The problem with global warming--it may be bigger than we think (but that's OK with me)

There’s a new article out  by Garth Paltridge, one of the world’s most respected atmospheric scientists. He was a Chief Research Scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO).  The latter is Australia’s equivalent of the National Science Foundation, our massive Federal Laboratory network, and all the governmental agency science branches rolled into one. He has interesting things to say about the current “climate change” controversy.

First, Paltridge lays out the well-known uncertainties in climate forecasting. These include our inability to properly simulate clouds that are anything like what we see in the real world, the embarrassing lack of average surface warming now in its 17th year, and the fumbling (and contradictory) attempts to explain it away. He notes “…the average man in the street, a sensible chap who by now can smell the signs of an oversold environmental campaign from miles away, is beginning to suspect that it is politics rather than science which is driving the issue.” Amen!!

He points out how science changed dramatically in the 1970s, when the reward structure in the profession began to revolve around the acquisition of massive amounts of taxpayer funding that was external to the normal budgets of the universities and federal laboratories. In climate science, this meant portraying the issue in dire terms, often in alliance with environmental advocacy organizations. Predictably, scientists (and their institutions) became addicted to the wealth, fame, and travel in the front of the airplane. Paltidge says, “A new and rewarding research lifestyle emerged which involved the giving of advice to all types and levels of government, the broadcasting of unchallengeable opinion to the general public, and easy justification for attendance at international conferences—this last in some luxury by normal scientific experience, and at a frequency previously unheard of.”

He is sad for the consequences of poor predictions. Every year that elapses without a significant warming trend more and more erodes the credibility of not just climate science, but science in general: “In the light of all this, we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem—or, what is much the same thing, of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem—in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour.”

So science itself may become less in the eyes of the public. He bemoans this, but I don’t. We have been sold the idea that science solves all problems and answers the big questions of life. Not true. Most of the things I hold dear (God, my family, friends, love, freedom, . . .) have nothing to do with science.

Global warming and Kyoto--an update

If you've read any of my blogs, you know one of my targets has been the global-warming crazies, who have attempted to wreck the American economy. Now there's a recent  update from  The Wall Street Journal regarding the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. This makes interesting reading.

 The article points out that the lefty environmentalists screamed out that the future of humanity was said to hinge on the Kyoto implementation. Did you know it expired on New Year's Day? I didn't.  Adopted in 1997 and in force since 2005, the U.N. compact was intended to lock its signatories into curbing or cutting their greenhouse-gas emissions relative to 1990 levels. It didn't work out as planned.

Here's where it gets interesting when we see the results of the solemn agreement forged in Kyoto. Japan promised a 6% reduction relative to its 1990 levels, but instead saw a 7.4% increase, despite 20 years of economic stagnation. Australia, where growth has been more robust, pledged to let carbon increase by no more than 8%. Instead its 1990-2010 emissions rose 47.5%. The Netherlands promised a 6% cut but wound up with 20% higher emissions by the end of 2010. Canada, one of the pact's most enthusiastic early backers, committed to a 6% cut but saw a 24% emissions increase above 1990 levels. In 2011 Ottawa announced it was withdrawing from Kyoto to avoid the penalties it would have owed for missing its target. New Zealand, Russia and Japan have followed Canada's lead and are now officially out of Kyoto's carbon strictures, while the world's largest emitters in China and the U.S. were never in. Now only Australia and the EU remain.

How did the U. S. do? Not bad. It saw an emissions increase of only 10.3% between 1990 and 2010, despite economic and population growth that outpaced most of the industrialized world. Some of the thanks here go to the shale-gas revolution, which uses technology that still hasn't gotten past most European regulators. This triumph of American ingenuity might never have happened if Al Gore had managed to drag the U.S. into Kyoto 15 years ago. I'm so grateful that didn't happen.

What have we learned from this?  In its day, the Kyoto Protocol did its share of economic damage by distorting energy markets and encouraging job-killing legislation. Some of that damage will remain. But the main thing we see is the typical pattern--scream about the problem and then watch the science refute your scare-tactics, with the result that wiser heads can ignore the tantrums.

A cheater and those who defend him

I’ve been reading on the internet about global warming hijinks. If the theory of man-made global warming were such a self-obvious truth, the result of scientific consensus, then why do advocates for this idea keep committing frauds to advance it? We have another story that illustrates this.


Peter Gleick, founder of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security in Oakland, admitted that he committed fraud to obtain documents he thought would embarrass a conservative think tank that has been a leading debunker of some of the overheated (get it?) claims of the climate-change Chicken Littles.


The memos, which reveal the group’s political and fund-raising strategies, didn’t turn out to embarrass the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, but it has damaged the reputation of a respected man, who now takes a leave of absence from the institute, faces public embarrassment and possible prosecution.


What’s more amazing to me is the reaction of the press to this story, according to The Wall Street Journal. A Los Angeles Times columnist, Michael Hiltzik, defended him: “It’s a sign of the emotions wrapped up in the global warming debate that Gleick should be apologizing for his actions today while the Heartland Institute stakes out the moral high ground.” Others echoed this:“Peter Gleick lied, but was it justified by the wider good?” asked James Garvey of the British Guardian newspaper. He compared Gleick’s action to that of a man who lied to keep his friend from driving home drunk. “What Heartland is doing is harmful, because it gets in the way of public consensus and action,” he argued. “If his lie has good effects overall—if those who take Heartland’s money to push skepticism are dismissed as shills, if donors pull funding after being exposed in the press—then perhaps on balance he did the right thing. … It depends on how this plays out.” Think about what he just said: Heartland was standing in the way of steamrolling the public into an ill-conceived decision on climate change, so it was OK to destroy the organization. Why not cheat, as long as it “has good effects”?


So that’s where we are in this debate. One side says it’s OK to cheat because the issue is so important and their side is correct. That’s a lot of nerve.

Global warming as mass hysteria

I found online a great article titled “Global warming -- the great delusion” by Matt Patterson. He pulls no punches in his attacks on the global warming crowd.

First, he refers to an old book from the 1800s that examines financial panics, medical quackery, alchemy, and witch crazes. The author of this book wanted to know why so many people choose to believe so much that is false and potentially deadly. His answer:
“We go out of our course to make ourselves uncomfortable; the cup of life is not bitter enough to our palate, and we distill superfluous poison to put into it, or conjure up hideous things to frighten ourselves at, which would never exist if we did not make them.”

Patterson sees a connection to the global warming fanatics. He calls the current debate “superstition masked as science; Western guilt over having conquered the world manifesting itself as hatred for the technologies that made it possible; apocalyptic yearning in the guise of political enlightenment.” Wow, good stuff there.

Patterson goes on to call global warming the most widespread mass hysteria in our species’ history. This wouldn’t be so bad except it has the potential to cause real problems. As he puts it, “And like every mass delusion, there is danger – danger that Man will be convinced by these climate cultists to turn his back on the very political, economic, and scientific institutions that made him so powerful, so wealthy, so healthy.” I agree totally, having watched the issue over the past several years.

Patterson is optimistic. After all, more and more scientists come forward to admit their doubts about the global warming paradigm. As an example, he talks of what happened last September: Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize winning physicist, resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) over that organization’s climate change orthodoxy.

In his resignation letter to APS, Giaever lambasted the society’s public stance that global warming is an incontrovertible fact:
“In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.”

But this man is not an isolated case. Patterson notes that recently in the Wall Street Journal 16 prominent scientists, including physicists, meteorologists and climatologists, came forward to express solidarity with Giaever, writing:
“…large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts. Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: ‘The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.’”

Of course, the big question remains--why do so many still cling to the hope of climate change catastrophe? As they say, follow the money. If you can get people scared, you can wring money out of politicians for academic research and you create a reason for government bureaucracies to grow.

The other piece of good news is the reaction of the public to this alarmist rhetoric. Voters are becoming ever more suspicious of government-mandated schemes to control their “carbon emissions,” which is just a bureaucrat’s way of curbing productivity, and therefore liberty.

Patterson ends his piece with a devastating comment: “In centuries hence the global warming boogeyman will be seen for exactly what it is – The Great Delusion. Future generations will wonder how so many people could have believed something so suicidally ridiculous.” Again, I agree. It’s been wonderful to see reason coming back in style, at least in this part of life.

The global warming scam--part 2

Check my last blog on the further problems of global warming fanatics--no such thing over the past ten years. Why don't we hear more about this con game?


Fear is at work. Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. Take one example. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.


Why is there so much passion about global warming? What stirs the hearts of scientists and politicians to get behind this theory? The article I read said there are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old standard, "Follow the money." Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Al Gore has done very well for himself in the role of global warming prophet.


The sixteen scientists who wrote the article have a simple message: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy.


A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Why? It is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.


The conclusion of these scientists is worth quoting in this year of politics: "Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of 'incontrovertible' evidence." Amen.


Here's a list of the authors so you can see their credentials:
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

A hugely important piece on global warming (or the lack thereof)

I read something the other day that was confirmation of a belief I have expressed many times in this blog--global warming is NOT something we should allow people to use to ruin our economy. The Wall Street Journal had an article entitled "No Need to Panic About Global Warming," which was signed by sixteen well-respected scientists in fields dealing with climate and related endeavors.

We're in a time of great political activity. The article points out a key thing: candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

Here's proof of their claim. In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

Dr. Giaever is not alone, and he's no crank. In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share his opinions. And what's interesting is that his position is not growing weaker. The number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now, according to the article. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't."

How has this hugely important factor (no global warming over the past 10 years) been missed? Computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2. Nice maneuver, right?

The article points out something important that's often missed, and it's so simple. CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. The scientists who write this piece say that better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

I'm going to stop here even though this is only about half of the Journal piece. I think this is so important that I'd like everyone reading this to take another look and share this with your friends. I'll take on the other half in the next blog.

The polar bear--the global warming people at work

Please allow me to continue with occasional reports on the unraveling of climate change/global warming hysteria. My interest started when I read Michael Crichton's State of Fear in which he used government documents to show how sneaky and downright dishonest the climate change people were getting. Here's an update on the panic surrounding polar bears.

In 2008, thanks to the global warming crowd, the polar bear was put on the endangered species list. But here's where it gets interesting. The polar bear wasn't put on the endangered species list because it was endangered, you see. Instead, it was put on the list because it "might become" endangered due to climate change. Another key reason the bear was also put on the list had to do with emotions, which seem to me to be at the heart of the entire climate change stupidity. Scientists claimed, without evidence, they had seen a group of drowned polar bears off the coast of Alaska. Of course, people around the world were horrified at this scenario.

But this story is unraveling. Now the scientist who made the claim that polar bears were drowning because of rising sea levels is under investigation for making the entire thing up. Just five years ago, Charles Monnett was one of the scientists whose observation that several polar bears had drowned in the Arctic Ocean helped galvanize the global warming movement.

Now, the wildlife biologist is on administrative leave and facing accusations of scientific misconduct. The federal agency where he works told him he's being investigated for "integrity issues," but a watchdog group believes it has to do with the 2006 journal article about the bear. Doesn't that sound familiar especially now that we have seen tons of emails that show global warming fanatics were disregarding contrary evidence and trying to suppress scientists who opposed their hysteria. Just take a look at "Climategate" in a Google search. By the way, a new batch of emails has been released, showing the same methods at work.
But that isn't stopping U.N. from continuing to promote global warming hysteria. It's moving right on, finding new species to protect. Tough luck, polar bears. There are new creatures we have to defend. Several animal species including gorillas in Rwanda and tigers in Bangladesh could risk extinction if the impact of climate change and extreme weather on their habitats is not addressed, a U.N. report showed on Sunday.

Sigh . . .These people have no shame and no sense of reality. They want to wreck the economies of the developed world for some utopian, unrealistic future. The climate has changed before, and it will again, no matter what we do.

Another scientist walks away from Al Gore

You've heard the old saying, :"Another one bites the dust." Well, it happened in the arena of global warming. Another Nobel laureate breaks from the climate change pack.

Ivar Giaever, a 1973 physics Nobel Laureate resigned last week from the American Physical Society in protest over the group's insistence that evidence of man-made global warming is "incontrovertible." That's the wording of Al Gore, who reassures us all that the issue really is settled.

In an email to the society, Mr. Giaever—who works at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute—wrote that "The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me . . . that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."

Mr. Giaever was an American Physical Society fellow, an honor bestowed on "only half of one percent" of the members, according to a spokesman. This is no slouch. He follows in the footsteps of University of California at Santa Barbara Emeritus Professor of Physics Harold Lewis, a former APS fellow who resigned in 2010, calling global warming "the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist." Now that's hard-hitting commentary.

But, as the late-night TV ads say, "Wait, there's more." Other dissenters include Stanford University physicist and Nobelist Robert B. Laughlin, deceased green revolution icon and Nobelist Norman Borlaug, Princeton physicist William Happer and World Federation of Scientists President Antonino Zichichi. Not that all of these men agree on climate change, much less mankind's contribution to it, but they at least maintain an open mind about warming or what to do about it.

One of the least savory traits of climate-change advocates is how they've tried to bully anyone who keeps an open mind. Remember Al Gore, who compared deniers of global warming to racists in the 1950s? With the cap-and-trade movement stymied, Mr. Gore and the climate clan have become even more arch in their dismissals of anyone who disagrees. You decide whom you wish to agree with--Professor Giaever, or Mr. Gore. My choice is pretty easy.

Al Gore as a prophet for profit

At the risk of irritating readers of this blog, I want to go back to global warming again. A previous blog mentioned the latest from CERN, the respected scientific group that has issued its findings that suggest cosmic rays may be a leading cause of climate change. Well, there goes the man-caused-only rants from the leftists around the world. Who leads them? Why, it's Al Gore, bless his soul.


The other day he implied that those who oppose his agenda were the same as the racists in the 50s who opposed equal rights for African-Americans. Now, you know when someone plays the race card, he is in trouble. By the way, we can expect that in next year's presidential election, can't we?


But I don't want to go over these issues. Instead, I'd like us to consider why Al Gore is so insistent on scaring us, ranting about the issue, smearing his opponents. Does he care that much more about the earth than the rest of us? Or is there more to his position? People always say, "Follow the money." Let's do that with Al Gore.


No one has made more money from climate change hype than Gore. According to the U.K.'s Guardian newspaper, just one of the "green" companies in which Gore has invested has received over half a billion dollars in subsidies from the Energy Department. Ah, scare people enough, and they throw money your way. Scientists learned that too--yell a lot and get more funding.


Financial disclosure documents released before the 2000 election put the Gore family's net worth at $1 million to $2 million. A mere decade later, estimates are that he is worth $100 million. He's been touted in the press as one day becoming the first "carbon billionaire." Now, there's a reason to keep the hysteria alive. It's good for the pocketbook.


According to the Science & Public Policy Institute, the U.S. government has spent over $79 billion since 1989 on policies related to climate change, including science and technology research, administration, education campaigns, foreign aid and tax breaks. And why are we doing this, considering that the rest of the world, especially China and India, have no plans to ruin their economy along with us? The net impact will be nil.


According to the World Bank, the value of carbon trading doubled from $63 billion in 2007 to $126 billion in 2008. Big money has been and can be made by conning governments into formulating policies based on fraudulently hyped climate hysteria.
We still remember "Climategate," right?


While many like Gore have profited handsomely, these policies cost the nation dearly in terms of jobs and economic growth. Let's see real proof before we unilaterally dismantle the American economy.

A CLOUD covers global warming fanatics

If you've read any of my blogs in the past, you know I'm skeptical of global warming. I wanted to share a recent news item that adds to my skepticism.

It regards the latest revelations from CERN over its landmark CLOUD experiment, whose significance one journalist explains here:

"The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth."

First, a little background on where this article came from and the organization CERN. The research was published this week in the prestigious journal Nature, so this is not the result of some crackpot publication. And the research comes from CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centers for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. This is a hugely successful and respected organization. It was CERN that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.

So what happened during the research? In this stainless steel chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds. If there are more clouds, the result will be a cooler Earth. Where do these cosmic rays come from? The sun. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.

The idea that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” Note that it was the IPCC that played a role in later incorrect announcements on global warming. Al Gore and his fanatic followers made sure that anyone who disagreed about the politically correct theory of global warming being humanity's fault alone were vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite the fact that many of the skeptics had impeccable scientific credentials.

But Jasper Kirkby, a CERN scientist became disenchanted with the standard line of the global warming crowd. He convinced the CERN bureaucracy of the cosmic ray theory’s importance and developed a plan to create a cloud chamber — he called it CLOUD, for “Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets.” Needless to say, the global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes’ groundbreaking theory.

So, despite the fact that Al Gore implied that anyone who opposed his version of global warming was a racist, the verdict is still out. Again, I caution everyone to investigate and think this thing through before we ruin ourselves economically by following the harsh mandates the global warming crowd has set up for us.

Another blow to the global warming crowd

If you've read my blogs over time, you know I occasionally take on the global warming fanatics. It all started when I read State of Fear, a book by Michael Crichton in which he challenged the hysterical pronouncements of Al Gore and others like him. My belief is that there may be global warming, but it probably isn't the fault of the human race and there is little we can do about it even if it is our fault, short of going back to living in caves. It always struck me that the global warming proponents wanted the U. S. to become another third-world entity, run by those who knew best. And guess who that would be.


Over the weekend I read something featured on Drudge Report that confirmed my suspicions. Did you see it? The title was "NASA Blows Gaping Holes in the Global Warming Hypothesis." Here's a brief explanation of what NASA has discovered.


Keep in mind that the alarmists always use scientific findings to "prove" their shrill pronouncements. Never mind that these evidences, when examined closely, turn out to be bogus or inaccurate. Remember Climategate?


Well, science has turned against them. In the journal Remote Sensing, research scientists at the University of Alabama (UA) in Huntsville have suggested that global warming is not occuring at the rapid rate shown by model-based forecasts. Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the UA’s Earth System Science Center, and his colleague Dr. Danny Braswell claim data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that when the climate warms, Earth’s atmosphere is apparently more efficient at releasing energy to space than models used to forecast climate change have been programmed to “believe."


So, here's the bottom line: NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted.


What about the future, so filled with dire warnings, according to the patron saint of global warming, Al Gore? The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed. In addition, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.


Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modellers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle. Apparently, this is not happening.


Since this new data comes from NASA, people will have to treat it seriously. If we avoid a headlong rush to embrace all the restrictions urged by the alarmists, maybe we can avoid ruining our economy and sending us all back to the 17th century.

Liberals and their word choices

As an English teacher, I love words—how they are used and misused. A recent example comes from a smart man in the Senate, John Kerry. At least, he tells us he’s smart.

He had a town hall meeting the other day. Kerry had to offer an apology to a woman who was there. But check out what the apology was for and what it says about uber-liberals and their word choices.

The senator apologized to one woman who had a complaint against him. She claimed he had called her a Neanderthal for not believing in global warming. Now, watch how Kerry got out of this. He said he was referring generally to those who do not believe in the science of global warming and not to the one woman in particular.

OK, let’s review this apology. Kerry said he was not specifically accusing this one woman. Instead, he was smearing an entire group of people with this negative term, “Neanderthal.” Think about what the term implies—stupid, semi-human, backward, doomed to die out, ugly, anti-intellectual. There's a word with heavy negative connotations. It ranks right up there with "fascist" and "racist."

Now, consider the implications of what he said. He thinks it is OK to attack a huge number of serious people and smear them even if they have scientific backgrounds and have looked long and hard at the issue of global warming. But he’s sensitive to a single person standing in front of him.

Haven’t we heard that before, coming out of the mouth of bigots? “Hey, when I bad-mouthed that entire group of people because of their ethnicity or religion, I didn’t mean you.” Sure, that really works. The individual is not comforted one bit. “Some of my best friends are . . .” just doesn't cut it.

But that’s where we are today. People like Kerry think they are open-minded and tolerant. Well, maybe for a solitary person they are dealing with. But they have no problem attacking and smearing an entire group—“Christians are stupid,” “Conservatives want people to die,” “Those against same-sex marriage are bigots,” etc. I’m hoping we see behind these verbal barrages and realize how intolerant they really are.

Global warming--time to see how the predictions have turned out

I wanted to start the year out with a look back. There have been all sorts of dire warnings from the global warming crowd. I came across some of these and wanted to share them with you so we can understand the nature of these warnings.


1. Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.

Well, ten years have gone by since this predictions was made. I guess we know how that turned out. England had the most snow recently since who-knows-when.

2. "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.

But I read that NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center shows that precipitation -- rain and snow -- has increased slightly over the century. Hmm . . . another miss by the global warming set.

3. "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972. In 2008 Dr. David Barber of Manitoba University said "We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time," (ignoring the many earlier times the Pole has been ice free).

Actually, accounts I've seen say the Arctic ice is thicker and temperatures are not rising. You know, even if the ice did thin out, records show this has happened periodically over the history of the earth.

4. "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.

OK, so here were are at the end of 2010. How did this prediction turn out? According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1989. And U.S. temperature has increased even less over the same period. According to some, NASA data have been known to have a problem accuracy, because instead of collecting data from temperature stations, NASA makes assumptions regarding what the temperatures should be.

5. "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970.

Oh that's right, we were told back in the 70s that there would be global cooling, that the Earth was facing an ice age. Maybe that will be the new message after this winter.

6. "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

You may remember Ehrlich, a fearmonger who was listened to by the intelligentsia back in the 70s. He lost a famous bet with another, more reasonable man (I forgot his name) who bet him that precious metal prices wouldn't soar as Ehrlich had predicted in his doom-and-gloom scenarios. Erhlich lost the bet.

7. "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970

Ehrlich made a good living spewing stuff like this. We know now that scientists can get more funding if they create alarming scenarios like this.

8. Al Gore sold his scary global warming film, An Inconvenient Truth, shown in almost every school in the country, with a poster of a terrible hurricane. Former US president Bill Clinton later gloated: "It is now generally recognized that while Al Gore and I were ridiculed, we were right about global warming. . . It's going to lead to more hurricanes."

But the past 50 years has been about the quietest on record for US hurricanes. The decade of the 1940s was the worst. Researchers at Florida State University concluded that the 2007 and 2008 hurricane seasons had the least tropical activity in the Northern Hemisphere in 30 years. This year there were plenty of hurricanes in the Atlantic, but they were generally weak and did not hit land. Pacific hurricanes were at a record low in 2010.

That's enough for now. Remember that the alarmists are being rewarded for extreme statements with more money, so there's no incentive to stop. Don't jump to any quick conclusions until reason takes over.

A couple of surprising things to end the year on

Two things to end the year on--a climate update and a new poll. Both are instructive and, for some, surprising.

First, a climate update. Flash . . . it's cold outside. Why is this a hot item (pardon the pun)? Well, as we have been told endlessly by the global warming "experts," we are heading toward a catastrophe of our own doing, where we expire in heat death. But wait, whether in Los Angeles or London, recent predictions have gone crazily awry. Global warming? Seems more like a new Ice Age. Get the parkas out.
Those stranded travelers stuck in airports across Europe because of an arctic freeze are a bit confused as well as angry. Sadly, they've been told for more than a decade now that such a thing was an impossibility — that global warming was inevitable, and couldn't be reversed.

This is a big problem for those who see human-caused global warming as an irreversible result of the Industrial Revolution's reliance on carbon-based fuels. Based on global warming theory — and according to official weather forecasts made earlier in the year — this winter should be warm and dry. It's anything but. Ice and snow cover vast parts of both Europe and North America, in one of the coldest Decembers in history.

But what have we been hearing from the experts? Those who wrote the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, global warming report in 2007 predicted an inevitable, century-long rise in global temperatures of two degrees or more. Only higher temperatures were foreseen. Moderate or even lower temperatures, as we're experiencing now, weren't even listed as a possibility. I saw an article from a British newspaper a few years ago that said snow would soon become a distant memory for those in England.

Here's the ugly truth for the global warming crowd. Since at least 1998 no significant warming trend has been noticeable. Unfortunately, none of the 24 models used by the IPCC views that as possible. They are at odds with reality.

Will this moderate their views? Will they admit it's extremely difficult to predict global weather? I doubt it. Not even the extraordinarily frigid weather now creating havoc across most of the Northern Hemisphere bothers them. Don't wait for any forthcoming admissions from this set. They want to bring down the Western world's economic base, and this is one way to do it.

And the other item has to do with the findings of a new poll. Muslims have gradually lessened their support for radical Islam over the past several years. Guess when the support lessened the most? During the years Bush was in office. But I thought Obama was reaching out to the Muslims, soothing them and offering praise for all their accomplishments (and other fairy tales). Looks like people respond better to strength than to pablum and weakness. Who's surprised by this? Only lefties who think we just need to sit down and make nice with our enemies to disarm them. Yeah, that worked for Hitler, didn't it?

Climate change falls flat in Cancun

The United Nations set up a huge conference on global warming in Cancun this past week. Here’s the good news—nobody cared.

But remember Copenhagen last year? It was there the term "climate change" came into being when the delegates realized the globe had begun to cool, as it does from time to time. Some 45,000 delegates, "activists," business representatives and the usual retinue of journalists registered for the party there.

But it’s different for this year’s beach party at Cancun. The U.N. organizers concede that Cancun won't amount to anything, even by U.N. standards, which is saying a lot.

What happened to all the Washington movers and shakers who have supported severe global warming–oops, climate change—legislation to protect us from ourselves? Consider Rep. Henry A. Waxman of California, who wrote and sponsored the cap-and-trade legislation last year He now says he'll be too busy with congressional business even to think about going to Cancun. Last year, he joined Speaker Nancy Pelosi (remember her?) and dozens of other congressmen in taking staffers and spouses to the party in Copenhagen. The junket cost taxpayers $400,000, but Copenhagen is a friendly town and a good time was had by all.

What about California’s great senators? Dianne Feinstein, another firm supporter of the fight against climate change, seems a bit vague about this year’s meeting. "I haven't really thought about [Cancun], to be honest with you," she tells Politico, the Capitol Hill daily. Barbara Boxer, who was proud to make global warming her "signature" issue only last year, would undoubtedly like to be in Cancun, but she's not even sending anyone from her staff, willing as congressional staffers always are to party on the taxpayer dime. "I'm sending a statement to Cancun." Wow, thanks, Barbara. That should deeply impress those of us who are a bit skeptical about the alarmist rants.

So that’s the good news of what isn’t happening. But there’s more good news about what is happening. There was an announcement that the House Select Committee on Global Warming would die with the 111th Congress. Mrs. Pelosi established the committee three years ago to beat the drums of the ravages of climate change. The result was the proposed job-killing national energy tax, but with the Republican sweep, there's no longer an appetite for killing jobs. Gee, imagine that—people didn’t want more jobs ruined.

I read about the final meeting of this committee. It’s hilarious. Rep. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, the chairman of the doomed committee, organized one final event this week, which starred alarmists going on about all the coming global-warming disasters. Wesley Clark was the only former presidential candidate to accept an invitation, and he was a no-show. The star witness of the afternoon session was Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an "environmental attorney" who talked about how "clean energy" is nicer than the other kind. Mr. Markey himself, apparently as bored as everyone else, didn't bother to return after lunch.

So that’s where we stand on global warming, I mean climate change. In a way the poor economy has been a blessing, along with Climategate. They have awakened people to the dangers of turning our economy over to extremists who want to ruin it in the name of an untested, controversial concept. Let’s slow down and consider better alternatives to providing a good earth to our offspring.

Global warming comes unglued

What a difference a few months have made in the global warming debate. I have long been skeptical of the hysterical, Al-Gore supporting, anti-growth, anti-western, anti-capitalist individuals who back global warming. Over the past few months, large holes have appeared in their arguments. It’s becoming apparent that current supporters--dogmatic, doctrinaire and scornful of skepticism—don’t reflect true science. However things have changed. It’s not just the supporters but the scientists themselves who are looking hysterical and biased beyond belief.


Want some proof? Here’s one example. London's Sunday Times reports that scientists are "casting doubt" on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's "claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution," a claim the IPCC describes as "unequivocal":

"The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change," said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC. The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years. These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanization, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site. Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama. "The story is the same for each one," he said. "The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development."


How about another example? Sure. The BBC has an extraordinary interview with Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and the central Climategate figure. In the interview, Jones admits that the periods 1860-80 and 1910-40 saw global warming on a similar scale to the 1975-98 period, that there has been no significant warming since 1995, and that the so-called Medieval Warm Period calls into question whether the currently observed warming is unprecedented.

There’s plenty more in this interview, but I’ll save it for my next blog. Meanwhile, have a healthy dose of skepticism when the lab-coats tell us where the truth lies.

A couple of stunning quotations

While reading the Wall Street Journal, I came across a couple of amazing statements I wanted to share with you regarding global warming and how it's reported to Americans.

Here's Al Gore, in a 2006 interview with Grist.com.

Question to Gore: There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?

Gore's answer: I think the answer to that depends on where your audience's head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.

So, what's he saying here? Gore seems to believe hype is OK; he needs to give us speculations dressed up as scary facts. Keep in mind that Gore stands to get very rich off these tactics since he is an investor with green companies.


This is a quote from Stephen H. Schneider of Stanford University, in a 1989 Discover interview:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but--which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This "double ethical bind" we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

Sounds like Schneider is admitting scientists have biases just like the rest of us. I like his reference to capturing our attention by scary scenarios and simplified statements. Mighty close to hype again, huh?

Global-warming theories take a hit

A new column by George Will pokes another hole in the balloon of the global-warming crowd. He starts by quoting a New York Times story, which says "global temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years." That phrase "few years" later on in the article turns into "the next decade or so."

What's going on here? We have had an absence of significant warming since 1998, and now we're facing the possibility of the least another 10 years without any sign of increased warming. But the newspaper says the years of temperature stability do not indicate global warming is an invalid theory. Cool stretches are “inevitable,” and the growth of Arctic ice will be “temporary.” So, lack of proof of global warming is shrugged off as mere aberrations. As George Will says, “what makes skeptics skeptical is the accumulating evidence that theories predicting catastrophe from man-made climate change are impervious to evidence.”

The goals announced to combat this phantom global warming are scary. The U.S. is on record as attempting to have an 80 percent reduction of carbon emissions by 2050. If so, we would end up with greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to our 1910 level. George Will says this means emissions on a per-capita basis would equal those in 1875. Buggy whips, anyone??

He argues for the creation of a national commission to evaluate the evidence about climate change. He doesn’t believe this will happen because it would destroy the global warming crowd’s carefully crafted myth that no reputable scientist disagrees with their side. Would President Obama support such a commission? No, he is firmly on the side of the alarmists, having declared at a United Nations climate change summit that nations need to act quickly because "time... is running out," to coin a new phrase (is it my imagination, or does the President spend a lot of time using cliches?).

This debate is far from over. Until there is overwhelming proof, let's not jeopardize our nation's economy and its people by making uncalled-for changes.

A cool book on a warm topic

Tom Bethell, a media fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, has an interesting book out called The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science. Among the other things he deals with in this book is global warming/climate change.

The author blames many gullible reporters for passing along scientific fraud and doubtful theories. He believes the media treat doctors and scientists as all-knowing, making it easier for alarmists to make outlandish claims about the environment.

What intrigued me was what he found when he examined statements of global-warming fans. For example, he mentions a Stanford climatologist, Stephen Schneider, who said, "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little of any doubts we might have. This ‘ double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." Now that is a revealing statement -- the American public only pays attention to scare stories.

Bethell also has a quotation from Christine Steward, who was former Canadian Minister of the Environment. Here's a woman in a governmental position saying the following: "No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." So apparently the end justifies the means -- as long as we have good intentions, it's OK for us to lie to you.

Global warming takes another hit

I read an article in the Wall Street Journal that cautions us to think clearly about global warming issues. The author of the article, Bret Stephens, looks at a popular book called Freakonomics, which came out in 2005. Its authors, University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt and writer Stephen Dubner, had a lengthy chapter on global warming where they discussed former Microsoft Chief Technology Officer Nathan Myhrvold and some of his ideas. Global warming fanatics were not happy with this book, says Stephens, because its authors did not appear to be sold on the hysteria surrounding global warming.

Now these two men are out with a second book, SuperFreakonomics, and the results are the same. Al Gore, a former Clinton official name Joe Romm, and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman lash out at this book for its supposedly bad reporting as well as its lack of enthusiasm for global warming. Actually, Levitt and Dubner are considered careful researchers. In addition, Stephens says they do acknowledge temperatures have risen a little over one degree Fahrenheit over the past century. But here's where they part company with the global warming hysteria. They note that sea levels will probably not rise more than 18 inches over the next 90 years, which is less than the normal variation of tides along most coastlines. They say "changes in carbon-dioxide levels don't necessarily mirror human activity." My favorite quotation is from Mr. Myhrvold when he says Al Gore's scary scenarios "don't have any basis in physical reality in any reasonable time frame."

Stephens indicates SuperFreakonomics also challenges the current climate-change craziness in other ways. For example, the authors say climatologists show a herd mentality by matching one another's forecasts. In addition, like everyone else, they respond to the economic reality of research funding. Money is available for those who can claim the greatest problems lie ahead of us. The two authors also point out that huge problems often have cheap and simple solutions. Think of world hunger -- it was solved not by population control but by developing better strains of rice and wheat. So maybe, they suggest, we can tackle global warming with a variety of cheap fixes rather than destroying the economies of the United States and other industrialized nations. They even say we may want to do nothing until the state of technology gets better and can tackle the problem with better solutions.

As you might expect, global warming fanatics hate these ideas. They are interested in controlling huge economies, gaining vast new powers in the process. Stephens quotes Newsweek's Stefan Theil as support: "climate change is the greatest new public-spending project in decades." Remember how people said it's important to follow the money? Well, here's another good example.

Books like Freakonomics and SuperFreakonomics are important. They cause us to slow down and truly think rather than being carried along with our emotions. Before we destroy our economy, let’s consider the evidence carefully.