The Reality Blog

It is easy to demonstrate the similarities between the AGW hysterics and feminism as all you have to do is just take a little time to process the information, it's all out there..
Over the past few decades and earlier, we have documented reports and evidence about feminists threatening life and limb on anyone who dares to go against their lunacy and questions any of their abhorrent behaviour or methodology. They threatened the originator of the Family centres with a shortened lifespan because she had the temerity to demand that both sexes should be included..

The damn cheek.

Scientists falsify data to get research published and whistleblowers are bullied into keeping quiet,' claim their own colleagues


 However, we appear to have those same issues arise when questioning climate scientists who are of the opinion that we are all going to be barbecued in our beds over the next 20...10...5...2 years, if we do not drown first in the 100 meter sea rises they are predicting, that is. They have yet to explain where that water is coming from but that just idle chatter and not a question one asks if one is a serious scientist..

 But it gets worse, a lot worse. Its...it's...Nemo. Apparently Nemo is just another victim, (sound familiar) of not only the (anticipated frog in the boiling glass phenomenon) water temperature rising past boiling point, but, apparently, he will be too pissed to notice it.

It's just too shocking to contemplate, it's more than that, it's appalling..

Carbon dioxide in the ocean acts like alcohol on fish, leaving them less able to judge risks and prone to losing their senses. The intoxication adds to the threats that global warming and ocean acidification pose to marine ecosystems.

Carbon dioxide encourages risky behaviour in clownfish

Apparently the affect of CO2, that deadly gas that we have been re-introduced to recently and just kept exhaling, does more than just feed plants. It, gasp..., gives some fish a hangover. I know, It's that other word again.yep, appalling. Everyone is appalled..

[researchers] at James Cook University in Townsville, Queensland, Australia, have previously found that if you put reef fish into water with more CO₂ than normal in it – similar to the levels expected in oceans by the end of the century – they become bolder and attracted to odours they would normally avoid, including those of predators and unfavourable habitats.

The overall affect on humans on this planet have been dramatic as well. Not the getting pissed part, but the CO2 part. Some people are reacting so severely that it is actually affecting their skin colour. Take a look at this sufferer..

She has turned white..

A little change of topic and one that appears to be a very interesting one as it lists a plethora of different opinions and facts from around the world. This comprehensive coverage introduces arguments, stating for one and all that the whole approach towards AGW has been greatly exaggerated and also influenced by individual believe rather than clear, precise and verifiable scientific methods that should always leaves room for not only discussion, but disagreement. Allowing future adjustments, should further evidence arise to be contrary to the thesis or theory in question. Normally the scientific process is open to that procedure but apparently not applicable to the religious followers of AGW..

They had to be forced to demonstrate their theories, studies, papers or hypothesis, to demonstrate how and where they got their data, that effort is still being fought over in quite a few courts today as they resist to subject their data to exposure knowing that data would be questionable or very easily exposed to be irrelevant and their methodology questionable. All projections are generated by computer models which can be easily manipulated..

After watching this presentation one must ask the question as to how gullible were you to believe the AGW hysterics and once realising that maybe you were conned, will you change your thinking paradigm or continue in your ignorance..

Change of topic and what could be more interesting than getting someone on who actually knows what the weather is going to do as well as as being able to predict it months in advance. I do not know of anyone else on this planet who is able to achieve this level of accuracy as most weather bureaus are lucky to be able to tell you what happening next week let alone next month or next year which this guy can do with about 90% accuracy. Not bad by someone who uses his laptop to calculate the predictions,,

Explanation of weather forecasting accuracy..

Powerful thunderstorms swept across SE England near
the end of June. These and other simultaneous events
around the world confirmed the WeatherAction 'Extra Top
Red' long range warning for extreme thunder & hail type
events (UK/Ire) 27-29 June, issued 10 April.  

Piers Corbyn is an astrophysicist..

As this blog hums along nicely and setting new record hits according to my counter which I should have installed earlier than I did --

PEOPLE ENJOYING THE EXPERIENCE..
1,201,994

Thanks to all..

I do occasionally come across an article or two about something that is so incomprehensibly stupid that I just cannot fathom it's ignorance..

Canada’s Green Party leader, Elizabeth May, is a green advocate, activist and bi-coastal self-promoter.(CJ..cover eyes when checking link, I did warn you).

But she’s no scientist.

As Green Party leader and the Green’s first (and only) MP, her adherence to the cult of global warming is no surprise, but her opposition to Wi-Fi is:

…the first Green party MP threw her support behind her provincial counterparts’ efforts to stop the smart meter program and allow for more consultation on the kinds of meters that should be used. On Twitter, she voiced opposition to the unnecessary use of Wi-Fi, saying she was “so glad I don’t have Wi-Fi at home.” A subsequent tweet revealed a much stronger opinion about Wi-Fi as it pertains to the health of students: “It is very disturbing how quickly Wi-Fi has moved into schools as it is children who are the most vulnerable,”…

Wi-Fi as a health hazard is some of the junkiest of junk science, yet May has no problem jumping on the bandwagon and using ‘vulnerable ‘children as human shields to cover her knee-jerk activism.

the bunny ears of doom

For those of you who are even remotely literate about WiFi, one would prefer to look at it's advantageous rather than generating incoherent misinformation to one's audience. But the clueless Greens do not have that problem. As far as they are concerned, if it hums or uses power, then it's evil..

I have used WiFi for quite a few years to connect laptops or PC's including my latest Intel MacBook Pro ( allows me to use Mac and Intel/Windows OS) whenever I am not using my desktop. It comes in very handy in summer when outside, either sitting on the deck or out the back on the veranda. Speed does deteriorate slightly but not enough for it to be an issue. To me, it's just another technological marvel and it's operation, which I checked out first, was harmless and posed no threat, so great..


The World Health Organization has this to say about Wi-Fi:

From all evidence accumulated so far, no adverse short- or long-term health effects have been shown to occur from the RF signals produced by base stations. Since wireless networks produce generally lower RF signals than base stations, no adverse health effects are expected from exposure to them.

So where do these ignorant people get their useless information, let alone, recommend it to others to copy their well rehearsed ignorance and stupidity..
Save us from the Greens..

Link..

This is a post from J.Curry's Cimate Etc site where a study demonstrates that white cons. dudes are the ones forcing the scientific community to get their shit together and tell the science the way it is instead of theorising or using manipulated computer models to spread their AGW according to their preconceived religion, which by the way is coming unstuck as I speak..

It is just another condescending study by those learned elites whose comprehension of reality relies on someone else's opinion as they don't get out much. Anaemia is their main complaint and the sun is something they study in their spare time..

Gladly, I can confess and state that there are more guys not convinced that feminism is the utopia that those lying feminists claim it to be, I am glad also to say that the MRM is chock a block full of people from countries all over the world. It's easy to join, confessions held right here. The only request is that you admit how much feminism sucks and how much it has screwed up your life, see, easy..

JC comment:  you think that this relationship would give them a clue about what “denial” is actually about.
It is also important to note the effects of the other social, demographic, political, and temporal variables we employed as controls in our models. Age generally has no effect on climate change denial, but older adults are more likely than are younger adults to believe there is no scientific consensus. Lesser educated adults are more likely than are their more highly educated counterparts to believe human activities are not the primary cause of recent warming and that there is no scientific consensus. Adults with higher socioeconomic status (both educational attainment and annual income) are more likely than are their lower SES counterparts to believe the media exaggerates the seriousness of global warming. Employment status and parental status have no direct effect on climate change denial. For each of the five denial items, more religious individuals, people unsympathetic to the environmental movement, and self-identified Republicans are more likely to express climate change denial than are their respective counterparts. Finally, climate change denial has increased over the time period between 2001 and 2010.
From the conclusions:
The positive correlation between self- reported understanding of global warming and climate change denial among conservative white males is compelling evidence that climate change denial is a form of identity-protective cognition, reflecting a system-justifying tendency.
Our results relate back to earlier work on the political mobilization of conservative elites and organizations in the US to challenge climate science and policy . Conservative think tanks, conservative media, corporations, and industry associations (especially for the fossil fuels industry)—domains dominated by conservative white males—have spearheaded the attacks on climate science and policy from the late 1980s to the present. The results presented here show that conservative white males in the general public have become a very receptive audience for these efforts. When mobilized, these conservative white males may constitute a key vector of climate change denial in their own right via their online and offline social networks and through participation in various protest and campaigning events.
Since the mid-1990s, organized climate change denial has diffused from the US to other Anglo nations with established conservative think tanks that promote free-market conservatism and front groups promoting industry interests, most notably Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand . This spread of climate change denial has been driven to a significant degree by key actors—and their resources, strategies, and tactics—in the U.S. climate change denial machine. Throughout these Anglo countries organized denial seems to be dominated by politically conservative white males, and this suggests that a similar conservative white male effect might be emerging in the general publics of these nations with regard to climate change denial. Clearly the extent to which the conservative white male effect on climate change denial exists outside the US is a topic deserving investigation.
JC conclusion:  This article is notable primarily for coining the term “cool dudes” in the context of climate change “denial.”    My main reaction to this is to question how social scientists, who actually study this, can be so clueless about the whole thing.  Perhaps someone needs to develop a demographic and behavioral theory about social scientists who write about climate change “deniers.”    I look forward to the reactions of the “cool dudes” to these ideas.

The results of the likelihood ratio tests (1 df, x2 distribution) in Table 6 indicate that the confident conservative white male dummy variable improves model fit more than does the conservative white male dummy variable. Further, for each denial indicator, the odds ratio for the confident conservative white male dummy variable is greater than the one for the conservative white male dummy variable. For example, while conservative white males are 1.43 times more likely than other adults to believe the effects of global warming will never happen, confident conserva- tive white males are 3.39 times more likely than other adults to do so. Thus, confident conservative white males are much more likely than are other adults to report climate change denial. Building  upon the results presented in Table 3, the patterns revealed in Table 6 further suggest that climate change denial is a form of identity-protective cognition, reflecting a system-justifying ten- dency.