Tuesday, June 09, 2015

An Agenda Of Truth Telling Re Global Climate Change "Tiring" And "Distracting" Sez Irrational Fellow

Stopping the development of clean energy in its tracks by ending the wind-energy tax credit and other clean-energy initiatives, while keeping subsidies for Big Oil ~ One of the goals of the GOP-Controlled Congress in service of their corporate masters. (From the National Resources Defense Council).

The blogger rAtional nAtion has issued a cease and desist order in regards to truth telling about global climate change he does not like on his blog. This after he indicated that he might agree with the majority of climatologists who say the earth is warming.

rAtional nAtion: According to new scientific data the earth has been warning at the same rate the past decade as it did during the previous decade. There has been no pause in climate change, aka global warming. (6/5/2015 AT 3:52pm).

The title of the commentary by the rAtional oNe is "climate change skeptics, now what say you?". Now that I think about it, Mr. Nation does not say anything himself. Does he agree or disagree? He only speaks of what "new scientific data" shows. He never says whether or not he is one of these skeptics himself.

Although he has said things in the past that lead me to believe he might be in agreement with those of us who are sane and do not believe the majority of climatologists are lying bastards.

That the climatologists are liars (with the exception of a few "luminaries") is what the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart preaches. It's central to his conspiracy theory involving James Hansen, Michael Mann and Barack Obama (the nimrod prez with the balls to pimp moronic AGW talking points in his commencement speech at the Coast Guard Academy, which was the last straw for Willis).

This "new data" has "James Hanson's lying-assed paws written all over it" Willis sez.

Then he mentions "the satellite data that you CANNOT screw with". This is a reference to research conducted by John Christy and Roy Spencer using satellite data. Their conclusion was that this satellite data shows the earth is not warming that much conspiracy of evil climatologists to protect their jobs is real.

The problem is that the research by Christy and Spencer has been discredited, which I pointed out on Mr. Nation's blog.

Dervish Sanders: I read Will's commentary concerning "satellite data that you CANNOT screw with" when he first cited it (and continued to cite it over and over)... but Christy and Spencer DID "screw" with it. First, they did not account for something called the "diurnal drift" (which refers to the fact that "The satellites must pass over the same spot on Earth at the same time each day to get a temperature average [however] the time the satellite passes drifts slightly as the orbit slowly decays)...

And second they made an algebraic error. But these things happen. I would not go as far as to label either fellow a "scoundrel" for not being perfect. Christy acknowledged the mistake. (6/7/2015 AT 03:03:00 PM EDT).

This is information I excerpted from a commentary I wrote for my blog back in 10/17/2013 (SWTD #211) in which I cite the website Skeptical Science (this is the origin of the info regarding Christy and Spencer getting it wrong in regards to their research involving temperature readings via satellite).

According to Willis "the tropsosphere temperatures would have to increasing at a faster rate than the surface site temperatures AND THEY ARE NOT". (this from a "Contra O'Reilly blog dated 10/15/2013).

But Willis is wrong. This information has been discredited by Skeptical Science (a climate science blog and information resource created in 2007 by John Cook that Willis sez is an "anti-science smear site").

But Skeptical Science says the satellite data (the data Christy and Spencer used to conclude that there was a "warming trend of only 0.09°C per decade, well below the surface temperature trend of 0.17°C per decade"), when corrected, shows that the temperatures in the troposphere "are in good agreement with models".

Now, I know Willis does not read my blog, so he (although he could have found out that Christy and Spencer were wrong via other channels) continued to cite the discredited Christy/Spencer conclusions. Over and over.

So I was wondering how Willis would respond when I posted this info on the blog of Mr. rAtional nAtion. But guess what? He posted his angry "rebuttal" (referring to James Hansen as a "scoundrel") and did not return. Or he did return and chose not to respond.

And when I submitted a comment asking WHY Willis would not reply, ye ol rAtional fellow replied with the following comment.

rAtional nAtion: It is time you took the issue to Will's blog and or your own. I has been increasingly obvious you do indeed have an agenda with respect to Will, dmarks, and me. And, it is again getting tiring as well s distracting. Your point has been made, you know Will is not going to change his views on the issue, and by continuing any further on this post you certainly are not going to force agreement. (6/8/2015 AT 07:38:00 PM EDT).

This is interesting. Mr. Nation knows I cannot take the issue to the blog of Willis because Willis banned me from further comment on his blog. Seems my comments to his blog contained facts that made him extremely uncomfortable (and this caused him to fear seeing my comments, which caused him to take LOL-able measures to not see these comments). Although this is just "conjecture" as another regular on the rAtional nAtion blog might say.

So, even though this is conjecture, I think it is quite likely. Willis saw the rebutting and total refutation of his oft-repeated reference to "the satellite data that you CANNOT screw with"... and he got very uncomfortable. And perhaps a bit afraid. Afraid that the house of cards he has built on the discredited research of his "luminaries" had been blow away. Or that the supporting structure of it was greatly weakened, at least.

Maybe it would be best to ignore the rebutting and discrediting and simply pretend it didn't happen? Only Mr. Nation responded, so maybe nobody else saw it? Better to run home to his safe echo chamber and compose yet another "the scoundrel climatologists are deceiving us" screed. Which is exactly what Willis did... with a commentary in which he whined about "diehard alarmists" and "people who think that it's AOK to torture the data".

People who think it's AOK to "torture the data" is, I am fairly confident, a reference to yours truly. "Torturing the data" is, apparently, pointing out that the "luminaries" screwed up and that the satellite data is actually "in good agreement with models".

Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

That is actually quite funny. How DEEPLY in denial this guy is. Also funny (but not "funny ha ha") is rAtional's cease and desist order. He says things that imply he might be with the scientists, but tells me to cut it out when I post a comment that goes too far (in making Willis look bad).

I have to ask... What's HIS agenda? Maybe he's just being a good friend and is concerned about his friend Willis' world getting shattered via the "distracting" truth? Or maybe he, as a good Objectivist/Libertarian realizes that the plutocrats have no intention of slowing down their raking in of the profits when we should be moving away from dirty energy?

Again, conjecture. But as a Libertarian it is a position I'd expect him to take. As Willis does. "Green energy", is, after all, a "scam". A "scam" because, if we got serious about it, then it might take off and cut into the sales of fossil fuels. And that would be bad... for "Big Oil".

Or "Big Natural Gas", which is the industry Libertarian Gary Johnson thinks needs enriching. As opposed to going Green, Gary thinks that the "free-market approach" should mean less coal and that "we're going to see a lot of natural gas electrical generation come online".

So, continued dependence on dirty fossil fuels. And that is the agenda that the Hartster has the talking points down pat in regards to. Although he obviously disagrees with Gary when Gary says "I'm accepting that global warming is man-caused".

Gary thinks the way to support the fossil fuel industry is to push for natural gas, while Willis thinks the best way to support our plutocrats is to continue using coal and oil (and deny there will be any consequences).

rAtional nAtion, while being on board with doing what is best for our beloved plutocrats, thinks an "all of the above" strategy is best. People like Willis can continue denying (and that will be good for Big Oil), while Gary can acknowledge global climate change and push policies that will benefit Big Natural Gas. Either way the plutocrats win. Just so long as we don't get ridiculous and go the cap and trade route. Which Gary opposes. God forbid we actually make polluters pay for their pollution!

Or this is my guess as to what the rAtional gUy is thinking. Something he does not like (me guessing). But this is my blog so I can engage in as much conjecture as I care to. And Mr. Nation did say "it is time you took the issue to Will's blog and or your own". I cannot take the issue to the blog of Willis, so the only option is to take it here. Which I have now done.

Image: NOAA graph from the article The recent global surface warming hiatus: fact or artifact of data biases? Contrary to much recent discussion, the latest corrected analysis (or "tortured data") shows that the rate of global warming has continued, and there has been no slow down.

SWTD #288, lDel #22, wDel #75.


  1. Pleased to see you took my advice.

    As I said Will likely will continue to disagree with your views and you of course realize he
    will not respond here either.

    As to am I a skeptic. First I do not pretend to understand the complexities of climate change or global warming, nor do I have a great interest in trying to gain an in depth understanding, it is not my field. Therefore I lean toward scientific consensus on the matter.

    Do I have questions? Yes. What thinking individual doesn't?

  2. WD....don't get your panties in a knot......the subject of global warming/climate change doesn't begin to move the needle on the GiveaFuck O Meter of the vast majority of Americans.....stop wasting your valuable time.

  3. Speaking of individuals who don't think Dervish.

  4. The last comment from a great thinker....who cant think of a way to get himself health care,but is just going to "wing it for a couple years."

    This coming from a guy who bills himself as a retired successful businessman....a guy so successful that when his prior employer booted him out he got zero retirement healthcare.....yea,I'm sure he was a doozy of a manager,so good they told him....don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

    1. Ah, the things you don't know Chucklenutz, and never will.


  5. Yep Lester....seems you were a seat warmer.....nothing more...nothing less.....pun intended.

  6. Climate change is not the "field" of a majority of people on earth. That is hardly a reason not to be concerned. RN's position is a cop out. I put him down on the not caring about this problem side of the issue, or a very low needle rating on that meter Rusty speaks of. Likely because he's with Willis in protecting those who profit tremendously from dirty fossil fuels. At least that was my guess (which RN refused to address). It is the Libertarian way, in any case. Do what benefits the rich (let the "free market" rule) and screw democracy.

    Rusty is a grade-A asshole. The stereotypical selfish Conservative with an inflated sense of self worth. This guy likely have very few friends, given the fact that most people (in his view) are beneath him. I'd wager there are actually quite a few people in his real life (not online) who dislike him (although this is probably something he is proud of).

    As for not giving a f*ck, polls shows that most people believe that climate change is real, but view doing something about it as a low priority (poll). I, however, do give a f*ck. And since this is MY blog, I can cover whatever topic I want to. So Rusty can stuff that meter up his posterior.

    Obviously he doesn't give a f*ck because he's got his, doesn't believe climate change will effect him, and doesn't give a sh!t about anyone it might effect. Selfishness, in other words. Whereas most people don't think about it because they got other (money related) problems.

  7. Dervish, not understanding or having the time to devote to understand the complexities of climate change is not a cop out. It is simply the truth.

    Perhaps accepting the majority scientific view is considered a cop out in your self acknowleded superior mind. My view is when in doubt, having difficulty, lacking time or a deep interest in studying the subject, go to the experts.

    Will apparently has the passion and time to spend on the issue. His position is completely opposite yours, whether it is selective analysis or not I personally haven't time to give a f*ck. Any more than I have time to give a f*ck whether your analysis is selective. End of story.

    Do I believe human activity and behaviors have an impact on our environment? Yes. Do I believe developing cost effective alternative energy sources make sense? Yes. Do I believe this will eventually happen in the USA (probably sooner rather than latter)? I hope so.

    Now Dervish, how do you plan to deal with developing countries (the worlds up an coming polluters on many fronts) that are, and will continue for some time, to add to the global warming/climate change problem the world faces?


Comment moderation has temporarily been suspended. Although I may be forced to reinstate it if the trolls take advantage.