A reader sent me the link to this website, The Deplorable Climate Science Blog. This article about the antics of NASA’s James Hansen, “Father of Climate Change Awareness” proved to be a collection of real information that shows the “Clown Show.” As a matter of fact, the entire website looks to be worthy of a bookmark and a resource of some pretty good information.
General Article of the Uniform Code of Climate Change Justice
April 5, 2013 by Leave a Comment
………….Or something!
For those not aware, there exists the Uniform Code of Military Justice. This is used by the United States Military for law and order. For those who are or have served in the Military, they probably are aware of the famed, General Article, i.e Article 134. It is often laughed about because it’s historic use has always been to cover all those things not covered in the rest of the uniform codes. If you must know, Article 134 states:
Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, all conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special, or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.
Like I said. It’s a collect-all, gotcha kind of law for, well……just in case. When you think you have out-foxed the military, BAM! They will slap Article 134 on you.
For those with an athlete’s mentality, perhaps the universal code of coaches will better give you understanding:
Rule #1 – The coach is always right.
Rule #2 – See Rule #1.
Is this what it’s come to as far as climate change goes?
Rich Lowry of the National Review now calls the weasels who refuse to let go of their blind worship of the evils of man-caused global warming, “Climate Deniers.” He defines these climate deniers as, “all those advocates of limits on carbon emissions who are so certain of the science that they have no interest in the latest evidence.”
That’s nothing new. I think we just didn’t have a name for them….or least names writers were willing to publish. But consider what one of these “settled science” promoters and “climate deniers” is saying about why there has been no global warming for over a decade.
Now, just four years later, he [James Hansen] is arguing that all the new coal-fired plants have saved the planet from more global warming, by “fertilizing” the biosphere and creating aerosols that are a global coolant.
How do you discuss anything with anyone so embroiled in their man-caused global warming creed, that regardless of what any facts say, there’s always, if not a general article (excuse), a convenient one that will always explain man’s evil while exempting themselves from any wrong.
Who knows? Perhaps Hansen is right and coal-fired power plants are doing that, but isn’t his claim providing even more support for the fact that we don’t know enough about global climate change to declare the “science is settled,” while moving forward with draconian regulations of carbon dioxide emissions, carbon taxes, etc.?
When we read about instances such as this one, we then should seriously be asking ourselves about whether there should be background checks done on scientists. After all, isn’t some of this stuff, if not criminal, it certainly comes very close.
Climate Alarmists Still Beating Their Drum. 2011 Coolest in Over Decade.
January 20, 2012 by Leave a Comment
From JunkScience.com comes an AP report that states: ““Global temperature in 2011 was lower than in 1998,” NASA climate scientist James Hansen admits in the GISS report. However, he adds that nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred in the 21st century, and that 2011 was cooled by a moderately strong La Niña.”
Does anyone remember taking science classes in grade school? Does anyone remember one of the first things we were taught? I didn’t think so. We were taught that in scientific experiments there always needs to be constants. Otherwise, what is there left to compare change to?
As shameful and disgusting as it is, people around the globe have been forced into being skeptical of any data put out by any climate scientists. There is so much money and politics behind climate science, the corruption renders news reports, like the one linked to here, as completely laughable. Why should we believe any of their crap?
But, beside that, consider the poor science in and of itself. In this report, these scientists are attempting to convince people the world is warming at a rapid rate and of course, even without any proof, they blame it on carbon dioxide. They base their conclusion of a rapidly warming globe on temperatures that are “above the average”.
What they fail to tell us are two extremely important items that render their conclusions something even an 8th grade science teacher would give a student a poor grade for. Climate scientists base their average temperature on records kept for the past 132 years. To a 5-year-old, 132 years seems like a long time but in climatological ranks, 132 is barely a blink of the eye.
Therefore, my 8th grade science teacher would question my conclusions as to how I obtained an “average” temperature, especially if I was trying to convince the teacher it applied to the planet since day one. I might have gotten a passing grade if I had explained that having only records for 132 years, it would be unreliable to trust my average extended out over millenniums.
The second issue involves the equipment, locations and methods of temperature taking over the 132 years. If a scientist could not have used the exact same locations, under the exact same conditions, using the exact same equipment, collecting data using the exact same methods, can it honestly be totally reliable scientific conclusions? Shouldn’t there at least be asterisks attached to certain data to explain differences?
Climate science is too young with far too many unanswered questions to be making brash statements and providing unsubstantiated conclusions about our climate, what’s causing any change and what direction it is headed in.
Please, continue the research but give us a friggin break on the political sheep dip!
Tom Remington
