March Madness: Office Pools are illegal!
THE REAL PROBLEM WITH RUSH LIMBAUGH

Global Warming: news from the cold front ...

As one who actually reads the news and the raw data from government reports, I can state unequivocally that President Barack Obama appears to be the “Manchurian Candidate,” the perfect, telegenic, TelePrompTer’ed delivery mechanism of a governmental agenda so toxic to the United States as to seemingly have been written by our enemies, using the Soviet Union’s economic failures which were so ably exploited by former President Ronald Reagan to bring about an end to the cold war and the implosion of Soviet hegemony.

Massive spending which supports far-left causes such as the toxic unions, environmental movement, education and which weakens traditional institutions regarding law enforcement and the advancement of human rights.

Call me a racist or what you will, but I believe that the President is no more than a willing dupe of those who wish the United States harm. Considering the hidden nature of his background – and even the President’s inability or unwillingness to defuse questions regarding his eligibility for office based on naturalization issues – leads me to believe that he is an artificial creation of the democrats who have historically been infiltrated and influenced by the socialists, Marxists and Communists.

So I am deeply concerned with Obama’s agenda to radically increase the size government, raise taxes, limit personal and constitutionally guaranteed freedoms as well as wreck our current economy with the type of spending which almost certainly guarantees a Soviet-style collapse.

Other than the financial meltdown, it appears that Obama and his Administration are preparing a second round of financial controls which will impact every citizen in the United States. The raison d'être being the need to save the planet from the runaway ravages of the weather.

For those of you who believe that I am wrong about Obama, global climate change, the politics of the left or want to simply call me a racist for challenging the President’s actions and motives – have at it. There is an active comment button at the bottom of this blog or you can e-mail me directly using the link under my picture.

The real problem is not the lack of facts, it is all in the interpretation and the reporting …

When global cooling became unpalatable for advancing the agenda of those who wanted to severely control the energy production of the United States for political, financial and military purposes became untenable, the environmentalists turned to global warming. Of course, nature being nature, remained capricious and variable; handing those who issued dire proclamations based on rising CO2 levels and temperature a severe problem: the global mean temperature was not rising, it was cooling. Even with data adjustments, model adjustments and just plain lying, the truth continued to lead out. Which has led us to the next iteration of the story: global climate change – where the global temperatures can fluctuate up or down and still be blamed on carbon dioxide levels which mandate severe and repressive government action in order to avert a planetary catastrophe and the possible extinguishment of civilization.

The problem is that the facts do not support this theory based on nothing more than a political agenda and some compliant computer models .

My eleven basic observations on global climate change … 

one, the weather appears to be cyclical and constantly changing;

two, we do not know the exact periodicity of these cyclical changes nor the amplitude of these cycles;

three, we do not know the global mean due to the selective use of proxy data (like ice cores, carbon deposition, etc.) or time frames which can greatly skew the results;

four, the Earth has experienced hotter periods, colder periods, periods of more carbon dioxide and periods of lesser carbon dioxide – apparently without a catastrophic effect on mankind;

five, it appears that man, with all of the technology available today or likely to be developed in the foreseeable future, will be unable to modify global weather so as to control the natural process;

six, it appears that global climate change is inexorably linked to such factors beyond our control as the planetary motion of the Earth as it orbits the Sun (sometimes closer, sometimes farther), the variability of the Solar Flux, the rotation of the Earth, the movement of the Ocean currents and other factors that make carbon dioxide’s alleged effect on this planet a miniscule factor;

seven, since the rise in carbon dioxide lags the rise in temperature by 600 t0 1000 years, it can hardly be a causal factor. However, it could be an indication of warming oceans where a warmer ocean emits more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than a cooler one;

eight, our instrumentation of the Earth is rather sparse and extremely suspect;

nine, the models that are used are tweaked to provide results which appear to agree with historical or proxy temperature data over limited periods of time, often fail to account for real weather conditions without constant adjustment;

ten, government legislation is unlikely to produce any tangible results affecting the weather in our lifetimes, our children’s lifetimes and possibly beyond a thousand years. There is absolutely no chance that government mandates will work any better than the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the management of medical care or any other large bureaucratic program. Of course, the real results of the political agenda will be the enlargement of the government’s bureaucracy, rising taxes, curtailment of individual freedoms, weakening of our economy and military – all desired goals of our enemies, both foreign and domestic;

and eleven, the media’s treatment of the subject of global climate change appears to be driven more by their ideological journalistic bias than the actual science. 

The failure of scientific reporting and the rise of the journalistic hidden agenda …

George F. Will, noted columnist who was attacked by members of the far left for his observations on global climate change wrote:

“This column recently reported and commented on some developments pertinent to the debate about whether global warming is occurring and what can and should be done. That column, which expressed skepticism about some emphatic proclamations by the alarmed, took a stroll down memory lane, through the debris of 1970s predictions about the near certainty of calamitous global cooling.”

“Concerning those predictions, the New York Times was -- as it is today in a contrary crusade -- a megaphone for the alarmed, as when (May 21, 1975) it reported that ‘a major cooling of the climate’ was ‘widely considered inevitable’ because it was ‘well established’ that the Northern Hemisphere's climate ‘has been getting cooler since about 1950.’ Now the Times, a trumpet that never sounds retreat in today's war against warming, has afforded this column an opportunity to revisit another facet of this subject -- meretricious journalism in the service of dubious certitudes.”

Not so coincidently, the very same scientist that developed the models noting global cooling, Dr. James Hansen, and offered the same prescriptive remedy, carbon cap and trade systems, is at the forefront of the global warming debate. Not only does he serve as an advisor to Al Gore, but the entire package of prescriptive remedies are based on his modeling efforts – nothing more and nothing less.

I strongly suggest you read George Will’s original column which can be found here.

Beyond man’s ability to quickly and permanently change the global climate  …

From the scientific literature and authored by well-respected scientists from well-respected institutions, I encountered a paper titled “Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions” which repeats many of the dire warnings that we have seen before.

“Among illustrative irreversible impacts that should be expected if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase from current levels near 385 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to a peak of 450–600 ppmv over the coming century are irreversible dry-season rainfall reductions in several regions comparable to those of the “dust bowl” era and inexorable sea level rise. Additional contributions from glaciers and ice sheet contributions to future sea level rise are uncertain but may equal or exceed several meters over the next millennium or longer.”

But the most striking issue brought forth by this paper was a startling claim that gives rise to the futility of all government attempts to manage global climate change.

This paper shows that the climate change that takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop. Following cessation of emissions, removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide decreases radiative forcing, but is largely compensated by slower loss of heat to the ocean, so that atmospheric temperatures do not drop significantly for at least 1,000 years.”

It is not generally appreciated that the atmospheric temperature increases caused by rising carbon dioxide concentrations are not expected to decrease significantly even if carbon emissions were to completely cease.”

There it is, in black-and-white, put forth by scientists who also believe that the global climate is changing – and not for the better – based on increases in carbon dioxide. While I tend to disagree with their assertion that carbon dioxide is a causal factor, I greatly admire their academic honesty in pointing out that – sorry Charlie -- nothing may happen until at least 1,000 years after the total elimination of all carbon emissions. Which tends to dovetail with the fact that the rise in carbon dioxide levels lags the rise in temperature between 600-1000 years depending on which data are used in the analysis.

I am feeling nothing: recent sensor problems …

In compounding the insult to those who believe that everything may be fixed by legislative prescription, let us consider that our historic measurements may be, to use a technical term, kaflooey. 

“Arctic sea ice reflects sunlight, keeping the polar regions cool and moderating global climate. According to scientific measurements, Arctic sea ice has declined dramatically over at least the past thirty years, with the most extreme decline seen in the summer melt season.”

Impact of the F15 sensor drift

“On February 18, we reported that the F15 sensor malfunction started out having a negligible impact on computed ice extent, which gradually increased as the sensor degraded further. At the end of January, the F15 sensor underestimated ice extent by 50,000 square kilometers (19,300 square miles) compared to F13. That is still within the margin of error for daily data. By mid-February, the difference had grown to 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), which is outside of expected error. However, that amount represents less than 4% of Arctic sea ice extent at this time of year. When the computed daily extent dropped sharply on February 16, the sensor failure became obvious.”

NSIDC stopped displaying the problematic data, and recalculated sea ice extent using data from the DMSP F13 satellite, an older sensor in the same series of satellites.” The recalculation changed the January monthly average ice extent by less than the margin of error for the sensor. As we reported in our February 3 post, growth of Arctic sea ice did indeed slow in January because of unusual atmospheric conditions. Using F13 data instead of F15, the September daily minimum that we reported on September 16, 2008, changed from 4.52 million square kilometers (1.74 million square miles) to 4.54 million square kilometers (1.75 million square miles), within the margin of error for daily data. <Source>

A margin of error of 1.75 million square miles and the knowledge that the sensor coverage of the Earth is extremely sparse and may be extremely flawed is not comforting when I am being told by the government and others that I need to reduce my carbon footprint by restricting my travel, living in a smaller home and possibly becoming a vegan – all to save the planet from a non-existent problem. You will notice that they mention “unusual atmospheric conditions;” could this be a code phrase for nature’s natural variability?

A sensor failed to deploy …

And speaking of satellite observations, I am sad to report that a $435 million satellite launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base that was designed to observe how carbon dioxide enters and leaves the atmosphere did not enter it pre-planned 438-mile high orbit above the Earth – and crashed somewhere near Antarctica.

According to the launch team, the ‘payload fairing’” protecting the satellite during launch failed to separate and the satellite could not enter orbit. Funding must be secured for another attempt and it is doubtful if another satellite will be launched within the coming two years.

Suspect sensor placements?

If it is not global warming that is being measured, what is being measured? According to the group located at www.surfacestations.org, a volunteer group which is visually verifying the location of temperature sensors, it is possible that we are actually measuring the heat retention of a industrialized nation as compared to an agrarian society.

Here are a few pictures which visibly illustrate the problem with sensor measurement reliability …

Capture2-27-2009-1.06.05 PM

“Another parking lot being measured for climate change: Newport,TN

Capture2-27-2009-1.08.16 PM

“This picture, taken by www.surfacestations.org volunteer Don Kostuch is the Detroit Lakes, MN USHCN climate station of record. The Stevenson Screen is sinking into the swamp and the MMTS sensor is kept at a comfortable temperature thanks to the nearby A/C units.”

Capture2-27-2009-1.13.34 PM

“While this placement ‘is’ over grass, the narrow grass strip is also within feet of parking, a major thoroughfare, located downtown near high rise buildings. This is not an ideal place at all to measure temperature, yet it is the official USHCN climate station of record.”

Then there are those who claim that these “anomalous” sensors are not significant when it comes to the remainder of the sensors and that this group is only seeking to embarrass scientists who believe in global warming. The problem with these global warming jihadists is that while they are free to express their own opinions, they are not free to make up the facts.

In many serious scientific works, we find that the scientists have smoothed the data, replaced outlier data with an interpolation of data from nearby sites or otherwise made the data more computable. But it was done with the disclosure of the manipulation and the reasoning for such adjustments.

Bottom line … 

We are being asked to radically alter our lives based on the political agenda of the environmental movement which has been infiltrated by those who do not wish America well and would like to see the imposition of a one-world global government run by an extra-sovereign like the United Nations. The very same impotent, corrupt and lying United Nations that botched its population growth numbers, its HIV-AIDS numbers and is attempting to convince us that their IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) numbers are correct.

Standing up and saying NO!

It is my personal belief that global climate change does exist, but that the issue has been co-opted by the evildoers to put forth a political agenda dangerous to the citizens of the United States. It is also my belief that some incredibly powerful, and stupid, politicians have taken on the issue of global climate change to pursue their own self-interest agenda of political power, media exposure and personal profits. I think I can illustrate this by pointing to California’s governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who is jetting off to a global warming fair in Germany to receive an award for his work in global climate change. He is, in my opinion, a total dickwad whose carbon footprint brands him as one of the nation’s leading political hypocrites. We need to tell the politicians to go to hell when they tell us we must sacrifice to save the planet and its population. The Earth has been around for a long time, conditions have been far better and much worse and to think that people like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Barack Obama can even propose a solution to the problem is ludicrous.

What can YOU do?

Put aside the rhetoric and look at the simple facts. Man has always adapted to climate change by moving, building stronger shelters and insuring adequate supplies of food and water. Historical disruptions in societies often came from leaders who wished to control their society’s resources for their own benefit rather than weather-related phenomenon. And there is no scientific proof that we are now experiencing an “optimal” climate which must be preserved for the advancement of mankind at this particular point in time.

Never believe someone who tells you that it really doesn’t matter that the results of man’s actions cannot be measured or may not be apparent within 600 to 1000 years. Like politicians whose results for their prescriptive actions always, and most conveniently, fall after they have long been out of office, there are no guarantees that any political actions can affect the global climate change. These politicians, to use a politically incorrect metaphor are simply pissing in the wind.

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 their personal philosophy, 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:

George F. Will - Climate Science in a Tornado - washingtonpost.com

Dark Green Doomsayers – washingtonpost.com 

Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions; ‘Susan Solomona, Gian-Kasper Plattnerb, Reto Knuttic, and Pierre Friedlingsteind; PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) February 10, 2009 (vol. 106, no. 6, 1709)


“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