 | Debbie Hansel on Master Chainsaw Art. Pass him… |
 | casey on You all remember Sheriff Joe A… |
 | H on Karl Winn, Uberdouche |
| Debbie Hansel on Master Chainsaw Art. Pass him… |
 | Victor Webb on Canada and US Dollar Approach… |
 | WhatupDude on Enough with the Elections Alre… |
 | Maxianne on Famous Psychiatrist: Liberals… |
 | Nik Emery on The Tizona Group has Lost a Pr… |
 | MOEHOWEIRD THE PROFI… on The Sickness of Islam: Virgins… |
| MOEHOWEIRD THE PROFI… on The Sickness of Islam: Virgins… |
 | SSU hyllar mördare |… on Some famous* Che quotes |
 | 1.618 on In which I amuse myself at a g… |
 | julie samson on The case for death, Narkle sho… |
 | James on How many murders committed per… |
 | natalie on You all remember Sheriff Joe A… |
A dog bites man headline – “NASA Gets Caught Faking Climate Change Data-AGAIN!” (Hat tip to Vulture pal Stacy Allgood for the tip).
The climate change hoaxers use computer models to predict that sea levels would rise anywhere from 15 inches to 2o feet because of global warming in the 21st century (the consensus number is closer to 3 feet).
But Mother Nature was never good at computer science. Satellite data proved that the first decade of the 21st century sea level grew by only 0.83 inches (a pace of just 8 inches for the entire century). What’s even worse (for the global warming hoaxers) there has been no rise since 2006. Now I know that some Democrats believe that Obama is a miracle worker, but even the the crazies at the Daily Kos would admit that controlling sea level is way above his pay grade. So the scientists at the University of Colorado’s NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group did what any other self-respecting cult members would do, they fudged the numbers. They simply added .3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. That way they could report that the sea level rise was accelerating, instead of what was actually happening–decelerating.
Yeah…this data is no good. We’ll have to “fix it”.
And “fix it” they do. But what they mean by “fix” and what I mean by “fix” are two different things entirely.
Trust me when I say, “The fix is in”.
Who is this Vulture?
Please allow me to introduce myself. I’m a man of we–
Okay, “Sympathy for the Vulture” is NOT a good start. Let’s try again.
I discovered Tizona shortly after I discovered Andrew Bolt. I liked it. A lot. I considered it a ‘must read’ for my daily intake of blogs and news sources. While I don’t always agree with everything the individual contributors write, I certainly consider their viewpoints to be well-reasoned…unlike those expressed by Global Warming True Believers, Il Duce (Obama) sycophants, faux conservatives, and other douche bags.
Some time back bingbing asked me if I would be interested in being a contributor to The Tizona Group. I thought about it for about .3 seconds before responding that, yes, I would LOVE to. For various reasons it took a while to get me set up as a contributor. But now it’s on.
Those of you who have read my blog, The Vulture Lurks, know that I am a libertarian (small ‘l’), a Global Warming unbeliever, a hater of police and prosecutorial misconduct, and no fan of Il Duce (so named because, contrary to what others say about him being a Marxist, he governs as a Corporatist, in the style of the original Il Duce, Benito Mussolini).
I hail from Frederick, MD, a bedroom suburb equidistant from Washington DC and Baltimore. I have a lovely wife, Deadeye (so named because of her proficiency with firearms); two sons, ages 24 and 22; and I work as a computer programmer (official title, for what it’s worth: Principal Consultant).
I claim to be a “Health food” expert and a “Pain Management” expert, though a quick glance at those two posts will reveal that I’m nothing of the kind – just a coffee addict with a potty mouth.
I probably won’t post often. That day job thingy cramps my style. But I’ll contribute when I can and I’ll do so happy to have the opportunity to be part of this little community.
Coral bleaching – a fait accompli to rising temperatures, you hear. Well, here are some good arguments should you want to tackle that little bon mot at the next dinner party.
I don’t usually engage in conspiracy theories (Troofers, anyone?) but this one is different. My Conspiracy, hereby known as The Drinks Scam Conspiracy, is so ridiculous that if anyone believes it, I will laugh my ass off and mock them for as long as I live.
The Drinks Scam Conspiracy is based on a simple premise: some people will buy absolutely anything. So allow me to now detail the Conspiracy for you.
We all know that Global Warming/Climate Change is real and must be fought immediately, and therefore, for a reason that makes absolutely no sense, we have to get rid of the carbon.
Many alcohols are filtered through carbon to remove impurities and unwanted flavours and other assorted things, so it naturally follows that we need to remove the carbon from the alcohol brewing process. Our superiors (ie, Those Who Believe) therefore believe that in order to fight Global Warming, we need to have either beer that tastes like piss, or go without a wide range of drinks, because from memory, beer, wine, vodka, bourbon and Southern Comfort are all carbon-filtered.
This got me thinking about Dear Leader Kevin’s alcopops tax. Since Dear Leader’s alcopops tax was introduced to “curb teenage binge drinking”, we can safely assume that this tax is for the good of the children, and that alcohol is always bad. So it naturally follows that since alcohol is bad, alcohol that is carbon filtered is extra bad. So we’re taught about the evils of carbon, starting as early as the age of five.
We’re through the looking glass here people…
Global Warming was invented to curb drinking!
The coral’s bleaching, the seas are rising and Gaia cries out for aspirin (you know, for the fever), but Keven Rudd promises a tiddly 5% emissions cut to 1990 levels. Cue much wailing and gnashing of teeth.
“A 5% target locks Australia into runaway climate change,” lies Damien Lawson of the aptly-named FOE (Enemies of Humanity Friends of Earth), who proceeds to feed us complete balderdash: “This target will not stop drought, it will not save the Great Barrier Reef, and it will not prevent ice melting and the sea rising,’ Mr Lawson said. (Well, I guess that’s true, just not the way he means it). ‘‘This is an emergency and the government must act within this term. Our carbon emissions must peak in the next year and then continuously decrease if we are to have any hope of avoiding catastrophic climate change.’
But the message that’s sinking into our politicians is the more realistic one: Australia’s emissions mean nothing on a global scale, the notion that we can influence China and India by forging ahead with our own economic suicide is too far-fetched for serious consideration, and the silver lining to the financial crisis is that it gives governments an excuse to tone down their ETS schemes, which – European countries falling on their collective swords excepted – they seem only too keen to do near the end of one of the most stable decades in recorded climate history.
(Addition: Andrew Bolt rightly points out that 5% isn’t 5% at all, since it refers to 1990, not current, levels of emissions. But politically speaking, I still think Rudd’s 5% is about as low as he can go without appearing to be completely giving up on the ETS).
On this note, let’s recap the climate change saga: tree-ring proxy data aside (and let’s face it, it’s pointless using a data set influenced as much by CO2 as it is by temperature) most available evidence suggests the Earth’s temperature has been going up and down all the time. In the last couple of hundred years it has, on the whole, been slowly rising, which one would expect following a Little Ice Age. Temperature rose when man-made CO2 concentrations were minuscule compared to today’s, and it rose at roughly the same rate in the first half of the 20th Century as it did in the second half (after an inexplicable 30 year hiatus), and in the 21st Century has been at a virtual standstill.
Beginning in the 70’s but coming to fruition in the 80’s was the theory that CO2 concentrations might influence planetary climate, so after about 10 years and 0.2 degrees warming, we were informed of the coming Apocalypse. Rather than admit a paucity of data, woefully incomplete understanding of climate dynamics and need for further research, certain scientists and environmental lobbyists (often one and the same) proclaimed we were facing the end of civilisation as we know it. They set up a *cough* independent panel of *cough* experts to analyse the situation, thereafter waving the figure of 2500 scientists at us whenever their claims were called into question. And yet only a minority of those scientists were actually figuring out how much anthropogenic CO2 contributed to climate change. Many others simply applied the theory to their own fields. Some did not even believe in AGW but their names remained on the list of 2500 nevertheless. Various scenarios were imagined, data extrapolated, best-case and worst-case predictions delivered, with the latter hungrily snaffled up by the media and agenda-driven politicians and interest groups.
I’m not about to dismiss out of hand the work of many clever, industrious scientists around the globe. But I will recognise the dissenting voices and try to work out the credible truth that lies somewhere within the media-hyped, over-speculated, Gorified mass of misinformation.
Many will admit that worst-case climate scenarios are unlikely but will hold up the precautionary principle as reason for drastic action. It’s a reasonable principle – when it involves little to no harm. Not when it’s guaranteed to wreak its own havoc. Call it a precautionary precautionary principle. Mankind will go nowhere doing everything by the PP. Since every action has a consequence, you can run about predicting possible danger for everything we do. No, we have to use our reason and judgement, which in this case means putting the Gores and Flannerys and FOEs back in their boxes and injecting some realism into the debate. Western civilisation slashing CO2 emissions is going to do next to nothing, even if AGW is real as they say. So get practical. Stop wasting resources. Work on obtaining more reliable temperature readings – dump this flawed surface temp data with recording stations in car parks etc. Argue the real and present environmental threats if that’s your cup of tea, because if Kevin Rudd’s gone all tokenist on AGW, you can bet top dollar he also knows it for the crock it is.
In Australia, there are moves to create a tax plan based on carbon emissions, and this plan should be open to intense scrutiny. Via Andrew Bolt, I learned of a campaign to debate the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).
This campaign is being launched by Jennifer Marohasy, and her plan and premise are clear:
I am the Chair of The Australian Environment Foundation and we are planning an Internet campaign to oppose the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) proposed for Australia on the basis:
1. An ETS will not change the global temperature;
2. Will force many clean and green Australian industries overseas; and
3. Will make Australians poorer; while it is generally richer, not poorer nations that are better able to protect their natural environment.
She’s quite right on all of it. Their aim is to raise $30,000 to create a website and launch a formal campaign to bring more awareness to the debate on the ETS. If you’re able, donate! Donations of more than $2 are tax-deductible, but as always, do your own research into the group before handing over your hard-earned.
The ETS proposed by the Rudd Government, if passed, means that depending on your tax bracket and earnings, there is a chance that you’ll be required to pay up to 90 cents of every dollar you earn in tax.
It’s a fight worth supporting, particularly when you consider how well the environment does do, when there’s enough water to help it grow.
Sherbrooke Forest: Lookin' Good
UPDATE: Slatts highlights just one article that proves that there needs to be a more open debate.
Andrew Bolt has up a thread asking for suggestions of what he should ask Tim Flannery next time they meet. There are some great suggestions on that thread, some of which are paraphrased below.
From Andrew’s readers:
The comment that made me laugh (and I’ll warn you, lime cordial coming out of my nose is not fun) was from Boonarga in Queensland. Their observation about Flannery’s reliability?
Ask him for a prediction for the Cup. Then I will know at least one horse to rule out.
I have three questions for Flannery of my own, one of which Margo’s Maid also asked. That question is “At what point did you change your position on nuclear power, and was it influenced by changes in your income stream?”. My other two questions would be “Other than an understanding of scientific research techniques, how does a degree in paleontology qualify you to consider yourself an expert in climatology?” and “What personal sacrifices and life changes have you made to ensure that your predictions regarding climate change are not proven correct?”
I’d bet that he’s stumped on answering all of these questions, and probably many more.
Can’t update you with John Brignell’s latest Number of the Month – because there isn’t one. Unfortunately, our bending author, long plagued by chronic illness, is having a really hard time of it.
In his honour, I propose the number 5 (percent), being Ross Garnault’s latest proposal for Australian CO2 emission cuts – a token gesture really, just enough to say to the world “Look here, we’re believers.” As if a higher cut had any more relevance than that. I’m actually quite encouraged, here being one of the truly devout acknowledging the irrelevance of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. He’ll go for 10% if developing countries sign on at Copenhagen next year, but that’s about as likely as a Robyn Williams sea level rise.
Meanwhile, Australia’s most respected climate scientists (/sarc) and the Greens have popped their heads up from under their joint quilt just long enough to opine for 40% emission cuts by 2020, or something ridiculous like that. And you can still count on one hand the number of Australian journalists calling their bluff. I’d be interested in a poll asking average Aussie citizens if they believed Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions had a direct effect on Australia’s climate. Wouldn’t be surprised if it’s about the same number who believe in anthropogenic global warming.
If even PlanetArk acknowledges the scam in carbon offsets, they must be pretty bad.
The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.”
Par Frank observes: “In essence, they found that climate models have no predictive value.”
Professor Demetris Koutsoyiannis et al via Climate Audit.
UPDATE: Welcome to all our visitors from Climate Audit. Pull up a chair, grab a brew, and relax.
It’s gotta be climate change. After all, there’s never been a storm in Perth before, right?
Al was supposed to stop this from happening. You fat bastard!
This will certainly mean hard work for the local councils and the volunteers in the SES, all of which do a great job.
The City of Melville was the hardest hit, but I happen to have the inside scoop that the men and women working for Melville are absolutely fucking brilliant, and I’m sure it’ll be cleaned up very well and pretty fast.
Yo, Perthians, youse better all be safe, or I’s gonna hunt you down, you gots it?
* Image from The West.
Click for more photos, taken by our man on the ground.
There are a number of reasons I’m a climate change skeptic. And here are the main ones.
It being twenty years since Jim Hansen first presented his fairy tale scientific rsearch fairy tale on Climate Change.
Plenty more worth reading at NumberWatch
Found this great line on a CO2 Science thread about Hansen’s continual massaging of temperature data:
Oh NOW I understand why they call it “climate change”! All this time I thought it was what they were studying, not what they were doing. – Patrick M
(I presume the M stands for Michaels).
Bjørn Lomborg, the controversial Danish economist, tells James Delingpole that it is better to spend our limited funds on saving lives than on saving the planet
Gosh, I do hope Bjørn Lomborg doesn’t think I was trying to pick him up. I’ve only just learned from his Wikipedia entry that he’s ‘openly gay’ which, with hindsight, probably made my dogged insistence that we conduct our interview in his cramped hotel bedroom look like a cheap come-on. Not to mention the way I sat there throughout, mesmerised and sometimes lost for words under the gaze of the handsome, trim 43-year-old blond’s intensely sincere Danish blue eyes which never leave yours for one second.
But it’s OK, Bjørn. You were safe all along, I promise. The reason for my awe is quite simply that I believe you are one of the heroes of our age. You’ve been called the antichrist, been vilified ad hominem in numerous scientific journals, even had custard pies thrown in your face (at Borders bookshop, Oxford, by an eco-activist), but still you’ve stuck to your guns and continued bravely to reiterate what for a time seemed almost unsayable.
Lomborg’s basic argument — as laid out in his bestsellers, The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It! — is that the world isn’t in nearly as bad a mess as the eco-doomsayers claim it is. And before we do anything too drastic to try to make things better, we ought first to ascertain what its most pressing problems are, rather than throw good money after hopeless causes.
Lomborg’s latest venture is a body he has founded called the Copenhagen Consensus. Funded mainly by the Danish government, this research panel comprises 50 leading economists, including five Nobel Laureates, and has spent two years applying cost benefit analysis methods to a list of global challenges — disease, pollution, conflict, terrorism, climate change, water and so on.
If there’s more substance to the comments from this marine biologist working for Australia’s CSIRO, they’re not in the report. Basically, she’s making utterly (and admittedly, by her own self) unsubstantiated claims of species extinction secondary to climate change and in the same breath appealing to the government for more funding. Didn’t I read somewhere about a few climate denialists accusing scientists of hopping on the climate change bandwagon for monetary gain? Well, bless my chestnuts and roast my soul, they might have been onto something.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23857278-5011761,00.html
Love the way warmeners seize on every blip on the meteorological radar as evidence of climate change. A hurricane in Florida, or melting of Arctic sea ice one year (due, we know, to warm oceanic currents, as there simply hasn’t been enough warming to explaining it any other way) and off they go: “See, it’s happening, it’s happening!” But for all the really juicy stuff: “It’ll happen, it’ll happen!”
Although it was plain that the learned academies, governments and the UN all seemed to believe AGW was true, what puzzled me was the stridency of the claims that we had to act now. If it was all so obvious, why weren’t our governments acting to save us? What followed were months of discovery and learning.
I think the central AGW proposition can be put like this:
Human activity in burning coal and oil, and clearing forests has put an enormous amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, where it has combined with water vapour to increase global temperatures in an unprecedented way. The evidence that this has occurred is clear-cut, and the increase in temperature will have, according to our computer models, dire effects on the planet. We must change our ways lest catastrophe strike us. It may already be too late.
This article by Don Aitkin, published in the Canberra Times, is worth a read.
Article thanks to Rafe Champion.
At a recent religious conference where Al Gore was described as “a Prophet” and presented with a Bible with a GREEN cover, he announced, citing Luke 12:54-57 for scriptural support, that it is dishonest (and therefore sinful) for anyone to claim that global warming is merely a theory rather than a scientific fact.
From the Baptist Press:
ATLANTA (BP)–Protecting the earth from global warming is a mandatory part of following Jesus, former Vice President Al Gore said at a “Stewardship of the Earth” luncheon Jan. 31 during the New Baptist Covenant Celebration in Atlanta.
“This is not a political issue,” Gore told a crowd of approximately 2,500 paying attendees. “It is a moral issue. It is an ethical issue. It is a spiritual issue.”
Gore quoted Scripture several times in his speech and repeated his views that increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere are causing a global climate crisis. Gore produced an Academy Award-winning documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which also dealt with global climate change and is being shown at the New Baptist Covenant meeting.
In an introduction of Gore, Robert Parham, executive director of the Baptist Center for Ethics, called the former Democratic presidential nominee a “Baptist prophet” and appeared to criticize the Southern Baptist Convention for its failure to commend Gore for his achievements. He also presented Gore with a “Baptist of the Year Award.”
Gore, citing Luke 12:54-57 for scriptural support, argued that it is dishonest for anyone to claim that global warming is merely a theory rather than a scientific fact.
“The evidence is there,” he said. “The signal is on the mountain. The trumpet has blown. The scientists are screaming from the rooftops. The ice is melting. The land is parched. The seas are rising. The storms are getting stronger. Why do we not judge what is right?”
…
Jeepers. Spot_the_dog reckons, if I’m already going to go to Hell for questioning the science of Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming®, might as well get a few more sins on the board. Gee, my next-door neighbour’s wife is awful cute …
–via my Southern Baptist cousin, who shall remain unnamed
.
By way of Glenn Reynolds, a member of that elite group of lawyers whose guts I do not hate, we learn that Sol may be entering an extended minimum, which means a mini-Ice Age could be coming.
I almost hope it’s for real, except for the fact that I hate cold weather.
The myth of the desolate bear reveals two things about the politics of environmentalism: first, that it’s underpinned by a simplistic, anthropomorphic view of good vs evil, which most of us grew out of before we hit our teens; second, that it frequently bends the facts to fit the fable.
Brendan O’Neill: Bearfaced lies
The article pretty much says it all. I have nothing to add 😉
The Tizona Group 