Climate Science May Force Student IQ’s Downhill

We have a big snowstorm forecast for the weekend here in Boulder, which reminded me that our two snowiest Februaries have occurred in the last three years, with last year nearly doubling the previous record.

Screenshot 2016-01-27 at 03.02.39 AM

Eight years ago, a couple of genius professors from the local institution of higher learning announced that Colorado skiing is doomed and that temperatures will increase by eight degrees.

Mark_Williams_on_Niwot_535_362

Screenshot 2016-01-27 at 03.06.43 AM

Study: Climate change may force skiers uphill

February temperatures have plummeted since they made their forecast, and continued the 60 year decline since the 1950’s.

Screenshot 2016-01-27 at 03.19.18 AM

Climate science experts know nothing about anything related to climate. They are clueless hacks who get billions in government grants to spread global warming propaganda.

About stevengoddard

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

19 Responses to Climate Science May Force Student IQ’s Downhill

  1. RAH says:

    You have to wonder if the ski industry can’t fight back against such nonsense. There has to be a way that “scientists” can be held accountable when they’re so wrong and their predictions cause significant economic damage. At the very least they, and their pal reviewers, should be made to show and explain their work to justify such potentially damaging declarations.

    If even on developer decided not to build because of such nonsense then that is just cause to go after such bozos.

    • gator69 says:

      This is not going to impact the ski industry, skiers look at snowpacks and ignore science fiction scenarios on future slopes. I know, because I was once an avid skier. As long as there are slopes with snow, ski resort owners will swim in money.

      • RAH says:

        Not talking about skiers. They go where the snow is and their pocket books and time will allow at the time. I’m talking about developers who may listen to that stupid crap. Why Build at Aspen when some other resorts are not predicted to lack snow pack in the future? Why build a resort in places where they say there isn’t going to be enough snow?

        As far as I’m concerned what these “scientists” did and what many others are doing is an economic version of screaming “FIRE” in a crowded theater. They have to be held accountable in some way or at least be forced to justify their claims or explain why they were so wrong. If they aren’t the scams they propagate will be endless in breath and scope.

        The only places these guys are having their “work” reviewed and it being noted if their forecasts were valid now is on the internet in forums like this. What I want to see is some sharp lawyers come up with a legal formula that will make at least some risk in making unsupportable statements like the examples above while maintaining true academic freedom. IOW a way to identify and punish the scammers that make crappy reports or forecasts based on clearly falsified research.

        The scientists working in or for the private sector are held to account. If their forecasting or studies are found to be substandard they eventually are out of a job or their business folds for lack of customers. No such restraints on those in academia and so they can say what ever preposterous things they want based on crappy or non existent or corrupted research with apparently no consequences at all. But there certainly can be consequences for those that believe them.

        • gator69 says:

          Have we seen beach property values drop?

        • Jason Calley says:

          Science is the new religion and scientists are the new priesthood. Sadly, the prevailing opinion is that only the scientists themselves are able to determine what is or is not scientifically supported. It is very similar to a court where only the judge may rule on what his own limits are.

          I like the idea that scientists should be liable for fraud — but as long as we continue to allow those same scientists to decide what is fraud, and what is mere justifiable error, it will be difficult to convict the fraudsters.

        • gator69 says:

          Negligent homicide is a much lower intent crime and is used as a charge when one person causes the death of another through criminal negligence. The charge does not involve premeditation, but focuses on what the defendant should have known and the risks associated with what he did know.

          criminal-law.freeadvice.com/criminal-law/violent…/negligent-homicide.htm

        • Steve Case says:

          RAH said at 12:41 pm

          As far as I’m concerned what these “scientists” … have to be held accountable in some way …

        • RAH says:

          Jason if they say something is going to happen that will have significant economic impact and it doesn’t happen then it doesn’t take a scientist to tell their forecast was dead wrong. We all know snow when we see it. We all know long standing drought when we see it. We all know flooding when we see it.

          The significant thing about the CAGW farce is that NOTHING they have said will happen, has!

        • R Shearer says:

          They are usually predicting changes for far into the future, 2050 or even 2100. They will not be here to be held accountable.

        • David A says:

          Timing of predictions run the gambit. I think Rah has a valid point Suppose you were trying to sale a Ca ski resort now, after four years of drought. You would likely have to accept less with all the CAGW hysteria. If you carried snow insurance those rates would increase.

      • RAH says:

        No we haven’t but it will be interesting to see what happens in Miami over time. What we have seen is one hell of a lot of money put into windfarms though. Wind farms that do ecological damage and have a massive foot print.

      • Gail Combs says:

        The big problem is not ski resorts or beach front property but FOOD.

        It is a two fold problem.

        First:
        Corporations like Monsanto that grow seed for resale are going to pay attention to the ClimAstrologist dimwits who are saying palm trees in Boston. So cold tolerant seed is not a priority and not offered in certain areas. This commercial seed is also not genetically diverse so you lose not just some plants but the whole field. Purdue University on commercial chickens: Researchers found that commercial birds are missing more than half of the genetic diversity native to the species, possibly leaving them vulnerable to new diseases and raising questions about their long-term sustainability.

        Second:
        Thanks to WTO Agreement on Ag and the Food Safety Modernization Act among other idiot laws.
        Seed sharing is illegal in nearly 30% of US states

        ….Informally sharing seed with a neighbor who gardens down the street is illegal in multiple states in the US. The penalty for violating this ridiculous law is a fine of up to $7,500 a day. Like so many other senseless laws, this rule needs to be put to rest.

        You can’t even give away seeds to someone in your own neighborhood under certain laws. For example, in Minnesota, where seed laws on the books are so laughable that unless you buy an annual permit and submit each lot of seeds for germination testing, you are defying the law.

        You even have to attach an appropriate label, even if you aren’t sharing the seeds with a local seed sharing library and just want to give them to your daughter-in-law for her new garden.

        Even the 300 seed libraries throughout the US can’t give away seeds or facilitate the exchange of seeds between organic gardeners unless they purchase a permit.

        If this smacks of corporate farming infiltration to you, you aren’t alone. Just 6 companies in the world have patented most of the seeds grown in the entire global agricultural market. Our food diversity is crumbling….

    • You have to wonder if the ski industry can’t fight back against such nonsense.

      RAH, I think the short answer is “no”. Or more precisely, the ski resorts can fight but “climate change” is an insignificant part of what they have to deal with. The attempts by a small, privately held Eldora Mountain Resort to expand its operations are a good case study what any “developer” goes through.

      The U.S. Forest Service has denied — at least for now — a request by Eldora Mountain Resort to add terrain serviced by new chairlifts, putting up a major obstacle to the Boulder County resort’s six-year efforts to grow its ski area.

      The decision, issued Thursday, is more narrow than a draft record of the decision put out in March that would have allowed greater expansion.

      Forest service officials wrote that allowing Eldora to add trails, snowmaking and an on-mountain dining facility within its existing boundaries, rather than outside its existing boundaries, will enhance the guest experience at the area without causing disruptions that environmental and community activists had complained would occur with the larger growth.

      “I recognize that proposed projects associated with the [special-use permit] boundary expansion are contentious,” wrote Ron Archuleta, acting forest supervisor for the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests and Pawnee National Grassland. “While the [Final Environmental Impact Statement] adequately disclosed the effects of these proposed projects, there are still environmental and social effects that could be better resolved within the community of interest.”

      Eldora officials said they were “perplexed” by the decision, particularly after dedicating “significant capital and time” toward efforts in the plan to reduce impacts to wildlife and habitat.

      “We will now begin to analyze our options, as this decision complicates the process moving forward,” said Jim Spenst, project manager for the expansion. “Regardless, we will redouble our efforts to work with the local community, county and Forest Service so that we can complete our project that will provide visitors the best possible skiing experience on the Front Range.”

      http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2015/10/01/forest-service-denies-part-of-eldora-mountain.html

    • gator69 says:

      Not really…

      In the last 5 years, over 3 million dollars has been invested at Vail alone…

      Obviously they expect to continue in this business for many years to come. If they really believed in CAGW, they would sell their businesses before the prices start to fall. This is typical leftist mental illness on display.

  2. Andy DC says:

    That looks like one fierce storm for Colorado early next week. The ski resorts will be up to their ears in that white thing from the past.

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