Climate “Science” on Trial; Only One Side Can Win

Great news for the field of climate “science.” Finally, a hypothesis will be tested. Climate alarmists have claimed that 100% of the warming over the past century is due to human causes. Screen-Shot-2017-03-10-at-8.23.06-PM

Additionally, according to the climate “experts,” 100% of the rise in CO2 is also due to man.

In summary, we know that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is entirely caused by fossil fuel burning and deforestation because many independent observations show that the carbon content has also increased in both the oceans and the land biosphere (after deforestation). If the oceans or land had contributed to the rise in atmospheric CO2, they would hold less carbon. Their response to warming may be real, but it is less than their response to increasing CO2 and other climate changes for the moment.

This is really good news for one side of the argument because the International Energy Agency just released that CO2 emissions have stopped rising. In fact, they have been flat or falling for the last 4 years.GlobalCarbonEmissions2

This is really great news for those that believe man-made CO2 is the cause of global warming and climate change. After spending countless billions of dollars we have now stopped the increase in CO2 emissions.

Only one problem, one really big problem, nothing the experts tell you is true regarding man-made CO2 and atmospheric CO2. Back in 1980 man produced 17.5 gigatons of CO2, in 1985 man produced 17.5 gigatons of CO2, in 2013 man produced 32.5 gigatons of CO2, and in 2016 man produced 32.5 gigatons of CO2. Man’s production of CO2 almost doubled (32.5/17.5), yet the slope of atmospheric CO2 remains almost unchanged over that time period, and the slope certainly hasn’t doubled.kc-monthly-0600 (1)

CO2 between 1980 and 1985 increased by about 1.475 ppm/year

CO2 between 1992 and 1997 increased by 1.35 ppm/year, even though CO2 production was much higher than in 1980.

CO2 between 1998 and 2001 increased by 1.48 ppm/year, even though CO2 production was much higher than in 1980.

Recently CO2 has increased, but ironically the biggest increase occurred in 2016, an El Nino year, where CO2 increased from 3.38 ppm, a full 1.2 ppm over the 2.18 ppm increase in 2015. Emissions were flat during those years.

While man’s production of CO2 was constant between 2013 and 2016, CO2 was very volatile, increasing by 2.67, 2.13, 2.18 and 3.38 ppm/year, not something one would expect if man’s production of CO2 was the cause. But some people disagree.

CO2 between 2013 and 2016 increased by about 2.59 ppm/year, less than 2x what it was in 1980, which is what would be expected if man’s production of CO2 was the cause.

Lastly, the rate of change in atmospheric CO2 doesn’t track man’s production of CO2. As noted, CO2 increased by 1.36 in 1981 when man’s CO2 production was 17.5 gigatons, atmospheric CO2 increased by 1.17 ppm in 2000, when man’s production of CO2 was 23.5 gigatons. There simply isn’t a tight linear fit, which is required to support a claim that man is responsible for 100% of the increase. The oceans have warmed over that period, and Henry’s law explains how the oceans may be the source of the extra atmospheric CO2.

In conclusion, if in fact man’s CO2 emissions can be contained or even reduced going forward, the evidence should present itself in the slope of atmospheric CO2 remaining constant, or even fall. If man is truly the cause of the increase in atmospheric CO2, the annual increases going forward should be constant, if man’s emissions fall, so should the annual increase. Only time will tell, but within the next decade, we should have the data we need to reach a pretty sound conclusion.

Post Script: Ironically, Germany’s efforts to cut emission has resulted in an increase in CO2 production. It appears having to have all those backup coal powered plants to support the wind and solar farms produces a lot of CO2.

Data:

Date CO2 Increase
1980 338.75
1981 340.11 1.36
1982 341.45 1.34
1983 343.05 1.6
1984 344.65 1.6
1985 346.12 1.47
1986 347.42 1.3
1987 349.19 1.77
1988 351.57 2.38
1989 353.12 1.55
1990 354.39 1.27
1991 355.61 1.22
1992 356.45 0.84
1993 357.1 0.65
1994 358.83 1.73
1995 360.82 1.99
1996 362.61 1.79
1997 363.73 1.12
1998 366.7 2.97
1999 368.38 1.68
2000 369.55 1.17
2001 371.14 1.59
2002 373.28 2.14
2003 375.8 2.52
2004 377.52 1.72
2005 379.8 2.28
2006 381.9 2.1
2007 383.79 1.89
2008 385.6 1.81
2009 387.43 1.83
2010 389.9 2.47
2011 391.65 1.75
2012 393.85 2.2
2013 396.52 2.67
2014 398.65 2.13
2015 400.83 2.18
2016 404.21 3.38

Climate “Science” on Trial; Did Cosmic Rays End the CA Drought?

download (2)Talk to any climate “scientist” before the recent California flooding, and they would have described an endless drought being caused by man made CO2.

California Drought Is Made Worse by Global Warming, Scientists Say

California to experience endless drought

Parched: California Braces for Drought Without End in Sight

Like the recent election, the “experts” and media could not have been more wrong. As we know now, the drought ended in California in dramatic style. Fears went from endless drought to whether or not the Oroville Dam will survive the “ARkStorm.” Just like after the election, when the “experts” or so epically wrong, it is time to self-reflect and ask “what went wrong, what didn’t we see?”

What went wrong should be obvious to everyone. If you aren’t looking for the answer, you will never find it, especially for a question as complicated as the global climate.  Ask any climate “expert” the cause of the drought and there will be a universal canned answer of “man-made CO2.” Ignoring the fact that droughts have occurred in California throughout history and some of the worst were before the industrial era.   The answer is easy, and the media will never challenge it. The problem that answer has been proven 100% wrong.

The California drought demonstrates the dangers the extreme focus on man-made CO2 causes. All the research money is directed away from real research, research that may actually help understand the climate, and towards the pseudo-science of man-made CO2 caused climate change. No one is even looking for the real answers.

Cosmic rays, combined with the ending of an abnormally strong El Nino may have created the perfect storm to end the “endless” drought in California. Unfortunately, we may never know. Why won’t we know? Because the data needed to reach such a conclusion doesn’t exist. Once again, if you aren’t looking for the answer, you will never find it. To answer that question you would need to have a robust data set measuring the cosmic rays and cloud cover over the globe. Those data sets simply don’t exist. Money needed to collect that data has been misdirected towards measuing CO2 and its impact.

What data we do have however starts to make an interesting case:

  1. Satellite Data demonstrates a sharp El Nino/Nina spike and decline in global temperatures.UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2017_v6-550x317
  2. The sun has entered an unusually quiet period, with the current solar cycle being the third weakest since 1755.download1
  3. The weak solar cycle has resulted in more cosmic rays entering our atmosphere.download2

The hypothesis would simply be that the El Nino greatly increased the ability of the atmosphere to hold water vapor and the cosmic rays “seeded” the clouds. The combination of the two created what is referred to as an “atmospheric river.022017-Pineapple-express_online

Why haven’t you read in the New York Times such a theory? Because it doesn’t require CO2, it explains the climate change as being natural. Will this theory be tested anytime soon? Doubtful. Why? Because the data simply doesn’t exist. The data for the above cosmic rays graphic is collected by a bunch of volunteer students in California. I guess NASA was too busy mothballing the Space Shuttle to make room for their CO2 labs.

What is this all about? Approximately once a week, Spaceweather.com and the students of Earth to Sky Calculus fly space weather balloons to the stratosphere over California. These balloons are equipped with radiation sensors that detect cosmic rays, a surprisingly “down to Earth” form of space weather. Cosmic rays can seed clouds, trigger lightning, and penetrate commercial airplanes.

How a “science” can be settled without ruling out any of the other possible causes, or even having the data to do so is beyond me, but once again, if you don’t look for alternative explanations, you will never find them. The is the real problem with the pseudo-science of CO2 driven climate change, it diverts resources away from those who wish to perform real research and real science to help humanity truly understand the climate.Screen-Shot-2017-03-10-at-8.23.06-PM

BTW, the MO of the Climate Alarmists is to deny, deflect, deceive, distort, and attack. One favorite tactic is to “appeal to authority,” who are often the “Fact Checkers.” These favorite attack dogs are a tainted jury at best.

Be sure to “Like,” “Share,” “Subscribe,” and “Comment.” If you are real ambitious, please forward it on to President Trump.

Read More: How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate

Climate “Science” on Trial; The Moment of Truth

While climate alarmists focus on computer models, anecdotal evidence and “consensus,” real sciences rely on empirical data, hypothesis testing and the scientific method. Real climate scientists claim that natural phenomenon can explain the majority of the observations that climate alarmists attribute to CO2. Recent events have established the conditions where at least two hypothesis will be tested.

The first hypothesis is that the recent decline in Arctic ice is due largely to natural phenomenon related to the direction of the polar winds. The theory goes that when the Arctic winds blow in the direction from Alaska to Iceland, the Arctic ice is blown out into the Northern Atlantic, resulting is a reduction of the Artic ice. It has nothing to do with CO2, and everything to do with the direction of the Arctic winds.  Recently, however, the direction of the wind has reversed. If the theory is correct, we should see an increase and thickening of the Arctic ice in the near future.1988-1996_oldice21 (1).gif

The second hypothesis is that a calm sun allows more cosmic rays to enter the earth’s atmosphere, and the cosmic rays “seed” clouds. The more clouds there are the less radiation will reach the earth’s surface and oceans. The result should be a slowing in the rate of warming or an actual decline in temperatures. Recently the sun has been very very very inactive, with the sun spots reaching a multi-year low. If the cosmic ray theory is correct, we should see cooling or at least a slowing in the rate of warming going forward.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Unfortunately, the New York Times and other climate alarmist sources will never report on the likely natural causes of climate change and global warming. Fortunately, we have the internet and real science blogs that seek to discover the factual truth. With the polar winds reversing and the sun going into a slumber, real scientists are being given an opportunity to test two of their most interesting hypothesis regarding climate change. My bet is that going forward we will see an increase in amount and thickness of Arctic ice and a period of global cooling. I’ll write follow-up posts to track the progress of this hypothesis test.

cosmicrays

Climate “Science” on Trial; Useful Idiots Don’t Rely on Facts

Clitorall_hinnyFew issues prove Hillary’s comment more than climate change. Climate “science” is a computer model based, it doesn’t rely upon empirical evidence and experimentation. The “leaders” is the field of climate “science” literally “adjust” the data to make the laughable climate models produce the desired results. No real scientist takes the claims from the climate “science” departments seriously. Climate “science” started with a conclusion that man-made CO2 causes global warming and they set out to find anecdotal evidence to support that claim. The results have been disastrous to any thinking person seeking the truth, with “evidence” being produced that require physical impossibilities like ice melting in sub-zero temperatures. The support for climate change legislation requires that supporters either care about the truth but are too lazy to check the facts or are gullible enough to unquestioningly believe the climate “scientists/activists,” or don’t care about the facts and just want to be part of the Democratic Party’s issue Du Jour. These are the misguided social justice warriors that want to save the earth by destroying free-market capitalism.quote-the-press-of-italy-is-free-freer-than-the-press-of-any-other-country-so-long-as-it-supports-benito-mussolini-83-82-97

To prove this point, one needs to look no further than the “paper of record,” the “first rough draft of history,” the notoriously liberal New York Times (NYT). The NYT and their apparently scientifically illiterate Ivy League educated journalism majors are running a series titled “A primer on climate change: ‘Short Answers to Hard Questions About Climate Change‘” to “educate” their liberal subscribers on the topic of the unsupportable “science” of climate change. The results are laughable, and their efforts to defend the “science” of climate change crumble under the most casual of analysis. The results of a critical analysis can be found by clicking here. Clearly, the focus on the NYT isn’t to get to the truth, it is to promote the false narrative/fake news/junk science/pseudo science of man-made climate change. Note the use of Fahrenheit, not the scientific standard Celcius, by the scientifically “sophisticated” NYT.

1. How much is the planet heating up?

1.7 degrees is actually a significant amount.

As of October 2015, the Earth had warmed by about 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880, when records begin at a global scale. That figure includes the surface of the ocean. The warming is greater over land, and greater still in the Arctic and parts of Antarctica.

Richard Muller’s Berkeley group (BEST) has pushed the starting point back to 1800. What that shows is a similar rise in temperature (land only) of about 0.5 degrees C (0.9 degrees F) from 1800-1880. Isn’t that interesting? Long before the rise of CO2, we have the earth emerging from the depths of the Little Ice Age, temperatures rising for more than 200 years now. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1850/to:1880/trend/plot/best/from:1800/to:1850/trend

b4bw0yiciaapjqb-2The distortions don’t end with the NYT, they go all the way to the top. President Obama repeatedly makes unsupportable claims. You will never see the NYT refute ex-President Obama’s claims, no matter how erroneous.  The godfather of climate change, Al Gore, can make statements like the earth’s core and crust is “extremely hot, several million degrees“, and no one in the liberal media bats an eye.  the To get to the truth one must search the internet to see Dr. Judith Curry or Dr. John Christy address the facts. The claims the climate “scientists” and their sycophants make are so easy to refute and so far removed from the truth and supporting facts, it is obvious that this isn’t a scientific issue, it is a political movement masquerading as a “science.” No amount of facts will ever convince the NYT and liberals from accepting the truth, the truth simply doesn’t matter to them. Climate change is a means to an end, and that end is to undermine capitalism, redistribute wealth and fund the crony capitalism based “green” economy. Climate change is an anti-capitalist/Marxist/watermelon environmentalist’s wet dream.

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution…This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”

Even leaders of capitalist nations have joined the suicidal campaign.

The weird thing is that Klein and the prime minister, Tony Abbott, are in complete agreement on one fundamental thing: both believe that seriously tackling climate change is incompatible with capitalism as we know it.

c5_qhemwmae8kv0If one doubts the political importance of climate change to the Democrats, one simply needs to read the Wikileaks.

“Climate change” comes up in more than 1,200 of the emails released as of Friday, or more than Obamacare and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant combined…

Taxing carbon polls horribly, … Natural gas has spurred jobs and exports, … The federal ethanol mandate is arguably failing to deliver its promised gains… but calling for reform too loudly risks losing support in corn country.

And Clinton’s team think it’s deeply unrealistic to call for a quick end to oil drilling, as some green groups and Sanders supporters demand

Several threads in the emails also detail the choreography Clinton’s aides engaged in before she revealed her long-planned public opposition to the Keystone XL oil pipeline last year.

6a6krzctxfsv-6g78foiflpmcczp8ahlzog_up41bfc

The problem conservatives have arguing this issue is that we are conservatives. We look at the facts. We look for the truth. When the NYT or ex-President Obama makes a series to erroneous statements, we respond with rebuttals. The NYT and ex-President Obama reaches millions with their nonsense, conservatives reach very few with their rebuttals. Liberals are propagandists, conservatives are seeking the truth. Conservatives are only winning this battle because 50% of America lean right and their views are influenced by politics, not science.

Liberal Democrats Overwhelmingly Say Solid Evidence Global Warming Is Occurring; Most Conservative Republicans Say There Is Not

FT_15.06.16.Climate2

For conservatives to really put this issue to bed, they need to accept the hard truth that climate “science” isn’t science at all, it is a giant ruse used to promote an anti-capitalism agenda. Facts aren’t what is important to the supporters of climate change, the benefits promised them by politicians is what is important. The benefits of “believing” in climate change are measured in the hundreds of trillions of dollars, the benefit of seeking the honest truth is a huge pay cut and drop in their standard of living.a0a55a6d380a1c59ba7ab5ff45490c43

When liberals want to generate support for the “science” behind climate change and the wealth distributing legislation that it supports, they don’t call for public debates to make the argument, they rely on monologs by the President, the press, and photo-ops of people that dress up in animal suits. Telling the people the “facts” and appealing to emotions and authority is their unscientific political MO. Trying to have a responsible adult conversation with these people is futile, they are clearly responding to parts of the brain unknown to conservatives.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Conservatives need to learn to speak the language of liberals. Liberals don’t speak math. Liberals end up taking journalism, history, education, literature, art because they fail out of the math and engineering courses. You don’t find many people that dress up as polar bears and dance in the streets promoting nonsense working at conservative firms, you find them working in art galleries, liberal universities, liberal newspapers and/or teaching at a public elementary school. To reach liberals conservatives need to speak their language, conservative need to dumb down the communication and arguments, conservatives need to copy Hillary Clinton and simply adjust/dumb down the message for the audience.b6c6b01cf5d222b2616df5d59106f0b9

To reach liberals conservatives need to speak their language, conservative need to dumb down the communication and arguments, conservatives need to copy Hillary Clinton and simply adjust/dumb down the message for the audience. Liberals love funding for public schools, climate change takes money from the public schools,  Liberals love PBS, NPR and the NEA, climate change takes money from them, Liberals love “saving the earth,” yet green solutions are destroying the earth. Climate money could have been used to maintain the Oroville Dam. There are countless better causes liberals can spend the trillions of dollars currently being wasted on the Quixotic war on climate change. Conservative, while debating the science is needed, we also need to start recruiting support for the political left. To do that conservatives need to start crafting emotional arguments as well as scientific ones. The science arguments have already been won, that is why the political left and NYT publishes such superficial and laughable garbage. That is why ex-President Obama can’t list any real events caused by man-made CO2. If he and the NYT had the data and evidence, they would release it, and that evidence and data would withstand scrutiny, and wouldn’t need to be “adjusted” after the fact to make the models work.quote-there-are-no-morals-in-politics-there-is-only-expedience-a-scoundrel-may-be-of-use-to-us-just-vladimir-lenin-110531

Conservative, while debating the science is needed, we also need to start recruiting support for the political left. To do that conservatives need to start crafting emotional arguments as well as scientific ones. The science arguments have already been won, that is why the political left and NYT publishes such superficial and laughable garbage. That is why ex-President Obama can’t list any real events caused by man-made CO2. If he and the NYT had the data and evidence, they would release it, and that evidence and data would withstand scrutiny, and wouldn’t need to be “adjusted” after the fact to make the models work.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Ridicule is also an approach taught by Saul Alynski, and may be a useful tool. Here is the approach outlined in the IBD commentary “Five Reasons Why Ridicule Is The Proper Response To Global Warming Alarmists.

Of course the alarmists can’t give up their shrillness. They’re still bullies who try to marginalize, shame and silence those who don’t agree with their narrative that man is dangerously overheating the planet through his greenhouse gas emissions.

But they’re the ones who should be mocked. Here’s why:

They’re wrong.

They’ve hidden their true agenda.

They’re hypocrites.

They’re authoritarians

CPUSA

BTW, the MO of the Climate Alarmists is to deny, deflect, deceive, distort, and attack. One favorite tactic is to “appeal to authority,” who are often the “Fact Checkers.” These favorite attack dogs are a tainted jury at best.

Be sure to “Like,” “Share,” “Subscribe,” and “Comment.” If you are real ambitious, please forward it on to President Trump.

Read More: How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate.

Climate “Science” on Trial; Climate McCartyism

global_warming_skepticsIf you have ever wondered how you can reach a 97% “consensus” on something as infinitely complex as and climate, even though the “experts” can’t even come close to modeling it, one needs to look no further than Middlebury University…or the Dark Ages. It is easy to reach a “consensus” when all opposing voices are removed from the discussion. While not directly related to climate change, the recent assault on a conservative professor and speaker at Middlebury University highlights just how far our Universities have strayed from their mission of providing a well-rounded quality education, protecting freedom of expression, exploration, and discovery, and ensuring that their students develop the critical analysis skills needed to succeed and function is any civilized society.  Today’s universities promote “safe-spaces,” censorship, discrimination and even violence against those that may hold opposing views, all in an effort to protect a Millennial participation trophy snowflake generation from “trigger words,” “micro-aggressions,” and “white privilege.”

America’s campuses have been in the grip of a creeping McCarthyism for years. McCarthyism, the word, stands for the extreme repression of ideas and for silencing speech…Today, polite liberals—in politics, academia and the media arts—watch in silent assent as McCarythyist radicals hound, repress and attack conservatives like Charles Murray for what they think, write and say.

I read Charles Murry’s “The Bell Curve” when it first came out in 1994, and what I remember most about the book was how the author repeatedly highlighted how none of the research he was covering was his own, he was simply reviewing the existing literature from existing research universities, many if not most of them, very liberal. Having worked in healthcare I found it surprising that simply stating that there are differences between the races and sexes was controversial. The field of medicine is well aware that there are infinite differences between races and sexes. Men will never suffer from ovarian cancer or die during childbirth, men will never suffer PMS or hot flashes. Few whites will ever suffer from cycle cell anemia, and melanomas are almost non-existent in the black population. Differences even exist between the religions, Tay-Sachs Disease affects largely the Jewish community. Eskimos have yellow faces due to a pigment related to the production of vitamin D and level of UV radiation/tanning. The differences are endless.still-of-raquel-welch-and-john-richardson-in-giganternas-kamp-(1966)

Man has evolved for over 2 million years and there is absolutely nothing politically correct about Mother Nature. Mother Nature gave us the antithesis of political correctness, Mother Nature gave us “survival of the fittest.” There are no “safe spaces” or “participation trophies” in the wild, there is only eat or be eaten. Mother Nature isn’t concerned with feelings hurt by “micro-aggressions,” Mother Nature is concerned with survival, and nothing else. There is absolutely no logical evolutionary argument that would have man evolving the same as women, they serve completely different purposes in the cycle of life and evolutionary process. The reason is very very simple; if you have 100 men and 1 woman you can produce about 1 child a year, and eventually, your species becomes extinct. If you have 100 women and 1 man, you can easily keep a species from extinction.maxresdefault (1) It is for that very reason that no society with an ounce of common sense would ever man the front lines with women. Women are infinitely more critical to the survival of the species than man is. The sexes are nowhere near equal when it comes to evolutionary importance. Men are cannon fodder. There is a common sense evolutionary reason for women to be risk adverse, communicative/highly verbal, very selective of the mate they choose and focused on raising children, and men to be the risk-taking, silent hunter gathers that will mate with just about anything that moves. Talkative hunters get eaten by tigers and bears and fail to bring home the bacon to the queen of the cave. That is the system designed over billion and billions of years that has kept species from going extinct. Mother Nature loves diversity, she hates equality. If she had wanted women to be men, she would have made them men. Never in the history of man, would you ever see a woman run to save an unrelated man from being eaten by a dinosaur, but that behavior is almost instinctive for a man.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Such talk is blasphemy to the political left, and making such comments can and have had serious consequences. Harvard President Larry Summers once dared to make the outrageous comment that there may be differences between the sexes. He promptly lost his job, such nonsense simply cannot be spoken on the campuses of our elite universities. I wonder what excuse the “experts” give for women not going into software development and computer programming, and why men don’t have shop-at-home jewelry parties? Almost every major company in Silicon Valley was created in the past 20 years, and there is nothing stopping women from writing code and creating apps in their basements, college dorms or garages. I personally have no interest in hosting a jewelry party, nor have I ever been invited to one by any of my male friends. The old excuses simply aren’t valid.

The president of Harvard University has provoked a furore by arguing that men outperform women in maths and sciences because of biological difference, and discrimination is no longer a career barrier for female academics.

2695360.jpgUnfortunately, and shockingly, many university professors condone censorship and even violence against those with whom they disagree. Many professors at Middlebury College actually signed a petition supporting the censorship. We have simply allowed the wrong people to educate our children, and society is paying a dear price for it.

Today, the smear is common for conservative speakers and thinkers. Prior to Mr. Murray’s scheduled talk at Middlebury, a student petition, signed by hundreds of faculty and alumni, sought to rescind the invitation because “we believe that Murray’s ideas have no place in rigorous scholarly conversation.” Such “disinvitations” have become routine.

joseph-stalin-quotes14Liberals seem to think that they are immune from attacks, but they aren’t, and at least one liberal professor has realized the monster that has been created. In the article titled “I’m a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me” Professor Edward Schlosser broke the code of silence and dared to speak out.

The real problem: a simplistic, unworkable, and ultimately stifling conception of social justice

This shift in student-teacher dynamic placed many of the traditional goals of higher education — such as having students challenge their beliefs — off limits. While I used to pride myself on getting students to question themselves and engage with difficult concepts and texts, I now hesitate. What if this hurts my evaluations and I don’t get tenure?

His fears are well justified, as this video of a “Social Justice Warrior” or SJW demonstrates how simple everyday events like Holloween can take on a whole new meaning when you are dealing with people whose main intent in life it to find something that offends them. That is how they exercise their power, they’ve learned that the squeaky wheel does get the grease.

Watch A Mob Of Yale Students Bully A Professor They Say Hurt Their Feelings
‘I want your job to be taken from you,’ shouts a student. ‘Let us define our own experiences,’ another student says. ‘Let us tell you if you’re being racist.’

“You should not sleep at night!” a female student shrieks at Yale sociology professor Nicholas Christakis in that video which has since gone viral. “You’re disgusting!”

This slideshow requires JavaScript.


The professors involved eventually had to resign, a true victory for the SJWs, a true loss for all of civil society. It also sends a warning to all liberals, like the father that feeds his family to the alligator hoping to appease it, eventually the alligator will return again hungry, and there will be no more children to feed it. Liberals aren’t known for their bravery, they are typically the ones spitting on our soldier heroes and burning our flag, not the ones rushing into harm’s way to protect the rights and freedoms of those that don’t appreciate them. When liberals find themselves in a firefight, no one will ever have their backs, they find themselves alone in their foxhole. Liberals don’t do “hero,” just ask any conservative or Muslim women the support they’ve gotten from the feminist “leaders.”

Let’s recognize that the failure to oppose McCarthyist creep from the left is also consuming liberal reputations. A key event here is what happened at Yale to Professors Erika and Nicholas Christakis, who were made to resign their positions last May over the infamous 2015 “Halloween” costumes incident.

Erika Christakis wrote later about the experience for the Washington Post and there is one unforgettable passage: “Few [of her colleagues] spoke up. And who can blame them? Numerous professors, including those at Yale’s top-rated law school, contacted us personally to say that it was too risky to speak their minds. Others who generously supported us publicly were admonished by colleagues for vouching for our characters.” That is McCarthyism at Yale.

Even being gay isn’t enough to protect you from the liberals if you are a conservative. Recently the Berkely Brownshirts rioted on campus preventing Milo from speaking.

Milo Yiannopoulos said Wednesday that the riot that canceled his planned speech at the University of California-Berkeley was “heavily ironic and very, I think, self-defeating for the social justice left.”…”No one’s safety is at risk from different opinions,” Yiannopoulos told “Tucker Carlson Tonight” in a phone interivew. “No one’s physical safety is endangered by political ideas from a speaker on campus, but universities have sort of allowed this stuff to happen, and even in some cases encouraged it.”

The Berkeley Student Newspaper defended the violence. Ironically, and tragically, this is how the Huffington Post reported on it.

That’s when a group of a few dozen, dressed in black, faces covered, stormed the building, dramatically knocking aside metal barricades, smashing windows and lighting fires. The police did very little to stop it, allowing them to blow off steam… I’ve been in protests throughout the world and this was, in many ways, one of the most frightening…And it was a sickening sight to see that they were trying to burn down the student union with people inside of it.

Fortunately, there is some hope still alive on our universities. After the outrageous acts of cowardly violence made the headlines, a few professors said “enough is enough,” and wrote a letter condemning the censorship and violence and published it in the WSJ. Fortunately, the letter will reach far more than the student petition to censor. The following are just a few of the principle.

Middlebury’s Statement of Principle

The principles are as follows:

Genuine higher learning is possible only where free, reasoned, and civil speech and discussion are respected.

Only through the contest of clashing viewpoints do we have any hope of replacing mere opinion with knowledge.

The incivility and coarseness that characterize so much of American politics and culture cannot justify a response of incivility and coarseness on the college campus.

The impossibility of attaining a perfectly egalitarian sphere of free discourse can never justify efforts to silence speech and debate.

Exposure to controversial points of view does not constitute violence.

The University of Chicago has also recently taken a stand against this tide of censorship and wrote a letter warning snowflake freshmen that there will be no “safe spaces” for them to hide.

“Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own,”

Dr. Lindzen recently wrote a letter to President Trump regarding his concerns about “science” of climate change. It appears others at MIT have yet to get the memo, and wrote a letter in response, apparently choosing to live in denial regarding the recent election.

1643035180-Stalin_QuoteCalling what is happening on university campuses “McCarthysim” however is unfair to McCarthy. During the McCarthy Era, many facts about the cold war were unknown, and those hidden facts were used to undermine Senator McCarthy. It was only after the fall of Communism that the truth was actually known. After the Berlin Wall came down, many documents regarding the “Venona Project” were released, many of them vindicating Senator McCarthy, and proving that many of the people he accused of aiding the Communists were, in fact, doing so. The dangers Senator McCarthy fought against are now on full display in Hollywood and our liberal universities. The Communist Goals of 1958 remain alive and well today.quote-the-press-of-italy-is-free-freer-than-the-press-of-any-other-country-so-long-as-it-supports-benito-mussolini-83-82-97

The harassment and intimidation of those with differing views displayed at Middlebury College isn’t unique and is well documented in the field of climate “science.” The left simply believes that is you remove one side of the argument from the debate the other side wins, that simply isn’t how real science works. A free society simply cannot succeed if its universities and journalists are converted to propaganda tools.

“You gotta be real careful around here,” Allen noted. “You get beat up if you don’t believe what everybody else believes. This is like ’30s Germany.”

Allen, 63, plays an outspoken conservative on the sitcom “Last Man Standing” and is one of the few actors in Hollywood to profess having right-wing leanings.

To counter this disturbing trend President Trump should:

  1. Deny federal funding and student loans to universities that demonstrate a significant staffing bias discriminating against Conservatives
  2. Deny research grants to universities that participated in the Global Warming Hoax
  3. Ensure that any federally funded research used to support  public policy can be independently verified and replicated
  4. Direct federal funding to those universities that welcome the military and have a balanced staff representing the entire political spectrum
  5. Rule “speech codes” unconstitutional an violate the civil right guaranteed in the 1st Amendment
  6. Deny federal funding to any university offering “safe-spaces”
  7. Support civil rights lawsuits against universities that suppress free speech

Screen-Shot-2017-03-10-at-8.23.06-PMBTW, the MO of the Climate Alarmists is to deny, deflect, deceive, distort, and attack. One favorite tactic is to “appeal to authority,” who are often the “Fact Checkers.” These favorite attack dogs are a tainted jury at best.

Be sure to “Like,” “Share,” “Subscribe,” and “Comment.” If you are real ambitious, please forward it on to President Trump.

Read More: How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate.

Climate “Science” on Trial; Germany Builds Wind Farms While NATO Burns

unnamedOne of the most outrageous examples of how climate “science” totally distorts national priorities and misallocates resources is how Germany is spending an absolute fortune on fighting climate change while failing to meet their NATO obligations of spending 2% of their GDP on defense.

How much does Germany spend on climate finance?
Germany increased its climate finance from €471 million in 2005 to just over €2 billion in 2013. Furthermore, Chancellor Merkel promised a doubling of climate finance to €4 billion by 2020 in the summer of 2015. This is a step in the right direction, even though Germany’s share of the $100 billion pledge is generally considered to be ten percent (i.e. $10 billion or €7-8 billion) based on the country’s relative economic performance.

Germany is so proud of how much money they waste on fighting climate change that they brag about being second only to Japan in the amount of money they waste on fighting climate change.

How does Germany compare internationally?
Internationally, Germany is one of the largest donors in climate finance. In absolute terms, with its €2 billion in 2013, Germany was in second place behind Japan.

What has Germany gotten for all this spending? Extremely high energy costs and increased blackouts. Germany has literally been cutting down old growth forests to build wind-farms.

While Germany seems to be able to find plenty of money to pour down the climate change rat hole, they never seem to be able to fully fund their NATO obligations. Germany and other NATO countries are expected to spend 2% of their GDP on the common defense. Germany barely pays half of what is owed. The US pays over 3X what Germany does to NATO as a percent of GDP, and the US has a GDP 5X that of Germany.160708114244-chart-spending-percentage-gdp-780x439

Germany had a GDP of $3,467,552 million in 2016, 2% of which is $69 billion. Germany paid about $41 billion, leaving the other countries, mainly the US, to make up for the $28 billion shortfall.

To put things in perspective, President Trump’s proposed Southern Wall is estimated to cost between $12 to $15 billion $12 to $15 billion. Getting Germany to fully fund their NATO obligations would provide enough money to build  2 walls. Many of President Trump’s spending initiatives could be paid for simply by making our foreign allies pay their “fair share.” Personally, I doubt the sanctimonious socialists will continue promoting the concept of “fairness” one they are the ones that actually are the ones paying to achieve it.

On Thursday, Senate leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, said Congress will follow through on Trump’s border wall order, and McConnell estimated it will cost $15 billion at most — he cited a range of $12 billion to $15 billion.

ee3540c628b50885f0e64768fd288592President Trump is 100% correct in demanding that Germany pays its fair share of the NATO expenses. If they have enough money to waste fighting the Quixotic war on climate change, they should at least be funding the military enough to fight real wars. The less American has to spend making up the shortfalls of our allies, the more money she will have to spend on domestic issues. The America taxpayers will benefit far more from new roads, school choice scholarships, better healthcare, the wall, and a stronger military than they do from picking up the check for Germany and other Nations. The Free Lunch Club’s rent is long overdue.  Screen-Shot-2016-08-31-at-17.39.58-640x480

BTW, the MO of the Climate Alarmists is to deny, deflect, deceive, distort, and attack. One favorite tactic is to “appeal to authority,” who are often the “Fact Checkers.” These favorite attack dogs are a tainted jury at best.

Be sure to “Like,” “Share,” “Subscribe,” and “Comment.” If you are real ambitious, please forward it on to President Trump.

Read More: How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate

Climate “Science” on Trial; Temperature Records Don’t Support NASA GISS

graph1

One of the oddest aspects of climate “science” is that NASA, the organization that put a man on the moon, ignores its state of the art Satellite and balloon data, and instead relies upon archaic terrestrial ground measurements. Part of the NASA climate “science” community actually ignore the infinitely more accurate data from their satellites. The reason for this bizarre irony is obvious, the satellite data shows no non-El Nino warming since its inception in 1979. The 13 mo moving average in 2012 was the same as in 1980, and below the level reached in 1987. Last month’s level was about the same as the peak level reached in 1983. Temperatures were essentially flat between 1980 and 1998, interrupted by a very strong El Nino, and then flat again from late 1998 and 2016, and then interrupted by another very strong El Nino. Temperatures on the satellite data are highly volatile ranging from a low of -0.5 to a high of 0.85, or a full 1.35 Degree C range. Right now the deviation is near an extreme, having bottomed in 1985 at -0.5, and just recently peaking at 0.85. The Above NASA GISS ground measurement chart shows a smooth increase from a low of -0.25 Degree C in 1979 to peak of 1.25 Degree in 2017, a range of a full 1.50 Degree C. Unlike the satellite data which shows El Nino/Nina peaks and troughs, and no real trend, the ground measurements show a clear and constant positive slope to the smoothed temperatures. UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2017_v6

That, however, isn’t the problem NASA GISS faces, the problem the NASA GISS faces is that their chart is completely inconsistent with the long-term thermometer data sets. The ground measurements are subject to all sorts of errors, a major one being that they get moved around a lot, stations get added and subtracted, and the “Urban Heat Island Effect.”. In 1990 many of the colder stations in Russia dropped out, and since 1940, the stations have been gradually moving towards the very warm equator. For reference, 52 N is Amsterdam, 32 N is Tucson.Screen-Shot-2017-03-05-at-4.17.26-PM

This chart demonstrates the “Heat Island Effect” where two relative close localities have dramatically different temperature histories. Both have essentially the same Lat/Long and CO2, but one has far more heat-absorbing buildings, black asphalt/tar roads/roofs, and steel. West Point has actually COOLED since 1820 and shows absolutely no warming trend. Dr. “Willy” Soon adjusted the data sets for the “Urban Heat Island Effect” and found the globe has a temperature history much like West Point. BTW, New York got its first skyscraper, the Tacoma Building, in 1889, the Manhattan Bridge in 1909, and Yellow Taxi was founded in 1915. The more building and roads were added to Manhattan, the more heat it absorbed, the hotter it got. WestPoint-NY

From 1880 to 2001, the NASS GISS global temperature increase from -0.6 to 0.6, an increase of 1.2 Degree C. Over that same time period, the temperatures in New York City increased from 11 Degree C to 12.5 Degree C, or about 1.5 Degree C. Using New York and West Point, it can be claimed that 100% or more of the NASA GISS recorded warming is due to the “Urban Heat Island Effect,” which is consistent with Dr. Willy Soons’ findings.

It gets worse for NASA GISS, however, because none of the long-term thermometer temperature records examined by Dr. Phil “Hide-the-Decline” Jones show any significant warming, and none of them show warming to the degree of 1.2 Degree C. Before all the hype about global warming reached a fever pitch, Dr. Jones examined and published research on the longest thermometer records available, the oldest starting in 1659 (39 years after the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock).LT1

Dr. Jones compiled records for a) Winter b) Spring c) Summer d) Autumn and e) Annual. The results are devastating to the climate alarmists. None, nada, zip show significant warming, some in fact show cooling, and the vast majority are either flat since 1880, or down. The question becomes “how can NASA GISS show 1.2 Degree C warming when none of the consistent long-term temperature records do?” Why, if we do have global warming, aren’t the thermometers picking it up?  Either the thermometers are lying, or the “experts” at NASA GISS are lying, but they can’t both be right. Clearly, the “Urban Heat Island Effect” combined with relocation/location of the weather stations is what is causing the NASA GISS warming, not CO2. Here is the data to prove it. I’ve added arrows and a line to help better see the relevant points. The arrows signify temperatures either cooler, no warming trend, or temperatures well below a previous peak. The dark bar is to help visualize the starting point of 1880. None, absolutely none, of these charts resembles anything similar to the NASA GISS temperature reconstruction, absolutely none.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Figure (a) Figure (b) Figure (c) Figure (d) Figure (e)

BTW, the MO of the Climate Alarmists is to deny, deflect, deceive, distort, and attack. One favorite tactic is to “appeal to authority,” who are often the “Fact Checkers.” These favorite attack dogs are a tainted jury at best.

Be sure to “Like,” “Share,” “Subscribe,” and “Comment.” If you are real ambitious, please forward it on to President Trump.

Read More: How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate