Monday, November 30, 2015

Take the $100,000 Global Warming Believer Challenge!

Do you believe in the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis? Want to help the IPCC with an embarrassing little statistical problem in their latest report? Want to win $100,000? Today James introduces you to Douglas J. Keenan’s $100,000 contest to identify trend-driven time series. Details are in the show notes. Good luck!
Filed in: Videos
Tagged with: 

Comments (4)

  1. Myers says:
    In the sketch [from Monty Python] Michael Palin pays to have a five-minute argument with John Cleese. Despite his protests, all he gets for his money is rapid-fire contradction. Visibly agitated, he complains that he is dissatisfied.
    PALIN: An argument’s not the same as contradiction. An argument is a collected series of statements to establish a definite proposition.
    CLEESE: No it isn’t.
    PALIN: Yes it is! Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just an automatic gainsaying of anything the other person said.
    CLEESE: No it isn’t.
    Like Cleese, many climate “contrarians” have no overall argument. Rather, they offer a series of inconsistent contradictions to specific statements, projecting an overall sense of umbrage instead of a reasoned critique. They claim that the observations are junk, and in the next breath that the observations disprove the models. They claim that temperatures aren’t rising, then that warming is caused by the Sun, or that the non-existent warming is good for us. They remind us that arguments from authority are unscientific, then ask us to respect the authority of retired NASA managers.
    Nobody (even at Heartland, it seems) disputes that CO2 molecules emit measurable heat, or that heat warms things up. But when contrarians assert that burning vast amounts of coal to power new industrial societies of billions of people won’t warm the climate, the onus is on them to provide a mechanism, a reason Earth’s climate should not warm when heat is applied though our everyday experience and common sense screams that it will.
    • nosoapradio says:
      In direct response to Myers’ extract of a Scott Denning article:
      “…Writing on the Yale Forum, Warmist “scientist” Scott Denning wrote an article quoting not one scientific fact but claiming that it is “commonsense” that global warming is going on — and accusing skeptics of irrationality for denying it.
      Lord Monckton wrote a comprehensive reply to Denning which was not published by the Yale Forum. The Forum did however summarize Monckton’s reply as follows…
      Denning in that piece singled-out Monckton and two other climate science skeptics as unlikely to have been swayed by Denning’s 2010 and 2011 presentations before skeptical Heartland Institute annual meeting audiences. He was right on that point, Monckton confirmed in a 10-page 4,547-word essay he submitted for posting.
      * He says “the true difference between [what he calls] the true-believers and the skeptics” is found in temperature feedbacks, which he concludes will be “somewhat net-negative, attenuating rather than amplifying the direct warming and removing the climate problem altogether.” This leads him to conclude that “this century’s CO2–driven warming will be just 0.5 Celsius,” about .8 F…
      * He accuses Denning of setting up “a number of straw men” and maintains that the actual consensus is that “a degree or two [Celsius] of warming would indeed be good for us.”
      * He criticizes Denning for providing “not a single quantitative argument,” but rather for providing a commentary “full of politics and polemics and emotion and a startling number of fallacies.” “This does not impress,” he writes…”
      • Myers says:
        I have written a few posts under these recent articles by James about AGW. I promise this is my last.
        I agree with Denning in that most of what I read or hear on the side of climate skepticism has no overall theory. The only real theory that I do read as to why climate science has grown to be such a large concern within the scientific community, is that it is a liberal conspiracy of gravy-trainers chasing government grants, and faking research on a colossal scale in order to do so. That and/or a mega plot inspired by elites to depopulate the Earth, impose taxes on Carbon.
        One question I keep asking and that I have not read a response to is ‘How does the story of Exxon’s own research findings fit into these theories’? They are not part of the academic world, yet they concluded the same risk in the burning of fossil fuels. They kept it secret, in a way directly analogous to other cases of disputed science (smoking, acid rain, ozone depletion). They went further to deliberately spread disinformation, spending vast sums of money in the process in an act of commercial damage limitation. 
        If there is a genuine reason as to why most scientists who work in Earth sciences consider AGW a serious threat/risk (other than that they are convinced by the scientific literature on the subject), then what is that reason and how does the Exxon story fit with it?
  2. hankblackgraphics says:
    Are hackers and psychics eligible?

Saturday, November 14, 2015

Why Your Brain Craves Music

Alem vs NaPoM - Final - 4th Beatbox Battle World Championship

There is no beatboxing without Kiira Korpi so here we go->

Atlantis, F4CG - Zookeeper | C64 demo, Full HD 50 fps, Real SID

The Technocratic Agenda: Sustainable Development and Climate Eugenics #Paris

  1. nosoapradio says:
    I think that COP21 conference hoopla may create the perfect pretext for literally “outlawing climate skepticism”. 
    Indeed, this would seem crucial to silence the François Gervais, Henrik Svensmarks and Vincent Courtillots of the world and “stampede” the populations into the smart paradigm otherwise known as technocracy (or the NWO). Stigmatization, media censorship, selective funding and self-censorship may not be working out as planned.
    Already, COP21 protesters (obviously comprised of climate skeptics, n’est-ce pas?) are being assimilated and associated with so-called islamic terrorists;
    “…The attack comes as France has heightened security measures ahead of a major global climate conference that starts in two weeks, out of fear of violent protests and potential terrorist attacks…”
    Polls may show that climate change is number 5 or 6 on French people’s preoccupation list but the fact is that it’s impossible to question man-made climate change in France and be taken seriously. Neither by young nor old.
    Incidentally, Agenda 21 has sprouted up like crabgrass (as it was programmed to do) in every department, large or small, in France as well and may well be usurping unwitting and well-intentioned people’s time, budgets and energies.
    Finally, I feel a little like Stanley Motts of Wag the Dog fame as I’ve read over and over again Patrick Wood’s hand written dedication on the Technocracy Rising book I ordered and received.
    Some time I’ll get around to reading the cover…
  2. setatliberty says:
    This podcast could not have been more timely. I see God’s hand upon your work James; In that you recorded this the day before the Paris attacks which have brought the nation of France into a state of martial law. How great an “opportunity” to prevent large protests, eh?
    • doublek321 says:
      Thank you for posting that as I was going to ask “any chance the Paris thing is a false flag related to the climate summit?”
  3. Fosca says:
    Hi James,
    Sorry to say but this episode made me angry to a big extend. :-( Let me explain why.
    At around 12:00 Patrick explains that a first grader can understand how the earth works with regards to CO2 and that we are facing plans to reduce all CO2 down to zero, which is sterilizing the world. This is simply nonsense! If at all man made emmission of CO2 shall be reduced to zero which would lead to a situation similar to maybe only a couple of thousand years ago before mankind started burning coal.
    Instead Patrick makes up a story that burning coal, oil and gas is the best to continue for the coming centuries.
    IMHO this is maximum dillusion that I only have heard from neocons before! Not only Patrck explains the 1st grader story, but also openly admits he does not understand anything on the global taxation problems. Only concludes taxes are bad.
    What makes me angry finally is not the fact it is rubbish what is conveyed. But this stuff jeopardizes the real story. Like the use of the CO2 story to gain world wide control. Certainly not an episode I can ever recommend without fearing people think I am completely nuts.
    I know you made better shows than this and I am sure there will be more great stuff coming!:-)


Yo Mama So Statist...

Thursday, November 5, 2015

NASA Admits Antarctica Gaining Land Ice (But good news is bad news to climate alarmists)
by James Corbett
November 3, 2015
Do you spend sleepless nights worrying about the sea level rise caused by the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet? Well enjoy your slumbers, my friend, NASA has just given you reason to sleep easier.
A new study–entitled “Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses” and published in the Journal of Glaciology–overturns previous assessments (including that relayed in the latest IPCC report) that Antarctica is losing land ice and thus contributing to sea level rise. As NASA states in a press release, previous assessments had falsely assumed that increasing surface height of the ice sheets was due to snow accumulation, but the new study shows that the rise in elevation is in fact due to ice gain.
The upshot is that previous assessments, including the IPCC’s, got the Antarctic contribution to sea level rise–previously pegged at 0.27 millimeters per year–precisely wrong. “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away.” Well, they were only off by 185%, I suppose, and got the change in the wrong direction. It could be worse…I mean better.
But don’t worry, things are still bad. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”
You see, the same researchers who can’t even accurately say whether the Antarctic ice sheets are gaining or losing mass (let alone how much mass) are able to determine global sea level rise to within hundredths of a millimeter. No accuracy issues there, of course. So you can continue worrying, I suppose. (Except for that pesky little Stanford study from September showing that previous models vastly overestimated future sea level rise.)
If this seems like deja vu all over again, then congratulations; you’re paying attention.
Remember when “NASA satellites detect[ed] unexpected ice loss in East Antarctica” in 2009? The results were “unexpected” because East Antarctica was previously considered stable, with the continent’s ice loss (well, net gain) supposedly taking place in West Antarctica. It took a science-hating-denier-skeptic-heathenbeast to point out that the numbers were derived from gravity measurements which were picking up on isostatic adjustment, i.e. changes taking place beneath the surface of the ice, not changes in the ice levels themselves. And lo and behold a few months later a team led by another NASA JPL researcher found that the gravity measurements had in fact been measuring…wait for it…isostatic adjustment.
But somehow “Unexpected ice loss in East Antarctica” generated more headlines than “Ooops, Sorry About That, We Were Measuring Something Else Entirely.” Go figure.
This is not an isolated phenomenon, of course.
Do you remember when NASA released this dramatic image of the temperature trends in Antarctica showing a clear positive warming trend of between 0.05C and 0.1C throughout most of the continent?
Did you notice the fine print at the end of the third paragraph where it’s casually admitted that the level of uncertainty in the measurements the map was based on was between 2 and 3 degrees C, or 40-60 times the increment they claimed to be measuring? This type of utterly meaningless exercise in map coloring would get you an “F” in any undergrad science course, but it’s good enough for NASA.
So perhaps it should come as no surprise that the authors of the new paper showing that the Antarctic is in fact detracting from sea level rise, not adding to it, are being treated with derision and hostility by their colleagues. “Please don’t publicize this study” one University of Colorado researcher pleaded with Al Jazeera. After all, it can’t be right; it “contradicts 13 years of satellite measurements of Antarctica’s ice by NASA’s GRACE mission.”
And that’s the point. You would think this would be treated as wonderful news by people who were genuinely concerned about the supposed disastrous effects of climate change. Any sane person would be delighted to find out they were horribly wrong about their dire predictions of doom and gloom. But not the other researchers whose $1.5 trillion climate change gravy train are threatened by a cooling off of global warming hysteria.
Unfortunately, however, the unfalsifiable, goalpost-shifting global warming climate changeglobal weirding pseudoscience is not just about business interests. It’s about a much larger agenda, one first mapped out by the Club of Rome in their 1991 publication The First Global Revolution, which stated:
In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.
Yes, this is the same Club of Rome that predicted the complete exhaustion of over a dozen resources in its 1972 “Limits to Growth” publication, every single one of which failed to come true. And yes, this is the same Club of Rome that then celebrated their “Limits to Growth” fearmongering failure by doubling down with a giant 40th anniversary “celebration” of…40 years of considerable growth?
Failed predictions from "Limits to Growth" (predictions already falsified in red)
Failed predictions from “Limits to Growth” (predictions already falsified in red)
And yes, this is the same Club of Rome whose members include the Al Gores and Mikhail Gorbachevs and Tim Wirths and Paul Ehrlichs of the world with the means, motive and opportunity to indeed ‘make humanity the enemy.’
And now we’re on the verge of the latest United Nations climate conference, the COP21 summitscheduled to take place in Paris from November 30 – December 11. Just like in Copenhagen in 2009, this conference is threatening a slate of new global governmental institutions, regulations and mechanisms to combat the (non-existent) climate change threat. On the table in the draft text of the new climate treaty: a new UN Tribunal to adjudicate on non-compliance with climate commitments.
Given the fact that eugenecist Bilderberger Bill Gates is now piling on UNFCCC Executive Secretary Christiana Figueres’ admission earlier this year that the conference will intentionally “change the economic development model” of the world by admitting that only big governmentcan save the world from global warming, coupled with China being drawn into the global warming fold as part of its five year plan bid to become more involved in international institutions and tripled with Obama threatening to do an end run around the Senate to get the treaty passed, I think it’s safe to say that big things are afoot in this global technocratic power grab.
Stay tuned to these pages for ongoing coverage as we approach COP21.
Filed in: Articles
Tagged with:  •