January 22, 2020

Global Warming Scientists Frozen Into Ice in Antarctica

Perhaps if God isn’t just he has a decent sense of humor! Oh, the irony. Climate scientists heading into the Antarctic to study global warming and the presence of that nasty carbon dioxide, which Algorites say is destroying the planet with unwanted warmth, causing sea ice to melt and raise sea levels, are trapped in rapidly freezing ice and nasty winter storms. Alas! Summer’s coming down there.

Share

30-Year Climate Prediction Calls for Cooling Extreme Weather

The latest and newly revised version of the quarterly Global Climate Status Report (GCSR), Edition 4-2013, from the Space and Science Research Corporation (SSRC,) was published as of 5PM December 10, 2013. According to this report, compiled by the Space and Science Research Corporation, the earth has entered into a transition period toward a cooling climate. Based on natural climate and solar cycles, what appears to be a rapidly cooling climate will make for some severe weather heading into the next 30 or 40-year cycle.

For those interested, you can obtain a copy of the full report by visiting the SSRC website.

Global Climate Status Report

Share

Halfwits In Charge of Weather

There is no end to ignorance, coupled with politics, and hatred of mankind. Now the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has announced it may furlough employees due to “sequestration” and as a result of this announcement, other idiots in the media are saying that people won’t get weather warnings and they will all die!

Yessiree, Billy Bob! People can no longer look up from their goddamn cellphones and IPads long enough to look at the sky to see if it is raining. Think about it for a minute. Your and my tax dollars pay these buffoons to report that it’s going to be sunny outside, while it’s raining.

This is just another scare tactic to force people to give up more of their hard-earned money to pay someone’s government job and retirement benefits. Go ahead. Just give government all your money NOW! They won’t be happy until they get it all.

Bring it on. Whether they do or don’t, it won’t change my life one iota! How’s that?

Share

Mild Maine Winter May Have Stalled Whitetail Deer Death Spiral

If the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife(MDIFW) is always so quick to jump on the bandwagon of severe winters as an excuse why there are no deer left in most portions of Maine’s landscape, then it would only stand to reason to jump ship and onto the bandwagon heading in the other direction when there is a mild winter. If all things are relative and one severe winter destroys a deer herd, then is it rational to conclude that one mild winter restores one?

If there has been any reprieve in continued destruction of Maine’s whitetail deer population, it comes more from what the MDIFW didn’t have their fingers in than what they did. A mild winter throughout the state probably did more to halt the death spiral of deer than anything MDIFW did or could have done.

What MDIFW did do was kill 119 coyotes. Earlier, I published the summary of their efforts. In short, MDIFW appropriated $50,000 for coyote killing. They spent $15,156, concentrating on 9 Deer Wintering Areas(DWA) and killed 119 coyote/wolf hybrids. Of note: 79 coyotes were killed by paid agents of the MDIFW and 40 were taken by volunteers.

However, I will withhold judgement on any successes or failures in this effort as the mild winter did not provide the best opportunity to find coyotes in DWAs. And, we may never get to see if any long term, concentrated effort to kill coyotes will be effective if there is no money appropriated next year or the years after that.

For Maine’s license buyers, those 79 coyotes killed by paid agents, cost $191.85 per coyote. A mild winter cost nothing. One mild winter will not cause a restoration of a severely depleted deer herd, but it may be the only hope we have. Sane sportsmen understand that real science forecasting calls for earth to be heading into at least a ten-year cooling. For those wildlife managers betting on global warming to cure their deer management problems, I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.

Tom Remington

Share

Our Seven-Day Forecast Calls For Global Warming

It appears that the freaks who have swilled the Kool-Aid and been baptized in Al Gore’s global warming cult are pushing to kick all those local weathermen off the air who don’t espouse to their religion and speak of it on a regular basis while reporting the weather. I suppose their seven-day forecasts would look something like this:

According to the Daily Caller, the true believers want all local weathermen to include man-caused global warming in their daily forecasting of the weather. It’s a far cry difference between forecasting weather and understanding what causes our climate to fluctuate.

But aside from those differences, it’s a moronic statement to define global warming “deniers” as: “anyone who expressly refutes the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change: that it is real, largely caused by humans, and already having profound impacts on our world.”

As was well stated by the late Michael Crichton: “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with consensus.”

Tom Remington

Share

Climate Alarmists Still Beating Their Drum. 2011 Coolest in Over Decade.

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

Share