Use Magic to Create the Illusion of Science
1/7/2014 John Ransom
"Sire, I have been misunderstood. I will explain. There are two kinds of prophecy. One is the gift to foretell things that are but a little way off, the other is the gift to foretell things that are whole ages and centuries away. Which is the mightier gift, do you think?" — Hank Morgan, the Connecticut Yankee, in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court.
In Mark Twain’s classic A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, Hank Morgan, who calls himself the Yankee of the Yankees, uses science over and over to create the illusion of magic to support the notion that he is in fact the mightiest magician of all-time. In the end, the illusion, along with misapplied technology is what does him in.
Today, global warmists use magic to create the illusion of science, misapplying technology along the way. And those illusion are killing them right now.
Yesterday I wrote about how increasingly frustrated global warming alarmists were, practically throwing tantrums as real-time data shows that global warming models do not accurately model temperatures.
Their illusions, in other words, are being increasingly shown as delusions.
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently been forced to concede that a whole raft of predictions they’ve made have been incorrect. Global temperatures have risen to only 25% as high as predicted according to the IPCC models; as recently as the late Middle Ages, the earth enjoyed a period of approximately 300 years which were as warm if not warmer than today; and the IPCC is at a loss to explain why an Arctic sea ice is accumulating rather than shrinking as they had predicted.
In Australia’s New South Wales, the state government has ordered municipal governments to ignore IPCC estimates of sea rise that when measured against historical records, have been off by as much as 90%.
Some municipalities have taken aggressive action based on the too-aggressive forecasts by the IPCC writes The Australian.
“The scientific delusion, the religion behind the climate crusade,” says Maurice Newman, a business advisor to Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, “is crumbling. Global temperatures have gone nowhere for 17 years. Now, credible German scientists claim that ‘the global temperature will drop until 2100 to a value corresponding to the little ice age of 1870’.”
The German scientists have recently released a research that purportedly shows that temperature is determined by the solar cycles, along with Atlantic/Pacific oscillations (AMO/PDO) of 65-year time spans.
“The solar activity agrees well with the terrestrial climate,” say Prof. H. Luedecke and C.O. Weiss. “It clearly shows in particular all historic temperature minima. Thus the future temperatures can be predicted from the activities – as far as they are determined by the sun (the AMO/PDO is not determined by the sun).”
Indeed, as seen in the chart above the German scientists are predicting that global temperatures will decline for the next 80 years based on a 200-year solar cycle.
But that’s not stopping the alarmists, who continue to make prediction about the next two-hundred years even though they haven’t gotten the last two-hundred years right, yet alone the last two decades.
New models cranked out almost daily by them show that, “oh, no! global warming will be even worse in the future than we had predicted!”
And there’s a sale at Penny’s.
One such report by the University of New South Wales and the Université Pierre et Marie Curie in Paris, alleges that warming will be twice as high as the average alarmist predicts currently.
“Climate skeptics like to criticize climate models for getting things wrong, and we are the first to admit they are not perfect, but what we are finding is that the mistakes are being made by those models which predict less warming, not those that predict more,” said Professor Sherwood, lead author of the report according to the Guardian.
That’s because as Mark Twain’s Connecticut Yankee explained to King Arthur:
"Yes, a genuine expert can always foretell a thing that is five hundred years away easier than he can a thing that's only five hundred seconds off."
It’s magic, which of course, you wouldn’t understand.
It's too mighty for you.
Shuts Down Climate Change Program
22 May 2015 By Courtney Coren
The climate change program at the CIA is shutting down, two days after President Barack Obama called climate change an "immediate risk" to U.S. national security.
The CIA is closing the Measurements of Earth Data for Environmental Analysis (MEDEA) program, which gave scientists access to classified data for the purpose of discovering the relationship between climate change and security threats around the world, Mother Jones reported.
Scientists could look at data that was gathered by submarines, such as water temperature, and by spy satellites, showing topography changes, which was considered invaluable information.
"Under the MEDEA program to examine the implications of climate change, CIA participated in various projects," CIA spokesman Ryan Whaylen told Mother Jones. "These projects have been completed, and CIA will employ these research results and engage external experts as it continues to evaluate the national security implications of climate change."
It is unclear whether climate data gathered by the military will still be available to scientists by other means.
The program that began in 1992 was shut down while President George W. Bush was in office and resurrected by Obama in 2010.
Obama addressed the relationship between climate change and national security on Wednesday while giving the commencement address at the Coast Guard Academy, The New York Times reported.
"I am here today to say that climate change constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and, make no mistake, it will impact how our military defends our country," he said.
Republican lawmakers said in March that they had plans to cut the funding for climate change research programs in the Defense Department and CIA.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/US/CIA-climate-change-national-security-topography/2015/05/22/id/646358/#ixzz3cPcau4ZD
More Proof There's No Global Warming
05 Jun 2015 By Cathy Burke
Don't talk about global warming to residents of Nuuk, Greenland's capital city, where record cold is keeping the city still buried in snow, climate change skeptic Steven Goddard writes.
Normally by this date, around 20 percent of Greenland is melting, the Real Science blogger contends.
"This year the area of melt is less than 2 percent – the latest start to a melt season on record," he writes, noting: "Temperatures have plummeted over the past decade."
Northeast Greenland also saw its coldest May on record since measurements started back in 1949, while the island as a whole is colder than normal, the Daily Caller reports, citing Danish Meteorological Institute data.
"Greenland has gained half a trillion tons of snow and ice since September," Goddard writes.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/climate-change-greenland-global-warming/2015/06/05/id/649099/#ixzz3cPciHbWq
The Sahara Desert is getting greener
June 2, 2015 by Jazz Shaw
Another global warming catastrophe:
This story is actually quite fascinating and it obviously has something to do with changes in the climate, but just how to explain it all remains a subject of contention. You would think that increasing temperatures would make things worse in the deserts of the world, but in a rather counterintuitive instance of planet watching, it appears that the Sahara desert may actually be shrinking.
A few thousand years ago, a mighty river flowed through the Sahara across what is today Sudan. The Wadi Howar—now just a dried-out riverbed for most of the year—sustained not just fish, crocodiles, and hippopotamuses, but also agriculture and human settlement. As late as 1,000 B.C., a powerful fortress stood on its shores. But then the Sahara dried out, turning from a green savannah into an inhospitable desert.
The culprit: climate change. According to desert geologist Stefan Kröpelin, who has studied geological data for the eastern Sahara going back 6,000 years, the desert spread as temperatures dropped. Global cooling meant that the air had less capacity to hold moisture from the oceans, leading to fewer rains and more arid climes.
Now, that same process is happening in reverse. As temperatures rise, the Sahara and other dry areas are greening on the edges. “I’ve been studying the Sahara for 30 years and can definitely say that it’s getting greener,” says Kröpelin, who specializes in desert archaeology and climate history at the University of Cologne. Where there used to be nothing but desert, he says, there is now not just grass but shrubs and acacia trees–and he has the photos from 30 years of extensive field study to prove it. “The nomads are taking their camels to graze in areas where they’ve never been able to graze before.” Satellite data showing more green on the southern edge of the Sahara also bear him out. “There are always winners and losers if weather patterns change,” he says. “But as a general rule, warmer temperatures inevitably mean that the air picks up more moisture from the oceans, which will lead to more rainfall. If you look at the geological records in the Sahara, there have been repeated periods where the Sahara was greener when temperatures were warmer than today.”
So the desert was originally created around six thousand years ago under this theory. (Clearly caused by the hydraulic fracturing taking place in the Garden of Eden. Darned industrialist snakes…) But now the warmer temperatures are causing more rain at the edges of the desert? The subject is endlessly fascinating. Over the years I’ve heard all sorts of theories being tossed out in the scientific community regarding the planet’s biggest, baddest desert. One of the most recent ones – and for some reason I thought this was generally accepted, but perhaps not – is that the planet’s orbital tilt drifts over time. Around the same time period they’re talking about in this article, the tilt began to change, shifting the planet into a less inclined tilt from then until now.
The widely-held belief is that the Sahara dried up due to a change in the Earth’s orbit, which affects solar insolation, or the amount of electromagnetic energy the Earth receives from the Sun. In simpler terms, insolation refers to the amount of sunlight shining down on a particular area at a certain time, and depends on factors such as the geographic location, time of day, season, landscape and local weather.
Climate scientist Gavin Schmidt, of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, explained that around 8,000 years ago, the Earth’s orbit was slightly different to how it is today. The tilt changed from around 24.1 degrees to the present-day 23.5 degrees.
“Additionally, the Earth had its closest approach to the Sun in the northern hemisphere (with) summer in August,” Schmidt said. “Today, that closest approach is in January. So, summertime in the north was warmer back then than it is now.”
Earlier theories speculated that there was a growing “rain shadow” effect caused by the continually rising Himalayan Mountains, disrupting weather patterns and stopping the rainfall in some areas. Still other have said that eccentricities in the earth’s orbit around the sun (a different consideration than the orbital tilt) have periodically thrown things off kilter in either direction which also contributed to the growth or recession of major deserts.
In either event, even if we can’t nail down exactly what’s causing it and to what degree the effects are felt, this must at least be some good news for farmers and herders in Africa. Party on, folks.
Upside to Global Warming
Climate change is desiccating some areas of the globe—but it’s also leading to the re-greening of the world’s most inhospitable deserts.
A few thousand years ago, a mighty river flowed through the Sahara across what is today Sudan. The Wadi Howar—now just a dried-out riverbed for most of the year—sustained not just fish, crocodiles, and hippopotamuses, but also agriculture and human settlement. As late as 1,000 B.C., a powerful fortress stood on its shores. But then the Sahara dried out, turning from a green savannah into an inhospitable desert. The culprit: climate change. According to desert geologist Stefan Kröpelin, who has studied geological data for the eastern Sahara going back 6,000 years, the desert spread as temperatures dropped. Global cooling meant that the air had less capacity to hold moisture from the oceans, leading to fewer rains and more arid climes.
Now, that same process is happening in reverse. As temperatures rise, the Sahara and other dry areas are greening on the edges. “I’ve been studying the Sahara for 30 years and can definitely say that it’s getting greener,” says Kröpelin, who specializes in desert archaeology and climate history at the University of Cologne.
Where there used to be nothing but desert, he says, there is now not just grass but shrubs and acacia trees--and he has the photos from 30 years of extensive field study to prove it. “The nomads are taking their camels to graze in areas where they’ve never been able to graze before.” Satellite data showing more green on the southern edge of the Sahara also bear him out. "There are always winners and losers if weather patterns change," he says. “But as a general rule, warmer temperatures inevitably mean that the air picks up more moisture from the oceans, which will lead to more rainfall. If you look at the geological records in the Sahara, there have been repeated periods where the Sahara was greener when temperatures were warmer than today.”
Kröpelin’s geological data seem to question the popular notion that climate change will bring negative, if not outright apocalyptic effects: A dying Amazon, failing rains, drought, and desertification. The latest IPCC report predicts a decline in rainfall across large swaths of Africa of 20 percent or more, leading to deadly famines like the one raging in Somalia now. Millions of “climate refugees” might one day roam the earth.
Kröpelin is not the only scientist chipping away at these scenarios. An increasingly rich trove of data suggest that in large parts of the world, the more likely outcome is that warmer temperatures lead to more rainfall, richer plant growth, and the re-greening of areas that have been inhospitable for many centuries.
Farming is expanding again in frosty Greenland, which got its name because farming was possible when the Vikings first settled there during the “Medieval Warm Period,” a previous phase of global warming. In the Alps, the tree line--meaning the altitude above which trees no longer grow because of the cold and wind--has been steadily rising, with forests growing thicker, according to researchers at the Swiss Institute for Forest, Snow and Avalanche Research in Davos. In arid Namibia, stuck between the Namib and the Kalahari Deserts, farmers say the last decade has seen increased rainfall, higher grass, and more of the wildlife that feeds on it.
An increasingly rich trove of data suggest that in large parts of the world, the more likely outcome is that warmer temperatures lead to more rainfall, richer plant growth, and the re-greening of areas that have been inhospitable for many centuries.
In the latest issue of Nature, a U.S. Department of Agriculture study discovered that the higher temperatures and CO2 levels forecast by the IPCC boost the growth of prairie grass, a surprising find that suggests a greener, more fertile future for the world’s semi-arid grasslands, which cover one-third of the global land mass.
Widely reported scenarios that higher temperatures will dry out the Amazon rain forest also seem to be contradicted by evidence assembled by Smithsonian researcher Carlos Jamarillo. Jamarillo has studied the fossilized remains of ancient rainforests and concludes that warmer temperatures went hand-in-hand with greater plant growth and higher species diversity. It was the opposite of what the researchers expected.
So why do we invariably connect higher temperatures with droughts and desertification? The problems of the famine-prone Sahel zone--the dry belt running across Africa on the southern edge of the Sahara--seem to have much less to do with weather than the fact that the population has roughly tripled since the 1950s, and with the arrival of millions of goats with their destructive grazing habits (unlike native camels or gazelles, goats rip out the entire plant, roots and all, killing vegetation wherever they go). Areas that have been fenced to keep out the goats, says Kröpelin, have seen vegetation rebound, and are greener than ever before. The Sahel has been degraded by human use, not natural desertification; the natural process has been the reverse.
Kropelin says he’s been criticized by some fellow scientists who accuse him of spreading optimistic views that run counter to mainstream climate scenarios. “I keep telling anyone who will listen, come to the desert and see for yourselves,” says Kröpelin. “But they’re too busy with their computer models and don't seem to be very interested in what’s going on in the field.” If Kröpelin and his fellow geologists, botanists, and biologists are right, then a warmer planet might not be quite as bad as we’ve been taught to fear.
The Risk of Nuclear Winter
May 29, 2015 by
Alarmists make Incredulous Predictions
May 16, 2015 by Benny Huang
The doomsday clock struck midnight this May 4th as the United Nations’ predicted point-of-no-return for action on climate change passed. The catastrophic consequences of climate change are unavoidable. There’s nothing we can do now except fill sandbags to hold back the swelling oceans.
Okay, so I don’t really believe that. Like most sane human beings, I am glad that the fourth of May has come and gone because the overwrought shrieking about the nonexistent problem of human-induced climate change has become wearisome.
Eight years ago, the much-maligned Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an artifact of the UN, declared that mankind had only eight years to drastically reduce carbon emissions if it wanted to hold global temperature change to less than two degrees Celsius. Crossing the two degree threshold would, some experts said, unleash positive feedback mechanisms that would cause temperatures to careen out of control. Granted, the IPCC did not say that the world as we know it would end in May of 2015, merely that the race to save it would become hopeless if we did not take meaningful action to reduce carbon emissions.
In the meantime, we’ve increased them. China has led the way with its carbon-belching coal-fired power plants, while Japan and most European nations have failed to meet the goals they agreed to under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Just this month, atmospheric CO2 levels hit a milestone of 400 parts per million. At this late hour, if you’re still cajoling the rest of us to live a spartan nineteenth century lifestyle for the sake of the planet, you probably hate science.
And that makes Mother Earth sad.
Dire predictions are the bread and butter of the climate alarmist community. In January of 2009, NASA scientist and climate zealot Dr. James Hansen predicted eco-doom just a little sooner. “We cannot afford to put off change any longer,” said Hansen. “We have to get on a new path within this new administration. We have only four years left for Obama to set an example to the rest of the world. America must take the lead.”
Which hasn’t happened. As an odd twist of fate, America has reduced its carbon emissions, though only as an inadvertent byproduct of economic decline and stagnation, something President Obama would rather not take credit for. Actual legislation to combat climate change appears to be way down the list of his priorities, ranking behind healthcare and repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. President Obama has failed to shepherd a carbon tax plan through Congress, mostly because he hasn’t tried very hard.
James Hansen should therefore conclude that his hero has failed humanity through his inaction. Obama has not been a leader on reducing CO2 emissions and now the window of opportunity has closed.
Yet some doubt lingers as to whether even James Hansen believes James Hansen. If he believes that it’s too late to do anything, why is he still talking? He writes prolifically for his Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions blog, as if something could be done this late in the game. He’s still lecturing all over the world. Ironically, on May 4th, the last day to act according to the IPCC, Dr. Hansen was in the south of France giving a talk on nuclear power and climate change. The greatest contribution James Hansen could possibly make toward saving the earth would be to retire from the lecture circuit.
Could it be that Dr. Hansen et al. are engaging in a tried and true sales technique? It’s called “creating a sense of urgency” and it can be found with astonishing regularity in automobile showrooms. The unctuous salesman tries to convince you that he’s really trying to get the best deal for you and then pressures you jump on this amazing limited time offer. If you take the weekend to consider such a large purchase the promotion will be over and you’ll miss out. So don’t think, just buy.
You must act now! Time is running out!
But James Hansen is no mere salesman, is he? In a manner of speaking, he is. He’s selling an idea, and one that comes with an enormous price tag. What the climate alarmists are suggesting goes beyond carpooling and recycling. They’re basically asking us to cripple our economy based on some pretty outlandish prophesies that never come to pass.
Climate alarmists are notoriously bad at making predictions. They did not, for example, anticipate global temperatures declining slightly after 1998 and then to leveling off. How embarrassing it was for their case when, year after year, temperatures remained flat despite ever increasing levels of atmospheric CO2. In 2013, a German study found that all sixty-five computer models that the IPCC used to predict the future impact of CO2 on climate failed to foresee a (then) fifteen year lull in warming. Then there’s the UN’s 2005 prediction that fifty million climate refugees would inundate the world by 2011, an estimate that fell short by about fifty million. After failing to come true, the prediction was swiftly purged from the UN’s website.
In science, predictions are really where the rubber meets the road. To have any value, theories must have predictive capability. For example, when a twenty kilogram cannonball is dropped from a height of one hundred meters, scientists can accurately predict its velocity just before hitting the ground (44.27 m/s) and, knowing a little about the hardness of the surface, how much force it will exert upon impact.
That’s the way science works. Or at least that’s how it worked until a group of political activists masquerading as scientists changed the rules of the game.
When predictions miss the mark over and over again, prudent science-loving people recheck their calculations and revisit their assumptions to see what went wrong. But climate dogmatists have too often declared the science settled to admit any gaps in the theory. Consequently, the theory of global warming, or climate change, or whatever we’re calling it this week, need not provide any valid predictions. It can churn out one overblown horror story after another for nearly three decades and we’re all supposed to believe that the science is sound.
At some point the question must be asked if the forecasters of apocalyptic scenarios even believe them themselves. It seems that they don’t. If James Hansen, for example, truly believes that the fate of the world was sealed in January 2013, why doesn’t he hole up in the mountains of Idaho and become a survivalist hoarder? What good are his efforts to educate the rest of us fools now? His views wreak of insincerity, even hypocrisy.
Climate change hysteria has failed to persuade the public because its predictions lack credibility. They’re so incredible, in fact, that even the people making them show little faith in their eventual vindication.
Read more at http://patriotupdate.com/articles/climate-alarmists-suck-at-predictions/