A while back I wrote an article “why women love ugly men” in which I made the argument that because human faces varied so much, that there had to be a strong impulse to pick faces that are not “normal”. Which could not happen if there were a single concept of beauty and we all sought mates who fitted this stereotype. Because if we did seek mates who were “beautiful”, then very quickly any genetics which caused people to diverge from this standard would be removed from human race.
Logically, humans must select features that are distinctly different from the idealised standard of “beauty” – otherwise diversity of human features would disappear.
So, I was already aware that humans selected for “ugly” (or at least – counter intuitively – we actively select against some idealised form of beauty) but I didn’t understand why.
Then, watching a video on bees it suddenly occurred to me why women love ugly men:

“As long as the queen is mated with drones that are not closely related to her … otherwise spotty brood and diploid drones”.
Obviously closely related queen and drones is a big problem for bees (they become infertile), however closely related humans also causes problems as offspring of closely related parents have a much higher chance of receiving two defective genes from both parents.
How does mother nature tell us not to fall in love with closely related kin? “instinct” tells us that people who look like us tend to be closely related. So, by avoiding people who are as good looking as we all are … we end up with partners who will tend to be only distantly related.
This problem of too much inter-breeding is not such a big problem for loan animals who by their nature have to actively seek a mate, but it is a huge problem for human societies, particularly tribal ones, where “mates” tend to come from within a small social grouping leading to a lot of genetic interbreeding.
So, paradoxically, nature seems to have found a way around this problem of “inbreeding”: by encouraging us to like “ugly” – or at least variations from some idealised concept of beauty. This, to some extent explains why humans have such diverse features, voice, etc.
But of course, we are not the only animals to see such diversity. Seagulls have distinctive calls otherwise chicks would not be able to recognise their own offspring, likewise humans have distinctive voices so that we are all distinct enough to see as individuals. So, in part the reason must also be the advantage of being able to recognise individuals within a large group.

Whilst looking for news from the Climate Conference, I found this:

From the press coverage today, I would hardly know that there was any meeting on global warming, let alone one with most of the leaders of the world.
Indeed, I can’t find anything of any substance to report except Inhofe’s new book.

As we all known the alarmists were jumping up and down for joy at the prospect some global warming caused by the El Nino peek. So I have been interested to know when that peak occurred – and now it has!:
So, what did this “massive warming” effect have on the only credible & nearly global temperature from the satellites? If you look hard and use some imagination, I think the “effect” was that small upswing near the end which didn’t even bring it above the “bulk” of the noise. So really no warming at all!

And if you compare it with the 1998 El Nino they are like Chalk and cheese. This suggests this recent El Nino was very different. One possible explanation, is that the El Nino did have a profound warming effect – it’s just that we have already entered a period of cooling and that try as it might the El Nino could hardly offset the cooling.
As such, as we seem to be past the peak, within two years rather than “no warming for 18 years”,we may well be saying “the coldest global temperature in 20 years”. (But no doubt by then NASA and NOAA’s fabrications will show the planet is already being boiled like a cabbage).
But, I think it may be much worse than that. If we look below, NOAA got the ENSO prediction massive wrong. Almost everyone was predicting more warming (how familiar). But if I take the recent failure to predict the El Nino trend, and then this trend as well as assuming that NOAA continue being as wrong as they started, I’ve project it forward along the red line.
And now, just as rising index for El Nino was (supposedly) linked to warming, now the declining El Nino index suggests that pronounced cooling is likely to occur. Not by end of 2016 as NOAA suggest but as early as April 2017. In other words, there is a reasonable chance that April-June will start seeing headlines with a string of “coldest temperatures in >20 years” – or indeed “End of Global warming”!

The state of California has embarked on a 25-year green power odyssey in an effort to reduce the amount of CO2 we place into the atmosphere, all aimed at leading the world in an anti-climate change crusade for humanity.

Beginning in 2030, 50 percent of all electrical power produced for our regulated utilities will be mandated “renewable” energy. This definition under the current law includes energy from solar, wind and small hydroelectric facilities built, or to be built, over that time frame. It excludes residential solar installations and existing large hydroelectric projects such as energy produced from Hoover Dam.
While some of this new power will be “infill” development (smaller solar projects that may be placed in vacant or brown-field urban areas), most of it will be new development in areas of the state where sunshine and wind are most plentiful, our more remote inland desert regions including much of the Inland Empire.
Read more: Stop These Things

To coincide with #COP21, I’ve added a tweet button to uClimate.com (which includes the #cop21 hashtag). So please get tweeting.
I’ve also, taken the chance to undertake a few other changes which I’ve been planning to the layout of uClimate.com also hopefully to speed up the site as well as a new mobile version intended to make it easier to view on small screen devices.

The people responsible should be locked up in jail.

I finally got around to reading the great article in the Spectator about Judith Curry:

‘I was tossed out of the tribe’: climate scientist Judith Curry interviewed

Which is interesting, because she’s starting to understand the “boundary problem” of academia which rejects anything it doesn’t like as “outsiders” and should any “outsider” dare to propose anything scientific, the response is to attack them as “pseudo-science” and “science deniers”.
However, far more important is this phrase:

Any such projection is meaningless, unless it accounts for natural variability and gives a value for ‘climate sensitivity’ —i.e., how much hotter the world will get if the level of CO2 doubles.

As I wrote in Formal concepts of noise within Science climate science lacks any concept of “natural variation”. The consequence, is that it assumes the climate is driven by “external forcings” – and then it divides up any changes between those “drivers”. And because CO2 is a conveniently increasing “driver” that starts being recorded in 1958 -leaving only a decade of “global cooling” to be explained – and alongside temperatures till 1998 – it was very easy to assign the total temperature rise to CO2. (By using a scaling factor increasing the predicted warming from CO2 on its own of 0.6-1.2C** by fabricating “mythical” feedbacks to raise the CO2 warming as high as 5.8C.
Thus by (falsely) asserting that there was no natural variation – and therefore there was nothing else could have caused the change – by ignoring the patently obvious changes in the historical record of CET that proved natural variation has always been present – by picking just a few select “drivers” that were then the only things allowed to explain the (naturally varying) global temperature – ignoring the fact the curves did not fit, and that there was one almighty pause from 1998 when temperatures did not rise but CO2 levels did – the alarmists (falsely) justified up to 5x increase in the expected warming from CO2 from around 1C up to 5.8C.
That was not just unscientific, it was criminally fraudulent – as this fabrication of a link  was intentionally hidden from the gullible politicians so that they were wholly misled about the validity of this scaling resulting in fraudulent predictions.

Natural Variability explains all the 20th century climate change

The simple fact as I demonstrated in Proof: recent temperature trends are not abnormal is that we expected climate to vary as it did in the 20th century. So, far from seeing anything abnormal, what we saw was the normal natural changes that have occurred in the earth’s climate for billions of years and will continue to occur for billions of years and nothing any of us do can change that.
And once we accept that simple provable fact, that all the 20th century change can be explained by natural variation – there is absolutely no need to invent bogus mythical feedbacks to scale up the supposed effect of CO2 from 0.6C (latest Hitran calcs) or 1.2C ** to up to 5.8C warming as they did. Instead, the best we can say is that “CO2 is expected to cause some warming – but the scale of that warming is less than natural variation – so we cannot attribute previous warming, nor can we predict any more warming than around 0.6-1.2**C in the next century
 
**The 1.2C figure is that still used by the IPCC, but it is way out of date & now arguably fraudulent because calculations by Hermann Harde using the later versions of the HITRAN database give a much lower figure. This smells of fraud – because there appears to be no reason why an older figure would be used except that it gives a higher figure of warming.

Earlier this year, following a few colder years in Scotland I wrote: “What should define the start of the next ice-age?” to which I suggested “the first year in which ice remains continuously on the Scottish mountains.” I must have been more misled by the notorious UEA (of Climategate) lie that “Children won’t know what snow is” as I had assumed that permanent snow did not occur in Scotland. And I was partly right, because in 2003 & 2006 there was no permanent snow. But as the graph below shows, permanent snow is now increasing rapidly:

Which – should those predicting a catastrophic drop in solar activity leading to cold be right:

And if my own findings re the previous sudden & massive drop in global temperatures some 8-12,000 years after the interglacial starts (we are now 10,000 years in) is right, if as well the North Atlantic Oscillation is going to start causing cooling leading to additional cooling in the next 20 years then it may well be that 2006 was literally the beginning of the next “ice-age”.

Am I being serious?

I’d like to put in some massive caveat: “of course I don’t think it will happen”. However, we are now seeing things on the one-year, decadal, century and millennium that all indicate that (within those time bands) we have or will see cooling. I’d like to say the above video has blown the issue out of all proportion and moderate cooling may come, but now nearly as bad as they suggest. But most of all, I’d like to point to credible climate data from honest organisations – not ones from those acting fraudulently fabricating warming adjustments so that no one at all knows whether we are currently seeing cooling.
So seriously – I haven’t a clue what it means except it is another nail in the coffin of the “global warming” fraud, and hopefully when the dust is settled – when we finally have credible climate data we can trust – we might then know whether or not there’s anything at all to be concerned about.