Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Thanks | Main | Dr Mann in the dock - Josh 388 »
Wednesday
Apr052017

TailGate - Josh 389

Sir David King admits they got it wrong in another example of how the green blob trashes the planet while pretending to save it.

Cartoons by Josh

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (134)

The Congressional Record speaks for itself, which is more than can be said of many in Washington.

https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/04/schwarzenegger-training-apprentice.html

Apr 28, 2017 at 9:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

Kudos, Mr Seitz, for no longer hiding links to your site behind click-bait headlines. However, as I have no wish to go there, I will just repeat what I requested a while ago (Apr 24, 2017 at 11:16 AM), and that you might have overlooked:

Tell us where we can find the evidence that global warming (or its significant lack thereof these past 2 decades) has anything to do with human-produced CO2. Please note: solid, verifiable scientific evidence is what is sought, not opinion pieces or references to models.

It would also be useful if you could show us the evidence that the rise in CO2 that we have had for about 2 centuries is all the fault of humans, particularly in relation to their consumption of fossil fuels. (Again, solid, verifiable evidence is required, not opinion pieces or models.)

Just those two points will enable you to help your cause, as most sceptics have been seeking such simple evidence for an awfully long time, and found nary a trace of it, so you would be doing us all – and science – a huge favour.

Apr 28, 2017 at 11:00 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

While an idiotic rodent would ignore the Keeling curve, a sensible one would note the identity of the difference in pre and post industrial atmospheric CO2 mass ,and the total mass of fosssil fuell humans have combusted , and its proportional reflection in ocean chemistry.

Why don't you take the radiical step of reading the encyclopedic sidebars at Real Climate & Rabbett Run , and learning all the details - it willl soon make you smart as a capabara with a large hat size, instead of asking questions stunningly dumb as ' show us the evidence that the rise in CO2 that we have had for about 2 centuries is all the fault of humans. '

Do you imagine we are the only species that dissolve limetone or eruct methane that oxidizes into CO2


To avoid becomig the lawful prey of the dumbest cat in the neighborhood go read the answers - it may take you a year to master so make haste to

Start Here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

Apr 29, 2017 at 12:21 AM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

VV thinks he is smart but in reality he is just a blouse. Real people are waking up to the spoutings of such non entities as VV
And of course Trump is sorting things out in VV's neck of the woods - cutting the funding is a great start.
Here are a few facts from someone who has to face up to reality.

https:// https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFTEZTuLRoM
html

Apr 29, 2017 at 3:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterKleinefeldmaus

So Russell you agree that there is actually no irrefutable evidence based on reality only prediction of models?

This is what we have been saying from the start. Absolutely staggering given the billions that have been thrown into the drain by the warmist industry.

Apr 29, 2017 at 12:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin Mason

@ Russell April 29th 2017
So VV starts with an ad hominem then refers to the Keeling curve as though that was of any significance (going from SFA to not much more) as a trace gas in the atmosphere (which incidentally is the source of all life) Then he quotes the so called mass of fossil fuel that humans have burnt as though that was a significant proportion of co2 in the atmosphere compared with co2 from natural sources. Then there’s this massive leap to ocean chemistry. What bearing the volume of the human contribution of co2 to the atmosphere has to the ocean’s chemistry (if any) is minuscule as far as I can ascertain.
Then we have another appeal to authority (if you can call it that) – bear in mind the imminent defunding of Gavin Schmidt’s activity (VV’s hero is seems). Then another ad hominem followed by an even wetter attempt at humour. Finally he comes out in the open. “all the fault of humans”.

So there we have it in a nutshell. Jeremiah would be proud - if you don’t obey you’ll be destroyed.
And finally – he can’t resist a further as hominem.

By god VV you are indeed an item. But you don’t say anything.

Apr 30, 2017 at 3:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterKleinefeldmaus

And while I am at it check this out for a little bit of perspective.

Scientists have calculated that termites alone produce ten times as much carbon dioxide as all the fossil fuels burned in the whole world in a year. Pound for pound, the weight of all the termites in the world is greater than the total weight of humans. Scientists estimate that, worldwide, termites may release over 150 million tons of methane gas into the atmosphere annually. In our lower atmosphere this methane then reacts to form carbon dioxide and ozone.It is estimated that for every human on Earth there may be 1000 pounds of termites.On the average Termites expel gas composed of about 59% nitrogen, 21% hydrogen, 9% carbon dioxide, 7% methane, and 4% oxygen.It is thought “There are 2,600 different species of termites, and it is estimated that there are at least a million billion individual termites on Earth, that they emit two and four percent of the global carbon dioxide and methane budget, respectively-both mediated directly or indirectly by their microbes.
So it you have got a problem regarding co2 (Jeremiah) VV first have a go at the termites.

.http://termitedetector.com/detection.cfm

Apr 30, 2017 at 5:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterKleinefeldmaus

And on a less serious note - the tampering of the temperature record is a no no - especially if the original data is destroyed. Some folk have done both.
Just as well VV doesn't get near any Stevenson screens - Just say'n

https:// https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFTEZTuLRoM html

Apr 30, 2017 at 5:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterKleinefeldmaus

oops The above post contained the wrong clip

And on a less serious note - the tampering of the temperature record is a no no - especially if the original data is destroyed. Some folk have done both.
Just as well VV doesn't get near any Stevenson screens - Just say'n

https:// https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFTEZTuLRoM html

Apr 30, 2017 at 5:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterKleinefeldmaus

Russel

How about credible evidence that the weather that we see now is unprecedented in any way or not within the bounds of natural variation.

This should be really easy Russell given your religious adherence to the cause.

Apr 30, 2017 at 11:04 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin Mason

As usual, Mr Seitz, you sidestep the question. Here’s is another one for you to avoid: why can you not provide a straightforward answer to either of the two simple questions?

At least I have forced (by the devious wiles of a Rodent) you to admit that it is not only humans who are contributing to the rise in CO2 levels; all we need to do now is to agree on what proportion is from humans, and which from “natural” sources. To do that, of course, we will have to agree on how the source of any CO2 can be determined… Oh, dear. I can see problems developing, already. One of the problems of not being a scientist, I suppose; I can see so many problems that could be involved with any experiment, measurement or observation; oh-so-clever scientists (of which Mr Seitz apparently claims to be a leading member) do not have such problems, and can chunter away, spouting whatever they may feel like, knowing that evidence is not required as they have said it, and they are always right – QED.

Apr 30, 2017 at 2:12 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

The refusal of rodentdom, from field mice to the radically illiterate, to read climate science books journals reveals <I> Mus episcopi to be sorely afflicted with some slow intelletual virus akin to Kuru, or Mad Cow Disease..

As the only cure is learning enough to realize that they <really don't know what they are talking about , the only cure on offer remains ineffectual as offering a glass of water to a terminal Rabies patient.

But it is a sin to despair, so here is a specific to cure them of their antic repetition of excuses for not studying the lessons Nature has to teach all but the preterite sheep of this poor Northern Bishop's flock , who remain after many years of his own sermonizing, so terminally wrong as to make even zealots like Hansen seem comparatively right.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Hansen_ha01110v.pdf

May 1, 2017 at 6:06 AM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

Russell, are you incapable of answering questions? The lessons of nature are also very clear, the predicted outcome of increase in atmospheric CO2 isn't what the models and AGW theory predict, not now and not at any time in history. The theory is patently flawed.

May 1, 2017 at 9:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin Mason

Talking about lessons of nature I see that global temperatures are plummeting below pre Nino values

http://www.thegwpf.com/global-temperatures-plunge-0-5-celsius-in-april/

May 1, 2017 at 10:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin Mason

Mr Seitz, I am afraid you err, there, in your assumptions about me. I have read climate science books and journals, and I have studied many sites on the internet, including many, many scientific papers published on-line, all in hope that I would find this elusive evidence. Alas, none have I found. Now, if you could do me a small, small favour – as you certainly give the impression that you have this information – please tell me exactly where I can find this evidence, and I shall be eternally grateful to you. Please note: the evidence needs to be verifiable, and should not include the assumptions and conclusions of others, nor should it refer to models.

If you are unable to do this (or perhaps unwilling, for whatever reason) then you should start to question your own assumptions and conclusions on this matter, and review the evidence that not only is commonly available, but that which you, personally, have available.

May 1, 2017 at 10:40 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

VV can't answer anything - he just likes to gob off - thinks he is a modern day prophet or summat.But he is a great source pf amusement - for the locals.


https:// https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFTEZTuLRoM

May 1, 2017 at 11:03 AM | Unregistered CommenterKleinefeldmaus

Mr Seitz: it is difficult to accept the claimed authority of one who displays little understanding of the English language or its punctuation, let alone the more recent accommodations that the internet uses for expression within the use of the written word. Let me educate you a little: should you wish to express yourself in italics, you prefix the word, phrase, sentence or whatever you wish to be in italics with a simple coding, that the program recognises, and adjusts the display accordingly. This simple coding is encompassed within right and left pointing chevrons (> and <) the letter “i” in lower case; thereafter, your words will appear in italic form. To return to normal form, repeat the above, this time prefixing the lower-case “i” within the chevrons with a forward slanting slash – “/”. For the purposes of example, I shall supplant the chevrons with parentheses, else the example will be lost – (i)italicised words(/i). You can also embolden the lettering by supplanting the “i” with a “b”; and you can strikeout or blockquote by using the terms “strike” and “blockquote” in exactly the same way.

May 1, 2017 at 12:42 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

To address the paper you linked us to, Mr Seitz, it should be pointed out that the inherent bias within the report is declared in the very first sentence: “We use a global climate model to compare the effectiveness of many climate forcing agents for producing climate change.” Why do they depend upon a model? Surely a model is only as good as the data upon which it is based and with which it is fed? Do they truly have all the required data? Can they be sure that they have interpreted what data they do have correctly? Surely, it is no surprise that “We find a substantial range in the ‘‘efficacy’’ of different forcings…” as their model will have been set up to demonstrate exactly that, else why bother going to such lengths?

Further down, they postulate: “A climate forcing, measured in W/m2, is an imposed change of the planetary energy balance.” The implication here is that there should be “planetary energy balance.” Why? Can we really be so certain that "balance" is normal? Surely, in any chaotic system, there will rarely be any balance? What balance there might be being only momentary, as the system switches from “up” to “down” (whatever you may interpret to mean by “up” or “down”). A ball thrown into the air will momentarily be stationary in relation to the Earth, as its motion ceases to be up, and just prior to it becoming down. But the world is considerably more complex than that, Mr Seitz. Assuming it is feasible to continually toss and catch this hypothetical ball, let us take it on a roller-coaster ride. Now, when throwing it into the air, there will be times when it is stationary in relation to the Earth, when it is stationary in relation to the hand which threw it, when it is stationary in relation to the cart in which the owner of the hand is travelling – but only in a single plane of motion! – in this case, vertically. In all other planes, when independent, it is unlikely to be stationary in relation to any of the three bases from which we are measuring its motion. And, in ALL cases, the probability of this ball ever being stationary in relation to ALL the bases at any time would be so infinitesimal as to be approaching nil. Now, that is measuring ONE item in a relatively simple world against just 3 bases. “Climate Science” is measuring an unknown number of items in a highly complex world against an unknown number of bases and arguing that there should be a balance! Now, knowing that which has been revealed to you, you should understand why so many are perplexed that you should be such an ardent supporter of what have so far been quite categorically failed theories.

May 1, 2017 at 1:28 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

The Climate refuses to comply with the Laws of Climate Science, yet Climate Scientists still deny they guessed anything wrong, and try to shift blame for their mistakes, with juvenile antics and temper tantrums. I can't see Climate Science maturing graciously.

May 2, 2017 at 1:14 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

GC, I hope that Climate Science never gets the chance to mature; I hope that, in the impetuousness of youth, it hurls itself off a cliff.

Mind you, in a way, I suppose it already has done that, with its hockey stick, and doom and gloom, and is presently on life-support, provided by the once-POTUS, Obama. Let us pray that the present POTUS switches that machine off.

May 2, 2017 at 9:45 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

GC, I hope that Climate Science never gets the chance to mature; I hope that, in the impetuousness of youth, it hurls itself off a cliff.

Mind you, in a way, I suppose it already has done that, with its hockey stick, and doom and gloom, and is presently on life-support, provided by the once-POTUS, Obama. Let us pray that the present POTUS switches that machine off.

May 2, 2017 at 9:45 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

GC, I hope that Climate Science never gets the chance to mature; I hope that, in the impetuousness of youth, it hurls itself off a cliff.

Mind you, in a way, I suppose it already has done that, with its hockey stick, and doom and gloom, and is presently on life-support, provided by the once-POTUS, Obama. Let us pray that the present POTUS switches that machine off.

May 2, 2017 at 9:46 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Ravishing Rattie, not having a third eye, like a Tuatara, we have no need of three copies of your magnificent prose. Did your fingers stutter, or are you a proponent of the "tell em, tell em again then tell em you told them again" school? Read all three assiduously, just in case.

May 2, 2017 at 11:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

No idea, Minty. I pressed once, & the site then went AWOL. I reloaded, & the post wasn't there & I had no copy, so ignored it. Perhaps they are just electronic echoes in the aether.

May 2, 2017 at 1:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterRadical Rodent

King's policy on diesels was not the worst of his disasters. As CSA from 2000 - 2007 he was chiefly responsible for Britain's climate and energy policies since the turn of the century. Britain's old boy club scientific establishment followed his lead . The reality is that CO2 has little effect on global temperatures but has been very beneficial in increasing crop yields. Climate is controlled by natural orbital and solar activity cycles. King's climate advice on CO2 limitation policies have lead to the misuse of literally trillions of dollars worldwide.Here is the Abstract of my recent paper on the subject

ABSTRACT
"This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth's climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point - in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable."

The paper was published in E&E on line at DOI: 10.1177/0958305X16686488

A blog version is accessible at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html

Here is an exchange I had with Freeman Dyson two years ago.
E-mail 4/7/15
Dr Norman Page
Houston
Professor Dyson
Saw your Vancouver Sun interview.
I agree that CO2 is beneficial. This will be even more so in future because it is more likely than not that the earth has already entered a long term cooling trend following the recent temperature peak in the quasi-millennial solar driven periodicity .
The climate models on which the entire Catastrophic Global Warming delusion rests are built without regard to the natural 60 and more importantly 1000 year periodicities so obvious in the temperature record. The modelers approach is simply a scientific disaster and lacks even average commonsense .It is exactly like taking the temperature trend from say Feb – July and projecting it ahead linearly for 20 years or so. They back tune their models for less than 100 years when the relevant time scale is millennial. This is scientific malfeasance on a grand scale. The temperature projections of the IPCC - UK Met office models and all the impact studies which derive from them have no solid foundation in empirical science being derived from inherently useless and specifically structurally flawed models. They provide no basis for the discussion of future climate trends and represent an enormous waste of time and money. As a foundation for Governmental climate and energy policy their forecasts are already seen to be grossly in error and are therefore worse than useless. A new forecasting paradigm needs to be adopted. For forecasts of the timing and extent of the coming cooling based on the natural solar activity cycles - most importantly the millennial cycle - and using the neutron count and 10Be record as the most useful proxy for solar activity check my blog-post at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
The most important factor in climate forecasting is where earth is in regard to the quasi- millennial natural solar activity cycle which has a period in the 960 – 1020 year range. For evidence of this cycle see Figs 5-9. From Fig 9 it is obvious that the earth is just approaching ,just at or just past a peak in the millennial cycle. I suggest that more likely than not the general trends from 1000- 2000 seen in Fig 9 will likely generally repeat from 2000-3000 with the depths of the next LIA at about 2650. The best proxy for solar activity is the neutron monitor count and 10 Be data. My view ,based on the Oulu neutron count – Fig 14 is that the solar activity millennial maximum peaked in Cycle 22 in about 1991. There is a varying lag between the change in the in solar activity and the change in the different temperature metrics. There is a 12 year delay between the activity peak and the probable millennial cyclic temperature peak seen in the RSS data in 2003. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend
There has been a cooling temperature trend since then (Usually interpreted as a “pause”) There is likely to be a steepening of the cooling trend in 2017- 2018 corresponding to the very important Ap index break below all recent base values in 2005-6. Fig 13.
The Polar excursions of the last few winters in North America are harbingers of even more extreme winters to come more frequently in the near future.
I would be very happy to discuss this with you by E-mail or phone .It is important that you use your position and visibility to influence United States government policy and also change the perceptions of the MSM and U.S public in this matter. If my forecast cooling actually occurs the policy of CO2 emission reduction will add to the increasing stress on global food production caused by a cooling and generally more arid climate.
Best Regards
Norman Page

E-Mail 4/9/15
Dear Norman Page,

Thank you for your message and for the blog. That all makes sense.
I wish I knew how to get important people to listen to you. But there is
not much that I can do. I have zero credibility as an expert on climate.
I am just a theoretical physicist, 91 years old and obviously out of touch
with the real world. I do what I can, writing reviews and giving talks,
but important people are not listening to me. They will listen when the
glaciers start growing in Kentucky, but I will not be around then. With
all good wishes, yours ever, Freeman Dyson.

The quality of the UK science on climate since 2000 has been appallingly low. Following the exposure of King's carelessness and scientific ineptitude it would be a good time for The GWPF to using the data and arguments in my paper as a basis for publicly clearing away the rest of the catastrophic anthropogenic warming meme once and for all. Best Regards Norman Page

May 2, 2017 at 3:05 PM | Registered Commenternorpag

"...[U]nfortunately, the Taxpaying Public are assuming all Scientists are equally untrustworthy and unreliable." Apr 6, 2017 at 8:45 AM | golf charlie

Perhaps not all, but a significant portion of "Scientists" could have spoken up about the shoddy efforts of climate scientists to mislead the public. Failing to do so merits a corresponding reputation as "untrustworthy and unreliable" in the eyes of anyone with a gram of scientific scepticism.

May 2, 2017 at 6:42 PM | Unregistered Commenterjorgekafkazar

Congratulations Lord Bishop!

Andrew, serve well and long in your Deputy Director position at GWPF!

May 2, 2017 at 7:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterATheoK

Congratulations on your appointment to thr GWPR, Bish!

May 2, 2017 at 8:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon Keiller

May I add my congratulations as well.

May 2, 2017 at 9:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterDouglas Field (aka Kleinefeldmaus

Congratulations on your new position at GWPF!

May 2, 2017 at 9:55 PM | Unregistered CommenterTW

Though I can but recommend RR to the Museum of Comparative Zoology , as a rodent of very small brain who has not studied his lessonsm t he unfortunate Felony Disqualfication of Heartland;s Science Director leaves our fy=urry friend with the fast tract to advise the Bishop as he plays :

"a key role in the GWPF, working closely with the Chairman and Director.

In recent years, the GWPF’s influence has grown rapidly among UK and international policy makers and the news media and it is widely regarded as the world’s leading think tank on global warming policy issues.

###

I for one, extend my sincerest congratulations, as I’m sure many WUWT readers do as well

-Anthony Watts"

May 3, 2017 at 9:05 AM | Unregistered CommenterRussell

Oh, boy, Mr Seitz! You really do not have prove so quickly and so comprehensively how right I am - you truly are a total idiot!

Come on! What has The Bishop's appointment in the GWPF to do with anything that we have been discussing on this thread?! Oh - I suppose it does help you deflect people away from the FACT that you still have not answered any of my oh-so-simple questions. Good move.... NOT!

May 3, 2017 at 9:51 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Poor old Russell can't resist the 'drive by' to take pot shots - while pretending to offer congratulations to the 'Bishop' - but he still has nothing to say .....so sad and I guess pathetic.

https:// https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFTEZTuLRoM html

May 3, 2017 at 10:37 AM | Unregistered CommenterKleinefeldmaus

Beware the good wishes and handshake of those with one hand hidden behind their back.
Vacuous verisimilitudes are a trademark.

May 3, 2017 at 1:49 PM | Unregistered CommenterSupertroll

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>