I was amused by Pat Sajak's questions about "Man-Made Global Warming" that were published by Human Events.

Sajak, famous as the host of the television game show "Wheel of Fortune," makes a critical error in his title and some of his questions. He keeps using the phrase "man-made global warming" even though both parts of his phrase, "man made" and global warming," are still being disputed.

So lets take a fast look at Sajak's questions...

"Man-Made Global Warming: 10 Questions"

1. What is the perfect temperature?

Are you asking a Bedouin, an Eskimo or someone from Southern California? It seems that temperature preference is both highly personal and geographical. Are you asking someone who is hypo-thyroid and may like higher temperatures or someone who is hyper-thyroid and may like cooler temperatures? Are you asking menopausal women? Or are you just building a computer model, taking a statistical sample of all of the answers and computing a mean temperature? Are you considering the temperature needed to sustain plant and animal life? Or do you take the temperatures of the polar extremes and average them with the temperatures found at the equator? Do you adjust seasonally?

This question is basically unanswerable by man. It seems nature provides a continuum of temperatures,  some which sustain life and some which inhibit life as well as the mechanism for organisms to adapt to any and all circumstances. Nature solves the problem for us... no extra effort required.

2. Just what is the average temperature of the earth?

Who cares -- see the answer to question 1. The mathematical average of the earth has no practical use and/or meaning. This question would have more meaning if you could determine the periodicity of the temperature cycles and their limits and then could use the mean temperature values to determine our position in the cycle... as nature tends to always regress to some mean value or a trend-line. 

3. What factors have led to global warming in the past, and how do we know they aren’t the causes of the current warming trend?

Who cares -- see the answer to question 1. Considering the overwhelming effects of the solar flux, the oceans and the water vapor in the atmosphere, we should probably re-word this question to reflect "relevant major" factors in the causes of global weather perturbations. As for the minor effects, it is again a question of relevancy.

4. Why is there such a strong effort to stifle discussion and dissent?

This is an easy question to answer. It is human nature to promote one's opinion and circumstances over that of another; just as it is human nature for the strong to take from the weak. It is necessary to stifle discussion and dissent to keep pesky people from asking pesky questions that would, in any way, impede the progress of those who are promoting their positions.

5. Why are there such dramatically different warnings about the effects of man-made global warming?

First, this is a loaded question. There is no scientific proof that global climate change is man-made or that we are in a warming trend. Most of the dramatic warnings come from computer models which have severely limited inputs and may be based on faulty assumptions. The outlier (most extreme) effects of running such mathematical models are presented without any compensatory indication of probability. Hence the wide difference in the stories (a United Nations' term) being told.

6. Are there potential benefits to global warming?

Benefits to whom? Humans in Alaska? Humans in Southern California? Animals? Plant life?  Every temperature change will be beneficial to something -- causing some things to grow, others to die. All accounted for by nature in its infinite and perfect wisdom that can simply be called "reality."

7. Should such drastic changes in public policy be based on a “what if?” proposition?

Another no-brainer. Stripped of geopolitical control issues and issues involving expansion of government and higher taxation, the answer is NO! You do not make significant public policy decisions based on assertions, which if true, may not be manifest for another 600 - 1000 years. You live in the "here and now" and make policy decisions for the "foreseeable future." Our predictive weather models are simply worthless after two to three weeks. The Farmer's Almanac is probably just as good as most computer models for the longer term forecasts.

8. What will be the impact on the people of the world if we change the way we live based on man-made global warming concerns?

Again with the "man-made" global warming implication. This is also easy to answer. The rich and powerful get richer and more powerful. The ordinary people pay the price. The government will grow more powerful, larger and require an ever larger portion of our labors to support it for the benefit of the "elected elite" and their special interest friends. Again a no-brainer. The people always suffer at the hands of the rich and powerful and their paid minions. Since much of our globe does not live in freedom, the only thing that will happen is that new dictators will rise to replace existing dictators and the people will do whatever is necessary to survive.

9. How will we measure our successes?

Better yet, how will we know when we failed?  When the measurement is 600 - 1000 years away, nobody cares. There is no practical method to measure a global weather phenomenon that has any use or value as a benchmark or a predictive indication. The absurdity of an average temperature value can be clearly demonstrated by the old joke about a man standing with one foot in boiling water  and one foot encased in ice. As the wags were won't to say, on the average, he should be comfortable.  (For the nit-pickers: It's a joke and not mathematically or physically accurate) 

10. How has this movement gained such momentum?

Another no-brainer with a simple answer. Public apathy and the overwhelming politicalization of the media. Not to mention a hostile scientific environment where the funding is controlled by political entities which expect (require) research results to promote their viewpoint. Only exceptionally secure scientists are willing to risk compromising their government or government-contractor funding sources to speak out. Or where the opinions of politically astute and highly credentialed administrators (many of whom used to be working scientists) are presented in lieu of peer-reviewed scientific results. The public is so concerned with the problems of daily living that they simply may not have time to consider the larger picture -- and thus buy the positions presented by the government and media as gospel. Which it most definitely is not.   

And of course, Pat Sajak is too much a gentleman to ask my favorite questions: Who is that Al Gore guy; why is he ignoring existing science; who is part of his consenus group who has proven the truthfulness of  the scientific subject matter; and my favorite, why will he not participate in an open press forum?

What can YOU do?

Common sense should tell you not to panic over non-specific precautions about ill-defined problems which have cycles lasting hundreds of years.

Common sense tells you that those who are promoting bigger and more intrusive government with higher taxes are usually up to no good as they can't control their profligate spending on special interest projects, waste and corruption.

Demand a fully-funded independent multi-disciplinary panel to study the issue of global climate changes and do not expect answers for a number of years.

Do not vote for any candidate or current politician who is willing to subvert the safety, security, sovereignty and economic strength of the United States or limit an individual's right of self-defense for personal power, prestige or profits.

-- steve

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

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

Reference Links:

Man-Made Global Warming: 10 Questions - HUMAN EVENTS