Monday, April 20, 2015

LEAVE MICK OUT OF IT

Has The Guardian “Rolling Stoned” Christy & Spencer?

April 7th, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
That tireless ecological zealot over at The Guardian, Dana Nuccitelli, took the opportunity of our 25th anniversary of satellite-based global temperature monitoring to rip us a new one. 
Comparing John Christy and me to “scientists who disputed the links between smoking and cancer”, Dana once again demonstrates his dedication to the highest standards of journalism. 
Well done, Grauniad.
I prefer to compare us to Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, who rejected the scientific consensus that peptic ulcers were due to too much stress or spicy food. While they eventually received the Nobel Prize after years of ridicule and scorn from the medical research community, we have no illusions
The “97% of all climate scientists agree“ meme that Dana bitterly clings to has been thoroughly discredited…. as if scientific consensus on something so poorly understood as climate change (or stomach ulcers 15 years ago?) really means anything, anyway...

COMMENTS 
  1. J. Carroll says:
    Dr. Lindzen’s estimates about general forcing and of minimal, negative feedbacks have proven to be quite true, and the very fact that he is still demonized to this day by the kooks who write these anti-scientific hit-pieces is just further proof that the whole “AGW Agenda” is utterly bankrupt, and that their architects and their followers alike are perhaps the craziest kind of bat-droppings-stupid in Human history.

  2. To policy analysts  Rolling Stoned 25 years ago by Spencer & Christy’s pseudomagisterial op-ed in Science , Roy’s rejection of the scientific common wisdom on climate change less recalls the revolutionary Gasrobacter pylori hypothesis than Steve Martin’s contention in his SNL medieval medico skit that ulcers are caused by a small demon or frog in the stomach.

OR YOU CAN READ THE AUTHOR'S SIGNATURE

How To Tell If The Post About Climate You 

Are Reading Is B.S., In Five Easy Steps




1. Skip articles pretending  to know how fast the unknowable will happen, as in
 "  Whatever changes we are too greedy or myopic to stop from happening in the first place are “irreversible” on that timescale, as the world’s leading scientists and governments explained in November."

2. Skip  polemics that try to steer you away from the scientific literature , as in 
"The Times piece is a double time waster because not only is the piece itself anti-informative but one of its goals is to get you to read an even longer, even more anti-informative essay, “An Ecomodernist Manifesto,” which is “A MANIFESTO TO USE HUMANITY’S EXTRAORDINARY POWERS IN SERVICE OF CREATING A GOOD ANTHROPOCENE.” Not!"
3. Skip  dueling tuba articles written by the opposite numbers of  George Will - one is enough.
4. Skip articles, especially longer ones,  by authors who ignore their own past predictive failures and evade stating what time frame  they are talking about for changes said to pose existential threats.
5.  be very afraid of authors even more calculatedly Orwellian than terms like
 “good Anthropocene,” 
soi disant environmental philosophers included.

Saturday, April 18, 2015

AT LEAST THEY AREN'T BREEDING LIKE CANE TOADS

The whiskers of 58 species of lagomorphs are atwitch  at the news that Tony's answer to  Thomas Galton,  Eric Worrall has moved on from DIY meteorology ( "High sunspot count is associated with warm weather..." ) to rabbit population punditry :
"it is futile, in my opinion...Even biological warfare has failed to contain the rabbit plague. Australia runs one of the most advanced biological warfare laboratories in the world, dedicated to finding new rabbit specific plagues... The research is ongoing, because nothing works for long. When a virulent new disease, or a genetically modified version of an old disease is released, the rabbit population crashes, but within a few years it bounces back, as adaptions for resistance to the new disease spread rapidly through the population.
The reason for this adaptability is that rabbits breed like, er rabbits..."

Friday, April 17, 2015

25 YEARS OF CONVULSING IN BLOCKADIA

"We need a new definition of realism.
The Earth  is  fighting back.  It is convulsing  under  the  pressures that we are placing under it... we are starting to convulse... in the resistance... to this trans-national space that some of us have started  to  call  blockadia...  to  sound what's being called  call the climate alarm... in  the  face  of  this  existential crisis...  in  so  many  cosmologies  there  is  this connection between oil and fertility ... when we burn that oil, when we burn that coal, we make the earth less fertile; that we know for sure."
 -- Naomi Klein              September 11,   2014


"My purpose is to sound an alarm, loudly and clearly, of imminent and grave danger, and to describe a strategy for confronting this crisis ... the horrendous prospect of an ecological collapse. "
--  Senator  Al  Gore              May 1,  1989

"There are ominous signs that the earth's climate patterns have begun to change dramatically ... -- with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only ten years from now..."
-- Peter Gwynne   Newsweek  April 28, 1975 

ALL OF WHICH M. RAMEAU SORTED OUT MORE SENSIBLY TWO CENTURIES EARLIER:

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR


Carbon-Based Prohibition

If some environmentalists have their way, simple math suggests life as we know it will end


In 1916 a blanket ban on beer seemed like far-fetched idea. But prohibitionists cracked the door open by promising to keep whiskey available by prescription. Within three years, the country was dry.
Nearly a century later, environmentalists are thinking the same way about carbon. Converting fossil fuels into controlled substances today could lead to outright carbon prohibition tomorrow.
In a magazine interview last year, Al Gore upped his call for a 90 percent cut in fossil fuel use, demanding Congress “eliminate the payroll tax and replace it dollar for dollar with a CO2 tax.” A research paper published this year in Geophysical Research Letters went further. “Avoiding future human-induced climate warming,” the authors said, “may require policies that seek not only to decrease CO2 emissions, but to eliminate them entirely.” As the New York Times business section headlined it in March, “For Carbon Emissions, a Goal of Less Than Zero.”
Those who view fossil fuel the way Carrie Nation did Demon Rum point out that were everyone on Earth to burn just a gas tank’s worth of carbon each day, CO2 in the atmosphere would still double in a decade. Skeptics may discount climate models as metaphysical, but true believers consider the human costs of prohibition an acceptable price for environmental salvation. Gore’s 2006 Nobel Prize speech elevated environmentalism from a pretext for social intervention to a categorical imperative by declaring: “We must abandon the conceit that individual, isolated, private actions are the answer.…They will not take us far enough without collective action.”
It took two centuries for daily per capita carbon consumption in America to reach the roughly 100-pound level that currently lights homes, powers industry, and keeps the Internet humming. But like driving, all those welcome activities increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The average American currently generates 22 tons of CO2 a year, but to limit 21st century warming to 2.5 degrees Celsius, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggests cutting the global rise in CO2 to one part per million by 2050. That’s only a small multiple of the weight of the CO2 people exhale, and realizing this goal within 42 years could require America to burn less carbon in a month than we do now in a day.
This draconian downturn unfolds from a single statistic: the 5-quadrillion-ton weight of Earth’s atmosphere. Your 792,000-ton share of the air may seem hefty, but one part per million of it is less than one ton. Goodbye, central heating; an average New England home furnace belts out six tons of CO2 a year. Ditto private cars; families living on a truly Earth-friendly carbon ration might spend breakfast debating whether to blow their half-pint gasoline coupon on a moped ride to town or use the daily kilowatt-hour allotment to turn the communal electric blanket up to 4. Holiday turkeys may end up as sashimi, since oven roasting could mean a heatless Thanksgiving night or Christmas Eve.
A personal CO2 limit of less than a ton per year does not even imply the right to buy that much fuel, because CO2 is only 27 percent carbon. Multiply your 1,745-pound annual CO2 ration by 27 percent, divide the result by 365 days, and…yikes! It’s 21 ounces of carbon a day—and falling. If the global population reaches 9 billion by 2050, expect a daily fossil fuel ration of a latté cup of gasoline, three Pilates balls of natural gas, or a lump of coal the size of a turnip.
If you suspect life on a pound of coal a day might be solitary, brutish, nasty, and short, you’re right. The countries with the smallest carbon footprints already feature the shortest life expectancies on Earth. Not that real prohibitionists should mind—Sudan , Somalia and Afghanistan are all  bone dry.
Russell Seitz (russellseitz@gmail.com), a physicist living in Cambridge, Massachusetts, blogs on the climate wars at adamant.typepad.com.

Thursday, April 16, 2015

DOOMED TO REPEAT IT

It is April, and as the air again fills with airheads and nostalgia for the Logan Act, let us prepare for Paris in November by recalling the glory days of environmental evangelism on the sidewalks of New York






Tuesday, April 14, 2015

WHO SAYS WILLIE SOON & HEARTLAND DENY ANYTHING?

FOR OPENERS, THERE'S THE HEARTLAND INSTITUTE & WILLIE :

THAT  BURNING CARBON DRIVES CLIMATE CHANGE
THAT SOLAR VARIABILITY DOESN'T EXPLAIN RECENT CLIMATE CHANGE

THAT COSMIC RAYS HAVE NO DETECTABLE IMPACT ON TEMPERATURE

THAT CLIMATE SCIENCE SHOULD INFORM CLIMATE DIPLOMACY

CLICK ON ANY LINK TO FIND OUT.


NATIONAL REVIEW : NO COMMENT

The decay of what the late William  F. Buckley  styled his 'Review of fact and opinion' continues, witness what becomes of attempts to dissent from the current Editor's party line ; Hat tip to Stoat for setting off a Deep Shock wave at NR by  mentioning  the  Irony Thing.



Avatar



If http://vvattsupwiththat.blogsp... is true, and I see no reason to think it isn't, 
this post is somewhat ironic, no?