FCC Commissioner: Return of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content -- The beginning of a shakedown?
Can Hillary steal the election?

Seeing the light: Legislator wants to repeal the New Jersey Global Warming Response Act

Ignoring the political heat …

Not willing to be stampeded by the far-left liberal democrat blitzkrieg of media hype, New Jersey Assemblyman, Michael Doherty, called upon Governor Jon Corzine to “hold off on proposing any new regulations associated with the state’s Global Warming Response Act and urged the Legislature to repeal that act when it returns to legislative business after Labor Day.”

According to Doherty’s press release …

“ ‘There are many credible members of the scientific community who have questioned the theory of global warming, and now we have some scientists actually suggesting the earth’s temperatures may be entering a period of dramatic cooling,’ said Doherty, R-Warren and Hunterdon. ‘With this growing level of scientific uncertainty, it makes no sense to enact a new set of economically damaging regulations prompted by the global warming hysteria of recent years.’”

“The Global Warming Response Act was signed last year by Corzine, which requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050. The law required the state Department of Environmental Protection to release a report detailing how the state would meet the goals, with recommendations now expected to be issued this fall.”

“According to recent news reports, a top observatory that has been measuring sun spot activity predicts that global temperatures will drop by two degrees over the next 20 years as solar activity slows and the planet drastically cools down. They suggest this could potentially herald the onset of a new ice age. Following the end of the sun’s most active period in over 11,000 years, the last 10 years have displayed a clear cooling trend as temperatures post-1998 leveled out and are now decreasing.”

“Earlier this year, John Coleman, the founder of The Weather Channel, stated that manmade global warming is ‘the greatest scam in history,’ adding, ‘I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a scam.’ Coleman said the theory of global warming is based on fraudulent science.”

“ ‘New Jersey’s tax and regulatory climate is already chasing jobs from this state left and right and these new regulations will make matters worse,’ Doherty said. ‘Rather than conforming our policies to questionable scientific theories, we should be looking at the concrete economic indicators that show our state’s economy is in trouble. And we should be taking steps to help people who are losing jobs and being forced out of their homes by this state’s anti-economic growth agenda – not making matters worse.’”

Climate by proxy …

The basic problem with much of the scientific work done on global climate change today involves mathematical modeling and surrogacy methodologies. That is, we examine phenomenon allegedly influenced by weather and try to create a credible climate scenario which correlates with the historical data as we know it.

Considering that climate appears to be cyclical with an extremely long periodicity, we have only a brief glimpse into a very short period of the Earth’s history.

In addition to the scarcity of long-term data historical data, our historical records are severely flawed by instrument error, placement error and the constantly changing physical environment surrounding the data collection points. Thus we have a major dilemma. How does one account for long-term trends with short-term data?

Therefore, we are left with approximations garnered from such things as dissolved gasses in ice cores, the amount of calcium carbonate deposited in ocean environments and a host of other physical characteristics which may be measured.

Then, using mathematical modeling, we attempt to build credible scenarios which correlate, at least for a small portion of the timescale, to historic data.

Compounding errors …

Unfortunately, we lack specific information about starting conditions, boundary layer issues and enough information to correctly built comprehensive multi-dimensional models which take into account most of the supposed influences of climatology: solar output, rotation of the earth, behavior of deep oceanic currents, air flow, heat sources and sinks and, yes, greenhouse gasses – the most prominent of which is water vapor, not carbon dioxide.

Therefore, we make certain assumptions about our modeling activities and use artificial scaling factors which forces the mathematical model to somewhat conform to short-term observed data.

The problem is that we have no way of knowing if these mathematical models are extensible: that is, the results can be projected into the future or even run backwards as there is no reliable historical data that can be used for comparison.

Even if …

Even if these models produced accurate results, we must also consider the range of possibilities and probabilities. While something may be theoretically possible, it may be statistically unlikely. Thus to take the “outlier” data – data which does not follow the central trend – and build scary scenarios to force political action is, in my book, fraudulent. Statistically speaking, one can prove a high correlation rate between water drinkers and illicit drug users. But a consideration of causality makes the assumption that we should curtail our water drinking habits to fight illicit drug use ludicrous, to say the least.

Corruption of the system …

Our present science is being corrupted by politics and those who are acting for some personal or professional need to enhance their power, prestige or profits. The science is being interpreted as providing a mandate for the politicians and special interests to ride roughshod over the citizenry, plunder the public treasury and to produce an “elite and enlightened” ruling class. One need only point to the far-left which has corrupted the environmental movement into a political movement to advance their own socialistic political theories. Even the very mention of the word science in a discipline such as Political Science, makes be believe the old adage: there is no science in any discipline which used the term science.

Assuming the worst …

First, we are speaking of very small temperature changes, on the order of five degrees (Celsius) or so.

Second, there is no proof, at this point in time, that the benefits of climate change do not outweigh the costs. Possibly because studies showing how beneficial the process may be are shunned as being politically incorrect by those unwilling to consider all sides of the question.

Third, considering the cyclical nature of climate, why would we not assume that nature will always regress to the mean – that is: climate will reach a certain inflection point and then reverse to go in the opposite direction. Since we lack specific knowledge of the periodicity and the amplitude of the cycles, it is almost impossible to formulate anything but short term policies.

And fourth, to believe that man can alter the course of nature in the long run is foolhardy. While we may influence local phenomenon for short periods of time, man’s effect on the whole of nature is effectively nil. Obviously because we are already part of the overall equation. To eliminate man from the equation is to return to a barren earth populated by animals and plant life. As unlikely as being able to stop the tectonic plates from moving, volcanoes from erupting or reversing the ocean currents.

We have met the enemy …

Why, you may ask, are we not doing things in the best interests of all mankind: enlarging our food sources, providing for the development of clean water through desalination and improving our shelters to resist the ravages of an awesome nature?

The answer is simple: human nature and the politics of gaining advantage over someone else. Or as the saying goes, “we have met the enemy and it is us.” One group of people seeking to amass the most resources at the expense of others.

Should we believe that this attempt to use the science of global climate change by the politicians and the special interests is anything other than a blatant power grab and diversion of funds from our collective treasury? I say NO!

Al Gore has made millions since he has left office – all on the premise that he has a vision. Truth be told, Gore is no more than a pitchman for his own enterprises which seek to capitalize on government grants, subsidies and legislatively-mandated businesses practices. Without this government intervention his enterprises cannot compete in the free market – if they could, they would be marketed by General Electric and all of the other multi-nationals.

The simple test of the science appears to be “follow the money” and see who is saluting the flag. 

What can YOU do?

Realize that nature is an awesome, poorly understood, force that cannot be denied by man. Making your peace with nature and trying to live by its dictates is far better that trying to change that which, with the present level of man’s ability, cannot be changed.

Prepare yourself, your family and encourage your friends to protect themselves and their own best interests. In most cases this means telling the politicians and the special interests to keep their grubby corrupt hands out of your pocket. There is no moral or legal justification that you should be denied your God-given right of self-defense: be it against criminal aggressors or greedy politicians who act on their own behalf and for their own benefit.

Considering the periodic nature of climate change, we need to study the subject more before making political policies which are not only ineffective, they are absurd. Vote for extending scientific studies and against politicians who demand that you curtail your freedoms for some theoretical “common good.”

Want to be an environmentalist, a true environmentalist? Demand that the polluting bastards clean up their mess: curtailing water, air and ground contaminants – not continue their polluting ways by purchasing politically-originated permission slips (emissions trading) that allow the polluters to continue polluting while theoretically making some portion of the planet (e.g. an artificial forest) a better place to live. This is bull-pucky. We live or die in the here and now. We should fix our local environment first – and watch the cumulative effects spread across the planet to benefit all mankind.

Do not vote for any candidate or elected official that demands that you sacrifice your lifestyle or money just so an energy producer or industrial corporation can continue polluting the local air, water and ground. Use your common sense – before handing the mostly corrupt politicians a blank check.

Be well, be healthy, be profitable – but first, be alive to enjoy your efforts.

-- steve

Quote of the Day: “You have freedom of choice, but not freedom from choice.” --Wendell Jones

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:

DOHERTY: NEW SCIENTIFIC DATA JUSTIFIES REPEALING GLOBAL WARMING RESPONSE ACT | Politicker NJ


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"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

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS

Comments