Wed - June 9, 2010

Another oil story

I can't verify this, but it certainly raises some questions.

An explosion at a natural gas well in northwest Pennsylvania resulted in a spill of at least a million gallons of oil and chemicals mixed with water. According to the AP report, there was a shower of gas and chemical-laden water shooting 75 feet into the air. The leak continued for at least 16 hours. The accident was so severe that the area was evacuated and the Federal Aviation Administration prohibited flights in the area.

When I heard of the accident on Friday afternoon, I immediately left the meeting I was attending in Washington, DC and headed for the site with my trusty Flip Camera in hand.

So where are the photos and video showing the extent of the pollution?

They don’t exist, because EOG Resources, the owner of the wells, won’t allow anyone on the site, especially with a camera. When I tried to shoot some video, they not only wouldn’t let me on the site, they told me I might be shot for being on their property and then sent thugs to chase me and threaten me.

If this is true (and I really stress that if), why is another oil company getting away with hiding a disaster?

Is it possible that the Imperious Leader is more beholden to big oil than Bushleague was?

Posted Wed - June 9, 2010 at 12:45 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sun - May 9, 2010

"Brand New Green"

I want to keep track of this City Journal piece, but there are a couple of ideas I want to float as well. Emphasis added.

But tepid may not suffice. “One of the greatest dangers the world faces is the possibility that a vocal minority of antinuclear activists could prevent phase-out of coal emissions,” Brand writes, quoting Hansen. It’s an indubitable historical fact that the developed world was poised to break free from a carbon-centered energy economy 30 years ago. Greens locked us back into it. By demonizing nukes so effectively, they boosted U.S. coal consumption by about 400 million tons per year. We would instantly cut our coal consumption in half if we could simply conjure back into existence the 100-plus nuclear plants that were in the pipeline three decades ago. If global warming is a problem, Brand and his ex-friends own it.

And this a little later.

It’s here, about halfway through his book, that Brand finally begins addressing what Greens have dignified with a grand title: the Precautionary Principle. That sliver of vacuous pedantry, Brand acknowledges, has become “deliberately one-sided, a rejection of what is called risk balancing,” a single-minded determination “to prevent all the harm we can.” Or imagined harm. As the precautious mind-set calcified, “evidence of harm disappeared as a precautionary principle trigger, and science was explicitly devalued.” The Old Greens followed the science only when its predictions fit with a narrative of “decay,” “decline,” and “disaster.” This was a “formula for paralysis.” The New Brand supports the “freedom to try things,” subject to “ceaseless, fine-grained monitoring.”

It all comes down to how people think. Adopting Isaiah Berlin’s familiar taxonomy, Brand explains that Old Greens are intellectual “hedgehogs”—they start with a grand theory and then shore it up with mounds of factoids dredged up to reinforce what they already believe. “Foxes, on the other hand, are skeptical about grand theories, diffident in their forecasts, and ready to adjust their ideas based on actual events. Hedgehogs don’t notice or care when they’re wrong. Foxes learn. Hedgehogs are great proponents, but foxes are invariably better forecasters and policy makers.”

Folks, those last two paragraphs sum up the catastrophic failure of modern liberalism.

It's impossible to prevent harm. The Precautionary Principle can't prevent risk. It only stops people from learning to deal with risk.

The Precautionary Principle stops human progress.

Posted Sun - May 9, 2010 at 01:17 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Wed - March 10, 2010

Get new data

So, the UN will appoint a panel to review the errors made by the IPCC.

This is still the wrong move.

The data has been compromised. It can't be used because there is no way to tell what parts of it (if any) are accurate.

If this was really about science, somebody would be out there getting new data that was uncontaminated by the old data.

Science is about what can be measured and what can be predicted.

There were mistakes made. That's a given.

Get new data. Don't try to find ways to make the old data work.

Posted Wed - March 10, 2010 at 11:13 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sun - March 7, 2010

So much for the science

The evidence for anthropogenic global warming is flawed. It's been manipulated, falsified, and generally reduced to wet tissue paper.

So, do the scientists behind the global warming movement look for new, unimpeachable data to disarm the critics? Do they believe in their own science?

No, they discuss political tactics to take down their critics.

Is there still anyone who doubts this is a power grab veiling itself as science?

Posted Sun - March 7, 2010 at 02:13 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - March 1, 2010

Mr. Gore visits the state of denial

It would be classy if Al Gore paused and took a closer look at the evidence for anthropogenic global warming while looking for new untainted evidence to make his case.

Unfortunately, I don't think Al Gore has been classy since he insisted on a recount in selected counties of Florida instead of the whole state.

Mr. Gore did an opinion piece for The New York Times.

It would be an enormous relief if the recent attacks on the science of global warming actually indicated that we do not face an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it.

Sure sounds like he's going to make his case again, doesn't it? Let's look at what he says further on.

I, for one, genuinely wish that the climate crisis were an illusion. But unfortunately, the reality of the danger we are courting has not been changed by the discovery of at least two mistakes in the thousands of pages of careful scientific work over the last 22 years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In fact, the crisis is still growing because we are continuing to dump 90 million tons of global-warming pollution every 24 hours into the atmosphere — as if it were an open sewer.

How nice of the eminent Mr. Gore. He's admitted that at least two mistakes were made. Nice touch that, he can always admit to more later.

He doesn't mention that the "evidence" was deliberately manipulated and corrupted, so much so that no conclusions can be drawn from the IPCC report. In fact, most of the raw data can't be produced.

Mr. Gore also conveniently fails to mention what constitutes those "90 million tons of global-warming pollution." Carbon dioxide, for example, is a natural product of animals breathing.

You don't suppose he wants us to stop breathing, do you?

Here are the two paragraphs that are central to his argument.

But the scientific enterprise will never be completely free of mistakes. What is important is that the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged. It is also worth noting that the panel’s scientists — acting in good faith on the best information then available to them — probably underestimated the range of sea-level rise in this century, the speed with which the Arctic ice cap is disappearing and the speed with which some of the large glacial flows in Antarctica and Greenland are melting and racing to the sea.

Because these and other effects of global warming are distributed globally, they are difficult to identify and interpret in any particular location. For example, January was seen as unusually cold in much of the United States. Yet from a global perspective, it was the second-hottest January since surface temperatures were first measured 130 years ago.

Overwhelming consensus. Except science isn't about consensus. It's about what can be measured and what can be predicted.

Let me emphasize that.

Science is about what can be measured and what can be predicted.

Mr. Gore admits in those two paragraphs that the predictions are wrong and have been wrong. Notice too how the scale of measurement is barely more than a century. And notice how he conveniently overlooks that the temperature data has been compromised, and in some cases comes from fictional weather stations.

If he has new evidence, then by all means let's examine it.

Otherwise, all he's doing is recycling the hot air. Which certainly doesn't do anything for his case.

Posted Mon - March 1, 2010 at 11:38 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - February 22, 2010

Sea levels may not be rising - Updated

A key study that claimed sea levels were rising due to global warming was withdrawn because of mistakes that undermined the findings.

This is why we need to take about three steps back and determine what is actually happening.

As it is, every single claim for anthropomorphic anthropogenic global warming traces back to flawed evidence or faulty models.

And the case unravels more every day.

Remember my first question, Is it unusual? Without that, there is no argument for global warming.

Read my Common sense global warming FAQ.

Update - Regular reader BTHO pointed out on 24Feb2010 that the correct term is anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic.

Posted Mon - February 22, 2010 at 12:27 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - February 15, 2010


Just one thing today, and then I am going to go enjoy the sun and a late picnic.

The case for global warming or climate change or whatever it is calling itself is falling apart.

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

I'm not saying that this disproves global warming.

I am saying that BEFORE we cripple the economy, we need new evidence that hasn't been corrupted.

Check out my Common sense global FAQ in light of what we know now.

Posted Mon - February 15, 2010 at 01:29 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - January 25, 2010

Those mysterious glaciers

So, do you think there just might have been an agenda?

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.

‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’

Do you remember what I said?

…we can only look at the motivations of the global warming movement. If the science could be verified, motivation would be the last thing I would look at. But in this case, a global warming scare brings economic and political benefits to those who are making the most noise about the "problem."

Somehow the solutions have an anti-industrial bias. Considering that the solutions have a crippling cost for almost no measurable results, and it is amazing that anyone takes the "solution" seriously.

And people insisted I was being too harsh.

Anyone who tells you the debate is over probably avoided the debate.

Posted Mon - January 25, 2010 at 06:57 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - December 21, 2009

Keep following the money and see who profits

Back in March of 2007 I linked to an article pointing out how much money Al Gore is making from the global warming alarmism.

He's not the only one.

No, it turns out the current head of the IPCC Rajendra Pachauri has his fingers in all sorts of pies that depend on massive government action to "prevent" global warming. Yep, a multi-millionaire only all too willing to exploit human stupidity for profit. And it can only happen through government intervention.

It seems that Copenhagen may not have been about saving the planet as much as it was about saving the carbon credit market. I'm not the only one who has called carbon credits the post-modern equivalent of indulgences.

So the interesting question is, why isn't this all over the press?

Hat tip The Devil's Kitchen.

Posted Mon - December 21, 2009 at 02:21 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - December 14, 2009

Global aftermath - Updated

Yeah, I've been having one of those weeks. Months. Consecutive periods of diurnal rotation. Or maybe not consecutive. Whatever.

Anyway, a couple more points on this global warming scandal.

First, it's not just about the emails. The program and data files included in the three thousand pages show that there is no way those numbers can produce those results.

Second, the CRU has admitted that many of the original data files no longer exist, and therefore can not be verified. Okay, they didn't admit the second. But it's true.

Third, the CRU still doesn't want people poking around the data that wasn't "hacked."

Fourth, there is only a very small handful of sources for climate data, and all of the "official" ones are playing the same games that the CRU at the University of East Anglia played.

It's not about saving the Earth or about science. It's about controlling people. And if people aren't allowed to question and the various governments use force to back up the proclamations, freedom will be gone.

Doesn't that make you wonder why the anthropomorphic "climate change" arguments can't stand honest debate?

Update - Regular reader BTHO pointed out on 24Feb2010 that the correct term is anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic.

Posted Mon - December 14, 2009 at 03:22 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - November 30, 2009

Catastrophe - Updated

Climategate seems to be the label that's sticking, but my personal favorite is Warmergate.

Moving from knowns to unknowns, here's what we know.

Almost all arguments for anthropomorphic global warming are based on the data and projections from a very small handful of institutions. The Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia is probably the keystone. Most of the published conclusions of the 2007 IPCC report are based on CRU datasets and projections.

I say published because there is evidence that in the 2001 report, the published version does not agree with what the panel agreed on. There is also some evidence that support for the 2001 report as published was a major qualification for serving on the panel that produced the 2007 report.

Although several institutions provided information on global warming, it's safe to say that CRU was the keystone. Over the years, CRU has avoided providing the raw data for their projections, or the methodology of how their conclusions were reached. Attempts to obtain the data through the IPCC have been stonewalled by UN officials.

About two weeks ago, someone published 61 megabytes of data on a Russian server and announced it at several climate skeptic sites. Of course Russian servers are not subject to UK law and therefore no court action by the CRU could prevent access to the data. The data wasn't hacked, almost certainly it was "leaked" by an insider. The data was illegally put on the internet, but it wasn't falsified. That is important to remember.

These include emails, data, and computer code. The real telling bit is a file called "HARRY_READ_Me.txt." It's very long, but there are some comments on the file here, In many cases, the original raw data doesn't even exist anymore, making any projections scientifically useless.

There's little doubt that the scientists at CRU manipulated the data, gave false conclusions, and conspired to suppress dissent.

Remember, this isn't all the data from CRU. But it's practically the only data that outsiders have been able to examine. Under the circumstances, ALL CRU data and projections are tainted.

That's been the hardest thing for me to explain to some of my friends. "But can't they just use the good data?"

"Botch after botch," the Harry file reads. There's no way to separate the good stuff from the bad.

The data is toxic.

The researchers are radioactive. And President Obama's science czar is up to his neck in the scandal.

This isn't one instance. This is something that went on for decades, again and again and again. It wasn't just "goosing" the data, it was puree. None of the existing data or projections or climate models can be used. Ever. This isn't the climate skeptics saying this, this is because the existing data can't be verified. Certain scientists perverted science to their Cause. More on that Cause bit later.

There is only one way we can discover a) if global warming exists, b) if global warming is unusual, c) if global warming is entirely or mostly human caused, and d) if global warming is bad. We have to determine those answers before we can tell e) if human action can reverse or slow global warming, and f) if humans should take action to prevent global warming.

Notice that this is a progression, there's no point in dealing with e or f until we've answered a, b, c, and d in that order. And yes, four of those look very familiar for a reason.

The existing data is toxic. So we need new data, new measurements. And total transparency. No secret methods. Nothing reserved for the Elect. Everything has to be open to examination. There is no other way to make sure it's valid.

Yes, that should have been done in the first place. And that brings us to the Cause.

Reading through the emails, it's pretty obvious that for certain scientists, anthropomorphic anthropogenic global warming was just the means to an end. They knew that the data didn't hold up. Science and truth would be subverted for the greater good. Nothing could be allowed to derail the Cause. Yes folks, behold True Believers™. Their sacred cause was Redeeming Humanity Through the Destruction of the Free Market.

Basically they believed that Most People Are Too Stupid to Make The Right Choice. Remember that, it has implications far beyond this scandal.

You didn't think they had just one arrow in their quiver, do you?

It's not an organized conspiracy, more of a disorganized one. What unites this cabal is the unshakable believe that People Are Too Stupid For Their Own Good. Therefore, Wise and Enlightened Leaders Must Make the Proper Choices.

Or as Daniel Webster put it so well:

"In every generation there are those who want to rule well - but they mean to rule. They promise to be good masters - but they mean to be masters."
— Daniel Webster

Yes I know I used that quote recently, but it fits. Webster certainly wasn't the only one.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
— H.L. Mencken

I used that one too. Here's one I haven't used recently on this blog.

NeoWayland's Technopagan Yearnings

Okay, okay, that one is mine. It still applies though.

I can honestly say that I have no idea if global warming exists, or if humanity is responsible. What I can say is that the evidence so far didn't support the conclusions. I can also say that there was a politically motivated conspiracy to keep people from questioning the global warming dogma.

It's not just global warming. Apparently you are too stupid to choose your health care. Anytime an Authority Figure® tries to limit your choices, you should ask why.

Free to make your own choices, that is what liberty is.

Watch for this scandal to be glossed over, it's already starting. The Cause isn't global warming, it's Control.

Update - Regular reader BTHO pointed out on 24Feb2010 that the correct term is anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic.

Posted Mon - November 30, 2009 at 02:47 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - October 26, 2009

Environmentalists demand that Africa starves

Here's one you may not have seen.

The fight to end hunger is being hurt by environmentalists who insist that genetically modified crops cannot be used in Africa, Bill Gates, the billionaire founder of software giant Microsoft (MSFT.O), said on Thursday.

Gates said GMO crops, fertilizer and chemicals are important tools -- although not the only tools -- to help small farms in Africa boost production.

"This global effort to help small farmers is endangered by an ideological wedge that threatens to split the movement in two," Gates said in his first address on agriculture made during the annual World Food Prize forum.

"Some people insist on an ideal vision of the environment," Gates said. "They have tried to restrict the spread of biotechnology into sub-Saharan Africa without regard to how much hunger and poverty might be reduced by it."

Presumptuous, don't you think? Demanding that people starve to maintain an ideal?

But it misses the point too. There is not a major food crop or livestock species that isn't genetically modified. And that is something that has been going on thousands of years before there was a Luther Burbank or a Monsanto corporation.

It's called domestication. At least when humans experiment and it benefits humanity.

I've more news for you.

Genetic modification would happen without human intervention. It's called adaptation. It's sort of what the DNA and RNA are designed to do.

Posted Mon - October 26, 2009 at 12:00 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - October 5, 2009

EPA uses "carbon pollution" to extort

Well, we were expecting this. Emphasis added.

Usually it takes an act of Congress to change an act of Congress, but Team Obama isn't about to let democratic—or even Democratic—consent interfere with its carbon extortion racket. To avoid the political firestorm of regulating the neighborhood coffee shop, the EPA is justifying its invented rule on the basis of what it calls the "absurd results" doctrine. That's not a bad moniker for this whole exercise.

The EPA admits that it is "departing from the literal application of statutory provisions." But it says the courts will accept its revision because literal application will produce results that are "so illogical or contrary to sensible policy as to be beyond anything that Congress could reasonably have intended."

Did you get that?

If they followed the law's definition of pollution, the results would be far beyond anything that Congress could have possibly wanted.

By their own admission.

This is a Federal agency that is deliberately setting out to manipulate the law against those companies with the most to lose.

Now, why should this matter to you?

Because those companies will raise their prices. And that will hit your wallet.

The economy is interconnected. Raise taxes and fees in one place and the costs are distributed throughout the system. But that isn't the important part.

If a Federal agency is breaking the law, then what is to stop ALL Federal agencies from breaking the law if the goal is the "common good?"

Another example of the Chicago way, as pioneered by Al Capone.

Posted Mon - October 5, 2009 at 01:17 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - September 21, 2009

Sunspots shift the debate

Here's another scientist who thinks that the mild weather is partially due to lowered sunspot activity.

Is he certain? No. But that's the point.

We don't know what causes hotter weather or cooler weather.

The long term evidence suggests we're well into a cooler trend, although we don't know for sure.

We certainly don't know if a warmer climate is better than a cooler climate.

We really don't know what effect if any that human action can have on long term climate.

And since we don't know these things, it's absolutely idiotic to pretend that we do AND destroy our economy trying to accomplish goals that can't be met measuring "progress" with tools that can't be verified.

Before we pass legislation, we should make sure the science holds up.

Posted Mon - September 21, 2009 at 12:42 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - September 14, 2009

More on Borlaug

Via CoyoteBlog, I saw this YouTube from a Penn & Teller Bullshit episode. It's worth your time.

Are Penn & Teller totally correct here? Probably not, but they aren't the ones trying to stifle debate either.

And THAT is what you should remember. Who is afraid to let the argument stand on it's own without resorting to the threat of force.

Posted Mon - September 14, 2009 at 07:06 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sun - September 13, 2009

Greener fields yet

Norman Borlaug died Saturday.

When it comes to environmentalism, Norman Borlaug is one of the first names that pops into my head.

AMERICA has three living winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, two universally renowned and the other so little celebrated that not one person in a hundred would be likely to pick his face out of a police lineup, or even recognize his name. The universally known recipients are Elie Wiesel, who for leading an exemplary life has been justly rewarded with honor and acclaim, and Henry Kissinger, who in the aftermath of his Nobel has realized wealth and prestige. America's third peace-prize winner, in contrast, has been the subject of little public notice, and has passed up every opportunity to parley his award into riches or personal distinction. And the third winner's accomplishments, unlike Kissinger's, are morally unambiguous. Though barely known in the country of his birth, elsewhere in the world Norman Borlaug is widely considered to be among the leading Americans of our age.

Borlaug is an eighty-two-year-old plant breeder who for most of the past five decades has lived in developing nations, teaching the techniques of high-yield agriculture. He received the Nobel in 1970, primarily for his work in reversing the food shortages that haunted India and Pakistan in the 1960s. Perhaps more than anyone else, Borlaug is responsible for the fact that throughout the postwar era, except in sub-Saharan Africa, global food production has expanded faster than the human population, averting the mass starvations that were widely predicted -- for example, in the 1967 best seller Famine -- 1975! The form of agriculture that Borlaug preaches may have prevented a billion deaths.

That was from a 1997 article in The Atlantic. Please compare what Dr. Borlaug accomplished with what usually passes for environmentalism. Instead of demanding that people make do with less, he delivered abundance. Instead of controlling people's lives, he freed them.

And for that, progressives in the West turned their back on Dr. Borlaug.

His memory is worth supporting.

He was what an American scientist should be, and he had a good dream. So here is the new yearly entry on my calendar.

<Norman Borlaug\deceased> Passing Day (Before)
Lived 25Mar1914 to 12Sep2009
agricultural scientist, humanitarian, father of the Green Revolution

He's going to be on my Before list this year.

Posted Sun - September 13, 2009 at 01:35 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - August 24, 2009

A glimpse of things to come?

As of September 1st, it will be illegal in the UK to import incandescent light bulbs.

The public has been asked to spy on shopkeepers who continue to sell traditional bulbs.

Individuals who import incandescent bulbs into the EU face a huge fine, and companies who do the same face unlimited fines.

Now think about this for just a second.

Running a standard light bulb costs pennies per year.

A 14 watt compact fluorescent bulb is "equivalent" to a 60 watt standard incandescent. Some incandescent bulbs like G.E.'s "Reveal" line deliver the same amount of light at about two-thirds the wattage of a standard bulb.

But that is not the whole picture.

CFL bulbs are harder to manufacture and much harder to dispose of than standard bulbs.

Translation, CFL bulbs cost more to buy and use.

So, if a standard bulb is much cheaper, much more flexible, much easier to dispose of, and the total savings are negligible, there is one question that no one wants to answer.

Why does government have to point a gun at consumers to get them to do "the right thing?"

Posted Mon - August 24, 2009 at 11:00 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - June 29, 2009

Why is it necessary to pass a climate bill that no one has read?

Sometimes I do have hope yet.

Katabasis: The Minority Report: Why I am a Climate Sceptic

Somebody else arrived at the same position I did and for pretty much the same reasons.

Here's one of my first pieces on the subject, complete with my infamous four questions.

Here's my Global Warming FAQ.

Here's my environmental entry index, just chock full of links to the debate that you have been told doesn't exist.

Do you really trust the government to save you?

Posted Mon - June 29, 2009 at 12:50 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Wed - April 15, 2009

Understanding climate engineering

So when unregulated human activity and carbon released into the atmosphere supposedly alters the climate, it's a bad thing.

But when a government science advisor proposes an artificial volcano to pump carbon and pollution in the atmosphere, it's the solution?

We don't understand the climate we have now.

And now someone wants to deliberately make things worse in order to control it?

It's much more impressive to say "we have to act now" rather than admitting that human science only has the vaguest glimmer of what makes our climate work.

Oh, and a fast web search showed that every year there are approximately fifty to seventy volcanic eruptions per year.

That we know of.

Before we can manage anything, we have to understand it. Right now, we barely understand weather, we understand climate even less.

But by golly, it looks impressive when the scientists declare that Something Must Be Done.

Posted Wed - April 15, 2009 at 02:00 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Say it again

From my Common sense global warming FAQ:

Electric cars have a limited range and speed. To increase both, the cars have been pared down to the absolute minimum. There is some evidence that pure electric cars aren't as safe in an accident. Because the range is typically under a hundred miles and the cars take several hours to recharge, pure electrics are useless outside of city driving.

From my entry Tradeoffs :

Engineering is about tradeoffs. It's possible to make a car that gets a hundred miles to the gallon, but it will have no mass to protect the driver and won't be able to do the start-and-stop driving that most need.

From the news story Tiny Cars Fail Front-End Crash Tests at Emphasis in original.

Micro-cars can give motorists top-notch fuel efficiency at a competitive price, but the insurance industry says they don't fare too well in collisions with larger vehicles.

In crash tests released Tuesday, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that drivers of 2009 versions of the Smart "fortwo," Honda Fit and Toyota Yaris could face significant leg and head injuries in severe front-end crashes with larger, mid-size vehicles.

"There are good reasons people buy mini-cars. They're more affordable, and they use less gas. But the safety trade-offs are clear from our new tests," said Adrian Lund, the institute's president.

He told CBS News, "We know people are trying to save money in this economy; it's just not healthy decision to do that by buying the smallest cars. ... Small cars are at a disadvantage in almost all crashes."

Almost like I knew what I was talking about, isn't it?

The sad part is that when the government is "in charge" instead of the free market, no one tells you about the tradeoffs until it's too late to do anything about it.

Free to choose doesn't just mean more freedom.

Over time it means better, cheaper products. Hmm, maybe I said something about that too. Companies have a choice, make a better product today or watch their competition steal their market tomorrow.

The free market makes it possible. Unburdened by regulation and unshielded by special exemptions, companies HAVE to develop ways to make it better, cheaper, faster, or more desirable than the competition can. If a company can't deliver something unique to the buyer for the price, the company goes under because the buyer goes somewhere else.

I'm not saying that electric cars aren't a really good idea. The geek in me longs for a car that has the engine, transmission, and brakes all built into one unit attached to each tire. It will save maintenance and give you full time four wheel drive.

What I am saying is that as it stands today, battery technology just isn't there. And by paring everything down to save weight, the cars are less safe in an accident.

Posted at 01:43 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - April 6, 2009

Scary! We're down to 30 years of Artic ice (based on new computer models)

Here's another scare headline: Ice-free Artic Ocean Possible In 30 Years, Not 90 As Previously Estimated

But you have to dig. It's not until the fourth paragraph that the article tells you that the new estimates are based on the six available models most suited for estimating sea ice.

Nothing about carbon dioxide levels, global temperatures, solar radiation, or a host of other factors.

The fact is we don't know if there is a climate change trend or not. It depends on how you measure.

Remember that it's only been possible to do fairly accurate wide-scale weather observations in the last century or so.

If there is a climate change, we don't know if it's part of a natural cycle.

We don't know how much (if anything) human action has to do with the change that may (or may not) have occured.

This entire article is based on someone changing the computer models they used to make the predictions.

It's literally like someone switching from Excel to OpenOffice.

The assumptions may or may not be flawed, we don't have enough information.

I can open a spreadsheet and show that I have more annual income than Oprah Winfrey. That doesn't make it true.

At least Muyin Wang acknowledges that inaccurate models aren't any good. That's more than most AGW scientists do.

It still comes down to my four questions.

I have to have proof that humans are causing the problem. Otherwise we might was well blame human activity for the sunset tonight. It makes just about as much since.

Posted Mon - April 6, 2009 at 12:57 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Fri - March 20, 2009

Common sense and global warming

Someone else has taken a close look. Emphasis added.

Klaus, a longtime skeptic of the claims for imminent global warming disaster, spoke of his meetings with other European leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this year. He said that during a private session of European leaders, not one expressed any public doubts about the seriousness of man-made global warming. Instead the discussions centered on trying to hammer out a joint European proposal in advance of the United Nations' Climate Change conference in Copenhagen this coming December. According to Klaus, the leaders were deciding between proposing cuts in greenhouse gas emissions of 20, 30, 50, or 80 percent to be agreed upon at the Copenhagen meeting. Klaus pointed out that many politicians were discussing these more stringent targets "even though their own countries had not fulfilled their relatively modest Kyoto Protocol goals." Under the Kyoto Protocol, the European Union member states are supposed to cut their emissions by 8 percent below what they emitted in 1990.

Klaus also warned that powerful rent-seeking groups were riding the global warming alarmism bandwagon all the way to the bank. Rent-seeking occurs when individuals, firms, or organizations attempt to make money by manipulating the regulatory environment rather than by trade and production. Klaus cited firms and non-governmental groups that plan to profit from carbon rationing in the form of emissions permits trading and by deploying highly subsidized solar and wind energy projects.

Klaus confessed that he was puzzled by the environmentalist ideologues' approach to technological progress. They oppose the technological progress that free unregulated markets make possible. On the other hand, environmentalists want to mandate what they call clean technologies. "They want to operate technologies that have only one defect," said Klaus. "They have not been invented." Klaus added, "There is no known and economically feasible a way for an economy to survive on expensive unreliable clean green energy."

Klaus called into question the common notion of inter-generational equity—that the current generation should sacrifice now to benefit future generations. Should we have a preference for future generations over poor people today? Klaus ended by observing that environmentalist ideologues say that they want to "save the planet. The question is from what and for whom?"

Lindzen offered a few simple truths that "our side" often forgets. For example, skepticism about man-made global warming does not, by itself, make a good scientist. Nor does accepting global warming make one a poor scientist. Lindzen acknowledged that most of the atmospheric scientists he respects do endorse man-made global warming. He added, however, that most of their science is not actually about global warming.

Important reasons we should be debating.

Even more important reasons why we should keep the politicos out of the decision making.

Posted Fri - March 20, 2009 at 12:19 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - March 16, 2009

Cool down

2008 was cooler. Offered without comment. But with emphasis added.

Continuing a decade-long trend of declining global temperatures, the year 2008 was significantly colder than 2007, and global temperatures for the year were below the average over the past 30 years.

The global temperature data, reported by NASA satellite-based temperature measurements, refuted predictions 2008 would be one of the warmest on record.

Data show 2008 ranked 14th coldest of the 30 years measured by NASA satellite instruments since they were first launched in 1979. It was the coldest year since 2000.


NASA satellites uniformly monitor the Earth’s lower atmosphere, which greenhouse gas theory predicts will show the first and most significant effects of human-caused global warming.

The satellite-based measurements are uncorrupted by urban heat islands and localized land-use changes that often taint records from surface temperature stations, giving false indications of warming.

The uncorrupted satellite-based temperature measurements refute surface temperature station data finding 2008 to be one of the top 10 warmest years on record.

“How can an ‘average year’ in one database appear to be a [top 10] warmest year in another?” asked meteorologist Joe D’Aleo on his International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project Web site.

“Well, the global databases of [surface station reports] are all contaminated by urbanization, major station dropout, missing data, bad siting, instruments with known warm biases being introduced without adjustment, and black-box and man-made adjustments designed to maximize [reported] warming,” explained D’Aleo.

Something else to remember as the global warming "debate" spills out from Congress this year.

Posted Mon - March 16, 2009 at 12:46 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Wed - March 11, 2009

Carbon nuetrality fails despite good intentions

I'm not saying a word. Nope, not a word. I will emphasize though.

It was a bold promise: the House would "lead by example" to fight global warming, becoming the first legislative body in the world to zero out its carbon impact on the planet.

Too bold, perhaps.

The House quietly shelved the idea late last month, the word delivered in an e-mail to a couple of reporters. It turned out that the House's goal to become carbon neutral — by removing as much carbon dioxide from the air as it releases — could not be guaranteed.

"No one can really tell you if you are truly carbon neutral, and the lack of that standard bothered us," said Jeff Ventura, a spokesman for the House's chief administrative officer.

This might be a good thing to remember when they trot out the legislation to cap and trade carbon.

Posted Wed - March 11, 2009 at 04:15 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - March 9, 2009

The fog of global warming claims

Until there's more evidence, there isn't much point in discussing global warming.

Al Gore doesn't want to hear dissent.

Prince Charles claims we have only 100 months left to save the planet.

Meanwhile, the weather refuses to follow the global warming predictions.

In many ways, the AGW crowd has set the stage for the fight over an ever expanding centralized state.

No one is allowed to dissent.

No one is allowed to dispute what the "experts" say.

And you are not given a choice about the solution.

Posted Mon - March 9, 2009 at 02:00 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - February 16, 2009

Global warming and political pressure

Remember all those posts on global warming when I said that the money and power controlled the debate?

Someone said the same thing.

Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn’t believe that humans are causing global warming.

"I don’t think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect," said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.
Schmitt contends that scientists "are being intimidated" if they disagree with the idea that burning fossil fuels has increased carbon dioxide levels, temperatures and sea levels.

"They’ve seen too many of their colleagues lose grant funding when they haven’t gone along with the so-called political consensus that we’re in a human-caused global warming," Schmitt said.

Dan Williams, publisher with the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, which is hosting the climate change conference, said he invited Schmitt after reading about his resignation from The Planetary Society, a nonprofit dedicated to space exploration.

Schmitt resigned after the group blamed global warming on human activity. In his resignation letter, the 74-year-old geologist argued that the "global warming scare is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making."

Since the same tactics are being recycled, let's hit a few points.

Dissent is a good thing. It shows healthy debate.

You shouldn't trust anyone who says that the issue is settled because "everybody agrees."

And if someone is trying to panic you into acting without thinking, that's exactly when you should take the time to think before acting.

If that someone has more information than you do and they are counting on your emotional reaction to validate what they are saying, somebody's getting played.

Posted Mon - February 16, 2009 at 03:00 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - February 2, 2009

Rounding up global warming links

I have some links on global warming I want to combine.

Turns out the IPCC report isn't exactly a forecast, it violates 72 principles of scientific forecasting. “The models were not intended as forecasting models and they have not been validated for that purpose.”

But we don't stop there. Here's The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam with this choice bit.

Now let me take you back to the 1950s when this was going on.  Our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution from the crude internal combustion engines that powered cars and trucks back then and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories.  Cars and factories and power plants were filling the air with all sorts of pollutants. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution and a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action.  Government accepted this challenge and new environmental standards were set.  Scientists and engineers came to the rescue.  New reformulated fuels were developed for cars, as were new high tech, computer controlled engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer big time polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes.  Likewise, new fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced, as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue.  So the research papers from Scripps came at just the right moment.  And, with them came the birth of an issue; man-made global warming from the carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants began to flow and alarming hypothesis began to show up everywhere.

The Keeling curve showed a steady rise in CO2 in atmosphere during the period since oil and coal were discovered and used by man. As of today, carbon dioxide has increased from 215 to 385 parts per million. But, despite the increases, it is still only a trace gas in the atmosphere.  While the increase is real, the percentage of the atmosphere that is CO2 remains tiny, about 41 hundredths of one percent. 

Several hypothesis emerged in the 70s and 80s about how this tiny atmospheric component of CO2 might cause a significant warming.  But they remained unproven.  Years have passed and the scientists kept reaching out for evidence of the warming and proof of their theories.  And, the money and environmental claims kept on building up. 

Just because we don't know doesn't mean we shouldn't Take Drastic Action Now. At least that's what some British scientists want to do by pumping iron into the ocean to slow climate change.

Remember, it's all based on computer projections. It's literally a digital fantasy that You Are Not Allowed To Question.

Posted Mon - February 2, 2009 at 01:51 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sun - January 11, 2009

Definitely grasping at straws

When someone is trying give you guilt by telling you that Google searches add to the carbon footprint, well, someone's reached a bit too far in their argument.

If you are worried about human caused carbon dioxide, plant a tree. If you really feel guilty, grow a garden.

Pretty simple to me.

Posted Sun - January 11, 2009 at 03:06 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

"Chronic food shortages" because of global warming?

Sometimes I am not sure if the American population really is brainwashed or if the mainstream media just wants it that way.

"Many of today's toddlers face the grim prospect of coping with chronic food shortages in their old age if agricultural science doesn't adapt to a warming world, concluded scientists in a study published Friday in the journal Science."


What, your computer didn't show you that part of the quote? My oscillation overthurster must be boosting the reality perception field again. It happens on these older models you know.

Yes, you should find it obscene. These scientists are blackmailing you with kids lives, and they want money and control.

But the fourth paragraph is the teller. Emphasis added.

"By the end of the century, the worst of the heat waves in recent times will become the normal average summertime temperatures, the researchers reported. They based their conclusions on 23 climate models in a 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as well as data from severe heat waves dating several decades."

Those much vaunted models have yet to predict anything accurately, yet they are trotted out again and again.

This is classic example of the "heads I win tails you lose" gambit. If the models actually predict something, then all the panic is justified. If the models don't predict something (as in FAIL), why then, something is obviously and desperately catastrophic and we have to ACT NOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!!! No one stops to ask if maybe the assumptions behind the models could be wrong.

What they also don't say is that "decades" is nothing when it comes to weather cycles. The last ice age peaked ten thousand years ago. Recorded history only goes back only about six thousand years, and it's pretty spotty for anything over a thousand, especially in the West.

A century isn't a big enough baseline, even if you could trust the goosed numbers.

But you are supposed to panic.

You're supposed to surrender your freedom to the technocrats who know best.

And you are not allowed to dissent.

Frankly, when it comes to growing and distributing food, I'd rather trust a farmer's greed than a technocrat's "warnings."

Posted at 06:52 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Tue - January 6, 2009

Sacred Mountains

I apologize to my readers.

Even though the San Francisco Peaks are in my "backyard," I really can't bring myself to write again about the Snowbowl, religion, and wastewater.

This one has been talked to death by my friends and neighbors. I've heard all the arguments backwards and forwards and sideways and upside down and inside out and so on and so forth. I've made more than my fair share.

I'm really burned out on the whole thing, although my sympathies lie with the Diné.

Instead I am going to refer you to Jason Pitz-Waters over at the Wild Hunt Blog, he has some geographical distance and his coverage is pretty good.

Again, I am sorry, but I've dealt with this way, way too much.

And for me, that's really saying something.

Posted Tue - January 6, 2009 at 04:01 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Want ice with that?

Remember that bit about the North Pole melting? I do.

Except it didn't happen.

Thanks to a rapid rebound in recent months, global sea ice levels now equal those seen 29 years ago, when the year 1979 also drew to a close.

Ice levels had been tracking lower throughout much of 2008, but rapidly recovered in the last quarter. In fact, the rate of increase from September onward is the fastest rate of change on record, either upwards or downwards.

The data is being reported by the University of Illinois's Arctic Climate Research Center, and is derived from satellite observations of the Northern and Southern hemisphere polar regions.

Each year, millions of square kilometers of sea ice melt and refreeze. However, the mean ice anomaly -- defined as the seasonally-adjusted difference between the current value and the average from 1979-2000, varies much more slowly. That anomaly now stands at just under zero, a value identical to one recorded at the end of 1979, the year satellite record-keeping began.

And as Rush Limbaugh pointed out, 1979 was also the year that Time and Newsweek did stories about the coming ice age.

Investor's Business Daily had a decent piece on it too.

Do you suppose the global warming alarmists will be quiet? Or at least acknowledge they made a mistake?

I don't think so.

I think there's going to be a lot of hot air (pun intended) as Congress tries to "fix" the "problem."

Posted at 03:45 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sun - December 28, 2008

Taxing cattle methane emissions, or, The Fart Tax

I thought I had covered this, but MaKai can't find a blog entry. So here we go with a hat tip to the Libertarian Party of Colorado Blog.

“Because cows and hogs emit gases resulting from natural biological processes, the EPA is now considering whether or not producers may have to control those gases,” said Alan Foutz, president of the Colorado Farm Bureau. “With the amount of livestock we have in this state, this regulation would cost the agriculture industry hundreds of millions of dollars. We simply can’t afford that.”

Any rancher with more than 100 head of cattle could be charged between $80 and $100 a head for methane and carbon dioxide production. Colorado’s ranchers could pay $240 million in federal taxes. The cost to the dairy industry would be $20 million and pork producers would pay $17 million each year.

“As it stands now, any industry emitting more than 100 tons of greenhouse gases per year would have to pay for the permit,” said Farm Bureau spokesman Shawn Martini. “It could be a significant expense, and it will drive American farmers out of business.”

You thought it was bad when the ethanol laws drove world-wide food prices sky high? Wait till the Fart Tax hits.

Posted Sun - December 28, 2008 at 03:04 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

"2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved"

This one's pure opinion, but he's got a point. Emphasis added.

The first, on May 21, headed "Climate change threat to Alpine ski resorts" , reported that the entire Alpine "winter sports industry" could soon "grind to a halt for lack of snow". The second, on December 19, headed "The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation" , reported that this winter's Alpine snowfalls "look set to beat all records by New Year's Day".

Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects.

First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.

If it's really about the science, then the models are useless when they can't predict what will happen.

Of course if the goal is to frighten you into giving up your freedom, then the models aren't useless.

Decide for yourself, just don't take too long.

Right now the politicos are wrecking the economy with the power they've already seized after the last forty-seven hundred times they've panicked people.

Posted at 02:06 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Wed - December 24, 2008

North Pole melting? Or is it?

Please take a close look at this paragraph.

The amount of summer ice at the North Pole has steadily declined since 1979, according to satellite images. Computer models predict that this trend will continue, leaving the Arctic completely ice-free during the summers as early as 2030.

Hmm, what made 1979 the magic cutoff date? We did have some weather satellites in orbit before then. How do we compare to 1976?

For that matter, how do we compare to 1950?


Of course, we didn't have weather satellites in 1950. Nor in say, 1908. Or in 1879. Get the picture?

Pun intended.

Someone is attempting to draw a long term forecast for Arctic sea ice based on less than fifty years of data.

That's fifty years. The last glacial advance ended approximately ten thousand years ago. Strictly speaking, we've had "global warming" ever since. Fifty years is one-half of one percent of ten thousand years.

Don't you think the measurement should be a little longer before we start drawing conclusions?

How does that fifty years compare to the last five hundred?

But the real joke is in the very next paragraph. Emphasis added.

In 2007, though, the ice surprised everyone by contracting far more rapidly than the models predicted. A particularly warm summer left only 4.28 million square kilometres by September - a record 23% below the previous minimum.

In other words, the models used to predict this doom and gloom are wrong. There are factors at work that the models do not consider.

Not to mention that no one knows how much Arctic sea ice fluctuates from year to year.

So why did this deserve a news story?

Posted Wed - December 24, 2008 at 02:01 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - December 15, 2008

The AP is trying to scare you with global warming - Updated

Wow, isn't this a slick piece of propaganda. Opening two paragraphs, no less.

When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Now it is a ticking time bomb that President-elect Barack Obama can't avoid.

Since Clinton's inauguration, summer Arctic sea ice has lost the equivalent of Alaska, California and Texas. The 10 hottest years on record have occurred since Clinton's second inauguration. Global warming is accelerating. Time is close to running out, and Obama knows it.

Man oh man, it certainly sounds like we are in danger, doesn't it?

But it turns out that the "summer ice" has been pretty constant. Hat tip An Englishman's Castle.

But they are not satisfied with that. No, we're REALLY in trouble according to the AP article.

U.S. emissions have increased by 20 percent since 1992. China has more than doubled its carbon dioxide pollution in that time. World carbon dioxide emissions have grown faster than scientists' worst-case scenarios. Methane, the next most potent greenhouse gas, suddenly is on the rise again and scientists fear that vast amounts of the trapped gas will escape from thawing Arctic permafrost.

The amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere has already pushed past what some scientists say is the safe level.

In the early 1990s, many scientists figured that the world was about a century away from a truly dangerous amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, said Mike MacCracken, who was a top climate scientist in the Clinton administration. But as they studied the greenhouse effect further, scientists realized that harmful changes kick in at far lower levels of carbon dioxide than they thought. Now some scientists, but not all, say the safe carbon dioxide level for Earth is about 10 percent below what it is now.

Except no one knows IF there is actually a "dangerous" amount of carbon dioxide, or what that carbon dioxide actually does. We do know that a major volcanic eruption can throw more carbon dioxide in the air than all of human industry, yet somehow that isn't "evil." No, it's only human caused carbon dioxide that is "dangerous."

And that is the key to understanding the whole mess, as the article itself admits.

Complicating everything is the worldwide financial meltdown. Frank Maisano, a Washington energy specialist and spokesman who represents coal-fired utilities and refineries, sees the poor economy as "a huge factor" that could stop everything. That's because global warming efforts are aimed at restricting coal power, which is cheap. That would likely mean higher utility bills and more damage to ailing economies that depend on coal production, he said.

"Fighting global warming" is not about saving the planet. It never was.

It's about controlling the economy and industry and implementing social engineering.

And it can't be done unless people buy into the whole anthropomorphic anthropogenic global warming argument.

I still have four questions.

Is it unusual?

Is it entirely or mostly human caused?

Is it evil or bad?

Can human action reverse or slow it?

Unless those four questions can all be answered yes, there is no global warming issue.

But there is a battle for your freedom.

Update - Regular reader BTHO pointed out on 24Feb2010 that the correct term is anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic.

Posted Mon - December 15, 2008 at 01:45 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sat - December 13, 2008

"We dissent" - Updated

I'm watching this one closely.

The UN global warming conference currently underway in Poland is about to face a serious challenge from over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe who are criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.  Set for release this week, a newly updated U.S. Senate Minority Report features the dissenting voices of over 650 international scientists, many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN. The report has added about 250 scientists (and growing) in 2008 to the over 400 scientists who spoke out in 2007. The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

It's a good spike in the anthropomorphic anthropogenic global warming arguments. I just hope it's in time.

Remember which side will tell you that the time for debate is past. And that was before there had been any debate.

Update - Regular reader BTHO pointed out on 24Feb2010 that the correct term is anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic.

Posted Sat - December 13, 2008 at 01:16 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sun - November 16, 2008

What's up with that global warming thing?

Sometimes there is nothing I can say that will make it clearer. Like this time.

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

So if you can't trust the government experts because they just might have an agenda, who can you trust?

Posted Sun - November 16, 2008 at 09:44 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sun - November 2, 2008

Methane and global warming - Updated

Here's another example of the anthropomorphic anthropogenic global warming theory falling down.

Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of man's contributions.

It looks to me that this is either a natural cycle or there's a regulation mechanism that our science as yet knows nothing about. This is why we shouldn't jump the gun, we don't know what's going on. In fact, the article says so just a little later.

One thing does seem very clear, however; science is only beginning to get a handle on the big picture of global warming. Findings like these tell us it's too early to know for sure if man's impact is affecting things at the political cry of "alarming rates." We may simply be going through another natural cycle of warmer and colder times - one that's been observed through a scientific analysis of the Earth to be naturally occurring for hundreds of thousands of years.

I have just one thing more to say before we allow the politicos and bureaucrats control of the worldwide economy to "reverse" human caused global warming.

Mortgage meltdown.

The politicians jumped the gun there too, and made things much worse.

Update - Regular reader BTHO pointed out on 24Feb2010 that the correct term is anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic.

Posted Sun - November 2, 2008 at 11:26 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - September 15, 2008

Someone else says the global warming models are flawed - Updated

Rite Wing TechnoPagan tipped me off to this one, and it's a doozy.

Someone else is making one of my favorite points when it comes to anthropomorphic anthropogenic global warming.

The greatest drivers behind the hypothesis have not been the actual evidence, but computer models. Relative to the largely unknown climate complexities, these are still known to be primitive and incapable of replicating climate data as measured from observations. If a hypothesis can’t explain actual evidence and climate observations, it is wrong, and needs to be modified or abandoned.

Here's what I said in Technopagan Green no less.

Proven science means that the theory must not only account for past and present observations, but can predict future conditions. Here's where the global warming theories fall down. No one can take the numbers from five years ago and produce numbers that show what is happening now. That means that future conditions can't be predicted from the theory, which in turn means that there is no science behind the theories of human-caused global warming.

Unless and until global warming can be verified, it is a belief system that must be taken on faith.

In other words, a religion.

Mmm hmmm.

Just in case you missed it, here are my four questions about global warming. They are important, so I am going to emphasize them.

Is it unusual?

Is it entirely or mostly human caused?

Is it evil or bad?

Can human action reverse or slow it?

When I came up with those four questions, I picked four that were as terse and wide-ranging as I could. Unless every single one of those questions can be answered yes, there is no global warming crisis and no moral imperative to control the economy,

It's that simple.

Computer projections alone can't justify extensive and radical economic control.

Without the computer projections, there is no case for global warming.

Maybe now we can concentrate on the real environmental issues.

Update - Regular reader BTHO pointed out on 24Feb2010 that the correct term is anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic.

Posted Mon - September 15, 2008 at 12:32 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Tue - July 29, 2008

Say what? How did race get involved in the global warming argument? - Updated

This is me being shocked.

Just when I thought the anthropomorphic anthropogenic global warming debate could not possibly get any sillier, along comes this.

Climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It’s now an issue of race, according to global warming activists and policy makers.

“It is critical our community be an integral and active part of the debate because African-Americans are disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change economically, socially and through our health and well-being,” House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., said July 29.

Got that?

Global warming (despite being UNPROVEN) affects African-Americans more because they are perpetual victims. who can't get an even break from the Man. Only the Democrats can save them.

And if you dare question AGW or deny that humans can do anything about it, why, you are Racist.

Gee, do you suppose anyone told the people actually living in Africa? Or the Australian bush? Or maybe the American Southwest? How about the Asian steppes?

This "argument" doesn't have any factual basis, it's designed to suppress dissent and perpetuate victimhood.

Update - Regular reader BTHO pointed out on 24Feb2010 that the correct term is anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic.

Posted Tue - July 29, 2008 at 12:59 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sun - July 27, 2008

Emptying the global warming links file

Since I have spent so much time in the past on global warming, I don't want to spend much more time rehashing what we already know. Instead I'll just point out these links.

And my favorite this time around.

None of these are the "final argument," but then I never said that debate was over.

On the contrary, I want to see debate on the subject.

Posted Sun - July 27, 2008 at 02:34 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Tue - July 22, 2008

If I were going to say I told you so...

...this article would be a classic reason why.

Oh and Becky C. at Just a Girl in Short Shorts (definitely NSFW) takes on the global warming issue. I don't agree entirely with her, but she's nice about it and at least she's willing to consider the evidence. Which is more than I can say for the vast majority. Besides, anyone who takes as much pleasure in her sexuality as she does and admires the Female Form* is okay in my book.

Becky suggested this link which I will add to my blogroll when I update it.

* I don't usually talk about it on this blog, but acknowledging and celebrating female sensuality and sexuality is pretty central to who I am as a Pagan and as a Red Blooded American Male. The Lady Always Chooses.

Posted Tue - July 22, 2008 at 02:03 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - January 21, 2008

Alternately destroying the environment

I've nothing to say here. But I will point. Emphasis added.

Using biofuels made from corn, sugar cane and soy could have a greater environmental impact than burning fossil fuels, according to experts. Although the fuels themselves emit fewer greenhouse gases, they all have higher costs in terms of biodiversity loss and destruction of farmland.

The problems of climate change and the rising cost of oil have led to a race to develop environmentally-friendly biofuels, such as palm oil or ethanol derived from corn and sugar cane. The EU has proposed that 10% of all fuel used in transport should come from biofuels by 2020 and the emerging global market is expected to be worth billions of dollars a year.

But the new fuels have attracted controversy. "Regardless of how effective sugar cane is for producing ethanol, its benefits quickly diminish if carbon-rich tropical forests are being razed to make the sugar cane fields, thereby causing vast greenhouse-gas emission increases," Jörn Scharlemann and William Laurance, of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, write in Science today.

"Such comparisons become even more lopsided if the full environmental benefits of tropical forests - for example, for biodiversity conservation, hydrological functioning, and soil protection - are included."

Efforts to work out which crops are most environmentally friendly have, until now, focused only on the amount of greenhouse gases a fuel emits when it is burned. Scharlemann and Laurance highlighted a more comprehensive method, developed by Rainer Zah of the Empa Research Institute in Switzerland, that can take total environmental impacts - such as loss of forests and farmland and effects on biodiversity - into account.

In a study of 26 biofuels the Swiss method showed that 21 fuels reduced greenhouse-gas emissions by more than 30% compared with gasoline when burned. But almost half of the biofuels, a total of 12, had greater total environmental impacts than fossil fuels. These included economically-significant fuels such as US corn ethanol, Brazilian sugar cane ethanol and soy diesel, and Malaysian palm-oil diesel. Biofuels that fared best were those produced from waste products such as recycled cooking oil, as well as ethanol from grass or wood.

Climate change isn't really the problem. Government interference in the free market, that is the problem. Especially when it hides the real costs.

Posted Mon - January 21, 2008 at 02:37 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Fri - December 28, 2007

Climate computer models flawed

This is an older one, but I wanted to make sure people saw it. Those global climate models aren't accurate. Emphasis added.

“The usual discussion is whether the climate model forecasts of Earth’s climate 100 years or so into the future are realistic,” said the lead author, Dr. David H. Douglass from the University of Rochester. “Here we have something more fundamental: Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? “It seems that the answer is no.”

Scientists from Rochester, the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and the University of Virginia compared the climate change “forecasts” from the 22 most widely-cited global circulation models with tropical temperature data collected by surface, satellite and balloon sensors. The models predicted that the lower atmosphere should warm significantly more than it actually did.

“Models are very consistent in forecasting a significant difference between climate trends at the surface and in the troposphere, the layer of atmosphere between the surface and the stratosphere,” said Dr. John Christy, director of UAH's Earth System Science Center. “The models forecast that the troposphere should be warming more than the surface and that this trend should be especially pronounced in the tropics.

“When we look at actual climate data, however, we do not see accelerated warming in the tropical troposphere. Instead, the lower and middle atmosphere are warming the same or less than the surface. For those layers of the atmosphere, the warming trend we see in the tropics is typically less than half of what the models forecast.”

The 22 climate models used in this study are the same models used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), which recently shared a Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.


The models aren't accurate. It's the same thing I have been saying for years.

If the computer models can't predict existing weather conditions, then why on Earth are we using the results of those models to justify a centrally planned economic disaster?

The answer is that it was never about the weather. Or the climate. Or human caused global warming.

It was always about control. It was about crushing dissent. It was about panicking you.

We weren't allowed to question the models because if it wasn't an immediate and pending disaster, there would be no need to turn over economic control.

There are scientists, well known, prominent scientists who dispute the global warming theories. But they aren't allowed to talk to you about that.

I am not saying that there aren't environmental problems. There are.

I am saying that the global warming movement subverted the entire environmental movement for their own ends. Goals that had absolutely nothing to do with environmentalism.

Hat tip Rite Wing Technopagan.

Posted Fri - December 28, 2007 at 01:45 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Tue - December 25, 2007

Not a bright idea

By now you've heard about the energy bill. Among other things, it raises MPG standards for cars, demands more "alternative" fuels, and phases out the incandescent bulb by 2012. The whole thing is a mess and mostly unworkable, but let's focus on the incandescent bulbs.

Like any other engineering, today's incandescent bulb is a series of trade-offs. The four that I think are most important to consider here are the ease to make, flexibility of use, moderate power usage, and ease of disposal. Taken together, these four make light bulbs cheap and plentiful in a free market. You can improve any of those four factors, but a tradeoff means that any improvement in one comes at the expense of the others.

Compact florescent bulbs use less power, but they can't be used with a dimmer, and they are harder to manufacture, and throwing them away has a greater environmental impact.

Meanwhile, there are people like me who can't spend most of their time around florescent lighting without getting sick. My NeoDen at home has special lighting, that's where I do most of my thinking and work. There's a large solar tube to catch the most of the daylight. An overhead ceiling fan has two 40 watt GE Reveal bulbs and a 60 watt grow light. I can't tell the difference between a 40 watt Reveal bulb and a standard 60 watt. There is another wall fixture that has a another 40 watt Reveal bulb.

Except for the kitchen, there are no florescent lights in the rest of my house because they do give me headaches. The kitchen window lights the kitchen perfectly well during the day. I'm sensitive to bright lights, especially at night, so the living room and the master bedroom have dimmers on their overhead lights. In the winter, I use the light from the living room fireplace at night.

Those dimmers give me bright light when I need it, but mostly let me have low level ambient light without "hot spots." You can't do that with florescent or halogen lights.

Even assuming that incandescent bulbs are a major factor in global warming (unproven, even more than the notion of human caused global warming), the total environmental impact of an incandescent bulb is less than the alternatives.

This is another feel good solution that lets politicos claim credit even as it makes the situation worse.

And of course, there won't be a black market for incandescent bulbs. After all, there wasn't a black market for old plumbing fixtures when low flow fixtures were made the law of the land, was there?

Yes, that was sarcastic. Americans have this nasty habit of breaking laws they think are stupid. That's why we're not on the metric system. It's why there is a market for radar detectors. And it's why Prohibition went down in flames. Americans are better at choosing for themselves than politicos are at choosing for them.

I can just see the no-knock raids looking for "hot" light bulbs...

Posted Tue - December 25, 2007 at 02:31 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sat - December 8, 2007

Polar bears

Apparently polar bears aren't as threatened as we've been told.

Then, wealthy tourists discovered the thrill of nature-watching breaks and Churchill, home to the most easily accessible polar bear population, became a fashionable - and newly prosperous - adventure holiday destination.

Although the town is still accessible only by train or light aircraft, its guesthouses are packed during late summer and autumn, when the vast ice-sheet over the bay melts, forcing around 1,000 bears to lollop around for months on the shore.

Lately, however, it is not only polar bear watchers who come flocking.

With the clamour over global warming, it has become a magnet for an army of environmentalists and climatologists who have given Churchill an air of impending doom.

The Arctic ice-cap is shrinking fast, is their message, and as it disappears, so too will the polar bears.
Today, the polar bear population may hover healthily around 25,000 (they live in Russia, Alaska, Greenland, Norway and Canada).

Yet, we are repeatedly warned, if the planet continues to overheat at the present rate, within four decades our biggest carnivore will be extinct, starved to death as its natural hunting grounds disappear.

"Come up and see them while you still can," is the gist of their depressing refrain.

To some Churchill residents, who base their opinions on personal experience rather than fancy charts and computer models, this is so much nonsense put about by scaremongers for their own dubious ends.

When outsiders question whether anyone would be so cynical, they are reminded of that now-famous photograph of a polar bear which appears to be teetering precariously on an Arctic ice-floe, melting faster than ice-cream, in the depths of winter.

For a while, it became a powerful symbol of the perils of global warming - until it was revealed to have been taken three years ago and during the height of summer.

Yes, it's anecdotal evidence, but I have long suspected that eco-tourism and the global warming crowd may have at least exaggerated the crisis. It's rapidly getting to the point where I want to see the evidence debated before I accept anyone's word on an ecological crisis.

And if one side says that the debate is over, that is the side I will not trust.

Posted Sat - December 8, 2007 at 12:21 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Wed - December 5, 2007

Another unexpected consequence?

Something occurred to me the other night and I have been worrying about it.

The "humans are EVIL because they caused global warming" movement has subverted the environmentalist movement. Everything environmental has to come after we "solve" global warming.

Slowly and surely, each day the global warming hysteria is being beaten back.

So what happens to environmentalism when the human caused global warming arguments collapse from lack of evidence?

Will all the good that the environmental movement has done be undone?

Posted Wed - December 5, 2007 at 04:30 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sun - December 2, 2007

Things blamed on global warming

The American Thinker provided a link to this site Number Watch.

The site provides a list of media links covering things blamed on global warming.

Six hundred strong and growing.

I giggled at the ones that contradict each other, like Atlantic less salty and Atlantic more salty. Not to mention choice ones like Earth exploding and Earth upside down.

Funny stuff.

Posted Sun - December 2, 2007 at 08:12 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Wed - November 28, 2007

Global warming is a reason to destroy liberty

David Vance has got it right.

In other words, the British government is quite prepared to wreck its own economy in the quest to appear environmentally progressive, even though economists warn that a sustained switch to a low-carbon economy may well trigger an economic crisis and substantial job losses.

This means nothing to those wrapped in the garment of the green gospel. When dealing with environmental fundamentalists, fiscal reason has little relevance.

The UK Government is not just interested in using global warming to raise new green taxes and to further hike fuel costs, but it is also contemplating allocating “personal carbon allowances.” The way these work is that you will be granted a fixed amount of carbon to use each year. Each time you travel in a plane, buy petrol, go shopping or eat out would be recorded on a plastic card. The more frugal could sell spare carbon allowances to those who want to “indulge” themselves. But if you were to run out of your carbon allowance, you could be barred from flying or driving.

The government will thus be able to prevent its citizens from traveling both inside and outside the United Kingdom under the guise of managing carbon allowances.

For the first time in history we face the real prospect of having the fundamental right to travel prohibited by government. It is also said that reports are being currently prepared for the British government as to how and when carbon rationing might be implemented.

Remember, human caused global warming hasn't been proven yet.

But it makes a good excuse.

Posted Wed - November 28, 2007 at 05:27 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Wed - November 21, 2007

Follow the global warming money

Hmmm. I think we have been here before.

Since the science doesn't hold up for the first two questions, we can only look at the motivations of the global warming movement. If the science could be verified, motivation would be the last thing I would look at. But in this case, a global warming scare brings economic and political benefits to those who are making the most noise about the "problem."
— NeoWayland, Global Warming, Pagan Vigil, July 13, 2005

And more recently, we have this.

Al Gore no longer needs to make claims about creating the Internet, because the former Vice President deserves much of the credit for creating an entire new industry--the global warming business.

And like the energy barons of an earlier age, Mr. Gore has the chance to achieve enormous wealth after being named last week as a new partner at the famously successful venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins. No fewer than three of his new colleagues sit on the Forbes list of wealthiest Americans. If Mr. Gore can develop market-based solutions to environmental challenges, we will cheer the well-deserved riches flowing his way. On the other hand, if he monetizes his Nobel Peace Prize by securing permanent government subsidies for nonmarket science projects, he'll have earned a different judgment.
—, Global Warming, Inc., November 20, 2007

Tell me again how the global warming movement only has our best interests at heart and they would never think about cashing in.

Except the self appointed High Priest already has.

Won't find me practising what Im preaching
Won't find me making no sacrifice
But I can get you a pocketful of miracles
If you promise to be good, try to be nice
God will take good care of you
Just do as I say, don't do as I do

I'm counting my blessings,
I've found true happiness
Cos I'm getting richer, day by day
You can find me in the phone book,
Just call my toll free number
You can do it anyway you want
Just do it right away
— Genesis, Jesus He Knows Me

Follow the money and ask yourself one simple question.

"Why does their enlightenment demand that I sacrifice?"

Posted Wed - November 21, 2007 at 05:49 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Thu - November 8, 2007

King coal

I did want to mention this one as another great illustration of unexpected consequences.

Now that the price of coal is at a historic low relative to oil, there's no stopping consumers and producers alike from embracing Al Gore's nightmare.

It's also a demonstration of the free market. Follow the money.

Posted Thu - November 8, 2007 at 01:52 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Tue - November 6, 2007

Fight Back!

So people aren't totally mind numbed drones blindly accepting the dogma of human caused global warming. There is hope out there, even if the fight isn't over yet.

In Germany EIKE (Europäisches Institut für Klima und Energie, Jena: has been established - still in its infancy, but nevertheless. Moreover, a group of German climate sceptics has written something which could be called a consensus among many climate sceptics: Climate Manifest of Heiligenroth (See: Furthermore there are many climate sceptical websites in Germany. For those who like visual thrills and possess a basic command of the German language, Konrad Fischer's website might be fun: 'Videos and films concerning the greenhouse swindle and climate terror' (

But the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) belief is still overwhelming in Germany. In newspapers and on TV, Stefan Rahmstorf, the German climate Torquemada, -- comparable to Al Gore in the US, George Monbiot in the UK and David Suzuki in Canada -- are constantly attacking critics of the AGW hypothesis. Contrary to good scientific practice, he lavishly lards his interventions with ad hominem attacks and insinuations that his opponents lack qualifications and/or are being paid by industry. Although decades of pro AGW indoctrination has left its mark on the German psyche, even true believers are becoming fed up with him.

In Sweden, despite its high standards of political correctness, there is a very vocal group of climate sceptics, which regularly publish in 'Elbranchen'. In September 2006 they organised a seminar: 'Global Warming - Scientific Controversies in Climate Variability'. This meeting was hosted by the Royal Technical High School in Stockholm and chaired by its rector, Peter Stilbs (See: Even Swedish TV has aired a debate on the issue. For those who have some command of the Scandinavian languages, see: Veckans Debatt: Global uppvärming: Vad säger vetenskapen?

Show people the evidence, let them make up their own mind. That's not so hard to do, and it has worked with every scientific and technological advance in human history.

Posted Tue - November 6, 2007 at 02:52 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - November 5, 2007

Not a drop to drink

I could go on and on about some of the boneheaded moves pulled in the South with this drought, but the NY Times beat me to it.

Even so, this headline from the News & Observer says it all.

Fake turf watered as supplies dry up.

I only wish it was a joke.

Posted Mon - November 5, 2007 at 06:02 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Feared opinion

Another great opinion piece on global warming. I really liked this bit.

I'm not a naysayer. I'm a scientist who believes in the scientific method and in what facts tell us. I have worked for 40 years to try to improve our environment and improve human life as well. I believe we can do this only from a basis in reality, and that is not what I see happening now. Instead, like fashions that took hold in the past and are eloquently analyzed in the classic 19th century book "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds," the popular imagination today appears to have been captured by beliefs that have little scientific basis.

Yes, I know I cite a great many opinion pieces on global warming.

That's because the facts come across as boring.

But then, almost every argument that the global warming apologists introduce is also an opinion, isn't it?

Posted at 05:48 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Environmental suits cause California fires

This one is REALLY old, but it is coming true again.

It seems that lawsuits prevented the U.S. Forrest Service from clearing out underbrush where public lands met private lands.

The result is a higher danger of fire damage to private lands.


Posted at 05:38 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - October 15, 2007

Political prize

So Al Gore won a Nobel Peace Prize for his "work" on global warming.

Remember, the Peace Prize does not have anything to do with science, it is highly political. The Peace Prize does not validate Gore's claims.

We know the claims in An Inconvenient Truth are inaccurate, so much so that a British judge has ruled that the film is misleading. There are recognized climate experts like Dr. William Grey who point out that Gore and his supporters don't know how the atmosphere works. And even among those who believe that humanity is responsible for global warming, the disaster just isn't there.

I still want to know how this part of the cycle is unusual, before we even try to show that humans are responsible. I want realistic information before judging if the results are EEEEVVVILLL! And if the results are bad, I want to know what human action can do.

If that looks familiar, it should. They are the same things I have been demanding for years ever since global warming became hip. I want common sense, and I don't think that is too much to ask.

The thing is, Gore has been exaggerating since at least Earth In The Balance and the various progressive politicos don't bother to call him on it. As much as I dislike either/or propositions, it does seem to reduce to two possibilities. Either there are a bunch of really stupid/lazy politicians or the goal of the global warming movement was never about the environment.

Since the solution to the global warming "problem" is almost identical with a socialist industrial policy, I will leave it for you to decide.

And just a reminder, ethanol costs more than gasoline, delivers less power per gallon, pollutes more, and corn subsidies have derailed global food prices over the last couple of years.

Posted Mon - October 15, 2007 at 09:12 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Tue - September 18, 2007

A green of a different color

I'm a Pagan, one of those "nature worshipers" you hear about. Among other things, that means I find the sacred in the world around us. I've never made any secret about that, the name of this blog should be a pretty obvious clue.

But I am not part of the "green movement." I don't agree that mankind is "unnatural" and only capable of destroying the planet. I don't believe that humanity should give up our technology and move back to subsistence living. I don't think that industry and capitalism are inherently evil. And I don't buy into the "common good" when it comes to the environment.

So yes, I am an environmentalist. But not the kind who usually hides behind the title.

I am a green of a different color.

I don't think people really appreciate green. I'm a desert guy, born in Chinle, raised mainly in Phoenix, and I have spent most of my adult life working in various spots all over the American southwest. The Arizona deserts get green, but it is not the green that other people really think about. Outside of the cities and what people have transplanted, there are greens, but just a few shades. Most of it disappears after the spring as the water dries up.

Summers and holidays, I would go with my folks and stepsibs to visit my relatives in the South. There were greens there, so many that the green came close to overwhelming me for a day or so every time. A million shades of green crashing down my optic nerves. That is one reason why I like forests. All that life just out in the open under the sun.

And then there is L.A. It's Phoenix writ large and about forty years further down the way. The greens are slathered on to hide the asphalt, but they don't really belong in that time and place. They look good, but they need tending.

Living in the desert, you pay attention to water. If you don't drink enough, the "dry heat" can suck it out of your lungs. Even in the cooler high deserts, it's easy to get dehydrated.

Water is different in the desert. That's why there aren't as many greens.

The big push in today's pop culture environmentalism movement is global warming. It's easy to mouth the correct phrases. Good intentions matter. And you get can get an excuse from your personal commitment to the cause if you can get enough publicity. It doesn't matter what you do if you spout the sounds and look good doing so. Other people's sacrifice is more important than your own.

Then there are people like me who think that global warming is a drop in the bucket. Pun intended.

I've called the water crisis in the Southwest global warming's nastier big brother. Worst of all, it's an actual problem. Something that can be measured.

Water and power in the Southwest are heavily subsidized, especially for water intensive agriculture. There aren't that many places in Arizona that can support cotton and citrus without outside water. California's Imperial Valley is a desert. And Las Vegas only exists because of cheap power.

And that doesn't count for things like outdoor pools, golf courses, or fountains.

One reason why Americans moved from the Rust Belt to the Sun Belt is water subsides. Millions of people moved to desert cities and tried to transplant a piece of Northeast or Midwest suburbia to a harsh climate.

It's the cheap water that made it possible. And I do mean cheap. When I was a kid, it wasn't unusual to put your lawn under an inch or so of water every morning before the sun came up. Because the real cost was shifted to the taxpayers, water could be wasted and usually was.

It wasn't just water. Some of the most gods-awful houses and buildings were slammed down here. All because power was cheap. Mostly, this new construction ignored the lay of the land. Southern exposure with massive picture windows SOUNDS good until you have to cool the building down.

I believe that all other things being equal, good ideas tend to become better and more refined over time because of the free market. But if you throw massive government subsidies into the mix, the good ideas can't always compete because the bad ideas waste resources. Why worry about saving water when the price is artificially lowered below what it would cost in Seattle?

And that brings us to the bit that NO ONE wants to discuss.

Government CREATED this problem.

Remember, unlike human caused global warming, this is an actual problem that can be measured. The water table IS dropping in more than twenty states and has been for decades. The Colorado runs dry before reaching Mexico, despite our treaty obligations. Los Angeles does steal the water from the Owens Valley.

So does government stop the subsidies and let the price of water return to what the market demands?

No, the-idiots-in-charge mandate low flow toilets.

When the demand for electrical power exceeds demand, does government let prices rise so people use less?

No, government does forced rationing with rolling brownouts and blackouts.

Do you see the mess here?

Government created the problem. Government "solutions" perpetuate the problem. And people are still convinced that government is acting in their best interests.

I have one answer.


Posted Tue - September 18, 2007 at 02:44 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sun - August 12, 2007

The heresy

I don't want to spend much time on the latest global warming news.

In a nutshell, NASA goofed with their database and 1998 is now only the second "hottest" year on record. There are a couple of things you should remember. First, the "record" only goes back to 1880, and isn't all that reliable before weather satellites. Second, many weather stations are in heavily urbanized areas which register higher-than-normal temperatures.

This means that there is no global warming trend. And that means that the only reasons for regulating carbon emissions are really intended for political and economic control.

There is no evidence for human caused global warming. No evidence.

And that means that Newsweek picked the wrong time to publish this article. Most of it you have seen before, but pay attention to this bit. Emphasis added.

Since the late 1980s, this well-coordinated, well-funded campaign by contrarian scientists, free-market think tanks and industry has created a paralyzing fog of doubt around climate change. Through advertisements, op-eds, lobbying and media attention, greenhouse doubters (they hate being called deniers) argued first that the world is not warming; measurements indicating otherwise are flawed, they said. Then they claimed that any warming is natural, not caused by human activities. Now they contend that the looming warming will be minuscule and harmless. "They patterned what they did after the tobacco industry," says former senator Tim Wirth, who spearheaded environmental issues as an under secretary of State in the Clinton administration. "Both figured, sow enough doubt, call the science uncertain and in dispute. That's had a huge impact on both the public and Congress."

Get that? In one paragraph, the article not only admits that the whole global warming agenda is blatantly against the free market (or at least against free market think tanks) but demonizes any dissent without considering the arguments. Al Gore goes one better here.

Research aimed at disputing the scientific consensus on global warming is part of a huge public misinformation campaign funded by some of the world's largest carbon polluters, former Vice President Al Gore said Tuesday.

"There has been an organized campaign, financed to the tune of about $10 million a year from some of the largest carbon polluters, to create the impression that there is disagreement in the scientific community," Gore said at a forum in Singapore. "In actuality, there is very little disagreement."

Ten million is a drop in the bucket. Ten million wouldn't even cover the production costs of Gore's recent Live Earth fiasco. And that was for ONE event.

It makes you wonder why they are so afraid that anyone may dispute their facts. Some estimates are that the global warming apologists outspend the skeptics by about 1000:1 ratio.

So what is going on?

Look at Al Gore's article again carefully. With the exception of the $10 million, everything that the global warming skeptics are accused of is actually being done by the global warming apologists. It's not about saving the planet, it never was.

It's about demanding that you give up control of your life for a myth.

Posted Sun - August 12, 2007 at 02:44 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Tue - August 7, 2007

Claiming to be green

Somehow this isn't exactly surprising.

Leading car makers, budget airlines, energy companies and the country's biggest supermarket chain have all been found guilty of breaking advertising rules by the independent watchdog, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

Faced with rocketing numbers of complaints about adverts claiming environmental benefits, the ASA is promising to crack down on offenders. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has admitted there is "public confusion" over business attempts to cut the pollution that causes climate change.

As public awareness of the dangers of global warming has grown, companies have been clamouring to highlight their green credentials in the hope of boosting sales. But many of the claims they have made have turned out to be false.

In the last year, the ASA has upheld complaints about environmental statements in the adverts of nine companies, including Toyota, Volkswagen, easyJet, Ryanair, Scottish and Southern Energy and Tesco. Investigations concluded thatadvertswere"misleading",and many had to be withdrawn.

"In the gold rush to be green, companies can sometimes be guilty of blowing hot air," said the ASA's spokesman, Matt Wilson. "When making claims in their advertisements about the environmental friendliness of their company, product or service, some advertisers have fallen foul of the advertising codes."

Given the nature of the global warming claims, why shouldn't companies stretch the truth to sell their products?

Posted Tue - August 7, 2007 at 12:44 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Fri - August 3, 2007

Sometimes reason wins

Somebody is actually thinking out there. This is from Rolling Stone of all places. Emphasis added.

Ethanol, of course, is nothing new. American refiners will produce nearly 6 billion gallons of corn ethanol this year, mostly for use as a gasoline additive to make engines burn cleaner. But in June, the Senate all but announced that America's future is going to be powered by biofuels, mandating the production of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2022. According to ethanol boosters, this is the beginning of a much larger revolution that could entirely replace our 21-million-barrel-a-day oil addiction. Midwest farmers will get rich, the air will be cleaner, the planet will be cooler, and, best of all, we can tell those greedy sheiks to fuck off. As the king of ethanol hype, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, put it recently, "Everything about ethanol is good, good, good."

This is not just hype -- it's dangerous, delusional bullshit. Ethanol doesn't burn cleaner than gasoline, nor is it cheaper. Our current ethanol production represents only 3.5 percent of our gasoline consumption -- yet it consumes twenty percent of the entire U.S. corn crop, causing the price of corn to double in the last two years and raising the threat of hunger in the Third World. And the increasing acreage devoted to corn for ethanol means less land for other staple crops, giving farmers in South America an incentive to carve fields out of tropical forests that help to cool the planet and stave off global warming.

So why bother? Because the whole point of corn ethanol is not to solve America's energy crisis, but to generate one of the great political boondoggles of our time. Corn is already the most subsidized crop in America, raking in a total of $51 billion in federal handouts between 1995 and 2005 -- twice as much as wheat subsidies and four times as much as soybeans. Ethanol itself is propped up by hefty subsidies, including a fifty-one-cent-per-gallon tax allowance for refiners. And a study by the International Institute for Sustainable Development found that ethanol subsidies amount to as much as $1.38 per gallon -- about half of ethanol's wholesale market price.

This is the kind of debate we need, rather than just blindly accepting the global warming dogma. We need something that will produce results.

Go, read the whole piece. You won't be sorry.

Hat tip Coyote Blog.

Posted Fri - August 3, 2007 at 03:45 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Tue - July 31, 2007

Heidi Cullen speaks out on global warming

I'm thankful to get my iBook back. And for the kick in the pants to get my iMac fixed so I don't go into internet withdrawl again. I'm short of time today, but I did want to point out this interview with The Weather Channel's Heidi Cullen.

Take a look at this paragraph.

A lot of viewers want to know about climate change. They are experiencing events they perceive as unusual and they want to know if there’s a connection to global warming. Certainly when Katrina hit, they wanted to know if it was global warming or not. Most Americans get their daily dose of science through their televised weather report. Given that fact, I think it’s the responsibility of broadcast meteorologists to provide viewers with scientific answers.

It sure seems to imply that global warming is responsible for unusual weather and Hurricane Katrina, doesn't it? As I wrote in my Common Sense Global Warming FAQ, just because most of what you hear supports one view doesn't necessarily mean that is the "correct one." The number of channels is not nearly as important as the diversity of channels. The weather is not all that unusual, especially when it is compared to the historical record. But drastic weather stories are an easy sell, particularly when it can be linked (incorrectly) with global warming. Makes great television and keeps the people paying attention through the commercials.

And just for the record, global warming doesn't cause hurricanes. If human caused global warming exists (and that hasn't been proved yet), it might even suppress hurricanes. And Cullen knows that.

She didn't cite facts, but she did suggest a strong connection.

Remember, her goal is not to present an objective argument, it is to get you to watch her program.

Posted Tue - July 31, 2007 at 02:10 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sun - July 29, 2007

Thou Shalt Not Question!

This one is silly. Ordinarily I wouldn't waste your time with it.

But there are exactly two issues mentioned specifically. Global warming. And Bill O'Reilly doing critical reports on left wing bloggers and calling Daily Kos a hate site.

I don't follow television news myself, it is too slow and too incomplete.

Did I mention that global warming is mentioned twice? Here's the first.

Some of videos produced by Gilliam's company compile statements made by Fox anchors and guests that the activists consider misleading, such as those that question global warming.

And here is the second.

Groups like the Sierra Club have targeted Home Depot because they believe it's inconsistent for the company to promote environmentally friendly products while advertising on a network that has questioned global warming.

Sounds a lot like no one is allowed to dissent from the Holy Writ of Human Caused Global Warming, doesn't it?

Posted Sun - July 29, 2007 at 11:55 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Thu - July 26, 2007

Uncertainty and global warming

A reader sent me this link to a piece on the Daily Kos on incomplete information and global warming.

This quote really jumped out at me.

That's where we are now with climate change. The big picture is clear, the hammock is up. The debate is only about individual strands and pieces here and there. Just because scientists don't know everything about a particular topic doesn't mean they don't know anything about it.

The problem is the big picture is not clear!

Earth's past is full of extreme climate variations that had absolutely nothing to do with human caused carbon emissions because humans hadn't developed the technology. Until the global warming models account for the things that caused those climate changes, those factors can't be excluded.

A blue ball falls down when dropped a roof. Now it could be gravity, or it could be that the ball is blue. The next step would be to either take away gravity or take away the blue. If a green ball falls down at the same rate, then the chances are near overwhelming that the color of the ball has nothing to do with how it falls.

But if we are allowed to test only blue balls, then we can't exclude blue as a factor.

That is the basis for the entire human caused global warming argument. If we are not allowed to consider any other factors, then of course human activity is the only cause AND controlling human action is the only possible solution.

The entry continues.

In our everyday lives we act based on incomplete information as a matter of course - to the point that we don't even think about it. But for scientists, uncertainty is top of mind. We're trained to notice what's certain and what's not so we can design useful studies. That's why we spell out in such exquisite (or excruciating!) detail what we don't know about any given topic. And that's why the IPCC report (indeed, any scientific report) uses such careful language. For non-specialists, all that careful language can obscure aspects of a topic that are extremely well understood and no longer under debate.

Did you catch that last bit? " longer under debate." It's the same old same old. According to this, debate is over, human caused global warming is a certainty, and that is all that will be accepted.

Except that isn't true. Even this entry has been carefully worded to exclude any possibility except human caused global warming.

I'd like to see proof, and that doesn't mean computer models.

Posted Thu - July 26, 2007 at 08:04 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - July 9, 2007

Another reason why some lawyers are despicable

Reading things like this do more to discredit the whole human-caused global warming movement than anything else.

The Dallas Morning News' Eric Torbenson examines a potential growth area for business plaintiffs' lawyers and another burgeoning risk for business -- lawsuits asserting responsibility for damagres caused by climate change. And guess who's right in the middle of it? None other than Houston's longtime business plaintiff's lawyer, Steve Susman:

Steve Susman of Susman Godfrey in Houston has been a pioneer in such litigation. He led the charge this year to force TXU Energy into building fewer coal-fired plants in Texas than it had planned.

Now he's among several lawyers talking with a group of Inuits in northern Canada who have seen an entire island sink under rising seas from global warming. The tribe is weighing its options, including suing carbon-emitting corporations such as power companies for heating the planet, he said.

"Melting glaciers isn't going to get that much going, but wait until the first big ski area closes because it has no snow," said Mr. Susman, who teaches a climate-change litigation course at the University of Houston Law School. "Or wait until portions of lower Manhattan and San Francisco are under water."

Some lawyers are trying to tie the damage from Hurricane Katrina to global warming – and the energy companies who may have contributed to that warming.

It's official, we've moved from hysteria to public events and lawsuits.

STILL without any science to back up the claims.

Posted Mon - July 9, 2007 at 02:14 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Tue - July 3, 2007

Humans using too much sun!

This one captures the attitude.

HUMANS are just one of the millions of species on Earth, but we use up almost a quarter of the sun's energy captured by plants - the most of any species.

The human dominance of this natural resource is affecting other species, reducing the amount of energy available to them by almost 10 per cent, scientists report.

Researchers said the findings showed humans were using "a remarkable share" of the earth's plant productivity "to meet the needs and wants of one species".

They also warned that the increased use of biofuels - such as ethanol and canola - should be viewed cautiously, given the potential for further pressure on ecosystems.

Apparently the only real option left is for humans to disappear from the planet before we do any more damage. Are you finished with your life yet? There are some other species that want to use the sunlight you have hoarded.

Posted Tue - July 3, 2007 at 11:13 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Don't expect to see this one quoted

Guess what this poll found?

The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested.

The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults - interviewed between 14 and 20 June - found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change.

There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found.

The Royal Society said most climate scientists believed humans were having an "unprecedented" effect on climate.

The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog mess were all of more concern than climate change.

Sounds like some people figured it out.

Posted at 05:35 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Al Gore sells religion as psuedoscience

I'm not going to waste much time on this editorial by Gore.

I will point out three things.

Almost every environmental "fact" that Gore has ever quoted is either totally false or grossly inflated to make his case.

It's impossible to know what the exact tipping point is unless it has already happened.

And finally, not only is Venus MUCH closer to the Sun than Earth, but it's atmosphere is considerably different. That alone makes any "carbon comparison" between the two very silly.

Posted at 05:27 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Tue - June 26, 2007

Al Gore blames you for global warming

Al Gore is one of those people I really wish would disappear for a while. He is rabble-rousing again.

In an extraordinary outburst aimed at America's failure to tackle global warming, Al Gore says that if scientific agreement on the climate crisis had been reached sooner it would have been easier to "galvanise the public and persuade Congress to act".

The failed presidential candidate claims that the stronger scientific consensus he knew was about to emerge meant "we in the US were about to shift into high gear in addressing the climate crisis". Mr Gore argues that if he had made it to the White House, he would have been able to use the office as a "bully pulpit" to achieve change.

"The nature and severity of the climate crisis had seemed painfully obvious to me for quite a long time," claims Mr Gore, writing in a new foreword to a revised edition of his book, Earth in the Balance, being published this week.

In a swipe at the scientific community, he says: "I wish that we could have had in the 1990s the deafening scientific consensus that has emerged in more recent years."

Okay, let's start at the beginning.

Gore is awfully fond of that word "consensus."

Science is not about consensus.

Before Robert Goddard's rocket experiments, the consensus was that space travel was impossible.

In the 1940s, the consensus was that a diet heavy with red meat and breads was healthy for you.

In the 1950s, the consensus was that no individual would ever own a home computer because computers would never fit in the home.

Science is about what can be proven. That means what can be measured and predicted.

Consensus is about belief which may or may not be backed up by science.

The two are not interchangeable.

Now, with that said, even Gore's supporters acknowledge that he exaggerates the numbers. That is assuming that you agree with the idea of anthropologic global warming.

The weather is not the same every October 15th, it's different each year. Some years are colder, some warmer. Our world can't be perfectly predicted, it's random. That is Nature for you.

Human caused global warming has not been proven.

So why does Al Gore keep trying to guilt people into doing what he wants? It's a tactic that the modern liberals have used for years. If you accept the guilt, then you give up your moral right to question the argument. All you can do is submit to the demands. It's been quite effective. And that is why progressive movements can't tolerate dissent. The morality of their argument is based entirely on guilt.

That is why consensus replaces science in their arguments.

Posted Tue - June 26, 2007 at 05:17 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Tue - June 19, 2007

Mon - June 18, 2007

AP catches story that I touched on yesterday

I'll be.

My sources scooped the Associated Press.

Well how about that.

Granted I didn't report it as fast as they did, but I did beat Drudge. That is something I suppose.

Posted Mon - June 18, 2007 at 04:24 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sun - June 17, 2007

Top UN official blames global warming for massacres

I'm not even sure where to put this one, politics or environmentalism.

THE slaughter in Darfur was triggered by global climate change and that more such conflicts may be on the horizo, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon says in an article published today.

"The Darfur conflict began as an ecological crisis, arising at least in part from climate change,'' Mr Ban said in a Washington Post opinion column.

UN statistics showed that rainfall declined some 40 per cent over the past two decades, he said, as a rise in Indian Ocean temperatures disrupted monsoons.

"This suggests that the drying of sub-Saharan Africa derives, to some degree, from man-made global warming,'' the South Korean diplomat wrote.

"It is no accident that the violence in Darfur erupted during the drought,'' Mr Ban said in the Washington daily.

How irresponsible can you get?

Not one word about other factors.

Not one word about PAST droughts and their effects.

No, it is all because of carbon dioxide.

Not one word about puppet movements meant to destabilize governments.

Not one word about the Arab supremacy movement.


The United Nations proves it's worth again.

Posted Sun - June 17, 2007 at 01:16 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Fri - June 15, 2007

That Prius isn't as green as you thought

I keep talking about tradeoffs in environmentalism, and few believe me.

Well, it looks like other people are running the numbers.

Building a Toyota Prius causes more environmental damage than a Hummer that is on the road for three times longer than a Prius. As already noted, the Prius is partly driven by a battery which contains nickel. The nickel is mined and smelted at a plant in Sudbury, Ontario. This plant has caused so much environmental damage to the surrounding environment that NASA has used the ‘dead zone’ around the plant to test moon rovers. The area around the plant is devoid of any life for miles.

The plant is the source of all the nickel found in a Prius’ battery and Toyota purchases 1,000 tons annually. Dubbed the Superstack, the plague-factory has spread sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario, becoming every environmentalist’s nightmare.

“The acid rain around Sudbury was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down off the hillside,” said Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin during an interview with Mail, a British-based newspaper.

All of this would be bad enough in and of itself; however, the journey to make a hybrid doesn’t end there. The nickel produced by this disastrous plant is shipped via massive container ship to the largest nickel refinery in Europe. From there, the nickel hops over to China to produce ‘nickel foam.’ From there, it goes to Japan. Finally, the completed batteries are shipped to the United States, finalizing the around-the-world trip required to produce a single Prius battery. Are these not sounding less and less like environmentally sound cars and more like a farce.

Wait, I haven’t even got to the best part yet.

When you pool together all the combined energy it takes to drive and build a Toyota Prius, the flagship car of energy fanatics, it takes almost 50 percent more energy than a Hummer - the Prius’s arch nemesis.

Green isn't always green. Sometimes it is just a marketing ploy and an excuse to charge a higher price.

Posted Fri - June 15, 2007 at 12:31 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sat - June 9, 2007

Biofuels displace Columbian farmers

Suddenly the developed nations demand for green fuels is undermining rights.

Armed groups in Colombia are driving peasants off their land to make way for plantations of palm oil, a biofuel that is being promoted as an environmentally friendly source of energy.

Surging demand for "green" fuel has prompted rightwing paramilitaries to seize swaths of territory, according to activists and farmers. Thousands of families are believed to have fled a campaign of killing and intimidation, swelling Colombia's population of 3 million displaced people and adding to one of the world's worst refugee crises after Darfur and Congo.

It's those nasty unintended consequences again.

Because of American subsidies in the ethanol market, corn and other food prices are skyrocketing.

Beef and milk prices are also rising fast.

And now, people are being kicked off their lands to provide other biofuels.

All this so modern liberals can feel good about green fuels that still produce greenhouse gases. Only this time, government power and abuse has been expanded.

When does it stop?

Posted Sat - June 9, 2007 at 02:33 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Tue - May 29, 2007

"first hand evidence that climate change is a reality"

Given her history, I can't take Nancy Pelosi seriously when she talks about climate change. She's a political opportunist who regularly jumps on the latest fad and headline to further her own agenda.

Which is basically defined as "George Bush bad, Democrats will save America."

Getting back to reality for just a bit, you can't claim global climate change by what you see in one place. You can't even claim climate change based on one year or one decade or one century.

While the Congresswoman was in Greenland, there was snow in parts of the US, Canada, and England (thanks to Newsbusters for the links). Just a little bit of a discrepancy, wouldn't you say?

The evidence for global warming is shaky at best. The case for human-caused global warming is nearly non-existant. If you are interested, check out my FAQ on the subject.

Without the simple proofs that the weather is unusual and that humans are responsible, Pelosi's comments only add hot air.

Posted Tue - May 29, 2007 at 05:13 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sat - May 19, 2007

Hollywood warms up again to global warming - updated

No matter what Leonardo diCaprio says, it's still more belief than science. Emphasis added.

What was the most difficult thing for you in making this film?

DiCaprio: Trying to condense the vision of what these scientific experts are saying (about global warming) and trying to make it as clear and as emotionally moving as possible. Trying to condense a world of issues into an hour-and-a-half format in this film was the biggest challenge. But it was about giving them a platform where they didn't have to argue about the science. Because, and I keep stressing this, this is the overwhelming majority of the scientific community that believes in this. Not to have to be challenged about the science, about if their opinions were correct or if their opinions were valid. It was about them being able to express ideas and being able to give us, the public. Listen to the scientists and give us, the public, solutions for the future.

Here's what I keep stressing. Science is not about what people believe, it's about what can be proven. Yet almost every time lately I see an argument claiming human caused global warming, they always bring up something like "this is what most scientists believe."

By some counts, approximately 75% of Americans are Christian. Certainly an "overwhelming majority," but in and of itself that's hardly proof that Jesus Christ existed. Christianity only comprises about 33% of the world population, which means that an "overwhelming majority" doesn't believe in Jesus Christ, but that is not definitive proof he didn't exist.

Belief does not equal fact.

Proven science means that the theory must not only account for past and present observations, but can predict future conditions. Here's where the global warming theories fall down. No one can take the numbers from five years ago and produce numbers that show what is happening now. That means that future conditions can't be predicted from the theory, which in turn means that there is no science behind the theories of human-caused global warming.

Unless and until global warming can be verified, it is a belief system that must be taken on faith.

In other words, a religion.

It doesn't matter what films come out. It doesn't matter what people say about it. The only thing that makes it science is what can be proven. And just as most Hindus aren't particularly interested in Christianity, most people who don't believe in global warming don't really care about the arguments "proving" global warming because the "proof" is all emotional appeal and very little science.

The only reason I make so much noise about it is because the global warming apologists want their beliefs to be given the force of law. This will have drastic economic consequences which I do care about. Not to mention that pesky little detail of expanding the power of the state and destroying freedom.

I won't stand for it with Islamic fundamentalists, I won't stand for it from Christian fundamentalists, and I won't stand for it from those who claim that humans caused devastating global warming.

It's a belief system trying to wrap itself in science, but it can't be proved. Quit trying to short circuit the debate and present the evidence.

Posted Sat - May 19, 2007 at 11:43 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Coal company CEO discusses global warming

More people should listen to Robert E. Murray. Emphasis added.

"The science of global warming is speculative. But there's nothing speculative about the damage a C02 capture program will do to this country. I know the names of many of the thousands of people--American workers, their families--whose lives will be destroyed by what has become a deceitful and hysterical campaign, perpetrated by fear-mongers in our society and by corporate executives intent on their own profits or competitive advantage. I can't stand by and watch.

Tough words, and unusually brash ones for a respected CEO, though Mr. Murray is uniquely situated to deliver them. Unlike other energy executives--at industrial firms such as GE that make millions on wind turbines, or utilities such as Duke or Exelon who are making big financial bets on "clean energy"--coal CEOs such as Mr. Murray are the bad boys on the global-warming scene, and will see zero upside in a global-warming program. While the industry has certainly made advances on the real pollution front (sulfur dioxide/nitrogen oxide), coal still accounts for the vast majority of all electricity-related C02 emissions.

The only way to really cut carbon emissions would be to severely limit the use of coal-fired power plants and manufacturing facilities, which is exactly what environmentalists have wanted for years. "We're one of the targets of this campaign," says Mr. Murray. "Putting in place a global warming program is about putting limits on the coal business and low-cost energy." The Ohio coal miner therefore has nothing to lose by speaking hard truths.

Whatever your position on global warming, I'm pretty sure you don't want to pay much more for electricity. If 52% of the electricity in the United States comes from coal, it's pretty easy to run the numbers. Adding another third to the cost of coal will add approximately 19% to the cost of electricity nationally (costs will vary regionally). Doubling the cost of coal adds more than 28% to the cost of electricity nationally.

Remember even if your area isn't affected by higher coal prices, that increased cost will be added to prices of goods and services from areas that are.

Something you should ask yourself is why the global warming apologists find it necessary to dismiss Robert E. Murray and will only listen to those CEOs who support their position.

And then you should ask why the CEOs support the global warming arguments. I can promise you that it is not out of the goodness of their hearts.

Follow the money.

Posted at 06:11 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Fri - May 18, 2007

Forecast or fear mongering?

Stars above, I get so tired of these stories.

The oceans are losing the capacity to soak up rising man-made carbon emissions, which is increasing the rate of global warming by up to 30 per cent, scientists said yesterday.

That first paragraph should be a flashing warning sign.

Why are the oceans only losing the capacity to soak up man-made carbon dioxide? Does this mean we don't have to worry about all the other carbon dioxide?

Now a 30% increase sounds like a lot, but the entire article never defines the rate of increase. If the rate of global warming is 1 degree in 20 years, that means that a thirty percent increase makes it 1.3 degrees in 20 years.

The story is MEANT to worry you without actually telling you anything.

Posted Fri - May 18, 2007 at 05:27 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sat - May 12, 2007

Apple responds to Greenpeace - Get real!

With an Earth-centered faith, it's impossible not to be an environmentalist. But I am more interested in individual choice. I don't want you to "save the planet" because I held a gun to your head, I want you to do it because it is your choice.

That is one reason why it's hard to take Greenpeace seriously. It's not that I disagree with their objectives, I just don't like the methods they have chosen.

Take their annual attacks against Apple. Is it because Apple has that terrible an environmental record? No, not really, and especially not in comparison with other computer manufacturers.

It's because Apple is arguably the mindshare leader when it comes to computers and certain small electronics. That's why I have to admire Steve Jobs and his response.

Those comments didn't stop Greenpeace representatives from using the meeting as an opportunity to advertise the groups anti-Apple campaign. Among the activists sent by Greenpeace was Iza Kruszewska, one of the key architects of the corporation's Apple-oriented fundraising program.

Kruszewska was wearing a Greenpeace t-shirt styled after the former iPod ads, presenting Apple's products as dangerously toxic and encouraging user donations to Greenpeace to somehow solve that issue.

After attempting to take credit for Apple's announcements, Kruszewska questioned Jobs about Apple's potential do more to advance Greenpeace's political goals in announcing principles, but Jobs insisted that such “flowery” announcements were not really doing anything for the environment.

Jobs suggested that Greenpeace hire staff with engineering backgrounds who could understand the issues involved, and insisted that Apple does more to push innovative manufacturing techniques than other PC makers.

When Apple talks to its manufacturers, he said, they report that no other companies are pushing for similar, real changes. He questioned the real efforts HP and Dell were making to back up their announcements.

Jobs also blasted the criteria behind Greenpeace's highly publicized Greener Guide to Electronics, which ranks a random assortment of manufactures according to commitments listed on their websites.

Jobs said Greenpeace needed to develop rankings that reflected what companies actually do, not just what they promise to do at some point in the future.

I have to say that is an encouraging sign. Too often corporations today bow to accusations, even if those accusations are unfounded. This whole political pressure with unfounded accusations is meant to circumvent the free market and eliminate choice.

Not to mention making a tidy sum from extortion.

That is just one reason I can't support Greenpeace. I think that their tactics destroy their credibility.

Posted Sat - May 12, 2007 at 04:39 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Thu - May 10, 2007

Reckless science

There are times I really wonder about humanity as a species.

We have a global warming "problem" which may or may not exist, depending on how one reads the figures.

The "problem" has been linked by shaky (and as of yet UNVERIFIED) "science" to the presence of "excess" carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

There is no clear link between the presence of atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature increases.

And now we have a company preparing a "solution."

The idea behind the venture is to create plankton "blooms," or large-scale growth, by seeding the ocean with iron. As the plankton grows, it consumes carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, and removes it from the atmosphere.

Planktos is not the first to come up with the idea of capturing or sequestering carbon through plankton blooms. But the Foster City, Calif.-based company appears to be the first trying to commercialize ongoing research on the topic.

During the trip, the crew of about 16 will seed thousands of miles of the Pacific Ocean with iron. After the growth phase, a percentage of that plankton will die and sink. Once the plankton are below 500 meters, they sequester the consumed carbon for centuries, said David Kubiak, director of communications for Planktos.

"We're mostly concerned with plankton that get below 500 meters. It puts them in deep enough ocean currents that they are out of the atmosphere for centuries," he said. "Below 1,000 meters and we're talking millennia."

Get that? They plan to deliberately trigger a plankton bloom, despite the fact that they can't adequately monitor or even access it. This could very well trigger a cascade. Given what we do know about plankton blooms, I would consider that more likely than any control of global warming.

Result, wide swatches of ocean that can't support life.

Meanwhile, the link between carbon dioxide and global warming still hasn't been proven.

Posted Thu - May 10, 2007 at 12:52 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - May 7, 2007

Crowing about arrogrance

I'm really beginning to wonder about Sheryl Crow. Emphasis added.

First, I am deeply concerned over where we are as a nation. We are so blessed to live in a country where we enjoy so many rights that other countries cannot even begin to imagine. However, what terrifies me is not what we are ignoring about the state of our planet but the fact that we seem to have lost touch with our connection to the earth. We have risen to great heights of arrogance in our refusal to acknowledge that the earth is changing. We hold steadfast to our belief that nothing can happen to us as a people. We get into our oversized, war-machine-like vehicles, get on our cell phones and blackberries, and avoid having human contact all day long.

I really wish that celebrities would quit trying to speak for humanity.

Let me put this simply.

Yes the Earth is changing. I officially acknowledge that.

However, I do not accept that the planet is changing in the way that the global warming apologists claim that it is. Nor do I believe that it is our fault.

And for the record, my connection to the Earth is just fine.

I also tire of this demand that we do more for global warming when the person doing the demanding ignores her own suggestions. Do you know the size of her entourage? Three tractor trailers, four buses, and six cars.

I'm not kidding.

Posted Mon - May 7, 2007 at 05:20 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Fri - May 4, 2007

Hot time on Mars - Updated

Here's another of those news stories that keeps repeating.

If the climate is changing on Earth and Mars by about the same miniscule amount, what are the chances that humans are responsible? The Sunday Times covers the story.

Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.

Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.

Do you think that the same thing might be causing the variations on both planets?

Of course the report attributes a different mechanism to Mars warming. But hey, this is just the latest sanitized report.

I linked to two articles back in September of 2005 that talked about the shrinking Martian ice caps. It's the same story, only global warming apologists are making excuses. Here is an 2002 article about sunspot influence on climate that I have cited before.

So either there are two completely different processes causing approximately the same change on two different planets at about the same time, or something that the planets share is influencing both in the same way at the same time.

Which do you think is more likely?

UPDATE - Guess what I found (thanks to no authority). This 2004 article.

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.

"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."

Of course we still have greenhouse gases cited, but if it is actually the sun that is brighter, there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. The sun is over 332,000 times more massive than the Earth. That is just a little less than the Empire State Building compared to two half ton trucks.

Posted Fri - May 4, 2007 at 05:25 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Wed - May 2, 2007

Holy writ of global warming

I keep saying that the global warming movement has become a religion and people keep telling me that I am wrong.


Visitors to the Gaia Napa Valley Hotel and Spa won't find the Gideon Bible in the nightstand drawer. Instead, on the bureau will be a copy of ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' former Vice President Al Gore's book about global warming.

They'll also find the Gaia equipped with waterless urinals, solar lighting and recycled paper as it marches toward becoming California's first hotel certified as ``green,'' or benevolent to the environment. Similar features are found 35 miles south at San Francisco's Orchard Garden Hotel, which competes for customers with neighboring luxury hotels like the Ritz-Carlton and Fairmont.

The Word according to the Prophet Al Gore.

Posted Wed - May 2, 2007 at 06:07 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Tue - May 1, 2007

Europe attacks the rainforest

Another of those unintended consequences that you probably won't hear that much about until it's too late. Emphasis added.

Europe's dash for biofuels could accelerate the destruction of tropical rainforests, the European Commission admitted on Thursday.

The EU's executive arm said that the 27-member bloc's decision to increase tenfold its consumption of vehicle fuel made from crops by 2020 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would increase the pressure on virgin land, especially in Asia.

Add this to the higher price for Mexican corn driven by the American government demand for ethanol (read: corn subsidies) in defiance of the market, and you begin to see why government imposed "market solutions" very seldom work.

For someone who is trying to "save the planet," the actions taken by the governments of the developed nations sure are imposing a heavy burden on the less developed ones.

Gee, do you think this could be a repeating pattern?

Posted Tue - May 1, 2007 at 12:57 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Ancient global warming caused by volcanoes?

Another one of those environmental stories I don't want to slip through the cracks.

Scientists believe they have solved the mystery of what caused the most rapid global warming in known geologic history, a cataclysmic temperature spike 55 million years ago driven by concentrations of greenhouse gases hundreds of times greater than today.

The culprit, the researchers reported Thursday in the journal Science, was a series of volcanic eruptions that set off a chain reaction releasing massive quantities of carbon into the atmosphere.

The eruptions occurred on the rift between two continental plates as Greenland and Europe separated.

In 10,000 years — a blip in Earth's history — the polar seas turned into tropical baths, deep-sea-dwelling microorganisms went extinct and mammals migrated poleward as their habitats warmed. It took about 200,000 years for the atmospheric carbon to be transferred to the deep ocean, allowing the planet to cool.

Still only carbon is blamed, which is odd considering they are blaming volcanic activity for the carbon, but there are a couple of things about this article that you should not overlook or forget.

First, it is a natural result of change.

Second, humans didn't have the technology to help it along. I said this before.

If drastic climate changes happened on the face of the planet before humanity existed or before humans had the present technological ability, it's more likely that any changes we see now are either part of a natural cycle or something imposed from outside.

In other words, if changes happened before without human help, then any possible changes probably shouldn't be blamed on humans. that is assuming any changes are happening in the first place.

Posted at 12:47 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Fri - April 27, 2007

Challenging criticism or suppressing heresy?

Global warming dogma strikes again. This is looking more and more like an attempt to throttle dissent.

A group of British climate scientists is demanding changes to a skeptical documentary about global warming, saying there are grave errors in the program billed as a response to Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth."

"The Great Global Warming Swindle" aired on British television in March and is coming out soon on DVD. It argues that man-made emissions have a marginal impact on the world's climate and warming can better be explained by changing patterns of solar activity.

An open letter sent Tuesday by 38 scientists, including the former heads of Britain's academy of sciences and Britain's weather office, called on producer Wag TV to remove what it called "major misrepresentations" from the film before the DVD release -- a demand its director said was tantamount to censorship.

Simple question. Why do critics of global warming have to redo their arguments on the demand of the global warming apologists, but the global warming apologists don't have to redo their arguments on the demand of the global warming critics?

Doesn't that strike you as a little one sided?

Posted Fri - April 27, 2007 at 02:25 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Wed - April 25, 2007

Prehistotic landscape found below North Sea

Here's one that is already being cited by the global warming apologists.

Archaeologists are uncovering a huge prehistoric "lost country" hidden below the North Sea.

This lost landscape, where hunter-gatherer communities once lived, was swallowed by rising water levels at the end of the last ice age.

University of Birmingham researchers are heralding "stunning" findings as they map the "best-preserved prehistoric landscape in Europe".

This large plain disappeared below the water more than 8,000 years ago.

The Birmingham researchers have been using oil exploration technology to build a map of the once-inhabited area that now lies below the North Sea - stretching from the east coast of Britain up to the Shetland Islands and across to Scandinavia.

Imagine that. Eight thousand years ago. Long before SUVs, inaccurate computer projections, Hollywood activists, and propaganda films.

A natural cycle that occurred despite human action. That means it is not unusual and not human caused. That knocks at least two props out from the global warming argument, and possibly four.

Hat tip Wren's Nest.

Posted Wed - April 25, 2007 at 02:30 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - April 23, 2007

"One square of toilet paper"

I suppose it's a good thing that Sheryl Crow isn't actually making decisions for the rest of us.

That is one of the things that really bothers me about today's environmental movement. Not the fact that they are "concerned," but that environmentalists assume right away that other's individual choice has be eliminated for the common good.

Not to mention unforeseen consequences. Emphasis added.

I have spent the better part of this tour trying to come up with easy ways for us all to become a part of the solution to global warming. Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating. One of my favorites is in the area of forest conservation which we heavily rely on for oxygen. I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required.

Granted this is not exactly a policy statement. But think about the chutzpah here. She doesn't want to deprive us of rights, but we use too much toilet paper.

It's not enough that we are forced to use those triple-dammed low flow toilets that clog, but not we're only supposed to use one sheet of TP? Quilted or non-quitled? How many ply? Do men get "credit" for when we just have to stand? Do we put taxes on excessive rolls?

I don't even want to think about the implications of black market toilet paper.

In a nutshell, here's what's wrong with the environmental movement today. When persuasion isn't enough, the advocates are all too ready to invoke force. All without debate.

Hat tip Drudge Report.

Posted Mon - April 23, 2007 at 02:15 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Tue - April 17, 2007

What happens when green means taking food out of mouths?

Here's an older one, but it is time to remind people again.

Ethanol doesn't work as well as gasoline as a fuel.

Ethanol subsidies have been corn subsidies from the get go,

The technology barely exists to make ethanol from waste plant material, but it is cheaper to make it from subsidized corn so no one refines the technology.

Oh, and U.S. demand for corn is creating food shortages in less developed nations.

Investment in fuel ethanol distilleries in the United States has soared since the late-2005 oil price hikes, but data collection in this fast-changing sector has fallen behind. Because of inadequate data collection on the number of new plants under construction, the quantity of grain that will be needed for fuel ethanol distilleries has been vastly understated.

As a result, farmers, feeders, food processors, ethanol investors, and grain-importing countries are all basing decisions on incomplete data.

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) projects that distilleries will require only 60 million tons of corn from the 2008 harvest. But here at the Earth Policy Institute (EPI), we estimate that distilleries will need 139 million tons -more than twice as much.

If the EPI estimate is at all close to the mark, the emerging competition between cars and people for grain is likely to drive world grain prices to levels never seen before. The key questions are: How high will grain prices rise? When will the crunch come? And what will be the worldwide effect of rising food prices?

Bet you didn't expect that one.

Here's a rule of thumb.

When government interferes with the free market, expect shortages in direct proportion. There are all sorts of long involved reasons, but it boils down to some very simple ideas. Government can't control the economy, at best it can only divert resources that already exist. Government doesn't produce, it only taxes and regulates. A free market is based only on voluntary exchange. Remember, govern means to slow down.

Posted Tue - April 17, 2007 at 01:18 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Even supporters agree, Gore exaggerated the numbers

I don't agree with the conclusions, but this Clive Crook article has nailed the global warming politics and tactics.

The triumphant confidence of the Gore tendency is both intellectually false and dangerous. Gore claims that scientists overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, support his position. In one way, this is true. If his position means rejecting the view, still expressed by many of his critics, that the whole global-warming issue is a hoax, or just some fiendish conspiracy to enslave taxpayers and God-fearing gun owners, then yes, scientists overwhelmingly support his position. If the battle of ideas on this question is between Gore and that kind of skeptic, then yes, scientists overwhelmingly back Gore. From that base, Gore can claim—and get away with claiming—that science supports everything else he says or implies on the subject. This is the victory that the deny-everything skeptics have handed him.

In An Inconvenient Truth, and in a reprise of the movie that he gave to lawmakers on Capitol Hill last week, Gore invoked the image of 20-foot rises in sea level. Remember the maps showing an inundated Florida, nothing but water where Holland used to be, and so forth? The newest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—whose pronouncements Gore regards as holy writ when they suit him—projected a rise in sea level of between 10 and 24 inches, on a business-as-usual basis, by the end of this century. (The new estimate, by the way, is lower than the IPCC's previous figure.) A rise of this magnitude would be a problem but not a catastrophe. So you don't hear much about that. It is not dramatic enough to feature very prominently in the Gore worldview.

Just something to keep in mind when the agenda gets pushed.

Posted at 01:02 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Thu - April 12, 2007

Today's environmentalism

Via Coyote Blog (who has been doing an excellent series on global warming) comes this 52 second Bullshit spot that perfectly sums up how I feel about today's environmental movement.

It got hijacked.

Go, watch it for yourself and make up your own mind.

Posted Thu - April 12, 2007 at 05:53 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Tue - April 10, 2007

Skewering the Global Warming Prophet

Someone tell me why an internationally recognized hurricane expert has to take a back seat to Al Gore when it comes to global warming.

A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.

"He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about," Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech.

A spokeswoman said Gore was on a flight from Washington, D.C., to Nashville Friday; he did not immediately respond to Gray's comments.

Gray, an emeritus professor at the atmospheric science department at Colorado State University, has long railed against the theory that heat-trapping gases generated by human activity are causing the world to warm.

Over the past 24 years, Gray, 77, has become known as America's most reliable hurricane forecaster; recently, his mentee, Philip Klotzbach, has begun doing the bulk of the forecasting work.

Do you think that it is just possible that Dr. Gray might, just might, know more than Al Gore when it comes to climate?

Dr. Gray is nicer than I am. I think Al Gore is using global warming to establish another political career.

Posted Tue - April 10, 2007 at 11:04 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

This is global warming?

From last week, but things only got crazier over the weekend.

Winter refuses to release its grip on the eastern two-thirds of the nation. The first of a pair of Pacific storms today is spreading snow across the northern Plains. Later in the week, the storm will bring more snow to the Northeast, while a second storm system produce snow across the high Plains and severe weather across the southern Plains and the South.

The Winter Weather Center reports by Wednesday morning, one to three inches of snow will fall from the Dakotas to central Wisconsin and northern Iowa, while 3 to 6 inches is forecast for southern Minnesota and western Wisconsin.

According to the East Regional News story, the storm late Wednesday will move into the Great Lakes and Northeast. By Thursday, as much as a foot of snow is forecast from upstate New York into New England.

As reported in the West Regional News story, a second Pacific storm tonight will bring rain to Oregon and Northern California.

After thirty years of press, severe winter weather in April becomes just one more "proof" of global warming.

Not even "human caused global warming."

And of course ANY weather changes PRIOR to the Twentieth Century are purely natural.

Posted at 10:55 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Global warming is the new dogma

When I heard this on NPR, I could hardly believe my ears.

After five days of debate and an all-night, down-to-the-wire battle, scientists and government officials from around the world agreed Friday to a new report outlining the effects of global warming on the planet.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations scientific group, released its findings Friday in Brussels, Belgium. Although haggling over the fine print diluted some of the original language, the final report is stark in its depiction of what's in store for the planet: flooding, droughts, extinctions of plants and animals, and high costs for everyone.

This is the fourth report from the U.N. climate panel in 17 years, and it has proved to be one of the hardest-hitting ones. The first chapter came out in February after tough negotiations. It said that scientists are more than 90 percent sure that humans are warming the planet.

Think about that, the science was "debated" right up to the deadline for the last IPCC report.

What caught my attention was the similarity to the old ecumenical councils of the early Christian church.

Both set dogma that no one was allowed to question.

Both set up an overreaching political authority that answered to no one but itself.

And questioning the IPCC reports is just as much heresy as questioning those early church councils.

I can't be the only one to notice the obvious similarity.

Note - Originally this was going to appear on April 8th. However to keep peace in the family, I delayed it a couple of days.

Posted at 10:48 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Thu - April 5, 2007


Rand Simberg makes a great point.

I'm used to the government telling me that I shouldn't hold up liquor stores, or kill people because they looked at me the wrong way, or that I have to pay taxes, or which side of the road to drive on, or even how deep to bury my irrigation system. I can live with those things. But this notion that I can only water my lawn at certain times seems like a whole new encroachment on my liberty.

Then again, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised. Rather than defending liberties, which was what I was taught that the purpose of government was, it seems that modern government has decided that its role is instead to circumscribe them as much as possible.

What's the problem? Well, first of all, it's an issue of lousy weather forecasting. Remember what a terrible hurricane season we were supposed to have last year? The one that ended up fizzling?

Well, in anticipation of it, the South Florida Water Management District had decided to drop the level of Lake Okeechobee three feet, to reduce the chances of a catastrophic overflow and flood in the event of a storm last year. A storm that never happened. So much for the prescience of government bureaucrats.

It's the classic libertarian point.

Government gets involved to "solve" problem. Government regulation and actions create worse problems than the original. People are prohibited by force from seeking other solutions. Government denies responsibility.

Posted Thu - April 5, 2007 at 01:50 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

SCOTUS blames humans for global warming in split decision

I've tried to think of a witty post on this one for a couple of days. No luck.

The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency must consider greenhouse gases as pollutants, in a blow to the White House.

"Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Clean Air Act's capacious definition of 'air pollutant' we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such gases from new motor vehicles," the court ruled.

Led by Massachusetts, a dozen states along with several US cities and environmental groups went to the courts to determine whether the agency had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide emissions.

"The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized," said judge John Paul Stevens as the ruling was carried by five votes in favor to four against.

The Republican administration of US President George W. Bush has fiercely opposed any imposition of binding greenhouse limits on the nation's industry.

Environmentalists have alleged that since Bush came to office in 2001 his administration has ignored and tried to hide looming evidence of global warming and the key role of human activity in climate change.

This decision is already being used to push the global warming agenda.

I have only two words for that.

Dred Scott.

I have never been fond of the Environmental Protection Act, it has been abused almost from the very start.

Let's remember a few things here.

First, "natural" phenomena from forest fires to volcanos produce carbon dioxide.

Second, human caused carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the total global carbon dioxide.

Third and most important, plants need carbon dioxide. We need plants to provide oxygen and food.

Posted at 01:13 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Thu - March 29, 2007


I find this one symbolic of most of the current environmental movement. Emphasis added.

There's an old joke about the number of people it takes to change a light bulb. But because the newer energy-efficient kinds contain tiny amounts of mercury, the hard part is getting rid of them when they burn out.

Mercury is poisonous, but it's also a necessary part of most compact fluorescent bulbs, the kind that environmentalists and some governments are pushing as a way to cut energy use.

With an estimated 150 million CFLs sold in the United States in 2006 and with Wal-Mart alone hoping to sell 100 million this year, some scientists and environmentalists are worried that most are ending up in garbage dumps.

Engineering is about tradeoffs. It's possible to make a car that gets a hundred miles to the gallon, but it will have no mass to protect the driver and won't be able to do the start-and-stop driving that most need. You could bury your home under fifteen feet of dirt and maintain it's temperature year round, but good luck getting natural light. You can make the desert bloom, but the water has to come from somewhere.

It's all about tradeoffs.

And no, I am not talking about carbon offsets.

Demand that the U.S. reduce it's carbon emissions to pre-1990 levels and there will be economic consequences, especially if not all nations have to reduce. Dump agricultural waste in a handy river and people downstream can't use the water. Raise the price of gasoline and one of the first things that suffers is shipments of fresh vegetables and fruit.

So now people realize that the bulbs that use less energy cost more to manufacture and discard. When the emphasis is on "saving energy," the other expenses are overlooked.

What tradeoffs are you willing to make?

Posted Thu - March 29, 2007 at 12:52 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Wed - March 21, 2007

Gore demands special privilage on Capital Hill

Tell me this isn't power politics.

Gore first demanded to be granted an unprecedented 30 minute opening statement to the Senate EPW Committee for Wednesday’s (March 21) global warming hearing scheduled for 2:30 pm ET. 
(See "FULL COMMITTEE: Vice President Al Gore’s Perspective on Global Warming" )

The GOP minority on the EPW committee agreed to the 30 minute opening statement.

But then Gore demanded a waiver of the EPW committee’s 48 hour rule that requires all witnesses before EPW to submit their testimony in advance. The GOP minority on the EPW committee then agreed to waive the 48 hour rule in favor of allowing Gore to submit his testimony 24 hours before the hearing.

But in a breaking news development on Capitol Hill -- the former Vice President has violated the new 24 hour deadline extension by failing to submit his testimony – even with the new time extension granted to Gore.

As of 8pm ET Tuesday evening, the testimony still has not been received by EPW, a clear violation of committee rules.

The word on Capitol Hill says not to expect Gore’s testimony to the Senate EPW committee until Wednesday (March 21) -- the day of the hearing.

It appears that Gore does not believe the same rules apply to him that apply to every other Senate EPW witness.

More and more it seems like Al Gore and his elites think that there is one set of rules for them and one for everyone else.

My question is why should his testimony be taken seriously when he flaunts the rules?

Posted Wed - March 21, 2007 at 05:28 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Tue - March 20, 2007

The press recognizes the debate on global warming

I'm glad to see this article (AND the other articles it mentions) not because I am against Al Gore, but because I think the articles bring some long needed debate to the global warming questions.

The media are finally catching up with Al Gore. Criticism of his anti-global-warming franchise and his personal environmental record has gone beyond ankle-biting bloggers. It's now coming from the New York Times and the Nashville Tennessean, his hometown paper that put his birth, as a senator's son, on its front page back in 1948, and where a young Al Gore Jr. worked for five years as a journalist.

Last Tuesday, the Times reported that several eminent scientists "argue that some of Mr. Gore's central points [on global warming] are exaggerated and erroneous." The Tenessean reported yesterday that Mr. Gore received $570,000 in royalties from the owners of zinc mines who held mineral leases on his farm. The mines, which closed in 2003 but are scheduled to reopen under a new operator later this year, "emitted thousands of pounds of toxic substances and several times, the water discharged from the mines into nearby rivers had levels of toxins above what was legal."

All of this comes in the wake of the enormous publicity Mr. Gore received after his documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Oscar. The film features Mr. Gore reprising his famous sighing and lamenting how the average American's energy use is greedily off the charts. At the film's end viewers are asked, "Are you ready to change the way you live?"

What bothers me about the whole situation is that if Al Gore had been conservative or libertarian and if the questions hadn't been about global warming, the press would have taken a closer look at Al Gore and his arguments years ago.

Just remember that when it came to the ethics, it took journalists and bloggers from OUTSIDE to focus attention where it should have been focused to start with. The free market and choices did it, not the assumed moral superiority of the global warming movement itself.

Truth can usually withstand criticism, dogma seldom can.

Posted Tue - March 20, 2007 at 12:19 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Thu - March 15, 2007

Who wants debate?

Ever wonder what happens when no one is allowed to question global warming?

Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.

They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.
One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

If global warming apologists have the moral high ground, then what is with all the threats and suppressing dissent? Why can't the arguments stand on their own?

Oh, by the way, Gore lied in his film. But we knew that already.

Posted Thu - March 15, 2007 at 04:30 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Who profits?

Wow, this article exaggerates.

There's an elephant in global warming's living room that few in the mainstream media want to talk about: the creators of the carbon credit scheme are the ones cashing in on it.

The two cherub like choirboys singing loudest in the Holier Than Thou Global Warming Cathedral are Maurice Strong and Al Gore.

This duo has done more than anyone else to advance the alarmism of man-made global warming.

With little media monitoring, both Strong and Gore are cashing in on the lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming.

Strong is on the board of directors of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Wikipedia-described as "the world's first and North America's only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil."

Gore buys his carbon off-sets from himself--the Generation Investment Management LLP, "an independent, private, owner-managed partnership established in 2004 with offices in London and Washington, D.C." of which he is both chairman and founding partner.

Gore doesn't "buy" his credits, they are provided to him as an employee.

But there is no doubt that both men are profiting handsomely selling doom and gloom. That in itself wouldn't be so bad if they weren't fudging the figures and trying to quell dissent,

Follow the money.

And as I keep reminding people, a good part of the Kyoto Protocol was structured to let Enron sell pollution and carbon credits, just as they did energy credits. We all know how that ended up, it could only be successful only as long as the Department of Energy and the Justice Department were willing to overlook severe irregularities. Enron was as much a product of the Clinton Administration as midnight basketball games and peace between Palestine and Israel.

We know how those ended up, too.

Posted at 04:25 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Snowbowl, religion, and the environment

Regular reader Juliaki pointed out this article and asked for my take.

An Arizona ski resort's plan to use treated sewage to make snow on a mountain sacred to several Native American tribes violates religious freedom laws, a U.S appeals court ruled on Monday.

The decision on Arizona Snowbowl was a victory for Native American tribes after years of setbacks in their fight to bar the resort from using waste water on the federally owned mountain 150 miles north of Phoenix.

"It's like stomping on the scriptures in the world of Christianity," Navajo Nation President Joe Shirley Jr. said in a telephone interview. "This is my essence, the essence of who I am."

This issue is a lot more complicated than the article makes it look.

First off, there are differences between the Diné (who we call Navajo), the land, the Navajo Nation, and the Navajo Reservation. The Navajo Nation is the legal entity that occupies the Navajo reservation, but it is not necessarily the Diné themselves. The concept of "Navajo lands" doesn't mean land ownership in the American sense, although there is some overlap, mainly for the benefit of the court system.

What we call the San Francisco Peaks in Arizona is actually the remains of an extinct volcano that used to be much higher and all one mountain. It is one of the Sacred Mountains that borders the west in Diné belief. There are twelve other Native American tribes that also find it sacred.

According to some interpretations, by treaty the San Francisco Peaks are supposed to be part of the Navajo Reservation and the American government welched on the deal. It's not the first or the last time the FedGovs have fallen down on that, they screwed the mineral leases up as well. I think there are about five separate treaties with three different tribes that touch on the ownership of the peaks, which is an pretty rough concept taken in the context of Navajo belief. Of course, all this went out the window when President McKinley did a Federal land grab and created a forest reserve, which later became part of the Coconino National Forest.

The Snowbowl has been losing money for some time, mainly because of widespread drought conditions. Unlike Arizona's other mountains, the San Francisco Peaks stick up all by themselves and are surrounded on desert on all sides. That creates unusual weather. Since the land is owned by the Federal government, any concessionaire has to follow all sorts of government regulations when it comes to the environment and religion.

But the big issue is that it is Federal land, not the hoops that the business has to hop through. It is Federal land in a patch of forest surrounded by desert. It is Federal land grabbed not once but twice.

Even on the good years, it doesn't really get enough snow to support a ski resort.

For all the "economic benefits," it really depends on the weather. Artificial snow won't fix the underlying condition.

I don't support using Navajo and other Native beliefs to stop something that has environmental roots. But I really don't like the idea of letting someone bring in artificial snow on Federal land either.

Posted at 02:36 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Tue - March 13, 2007

Bring on the debate

Phillip Stot has it right. Global warming is not a crisis.

From the Babylon of Gilgamesh to the post-Eden of Noah, every age has viewed climate change cataclysmically, as retribution for human greed and sinfulness.

In the 1970s, the fear was "global cooling." The Christian Science Monitor then declaimed, "Warning: Earth's climate is changing faster than even experts expect," while The New York Times announced, "A major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable." Sound familiar? Global warming represents the latest doom-laden "crisis," one demanding sacrifice to Gaia for our wicked fossil-fuel-driven ways.

But neither history nor science bolsters such an apocalyptic faith.

Bring on the opinion. Bring on the discussion. Let's look at the science on it's own merits instead of declaring the debate over. If the science can be verified, then we should look at the next step, including free market solutions. No alternative energy subsidies, no mandated programs, no declarations from on high about moral energy use.

Just people making their own choices and accepting the consequences.

Posted Tue - March 13, 2007 at 01:34 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Fri - March 9, 2007

MIT professor rips global warming theory apart

Richard Lindzen is a Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., and he has written a fantastic article in the London Daily Mail. I'm going to break with my usual practice and take the choice quotes out of sequence. Emphasis added.

First quote.

Genuine science is about gathering evidence and testing the veracity of theories, not cheerleading for a particular ideology.

That is what is so disturbing about the current debate on global warming. Healthy scepticism, which should be at the heart of all scientific inquiry, is treated with contempt.

Great stuff but it gets better. Second quote, a long one this time.

In support of his gloomy thesis, Stern, like all global warming enthusiasts, ignores the evidence that does not suit his ideology. He glosses over the fact that, according to a host of historical accounts, Europe was far warmer in the Middle Ages than it is today, or that the 17th century was much colder, prompting what was known as 'The Little Ice Age', when the Thames was often frozen over for months at a time.

Stern also refers to 'significant melting of and an acceleration of ice floes' near the coast of Greenland because of global warming.

Yet several reputable scientific studies have shown that the mass of the Greenland ice sheet is actually expanding, while Stern also fails to note that the temperature of Greenland is now lower than it was in 1940 and little changed from the first measurements in the 1780s.

Environmentalists are fond of jerking heartstrings with pictures of polar bears struggling on supposedly melting icebergs, but it is estimated that there are now 22,000 polar bears compared with 5,000 in 1940.

Nor can we be sure that any long-term changes in our climate are due to mankind. There are any number of other possibilities and the programme tonight examines the possibility that the sun's radiation is primarily responsible for climate change.

Indeed, the climate can fluctuate without any external cause at all — something again ignored by Stern, who wants only to indulge in the fashionable notion that western capitalism is entirely to blame for every drought and disaster.

If all this sounds familiar, it should. Critics of global warming have been saying it for years. Last quote, with some editorial comments on religion by yours truly.

Like a religion, environmentalism is suffused with hatred for the material world and again, like religion, it requires devotion rather than intellectual rigour from its adherents. (NW: Like SOME religions)

It is intolerant of dissent; those who question the message of doom are regarded as heretics, or 'climate change deniers', to use green parlance. (NW: I can't help but add here for there to be heresy there has to be One True Way™)

And, just as in many religions, the route to personal salvation lies in the performance of superstitious rituals, such as changing a lightbulb or arranging for a tree to be planted after every plane journey. (NW: Not all paths or faiths place an emphasis on personal salvation)

What is so tragic is the way that this dubious ideology has achieved such dominance in our public life.

Politicians love the green agenda, of course, because it means more control, more regulation, more taxes, more summits, and more opportunities for displays of self-important zeal. (NW: Amen! Say it loud, brother!)

So where does this put us? Hopefully where we should have started, with debate over the science instead of the politics. I've said before the only reason why the politics become an issue is because the science is shaky.

There's no doubt in my mind there are some very committed and concerned people who believe very firmly in human caused global warming.

There is also no doubt in my mind that there are those who do not understand the science but choose to use global warming to advance their own agenda.

And there is no doubt in my mind who understand the science perfectly well but deliberately mislead people to give themselves power, respect, and money.

I am constantly amazed that many modern Pagans not only accept the global warming theory and tactics, but actively support them. Those are the same tactics that many fundamentalist Christians have tried to use against modern Pagans. We SHOULD be familiar with the look and feel, some Pagans have had to fight it again and again. The only difference is the name of the god and some of the terminology.

That is why I oppose global warming apologists. As it is practiced, global warming theory is a fundamental religion.

Posted Fri - March 9, 2007 at 04:49 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Thu - March 8, 2007

"Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide"

An absolute classic from Showtime's BullShit!

Not much I can add to this except that very sincere and committed people can be convinced by the right line of patter at the right time. It's all in the way that your buttons are pushed.

It's why we can't do science by consensus. We can't afford scare tactics "for our own good."

How much support do you think global warming theories would have if people were told that the consequences of the Kyoto Protocol would pretty much impose about a twenty percent inflation rate overnight?

Hat tip

Posted Thu - March 8, 2007 at 06:15 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Al Gore doesn't buy carbon offsets (update to a previous post)

The source I quoted in this post was mistaken. Al Gore doesn't buy carbon offsets from his own company. The company doesn't produce anything to offset carbon, it is a management fund.

"We do not invest in any activity of carbon offset. That's nonsense. We are a fund management business that does sustainability research," he added.

The confusion, Campbell said, arose because GIM pays to offset the energy use of its operations and the personal emissions of its 23 employees, including Gore.

So, the firm will cover the cost to offset the energy use at Gore's home, or his global jet travel, as it would the offset cost of any other employee, Campbell said.

Assuming that the carbon offset theory isn't just the modern version of indulgences (as suggested by reader Kevin Smith in the replies to this post), Gore's activity is on the up and up.

Of course, if human produced carbon dioxide doesn't cause global warming, then the Chicago Climate Exchange is a huge shell game waiting to collapse. He'd be better off investing his money elsewhere.

Posted at 01:37 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sat - March 3, 2007

The economics behind cap and trade has a marvelous article on the real maneuvering behind the push for cap and trade to limit carbon dioxide.

The difficulties don't lie with the trading, but with the cap, which is where the companies lobbying for restrictions come in. James Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, put it plainly earlier this year: "If you're not at the table when these negotiations are going on, you're going to be on the menu." Translation: If a cap is coming, better to design it in a way that you profit from it, instead of being killed by it.

Which is why the emphasis really should be cap-and-trade. It's all about the cap, because without it there's no trading. We don't buy our daily ration of oxygen because it's in abundant supply. Same with carbon dioxide--there's no constraint on your ability to produce CO2 until the government creates one. When it does, it creates an artificial scarcity. What Duke, Entergy, TXU, BP, Dupont and all the rest want is to make sure that when the right to produce CO2 becomes limited, they're the ones that end up owning the allowances. Because that would mean they could sell them, and make money off something that previously wasn't worth a dime.


We don't begrudge anyone the opportunity to make a buck. But there's a difference between making money by producing things people want and making money by gaming the regulatory process. There's no market here unless the government creates one, and who has the profit opportunity depends entirely on who the government picks as the winners and the losers in designing this market in the first place. So it's no wonder that almost any business that has ever put an ounce of CO2 into the atmosphere is rushing to show its cap-and-trade bona fides.

Make no mistake, what you are seeing here is the beginnings of a very profitable relationship between entrenched business interests and government. It will also lock out new business in the regulated field, which means more expense and less consumer choice.

But there is a further aspect that no one is talking about yet. In addition to regulating and taxing the carbon dioxide emissions, the FedGovs stand to make a healthy profit. After all, the Federal government operates Hoover Dam and several other hydroelectric plants. Once the cap is put in place, the politicos can sell the credits from those plants to industry.

Still not convinced it's a bad idea? Well, you should know that Enron planned to corner the market on carbon dioxide credits, just as soon as the Kyoto Protocol was ratified by the United States Senate. It was why executives and lawyers from Enron helped write the Protocol in the first place.

Posted Sat - March 3, 2007 at 05:11 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Fri - March 2, 2007

Three quickies on global warming

First is this one.

Back in Tennessee on Tuesday, Gore told a crowd of about 50 people at the U.S. Media Ethics Summit II that the presentation's single most provocative slide was one that contrasts results of two long-term studies. A 10-year University of California study found that essentially zero percent of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles disagreed that global warming exists, whereas, another study found that 53 percent of mainstream newspaper articles disagreed the global warming premise.

He noted that recently the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its fourth unanimous report calling on world leaders to take action on global warming.

Again, no one is allowed to dissent. This is a central premise of the global warming dogma. It's Holy Writ.

Then there is this one. Regular readers will recognize it as old news, but it is good to see that the news is in circulation. Emphasis added.

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human- induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

And then there is this one. Seems like the EU is going to miss it's global warming goal.

The European Union is unlikely to meet the goal of a maximum 2 degree Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) rise in temperatures which it views as a threshold for dangerous climate change, a leading U.N. climate official said on Friday.

"It clearly seems very, very difficult to limit it to below 2 degrees," Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), told Reuters in a telephone interview.

Even with active government cooperation, the "warming trend" can't be stopped or even slowed significantly.

People should think about that.

Posted Fri - March 2, 2007 at 05:33 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Where does Al Gore buy his carbon offsets from?

This entry is from a blog and I haven't verified it yet. Evidently Al Gore buys his "carbon offsets" from a firm he founded.

Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.

And it is not clear at all that Gore's stock purchases - excuse me, "carbon offsets" purchases - actually help reduce the use of carbon-based energy at all, while the gas lanterns and other carbon-based energy burners at his house continue to burn carbon-based fuels and pump carbon emissions - a/k/a/ "greenhouse gases" - into the atmosphere.

It's not illegal and not even all that unethical. He uses his own firm's products.

But it should be part of the discussion. I don't imagine Al Gore would be popular if certain people knew that he profited off of his own carbon offsets.

Posted at 05:12 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Thu - March 1, 2007

Send the kids outside... (updated)

Via Sunfell's blog and NPR's All Things Considered comes this article at Orion Magazine.

As a boy, I pulled out dozens—perhaps hundreds—of survey stakes in a vain effort to slow the bulldozers that were taking out my woods to make way for a new subdivision. Had I known then what I’ve since learned from a developer, that I should have simply moved the stakes around to be more effective, I would surely have done that too. So you might imagine my dubiousness when, a few weeks after the publication of my 2005 book, Last Child in the Woods, I received an e-mail from Derek Thomas, who introduced himself as vice chairman and chief investment officer of Newland Communities, one of the nation’s largest privately owned residential development companies. “I have been reading your new book,” he wrote, “and am profoundly disturbed by some of the information you present.”

Thomas said he wanted to do something positive. He invited me to an envisioning session in Phoenix to “explore how Newland can improve or redefine our approach to open space preservation and the interaction between our homebuyers and nature.” A few weeks later, in a conference room filled with about eighty developers, builders, and real estate marketers, I offered my sermonette. The folks in the crowd were partially responsible for the problem, I suggested, because they destroy natural habitat, design communities in ways that discourage any real contact with nature, and include covenants that virtually criminalize outdoor play—outlawing tree-climbing, fort-building, even chalk-drawing on sidewalks.

I was ready to make a fast exit when Thomas, a bearded man with an avuncular demeanor, stood up and said, “I want you all to go into small groups and solve the problem: how are we going to build communities in the future that actually connect kids with nature?” The room filled with noise and excitement. By the time the groups reassembled to report the ideas they had generated, I had glimpsed the primal power of connecting children and nature: it can inspire unexpected advocates and lure unlikely allies to enter an entirely new place. Call it the doorway effect. Once through the door, they can revisualize seemingly intractable problems and produce solutions they might otherwise never have imagined.

This is environmentalism that I can support. Kids should be outside and in as much nature as possible.

As a Pagan, I get criticism because I do not automatically and enthusiastically support the global warming agenda without question. I am an environmentalist, just not in the sense that We Are In Crisis Because Of The Actions Of That Unnatural Beast And Destroyer Of The Natural Balance, Man. Practically speaking, this planet is the only thing we have for several foreseeable decades and possibly centuries to come. It's in our own self-interest as a species to take care of the planet, but we can only do that through individual choice. Part of my faith includes reverence for the planet and cherishing the cycles of life and death that shape us all.

And while I am at it, I am going to plug Sunship Earth, a great program that helps kids realize some very important things about this planet we live on. I volunteered for a Sunship Earth program one year, and I consider it one of the most rewarding times with children that I have ever spent.

Posted Thu - March 1, 2007 at 02:51 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Wed - February 28, 2007

Fighting the global warming agenda through science

I ran across the Petition Project in my internet explorations. Now I will admit that I do not have the science background to evaluate the qualifications of the people who have signed.

But, here is the debate on global warming. Far from being over, there are thousands of scientists who dispute the basic assumptions.

Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.

Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.

Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.

After doing some digging, it does look like there is an active effort to discredit the signers of the petition.

The signers, not the science or the claims. That alone should make people stand up and take notice.

If this debate were about almost any other public policy, you could count on the mainstream press to find opposing views.

Posted Wed - February 28, 2007 at 01:35 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Tue - February 27, 2007

"Do as I say, don't do as I do"

Word is going around the web about Al Gore's utility bill.'s Best of the Web Today has one of the better roundups. I totally agree with this quote.

Of course we don't begrudge Gore his life of luxury--only his sanctimonious insistence that the rest of us sacrifice our comforts to the dubious god of global warming. And there's no reason he couldn't live in a smaller house and throw his money at solar power.

There is an old Genesis song that really fits here. That is why I caged the chorus tag line to title this post.

Very few other things describe undeserved self-righteousness as well.

Is it any wonder that many people (including me) think that global warming has become a crusading religion?

Posted Tue - February 27, 2007 at 02:53 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Thu - February 22, 2007

Consensus doesn't mean true

Pete du Pont does a pretty good article on global warming. It's worth your time, but I want to draw attention to this bit.

Sometimes the consequences of bad science can be serious. In a 2000 issue of Nature Medicine magazine, four international scientists observed that "in less than two decades, spraying of houses with DDT reduced Sri Lanka's malaria burden from 2.8 million cases and 7,000 deaths [in 1948] to 17 cases and no deaths" in 1963. Then came Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring," invigorating environmentalism and leading to outright bans of DDT in some countries. When Sri Lanka ended the use of DDT in 1968, instead of 17 malaria cases it had 480,000.

Yet the Sierra Club in 1971 demanded "a ban, not just a curb," on the use of DDT "even in the tropical countries where DDT has kept malaria under control." International environmental controls were more important than the lives of human beings. For more than three decades this view prevailed, until the restrictions were finally lifted last September.

The DDT argument is an important one and I am including it in my FAQ. It may be the classic example of how "consensus science" can be wrong but still become public policy, even at the cost of thousands of lives.

Posted Thu - February 22, 2007 at 04:38 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sat - February 17, 2007

Climate models don't work with Anartic interior

I think I will just stand over here and whistle for a while instead of saying I told you so. Emphasis added.

A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.

This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth's climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.

It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.

David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco.

"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now," he said. "Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It's very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth."

Bromwich says that the problem rises from several complications. The continent is vast, as large as the United States and Mexico combined. Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe . And the records that we have only date back a half-century.

"The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica .

"We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment," he said.

Do you get the feeling that the models don't fit reality?

Maybe we should study and debate some more before planning to save the planet.

Especially if the planet doesn't need saving.

Posted Sat - February 17, 2007 at 03:37 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Major snowstorms are the perfect time to talk about global warming

Just remember, they tell us, it's global warming that must be stopped.

Not frozen interstates. Or ten hour waits at airports because the runways are frozen.

Global warming.

And even if weather changes aren't being caused by human action, what of it?

What's that? You didn't hear about that last one? You should have.

The impact of cosmic rays on the climate could be greater than scientists suspect after experiments showed they may have a pivotal role in cloud formation.

Researchers have managed to replicate the effect of cosmic rays on the aerosols in the atmosphere that help to create clouds. Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist in Denmark, said the experiments suggested that man’s influence on global warming might be rather less than was supposed by the bulk of scientific opinion.

Cosmic rays — radiation, or particles of energy, from stars, which bombard the Earth — can create electrically charged ions in the atmosphere that act as a magnet for water vapour, causing clouds to form.

Dr Svensmark suggests that the Sun, at a historically high level of activity, is deflecting many of the cosmic rays away from Earth and thus reducing the cloud cover.

Clouds reflect the Sun’s rays back into space and are considered to have an important cooling effect. However, if during periods of high activity the Sun’s magnetic field pushes a greater proportion of cosmic rays away from the Earth, fewer clouds will form.

This illustrates the whole issue.

We don't know what's happening.

We don't know if we can change it.

But we're not allowed to question the agenda.

I just want debate.

Posted at 03:13 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Fri - February 9, 2007

Follow the global warming money - Updated

Warren Meyer nails it.

So can I assume from all the angst over this that no scientist who is a strong proponent of anthropomorphic* global warming has ever accepted money or an honorarium for their research or publication?  May I assume that no environmental group has ever screened who they were going to give research grants to based on the scientist's prior writings and outlook on the topic?

I absolutely agree with him. There is no such thing as untainted money in science. The Righteousness of the Cause and Purity of Faith does not protect from corruption and should not excuse someone from criticism. If the money backing critics of global warming can be questioned, then so can the money backing global warming apologists.

I am still constantly amazed that I have to remind Pagans of this. Fundamentalism is fundamentalism, it doesn't matter if it is green, Christian, Muslim or anything else.

Or we could lose the political angle entirely and stick to the science...

Update - Regular reader BTHO pointed out on 24Feb2010 that the correct term is anthropogenic, not anthropomorphic*. Somewhere I changed it in my notes and didn't catch it. This time at least, it wasn't my quote.

Posted Fri - February 9, 2007 at 11:13 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 


Ever since I saw a PBS show based on Cadillac Desert years ago, I've been really conscious of water issues. Unlike global warming, we can measure water shortages and the dropping water table.

It looks like the free market is riding to the rescue.

Sites in emerging markets anticipate severe shortages of drinking water, but so do regions in Europe, South America and Australia. Nearly half of the hospital beds in the world host people with waterborne diseases.

Meanwhile, water consumption continues to escalate.

To top it off, we waste a lot of water. Nearly 60 percent of the drinking water in Chicago never makes it to the tap. It leaks out first.

The crisis, however, has drawn the attention of several start-ups and large conglomerates such as Siemens and General Electric. Some of the solutions to the world's water problems sound both obvious and brilliant.

So someone may profit from the solution, what of it? The desire for profit has driven more scientific and technical advances than anything else in history. Dairies didn't start pasteurizing milk until they figured that it would bring more sales. American cars didn't become gas efficient until after small imports started taking away sales. We'd still be stuck playing vinyl records if tapes and then CDs hadn't displaced the market.

Competition drives the prices down, and it looks like that is already happening.

Now the only thing that we have to do is keep government out of the picture, and you can count on the water problems being solved.

All without raising your taxes or declaring an emergency. Heck, we won't even have to do it "for the children."

Posted at 11:05 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

What debate?

Nick Schulz puts his finger on a problem.

The newspaper levels a serious charge - in effect that scientists were offered bribes by AEI. Any time a news organization levels an accusation this grave, it is incumbent upon it that the claims are fair and accurate. But the inaccuracies in this article appear right off that bat.

For starters, the article claims that AEI is a "lobby group." But it is no such thing. It is a research organization that is expressly prohibited by law from lobbying.

The author of the article, Ian Sample takes several quotes out of context. He claims the scientists were "offered... payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)." I know many of the folks at AEI and write a column for a magazine they publish and was surprised to hear this charge. So I asked around and received a copy of the letter containing the offer. As it turns out, this claim is wildly off base.

The call for papers by AEI explicitly states that "The purpose of this project is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change." Nowhere does Sample mention AEI asks participants to speak of the IPCC's strengths.

Sample also writes that AEI sought "essays that 'thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs.'" That makes it sound like they are offering money to undermine the IPCC's reliance on climate models. But in a letter to one of the scientists interviewed by the Guardian, the call for papers said "In particular, we are looking for an author who can write a well-supported but accessible discussion of which elements of climate modeling have demonstrated predictive value that might make them policy-relevant and which elements of climate modeling have less levels of predictive utility, and hence, less utility in developing climate policy." Sample does not mention the requests also sought to highlight the predictive value of the models. The letters are available online here and readers can assess them for themselves.

Sample rounds out his attack by publishing a quote from a Greenpeace activist who likened AEI to "Cosa Nostra." This characterization follows on the heels of other green groups suggesting those participants in the climate change debate with whom they disagree should face Nuremburg trials.

The now frequent resort to ad hominems - calling people with differing views mobsters and Nazis - is a hallmark of ideological thuggery. 

This latest attack fits into a pattern, one that is part of a creeping climate of hostility to free inquiry over questions of science and public policy. This should be troubling to scientists, journalists and politicians. The attempt is to cut off debate by questioning a person's motives. It's an example of what economist Arnold Kling calls "Type M" as opposed to "Type C" arguments. Type M arguments aren't really arguments at all - they are attacks on a person's alleged motives. Type C arguments are genuine as they wrestle with the consequences of certain policies. At the intersection of science and public policy, we are seeing more instances of people resorting to Type M arguments to cut off questioning and inquiry.

For all the noise about "the debate is over," I haven't seen any real answers to my four questions. All I have seen time and time again is attempts to discredit the critics.

The science isn't even in the debate. As this article from the Boston Globe shows.

By every measure, the U N 's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change raises the level of alarm. The fact of global warming is "unequivocal." The certainty of the human role is now somewhere over 90 percent. Which is about as certain as scientists ever get.

I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.


This great divide comes from the science-be-damned-and-debunked attitude of the Bush administration and its favorite media outlets. The day of the report, Big Oil Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma actually described it as "a shining example of the corruption of science for political gain." Speaking of corruption of science, the American Enterprise Institute, which has gotten $1.6 million over the years from Exxon Mobil, offered $10,000 last summer to scientists who would counter the IPCC report.

Odd how the associations of the critics are vitally important, while the "good guys" are never questioned.

I still want to see the science debated.

Posted at 03:01 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Thu - February 8, 2007

Global warming an attempt to control productivity?

Cato Craft at Strike the Root makes a strong argument.

Note that the issue isn't that mankind won't have food, water and power. The issue is that it may be coming from somewhere else. The point here is that global warming is not a harbinger of death and destruction to the human race. But it may be the harbinger of destruction to certain governments' ability to confiscate wealth from within its borders.  

That's not to say that there won't be tumultuous effects if the global warming pundits are right. There will be huge effects. The world will be much different in 50 or 100 years than it is now. But human beings are very adaptable, and free humans in a free market will adapt, and profit, quite readily under almost any circumstance.  

The major problems will be with governments who restrict or prevent free migration from the places that are no longer productive to those places that become productive. You see, you as an individual can go wherever the opportunities are. Governments can't.  With global warming, there are as many opportunities for individuals as there are threats. But governments can't up and follow opportunities, so there are just threats. The problems will arise from governments who see their nations' GDP threatened and their income stream threatened and will be willing to do anything to try to forestall the inevitable losses. They will spend mountains of money on sea walls, levees and pumps to protect coastal cities at the expense of people who don't live near the sea. They will enact legislation to force businesses to do all sorts of dubious things that will lead to more expensive products or drive them out of business. They will crack down on individual freedom: freedom of movement, freedom of markets. They will enter into all sorts of treaties and agreements with other governments, the outcome of which will be that those governments will continue to maintain their power and income as long as possible at the expense of individuals who get more limited, coerced, and subjugated. All this in the name of a “War on Global Warming.”  

Just something to think about.

Posted Thu - February 8, 2007 at 02:04 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Wed - February 7, 2007

Climate follies

Three global warming stories here.

The first one is a classic example of fear mongering. Things are so bad that it will take centuries to fix. Translation: Don't hold us accountable if our fixes don't work.

The second one I just have to quote. Emphasis added.

In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.


Now read this next bit and tell me it's not about the politics. Emphasis added again.

Taylor has held the title of "state climatologist" since 1991 when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU. The university created the job title, not the state.

His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon's policies.

So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.

In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor. The governor said Taylor's contradictions interfere with the state's stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases, the accepted cause of global warming in the eyes of a vast majority of scientists.

Don't you think that the emphasis should be on getting proof to back up that consensus? It shouldn't be that hard, after all.

My final quote on the subject today on the subject should be good for a laugh or two.

Former Vice President Al Gore said in an interview on Tuesday the Bush administration is now paying scientists to dispute global warming since the administration can no longer argue against it.

During an interview with CNN affiliate Cuatro in Madrid, Gore said, "they've lost the argument and they don't want to stop dumping all this pollution into the Earth's atmosphere. The only thing they have left is cash and now they're offering cash for so-called skeptics who will try to confuse people about what the science really say. But it's unethical because now the time has come when we have to act."

I want to know under what budget item paying off scientists comes under.

More importantly, I want to point out that it is not the Bush Administration that has been avoiding the debate.

Posted Wed - February 7, 2007 at 10:04 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Fri - January 26, 2007

"Scientists fear they have oversold global warming"

There is a quote about reaping the whirlwind that applies here, but I don't think I will mention it.


Emphasis added.

Scientists long have issued the warnings: The modern world's appetite for cars, air conditioning and cheap, fossil-fuel energy spews billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unnaturally warming the world.

Yet, it took the dramatic images of a hurricane overtaking New Orleans and searing heat last summer to finally trigger widespread public concern on the issue of global warming.

Climate scientists might be expected to bask in the spotlight after their decades of toil. The general public now cares about greenhouse gases, and with a new Democratic-led Congress, federal action on climate change may be at hand.

Problem is, global warming may not have caused Hurricane Katrina, and last summer's heat waves were equaled and, in many cases, surpassed by heat in the 1930s.

In their efforts to capture the public's attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming? It's probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.

"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster," says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.

Vranes, who is not considered a global warming skeptic by his peers, came to this conclusion after attending an American Geophysical Union meeting last month. Vranes says he detected "tension" among scientists, notably because projections of the future climate carry uncertainties — a point that hasn't been fully communicated to the public.

That is what happens when you use fear, uncertainty, and doubt to short circuit reason.

There is still time to debate global warming, but I bet that won't happen.

Posted Fri - January 26, 2007 at 02:35 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sun - January 21, 2007

Tell me that global warming is not political - Updated

So now at least one global warming apologist wants to go after meteorologists who do not toe the line.

A leading climatologist on the Weather Channel in the United States has caused a squall in the industry by arguing that any weather forecaster who dares publicly to question the notion that global warming is a manmade phenomenon should be stripped of their professional certification.

The call was made by Heidi Cullen, host of a weekly global warming programme on the cable network called The Climate Code, and coincides with a stretch of severely off-kilter weather across the US this winter and moves by Democrats to draft strict new legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Specifically, Ms Cullen is suggesting that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revokes the "seal of approval" that it normally extends to broadcast forecasters in the US in cases where they have expressed scepticism about man's role in pushing up planetary temperatures.

"It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather," she wrote in her internet blog. "It's not a political statement... it's just an incorrect statement."

The response has been heated (pun intended). Emphasis added in the final line of the quote.

I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country. Our big job: look at a large volume of raw data and come up with a public weather forecast for the next seven days. I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them.


If you don’t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.

In fact, I encourage you to listen to WeatherBrains episode number 12, featuring Alabama State Climatologist John Christy, and WeatherBrains episode number 17, featuring Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University, one of the most brilliant minds in our science.

WeatherBrains, by the way, is our weekly 30 minute netcast.

I have nothing against “The Weather Channel”, but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won’t go.

Gee, political and cultural and unsupported by science. Where have we heard that before?

But it gets better. Check the wording on this article.

When it comes to squandering the earth's natural resources, residents of this desert land of chilled swimming pools, monster 4x4s and air-conditioned malls are on a par with even the ravenous consumption of Americans, according to the World Wildlife Fund.

That was the opening paragraph of the article. No sign of bias, right?

This particular article can't even get all it's facts straight.

But the oil-rich Emirates is considered a developing country, and even as a signatory to the United Nations' Kyoto protocol on global warming, is not required to cut emissions. The United States is no longer bound by Kyoto, which the Bush administration rejected after taking office in 2001.

President Bill Clinton never even submitted the Kyoto treaty to the Senate for ratification in 1997 because an overwhelming, veto-proof majority of Senators said they would vote against it.

The United States was never bound by the Kyoto protocol. All President Bush did in 2001 was affirm that the U.S. would not honor a treaty that it had not agreed too.

The AP is revising history here.

All this has one point.

Look at who is trying to crush anyone who dares disagree.

Then ask why?

UPDATE - A reader pointed out that quoting three separate articles in one entry was confusing and I needed to show that it was indeed three different articles. So I changed the coloring.

Posted Sun - January 21, 2007 at 03:27 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Fri - January 12, 2007

Common sense versus global warming

The global warming alarmists are getting louder. Emphasis added.

The effects of global warming are being felt around the world and unless international efforts are launched within the next 10 years, species will disappear and the Earth will be a vastly less habitable planet by the end of the century, according to NASA scientist James E. Hansen.

"Global warming is already starting, and there's going to be more of it. I think there is still time to deal with global warming, but we need to act soon. Humans now control global climate, for better or worse," Hansen said Tuesday at an annual gathering of meteorologists.

Let's take a quick look, shall we?

First, it's not like plant and animal species ever went extinct WITHOUT human action one way or another. Oops! Looks like maybe they have.

"Earth will be a vastly less habitable planet." For who, animals, plants, or humans? For the last 200,000 years, there has been plenty of evidence of all. About ten thousand years ago, we entered a interglacial period where the climate got warmer. Not surprisingly, that dovetails ALMOST exactly with the rise of human civilization.

General rule, the warmer and damper the climate is, the more life it supports.

Second general rule, life adapts. Not by "choosing" which forms survive, but by conserving success in response to local conditions.

If humans now control global climate, then why all the fuss about global warming? The simple answer is that humans do not control the climate or the weather. You can't have it both ways.

But if humans can be blamed for "terrible" climate changes to come, than that justifies controlling human action.

These soundbites are meant to stampede people into giving up their freedom.

Posted Fri - January 12, 2007 at 02:28 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - January 8, 2007

What about that weather?

In all the noise about global warming and the abnormal winter we're having, I just want to point out one quote.

The city hasn't seen one since last spring. Not even a trace flurry. The last time that happened was in the winter of 1877-1878, according to the National Weather Service.

Who's to blame? Joe Pollina, meteorologist with the weather service, said don't start pointing fingers at global warming -- not yet anyway.

"For global warming, you have to look at years, not just days," he said. "This is probably associated with El Nino that's occurring right now."

El Nino is a cyclical warming trend now under way in the Pacific Ocean, which can lead to milder weather, particularly in the Northeast.

"We are not able to tap into the Arctic air of Canada," Pollina said. But added snow could come later this month.

"There's a definitely a chance ... but everything has to come together," he said.

Posted Mon - January 8, 2007 at 05:05 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sat - December 30, 2006

Ask the trees

Sometimes established thinking is wrong. Especially when it comes to the environment.

I was lucky to be at Rackham’s debut, at a conference 30 years ago. He was a shy young Cambridge botanist then, and was addressing the seemingly uncontroversial subject of The Oak Tree in Historic Times. But his paper turned out to be a bombshell, a clinical demolition of foresters’ paternalism and an awesomely evidenced account of the fact that, for most of human history, trees had been regarded and used as a self- renewing resource. He described how he had measured all the main timbers in the original part of his college, Corpus Christi (there were 1,249, mostly small squared trees about 7ins in diameter), and calculated how frequently such a building could have been created from the renewable oaks of an ordinary Cambridgeshire wood. He blew away the notion that felling trees destroyed woodland.

In the half-dozen books he has written since, he has revolutionised our understanding of historical ecology. In sharp and exquisite English, and with a historical intuition as strong as his scientific rigour, he has laid waste the conventional wisdom of foresters, the ideologies of theoretical naturalists, the “pseudo-histories” of historians. His simple — and to him sacrosanct — precept is that the final arbiter in all arguments about woodland must be the trees and woods themselves, in all their dynamic, mutable, particular detail.

In the foreword to Woodlands he lays out his credo — that trees are not “merely part of the theatre of landscape in which human history is played out, or the passive recipients of whatever destiny humanity foists on them . . . (they are) actors in the play”, with multiple interactions with time, and all other organisms, including people — then concludes, disarmingly, “For good or ill, I have no particular theory to promote.” Well, if that is not a theory, or at least a manifesto, I do not know what is.


There is a particular paternalistic attitude in the environmental movement. Somehow, only human actions matter. Only humans can doom a species. Only humans can save the Earth. It's our fault if we don't act now.

Humans should accept that we are not the only life on the planet. Our notions of right and wrong may not translate.

For example, there is little doubt that public land mismanagement has made wildfires in the Western US much worse and much more devastating. If the deadwood had been cleared out, if the forests had been thinned, the fires wouldn't have been all that dangerous. In fact, part of the "natural" cycle is for the wildfires to periodically burn out the land.

But it is not very environmentally correct to say so.

Posted Sat - December 30, 2006 at 06:27 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sun - December 24, 2006


I'm still in the process of putting my Global Warming FAQ together, it's taking longer than I thought. It's hard to keep in interesting and still explain things.

Well I ran across this while researching.

What the term Global Warming does actually mean is a colder climate. Strangely, how cold it gets will depend on how warm it gets. If the ice caps continue to melt at the present rate, a mini ice age that could last hundreds of years may happen within the next decade.

As more and more fresh water is introduced, (which is less dense than salt water) the Atlantic's Great Ocean Conveyor which drives the Gulf Stream will move slower and slower, eventually possibly stopping, leaving tropical air and water where it is instead of pumping it north.
Studies have shown that the surface water of the Greenland sea is dropping 20% slower than it was 30 years ago, and warm ocean current flow toward northwest Europe has declined by 30% since the 1950s.

What she is describing (sort of) is a compensator. I'm not sure if she realizes it, but she negated her own argument. If a warming trend triggers a cooling mechanism, then there is no real danger from global warming because the system (climate) compensates for it.

That is part of the problem that I have with the global warming theory. It focuses on just a few factors while excluding everything else.

Posted Sun - December 24, 2006 at 07:39 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Fri - December 8, 2006

Environmental story you won't see on the news

The chances are pretty good you haven't heard about this one.

Cattle are a greater threat to the environment than automobiles, because they produce a greater quantity of greenhouse gases, a UN report claimed yesterday.

The UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said growth in the livestock sector would contribute far more greenhouse gases than transportation accelerating the calamitous process of global warming.

According to its estimate, intestinal gases from farm animals, gases from manure, deforestation to create pastures and the energy consumed by livestock businesses, together account for 18 percent of greenhouse gases currently.

All those cattle produce extra methane and nitrous oxide, both greenhouse gases much more potent than carbon dioxide. Cattle produced ammonia may be mostly responsible for acid rain.

There are a several reasons why you won't hear about this. First and foremost is that it's an agricultural situation that can't be blamed mostly on the United States and the West. In order to "solve the problem," farmers in developing countries would have to be targeted much more than in the West because that is where most of the growth is expected.

Assuming FOR THE MOMENT that the global warming theory is valid, there is no money or control if the West can't be targeted.

But the second reason is buried a little later in the article.

The annual growth in meat and dairy product consumption was because of “increase prosperity”.

Yep, I emphasized it deliberately. It is almost a throwaway line in the story, but it cuts to the heart of the global warming debate and to freedom itself.

Richer people choose to buy more meat and dairy products.

If a farmer wants to get richer, he chooses to raise cattle and other farm animals.

Wealth is increased because people are free to choose.

There is no way to sell the "solution" without abolishing the free markets and destroying the mechanisms for creating wealth.

And sure enough, the article calls for expanded government controls.

Now, most people have a misconception when talking about government and wealth. Government tends to prevent wealth, protect existing wealth, or confiscate wealth. When I talk about mechanisms for creating wealth, I do not mean government mechanisms.

I mean the tools that enable someone to change their economic position. While changing these tools will have minimal effect at economic extremes, those same tools have huge impact on marginal behaviors. Someone with several million dollars may not care if they can borrow against their house to start a business, but the ability to borrow allows someone with much less income to concentrate capital enough to get started.

Government controls are seldom aimed at the rich, but they are ALWAYS aimed at those trying to become richer by their own efforts.

I don't believe that it's accidental that most of the global warming "solutions" involve drastic controls on wealth and industry.

Posted Fri - December 8, 2006 at 11:02 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Senate hearing and global warming

Admittedly this is a Republican Senator. Admittedly he might have an axe to grind.

But let's not overlook the fact that he had no problem finding qualified scientists who disagree with the global warming theory. Emphasis added.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee, said today’s hearing about the media and climate change revealed that “Scare tactics should not drive public policy.” The hearing’s purpose was to examine the media’s presentation of climate science and featured scientists and media experts.

“As the Democrats rush to pass costly carbon cap legislation in the next Congress, today’s hearing showed that the so-called ‘scientific consensus’ does not exist. Leading scientists from the U.S. and Australia denounced much of the media for becoming advocates for alarmism rather than objectivity,” Senator James Inhofe said.

“I was particularly interested in testimony by Dr. Daniel Schrag of Harvard University, who believes that manmade emissions are driving global warming. Dr. Schrag said the Kyoto Protocol is not the right approach to take and agreed it would have almost no impact on the climate even if all the nations fully complied,” Inhofe added. Currently 13 of the 15 EU nations are failing to meet the requirements of Kyoto.

During his opening remarks, Senator Inhofe stated, “Rather than focus on the hard science of global warming, the media has instead become advocates for hyping scientifically unfounded climate alarmism.” Senator Inhofe cited criticism from believers in manmade global warming who have slammed the media for presenting “a quasi-religious register of doom, death [and] judgment” and compared the media’s coverage to the “unreality of Hollywood films.”

Science is not now and never has been a matter of consensus. Politics is a matter of consensus.

So let's have the debate.

Remember that human caused global warming is just a theory, and a radical departure from the theories that came before. It has to be proved before we can act on it. Clear cause and effect have to be shown.

Remember too that this planet of ours is more than four billion years old. That is billion with a "B." Even if we were to restrict our studies to the last ten thousand years, that is approximately .0000025% of the total age of the Earth.

To put it into perspective, if the Earth's age was a year, that ten thousand year span would be about a minute and a half. Can you tell me what the average temperature for this year is based on the reading from 9:52 to 9:56 last Monday morning?

Al Gore's time span in his film is a thousand years, one tenth of the span I am suggesting. Why do you suppose he doesn't want to talk about the previous nine thousand years?

Remember too that ANY data from before the 20th Century is suspect. Remember too that there were no accurate ways to get widespread ocean temperatures before weather satellites.

The fact is, even with everything we know now, there is NO ONE who can tell you the average global temperature at this very moment. Sky Harbor Airport can be 10 degrees different from downtown Phoenix, and that is just within a single city.

So bring on the theory. All I demand is that it be subject to scientific verification, the same as any other theory. No more declaring that the debate is over because there is a consensus and then suppressing dissent. That makes it politics, not science.

Hat tip Newsbusters.

Posted at 04:27 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Tue - November 28, 2006

Ignoring the obvious

James Lovelock created the Gaia hypothesis. And unfortunately, he's become a Global Warming Crusader.

As a science enthusiast, I find the Gaia hypothesis seems like an elegant fit to a number of questions. As a Pagan, I find meditating on it fulfilling on multiple levels.

Dr. Lovelock is missing most of the implications.

Every life form from at least the single cell level on this planet has developed ways to deal with heat and dangerous environments.

If the Gaia hypothesis holds, then the planet itself is the most marvelous and complex form of life known to humanity.

There is absolutely no reason to assume that the planet as a life form does not have not have immune and regulation mechanisms.

I've gone on before about how the global warming theory is not yet supported by evidence. How the proof of global warming is mainly computer models. How the people's beliefs and public opinion polls do not necessarily reflect facts.

But I really want to focus on the attitude here.

Why do people believe that humanity is uniquely situated to either doom or save the planet?

I can't help but think that this is another form of the guilt syndrome we've talked about before.

I believe the planet can take care of itself. Of course, I could be wrong. After all, it's only had four billion years to prove it, most of that without humans.

Posted Tue - November 28, 2006 at 08:26 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Tue - November 21, 2006

Setting priorities

This is an older one, but it got put on the bottom of my pile.

It's important though, even if it isn't the first time Bjorn Lomborg has encouraged this kind of thinking.

The report that received the headlines was Monday's 700-page jeremiad out of London on fighting climate change. Commissioned by the British government and overseen by former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern, the report made the intentionally shocking prediction that global warming could eliminate from 5% to 20% of world economic output "forever." Meanwhile, doing the supposedly virtuous thing and trying to forestall this catastrophe would cost merely an estimated 1% of world GDP. Thus we must act urgently and with new taxes and policies that go well beyond anything in the failed Kyoto Protocol.

The other event was a meeting at the United Nations organized by economist Bjørn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus Center. Ambassadors from 24 countries--including Australia, China, India and the U.S.--mulled which problems to address if the world suddenly found an extra $50 billion lying around. Mr. Lomborg's point is that, in a world with scarce resources, you need priorities. The consensus was that communicable diseases, sanitation and water, malnutrition and hunger, and education were all higher priorities than climate change.

We invited Mr. Lomborg to address the Stern report, and he takes apart its analysis brick-by-brick here. To our reading, there isn't much left of this politicized edifice. But we'd stress a couple of points ourselves.

The first is that the Stern review almost surely understates the real costs of combating climate change. The International Energy Agency has estimated that the world must spend $16 trillion on infrastructure from 2001 to 2030 just to meet growing energy demand. That by itself would be 1% of GDP over that period. And that doesn't include the cost of moving to carbon-free power from fossil fuels, or the financial "incentives"--i.e., global subsidies from Western taxpayers--that China and India would need if the Stern report's policies were to have any chance of being implemented. The Stern review also calls for substantially increasing taxes, which we know from experience would also reduce global GDP and thus leave fewer resources to fight the consequences of any warming.

The article is talking about tradeoffs. Engineers and scientists do tradeoffs all the time. We could build a car that is incredibly safe, gas efficient, and with almost no environmental impact.

But who would want a car in the $100,000 range that you could only drive a few days a year?

As California learned, regulating the price of electricity increases the chances of "rolling blackouts." It's not that the energy isn't available, it's just that it's undeliverable without profit.

Even assuming for a moment that global warming is human caused catastrophe that must be avoided (an assumption I DO NOT SHARE), what has government done to show that they can be trusted with economic power on this scale?

At least in the United States, some of the officials are accountable. That isn't so in the United Nations, and certainly isn't so in most of the member states. And that is before the social tweaks get put into place.

Posted Tue - November 21, 2006 at 01:00 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sun - November 12, 2006

"Pay up...or the planet gets it"

Somebody finally admitted it. Global warming scare mongering is just government extortion.

Mr Ainsworth said: “We want to know whether tax increases on activities which pollute will be offset by tax cuts on activities which don’t. Our aim is not to increase the tax burden on hard-working families.”

And Prof Julian Morris, environmental economist at Buckingham University and director of the International Policy Network, said: “I’m afraid it will be Sun readers who will be most affected by these changes.

“The price of their cheap flights will rise, making a short break abroad more costly.

“The cost of visiting their family will rise, because of increased petrol duty.

“And people will effectively be forced to buy energy-saving televisions and long-life lightbulbs by a nannying Government. Their whole way of life will alter forever.”

The green proposals are revealed as leaked documents show people living in crime-free areas are to be penalised with a giant hike in council tax.

It's all based on forecasts, computer models. What's more, the case for global warming depends on the assumption of an unchanging climate.

We know that is not what happens.

Global warming is just the justification for government control. It always has been.

Before you think that is such a good idea, ask yourself why you thought President Bush was bad for the environment. Government control is "good" when the people you agree with are in charge. Otherwise that power will be turned against you.

The only way to keep the "bad guys" from control is to make sure that government doesn't have the power in the first place.

Posted Sun - November 12, 2006 at 01:22 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Fri - November 3, 2006

Choosing sides

Sorry, been feeling tired and out of sorts.

Election season always takes it out of me. I am so tired of political promises.

Juliaki sent me a link to this article.

The question is not if this White House tried to muzzle scientists, any more than it is that the Clinton Administration tried to muzzle critics of global warming (they did).

The first question is what constitutes "muzzling."

The second question is why a supposedly scientific debate has become a major political issue.

Based on the evidence so far, it's not about global warming. It's about economic control.

In this case, there is not enough evidence in the article to say if it is "muzzling" or not. The Dixie Chicks still claim censorship even though there was no government action against them. Cher proclaimed that the re-election of George Bush would mean that homosexuality would be outlawed. Bill Clinton told the world that it depended on what the definition of "is" is.

That has at least as much to do with global warming as the Big Bang does.

I am critical of the global warming apologists because they haven't made their case and they imply that all scientists or at least all reputable scientists believe that global warming is exclusively human caused and it is A BAD THING.

That's not true, we know it's not true, and simple web searches can show it's not true. Yet it is constantly reported as "fact." Even this article reports "scientists say" instead of "some scientists say."

Here's a fact for you, by far most of the stories I see about global warming are not about measurable climate differences, but about people's belief in global warming. If you weed out the poll results, the celebrity comments, the posturing by politicians, and the publicity stunts, you are left with one word.


Science isn't measured by politics, by poll results, or by celebrity announcements.

The goal is to do it "for your own good."

And the cost will be your freedom

Posted Fri - November 3, 2006 at 01:44 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - October 30, 2006

UK green tax

This leaked as a secret program in the UK this morning. Emphasis added.

Secret plans for a multi-billion-pound package of stealth taxes on fuel, cars, air travel and consumer goods have been drawn up by the government to combat global warming.

The proposals, leaked to The Mail on Sunday, show that the Government is considering introducing a raft of hard-hitting 'eco-taxes' that will have a devastating effect on the cost of living.
Families with big cars could end up paying more than £1,000 a year extra in tax. And nearly every household in Britain will be hit in the pocket.

Most controversial of all, the documents reveal the Government is planning to grab billions of pounds of extra revenue from motorists - without telling them. It is considering introducing a special mechanism so that whenever oil prices go down, the Government would get the cash in extra fuel tax - not the motorist.

A leaked letter from Environment Secretary David Miliband to Chancellor Gordon Brown says the advantage of this is that the Government would gain billions of pounds 'without individual announcements on fuel-duty rises needing to be made'.

Now, where is the proof of human caused global warming? It's not there.

By this afternoon, the leak was confirmed. It reads more like a tax grab though. Somehow when taxes are used to promote a "moral purpose," morals don't improve. Take a look at this quote.

Mr Ainsworth said: “We want to know whether tax increases on activities which pollute will be offset by tax cuts on activities which don’t. Our aim is not to increase the tax burden on hard-working families.”

If the aim is not to increase the tax burden on hard-working families, then why on Earth are they trying to increase taxes?

Any tax plan that has to be secret and is "for your own good" is not good law.

Posted Mon - October 30, 2006 at 05:32 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Fri - October 20, 2006

"It's not as bad as we said before, but we are still DOOMED!"

Oops! The story changed. Emphasis added.

The vast sheet of ice that covers Greenland is shrinking fast, but still not as fast as previous research indicated, NASA scientists said on Thursday.

Greenland's low coastal regions lost 155 gigatons (41 cubic miles) of ice each year between 2003 and 2005 from excess melting and icebergs, the scientists said in a statement.

The high-elevation interior gained 54 gigatons (14 cubic miles) annually from excess snowfall, they said.

This is a change from the 1990s, when ice gains approximately equaled losses, said Scott Luthcke of NASA's Planetary Geodynamics Laboratory outside Washington.

"That situation has now changed significantly, with an annual net loss of ice equal to nearly six years of average water flow from the Colorado River," Luthcke said.

Luthcke and his team reported their findings in Science Express, the advance edition of the journal Science.

The ice mass loss in this study is less than half that reported in other recent research, NASA said in a statement, but it still shows that Greenland is losing 20 percent more mass than it gets in new snowfall each year.

I keep telling people this is a natural cycle, and periods as small as a decade really don't indicate much. Truthfully a thousand years makes a better baseline, and ten thousand better still.

But with a baseline that long, humans cease being the villains in the global warming drama because there isn't a global warming cycle that is all that different from history,

That does mean that we humans do inflict environmental change, just as does every other species. Whether it is damage or not still remains to be seen. Rats, cockroaches, and pigeons, for example, love humans because our numbers increase their numbers.

I do not believe that the planet can be irreparably harmed by human action. Life adapts. Nor do I believe that global warming is caused by human action.

I do believe, but as a Pagan and a libertarian, that we have been given a trust to make the planet a better place than we found it.

Posted Fri - October 20, 2006 at 04:38 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Tue - October 17, 2006

September brought different weather all over the globe

This article shows why "global warming" is hard to measure.

Oct. 16, 2006 — September 2006 was cooler than average for the continental U.S., providing relief from the second-warmest summer on record, according to scientists at the NOAA National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. September was the first cooler-than-average month for the continental U.S. since May 2005. Drought conditions also improved in some areas of the nation, with nationally averaged precipitation above average during September. The global temperature remained well above average.

Translation: September was cooler for the continental United States, but not worldwide.

It's still not enough to show a trend.

The planet is estimated to be approximately 4 billion years old. That is 4,000,000,000 years. The century that most global warming apologists will tell you about is .0000025% of the total. That isn't even a blip on the recording graph. And as this last month showed, what happened in one spot on the globe didn't happen everywhere.

The global warming crowd is so willing to convict humanity of crimes against the planet that they are unwilling to examine the natural cycles.

Posted Tue - October 17, 2006 at 04:35 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Thu - October 12, 2006

Trials for environmental dissent?

Sometimes I wonder about people. This being a classic example.

When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.

David Roberts later showed admirable character by retracting the Nuremberg comment.

It does raise some issues though. What happens to freedom when criticism and skepticism is not allowed?

There are those who use falsehoods to deny global warming, granted.

But there are many more who use falsehoods to argue for human caused global warming.

I want debate. I want arguments. I want to see the data tested.

I do not believe that someone should get a pass just because their position is the "correct" one.

Posted Thu - October 12, 2006 at 04:52 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Wed - October 11, 2006

"The turtle war"

Richard W. Rahn proves that economic ignorance can have catastrophic environmental impact.

Sea turtles, like many animals and fish not raised in farms, are over-exploited because no one owns them; and as a result, their numbers in the wild have been declining for hundreds of years.  The turtles also have been suffering from a loss of habitat.  Their nesting areas, tropical beaches, are also preferred by humans for living and leisure.  Human activities, such as boating, fishing and beach sports, take their toll of turtle eggs and hatchlings.  As the human population grows, particularly in tropical beach areas, the turtle is increasingly pushed out. 
The solution put forward by many environmentalists was to ban any global trade in turtle products, which was eventually accomplished in the 1970s.  The problem is the turtle does not recognize national borders, and hence protection does not work because low-income countries have little incentive or means to stop turtle poaching or more profitable uses for beach areas. 
In the 1960s, several visionaries and entrepreneurs were able to see the potential and benefits of turtle farming.  They established a turtle farm in Cayman with the goal of selling the meat and other turtle products for profit, while releasing substantial quantities of 2-year-old turtles into the sea to replenish wild stocks.  (If turtle eggs are incubated and the hatchlings are raised to 2 or 3 years of age, mortality rates are very low.)
After considerable time and expense (it takes a sea turtle many years to grow to maturity), the founders of the turtle farm proved the concept’s viability.  Unfortunately, by the time they were able to develop what could have been a profitable business, the endangered species act was passed in the U.S., as well as similar laws in other countries.  These laws, in essence, prohibited the international marketing of turtle products which doomed the Cayman project. 

The feel good solution isn't always the right one.

Posted Wed - October 11, 2006 at 05:04 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

US Population unsustainable?

Andrew Buncombe tries to raise the clarion call of panic.

Some American commentators are already saying the landmark is a chance to note the US is perhaps the only country in the developed world where the economy is being bolstered by a population that is growing at a discernable rate. But many experts say passing the 300 million milestone should be a wake-up call that demands a reappraisal of the extraordinary, unparalleled rate of consumption by the world's largest economy and its third largest by population.

As an economic model for the rest of the world to follow - in particular the rapidly developing economies of China and India - it is unsustainable, they say.

On a global scale the average US citizen uses far more than his or her fair share of the planet's resources - consuming more than four times the worldwide average of energy, almost three times as much water and producing more than twice the average amount of rubbish and five times the amount of carbon dioxide, a major contributor to global warming. The US - with five per cent of the world's population - uses 23 per cent of its energy, 15 per cent of its meat and 28 per cent of its paper. Additional population will mean more people seeking a share of those often-limited resources.

This is a classic example of propaganda and I want to take time to look at it carefully.

Four times the worldwide average of energy - This is comparing apples to kumquats. If the average includes everyone from someone starving in Somalia to Paris Hilton, of course the United States uses more energy. That doesn't mean that the US is greedy because it uses more energy. It just means that people in the US have the means to do more.

Same goes for water. This is actually pretty deceptive in itself. Mostly water is reclaimed or ends up back in the water cycle. It's not like the water from Bill Gates bathtub is totally lost and can never be used again.

Of course the US may produce more carbon dioxide, but it is amazing how much certain areas get overlooked. Do Chinese industrial plants providing American products get counted against the United States or China? By the time you factor in another major greenhouse gas, methane, that comes from agriculture, the carbon dioxide hit is not as bad as you have been told.

Uses 23 percent of the energy - Anyone want to look at how much of that power is generated in the United States?

15% of it's meat - Much of which is grown in the United States. Last time I checked, all the other meat consumed in the United States was purchased.

28% of it's paper - Still a lot of this produced in the United States. Personally I am all in favor of hemp paper, lasts longer, cheaper to produce, faster to grow. The paper that isn't used in the United States is bought on the international market.

We're not sending commandos out to seize people's meat and paper, there aren't energy pirates sneaking into Germany to divert electricity from power plants to Michigan. When something comes from outside the United States, it's bought and paid for.

At the same time, demand for these products means that it takes fewer resources to produce the goods. American farmlands produce more crops per acre than they did 50 years ago, and vastly more than much of the world. The technology advanced because people wanted more.

These aren't finite resources we're talking about, and efficiency grows as time goes on.

Posted at 04:32 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Tue - October 10, 2006

Environmentalist jetsetters

I still don't think that human caused global warming has been proven, but it is nice that someone else is noticing that some of the global warming clique are jetsetters.

They are the green jetsetters — environmental campaigners who are leading the fight to restrict aviation and cut greenhouse gas emissions, but who also clock up hundreds of thousands of miles flying around the world on business and pleasure.

In the past year the directors and chief executives of groups such as WWF, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the Soil Association have crisscrossed the globe, visiting the Falklands, Japan, Africa and Brazil.

All are running high-profile campaigns to persuade people to change their lifestyles and cut emissions of carbon dioxide.

George Monbiot, a leading environmentalist, said this weekend he was “very disappointed — especially if they are flying on holiday”. Heat, Monbiot’s new book on climate change, warns of disastrous temperature rises unless western countries cut carbon emissions by 90% by 2030, meaning a virtual end to flying.

Among those with the highest air miles is Bob Napier, chief executive of WWF, formerly the World Wildlife Fund, one of the best-known environment groups. In the past 12 months he has visited Spitsbergen, Borneo, Washington, Geneva, and Beijing on business trips and taken a holiday in the Falklands, generating more than 11 tons of carbon dioxide. A typical British household creates about six tons of CO2 a year.

Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, flew to Malaysia, South Africa, and Amsterdam on business and took his family on holiday to Slovakia in the past year. This weekend he is on a business trip to Nigeria. His trips are estimated to have generated at least eight tons of CO2.

“This is the dilemma faced by all international organisations, including green ones,” said Juniper. “We do all we can to cut travel but we need to do some flying to make decisions.”

The good intentions may be there, but let us talk about the public perception.

Why should one set of rules apply to the "environmentally aware" and another to everyone who is not "enlightened?"

Why should the "morality" or one group govern everyone else?

Why should the beliefs of one group govern everyone else?

In this case, it is environmentalism. But generally, this is the defining issue of our times.

Choose your poison.

Religion in schools?

"Protecting" marriage?

Internet gambling?

"Abusing" painkillers?

And in every case, a certain group wants to be "excused" from the rules.

Morality laws aren't moral by any stretch of the imagination. But claiming moral goals to excuse yourself from the rules violates morality.

Posted Tue - October 10, 2006 at 04:49 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Fri - September 29, 2006

U.S. Senator ready to debate global warming

I'd rather see this debate happening somewhere other than the Senate, but I will take it anywhere it happens.

This morning, CNN ran a segment criticizing my speech on global warming and attempted to refute the scientific evidence I presented to counter climate fears.

First off, CNN reporter Miles O’Brien inaccurately claimed I was “too busy” to appear on his program this week to discuss my 50 minute floor speech on global warming. But they were told I simply was not available on Tuesday or Wednesday.

I did appear on another CNN program today -- Thursday -- which I hope everyone will watch. The segment airs tonight on CNN’s Headline News at 7pm and repeats at 9pm and midnight Eastern.
Second, CNN’s O’Brien falsely claimed that I was all “alone on Capitol Hill” when it comes to questioning global warming.

Mr. O’Brien is obviously not aware that the U.S. Senate has overwhelmingly rejected Kyoto style carbon caps when it voted down the McCain-Lieberman climate bill 60-28 last year – an even larger margin than its rejection in 2003.

Third, CNN’s O’Brien, claimed that my speech earlier contained errors regarding climate science. O’Brien said my claim that the Antarctic was actually cooling and gaining ice was incorrect. But both the journals Science and Nature have published studies recently finding – on balance – Antarctica is both cooling and gaining ice.

CNN’s O’Brien also criticized me for saying polar bears are thriving in the Arctic. But he ignored that the person I was quoting is intimately familiar with the health of polar bear populations. Let me repeat what biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor from the Arctic government of Nunavut, a territory of Canada, said recently:

“Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.”

CNN’s O’Brien also ignores the fact that in the Arctic, temperatures were warmer in the 1930’s than today.

O’Brien also claimed that the “Hockey Stick” temperature graph was supported by most climate scientists despite the fact that the National Academy of Sciences and many independent experts have made it clear that the Hockey Stick’s claim that the 1990’s was the hottest decade of the last 1000 years was unsupportable.

So it seems my speech struck a nerve with the mainstream media. Their only response was to cherry pick the science in a failed attempt to refute me.

One side has declared the debate over, and is only too willing to dismiss arguments if they "don't fit."

Even if the global warming arguments hold up (and I don't think that they do), the "solution" would cost trillions of dollars and may well trigger an economic catastrophe.

There is one thing that I would like people to remember about global warming.

Every single prediction is based on computer models which have failed every time to predict the weather, much less the climate.

I can create a spreadsheet showing that in 20 years time, I will control the world's supply of semiconductor chips. But just because the spreadsheet exists and a lot of work went into it doesn't mean that it is accurate. Each assumption in the spreadsheet has to be valid or the results are wrong. The assumptions have to be tested and related to actual measurements. In this case, the measurements do not support the spreadsheet. I do not own a semiconductor fabrication plant. I am not wealthy enough to acquire or finance one. I know very very little about semiconductor chip design, and certainly not enough to create a revolutionary new product. In short, the odds are heavily against me, and a spreadsheet that predicts my cornering the world's semiconductor supply is an inaccurate model.

On the other hand, I have a handy little program on my Palm that predicts the local sunrise and sunset based on my location. It's never failed me yet. It's an accurate model and repeated testing shows that.

We depend on accurate models to be our tools. A Chicago roadmap doesn't work in Anchorage. A 1978 phonebook probably won't have the number you are looking for. The recipe for cream sauce won't tell you how to bake bread. Models only become tools if they are accurate.

Otherwise they are play pretties, good to look at but totally impractical.

Posted Fri - September 29, 2006 at 04:33 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Thu - September 28, 2006

Governor just stuck the taxpayers with the bill

You'd think that Governor Schwazenegger would know better, after all, he claims to support the free market.

Let's assess the damage.

In a ceremony on San Francisco's Treasure Island with the city's skyline as a backdrop, Schwarzenegger declared the beginning of "a bold new era of environmental protection in California that will change the course of history" as he approved AB32, which calls for the state to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases by 25 percent by 2020. <snip>

That 25% figure is awfully arbitrary, isn't it? What happens when the state can't meet this goal? What other gases? The extra costs of refining are going to have to be paid somewhere. Will California just push those costs to other states?

Aides to the governor said he also planned to sign legislation later this week that will prohibit the state's electric utilities from buying electricity from high-polluting out-of-state power plants, a key step toward cleaning up the state's power supply. <snip>

California has a hard time meeting it's power needs as it is. This is going to increase the cost, at least within the state.

But on Wednesday, Schwarzenegger and others insisted that the caps would spur new clean-technology businesses and that other states, and eventually the federal government, would follow California's lead.

Except California has been losing businesses and population as costs increase.

Government is terrible at managing the economy. Centrally planned economics are a lousy idea.

Posted Thu - September 28, 2006 at 05:08 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - September 18, 2006

Hostile to reason?

This one just about knocked me out of my chair.

Although saying he has no plans to run for president in 2008, former vice president Al Gore has nonetheless left the door ever so slightly ajar. It's a good bet that door will swing open a good bit wider come next May.

That is when Gore is scheduled to publish his next book. With no fanfare, he signed a few weeks ago with Penguin Press to write "The Assault on Reason."

As described by editor Scott Moyers, the book is a meditation on how "the public arena has grown more hostile to reason," and how solving problems such as global warming is impeded by a political culture with a pervasive "unwillingness to let facts drive decisions."

This from a man doing his very best to push an environmental dogma and suppress any debate on the subject?

I guess he has a different take on reason than I do.

Posted Mon - September 18, 2006 at 05:40 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sat - September 2, 2006

Can we make up our minds?

Two interesting articles.

In the first, "top" climate scientists have revised the global warming estimates downward.

In the second, Russian scientists are forecasting global cooling (hat tip Catallarchy blog, be sure to read the comments).

It's disagreements like this that tell me we still need to have a debate on global warming.

I am not a weather or climate expert. But I have sat through enough budget meetings to know when statistical games are being played. It's all in how you show the numbers and in which numbers you choose to show.

At the same time, I am historian enough to know that a centrally managed economy always leads to disaster. Something that gets overlooked in most grand plans for utopia. We've finally reached a point with our technology where decentralizing brings more benefits than centralizing. The only thing that could maybe stop that is a appropriate global cataclysm.

That is why the global warming apologists don't want dissent from their dogma. That is why no one is allowed to question the math.

It's not about global warming, it is about power and suppressing freedom.

Posted Sat - September 2, 2006 at 05:19 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Thu - August 31, 2006

Outlawing dissent

What does it say when the global warming apologists want to prevent ANY opposing views?

Here's the kind of information the ``scientific consensus" types don't want you to read. MIT's Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen recently complained about the ``shrill alarmism" of Gore's movie ``An Inconvenient Truth." Lindzen acknowledges that global warming is real, and he acknowledges that increased carbon emissions might be causing the warming -- but they also might not.

``We do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change" is one of Lindzen's many heresies, along with such zingers as ``the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940," ``the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average," and ``Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why."


He's smart. He's an effective debater. No wonder the Steve Schneiders and Al Gores of the world don't want you to hear from him. It's easier to call someone a shill and accuse him of corruption than to debate him on the merits.

While vacationing in Canada, I spotted a newspaper story that I hadn't seen in the United States. For no apparent reason, the state of California, Environmental Defense, and the Natural Resources Defense Council have dragged Lindzen and about 15 other global- warming skeptics into a lawsuit over auto- emissions standards. California et al . have asked the auto companies to cough up any and all communications they have had with Lindzen and his colleagues, whose research has been cited in court documents.

``We know that General Motors has been paying for this fake science exactly as the tobacco companies did," says ED attorney Jim Marston. If Marston has a scintilla of evidence that Lindzen has been trafficking in fake science, he should present it to the MIT provost's office. Otherwise, he should shut up.

It's not about debate, it's about control. That is one reason why I keep looking to see who benefits from all this environmental panic.

It's not the people.

Hat tip to Coyote Blog.

Posted Thu - August 31, 2006 at 06:13 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

All it cost was New Orleans

Craig Gulliot lays out the damage.

The flooding in New Orleans that began on August 30, 2005, "was really an unnatural disaster," said John Day, a distinguished professor emeritus at the Louisiana State University (LSU) School of the Coast and Environment in Baton Rouge.

"We spent the last century doing almost everything we could to destroy our coast in all sorts of ways—putting levees on the Mississippi River, slicing thousands of kilometers of canals, massive oil and gas production."

For example, Day says, the canals that connect the city to the coast allow storm surges to travel inland, bringing salt water that damages the land.

One such canal, known as the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, was built in the mid-1960s to be a 76-mile (122-kilometer) shortcut between the Gulf of Mexico and New Orleans.

Hailed as an engineering marvel at the time, the canal is rarely used today.

Before the record hurricane season of 2005, salt water brought inland by the canal was fingered as the culprit in the death of thousands of acres of cypress swamp, a natural buffer against storms.

And when Katrina hit, levee failures on the canal allowed water to pour into St. Bernard Parish and New Orleans East (read "New Orleans Flooded in Wake of Hurricane Katrina" [August 2005]).

"Had those cypress swamps been in place, the levees probably wouldn't have failed," Day said.

I am not so radically environmental to demand that human activity is evil, but I do think we should take a much closer look at how things exist before making any radical changes. I'm heavily influenced by Frank Lloyd Wright and Aldo Leopold. I believe very firmly that we can live in balance, rather than ripping out the earth and slapping down some box that doesn't fit.

Hat tip to Cypress Nemeton (I miss the trees too).

Additional Technorati Tags

Posted at 05:44 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Wed - August 16, 2006

"Here's how you lose a forest..."

I wonder how many American environmentalists will protest this one.

1 Defying immutable economic laws, governments prohibit a popular drug, making the illegal production and distribution obscenely profitable.

2 Government compounds the problem by attempting to go after the drug at the supply source through eradication, creating a narco-state, where all power structures and political finances depend on either the drug or eradication dollars supplied by the U.S.

3 When eradication efforts intensify, traffickers move to less accessible areas, including clearing rainforests, to grow the plant that's used to produce the drug.

4 Environmentalists complain of the destructiveness of the spraying, so the government tries manual eradication in the national forests, but the traffickers blow up the workers to protect their prohibition-fueled profits.

5 So the Government sprays, destroying the forest to save it. All because prohibition doesn't work.

And just like that, no more Sierra Macarena national park in Columbia.

Sorry about the formatting, lists don't translate well to iBlog. I keep meaning to tweak that, but I haven't done that yet.

Posted Wed - August 16, 2006 at 08:32 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Tue - August 15, 2006

"The 'facts' need to be treated as so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken."

Remember when I was talking about the need for global warming apologists to suppress dissent?

Well, you might want to read this (link is a PDF). Specifically page 8.

To help address the chaotic nature of the climate change discourse in the UK today, interested agencies now need to treat the argument as having been won, at least for popular communications. This means simply behaving as if climate change exists and is real, and that individual actions are effective. The ‘facts’ need to be treated as being so taken-for-granted that they need not be spoken.

The disparity of scale between the enormity of climate change and small individual actions should be dealt with by actually harnessing this disparity. Myth (which can reconcile seemingly irreconcilable cultural truths) can be used to inject the discourse with the energy it currently lacks.

Opposing the enormous forces of climate change requires an effort that is superhuman or heroic. The cultural norms (what we normally expect to be true) are that heroes – the ones who act, are powerful and carry out great deeds – are extraordinary, while ordinary mortals either do nothing or do bad things. The mythical position – the one that occupies the seemingly impossible space – is that of ‘ordinary hero’. The ‘ordinary heroism’ myth is potentially powerful because it feels rooted in British culture – from the Dunkirk spirit to Live Aid.

Get that? The debate is over because they said so. The 'facts' can not be questioned.

Yes, the word facts is in quotes in the original document.

Yes, they are talking about invoking myths to sell global warming.

And who are these people?

The Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr) is the UK’s leading progressive think tank and was established in 1988. Its role is to bridge the political divide between the social democratic and liberal traditions, the intellectual divide between academia and the policy making establishment and the cultural divide between government and civil society. It is first and foremost a research institute, aiming to provide innovative and credible policy solutions. Its work, the questions its research poses, and the methods it uses are driven by the belief that the journey to a good society is one that places social justice, democratic participation, economic and environmental sustainability at its core.

Notice that bit about "social justice." The authors aren't environmental scientists. The entire paper is an example of semiotics, sort of applied linguistics grafted to symbol manipulation with a healthy dose of social psychology.

If I were more callous, I'd say that this is less of a resource and more of a PR plan. It's going to be interesting to see how this document shapes the global warming debate.

Hat tip Greenie Watch

Posted Tue - August 15, 2006 at 04:44 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Tue - August 8, 2006

Second hottest July on record in the US

Just in case you were wondering, this last July was the second hottest on record in the United States.

The hottest was in 1936, the third hottest was in 1934.

Now, one month's temperature data is not enough to prove (or disprove) the global warming theory. Nor does it allow for things like more accurate instruments, more instruments in a given area, or a more regular schedule in taking the measurements. All of which would tend to exaggerate the importance of a later year.

But since the hottest and the third hottest are at the wrong end of the timeline for the global warming theory, it certainly makes one wonder, doesn't it?

Posted Tue - August 8, 2006 at 04:23 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sometimes you don't have to read between the lines

Two things with this one.

First, this is a slight effect, barely measurable and certainly not worthy of a headline.

Second is this paragraph (emphasis added).

The European Alps have been growing since the end of the last little Ice Age in 1850 when glaciers began shrinking as temperatures warmed, but the rate of uplift has accelerated in recent decades because global warming has sped up the rate of glacier melt, the researchers say.

"End of the last little Ice Age."

As in a natural cycle.

As in not human caused.

Anyone want to lay odds that it will be the bit about growing mountains that hits the news wires and not the bit about the end of the last little Ice Age?

Hat tip Opinion Journal.

Additional Technorati Tags
, ,

Posted at 04:27 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sat - July 29, 2006

Scientist believes global warming skeptics have misused his work

Peter Doran is not happy about how some global warming skeptics have used his work. And he's not shy about saying so.

IN the debate on global warming, the data on the climate of Antarctica has been distorted, at different times, by both sides. As a polar researcher caught in the middle, I’d like to set the record straight.

In January 2002, a research paper about Antarctic temperatures, of which I was the lead author, appeared in the journal Nature. At the time, the Antarctic Peninsula was warming, and many people assumed that meant the climate on the entire continent was heating up, as the Arctic was. But the Antarctic Peninsula represents only about 15 percent of the continent’s land mass, so it could not tell the whole story of Antarctic climate. Our paper made the continental picture more clear.

My research colleagues and I found that from 1986 to 2000, one small, ice-free area of the Antarctic mainland had actually cooled. Our report also analyzed temperatures for the mainland in such a way as to remove the influence of the peninsula warming and found that, from 1966 to 2000, more of the continent had cooled than had warmed. Our summary statement pointed out how the cooling trend posed challenges to models of Antarctic climate and ecosystem change.


Our results have been misused as “evidence” against global warming by Michael Crichton in his novel “State of Fear” and by Ann Coulter in her latest book, “Godless: The Church of Liberalism.” Search my name on the Web, and you will find pages of links to everything from climate discussion groups to Senate policy committee documents — all citing my 2002 study as reason to doubt that the earth is warming. One recent Web column even put words in my mouth. I have never said that “the unexpected colder climate in Antarctica may possibly be signaling a lessening of the current global warming cycle.” I have never thought such a thing either.

Professor Doran certainly feels that he has been quoted out of context, and he has my sympathy. But there were some quotes in this article that I found compelling. Emphasis added.

Also missing from the skeptics’ arguments is the debate over our conclusions. Another group of researchers who took a different approach found no clear cooling trend in Antarctica. We still stand by our results for the period we analyzed, but unbiased reporting would acknowledge differences of scientific opinion.

The disappointing thing is that we are even debating the direction of climate change on this globally important continent. And it may not end until we have more weather stations on Antarctica and longer-term data that demonstrate a clear trend.

In the meantime, I would like to remove my name from the list of scientists who dispute global warming. I know my coauthors would as well.

Professor Doran deserves kudos for not closing the door to debate. That is certainly rare these days, and especially on this topic.

Posted Sat - July 29, 2006 at 04:39 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Fri - July 28, 2006

Profiting from confusion

As I was checking my usual haunts last night, I ran across this post on Wren's Nest, which in turn was a link to this news story.

The thing that struck me though was that the headline, "Making Money by Feeding Confusion Over Global Warming," could be applied to either side of the debate.

Of course the assumption in the article was that the only ones who could possibly be profiting over global warming confusion are the skeptics. That was also pretty much the feeling in the responses to the post at Wren's Nest.

I also ran across this article on TCS Daily talking about two Congressional hearings on global warming. Semi-regular reader Wadard would tell you that TCS Daily is (partially) funded by Exxon-Mobil, and therefore not to be trusted. I would say that James Hansen and other scientists are (partially) funded by certain progressive foundations. Yes, the matter of funding and political connections is important, but only in context and only because one side wants to keep their version of the science beyond criticism.

I really want to stress that. The politics and funding become important only because the science has been excluded from the debate.

We can't declare the debate over when there has never been a debate.

I wouldn't care, but the global warming advocates want radical and catastrophic changes in the economy for no reason that can be verified with climate science.

You have to read the fine print, but even the best of the global warming camp admits this. Even if everything they suggest is done starting tomorrow, at best it may reduce the rate of global warming by a few tenths of a degree Celsius over the next century or so. That is using the vaunted computer models, which have yet to predict anything about future weather.

The real question isn't about global warming, but why people can't accept that "their" side also has an agenda and questionable tactics.

I want to see the science. I want the science tested. I want debate. Messy, unorganized, but based on things that we can measure rather than who profits.

Posted Fri - July 28, 2006 at 05:12 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Fri - July 21, 2006

Priming the skeptics

Warren Meyer at Coyote Blog provides A Skeptic's Primer for "An Inconvenient Truth" and it is a great one. Here is what I think is the core argument.

So is Mann right?  Well, a couple of things to note.  First, its instructive to observe how eagerly the climate community threw out its old consensus based on years of research in favor of Mann's study.  It’s unusual for a healthy scientific community to throw out their old consensus on the basis of one study, especially when no one had replicated its findings independently. Which no one has ever been able to do, since Mann has refused to share his models or methodology details.  In fact, it took a US Congressional subpoena to get any of his underlying models into the public domain.  This behavior by a scientist would normally engender ENORMOUS skepticism in the community -- normally, I mean, except for in climate science, where mountaintop revelation without 3rd party repeatability is OK as long as it supports a dire man-made climate catastrophe model. In short, climate change advocates wanted the study to be true, because it was such a powerful image to show the public.

Despite Mann's reticence to allow anyone to check his work, skeptics still began to emerge.    Take that big temperature bulge in the Middle Ages shown in the previous concensus view.  This bulge was annoying to climate interventionists, because it showed that large variations in temperature on a global scale can be natural and not necessarily the fault of modern man. But Mann made this whole medieval bulge go away.  How?  Well, one of the early revelations about Mann's work is that all the data before 1450 or so comes from studying the tree rings of one single tree.  Yes, that's one tree (1).  Using the evidence of this one tree, Mann flattened the temperature over the 500 year period from 1000-1500 and made the Medieval warm period just go poof.  Wow!

The bigger criticism of Mann has come from statisticians.  Two Canadian statisticians began questioning Mann's methodology, arguing that his statistical approach was incorrect.  They demonstrated that Mann's statistical approach was biased towards creating hockey sticks, and they showed how the Mann model could be applied to random noise and produce a hockey stick.   The climate change establishment did not take this criticism well, and tried their hardest to rip these two guys up.  In fact, you might have believed that the two had been molesting little boys or declaring the world is flat rather than just questioning another scientist's statistical methodology. 

I keep telling people I want debate. I think science is at it's best when it replaces old theories with new ones that work better. But that is not what I am seeing with global warming. There is no other reputable field where this kind of sloppy science and evangelizing would be praised.

And that certainly raises questions about how reputable the human caused global warming theory is.

If it is a theory, then fine, put it on the table, subject it to testing and arguments, and let's see where it stands.

If it is an article of faith, like I and others have argued, then let's rip the trappings of science from it and quit trying to pretend it is something it is not.

If it is political agenda, then it needs to be exposed.

We can't judge accurately which the global warming theory is because of the one thing we do not have, open and free debate on the subject. You can't just dismiss the critics, you have to deal with their arguments.

Then we can get to the truth.

Posted Fri - July 21, 2006 at 07:26 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Thu - July 13, 2006

What if they gave a debate and only one side came?

I had misfiled the hyperlink for this article by Joel Achenbah.

The scientists quoted are very much in your face.

The most important thing here is that these are major scientists who disagree with the entire premise of global warming, will give you why in great detail, and will not hesitate to point out the factual errors of the other side.

Here is the debate that Al Gore and others say does not exist. It looks like the debate does exist, only one side is trying very hard to pretend that it doesn't. That wouldn't be so bad, except they want to use the force of law to impose their "solutions," whether everyone agrees or not.

That is the danger.

The global warming debate needs to take place. It certainly needs to take place before we start passing laws to govern carbon dioxide emissions. And part of that debate needs to be why some people are politically discredited before the facts are examined.

Posted Thu - July 13, 2006 at 04:31 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

U.S. Senate Comittee majority calls Tom Brokaw biased on environment

Semi-regular reader Wadard alerted me to the Discovery Channel documentary on global warming that is coming up. It looks like my concerns may be justified. This is from a press release from the majority side of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works.

Unfortunately, viewers should not expect a scientifically balanced view of the climate from the former NBC newsman. Brokaw who has been affiliated with the Sierra Club and has recently lavished praise on former Vice President Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth.” Brokaw, who called Gore’s film “stylish and compelling”, has called the science behind catastrophic human caused global warming ‘irrefutable.” Brokaw also chose to ignore all 60 scientists who wrote to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper in April of 2006 questioning the science of climate alarmism.

Brokaw’s partisan environmental credentials are so firmly established that the former anchor was offered a job in the Clinton-Gore Administration to be the director of the National Park Service in 1993. According to The Washington Post, Brokaw ‘very seriously’ considered the offer at the time but decided to remain with NBC News. "I have a lot of friends in the environmental movement,” Brokaw said. Brokaw’s wife also serves as vice president of the environmental group Conservation International.

In his new Discovery Channel special, Brokaw does not disclose the potential and known biases of the scientists he chose to feature.

For example, Brokaw presents NASA’s James Hansen as an authority on climate change without revealing to viewers the extensive political and financial ties that Hansen has to Democratic Party partisans. Hansen, the director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, received a $250,000 grant from the charitable foundation headed by former Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz.

Subsequent to the Heinz Foundation grant, Hansen publicly endorsed Democrat John Kerry for president in 2004, a political endorsement considered to be highly unusual for a NASA scientist.

Hansen also has acted as a consultant to Gore's slide-show presentations on global warming, on which Gore’s movie is based. Hansen has actively promoted Gore and his movie, even appearing at a New York City Town Hall meeting with Gore and several Hollywood producers in May.

Hansen also conceded in the March 2004 issue of Scientific American that the use of “extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change “may have been appropriate at one time” to drive the public's attention to the issue --- a disturbing admission by a prominent scientist.

Obviously I haven't seen the documentary yet, but from appearances this looks like the scientists are carefully selected, opposing views (if mentioned at all) will be discredited because of partisan or other connections, all while the "good" scientists are exempt from that same treatment.

This is being sold as a fair and balanced look at global warming. This is the double standard, and it is certainly part of why I have a hard time taking the global warming arguments seriously.

Here is the test. Make it a drinking game if you want. Of the scientists shown in the documentary, which side has more? Which side has more time on camera? And which side (if any) is discredited?

In all fairness, this is the press release from the majority on the committee.

Hat tip Greenie Watch.

Posted at 04:23 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sat - July 8, 2006

Do you know how much it costs? Why not? Do you know what it will do? Why not?

I don't agree with Bjorn Lumborg on several things, including if global warming is a "problem" and if government intervention is justified or desirable in most social problems. Or indeed, if government intervention is justified at all. But he did something unique, he got economists and politicos to prioritize problems based on costs and benefits. Kimberly A. Strassel at OpinionJournal has more.

Yet the experience left Mr. Lomborg with a taste for challenging conventional wisdom. In 2004, he invited eight of the world's top economists--including four Nobel Laureates--to Copenhagen, where they were asked to evaluate the world's problems, think of the costs and efficiencies attached to solving each, and then produce a prioritized list of those most deserving of money. The well-publicized results (and let it be said here that Mr. Lomborg is no slouch when it comes to promoting himself and his work) were stunning. While the economists were from varying political stripes, they largely agreed. The numbers were just so compelling: $1 spent preventing HIV/AIDS would result in about $40 of social benefits, so the economists put it at the top of the list (followed by malnutrition, free trade and malaria). In contrast, $1 spent to abate global warming would result in only about two cents to 25 cents worth of good; so that project dropped to the bottom.

Most people, average people, when faced with these clear choices, would pick the $40-of-good project over others--that's rational," says Mr. Lomborg. "The problem is that most people are simply presented with a menu of projects, with no prices and no quantities. What the Copenhagen Consensus was trying to do was put the slices and prices on a menu. And then require people to make choices."

Easier said than done. As Mr. Lomborg explains, "It's fine to ask economists to prioritize, but economists don't run the world." (This sounds unfortunate to me, although Mr. Lomborg, the "slight lefty," quickly adds "Thank God.") "We now need to get the policy makers on board, the ones who are dealing with the world's problems." And therein lies the rub. Political figures don't like to make choices; they don't like to reward some groups and not others; they don't like to admit that they can't do it all. They are political. Not rational.

So all the more credit to Mr. Lomborg, who several weeks ago got his first big shot at reprogramming world leaders. His organization, the Copenhagen Consensus Center, held a new version of the exercise in Georgetown. In attendance were eight U.N. ambassadors, including John Bolton. (China and India signed on, though no Europeans.) They were presented with global projects, the merits of each of which were passionately argued by experts in those fields. Then they were asked: If you had an extra $50 billion, how would you prioritize your spending?

Mr. Lomborg grins and says that before the event he briefed the ambassadors: "Several of them looked down the list and said 'Wait, I want to put a No. 1 by each of these projects, they are all so important.' And I had to say, 'Yeah, uh, that's exactly the point of this exercise--to make you not do that.'" So rank they did. And perhaps no surprise, their final list looked very similar to that of the wise economists. At the top were better health care, cleaner water, more schools and improved nutrition. At the bottom was . . . global warming.

Wondering how all this might go over with Al Gore, I ask Mr. Lomborg if he'd seen the former vice president's new film that warns of a climate-change disaster. He's planning to, but notes he wasn't impressed by the trailers: "It appears to be so overblown that it isn't helpful to the discussion." Not that Mr. Lomborg doesn't think global warming is a problem--he does. But he lays out the facts. "The proposed way of fixing this--to drastically reduce carbon emissions now and to solve a 100-year problem in a 10-year time frame, is just a bad idea. You do fairly little good at a fairly high price. It makes more sense to solve the 100-year problem in a 50-year time frame, and solve the 10-year problems, like HIV-AIDS, in a five-year time frame. That makes sense, and is the smart way to spend money."

I may disagree with his figures, and I do disagree with the notion that government should interfere. But I can not fault him for the basic idea.

Give people a choice.

This is the list of problems. Here is what fixing each problem will cost. Here are the potential benefits from each solution. Given that we have a limited amount of money, how can that money best be spent?

This is exactly the kind of debate that is missing from the global warming discussions. The more radical in the global warming crowd insist that it is an all or nothing proposition.

In all fairness, it is not just the global warming advocates. The public education crowd wants the same thing. The save New Orleans crowd wants it too. So do the drug warriors. So do the Democrats. And so do the Republicans, According to them, it's very simple, black or white, fulfill their demands for power or face the ultimate evil.

Except it's not just black or white.

I don't think I am always right. I just don't think that anyone is absolutely right. And that is why there is more to life than black and white.

Give people a choice, show what it costs, and show what the benefit could be, and people are perfectly capable of making up their own minds. Over time and after facing the consequences, they will tend to make better choices.

Freedom in a nutshell.

Posted Sat - July 8, 2006 at 06:35 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Fri - July 7, 2006

What kind of Pagan are you?

Continuing my reply to Wadard who commented on this post.

The simple answer is that I am a Pagan who doesn't accept that "global warming" is unusual or human caused. I am a human who believes that he has learned the difference between dogma and practicality.

Imagine for a moment that there were two people, both of whom lived in Phoenix. For reasons that aren't important right now, one of them only remembers the weather back to about January 1st. The other remembers weather over his entire life.

"Man oh man," says the first guy. "We HAVE to do something about this weather! It just keeps getting hotter and hotter. We just had 35 days with triple digit temperatures. We gotta fix this. Something is wrong, and I know that it is our fault. It didn't used to be like this."

"It was like this last year," says the second guy. "It was even hotter last year. But it will get cooler again, just like it did last year and the year before."

Now, who is right? It's really a matter of perspective, isn't it?

Even without the benefit of my Pagan beliefs, I can recognize that the planet is a marvelous collection of integrated adaptive systems. We have to make sure that anything we do has a stronger positive impact than the negative impact. Sure, you could save on your power bill by unplugging your refrigerator, but then you won't have a cool place to store your food. Not to mention increasing the chances of food poisoning.

Do you know if our temperature right now is usual or unusual?

Do you know if higher carbon levels in the atmosphere increase global temperature or could it be a reaction to increased temperature?

Can you rule out everything except human action that causes temperature change?

These are simple questions, but they are central to the debate.

Without the assumption of human guilt, we would have to assume that whatever changes we see in global climate are natural and temporary states.


I have this theory, and it doesn't make me very popular. With some few exceptions, most of the Neopagans I know were originally raised in one of the Big Three monotheistic faiths and converted. A central myth shared by the Big Three is the Fall of Man from a state of grace with the Divine and the natural world. One of the currents that has shaped Western scientific thought (particularly since the rise of Christianity) is the assumption that man is separate from the world. In the Victorian era this often translated as "Nature good and pure, Man and industry evil."

My theory, supported by observation so far, is that some Neopagans don't want to let go of that concept of human guilt because Man is Fallen and imperfect. That is fine as a belief, but it is not necessarily a Pagan belief. Redemption is a personal journey, only you can decide if that is your path.

Before you can do, you have to Be. Then you can Know.

Posted Fri - July 7, 2006 at 06:10 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - July 3, 2006

When did we debate?

From what I can tell, the global warming debate got politicized about the mid-1980s and early 1990s. I can never remember there being a "consensus."

For example, did the Little Ice Age affect only Europe or was it a global? Should the temperature readings around cities be given priority over rural locations when heat dispersal is factored in? If there are shifts in the major ocean currents, how should that be considered?

My tendency to lump most global warming arguments into the political propaganda pile is because despite the hype, there has never been agreement among the climate scientists about global warming. Even though you are continually told that there is.

Today's covers that.

The media rarely help, of course. When Newsweek featured global warming in a 1988 issue, it was claimed that all scientists agreed. Periodically thereafter it was revealed that although there had been lingering doubts beforehand, now all scientists did indeed agree. Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr. Gore defended his claims by noting that scientists "don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence" one way or the other and went on to claim--in his defense--that scientists "don't know. . . . They just don't know."

So, presumably, those scientists do not belong to the "consensus." Yet their research is forced, whether the evidence supports it or not, into Mr. Gore's preferred global-warming template--namely, shrill alarmism. To believe it requires that one ignore the truly inconvenient facts. To take the issue of rising sea levels, these include: that the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940; that icebergs have been known since time immemorial; that the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average. A likely result of all this is increased pressure pushing ice off the coastal perimeter of that country, which is depicted so ominously in Mr. Gore's movie. In the absence of factual context, these images are perhaps dire or alarming.

They are less so otherwise. Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why.

Now, does the Wall Street Journal have an objective in publishing this opinion?


So does Mr. Gore in making his film.

So do I in publishing this website.

The "debate" on global warming has never taken place. It has never been allowed to take place.

The reasons for suppressing the debate are many, but be sure to include that newspapers and magazines sell more if they resort to big panics. That scientists need grants. That global warming justifies economic and political control. For almost twenty years, these considerations have shaped the global warming proclamations. Not the science. Not the history.

We can not afford to let panic drive our policy.

I'll go one step further and say we can't afford a policy until we've established a good reason that amounts to more than computer models and pretty slides. I've sat through too many budget meetings.

Posted Mon - July 3, 2006 at 06:33 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Wed - June 28, 2006

Politicizing the science of global warming

I saw this bit at Global Warming Watch talking about how the global warming skeptics are politicizing the science.

What science?

Assuming for the moment that there is a measurable connection between the global temperature and the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, we have no way to test it. We do have history, and there were periods when the atmospheric carbon levels were higher than they are today or anytime during the 20th Century.

So for all the marbles, did those periods coincide with hotter global climate or not? Let's start by examining the last million years or so.

Understand, this is the only way we have to measure any correlation short of those notoriously inaccurate computer models.

The short answer his that carbon in the air does not seem to relate to global temperature unless you cherry pick the period you are measuring. This article at TCS Daily would seem to bear that out.

There is about the same relationship between atmospheric carbon and global warming as there was the length of hemlines and the value of the New York Stock Exchange during the 40s, 50s, and 60s.

And we still haven't eliminated all the other factors that could be influencing the weather, everything from natural weather cycles to sunspot activity. The vast majority of those other factors don't have anything to do with human activity.

What's interesting is that today I also saw this from a U.S. Senate Committee criticizing this report from AP that gives Al Gore's film a much needed boost. The interesting thing is that the AP restricted their sample to those who have seen the film.

My question is how many of those people are likely to be global warming advocates?

I want to see debate. Real debate. I want the math and methodology examined. I want answers to my four questions.

I want to see the criticisms answered instead of swept under the rug.

And if you are going to discredit the critics by who they are associated with, I think it is only fair to discredit the advocates by the same guidelines.

Posted Wed - June 28, 2006 at 07:03 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Mon - June 19, 2006

Carbon credits

One of the things making the rounds among some of the greens is resurrecting the pollution trading scheme of the Kyoto treaty. This time it would be applied to carbon emmissions.

The idea is that every industry would be allocated a certain number of carbon credits. If a company produced more carbon than they should, they could be carbon credits from another company that did not produce as many.

There are three main problems with this scheme.

First, no one has tied carbon emission to global temperature change. There has been increased carbon in the atmosphere during the recent period that the global warming crowd likes to talk about, but historically speaking, carbon in the atmosphere does not mean higher temperatures. That is why it is important to look at ALL the available data and not cherry pick the results you want.

The second problem is that this scheme was originally masterminded by Enron executives who wanted to get in the business of pollution credits just as they had gotten into the business of power capacity credits. That is something that usually gets overlooked. Enron did well until they had to actually compete and didn't have government protection.

And that leads us directly to the third problem. The carbon credits or pollution credits would be distributed by government control. Politics would decide what the total credits were, what industries would be exempt, and who would be most tightly regulated.

That is not free market capitalism.

That is a protection racket masking itself as centrally managed socialism.

Hat tip to Global Warming Watch.

Posted Mon - June 19, 2006 at 05:06 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sat - June 17, 2006

Another paper calls Al Gore to task

Debra J. Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle has a few things to say about Al Gore and the global warming scare.

Scientists acknowledge contradictory data. But the faith-driven Gore argues that all scientists agree with him -- well, except for those who are bought and paid for by big polluters.

Because this is a crusade -- and not about science -- Gore is drawn, not to the most reasoned scenarios, but the most apocalyptic.

Consider this exchange with ABC's George Stephanopoulos -- formerly of the Clinton/Gore administration -- who questioned Gore's prediction that global-warming could cause sea levels to rise 20 feet. "But the consensus is several inches over the next century. Right?" asked Stephanopoulos on June 4. "Not 20 feet?"

"Not at all," Gore replied. He added that the scientists he talks to -- his disciples, if you will -- see it his way. He ignores the less catastrophic theories, which predict a rise of an inch per decade, or three feet over the next century. To Gore, the worst-case scenario is the only scenario.

I thought Gore's chart comparing carbon-dioxide increases to temperature spikes was dramatic. But because Gore omits what he does not want to see, I have to listen to former NASA scientist, Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, when he tells me, "It is an alarming chart, but there are so many alternative explanations for what he's showing. He's giving it one possible explanation and making it sound like the only explanation." Spencer says it is "more likely" that the higher temperatures increased carbon-dioxide levels.

The real question is who is willing to debate? Al Gore is not. Speaking from experience, dogmatic fundamentalists seldom are.

I don't think we know everything about global climate. But the global warming scaremongers are claiming that they do and no other science matters.

You know, when I started this site, my very first post was my True Believer Rant.

I had been dealing with the global warming scare for years at that point. Usually people can't believe that I am a Pagan and I don't believe that global warming should be a big concern yet. Ask me about pollution and sustainable resources and some of the gods-awful things that pass as architecture and I will talk your ear off. But when it comes to global warming, I've seen too much number-massaging in my Corporate Clone days to accept the arguments without question.

Especially since it is based on computer models.

Anyway, it is great to see other people looking at the case for global warming critically. You should no more accept the claims (INCLUDING mine) about global warming than you should let someone else decide your faith. Look at people what people say, and then go find someone who disagrees. Find out who has done the research and thinking and who is just parroting. Find out who is willing to have the data and methods examined.

Then judge for yourself.

Hat tip Greenie Watch.

Posted Sat - June 17, 2006 at 04:56 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Fri - June 16, 2006

Holy Word from the Grand High Global Warming Advocate

Cox & Forkum do it again.

But they aren't the only ones.

This is from John Stossel.

How would environmental fanatics capture a government agency? Well, who is more likely to volunteer to take a job in a bureaucracy that has little to recommend it except that it gives you the power to use government force to control the lives of others? A dispassionate scientist or a zealot?

In government, the zealots eventually take over.

Imagine that, I'm actually ahead of the curve on this one.

For what it is worth, I'm a Pagan who's been into environmentalism since the 1970s. Global warming arguments are not serious environmentalism, they are attempts to abolish property rights and make you feel guilty.

I'll back down on that statement as soon as someone has definitively answered my four questions.

Posted Fri - June 16, 2006 at 05:30 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Thu - June 15, 2006

Sometimes good isn't good

Via Karl at Rite Wing Technopagan comes a link to this article about unintended consequences of the ethanol push.

Now picture a world in which cellulose-splitting enzymes are cheaper than bottled water, and a pint poured into the steel cow behind your hut will quickly turn a hundred pounds of wood chips or grass into a gallon of diesel. However sensibly we Americans might use the enzymes in Kansas, we know where cow-gut chemistry will inevitably lead in rural Burundi, India or China. Sure, a villager will fill the still with waste cellulose first. The enzymes, however, are just as happy to take apart freshly cut wood or grass, and that's what villagers will use instead when they need or want more energy than waste alone can supply. Just as villagers do today when they cook. The one difference is this: When the villager harvests wood or grass today, he can only bake chapatis, heat his hut or feed his cow. With cheap enzymes at hand, he can also power a generator and a motorbike.

History has already taught us what a carbohydrate energy economy does to a rich, green landscape--it levels it. The carbon balance goes sharply negative, too, when stove or cow is fueled with anything but waste or crops from existing farmland. It's pleasant to imagine that humanity might get all its liquid fuels from stable, legacy farms or from debris that would otherwise end up as fungus food. But that just isn't how humans have historically fed whatever they could feed with cellulose.

From the perspective of all things green, cellulose-splitting enzymes are much the same as fire or cow, only worse. Fire and cow consume cellulose, but the process is generally messy and inconvenient, which is a big advantage, from the plant's perspective. To improve on wood-burning fires, or grass-eating cows, perfect the cellulose-splitting enzyme. Then watch what 7 billion people will do to your forests and your grasslands.

I didn't know that these ethanol enzymes were in the works, but I can't disagree with his analysis. If these things become cheap, you can pretty much say goodbye to vast tracts of rainforest, jungle, grasslands, or pretty much any massive amount of plantlife.

So is that good or bad from the official environmental standard? It wouldn't be the U.S. doing it, but it would devastate the ecology.

Worth thinking about, and it earns a spot in my blogroll.

Posted Thu - June 15, 2006 at 04:41 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Wed - June 14, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," says Al Gore

Running the numbers from a different perspective.

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

This is the debate we need to hear.

First we need to show that the weather changes we are seeing now are different from what has happened in the past.

Then rather than just accepting that carbon in the atmosphere causes atmospheric warming, we need to account for everything that could be causing changes. Including, as I pointed out before and reader Khepri pointed out recently with a link to another source, solar activity. If it is not human caused, there is not much point in acting surprised about it or accepting guilt.

Apparently the only reason why climate change is bad is because it is supposed to be human caused.

Posted Wed - June 14, 2006 at 05:52 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Tue - June 13, 2006

Tell me that this is not evangelism

His science is still bad. But his tactics are True Believer® all the way through.

Al Gore hopes to train 1,000 messengers he hopes will spread out across the country and present a slide show about global warming that captures the essence of his Hollywood documentary and book.

The former vice president, a Democrat, said on Monday that by the end of the summer he would start a bipartisan education campaign to train 1,000 people to give a version of his slide show on global warming featured in the film "An Inconvenient Truth" and book of the same name.

"This moment cannot be allowed to pass," Gore told reporters in New York. "I have seen and heard times before when the awareness of the climate crisis has peaked and then a few months later it's gone. I think this time is different, but I have to say I'm not certain of that."

Notice how debate and discussion doesn't even enter his solution. He's preaching and defending dogma.

Posted Tue - June 13, 2006 at 06:34 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Sat - June 3, 2006

Convenient and relative truths

I missed this one on Drudge when it came out. It looks like I am not the only one who thinks that Al Gore has gone into True Believer™ mode. This is from Kyle Smith's review of An Inconvenient Truth.

People are skeptical about global warming because it builds up to the same chorus as every other lefty hymn: more taxes, more hypocritical scolding (the film is the brainchild of Larry David's wife, Laurie, part of the community of people who drive a Prius to the private plane) and especially more America-bashing.

Gore says that America, alone, is the problem. Taking us to China, he ignores the filth spewed into the air by its coal-fired cities. He does not meet with bronchitic citizens who wear surgical masks outdoors and pause to hawk up brown gunk every few minutes. Instead, he tells us America is lagging behind. "China," he says, "is on the cutting edge" of environmentalism. Nonsense.

Gore is a dangerous evangelist for whom all roads lead to his sole, holy revelation. Remember how his son was injured in a car accident, the story he told at the 1992 convention? He's still telling it, and what was once touching has become exploitative. This time, the accident's meaning is that he wondered whether the Earth would still be there for his son. (Never mind that earlier in the film, he dates his eco-awakening to his Harvard years).

A sister who smoked and died of lung cancer? The lesson is that those who used to deny that smoking caused disease were wrong, so anyone who doubts catastrophic global warming must also be wrong.

The only reason why I care what Al Gore believes is because he wants his beliefs to govern everyone else's actions. Somehow, we've skipped the debate stage.

The sad thing is that Al Gore and the global warming crowd would not accept a hardcore Christian evangelist telling them that they could only be saved if they were baptized and "accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as your personal Savior." Nor would they accept a hardcore capitalist telling them that their misplaced compassion is keeping poverty alive.

So what is the difference?

If the global warming theory depends on science, it can withstand any debate,.

If the global warming theory depends on faith, then debate is unimportant to the goal.

And that is where we stand.

Hat tip to Cori.

Posted Sat - June 3, 2006 at 09:03 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Fri - June 2, 2006

Watch the weather

Here's a reasonably unbiased article that talks about natural weather cycles bringing about weather changes.

Yes, I know it is from TCS Daily and that "disqualifies" it in the eyes of some of the global warming crowd. However, if you look to the facts and figures, you might find out that there is something more to weather then human action.

Snowfall here in the Northeast and across much of the Hemisphere relate to decadal scale cycles in the Atlantic and Arctic. Two atmospheric oscillations which generally operate in tandem -- the North Atlantic and Arctic Oscillations -- have significant control over the weather pattern including storm tracks and temperatures in both Europe and the eastern United States.

Since the middle 1990s, these oscillations have tended to be often in the phase that favored cold and snow (the negative or 'cold' phases) in both Europe and the eastern United States. The NAO and AO tend to be predominantly in one mode or the other for decades at a time. This relates to ocean temperatures in the Atlantic which exhibit decadal behavior.

Over the last decade the behavior of the NAO/AO has been similar to the 1930s and 1940s (Taylor, 2005) when the NAO moved from a positive to increasingly negative state. Interestingly, that was the last time the Polar Regions were this warm and the summer polar ice this thin and reduced in coverage (Polyakov et al, 2004). Unlike Antarctica where the ice sits on land, in the arctic it is floating on water and the water from one ocean (the Atlantic) can readily flow beneath the ice and if unusually warm, melt more of the ice from beneath.

Despite all the claims that global warming is happening right now and that human activity (especially in the Western world) is mostly responsible, no one has managed to show just how much influence humanity has on the weather and climate. Meanwhile, natural cycles of everything from sunspot activity to air circulation continue as they have since before this planet was much more than a cloud of dust.

Posted Fri - June 2, 2006 at 03:48 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Fri - May 26, 2006

Making noise about spreading deserts

Before blaming global warming, simple question.

Have the jet streams changed before humans had ANY possibility of influencing them?


The weather changes. Just as it has for millions of years.

Posted Fri - May 26, 2006 at 07:37 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Bush's environmental record

If a Democrat President pulled this off, it would be front page news.

What has that been? Easterbrook was writing about a program called Methane to Markets, which the Bush administration negotiated among several countries in 2004. He noted that most news outlets didn't report a thing about it. Yet, the program promises a reduction in methane -- a greenhouse gas 23 times more powerful than the carbon dioxide that is the focus of most news reporting -- equal to the reductions in greenhouse gases from the more heralded Kyoto Protocol.

One of the fruits of the methane to markets program came last week. China, a chief emitter of methane from its coal mines, has signed an agreement to buy 60 methane generators from Caterpillar Inc. for $58 million. The generators will take in the methane from its largest coal mine, reducing explosions and improving safety and health in the mines while providing 120 megawatts of electricity with reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Neither the Post nor the Times thought that worthy of reporting, nor did most other mainstream media outside of the business press. After all it's a "good news" story -- a kind of win-win-win-win scenario for health, safety, economics and the environment that the mainstream media are loath to report.

There are other wins too, things that before the global warming fad would have been considered MAJOR accomplishments.

What they don't do, as the article points out, is establish carbon caps.

Which means that there is a sizable part of the global warming crowd that, despite all of it's "righteousness," is less concerned about the environment than they are in controlling industry and the economy. Add the scientists that stand to benefit in both resources and prestige, and you have a pretty potent combination.

Blazes, even the language used is a giveaway. It becomes the people's rights to control the future. No one in the global warming movement is talking about individual rights or property rights, they are talking about obligations to the global citizens.

It's straight out of Marx. And I don't mean Groucho.

Posted at 04:39 AM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Thu - May 25, 2006

Does Al Gore really care?

This speaks for itself.

A representative affiliated with "An Inconvenient Truth", a film about global warming involving former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, has stressed that the movie and Gore's tour to promote it are "carbon neutral".

Last week, Gore and his team were seen driving the 500 metres or so from a hotel to the Cannes festival headquarters in several cars. The representative said that arriving at events like photocalls and news conferences in cars was normal practice in Cannes. And Gore walked the shorter distance from another hotel to the festival for the movie's screening.

Again, the only reason this is an issue is because Al Gore self-righteously attacks other people's "selfish" behavior to promote his agenda, which may or may not be something he actually believes.

In the words of the old Genesis song, "do as I say, don't do as I do."

Posted Thu - May 25, 2006 at 03:55 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Wed - May 24, 2006

Inconveniencing the Truth

I haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth yet, I'll probably wait until I can rent the DVD.

Dr. Robert C. Balling, Jr. examines the film here. Don't expect to see any mainstream acknowledgment of the criticisms.

I'm still amazed that Al Gore got away with saying the things he did in Earth in the Balance.

I want debate on global warming.


I don't want to see criticisms dismissed because they are criticisms. And I don't want to see someone arguments get a free pass because they say the "right" thing.

Posted Wed - May 24, 2006 at 03:23 PM  

Permalink  ◊   ◊   ◊ 

Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2010 All Rights Reserved