Heat or Eat?

 Richard S Lindzen :- “In brief, we have the new paradigm where simulation and programs have replaced theory and observation, where government largely determines the nature of scientific activity, and where the primary role of professional societies is the lobbying of the government for special advantage.”

A lot of people face a stark choice this winter. Stay warm, or eat? It would be simplistic to say that bad choices by government regarding the mitigation of CO2 emissions is the main reason, but so would blaming the credit crunch. The economic crisis, coupled with the inconvenient cold, is causing the warmista to shriek more loudly that their dissonance must be calmed. We must not, according to them, take our eye off the climate crisis. Well, here is the news:

There were several football matches postponed on Tue 28th Oct – and not just northern (UK) ones either – and we hardly ever abandon matches that have started and it is outside the “normal” time frame to do so for frost, sleet or snow. Meanwhile the blinkered UK government were spending 6 hours destroying the future economy of that once great nation by voting to pass a bill that will “limit” emissions by 80% by sometime after they have all retired. Yeah right.

A Google search for “cold weather records” produces some gems most of the time but recently we see cold records being beaten every day and snowfall extent and depth records are also increasing, and it is still not yet November.

The energy companies believed, along with most of the western world, that warm weather was going to remain the “norm” and they had better cover their margins by increasing prices before falling, or flattening, demand crushed their profits. In the face of what seems, already, to be a severe winter on the way they may have to face windfall taxes before Christmas. I think the energy companies could be the canary in the coalmine for others to rethink the way CO2 is being presented as a “dangerous pollutant” by one pretender to the ultimate crown.

Thankfully “Joe (the plumber) Average” knows a tax scam when he sees one. Recent polls, albeit asking the usual loaded questions, have revealed that roughly 18% of those questioned “believed” in man made global warming. The same respondent faces higher food bills at the supermarket, bigger heating bills and higher pump prices for most fuels as a direct result of this collective insanity that claims the gas that gives us all of the above is killing us, going to kill us or going to kill our children.

I cannot sufficiently express my contempt for the politicians who refuse to investigate the properties of CO2, the public for not standing up to be counted, but mostly, the scientists who nuzzle the teat of funding and gorge at the public trough. It gets wearying to ask the same questions of those who supposedly know. Where is the evidence that CO2 causes any kind of imbalance in the world’s energy flux? Where is the science stating that CO2 residence time is anything other than <10 years? Where is the science stating that a “runaway” effect will take place because of the above?

Here is some that shows how much of the research that would answer the above questions has been suppressed. The whole site is informative but I offer just this one paper – http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.pdf – for your perusal today.

As a species we are being asked to spend trillions of dollars to prevent an unproven future disaster yet we are apparently unwilling to part with a few millions to address the questions whose answers could prevent egregious economic breakdown, allow us to concentrate on the real pollutants and dissuade me that a power, and tax, grab is under way.

Instead, as a result of inaction and data manipulation I, for one, see that there is zero problem from our CO2 emissons that are allowing our modern world to exist, keeping us warm and feeding us and that anyone who joins the crusade to demonize the life giving gas is destitute of morals, science and the hope that mankind, as it has every time it has faced a problem, will triumph over the political darkness that claims CO2 is bad, m’kay.

It is almost as if there is a concerted effort to create and perpetuate a “big lie” around the most vital component of life we know as CO2. Every politician and most of the authority societies and unions are competing with one another to bolster this lie. It beggars belief. People will die but the perpetrators will get golden handshakes, golden parachutes and lecture circuit riches in retirement. Excuse me while I puke.

The Phantom Menace

H.L. Mencken :-
“The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others. His culture is based on ‘I am not too sure’.”

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu

http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/misleading.php

“Certainly, global warming is in progress. However, in spite of their claim, not even the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) presents definite scientific proof that “most” of the present warming is caused by the greenhouse effect, as stated in their summary report. It is simply an assumption. Since the physics of the greenhouse effect of CO2 is well known, and since they thought that no other forcing function is likely to be the cause, the IPCC hypothesized that the warming from about 1900 was caused by it. They assembled a large number of scientists, mostly meteorologists and physicists (not necessarily climatologists who are really needed in climate research) and tried to prove their hypothesis based on supercomputer models. They have continued to do so, in spite of new evidence from some ice core data, which shows that the temperature rises tend to precede CO2 rises by about 1000 years, suggesting that the hypothesized relationship between the temperature and CO2 is reversed, namely that some of the past temperature rises may be the cause of CO2 rises. It is very unfortunate that the hypothesis has somehow become ‘fact.’”

Oceanic Influences on Recent Continental Warming:

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/CompoSardeshmukh2007a.pdf

“Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land.
Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.”

The “may” in the last sentence is very telling. Do not stray little sheep. Sleep now. Mommie’s here. Here is the teat of further funding.

The great unwashed “may” rise up and overthrow the liars and fraudsters. Gore “may” give back his Nobel and his editors “may” return their Oscar. Pigs “may” fly. But currently this seems unlikely.

Why does the American political system attempt to “tag” failed policy to other business?

“Added to the end of the House bill by the Senate are existing tax bills. One would provide tax incentives for individuals and businesses to save energy, produce alternative energy or mitigate carbon emissions.” – http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/10/02/BU77139RDC.DTL

Why would some form of carbon tax credit policy be dragged along with the supposedly imperative “bailout” of the very people who have caused the problems we all now face.

Where was Al when Bill did this? – http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2087375/posts

http://www.progressivehistorians.com/2008/05/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-and-current_30.html

Maybe working with some of the people in that room to create this –
http://windfarms.wordpress.com/2007/12/30/london-spreads-blood-and-gore/

Like verdigris encrusting the bearings of the industry and economies that delivered the very equipment and energy they now use to attempt their power grab the greens have vitiated the cogs of science funding and further perverted politics.

“A few harmless flakes working together can unleash an avalanche of destruction” – http://despair.com/teamwork.html

Such as this team? – http://www.generationim.com/about/team.html

A paper that describes the phenomena from Richard S. Lindzen :

(Program in Atmospheres, Oceans and Climate
Massachusetts Institute of Technology September 19, 2008)

“For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and political reasons, progress in climate science and the actual solution of scientific problems in this field have moved at a much slower rate than would normally be possible. Not all these factors are unique to climate science, but the heavy influence of politics has served to amplify the role of the other factors. By cultural factors, I primarily refer to the change in the scientific paradigm from a dialectic opposition between theory and observation to an emphasis on simulation and observational programs. The latter serves to almost eliminate the dialectical focus of the former. Whereas the former had the potential for convergence, the latter is much less effective. The institutional factor has many components. One is the inordinate growth of administration in universities and the consequent increase in importance of grant overhead. This leads to an emphasis on large programs that never end. Another is the hierarchical nature of formal scientific organizations whereby a small executive council can speak on behalf of thousands of scientists as well as govern the distribution of ‘carrots and sticks’ whereby reputations are made and broken. The above factors are all amplified by the need for government funding. When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research. This paper will deal with the origin of the cultural changes and with specific examples of the operation and interaction of these factors. In particular, we will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.”

This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper.

The World Turned Upside Down.

Arthur Lee :-
“They’re locking them up today, they’re throwing away the key. I wonder who it’ll be tomorrow? You or me?”


This lunatic has got to be stopped:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/23/fossilfuels.climatechange
His madness has infected, and infested, nearly every political party on Earth. His dogma is overshadowing the developed world and aims at keeping everyone else nose down in the dirt where, in his bigoted opinion, they belong. The political institution he represents (NASA) was created to engender progress, yet now he is allowed to spout dogmatic revisionism. How did a vicious Luddite such as this slither into a position of power in a science based entity? How does his every venomous word get trumpeted from the heights of the main stream media whilst stifling sensible prognostication from visionaries like Reid Bryson (RIP), whose death raised little noise yet is probably being smiled about by this creeping messianic invertebrate who was quoted as saying “Some of this noise won’t stop until some of these scientists are dead” …..??? He got part of his sick little “wish” and the world is a poorer place today.

This Goron is the sole reason anyone is worried about CO2. He has been harping on about it for 20 years…. yet:
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N25/C2.php

Well, Reid Bryson was a climate scientist’s climate scientist. In 1948, he became the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology, he once said “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide” and he actually saved lives through his science.

Hansen, on the other hand, has failed to save his own skin, or reputation, after the hockey stick fiasco and his failure to apologize points him out as a totally political creature. And! Everyone keeps quoting him as “…the world’s leading climate scientist…” HE IS AN ACCOUNTANT (well ok, mathematician – although he can’t get his basic arithmetic into any sort of coherent shape)
This rubbish is why real(yeah, like really real)climate dot org is a poisonous nest of vipers that lies about anything contrary to the common hymn book. Run by the hounds of hansen, guardian of the data. Funny how the satellite data, from UAH and RSS both, are consistently even and consistently well below the “rising” figures from NASA and Hadley Met/CRU. He who pays the piper….

Get this hansen:

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

“CO2 is more evenly distributed than water, so if CO2 caused warming it would have a proportionately greater effect in areas where there is little water vapor (such as deserts and in very cold regions), while in areas with a lot of water, the effect of CO2 may be insignificant compared to the effect of water vapour.”

“Skepticism is warranted when considering computer-generated projections of global warming that cannot even predict existing observations.”

So here is one of my main questions, asked before and never answered:
The world’s largest desert, Antarctica, has the lowest level of water vapour on the planet, bar none. If warming were caused by CO2 surely we would have a large temperature anomaly right there? Continuously?

And this:

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/warming-on-11-year-hiatus/
(note how they refuse to use the giss data – and why)

Then get lost.

Actually, if he were to get these people into a courtroom a wish of my own would be granted. Get the lawyers in and let’s get to the bottom of this barrel of bull5hit. Before someone gets hurt.

Is It Me, Or Is It Chilly In Here?

Isaac Asimov :-
“When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.”

Yes it is going to get colder soon. But will it get cold enough fast enough to make a difference to the Gorons? I believe they will pervert the coming cold period something like this: “we can use this opportunity to mitigate the effect of the recent 40ppmv increase in the life giving gas before the next heating event” through taxation and control of course. The policy has inertia now and will be hard to turn around. They will use anything that comes their way. Al did not get that $300 million to preach solely to the choir.

There is a cold period coming. No ice age but we will enter a cooling period from around now and for about 60 years. 2010 may be a bit warmer than 2008, 2009 but then it will cool. The cold kills both plants and animals more quickly and over a wider area than the relatively benign “heating” we have recently “suffered”. Arrogant? Not if you see what I see. I have had to sign non-disclosure on what I have been shown but can assure anyone who is interested that this is a verifiable, repeatable and elegant system that has proven itself with precipitation, wind strength/landfall and temperature prediction and also in hindcast to the point of being a meter for historical climate, invasion and exodus, drought, icepack density and the rise and fall of civilizations etc.
To my mind the arrogance lies with the dismissive crowd who talk past papers like this:
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/Citations.aspx?id=330
because “it smacks of astrology” or due to other fears.

Our ancestors literally lived or died according to the efficacy of their observations, both of the weather and the cycles that allow its prediction including solar cycles. Aristotle, Theophrastus, Ptolemy, Brahe, Kepler, Newton, Howard, Saxby, Herschel, and Milankovitch studied and published on this.

Some modern players and their work:

John Nelson, working for RCA as their astronomer, found he could predict disruptions to radio using a similar system. Later working for NASA he achieved an 85% success rate for long range prediction of radio conditions:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,814720,00.html

Rhodes Fairbridge:
http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

Paul D. Jose:
“Suns Motion and Sunspots”, The Astronomical Journal, Vol. 70, Number 3, April 1965; P. 193-200
(if anyone has an extant reference it would be gratefully appreciated)

Theodore Landscheidt:
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/swinging.htm

Ivanka Charvátová:
http://www.ann-geophys.net/18/399/2000/angeo-18-399-2000.pdf

Milutin Milankovitch:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html

Ren Zhenqiu of the Institute of Weather and Climate Research, Academy of Meteorological Science, SMA, Beijing:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u56425j172359461/

Khabibullo Abdusamatov head of a space research lab at the Pulkovo observatory in St. Petersburg:
http://en.rian.ru/science/20080122/97519953.html

All tantalizingly close to the system but, for various, sometimes multiple reasons, not precise enough to predict weather events. This has been remedied. But it will still get cold soon

Inventor Of The Telly Box Speaks Out

Daniel Patrick Moynihan :-
“Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.”

This is going to appear to be the biggest ad hom ever. I am still going through with it because this gasbag needs deflating before there is a major accident involving the inflammatory vapors that ooze from his vicinity.

Due to belch more fiery green evangelical flatulence on “60 Minutes” this coming Saturday Albert Arnold Gore Jr, you know the guy – got Ds in science at college, dropped a “gimme” on becoming POTUS, has already earned over $100,000,000 with chicken little fear-mongering of Leviathan proportions about humans warming the planet somehow, has the Dynamite Prize for Peace 2007 (albeit shared with the politicians, and political servants, of the UN IPCC) and an Oscar for his sci-fi horror movie, “An Inconvenient Cold Period” has laid out his agenda using some choice words in the run up. I thought it would be amusing, or at least diverting, to revisit some of his more shall we say, fragrant, musings.

Let us pay, oh bored.

“I took the initiative in creating the Internet.” This has been the subject of much snorting and grunting. It is, however, exactly what he uttered. Al created the very medium that delivers this very message. Phew. Thanks Al. Lots of people have mis-spoken (rofl) about this statement juxtaposing “invented” for “created” but what the hey? It’s only one word.

“There is no controlling legal authority that says this was in violation of law.” seems to me like there is no limit, controlled or otherwise, to what Al will do for a dollar or how “economical with the truth” he is prepared to be to get some more – from anywhere. There being .3 of a billion available for “advertising” the “facts” of global warming may have something to do with the media scrambling after him in the face of the severe cold weather a lot of us have been suffering recently. Gotta love the facts. I was always taught that I would never see a sugar advert as they weren’t needed. I have still never seen an advert for sugar.

“I spent most of my time in the field” This would give the impression that he wasn’t cosseted from the start to the finish of his “tour” in “‘nam”. His guards and guides are on record as saying such eloquent things as “…we went into the field after the fact and that limited his exposure to any hazards.” (H. Alan Leo, photographer) and “It was the equivalent of being a school crossing guard. I know guys that didn’t even take their rifles with them.” (Michael O’Hara, close army buddy)

“I looked around the country for other sites like that. I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal.” Sure about that Al? Seems a little smelly to me. Again there is a lot of hot air blown out of both ends about this one – but it is what he said. Verbatim.

So forgive me for being underwhelmed when this Titan of truth mouths such quasi-scientific sound bites as:

“I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view…” I presume here that he means the many scientists (I wont go into the who and where as we are all adults, I hope, capable of investigation on our own and reaching conclusions based on our findings – oh darn) who vehemently oppose his views. The ones he ignores as well as attacks yet provides no platform for debate.

“…the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona…” and there was me thinking it was Nevada. I will just use your internets to check….. don’t wait up.

“…and those who believe the world is flat…” as opposed to those that believe the Sun has no influence on climate or weather or night or day or winter or summer? Al? Al? Oh sorry, I forgot you don’t take questions. So much for debate and settled science then. Little wonder that you have been described as having “a penchant for hyperbole”.

I have never written a piece containing so many euphemisms for the words lie, lies and lying.

I would rather put my faith in an AlGorithm and we know they can only predict the past.