Just What Climatology Did NOT Need: Feminism

The journal Progress in Human Geography recently released a paper entitled "Glaciers, gender, and science; A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research".

Yup, you read that right, feminist glaciology.

Go ahead and click on that link above and read it, if you feel like having your brains leak out your ears. The blog whyevolutionistrue rightfully speculates on whether or not this is another Sokal-esque hoax. The Far or Regressive Left's political agenda has so thoroughly infiltrated academia, it is nearly impossible to distinguish reality from parody anymore, so who the hell knows? Poe's law strikes again.

If real, Thunderf00t can add another item to the list of things that feminism poisons.



And, yes, poison is exactly word I meant to use as well. Just read this troubling statement from the paper's conclusion:

Analysts and practitioners must recognize the ways in which more-than-scientific, non-Western, non-masculinist modes of knowledge, thinking, and action are marginalized.

Yeah, there's a great idea! When the cold, hard facts, and a consensus of thousands of scientists meets with furious resistance from climate change deniers, what you want to do is throw some "extra-scientific" nonsense like reading tea leaves, pap about female intuition, smoke tent visions, Orwellian feminist "Listen and Believe" propaganda, and who knows what else into the global warming advocacy works. Because that won't completely backfire or anything. I mean, it's just so hard to envision the usual suspects (Watts, Goddard, Limbaugh, etc.) jumping for joy at the chance to knock a few of those soft tosses out of Denier Park. They wouldn't at all seize on the opportunity to wave such studies around as examples of flawed, biased research. Nope, wouldn't happen. /sarcasm

Hoax or not, file this study with this curious pile of academic hogwash on "Carbon Fibre Masculinity".

Reacting to Deniers with Social Justice-Style Censorship is WRONG

A few months back (over 5 to be more precise), a completely unnecessary bit of Twitter drama unfurled involving the cherry-picker in chief, Steven Goddard. Apparently, people complained that he was "abusing" or harassing climate scientists and his opponents via his tweets, and Twitter agreed, temporarily suspending his account. DailyKos derided Goddard's protests of the suspension here.

Now, all 3 of my blog readers know that I'm no fan of Goddard, and disagree with just about everything he says. That being said, you know what the WORST way to deal with deniers' scientific illiteracy is? To act like butthurt social justice warriors and claim that when they childishly call people "Nazis" and "fascists," it's abusive, harassing behavior worthy of censorship.

Yes, I just said "butthurt social justice warriors," and get used to it, because I'm beginning to believe the radical Left is becoming more of a threat to science than the usual suspects on the Right ever possibly could dream of being. Perhaps more on that in later posts.

Here's a snippet of the DailyKos' sarcastic take on Goddard's understandable reaction:

Goddard responded to Twitter's horrific injustice with a slew of posts, including one about "Green Shirt Fascists," where he begs readers to tell Twitter to "release" him as a "Political Prisoner at Twitmo," and another informing readers of his new URL (realclimatescience.com) because he expects "climate Nazis to get [him] blocked from Wordpress."

Which leads one to wonder, what does Goddard consider abuse, if not calling people fascists and Nazis? Apparently it's not though, since "The Nazis at Twitter" have since restored his account.

You know what's abusive, DailyKos? Censorship. How about we suspend your Twitter account for abusive support of censorship and mock you when you complain? Oh, it'll only be temporary, so buck up.

And, yes, as I've tweeted, I already understand that I'm way late in covering Twitter's draconian nonsense here.

And, yes, I'm WAY late to THAT particular party.

— Planet Evans (@ExoplanetEvans) September 6, 2015

Exchanging Snowstorm Love Notes (Tweets) with Steven Goddard

Wherein I have a ridiculous pseudo-real-time Twitter chat with our favorite cherry-picker in chief:

Geez, this (http://t.co/F7yZHjEVbr) is hard to process, eh, @SteveSGoddard : "Warmer air traps more water vapor, additional water to fall."

— Planet Evans (@ExoplanetEvans) January 27, 2015

Full conversation, enjoy.

UPDATE: Deleted a tweet for spelling/typos and conversation got derailed to another chain. Grrrr.

FURTHER UPDATE: OK, conversation thread got broken several times, so you'll have to visit my Twitter account or Steven Goddard's to get the whole story. Turns out Steven Goddard believes in climate change, uh, I guess, but he just thinks being able to fry eggs on hot sidewalks in cities, not CO2, is the culprit. Uh, or something. Dunno, read the exchange and decide for yourself. The guy's out there, to say the least. Here's my own personal favorite tweet. I do crack myself up. :)

@SteveSGoddard @NOAA @NOAANCDC Someone tell Arctic liberals are secretly implementing Steve Goddard's plan to halt (his UHI) global warming.

— Planet Evans (@ExoplanetEvans) January 27, 2015

Michael Oppenheimer Explains Importance of US/China Climate Deal

Michael Oppenheimer, a lead author of the IPCC AR4, Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs in the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and the Department of Geosciences at Princeton University, and perhaps the person with the longest professional title and list of credentials in the universe, appeared on PBS's NewsHour recently to discuss America's latest climate agreement with China.

"This is huge, as far as I'm concerned...If you get China and the US in the room, you have about 45% of global greenhouse, global warming emissions. If you add in the EU, which is already on the downward, uh, direction in terms of emissions, you've got about 60% of emissions. Think about the leadership factor involved in that. Other countries will have a harder time avoiding dealing with climate change with the three 800 lbs. gorillas together."

For years we've been hearing the ridiculous excuse from climate change deniers that it doesn't matter what the US does, when China represents the real problem, and/or isn't interested in curtailing emissions. Declarations of this kind never really had much truth to them, but now, with China promising to meet more ambitious renewables and GHG reduction goals, they're especially specious. So, of course, deniers respond to being robbed of their favorite worthless, screwball excuse by gearing up to thwart the deal. Meanwhile, Watts and Goddard are still living in the 1950's, and continuing their sad and demented neo-McCarthyist ways. I mean, these people are just despicable infants.

Denier...It Rhymes with Liar

I think I know what to get deniers for the holidays this year: fire extinguishers that come with belt clips. You know, for that little problem with their pants pictured above which keeps cropping up.

With only three or four months of 2014 temperature records available, the Drudge Report decided back in the spring to run these two ridiculous headlines.

Northeast US Having Their Coldest Year On Record So Far

Coldest Year On Record So Far In The US

Hmmmm, gosh, shucks, and gee willikerz, I wonder where those Drudge article links take a person clicking on them...astonishing, simply shocking, I tellz ya. Steven Goddard jumping the temp record gun for 2014 and thinking one section of the US for a third of the year would tell us anything important about the whole planet for all of the year, and Drudge credulously mirroring this garbage...whodathunk? But don't worry, folks, because Goddard's proven more than willing months later to double-down on this blinders-firmly-in-place idiocy.

US Having Its Coolest Year On Record

Truth be told, this is all more than a little strange, even for Goddard, the cherry-picker-in-chief, because I thought for sure he told us government agencies received threatening memos from Obama to cook the books as far as US temperatures were concerned. What the hell happened to all of that nonsense, Little Stevie? Did Obama forget to send the Matrix agents over to the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN)? Or is Morpheus running the show at the USHCN, making it the last bastion of resistance, and now he finally found you, Denier Neo? Hmmmmmm?

Or is it not more likely the case that are you simply cherry-picking as usual, seeing numbers you like, and therefore deciding to take off your giant tin foil hat and accept them without the screwball conspiracy theory tantrum this time?

Don't worry yer little paranoid head, though, Tiny-Small Stevie, because Anthony Watts decided he'd see your ridiculous tunnel vision and raise its absurdity to one month of temperature records down in the South Pole.

Coldest Antarctic June Ever Recorded

OK, here's the news, you pathetically dishonest denier morons. If global temperatures for 2014 continue on the same departure line from the 20th century average, this will be...

...drum roll, please...

The Hottest, NOT the Coldest, Year on Record, Surpassing Even 2010.

• The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for January–September tied with 1998 as the warmest such period on record, at 1.22°F (0.68°C) above the 20th century average of 57.5°F (14.1°C). If 2014 maintains this temperature departure from average for the remainder of the year, it will be the warmest year on record. The margin of error associated with this temperature is ±0.20°F (0.11°C).
• The January–September worldwide land surface temperature was 1.75°F (0.97°C) above the 20th century average, the sixth warmest such period on record. The margin of error is ±0.41°F (0.23°C).
• The global sea surface temperature for the year to date was 1.03°F (0.57°C) above the 20th century average, the warmest such period on record. The margin of error is ±0.09°F (0.05°C).

This isn't hard, you denier screwballs. You just have to be honest, something which, I imagine at this point for you, is as impossible as getting Gollum to eat wholesome Elven wafers instead of raw fish and worms. Now, go put yer tin foil hats back on, and predictably tell us how these government agency numbers were rigged, unlike the ones you posted.

Oh, brother.

"30,000 Studies Were Analyzed"

Michio Kaku was on CBS This Morning a few days ago talking about the latest IPCC Synthesis Report (emphasis in the quote below is mine).

"First of all, it's based on the largest analysis of data. Thirty thousand studies were analyzed. And, as you mention, for the first time in clear words [the IPCC] says there's a point of no return."

But...but...Michio, didn't they look at snow cover in...uh, just 2 months out of the year for...uh...only the northern hemisphere? I mean, 30,000 studies, who cares? They need to put on blinders, and cherry-pick only the stuff that agrees with their mindlessly moronic scientific ignorance. That's how Steven Goddard, Lord of Cherry-Pickers, does it.

Oh, brother.

While I don't always agree with Kaku on matters of frontier research, unlike Goddard and many other harebrained climate deniers, he recognizes scientific consensus and established facts when he sees them. Have a watch.

Woody Harrelson Urges Climate Action and YOU (Yes, You) to Vote

Yet another actor proves he understands scientific consensus better than professional trolls and cherry-pickers like Watts and Goddard.





If you want a rundown of climate change stances for the close US Senate races this Tuesday, click here. And get off yer rump and vote!

Hansen Walks Fine Political Line; Near Liberal Riot toward End o_O

James Hansen's climate change advocacy stems from the inarguable fact that he really does care about present and future generations, plain and simple. Whether or not they agree with him, and whatever ulterior motives they try to attribute to other advocates like Gore and Suzuki in order to change the subject and avoid addressing the real issue, our warming planet, I think deniers can at the very least admit that, when it comes to Hansen, there is no deception whatsoever — not even cards being played tight to the chest — perceived or otherwise. He holds nothing back, and talks straight from his impressive mind and his deep heart, switching between the two fairly effortlessly.

I agree with 99% of what he says in the video below, including this...

"The solution does need to come from the conservative side."

I'm even mostly in agreement with this part of the talk, where he once again touts the benefits of nuclear energy, while laying much of the blame for the off-and-on political moratorium in this country at the feet of liberals.

"Unfortunately, beginning with Jimmy Carter and then Bill Clinton, they terminated research and development on advanced generation nuclear power, which, uh, was a big mistake. And it's, it's hard for liberals to admit that...because we burned India and China's share of the, of the, uh, carbon budget, we should help them with [advanced nuclear] technology. Instead, we've kind of withheld the expertise that the US has in those technologies."

That's a fair point, and I get what he's trying to do here. He is trying to open a door through which conservative deniers, who, by virtue of their own obstinate dismissal of the legitimate science, have been frozen out of the conversation, can re-enter the public exchange, holding their heads up. I'm not so sure how keen they'll be to share nuke tech with China, or even India, but the "blame Carter and Clinton" aspect will have attraction for them, I'm sure. It's a compelling approach, one that regular readers of this blog (all 2 of them) will notice is not exactly praised and championed around these parts very often, but I will admit it does offer some hope of producing concerted political effort on this particular issue (not so much on the larger, root problem of science denial, though). However, it requires Hansen walk a fine line, and continually revitalize reasons why those who accept the scientific consensus still deserve more blame than those who deny it. Personally, I would fail utterly at this balancing act, so I will take a pass and instead continue to bludgeon deniers mercilessly with the truth. And I did notice that Hansen himself slips up a little, and allows a bit of irresolution to bubble to the surface every now and then (emphasis mine)...

"Well, no, the conservatives don't want the government to get bigger. That's what they're afraid of...The truth is the conservatives and the Republicans, the majority of them, do not deny the science...And it turns out what they're afraid of is that this will be used to increase taxes, and to increase regulations, and intrusion of government into people's lives. That's what they're afraid of. That's why they then deny the science."

Now, we can debate the validity of the particular assertions he makes here (i.e.: whether or not the Right really wants less government, or simply wants a bigger, more intrusive government that marches to its own ideological drumbeat) until we are blue in the face (or red...get it?). The point I'm concerned with here, the rather telling bit, is Hansen claims one minute that conservatives do not deny the science, and then in the next breath implies they do deny the science publicly, but their real "behind closed doors" concerns absolve them of any blame for policy inaction. He seems to have an internal inconsistency and conflict...a lingering doubt, if you will...in his own mind, and therefore in the argumentation he is trying to put forth as well, that he needs to work out.

Still, this is not some deceptive tactic on his part. I believe he truly feels this is a helpful stance which will bring about a result we all need and can support: reduced emissions via bipartisan agreement. It's just not always gonna be easy to adhere to and sell, which brings me to the last point I wanna make before finally posting the video...

Sheesh, does the man have patience in surplus, or what?. Watch the somewhat heated exchange his position elicits toward the end of the Q&A session, and how Hansen tries to handle it affably. He's a champ.



Also, check out the YouTube channel which uploaded this video for an...interesting digression into another topic (or many) altogether. :)

Oh, and what is the only bit Steven Goddard, Lord of Cherry-Picking, chose to take from an extensive, informative talk? The one little smidgeon of information that appears to agree with his harebrained denial of climate science, of course. And even then, he screws up Hansen's point royally. Nope, sorry, Little Squeakathon Stevie, Hansen does NOT say, "the methane global warming scam is nothing but BS." Your listening comprehension is nothing but BS.

By the way, it doesn't seem likely that Goddard'll let my comment post. It's still in moderation limbo. Though I suppose he's busy getting schooled by Gavin Schmidt, et al, because he's too dense to understand a warming world may cause the atmosphere to hold more moisture and therefore increase precipitation in some areas, including snow in winter, but cause it to melt sooner/faster in spring.

(Update: The comment was allowed to post. :) We'll see how it goes over. Somehow, in trying to get a screen capture of the comment for my own blog, and trying to submit it over at Goddard's, I managed to include a typo and omit the word "to" before "commenting." Grrrrrrrrrrr. No response to my point about the missing source, however.)

I Decided to Kick the Brainless Hornets' Nest

Steven Goddard likes to accuse NASA of cooking the books just about every five bleeding seconds. He seems determined to turn his blog into the premier source for ass-backward and completely asinine interpretations of NASA's research. No, really, the guy is simply an intellectually-stunted disaster.

I guess if you were feeling extremely generous, you could say he's truly and sincerely devoted to the extirpation of fraud wherever it may be found but just too abysmally stupid to distinguish it from legitimate research. Well, unfortunately for this slimy little blogging cretin, he doesn't even have that excuse to fall back on.

Witness his latest travesty of a post regarding sea level rise (SLR) in the Miami, FL area. You would figure, if he is indeed concerned about fraud, that when he posted the following worthless, cherry-picked graph, at the very least, he would have mentioned/linked to the source for the data. Yeah, not so much.



One centimeter of SLR in the Miami, FL area, eh, Tiny Steven? Gee, what happened to all your concern about fraud, you spineless charlatan? That went out the window quick, because, see, here's what NOAA has to say about your 1 cm...

Miami Beach, FL (~30 cm or just under 1 ft since 1900):


Vaca Key, FL (~40 cm or just over 1 ft since 1900):


Key West, FL (~30 cm or just under 1 ft since 1900):


Fort Meyers, FL (~30 cm or just under 1 ft since 1900):


In case you missed that clicking on those images gets you to the source, here is where I got those graphs. Notice how I actually link to my source, Little Squeaky Stevie Goddard?

I just couldn't let this one slide, dear blog readers, so I left the following comment over at Real Science (Jaezuz, it's painful typing that inappropriate blog title). Let's see if Goddard has the guts to let it post.

Goddard Calls Pentagon Yo-Yos; Watts Pretends It Doesn't Exist

Climate change deniers can't quite manage to wrap their empty heads around the recent Pentagon report calling global warming an immediate security threat, among other things, so their reactions are as varied as they are comical and childish.

Steven Goddard decided to dive right in and challenge DoD claims based on legitimate, peer-reviewed research with extreme ignorance and his standard, ineffectual, scientific illiteracy.

"Now Yo-Yo’s at the Pentagon blame Syrian drought on CO2...Blaming the drought on an increase of 0.0001 mole fraction CO2, is every bit as ignorant as blaming Yo-Yo’s. Mankind has not progressed,"

Forget mankind not having progressed, Little Steven, because you may single-handedly prevent our species from ever progressing. For one thing, learn how to punctuate to at least some degree of proficiency, and when to capitalize, you nitwit. I'm not asking you to be an English scholar, just to hit the period key when you should every now and then instead of ending sentences with nothing at all or commas, and to stop giving generic toys more respect than you do the Department of Defense. This is simple shit you should have mastered before completing third grade, knucklehead. And, see, smallest of Tiny-Small Stevies (notice how I capitalized your new title?), the atmosphere taken as a whole is EXTREMELY MASSIVE, and CO2 is pretty damn efficient at absorbing and reemitting infrared radiation back down to Earth, so half-wit statements like "an increase of 0.0001 mole fraction CO2" fail to take into account that going from 0.028% to 0.04% of approximately 5×10^15 metric tons is an increase of about six hundred billion metric tons of a strong greenhouse gas. Starting to sink in yet, dumb dumb? Probably not, because I'm sure you're also too dense to understand the powerful effect of an even smaller concentration of ozone, but I'll mention it, anyway, for anyone else who, unlike you, has enough intelligence to appreciate that fractional changes in trace atmospheric gases can have major impacts on us and our civilization.

In other words, you're still a miserably confused idiot, you miserably confused idiot.

However, I will give you some credit for at least acknowledging that the DoD report exists. Your buddy, Anthony Watts, couldn't even muster that much courage. Instead, since its release, he and his lackeys have been desperate to find distractions of all kinds, any distraction at all really, to avoid the point.

Steven Goddard Fails at Geography and History

A joint NOAA/PMEL/JISAO mission to study Arctic Ocean heat flux will be based out of Fairbanks, Alaska, so Steven Goddard decided it made sense to mock the study with one chilly forecast he found for a Canadian town 1,500 miles away.



Also, he has no idea the Industrial Revolution began back in the mid 1700's, so he doesn't understand that weather and climate events during the late 1800's and mid 1900's may very well have contained an anthropogenic component. And exactly what pillar of climate science comes crashing down when a drought is not worse than all those that preceded it?

"The nation’s top scientists are apparently a bunch of real geniuses."

Taking the sarcasm out of it, a "real genius" is something, I assure you, Steven, you need never worry about being mistaken for as long as you keep posting ridiculous crap on your worthless blog.

Steven Goddard Thinks Scientists Didn't March Last Sunday

You really gotta feel for the guy he's so freakin' clueless. He thinks the 97% scientific consensus is folklore (in a sense he's right, actually...it's probably more like 99% at this point), and scientists didn't show up in force for the march.

Must be tough living in the dark and so far in the past. Think he looks out his windows hoping to still see dinosaurs roaming around?

Impressive Turnout at NYC/Worldwide People's Climate March

I could not make it, but did any of my five blog readers go? Well, you may still be there, if you did, so no worries if you can't respond just yet. :)







Upwards of 300,000 people may have participated in NYC alone!

OFFICIAL COUNT: 310,000 people marching for climate justice at #PeoplesClimate March! pic.twitter.com/YGLavoKQBV

— People's Climate (@Peoples_Climate) September 21, 2014

And someone brought a drone to take aerial video. o_0



Some notable orgs and people in attendance in NYC:

• The Sierra Club.
• New York City Environmental Justice Alliance.
• Bill McKibben and 350.org.
• Transport Workers Union Local 100.
• 1199 S.E.I.U.
• Mayor Bill de Blasio.
• Many scientists, including geologist James Powell of the University of Southern California, and paleoclimatologist Peter deMenocal of Columbia University, who appeared on Science Friday with McKibben to discuss the march.
• Senators Whitehouse and Sanders.
  

  .@SenSanders and I will continue to #ActOnClimate in the Senate. Proud to march together today. #PeoplesClimate #NYC pic.twitter.com/VzpvJd9cGd

  — Sheldon Whitehouse (@SenWhitehouse) September 21, 2014

  
  And we've all learned how outspoken Bernie can be on the issue.
• Al "Deniers Can't Get Enough of Me" Gore.
  

  Proud to march with @ClimateReality at today's #PeoplesClimate march. Let your voice be heard: http://t.co/cTdCaa6JnM

  — Al Gore (@algore) September 21, 2014

• Leonardo DiCaprio.
  

  Seeing the impacts of #TarSands first hand with @SierraClub was a wake up call. #CleanEnergy now! pic.twitter.com/OvTYsBwXxU

  — Leonardo DiCaprio (@LeoDiCaprio) August 27, 2014

• Mark Ruffalo.
  

  .@UPS: Stop bankrolling climate change deniers in Congress http://t.co/Z8us3rY9th

  — Mark Ruffalo (@MarkRuffalo) September 21, 2014

And there seems to have been decent turnout in cities across the globe.

Of course, we have predictable sour grapes and put yer head down, pretend it's not happening, and cherry-pick like mad type responses from the usual denier suspects. No surprise there, however, so moving right along...

The turnout is indeed impressive, and speaks volumes about the climate realist message reaching the ears of the general public. Unfortunately, march attendance does not guarantee meaningful policy, and may only provide more fuel for the nonsensical denier argument that climate change research is where all the funding and political influence lies. I'm sure that's how this remarkable event will ultimately be spun in the deniosphere. "Oh, the poor, underdog fossil fuel companies are so unfairly beleaguered and beset from all sides by the rich scientists and powerful activists! The march in NYC is proof!" If deniers can pat themselves on the back for one thing, it's how successful they've been at changing the subject whenever anyone points out where the real money and power resides. McKibben put it best in a New York Times article today (my emphasis).

“Our biggest problem is the financial power of the fossil fuel industry,” said Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org and author of “The End of Nature.”

“We can’t match that money,” he said. “So we have to work in the currency of movements — passion, spirit, creativity and bodies — and it will all be on display on Sunday.”

I'm hopeful, but I have my doubts about policy changing soon enough if everyone merely corrects/addresses in a calm manner the unending stream of lies these deceitful bullies spew. They need to be humiliated and crushed as vociferously as possible at every ignorant turn. Stupid needs to sting now. Because, as the old adage goes, nice guys finish last.

Computer Modeling Updated Again with No Denier Reaction This Time

Unless your spaceship just landed on this planet, like, uh, yesterday, or something, you're probably aware that climate change deniers constantly cry, moan, wail, and wet their diapers whenever computer simulations DO NOT PRECISELY MATCH OBSERVATION.

My, oh, my, how these infantile twits can carry on worse than a two year-old who wants out of the crib.

Strangely, though they demand perfection, they especially hate it when the data or algorithms upon which the models are based get adjusted/updated and results improve, even though near-exhaustive explanations for the changes are often provided. No, really, if you're not as childish and intellectually-lazy as Anthony Watts and Steven Goddard, you can find rather pedestrian reasons and clarifications after like five seconds of searching the Web.

Maybe strangest of all is the fact that when you ask these screwballs for an alternative future-climate predictor to replace the computer models they hate so much, this is the deafening response:



Yeah, I know. I can't figure these denier wingnuts out either.

You and I, dear reader, both know there's no comparison, but because deniers can't understand climate models or how they work at all, they look at them like, say, a really bad sweater that Grandma bought them. For some bizarre reason, they'll go ahead and wear an article of clothing they hate, rather than letting Grandma know what they really want for the holidays or their birthday next time, or just simply returning it and getting something different. If their ignorant, unhelpful reactions to models which include no descriptions of what they would prefer we use to make climatic forecasts are any guide, they have to think doing nothing but moaning and groaning out loud about Grandma's horrific gift to anyone within range of their voice will somehow magically make a situation they find untenable better. How I don't know.

So much to my surprise, deniers didn't make a single, solitary peep when this study was released recently, declaring that, by changing a critical assumption made by basically every scientist in the field and re-running the computer simulations over again, the results began matching observation much, much more closely.

Apparently, if you assume dark matter only has gravitational effects, and does not interact at all with light, your computer models spit out something that does not reflect reality and that looks like this with many unobserved dwarf galaxies orbiting larger galaxies like our own Milky Way:



Now, if you tweak the computer models just a wee-bit, and let the simulated dark matter interact ever so slightly with radiation like photons and neutrinos, you get something that looks a lot more like what we actually see when we look out at our galactic neighborhood which has very few dwarf companions:



Man, how did that modeling fudge and flip-flop escape climate change deniers' notice, not produce a flurry of puerile tantrums, and—?

Wait, wait, right, never mind. My bad. I forgot. Climatology is the only field of scholarly inquiry that deniers would prohibit from using and refining computer models. Everybody else, including cosmologists and astrophysicists, can do whatever they like with their digital simulations, and deniers won't care a lick or shed a single tear over the alterations. Nope, not one vicious accusation of hypocrisy or professional misconduct will be made. No email accounts hacked. No public misinformation campaigns funded and initiated by think tanks dedicated to science denial. Miraculously, none of that will go down as long as the scientists in question aren't climate experts. Sheesh, how did I let that absurd state of denier affairs slip my mind? Well, in my own defense, I guess that's what can happen when you don't obsess irrationally over one area of study, and instead you treat all scientists and their research, regardless of discipline, in the same democratic, levelheaded manner.

Note: Dark matter study analysis and pictures courtesy of Brian Koberlein.

Steven Goddard Relies on Al Gore for His Arctic Information

Most intelligent people interested in the real story of what's going on up in the Arctic due to climate change visit sources like the NSIDC and PIOMAS, or sites that use their data. That's how you get a clear and well-evidenced picture of the disturbing ice loss trend over the past few decades due to our greenhouse gas emissions.







Steven Goddard, however, trusts to his own interpretation of Al Gore's words, so he had the strange idea in his mostly empty head that the Arctic would be ice-free this year. Weird, because I thought that, despite being smitten, climate change deniers like Goddard were against what Al Gore had to say — you know, because he's fat and rich and all that deep and important stuff — and would therefore dismiss his opinion. Nope, turns out hopelessly confused trolls like Goddard are so hopelessly confused that they rely on Grandpa Al for predictions about the Arctic, and are astounded when they turn out to be untrue and more scientifically-accurate sources tell the real story.

Then again, who am I fooling? I mean, these screwball denier trolls have only had about half a decade to figure what Gore was really saying and what prompted it, but, surprise, surprise, they failed to do so.

Maslowski is on the record stating he thought it possible that we'd lose all summer ice cover in the Arctic by 2013. Let's do some math. That is 3.5 years from now. Gore said 75% chance in 5 to 7 years based apparently on personal conversations with Maslowski. You know what? Gore's statement was a conservative estimate relative to what I found Maslowski has said on the record.

Shocking that Goddard and crew are so embarrassingly lost, I know.

Risky Climate Business

You may or may not be aware that back in June some radical, fringe climate change activists, who operate with the clear and open goal of communism in mind according to Steven Goddard, released a report on the economic risks of climate change.

Let's see who made it onto Goddard's neo-McCarthyism blacklist this time by way of their participation in the project which led to this report, shall we?

Michael R. Bloomberg, founder Bloomberg L.P.; Republican/Independent Mayor of NYC

Henry M. Paulson, Jr., former CEO Goldman Sachs; former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury under Bush

Thomas F. Steyer, founder Farallon Capital Management LLC

Henry Cisneros, founder and chairman CityView Capital; former U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under Clinton; former Mayor of San Antonio

Gregory Page, former CEO Cargill, Inc.

Robert E. Rubin, co-chairman Council on Foreign Relations; former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton

George P. Shultz, former U.S. Secretary of State under Reagan; former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury under Nixon; former U.S. Secretary of Labor under Nixon; former director Office of Management and Budget under Nixon; former president Bechtel Group

Donna E. Shalala, president University of Miami; former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services under Clinton

Olympia Snowe, former Republican U.S. Senator representing Maine

Dr. Alfred Sommer, Dean Emeritus, Bloomberg School of Public Health; University Distinguished Service Professor, Johns Hopkins University

Wow. Quite a list of notable communist party members, huh? I mean, geez, Louise, who knew there were so many Marxist-Leninists hiding in plain American capitalist sight?

If you read the report, you will see why I now have no problem bequeathing unto these somewhat unexpected and unlikely politicians, bureaucrats, and financial sector heavy-hitters the label "climate change activists." It's loaded with some unequivocal, take-no-climate-change-denier-prisoners quotes from them.

"Damages from storms, flooding, and heat waves are already costing local economies billions of dollars—we saw that firsthand in New York City with Hurricane Sandy. With the oceans rising and the climate changing, the Risky Business report details the costs of inaction in ways that are easy to understand in dollars and cents—and impossible to ignore."

-Michael Bloomberg

"I know a lot about financial risks—in fact, I spent nearly my whole career managing risks and dealing with financial crisis. Today I see another type of crisis looming: A climate crisis. And while not financial in nature, it threatens our economy just the same."

-Henry Paulson

"Talking about climate change in terms of U.S. averages is like saying, ‘My head is in the refrigerator, and my feet are in the oven, so overall I’m average.’"

-Tom Steyer

"I think we have to begin by recognizing the reality and severity of this threat to our economies, both United States and globally, and really to life on earth more broadly as we know it. We also have to recognize that this problem needs to be dealt with now. We cannot wait because greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, once they’re there, remain there for centuries so that every year is greater and more severe in terms of greenhouse gas emissions cumulatively than had been the case the year before."

-Robert Rubin

And some striking passages from the report itself:

The signature effects of human-induced climate change—rising seas, increased damage from storm surge, more frequent bouts of extreme heat—all have specific, measurable impacts on our nation’s current assets and ongoing economic activity.

Our findings show that, if we continue on our current path, many regions of the U.S. face the prospect of serious economic effects from climate change.

Within the next 15 years, higher sea levels combined with storm surge will likely increase the average annual cost of coastal storms along the Eastern Seaboard and the Gulf of Mexico by $2 billion to $3.5 billion. Adding in potential changes in hurricane activity, the likely increase in average annual losses grows to up to $7.3 billion, bringing the total annual price tag for hurricanes and other coastal storms to $35 billion.

A defining characteristic of agriculture in the U.S. is its ability to adapt. But the adaptation challenge going forward for certain farmers in specific counties in the Midwest and South will be significant. Without adaptation, some Midwestern and Southern counties could see a decline in yields of more than 10% over the next 5 to 25 years should they continue to sow corn, wheat, soy and cotton, with a 1-in-20 chance of yield losses of these crops of more than 20%.

Greenhouse gas-driven changes in temperature will likely necessitate the construction of up to 95 gigawatts of new power generation capacity over the next 5 to 25 years—the equivalent of roughly 200 average coal or natural gas-fired power plants—costing residential and commercial ratepayers up to $12 billion per year.

We are either facing a new Red Threat, the likes of which would make J. Edgar Hoover blanch, as Goddard would have us believe, or a severe climatic and economic disaster of our own making, as this bipartisan study argues.

I leave it to you, dear reader, to decide which is the likelier case. Yeah, I know, you're gonna be hard-pressed reaching a conclusion.

Understanding Steven Goddard (Spoiler Alert: Fool's Errand)

A while back, I blogged about an apparent concentrated effort, campaign, or maybe even a veritable crusade on the part of Steven Goddard to devolve into a completely incoherent and irrational disaster before the very eyes of the world. Well, I must admit I drastically underestimated his desire and determination that we all find him utterly incomprehensible.

Today, we had this odd, indecipherable blurb from him:

Understanding The Hiatus

"The global warming hiatus is easy to understand.

It is much harder for NOAA to tamper with post 1979 global data, because we now have satellite data – which restricts the amount of cheating which they can do."

In point of fact, the hiatus is easy to understand...it's the hiatus that wasn't and ain't.

But, wait, Goddard is claiming proof of the "pause" is more dependent on satellite data than surface station data? Huh? Let's look at the data sources behind the so-called "pause," shall we?



NOAA/NCDC: surface stations.

NASA/GISS: surface stations.

CRU/HADCRU: surface stations.

ERAI: surface stations.

Even if it's the case that "pausers" are having a steamier love affair with, say, UAH or RSS satellite data, or numbers drawn from some other NASA satellites or temperature data derivation technique, uh, how exactly is it that these alleged impervious sources have allowed GISS to continue its devious US surface temperature manipulation as Goddard claims is the case? How did those supposed data-shifting shenanigans slip through the hiatus-guaranteeing, tamper-resistant, satellite gauntlet again exactly, hmmmmmmm?

Can anyone figure this Goddard nutjob out? With whom is this cretinous idiot even arguing anymore? Himself?! Has his science denial become so virulent that he even denies his own pseudoscientific conspiracy theories? Anything remotely scientific-sounding (which gives him and his bubbling blog bilge more credit than they deserve) is a target? Or is it just that he has been so roundly and soundly thrashed and humiliated before that he is too afraid to go after anything but his own unscientific garbage now?

What.

The.

Fuck?!

Bettman and the NHL Continue Their Communist Ways

Despite having their real Marxist-Leninist agenda unmasked by Steven Goddard, Bettman and the NHL stubbornly and unabashedly persist in their climate change activism.

"Where so many of our great athletes first learned to skate the ponds aren't freezing."

-Gary Bettman, NHL League Comm(unist)issioner

I would like to point out that the CBC reporter draws the same conclusion I do about the league's attempt to minimize its carbon footprint serving more as a beneficial example than a true means of reducing worldwide GHGs. Great communist minds think alike, ya know? And hopefully, whether or not they require winter weather, other sports leagues follow the NHL's lead here.

Steven Goddard, the Sad, Sad, Little Troll, Part 2

Steven Goddard, Nitpicking Denier P. I.

"Two years ago, I caught NSIDC pulling a fast one in their sea ice graphs. A few hours before the Arctic extent line was about to cross the 1979-2000 mean line, they changed their plotting scheme to use a five day trailing average for the current ice and a nine day trailing average for the climatology. This moved the extent line away from the mean line, and narrowly avoided the immediate death of the death spiral.

I pointed out to them they can’t do that because it puts a two day relative shift in the data – and after arguing with me about it they admitted they can’t do that and fixed it the next day."

He caught them pulling a fast one, and told them they couldn't do that, dontchya know?

Some actual references/correspondences showing that this back-and-forth really happened, rather than his hearsay assertion two years later, would be nice (no, I'm not doing him the favor of scouring his archives), but let's cue up the hotshot private investigator music for him, anyway...



Too bad he couldn't catch the Arctic pulling a fast one back in 2012 before it decided to set a sea ice minimum record. But I guess if Steven Goddard, Nitpicking Denier P. I., weren't on the job policing the NSIDC, the Arctic would have tried to get away with even less sea ice that year, ya know?

Steven Goddard, the Sad, Sad, Little Troll, Part 1

Steven Goddard would like to remind you once again that his "grasp" of science is so infantile he does not know the difference between one scientist and a consensus, and foundational and frontier research.

"In 1950, the scientific consensus was that continents don’t move, and that there was life on Mars"

His "understanding" is so abysmal that one MIT researcher's analysis amounts to a consensus in geology for Goddard, and decades before we reached the Moon or had a meaningful human presence in space, let alone telescopes in orbit around the Earth, Sun, and Mars and rovers on the surface of Mars, which make robust observations that negate our uninformed best-guesses about the possibility of life there, or years before we even conceived of the field of astrobiology, to him, this nascent level of astronomical study in the 50's somehow equates to what we know about the interaction between climate and our emissions today thanks to well over a century of climatological research.

Goddard displays the same pathetic inability to distinguish between established scientific fact and groundbreaking research here as Rush Limbaugh often does in his absolutely worthless misinformation-fest of a radio show. In fact, wallowing in this brand of blockheaded, willful ignorance seems to be the preferred behavior of most if not all science deniers.

I suppose I should be thankful, however, because as far as sources of unbelievable, head-slapping denier stupidity are concerned, he's the gift that keeps on giving.