‘Climate Change is a Political Battle, Not a Scientific One’

Via: https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/04/climate-change-is-a-political-battle-not-a-scientific-one/

Michael Mann’s behavior is the antithesis of a real scientist, but he doesn’t care, his objectives are political, not scientific. That is what the other real scientists don’t seem to understand. They aren’t debating in front of a professional science organization, seeking to reach the truth, they are testifying before congress. While Michael Mann is testifying to gain sound bits and greater funding, the real scientists are there trying to convince a divided congress that 50% of them are wrong. That is an insurmountable task. 50% of congress gets elected by constituents that expect them not to look behind the curtain and expose the fraud. Michael Mann’s objective is simply to throw red meat to his constituency. This part of the above quote is worth highlighting for emphasis.

I heard all the science words and phrases but the one thing I did not hear from him was uncertainty, about anything, as though reading from a well-memorized script and the only thing he had to worry about was the presentation style.

Michael Mann has a focus group tested presentation that is so well known that I could recite it in my sleep. It is pure nonsense, but he knows that all his supporters have bought into it, and that is what they expect. Those recited comments mean votes for the people that vote for climate change legislation. Facts and science have absolutely nothing to do with it.…

Climate ‘Science’ Gone Mad: ‘The True Face of Envirofascism’

https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/06/climate-science-gone-mad-the-true-face-of-envirofascism/

As a follow up to Climate Bullies Gone Wild; Caught on Tape and Print, we have Climate “Science” Gone Mad; The True Face of Envirofascism. A collection of shameless displays of true, unhinged, unashamed fascism. Watch as the true nature of these fascists is exposed. Fascist and proud!!! Let the book burnings begin!!!

climate-book-burners Intolerant Democrats Ask Teachers To Destroy Books Written By ‘Climate Deniers.’

Capture17.PNG

Jail politicians who ignore climate science: Suzuki

Capture20.PNG

Bill Nye Deemed “Too White”, “Too Male” To Lead Lefty Science March

Bill Nye, ‘The Jail-The-Skeptics Guy!’: Nye entertains idea of jailing climate skeptics for ‘affecting my quality of life’ (Exclusive Video)

After Years of Threats, Prominent Climate Alarmists Still Seek to Jail Climate ‘Deniers’

Screenshot-2017-03-17-at-07.58.29

Not Funny: Monty Python’s Eric Idle: Climate skeptics should be put on trial for ‘crimes against humanity’…

Coral Reef Sophistry: Reality — ‘Not due to CO2’

Via: https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/07/coral-reef-sophistry/

Almost everytime I look into an alarmist’s claim, there is an easy to identify natural cause of the observation.

The arctic sea ice is greatly impacted by the wind direction, storms and warm water entering the arctic. None of which are due to CO2.

Polar bears are doing just great, so there is no issue there.

The Mt Kilimanjaro Glacier is disappearing due to sublimation, not warming.

The global temperatures are relatively stable if the urban heat island effect and temperature station location are controlled for. This is supported by “unadjusted” long term thermometer records.

Frying an egg on a sidewalk

Declining bee population

Water vapor causes lower tropospheric temperatures, not CO2.

Now we have an explanation for Great Barrier Reef bleaching. El Ninos and El Ninas alter the sea level of the reefs, and the lower the sea level exposing the coral. Coral is shallow water tend to bleach. Not due to CO2, but due to exposure. Put almost anything out in direct sunlight and it will turn white. No CO2 needed.F5QDF9YGRTHTE6E.RECT2100.jpg

With Friends Like Environmentalists, the World Doesn’t Need Enemies

One of the greatest horror stories I’ve ever read was “Playing God in Yellowstone: The Destruction of America’s First National Park.” It is a truly heartbreaking story of how well-meaning but terribly misguidedand frankly ignorant environmentalists were allowed to apply their ecological “science” to the Yellowstone Park. The results were catastrophic, and provide many lessons about how hubris lead to disaster.

The same hubris that lead to the disaster of Yellowstone can be seen today on fully display in front of the US Congress, as climate alarmists spew their unquestioning allegiance to the Carbon God of Climate Change. We simply can not allow the same groups of people that destroyed Yellowstone to repeat their ego-driven sanctimonious crusade of destruction on a global scale. Yellowstone is a warning to everyone that trusting environmentalists is not only harmful to your wellbeing, it may destroy the very world they proclaim to protect.…

Rules for Climate Radicals; ‘Accuse the Other Side of That Which You Are Guilty’

https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/rules-for-climate-radicals-accuse-the-other-side-of-that-which-you-are-guilty/

Watching the recent US Congressional House Committee on Science and Technology Hearing titled “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific MethodClimate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method, it became abundantly clear that the topic of climate change is a war being fought on two fronts. The science front was represented Dr. Judith Curry, Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., and the political front was represented by Dr. Michael Mann. The problem this creates is that “Congressional Hearings” are political events, they aren’t interested in the truth, they are about promoting an agenda. Congress isn’t populated with scientists, it is populated with activists, many of whom are representing constituents that make a living off the

The problem this creates is that “Congressional Hearings” are political events, they aren’t interested in the truth, they are about promoting an agenda. Congress isn’t populated with scientists, it is populated with activists, many of whom are representing constituents that make a living off the climate change gravy train. To them, the truth represents a cut in pay and must be denied and undermined, not embraced. A congressional hearing is the antithesis of a scientific research lab, it simply isn’t the natural habitat for a real scientist, the playing field isn’t level, the referees are corrupt, and the rulebook is constantly changing after the game has started. Paradoxically, the expected outcome of a congressional hearing would be for the real scientists to lose the argument. The reasoned scientific method wins logical scientific debates, not heated political campaigning. Putting real scientists in front of congress is like

A congressional hearing is the antithesis of a scientific research lab, it simply isn’t the natural habitat for a real scientist, the playing field isn’t level, the referees are corrupt, and the rulebook is constantly changing after the game has started. Paradoxically, the expected outcome of a congressional hearing would be for the real scientists to lose the argument. The reasoned scientific method wins logical scientific debates, not heated political campaigning. Putting real scientists in front of congress is like throwing tuna to the sharks.

In his essay, “Reflections on Mark Steyn’s ‘A Disgrace to the Profession’ about Dr. Michael Mann” Rick Wallace wrote,

Tim Ball, Fred Singer and others have been countering the AGW meme for a few decades, but to little avail.

Real science is …

Analysis: Climate ‘Science’ Built On Pillars of Sand

Real science is founded in the “scientific method.” It relies on data, experimentation, falsification of a hypothesis and reproducibility. “Science” that isn’t reproducible is black magic, superstition, witchcraft, coincidence, Oracle’s riddles, and Soothsayer’s visions. Climate “science” isn’t founded in the scientific method, it instead rests upon the pillars of:

  1. Peer Reviewed Literature
  2. Scientific Consensus
  3. Professional Science/Academic Organization support
  4. Computer model “evidence”
  5. A hypothesis
  6. This is a real “science”

Listen to any Congressional Testimony by Michael “Hockeystick” Mann, and he will rattle these off as if he was auditioning for an auctioneer’s job. The Mann deserves an Oscar more than he deserves his “Nobel Prize.”

My impressions from the hearing were not positive. Mann spoke for almost half of the time and boldly asserted the most extreme alarmist positions and factoids (quoting from my own notes): “devoted his life to science [about himself]”, “few individuals who represent tiny minority [about other three witnesses]”, “scientists continuously challenge each other [implying he is a scientist]”, “extremely broad agreement on the basic facts,” 97%, “climate change is real, human caused, and has heavy impact”, “fingerprints of human-caused climate change on extreme events”, “anti-science forces launched a series of attack on scientists”, “time for republicans to put away doubts and focus on solutions”, “discourage investigations of climate scientists,” and “support by multiple national academic societies.”

Everything Michael Mann says is practiced, focus group tested, tightly controlled and intended to win the hearts and minds of the American voter. It has absolutely nothing to do with science, and everything to do with funding, policy, and politics. The talking points are widely distributed to all the left-wing support groups, so everyone is singing the same toon (Must watch video of when simply reciting talking points can go seriously wrong). For climate realists to win his fight, they have to master Mann on the field of politics, not science. Winning the scientific battle, and losing the political battle, is losing the war.

To win the political battle, climate realists must topple the pillars of sand that are supporting Michael Mann’s arguments. Fortunately, most of these pillars of sand holding each other up, so toppling one topples others as well.…

AL.com thinks ‘global warming’ is increasing ticks in Alabama, except it’s cooled over the last century there

By Anthony Watts

From the “you really should check the data before you invoke the universal boogeyman” department:

‘Very bad tick year’ expected for Alabama in 2017, and climate change a factor
BY DENNIS PILLION

2017 could be a record year for ticks and tick-borne illnesses according to one researcher who studies the arachnids in Alabama. “I would say this is going to be a very bad tick year because it was a very mild winter,” said Tim Sellati, chair of Southern Research’s Infectious Diseases Department.

In addition, Sellati said a warming climate has let certain species of ticks expand their range and those changes are reflected in tick surveys in Alabama and other parts of the United States. “The winters are warmer and the ticks recognize this, they sense this change in their environment,”

Source: https://goo.gl/sgrL0P

Uh, no. It has not warmed in Alabama in the last century according to NOAA’s own data. In fact the average temperature has COOLED since 1895:

The minimum temperature trend essentially flat:

And if “ticks recognize this, they sense this change in their environment,” according to Tim Sellati, chair of Southern Research’s Infectious Diseases Department, you’d think they would sense that Alabama is getting cooler, especially the daytime high temperatures:
Here’s the problem:
Tim Sellati is conflating weather with climate. Weather patterns typically span days to weeks, while climate is defined as a 30 year interval according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO):

Climate, sometimes understood as the “average weather,” is defined as the measurement of the mean and variability of relevant quantities of certain variables (such as temperature, precipitation or wind) over a period of time, ranging from months to thousands or millions of years.

The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).  Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.

And here’s where Sellati goes really really wrong, note the single end data point, December through February, the “winter” months for Alabama, there’s a nice warm spike there, though not as warm as the spike of 1932. There’s also an ever so slight, though statistically insignificant warming trend since 1895. Note in the legend, NOAA reports that as 0.0F per decade:

Source:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/1/0/tavg/3/2/1895-2017?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000&trend=true&trend_base=10&firsttrendyear=1895&lasttrendyear=2017