I am reblogging Adam Piggot’s posting “Dear Climate Alarmists—We Will Never Forget nor Forgive.
The author lays out his complaints about the way the warmers treat the data and as well as how they have treated him. He believes the catastrophic man-made global warming theory is unraveling and the skeptics will be vindicated. So what do you think about the following?
It’s been a rough ten years as a so-called “climate denier”. Every year the climate data would show a complete refusal to follow the accepted and official line, and every year the faith of the climate change faithful only seemed to get stronger and stronger. And their abuse of heretics like myself only got stronger and stronger. I have lost friendships over my stance on this issue. I have been attacked publicly by those around me on numerous occasions. And I have endured the casual mockery at social gatherings where the accepted response has been to pat me on the head in a condescending manner – here he is; our own climate denier. Isn’t he precious?
I have watched landscapes I love destroyed by the looming figures of gigantic wind farms that stand in mute mockery of my continued resistance to this enormous scam. I have observed with silent loathing the hypocrites who swan around in their enormous SUVs while proudly parading their dubious green credentials, even as ordinary families struggle with the reality of paying their ever-increasing power bills. Only a few months ago, a piece I wrote on the climate change scam elicited concerned emails and calls from people I know who cautioned me with the treacherous path I was taking.
But money talks and bulls— walks, and the money is beginning to drop out of this con to end all cons.
Posted in AGW, Al Gore, Alternative Energy, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, Electricity from Coal, Environment, Global Temperatures, IPCC, Nuclear Energy, Renewable Fuel Standard, Sea Level
The website inc.com/quora posted “Why You Should Never, Ever Stop Challenging Conventional Wisdom”. I have lifted most of their little gems of wisdom. I am posting this as it fits well with my previous blog about theTheory of Man-Made Global Warming Effect.
The experts are usually wrong.
Experts (those who predict the future for a living) are, more often than not, dart-throwers. They perform no better than chance. And recently they have performed even worse than chance.
“Economists have predicted nine of the last five recessions.”
We are ALL biased. We see the world through a very hazy prism of our experiences.
There is no unbiased news outlet. Even “real news” has an element of untruth to it. Almost every news story I had intimate knowledge of made a significant reporting mistake of factual error in the story.
We’re human, and we make mistakes. We’re human, and we see the world with our strong bias. We overweight individual sources and underweight others. We discount data that is very good, and we rely on data that is wrong. We see patterns when there are none and see coincidences when there are conspiracies
The “expert” can be dangerous. Continue reading
Jeane Dixon was guest on late night TV as well as frequently in magazines and other media because she made predictions-some of which came true but mostly were off target. For years, media featured her New Year predictions. Her notoriety sprung from her prediction that the 1960 Presidential election would be won by a Democrat but the winner would not live out his term. Following President John Kennedy’s assassination, someone remembered her prediction and the rest, as they say, is history.
From Wiki, comes the definition of the Jean Dixon Effect.
John Allen Paulos, a mathematician at Temple University, coined the term ‘the Jeane Dixon effect’, which references a tendency to promote a few correct predictions while ignoring a larger number of incorrect predictions. Many of Dixon’s predictions proved erroneous, such as her claims that a dispute over the offshore Chinese islands of Quemoy and Matsu would trigger the start of World War III in 1958, that American labor leader Walter Reuther would run for President of the United States in the 1964 presidential election, that the second child of Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and his young wife Margaret would be a girl (it was a boy), and that the Russians would be the first to put men on the moon.
I think it is time to declare the Theory of Man-Made Global Warming Effect. The theory certainly fits the Effect definition as posited by John Allen Paulos.
And it is about time to do that. A new, ultra-fast computer, the Cheyenne, has just been brought on-line in Wyoming. It will be used to do studies, some of which will be related to “man-made global warming”. What we can expect are more erroneous predictions made faster than they used to be. That’s progress. And of course, it means more doom-laden stories for the media to circulate.
Dr. Judith Curry posts “Climate Models for the layman”. The Executive Summary may be enough for some readers. Here is the link to the full posting where the reader can gain an in depth understanding of Dr. Curry’s thinking that she used to derive the Key Summary Points shown below:
The Senate approved a bill to cut NASA’s global warming research that is done by the Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS). The Bill now goes to the House of Representatives where it is expected to be approved. President Trump is expected to sign the bill into law. NASA was created to explore space but it now spends more on global warming. Former President Obama incredibly told the head of NASA that he wanted the focus to be on Muslim outreach.
NASA will still have a role in global warming research as a good bit of research data is obtained from satellites that they build and operate. But GISS, directed by Gavin Schmidt, will be eliminated as their global warming research duplicates work being done in other government Departments.
Richard Lindzen, (Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, MIT) discusses the beliefs of three groups. Group 1 are the IPCC scientist that believe that CO2 emissions are causing global warming. Group 2 are scientist that are typical called skeptic and Group 3 are the politicians, media and environment groups plus some hangers-on’s.
Lindzen asks “where do we really stand on the issue of Global Warming”, and discusses this in the following video:
Posted in AGW, Climate Models, CO2, Environment, Global Temperatures, Government Regulations, Government Revenues, IPCC, Media Bias, NGO's eg Greenpeace/WWF, WWF
It is always a good thing to let Bjorn Lomborg views be known. Lomborg is often called the Skeptical Environmentalist because he believes that global warming is caused by man’s activities, but he differs from most of the warmers, in that he believes all the vast sums of money spent on trying to reduce CO2 emissions will be wasted.
He organized and runs the Copenhagen Consensus. He invites expert economist to review a variety of ways to cope with global warming. The Consensus invariably says, for example, that people having clean water, education, etc. are much better uses for the money opposed to using it to combat CO2 emissions. The following video is written and narrated by Lomborg. He shows that the Paris Agreement has plans to spend a lot of money and the results will not come close to achieving their stated goal of holding global temperature rise below 2C.
I do not believe the science supports them spending the money either.