Recent Posts

Recent Comments


Cop Land

« | Main | »

Is Global Warming Complete Bunk?

By Wyatt Earp | February 16, 2010

That depends. If you believe the authoritah of the University of East Anglia “scientists” – the go-to guys on the subject – then you probably think global warming is very real. However, if you believe UEA climatologist Phil Jones, you probably think as I do – that global warming is nonsense. Surprised? You shouldn’t be, since Jones just admitted that there was no significant global warming over the last 15 years!

Thankfully, Michelle Malkin is there to pounce on the “settled science.”

I called ClimateGate “the global warming scandal of the century” back on November 20. Deeper and deeper it goes. Over the weekend, University of East Anglia global warming cultist Phil Jones conceded that there has been no statistically significant warming over the last 15 years:

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Wow, isn’t that convenient?

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Oh, so like Sandy Berger Burglar, Jones is just sloppy? Anyone buying that?

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

And there you go. Not that I needed convincing, since Philly has received over 70 inches of snow this winter. The hysterical part of this is that the Al Gorebots claimed that the heavy snows were proof of global warming.

Yeah right, and my inability to get girls in college was proof that I was cool. Idiots.

Topics: Snarkasm | 13 Comments »

13 Responses to “Is Global Warming Complete Bunk?”

  1. John D Says:
    February 16th, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    “…suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.”

    Wow. Well I guess this explains how the ice age ended and the glaciers receded many centuries before the invention of the internal combustion engine.

  2. Crusty Says:
    February 16th, 2010 at 1:37 pm

    Get Hillary to check the table in the White house seems like a lot of missing data was left on it.

  3. Wyatt Earp Says:
    February 16th, 2010 at 1:51 pm

    John D – Unless Henry Ford stole the idea from the cavemen . . .

    Crusty – Or in the shredder.

  4. TexasFred Says:
    February 16th, 2010 at 4:49 pm

    12 inches of snow in Dallas, Texas last week…

    GloBull warming? I have been cold for several days…

    And for what it’s worth, the last 2 summers have been relatively mild here, barely broke 100° most of the time, and for North Texas, that’s a NICE summer…

  5. John A Says:
    February 16th, 2010 at 5:32 pm

    Is Global Warming Complete Bunk?

    No. It has been going on since at least the 1850s, probably a bit earlier. Even the hockeystick showed warming since then, probably the only real part of it – and Jones demolishes its massive uptick in the rate of warming by admitting the 1860-1880, 1910-1940, and 1975-1998 rates are indistinguishable.

    So blaming the entire thing on human, especially CO2, influence? Yes. buncum. AKA balderdash, codswallop, bull…

  6. Fenway_Nation Says:
    February 16th, 2010 at 5:54 pm

    I’m probably one of the least qualified people in the world to comment on the science of it, but all the legislation and rules being passed in the name of saving the planet came off as a naked, blatant power grab….not just in the USA, but in supposedly free countries of the EU, the UK, Canada, Japan, Australia, Scandanavia and others.

    Most free people throughout the world would never dream of allowing unaccountable governmental or international bureaucrats dictating to them through fiat what sort of food they should eat, what type of light bulb they must buy and what sort of vehicle they are required to drive. The second that happens, they cease to be a free people.

  7. RogerDee Says:
    February 16th, 2010 at 8:34 pm

    Follow the ALGORE money train!!!

  8. crazypolitico Says:
    February 16th, 2010 at 9:02 pm

    Al Gore’s climate credit stock is going down faster than Joslyn James in Tiger’s hotel room.

  9. Wyatt Earp Says:
    February 17th, 2010 at 7:51 am

    TexasFred – Yeah, I would call those temperatures mild.

    John A – Codswallop. That’s a great word!

    Fenway_Nation – Hey, if I want regular light bulbs in my house, I should be able to get them. That’s what the Founders wanted!

    RogerDee – Hopefully, that train will soon derail.

    CP – Ba-dump-bump!

  10. Jon Brooks Says:
    February 17th, 2010 at 9:12 am

    Since it all boils down to, energy input/output in our semi closed system..the earth, to give you a perspective on what we recieve from Ole Mr. Sol vs. what we generate
    per day…bear with me here:

    Diameter of earth = 7926.41 miles
    Solar input/day/ sq ft = 164 Watts
    Area of sphere = 3.1415 x Diameter **2 =5.5026 x10 to the 15th sq feet

    Now area of planet x solar watts input at ground =
    (5.5026 x10**15) x (164 Watts/sq ft) =9.024 x10**17
    watts energy input

    If every human on earth converted enough energy to heat at the rate of 10,000 Watts/day (assume 7 billion)
    that equals 7 x 10 to the 13th watts per day for humanity. Dividing that by the watts/day that make it to the ground to be accurately measured yeilds:

    7 x10**13/ 9.024 x10**17 = 0.0000776
    or approx 0.008 % of heat generated by man compared to nature every day thats a factor of 12,900 times smaller than ole mother nature.

    This is just the energy that reaches the ground, photons are absorbed by all the water vapor, gases in the atmosphere etc. etc. and are probably about 10 times more than reaches the surface. So we humans pump less than 8… 1000ths of a percent per day less than mother nature into the enviornment. Do we heat the earth up..yup! Does it matter compared to mother nature..nope!

    Speaking of CO2 the earth has also seen times where it was several times the level it is now and life flourished very very well and there were still periodic ice ages to boot, so go figure.

  11. Wyatt Earp Says:
    February 17th, 2010 at 10:58 am

    Jon – Much too early for that kind of math, but I trust your findings.

  12. metoo Says:
    February 17th, 2010 at 11:46 am

    The only global warming I feel is coming from all the hot air these clowns keep shooting out of their pie holes!

  13. C/A Says:
    February 17th, 2010 at 3:04 pm

    Hey man… climate isn’t the same as weather…man.

    Bawahahahahahhhahahahahahahhah… woo….heh…hoo.