President Barack Obama proclaimed that “there wasn’t a smidgen of corruption at the IRS” only after reading all 4,000 of Lois Lerner’s missing E-Mails.
And he was able to do this in between discussions about spontaneous YouTube protests in Libya, and keeping your current health care plan.
Junk science gets through peer review as standard practice in climate science. The only requirement is that it sounds scary and is useful for raising funding.
over the past several years scientists have been able to use data from the twin Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites to begin to get better estimates of just how fast we’re losing polar ice. (Changes in the mass of polar ice can actually affect the Earth’s gravitational field, and the GRACE satellites can detect those changes and use it to help calculate ice loss.) Recent studies using GRACE data estimated that Greenland was losing around 230 billion metric tons of ice a year, while West Antarctica was losing around 132 billion metric tons a year. Together that would account for 0.2 in. of sea level rise a year—which might seem like a small figure, but it’s far higher than the 0.07 in. that seas rose annually in the 1960s.)
These geniuses didn’t know the most basic fundamentals of the topic they were writing about.
Those are scary numbers, but a new study published in the September issue of Nature Geoscience suggests that the true melt rate might be much slower than that. A joint team of American and Dutch scientists took another look at the GRACE data and found that Greenland and West Antarctica may be melting just half as fast the earlier studies estimated. As researcher Bert Vermeersen, a professor at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, told the AFP, the earlier estimates failed to account for glacial isostatic adjustment—the rebounding of the Earth’s crust after the end of the last Ice Age
Climate Change: New Study Halves the Rate of Ice Cap Melt | TIME.com
Arab Spring – Terrorist takeover of the Middle East
Young Dreamers – Terrorists walking into the US unimpeded
Renewable Energy – “My plan makes electricity prices skyrocket”
Next time the IRS questions you, just tell them that all six of your hard drives crashed, and you lost all of your records.
Actually, it possible they weren’t all from Wyoming.
Dinesh D’Souza is being targeted by the wildly corrupt executive branch of government, for the crime of opposing the president. They say that a small campaign finance violation he made required $500,000 bond, due to their zero tolerance policy on campaign finance law.
This is the same White House which completely corrupted the election process and the core principles of the US, by targeting conservatives through the IRS. And the same White House which is now stonewalling and destroying evidence in that investigation.
I was listening to the investigations on C-Span radio today, and the Republicans are finally starting to behave like adult males are supposed to behave when threatened by a poisonous snake which has slipped into their tent.
When Obama said there “wasn’t a smidgen of corruption” he gave away the fact that he is intimately familiar with what the IRS has been doing.
Radiative transfer models are at the core of climate models. Only a small handful of people are familiar with how they work, or what they say about CO2 sensitivity. Very few people passed off by the IPCC as climate experts know anything about these models, or could even name them.
I am one of the small group of people who works directly with radiative transfer models and knows how they work. And they show that CO2 sensitivity is very low.
The whole scam comes down to Hansen’s fake feedbacks. The next time some climate no-nothing tells you that catastrophic global warming is basic physics, send them my way. I will dish out the intellectual thrashing they deserve.
We find that, together, unsustainable groundwater use, artificial reservoir water impoundment, climate-driven changes in terrestrial water storage and the loss of water from closed basins have contributed a sea-level rise of about 0.77?mm?yr?1 between 1961 and 2003, about 42% of the observed sea-level rise.
Note the gratuitous comment about climate change – needed to get through peer-review. Also, reservoir water impoundment would tend to lower sea level.
h/t to jlc
One popular claim about USHCN adjustments is that they are “peer-reviewed” and thus sound.
This is complete nonsense. What is peer-reviewed are a couple of papers outlining potential issues impacting temperature readings and proposed remedies. It is like saying that a piece of production software has been validated, because a few people within the company agreed to a general high level specification.
I am a commercial software developer. The process of developing production software involves an seemingly endless series of reviews from specification to delivery, by a wide range of people from many different disciplines and from both within and outside of the organization. Any product which doesn’t go through this process is likely to fail.
I’ve done comparisons between the TOBS (Time of Observation Bias) spec, and the actual implementation of TOBS – and it isn’t even close to what is written in the spec – for several different reasons.
A Closer Look At USHCN TOBS Adjustments | Real Science
The total adjustments are much larger than the specification implies. As far as I can tell, the actual adjustment software has a grossly deficient quality control process.
Furthermore, once you start adjusting temperatures, you have opened the door to confirmation bias. The UHI adjustment is much too small, and the other adjustments are much too large. These temperature records form the basis of climate science, and they are generated by work which is the quality of a freshman programming project.
They have turned a cooling trend into a warming trend, and don’t even put a disclaimer on the graphs. This isn’t even good enough for government work. I see no reason to believe that NCDC/USHCN/NASA US temperature trends have any validity.
