Wednesday, May 7, 2014

Wednesday Double Header

 High Marx in Science
obama, obama jokes, stilton jarlsberg, hope n' change, hope and change, environment, climate, executive orders, keystone

Barack Obama, speaking to a group of bowtie-wearing TV weathermen (unlike the underground, bomb-throwing, cop killing weathermen like Bill Ayers who launched Barry's political career), announced the coming apocalyptic end of the world owing to global climate warming, or climate change, or weathery deviation, or attack glaciers, or tsunamis made angry by Youtube videos, or hurricanes protesting the fact that they earn less then himmicanes.

Fortunately, the president plans to issue magic executive orders which will save the planet by raising taxes, closing businesses, cutting off energy supplies to United States citizens, giving hundreds of millions of dollars to Democrat donors with imaginary "green energy" companies and, in a nod to his allegedly Hawaiian roots, throwing capitalists into active volcanoes.

He would have called for throwing in virgins but, thanks to the initiatives of the Left, they're all gone.

And This Just In And Out
obama, obama jokes, stilton jarlsberg, hope n' change, hope and change, lewinsky, clinton, blowjob, blue dress, vanity fair, benghazi, dude

Just in time to bump news stories about the Benghazi scandals, White House obstructionism and lies, and a high-powered highly motivated new investigative Select Committee headed by Trey Gowdy, Monica Lewinsky has flounced her way back into the spotlight for another 15 minutes of infamy.

Monica has granted an extensive interview to Vanity Fair magazine about the extremely serious topics of blowjobbery and dry cleaning, which is way more fun for the media to report than another recounting of Ambassador Chris Stevens' dull old murder and sodomizing.

Interestingly, Monica claims "my boss took advantage of me" but then oxymoronically states that there was no "abuse" until he made her a political scapegoat. Still, it's nice for bosses to now have it "on the record" that taking sexual advantage of their female underlings isn't abuse.

Which goes hand in hand (and cigar in the vajayjay) with Bill Clinton's advice to our nation's youth that oral sex isn't sex at all, even if it can spread disease, destroy reputations, break up real marriages (hint, hint), and cripple a presidency...allowing little "accidents" to happen like a preoccupied Slick Willy saying "no thanks" when, prior to September 11, 2001, he was offered Osama Bin Laden tied up in a bow.

Is Hope n' Change really suggesting that the World Trade Center went down at Ground Zero because Monica went down on Bill Clinton? As a matter of fact, we think it's a real possibility. Which is why we wish Ms. Lewinsky had the good sense to stay gone from the public spotlight.

Trust us, Monica - you don't need to suck any more air out of the news cycle. You've sucked enough already.


TrickyRicky said...

Just like clockwork. They (and we all know who they are) are so predictable. The timing is utterly laughable. Monica comes shuffling out of the shadows on her knees talking about head the same day Trey Gowdy is named to head the select committee.

Regarding the first topic, aren't we rubes so condescendingly reminded when we mention that global temperatures haven't increased for fourteen years that we are talking about CLIMATE, not weather? Why then is The Won meeting with a bunch of meteorologists to promote his Marxist anti-energy agenda?

CenTexTim said...

Monica sucks... Clinton sucks... obama sucks... there's a common thread here.

BTW, we've moved from 'global warming' to 'climate change' to the much more threatening-sounding 'climate disruption.'

Call it what you will, it has nothing to do with weather or climate, and everything to do with advancing the left's agenda.

Chris said...

Squirrel!!! Shiney! Look, there it is! Chase it Fido, fetch, fetch!!

Good ol' reliable Monica, totally spontaneously (and surely without any *ahem!* monetary consideration *wink wink cough harrumph*) is providing timely lip service to the Clintonista clan.

Geoff King said...

Random thoughts on climate change:
1. It's cyclical.
B. It was a lot hotter when the dinosaurs were around.
3. The Mini Ice Age just ended less than 200 years ago. We should be getting warmer.
C. More carbon dioxide means more plants. More plants means less carbon dioxide.
27. Regulating the hell out of American industry for pollution control forces them to move to China where there are no regulations, therefore those regulations actually cause more world pollution than if the industries were allowed to remain in the US and give our citizens jobs.

Random thoughts on Monica Lewinsky:
A. Yes she gave him head, but he didn't enjoy it because she didn't inhale.
2. Monica is no Miss America, but look at Hillary.

American Cowboy said...

@CenTexTim said Monica sucks... Clinton sucks... obama sucks...

Now there is a picture that it will take a high speed side grinder to grind out of my eyes!

Chuck Ef said...

Oh man, Doc! You just hit one of my pet peeves. No doubt in my mind that 9/11 is the result of Clinton's taking the eye off the ball (enraptured with his own balls) and allowing the unspeakable. There were "hints" and intelligence everywhere. All he had to do was pay attention and be president. But no ... Go Nads, Go Nads!

He and Killary were cutting defense and intelligence - there may have been room there but they were hostile to those things. And so it goes ....

The comments above are good. Squirrel!!!!

Sparky said...

What @CenTexTim said ... times 10! Rehashing the Lewinsky scandal is all about keeping the story about Benghazi out of the Lame Stream headlines AND protecting Hildabeast's rear end in the upcoming elections. "Duuude, that was so, like, two years ago!" I wish Trey Gowdy would run for President. He is a man of fine character and admirable fortitude. I pray that God will keep bringing the "truth to light" so that reasonable people may keep our country on an even keel.

As far as the "climate change" (or whatever Leftist term is used these days), it's all about the total, absolute destruction of western culture. It's the worship of the creation, and not the Creator, practiced by the heathen. Anyone who calls themself Christian, and follows after these teachings, needs to read the Bible a little more often. He states quite clearly in the Word that He will NOT destroy the earth but remake it. We can not change or effect anything on that scale.

Ron Russell said...

Always enjoy your toons and commentary--very hard hitting. Seems like Barry is determined to get his cap and trade by executive order---even members of his own party recoil from his proposals. Wrote this short satirical piece sometime ago on "Global Warming" thought you might like it The First Global Warming Alarmists

JIm Hlavac said...

Since the year I was born, 1958, the Magnetic North pole has drifted from the geographic pole some 1500 miles and now sits, roughly, right over Sarah Palin's Wasilla.
It is continuing to move Southeast at the rate of roughly 20 to 50 miles a year and has shown no reversing.
This seems to occur every 25,000 years -- and we're about due for a flipping of polarity -- because the big ball of molten and solid iron in the core of the earth wobbles out of sync with the crust on top.
And so the president will shove a big cigar down a volcano to stop the rotation.
Monica Lewinsky still looks up to Bill Clinton as the gift that keeps on coming -- in bits of 15 minutes and a dash extra cash.
Ben Ghazi (the former Zbigniew Brzezinski) will star in a new sitcom: "All the news that fits around the bimbos."
Al Gore will sing Kumbaya and Michelle will order everyone to eat their brocolli.
The Left will blame Sarah Palin for moving the magnetic pole.
The Right will blame me and gay marriage for moving it.
The current president will blame the capitalists, issue us all the new national pajama uniform, suggested by Denis Rodman's visit to North Korea, so we can weather the storm.
While Hilary Clinton will claim she can stop the twist and shout "I am woman, what difference does it make?"
Putin will claim that the magnetic pole is really Russian, and so is Alaska and Canada since the Russian for "ice is nice" is also "invade everyone."
And the Correspondents will ask again: "When's dinner?"
And if only France hand't invaded Mexico, Dartmouth college students couldn't complain about Cinco De Mayo.
Meanwhile, in a galaxy far far away, sentinent beings say: "Those people on that planet are crazy, don't go there."
And the Ghost of Richard Wagner is writing a 12 hour opera about it all called "Der Loony Bin Cycle"

Anonymous said...

Those TV weathermen are also called "Media-rologists."

Chuck Ef said...

So I was wondering yesterday about any sort of truly scientific source or sources for the justification of AGW, climate change, or what the libtards are now calling it, "climate disturbance". I found my “scientific” reference!

@Jim Hlavac
That is interesting about the magnetic pole. I have seen blurbs about it but nothing definitive. Have you see something that relates it to climate and weather patterns? Truly interesting. Really.

BTW you are old, dude! Ha! Not saying when I was born but ... you were born the same year as my younger brother.

But as the great Groucho said, growing old is a lot better than the alternative.

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble,
finding it everywhere,
diagnosing it incorrectly and
applying the wrong remedies."
- Marx (G)

Colby said...

Sigh.... And just when you thought the country couldn't possible get any stupider. PEOPLE! Obama and Billary are playing you like a cheap kazoo! For our coutry's sake, stop following the shiny objects, open your eyes and ears, and pay attention to your better judgement for a while. It worked for me; I used to be a flaming retard liberal.

Did anybody catch Lynne Cheney's take on the Lewdinsky crap? She didn't make any claims, but submitted that it would be best for Billary to clear the air now rather than later. She also made a comment somehitng like, "Vanity Faie certainly wouldn't publish anything the Clintons wouldn't approve of, would they?" I took this to mean that the VF article was Billary's idea, and those involved were well compensated to do it now rather than it being an October (2016) surprise.

@Geoff King,
There you go again, using logic and science. If this type of thinking gains momentum, Al Gore will be releasing a movie about how the dinosaurs creating an industrial, capitalist society which resulted in their ultimate demise.

Colby said...

Did I mention that I used to be a flaming liberal, but traded that to become a really bad speller?

Colby Muenster said...

Chuck Ef,
Thanks for the info. For years I have refused to buy into this global warming / climate change / we're all gonna suffocate from CO2 horse patootey, but now you produce an expert who explained the whole thing is such simple terms. The Koch brothers! Damn... why didn't we think of that before!? It's all so clear now.

Oh look! A butterfly!

Chuck Ef said...


Ha! Well, you know, when I was young, "liberal" meant "open minded" - so yeah, I was a liberal too. Now it means orthodoxy. It's really sad. So I call myself a "classical liberal" in the sense of the Founding Fathers. So far as I am concerned, the only thing like that these days if libertarianism.

And yes, I too see a butterfly! That must be the effect the "true believers" are referring to.

BTW, I don't know if anyone is aware of Crichton's "State Of Fear" - but I thought he had an extraordinary appendix in that novel addressing AGW. It seemed perfectly reasonable to me.

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@TrickyRicky- The well-orchestrated timing of Lewinsky's return is a twofer: it distracts from Benghazi, and it will make the "Monica problem" old news by the time Hillary announces her run for the White House.

@CenTexTim- I think "climate disruption" may be my favorite apocalyptic non sequitur so far. All it really says is that nature isn't taking its expected course - which could be more indicative of our misguided expectations than climate-changing machinations.

@Chris- I think the news networks of ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC should all unite under the banner of ADHD.

@Geoff King- Great points. The evidence of climate change is pretty good, but the evidence that it's man made is very weak, and the evidence that we can turn it around is nonexistent - especially as one nation acting unilaterally.

@American Cowboy- You know, maybe this "climate disruption" is actually being caused by an unnatural zone of atmospheric low pressure surrounding Washington because of all the Dems who suck!

@Chuck Ef- Because Billy boy was screwing around, we got "presidential disruption" that kept a lot of important things from happening - and taking Bin Laden out of the game is at the top of that list.

And I still remember the day that Monica was supposed to give her grand jury testimony. The country was waiting for news, when suddenly BJ Bill commandeered all the TV stations for an emergency announcement: he'd just sent missiles to attack Al Qaeda. Or that's what he claimed; actually he just blew the living hell out of a non-military aspirin factory in the middle of nowhere. I firmly believe that this was a transparent distraction from the Monica news of the day...and further, that the repercussions from the aspirin factory snafu caused Bill to pull back from watching/confronting Al Qaeda. (Note: right around then, he reassigned investigators from looking at Al Qaeda to look for white bigots burning down black churches in the South - which proved not to be happening).

Long story short- I think Monica helped create the circumstances which culminated in the nightmare of 9-11.

(More comments shortly!)

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Sparky- Theology aside (which I don't say in a negative way in the least) I think Man's impact on the Earth pales in comparison to the natural forces at work, including the power of the sun and emissions from volcanic sources (among many others). Moreover, we're already doing a pretty good job of regulating emissions in our country - so what else would Obama have us do? If we were to shut down industry in America completely, it would make virtually no difference in the climate. But would make a heckuva difference to hundreds of millions of people.

@Ron Russell- I liked your piece! And yes, "cap and trade" is the goal here - though again, just like Obamacare, it's all about economic redistribution rather than its stated purpose.

@Jim Hlavac- You've got too much good stuff in your comment for me to react to all of it, but it is interesting to wonder how the conditions that are changing our magnetic pole and polarity might also be affecting climate. Not that anyone is going to get grant money by investigating it.

@Anonymous- Funny and accurate! (By the way, it's easy to give yourself a name when posting comments: just click the Name/URL button and enter whatever name you like!)

@Chuck Ef- Oh for cryin' out loud; I had to look at your linked story TWICE to make sure it wasn't a satire from The Onion. But nope: Harry Reid declared that the Koch brothers are among the MAIN causes of climate change.

Seriously, it's time Harry was medicated and locked in a rubber room.

@Colby- Lynne Cheney is a smart woman and I agree completely: the mere fact that the Lewinsky piece is in Vanity Fair means that the editors thought it would be good for the Clintons - and probably made a point of getting it cleared with them.

And don't worry about your spelling. Proper grammar, syntax, and spelling are all oppressive tools of the power elite, and probably racist.

John the Econ said...

"Anthropocentric Global Warming" has been one of my favorite topics for the last two decades.

As a young econ student in the '80s, those in the "hard sciences" used to look down on us social-numbers crunchers as inferior because unlike them, we couldn't adhere to the "scientific method" like they theoretically could. And to a large degree, they were right; In economics, it's not possible to test hypothesis with the kind of certainty that you can in say, physics. This leaves a lot of room mischief as as a profession as one gets wider latitude in picking and choosing data and how it's used, since little of it is actually "hard".

Fast forward a decade or so. Today, many in the "climate" community freely and openly use statistical "tricks" that would have had those in my econ student cohort expelled (as we should have been) had we tried to use them.

The problem is that there's only 1 earth, and absolutely no way to test anything, especially in a field where it's even questionable to what degree we even impact such things as "climate".

So these people with billions in government funding come up with these tidbits, much of it based upon questionable research, and say "We need to undo industrialization, and we'd all be better off if there were a few billion fewer people on the planet, and if we all had the carbon footprint of a caveman. Trust us as we take your cash and your freedom and let us save the planet from yourself."

If it were only that bad. But it's actually worse that than. A President who flies about in a personal 747 goes to the foreign lands of the poor and impoverished, and tells them not to expect to own nice homes with A/C or have automobiles, because the planet can't deal with it. Then he jets back to America for another round of golf.

How retrograde is that? The left likes to scream that it's conservatives who want to take America back to the '50s. Well, these people want to take us back to the middle ages! These people want us to be their serfs, and this is how they plan to justify it.

George in Houtx said...

Stilton, re: what Jim H. had to say about the mag polar shift .... this is something I have been following as an amateur geologist since the early 70's. as best as I can describe it, the molten metal core develops circulation currents as it spins. these affect the magnetic field. as the currents shift, so, too, does the north / south magnetic poles. as the currents continue to shift, the patterns of swirls get more complex. this leads to the magnetic field weakening. there will come a time that the swirls get so complex that we might see 4 (or more) magnetic north poles. and like in the late-night t v info-mercials ..... But wait! there's more! with more than 1 each north / south magnetic poles, the field strength will be very weak. this will expose all life to cosmic radiation which will do bad things to the DNA. ALSO, it will expose the Earth to cosmic rays. these tend to cause clouds to form in the high atmosphere. clouds block sunlight. this leads to a cooler Earth and a very probable ice age. in short, things will be quite "interesting"!!

CenTexTim said...

George in Houtx - what kind of time frame are we talking about re: multiple poles?

Chuck Ef said...

@George in Houtx

You sound like that Chinese proverb - "May your life be interesting." I think it is meant as a threat. Or maybe it was "May you life be filled with opportunities." Whatever.

Anyway, fascinating. I need to look this stuff up.

But it is quite a "shocker" eh? The Earth being so complex? Whoda thunk?

But I am quite convinced that cow flatulence gets to the Earth's magma core somehow. Al Gore said so ...

George in Houtx said...

@ CenTexTim: time on this is variable. what I mean is that there is geological evidence that the Earth went 'multi-pole' and then flipped in a "short" time. in THAT instance, the poles flipped back quite soon. so the poles were back to 'normal' in a short geological span. still, a short geological span could be hundreds of years ..... or it could be a matter of days or weeks. other times the poles flipped (yes, this a common thing) it took several thousands of years to get back to normal.

John the Econ said...

@JIm Hlavac & @George in Houtx, as someone who engages in a couple of hobbies that require a knowledge of navigation, I've been aware of and following the magnetic shift issue for several decades now. The rate at which it has been moving has been increasing for some time. For those who don't understand much about geo-physics or the function of the earth's magnetic field, suffice it to say that without it, we wouldn't likely be here. It's the magnetic field surrounding our planet that deflects and diverts most of the high-energy charged particles that are constantly bombarding our planet from both the sun and deep space. Without it, we'd literally be cooked.

My question has always been: To what degree does the magnetic field in conjunction with the Van Allen Radiation Belt affect climate at the rate at which energy is absorbed from the sun.

When "global warming" was starting to become the fad back in the early '90s, I'd repeatedly ask proponents of the theory about the effect that our shifting magnetic pole might have on our climate. This notion was always completely rejected. Not only did they totally disregard this as an possibility, but they wouldn't even consider solar cycles as an influence comparable to what they said man was doing. So a 1% to 1.5% variability in solar output has negligible effect on global temperatures compared to the 0.12% of CO2 that man contributes to the 0.04% of CO2 that exists in the atmosphere. It had been decided: CO2 emitted by human activity was to be the official enemy. Anything that could not possibly be connected to human interference would not be considered. It was in exchanges like this where it became very clear that "global warming" was not about science at all, but was a wholly-owned political agenda of the far left to be used as justification for any and all government excess.

John the Econ said...

Here's another interesting take on the President's doom-and-gloom agenda:

The President's report goes on about the additional destruction that is inevitable due an increase in the number and severity of the tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.

So what does the casualty insurance industry think of all this? Since they have actual money at stake here, you'd think they'd be quaking in their boots, raising rates or cancelling policies altogether. You'd be wrong.

The effects of climate change, "if any," have not affected the insurance market, billionaire Warren Buffett told CNBC, —adding he's not calculating the probabilities of catastrophes any differently.

While the question of climate change "deserves lots of attention," Buffett said in a "Squawk Box" interview, "It has no effect ... [on] the prices we're charging this year versus five years ago. And I don't think it'll have an effect on what we're charging three years or five years from now."

"The public has the impression that because there's been so much talk about climate that events of the last 10 years from an insured standpoint and climate have been unusual," he continued. "The answer is they haven't."

Geoff King said...

Just found this very interesting article on climate change when I Googled " Do Canadians worry about global warming?"

After seeing the name of the website, it occurred to me that raising fears about global warming is RACIST, as Eskimos may find it offensive.

Sparky said...

@John the Econ ~ See, that's my argument all along. That "global warming" or whatever Leftist term is being bantered about, is a religion. They won't listen to reason because they're too drunk on power with the blood of innocents (our economy, for one). It is Marxist, as TrickyRicky so rightly stated. I see only two ways to fight it. Ignore them or another way which I won't put in print. Trying to educate them doesn't work.

John the Econ said...

Yes @Sparky, to many is is a religion, and in the worst sense. It's adherents must maintain complete faith in their leaders, and most arguments are little more than an appeal to authority.

Today, we have people who call themselves "scientists" with a straight face who literally call of the excommunication of fellow scientists for not conforming.

Meanwhile, we have other "scientists" who like to evoke "Pascal's Dilemma", where Pascal postulates that if one has uncertainty about the existence of God, then perhaps it would still be wise to attend church, since doing so covers the basis at relatively little personal risk. Some time ago, eco-liberals started throwing that one out, arguing that even if "global warming" was less than certain, it would still be a good idea to take steps to prevent it. (as if that was even possible)

So, you'd think that if eco-liberals really believed that, then the churches would be overflowing with eco-liberals. And yet, they aren't.

Chuck Ef said...

Some really interesting stuff posted here. Really. I am truly intrigued by this magnetic pole stuff.

That said, I can certainly believe that one effect can have an outsized impact on the climate versus. (''So a 1% to 1.5% variability in solar output has negligible effect on global temperatures compared to the 0.12% of CO2 that man contributes to the 0.04% of CO2 that exists in the atmosphere.") This is what nonlinearity is all about. Some things can in fact have catastrophic effects depending on how they enter the equations - that is the claim.

All I am interested in are the equations/models and the supporting evidence for their validity. THAT I can find no where.

When claims like these, which have the potential for devastating impact on mankind, are made, the "believers" need to supply the hard evidence. Anything other than that is orthodoxy and politics.

And when I say "devastating", I have seen estimates of a needed decline of 5.7B people to reach the Left's CO2 goals. Those claims may be exaggerated too for all I know but what's a billion or two between "friends".

John the Econ said...

@Chuck Ef, I'm not questioning that mankind's contribution to CO2 may have non-linear effects. But I certainly do question the outright rejection of almost every non-human factor from consideration. It's clear that those behind the orthodoxy can't afford to have those questions examined to any depth.

As for what can or should be done to avoid disaster, there never has been any "consensus". Do consider that even if all of the industrial countries had signed on to Kyoto and actually achieved its stated goals, (the US did not sign, and yet beat almost every country that did) the effect on warming over the next century would not have even been measurable. So what was the point?

Meanwhile, in order to reduce CO2 to pre-industrial levels, we would ALL have to either revert to a stone-aged existence, or reduce global population by roughly 80%. (actually, both are effectively the same thing) How we would do that is anyone's guess. It disturbs me to have to think of Pol Pot as a kind of ecological hero.

Pete (Detroit) said...

Stilt! Clean-up, aisle 3!!
So much for the Capcha free posting.
Rat ba*tard @holes..
(yeah, all that and you'd think I could come up w/ something relevant to point out, like "thank God for climate change, "normal" climate for midwest is ice as high as Denver" -or - "They like to talk about a 'runaway greenhouse' environment, but they never bring up 'runaway icehouse / snowball Earth', which paleoclimatologists assure us has happened at least once... )

Stilton Jarlsberg said...

@Readers- Damn good comments above, and I'd really like to jump into the conversation but I'm juggling chainsaws today. Carry on!

Chuck Ef said...

@John the Econ

Just getting back to this. You probably won't see this before the next posting by the good doctor but --

My previous comment was not directed at you per se. It was just my constant complaining about not seeing the science - all I ever hear/read is this back and forth of plausibilities. That isn't science. And that is OK if it is advertised as such but the AGW believers call it science.

I was simply using your comment as context for that.

I am an AGW skeptic - "Show me the money". The left has failed in that regard. The comments made by other skeptics make the most sense to me. But I continue to keep an open mind. My comment was directed at that.

Jim Hlavac said...

People have wondered about my comments on the Magnetic North Pole -- there's many sources of information on this -- I gathered up some in November of 2011 -- and put them in my blog ...

Along with some tidbits related to the whole un-understood farce called "we have met the enemy and it is us" of "global climate warming disruption change" --

Much of it has been updated -- I'm sure -- but I don't have time to really do it again ...

Yet, it seems the Mag-pole has moved even more since last I explored the issue.

It seems, and JohnEcon is on to it - that the molten core around the solid core inside the several different layers of crust all spin at different rates. Because, as anyone who knows Euclid on spherical motion knows, or Mosconi on billiards -- spinning objects affect other spinning objects - and thus, when several different spinning things are spinning at different rates they will eventually go out of alignment -- and realign. Oddly, very oddly, the Mayan's calendar alludes to this in their 3 cycles where the cycle starts out where a single axis aligns, and slowly, inexorably, goes out of alignment, until thousands of years later it realigns where it was again.

It's quite a merry go round.

Chuck Ef said...

@Jim Hlavac

Thanks for the extra info. I guess I missed John's comments about spinning masses - will have to go back and look. But now that you mention it, it might make a lot of sense if Coriolis effects are coming into play - maybe your links talk to this - I will go look. But just like a gyroscope, the Earths' spinning maybe cause the magnetic poles to precess in some fashion? The dynamics of the magma mix that up a lot.

But still what effect that has on climate is a mystery to me.

Anyway - will go look at you stuff and come back - but first an errand.

John the Econ said...

@Chick Ef, didn't take anything personally. Unlike those who are part of the climate "consensus", I am quite tolerant of diversity of thought on the topic.

And you're not meant to "see the science". The climate cartel doesn't want you to see it. In real science, your data and protocols are proudly displayed out in the open for all to see and evaluate. But the climate cartel hides there as though it's some sort of competitive corporate secret. (And since most of this data is publicly funded, it's also illegal to be hiding it)

And as for the money: Advocates for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) argue that any science disputing their hypothesis is tainted because it might be funded by corporate interests.

And yet, almost all of AGW science is funded by government to the tune of billions of dollars a year. No conflict of interest there!

@Jim Hlavac, you created a great read in 2011. And again, the AGW community totally rejects the notion. Why would they? Most other fields of science are usually enthusiastic about the possibilities of something new.

It's because AGW isn't about science. It's about statism, anti-capitalism, and communism; all about "control".

100 years ago, Progressives honestly believed that once Americans were educated as to the benefits and wonders of communism, that they'd enthusiastically sign up. It didn't happen. So after WWII, they needed to take a different tack. Since we wouldn't go willingly, they needed to create a crisis of epic proportions that would convince the masses that permitting the massive powers of state to micromanage society was the only way to survive. That's why they chose carbon; there's absolutely no aspect of your life from the moment you are conceived until long after you're dead that does not involve interacting with carbon. If the government can be freed to regulate your relationship with carbon, there is absolutely no corner of your life that they cannot control.

So drifting magnetic poles, solar fluctuations, or even cow farts are not adequate. It's going to be carbon, come hell or high water.

Chuck Ef said...

@John the Econ -

I am glad that I am now an emancipated "chick"! Just teasing. If I had a dollar for every time I "fat fingered" something - nearly caused my phone to get reset to factory settings the other day.

@Jim Hlavac -

One of your comments at the URL you provided: "And I’m wondering, as the pole moves it affects the jet stream which swirls around it ..."
My understanding of the jet stream phenomena is that it is a result of the temperature difference between the equator and the poles, coupled with the Coriolis Effect ( See Eq. (7.15) ) caused by the Earth's rotation. It is an energy transport phenomena, in other words.

So, it is not at all clear to me that it "rotates around the magnetic pole" except by coincidence. However, I could easily see how a disrupted magnetic pole would cause atmospheric changes that are induced by the Sun's radiation in a different manner - I think in one of your links, or maybe you wrote it, it mentions the Northern Lights, for example.

But I need to find more info on how the magnetic pole and the atmosphere interact. It is certainly intriguing. And at any rate, as you, John, and so many others have said (elsewhere), and really as intuition would compel, the Earth is just too damn complicated for such simplistic "explanations" as CO2 alone. Particularly since CO2 is consumed (by plants).

Anonymous said... shows that all the weather stations are gathering bad data. One of my favorites for challenging global warming-cooling-disruption-change "settled science." Garbage in, garbage out as they say...
Love HopeNChange!!!

John the Econ said...

Yes Anonymous, what actual "hard" data they have isn't much better than the stuff they make up. Anthony Watts has been documenting these poorly placed stations for years:

I just love the ones that are located right next to the exhaust of commercial air conditioning units:

Measuring human activity? Certainly. Measuring "climate"? Not hardly.

Being a pilot, I've seen may interestingly placed ones at airports, which are popular places for recording stations. The decade of data I've collected from my weather station attached to the outside of my house is certainly more accurate than many of the "official" station.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.