☰ Menu
All Da King's Men

If It's Weather, It Must Be Climate Change

By Da King Published: April 30, 2011

The despicable people over at ThinkProgress wasted no time in politicizing the deadly tornados that have killed 300 people in Alabama and other states. In a piece called Storm Kills Over 250 Americans In States Represented By Climate Pollution Deniers, the renowned liberal climatologists at StinkProgress blamed the tornados on

global warming climate change. Here's an excerpt:

“Given that global warming is unequivocal,” climate scientist Kevin Trenberth cautioned the American Meteorological Society in January of this year, “the null hypothesis should be that all weather events are affected by global warming rather than the inane statements along the lines of ‘of course we cannot attribute any particular weather event to global warming.’”

The congressional delegations of these states — Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia, Virginia, and Kentucky — overwhelmingly voted to reject the science that polluting the climate is dangerous. They are deliberately ignoring the warnings from scientists.

In other words, those southern sh*tkickers (to use one of my liberal blogger pal the Reverend's favored adjectives for describing people from southern states), had it coming for not believing in the

religion science of global warming, and for voting Republican, of course. Such people basically deserve to die. Also, notice that the climate scientist quoted by StinkProgress is promoting the 'all weather is attributable to global warming now' hypothesis. I describe this "scientific" belief system as follows...

If it's hot, it's global warming.
If it's cold, it's global warming.
If it's windy, it's global warming.
If it's calm, it's global warming.
If it rains, it's global warming.
If it's dry, it's global warming.

With this belief system, the global warmers have conveniently closed the circle, because there is now NO weather pattern they can't attribute to global warming. Thus, their hypothesis can NEVER be disproven, and never needs to be proven either. They have reached the 'if it's weather, it's climate change' stage of omnipotent inviolability. And they wonder why I refer to this as more of a religion than a scientific pursuit.

Fortunately, not all climatologists kneel down before the global warming gods in such knee-jerk fashion as do the StinkProgress types. When tornados appear in a region of the country that has long been known as 'Tornado Alley', those with common sense don't immediately attribute it to global warming and warn the tornado victims to repent or die. No, instead, they attribute the tornados to springtime:

US meteorologists warned Thursday it would be a mistake to blame climate change for a seeming increase in tornadoes in the wake of deadly storms that have ripped through the US south.

"If you look at the past 60 years of data, the number of tornadoes is increasing significantly, but it's agreed upon by the tornado community that it's not a real increase," said Grady Dixon, assistant professor of meteorology and climatology at Mississippi State University.

"It's having to do with better (weather tracking) technology, more population, the fact that the population is better educated and more aware. So we're seeing them more often," Dixon said.

But he said it would be "a terrible mistake" to relate the up-tick to climate change

Craig Fugate, administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), also dismissed Thursday climate change as a factor in the deadly tornadoes: "Actually what we're seeing is springtime," he said.

"Many people think of Oklahoma as 'Tornado Alley' and forget that the southeast United States actually has a history of longer and more powerful tornadoes that stay on the ground longer."

The stronger-than-usual tornadoes affecting the southern states were actually predicted from examining the planet's climatological patterns, specifically those related to the La Nina phenomenon.

"We knew it was going to be a big tornado year," he said. But the key to that tip-off was unrelated to climate change: "It is related to the natural fluctuations of the planet."

The StinkProgressers would all probably shout "heretics !" at this information and refer to their fellow scientists as 'deniers" of the true faith, but enough with the religious fervor of global warming disciples. I want to return to some global warming data from a couple years ago. Informed people know the 2001 UN hockey stick graph was wrong from the moment it was published, and informed people also know about the Climategate scandal from a couple years ago, where the pre-eminent global warming promoters, the CRU from East Anglia, were attempting to fix the global warming data. The CRU's "findings" figured prominently in the UN's global warming findings. The problem is, that data was a joke. I want to put forth something I've never mentioned before, and have never seen reported on television. It's commonly known as the Harry_Read_Me file, and it contains 274 pages of frustrated e-mails from a CRU computer programmer who is attempting in vain to extract the information the CRU global warmers want from a mountain of data. Time and again, the programmer fails to get the desired CRU conclusions, so he finally just more or less makes up what the global warmers want to hear. These e-mails are absolutely damning, and if any of you are programmers out there, as I am, reading enough of this nonsense will make you realize exactly how damning they are. The e-mails are way too long to quote, and much of it is in computerese, so I'll give you some of the highlights. These are some of the e-mail statements from the CRU programmer, only a fraction of the information:

“But what are all those monthly files? DON’T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look, there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And that’s useless …” (Page 17)

- “It’s botch after botch after botch.” (18)

- “The biggest immediate problem was the loss of an hour’s edits to the program, when the network died … no explanation from anyone, I hope it’s not a return to last year’s troubles … This surely is the worst project I’ve ever attempted. Eeeek.” (31)

- “Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite.” (37)

- “… this should all have been rewritten from scratch a year ago!” (45)

- “Am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!” (47)

- “As far as I can see, this renders the (weather) station counts totally meaningless.” (57)

- “COBAR AIRPORT AWS (data from an Australian weather station) cannot start in 1962, it didn’t open until 1993!” (71)

- “What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah — there is no ’supposed,’ I can make it up. So I have : – )” (98)

- “You can’t imagine what this has cost me — to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO (World Meteorological Organization) codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a ‘Master’ database of dubious provenance …” (98)

- “So with a somewhat cynical shrug, I added the nuclear option — to match every WMO possible, and turn the rest into new stations … In other words what CRU usually do. It will allow bad databases to pass unnoticed, and good databases to become bad …” (98-9)

- “OH F— THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases.” (241).

- “This whole project is SUCH A MESS …” (266)

Any questions ? There's an old saying in the computer programming world, 'garbage in, garbage out'. It means that if your input data is faulty, your output results will be worthless. I've never seen a better example of 'garbage in, garbage out' than the data the CRU programmer was working with, and I spent 26 years in the programming business.

The global warming research scientists all subsequently closed ranks around CRU and each other, saying there was no impropriety at CRU, naturally, but...are we really supposed to believe that ? Their funding and careers depend of global warming being real and a serious threat, and the facts speak for themselves.

Finally, it's not my purpose to discredit the science of global warming, but I am skeptical. I'm not sure how that is a bad thing. I thought science was SUPPOSED to be skeptical as it searched for more and better answers, especially when the data is in serious question. Without skepticism, there is no scientific advancement. When I get worried is when scientists start saying "the science is settled", when there is so clearly much more to learn. That's when I start questioning their motivations. I get even more worried when politicians start dreaming up grand ideological plans to fix the "problem", that involve draconian government controls and increases in energy prices that will harm the economy, and harm the average person the most. And I get most worried of all when politically-driven people like those at StinkProgress start treating skeptics as if they are sub-human heretics who deserve to die. If I wanted intractable religious absolutism, I'd move to Iran.

Add This



About This Blog