Secret White House Thermostat Revealed

This is  how Obama heals the planet and slows the seas.

Anthropogenic Global Warming: It’s Real, It’s Us, It’s Bad

Global Warming: It’s Real, It’s Us, It’s Bad

Apparently he was too busy during the weeks before the election to take care of that sea level problem they had on  Staten Island. He should have left a note on the fridge with instructions for the girls.

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to Secret White House Thermostat Revealed

  1. kbray in california says:

    If our “Choom Gang” president is also growing weed in a White House closet, he better mind that CO2 level reading…. 400ppm is a little too low….

    “Inside your marijuana grow room you can add CO2 to increase concentrations to 1000-1500 ppm so your plants grow about 25% faster in grow phase and produce 10-35% more harvest weight.”

    http://bigbudsmag.com/grow/gear/article/co2-fuels-marijuana-yield-july-2011

    • Hugh K says:

      But….but…it’s not fair to judge dear leader’s failure or success. He didn’t build that grow closet. Somebody else made that happen. Somewhere along the way there was a teacher…roads…bridges….unicorns….rainbows…

  2. David Appell says:

    “Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth’s Temperature,” Andrew A. Lacis et al, Science 15 October 2010, Vol. 330 no. 6002 pp. 356-359
    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract

    Be sure to check out their Figure 2 — it’s a classic.

    • That explains why ice cores show CO2 lagging temperature by several hundred years. I always adjust my thermostat in the house a few hundred years after the temperature changes, and always in the same direction.

      People can’t get much stupider than climate scientists. It just isn’t possible.

      • David Appell says:

        It’s you who is stupid, because CO2 and T have a feedback; and except for perhaps the PETM, there has never been a situation where CO2 was originally and independently dumped into the atmosphere.

        Scientists, of course, understood this at least 120 years ago.

      • leftinbrooklyn says:

        Then, would a scientist ever predict/guarantee a result based on observance of an original and independent occurrence? Would they even present an abstract based on a first-time occurrence?

      • It is a good thing you didn’t go into the private sector, David. They don’t suffer fools.

      • David Appell says:

        I was in the private sector. I left it to find a better life.

      • Andrew says:

        the independent journalist sez, “…there has never been a situation where CO2 was originally and independently dumped into the atmosphere.”
        How about Krakatoa, just for starters? lesee… there’s how many active volcanoes? on land and undersea… and natural forest fires, now and in the past… constant ongoing weathering of carbonate limestones…
        Even without mankind burning relatively insignificant amounts of so-called ‘fossil-fuels’,
        CO2 will find its way into the atmosphere. And it also finds its way into the great carbon-sinks called oceans which cover 71% of the Earth’s surface.

    • Dougmanxx says:

      That link is to a paper about a model. Figure 2 is a result from a model. Nowhere in your linked paper do they talk about the real world. Only in “Climate Science” is a computer model considered “real”. I give your post a “FAIL”. Try again.

      • David Appell says:

        All scientific calculations are models.

        Please tell us how you would calculate climate responses, without a model. I’m waiting….

      • Eric Barnes says:

        As usual your explanation is lacking. Calculations may or may not be part of a scientific process. Climate models are not subjected to a scientific process and are only useful to scare up funding for their creators. Only a tool like you can’t see the difference.

      • leftinbrooklyn says:

        But any attempt to calculate a + b, when a is never constant, will always just be an inaccurate calculation. Impossible for it not to be, model or no model. The problem is the attempt to present the result as a constant. That attempt makes it unworthy of the science label.

      • David Appell says:

        All calculations, and all models, are part of the scientific process.

        Do you have a way to determine future climate (or future anything) without a model??

      • David Appell says:

        Of course all calculations have uncertainties. This has been known since forever. Have you really just figured that out???

      • Eric Barnes says:

        “All calculations, and all models, are part of the scientific process.”
        You’re not really that dense are you?

      • leftinbrooklyn says:

        Apparently they, the modelers and the believers in them, haven’t figured it out. Appears to me the results are being presented as being certain. There wouldn’t be these discussions, at least in this enormity, if the obvious uncertainty was tolerated on their part.

      • David Appell says:

        The results aren’t presented as “certain” — they are presented as scientific results. No scientific result is “certain.”

        Do you have a way to do science without a model? If so, please present it.

      • tckev says:

        As Richard Feynman so eloquently put it in his video – If the theory does not agree with nature, or the experiment it is wrong.
        Only the first two steps of the process has been done – and IMO done poorly. The final part , the experiment, the verifying against nature has NOT been done. Therefore NOTHING has been proved, a hypothesis has been postulated not proved.
        Model science? No science!

      • David Appell says:

        You lack the courage to put your name to your opinion — that makes your opinion worthless. And it makes you an intellectual coward.

      • leftinbrooklyn says:

        Not. presented. as. certain. Ok. Sold as certain…unless…

        ‘Doing’ modeled-science, with admitted uncertainties, and demanding certain counter-measures. Countering an uncertain result. Science? Not.

      • leftinbrooklyn says:

        Was only a matter of time.

      • David Appell says:

        If you don’t think science — all science — involves uncertainties, then you are fucking idiot.

      • There is very little uncertainty that the key hockey players are completely full of shit.

      • leftinbrooklyn says:

        Step 2. Insult, even more forcibly, with adjectives.

      • David Appell says:

        You — someone afraid to even use their real name — certainly hasn’t proven that. You do your crappy industrial job and then rush home to post stupidity to your blog, somehow thinking it competes with professional thinkers who devote their lives to science. Which is just sad.

      • Eric Barnes says:

        “If you don’t think science — all science — involves uncertainties, then you are fucking idiot.”

        The Appell “Climate Science Uncertainty Principle”. You are a gem.

      • Martin C says:

        I hope this follows David Appell’s reply about someone being a f*!ng idiot.

        David Appell, YOU ARE THE (EXPLETIVE DELETED) IDIOT ! ! !

        The issue isn’t UNCERTAINTY, , it is the LEVEL of uncertainly, , YOU (EXPLETIVE DELETIVE) IDIOT ! ! ! ! ! !

        In engineering, models, such as Finite Element Models do have uncertainty. BUT NOT NEAR AS MUCH as CLIMATE MODELS. The FEM models I work with have been run against TEST DATA. It helps refine models, and reduce uncertainty in later models and analyses.

        Try that in CLIMATE SCIENCE, you F*!KING IDIOT ! ! ! Show us a VALIDATED CLIMATE MODEL . . . . .OH, you can’t ? well then, it is obvious you are a . . .

        never mind, I’ve said it enough . . .

      • leftinbrooklyn says:

        Step 3. Intolerance. Defiant defense of a perceived irreproachable thought process.

      • Hugh K says:

        “….you are fucking idiot.”

        And this is your brain after snorting kitty litter.

      • David Appell says:

        Some models have more uncertainty than other models.

        So what? Do you have a solution — some way of reducing the uncertainty in climate models? (There is reason to think it can’t be reduced by much.)

        You seem to think uncertainty is a reason not to care about CO2′s effect on climate. It is not — uncertainty cuts both ways. There are things increasing faster than projected, and things being overprojected. This isn’t comforting in the least — it just means there is more uncertainty.

        Climate change is the most difficult calculation that science has ever attempted. Comparing it to some engineering model you happen to know about means nothing.

      • David Appell says:

        So you don’t think all science involves uncertainties? Then show me the perfect scientific result.

      • Eric Barnes says:

        The resemblance to your speech is striking Appell…

        http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/quotes

        Boring Prophet: There shall in that time be rumors of things going astray, erm, and there shall be a great confusion as to where things really are, and nobody will really know where lieth those little things with the sort of raffia-work base, that has an attachment. At that time, a friend shall lose his friend’s hammer, and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o’clock.

      • leftinbrooklyn says:

        Show me the need to act so, well catastrophically, on anything so uncertain.

      • David Appell says:

        Show me the need you shouldn’t act.

        Uncertainty is no excuse. It goes both ways.

        The CO2 you emit in just this hour will trap an atomic bomb’s worth of heat. The CO2 content of the atmosphere in 100,000 years time will be higher because of your activities right now.

        Why do you think you have no responsibility for this massive, long-term alteration of the planet?

      • leftinbrooklyn says:

        ‘Why do you think you have no responsibility for this massive, long-term alteration of the planet?’

        You sound awful certain of that calculation. You could say you were presenting it as certain. But that can’t be right. I must be a fucking idiot.

      • David Appell says:

        If you buy this blog you probably are an idiot, but in any case all scientific conclusions come with uncertainties. Are you really just learning that now??

      • leftinbrooklyn says:

        Then I think we can agree there should be at least one ‘if’ in your above question. As in: ‘long-term alteration of the planet, if it occurs?’ But of course, no warmist worth a damn would ever go with an ‘if’. That would make it science.

      • David, you seem to be incapable of ever criticizing any data and details – your MO is ad homs and straw man arguments. Pretty sad.

      • Dougmanxx says:

        “David Appell says:
        November 27, 2012 at 1:13 am
        All scientific calculations are models.
        Please tell us how you would calculate climate responses, without a model. I’m waiting….”

        Wow. Generally I stick to science. You know, observations and stuff? Like…. measurements and things. Facts. I will happily measure “climate responses” with ACTUAL DATA AND NOT MODELED BULLS@#T. Your silly response to this indicates one simple conclusion for me: you know nothing about the scientific method. If you did, you wouldn’t try to pass off model simulations as some kind of actual representation of the real world. You would not claim them as some kind of fact. Sadly, you aren’t alone in the “Climate Science” community in that perversion of the scientific method. Model results might be interesting, they might help us understand something, they may even in some cases be a good representation of what happens in the real world, but they will never, ever, be data.

  3. Rob J says:

    Lil’ Davey doesn’t bother to look at the data and analyze himself. He just prefers to parrot what other warming loons tell him.

  4. David Appell says:
    November 27, 2012 at 3:29 am

    Show me the need you shouldn’t act.

    Uncertainty is no excuse. It goes both ways.

    Turn off your computer. Never use electricity again. Ever.
    Don’t use steel. Don’t use plastic. Don’t use glass. Don’t use natural gas. Don’t use gasoline. Don’t own a car. Don’t own a bicycle. Don’t use ANYTHING AT ALL made from anything you personally didn’t dig out of the ground. Don’t burn anything, ever, for any reason. Don’t eat anything that you personally didn’t grow or raise. Don’t cut down any trees to make room for your veggie garden, either. Don’t even go inside of any structure made with wood, wood byproducts, concrete, steel, glass, cut stone, plaster, or plastics.

    These products & services are all killing YOUR planet, David Appell. Your continued use of them is a sign that you simply don’t care & are just trying to get other people to act on things you don’t believe.

    Or just shut up about how all of us need to act, you stupid hypocrite.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s