If All You See…

…are pumpkins harvested for the climate unfriendly Thanksgiving, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Weasel Zippers, with a post on an Extinction Rebellion protester failing badly.

It’s cleaning out the extra photos week.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

12 Responses to “If All You See…”

  1. Winston St. John says:

    An excellent fiction book on the subject of climate change is “State of Fear” by Michael Crighton.

    The writing is fiction, however he has many old graphs and data and where to find them in the book and the appendix. Including some that were taken down after this book was published.

    Most disconcerting was the number of graphs taken down after the book was published. It’s always funny when the truth can’t stand the light. The light must shine and if the data, graphs and models used in the past are found to be errant then the logical thing to do is take them down. Michael’s book caused a lot of light to be shined on dubious information.

    Please let the truth prevail. Whatever it may be.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Although an engaging writer Crichton was hardly unbiased on climate change. Note too that Crichton’s novel is 15 years old.

      It’s interesting that climate skeptic scientists were not able to “take down” graphs but a writer of thrillers was.

      What does it mean to “take down” graphs?

      • Winston St. John says:

        Crichton graduated summa cum laude from Harvard College, received his MD from Harvard Medical School, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, researching public policy with Jacob Bronowski. He taught courses in anthropology at Cambridge University and writing at MIT.

        Crichton’s 2004 bestseller, State of Fear, acknowledged the world was growing warmer, but challenged extreme anthropogenic warming scenarios. He predicted future warming at 0.8 degrees C. (His conclusions have been widely misstated.)

        Crichton’s interest in computer modeling went back forty years. His multiple-discriminant analysis of Egyptian crania, carried out on an IBM 7090 computer at Harvard, was published in the Papers of the Peabody Museum in 1966. His technical publications included a study of host factors in pituitary chromophobe adenoma, in Metabolism, and an essay on medical obfuscation in the New England Journal of Medicine.

        As I have seen others here I find it truly amazing how your first reaction is an attempted smear of a fellow scientist who just happens to be a writer. He was also on your side. He simply challenged the extremes of the day which are no less extreme today as far as we are all going to die in 10 years if we don’t fix the world.

        As you can see from the Bio, Mr. Elwood he was highly educated and worked with public policy on this very issue as a proponent and not a denier.

        You should be ashamed of yourself for smearing one of your own by being intellectually lazy and failing to taking the time to learn anything about him before posting a clearly veiled attempt to smear his good name. He was on your side sir.

        As for taking down graphs. Despite being a work of fiction, the book contains many graphs and footnotes, two appendices, and a 20-page bibliography in support of Crichton’s beliefs about global warming. Many climate scientists, science journalists, environmental groups, and science advocacy organizations dispute Crichton’s views on the science.

        It was many of these graphs he used in his book that have been taken down by the US government and several colleges as they turned out to be highly suspect and controversial in their own right.

        If you manage to read this far Mr. Elwood. I am not arguing for or against AGW, climate change or the lack thereof. I am only stating that when the book was published the government and colleges had graphs in place as if they were in fact the definitive truth. A result of his work saw the removal of many of these graphs because they were in fact not definitive proof.

        I do not pretend to be an expert on anything. When I write a book, I research something in great detail, form my general conclusions based upon the pro and con research I have done, formulate a plot and develop a new narrative voice in which to carry that plot to conclusion. It is this continual narrative plot that changes by both sides that has turned me into an agnostic over Global warming.

        • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

          You should be ashamed of yourself for smearing one of your own by being intellectually lazy and failing to taking the time to learn anything about him before posting a clearly veiled attempt to smear his good name.

          You must be kidding or have not been around here for very long, Winston. That’s the modus operandi of the whimpering little sissybitch.

          Lol https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          And yet, Dr. Crichton was no expert in climate science. We’re well aware of Crichton’s background and work. His book Jurassic Park was superior to the movies it spawned. But, relying on a work of fiction to make scientific policy decisions makes as much sense as relying on Oliver Stone’s movies to investigate the Kennedy assassination or to explain Vietnam or Wall Street.

          We didn’t smear Crichton, we suggested that textbooks may be a better source for understanding DNA cloning than the wonderfully written Jurassic Park.

          Crichton (or his characters) voiced many characterizations that have since been refuted by evidence. Here’s a list from Joseph Bast, founder of the “skeptical” Heartland Institute, who highly recommends the book:

          temperatures fell between 1940 and 1970 even as CO2 levels increased (p. 86);
          temperature readings from reporting stations outside the U.S. are poorly maintained and staffed and probably inaccurate; those in the U.S., which are probably more accurate, show little or no warming trend (pp. 88-89);
          “full professors from MIT, Harvard, Columbia, Duke, Virginia, Colorado, UC Berkeley, and other prestigious schools … the former president of the National Academy of Sciences … will argue that global warming is at best unproven, and at worst pure fantasy” (p. 90);
          temperature sensors on satellites report much less warming in the upper atmosphere (which the theory of global warming predicts should warm first) than is reported by temperature sensors on the ground (p. 99);
          data from weather balloons agree with the satellites (p. 100);
          “No one can say for sure if global warming will result in more clouds, or fewer clouds,” yet cloud cover plays a major role in global temperatures (p. 187);
          Antarctica “as a whole is getting colder, and the ice is getting thicker” (p. 193, sources listed on p. 194);
          The Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica has been melting for the past 6,000 years (p. 195, p. 200-201); “Greenland might lose its ice pack in the next thousand years” (p. 363);
          The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is “a huge group of bureaucrats and scientists under the thumb of bureaucrats,” and its 1995 report was revised “after the scientists themselves had gone home” (p. 245-246);
          James Hansen’s predictions of global warming during a Congressional committee hearing in 1988, which launched the global warming scare, were wrong by 200 percent (.35 degrees Celsius over the next 10 years versus the actual increase of .11 degrees); in 1998, Hansen said long-term predictions of climate are impossible (pp. 246-247);
          there has been no increase in extreme weather events (.e.g., floods, tornadoes, drought) over the past century or in the past 15 years; computer models used to forecast climate change do not predict more extreme weather (p. 362, 425-426);
          temperature readings taken by terrestrial reporting stations are rising because they are increasingly surrounded by roads and buildings which hold heat, the “urban heat island” effect (p. 368-369); methods used to control for this effect fail to reduce temperatures enough to offset it (p. 369-376);
          changes in land use and urbanization may contribute more to changes in the average ground temperature than “global warming” caused by human emissions (p. 383, 388);
          temperature data are suspect because they have been adjusted and manipulated by scientists who expect to find a warming trend (p. 385-386);
          carbon dioxide has increased a mere 60 parts per million since 1957, a tiny change in the composition of the atmosphere (p. 387);
          increased levels of CO2 act a fertilizer, promoting plant growth and contributing to the shrinking of the Sahara desert (p. 421);
          the spread of malaria is unaffected by global warming (pp. 421-422, footnotes on 422);
          sufficient data exist to measure changes in mass for only 79 of the 160,000 glaciers in the world (p. 423);
          the icecap on Kilimanjaro has been melting since the 1800s, long before human emissions could have influenced the global climate, and satellites do not detect a warming trend in the region (p. 423); deforestation at the foot of the mountain is the likely explanation for the melting trend (p. 424);
          sea levels have been rising at the rate of 10 to 20 centimeters (four to eight inches) per hundred years for the past 6,000 years (p. 424);
          El Niños are global weather patterns unrelated to global warming and on balance tend to be beneficial by extending growing seasons and reducing the use of heating fuels (p. 426);
          the Kyoto Protocol would reduce temperatures by only 0.04 degrees Celsius in the year 2100 (p. 478);
          a report by scientists published in Science concludes “there is no known technology capable of reducing [global] carbon emissions … totally new and undiscovered technology is required” (p. 479);
          change, not stability, is the defining characteristic of the global climate, with naturally occurring events (e.g., volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis) much more likely to affect climate than anything humans do (p. 563); and
          computer simulations are not real-world data and cannot be relied on to produce reliable forecasts (p. 566).
          One character in State of Fear concludes, “The threat of global warming is essentially nonexistent. Even if it were a real phenomenon, it would probably result in a net benefit to most of the world” (p. 407).

          Do these statements sound as if they came from a climate scientist? We “get” why the climate change denier community appreciates the lay work as it distributes their arguments to a larger lay audience.

          But why not rely on climate experts for understanding climate? We know, we know, climate change deniers insist ALL the data are faked or adjusted to support the theory. And that ALL the scientists are on the “take”, accepting grant monies in exchange for giving their communist overlords exactly what they demand.

          We should all be agnostic over global warming, but the evidence (at least as evaluated by experts) supports the theory that the Earth is warming from fossil fuel-derived CO2 in the atmosphere. But science is never settled – better data often supplants the old – as we should all hope is the case. And a lot has happened the past 15 years.

          We assume that the journal articles, IPCC reports, etc have all been retained somewhere, right? There are thousands of journal articles outlining the evidence. You choose to reject the evidence. You chose to imply that graphs were “taken down” because Crichton had uncovered the scientists’ nefarious plot. Shame on you.

  2. Kentucky Headhunter says:

    She appears to be smuggling at least one pumpkin under her skirt.

  3. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    But honestly, we’re conducting one of the most consequential experiments in all of humankind. The scientists won the battle, but the market won the war. Since humankind hasn’t the stomach for reducing CO2 emissions, CO2 levels will continue to “surge” – 450 ppm, 500 ppm, 550 ppm! We’ll know in a few decades or so whether the “warmists” or “deniers” were right. Let’s hope the “deniers”, who will all be dead by then, were right.

    “Fasten your seatbelts it’s going to be a bumpy night.”

  4. Kye says:

    Since nothing remains static (except your understanding of the word “denier”) especially regarding earth’s climate and mankind’s continuing advancement in technology, the future of our climate will be influenced greatly by the tech of the future. You fail to understand the climate is not ever “perfect” because there is no perfect climate, things adapt, evolve and advance, most often humans. Fredo, your devotion to your religion is like when the head of the Patent Office back in 1899 told McKinley to close the office because “everything that could be invented HAS been invented”.

    You are a believer in every HOAX your leftist betters spin from “you can keep your doctor” to “Ukraine”. Fredo, we all know you’re not brilliant but how can one individual fall for so many hoaxes, lies and misdirection escapes us. I guess the old saying is true, “If you don’t believe in something, you’ll fall for everything”. You’d be better served studying theology as that field actually requires faith. Substituting God with the corrupt platform of the united Democrat Communist Party has not only dulled your whits but ruined your soul.


    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Dildo, no one is claiming that a “perfect climate” exists, but that the climate in which human civilization evolved is changing rapidly and will get much, much worse.

      We believe in something, it’s just different from what Dildo believes. We believe in facts, truth, honesty, evidence and data. We do not believe in magic or miracles as you do. Dildo believes what his gods tell him to believe – Crowdstrike! Uranium One! BENGHAZI! E-mails! Commies everywhere! Conspiracies!

      • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

        …the climate in which human civilization evolved is changing rapidly and will get much, much worse.
        We believe in something…

        Again with the weasel words… “changing rapidly”, …”much worse”… “We believe”… ad nauseum

        Hell of a scientific argument you’ve got there, little sissybitch.

        Bwaha. Lolgfy https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

      • formwiz says:

        You’re the one who needs a dildo, it would seem, so it’s inappropes top use it as an epithet against a real man.

        And, of course, you have an ideal climate, one that will require more and more regimentation of society and higher and higher taxes, even on (gasp!) the working classes (whoever they are).

        We believe in something,

        Too bad Communism is nothing, and not something.

        We believe in facts, truth, honesty, evidence and data. We do not believe in magic or miracles as you do.

        Actually, it’s the other way around. You reject facts, truth, honesty, evidence and data and put your faith in magic (“Wicca is a religion”) or miracles (“Socialism can work. We just haven’t spent enough money on it”).

        Crowdstrike! Uranium One! BENGHAZI! E-mails! Commies everywhere! Conspiracies!

        Yeah, funny how there are facts, evidence, and data behind every one of those.

        And just because you think, if you repeat it’s all lies, the facts will go away, that’s belief in magic.

        You believe what your gods at Troll Central tell you to believe.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10278 access attempts in the last 7 days.