Tag Archives: AGW

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


Rub-a-dub-dubThis is what the title of this website refers to.  This is the kind of insanity that is surrounding Global Warming.

Here is an interesting article about AGW and false advertising by the British Government.  According to Watts Up With That…

TWO government advertisements that use nursery rhymes to warn people of the dangers of climate change have been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for exaggerating the potential harm.

I find it rather amazing that they have not only stooped to lying, they have now hit a new low of using nursery rhymes as a tool.  While not touched upon in the article I have to wonder if this is another attempt at brainwashing children to believe falsehoods about AGW.

The ad should be good for bathtub sales, providing anyone believes them.

Source:  www.wattsupwiththat.com

Comments Off on Rub-a-dub-dub?

Filed under Editor