Skip to content

Archive for


Peer Review; Last Refuge of the (Uninformed) Troll

Denying reality does not make reality false

Watts Up With That?

Current peer review science, by attempting to explain away model failure, in fact confirms that the science is wrong

Guest essay by David M. Hoffer

It has become a favorite tactic amongst trolls to declare their belief in peer reviewed science.  With this simple strategy, they at once excuse themselves from the need to know anything about the science, and at the same time seek to discredit skeptic arguments on the grounds that, not having been published in peer reviewed journals, they may be dismissed out of hand.

A retreat to authoritarian arguments in the face of dead simple observations is not new.  It is a repeat of history.  Not having learned from it, we appear to be condemned to repeat it.  But both history and the current peer reviewed science are, if one steps back and looks at the big picture, on the skeptic side.

View original post 817 more words


Scientists Trapped In Record Sea Ice Announce That It Is Disappearing

Climate Change Scientists Who “Denied” Sea Ice Is Expanding Trapped In Expanding Sea Ice

Real Science

View original post


EPA air pollution scare debunked by best data set ever assembled on particulate matter and deaths

EPA Gaming The Climate Data Exposed

Airborne Fine Particulate Matter and Short-Term Mortality: Exploring the California Experience,2007-2010.

View original post 215 more words


Podesta Returns–as if We Need More Thugs

Be afraid very afraid , President Obama’s new appointment, Podesta, is no friend of America’s fossil fuel industry. Fossil Fuel is one of America’s most abundant resources that could lead to a Renaissance of American Industrial growth, jobs and progress. Obama’s appointment of Podesta shows Obama real agenda is anti US growth, a stagnant economy and keeping people poor and dependent on government for their livelihood.

Here is a nice summary of what can be expected from Podesta, from our ally in the battle on energy, Marita Noon.

View original post 1,419 more words


I can’t explain why we shouldn’t murder disabled children

It appears the Left is driving us all back towards a primitive era when life was cheap. Old people were left out in the cold to die. Only the strong or well connected survived. The Left claims to be for the poor and less fortunate. but everything they do harms the very people they claim to be champions of.


Michael Mann forced into a “do-over” in Mann -vs- CEI & Steyn

Another go around? Why not just throw the whole thing out.

Watts Up With That?

Mann-Steyn-OrderWhat a great Christmas present for Mike. It is back to square one for him with his lawsuit over what he views as libel by Mark Steyn and CEI.

For background, see this WUWT story:

Mann has filed suit against NRO (now the laughing begins)

Since the previous ruling this summer that said the lawsuit could go ahead was nothing less than a bad legal joke:

Mann-Steyn lawsuit judge inverts the defendants actions, botches ruling

…that ruling has now been nullified by a higher appeals court ruling, Mann’s case will now have to start over.

This new ruling seems pretty blunt. They basically accepted the ACLU amicus brief as fact, saying:

View original post 114 more words


Shock News : Obama Lied* About Climate Science

President Obama’s climate change lies like his Obamacare lies were motivated by his delusions of grandeur now being brought down by reality of failure. The reality that his policies are doing more harm than good.

Real Science

A better candidate for prison, actually, would be whoever tweets under the name @BarackObama. When he Tweeted: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous” he was promulgating a demonstrable untruth.

No one has ever doubted that climate changes.

Pretty much everyone – probably more than 97 per cent, even – agrees that there is a degree of anthropogenic input, even it’s just the barely measurable contribution of beef cattle farts or the heat produced by cities.

But the dangerous bit? No one has come even close to demonstrating it, there is no reliable evidence for it, and very few scientists – certainly far, far fewer than 97 per cent of them – would ever stake their reputations on such a tendentious claim.

If you still believe in ‘climate change’ read this… – Telegraph Blogs

* Someone should offer a reward to the first person who…

View original post 7 more words


Celebrated Physicist Calls IPCC Summary ‘Deeply Unscientific’

It is time for President Obama and the Democrats to stop their war on cheap and reliable energy from fossil fuel which fuels the economic engine of America based on the”Deeply Unscientific” IPCC Summary Report written by politicians not scientists.

Big Picture News, Informed Analysis

Former CERN official says 65 prominent IPCC authors have abandoned “scientific rigour.”

Among the documents recently submitted to a UK Parliamentary committee, a live grenade nestles in the straw.

It was written by a scientific luminary, Pierre Darriulat. For nearly 50 years, his professional life has been devoted to particle physics, nuclear physics, condensed matter physics, and astrophysics. For seven years, he was Director of Research at CERN – one of the world’s largest, most famous, and respected laboratories.

The biography included with his submission tells us that Darriulat was spokesperson for

one of the two experiments that simultaneously discovered the weak bosons and gave evidence for quarks and gluons being produced in the form of hadronic jets.

He is the recipient of prestigious science honours, and advises us that his “scientific work is recognized by the international community.”

Now let us recollect that Al Gore says the climate…

View original post 583 more words


If Manmade Greenhouse Gases Are Responsible for the Warming of the Global Oceans…

Another case where when reality disagrees with the Climate Change Alarmists reality is not what’s false.

Watts Up With That?

…then why do the vertical mean temperature anomalies (NODC 0-2000 meter data) of the Pacific Ocean as a whole and of the North Atlantic fail to show any warming over the past decade, a period when ARGO floats have measured subsurface temperatures, providing reasonably complete coverage of the global oceans? See Figure 1. Or, in other words, why is the warming of the global oceans (0-2000 meters) over the past 10 years limited to the Indian and South Atlantic Oceans, when carbon dioxide is said to be a well-mixed greenhouse gas, meaning all ocean basins should be warming?

1 Vertical Mean Temp Basin Comparison 0-2000m

Figure 1

Or, to look at it in yet another way, we’re being told that, while surface temperatures are no longer warming, the oceans to depth continue to warm…yet the warming is not occurring in the largest ocean basin, the Pacific, and the North Atlantic is showing evidence of cooling.


View original post 466 more words


Why Won’t Climate Scientists Show The Data That Proves Their Theory That CO2 Is The Primary Culprit Behind Climate Change?

Why won’t Climate Scientists produce the underlying data that will prove their theory that CO2 is the primary culprit behind Climate Change and shut their critics up once and for all? Answer: The reason they refuse to show any data is because the data does not exist. In fact all the empirical data refutes their theory. So instead of showing the data that would prove their theory they manipulate the data; name call by calling anyone who disagrees with them “deniers” and try and shut people up. See the below article Reblogged from NoTricksZone, P Gooselin by Ed Caryl for a pretty good explanation of why the AGW theory is so full of holes and thus why it’s proponents resort to dirty tactics to cover up their lies. 

AGW Science’s Constant Appeals To Authority Only Confirm Its Total Fallacy

– See more at:

On Consensus

By Ed Caryl

This is in response to comments made by reader G Mitchell.

We are constantly told that there is a consensus in climate science that CO2 is warming the planet, or the deep ocean, (or something) and that if we do not limit CO2 something bad will happen. As one can easily see, there is no consensus on the two “somethings” in that first sentence. We are told that CO2 is responsible for warming, cooling, less rainfall, more rainfall, less snow, more snow, less ice, more ice, more hurricanes, fewer hurricanes, more tornados, fewer tornados, and so on. Each of those things can also be good or bad, (but mostly bad) depending on where and when they happen. The “consensus” seems to morph to whatever bad thing the writer wants to prove. This isn’t climatology, it’s calamitology.

The appeal to authority is scientific fallacy 

The “Appeal To Authority” fallacy is used in each case to back up the claim. The “Trust me, I’m a Climate Scientist” fallacy is constantly used in either the first or second person. It should be pointed out that the title “Climate Scientist” is always self-bestowed, thus is as ephemeral and fallacious as the consensus.

One claim is that “97%” or “99%” of peer reviewed climate science papers support the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) meme. The first problem with this claim is that getting a paper past the gauntlet of peer review in many climate related journals requires bowing to the requirement for some mention of “global warming” or “climate change” or whatever phrase de jour.

Again and again we find papers that have little or nothing to do with climate change containing those phrases. There are over a thousand peer-reviewed papers taking the converse position. There are also papers cited as supporting CAGW that do not, in fact, support the premise. Fortunately, there are people keeping track of these. I direct the reader to here and here as just two collections.

No agreement on sensitivity means no consensus

There are several “facts” used to back up the claims by “Climate Science”. But there is no consensus on any of these. Climate sensitivity is the first and most important claim as it is the entire underpinning to the argument. There is no agreement on climate sensitivity, there are only opinions. Does the doubling of CO2 content in the atmosphere result in warming? If so how much? Opinions range from some small negative number to above six degrees C, including, of course, the number zero. Even the IPCC cannot settle on a number; the latest iteration being from 1.5 to 4.5°C. A range of three cannot be described as a consensus. The large numbers depend on there being a large positive feedback, as the basic radiation physics of CO2 alone describes a sensitivity of 1°C. The stumbling block of course is the unknown effect of water vapor and clouds. Water vapor is the other (and dominant) greenhouse gas.

No agreement on CO2 lifetime means no consensus

Another “fact” is CO2 lifetime in the atmosphere. This is described in peer-reviewed papers as from less than 7 years to over a hundred, the larger number of course, is used to predict doom. This is hardly a consensus.

Other “facts” in dispute include how much natural variability contribute to observed warming. Ocean cycles and solar variability are two important and heavily argued contributors. Volcanism, natural and man-produced aerosols are others. There is hardly a consensus in this area either. For some recent opinions, go here.

The “Appeal To Authority” and “Ad Hominem” attack fallacies are also used to put down the contribution of skeptical blogs and those that write for and comment on them. It is as if those that do not “believe” are refused a license to think. This is the crux of the problem. This is the reaction of the religious, not scientists. No other scientific field so denies the amateur a place. Why is this so?Follow the money.

Climate science does not require a specialist; it requires a generalist. The knowledge needed crosses all the boundaries. Knowledge in chemistry, physics, geology, biology, botany, mathematics, computers, literature, and library science are all needed, not specialist knowledge, general knowledge. The underlying data and principles involved are not difficult to understand. Anyone widely read in these fields can make a contribution, if they keep an open mind and just think.

My own contributions here are not intended as revealed truth, that would be a religious view. They are suggestions based on the data as found, meant to stimulate thought. This is the basis of science. 

Real Science

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" - Richard Feynman

Climate Audit

by Steve McIntyre

Disrupted Physician

The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction

WeatherAction News

News on Piers Corbyn, Earth & Space Weather Action, Climate, Seismic's the Sun stupid!

the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion


News of the day

The Big Green Lie

De-Bunking the Green Scam World-Wide

Inform The Pundits!

A sane person's attempt to make sense of the news

Bob Tisdale - Climate Observations

Sea Surface Temperature, Ocean Heat Content, and Other Climate Change Discussions

Dan from Squirrel Hill's Blog

Just another weblog

Power To The People

Musings About The Incoherent Dichotomy Of The Liberal Mind


A lagrange point in life


Thinking from a different direction

sunshine hours

Question Authority

All the junk that’s fit to debunk.


Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.


“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” – George Orwell

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Cutting edge science you can dice with

Big Picture News, Informed Analysis

This blog is written by Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise. Posts appear Monday, Wednesday & Friday.

%d bloggers like this: