Sarah Palin Explains The State Of Climate Science

“I do not like this Uncle Sam. I do not like his health care scam. I do not like — oh, just you wait — I do not like these dirty crooks, or how they lie and cook the books. I do not like when Congress steals, I do not like their crony deals. I do not like this spying, man, I do not like, ‘Oh, Yes we can.’ I do not like this spending spree, we’re smart, we know there’s nothing free. I do not like reporters’ smug replies when I complain about their lies. I do not like this kind of hope, and we won’t take it, nope, nope, nope.”

Palin Re-Writes Dr. Seuss: ‘I Do Not Like This Uncle Sam, I Do Not Like His Health Care Scam’ | The Weekly Standard

About stevengoddard

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

8 Responses to Sarah Palin Explains The State Of Climate Science

  1. Robertv says:

    Footsteps so they have survived winter.

    http://www.summitcamp.org/status/webcam/

  2. nigelf says:

    Sarah has what very few in government have right now…common sense. Always loved her and she would have made a great VP.

  3. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    Ya but OBamBam can see the Crimea from his kitchen

  4. NikFromNYC says:

    Once again I’m hog piled by Gorebots, this time over at VICE magazine who is using the military’s adoption of Global Warming alarm as a call to authority argument, written by yet another undergraduate philosophy degree progressive:

    http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-pentagons-guide-to-overcoming-climate-change-denial

    I’m spent over there but it’s an important demographic to confront, these young idolizers of official state science. It’s funny that the guy who founded VICE is now a regular on Red Eye on Fox News, Gavin McIniss. Their main thrust was trying to justify the denier label, but one Gavin Schmidt’s video clip opposing the label is always handy.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Nik two useful bits of information:

      Obama Fired 197 US Senior Military Commanders in 5 years – nine Generals in 2013 The Administration bureaucrats has aloso stated if you do not support CAGW GET OUT!

      The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, a group of retired NASA Apollo scientists and engineers – the men who put Neil Armstrong on the moon issued a new report.

      “It’s an embarrassment to those of us who put NASA’s name on the map to have people like James Hansen popping off about global warming,” says the project’s leader Hal Doiron.

      Doiron was one of 40 ex NASA employees – including seven astronauts – who wrote in April 2012 to NASA administrator Charles Bolden protesting about the organization’s promotion of climate change alarmism…

      Doiron and his team now hope to set the record straight in a report called Bounding GHG Climate Sensitivity For Use In Regulatory Decisions.

      Using calculations by George Stegemeier of the National Academy of Engineering, they estimated the total quantity of recoverable oil, gas and coal on the planet. They then used 163 years of real world temperature data to calculate Transient Climate Sensitivity (ie how much the world will warm as a result of the emission of all the carbon dioxide in the fossil fuel). The figure they came up with 1.2 degrees C which is considerably lower than the wilder claims of the IPCC…

      WUWT has a link to the actual report.

    • Gail Combs says:

      My favorite reply:
      1. The earth is are critically LOW on CO2 (I rather see `1500 ppm)
      C4 plants evolved because the CO2 levels are toow low. 99% of the plant species, including most of our crops are C3. C4 is less efficient than C3 and can only compete when C3 plants are disadvantaged by low CO2.
      See Transactions of the Royal Society: Carbon dioxide starvation, the development of C4 ecosystems, and mammalian evolution ( rstb(DOT)royalsocietypublishing.org/content/353/1365/159.abstract )

      Peer -reviewed paper: Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California – The elevation is 164′ (50 m) so it is not a partial pressure issue either.

      Actual field trials on wheat give the real lower limit for the amount of CO2 wheat, a C3 plants can suck out of the air:

      The CO2 concentration at 2 m above the crop was found to be fairly constant during the daylight hours on single days or from day-to-day throughout the growing season ranging from about 310 to 320 p.p.m. Nocturnal values were more variable and were between 10 and 200 p.p.m. higher than the daytime values. (wwwDOT)sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0002157173900034

      ….

      The Second reason we want as much CO2 in the air as we can manage to put there:
      If you want to strip the most powerful GHG from the late Holocene atmosphere, you just plunked-down your bet on MIS-1 repeating the extended interglacial MIS-11, for however long you fancy. Please do note, however, that MIS-11 was not all that stable a climate ride.

      Even during the only post-MPT interglacial to make it past about half a precession cycle (all the others ended at the equivalent timing to NOW) it got awfully cold between MIS-11′s two insolation peaks. so Gloal Warming is just not in the cards despite what Al Gore might say.

      The alternative is even more interesting. What if GHGs are the key?

      If Ruddiman’s “Early Anthropogenic Hypothesis” is correct, it is man’s GHG emissions, especially now during the time when the earth is at half-precession, that has prevented glacial inception!
      Ruddiman’s 2003 paper: courses(DOT)washington.edu/holocene/Ruddiman-Holocene_Carbon_Cycle_Anthropocene-ClimChange03.pdf

      And others agree:

      Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception (2007)

      …Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….
      (wwwDOT)sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379107002715

      And another paper using Models (rolls eyes)

      Transient simulation of the last glacial inception. Part II: sensitivity and feedback analysis

      Abstract
      ….Only if we run the fully interactive model with constant present-day insolation and apply present-day CO2 forcing does no glacial inception appear at all. This implies that, within our model, the orbital forcing alone is sufficient to trigger the interglacial–glacial transition, while vegetation, ocean and atmospheric CO2 concentration only provide additional, although important, positive feedbacks.

      The question that quickly follows is : Will removing the only theorized“warming enhancer”, kick the earth into glacial inception?

      Onset of the Little Ice Age after the Medieval Warm Period, was when the Holocene reached about half a precession cycle old, the Modern Warm Period marks the second thermal pulse. The Eemian, the interglacial which precedes this one, experienced two strong thermal pulses right at its very end.

      This is where the actually climate debate is. The one the newspapers hide.

      …We will illustrate our case with reference to a debate currently taking place in the circle of Quaternary climate scientists. The climate history of the past few million years is characterized by repeated transitions between `cold’ (glacial) and `warm’ (interglacial) climates. The first modern men were hunting mammoth during the last glacial era. This era culminated around 20,000 years ago [3] and then declined rapidly. By 9,000 years ago climate was close to the modern one. The current interglacial, called the Holocene, should now be coming to an end, when compared to previous interglacials, yet clearly it is not. The debate is about when to expect the next glacial inception, setting aside human activities, which may well have perturbed natural cycles…
      harxiv(DOT)org/pdf/0906.3625.pdf

      Chronis Tzedakis, in an exhaustive look at the MIS-1/MIS-11/MIS-19 conundrum, considers the matters thusly:

      While the astronomical analogy between MIS 1 and MIS11 has been incorporated in mainstream literature, there is a distinct difference between the two intervals: the Holocene contains one insolation peak so far…

      The two schemes lead to very different conclusions about the length of the current interglacial, in the absence of anthropogenic forcing, …

      With the end of MIS 11 full interglacial conditions and the start of ice accumulation estimated to have occurred at 395 kyr BP (de Abreu et al., 2005; Ruddiman 2005a, 2007), the precessional alignment would suggest that the Holocene is nearing its end, while the obliquity alignment would suggest it has another 12,000 years to run its course…

      In this view, the two Terminations are incommensurate and MIS-1 is analogous only to the second part of MIS-11c.
      (wwwDOT)clim-past.net/6/131/2010/cp-6-131-2010.pdf

      Is the Holocene interglacial, our interglacial, just about kaput? Well, that’s the trillion dollar question, isn’t it? The present consensus seems to be that we will not have an extended interglacial this time….

      At the absolute worst is that without anthropogenic influence (including early anthropogenic influence) some say we would already be deep into the next glacial inception. Others say it that is inconclusive. Still others argue either way, we are still uncomfortably close to the N65 summer solstice insolation value that threshold-ed inception of the last glacial. And will “remain at this level slightly above the inception for the next 4,000 years before it then increases again.” ….It doesn’t really matter how H2O or CO2 feedbacks work. What actually matters is how we can keep the Holocene going. ~ William McClenney

      H/T to William McClenney who I plagarized from shamelessly.

  5. darrylb says:

    I do believe Sarah is getting better and better. She really was not ready to be a viable presidential or vice presidential candidate when she was first thrust on the scene. Not ready to make good, tough decisions to benefit the U.S.
    Now, I could see her being a viable candidate at least for VP, then maybe more.
    In high school they called her Sarah Barracuda. I like that. I saw her give the Dr. Seuss bit.
    She was great!

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s