Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘AGW Fanaticism’ Category

No Comment

The original title?  “Hundreds gather to protest global warming”

Read Full Post »

OK, so reading a scientific article written by a couple of German physicists is not your thing.  You’re more of a sensitive, artistic, visual type, right?  Well, in that case, head over to SDA and look at the pretty graph.  Take a cup of coffee, it’ll take a while to digest.

Climategate: 30 years in the making.

Go to the site, look at the timeline.  Read it.  Understand it.  And then tell me if you’re an AGW true believer, or a skeptic.  More importantly, are you ready to completely redistribute the world’s wealth to combat the “problem” of AGW after revieweing either/both of the documents that are the subjects of the lasts 2 posts?

Read Full Post »

What happens when junk science meets the hard, cold realities of physics?  Well, let’s just say that the results aren’t pretty. Here’s the abstract (emphasis mine):

The atmospheric greenhouse eff ect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which  is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fi ctitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is  radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.   According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.  Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientifi c foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarifi ed. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fi ctitious atmospheric greenhouse eff ects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned diff erence of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsi fied.

Shorter version:  don’t screw with the second law of thermodynamics.

Full paper is here. I wonder if this counts as “peer-reviewed”?  Probably not, because it wasn’t peer-reviewed by the right people – that is, by true believers in AGW theory.  This is essentially the same argument that Steve McIntyre has been making over at Climate Audit.  He isn’t trying to pass himself off as a “climate scientist”(snicker). His argument is, and always has been, that the statistics used by Mann et all are applied inappropriately, that their data is bogus, and that their analysis is flawed.  McIntyre’s argument is that, as a statistician, he has evaluated their statistical methods, and found them wanting.  The RealClimate group’s response has been to denigrate his analysis (and Steve personally) by saying he’s not a climate scientist in academia that has been published in the appropriate peer-reviewed journals.  A peer review process controlled by, you guessed it, climate scientists with a very vested interest in AGW being “true”.

These German physicists aren’t claiming to be climate scientists either – but they are physicists who have looked at the physical underpinnings of the greenhouse gas effect necessary for AGW to be true – and found significant errors in the way the physical principles have been interpreted and applied.  More importantly, they have found that a greenhouse gas effect as postulated by AGW climate scientists requires a violation of a basic principle of the universe – the second law of thermodynamics.  Not sure what that means?  Well, there are many different statements concerning the second law of thermodynamics, most of them dealing with the concept of entropy.  The simplest, and most useful from an AGW standpoint, is what is known as as the heat formulation of the second law or the Clausius statement:

Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.

And what, pray tell, does THAT mean?  Essentially that, in order for AGW to work, heat must be transferred from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer ground of the Earth.  Something that cannot happen.  Ever.

Perhaps a Loren B. Thompson quote, slightly modified, is called for:

“What happened here is that the technology AGW enthusiasts got far beyond what the laws of physics would allow.”

Yep, I think that sums it up pretty nicely.  But what does it matter if you violate a few laws of physics to save the planet, eh?

Read Full Post »

All You Need to Know

About the motives of the Climate Change Industry.

But then he wound up to his grand conclusion – 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ – “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell….let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.

Oh, yeah – then there’s this.

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

Of course, the climate change alarmists can’t seem to decide if polar bears are friend or foe.  Their attitude seems to be linked to the message the polar bear delivers, I guess.

UPDATE: Prince Charles shows how huge the AGW crisis really is – by taking a private jet to Copenhagen to deliver a speech on climate change.

Read Full Post »

The aggression?  Not genocide in Darfur, but a reporter asking questions about climate-gate.

However as the press conference drew to a close Professor Schneider’s assistant called armed UN security guards to the room. They held McAleer and aggressively ordered cameraman Ian Foster to stop filming. The guard threatened to take away the camera and expel the film crew from the conference if they did not obey his instructions to stop filming Professor Schneider.

The guard demanded to look at the film crews press credentials and refused to allow them to film until Professor Schneider left the room.

Read Full Post »

Continues unabated.  Obama really does seem determined to punish business as much as possible.  

An “endangerment” finding by the Environmental Protection Agency could pave the way for the government to require businesses that emit carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases to make costly changes in machinery to reduce emissions — even if Congress doesn’t pass pending climate-change legislation. EPA action to regulate emissions could affect the U.S. economy more directly, and more quickly, than any global deal inked in the Danish capital, where no binding agreement is expected.

Why the rush, you might ask?  Well, isn’t it obvious?

EPA action would give President Barack Obama something to show leaders from other nations when he attends the Copenhagen conference on Dec. 18 and tries to persuade them that the U.S. is serious about cutting its contribution to global greenhouse-gas emissions.

Screw what it does to the US economy, already reeling from Obama’s policies.  Just give Obama something to announce at Copenhagen so he can show off what an awesome dude he is.

Ah well, as goes California, so goes the nation.

Read Full Post »

Google vs. Bing

Compare.  Contrast.  Decide which you trust more to be “unfiltered” by people without an agenda to drive. (click for full size).

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »