Click to get your own widget

Saturday, January 24, 2009


Some time ago I fell for an alarmist hoax which included the suggestion that scientists were being leaned on "We have been warned, collectively and individually, that in bringing our findings to public attention we are not only likely to be deprived of all future sources of funding". When it came out as a hoax & not before, it got coverage from Reuters, BBC, Guardian & other honest & impartial news disseminators.

Well scientists are being leaned on. Strangely enough all the above mentioned impartial sources have decided not to report on this letter from Dr Joanne Simpson, the first female meteorologist to receive her doctorate, she received the American Meteorological Society’s highest honor, the Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Award. She went on to become that same organization’s first female president. NASA has recognized her as well, bestowing its Exceptional Scientific Achievement Award upon her. She even has one of NASA’s CRAY T3E supercomputers named after her. So quite high powered. Now she has retired & says:

Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly..... the main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface system.......Few of these people seem to have any skeptical self-criticism left, although virtually all of the claims are derived from either flawed data sets or imperfect models or both. The term “global warming” itself is very vague. Where and what scales of response are measurable? One distinguished scientist has shown that many aspects of climate change are regional, some of the most harmful caused by changes in human land use. No one seems to have properly factored in population growth and land use, particularly in tropical and coastal areas.

.... as a scientist I remain skeptical. I decided to keep quiet in this controversy until I had a positive contribution to make. That point is to be celebrated in the TRMM 10 year anniversary in a Conference in February, 2008.....These patterns can be compared over the past ten years with the patterns predicted ten years ago by the climate models..... The modelers say that higher greenhouse warming produces recognizable changes in the Walker circulation. What better data is there to test such model results than the tropical rain products from TRMM? ....useful information for the several ocean basins relating the rainfall to claimed and observed storm structure can be made if dedicated work is committed. I would be most interested to find out how the distribution of hot towers relates to storm intensity and rain production. Examining the data already posted on the TRMM Website shows that such projects are tractable....

If somebody of such reputation cannot speak frankly while working for NASA (& thus James Hansen) then there is no question that massive intimidation is taking place. The lack of coverage by our media cannot be accidental. Note, by comparison, the BBC coverage when Hansen himself, advisor & close ally to Saint Al, fraudulently claimed to be being censored. If so his call for the "trial" of people expressing scepticism let alone his recent perjury in court would certainly have got him fired.

Still when Stalin made Lysenkoism compulsory he had scientists shot for scepticism so, though the warming scam has cost the world far more financially they haven't yet actually started the show trials.

PS I suspect Dr Simpson has a fair idea what the TRMM data, due at the February Conference will say.

I think there is a larger problem in the Global Warming scam: even if we grant the environmentalists that humans *worldwide* are warming the earth, why should we care? If the world gets say ten degrees hotter then more of Greenland will become habitable, as will northern Scotland. The fact is that man is the center of our culture, whether it is mans relation to the earth, to each other or to God. The only reason to put the earth at the center of our culture and our lives is if we consider man's presence here to be insignificant and transitory, with man being little more than a parasite living in what should be Gaia's perfect garden.

These people aren't trying to limit in some minor way our output of carbon, they are trying to destroy all organized society, and then man himself. For their worldview is fundamentally religious, with Gaia the center of worship and man as the Devil. For the true believers in environmentalism even the level of organization and mechanization achieved by African tribes is simply too much, these fanatics would prefer us all to be naked in the jungle picking our food from the trees.

That is why they oppose offshore drilling in the United States. That is why they oppose synthesizing fuel from coal. That is why they make common cause with the enemies of the West. They seek to destroy the West, its inhabitants and to prevent them from having any children. These fanatics seek to drag us back into a New Dark Age, as a prelude to our extermination as enemies of their goddess.


I don't know how the House of Commons would react if I gave such a speech on the floor during a Global Whining debate, but I feel it to be the truth. Since the environmental movement already has the weight of the establishment behind them, I would seek to give a speech radical enough to catch the attention of al-Beeb. Someone has to be the radical at the other end of the spectrum, since there certainly seem to be plenty on the ecoleft.
I would be very worried about a 10 C rise but even the IPCC are only talking about 3 C which is on the edge of what we have had in historic times.

I am not convinced that a BBC, which can censor any mention of our organlegging in Kosovo, would broadcast a speech merely because it was controversial enough to be newsworthy. I think it more likely that, like Bellamy, it would just mean they ensure the author is kept off air in future.
I would be very worried about a 10 C rise...

I wouldn't be concerned about a 18F rise in temperatures, we can simply occupy more northerly territory if we want snow. Hotter weather just means longer growing seasons, more plentiful food, and a more comfortable life for most of the Northern Hemisphere. Besides, giving up carbon fuels would be even worse than a 18F rise. As long as we have stable weather we can adapt.

Of course if the ecopagans are right my children will one day be able to go sunbathing in tropical Norway.
That level would melt the icecaps - now it is true that this would produce more habitable land in northern Canada, Greenland & indeed cAntarctica but the land we would lose would contain our seaport cities, which means most of them.

We would survive it but it would cause some inconvenient wars.
...but the land we would lose would contain our seaport cities, which means most of them.

Most of America's liberals live in coastal areas. I would love to see those areas under water.
Joanne Simpson has died.

Anthony Watts has this moving tribute on his site
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.