Newsflash: WhatsUpWithIt Irresponsibly Posts Blacklist of Eminent Physicists

Several Eminent Physicists Skeptical Of AGW fear for their academic lives tonight as WhatsUpWithit irresponsibly publishes their names on a public blog: Seven Eminent Physicists Skeptical of AGW

Questions are being asked as to why WhatsUpWithIt, previously a reliable campaigner against blacklisting skeptical scientists, has today published a blacklist of our secret eminent physicists.

Concerns mount that WhatsUpWithIt has been infiltrated by enemies of our Nation. Has WhatsUpWithIt fallen to Red Communism?

Related Climate News Items:

• Bafflement as 31,487 American scientists skeptical of manmade global warming inexplicably add themselves to a blacklist.


• The Denial Depot Concern Room this week poses the question: Just Why do man-made Global Warming alarmists frequently use the fallacious appeal to authority?

Arctic Ice Continues it's Recovery

Arctic sea ice point blank refuses to melt. Continues to Defy alarmists. Maunder minimum ice recovery confirmed. Ice age imminent? I won't commit to an answer, but yes it definitely is.

Up is Down

Comrades, it has come to my attention that certain cowardly, possibly treasonous, elements in our ranks are questioning whether denial of Arctic sea ice decline is a viable strategy. They have suggested that the recent questionably sharp decline in JAXA arctic sea ice extent is consistent with the so-called alarmist "longterm decline" in arctic sea ice and has therefore put us in a corner. They further suggest that if we rely on The Recovery of arctic sea ice and The Recovery does not in fact happen we will be defeated.

I would like to make it absolutely clear that our strategy of insinuating a Recovery is strong. Claims to the contrary undermine our efforts and provide fodder to the enemy and as such are treasonous and will not be tolerated. Violators will be shipped to the Climate Depot where they will be publicly flogged.

Be aware that The Recovery is merely a forward offensive against the enemy. Our rear is well protected by three lines of defense. At the outer line of defense we deny the arctic ice is in fact in decline. If we must we can fall back to the middle line, that the decline although happening is nevertheless not caused by man. And finally if all else fails we can fall back and hold the final line - that a decline in arctic sea ice is a Good Thing.

Arctic Sea Ice Is Not In Decline

It is hard to deny that Arctic Sea Ice is in longterm decline. But we find ways to do it anyway. We must hold the line. I see far too many young deniers taking flight at the first sight of an enemy graph. Noone ever said denial was going to be easy. In times of doubt repeat to yourself the following Wise Words:

The ice isn't melting. The ice is recovering. It's healthier than ever. The arctic is jam packed with thick, multi-month, healthy looking, well fed ice. It's possibly so thick that it's affecting satellite readings which are confusing the thickening ice with a decline in extent.

When faced with enemy graphs, remember that if extent is dropping then clearly we are looking at the wrong metric. Perhaps we should look at volume instead, unless that is dropping too, in which case we should look at area. If all that fails take a look at extent again because it might have gone up again in the meantime. If not then we should look to regional ice trends or if push comes to shove abandon the arctic entirely and talk about Antarctica instead. This is not cherrypicking because we know there is a recovery it is only a matter of finding a metric that shows it.

The Arctic Sea Ice Decline Is Not Caused By Man

Now is not the time to fall back to this line of defense, but rest assured that it exists. If the time comes we can fall back to this second line of defense, waiting patiently to advance back to the first line of defense at the first sign of the promised Recovery. The first step to denying a decline is caused by man is to suggest other reasons. Could it be wind, the aurora borealis, earthquakes or mystical natural cycles? If that fails and it becomes apparent that the decline is due to rising temperature we can claim the temperature rise is due to the Sun or cosmic rays.

A Decline In Arctic Sea Ice Is A Good Thing
An ice beast posturing in a typically threatening manner

Ice is man's second worst enemy after taxes. Ice is fanatically cold to the touch and walked upon by fearsome beasts. It obstructs the economy by haphazardly getting in the way of oil extraction and shipping. Neither is ice unfamiliar with human tragedy. In 1912 a rogue iceberg in the mid Atlantic was ultimately responsible for the suffering of audiences around the world to one of the worst movies ever made. Noone in their right mind should care ice disappears. It would be a good thing if humans were melting arctic sea ice. If God wanted ice why did he invent the Sun? The real reason alarmists don't want the ice to disappear is probably because they are part of a secret ice worshiping cult.

Apollo Mission: A Giant Leap Contradicting Gravitational Theory

Astronauts challenge the patriotism of Global Warming Alarmists by planting flags

Introduction

The paper, ‘Rocks Can Fly’ is a cogently-argued scientific refutation of the basic equations used by flight theorists. Apparently, rocket scientists may have incorrectly assumed the forces acting on rockets all along.

The study questions the numeric bedrock of the theory of flight by applying data collected by NASA decades ago. It seems during the Apollo Moon landings era NASA devised a whole new set of hitherto unreported equations, more reliable than those relied upon by supporters of the theory of flight, to get Neil Armstrong's carbon boot prints safely planted on that airless Sea of Tranquility.

The paper is co-authored by Martin Hertzberg, PhD, Consultant in Science and Technology, Alan Siddons, a former radiochemist and Hans Schreuder, a retired analytical chemist. The researchers had the bright idea of delving back into NASA’s archives to test the "Newton law of Gravitation" equations in fine detail. The three men stumbled on the apparent flaws during an online debate on the science behind the theory of flight.

Published online on May 24, 2010, the study argues that the flaw has always lain in Newton's equations. The long-trusted formula has been used by rocket scientists without question - until now. The researchers report that the numbers used in those equations are the “first assumption that rocket science makes when predicting the flight of a rocket.”

NASA Abandoned Flawed Gravity Calculations in 1960’s

To theory of flight sceptic scientists it seems self-evident that rockets should not be treated like a point mass. It is more properly a complex spinning structure with large variability in air resistance and thrust. But, despite the U.S. government knowing since the 1960's that the graviational equations were of no use to real-world science, these facts don't appear to have been passed on to rocket scientists.

Rocket Flight Paths Cast Doubt on Gravitational Theory

NASA had found that the flight path of rockets was different than expected because rockets are propelled with thrust rather than only being affected by gravity - an empirical fact that challenges the theory of flight. Computer models supporting flight theory had predicted that rockets would fall out of the sky.

In fact, the Apollo data proves that rockets can fly in paths not predicted by the gravitational equations because the rockets also have thrust.

Thus the success of NASA’s moon landings becomes evidence against the unreliability of gravitation equations in real world science.

Newton Law Of Gravitation Calculations Way Out

The paper tells us how far out Newton's Law Of Gravitation equation could be, “the path of the real rocket is completely different than that predicted by the force of gravity alone. The rocket flies while Newton's Law of Gravitation says it should just fall to the ground!"

But it isn’t just NASA Rockets that don't support the GHG theory. Rockets belonging to other space agencies don’t conform either. As the paper tells us, “The rockets of every country in the world also fly higher than predicted” The three scientists pointedly ask, “Is it any surprise, then, that even a relatively simple body like the biplane would refuse to conform to such a method?”

Other scientists have also come out to refute the theory of flight. Some even go as far as to say the theory actually contravenes the established laws of physics.

NASA Rockets Do Not Fly “Unusually” High

The paper concludes that NASA Rockets do not fly “unusually” high. It is the application of the predictive Newtonian gravitation equation that is faulty and overly simplistic and should not be applied in a real-world context. The proven ability of common substances ( e.g. paper when folded) to glide in defiance of gravity makes all such gravitational estimates questionable.

Are Gravitational Equations Mere Junk Science?

Some may be, if this analysis of NASA’s Apollo numbers is correct. Newton's Law of Gravitation failed to give NASA the crucial information it required on rocket flight paths. Thus, NASA scientists had to create their own model to chart the flight path of the rockets astronauts took to the moon.

Along with the Flightgate revelations, these new findings contradict the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which has placed enormous reliance on predictions based on research around flight theory that has now been called into question. Even some International Civil Aviation Organization members have denounced the theory....can't remember which ones.

http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=5810&linkbox=true&position=2

Jurassic Park - why we have nothing to fear

The once commonplace saddled dinosaur

Global warming is blamed for everything. Too warm? global warming. Too hot? Global warming. So it was only a matter of time until some "scientists" blamed global warming for killing lizards. Here is the start of the press release:

For many lizards, global climate change is a matter of life and death. After decades of surveying Sceloporus lizard populations in Mexico, an international research team has found that rising temperatures have driven 12 percent of the country's lizard populations to extinction. An extinction model based on this discovery also forecasts a grim future for these ecologically important critters, predicting that a full 20 percent of all lizard species could be extinct by the year 2080.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100513143447.htm

The first step of reading a Press Release is to check the photos. Unfortunately in this case the photo doesn't look photoshopped so we can't deny the science out of hand on this occassion.

Next read the press release carefully. Everything we need to deny can be found in the press release - don't waste time tracking down the "journal reference", that's just some notes or something. Examine every sentence of the press release very carefully for problems.

Okay the first thing we can exploit is how much this all cost. They say they spent decades surveying a lizard in Mexico. That must have cost a lot. Who paid for it? No doubt it was the taxpayer. Is there even a stationary audit? FOIA anyone? Immediately I am very much opposed to this press release.

Then there is evidence that this "international research team" is far from objective. For example they seem to know way too much about lizards for their own good. It's a vested interest. I would have been far more convinced if it was a team of international car mechanics who reached the same conclusion without knowing a thing about lizards.

Also note this is a Research Team, so yep that means team science. Social networks anyone?

The Team admit to using an extinction model. I've never heard of such nonsense. So now GIGO computers are used to predict extinctions? Computers can only say what they are told by the tape operator. I know this for a fact. So one of the Team must have fed in a line of code like:

IF LIZARD THEN KILL LIZARD

Then they ran the program in a LOOP until all the lizards were dead. Then they blame it on global warming. I should be shocked at such shenanigans, but this kind of postnormal science is sadly all too common these days in climate "science".

The press release also uses the phrase "a grim future", blatant Alarmism. Who decides whether a world with less reptiles is more grim? What's the optimum level of grimness? Perhaps less lizards would be better? In fact YES it would be better with less lizards. Notice that the Team try to convince us the lizards are friendly by calling them "critters" rather than the cold blooded bastards we all know they are. The Team use a trick to hide a little known fact about the origins of the word Dinosaur (the trick is called omission). In Greek dinosaur means Terrible Lizard.

Dinosaurs - Terrible Lizards, Terrible Dangers

So naturally we come to Jurrassic Park. One of the key lessons Jurassic Park taught us was that dinosaurs are notorious killers. They gang up, chase after cars and have even learned to open doors. Certainly we do not want them returning. A future with less dinosaurs will be far from grim.

How many dinosaurs exist today? If you exclude alligators and Reptilians then there are probably none. But remember a key lesson from Jurassic Park was that Life Will Find A Way. There are things about Intelligent Design that science doesn't yet understand and it's just possible that a pair of Sceloporus lizards in Mexico could breed and produce a proto-tyrannosaurus (or worse - one of the key lessons from Jurrassic Park is that there are as many bigger and better dinosaurs as you can make sequels of a movie. It's best not to tempt fate).

You might argue that the little ones don't matter, so lets keep the little ones for our amusement and just kill the big ones. Wrong! That's a logical phallusy called the Slippery Slope. If we tolerate the regular little lizards then we'll end up legitimizing the kinda-medium lizards and before we know it a whole herd of of fully blown T-Rex will appear from left of field. And then it will be too late. It'll be Jurassic Park I, II and III all over again, possibly combined with Mad Max if the oil runs out at the same time.

So even if carbon dioxide DID cause warming, that's a good thing as it will prevent the return of the dinosaurs. I checked and SkepticalScience.com doesn't have any response to this argument so I feel I am onto something.

My interpretation. My facts. This is the kind of stuff money can't buy unless it's funnelled through a network of think-tanks.

Correlation - what correlation?

Over at The Climate Scum, Baron von Monckhofen has some new Blog Science Research titled Correlation - what correlation?

This is definitely going into the Blog Science 2010 Report For Policymakers (A stunning glossy PDF to be published this December)


The Baron points out that "This simple graph disproves two of the most egregarious lies of the IPCC cabal: (1) it is getting warmer and (2) the warming is due to CO2. There is clearly no correlation between temperature and CO2! The increase in CO2 is instead caused by the medieval warming period: as we know from the ice cores, CO2 lags 800 years behind temperature. Using the current CO2 levels as a proxy for past temperatures, we can also conclude that it was about 100 degrees warmer 800 years ago"

Read the full post with more information here: Correlation - what correlation?. This idea is very Not The IPCC so I just wanted to help it permeate the Internet.

Note that Baron von Monckhofen's findings tie in with previous Blog Science Research from DenialDepot:
CO2 levels may have been over 2000ppm in 1200AD

I figure that linking to other people's posts is a good way of amplifying the noise and increasing my own post count with little work on my own part. It's also not my fault if it's wrong. I guess I could even start posting News Articles verbatim, adding just one original sentence with my interpretation of what it all means. My post count should go through the roof if I do that. Which is surely just what the World needs and will reinforce the status of this blog as the #1 Blog Science Blog Of the Millennium.