Search This Blog

Friday, February 23, 2007

Global Warming is burning up my straw man!

Alas, I have been falsely accused of two things:

1) Abandoning my YEC point of view.
2) Failing to respond to a challenge/Dodging an issue .

Both of these are false. I will now try to bring reason to the debate and see if I can finally, FINALLY, open the eyes of those who are my accusers. Let us begin:

First point is relative to the second. It seems that I posted some information from a site and the author is not a YEC (young earth creationist). Some of his points made earlier in his treatise involved his belief in an earth of more than 10,000 years old. Good for him! However, I only used the portions of his assertions that dealt with more modern times, that is, the last 4,000 years or so. He and I were in agreement. I used him as a source. I was immediately accused of abandoning my YEC perspective. Yes, a massive straw man was erected for my commenters to assail as they began to rant against things I did not say and do not believe.

We have historical records that go back, reliably, well over 3,000 years. Unfortunately, beyond that point scientists must begin to look at things like ice cores and tree rings and speculate as to their message to us about past conditions. I stayed entirely away from that and only commented on more modern times. In fact, since temperatures have not been taken reliably since the end of the 17th century, we depend on written accounts of climactic conditions previous to that time.

That I would assert that the records we have available demonstrate a planet with cyclical temperature changes is sensible and based upon facts. It fell to commenters to try to disprove my assertions. Have they?

NO! Commenters instead have set up this straw man of YEC versus Old Earth to try to take the focus off of the issue. Also, rather than respond to my comments they have demanded that I present further proofs of what I say. This is not give-and-take but rather I do all the giving and they sit back and throw stones. Some of you who are reading this are numbered among said commenters, including a few with whom I have exchanged fairly long dialogues in the past. Why are they (you) evading the topic this time? Hmmmmmmm.

But I will be kind and present a bit more information and then I will re-issue my challenge:

From Climatic History of the Holocene by James S. Aber -

Climate of the last millennium

Contrary to the popular belief in climatic stability of recent times, the Earth's climate of the past 1000 years has changed significantly. Good historical documentation, particularly for western Europe, exists for this period. Based on comprehensive studies of both scientific and historical information, we now have a reasonably complete understanding of climate for this time interval (Le Roy Ladurie 1971; Grove 1988). Five major phases are now recognized:
  1. Medieval climatic optimum (AD 700-1200).
  2. Medieval glaciation (AD 1200-1460).
  3. Brief climatic improvement (AD 1460-1560).
  4. Little Ice Age (AD 1560-1890).
  5. Modern climatic optimum (AD 1890-2000).

Medieval climatic optimum

This was a time of extremely favorable climate in northern Europe. Harvests were good, fishing was abundant, sea ice stayed far to the north, vineyards existed 500 km north of their present limits, and famine was rare. This was the period of great Viking expansion from Scandinavia--see Fig. 19-7. In addition to their warlike image, Vikings were also colonists. Their settlements were based on cereal grains (wheat and barley) and dairy herds (goats, sheep, and cattle).

Oseberg Ship, a completely preserved Viking ship from a burial mound in southern Norway. The ship dates from about A.D. 1000. Ships of this kind were sailed across the North Atlantic to Iceland, Greenland, and North America.
Detail of ship's prow, showing construction technique and ornate wood carving. From the Viking Ship Museum, Norway.

Iceland was settled beginning in AD 874 and soon became an independent republic. Greenland was colonized in AD 985 by Erik the Red, and his son, Leif (the Lucky) Erikson, made a short-lived attempt to settle in Newfoundland (Vinland) around AD 1000. By the 12th century, two sizeable communities existed in southwestern Greenland, and the Norse colonies obtained their own Catholic bishop in 1126. Greenland was a viable European outpost.

Archeologic remains of Norse farmsted at Brattahlid, Greenland. This farm site presumably was founded by Erik the Red during the initial Viking colonization of Greenland in the tenth century. At that time, icebergs were not common in coastal waters. Photo by Preben Jensen; reproduced by permission.
The remains of a large barn for dairy cattle can be seen in foreground (just to right of previous view). In the right background stands Thjodhild's church and cemetery. Many graves are preserved from the latter part of Viking settlement, because permafrost conditions developed. Photo by Preben Jensen; reproduced by permission.

In North America, pollen and charcoal in sediments from Chesapeake Bay record climatic changes over the last 1000 years (Brush 1991). During the Medieval climatic optimum, large influxes of charcoal, sediment, and metals indicate more frequent forest fires and higher rates of erosion in the surrounding basin. Forest in the Chesapeake basin recovered, and erosion diminished, during the following few centuries of cold climate. In southern Florida, sea level was at least ½ m higher than now from the first through tenth centuries (Froede 2002).

False-color Landsat TM image of Chesapeake Bay and Potomac Bay vicinity, Maryland and Virginia. Washington, D.C. is blue spot near scene center. Changing character of sediment accumulation in Chesapeake Bay reflects vegetation and climatic conditions in surrounding land areas. From NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.

For Pacific Islands, the period AD 750 to 1300 was a climatic optimum marked by warm temperature, high sea level, and probable aridity (Nunn and Britton 2001; Nunn 2003). This was the period of long-distance Polynesian migrations and colonization across vast oceanic distances. The Pacific climatic optimum during the 12th century is confirmed by tree-ring records of the Huon pine from Tasmania (Cook et al. 1991).

Medieval glaciation

Climatic deterioration began in the 1200s; glaciers expanded in Iceland and in the Alps. Vineyards had declined in Germany by the 1300s and had completely disappeared in England. Fishing replaced cereal grains as the main source of food in Iceland, and sea ice expanded southward between Greenland and Iceland. Around 1340-50 the more northerly of the two Greenland communities was abandoned to the native Inuits. In the 1347-50, bubonic plague swept through Europe and killed one in three people, but it is unknown whether the plague reached either Iceland or Greenland.

The last reliable account of Norsemen living in Greenland comes from 1408-10, when a wedding took place at Hvalsey Church--see Fig. 19-8. Based on archeologic evidence, it seems that Norsemen continued to live in the vicinity until about 1480. However, when the region was next visited, by German merchants in 1510, only Inuits were found living among the ruins. The harsh climate after 1300 was undoubtedly a factor in the demise of the Norse settlements. Cold climate reduced dairy production, and extensive sea ice hampered essential trade with Europe.

Stone walls of Hvalsey church, the best preserved of any Viking building in southwestern Greenland. At least twelve church districts were set up in the "eastern" settlement, including a cathedral at Gardar, and at least three more church districts existed in the "western" settlement (Krogh 1967). Photo by Preben Jensen; reproduced by permission.
Interior view of Hvalsey church. A wedding in 1408 at this church is the last recorded event in the history of Viking Greenland. Photo by Preben Jensen; reproduced by permission.

From the mid-1400s to the mid-1500s climatic conditions in western Europe improved somewhat. This episode was too little and too late, apparently, to save the doomed Norse settlements in Greenland. Elsewhere in Europe, life went on with no recognition of climatic change or its effects.

Across the Pacific Islands, the period AD 1270-1475 was a transition interval, often called the "AD 1300 event" (Nunn 2000). Sea level fell, perhaps in two stages by more than 1 m, and temperature declined an average 1½°C. El Niño increased in frequency, and precipitation increased. These climatic changes resulted in a serious decline in productivity for near-shore coral reefs, and significant shifts in human culture took place. Most notably, the long-distance voyages of the previous period came to an end.

Little Ice Age

Cold climate and glacier expansion during the Little Ice Age are documented from all continents (except Antarctica) and on major islands from New Zealand to Svalbard (Grove 1988). The best historical evidence comes from the Alps, Scandinavia, and Iceland. The Little Ice Age was not a single, uniformly cold climatic episode. Distinct variations in climate and in glacier activity took place on a regional basis. In Europe and North America, at least six phases of glacier expansion occurred and were separated by milder intervals.
  1. 1560-1610 Major advances by all glaciers.
  2. 1640-1650 Glacier maximum in Switzerland.
  3. 1670-1705 Glacier maximum in Austria.
  4. 1720-1750 Glacier maximum in Norway.
  5. 1816-1825 Minor advances by all glaciers.
  6. 1850-1890 Glacier maximum in Canada/Iceland.
These advances during the Little Ice Age resulted in adverse conditions for farms and villages located in mountain valleys below the glaciers. Many farms and some villages were destroyed by a combination of glacier advance, melt-water floods, landslides, and related disasters. Population in the affected mountain regions declined significantly, due to emigration and death, whereas population elsewhere in "lowland" Europe continued to grow in general during the Little Ice Age.

Glacier advances in the vicinity of Mont Blanc, France, destroyed three villages and heavily damaged a fourth between 1600 and 1610. The oldest of these villages had existed since the 1200s. Likewise in Norway, outlet glaciers of Jostedalsbreen ice cap advanced markedly in the 1700s and destroyed many farms--see Figs. 19-9, 19-10 and 19-11. The local population was reduced to eating bread made with a mixture of ground wheat chaff, straw, and pine bark. Taxes were reduced on farms that suffered physical damage--see Fig. 19-12, and many people were forced to migrate out of the region or become beggars.

Large lateral moraine of the Little Ice Age in vicinity of Hornsund, southern Spitsbergen, Svalbard. Photo © by J.J. Zeeberg; used here by permission.
Jostedalsbreen is the ice cap on the distant horizon. The deep valley is Jostedal, and a "summer farm" is seen to the right. Summer farms are used for tending dairy cattle that graze on the high pasture. During the Little Ice Age such summer farms were unproductive. Outlet glaciers of Jostedalsbreen descended into lower valleys in the distance and destroyed many farms. Photo date 6/87; © by J.S. Aber.

The Little Ice Age was a time of exceptional poverty, misery and suffering in Iceland, as a result of severe winters, major volcanic eruptions, and oppressive Danish colonial rule. Famine and pestilence ravaged the country. The human population of Iceland, which had reached about 70,000 around A.D. 1100, had dwindled to only 34,000 by 1708--less than half the Viking peak (Magnusson 1987). Following a huge volcanic eruption in 1783, there was serious discussion of evacuating the remaining inhabitants to live in Denmark, but this did not actually happen.

Climatic and human consequences of the Little Ice Age are best documented in western Europe. Therefore, some climatologists have concluded naively that this climatic episode was a regional anomaly, not of worldwide significance. This point of view is contradicted strongly by evidence from glaciers in tropical mountain locations. The Quelccaya ice cap in the Andes Mountains of southern Peru is one such site. Ice cores provide direct physical evidence for colder climate between AD 1500 and 1900 (Thompson et al. 1986). This record compares favorably with cooler northern hemisphere temperature and expanded glaciers during the same period. The climatic changes recorded in the Quelccaya ice cap correspond closely with prehistoric cultures of Peru. Farther south, Lake Titicaca rose significantly during the 16th-19th centuries as a result of more humid, cooler conditions (pers. comm. J. Argollo, 1996).

Ice-cores from Quelccaya Ice Cap, Peru
Location map and ice-cap margin
Solar-powered drilling equipment and ice core
Oxygen-isotope and accumulation records
Climatic record and prehistoric civilization
The Little Ice Age was in fact a worldwide event with distinct regional variations (Nesje and Dahl 2000). It is documented from the southern hemisphere to Spitsbergen in the far north (Svendsen and Mangerud 1997). Based on many forms of historical, archeological and geological evidence, global average temperature was 1-2°C cooler than today (Grove 1988). This climatic episode was not recognized at the time; its true character has become clear only since the Little Ice Age ended.

Special lecture on Late Holocene climate.

Modern climatic optimum

The Little Ice Age ended in some parts of the world as early as 1860, in other regions not until the 1930s. A marked difference is apparent for climatic change in the northern and southern hemispheres--see Fig. 19-13. In any case, the 20th century has been noticeably warmer for most regions than for any time since the 12th century. However, 20th century climate did not recover to the level of warmth that existed during the Medieval climatic optimum a millennium ago. Such recovery may yet take place in the 21st century.

Glaciers and ice caps have experienced negative mass balances and have been retreating since the end of the Little Ice Age. This is a general condition for glaciers of all types in nearly all geographic locations, with the possible exception of Antarctica. The local timing of deglaciation may vary considerably, however, depending on many factors as detailed below.

Table 19-2. Comparison of response rates for glaciers in different settings.
Rapid Response Slow Response
High altitude (mountains) Low altitude (lowlands)
Continental climatic zone Maritime climatic zone
Sea- or lake-based glaciers Land-based glaciers
Small glaciers & ice caps Large glaciers & ice caps
Atlantic Ocean regime Pacific Ocean regime
Northern hemisphere Southern hemisphere
The end of the Little Ice Age occurred earliest--mid-1800s--for interior mountains of northern mid-latitudes, such as the European Alps, and took place latest--early 1900s--on islands of the South Pacific, as in New Zealand. The end of the Little Ice Age is just beginning to have an effect in Antarctica. Meanwhile, the late 20th century has been a period of positive mass balance and expansions for small glaciers in many places, for example Iceland and Norway, as a result of increased winter precipitation (Nesje and Dahl 2000). Since the end of the Little Ice Age, glaciers have experienced many lesser periods of ice advance and retreat that happened at different times in separate parts of the world. This scenario indicates that global climatic change takes place with distinct regional variations, which are probably the results of lag effects caused by differences in heat transfer and storage at the Earth's surface.


Answers in Genesis presents a novel thought on this subject:

Could Global Warming Cause Another Ice Age?

Some climate scientists believe that global warming will slow or stop the northward oceanic heat flow in the Atlantic Ocean, causing an ice age. Northern Europe is significantly warmer due to this ocean heat. The stopping of this flow was the basis for the Hollywood movie The Day After Tomorrow.

A new oceanic study, based on measurements over 47 years, claims that the northward heat transport has already decreased by 30%.1 Computer climate simulations suggested that such a decrease would require a global temperature increase of 7–11°F (4–6°C) after nearly a century.2 Some scientists believe that global warming will cause a more rapid climate change and that we need to act now.

So far, the reduced heat flow has caused no climatic effect in Europe. Moreover, Carl Wunsch of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) believes the climatic significance of the northward heat transport is greatly overblown and that it is difficult to stop it.3 The MIT professor further writes that there are many unknowns associated with ocean and atmospheric climatic interactions, and that climate simulations have many difficulties. Besides, the prevailing winds drive the ocean currents and are mostly responsible for the northward heat transport. The addition of fresh water on the ocean’s surface will not slow the heat flow, which is an unsupported assumption made in climate simulations.

  1. Bryden, H. L., Longworth, H. R., and Cunningham, S. A., Slowing of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation at 25° N., Nature 438:655–657, 2005.
  2. Goss Levi, B., Is there a slowing in the Atlantic Ocean’s overturning circulation? Physics Today59(4):26–28, 2006.
  3. Wunsch, C., Abrupt climate change: An alternative view, Quaternary Research 65:191–203, 2006.
Could a period of warming cause another period of cooling?


Allow me to share a recent article from another YEC source, Creation on the Web:

Climate change & terrorism: a new political agenda?

by Emil Silvestru

Illustration Credit:

Cyclone Catarina

Despite grim predictions in light of the 2005 season, the 2006 [Atlantic] hurricane season in the US came to an end without a single one making landfall in the USA. The providential ‘culprit’ this time was an early El Niño,1,2 a warm Pacific current that sometimes starts along the north-western coast of South America on Christmas Day (El Niño means The Infant [baby Jesus] in Spanish) significantly changing the weather patterns in the eastern Pacific. This changes the intensity of the easterly trade winds in the Atlantic, which in turn influences the paths hurricanes follow. In years with El Niño, the easterly trade winds in the Atlantic are stronger and they will tend to push hurricanes further east, thus diminishing the probability of landfalls.

The triggering of El Niño is still not well understood but seems to be linked to deep ocean water circulation in the Pacific Ocean, which is part of a global circulation system known as the thermohaline circulation system (THC). In years without El Niño, the westerly trade winds in the tropical Pacific push warm water westward, so that the ocean around Indonesia is about 0.5 meters higher than near the coast of Ecuador!2 Cold, nutrient-rich deep waters upwell off South America, massively increasing the bio-productivity of these waters. This cold water also limits the amount of rain in the Americas whilst the warmer water in the western Pacific causes rains and generally wet weather in south-eastern Asia and north-eastern Australia. During El Niño years the situation is reversed; rains and floods affect the Americas whilst drought afflicts the western side of the Pacific (the 1982–83 drought in Australia was due to this).

“ many sceptics are not deniers of global warming, only doubters of the significance of the role humans play in it. ”

The THC is far from being well understood and because of this, reliable long-term forecasts are still not within reach. It is however fairly well documented that this circulation system (which moves about 20 times more water than all the rivers on Earth) is the true engine that drives climate on Earth and is controlled by salinity (the amount of salts dissolved in the ocean waters). Events like the Lake Agassiz flood in North America at the beginning of the Holocene have significantly influenced it and triggered dramatic cooling during the episode known as the Younger Dryas. Another similar episode has been recently recognized as having as its source the catastrophic draining of a huge freshwater lake underneath the ice sheet in Antarctica.3 If significant amounts of fresh water are suddenly dumped into the THC, the system will be disrupted and intense climate cooling will ensue. Another such event could occur if Lake Vostok (larger than Lake Ontario) situated 3,600 m below the surface of the ice, would be suddenly drained into the ocean. Such an event is possible in the case of global warming but its occurrence would immediately trigger an opposite trend: a dramatic global cooling. This reveals one very interesting aspect of God’s creation: its ability to maintain homeostasis (constant climate conditions in this case) by way of dynamic mechanisms similar to feedback loops.

In a seminal paper from 1987, a team of researchers4 have revealed one such negative feedback loop. The vast majority of clouds on the planet form because of tiny sulphate particles (cloud condensation nuclei) generated by certain species of phytoplankton in the ocean. A global warming would increase the mass of phytoplankton which would produce more clouds. More clouds, on the other hand, would increase the albedo (the whiteness or reflectivity of the planet seen from space), which should, all else being equal, reflect a larger part of solar radiation back into space. This would then be expected to cause a global cooling, less phytoplankton, less clouds …

In light of all these, one cannot but wonder how some scientists can be so sure in their dark predictions of global climate change in the near-future? Their apocalyptic predictions uttered as certitudes have even led some politicians to adopt positions that undermine the basic principles of democracy. Thus the UK foreign secretary Margaret Beckett has recently compared climate-change sceptics with terrorists. One wonders what has been left of free speech? After all, many sceptics are not deniers of global warming, only doubters of the significance of the role humans play in it. It is fairly well documented that many natural causes are fuelling global warming. Christians have repeatedly been accused of dismissing global warming because they believe that God, being Creator and Master of the Universe, will take care of His creation and somehow limit the effects of global warming. Well, as we have just seen, God indeed has provided mechanisms in His creation that do control global climate. But this doesn’t mean Christians should not be concerned by the short-term effects of global warming. God has commanded us to subdue nature, but that doesn’t mean He has given us a carte blanche to destroy or disfigure the beautiful world He has given us! We are to be good and loving stewards. And that also means we need to learn more about His creation so that we would gain a better understanding of its complexity, and acknowledge with thankfulness that it does reflect God’s majesty.


  1. <>.
  2. <>.
  3. Lewis, A.R., Marchant, D.R., Kowalewski, D.E., The age and origin of the Labyrith, western Dry Valleys, Antarctica: evidence for extensive middle Miocene subglacial floods and freshwater discharge to the Southern Ocean,
    Geology 34(7):513–516, 2006.
  4. Charlson, J.R., Lovelock, J.E., Meinart, O.A., Warren, S.G. Oceanic phytoplankton, atmospheric sulphur, cloud albedo and climate, Nature 326:655–661, 1987.


Again, I persist in stating that we have records that clearly illustrate that the globe has been heating up and cooling down without any help from man in the form of carbon fuels or any other means. If mankind is causing the cycle to speed up in any way, and that is unclear, it also appears that the planet is designed to offset such "help" and balance out those factors. Scientific assertions that man is causing Global Warming and that GW is a disaster waiting to happen are not agreed upon within the scientific community, largely because they are highly speculative assertions that have not be proven by any means. Also, if it was so, if we knew that we were contributing to Global Warming, it would appear that any efforts to reverse the cycle would take many decades to have a significant effect...if indeed there would be a significant effect at all.

I am not against looking for alternatives to fossil fuels, nor looking into ways to reduce emissions into the atmosphere. I am against the frantic cries of the Al Gore crowd shouting, "Doom! Doom!" The ball was already in your court, people, but hopefully now you will have to admit that this is so and do something about it.........

Monday, February 19, 2007

Fox 1/2 Hour News Hour Warms the Globe!

Okay, which of these items is from the new political satire show, Fox 1/2 Hour News Hour and which is not???


The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”


"Congressman Dennis Kucinich says he'll try to bring back the fairness doctrine, a measure aimed at restricting conservative talk radio. Unfortunately, he said it on Air America Radio so nobody heard it!"

I report, you decide! I suppose that Air America is global-warming friendly since almost no one is listening to their particular brand of hot air. This brings us to the two topics for the day:

1) Global Warming
2) The Fox 1/2 Hour News Hour

Global Warming Redux

Yep, I've made a few posts
about Global Warming, like here.
Also here
and here
and here
and here
and here.
Darned if it didn't all start from here!

I have waited patiently for commenters to refute the facts presented by me in these columns and they have failed miserably. One of them insists upon changing the discussion to whether or not I am still a YEC proponent. For instance:

I said: "I took a great deal of time to make a subsequent post on the subject of global warming in order to give commenters a chance to refute my points and give myself time to get some work done and a few other projects. Commenters have failed miserably to refute the stated facts as follows:

The Earth's average temperature has been fluctuating for the whole of recorded history, long before fossil fuels were in widespread use or anyone had invented the term, "carbon footprint." No one has been able to refute this obvious fact. I didn't think that they could."

Creeper said: On the contrary, Radar, you haven't been able to back this up, and we've been waiting for you to do so.

Creeper, bad form. I submitted the data and made the statements. It is up to you to try to find evidence to refute. But you cannot, which I knew already, so you obfuscate instead.

Last time I checked the comments on the previous posts, the ball was in your court to attempt the feat of backing up these "facts" without becoming an Old Earth Creationist in the process.

Now Creeper tries to change the argument away from Global Warming to deflect the scrutiny upon the evidence I had presented. The ball is still in your court and it appears you are unable to return it.

Your silence and subsequent evasion tells me that this is yet another circle you can't square, and yet another question you wish to walk away from.

What silence? I presented evidence and links and commentary from other sources. You have come back with.....nothing so far. Nada. Zip.

Please tell us the temperature cycles of the Earth from a YEC perspective, that is, excluding those layers and layers of rocks, ice cores and tree rings that you need to deny in order to keep a YEC worldview alive. Have any YECers done any research compatible with their beliefs into this issue, or do they all practice a collective mental disconnect, in which one kind of science applies to anything not to do with evolution, and another pseudo-science (one that excludes dendrochronology, ice cores etc.) that is slapped together to prop up YEC in some way?

Perhaps a post on ice cores and etc. would be a good one? I will likely make one soon just because you brought it up as if it were some insurmountable point of a debate that I have been avoiding. Meanwhile, how about at least trying to dispute the evidence I presented? Wow.

Lava said this, by the way: Radar- do you it would be proper for me to take what you say, and then extrapolate from these quotes and make blanket statements about conservatives as a whole--how they think and act? (I was writing this question thinking I'd obviously get a "no" answer, but now that I read it over, I'm not quite so sure).

Lava, my friend, I am a blogger and sometimes I need to make a point by going overboard to get comments going. I don't think all liberals are the same, no. Some of them are loony-toons who wear tinfoil hats to the beach and put signs on their vehicles reading, Chimpeach. (hmm, that was catchy...) Some of them are, like you, thoughtful individuals with whom I most often disagree.

In truth, why there are so many liberals who not only believe in Global Warming but believe it is fact rather than speculation and believe it with such fervor they are willing to practically call for censorship and mass jailings of dissidents over the issue is way beyond me.

David Harsanyi says that it is just another fad that will fade away:

"The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.

Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.

"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction."

Hmmm..."a matter of faith"...."concensus was reached before research had even begun"....that sounds about right. Greenpeacers think up global warming, declare it to be a fact, and then begin research in hopes of proving it.....and have come up empty. Why? Are there people who are determined to prove than mankind has great control over the planet? Are there people who are determined to control every conceivable aspect of our lives? Are there elitists who wish to rule the world because they know better than the common folk? Are there great numbers of loonies who love new and improved causes? Are there great numbers of folks who want global warming to be a manmade phenomenon???? I find it all very puzzling, but one thing I am sure of: Global Warming is not controlled by man, any more than global cooling is controlled by man! We still cannot make it rain over deserts or stop hurricanes before they begin or predict or defuse tornadoes. We can't alter the ocean's tides nor can we even accurately predict whether it will snow in my town a week from today.

Oh yeah, That Fox 1/2 Hour News Hour!

I got carried away
with the global warming thingy, sorry. Yes, I watched it and thought it was hilarious at times and too true at times (The ACLU commercials were all too true and not really all that funny). I think the show has promise as kind of a counterpoint of sorts to "The Daily Show." Conservatives will tend to enjoy it and liberals will tend to hate it.

Unfair and unbalanced is the motto. For the show to be a success, it will have to begin being filmed within a week of airing so that it can be timely, and there will have to be some skewering of the good guys, too. John Stewart has been known to take a shot at inviting liberal targets like John Kerry from time to time. If F1/2HNH is to be successful, they'll need to fire a shot across the bow of a John McCain or a Dick Cheney from time to time as opportunity arises.

The anchors (Jenn Robertson and Kurt Long as "Jennifer Lange" and "Kent McNally") are perfect for their roles...the facial expressions of Jenn are Jane Curtin-esque. If they are given fresh and timely material to work with the show will succeed.

Could you tell which of the two lead items was from Sunday Night's show and which was simply a straight news item? I'm not sure which one was the funniest...I report, you decide!

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

The whole world is a movie theatre, and AL Gore is the guy shouting, "Fire!"

I took a great deal of time to make a subsequent post on the subject of global warming in order to give commenters a chance to refute my points and give myself time to get some work done and a few other projects. Commenters have failed miserably to refute the stated facts as follows:

The Earth's average temperature has been fluctuating for the whole of recorded history, long before fossil fuels were in widespread use or anyone had invented the term, "carbon footprint." No one has been able to refute this obvious fact. I didn't think that they could. Truth is, like I had said:

The earth appears to be on a warming cycle.
The earth has experienced such cycles before.
There is no evidence that such cycles were manmade in the past.
Cooling cycles have followed warming cycles.
There is no evidence that the cooling cycles were manmade.
Therefore logic indicates a cooling cycle will follow.
Logic also indicates that it will do so independent of mankind.

Just because A (warming trend) follows B (higher greenhouse gas emissions) doesn't mean that B caused A. That is a logical fallacy as well. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. I can illustrate this easily enough:

George sneezes. A car passes by the front window. Therefore, George caused the car to come by with his sneeze. Uhm, NO! I am afraid that such logic is the basis for the current Global Warming hysteria.

But logic and facts don't seem to carry the day with the frantic Gore crowd. THE INCONVENIENT FICTION is the equivalent of Gore shouting "Fire" and the world stampeding towards the exits. I have a great deal of contempt for Al Gore, and for good reason!

He claimed to be (He and Tipper) the basis for the novel "Love Story", which was false.
He took at least partial credit for inventing the internet
He and Tipper once waged a campaign to censor rock music videos and lyrics, supposedly as good Christian people concerned for the children. Now he advocated murdering children before they are even born. His Dick Durbinesque ability to adjust his politics to fit the next wave is anathema to me. Now he is on this global warming kick!!!!

Al Gore and his cohorts are on a Commie-like mission to completely shut off the opposing viewpoint. I have blogged on this before but I believe it is instructive to add another voice. Cue Dennis Prager:

"In her last column, Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman wrote: "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers . . . "

This is worthy of some analysis.

A general view show the lower house of Parliament Bundestag inside the Reichstags building during a commemoration ceremony to mark the Holocaust memorial day in Berlin January 29, 2007. REUTERS/Fabrizio Bensch (GERMANY)

First, it reflects a major difference between the way in which the Left and Right tend to view each other. With a few exceptions, those on the Left tend to view their ideological adversaries as bad people, i.e., people with bad intentions, while those on the Right tend to view their adversaries as wrong, perhaps even dangerous, but not usually as bad.

Those who deny the Holocaust are among the evil of the world. Their concern is not history but hurting Jews, and their attempt to rob nearly six million people of their experience of unspeakable suffering gives new meaning to the word "cruel." To equate those who question or deny global warming with those who question or deny the Holocaust is to ascribe equally nefarious motives to them. It may be inconceivable to Al Gore, Ellen Goodman and their many millions of supporters that a person can disagree with them on global warming and not have evil motives: Such an individual must be paid by oil companies to lie, or lie -- as do Holocaust deniers -- for some other vile reason.

The belief that opponents of the Left are morally similar to Nazis was expressed recently by another prominent person of the Left, George Soros, the billionaire who bankrolls many leftist projects. At the World Economic Forum in Davos last month, Soros called on America to "de-Nazify" just as Germany did after the Holocaust and World War II. For Soros, America in Iraq is like the Nazis in Poland.

A second lesson to be drawn from the Goodman statement is that it helps us to understand better one of the defining mottos of contemporary liberalism: "Question authority." In reality, this admonition applies to questioning the moral authority of Judeo-Christian religions or of any secular conservative authority, but not of any other authority. UN and other experts tell us that there is global warming; such authority is not to be questioned.

Third, the equation of global warming denial to Holocaust denial trivializes Holocaust denial. If questioning global warming is on "a par" with questioning the Holocaust, how bad can questioning the Holocaust really be? The same holds true with regard to Nazism and the George Soros statement. Claiming that America in the Iraq War is morally equivalent to Nazi Germany in World War II trivializes the unparalleled evil of the Nazis.

Fourth, the lack of response (thus far) of any liberal or left individual or organization -- except to defend Ellen Goodman -- or from the Anti-Defamation League, the organization whose primary purpose has been to defend Jews, is telling. Just imagine if, for example, an equally prominent Christian figure had written that denying America is a Christian country is on a par with denying the Holocaust. It would have been front-page news in the mainstream media, the individual would have been excoriated by just about every major liberal individual and group, and the ADL would have cited this as an example of burgeoning Christian anti-Semitism and Holocaust trivialization. But not a word at the ADL on Soros's comments about de-Nazifying America or Goodman's Holocaust-denial comment.

Fifth, and finally, the Ellen Goodman quote is only the beginning of what is already becoming one of the largest campaigns of vilification of decent people in history -- the global condemnation of a) anyone who questions global warming; or b) anyone who agrees that there is global warming but who argues that human behavior is not its primary cause; or c) anyone who agrees that there is global warming, and even agrees that human behavior is its primary cause, but does not believe that the consequences will be nearly as catastrophic as Al Gore does.

If you don't believe all three propositions, you will be lumped with Holocaust deniers, and it would not be surprising that soon, in Europe, global warming deniers will be treated as Holocaust deniers and prosecuted. Just watch. That is far more likely than the oceans rising by 20 feet. Or even 10. Or even three."


Right now I am watching about 15 inches or so of global warming blow around outside my front door. I have snow dunes in my back yard and every member of the household has been called upon to take turns digging and re-digging out the driveway. Yeah, I know, global warming doesn't preclude snow. But it's funny to discuss it while we are in the middle of a long cold snap.

Those disastrous hurricanes Gore predicted for last year? Not one hit shore on the continental USA last season. New Orleans is sinking, the ocean isn't rising. There is so much misinformation being bandied about. Now we see commercials presenting global warming as a roaring freight train bearing down upon an innocent child! Talk about propaganda!!!

You Al Gore sycophants make me sick! You who go to pro-abortion rallies wearing your "save-the-whales" t-shirts and put "bushchimphitler" stickers on your compact cars, yeah, YOU! Now you want to hurt the economy and help keep developing nations from, well, developing, by putting major constraints on industry in the name of a non-existent phenomenon. Is it because you want another world-wide depression so Communism can give it another try? Al Gore is so rich it wouldn't hurt him if the bottom fell out of the US economy, why should he care? He just wants acclaim, and another shot at the brass ring. Guys like that think they ought to run things and that everything should receive oversight from "Progressives" who know better than the rest of us.

Ronald Reagan said that Communism doesn't work here on earth. "...They don't need it in Heaven, and they already have it in Hell."

You really want to see global warming? It doesn't work here. Heaven doesn't need it and Hell already has it!

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Global Warming (Dumbing) - Fallacies Revealed!

Yes, the comments are worth posting and answering for the richness of their logical poverty! Let us begin and, as usual, commenters are in italics:

One thing that always amuses me, Radar, is that you are constantly forced to seek support for your positions from folks who base their conclusions on a coherent worldview that completely clashes with your own, i.e. YEC.

There's mention here of a 10,000 year something or other... Radar, according to your beliefs, there is no such thing as 10,000 years! What's going on here? Could you square this circle for us?

First, this is a straw man argument, since we are talking about so-called global warming and not the correctness of the YEC position. Argumentum ad logicam. Second, when I use sources from sites my readers don't like, I get attacked for the source rather than the content, as we shall soon see...

You believe that the Earth did not exist 6,000 years ago, and yet you cite an article (which can be found here) that also contains the following (emphasis mine):

"Over the last 700,000 years, the climate has operated on a relatively predictable schedule of 100,000-year glaciation cycles. Each glaciation cycle is typically characterized by 90,000 years of cooling--an ice age--followed by an abrupt warming period, called an interglacial, that lasts 10,000 to 12,000 years. The last ice age reached its coolest point 18,000 to 20,000 years ago, when the average temperature was 9 to 12.6° F cooler than today. Earth is currently in a warm interglacial called the Holocene, which began 10,700 years ago."

How can you cite an article to support your positions when you completely, undeniably, 100% utterly disagree with the very foundation on which it bases its conclusions?

I realized that the author and I disagree concerning the age of the earth, but he was presenting undeniable facts about the weather patterns of the last 2,000 years in a comprehensible manner and therefore I thought that portion of his thoughts were worth sharing.

Is your own position that unsupportable that you cannot back them up in a slightly more coherent fashion?

Since this discussion is not about YEC, I wasn't attempting to support that particular position at all, thank you very much!

Or have even you decided that the YEC position cannot be seriously maintained?

Any reasonable perusal of this blog over the last year or so would glean literally thousands of words and many, many sources and links defending the YEC position. This post didn't happen to be one of them. Way to try to take the focus off of both the subject matter and the content of the post you commented upon!

In any event, I did say that..."It doesn't matter where I got the information. Your argumentum ad hominem attacks miss the point entirely. Was there a long period of warming? Yes. Was there a "little ice age?" Yes. In fact, were cycles like this identified before any men were making any kind of a "carbon footprint?" Yes.

Suppose you naysayers discuss the facts as presented rather than trying to avoid the argument by attacking the source. I'm still waiting for the first logical response..."

Ad Hominem is most often used concerning a personal attack against a person himself , but in this case the commenter is attacking the source itself rather than the facts contained therein. Therefore it is a form of an ad hominem attack.

1. It's not that it matters where you got the information, it's that you're not presenting a coherent position, since you're apparently endorsing something that you utterly disagree with elsewhere on your blog. You can't claim that you hold a position on global warming that's based on conclusions drawn from certain climate patterns over hundreds of thousands of years, and claim elsewhere that you believe that clearly nothing existed, say, 6,500 years ago.

Repeat to me what position I stated in that post that refutes my belief in YEC? (Again, not that it would matter in this case).

Those two positions are incompatible, regardless of where the information come from.

Do you agree with John Carlisle that there are climate patterns that go back hundreds of thousands of years?

No, I do not. I agree with him that there are climate patterns that go back through recorded history, however, and that is what I posted.

2. It was not an ad hominem attack, since I critiqued your position (and its inherent incoherence), not you as a person.

You attacked the source as a source, not the material presented.

3. "In fact, were cycles like this identified before any men were making any kind of a "carbon footprint?" Yes."

Could you present any evidence of this that actually is consistent with your own worldview, YEC?

Reread the post. What did I say that refutes YEC? Quote, please!

4. "Suppose you naysayers discuss the facts as presented rather than trying to avoid the argument by attacking the source."

I am not a naysayer. I'm doing what you have elsewhere professed to be doing: I look at all the evidence and then make up my mind. And so far I haven't made up my mind. I do, however, have a basic mistrust of any politically-charged arguments, such as the "draw-a-line-in-the-sand-and-make-fun-of-people on-the-other-side" mentality. I can't think of an instance when this led to clear thinking and analysis.

You are in favor of draw-a-line-in-the-sand-and-attack-sources-rather-than-statements-of-fact?

5. "Oh, and Joe, I don't agree with everything the director stated or believes. That doesn't mean I reject everything he believes out of hand. Once he leaves recorded history and gets into speculation, then he and I diverge."

It's exactly the other way around - you reject his presentation of recorded history, and you agree with his conclusions, whether speculative or not. Which is hardly the same as examining the evidence and then making up your mind.

The above statement is remarkably incoherent. There isn't any "recorded history" from 10,000 years ago. Can't you find ANY FACTS AT ALL TO ARGUE WITH????

I'm not a scientist. I don't purport to be one.

I'm not a 100% believer in GW- but I lean that way.

Am I going to put any weight into something Exxon Mobil or anybody else closely tied to fossil fuels funds regarding GW? No. Did you believe when the cigarette companies told you nicotine wasn't addicting? Its the same basic idea- when someone has a bias, you really have to look twice at how they skew the facts---

But when Greenpeace types with stated idealogical agendas proclaim that Global Warming is a fact, you take them utterly at face value??? Hey, a guy wearing nothing but a sandwich board and a smile might tell you something and, despite his appearances, it just might be true. Examine the facts, friend, and don't be blinded by the source on either side of the question.

My logical response(as explained in a previous reply to some blog about GW or evolution) summed up again here- let's use Occam's Razor- what is the simpler answer- There is some sort of world-wide liberal monster brainwashing and compelling scientists to support global warming? Or- scientists world-wide are coming to a general consensus about GW, that man has something to do with it? Until someone comes up with a plausible reason why scientists(word-wide) would have some sort of ulterior motive, I'm going to believe they have integrity and retain credibility as a whole(unlike Exxon funded publications).

Oh, brother, this is a whopper of a logical leap! Occam's Razor deals with facts, you are trying to apply opinion polls to the issue as if they were facts. Argumentum ad numerum. You want to make us believe because there may be a majority, that majority must be right. In fact, Occam falls to my side of the issue:

The earth appears to be on a warming cycle.
The earth has experienced such cycles before.
There is no evidence that such cycles were manmade in the past.
Cooling cycles have followed warming cycles.
There is no evidence that the cooling cycles were manmade.
Therefore logic indicates a cooling cycle will follow.
Logic also indicates that it will do so independent of mankind.

Just because A (warming trend) follows B (higher greenhouse gas emissions) doesn't mean that B caused A. That is a logical fallacy as well. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc. I can illustrate this easily enough:

George sneezes. A car passes by the front window. Therefore, George caused the car to come by with his sneeze. Uhm, NO! I am afraid that such logic is the basis for the current Global Warming hysteria.

So, again, I ask commenters, bring some facts next time, okay? Thanks!

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Global Dumbing - Those who are ignorant of history

Before we go one, let us look at some history of the earth's temperature cycles. I will be quoting John Carlisle, Director of the Environmental Policy Task Force.

Policymakers have been arguing for nearly a decade over what to do about global warming. Noticeably missing from this debate has been any mention of the fact that natural fluctuations in the Earth's temperature, not Man, is the likely explanation for any recent warming.

In fact, the cattle population is more responsible than man in terms of emissions of "greenhouse gases." But let us go on...

In 900 A.D. the planet's temperature roughly approximated today's temperature. Then, between 900 and 1100 the climate dramatically warmed. Known as the Medieval Warm Period, the temperature rose by more than 1° F to an average of 60° or 61° F, as much as 2° F warmer than today. Again, the temperature during this period is similar to Greenhouse predictions for 2100, a prospect global warming theory proponents insist should be viewed with alarm. But judging by how Europe prospered during this era, there is little to be alarmed about. The warming that occurred between 1000 and 1350 caused the ice in the North Atlantic to retreat and permitted Norsemen to colonize Iceland and Greenland. Back then, Greenland was actually green. Europe emerged from the Dark Ages in a period that was characterized by bountiful harvests and great economic prosperity. So mild was the climate that wine grapes were grown in England and Nova Scotia.

Hmmm, I wonder if the California Wine Growers are lobbying hard for Kyoto because they are afraid of more competition? Hahahahaha!

The major climate change that followed the Medieval Warm Period is especially critical as it bears directly on how to assess our current warming period. Between 1200 and 1450, the temperature plunged to 58° F. After briefly warming, the climate continued to dramatically get colder after 1500. By 1650, the temperature hit a low of 57° F. This is regarded as the coldest point in the 10,000-year Holocene geological epoch. That is why the era between 1650 and 1850 is known as the Little Ice Age. It was during this time that mountain glaciers advanced in Switzerland and Scandinavia, forcing the abandonment of farms and villages. Rivers in London, St. Petersburg and Moscow froze over so thoroughly that people held winter fairs on the ice. There were serious crop failures, famines and disease due to the cooler climate. In America, New England had no summer in 1816. It wasn't until 1860 that the temperature sufficiently warmed to cause the glaciers to retreat.

One good thing we got out of all of this was the numbers of great Christmas and even Thanksgiving stories and songs featuring lots of ice and snow, since the 1800's tended to have longer and snowier winters than we have today. "Over the River and Through the Wood."

The significance of the Little Ice Age cannot be overestimated. The 1.5° F temperature increase over the last 150 years, so often cited as evidence of man-made warming, most likely represents a return to normal temperatures following a 400-year period of unusually cold weather. Even the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the chief proponent of the Kyoto Protocol global warming treaty signed in December 1997, concludes that: "The Little Ice Age came to an end only in the nineteenth century. Thus, some of the global warming since 1850 could be a recovery from the Little Ice Age rather than a direct result of human activities."

Leading climate scientist Dr. Hugh Ellsaesser of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory says we may be in for an additional 1.8° F of warming over the next few centuries, regardless of Man's activities. The result would be warmer nighttime and winter temperatures, fewer frosts and longer growing seasons. Since CO2 stimulates plant growth and lessens the need for water, we could also expect more bountiful harvests over the next couple of centuries. This is certainly not bad news to the developing nations of the world struggling to feed their populations.

But frantic Global Warming advocates don't give two hoots for developing nations, since they are usually greenpeace-types that seek to keep developing countries from developing their resources on environmental grounds.

Thus, far from being a self-induced disaster, global warming is the result of natural changes in the Earth's climate that promises to yield humanity positive benefits. In the geological scheme of things, the warming is not even that dramatic compared to the more pronounced warming trends that occurred during the Agricultural Revolution and the early Middle Ages. Moreover, there is strong evidence that this long-needed warming is moderating. All things considered, global warming should be viewed for what it is: A gift from the often fickle force of Nature. Enjoy it while you can.

Yeah, what he said!

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

Global Dumbing - Da (Polar) Bears

Suddenly, the Global Warming Dolts (GWD) have decided that Polar Bears are in danger due to Global Warming. A recent picture and accompanying story that purports to show some poor stranded Polar Bears helped begin the groundswell to protect the poor Ursus Maritimus!

There was another picture recently being passed around showing a mother and two cubs, supposedly stuck on an ice float that had moved too far from land for them to find an escape. The truth was that the photographer, Amy Read (sp?) had actually seen the bears swimming up to and climbing on the ice before taking her picture and only took it as a cool picture of the bears, not any statement on Global Warming. Let's compare hysteria versus fact:

"pair of polar bears look stranded as they cling precariously to the top of a melting ice floe."

This was the caption that was posted along with this picture. Trouble is, Polar Bears can easily swim 60 miles through artic waters to get from place to place.

"Photographed by Canadian environmentalists off the coast of Alaska, the dramatic image highlights the ever-increasing threat to the polar bear population as the Arctic ice diminishes."

They (The Canadians) were nowhere near 60 miles out and in fact were standing on another much larger ice float upon which the bears could easily have parked themselves if they'd so wished. The environmentalists were taking ice core samples and, ironically, carried shotguns to shoot any bears that came too close! Ah, save the Polar Bears indeed!

"Scientists are reporting caracasses of the bears in the sea as they are overcome by the waves and exhaustion, swimming hundreds of miles in search of food."

Scientists have found drowned Polar Bears after storms! Four bears found drowned after a violent 2006 storm are the most frequent example given for the assertion that warmer temperatures are killing them off. But no matter how much ice was available, a bear far from shore caught in a storm could drown anyway.

GWD's studiously ignore the facts:

Polar Bears are thriving!!!

Eco hysteria over polar bears unjustified:
They are not in danger, insists Nunavut biologist who knows the animals

The Edmonton Journal, Sun 31 Dec 2006 - Lorne Gunter

"No evidence exists that suggests that both [polar] bears and the conservation systems that regulate them will not adapt and respond to the new conditions. Polar bears have persisted through many similar climate cycles."

There's a lot in that two-sentence statement from Dr. Mitch Taylor, polar bear biologist for the government of Nunavut, and one of the leading experts in the world on Ursus maritimus.

First, it shows that polar bears are currently not threatened.

Not only that, there is every reason to believe they are going to stay that way.

Elsewhere this year, Taylor has written "At present, the polar bear is one of the best-managed of the large Arctic mammals. If all the Arctic nations continue to abide by the terms and intent of the [1973] Polar Bear Agreement, the future of polar bears is secure."

Second, Taylor's statement shows "no evidence exists" that polar bears or the ecosystems in which they live are threatened. He has admitted several times that climate change is affecting and will continue to affect the majestic white animals. But there is no reason to believe the effects will be harmful or lead to the bears' extinction.

Finally, Taylor's statement acknowledges what almost no environmentalists will: The current climate cycle is very similar to many others in the past.

There are man-made threats to the bears, most notably encroachment on their territory and slightly elevated levels of pollutants in their air, water and prey. Human activity may even be strengthening and quickening the current climate change (I don't believe it is, but I am willing to admit others do).

Our activities are not driving the bears to the brink of disaster. So curtailing our activities cannot prevent them from tumbling over an ecological precipice they are not teetering on in the first place.

There are 20 significant populations of polar bears around the top of the globe. Of the 13 in Canada, 11 are either stable or increasing in size. "They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present," according to Taylor.

The bear population of western Hudson Bay (the one most often cited by environmentalists) has declined over the past 25 years "and the reproductive success of females in that area seems to have decreased." Yet the reason seems to be that conditions for the bears there in the mid-1980s "were exceptionally good."

Every ecological cycle has its peaks and valleys. For bears in western Hudson Bay, the latest peak occurred two decades ago. The decline since has been neither precipitous nor unnatural.

What makes Taylor so sure man-made climate change is not causing the Hudson Bay bears to disappear? Some population has to be the first to feel the brunt of any disaster, after all.

"The neighbouring population of southern Hudson Bay does not appear to have declined," and another nearby population "may actually be over-abundant."

The same average number of cubs are being born to mother bears as in the past. (Some environmentalists have claimed triplets used to be the norm, but single cubs are now.) Nor have the bears extended the length of the weaning period, a sign they are having fewer cubs on average.

In Canada, where a decade ago our Arctic had 12,000 bears, Taylor and other bear specialists estimate there are now 15,000 bears, an increase of 25 per cent in just 10 years. Worldwide there are 22,000 to 25,000 polar bears, whereas 50 years ago -- before the first SUV, before Kyoto, before most people had even heard of the global warming theory -- there were just 8,000 to 10,000.

The U.S. Department of the Interior, under pressure from environmentalists, has recently announced that it is considered raising the bears' environmental status to "threatened."


Well, the real reason is politics. The White House has decided to go a bit "greener." Rather than attempt to explain the science behind climate change, and why most of the current change (if not all of it) is likely natural, the Bush administration has decided to pander to voters who have been whipped into an environmental tizzy by constant scaremongering by scientists, environmentalists and the media.

The official reason given for changing the bears' designation is that the ice they hunt on is melting.

So? The ice cover is cyclical, too. And in the past, as the ice has receded, the increased sunlight in the water has increased the food available to seals, who have themselves increased in number, providing polar bears with more food to eat.

Indeed, 50 years ago, when there were fewer than half as many bears are there are now, the planet was in the midst of a prolonged cold spell. Ice covered more of the Arctic and there were fewer seals.

Decreased ice also means the bears find it easier to get to land where there are more berries and other foods the big beasts love.

Much of this should be good news for environmentalists, because it is good for the bears. But as Taylor says, "good news does not seem to be welcomed."

So, the Polar Bear population is thriving and growing. In fact, the wildlife of the Arctic are enjoying the warm cycle we are currently experiencing:

Global warming helps Arctic animals

"By the BBC's Richard Lister in the Alaskan Arctic

Research in the American Arctic has revealed that the polar bear and bowhead whale populations are booming after decades of decline, and part of the reason for that may be global warming.

Although the long-term predictions suggest many Arctic species could be jeopardised by any continued rise in temperatures, scientists think that at the moment some animal populations may be benefiting from a slightly warmer climate.

In the Arctic desert of Northern Alaska, a tiny monitoring station is tracking the polar climate.

Research over three decades shows the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere has steadily increased. Temperatures have also risen by a tenth of one degree every year since 1977.

Open seas

Dan Endres, who runs the station, says even small changes can have a significant impact.

"An increase of about two degrees (Celsius) can mean as much as another month of open water," he said. No-one knows if the trend will continue.

If it does, the Arctic Ocean could be completely free of summer ice towards the end of this century. That could devastate the wildlife that relies on it for hunting, breeding, and protection from shipping.

But for now, though, some species are positively booming. The polar bear population on Alaska's coast has doubled since the '70s, thanks largely to a hunting ban.

Researchers say they have never seen such big and healthy animals. That may be because at the other end of the food chain, plankton are thriving in warmer waters.

Good shape

At the edge of the solid ice, the spring thaw is beginning and a whale count is under way. Research teams work round the clock monitoring the bowhead whales, which surface in open areas to breathe.

Once hunted almost to extinction, this population is now increasing by up to 3% a year. Retreating pack ice may also be helping them.

A team of researchers has also been monitoring the local polar bears from a helicopter.

They tranquillise, weigh and tag the animals. George Durner, from the Alaska Biological Science Center, says he has never seen the bears look in such good shape.

"The lengthening of the ice-free period may actually increase the amount of sunlight entering the ocean, triggering greater plant growth, plankton growth. This is the foundation of the food chain out there," he said.

Fish eat the plankton. Seals eat the fish, and polar bears feed on the seals.

Feeding opportunities

Scientists here are tracking the whales' movement under the ice with special microphones.

Further out where the sea ice is beginning to break up, another team is counting the whales as they come up to breathe.

Craig George, one of the team leaders, says the bowhead whale population is now increasing by three percent a year, after being hunted almost to extinction. He, too, says less ice may be helping them.

"Retreating the pack ice a little bit gives greater feeding opportunities in the Beaufort Sea where they summer," he said, adding: "Retreating ice out of the Canadian archipelago might allow them to enter areas where they haven't been for several thousand years..."

Even with some GWD-type naysaying at the end of the article, it seems clear that current conditions are good for Polar Bears and wildlife in general in the Arctic. It also seems that cycles of warmer and colder conditions have been recorded and acknowledged in the past. Why do GWD's now make so many stupid noises about Global Warming?

Stay tuned for part two, tomorrow!!!!

Sunday, February 04, 2007

Bears versus Colts?

Thanks to Windy City Gridiron, I can express the Super Bowl in picture form. CYA after the Super Bowl to resume regular blogging!