The BS of Global Warming

Slightly Off Topic - but just... Addressing Clean Air, Clean Jobs Bill (CO)

2010-04-21T12:51:00.000-07:00

Proponents say the bill will require Xcel to close coal-fired power plants and replace them with those fueled by clean-burning natural gas. However, what they did not mention is that Xcel was already planning to decommission one of these plants, so Xcel can now phase out three of their plants and hand off the cost to consumers.

The U.S. has more coal than any other nation on Earth. We have hundreds of billions of tons of coal in the United States and trillions of tons of coal in the world…and, Colorado is a leading producer of excellent coal. You’re telling us that we’re just going to abandon this economical source of energy in this state?...in the name of “green?” They tried to make it look like a “green, anti-pollution bill” – but what it really is, is anti-coal. And, even the “pollution part” of the whole thing is a Sierra Club forced EPA (spineless) decision…that carbon (carbon dioxide) is a pollutant. This was (and is) nothing more than a overly zealous enviro-political (non-scientific) judgment that is completely without merit and self-serving (screw the people).

As is typical of these types of players – the stealth approach. Keeping much of this quiet and under the table…not really including anyone else from the outside (such as the coal companies)…and then during the last few days of the legislative session – sell it (spring it) as the best idea since the wheel…and that no one is against it. There’s good reason for this and rushing it through was intentional on the part of the bill's sponsors - because the more (longer) it was exposed , the worse it looked.

The near zero emissions clean coal technology is already here, so why not add to and further develop existing technology instead of switching to a more expensive alternative (or at least use clean coal technology as a bridge/complement to future energy sources) which also have carbon emissions problems? Plus, CO2 sequestering from the clean coal process can actually be used to get more oil/gas out of the ground. Ask yourselves… are we really going to let (radical) environmentalists and the EPA (puppet) shut down all of America - especially Colorado?

Another Day, Another Climate Dollar

2009-12-18T16:16:00.000-08:00

So, Friday December 18th, 2009 has come and almost gone for many of us. The World powers at be preparing to leave the Copenhagen Climate Summit venue after nearly two weeks of failed negotiations. But alas, somehow...mysteriously...the "consensus" is that a "meaningful climate change deal has been struck." Well, many of us know just what a "consensus" actually means...especially with regards to the issue of anthropogenic climate change - BUPKIS!

For Two weeks millions of dollars in travel (if not tens of millions) were spent by a rather select eclectic group of "pseudo" scientists, radical enviro-activists (terrorists) and power hungry politicians. Now, there's the group that we all want making world policy for the rest of us.

Obama is struggling right now and is somewhat desperate in getting something accomplished since his Health Care Bill is going down in flames (relatively speaking, it's a mere shadow of what it was supposed to be...although a version of it will probably be passed) and the Cap and Trade Bill has taken a major turn for the worse and will in all likelihood never get through the Senate in one piece. He recently was given (not earned) the Nobel Piece Prize primarily as a way to earn his support for future promises (return of favors). One of those promises came to fruition this week in Copenhagen as he tried to save the planet in a couple of hours with a speech to the choir and some diplomatic talking (pleading is the way I heard it) with China. A B+ for the first year so far? Really?

This issue and subject for which I have been passionate about for nearly twenty years is becoming so tiring. Watching and listening to a bunch of bait and switch artists continuing to pull the wool over our eyes. The recent promises made by both Clinton (H.) and Obama at this week's conference to pledge between 30 and 100 billion a year (through 2020) to poor countries to, "Help them cope with global warming." is an absolute atrocity. Even if I believed in the AGW premise, I would be livid at the thought of throwing money into somebody else's coffee tin when we are currently going through extreme economic hardships ourselves. The fact that I know the hypothesis of GW is BS...and that some world leaders are trying to use the fuzzy complexity of the science to hide behind, makes me downright sick. It is truly despicable. And, along the way, the sciences as a whole are being reputably damaged to boot. Quite a major loss I'd say.

Headway has been made by those of us who preach rational thought and moderation in action. "Climategate" - although a bit on the extreme side (but rather harmless in the overall scheme of things...I mean, who did it hurt except for those science ego-maniacs trying to perpetuate a false climate hypothesis through political strong-arming (and vise versa). Science and politics does make for strange bedfellows! And, even more recently, the Russians have figured out that the IPCC and their climate minions failed to use nearly 40% of their climate data or actually changed it to fit their needs. Now, that's what I call good science. And, if they cherry picked their data from the USSR - what have they been doing with data from around the rest of the world? Yet, we base world policy on this! And, don't even get me started on the Gore brain-trust...I assume that some of you heard his "2 million" degree explanation regarding geothermal energy. (That's right, it apparently is a couple of million degrees just a couple of kilometers below the surface of the earth. He does know that we drill for oil at those depths and would in all likelihood have quit that doing that long ago - just after the first few crews were vaporized!) And this from our fearless flawed film maker and other recent Nobel Piece Prize winner (along with the IPCC) - Al "The SnakeOil" Gore.

What is next from this group?

More later...

J.Braun

You've Got To Be Kidding

2009-12-18T08:11:00.000-08:00

At times it seems as though I (and just a few others) am (are) the lone voice of reason in the midst of a cacophony of blind rats (and not even the nasty furry kind…but the nasty human kind which are much worse). OK, that being said, how can the Obama Administration (Clinton, et al) go to the Climate Conference and promise 100 billion dollars/year through 2020 to "poorer countries" to help them "cope with global warming."? More than another trillion dollars? Are you kidding me? That's OUR money! Are we suddenly solvent and economically in the black? AND, this promise over a science issue that is not even scientific! It's a complete pseudoscience! I work in the atmospheric sciences...and I ought to know (along with many, many, many of my peers!). Although, I know this is nothing new to many of you. It seems that these leftist tactics are nothing more than economic and political realignment (world-wide). It's not even environmental (unless you want to think of it as environmental terrorism and extortion!)! How can Obama and Company be stopped from this madness? And what about the Cap and Trade Bill…how can it be stopped? What just happened in Copenhagen and the move toward Waxman/Markey Bill is the grossest misuse of a highly misunderstood process in order to hide what's really going on! Although I have been fighting the politics and science of this issue (AGW) for nearly 2o years now, (We the) rest of the people are finally catching on too and this enviro-political non-scientific movement is being found out for what it really is. I have beat myself over the head with this issue for a long time now. I have both discussed quietly and screamed from the roof-tops. I have argued and debated until I was (quite literally) either blue or red in the face. But the time has come when enough is enough. The outrageous (although quite cunning when you think about it) premise of the issue and the political, economic, and sociological control that has been garnered over the years is truly amazing. But, it has to stop for a wide variety of reasons (most of which you know, so I won’t repeat). Along with all those other reasons, however, is one which seldom gets mentioned – to save the (good?) name of science. World policy being drawn up and implemented out of a complex yet pseudoscientific hypothesis is dangerous for us all. I think the people of this world are smart enough to know what environmentally right and wrong, without being lied to. Worse yet, it’s lies mixed with a sprinkling of truth…which really messes things up. And, it’s slowly eroding the past dependability of the scientific disciplines. I work in the sciences and, with few exceptions, I don’t trust any “scientific” endeavor and am always asking myself what’s really behind this study (grant money, longevity of career, favors, quotas, etc.). I wish that weren’t the case, but perhaps my “faith” in the sciences can be restored by bringing back justice. Maybe it can’t – but I’d certainly like to restore some of the lost integrity.

j. braun

Snake Oil. Does anyone understand...

2007-02-19T10:14:00.000-08:00

...that statistically, global temperature change is a load of...well, you know. The variance (deviation) of the of the associated observations used to “compute” the changes are so big…especially when talking about climate model output…or proxy data used for historical records and input into the temperature data base…or even differences among the thermometers used at a set point over a period of time…NEGATE the verifiable possibility of any direct correlation of anthropogenic increases in CO2 causing global warming (or cooling)…and DEFINITELY WIPE OUT any possible consequences of said “possible” warming.

What we really need to monitor is the chance of a return to a real ice age (we are nearing the time of a natural return to a cooling period on Earth) because COLD KILLS (warmth gives and sustains life…just look at the past). And, if we are in a warming period (which is perfectly natural by the way…the Earth is a wildly dynamic system you know)…how will the precipitation patterns be changed?...that’s the real question, because water means life too. There is absolutely NO WAY to know what the direct (or indirect) changes to aerial coverage of precipitation would be (or the amounts either)…no matter what anybody tells you.

In a way, a warming trend (if there is one at all) before we head back into the depths of a long winter should be welcomed…not feared because of what some evangelical eco terrorists yell from their lofty roof tops. While some of those (eco warmers) are trying to do the right thing because of what they’ve been told, the majority have an agenda and are using “the global warming scenario” to scare enough people to get what they want. The problem is…so many people have been told outright that man made global warming is real and now (which it isn’t)…”Well, that’s what I heard on TV (or in the news paper…or online…etc).” that it’s very hard to get then to look and understand what is real. The bottom line is…if you want to cut out the use of hydrocarbons (or quit breathing) for any reason OTHER THAN global warming…have at it! Great! Just don’t do it because somebody is telling you that you will fry due to an increase in global average temperatures caused by none other than you and me. Give your time, energy and money to some other cause that will actually help someone (the choices are limitless)…not one that is being presented and sold as snake oil used to be years ago. This is today’s snake oil!

A Letter to...

2007-01-29T12:10:00.000-08:00

To the President...my congressman(woman)...the editor...whomever...,

Concerning global warming: I have been “doing battle” down here in the lower echelons for a while now and I am tired of being labeled a bad guy. I have a feeling that this note and my remarks will never really" get to "you", but at least I’ll have some of this off my chest.

You’re probably wondering on which side of this heated fence I am standing. Well, I’ll tell you, if I wanted the easy way out, I’d stand on the “pro anthropogenic global warming” side. It’s too easy of a subject (ironically, because of its complexity) to manipulate to look as though Armageddon is one step from the doorway (or, for some…the foot is in the door!). And, if you haven’t already come to learn to believe in it and/or combat it, you are a terrible human being on several levels. The truth is, I stand on the side of level headed caution…where “cooler” heads prevail.

By trade, I am a meteorologist…an atmospheric scientist. I have worked for the federal government in both research and operational positions (currently research) so at least I have some educational and professional qualifications. Truth is, with this topic, I could probably use an MBA or a degree in marketing/advertising since real science has truly taken a back seat to the world wide economic force that has been manipulated to the max through (by) the media! Have we really come so far as to let the media (as well as all of those who have a monetary stake in the “selling” of global warming) script what will happen, just as you would a motion picture or television show, and present the images and information in such a way that the issue of global warming becomes eminent, here and now! Is the general population so dumb that we have to be lead with lies and deceit just in order to do what’s right because it’s the right thing to do (like less pollution because…do we really have to have a “because” anymore…or like less oil so that we don’t rely so much on the volatile whims of the middle east). I could probably use an advanced degree in political science too, come to think of it. In the end though, when you peel back the layers of propaganda that completely encase the “hypothesis” – that’s right, it’s ONLY a hypothesis – of global warming (or, as the global warmers have now changed it to – “climate change”), you find a kind of “scientific truth” based on political, economical, and philosophical information…not scientific fact based on hard verifiable data!

I have just recently read and watched some excerpts from the Senate committee hearing held a few months back concerning global climate change (or more specifically in this case, “global warming”). What struck me more than anything was the typical rudeness and lack of consideration Senator Barbara Boxer showed for both guests, Dr. William Gray and Dr. Michael Crichton. Again, and unfortunately “typically”, Boxer showed her true colors…politician first, Democrat second and economic major third. In other words, she knows NOTHING whatsoever about the topic that was supposedly being discussed other than what she wanted to know (already knew) that could be used to further your own party’s agenda. Ms. Boxer (and many others within her party or with the same agenda) DOESN”T LISTEN! She just hears what she wants to hear. The very fact that Ms. Boxer, et al, want to affect policy change with this kind of attitude and lack of listening and reasoning is appalling…by any standards.

In the world of global warming, and to some extent, science in general, hype and hyperbole have nearly become the norms. Many scientists lack a good source of cash flow and are constantly scrounging for money in order to stay in “business.” Yes, “business” is the word…every bit as much as what goes on in those cooperate towers downtown. And it’s become big business too. So much so that people are willing to sacrifice the so-called ‘good’ name of science in pursuit of the almighty dollar. Gone are the days of the of the poor but righteous scientist…the lone beacon in the quest for facts and the use of logical reasoning to find conclusions…the last “go to guy” when you really needed to know what the hell was going on! Unfortunately, as happens most frequently nowadays, people (including scientists) have figured out a way to “cash in” on nearly any idea…or in this case – hypotheses. It also seems that more and more of these people are in search of their fifteen minutes of fame…with some trying to stretch those fifteen minutes into an hour.

And then there is the political side of things. Right now…this very minute…the all knowing and all powerful state of California has pushed legislation through the state congress to cut CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions put into the air by local industry, by 25% through the year 2020. Now, if you stop right there and instead change the wording to “cut all emissions” or to something that targets a wider group than just “greenhouse gases”…that’s alright. However, it’s being sold that since California is both the most populous state in the country and supposedly the world's 12th largest emitter of greenhouse gases, as a resident one could suffer dire consequences if global (regional) temperatures increase only a few degrees. And, it’s “your” (mine and ours) fault! Mother nature would never be this devious! So in the classic California mindset, global warming is a done deal…it’s real…it’s here…it’s now. And of course, when there is big money on the line, only bad things to come of it…otherwise, why fight it…right?

Now, I get asked by all sorts of people if there is truth to global warming. Actually, most just tell me that they know it’s true and ask me either why it’s happening or what I’m (as an atmospheric scientist) going to do about it. Sure there is truth to global warming…just as there is to global cooling! One or the other is ALWAYS happening. The Earth and the atmosphere are dynamic…not static! Warming or cooling is all relative and completely depends on what time period (range) you are looking at. Why anyone should think that today should be like yesterday…or tomorrow will be like a month from now…much less the longer geologic time periods that mark many of the historical climate eras…is beyond me. However, when you tack the word “anthropogenic” on to the front of “global warming”…this is a completely different (and most unfounded) story. It’s interesting though…the hard truth is that we (or life in general) survives and thrives in a warm (warmer) climate. Life dies and major extinctions occur when it gets cold! And so far, the historical geologic cold (cool) periods last far longer than the warm periods. As a matter of fact, we are due for a return to the ice ages “relatively” soon (just ask your own experts). So, a little warmth before hand may not be a bad thing. Funny how no one ever talks about the up side of global warming…it’s ALWAYS dire straights! Where is the definitive proof that, even if there was an iota of truth to anthropogenic global warming, global warming wouldn’t be beneficial? Another truth is that this scenario is just not marketable. Apparently, you have to scare the money and/or sense out of them! You need good stuff for the media to feast on and great stuff for the movies or the Discovery Channel to latch on to in order to be able to successfully market such a scenario! And, just to help bolster the situation, the global warmers of the world are changing the name of their cause from “global warming” to “global climate change.” This way, regardless of what climatic or weather related natural disaster occurs…they can take credit for it (i.e. Hurricane Katrina, heat wave in the western USA, record cold winter in South Africa, Europe and Asia, etc)! In the end, the song always remains the same…any extreme form of climate or weather “change” can only be coming from one possible source…anthropogenic increasing of carbon dioxide...duh! What a joke. This is like basing the earth’s climate average on a coastal city where extremes are severely tempered by ocean nearby and then looking at weekly, monthly, yearly (or longer) changes in weather and climate at a city located in the interior of a continent where extremes are the norm!

There is a saying in business/economic world that applies quite well to the global warming movement; “Before companies have something to sell, news flow drives valuations.” For science this then becomes, “Before science has something to sell, news flow drives the worth of the work…and valuations too” Therefore headlines (hypothesis or proposed theories), even if the claims prove to be groundless, fruitless, or out and out lies, can push up the “stock price” of the global warming movement and supporting cast (scientists, activists, politicians, etc.). Recently, hurricane Katrina was one such “news flow” (and has flowed on now for more than a year) that has been appropriately milked, bilked, and abused by the “global warmers” to such an extent that even among their own, no one knows what to really believe…except what is good for their own political “reality.” If you really want to point fingers at whom to blame for the aftermath of Katrina…blame first the “people” for building a city below sea level in one of the most hurricane prone areas in this country in the first place( I know it is strategically located for shipping purposes…it’s all economic, as usual)…then blame the city of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana second. Interesting why the North Atlantic Ocean is targeted most often when it comes to statistics concerning hurricane activity and (related to) global warming. The three primary reasons are: Some actual increased annual tropical cyclone activity over the last thirty or so years, money, and politics (which ultimately means economics and thus, MONEY!). This scenario plays out, of course, due to the (unfortunate) geographic location of the money and politics (USA) lying in the path of or adjacent to the region of the increased hurricane activity.

Just in the last year as you very well know, ten states and two large cities (I’ll bet you can guess who they are) in addition to the environmental watchdog groups of Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Sierra Club, brought a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (federal government) for not regulating CO2 emissions (pollution) close enough and directly causing global warming. I believe that a similar lawsuit was filed back in 2003 (supposedly settled in 2005 – in favor of the EPA) in response to a 2002 ruling stating that the EPA doesn’t have the authority to control greenhouse gas emissions under the clean air act. The Sierra Club, which supported both of these lawsuits, somehow came to the absolute conclusion that CO2 emissions have already caused the world to “warm up”, leading to unstable weather patterns, floods, droughts, and outbreaks of tropical diseases and that extreme weather events initiated by global warming cost Americans nearly $20 billion in 2002. The Sierra club and their cohorts and lawyers like to draw a lot of conclusions by proxy and through the use of the transitive property. They had no definitive verifiable proof then (2002 – 2005), and still have none, except that there is a renewed interest with the help of a certain hurricane that came on shore in August 2005. Again, looking to make a buck. Can you see ANY other country in the world being held hostage with such ludicrous lawsuits except for the USA? The global warmers and their lawyers need to find someone or group (not really something) to blame it on. So, the easiest thing to do is to say that it is human induced (anthropogenic) global warming that is responsible for the increase in global temperatures….now let the suits begin! To do this, you use a rather complex subject (global climate change) that is based largely on a non-verifiable set of data…proxy data…nad/or suspect data compiled under extremely poor observational standards in the first place (not to mention standards which have changed by a large amount over time). Data with extreme bias in many cases. This manipulated and largely suspect data is then put into global climate models with overall results that can range up to 500 percent in differences in some cases. When you are talking about world geography and climatology together, you need to be looking at hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of years (or more depending upon the subject and the size of the data grid) of verifiable data in order to be statistically significant. While 30 to 50 years may work for local statistics, the same is not true when you apply it to a global system. And, you cannot simply extrapolate or interpolate the results from smaller sets (local/regional) of data to get what you want. You need time and coverage…two things that you and the global warmers do not have at the moment…at least not if they want to get funding NOW…or make headlines NOW…or whatever NOW…etc!

Let’s look at a few quick statistics just for fun. These statistics will deal with tropical cyclones (hurricanes, typhoons, tropical storms) since they often seem to be used as one of the “indicators” for global warming (by proxy)…and because they are big, nasty, at times destructive…almost always headline worthy. For this quick look at the relationship between tropical cyclone activity and the world, I broke the Earth “globally” into five different geographic regions of tropical cyclone (TC) production; the Atlantic, the Eastern Pacific, the Central Pacific, the Western Pacific, and Southern Hemisphere. The most recent 35 year period between 1970 and 2004 was selected due to the fact that much has been made of the “extreme” and/or “unusual” weather and climate (Since about 1970 - when we started our last micro-warming period) that is now apparently a direct result of global warming. The table below shows the average annual number of tropical cyclones (tropical storm intensity or greater - i.e. sustained winds greater than or equal to 39 mph) for each decade as well as the 35 year average.

Average Annual TCs by decade 1970-1979 1980-1989 1990-1999 2000-2004 35yr. Annual Average

Atlantic 9.5 9.3 11.0 14.6 10.6
Basin

Northeastern Pacific 15.0 18.6 14.7 14.4 15.6

North Central Pacific 3.0 3.8 3.1 2.6 3.2

Northwestern Pacific 25.9 26.0 28.3 25.8 26.6

Southern Hemisphere 32.9 27.8 29.1 25.0 29.2

Notice the last five years between 2000 and 2004. This is suppose to be a time of maximum warming over the last 30 to 40 years, yet with the exception of the Atlantic basin, all the rest of the regions are well below the 35 year annual average. Do the global warmers ever let you know about this? No, they tend to cherry pick what they want you to see and hear (or, at the very least, don’t voluntarily divulge the rest of the story). This “trick” is particularly easy to do when dealing with a relatively complicated issue (or at least one that is presented as being complicated). It’s not really lying, but it’s the next best thing. You and the rest of the global warmers count on this…confusing the topic enough to induce ignorance or ambivalence.

Interestingly, if you keep the same relationship but look only at the southern hemisphere (instead of the Atlantic Basin), you could conclude that there must be global cooling going on since there has been somewhat of a downward trend in tropical cyclone production over the last 35 years. As a matter of fact, you can draw more conclusions from this data that doesn’t support global warming from the full data set, than you can supporting it! And, at the very least (or most, depending on your outlook on this matter), no matter how you manipulate the data, you cannot definitively conclude that global warming, anthropogenic or natural, is necessarily occurring according to the data. In other words, there is NO direct, statistically significant, correlation between this set of numbers and global warming of any kind! So, obviously, your cannot interpolate , extrapolate, or find through regression analysis any sort of relationship, past or present, to global warming…much less anthropogenic global warming. And, this is just one example…the list goes on and on.

One of the worst scientific things to come to light out of all this “hot” propaganda has to do with research availability being driven by what the scientific journals will publish (instead of the opposite). Lately, you’d think that some of the so-called peer reviewed science journals were vying for ratings and advertising dollars as they have begun to publish virtual opinion piece editorials under the guise of refereed article. The journal (hesitate to call it this) slash magazine “Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society” (BAMS) has actually gone so far as to literally declare its allegiance to the pro-global warming issue (fall/winter issues 2005)! And this is from an organization (The American Meteorological Society) that is suppose to uphold the scientific process and remain as close being totally objective as possible. I guess that it’s really not possible anymore as BAMS just published a paper entitled, “Mixing Politics and Science in Testing the Hypothesis That Greenhouse Warming Is Causing a Global Increase in Hurricane Intensity” which is more of and editorial opinion piece than any sound piece of peer reviewed science. The truth is, headlines drive (money for) research, and the research must support the headlines in order to keep getting the money. So the marketing (or lobbying) of global warming has accomplished its task. Anymore, if you are on the anti-global warming side of this argument, there is virtually no way to obtain research money…because there are so many economical and political reasons to keep you out of “the pie.” So the issue (lie) becomes widely lopsided and starts being sold as fact, by virtue of the “anti-global warming” side just fading away. If you don’t hear that much about the opposite side of global warming, then global warming (climate change) can only be true…right? Now who’s the “bad guy”? Who is keeping who from making informative decisions?

Finally, there’s the issue of the name of “science” that is being sacrificed. If you really want to control CO2 emissions (and all other types of pollution) because you are compelled to do so…or just because it’s the right and thoughtful thing to do…then have at and do it! Even do it for political reasons if you must (because we just can’t get enough government control you know). And, if you have moral and/or religious reasons to lower the amount of carbon dioxide that gets into the air…then by all means, give it hell! (Although, there’s probably more CO2 breathed out during a good long sermon than there is for a commute to work.) Do it for all those reasons, but please don’t let the “good” name of science to continue to be dragged down by using falsehood and deception just to get what some person, group or entity wants (money, fame, fortune, etc.). The issue of global warming and its cost not only affects the people of the world politically and economically, but also directly affects the “good” name of science and undermines everything science has tried to build and live up to in the past. Who will we go to in the end when all else fails…to give us the facts…or even the truth. Above all, LISTEN to both sides before you try to change or initiate policy. I truly wish that Ms. Boxer would offer both Dr. Gray and Dr. Crichton an apology…as they were trying offer us those facts…but alas, nobody was there to listen…only to make them look bad.

Save the people of the world now from all the awful consequences of “real life” and don’t let these environmental terrorists (they really are terrorists in their own right) hold us all hostage over a hypothesis that will not be proved or disproved for many centuries or millennia. Life goes on, one way or another. The earth was not put here just for us egocentric human beings…it will be here long after we are gone. It’s ironic, but if we don’t take care of ourselves now…help those that we can help NOW…we may never get to prove or disprove global warming down the road. When the Earth decides it’s time to change…it’ll change, regardless of what we do…for good or bad. That’s the way it has been, it will be…it must be.

Sincerely and with best regards,

JB (Meteorologist/Atmospheric Scientist) 1/29/2007

Global Warming - Hot Hype at its Best!

2007-01-29T10:27:00.000-08:00

Once again, it's that time of the year when the Global Warming lobbies are working their hardest to make sure that you don't forget that we are on track to complete and total global destruction. This is primarily due to the fact that The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is meeting right now in Paris France. With billions (trillions) of dollars on the line, some countries are literally selling their respective population (economic) souls for a piece of the action. While the US is still considered somewhat of a skeptic (holdout) when it comes to supporting global warming as a mean to our (or the world's) end, the President did actually acknowledge that global warming is a (potential) problem during last weeks State of the Union Address. A politician bowing to political pressure...so what's new?

Ironically, however, the biggest (largely democratic) of the big proponents of global warming lay in wait right here under our noses, pushing the great untruths through films like Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" ...or addressing the preposterous need for a "net" (to partially block sunlight from reaching the surface) to be launched and put up in orbit around the Earth. By the way, those who take the Al Gore film as gospel need to learn the difference between truth and fact! (You'll notice that they didn't call it "An Inconvenient Fact"...because there wasn't any!) You also have to keep in mind that Al and Co. are out for one thing and one thing only...your money...whether they get it from you by attending the film, or later through support...that's all they really want. They are out to get money to use for solving "other" problems by attracting dollars through the use of scare tactics associated with media driven favorite and spectacular subject of global warming. Never mind that most of all this frenzy is quite possibly the largest load of propaganda (bs in other words) ever to be unleashed upon a global population...ever! Now, there is a source of greenhouse gas polution if I ever saw one!

In a world constantly in turmoil and often held hostage by real physical terrorists...it's ironic that we are all being held hostage by a bunch of terrorists too...albeit, eco-terrorists...but terrorists all the same. The only difference between this kind of terrorism and the violent physical kind is the way that they take your life away from you. Whereas your run-of-the-mill (cowardly) middle east terrorist will try to end your life with expediency by taking their own life with a bomb in a crowded area or with a well placed bullet or bazooka blast, the eco-terrorist will chooses to try and scare you to death...through the spreading of some well placed and timed propaganda (If at first you don't succeed...brainwash, brainwash again...and again....and again!).
It's pretty damn sad when a Hollywood disaster/action film called The Day After Tomorrow gets "voted" as one of Hollywood's most "socially significant" movies of the past one hundred years!...but that's the great and all knowing Hollywood at its best. It should be noted that Al Gore's recent film "An Inconvenient Truth" has garnered an Oscar nomination for this year's Academy Awards...all to gather more political steam during prime time...not for the quality of work. Remember what "artistic license" means: basically to do whatever it takes to get an idea across (even to the point of lying, cheating, stealing and using whatever means possible to scare everyone to death...to find a way to extract blood from the proverbial turnip).

I have been working in the sciences for over 20 years - 15 of those in the atmospheric sciences - and I can, without a doubt, tell you that anthropogenic global warming is a complete (mostly) political farce that has become a beast with its own seven heads. I've watched what this kind of message (the global warming message, that is) is doing not only to the people of the world, but also to the scientific community as a whole...and it's ruining both! The former are being sold a "bill of goods" and the latter are selling out! And for what? Partly, it's about obtaining a larger bottom line (what else)...and partly it's about using a scenario that is relatively complicated (so as not to be judged too closely) and that has the supposed ability to threaten life everywhere on this planet. In other words, a subject that can be manipulated at will to be "anything at anytime to everyone" and, with the media's (only too willing) help...made to be downright terrifying!

A few last things to keep in mind: 1. The allusion "that global warming is ALWAYS a threat to life on earth!" Just so you know...all of the major extinctions that have occurred on this planet have been caused by temperatures dropping...not by temperatures rising! Warm gives life...cold takes it away. 2. Remember that the climate has been, and always will be, dynamic! It is always changing. Why would anyone or any group suggest that change is not natural...and that "we humans" are the only ones responsible for its change? To find somebody (thing) to blame of course...it's what we do best (followed closely by suing of course). 3. Know what the real agendas are of those peddling you the global warming snake oil. There are some who are using global warming to affect change somewhere else (usually an environmental cause) by selling the lies of global warming to the public (scaring us), then attaching the interest (or money) generated to another cause. This has always been one of the best used political strategies...and the same general tactic used to give themselves (congress) raises. Let's make a deal at its best.

Please, I implore you. If you want to cut back on CO2 production to decrease polution overall...then do it! If you want to cut back so that you won't be at the mercy of the oil conglomerates...all the power to you! If you want to do it becasue it's the right thing to do...right on! The point is...do it for the right reasons...not because of a pack of "convenient lies!"

Dear Anonymous

2006-11-16T07:25:00.000-08:00

It’s quite interesting (but I guess not that surprising) for people that write editorial/opinion pieces, that the type of people who respond or comment to these pieces largely fall into two categories: 1. Those who love what and how you say what you do, and 2. Those who absolutely hate you and everything you stand for. There is no in between. I suppose that some of this has to do with the particular topic that you are tackling at the time, as relatively minor subjects often get no response at all.

Obviously I have no beef with those that agree wholeheartedly with me, as they are clearly rational and probably good humored individuals. ( I could, as a writer/scientist/debater, find something “wrong” with them, but why nitpick and burn my bridges. And, besides, they are absolutely right to agree with me.) Those, however, who vehemently oppose my stance and start their response with a phrase such as, “Oh my f@#$ing god…blah, blah, blah” or, “You’re a complete @$$hole…blah, blah, blah” are the one’s with whom I take offense…and even feel sorry for (wink, wink…nudge, nudge).

So, for all of you opinion hating responders (at least those who hate my opinions) out there, you should try following a few simple rules and perhaps what spills forth from that hole above your neck (“you” probably have more than one hole up there, but you know which one I’m talking about), or into those spindly fingers on the keyboard, may be taken with more than just a grain of salt.

Here is an example of a recent negative response to an article that I did concerning global warming (just so you know, I’m an un-supporter of anthropogenic global warming and its consequences and my professional background is the atmospheric sciences): “oh my f@#$ing god. there really are people out there who live in a fantasy land? check their sources, check their research, then reject it? you're one hell of a fool.” That’s it. That was the extent of their message…and perhaps vocabulary (or IQ…or sperm count…and the list goes on and on). Yes, their statements were short and sort of to the point…but so much of what they really wanted to say are missing.

If I were he or she (I can’t believe I just said that), here’s what I would have done to really “get me back.” First of all, I would have suckered me into actually reading and wanting to understand his/her point of view by actually using a few more rules of grammar than my six year old son does. It doesn’t have to be a lot, just a capital letter here and there…and maybe a complete sentence or two. When a person writes like the example in the previous paragraph, it reminds me of the seriously demented killer or kidnapper who pastes letters cut from a magazine onto a piece of paper to avoid identification (of course, sending the comment anonymously in the first place doesn’t show much in the way of backbone to begin with). Identify yourself. Not so that I can hunt you down, but so that I can respond to your statement or question with Dear “Xxxxx” instead of Dear Anonymous.

Next, there’s the use of the “f” word and all of its derivatives. Now, as curse words go, the “f” word is hands down my all time favorite and I’m glad to see that it must also be “their” curse word of choice too. But if you are really going to try and get me to read the rest of what you have to say and give it any consideration at all, you might try leaving it till the end of your rant. I think if you had put “f@#$ing” before “fool” (the last word of your short but sweet diatribe), it would have made for much better reading. I know I would have appreciated it. Also, be a bit more creative when you use the “f” word…or at least reuse a phrase that is a bit more inspired such as, “F@#$ you and the horse you rode in on!” It has some flair to it and it shows that deep down you really care enough to say it right. I could get into the whole “f@#$ing god” thing, but we’ll have to save that for a discussion of “your” religious psyche and fact that you apparently need to get laid (and the sooner the better).

“there really are people out there who live in a fantasy land?” I’m confused, is that a statement or a question? (See how I ended a question with a question mark?...I just did it again. And, I ended the previous statement with a period! And that last one with an exclamation point. I could go on forever, but I won’t.) Now, if he/she is saying that I must live in fantasy land…I only wish! Living amongst either the Disney characters or along side of Mr. Rourk and Tatoo (“Dee plane, dee plane.”) sounds like my kind of place. Still, where’s your proof that I live in fantasy land? And, if he/she is asking me if I live there…sadly, I don’t. But, I do get to endure the lively, interesting and thought provoking quips that “you” put forth….but in a bad way.

The next pseudo-sentence, “check their sources, check their research, then reject it?” is possibly in response to a suggestion that I made in one of my anti global warming articles (tongue and cheek I might add), that due to the complexities of the (psuedo) science of global warming, I suggested that “we” (the reader) do some additional research on the subject ourselves. Otherwise, you may just as well allow the global warming propaganda to become the gospel because the subject is complex enough that no body really wants to dig deep enough to debate the issue. The other possibility may point to this person being a poor researcher him(her)self in that if they re-check their own sources…re-check their own research…and find discrepancies…that there is no possible way they are going to reject their own research…even if it is bad or just plain wrong. They put it out there anyway and hope that nobody takes the time to dig far enough to see just how wrong they actually are. Plus, they already have the political and scientific (not to mention, monetary) support of all those in the same boat. It’s a relatively new (pseudo) science that environmentalists and politicians have adopted as a means to scare the hell out of us in order to get “other things” done. Good for them…very bad for science! Anyway, it’s just a thought…or opinion. If “they” would have actually taken the time to clarify their position and substantiate it…maybe I’d have to eat my words.

The last statement, “you’re one hell of a fool” is by far the most lucid thing that they had to say. Maybe I am a fool in some ways (I read and am currently responding to their idiotic response after all). Again, this is where I would have used the word “f@#$ing”…right before “fool”, but that’s just me. If “you” are out there and happen to read this response to your response, just think how lucky you are that I cared enough to take the time that I did to write more than 31 words…and with whole sentences, paragraphs and everything. So in wrapping this thing up…and again, because I care so much…I have just two more things to say to “you” if you come across this: Have a nice day. F@#$ you and the horse you rode in on!

Hot Hype and Hyperbole are Killing the ‘Good’ Name of Science (or what’s left of it)

2006-09-01T12:15:00.000-07:00

In the world of science and global warming, hype and hyperbole are the norms. Most scientists lack a good source of cash flow and are constantly scrounging for money to stay in “business.” Yes, “business” is the word…every bit as much as what goes on in those cooperate towers downtown. And it’s become big business too…so much so that people are willing to sacrifice the so-called ‘good’ name of science in pursuit of the almighty dollar. Gone are the days of the of the poor but righteous scientist…the lone beacon in the quest for fact or truth…the last go to guy when you really needed to know what the hell was going on! Unfortunately, as happens most frequently nowadays, people have figured out a way to “cash in” on nearly any idea…or in this case – hypothesis. It also seems that more and more people are in search of their fifteen minutes of fame…or trying to stretch those fifteen minutes into an hour or more.

Right now…this very minute…the all knowing and all powerful state of California is “going it alone” and is trying to push legislation through the state congress to cut CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions, put into the air by local industry, by 25% through the year 2020. The wording that accompanies this proposed bill from the current Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is as follows: "…an example for other states and nations to follow as the fight against climate change continues." (As of this writing, this bill passed 43 to 30 in the Assembly and is on its way to the Senate.) California, the do-gooders that they are, are trying to lead by example. Well, bless there hearts! California is the USA’s most populous state and supposedly the world's 12th largest emitter of greenhouse gases and could suffer dire consequences if global temperatures increase only a few degrees, don’t you know. So in the California mindset, global warming is a done deal…it’s real…it’s here…and it’s happening. And, of course, there can only be bad things to come of it. Funny how no one ever talks about the up side of global warming, but that’s not marketable. You can’t scare the money out of people fast enough if everything is (or would be) coming up roses. And, just so you know, even if global warming were happening, or were to happen later, (natural, man made, whatever) all the supposed ominous consequences are completely and utterly made up…as in fictional! But good stuff for the media to feast on and great stuff for the movies (or the Discovery Channel)! This is also why the global warmers of the world are slowly trying to change the name of their cause from global warming to “global change” or “global climate change.” You’ve probably noticed this already. This way, regardless of what climatic or weather related natural disaster occurs…they can take credit for it (i.e. Hurricane Katrina, heat wave in the western USA, record cold winter in South Africa, Europe and Asia, etc)! The song always remains the same however, with any extreme form of climate or weather only coming from one source…increased greenhouse gases!...duh!

There is a saying in business that applies quite well to the global warming movement; “Before companies have something to sell, news flow drives valuations.” This saying then becomes, “That before scientists have something to sell, news flow drives the worth of the work.” Therefore headlines (hypothesis or proposed theories) , even if the claims prove groundless, fruitless, or lies, can push up the “stock price” of the global warming community or individual scientist long enough — or nudge deals forward — to keep some scientists on life support that would normally be finished, or give those more established a career full of money and work! Katrina was one such “news flow” (that has flowed on now for a year) and has been appropriately milked, bilked, and abused by the global warmers to such an extent that even among the global warmers, no one knows what to believe…except what is good for their own “reality.”

Katrina was also a turning point as far as the way the marketing of global warming was done. Before Katrina, the message was largely, “If global warming turns out to be true, then a hundred years from now…” fill in the blank. After Katrina, the message became, “Because of current on-going global warming we now face more Katrinas and other climate disasters…and it will only get worse!” It’s all about timing and the way that things are perceived. Since global warmers don’t have any directly logical verifiable data that supports their cause (they can’t artificially manufacture a hurricane based on their assumptions – except in their models), they lie in wait for just such an opportunity – i.e. Katrina. So far in 2006, northern Atlantic hurricane activity has been quite slow…both in numbers and intensity (look at the wimpy Ernesto for example) from those forecast late last year into early summer of this year. If the season turns out to be a bust, I’m predicting that the global warmers will come out with a new hypothesis that global warming caused this lull in the action…or at the very least will try to draw attention away from the lack of hurricane activity in the Atlantic and its relationship to global warming.

Ever wonder why the North Atlantic Ocean is targeted most often when it comes to statistics concerning hurricane activity and global warming? The three primary reasons are: Some actual increased annual tropical cyclone activity over the last thirty or so years, money, and politics (which ultimately means MONEY!). This scenario plays out, of course, due to the (unfortunate) geographic location of the money and politics lying adjacent to that of the increased hurricane activity. Of course we are talking about the USA. Who else on this globe has more money or politics to throw (away) at a given cause than the United States of America. And, on the other side of the coin, who can the rest of the world point fingers at and blame for the majority of global warming (just because they are a relatively “wealthy” nation and can afford lots of those things that put CO2 into the air – namely cars and power companies) in order to get something from them? Again, the good ‘ol USA. Just in the last year, ten states and two large cities (I’ll bet you can guess who they are) in addition to the environmental watchdog groups Environmental Defense, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Sierra Club, brought a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (federal government) for not regulating CO2 emissions (pollution) close enough and directly causing global warming. A similar lawsuit was filed back in 2003 (supposedly settled in 2005 – in favor of the EPA) in response to a 2002 ruling stating that the EPA doesn’t have the authority to control greenhouse gas emissions under the clean air act. The Sierra Club, which supported both of the lawsuits (and probably more), somehow came to the absolute conclusion that CO2 emissions have caused the world to ‘warm up,’ leading to unstable weather patterns, floods, droughts, and outbreaks of tropical diseases and that extreme weather events cost Americans nearly $20 billion in 2002 (alluding to global warming being at fault here through the transitive property – a property previously used mainly for mathematics), a cost that would only increase if the U.S. does nothing to curb global warming. They had no definitive verifiable proof then (2002 – 2005), and have none now except that there is a renewed interest with the help of a certain hurricane that came on shore in August 2005. Can you see ANY other country in the world being held hostage with ludicrous lawsuits except for the USA? And, like most things, the only group or individuals to really get rich from all of this finger pointing are the lawyers which will conveniently come to the aid of any bunch of anybody if there’s fame or fortune to be had.

Now, even if a form of global warming was occurring and affecting some aspects of the climate or weather patterns, that is not good enough for the global warmers. The global warmers primary objective is not only to show that the climate has been warming globally, but instead to say that it IS MAN INDUCED global warming…climate change…or greenhouse warming that is responsible for the increase in global temperatures (and of course there are many variations on this theme). These kind of statements are preposterous and are out and out hype and hyperbole. They are based largely, as I said earlier, on a non-verifiable set of data. When you are talking about world geography and climatology you are looking hundreds of years (or even thousands depending upon the subject and the size of the data grid) of verifiable data in order to be statistically significant. While 30 to 50 years may work for local or regional statistics, the same is not true when you apply it to a global system. And, you cannot simply extrapolate or interpolate the results from smaller sets (local/regional) of data to get what you want. You need time and coverage…two things that the global warmers of the world do not have at the moment…at least not if they want funding now!

Let’s look at a few quick statistics just for fun. These statistics will deal with tropical cyclones (hurricanes, typhoons, tropical storms) since they often seem to be used as one of the “indicators” for global warming (by proxy)…and because they are big, nasty, at times destructive, but always headline worthy. For this quick look at the relationship between tropical cyclone activity and the world, the Earth was broken “globally” into five different geographic regions of tropical cyclone (TC) production; the Atlantic, the Eastern Pacific, the Central Pacific, the Western Pacific, and Southern Hemisphere. The most recent 35 year period between 1970 and 2004 was selected due to the fact that much has been made of the “extreme” and/or “unusual” weather and climate (Since about 1970 - when we started our last micro-warming period) that is now apparently a direct result of global warming. The table below shows the average annual number of tropical cyclones (tropical storm intensity or greater - i.e. sustained winds greater than or equal to 39 mph) for each decade as well as the 35 year average.

Avg Annual TCs by decade 1970-1979, 1980-1989, 1990-1999, 2000-2004, 35yr. Annual Avg
Atlantic Basin 9.5, 9.3, 11.0, 14.6, 10.6
Northeastern Pacific 15.0, 18.6, 14.7, 14.4, 15.6
North Central Pacific 3.0, 3.8, 3.1, 2.6, 3.2
Northwestern Pacific 25.9, 26.0, 28.3, 25.8, 26.6
Southern Hemisphere 32.9, 27.8, 29.1, 25.0, 29.2

Notice the last five years between 2000 and 2004. This is suppose to be a time of maximum warming over the last 30 to 40 years, yet with the exception of the Atlantic basin, all the rest of the regions are well below the 35 year annual average. So, the global warmers cherry pick what they want you to see (or, at the very least, don’t voluntarily divulge the rest of the story). This “trick” is particularly easy to do when dealing with a relatively complicated issue (or at least one that is presented as being complicated). This way, it’s not really lying, but it’s the next best thing. The global warmers count on this…confusing the topic enough to induce ignorance or ambivalence. Interestingly, if you keep the same relationship but look only at the southern hemisphere (instead of the Atlantic Basin), you could conclude that there must be global cooling going on since there has been somewhat of a downward trend in tropical cyclone production over the last 35 years. As a matter of fact, you can draw more conclusions from this data that doesn’t support global warming from the full data set, than you can supporting it! And, at the very least (or most, depending on your outlook on this matter), no matter how you manipulate the data, you cannot (nobody can) definitively conclude that global warming, anthropogenic or natural, is necessarily occurring according to the data. In other words, there is NO direct, statistically significant, correlation between this set of numbers and global warming of any kind! So, obviously, your cannot interpolate , extrapolate, or find through regression analysis any sort of relationship, past or present, to global warming…much less anthropogenic global warming.

One of the worst things to come to light out of all this “hot” propaganda has to do with what research is available driven by what the scientific journals will publish. Lately, you’d think that some of the so-called peer reviewed science journals were vying for ratings and advertising dollars as they have begun to publish virtual opinion piece editorials under the guise of refereed article. The journal (hesitate to call it this) slash magazine “Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society” (BAMS) has actually gone so far as to literally declare its allegiance to the pro-global warming issue (fall/winter issues 2005)! And this is from an organization (The American Meteorological Society) that is suppose to uphold the scientific process and remain as close being totally objective as possible. I guess that it’s really not possible anymore as BAMS just published a paper entitled, “Mixing Politics and Science in Testing the Hypothesis That Greenhouse Warming Is Causing a Global Increase in Hurricane Intensity” which is more of and editorial opinion piece than any sound piece of peer reviewed science. The truth is, headlines drive (money for) research, and the research must support the headlines in order to keep getting the money. So the marketing (or lobbying, if you prefer) of global warming has accomplished its task. Anymore, if you are on the anti-global warming side of this argument, there is virtually no way to obtain research money…because there are so many economical and political reasons to keep you out of “their” pie. So the issue (lie) becomes widely lopsided and starts being sold as fact, by virtue of the “other” side just fading away. If you don’t hear that much about the opposite side of global warming, then global warming (climate change) can only be true…right?

Finally, there’s the issue of the name of “science.” If you really want to control CO2 emissions because (and all other types of pollution) because you are compelled to do so…or just because it’s the right and thoughtful thing to do…then have at and do it! Do it for you own political reasons if you must (because you just can’t get enough government). And, if you have moral and/or religious reasons to lower the amount of carbon dioxide that gets into the air…then by all means, give it hell! (Although, there’s probably more CO2 breathed out during a good long sermon than there is for a commute to work.) Do it for all these reasons, but please don’t continue to drag down the name of science by using or buying into falsehood and deception just to get what you or what somebody else wants! And, if you are on the fence over the issue of global warming then adopt this credo and do not take anything - and I mean ANYTHING - related to global warming (for or against) at face value. Dig deeper and the issues real worth or what exactly it’s worth to those with alternate agendas. Be a skeptic first, then do your homework, then make your decision. The issue of global warming and its cost not only affects the people of the world politically and economically, but also directly attacks the “good” name of science and undermines everything science has tried to build and live up to in the past.