Coalition of the Confused

Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.

  • 1244
  • 62761
  • 0


The debate on Climate Change   General Confusion

Started 7/18/17 by Jenifer (Zarknorph); 198845 views.

From: ElDotardo


I do what I can to inject the opposing view - it just happens to fall outside the Cult of Hotcoldwetdry . . .

NOAA Lets Politics Corrupt Its Science

Larry Bell

Objective science once conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was coopted by the Obama administration to push anti-fossil energy policies under the guise of CO2 influences on climate change and ocean acidification. Just as they got caught by a whistleblower fudging ocean temperature records in advance of 2015 U.N. Paris Climate talks, they also actively played politics to garner media alarm attributing CO2 emissions to invalidated claims of impacts upon aquatic ecosystems.

As I previously reported in my Feb. 13 Newsmax column titled "Whistleblower Links NOAA Study to Climate Treaty Agendas," former NOAA scientist Jim Bates charged that his boss Thomas Karl had "adjusted" sea surface temperature measurements between 1998 and 2012 in order to make recent global temperature changes appear to warm more than twice as much as the original records showed.

Karl then rushed to publish his scientifically unverified report in time "to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy." The U.K.’s Daily Mail reported, "His [Bates’] vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a 'blatant attempt to intensify the impact' of what became known as the Pausebuster Paper."

In July, 2014, the House Science, Space and Technology Committee subpoenaed NOAA for the suspicious research records. NOAA has subsequently stonewalled demands for Karl’s corroborating research evidence and related internal communications . . . even from Congress.

As Chairman Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, explained, "It was inconvenient for this administration that climate data has clearly showed no warming for the past two decades. The American people have every right to be suspicious when NOAA alters data to get politically correct results they want, and then refuses to reveal how those decisions were made."

Internal emails obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by website publisher and attorney Steven Milloy reveal NOAA media campaigns to politicize unsubstantiated CO2-caused ocean ecosystem impacts along with its "evil twin" climate influences.

A communication from NOAA’s Ocean Acidification Director Libby Jewett lauds a previous "great job" by staff member Madelyn Applebaum in writing "two widely-praised and referenced op-eds." She notes that the first one on space weather was quickly bumped up to Obama White House Science Director John Holdren.

The second article addressing ocean acidification (OA) which was developed "literally overnight" was also immediately approved by Holdren. It appeared in an Oct. 15, 2015 New York Times article titled "Our Deadened, Carbon-Soaked Seas."

...[Message truncated]
View Full Message
Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)


I find it strange that two people can look at the same graph and see a different line.

You picked two random points and joined them to show no change.

That's not how scientific data works.

You have to look at the whole trend, removing extremes and anomalies.

Also - the sharp downturn at the end may well be the result of global action on climate change.


From: Johneeo


Dandy Lion,

You are far too intelligent and informed to be a part of this forum.

Go away.

Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)


Johneeo said:

You are far too intelligent and informed to be a part of this forum.

... says the idiot who frequents this cavalcade of confusion, chaos and clusterfucks.

Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)


Speaking of action...

SA's battery is massive, but it can do much more than store energy

Last Friday, the "world's largest" lithium-ion battery was officially opened in South Australia. Tesla's much-anticipated "mega battery" made the "100 days or it's free" deadline, after a week of testing and commissioning.

Unsurprisingly, the project has attracted a lot of attention, both in Australia and abroad. This is largely courtesy of high-profile Tesla chief executive Elon Musk, not to mention the series of Twitter exchanges that sparked off the project in the first place.

Many are now watching on in anticipation to see what impact the battery has on the SA electricity market, and whether it could be a gamechanger nationally.

The "mega-battery" complex is officially called the Hornsdale Power Reserve. It sits alongside the Hornsdale Wind Farm and has been constructed in partnership with the SA Government and Neoen, the French renewable energy company that owns the wind farm.

The battery has a total generation capacity of 100 megawatts, and 129 megawatt-hours of energy storage. This has been described as "capable of powering 50,000 homes", providing 1 hour and 18 minutes of storage or, more controversially, 2.5 minutes of storage.

At first blush, some of these numbers might sound reasonable. But they don't actually reflect a major role the battery will play, nor the physical capability of the battery itself.

The battery complex can be thought of as two systems. First there is a component with 70MW of output capacity that has been contracted to the SA Government.

This is reported to provide grid stability and system security, and designed only to have about 10 minutes of storage.

The second part could be thought of as having 30MW of output capacity, but three to four hours of storage.

Even though this component has a smaller capacity (MW), it has much more storage (MWh) and can provide energy for much longer. This component will participate in the competitive part of the market, and should firm up the wind power produced by the wind farm.

...[Message truncated]
View Full Message

From: Johneeo


Jenifer (Zarknorph) said:

says the idiot who frequents this cavalcade of confusion, chaos and clusterfucks.

Idiot?  Moi?

Just because you lack the intelligence to appreciate my brilliance?

And I thought that you might extend some appreciation for me behaving myself.

Well, obviously, that didn't work.

Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)


Wait, you were behaving yourself?

Either the nuances were too subtle, or I blinked and missed it.

I do tend to get distracted by shiny obje- PRETTY!

Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)


Replying to the post in the Christmas thread...

You said:

Read this:


I did.

You sent me to a radio station's website who sourced their information from a blog called 'The Deplorable Climate Science Blog'.  The blog cherry picked from any news articles from unknown sources that would support their preconceived notions and baseless claims such as '100% of US Warming is due to data tampering' and every second articles' title has the word Fraud in it.

It assumes all scientists are liars and con men, but has no explanation as to why - or what they hope to achieve with this global hoax.

I don't consider this to be an unbiased source trusted to focus on interpreting scientific data with no agenda. 

But keep trying.



Jenifer (Zarknorph)

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)


Lead detected in Sydney and Broken Hill bees due to environmental pollution


Next time you are spreading honey on your crumpet have a think about how that sweet stuff, and its yellow and black creators, are affected by the environment around you.

Researchers have used bees to monitor pollution for the first time in Australia and have found significant lead levels in the insects depending on location.

It is a reminder that whatever we pollute the world with will end up back in our systems.

The levels of metal varied depending on the history of the land, with scientists finding huge differences between Sydney and Broken Hill.

Sydney dwelling bees are affected by former leaded petrol emissions from the '70s, '80s and '90s, with highest lead levels in the CBD, Surry Hills and Newtown (230-440 micrograms per kilogram).

Fortunately however, the amount of lead found in honey from these bees was negligible.

In comparison, Broken Hill bees possessed much higher levels of lead thanks to ongoing lead mining, with around 2,570ug/kg detected, and in turn, a much higher concentration of lead in the honey.

Professor Mark Taylor, leader of the research team at Macquarie University which undertook the study, said the findings provided a stark warning against the unsafe use of chemicals in the environment.

"They don't degrade that quickly, they get into the ecological systems and they don't break down in many cases and they are persistent and typically harmful," Professor Taylor said.

"This shows us that the contaminants are being mobilised and are getting into our ecological and food systems."

Lucky for us it seems bees protect their sticky stuff and filter the lead therefore limiting its passage into the honey.

The fact that their honey contains much less lead than their bodies may be an accidental convenience or an adaptation.


Happy New Year Johnno.  I have no doubt you'll cry "Fuck the bees!  What do they do for the planet anyway?"