One Citizen Speaking...

Is the United Nations attempting to sway American public opinion using Hollywood celebrities as unofficial"turncoat" lobbyists and propagandists? You bet!

L. Ron Hubbard, one of the most prolific science fiction authors of all time knew that people were more receptive to his controversial money-making religion, Scientology, if it was fronted by recognizable and likeable celebrities. To this end he build an entire apparatus to cater to the whims of celebrities who were willing to join his church and promote its programs. And being celebrities, they were reportedly treated as such, exempt from some of the harsher realities experienced by other more ordinary members – perhaps to the extent of being “selectively” educated in church doctrine.

To this end, it appears that the United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, is following in Hubbard’s footsteps – recruiting celebrities to lead the charge to convince the American public that global warming is real, is dangerous and requires a political solution that cedes a great deal of money and administrative power to the United Nations.

Unfortunately, many celebrities with their giant media footprints and large megaphones are not all that smart – being trained regurgitators of material written by others. But with outsized egos and the self-assurance that comes from being feted by legions of sycophants who want some connection to fame and an opportunity to hop aboard the gravy train. People who are immune, because of their fame, fortune or earning power, from the consequences of daily life which affects us mere mortals.

But the fact remains, many of these people are insecure shape-shifters, more comfortable in the persona of others while mouthing “witty remarks” crafted by a team of experienced writers. Which makes them prey for those who would offer them the “gravitas” that is normally associated with “serious” institutions and people of apparently high rank.

As reported by the Los Angeles Times …

“U.N. leader asks Hollywood for help in fight against global climate change”

“'Together we can have a blockbuster impact on the world,' U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon tells Hollywood heavyweights at a forum on global climate change.”

“Ban Ki-moon, the normally buttoned-up Secretary General of the United Nations, swept into Los Angeles during Oscar week playing the role of Hollywood pitchman.
His message: Make global warming a hot issue. ‘I need your support,’ he told entertainment industry insiders during a daylong forum Tuesday that focused on recent heat waves, floods, fires and drought, which scientists link to human-induced climate change.”

Truth be told, the recent weather events cannot be linked to the hypothesis of global warming and the results of the climate models have often been as wrong as your local weather forecaster. If one needs to establish a scientific reason for these events, perhaps they should look to ENSO (El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation) which “causes extreme weather such as floods, droughts and other weather disturbances in many regions of the world.” Not forgetting the NAO (North Atlantic oscillation), “one of the most important manifestations of climate fluctuations in the North Atlantic and surrounding humid climates.^”

This is Hollywood -- where you can play as fast and loose with the truth as is done in politics …

“’Animate these stories!’ Ban pleaded. ‘Set them to music! Give them life! Together we can have a blockbuster impact on the world.’
If the pitch sounds a tad desperate, it's not surprising. In recent years, public concern over climate change has plummeted in the polls, U.N. efforts to craft a new global climate treaty have been unsuccessful, and Congress has rejected federal legislation to curb greenhouse gas emissions.”

Wonderful – blame your next disaster movie on global warming. Work global warming into the warp and woof of all scripts – and whatever you decide to do, don’t call it “propaganda” call it entertainment.

Want to see where the United Nations in spending their money?

“To coordinate with Hollywood, the U.N. has set up an office, the ‘Creative Community Outreach Initiative’ in partnership with the United Nations Foundation, funded by media mogul Ted Turner. Past projects include an episode of ‘The Flying Chef’ filmed at U.N. headquarters and featuring dishes from seven countries; an episode of ‘Law & Order: Special Victims Unit’ dealing with children and armed conflict; an episode of ‘Ugly Betty’ highlighting the use of mosquito nets to prevent malaria; and the hosting of the world premiere of the Disney film ‘Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure.’"

Again turning to the truth …

The United Nations and their fundamentally progressive allies in the environmental movement were the ones that killed the use of DDT to eradicate the pestilence and disease that was plaguing mankind. Thus rekindling the rise of malaria and other maladies which brought sickness and death to hundreds of millions of innocent people. Perhaps all part of the dominant United Nations theme of population control; limiting the planet’s population using any means necessary as the end justifies the means.

Politics and morality in the same sentence? From one of the most corrupt institutions on the planet?

“The climate effort, managed by the same office, has broader ambitions. ‘You have power and influence to send to millions and billions of people around world,’ Ban told his Los Angeles audience. ‘To make planet Earth environmentally sustainable is a political and moral imperative.’"

Faux science meets Hollywood’s pretentious people and smoke and mirrors productions …

Hollywood progressives have shaded the truth for decades. Whether to improve a story line or to secure funding, Hollywood is one of the most amoral places in town. Or as Charlie Sheen’s producer, Chuck Lorre, is fond of saying:

“I believe that the Laws of Karma do not apply to show business, where good things happen to bad people on a fairly regular basis.”

While there are some in the entertainment business who are astute observers of the human condition and are well-studied on matters of science, ethics and politics, it appears that they have the sense to keep their musings to themselves lest they offend the progressive elite, the limousine liberals, who take the saying “Don’t do as I do, do as I say” to heart – expecting that they world owes them a discount for their prowess in creating entertainment which serves as an escape mechanism from the cold, cruel world of reality.

Bottom line …

Regardless of the scientific validity of the hypothesis of global warming, there are four things we should remember.

One, there are those in the political realm who will do or say anything to obtain control over nations, economies and peoples and who will exploit their power for their own self-interests and those of their special interest friends.

Two, the United Nations, on balance, in an anti-America institution where a significant portion of the membership believes in totalitarianism, socialism, Marxism and Communism and would like nothing better to destroy America’s preeminent position in today’s world while simultaneously plundering her assets. An institution which has proven itself to be impotent in fighting real instances of disease, poverty and genocide while wasting great amounts of money and living the “good life” in the midst of great global misery.

Three, you cannot trust those who lie for a living; whether they are politicians or those pretending to be someone else with powers and insight far superior to their own.

And four, you can never forget the words of journalist and newsman Edward R. Murrow who famously said:

“It is not necessary to remind you that the fact that your voice is amplified to the degree where it reaches from one end of the country to the other does not confer upon you greater wisdom or understanding than you possessed when your voice reached only from one end of the bar to the other.”

-- steve

Reference Links:

Hollywood and climate change: U.N. leader asks Hollywood for help in fight against global climate change - latimes.com

El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation

North Atlantic oscillation

Global warming: plant science worthy of a high school science fair?

The tend among scientists is to justify their expensive existence by attracting funding and support for their “projects” by linking them to “global warming.”

Unfortunately, it appears to also be producing research worthy of a high-school science project; often at great expense to the taxpayer.

Hypothesis: plants grow bigger and better when they are exposed to vital water, nutrients and the carbon dioxide from which they, in turn, produce life-giving oxygen.

An example ….

Noting that "among medicinal plants, the therapeutic uses of opiate alkaloids from poppy (Papaver spp.) have long been recognized," Ziska et al. (2008) write that the overall goal of their study was "to evaluate the growth and production of opiates for a broad range of recent and projected atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations using wild poppy (P. setigerum) as a surrogate for P. somniferum." Specifically, Ziska et al. grew well watered and fertilized plants from seed (one plant per 2.6-liter pot filled with a 4:1:1 mixture of sphagnum, perlite and vermiculite) within growth chambers maintained at four different atmospheric CO2 concentrations - 300, 400, 500 and 600 ppm - for a period of 90 to 100 days, while quantifying plant growth and the production of secondary compounds including the alkaloids morphine, codeine, papaverine and noscapine, which were derived from latex obtained from capsules produced by the plants. The three researchers' data indicate that relative to the plants grown at 300 ppm CO2, those grown at 400, 500 and 600 ppm produced approximately 200, 275 and 390% more aboveground biomass, respectively, as best as can be determined from their bar graphs. In addition, they report that "reproductively, increasing CO2 from 300 to 600 ppm increased the number of capsules, capsule weight and latex production by 3.6, 3.0 and 3.7 times, respectively, on a per plant basis," with the ultimate result that "all alkaloids increased significantly on a per plant basis." Based on these findings, Ziska et al. conclude that "as atmospheric CO2 continues to increase, significant effects on the production of secondary plant compounds of pharmacological interest (i.e. opiates) could be expected," which effects, in their words, "are commonly accepted as having both negative (e.g. heroin) and positive (e.g. codeine) interactions with respect to public health." Reference Ziska, L.H., Panicker, S. and Wojno, H.L. 2008. Recent and projected increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and the potential impacts on growth and alkaloid production in wild poppy (Papaver setigerum DC.). Climatic Change 91: 395-403. <Source>

Let’s see: the conclusions are that higher CO2 concentrations could have a beneficial effect on plant life – but there are potential impacts on public health if that plant can be used to make street-level and pharmaceutical narcotics. It should be noted that the researchers did not use the “real plant,” but only a proxy; and that the growing cycle was extremely short. I have another two questions: how many people remained employed doing the research and what was the “research yield” in terms of scientific papers per growth cycle.

Now to high school …

High School Science Fair Projects Below are ideas to get you started developing a project of your own. Choose something that sounds interesting, then start doing research and build your project's hypothesis from there! All high school projects require a high level of original thought and development, so these ideas are just springboards for you to develop your own project.To participate in upper-level competition, a project should be relevant to current science and technology, and should present a benefit to society. Life Science Investigate the effects of increased oxygen or carbon dioxide concentration on plant germination. <Source>

Perhaps we should have outsourced the project to an eighth grader?

Ryan: Grade 8 Objectives/Goals The main goal of this project was to see how high levels of carbon dioxide affect the stomata in an ice plant. The hypothesis was that the plant exposed to 400 grams of carbon dioxide will have 75% of the stomata closed compared to the plant exposed to 200 grams and the controlled not exposed to the solid Carbon dioxide. This is because the more carbon dioxide is added the more the stomata will die and close up. <Source>

A good career …

If you’re looking for a good conversation about science, history or life – talk to Bert Drake. He’s a plant physiologist and renaissance man who’s been with the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center for nearly four decades. Drake retired in January, but will continue his investigations as an emeritus Much of your work has focused on understanding how plants will respond to rising levels of atmospheric CO2. In 1987 you began a field experiment at a marsh on the Chesapeake Bay that continues to this day. What are you trying to figure out? The big question has always been whether or not plants and our land ecosystems would remain carbon sinks as atmospheric CO2 increases and the climate warms. We wanted to know if plants exposed to high CO2 in the field would keep growing and or if they would simply acclimate to higher CO2. Earlier studies had focused on greenhouse plants. Most concluded that the photosynthetic capacity of plants would decline after being exposed to elevated CO2. I thought that critical experiments had not been done. I wanted to get out into the field and study how an entire wetland would respond to higher levels of CO2. Immediately after we began the study in 1987 we found the plants were taking up more CO2. After 5-10 years the extra CO2 had big effects. We took this to mean that plants and wetland ecosystems could remain a carbon sink, even in a high CO2 world. After 20 years though, the plants’ response to more CO2 has become erratic. This makes interpretation of the results much more difficult. In science you almost always get an approximation of an answer because an experiment is only an approximation of reality. <Source>

20 years and counting … sounds like a well-paid, satisfying career And the results almost always suggest that more research needs to be done and that the principal investigator who performed the experiment is the ideal person for the task.

The one comment that “In science you almost always get an approximation of an answer because an experiment is only an approximation of reality” is worth it’s weight in gold.

Bottom line …

There is no doubt that science is crucial to understanding our environment, to assist in planning for the future and to allow us to protect ourselves from the deleterious effects of man-made pollution. But trying to correlate everything to global warming and making outrageous “projections” which support a toxic political philosophy are not only wasteful of research money, but have an adverse effect on our freedoms.

Perhaps one should study the effects of the increased plant life in the proximity of research institutions to quantify plant growth that has been affected by the outpouring of carbon dioxide from researchers as they continue to bloviate on global warming; the dire predictions of which exist only in the silicon minds of computers. Especially since they appear to continually confuse statistical correlation with causation.

It can be proven that 100% of drug addicts ingest dihydrogen oxide (dihydrogen oxide is used extensively in industry for the dilution of waste streams for treatment by the waste treatment system. It is also known to cause incredible erosion into igneous formations) – but does that mean the substances causes them to be prone to drug addiction?

Man will always need to deal with nature, unfortunately mostly on nature’s terms. Here are a few of the questions that are not being answered.

Our planet appears to be warming slightly as we leave the little ice age; will this warming continue or will the planet start to cool as we regress towards an unknown global mean temperature?

Will we even be able to adequately measure these changes against the background of nature’s variability?

Why do the politicians and special interests need to promote political change based on global warming when so much of the planet lacks clean water, sanitary facilities and stable food sources?

And why do the computer models which predict catastrophe, fail to predict what we are currently experiencing in the “real world?”

While science is important to expanding our knowledge base, we can improve our chances of survival as a people by preparing for weather events, rather than implementing economy-changing political schemes tore-distribute wealth from the producers to the entitlement culture -- with the Wall Street Wizards and other middlemen taking their outrageous share for producing nothing of lasting or tangible benefit.

-- steve

Global Warming: Common sense science is coming to light ...

Readers of my blog know that I have blogged (some call it tilting at windmills) extensively on the subject of global climate change – all with the intention to point out five basic and seemingly incontrovertible facts.

One, climate change is a chaotic system whose natural variability and feedback loops make it impossible for man to change climate on a global scale.

Two, even with today’s instrumentation, the long time scales and instrumentation errors makes it unlikely that we can even see the results of any policies that are implemented within ten lifetimes.

Three, climate change proponents are driven by their self-interests; be they achieving political control over our nation, draining our treasury for personal profit or to implement a political ideology foreign to most Americans.

Four, that the costs being expended on global warming are better off being spent on repairing or replacing our crumbling infrastructure, improving our food supply, water sources and cleaning our land of pollution (not creating and trading pollution indulgences to generate Wall Street profits.)

Five, that all of the extreme weather predictions have been generated by significantly flawed computer models using questionable assumptions and highly manipulated temperature data. Some coming from so-called “climate proxies” such as tree rings which are then combined with other temperature observations – to the point where the confidence interval and error probability is so large as to render the result statistically insignificant. All results being within the band (+/- one degree Celsius) of natural climate variability. Not to mention that models do not predict or reflect any cooling trends that are presently occurring.

Six, the Earth has been hotter and colder, with more atmospheric CO2 and with less atmospheric CO2 – all without man’s influence or intervention.

Now, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal, we are finding out that the discussion of global climate variability has been affected by hysterical alarmists and others acting in their own self-interests.

“The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder: The latest research belies the idea that storms are getting more extreme.”

“Some climate alarmists would have us believe that these storms are yet another baleful consequence of man-made CO2 emissions.”

“But is it true? To answer that question, you need to understand whether recent weather trends are extreme by historical standards. The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project is the latest attempt to find out, using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric circulation from 1871 to the present.”

“As it happens, the project's initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. ‘In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years,’ atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. ‘So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871.’"

“In other words, researchers have yet to find evidence of more-extreme weather patterns over the period, contrary to what the models predict. ‘There's no data-driven answer yet to the question of how human activity has affected extreme weather,’ adds Roger Pielke Jr., another University of Colorado climate researcher.”

Dueling models …

Again, we caution readers that these results are not conclusive and exist only within the silicon brains of computers. And like all modeling efforts, it all depends on the assumptions, programming and data input.

But the real questions remain unanswered …

Are we seeing anything different from what would be expected from the natural variability of climate as we move out of the “little ice age” to a warmer environment and as we continue to regress to an unknown global temperature mean? Or in simpler terms, has the global temperature rise peaked and are we returning to a colder world?

How significant is man’s contribution to global climate change and can a single nation affect the massive changes it would require to alter global climate?

Is global warming – or global climate change – simply a scheme to promote a political ideology and a plan of wealth re-distribution which would generate significant profits for the special interests promoting the scheme?

Again, according to the Wall Street Journal …

We do know that carbon dioxide and other gases trap and re-radiate heat. We also know that humans have emitted ever-more of these gases since the Industrial Revolution. What we don't know is exactly how sensitive the climate is to increases in these gases versus other possible factors—solar variability, oceanic currents, Pacific heating and cooling cycles, planets' gravitational and magnetic oscillations, and so on.

A common sense question …

Given the unknowns, it's possible that even if we spend trillions of dollars, and forgo trillions more in future economic growth, to cut carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels, the climate will continue to change—as it always has.

Bottom line …

It is intuitively obvious to me as well as other scientists that we do not know enough about global climate change to implement public policies involving greater government bureaucracies, higher taxes, reduced personal freedoms and the creation of wealth for those who produce nothing but paper trading profits.

And that any money being spent on global warming solutions, might be better spent on energy independence, repairing or replacing our crumbling infrastructure, improving our shelters and coping mechanisms to deal with weather-related events and to continue to reduce real pollution in our local communities.

-- steve

Reference Links …

The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder - WSJ.com

Global Warming: How YOUR California utility is robbing you and supporting progressive causes ...

Once again, we can see where the political parasites have inserted progressive social policies into utility bills without the hoopla of defending a new energy tax.

It appears that the California Energy Commission's Research Development and Demonstration Division’s mandate to supports public interest energy research, development, and demonstration has gone awry. With the money trickling into supporting climate change which cannot be supported by a realistic look at the science and environmental causes which are more about providing income to researchers and research institutions than they are to supporting energy research for the common good.

Jumping off the PIER (Public Interest Energy Research) …

The California Legislative Analyst’s office has performed an analysis which supports three major findings.

Much of your money has been wasted and produced no results …

• First, in evaluating the current program, we find that the CEC has not demonstrated that there has been a substantial payoff to date from the state’s investment of more than $700 million in ratepayer funds.

We find that the CEC has generally funded projects in line with the broad categories of eligible investments that are set out in statute (such as promoting ‘energy efficiency’ and ‘demand response’ strategies). However, state law establishes several goals for the PIER program, including the creation of
tangible ratepayer benefits. While some particular PIER-sponsored research projects have served these goals, CEC has not demonstrated that the majority of the projects allocated PIER funding
by CEC has produced similar benefits.

We think that the state should continue to receive funding …

• “Second, we find that the legislative and regulatory enactment of several new ambitious energy policy objectives has created an energy landscape that differs greatly from the one that existed in 1996, when the PIER program was created.”

“In order to help address technological barriers which may prevent attainment of these state goals, we find that there is a role for the state to continue to support public interest energy research beyond the 2012 sunset date.”

And even while we acknowledge that we screwed up, we need to go forward with a reformed system …

• “Third, if the Legislature decides that there should be a continuing state role in this area of research, we find that improvements could be made to the implementation of this role, including by tightening funding eligibility parameters and changing the process by which research funding is allocated.”

What they need to do is to remove political cronyism from the funding process and stop handing out money to support progressive causes which do little to benefit the taxpayer and are simply ways to keep progressives employed.

Condemning the Process …

PIER Has Funded a Broad Spectrum of Research—Perhaps Too Broad. A broad array of research has been funded over time under PIER within each of the six allowable investment categories discussed earlier. The PIER-funded research projects we have reviewed generally fit within these allowable categories. However, some projects appear to have only a tenuous connection to the subject of energy.”

“For example, just within the climate change and environment area, PIER has funded research on such varied topics as deforestation in California, groundwater recharge, the potential impact of climate change on bird distribution, and salmon
habitat restoration.”

For those who have read my previous blogs, both bird and salmon research are major progressive initiatives and appear to be designed to cede control over wide swaths of the California economy to the environmentalists. From destroying the production of food in the Sacramento Delta areas to the imposition of gun control through ammunition restrictions, this research has been used to severely impact the activities of law-abiding California citizens by using our own laws and legal process against us.

“Our analysis raises questions as to whether the range of research is so broad and unfocused that it is hindering the potential benefit of the PIER program. Fragmenting the research into so many directions reduces the likelihood, in our view, that this research is being translated into changes in the electricity marketplace that are benefiting consumers or the public at large.”

What the program was designed to do …

“Specifically, statute provides that the general goal of the program is ‘to develop, and help bring to market, energy technologies that provide increased environmental benefits, greater system reliability, and lower system costs, and (emphasis added) that provide tangible benefits to electric utility customers.’”

When have you seen a reduction in your energy bills as a result of this research or any other initiative? The obvious answer is NEVER. And we may never see any decrease in our bills as California ramps up their progressive-designed global warming energy control infrastructure to bankrupt us all.

IS THERE A CONTINUED STATE ROLE FOR ENERGY RESEARCH?

A question asked by the Legislative Analyst’s Office. The answer, again, is NO! Whenever research is politicized, funded and controlled through the political process you find waste, fraud, corruption and results which are pre-ordained to support further progressive social engineering. The independent, non-government-owned power producers are well equipped to take care of themselves and to fund their own research or take part in cooperative energy research where costs are split among the various utility systems on a pro-rata basis.

Am I my neighbor’s subsidy?

There should be no need for a portion of our energy bills to fund subsidies for our neighbors new gas or electric appliances. Or to subsidize the provision of energy to illegal aliens. The utilities are not state-run charities, nor should they be.

The State’s three suggested options …

• Option One—Continue PIER Program Under CEC With a Tighter Focus
• Option Two—Allow IOU (Investor Owned Utilities) Rate Recovery of Public Interest Research
• Option Three—Create a Public-Private Partnership for Electricity Research

All recommendations saying the same thing – keep the government in control of significant funds in order to reward those who pursue a progressive agenda and participate in keeping the progressive’s in office.

Notice that the single option that makes the most sense is missing …

• Option Four – Keep the government out of the process

Nothing was mentioned about grants to other state-run institutions to perform this research. Another way the dishonest legislators continue to fund union-dominated public education institutions and bastions of progressive political promotion.

Bottom Line …

So much of your hard-earned money is diverted to the government in subtle ways that you never see. We can see withholding from our paychecks, we can see income tax, we can see the sales tax on thing we purchase – but then come those hidden taxes on utility bills and levied on corporations which simply pass them on to their customers as a cost of doing business.

Enough is enough. It is time to tame the beast – if not starve it altogether. How many citizens actually consider the fact that the politicians are doing nothing more than keeping themselves in power by buying votes with our money – using our public treasury to pay off the special interests to generate campaign funds and voter support for themselves?

Like I said. Enough is enough. Tell your legislator that you want no more hidden taxes in utility bills. You do not want the government to control research. And most of all, you do not want the government dipping in your pocket without your explicit permission.

This is yet another example of a board, commission or panel which can be expunged from the salary roles of the State of California with little or no impact on the common welfare.

-- steve

Research Links …

Legislative Analyst’s Report

California Energy Commission

California's Outdoor Pets drive far-left public policy agenda ...

Condor Project: Backdoor gun control and/or an attempt to secure additional funding for a failing program? (Updated)

CALIFORNIA CONDORS: SCIENTIFIC STUDY OR FUNDING VEHICLE FOR SCIENTISTS SUPPORTING A GUN CONTROL AGENDA?

THERE COMES A TIME TO TELL THE ENVIRONMENTAL

People for a perfect planet combine to destroy your wealth, your lifestyle, your pleasures and make you into a socialist drone working for the enlightened elites ...

LEFTISTS NO!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Research and Development

Global Warming: Temperatures are down; all is right with the world ...

What some scientists are saying …

As reported by Newswise.com …

“La Nina Pacific Ocean Cooling Pulls Global Temps Below Norms”

“Released: 2/5/2011 6:00 AM EST”

“Source: University of Alabama Huntsville”

“Global Temperature Report: January 2011”

“Global climate trend since Nov. 16, 1978: +0.14 C per decade”

January temperatures (preliminary) Global composite temp.: -0.01 C (about 0.02 degrees Fahrenheit) below 30-year average for January. Northern Hemisphere: -0.06 C (about 0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) below 30-year average for January. Southern Hemisphere: +0.04 C (about 0.07 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January. Tropics: -0.37 C (about 0.67 degrees Fahrenheit) below 30-year average for January.

January temperatures (preliminary) Global composite temp.: -0.01 C (about 0.02 degrees Fahrenheit) below 30-year average for January. Northern Hemisphere: -0.06 C (about 0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) below 30-year average for January. Southern Hemisphere: +0.04 C (about 0.07 degrees Fahrenheit) above 30-year average for January. Tropics: -0.37 C (about 0.67 degrees Fahrenheit) below 30-year average for January.

Notes on data released Feb. 3, 2011: The La Nina Pacific Ocean cooling event continues to pull down temperatures, with the global average temperature falling below seasonal norms for the first time in 18 months and only the second time in almost two and a half years, according to Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Technical note?

One of the most frequent “tricks” of those who manipulate their findings to present a case more favorable to their patron’s political and social requirements, involves cherry-picking a timescale to highlight the results necessary to please the patrons. In some cases, a change in time scale or data capture methodology makes the data incomparable with previous efforts – that is, without the touch of a human hand to manipulate the data. This can be seen in many computer models where the missing data is replaced with a “best guess” or the data is “smoothed” to eliminate computational anomalies. In this case, the authors are to be commended to placing this information “up front” instead of in the footnotes where it normally appears.

Technical Note: The baseline period used to determine seasonal norms has been changed from the 20-year (1979 to 1998) period at the beginning of the satellite record to a new 30-year (1981 to 2010) reference average. This was done to match the climatological period normally used with climate data by the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization.

About the project and the measurements …

As part of an ongoing joint project between UAHuntsville, NOAA and NASA, Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the ESSC, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available. The satellite-based instruments measure the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level. Once the monthly temperature data is collected and processed, it is placed in a "public" computer file for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.

Not all research funds are equal …

Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts.

As if receiving money from the government was not a cause for significant bias in favor of findings that appear to support the government’s political and social agenda, the institutional reporter felt compelled to perpetuate a slur on legitimate research funding sources with their disclaimer.

From Roy Spencer’s blog …

You will notice that all of the temperature record is well-contained within a very narrow band of +/- one degree Centigrade. Well within the noise band of nature’s climate variability and the error range of our current instrumentation. No significant cause for alarm unless you are a politician depending on the science to advance your political agenda of domination over the United States and its citizens.

What does Roy Spencer think?

One need only read Spencer’s book, “The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists,” to find that the guy who gathers and analyzes the raw data has a common sense approach to explaining global climate change.

“About one-half of Blunder is a non-technical description of our new peer reviewed and soon-to-be-published research which supports the opinion that a majority of Americans already hold: that warming in recent decades is mostly due to a natural cycle in the climate system — not to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning.”

“Believe it or not, this potential natural explanation for recent warming has never been seriously researched by climate scientists. The main reason they have ignored this possibility is that they cannot think of what might have caused it.”

It’s the clouds stupid!

Climate is a naturally-occurring chaotic phenomenon which cannot be fully modeled any more than one can model the stock market. Yes, there are apparent short trends which can be isolated and examined, but when one pulls back and examines the whole picture, one notices that we are back to a chaotic system and the trends disappear in the sands of time. Or as Roy Spencer puts it …

“The most obvious way for warming to be caused naturally is for small, natural fluctuations in the circulation patterns of the atmosphere and ocean to result in a 1% or 2% decrease in global cloud cover. Clouds are the Earth’s sunshade, and if cloud cover changes for any reason, you have global warming — or global cooling.”

How could the experts have missed such a simple explanation? Because they have convinced themselves that only a temperature change can cause a cloud cover change, and not the other way around. The issue is one of causation. They have not accounted for cloud changes causing temperature changes.

The experts have simply mixed up cause and effect when observing how clouds and temperature vary. The book reveals a simple way to determine the direction of causation from satellite observations of global average temperature and cloud variations. And that new tool should fundamentally change how we view the climate system.

A hint for those who cannot think of what might be causing global warming: how about the natural variability of nature – where there have been hotter times and colder times on Earth and the global temperature is always regressing to a yet as unknown mean value?

Why carbon dioxide?

Truth-be-told, water vapor (clouds) are the largest greenhouse gas and that carbon dioxide is a very small part of the overall equation. Yet, the scientists must demonize carbon dioxide as it is the only manner in which the government can exert control over energy production, distribution and consumption – and thus control the economy of the United States for political purposes.

And even the carbon dioxide scenario can be easily explained as a part of nature’s feedback loop.

It appears that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and dissolved in the oceans is more or less constant. Considering Henry’s law, warming oceans emit more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Cooling oceans allow more carbon dioxide to be dissolved in the water. Considering that most climate scientists are honest enough to note that the rise in carbon dioxide lags the rise in temperature by 600 to 1,000 years (depending on the dataset being used), CO2 can hardly be causal of global warming. And mixing correlation and causality is a critical flaw in their logic.

Spencer even makes a case for the desirability of an increased carbon dioxide level …

“But in Blunder I address what other scientists should have the courage to admit: that maybe putting more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing. Given that it is necessary for life on Earth, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is surprisingly small. We already know that nature is gobbling up 50% of what humanity produces, no matter how fast we produce it. So, it is only logical to address the possibility that nature — that life on Earth — has actually been starved for carbon dioxide.”

Bottom line …

If the research appears to be this clear, why aren’t more scientists speaking out about this causal phenomenon? Unfortunately, the answer is peer pressure and greed – the same type of greed that drove our current financial meltdown – where the billions of dollars flowing to prestigious institutions for climate research appears to be dictating the findings of the climate scientists who have found fame and fortune by siding with the government’s political agenda. All of which was brought to light by the Climate-gate e-mail scandals which revealed, in no uncertain terms, that the science was manipulated to produce a pre-ordained outcome and the normally sacrosanct journal “peer review” process was subverted by a relatively few number of “important” climatologists to advance their funding agenda and to keep from being publicly discredited.

It is now up to the American people to tell the politicians “enough is enough.” To sanction those who have robbed our treasury and produced nothing by chaos in our current political arena. It is now up to the American people to demand proof that any political solution can affect climate change and to prove that the instruments can even measure the change accurately.

The truth is simple: we are governed by corrupt politicians who want to perpetuate their power and continue to loot our national treasury on behalf of themselves and their special interest cronies. We must say “NO” to their political subversion lest we find ourselves with a corrupt progressive government similar to those in Cuba, Venezuela and other third-world nations.

In 2012 … Just say “No” to the progressive democrats and to the republicans (e.g. Snowe, Collins, McCain, Graham, etc.) who are every bit as progressive as the democrat colleagues.

-- steve

Reference Links …

La Nina Pacific Ocean Cooling Pulls Global Temps Below Norms

Dr. Roy Spencer – Blog

“The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists – Roy Spencer

Global Warming: A Climate Coup?

Those who regularly follow this blog will have noted that I am an avid reader/explorer of all things dealing with the intersection of science and politics. In particular, the computational modeling of global climate and the politics of global climate change.

It is of great concern to me that those whom I label as global warming alarmists continue to demand that governments enact self-serving laws, rules and regulations which manipulate public policy for the promotion of progressive politics and special interests profits. All the while a complacent population sits back and is spoon-fed biased information by a media that has been thoroughly corrupted by the progressive political debate.

Therefore, I became interested in a book that is about to be released (April 20, 2011) from the Cato Institute and decided to review the book to determine its honesty, relevance and usefulness in explaining what the government has done and attempting to do now and in the future.

It succeeds on all fronts and I am highly recommending it as a good backgrounder on some of the most significant faults, failings and flatulations of the global climate debate.

The book …

Recommended Reading

ISBN: 978-1-935308-45-4

CLIMATE COUP GLOBAL WARMING'S INVASION OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND OUR LIVES Edited By Patrick J. Michaels Publication date: April 20, 2011 from the Cato Institute $24.95, cloth, 300 pages ($16.47 @ Amazon.com)

The burb …

Summary (from the back cover) … Despite convincing evidence that observed climate changes do not portend a calamitous furor, global warming alarmism is invading nearly every aspect of our society. Children are flooded with apocalyptic visions and ideas in our schools. Poor countries shake down rich ones in the name of climate "justice." Lawmakers try to impose tariffs and sanctions on nations that don't agree with their environmental preconceptions. Even the military uses climate change as an excuse to enlarge its budget. Perhaps most ominously, the courts are now compelling the federal government to impose massive restrictions on the amount of energy we can use and the way we can use it. All of these topics and more are covered by a team of first-rate experts in health, education, defense, development, law, trade, and academic publication to produce this comprehensive documentation of the pervasive influence of global warming alarmism on almost every aspect of society.

My position …

To provide context for this review, it is my belief that the subject of global warming is a political scheme based on speculative science, inadequate computer models, highly-manipulated and suspect data, and promoted by a number of self-serving politicians, institutions, researchers and special interests.

I also believe that carbon dioxide was chosen as the demon gas because it provided a rationale for public policies that could be used to control the production, distribution and use of the energy which is required to sustain and expand our economic growth.

That the scientific findings, relative to global climate change, to this very day, show that the global mean temperature is well within the tolerance and noise levels of nature’s own variability. And that the correlation between rising carbon dioxide levels and an increase in the global mean temperature is not causal and can be easily explained by other more significant factors such as the Sun’s energy output, the Earth’s position relative to the Sun, the Earth’s planetary dynamics, volcanic activity, ocean currents and the greatest greenhouse gas of all, water vapor. All part of a chaotic system featuring self-regulating feedback loops. And all to be anticipated by the warming of our world as we emerge from the little ice age.

My review …

I would like to start out by cautioning casual readers that this is a scholarly work and was not written for consumption by those looking for a easy summer read. It does require a fair bit of work to understand and digest what is contained between the pages.

Where to start …

I rarely read non-fiction books, cover-to-cover, preferring instead to start out with the most interesting section.

Contents … Introduction 1. The Executive State Tackles Global Warming -- Roger Pilon and Evan Turgeon “Roger Pilon, details how we have strayed from constitutional restraints and have removed obstacles for implementing a global warming agenda, all of this occurring in direct opposition to the Constitution's original provisions for securing limited government.” 2. A Hot Political Climate: Recent Evolution of Global Warming Policy and Regulation -- Patrick J. Michaels Michael’s speaking about the passage of ACES, the American Clean Energy and Security Act … “The vote was delayed and time to avoid the Friday evening news cycle, effectively short-circuiting any serious coverage of it until the next week.” 3. Bias in the Peer Review Process: A Cautionary and Personal Account -- Ross McKittrick “I decided to take this story public because of what it reveals about the journal peer review process in the field of climatology.” 4. Global Warming, Environmental Threats, and U.S. Security: Recycling the Domino Theory – Ivan Eland “Ivan Eland shows how global warming exaggerations are braided with security matters with no regard to their true impact. Eland writes, ‘When the cold war ended, new threats were needed to justify defense expenditures. Environmental degradation was one of many.’" 5. Climate Change and Trade -- Sallie James “When politicians – even the true believers in disastrous global warming – contemplate the economic costs of actions to mitigate climate change, they don’t like what they see. They then call for even more government intervention in the form of subsidies or barriers to international competition, ostensibly to counteract the unintended progression of consequences of earlier intervention. This is how climate change has entered the international trade policy debate.” 6. Economic Development in Developing Countries: Advancing Human Well-Being and the Capacity to Adapt to Global Warming -- Indur M. Goklany “Indur Goklany confronts the too- easily accepted myth that global warming reduces the quality of life in developing countries and that many long-held assumptions are completely out of phase with reality.” 7. Global Warming and Human Health – Robert E. Davis “Davis begins with three basic, and perhaps (at first glance) contradictory truths about this issue: Global warming will affect human health across the planet; The extent of this effect is unknowable; and No one in earth’s history ever has (or ever will have) died or been hospitalized from global warming.” 8. Learning Fear: Climate Change and Public Education -- Neal McCluskey “Neal McCluskey looks at global warming and education to reveal how the imposition of climate change education is at times tantamount to ‘fearmongering and social engineering under the guise of education’."

Based on a casual page flip-through, I started reading at Part Three: “Bias in the Peer Review Process: A Cautionary and Personal Account,” by Ross McKitrick. A scientist I highly respect both for his integrity and his courage in bucking a system which severely punishes those who disagree with the so-called "consensus" view.

A compelling personal tale of how the so-called “peer review” process had been subverted by the manipulation of formerly-respected scientists to defend certain papers while excluding others from publication. Some of the sub-heads which caught my eye.

• “The background issue: Temperature Data Contamination”
• “Absence of Evidence versus Evidence of Absence”
• “The Journal Game”

Unfortunately, McKitrick’s tale is disheartening to those of us who believe in scientific integrity and the natural predisposition of scientists to be skeptical of any and all work that cannot be replicated. The mere fact that many scientific papers were submitted to journals without accompanying computer programs and datasets, makes the replication of results much harder than need be. For those who claim that submitting such materials would compromise their claim on intellectual property and may jeopardize future research grants, I might say that much of the work was funded by government grants and thus should be in the public domain for all to use as they see fit.

“Obviously, the free exchange of data is at the core of healthy science, as is the curiosity on the part of competitive researchers and the need to replicate results independently.”

On to the next section, Part Four: Global Warming, Environmental Threats, and U.S. Security: Recycling the Domino Theory, written by Ivan Eland.

Other than the fact that the military is willing to exploit the subject of global warming to enlarge their mission, funding and assets, one significant take-away from reading the chapter is that all of the scenarios feature the United States taking the leading role and assuming much of the costly burden for combatting the effects of global warming.

“The underlying philosophy that leads both hawks and environmentalists to inflate the security threat from global warming is the archaic notion that the United States must police the world. According to the projections of such alarmists, most of the ill effects of global warming will occur in the developing world, which is too poor to cope with it.”

In the chapter Climate Change and Trade, one finds that there are two inescapable truths that will disadvantage the United States and drive jobs elsewhere.

Or as the editor comments …

“Without any binding international agreements on carbon dioxide emissions, any nation places itself at a competitive disadvantage by artificially raising the price of carbon-containing energy with a tax or a cap-and-trade system.”

“Such disparities invite ‘leakage’ of jobs and manufacturing to nations that do not have such emissions restrictions.”

Clear logic that should influence the artificial restrictions that are about to be unilaterally imposed by the State of California on its residents – courtesy of movie star cum legislator Arnold Schwarzenegger as he pursues his own political interests in global warming. Perhaps hoping to win his first Oscar to achieve parity with that other global warming actor/fakir, Al Gore.

And, of course, there were many other excellent observations and passages, too numerous to list in this short blog item. Another reason why this book needs to be read and appreciated by those who want a look at how the global warming sausage is being made and promoted.

About the editor … “Patrick J. Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, is widely acknowledged by climate alarmists as today's most effective synthesizer of the non-apocalyptic view of climate change.” “He is the author of multiple books on global warming, including Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know.”

One waste of paper …

The book is not without its faults … primarily an exclusion of additional exploratory material which would be impossible considering the book’s 262 pages. So it is really not the fault of the editor who tried to encapsulate the essence of the debate in a succinct style.

However, it should be noted that the biggest waste of paper were two color illustrations. One, a picture of Air Force One with the caption “President Obama Returns from the Copenhagen Global Warming Conference, December 19, 2009;” and two, a picture captioned “Guinean Students Study under the Lights of the Conakry Airport Parking Lot, June 2007.” Both set among color charts illustrating various facets and findings related to global climate change. Space that could have been better used to illustrate some of temperature data collection sites which yielded false and misleading data that seemingly helps to incorrectly signify higher temperatures where none exists.

Bottom line …

While the book did not change any of my fundamental beliefs, it did reinforce my opinion that the field of climate science has been hopelessly compromised by bad actors using data so heavily manipulated that even tracking down the original raw data and starting over may be impossible.

It should be noted that when scientists become activists or their paths of inquiry are shaped by funding resources, one can hardly rely on the science to support the public policies offered by even more corrupt politicians.

"Climate Coup: Global Warming’s Invasion of Our Government and Our Lives" should be mandatory reading for even casual students of politics wishing to understand the perversion of science to drive social policy.

I found the book to be credible, well-documented, and a valuable summary to a subject which should concern us all in today’s environment of corrupt politicians driving self-serving public policies.

I have no reservations in recommending this book to my readers, friends and others interested in the subject.

-- steve

About the publisher … “The Cato Institute is a nonprofit nonpartisan public policy research foundation in Washington, D.C., and received the overwhelming majority of its funding from some 15,000 individuals.”

Reference Links …

Some of my previous blog entries for context are listed here in no particular order.

GLOBAL WARMING: A DAY OF RECKONING APPROACHES ...

GLOBAL WARMING/COOLING/CHANGE: NUMBERS WITHOUT SUBSTANCE

Global Warming: The real question is highlighted in a new report ...

Global Warming: The Pretense of Knowledge

Global warming: new research annoys alarmists.

Global Warming: How is it that we are making public policy decisions when we still have much to learn?

Global Warming: Going Beyond The Science ...

A COOLER YEAR: GLOBAL WARMING WEATHER ANOMALY OR THE BEGINNING OF A "REGRESSION TO THE UNKNOWN TEMPERATURE MEAN?"

Does the Bible hold the key to global climate change?

Those who exploit global climate change for their own personal and political reasons rely on the general ignorance of the public when it comes to science and the scientific method.

The bible has it right …

Genesis 8:22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

Ecclesiastes 1:4 One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever.

And so the natural order of things appears to be both cyclical and beyond man’s current ability to drastically alter nature on a global scale.

What they are not saying …

1. It appears that the main purpose of those who are promoting the issue of global climate change are doing so in order to promote a political agenda or to pursue a personal agenda of fame and fortune.

2. All of the dire predictions are based on computer models which were created and operated by scientists whose organizations are either controlled directly by the government or who have significant government funding.

3. Without the appearance of catastrophic outcomes, media attention would fade and the public could not be manipulated into accepting draconian political policies which promote socialism, enlarge the sphere of government, raise taxes and limit personal freedoms.

4. Many of the models do not correlate well with historic projects and, upon closer inspection, appear to have been created with dodgy assumptions, suspect programming and highly manipulated data.

5. The public has been sold on the idea that “peer review” somehow implies acceptance by the broader scientific community, when in fact, peer review is a scientific journal publishing process that assures that the published works meets the journal’s standards for basic credibility and clarity. Reviewers do not replicate or test hypotheses, nor do they closely examine the underlying data. They simply reject “kooky” ideas. dot the I’s and cross the T’s while making sure that the article is clear, logically presented and devoid of obvious flaws.

6. The climate change alarmists have promoted the idea that climate change skeptics are out-of-touch or have evil “capitalist” intents. What the public most often fails to realize is that the scientific method demands skepticism and the replication of results. And that a single researcher, working in their home, is as likely to produce a scientific breakthrough as well-credentialed scientists working for prestigious institutions. In fact, some amateur climatologists have made very significant contributions to the science of global climate change by pointing our physical and mathematical inconsistencies in the research of others.

7. The simple truth is that climate appears to be cyclical. With repetitive periods of hot and cold climate; with more or less atmospheric carbon dioxide. And the great majority of natural processes, seem to contain built in feedback loops that control the process.

8. It can be quite easily demonstrated that the drivers of global climate change, as well as our daily weather, are the Sun’s output, the Earth’s position relative to the Sun, the Earth’s planetary dynamics, volcanic activity, deep ocean currents and the greatest and most significant greenhouse gas of all, water vapor.

It can also be quite easily demonstrated that carbon dioxide is not the proximate cause of global climate change nor the solution to influencing the global climate. Those who confuse correlation with causation fail to understand that the rise in carbon dioxide levels lags the rise in temperature by 600 –1000 years depending on the dataset used. Easily explained by considering that the atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and the levels of carbon dioxide dissolved in the Earth’s Oceans is more or less constant; and according to Henry’s Law, the warming oceans will increase the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as the oceans warm. Conversely, as the oceans cool, they will hold more dissolved carbon dioxide

9. The Earth has been hotter, colder, with more atmospheric carbon dioxide and less atmospheric carbon dioxide – even before the industrial revolution; there it is unlikely that any man-made carbon dioxide can influence climate on a global scale.and all will be right with the world.

10. Due to the availability of time, money, manpower and other assets; most scientific studies are done in isolated sites, yielding small datasets. Which may present huge statistical errors when such relatively small datasets are projected into a global scale. To consider that Penn State climatologist Michael Mann’s famous “Hockey Stick” graph was based on a limited sample size of trees. Not something reliable enough to base United States public policy upon.

11. We have seen pictures of a number of weather stations which have been severely compromised by their locations. Giving rise to the theory that what these stations are actually reporting is the temperature record of increasing urbanization or “heat islands.” Especially since rural stations are overcome by the encroachment of asphalt-paved roads when cities are built out.

12. It appears that all climate findings to-date appear to have fallen within the band of nature’s normal variability and that any man-made restrictions on carbon dioxide may not be measurable within the noise levels of nature’s normal climate variability. Not to mention that we might have to wait 600 – 1000 years to see any results at all.

13. It also appears that all of our current weather issues can be traced to other factors (“multidecadal oscillations, or natural variations, can imprint on regional, hemispheric, or even global climate changes”) rather than global warming as the media pundits might claim. Something which may not be well-modeled. (“In neither study was the model able to capture interdecadal variability as it occurs in nature.”)

“A paper by Semenov et al. (2010) shows that natural variability contributed significantly to the warming period in the last few decades of 20th century and even may be responsible for the majority the warming.”

For those who want to see a driver of significant weather effects, it is suggested that you review both the NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation) and ENSO (El Niño/Southern Oscillation) and its affects on weather.

Dishonesty unmasked …

Evidence from the so-called “Climate-gate” e-mails, tend to indicate that Mann not only cherry-picked his data, but that he may have spliced together data from other research to create his allegedly dishonest legacy finding.

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> To: ray bradley rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000 Cc: k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm, Once Tim's got a diagram here we'll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline. Mike's series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998. Thanks for the comments, Ray. Cheers Phil

Phil, of course, is the famous climatologist Phil Jones of the prestigious CRU (Climate Research Unit) located at the East Anglia University.

Other e-mails tend to indicate that the peer-review process was subverted and a relatively small number of climate scientists were dishonestly involved with driving the story forward.

Bottom line …

Big money and corrupt politics continue to drive the debate over global climate change. With the politicians seeking control over energy production and usage in order to dictate social policy and engage in socialistic wealth redistribution. The special interests seeking government subsidies for projects that cannot stand on their own financial or operational merit are supporting the government initiatives. Thus a circle of toxic corruption is able to pollute American politics to the detriment of all American consumers and taxpayers.

Any funding for social policies associated with global climate change should be re-directed to eliminating pollution, providing food, clean water and sanitary conditions to the Earth’s population – along with strengthening our shelters and adaptive mechanisms to the vagaries of the Earth’s unstoppable physical processes.

And in the final analysis, we simply cannot trust the findings of those who continue to prompte man-made global warming to the extent of allowing our government to interfere with our lives in order to promote their own political agenda and special interest profits.

So it appears the Bible may be more accurate in explaining the phenomenon of global climate change than the scientists.

-- steve

Reference Links …

Thanks to Facebook friend Ron Fenner for contributing the biblical quotes.

Climate Models Fail to Match Observed Historical Data (25 Jan 2011)

Anagnostopoulos, G.G., Koutsoyiannis, D., Christofides, A., Efstradiadis, A. and Mamassis, N. 2010. A comparison of local and aggregated climate model outputs with observed data. Hydrological Sciences Journal 55: 1094-1110.

Polar Bears Reproduce Faster Than Previously Thought (25 Jan 2011)

Cronin, M.A., Amstrup, S.C., Talbot, S.L., Sage, G.K. and Amstrup, K.S. 2009. Genetic variation, relatedness, and effective population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in the southern Beaufort Sea, Alaska. Journal of Heredity 100: 681-690.

Impacts Assessments Systematically Overestimate Net Damages from Global Warming (25 Jan 2011)

Mont Blanc Glaciated Areas Not Affected by 20th Century Climate Change (26 Jan 2011)

Vincent, C., E. Le Meur, D. Six, M. Funk, M. Hoelzle, and S. Preunkert (2007), Very high-elevation Mont Blanc glaciated areas not affected by the 20th century climate change, Journal of Geophysical Research 112 D09120, doi:10.1029/2006JD007407.

The Fate of Tropical Rainforests in a Super CO2-Enriched and Warmer World (26 Jan 2011)

Jaramillo, C., Ochoa, D., Conteras, L., Pagani, M., Carvajal-Ortiz, H., Pratt, L.M., Krishnan, S., Cardona, A., Romero, M., Quiroz, L., Rodriguez, G., Rueda, M.J., de la Parra, F., Moron, S., Green, W., Bayona, G., Montes, C., Quintero, O., Ramirez, R., Mora, G., Schouten, S., Bermudez, H., Navarrete, R., Parra, F., Alvaran, M., Osorno, J., Crowley, J.L., Valencia, V. and Vervoort, J. 2010. Effects of rapid global warming at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary on neotropical vegetation. Science 330: 957-961.

Have Natural Variations in the Arctic and North Atlantic Region influenced Recent Global Temperatures? (26 Jan 2011)

Semenov, V.A., Latif, B.,Dommenget, D., Keenlyside, N.S., Strehz, A., Martin, T. and Park, W. 2010. The impact of North Atlantic - Arctic Multidecadal Variability on Northern Hemisphere surface air temperature. Journal of Climate 23: 5668-5677.

GLOBAL WARMING: A DAY OF RECKONING APPROACHES ...

Scientists, by the very nature, are good record keepers … especially of data that supports their hypothesis and can bring personal fame and fortune; not to mention greater prestige to their institutional sponsors and additional funding and project opportunities.

To think that computer models were deliberately compromised by using poor assumptions, poor statistical techniques, sloppy programming and highly manipulated and cherry-picked data is almost to think the unthinkable. Until you add the tremendous amount of research money being poured into institutions, facilities and science projects all based on a hypothesis that man-made (anthropogenic) global warming and that a rise in carbon dioxide levels were wreaking observable havoc on the dynamics of planetary climate. And the development of an unholy alliance between politicians hell-bent on promoting their political ideologies on a world reluctant to accept the Marxist principles of population control, wealth re-distribution and the dissolution of national sovereignty. Using a faux-crisis that existed nowhere on Earth except in the silicon minds of computer models developed by all-too-human scientists seduced by the fame and fortune into telling the politicians exactly what they wanted to hear.

Even the “peer review” process of preparing scientific articles for publication in prestigious scientific was perverted and sold the the public as somehow confirming the findings of individual scientists – even when it did nothing more than dot the I’s and cross the T’s.

The first real hard-evidence of the promotion of extreme global warming outcomes on the planet and the potential manipulation of the scientific process was revealed when a tranche of e-mails from one of the world’s most credible research institutions was released to the Internet. Providing a glimpse of vain scientists defending their work, manipulating their findings, structuring research to produce pre-ordained conclusions and to silence any opposition that noted that the “Emperor Has No Clothes.”

The politicians are determined to kill any investigation, much as Nixon tried to contain Watergate …

In what has become to be named “Climate-gate,” the politicians, institutions, scientists and special interests who benefited from the billions of taxpayer dollars spent on pursuing a pipedream are trying to kill any investigation which can prove, not that global temperatures normally rise after a mini-ice age, but that this money was spent prudently and without waste, fraud and mismanagement. Somewhat of an impossible task if you consider any large-scale government operation.

We should be thanking Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli for his attempt to discover the truth about what appears to be a wide-spread global warming scheme that has resulted in billions of stolen taxpayer dollars and the potential for the political character of America to be compromised by those politicians wishing to control our economy through the control of energy production, allocation and usage.

As reported by Investors.com …

“Yes, Virginia, A Climate Cover-Up”

“Democrats in Virginia are trying to stop their attorney general from probing climate fraud carried out by university researchers at taxpayer expense. Are they afraid of finding the inconvenient truth?”

Why the democrats you may ask? Because global warming appears to be an invention of those Marxist-infiltrated environmentalists who seem to have grabbed control of the democrat party – providing campaign funds and voter support in return for the promotion and protection of their anti-American political ideology.

A cover up?

“It's not the crime, it's the cover-up, as the saying goes. In the case of former University of Virginia climate scientist Michael Mann and his supporters, it may be both. Not only did Mann participate in perhaps the greatest scam of modern times, but he may have also have fraudulently used taxpayer funds to do so.”

“At least Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli thinks so, and has been diligently trying to obtain from U.Va. documents and e-mails related to Mann's work there. Mann reportedly received around $500,000 from taxpayer-funded grants from the university for research there from 1999 to 2005.”

“Cuccinelli is alleging a possible violation of a 2002 statute, the Virginia Fraud Against Taxpayers Act. The AG has said that he wants the documents, including grant applications and e-mails exchanged between Mann and 39 other scientists and university staffers, to help determine whether Mann committed fraud by knowingly manipulating data as he sought the taxpayer-funded grants for his research.”

“Mann was at the heart of the ClimateGate scandal when e-mails were unearthed from Britain's Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. In one e-mail sent to Mann and others by CRU director Philip Jones, Jones speaks of the ‘trick’ of filling in gaps of data in order to hide evidence of temperature decline:

"I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." It was that attempt to ‘hide the decline’ through the manipulation of data that brought down the global warming house of cards.”

Perhaps Mann was trying to preserve his reputation which would be somewhat shattered if his famous assertion that the global temperature was continually rising and could approach new records which spelled disaster, chaos, disease, dislocation, death and destruction for the planet. A scary thought picked up by the media to whip up a crisis – a crisis drastic enough to distract and misdirect cooler heads from questioning the political solution to the Al Gore’s approaching planet-threatening climate catastrophe.

“Mann was the architect behind the famous ‘"hockey stick’ graph that was produced in 1999 but which really should be called the ‘hokey stick.’ Developed by Mann using manipulated tree-ring data, it supposedly proved that air temperatures had been stable for 900 years, then soared off the charts in the 20th century.”

“Mann et al. had to make the Medieval Warm Period (about A.D. 800 to 1400) and the Little Ice Age (A.D. 1600 to 1850) statistically disappear.”

Size does matter …

“The graph relied on data from trees on the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia. Here, too, the results were carefully selected. Just 12 trees from the 252 cores in the CRU's Yamal data set were used. A larger data set of 34 tree cores from the vicinity showed no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the middle ages. They were not included.”

Consider the implications. Twelve Russian trees were used to develop a hypothesis of catastrophic global warming that demanded a larger government, more unionized-bureaucracy, higher taxes and lesser freedoms for the citizens who sweated to pay for the benefits of an international ruling elite governing a newly-privileged bureaucratic class.

“Attempting to block Cuccinelli and rising to Mann's defense are Virginia state senators Chap Petersen and Donald McEachin. They are backing legislation that would strip the attorney general's office of its power to issue ‘civil investigative demands,’ otherwise known as subpoenas, under the 2002 statute.”

It should be noted that democrats Petersen and McEachin both refuse to answer correspondence from anyone other than their constituents – although they could have a positive influence in returning scientific integrity in global climate research to the world and some measure of academic and political integrity to the system.

Academic fraud …

“They claim they are defending academic freedom, but they are trying to hide what many consider academic fraud, work that found its way into the reports of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It led to Kyoto and Copenhagen, and formed the basis for the EPA's endangerment finding that carbon dioxide is a pollutant that needs to be regulated.”

Science demands skepticism. Science demands alternative theories and explanations. But above all, science demands the adherence to the scientific process which provides checks-and-balances to prevent errors. Instead of an “open” scientific process, Mann and others conspired to withhold or destroy critical datasets. They claimed that access to the data was privileged by contracts and agreements. They did everything in their power to prevent the replication of their research findings and the refutation which is a normal part of the scientific method.

“After Mann left U.Va., he went to Penn State, which the Obama administration awarded with $541,184 in economic stimulus funds to save, according to recovery.gov, 1.62 jobs so that Professor Mann could continue his tree-ring circus fraudulently advancing the myth of man-made global warming that through equally bogus remedies like cap-and-trade and EPA regulations would bring the U.S. economy to its knees.”

“In a glaringly arrogant e-mail, Mann said he was grateful to the legislators for pressing the issue and hoped the action would give Cuccinelli ‘some second thoughts about continuing to waste their time and resources attacking well-established science.’ Hide the decline, then hide the truth.”

Even democrat-controlled Congress was complicit in the cover-up; refusing to allow well-credential scientists and others like Lord Christopher Monckton to testify in open opposition of hand-picked scientists or even to ask them questions – with the proceedings under oath.

The science is not well-established and there is not an overwhelming consensus of scientists willing to testify under oath that the science is settled. One merely need to ask them about the effects of the largest greenhouse gas, water vapor, and watch them dissemble. Or to ask about the natural feedback loop of atmospheric carbon dioxide and the carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans. – Being sure to point out that the rise in carbon dioxide concentrations lags the rise in global temperatures by 600 – 1000 years depending on the dataset used. Thus it can hardly be defined as causal.

Bottom line …

It is natural to expect temperatures to rise after a mini-ice-age. But how fast and how much are beyond our ability to scientifically discern at this point in time.

Before we cede our freedoms to a burgeoning and privileged political class and their bureaucratic minions, we must investigate both the politicians and the scientists who have attempted to pass this fraudulent scheme on America and its citizens.

But above all, we need to realize that nature is vast, complex and often chaotic – and that measuring the mean global temperatures which fall within a band of a single degree Celsius is not only fraught with error, but the results are well within nature’s inherent variability.

It is time to tell the democrats to step off and take back our country from those who are deliberately bankrupting the nation and introducing chaos into our civilization – all for the purpose of proposing a limited freedom Marxist system on America – the only impediment to a Marxist world.

-- steve

Reference Links …

Yes, Virginia, A Climate Cover-Up - Investors.com

Global Warming: Going Beyond The Science ...

Please don’t continue to accuse me of being a denier: I am a “denier!”

I have been recently attacked by those who accuse me of being a “denier,” a pejorative term that is used for those who do not worship at the altar of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and accept Al Gore as the messenger angel that has come to save mankind.

My beliefs are simple:

Climate change is cyclical and we do not know the exact  periodic nature nor the amplitude of the changes. And since we do not know the nature of the cycle, we can only assume that nature is regressing to some unknown mean value as our global climate experiences fluctuations around this unknown mean value.

Carbon dioxide is not the causal trigger for AGW, but may be little more than a lagging indicator that the warming oceans are emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And that the lag is somewhere between 600 and 800 years. Hardly indication of a causal factor.

Political evildoers and a complicit media have latched on to the braying of a few highly visible people who assert that we are facing a global emergency and that we should ignore our own common sense and cede enormous power to those who profess to have a solution to mitigating AGW.

That one need only look at the factors beyond our control, solar output, Earth’s planetary path, the inherent instability of atmospheric dynamics which give rise to local weather, etc. to see that man’s cannot possibly exert a meaningful effect on nature at this present time and with our present technology.

That man needs to concentrate in cleaning up ground, water and air pollution NOW instead of allowing the use of indulgences (carbon credits) to allow polluters to keep polluting localities in return for planting trees in some foreign forest.

I have also come to believe that some global warming proponents have adopted AGW as their religion and reason for being. For some, a social interaction which brings otherwise inaccessible people into their social orbits. And for others, a chance to overcome their background and social environment in order to feel good about themselves as they are saving the planet – a task larger than their individual lives.

And, I have come to believe that it is no longer about the science. It’s about politics and self-interest agendas. In some cases, it is about ceding sovereign power to an extra-governmental triumvirate consisting of the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Court.  Science is only the pretext for taking emergency actions which push through legislation without critical analysis – all based on the politician’s fearing a public backlash which would throw their sorry asses into the street where most of them belong.

For those who actually care about the science, perhaps you can explain the following two charts to me …

One chart showing that the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Models have little or no predictive capabilities …

And this one illustrating the divergence between the climate models and reality …

(I wish to thank the editor of the Climate Cycles Change C3Headlines web site for sending me the links to these illustrative charts.)

What say you?

I am willing to listen to anyone who can explain what is really going on with these charts without asking me to take their word as a leap of faith (akin to a religion). Or answer a simple question: why is it that the media surrounding Al Gore is so tightly controlled that he refuses to engage with reputable scientists of an opposing viewpoint or be sworn-in when he provides “testimony” before a governmental body?

-- steve

The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. -- Marcus Aurelius

Global Warming: The Pretense of Knowledge

The Assertion …

Those who believe in anthropogenic (man-made) global warning are putting forth the assertion that there exists a simple, positive correlation between atmospheric carbon, chiefly in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2) and the global mean temperature of planet Earth.

And by extension …

And by extension, if we can control atmospheric carbon dioxide, we can exert a positive control over the global mean temperature.

Supported by computer models …

This assertion is seemingly supported primarily by computer models which embody some, but not all of the energy transfer mechanisms thought to occur in our dynamic planetary processes.

The “output” …

The mere fact that we can produce an “output” which appears to correlate with the global mean temperature may no more significant than watching computer programs (cellular automata) with a limited number of simple rules produce pictures which appear to be two-dimensional representations of natural structures (shells, leafs, etc.) – but in reality do very little to add understanding of the natural and physical process which appears to produce this representation of a physical phenomenon. A picture of a tree is hardly a scientific description upon which to base public policy.

This ludicrous interpretation is analogous to those who have identified apparent, and possibly coincidental, patterns in stock prices, but still fail to predict the market, let alone manipulated the underlying factors which would lead to a predictable outcome.

Enter the politicians and their special interest kingmakers …

Therefore, we find politicians trying to mold human behavior in order to achieve global results – which is, in actuality, based only on the pretense of knowledge. Using data derived piecemeal from faulty historical records and climate proxies and integrated over the spheroid we call planet Earth.

Which leads the rational thinker to the conclusion that the emperor truly has no clothes and is merely exhibiting the pretense of knowledge rather than the actual knowledge itself.

If one is to base public policy on science, the basic requirements of good science demands that the phenomenon be both observable and measurable. And yet we cannot separate our man-made efforts from the background of nature’s climate variability without the consideration of time frames long beyond our lifespan.

Which is not a problem for politicians as their preferential time frames are often given in terms of election cycles . Time spans of sufficient length to see them out of office and not politically, morally or financially accountable for their actions.

The burden of their public policies fall mainly on you and me – never on those who are insulated from their decisions by wealth, power, privilege or position.

That the outputs of computer models, which are manipulated by politically-motivated activists is naively accepted as “science” by the politicians and an uncritical media – is to posit the proposition that global warming is a mad-made political scam of historical and monumental proportions.

The fact that the underlying subject matter originates with the United Nations and coincides with their desires for strictly controlled population growth, a one-world government and an ultimate goal to become the final arbiter of political, financial and social policies only adds to my suspicion that any public policy that can be used to control nature’s awesome and still mostly-understood forces is bound to be bogus.

That is not to say that there are not reputable scientists studying the issues related to global climatology and planetary dynamics, but that their work is being misunderstood and misrepresented by those who are pursuing their own self-interest agendas leading to political power and personal profit.

Might I remind you that no real scientific consensus currently exists other than that posited by politicians and those scientists (often administrators) whose career and continued funding is dependent upon governmental or quasi-governmental (NGOs) institutions. And they do not know, with any degree of certitude, whether or not our global temperature is regressing to some unknown mean or remains in some pattern of unknown periodicity and amplitude. 

Therefore, I was somewhat dismayed with Al Gore’s recent appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which was characterized to the public as “testimony” although it was not delivered under oath and was not vetted by any "testimony” by reputable scientists of opposing viewpoint. The very same Al Gore whose off-shore investment company raises serious “conflict of interest” issues and some of whose past assertions relating to the impact of global climate change have now been proven to be either false or misleading.

And while there appear to be other cyclical physical phenomena which also correlate to a greater or lesser degree with the historic data, these explanations are ignored or even given short shrift as they do not lead to the conclusion that man can alter the course of nature through public policy any more than a king can command the heavens to stand still.

I honestly believe that the science is so unsettled as to preclude the necessity of public policies to alter that which may very well be unalterable. The simple fact that all agree that the historical record demonstrates that the rise in carbon dioxide lags the rise in the global mean temperature tends to rule out carbon dioxide as the cause of global climate change. However, it does not rule out that the rise of CO2 is associated with the warming of the oceans; giving rise to increasing carbon dioxide levels much in the same way a warm soda releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Based on the scenario of warming oceans, one might want to consider that our planet's path around the sun is the primary causal factor and that the moderation of CO2 will result in little or no effect on the real world’s global mean temperature. 

It is also my opinion that good public policy should mandate a reduction in ground, water and atmospheric pollution – rather than giving out indulgences (credits paid for by the public) to continue polluting based on the growth of a forest somewhere else on the planet. The entire cost, of course, to be borne by the taxpayers who will be required to finance this madness. All to the financial benefit of those who want to engage in the type of Wall Street financial manipulation that has brought us to the present financial crisis.

And that those who want to control energy production as a means to control population growth and human behavior would find a more receptive world if they embraced nuclear energy as being sustainable, cost effective and relatively non-polluting over energy sources which must be heavily subsidized to be even moderately successful.

I am but One Citizen Speaking and I invite you to prove me wrong with more than just links to individual scientific papers and limitless speculation about the nature and meaning of temperature rise.

-- steve

P.S.

I would like to credit Nobel Laureate Friedrich August von Hayek and his 1974 Prize Lecture in Computational Economics titled “The Pretense of Knowledge” for  the inspiration required for this essay.

I am reminded of a quote from Sir Isaac Newton, discoverer of the Law of Gravity. He said, “If I have seen farther, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” Each succeeding generation stands on the shoulders of those who have gone before them. Hopefully unburdened by today’s modern politicians who produce nothing by self-serving public policy to provide some advantage to the special interests that support their political campaigns.