convenient, obvious truth.

Taking GAIA's Temperature

I am very busy today trying to figure out what I was to do last week, so, thanks to Irene, I have a quick and dirty data capture regarding a journal article based on work from three universities.

I have to guess, these guys are not part of the 100% of all "scientists" Al Gore says agrees with him. These guys are named and have identifiable relevant specialties not related to psychology and chimpology. They are doing their work, non pontificating in areas beyond their specialties. That is my job.

Bjarne, as I like to refer to him, has an academic vitae online with 83 peer reviewed papers. This distinguishes the author from the unnamed "scientists" quoted in reports written by unnamed functionaries with active political agendas. Bjarne is a fan of aqua vit and long walks along the fiordes, as I understand.

I examined the list of articles carefully and assure you I would have no idea what Bjarne is talking about - and he writes in English. I like the idea of non-equilibrium, however.

I didn't see a paper on denying the Holocaust.

Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics.

Danish scientist: Global warming is a myth

COPENHAGEN, Denmark, March 15 (UPI) -- A Danish scientist said the idea of a "global temperature" and global warming is more political than scientific.

University of Copenhagen Professor Bjarne Andresen has analyzed the topic in collaboration with Canadian Professors Christopher Essex from the University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph.

It is generally assumed the Earth's atmosphere and oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years because of an upward trend in the so-called global temperature, which is the result of complex calculations and averaging of air temperature measurements taken around the world.

"It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth," said Andresen, an expert on thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".

He says the currently used method of determining the global temperature -- and any conclusion drawn from it -- is more political than scientific.

The argument is presented in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics. Good luck finding it.