Archive for the ‘ManBearPig’ Category

Bash in Bali

Wednesday, November 7th, 2007

Via Claudia Rosett, via Instapundit, via Rick, we discover that apparently you need a certain amount of global warming before you can talk seriously about global warming.

Really, now. If you wrote this up as fiction, no publisher would accept it. The villains in your story, he’d explain to you, are not nearly subtle enough. Look, you’ve got them as-much-as telling everyone “the world will end if we don’t get your global taxes raised.” You’ve got a scientific “documentary” produced, not by scientists, but by a failed politician and his Hollywood friends…all of whom constantly jet around the globe. You don’t even have them trying to hide this stuff, and you’re saying people are being taken in by it?

Make this into a work of fiction suitable for adults, he’d say. Make the plot a little more complicated…have the bad guys put some effort into hiding what they’re doing. As it is, it’s just too fantastic. The tales being told to people are far too tall, and you’ve got them falling for it too reliably. Anybody should see it would never happen in real life.

And yet here we are.

We’re Paranoid

Saturday, November 3rd, 2007

This guy’s a nut, but no nuttier than our liberals. If the September 11 attacks hadn’t happened, his response would make perfect sense. But they did, and so he’s a nut.

A Swedish man accused of falsely telling U.S. authorities that his son-in-law had links to al-Qaida has been charged with defamation, a newspaper reported Friday.

The false warning spoiled a business trip to the U.S. for the man’s son-in-law, who was stopped at a Florida airport and questioned for 11 hours before being sent back on a plane to Sweden, the Sydsvenska Dagbladet daily reported.

U.S. authorities apparently reacted to an e-mail sent to the FBI saying the man “likely has links to the Muslim terror organization al-Qaida’s network in Sweden,” the newspaper reported.

The 52-year-old father-in-law admitted to having sent the e-mail after it was traced to his home computer, the paper said. He reportedly told police he sent the e-mail in anger after a dispute with his son-in-law, who was divorcing his daughter.

The man said he did not expect such a “paranoid reaction” from U.S. authorities, Sydsvenska Dagbladet reported.

Honestly, where do all these people come from? Do they have incredibly short memories or did they just never give a rat’s ass?

There’s more to this worldwide phenomenon raising the hair in the back of my neck…other than it being horribly offensive. I’m just wondering about the future conversation with my grandkids…

“Grandpa, when did all that ‘global warming hysteria’ you were talking about take place?”

“Oh, I would say it peaked around aught six and petered out around aught eight or nine…got started in two or three.”

“And people were a lot more worried about that than anything else?”

“Yup. Kids of your generation were supposed to be peeved at grownups from my generation for daring to continue generating power, going to work, cooking meat outdoors, and generally living life. It was the biggest political issue of that decade by far.”

“Uh…I thought you said the September 11 attacks occurred in oh one. How did people go from that, in the space of a year or two, to worrying about something that never even killed anybody?”

“You know…you come up with an answer to that one, let me know.”

Really, some of the things my grandmother and uncles told me that made so little sense at the time, I’m seeing now in an entirely different light. That fool swede should be one isolated kookburger. But he represents the majority, from what I can figure. Worry about the gobular wormening ManBearPig, which has yet to hurt anyone, but pretend the September 11 attacks never took place. You exist in any other era, and not only will this perspective cease to make any sense, but you’ll be just incredulous at just how foolish we are overall in this generation. We’ve really lost all meaningful hold on reality.

The Second Most Important Issue II

Friday, October 26th, 2007

Have you signed the Pavley Petition yet? (H/T: Boortz.) It says we here in California have to stop George Bush, because he’s been throwing the monkey wrench into the works of good legislation designed to curb the global warming emissions that caused the wildfire down in San Diego.

This is the kind of nonsense that threatens to crumble under it’s own weight, like a beached whale, simply by being taken seriously. This is, in my opinion, exactly what we should do.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: The most important issue of the 2008 elections is, who’s going to bring us the biggest pile of scorched terrorist carcasses. You can pontificate and bluster away about gun control and minimum wage to your heart’s content, none of it matters if you aren’t going to run out there and kill me some terrorists. Second most important issue is, is the democrat party stupid or full-blown crazy. The Pavley Petition is advancing a nugget of lunatic logic that is a repeat of what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid already said this week. Questioned about this immediately afterward, Reid himself didn’t seem to put too much stock in his own remarks:

Officials said Tuesday the winds and high temperatures are expected to continue. But when the fires do stop, lawmakers likely will debate the cause of the fire.

“One reason why we have the fires in California is global warming,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Tuesday, stressing the need to pass the Democrats’ comprehensive energy package.

Moments later, when asked by a reporter if he really believed global warming caused the fires, he appeared to back away from his comments, saying there are many factors that contributed to the disaster.

I think it comes from that huge win the donks had right after Watergate: They seem to be everlastingly convinced that if the news cycle will barf up some all-consuming item that commands everyone’s attention for a week or more, all those bad donk ideas will suddenly look good. It’s as if they’re saying to themselves, hey it worked in ’74, it can work anytime. Bad idea, plus a high profile bit of news that has some real legs to it…equals a good idea, or something that sufficiently resembles a good idea.

Hmmm…now that I think on it, since 2002 this one of the few things on which most of them have been consistent. It’s like they don’t know what to do about Iraq, but they’re dedicated to waiting around for the perfect news item to make their bad ideas look good. Why they don’t just get ahold of a genuinely good idea, so that what’s happening this-day or that-day becomes irrelevant, is something I don’t understand. You’ll have to ask them.

But ideas the donks think are good, seem to have it all in common that they appear to look good, at a given time. They’re conditional. We must keep talking about Abu Ghraib, because that’s when ignoring Saddam Hussein looked in hindsight like a good idea; we must talk about Terri Schaivo, because that’s when they look almost sensible; we must talk about Hurricane Katrina, Jena 6, global temperatures in 1998…etc. Everything is justified by some event, which may or may not be repeated.

It’s like they’re steadfastly opposed to figuring out what makes sense all the time.

No wonder they get so pissy when Dick Cheney says things like “Nine one one changed everything.” He’s stealing their schtick.

Funny thing is, though — killing terrorists does make sense all the time. What nine one one changed, was that up until then we didn’t see it.

I think the donks should write this into the party platform next year. Come on donks, it’s a news event. By the time of your convention, the event will be just nine months old. Talk about those awful fires in California, and how they were caused by global warming…write it into the platform…and four months after that, we’ll all get together and vote on whether you have command of your mental faculties.

Next year’s second most important issue, easily.

It’s a Dry Heat

Thursday, August 30th, 2007

I’d like to see a news story about the weather being hot somewhere…without even once mentioning global warming or climate change.

Yes, the public is more receptive to the global climate change scam when it’s hotter, or when they’re thinking about a local climate being hotter. That doesn’t mean the two are related. Because they simply aren’t.

Just An Observation III

Wednesday, August 29th, 2007

There seem to be an awful lot of young people who believe in global warming.

I should qualify that. By “believe in global warming,” what I mean is:

1. Believe that there is such a thing as a meaningful, measurable global temperature;
2. Believe that such a metric ought, properly, to stay more-or-less static;
3. Believe that it is sailing off the charts in the moment that I type this;
4. Believe that the skyrocketing global temperature spells some kind of doom;
5. Believe that the human race is mostly, almost completely, or completely responsible;
6. Believe that the global temperature change is on such apocalyptic levels, that we are now teetering on the edge of the point of no return.

And that things would be so much better if Al Gore won Florida, and the White House, in 2000.

A lot of folks think all this stuff, but a whole lot of the under-thirty crowd thinks all this stuff. I’ve gathered the impression, which I can’t verify easily that a bare majority of people-of-all-ages think all this stuff…but if you count only the folks 30-and-below, the percentage ratchets up to somewhere in the eighties or nineties.

Well. It’s a little bit difficult to know what a snail darter is when you haven’t yet blown out thirty candles, huh? Maybe that’s the problem. Maybe we need to come up with a new term…something like “Snail Darter Politics.”

Phrases are wonderful things. They aren’t like words. If you use a word, and nobody knows what the word means, that’s your fault even if the word can be found in the dictionary. Believe me, I know. Phrases are magical…if you use a phrase, and someone doesn’t know what it means, the onus is on them to go look it up. When you think about it, in a rational world that’s the way it would work with everything. You’re ignorant of something — that’s your problem. Go fix your ignorance and quit bothering people.

Snail darter politics. I like it. That’s exactly what global warming is…snail darter politics.

Spreading Doubt

Tuesday, August 14th, 2007

Don’t you just love that headline? It’s not mine. But I’m going to steal it. I’m going to use it next time I’m the protagonist in an argument, and the thing I’m trying to support is fragile and dubious to the point of being a caricature of itself. “I don’t have a tax liability,” I will tell the tax man; and when he comes up with the fliers and circulars and other printed materials the Internal Revenue Service has printed up to handle problem cases like me, I’ll just ignore any logical points on his side and tell him “see, there you are spreading doubt.”

“God is a man and He wants you to get in the kitchen and make me a sandwich.” My lady might use logic to open this assertion to scrutiny, i.e., wouldn’t the Divine Being make His will better known to her, if He were to shrink my waistline instead of expanding it? Lately, I’m lacking that cosmetic “could use a sandwich” look. And if her place is in the kitchen, how come her feet can fit into shoes? “Aha,” I’ll say, “you are a doubt-spreader.”

In yesterday’s edition of Newsweek, editor Sharon Begley is exactly what she calls others. Her article, The Truth About Denial, tattles on a “well-funded machine” that is “running at full throttle — and continuing to shape both government policy and public opinion.”

I would have to ask which side is really pushing the throttle of a well-funded machine.

To compile an inventory of actual fact presented by Ms. Begley, and correlate it with the inventory of points she wishes to make with those facts, is to undergo a truly surreal experience. Exhibit A is the public opinion polls. By now, anybody who’s paid attention is well aware of how these work: More and more people are convinced global warming is a real problem and it’s man-made, so anybody left at the kiddie table had better get with it and hop on the bandwagon. Y’know, before it’s too late and all. But NO…that is not what Begley wants to tell us. She’s going the other way. The public opinion polls show we’ve been pretty slow to drink the Kool-aid and demand seconds, and this is evidence of the sinister workings of that well lubricated machine.

Just last year, polls found that 64 percent of Americans thought there was “a lot” of scientific disagreement on climate change; only one third thought planetary warming was “mainly caused by things people do.” In contrast, majorities in Europe and Japan recognize a broad consensus among climate experts that greenhouse gases—mostly from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas to power the world’s economies—are altering climate. A new NEWSWEEK Poll finds that the influence of the denial machine remains strong. Although the figure is less than in earlier polls, 39 percent of those asked say there is “a lot of disagreement among climate scientists” on the basic question of whether the planet is warming; 42 percent say there is a lot of disagreement that human activities are a major cause of global warming. Only 46 percent say the greenhouse effect is being felt today.

Now, read that again. Two polls, or sets of polls, one year apart. Last year, 64 percent of us were skeptics. We thought there was “a lot” of disagreement among scientists. That metric has dropped from 64 to 39 in just twelve months. The point here, if I’m understanding it right, is that this evil machine is humming along as a model of efficiency because the 39 are still there.

Wow, if I were on an iron lung I really wouldn’t want a machine that works that well. In fact, when you think about this a little while longer it becomes evident that there must be another, better-funded, better-oiled, higher-performance machine at work here. I wonder when Begley will talk about that.

Oopsie, there I go spreading doubt.

Here’s something I’d like to know about the diabolical doubt-spreading machine: Why? I mean sure, you’ve got idiots like me who doubt global warming even though we’re not in a position to watch the pro-global-warming scientists compile their reports and don’t have access to the actual raw data, beyond the charts and graphs each side finds expedient to present to us. But we’re just big dummies, part of the 39% who don’t get it. We’re rats being led into the ocean by the Pied Piper of Hamlin, just doing what we’re told. What about the Piper? If you follow our food chain upward, you’re going to get to the big bosses, and I guess these are oil industry executives and the scientists they’ve bought off — people who know the planet is facing certain doom, and are fooling imbeciles like me into thinking it just isn’t so.

What’s their angle in this? They want to sell more petroleum products and increase the dollars-per-share in the corporations they manage…on a dying planet? This seems like a plan, assuming it does indeed exist somewhere, that could use a little bit more thinking-out.

But there’s more. How’s this for an eyebrow-raiser:

It was 98 degrees in Washington on Thursday, June 23, 1988, and climate change was bursting into public consciousness. The Amazon was burning, wildfires raged in the United States, crops in the Midwest were scorched and it was shaping up to be the hottest year on record worldwide. A Senate committee, including Gore, had invited NASA climatologist James Hansen to testify about the greenhouse effect, and the members were not above a little stagecraft. The night before, staffers had opened windows in the hearing room. When Hansen began his testimony, the air conditioning was struggling, and sweat dotted his brow. It was the perfect image for the revelation to come. He was 99 percent sure, Hansen told the panel, that “the greenhouse effect has been detected, and it is changing our climate now.”

The theme that permeates this article, and is supported in all other paragraphs, is that there really is no reason to doubt global warming aside from the sinister manipulations of public opinion that have been engineered through this doubt machine. And yet — for reasons that still aren’t quite clear to me — Begley thought it would be appropriate to toss in a humdinger of a reason, existing entirely outside that machine.

I’m sorry. I don’t wish to offend anyone. But it seems inescapable to me: if you can read about politically-motivated congressional staffers sabotaging the air conditioning system in the capitol to make the next day’s session a whole lot sweatier, just to be able to sell global warming as a public relations product — and not feel at least the stirrings of good old-fashion logically-based non-machine-inspired doubt, not even a tiny bit — you’re just nuts.

I realize people can go to great lengths to sell things to the public, and those things can still turn out to be true. But the subject under discussion is the public’s inability to decide the issue outside the realm of politics, through a sensible weighing of fact. And when you go through the pro-global-warming exhibits and start pitching out anything that’s just a lot of rhetoric, including the “Six thousand scientists ALL agree that blah blah blah,” you’re not left with a whole lot. Temperature went up about 1.5 Fahrenheit, so they say…pictures of sad-looking polar bears on the covers of magazines. That’s about it.

Contrasted with the facts about the global warming cheerleading machine: People monkeying with the air conditioning in the capitol, people writing up scary articles because it’s their job to do so. With very, very few exceptions, everyone playing this thing up has a career connected to it. And that includes Mr. Gore. It seems to be really hard to find anyone trying to “raise awareness” of global warming…who isn’t in the business of doing exactly that. Someone who’s genuinely trying to save the planet. And this kind of dovetails into that long list of things we’d be doing if the dire warnings had truth and confidence behind them.

They don’t. The dire warnings are just slogans, and it’s pretty easy to prove that they are this and nothing more.

We’re running out of time, if we procrastinate a little more it might be too late, is that it? Here’s a challenge: Try to get a global warming chicken little to stick to that theme, throughout the exploration of a plan that is supposed to fix the problem. Changing light bulbs in my house to a greener model. Mmmkay, so if I don’t do this, and soon, we’re going to cross some point of no return. If I use the new light bulbs all will be well? Or it will extend the window of opportunity to act?

What is this wonderful thing we are supposed to ultimately be doing, or getting ready to be doing, as we nibble on our fingernails wondering if we can be stirred into action quickly enough? Has anyone measured how long we have to get ‘er done? Can we see some statistics on this? Not vague stuff like “act before ten or fifteen years or it might be too late.” Specifics. Carbon tons. Saturation quotas. Dates. The global warming hype machine is demanding hefty sacrifices; it relies on these global warming climate models that the machine continues to keep telling me about, every week, every month, every year. This is what those models are for — digesting some statistics, producing others.

How come when I ask about these specifics the chicken littles keep telling me to “open such-and-such a report” or “go to such-and-such a website”? Why aren’t the specifics out there? I mean, I think that’s a reasonable question — people like Sharon Begley are concerned that the climate change denial machine is working oh, so incredibly well. This seems to me to be an opportunity to make it work not quite so well. So how come someone hasn’t already done that?

How big is Sharon Begley’s car, anyway?

Memo For File XLIV

Sunday, July 29th, 2007

The BBC News has taken note that there is a wedge being effectively driven between the American Republican party and Christian fundamentalists.

America’s so-called “religious right” has been one of the pillars of Republican Party support in recent decades, but signs are emerging that those once secure foundations might be shifting.

Polar BearIn both George W Bush’s presidential victories, he managed to secure a vast majority of the evangelical Christian vote.

In 2004, the “hot button” policies curtailing abortion and same-sex marriage were seen as being crucial to Republican electoral success in, for example, the key swing states of Ohio and Florida.

But in last November’s Congressional races – where Democrats regained control of both the House and the Senate – some Republican defeats came at the hands of a new religiously-inspired movement, which some are calling the “evangelical left”.

Left unstated in this story, is the simple statement that this wedge-driving is accidental. We are left to simply assume this is the case…based on…nothing. Whether this was actually engineered by someone, whether there were some real dollars involved in it, is a fascinating subject but one that is — suspiciously, in my mind — completely untouched here.

Especially when you read passages like this:

“Questions like climate change, poverty and international human rights are coming to the fore, in a community that didn’t used to talk about these things at all,” [John] Green [of the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life] said. [emphasis mine]

Just for the record, if I had to bet my own personal fortune on it, I would put my coin on the square that says we have some verifiable surface temperature readings that say the average temperature has increased between 0.8 and 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit over the last hundred years or so. I think that’s pretty well established. I do think human activity might have something to do with this…it can’t be ruled out. Does this then portend a future in which life on this planet is jeopardized? Or reduced? Or simply altered? Or do we have the wherewithal to prevent an injurious catastrophe now, and is our continuing foolishness about to thrust us past some point of no return where said wherewithal is to be diminished?

I don’t know that.

I don’t know of any hard evidence that would persuade me to think that.

I do know of lots of politically-motivated people and groups who would like me to think that. And here’s the really strange thing: If I show some reluctance to believing this, they consider me a lost cause, and start arguing with the next person in the queue. Perfectly sensible if you’re soliciting donations to a non-profit or to a political action committee. Not reasonable at all, if you’re really trying to save a planet from unbridled and reckless human activity. Not reasonable by a damn sight. If human activity is destroying the planet’s ability to sustain life as we know it, and I’m one of the sinners, you should be camping out on my front porch like a Star Wars fan waiting for a new movie to come out.

ANYTHING you can do…to get me to mend my ways. Follow me around. Shame me. Bribe me. Blackmail me. Eat a big bowl of penises in front of me. Whatever it takes — because if my neighbor buys up carbon vouchers like there’s no tomorrow, but I continue to do my damage, the cause is lost, and with the cause, the planet, and all persons and things upon it you hold dear.

That isn’t the way the global climate change Chicken Littles behave. They behave just like footsoldiers in a massive paramilitary super-political theater. They roam the streets, in vehicles that get half as many miles per gallon of gas compared to what I drive…trying to get people to vote differently. Not to live more cleanly, just to vote for different parties.

The continuing survival of our planet is supposed to depend on these efforts. Would any intelligent person really think so?

And here’s a BBC article that comes out and says — all this talk about anthropogenic global warming, is causing a rift between the Republicans, and the demographic groups they have been able to most consistently count on for support.

It was engineered that way…or not. The article won’t say one syllable one way or t’other.

Well — I think it was engineered that way. The notion that Christian fundamentalists vote for Republicans, and that this has an effect on the way elections come out, is hardly new. I’ve seen people argue that point my entire adult life, and I’m an old man now. What kind of money do we sink into elections…chump change? Hardly. It’s a billion dollar industry, one directly affecting the expenditure of trillions of dollars every year.

Here we have the outcome of those elections affected directly by all this talk about global warming. Nobody’s willing to put their balls on the block and say it’s an accident. Meanwhile — what do we really know about the global warming crisis? We got a bunch of pictures of confused looking polar bars floating around on presumably-diminishing chunks of ice…as if polar bears ever look like anything besides confused. And the temperature went up by a degree over the last century. We don’t know a lot besides that. And heavily-funded political groups stand to gain a great deal if we do a lot of talking about it.

I just think it’s somewhat interesting, that’s all. Oh, and one other little thing…it might explain everything we’ve been told, for a couple of generations now. It’s certainly worth looking at, anyway. Looks like a political stunt, sounds like one, smells like one…it just might be that, and nothing more.

We Just Don’t Care That Much

Saturday, July 21st, 2007

See, here’s the real “Inconvenient Truth” about global climate change. And it’s terribly inconvenient…for a lot of overly-capitalist, greedy, corporate moneyed interests.

The truth is, among the people claiming to believe it’s a problem, almost all of them are liars. They don’t really believe in it. And even if it was a problem, they wouldn’t care.

We just don’t care that much.

Argue with me if you want, but read what’s behind the link first. I’m right. We just don’t care.

On Burping Cows

Tuesday, July 10th, 2007

Some propeller-beanie egghead Brit has figured out burping cows may be partially responsible for global warming.

Nobody ever reads this blog, but among the nobodies who do, this is old news. We’d talked about it here when Al Gore’s movie first came out. A lot of the same stuff you see in my rants nowadays…I think global warming is a bunch of nonsense, and when I’m out riding my bike, I get run off the road by tree-hugging hippies in SUV’s who think Bush should’ve signed the Kyoto treaty. The irony of it all.

The point was all the things we would be doing if we were really concerned about climate change — that we aren’t doing. The cows were an afterthought, but my little screed was chock full of numbers, properly sourced to a CNN article. From 2000. So you see, this is nothing new.

Cows — and other agricultural components as well, I should add — have more of a polluting effect than cars, machinery, and other techno-industrial hobgoblins. More of a greenhouse-gas effect.

I never would have imagined, back when I wrote that up, that we would have a world-wide rock concert phenomenon to alert people to how guilty they should be feeling about carbon emissions. I wonder how many people attended those concerts while ordering cheeseburgers for the whole family.

This Is Good XLI

Saturday, July 7th, 2007

Someone drove a Hummer to a Live Earth concert.

Hummer

I thought this passage was humorous in an ironic sort of way:

The show at Giant Stadium in New Jersey is finally underway. Performers are playing on a stage built of recycled tires. At this point, the tires outnumber the fans in attendance.

Okay, so there aren’t even that many people going to the New Jersey thing. Which raises the question…although I’m sure it’s been raised before…what exactly is this supposed to do? Because if global warming is indeed caused by human activity, putting on a rock concert wouldn’t exactly mitigate the effect would it? There’s all those cars coming in, some of them Hummers…there’s electricity to be churned up, concessions to be sold, people talking and breathing hard and what-not. Rock concerts are just little hotbeds of human activity.

Who’s more hypocritical. The guy who drove the Hummer, or the folks who put on the show in the first place?

As I’ve said before: I make a futile effort at getting rid of my middle-age pudge, on a 24-speed hybrid bike in Northern California. It’s a “blue” part of the country, although others are bluer. It’s a socially trendy region, although others are trendier. And it’s a valley, so we tend to have hefty local concerns about smog and what-not…although other municipalities may have heftier concerns.

But we’re very “hip” around here. We say all the right things. We have “Spare The Air” days, and we look for ways to conserve and recycle and carpool…or at least we’re supposed to…

…and I’m constantly amazed how many places I can ride, and get some not-too-subtle reminder that I’ve ridden into a location where I’m not expected to be riding. You know. No sidewalks, no shoulders…none…garbage cans being left out all days of the week, to the point where you eventually give up trying to figure out what days they’ll be hauled back in, because they never are. Intersections without crosswalks. Oh-so-trendy coffee shops without bike racks anywhere.

If I bike to work, I have to get there early because a building with 200 people in it, has a stairwell where six bikes can be locked up. No more than that. And you guessed it…no bike rack. Bikes don’t have air conditioning, so this time of year, early doesn’t mean “before 8:30” — it means early. Six out of 200, and Number Seven has to leave his bike wherever and take his chances, or go back home.

I live in a place where everybody is supposed to be concerned about the environment.

I live in a place where people are expected to drive wherever they go. Big, BIG cars. To go car shopping, and demand more than 20 miles a gallon, is looked upon as insanity. Cars are supposed to be big.

I live in a place that is freakin’ hypocritical. But it’s nothing special. I drive too…I fly…I travel…I go to other states. And I could be talking about something going on in any one of them. Environment, pollution, emissions, blah blah blah…oh, I’m so concerned. But nobody acts like it. Nobody really does anything. If they do something, it’s got a lot more to do with getting attention than having any beneficial effect on the environment.

I think they should keep having these concerts, but they should call them something else. Truth-in-advertising, ya know. Call them “Let’s pretend to care” concerts or something.

Hey…how many bikes are being locked up at these concerts? I’d really like to know.

Update 7-8-07: I think this is the most overly-simplistic test of individual common sense and critical thinking that there could possibly be. It’s as if some divine Kismet devised some test for us, and smacked us down with it. Suppose, just as a hypothetical, just to take all the emotionalism out of it…suppose there was something else going on with all this blue-blood celebrity hypocrisy.

Suppose instead of polluting, it’s something else we all “know” we’re not supposed to do, but that a lot of us do anyway. Something that’s regarded as neither conservative nor liberal.

Let’s say you’re at the city aquarium, and you’re tapping on the glass to get the fish to move. There. That’s perfect.

You’re tapping on the glass, and as if someone yelled “Go!” all of a sudden you’re being confronted face-to-face by Al Gore, and Laurie David, and Madonna, and Gwyneth Paltrow and Cameron Diaz. And they’re all getting after you, telling you not to tap on the glass. Scientists are unanimous in their convictions that the fish are getting pissed off, and are about to retaliate against humanity. You’re making it worse by tapping on the glass.

And here’s the funny part. All the time they’re talking to you, they’ve taken off their shoes and as they’re lecturing you, they’re pounding their shoes against the glass they’ve told you not to tap.

And when you get a chance to get a word in edge-wise…well, you don’t of course, but assuming you do…you say the first common-sense thing that comes to your mind. “Hey, thumbdicks, why are you banging your shoes against that glass you told me not to tap?” Because, y’know, if there really is a problem with the fish getting all pissed off over the glass-tapping and getting ready to overthrow humanity, and because of that you’re not supposed to tap on the glass, isn’t it evidence that the Gore/Feinstein/David/Diaz loudmouths doubt their own rhetoric, when they’re banging their shoes against the glass?

So Al Gore explains, patiently, and somewhat condescendingly: We have to bang the glass. It attracts attention from the other humans in proximity, and don’t you know our message is so very, very important.

For emphasis, he bangs his waffle-stomper hiking boot against the glass three more times, bang bang bang.

Now I know that is so very, very ridiculous. But answer me this: How is my utterly ridiculous hypothetical different from the global warming…uh…well, let’s call it what it is. The global warming craze.

It’s not different. We’re told there is a crisis looming, and it’s connected to our everyday activities, therefore we are to cease and desist. We’re told this by all these big stars who, in the middle of the syllables in which they tell us this, do a whole lot more of that very thing they’re telling us to stop doing.

Blogger friend Buck comes up with an article in the UK Daily Mail that shows just how bad this situation has gotten. And yes, all across this globe there are millions, and millions, and millions of people being told to stop tapping the glass, by politicians and Hollywood heavyweights who are banging crowbars and hiking boots and seldgehammers against that very same glass. And they’re listening. Ooh, they’re saying, I’d better stop tapping the glass, and you’d better stop too. But the politicians and celebrities can keep on hammering.

How many different ways can you get the attention of the public, when your message is that important, besides hammering on aquarium glass with a crowbar?

How many different ways can you do it, without a rock concert?

Lest you think a rock concert is “clean” in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, Pajamas Media helps put it in perspective.

So you see, it isn’t any more complicated than that ludicrous aquarium analogy after all. The only meaningful difference, is this: We can preserve our lives, and the quality thereof, without tapping on glass and irritating the damn fish. But we do need to consume power in order to do that. And we can’t keep living without throwing off carbon dioxide…in very modest amounts compared to the Diaz/Gore/Feinstein/Kerry/Paltrow crowd, but we do still need to emit. Methane, which we emit indirectly through our demand for agricultural products, has a much higher greenhouse gas effect than carbon dioxide on a pound-for-pound basis. But we produce carbon dioxide more directly, and through our industrial-sector activity. And what do we do to get this snotty lecturing from the politicos and the jet-set? We consume through our industrial sector…and emit carbon dioxide. Relatively neutral compared to methane in greenhouse gas effect.

Eh. People have attacked industry as long as there’s been industry. It’s us everyday folk who are acting all weird, by buying into this and believing it. It is every bit as silly as feeling guilty over tapping on the aquarium glass, as a result of the lectures being delivered by a man smacking the same glass with…a freakin’ manhole cover. It is as simplistic and as direct of a test of our ability to think critically, as could ever be devised, by man or by deity.

Snookered. We’re being snookered. The snookerers aren’t even doing that good of a job of it. But so far, it’s an effective job.

Watts Up With That?

Wednesday, June 27th, 2007

Via Gerard: The home page of Anthony Watts, a Chico, CA weatherman who’s been picking a bone on the whole global-warming-climate-change subject. His bone to pick is, get this: How are we taking these measurements?

Huh. Well…however you define “earth’s mean temperature,” which is what the whole argument is about — that figure, is nothing more than an average taken of these. So logically, the issue Mr. Watts has raised, can be no less important than climate change itself.

And the facts he’s managed to scare up, are probably more interesting than you might otherwise think.

One of the really odd discoveries that I’ve made while surveying climate monitoring stations around the USA is the fact that many of the official stations are located at sewage treatment plants…this picture comes in today from from surfacestations.org volunteer Steve Tiemeier, who visited the climate station of record located at the Urbana, Ohio Waste Water Treatment Plant:

The small item in the center of the picture labeled “MMTS” is the temperature sensor that is used to submit monthly climate reports to NCDC.

Temp StationNow in case you don’t see some of the obvious problems with this location and why its a terrible place to measure temperature, I’ll list them one by one:

– Sensor is attached to the building, just mere inches away from brickwork
– Sensor is near windows, which radiate heat from heated interior rooms in winter
– Sensor is directly above effluent grates for waste-water, Waste-water is often warmer than the air many months of the year
– Sensor is between three buildings, restricting wind flow
– Sensor is between three buildings, acting as a corner reflector for infrared
– Several exhaust fans near sensor, even though one is disable, there are two more on the walls (silver domes)
– Air conditioner within 35 feet of sensor, enclosed area will tend to trap the exhaust air near sensor
– Sensor is directly over concrete slab
– Refrigeration unit nearby, exhausts air into the enclosed area
– Shadows of all buildings create a valley effect related to sunlight at certain times
– There are two nearby digester pools, which release heat and humidity in the sensor vicinity
– Heat and humidity plume over the site from digesters is often tens of degrees warmer than the air in the wintertime

Something to keep in mind, at least? Maybe to ponder next time you see a Climate Change Chicken-Little hautily scolding you that “The Science Is In On Global Warming”? You decide.

Is It Getting Warmer?

Tuesday, June 19th, 2007

Quote of the week: U.W. Madison Prof. Emeritus Reid Bryson, speaking about global warming, or as it’s cheerleaders have renamed it to coincide better with ongoing evidence, “climate change.”

Reporters will often call the meteorology building seeking the opinion of a scientist and some beginning graduate student will pick up the phone and say he or she is a meteorologist, Bryson said. “And that goes in the paper as ‘scientists say.'”

The 87-year-old, who founded the department of meteorology at the U.W. Madison, as well as the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, concedes that it is indeed getting warmer.

There is no question the earth has been warming. It is coming out of the “Little Ice Age,” he said in an interview this week.

“However, there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We’ve been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years. We have not been making very much carbon dioxide for 300 years. It’s been warming up for a long time,” Bryson said.

The Little Ice Age was driven by volcanic activity. That settled down so it is getting warmer, he said.

Humans are polluting the air and adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but the effect is tiny, Bryson said.

“It’s like there is an elephant charging in and you worry about the fact that there is a fly sitting on its head. It’s just a total misplacement of emphasis,” he said. “It really isn’t science because there’s no really good scientific evidence.”

Interestingly, a lot of scientists are coming out of the woodwork to bluster away about this unqualified yokel — until they figure out that whoever taught those scientists what they know about weather phenomena, were themselves Prof. Bryson’s students. The guy is the freakin’ Yoda of scientific climatology…and he ain’t buyin’ it.

Well, it gets even more interesting than that. Because some climate change skeptics raise some intringuing questions about the recent warming trend itself:

The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.

So says Bob Carter, professor of Marine Geology at James Cook university in Australia. Interestingly, the pro-global-warming tattletale website SourceWatch is mum in Prof. Carter’s case, on what has become an obligatory smear against all climate change skeptics: that he would have been bought-off by the energy industry. There’s no such slur on Carter’s page there. Instead, the onslaught is limited to a quote from the Sydney Morning Herald that Carter “appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community.”

If you know SourceWatch, you know this is virtually a compliment. “He got such-and-such a grant from Exxon” would be the attack of choice; “the whitecoats haven’t let him into their club so we shouldn’t listen to him” is decidedly second-rate, used only when the first-tier smear has been thoroughly evaluated for use, and found not to apply.

Okay, so it seems both of these gentlemen are relatively “clean” and can’t be slandered into irrelevance with gossip about industry-funded research. And they’re both saying we really need to look before we leap onto the whole curtail-carbon-emissions bandwagon, in whatever form we’re propositioned to do so.

But amongst the two of them, it seems there is disagreement about whether it’s getting warmer. How do you explain that?

Well, as Dr. Carter himself pointed out, the disagreement is likely illusory because the two authorities are speaking about different timeframes. But I would like to inspect, also, the definition of “it” we are using when we say “it’s getting warmer.” What it? Seems to me, since the Earth is a three-dimensional object, if it is to be considered as a closed ecosystem and we’re going to start hyperventilating with worry and angst because that three-dimensional ecosystem’s “mean temperature” has been ticking upward, we should be measuring all of it. Which means, you pull up an enormous blender, big enough to accomodate the entire planet. Without adding anything or taking anything away, you grind up the entire planet into a liquid puree — once the temperature has been fully stabilized and distributed throughout the contents, you measure it.

By which time, of course, you’ve destroyed the SUV’s and the factories that are supposed to be causing global warming so you can’t test the theory anymore…besides of which, you probably can’t find a blender that big. But you find a way to do the equivalent. Which would yield a “mean temperature” of nine or ten thousand degrees Fahrenheit.

You know what?

That’s probably not what scientists are talking about when they say “mean temperature.”

But that’s about the only definition of it that can be produced, with real scientific merit. Nothing else takes into account all of the matter that contributes to the ecosystem. And if you aren’t going to do that, what you’re then going to do is disregard distribution, convection, wakes, currents…all the stuff that climatology is. You would be doing what I suspect our climate eggheads really are doing: Measuring “local” temperature, wherever the instrumentation happens to be, and calling it gobal temperature.

Averaging it out not according to heat density of the surrounding matter, but according to where the readings may be taken.

How far down? Well, you can stop wherever you want, to give the final result an alarming twist that will end up getting your name in the paper. Sea level…a hundred feet above…fifty feet below…if nobody’s calling you on it, you can measure it however you want. So I guess I’m calling the whole notion of a “mean temperature” into serious question here.

And that seems fair, from where I sit. The agent whose readings are going to be most drastically affected by the questions I’m raising, it seems, is sea water. Ya know what? I’m not a scientist myself, but I know water weighs a lot. And every pound of it, can absorb a lot of energy without much temperature variance. If you switch to the metric system it gets really easy: Just a gram of water will tick upward by one degree Celcius, for every calorie absorbed. One degree, in that situation, is a whole lot less than the temperature differential you’ll measure in a gram of — let’s say — sand. Or asphalt, or dirt.

The issue is heat density. Your satellite measures a heat differential over a square kilometer; you have to ask, a square kilometer of what? Peat bog? An empty lot? Water? If water, then how far down does it go? There are a lot of ways you could settle this; most of those methods, the least expensive ones, are going to be utterly invalid, contaminating your entire “model” or experiment. And I don’t see anyone speaking to that anywhere.

But they’ve “proven” an increase of 0.6 degrees Fahrenheit over a hundred years. There. That might be why there’s disagreement about why it’s getting warmer. Meanwhile, the “proof” is there, so I’m supposed to join everybody else, fling spittle around, and panic. Pardon me if I’m a little slow to climb on board.

But anyway. These are just some of the questions I have, assuming that we’re all settled on the notion that global warming is really taking place. Our skeptics aren’t settled on that…and the cheerleader-chicken-littles aren’t settled on it either, for if they were they wouldn’t have renamed it to “climate change.”

Oh, and one other little thing from Bob Carter’s column that bears some emphasis:

As leading economist David Henderson has pointed out, it is extremely dangerous for an unelected and unaccountable body like the IPCC to have a monopoly on climate policy advice to governments. And even more so because, at heart, the IPCC is a political and not a scientific agency.

Um, yeah. High time someone raised that as an issue. But I doubt we’re ready for it, because we’re still stuck in the mold of watching movies made by former presidential candidates and calling them “documentaries.”

And, might I add…driving monster vehicles that get about eight-miles-a-gallon to the theaters to see those movies.

See, we like to think we’re treating this “scentifically,” or that if we’re not, at least the “scientists” who are trying to get us all scared and riled up, are doing that. We like to think that. But that isn’t what’s really going on, and deep down I think just about everyone understands that. It’s a fairy tale, and it’s getting more and more popular because the line between “scientist” and “politician” is quickly eroding. That is a climate change that should be capturing more of our attention.

Best Sentence XIII

Tuesday, June 12th, 2007

The Best Sentence I’ve Heard Lately award goes now to Institute on Religion and Democracy (IRD) President James Tonkowich, testifying before the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works last Thursday, about which we learned via blogger friend Rick at Brutally Honest:

The kind of radical fideism that some evangelical Christians are exhibiting toward catastrophic global warming is a betrayal of science and a betrayal of the Christian intellectual tradition. It is a betrayal of science because science is not about voting. Science is about facts, interpretations of those facts, and conclusions that either align with reality or don’t.

This bears repeating. What was that again?

Science is not about voting.

Lest I be accused of beating a dead horse: This is not something we’ve often pondered over our nationwide, multiple-generations-long argument about climate change f.k.a. global warming f.k.a. oncoming ice ages. This point has seldom been made, and when I do see it made, it seldom sticks. Instead, what I see is the protagonist says “drastic action is needed because all the scientists agree” and then the antagonist, who could very reasonably reply “science is not about voting,” is compelled instead to supply a list of names of scientsts who do not agree. Usually, the protagonist will then respond with a screed against these scientsts who fail to agree, instructing the rest of us to ignore the maverick scientists because they’re stupid, they’re evil, they’re stupid/evil, there’s hard evidence they are “on the payroll of Haliburton and Enron,” or if there is no such muck that has been raked then surely it is forthcoming.

Lost in the flotsam and jetsam, is that simple declaration that in a saner universe, would up-end the entire argument and send it cartwheeling into the nearest ravine: Science is not about voting.

Science really isn’t about figuring out “what must be done,” either — and that is a lesson that could be better learned by some prominent officials in some very high places.

In fact, the whole climate change thing has been suspiciously quiet on exactly two subjects, on which it seems to me it ought not be. And those two subjects are: What is it that suggests to us we’re about to slip past some point of no return should no action be taken…and how do we know that we have not yet? I notice that the scientific mindset, prior to getting all screechy and agitated about our public policies and going supernova with some actvist fervor, would have to be satisfied on those two premises: Continuation of our current behavior, unaltered, will surely lead to catastrophe; and there is still time to mend our ways.

I don’t even see those two presumptions being debated anywhere. Not scentifically. I see charts and graphs and a bunch of allegations that “all the scientists agree” that, when I check’em out, turn out to be codswallop. I see ad hominem attacks. Oh, and I see scientific “experts” who are actually on someone’s payroll…on both sides.

When someone tells me what they know and how they know it, it all boils down to this: The “mean temperature” went up by a degree or so over the last century. That’s all.

And when I start asking probing, scrutinizing questions about what a “mean temperature” really means in a large ecosystem on the crust of a rocky sphere with a nine-thousand-degree liquid iron core, very few people can answer me, and the ones who can, reveal that “mean temperature” doesn’t scientifically describe something with such rustic simplicity, and with such surgical precision, as to justify adrenaline and panic when it meanders upward by a single notch. To put it simply, we really know very little, and it would be fair to replace the word “little” with “nothing.”

Our Picket Signs Will Tell You How Warm It Is

Sunday, April 15th, 2007

Here we go again.

More than two dozen demonstrators braved cold, wet weather Saturday in Reno to attend a rally designed to draw attention to global warming.

The event was cut short by heavy rain and sleet, said organizer Lisa Stiller of the Northern Nevada Coalition for Climate Change.

“It’s kind of disappointing that the weather kept people away,” Stiller said. “But we still think it (climate change) is something that people should talk about.”

Yeah, gotcha covered there. I’ll think about it a couple times. And grin.

Things We Don’t Know

Wednesday, April 11th, 2007

Temp dataI completely missed this two weeks ago even though I’ve been reading blogger friend Phil since then. Don’t know how it flew under my radar.

Phil credits me for inspiring his own list of things he knows, and he came up with his own TIKs #3 and #4. And that’s fine, but then he goes on to a brilliant essay about things we don’t know about anthropogenic global warming. Must-read stuff.

I got something I don’t really know, but I’m almost sure of it and would be willing to bet some money on it: If you went door to door and asked a hundred people — limited to just those who fancy themselves well-educated about global warming — what the science has proven, exactly? Ninety-seven or more of them would get the answer wrong. They’d overstate the case. The “science is settled” about some of this stuff, that much is true or mostly true; but it’s surprising how little has been proven. And what can be concluded from the “hard facts,” such as they are, that we really do have? Far, far less than what most people are told.

Supreme Court Ruling on Global Warming

Tuesday, April 3rd, 2007

One of the reasons we’re all supposed to want to get rid of President Bush, is that supposedly his Supreme Court appointments are spectacles of something hideous and dreadful. Except…Justice Alito seems to be doing okay…Chief Justice Roberts seems to be doing okay…and these four or five bozos who represent the antithesis of a Bush’s nominee, the “liberal wing,” they call ’em? Some homeless guy plucked off the street could do a better job.

“EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change,” quoth Associate Justice John Paul Stevens. Goooooooood. Just what we need, a judicial branch bullying and intimidating our federal agencies into pushing us around some more.

Agencies say “we’re just not sure,” and — hey you know what, scientifically, that’s the correct answer. But anyway. Supreme Court writes up an opinion that says gosh, we just don’t like your answer. Go re-think it.

That’s the way government works, huh?

We’ve got about twenty years before all this global warming hocus-pocus looks like the pet-rock newspaper-horoscope mood-ring junk science that it is. Then you can haul out all these stories and shake your head with a melancholy smile about how badly we were fooled. Without a doubt, this needs to go in the file.

Update: More & better info here.

Five Outta Six

Thursday, March 29th, 2007

Read for yourself.

A new Yale research survey reveals a significant shift in public attitudes toward the environment and global warming. Fully 83 percent of Americans now say global warming is a “serious” problem, up from 70 percent in 2004. More Americans than ever say they have serious concerns about environmental threats, such as toxic soil and water (92 percent, up from 85 percent in 2004), deforestation (89 percent, up from 78 percent), air pollution (93 percent, up from 87 percent) and the extinction of wildlife (83 percent, up from 72 percent in 2005).

Huh. What about that survey from 2004?

On the eve of the release of the much-anticipated movie, The Day After Tomorrow, the global warming disaster movie, a national poll undertaken at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies indicates that 70% of Americans believe global warming is a very serious or somewhat serious problem, while just 20% of Americans believe global warming does not represent a serious issue.

Day After Tomorrow, huh?

I’d like to see a poll on whether something else is a serious problem. I’d like to see a poll on how many Americans believe a lot of other Americans are freakin’ raging idiots.

In fact, I’d like to see a poll on the problem I’ve identified that really irritates me. Here’s the problem. People are presented with a premise A. A is proven by B. Global Warming is proven by “Day After Tomorrow,” or President Bush called the Constitution “a goddamned piece of paper” because some crappy tabloid says he said it. In cases like this, B is widely acknowledged to be bullshit. Even people who desperately want to believe A, understand B is bullshit.

And yet, they believe in A more fervently with B, than without B.

Stating the reasons why they believe A, they cite B, which they know to be bullshit.

I do not mean to imply !A just because B is bullshit. A could still be true. But this trend lately of reinforcing assumptions that may or may not be true, based on pieces of evidence known to be rancid crap and nothing more — with a straight face no less — is a harbinger of bad times ahead. It’s a sickness. There’s nothing healthy about it.

As one of the 17%, I’d like to know how many among the 83% would simply acknowledge this is a problem. Nevermind whether they themselves have fallen victim to it, we’ll leave that for later. But the fact remains, a lot of this stuff that’s been used to bolster the case of ManBearPig suffers from glaring problems; and the evidence that does not suffer from such problems, has been whittled down to pinpoint size.

I’d like to see polls on all this stuff. Because if people don’t have confidence in the opinions of everybody around them, it makes very little sense to pursue the argument “I must be right because look at all the people who agree with me.”

Is There A Global Temperature

Wednesday, March 21st, 2007

Ah, it’s like having a hard-to-reach itch finally scratched…I’ve been wondering about this for the longest time.

“It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth”, Bjarne Andresen says, an an expert of thermodynamics. “A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate”.

He explains that while it is possible to treat temperature statistically locally, it is meaningless to talk about a a global temperature for Earth. The Globe consists of a huge number of components which one cannot just add up and average. That would correspond to calculating the average phone number in the phone book. That is meaningless. Or talking about economics, it does make sense to compare the currency exchange rate of two countries, whereas there is no point in talking about an average ‘global exchange rate’. [emphasis mine]

Best Sentence X

Wednesday, March 7th, 2007

…is at A Tangled Web, about which we learn via Maggie’s Farm, about which we learn via Anchoress.

If you want an absolutely first-rate example of the sheer scale of moonbat-twittery, of the depths of illogical non-argument to which the left will happily descend in order to defend at all costs its sacred doctrine of anthropological global warming, then this simply takes the biscuit. No, actually that’s an understatement: It grabs the whole biscuit tin, removes the lid and bats itself over the head with it, while feeding the biscuits into the DVD player.

The subject is global warming. Or rather, Weird Al’s hypocrisy about it…and the notion that said hypocrisy might be a good thing. I’m serial. Go read the whole thing.

By Which Others Shall Be Gauged

Tuesday, February 27th, 2007

Ya just gotta see this. It is a new standard for hypocrisy, inveigling, and obfuscation. I award it a hundred points out of a possible hundred, and vow to protect it and display it and bring it out again, each time I wish to measure another example.

It starts with a revelation Monday that the palatial digs of Al Gore, that pied-piper of global warming, the twenty-first century’s Chicken Little, chews through — get this — twenty times the energy consumption of the average home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

This may come as quite a shock to folks who loudly advertise how much they hate blogs, and get all their news from the alphabet-soup cable channels and the Daily Show. To “neo-cons” like myself, it’s all par for the course. For a generation or more, the “environmental movement” has diminished into nothing but a two-tiered set of rules for us all, one tier for the “ordinary” folks and one tier for the elite millionaire grown-up hippies like Mr. Gore. We are to apologize for our existence while scuttling about in our little plastic-aluminum sedans that look like lightswitches, and they are to move freely around the world in their Gulfstream jets whenever they want. Ah, but what if you share the political leanings of the glitterati without sharing their status? Then you get to buy a hybrid, and start closing your eyes when you talk and smelling your own farts. Then the glitterati will smile upon you…but kindly move your wretched wrinkly wage-slave ass out of their way when you see ’em coming, thank you.

Our liberals have become exactly what they call conservatives, whenever the subject of tax breaks comes up.

Well now. I was rather interested when I discovered this little statistic about our Former Next President of the United States, via Captain Ed Morrissey’s fine resource, and as is the case with everything I knew there was bound to be another side to the story coming down the road. And there was. First: It turned out the numbers were bogus.

Ha ha! No, that’s what I was waiting to see happen. You know, it could very well turn out that the numbers were bogus and Gore’s grandkids do their homework by candlelight when they come visit. But a lot of angry liberals have had their crack at this thing, and nobody’s stepped forward to say such a thing. No, the thing that happened first was that Drudge started reporting it — and so the lefties began to present it as a story from that nonsensical no-account conservative hobgobblin Matt Drudge. Y’know…like, it wasn’t actually from him, and even if it was, that by itself doesn’t mean it’s untrue…but if you want to conclude such a thing, the angry leftie telling you about Matt Drudge won’t utter a peep of protest. So don’t think about the numbers. Think about Drudge.

That was the first spin. I dunno if it worked. I wouldn’t put a lot of faith in it because as far as anybody can tell, the numbers are accurate. You light up your house all day, and you’ve burned up all the energy that Mister “Global Warming Will Kill Us All” needs for one single hour.

So it’s still a problem…demanding the Frankensten Monster of solutions. I mean, of P.R. solutions. Something that will put all other P.R. solutions to shame.

Well. Wait no more.

Gore Responds To Drudge’s Latest Hysterics

The right-wing is angry that Al Gore has won so much public attention and goodwill for his work on global warming. Determined to smear his efforts, Drudge writes in a screaming headline:

POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER ‘TRUTH’

Responding to Drudge’s attack, Vice President Gore’s office told ThinkProgress:

1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.

2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains:

What Mr. Gore has asked is that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it as much as possible. Once they have done so, he then advocates that they purchase offsets, as the Gore’s do, to bring their footprint down to zero.

This is a masterpiece. Really. There are only so many things they can do to change the subject and divert blame from their revered High Prince of impending doom. And they have hit all the notes, as if someone had a paper-and-clipboard in hand with a bunch of checkboxes on it.

Carbon Offsets 5cOne. They missed the point. Completely. The point is, Al Gore is saying our continuing survival has been placed into question — Manhattan getting flooded, etc. — because we’re having too big of an impact on the environment. Al Gore, through household energy consumption alone, has chosen to have twenty times as big of an impact as everybody else. Carbon offsets or no, he’s simply not taking his own proclamations seriously.

Two. They accuse the other side of missing the point, defining the other side as…anyone who would have a harsh syllable or two for their oh-so-put-upon High Prince Gore. How are Gore’s critics missing the point? Something to do with the carbon offset program…which bring us to…

Three. They get to make money for their friends off of Gore’s hypocrisy. Don’t criticize Al Gore! Buy some carbon offsets instead, like he is! Where’s the money go? Who knows? Who cares?

Four. When you start to read “Gore Responds,” the issue is Al Gore’s hypocrisy. When you’re finished with it, the issue is now “…and what are YOU doing to help the environment, like Al?” You have to admire it. They’ve been caught with their hands right in the cookie jar — or their buddy Al has, anyway — and they’ve turned it into a guilt trip on everybody else.

Five. This is just in the “frosting on the cake” department: The verbs and adjectives. Angry. Smear. Screaming. Desperate. You need to sprinkle these in, densely, as they’ve done, when you rely on spin instead of reason and common sense.

This is far too good to let go. You really don’t have to wait very long at all, in this politically charged climate, for The Left to come out with a scolding expose or rebuttal that hits two, three or even four of those. It is an occasion to bump into a single crown jewel covers all five so thoroughly, and that’s why this is a new yardstick by which similar scolding screeds will be measured.

One thing though. And a reasonably intelligent seventh-grader should be able to understand this. If you buy into the idea that Gore’s purchase of carbon offsets somehow vindicates him from the charge that he’s gulping through twenty times as much juice as the rest of us, then necessarily, you have to take it as proven that wherever the carbon offset revenue is going, it’s doing some good. Not only that, but that it is a hundred percent effective. And, that the offset-for-offset computation, weighed against the ecological-footprint size upon which it is based, is accurate. Pinpoint-accurate. Verifiably so. Remember, Al Gore is using up ten times two times You…the numbers stand unchallenged as his toadies and mooks have showered us with their predictable fury and spittle and righteous indignation. The numbers have not been disputed. Presumably, barring the arrival of new information, the numbers are accurate.

Gore is indeed using up all the power of a sorority house with hairdriers running full power, in all rooms, day and night. And yet — he stands blameless. Because of the carbon offset purchases. Which we must know, therefore, work every bit as reliably and as effectively as they’re supposed to…

…why and how, then, is there a global warming crisis? I mean, I don’t pretend to understand how the carbon offset program works, but it must work pretty well. Let’s just buy up enough carbon offsets to choke a horse, and pollute as much as we want. I mean, Al Gore has shown us how, and it must be okay if he’s doing it, right? By this logic, the situation is well under control. Where’s the crisis?

What The Record Says

Wednesday, February 21st, 2007

Now that the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has released the summary of it’s fourth assessment report, we’re all back to arguing about global warming. Just when everyone coast-to-coast is freezing their asses off. But of course an isolated weather pattern has nothing to do with global climate change. Really, it doesn’t. Except…six months from now when it’s too hot to go outside and do anything, and you’re tempted to connect your local discomfort to “global warming,” your nearest global-warming alarmist will utter nary a peep of scientific protest about this false connection you’ll be making. He’ll just rock back on his heels, smile, and whistle a happy tune.

But for now, they’re right. Global climate change is something you can’t see or feel for yourself.

Well while we’re back to arguing about it constantly, I can’t help but notice something. When we talk about long-past records, global warming skeptics would like to discuss temperature. Global warming alarmists, on the other hand, would like to talk about carbon dioxide. Because of this, for the most part neither one of the two camps will introduce any evidence that actually contradicts anything introduced by the other camp. And if you’re willing to accept what they both have to say, then this utterly devastates the connection made between carbon dioxide and the earth’s mean temperature.

Anyway. The article that appeared this morning by Pete du Pont in Opinion Journal nicely summarizes the argument for skepticism. It starts off with a rough overview of the history of earthly climate, at least what we know about it, but you should really go read the whole thing. Not a demanding reading assignment by any standard.

…looking back in history we see a regular pattern of warming and cooling. From 200 B.C. to A.D. 600 saw the Roman Warming period; from 600 to 900, the cold period of the Dark Ages; from 900 to 1300 was the Medieval warming period; and 1300 to 1850, the Little Ice Age.

During the 20th century the earth did indeed warm–by 1 degree Fahrenheit. But a look at the data shows that within the century temperatures varied with time: from 1900 to 1910 the world cooled; from 1910 to 1940 it warmed; from 1940 to the late 1970s it cooled again, and since then it has been warming. Today our climate is 1/20th of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was in 2001.

Another thing I like about this article is it nicely summarizes the (uncontested) facts about Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring and the DDT scare it caused. I found out during an impromptu horseshoe-arrangement water-cooler debate that Silent Spring has not lost any of its luster over the years as a golden calf among the environmentalists, and those inclined to give radical environmentalist causes undue amounts of attention and reverence. There are a lot of fairly intelligent and well-read folks walking around who don’t realize there’s even any disagreement about it.

Well look…it’s understandable that when half of us think the world is in imminent danger, and the other half of us do not, the half of us that are fearful are going to react emotionally. Fear is the most powerful emotion there is, and the quickest one to derail logic and common sense. So I don’t begrudge them that. But I’m awfully concerned about this new debate-within-the-debate about whether “the science is settled” or not.

It’s silly just on the face of it. Here we are debating about whether something’s unanimous. Now if we’re debating, that contradicts unanimity. A second-grader should be able to understand that.

And the other thing is this whole thing about science. Scientific methods are being claimed as the exclusive domain of those among us who do our arguing out of fear.

Most disturbing of all…those who come to the conclusion that the earth is in some kind of danger, and claim to have used scientific methods in arriving at that conclusion…if they find out about someone else who agrees with them, I notice they figure that person must have also used scientific methods in reaching his conclusion. Just because it’s the same one. The newcomer might have decided to agree just because the tea leaves told him to…and they don’t even consider this as a possibility. The conclusion reached, is being used as a litmus test for determining what methods were used, and the soundness of same.

Is that science? Hmmm?

Three Light Bulbs

Thursday, February 15th, 2007

While we’re on the subject of global you-know-what, don’t miss Phil’s excellent fisking of Lady Goodman.

It occurs to me that President Bush could truly become a uniter & not a divider, on both Iran and Iraq, by sending some white-coat propeller-beanie scientists guys out there to take measurements of carbon footprints. Once those numbers hit the press, I imagine our most strident liberals will want him impeached for not using military action against Iraq quickly enough…WMDs be damned.

The Panic of Yesteryear

Saturday, February 10th, 2007

You’ve heard the tighty-righties proclaim, and the lefty-loosies deny, that a generation ago we were all supposed to be shrieky and whiny about global cooling.

Well, for all who are naturally inclined to doubt, and/or have a short memory…here’s the stuff. Form whatever opinion you will, I’ve formed mine.

Memo For File XXXVII

Tuesday, February 6th, 2007

Among the “climate change skeptics” we are instructed to ignore on a daily basis, yesterday it was the canuck who was editorializing and he gave no quarter and held nothing back.

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
:
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970’s global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990’s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

But I thought the science was solid? Mark Steyn has something to say about that, h/t to blogger friend Rick.

From the “Environmental News Network”: “Science Is Solid on Climate Change, Congress Told.” “The science is solid,” says Louise Frechette, deputy secretary-general of the United Nations.

“The science is solid,” says Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

“The science is really solid,” says TV meteorologist Heidi Cullen. “The science is very solid.”

And at that point, on “Larry King Live” last week, Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at MIT, remarked: “Heidi says the science is solid and I can’t criticize her because she never says what science she’s talking about.”

Indeed. If the science is so solid, maybe they could drag it out to the Arctic for the poor polar bears to live on now that the ice is melting faster than a coed’s heart at an Al Gore lecture.

Alas, the science isn’t so solid. In the ’70s, it was predicting a new ice age. Then it switched to global warming. Now it prefers “climate change.” If it’s hot, that’s a sign of “climate change.” If it’s cold, that’s a sign of “climate change.” If it’s 53 with sunny periods and light showers, you need to grab an overnight bag and get outta there right now because “climate change” is accelerating out of control.

For those who care, Lindzen could be called dirty in the sense that he’s said to have personally received income from oil interests. Ross Gelbspan wrote an article for Harper’s Magazine clear back in 1995, instructing us to believe that the planet was heating up and that we are henceforth to ignore anyone saying otherwise, especially Lindzen. So our orders are quite clear on this.

Which begs the question. What about, just for the sake of argument, a climate-related dispute that is more easily measured? How about whether it’s raining outside right now? If you’re somehow in a position where you can’t find out, and one guy tells you it’s pouring and another guy tells you it’s all sunshine and blue sky and singing birds — does it matter who’s getting paid by whom?

I mean sure, one of those two guys has to be wrong. Is it the guy who’s making an income? Could be. Maybe. Probably? I’m not so sure. And in the dispute about anthropogenic global warming, you’ve got a situation where both guys are getting paid, since it doesn’t seem there’s a lot of public grant money flowing to these global warming skeptics. Not only does that somewhat excuse Dr. Lindzen — gotta make money somewhere, ya know — but it fairly devastates the “don’t listen to him because he’s getting paid” paradigm even under premises most favorable to it. We are to presume — with no evidence — that there is a reverse-correlation between cashing checks, and being right. Both sides are cashing checks. Your point?

The same muck is supposed to be sticking to Dr. Ball. Except…if you bother to pay attention to the details…not quite so much. His indictment has to do with advising Friends of Science. His page at SourceWatch, the liberal pro-global-warming tattletale reference, lists not a single other detail persuading me to ignore him for any reason at all. What of the FoS outfit? “In an August 12, 2006, The Globe and Mail revealed that the group had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry.” Huh. If they’re anonymous, how do you know they’re from the oil industry?

I took a peek at Globe and Mail article to find out.

Friends [of Science] dared not take money directly from energy companies. The optics, Mr. [Albert] Jacobs [geologist and retired oil-explorations manager] admits, would have been terrible.

This conundrum, he says, was solved by University of Calgary political scientist Barry Cooper, a well-known associate of Stephen Harper.

As his is privilege as a faculty member, Prof. Cooper set up a fund at the university dubbed the Science Education Fund. Donors were encouraged to give to the fund through the Calgary Foundation, which administers charitable giving in the Calgary area, and has a policy of guarding donors’ identities. The Science Education Fund in turn provides money for the Friends of Science, as well as Tim Ball’s travel expenses, according to Mr. Jacobs.

And who are the donors? No one will say.

“[The money’s] not exclusively from the oil and gas industry,” says Prof. Cooper. “It’s also from foundations and individuals. I can’t tell you the names of those companies, or the foundations for that matter, or the individuals.”

When pushed in another interview, however, Prof. Cooper admits, “There were some oil companies.”

Omigosh! So as the pro-global-warming movement spreads a whole lot of unfounded rumors about climate change, actively encouraging people to assess for themselves the merits of complicated climate models and the effect of greenhouse gases by — peeking out their windows and muttering about this hot summer or that mild winter — the oil companies are doing something besides taking it up the ass?

How ominous. I can hear that spooky organ music playing now.

But what I find really interesting is, relying on Source Watch to plumb the depths of whatever might slander Dr. Ball’s name so I don’t have to be burdened with reading through what he has to say…and that seems pretty safe — this is the extent of it. Dr. Ball gets his filthy lucre from FoS, FoS accepts private donations, and there’s oil companies in there. Somewhere. So I’ve heard.

You know…it just seems to me, if Dr. Ball has some firm evidence for what he’s claiming, that’s more important to the argument than how he pays his mortgage and buys his groceries. And if he doesn’t, well that would be more important too.

Beware Claims That It’s Settled

Monday, February 5th, 2007

It will destroy us all!The Review & Outlook section of Opinion Journal notes that the news cycle swirling around the latest report on climate change is chock full of B.U.F.:

Climate of Opinion
The latest U.N. report shows the “warming” debate is far from settled.
Monday, February 5, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

Last week’s headlines about the United Nations’ latest report on global warming were typically breathless, predicting doom and human damnation like the most fervent religious evangelical. Yet the real news in the fourth assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may be how far it is backpedaling on some key issues. Beware claims that the science of global warming is settled.

The document that caused such a stir was only a short policy report, a summary of the full scientific report due in May. Written mainly by policymakers (not scientists) who have a stake in the issue, the summary was long on dire predictions. The press reported the bullet points, noting that this latest summary pronounced with more than “90% confidence” that humans have been the main drivers of warming since the 1950s, and that higher temperatures and rising sea levels would result.

More pertinent is the underlying scientific report. And according to people who have seen that draft, it contains startling revisions of previous U.N. predictions. For example, the Center for Science and Public Policy has just released an illuminating analysis written by Lord Christopher Monckton, a one-time adviser to Margaret Thatcher who has become a voice of sanity on global warming.

Take rising sea levels. In its 2001 report, the U.N.’s best high-end estimate of the rise in sea levels by 2100 was three feet. Lord Monckton notes that the upcoming report’s high-end best estimate is 17 inches, or half the previous prediction. Similarly, the new report shows that the 2001 assessment had overestimated the human influence on climate change since the Industrial Revolution by at least one-third.

Seventeen inches by 2100. Huh.

Star Trek once had an episode called “Force of Nature” in the seventh season of The Next Generation, in which it was discovered the warp drive was slowly damaging the “fabric of space” or some such. That’s the one wherein Starfleet ordered an intragalactic speed limit of “Warp 5.” In the episode, the theory was proven. Remember how? Anybody?

A female alien scientist in a funny rubber mask threw her shuttlecraft into some kind of warp-thing, creating a rift, at the cost of her own life. She sacrificed herself to end the debate on whether there was a problem or not, and prove that there was.

It was obviously a comment on ecological issues in general, and perhaps on global warming in particular.

She killed herself in a dazzling display of pure altruism.

That’s fiction. In real life, it’s different…which is a problem because if “fans” of global warming who are also fans of Star Trek were intellectually honest for just a second or two, they’d have to concede the altruism was an important persuasive component to the message. Out here in the real world, nobody has behaved that way. Not one single damn time. Everybody who implores us to treat global warming as a serious threat, has something material to gain from our doing so. Material or otherwise.

Scientists are getting grant money, the U.N. is staying relevant, Al Gore is reviving his career somewhat, and so did Dennis Quaid. Hollywood’s made a lot of money off An Inconvenient Truth and The Day After Tomorrow.

The pattern continues. The Anthropogenic Global Warming movement wants more people to take it seriously. They want to win more converts. They would, if there was more demonstrable altruism to be seen, anywhere. And yet everyone who compels us to be more receptive to the idea, is making a buck off of it, is angling for attention, or else both apply. I know of no exceptions.

Global Warming Links

Wednesday, January 24th, 2007

Well my goodness, they have been piling up without me putting out even a half-assed effort to keep up with them, huh?

It’s a very important issue for our time. We know the earth is getting much warmer lately, and that man is the only cause of it. If we reform our infrastructure, put so many factories out of commission that the world’s major superpower is corrupting our environment no more than the northern tip of Switzerland, come what may — we just might live. If we don’t, we’ll drown in one bitchin’ tsunami after another.

We know this to be true. How do we know it? Because our Democrats really played up the Mark Foley scandal and they were able to b-a-r-e-l-y take over Congress, so President Bush was cowed last night into saying:

America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment – and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change. [emphasis mine]

So there ya have it. Congressman pervert sends nasty e-mails to page boys…new Congress…President says something…Presto. That’s the way we know things. Kind of reminds me of what Tommy Lee Jones said in Men in Black…a thousand years ago we knew the earth was the center of the universe, 500 years ago we knew the earth was flat and 5 minutes ago you knew we are alone in the universe. That is pretty much it. We “know” the earth is heating up and we “know” it’s our fault.

A few days ago I pulled this off the Wikipedia entry for the Weather Channel. I saved it because it looked useful, and in my opinion it did not comport with NPOV, the Neutral Point-of-View doctrine that is central to Wikipedia’s quality standards. See, I like NPOV myself, but I don’t think things have to be NPOV to be useful. You hear from both sides, however irrational and bigoted they may be, you’ll learn much more than if you just stick to the middle of the road.

But Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of practice. So it was easy to see, this was going to go away. So I saved it. Sure enough, it’s no longer there.

Controversies

On December 21, 2006, Dr. Heidi Cullen posted JUNK CONTROVERSY NOT JUNK SCIENCE… in The Weather Channel’s web site. Dr. Cullen’s posting took the position that American Meteorological Society (AMS) should strip the certification of any meteorologist that publicly questions that global warming is anything other than a manmade phenomenon. This position of marginalizing meteorologists who argue that recent weather variations may have a natural explanations struck many scientist as politically motivated and flawed. While Dr. Cullen and The Weather Channel denied any political motivation, the position generated significant editorial comment. JUNK CONTROVERSY NOT JUNK SCIENCE

The move away from scientific forecasting of the weather to sensationalized leftist political advocacy is in part due to the influence of Wonya Lucas, executive vice president and general manager of The Weather Channel Networks. Lucas admitted in a recent interview with Media Village that the reprogramming of The Weather Channel was influenced by her tenure at CNN when that network shifted from presenting straight news to personality-driven programming. The Weather Channel Takes on Global Warming

I saw that one coming. What surprised me, was the scolding tone of the person who I’m assuming was responsible for the removal. He could be talking about something else; I hope so.

We have an anon IP who is continually inserting right-slanted edits into the section on the 2007 blog controversy. For what it’s worth, while conservatives seem to be trying to make this into a cause celebre (and there is some indication that this may be an astroturf campaign), the vast majority of the scientific community considers it to be a right-wing temper tantrum and therefore a tempest in a teapot. It also does not help that said anon clearly lacks the scientific background to be making knowledgeable contributions to this section — no, you’re not required to have a PhD, but a back-of-the-envelope understanding of the basic issues involved (as well as a firm grasp of the scientific definition of “theory”) would go a long way towards knowing what is needed to comment knowledgeably.

As it is, the article fails to reflect both that anthrogenic global warming is in fact the accepted scientific consensus, and that the vast majority of Dr. Cullen’s critics are coming from the right side of the political spectrum. Thoughts? [emphasis mine]

If this is the fellow responsible for removing the section quoted above, I approve of the action but strongly deplore his reasoning. Since my objection is to the reasoning, I don’t suppose it very much matters whether there is any connection at all between the Wonya Lucas tidbit, and Mister “back of the envelope” boy. His is an exercise in Clean Thinking, which over the long term is responsible for nothing that’s helped us, ever. Did it belong in Wikipedia? Absolutely not. Am I better off not knowing it? Eh…I don’t think so…and I somewhat resent having secrets kept from me, and having some bill-o-goods sold to me that this dumbing-down is for my benefit.

Wonya LucasI like knowing about Wonya Lucas. She seems to be a big part of the story. Earlier this month Melanie Morgan wrote up an expose that you’ll never get any of these “purists” to take seriously, since it appeared in WorldNet Daily. But it’s good to know.

The Weather Channel debuted in 1982 and went on to earn a reputation as a well-known and respected cable network. The explosive success of the cable channel prompted the publication of a book marking the network’s 20th anniversary. That success has been based on the fact that weather forecasts are sought after by a vast number of Americans on a near-daily basis.

What had been nice about The Weather Channel is that through most of its history it stayed clear of political propaganda and focused on delivering weather forecasts to the nation, supplemented with riveting live reports from the front lines of hurricanes, winter blizzards and springtime floods.

But no more. The Weather Channel is now engaged in a con job on the American people, attempting to scare the public that their actions are destroying the planet by creating a global warming crisis.

The move away from scientific forecasting of the weather to sensationalized leftist political advocacy is in part due to the influence of Wonya Lucas, executive vice president and general manager of The Weather Channel Networks.

Lucas admitted in a recent interview with Media Village that the reprogramming of The Weather Channel was influenced by her tenure at CNN when that network shifted from presenting straight news to personality-driven programming.

Lucas decided that what was good for CNN was good for The Weather Channel, and the objectivity and respectability of the network has now been thrown out the window. It doesn’t matter that CNN’s turn to the left has caused their ratings to plummet; The Weather Channel’s embraced its model.

Media Village reported that the move by The Weather Channel “is intended to establish a broader perspective on the weather category and, says Lucas, to move the brand from functional to emotional.”

Emotional weather forecasting?

Good question. Mixing emotion and thinking can lead to some bad stuff. And some scientists are beginning to worry about it…just a little.

Problem is, global warming may not have caused Hurricane Katrina, and last summer’s heat waves were equaled and, in many cases, surpassed by heat in the 1930s.

In their efforts to capture the public’s attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming? It’s probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.

“Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster,” says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.

Now, I have been repeatedly instructed that I am supposed to believe “all” the scientists agree with the global warming mantra — the exceptions are limited to phony scientists who are “on the payroll of the energy industry.” I do not know if James Spann is on the payroll of the energy industry, but I’m confident that if he can be linked to it in any way, I’ll be told about it any minute now. Because he’s gone on the record and said something…unclean

The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.

If you don’t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.
:
I have nothing against “The Weather Channel”, but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won’t go.

So there ya have it. What we know about global warming, is that the earth has a “mean” temperature, and this temperature is subject to flux. Good thing that it is; what stays static, is limited to things that are dead. Tragically, we have linked the fluctuation to imminent death, when in reality it is a sign of life. The suggestion of doom, thanks to executives like Lucas, has caused a surge of adrenaline to inundate the issue and everything that touches it.

We have much written about it. Some of it is very well-thought-out and balanced, and some of it is anything but.

But the bottom-line is, as far as what everyone wants to know about — the theory that we’re causing our own imminent destruction — it’s probably a crock.

All our models of the earth climate are incomplete. That’s why they keep changing, and that’s why climate scientists keep finding surprises. As Rummy used to say, there are a ton of “unknown unknowns” out there. The real world is full of x’s, y’s and z’s, far more than we can write little models about. How do you extract the human contribution from a vast number of unknowns?

That’s why constant testing is needed, and why it is so frustrating to do frontier science properly.

Science is difficult because nature always has another surprise in store for us, dammit! Einstein rejected quantum mechanics, and was wrong about that. Newton went wrong on the proof of calculus, a problem that didn’t get solved until 1900. Scientists are always wrong — they are just less wrong now than they were before (if everything is going well).

Time Machine Lunacy

Tuesday, January 23rd, 2007

It occurs to me that if one wants to be committed to a looney-bin, without lying about anything or deceiving anyone in any way, a time machine set to the right year will do the trick. The right year, and a carefully-selected tidbit of factual disclosure.

Hello good people of 2006! I’m from the future. Democrats are going to take over Congress, and one of the first things they’ll do is ask for direction from those whackjobs at DailyKOS. You think I kid! I’m as serious as a heart attack.

See what I mean? Off you go, and here’s your straightjacket. And yet…here we are.

Hello good people of 2005! I’m from the future. Democrats are blaming George Bush for hurricanes. Yes. They really, truly are.
Hello 2004! George Bush is thought by many to be the most “hated” President ever, and it looks like he is, even though he’s won more popular votes than any President in history.

It’s just awfully tough for me to believe we would be allowed to keep our freedom as responsible, sane people, after uttering such drivel. It all makes sense now; in fact, in some quarters you’ll be subjected to some form of verbal assault if you don’t go along with it. But we wouldn’t be able to explain it to the people of yesteryear. We’re like the frog sitting in a pot of water, raised to a rolling boil degree-by-degree.

Hello 2003! We have captured Saddam Hussein and he’s been executed; we’re having a lively debate about whether this makes the world any safer. The folks who think it was a bad move, have pretty much won the debate, even though they are never — ever — called upon to say what should have been done differently.
Hello 2002! Evidence has been produced that the people in the U.N. voting against an invasion of Iraq, are on Saddam Hussein’s payroll through the oil-for-food program. To the tune of billions of dollars. What are we doing to bring them to justice? Nothing. Actually, hardly anyone ever talks about it.
Hello 2001! I dunno what to say to you…just hug your kids. And may God be with you.
Hello 2000! If you give Republicans control of all three branches of government, Democrats will try their very best to win you back by…calling you a bunch of fucking goddamned idiots and hoping that will change your mind. Ultimately, it will.
Hello 1999! Don’t worry about President Clinton’s legacy. He’s doing more to try to hide it, than anyone.
Hello 1998! Arnold Schwarzenegger is the governor of California.
Hello 1997! Little kids are going to start performing oral sex on each other because the President said it wasn’t really sex. He’s going to stay just as popular as he is now, if not moreso.
Hello 1996! We’re debating about whether Saddam Hussein was ever a dangerous fucknozzle; the people who insist he was a harmless misunderstood old teddy-bear, are winning.
Hello 1995! We got a “Pelosi Revolution” that’s just like your “Gingrich Revolution.” It involved between a quarter and a third as many House seats changing hands, as what you just went through…but our media tells us it means far, far more. And you wouldn’t believe how differently they’re treating it. It’s working, too.
Hello 1994! Your “co-President” is going to get her husband’s ass handed to him in the upcoming mid-terms with her socialized-medicine scheme. It’s going to make history — and yet, twelve years later, she’s going to start pushing the same product all over again, running for President “in her own right.”
Hello 1993! I’m from the future. Your brand-new President is going to lie to you. About a marital affair. On television. Waggling his finger at the cameras…and I mean that literally. And then he’s going to get caught by his own spunk, spurted all over a blue dress. DNA tests and everything. He won’t be run out of town on a rail, in fact, there will be a cult following devoted to him and how he “got away with it.”
Hello 1992! James Bond is gone for awhile, but eventually he’s going to come back. But while you’re settling into this era of political-correctness and female-friendliness, I can’t begin to describe what you’re about to do to the White House.
Hello 1991! Saddam Hussein’s going to be left in charge. This will be proven to be the wrong decision. The United Nations will make every single mistake about him they possibly can, including — get this — taking billions of dollars in bribes from Saddam himself, to veto enforcement of Resolutions 678 and 687. And yet, I daresay, there is no one in my time who is opposed to the U.N., who isn’t also opposed to it in yours. Not a soul, so far as I know.
Hello 1990! In about five years, it will become highly fashionable for mens’ pants to slip WAY down so their butt cracks stick out. You won’t be able to get away from it, and it will remain highly fashionable for about a dozen years.

These things make some measure of sense to us because we’ve been acclimated to them slowly. They would make sense in no other time.

On What We Call “Science” II

Friday, January 19th, 2007

There is a problem with “Science”. It has to do with two definitions for the word, one of which is more reasonable but falling out of favor, the other of which is counterproductive but rapidly achieving complete dominance.

I wonder which word this blog is trying to use?

Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval.

Thus speaketh Dr. Heidi Cullen, climate change expert. Thank you for proving my point, Dr. Cullen. Science is not about what is known, what is unknown, what is theorized, etc…it’s about opinions, and institutions awarding seals-of-approval for having the correct ones.

This becomes abundantly clear when one reviews what set her off:

Capitalweather.com, a website for hard-core weather junkies in the DC area, recently published an interview with a local meteorologist that highlights the unfortunate divide that exists right now between the climate and weather communities. Yup, that divide is global warming. When asked about the science of global warming, the meteorologist responded:

“The subject of global warming definitely makes headlines in the media and is a topic of much debate. I try to read up on the subject to have a better understanding, but it is complex. Often, it is so politicized and those on both sides don’t always appear to have their facts straight. History has taught us that weather patterns are cyclical and although we have noticed a warming pattern in recent time, I don’t know what generalizations can be made from this with the lack of long-term scientific data. That’s all I will say about this.”

Yeesh. “I don’t know what generalizations can be made from this…” and away she goes. For withholding your seal of certainty, you should be defrocked of the seal of approval. Only those who are certain, and say so, can be approved. You want to stay approved — be certain. That’s the job.

Science? Is it? Is it really?

Update 1-20-07:
Dr. Cullen responds to her critics:

I am a scientist. And I’m a skeptic.

AND after more than a century of research — based on healthy skepticism — scientists have learned something very important about our planet. It’s warming up — glaciers are melting, sea level is rising and the weather is changing. The primary explanation for this warming is the carbon dioxide released from — among other things — the burning of fossil fuels.

With that knowledge comes responsibility.

Here at The Weather Channel, we have accepted that responsibility, and see it as our job to give YOU the facts on global warming.

Our position on global warming is supported by the scientific community … including the American Meteorological Society. Their official statement says:

“There is convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents in the atmosphere, have become a major agent of climate change.”

I’ve read all your comments saying I want to silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the science of global warming. That is not true. The point of my post was never to stifle discussion. It was to raise it to a level that doesn’t confuse science and politics. Freedom of scientific expression is essential. [emphasis mine]

Excuse me — this poor s.o.b. says, and I quote…”I don’t know what generalizations can be made from this with the lack of long-term scientific data. That’s all I will say about this.” And Dr. Cullen goes off on him. She wants the AMS credentials withheld. The guy doesn’t have the right position on this to be blessed by the AMS.

Now she says the point was never to stifle discussion.

Am I characterizing her screed unfairly? She doesn’t want to “confuse science and politics.” The object of her criticism lacks confidence in something, and simply comments that he doesn’t have the confidence in it to comment beyond a certain point. It seems well-established that Dr. Cullen has castigated the poor fellow not for what he did say, but for what he did not say. There is not, so far as I can tell, a substantial disagreement about what evidence has been presented; the issue is what to make of the evidence. Heidi Cullen’s entire argument is based on the premise that some kind of line has been crossed — all who express doubt, are political propagandists and should be labeled as such. “True” scientists have their minds made up.

That’s the exact opposite of what “science” used to be.

It’s sad, really. She’s trying to invalidate the perception of critics like me, and just about every sentence she puts down provides greater support for what we’ve said. Through authorities like Dr. Cullen, science is getting into the opinion business.

Throughout most of recorded human history, we’ve had something called “science.” It’s steered us in a beneficial direction, and it’s plunged us deeply into thickets and bunny-trails that have been proven wrong hundreds of years later. The pattern that emerges, is that it’s had an illuminating effect on things when it sticks to the facts, and it’s sent us off in the wrong direction when it’s done what Dr. Cullen wants it to do.

The lesson seems to be that if you want to know how things work, you’re only going to make sound progress in figuring this out if you keep in mind what is certain and what is not. In other words, know what it is you don’t know. Based on everything she’s written about this, Heidi Cullen hasn’t impressed me as doing as good a job at this, as those placed under her criticism.

Uphold First Amendment Or Resign

Tuesday, December 19th, 2006

Some damn dirty foreigner is telling our politcians what to do, and to resign if they don’t do what he says. Well, this time, I’m on the damn dirty foreigner’s side. And it’s not because I agree with the damn dirty foreigner’s position, which I do. It’s because the damn dirty foreigner didn’t bring up the matter of U.S. politicians doing what damn dirty foreigners say. The objects of his excoriation, on the other hand, are the ones who brought it up. Yeah that’s right. They started it, and he finished it.

Lord Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, has sent an open letter to Sens. Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe, which says in part…

It is inappropriate for elected Senators such as yourselves to suggest that any person should refrain from exercising that right [to free speech], as you have done in your letter of October 27 to the CEO of ExxonMobil. That great corporation has exercised its right of free speech – and with good reason – in openly providing support for scientists and groups that dare to question how much the increased concentration of CO2 in the air may warm the world. You must honour the Constitution, withdraw your letter and apologize to ExxonMobil, or resign as Senators.

You defy every tenet of democracy when you invite ExxonMobil to deny itself the right to provide information to “senior elected and appointed government officials” who disagree with your opinion. You are elected officials yourselves. If you do not believe in the right of persons within the United States to exercise their fundamental right under the world’s greatest Constitution to petition their elected representatives for the redress of their grievances, then you have no place on Capitol Hill. You must go.

No question about it, Lord Monckton is a “Must-Tard.” Which is this blog’s terminology for persons who seem incapable of stating their position on anything, without using words like “must,” “ought,” “should,” “gotta.” In other words, folks who want short-circuit the cogitative process, by leap-frogging forward to the thing that needs to be done. Often, because they can’t state, to others or to themselves, how and why they think it should be done. And usually, such persons are from Europe.

But Lord Monckton is a must-tard who is not only able to articulate why it is the thing must be done…but he makes a water-tight case. Upholding the Constitution, after all, is a duty sworn by all members of Congress when they begin or renew their services. Surely it makes very little sense, to have a Congress curtailed from prohibiting speech, but able to bully whoever it wants when it comes to funding certain positions.

What was the original letter sent by the Senators to the CEO of Exxon-Mobil? James Taranto wrote it up recently; the full text is here. Excerpt below:

We are convinced that ExxonMobil’s longstanding support of a small cadre of global climate change skeptics, and those skeptics access to and influence on government policymakers, have made it increasingly difficult for the United States to demonstrate the moral clarity it needs across all facets of its diplomacy.

Obviously, other factors complicate our foreign policy. However, we are persuaded that the climate change denial strategy carried out by and for ExxonMobil has helped foster the perception that the United States is insensitive to a matter of great urgency for all of mankind, and has thus damaged the stature of our nation internationally. It is our hope that under your leadership, ExxonMobil would end its dangerous support of the “deniers.” Likewise, we look to you to guide ExxonMobil to capitalize on its significant resources and prominent industry position to assist this country in taking its appropriate leadership role in promoting the technological innovation necessary to address climate change and in fashioning a truly global solution to what is undeniably a global problem.

And I believe that explains my earlier comments. Where in tarnation does Lord Monckton get off telling us what to do? Where, indeed. The Senators started it; he finished it. From out of a relative vaccuum, emerged this dictum that it is a priority of paramount importance, or of relatively high importance, that research by private interests in the United States, should only be carried out if the damn dirty foreigners would approve of it.

And along comes a damn dirty foreigner who disagrees with the dictum. Maybe the dictum is still right; maybe the damn dirty foreigner is wrong; but if that is the case, an unworkable contradiction has been knotted together, and it seems to possess a certain Gordian quality to it such that it can only be undone by sword. We’re beholden to the damn dirty foreigners, only when the damn dirty foreigners agree we’re beholden to them, but we should ignore what the damn dirty foreigners have to say when they remind us of our own Constitution? How in the world would that work?

I hate to say it, but the Constitution is a decidedly second priority here. No, I really think so. The Constitution is a bunch of rules that tell us what we should and should not do. Science, on the other hand, is what we know — and, like the Constitution, science has its neck stretched across a chopping block as well. Look what you’ve got going on here; just look at it. We have two members of our upper legislative house releasing an open letter. The letter says hey — scientists are to agree with us, or else they are not to be funded. In fact, they aren’t scientists at all, they are “a small cadre of global climate change skeptics.”

Now, elsewhere, as water pipes freeze and then as sidewalks get so hot you can fry bacon on ’em…all around the year…we’re going to hear from several outlets “scientists are (more or less) unanimous about the man-made influences on global climate change.” Unanimous means all. All the scientists agree — is that before, or after, the inquisition has come along to silence the “small cadre”?

Rockefeller and Snowe make reference to an “echo chamber” of skepticism, and to a “climate change denial confederacy.” There is a campaign to muscle, to bully, to intimidate, to coerce, to silence anybody who doesn’t toe the line on global warming, especially if they’re scientists. We know this campaign exists. We know it for a fact. Rockefeller and Snowe, are just the ones who’ve had the balls to make their threats public, under the auspices of enabling “the United States to demonstrate the moral clarity it needs across all facets of its diplomacy.”

Those two are open with their threats. God only knows how many thugs are not.

Is this what we’re supposed to call “science”? It isn’t what I call science.

Smug Alert!

Sunday, December 10th, 2006

So Buck fell asleep in front of the TV, and as a result we get a reference to one of the best South Park episodes ever.

If patriotism involves being smug about what you drive, I need to be jailed for treason. I haven’t even been shopping for anything. Cars…to me, they are like deoderant. They get the job done, or they don’t. If the old one is used up, you buy a new one. Eighteen years I’ve been waiting…it’s still going…no need to buy a new one yet. Maybe if Ol’ Bessie could talk, she’d beg to be put out of her misery. But she still goes.

Now, if we’re talking smugness because of odometer readings, that’s a different thing entirely (I’m 5th from the bottom).