If a CO2 study concludes that man is not killing the planet with his evil economic activity, does it make a sound?

No. Don’t be silly.

No Increase of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years « Watts Up With That?

Everybody else in the media today is playing catch-up. So if you’d like to read the original press release and participate in the already ripe comments left then, see this WUWT story: Bombshell from Bristol: Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? – study says “no”

That second link starts out:

New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

Scientific consensus could not be reached for comment.

Welcome to Copenhagen! Enjoy our riots!

Outside, unwashed morons protest and police respond with pepper spray and beat-downs.

Inside, slimy rent-seekers attempt extortion against rich countries using global warming as a proxy.

All this fuss over an increase of a few PPM of CO2 in our atmosphere? Just imagine the ruckus if something important was going on!

At least the morons and hippies protesting the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago had a real war to ignite their fires. Gotta give ‘em that.

What Copenhagen is really about: money, i.e., economic redistribution and tax revenues

They’re politicians. They can’t be honest, or we’d kick them all out.

Capping Emissions, Trading On The Future – Forbes.com

The media shills, scientists, bureaucrats and corporate rent-seekers gathered at Copenhagen won’t give much thought to what this means to the industrialized world’s middle and working class. For many of them the new carbon regime means a gradual decline in living standards. Huge increases in energy costs, taxes and a spate of regulatory mandates will restrict their access to everything from single-family housing and personal mobility to employment in carbon-intensive industries like construction, manufacturing, warehousing and agriculture.

You can get a glimpse of this future in high-unemployment California. Here a burgeoning regulatory regime tied to global warming threatens to turn the state into a total “no go” economic development zone. Not only do companies have to deal with high taxes, cascading energy prices and regulations, they now face audits of their impact on global warming. Far easier to move your project to Texas–or if necessary, China.

Politicians who can raise your taxes don’t need to care about the dangers of chasing business away to other countries. It doesn’t affect them, or at least, not directly. It affects you and me though, because it affects the economy that sustains us.

Politicians who understand how markets and economies work would realize that they benefit from a robust economy as well, in the form of higher absolute tax revenues. But they’d rather just enrich themselves by making deals under the table and then raise our taxes when the going gets tough. It’s probably easier.

I find this next part particularly interesting. It frames the debate as a class war, which is an angle that probably isn’t highlighted enough:

So why do leaders like Barack Obama and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown continue identifying themselves with the climate change agenda and policies like cap and trade? Perhaps it’s best to see this as a clash of classes. Today’s environmental movement reflects the values of a large portion of the post-industrial upper class. The big money behind the warming industry includes many powerful corporate interests that would benefit from a super-regulated environment that would all but eliminate potential upstarts.

These people generally also do not fear the loss of millions of factory, truck, construction and agriculture-related jobs slated to be “de-developed.” These tasks can shift to China, India or Vietnam–where the net emissions would no doubt be higher–at little immediate cost to tenured professors, nonprofit executives or investment bankers. The endowments and the investment funds can just as happily mint their profits in Chongqing as in Chicago.

Global warming-driven land-use legislation possesses a similarly pro-gentry slant. Suburban single family homes need to be sacrificed in the name of climate change, but this will not threaten the large Park Avenue apartments and private retreats of media superstars, financial tycoons and the scions of former carbon-spewing fortunes. After all, you can always pay for your pleasure with “carbon offsets.”

It’s like a big game of Risk to these corrupt fools.And we are the game pieces.

I think what this gets down to is the same split that I’ve identified in the past as the key distinction in political life, despite Left vs. Right diversions: between political haves and have-nots. The corrupt and the regular folks that work for a living. More and more, this is the split that informs my worldview and is validated week after week.

Copenhagen is war all right, it’s just fought with CO2 and money instead of bullets and bombs.

On distinguishing between evidence and total bullshit

One thing I find amusing in the various reactions to the leaked ClimateGate CRU files is the position summarized by: “sure they are embarrassing, but they don’t mean that much in the big picture“. Or that the substance of the files is the emails rather than the software files themselves.

Really? Are you sure? Because I think they do mean “that much”. And the reason I think that is because it’s true. And I find it amusing that so many people think we are so stupid that they can say something so dumb and illogical, and then expect us to believe it.

We’re not as dumb as we look, you know.

Let’s lay out some truth for a change, and analyze it. Just for fun.

The media thinks we’re all morons

Stories like this are exactly why the mainstream media has become a joke: Stolen Climate E-Mails Cause A Ruckus In Congress : NPR.

That headline is ridiculous, and so is the story. The real story here is not that emails were “stolen”, especially since the best evidence indicates that they were leaked. And since all these files were the target of multiple FOI requests by scientists trying to dig into the research, for years, but denied every step of the way, an unbiased observer might conclude that this information was really public for all intents and purposes, anyway, and should have been available years ago. Plus, I thought the media loved using FOI requests to bring down the powerful and the arrogant? Yet now they don’t even want to mention it without using loaded words like “stolen”. So very, very odd!

And the real fallout from the real story is much, much more than a “ruckus”; use of the word ruckus frames it as a bunch of spoiled brats arguing about who touched who first. The real story with the “stolen emails” is that the credibility of the IPCC–what was still left of it, anyway–is gone.

“Boston Globe Climate Beclownment Spectacular”

You just know that Global Warming as a political movement is in big, big trouble when you read these reader comments to a Boston Globe “green” story about a supposed threat from a small future sea level increase.

Some really funny stuff here. Which means (94% confidence interval) that this party is just about over.

But really, forget the politics, there is some funny stuff there. Here are just a few:

Yes! I’m getting waterfront property in Beacon Hill!

This would be interesting we didn’t just learn that climate researchers have been engaged in massive fraud.

Wow- then all those overpriced condos really will be “underwater”!!!

Help us, Obama-wan Kenobi, you are our only hope!

My favorite, though, is this:
\

That’s why we have boats right? Where is Dennis Quade when you need him?

Links and Aggravation

I really don’t know what the hell is going on with our country any more. I read all of these stories in ONE DAY …

Does Obama Believe in Human Rights? – When it suits him. And just in his speeches. Bret Stephens lists the failures: the Berlin Wall, China, Sudan, Iran, Burma. Quoted:

It takes a remarkable presumption of good faith, or perhaps stupidity, to imagine that the Burmas or Sudans of the world would reciprocate Mr. Obama’s engagement except to seek their own advantage. … It also takes a remarkable degree of cynicism—or perhaps cowardice—to treat human rights as something that “interferes” with America’s purposes in the world, rather than as the very thing that ought to define them.

Rights Watchdog, Lost in the Mideast – Humans Rights Watch founder Robert Bernstein: “As the founder of Human Rights Watch, its active chairman for 20 years and now founding chairman emeritus, I must do something that I never anticipated: I must publicly join the group’s critics.” Finally, a sane voice in a human rights group.

What Singapore Can Teach the White House – Universal health care with individual responsibility seems to be working in Singapore. We aren’t following that model.

A Survival Strategy for Free Enterprise Over the Long Term – The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has rolled over on fighting a carbon tax: “what we need is a carbon tax.” No, we don’t. In fact, that is exactly what we don’t need. Are you freaking kidding me? A business group endorsing a tax on economic activity? This is the stupidest public comment I’ve heard in … hours.

Excuses wearing thin for Obama, media pals – And now we see why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has rolled over on fighting a carbon tax: “The MSNBC blast against the chamber appears to dovetail with what the Politico newspaper reports is a White House and Democratic effort “to marginalize” the business organization.”.

What the Limbaugh Quote Hoax Really Tells Us – Frankly, the demonization of conservatives really needs to stop. It’s become tedious. And frankly, it makes the Left look vapid, paranoid, and venal. Is that what they want?

Holy Skewed Temperature Samples, Batman!

Just because some call it “science” does not make it so:

Eighty-nine percent of official U.S. temperature measurement stations are corrupted by poor site selection that gives false warming signals, according to a new study  by meteorologist Anthony Watts.

According to the federal government’s own siting criteria, the corrupting influences at those stations create a margin of error larger than the entire asserted warming of the twentieth century.

Eighty. Nine. Percent.

For those who don’t understand how embarrassing this is for the entire CO2-is-warming-the-planet theory, let me explain.

There are two key points here: the climate data itself is corrupted, and the climate models that use that data are unproven.

Climate Data is Corrupted

Computer models are the main support for the idea that CO2 warms the planet in the first place. There is no other evidence, to my knowledge, that supports CO2 as a primary driver for warming. These models are pretty much it. In fact, historical ice cores show the opposite, that CO2 is a symptom of warming, not a cause, and that the CO2 buildup lags the warming by about 800 years.

Those computer models, of course, need a bunch of historical data points as input in order to crunch the numbers and make predictions into the future.

Among the data they need, of course, is temperature data. And apparently, 89% of that data is basically garbage.

If the input data is garbage, then it doesn’t matter how great the rest of the modeling software is, the conclusions it presents are garbage too.

Climate Models are Unproven

And as it happens, the computer models used by the IPCC are suspect as well, because they haven’t published the source code so that it can be peer reviewed. Here’s why that is important.

I’ve worked in the software industry for over 25 years, most of that as a software developer. Computers are not magic. They can only do what the code they are running tells them to do. If that code has even minor errors in logic, the results are suspect.

To accept the conclusions of a software model that predicts the future, obviously you have no reality to compare the model’s conclusions with. So you need to have a “code review” by unbiased software developers who did not write that code, in order to check for logic errors, remove potential biases, ask questions like “why are you doing this here”, etc. It has to be examined, line by line, to see exactly what is going on in there, what inputs it is using, what it does with those inputs, the assumptions it makes about the effect of the different inputs, etc.

For all we know, a climate software model that hasn’t had a code review could be reading Ted Williams’ stats from baseball-reference.com and then saying “look, the planet is heating up!”. Who really knows? You can’t. Computer software is inherently secretive unless the source code is accessible to experts who can de-cipher it.

And until that code is available for the experts to examine, the models themselves are little more than a plaything.

What Science Does and Does Not Look Like

Yet, somehow, these playthings have been accepted as proof positive by the IPCC and the various governmental agencies the world over. They are untroubled by the lack of accountability on the part of the climate modelers.

That, my friends, is “advocacy”, not “science”.

So. The temperature samples are flawed, and so are the climate models that use the temperatures samples as input. Which means we have not just one, but two layers of obfuscation hampering our predictive ability regarding climate.

And according to the article above, the margin of error just from the bad sampling methodology alone is greater than the entire asserted warming of the twentieth century. Let that soak in for a second.

We keep hearing about a “scientific consensus” that CO2 is warming the planet. What does all of the above that tell you about the “scientists” who formed that consensus? What does it tell you about the degree of confidence we can have in their conclusions?

Science isn’t about “consensus”. This ain’t American Idol.

Science is about proof, and facts, and using those facts to prove (or disprove) theories. Scientists are supposed to be their own worst critics, and turn every implicit assumption on it’s head, and try to disprove their own theory. The science itself must stand on its own, otherwise, it’s bad science, and deserves to be ignored.

Where is the skepticism, the sharing of ideas, the spirit of pushing knowledge forward for the good of all mankind?

Real scientists do not hide their methods and threaten their questioners. Real scientists welcome examination of their data and methods in a spirit of inquiry and the advancement of mankind.

But in today’s increasingly bizarre world, to question any of this is to risk being considered a lunatic. Supposedly, the sane people are the ones who believe in skewed samples and flawed models. How did that happen? It’s like Pope Benedict and Galileo all over again. As Pope John Paul said about that dark period of scientific history, “This led them unduly to transpose into the realm of the doctrine of the faith, a question which in fact pertained to scientific investigation.” And so it seems to be happening again.

But as I must constantly remind myself, global warming isn’t about science, it’s about politics and using fear to scare us into supporting new taxes on our energy use and lifestyle.

And it is all based on the most ridiculous “science” one could possibly imagine: bad data feeding bad models. Now hand over your money!

I am always open to theories that are logically sensible and supported by evidence. And I invite anybody who disagrees with my points above to both (a) point me to a qualified review of any IPCC climate modeling source code, AND (b) disprove the conclusions of Anthony Watts regarding corrupted temperature samples. Real science requires that *all* of the steps along the way be correct. Every. Step.

Until such time, I’ll be disregarding all talk about warming the planet with CO2.

And I have to say I’m not wild about money-grubbing politicians and “scientists” using advocacy and obfuscation to deceive me into throwing money at them, on the pretense that it will fix a future problem for which there is no reliable supporting evidence.

Sorry, I’m not riding that train. Why would anybody?

Stupid Is as Stupid Does

And Waxman-Markey thinks YOU are stupid enough to support this dumb idea:

Now Congress is trying to pass a new law called ‘Cap and Trade,’ which is really just another new energy tax. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the new tax could cost you between 61 cents and $1.60 for every gallon of gas you buy. Economists think this could cost the average family $3,100 a year. I’m working hard to defeat this new tax.

Funny how that huge tax increase on everybody who drives doesn’t seem to resonate in the media. Huh.

I have a feeling it would resonate with the consumer.

That passage above is from this link at the site of my congressman, Peter Roskam (Ill.). I sent him an email today requesting that he vote no on that legislation, before I knew how strongly he already opposed it. He doesn’t like the Waxman-Markey bill. He is a smart man.

You can also find this graphic at that link, reflecting the cost of gas in Chicago, which already pays the highest prices in the nation, and which could increase by up to $1.60:

http://roskam.house.gov/Issues/Issue/?IssueID=4291

Thanks, but no. Sorry … I’m really trying to cut down.

Fight Back, or Get Used to Sending More of Your Money to the IRS to Slay Imaginary Dragons

In a stunning development, we have learned that Congress is right now crafting legislation that is not just useless, but dangerous and expensive too.

Which, like, hardly ever happens!

It’s called the Waxman-Markey bill. You might not know about it, but you should, because it is just the latest example of how government deceives you in order to take your money. It’s what they do.

It presumes a global warming crisis that is actually unraveling as we speak, as new, compelling evidence emerges nearly every week that we are now entering a historic cooling period.

It assumes that even if this climate crisis did exist, it is best fixed by … collecting money. Really. This is what Congress does: think up ways to waste our money on mostly ineffectual and sometimes downright dangerous “solutions”. When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

And even if you buy into all that silliness, the proposed solution hasn’t worked very well in Europe.

Summing up then:

1. A crisis that doesn’t exist,
2. used to coerce you and me into paying more money into our government,
3. to fund a solution that won’t work.

A perfect storm of pandering.

I know global warming is the current “hot button” issue of the day, and lots of people view it as a crisis that needs our attention. But it doesn’t take very long to discover that the “science” behind it is extremely shaky; in fact, it is not science at all. That’s why they use words like “global warming denier”: it’s a belief system.

Usually, investing your faith where it doesn’t belong is a pretty bad idea. Render unto Caesar, etc.

And we don’t need lies in order to pursue reasonable energy and environmental policies. There were already plenty of good reasons to support the “green” lifestyle. For years, I’ve supported recycling, fuel conservation, and research into new sources of energy. I could support things like wind farms if there was any hope that such a thing could work in a huge country like the United States. And we need to re-open drilling in places like ANWR in Alaska and offshore. The caribou and the godforsaken mosquitoes in ANWR  won’t mind, and other countries are drilling off our shores already, so what do we gain by sitting it out?

But what we don’t need is fear-mongering based on half-baked theories, and taxation that couldn’t fix it anyway. Plus, of course, the meddling in economic markets, which didn’t work out too well with the mortgages.

And even worse, all the social divisions created by all of it. You risk being called ridiculous names by “scientists” if you dare to question their methods and conclusions. Really?

Cute documentaries with polar bears is one thing; turning the junk science behind it into a demand for tax revenue is quite another.

We don’t need the Waxman-Markey bill, or anything remotely like it.