Category: global warming

I think I’ll take global warming denialist for FAIL, Alex

One of Townhall’s finest comes forth to mock the entire climate science community.

Were you hit this week by all the climate change?

As you know it was the scientists, and not the weather geeks, who told us Juno was the sort of storm that would lay us all in our graves.

…thanks to the mainstream media, the whole nation was covered in climate change. The only thing missing from the coverage was any proof, but that doesn’t stop the alarmists.

Because when a massive storm buries a huge swath of the East Coast under two feet of snow, but it fails to do likewise in New York City, the guys who contemplate Iron Age tree rings for a living are quite dumb. To point and laugh at those people while being a moron yourself makes for a bit of irony. Derek.

This week gave us more examples of just how clueless and dedicated the devout members of the Holy Church of Global Warming truly are…

Clueless, eh? Do tell.

…Sachs said he’d asked a colleague “what the record is for mega snowfalls. He points out that since record keeping started in 1869, five of the 10 biggest snowstorms have come since 2003. So suggests that we’re seeing a lot more of this kind of extreme event.” The only problem is it’s not true.

The only problem is it’s absolutely true. But for the fact that it is flawlessly true. See here. If you wanted to come up with a perfect definition of “truth” for your new dictionary you could just write “Please see five of the worst snowstorms that hit New York since 2003.” Derek can’t reach up his own ass and pull out the simplest historical fact, yet look at the epithets Uber-Man tosses around so authoritatively in his screed: alarmists, failed, failing, incoherent, rambling, sock-puppet, bobbleheads, asinine, cultists. And let’s take note of why everybody else other than Awesome Derek is so dumb:

Bill Nye “the Mechanical Engineering Guy” (that is, after all, what his degree is in. He’s not a scientist, he’s a failed actor who was cast as “the Science Guy” for a local TV show after failing as a comedian)…

MSNBC contributor Jeffrey Sachs was on to make another asinine claim…Sachs, an economist and not a scientist, responded with an “Amen!” by giving the highly scientific answer of “Certainly scientists think so.”

That an economist or a mechanical engineer could know anything about global warming is too preposterous to consider. Should your whatever layperson want to delve into the byzantine details of stone cold climate science, have them pull up a chair, and get out a fresh notepad, and listen with rapt attention to…

Derek the Climate Genius

…a radio goof. And a genius at that:

Apparently the “scientists” at Columbia University’s “Earth Institute,” which Sachs runs, don’t have access to Google. I do, and I used it to easily disprove that lie.

…and there they go, all the facts Derek could manage “to easily disprove that lie.” He buried them all in some links that he somehow found on the Google. Sure, they’re not a couple millenia worth of Arctic ice cores stored under lock and key in a university cold room, but just click on them. They will prove once and for all that New York has not suffered any climate change related high-precipitation winter events over the last 12 years (the warmest on record, cough).

The first link, for example. It ranks the ten worst snowstorms of the last 125 years…to be found on all planet Earth. Ha Ha New York, only one of your recent blizzards made the global list. The second link takes the time to detail four of New York’s worst winter storms, but apparently only two of those have occurred since 2006. Two out of four is way less than five out of ten – jinx! You lose! The third link (see “easily disprove”) shows what a record-setting storm Juno was for a host of East Coast cities. But for New York? It was only the 25th biggest on record. You want to find out about the Big Apple’s biggest storms, you have to look at the disaster graphic that shows two of the top five have happened in the last nine seasons. This, I think, makes for a 40% cut of a double-helping of crow for the climate scientists. Remember, those idiots swore that 50% of an even bigger list was somehow meaningful. And the final link? The coup de grace? Of course it’s another list of the greatest snow-dumps in the history of our planet. Which, if New York was in anyway serious about, trying to compete with all the other regions global- and warming-wise, it should have found a way to top by now. Pretty lame.

So the day after Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck blew up the asteroid containing “Snowmageddon” and saved the east coast, Boston was digging itself out from under what it has been digging itself out from under in every winter since Boston was founded.

Derek’s point being that it was just another typical winter day. Nothing like an historic event, see:

Tuesday’s massive snowstorm is officially among Boston’s biggest ever recorded after dumping 24.6 inches of snow on the city, according to the National Weather Service.

The storm is now Boston’s sixth-largest snowstorm ever. It falls just behind the February 2013 blizzard, which brought 24.9 inches of snow. Tuesday’s storm took over the No. 6 spot from the January 2005 snowstorm, which blanketed Boston with 22.5 inches of snow.

Juno was nothing like the blizzard of two years ago – that was epic. It was a far cry from the whopping blast of ten years ago, boy howdy that sucked. But if Juno had been anywhere near as bad as those two, you might start to wonder if there were some sort of trend of really nasty snowstorms pounding Boston over the last decade. You might even wonder why great piles of snow kept falling from the sky.

But not Derek, he doesn’t have the time for such nonsense. His days are taken up with the business of proving how much smarter he is than you. And the business of being smarter than all the climate nerds, and the clouds. And the pouring rain.


Another Swedish meteorologist bites the dust

First we violated Brendan Eich’s workplace rights. Then we trampled Donald Sterling’s boom-boom rights. And, because we were on a rampage, we took a sparking chainsaw to Condi Rice’s rhetorical rights. And isn’t it fun?

Sure, it is. And all of it’s within keeping of our liberal vows to destroy people we don’t like. Perhaps one day we’ll shred the Constitution, stuff the remains in an L.A. Clipper t-shirt cannon and fire it at the The Gipper’s portrait in the Smithsonian too. Maybe one day we’ll get liberals all over the world to join in on the good times.

Science as McCarthyism
By Rupert Darwall | National Review

…Three weeks ago, Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist approaching his 80s, announced that he was joining the avowedly skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank. In an interview with Speigel Online, Bengtsson spoke of the need for climate-model predictions to be validated against observations. “Since the end of the 20th century, the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show,” he said.

And that latest trend in warming is a good place to focus your research – if you’re actually serious about the science. Mind you, the Earth is nowhere near cooling, it’s only warming very quickly since 1998.

But joining the GWPF will get you nowhere on that issue, clearly. It’s a denialist think tank. Their headquarters are located inside The Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining in London, presumably because the backrooms were all taken at the ExxonMobil Embassy Suites.

Here’s the surface temperature graph that greets you at their website, in the banner:

GWPF graph

The hoax of climate change can be exposed, it appears, by examining a mere 12 years of the globe’s surface temperatures. You look a little more expansively at the climate picture and you see:

NOAA global temperature

Something different. This is the view that people working outside the pro-mining think tanks prefer to take in. Framed with data. A few friends of old Lennart reminded him of this, so he resigned from his kewl new job. With this:

“I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. . . . Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy.”

Poor Lennart. Throw another scalp on the pile.

Evidently the right to practice and discuss climate science should be subject to a faith test. It is an extraordinarily revealing development. Fears about unbelievers’ polluting the discourse, as some academics put it, illustrate the weakness of climate science: The evidence for harmful anthropogenic global warming is not strong enough to stand up for itself.

We’ll take this old guy out, then our shoddy theory will be golden. As is frequently pointed out in these cases, Lennart was always free to do as he pleased. He was not, however, free to go on without criticism. And who is?


Until you predict the rain with 100% accuracy, Charles Moore is an idiot

A conservative’s typical attempt to pretend that climate change is a man-made conspiracy would be to latch on to some bit of minutiae and make it definitive. Alan Caruba, among a great many other idiots, has been claiming that the Earth is now cooling. This is not remotely true:

NOAA global temperature

How can he be so stupid? Well, he’s a conservative. But here is Alan’s specific problem:


The Carubas seize on a small trend and then swear it proves global warming is entirely a hoax. This is typical of the denialists.

What’s no longer typical of them is the wielding of an analogy so broadly stupid as to be a howler. In “The game is up for climate change believers,” Charles Moore sets himself apart with this opening:

Most of us pay some attention to the weather forecast. If it says it will rain in your area tomorrow, it probably will. But if it says the same for a month, let alone a year, later, it is much less likely to be right.


There are too many imponderables. The theory of global warming is a gigantic weather forecast for a century or more.

Excuse me? Ha, no.

The climate is not the weather. One is large and planetary, the other is small and local. Even knowing exactly what the larger trends are, you still can’t predict when it will rain. I suspect Chuck is aware of this…

However interesting the scientific inquiries involved, therefore, it can have almost no value as a prediction. Yet it is as a prediction that global warming (or, as we are now ordered to call it in the face of a stubbornly parky 21st century, “global weirding”) has captured the political and bureaucratic elites…

It’s ‘Global Warming.’ And the tundras are what’s becoming ‘parky.’ For the sake of arguments, let’s say you have a pair of dice and you’ve swapped the ones with tens. You predict that you’ll be rolling bigger numbers from now on, but how can you be sure? Can you really predict when a ’20’ will come up? Do the bureaucrats think they’re psychics? What an asshole. The trends:


I suspect you’re a pretty smart person. Take a good long while and look at the pretty graphs and pictures, then tell me. Will it rain in Seattle tomorrow? C’mon, how could you not know? This is what Charles thinks of your SCIENCE, mister.


Living in your own London fog

The year 2012 in the United States was blistering hot. A seemingly endless drought took hold of Texas and the Midwest. Crops withered away to hard husks, and cattle by the thousands were quick-sold to slaughterhouses because they weren’t going to get any fatter chewing on hot dust.

March was the warmest March on record by far, and this caused 2012 to leap out way ahead of the pack. We had the warmest spring on record, the warmest July on record, the third warmest summer on record. All of these together helped 2012 maintain a huge lead throughout the year.

So it became the hottest year ever recorded. Nothing to brag about. Across the globe, 2012 did only a little better.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ranked 2012 the 10th-warmest on record, with an average temperature of 58.03 degrees (14.46 Celsius). It was the 36th consecutive year to exceed the 20th-century average of 57 degrees, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina.

You see the trends. Hot, hotter and hottest.

There’s another trend making its way around the realm. This one comes from the disastrous world of politics, not science, or at least the respectable part of it. You’re probably aware of it by now. This is where some idiot gets himself caught in blanketing snow, or a February heat wave, and he pronounces global warming a grift. Mayor of London Boris Johnson takes a crack at it:

The snow on the flowerpot, since I have been staring, has got about an inch thicker. The barbecue is all but invisible. By my calculations, this is now the fifth year in a row that we have had an unusual amount of snow; and by unusual I mean snow of a kind that I don’t remember from my childhood: snow that comes one day, and then sticks around for a couple of days, followed by more.

. . I don’t think I have seen that before. I am all for theories about climate change, and would not for a moment dispute the wisdom or good intentions of the vast majority of scientists.

If Boris weren’t here to bury you in humble bullshit, he’d quit now. The vast majority of scientists do not dispute global warming, they’re only trying to figure out how exactly it’s happening. But Boris shrugs off his fear of disputations and gets to the point:

But I am also an empiricist; and I observe that something appears to be up with our winter weather, and to call it “warming” is obviously to strain the language.

There we have it, another conservative clown yukking it up for the science illiterates. Boris assures everybody that this planetary disaster isn’t real. Also, any of them can get a better grip on global warming than all of thousands of eminent scientists by staring at their flowerpots. That’s how he did it, and he runs the capital.

I merely observe that there are at least some other reputable scientists who say that it is complete tosh, or at least that there is no evidence to support it.

If you’ll take your eyes off the barbecue, Boris. Hotter temperatures drive more water into the atmosphere. Heavier snows in London are exactly what scientists expect.


Watt’s up with silence?

Climate change skeptic, physicist Richard Muller, pens a Sunday NYT op-ed ahead of his Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature team releasing their official results. The facts turned out to be factual:

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified scientific issues that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Now, after organizing an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I’ve concluded that global warming is real, that the prior estimates of the rate were correct, and that cause is human.

Yawn. The only thing interesting about this is how the internets most attention-whoring denialist will react. This was Anthony Watts at one time:

“I’m prepared to accept whatever result they [BEST] produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn’t the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet.”

The preliminary results have been known for a while, and Anthony now thinks BEST are stupidheads as well. This is how one “accepts” things. Anyway, his climate skeptic gloryhole website has gone quiet.

Ooh. Perhaps he’s adopted a cat and named it “Pariah.” Arrange your life accordingly.


The Dumbest Global Warming Post (early 2012 ed.)

The global warming hoax is now killing people
By Alan Caruba | February 14, 2012

By Friday, February 10th, an estimated 500 Europeans had died from the freezing weather gripping the continent. This is the price they and British citizens are paying for embracing the global warming hoax, spending billions for wind power when they should have been building coal-fired and other sources of energy to heat their homes and businesses.

SHORTER merkin-chin ice storm banshee and fly ash re-gifter, Alan Caruba:

“Wind power electrons, brrrr. Coal power electrons, ahhh.”

Did he get ya? Alan’s clever take on global warming was targeted for the conservative Christian crowd at Renew America, not you. You maybe knew electricity itself could be used to make heat. Scientists have shown that power plants, beyond their walls, are not capable of radiating in the infra-red more than a couple inches. Nuclear power plants are famously another story. Corralling the ash begs sending crews to distant continents.

Is Alan really this dumb? Yes:

I and others have been warning for years that the Earth has been cooling since 1998 and that the planet is on the cusp of a new ice age . . All aspects of global warming legislation and spending programs must be utterly reversed if we are not going to see huge losses of life and the disruption of entire economies.

But whatever will we do with the BILLIONS of turbines? Somebody get me Wikipedia. Quote: “In a normal wind year, 5.3% of the EU’s electricity is produced from wind power.” Err, the THOUSANDS of turbines? And why don’t they operate in snow storms, again? The wind freezes. Oh, right right right. Solving global warming is harder than I thought.

Meanwhile, think of all the Belgians sitting in their homes waiting for burning sod to be pumped through the alternating current ducts. Ha ha, waffle people, there’s only an icy wind kicking around the transformers and batteries of Euro Power any more. Maybe you can set fire to the Stradivarius in the dungeon.

The Ottawa Citizen published an Agence France Presse article on Friday reporting that “Thick ice closed vast swaths of the Danube on Thursday . .” No shipping means no delivery of coal and oil and no shipping of food and other necessities.

Electricity won’t be able to eat. Electricity won’t be able to shower. Who can work in these conditions?

“Many of the dead were homeless people, who literally froze to death as the temperatures dropped to minus 50 degrees in some parts of the continent. Their bodies were found in the streets buried under snow, in rivers, and in doorways.”

Gonna try to find the village turbine. Gotta go blow on it.


Rick Santorum Clowns and Pounds the Republican Trail

Anybody could have predicted this from Rick Santorum. Any time one of these donkey-slapping clowns gets an ‘attaboy’ from the caucus [(def) ‘Attaboy’: We avoided the bigger clown], he fires up an exploding cigar. These guys cannot stand success:

“This is a president who, just recently, in this Hosanna-Tabor case was basically making the argument that Catholics had to, you know, maybe even had to go so far as to hire women priests to comply with employment discrimination issues. This is a very hostile president to people of faith. He’s a hostile president, not just to people of faith, but to all freedoms.”

The president demands female priests. I think he’ll have the freedoms, please, in a scramble a la’ martinet. This makes absolutely no sense, so it must be true. If the president tied his shoes, Rick Santorum would know he just got lynched. He’s such a wuss, I’m pretty sure I could will him to pee his shorts. That makes sense. Therefore, your honor, little Ricky’s soggy bottom notwithstanding, it is a lie.

Now that we’ve set up a real-er reality (real traditional American flavor), let’s be sensible. Let’s marvel at Republican candidates.

Newt Gingrich won in South Carolina. So he asked his Florida fans to skip to the moon with him where he’ll establish the U.S.’ fifty-first state (sorry, Kashmir). Because that was so cool-headed, presidential and professional, Gingrich was immediately elected high-holy Galactic Viceroy, a position he’s had for centuries now. Lunacy policy wins the day.

Mitt Romney trounced the field in Florida. So he reaffirmed to a national television audience (or to those of us who can still afford cable service, a TV, plus some electricity) the reason he’s running for president: “I’m in this race because I care about Americans. I’m not concerned about the very poor.” Once everybody remembered that one of every four kids in America lives in poverty, they hoisted Mitt onto their shoulders and carried him across The Great Finish Line. Where he collapsed into the arms of Fabio, or Providence, maybe ecstasy, the end.

Somebody new won last night. So it’s Rick The Dragonheart’s turn to flex some muscle (bladder?). Surely, he’s seen how the other geniuses cashed in on success. Surely, he’s learned that the key to victory in the long run is to remain calm and to talk in measured tones. That’s all anybody would ask from a politician they might throw a vote at. ‘Dear clown: Act presidential, please.’ Can you do that? Rick?

“I for one understand just from science that there are one hundred factors that influence the climate. To suggest that one minor factor of which man’s contribution is a minor factor in the minor factor is the determining ingredient in the sauce that affects the entire global warming and cooling is just absurd on its face.”



Wall Street Journal aims at global warming, kills the entire endeavor of science

Robert Bryce writes as an energy expert for a number of different outlets: National Review, Wall Street Journal, Washington Examiner. His general view is that alternative forms of energy production are currently too technologically weak to be taken seriously as replacements for coal burning.

That’s not a trivial opinion. It’s true in the short term: we’re not likely to replace burning fossil fuels as a robust solution to our energy needs in the next quarter century. Anyone who believes that somehow, before 2030, some technological tour de force will save us from firing fossil fuels and releasing jillions of tons of carbon dioxide is naive.

But that’s not any reason to trivialize the new energy effort. Climate change is an historically serious challenge to human adaptability and survival. Previous crises, like the Bubonic Plague, killed as many as 100 million people. The European Continent remains inhabited, but half of it may have died before the threat abated.

Global warming will not be as intense as an epidemic, but it could be far longer-lasting: a century? Two centuries? And the solution to it won’t just pop up in our brilliant immune systems. Our savvy and innovation are all that can beat it. We should get serious about the work, right?

But back to Robert Bryce — Al Gore tanked, coal is cheap, Science is a bumbling thing. What can he tell you? Some problems have no solutions worth the bother:

Five Truths About Climate Change

1) The carbon taxers/limiters have lost. [blah blah blah]

Here’s a reality check: During the same decade that Mr. Gore and the IPCC dominated the environmental debate, global carbon-dioxide emissions rose by 28.5%.

I first thought Bryce was alerting us to the exploding threat even in the face of Al Gore’s media campaign. No: Bryce wants you to realize how Al Gore “dominated the environmental debate” yet didn’t dispatch the crisis. For 10 years, we patiently listened to his bitching and crying, but global warming is still around. Obviously, Al didn’t know what he was talking about.

2) Regardless of whether it’s getting hotter or colder—or both—we are going to need to produce a lot more energy in order to remain productive and comfortable.

Thank god someone pointed that out.

3) The carbon-dioxide issue is not about the United States anymore. […] . . over the past decade, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions—about 6.1 billion tons per year—could have gone to zero and yet global emissions still would have gone up.

Whew, another great argument. I’ve been looking at an Escalade.

4) We have to get better—and we are—at turning energy into useful power. In 1882, Thomas Edison’s first central power station on Pearl Street in lower Manhattan converted less than 3% of the heat energy of the coal being burned into electricity. Today’s best natural-gas-fired turbines have thermal efficiencies of 60%. Nearly all of the things we use on a daily basis—light bulbs, computers, automobiles—are vastly more efficient than they were just a few years ago. And over the coming years those devices will get even better at turning energy into useful lighting, computing and motive power.

Point number 4: save energy? Suck whale cock, Bob. Idiot.

5) The science is not settled, not by a long shot. Last month, scientists at CERN, the prestigious high-energy physics lab in Switzerland, reported that neutrinos might—repeat, might—travel faster than the speed of light. If serious scientists can question Einstein’s theory of relativity, then there must be room for debate about the workings and complexities of the Earth’s atmosphere.

HA HA. Argumenta ad ignorantium, logicam, absurdum, chortlensis, flimflammae, palmjobbum. One part of a single field of science broke new ground with heretofore impossible observations. As a result, for the first time in history, I think it’s safe to say: something’s gone wrong with science. Hate to break it to you, but the past couple comfortable centuries have all been for nothing, sadly. Science is no way to elect reality, vote for Robert Bryce.

Wall Street Journal op/eds have become hard news. Gay soldiers weaken our defenses — ad fay mortis — ICBMs inbound over the poles, off the equator.


Rep. Dana Rohrabacher’s global warming solution: clear-cut rainforests and old trees

I don’t follow Rep. Dana Rohrabacher’s (R-Orange County, CA) career, so it was possible he’d recently educated himself on Global Warming. But he’s been a clown all his political life, so I probably should have assumed Dana remains a denier. Turns out, he’s still a joke.

First, for some background, here’s Shana Chucklenuts in 2008:

“If global warming was true, the theory tells us that there should be an increase in both the frequency and severity of storms, yet New Orleans has not been hit with a hurricane as powerful (let alone more powerful) than Katrina in the following years.”

Deena Donkeyballz, in 2007:

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) — one of the 87 percent of congressional Republicans who do not believe in man-made global warming — questioned the authors of the report about a period of dramatic climate change that occured 55 million years ago. “We don’t know what those other cycles were caused by in the past. Could be dinosaur flatulence, you know, or who knows?”

So, he’s a civilized, hard-working man, doing his best to understand complex issues.

He’s not the frustrated little 5 year-old who threw his wood hammer at the dumb peg and stupid board that wouldn’t fit together. He’s not the high school freshman who wooed his future wife by punching her boob and running away. No, he’s not the guy who memorized the Dynamic Carbon Consortium’s “Snappy Comebacks to Stupid Climates” pamphlet in order to rout the university dumb-dumbs:

Do trees cause global warming?

Looking for a solution to global warming? Maybe start clear-cutting many of the world’s forests, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says.

. . he’s hit on an answer by tackling the 80 to 90 percent of heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions “generated by nature itself”: Namely, yank down old trees and get rid of the rotting wood in rainforests.

“Is there some thought being given to subsidizing the clearing of rainforests in order for some countries to eliminate that production of greenhouse gases?” the California Republican asked Todd Stern, the top U.S. climate diplomat and lead witness at the hearing. “Or would people be supportive of cutting down older trees in order to plant younger trees as a means to prevent this disaster from happening?”

Funny. Trees are a big problem, seeing as how they die and rot. They release CO2 that way. Stern didn’t bother with Rohrabacher’s idiocy, but he’s more patient than I am.

Old growth forests chock-full of rot and decay are, at worst, carbon neutral. They still take in CO2 and fix carbon in the soil and in new vegetation. The idea that you can stop decay processes by wiping out forests is like saying you can solve hospital pain management by banning surgery. Bad by-products sometimes trail worthwhile things (like trees dying after taking in CO2 for a couple centuries).

And, Dana, might I ask: how would you clear these growing, breathing ‘problems’? Chain-saws and skip- loaders and back-hoes and pavers and ‘dozers and lumber trucks, all burning diesel? Good plan.

Worse: rainforests and mature forests provide habitats where thousands upon thousands of adaptive species survive exclusively. By wiping out those habitats, a planetary catastrophe results. The Rohrabacher Solution would be the single worst thing to happen to Earth since a massive asteroid struck the Gulf of Mexico 65 million years ago. So it’s a serious idea, from a serious clown.


Here come PhDs in Global Smarming and Alarming

Global Warming? GLOBAL WARMING? No way, dude! How do I know? Beeeccaauuuse . . whatever! You people are stupid!

Speaking of which, some sorry doomsday-er writing for a broken-down self-publishing site wrote a hilarious piece of guffaw science a couple days ago. Boy, the Global Warming deniers did lap it up. Like it was truffle syrup:

Magnetic polar shifts causing massive global superstorms
by Terrence Aym | Salem-News | Feb 4, 2011

NASA has been warning about it…scientific papers have been written about it…geologists have seen its traces in rock strata and ice core samples…

Now “it” is here: an unstoppable magnetic pole shift that has sped up and is causing life-threatening havoc with the world’s weather.

Forget about global warming—man-made or natural—what drives planetary weather patterns is the climate and what drives the climate is the sun’s magnetosphere and its electromagnetic interaction with a planet’s own magnetic field.

Terrence Aym discovered the real cause of Earth’s weather: his mind.

The magnetic field drives weather to a significant degree and when that field starts migrating superstorms start erupting.

The superstorms have arrived.

Did you get that? Here it is, again:

Solar Winds –> Shifting Poles –> Boogie Shoes –> Blue 32 –> SUPERSTORMS

No? Fine, let’s let the science experts from the Point N. Laff Institute for Wingnuttery explain it:

Posted by John Hinderaker | Power Line | February 5, 2011

…try this: the Earth’s northern magnetic pole is speeding to the East at an accelerating rate, and the North and South magnetic poles may be about to change places . .

The problem, for those who tend to worry, is that only one Doomsday scenario has to turn out to be true for us to be in big trouble.

That problem would be for all of us, regardless. But . . WAIT! This just in — more breaking news of global catastrophe . .

How BP Gulf disaster may have triggered a ‘world-killing’ event
by Terrence Aym |

Ominous reports are leaking past the BP Gulf salvage operation news blackout that the disaster unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico may be about to reach biblical proportions.

251 million years ago a mammoth undersea methane bubble caused massive explosions, poisoned the atmosphere and destroyed more than 96 percent of all life on Earth . .

The bottom line: BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling operation may have triggered an irreversible, cascading geological Apocalypse that will culminate with the first mass extinction of life on Earth in many millions of years.

WELL. What say you of Terrence “you’re dead to me” Aym, Professor Moran?

Earth’s Magnetic Pole Flipping?
by Rick Moran | Right Wing Nuthouse | 2/6/2011

. . There’s good news and bad news here. The good news is that there appears to be absolutely nothing we can do to affect what is happening. In other words, there won’t be any “mangnetic [sic] credits” or “geo-magneto swap” schemes to enrich the Al Gores of the world. I’m pretty sure magnets won’t be outlawed nor will magnetism be declared hazardous to our health.

The bad news is Jesus is coming and he’s taking names and kicking butt.

So, the Great Jesus Pole Dance of Magnetic Apocalypse: you bet. Global Warming: don’t be stupid!

Hey, Terrence? What of this ‘Jesus’?

Astronomers now predict killer asteroid will hit Earth in 2036
by Terrence Aym |

Grim astronomers in Russia have recalculated the trajectory of the ominous asteroid Apophis and now predict it will slam into Earth on April 13, 2036 . .

Yes, here he comes. And he’s a hard man. Dr. Ledeen? Your thoughts?

So Maybe it Was Global Freezing After All?
By Michael Ledeen | National Review | February 5, 2011

The Russians have been saying it for decades, and maybe it’s true. Here is a compelling roundup of the recent literature that suggests that. It’s great reading for us “we do not live in a benevolent universe” types (I’m a longtime Velikovsky fan). If true, it’s kinda important. I’m going to invest in cashmere futures …

The “compelling roundup” of science literature is, of course, the Magneto-Superstorm! article by the ironically self-styled Renaissance man, Terrence Aym. This guy:

How Brilliant Computer Scientists Solved the Bermuda Triangle Mystery
Terrence Aym | Salem-News | Aug-06-2010

(CHICAGO) – According to two research scientists the mystery of vanished ships and airplanes in the region dubbed “The Bermuda Triangle” has been solved.

Step aside outer space aliens, time anomalies, submerged giant Atlantean pyramids and bizarre meteorological phenomena … the “Triangle” simply suffers from an acute case of gas . .

And the link is already dead.

ADD: The post is back up. And WHEW, cuz, you know . . freaky.


Science: Himalayan glaciers both shrinking and growing. Don Surber: DUH, stupid science.

Global Warming data:

Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds
Himalayan glaciers are actually advancing rather than retreating, claims the first major study since a controversial UN report said they would be melted within quarter of a century.

That’s NOT what the study says. Science reporting is crap, and the Telegraph sucks. I don’t say this because I just read the journal article, I say it because THAT’S WHAT THE TELEGRAPH’S OWN REPORTING SAYS:

The new study by scientists at the Universities of California and Potsdam has found that half of the glaciers in the Karakoram range, in the northwestern Himlaya, are in fact advancing and that global warming is not the deciding factor in whether a glacier survives or melts.

Their report, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, found the key factor affecting their advance or retreat is the amount of debris – rocks and mud – strewn on their surface, not the general nature of climate change.

Glaciers surrounded by high mountains and covered with more than two centimetres of debris are protected from melting.

The melting of glaciers is a complicated process. Those glaciers between high mountains (providing shade, I assume) and covered in debris are growing while others are melting. So access to direct sunlight may be a critical factor? Okay.

What does this say about Anthropogenic Global Warming? Does it counter the theory? If all 264 glaciers were growing, I’d say ‘maybe, YES.’ So no. Does it support AGW? On its face, no.

To me, it says that climate change is not so monstrous a beast that it’s overwhelming all other factors and turning the world into a big pool of water overnight.

More generally of AGW stuff — what can we say? I think we can all agree on these three things:

1.) Carbon dioxide is DEFINITELY a greenhouse gas. It absorbs and returns infrared radiation (heat).
2.) The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is DEFINITELY up over the last 100 years. Up something like 35%.
3.) The temperature of the globe is DEFINITELY creeping up over the last 100 years. Probably longer. The 10 hottest years on recent record (since 1880) occurred since 1997:

No matter what anybody else tells you, if they can’t agree on those three things, there can be no discussion. I’ve been trying to wrap my head around this complicated issue, and that’s where I’m convinced by the data.

Meanwhile, Don Surber’s version of ‘crunching the data’ amounts to ‘NYAH NYAH.’ While the new study probably adds much more detail to the understanding of the dynamics of Himalayan glaciation trends, eclipsing a previous report that said all glaciers were retreating, HA HA HA:

Three years after this [previous] report was issued — after it received a Nobel Prize — teh UN changed teh date to 2305, citing a typo.

This came in the wake of Climategate which pretty much was the last nail in the coffin for this crackpot theory.

I love how the right trot out the most unserious, un-schooled, overwrought dinks to debate science. Don thinks that stolen e-mails make reams of data disappear. Very sensible. He probably thinks the Earth will suddenly stop warming tomorrow, and everybody will just somehow realize it, and there’ll be a big parade where we carry Don our shoulders to a convention hall full of football trophies, chicken wings and beer.


You want to know why I believe this study over the UN? Because it makes sense.

Nyah Nyah.


John Shimkus and the pre-medieval party take command

Caught this on Juan Cole’s site yesterday. This is a possible candidate for the House Energy Committee’s chairmanship, Republican John Shimkus. He doesn’t believe in Global Warming — why? Because after the Noah disaster, He promised nothing like that would ever happen again:

If you think I’m going to criticize Shimkus for his beliefs, you’re right.

I do believe God’s word is infallible, unchanging, perfect.

1.2 million invertebrate species, John — how did they all get on The Ark? Or didn’t they count? If there wasn’t enough room on board, where did all these current creepy-crawlies come from? They seem to be all over the place now, only 5,000 years later.

Why these ancient myths need to be embraced as real to the exclusion of reality just isn’t clear to me. I seem to recall, as a kid, that there were politicians and leaders who believed in God, who believed in the Bible, but not in such a way as to decimate the real world around them. They held the Bible in high regard, but they also held it as a deeply mysterious source. The mystery itself was informative.

Not so, these Christianists. The Bible is a simple text. All the living things around you were returned to Earth by Noah, period.

How did he manage to get all 5000 species of mammal on a hand-made boat? Where did Noah get the bamboo to feed the Pandas, John?

My religious beliefs are deeply held, this isn’t a forensics exercise. Noah saved the animals. Global Warming isn’t in the Bible. The new Energy Committee will come to order.