Omniclimate Omnologos

Man-made warming hits Lake Baikal

by way of wheels, and ice skates

More amazing pictures at (scroll to the bottom of the page)

AGW Climate Change Omniclimate Omnologos

Obama’s Climate Déjà Vu

Transcript of President Obama’s Inaugural Address (Jan 20, 2009):

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood […] each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.

Transcript of President Obama’s Inagural Address (Jan 21, 2013):

We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But American cannot resist this transition. We must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries. We must claim its promise. That’s how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure, our forests and waterways, our crop lands and snow capped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.

Note how climate change with Obama keeps leading to energy, as always.

Editorial, The New York Times, “New Day on Climate Change”, Jan 26, 2009:

In one dramatic stroke, President Obama has removed any doubts that he intends to break sharply from President George W. Bush’s policies on yet another vital issue — this time repudiating Mr. Bush’s passive approach to climate change.[…] after eight years of inaction, this is a wonderful start.

Michael D. Shear, The New York Times in “Obama Sets Goal to Broaden Equality”, Jan 21, 2013:

The president also singled out the issue of climate change, a subject that he raised in his first Inaugural Address but has struggled to make progress on in the face of fierce opposition in Congress and in countries around the world. In his 2009 speech, he warned about environmental threats to the planet; on Monday, he vowed to confront them.

“We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations,” he said. “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.”

Mr. Obama left the details of his second-term agenda for his State of the Union speech in three weeks. But he hinted at the two major legislative battles that he has promised to wage: reform of the immigration system and new laws intended to reduce gun violence.

Note how climate doesn’t make it into the “two major legislative battles” ahead.


Four years ago, I surely thought AGW would

slowly wither away, ironically under an AGWer President just as it kept on growing during the 8 years of an anti-AGW White House Resident

In truth, it disappeared completely from the Presidential campaign. Is AGW coming back now? Or are these renewed empty promises a surefire sign the President doesn’t have much of positive he himself believes in his grasp?


How to get Bully Scholarship Edition working on Windows 8 Pro

  1. Put the CD in
  2. Open the Properties of “setup.exe”
  3. Under Compatibility select “Windows Vista SP 2”
  4. Install the game
  5. Reboot the PC
  6. Download patch 1.2, run the executable
  7. Reboot the PC
Omniclimate Omnologos

Laden’s stumbling around his own fabrication

There are so many people commenting at WUWT, I seldom if ever write anything here about it.

After all this is a blog for turning otherwise-unturned stones so little appears that has been already dealt by others.

However, my fifteen readers know I cannot tolerate bullying. And in the case of Laden’s filthy anti-WUWT post, echoed in other places such as unwittingly-self-proclaimed climate loser Romm, it’s been a clear case of bullying.

All details of the story here and here. Basically Laden has tried to manipulate his readership by showing a screenshot of the WUWT site cut exactly in the only way that could put the site, and Anthony Watts, in a bad light.

Laden has retorted to the obvious by puerile statements such as

[Watts] is upset because in a screen shot of him talking about a totally absurd pseudo-scientific claim that should have been rejected out of hand, I failed to include enough of the post to show that he was skeptical about the claim […]

I did not need to show that Anthony Watts was skeptical because that wasn’t the point. The point was that it was funny that he was looking at this claim at all. But, fine, if he really needs me to include the snippet where he expresses his laughable skepticism, I can do that. Here, Watts says.

This looks to be a huge story, the first evidence of extraterrestrial life, if it holds up.

… thus indicating skepticism. I’m sorry I did not include that sentence in the … wait, wait, hold on a sec. Hey, I DID include that phase about “if it holds up” in the original post? But Watts is saying that I did not include any of his skeptical language.

However, Laden being disingenuous, a liar or a stupid ignoramus is demonstrated by a simple observation.

The expression “if it holds up” doesn’t indicate skepticism. Nobody who reports astrology, homeopathy or UFO sightings indicates skepticism by saying “if it holds up“.

OTOH everybody who has learned skepticism from the likes of Randi, Shermer, Sagan (and Plait) knows that skepticism means saying “extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence” or an equivalent statement.

That is exactly what appears in WUWT a single line below the curiously cut screenshot by Laden.

I [Watts] would remind readers that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence“. This needs to be confirmed by others in the science community before it can be taken seriously.

IOW as Laden must have known (unless he truly knows nothing of Randi, Sagan and the others), inclusion of a few inches more would have invalidated his argument completely.

I rest my case.

ps to the enlightened souls proclaiming that the “Meteorite with life” story should not have been published in the first place, see how it has been picked up by MSN. You can also check at the BA blog that the story reached Plait presumably independently from WUWT.

pps IMNSHO the “Meteorite with life” story is complete bunk and the only sin committed by Watts (and Willis Eschenbach) has been their unfamiliarity with Fred Hoyle student N. C. Wickramasinghe. His name is well-known among astronomy buffs and not as a source of likely-true findings.

UPDATE ppps Wickramasinghe’s dreams picked up also by The Huffington Post (look down and hard before Plait and any skepticism show up in that article).

Climate Change Global Warming Omniclimate Omnologos

Scientific guide on how to scientifically mention the scientific pause^Hstandstill in global temperatures

Have global temperatures paused in their warming rise? Nonsense, according to SkS. Are we experiencing a standstill in global temperatures in their warming rise? Yes, according to Hansen et al. Have global temperatures continued to increase in their warming rise? No, according to a PR guy meddling with statistics.

So who’s right, and who’s wrong? Well, it depends the on context.

Temps at standstill, and global warming stopped” = WRONG

Temps at standstill, but global warming will resume later” = RIGHT

In fact, you can say pretty much anything and, as long as you add the mandatory “, but global warming will resume later“, the biggest scientific institutions in the world will support you wholeheartedly, maybe Bob Ward too.

Let’s give it a try..

“Polar bears are ok, but global warming will resume later

“Arctic won’t be free of ice any time soon, but global warming will resume later

“A lot of model-based literature is rubbish, but global warming will resume later

“West Ham playing superbly, but global warming will resume later

“Elvis is alive, but global warming will resume later

“Porcine and bovine flight sightings, but global warming will resume later

See? It’s easy, and it gets you a free ride indeed. Citizen science at its best!


Votare PDL Perché: l’Argumentum ad Excludenda

Votare PDL perché? Eppure non è molto difficile.

In due parole, perché non ha senso votare chi non vuole il tuo voto.

Quali sono le alternative disponibili:

  • Non voto: questo è un modo di dire che non importa chi vinca. Quindi, è un voto per chi vince. E non parliamo per favore della bislacca idea della “Dichiarazione del Non Voto“. Scelta illogica.
  • Grillo e Cinque Stelle: seguaci delle idee strampalate di Casaleggio. Andranno in Parlamento determinati a non fare accordi con nessuno, e quindi costretti a stare zitti. Chiusi al mondo esterno, si ritengono settariamente superiori. Impossibili da votare per chi è stato nel PDL.
  • Ingroia: un gruppo di ex-Giudici così interessati alla legalità e alla Costituzione da non pensarci due volte a trasferirsi dalle aule processuali al dibattito televisivo. Determinati a portare avanti le loro battaglie in altro consesso. Ciechi e sordi ai problemi della Giustizia al di là di quelli di categoria. Impossibili da votare per chi è stato nel PDL.
  • Bersani e il PD: reduci cattocomunisdemocratdisinistadessosolodemocratici che hanno cestinato l’idea di Renzi di aprire al voto già PDL, voto che quindi NON vogliono. Basterebbe questo a renderli impossibili da votare per chi è stato nel PDL. Poi aggiungiamo la patrimoniale e la morte collettiva per tasse, e stiamo a posto.
  • Monti: dopo aver tenuto l’indice di produzione industriale in un trend negativo per quindici-mesi-quindici, alleato a Casini e Fini. Descrive gli elettori PDL come topi. Davvero e assolutamente impossibile da votare per chi è stato nel PDL.
  • Giannino e FARE: conosce tutte le soluzioni e le applicherebbe anche, ma passa il suo tempo a spiegare a tutti perché non sia d’accordo con ciascuno dei tutti. Spreca inutilmente energie per unirsi all’antiberlusconismo. Magari un’altra volta: impossibile da votare per chi è stato nel PDL.

Silvio B avrà i suoi difetti, ma le elezioni non sono mai un concorso per scoprire la persona più adatta a governare fra tutti i cittadini della nazione. Sono un modo per scegliere il meglio che c’è.

Al cospetto dei concorrenti, e indipendentemente dal suo programma elettorale, Berlusconi rimane l’unica scelta.

AGW Omniclimate Omnologos

The only thing to worry about is worry itself (and densely networked self-selecting intellectuals…)

or so tweeted on Jan 14 Mark Lynas of various fame including a Six Degrees” book I analyzed numerically a few years back, and recent GMO repentance.

One should be forgiven for finding the juxtaposition peculiar to say the least. Shouldn’t Mark be wary of scares, having just discovered years of activism were not based on science?

Or perhaps he belongs to the category of people that really need to find a worry to be scared about, if only to be activists about something. I suggested

It is actually the right time for making such a guess. has chosen angst for its 2013 theme


(Twitter hashtag: #edgeq13)

There are 152 contributions at that site, too many to mention and probably too many to make a wager about too. Here’s an initial list:

  • Chinese eugenics
  • Black swans
  • Ingenuous viruses
  • Rejection of Darwinism applied to humans
  • Misplaced worries
  • Catastrophic risks
  • Misinformation about science
  • Planetary catastrophes
  • Collective delusions
  • Internet drivel
  • Abandoning politics
  • Debt implosion
  • Search engines as arbiters of truth
  • Shortage of valuable mates
  • Tech fascism
  • Censorship
  • Data-controlling power
  • Loss of patience
  • Underpopulation
  • End of big experiments
  • Tools too strong for our own good
  • Infectious diseases
  • Search for ecstatic experiences
  • Pessimism that makes us accept human destruction as inevitable
  • Cultural homogenisation
  • Misunderstanding free will
  • Prolonged lifespans
  • Limits in science
  • Anti-intellectualism
  • Criminal-controlled states
  • Misunderstanding of probability
  • Missing out on non-human sentience
  • Myths about men
  • Science by social media
  • Public lying and cheating
  • The Singularity
  • Nuclear war
  • Squandered opportunities
  • Wrong incentives
  • Misunderstanding of quantum mechanics
  • Enforced global psychiatric standards
  • Too much focus on novel findings in science

On the positive side, it’s not just a collection of miserabilism. I particularly liked this one:

Unfriendly Physics, Monsters From The Id, And Self-Organizing Collective Delusions
John Tooby
Founder of field of Evolutionary Psychology; Co-director, Center for Evolutionary Psychology, Professor of Anthropology, UC Santa Barbara

[…]Because intellectuals are densely networked in self-selecting groups whose members’ prestige is linked (for example, in disciplines, departments, theoretical schools, universities, foundations, media, political/moral movements, and other guilds), we incubate endless, self-serving elite superstitions, with baleful effects: Biofuel initiatives starve millions of the planet’s poorest. Economies around the world still apply epically costly Keynesian remedies despite the decisive falsification of Keynesian theory by the post-war boom (government spending was cut by 2/3, 10 million veterans dumped into the labor force, while Samuelson predicted “the greatest period of unemployment and industrial dislocation which any economy has ever faced”). I personally have been astonished over the last four decades by the fierce resistance of the social sciences to abandoning the blank slate model in the face of overwhelming evidence that it is false. As Feynman pithily put it, “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” […]


Climate Change Global Warming Omniclimate

Insanity in the media (Australian temperature colours, and beyond…)

Much ado about new colours added to the Australian coloured temperature maps.

Then one reads (in a Revkin DotEarth post maddeningly relying on Joe Romm and Jeff Masters) “For the moment, while extreme and widespread heat is predicted to persist, the country looks to be avoiding the new purple zone“. So they could have added 15 colours for all we should care.

Then one reads (in a cursory NYT archive search on “australia heat”) the following piece from January 3, 1960:

Australia has a heat wave – SYDNEY, Australia, Jan, 2 (AP) – A heat wave gripped large areas of eastern and central Australia today. The highest official reading was 123 degrees at Codnadatta, in central Australia.


Who knows how many more examples of heat wave in early January in Australia one could find. But who cares.

What matters is that Global Warming has transmogrified into “it’s hot in summertime”.

IPCC Omniclimate Omnologos

Insanity at the IPCC

A comment by geoffchambers left at the Bishop Hill blog post about Donna Laframboise’s latest IPCC exposé:

A quick look, more or less at random, at “WG2 chapter 10.2.1. Energy Demand” suggests to me that the whole IPCC process is insane, and that anyone taking it seriously is […].

Take the introductory paragraph:

The general patterns are that in countries and regions with already high incomes, climate-related changes in energy demand will be primarily driven by increasing temperatures: heavier use of air-conditioning (hence increasing electricity demand) in warm climatic zones, and lower demands for various energy forms (electricity, gas, coal, oil) in temperate and cold climatic zones, while increasing incomes will play a marginal role.

Take a random ten year period in the future for a random country or region, and think about it. Average income will probably increase by anywhere between 0 and 100%. Gas and oil prices may go up 100% or down 50%. Add in political change, technical change, population growth somwhere between -5% and +20%, and anything else you can think of. Then try to estimate what effect a rise in temperature of one fifth of one degree will have on the use of air conditioners.

It’s insane. And the same insanity is repeated page after page for three thousand pages every five years.

Climate Change Omniclimate

Why does the Met Office forecast drought when it’s been dry and flooding when it’s been wet?

Because climate scientists are always right…yes they are!.

Italia Italiano PdL

Voto e Italiani all’Estero: Piccoli Partiti Perdono

Centratissimo post di Stefano Fugazzi oggi sul tema “POLITICHE 2013: RICOMPATTARE IL CENTRODESTRA ALL’ESTERO“.

Per il voto degli Italiani all’Estero infatti solo un bipolarismo secco ha senso e significato – chi divide, distrugge. Chi fosse contrario a questo sta semplicemente chiedendo ai suoi elettori di votare per non ottenere niente. Peggio: chi desse priorità a ciò che ci divide a Roma invece che a quanto di unisce in Provincia, non ha evidentemente a cuore gli interessi di noi abitanti della Provincia.

Il problema di ogni Piccolo Partito è politico. Pochi capiscono come i meccanismi all’estero siano diversi da quelli in Italia, ma provo a spiegare. Un Piccolo Partito non può ottenere altro che nutrire la vanità di un paio di individui.

Pensiamo infatti se facesse “cappotto” e facesse eleggere tutti i deputati e senatori all’estero. Purtroppo all’estero abbiamo però solo una manciata di persone da eleggere. In Parlamento ci sarebbe del Piccolo Partito comunque uno sparuto manipolo incapace di ottenere molto se non fortunato come ai bei tempi di Prodi e del governo sempre a rischio di cadere (e che infatti durò pochissimo).

Ma naturalmente è impossibile acchiapparsi tutti i seggi. Al massimo il Piccolo Partito avrà uno o due eletti. Costoro da soli in Parlamento varranno meno di zero.

Quindi il Piccolo Partito ha bisogno di allearsi. Niente PD o PDL (altrimenti non ha ragione di esistere), rimane (all’estero) l’UDC. Il partito del 6% o meno. Il partito di Monti e dei preti. Altro che “italiani all’estero”.

Facciamo allora che il Piccolo Partito abbia il suo deputato e il suo senatore nell’UDC. Per far passare una loro proposta dovranno convincere i propri, poi sperare che quelli dell’UDC siano convinti abbastanza da convincere di quella proposta anche gli altri partiti con cui saranno al governo, sempreché siano al governo. Quindi il deputato Piccolo Partito e il senatore Piccolo Partito saranno praticamente comprimari anche nelle loro stesse proposte di legge.

Alla fine votare per partitucoli all’estero significa far eleggere un candidato PD se sei di destra e PDL se sei di sinistra. Con l’aggiunta di dividere l’elettorato e togliere importanza anche a quelli eletti nei partiti maggiori.

Tutto questo per cosa? Per la vanità di presentarsi come candidati, l’hubris di andare a Roma come eletti per poi passare cinque anni alla ricerca di qualcosa o qualcuno cui aggrapparsi per non tornare alla vecchia vita. Con tanti saluti ai problemi degli Italiani all’estero.

Chi ha a cuore i problemi degli italiani all’estero, rompa ogni indugio quindi e torni al PDL. Il resto, è vanità.

Italia Italiano

Addio, @SenatoreMonti !

(con tante scuse a tal Alessandro M.)

Addio, Monti sorgente da Bilderberg e Napolitano, ed elevato al cielo dalla UE; cima dai risultati inuguali, noti a chi è ti è stato sottoposto, ed impressi nella sua mente, non meno che lo sia l’aumento delle tasse a se e ai suoi più familiari; torrenti di denari prelevati, de’ quali distingue il dolore, come il disperare delle voci domestiche; boiardi sparsi ed opulenti sul pendìo del disastro e della recessione, rifocillati di risorse da ogni parte mentre subiamo come branchi di pecore pascenti; addio!

Quanto è gioia il passo di chi, da te schiacciato, ti vede allontanar! Alla fantasia di pensarti andato via volontariamente, pieno di speranza di trovare un altro posto dove sarai osannato, in egli si aggiungono, in quel momento, i sogni di poter risparmiare almeno il proprio; egli si maraviglia d’essersi potuto lasciar abbindolare, e mai tornerebbe indietro, anche se pensasse che, un giorno, potrebbe tornare lo spread.

Quanto più scompari dietro cattedre e convegni, il suo occhio si apre felice, gustoso e attivo, dalla ritrovata ampiezza di opportunita’ multiforme; l’aria gli pareva gravosa e morta, ora s’inoltra attento e speranzoso nelle città di nuovo operose; case vendute come case, strade che si aprono in strade, pare che gli ridiano il respiro; e davanti agli edifizi bramati dallo straniero, pensa, con desiderio pregno, al campicello del suo paese, alla casuccia a cui ha già messo gli occhi addosso, da gran tempo, e che comprerà, si’ comprerà, tornando ricco di fiducia e speranza, perche’ senza Monti.

Triste e’ il pensiero invece per chi non aveva mai spinto al di là di te neppure un desiderio fuggitivo, chi aveva composto in te tutti i disegni dell’avvenire, e n’è sbalzato adesso con Fini e Casini, e Montezemolo, da una forza perversa! Chi, staccato a un tempo dalle più care abitudini, e disturbato nelle più care speranze, si e’ affidato a te Monti, per avviarsi in traccia di sconosciuti che non ha mai desiderato di conoscere, e non hanno mai combinato niente in politica e non può adesso prigioniero dei Centrini e dei Perdenti con l’immaginazione arrivare a un momento stabilito per il ritorno al bipolarismo che solo puo’ pensar di fare!

Addio, IMU sulla casa natìa, dove, sedendo, con un pensiero occulto, s’imparò a distinguere dal rumore de’ passi comuni il rumore d’un passo aspettato di Equitalia con un misterioso timore.

Addio, disoccupazione sempre sentita straniera, lavoro mancante sogguardato tante volte alla sfuggita, passando, e non senza rossore; nuovamente la mente si figura un soggiorno tranquillo e perpetuo di cittadino attivo e partecipe.

Addio, inflazione. Addio, perdita di ogni rispetto agli occhi di chi preferisce il tecnico al democraticamente eletto. Addio, calo della produttivita’ e della produzione, dove l’animo tornò tante volte disperato, piangendo nel buio le lodi della liberta’ d’impresa a Monti invisa; dov’era promesso, preparato un mai visto decreto sviluppo; dove il sospiro segreto della felicita’ doveva essere solennemente benedetto, e la ripresa venir comandata, oramai quasi santa; addio! Chi toglieva a noi tanta giocondità è perduto; e non turbera’ piu’ la gioia de’ nostri figli, se non per esser loro monito per una più certa Italia e più grande.


Science and Politics: Giving Up the Delusion

The delusion, that is, that Science can be somehow shielded from Politics.

Science is big and needs public money. Public money distribution is dictated by policy. Policies depend on politics. Therefore science depends on politics.

Therefore science is bound to be politicized. In the US it will forever slide between all-Dems and all-GOP according to contemporary mores.

In the UK, Science will remain forever prisoner of the Establishment. In Italy, it will be allowed to do whatever doesn’t hurt whoever is in charge of the “control room”.

The only way out is to make Science become the Fourth Branch of Government.