Category: Climate insanity

Climate sensitivity: Warmists miss by a factor of 682?

I have maintained for some time now that the effects of CO2 on the planet’s temperature are insignificant, no more than a pimple on an elephant’s butt. CO2 was chosen as a stalking horse to enable warmists to surreptitiously level an attack on humanity via elimination of fossil fuels, our lifeblood. It’s people that they want gone. 

Much of the debate surrounding CO2 is about what is referred to as “climate sensitivity”, or the amount of warming that would occur with a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere. Typically measurements of atmospheric CO2 start before the industrial revolution, in the late 1700s, at 280ppm (parts per million), so that a doubling would be 560ppm, which by my calculations will happen in 35-40 years at current rates. (We are currently at about 422 ppm, or stated otherwise, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 is .0422, or .000422 if stated as a decimal. It is but a trace molecule, blown up by warmists to T-Rex proportion. 

Before we dissect the above graph, I want to cite AI, which these days bleeds over anything I try to use a search engine for … this is AI describing IPCC Climate Models. 

Continue reading “Climate sensitivity: Warmists miss by a factor of 682?” →

Hottest day ever?

AP News recently ran a headline claiming, actually shouting, that Monday, July 22, 2024 was the hottest day ever in Earth’s history. My questions are many, but most importantly, do they really expect to be taken seriously when making such claims? This is followed by “Do they believe their own lies?” It appears to me that these screaming headlines are designed to reach gullible people who don’t read beyond headlines and who can’t think properly anyway. That must be the target market – most Americans.

Let’s have a look of some of the many problems with this headline:

Continue reading “Hottest day ever?” →

Science class is cancelled today

 

The above three men are, left to right, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa (1952-2017), and Phil Jones. All three worked in or for the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at East Anglia University in Norwich, England when in 2009 there was a major leak of internal emails, a scandal now referred to as “Climategate”. Over the years, by means of whitewash and lack of media coverage, the subject of Climategate has been minimized if not forgotten, and the people at its center exonerated.

I do not exonerate them.

Continue reading “Science class is cancelled today” →

Ethically challenged “scientists” can say anything they want without repercussions

While on our recent trip back east, I had plenty of time (plane flights, evenings in motels) to do some very intense reading. I chose a book by A.W. Montford, a British writer and proprietor of the Bishop Hill blog. Prior to leaving on our trip, I deliberately avoided reading the book in question, The Hockey Stick Illusion, subtitled Climategate and the corruption of science. My objective in reading this book (which has so many post-it flags on it that it might fly away on me) was to come to grips with the science behind not just the Hockey Stick, but climate change as a whole. I have the distinct impression that climatologists are given carte blanche to say or publish anything that crosses their minds, without fear of fact-checking or follow-up.

Continue reading “Ethically challenged “scientists” can say anything they want without repercussions” →

Impressions of Michael Mann

This has been bubbling inside me for quite some time now. Maybe it started some years back when Dr. Michael Mann, the hockey stick guy, was on a TV panel show and someone suggested that climate affairs were so bad that it made her/him want to cry. As if on cue, Mann generated crocodile tears, pretending to lament the situation of our climate. It made me want to puke.

But I have a lot of impressions of Mann … perhaps foremost, that while his so-called Hockey Stick is pseudoscience at best, it is very detailed work that requires a great deal of intelligence and effort, even if he was probably exaggerating his case, perhaps even engaging in creative accounting. Steve McIntyre, the Canadian mining engineer who took apart the stick piece by piece, had to devote tremendous effort to replicate Mann’s efforts, not easily dissembled and beyond the reach of us mere mortals. What we found was that tree rings are a complicated science, and without a strong working knowledge of statistics cannot be assembled in a way that sends a “temperature signal” from the past to the present.

Continue reading “Impressions of Michael Mann” →

When bad journalism reports on bad science

I ran across an article in the Powell (Wyoming) Tribune called Yellowstone Lake defies warming temperature – what’s its secret? I originally saw the article in the Billings Gazette, but it was paywalled. I went to its city of origin, and again, paywalled. Finally I saw it in the Powell newspaper, where I get four visits before the walls go up.

Continue reading “When bad journalism reports on bad science” →

The 97% consensus, and the demise of already-corrupted search engines

We here at POM know that among climate scientists there is no 97% “consensus” that Earth is getting warmer and humans are causing that warming. But we can also see that a wall was being built around the propaganda spewing out of IPCC, NASA and other places. Soon to be used following the 97% thrust was the term “denier”. 

97% serves a useful purpose in terms of propaganda – it signals to people who are not paying attention that the work has been done, case closed, no need to think or investigate. It’s a deliberate tactic used because the work has not been done, the case is not closed, and indeed people of intelligence need to think and investigate. 

Continue reading “The 97% consensus, and the demise of already-corrupted search engines” →

Climate Science on Trial

I am currently listening to a daily podcast called Climate Change on Trial, hosted by two Irish film makers, Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney. They are covering the defense of the lawsuit filed in 2012 by Michael Mann against pundit Mark Steyn and blogger Rand Simberg. There are ten episodes available so far, and guess who has listened to all of them? I am rapt, even as so far it is been Mann and company making their case and being cross examined. Real fun is in store, more to follow the very first defense witness, prominent statistician, Abraham J. Wyner of the Wharton School.

Climate Change on Trial is all available at Apple Podcasts, and a new episode will be dropped the day after each trial day.

Wyner comes off as a classic nerd who loves his work. Part of his work in statistics is about sports, and I think his podcast, which I have not located yet, draws a large audience because he gets beyond the dull science. Anyway, Wyner testified that Mann’s hockey stick work was “manipulative,” meaning that many outcomes were possible by torturing that data, but that Mann had an apparent predetermined objective, featured prominently by Al Gore and now the cause of trillions of wasted dollars in search of net zero, the hockey stick. Talk about being juiced.

Continue reading “Climate Science on Trial” →