Posts Tagged ‘climatologists’

@TheGreenParty time to stop persecuting us for Global Warming and help us survive it

May 10, 2017

It’s now an established political truth that the World is getting hotter and it is caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
This is also persistently proclaimed, by climatologists, as a Scientifically proven truth.
So far, the consequences have all been political I.e. conferences, debates and treaties.
Industry has complied by switching from burning fossil fuels to building wind turbines and solar panels. All very laudable but to what purpose?
The population of the planet is increasing geometrically and so is the amount of Carbon dioxide that we are producing, just by breathing.
Assuming we can keep feeding everyone and there are no natural disasters, global warming will continue regardless.
Is it not time that the politicians and climatologists turned their efforts to gaining some benefit from all the money spent on these conferences and accords?
Instead of writing further learned treatises showing incontrovertible proof that Polar bears will become extinct, the ice caps will melt, sea levels rise and many major cities drowned.
Instead of this, perhaps the experts could turn their attention to coping with their doom-saying.
Perhaps, moving new building to higher ground, instead of constructing expensive stop-gaps like the Thames barrier. The alternative may lie in learning to live in our own sewage like Venice.
Perhaps investigating how agriculture should adapt to new crops and fisheries to new food species.
Perhaps we should stop crying over the polar bear. We won’t save it by signing bits of paper.
If we must conserve the polar bear, it’ll have to be in zoo’s and cryonic chambers.
Climatologists have made the sale: Instead of badgering us into feeling guilty they should begin to earn their research grants and show us ways to adapt to what they can’t truly prevent


Sack the climatologists and hire people with solutions.

February 4, 2015

Why is “climate change” and “human-driven climate change” considered as equivalent.

There is no definitive proof offered for any human connection let alone that such changes are entirely, or mainly our fault.

Whilst climatologists keep pushing this absurd position, claiming the unscientific principle of “presumptive danger”,  politicians will focus on carbon reduction instead of planning for the consequences of the expected dangers / events.

We need to move to higher ground, if sea-levels expect to rise.

We need to investigate the effects on food production, if temperatures are expected to alter which crops are suitable in each locale.

If storms are to be greater, we should forget pushing double glazing and move towards smaller windows and stronger structures.

Stop doing a Canute on carbon footprints. stop building wind turbines, which won’t be operable in the strong winds that we are being warned of.

Cassandra needs to get off our backs and lead us to safer ground.

It should be possible to weaken tornado’s

May 22, 2013

The Moscow Olympics, of 1980, were allegedly protected from rain, by a perimeter of radio transmitters.

The principle was that the radio waves were reflected off the ionosphere, setting up standing waves. These would cause the polarisation of water molecules encouraging them to collect together and fall as rain.

The situation in America’s tornado alley is that you have a huge mass of cold air, from the North, meeting with a huge mass of warm, moisture laden air, from the South. The warm air rises and cools as it gains altitude. The water vapour condenses and falls as rain.

The Earth’s rotation causes the masses of air to swirl forming eddies. The problem in tornado alley is that these air masses are huge and, so, unrestricted by topography, the eddies are huge i.e. tornado’s.

It may be that the air masses are too big to affect but, if the radio standing waves were placed along the Southern front, to reduce the moisture content and the energy available to the storm, then they might go some way to easing the tornado problem.

This is pure conjecture but, if the climatologists could take time off from moaning about carbon footprints, and run the numbers, they could maybe figure out if such a procedure might work.

The downside would be that the Southern States would get more rain and the Northern States would get less.


@bbc_horizon stop using “Scientists” as a synonym for “Climatologists”

October 18, 2012

I found tonight’s (18/10/2012) episode of Horizon confusing.

It seemed to consist of two parts. The first part seemed to be just another climatologist propaganda piece and immediately got my hackles up.

I had started composing a rant:
BBC Horizon stop using Scientists as a synonym for Climatologists.
Scientists don’t use bogeyman (semantically loaded) terms to prejudice discussion.
“weather weirding” doesn’t explain anything, it just provides a buzzword for those who don’t like to rely on logic.
Scientist’s don’t use labels or descriptions of events, as if they were explanation’s.
Scientist’s justify comparison’s between effects by explaining how the cause’s can also be related.
Scientist’s don’t try to give credence to dubious hypotheses by jumbling their own in among a mass of unrelated but  verifiable cases.

The program slowly slipped into the second part with the phrase “they’re still trying to understand what causes this effect”.
Having effectively stated that climatologists (they’d dropped speaking for all scientists and were now using the oxymoron “Climate scientists”) couldn’t actually justify their claims, the program switched to a realistic approach.
Instead of the people of Rotterdam building wind turbines in the hope that the miniscule change in Carbon Dioxide levels would prevent the ice caps melting, they adopted the more pragmatic view of building holding tanks to store flood water for later gradual release.
Despite allowing some plank to falsely claim that we had had a stable climate for one thousand years, the finishing theme was if climatologists were correct in their prediction let’s do what Canute did, rather than what his courtier’s pestered him to do.

two more bullets for the anthropogenic Global Warming alarmists

September 20, 2011

Two pieces of  research that the Al Gore pseudo-scientists (a.k.a. climatologists) will want to suppress.

First concerns polar volcanoes:  (lifted straight from Browning Newsletter on Climate: Shifting into Autumn)

Alaska’s Mt. Redoubt and Russia’s Sarychev Peak in 2009, and, during this year, Iceland’s Grímsvötn and Chile’s Puyehue-Cordón Caulle have all erupted.

Another volcano, Mt. Sheveluch on Russia’s Kamchatka Pennisula, may have joined these ranks. The volcano is currently erupting 8.6 km (5.3 miles) high. This is high enough that it is forcing airlines to reroute their circumpolar flights, particularly those to Japan and Northern China. It has been erupting all month and, off and on, all year. The mountain is remote and hard to observe so some of the eruptions may have been high enough to enter the stratosphere. At a minimum, the debris is drifting down wind and raining out over North America.

If eruptions are big enough for their columns to enter the stratosphere, the debris can linger for years. This has multiple effects on the weather including:

o The ash and chemicals block out incoming sunlight, cooling the air.

o Water collects around the aerosols (solid and liquid particles) forming clouds, which also block incoming sunlight.

o When the clouds finally precipitate out, the rains and snows are unusually heavy.

o The cooler air changes air pressure which changes wind patterns.

In the case of volcanoes near the Arctic and Antarctic, this means the changed air pressure weakens the circumpolar winds. These are winds that circle around the poles, trapping most of the frigid air over the Arctic or Antarctic. If the winds are weak, these frozen air masses can escape. We saw this last winter when the Arctic air masses escaped south and buried 48 of the 50 states in snow, brought European Christmas travel to a standstill and inundated Asia.

We are currently seeing this in the Southern Hemisphere. The Chilean government declared an official “catastrophe” after heavy snows that the nation’s Interior minister called a “white earthquake.” The nation’s capital had rare snow and southern regions have as much as 9 feet (2.7 meters). South Africa, which usually receives a dusting about once or twice a year, has been hit with storms that have dumped up to 60 cm (2 feet) in some areas. New Zealand was hit by a freak winter storm with heavy snow and bitterly cold weather two weeks ago, snowing on Wellington for the first time in decades.

This is a warning for the Northern Hemisphere. In summertime, the polar air masses are trapped north. Europe, Asia and North America have been more affected by balmy tropics. As fall evolves, the polar air masses will spread south, bringing a cold wet harvest season, particularly for Europe, China and the US. This will be followed by a frozen winter.

The second from

63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

Basically both of these items point up that clouds have a significantly greater effect on Global climate than Greenhouse gases, whether they are produced by ungulates, termites or us nasty fossil fuel burners.

In both cases rain droplets form on dust particles from volcanoes , or ions caused by cosmic rays.

These rain droplets form clouds, which act as a blanket preventing sunlight from reaching the Earth’s surface.

Obviously the clouds also keep us warm at night, which is why cloudy Winter nights are less frosty but the reflection of the Sun’s heat is more significant than the loss of the Earth’s radiated heat.

Despite arguments to the contrary, it supports the observation that the absence of contrails, after 9/11 left the air above America warmer (


Energy decisions made by Energy providers.

April 15, 2011
Who is actually making our policy decisions?
In the case of our energy needs, this document from The Global Warming Policy Foundation ( seems to suggest that it is being fought out between the major Gas production companies and the Nuclear Industry.
The latter are relying on the Environmentalists to support their cause, by opposing the shale gas exploration, on the grounds that it could damage water supplies. The Gas Companies claim that shale gas need not affect water supplies and could supply Europe for the next 30 years.
At present this fight is being carried out in the French Assembly but past experience is that French policy is European policy.
This could be detrimental to our needs.
Despite what Green activists are saying, wind, wave, solar etc. can not fully meet our energy requirements and unless we are prepared to re-open the coal mines, we  will need to take advantage of nuclear power and these gas supplies, if they prove safe.
Whilst France is already well supported by a Nuclear Energy base, we would have to wait several years before any new Nuclear reactors come on line.
If Europe prevents us from exploiting our own Gas resources, then we will continue, in the interim, to be dependent on Russia for our gas supplies.
We need to be able to make our own decisions based on our own Scientific experts, whose allegiance is to this Country rather than to some profit driven energy company with an ability to “persuade” members of the French or European Governments.

Climatologist’s Jamboree

November 30, 2010
Once again the climatologists push out their publicity shots, to proclaim their right to a cushy lifestyle.
This time they’re off to Cancun, in Mexico. Obviously not afraid of a bit of hot Sun themselves, Although  the fact that its hotels have five-star menus might have compensated that inconvenience.
Although the organisers are a franchise of the U.N. (that organisation originally intended to prevent further Wars but now devoted to general do-gooding campaigns), the Secretariat for Climate Change (UNFCCC) is based in Bonn, with their main contributors being financed by the wealthy E.U.(led by the GCCA, set up by the European Commission, so Europe can build a Global Climate Change Alliance between the European and poor developing countries most vulnerable to climate change).
Although the Media consistently refer to these people as Scientists, implying that they are experts on the causes of climate change, their career paths seem to follow the same sort of routes as politicians and administrators of various persuasions.
Their previous chairman, Yvo De Boer, began his career with a technical degree in social work, from the Netherlands. He gave up his role to become join accountancy firm KPMG. Prior to joining the UNFCCC, he was Director for International Affairs of the Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment of the Netherlands(Wikipaedia).
His Successor,  Christiana Figueres might more justly call herself a Scientist, as she has a degree from the L.S.E. in Anthropology. While not a Hard Science, involving the Maths that might be needed to examine the effect of the Earth’s erratic motion around The Sun, Solar Winds etc., she is obviously well acquainted with the arguments supporting further conferences. 
Many delegates will be genuine believers (rather than Scientists), as they will consist of leading farm, food, Fair Trade, climate justice, and anti-GE activists, but for many it seems to be just another bandwagon to jump onto.