Winning

After Trump was elected, I stopped being so active on the climate as it seemed only a matter of time before he shut down those producing bogus global climate metrics. Unfortunately, it never occurred to me that Trump, having freed the US from the power of those fake metrics, then saw no reason to release his foreign competitors from their stupidly self imposed submission to US origin fake climate metrics.

However, I have recently seen a rush of news stories suggesting we are now winning the political battle in the US, Germany and now Canada and Australia, and given the reaction of alarmists on twitter who suddenly got extremely grumpy and hostile, they’ve noticed as well. So, it seems that finally, despite the alarmists from an overwhelmingly politicised academia, continuing to produce their fake data and fake papers from their buddy review system, we are winning (won?) the battle.

But as for alarmist academics!!

Whilst not directly related, I have got to express my concern at the appalling standards I have come across with those academics I have engaged with recently on twitter.

They are not only clueless about basic thermodynamics, but they are pretty dim witted and what makes it worse, is that they are so pig headed that it is impossible to teach them anything. So, the chances of them understanding how to correctly deal with natural variation in a system where it is hard to distinguish between natural variation and “things”, is zero. There is no chance in hell that they will ever understand the scientifically correct way to deal with natural variation in the climate. Which is why we now have to win in the political arena and ignore the dunces in climate “science”.

I have really felt like father Ted explaining to Dougal why things far away look smaller:

Father Ted is demonstrating some plastic toy cows to Dougal.
Father Ted: …OK, one last time. These are small… but the ones out there are far away. Small… far away…

The reason why they got global warming so wrong, is because, despite the 4.5billion years of natural variation on earth, they SIMPLY (used in it’s literal sense of simple mindedly) could not conceive that natural variation existed. And because they could not conceive that the climate of the 20th century changed due to natural changes, they wrongly thought the changes they saw must be man-made. And because they only looked at changing CO2 (and not for example changes in pollution levels), they attributed all the natural variation to CO2 and so massively exaggerated the effect of CO2 (by up to MORE THAN an order of magnitude).

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Winning

  1. James says:

    It just shows that these people are just not worth dealing with and it took a non politician like The Donald ,to point out the emperor had no clothes. Head bang wall.

  2. Doonhamer says:

    Nature just carried on, and the divergence from predictions just becomes obvious. Late Springs, short Summers, unprecedented extreme cold. I do not believe that the public swallowed the switch from Global Warming to Climate Change. What they were promised, in UK, was Mediterranean conditions, and what did we get?
    Then there is the slowly developing disaster of wind turbines and solar panels with the associated higher power prices. The alarmists with any sense are switching over to the next scare, plastic?, and hoping that their previous prophecies will be forgotten. Even the BBC is mentioning Climate Change less.

  3. Doonhamer says:

    Forgot to say, much thanks is due to you and other bloggers around the world who kicked against the pricks in a sometimes thankless and seemingly solitary struggle. Even if you “win” no-one in power will ever admit it. Maybe future generations will look back on it as we wonder at the tulip mania. Thanks.

  4. Steve Borodin says:

    I have never watched Father Ted but I loved the video. Every time I want to say “Just because it (a wind farm) has a higher plated capacity doesn’t mean to say it GENERATES that, you brain-dead, sub-neanderthal imbecile”, I will remember it.

  5. Damian Scott says:

    I recently had a discussion with warmists on the Guardian website.
    People were seriously suggesting that a cooler stratosphere would somehow cause the troposphere to warm.
    Is there less climate hysteria on the Right because they already salve their guilt and self loathing with Christianity whilst the godless left have to invent an eco boogeyman to project their self loathing onto.
    The number of discussions I see about overpopulation, people talking about radically reducing the number of people on the planet…and then calling others “fascists”.
    It’s kinda frightening.

  6. “After Trump was elected, I stopped being so active on the climate as it seemed only a matter of time before he shut down those producing bogus global climate metrics.”

    How exactly did you imagine he would he do that? Who would he stop? How would he actually stop them?
    Think about it.

    (….take a moment…..)

    You can’t fake a scientific consensus. Nor can you shut one down with a telephone call or two. That’s not the way it works.
    You could defund a scientific community…if you are providing the funding for it in the first place but is that what you would support?
    Do you want ‘the gummiment’ putting political pressure on scientific communities to change their results with threats?
    Shame on you.

    Obama didn’t give any of the American scientific communities their marching orders.
    Nor did Bush. Nor did his father.
    Nor did Reagan.
    Nor did Clinton.
    Trump can try but all he can do is cut funding. And that would be something people could read about in the papers and notice.

    There is no global scientific conspiracy. It’s just science doing the normal, boring science like it always has done.

    “Unfortunately, it never occurred to me that Trump, having freed the US from the power of those fake metrics, then saw…”

    Or you are just rationalizing the awkward situation of a climate denier like yourself in the White House…and him not ‘exposing’ it all.

    • Scottish-Sceptic says:

      Clearly you are not a scientist as only non-scientists talk about a “Scientific consensus”, which has no meaning in science. Science is a dictatorship of facts not a democracy of views which is a argumentative style typified by the arts (where they have no facts).

      The problem is that since NASA and others are known to falsify the temperature data, the only information we have on the current global temperature is from the satellites which show no current warming.

      What I had hoped is that Trump would have sacked those running the likes of NASA so we got credible global temperatures and we got more substantial information on what is happening.

      But it appears Trump (much like NASA) has no interest in what is actually happening with the climate.

      • “Clearly you are not a scientist as only non-scientists talk about a “Scientific consensus”, which has no meaning in science.”

        You are lying.
        https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

        There is a scientific consensus on a wide range of issues.
        The Earth does indeed go around the sun.
        The Earth is flat.
        Germs do indeed cause disease.
        Vaccines work.
        Evolution is real.
        etc, etc, etc.

      • “What I had hoped is that Trump would have sacked those running the likes of NASA…”

        That would have done nothing.
        It’s silly what you are suggesting.
        “Those running the likes of NASA”
        Who? How many would have to be sacked?
        Two people? Two hundred? Two thousand? Two million?

        Have you any idea how many people work at NASA?
        Climate science covers all the Earth Sciences.
        You are suggesting a conspiracy that implodes the moment you mention basic staff numbers and scientific disciplines and science journals and scientific communities all over the planet.

        They don’t have a secret meeting every Wednesday down at the pub. They can’t.
        And you need something like that to make a conspiracy work.
        It has to be organized.
        Corruption doesn’t just happen. Not if you don’t want to be caught by the other guy down the hall or in the other program.
        If your numbers don’t match up with the other numbers then someone has to clean that up before publication.
        Otherwise “it” all collapses.
        Who cleans it up?
        How do they know what and when to clean it up?
        Do they get a magic alert in their inbox or something?
        Doesn’t work.

        But it appears Trump (much like NASA) has no interest in what is actually happening with the climate.

        Or….there’s nothing that a climate denier like yourself can really do once they make it to the White House.
        There’s nothing to expose.

        Don’t you get it?

        Even you can’t articulate any practical measures and you yourself meekly believe this rubbish.

        Who could maybe in charge? You don’t know.
        You can’t even guess.

        How do they recruit without people getting suspicious?
        You don’t know. You’ve never thought about it.

        How many people do they need on “the inside” in order for it to work?
        You don’t know.

        How do they stop disgruntled ex-employees or disgruntled ex-wives of employees from spilling the beans?
        How do they weed out fresh graduates from university from rebelling against “it” once they figure out what’s going on?
        You don’t know.
        (Spoiler Alert: There’s no way to manage it.)

        How do they stop people publishing an endless stream of rejected papers with the rejection slip attached?
        (There’s this thing called the internet. Getting your stuff out there is dirt simple.)

        They can’t. Any right wing scientist (…yes, they do exist…) could raise holy hell once they are attempted to be seduced to the Dark Side. Any of them could keep the email correspondence between them and the peer-review people and show how they were shafted unfairly.
        Think how many tens of thousands of stories there would inevitably be of that kind of thing.

        Or take the petting zoo of geriatrics that comprised the “experts” of the climate denial blog zone.
        How come they do stuff all?
        Sure, some of them are dead by now and that’s very sad so, sure, they get a pass.

        But the rest? They seem content to make a token paper or two and then it’s off to the lecture circuit for that sweet honorarium money.

        There’s no work. It’s pure tokenism.

        Ever look at an issue of Nature? Count the pages.
        And that’s just one issue of one science journal.

        Creation “Science” has exactly the same problem.

        • Scottish-Sceptic says:

          NASA climate – specifically anyone hired with or by 5x arrested eco-activist Hansen.

          I would also sack the head of NASA & any intermediate department heads – for allowing their climate division to be so dishonest.

  7. “The problem is that since NASA and others are known to falsify…”

    They can’t. There’s no way to do that.

    “Others”? What are these “others” of which you speak?
    It’s NASA and every single scientific community on the planet.
    No scientific community rejects the scientific consensus.
    No scientific community is calling out NASA for falsifying anything.
    Your eggs are addled.

Leave a Reply to Damian Scott Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>