More Global Warming: The Rebuttal

This next section is my reply:

I certainly do not discount global warming as a possibility, but the science just doesn't support it. If things were as bad as they claim, it would be increasing, not holding in temperature as it has for the last 10-15 years. Also, I feel these folks wouldn't be flitting around in jets as much as they do (1 trip averaging as much carbon emmissions as a family of 4 with 2 cars will during a whole year).

To me, the whole question of anthropogenic global warming is a scam of both monetary and political motivations (although, it may be impossible to separate these two under any circumstances).

Does mankind need to clean up their act? Absolutely. I am not for pollution, but rather responsible stewardship of the planet. But I deny that global warming is anything more than a temporary trend, and I certainly deny that mankind is ultimately responsible for it.

As you said, the earth has cyclical weather periods of both warming and cooling. Do we understand what causes these? No, not at all. The attempts by "pop-scientists" to explain the phenomena and to stir the public into a frenzy are shameful, and it is this I protest against. I point for example a similar attempt to the current global warming debacle in the 60's-70's, when scientists warned of an impending ice age. They can't have it both ways, but as the recent heavy snow storms in the north east showed, they certainly try.

I'm for responsible science, not half-truths and distorted evidence, which is what the AGW crowd so righteously display as "proof" that the world is warming and that it's all mankind's fault. The recent revelations of distorted global temperatures have thrown the whole arguement into the doubt. There have been allegations they not only have they (the scientific establishment studying GW) falsified global temperature readings, but now ice core readings and tree ring data. Any scientist who disagrees is branded a "blasphemer" and "heretic", and is generally rejected by their peers. This is not the scientific method. Unfortunately, proof for or against global warming is just not out there. The data has been too distorted at this point and what data is available is debatable by both sides.

These attempts to play into people's natural sense of guilt at destroying their environment in order to generate more money and political clout are maddening to me. If the science were sound at least, you wouldn't hear anything from me. As it stands, this is more like a cult than a scientific fact. Try arguing with AGW believers.

I firmly remain a skeptic concerning this issue, and will likely remain so until (and it will never happen) the scientific establishment quits working with a political agenda.

Seriously, Put Down the Cool-Aid

Time proposes that the recent heavy snowfall on the East coast is because of Global Warming.

Oh, how I wish I were kidding. They are completely serious.

So, if this is the case...all those record snows from the 1950's were also Global Warming? Oh wait, according to "scientific" data, Global Warming didn't start to occur until after that. And nevermind that the Earth has actually cooled during the last decade (hey, it's their figures, not mine). And that ALL of the "scientific" data about Global Warming is under attack as completely bogus and made-up. And that pretty much everyone with an ounce of sense has determined that Global Warming is a scam to scare the sheeple and make butt-loads of money.

The only ones who still believe in Global Warming are the religious zealots and the gullible.

Update: The EPW Senate Committee's hearing on Global Warming Impacts, Including Public Health, in the United States has been postponed due to snow. :D It's the little things....

Quoting Uncle

Uncle, of SaysUncle.com, is an old friend of mine, and over the years we've had many interesting conversations.

Uncle, as you can imagine, has quite the lively imagination.

One of my favorites was his definitions. Believe it or not, Uncle has a degree in psychology. His definition for psychology is *ahem* interesting. He claims that the word "psychology" is from the Greek "Psyche", or the mind, and "-ology", to make stuff up. Literally, he translates it as psychology means to make stuff up about the mind. Funny stuff.

Well, taking his definition a bit farther, we have climatology, or to make stuff up about the climate.

If you read here on a semi-regular basis, you'll know I think global warming is totally made up. We just don't have enough climate data to predict what's coming and what the causes are. Saying mankind is responsible for global warming is even more ludicrous when you look at the polution emitted by volcanoes each year. Sorry guys, but mankind's polution has been a drop in the bucket comparitively speaking. I'm not saying I'm for raping the earth, strip mining, and wholesale polution. I'm actually for being environmentally sound and keeping our home clean. What I am against is white guilt.

White (caucasian) people seem to have this obsessive need to feel guilty about stuff. Whether it be destroying the Earth or slavery or shipping butt-loads of guns to Mexico (see the Mexican Gun Canard), we seem to have this innate desire to blame ourselves for it. We really need to get over this obsession.

Let's face it. We really don't know what causes global warming or global cooling or Al Gore. They're forces of nature and right now, we just don't know enough to truly understand it. Until we do, we need to lay off the blame game and spend our resources figuring out what's really going on instead of playing political games.

Speaking of which: Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out
That's a fairly even look at the current trend in global warming, or lack there-of, and the narrow-mindedness of some scientists who completely deny their own data. I can see why, though. No one will pay you to figure out what to do about global warming if there isn't any.

It's all about the benjamins, I guess.

Mini-Ice Age?

David Rose at Mail Online seems to think so.

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

I'm not believing anyone anymore without a ton of data that can be reviewed by independent scientists, whether for global-warming or -cooling (data, not the scientists).

Personally, I just know it's freakin' cold.

Update: And here's why I just don't trust these guys anymore.  The above information is factually true, but it's still not right (as in right-in-the-head).  Yeah, the arctic summer sea ice has increased, but it's still way the **** down compared to where it was even 5 years ago.  It looks like it's fluctuating pretty heavily, but it's been a steady downward trend since 1978.  That doesn't mean I believe in man-made global warming, but it's definitely something that should be studied.  Compared to the lifespan of the earth, there's just not enough data.  Thirty years is nothing.  I'm not saying ignore it, but I'm also not saying go off half-cocked.  The Earth is a very complex place, and thinking we understand it is the height of arrogance.

Texas, Utah tell EPA to Get Stuffed

Both Texas and Utah's legislatures aren't too sure on this whole GLOBAL WARMING business and have politely requested that the EPA rethink "...its carbon dioxide reduction policies, programs, and regulations until climate data and global warming science are substantiated...."

LOL, sorry, couldn't resist.  Nah, they weren't that polite.  And as well they shouldn't be.  It's a crock of monetarily and politically motivated B.S.  The temps, they aren't a 'risin', and all the data presented thus-far is unsubstantiated at best (and tinkered with, at worst). 

Utah Legislature may tell EPA global warming not proven
Texas to fight EPA on global warming

What About Cult Didn't You Understand?

Meteorologists Attack Global Warming, NYT Recommends Reeducation Camps

That leads in to a NYT article today, Among Weathercasters, Doubt on Warming. The NYT admits that there may not be quite a consensus on anthropogenic global warming [AGW], particularly among meteorologists, a very significant number of whom openly describe AGW as a "scam." That said, the NYT does nothing to hide its own bias, and in the end, quotes from several anthropogenic global warming [AGW] proponents who assure us that it is all a simple case of misunderstanding, nothing that a few months in reeducation camps for dissident meteorologists won't solve.

Good article, but bring some pop-corn. It's a long read.

Global Cooling. I'm Sorry, What?

The media is jumping on the bandwagon of "GLOBAL WARMING is made up!", but they've got to have something to scare the pants off people. USA Today is running this article: Global cooling: What happens if the Iceland volcano blows.

I'll tell you what we need to do. Everyone go buy an SUV and start using spray-on deoderant again. Oh, and someone go wake up Al Gore. We are apparently going to need some more GLOBAL WARMING soon.

Continuing the Conversation: Global Warming

More from my friend:

I think the easiest way to respond to your response is to do it directly to each part, thus keeping the discussion on track. So here we go!

Here is a simple way that science supports it. 1- Carbon in the air retains heat from the sun more than carbon on or in the ground. This is the greenhouse effect, and I propose that it is indisputable. 2 - Humans are doing things that are putting carbon into the air. Again, this is indisputable. Therefore, more heat from the sun is being retained than would be without the intervention of humans, and this therefore is indisputable.

Can we detect the effects of this extra retained heat? That is much more complicated.

Folks flitting around in jets should be irrelevant to the science. There can be many reasons why they do it. I don't think they should unless it's totally necessary, but I can't control them...

Is it all a scam? Again, this is not really about science. I find it very unlikely that so many different people could participate in a 'scam' of this magnitude. There are too many different motivations involved, many of which would naturally lead to exposing the 'scam.' Scientists don't care about being mainstream. In fact, going against the consensus can often lead to the biggest career gains. Scientists love a theory being proved wrong as much as they do seeing it proved right.

Is mankind ultimately responsible for global warming? That is what the whole of science is trying to figure out. Most people are not comfortable with the ambiguity, but scientists are. Scientists are able to say 'maybe, yes, no, it seems to lead in that direction' and continue on sciencing! So we are currently in a state of 'it seems to lead in that direction.' It is the populace and the politics who want the answer to be 'yes, or no.' For the Scientists to all be able to agree on 'yes,' would require more data and more time. And if we were talking about another planet with no life on it, we could just sit around and wait and watch.

To say we do not understand what causes the Earth's periods of warming and cooling at all is a vast exaggeration. We actually understand a lot about it. We don't know every detail that causes it, and the many variables makes it very complicated, but we do have a firm foundation of science about it.

I think it's wrong to group everyone together ('pop-scientists.') That seems like a defense (or offense?) mechanism designed to make it easy to call everyone with a viewpoint not in your favor, wrong. It's probably more accurate to simply listen to and respond to each scientist individually. A scientist's 'agenda' is to find the truth, not to parrot what everyone else is saying. If many scientists are saying the same thing, that more likely indicates a valid line of reasoning, rather than a mass conspiracy. This is a good time to consider the use of Occam's Razor.

I haven't answered him yet, and will likely not have time to do so this week. I'll post my response when I get to it. In the meantime, if anyone has anything they'd like to pass along, feel free to let me know. :D

Rise in Idiocy Responsible for Stupid Articles

Ancient Antartic Mountains Found Under Miles of Ice

The article declares that:

"the research also looked at deep-sea isotope records and theorized there was a period of global cooling, called the Eocene, between 52 and 34 million years ago, that eventually led to the formation of the polar ice caps. Then came two progressively dramatic periods of cooling, which scientists have linked to a decline in naturally-produced greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere".

No s%*t, Sherlock. The Discovery channel and it's brand of pop-science once again declares the obvious with blatant authority. The part that really set me off about this was that even with that brilliant observation, they said:

"the same gases that, now man-made, are blamed for global warming today".

Prove it, a$$holes. Sadly, I still think the Discovery channel line-up is the best on cable TV, but I really hate the global warming crap.

I blame Al Gore.

Breakin' the Law

German Physicists Trash Global Warming “Theory”

Dr Gerlich debunks AGW and shows that the IPCC “consensus” atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics.

When Will the Hurting Stop?

I really hate it for the GLOBAL WARMING crowd. Everytime Al Gore opens his mouth, he stuffs both feet in.

Does the man not know people can check their facts?

Al's latest global-warming whopper

So what was it, exactly, that Gore's nameless scientists "have long pointed out"? A 2008 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "Climate Change and Water," says climate models "project precipitation increases in high latitudes and part of the tropics." In other areas, the IPCC reports only "substantial uncertainty in precipitation forecasts."

In other words, the IPCC said that its models predicted some increases in rain or snow -- not observed them. And only in high latitudes or the tropics, which hardly describes New York or Washington, DC.

In fact, recent research actually contra dicts Gore's claims about "significantly more water moisture in the atmosphere."

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/al_latest_global_warming_whopper_TolFbG2ccT5XPtKtXoOx0L#ixzz0h1iSmzOM

Tree-Ring Circus

Lord Monckton Defends His Comparing Eco-Activists to ‘Hitler Youth’
(which I feel is the most awesome statement of anyone during this whole climate scandal thingy)



The Wages of Climategate

Climategate's progress has left plenty of wreckage in its path, including ruined careers, damaged institutions, and a deeply chastened scientific establishment.

and for the trifecta:
The Copenhagen Climate summit starts to fall apart at the seams already

Again, let me re-iterate for those who haven't been here before:  I'm not pro-pollution.  I'm anti-stupidity.  IF (and that's a big 'if') global warming is real, I need to see proof, not half-a$$ed research from Googling a bunch of web-pages.  Global warming is big business, and I'm leary of any 'science' that has that much money swirling around it.  Just remember Mark Twain's words about statistics (you can Google that one yourself).

Let Me Make Sure I've Got This Right...

Global warming will cause an ice age, and apparently damned quickly at that.

Just wanted to make sure I was catching what they're throwing.

Actually, this is the best information I've seen on the whole global warming-thingy, and I can buy into this one. So, stock up on kerosene and blankets. Gotcha. I was planning on doing that anyway.

Kerosene soaked blankets make zombies burn real good.

Global Warming: The Rebuttal

A good friend and I have been discussing GLOBAL WARMING on Facebook. His arguements are very well reasoned and thought-out. With his permission, I'm going to post our conversations here to offer an alternative viewpoint on the subject.

When I first was seeing your posts on this subject, I thought you were joking or being somehow sarcastic. But I now think I was wrong, so I thought it might help me understand the issue better if we discuss it. It's 3 am and I can't sleep anyway, so I'll just write out my thoughts on this.

If we look at this scientifically and not politically, what can we deduce? We can some things that happened in the past and compare them to what is happening now, combine that with our knowledge of physics to make a guess as to what might happen in the future.

To see into the past, we can look at the ice cores. They tell us that the temperature of the Earth fluctuates, and that the concentration of atmospheric gases fluctuates seemingly in correlation.

Calculating the fluctuating movements of the earth shows a relationship between that and temperature. Less sun hitting us changes things here.

But we are smart enough to realize that these changes are not linearly causal. There are compound effects that we poorly understand due to their immense complexity. Higher temperatures might lead to more water vapor, which might mean even more trapped heat (water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas), or maybe it means LESS trapped heat due to the formation of more clouds and thus an enhanced albedo effect. It might be one or both; we are not sure.

We know about the other greenhouse gasses, CO2 and Methane especially. It is simple physics that shows us that a planet with more of those gasses will have more heat because of them. And of course Venus shows us exactly how that works. All we have to do is look over there.

We also know that we are putting out enormous amounts of Carbon into the air. Any idiot knows it's coming out of his car, although much more is coming from our industrial efforts and large scale fossil fuel energy systems. From the ice cores, we can see that CO2 levels are rising dramatically since about the time of our industrial revolution. Since 1959 we've been monitoring the CO2 levels in Hawaii, and watching them rise and rise.

So we know without a doubt the we are doing something to the atmosphere (putting gasses in it.) And we know without a doubt that the Earth's temperature can change drastically. And we know without a doubt that gasses can affect temperature. And we know without a doubt that glaciers are receding, meaning more water instead of ice (simply compare old photos to modern.) But we are not sure exactly what will happen.

So we make our best scientific guesses and debate them. Most of the scientists on our planet think that all of this will add up to dramatically increased global temperature. It is often said, and I'm paraphrasing of course, 'once you really start to understand some of the science about how the Earth's interrelated systems work, you realize how drastically things can change through seemingly minor alterations.'

So even though we don't know how our alterations to the climate will affect things, us humans continue to pump CO2 and Methane into the air. And not just that; we don't know how much of what we do can change the environment. Our planes leave contrails adding to the albedo effect. Will this cool the Earth? Will it cancel out any temperature increase due to greenhouse emissions? We simply do not know.

And that is how science works! We don't claim to know; we look at the evidence and make our best scientific guess. Then modify that guess as more evidence comes in.

But unfortunately, the Earth does not care what temperature it is, whether it has an atmosphere that humans like, or how much of it's surface is water, ice or land. Physics will happen at it's own rate, not at a rate tailored to us, or our understanding of it. If the temperature of the Earth can change to that which makes it impossible for humans to survive (or just very difficult,) it seems wise for us to try to control that change in our favor.

Since we have no efficient method for removing large amounts of CO2 from the air (trees can be quite efficient at it, but we are chopping them down far faster than they are growing,) the prudent thing to do would be to stop adding CO2 to the air, until we understand better how this could change the climate. If most of the world's scientist then decide that it wouldn't hurt, then hey, let's pump out as much as we want (of course we should realize that fossil fuels are a limited resource and keep an eye out for a new energy source once they become scarce.)

But what if, as most scientist now believe, any causal relationship between greenhouse gasses and temperature is actually offset by a matter of years? This means that if the CO2 is to blame, stopping the release of CO2 NOW will not stop the temperature increase for a matter of years. It takes time for the added gas to have it's effect. If that is the case, then it is possible to reach the 'tipping point' before you realize it. Much like upon crossing the event horizon for a very large black hole. You don't know that you have passed the point of no return.

Is there such a tipping point? Looking at Venus seems to indicate that there is. And we can imagine many ways that there could be. Such as - higher temperatures lead to more water vapor, which leads to more heat retention, which leads to higher temperatures, causing a positive feedback loop. If such a tipping point is possible, and it is possible to reach it without noticing, then we should be careful about how we push and pull the environment, and only do so deliberately and in our favor.

So what do you think? Is there an action, or inaction, that is more prudent? And why?

The Code Don't Lie

I've avoided talking about the leaked CRU data and e-mails floating around on Al Gore's internets. Not because I wouldn't want to gloat. Nope, because I was afraid it was a bogus attempt to sling some crap. I figured the information was either totally made-up or taken way out of context.

But now I and others have had an opportunity to review the code, I can say I now believe it. Yep, Global-Warmers altering data to fit their hypotheses. Who would've thunk it?

Watts Up With That? broke the original story and continues working to bring the shameful hoax that is global warming into the light of scrutiny.

Carry on, brothers.

Greenies, Hippies, and Moonbats - Oh My!

Tomorrow is the 39th anniversary of Earth Day. Yep, thirty-nine years of them telling us how much we're screwing up the Earth and what schmucks we are. Global guilt. These are the same a$$hats who tell us that global warming is real. You all know what I think of that.

It seems the Greenies are coming out of the closet and declaring their true colors this year (and no, I don't mean green). This year, they're linking religion, specifically Christianity, with the destruction of the Earth. Riiiight.

So, I say to all non-moonbats, go forth and combat this insipid mindless pop-science. Find the answers for yourself and quit listening to those spouting nonsense without concrete data. Decide for yourself. And for God's sake, let's leave the anti-religion propaganda out, ok? Wait, I take that back. Go ahead, Mr. Moonbat. Feel free to mix it in. Maybe more people will realize that you're only trying to replace one religion for another.

Maybe We Can Make a New Category

Science fiction is a bit broad.  Perhaps we can narrow it down to specialties.  The first of course will be Climate Fiction.

Gary Sutton, of Forbes, talks about how climatola-gits (and that's not a mis-spelling) have gotten it wrong and basically why.  It's like I said: Follow the benjamins.

I remember the "ice-age" scare of the 70's.  Being an avid reader, I even have some books from the period discussing it.  Those same books are what made me suspicious of global warming when I first heard of it.

Maybe we should have another category as well: Pop science fiction

For Those Who Think "It Can't Be a Scam"

Climate scientists plot to fight back at skeptics via the Washington Times

Undaunted by a rash of scandals over the science underpinning climate change, top climate researchers are plotting to respond with what one scientist involved said needs to be "an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach" to gut the credibility of skeptics.

Nope, no conspiracy here.

Update: The Sky Is Falling – On Global Warming

Update again: Even NASA/GISS have been manipulating data. No scam indeed. Via Uncle.

What an Ice-hole

Did Al Gore visit the UK?

Apparently it's so freakin' cold, even the sea is icing over. Global warming, go figure.

Sorry, We Only Know One Song

This is getting laughable. The boogie-man, man-bear-pig, otherwise known as GLOBAL WARMING, is now responsible for the death of the dinosaurs (slight hyperbole there - what they say is 'mass extinctions').

Seriously, don't you guys know any other tunes?