Climate Change killed only 70% during a heat wave?

Saw this this morning:

Do people really not see how stupid a lot of this climate change hysteria sounds?  Got some questions.

  • How does one determine who died of “climate change” and who just died because it was hot?
  • If Paris has not experienced increased temperatures since then, wouldn’t that mean it wasn’t actually climate change, but just a fluke really hot summer?
  • If it definitely was “climate change”, and it’s not been that hot since, then that means the “climate change” must have been fixed, right?
  • If “climate change” only accounted for 70% of the heat-related deaths, what caused the heat that killed the other 30%?

Maybe we should take a quick look-see and see what’s actually happened in Paris since then.  This shouldn’t be too hard.

OK, “climate change” means the “climate” has changed, right?  Not just some one-off weather incident like a heat wave, but that it has “changed”.  Right?


Given that the “climate” is almost exactly what it was in 1998 gives no support at all to the argument that Paris has experienced “climate change”.  Therefore, the event of 2003 was simply what was previously referred to as a “heat wave“.  Once it passed, Paris’s climate returned to normal.  And for several years after that “heat wave”, it was actually cooler than it had been before the speculated “climate change” occurred just in 2003 that killed 70% of the people who died during that event.

Now that Paris is obviously cooling, since it’s not as hot as it was in 2003, does that mean we go back to the Impending Ice Age scare of the 70’s?


Snopes going to bat for a liberal, again?

Dan Evon at Snopes is just all bothered by the meme implying John Kerry said that refrigerators and air conditioners are AS dangerous as ISIS.  He even states that the meme is “ridiculous”.  That’s his word, not mine.  But, he’s right.  Here’s what Kerry actually did say, according to Evon:

Yesterday, I met in Washington with 45 nations — defense ministers and foreign ministers — as we were working together on the challenge of Daesh, ISIL, and terrorism. It’s hard for some people to grasp it, but what we — you — are doing here right now is of equal importance because it has the ability to literally save life on the planet itself. Week after week, month after month, year after year, we continue to see new evidence, scientific evidence, tangible evidence, of the danger that climate change poses to life on our planet. Last year was the hottest year in recorded history by far. Last month, the hottest month recorded. The month before that was the hottest month recorded. 2016 is on track to be hotter than last year. And the decade was the hottest decade in history, and the decade before that the second hottest in history, and the decade before that the third hottest in history.

That’s right, Dan.  Kerry didn’t say hydrofluorocarbons used in refrigerators and air conditioners were of EQUAL threat, he said they would end life on the planet whereas ISIS isn’t really much of a threat to the world since it’s now losing.

Snopes used to be objective and non-partisan.  People just trusted that Snopes was non-biased when quoting their rebuttals to rumors.

Now, not so much apparently.  Dan Evon is embarrassingly wrong on this one and obviously doesn’t even care.  I mostly cited his story when rebutting his story.  Kerry, according to Evon’s own quotes, DOES mention ISIS, refrigerators, and air conditioners, and does say their use is MORE dangerous than ISIS.  Snopes needs to fact check Snopes a lot better.

There’s not much we can do about Snopes’ biased “debunking”, but we can help John Kerry achieve his utopian dream of no more air conditioners:

Tiny Solar Activity Changes Affect Earth’s Climate?

A few years ago I asked a rather famous and media saturated astronomer what he thought about the Sun’s impact on global warming.  I got a lecture that I had to be a flat-Earther to believe such garbage.

Now, it’s becoming fairly common:

… energetic particles and cosmic rays could reduce ozone levels in the stratosphere. This in turn alters the behavior of the atmosphere below it, perhaps even pushing storms on the surface off course.

“In the lower stratosphere, the presence of ozone causes a local warming because of the breakup of ozone molecules by ultraviolet light,” climate scientist Jerry North at Texas A&M University told

When the ozone is removed, “the stratosphere there becomes cooler, increasing the temperature contrast between the tropics and the polar region. The contrast in temperatures in the stratosphere and the upper troposphere leads to instabilities in the atmospheric flow west to east. The instabilities make for eddies or irregular motions.”

Tiny changes in solar energetic particles………

Something like this perhaps?


More ethics issues in the global warming non-debate

Several years ago global warming scientists made an astounding claim.  2005 was the hottest year on “record”.  Nevermind all the previous history, the headline was what it was.  Some people doubted that claim. Myself included. Others then felt obliged to chime in whether they had a legitimate claim to make or not.  One of those was a scientist for NASA:

“I believe that 2005 is the warmest year, because the main source of difference is the Arctic, and I believe it is likely that our estimate there is in the right ballpark even though it is based on some extrapolations,” Hansen said.  “However, I admit that it could be wrong, in which case 2005 might be slightly cooler than 1998.”

This meant something to publishers because Jim Hansen was the Director for NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.  GISS has a very specific mission:

Research at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) emphasizes a broad study of global change, which is an interdisciplinary initiative addressing natural and man-made changes in our environment that occur on various time scales — from one-time forcings such as volcanic explosions, to seasonal and annual effects such as El Niño, and on up to the millennia of ice ages — and that affect the habitability of our planet.

His mission is deal with climate change.  So, one would assume he’s not exactly in a position to rebut climate change data.  That didn’t slow Livescience down at the time.  They were quick to quote Hansen’s less than ringing endorsement of man-made climate change.

The reason I mention all this now is because James Hansen is in the news again:

The lawsuit claims Hansen privately profited from his public job in violation of federal ethics rules, and NASA allowed him to do it because of his influence in the media and celebrity status among environmental groups, which rewarded him handsomely the last four years.

Gifts, speaking fees, prizes and consulting compensation include:

  • A shared $1 million prize from the Dan David Foundation for his “profound contribution to humanity.” Hansen’s cut ranged from $333,000 to $500,000, Horner said, adding that the precise amount is not known because Hansen’s publicly available financial disclosure form only shows the prize was “an amount in excess of $5,000.”
  • The 2010 Blue Planet prize worth $550,000 from the Asahi Glass Foundation, which recognizes efforts to solve environmental issues.
  • The Sophie Prize for his “political activism,” worth $100,000. The Sophie Prize is meant to “inspire people working towards a sustainable future.”
  • Speaking fees totaling $48,164 from a range of mostly environmental organizations.
  • A $15,000 participation fee, waived by the W.J. Clinton Foundation for its 2009 Waterkeeper Conference.
  • $720,000 in legal advice and media consulting services provided by The George Soros Open Society Institute. Hansen said he did not take “direct” support from Soros but accepted “pro bono legal advice.”

Underwater Volcanos don’t melt ice

That is a typical underwater volcano.  I love to watch them.  Something eerie looking, kinda alien.  So, I finally found a story that gives me the opportunity to show a video of one.  Here’s today’s story:

Volcanoes Erupt Beneath Arctic Ice

New evidence deep beneath the Arctic ice suggests a series of underwater volcanoes have erupted in violent explosions in the past decade.

Hidden 2.5 miles (4,000 meters) beneath the Arctic surface, the volcanoes are up to a mile (2,000 meters) in diameter and a few hundred yards tall. They formed along the Gakkel Ridge, a lengthy crack in the ocean crust where two rocky plates are spreading apart, pulling new melted rock to the surface……

Which, I read with special interest since CNN ran a poll about the story of the polar ice caps melting entirely this summer.  There has been quite a bit of media interest and speculation as to why the polar ice caps are melting.  Now, we had been through this scenario before.  Everything was melting in Greenland, and it was all man’s fault.  Until, that is, they figured out there was a large volcano underneath Greenland heating everything up.  Once they figured that out, Greenland hasn’t been mentioned since in the global warming debate and the polar ice caps immediately started melting.  Not one person thought to see if the same thing was happening at the North Pole as it was in Greenland.  Well, now that they have found that the same thing IS happening at the North Pole, this is what they figured out:

“We don’t believe the volcanoes had much effect on the overlying ice,” Reeves-Sohn told LiveScience, “but they seem to have had a major impact on the overlying water column.”

Now, I’m inclined to believe they don’t want to believe it has any effect on the overlying ice.  My limited science background does tell me that heat rises.  And, it also tells me volcanoes are very hot.  Now, granted these volcanoes are under a lot of water, that heat still has to go somewhere.   It just bugs me that although “scientists” are more than willing to research the connection of gases moving from continental US and photosynthesizing over the Arctic, thereby trapping the sun’s rays closer to earth and slightly warming the atmosphere by less than five degrees and thereby causing all of the ice at the North Pole to melt, they are unwilling apparently to explore the concept that a volcano releasing lava at 1,250 degrees directly below the ice would melt it.

Maybe it’s just me, but I would hope anyone reading these articles will scratch their heads as well.

My bet, in the not too distant future, someone is going to hypothesize that the extreme heat of those underwater volcanoes is contributing to the melting ice directly above them.


Black Holes and Ice Ages

A team of Japanese astronomers using ESA’s XMM-Newton, along with NASA and Japanese X-ray satellites, has discovered that our galaxy’s central black hole let loose a powerful flare three centuries ago.

The article then goes on to do what articles, and most usually scientists, do in general.  They dig deeper and deeper into the why’s, what’s, and how’s of the black hole itself.  I’m not quite that curious as to the mechanics of a black hole.  They’re cool for sure, but exactly what sparks them to life and when they take naps doesn’t really pique my curiosity that much.  I’m more inclined to look at things like this in the manner of “what does that mean to me?”.  Possibly, it means nothing other than some cool mind provoking reading.  Sometimes, it leads to me putting two and two together.  How many times it’s actually four is not relevant, I just like connecting the dots.  In this case for example, something ELSE happened approximately three hundred years ago as well:

We experienced something called “The Little Ice Age“.  For some inexplicable reason, the Earth’s temperatures plummeted in regular fashion over several hundred years.  We really didn’t get over the Little Ice Age until either the late 19th century or early 20th century, depending on who you ask.  However, other things happened around that time as well.  The Sun was in it’s best cooling phase as well.  So, someone like me would have to wonder if the combination of a cooler Sun along with a blast from a black hole could trigger an ice age?  Others, of course, would insist because I question how much of an impact something other than man has on the Earth’s climate, I’m nuts.  Something happened about three to four hundred years ago to affect the Earth’s climate in a major way.  According to most, man was already causing global warming by burning everything he could get his hands on.  So, what cooled the Earth in a profound way?  Volcanoes?  The Solar Cycle?  A black hole?  An asteroid strike?  It certainly wasn’t Al Gore.

Greenland – The Poster Child for Global Warming

A LOT has been made of Greenland’s ice melting.  I mean, a LOT.  National Geographic ran an in-depth article about just how bad man has destroyed Greenland just about a year ago.  Some snippets to give you an idea just how bad it is.  The headline itself starts you off:

Global Warming: Greenland: When It’s Hot

And they don’t slow down from there:

Since Steffen established Swiss Camp 16 years ago, much has changed. Global warming has evolved from an obscure concern of environmentalists to a headline-grabbing motion picture–inspiring crisis of staggering proportions. Due to something called the polar amplification effect, Greenland is heating up at an exponential rate and has become a kind of barometer for the rest of the planet. What happens here in the next ten years will answer key questions about how much the Earth will warm in the next hundred. That is why there were more scientists out on the ice this year than ever before—the United States’ National Science Foundation alone helped fund 144 researchers, three times as many as in 2000. They’re all scrambling to track the tremendous changes while working against the narrowing window between winter storms and a melt season that turns the cap into a slush field mined with scientist-swallowing crevasses.

Things are so bad in Greenland that people like Robert Roy Britt of Livescience use it as the ultimate justifcation of how stupid people are who question how much we actually know about what is going on.  He has no doubt whatsoever that the warming permafrost in Greenland is all man’s fault.

Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth cites Greenland as a prime example of what’s going on.  A lot of people just jumped on his bandwagon.  Greenland was the poster boy for everything from the warming of ocean currents to polar bears’ shinking nuts.

Only one problem tho.  It is now becoming evident, THROUGH SCIENCE, that the warming of Greenland may have nothing to do with man at all:

The newly discovered hotspot, an area where Earth’s crust is thinner, allowing hot magma from Earth’s mantle to come closer to the surface, is just below the ice sheet and could have caused it to form, von Frese and his team suggest.

“Where the crust is thicker, things are cooler, and where it’s thinner, things are warmer,” von Frese explained. “And under a big place like Greenland or Antarctica, natural variations in the crust will makes some parts of the ice sheet warmer than others.”

What caused the hotspot to suddenly form is another mystery.

“It could be that there’s a volcano down there,” he said, “but we think it’s probably just the way the heat is being distributed by the rock topography at the base of the ice.”

That article in Livescience was not written by Robert Roy Britt.  Apparently he doesn’t read the articles that don’t support is opinion.  I doubt you’ll hear any sigh of relief from Al Gore’s bunch either.

Now, at the risk of being insulted and taunted, I again will ask the same question I’ve always asked.  How much of the climate change in Greenland is actually man’s fault?  Apparently quite a bit of the fault lies with Earth.

Global Warming May Boost Deaths

That’s the headline from WebMD.  The sub heading states:

Hotter Summers May Mean More Heat-Related Deaths, Experts Predict

It’s a very brief article explaining that hotter summers may increase heat related deaths.  But, I gotta wonder why the obvious other side of this story wasn’t acknowledged, it would go something like this:

Global Warming May Prevent Deaths

Warmer winters may mean fewer cold-weather induced deaths, Expert Predicts


Warmer winters may mean fewer inclement weather driving deaths, Expert Predicts

Just seems kinda obvious to me.  Thought I’d help them out.

Mount Sakurajima

A volcano erupted in southern Japan on Wednesday, blowing ash about 3,000 feet into the air, the Weather Agency said. There were no immediate reports of damage or injuries.

Mount Sakurajima erupted at 5:30 p.m. and registered as moderate on the agency’s scale for both the sound and strength of the tremors it caused, the agency said.

That’s a lot of ash.  Seems to be a big year for volcanic activity so far.  Wonder how much this is affecting global cooling?

More definitive proof of global warming?

Another reason to worry about global warming: more and itchier poison ivy.

I kid you not.

The noxious vine grows faster and bigger as carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere rise, researchers report Monday.

Healthier plant life is something to worry about?  What about the trees and plants that gives us life and absorb those pesky greenhouse gases?

Whew.  Talk about spin.