Earthquakes!!! It must be hotter this year!

Sometimes I find one of those articles that really cracks me up! I nearly drop my iPhone reading this:

ENSLER: Well, I just think the idea that she doesn’t believe in global warming is bizarre.
BEHAR: Every scientist at every note believes in it but Sarah Palin doesn’t believe in it.
ENSLER: And I think we just kind of have to walk around the world at this point and look at what is happening to nature and earthquakes and tsunamis.

But the best are the comments, although, since the comments would be eventually pushed down by other comments, I'll repost here the best ones so far:

Peer reviewed.

a capella on February 10, 2010 at 10:42 AM

If only Luke Skywalker had command of global warming instead of The Force … global warming is soooo much more powerful.

darwin on February 10, 2010 at 10:43 AM

These two are almost as good as Al Nobel Prize Gore, who calmly stated that the core of the Earth is the same temperature as the core of the Sun.

jwolf on February 10, 2010 at 10:44 AM

Let me get this straight: A woman whose only claim to fame is talking out loud to her vagina is now lecturing us on climatology?

Yeah. OK.

A Balrog of Morgoth on February 10, 2010 at 10:49 AM

So, plate tectonics are ruled by climate change? Who knew!

mizflame98 on February 10, 2010 at 10:54 AM

Maybe global warming can melt steel….

Vashta.Nerada on February 10, 2010 at 10:55 AM

ENSLER: Well, I just think the idea that she doesn’t believe in global warming is bizarre.

(Your two little girls schoolyard-like obsession with Palin is bizarre considering she currently holds no position of power)

BEHAR: Every scientist at every note believes in it but Sarah Palin doesn’t believe in it.

(No, you bon-bon eating chubby dumbass. See link for The Global Warming Petition Project. Thousands of Ph.D’s would disagree with you.)

ENSLER: And I think we just kind of have to walk around the world at this point and look at what is happening to nature and earthquakes and tsunamis.

(It’s called faulting, you geography-challenged dimwit. The earth is a living thing in continuous motion.)

RepubChica on February 10, 2010 at 11:01 AM

If you were to fabricate a carrying case for a salt molecule and place the combined intellectual capacity of these two rocket scientists therein, the salt molecule would still have room to put its feet up.

Bruce in NH on February 10, 2010 at 11:04 AM

Plate tectonics could be effected by GoreBull Warming, because remember, according to Al Gore, the Earth’s Core is several million degrees.

ronnyraygun on February 10, 2010 at 11:06 AM

Metals?

Here’s an interesting insight that I obtained from a friend involved in energy issues:
1) Solar power and electric car batteries rely heavily upon rare earth metals.
2) The world’s largest repository of rare earth metals is China.
3) China has indicated that it will not export these metals, hence solar panels and car batteries will have to be built in China.
So, who is it that will benefit from “green jobs”, exactly?

Danny Lamieux

[Posted with iBlogger from my iPhone]

The Dog Ate My Tree Rings

This is the apotheosis of madness. UK is going to be The Country where I'm sure I won't go to live!

[Posted with iBlogger from my iPhone]

A "good" explanation

This Climategate is starting to become insane. Now it hits even New Zealand. The self called "scientists" at NIWA claim to have a "good" explanation for falsifying the data. Yeah! And the Main Stream Media stands in silence!

[Posted with iBlogger from my iPhone]

Peer Review

Now THIS will most certainly have your jaw drop on the floor and you set your (provided you were so fool to buy it) DVD of "An Inconvenient Truth" on fire.

I'm so disgusted and infuriated, again, let me have a little pleasure: I TOLD YOU!!!!!!!

UPDATE 01: this is even more interesting.

[Posted with iBlogger from my iPhone]

When the shit hits the fan

The results "to me" never added up, let's not even start talking about the models that never predicts the future, but when the data is a complete error riddled disaster and best scenario have more holes than a slice of Emmenthal then I'll say it: I TOLD YOU!

The sad thing is that in the end is the normal people to pay for this.

UPDATE 01: some more details on what now is apparently being called Warmergate.

UPDATE 02: the US monodailies journalists are doing what they do best: bankrupting their newspapers by writing more and more BS.

[Posted with iBlogger from my iPhone]

Environightmare

A very interesting insight of how much imbecile people can get if anything gets done to them in the name of the environment.

[Posted with iBlogger from my iPhone]

Even higher CO2 in the Ice Age

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

Don't mean to pile on here, but yes, our CO2 levels have been rising. They're currently at a whopping level of 360 ppm, which is higher than they've been for some time now. But if we go back a few years, say to the Ordovician Period, which was but a mere 450 million years ago, the CO2 levels then were at 4,000 ppm. Funny thing is, this was during a major ice age. So how on earth did CO2 levels get so high back then when there was no "man-made" warming. Let me guess, the climate models were all wrong.

Jeff Talbot

[Posted with iBlogger from my iPhone]

Steyn, me and the Climate

I am often astonished reading posts and articles by Mark Steyn, and I guess here in this blog that is no news at all. Yet I must admit that it's not often that I find such a complete manifesto matching so beautifully with my ideas about the AGW and the global climate in general:

Further to the post below, several readers have asked why I didn't refute the case made against me. Well, the case made against me is that I'm an uneducated clod, and I agreed with that. But, if you mean the argument on "global warming," my general line is this: For the last century, we've had ever-so-slight warming trends and ever-so-slight cooling trends every 30 years or so, and I don't think either are anything worth collapsing the global economy over.

Things warmed up a bit in the decades before the late Thirties. Why? I dunno. The Versailles Treaty? The Charleston?

Then from 1940 to 1970 there was a slight cooling trend. In its wake, Lowell Ponte (who I believe is an expert climatologist and, therefore, should have been heeded) wrote his bestseller, The Cooling: Has the new ice age already begun? Can we survive?

From 1970 to 1998 there was a slight warming trend, and now there's a slight cooling trend again. And I'm not fussed about it either way. But here's how Media Matters corrects me:

In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, annual global average temperatures have both risen and fallen over the past 11 years, and while there have been some relatively cooler years during that period — including a decline in each of the past three years relative to the year before — climate scientists reject the idea that those temperatures are any indication that global warming is slowing or does not exist.

Gotcha. Those scientists "reject" the cooling trend of the last decade and think it's part of the "long-term" warming trend of the previous three decades. Just as, presumably, when he published his book on "the new ice age" in 1976, Lowell Ponte thought the warming trend of the 1970s was part of the "long-term" cooling trend of the previous three decades.

If you dig that jive, I'm happy for you. Glad you're a satisfied customer — like the lady who went to see the fortune teller and was told she'd meet a tall dark stranger the following Wednesday, and on Thursday met a blond midget! Amazing! But I like the way Prof. Ian Plimer puts it:

I’m a natural scientist. I’m out there every day, buried up to my neck in sh**, collecting raw data. And that’s why I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses. None of them predicted this current period we’re in of global cooling. There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase.

In the mid-nineties, which climatologist and which model predicted the cooling trend of the turn of the century and the oughts? And, if they didn't, on what basis do you trust their claims for 2050 or 2100?

CBC - Global Warming Doomsday Called Off

If you have already watched this.

You might take a look at this one too:

Innovative Ideas for Development

As of today I am a collaborator of the blog called Innovative Ideas for Development. I'm feel honored to write in that blog, let me tell you a few things about it: it belongs to Nicholas Dominguez, who is currently with the Peace Corps in Kenya, although I guess the name if it speaks pretty much for itself and you should definitely get to know it by reading it!

UPDATE 01: Here is my first post on Innovative Ideas for Development.

It's cool.... told you so!

So the data, since 1998 are building up, now the trend is set and, ooooohhh look, it follows the one of the sun, nooooo??!!! Really? Told you so...

READ THE ARTICLE TO UNDERSTAND MY RANT.

Mining Your Own Business

If you know anything about macroeconomics and energy related policies, then this piece will surely SHOCK YOU FULLY!

Good luck with the new King!

The Nuclear Furnace at the Center of Our Solar System

Watch this and this... and be in awe!!!

When an Administration go... NUTS

First there is THIS. And you start to raise your eyebrow.

Then you read THIS and you understand what Austin, TX is famous for.

Technorati Tags: Austin, Austin Climate Protection Plant, Austin Energy, Ingorant People Spending your Money just to make you feel Fluffy

When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?

Here we are again with news from "Down Under". I just stumbled upon this "spot on" article by David Evans:

I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.

Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.

So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.

In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?

The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.

What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.

The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.

Technorati Tags: Global Warming, Australian, David Evans, Al Gore, Australian Greenhouse Office

Tom Nelson's Allegorical Rundown about Environmentalism

This is going to keep you smiling for a while.

Technorati Tags: Environmentalism, Tom Nelson

A few good daring documentaries

I'm only going to publish a couple of URLs and a couple of previews of what you are going to find in these websites, let me give you an advice: prepare to be surprised.

http://www.onthefencefilms.com/movies.html

http://freemarketcure.com/






Technorati Tags: Health Care System, Socialist Health Care

Un uomo pieno di... PACE

E così alla fine hanno assegnato i premi Nobel, sì, proprio quelli per la pace. I premi Nobel per la pace sembrano seguire il rigoroso metodo delle triplette, ossia per ogni tre stronzate assolute ve n'è uno accettabile. Quest'anno, neanche a dirlo siamo alla stronzata assoluta: ebbene sì, li hanno dati ad Al Gore e all'IPCC, ex aequo, proprio loro, i Gianni e Pinotto del clima. Mr Gore, per rinfrescare un po' la memoria sarebbe colui che usa i soldi di tutti per sancire che la temperatura del pianeta è controllata dall'aumento o diminuzione del biossido di carbonio, quando, vista la necessità in Scienza del riconoscimento del principio di causa-effetto, essendo i cambiamenti in CO2 posteriori di circa 800 anni rispetto alle variazioni di temperatura, tutto il nocciolo della sua campagna mediatica, perché di questo si tratta, non ha più ragione di essere, se non nelle barzellette. Rimane però lo stupore di vedere consegnata l'astrologia al campo di azione della pace. O a Stoccolma sono tutti rincretiniti, o qualcuno ha deciso anche lì di cavalcare l'onda del sistema tanto in voga oggi, ossia dell'annientamento del dissenso con la creazione mediatica del largo consenso. Per capire i rischi di questa pericolosa strada in scienza si legga questo mio post precedente.

La semantica però non è un'opinione. A mio avviso il premio Nobel per la pace andrebbe eliminato e sostituito con quello per la Libertà.

Last but not least: in fondo però, se il Nobel per la pace è stato assegnato a gente come Jimmy Carter e Yasser Arafat, mi sa che a commento di quello per Al Gore non rimane che farsi una grassa risata.




UPDATE 01:

Leggetevi anche questo interessante articolo di Maria Giovanna Maglie.


Technorati Tags: Pace, Global Warming, Nobel, Al Gore

E85

La maggiorparte di voi non avrà nessuna idea al sentir nominare la parola E85, e un motivo c'è: siete ITALIANI.
Non ve lo hanno mai detto in televisione, non ve l'hanno mai spiegato a scuola, non è mai apparso nei nostri quotidiani (se si eccettua l'articolo apparso su Il Giornale di domenica 16 settembre 2007 firmato Stefano Lorenzetto), il nostro governo non lo vuole nemmeno sentir nominare, figuriamoci defiscalizzarlo, produrlo o almeno incentivarlo.
Ma cos'è questo E85???

E' una miscela di 85% di etanolo e 15% di benzina.
Tutto qui?! ...direte voi. Tutto qui, ed è davvero tutta qui la ricetta per eliminare il problema di andare a fare la spesa in Francia e Slovenia di corrente elettrica, in Medio Oriente di petrolio e in Russia di gas metano.


L'uomo qui nella foto è Luciano Patorno, l'articolo di Lorenzetto è scritto così bene che vi lascerò alla sua lettura:

http://www.ilgiornale.it/a.pic1?ID=206400

Technorati Tags: E85, Science, Etanolo