Real Science
Currently active NOAA tide gauges average 0.63 mm/year sea level rise, or two inches by the year 2100. ......The fraudsters at the University of Colorado claim five times that
much. Eighty-seven percent of tide gauges are below CU’s claimed rate. And the criminals at NASA are claiming 20 times that much rise by the
year 2100. Fraud is the new normal for academic and government science.
--------------------------
"A NASA expert says a three-foot sea rise would endanger millions of people - and we appear to be powerless to stop it." SkyNews
Friday, 28 August 2015
Saturday, 15 August 2015
WSJ: Obama’s Climate Plan Will Increase Poverty & Redistribution
TheHockeySchtick
Perhaps it is bad manners to suggest that the poor themselves might
prefer higher incomes rather than the EPA’s form of carbon justice. U.S.
economic growth is already much slower than it should be, and the new
EPA climate-change rule will make it worse by subtracting billions of
dollars every year from potential GDP by misallocating capital and
undermining business confidence. This will result in few opportunities
and smaller wage gains, with damage to the poorest Americans in
particular.
For these reasons, a recent study commissioned by the National Black
Chamber of Commerce estimates that the EPA plan will increase the black
poverty rate to 32% in 2025 from 26% today. Hispanic poverty will rise
to 29% from 23%. No fewer than 28 states raised such economic hardships
in their comments to the EPA, to no avail.
The contradiction of modern climate liberals is that they promise
lower energy bills and a wind-and-solar jobs boom, with zero trade-offs.
But then they demand more redistribution to mitigate the economic and
human damage that are the real outcome of their policies. Instead of
offering to weatherize the homes of the least fortunate, how about
trying to increase prosperity? " (THE WALL STREET JOURNAL)
US House Science Committee Accuses EPA Chief Gina McCarthy of Lying to Congress
USBackLash
From reading the letter from members of the House Science Committee to bull-dyke EPA Chief Administrator Gina McCarthy, it seems that libtard EPA Chief lied a few times while testifying before Congress regarding topics from the science behind the EPA’s Clean Water Rule, the agency’s approach to regulating ozone levels and concerns, and about withholding highway funding from states who can’t comply with the new rules."
From reading the letter from members of the House Science Committee to bull-dyke EPA Chief Administrator Gina McCarthy, it seems that libtard EPA Chief lied a few times while testifying before Congress regarding topics from the science behind the EPA’s Clean Water Rule, the agency’s approach to regulating ozone levels and concerns, and about withholding highway funding from states who can’t comply with the new rules."
Australian Psychology Society uses biases and fallacies to accuse skeptics of bias and fallacies
JoNova (Australia)
If psychologists want to be taken seriously, and want psychology to be called “a science”, they need to elect a director who knows what science is.
The Climate Study group in Australia published a half page advert in The Australian last week – Psychology and Climate Alarm: how fear and anxiety trump evidence. In reply, Prof Lyn Littlefield, Executive Director of the Australian Psychology Society wrote a letter to The Australian
protesting — claiming that the Climate Study Group are the ones
suffering from the confirmation bias they accuse climate scientists of.
Littlefield seems to think that scientists are robots. She talks of “vested interests” of the skeptics, but is blind to the 3500:1 ratio of funding for climate “belief”. Then she accuses skeptics of cherry picking and bias. It’s projection, projection all the way down.
The world cooled for 37 years while CO2 rose. Does that matter? No, says Lyn, the Royal Society was founded in 1662. Welcome to a conversation with a blind believer. Seriously, the good scientific psychologists need to speak up lest the fawning confused believers in their profession stay glued to the public mouth-piece. (Lucky Jose Duarte has spoken, and Littlefield should read his blog. Where are the other good psychs?)
Littlefield wants to talk “fallacies”, so let’s take her “jumping to conclusions” fallacy and raise it. Those who jump to assume long reports from human committees are “facts” are falling for the fallacy known as “argument from authority”. Real scientists look at the data — which is exactly what the Climate Study Group did."
If psychologists want to be taken seriously, and want psychology to be called “a science”, they need to elect a director who knows what science is.
Executive Director: Professor Lyn Littlefield OAM FAPS
“The advertisement, ‘Psychology and
the New Climate Storm’ misuses psychology-based arguments to add
credibility to myths and misinformation about climate change. In doing
so, the authors illustrate aptly the very error bias (confirmation bias)
they are erroneously attributing to the climate science community.”
It’s the “the pot calling the kettle black”, exclaims Littlefield.
But since her arguments are entirely fallacies, this is the kettle
calling the pot calling the kettle black. The Climate Study Group
mentioned many scientific observations, and in reply Lyn Littlefield
can’t find an error in any of them, she can only cite “the consensus”.
So instead of using a thermometer to measure the temperature, she wants
to use keyword studies in abstracts of publications, and pronouncements
of sub-committees of scientific associations. Hey, it’s not like
consensuses have been wrong before, or grants committees, journal
editors, and scientists could possibly have any personal motivations,
training deficits, or biases, right? But who would expect a psychologist
to spot those…Littlefield seems to think that scientists are robots. She talks of “vested interests” of the skeptics, but is blind to the 3500:1 ratio of funding for climate “belief”. Then she accuses skeptics of cherry picking and bias. It’s projection, projection all the way down.
The world cooled for 37 years while CO2 rose. Does that matter? No, says Lyn, the Royal Society was founded in 1662. Welcome to a conversation with a blind believer. Seriously, the good scientific psychologists need to speak up lest the fawning confused believers in their profession stay glued to the public mouth-piece. (Lucky Jose Duarte has spoken, and Littlefield should read his blog. Where are the other good psychs?)
Littlefield wants to talk “fallacies”, so let’s take her “jumping to conclusions” fallacy and raise it. Those who jump to assume long reports from human committees are “facts” are falling for the fallacy known as “argument from authority”. Real scientists look at the data — which is exactly what the Climate Study Group did."
Saturday, 8 August 2015
Validation Of A Climate Model Is Mandatory: The Invaluable work of Dr. Vincent Gray
WUWT
No computer model has ever been validated. An early draft of Climate Change 95 had a Chapter titled “Climate Models – Validation” as a response to my comment that no model has ever been validated. They changed the title to “Climate Model – Evaluation” and changed the word “validation” in the text to “evaluation” no less than describing what might need to be done in order to validate a model.
Without a successful validation procedure, no model should be considered to be capable of providing a plausible prediction of future behaviour of the climate."
Fudging To Assure Reliability Masquerading As Validation
Attempts at validation during the 120 years of the instrumental period also proved problematic for the same reasons as for the historical record. A major challenge was the cooling period from 1940 to 1980 because it coincided with the greatest increase in human production of CO2. This contradicted the most basic assumption of the AGW hypothesis that a CO2 increase caused a temperature increase. Freeman Dyson described the practice, generally described as “tweaking”, and discussed in several WUWT articles. It is the practice of covering up and making up evidence designed to maintain the lies that are the computer models.
They sought an explanation in keeping with their philosophy that any anomaly, or now a disruption, is, by default, due to humans. They tweaked the model with human sourced sulfate, a particulate that blocks sunlight and produces cooling. They applied it until the model output matched the temperature curve. The problem was after 1980 warming began again, but sulfate levels continued. Everything they do suffers from the T. H. Huxley truth; “The great tragedy of science, the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”
As Gray explained,
Instead of validation, and the traditional use of mathematical statistics, the models are “evaluated” purely from the opinion of those who have devised them. Such opinions are partisan and biased. They are also nothing more than guesses."
No computer model has ever been validated. An early draft of Climate Change 95 had a Chapter titled “Climate Models – Validation” as a response to my comment that no model has ever been validated. They changed the title to “Climate Model – Evaluation” and changed the word “validation” in the text to “evaluation” no less than describing what might need to be done in order to validate a model.
Without a successful validation procedure, no model should be considered to be capable of providing a plausible prediction of future behaviour of the climate."
Fudging To Assure Reliability Masquerading As Validation
Attempts at validation during the 120 years of the instrumental period also proved problematic for the same reasons as for the historical record. A major challenge was the cooling period from 1940 to 1980 because it coincided with the greatest increase in human production of CO2. This contradicted the most basic assumption of the AGW hypothesis that a CO2 increase caused a temperature increase. Freeman Dyson described the practice, generally described as “tweaking”, and discussed in several WUWT articles. It is the practice of covering up and making up evidence designed to maintain the lies that are the computer models.
They sought an explanation in keeping with their philosophy that any anomaly, or now a disruption, is, by default, due to humans. They tweaked the model with human sourced sulfate, a particulate that blocks sunlight and produces cooling. They applied it until the model output matched the temperature curve. The problem was after 1980 warming began again, but sulfate levels continued. Everything they do suffers from the T. H. Huxley truth; “The great tragedy of science, the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.”
As Gray explained,
Instead of validation, and the traditional use of mathematical statistics, the models are “evaluated” purely from the opinion of those who have devised them. Such opinions are partisan and biased. They are also nothing more than guesses."
Friday, 7 August 2015
Cooling Atlantic Trend: Iceland Sees Coldest Summer in More Than 20 Years… “Cold Period Taking Over”
NoTricksZone
The Iceland Monitor website here writes the North Alantic island is having its coldest summer in more than 20 years."
The Iceland Monitor website here writes the North Alantic island is having its coldest summer in more than 20 years."
How Climate Scientists Cheat And Deceive
NALOPKT
Apparently some CNN hack has written an article about deniers in Oklahoma. It is a long, rambling piece, with the usual cliches about creationism, 97%, settled science, droughts, blah, blah.
Paul Matthews has a good summary here.
But he alerts me to one particular section where the ubiquitous Katharine Hayhoe crops up with some astonishingly dishonest comments. Seasoned Hayhoe watchers will no doubt be aware of her regular attempts to mislead by, for instance, ignoring climate history from the inconvenient past. Nevertheless, she really hits new lows this time: .................
For Hayhoe to claim that sceptics commonly misuse error filled satellite data to disprove global warming is dishonest bunkum unworthy of a proper scientist. Even NOAA, who organised this paper, with Tom Karl the Chief Editor, admitted back in 2006 that the earlier errors no longer existed and that the new datasets showed no discrepancies.
Nobody is arguing that satellite data is perfect, and we know that surface data certainly is not. But the increasing divergence of satellite and surface temperatures in recent years is a serious and embarrassing issue for the climate establishment. For Hayhoe to attempt to try to hide this by building strawmen is an abuse of her position, and shows that she can no longer be regarded as a serious scientist."
Apparently some CNN hack has written an article about deniers in Oklahoma. It is a long, rambling piece, with the usual cliches about creationism, 97%, settled science, droughts, blah, blah.
Paul Matthews has a good summary here.
But he alerts me to one particular section where the ubiquitous Katharine Hayhoe crops up with some astonishingly dishonest comments. Seasoned Hayhoe watchers will no doubt be aware of her regular attempts to mislead by, for instance, ignoring climate history from the inconvenient past. Nevertheless, she really hits new lows this time: .................
For Hayhoe to claim that sceptics commonly misuse error filled satellite data to disprove global warming is dishonest bunkum unworthy of a proper scientist. Even NOAA, who organised this paper, with Tom Karl the Chief Editor, admitted back in 2006 that the earlier errors no longer existed and that the new datasets showed no discrepancies.
Nobody is arguing that satellite data is perfect, and we know that surface data certainly is not. But the increasing divergence of satellite and surface temperatures in recent years is a serious and embarrassing issue for the climate establishment. For Hayhoe to attempt to try to hide this by building strawmen is an abuse of her position, and shows that she can no longer be regarded as a serious scientist."
Global Coal Boom Accelerating Despite Obama’s Green Posturing
WUWT
All this underscores the foolishness and futility of the Obama climate-change regulations designed to drastically reduce coal production in the U.S. As we use less and the rest of the world uses more, the impact on global temperatures will be very close to zero.
Coal production in the U.S. is much safer and less carbon-intensive (clean coal technologies have reduced pollutants by 30%) than coal from other nations. So Obama’s war on coal may make global warming worse.
Some might say this gesture by the Obama administration to cut off coal production in the U.S. is a useful first step to save the planet. Except this isn’t just a cheap sign of goodwill.
It’s a tremendously expensive gesture that will cost America hundreds of thousands of jobs, raise utility prices by as much as $1,000 per family and reduce GDP by as much half a percentage point a year when we are already barely growing. The poor will be hurt most.
What makes the Obama administration regulations doubly destructive is that the U.S. has more coal than any other nation.
With at least 300 years of supply at a value of trillions of dollars, we are truly the Saudi Arabia of coal. To leave it in the ground would be like Obama telling Nebraska to stop growing corn, Idaho to stop growing potatoes and Silicon Valley to give up on the digital age."
All this underscores the foolishness and futility of the Obama climate-change regulations designed to drastically reduce coal production in the U.S. As we use less and the rest of the world uses more, the impact on global temperatures will be very close to zero.
Coal production in the U.S. is much safer and less carbon-intensive (clean coal technologies have reduced pollutants by 30%) than coal from other nations. So Obama’s war on coal may make global warming worse.
Some might say this gesture by the Obama administration to cut off coal production in the U.S. is a useful first step to save the planet. Except this isn’t just a cheap sign of goodwill.
It’s a tremendously expensive gesture that will cost America hundreds of thousands of jobs, raise utility prices by as much as $1,000 per family and reduce GDP by as much half a percentage point a year when we are already barely growing. The poor will be hurt most.
What makes the Obama administration regulations doubly destructive is that the U.S. has more coal than any other nation.
With at least 300 years of supply at a value of trillions of dollars, we are truly the Saudi Arabia of coal. To leave it in the ground would be like Obama telling Nebraska to stop growing corn, Idaho to stop growing potatoes and Silicon Valley to give up on the digital age."
The real 'deniers’ in the climate change debate are the warmists
Christopher Booker, Telegraph
Among the more useful things psychologists
have come up with in helping us to understand the world is what they
call “projection” – that tendency in people who are not seeing the world
straight to “project” on to others the very failings they suffer from
themselves.
One prominent example
of this has been the contemptuous itch of those who passionately believe
that the world faces a catastrophe from global warming to dismiss
anyone daring to question their beliefs as a “denier”. In fact, it has
long been obvious that the only real “deniers” on the climate front are
those true believers themselves, who cannot face up to all the evidence
which makes their scare story ever less convincing."
Obama’s $2.5 trillion plan to kill jobs, coal, make a 0.1% reduction in CO2, and cool world by zero degrees
JoNova (Australia)
Welcome to the fairy-land world where we try to control the weather with our electrical generation sources.
Obama’s new plan to stop storms and hold back the tide could make the US poorer by as much as $2.5 trillion dollars, but will not make any difference to the global climate even if it is carried out (somehow) and even if the highly immature, overly politicized science is “right” (despite the evidence). The plan is for the U.S. to cut overall electrical power plant emissions by 32 percent by 2030, compared to 2005 levels.
This “ambitious” goal is purely symbolic. Here’s why. Electrical power plants make 37% of US emissions, which are about one-fifth of global human emissions, which are 4% of total CO2 emissions globally. So a 32% cut in US electrical emissions will result in a 0.1% cut in total global CO2 emissions (at best)*. If the Obama/EPA plan is “successful” and if the IPCC are right, Paul Knappenberger and Pat Michaels estimate that Obama’s new plan will cool the world by an unmeasurable 0.02°C by 2100."
Welcome to the fairy-land world where we try to control the weather with our electrical generation sources.
Obama’s new plan to stop storms and hold back the tide could make the US poorer by as much as $2.5 trillion dollars, but will not make any difference to the global climate even if it is carried out (somehow) and even if the highly immature, overly politicized science is “right” (despite the evidence). The plan is for the U.S. to cut overall electrical power plant emissions by 32 percent by 2030, compared to 2005 levels.
This “ambitious” goal is purely symbolic. Here’s why. Electrical power plants make 37% of US emissions, which are about one-fifth of global human emissions, which are 4% of total CO2 emissions globally. So a 32% cut in US electrical emissions will result in a 0.1% cut in total global CO2 emissions (at best)*. If the Obama/EPA plan is “successful” and if the IPCC are right, Paul Knappenberger and Pat Michaels estimate that Obama’s new plan will cool the world by an unmeasurable 0.02°C by 2100."
Obama’s green energy plan is a suicide note for the US economy. But you won’t hear that on the BBC
This expert assessment from Australian commentator Jo Nova suggests that the Obama vanity project will cost the American economy a staggering $2.5 trillion, put a million people out of work...and for what? At best, it will achieve a reduction of 0.1 per cent in world CO2 emissions and not change the temperature one iota. Another economic assessment of the massive true cost of ‘renewables’ is here. ........"
Sunday, 26 July 2015
Biggest Fraud In Science History – The NASA/NOAA Surface Temperature Record
Real Science
Over the last ten years, satellites show that the Earth is cooling. But that doesn’t suit the needs of the climate criminal community ahead of their convention in Paris this year, so NASA/NOAA created a completely fake surface temperature record – which is diverging from satellite temperatures at a rate of two degrees per century"
Over the last ten years, satellites show that the Earth is cooling. But that doesn’t suit the needs of the climate criminal community ahead of their convention in Paris this year, so NASA/NOAA created a completely fake surface temperature record – which is diverging from satellite temperatures at a rate of two degrees per century"
Ocean Heat: New Study Shows Climate Scientists Can Still Torture Data until the Data Confess
WUWT
Bottom line: To manufacture the new warming, Cheng et al. adjusted, tweaked, modified (tortured) subsurface ocean temperature reconstructions to the depths of 700 meters starting in 1970. "
Bottom line: To manufacture the new warming, Cheng et al. adjusted, tweaked, modified (tortured) subsurface ocean temperature reconstructions to the depths of 700 meters starting in 1970. "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)