Hand wringers


I found this very interesting. It is the University of Alabama at Huntsville Satellite Temperature Record. (Website link.) The reason it only goes back to 1979 is that this is the limited time period during which the technology has been available. There’s also an explanation of how the data is collected and calibrated. The site is run by Dr. Roy Spencer and John Christy. As I read it, they currently show warming trends of +0.19 (land) and +0.08 (ocean) centigrade per decade.

Just laying a ruler on this graph and what I perceive to be the temperature increase from 1979 to 2018, I am seeing about .5 degree centigrade temperature increase during that period. That is hardly alarming. Note that 1997-98 and 2016-17 had El Nino events, causing the spikes in the graph. Also note that we quickly return to the norm on the graph after those events.

Contrast that with this graph, the same data from above along with weather balloon data:

IPCC Graph

As I am given to understand, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) runs models by 32 countries, so there must be sets and subsets to get to 102. All of them except one (Russia) wildly exaggerate warming trends. The lines diverged around 1998, a period when warming stopped. This is referred to by Chicken Littles as a “pause” or “hiatus” in warming, meaning that they are not done forecasting the end of life as we know it on this planet. I think they are in denial.

A few days ago AB at Fakeologist ran this video:


I really did not know what I was watching, but it slowly began to weigh heavy into doom and gloom. At the very end we are warned that we only have 12 years to SAVE THE PLANET. This is what happens when you combine corrupted science with uninformed star power … I hope to be around in 12 years, relaxed, reading about how fossil fuels created all the wealth we enjoy, about how CO2 is our friend (as I sip Canadian wine).

HandAll of this hand wringing must cease! It has to be harmful, not just to the psyche, but to the hands as well. I mean, look at what happens! But if not this, something else. Remember Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring?  Never happened. Polar bear numbers are up, by the way. The polar ice cap is bigger now than when Al Gore forecast in 2007 that they would be gone by 2014.

There is a much more serious agenda behind climate change, which I intend to write about as soon as I find the right words … some in higher circles tend to be quite blunt about it. Yes, they say, the climate scientists are exaggerating, but they are doing so with massive funding. If they don’t, they lose the funding. But there is more at stake than money. It is about returning us to a simpler time when we had less money, less time, and fewer machines. CO2 is an engine for wealth and comfort. That is what must end.

12 thoughts on “Hand wringers

  1. I’ve got to hand it to you Mark for having a pulse on the times of today the way you seem to have especially as of late. To say that you’re on a roll lately I think is oversimplifying things and minimizing where you’re actually coming from which to me seems to be from many wells deeper inside of yourself than usual compared to 6 months ago. What I admire is that you don’t seem to pull any punches in doing so. And if you do it’s certainly not because you’re cutting anyone slack but rather I imagine just being tired of feeling like your repeating yourself over and over to those resistant or slow to understand anything past the need to return someone’s text message. Either way I think I found another Bokanovsky Brat for you. Amanda Peet. I believe her to be a tranny but regardless in split second glimpses of her during movie Saving Silverman the other night he/she wore Matt Damon Batch smile.


    1. Hard not to be repetitive. I simply decided to write more, keep the blog a little more lively. I don’t care if people disagree with me. Five or six years ago I was right there with them, believing in AGW. What changed me? Not sure how that happened.

      I will take a look at Peet. You should too. It’s not that hard.


    2. Wow. You nailed it. It is a pretty close match. You know who else are Bokonovsky Brats … Jennifer Garner and Hillary Swank. Weird that Ben Affleck, also a BB, was once married to Garner. Seems like incest, or narcissism, looking at yourself while making love?

      Peet Damon


  2. In this chat Ab and me go over the Anthropogenic Global Warming scam, but a full dedicated show on it with more preparation and points to cover would be great.

    The graph you posted is excellent, as it proves in one image already how the hoaxers debunk themselves; the boomerang effect.

    The “music” video is blatant propaganda, not only about AGW, also many other nuggets (“Germany, we forgive you”, puke). A pity that teens tend to believe animated animals earlier than raw facts, logic and real science (that goes against political pseudoscience; see the chat with Ab), an uphill battle indeed, but one to keep doing whenever you get the chance.


  3. Miriam-Webster:
    dualism noun du·​al·​ism | \ ˈdü-ə-ˌli-zəm also ˈdyü-\
    Definition of dualism
    1 : a theory that considers reality to consist of two irreducible elements or modes
    2 : the quality or state of being dual or of having a dual nature
    3a : a doctrine that the universe is under the dominion of two opposing principles one of which is good and the other evil
    b : a view of human beings as constituted of two irreducible elements (such as matter and spirit)

    Climate is a very broad subject, which has now been boiled down to a handful of theories that present choices in twos. Believer or denier. Anthropogenic or organic. Right or left. Democrat or Republican. But is climate as subject broad enough? Our focus on climate distorts our perception, understanding and appreciation of the vast Oneness of all that exists. Is it not enough to simply exist as a very small part of all that exists in nature? Scientists love to name things (parts) or give titles to their theories. In this (assigning names and titles) way they seek to “own” parts of the great Oneness as man-gods claiming their own (proprietary) claim or “invention” to that which already exists — ie. Reality.

    There is never just duality in reality. Holding up a part of Oneness, inspecting it, naming it, claiming it, all lead further down a wrong road. Dualism is a red flag for anyone who accepts their own self-existence, without all the misdirection.


    1. I am currently listening to Patrick J. Michaels, a very good speaker and one who is very actively pushing back on AGW. One of his pithy statements was this: Nature does not listen to scientists. We have many, many environmental problems to address, not the least of which are sprawl, encroachment on remaining wild lands, building in the forest interface, soil depletion, and noise. Have you ever noticed how noisy it is anywhere there are cars?

      But AGW is not a problem … if it is warming, and it seems so though not alarmingly so, it is not something we can control. It appears to be mostly a function of nature, coming as we are out of the Little Ice Age (ending about 1850). We are in an interglacial period, and warming will not harm us. In fact, the climate is greening up like crazy due to the CO2 we are adding, while temperature is only slightly affected. Enjoy the warm! It is during the cold periods that we have die offs of plants, animals and people.


  4. One interesting side note on AGW is that it moves many “conservatives” into the “conspiracy theorist” box… That is, because AGW is “liberal” in its enemies — “industry, capitalism, bad” — conservatives feel attacked by it. So they become open to the suggestion of cabals of liberal scientists, of phony or rotten science, etc etc.

    Nevertheless (from my talks), they remain believers in other official narratives… “Conspiracy”, or some kind of mass deception, is considered only when a mainstream narrative benefits liberals.

    To question other stories does not suit them. They are selective in their skepticism. Of course liberals do the same thing on their side.


    1. Interesting … I am finding myself in league with people who are hard right-wingers, Ayn Randians, and the like, and I am not at all pleased. My memory of rand is that she is a stopping point for fertile young minds, but that you have to keep growing. Most stop in their tracks after Atlas Shrugged.


    2. Yes, we talked about that political angle in the chat with Ab. It is as silly as thinking that skepsis about the Apollo landings is “right wing” because the program was announced by “Democrat” JFK.

      But on the other hand; it proves that this whole AGW scam is a big political and financial anti-scientific scam. The video linked at Ab’s site of Peter Ridd is excellent.

      Much more analysis of this scam here.


  5. I wanted to comment on this from a previous post (1st para Lerner, 2nd para Mark):

    “…the transformation of a paradigm appears as a crisis: instead of remaining a silent, almost invisible rule, instead of remaining unspoken, the paradigm is actually questioned. Instead of working in unison, members of the community begin to ask “basic” questions and challenge the legitimacy of their methods. The group, which by training was homogeneous, now diversifies. Different points of view, cultural experiences, and philosophic convictions are now expressed and often play a decisive role in the discovery of a new paradigm. The emergence of the new paradigm further increases the vehemence of the debate. The rival paradigms are put to the test until the academic world determines the victor. With the appearance of a new generation of scientists, silence and unanimity take over again. New textbooks are written, and once again, things “go without saying.”

    “That is really just another way of saying that old science does not die until the old scientists do. It is basically a false statement, as I view it. The academic world rarely determines a victor. That sort of triumph usually comes from outside the gated enclaves, usually the product of some isolated genius working alone and without funding.”

    I would guess it’s a false statement as well, but my speculation would be that some big dog from the Royal Society or other prestigious body sets things in motion… Typically, most scientists toe the line, except at most a few oddballs who can’t get a hearing, and have marginal positions. Then, if the big players on top decide to shake things up — or perhaps a pedigreed one wants to make a name for himself — a challenge to the status quo is offered up, and it signals to the worker bee researchers below, that it’s okay to present proposals in that direction, to hold that new theory, etc. This is total speculation on my part, I welcome insiders to set me straight.


    1. I agree
      Science is political and the politics comes from those who provide and control the funding (he who pays the piper) it’s about money business and maintaining the status quo. I personally now take a default position when it comes to science and start my evaluation by assuming everything is a lie – it works very well. This I regret to say, applies to all mainstream science for the past hundred or more years with only one or two notable exceptions.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s