Archive for the ‘global warming’ Category

Summary of the Global Warming evidence

Sunday, August 13th, 2017

Surface measurements have various major sources of error, which have to be guestimated away in an ad hoc manner. The only data that is arguably good enough to estimate the rather small changes in climate is Australia, Britain, and the US – which on the whole have not been warming as measured by surface instruments. And even for them, the warming estimated from surface instruments is rather similar to various sources of error, that have to be “corrected”. The main contribution to global warming as measured by surface instruments comes from sources where you can get any result you want by rather arbitrarily deciding some data is good enough to include, and some data is not, by cherry picking particular events – for example warm nights indicate America is warming, but hottest days indicates America is cooling. You can always find one indicator to be alarmist about, but on the whole, where our data is good, surface instruments indicate little or no global warming. Because our surface instrument database is noisy, inaccurate, and incomplete, there is plenty of room to spin it any way one pleases.

The most precise measurement of global warming comes from satellites, which indicate a warming of one degree centigrade per century.

Recent changes in the icecaps indicate slight warming over the last thirty years ago, though the antarctic icecap has increased by almost the same amount as the arctic icecap has decreased, but the icecaps still have substantially more ice than a hundred years ago. The landing sites of early antarctic explorers are now behind a vast barrier of thick, and very old, ice impenetrable to icebreakers. A century ago there was too much open water at the North Pole, even in midwinter, to access it by dog sled, yet today, you can access it by dog sled in winter. Early attempts to reach the North Pole by dog sled had huge problems with open, ice free areas of water. Recent efforts to recreate those trips using identical equipment just took a straight line over solid ice.

The worlds biggest glaciers, the ones in the Himalayas are growing. Greenland glaciers are arguably shrinking, but by a miniscule amount. Glaciers do not tell you today’s weather as compared to yesterday, but today’s weather as compared with a very long time ago. Which fits with the experiences of arctic and antarctic explorers a century or so ago. Different glaciers are giving different indications, which is consistent with the conjecture that some years, some decades, and some centuries are warmer, and others are cooler.

So, lukewarming is true, for the moment, natural variation is true, and catastrophic warming is not true.

Warmism and the old Gods of Mexico

Sunday, February 26th, 2017

Warmism is an updated and rebranded version of the old Mexican religion, demon worship. The priests announce that unless human sacrifices are made, the sun will cease to rise.

And, guess what, this gives the priests a whole lot of influence over which people get sacrificed to sun god, and which people do not. Thus we find the priests of global warming involved in all sorts of highly lucrative schemes whereby carbon indulgences are sold, and subsidies handed out, with the result that certain priests of global warming get a whole lot of money, for example the carbon indulgences sold by Carbonscape.

The demons were worshiped through cannibalism, sodomy, and transvestism.  (That is how you can tell that they were demons, rather than angels or saints.)  While we no longer have literal cannibalism, the food to fuel program has similar results, and we still have sodomy and transvestism as priestly acts demonstrating priestly holiness, as for example in Earth Worship conducted by Less Wrong.

Certain Indian nations were somewhat ticked off that the Aztecs were always sacrificing them, and they were not sacrificing Aztecs, and therefore took advantage of Cortez’s invasion to revolt against the Aztecs. Whereupon it became apparent that their priests were secretly in cahoots with the Aztec priests to facilitate Aztec domination of their people and Aztec cannibalism of their people – that the Gods would make announcements through the temples of the revolting tribes that were planned and coordinated in the Aztec capital. In other words, the old Gods of Mexico made their proclamations via peer review.

Conservatives find their balls

Tuesday, February 21st, 2017

As a general rule, the left deploys any means necessary, routinely engaging in treason, criminal acts, and barefaced lies, as for example the latest business about Islamic rape war on Swedes. And the cuckservatives roll over and let them get away with it. The left does this stuff because they can, and routinely do, get away with it.

However, the committee on Science, Space and Technology is now insisting on investigating the latest act of Global Warming deception by the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration, demanding papers that the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration is highly unlikely to release, because these papers would likely be proof of crimes by civil servants. You cannot prosecute a scientist for being one eyed about what he is determined to believe is true, but you most definitely can prosecute a civil servant for willfully deceiving the government.

Hat tip Watt’s up

Trump has a pile of prosecutions he can apply for breaches of national security, and now we are seeing potential prosecutions for fraudulent warmism. If he applies these (and you know Trump – would he not) the permanent government is going to be brought to heel.

Defunding the left

Sunday, February 19th, 2017

Reagan talked about defunding the left, but never actually did anything.

As a result of Trump’s threats against Berkeley, they are starting to think that hiring a bunch of thugs to beat people up and cause over a hundred thousand dollars worth of damage may have been a bit excessive.

Meanwhile Trump and congress are working on stripping two billion from NASA global warming propaganda.

NASA put up a bunch of satellites to measure global warming. To their considerable disappointment, these show no significant warming in the past twenty years. To a good approximation, no significant warming since the satellite data became sufficiently accurate as to deny people excuses for “correcting” it. So they returned to the old faithful, “surface temperature measurements” – otherwise known as weather reports. The trouble with weather reports is that from time to time the location of the thermometer, or the time of day when it is read, changes. Also the location is usually directly adjacent to human habitation, which over time tends to have more humans, more cars, and more parking spaces, all of which tends to warm things up. This requires numerous very large “corrections”, which corrections are pulled out of the rectums of NASA’s climate “scientists” – who sound more like cultists than scientists. One of the commenters asks of one such correction:

Did anyone ever figure out how the trends in the interior of Greenland could exceed the trends actually observed at stations*? Since there are no stations in the interior, the trends there must be computed by interpolating from nearby (coastal) stations

According to NASA’s climate data, GISS, calculated from surface stations, the world is getting hotter primarily in places where there are no surface stations.

Of course cutting a few billion from climate change activism is small change compared to the core of the problem, the universities, and I cannot see Trump taking on the universities unless he makes himself King.

But two billion less for climate change activism is the first cut for the left since the cuts that happened in restoration of Charles the second. It is a start.

Further, it is going to scare the vermin into voiding their bowels, since it was the most blatantly propagandistic warming “science” that got the first cut.

A warming world?

Monday, December 12th, 2016

Early explorations of the Antarctic report an ice free shore in areas now long covered by a growing icecap. Twenty first century science just simply lies in your face about this, with blatant barefaced fraud, but sometimes the discrepancy becomes glaringly and embarassingly obvious.

What about the North Pole? Early twentieth century attempts to reach the North Pole were frustrated by the fact that ice coverage was fragile, incomplete, and had gaps full of open water even in the middle of winter, so that travel by dog sled was dangerous and impractical. There was too much ice for it to be safe to sail to the pole in summer, but not enough for it to be safe to dog sled to the pole in winter. Today, the North Pole in the middle of winter is solidly ice bound, and it is quite easy to reach the North Pole by dog sled. So today’s north pole has a lot more ice than it did at the start of the twentieth century. The Northwest passage was difficult and unsafe for wooden ships then, and difficult and unsafe for wooden ships now.

But do we have any proxies for temperature that cover the present day, and also centuries past?

Yes we do, we have Law Dome, a pile of ice and snow in the Antarctic. Drill in Law Dome, and the isotope ratio agrees very well with recently measured present day temperatures of the weather station near Law Dome, unlike most proxies favored by global warmers.

And the Law Dome shows that in 500AD-1000AD, the temperature at Law Dome was a whole lot warmer than the present, or any recent temperatures. On the whole, temperatures have gone up and gone down, plenty of climate change, but mostly in the direction of colder, as we would expect from the growth in the icecaps.

What about surface instrument readings which supposedly show the world has warmed 0.6 degrees in recent decades?

I myself attempted to reconstruct recent global temperatures from surface instrument readings, and the data is unsuited to the task. It contains various sources of systematic error that have to be corrected by ad hoc guessing, and one can make one reasonable set of guesses and use one reasonable procedure, and get one past temperature, or a different reasonable set of guesses and a different reasonable procedure and easily get a result 1.2 degrees different without intentionally torturing the data.

We now have satellites that do provide accurate world wide readings of temperature, and have had them since 1998 (actually a good deal earlier than 1998, but the early satellites had problems that arguably make their readings non comeasurable. Debates about how earlier satellite measurements should be interpreted are difficult to resolve.)

And surprise surprise, since we have had accurate satellite readings of global temperatures, they have been fairly stable, with no obvious trend in any particular direction. There has been plenty of quite dramatic climate change in the past, and there will likely be plenty of quite dramatic climate change in the future, but it is not apparent that we have been having much climate change from nineteen ninety eight to the present.

The only data suitable for detecting small world wide variations of temperature is the satellite data, and the less one is free to torture the satellite data, the less it it indicates that anthropogenic warming is detectable.

Recap on Global Warming

Sunday, November 13th, 2016

Some days are warmer, some are cooler. Some years are warmer, some are cooler. Some centuries are warmer, some are cooler.

Not only does climate vary, but the variability itself is subject to change. Ten degree swings over decade have happened, and when that happens once, usually happens ten or twenty times over the following millenia. Fortunately we have not had anything as bad as that in recent millenia, but during Roman times it was substantially warmer than today, and wheat grew in what is now desert, today’s deserts were the breadbasket of Europe, and during the little ice age, it was mighty cold, and the deserts were bigger.

The Hockey stick curve (which shows climate stable until industrialization) is just phony. The climategate files revealed that those proclaiming it showed no interest in whether it was true or false. Mann delegated the key work to minor grad students, told them what the data should show, and displayed absolutely no interest in how they tortured the data to get his predetermined result. This was obvious when it came out, and confirmed by the leak of climategate files. Mann himself did not know how the Hockey Stick curve was generated, in the sense that he failed to ask, and showed no interest in, the questions raised in the Harry_Read_Me.txt file, which discusses the manufacture of the corrupted and corrupting data used to weight the proxies, and also in that Harry, a low status menial, was tasked with recreating graphs already published, implying that Mann and company had no idea where those graphs came from or what they were based on, if anything.

Mann and company vaguely hoped and sort of believed that they curves that they published were somehow derived from observations, but they did not know, and showed no interest in, what observations, and how derived.

When the Hockey Stick Curve appeared it showed the classic marks of theocratic science.

Everyone used to believe, based on extensive evidence, that climate had been highly variable in the past. And then suddenly everyone in academia changed their belief, quietly forgetting that they used to believe something complete different, without asking for the evidence that supposedly supported their new belief.

Indeed, to ask the new experts how they knew their new facts about past climate was deemed an act of harassment. To ask, was to be anti scientific, since you were showing disrespect to official science. Every academic everywhere, with a handful of courageous exceptions that were swiftly brought into line, agreed with the new line, and declined to ask dangerous and subversive questions as to what data, what evidence, brought the new line about. How did one proceed from observations of fossil trees and glaciers to a conclusion very different to that which past observers of fossil trees and glaciers had concluded? No one would tell, and no one important would ask.

When the state officially recognizes science and scientists, this tends to make scientists into priests.

In the restoration, Charles the Second created the Royal Society to keep scientists on track, which was part of his purge of the priesthood. It is a pity he did not create an inquisition to continue the purges and keep the rest of the priesthood on track.

From the Restoration in 1660, to the end of World War II, the Royal society enforced the scientific method. If you wanted respect and esteem as a scientist, you had to tell us new and interesting things, and you had to show everyone how you knew these new and interesting things from what you saw with your eyes and touched with your hands.

After World War II, Harvard got the upper hand over the Royal Society, and you no longer have to show your work. Instead, your work must be approved by the most holy synod of mother church – in other words, must pass peer review behind closed doors. Peer Review is new. Attempts to root it in the past of science before World War II are artificial and contrived. Somehow we obtained almost all of science that matters before we had peer review, and since we have had peer review, things have started to go terribly wrong with science. Peer Review is science by social consensus, and Galileo told us that that does not work.

Global Warming is much the same religion as the Aztec state religion. Sacrifices must be made, or else the sun will not rise to tomorrow, and the priests can therefore pull strings, so that some people are sacrificed more, and others less, as with Chris Turner’s carbon indulgences.

It is not enough to stop the sacrifices though that is a damned good start. The priesthood itself must be purged, for as long as they have state power, they will continue to apply it against Trump.

The permanent government will always win over the temporary government unless purged, and the permanent state religion will always control the permanent government, unless a King places himself the head of that religion, and, armed with an inquisition, brings it into line. May Trump become God Emperor, or at least King and High Priest. And may his grand inquisitor purge Satanism from our political elite and lies and heresy such as Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming from our priesthood, with holy fire.

We need to suppress Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming as Castile suppressed the Old Gods of Mexico, and as the Romans suppressed Druidism, and for much the same reasons, and with much the same methods. Global Warming is not an example of science making a mistake. Science always makes mistakes, and advances because of them. Global Warming is an example of an evil priesthood and evil priests, pursuing evil goals by evil means. Scientific errors should not be punished, but evil religions need to be forcibly suppressed by centralized power and state violence, for evil religions propagate by centralized power and state violence, and thus can be suppressed by no other means.

Powerline speaks truth to power

Monday, May 12th, 2014



Watt’s big list of failed global warming predictions

Thursday, April 3rd, 2014

Watt has a big list of failed global warming predictions.  None have been fulfilled, many of them have been falsified.

Here is the subset of Watt’s list that has been clearly and obviously falsified.

May 15, 1989, Associated Press: “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide [USA] two degrees by 2010.”

1988 Rob Reiss asked official Climate Scientist Dr. James Hansen how the greenhouse effect was likely to affect the neighborhood below Hansen’s office in NYC in the next 20 years, whereupon Climate scientist James Hansen issues this prediction, to be fullfilled in 20 years, which is to say, doom by 2008: “The West Side Highway [which runs along the Hudson River] will be under water. And there will be tape across the windows across the street because of high winds. And the same birds won’t be there. The trees in the median strip will change….There will be more police cars….[since] you know what happens to crime when the heat goes up.”

Michael Oppenheimer, 1990, The Environmental Defense Fund: “By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…”(By 1996) The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers…The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”

June 11, 1986, Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) in testimony to Congress (according to the Milwaukee Journal): “Hansen predicted global temperatures should be nearly 2 degrees higher in 20 years, ‘which is about the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.’” (prediction for 2006)

June 8, 1972, Christian Science Monitor: “Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”

June 2008, Ted Alvarez, Backpacker Magazine Blogs: “you could potentially sail, kayak, or even swim to the North Pole by the end of the summer. Climate scientists say that the Arctic ice…is currently on track to melt sometime in 2008.” In the summer of 2008 he makes a prediction for the summer of 2008! Careless of him. Shortly after this prediction was made, a Russian icebreaker was trapped in the ice of the Northwest Passage for a week. The state of the Northwest passage today, in 2014, is roughly the same as it was in 1921. Some years you can sail through, some years you cannot, and most years if you try it, there is a high risk of getting stuck.

January 2000 Dr. Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental Defense Fund commenting (in a NY Times interview) on the mild winters in New York City: “But it does not take a scientist to size up the effects of snowless winters on the children too young to remember the record-setting blizzards of 1996. For them, the pleasures of sledding and snowball fights are as out-of-date as hoop-rolling, and the delight of a snow day off from school is unknown.”

2008 Dr. James Hansen of the Goddard Space Institute (NASA) on a visit to Britain: “The recent warm winters that Britain has experienced are a sign that the climate is changing.” Implying that the warm winters are now going to be typical, a short term implied prediction. Careless of him. Two exceptionally cold winters followed. The 2009-10 winter may be the coldest experienced in the UK since 1683.

June 30, 1989, Associated Press: U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER, SAYS GREENHOUSE EFFECT COULD WIPE SOME NATIONS OFF MAP–entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000. Coastal flooding and crop failures would create an exodus of ‘eco-refugees,’ threatening political chaos,” said Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program. He added that governments have a 10-year window of opportunity to solve the greenhouse effect. I heard the exact same prediction last night on the television (in 2014), entire nations disappearing, hordes of eco refugees creating political instability, with the date for doomsday changed from 2000 to 2030.

Sept 19, 1989, St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now.”

December 5, 1989, Dallas Morning News: “Some predictions for the next decade are not difficult to make…Americans may see the ’80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates.”

Good bye winter. Never again snow?” Spiegel, 1 April 2000

“Within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event. … Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 20 March 2000

“Winter has gone forever and we should officially bring spring forward instead. … There is no winter any more despite a cold snap before Christmas. It is nothing like years ago when I was younger. There is a real problem with spring because so much is flowering so early year to year.”
Express, Dr Nigel Taylor, Curator of Kew Gardens, 8 Feb 2008

“Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry.”
David Viner, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, 14 Feb 2004

“Spring is arriving earlier each year as a result of climate change, the first ‘conclusive proof’ that global warming is altering the timing of the seasons, scientists announced yesterday.”
Guardian, 26 August 2006.

“The global temperature will increase every year by 0.2°C”
Michael Müller, Socialist, State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Environment, in Die Zeit, January 15, 2007

“Unfortunately, it’s just getting too hot for the Scottish ski industry. It is very vulnerable to climate change; the resorts have always been marginal in terms of snow and, as the rate of climate change increases, it is hard to see a long-term future.”
David Viner, of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.
February 14, 2004

1990 Actress Meryl Streep “By the year 2000 – that’s less than ten years away–earth’s climate will be warmer than it’s been in over 100,000 years. If we don’t do something, there’ll be enormous calamities in a very short time.” Heard the same prediction on television last night, though they were a bit vaguer about the date.

Edward Goldsmith, 1991, (5000 Days to Save the Planet): “By 2000, British and American oil will have diminished to a trickle….Ozone depletion and global warming threaten food shortages, but the wealthy North will enjoy a temporary reprieve by buying up the produce of the South. Unrest among the hungry and the ensuing political instability, will be contained by the North’s greater military might. A bleak future indeed, but an inevitable one unless we change the way we live…At present rates of exploitation there may be no rainforest left in 10 years. If measures are not taken immediately, the greenhouse effect may be unstoppable in 12 to 15 years.”

April 22, 1990 ABC, The Miracle Planet: “I think we’re in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left–we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.”

November 7, 1997, (BBC commentator): “It appears that we have a very good case for suggesting that the El Niños are going to become more frequent, and they’re going to become more intense and in a few years, or a decade or so, we’ll go into a permanent El Nino. So instead of having cool water periods for a year or two, we’ll have El Niño upon El Niño, and that will become the norm. And you’ll have an El Niño, that instead of lasting 18 months, lasts 18 years.”

July 26, 1999 The Birmingham Post: “Scientists are warning that some of the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within ten years because of global warming. A build-up of greenhouse gases is blamed for the meltdown, which could lead to drought and flooding in the region affecting millions of people.”

October 15, 1990 Carl Sagan: “The planet could face an ‘ecological and agricultural catastrophe’ by the next decade if global warming trends continue.”

Sept 11, 1999, The Guardian: “A report last week claimed that within a decade, the disease (malaria) will be common again on the Spanish coast. The effects of global warming are coming home to roost in the developed world.”

March 29, 2001, CNN: “In ten year’s time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.”

1969, Lubos Moti, Czech physicist: “It is now pretty clearly agreed that CO2 content [in the atmosphere] will rise 25% by 2000. This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit. This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet. Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter.”

2005, Andrew Simms, policy director of the New Economics Foundation: “Scholars are predicting that 50 million people worldwide will be displaced by 2010 because of rising sea levels, desertification, dried up aquifers, weather-induced flooding and other serious environmental changes.” I heard on the television last night (2014) this exact same prediction with the date changed from 2010 to 2020

Oct 20, 2009, Gordon Brown UK Prime Minister (referring to the Copenhagen climate conference): “World leaders have 50 days to save the Earth from irreversible global warming.”

May 31, 2006 Al Gore, CBS Early Show: “…the debate among the scientists is over. There is no more debate. We face a planetary emergency. There is no more scientific debate among serious people who’ve looked at the science…Well, I guess in some quarters, there’s still a debate over whether the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona, or whether the Earth is flat instead of round.”

Prediction, Retrodiction, Warmism and the Demon Haunted Dark

Sunday, March 23rd, 2014

We are far more impressed by a scientific theory that predicts, than a supposedly scientific theory that retrodicts, even though from the Bayesian point of view they are the same.

Successful prediction tells us that this is an actual theory, rather than a slippery and ambiguous pile of vague fudge factors subject to post hoc reinterpretation.

As you probably know, Global Warming models are 100% successful at precisely “predicting” (retrodicting) the alleged past, even though past climate is not in fact known very accurately.  They are totally unsuccessful at predicting.

By and large, Warmism is not incorrect science, but anti science. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is an attempt by skeptics to make sense out of the Warmist position, to construct a plausible scientific theory that makes the predictions that Warmists predict, but Warmists are not much interested in making sense.

The theory attributed to the Warmists by the skeptics is that water vapor provides positive feedback, clouds also provide postive feedback, so any small nudge tends to have large effects on the climate.

Do Warmists believe the theory that skeptics attribute to them?

Perhaps.  To find out, you would have to sue the model builders under the freedom of information act, and the model builders would stone wall, the courts would favor them, and the model builders would complain they are being persecuted by big oil.

The term “multiplier” in the sense that skeptics use it never appears in Warmist works, only in critiques of Warmism. The term “climate sensitivity” does appear in Warmist works, but it does not seem to be used in the same meaning as in skeptic works. It is not a ratio that can be larger or smaller than unity, not a number, but more like sin and purity, not the kind of thing where one might say the “the climate sensitivity is 2.7” To a Warmist, to assert that the climate sensitivity is 2.7 would be as ridiculous as if a Roman Catholic priest were to say that that the sinfulness of adultery is 2.7 A Warmist paper will say that climate sensitivity is greater than we thought, but will not give a number for what we supposedly used to think it was, nor a number for what we now supposedly think it is – which does not stop them from deducing from this unspecified change in this unspecified number that the temperature in 2100 will be precisely six degrees hotter.

I have not read much of the Warmist literature.  Perhaps there is some that understands the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming attributed to the Warmists by the skeptics, but what I have read seems to me more like inspiration by the spirit of Gaia decorated almost at random by scientific sounding words.  It could be that the author understands and believes a scientific theory that makes the required doomful predictions, but there is no very clear indication that he does.

Steve McIntyre argued that it is likely that clouds create negative feedback. Do Warmists attempt to argue with him? Do Warmists say “no, clouds create positive feedback”? Do Warmists even know the difference between positive and negative feedback?  Nasa discussing clouds sound like they use the terms correctly, but then fail to apply them when discussing the stability of temperatures between the wet season and dry season in the tropics, even though this is an obvious case of negative feedback.

Rather, Warmism is a revival of the old demon worshiping cults. The priests announce the gods are angry, any unusual weather event being evidence of the wrath of the demon gods, and that to appease these hostile and wrathful beings sacrifices shall be made, which sacrifices the priests get to administer.

Recap on Warmism

Friday, March 14th, 2014

I have been ignoring the issue of Global Warming for a while, because it is pretty much settled.  Anyone who still believes in Warmism is stupid, crazy, or lying.  Usually stupid.

But, a short summary: (more…)