Nova reminds the clowns that they are still burdened with the 97% claim

We know the data torturing required to get to 97% consensus on warming among the so0called experts.

Don’t we?

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/03/the-97-consensus-misrepresented-miscalculated-misleading/print/

NYT should stop reporting science stories and admit their incompetence

However, I do get a kick out of making fun of the clowns.

Continue reading

Joe Bast responds to a hypocrite from PaloAlto CA on warming

So the original essay by a Stanford snot accused conservatives of being immoral and not caring about people.

Continue reading

Scientists Object to Intellectual Freedom

Bob Greene:

Intellectual freedom only if you agree with us.

Originally posted on NoFrakkingConsensus:

Intellectual freedom is about the public’s right to examine all points-of-view. These scientists are trying to block your access to alternative perspectives.

intellectual_freedom_american_library_association ‘the right of every individual to both seek and receive information from all points of view…free access to…any and all sides of a question'; click for source

A few days ago, 54 allegedly “leading climate scientists and museum experts” attached their names to An Open Letter to Museums from Members of the Scientific Community. This is a highly polarizing document that splits the world into good guys and bad guys.

The signatories describe themselves as “members of the scientific community” who “devote our lives to understanding the world and sharing this understanding with the public.” Excuse me, but earning a handful of science degrees doesn’t place you in a special category of humanity. You’re still subject to the same ego-trips and short-comings as everyone else.

Lots…

View original 1,278 more words

Less than informative toxic release inventory reporting

Today’s report in Richmond Times-Dispatch on the 2013 Virginia TRI emissions was an interesting piece in uninformative writing. Continue reading

More climate alarm hype: ‘Keeping warming to 2 °C is not enough to save species’

Bob Greene:

Before we invented climate science, warmer periods were called optima. Courtesy prohibits me from referring to this climate scientist as an unscientific activist twit.

Originally posted on Tallbloke's Talkshop:

Heads in the clouds? Heads in the clouds?
If temperatures won’t go up, bring the so-called ‘target’ down. That’s the latest brainwave of climate fear merchants, seemingly oblivious to the lack of any temperature rise this century.

Former Guardian writer Fred Pearce reports:
Is the world’s target of limiting global warming to 2 °C too high, or too low? Does it even make scientific sense? The consensus around the target, which was agreed at climate talks in Copenhagen in 2009, seems to be coming unstuck.

Back in October, US climate analysts David Victor and Charles Kennel called it scientifically meaningless and politically unachievable. We should get used to the idea of something warmer, they said.

Now the target has been denounced as “utterly inadequate”, by Petra Tschakert of Penn State University in University Park, who has been involved in a UN review of the target. She wants a 1.5 °C target instead. Writing in the…

View original 117 more words

China be a big place with lots of people using cement and coal

Craig Rucker, the fine lead dog at CFACT, provides me with this report on Chinese grwoth and energy/resources usage.

Continue reading