The View From 1776

Al Gore, Abort Mission To Seize Weather Control And Return To Earth

Farmers’ Almanac More Reliable Than Warming Climate Models

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 02/25 at 01:01 AM
  1. While the Farmers' Almanac may think it has been a cold winter, this has actually been the fourth warmest January on record, when averaging the temperatures around the world. In fact, January was the 347th consecutive month with temperatures above the 20th century average.

    (Below is a citation:)
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  02/25  at  02:56 PM
  2. Well, golly gee, Jay, I guess the New York Times claiming the rest of the planet warmer than here must prove beyond any further debate it’s warming. So, I guess I better doff my heavy coat (just ignore those subfreezing temperatures – it’s all in my head after all), sell my snow-blower, and buy as much cheap real-estate 60+ feet above sea-level as I can in anticipation it will soon become beachfront! Never mind we’ve demonstrated time after time your choice of information sources is horribly compromised by bias (NYT more than most). I not only read your source article, I chased it back to its sources and found that a) the article’s author is a shill for warming (made a career of environmental fear-mongering), b) both his sources are governmental and highly tainted by institutionalized bias on the subject of warming – whose datasets have been challenged (see ), and c) neither of his sources directly provide data (i.e., make their data available) we can use to check their claim recent U.S. weather is anomalous and that the rest of the planet has warmed enough that U.S. data can (or should) be safely ignored. – here’s another of Mr. Gillis’s many warming fantasies. Mr. Gillis parades as a reporter of environmental issues, but his focus appears to be radicalized and controversial issues to the exclusion of legitimate concerns, and is without even the semblance of balance.

    No data can be legitimately ‘tossed out’ without calling into question the entire dataset and NOAA-NASA’s methodology. Unclear from the NOAA report is how the U.S. data was handled in their analysis and conclusions (e.g., weighted, discounted, ignored, &c). Without knowing this, it is difficult (if not impossible) to make meaningful judgments regarding its validity; and without that, the report reduces to opinion. The NASA-NOAA data can, of course, be tracked to its source, but such a report ought to have either made it directly available or cited its source and provided links, which they don’t and may have been deliberate to avoid challenges. Also, the NASA and NOAA releases really report the same study using the same data, thereby reducing NYT’s sources to one and their reporter’s implication he got this from ‘two [independent] sources’ bogus.

    The best (least compromised) data we have on so-called global-warming is collected right here in the good old U.S. of A, though even that is not all that great. The degree to which U.S. data is compromised has increased (rather than decreased) over time. This is not even counting the deliberate diddling by activist-scientists; which is also rife. More than half of U.S. weather-stations collecting such data are compromised by urban development, neglect, and poor siting (i.e., readings are affected by human and reflective heat-sources). International weather data collection is much worse, and far less reliable than our own. It should be further noted, while U.S. weather stations have been increasingly compromised by urban development, stations in places like Russia, Finland, Moldavia (singled out in the report as demonstrating greater warming), have been compromised even more from development and neglect. The number of foreign weather stations in the dataset shrank dramatically in recent years, making reliance on U.S. data that much greater and skewing the picture into the bargain (can no longer say dataset is globally representative). Many stations that should have been dropped as unacceptably compromised haven’t while others have been deliberately fakes so as to maintain an appearance of data integrity (I commented on this a couple of years ago). So, what this tells me (as a scientist) is that neither the NYT reporter nor his sources can rightfully claim the U.S. data is ‘anomalous’, and that foreign data ought to be weighted less and domestic data weighted more rather than as discounted by the NOAA report.

    Finally, J. Jay, few skeptics deny there has been some warming (over the geological ‘near-term, that is). The debate is over the cause(s) of that warming; not its existence. Global-warmers have consistently and insistently claimed humans are the cause (and only meaningful cause) of this warming. Skeptics vary only regarding the degree to which it has warmed, it will warm, and the degree to which man is responsible. We also differ with you (believers) regarding the supposed consequences of such warming (i.e., disastrous, bad short of disastrous, or more good than otherwise) for us and the planet.

    Something for you to consider is, our planet started out far hotter than it is today, and has generally been cooling ever since. Ergo, cooling is the dominant trend here, not warming. This is a trend that will continue a few billion years until so cold our planet becomes uninhabitable. Life began on Earth some 1-billion years ago, after (and only after) our planet cooled enough conditions favored life. This is something undisputed by the ‘secular science’ of which you are so impressed (despite being weak on science itself). And, while the planet may undergo periods of slight warming, it will never again be so hot as to threaten life, species profusion or its vitality. The thing that differentiates us most from the ‘non-living’ is a remarkable capacity to adapt; perhaps not individually, but life is, if anything, more than robust enough to handled the kind of changes contemplated here.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  03/07  at  07:21 AM
  3. Bob,
    I appreciate your taking the trouble to read the NYT piece.

    And you are of course correct that data sources vary in their precision and reliability. However, that is nothing new with climate science. Climate data is not taken inside a lab under carefully controlled conditions. That variability is of course real, and is what the scientists have to deal with as part of their job.

    But there is an enormous amount of data that indicates that warming is occurring, and the skeptics who claim it is all (or mostly) faked or faulty are sticking their heads in the sand.

    Your observation that in a few billion years the earth will cool is true (because the sun will burn out) but really not a valuable insight in an anthropocentric discussion.
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  03/07  at  11:31 AM
  4. J. Jay,

    You are such a hopeless, hapless bloviating humbug. You might as well admit you ‘made up your mind about warming long ago, and no amount of reasoning is going to move you one iota from that’. So much for the much ballyhooed JJ embrace of science! It is junk-science you cling to; not science. True science follows the evidence rather than leading or forcing it; which is what you (and those like you) are doing. True science admits (even embraces) getting it sometimes wrong. Indeed, getting it wrong is part of the process of (eventually) getting it right. Being ‘scientific’ means being willing to just admit ‘I just don’t know’ when, in fact, you don’t have answers; and the so-called climate ‘science’ has no real answers; just conjecture.

    For several years now, the pseudo-scientific protagonists have been making excuses for an absence of global warming. Of a sudden, you produce an NOAA report claiming an unbroken record of above average global temperatures going back 37 years. Both these things cannot be true. The preponderance of evidence indicates there has, indeed, been recent warming, but entirely inconclusive regarding human contributions to it, and certainly not an unbroken 37 year pattern. [Repeat after me, correlation is not causation.]

    My observation regarding the Earth cooling most certainly is relevant (and necessary) to the present “anthropocentric” discussion because cooling is the dominant trend not only in the long term, but in the near term also. Warming is the exception, not the rule; and that is true whether we are debating 17 year, 100 year, 10-thousand year, or 1-million year patterns. Claiming a dominant feature is somehow ‘irrelevant’ to the present context requires you produce some evidence of said irrelevance. You haven’t, and are incapable of producing such an absurdity.

    There is no such “... enormous amount of data that indicates that warming is occurring ...” That’s just diehard global-warmers grasping after straws. Yes, there is a lot of data, but most of it unambiguously supporting AGW is so compromised as to be worthless. Partly it has been compromised by bad and inconsistent methodology, but more significantly it was compromised by modelers who deliberately cooked the data to make human-caused warming seem more plausible and dire (see ). Some of that data was destroyed (or hidden, and remains hidden) in the CRU’s clumsy attempt at first making AGW appear unassailable, and then covering up their own mischief. Attempts to repair the damage (both to the data and CRU’s reputation) range from feeble to non-existent. Note that IPCC and NASA were also implicated in that scandal, which makes your indirect reference to the latter doubly laughable. Certainly, we have heard of no such rehabilitation; but, regardless, data integrity (i.e., believability) was lost for a very long time. The actions taken to corrupt the data are still being defended by its chief perpetrators, and it is their handiwork you here offer up as proof. Because we have had this same discussion several times, it cannot be that you are ignorant of this overall ambiguity in the data, its corruption or of the scandal still surrounding the CRU and its co-conspirators. Ergo, by invoking the so-called “enormous” body of data relating to climate, you are knowingly and falsely inferring a prop for your premise that simply does not exist.

    While there are, indeed, large datasets [apparently] supporting the possibility of human induced warming (AGW), there is far more data that either contradicts AGW, show historically normal warming, have dropped support of AGW, or fail to confirm it (see ); but, then, most of that other data is untainted by human deceit. The only data unequivocally supporting the AGW thesis is that assembled specifically to prove its existence (which is suspect on its face). NOAA’s own data has been shown contradictory (see ) on close examination, despite pronouncements of unbroken warming. Satellite data has consistently shown little to no evidence of warming. Ocean data, once thought supportive, has fallen out of favor. Arctic ice-pack melting is more than compensated by Antarctic ice growth. Ice cores have been shown inconclusive and inferior (leaf striations are more reliable and contradict the core evidence) as warming proxies. Geological and historical data refuse to yield to AGW theory (despite some geologists agitating for it), and had to be quashed at all costs. And, most damning of all, have been solar and cosmological records coinciding neatly with recent global weather events (i.e., providing simpler, more plausible explanations of actual weather than does CO2 warming and models).

    Saying this is “nothing new to climate-science” is little short of admitting to this corruption. Yes, it is nothing new to ‘climate-science’, but it is anomalous to modern science generally. Ask yourself; is this level of bungling and data manipulation something we should expect of a science or an effort we have been told is crucial to our wellbeing? The level of corruption, tampering, coercion and bungling typical of the IPCC-WMO, NASA, NOAA, and CRU data is little short of astounding. It is not common to similar datasets compiled for lesser purposes or for establishing the validity of a model. It is not typical of most weather datasets to see data included known to have been compromised by easily identified (and removed) pollutants (e.g., mechanical heat sources, highly reflective surfaces, heat-radiators, and the like). It is not typical of most science to give preference to inferior data sources over superior ones simply because the latter does not support your pet theory. So, it is not AGW's skeptics but its dupes who have heads in the sand. Proof of that is evident from your own highly inflated and easily debunked nonsense, J. Jay. And, speaking of head-in-sand, check out Climate Depot’s illustrative article on that very subject (see Highly apropos!
    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  03/08  at  07:24 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.