Tuesday, October 31, 2017



Ancient asteroid collision put Earth in the freezer


Monday, October 30, 2017



                                  EATS  SHOOTS  AND  LEAVES


Claim: climate change will dry out bamboo, slowly killing Madagascar’s bamboo lemurs

From CELL PRESS, a claim that anyone who has ever dealt with fast growing bamboo would have a very hard time believing – see details why at the end of this story.
Climate change may slowly starve bamboo lemurs 
Madagascar’s Cat-sized greater bamboo lemurs are considered one of the most endangered primate species on Earth. They almost exclusively eat a single species of bamboo, including the woody trunk, known as culm. But they prefer the more nutritious and tender bamboo shoots and use their specialized teeth to gnaw on culm only when necessary, during the dry season. 
Now, reporting in Current Biology on October 26, researchers provide evidence to suggest that as Earth’s climate changes, bamboo lemurs will gradually be forced to eat culm for longer periods. Ultimately, they suggest that, based on an analysis of anatomical, behavioral, paleontological, and climate data, the lemurs could slowly starve...
Wright and her colleagues from Finland and Australia first showed that the greater bamboo lemurs are equipped with highly complex and specialized teeth, just like giant pandas — the only other mammal capable of feeding on culm. These teeth make it possible for them to consume and survive on woody culm for parts of the year... 2,000 feeding observations ...showed that the lemurs... only eat the culm from August to November, when dry conditions make tender shoots unavailable...it appears that a short dry season has been crucial to the survival of greater bamboo lemurs in the past. ... climate models suggest that the areas where the lemurs currently are found are likely to experience longer and longer dry seasons in the future. As the lemurs are left with only culm to eat for longer periods, it could put their survival at risk...

Here’s why I think this study is absolute junk:
1. They rely exclusively on climate model projections, and we all know how highly variable those can be with output in the future
2. They seem to have this idea dry seasons In Madagascar will get drier and longer, but we’ve seen climate models produce both outcome... It seems to me they didn’t consider both, focusing only on drier because that’s the one that matches their goal to show bamboo lemurs would be affected.
3. They didn’t actually test any of the preferred bamboo growth and hardiness against the climate models, but instead relied solely on feeding observations of bamboo lemurs.
4. They assume climate change is the only factor...
5. With the discussion about the bamboo-feeding giant pandas thrown in... it seems they are appealing to human sensitivities...Deforestation leads to loss of evapotranspiration by the trees and plants of the tropical forest, and that leads to lowered rainfall in the region. Climate change has nothing to do with that effect...
Perhaps this PR is just a prelude to a “save the bamboo lemur” organization? It looks like desperation in the form of “we’ll mention climate change and people will send money, yeah, that’s the ticket!”.

Saturday, October 28, 2017

                                   A  BLAST  FROM  THE  BAST


From: Joseph Bast
 Thursday, October 12, 2017 1:31 PM 
Subject: Follow-up on second Red  Team briefing

Friends, On September 28, The Heartland Institute hosted a meeting of about 40 climate scientists, economists, lawyers, and other experts to discuss the possible creation by the Trump administration of a Red Team – Blue Team exercise on climate change…Here are my thoughts about the meeting…

 * EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s proposal for a Red Team-Blue Team exercise is vague, probably would not be effective, and is unlikely to come about
 More likely to occur is a similar exercise directed by… (NASA, NOAA, or OSTP) with more interest than Pruitt has shown in the scientific debate…

 It could be a presidential commission, ala the President’s Council on Bioethics, which enabled Bush II to pivot away from Clinton’s pro-abortion stem cell research agenda. 

* David Schnare described how policy can be changed from “inside the swamp” via seven “legal points of entry” such as legal challenges under the Information Quality Act and violations of peer review. 

Former Congr. Tim Huelskamp said that the debate is “political and not scientific,” and that Congressmen, administration officials, and Trump himself are making decisions based on what their campaign donors …are telling them…  Schanre and Huelskamp both were saying the scientific debate matters less than most people in the room were willing to admit. 

* David Legates offered two iconic graphs to compete with the Hockey Stick: the first showing plant productivity and crop yields RISE in the presence of higher CO2 and warmer... the second showing how computer models “run hot” and so fail to match observations… is from [The Cato Institute]  https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/commentsnhtsapjm.pdf. 

* Harry MacDougald explained why judges often reject science arguments, preferring to rule on procedural matters rather than substantive matters, and so lawyers often avoid science arguments in court. Harry believes our science arguments... must be included in litigation to overcome the initial presumption held by many judges that the science is settled and EPA and other regulators are “doing the right thing.” 

* Jim Lakely… stressed that surveys show we are winning the public opinion battle, since most Americans don’t believe global warming is a problem…The best messages are positive: CO2 increases crop yields, the earth is greening. 

*To effectively market our ideaswe should…

* be briefing news reporters and news readers at Fox News. 
* reach the President by tweeting on the issue. 
* hold more congressional hearings…

* turn debate from referring to median temperatures to high temperatures, which show no trend. 
* find independent funding for Roy Spencer, David Schnare, Willie Soon, Craig Idso, David Legates, etc.

* push Pruitt to start a proceeding for reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding… he won’t do it without pressure.

* we need to be able to say “EPA is reconsidering whether CO2 is a pollutant.” 

* use the White House Petition process – 100,000 signatures and the administration will issue a statement on why it isn’t reconsidering the Endangerment Finding.

* ... respond  to  the  [National Academy of Science]  Climate Science Special Report

* conduct a new survey of scientists to refute the 97% consensus claims. 

* sue a company for not increasing CO2 emissions, force a court to consider the evidence on CO2 benefits…

* never use the phrases “windmill farms,” “all of the above,” “carbon pollution,” “social cost of carbon,” or “air pollution.” 

* emphasize that we are pro-science and pro-environment… and the other side is not...

*...reform, or replace the National Academy of Sciences, the source of much pseudoscience. 

* stop funding “more research” 

*…mention John Beal every chance we get… wasn’t he responsible for the Endangerment Finding? Is he still in jail? 

* ...tell EPA to tell the courts… CO2 may be a net benefit.”...

* thinking we can forecast anything 100, 200, and even 300 years into the future is pure lunacy… 

90% of global warming alarmists sincerely believe man-made CO2 is causing a climate catastrophe,  but the 10% who are the loudest ... pretending to be referees, “progressives” (socialists or communists)  pretendng to be scientists, reporters, and experts...  needs to be outed and desmocked… without offending the remaining 90%, who are just deluded. 

* Many people said “we need a PR plan” or a “single strategy,” otherwise we will continue to lose the battle with AGW alarmists. I observed that ... Heartland, CEI, Cato, Heritage, and other groups have done a poor job communicating their STRATEGIES to people in the room. More transparency is needed. 

We tend to hide, or at least not advertise, our playbooks for fear the other side will use them… But we ought to find a way to communicate our plans to our friends. 

 Thank you all once again for attending…I hope to see some of you in Houston on November 9 ... Diane and I hope to show up on your doorstep asking to spend a night or two on your living room couch. 


Joseph Bast Chief Executive Officer The Heartland Institute 3939 N. Wilke Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004  


Friday, October 27, 2017


Has Global Cooling Begun?

Written by Dr. Dietrich E. Koelle (German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)
Now that the temperature maximum of the 1000-year cycle has been reached over the past two decades, a new global cooling phase can be expected  — as has been the case over the past 8000 years. Why would the natural cycles just suddenly give up?
What can be expected over the next 400 years is a drop of at least 1°C to a level seen during the Medieval times some 500 years ago (called the LIA = Little Ice Age). Reports on sea level rise grinding to a halt and the unexpected rise in sea ice mass in the Arctic and Greenland further add weight to the suspicion that a new global cooling may have already started:
▪   Northern hemisphere (NH) snow cover im May 2017 was greater than at any time in the past 32 years.
▪   In May 2017 sea ice area compared to a year earlier increased during a month of May like never before, since satellite measurement began in 1979.
▪   The gigantic ice sheet on Greenland was also at record level in May 2017, from the beginning of September 2016 to the end of 2017 mass balance of Greenland ice at a surplus of 700 million tonnes and has never been so high since recording began!
▪    At the end of July in Greenland on the night of July 31 to August 1, a temperature of -30.7°C was measured at a location at 3200 m elevation. Never has such a low temperature been measured in the summertime since recording began in 1990. And in early July of this year, 2017, a temperature of -33.0°C was recorded in Greenland.
Also sea level is showing signs that may be related to ice mass: It has not risen in 2 years:
Read more gibberish at notrickszone.com



Geostorm deserves to be a smash hit.
Robert Tulip
Resources & Energy Section
Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

"In watching an action fantasy world apocalypse movie like Geostorm, a temptation for the cynical can be to just see the surface appearance. 

First a village mysteriously freezes solid in an instant in Afghanistan, then the streets of Hong Kong erupt in flaming explosions sending skyscrapers collapsing like dominoes while a driver miraculously escapes through the rippling volcanic chasms opening around him.

 And next the bikini babes on Copacabana turn to blocks of ice as a super cold front somehow pushes a tsunami onto the Rio beachfront... 

a worthy popular successor to... Godzilla ...This movie makes an important and well considered contribution to advancing policy debate on response to climate change... 

 It should be celebrated and debated as a major event... reversing the current path towards mass extinction and economic and social displacement and collapse in favour of practical methods to stabilise the global climate."

Thursday, October 26, 2017


An Impertinent Pup from Snopes Tried to Fact-Check Me on Global Warming. Here’s My Reply…
Delingpole (center)  gets his science
advice from the horse's mouth. (at right)


As  I  predicted, my piece  “400 Scientific Papers in 2017  say ‘Global Warming’ is a Myth”, is causing greenie heads to explode like watermelons  

struck by hollow-point bullets.
Here is an email I got shortly afterwards from ... Snopes.
Hello James, I’m a science writer for the fact checking website Snopes.com reporting on your ‘400 studies say climate change is a myth’ exposé. I had a couple of questions about your process:
  • Did you read all (or a fraction) of the 400 studies listed in that post personally or talk to any of the scientists involved?
  • How long did it take to research this piece?
  • Were you able to get an early look at the No Tricks Zone post from 23 October before it was published      Best, Alex
This Alex is an impertinent pup, isn’t he?    Since I make it my business not to respond to snarky little tics asking irrelevant questions designed to smear and belittle rather than enlighten,   I thought I’d instead deal with the issues he raises here at Breitbart.
Do Hundreds of Papers Published in 2017 'Prove' That Global Warming is a Myth?
ORIGIN     On 24 October 2017,  Breitbart.com’s  James Delingpole  published a story appearing to report that hundreds of scientific papers published in 2017 “prove” that global warming is a myth. This post followed Delingpole’s June 2017 clickbait success falsely alleging that 58 published papers proved the same thing.
Both stories primarily consisted of regurgitated material from a blog called the “No Tricks Zone” (NTZ), which highlights out-of-context sentences from (in most cases) legitimate scientific studies that the author of the blog incorrectly thinks dispute the tenets of anthropogenic global warming. The 400 studies in this latest piece cover topics wholly irrelevant to the question of anthropogenic global warming, including, for example, a study on the effect of wind turbines upon the viability of migratory bat populations. 
The first time that Breitbart ran a NTZ based-story, numerous scientists listed in the report pointed out their their graphs had been digitally altered by NTZ to omit data, and that NTZ had either misinterpreted their papers or read them so superficially that the author of the post did not realize he was sometimes quoting from general background material and not the actual findings of the papers themselves.

I do this for two reasons.
First because publicly humiliating one’s enemies is always fun.
Second, because these climate alarmists use the same old tricks again and again to prop up their junk science scam. It’s always a good idea to expose these tricks,..
That’s how I became one of the world’s most notorious and widely-read climate skeptics: not because I have a science degree – which I don’t – but because I am able to explain this dogs breakfast of a shambles of a conspiracy to defraud the taxpayer in language that normal people can understand.
Snopes’s question:
  • Were you able to get an early look at the No Tricks Zone post from 23 October before it was published?
My answer:
Snopes’s question:
  • How long did it take to research this piece?
My answer: 
As little time as I possibly could... it’s a necessary chore – like pouring RoundUp on your weeds, putting out the trash, shooting rats, that kind of thing – 
Snopes’s question:
  • Did you read all (or a fraction) of the 400 studies listed in that post personally or talk to any of the scientists involved?
My answer:...I suppose I could have done the scholarly thing and spent... days (weeks?) reading all the papers myself, then many more weeks ringing up all the scientists responsible to see whether they still stood by the words they wrote in those papers.
But I didn’t – Kenneth Richard at ... No Tricks Zone... had taken upon himself the achingly tedious task of wading through these 400 science papers, assessing their skeptical position on “climate change”, and then highlighting the key passages that supported his argument.

In other words, he’d done all my homework for me.
Obviously, if it turns out that Kenneth Richard has misrepresented these papers, then yes, I can be criticized for having lazily helped promulgate a lie...
And no, it doesn’t at all undermine my case some of the scientists who wrote these papers object to the context in which I have framed their research.
Happy, now, my little Snopes pupster?

                     THE ROCKY  CLIMATE  HORROR  SHOW


Full Frontal’s Samantha Bee is on a mission to change that by taking the concept of Hell Houses—essentially haunted houses created by religious organizations to scare people out of being gay or getting abortions—and using it for her own means. Bee partnered with the people behind Terror Behind the Walls, a haunted house at Eastern State Penitentiary in Philadelphia, and set up a climate change–themed Hell House that imagines a future in which the Earth is ruined beyond repair.
Of course, to gauge its effectiveness, she also needed some climate change deniers to test it out. The crew she assembled is made up of people with a variety of opinions on the planet’s ecosystem, including one guy who’s worked up about how cows and their “anal gas” can’t possibly destroy the Earth. Bee took them on a journey 50 years from today, to a version of the planet in which cockroaches are the only source of food, melting arctic ice has released plagues of old, and Al Gore TED Talks are inescapable. (They are delivered, in this case, by a very creepy John Hodgman.)

Wednesday, October 25, 2017


[His  Latin translation certainly inspires scepticism-the RS motto means 'not compelled to swear by the words of the masters']

Climate modelers are not scientists.

I’ve long known that climate modellers were charlatan “scientists” who only got called that term by gullible media, politicians and politically motivated academics and other campaign groups. However, I’ve never seen such a coherent condemnation of them as on WUWT...
  • They neither respect nor understand the distinction between accuracy and precision.
  • They understand nothing of the meaning or method of propagated error.
  • They think physical error bars mean the model itself is oscillating between the uncertainty extremes. (I kid you not.)
  • They don’t understand the meaning of physical error.
  • They don’t understand the importance of a unique result.
Bottom line? Climate modelers are not scientists. Climate modeling is not a branch of physical science. Climate modelers are unequipped to evaluate the physical reliability of their own models.


To put it simply... clouds have an order of magnitude more effect on the climate than anything like CO2, there is NO WAY TO DISCOUNT THE EFFECT OF CLOUDS .. SO NO SANE,  HONEST & KNOWLEDGABLE PERSON COULD LOOK AT A CHANGE IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE AND SAY “that must be CO2″.
And it is clear from Pat Frank’s experience with the people that run the climate journals that they are entirely unworthy to hold any such position.
What this means (together with my own work) is that it is pointless speculating as to what CO2 will or won’t do, because it’s very likely a pretty minor player in the climate game that only got any prominence

Tuesday, October 24, 2017

                                 TOO  FAUX  FOR  FOX ?


Monday, October 23, 2017

                                    A   KNOWN  UNKNOWN ?

Raising WUWT's Crank Magnet Ceiling has created a safe space for publishing the unpublishable:

Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections
Guest essay by Pat Frank

...The bottom line is that when it comes to a CO2 effect on global climate, no one knows what they’re talking about...
I recently received my sixth rejection; this time from Earth and Space Science, an AGU journal. The rejection followed the usual two rounds of uniformly negative but scientifically meritless reviews .
After six tries over more than four years, I now despair of ever publishing the article in a climate journal. The stakes are just too great. It’s not the trillions of dollars that would be lost to sustainability troughers.
Nope. It’s that if the analysis were published, the career of every single climate modeler would go down the tubes, starting with James Hansen. Their competence comes into question. Grants disappear. Universities lose enormous income.
Given all that conflict of interest, what consensus climate scientist could possibly provide a dispassionate review? They will feel justifiably threatened. Why wouldn’t they look for some reason, any reason, to reject the paper?
This has not gone unnoticed:

Watt about breaking the ‘pal review’ glass ceiling

Pat Frank has a guest post on WUWT about breaking the ‘pal review’ glass ceiling in climate modeling
It’s essentially about a paper of his that he has been trying to get published and that has now been rejected 6 times. As you can imagine, this means that there is some kind of massive conspiracy preventing him from publishing his ground breaking work that would fundamentally damage the underpinnings of climate modelling.
Franks troubles , as ATTP and others have noted , stem from his own analysis, which has been well and truly fisked seven times over- andcounting