Tag Archives: AGW

Geico Gecko Going Extinct!

I love global warming!!

I love global warming!!

I was going to hop on the bandwagon the other day and do the “now global warming is going to kill lizards” or something on that order, but everyone else beat me to the punch, so I didn’t bother. It has been on the back of my mind but I’ve been otherwise occupied. When I came across this item from the Daily Mail titled “Lizards ‘face extinction as global warming forces them to stay in the shade,” that got me thinking about how silly the whole premise is, which prompted this post. The Daily Mail starts out with.

Lizards are in danger of dying out on a large scale as rising global temperatures force them to spend more time staying cool in the shade and less time tending to basic needs like eating and mating.

If the planet continues to heat up at current rates, 20 per cent of all lizard species could become extinct by 2080, scientists warned in a research paper published yesterday.

Scientist Barry Sinervo, from the University of California, Santa Cruz, said: ‘The numbers are actually pretty scary.’

My initial questions/responses to the above, in order are:

  • Don’t most lizards live in desert and tropical regions that are hot?  I don’t remember seeing anyone mentioning lizards jumping around at the North Pole.
  • Don’t they normally stay in the shade when it’s too hot?
  • Can they only mate and eat in the sun?
  • What heat?  There’s been little to no warming for the previous 15 years.
  • Weren’t there dead iguanas all over Florida as they result of last winters extreme cold? Being cold-blooded, isn’t the cold worse for them than heat?
  • 20% extinct by 2080? Reminds me of no glaciers in the Himalayas by 2035.
  • Research paper? OK, no doubt not peer-reviewed.
  • “Scary?”  Here we go with another global warming terror-athon.

The scare-mongering gets even more shrill.  I mean you can’t have an article about global warming without trying to scare the crap out of everyone can you?

He added: ‘We’ve got to try to limit climate change impacts right now or we are sending a whole bunch of species into oblivion.’

A mass extinction of lizards, which eat insects and are eaten by birds, could have devastating effects up and down the food chain, but the extent is difficult to predict.

Oh? So now it’s going to cause a chain-reaction that’s going to be “devastating”. It gets better, below we get a statement of the silly combined with the already obvious.

Dr Sinervo made models of lizards with thermal monitors and left them in the searing sun of southern  to measure how the reptiles would react to temperatures at different altitudes. (So these little model lizards got up and moved into the shade when it was too hot? Moved into the sun when too cold? Ate? Mated?  What did they have? Baby plastic lizards?)

Lizards bask in the sun not to relax but for self-preservation. As ‘ectotherms’ they depend on the external environment to control their body temperature. Unlike mammals, when the reptiles overheat they cannot sweat or pant and they have to retreat to the shade or burrow under a rock to cool down. (Is this one of the answers from Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader? It’s like duh!)

This biological quirk has already led to the extinction of 5 per cent of lizard populations around the world, Dr Sinervo said, as the creatures spend more time scrambling to find  shade and less time doing what they need to do to survive. (So, you’re saying they can’t do anything unless it’s in the sun?)

He’s actually watched “models” that don’t move unless someone picks them up!  Does he have a Ken and Barbie or GI Joe? Has he ever actually sat around watching what real lizards do world-wide to see if they’re all really spending more time in the shade?  I’d seriously doubt it.  Moreover, do they actually think lizards only hunt, eat, mate  on top of warm rocks in the sun at exactly the right temperature? Like they can’t do all this in the shade when it’s too hot during mid-day, or at night?  Based upon what he’s saying he’s acting like lizards only do this stuff at high noon every day and the rest of the time they’re hiding out under rocks or in caves or looking for a rock or a cave. Silly!

They did study lizards, but only in one place in Mexico.  Not very reflective of what’s going on globally is it? Again we seem to get a statement of the obvious.

Elizabeth Bastiaans, a doctoral student in Dr Sinervo’s lab, started studying lizards in a wilderness outside  near the Aztec pyramids of Teotihuacan where tourists huff and puff up hundreds of stairs in the blazing sun. (Has to be “blazing” more drama you know).

‘I’ve been out there doing a lot of sampling over the past few years and you see the lizards in the morning and you see them in the evening. But in the hottest part of day, it’s just too hot, you don’t see them at all,’ Ms Bastiaans said. (So the lizards must be smart enough to find shade when it’s hot at mid-day while you run around out in the “blazing” sun all day roasting? I hope you have some SPF 1000 lotion).

Funny they have lizards in Death Valley, too, one of the hottest, driest places on Earth, (not to mention the Sahara, Gobi, etc), yet they manage to adapt, reproduce and survive. I hope they don’t hear about global warming or it may be all over for them, because they’ll die of fright when they hear about this! (Or, perhaps laugh themselves to death).

Thinking more about lizards, how long they’ve been around? What temperatures have they survived in the past?

I found this article on Science Daily titled The Oldest Gecko Fossil Ever Found. Know what? That fossil is about 100 million years old!  I found an article here on what is perhaps the first lizard, found in Scotland, estimated to be 340 million year old. What this establishes is that lizards have been around a long time and they’ve survived all the temperature swings, the asteroid collision 65 million years ago that killed off the dinosaurs, volcanic eruptions, etc. The little buggers are still with us in spite of it all.

Why do I mention this? Well, since temperature from global warming is supposedly going to cause all these problems for the lizards I wondered what kind of temperatures they’ve survived for the past 340 million years since lizard #1 appeard.  As you can see per the below graph, they’ve survived some pretty good swings.  340 million years ago when lizard #1 appeared, it was about 20 degrees Celsius, 100,000 years ago we had Gecko and it was about 21 degrees Celsius. From what I can pickup the Earth’s average temperature now is between 13 to 17 degrees Celsius depending upon who you believe.


If you take the lowest of 13 degrees Celsius as current, we’re 8 degrees Celsius lower than the highest of 21 degrees, if you take the highest of 17 degrees Celsius, we’re still 4 degrees Celsius below the high that lizards have survived.

I really have to ask why all the drama and hysterics about lizards?  They’ve been around a lot longer than us, they’ve survived higher temperatures (not to mention all the ice ages!), so what’s the problem? They need funding in Santa Cruz to keep them in pot?

Source: Daily Mail Online

1 Comment

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Science

Lake Tanganyika Warming – "Unprecedented" BS

It’s amazing how the “warmer” press and blogs latch on to silliness. They’ll hop on anything about global warming faster than the Lone Ranger jumps on his horse “Silver.” I did a Google search on “Africa’s Lake Tanganyika, Warming Fast Life Dying” the result shows as of now there are 66,600 search results on this headline and it hasn’t even been up but about 3 days. If it sounds like doom and gloom and it’s blamed upon global warming it really gets out there fast. What it really amounts to appears to be much ado about nothing, which is business as usual with the “warmer” crowd.

This is what happens when you send people from liberal Brown University, who conveniently come up with another scare-a-rama about global warming, in what appears to be another feeble “alarmist” attempt to counter climategate and all the other “gates” since. I originally found this article from Reuters  about how Lake Tanganyika has warmed while perusing things on the net.

Africa’s lake Tanganyika has heated up sharply over the past 90 years and is now warmer than at any time for at least 1,500 years, a scientific paper said on Sunday, adding that fish and wildlife are threatened.

Of course we have to tie this in with global warming and CO2.

Lead scientist on the project Jessica Tierney told Reuters the sharp rise in temperature coincided with rises in human emissions of greenhouse gases seen in the past century, so the study added to evidence that emissions are warming the planet.

And of course we have to use the warmista’s favorite word “unprecedented.”  “Coincided” seems odd, too, like they’re saying it could be mere coincidence, but it’s got to be caused by CO2 because it goes along with the CO2 Insanity agenda.

The results were published in Nature Geoscience on Sunday. (Link)

“Lake Tanganyika has experienced unprecedented warming in the last century,” a press release accompanying the paper said. “The warming likely is affecting valuable fish stocks upon which millions of people depend.”

The paper argues that recent rises in temperature are correlated with a loss of biological productivity in the lake, suggesting higher temperatures may be killing life.

“Lake Tanganyika has become warmer, increasingly stratified and less productive over the past 90 years,” the paper says.

Unprecedented temperatures and a … decrease in productivity can be attributed to (human) … global warming.”

See, they use words like “suggesting” and even use “unprecedented” twice. Note they link it to “human” (anthropogenic) global warming, too.  That’s a mighty big conclusion in my humble opinion, not to mention mighty convenient. So how much is this “unprecedented” temperature rise?

The rise in temperature over the past 90 years was about 0.9 degrees Celsius and was accompanied by a drop in algae volumes.

Note, I’m not questioning the temperature rise, or the algae drop, but I do question what’s causing it and if it’s “unprecedented” or not. I find the next line interesting as it makes it obvious they don’t really know what’s causing it.

But the paper admits that other factors, like overfishing, may be doing more harm than any warming.

What I simply can’t fathom about some scientist is why they publish things and act like they have proof positive when the reality is they don’t have all the facts to back up what they’re stating?  I really don’t have a problem with the facts of this paper, but I do have a big problem with them claiming it’s due to AGW. Now back to the “overfishing.”

Yes, “overfishing” could be an excellent reason there’s less fish.  Perhaps not the whole reason, but certainly a large factor, especially when you see the below on the population increase in the region over the previous 90 years, which explains why overfishing would be one of my top choices on why there are less fish.

Another factor would be the resulting pollution from the dramatic increase in population of the region.  This would lend itself handily in explaining problems with the lake. The reality is that what they’re actually saying is that they don’t know what the cause is.  I have to wonder if this was even peer-reviewed?

To start laying things out and get somewhat of a handle on what was gong on in Africa 90 years ago (1920), I find the following about population.  This is certainly not exact science, but I think it provides a good idea of what the population increase in this region has been since 1920. It’s dramatic enough that it should not be necessary to be splitting hairs over what the real increase was.  A few million people plus or minus wouldn’t make much of a difference considering the magnitude.

The country “Tanganyika” (a country in 1919), comprised of what is known today as Tanzania, Rwanda and Burundi, had a population of 3,500,000  in 1919, per this website. If you want a better idea of the population explosion in the region around Lake Tanganyika, the original “Tanganyika” was comprised of only part of the countries surrounding Lake Tanganyika.  In addition you have to add the Congo, Malawi and Zambia. For the sake of argument, lets say those additional three countries add another 3,500,000 people and make it an estimated total in 1919 of 7,00,000 people in the region surrounding Lake Tanganyika.

Total populations today, per the World Bank (as of 2008) are, Congo: 6,425,635, Tanzania: 42,483,923, Malawi: 14,846,182, Zambia: 12,620,219, Burundi: 8,074,254. The total is: 84,450,213, roughly 77,450,000 more people in the region surrounding Lake Tanganyika in the past 90 years. Now you can see the magnitude I referred to.  While not all this population lives immediately adjacent to the lake, I’d be willing to bet the increase in population around the lake was probably at least proportionate to the population increase in the entire region.

Please don’t tell me this is not going to be a gigantic factor regarding the quantity of fish in this lake. I’m sure you can easily imagine the increased fishing and the increased pollution resulting from an additional 77.5 million or so people in the region.  I read one item noting that the water in Lake Tanganyika is no longer potable, which is another indication of problems not caused by CO2 over the past 90 years.  Problems no doubt caused by pollution from runoff of things like fertilizers, animal waste, human waste, sewage, and the dumping of chemicals that could also be causing fish decline. To go back to the “unprecedented” warming. I can’t find anything on Lake Tanganyika, but I did find this from NOAA about the surface temperatures in Lake Malawi, which is in the same region of Africa, just South of Lake Tanganyika.

Lake Malawi TEX86 Surface Temperature Reconstruction


               World Data Center for Paleoclimatology, Boulder


                     NOAA Paleoclimatology Program



NAME OF DATA SET: Lake Malawi TEX86 Surface Temperature Reconstruction

LAST UPDATE: 4/2005 (Original receipt by WDC Paleo)


Lindsay A. Powers, Thomas C. Johnson, Josef P. Werne, Isla S. Castañeda,

Ellen C. Hopmans, Jaap S. Sinninghe Damsté and Stefan Schouten


SUGGESTED DATA CITATION: Powers, L.A., et al..  2005.

Lake Malawi TEX86 Surface Temperature Reconstruction.

IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology

Data Contribution Series # 2005-038.

NOAA/NCDC Paleoclimatology Program, Boulder CO, USA.


Powers, L.A., T.C. Johnson, J.P. Werne, I.S. Castañeda, E.C. Hopmans,

J.S. Sinninghe Damsté, and S. Schouten.  2005.

Large temperature variability in the southern African tropics since

the Last Glacial Maximum.

Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L08706, doi:10.1029/2004GL022014.


The role of the tropics in global climate change is actively debated,

particularly in regard to  the timing and magnitude of thermal and

hydrological response. Continuous, high-resolution temperature records

through the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) from tropical oceans have

provided much insight but surface temperature reconstructions do not

exist from tropical continental environments. Here we used the TEX86

paleotemperature proxy to reconstruct mean annual lake surface

temperatures through the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) in Lake Malawi,

East Africa (9º-14ºS). We find a ~3.5ºC overall warming since the LGM,

with temperature reversals of ~ 2ºC during the Younger Dryas (12.5 ka BP)

and at 8.2 ka BP.  Maximum Holocene temperatures of ~29ºC were found

at 5 ka BP, a period preceding severe drought in Africa. These results

suggest a substantial thermal response of southeastern tropical Africa

to deglaciation and to varying conditions during the Holocene.

GEOGRAPHIC REGION: Tropical East Africa

PERIOD OF RECORD: 24 KYrBP - present


National Science Foundation (USA) grants ATM-9709291 and ATM-0081776 (to TCJ),

and a European Association of Organic Geochemists travel scholarship to LAP.


The dataset is a paleotemperature reconstruction of mean annual surface

temperature from the north basin of Lake Malawi, East Africa using the

TEX86 paleothermometer. (TetraEther indeX of tetraethers with 86 carbon atoms).

The age model for these cores is already available for previous Lake Malawi MP98

data sets on this website.

TEX86 values are means of replicate analyses. All samples were measured at least

in duplicate, half of samples were measured at least in triplicate.  The calibration

equation used to calculate mean annual lake surface temperatures (LST) is

LST=(TEX86-0.25)/0.017 with a calibration error of +/- 2 degrees C.

Lake Malawi core M98-1P: 10º15.9'S, 34º19.1'E, water depth 403m.

Lake Malawi core M98-2P:  9º58.6'S, 34º13.8'E, water depth 363m.

Lake surface elevation 474m.


Lake Malawi TEX86 Surface Temperature Reconstruction

Column 1:  Age, cal kYBP

Column 2:  TEX86, means of replicate analyses

Column 3:  Mean Temperature

Column 4:  Standard Deviation

  Age      TEX86     Temp        SD

  0.25      0.69     25.88      0.86

  0.57      0.69     26.17      0.19

  1.75      0.71     26.87      0.76

  2.96      0.69     26.16      0.71

  3.32       0.7      26.6      0.21

  3.54       0.7     26.71      0.43

  4.23      0.72     27.79      0.45

  4.45      0.72     27.49      0.56

  4.77      0.73     28.52      0.46

  5.05      0.74     28.93      0.58

  5.46      0.74     28.61      0.02

  6.22      0.72      27.6      0.11

  6.72      0.72     27.58      0.22

  7.45      0.68     25.06      0.78

  7.58      0.69     25.91      0.56

  7.79      0.68     25.09      0.25

  8.02      0.69     25.81      0.02

  8.23      0.66     24.35      0.23

  8.92      0.69     26.17      0.67

 10.23      0.69     25.85      0.71

  10.9      0.68     25.52      0.49

 11.46       0.7     26.44      0.78

 11.94       0.7      26.6      0.64

  12.2      0.69     25.84      0.12

 12.51      0.68      25.3      0.14

 12.72      0.68     25.48      0.55

 12.98      0.71     27.13      0.28

 13.52      0.69     25.64      0.18

 13.74      0.72     27.49      0.08

 13.84      0.73     28.15      0.55

 14.29      0.71        27      0.06

 14.51       0.7     26.37      0.65

 14.89      0.69     25.86      0.66

 15.94      0.67     24.97      0.57

 17.58      0.65     23.48      0.77

 18.52      0.64     23.09      0.83

 19.01      0.64     23.13      0.74

 20.01      0.63     22.58      0.58

 20.78      0.63     22.52      0.43

 21.77      0.66     23.98       0.3

 22.43      0.66     24.13      0.01

 23.24      0.67     24.48      0.58

 23.88      0.66     24.19      0.03

As noted above they had a 3.5 degree Celsius warming since the last glacial maximum approximately 20-21,000 years ago. Then they had a 2 degree Celsius temperature reversal during the Younger Dryas (12,900-11,500 years ago). I find it amusing that they’re referring to  a .9 degree Celsius warming as being “unprecedented” considering that by comparison, there are larger temperature swings than noted in the study by the Brown University group. You can also see that coming off the last glacial maximum, the lake warmed, as did the rest of the Earth, then when the temperature dropped during the Younger Dryas, so did the temperature of the lake. Also, the Little Ice Age ended about 1850 and we’ve been warming again.  Is it really “unprecedented” the lake is also warming up again? It seems there is a non-CO2 caused pattern that’s merely repeating itself again.

Since they’re claiming CO2 is the cause, here are some CO2 levels for you to ponder. You can see from the below chart that around the last glacial maximum 20,000 years ago CO2 was under 200 ppm. (CO2 is the round dots-middle line). Note the CO2 level stays relatively flat with a little rise until about 17,00o years ago, then starts rising at a faster pace.  Now look at 12,900 years ago (Younger Dryas).  Notice the CO2 level is now about 240 ppm yet the temperature is dropping? Then notice it continues to rise while the temperature is still dropping until 11,500 years ago? (For temperatures during the same periods refer to the second chart. Sorry I didn’t come across one with both). To me it shows there’s no direct correlation between CO2 levels and temperature changes.

You want more to consider? This study from Science Online from 2008 titled “Northern Hemisphere Controls on Tropical Southeast African Climate During the Past 60,000 Years” also leaves me wondering about the anthropogenic global warming claim and also seems to back up my thought that CO2 is not driving this.

The processes that control climate in the tropics are poorly understood. We applied compound-specific hydrogen isotopes ({delta}D) and the TEX86 (tetraether index of 86 carbon atoms) temperature proxy to sediment cores from Lake Tanganyika to independently reconstruct precipitation and temperature variations during the past 60,000 years. TTanganyika temperatures follow Northern Hemisphere insolation and indicate that warming in tropical southeast Africa during the last glacial termination began to increase ~3000 years before atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.

Note they show warming FOLLOWS Northern Hemisphere insolation, and INCREASED 3,000 years BEFORE CO2 increased. More doubt about CO2 causing this regardless if the source is natural or anthropogenic.

They also note the temperature fluctuations in the lake over the past 60,000 years, again perhaps this .9 Celsius warming isn’t all that unusual or man caused.

Our TEX86 and {delta}Dleaf wax reconstructions show that temperature and hydrology in the Tanganyika basin were extremely variable throughout the past 60,000 years (Fig. 2). Holocene lake surface temperature (LST) fluctuated between ~27° and 29°C, whereas temperatures during the LGM were ~4°C cooler. The magnitude and timing of this temperature shift are similar to those of nearby Lake Malawi (14), indicating that our TEX86 record captures regional temperature change in tropical southeast Africa during deglaciation.

Again, more fluctuation than .9 degrees Celsius.  They then proceed to state the surface temperature changes in these lakes are not CO2 related!

In particular, Tanganyika LST at the end of the LGM follows rising Northern Hemisphere summer insolation, a potential trigger for deglaciation (20). Temperatures rise at 20,000 ± 380 yr B.P., just as they do in a TEX86 LST record from Lake Malawi (14) (Fig. 3). This timing is consistent with rising temperatures at ~20,000 yr B.P. in Antarctica, yet leads the deglacial CO2 rise recorded in Antarctic ice cores (21) by about 3,000 years, a difference that is outside the chronological errors of the ice core and the LST records. Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations are therefore not responsible for the initial transmission of warming from the high latitudes to the southeast African tropics.

“Not responsible.” I don’ t know how you can get clearer than that. More CO2 Insanity. Will it ever end?

Initial Source: Reuters

Comments Off on Lake Tanganyika Warming – "Unprecedented" BS

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Editor, Science

Global Warming Causes "Deflation"

Yes that’s right! According to the latest alarmist hysteria global warming causes “deflation.”  No, not the monetary kind (although that may be the next round of hysterics), by deflation, I mean the kind you need Viagra for. Per this article on World Net Daily.

Global warming may make the world’s inhabitants cranky and stressed, drive them crazy, give them cancer and even worsen their suffering from sexual dysfunction, according to a new government report on climate change – but the scientists say more money is needed before they can be certain.

Look how your tax dollars are being wasted.

Government scientists from several taxpayer-funded agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Environmental Health Science, the State Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, compiled an 80-page report titled, “A Human Health Perspective on Climate Change: A Report Outlining the Research Needs on the Human Health Effects of Climate Change.”

Yes, it took at least 4 agencies to come up with this crapola, which you can read by clicking on the link in the above quote.

It gets even better. While I was looking for additional information on this topic I found this here.

Climate change brings some rather unexpected findings, and sometimes a happy outcome for some – take the male Scottish Grey Seal, for instance.

These findings show that climate change, whilst endangering many species, could also help to increase the genetic diversity of some species,” Twiss said. Scottish Seal hanky-panky, it seems, is rife.

So, if you’re a Scottish Gray Seal global warming means you’ll have a much easier time getting laid.  Lucky devils.

It gets crazier, real CO2 Insanity, I also found this, from no less of a publication than Nature.

Rising temperatures look set to produce male-only offspring in the tuatara, condemning the ancient reptile species to extinction by 2085, computer modelling predicts.

So if you’re one of these lizards, it’s going to really be bad.  Soon there will be no females of the species and you’ll be hanging around in Lizard Leather Bars trying to pickup that hunk next to you with tight buns in the biker chaps.

Dont’ think it’s over yet….it gets sillier yet.  Here we have an article from Canadian Free Press titled “Sex Causes Global Warming.” That’s right! Now if you get laid, it’s bad for the environment!

Sex causes global warming. At least that is what the folks up at Oregon State say:

“A study by statisticians at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environmentally sensitive practices people might employ their entire lives – things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs.”

“Not to be outdone by their American cousins, The London School of Economics released their “Fewer Emitter, Lower Emissions, Less Cost” report on this world shaking revelation:

“Every £4 spent on family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton, whereas a minimum of £19 would have to be spent on low-carbon technologies to achieve the same result, the research says.

Now I’m getting confused first it’s bad, then it’s good, then it’s bad again.  Read on.

Next we even get tips on having a “green” sex life (no it’s not about the green weenie).  Then more tips here.

In the next few decades, sex won’t even be an option if you’re busy dodging climate-change-induced hurricanes, tsunamis, floods, droughts, and other scourges of the earth. A greener sex life starts with personal choices, but there are some pretty nice side benefits too — and not just for Greenpeace’s sake. Use the following tips to get more sustainable satisfaction.

“Sustainable satisfaction”….sounds like the answer to every woman’s prayers, that her mate will “sustain”  Here’s definition #5 “to keep up or keep going, as an action or process.”

Don’t believe any of it?  Here’s The Goracle telling us to lay off getting laid.

[kml_flashembed movie=”http://www.youtube.com/v/H8e2liqoDok” width=”425″ height=”344″ allowfullscreen=”true” fvars=”fs=1″ /]

I can’t about stand this anymore, I’m laughing so hard I’m about to fall out of my chair. But, here’s what has to be the oxymoron of the recent meetings on global warming in Copenhagen.  Based upon all this information about sex and global warming, wouldn’t you think all these delegates to COP 15 would practice what they preach?  Hell no!

Now, Copenhagen prostitutes are up in arms, saying that the council has no business meddling in their affairs. They have now offered free sex to anyone who can produce one of the offending postcards and their COP15 identity card, according to the Web site avisen.dk.

Yes, we certainly have another case of CO2 Insanity here.

Source: WND

1 Comment

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Comedy Relief, Editor, Satire, Science, Stranger than Truth

Arctic Icegate

Two very interesting articles in Timesonline.co.uk Sunday.   Both indicate that the Arctic Ice isn’t melting and in fact it’s expanding and has reached levels not seen since 1991.

IF you thought it was cold in Britain for the time of year, you should see what is happening around the North Pole. Scientists have discovered that the size of the Arctic ice cap has increased sharply to levels not seen since 2001.

Surprise! Surprise!

Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Colorado, is surprised by the Arctic’s recovery from the great melt of 2007 when summer ice shrank to its smallest recorded extent.

Of course we have the nutty MET Office still denying things are cooling off.  These are the same bums who in cried this was the warmest winter like ever, then about a month later had to eat it and admit it was the coldest in about 30 years.  I guess they just don’t get it.

Vicky Pope, a Met Office scientist, said the Arctic Oscillation had affected weather across the hemisphere. “It also played a part in the very warm weather experienced in the Mediterranean, and western Canada, where the winter Olympics were at risk of too little snow,” she said.

Funny awhile back El Nino was the cause of the lack of snow in Vancouver, now all of a sudden it’s the Arctic Oscillation.  Funny thing about this is that normally you have cold air circulating around the Arctic, but this time it has let colder air escape to lower latitudes. Must be another one of those cold causes heat things they like to try to brainwash people with.

Of course we have other AGW Scientist who don’t want to lose their day jobs blathering about like this.

Scientists emphasise that the regrowth of ice in the Arctic and the fierce US blizzards are natural variations in weather which have little relevance for long-term climate change.

Funny how when its hot someplace it’s cause is always Anthropogenic Global Warming, but when it’s cold it’s only a “natural variation.”   As usual in the AGW believer world the wind blows and the bullshit flows.

As usual short-term trends are perfectly fine when they go along with their global warming theories, but short-term trends don’t count when it’s against their lies.

“The reality is that greenhouse gases are making the world warmer, but it is a mistake to see short-term changes in weather, currents or Arctic ice cover as evidence of this,” Pope said.

“Instead you have to look at long-term trends. These show that Arctic summer sea ice is decreasing by 232,000 square miles a decade, nearly 2.5 times the area of Great Britain.

“On current trends it will still become ice-free in summer by around 2060.”

Let’s see, it took 10 years for it to decrease (I assume since 2000), but now it’s back in the 11th year to what it was before 1991, which is 19 years ago.  Sounds like a long-term trend to me. They just want you to ignore the fact that this winter is still part of the trend and treat it like it’s some one-time-only anomaly that doesn’t count because it doesn’t fit in with their theories.

Remember when you played games when you were a kid and the losers always tried to change the rules in their favor so they would be the winner?  Kind of sounds like AGW believer driven science to me.

Anthony Watts site points out that the Arctic ice is about back to normal and that it’s still continuing to increase beyond the time when it normally starts to decrease.  Yet another indication we’re not going to be taking a cruise across the ice-free Arctic anytime soon.

This chart from NISDC shows how much ice there is.  The pink line is the average median, the white is the sea ice extent on 4/30/10.  You can plainly see there’s no problem.

This chart from NISDC plainly shows that the ice is continuing to increase beyond normal time periods.  The light blue line is this year, note it’s still going up beyond the time when things normally start decreasing.

Of course this is all due to global warming…haha!  I guess those Polar Bears aren’t having to swim 100 miles from iceberg to iceberg either.

Source:  TimesOnline.co.uk

Comments Off on Arctic Icegate

Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Science, Sea-Ice

Greenpeace Threatens Deniers?

More CO2 Insanity.  Seems Greenpeace doesn’t take their name very seriously, especially the “peace” part. I guess they aren’t content ramming Japanese whaling ships, they now threaten global warming skeptics. From this post on their website…(Note: It was pulled shortly after everyone found out about it).

We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work.

Sounds real “peaceful” eh?  How about this one?

We need to hit them where it hurts most, by any means necessary: through the power of our votes, our taxes, our wallets, and more.

I wonder what the “and more” entails?

And we be many, but you be few.

You decide?  Sour grapes? Hot air?  A real threat everyone should take seriously?  If the latter I hope the FBI investigates this dude “Gene” for making terrorist threats.

Comments Off on Greenpeace Threatens Deniers?

Filed under Co2 Insanity

SPECTRE Meets in London

BlofeldIn “From Russia with Love” James Bond fought against SPECTRE, an evil organization of crooks out to blackmail the worlds countries out of millions. Compared to today they were rank amateurs and cheap to boot.

This weekend you have a new version of SPECTRE meeting in London in an attempt to fire up the Anthropogenic Global Warming con-game to rip you off for 100’s of billions.  SPECTRE now stands for: Stupendously Piggish Environmental Con-Artists Trying to Renew Embezzlement.

Evidently all us skeptics, deniers, or whatever you want to call us (how about honest people?), have screwed up their plans royally, so now they are having a big ho-down to try and figure out how to continue the con-game.

Per the Guardian article here

Some of the planet’s most powerful paymasters will gather in London on Wednesday to discuss a nagging financial problem: how to raise a trillion dollars for the developing world. Those charged with achieving this daunting goal will include Gordon Brown, directors of several central banks, the billionaire philanthropist George Soros, the economist Lord (Nicholas) Stern and Larry Summers, President Obama’s chief economics adviser.

How to raise a trillion dollars for the developing world or how to stuff their bank accounts full with schemes like carbon credits? Sounds like the axis of evil.

“We need to find ways to extract payment from those who cause that damage and then use that money to fund developing nations so that they can protect themselves from the worst effects of global warming.”

Extract?  Sounds like a polite term for highway-robbery to me.  But let’s continue on, bacially they will use anything they can to screw you out of your money on the pretext of global warming…

And to raise those funds the Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing has made clear that it will consider everything – from placing levies on international aviation and shipping, to enlarging carbon markets, introducing financial transaction taxes and using the International Monetary Fund’s special reserve currency. You name it and it will be run up the flagpole –

So hang on to your wallets, bank accounts, credit cards, because if they pull this crap off it’s going to be very very expensive for consumers because no matter what you do or buy they’ll claim it causes carbon and they’ll want to tax the snot out of it.

The article goes on about how they’re behind the 8 Ball due to Climategate and all the other “gates” that just seem to keep on going like the Everready Energizer Bunny, but they will try again if they don’t get shut down.

Now is not the time to relax and let the public’s memory fade.  We need to keep exposing the lies about AGW.

Where the hell is James Bond when you need him?

Source: Guardian.co.uk

1 Comment

Filed under Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Editor, Financial, Politics

I'm Going Postal Over Coastal Compensation

esmt0126pacificaNow here’s a terrific idea fostered by CO2 Insanity.  People who built houses on the edge of a cliff near the coast need to be compensated when their houses fall off into the ocean according to this article in Telegraph.co.uk.

Over the next 20 years, 200 homes are likely to be made unsafe to live in due to coastal erosion and an additional 2,000 could become at risk, largely as a result of climate change.

It’s always caused by climate change nowadays, nothing else causes anything whatsoever. If you believe that I have the old bridge I’ll sell you .

Tim Yeo, Chairman of the EAC, said the compensation formula should be based on how long the owner has lived in the property so that it does not apply to people who were aware of the risk when they brought the house.

This sounds rather silly to me.  I mean, unless you bought a house that was 500 feet or so back from the edge of the cliff a moron would have had a clue it might be a problem in the future.  Coastal erosion has been going on for millions of years, it’s not like it’s a surprise is it?

He also suggested developers and local authorities that encourage homes to be built on flood plains or eroding coastlines should contribute to compensation.

Now that’s one part of this I don’t have a problem with.  It’s something you see year in and year out when there is enough rain and/or snow melt you get flooding.  Frankly they shouldn’t build houses where it’s going to flood anyway.  I think a better more cost-effective way to handle this would be to have people be made very aware that their new house might turn into a U-Boat or literally fall off a cliff and make it THEIR responsibility, not the governments (aka: taxpayers), whom the government must think have money trees in their backyards.

At the moment the country spends £600 million per anum on flood protection but he said this should increase to £1 billion by 2035.

Oh well, only billion here and a billion there, what the hell the taxpayers can’t take it with them anyway.

The insanity of this is that this goes on all over the world.  Is everyone going to be compensated? Where’s all this money going to come from to pay for it?

Morever, what about other planetary issues?  If I buy a house under a volcano and it erupts should I get money?  What about eartquakes?  I live in a earthquake area, I’m fully aware of it, should I be compensated if we have one and my house gets knocked off its foundation?  How about people who buy houses that get hit by hurricanes all the time?  Should everyone in New Orleans be compensated bccause they were dumb enough to buy a house in a city that is below sea-level and gets hit by hurricanes?  I think not.

The photo in the article is an example of what I’m talking about.  It’s an apartment in Pacifica, California.  We haven’t had any ocean rise of any significance since this was built, but as you can see this place is about to literally fall into the ocean.  It’s natural causes, not global warming. When this place was built the edge of the cliff was a lot farther back. What’s causing this is normal erosiom from wind, rain and tidal action.

I’d also like to know why this is an issue when the sea-level rise study has been retracted, meaning this isn’t going to be a problem for a long time, if ever.

Source: Telegraph.co.uk

Comments Off on I'm Going Postal Over Coastal Compensation

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Financial, Science

Earth Entering New Age of CO2 Insanity

Desert BonesTelegraph.co.uk seems to be bi-polar.  They will have articles busting the AGW “science”, then turn around and put something in about the sky falling.  I guess they cant make up their minds, or they have a clever editor who’s decided to  play both sides of the fence.

This article Earth ‘entering new age of geolicial time’ sounded harmless enough.  The content is surprisingly different.

Humans have wrought such vast and unprecedented changes on the planet that we may be ushering in a new period of geological history.

Through pollution, population growth, urbanisation, travel, mining and use of fossil fuels we have altered the planet in ways which will be felt for millions of years, experts believe.

Uh oh!  Here we go again.  Now we have a name for this new age.

The new epoch, called the Anthropocene – meaning new man – would be the first period of geological time shaped by the action of a single species.

A new working group of experts has now been established to gather all the evidence which would support recognising it as the successor to the current Holocene epoch.

A new group of experts?  Hmmm….I can see the BS will soon be flying in an effort to get grant money to fund all these studies.  They get even shriller.

Dr Jan Zalasiewicz, of the University of Leicester, co-author of the paper, added: “It is suggested that we are in the train of producing a catastrophic mass extinction to rival the five previous great losses of species and organisms in Earth’s geological past.”

Catastrophic mass extincton?  I think perhaps they should call it by a different name.  How about Gorethropocene or Pachaurithropocene? Chickenlittlethropocene?

Source:  Telegraphh.co.uk

Comments Off on Earth Entering New Age of CO2 Insanity

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Editor, Science

You are now in The CO2 Twilight Zone

Rod SerlingThis all makes me feel like I’m in an episode of The Twilight Zone with Rod Serling’s narrative at the beginning going something like this…

Welcome to a world where reality has been dumped upside down like a garbage can being emptied.  A world where hot causes cold, hot causes hot and hot causes everything from tornados to droughts to blizzards.  A world where cooling doesn’t matter because it’s caused by warming.  A world where Congress listens to “scientific facts” from Peruvian farmers and Al Gore but ignores reality.  You are now in The Twilight Zone.

This has to be the biggest science fiction I think I’ve read yet in the AGW debate.   Think this professor may be suffering cognitive dissonance to come up with this one? Read on.

The article from CNS News is titled  “Cognitive Brain Patterns Prevent Conservatives from Accepting Threat of Global Warming.” Now that’s a mouth full.  Guess where this guy is from?  Berkeley, CA of course! Where else would foster such thoughts other than The Twilight Zone?

According to the good professor…

Proponents of human-caused global warming claim that “cognitive” brain function prevents conservatives from accepting the science that says “climate change” is an imminent threat to planet Earth and its inhabitants.

George Lakoff, a professor of cognitive science and linguistics at the University of California-Berkeley and author of the book “The Political Mind: A Cognitive Scientist’s Guide to Your Brain and Its Politics,” says his scientific research shows that how one perceives the world depends on one’s bodily experience and how one functions in the everyday world. Reason is shaped by the body, he says.

We not only have weird science being applied to prove AGW, we now have it describing those who find The Goracle and his Inconvenient truth to be well…….inconvenient to say the least. Let’s go to Websters Online and see the definition of Cognitive…

Main Entry: cog·ni·tive

Pronunciation: \ˈkäg-nə-tiv\

Function: adjective

Date: 1586

1 : of, relating to, being, or involving conscious intellectual activity (as thinking, reasoning, or remembering)
2 : based on or capable of being reduced to empirical factual knowledge

Sounds like we’re actually thinking about things, which evidently is pissing him off, so denier thinking is now bad.  Blame it on denier “brain patterns.”   Here’s his explanation about what our brain patterns supposedly do according to him…

“And what they try to do is show that the science is wrong and that the argument is wrong, based on the science.  So when it comes back to science, they try to debunk the science,” Lakoff said.

Isn’t that what science is all about?  If the science is good no one’s going to debunk it, if it’s bad, then it gets debunked.   Even Einstein was happy to have people go after his theories.  He was about the science being correct, not who was right or who was wrong.

On the other hand, he added, liberals’ cognitive process allows them to be “open-minded.”

I guess “open-minded” means you believe whatever the liberals tell you and don’t ask questions.  Use your liberal cognitive brain process to drink the Fool-Aid and just go along with the brainwash.  You’ll feel much better in the morning and The Goracle will love you.

In a Feb. 23 report on National Public Radio, reporter Christopher Joyce began his story by stating that recent polls show that fewer Americans believe humans are making the planet dangerously warmer, despite “a raft” of contradictory reports.

Excuse me, contradictory reports? Well, give us some actual real facts that make sense, aren’t based on skewed data, have been peer-reviewed by real scientists (not just the ones who happen to agree with you), and the public might just might not dismiss it as a bunch of garbage designed to make The Goracle and his buddies rich and rape the taxpayers out of more money on the pretense of saving the world.  Regarding “raft” it’s like this, I find the increased frequency  of “problems” since climategate to be rather indicative of warmers going into overdrive to make sure we all believe in AGW.  The old technique of  “tell a lie often enough and people will believe it.”

“This puzzles many climate scientists, but not social scientists, whose research suggests that facts may not be as important as one’s beliefs,” Joyce said.

OK can you say spin? The “facts” about AGW get busted on a regular basis, but because we question what’s going on, it’s our “beliefs.”  But the warmers, who swallow the AGW propaganda on a daily basis without questioning a thing, are being scientific. Does this guy really think everyone is this dumb?

So let’s see what Pat Michaels has to say about this…

But Pat Michaels, a former professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and a fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, said the argument that opponents of human-caused global warming are physically or psychologically different reveals “desperation” on the part of those who want people to not only embrace the idea of human destruction of the environment but put that idea into laws regulating human activity.

Desperation? Regulation?  Now we’re getting somewhere. This is exactly what happened under Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Chairman Mao, etc.  Don’t believe the state’s propaganda and you’ll be declared crazy and sent off to a mental institution for reprogramming (aka brainwashing). I’m sure the warmers would love to take us all away and do this so we come back as good little Nazis….I mean warmers, and boy are they drooling at the thought of regulating everyone to live and do as they say.  To me the professor’s comments do indeed sound desperate as they appear to have no basis in reality in my mind.  Perhaps relality in Berkeley is different than the rest of the world?

“Imminent disaster serves the proponents of regulation on this issue,” Michaels told CNSNews.com. That includes efforts by Democrats in Congress to pass cap-and-trade legislation, which would limit carbon emissions and tax corporations who fail to meet government-set pollution standards.

Yes, let’s not waste a good crisis. If we don’t have one, let’s create one and then we can get the general population to go along with the program to save their asses from impending doom.  The more they spend the more they get saved.  Exactly what the warmers and the greentards are doing.  Moreover, it seems everything that happens is now caused by anthropogenic global warming, including earthquakes, herpes, athlete’s food, pregnancy,  and I’m waiting for some astute warmer to blame Obamacre on it.  You can see what I mean from the next quote…

Lakoff, however, said that “99.999 percent of the science is final” on global warming and, in fact, the term “climate change” should be changed to “climate crisis” to more accurately describe the phenomenon.

Yes I’m sure The Goracles new book will be titled “Climate Crisis – Why You Deniers Need Thorazine and Straight-Jackets so You’ll Shut Up.”  99.999% final?  Has the professor added climatologist to his resume?

I REALLY love the next quotes…

Lakoff writes, “In the ideal strict father family, the world is seen as a dangerous place and the father functions as protector from ‘others’ and the parent who teaches children absolute right from wrong by punishing them physically (painful spanking or worse) when they do wrong. The father is the ultimate authority, children are to obey, and immoral practices are seen as disgusting.

“Ideal liberal families are based on nurturance, which breaks down into empathy, responsibility (for oneself and others) and excellence — doing well as one can to make oneself and one’s family and community better.”

Really?  This is now spinning at 50,000 RPM. He has it backwards in my opinon.

If you look at the first paragraph it sounds more like he’s describing The Goracle.  We’re supposed to do as he says, be good little children and blindly believe in global warming because he says so.  We’re to obey!  We should not take up the immoral practice of creating carbon without making him rich by buying carbon credits!  If we don’t do that we are disgusting! Our punishment will be the Earth will dry up like a prune and burst into flames!  Sounds more like typical liberalism to me.  Do as I say not as I do! (Reference to The Goracle’s inordinate power consumption and flying all over the place leaving a cloud of CO2 while saving the Earth.

His description of the liberal families is absurd.  I see plenty of  conservatives who nurture their children, teach them responsibility, empathy and excellence, too.  His statement makes as much sense as saying things such as “all blondes are dumb”, or “all brunettes are smart.”  Just isn’t based in reality at all.

Dr. Michaels closes with…

Michaels said that the idea that people who don’t buy into global warming should be discounted because they are somehow incapable of seeing the facts doesn’t fit with the American ideal of individual liberty.

“I don’t think that would sit well with the people who wrote the Constitution of this country,” Michaels said.

I can’t top that statement.

Since this is all about the “cognitive”  I wonder if the professor suffers from Cognitive Dissonance?”  I have to wonder if this isn’t the cause and the effect is his asinine theory?

I found the definition of cognitive dissonance on Wikipedia.  Here is one quote that I think explains some things about the professor’s ideas and explains my curiosity about whether he suffers from cognitive dissonance or not.

The most famous case in the early study of cognitive dissonance was described by Leon Festinger and others in the book When Prophecy Fails.[3] The authors infiltrated a group that was expecting the imminent end of the world on a certain date. When that prediction failed, the movement did not disintegrate, but grew instead, as members vied to prove their orthodoxy by recruiting converts.

Now to me this sounds like all the “doomsdays” we’ve had in the past. Things like…

  • Nuclear War will wipe the planet out.
  • Global Cooling in the 70’s
  • The Hale-Bopp comet cult.
  • End of the world with the new millenia in 2000 (should have been 2001 as there is no year “0” but, was still hysteria).

and things we have now…

  • Anthropogenic Global Warming
  • The end of the world in 2012 due to Mayan Calendar ending/Nostradamus predicitons
  • Water purity and availablility.
  • Methane leaking into the Arctic.
  • Cow farts.

When Prophecy Fails also notes the increased shrillness from this study group…

An early version of cognitive dissonance theory appeared in Leon Festinger‘s 1956 book, When Prophecy Fails. This book gave an inside account of belief persistence in members of a UFO doomsday cult, and documented the increased proselytization they exhibited after the leader’s “end of the world” prophecy failed to come true. The prediction of the Earth’s destruction, supposedly sent by aliens to the leader of the group, became a disconfirmed expectancy that caused dissonance between the cognitions, “the world is going to end” and “the world did not end.” Although some members abandoned the group when the prophecy failed, most of the members lessened their dissonance by accepting a new belief, that the planet was spared because of the faith of the group.[7]

Does this not sound like the increased proselytization after Climatgate, Glaciergate, Pachaurigate and all the other times AGW has been busted lately?  I don’t know about you but I definitely noticed increased shrillness, frequency, and a myriad of new things claimed to be caused by AGW.  Go back to “the raft of contradictory reports” mentioned earlier where he even admits the increase in frequency.  (Definition of raft: a large number or amount).  We have similarly seen some scientists who were on the AGW side change to the non-AGW side.  I wonder if we will soon see many of them take the position that AGW is over and  see them take credit for saving the world from AGW based upon all their efforts?

You could also read these other definitions in Wikipedia and judge for yourself if they might apply to the professor and warmers alike…

Cognitive Bias:  A cognitive bias is the human tendency to draw incorrect conclusions in certain circumstances based on cognitive factors rather than evidence.

True-believer syndrome is a term coined by M. Lamar Keene in his 1976 book The Psychic Mafia. Keene used the term to refer to people who continued to believe in a paranormal event or phenomenon even after it had been proven to have been staged.

Sounds like AGW believers and the professor to me.

Comments Off on You are now in The CO2 Twilight Zone

Filed under Co2 Insanity, Editor, Science

What came first Global Warming or El Niño?

El Nino globalssha_jas_2010

color bar El Nini pacificssha_jas_2010045_palette

NASA’s website has an interesting article titled Kelvin Wave Renews El Nino.  I find it interesting for many reasons, which prompts me to wonder what the deal is with El Niño?

  • “The climate pattern known as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, or “ENSO” for short, is the biggest cause of large-scale climate variability in the tropics.” (It also causes a lot of changes elsewhere).
  • The series of globes showing the progression of the Kelvin waves has zero in the center and shows +/- 220 millimeters of wave height.  220 mm = 8.6 inches.  So that’s a plus/minus of 17.2 inches in sea level.  (NOAA also advises the sea level can actually be about 1/2 meter higher off Peru than it is off Indonesia, about the same amount).
  • It also causes large differences in the surface temparature of the ocean.

I also find it can:

  • Affect weather in the Atlantic causing warming.
  • Affect the weather on the West Coast of the US and Canada (remember all the whining about the lack of snow at the Olympics in Vancouver? Guess why?).
  • That El Nino is being attributed to AGW by some of the usual suspects, some who claim it’s increasing in frequency.
  • The biggest one we’ve had was 1982-83. (Living in California I sure do remember it rain-rain-rain and more rain).
  • Past El Nino Years back to the turn of the 20th century are 1902-03, 1905-06, 1911-12,914-15, 1918-19, 1923-24, 1925-26, 1930-31, 1932-33, 1939-40, 1941-42, 1951-52, 1953-1954, 1957-58, 1965-1966, 1969-70, 1972-73, 1976-77, 1982-83, 1986-87, 1991-92, 1995-95, 1997-98, 2002-03, 2006-07, and the current 2009-10.

I’m not writing this to impugne this latest data.  It’s very recent (January 15, 30 and February 15, 2010), and I’d doubt in this case there’s anything amiss with it.  It’s done with satellite data and there is no reason for NASA or NOAA to spin it.  They obviously lean to the “it’s caused by AGW” side and probably beleive this helps prove their case.

Per the title, what this article did was cause me to wonder about is cause and effect.  To link what prompted this in my mind, it’s the fact that we have the AGW people believing CO2 causes warming, but we also have proof that the CO2 doesn’t cause the warming, that it actually follows it.

I question claims that AGW is causing El Niñ0, based upon the “tricks”, lies, errors, e-mails, consensus, etc., that have been used to promote the AGW.  Sorry, but some scientists should look into the mirror to see why their credibility is shot in many people’s minds.  Past performance does count, ask any jury.

Is it not entirely possible that El Niño is causing some global warming and not the other way around? That it will soon lessen as it always has, and so will its effect upon the Earths’ climate?

I’ve read the arguments that we’re having El Niño upon El Niño and no cooling in between, that global warming is causing it to increase frequency, and that eventually, all we’ll have is one big year-round El Niño.   (Frankly I’m not so certain that would be a bad thing as it seems to bring a lot of rain to areas like California, that were desperatly in need of it and now have water storage up to about 86.5% of normal in a matter of a few months).

I have to question the theory of more frequency.  If you look at the data for the previous 127 years of El Niños in the chart below, you can see some large gaps and years when it’s been one after the other.   I’d suggest using the frequency of recent years is just cherry picking data to prove AGW  is real and that is it causing El Niño to increase.  Perhaps it’s kind of a hocky-stick for El Niño?


The article also promps me to question if the sea-level and sea-temperature data isn’t being misconstrued to assist in proving we have AGW?  To reiterate, I have no basis for this other than past bad scientific behavior, (climategate, Pachaurigate, glaciergate, the hockey-stick, NASA’s using CRU data because their own was a mess, etc), and an inquiring mind.

I can see where it would be tempting to use some of the higher El Niño caused sea-levels and higher ocean-temperatures,  to try and foster the idea that AGW is causing the oceans to warm, which is causing the glaciers and ice to melt, which is in turn causing the sea-levels to rise.  Kind of all ties in neatly in my mind.  It’s been done with temperature data, why not El Niño data?

Chicken or Egg?  You tell me.

Comments Off on What came first Global Warming or El Niño?

Filed under Editor, Science