I got asked for my opinion a few days ago about the above documentary. Well I saw it and as you might imagine from my previous post I thoroughly disagree with it. I admit there were many aspects that seemed interesting and I was  really tempted to believe but at the conclusion of the video I decided to do a bit of research. My first stop was right over to Wikipedia (and I recommend it as a first point of reference to set your bearing on an unfamiliar topic before you utilise more detailed sources that can be referenced in a assignment etc. but I digress).

So I seriously recommend anyone that reads this little post and believes in “The Great Global Warming Swindle” documentary to have a look at the Wikipedia article. It summarises my views more succinctly and accurately than any attempt I would have had at writing a little post here (anyway, I would have just made fun out of the video). Note that the Wikipedia article is not just written by one random guy and they are not just making stuff up since a lot of the article is referenced to where the information is coming from.

-VeryCritical.

Comments welcome and any form of requests accepted (send me a link and I will give it a go).

PS. I  think the person who requested I talk about the above video also wanted me to reply to an article he posted but he just posted the link and didn’t specifically say for me to talk about it so I will not say more about it than I already did (in the comments section).

By Andrew Bolt

TonyfromOz prefaces …..

With each passing day, word from China, and India about what is coming from those two Countries makes any deal for the upcoming U.N. Climate Change Conference later this year in Copenhagen look most pessimistic. Until those of us seeking to impose our values on the people of these the two most populous Countries on Earth realise that those who live in these two Countries have no access to the electrical power we take for granted, then India and China have every right to speak the way they do about not cutting back on their emissions, in the main from those coal fired power plants. They have NO electrical power from any source at all, while we have it on tap so to speak. We must not be critical of people who live in the most primitive of conditions just because our perception is coloured by blindness when it comes to India and China wishing to bring their people into the 20th Century, and have that access to what we take for granted. Those people have every right to ask for access to that electrical power, and we have no right to deny them that.

2006:

Global warming is intensifying the monsoon in Central India, according to a study that warns of increasing risk from heavier rains during the season.

2009:

Each year, millions of farmers in India hope and pray for the right kind of monsoon rains to help grow their crops. But it’s believed climate change is delaying the onset of the monsoon - threatening crops and pushing up the prices of basic foods. .

UPDATE

Dr Ian Wilson suggests a more likely culprit - and a looming famine. He tells me the signs have got worse since he wrote this.

UPDATE 2

The Indian Government isn’t sure at all that any warming is man-made or would even be bad, and definitely won’t agree to cuts in gases:

India was the last dissenter on a “recognition” that the world should try to keep temperature rise to under 2 degree Celsius by 2050. At the final round of negotiations to a climate change document in the recent Major Economies Forum (MEF) in Italy on July 7, …the developing countries successfully fended off the demand for 50% cuts…

While the 2 degree is a compromise, PM’s special envoy Shyam Saran told journalists in Italy, “We do not regard this as an arithmetical target; we regard this as a political decision because there is a great deal of uncertainty with respect to what would be the actual rise in temperature, what would be the consequences of that rise of temperature.”

(Via Benny Peiser.)

Andrew Bolt is a journalist and columnist writing for The Herald Sun in Melbourne Victoria Australia.

Read more excellent articles from Andrew Bolt’s Blog

(From CO2 Now, an advocacy group, but they appear to get their data from the Mauna Loa Observatory, so we can establish sufficient credibility.)

Worse than even I expected. Remember the good old days when An Inconvenient Truth had just been released and CO2 was still at 380 ppm?

Nothing in science changes quite as fast as climatology data these days. My school chemistry handouts are outdated only in that sense; they keep saying that CO2 is at 350 ppm.

Instituting a Safeguard Against Political & Ideological Tyranny from Canada Free Press

• Deep. dark depression, excessive misery
• If it werent for bad luck, I’d have no luck at all
• Gloom , despair and agony on me.”

Our old friends at Hee-Haw used these lines to introduce one of the regular skits on the long running country western show back in the  70’s and early 80’s. And now, lo and behold, those words once again can be employed . In  a sense, they already have by noted environmental Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat, Ca.

Her committee began hearings on a bill this week to cut global warming. She says that if the bill  does not pass, the results will be dire. For example, she used the words  droughts, floods, fires, loss of species, greater air pollution , damage to agriculture, etc. This may or may not be the case since we have a lot of  those things already and how does  one isolate the cause. But, to me, perhaps even more astounding than those things she said would happen  were those things that she said would not happen. There will  be no new taxes. Now, with all the things that will  likely change if the bill becomes law, how can one not expect new taxes? Oh wait. Almost forgot the good  things that passage of the bill would cause to transpire. Millions of new jobs, yep, millions , less pollution etc.

But those dastardly obstructionist  Republicans will play the distort and confuse game so she does have her work cut out for her.

One more small  comparison. Boxer says that will be incentives and investments and opportunities galore. Her Republican counterpart, Sen. James  Inhofe of Oklahoma says that the public will see that someone, them, will have to bear the costs  that companies will incur to reduce  global warming  emissions and they will reject that.

One other thing happened during  the hearings this week.  Boxer had an exchange with the CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, Harry Alford.  He took issue with her quoting another black group  while he was  before her committee. One gathers that  Mr Alford is not sold on the millions of green jobs and comes out and calls the senator a racist. Imagine that, a liberal Democrat being called a racist. What is happening to this country?

It is bill #SD 406, watch it closely.

Competitive Enterprise Institute’s video series telling “The Truth About Global Warming”:

• “The Truth About Global Warming (Part 1 of 10): Heat Waves“
• “The Truth About Global Warming (Part 2 of 10): Air Pollution“
• “The Truth About Global Warming (Part 3 of 10): Hurricanes“
• “The Truth About Global Warming (Part 4 of 10): Sea Levels“
• “The Truth About Global Warming (Part 5 of 10): Cap and Trade“
• “The Truth About Global Warming (Part 6 of 10): Coal“
• “The Truth About Global Warming (Part 7 of 10): Fuel Economy“
• “The Truth About Global Warming (Part 8 of 10): Big Business“
• “The Truth About Global Warming (Part 9 of 10): A Moral Issue“
• “The Truth About Global Warming (Part 10 of 10): Overview“

July One Of Coldest On Record In Chicago

But Cool Weather Means Less Money Spent On Air Conditioning

Jul 17, 2009 4:39 pm US/Central
CBS2

Summer has been elusive in Chicago–and July is so far the second coldest in history.

The average temperature so far this month has been 77.8 degrees–far off the average of mid-80s for this time of year. The coldest July ever was in 1967 when the average temperature was 76.5 degrees.

Another rarity for July in Chicago: We have failed to reach 90 degrees at any time. Two days have had highs only in the mid-60s.

The good news: Homeowners are seeing a break on their electric bills. Call it Mother Nature’s economic recovery plan. Air conditioning usage, according to ComEd, is way down from last year and has saved residents an average of $50 since June–compared with last year.

Combine the drop in temperature with a big drop in the price of energy and you get big savings on utility bills.

“My utility bill is definitely smaller. I have the air on, for the last… maybe twice this year only. I leave the windows open and sleep tight at night,” said Chicagoan Paul Oberski.

In addition to the mild weather, Com Ed’s cost of power is also down 9 percent, a savings passed on to you. Your natural gas price is down even more, 27 percent. Peoples Gas and North Shore Gas estimate a typical home customer will pay $500 less this year than last year.

“The typical consumer, if this keeps goin’, could save as much as $100 over the course of the summer on their electric bill,” said David Kolata, executive director of the Citizens Utility Board. “That is real money. That’s money you can use to fill your gas tank, put toward a much-needed family vacation. Anything we can do to save money is certainly good news for consumers”

Everyone CBS 2 talked to welcomed the lower utility bills. Burr Ridge resident Colin Foy said he’d put the $50 electric bill savings toward a few cases of beer.

Breweries would welcome the business. Vendors said the mild weather is cutting into sales of everything cold, from beer to ice cream.

Cool weather, genrated by a cold Canadian air flow, is expected to continue through the weekend, with a high of only 69 on Saturday and the low 70s on Sunday. Temps may creep back into the mid-80s by Wednesday of next week.

But, let’s count those savings again: $500 this year on natural gas and $50 to $100 on electric bills. Who says there’s no good news?

Source

I’m voting for Dave. The rest of you might want to wake the hell up and vote for him as well. The Congress sure as hell isn’t doing shit for America. It’s all about how much power they have and how much money they can steal from the treasury.

Vote For Dave
By Ken Russell

Dave McArthur owns a few bakeries in St Louis, Missouri; McArthur’s Bakery.  His bakeries make treats of legendary appeal throughout the St Louis area and Dave is a local media personality as well.  Most of us think apple turnovers and politics aren’t really compatible in the same sentence, but recently Dave’s made them so.  He didn’t want to.  He never intended to.  He was forced into a corner and for his own survival, he had to.  Here’s why.

Dave has to make his cold mixed doughy goodness hot; really hot in order to turn the goo into heaven in your mouth.  Bakery, baker, bake, hot, heat, ovens — don’t touch!

More

As I was catching up on some things that I haven’t been able to get to lately because of all the otehr crap I have going on, I decided I had to actually pay my bills.  As much as I’d like to put that job off longer, I realize that certain things need to take place as they – in Covey-speak – shift into “Quadrant 1.”

Lo and behold, as I sifted through all the things that cost me money, and deliberated about the intelligence of some of our spending decisions, I found a piece of paper with a bunch of notes scribbled on it.   I blurted out something about HadCrut and it was one of those moments where the wife sees excitement in me where none should reasonably exist.  At these moments, she gets this look on her face, as if to pat me on the top of the head and say “Dear boy, is this truly what you’ve become? ”

Bah!  How can one NOT appreciate a bunch of numbers on a page summarizing temperature trending?   Seriously.   No…  really.

Unfortunately, I just don’t ahve the charts copied and uploaded, so my conundrum was “blog it or toss it?”   I decided that some of you still might appreciate the numbers, even if not pretty.  And I already jotted down the relevant points, so here’s a bunch of facts for those of you as starved for entertainment as I apparently am:

The May anomaly was 0.400 (degrees Celsius).  Or, 40.0 units, where a unit is 0.01 degrees Celsius.

This was 12.0 units above last year and 0.2 units above April’s anomaly.

Of May anomalies, it ranked 5th out of 160 (96th percentile).  Of total anomalies it was 83rd of 1,913 (95th percentile).

Overall slope since 1850 = 0.03668, or 0.440 degrees Celsius per Century (will heretofore use shorthand 0.440/C).

The 12-month average of 37.7 is up from 30.1 since last September, and is the highest average since the period ending December 2007.

Eleven of the last 13 anomalies are higher than the previous year anomalies.

One can fit a negative trend line from March 1997 through current (May 2009).  This period of cooling for 12 years and 3 months last occurred during the period that started December 1960.  That 37 year difference is roughly similar to the oceanic oscillation phase lengths, according to previous analysis I’ve done.  This doesn’t quite hold a candle to the longest cooling period in the data set – 800 months!  This was from April 1866 to May 1935.

The 60-month trend line has a slope of -0.2241 (-2.68/C).  This has been somewhat up and down.

120-month: 0.046383 (0.56/C).  Has trended down since mid-2008 after a brief increase from the previous declining trend.

180-month: 0.098107 (+1.18/C) – lowest slope value since the period ending September 1997.

240-month: 0.139398 (+1.67/C) – loest slope value since the period ending February 2001.

300-month: 0.154665 (+1.86/C) – lowest slope value since the period ending April 2005.

360-month: 0.129744 (+1.56/C) – lowest slope value since the period ending May 1999.

For the heck of it, I also took a look at the longer-term slopes, as follows:

40-year: 0.13193 (+1.58/C)

50-year: 0.11105 (+1.33/C)

60-year: 0.09597 (1.15/C)

70-year: 0.06891 (0.83/C)

80-year: 0.05931 (0.71/C)

90-year = 0.05936 (0.71/C)

100-year: 0.06220 (0.75/C)

From there, it trends down to the 0.44/C in the overall trend length.

Draw your own conclusions.   But do you see 4 degrees Celsisus over the next Century indicated in any of the data?  Even cherry-picking, you can’t find it.

Please check out the following link for some information regarding Global Warming.

So you wonder how we got here:

First Step: Establish the Premise

Protecting the environment is the premise, and the premise is good, because there really is no argument against the general idea of protecting the environment. Most people don’t intentionally do harm to the environment.

Next Step: Identify the enemy – CARBON.

Next Step: Marketing Campaign – (See Al Gores faked movie- really, the opening scene was produced in a studio)

Next Step: Quantify the enemy – Carbon Foot Print (Can’t tax it without quantifying it)

Next Step: Set up company for carbon offsets. Al Gore and other Dems are going to profit from the scam- Don’t believe me – Go HERE

Next Step: Keep up the marketing campaign

Next Step: Make it personal so that everyone feels guilty about their production of carbon.

Next Step: Market how everything that you do relates to carbon production and global warming

Next Step: Tax corporations based on the amount of Carbon they produce. Cap and Trade and Tax. There is going to be another IRS type organization that measures, tracks, and confiscates money from companies.

Next Step: Tax individuals on the amount of carbon they produce. This is already going to happen indirectly because the taxes all the corporations are paying are going to increase your cost of living. This has the potential though to be a direct tax because the IRS organization will already be in place taxing the crap out of the corporations. When I say direct tax, they will hide it in your paycheck, at the gas pump, in some other way so you don’t have to actually write a check – remember if they take it before you get it, you won’t even know?

Next Step: Market products and service that make you feel good about doing your part. Companies still need to make money so they will “green” up their marketing campaign, because now that the “Green Religion” has made you feel so guilty you wanna make sure you buy that “Green” product.

Next Step: Brag to your friends because you are so much better then them because you just bought Hybrid Smart Car. (Just don’t hit a tree with your SMART Car)

Problem: Carbon and it relationship to global warming & global warming and it relationship to the end of the world.

Summary: Global Warming is the greatest hoax so far in my lifetime and most people in this country are taking it hook line and sinker. Protecting the environment is a great idea but just because the concept is noble doesn’t mean we need to transfer our money and freedom to our government to achieve it.

Subscribe to Politics by Mark by Email

BPSDB

The fraud fad ‘meme de jour’ in climate science Denier tabloid media this week is the hoary old chestnut:

‘New Study disproves/overturns/undermines global warming / climate change science/models/theory!“

.

.

Never mind that:

• they repeat this meme every few weeks with a completely different study;
• none of the Deniers seem to even remotely understand the study they refer to;
• none of the studies ever turn out to say what the Deniers believe/claim;
• the fact that it is “new” means it should be treated with caution since review by the entire scientific community can lead to:
  • discovery of subtle errors that the authors and reviewers missed;
  • a way of understanding the data different from how the authors had;
• the probability that a single study could overturn the thousands upon thousands of studies that support our understanding of climate change is remote in the extreme (see here).

The latest victim of Deniermania would be of less interest if it had not taken a comic turn with the appearance of Richard Courtney, playing Verges in support to Marc Morano as Dogberry.

The curtain rose with a press release at Eurekalert! Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong about a study just published in Nature Geoscience.

The Nutshell version of Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum warming is explained in more detail at:

OMFG!!!! Climate Models Might Be Wrong!

Climate change deniers misrepresent new study that finds climate models underestimate warming

Gaps in climate knowledge! Oh no!

Bad news on the feedback front


Unknown climate culprit for Palaeocene-Eocene warming

Scholars and Rogues

but for our purposes here a much simpler version will suffice.

The Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) was a time of rapid climate change. The authors of the study in question constructed a model that failed to account for all of the warming based on CO2 alone. This conclusion would be strong support for the powerful actions of one of the “positive feedbacks” discussed in the IPCC reports, particularly the report of Working Group II. These “positive feedbacks” are more popularly known as “tipping points“, but the term”tipping elements” is gaining favour as more  descriptive and accurate.

The press release quoted oceanographer Gerald Dickens as saying “There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.” (more on that later).

The Nutbar version played out as follows. Given the Dickens’ quote (above) the Denialosphere predictably went beserk.

Here are some of the Denialosphere article titles:

• Climate Models “Fundamentally Wrong”
• Scientists Say Climate Models “Fundamentally Wrong”
• Global Warming Climate Models May be Wrong
• Rocks Confidence in Climate Change Models, Predictions
• Study shakes foundation of climate theory! Reveals UN models
• Global Warming: Scientists’ Best Predictions May Be Wrong

Needless to say the majority of the pieces merely copy/paste the press release verbatim. They inadvertently admit never looking at the original paper by mistakenly claiming to link the paper when all they link is the abstract (Nature Geoscience is subscription only, so even if they had looked, only those with subscriptions could actually read it.  My guess is that the Deniers with subscriptions is a whole number somewhat less than 1.)

In his outrageously titled “Study shakes foundation of climate theory! Reveals UN models ‘fundamentally wrong’ – Blames ‘Unknown Processes’ — not CO2 for ancient global warming  ‘Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong‘” Marc ‘Wormtongue’ Morano at Climate Despot apparently tried to incorporate every sensationalist claim he could.  He also followed the pattern of linking the abstract as the paper, and merely copying large portions of the press release.

He then went on to attempt to link this study with an earlier ‘meme de jour’, the Swanson and Tsonis study on variability and climate shifts (discussed at the time in Climate change, lies, lies and more lies).

For some reason he did not link the RealClimate article where Swanson says, in effect, that the Deniers are idiots who do not understand science. In the same article Swanson also states that “What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale response to greenhouse gas emissions? VERY LITTLE, contrary to claims that others have made on our behalf.”

I guess those facts wouldn’t have worked so well with the lie Morano was trying to construct. Mornano then follows up with some irrelevant and more or less random criticisms of the US Government/IPCC computer software and models; more on this below.

ENTER VERGES: In UN IPCC Scientist: ‘Natural climate change denial of the last decade is not sustainable anymore’ ‘Global cooling has now been happening for so long’ even RealClimate.org now admits! …

(Morano’s titles really need their own, separate debunking)

… we are told that Richard Courtney  “a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK based atmospheric science consultant, who is featured on page 224 of the U.S. Senate Report of More Than 700 Dissenting Scientists Over Man-Made Global Warming.” What?  Morano want’s to highlight Courtney’s name on a notorious fraud? I guess as the author of that fraud Morano probably has a different … perspective on it.

OK then, let’s hear what the “UN IPCC expert reviewer” has to say about  Zeebe et al ‘Carbon dioxide forcing alone insufficient to explain Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum warming’:

“I would like to comment on the Climate Depot report providing the information concerning the paper by Zeebe et al. that says the PETM (Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum of 55 million years ago) demonstrates the assumed (e.g. by IPCC) relationship of mean global temperature to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is wrong.

The Climate Depot report reveals:”

Wait, … what?

He’s not commenting on the paper itself? He’s going to comment as if he were talking about the paper, but based on the silly “report” that Morano wrote? He hasn’t even read the paper? (no subscription to Nature Geoscience I guess). Excuse my language, but WTF??? That goes beyond incompetent and clear into ridiculous.

OK, it actually get’s worse, seriously worse.

Ignoring Swanson’s caution that their work has little to do with global warming, Courtney also tries to make the link to Swanson and Tsonis. He manages this by not understanding the difference between a damped warming trend and actual cooling (more or less equivalent to not understanding the difference between positive and negative numbers).

Although he has now successfully demonstrated utter cluelessness beyond all reasonable doubt, Courtney still wants to really hammer the point home. To underscore that you have absolutely no idea about climate science you can hardly do better than to cite the Potty Peer Christopher Monckton as a credible source, so he does. See here for collected links on Monckton’s “science”, and also ScruffyDan’s four part Monckton’s silly graph for an in depth look at climate science ignorance running amok.

After that Courtney just get’s silly.

So how does a “UN IPCC expert reviewer” make such appallingly stupid errors in assessing climate science? How is that possilbe?

Could it be because:

• Richard Courtney has never actually done any climate research;
• His Diploma in Philosophy may not have included a lot of hard science courses (and here);
• His credential as “expert reviewer” is based on having sent the IPCC some unsolicited comments;
• He is notorious for spouting climate gibberish, eg:
  • Spencer is totally off his rocker
  • The Deniers’ Last Stand
  • Should you get your science from the IPCC or the Bible?

Need I go on?

So let’s leave Courtney and Morano as they babble aimlessly off into the sunset (but with lots of declarative punctuation! and saying “climate models” frequently) and return to the actual study that they were allegedly talking about.

Zeebe et al do seem to be saying that the warming cannot be accounted for by CO2 alone, and that the models seriously underestimate the potential warming. Do the Deniers have a point? doesn’t this “prove” that the models are wrong?

First let’s be clear, who knew that the models underestimate the warming potential of tipping elements? Uhmm … absolutely everybody who has the slightest clue about climate science? (which apparently excludes the Deniers). Seriously, this is broadly known and frequently discussed, eg:

Tipping points in the Earth system

Why the world’s top scientists underestimated how fast we’re destroying the climate

Musings about models

Tipping Points in the Earth’s Climate System

Tipping points: we know enough to know better

Tipping points

What exactly is polar amplification and why does it matter?

Climate Tipping Points Get Scarier

The Tipping Points

Could tipping happen any time soon?

and, as mentioned above, in the IPCC reports themselves. The reasons the models do not incorporate tipping elements range from the political to the practical, but let’s deal with the latter here. It’s pretty simple really, tipping points are more or less impossible to model without almost complete knowledge of the system.

A simple analogy would be the proverbial “straw that breaks the camel’s back”. Given many tonnes of straw to work with it is a given that eventually you will crush the camel completely. Given more and more data about the camel’s load bearing capacity and stamina, and the average weight of the pieces of straw you can start making some informed predictions about approximately when, but knowing exactly which straw will cause it to collapse is very difficult to determine.

Further, since there are multiple possible tipping points, a more apt analogy might be that of pandemics. We know enough about disease, health etc that we know that we will have pandemics. We also know a great deal about how they will spread, etc once they begin.

Do we have any idea of exactly which disease will be the next pandemic? and in what year it will break out? and where? Of course not. There are far too many variables to make that kind of precise prediction.  But we can and do make the accurate (as opposed to precise) prediction that there will be a pandemic eventually, and that we should be prepared for it.

So naturally we can not make a model of health predictions that shows the time and spread of the next pandemic. We can model health trends quite accurately assuming no pandemics. We can also easily model what happens if a pandemic breaks out in this or that year in this or that place. We can even make some very informed predictions about the places and times that are more  likely, but we can’t create a model that tells us when and where the next one will be.

So it is with climate change tipping elements.  We know that they exist, and we know that given increased warming they will eventually be triggered, but which one first? and exactly when? We can’t say.

We can and do make the accurate prediction that given increased warming one will be triggered eventually, and that we should be do everything we can to avoid it. We can even make some very informed predictions about the places and times that are more likely. We know this, but obviously cannot model it except as a collection of “if/then” scenarios.

• Climate Models: An Assessment of Strengths and Limitations
• The 16 Climate Models
• Climate Models

So what Zeebe et al is probably telling us (let’s wait until the scientific community has had a chance to assess the work before using more definite language) is that positive feedbacks can play a very significant role in warming, and that as we already knew, the current models that exclude the tipping elements underestimate the consequences of those tipping elements.

Put another way, Zeebe et al seems to be saying that we have a pretty good grasp on climate change science, including the strengths and weaknesses of the models, even though the models do not predict tipping elements.

As a corollary, the response to the paper confirms the findings of Swanson and Tsonis, specifically that:

Modes of natural climate variability are those forces of nature by which people who know nothing about modes of natural climate variability can explain everything.

or put more simply, “climate change Deniers are “fundamentally wrong” “

As with every Denier Meme de jour the excitement will pass quickly. In a week most of the Denialosphere will go back to thinking that PETM is an animal rights group and that Zeebe was the bassist for ‘The Tragically Hip’.

All they will remember for certain is that a “new study” showed that “all of the models are wrong.” That the global scientific community did not immediately embrace the Denier faith is something they will ascribe to one of the generic conspiracy delusions.

Since Denier Memes are really just variants of Urban Legends it is equally certain that reference to this meme will pop up from time to time; we just don’t have any good models that tell us where or when. As such it is a good idea to be prepared by bookmarking this article .

During the past century, as temperatures have risen by one degree Fahrenheit, the areal extent of glaciers in the Sierra Nevada Mountains has fallen by 55 percent. These glaciers feed the rivers that support California’s agriculture, which produces more than half of America’s domestically consumed produce.   Earth Gauge

We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.

Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 262 … still no evidence.

Enjoy

IMAGE CREDITS:

With love from Wormtongue by Theremina

65 Myr Climate Change from Wikipedia

2007 Arctic Sea Ice from Global Warming Art

Sea Level Projections from Global Warming Art

Comment Policy

Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish

The Open Thread is for general climate discussion, however the spam rules still apply.

Man Caused Global Warming is just the newest phase of  scientifically void claims from people who are making huge profits off the misdirection and fear of the masses. For example before really starting his crusade against global warming Al Gore (messiah to the global warming congregation) invested heavily in  companies that sell what are called Carbon Offsets. Now unless you are a Gore disciple you may not have heard of these carbon offsets.

What carbon offsets are, is you pay a company for the privilege of driving your SUV. This is essentially the same thing as what the Catholic church did by selling indulgences or as I like to call them “Sin Offsets.” Then these companies in theory use some if not none of the money you gave them to feel better about yourself to plant a tree. However the ugly truth about the offset industry is there is no standardized formula for charges and it is completely unregulated so there is no guarantee that any of the money is donated to reforestation like the claims say.

There is another form of carbon offset payment that your non-representing representatives in that cesspool of vermin we call the legislative branch of government passed called Cap and Trade. Thanks to our political leaders who for some reason refuse to listen to those that voted for them, our electricity rates and cost of goods is going to become far more expensive in the next few years. If you have the stomach to read the Cap and Tax plan Here it is all 946 pages of this wasteful, working poor hurting pile of crap. Other wise you can google “HR 2454 summary” for a breakdown of this tripe.

I would like to point out some of the other environmental hysteria moments from just the last 40 years. First lets take a look at the 1970’s.  This excerpt from Time Magazine  Monday, Jun. 24, 1974 states the following.

“In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada’s wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone’s recollection.”

Holy Crap its global warming or at least this article could have been pulled directly out of any number of magazines talking about global warming. But no the title of this article is “Another Ice Age?” it is talking about global cooling. The exact opposite of what many of the same fear mongers are touting today as global warming.

Ok jump ahead a decade to the 1980s now that the global cooling fervor is over now we have a serious problem that once again is caused by us using aerosol cans and people ate it up and that problem was? anybody? anybody? That’s right the hole in the ozone layer. in this article from Time Magazine entitle “Arctic Trouble” from Monday, May. 30, 1988 we find the cause of this disaster is “man-made chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons.” Now don’t get me wrong this is not meant to say that the hole in the ozone layer is not real. We have proof that it exists and since the ban on CFCs in 1987 it has slowly started to regain its strength. Allot of people got rich off each of these disasters. And I am not trying to say that some of the problems are legitimate. All I am trying to do is  to  make the point that as long as there is money to be made from climatological disasters some charismatic douche bag is going to scare enough people out of their hard earned money under the premise of saving the planet to make himself or to be fair to the bra burning  feminists “herself” rich as hell off your fear.

Although I am sure to potentially get hate mail for this topic. I want it well known that I don’t care about global warming or the doe eyed, weak willed cause heads.  This is just yet another environmental trend and those that are so blind and weak willed that they would follow any scientifically unproven hypothesis without irrefutable scientific studies  like it was cold hard reality with nothing more to be said about it. From my experience these cause heads have little basis in fact for their arguments. However if anyone can produce multiple irrefutable science  to prove man made Global Warming Theory, and at this point that truly is all that it is, is a theory. I will definitely evaluate and cross reference it with other studies and post my findings. Until then however it is a theory not a fact so pull the carrot of self righteousness out of your collective asses and actually do some research instead of letting ” An Inconvenient half truth” run your life, and start thinking for your self rather than just repeating bumper sticker slogans out of the mouths of those who are making obscene amount of money off your collective ignorance.

The following editorial from the San Antonio Express News is an excellent take on the issue of the South Texas Project nuclear expansion. Kudos to Carlos Guerra!

Expert offers uniquely Texan power solution

Carlos Guerra – San Antonio Express News

With a Ph.D. in nuclear engineering from UC-Berkeley, Arjun Makhijani has followed energy issues and innovations for decades. But with his uncanny understanding of economics, and a willingness to put a pencil to what comes along, when he says something, you listen.

Or, at least, you should.

Makhijani’s most recent book, “Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free” is now a must-read on emerging energy solutions. And last fall, he studied CPS Energy’s plans to participate in the doubling of the South Texas Project.

Among other things, the engineer concluded that the two new reactors would cost more than twice what was projected.

CPS’ latest forecasts now almost echo Makhijani’s.

And Wednesday, he advised CPS to closely re-examine its drive to expand the STP and, especially, its latest twist in the deal: to sell excess electricity on the wholesale market to offset the regular rate increases that would be made necessary to pay for the new reactors.

“Especially in a deep recession, when demand for electricity is going down throughout the country, and nobody has any idea when it will recover,” he said, “for San Antonio to say they are going to sell electricity on the open market at rates that will benefit ratepayers is gambling with public money.”

Makhijani did compliment our utility’s newfound commitment to promoting greater efficiencies and relying more heavily on wind energy. But he also offered alternatives to the pricey investment in nuclear power that he says would be better and safer — economically and environmentally — and yield better results more quickly.

“The combination of efficiency, storage and wind, and concentrating solar thermal energy would be the right mix,” he said. “And the pace at which you do that should depend on the economic circumstances. You shouldn’t be overbuilding anything, not wind, solar or whatever.

“In San Antonio, the first thing to do is to start making money on efficiencies so bills don’t go up for consumers,” he continued.

“That will lay the foundation for a solid electricity sector that will be modern and that can accommodate changes.”

And since CPS leads Texas in its commitment to buying wind energy, it should incorporate storage strategies so it can purchase excess electricity when it is cheapest, and distribute it to augment other electricity sources when demand — and other electricity prices — soar.

The Japanese, Makhijani noted, are already using large industrial sodium-sulfur batteries to do just that with wind energy.

But in Texas, storing energy as compressed air in massive underground caverns — as is done with natural gas — might make more sense. And it is a proven technology.

Then, when energy demand peaks, the compressed air is heated with small amounts of natural gas and used to drive turbines to generate electricity that can help meet the peak-load demands.

When you think about it, that would be a perfectly Texan solution. When temperatures soar and air conditioners are cranked up, we could solve our peak demand problems with natural gas and a lot of hot air.

This ladies and Gentlemen is John Holden. He is Obama’s Science Advisor. He believes in mass murder forced population control and tinkering with our eco system to chill our planet.

Read more

The nightmare global warming scenario which provided the plot for a Hollywood blockbuster — the Atlantic Ocean current that keeps Europe warm shuts down and triggers rapid climate change — has long worried scientists.
But a study published Thursday in the journal Science found it may not occur as quickly as previously feared.
There is evidence that this current has shut down with some regularity in the past — and sometimes quite rapidly — in response to large influxes of fresh water from melting glaciers.
However, it appears as though the current rate of glacial melt is occurring at a more gradual pace which will “give ecosystems more time to adjust to new conditions,” said study co-author Peter Clark, a professor of geosciences at Oregon State University.
“Our data still show that current is slowing, and may decline by 30 percent by the end of this century,” Clark said.

I hope you read some of the same wildlife blog. There are not many but there are some good ones and they write about a variety of topics. These blogs have a lot of good information and I certainly can write so.

Of National Groups I have a huge bias towards anything the NRDC puts out…and they are GOOD writers and hard workers and smart, passionate people. They cover a lot of environmental topics in the US. They write a lot about a lot of good topics that include articles about endangered species and global climate change.

More regional, and also from a huge area is the Yellowstone Ecosystem which is covered in Ralph Maughn’ Blog. Ralph Maughn’s blog, named Ralph Maughn’s Wildlife News , is excellent and it can be very topical. The only thing is I wish is that Maughn would right more posts.

The good news for Maughn is that he is probably out in the hinterlands of Yellowstone roaming around.

I sure did in my past. Many of my best ideas were hatched while looking at a myriad of stars in the unlighted backcountry skies, or after the adrenylan flow that happens when you have a close encounter with huge, shaggy bison, antlered bull elk, or any elk for that matter, or the clacking huff of a mad bear.

Matt

Wal-Mart is like the popular kid in school who has everything but who everyone seems to dislike. You just dislike them because they exist. Everyone loves to hate Wal-Mart and beyond a long list of problems that have been mentioned as part of the company, there is the environmental impact of the company, its methods and its stores.

Well apparently, it looks like that Wal-Mart may be getting the green message. According to some reports, the company is going to be implementing a huge sustainibility index that will measure the environmental impact of everything the company buys and sells. If something isn’t sustainable, it does not get sold.

If this is true and is not a case of green washing, then that means there are some big changes coming to suppliers of Wal-Mart. They will have to go green, or lose their biggest client. Wal-Mart is possibly the largest entity on Earth and when it makes a change like this, the ground shakes.

In addition, Wal-Mart is planning on looking at the social impact of the items they sell, which could mean better working conditions for the people who make those items. Wal-Mart has the power to make hundreds of companies change how they affect the environment and that is good, it means change is coming.

The entire phase in of this is expected to be in place within five years.

Now if they would just do something about the countless LCD TVs that advertise to us in the store…maybe hook them to solar panels or something…

So my neighbors are moving out today. Thanks to the miracle of the Interwebs, I know exactly how much they sold their place for. This is relevant because they are condo neighbors and own a house that is, essentially, identical to ours. So I know that if we sold our place RIGHT NOW, we could walk away with about $120K in cash after we paid off the mortgage.

In Boston, that doesn’t get you jack shit. I think you might be able to buy a parking spot down town for that. A crappy parking space.

But in Maine…. ah, in Maine, you can buy 65 acres for $37K. Add in a house from Tumbleweed Tiny Houses, which will run you about $24K and you still have about $60K left over for stuff like installing solar panels, a composting toilet, a pen for chickens and goats and rabbits, a few beehives, some apple trees, a big garden, and a water turbine to generate some electricity.

Of course it’s a fantasy. If we were young and very healthy and childless, it would still be a risk. Health care/insurance is expensive, especially for a farmer. Winter is brutal in Maine. We’ve never farmed and farming is a risky proposition, especially without training.

But the fantasy is nice. No mortgage to pay. No food to buy. No electricity to pay for. If only there was a job where we could do that and get some regular cash coming in.

I gotta get my book published.

Alert!

Do you ever look up in the sky and see a flock of birds and think “Man, I wish there were less of those!” If you do, then some news out of Indonesia will make you happy, while making the rest of us really sad.

It seems that about 117 bird species are at risk of extinction in Indonesia, with only 26 of those species being slated for priority preservation. Of the 117 bird species, 68 are listed as vulnerable, 38 are very vulnerable and 17 are in a critical state.

Indonesia is not a huge country, but it has about 10 percent of all bird species, numbering 1,598 species. Across the planet, there are only 10,000 bird species to speak of.

Birds are especially susceptible to our habits of pollution and destruction. We cut down their habitats to build our houses, which we then use to create CO2 through poor energy conservation, which adjusts climates that affect the birds. In those same houses, we use up as much water as we can so there is very little for the birds, while at the same time we allow our cats to roam free, resulting in billions of bird deaths every year.

Not a great time to be a bird…

… and we need to get good at it. So says Stewart (Whole Earth Catalog) Brand in this video. Agree, disagree… but definitely watch it. If only to see what happens after the train goes through.

Just for the record, I’d like submit this open letter and its signatories.

Open Letter

On December 13, 2007, 100 scientists were signatories of an open letter to the Secretary – General of the United Nations.

The letter expresses great concern over the political way the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) produced its “IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers.”

The letter goes on to bullet point facts that are contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports.

Among the many points made by these scientists are:

• It is not possible to stop climate change.
• CO2 is a non-polluting gas.
• The IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity.
• Recent glacial retreats do not lie out side the bounds of known natural variability.
• Warming of between 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling of the last 10,000 years.
• Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives acknowledge that today’s computer models can not predict climate.
• IPCC working groups were generally instructed to consider work published only through May, 2005 so that new peer-reviewed research that has cast even more doubt on man made global warming were not included.

Please take a few minutes to read this letter and scan the 100 signatories.

CDsailor