My words are going VIRAL!

When I started this blog about a decade ago, I always hoped it would be a useful reference for people seeking credible arguments about science, religion, politics, and other social issues, backed with a consistent ethical standard. Little did I know just how far my words would travel!

Recently, other bloggers that are critics of the Baha’i Faith have begin taking my words and directly posting them onto their own blogs and even on one video on YouTube, much to my astonishment.

First the video, based on Four Ways to Create a Religion of Hypocrites

Which also appears here:  http://bahaism.blogspot.com/2016/12/4-ways-to-create-religion-of-hypocrites.html

The original blog entry was copied here:  http://bahaism.blogspot.com/2015/07/four-ways-to-create-religion-of.html

That same blog also reposted several other blog entries of mine:

http://bahaism.blogspot.com/2010/07/fatal-flaw-in-bahai-authority.html

http://bahaism.blogspot.com/2011/10/universal-house-of-international.html

http://bahaism.blogspot.com/2015/07/equality-of-sexes-not-in-bahai-faith.html

http://bahaism.blogspot.com/2015/10/bahai-scandals.html

http://bahaism.blogspot.com/2017/02/why-i-abandoned-haifan-bahai-faith.html

http://bahaism.blogspot.com/2016/04/dale-husbands-battle-on-amazon-with.html

When it comes to faithfulness and accuracy in quoting my writings, ‘s blog is indeed the best. Others, not so much.

Here are other examples of blog entries elsewhere that got it right, mostly:

https://thebahaiinsider.com/2017/03/05/why-i-abandoned-the-haifan-bahai-faith-extract-from-dale-husbands-blog/

https://thebahaiinsider.com/2015/11/02/some-interesting-bahai-scandals/

http://en.bahairesearch.org/article/independent-investigation-truth-baha%E2%80%99i-case-hypocrisy

http://en.bahairesearch.org/article/fatal-flaw-baha%E2%80%99i-authority

http://en.bahairesearch.org/article/why-i-abandoned-haifan-baha%E2%80%99i-faith

Another blogger, Ed Darrell, referred to one of my early statements on climate change, which is an even bigger issue to me than the Baha’i Faith:

https://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/astounding-manipulation-of-data-from-the-climate-denialists/

Which actually came from here:

https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/damning-evidence-of-fraud-by-nils-axel-morner/

And loooooong before any of that, one of my oldest online friends referred to my blog here:

https://dovaryeh.wordpress.com/2007/07/29/fundamentalism-second-take/

Which came from here:

https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/religious-fundamentalism-is-blasphemy/

Earlier, he made this:  https://dovaryeh.wordpress.com/2007/07/29/science-can-it-dictate-ethics/

Which referred to this: https://dalehusband.com/2007/07/21/three-opponents-three-different-results/

Which is also more important in some ways than criticizing the Baha’i Faith.

What goes around comes around to climate denialists

The Heartland Institute (HI), a think tank devoted to “pro-business” policies and climate change denialism, has suffered its own embarrassing data breach, simular to what happened with Climategate to some climatologists. The results have been most amusing and show clearly the hypocritical nature of the HI.

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute-exposed-internal-documents-unmask-heart-climate-denial-machine

http://www.desmogblog.com/mashey-report-confirms-heartland-s-manipulation-exposes-singer-s-deception

http://www.desmogblog.com/climategate-victims-chide-heartland-double-standard

http://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-demands-desmogblog-remove-climate-strategy-document

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/-the-origin-of-the-heartl_b_1289669.html

BTW, we never did find out who leaked the stolen e-mails that started the Climategate uproar, did we?

Related articles

Climate “skeptic” attempting damage control after being discredited

It should have been obvious from the 1990s onward that global warming was indeed real and that human activities were chiefly to blame, but many who were entrenched in conservative or libertarian political positions found those conclusions offensive and a threat to their interests, hence the ever-present attacks by climate change “skeptics” who would do everything they could to cast doubt on the evidence regarding the issue. They did that instead of examining their political positions, which a true skeptic should have done!

Now one of them, Richard Muller, has changed sides, but is still trying to justify his earlier attitude. That’s an example of a “notpology“, which is dishonest.

http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — A prominent physicist and skeptic of global warming spent two years trying to find out if mainstream climate scientists were wrong. In the end, he determined they were right: Temperatures really are rising rapidly.

The study of the world’s surface temperatures by Richard Muller was partially bankrolled by a foundation connected to global warming deniers. He pursued long-held skeptic theories in analyzing the data. He was spurred to action because of “Climategate,” a British scandal involving hacked emails of scientists.

<snip>

“The skeptics raised valid points and everybody should have been a skeptic two years ago,” Muller said in a telephone interview. “And now we have confidence that the temperature rise that had previously been reported had been done without bias.”

Muller said that he came into the study “with a proper skepticism,” something scientists “should always have. I was somewhat bothered by the fact that there was not enough skepticism” before.  (Emphasis mine)

That is bullcrap. If Muller was wrong before, he was certainly wrong a decade ago, so why not just say that and leave his ego out of it? Scientists, including proponents of the man-made global warming hypothesis, have to be responsible skeptics to do their work at all and prove it by subjecting their findings to peer review, and it was the peer review process that made that hypothesis credible in the first place. Saying otherwise as Muller is doing is slander.

http://www.dictionaryslang.com/notpology

An apology that doesnt ACTUALLY apologise, but is simply given to make the evil person LOOK/feel better.

The ultimate blow to global warming denialism

Denialists are not interested in truth or consistency of any kind. Instead, they have a dogma and an agenda and will take advantage of any arguments that serve these things, even if those arguments don’t really fit together. Nowhere does this become more obvious than in the issue of global warming.

John Cook, who runs the website Skeptical Science, has assembled a long list of contradictions made by global warming denialists. With this, he and other contributers totally wreck what little credibility these political and pseudoscientific hacks ever had!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/contradictions.php

 

Roy Spencer pulls another misleading stunt

Check out this story:

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

Forbes
By James Taylor | Forbes – Wed, Jul 27, 2011

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. “There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is “not much”). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA’s ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth’s atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth’s atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a “huge discrepancy” between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

The Heartland Institute is NOT a scientific organization affiliated with NASA at all, but a right-wing think tank.

{{{NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing.}}}

The greenhouse effect is NOT about how much heat is being released by the atmosphere into space, because that would be the same no matter what the composition of the atmosphere! It’s about how long the heat that is in the Earth’s atmosphere remains BEFORE it is released. If LESS heat was being released, the atmosphere would soon grow so hot that life would be impossible and then the oceans would completely boil away, and the temperature would just keep rising to infinity! No “alarmist” climate scientist has ever claimed that would happen. This article is one long strawman type fallacy!

Roy Spencer is a FRAUD! Not only is he a climate change denialist, he is also a CREATIONIST. He has NO business doing science if he doesn’t even support the theory of evolution, a basic concept of modern biology!

Not to mention that last year he was caught doing this to his own data presentations:

Another phony global warming denialist busted!

Even worse than Conservapedia!

Wikipedia has become so immensely successful and useful that it has caused others to create competition to it. Some delusional people with extreme political views have even created alternatives to it, in the interest of countering Wikipedia’s supposed “left-wing bias”. Thus we have things like the laughingstock known as Conservapedia, founded and run by Andrew Schlafly, son of Phyllis Schlafly.

That is bad. But this is WORSE!

http://www.climatewiki.org/wiki/Main_Page

Welcome to ClimateWiki
The Definitive Climate Change Encyclopedia

Global warming is a complicated issue. It’s easy to get confused by all the scientific arguments and conflicting claims. We created this site to help everyone from high school students to scientists working in the field to quickly find the latest and most reliable information on this important topic.

ClimateWiki is an encyclopedia of climate change research organized by topic. If you are new to the issue, consider reading the Introduction to Global Warming. If you are already well versed in the issue, search the Featured Categories in the search box to the right or use some of the other navigation tools on this page.

ClimateWiki is moderated and edited by The Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank with offices in Chicago and Washington, DC. Interested in becoming a contributor? Contact John Monaghan at jmonaghan@heartland.org

What kind of an idiot would take such an openly biased source at face value?

Look at this:

http://www.climatewiki.org/wiki/Category:Economics

“There is ample evidence that a warmer world is also a safer and healthier world, yet this fact is seldom mentioned in the debate over climate change. Economists can measure the impact of climate change on various measures of economic wellbeing and calculate, for example, the effect of warmer temperatures per-capita income, the price of food and other essentials, and even on life expectancy. They can also measure the loss of income and jobs that result from restricting access to inexpensive fossil fuels. “

Yeah, because the increasing spread of tropical diseases like malaria are very safe and healthy! NOT! Also, if this new web encyclopedia is really about climate, why mention economics at all? Need I also mention that since fossil fuels are non-renewable, the jobs they provide will eventually disappear anyway and as those resources become increasingly scarce, their price will skyrocket? We must break our dependence on fossil fuels before our world economies are broken in the next few centuries, whether or not we have to worry about climate change.

To show how worthless ClimateWiki really is, just look at this:

http://www.climatewiki.org/wiki/Vincent_Gray
Vincent Gray has had a long career in research laboratories in the United Kingdom, France, Canada, New Zealand, and China. He has specialized in climate science for the past 17 years. He has been an expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reports from the beginning and submitted 1,878 comments (16 percent of the total) on the 2007 report.

Gray has published widely on a variety of topics. His work on the climate includes The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001.’ He was a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Center in 2006 and attended the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali.

I wrote about that bastard here:
https://dalehusband.wordpress.com/2008/05/31/a-fake-expert-vs-real-ones-on-global-warming/

But ClimateWiki goes even further than Conservapedia in making sure its claims are not challenged by anyone, at least not on site. When you click on what appears to be the discussion page on any entry and try to edit it, you get:

http://www.climatewiki.org/index.php?title=ClimateWiki%3AUsers&action=edit
You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason:
The action you have requested is limited to users in the group: Users.

In other words, the Heartland Institute, which is supposed to champion a free market, censors this site by not allowing any critics to post anything on it! HYPOCRITES!!!

Allowing for error and uncertainty in real science.

Genuine science is always based on reality, never dogma. And there are two issues regarding reality:

  1. Nature gives consistent answers based on empirical analysis.  So those answers will tend to be reliable.
  2. Human beings are fallible. That means they make mistakes and do not always make precise measurements.

A contradiction? Not really. Look at these two charts:

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg

The light blue areas in the first graph, and the grey areas in the second, are uncertainties resulting from the fact that there were fewer measurments relative to earlier time periods than later ones. There were far fewer tide gauges in the late 19th Century than in the late 20th Century. And there were far fewer proxies extending back to the Middle Ages than those which referred only to modern times. And in both charts, there are more precise measurements of sea level (from satellites) or of temperatures (from direct thermometer readings).

Scientists take pride in their honesty, so they allow for errors and uncertainty in their data, even while attempting to increase the accuracy and detail of their measurements. Even if the actual sea levels or temperatures centuries ago were not exactly known, we can still give approximate estimates that are better than knowing nothing at all.

Contrast these two charts with this one:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we18.htm

Where is the uncertainty? This chart seems to depict EXACT measurements of sea levels from hundreds of years ago, which is really impossible! But those who are scientifically illiterate (like many members of the British House of Lords, I would guess), would not realize that!

Which explains why I commented on this chart and others here:

How the hell is it that denialists are willing to accuse the makers of the “hockey stick” graphs of faking data, yet they never noticed anything from their own people like THAT?!

Ironically, when you have no uncertainty allowed for in the data, THAT is a sign of fakery!