Heat-err

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has updated its findings(?) stating -- scientists are 95% certain that humans are the "dominant cause" of global warming.

How do they arrive at that 95% figure regarding the Greenhouse Effect, err Global Warming, err Climate Change?

The 95% is basically expert judgment, it is a negotiated figure among the authors.

I'm 1,000% sure that is bullshit and the scientific community is united in that fact.

This appears to be the procedure the IPCC uses for reaching all of its conclusions.

At a closed-door meeting in Stockholm this week, each paragraph of a document written by scientists is being projected onto large screens. Delegations from scores of nations participate in the editing: Words will be substituted, emphasis will be added, entire sentences may well be inserted or deleted. 

After four days of haggling, the media will be summoned by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to a news conference on Friday where the final version of the document—known as the "Summary for Policymakers"—will be released along with a solemn announcement that "science" has spoken.

Or has it?

There have been repeated complaints about unqualified individual members and that there are "far too many politically correct appointments" involving people with "insufficient scientific competence to do anything useful."

The U.N. has charged the IPCC with weighing the evidence on climate change in an objective manner. The problem is that numerous IPCC personnel have ties to environmental groups, many of which raise funds by hyping the alleged dangers of climate change. This relationship raises a legitimate question about their objectivity.

Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC's chairman since 2002, has repeatedly said that the IPCC bases its conclusions solely on peer-reviewed source material. Yet many of the sources cited by the 3,000-page 2007 IPCC report were press releases, news clippings, discussion papers and unpublished master's and doctoral-degree theses.

This all leaves me with a big chill.

Climate of Fear

The Ragister ran a less than objective, and mildly confusing, story on Gore-BULL warming...Er, Climate Change.

The most disingenuous part was their characterization that skeptics...

- are financed by oil, gas or coal companies -

The Ragister fails to mention the controversies that cloud their authorities and the scientific community is united in that fact.

Take th U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a U.S. meteorologist (Christopher Landsea) resigned because he saw it "as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound".

The IPCC doesn't even do its own research, instead taking papers and results from other bodies.

Apparently, the IPCC has doubts...man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth.

Another authority, the Union of Concerned Scientists(UCS).

ABC's John Stossel had this to say about UCS...

The key word in "Union of Concerned Scientists" isn't "Scientists" — you don't need any particular degree or experience to join — but "Concerned," and the concerns in question are decidedly left wing. Its own website reveals that it developed out of a campaign to make students think that strengthening the American military was an illegitimate use of technology.

UCS also is pro abortion, I guess babies have too big a carbon footprint for the "Citizens and Scientists for Environmental Solutions".

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) led the scare mongering against the pesticide DDT, useful in eradicating mosquitoes.

As a result the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that malaria, carried by mosquitoes, kills more than one million people a year.

An estimated 30 to 50 million people have died since the ban on DDT was implemented, that certainly eliminates man's possible impact on the environment.

These are the folks that should strike fear into your environment.

Too Much Hot Air

This week Ted Turner called for urgent action to address global climate change, which he referred to as the "single greatest challenge that humanity has ever faced."

Not to be outdone, Al Gore this week said..."Never before has all of civilization been threatened."

I'm no rocket scientist (my brother-in-law Chris is) but, doesn't the body emit Carbon Dioxide (CO2) when breathing?

Therefore to my rudimentary thinking... if they'd just shut their pie holes, maybe they'd have a lot less "Gore Bull" warming to bitch about.

I love how they have to jet all over the world to condemn everyone else, too!

Where's Rube Goldberg when you need him, he could design quite the complex machine to diagram their hypocritical bs!

Hypocritical also, is this U.N. report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Per the main stream media, the report states that "Gore Bull" warming has been very likely caused by man.

Yet, according to the IPCC's own findings...man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth.

Gore also criticized critics of "Gore Bull" warming..."now they're offering cash for so-called skeptics who will try to confuse people about what the science really say..."

Gore went on to call them unethical!

This coming from a man who's admitted he's overplayed the dangers of "Gore Bull" warming...

"Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is..."

Today Gore (who this week alone was in Madrid, Spain, London, England and San Jose, California...did he walk?), will be announcing a concert about "Gore Bull" warming.

AlGoraPaloozer?

Hoping to involve 2 1/2 million people, it is set to take place on July 7 in Washington, Shanghai, Rio de Janeiro, Capetown and Kyoto.

One could really go Goldberg on the logistics of that with the jets, the electricity, the human waste generated, etc.

Oh the Humanity!

Ragister Fear Mongering

The Ragister devoted a two page spread to Iowa's Changing Climate yesterday.

They presented it as a historical look at the weather in Iowa and the latest projections for the state.

They had a time line that showed a period from the 1880s to 1930s with an increase of temperature of 2.8 degrees.

This was attributed to increased solar radiation and a lack of volcano activity.

As someone who enjoys history, could the Industrial Revolution had any impact in that?

The cities were also covered by layer of dirty black smoke (from burning coal that was used to heat water so as to create steam to run the machines). The factories chimneys would continually belch out dark, dirty and poisonous smoke into the atmosphere, polluting it.
This blocked out most of the sun's light giving the city a bleak and gloomy look.

















The time line continued with the period of 1930s to 1980s that saw a decrease in temperature of 2.2 degrees.

This is attributed to increased volcanic activity. Volcanoes eject particles and gas into the air that block solar radiation and cool the atmosphere.

The historical time line from 1980s-2000s shows an increase in temperature of 1.4 degrees.

This is attributed to increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Experts say solar radiation and volcano activity levels have not changed significantly.

The World Map of Volcanoes shows, by my count, 40 major eruptions between 1880-1930. 51 major eruptions from 1930-1980 and 45 major eruptions since 1980.

I think the problem may be the Ragister's experts.

As in May, they utilize the Union of Concerned Scientists(UCS) .

Here's John Stossel on UCS...

The key word in "Union of Concerned Scientists" isn't "Scientists" — you don't need any particular degree or experience to join — but "Concerned," and the concerns in question are decidedly left wing. Its own website reveals that it developed out of a campaign to make students think that strengthening the American military was an illegitimate use of technology.

Indeed membership in UCS can be obtained for $25,$35 if you want the mousepad (is that eco friendly?).

ActivistCash.com has more on UCS, as does DISCOVERTHENETWORKS.ORG,
the Competetive Enterpriste Institute and Dennis Byrne.

Another Ragister expert is Iowa State University Professor Gene Tackle, who served on the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

This is a picture from Gene's web page



















I'm sure it's for showin' and not for goin' and the scientific community is united in that fact!

Takle was also part of a group that predicted Gore-BULL warming wouldn't be as severe in the central U.S. because of a "hole".

As for the IPCC, they don't even do their own research, instead taking papers and results from other bodies.

Meteorologist Christopher Landsea resigned because he saw it "as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound".

Tune in next month.

Summer, my time of year

The talking heads on TV were complaining about the warm weather the last couple of days.

The weather wench asked the other two wienies if they'd turned on their air and one had!

I'm sure "Gore-Bull" warming has got something to do with it.

I came across this the other day by another phony fiberal eco-nut...

Flogging the British release of his film "Wild Hogs" recently, John Travolta urged everyone to "do their bit" to combat global warming...

...London's Daily Mail, which quickly calculated that Travolta -- who it says owns at least five aircraft of various sizes, which he parks at his private home/airport in Florida -- leaves an annual "carbon footprint" of pollution nearly 100 times greater than that of the average British citizen.

...Travolta said that even though he is sensitive to the environment, he needs his own planes because it's a big hassle to be a movie star and get around. He also told reporters that the answer to global warming might possibly be to build domed cities in space.

Has he been sharing ideas with Sheryl Crow?

So what's the solution?

According to the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) leading scientists are expected to back a major expansion of nuclear power as a way of saving the world from global warming.

Isn't that the same group that got all the press when they said man was to blame for "Gore-Bull" warming?

That's got to scare all of those who genuflect at the altar of the U.N.

There's no chance the U.N. could be wrong, after all the scientific community is united in that fact.

Or is it?

During the last 10,000 years climate has been seesawing between the North and South Atlantic Oceans. As revealed by findings presented by Quaternary scientists at Lund University, Sweden, cold periods in the north have corresponded to warmth in the south and vice verse. These results imply that Europe may face a slightly cooler future than predicted by IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Summertime is the best time anyplace
Cuz its summer, summertime is here
Yes its summer, my time of year

(Words are by WAR, but its my sentiments exactly)

Those Distant Bells

Unable to weather the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change latest report on the Greenhouse Effect, err Global Warming, err Climate Change, a meteorologist broke down in tears while on phone with my wife at a boarding area in the San Francisco Airport.

He said, I've never cried because of a science report before.

He has vowed to stop flying and is considering a vasectomy so he can't have children in order to leave a lighter carbon footprint.

Having his tubes tied would be more accurate, maybe a HISterectomy and the scientific community is united in that fact.

Secretary of State John Kerry weighed in on the IPCC findings(?) -- If this isn't an alarm bell, then I don't know what one is.

Lurch should know.

You rang?

FYI -- First picture is Espera Oscar de Corti as Iron Cody Eyes, The Crying Indian.

The Twelve Days of Global Warming

Sunday sees Winter officially start, the snow at the Not So Vast Right wing Ranch says otherwise (with more to come).

This week the AP reported...

2008 is on pace to be a slightly cooler year in a steadily rising temperature trend line. Experts say it's thanks to a La Nina weather variation. While skeptics are already using it as evidence of some kind of cooling trend, it actually illustrates how fast the world is warming.

WE ARE COLDER BECAUSE OF THE WARMING?

SOME KIND OF COOLING TREND?

There has been no statistically significant rise in (mean global temperature: MGT) since 1995 and MGT has fallen since 1998.

The MGT is the same as it was in 1980.

Scientists Denounce AP For Hysterical Global Warming Article

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

That's an increase of 250 scientists since last year and more than 12 times the number of scientists (52) who authored the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

There's growing disunity in the ranks and the scientific community is united in that fact.

I'll leave you with this Minnesotans 4 Global Warming seasonal video...



Cafe Press has the line of Support Global Warming gear.

Under the Weather

I've had a cold and have been achy since Tuesday.

I thought I was getting better, but regressed yesterday.

So I'm under the weather...what the hell does that mean?

Isn't everyone, everyday(unless you're in space), under the weather?

It reminds me of a time, a few years ago, when I walked into a clothing store and heard a salesman say..."It's colder than hell."

It was January and it was cold.

Now I'm no Bible scholar, but I'm thinking isn't everyday colder than hell?

I guess I better brush up on hell because it appears that's where I'm headed for denying "Gore Bull" warming!

Ellen Goodman (her slave name?) opined that...By every measure, the U N 's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change raises the level of alarm. The fact of global warming is "unequivocal."

The certainty of the human role is now somewhere over 90 percent.

Which is about as certain as scientists ever get.

I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny.

Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.

How the hell do you make that cataclysmic leap?

First, and foremost, that's an insult to those who perished in the Holocaust and those who survived!

The Holocaust is a proven FACT!

"Gore Bull" warming ISN'T!

Where did the 90% figure come from? Out of her ass like the Holocaust statement?

As I stated yesterday, that per IPCC's own findings...man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth.

That doesn't sound like 90% to me or even unequivocal!

Goodman then divides SCIENCE into Republican and Dummycrats...

There are astonishing gaps between Republican science and Democratic science.

Try these numbers:Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it.

I've been in the college classes with those Dummycrats, they take in every piece of bs that the professor feeds them and never challenge it!

I remember one time, before the prof got to class, one of my classmates asked what I was going to argue with the prof about that day.

I said it depended on whatever bs he was going to try and slide past us.

Another time a prof made an asinine statement and then asked for questions and comments.

I said I didn't agree with his theory and went on to explain my beliefs.

The prof said he didn't agree.

I replied I didn't ask you to agree, you asked for questions and comments.

I just though it important that these kids hear something other than the drivel you're pouring out.

But, I've digressed!

I'll interject an e-mail I received from my brother-in-law-Chris (the rocket scientist).

It comes from an article by James Lewis

Why Global Warming is Probably a Crock

The human-caused global warming hypothesis is completely model-dependent. We can't directly observe cars and cows turning up the earth thermostat. Whatever the human contribution there may be to climate constitutes just a few signals among many hundreds or thousands...

Scientists are always wrong --- they are just less wrong now than they were before (if everything is going well)...

Now there's a basic fact about complexity that helps to understand this. It's a point in probability theory (eek!) about many variables, each one less than 100 percent likely to be true...

Now imagine that all the variables about global climate are known with less than 100 percent certainty. Let's be wildly and unrealistically optimistic and say that climate scientists know each variable to 99 percent certainty! (No such thing, of course). And let's optimistically suppose there are only one-hundred x's, y's, and z's --- all the variables that can change the climate: like the amount of cloud cover over Antarctica, the changing ocean currents in the South Pacific, Mount Helena venting, sun spots, Chinese factories burning more coal every year, evaporation of ocean water (the biggest "greenhouse" gas), the wobbles of earth orbit around the sun, and yes, the multifarious fartings of billions of living creatures on the face of the earth, minus, of course, all the trillions of plants and algae that gobble up all the CO2, nitrogen-containing molecules, and sulfur-smelling exhalations spewed out by all of us animals. Got that? It all goes into our best math model.

So in the best case, the smartest climatologist in the world will know 100 variables, each one to an accuracy of 99 percent. Want to know what the probability of our spiffiest math model would be, if that perfect world existed? Have you ever multiplied (99/100) by itself 100 times? According to the Google calculator it equals a little more than 36.6 percent.

The Bottom line: our best imaginable model has a total probability of one out of three.

That's why human-caused global warming is an hypothesis, not a fact. Anybody who says otherwise isn't doing science, but trying to sell you a bill of goods.

I received his e-mail on February 7 and his conclusion was...

Unfortunately about 90% of the world's population don't study enough math or
science to understand this probability debate.

So that's where the 90% comes from!

Hot Fun In The Summertime

Hot off the presses is this Ragister Opinion piece by two professors on the Greenhouse Effect, err Global Warming, err Climate Change.

Iowa View: More extremes seen as climate changes

It's not an Iowa View when one of the authors, Don Wuebbles wobble but they don't fall down,  is from Illinois and the scientific community is united in that fact.

The opening paragraph does nothing to make their case -- Summer 2012 is barely a week old, but already Iowans are wondering if we’re headed for a record setting season. Temperatures in Des Moines have flirted with 1934’s record of 102 degrees. It’s been a hot start to 2012.

The record was from 78 years ago, which shows it's not unprecedented.

Not only did Des Moines not hit 102, the warmest it has been this summer is 100.

That's the first time the Capitol City has reached the century mark in nearly 6 years (2006).

The rest of the piece by the Chicken Little's tries to blame climate change for extreme weather and the damage caused by storms.

However, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Extremes, released on March 28 and states, “There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized [property] losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change.” 

This just in -- June was below normal for tornadoes.

The warning coordination meteorologist for National Weather Service office in Johnston says, We really are below normal. We haven’t had any so far in the state.

Damn you climate change, oh the humanity.

The opinion piece concludes with the usual fiberal talking points -- renewable energy, powering more homes with wind and solar energy; build a Midwest high-speed passenger rail system and make bicycle riding a safer option for commuters.

In lieu of the extreme weather, that last option doesn't appear to be a safe one.

Seasons Change

Somebody missed the memo from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Extremes.

The report was released on March 28 and states, “There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized [property] losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change.” 

That's not news to CNN's Alexandra Steele who shared this about the recent tornadoes in Texas --

That’s kind of the climate change we are seeing. Extremes are ruling the roost and what we are seeing, more become the norm.

The mind like a steel trap, nothing in/nothing out, continued -- this global warming is really kind of a misnomer. Global climate change—so the colds are colder and warms are warmer, and the severes more severe.

One can see how that kind of thinking fits right in at CNN and the scientific community is united in that fact.

Why the Weather Channel canned Alexandra Steele, if that's your real name, in the first place is beyond me as that fits their Modus Operandi.