Baby It’s Cold Outside…But It’s Shrieky Inside.


I figured I would share the following from a recent exchange of social network posts. You may realize that it’s cold outside. Some people who know that global warming is complete bullshit and nothing more than a scam are posting little digs about, “hey, how about this global warming.” Or, “we got 12 inches of global warming last night.” Some neo-eco-marxist replied while it’s hot here. This lead to a little back and forth wherein I jumped in by pointing out that not even the global warming scientists believe the earth is getting warmer. That is why they had to hide the decline in their findings. And cherry pick weather station data. And hide the code and data used in their computer models. They're snake oil salesmen.

What is interesting about this winter is that both the eastern and western halves of the northern hemisphere are getting cold weather. Normally, it splits to where Russia has a super cold winter and we get slightly above average. This year, China's getting cold and we are too. So, it's a very cold year.

And, the lies of the global warming crowd have been exposed. They lied, they destroyed the careers of those who tried to peer review their work, and they have refused to truthfully respond to the climategate revelations.

St. Al Gore of the global warming religion/cult lied and said the emails were ten years old...wrong.
And in response to an argument that the world is complex, I say no, the complexity of the problem is quite simple. Out of 20 Antarctic weather stations, these people chose to sample only one. One that is near a populated airport city...the weather station showing the greatest warming due to an urban heat sink effect. Similarly, in Russia, they also hid the decline by ignoring weather stations that showed a decline in temperature. Next, in America, they homogenized weather station data between urban (temperature effect due to the urban heat sink effect) and rural weather (decline in temps) stations by averaging the difference instead of throwing out the urban heat sink data.

Also, they finally revealed how they have corrected historical temperature data...by lowering past temperature and raising recent temperatures.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/07/cru-3b-%E2%80%93-urban-warm-bias-in-ghcn/#more-14918... See More

The trick:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/

feel the science:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/eschenbach_before-after1.jpg
Actually, most meteorologists and weathermen I've met or read think it's BS too.

Here's some rich nougaty science:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/05/goddard_nasa_thermometer/print.html
... See More
http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973c.htm

This scholarly article is good at cocktail parties and for entertaining small children:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf


Next, I pointed out that ultimately, the test of the global warming religion is how are those sea levels coming along? According to the screechier shamans of the religion, the damage is done and the ice caps are gone. Fine, if that's true, where's the flooding?

I mean, as I understand it, when the earth-god gets so angry that he punishes us for our CO2 emissions, he will melt the ice caps and flood us. Agriculture and forests actually prefer higher temps, so I've always felt that higher temps would simply add more arable land to the world to use, so high temps aren't bad in an of themselves, just we'll get washed away and that's bad.

But, the flooding. Since dam technology has plateaued and we would never be able to stop the flooding, we need to be concerned about it when we get punished for our CO2 sins. Except, as I've been able to determine, sea level, as measured by satellite radar stuff, has been consistently rising by 2mm a year, the IPCC concluded that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” In 2007, IPCC notes “Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear.”

So. I don't know. 1-2mm a year. That means in a hundred years, the seas will rise by about 8 inches.

As for this guy throwing around various Meteorological societies, the shoddy science exposed by Climategate has sort of, how you say? Ah yes, ruined the reputation and trustworthiness of these organizations. So, are This guy's particular groups tainted? I don't know.

But I do know what I know. The science is not settled and the alleged scientists have a lot to answer for.
So, it's a warm winter in Greece? Or it’s warm in Phoenix? Weird. It’s like some tropical areas aren’t as cold as the non-tropics. I mean, I've been reading that the rest of the continent and China have had rough winters. In America’s temperate zones, Texas got hit by snow while Florida braces for cold to save the oranges (first, we lose the eggo waffles, now the oranges? It’s a war on breakfast) but our friend says, “hey, it's warm in Arizona.”

Weather is a cool thing. It's a chaotic system which is hard to predict.

But it is unfair for the MMGCC crowd to get all tsk-tsky (although, it seems that we have discovered that "holier than thou" is modus operandi of these peoples) when the skeptics of the world observe that "gee, anecdotal evidence suggests that this climate change stuff is bunk." It's unfair because the MMGCC crowd is built on ad hoc predictions of doom based on every emerging weather pattern, from Shaman Al Gore erroneously blaming Katrina on the weather god and predicting more category 5 storms, to things like blaming global warming on bad wine crops and so on…

For your consideration, this website tracks the MMGCC hysterics:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

So, I ask, who is more irresponsible?

Well, remember the psychology of these neo-eco-pagans is a sort of holier than thou enablement/entitlement complex. I guess This guy said something somewhere that qualified.

A recent study found that the neo-eco-pagans get all cheaty when they cut their carbon footprint.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/295761.php

"In their study (described in a paper now in press at Psychological Science), subjects who made simulated eco-friendly purchases ended up less likely to exhibit altruism in a laboratory game and more likely to cheat and steal."

MMGCC may be a god for the Godless and science for the brainless but it's still an amoral mess.