How Secular Humanists And Progressive Liberals Have Always Exempted Themselves From The Darwinian Evolution They Inflict On Everybody Else

I was watching a Military History program called “No Surrender: German and Japanese Kamikazes” about the birth of the Japanese kamikaze pilots of WW2 yesterday.

If you have knowledge of the dilemma of the German generals – with a fanatic Führer screaming orders and a fanatic youth who would have lined the generals up and shot them for treason or cowardice if they’d failed to continue to wage the war – you shouldn’t be surprised to learn that the exact same dilemma slapped the Japanese admirals in the face.  We find that neither top military leadership could stop the war or even de-escalate the atrocities.

First let’s talk briefly about Nazi Germany.  Germany was the official seat of the Protestant Revolution with Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses to the church door in Wittenberg.  But well before the end of the 19th century, Germany had strayed far from God, indeed.  It had in fact become the most atheistic nation in all of Europe and in all of Christendom and in all of Western Civilization.

The perversion and degradation of German culture began in the minds of the German intellectuals.  Even in the very last days of Nazi Germany, with thousands of bombers devastating helpless German cities every single day, Germany led the world in science and philosophy.  What we found – or at least what we should have found – is that science and academia and vicious, murderous barbarism could easily come together to the worst horror imaginable.  We also should have found that ideas have consequences.

It turns out that Japanese admirals were in a very similar bind coming from the young Japanese officers to the German generals.  When the admirals first watched the first kamikaze pilots ignore their orders and fly their planes into American navy ships, they were utterly horrified.  Imperial Japan was not a nation in which the old ordered the young to their deaths from behind the safety of the front lines; it was a war in which a fanatic youth with the best modern Darwinian education in the nation breathed in the toxic ideas they had been fed throughout their entire lives and took those ideas to their natural conclusion.

It was the young pilots who had been the best students in science and technology who alone had the sheer fanaticism to transform themselves into human bombs.  Darwinism didn’t stop them from barbarism; it informed their barbarism and made them barbarous.  More than 4,000 of the most “scientific” and technically literate minds in Japan died committing suicide in order to try to kill their enemies.  These young fanatic officers ignored their older superiors and forced the admiralty to embrace total war to the death.

Because ideas have consequences.  And these young minds that had been so thoroughly poisoned by evolution and Darwinism rose up and lived out the implications of what they had been indoctrinated in.

Let’s put it this way, if you’re a secular humanist or a Darwinist, please explain to me how Darwinism does not entail Social Darwinism.  I mean, if Darwinian evolution is in fact true, if there is no God, no heaven or hell, no judgment, if we are random byproducts of a purposeless, meaningless, valueless universe that will ultimate swallow us up again the same random way it spat us out, then just why should we love and sacrifice for one another when it is far easier and far more profitable to crush and kill them instead?  All Social Darwinism really is is consistently living out the consequences of scientific Darwinism.  There is no Creator to whom we will be held to account on Judgment Day; there is no Imago Dei; we are nothing more than animals; and the animal world is a world in which the strong dominate and the weak die out.

Darwinian morality is as vicious as it is violent.

Let’s start with the fact that evolutionists claim that their system of Darwinism is simply the way the world works.  Assume that’s true for a moment.  And then look at the world around you.  Because like it or not, Darwinism entails social Darwinism.  What is true for nature must be true for the individual and society.  If nature progresses by competition for survival, and the victory of the strong over the weak, then all progress must come the same way.  If the law of the bloody claw is not entailed evolution, just how is it not entailed? How does the 4 billion year history of earth as envisioned by Darwinians not demonstrate that might makes right and it is far better to kill your enemy than it is to turn the other cheek to it? If life is an unceasing struggle for existence, and its outcome is the survival of the fittest, as Darwin claimed, then that is how we ought to function as individuals and as a society.

Modern Darwinians want to use their system to violently club God to death, then drop that club and say, “Now that Darwinism has killed God and religion, let’s not live as if our system that says life is a struggle for existence in which only the fittest survive and the weak are a threat to the rest of the herd is actually true.”  Like so many other elements of Darwinian thought, there is a massive self-contradiction.

Richard Dawkins has laid war and death on the back of religion, but he refuses to accept the far greater holocaust of death on the back of his atheism.  When we rightly point out that atheistic communism was responsible for the murder of more than 110 million people during peacetime alone, Dawkins claims that communism and atheism have nothing to do with each other.  But as I showed last week, that simply is false: atheism was at the very core of Marxism.  If you look up “state atheism,” you find that it is virtually identical with communism.  And it is no coincidence that not only did Karl Marx identify with Charles Darwin as strongly supporting his theory of class struggle and write that Darwinism was “the basis in natural history for our views,” but Nazism was also little more than applied Darwinism – with the rationale of both creating a master race and exterminating the Jews being profoundly Darwinian.  Hitler even made his own people the victims of his Darwinism, stating, “If the German Volk is not strong enough and is not sufficiently prepared to offer its own blood for its existence, it should cease to exist and be destroyed by a stronger power.”  That is profoundly Darwinian.  Now intellectual frauds like Richard Dawkins are trying to go back and rewrite history to expunge the incredibly tragic results of Darwinism being applied to the actual world and society.

And the horror that results in society is equally true of the individual who lives by Darwinism.

Why do we as individuals rape, murder and sleep around?  Because “rape is (in the vernacular of evolutionary biology) an adaptation, a trait encoded by genes that confers an advantage on anyone who possesses them. Back in the late Pleistocene epoch 100,000 years ago, men who carried rape genes had a reproductive and evolutionary edge over men who did not: they sired children not only with willing mates, but also with unwilling ones, allowing them to leave more offspring (also carrying rape genes) who were similarly more likely to survive and reproduce, unto the nth generation. That would be us. And that is why we carry rape genes today. The family trees of prehistoric men lacking rape genes petered out.”  Darwinism is “a scientific idea that, if true, consigns traditions of self-restraint, loyalty, the very basis of family life, to the shredder.”  Now go ye and do likewise.  Unless something inside of you screams “NO!  I will NOT live in accordance with that terrible, wicked, demonic theory of Darwinian evolution!”

As was once stated in Time Australia Magazine:

Japan, war, and evolution
Source: TIME Australia, August 14, 1995 (p. 83). First published in CREATION Magazine Volume 18 number 2. Pages 7 to 9. December 1995 – February 1996.

This century has seen countless millions killed –more than in all known wars of human history put together – in the name of ideologies that owe their inspiration and justification directly to evolution.

The Nazis used this ‘science falsely so-called’ to justify treating other races as sub-human. Engaging in war, even genocide, could hardly be wrong, so they thought, since it made their version of the ‘fittest’ more likely to survive.

Communism’s dialectic materialism required belief in evolution for intellectual respectability. Stalin’s butchery is directly linked to his renunciation of God (and thus all notions of sin and judgment) after reading Darwin’s book. Mao Zedong, responsible for the deaths of tens of millions, listed Darwin and Huxley as his two favourite authors.

Few have realized, however, the degree to which Japanese thinking leading up to and during World War II was also heavily influenced by Darwin.

Japanese thought blended the theistic with the evolutionary. They were a chosen people because the Emperor was a descendant of the sun goddess; they were a master race because they were more highly evolved. Japanese biologists ‘produced studies decrying the apish physical features of other races (hairiness, long arms) and noting the highly evolved characteristics of the Japanese’ (which included milder body odour).

The horrors of Changi, the Burma railroad, and the various death marches of World War II showed a people renowned for cultural gentility treating their wartime captives as totally subhuman. Once you have made any group of people less than human in your thinking, backed up by the authority of ‘science’, it becomes a powerful justification for plain old sin.

If instead of Darwinism, the scientific world had been disseminating the truth that we are all closely related, being the descendants of Adam and Eve through Noah, what a difference we could have seen in the history of the last hundred years!

So yeah, evolution and Darwinism.  And Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia and Maoist China. Like peas in a pod.

I would submit that it’s not merely that through Adam and Eve “we are all closely related,” but that we have a Creator to whom we are accountable for how we treat one another that ultimately matters.  Because if someone is about to rob and murder you, do you really think they would stop if you just told them that we all randomly mutated from some common ape ancestor?

I saw something in the Los Angeles Times editorials.  Jon Wiener wrote on January 18:

Your editorial calling on Egyptian President Mohamaed Morsi to apologize for describing Zionists as ‘descendents of apes and pigs’ is only half right.  We are all descendents of apes, more or less.

Morsi is congratulated for embracing the theory of evolution at a time when so many of our own Christian leaders reject it.  No apology is necessary there. It’s the pigs that are the problem.

The following day, in the paper’s “Mailbag” section, writers explained away the insulting comparison to the pigs, too.  No harm calling Jews descendents of apes and pigs, no foul.

Here’s the thing: Wiener and those who piled on after him completely missed the point of Morsi’s claim and proceeded to make the same error themselves.  Morsi was most decidedly NOT saying that Arabs are likewise the descendents of apes and pigs; he was clearly saying that Jews ARE such descendents but that he and those who think like him are not.  And Jon Wiener, good liberal secular humanist that he is, likewise thinks that while all human beings are the random by-products of the union of mindless and soulless apes, he and his fellow liberal secular humanists are not.

It’s the same mistake, of course, that the Nazis and the Japanese committed: they believed in Darwinism for everybody else, but somehow exempted themselves from the animal state that they so so clearly in their millions of victims.

Gleason Archer exposed the moral and logical idiocy of secular humanism with the following:

“But it should be pointed out that consistent atheism, which represents itself to be the most rational and logical of all approaches to reality, is in actuality completely self-defeating and incapable of logical defense. That is to say, if indeed all matter has combined by mere chance, unguided by any Higher Power of Transcendental Intelligence, then it necessarily follows that the molecules of the human brain are also the product of mere chance. In other words, we think the way we do simply because the atoms and molecules of our brain tissue happen to have combined in the way they have, totally without transcendental guidance or control. So then even the philosophies of men, their system of logic and all their approaches to reality are the result of mere fortuity. There is no absolute validity to any argument advanced by the atheist against the position of theism.

On the basis of his won presuppositions, the atheist completely cancels himself out, for on his own premises his arguments are without any absolute validity. By his own confession he thinks the way he does simply because the atoms in his brain happen to combine the way they do. If this is so, he cannot honestly say that his view is any more valid than the contrary view of his opponent. His basic postulates are self-contradictory and self-defeating; for when he asserts that there are no absolutes, he thereby is asserting a very dogmatic absolute. Nor can he logically disprove the existence of God without resorting to a logic that depends on the existence of God for its validity. Apart from such a transcendent guarantor of the validity of logic, any attempts at logic or argumentation are simply manifestations of the behavior of the collocation of molecules that make up the thinker’s brain.”

You see, these communists, these fascists, these secular humanists, these progressive liberals, they claim that we’re all just meat puppet herd animals.  But somehow they exempt themselves and believe that they – who are just as much mindless random-chance by-products of evolution as everyone around them, can and somehow should still make all of the decisions for the rest of us.

I just wish that the evolutionists and Darwinians who argue that we are the random-chance product of mindless apes would confine their hateful ideology to themselves and leave the rest of us out of it.  But they actually do far worse; they make it ALL about the rest of us and leave themselves out of it.  That way we have the master race bureaucrats to make all our rules for us.

The doctrine of evolution intrinsically dehumanizes.  There is no God who lovingly created man in His own image, there is no God-given moral nature.  There is no meaning, no purpose and no value.  There is only nature and bloody violence and then more and more and more violence.  And ultimately there is only extinction in the cold depths of space as the mindless process that randomly spawned human beings just as mindlessly swallows it all back up again.

It’s interesting that in Revelation 15, when angels preach to the human race during the Tribulation, they say, “Fear God and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come, and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water” (Rev 15:7).  Just as World War Two was the product of mindless evolutionary dogma, so also will Armageddon be the result of the same dogma.

And that’s why the beast is coming.

Scientifically Proven FACT: Republicans Ruled Earth For 39,000 Consecutive Years (Arctic Ocean From 50,000-11,000 Years Ago Was Warmer Than Now)

It’s amazing what science is proving these days.

Evil Republicans ruled the earth for thousands upon thousands of years in antiquity, perpetuating their vile global warming to a helpless planet earth.

Either that, or global warming is believed by the world’s most pathetically stupid people:

New paper finds deep Arctic Ocean from 50,000 to 11,000 years ago was 1–2°C warmer than modern temperatures
Posted on August 29, 2012by Anthony Watts

Reposted from the Hockey Schtick

A new paper published in Nature Geoscience finds “From about 50,000 to 11,000 years ago, the central Arctic Basin from 1,000 to 2,500 meters deep was … 1–2°C warmer than modern Arctic Intermediate Water.” This finding is particularly surprising because it occurred during the last major ice age.

Horizontal axis is thousands of years ago with modern temperatures at the left and 50,000 years ago at the right. Temperature proxy of the Intermediate Water Layer of the Arctic Ocean is shown in top graph with degrees C anomaly noted at the upper right vertical axis. Note this graph is on an inverse scale with warmer temps at the bottom and colder temps at the top.

Here’s the paper:

Deep Arctic Ocean warming during the last glacial cycle

T. M. Cronin, G. S. Dwyer, J. Farmer, H. A. Bauch, R. F.
Spielhagen, M. Jakobsson, J. Nilsson, W. M. Briggs Jr &
A. Stepanova

Nature Geoscience (2012) doi:10.1038/ngeo1557

Abstract:
In the Arctic Ocean, the cold and relatively fresh water
beneath the sea ice is separated from the underlying warmer
and saltier Atlantic Layer by a halocline. Ongoing sea ice
loss and warming in the Arctic Ocean have
demonstrated the instability of the halocline, with
implications for further sea ice loss. The stability of the
halocline through past climate variations is unclear.
Here we estimate intermediate water temperatures over the
past 50,000 years from the Mg/Ca and Sr/Ca values of
ostracods from 31 Arctic sediment cores. From about 50 to
11 [thousand years] ago, the central Arctic Basin from
1,000 to 2,500m was occupied by a water mass we call
Glacial Arctic Intermediate Water. This water mass was
1–2°C warmer than modern Arctic Intermediate Water,
with temperatures peaking during or just before millennial-scale Heinrich cold
events and the Younger Dryas cold interval. We use
numerical modelling to show that the intermediate depth
warming could result from the expected decrease in the flux
of fresh water to the Arctic Ocean during glacial conditions,
which would cause the halocline to deepen and push the
warm Atlantic Layer into intermediate depths. Although not
modelled, the reduced formation of cold, deep waters due to
the exposure of the Arctic continental shelf could also
contribute to the intermediate depth warming.

On the other hand, given the abject failure of Barack Obama and given the Democrat Party’s pathetic inability to so much as even come up with a damn BUDGET for over three years, another 39,000 consecutive years of Republican rule is a fitting proposition.

I’m fine with ruling the world for 39,000 years, but unfortunately, I think it’s that other thing about liberals just being that damn stupid that they’ll believe whatever their hand puppet masters tell them to believe.

Why I’m Offended Over NASA’s Mars Rover Mission

I might be wrong, but I’ve read several stories about the Mars Rover mission now – and every single one of them only provides ONE reason for why NASA launched this $2.5 billion mission: to search for proof of evolution in the form of proof of panspermia.

Panspermia is the view that life was – as religious people have told them for thousands of years – far too complex to have originated on earth.  So since we know that there could not possibly have been an Intelligent Creator God, the only remaining possibility is that life evolved somewhere else and then came here.

Panspermia has largely been the most radical religious faith commitment of atheistic scientism: because you’ve merely punted the origin of life to a place where we can’t possibly find how it “evolved.”

Directed panspermia is an attempt to evade some of the difficulties associated with the concept of abiogenesis. Panspermia theories argue that life began elsewhere in the universe and was subsequently seeded on earth. Some proponents of panspermia hold that life rode on meteorites travelling through space which eventually landed on earth and allowed the Darwinian mechanism to take over. A major problem with this suggestion is the sheer improbability that any life form could survive the radiation and extreme temperatures found in space.

Other proponents of panspermia, such as the co-discoverer of the double helix structure of DNA, Francis Crick, suggest that intelligent aliens visited earth and seeded it with the first life form. The willingness of many scientists to resort to the hypothesis of aliens does not say much for their prospects of finding a feasible naturalistic model for the origin of life. The main problem with panspermia theories is that they only explain how life initially got to earth — they say nothing about the actual origin of life. All such theories merely attempt to shift the problem of the emergence of life to another location.

But here we are, spending $2.5 billion to see if life originated on Mars.

In a way, it’s almost reassuring: the very craziest theory of evolution is now essentially the most mainstream of all the craziest possibilities.

What’s the purpose of the Mars Rover mission?  It is this:

to find whether Mars has the crucial ingredients that could once have supported life.

Well, here’s the thing: what happens if the Mars Rover finds no life on Mars?  What if they don’t find evidence that Mars supported life?  Was the mission a failure?  Was the money wasted?  How could it NOT be given the purpose of the mission???

NASA needs to either find something they can call “evidence” that Mars could have once supported life or they need to explain why they pissed away $2.5 billion in a day when America is going broke.

I’m just telling you right now that they’re going to conjure up the former so they won’t have to do the latter.  I read articles whose headlines screech that some incredible new find has “proven” evolution.  Invariably I end up reading some incredibly minor and trivial thing that amounts to “Mt. Molehill.”  If you read enough of these, you will begin to conclude that the more meaningless a “discovery” is, the louder they are in hyping it.

And just to continue: if they can’t find life on Mars and aren’t able to fabricate some “evidence” that they did, would they finally acknowledge that boy were we ever wrong in our idiotic Darwinism and let’s all join hands and worship our Lord God Almighty?  NO!  Theirs is a radical religious faith commitment that literally everything came from nothing.  They believe that life came from lifelessness.  They believe that intelligence is the result of mindlessness.  They believe that all the purpose and meaning and value came from purposeless, meaningless, valueless nothingness.

When the purpose of a $2.5 billion mission is to find evidence of life, there is a lot of pressure to FIND “evidence” of life.  But let’s say they don’t “find” it.  Is that it?  Do they acknowledge, well, shoot, I guess we were wrong”?  Hardly.  They’ll say, well, there were a lot of other sites we could have landed on.  We’ll need to come back to a different site next time.  Or to a different planet (Uranus sounds good).  Or to one of an infinite number of planets.  Believing that life is “out there” means never having to admit you were wrong.

With the help of Ann Coulter, I’ve described this impossibility of ever refuting an atheist to the satisfaction of the atheist before:

Ann Coulter pointed it out with the false claim that evolution was “falsifiable” versus any religious claim which was not. Darwin said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” And Ann Coulter brilliantly changed a couple of words to demonstrate what a load of crap that was: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by God, my God theory would absolutely break down.”

In any words, evolution is no more “scientifically falsifiable” than even the most ardent young earth creationist claim. Their standard is impossible to prove. I mean, you show me that God “could not possibly have” created the earth.

The whole way they sold evolution was a lie.

And I then stated:

There is NEVER an admission of guilt or an acknowledgment of error by these people.  They simply suppress or destroy the evidence, or “morph” their argument, or anything but acknowledge that just maybe they should be open-minded and question their presuppositions.

The reason “scientists” tell us that we can’t drag our religion into science is because you can’t disprove that God didn’t create.  That might be true; but you can’t disprove evolution any more than you can disprove God.  Because both evolution and Creation are equally religious views.

Then there’s NASA.  How much should we trust an agency that literally got started by Nazi rocket scientists?

NASA is the home of James Hansen – a man who literally screeched that the world was going to freeze in an ice age before changing his tune to say it was going to melt due to global warming before changing his tune to say that it wasn’t so much “global warming” as “climate change” to changing his tune to say that no it’s going to melt again.  They tell us that “snowfalls are going to be a thing of the past” in the summer and then tell us – and I’m not making this up - that it’s so damn cold only because it’s really so damn hot in the winter.

You can understand the mindset: when you’ve got the coldest winter since 1886, blame it on global warming and then make sure you quit calling it “global warming” and start calling it “climate change.”  When you call it “climate change” you don’t even NEED a damn theory any more; all you’ve got to do is demagogue every hot day or every cold day or every tornado or every hurricane or every whatever.

Being completely wrong is a way of life for these fools.

“Science” says that global warming skepticism equals RACISM.

Problems with this ice age no we meant global warming no we meant climate change no we were right when we said global warming (at least until winter comes again) theory abound:

I’ve written numerous articles on the legitimate issues casting doubt on global warming. Consider facts such as: 1) the history of planet earth is a history of climate change and huge swings in climate; 2) we have seen even larger episodes of “global warming” on the planets in our solar system – none of which have SUVs driving around on them – than we see on our own planet earth; 3) the “science” of global warming has been warped with mindboggling acts of fraud and shocking manipulation of data; 4) not only is there no “consensus” about “global warming” but in fact increasing numbers of scientists are outright hostile about “‘decarbonizing’ the world’s economy”; and 5) in spite of all evidence to the contrary, the United Nations is demanding $76 TRILLION in what amounts to pure socialist redistributionism to “save the planet” from “climate change.”

I just learned that the Old Kingdom of Egypt began as a result of an enormous climate shift in which Northern Africa went from a verdant and fertile land to a desert while the Nile began to bloom (4000 BC) and collapsed as a result of massive climate change in which the Nile transformed from lush farmland into dust. And nobody was driving SUVs, were they??? Just as nobody is driving SUVs on Mars.

The fact of the matter is that it was never anything more than a completely artificial and arbitrary decision to blame manmade CO2 – which constitutes such a tiny infinitesimal fraction of the actual global warming gasses it is unreal – for all of our current climate change. When manmade CO2 very obviously never had ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with all the myriad episodes of climate change that have characterized the history of planet earth from time immemorial ever before.

But liberals swear up and down that we must spend at least $76 trillion to fight the manmade CO2 bogeyman regardless.

Oops.  Did I say the left wanted $76 trillion?  That was yesterday.  They actually need $145 trillion.  They need to travel to their conferences so they can learn to be better hysterical alarmist in style, you see.  When said global warming conferences aren’t postponed or canceled due to snow.

And the people who are so damned occupied with finding life somewhere else have documented an appalling hostility to human life on our very own planet:

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” – Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

“Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
- Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society

“Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”
- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
- Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia

“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
- Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
- United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
- Prof Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
- Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor [and major DEMOCRAT PARTY DONOR]

So pardon me if I’m not impressed with the “James Hansen Agency” or its “missions.”

And pardon me for looking at what “scientists” and even NASA “scientists” have done with global warming and understand why I’m more than a tad skeptical about this “mission” that really already seems to have a predetermined “discovery.”

It is hard for me to believe that our most brilliant of brains over at NASA couldn’t have figured out a way to come up with a purpose for sending that rover to Mars that didn’t involve “proving” that there is no God and I’m just the result of a race that began as a protein that evolved into a microbe that evolved into a fish that evolved into a lizard that evolved into a monkey that evolved into a man.  And I’m saying if that was their only reason for their $2.5 billion mission, I wish they’d saved the money.

I remember when the first Soviet astronaut went into space: he declared “I don’t see any God up here.”

It’s truly sad that even as NASA has outsourced its space program to the Russians at the cost of $63 million per seat in the age of Obama, we are at the very same time embracing the “mission” of the Soviet space program to prove there isn’t a God out in space.

But that is where we seem to be.

If you’re going to have a mission to explore space and increase the knowledge of science, I’m all for it.  If you’re going to have a mission to prove atheistic panspermia, then leave me out of it.  And leave my tax dollars out of it.  If you think I’m wrong for having that attitude, then I hope you’ll be demanding that NASA’s next mission goes to Mars to “search for the crucial ingredients to support young earth creationism.”

Panic Over Greenland Ice Melt Like The Whackjob Leftist Media Wants You To? Not If You Know The Truth

Liberal screed: “The sky is falling!  The SKY is falling!”

Satellites see Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Melt
July 24, 2012

PASADENA, Calif. – For several days this month, Greenland’s surface ice cover melted over a larger area than at any time in more than 30 years of satellite observations. Nearly the entire ice cover of Greenland, from its thin, low-lying coastal edges to its 2-mile-thick (3.2-kilometer) center, experienced some degree of melting at its surface, according to measurements from three independent satellites analyzed by NASA and university scientists.

On average in the summer, about half of the surface of Greenland’s ice sheet naturally melts. At high elevations, most of that melt water quickly refreezes in place. Near the coast, some of the melt water is retained by the ice sheet, and the rest is lost to the ocean. But this year the extent of ice melting at or near the surface jumped dramatically. According to satellite data, an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface thawed at some point in mid-July.

Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise.

“The Greenland ice sheet is a vast area with a varied history of change. This event, combined with other natural but uncommon phenomena, such as the large calving event last week on Petermann Glacier, are part of a complex story,” said Tom Wagner, NASA’s cryosphere program manager in Washington. “Satellite observations are helping us understand how events like these may relate to one another as well as to the broader climate system.”

Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. was analyzing radar data from the Indian Space Research Organisation’s (ISRO) Oceansat-2 satellite last week when he noticed that most of Greenland appeared to have undergone surface melting on July 12. Nghiem said, “This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result: was this real or was it due to a data error?”

Nghiem consulted with Dorothy Hall at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. Hall studies the surface temperature of Greenland using the Moderate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites. She confirmed that MODIS showed unusually high temperatures and that melt was extensive over the ice sheet surface.

Thomas Mote, a climatologist at the University of Georgia, Athens; and Marco Tedesco of City University of New York also confirmed the melt seen by Oceansat-2 and MODIS with passive-microwave satellite data from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder on a U.S. Air Force meteorological satellite.

The melting spread quickly. Melt maps derived from the three satellites showed that on July 8, about 40 percent of the ice sheet’s surface had melted. By July 12, 97 percent had melted.

This extreme melt event coincided with an unusually strong ridge of warm air, or a heat dome, over Greenland. The ridge was one of a series that has dominated Greenland’s weather since the end of May. “Each successive ridge has been stronger than the previous one,” said Mote. This latest heat dome started to move over Greenland on July 8, and then parked itself over the ice sheet about three days later. By July 16, it had begun to dissipate.

Even the area around Summit Station in central Greenland, which at 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) above sea level is near the highest point of the ice sheet, showed signs of melting. Such pronounced melting at Summit and across the ice sheet has not occurred since 1889, according to ice cores analyzed by Kaitlin Keegan at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather station at Summit confirmed air temperatures hovered above or within a degree of freezing for several hours July 11 to 12.

“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” said Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. “But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome.”

Nghiem’s finding while analyzing Oceansat-2 data was the kind of benefit that NASA and ISRO had hoped to stimulate when they signed an agreement in March 2012 to cooperate on Oceansat-2 by sharing data.

Wow, that’s really scary.  Maybe I should become like Al Gore and buy a giant, carbon spewing jet plane for myself and live in mansions that use eighty times as much energy as my tea party neighbors’ homes.

At least they slipped that part about the ice melting just like this every 150 years in at the bottom where most people aren’t even still reading anymore.

Or maybe I should try thinking for myself and dig a tiny bit deeper than the fascist redistributionists climate change alarmists wants me to see:

Greenland Ice Melt every 150 years is ‘right on time’
Posted on July 24, 2012by Anthony Watts

UPDATE: see this new article on the issue,

“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.

Extent of surface melt over Greenland’s ice sheet on July 8 (left) and July 12 (right). Measurements from three satellites showed that on July 8, about 40 percent of the ice sheet had undergone thawing at or near the surface. In just a few days, the melting had dramatically accelerated and an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface had thawed by July 12. In the image, the areas classified as “probable melt” (light pink) correspond to those sites where at least one satellite detected surface melting. The areas classified as “melt” (dark pink) correspond to sites where two or three satellites detected surface melting. The satellites are measuring different physical properties at different scales and are passing over Greenland at different times. As a whole, they provide a picture of an extreme melt event about which scientists are very confident. Credit: Nicolo E. DiGirolamo, SSAI/NASA GSFC, and Jesse Allen, NASA Earth Observatory
› Hi-res of left image
› Hi-res of right image

I covered this over the weekend when Bill McKibben started wailing about the albedo going off the charts. I thought it might be soot related. The PR below and quote above is from NASA Goddard. I had to laugh at the title of their press release, where they cite “Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt”, then contradict themselves when the main researcher goes on to say “melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889“. Do these guys even read their own press releases? Climatologist Pat Michaels concurs saying: “Apparently NASA should start distributing dictionaries to the authors of its press releases.”

I’ve sent off a note to the NASA writer, seen here. Maybe she’ll get the headline fixed.

That, and they seem surprised that the Greenland ice sheet would suddenly start melting in summer. Though, not every part of the ice sheet is melting right now, so perhaps their calibrations might be a bit off:

There may have been a brief few days of melt, but it appears to be over:

Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt

For several days this month, Greenland’s surface ice cover melted over a larger area than at any time in more than 30 years of satellite observations. Nearly the entire ice cover of Greenland, from its thin, low-lying coastal edges to its two-mile-thick center, experienced some degree of melting at its surface, according to measurements from three independent satellites analyzed by NASA and university scientists.

On average in the summer, about half of the surface of Greenland’s ice sheet naturally melts. At high elevations, most of that melt water quickly refreezes in place. Near the coast, some of the melt water is retained by the ice sheet and the rest is lost to the ocean. But this year the extent of ice melting at or near the surface jumped dramatically. According to satellite data, an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface thawed at some point in mid-July.

Researchers have not yet determined whether this extensive melt event will affect the overall volume of ice loss this summer and contribute to sea level rise.

“The Greenland ice sheet is a vast area with a varied history of change. This event, combined with other natural but uncommon phenomena, such as the large calving event last week on Petermann Glacier, are part of a complex story,” said Tom Wagner, NASA’s cryosphere program manager in Washington. “Satellite observations are helping us understand how events like these may relate to one another as well as to the broader climate system.”

Son Nghiem of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., was analyzing radar data from the Indian Space Research Organisation’s (ISRO) Oceansat-2 satellite last week when he noticed that most of Greenland appeared to have undergone surface melting on July 12. Nghiem said, “This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result: was this real or was it due to a data error?”

Nghiem consulted with Dorothy Hall at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. Hall studies the surface temperature of Greenland using the Moderate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites. She confirmed that MODIS showed unusually high temperatures and that melt was extensive over the ice sheet surface.

Thomas Mote, a climatologist at the University of Georgia, Athens, Ga; and Marco Tedesco of City University of New York also confirmed the melt seen by Oceansat-2 and MODIS with passive-microwave satellite data from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder on a U.S. Air Force meteorological satellite.

The melting spread quickly. Melt maps derived from the three satellites showed that on July 8, about 40 percent of the ice sheet’s surface had melted. By July 12, 97 percent had melted.

This extreme melt event coincided with an unusually strong ridge of warm air, or a heat dome, over Greenland. The ridge was one of a series that has dominated Greenland’s weather since the end of May. “Each successive ridge has been stronger than the previous one,” said Mote. This latest heat dome started to move over Greenland on July 8, and then parked itself over the ice sheet about three days later. By July 16, it had begun to dissipate.

Even the area around Summit Station in central Greenland, which at 2 miles above sea level is near the highest point of the ice sheet, showed signs of melting. Such pronounced melting at Summit and across the ice sheet has not occurred since 1889, according to ice cores analyzed by Kaitlin Keegan at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H. A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration weather station at Summit confirmed air temperatures hovered above or within a degree of freezing for several hours July 11-12.

“Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” says Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data. “But if we continue to observe melting events like this in upcoming years, it will be worrisome.”

Nghiem’s finding while analyzing Oceansat-2 data was the kind of benefit that NASA and ISRO had hoped to stimulate when they signed an agreement in March 2012 to cooperate on Oceansat-2 by sharing data.

Ah, darn.  That’s too bad.  And I’d gone down to the San Fran Nan Lib store and bought myself a nice tinfoil hat and everything.

NASA should have fired global warming alarmist pseudo-scientist frauds like James Hanson forty years ago.  That was when James Hanson first came out as a fraud alarmist with his hysteria about an ice age (global cooling).  Then he flipped on a dime – because that’s what science is, isn’t it? – and became one of the leaders of the “global WARMING” movement.  But that turned out to be a clearly bogus claim as we kept racking up some of the coldest winters in modern history.  The problem was that global temperatures kept PLUNGING when they had predicted they would be RISING.  So they changed “global warming” to “climate change” because “global warming” had become such an obvious fraud.  And now they’re saying it’s so damn cold because it’s so damn hot in the winter and then saying “Aha!  LOOK at the global warming!” every summer.

Why Liberals Are America’s Nazis: A Look At The Milgram Experiment, Fanatic Religious Faith In Global Warming And Worship Of Big Government Authority

Ever hear about the Milgram Experiment?  It was a rather famous – or  infamous – 1962 experiment that measured the willingness of ordinary Americans to brutalize or even torture another human being under the auspices of a white-coated authority.  Milgram found that 62 percent of Americans would pull a switch that delivered what they believed was progressively high doses of electricity that ultimately reached what would have been a fatal dose of 450 volts.

Milgram said by way of conclusion to what he had learned through his experiment that, “If a system of death camps were set up in the United States of the sort we had seen in Nazi Germany, one would be able to find sufficient personnel for those camps in any medium-sized American town.”  [But allow me to point out at the very outset that Milgram's initial experiment actually measured garden variety Connecticut liberals and the subsequent verifications of his experiment mainly measured liberals located in liberal university towns].

That thought frankly ought to scare the crap out of you as you survey your neighbors and your friends and consider what kind of hell they would willingly support in the event of a political change.  You ought to realize you could very quickly end up being the next “Jew” in the next Nazi Germany.  And if you claim that the fundamental decency of the American people would preclude that from happening, the title of “fool” belongs to you.

I was watching a program about a repeat of that experiment that ended up showing that ordinary Americans are as willing to follow a white-coated authority figure’s instructions to brutalize as they EVER were.  You can skim through this to familiarize yourself with the experiment and the findings:

Would You Have Been A Nazi?
A new test of Milgram’s obedience experiment asks if it can still happen here.
Ronald Bailey | January 6, 2009

Don’t answer too hastily, but have you ever wondered what you would have done if you grew up in Nazi Germany? Of course, we all hope that we would have had the moral strength to stand against that monstrous regime, but can we be so sure? After all, times were tough and both important politicians and leading intellectuals supported Nazi theories and policies. And then there were the ordinary Germans, friendly neighbors like Karl and Lötte down the street. They had joined the Party and were sending little Wolfgang and Gretchen to healthful Party-sponsored summer camps. Being a Nazi was normal for many Germans. Would things have been any different for you or me if we had been unfortunate enough to grow up at that time and in that place?

The most horrific feature of Nazi and Communist regimes, of course, was their industrial-scale savagery. The Nazis managed to murder six million Jews and 22 millionother Europeans. The Soviet Communists exterminated 62 millionand the Chinese Communists killed 35 million. While these murders were ordered by vicious dictators, they were actually carried out by ordinary people like Karl and Lötte. Which brings us to the famous obedience studies conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram.

In 1961, Milgram did research involving ordinary residents of New Haven, Connecticut, who participated in an experiment that ostensibly aimed at determining the effect of punishment on learning. Along with the experimenter, the situation involved two subjects, one a “teacher” and the other a “learner.” The learner was a confederate of the experimenters, so the teacher was the only actual participant. In the experiment, the learner was supposed to memorize a list of word associations. The learner was strapped down to a chair with an electrode attached to his wrist. To encourage learning, the teacher was to pull switches that would supposedly increase electric shocks from 15-volts up to 450-volts in 15 volt increments. Before the experiment began, both the teacher and the learner were given 45-volt shocks. In addition, the switchers were labeled with warnings such as Slight Shock, Moderate Shock, and so forth, all the way up to Danger: Severe Shock. The final two switches were marked XXX.

As the experiment proceeded, the learner (experimental confederate) would keep making wrong answers. The teacher (experimental subject) would then be instructed by the expermenter to progressively pull the switch for ever higher levels of shock. The learner would begin to make noises expressing pain at 75-volts increasing in loudness until 150-volts, at which point he would urgently demand to be released, complaining of heart palpitations. His complaints would grow louder until 300-volts were reached. At 330-volts the learner fell silent. If the teacher showed signs of wanting to discontinue, the experimenter offered a series of prompts:

• “Please continue”
• “The experiment requires that you continue”
• “It is absoulutely essential that you continue”
• “You have no other choice, youmust go on”

The appalling results of these obedience experiments was that 65 percent of participants eventually pulled all of the switches, ultimately reaching the 450-volt level. But perhaps modern Americans would be less susceptible to the demands of authority. After all, the intervening years have seen the rise of the civil rights, peace, and gay rights movements, right? Not necessarily. Last month, Santa Clara University psychologist Jerry Burger reported the results of replicating Milgram’s experiment. He excluded people who had heard of the original experiments and found that the average rate of obedience remained the same at around 65 percent. In addition, there was no difference between men and women.

In 1965, Milgram wrote, “With numbing regularity good people were seen to knuckle under the demands of authority and perform actions that were callous and severe. Men who are in everyday life responsible and decent were seduced by the trappings of authority, by the control of their perceptions, and by the uncritical acceptance of the experimenter’s definition of the situation, into performing harsh acts.” In 1979, Milgram’s judgement was more severe: “If a system of death camps were set up in the United States of the sort we had seen in Nazi Germany, one would be able to find sufficient personnel for those camps in any medium-sized American town.”

But can it really happen here? It’s a giant step from a Yale psychology lab to Auschwitz and the Gulag. What Milgram showed was that ordinary people are deferential to authority figures in laboratory settings. The exact nature of the authority wielded by experimenters is controversial, but it seems based on both perceived legitimacy and expertise. It doesn’t take too much imagination to think that even more people would have gone all the way to 450-volts if the experimenter had the power to punish disobedience. Leaders of governments, militaries, religions, corporations, universities, and gangs all arguably exercise these types of authority. Hierarchy is a universal feature of human societies.

As obedience experiments show, Americans are not really any better at resisting the claims of authority than other people, yet there was no Gulag and no Auschwitz here. True, there was the immense moral evil of slavery, the destruction of Native Americans,Woodrow Wilson’s imprisonment of thousands of dissidents, Franklin Roosevelt’s internment of Japanese Americans, and more recently, the Abu Ghraib cruelties. Leaders at all levels can persuade some Americans to participate in immoral activities. However, the arc of American history has been toward correcting old evils and the commissioning of fewer atrocities over time. Why? Because our institutions of freedom have maintained and expanded the norms that limit the powers wielded by authorities.

For example, a free press is able to criticize practices like slavery and racial discrimination and help establish new norms. If Bill and Joanne down the street send their kids Joe and Kathy to an ethnically mixed school, in other words, it must be OK. In addition, American governmental powers are fragmented and in competition with one another. As another Milgram experiment showed, if two experimenters disagreed about continuing the experiment, the majority of participants sided with the one who argued for stopping it. In other words, when people could refer to an authority figure who agreed with their moral views, they were much more likely to act on them. Similarly, dividing up governmental power increases the chances that some authorities will act ethically and thus inspire people to act on the dictates of their consciences.

Milgram didn’t really explore why it was that Germans created death camps while Americans did not. The answer is liberty. In 1974, Milgram more generously noted, “It is not so much the kind of person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that determines how he will act.” Americans have not escaped the natural human tendency to defer to authority. Instead, we have had the good fortune to find ourselves in the situation where our social institutions have traditionally limited what authorities can get away with. The institutions of liberty are what enable people to act on what Lincoln called, “the better angels of our nature.”

Ronald Bailey is reason‘s science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books.

Well, this is what occurred to me as I watched the program: this shocking experiment could easily be rephrased as a measurement of one’s commitment to liberalism.

Why would I say that?

Which political ideology WANTS a state possessing limitless power (see here and here for examples)?  Which ideology is only too über-willing to commit itself to every new pseudo-scientific trend that appears under the sun?  Which ideology is constantly trying to expand the role and power of government to have the ability to shape and control peoples’ lives?  Which ideology has the frightening tendency to worship its leaders in what I argue is a shockingly similar to the adoration that the German people accorded to their Führer?

Let me begin with my last question first: let’s consider the Obama worship that I argue conservatives would NEVER have applied to George W. Bush.

If you’re a liberal and you want to deny or rebut my premise, YOU SHOW ME REPUBLICANS DOING CRAP LIKE THIS FOR THEIR MESSIAH PRESIDENT GEORGE DUBYA BUSH (see also here):

That ought to terrify the hell out of you almost as much as the Milgram experiment.

You show me garbage like this:

You show me this:

You show me government school teachers indoctrinating precious American schoolchildren (including REPUBLICAN PARENTS’ children) like this:

And of course this liberal propaganda-in-public-school crap goes on ALL the time, as government and union teachers exploit their positions as opportunities to try to indoctrinate, as we again recently saw.  Leftwing political meddling in the guise of “education” goes on all the time because the essence of the left is fascist propaganda.

You show me a famous conservative celebrity saying stuff like this about George Dubya:

Spike Lee: “It means that this is a whole new world. I think…I’ve been saying this before. You can divide history. BB Before Barack. AB After Barack.”

Barack Obama – a future president of the United States of America – not only attended but actually helped ORGANIZE the Louis Farrakhan-organized Million Man March.  I’d say that combined with the fact that liberals themselves claim that a million men attended that march is more than enough to acclaim Farrakhan as a major liberal religious figure.  So you show me an equally powerful CONSERVATIVE religious figure saying similar stuff about George Dubya Bush that Farrakhan said about Obama:

“You are the instruments that God is gonna use to bring about universal change, and that is why Barack has captured the youth. And he has involved young people in a political process that they didn’t care anything about. That’s a sign. When the Messiah speaks, the youth will hear, and the Messiah is absolutely speaking.”  

I’d like to see rightwing conservative media figures appearing on rightwing news sources such as Fox News or the Wall Street Journal the way Newsweek editor Evan Thomas appeared on MSNBC to say something like this about George Dubya Bush:

“I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.”

Obama himself is allowed to blatantly swim in this Obama worship:

You show me the mainstream media smiling happily while George Bush claimed, “There are no red states or blue states, just BUSH states.”  You show me that.

There is a worship of Barack Obama from the left – even after the years of abject failure – that we never saw coming from the right for George W. Bush.  Not only would the mainstream media – which is overwhelmingly dominated by liberalism which dives into ideological propaganda – never allow this, but conservatives themselves are simply not the kind of people who would so blatantly succumb to messiah-worship from its political leaders no matter how much we might respect a Ronald Reagan or a Margaret Thatcher.  It’s just not in our DNA.

It sure is in the DNA of the left.

I also asked, “Which ideology is only too über-willing to commit itself to every new pseudo-scientific trend that appears under the sun?”  I think of global warming that got morphed into the even more nebulous category of “climate change” and the answer is again blatantly obvious: it is the essence of the left to take the marching orders coming from the white coats while we conservatives are shaking our heads in skepticism and dismay at all the liberal “sheeple.”

I’ve written numerous articles on the legitimate issues casting doubt on global warming.  Consider facts such as: 1) the history of planet earth is a history of climate change and huge swings in climate; 2) we have seen even larger episodes of “global warming” on the planets in our solar system – none of which have SUVs driving around on them – than we see on our own planet earth; 3) the “science” of global warming has been warped with mindbogling acts of fraud and shocking manipulation of data; 4) not only is there no “consensus” about “global warming” but in fact increasing numbers of scientists are outright hostile about “‘decarbonizing’ the world’s economy”; and 5) in spite of all evidence to the contrary, the United Nations is demanding $76 TRILLION in what amounts to pure socialist redistributionism to “save the planet” from “climate change.”

I just learned that the Old Kingdom of Egypt began as a result of an enormous climate shift in which Northern Africa went from a verdant and fertile land to a desert while the Nile began to bloom (4000 BC) and collapsed as a result of massive climate change in which the Nile transformed from lush farmland into dust.  And nobody was driving SUVs, were they???  Just as nobody is driving SUVs on Mars.

The fact of the matter is that it was never anything more than a completely artificial and arbitrary decision to blame manmade CO2 – which constitutes such a tiny infinitesimal fraction of the actual global warming gasses it is unreal – for all of our current climate change.  When manmade CO2 very obviously never had ANYTHING WHATSOEVER to do with all the myriad episodes of climate change that have characterized the history of planet earth from time immemorial ever before.

But liberals swear up and down that we must spend at least $76 trillion to fight the manmade CO2 bogeyman regardless.

And the conclusions of the left as to what we need to do to billions of human beings to deal with this bogeyman are themselves so shocking they made the brutal results of the  Milgram Experiment look like the warm fuzzies:

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.” – Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

“Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive, selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
- Michael Fox, vice-president of The Humane Society

“Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”
- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
- Sir James Lovelock, Healing Gaia

“The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
- Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point

“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
- United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment

“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
- Prof Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
- Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor [and major DEMOCRAT PARTY DONOR]

Hitler wanted to exterminate Jews and other “racial inferiors.”  But for the liberals in global warming establishment of today, NEARLY THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE IS THE NEW “JEW” TO BE VIEWED AS A DANGER TO BE EXTERMINATED.

Please don’t think for a nanosecond that these people wouldn’t gladly up your voltage when they electroshock you to death.  AND THEY ARE LIBERALS, LIBERALS, LIBERALS!!!

You can look at my articles and see the mindset of the left: how DARE you be against global warming!  The guys in the white coats tell me to believe it and if they tell me to turn that knob and deliver a fatal dose of electricity then the only reasonable thing to do is turn that damn knob and push that damn button!!!

Just a few days ago we larned that the arctic sea ice is the thickest it has been in more than a decade:

Heavy ice could delay start of Shell Alaska’s Arctic drilling
May 28, 2012
The heaviest polar ice in more than a decade could postpone the start of offshore oil drilling in the Arctic Ocean until the beginning of August, a delay of up to two weeks, Shell Alaska officials said.

Unveiling a newly refurbished ice-class rig that is poised to begin drilling two exploratory wells this summer in the Beaufort Sea, Shell executives said Friday that the unusually robust sea ice would further narrow what already is a tight window for operations. The company’s $4-billion program is designed to measure the extent of what could be the United States’ most important new inventory of oil and gas. [...]

“We’re seeing multiyear ice that they’ve not seen in such large quantities in over a decade, and it could impact our ability to start the well,” Slaiby said. Of particular concern, he said, is the region of the Chukchi Sea around the company’s Berger Prospect – potentially the crown jewel of the company’s offshore oil inventory – which in normal years would be accessible by mid-July. This year, it may be unreachable until late July or early August. [...]

Compare that to the dire warnings just five years ago from the left that there would be NO arctic ice by now:

Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?
Seth Borenstein in Washington
Associated Press
December 12, 2007

An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer—a sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point.
 
One scientist even speculated that summer sea ice could be gone in five years. [...]

“The Arctic is screaming,” said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the government’s snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colorado.  [...]

That’s an Associated Press screech that was re-screeched by National Geographic.

On the one hand you have actual facts and reality and legitimate science and on the other hand you have the Associated Press, National Geographic and “senior government scientists” PUTTING THEIR EARS TO THE ICE AND CLAIMING TO HEAR IT SCREAMING.

I frankly don’t give a damn how many diplomas are on these fools’ walls.  They have abandoned “science” in favor of a fanatic religious committment.  And they will use the raw, naked power of government force and – if they get their way – exterminate human beings by the BILLIONS to force the world to bow down before their global warming gods.

Global warming has been utterly refuted and the motives and methods of its white-coated priests have been discredited time and time again.  But these people – liberals – cannot even theoretically ever possibly be proven wrong to their satisfaction.  And that is only because they have a worldview that is totally divorced from reality.

Liberals are now beginning to admit that the ethanol that they imposed on America wasn’t such a good idea, after all.  Even Al Gore said he was wrong about that little doozy.  Who would have guessed that burning food for fuel might possibly contribute to hunger?  But that doesn’t matter, so never mind; they’ve moved on to DIFFERENT energy boondoggles to demagogue and are screeching even more loudly about them than they screeched while imposing ethanol.

And this love of death and complete fanatic insanity that today’s liberalism has embraced isn’t new.  We can go back to Darwinism and eugenics – and the Holocaust was nothing more than applied Darwinism – and see a history of liberalism, liberalism, liberalism.

Margaret Sanger – Hillary Clinton’s personal hero – was all about killing as many black babies as she could.

Given that Hillary Clinton is one of the über heroine’s of the mainstream left, let’s consider what Hillary Clinton’s own heroine said in her own words:

On large families:
“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” (Women and the New Race, Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

On blacks, immigrants and indigents:
“…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.” Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people

On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial “purification,” couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the right of married couples to bear children:
Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her “Plan for Peace.” Birth Control Review, April 1932

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
“More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

On the extermination of blacks:
“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,” she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon

Margaret Sanger had other things to say, too.  About the birth control that the left wants (Sanger said it would lead to a “cleaner race”); about sterilization (“to prevent multiplication of this bad stock”); about hell on earth which she demonically believed was a Utopia.

I don’t believe I have to say a further word about how genuinely EVIL this hero of liberalism, who was not only a Nazi sympathizer but whose work was cited as justification for the Nazis’ own extermination program, truly was.  Her own volume of words and her entire life’s work betray her.

The Planned Parenthood that Margaret Sanger founded continues to be THE darling of liberalism.  This organization of pure hate continues to “exterminate” black babies and locates 80% of its clinics to ensure that black women continue to self-eradicate two out of three of their black babies.  And we just learned that Planned Parenthood is perfectly willing to wipe out another “inferior” – women.

A.C.O.R.N., yet another liberal darling, was revealed to be all-too willing to accept donations specifically earmarked for the purpose of specifically killing black babies.

As I previously stated above, liberals are absolutely immunized from accepting reality.  Liberals are morally insane, regardless of their color, gender or professed creed.  That is why black liberals continue to support the ideology that is wiping out blacks in a genocide that surpasses the Holocaust and female liberals and female liberals continue to rabidly support a party that will not condemn killing female babies as women pursue their “right” to sex-selective as well as race-selective abortions.

Barack Obama, himself the object of fanatic liberal worship, may best exemplify my point: this man who once demonized George Bush as a warmonger while repeatedly embracing a fantastically unrealistic view toward terrorism (not “terrorism” but “man-caused disasters; not the war on terror but the “overseas contingency operation”) while idiotically vowing to close Gitmo within a year of his assuming the presidency (see also here), this man whose foreign policy was frankly best captured by terms such as “unicorns” and “fairy dust,” is now personally pouring over “baseball card”-style ”kill lists” to lift his thumb up or down like an emperor deciding who should live and who should die.  Were it George Bush doing this, the left would have screamed that this was CLEARLY the act of a fascist Nazi stormtrooper monster.  But it’s Obama lifting his thumb up or down like some deranged Roman emperor deciding who lives and who dies with his political advisor sitting in the room, so it’s A-okay.

For the record, Barack Obama just failed his very own Milgram experiment by the very standard that he himself assumed the presidency espousing.

U.S. Now Has Highest Corporate Tax Rate IN THE WORLD (But Emperor Obama Says Business Must Render More Unto Him Instead Of Creating Jobs)

America is NUMBER ONE!!!  But unfortunately, we’re just number one in anti-competitive taxes, pseudo-scientific obstructionism and costly regulations that all guarantee we’ll never be number one in much else ever again.

Let me take those in order:

No Fooling: U.S. Now Has Highest Corporate Tax Rate in the World
Curtis Dubay
March 30, 2012 at 3:46 pm

This April Fool’s Day, the joke is on all of us. That’s because as of April 1, the U.S. now has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world.

Our high corporate tax rate has long made the U.S. an uncompetitive place for new investment. This has driven new jobs to other, more competitive nations and meant fewer jobs and lower wages for all Americans.

Other developed nations have been cutting their rates for over 20 years. The U.S. did nothing.

The U.S. was at least able to stay out of the top spot until now, because Japan had also failed to get its corporate tax rate in line with other more competitive nations. But Japan has finally seen the light and reduced its rate as of April 1.

Japan’s rate was 39.5 percent. That was just barely ahead of the U.S. rate of 39.2 percent (this includes the 35 percent federal rate plus the average rate the states add on). Japan’s rate now stands at 36.8 percent after its recent cut.

The U.S. rate is well above the 25 percent average of other developed nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In fact, the U.S. rate is almost 15 percentage points higher than the OECD average.

This gaping disparity means every other country that we compete with for new investment is better situated to land that new investment and the jobs that come with it, because the after-tax return from that investment promises to be higher in those lower-taxed nations.

Our high rate also makes our businesses prime targets for takeovers by businesses headquartered in foreign countries, because their worldwide profits are no longer subject to the highest-in-the-world U.S. corporate tax rate. Until Congress cuts the rate, more and more iconic U.S. businesses such as Anheuser-Busch (which was bought by its Belgian competitor InBev in 2008) will be bought by their foreign competitors.

To get back in line with international norms, Congress needs to reduce the rate so the combined federal and state rate matches or falls below the OECD average. Some will contend that with deficits north of $1 trillion annually, we simply can’t afford such a large rate reduction. But the actions of the nations we compete with for new investment show that these nations understand that lowering the corporate tax rate is necessary because of the boost to economic growth it provides.

The United Kingdom, for instance, is in as perilous fiscal situation as the U.S. However, the U.K. reduced its rate in 2011 from 28 percent to 26 percent. Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne recently announced that the U.K. would further cut its rate to 22 percent by 2014 to increase competitiveness.

Congress needs to cut the corporate tax rate to make the U.S. a more hospitable place for investment. The time for excuses is over. Until it does, every day will be a cruel joke.

An interesting exchange between ABC News anchor Charles Gibson and Barack Obama during a debate shows us where Obama is:

You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent.”
 
It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.
 
SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
 
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

You can reward wise practices or you can punish them.  You can reward individual initiative or you can punish it.  Obama is the latter even though the former is far and away the best for society.

Consider the words of Mark Levin as he shreds Obama’s “fairness” meme:

Utopianism also finds a receptive audience among the society’s disenchanted, disaffected, dissatisfied, and maladjusted who are unwilling or unable to assume responsibility for their own real or perceived conditions but instead blame their surroundings, “the system,” and others.  They are lured by the false hope and promises of utopian transformation and the criticisms of the existing society, to which their connection is tentative or nonexistent.  Improving the malcontent’s lot becomes linked to the utopian cause.  Moreover, disparaging and diminishing the successful and accomplished becomes an essential tactic.  No one should be better than anyone else, regardless of the merits or value of his contributions.  By exploiting human frailties, frustrations, jealousies, and inequities, a sense of meaning and self-worth is created in the malcontent’s otherwise unhappy and directionless life.  Simply put, equality in misery – that is, equality of result or conformity – is advanced as a just, fair and virtuous undertaking.  Liberty, therefore, is inherently immoral, expect where it avails equality.

Equality, in this sense, is a form of radical egalitarianism that has long been the subject of grave concern by advocates of liberty.  Tocqueville pointed out that in democracies, the dangers of misapplied equality are not perceived until it is too late.  “The evils that extreme equality may produce are slowly disclosed; they creep gradually into the social frame; they are seen only at intervals; and at the moment at which they become most violent, habit already causes them to be no longer felt.”  Among the leading classical liberal philosophers and free-market economists, Friedrich Hayek wrote, “Equality of the general rules of law and conduct … is the only kind of equality conducive to liberty and the only equality which we can secure without destroying liberty.  Not only has liberty nothing to do with any sort of equality, but it is even bound to produce inequality in many respects.  This is the necessary result and part of the justification of individual liberty: if the result of individual liberty did not demonstrate that some manners of living are more successful than others, much of the case for it would vanish.”  Thus, while radical egalitarianism encompasses economic equality, it more broadly involves prostrating the individual.

Equality, as understood by the American Founders, is the natural right of every individual to live freely under self-government, to acquire and retain the property he creates through his own labor, and to be treated impartially before a just law.  Moreover, equality should not be confused with perfection, for man is also imperfect, making his application of equality, even in the most just society, imperfect.  Otherwise, inequality is the natural state of man in the sense that each individual is born unique in all his human characteristics.  Therefore, equality and inequality, properly comprehended, are both engines of liberty (Mark Levin, Ameritopia, pp. 7-9).

Levin proceeds in the following paragraphs to demonstrate why “equality” is inherently easier to demagogue than “liberty.”  He then points out – in words that obviously could be applied to ObamaCare:

Utopianism’s authority also knows no definable limits.  How could it?  If they exist, what are they?  Radical egalitarianism or the perfectibility of mankind is an ongoing process of individual and societal transformation that must cast off the limits of history, tradition, and experience for that which is said to be necessary, novel, progressive, and inevitable.  Ironically, inconvenient facts and evidence must be rejected or manipulated, as must the very nature of man, for utopianism is a fantasy that evolves into a dogmatic cause, which in turn manifests a holy truth for a false religion.  There is little or not tolerance for the individual’s deviation from orthodoxy lest it threaten the survival of the enterprise (Ibid., p. 10).

Obama isn’t just pushing for more and more taxes to punish more and more job creators to guarantee that there will be fewer and fewer jobs; he’s also targeting the oil that lubricates the entire American economy and way of life:

Yesterday the Obama administration announced a delaying tactic which will put off the possibility of new offshore oil drilling on the Atlantic coast for at least five years:

The announcement by the Interior Department sets into motion what will be at least a five year environmental survey to determine whether and where oil production might occur.

Obama has a documented history of performing endless “studies” and then perverting those studies in profoundly unscientific ways:

Academics, environmentalists and federal investigators have accused the administration since the April spill of downplaying scientific findings, misrepresenting data and most recently misconstruing the opinions of experts it solicited.

[...]

The latest complaint from scientists comes in a report by the Interior Department’s inspector general, which concluded that the White House edited a drilling safety report in a way that made it falsely appear that scientists and experts supported the administration’s six-month ban on new deep-water drilling. The AP obtained the report early Wednesday.

And Obama has used frankly Stalinist tactics to then pressure the experts to fabricate their numbers in his political favor:

The Obama administration pressured analysts to change an environmental review to reflect fewer job losses from a proposed regulation, the contractors who worked on the review testified Friday.

The dispute revolves around proposed changes to a rule regulating coal mining near streams and other waterways. The experts contracted to analyze the impact of the rule initially found that it would cost 7,000 coal jobs.

But the contractors claim they were subsequently pressured to not only keep the findings under wraps but “revisit” the study in order to show less of an impact on jobs.

Steve Gardner, president of Kentucky consulting firm ECSI, claimed that after the project team refused to “soften” the numbers, the firms working on the study were told the contract would not be renewed. ECSI was a subcontractor on the project.

The government “‘suggested’ that the … members revisit the production impacts and associated job loss numbers, with different assumptions that obviously would then lead to a lesser impact,” Gardner testified before a House Natural Resources subcommittee. “The … team unanimously refused to use a ‘fabricated’ baseline scenario to soften the production loss numbers.”

So when Obama says he’s going to do a study, what he means is that he’s going to delay and stall and finally use manipulation and pressure-tactics and deception to fabricate a bogus “legitimacy” for his ideology and his cronyism.

To add to the injury Obama is doing to the economy there is the “hidden tax” of regulation:

A new report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) titled “Ten Thousand Commandments” reveals the vast amount of private-sector capital drowned in the sea of government regulations.

The report’s conclusion is mind-boggling.  The cost of complying with federal regulations has hit the $1.7 trillion dollar mark.

That’s trillion, with a T.

To put that number in perspective, it’s larger than the President’s own anticipated 2011 budget deficit of $1.6 trillion.  In fact, the current regulatory burden imposed on businesses across America now amounts to 50% of total government spending in one year alone.

That’s nuts!

But guess what?  We can top it.

As the CEI report underscores, the compliance cost of regulation is larger than all corporate pretax profits in 2008 and dwarfs the estimated 2010 individual income tax receipts by nearly 50%.

That last point is worth repeating:  The cost of abiding by all the government regulations tallies up to $1.7 trillion, which towers over the revenue brought in by all income taxes, in every bracket.

Putting it all together puts America out of business.

There Is No Compelling Scientific Argument For Global Warming, Say The Scientists

It’s not enough to say that Al Gore was wrong when he kept lecturing us about the “consensus” of science.  Unless it’s the other way around.

Another Global Warming Oops Moment, and it’s a dilly
January 27th, 2012, 9:48 am · posted by Mark Landsbaum

The Wall Street Journal has a letter today signed by 16 noteworthy scientists who wanted to go on the record about global warming. What they had to say constitutes today’s Global Warming Oops Moment, one of those delightful public displays that reveal the emperor has no clothes.

We quote:

“Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.”

Oops. As we so enjoy saying.

It’s sad that the bullies who run the global warming scare machine have intimidated so many for so long, threatening to label any critics as cranks and not real scientists, even cutting them off from tenure, funding and membership and publishing in journals. But thuggery sooner or later is exposed and courage sooner or later overcomes it. Here’s one of those tipping points, as delineated in the WSJ letter:

“Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job. “

What’s this remind you of? If the old Soviet system comes to mind, you’re correct. Also from the letter:

“… we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.”

As we have written for years, global warming alarmism is not and never has been about the earth heating up dangerously, which it isn’t. It’s always been about control and money – their control over your money.

It seems these 16 scientists understand this motivation:

“Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word ‘incontrovertible’ from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question ‘cui bono?’ Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”

Did we say Oops?

Incidentally, these scientists also echo our long-standing observation that global warming simply isn’t dangerously warming the earth, and hasn’t at all this century.

“Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 ‘Climategate’ email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: ‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.’ But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

“The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.”

We have to repeat, Oops!

Hey, anyone in a hurry to scuttle the economic engine of our society so we can subsidize these masters of deceit and fraud? Count up the things government tells you that you must do – and pay for – because of global warming. Subsidizing Solyndra, and countless others, is just the tip of the iceberg.

=-=-=

RELATED POSTS:

• Playing global warming games with glaciers
• Global warming quote of the day
• Republican 11th commandment apparently has been amended, if not revoked
• Cap and trade tax ahead
• Global warming report card: not what you might expect
• 2011 global warming wrap up

I used to live in Orange County and loved the Register.

I miss it even more reading this guy.

He’s got another short piece that supports the one above (Bob Lutz being one of the best engineers in America):

Global warming quote of the day
January 26th, 2012, 4:51 pm · · posted by Mark Landsbaum

It’s been a few days since our last Global Warming Quote of the Day, and because our readers probably have yearned for another, we bring you without further ado, today’s Global Warming Quote of the Day.

“I don’t pursue the electrification of the automobile out of any fear I might have of planetary meltdown. First of all, you have to realize that carbon dioxide is a trace gas, one of most minimal gases in atmosphere. If you believe in the greenhouse effect, you should realize that methane, also known as bovine flatulence, has more than 20 times the power of CO2, and yet nobody talks about it. More than 98 percent of CO2 is from natural causes—just two percent is from humans, and mostly from stationary sources. And just a fifth of the human-caused emissions are from the global automotive sector. You could plug up the spark plug holes of every car and truck on the planet with cement and it would be a rounding error as far as CO2 production is concerned.

“The whole thing [blaming cars for global warming] is outrageous, and the purpose is to create an artificial scarcity of fossil fuel to raise prices and get alternative fuels, which cost way more, to start paying off.” - Bob Lutz, former vice chairman of General Motors.

These words came when Lutz was asked to give context to words he previously had uttered regarding global warming. You recall what he said then, right?

He said global warming was “a crock of *$%*#@.”

There’s a great article that explains what Bob Lutz was saying available here called “An Inconvenient Truth.”  If you read it you will begin to understand the incredibly deceitful bait and switch that global warming alarmism truly is.

Climate Change Crap: Global Temperatures Are PLUNGING

You know, one of the question I ask global warming nuts is “And just exactly what should the temperature be today?”

Here is the real science of “global warming” posted on What’s Up With That:

What in the world is going on with global temperatures?
Posted on January 26, 2012by Anthony Watts

Multiple indicators show global temperatures headed down this month, and fast.

by Joe D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow

As shown above (see the datapoint in the square box), the UAH AMSU daily temperatures are the coldest for the globe at 600mb of all the years tracked since 2002 (warmest 2010, previously coldest 2009).

The new Dr. Ryan Maue reanalysis based global temperature anomalies has declined dramatically this month – almost a full degree Celsius!

Forecasts for temperature 8 days in advance are appended to the reanalysis values.

Is this a reflection of the stratospheric warming pushing the cold to middle latitudes?

The cross section suggests that initial warm burst has ended. Often they repeat as the cold reloads and dumps again.

The 10mb warmth has only backed off slightly.

Notice at the north pole how temperatures warmed 50C (90F) at 10mb.

See how the warmth at the top has spread north then east then west.

Some lowering of the cold as warmth above presses down.

Meanwhile much of the lower 48 and western Europe is having a mild winter in contrast to recent years. It may end up among the coldest ever in Alaska. With a recent heat wave that I am sure Gerald Meehl at NOAA/NCAR is looking at where temperatures in Fairbanks rose to a balmy -3 (warmest this month), the average monthly temperature is an amazing 16.5F below normal. In Anchroage it has been about 13F below normal with double the normal snowfall.

The Alaska temperatures follow with the PDO. A cold PDO (with cold water offshore) means colder than normal, a warm PDO warmer than normal. Any surprise warming was observed as we moved from the La Nina rich cold PDO before 1977 to the El Ninos and +PDO in the 1980s and 1990s (attributed the CO2 of course). Any surprise with a negative 2 STD PDO and La Ninas, it is brutally cold again.

How will all of this play out in February and March???

BTW, instead of taking a PR cruise to Antarctica during their late summer to see melting ice maybe Hansen, Gore and Trenberth should go to Alaska in mid winter to see their fairy tale collapse as they freeze their tails.

So it’s looking more like an ice age than it is global warming.

James Hanson was one of the pseudo-scientist frauds who predicted an ice age in the 1970s before he started predicting global warming in the 1990s.

It just never ends.  The more wrong global warming religionists are the more they claim that all the science is on their side and everyone who doesn’t agree with them is some kind of heretic.

CFL Bulbs, The Bogus Bad Science Behind Them And A Democrat Party That Swims In A Sea Of Hypocrisy And Deceit

Utterly bogus claims in the name of “science” from the same left that routinely demonizes conservatives as being enemies of science.  To be a liberal is to be a quintessential hypocrite; hypocrisy defines the left; it is the sine qua non without which liberalism could not exist; hypocrisy is the ocean that liberal fish swim in.  And hypocrisy is so completely all-consuming for the left that they can’t even see it all around them.

Other than that, they are just wrong.

Yesterday I posted an article that demonstrates how utterly and completely UNSCIENTIFIC global warming “scientists” are.  It is simply amazing to watch these pathological liars play games with the truth while somehow never losing their self-righteous chutzpah.

Btw, the first article of the series referred to below is available here. And I accessed it from a very cool site on “climate change” here.

CFL bulbs: shedding light on misleading performance claims
Kirk Myers, Seminole County Environmental News Examiner
January 12, 2012

This article, the second in a series, focuses on the misleading performance claims surrounding the “more energy efficient” compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs now replacing traditional incandescent bulbs. These potentially harmful mercury-filled lamps (see my previous column describing the dangers) are being forced on consumers by the U.S. congress with support from the Green Lobby and light-bulb manufacturers like GE, Sylvania and Phillips. These and other manufacturers stand to make huge profits selling the more expensive CFLs (more on that issue in my next column).

There is a growing body of evidence undermining claims of the EPA, environmental lobby and light bulb manufacturers touting the performance advantages of mercury-laced CFL bulbs.

Exaggerated lifespan

Real-world reports from the home front show that the claimed extended lifespan of CFLs is often greatly exaggerated. There is ample data indicating that the frequent switching on and off of CFLs greatly shortens their life. A study by H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and co-author Amanda Berg concludes:

“Unfortunately, except under a fairly narrow range of circumstances, CFLs are less efficient than advertised. Manufacturers claim the average life span of a CFL bulb is 10,000 hours. However, in many applications the life and energy savings of a CFL are significantly lower.

“Applications in which lighting is used only briefly (such as closets, bathrooms, motion detectors and so forth) will cause CFL bulbs to burn out as quickly as regular incandescent bulbs . . . When initially switched on, CFLs may provide as little as 50 percent to 80 percent of their rated light output and can take up to three minutes to reach full brightness.”

According to a story in the Wall Street Journal, Pacific Gas & Electric originally estimated the useful life of CFL bulbs at 9.4 years. But based on real-world results, the company was forced to lower its estimate to 6.3 years, meaning that it had overstated bulb life by 49 percent. “The early burn-out rate, along with several other factors, meant that the actual energy savings were 73 percent less than the 1.7 billion kilowatt hours projected by PG&E,” the Journal reported.

Less bright, more dim with age

As many consumers have noticed, CFL bulbs grow dimmer as they age. In a 2003-2004 study, the U.S. Department of Energy reported that one-fourth of CFLs, after only 40 percent of their rated service life, no longer produced at their rated output.

And according to Wikipedia: ”CFLs produce less light later in their lives than when they are new. The light output decay is exponential, with the fastest losses being soon after the lamp is first used. By the end of their lives, CFLs can be expected to produce 70-80% of their original light output.”

After conducting its own tests on bulbs from several manufacturers, The Sunday Telegraph in London “found that under normal conditions, using a single lamp to light a room, an 11W low-energy CFL produced only 58 percent of the illumination of an ‘equivalent’ 60W bulb – even after a 10-minute ‘warm-up.’”

The European Commission, which led the effort to ban incandescent bulbs in Europe, said that claims by manufacturers that CFL’s shine as brightly as old-fashioned bulbs are “not true.”

Posted on its website for consumers was the warning that “exaggerated claims are often made on the packaging about the light output of compact fluorescent lamps.”

Higher heating bills

Go-Green advocates like to complain about the fact that 90 percent of the energy from incandescent lights is given off as heat, with only 10 percent providing illumination. But they ignore one important fact: The extra heat given off during the winter months can actually lower energy bills.

According to a study by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, “The heat of incandescent lights – more than 341 Btu per bulb per hour – can help to warm a room. Therefore, if the cost of electricity is low relative to the cost of home heating fuel, there may be an economic case for changing to incandescent bulbs in colder seasons.”

In other words, on a cold day when you’re running your electric heater, it makes sense to flip on all those incandescent heat sources. Of course, the contribution of incandescent bulbs to lower heating bills is conveniently missing from pro-CFL literature.

Unsuitable for outdoor lighting

What about the use of CFLs for outdoor lighting? Forget it. Most do not operate well in low temperatures, a performance shortfall that makes them virtually useless for home-security lighting, including as lights in motion detectors. By signing the incandescent bulb’s death warrant, congress has effectively rendered useless outdoor lighting systems that keep away intruders and discourage home break-ins.

Myth of mercury reduction

One of the most misleading arguments advanced in defense of CFLs is the assertion that they reduce harmful mercury levels (a dubious proposition given that the bulbs themselves are laced with mercury).

Case in point: In a letter to the Wall Street Journal in December, CFL advocate Nicole Lederer claimed that “coal-fired power plants produce about half of all mercury.”

In his Jan. 5 response, Charles Battig of Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment-Virginia called the statement “scientifically vacuous and misleading.”

Battig cited data from an op-ed (“The Myth of Killer Mercury” by Willie Soon and Paul Driessen) that broke down mercury contributions as follows: “U.S. coal-fired plants, about 41-48 tons per year; forest fires, about 44 tons per year; Chinese power plants, 400 tons per year, while recurring geological events such as volcanoes and geysers emit 9,000-10,000 tons per year.”

“With these missing pieces of information, wrote Battig, the U.S. power plant contribution of mercury is closer to a 0.5% value than the “half of all mercury” claim by Ms. Lederer.”

Battig then offered this advice:

“Would that Ms. Lederer and the Environmental Entrepreneurs expend an equal amount of environmental anguish over placing compact fluorescent lamp bulbs indoors in homes, schools and factories. These mercury-containing, stealth-pollution bulbs bring the mercury threat right into your living room and nursery.”

No good reason for switchover

The fact is there is no good reason for consumers – even energy-conscious go-green enthusiasts – to replace their old incandescent bulbs with the much-overhyped and potentially dangerous CFL lamps. The sole beneficiaries of the forced switchover are light bulb manufacturers who stand to make huge profits selling CFL bulbs whose shelf price has been artificially lowered (but still is higher than incandescent bulbs) through hefty subsidies paid to them by taxpayers.

In light of the facts, the switchover to CFL bulbs has become a real consumer turn-off.

Think about all the lies and bogus promises that accompanied the Democrat Party forcing you to buy CFL light bulbs because they love fascism.  Think about the complete piece of crap a.k.a. the Chevy Volt and the Obama administration spending billions to ram it down our throats.  Think about Solyndra and the $10 billion train wreck of high speed rail and think about just how BAD Democrat governance truly is.

Democrats have been caught red-handed handing BILLIONS of the American peoples’ money to their leftwing special interests.  Companies like Solyndra and GE (the company that benefitted most from the Democrat Party forcing you to buy CFLs whether you wanted to or not) and the boondoggles that crony capitalist fascist Democrats hand them are a dime a dozen.  And then let me say two words - Fannie Mae - to point out just how truly dangerous these dirty rotten scoundrels truly are.

And then vote Republican while you’ve still got a country to vote for.

P.S. Another good site on bad science and the CFL boondoggle is located here.

Global Warming: The Pseudo-Science, The Lies, The Crap, The Cover-Ups – And The Skeptics Who Saw Through It From The GetGo

Came across this piece posted on JoanneNova.com and thought it was a great read:

THAT famous email explained and the first Volunteer Global Warming Skeptic

Years before Climategate, THAT email, from Phil Jones to Warwick Hughes told us everything we needed to know about the scientific standards at the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia. THAT email was the tip of the iceberg, and below is what lay underneath the surface — the things that were said behind the scenes at the time. Geoff Sherrington has pieced together a sequence of climategate emails, his own emails, and parts of Warwick Hughes work to recreate the sequence.

And for the true skeptic-aficionados, here’s a new layer of history to the skeptical chronology. Where did this volunteer audit movement begin?

Who would have guessed that at least one skeptic, Hughes, was asking for the data Phil Jones worked with, as long ago as 1991? (That was way back in the days where people worked with hard copy print outs, and drew graphs by hand!) Does Hughes rank as volunteer Skeptic Number 1?

UPDATE: I asked Warwick, and he thinks the first unpaid skeptic was Fred Wood in 1988*. — Jo

Guest post by: Geoffrey H Sherrington, Scientist.

This is the longer story behind one of the more anti-science quotes in the short history of people attempting to be ‘climate scientists’, definition unclear. The pivotal short quote is in the opening email.

Original artwork: McCutcheon 1903. Adapted: Jo Nova.

“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”

…

Here is a series of emails and articles with my interspersed comments in italics. Each email number is the one assigned in Climategate One and Two, presumably by the donor named FOIA. The Climategate emails are indented below, so the source can be picked up easily. There are sections cut from other emails as well. They are not indented. We start with the famous email, the one that some say was the start of the difficulty that scientists in general found when they tried to access data from some climate scientists.

———————-

From Phil Jones to Warwick Hughes.

1299. Between July 2004 and Feb 2005. (Exact date not on my copy of the email.)

I should warn you that some data we have we are not supposed top (sic) pass on to others. We can pass on the gridded data – which we do. Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider. You can get similar data from GHCN at NCDC. Australia isn’t restricted there.

ACRONYMS

WMO = World Meteorological Organisation.

IPR = Intellectual Property Rights.

GHCN = Global Historical Climatology Network.

NCAR = USA National Centre for Atmospheric Research.

WWR = World Weather Records of the World Meteorological Organization.

MCDR = WMO’s Monthly Climatic Data for the World.

Phil had had some prior thoughts about this.

0688. 16 July 2004.

The reason for emailing though is that I’m also being hassled by Warwick Hughes for the CRU station dataset. We put up the gridded fields, but not the station data. Over the last year or so, I’ve told people they can’t have the station data – go to the GHCN site and get it. I knew that avenue has been closed, but it got some of them off my back. I’m not that inclined to release it to Hughes (who Mike knows and maybe Tom). All he wants to do is to show how I’ve made some mistake or used some incorrect data for some stations.
There are a number of issues, though:

1. Should Res. 40 stop GHCN data being released?
2. Should I be hiding behind it too?
3. When does IPR kick in with the work I’ve put in on the CRU data?
4. Should people like this be able to request this kind of data?
5. NCAR release a precursor to GHCN – just WWR/MCDW+lots of other data, but in an unfriendly format.

From Phil Jones to Tom Peterson.

Thomas Peterson was near the top of NOAA, USA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Seehttp://www.noaaworld.noaa.gov/scitech/sep2008_scitech_4.html

Jones seems to be unsure of the efficacy or legality of ways to avoid a direct answer to Warwick Hughes. Jones appears to know that he is deliberately telling people to go to a place where they will not find the answers they seek. Note the term “unfriendly format”.

Why was Warwick Hughes seeking certain data in 1990?

In Warwick’s words:

Warwick Hughes

“I started reviewing Prof Jones work in 1991 and I have a timeline of my work and published papers in those early years – many links. People have asked me how I got started looking into temperature data.”

“I first got curious about GW through media reports up to 1990 and wanted to check Australian data for myself – at that point I had never used a PC. I went into the BoM in Lonsdale Street and paid for hard copy printouts of stations from here and there – no idea how I selected sites – just places I knew and maybe the counter staff suggested stations. I drew a series of charts on graph paper and seeing a variety of disparate trends – being unable to find GW – showed them to some ex mining industry contacts. One guy gave me an intro to people at the Tasman Institute in the Melb CBD and about April 1991 I breezed in there with these hand drawn charts and showed a staffer – who said; “..you will have to get all this material onto disk – you can come in here and learn to use a PC.”
They gave me a little cubbie of a desk and a 286 PC with Win3.1 and I began pestering staff as to how to get some work out of this box thing. Anyway – the worst phase probably only took a few weeks and I could get some work out of Excel – my early data was entered to disk from my sheaf of hard copies printouts. Sometime in winter 91 I made contacts in the BoM and somebody gave me a copy of the US DoE TR027 report – which details – station by station – Jones et al Southern Hemisphere compilation of GW.
The Australian component of their Appendix A – was my basic source to track down Australian long term stations – I built on from there – for example work done building the data for the Balling, Idso & Hughes 1992 paper – that caused the BoM so much heartburn.”

“This work lead on to my construction of the two contrasting temperature histories from circa 1882, Graph 1 for 25 regional and remote Australian stations and Graph 2 for the six Australian capital cities.”

“City Reviews takes you to many instances of urban heat island UHI contamination of city temperature data still used by Jones/UKMO/IPCC.”

About a half dozen people or more, like me, from larger companies, would meet monthly to distribute funds to Tasman and to review work in progress. Warwick made a presentation in 1991-2. He was more prescient than I was. I left the climate scene early in 1993 and did not reconnect until about 2005. The work presented to Tasman Institute contained several graphs. These two persist, see http://www.warwickhughes.com/1991/targw.htmfor a longer discussion.

Top graph: Geraldton, Narrabri, Hay, Albany, Rottnest Island Lighthouse, Walgett, Deniliquin, Bourke, Cape Naturaliste Lighthouse, Coonabarabran, Echuca, Cooma, Darwin, Moruya Heads Pilot Station, Omeo, Dubbo, Alice Springs, Gabo Island Lighthouse, Bathurst, Strathalbyn, Mt. Gambier, Yamba, Wilsons Promontory Lighthouse, Newcastle Signal Station, Cape Otway Lighthouse.

Lower graph: Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Hobart

It was Warwick’s contention that the search for UHI had been less that thorough as to choice of Australian stations. Here he shows that the temperature change in the average of several large Australian cities was positive, whereas that of a selection of rural sites was negative to level. (Temperature is in Celsius, Tmean annual compiled from half of the sum of Tmax and Tmin daily). Somehow, Phil Jones had concluded from figures similar to these that UHI was negligible in Australia, a finding that is still being quoted in 2011.

In 2004- early 2005, Warwick wrote a number of emails to CRU and WMO, which do not appear in Climategate records, but which are on file here. Some of them detail efforts by Phil Jones to stop bodies like the WMO from cooperating with Warwick. Much of his interest was in the raw data behind two papers from University of East Anglia, being -

Jones, P. D., S. C. B. Raper, T. M. L. Wigley, 1986: Southern Hemisphere Surface Air Temperature Variations: 1851–1984. J. Climate Appl. Meteor., 25, 1213–1230.

This first main paper involved an assembly of data for the USA DOE (Department of Energy) for CDIAC. (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge national Laboratories, Tennessee, USA.)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1986)025<1213:SHSATV>2.0.CO;2

The second main paper:

Jones, P.D., P.Ya. Groisman, M. Coughlan, N. Plummer, W.-C. Wang and T.R. Karl, 1990: Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land. Nature 347, 169-172

.
This second paper dealt with data from China, Russia and Eastern Australia and it was one of the key papers promoting a stampede of thought under the Global Warming banner. It is an important paper, but it is wrong.

Warwick subsequently had the following papers published and a few more rejected, perhaps because they questioned the orthodoxy.

1992 Robert C. Balling, Jr., Sherwood B. Idso, and Warwick S. Hughes. “Long-Term and Recent Anomalous Temperature Changes in Australia.” Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 19, No. 23, pp. 2317-2320. [Abstract]

1995 Robert C. Balling, Jr. and Warwick S. Hughes. “Comments on “Detecting Climate Change Concurrent with Deforestation in the Amazon Basin: Which Way Has It Gone ?” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Vol. 76, No. 4, 9. 559.

1995 Warwick S. Hughes. Comment on D.E. Parker, “Effects of Changing Exposure of Thermometers at Land Stations.” International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 15, pp. 231-234.

1996 Warwick S. Hughes and Robert C. Balling, Jr. “Urban Influences on South African Temperature Trends.” International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 16, No. 8, pp. 935-940. Online at [2]http://www.john-daly.com/s-africa.htm

1997 Warwick S. Hughes. Comment on, “Historical Thermometer Exposures in Australia.” by N. Nichols et al. International Journal of Climatology, Vol. 17, pp. 197-199.

In year 2005, the Global Warming discussion was leading to many unscientific statements. I became involved, writing a letter to the national newspaper here. ‘The Australian’ 15 February 2006:

“THERE is an excellent argument for curbing the public statements of scientists like those from CSIRO, a former employer of mine. Scientists, like the public, cover a spectrum of beliefs, some of which are based on emotion rather than science.

An example is the selection of Australian weather recording sites used to construct the temperature measurements of the continent, which play a big part in southern hemisphere weather models. From the beginning, most sites that showed little or no temperature rise or a fall from, say, the 1880s to now were rejected. The few sites selected to represent Australia were mainly from capital cities and under suspicion for “heat island” effects. I could give example after example as it was one of my employment functions to distill the best results from the bogus on many mattersrelated to energy/greenhouse/nuclear etc. I found few truly objective submissions among those masquerading as science.” Geoffrey H Sherrington.

This created a storm, because the Climatic Age of Innocence in Australia was again under threat.

For example, http://jennifermarohasy.com/2006/03/geoff-sherrington-responds-to-chattering-class/

Also, I sent emails to Phil Jones. These are too long to reproduce in full, so later I collated them for the Climate Audit blog. The first one starts a few paragraphs down from here, datde 24 March 2006. The “missing graphs” to which I refer are those in the text just above here. The Jones+Sherrington email exchange is not in the Climategate sets. Two recurrent themes are the evasion of a direct answer by Jones; and as we shall now see, the way in which data disappear, reappear, are available, are not available, are reliable, are not reliable. This might seem like fun, but it is not like Science.

The URL ishttp://climateaudit.org/?s=Sherrington+Jones+emails

At about this time, the subject of Freedom of Information law, especially in Britain, started to become mentioned more often.

——————-

5133. 20 Jan 2005.

From Phil Jones to Tom Wigley, CRU.

On the FOI Act there is a little leaflet we have all been sent. It doesn’t really clarify what we might have to do re programs or data. Like all things in Britain we will only find out when the first person or organization asks. I wouldn’t tell anybody about the FOI Act in Britain. I don’t think UEA really knows what’s involved…..

I got a brochure on the FOI Act from UEA. Does this mean that, if someone asks for a computer program we have to give it out??

As Phil Jones warms to the subject of Freedom of Information, he seems to have learned enough to become expert in advising others:

———————-

3341. 3 Dec 2008.

Phil Jones to Tom Wigley, CRU.

When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I’ve got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is going on –

CA = Climate Audit blog (Steve McIntyre). VC = Vice Chancellor

Most of the following is self-explanatory parts of emails from Climategates One and Two.

——————-

0377. 9 December 2003.

Ian “Harry” Harris, CRU programmer to Keith Briffa, CR

Aaaaaand it’s obviously not just me having trouble with it
…including additional documentation, fixing of minor typos in the
descriptions of different datasets, and providing some additional
minor methodological details of the MBH98 analysis. We are also
providing the full raw instrumental University of East
Anglia/Climatic Research Unit surface temperature dataset 1854-1993
(Briffa and Jones, 1992), because CRU has since updated their surface temperature dataset, and no longer archives the version that
we used when we began our study in the mid 1990s.

Ooh! Are we being scolded?

U.

Harry had reason to be concerned. Here are selected extracts from Climategate One as reported in ‘The Daily Inquirer” newspaper on 2 Dec 2009, http://www.thedailyinquirer.net/harry-read-me-the-climategate-report/127123

Harris is a climatologist/programmer at the CRU and his “Harry Read Me” documents his efforts to update a huge statistical database (11,000 files) of important climate data between 2006 and 2009. What’s scary is Harris admits that much of the center’s data and applications are undocumented, bug-ridden, idled with holes, missing, uncatalogued and, in short, utterly worthless. Here are some of the programmer’s comments (with the page number in the parenthesis):

- “Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!” (47)

- “As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless.” (57)

- “COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn’t open until 1993!” (71)

- “What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah — there is no ’supposed,’ I can make it up. So I have : – )” (98)

- “You can’t imagine what this has cost me — to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a ‘Master’ database of dubious provenance …” (98)

- “So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option — to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations … In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad …” (98-9)

- “OH F— THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases.” (241).

- “This whole project is SUCH A MESS …” (266)

Having established some reason to doubt the accuracy of the CRU data, we turn now to the “now you see it, now you don’t” aspect. Here is my first attempt to gather data from CRU. It overlaps with Warwick’s requests. This is not in the Climategate emails, it is personal.

——————

24 March 2006:

From Geoff Sherrington to CRU.

I seek the figures which were used from Australian weather stations at the start of your climate modelling work in the 1980s. I seek to know the first set of Australia weather stations used in modelling, plus the set that was rejected and if possible, the span of data by years (or the data itself) for each of the stations considered and eventually used initially. Is it possible to obtain this information?

—————-

March 25, 2006:

From CRU to Geoff Sherrington.

Dear Geoffrey, We no longer have the Australian station date we were using in the early 1980s. At that time we had a limited network. In the 1990s, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology began issuing a lot more station data each month. Up to that time it had been about 40 stations internationally. Through contacts with personnel in Melbourne, we got access to the back data from all the new stations, so added these. In order to use temperature data, we need historic series with at least the 1961-90 base period. We now have access to over 100 stations from BoM in real time … Australia is the only country to make additional data (additional to the about 1500 exchanged by Met Services) to us in real time.

Warwick tried to get information from the USA Government. This related to the first main paper quoted above, from data collected by CRU for the US Government, who paid Phil Jones & Co on an ongoing basis. The response was negative.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?tag=phil-jones

In Oct 2005 I (Warwick Hughes) wrote to DoE CDIAC asking for the Jones et al/CRU station data and was told:

“.. Phil was not obligated under the conditions of past or present DOE proposal awards to provide these items to CDIAC. I regret we cannot furnish the materials you seek.”

Phil Jones tells others that an Australian BOM officer is ignoring Climate Audit and Warwick Hughes.

————————-

2143. 19 June 2007.

From Phil Jones to Tom Wigley.

Just looked at the CA web site, and their latest is a real go at
the Jones et al. (1990) paper. When Wei-Chyung got the email from
Keenan he was going to Norway for a meeting. Maybe he’s back now.
It seems as though they didn’t give him much time to respond.
I have a JGR paper to review by a number of Chinese on temp trends
there. Warming looks much greater than CA would believe. They refer to a
J. Climate paper (which is either in press or resubmitted – depends where
it is referred to in the paper !) which reckons that 30-40% of the warming
there is urban related. Not keen on it being said this way, but need to
read the paper beyond the abstract and the urban section.
As for pointers, yes stress this is just USHCN and not global. Maybe
also point out that work on assessing homogeneity is best done within
the country (even if Russ doesn’t agree), so could mention Lucie re
Canada. There are apparently some Australian pictures as well on the
CA website. I had an email from David Jones of BMRC, saying they will
be ignoring anything on CA and anything from Warwick Hughes.
The other aspect to point out is that the SSTs are warming around most coasts,
and the open ocean as well, so UHIs can only be a small part of the overall
warming. There is a sentence or two on this in Ch 3, in the ES if I recall
correctly.
Could also point out that there are many totally rural sites around the world
which show strong warming.

More Acronyms

CA = Climate Audit blog.

BMRC = (Australian) Bureau of Meteorology Research Centre

SST = Surface Sea Temperature.

UHI = Urban Heat Island. (Natural temperatures artificially elevated by man-made developments near weather stations).

The puzzle deepens. Phil had the data after all!

————————–

2581. 27 February 2007.

Phil Jones to Thomas Karl NOAA USA.

I have had a request for the data from McIntyre, but I am not sending
the data. I am already tried and convicted, so there is no point
in sending them anything. I will not bother replying as well. I might
as well act as expected. They will run out of steam in a week or two
and move onto something else.
There is a clear thread running through the comments. By the way,
CRU isn’t changing any of the current data that is coming in on the
CLIMAT system, except where it is wrong. We are getting Australia
directly as their CLIMAT messages don’t calculate monthly means
as they used to pre-1994, and for a few sites in eastern Canada,
where Lucie Vincent developed homogeneous series – but adjusted
them to the pre-1960 period.

By the way, I do have the data from the study on disk! I was wise even when Steve McIntyre first requested the data many years ago. I think I could replicate the study if I had that rare commodity – time.
The penultimate paragraph of the 1990 paper was mainly written by
Tom – thanks. It even has pre-IPCC definitions of likelihood!
Neil – can you pass this on with my best wishes to Mike.

CLIMAT = a collective system of periodic climate reporting by countries under an arrangement of the World Meteorological Organization.

At this stage Phil is still sticking to his story that CRU no longer has the data sought by Hughes, Keenan (for China) and self (for Australia). Then in the Climategate Two:

—————————-

3114. March 27, 2007

From Phil Jones to Dave Palmer, FOI officer, CRU.
Subject: Re: FW: Freedom of Information Act / Environmental Information Regulations. request (FOI_07-13 ; EIR_07-03)

I have found all the input data for the paper from 1990. This includes the
locations of the sites and the annual temperature values. If I were to get
someone in CRU to put them on our web site, do you think that would
keep them quiet, or just spur them into more requests?
The 1990 paper data isn’t that much, just 6 small files, each of about a half
an A4 page.
My earlier email about the other request (the first one) for all our data still
stands.

Phil loses data – again. Reported in “Guardian” newspaper. 15 February, 2010.

“In an interview with the science journal Nature, Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University East Anglia, admitted it was “not acceptable” that records underpinning a 1990 global warming study have been lost.

The missing records make it impossible to verify claims that rural weather stations in developing China were not significantly moved, as it states in the 1990 paper, which was published in Nature. “It’s not acceptable … [it's] not best practice,” Jones said.

I cannot understand what Phil means, as he has previously stated in 3114 , three years before, that the data are not lost.

Then we get this expose. The Australian data have a serious error in any case.

————————–

2963. 3 March 2009.

From Phil Jones John Kennedy, a Canadian official, by way of mention.

Earlier today we got an email from Australia – see below. So, Australia is still
issuing the wrong CLIMATs as far mean T is concerned.

In the files I gave you last week, all Australian data post-Nov 94 has mean T calculated the way
it should be using (Tx+Tn)/2. Using the correct data warms Australia as a
whole by +0.15C compared to what is released.

—————————

2963. 3 March 2009.

To David Jones BOM from Blair Trewin BOM Australia

Australian temperature data [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

I’ve finally had a chance to have a look at this – it turned out to be more complicated than
I thought because a change which I thought had been implemented
several years ago wasn’t.

Up until 1994 CLIMAT mean temperatures for Australia used (Tx+Tn)/2. In 1994, apparently as part of a shift to generating CLIMAT messages automatically from
what was then the new database (previously they were calculated
on-station), a change was made to calculating as the mean of all available
three-hourly observations (apparently without regard to data completeness,
which made for some interesting results in a couple of months when one
station wasn’t staffed overnight).

What was supposed to happen (once we noticed this problem in 2003 or thereabouts) was that we were going to revert to (tx+Tn)/2, for historical
consistency, and resend values from the 1994-2003 period. I have, however,
discovered that the reversion never happened.

In a 2004 paper I found that using the mean of all three-hourly observations rather
than (Tx+Tn)/2 produced a bias of approximately -0.15 C in mean
temperatures averaged over Australia (at individual stations the bias is
quite station-specific, being a function of the position of stations
(and local sunrise/sunset times) within their time zone.

Perhaps this is a good end point. It shows that CRU and some of its people were unprepared to participate in the normal conduct of science; that they tried to thwart progress; that they invented reasons to explain disarray of their data, which disappeared and reappeared episodically; that they were prepared to flaunt Freedom of Information laws; that as Harry the programmer wrote, they were prepared to fabricate data; that they were manipulative; that they were Hell-bent on pushing a cause to the extent of rejecting wise counsel.

Perhaps, in regard to the start of this article, Warwick should have asked “Are your data worth having” before he asked if he could have some. There is good case that they were wrong then; and that they are wrong now, 2 decades later.

Credits:

Besides Warwick Hughes and trivial me, there were others seeking data from CRU. The list is too long for complete mention, but several stand out. These include Steven McIntyre of Canada, whose “Climate Audit” blog shows sophisticated analytical prowess. They include Douglas Keenan, whose legal investigations of the Chinese component of Jones at al 1990 paper were most revealing; and Willis Eschenbach, whose article on the Anthony Watts blog “Watt’s Up With That?” is on somewhat similar lines to my article above. (see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/an-open-letter-to-dr-phil-jones-of-the-uea-cru/ )

Willis wrote, inter alia, about Phil Jones -

“Rather than just saying that, however, you came up with a host of totally bogus reasons why you could not give me the data. Those were lies, Phil. You and David Palmer flat-out lied to my faceabout why you couldn’t send me the data.”

This makes an appropriate ending to my piece.

——————————————————————

Disclaimer: Apart from verbatim quotes by others, views expressed in this guest post are those of the author.

*Of course Sherwood Idso, Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christie, Pat Michaels etc were all skeptics tackling this from professional positions at the time.

“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it,” asks the global warming “scientist.”  And the answer, of course, is “Oh, I don’t know, BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT LEGITIMATE SCIENTISTS DO!!!

Of course, “legitimate” scentists share their data so other scientists can confirm their findings.  Unlike “global warming scientists”:

“I should warn you that some data we have we are not supposed top (sic) pass on to others.”

[...]

“Over the last year or so, I’ve told people they can’t have the station data – go to the GHCN site and get it. I knew that avenue has been closed, but it got some of them off my back. I’m not that inclined to release it to Hughes (who Mike knows and maybe Tom). All he wants to do is to show how I’ve made some mistake or used some incorrect data for some stations.”

[...]

I have had a request for the data from McIntyre, but I am not sendingthe data. I am already tried and convicted, so there is no pointin sending them anything. I will not bother replying as well. I might
as well act as expected. They will run out of steam in a week or two and move onto something else.

Is the following a legitimate way to deal with incredibly important issues of “science”?

Jones seems to be unsure of the efficacy or legality of ways to avoid a direct answer to Warwick Hughes. Jones appears to know that he is deliberately telling people to go to a place where they will not find the answers they seek. Note the term “unfriendly format”.

An important question is whether the question:

Should I be hiding behind it too?

is the kind of question any legitmate scientist representing any kind of legitimate field ought to ask?

Then we go from Phil Jones not wanting to share his “data” to refusing to share his “data” to finally claiming he lost his “data”:

“In an interview with the science journal Nature, Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University East Anglia, admitted it was “not acceptable” that records underpinning a 1990 global warming study have been lost.

The missing records make it impossible to verify claims that rural weather stations in developing China were not significantly moved, as it states in the 1990 paper, which was published in Nature. “It’s not acceptable … [it's] not best practice,” Jones said.

Oh, well, I guess we’ve got no choice but to accept their conclusions and spend the $76 trillion the United Nations says we need to spend.  All liberals and Democrats shall henceforth reduce themselves to abject poverty paying for this boondoggle first.

I thought the end was nice, too, as LEGITIMATE scienstist Willis Eschenbach concludes to the total abject lying fraud named Phil Jones:

“Rather than just saying that, however, you came up with a host of totally bogus reasons why you could not give me the data. Those were lies, Phil. You and David Palmer flat-out lied to my faceabout why you couldn’t send me the data.”

This is an excellent piece that just damns these false prophets (because the term “scientist” is a category fallacy with these frauds) with their own words.

It gets real good as you get to the part where the global warming “scientists” chat amongs themselves:

- “Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!” (47)

- “As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless.” (57)

- “COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn’t open until 1993!” (71)

- “What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah — there is no ’supposed,’ I can make it up. So I have : – )” (98)

- “You can’t imagine what this has cost me — to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a ‘Master’ database of dubious provenance …” (98)

- “So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option — to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations … In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad …” (98-9)

- “OH F— THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases.” (241).

- “This whole project is SUCH A MESS …” (266)

Well, shoot.  Al Gore says it’s true, and he won a Nobel Peace Prize for SCIENCE.

It doesn’t matter if that man is an abject scientific fraud, too.

“Global warming” was bogus, so they called it “climate change” as if changing the name would change the fact that it is bogus by ANY name.

Not only is global warming a religion, but it is a religion that is so pathologically stupid and dishonest the priests purged their own sacred texts rather than submit them to critics.

I would suggest that you click on the article link and read it there as the formatting is better than my copy/paste.