Tag Archives: climate-change

Greenland’s Ice melt aka NASA drinks the kool-aid

Posted on by
Reply

On July 24, 2012, NASA ran this visual and accompanying story:

Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt

The text was not too subtle:

Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt

And NASA tears into several paragraphs of how extensive this event is.  As if that were not clear enough, they later refer to the event on their Facebook page as “the record surface ice melt”.

Tucked away in it all was this little bit at the end of the first article:

“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.

OK, which is it?  A “record” or something repetitive?  Maybe this post explains it a lot more clearly:

The President’s Budget will also increase NASA’s funding, accelerating work — constrained for years due to the budget demands of Constellation — on climate science, green aviation, science education, and other priorities.

Remember when Obama slashed space flight and funded climate research?  Apparently NASA didn’t.

 

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

Posted on by
Reply

Need to read this:

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

The rest of it can be found here.

More ethics issues in the global warming non-debate

Posted on by
Reply

Several years ago global warming scientists made an astounding claim.  2005 was the hottest year on “record”.  Nevermind all the previous history, the headline was what it was.  Some people doubted that claim.  Myself included. Others then felt obliged to chime in whether they had a legitimate claim to make or not.  One of those was a scientist for NASA:

“I believe that 2005 is the warmest year, because the main source of difference is the Arctic, and I believe it is likely that our estimate there is in the right ballpark even though it is based on some extrapolations,” Hansen said.  “However, I admit that it could be wrong, in which case 2005 might be slightly cooler than 1998.”

This meant something to publishers because Jim Hansen was the Director for NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.  GISS has a very specific mission:

Research at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) emphasizes a broad study of global change, which is an interdisciplinary initiative addressing natural and man-made changes in our environment that occur on various time scales — from one-time forcings such as volcanic explosions, to seasonal and annual effects such as El Niño, and on up to the millennia of ice ages — and that affect the habitability of our planet.

His mission is deal with climate change.  So, one would assume he’s not exactly in a position to rebut climate change data.  That didn’t slow Livescience down at the time.  They were quick to quote Hansen’s less than ringing endorsement of man made climate change.

The reason I mention all this now is because James Hansen is in the news again:

The lawsuit claims Hansen privately profited from his public job in violation of federal ethics rules, and NASA allowed him to do it because of his influence in the media and celebrity status among environmental groups, which rewarded him handsomely the last four years.

Gifts, speaking fees, prizes and consulting compensation include:

  • A shared $1 million prize from the Dan David Foundation for his “profound contribution to humanity.” Hansen’s cut ranged from $333,000 to $500,000, Horner said, adding that the precise amount is not known because Hansen’s publicly available financial disclosure form only shows the prize was “an amount in excess of $5,000.”
  • The 2010 Blue Planet prize worth $550,000 from the Asahi Glass Foundation, which recognizes efforts to solve environmental issues.
  • The Sophie Prize for his “political activism,” worth $100,000. The Sophie Prize is meant to “inspire people working towards a sustainable future.”
  • Speaking fees totaling $48,164 from a range of mostly environmental organizations.
  • A $15,000 participation fee, waived by the W.J. Clinton Foundation for its 2009 Waterkeeper Conference.
  • $720,000 in legal advice and media consulting services provided by The George Soros Open Society Institute. Hansen said he did not take “direct” support from Soros but accepted “pro bono legal advice.”

Correcting Jeff Masters and The Big Lie

Posted on by
Reply

My bud Jeff pointed me to an article by a fellow named Jeff.  I’m assuming he didn’t write it.  In this article, the South Dakota State Legislature isn’t too happy with the IPCC and therefore is suggesting their schools teach both sides of the global warming argument.  This really bugs Jeff, the blogger, not my friend.  A couple of weeks ago another friend of mine who goes by L’Ombre de l’Olivier wrote an article as well.  In it he discusses how the IPCC basically should not have assumed people would just blindly accept their data and should have defended themselves better.

That folks, is the crux of this entire debate.

From the get-go, with the release of the hockey stick report, one side said it’s a fact, shut up, and pay up.  There is no need for discussion.  The debate is over.  If you tried to question things, you were taunted.  No one ever wanted to simply discuss the science behind what was being crammed down out throats.  Nevermind the fact some things were obviously amiss, if you mentioned them, they just didn’t count.  Then the debate morphed with the advent of The Day After Tomrorrow into “climate change”.  That encapsulated everything.  No way the global warming advocates could be wrong this way huh?  If it happens, BAM! There’s the evidence.  Hollywood ran wild with that concept:

All the while, everyone was still told to shut up and pay up.

In order to fix this climate change problem that no one was allowed to discuss, all you had to do was send a bunch of money to the government who would in turn spend it as they saw fit to fix that problem no was allowed to discuss. That’s when things got real.  People suddenly wanted to discuss it a little more.  Only problem was, the people who started all this with their doomsday hockey stick report couldn’t.  First they said they lost their data ( how do you LOSE weather data?  ).  Then it changed when a bunch of low-life thieves stole Phil’s email.  In one of those, they basically talk about how they just more or less made the whole thing up.

That’s when the damage control began.  Plan A seems to be, for a lot of those people, to resort to the original plan.  To tell everyone to just forget about the forged data and look at all the OTHER evidence.  This caused the OTHER evidence to collapse just as rapidly.  So now we’re back to Jeff Masters and the original concept, just shut up and pay up.  Don’t question it or you WILL be taunted mercilessly.

But, this time, people just aren’t jumping in so quick.

Achtung! Germans Giving Up on Global Warming

I’m guessing the Germans, along with L’Ombre, are tired of being told how to think:

I would say that if the IPCC scientists have failed to defend their integrity then that is perhaps because every time they seem to have tried they have been shown to have been somewhat economical with the actualité. Furthermore it is worth pointing out that the really powerful lobbies have, until recently at least, been solidly on the side of the IPCC and its band of alarmists. Politicians and government funding have all leant heavily towards the AGW is a danger side of the equation and funding of the skeptics has been minimal. Despite such minimal funding skeptics have demonstrated significant weaknesses in a number of IPCC sponsored claims regarding global warming. If anyone has been distorting the science it is the environmental lobbyists.

The tide is turning rapidly on the global warming debate.  Not so much because there is some sudden wave of data that says otherwise, but because people don’t like to be told blindly what they HAVE to do.  Telling people the debate is over, shut up and pay, just ain’t gonna work any more.

Cambridge’s climate emergency

Posted on by
Reply

As temperatures approached, well, normal, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a group of locals released this statement for the world:

This proposal recommends a process and structure for carrying forward the work of the Climate Congress to respond to the climate emergency. This emergency is created by the growth of local greenhouse gas emissions despite the urgent warnings of climate scientists that substantial reductions are needed in order to reduce the risk of disastrous changes to our climate and despite the City’s best efforts to reduce local emissions, including the 2002 Climate Protection Plan and the work of the Climate Protection Action Committee.

This proposal is made in the belief that an effective local response is, if anything, made more urgent by so far inadequate global agreements and federal policies for emission reductions. It is made in the belief that our City should lead by example. And it is made with the knowledge that the City government is directly responsible for only a small fraction of local greenhouse gas emissions.

It calls for the City to establish a process and mechanisms to stimulate climate protection actions by residents, businesses, and institutions.

People south of Cambridge didn’t pay too much attention to their recommendations today, they’re too busy digging out of thirty inches of snow due to “inadequate global agreements and federal policies for emission reductions”.  People in Atlanta weren’t reading the internet much today either, they were out playing in the snow.  As were the people of Dallas.  I didn’t think much about it either since today was the first day in nearly a week it was safe enough for kids to go to school.

Looking blindly in the eye of overwhelming evidence, they then cited the work of scientists who are now facing ethics investigations as every shred of “evidence” they ever cited is being dismissed.

And, citing the normal weather, the tainted evidence, and the fact that regardless of all the overwhelming evidence these people claim exists, that no one has ever proven, the federal government ( note that they can’t say Obama ), can’t get enough support to do anything crazy about it.  So, they’re going to do it themselves.

Now, according to these people, they are trying to avoid “climate change”.  Their climate is dead on exactly what the averages would dictate they should be.  So, therefore, it would be concluded that the end result of what it is they want would be no change from what is occurring now.  It would seem rather obvious to me that the best plan for the moment would be to continue doing whatever it is they’re doing now. 

Given that goal of acheiving what already exists, they are proposing all kinds of taxes and punitive measures for people doing what it is that seems to keep their “climate change” in check.  And, it would seem to me that since their climate is not deviating from the norm, that their recommendations should be avoided.

Go figure that one folks.  Usually logic like this comes straight out of Berkeley. They’ve got some competition apparently. 

Here’s the whole thing:

GDE Error: Unable to load profile settings

Penn State continues investigation regarding Michael Mann

Posted on by
Reply

Fresh on the heels of President Obama shutting down manned space flight so that NASA can focus its research on green aviation and climate science, Penn State University has announced it is continuing its investigation into the ethical practices of Michael Mann.  That’s the guy that created the hockey stick.  That’s the thing that set this whole global warming/climate change thing in motion.  Here’s the whole presser:

An internal inquiry by Penn State into the research and scholarly activities of a well-known climate scientist will move into the investigatory stage, which is the next step in the University’s process for reviewing research conduct.

A University committee has concluded its inquiry into allegations of research impropriety that were leveled in November against Professor Michael Mann, after information contained in a collection of stolen e-mails was revealed. More than a thousand e-mails are reported to have been “hacked” from computer servers at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England, one of the main repositories of information about climate change.

During the inquiry, all relevant e-mails pertaining to Mann or his work were reviewed, as well as related journal articles, reports and additional information. The committee followed a well-established University policy during the inquiry (http://guru.psu.edu/policies/ra10.html ).

In looking at four possible allegations of research misconduct, the committee determined that further investigation is warranted for one of those allegations. The recommended investigation will focus on determining if Mann “engaged in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting or reporting research or other scholarly activities.” A full report (http://www.research.psu.edu/orp) concerning the allegations and the findings of the inquiry committee has been submitted.

In the investigatory phase, as in the inquiry phase, the committee will not address the science of global climate change, a matter more appropriately left to the profession. The committee is charged with looking at the ethical behavior of the scientist and determining whether he violated professional standards in the course of his work.

The investigatory committee will consist of five tenured full professor faculty members who will assess the evidence in the case and make a determination on Mann’s conduct.

The committee is careful to stress they are not questioning the science of climate change.  They are simply questioning the ethics of the person who started this whole mess.  Got that?  In other words, Michael Mann may have lied, the IPCC may have lied, and the United Nations may have lied, but that doesn’t mean climate change isn’t real.

Yeah.

Right.

HT: Green Hell

Obama kills NASA

Posted on by
7

This is so unbelievable it’s surreal.  It’s so crazy that even people like Phil Platt were in denial.  As of two days ago, when people started saying NASA was being raped, he had this to offer:

OK, yes, it does look like (assuming the rumors are true) the Obama budget for NASA is cutting out the Constellation rocket program in general and Ares in particular. But that doesn’t mean manned spaceflight is dead.

As I said in that above link, private space companies are still a ways off from putting people in orbit. However, I strongly suspect they’ll be doing it before Ares would’ve been ready to do it anyway. Private companies like Space X may be two years from that, while Ares wouldn’t have been ready for five, assuming NASA could even get Ares ready by the scheduled time and in the assigned budget (which I would give a chance of, oh, say, precisely 0). So it’s possible, perhaps even likely, that after the Shuttle retires later this year (or early next) companies like Space X will be able to reach the International Space Station with rockets before NASA could.

Clue here Phil, private companies are two years away from REACHING ORBIT.  We’re not talking heavy lifters here, we’re talking cruises taking up to six people into space for fifteen freaking minutes.  You remember when NASA was at that point?  Yeah, 1962.  Well, ignore the damned rumors, here it is in black and white:

Proposed NASA cuts

Proposed NASA cuts

Yeah, I know that’s kinda small.  In particular, I think all a person really needs to read is:

In place of Constellation, the President’s Budget funds a redesigned and reinvigorated program that focuses on leveraging advanced technology, international partnerships, and commercial capabilities to set the stage for a revitalized human space flight program for the 21st Century. The President’s Budget will also increase NASA’s funding, accelerating work — constrained for years due to the budget demands of Constellation — on climate science, green aviation, science education, and other priorities.

That’s right folks.  Our National Aeronautics and Space Administration is now dedicated to studying climate science, green aviation, science education, and whatever Obama feels like.

Now, people like Phil Platt think it’s kinda good that NASA’s budget’s being increased.  And he thinks it’s kinda good that we focus on the private sector.  The question I have, is, given he’s an astronomer, what’s he going to think when Hubble or Chandra blows a fifty cent fuse and shuts down?  We’re not going to have a bus to take spare parts up there any more.

hubble 

Exactly how is Space-X, which has never even reached orbit, going to grab onto that thing, stop it, fix it, and place it back in orbit?

Clue here, it ain’t gonna happen in the next decade or two.  With Obama spending all of NASA’s resources trying to prove IOCC’s lies aren’t really lies, Hubble will die.  Chandra will die.  Spitzer will die.  Tell me how they won’t?  If we’re just going to let our space stuff die, what’s the point in wasting all our money funding astronomers all over the country?  It’s rather useless now.  Astronomers don’t seem to see a connection to killing off telescopes and astronomy research, I do.

Obama wants to continue the ISS.  What for?  If we’re not going to travel in space, then why bother learning how to live in space?  How are we going to get major modules to the ISS?  Sure, rockets will do the trick, but it seems rather wasteful to expand ISS at this point since there’s really no research they can do and extended stays in space now serve no purpose whatsoever.  And, it would seem to me that if we had a reliable heavy lifter, men could go into space rather easily.

In the meantime, NASA will get an additional $6 BILLION.  Let me clarify that.  On top of cutting manned space flight because it was under-funded, as it states in that report, NASA is getting an ADDITIONAL $6 BILLION to do climate research that is already being done by NOAA.  That stands for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  Those are the people that study, get this, our atmosphere and oceans.  In a more generic sense, they study climate change.  Call it climate science if you wish.  If you want, you can subscribe to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Education.  They fund, get this, science education.  Particularly, climate science education.  Guess they weren’t doing a very good job.  Not sure what the point of having two huge federal agencies doing exactly the same thing is.  I mean, NOAA can contract a private rocket company exactly the same as NASA.  That’s Obama economics for ya.  When faced with two agencies doing different things, pay one a lot more than you were paying to have them do exactly the same as the first.

Now, when I was enduring being constantly referred to as a flat-earther a couple of years ago by global warming advocates such as our esteemed astronomer, my concern at the time was that people were taking this hocus pocus way too seriously based on NO supporting evidence.  Obama’s actions here are exactly the worst case scenario.  Real science is being destroyed by Obama’s pursuit of something the IOCC couldn’t prove because to this day there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that man-made climate change has ever existed.  And if it does exist, we’re screwed now for sure.  If this planet dies, we’ll have no escape plan now. 

Now, in a perfect world, Obama would have taken that $6 billion and put it in the private sector for stuff like electric cars, bullet trains, and immediate things that will affect the Earth’s climate.  But, he’s not.  By their own admission, a bunch of that money will go to Russia or China to send our stuff into space to a space station we mostly paid for.  And, watch a Russian or Chinese launch vs a United States launch.  You think they worry about the environment more than we do?

You think I’m pissed?

This is the worst freaking president we’ve ever had.

In one year he screwed Teddy Kennedy by making sure a Republican got his seat.  Now he’s screwing John Kennedy by killing his legacy.

Email-gate, round 2

Posted on by
Reply

Remember when all the world was freaking out over the hockey-stick?  Well, seems now the hockey-stick was never anything to worry about.  It was contrived, to put it nicely.

Now, we have Himalayagate:

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

That’s right, the IPCC printed a “finding” that was based on no science at all.  None.  Nada.  Remember, these are the Novel Peace Prize guys.  It was this “research” that led to groups like Greenpeace to put stuff like this on the internet:

Which of course led Al Gore to give speeches about the melting ice:

Which of course, led to the Nobel Peace Prize people to give him an award as well.

But, it’s all wrong. And, the IPCC never, ever, had any evidence to say it was ever even occurring in the first place.

And not one single academia questioned it.

That was Al Gore at the COP15 meetings that resulted in nothing being accomplished even though Obama insisted SOMETHING, anything, be done. Fortunately nothing was. Danny Glover now thinks them doing nothing in Denmark resulted in the Haiti earthquake. I’m sure he’ll get a Nobel for that too.

Haiti is the result of Copenhagen?

Posted on by
2

Danny Glover did what I think about every sane person on the planet expected someone to do eventually.  He blamed the earthquake in Haiti on global warming.

“When we see what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is this is what happens, you know what I’m sayin’?”

I think he’s “sayin” this was a Happening event.  That mother nature, so bummed out that a bunch of rich white guys couldn’t convince their statesmen to shell out trillions of dollars to support Al Gore’s poetry, inflicted immense pain and suffering on a bunch of incredibly poor people with absolutely no ability whatsoever to affect anything, anywhere.

I think it’s kinda stupid since there is absolutely no known correlation between the climate and earthquakes.  Both are ever changing.  Both are more powerful than man.  Both will continue long after man is no longer a factor on Earth.  And, trying to connect the two only makes someone look crazier than Al Gore.

( And yeah, others have said some incredibly stupid things about Haiti, but their issues don’t directly correlate a sham that allows the federal government to take my money. )

BTW, text HAITI to 90999.  Answer yes when it asks for a verification.  If you question why, a thousand scientists will claim you believe in a flat Earth, man never walked on the Moon, and aliens are being embalmed in Nevada.

Now, for a realistic debate on Haiti, I think this is a good time to evacuate the entire island.  I know that involves more than just Haiti.  They have pretty well ruined it over the last 600 years or so.  That is part of what is making things that more difficult to deal with now.  Bring them all to the US since the rest of the world talks the talk, but expects the US to walk the walk.  Let the island fix itself for 100 years or so.  Then let 100,000 go back.  In my opinion, that’s the only way Haiti will ever be able to support itself in the long run.  That’s not a devil thing.  That’s not a global warming thing.  That is simply stating the fact the island is pretty much ruined and will be for a long time.