Search This Blog

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Global Warming - the Myth - the Man - the Mandate


Now that the political process has ramped up, we see candidates giving lip service to Global Warming. This is another in a series of pins aimed at the hot air balloon that is Global Warming - the myth - the man - the mandate!

(With thanks to Michael Ramirez for the cartoon)

The Myth: As the Powerline guys recently posted...

Global Cooling Alert

When Scott and I wrote "The Global Warming Hoax" in 1992, a group of Danish scientists had just published a paper that compared solar energy output (as measured by sunspot activity) to global temperatures, and found a striking correlation. No surprise there: just about all energy on earth comes from the Sun. Investors' Business Daily recalls that research and notes that the Sun has been quiet lately:

Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.

[Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council] reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere. ***

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."

Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."

I suspect that many global warming alarmists are well aware that time is running out for them. If nothing is done and global temperatures decline in coming years--as they inevitably will, the only question is when--the alarmists will have been refuted. On the other hand, if they succeed in pushing through industry-destroying caps on carbon emissions around the world, and especially here in the U.S., they will take credit for the cooling when it comes, claiming it as vindication of their theories.

In that context, the 2008 election shapes up as very important. I don't worry too much about John McCain's acknowledged lack of economic expertise, as his instincts on the economy are generally conservative. But McCain badly needs to educate himself on the debate currently raging over the climate. "Global warming" represents the Left's most ambitious power grab since the fall of Communism, and if a Republican President doesn't stand it its way, who will?

If McCain is looking for a sensible energy policy, he might start with these recommendations from the Science and Environmental Policy Project:

Our policy recommendation is to phase out natural gas (methane) for electric power generation (now about 20% in US and 40% in UK), replace it with coal/nuclear, and use gas as a clean transportation fuel (in the form of Compressed Natural Gas -- CNG) for buses, trucks, and all fleet vehicles. In the US case it would cut oil imports by 30%. Further cuts would come from the use of plug-in and hybrid-electric cars.

There is lots of good work being done in climate science, a discipline that is still in its infancy. There are also plenty of creative proposals for how to address our energy needs. But if the Republican Party mindlessly signs on to the fake-science of anthropogenic global warming, those ideas will never see the light of day. Someone please get the word to John McCain.



~~~~~~~

The Man

Yes, Global Warming caused by man is not a concensus opinion of scientists worldwide, but in fact many of the best believe we are headed for a period of cooling that will impact the world negatively, much as it did the last time the sun cycled that way.

But there is one man who is dedicated to push Global Warming and will lie and cheat on facts and figures to be heard: Al Gore. Yes, maybe he really didn't claim to invent the internet and maybe he really did thing that he and Tipper were the inspiration for Love Story. Maybe. But he pushes this GW business for more than the good of the general public. Last year at about this time his hypocrisy was exposed, if you recall...

THE HEAT IS ON
Gore's 'carbon offsets'
paid to firm he owns

Critics say justification for energy-rich lifestyle serves as way for former VP to profit

Posted: March 02, 2007
4:13 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com




Al Gore's Nashville mansion (PajamasMedia.com)
Al Gore defends his extraordinary personal energy usage by telling critics he maintains a "carbon neutral" lifestyle by buying "carbon offsets," but the company that receives his payments turns out to be partly owned and chaired by the former vice president himself.

Gore has built a "green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms," writes blogger Dan Riehl.

Gore has described the lifestyle he and his wife Tipper live as "carbon neutral," meaning he tries to offset any energy usage, including plane flights and car trips, by "purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere."

But it turns out he pays for his extra-large carbon footprint through Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C., for which he serves as chairman. The company was established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating "global warming," reports blogger Bill Hobbs.

Generation Investment Management's U.S. branch is headed by a former Gore staffer and fund-raiser, Peter S. Knight, who once was the target of probes by the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice.

Hobbs points out Gore stands to make a lot of money from his promotion of the alleged "global warming" threat, which is disputed by many mainstream scientists.

"In other words, he 'buys' his 'carbon offsets' from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself," Hobbs writes. "To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy 'carbon offsets' through Generation Investment Management – he buys stocks."

As WND reported, Gore, whose film warning of a coming cataclysm due to man-made "global warming" won two Oscars, has a mansion in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville that consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, citing data from the Nashville Electric Service.

The think tanks says since the release of Gore's film, the former presidential candidate's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kilowatt-hours per month in 2005, to 18,400 per month in 2006.




~~~~~~~

Gore has gone "green" (as in greenbacks)


Now, to be fair, Gore has taken measures to reduce the energy usage of his two family mansions since the stories of his massive energy consumption broke. Nevertheless, one thing that has not changed is that the "carbon offsets" that Gore recommends are serving to line his considerable pockets with lots of greenbacks. No wonder Gore has gone so green!

You understand that when a guy tells you snake oil will cure you and, oh, by the way, he just happens to sell snake oil, just maybe you are getting scammed? How long before the World begins to realize that Gore is a self-serving liar who is simply trying to get richer and keep his name in the headlines.

~~~~~~~

The Mandate

If the United States would ignore the Gores and tree-huggers and elitists seeking to make us into Failed Marxist Experiment 3.0 (Soviet Union, dead, Red China, troubled, are 1.0 and 2.0 respectively), we would see a great opportunity ahead.

I propose that we drill in Anwr and in the Dakotas and off-shore wherever we can to get to the oil that is available to us within our territory as soon as possible.

I submit that nuclear power plants have been hugely successful and should be viewed as the best way to generate electric power in most situations.

I also suggest that wind farms and hydroelectric plants be utilized where practical, even if they ruin Teddy Kennedy's view of the Atlantic!

We should totally ignore the Kyoto Protocols, just as Red China and, indeed, most of the world will do, whether they signed the darn thing or not.

We need to quit mixing ethanol into our gasoline and save corn for animal and people food. Focus our technology on finding ways to make fuel from trash, not food!

The Executive Branch of government needs to put more pressure on our so-called allies like the Saudis in the Middle East to increase oil production and exports, thus lowering the world cost of oil. You really think the pressure on the economy is because of George Bush???!!! Not unless you spell Bush "O-P-E-C"! Duh.

Great strides have been made with hybrid automotive technology. This is perhaps the only good part of the GW stupidity. But in truth, even though we have lots of oil now it will eventually run out, so alternate methods of energy need to be found. There is no good reason for the government to subsidize most research, since most research is done by companies hoping to find a profitable product. However, government encouragement in this field should help speed the process of improving hybrid technology as well as alternate energy source technology. Grants and subsidies to ideas with promise are still worth consideration.

The news media needs to be hit upside the head with a stupid stick! The constant drone of "carbon footprints" and "Global Warming deniers" works against the truth and real progress in the search for alternative energy sources.

Oh, you wanted a mandate on Global Warming? No, there is no manmade Global Warming!!! We are now facing a period of cooling and you had better hope against hope that Al Gore was just a tiny bit right, because, 20 years from now you will be looking for all the warming you can find. Will the Thames freeze over again? Will the Midwest United States have snowcover by Thanksgiving? It is unfortunately pretty likely.

~~~~~~~
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring about?” ---- Maurice F. Strong, one of the worlds leading environmentalists and senior advisor to various U.N. Secretaries-General


THEREFORE the energy needs during the winter months are going to grow, so we had better work hard to get every energy source available working for us before things begin to get even more difficult for us in the United States.


POSTSCRIPT: from the Science and Environmental Policy Project: -

ABC Journalism: Fraudulent
ABC's Dan Harris smears Dr. Fred Singer

The only useful measure of the

ABC News' recent smear of Dr. Fred Singer is reproduced on its web site (story dated March 23, 2008, "Global Warming Denier: Fraud or 'Realist'/Physicist Says Humans Will Benefit From Warmer Planet"). That story is dissected below with appropriate comments.

The only useful measure of the value of journalism is the degree to which an article informs the public with objective truth. On that basis, the recent article by ABC (Global Warming Denier: Fraud or 'Realist'? Physicist Says Humans Will Benefit From Warmer Planet - Dan Harris, Felicia Biberica, Elizabeth Stuart and Nils Kongshaug contributed to this report.) scores an abysmal zero.

The article begins, His fellow scientists call him a fraud, a charlatan and a showman ... which is neither true nor objective. Further, it is a smear as it fails to identify any of the claimed "fellow scientists" (how very convenient!).

The article continues: Singer, an 84-year-old Princeton-trained physicist, is the grandfather of the global warming skeptics who dispute the established scientific consensus that global warming is real, that it is caused by the pollution humans are pumping into the atmosphere, and that it will be catastrophic if measures are not taken immediately.

Why is age important here? Is ABC's intent to put Dr. Singer in a box labeled "old fool"? If so, then it's failed to consider that his age suggests wisdom and subject-matter knowledge far beyond that evidenced by the writers of this article. While Dr. Singer is certainly a key player in the scientific effort to inject perspective and sanity into the global warming issue, I suggest the characterization of Dr. Singer as the "grandfather of the global warming skeptics" is inaccurate because the truth is (that terribly inconvenient "truth") that real science, historic climate, and the scientific method are the principal foundation upon which skepticism of the IPCC/Gore theory are built. As a scientist (mathematician) who has had a strong fascination and interest in both meteorology and climatology for over 50 years, I have studied paleoclimatology and earth sciences throughout my adult life. As anyone with a similar background in the scientific method and scientific inquiry would understand, virtually any nominal interest and associated knowledge in these areas is sufficient to cast serious doubt on the theories professed by policymakers of the IPCC and Mr. Gore that Dan Harris supports. Then there is the inconvenient science that completely debunks the unsustainable conclusions of the IPCCs Summary Reports (note that March 1, 2007 through February 29, 2008 was the coldest global 12 months in many decades, losing nearly 1°C).

The paragraph under scrutiny also contains several conjectures that are simply not true. First, of course, being that Dr. Singer is the "grandfather" of skeptics when, in fact, science and truth are the grandfather of skeptics. Second is the brazen statement that there is "scientific consensus" that humans are causing global warming. That is an oft-repeated claim whose veracity is simply not reflected in any true assessment of the positions of subject-matter experts (i.e., those trained in climatology, meteorology, and/or atmospheric science). Next is the totally unsupportable claim that human "pollution" pumped into the atmosphere will cause catastrophic warming. First, climate warming has historically been associated with advances in human civilization (the Minoan warm period, the Roman warm period, and the Medieval warm period - each of which were warmer than anything we've experienced in the 20th-21st centuries - are all testimony to that truth). When climate cools, civilization struggles. Witness the demise of settlers of Greenland (no longer "green"). It is preposterous to claim that greater plant yields, longer growing seasons, and more benign weather will increase human strife. Would ABC prefer lesser plant yields, shorter growing seasons, and more severe cold?

So after only two paragraphs of ABC's story, ABC's position is revealed to be biased propaganda based on conjecture and theory without any substantiation in the long history of both climate and human civilization. Are you beginning to understand why this story rates a journalistic value of zero?

Next paragraph: "All bunk," Singer told ABC News in his characteristically blunt fashion. "I'm not really looking for popularity, you know." Singer seems to enjoy being provocative.

If being intelligent, understanding science, and the scientific method amount to being "provocative" then Dr. Singer is truly provocative. Scientific truth is not determined by what is popular (neither is it determined by consensus).

The smear continues: Singer does not deny the planet is warming, but says man is not the cause, and argues, against overwhelming scientific evidence, that a warmer planet will actually be beneficial for mankind and other species on the planet.

As has been addressed above, there is no scientific evidence that a warmer climate would be more detrimental to humans than a colder climate. No real journalist would take issue without presenting rational, objective facts in support of the contrary view. There is a mountain of scientific fact on the side of so-called "skeptics." There is nothing but faulty analyses (remember the infamous, now discredited, "Hockey Stick" curve made famous by the IPCC?), inaccurate computer projections (simulations are based on incomplete science, inadequate data, and complete lack of adequate solar/water vapor contributions), and contradicted theory supporting the so-called "consensus" on global warming (atmospheric CO2 and global temperature over the past 100 years are completely uncorrelated and certainly not bound by a "cause and effect" relationship).

Moving on: Polar bears, though, are not likely to benefit. They are starving because the Arctic ice cap is shrinking, which is cutting them off from seal populations, and some scientists have suggested they will be extinct in the wild before the end of this century if the warming trend is not reversed.

ABC needs to do better research. Hasn't anyone at ABC noticed that the Arctic ice cap freezes every winter? Doesn't ABC know that melting only occurs during the summer season when the sun is out full time? What does that suggest about the role of solar activity in polar warming? Is ABC not aware that this past winter the Arctic sea refroze far beyond what had been lost in recent melting and that scientists now believe that ocean currents, not "global warming" are responsible for periodic warming/melting episodes in the Arctic? Has nobody at ABC bothered to follow the unusually bitter cold in the Arctic this past winter? It is now spring and the sun has risen and there are still polar regions whose temperatures do not exceed -20°F? Is ABC unaware of past natural warming episodes (through which the polar bear have survived quite nicely) that have been far greater than anything Earth is currently experiencing? Is ABC so ignorant about paleoclimatology that it knows nothing about ice eras, ice epochs, and ice age cycles? Are there no scientists at ABC who know that all of human existence is contained within the current ice era that began 60 million years ago - and that humans have never experienced Earth's typical climate? That typical climate being what Earth has experienced more than 83% of the past 2.5 billion years (since complex organisms first appeared) during which there is no polar ice and the only permanent ice exists at the tops of the highest mountains. If the folks at ABC are unaware of these natural climate cycles, then they have no business smearing Dr. Singer who does know.

ABC's smear goes on: This is not the first time Singer has set himself against mainstream scientific opinion. He has also challenged the dangers of second-hand smoke, toxic waste and nuclear winter.

Then ABC quotes from Greenpeace: "He's kind of a career skeptic," said Kert Davies, a global warming specialist at Greenpeace. "He believes that environmental problems are all overblown and he's made a career on being that voice."

Does ABC really expect to find a voice of reason and scientific knowledge at Greenpeace? The truth behind Dr. Singer's skepticism is that he believes the claims made are way overblown - exaggerated. That doesn't mean he believes there is no place for rational concern for reasonable environmental protection. Their long record of radical, extremist views renders Greenpeace an inappropriate organization to seek objective, rational, proportionate views about environmental protection. It is hardly an organization that should be sought for counsel about the views of Dr. Singer (unless, of course, one is determined to shine the worst possible light on Dr. Singer, i.e., smear him).

ABC continues with: Davies says skeptics like Singer, many of them funded for years by the oil and coal industry, have been able to delay government action on global warming by a decade or more by convincing the public through a disinformation campaign that there was an ongoing debate among scientists about global warming. "That's how people will remember Fred Singer, as someone who tried to slow down the reaction to global warming," Davies said. "And in the end that is going to cost lost lives, lost species and major economic damage around the world."

Facts are: (1) There IS an "ongoing debate" as there should be (people like Davies do not want a debate because it would only serve to discredit their position). (2) In any scientific inquiry, debate is at the heart of rigorous pursuit of the truth. (3) Many so-called "skeptics" have no association with the oil or gas industry. Many "scientists" who support the theory of human-caused global warming have benefited from billions of dollars spent on global warming research as a result of the exaggerated claims of the IPCC and Al Gore. But truth doesn't rest on where the funding comes from ... it is in the results of how that funding is used. Much of the scientific research conducted during 2006 and 2007 (all of which were specifically excluded from the most recent IPCC reports) discredits the greenhouse warming scenario posited by the IPCC, Al Gore, and Greenpeace. The "disinformation campaign" is headed by Greenpeace and ABC, who want no debate on the topic.

In his book, Global Warming, Myth or Reality/The Erring Ways of Climatology (2005), Dr. Marcel Leroux, renowned French climatologiest, studied the roles of various climate change forces and concluded that the greenhouse effect (while a heat retention agent), is well down the list of significant influences on climate change (no surprise, solar activity leads the list). Dr. Leroux is not a stooge of the oil and gas industry, either.

Davies is right about one thing. Dr. Singer may well be remembered for his contribution to scientific sanity by his efforts to slow down the rush to take costly actions that will have absolutely no benefits whatsoever to Earth's environment. Foolhardy pursuit of carbon dioxide emission reductions will be costly and provide no measurable benefit to human endeavor. Much like the recent ban on incandescent lightbulbs (beginning in 2012), either no cost-benefit analysis of global warming legislation is performed, or that which is generated has a fraudulent cost basis (i.e., it includes the "cost" of conjectured dire consequences if no action is taken - which is nonsense). These facts don't seem to bother either Davies (whose organization profits from the proliferation of disinformation about global warming) or ABC. To paraphrase: and in the end, the actions of Greenpeace and ABC will cost jobs, quality of life, standard of living, and major economic catastrophy around the world for absolutely no benefit whatsoever.

The smear goes on: Singer responds by asking, "Suppose the other side is wrong.... They're forcing us to make tremendous economic sacrifices that will force people into poverty in the world, make life miserable for our children and grandchildren." But scientists say there is no "other side." The debate about global warming is over, they say.

What "scientists" are saying there is no "other side"? ABC's failure to name any suggests they've made this up. No scientist ... I repeat ... NO SCIENTIST of good repute will ever state that there is no "other side" to a scientific question. This is particularly true of issues involving sciences as incompletely understood as climatology, meteorology, and atmospheric sciences.

The smearing concludes with: ABC News showed Singer's most recent report on global warming to climate scientists from NASA, from Stanford University and from Princeton. They dismissed it as "fabricated nonsense." Singer insists he is not on the payroll of the energy industry, but admits he once accepted an unsolicited check from Exxon for $10,000.

Failing to reveal what "scientists" at NASA, Stanford University and Princeton were consulted, and failing to reveal the rationale for ABC's contention that they universally reacted the same, suggests that ABC is being less than forthright in its statement. To put it bluntly, it suggests Dan Harris lied. Of course, consulting NASA about truth in global warming is a bit risky given that for years they falsely claimed the 1990s were the hottest decade with 1998 being the hottest year of the past century, when, in truth, 1934 was the hottest year and the 1930s were the hottest decade of the past 100 years. So much for "unprecedented" warming. NASA quietly revealed in August 2007 that it had erred in its computations and corrections restored the 1930s as being the hottest decade and containing the hottest year. That being the truth, I would then ask ABC's "scientists", if the IPCC/Gore theory that higher atmospheric CO2 produces global warming, how is it that the 1930s were the hottest decade of the past 100 years in a period of continuing increases in atmospheric CO2? They might also want to comment on why global temperatures since 1998 have been either steady or dropping. These are facts readily available to ABC's story authors. They are questions that should have been asked, but were not.

The reference to a single grant of $10,000 years ago (for what work?) if proving that Dr. Singer was corrupted suggests that government funding of billions of dollars in recent years for global warming research has far more vastly corrupted the results of that research. Neither claim has any veracity, yet ABC uses the old smear tactic of leaving that as the last thought of readers.

ABC's story is a classic case of disinformation, distortion, smearing, and journalistic abuse. It is a shining example of why our Fourth Estate has become the new Fifth Column. It is virtually devoid of any truth. It is presented with a highly biased viewpoint. It is close-minded. It is, quite frankly, mere propaganda. The complete lack of scientific credentials of anyone named in the story (other than Dr. Singer) or any of the story's authors, demonstrates the ABC story is a fraud.

Bob Webster
Editor, Publisher, http://www.webcommentary.com

No comments: