Obama’s science comes from a NAZI

H/T PhilinCalifornia for the idea

Yep, its proven that when Obama stated this in his climate change speech on June 23rd:

So the question is not whether we need to act.  The overwhelming judgment of science — of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements — has put all that to rest.  Ninety-seven percent of scientists, including, by the way, some who originally disputed the data, have now put that to rest.  They’ve acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it.

That 97% number he used comes from the paper written by John Cook of Skeptical Science.  I guess I could point out how Cook is not a scientist, but rather a cartoonist, but why waste the fun in seeing who the president of the US listens to on science matters.  Recently, we found out that the owner of that blog, John Cook Photoshops himself and his friends into NAZI portraits for fun.  The first picture of Cook himself is here:

It’s not a bad picture I guess if you enjoy dressing yourself up as a NAZI.  But maybe photo-shopping your picture on top of an old nazi uniform does not make you a NAZI.  Perhaps in some bizarre creepy fashion show they thought it was funny.  Always a possibility, but as of yet we have not heard why they thought this was a good idea, or any justification for that matter,   I am not going to state flat-out that we know what Cook is,  but the picture HE had on his website originally does show him in a NAZI uniform.  What are we supposed to assume by this if he remains silent?

I am just baffled that anyone would take advice on science from someone like that I guess.  In other words, the leader of the free world takes his advice from a cartoonist from Australia who thinks its fun to photo-shop his picture on top of an old NAZI picture?  The more you read into the science of global warming, the more bizarre it gets.  I expect loads of more fun as the current stasis of our climate system continues.

 

Advertisement

Does Wind Actually Decrease CO2 Emissions?

This question was asked of the British Government recently and here is their reply:

 

RE: Empirical measurement of fossil fuel displacement by wind power

 

Thank you for your Freedom of Information requests received on 1 May 2011.

Your requests, received 1 May from Dr John R. Etherington

“Has any attempt been made to relate the short term variation of ACTUAL fuel-use by load-following plant to metered wind power feed-in? If so, can the figures be provided, expressed as tonnes of CO2 actually saved per MWh of wind generated electricity?

If no such attempt has been made why not, as carbon-fuel displacement is the only justification for deploying expensive, and covertly subsidised wind power?”

We have considered your request in accordance with the Environmental Regulations 2004 (EIRs) as the information you sought disclosure of, does in our view, fall within the definition of `environmental information’ as stated in the EIRs. We have now completed searching for the information you requested.

In order to determine the relation of the short term variation of actual fuel-use by load-following plant to metered wind power feed-in, we would need to know what fuel use would have occurred in the absence of wind power (i.e. the counterfactual).

This counterfactual (the fuel use in the absence of wind power) depends on the proportions of nuclear, CCGT or coal investment that are being displaced by wind power and the effects on their subsequent operation.  Such a counterfactual can only be calculated by modelling a world without wind power and by subsequently comparing it to the current data on emissions from the grid. No such analysis has been carried out by DECC.

HT: Phillip Bratby

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/8/18/wind-produces-more-co2-than-gas-the-numbers.html

And so we do not actually know the answer to that question.  I think this response by the DECC is important for everywhere to realize the truth.  No one actually knows the answer on whether wind turbines decrease CO2 emissions and likewise decrease other emissions from normal power plants.  In this insane zeal to decrease pollution of all types we have grabbed this delusional thought that we must build the industrial monsters and in the end its nothing but a waste of time and resources.   So why do people think they decrease CO2 emissions?  That belief comes from the belief that we should only count one side of the equation, namely the side that shows the benefit of Wind Turbines and not look at how it increases emissions as well due to its intermittent nature.  The numbers run at the above link indeed show that its likely that adding wind above a certain threshold actually INCREASES CO2 emissions and the best case scenario turns out to be 10% savings assuming everything works perfectly.   So somewhere between -10% savings and 10% savings is the probable result of adding wind to the grid in terms of CO2 emissions.  In other words, it’s just as likely that we save zero in CO2 emissions than we do not.

Until someone actually does the difficult job of figuring out the real result, adding more wind to the grid is a fool’s errand that only accomplishes higher power bills for the poor and tax breaks for the rich.  Other than the regressive tax that wind really brings, which is probably good for the rich who buy into these pork barrel products, there is not one good thing to their name.  I think its time to answer this question once and for all so that we stop enriching our rich land-owners at the cost of the poor for no reason.

Change is scary

The entire concept of being scared of change is what drives and motivates people to be fearful and even paranoid in the modern environmental movement.   The reason for this at its heart is that people are fearful of change.  And nowhere has society changed more than in modern society where we have gone from an agrarian society to a modern office worker society in just 100 years.  This dramatic change has left people without an outlet to discuss each change individually and so these people no longer promote such ideas as conservation and science when they advocate for change.  And so these people have turned into fear hustlers and fear promoters who spread their fears to everyone else under the guise of “the environment” or even homeland security.  These calls to change the world are based on the simple concepts of fear and paranoia.

Image from: http://blogs-images.forbes.com/jacquelynsmith/files/2013/01/0306_market_fears_400x400-300×300.jpg

Wind Power: all of the aesthetic beauty of a wiener

After every argument in favor of wind power is deconstructed as it is here:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100227983/wind-turbines-are-a-human-health-hazard-the-smoking-gun/

and here:

http://timworstall.com/2012/08/18/calling-william-connelly/#comments

The only argument left standing is that we should build these monsters because they are pretty.  You can talk to any green and they will go on and on about how they admire the aesthetic view of them from afar and how they want to gaze upon their naked faces in the glowing embers of sunset.

 

And that is how the cookie crumbles

Today in a speech viewed all across the world, the president has unveiled his plan to solve the largest crisis to face our children ever.  This momentous crisis of course is the problem of cookie crumbling.  When appealing to his fan-base of first graders, he made it will known that he will not tolerate discussion or even debate.  As he states:

So today, for the sake of our children, and the health and safety of all
Americans, I’m directing the Environmental Protection Agency to put an end to
the limitless dumping of cookies from our power plants, and complete
new pollution standards for both new and existing power plants.  (Applause.)

The statement was a resounding success as the auditorium of first graders loved it.  More cookies for all!  All children know that more is better as this commercial shows:

And so his statement that we need to stop the limit-less pollution of cookies and save those cookies for the first graders was a resounding success.

Why the last five months are hot means nothing

In an earlier POST  I discussed the broad dimensions of the lie that “this month was the 8th hottest ever”.   I discussed this earlier from a top-down perspective where I showed that the data is expected to show exactly that and that this data is obviously worthless in determining a trend.  In fact, as I showed, we would be SURPRISED to NOT find the hottest decade ever in the last decade.  Now I tackle the question from a statistical point of view.  Why is this a common and rather stupid mistake to make?

The huge contradiction

The Holocene Climate Optimum was a period of time 8000-5000 years BP (before present) where temperatures were from 1 to 2 degrees C warmer than today is.  Even after all of the “unprecedented warming” that we have seen in the last 100 years we are still cooler than the height of this time period.

So the obvious question is: Why is this time period called the Climate Optimum when it was up to 2 degrees warmer than today AND we are also told by the same climate scientists that 2 degrees of warming would result in catastrophe?

Climate science is doomed

I think we have all heard this claim for years (That CO2 causes our planet to change drastically) but here I show logically why this is claim is based on false premises. The scientific method explains why it is necessary to first disprove the null hypothesis. The short explanation is that this ensures continuity of ideas and logic. If you do not keep this continuity, you double down on your original mistake and thusly anything you publish or explain within this frame of reference is always going to be wrong. In other words, climate science is not doomed because it is wrong per se, but it is doomed because it is based on a premise that is unproven.

Oregon State University’s stance on science

Science at Oregon State University is no longer being applied honestly or even in any resemblance to the scientific method.  Instead of measuring statistics properly and coming to a good conclusion based off of solid data, we have incidents such as the recent Marcott paper where the data says one thing, and the scientist says another.

The story in this case seems to be that after they performed wrong calculations to get the data they wanted, they put a tiny disclaimer in after the fact that their conclusions in the paper are not based on proper methods.  Basically, in the actual paper’s abstract they make several “opinions of the author” and yet they imply strongly that their conclusions come from actual data.  What is even worse is that Dr. Marcott admits to it and yet the paper still remains and the news articles remain the same as well.   This is easy to see how this could be construed as outright fraud since the brand new PHD Dr. Marcott is performing incorrect methods and yet after admitting it does not change any of the conclusions he made in the abstract.  He was caught in the act of lying and instead of apologizing and changing the incorrect lines, he double downs on dishonesty and says that its OK to lie in his conclusions because he put a disclaimer at a separate website that explains that his methods are “not robust.”  This does not answer the questions of why he is being dishonest in the first place however.  Perhaps we need to start posing the questions for Oregon State University.  If we can not expect your scientists to ever tell the truth, how in the world can we the people trust you with our money?  And if you can not even apply the scientific method correctly, why should we trust our children in your hands when you obviously just teach them to lie, cheat, and steal instead of following proper science?

Answer For NewsBusters……. No, She’s Really An Idiot

Answer For NewsBusters……. No, She’s Really An Idiot.