Archives for the month of: October, 2012

I watched PBS Frontline earlier tonight, and I wrote the following, and sent it to Frontline comments and the PBS ombudsman.

Being in general conservative, I rarely watch Frontline, as your progressive views offend me, but I heard via Mr. Anthony Watts’ blog of the “Climate of Doubt” episode. I expected a one-sided hit piece. You even exceeded my low expectations. Have you no fact checkers? Could you not review the “97%” claim and read the shoddy paper from which it came? Did any of you read any of the Climategate emails? Do you not realize how impossible it is for the release to have been accomplished by an outsider? We normally hold whistleblowers up as heroes. Have you no one who might look into the facts of history for “funding” of skeptical views on the “science” of global warming? Could you not find the records that compare the billions of dollars funding the “team” and climate research, mostly from tax dollars, versus the thousands directed to skeptical efforts, almost entirely from private sources? What about the global situation versus just here in the USA?

The old saying is “follow the money.” What happened to that?

PBS recently interviewed Anthony Watts. Could none on your staff visit his website and review the breadth of references and discussions there of facts? Did any of your staff read any of the materials put out by the people and organizations you lambasted? If you did, you addressed none of it in the episode.

Dare I point out that we hardly have a consensus in science about such fundamentals as gravity? Do you not understand that arguments from majority and consensus are arguments from authority? Is not argument from authority the basis of religion? Science tests. Science admits ignorance and fallibility. Science checks, and checks again. There is no reveled truth, only reproducible results. Science is never settled. Climate science is hardly more mature and testable than psychology and the other soft sciences; some would say even less mature.

The alarmists and advocates of anthropogenic driven climate change that leads to catastrophe can readily and exactly be compared to religious fundamentalists. The easiest comparison is to the young-earth creationists. The group points to their authority in holy writ. They point to their technical training, degrees, honors, and scientific papers of their cohort, and they hand-wave regarding the circular and incestuous nature of their research and findings depending upon one another and a few agreeable and acceptable “outsiders.” I know this because I have been trying to stand for truth against such beliefs for nearly my entire life.

Truth will out. The facts will triumph. In the end, it will be the alarmists eating crow, or at least needing to. Whether they will ever admit their folly is another matter. (Shockley never admitted eugenics was bogus.)

In the episode it was stated that the sea will win. Of course. It will rise and fall as it always has, higher and lower than we can imagine, and we will deal with it. The facts are clear; sea level is not a problem. Even if it rises enough to matter, it will rise slow enough to deal with without catastrophe nor excessive economic hardship. Mr. Watts collects several sources of factual data here:

Here is an easy to understand perspective on the whole thing:

If you succumb to your prejudice against Mr. Watts, perhaps you will better appreciate PhD geologist, Christopher R. Scotese and his paleomap project, which he started before any global warming controversy, here:

Dr. Scotese describes his graphic, which clearly shows that the history of earth is MUCH warmer than the alarmists predict for our near future. He states, “During the last 2 billion years the Earth’s climate has alternated between a frigid “Ice House”, like today’s world, and a steaming “Hot House”, like the world of the dinosaurs.”

If you note, during the Tertiary, near the boundary of the early Eocene, the indicated temperature for the global average was approximately 14°C higher than the currently indicated global average. I hardly need to point out that this is much warmer than even the most alarmist of projections. Note also that the early Eocene is when we see the emergence of most modern mammals, including us primates, and ungulates did quite well, perhaps because a warm earth is a green earth.

Regardless of your fast-and-loose attitude to facts, truth, and testable science, and your obvious slant on politics, the most disturbing aspect of the episode to me was the hate. Yes, it is an overused and trite word nowadays, but you treated skeptics, including me, by association and implication, with ridicule and spite. It seems you must have conscientiously intended to make Dr. Singer seem to be a doddering and senile old codger, worthy only of your condescension. Us-versus-them is key to your argument. You alienate and even dehumanize those who refuse to conform to the consensus, establishment view. You imply I am heartless and selfish, focused only on myself and my own present comforts. Note that others are going so far as to medicalize skepticism. There seem to be efforts to lock people like me away as contrarians and deniers, putting us on par with the likes of Ahmadinejad, who for fanatical religious reasons denies the holocaust of WWII. (No one seems to suggest that he be locked away, at least no one from the left of the political spectrum.) So, you see, I take this all rather personally. I care deeply for my children, and I strive to provide a better world for my posterity for ages to come. I am simply convinced that Luddite views cannot work—they kill. Alarmism and apocalyptic thinking are invariably harmful.

Technology advances in ways that we cannot predict even over a few months. The world of today was unimaginable to people born only a century ago. The pace of change and advancement is quickening. We cannot tell what may or may not result from our choices decades hence. We never have. We never will. We must think ahead and plan wisely, but fighting weather via a war on fossil fuel is the epitome of folly. Thinking we can control the weather at all is the height of hubris.

As a closing note, you had Lord Monckton calling global warming alarmism by the title of Penn and Teller’s television series. Keep in mind that these champions of the con point out that we just don’t know. They point out that there are many motives that are not compatible with science and sound thinking that drive environmentalism in general, and global warming alarmism specifically. They don’t quite call it a hoax, but I agree with my Senator.

Please follow the link to Anthony’s site to read the article, but I want to emphasize this tragic fact: “Much of the information on the 16,359 violent events in East Africa from 1990 to 2009 came from the Armed Conflict Location and Event Dataset, or ACLED, directed by Clionadh Raleigh of Trinity College in Dublin.” That is nearly two-and-one-half new (or restarted) conflicts per day in the East African countries! That is why peace-makers like Gary and Shirley Bohanon working in Rwanda are so important.

Watts Up With That?

From the University of Colorado at Boulder, another overhyped climate meme has been put to rest by a new study that made some obvious findings about temperature and rainfall as it relates to human behavior, but more importantly in human events “…political and geographic factors play a much more substantial role than climate change.” Climate science figured out what any city beat cop knows. In street terms, the “crips and the bloods” don’t read the thermometer when they are packing heat, but when it is raining they tend to stay off the streets.

Climate variability and conflict risk in East Africa measured by Boulder team

While a new study led by the University of Colorado Boulder shows the risk of human conflict in East Africa increases somewhat with hotter temperatures and drops a bit with higher precipitation, it concludes that socioeconomic, political and geographic factors play a…

View original post 1,027 more words

Educate yourself and be proactive.

Watts Up With That?

We can and must rejuvenate our economy by developing America’s resource bounties

Guest post by Paul Driessen

“As the Democrats become more committed to, and defined by, a green agenda, and as they become dependent on money from high-tech venture capitalists and their lobbyists, it becomes harder to describe them as a party for the little guy – or liberalism as a philosophy of distributive justice.” – Charles Lane, “Liberals Green-Energy Contradictions,” The Washington Post, October 15, 2012.

Governor Mitt Romney strongly supports North American energy independence as the foundation of renewed U.S. employment and prosperity. There is much needed to fill-in the blanks, but the challenger’s guiding philosophy promises real reform.

Free-marketeers, playing defense for the last four years, and during a lot of the Bush Administration too, actually have a chance to play offense should Romney prevail.

View original post 1,346 more words

As the narrative unravels, and the average persons starts to see that weather is and always has been fickle, the alarmists will grow more desperate. I think the facts are showing significance to the notion that humans only talk about the weather; they cannot really do anything about it. No warming observed means no warming. Besides, cold kills; warmer is better.

Watts Up With That?

While the Met Office and others try to spin their way out of their current 16 year flatlining of warming, it is important to remember a few points made in the past.

In the much ballyhooed 2008 NOAA “State of the Climate” report on climate change they state, concerning the climate models, something quite relevant to the issues raised by the new story in the UK Daily Mail:

View original post 430 more words

With how disinterested the President was in his debate, it was certain Crazy Joe would be engaged. However, I didn’t expect flat-out rudeness. Sad.

Democrats, sorry, but what you stand for is bad. If you don’t want to be thought of as bad, don’t be democrats–or change your party!

This is simple, with good references.

Watts Up With That?

Guest Post by Ira Glickstein.

What’s the difference between a whimsical fable and an environmental fallacy?

  • On the outside, fables are light-hearted fibs. But oh so true on the inside.
  • Environmental fallacies are just the opposite, serious and plausible on the outside but hiding egregious falsehoods on the inside.

Environmentalists have promoted the theory that human civilization is the main cause of global warming. They argue that Governments worldwide must take immediate drastic action to prevent a catastrophe. The chain of proof in their human-caused climate catastrophe theory is broken in at least six places:

Fossil fuels cause some air pollution, but the most dangerous air pollution comes from the fallacies uttered by environmentalists :^). If the voting public is misled by this kind of “environmentalist air pollution” our free economy will be destroyed, and with it, the most successful experiment so far of free peoples governing…

View original post 2,149 more words

Anthony calls this piece about increased losses for insurance companies “crazy.” It is. There is no mistaking the data. The weather is what it always has been. It is not getting worse, it is still normal. It gets dry, it gets wet, it floods, it snows, it gets hot, it gets cold, it blows, and blows, and blows, especially in the central USA. Don’t let anyone fool you. We just have short memories. It really has been worse, and it really will be worse when it starts cooling into the next glaciation cycle, but I think we have some centuries before that gets going in a bad way.

It will take a while, but eventually the doomsayers will have to abandon global warming, climate change, and extreme weather. The key to extreme weather is to be ready for it. Get your own generator for when the power is out. Get your own snow blower up north. Drill you own wells and make more ponds for drought. Dig a fraidy hole for tornadoes. Build a stronger (and higher) house for hurricanes, AND GET OUT OF THE WAY when they come.

So, in the decade or two that it will take for the global warming scare to fade from memory into the distant past, keep vigilant with regard to the weather and with regard to your wallet. The politicians, the regulators, and the adjusters will all want more of your money if they can get it from you. It is still true–follow the money!


Watts Up With That?

From USA Today: Report: Climate change behind rise in weather disasters

12:53PM EST October 10. 2012 – The number of natural disasters per year has been rising dramatically on all continents since 1980, but the trend is steepest for North America where countries have been battered by hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, searing heat and drought, a new report says.

The study being released today by Munich Re, the world’s largest reinsurance firm, sees climate change driving the increase and predicts those influences will continue in years ahead, though a number of experts question that conclusion.

Whatever the causes, the report shows that if you thought the weather has been getting worse, you’re right.

Two words: Oh, please.   This is easily dispelled by looking at the data. Apparently Doyle Rice can’t be bothered to do some basic research.

Time for a graphjam, starting with this:

But wait, there’s more:

View original post 332 more words

%d bloggers like this: