Nov 10

October Snow Cover Has Increased 30% Since 1988

NASA junk scientist James Hansen appeared before Congress in 1988, only three years after the end of the world due to global cooling/climate change I might add, to warn of the end of the world again, this time by global warming/climate change.

October snow cover has increased 30% since our favorite virgin sacrificing junk scientist warned we must all put on our tin foil helmets to protect ourselves from the falling sky.

And in the world according to the occultists of the Coven of Climate Change, we all know that the snow and cold is really caused by global warming, and that my friends explains why July is our snowiest (and coldest) month of the year!

[Hysterical laughter!]

Oct 31

There is not and never was any global warming/climate change

Like I’ve been saying for decades, since this scam first started back in 1987 by phony junk scientist James Hansen. Wow! Extreme cold to extreme heat in just two years! According to the junk scientists of the 1970′s, the northern hemisphere was supposed to have been lost to extreme cold due to global cooling by 1985. When that didn’t materialize, two short years later, the phony global warming repackaged as climate change scam began.

Since 1987, how many “within fill-in-the-blank years” of doom and gloom warnings have we heard? Thousands, and not one has come to fruition, not one has even come close. Get with reality, people.

Now that the blowhard Al Gore has been shown to be the charlatan that he is, maybe we can get down to the business of understanding the science.

Anthropogenic global warming is a theory with some supporting evidence and some refuting evidence. The theory can’t be studied according to the scientific method, because there is no laboratory big enough, and no laboratory experiments that can be conducted of so complex a system that will provide certainty of result.

Therefore, software models have been used a proxy. It has been conclusively proven, time and again, that the models can’t predict current climate based on past data. Accordingly, users of the models have resorted to “tweaking” their own models to generate the outcome they desire to see–both in the present and in the future. Therefore, the models are invalid.

That’s the state of the science today. You might as well line up ten people, get ten opinions, and throw a dart to pick the one you like. It would be a lot cheaper, and as determinative, as the way it’s being done today.

The global warming folks need to take their heads out of the sand for just a moment and wake up to reality.

The science is far from settled. Their predictive models failed to predict the last 13 years, and if they can’t get a decade right, spending trillions on a 90 year prediction is utterly irrational. Read the rest