Ceteris Paribus; Less is More, Use Only Data Sets That Don’t Require “Adjustments.”

Capture23.PNG

CO2 blankets the globe at 400 ppm, so as far as any cross-sectional multivariable model it is considered a constant. In other words, at any one period in time, CO2 can not explain regional differences in temperature. CO2 is 400 ppm at the N. Pole, S. Pole, and the Equator. You can’t explain a variation with a constant, especially one that traps outgoing, not incoming radiation.

CO2, however, does vari over a time series. Each year CO2 increased by about 4 ppm, or about 1%, and vari as much as 11 ppm peak to trough. CO2, therefore, can explain variation over time of temperature. Key is, for all modern data sets, CO2 since the beginning of the industrial age, the period of study, CO2 only increases, it never decreases. If CO2 is the independent variable and temperature is the dependent variable, ceteris paribus, CO2 can only cause temperature to increase. CO2 can not explain drops in temperature. There is no defined mechanism by which CO2, trapping LWIR between 13 and 18 microns, can ever result in cooling. Absorbing radiation can only cause warming according to the AGW theory. In reality, CO2 causes cooling, not by absorbing, but by

Absorbing radiation can only cause warming according to the AGW theory. In reality, CO2 causes cooling, not by absorbing, but by increasing the transmission of radiation into outer-space. Greenhouse gasses impact temperature in two ways. The first and one embraced by the climate alarmists is through the absorption and “thermalization” of the outgoing radiation. Greenhouse gasses get “excited” when they absorb LWIR. No argument there. The “excitement” of the greenhouse gas is only temporary, and the absorbed radiation is rapidly re-radiated. This re-radiation of energy, directed away from the earth, rapidly transfers the energy out of the atmosphere and into outer-space resulting in cooling of the atmosphere. So greenhouse gasses can both warm and cool the atmosphere.  mlo_two_years

Because CO2 blankets the globe, there is really no need to include all areas, in fact, a well-run experiment would seek to remove many/any places that are impacted by factors over than CO2. In science, you want to “control” for as many factors as you can, and attempt to isolate the impact of changing just the independent variable on the dependent variable, i.e ceteris paribus.

Land measurement are all contaminated by many many many factors other than CO2, the best known is the “urban heat island effect.” Climate “scientists” compound this problem far far far more than they have to. CO2 is 400 ppm over the cities and is 400 ppm over the oceans. Oceans almost uniformly cover over 70% of the earth’s surface and inner Antarctica is almost uniformly snow. The oceans and inland Antarctica are ideal “controls” for the impact of CO2 on temperature.

Antarctic shows no warming since the late 1950’s even though CO2 has increased significantly, none. Neither do the oceans. The introductory graphic is a compilation of ocean lower troposphere temperatures. That data can be found here. Prior to the recent El Nino, temperatures were below the level reached in the early 1980s. While there are large variations, there is no significant established trend of warming. NASA/NOAA/CRU “adjusting” surface temperature data gathered in areas where the corruption of the CO2 temperature relationship is guaranteed demonstrates an ignorance of biblical proportions of collecting relevant data and proper modeling or a willful effort to deceive the public. By using known corrupted data sets, it has allowed the “adjustment” of the global climate data to fit the desired outcome.

In reality, a real scientist would want less temperature data, not more data. The climate data collected to study the impact of CO2 on climate should be limited to the areas there the impact of CO2 and temperature can be isolated and doesn’t need “adjustment.” Many real scientists like Dr. Willy Soon spend countless hours trying to “un-adjust” the data sets in an effort to reach the truth. These are noble efforts, but by using surface ground measurements, the data will always be corrupted. Interestingly, if one isolates the ground temperature measurements to just the locations that have long term unadjusted thermometer data, one also finds no warming. Only when the data gets “adjusted” does the warming develop. To fix this problem, the need to “adjust” the data should be eliminated. Only data that isolates the impact of CO2 on temperature should be used, and that data comes from over the oceans and inland Antarctica, and that data shows no warming.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

If President Trump wants to cut government spending, he should start by cutting all funding that is being used to collect corrupted data sets. Why spend money to only complicate the issue, and reward the propagation of psuedo-science? Data collection should be directed at collecting the purest data relevant to the theory. If CO2 drives temperature is the theory, collect data that best helps establish that connection. The data being collected today requires extreme “adjustments” and concentrates a lot of power in the hands of unelected guardians of the key, the keepers of the climate ring. The possibility of corruption is simply too high, and the consequences too great to risk.

Advertisements

Rules for Climate Radicals; “Accuse the Other Side of That Which You Are Guilty”

tumblr_obfxcb8S521ruckzqo1_500-e1471451827922

Watching the recent US Congressional House Committee on Science and Technology Hearing titled “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific MethodClimate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method, it became abundantly clear that the topic of climate change is a war being fought on two fronts. The science front was represented Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., and the political front was represented by Dr. Michael Mann. The problem this creates is that “Congressional Hearings” are political events, they aren’t interested in the truth, they are about promoting an agenda. Congress isn’t populated with scientists, it is populated with activists, many of whom are representing constituents that make a living off the

The problem this creates is that “Congressional Hearings” are political events, they aren’t interested in the truth, they are about promoting an agenda. Congress isn’t populated with scientists, it is populated with activists, many of whom are representing constituents that make a living off the climate change gravy train. To them, the truth represents a cut in pay and must be denied and undermined, not embraced. A congressional hearing is the antithesis of a scientific research lab, it simply isn’t the natural habitat for a real scientist, the playing field isn’t level, the referees are corrupt, and the rulebook is constantly changing after the game has started. Paradoxically, the expected outcome of a congressional hearing would be for the real scientists to lose the argument. The reasoned scientific method wins logical scientific debates, not heated political campaigning. Putting real scientists in front of congress is like

A congressional hearing is the antithesis of a scientific research lab, it simply isn’t the natural habitat for a real scientist, the playing field isn’t level, the referees are corrupt, and the rulebook is constantly changing after the game has started. Paradoxically, the expected outcome of a congressional hearing would be for the real scientists to lose the argument. The reasoned scientific method wins logical scientific debates, not heated political campaigning. Putting real scientists in front of congress is like throwing tuna to the sharks.

In his essay, “Reflections on Mark Steyn’s ‘A Disgrace to the Profession’ about Dr. Michael Mann” Rick Wallace wrote,

Tim Ball, Fred Singer and others have been countering the AGW meme for a few decades, but to little avail.

Real science is constrained by what is called “the tyranny of the status quo.” In real science to win the debate, overwhelming evidence must be provided. In real science winning the majority vote means nothing, the null has to be rejected at confidence levels as high as 90, 95 and even 99%. Science papers that reject the null at the 51% confidence level are themselves rejected. Science isn’t a democracy. Science is highly discriminatory. Science demands discipline and accountability. Science has no feelings and isn’t compassionate. There are no safe spaces, affirmative action or participation trophies in science. Science has ridged rules and consequences for failure. Science is “one strike you’re out” intolerant. Science is black and white, Science doesn’t grade on a curve, you are either right or wrong. Science isn’t inclusive, the truth is a very exclusive club that rejects many applicants. There is no gray zone in science. Science is extremely conservative. In other words, real science is the pinnacle of political incorrectness. Politics isn’t bound by the truth, it is bound by the vote, and therefore, the non-scientist has an

Science isn’t a democracy. Science is highly discriminatory. Science demands discipline and accountability. Science has no feelings and isn’t compassionate. There are no safe spaces, affirmative action or participation trophies in science. Science has ridged rules and consequences for failure. Science is “one strike you’re out” intolerant. Science is black and white, Science doesn’t grade on a curve, you are either right or wrong. Science isn’t inclusive, the truth is a very exclusive club that rejects many applicants. There is no gray zone in science. Science is extremely conservative. In other words, real science is the pinnacle of political incorrectness. Politics isn’t bound by the truth, it is bound by the vote, and therefore, the non-scientist has an extreme advantage when it comes to testifying in front of congress.

‘If the climate-change evangelist can’t be bothered to take a House hearing seriously, why should anyone take him seriously?”

This is incorrect. Mann took it very seriously, was well prepared and exploited it for every political opportunity – he dominated the entire proceedings. He had the advantage of not caring or having to care about the truth. His performance was designed for most of the public who have no idea about what is true. He knows this works because that assumption has driven the juggernaut from the start.

Mann also understood the political and manipulative nature of Congressional hearings. They are charades supposedly seeking the truth, but are really designed to make the politicians look good.

The hardest thing for real scientists to accept is that modern climate “science” isn’t about nor was it ever about real science. Modern climate “science” has its roots in the IPCC, the Inter-GOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change.  Climate change is a means to an end. Climate change is a means to undermine capitalism and redistribute wealth. If global “equality” is the desired outcome, the leftist’s way to impose equality is to take from the rich and give to the poor. Climate change is a World Socialist’s wet dream. The socialists don’t even try to hide that fact, they write books and protest about it.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

For the real scientists to succeed in congressional testimonies, they must “Know Thy Enemy,” and adjust the battle plan accordingly. Real scientists must learn to present their truthful scientific arguments in a manner that is conducive to political success. Winning the scientific battle, but losing the political battle results in losing the war. The real scientists continuing to fight the science battle in front of congress is like Hillary campaigning in NY and California to win the Presidency, it is a losing battle plan. Real scientists have already convinced the conservatives in Congress. Talking real science in congress is preaching to the conservative choir. News flash to real scientists!!! Donald Trump won the election, real science already has their votes. Real science doesn’t need to convince Ted Cruz anymore, what you need to do is convince Sen “I Bully Women” Markey. Real science needs to spread the real science gospel to the real science non-believers.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

To spread the gospel to the real science non-believers, one simply needs to study how real science non-believer leaders communicate to their obedient flock of followers. Fortunately for the real scientists, there are plenty of documented examples and actual books written about leftist political tactics. The political left is very proud of their “community organizing” abilities and willingly share their knowledge with everyone. To most, the sterilized homogenized dystopian detailed in Orwell’s “1984” was a warning, to others, it is a guidebook. Propaganda tactics invented during the 1930’s were later perfected by leftist agitators in the 1960s. Such agitators as Frank Marshall Davis and Saul Alinsky had great influence on President Obama and Hillary Clinton. Trust me, people that embrace the tactics detailed in a book dedicated to the Devil don’t give a rat’s ass about the scientific truth.

Alinsky’s most famous book, the 1971 Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals, includes a dedication to “the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”

As for Clinton, there is no doubt that she was deeply impressed by Alinsky’s work. In 1969, she wrote “‘There Is Only the Fight …’: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model,” a 92-page senior thesis at Wellesley College on the elder radical’s tactics. At the Clintons’ request, the thesis was embargoed until after they left the White House.

1-hopwVmNGjVLdgswpcKsLGg

One the most common and effective propaganda tactics of the left is to “Accuse the Other Side of That Which You Are Guilty.” That tactic was clearly demonstrated by Michael “I’m a Victim” Mann in the recent congressional testimony. In the testimony Michael “They’re Picking on Me” Mann claimed to be the victim of ad-hominem attacks and lies. In other words, the ring leader of the well-documented attacks on real scientist is playing the victim card. To highlight just how absurd this claim is, Michael Mann wrote a book that effectively called real scientists “deniers” on its cover. He even called fellow members of the congressional testimony “deniers” in his written testimony (Link to the must see video). Michael Mann’s work was certainly attacked, the “Hockey-Stick” is probably the most discredited piece of “scientific” work in world history, but the critics weren’t attacking Michael Mann, they were attacking his laughably poor “scientific” work.

Why is this “Accuse the Other Side of That Which You Are Guilty” so effective?

  1. It immediately puts the innocent opposition on the defensive
  2. The innocent opposition has to waste valuable time refuting a lie and not addressing the issue
  3. It has perverse consequences of making the innocent guilty and guilty innocent
  4. Its impact is asymmetrical, falsely accusing the innocent elicits a completely different response than truthfully accusing the guilty
  5. Falsely accusing the innocent catches them completely unprepared, there are infinite numbers of false accusations one can draw from, and there is no way to prepare or anticipate all of them. The guilty knows of their true guilt, they know what they truly did, and they have time to prepare a thoroughly deceitful response to hide their guilt
  6. The accusation is what makes the headlines, the retraction gets printed on page 6 if at allalinskys-rules-for-radicals

How then can real scientists use the “Accuse the Other Side of That Which You Are Guilty” to their advantage is an honest manner that doesn’t require sacrificing their integrity?

  1. Properly expose the behavior that one is truly guilty. By falsely accusing the other of guilt, they expose what they are truly guilt. Their false accusation becomes a self-admission of guilt. Michael Mann has reason to be ashamed of being a member of groups that actively promote attacking real scientist. Exposing the truth forced him to be caught in a lie, and “deny” the easily proven truth. The political value of this video easily outweighs any of the scientific discussion. This is the video that will be posted on countless websites and news sources. This video demonstrates how a real scientist can win both the scientific and political battle. The truth is the real scientists greatest ally, expose it, expose it in a manner that the non-scientist can understand.
  2. One of Saul Alynski’s rules if that ridicule is that “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” Ridicule is an appropriate tactic when directed towards the guilty. There is nothing improper with calling a liar a liar to expose the truth. Dr. Judith Curry demonstrates this approach is a manner that should get her nominated to the Real Science Hall of Fame. The video clip highlighted in this linked article should be donated to the Smithsonian and saved in the National Archives. Adding proper ridicule to counter the “Accuse the Other Side of That Which You Are Guilty” tactic is particularly effective. Once again, Dr. Judith Curry’s video of her refuting Michael Mann is worth far more than all of the science discussion. Her non-science related comments are worth far more than all the science discussion. Her comments will change the hearts and minds of the fence-sitters, and in a 50/50 America, that is what counts. That is the path to victory.
  3. Don’t let the climate alarmist put you on the defensive, don’t take the bate. When a false accusation is leveled, say that it is ridiculous, demand evidence which never exists for a false accusation, and then put the accuser of the defensive. Dr. Judith Curry could have also said: “Your false statement is ridiculous, you have no evidence to back your claim, but there is plenty of evidence, much of which is recorded in your written testimony that proves you are guilty of those accusations.” By phrasing it that way, Michael Mann is put on the defensive and exposed as being either a liar, ignorant, hypocrite or all the above, none of which are good.

This article is the second of a series that will explore the political tactics that may help the real scientists win the climate change war.  As noted, this is a two-front war, and this series is the battle plan for winning on the political front.

Related:

Climate Change is a Political Battle, Not a Scientific One

“It’s Official, Global Warming and Higher CO2 Ended the California Drought!!!”

With Friends Like Environmentalists, the World Doesn’t Need Enemies

Climate “Science” Pillars of Sand; Eroding the Foundation of the Hoax

Climate “Science” Gone Mad; The True Face of Envirofascism

Climate “Science” is Pseudo-Science; A Point-by-Point Proof

The Benefits of Higher CO2 Levels; Fewer Hurricanes, Greater Prosperity, Longer Life

Michael Mann Just Jumped the Climate Change Shark

Scientists Not Served Here; Real Scientists Need Not Apply

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

Climate “Science” on Trial; Climate McCartyism

Climate “Science” on Trial; A Weaponized Generation

Climate “Science” on Trial; How Does Ice Melt In Sub-Zero Temperatures?

Climate “Science” on Trial; Clear-Cutting Forests to Save the Trees

Climate “Science” on Trial; Cherry Picking Locations to Manufacture Warming

Climate “Science” on Trial; The Prophet Eisenhower Warned Us About Climate Scientists

Climate “Science” on Trial; Confirmed Mythbusters Busted Practicing Science Sophistry

Climate “Science” on Trial; The Consensus is more Con and NonSense than Science

Just How Much Does 1 Degree C Cost?

Climate Bullies Gone Wild; Caught on Tape and Print

With Friends Like Environmentalists, the World Doesn’t Need Enemies

maxresdefault (3)

One of the greatest horror stories I’ve ever read was “Playing God in Yellowstone: The Destruction of America’s First National Park.” It is a truly heartbreaking story of how well-meaning but terribly misguided and frankly ignorant environmentalists were allowed to apply their ecological “science” to the Yellowstone Park. The results were catastrophic, and provide many lessons about how hubris lead to disaster.

The same hubris that lead to the disaster of Yellowstone can be seen today on fully display in front of the US Congress, as climate alarmists spew their unquestioning allegiance to the Carbon God of Climate Change. We simply can not allow the same groups of people that destroyed Yellowstone to repeat their ego-driven sanctimonious crusade of destruction on a global scale. Yellowstone is a warning to everyone that trusting environmentalists is not only harmful to your wellbeing, it may destroy the very world they proclaim to protect.

For those who don’t want to read the 500-page book, here is a video that highlights its main points, it is very much worth watching. BTW, killing whales may have resulted in higher atmospheric CO2 levels. Petroleum helped save the whales. I wonder if that IPCC put that factor in their models?  Because much of nature is counter-intuitive it requires real science to get to the truth. If something isn’t fully understood,  the conclusions reached may result in policies that only make the condition worse.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

“It’s Official, Global Warming and Higher CO2 Ended the California Drought!!!”

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

If the climate realists used the same tactics as the climate alarmists today’s headlines across the globe would read “It’s Official, Global Warming and Higher CO2 Ended the California Drought!!!” The entire climate change house of cards is largely based upon pseudo-science, where an outlier observation is portrayed as the norm. For example, the bleaching of the coral reefs is due to exposure to the sun, not more CO2. The loss of Arctic sea Ice is largely due to natural changes in the ocean and wind currents. Recent claims of a warming Antarctica are based upon an extreme case of cherry picking. Global temperature records are greatly influenced by known non-CO2 related factors such as the Urban Heat Island Effect, that when adjusted for, eliminate most of if not all warming from the data set. Experiments to demonstrate CO2 caused warming are simply laughable, as are the IPCC models created to “prove” the highly flawed theory. The number of hurricanes has collapsed, but you won’t find that in the headlines.

None of that matters however because climate “science” isn’t about science, it is about politics. It is all about how the story is spun. In reality, the “Social Cost of Carbon” is negative. There are astronomical benefits to burning fossil fuels and higher CO2 levels. Life expectancy, quality of life and economic growth have all increased along with atmospheric CO2.  As has the “greening of the Northern Hemisphere.” Higher crop yields and lower food and energy prices are all directly associated with petroleum production and higher CO2 levels.  Societies thrive during warm periods, they collapse during cooling and Ice Ages. Now, with the ending of the devastating California drought, by sticking with the standards and methods consistent with the field of climate “science,” we can now claim that global warming and the burning of fossil fuels has ended the California drought. The CO2 evidence is overwhelming. Higher CO2 “caused” the end to the California drought. The numbers simply don’t lie.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

A Picture Paints a Thousand Words; Two Pictures that Say it All

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

California was preparing for a continued drought, not by building desalination plants, but by building wind and solar farms. In the meantime, they neglected to maintain their dams.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Climate “Science” Pillars of Sand; Eroding the Foundation of the Hoax

pillars-of-sand-L-Jr0WX7Real science is founded in the “scientific method.” It relies on data, experimentation, falsification of a hypothesis and reproducibility. “Science” that isn’t reproducible is black magic, superstition, witchcraft, coincidence, Oracle’s riddles, and Soothsayer’s visions. Climate “science” isn’t founded in the scientific method, it instead rests upon the pillars of:

  1. Peer Reviewed Literature
  2. Scientific Consensus
  3. Professional Science/Academic Organization support
  4. Computer model “evidence”
  5. A hypothesis
  6. This is a real “science”

Listen to any Congressional Testimony by Michael “Hockeystick” Mann, and he will rattle these off as if he was auditioning for an auctioneer’s job. The Mann deserves an Oscar more than he deserves his “Nobel Prize.”

My impressions from the hearing were not positive. Mann spoke for almost half of the time and boldly asserted the most extreme alarmist positions and factoids (quoting from my own notes): “devoted his life to science [about himself]”, “few individuals who represent tiny minority [about other three witnesses]”, “scientists continuously challenge each other [implying he is a scientist]”, “extremely broad agreement on the basic facts,” 97%, “climate change is real, human caused, and has heavy impact”, “fingerprints of human-caused climate change on extreme events”, “anti-science forces launched a series of attack on scientists”, “time for republicans to put away doubts and focus on solutions”, “discourage investigations of climate scientists,” and “support by multiple national academic societies.”

Everything Michael Mann says is practiced, focus group tested, tightly controlled and intended to win the hearts and minds of the American voter. It has absolutely nothing to do with science, and everything to do with funding, policy, and politics. The talking points are widely distributed to all the left-wing support groups, so everyone is singing the same toon (Must watch video of when simply reciting talking points can go seriously wrong). For climate realists to win his fight, they have to master Mann on the field of politics, not science. Winning the scientific battle, and losing the political battle, is losing the war.

To win the political battle, climate realists must topple the pillars of sand that are supporting Michael Mann’s arguments. Fortunately, most of these pillars of sand holding each other up, so toppling one topples others as well.

Let’s tackle “Peer Review” first because most others rest upon it. Michael Mann and other alarmists will claim that 97% of “Peer Reviewed” literature support the hypothesis of man-made global warming. That may be true, but very few of papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method. Much of what has been published can’t be reproduced. Being published in a “Scientific” journal doesn’t mean it followed the scientific method or is reproducible. Many articles published in “scientific” journals are nothing more than editorials, speculation, activism, and/or propaganda. It is likely none of the climate research follows the scientific method, and what

Being published in a “Scientific” journal doesn’t mean it followed the scientific method or is reproducible. Many articles published in “scientific” journals are nothing more than editorials, speculation, activism, and/or propaganda. It is likely none of the climate research follows the scientific method, and what experimentation does exist is a complete joke. Reproducibility means nothing when the experiment being replicated doesn’t prove what it was intended to in the first place.

What that means is that the golden standard, the bedrock supporting the entire field of climate change, the hallowed “Peer Review,” doesn’t require any science to get approved. What kind of scientific “peer review” doesn’t require any science? Simple, a very very corrupt one. One whose treachery and tyranny were exposed in the climate gate emails. That is the only way something like the “Hockeystick” could ever make it past any “peer review” process, if real science was required, it wouldn’t make it past the mailbox.

In the future, anyone testifying before congress should be required to submit their supporting evidence in advance so that an impartial analysis can be applied to see if it truly qualifies as real science. The first question directed towards any climate alarmist should simply be what journal published the research on which you base your opinion, and does that journal require the application of the scientific method and reproducibility. Climate alarmists should also have to explain how the results of the IPCC climate models are scientific “evidence” supporting their claims. In reality, the results of the IPCC climate models reject the AGW theory, they don’t support it.

b40bb-haroldhaydenipcc

Second, comes the scientific “consensus.” The problem with this concept is that the “science” journals aren’t publishing science, they are publishing opinion. As mentioned above many published articles don’t apply the scientific method, and/or detain reproducible experiments. What good is a “scientific consensus” if the research it is based upon isn’t science? It is a farce. The second question directed towards any climate alarmist should simply be “if the journals on which the “consensus” are based aren’t publishing real science, what good is the “consensus.” Isn’t this more like the blind leading the blind? If the requirement of applying the scientific method and reproducibility aren’t requirements for journals supporting the “consensus,” couldn’t the “consensus” be based upon Comic Books? Just how valid is the research supporting the “consensus.”la-et-jc-first-superman-comic-book-record-price-3-point-2-million-20140825.jpg

Third, comes the support of Professional Science/Academic Organizations. These are the groups performing and publishing the research that isn’t reproducible and doesn’t apply the scientific method. Once again, what kind of “scientific” organization would allow a “scientific peer review” to pass such garbage as the “Hockeystick?” Additionally, the “opinon” of the organizations are usually of the leadership, not the rank-and-file. And even if the opinion reflects a “poll” of its members the questions are often too vague to have any validity or meaning, and the frustrated opposition may have simply resigned as members. Lastly, the membership of these organizations may require no credentials at all

Additionally, the membership of these organizations may require no credentials at all other than a valid credit card. The below dog is a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. No, really, he is, just click the above link. The third question directed towards any climate alarmist should simply be what research is supporting the opinion of the organization, and who is represented by that opinion? The leaders or the members? If the members, what questions were used to reach the opinion? Did the people forming the opinion base their opinion on research that didn’t require the application of the scientific method and reproducibility?kenji_watts

The fourth pillar is the computer model “evidence.”  Climate “science” is the only field of science that I’m aware of that doesn’t apply the scientific method, run experiments and considers computer simulations as evidence. If computer forecast models counted as factual evidence every climate “scientist” would be working on Wall Street. All one wound need to do is write some code that shows the markets going up, and whalah, you’re a multi-trillionaire.  The fourth question directed towards any climate alarmist should simply be if computer models are evidence and represent facts, why do computer financial models always fail? BTW, computer models show absolutely no warming in the lower troposphere with a doubling of CO2, absolutely zero.stock-market-flash-crash-model-12

The fifth pillar is the only part of the scientific method that applies to climate “science.” There is a legitimate hypothesis, and that hypothesis is that anthropogenic greenhouse gasses cause climate change/global warming. In reality, it has to be global warming because the only mechanism by which CO2 can affect the climate is by absorbing outgoing longwave infrared radiation. The problem is, when the null hypothesis “climate change is due to natural causes” is tested, it isn’t rejected. Simply applying the scientific method to the available data results in the AGW hypothesis being rejected.

The entire field of climate “science” is based upon a hypothesis that is rejected when the scientific method is applied. And they call the “deniers” the flat earthers. The fifth question directed towards any climate alarmist should simply be “have you tested the hypothesis “climate change is due to natural causes” and was it rejected?” If they say yes, have them produce the data. There isn’t an ice core data set anywhere that shows that the temperature change over the past 150 years is statistically different from the Holocene average, at least not any I’ve found. More importantly, if you use unadjusted data, it is hard to make a case for any real warming over the past 300 years.

Screen-Shot-2013-07-17-at-9.07.15-PMThe last pillar of sand is that the climate alarmists always claim that the “science” is “settled” and that it is proven with 95% certainty that man has caused 100% of warming over the past half-century, blah blah blah. First science is never “settled,” science is a process of exploration and understanding. Understanding something as infinitely complex as the global climate will never be settled. If something is understood it can be modeled, and the climate experts have proven beyond any reasonable doubt that they can’t do that. Second, science doesn’t ever “prove” anything, real science “rejects” a hypothesis, it never “accepts” or proves a hypothesis. BTW, note how global warming and climate change are used interchangeably in this graphic. Also, just what does “humans are responsible for climate change” even mean? Put down a highway or build a city and you cause climate change, but it isn’t due to CO2. Lastly, the “publishing climate scientists” and those with “greater climate expertise” are the very people publishing the garbage in the un-scientific journals, and are heavily vested in the outcome. In other words, they are a tainted jury. They represent the Science Research Industrial Complex Eisenhower warned America about in his farewell speech. The last question directed towards any climate alarmist should be “does your income depend on climate research funding, or does the person writing the un-scientific article for the un-scientific journal that influenced your opinion depend on climate research funding?

Second, science doesn’t ever “prove” anything, real science “rejects” a hypothesis, it never “accepts” or proves a hypothesis. BTW, note how global warming and climate change are used interchangeably in the below graphic. Also, just what does “humans are responsible for climate change” even mean? Put down a highway or build a city and you cause climate change, but it isn’t due to CO2. Lastly, the “publishing climate scientists” and those with “greater climate expertise” are the very people publishing the garbage in the un-scientific journals, and are heavily vested in the outcome. In other words, they are a tainted jury. They represent the Science Research Industrial Complex Eisenhower warned America about in his farewell speech. The last question directed towards any climate alarmist should be “does your income depend on climate research funding, or does the person writing the un-scientific article for the un-scientific journal that influenced your opinion depend on climate research funding?Screen-Shot-2017-03-11-at-3.30.43-AM

In the end, climate “science” is all one big house of cards.

house-of-cards-kevin-spacey.jpg

I Am Woman Hear Me Roar; Michael Mann’s Bullying Backfires

whoopassIf you haven’t seen it yet, Dr. Judith Curry gives one of the greatest climate bully beatdowns in world history. Serial Climate Bully Michael “I Bully Women” Mann’s effort to bully Dr. Judith Curry backfired worse than Scott Farcus’ effort to bully Raphie. Here is a link to the actual video where Dr. Judith Curry humiliates Michael “The Short Bald Inquisitioner” Mann. Show the above video to your daughters, it teaches them what a real feminist is. Dr. Curry earns respect not by playing the victim, but through her actions. People respect her not for her gender, but because of her character. This is an actual screenshot of Michael “Homer” Mann’s facial expression.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Dr. Judith is the epitome of a strong woman, Michael Mann is the epitome of a weak man. Michael Mann isn’t weak because he got beat by a girl, he is weak because of his character. Mothers should tell their daughters to grow up to be like Dr. Judith Curry, no father would ever tell their son to be the next Michael Mann.

743647dc8a9cebf6c38ca2f1bfe105a3