Activity

Usually, put R.40 insulation (12 ins of fibreglass) in attics.  It saves 98% of the heat.  Idiot Greenies would argue to put R.80 at double the cost.  However, the latter R.40 saving only 98% of 2%.  Thus saving 1.something more at double the cost.  Worthwhile?

20ppm CO2 retains 60% of IR radiation.  The next 20ppm, 60% of 40, ie 24, so now 84% absorbed.  Next 20ppm 60% of 16 thats left, 9.6, so now absorbing 93.6.  next 20ppm, 60% of balance 6.4, ie 3.84.  Now absorbing 97.6 odd.  So with JUST 80ppm absorbing 97.6…….Getit?

Your mediocre/very poor justification of not addressing the issues I have raised is pathetic.   Not one of you has EVER mentioned a SINGLE fact.  A form of DISHONESTY used often by alarmists as they attempt to bully people smarter than them.   You are INCAPABLE of any useful information.   Read the following and enjoy!

Mann, the bogus hockey stick man; SLAPP suing dynamo; lying poltroon.

In his alternative universe, he and other climate scientists are the martyrs, oppressed and silenced by the Politburo. Never mind that Mann — a tenured professor at one of the country’s top public universities — opened his testimony by reciting a prodigious list of awards he has won, books he has authored, scientific organizations he leads. He is celebrated by the media and environmental groups around the world, and yet in front of Congress he talked like a guy on his way to the Gulag.

It takes a special blend of hubris, juvenility, and dishonesty to portray yourself as a victim when you are really the bully.     Good old reversal –  Tony Robbins

It was quite a spectacle. Mann was joined on the panel (Senate hearings) by Judith Curry, John Christy, and Roger Pielke, Jr. — three scientists who have actually endured the kind of political witch-hunts Mann referred to.

Rather than present data or debate the science, Mann mostly engaged in the sophistry that has gradually undermined the credibility of climate science. He repeatedly referred to a bogus “97 percent consensus” about man-made climate change, and accused the Heartland Institute of being a “climate-change denying, Koch brothers–funded outlet.”       .

He engaged in one ad hominem attack after another against his fellow panelists and the committee’s chairman, Representative Lamar Smith. He questioned whether Smith really understood the scientific method and read a nasty quote about Smith from a smear piece in Science magazine. (How to win friends and influence people!)

Mann’s rhetoric became so inflamed that he was finally upbraided by Representative Dana Rohrabacher. “From the get go, we have heard personal attack after personal attack coming from those claiming to represent the mainstream of science,” Rohrabacher said to Mann. “Call people ‘deniers’ all you want, use any kind of name you want .

. . when we talk about Mr. Lysenko, that’s the kind of thing they did to the scientists in Russia. Try to call people names and beat them into submission, that’s a Stalinist tactic.”

LaHood called Mann on his hypocrisy: “You mention in your opening statement about staying away from that and yet we have a suit that’s been filed based on those exact same things. There’s a real disconnect between a defamation suit that does the exact same thing you’re engaged in that in this public forum.”

Turns out Mann appears to be a bit of a denier himself. Under questioning, Mann denied being involved with the Climate Accountability Institute even though he is featured on its website as a board member. CAI is one of the groups pushing a scorched-earth approach to climate deniers, urging lawmakers to employ the RICO statute against fossil-fuel corporations. When asked directly if he was either affiliated or associated with CAI, Mann answered “no.”

……….The problem was that the same tree ring data that the alarmists needed to smooth out past ups and downs in the Earth’s climate (getting rid of the MWP) showed cooling, not warming, after 1960!!!!      Is why he (Mann) used thermometer readings after 1960 to hide this.  Classy chap!

Apart from being a tetchy, hotheaded, rude, bullying, cackhanded, ignorant, malevolent and embarrassingly useless excuse for a scientist, Professor Michael Mann – the guy behind the serially-discredited Hockey Stick – is also the most outrageous liar.

Mann used often to claim that he was a Nobel Prizewinner – till someone unhelpfully pointed out that he was but one of hundreds of scientists who contributed to Assessment Reports by the IPCC (which did win the Nobel Prize in 2007)

This week the bald-pated shyster was up to his old tricks again, telling a string of porkie pies at a climate science hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.

Given how litigious the mendacious, bloviating poltroon can be – he’s currently engaged in at least two defamation suits: one against Tim Ball, the other against Mark Steyn – I obviously have to tread very carefully here.

So I’d just like to say, as delicately and politely as I can to the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science at Penn State University:“Liar, liar. Your pants on fire!”

But it was Carlson’s takedown of Bill Nye the Science Guy, a television personality and celebrity climate promoter, that exposes the intellectual chicanery behind this crusade.

During an interview on Carlson’s show on February 27, Nye goofily claimed that people who question claims about global warming suffer from cognitive dissonance: “We in the science community are looking for information why climate change deniers, or extreme skeptics, do not accept the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.”

Nye went on to say that denial is denial, the evidence is overwhelming, and the question of whether humans are causing climate change is “not an open question, it’s a settled question.”

The turd is a mediocre Mechanical Engineer.   What does he know about anything relevant?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=WZsccoSAkUI%3Fecver%3D1

Now usually when these charges are made by someone who purports to possess expertise in climate science, the interviewer acquiesces, immediately surrendering the debate to the climate activist.

But Carlson wouldn’t back down: “To what degree is climate change caused by human activity? . . . Is it 100 percent, is it 74.3 percent? If it’s settled science, please tell us to what degree human activity is responsible.”

Nye started to get uncomfortable, well aware he had no certain answer to this so-called settled question, since climate scientists cannot agree how much human activity contributes to climate change.

This is when Nye went off the rails, refusing to specify the degree to which people cause climate change and instead blaming us for the speed that climate change is happening:

This spun him into a really weird (and unscientific) spot where he started lamenting the fact that global warming has caused us to avoid another Ice Age — perhaps unaware that most people would consider freezing to death a horrible fate — and told Carlson another Ice Age “ain’t gonna happen because of you and me.”      Yay CO2!

While it’s easy to dismiss Nye’s interview as a kooky one-off appearance from an unprepared celebrity scientist, he sadly represents the lack of integrity by most climate-change pushers. They move goalposts, manufacture facts, resist honest debate, and resort to smear tactics when confronted with specific questions they cannot answer.

As Carlson said to Nye, “You really don’t know, and you bully people who ask questions.”

Randy Pauchori of the IPCC

Priapic former chair of the IPCC, railway engineer Pauchori, has come further off the rails after being accused by 2 MORE women of sexual misconduct. He is the bovine oaf who predicted all glaciers gone from the Himalayas by 2030.  Including Everest!

“He sauntered around the office sporting a big bulge in his trousers.” One anonymous complainant said, ”He would press it against you, while his greasy face smirked.  He had bad breath as well.  Smelled like he had been eating dogshit.”

This pontifying, free spending, jet setter, now confined awaiting trial, is known in India, as Dr.Lecherous.     Every young woman who came within a mile of him, was bombarded with fervent sexual requests and groping.    “His hands were everywhere!” another woman complained.”

The IPCC

The IPCC has published five reports since 1990, the latest being No 5 in 2013. For this No 5 report, it was claimed that a 95% consensus – that global warming is both occurring and man-made – exists, in spite of overwhelming evidence of nil, or nominal natural, warming.

Of 11,944 papers considered, only 41 of them actually claim global warming is caused by man-made CO2 (that’s an alarming or 0.3 of 1%).

Those that disproved global warming were dismissed. Lord Christopher Monckton (2013) of the UK’s Science and Public Policy Institute has released an exhaustive statistical research paper that concludes that scientific consensus affirming man-made global warming is just 0.3%, not the 97% claimed by the global warming whiners.

This must be the ultimate in “Reversal”, the technique of obdurately, arrogantly, reversing reality.   Surprisingly, it does work on some people.

The IPCC is a conflicted institution pushing a mandate that lacks true scientific rigour.

Moore (2013) says; “by its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years

The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled.

…………….There are countless examples of data manipulation  The levels of deception stretch across all the data involved. In any developed country, to seek public funding by tampering with data would see the culprits jailed.

As a comparison, consider an IPO prospectus seeking billions of dollars from the public without verifiable scientific information in it – let alone manipulated data.

As just one example, suspicious data records from Paraguay were found to have been changed from a downward temperature trend to an upward one (from a decline of 1 deg C to an increase of 1.5 deg C).

Not only for three initial weather stations investigated but subsequently for a number of other weather stations in the area. Worse still they then used these upward temperature records to apply to tracts of the globe where no records have been kept.

In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.”

“When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically ‘adjusted’ to show the earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

Return to Almora, published in Dr Pachauri’s native India earlier this month, tells the story of Sanjay Nath, an academic in his 60s reminiscing on his “spiritual journey” through India, Peru and the US.

On the way he encounters, among others, Shirley MacLaine, the actress, who appears as a character in the book. While relations between Sanjay and MacLaine remain platonic, he enjoys sex – a lot of sex – with a lot of women.

In breathless prose that risks making Dr Pachauri, who will be 70 this year, a laughing stock among the serious, high-minded scientists and world leaders with whom he mixes, he details sexual encounter after sexual encounter.

The book, which makes reference to the Kama Sutra, starts promisingly enough as it tells the story of a climate expert (!) with a lament for the denuded mountain slopes of Nainital, in northern India, where deforestation by the timber mafia and politicians has “endangered the fragile ecosystem”.

But talk of “denuding” is a clue of what is to come.

By page 16, Sanjay is ready for his first liaison with May in a hotel room in Nainital. “She then led him into the bedroom,” writes Dr Pachauri.

“She removed her gown, slipped off her nightie and slid under the quilt on his bed… Sanjay put his arms around her and kissed her, first with quick caresses and then the kisses becoming longer and more passionate.

“May slipped his clothes off one by one, removing her lips from his for no more than a second or two.

“Afterwards she held him close. ‘Sandy, I’ve learned something for the first time today. You are absolutely superb after meditation. Why don’t we make love every time immediately after you have meditated?’.”

More follows, including Sanjay and friends queuing to have sexual encounters with Sajni, an impoverished but willing local: “Sanjay saw a shapely dark-skinned girl lying on Vinay’s bed. He was overcome by a lust that he had never known before … He removed his clothes and began to feel Sajni’s body, caressing her voluptuous breasts.”

Take a cold shower, and read the rest of the steamy  (possibly a water vapor feedback loop) novel at the Telegraph here

Note to the U.N. – Time to kick Pachy to the curb, he’s not just toast now, he’scarbonized.In other news, The Love Guru has this relevant quote from a hockey team member:“there’s no connection between hockey and my love life”He is a graduate of the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering. He’s not a climatologist but a railroad engineer.

So, if he ever avails himself of a free half-hour with a Copenhagen hooker, I’m sure, like the Bombay to Cochin express, he’ll pull out on time.  Ha, ha!!!

But it’s hard to see why he should be presiding over a multi-trillion-dollar shakedown of the global economy. For one thing, Dr. Pachauri has one of the largest carbon footprints on the planet.

He’s in favour of “hefty aviation taxes” to “deter people from flying,” but fortunately once you’re part of the transnational jet set nothing can deter you.

He flew 443,243 miles on “IPCC business” in the year-and-a-half run-up to Copenhagen. I’m not sure whether that includes his two weekend round trips from New York to Delhi, once for a cricket practice, once for a match.