Category Archives: Editor

Hurricane Forecasting Faux Pas

After all the harping about more hurricanes and bigger hurricanes caused, of course, by global warming, we find out that William Gray and Phil Klotzbach, the hurricane forecasters at Colorado State University Department of Atmospheric Science, admit their previous 20 years of forecasting have been a dud and was basically a worthless endeavor. As you can see from the above screenshot of their PDF, the actual vs. the forecast hasn’t been very good at all. Their statement is below.

We are discontinuing our early December quantitative hurricane forecast for the next year and giving a more qualitative discussion of the factors which will determine next year’s Atlantic basin hurricane activity. Our early December Atlantic basin seasonal hurricane forecasts of the last 20 years have not shown real-time forecast skill even though the hindcast studies on which they were based had considerable skill. Reasons for this unexpected lack of skill are discussed.

This is another good example of how computer modeling doesn’t work. Remember that next time you read someone’s wild prediction of massive sea-level rise, gigantic storms, droughts, floods and whatever else kind of BS you read about.  It’s only based on a computer model, AKA a glorified video game. Garbage in – garbage out.

Also remember that it appears hindcasting is 20/20. Forecasting? Not so good. You can read their whole paper at the above PDF link and judge for yourself.

Source: The Ottawa Citizen

1 Comment

Filed under Editor

Think wind power is safe? Then you must believe in Santa!

Never mind that wind turbines routinely chop up hundreds of thousands of birds every year, it now it appears they may be about to start chopping up people, too! There are 1,500 accidents a year and those are only at UK wind farms and don’t count the rest of the world. So what’s happening?

A dossier of incidents, compiled by a campaign group opposed to wind farms, includes cases where blades, each weighing as much as 14 tonnes, have sheared off and crashed to the ground.

Residents living near a wind farm have reported sheltering in their homes when lumps of ice were thrown from blades from a 410-ft high turbine near Peterborough, Cambridgeshire.

So far three deaths (amended to 4) and no one’s been chopped, yet.

One involved a maintenance worker in Scotland who had become ‘tangled’ with the driveshaft of a turbine while the other three deaths took place during construction of onshore and offshore wind farms.

Tangled mangled in a driveshaft doesn’t sound like a very nice way to meet your maker though, does it?

Well, we hope it never happens, but sooner or later we’d predict that someone, someplace, will get hit by a flying wind turbine blade and chopped up. Meanwhile, think about the poor birds getting chopped on a daily basis for a power generation scheme that won’t profit without subsidies.

Source: The Telegraph


Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Co2 Insanity, Editor, Global Warming, Green Energy, Renewable Energy, Wind Power

The Big COP17 FAIL

After all the wasted time, money, hotel bills and  stupid dancing tricks this is the result of COP17.

DURBAN, South Africa — A U.N. climate conference reached a hard-fought agreement Sunday on a far-reaching program meant to set a new course for the global fight against climate change.

The 194-party conference agreed to start negotiations on a new accord that would ensure that countries will be legally bound to carry out any pledges they make. It would take effect by 2020 at the latest.

The deal doesn’t explicitly compel any nation to take on emissions targets, although most emerging economies have volunteered to curb the growth of their emissions.

Real good hyperbole! But, what we have here is that they agreed to agree to continue to find something they can agree on. That’s all folks! No limits, no penalties, no taxes, no carbon trading, no anything, . AKA another gigantic United Nations FAIL.

Meanwhile we’ll take glee in the fact they’ll never get Congress to ratify whatever piece of crap they manage to try to ram up the posterior of the planet and the United States.

Source: Miami Herald


Filed under Editor

Tokelau isn’t Tanking

With COP17 CON17 going on, the shrillness of those who want to make big bucks off the global warming scam is increasing exponentially.

Today we have the Honorable Foua Toloa, head of Government of Tokelau in the Pacific, who believes the island’s 1,400 inhabitants are at grave risk from climate change lack of money. Of course him, and others in charge of low-lying (emphasis on lying) islands worldwide are hoping to cash in on the global warming gravy-train.

You can look at the graph below showing the south Pacific sea-levels at Tuvalu, which is adjacent to Tokelau, and see just how much that sea-level is rising (not).

You can also look at the below graph of the south Pacific. While, yes there is an overall uptrend of 2.73 millimeters per year, note the downtrend that is starting in 2010. Also note that 2.73 millimeters = 0.107480315 inches. Or, a whopping 10th of an inch a year.

Tokelau is 5 meters above sea-level. 5 meters = 16.4041995 feet. Divide 16.4 feet (196.850394 inches) by 0.107480315 inches per year sea-level rise and we find it will take a mere 1,831.5 years for Tokelau to be completely submerged.

You have to ask yourself what all the rush is about? Being submerged in 1,832.5 years? Or, helping the United Nations clown circus by BS’ing everyone in order to get hundreds of billions of dollars sucked from productive countries via phony carbon trading scams and carbon taxes?

You can read more about the low lying that is going on from Andrew Bolt here.

Source: The Daily Mail

Comments Off on Tokelau isn’t Tanking

Filed under Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Climate Modeling, CO2, Co2 Insanity, Editor, Financial, Global Warming, Government, Politics, Science, Sea-Level

Bullet Train BS – Blowing Bucks on PR

The Bullet Train in California isn’t much more than Jerry Brown’s wet dream, yet the state has already squandered $12.5 million on public relations on the train from and to nowhere over the past two years.  As usual the politically connected anointed ones seem to be getting the big bucks tossed their way.

In one six-month window:

— Mike Villines, the former Republican assemblyman, billed a Central Valley rail contractor for $108,631.

— Denise LaPointe, a former chief of staff to ex-San Francisco state senator and former High-Speed Rail Authority board member Quentin Kopp, billed for $53,444. That was just part of the $350,288 paid to her firm since October 2009.

— Nicole Franklin, a former Oakland city planning commissioner, got $45,138 – including a portion of LaPointe’s work.

— Mike Lynch, the former chief of staff to onetime Assemblyman Gary Condit, billed for $31,748.

— Plus former Kern County Supervisor Gene Tackett ($70,652), and Sara Katz, a staffer to former Gov. Pete Wilson and onetime San Diego Mayor Susan Golding, whose monthly billings for the first half of the year totaled $43,505.

Just the above adds up to $604,824. Meanwhile, those of us who labor to provide the correct public relations for the bullet train, which is that it’s an overpriced boondoggle that will require additional subsidies for about eternity, continue to labor for free. No Koch brothers or big oil sending any money my way. All I want is to not be TAXED into ETERNITY to pay for a greentard wet dream.

Source: SFGate/Matier & Ross

Comments Off on Bullet Train BS – Blowing Bucks on PR

Filed under Editor

New German Study Exposes Climate Science’s Greatest Flaws

By John O’Sullivan

Hard-hitting new German historical study uncovers fundamental flaws woven into the infant science of climatology. UN man-made global warming researchers misapply radiation laws, contradicting their use by all other branches of science.

German environmentalist and climate analyst, Dr. Matthias Kleespies, researching for a new historical paper on the history of the greenhouse gas theory, stumbled upon shocking evidence that discredits a long-standing assumption among climatologists.

Dr. Kleespies publishes his groundbreaking revelations about the conventional narrative of the history and provenance of so-called ‘greenhouse gas’ science with the independent science think-tank, Principia Scientific International (PSI) after extensive peer-review by a burgeoning raft of maverick PhD science bloggers. In his paper Dr. Kleespies uncovers how an unphysical concept known as “back” or “downwelling” radiation became the cornerstone of  “manmade, or anthropogenic, climate change.’

In his “A Short History Of Radiation Theories – What Do They Reveal About “Anthropogenic Global Warming”?” (Principia Scientific International, Nov. 2011), Dr. Kleespies found that, “This theory is so extraordinary because there is NO OTHER field in science where any such mechanism like “back” or “downwelling” radiation is permitted.”

Applying fresh eyes to how this infant science came into being, Kleespies, an expert in sustainable technology, reviewed the mainstream standard texts and found that they confirm, en masse, a skewed rational of physics.

The physics employed by climatologists “ultimately leads to a perpetual motion machine heating up the atmosphere to a level higher than the temperature originally gained by the external heat source, the sun,” says Kleespies.

Incredulously, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) supposedly cooks our planet by nothing more than the repeated reflection of its own heat bouncing around within the gases of our atmosphere.

Kleespies poses the question: Why do so many government scientists working in climate research make an exception to permit the possibility of this perpetual motion machine of additional surface heating when other scientists wouldn’t?

The answer to the above questions is simply stunning: the real source of their scientific beliefs is a radiation theory set up by a Swiss scientist over 220 years ago named Prevost (1791).

Dr. Kleespies found that:

“ When talking with any scientist believing in “back” or “downwelling” radiation you will almost always here something like this: ‘Quantum physics tells us that statistically there are more photons flowing from the warmer body to the cooler body than the other way around but that does not mean that there are NO photons – statistically – moving from the cooler to the warmer body. Only the NET FLOW is decisive.’”

The flaw, says Kleespies, is that climatologists will then have us believe that “the net flow, according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, of course is only from hot to cold.”

But because such proponents “argue that – statistically – there are some photons moving from cold to warm, i. e., from the atmosphere to the earth’s surface” the rate of cooling of the earth is smaller than it would be WITHOUT the somewhat colder body, i.e., the atmosphere.

Intellectual Misappropriation of Planck’s Law

As Kleespies paper shows, those scientists have no facts to bolster this reasoning yet they “think the source of their belief was the “undisputed” Planck theory of radiation, known as ‘Planck´s law.’”

As we know, Planck’s Law led science to develop ideas about quantum physics; and as quantum physics is regarded the “crown of modern physics” Planck’s radiation law, by tying their belief in “back” or “downwelling” radiation to Planck’s ideas necessarily gives theirs the gloss of appearing to be correct and indisputable.

However, Kleespies asks us to look at the history of radiation science and to strip away all that is not experimentally provable and which relies merely on statistical “quantum” mechanics, and then we you find something else.

The provenance of very basis of the belief in “back” or “downwelling” radiation is nothing more plausible than Prevost´s idea, based on an “igneous fluid”, of particles being freely exchanged between two radiating bodies.

But the really bad news, says Kleespies, is “Prevost didn´t know anything about thermodynamics, so he´s not to blame for his theory. But today´s scientists should know better yet basically stick to Prevost´s ideas anyway.”

The beauty of this historical re-examination by Kleespies is that he identifies something other researchers failed to spot: climatologists don’t know that it is Prevost´s “igneous fluid” ideas they are perpetuating;” those ideas formed before modern science truly existed.

Kleespies advises that we are thus as unwise to rely on Prevost, as we are to rely on Arrhenius, the “father of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.” After all, it was Arrhenius who also told us that the ‘luminiferous aether’ was real, too!

Checklist of Climatology’s Historical Dysfunction

Kleespies sagely advises readers to take no one’s word for it, not even his, when we review, “A Short History Of Radiation Theories – What Do They Reveal About “Anthropogenic Global Warming”?” Indeed, with apparently so much propaganda pervading modern government science we really do need to check all the facts for ourselves.

In summary the Kleespies study covers 11 key issues as follows:

  • How Prevost developed his idea;
  • How Prevost was not undisputed within the historic scientific community;
  • How the scientific debate on whether light and radiation is based on particles or waves is still not ended;
  • Why Arrhenius´ “greenhouse theory” was based on flawed data and his belief in the idea of luminiferous aether;
  • The fact Arrhenius, in contrast to today´s alarmists, believed  man-made global warming would be BENEFICIAL for mankind;
  • How Arrhenius was refuted by Wood already in 1909;
  • How Planck created his radiation law in an “act of despair”
  • That Einstein was never really satisfied with quantum physics;
  • That Planck´s radiation law is NOT undisputed;
  • In contrast to Planck´s and also Einstein´s conviction, both blackbody radiation and the photoelectric effect CAN BE explained by a wave model available since 2010;
  • The new wave model developed to explain blackbody radiation and the photoelectric effect does not allow any transport of heat from cold to warm and thus strongly contradicts any “back” or “downwelling” radiation as alleged source of AGW.

The Kleespies paper is a compelling addition to the other recent papers published by Principia Scientific International (PSI). This new independent think tank is gaining momentum in offering robust scientific refutations of the traditional greenhouse gas effect; as such it is firmly ensconced as a leader of a new paradigm shift in our understanding of climate.

Source: Dr. Kleespies, M., “A Short History Of Radiation Theories – What Do They Reveal About “Anthropogenic Global Warming”?” (Nov. 2011), Principia Scientific International,

1 Comment

Filed under Editor

Global Warming ‘Exaggerated’

This study doesn’t completely refute global warming but it does at least remove all the unprecedented shrillness that we must do something immediately to save the planet, which is something we’ve been hearing with increased frequency now that the COP17 climate conference is about to start in Durban, South Africa.

Note, something immediately usually means spending billions on carbon trading schemes also known as redistribution of wealth schemes promoted by the United Nations who are aided and abetted by their IPCC unit.

According to Dr. Andreas Schmittner of Oregon State University:

Apocalyptic predictions about climate change are likely to be wrong, a study says.

The scientists who produced it say that dire forecasts that a doubling of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels would cause rises in temperature of as much as 10c are unlikely.

Instead, the maximum increase is likely to be no more than 2.6c,  they added, and the best guess 2.3c.

Dr Schmittner said it would be ‘virtually impossible’ for a doubling of carbon dioxide to cause temperatures to rise by 8c or 10c.

Yet more proof you can flush over dramatic predictions of rising sea-levels, melting glaciers, apocalyptic storms, droughts and floods.

As an aside, we’ll also note that in spite of all the predictions, global temperatures have been basically flat for over a decade in spite of rising CO2 levels.

There is always a spoil sport:

Dr Bob Ward, a climate change policy expert at the London School of Economics, said however that this one study is unlikely to supersede all the science that has gone before.

We would translate that to please don’t confuse us with real facts that don’t go along with the global warming party line.

Source: The Daily Mail

Comments Off on Global Warming ‘Exaggerated’

Filed under Editor