I’ve started a simple sceptic dictionary and would welcome suggestions for climatic terms to include and/or other improvements.
The reason this is necessary is that any sceptic knows that the stuff written on Wikipedia about climate is dishonest and not worth reading. As such many people including me have attempted to create an honest climate wiki. However, the problem we face is that many of the people editing wikipedia are writing the articles and then “buddy reviewing” the journals so not only is wikipedia corrupt but so is the general academic literature.
So whilst I would love a project like ClimateWiki to succeed, I’ve decided to try getting something very simple off the ground and so have chosen to focus on producing a sceptic dictionary: http://scottishsceptic.uk/dictionary/
I’ve kicked off with a few common terms I use. But I expect to add a few more including but not exclusively:

• ECS
• AGW
• CAGW
• Positive Feedback
• Forcing
• Global temperature
• greenhouse gas
• Greenspin
• greenhouse effect
• Adiabatic warming
• Skydragon
• Climate change
• Global cooling
• Global cooling scare
• Milankovitch cycle
• Ice-age cycle
• NOAA
• RSS, GISS, NCEI, UAH
• HADCRUT UKMO
• Natural variation
• hind cast
• Water Vapor
• Climate/weather
• models
• GW (global warming)
• Scientific method
• straw man arguments
• Ad hominen
• Argument from authority
• Real science/ “science”
• confidence (as in 95% confidence)
• ET AL
• ENSO, El Nino, Sothern Oscillaiton, PDO, NAO, etc,
• SAT ( surface air temperature taken over land ) and SST ( ocean temperatures taken just beneath the surface)

 

After some thought I’ve decided the project would be better described as a  dictionary than a wiki (with collaboration if  there are people interested) so I’ve started a new page: http://scottishsceptic.uk/dictionary/
I happened across a page in Wikipedia last night on the global warming pause (or as Wikipedia always bastardises things on climate the “Hiaitus”). As I’ve been saying for a while I invented the term “The Pause” in order to try to get a section on the Wikipedia global warming page so that there was a place to discuss the failures of the predicted warming. (For obvious reasons that proposal was rudely rejected by the eco-academics who dominate Wikipedia). So, I was more than a little amused that the same people who denied the original request were now being forced by the more or less general acceptance of the existence of the pause to to find ways to simultaneously admit and deny the pause. (And I will leave them squirming as I’ve no wish to help them out of that dilemma!)
However, let me be honest, we sceptics owe a great deal to these guys, because their overt bias and  vindictive arrogant behaviour did more than anything else to galvanise the online sceptic community. Each time some professional engineer or scientist honestly tried to contribute to Wikipedia by correcting the obvious bias – and got a bloody nose – those eco-academics thought it was a great victory. But the reality was that they were upsetting very intelligent people, usually retired, with plenty of time, with a high social standing and a lifetime of dealing with such idiots in their own working lives.
And of course, they looked elsewhere, found places like Wikipedia, and the constant attacks on the various online forums galvanised this sceptic community into one of the most effective fighting forces for scientific truth and integrity which the world has ever seen and now we more or less dominate the internet in this area.
So, for obvious reasons, Wikipedia has been a gift to us sceptics! Because whilst it might have been influential a long time ago, the reality is that Wikipedia lost its credibility because of their obvious bias and now it is very much a backwater on climate (I bet only visited by school kids) and blogs like WUWT are now probably the world’s most read sites on climate (and I’ve seen people at the top of the Met Office reading WUWT !)

Wiki-Climate

But to be frank, I miss having a decent wiki on climate. Yes I do occaisionally find myself going there but I’m always disappointed, because even on totally neutral topics or even looking for data supporting the CO2 “warming”, I’ve found that Wikipedia just doesn’t have the facts to support sensible debate. It’s written by climate propagandists as fact-lite propaganda and as such it is pretty useless when writing technical articles – even when the data is uncontentious. Continue reading →

Cfact have yet again shown the true nature of the daft people who believe in “global warming”.  They are just cannon fodder for the BIG ENVIRONMENT sharks who use them to line their own pockets:

You’ve got to hand it to the Pope, his timing couldn’t have been better with the “Endafticle”. Because it now looks as if the Pope killed “Global Warming”!!
As the following graph shows, “Global warming” (Blue) a term almost exclusively used for climate, has been on the wane since even before Climategate and was heading below “Climate change” (red), a term very often used in other contexts other than climate such as economics or politics in the phrase “there’s been a change in climate concerning …”

It was almost inevitable that sooner or later Global warming would drop below the pretty steady chatter level of all things that have the phrase “climate change”, however, it ironic that the Pope appears to have delivered the final “coup de grace”.
Because rather than increasing support for Global warming extremism, the actual effect of the Pope’s intervention was a marked drop in support in the weeks afterwards. So almost by some act of god, the Pope (after a Sunday of news chit chat) gave “Global warming” that final push down below “Climate Change” whereby the term is now almost indistinguishable from the background noise (much like global warming itself I suppose  – how prosaic!)

On a more practical front
Because “Global warming” is now almost part of the background noise of the internet (and soon it will just be just noise), I’m less and less confident that any trends I see are specific to climate. And I can’t use “climate change” as easily because it both doesn’t have such clear trends because it is not specific to climate.
I’ve certainly noticed a drop in the number of “Global warming” stories on google news feeds. The result is that ratio of “signal to noise” is diminishing, so, I am struggling to keep tabs of the few stories on climate/global warming. That means  I’m going to be far less certain that any trends are real as “Global warming” sinks disgracefully down into the background noise.

 

As far as I’m concerned, the EPA in the US have clearly an unequivocally conspired with climate extremists not only to break the law but to destroy the vary foundation of US democracy.
Because under the EPA the president has stopped being an elected member of a republican government where Congress, Senate and President work together, but now the Senate and Congress have been bypassed by the institution of what is technically monarchy (power held by one person – from greek mono – one and arch- power).
Really the president should be impeached for usurping the constitution, but it sounds to me as if the Senate and Congress are spineless poodles who leave it up to outside groups to try to halt this monarchical power grab:

I’m really getting sick to death of the immoral climate extremists.  This time its the “Yale Climate connections” who are using sufferers of Asthma to push their nasty politics whereby the poor pay to make the rich like Al Gore even richer.
Almost invariably this is achieved by cherry picking something that has increased (Ragweed), and falsely asserting this is causing a widespread problem (without actually giving any figures). And as usual they ignore the context for climate health issues whereby  20x as many people die from cold than heat and that cold, mould and damp are far more of a problem for those with breathing problems. That is one main reason why 1million extra people have died in the UK alone since this climate scam started. (37,000 a year in the UK alone)
Now every death is a tragedy whatever the cause. But if global warming had caused massive numbers of deaths from Ragweed, then surely we would be told? So, I checked online and found a site that is likely to embellish the death rate said that:

“There are more than 5,300 deaths from asthma annually. United States.” https://www.allergystore.com/index.php/news/ragweed-allergic-rhinitis-and-asthma.html Continue reading →

Year after year gullible green=naive activists are being used and abused by BIG ENVIRONMENT (the BIG BUSINESS which now makes its money feeding from the trough of public money). Like the  well intentioned but gullible interns at the EPA, these starry eyed activists get involved with BIG ENVIRONMENT get abused and used for a few years to line the pockets of the few, and then most just grow up realise they’ve been used and find something better to do with their lives.
But the fact is that like the sexual predators at the EPA and Pachauri of IPCC, there always will be another group of starry eyed interns for everyone in BIG ENVIRONMENT to abuse.
For  it’s not just those at the EPA and IPCC who ask them to swallow and not spit. Because people like Clinton are also abusing these well intentioned interns to create a thin veneer of cool-young-green cream to smother the truth: that those like Clinton are not environmentalist in any shape or form as they fly on their personal jets all over the place.
In that age old fairytale scenarios, those politicians like Clinton jumping on the global warming bandwagon, are really just squeezing the youth of their vigour to concoct a “Youth” beauty cream – one with these old hags think will allow them to pass themselves off as “young and fashionable” and “environmental” to the gullible young voter.
Well my view is that its time people like Clinton, the EPA, Pachauri, stopped using these young interns for their own gratification and these interns had the guts to tell the world just what crap they have to swallow from these old hags.

 

I said it was a like a sweet shop. But the only reason I’m posting this story is I just love the idea of “Carbon dating” … which I presume is a burning desire to get attached to some rich heir (O’h dear)

Fossil Fuels May Be Screwing Up Carbon Dating

However, if I stop throwing puns. Carbon dating uses the amount of C14 in carbon samples. The level of C14 is constantly varying due to cosmic rays, volcanic emissions etc. So, this is a complete none story as C14 dating has always had to cope with the changing levels of C14 in the atmosphere and if geological fuels are changing that, then it’s no different to normal.
And for info, you may often hear a reference to the C14 date and the “calibrated date”. The calibrated date is just factoring in the change of C14 level in the atmosphere.

I feel like a kid in a sweet shop not knowing what stories to put on my blog.
Having been  in the West of Scotland a few weeks ago and seeing snow still on the hills, this story doesn’t surprise me:

Global warming update: There’s still snow on the ground in Buffalo

And as I just can’t help it remember this:

According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become “a very rare and exciting event”.

“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

However … I can’t let a reference to Buffalo disappear without mentioning the strangest English sentences. To buffalo means confuse. Buffalo Buffalo are the buffalo of Buffalo. So …

Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo

Addendum
Just for fun … I wonder … if I were to suggest “To gullible” means to pull one over and then say that “Green = gullible”, Then I could say:

Gullible gullibles gullible gullible gullibles

There is just so many news stories speaking so loudly against the global warming scam that I’m starting to get overwhelmed.
The simple fact is that the climate extremists are completely demoralised. I can’t go onto a forum without finding it full of sceptics (unless they don’t have comments or like the UK Guardian exclude sceptics).
This article (about a climate extremist) is quite good example and explains the change:

Author Maria Taylor explores how Australia went from being at the forefront of climate change action to the world laggards.

‘The science risk messages didn’t change. What changed is the story that Australia’s political leaders and the mass media together told the public,’ says author Maria Taylor. http://www.echo.net.au/2015/07/how-australia-buried-the-will-to-act-on-climate-change/

In other words, the press and politicians stopped gullibly swallowing the climate extremism emanating from academia and … guess what? …. the climate extremists in academia don’t like it! (Hard cheese!)
But more importantly, as far as I am concerned they are now admitting to themselves that they have lost.
Because only when they start admitting they’ve lost credibility will they have that opportunity they need. That opportunity is to look at the whole issue realistically and realise that the issue is not with the public or us sceptics, but with academia’s own poor standards of work and the biased eco-activist, anti-business anti-industry culture of academia