Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. blog comments powered by Disqus

Petro Engineers in Climatology Pt. 2


I would like to congratulate Managing Editor George Lee and the entire team for their excellent work on the new PEG. I am pleased to see the Readers’ Forum is still alive and well, and I note that there were several submissions from the sceptic group, when it comes to the debate about the theory of human-caused global warming. Perhaps supporters of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are at a loss for words to explain
the events of the past three months or so (1).

Anthropogenic global warming is attributed to the CO2 we exhaust into the atmosphere (2). Of the infrared radiation that leaves the Earth’s surface, the small component of it that comprises resonant frequences of CO2 is absorbed and increases the energy level of the CO2 molecule. This energy is then distributed by collision with other molecules and reradiation of the same resonant frequencies, which is, in actual fact, a study in physics, not climatology (3).


Petro Engineers in Climatology Pt. 1

Well, we announced it, our new series on the ignorance of engineers. Here it is...

the Peg, April 2010

The climate is ever-changing — always has been, always will be (1). Everyone has a bias (2), which is simply human nature. This is exactly why we postulate hypothesises (3) to test our thoughts. Such testing should be performed without emotions (4) . Some choose to believe (5) man is to blame for many of Earth's natural changes and attritions. Because they lack proof of their hypothesis (6), they resort to political pressure and name calling (deniers, Flat Earthers, etc.). They play to human emotions (guilt, pity, scare tactics). All of this is intended to persuade others to acquiesce and accept their unproven, ideologically prescribed remedies (7). Read More...

Deniers' War in Calgary: Spy vs Spy

Calgary is presently battered by a war between deniers, waged ferociously through newspaper science in the Calgary Herald. And guess who is one of the main protagonists? Yes, no one less than our friend Norm Kalmanovitch, the guy with the fuzzy GeoCanada 2010 abstract. The key question is: is an ocean like a bucket or like a bathtub? This gives FoGT the opportunity to step in and take over control on the collection of protection money from the oil companies. FoGT says: two half-wits yield one dim wit. The two half wits are featured below.



New Series: (Petro) Engineers in Climatology

What is the difference between engineers and scientists? The mocker might say: engineers are scientists but without the originality and imagination. Scientists think outside the box the engineers are living in. Engineers rely on equations which they look up in books. And if no simple equation exists to characterize a complicated issue, then the issue cannot exist.

Petro engineers are an even more special breed: their thinking is generally one-dimensional (vertical hole), occasionally two-dimensional (hole deviates from the vertical), and always linear. How likely are petro engineers predestined to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function? Exactly...And, have you ever heard an engineer tell a really funny joke? Read More...

De Bello contra Scientiam - About the War on Science

By Baronet Pissequaffer Apeton, VP War on Science

Are we engaged in a war on science? You bet we are! On the ‘science’ that’s controlled by a small politico-scientific elite who have engineered a
conspiracy of consensus about ‘global warming’ in order to support their clandestine push for a single world government. Readers might not realize just how pervasive this conspiracy has become. Each month, hundreds – thousands, by some counts – of articles consistent with the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are published in the corrupt, stinking morass of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Furthermore, the national science academies of over 30 countries have issued statements of affirmation, as has every major scientific society that has published a position (see here). Against this mammoth level of collusion and what its subscribers call the ‘evidence’ behind it, you’d think that we deniers have an almost impossible task. How is it, then, that we’re managing to hold our own quite as well as we are? Postatem obscuri lateris nescitis! Following is an outline of the main points of our strategy. Read More...

Alberta’s $2B CCS plan: Cash Confiscation & Sequestration

Some of you dear followers of this blog who haven’t had the benefit of a classical education--unlike his learned eminence Viscount Lord Monckton of Brenchley--may have some difficulty with the term “sequestration”. Basically it’s a word of Latin origin that, translated into Albertan, means sticking something where the sun don’t shine. The Government of Alberta has a plan to take hard-earned dollars of ordinary Albertans and give them to large corporations so that the companies can take plant food (carbon dioxide) and “sequester” it deep in the bowels of the earth, where the sun most definitely does not shine. Read More...

Friends of Science release May denialist ‘Update’

We were thrilled to see that our friends the Friends have released their latest denialist summary. As we eagerly read it, though, our enthusiasm was tempered as we realized all the arguments are zombies

Three simple Words: We do not know

In a recent editorial on Watt’s Up With That, Willis Eschenbach laments the fact that climate scientists never use these three precious words: We don’t know. Imagine how this will reduce uncertainty, no more of Donald Rumsfeld’s unknown unknowns; the world would henceforth be more clearly demarcated into known knowns and known unknowns. Let’s have no more obfuscating IPCC talk of qualitative or quantitative uncertainty (page 5), no more waffly phrases such as medium evidence, high confidence or the breathtakingly equivocal about as likely or not. So let’s start demanding clear answers, just like in court: Do you know, yes or no? Read More...

Knowledge vs Belief: Are AGW Proponents gullible?

A Rant by Gunkl, modified by Dr. Schweinsgruber

Some skeptics consider proponents of what the broad body of science and the IPPC say, that global warming is manmade and real, as true believers: knowledge vs. belief. This is principally true, albeit it is the other way round.

Venus and the Half Wit

There’s quite a little fuss going on in the blogosphere because of the revolutionary ideas of Mr Steven Goddard who has come up with the wonderfully simple idea that Venus is hot (is she ever!) not because of carbon dioxide, the plant food that is fingered by the UN for all the problems in the Universe, but because of simple adiabatic heating. Read More...

Black Bonanza

Neil Reynolds in the Globe and Mail reports on a new book Black Bonanza: Canada's Oil Sands and the Race to Secure North America's Energy Future by Alastair Sweeny. Sweeny tells us that Canadians have no inkling that what they are sitting on is really the country’s greatest asset and he encourages us all to have a closer look at it. Read More...