"Never mind", Part the Third

Hey, another climate dickhead admits he's a fraud: Via Powerline: British Climate Scientists Recants His Alarmism

Most importantly is his admission that “twelve years is a reasonable time”. It has provided enough time for a trend to develop that debunks the alarmist’s predictions. Finally Lovelock admits that which has been painfully evident to most skeptics, given the trend of those 12 years – “we don’t know what the climate is doing.”

Anybody still believe in this shit?

Is It Just Me, or Is It Not Getting Hot in Here?

Another handful of nails for the Carbon coffin:

Via Hot Air:

The evidence is powerful, straightforward, and damning. NASA satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures show absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years. This is the case for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including the United States. This is the case for the Arctic, where the signs of human-caused global warming are supposed to be first and most powerfully felt. This is the case forglobal sea surface temperatures, which alarmists claim should be sucking up much of the predicted human-induced warming. This is the case for the planet as a whole.

I've been saying it for 20 years. It's basic science. You pose your theory and you test it, and if the results 100% contradict your hypothesis, your theory is disproven and you move on from it. If you refuse to do this you are not practicing science.

End of line.

Tom Friedman is Full

...of guilt.

Apparently he's forgotten all the other scares about resources and food and oil and water and air that have been around for centuries, and how none of them played out at all, and feels so bad about being at the top of the food chain and using up scarce resources that he goes to... Yemen.

This is not science fiction. This is what happens when our system of growth and the system of nature hit the wall at once. While in Yemen last year, I saw a tanker truck delivering water in the capital, Sana. Why? Because Sana could be the first big city in the world to run out of water, within a decade. That is what happens when one generation in one country lives at 150 percent of sustainable capacity.

And how did this whiner GET to Yemen? Did he take Shank's Ponies the whole way? Row a dugout? Jump real high and wait to come down when Africa rotated to underneath him?

Naw, I bet he rode on one o' them aero-plane contraptions and even had a crappy in-flight sandwich and bag of pretzels.

That's a lot of Carbon there, Tommy. All to get you to Yemen. Did you need to be in Yemen? (And really, does anyone really need to be in Yemen?) Do you cry yourself to sleep each night over the guilt of going to Yemen and spitting all of that death-smoke out of your sky demon to get there? Or are you just eager to make sure no one else gets a chance to go to Yemen? (Umm, thank you?)

The inherent mental ass-hattery required to be a member of the Environment Religion is truly astounding. There is simply no real thought behind it - it doesn't stand up to two seconds of applied science and every single sacrament (warming, acid rain, cooling, overpopulation) has been shown to be false or falsified. And I have good friends who believe this stuff - I'm embarrassed for them.

But anyway, the question remains - does Tommy Friedman want to squat in front of a mud hut and paw grubs out of a wooden bowl all his life? Or does he want to fly to Yemen so he can write articles about how we should be the ones doing that?

I know how I'd bet, and I've got a full boat: Earths over Tommies.

Middle of May

And yesterday I had the heat on.

How's that whole Sun thing working out? Still pretty cold? Yeah, I thought so.

Hybrid Car Ravages Earth, Mother Gaia Cries

Women, Children Affected Most

Nothing puts a smile on my face like an electric car spontaneously catching fire and spewing black smoke into the atmosphere. Nothing, that is, except the same car catching fire again four days later:

(Cue crying Indian)

Engineers from General Motors Corp. and insurance representatives investigating whether a Chevrolet Volt or its charging station caused a fire last week that destroyed a garage in Barkhamsted were surprised Monday when the unplugged hybrid electric car began smoldering, four days after the early morning blaze.

Now, since no one got hurt except in the pocketbook, that's entertainment.

Rectal Cranial Inversion Epidemic In Brussels

Well, the EU assf@!kery has reached a New Low.

The EU on Monday unveiled a "single European transport area" aimed at enforcing "a profound shift in transport patterns for passengers" by 2050.

The plan also envisages an end to cheap holiday flights from Britain to southern Europe with a target that over 50 per cent of all journeys above 186 miles should be by rail.

Top of the EU's list to cut climate change emissions is a target of "zero" for the number of petrol and diesel-driven cars and lorries in the EU's future cities.

Siim Kallas, the EU transport commission, insisted that Brussels directives and new taxation of fuel would be used to force people out of their cars and onto "alternative" means of transport.

"That means no more conventionally fuelled cars in our city centres," he said. "Action will follow, legislation, real action to change behaviour."

Best comment so far is from London Dave, who says "Thank goodness we won World War 2, and a bunch of crazed totalitarian Nazis didn't get to enforce their crazy will on the rest of us."

Bad Data, No Biscuit!

What are the odds that yet another chunk of data used by the Carbonistas all these years is actually pure shite? Oh, about 100%. Courtesy of In the MIDDLE of the RIGHT, (hat tip to Borepatch, of course) we now know that bad satellite data has been included in the Carbonistas' datasets for years, and that they've known it was bad for years.

"The snuffed out satellite had been run continuously up until being taken offline soon after my article went viral (August 10, 2010) in which I exposed the full extent of how seriously degraded it’s sensors were. The automatic readings had been contaminated by hundreds, if not thousands, of false and absurdly high temperature readings, some as high as 612 degrees Fahrenheit (boiling point of water is 212 F.). We now know NOAA was aware of these outrageous anomalies at least since 2006 but they were not remedied ( see below)."

Now, for years I've been labeling people as fools for getting sucked into the "global warming" cult simply because it was not scientific, but I never disputed the temperature numbers they were given. I didn't believe them, mind you, but I never disputed them. Couldn't prove they were false, so I never argued that point. But I always figured there were lots of bad data in there because there was never any scientific evidence to support those numbers; and again, the Left - and "global warming" is a prime cult of the Left - will stop at nothing to further its agenda.

If the rallying cry of the Libertarian Right is "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch", or TANSTAAFL, then certainly the countercry of the Liberal Left must be "The Ends Justify All Means". or TEJAM.

IPCC Must Stand For "Liar Liar, Pants On Fire"

It seems that every week or so, another story emerges about the perfidy and hustling that the UN IPCC is stealing money for. Last week it was fake Himalayan glacier claims, this week it's another faked connection between the bogeyman Carbon Dioxide and severe weather. From the Times Online:

The Sunday Times has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based its claim had not been peer reviewed, nor published, at the time the climate body issued its report.

When the paper was eventually published, in 2008, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."

So are those of us who have pointed out the fallacies of anthro global warming for the last 20 years still anti-science? Still "deniers"? Or are we just right?

The Ice Age Cometh

As the snow drifts pile up across Europe and Asia, scientists in Germany are questioning some of the Glueball Wormening orthodoxy. The best part -- these particular eggheads were never part of the skeptic/denier crowd.

A couple quotes that I found most pleasing (but you should RTWT):

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise.  

This challenge to the widespread view that the planet is on the brink of an irreversible catastrophe is all the greater because the scientists could never be described as global warming ‘deniers’ or sceptics.

Among the most prominent of the scientists is Professor Mojib Latif, a leading member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been pushing the issue of man-made global warming on to the international political agenda since it was formed 22 years ago.

The only thing I could possibly add is that, while Latif's predictions are a lot more realistic than most of the bombast and hysteria coming from the Climate Change Faithful, he's probably shooting in the dark to a certain extent. Predicting the climate is awfully tricky.

Thoughtgun Blast, Part the Third

Terrorism, Profiling the Obvious Perpetrators Thereof:

This whole "don't bother looking at Muslim men because if we do they'll just start using Big Squareheaded Swedes" has got to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard for or against anything in my life.

The dumbest.

It's like a cop getting a report that a bank in his area was just robbed by a guy with a big Santa Claus beard, then walking by a guy on his beat with a big Santa Claus beard but not bothering to stop and question him because "he can just shave it off later on today".

Dumb. Simply dumb.

It's war, morons. Make the enemy react to YOU.

The Health Care Bill:

Hard to say anything that hasn't already been said. It's disgusting, it's dangerous, it's crooked, it's unaffordable, it's embarrassing for the lickspittles who got their public handjobs, it's empowering for the State, it's 100% part of the opposite strategy to Reagan's "Starve the Beast" (see also the "stimulus" bills and "cap & trade"), it's likely to destroy the Democratic Party for a decade to come and this administration for the remainder of its reign, and I think it's going to pass and then be struck as unConstitutional in the next couple of years. Where's the authority or precedent for the FedGov requiring me to buy a product or service?

So I'm angry, but not panicked. Maybe I should be both, but I'm not. But I'm pretty darned angry so maybe that makes up for the not-panicky part.

Politics, Campaigns:

Like I said above, an ill wind is blowing from D.C. that is going to sweep a lot of its soldiery into the discard bin, including our Prime Leader, President Obama. No way he gets a second term the way he pisses on the country and its people every day. People expect insulting ugly scolding from Don Rickles, and pay for it, but a President can't show contempt for his audience that way.

Plus I honestly think the same thing I thought during his campaign - he's way over his head, and really pissed off that this job he wanted is harder than he thought. And I don't think he wants to be the leader of a bunch of people that don't realize how awesomely great he is.

If 2010 is as great a year electorally as it is shaping up to be right now for the Republican party, look for one mighty petulant president taking his ball and going home in 2011 and -12.

Climategate:

I've been explaining why anthro global warming is bunk for almost 20 years to friends and unfortunate readers of various internet forums I've been on. Quite honestly now that the cat is out of the bag I feel a little enervated by it all. Plus Borepatch is doing such an awesome and methodical job of it there's not much I can contribute. I guess I'm left with more of the same I've said for years: AGW is a poor theory that was shot down in the minds of anyone who understood the scientific method decades ago.

Of course, now that it's part of the Holy Religion of the Environment, reality might not have much of a chance against it even now.

"No Degrees Allowed (Or Birds)..."

-12 out now (1am)

Gonna be -1 tomorrow for a bright & sunny high, then dropping to -20 tomorrow night.

That's -20F without any wind chill, just a straight shot of ultra-frozen boogers in your nose with your first breath.

Yay, Minnesota. I can't figure out why no one wants to visit me in January or February...

Hey, "Global Warming" Acolytes

I told you so.

For 20 years, I've told you so.

The Saudis: So Easy To Hate

I got a letter from my oil company yesterday. It says they've noticed that I did a lot of winterizing work to insulate my house and installed a wood stove. They estimate I'll use 15% less oil this winter, so they're adding a 15% charge to my bill each month.

I lied --they aren't really. And I heat with wood and gas, not wood and oil. But that's the same ludicrous argument that the world just heard from the Saudi negotiator getting his pitch ready for the climate talks in Copenhagen in December. 

Even if you ignore the fact that the Global Climate Change is going in the opposite direction recently, the whole thing is insane.

The chief Saudi negotiator, Mohammad al-Sabban, described the position as a “make or break” provision for the Saudis, as nations stake out their stance before the global climate summit scheduled for the end of the year.

“Assisting us as oil-exporting countries in achieving economic diversification is very crucial for us through foreign direct investments, technology transfer, insurance and funding,” Mr. Sabban said in an e-mail message.

This Saudi position has emerged periodically as a source of dispute since the earliest global climate talks, in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. It is surfacing again as Saudi Arabia tries to build a coalition of producers to extract concessions in Copenhagen.
Petroleum exporters have long used delaying tactics during climate talks. They view any attempt to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by developed countries as a menace to their economies.

According to the article, the Saudis alone could be asking the rest of the world to cough up $19 billion a year, just for starters.

I wasn't really looking forward to the coverage of the Copenhagen Climate talks but now, I'm hoping that the rest of the world tells OPEC to pound sand and that the Saudi's freeze their asses off in their sheets. Copenhagen in December should be even colder than usual.

ZOMG!!!!111!!!! Glueball Wormening Fail!!!1!!!

For once, I am content to post the headline and first graf of this BBC article without snide commentary.

What happened to global warming?  

by Paul Hudson  
Climate correspondent, BBC News

October 9, 2009. This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming.

OK. I lied.

You're &@%! right we saw it #(&@! coming. Anyone who spent 5 minutes looking at something besides Al Gore videos on Youtube could have seen it coming.

PS. I stole the Glueball Wormening label from Kim du Toit, a wordsmith if there ever was one.

What The Bleepin' Bleep?!?

So......

A significant portion of the data used to bedrock the concept of "global warming" no longer exists?

If we are to believe Jones’s note to the younger Pielke, CRU adjusted the original data and then lost or destroyed them over twenty years ago. The letter to Warwick Hughes may have been an outright lie. After all, Peter Webster received some of the data this year. So the question remains: What was destroyed or lost, when was it destroyed or lost, and why?

AGW reveals its status as a religion more and more every day. Now we no longer have the original data, we have only the Revealed Word of the Data. "You kinda-sorta have to trust us, stop asking questions, alter your lifestyle to suit our preferences, and give us money."

MmmMMMMMmmmm, that's good religion!

Our Imaginary Vegan Ancestors (Of Whom There Are None)

I elevated this from comments because I have a cogent rebuttal. (Astonishing as it sounds.)

In this fantasy pre-historic cave-man land that you all seem to think you know so well, meat would probably have been damn hard to come by. Most days, if you were lucky enough to eat, you'd be eating vegan.

Well, no. Vegans don't use any animal products at all -- that means no honey, no leather, no fur, no silk. I was once told (but can't be bothered to confirm) that many vegans won't drink certain brands of beer as some brewers use gelatin in filters during brewing. A vegan lifestyle for our prehistoric forebears is unlikely.

But if you just want to restrict your comments to food, well, you're still wrong. Our ancestors ate all the way up and down the food chain. We share about 98-99% of our DNA with chimps, and if they can eat termite larvae, so can we.

But the most powerful argument against prehistoric humanity living in some kind of vegan paradise comes not from archaeology or sociology but from mathematics. You simply can't eat only vegetables and fruit and ingest enough calories or enough protein to survive outdoors, especially in a place that has a winter. (Note: I'm talking about pre-cultivation history here. Once you settle down and plant rice or wheat, things change a little)

And if you want more evidence, you should look at the great die-off of animal species that happened everywhere that humans emerged from Africa and spread around the world.

In North America, dozens of species disappeared 12,000 to 13,000 years ago, after the arrival of humans, including mammoths and mastodons (both relatives of modern elephants), giant ground sloths, tapirs, a large camel, llamas, a large-horned bison, prong-horned antelopes, oxen, a type of mountain goat, a giant armadillo and the glyptodonts, large mammals covered with solid armor. Large predators such as the saber-toothed cats, dire wolves and some bears also died off.

Just to make it clear: they died off because WE ATE THEM. A LOT.

They Were Just Kidding!

So first Al Gore owned up to exaggeration (i.e. lying) as a means of pushing his little climate bullshit agenda, now Greenpeace does the same thing. (hat tip LGF.)

Of course, Hansen and Mann are already known fabricators as well, but folks still think AGW is something to waste time & money on. Poor deluded fools.

I Have Betrayed Paul Krugman

...and I didn't even have to try. Seems the Krugster is quite relieved that the House passed yet another economy-braking bill that they haven't read last week, and even though I wasn't there,

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.

I've committed treason against the planet, because I'm one o' them there "deniers". Now, I'd love to sit down with Paul (may I call him Paul?), hand him a fine beverage and a cigar, and explore the concept of applying the label "denial" to the process of simply not acknowledging things that aren't there. For instance am I a 'Salma Hayek in my bedroom' denier because there's no evidence that Ms. Hayek's ever been in there before and so I'm quite comfortable with assuming she's still not? Or am I just logical? Maybe I'd even have some fun drawing the easy parallels between anthropogenic global warming folks and rabidly zealous prosleytizing religious folks.

I think I'd enjoy that a great deal.

But as fun as that would be, I'd probably want to spend some time talking about this section:

The fact is that the planet is changing faster than even pessimists expected: ice caps are shrinking, arid zones spreading, at a terrifying rate. And according to a number of recent studies, catastrophe — a rise in temperature so large as to be almost unthinkable — can no longer be considered a mere possibility. It is, instead, the most likely outcome if we continue along our present course.

Well, the above may be facts to Paul Krugman, but they aren't to anyone else. All the data anyone cares to examine (ice, atmospheric temps, oceanic temps, surface temps, etc.) show that things are cooler now than 10 years ago, and coupled with/driven by an historically-inactive Sun, are likely to continue to trend in that direction for the near future. But Paul's abominable grasp of science aside, let's look at the language he's chosen:

"pessimists"
"terrifying rate"
"catastrophe"
"unthinkable"

I assume that if I used those same words to describe the unread, un-shared with the public like Obama promised everything would be Cap & Trade bill that was passed last week, Paul, or someone of his ilk, would accuse me of hyperbole, panic, and fearmongering. Never mind that a step closer to a command economy scares the holy bejebus out of me a helluva lot more than desertification or storm surges.

Further in he drabbles on, and closes with:

Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an “existential threat” to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole — but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.

Yet the deniers are choosing, willfully, to ignore that threat, placing future generations of Americans in grave danger, simply because it’s in their political interest to pretend that there’s nothing to worry about. If that’s not betrayal, I don’t know what is.

Since he brought a strawman to the fight I will too, and I'd close my hypothetical discussion with Paul by stating that I could remind him what betrayal really is, and so could Walter and Gwendolyn Myers. Now, I harldy ever read Paul's work because it's pretty stupid stuff, so maybe he's already written on this, but I'd ask him if the Cuban spy couple were on the same level of betrayal, by actually passing sensitive state secrets to an enemy of the nation for decades, as I am; a guy who is confident that this planet's climate is driven, in the medium run, overwhelmingly by the star around which we orbit, and who sees no strong evidence to the contrary.

So does he really want to throw words around like "denier", "betrayal", and "treason"? Is he going to make me wear a red "C" on my breast to call attention to my lack of interest in his beliefs about Carbon?

Really?

The Flying Hypocrisy Monster and You

A couple of days ago a well-meaning friend sent me an email with a link to this Youtube video about "Global Climate Warming Change". Said "It's a good argument."

Now, I watched it, and realized within about ten seconds (as most anyone would) that it's nothing more than Pascal's Wager on a white board.

I found this definition

"Pascal's Wager

In the seventeenth century the mathematician Blaise Pascal formulated his infamous pragmatic argument for belief in God in Pensées. The argument runs as follows:

If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation)."

From this site.

What struck me is that this kind of argument is often presented by people who are vitriolic in their hatred and dismissal of religion. If someone with a Bible or whatever knocked on their front door and said "hey, why not believe in God - what have you got to lose?" they'd tell the story for days about how they laughed in the guy's face and mocked him and were offended that such creatures are allowed to walk the Earth, blah blah blah. I know because I've heard it - endlessly. Folks who know or assume I'm an atheist make no effort to disguise their utter contempt for religion in general (and Christianity in specific) around me, assuming I obviously feel the same way.

Of course, the ones that forward around Youtube videos like this don't see the reality that they are just as religious as the people they despise if not more so.

There is no evidence that the climactic variations we do see are affected by anything related to Man, plenty of evidence that the main engine driving climate is the Sun (no big surprise for some of us), and certainly no evidence that poor old Carbon Dioxide is affecting global temperature. Yet the disciples preach on, firmly believing without proof that their old warming man in the sky is real while others are not. And they're so proud of how smart and responsible it makes them feel - exactly the same kind of smugness they mock in what they perceive as religious people, and for the same reasons. When it's not frustrating, it really is funny.

The bottom line is that I don't accept Pascal's Wager as a valid reason to consider anyone's religion, but I do appreciate the deep irony of climate alarmists using it as a persuasive tool for theirs.

Children of the Sun

More cold, hard facts about climate, via PowerLine.

Big source link to the Heartland Institute presentation here.

"Due to the efforts of Heartland and others, the public is beginning to catch on to the cosmic scam that Al Gore, James Hansen and others--mostly not scientists--have been perpetrating."

I'd type something original but I would just dissolve into derision and spittle. Global warming idiocy tires me.