We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility and provide for the common def---aw, f*#@ it, let's just be Socialists!
So, it's a Tuesday which must mean it's time for another Climate Gate denier to come out of the woodwork and tell us AGW skeptics that we're morons and the world is going to die. Meet, or get reacquainted with James Lovelock, Scientist and AGW advocate. James is the mind behind some of this world's deepest insight on anthropomorphic global warming. Why, here are some of his greatest gems:
"Even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while."
That's right, Democracy and free societies are the problem. Why, I can just remember like it was yesterday when we gave up our free society to go to war with-- wait, that's right... we've never done that.
Humans are too stupid to prevent climate change from radically impacting on our lives over the coming decades. This is the stark conclusion of James Lovelock, the globally respected environmental thinker and independent scientist who developed the Gaia theory.
But James, you're human...
Lovelock argues that, as a result of global warming, "billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable" by the end of the 21st century.
The sky is falling, the sky is falling!
He thinks only a catastrophic event would now persuade humanity to take the threat of climate change seriously enough, such as the collapse of a giant glacier in Antarctica, such as the Pine Island glacier, which would immediately push up sea level. "That would be the sort of event that would change public opinion," he said. "Or a return of the dust bowl in the mid-west. Another Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report won't be enough.
Hmm, where to start here. Let's see, what human activity was it that lead to the dust bowl again? 'Another IPCC report won't be enough,' you mean like the one that was based upon an unsubstantiated college thesis stating that the glaciers were disappearing?
He further predicts, the average temperature in temperate regions will increase by as much as 8°C and by up to 5°C in the tropics, leaving much of the world's land uninhabitable and unsuitable for farming, with northerly migrations and new cities created in the Arctic. He predicts much of Europe will become uninhabitable having turned to desert and Britain will become Europe's "life-raft" due to its stable temperature caused by being surrounded by the ocean. He suggests that "we have to keep in mind the awesome pace of change and realise how little time is left to act, and then each community and nation must find the best use of the resources they have to sustain civilisation for as long as they can".
All aboard for Airstrip 1!
James, you're 90... Time to get an afghan and sit by the fire. Somebody grab his car keys.
Please take the time to comment! Click the Informed Opinion Link adjacent to the Post Title.
What has been revealed here, along with the manufactured data and side-by-side with the destruction of original data, is that scientists are as human as any other person. Meaning, that scientists are subject to the same political and financial influences that any other person is. This is why it is so utterly and critically important that science is based upon actual scientific fact and not upon 'consensus.'
Definition time:
scientific fact - n: any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true; any scientific observation that has not been refuted
consensus - n: 1. majority of opinion. 2. general agreement or concord; harmony.
As I'm sure all of you have been reading my blog since the beginning of time or whenever I started blogging, there is no need for me to point out that I have been blogging about AGW for quite a while. None-the-less... Pay particular attention to the quote from Professor Ian Plimer in that last post. For you with little time or patience on your hands, here is the quote:
"I'm a natural scientist. I'm out there every day, buried up to my neck in sh**, collecting raw data. And that’s why I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses. None of them predicted this current period we’re in of global cooling. There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase."
In the case of Climategate and until otherwise proven all global warming 'science,' 'torturing the data' would mean replacing data that does not support your theory with data that does, and then destroying the original data.
Most damning, however, has to be the fact that when confronted with the fact that the books had been cooked and these scientists had engaged in egregious behavior, other climatologists and AGW supporters failed to admit that they'd been caught in this circumstance and agreeing to dismiss the data from the University of East Anglia. Instead they are circling the wagons around the massive failure and continuing with outright denial and name calling.
UPDATE As Paul points out in the commments section, the IPCC wading deep in a cesspool of lies and fakery, says they stand firm next to the evidence
It's been 3 years, 5 months 17 days, 9 hours, 15 minutes and 54 seconds since my last post. The good news is that nothing of any importance has happened since the last time I wrote. Not going to lie, it's been difficult to balance work, caring for my grandmother, redesigning my mother's guest bedroom, nursing shingles- oh yeah, and there's that whole work thing. But you're not here for excuses- unless you're a libtard, then that's all you understand.
While cruising the seedy underbelly of these here interwebbynets, I happened upon the dumbest person ever to access the web, other than Algore hisself, of course. I must warn you, however, if you spend more than 45 seconds on that user page, your brain will kick out your teeth, crawl out your mouth and down your shirt, then hop a bus for Venice Beach in search of some one smart to inhabit. Fair warning.
Big in the news, as of late, is the aptly named 'Climategate.' Revealed within the last few weeks were 'hacked' emails from the 'University' of East Anglia from top climate researchers disclosing that they manipulated data to support their theory that the earth is warming. Yes, not only did climate 'scientists' cook the books in order to support their lunatic theory, but they also destroyed the original data, leaving only their 'corrected' data. Fan-fucking-tastic. And in order to ensure that Democrats would retain their unchallenged crown as the king of fucking idiots, Babs Boxer suggested prosecuting the individual(s) that disclosed this highly inappropriate behavior. Brillaint!
Liberal logic: if an individual exposes damaging information about a conservative, tobacco company, car company, gun company, etc.; it's called 'whistle blowing.' If an individual exposes damaging information about a libtard, ACORN, SEIU, global warming, universal healthcare, etc.; it's called illegal. Got it?
Turns out PeeBo is also going to make an appearance at Dopenhagen for the Climate Summit to meet with other heads of state so that they can all pat themselves on the back for how far up their asses they've collectively kept their heads on the Climategate issue.
Also, PeeBo announced his new (read: a fucking year old) strategery in Afghanistan. It was announced in a speech at West Point, the enemy camp, after dragging his ass on the deal for nearly 4 months. You see, PeeBo had to wrestle with the strategery General McCrystal requested. This would be the same strategery that PeeBo laid out during the campaign, and shortly after taking office, in order to make sure that it was the right decision. He was quick to point out the cost in dollars of this decision to surge the number of troops in Afghanistan becuase $50 Billion is a hell of a lot, especially when compared to the meager $1,300,000,000,000 (thats trillion) he flushed down the toilet in the 'anti-stimulus' package earlier this year. Yes, you see, Barack is the most brilliant man ever to walk the planet. Thank God that when he was born of his virgin birth, he chose the lowly United States to grace with his presence.
Lastly, it turns out that according to Norah O'Donnell, (the fuck kind of name is Norah?) Rosie's retarded half sister, Sarah Palin fans are uninformed on news items. It seems that they are just to darned busy to read the newspaper for 30 minutes every day (yes this ancient troll-hag actually suggested that informed people read newspapers) and are therefore uninformed. As Paul points out these 'morons' are so uninformed that they are more knowledgeable on the Climategate Scandal than anyone at Ms.NBC, as the network has yet to report on the fraud committed there. As Paul says:
Norah O'Donell at MSNBC claims that Sarah Palin supporters do not have the 30 minutes needed to read the newspaper. But, oddly enough, Palin supporters know about the "scientific" fraud going on at the IPCC and East Anglia, despite it NOT being reported in the newspapers. Maybe they get their news from the very same mysterious force that keeps telling us that the economy is "recovering?" Contradiction? You decide.
Last evening I came home with the intention of writing some more of the best blog posts you'll ever read, ever, but instead I got caught up reading some of the other outstanding, albeit less awesome than my own, blogs. Here for you are a collection of some of the great work I beheld last night!
It's so close I can taste it and the anticipation is killing me!
Then this guy comes along and deflates the balloon. No fanfare, no long winded RSMcCain post about all the hours of gumshoeing, nothing. I feel... violated. All this build up with no 'pop,' now I have a case of blue blogs.
Then to top it all off, I find out my favorite blogger is going on 'Hiatus'.
With all this traffic I am sending RSMcCain's way, he's going to have to link me as the reason he got a Million blog hits in less than a year. Anyway, here is an intellectual and detailed explanation shedding light on the marxist roots of Political Correctness. Do yourself a favor and watch both videos (the one embedded and the one that is linked).
The difference between now and WW2 is that when this nation made a mistake (i.e. Japanese Internment) we took responsibility and made amends as a nation. No longer the case, now it's personal because you took orders from a president of the wrong political party. Joey Liebs breaks it down.
Previously, I posted a point by point take down of an attack video posted at a libtards blog. Once the libtard in question finally got over his childishness, he did what he should have in the first place, which is to respond to my post. Now that we have the response, let's pick it apart.
"One of Paul Mitchell’s fellow wingnuts, the laughably misnamed Classicaliberal..."
How many people out there haven't heard of Wikipedia? Hands? Only you meatard? Well, you see, its this site that's just like a traditional encyclopedia, only it's all online. It helps ignorant people, such as yourself, learn new things. Since you seem to be allergic to using it, I'll provide for you a definition of classical liberalism:
"Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1], laissez-faire liberalism[2], and market liberalism[3] or, outside Canada and the United States, sometimes simply liberalism) is a form of liberalism stressing individual freedom, free markets, and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to place fiscal constraints on government[4], as exemplified in the writings of John Locke, Adam Smith, David Hume, Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire, Frédéric Bastiat, Montesquieu and others."
Those would be considered conservative principles now days, thus the only irony here is that meatfool is to dumb to figure it out on his own.
At the risk of beating an already dead horse... "The claim that the video wasn’t taken down from Youtube is a lie. The removal was documented. Youtube later restored the video, but this does not change the fact that “Classicaliberal” lied about the fact that the video was, in fact, removed."
An attempt, and success are two very different things. As everyone who has seen the video is keenly aware, the video is still posted on youtube, and therefore it has not been removed. From the mouth of the jackass himself:
"he attempted to have a video that exposed his intellectual dishonesty removed from Youtube. He failed."
Regardless of the fact that it may have been down for 10 minutes, or 10 years, the video is back online, and viewable by anyone with an internet connection. Did I know that the video had been taken down and reposted? No. Does it matter in the overall scheme of things? No. The crucks of the post are ill-effected by whether or not the video was taken offline for a period.
Further beating an already dead horse... "Now, when I pointed out on Twitter that “Classicaliberal” had lied, he quickly changed the post; he now tries hard to gloss over his lie. Unfortunately for “Classicaliberal”, I’m used to dealing with his ilk. I’d already mirrored the post, thus preserving his lie for posterity."
Yes, you caught me. I was working so underhandedly to erase all of the details surrounding the matter that I posted it at the top of my blog detailing everything... Way to go. And I almost got away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling meatpackers.
"As for his “point by point take down” of the video, “Classical Liberal” carefully avoids addressing the full meaning of the central argument of the video"
Its funny, being accused of avoiding the topic of the video, because for a fact, the video avoids the topic of Anthony Watt's investigation and subsequent report. Luckily for me, meatstain took the bait.
The conclusion of 'Is the US Surface Temperature Reliable' was that after reviewing more than 860 of the 1,221 temperature stations, 9 out of 10 of these stations 'fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source.' And further that the study observed 'changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher.'
You see, the second finding is truly the key because it is not addressed in the video at all. The video grabs the first claim, that 9 out of 10 stations 'fail to meet the National Weather Service’s own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source' and then does a comparison of the data from so called bad stations with so called good stations. The problem with this is, if the system is outdated and using technology which causes them to report false warming trends AND large gaps of data were missing, then all of the data must be thrown out because none of it can be considered useful. However, the video glosses over the second finding and attempts to make Anthony Watts look like a loon cause he reports the weather for a station which plays Michael Savage's radio program. Intellectual honesty on full display.
In the video, it's reported that NOAA adjusts for environmental anomalies like concrete or exhaust ventilation which might skew the data. This is like Usain Bolt and Carl Lewis competing in a 100 meter dash, with Bolt wearing brand new running shoes and Carl Lewis wearing a 30 year old pair with no laces. At the end of the race, Bolt has won by a 3 second interval, but the officials adjust for footwear anomalies and give Lewis 3.5 seconds back.
"“Classicaliberal” objects that the graph doesn’t show several hundred years of data — which is a red herring. He is deliberately ignoring the fact that Watts’ accusation was that the temperature data is inaccurate because of nonoptimal siting of many climate stations."
Wrong on so many levels... Watts' accusation, as detailed above, is that the data is unreliable both due to placement of the stations and outdated technology and missing data blocks. The video then uses data from this system to show a warming trend over the last 30 or so years. Again, you have to throw out the data due to the inconsistency under which it was recorded. But, secondly, if you are going to take temperature data to display a warming trend, you must take at least one full cycle, which at a minimum is 60 years. Allow me to illustrate: This is an image of a sound wave. You can plainly see by looking at this image that sound waves continue to ascend! There is no peak, this wave will continue to ascend! The sound waves must be stopped!
Of course, no one truly believes this, because we've all seen the next image: You see, the at the end of the video, the assertion is made that AGW is real, that we are responsible, and we have to stop. In order to make a truly informed decision on the matter, you must have as much data as possible. AGW advocates cite recent warming activity as proof positive that AGW is real and is occurring now. Of course, what they are seeing is this: When you take a step back and look at more evidence the picture becomes clearer and you can see that it's all apart of a naturally recurring cycle and that the current warming trend as subsided and we're beginning the next cycle of cooling. It is, in fact, a part of the 60 year cycle mentioned before. Once again, for effect: Bottom line, Meathead is an anti-intellectual fool for posting such tripe on his blog and standing behind it as reasoned evidence. When called on this, he dissolves into the 3rd grader on the playground and calls everyone within earshot a liar. Well played sir, well played.
(UPDATE)When confronted with this blogpost, the Meatbeater read exactly 2 sentences before his liberal brain shriveled up and he could handle no more. The reason for his loss of bowel control? Originally the second sentence read "Meathead makes reference to an attempt by Mr. Watts to have the video removed from Youtube, something that has not happened.' Immediately, Meatbrain's eyes began to flood with tears, and he quickly had to out me as a 'liar' so that harmony and balance could be restored to the universe. The only problem is, I didn't lie. The video is, in fact, still posted on Youtube, and linked in this post. The video was taken down for a short while, but ultimately reposted on Youtube. Which means that Mr. Watts' attempt to get it taken down failed. If you were going to tell this tale to a friend, you would say that Mr. Watts attempted to get the video pulled, but ultimately he failed, or it hasn't happened.
However, in an attempt to have a logical debate with this ass, I changed the line to read, as it does below. Unfortunately, Meat-for-brains took this as evidence of a lie, and heralded it from the highest twitter peaks, at right is his twitter stream to me. There is no intelligence on the left, and Meatbrain is exhibit A.
But the larger story is here that Meathead knows that he does not possess the ability to dispute any of the facts listed in the blog post below and so instead of taking them on, he must resort to calling me a liar. It's a very old trick, and one that is worn out. You see, if you can call the author a liar, then it doesn't matter what's in the article, or in this case blogpost. That way you don't have to address the overwhelming facts within the post itself. Where do we first behold this behavior? In the 2nd grade. This leads me to believe that Meatheads momma set him up with a blog, and since he can't run with the big boys, he just calls the liars from the sideline. Insinuating that someone is a liar implies intent. Meatass cannot prove intent, and as such his name calling is nothing more than libel. Proof once again that libtards are on a completely different evolutionary path from conservatives. While conservatives continue to evolve and become better and brighter, the left peaked with Nathan Bedford Forrest, and have been steadily deteriorating ever since.
Bottom line, Meathead is an anti-intellectual fool for posting such tripe on his blog and standing behind it as reasoned evidence. When called on this, he dissolves into the 3rd grader on the playground and calls everyone within earshot a liar. Well played sir, well played.
---
Paul's favorite libtard of the week, Meathead has the following video posted at his blog which he purports to 'spank' Anthony Watts 'hard.' Meathead makes reference to an attempt by Mr. Watts to have the video removed from Youtube. Apparently the video was pulled and later reposted, but that is inconsequential to the facts below, get over it. Just what is in this video that so totally spanks Anthony Watts? Let's see:
Okay, let's go through this video point by point to view the utter carnage it's wreaked upon Anthony Watts and 'climate change deniers.'
Anthony Watts works for KPAY 1290 which also happens to feature Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage.
Sweet Jeezus! He's obviously part of the vast rightwing conspiracy! Really, unless KPAY sanctioned his work, I have a hard time seeing how the on air talent at the radio station has any bearing on this issue... Guilt by association much?
He's recruited volunteers in his efforts to photograph weather stations in question.
Can't trust them uneducated rubes to take photographs! If he were relying on volunteers to take radiation readings for proof of some nuclear fallout or something, I could understand discounting the effort based upon the involvement of some rookies, but pictures?! Who can't work a camera? This is an attempt to discount the data based upon the perceived incompetence of the volunteers.
Anthony Watts' book was published under the hospices of The Heartland Institute, who also happens to advocate Free Market Principles and champions smokers rights!
Bastardz! Who the eff would champion smokers rights?! This is obviously proof that this far right wing group hates all humans and is looking for causes to support based upon how many humans will be killed as a result... Or not. The fact that The Heartland Institute supports smokers rights has NOTHING to do with this piece, and once again is an attempt to vilify Anthony Watts based upon association.
The Heartland Institute makes lots of money and is a right wing organization!
The reality is that Mr. Watts more than likely does not earn enough money as a radio meteorologist to publish a book. The fact that he found THI who agreed to support his efforts to publish a book means little. Is anybody really shocked when a book supporting socialized health care is backed by a leftwing organization? Then why is anyone shocked that an organization with rightward leanings is helping to publish books which call into question the validity of AGW? The only time any of us should be shocked is if it were a leftwing organization publishing a book decrying communism or something... Once more, guilt by association.
The Heartland Institute has been a primary facilitator behind the initiative to 'distort and obfuscate the science surrounding' global climate change.
Because we all know that the science behind global climate change, or more specifically AGW is settled, right? The fact that an individual or a group questions a theory or produces evidence that some of the science used to support a theory is not sound is hardly 'distortion' or 'obfuscation.' If there is, in fact, distortion or obfucsation going on, the video provides NO evidence of either.
NOAA responds, agreeing that the stations in question could be (and are, in fact) giving false readings.
The fact that NOAA corrects the data that they are receiving from these stations is an indication that the readings are being influenced by their surroundings... Which is exactly what Mr. Watts asserted. So, Anthony Watts was right? That appears to be the case.
After correcting for surroundings, the data taken at the stations in question matched the overall trend of warming noticed via the data taken from stations which were not in question.
Great! Fantastic! But, why does the graph in the video only show data going back to the 1950's? You see, the earths climate is cyclical. In order to get a true understanding of what's happening to global temperatures, you have to look at hundreds of years of data, because if you only look at a couple of decades, you paint an incomplete picture and people might accuse you of being 'a politically motivated liar!'
Here's the graph from the video.
Here's that same graph highlighting the cyclical nature of warming and cooling. It's amazing what you can discern from graphs when you have more information, isn't it?! If there were, say, 100 years worth of data here, what you would find is a cyclical warming trend lasting approximately 30 years followed by a cooling trend lasting the same amount of time. These cycles take place in a much larger cycle which takes place over periods of about 300 years. We have been in an overall warming trend since about 1700, at which time, the earth was in the depths of a cooling trend. Want proof? From teh Wikipedia:
Hudson Bay was the growth centre for the main ice sheet that covered northern North America during the last Ice Age. The whole region has very low year round average temperatures. (The average annual temperature for Churchill at 59°N is -5°C; by comparison Arkhangelsk at 64°N in a similar cold continental position in northern Russia has an average of 2°C.) Water temperature peaks at 8°-9°C on the western side of the bay in late summer. It is largely frozen over from mid-December to mid-June when it usually clears from its eastern end westwards and southwards. A steady increase in regional temperatures over the last 100 years has been reflected in a lengthening of the ice-free period which was as short as four months in the late 17th century.
Growing seasons have changed drastically in recent decades
See above. This would make sense given the cyclical nature of warming and cooling in our environment.
A recent peer-reviewed NASA study analyzed several global biological markers and their reaction to climate change
Again, if the trends of warming and cooling are cyclical in nature and they last for 30 years (on average) then animal and plant life, as well as ice would be effected and in the case of animals and plants, would adapt to these changes. This is not damning evidence against the AGW deniers, but evidence for the cyclical nature of warming and cooling.
The very same people who told you that WMD's were real are now trying to tell you that climate change is not.
Sometimes, I really hate flogging the left so handily, but they continue to just tee it right up... For the last time, EVERYONE believed there were Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, because Saddam wanted the world to believe it. Hell, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Algore, Hillary and Bill all stated that Iraq possessed WMD's, so can we get off that? Besides, WTF does it have to do with AGW?
Secondly, no one is claiming that climate change is not happening. What we are disputing is man's role in the change. The fact is that the earth has been warming and cooling for a millennium, without the help of my Suburban, mmkay?
You want to make Anthony Watts look like an ass because you don't agree with his political viewpoint? Fine. Foisting bad science and attempting to bring him down because of is associations, that's called intellectual dishonesty, something the left has mastered.
For the record, I can't stand the politics of most of the posters at the Gawker websites, that being said... The posters at Jalopnik are reporting that the EPA has been secretly bumping up MPG figures for cars that fall within the 'clunkers' category in the Cash for Clunkers program. Saith the Jalops:
"New Jersey resident Jeff Chase was considering trading in his 1989 Mazda 929 for a new car and checked the government's FuelEconomy.gov website and it said it met the 18 MPG threshold to be considered a gas-guzzling clunker. He went back later to buy the new car only to discover the numbers had been changed and the combined mileage was now 19 MPG and therefore disqualified from the discount."
Mark Steyn has a great piece over at NRO discussing the cyclical nature of warming and cooling trends which seem to occur in 30 year intervals.
"Things warmed up a bit in the decades before the late Thirties. Why? I dunno. The Versailles Treaty? The Charleston?
Then from 1940 to 1970 there was a slight cooling trend. In its wake, Lowell Ponte (who I believe is an expert climatologist and, therefore, should have been heeded) wrote his bestseller, The Cooling: Has the new ice age already begun? Can we survive?"
He then goes on to quote Media Matters who claim that the most recent cooling trend of 10 years is not part of the natural cycle of warming and cooling, but is in fact part of a larger warming trend... --wait, WHAT?! Let's see, we had a cooling trend from about 1940 to 1970. Then we had a warming trend from 1970 until about 1998, where upon it's been progressively cooling for the last 10 years. So... 30 years of cooling, 28 years of warming, then 10 years (so far) of cooling, but we are not supposed to believe that this 10 year trend is the first 10 years in the next cycle of cooling-No! It's merely a short term break from the long term warming which will melt the makeup off Hillary's face and drown us all in a molten river of Maybelline.
"I’m a natural scientist. I’m out there every day, buried up to my neck in sh**, collecting raw data. And that’s why I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses. None of them predicted this current period we’re in of global cooling. There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase."
