This blog is a direct result of too much rain in Vancouver. I suspect it will be a place where I will post thoughts about my current readings or about the events of the day. Also, I have a book into which I have been writing "worthy thoughts" over the years as I read books so this may be a perfect excuse to go through all of those and remember the mental resonance that they caused.
I smell a rat. On Climate Change.
The article linked to here is just one example of what I have been following for decades now and something is "off" and people appear to be lying and doing so knowingly.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) was created about 30 years ago and developed 100 different computer models to predict future climate. On the basis of those computer model projections, they issued some dire warnings in their first report, which then they cut in half (forecasts of global warming and sea level change and the like) in their most recent report.
But, because their first predictions have now been out for decades, one can compare forecast data with actual observations and the real world is refusing to cooperate with their models. The actual observed changes are much much less than any projections and hugely different than the average of all of their models put together.
This appears to be unacceptable to the main entities participating in this (the UN and the meteorological offices of the US, UK and Australia) and when the observed readings do not fit your forecasts, you "fix" the observed data, apparently.
Just one example of it is detailed in the enclosed and it is the "homogenization" of data of actual observations. The argument is that thermometers are sometimes located in urban areas where there is a "tall buildings effect" (tall buildings create shade due to which temperatures in the microclimate of a big city are lower than they would be otherwise) so they take the actual observed readings - what the thermometer actually said - and "adjust" it to what it would say if there was no tall buildings effect.
However, they appear to be doing this in the case of Australia for ALL of Australia's weather stations, not only those in large cities and they refuse to give other scientists raw data on how they calculated and adjusted for the "tall buildings effect".
If for whatever reason real world temperatures did not rise as predicted by the models, sea level rise would not be a concern and all of these people would have nothing to do. Nobody can tell me that they do not understand that and that they are able to separate their concerns about their livelihood from how they handle the data. Or at least they should show the world how they do it but they refuse to.
Another example that I have been following for years where something is "off" too is the project to put more satellites into orbit to measure the thickness of ice in polar caps, not just its area (or "extent") as is done now. It makes sense if you think about it because if 90% of an iceberg is below water, you would want to measure that more precisely than the 10% or so which is visible to establish how much ice in total there is.
So I read about these new satellites being put in place by the EU about 5 years ago and have been waiting to see the data from them but there is nothing reported anywhere. It is very odd and I have looked several times a year for a few years now.
What if they did measure the ice volume and it turns out that what is seen on the surface where there is quite a bit of seasonal variability and year-to-year variability is not quite the same "under the surface"? What if the total volume of ice in water in the Arctic is 2% less or 2.5% less than 30 years ago. Or what if there is actually more of it - would the data still be widely shared and reported because after all, it was "good news"? I do not believe it would be as the academic and political industries of global warming cataclysm are simply too big to not be worried about their own survival.
Just my sense and happy to be proven wrong. But please bring data if you do want to prove something. Not the "flat Earth society" stuff. Good thing Hitler did not say anything about climate ever so at least there aren't those tired analogies to mine.
First, I mostly ignored a lot of the "climategate" debates because at the end of the day they do not reveal anything new about the issue at hand - the fundamental drivers of climate change. However, when I came across an article quoting Al Gore, even I was stunned by the sheer audacity or blindness of religious zeal which can cause a relatively normal person to just so blatantly lie to us or to himself. In an interview he said: I haven’t read all the e-mails, but the most recent one is more than 10 years old. These private exchanges between these scientists do not in any way cause any question about the scientific consensus. and then repeated the same point 2 more times. These statements are simply completely wrong. In fact, as Watts Up With That shows, one Climategate email was from just two months ago. The most recent was sent on November 12 - just a month ago. The emails which have Tom Wigley seeming (to me) to choke on the deceit are all from this year. Phil Jones’ infamous…
The US Presidential election was not about whether America is great today so much as it was about the suggestion that we could all go back to some better, simpler time.
While few have actual memories of the 50s, most have an idea in their heads of what it was like when things were much simpler. A simple candidate, one so simple to border on a simpleton, came along after a long line of lifelong politicians. Whether slick political operators like Bill Clinton and Obama or the political dynasty of the Bush family.
Trump is simply not difficult to understand for most people. Almost everybody knows somebody who has some of his characteristics, both the good and the bad. He is bigoted while genuinely thinking that he isn't. He is believable in his denials because he is Archie Bunker with a private plane. He may be disagreeable but he is understandable.
There is nothing we don't understand about him - eating KFC on your plane is something everyone can understand. The KFC part of it, …
Everything seems to be about assigning guilt these days. Guilt must be seen as a motivating force or why else would it be held up so much as something that will presumably foster change? All these folks who traffic in guilt must think that this is effective.
If you are human, you are guilty already.
You are destroying the planet, causing other species to become extinct faster than ever. If you eat meat you are very guilty and even if you don't, plants apparently "know" that they are being eaten and besides, your agricultural practices are just causing permanent damage to things that you don't actually consume.
If you are older, you are certainly guilty for a whole lot of things - first of all, having lived for a while, you have accumulated a lot of guilt simply by virtue of being a human being and being destructive in that way. But also you are guilty of a lack of forethought in how you wasted resources and ruined the planet for generations to come. If you are over 50 y…