The topic of Barry Oh’s! academic records, transcripts, standardized test scores, papers, and the likes are hermetically sealed and somehow unavailable to the public despite the theory that all information wants to be free.
I mean pirated DVD copies of the new Avengers flick were probably for sale on the streets of Beijing before it was in U.S. release, yet the President’s records are somehow absolutely leak-proof. That’s dedication, my friends. Either that or David Axelrod had everything destroyed.
But why would the President’s records need to be sealed in the first place? Simple: think Elizabeth Warren.
Warren is finally getting the vetting she deserves and as Warren Zevon would say, it ain’t that pretty at all. Affirmative action hire? Check. Sketchy scholarship? Check. Empirical emptiness? Check.
Could Barry Oh’s! record reveal the same?
Enjoy every sandwich.
Elmer Gantry is a story, and was later a film, about a con man selling religion.
It would seem some of our climate “scientists” are today’s Elmer Gantry, selling manmade global warming. But it’s hard to make much of a scare unless you have an adequate platform from which to scare with. A magazine is a useful start. A self-serious one. A self-serious one like Nature.
One of the most vociferous cheerleaders in the cause has been the Nature, which calls itself “the world’s most prestigious weekly journal of science”.
Of course, prestigious is not the same as accurate.
Whenever some landmark event in the story is approaching – such as a world climate conference or a new report by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – Nature can be relied on to come up with a new paper purporting to refute one of the more embarrassing objections to the orthodox theory. However thoroughly such a paper is then dismantled by expert critics, it will remain established as a pillar of the orthodoxy.
It isn’t unreasonable to ask what the “science” of global warming has wrought. Is it:
a) the most disturbing corruption of the peer-review process in 60 years?
b) meaningless pieces of artifice, created by skewed computer models?
c) meaningless pieces of artifice, created by skewed inputs to its computer models?
d) all the above?
Based on Booker’s article, the answer is “d.”
Now, a year ahead of the IPCC’s next major report, Nature has again provoked controversy with an article, by Jeremy Shakun et al, claiming to disprove what has long been seen as one of the most awkward facts for warmist theory. This is the evidence of ice cores which shows that, for millennia, rising levels of carbon dioxide have not preceded rising temperatures but have followed them, as warming releases more CO2 from the mighty carbon sink of the oceans.
As can be seen in full on WUWT, one of its expert contributors, Willis Eschenbach, has now carefully plotted all Shakun’s data, to show how it does not confirm his headline thesis at all. Even the Nature article admits that, when the earth was emerging from the last ice age some 15,000 years ago, it was temperatures that rose first, later followed by rises in CO2. But when Eschenbach downloaded all the CO2 data he could find, he came up with a startling discovery. Shakun had only used one CO2 data source – and he had mysteriously cut off his graph about 6,000 years ago.
When the additional data was fed in, it clearly showed CO2 continuing to rise after this point, for thousands of years, at the same time as temperatures went into a long decline.
So, to summarize, CO2 is a trailing indicator of global warming, not a precursor. And of course, if the earth emerged from the last ice age 15,000 years ago, the wheels tend to fall off the whole manmade part of manmade climate change.
The link for the Nature article is here but as Johnnie Cochran might say, scientists can make the model work, although the inputs are berserk.
The “settled science” of manmade global warming is again shown to be neither settled, nor science.
It would appear some of the shovel ready stimulus money (that is, grant money) is just now showing up at Climate Central.
And it would also appear they (Climate Central) realized Comedy Central was already taken.
And finally, it appears Climate Central is the one that didn’t get the memo.
A new report shows sea levels are rapidly rising and the study predicts the Jersey Shore could be underwater in a matter of decades.
The group found global warming is expanding sea water and causing ice sheets to melt.
Scientists believe by the end of the century, water levels will be three to four feet higher, with bigger storm surges that could wipe out low lying areas.
What scientists are we talking about here? Political scientists? Two guys with masters of science degrees? And do their engineers drive the trains?
At their site, Climate Central says this:
Global warming has raised global sea level about 8 inches since 1880, and the rate of rise is accelerating.
Eight inches, assuming its correct, doesn’t seem to be too much. But in their press release, the Climate Centralists give this ominous warning:
By 2030, many locations are likely to see storm surges combining with sea level rise to raise waters at least 4 feet above the local high-tide line.
Should anyone be worried? In a word, no. Or at least, not any more than normal.
That’s because Wikipedia tells us Hurricane Isabel (2003) caused a storm surge of over ten feet in New Jersey. Going back to 1821, the Norfolk and Long Island Hurricane provided a five foot New Jersey storm surge. Other notable New Jersey storm surges were in 1941 (9.6 feet), 1960 (6 feet), 1976 (8.85 feet), and 1985 (4.6 feet).
The Bathurst Bay Cyclone, also known as Tropical Cyclone Mahina, which struck Bathurst Bay, Australia on March 5, 1899, is generally credited with the world record for storm surge. The cyclone’s storm surge is variously listed at 13 – 14.6 meters (43 – 48 feet).
Hmm. 1899? That was before the global warming scare, so I suppose the Climate Central guys would say Think what it would be like now with all the subsequent global warming!
The back end of the extended forecast at Accuweather.com changes daily and these guys are making predictions about the end of the century?
Climate change, thy name is legion.
Perhaps you remember the double murder, the low speed chase, and the trial of the century, to include the blunder by the prosecution?
In case refreshing is required, that blunder resulted in prosecutors having OJ Simpson try on (while wearing rubber gloves) a shriveled and shrunken-by-blood glove. The blunder led to the Johnny Cochran admonition “If the glove don’t fit, you must acquit.”
Today we have the global warming apologists similarly explaining away the subterfuge/fraud/deception/ethical slip-up perpetrated by Peter Gleick.
The Johnny Cochran-lite explanation goes like this: Gleick may have lied, but he’s well justified.
Want more? OK: Gleick may be a liar but the earth’s still on fire. The models may not work, but deniers are berserk. The stick may be broke, but doubters are the joke. The facts hit the fan, but it’s all caused by man.
I could do this all day.
Fight global warming; it’s for the children (that is, it’s for the children of the scientists shaking down the government and others for massive grants).
Fake but accurate, writ large? No, still fake and inaccurate.