Archive for Science

What is Anthropolgy?

Ever since Aggie reported that the American Anthropological Association had voted overwhelmingly to boycott Jews in the field, I have been troubled and confused. Isn’t anthropolgy a science, and aren’t scientists persuaded by facts? (Both rhetorical questions—the answer to both of which being “in your dreams”.)

First, what is antropology?

Anthropology is the study of humans, past and present. To understand the full sweep and complexity of cultures across all of human history, anthropology draws and builds upon knowledge from the social and biological sciences as well as the humanities and physical sciences. A central concern of anthropologists is the application of knowledge to the solution of human problems. Historically, anthropologists in the United States have been trained in one of four areas: sociocultural anthropology, biological/physical anthropology, archaeology, and linguistic anthropology. Anthropologists often integrate the perspectives of several of these areas into their research, teaching, and professional lives.

Social sciences, “sociocultural anthropology”—I think I see the problem. For while the Jewish soul of Israel is irrefutable in the fields of archaeology, biological/physical anthropology, and linguistic anthropology, “sociocultural anthropology” sounds like a death knell.


Whereas, For decades, despite condemnation by the United Nations and other international bodies, the Israeli state has denied Palestinians — including scholars and students — their fundamental rights of freedom, equality, and self-determination through ethnic cleansing, colonization, discrimination, and military occupation;

Whereas, The United States plays a decisive role in enabling Israel’s systematic violations of Palestinians’ basic rights under international law, and U.S. academic institutions facilitate Israeli academic institutions’ complicity by continuing to maintain close, extensive and privileged ties with them; and whereas the AAA is a leading U.S.-based academic association;

Whereas, Anthropological frameworks and methods, ethnographic and archaeological, are actively used by the Israeli state to further occupation and colonization

You get the point; it goes on at much (and painful) length.

The Jews are colonizers. Never mind their ancient faith and religious texts—their prayers, tales, legends, parables, and rites, all of which cite a return to Jerusalem and Israel; never mind their identity as a people maintained over millennia; never mind their temple to their God, which still sits resolute though in ruins atop Mount Mariah, where Abraham offered Isaac in sacrifice; never mind their language, resuscitated from disuse except in prayer, and spoken today on the freely-walked, communal streets. They are occupiers, colonizers.

Never mind that by international decree and treaty, they should have a homeland far larger than even the one I call for, which would include all of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank, Shomron).

Much of this is well known to you, the regular reader. But it would be known to anthropologists most of all. If “anthropology is the study of humans, past and present”, they would know chapter and verse of the Jewish identity of Israel. Yet they deny it; they reject it.

Only two reasons: one, Jews are not human. Their past and present would therefore be irrelevant.

The other is that Jews may indeed be human, but that the AAA so hates them, anthropologists will betray their very expertise—sell out their “academic principles” (not an oxymoron, an obscenity)—to join the baying pack of leftist “intellectuals” in academia. It is one thing—an evil thing, to be sure—to have your identity denied by the ignorant; it is something indescribably worse when those who know better—know the truth—stand with the ignorant and scream loudest of all for blood. We don’t have to wonder how bad it can get. It’s already worse.

PS: I read somewhere that US academic historians are readying a similar resolution. The same will go for them.

Comments (1)

Planet Headed for Destruction

Well, not the planet, but the moon.

Not our moon, either, but a different moon:

It’s hard to miss the groove marks that crisscross the moon Phobos.

But rather than scars from a past encounter with an asteroid or another space object, NASA scientists believe they reflect the structural failure – much like cracks in the foundation of your home – of the larger of Mars’ two moons. Ultimately, these spatial cracks will result in the destruction of Phobos.

“We think that Phobos has already started to fail, and the first sign of this failure is the production of these grooves,” said Terry Hurford of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

That sucks for the Phobosians. Maybe Merkel will invite them to Germany.

But while we’re on the subject of planetary destruction, be afraid.

Be very afraid:

The upcoming climate talks in Paris have generated a lot of buzz lately. Multiple large organizations are coming out with reports on the climate’s future impact on humans, and the general consensus is things are not looking good.

And warmer temperatures mean higher sea levels. Climate Central says global warming has caused global sea levels to rise 8 inches since 1880, and the rate is accelerating.

The study projects that a 2-degree Celsius increase in temperatures would put about 280 million people underwater.

So what do we do to keep all of us on dry land? That is a conversation world leaders will be having in Paris next month.

I feel so much better!

The story photoshops iconic city vistas under sea water if the levels rise.

Dang. Wrong one.

Here’s another:

I always regret I was born a hundred years too late to have seen San Francisco. They say it was a beautiful city.

Comments (2)

Why Global Warm-Mongering Won’t Go Away

Because this is how scientists think:

In order for climate science to be settled, there are many requirements. I will list four for now, although I am sure you can think of many more. Then I will expand on those.

1. We must know all variables that can affect climate.
2. We must know how all variables are changing over time.
3. We must know how each changing variable affects climate.
4. We must know about all non-linear changes that take place as a result of changes to variables.

For now, I will just give the main topics, but note that all main topics have an array of sub topics.

1. Earth’s Rotational Energy
2. Orbital Energy, Orbital Period, Orbital Spiral, Elliptical Orbits (Eccentricity), Tilt (Obliquity), Wobble (Axial precession) and Polar Motion
3. Gravitation
4. Solar Energy
5. Geothermal Energy
6. Outer Space/Cosmic/Galactic Effects
7. Earth’s Magnetic Field
8. Atmospheric Composition
9. Albedo
10. Biology
11. Chemical
12. Physics
13. Known Unknowns
14. Unknown Unknowns

If you know some more that should be added, please let us know.

What about high fructose corn syrup? That sh*t’s supposed to be bad for you.

The above covers my point 1 above. As for points 2 and 3, for all of the items listed above, we need to know if the changes, if any, are linear, exponential, logarithmic, sinusoidal, random or some other pattern. For example, depending on who you talk to and the interval you are considering, our emissions of carbon dioxide could be exponential, but the increase in the atmosphere could be linear, but the effect could be logarithmic.

[Bleep] that [bleep].

This is how politicians talk:

“It is life on our planet itself which is at stake,” [Laurent] Fabius told journalists as ministers and climate envoys from 70 countries met in the French capital for pre-summit talks to iron out tough political questions.

“There is absolute urgency,” he added, in chasing the UN goal of limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-Industrial Revolution levels.

The UN’s climate science panel has warned of an average temperature rise of “four, five, six degrees, if we do not act extremely quickly,” said Fabius.

“This would have catastrophic consequences because there would be drought… and colossal migration problems, including problems of war and peace.”

You have to admit he’s right about the drought and the colossal migration problems. How long before war sets i—…oh yeah. Sounds like we’re [bleeped] already; whether exponentially or logarithmically so hardly matters.


Settled, Shmettled

Two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, on a sesame seed bun (I did that from memory)—health food!

Low-fat diets are not the best way to lose weight, a major study says today – casting doubt on decades of health advice.

Scientists concluded there is no evidence to support the dogma that people should reduce the amount of fat in their diet.

Dr Deirdre Tobias, who led the research based on data from more than 68,000 adults, said: ‘There is no good evidence for recommending low-fat diets.

‘Despite the pervasive dogma that one needs to cut fat to lose weight, the scientific evidence does not support low-fat diets over other dietary interventions for long-term weight loss.’

There is growing evidence that Michelle Obama should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

I’m deadly serious. Won’t you please help children like this?


Let them eat carrot cake, right Michelle?

Comments (1)

Hey, Getcha Hot Dog!

Whole milk and eggs are perfectly healthy. Alcohol prevents dementia.

But that Italian sausage with peppers and onions at Fenway Park (washed down by the only Coke I ever drink) is my death warrant?

I’m skeptical. Shall we read behind the headlines?

Q. What do you consider as processed meat?

A. Processed meat refers to meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavour or improve preservation. Most processed meats contain pork or beef, but processed meats may also contain other red meats, poultry, offal, or meat by-products such as blood.

Examples of processed meat include hot dogs (frankfurters), ham, sausages, corned beef, and biltong or beef jerky as well as canned meat and meat-based preparations and sauces.

Salting causes cancer? I’ve accepted that sodium nitrate and nitrite are best avoided. I accept that too much of a good thing is too much of a good thing. I’m on the verge of accepting that charred meat (the best!) is carcinogenic.

But the doctors are not!

Q. Do methods of cooking meat change the risk?

A. High-temperature cooking methods generate compounds that may contribute to carcinogenic risk, but their role is not yet fully understood.

That’s closer to a no than a yes, I think.

As is this:

Q. Why did IARC choose to evaluate red meat and processed meat?

A. An international advisory committee that met in 2014 recommended red meat and processed meat as high priorities for evaluation by the IARC Monographs Programme. This recommendation was based on epidemiological studies suggesting that small increases in the risk of several cancers may be associated with high consumption of red meat or processed meat. Although these risks are small, they could be important for public health because many people worldwide eat meat and meat consumption is increasing in low- and middle-income countries. Although some health agencies already recommend limiting intake of meat, these recommendations are aimed mostly at reducing the risk of other diseases. With this in mind, it was important for IARC to provide authoritative scientific evidence on the cancer risks associated with eating red meat and processed meat.

I smell a rat—grilled, with lemon and rosemary; served with sides of roasted fingerling potatoes au jus and broccoli florets lightly drizzled with an extra-virgin, cold-pressed olive oil and balsamic vinegar dressing.

This report is a not a new study; it is not a study at all. It is a declaration of fact, based on studies that may suggest (or may not!) a link between cancer and “high consumption” of meat. Without reading the background studies it cites, I can’t comment on the science (or lack thereof)—though this is the first I’ve heard of the carcinogenic perils of salted meat.

But they told us what they really meant to tell us: “[M]eat consumption is increasing in low- and middle-income countries.”

God, no! Not that! Poor people getting protein in their diets—what is the world coming to? Never mind that eating meat—red meat, probably cooked over high heat—was crucual in the evolution of the human brain.

When nameless, faceless social engineers butt into our business, it’s not us they care about. It’s social engineering. And what train does the social engineer drive?

All aboard the Climate Change Express!

We conclude, for the sake of the world’s future: American lifestyle can no longer remain non-negotiable.

US lifestyle and consumption patterns are aspirational and addictive. Quite simply, everybody wants to be an American. Every citizen of the developing world wants to either live in America or live like an American. If it were possible to attain such a lifestyle and yet combat climate change, our concern would be unfounded. But that is not possible. If Americans continue to guzzle, it is not possible to expect that the rest will not follow in their footsteps. The world – the US and us – cannot combat climate change without changing the way people drive, build homes or consume goods. The C-word is the C-word.

This C-word said it, not me.

Raising livestock for consumption uses many resources, as even we happy omnivores agree. Land, water, feed grains, etc. And besides the lovely ribeyes and briskets they provide, they also exude noxious, climate-changing fumes. If cows are bad, beef is bad; and if beef is bad, a flame-broiled burger, medium rare, is unspeakably bad. Though the lycopene in ketchup is good—as is sauerkraut and the horseradish in some mustards!

We have to stop people in the developing world from eating the fruit of the forbidden mammal. How are you going to keep them off of the farm after they’ve tasted purred meat? Once they have carnivore knowledge, they’re ruined.

And we all die a fiery death.

Comments (1)

Cool Ocean-Current-Powered Water Filter, Hannah

Want to bring it to the White House?

Nah, forget it.

Hannah Herbst wants to bring renewable energy to the developing world.

The 15-year-old from Boca Raton, Florida, won this year’s Discovery Education 3M Young Scientist Challenge for designing a probe to generate power and fresh water for developing countries by harvesting it from ocean currents.

She was awarded $25,000 and the title of “America’s Top Young Scientist” at a competition at the 3M Innovation Center in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Herbst told Business Insider she was inspired by her 9-year-old pen pal in Ethiopia who has limited access to electricity. “I cant even imagine a day without electricity,” said Herbst.

Herbst’s energy probe is made of recycled materials and costs just $12.

It consists of a 3D-printed propeller, connected by a pulley inside a plastic PVC pipe to a hydroelectric generator, which converts the mechanical movement of ocean currents to usable electricity. She tested her device in the Boca Raton Intracoastal Waterway, where the current coming in from the Altantic Ocean produces a large amount of untapped energy.

Using her device, she was able to power a set of LED lights.

She calculated that if her design were scaled up, she could generate enough electricity to charge three car batteries at once in less than an hour. That’s enough energy to power saltwater desalinization pumps to provide a source of fresh water for developing countries. It could also power blood centrifuges for medical use, or coastal beacons for ship navigation.

That’s very nice, dear. But why can’t you be more like that nice boy, Ahmed?

It’s a pity when a smart, pretty girl, inspired by an African pen pal, invents something costing only $12 worth of recyclables that might improve the lives of millions of people, yet barely merits a mention in the press.

And a con-boy who stuffs the guts of an old Radio Shack clock into a briefcase and calls it an invention is feted as the next Thomas Alva Edison. Enjoy Qatar, Ahmed. I’ll take one Hannah Herbst over a thousand of you.

Comments (1)

School Grubs

I don’t apologize for our focus on Israel lately: it’s that important, and little else is capturing my attention.

But a balanced diet is a healthy diet.


The decision by officials at a high school in Montana to give up $117,000 in federal money and drop Michelle Obama’s healthy lunch program has proved to be a popular and profitable success.

Business has been booming in Bozeman High School’s cafeteria since its board members voted to drop the National School Lunch Program in a bid to keep students from leaving campus to eat.

The lunch program set limits on calories, fat and salt in lunches and mandated that more whole grains, fruits and vegetables should be served in order to curb the onset of childhood obesity.

Many students who weren’t fans of the lunch program would leave campus to get fast food at lunch, but they’ve been returning now that the program is gone, the Bozeman Daily Chronicle reported.

Alison Beckman, the high school’s food service manager, said over the summer : ‘They’re young adults.

‘At this age you’re not going to tell them what to eat.

‘All the new rules and mandates have done is push students off campus to the fast food restaurants.’

Like her dumb husband, like many if not all liberals, Michelle Obama took current science and devoted herself to it as gospel. Current science isn’t even science, and settled science is largely an oxymoron. From the perils of whole milk to the origin of the universe, science is changing all the time.

What doesn’t change is the appetite of the adolescent American male. If you thought you could feed them this sh*t, you get the contempt you so richly deserve:

What is that?

Comments (1)

Lies, Damned Lies, and Behavioral Science

“It’s not a lie if you believe it” should not apply to science (tell that to Michael Mann).

But it does:

Over 270 researchers, working as the Reproducibility Project, had gathered 100 studies from three of the most prestigious journals in the field of social psychology. Then they set about to redo the experiments and see if they could get the same results. Mostly they used the materials and methods the original researchers had used. Direct replications are seldom attempted in the social sciences, even though the ability to repeat an experiment and get the same findings is supposed to be a cornerstone of scientific knowledge. It’s the way to separate real information from flukes and anomalies.

These 100 studies had cleared the highest hurdles that social science puts up. They had been edited, revised, reviewed by panels of peers, revised again, published, widely read, and taken by other social scientists as the starting point for further experiments. Except . . .

The researchers, Vedantam glumly told his NPR audience, “found something very disappointing. Nearly two-thirds of the experiments did not replicate, meaning that scientists repeated these studies but could not obtain the results that were found by the original research team.”

That is, as Joe Biden would say, a big effing deal. (How’s the presidential decision going, by the by, Joe?) I’ll leave it to your curiosity to read more (much more) at the link.

But if that’s mass delusion writ large, here it is in fine print:

Last week, upper-crust Manhattanite actress Lena Dunham dropped in at the Beverly Hills home of billionaire mogul Ron Burkle, who was co-hosting an event with Hanoi Jane Fonda, organized by the Rape Foundation, to honor her longtime friend and HBO “Girls” show producer, Judd Apatow.

Apatow’s a strident liberal who tweets a lot about women and rape, so naturally Dunham and the Rape Foundation lionized him for his brave advocacy for women and against rape.

“He’s a tireless advocate for women,” Dunham gushed. “We know he refuses to follow the pack in silence,” she told the pack of entertainment left-wingers as they remained mum about Dunham’s spectacular self-unawareness.

And then lyin’ Lena set about her real task: extolling and remartyring herself.

“When I decided to write about my experience with sexual assault, Judd was one of the first people I shared my essay with.”

I, my, I, ay-ay-ay.

“His notes were kind and considerate and made the work infinitely stronger when the story was met with backlash,” Dunham shared.

We’ve covered this sodden, toxic ground before. I’m getting a head start on my New Year’s resolutions by not taking the bait every time this obese exhibitionist tells another porkie.

Besides, Michelle Malkin admirably strips her bare (dread thought): the lies, the threatened legal action, the settlement. As above, you can join Lena in her lie in the sty at the link.

PS: As we said at the time, we have no reason to doubt Dunham was raped—except for the doubts she herself planted. The inconsistencies, the blaming of those who questioned the inconsistencies, the curious timing of the revelation…I don’t want to blame the victim, but the victim in Dunham’s telling was the very real man she falsely accused.


Settled Science Watch

We’ve already been cleared to eat eggs like they’re Lays potato chips. Who wouldn’t want a little bacon to go with them (apologies to our Muslim and Jewish readers)?

Those who only ate meat occasionally – as per the Mediterranean diet – had high levels of short-chain fatty acids (SCFCs) – known to stave off diabetes, and cardiovascular disease.

Scientists found the more fruit, vegetables, legumes and fibre that people ate, regardless of whether they ate some meat and dairy, the higher the level of SCFCs they had.

‘Western omnivore diets are not necessarily detrimental when a certain consumption level of plant foods is included,’ he said.

Omnivore. I identify as an omnivore.

How better to wash down a plate of bacon and eggs (besides coffee, that is, which has also been shown to be good for you, mostly):

Scientists who tallied diet and health records for several thousand patients over ten years found, for example, that contrary to the government advice, people who consumed more milk fat had lower incidence of heart disease.

By warning people against full-fat dairy foods, the United States is “losing a huge opportunity for the prevention of disease,” said Marcia Otto, an assistant professor of epidemiology at the University of Texas and the lead author of large studies published in 2012 and 2013, which were funded by government and academic institutions, not the industry. “What we have learned over the last decade is that certain foods that are high in fat seem to be beneficial.”

[T]he idea that spurning saturated fat will, by itself, make people healthier has never been fully proven, and in recent years repeated clinical trials and large-scale observational studies have produced evidence to the contrary.

Aggie and I get together for brunch occasionally. You know: bagels, lite cream cheese, fresh fruit, coffee with 1% milk. How ’bout I swing by Burger King instead, Aggie? What’s your pleasure? Me, I’m looking at the Triple Whopper (“three flame-broiled beef patties with two slices of american cheese, crisp lettuce, creamy mayo, red ripe tomatoes, pickles and onions, all on a toasted sesame seed bun”). Whole lotta veggies on that bad boy. I feel healthier just reading about it.

And do you want heavy cream or half-and-half in your coffee?

Comments (1)

“You’re Under Arrest”, They Explained

When “Shut up” will no longer do:

Twenty alarmist climate scientists – including UN IPCC lead author Kevin ‘Travesty’ Trenberth – have written a letter to President Obama urging him to use RICO laws to crush dissent by climate skeptics.

Dear President Obama, Attorney General Lynch, and OSTP Director Holdren,
As you know, an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially serious adverse effects of human-induced climate change on human health, agriculture, and biodiversity. We applaud your efforts to regulate emissions and the other steps you are taking. Nonetheless, as climate scientists we are exceedingly concerned that America’s response to climate change – indeed, the world’s response to climate change – is insufficient.

Screw solar. Blow wind. What’s it all about, algae. We want the police state!

One additional tool – recently proposed by Senator Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change. The actions of these organizations have been extensively documented in peerreviewed academic research (Brulle, 2013) and in recent books including: Doubt is their Product (Michaels, 2008), Climate Cover-Up (Hoggan & Littlemore, 2009), Merchants of Doubt (Oreskes & Conway, 2010), The Climate War (Pooley, 2010), and in The Climate Deception Dossiers (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2015). We strongly endorse Senator Whitehouse’s call for a RICO investigation.

While you’re at it, be on the lookout for this man:

That’s a light switch he’s reaching for—with a 100-watt incandescent bulb!

And this is his criminal propaganda:

If corporations in the fossil fuel industry and their supporters are guilty of the misdeeds that have been documented in books and journal articles, it is imperative that these misdeeds be stopped as soon as possible so that America and the world can get on with the critically important business of finding effective ways to restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done.

Why stop at jail? They might smuggle out more deceptive misdeeds written on single-ply toilet paper. Public executions, that’s the ticket. Does ISIS bother with tedious investigations of infidels or tiresome prosecutions of apostates? It does not. Heads on pikes. That’s how they roll.

Mark Steyn (alias the Canadian Club, alias Granite State Steyn, alias Don’t Call Me Jule) helpfully provides the list of signatories, including six from George Mason University. Who knew GMU was a hotbed (heh) of global warming gasbaggery?

How’s this for credentials?

Dr. Edward Maibach is a University Professor and Director of Mason’s Center for Climate Change Communication (4C). In the Department of Communication, he teaches seminars in climate change communication, strategic communication, and social marketing. His research currently focuses exclusively on how to mobilize populations to adopt behaviors and support public policies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help communities adapt to the unavoidable consequences of climate change.

And nothing “mobilizes populations” like the threat of prosecution. For a communications teacher, he is even more ignorant of free speech and scientific debate than he is of climate science. It is one thing—and a very bad thing—for an inquisition of scientists to prosecute the heretics. But it is obscene that they are led by someone who peddles propaganda under the guise of “communication”.

PS: If you want to take Steyn to court, you’ll have to wait your turn. He’s wanted by more law enforcement agencies than Whitey Bulger.

Comments (1)

Hussein the Big-Eared Reindeer

Hussein with your ears so big,
Won’t you haul my busted rig.

He’ll go down in in-fam-y!

[T]he Arctic is the leading edge of climate change — our leading indicator of what the entire planet faces. Arctic temperatures are rising about twice as fast as the global average. Over the past 60 years, Alaska has warmed about twice as fast as the rest of the United States. Last year was Alaska’s warmest year on record — just as it was for the rest of the world. And the impacts here are very real.

Thawing permafrost destabilizes the earth…


Just for the record, how many jets besides yours, sir, flew to Alaska to attend this potlatch—what’s it called again?

[W]elcome to the United States, and thank you all for attending this GLACIER Conference.

The actual name of the conference is much longer. It’s a mouthful, but the acronym works because it underscores the incredible changes that are taking place here in the Arctic that impact not just the nations that surround the Arctic, but have an impact for the entire world, as well.

Yes, and the name again, sir?


The Conference on Global Leadership in the Arctic: Cooperation, Innovation, Engagement and Resilience

Oh my. That is lame. And according to the website, 21 heads of delegations attended. That’s 21 Boeings or McDonnell-Douglas wide-bodies schlepping up to Anchorage or Nome or Moose Jaw (which is in Canada, I know). Unless the Chinese delegation took the Fung Wah bus from Seattle.

Just one teensy little question, if we may, sir. If the Arctic is so threatened by global warming that even a delegation from Spain (Spain?) is required to fly 5176.4 miles from Madrid to Anchorage (Spain?), what’s with the ice-breakers?

These ice-breakers:

President Obama will ask Congress Tuesday to speed up the construction of new icebreaker ships in order to protect U.S. interests and resources in the Arctic, amid growing concern that the U.S. has ceded influence to Russia in the strategic waters.

The 1980s called, sir. They want their foreign policy back. Ha-ha. Just a little Cold War humor.

Anyway, shouldn’t he be calling for the construction of new air boats like they have in the Everglades? Or surf boards? What good will an icebreaker be in the Alaskan Riviera?

If I may suggest another location where they may be needed, sir, just a titch further south:

President Barack Obama’s call for Congress to speed up funding for increasing the nation’s fleet of polar icebreakers could be bad news for efforts to get a new heavy-duty icebreaker for the Great Lakes.

Even though a Lakes icebreaker would likely cost far less — about $200 million — compared with the $1 billion or more which could be spent on an icebreaker to be used in Arctic waters, the funding needed to shore up the nation’s polar fleet could hurt chances for finding additional money for icebreakers elsewhere.

We’ve enjoyed the past two winters reporting on the record ice build-up in the Great Lakes (which is about all we’ve enjoyed about the past two winters). To listen to the gasbag in the White House spew noxious fumes about “climate change” brings a warm smile to our lips.

I recall what one Alaska Native told me at the White House a few years ago. He said, “Many of our villages are ready to slide off into the waters of Alaska, and in some cases, there will be absolutely no hope -– we will need to move many villages.”

He was told that “a few years ago”? And he only just got round to holding a conference? What did the Inuit ever do to him for him to use them as props in his little puppet show? And he’s ordering icebreakers for a region he describes as more tropics than tundra?

Do you ever get the feeling that you’re being swindled? Like, right now? The president is a dink.


The Planet Has a Fever…Hypothermia

What?!? We were just getting used to this!

Scenarios of a sea ice tipping point leading to a permanently ice-free Arctic Ocean were based on oversimplified arguments

New research by Till Wagner and Ian Eisenman, scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, resolves a long-running debate over irreversible Arctic sea ice loss.

Ever since the striking record minimum Arctic sea ice extent in 2007, the ominous scenario of a sea ice tipping point has been a fixture in the public debate surrounding man-made climate change and a contingency for which Arctic-bordering countries have prepared.

“We found that two key physical processes, which were often overlooked in previous process models, were actually essential for accurately describing whether sea ice loss is reversible,” said Eisenman, a professor of climate dynamics at Scripps Oceanography. “One relates to how heat moves from the tropics to the poles and the other is associated with the seasonal cycle. None of the relevant previous process modeling studies had included both of these factors, which led them to spuriously identify a tipping point that did not correspond to the real world.”

Get outta here with that “real world” crap. What’s the real world got to do with it?

Don’t pi** me off. It’s not pretty.

Speaking of science that ain’t so settled:


For Figure 1, I’ve extended the new UAH version 6.0 beta and the RSS lower troposphere temperature anomaly data as far back in time as they could go while showing no warming based on their linear trends. The new UAH data show no warming for 219 months, and for the RSS data, it’s 220 months.

A little tiny baby born back in the last month of global warming can now go to a porn website and click on the “I’m over 18” button in good conscience. Is this a great country or what?

Okay, put another way, Bill Clinton stopped the seas from rising. While the other guy was “getting us coffee”.


« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »