‘Cargo cult’ science

No Comments »

Here is a link to an article I just read that eloquently states what I’ve seen in the current non-science going on with the global-warming adherents. It’s a religion, a cult, aimed at gaining power instead of protecting the earth.

Mars warming too…man-made?

No Comments »

I recently came across an article detailing what I’d heard before: Mars has experienced a global temperature increase similar to the Earth’s. Unless the government is covering up even more than I think they are, man-made activities are certainly not contributing to that global warming. I mean, a couple of robots gathering rocks couldn’t possibly emit enough carbon dioxide to affect Mars. If so, maybe we could send a few more and get some plants going up there, but I digress.

The point here is that, if a planet completely outside our control is showing a similar warming trend to our planet, maybe we should look at a different source. Even more plain than the proverbial elephant in the room is the giant ball of fire tracing its way across our sky every day. Interestingly enough, the sun went through a historically high peak in activity from 1998-2005 that matches the historic temperatures (even allowing for intentional and unintentional skewing of thermometer data). Since then temperatures have been dropping, and the sun is currently in a prolonged minimum in activity that has some scientists comparing it to the Maunder minimum.

From 1645 to 1715 astronomers noticed that sunspots grew extremely rare. Further research shows that there was an associated period of cool temperatures known as the Little Ice Age (that followed several warmer years known as the Medieval Warm Period). Hmm…could it be that we’re seeing another similar pattern?

In the current solar cycle, scientists keep extending the forecast for the next solar maximum. This minimum has lasted longer than any for quite a while. By now we should have been seeing much more activity, well on our way to a solar maximum in late 2012 or early 2013. But even though there has been slightly more activity, we have dropped back off and are again seeing a week or so at a time with no spots on the sun (during the last two years there were periods of 100+ spotless days). So the current adjusted prediction is for a lower solar maximum than the last one, occurring in around 2015. There is still so much to learn about solar activity, so who knows if that will pan out?

All that to add more weight to the gathering data refuting man-made, or anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Global warming is “settled”

No Comments »

If you’ve read any of my previous posts, you know that I think the only thing settled about global warming is that it’s not settled. The science is most definitely not conclusive, and all of the efforts to control carbon dioxide and other emissions are misguided at best at blatant power grabs at worst.

A new book has just been released (on Earth Day, appropriately), written by Brian Sussman, a well-known former meteorologist from San Francisco. Called “Climategate” in reference to the e-mails brought to light from the East Anglia research center, he exposes much of the fraud that has been foisted on us by the whole global warming scam. I’ve only read articles referring to it, but I plan to buy it and get back to you.

One of the important things as I see it is that a meteorologist was willing to step forward and try to tell the truth.  That in itself put the lie to the oft-repeated refrain that scientists are in agreement that global warming is a real phenomenon.  In fact, scientists are far from unanimous on the subject, as evidenced by the Petition Project, a list that now numbers tens of thousands of scientists who believe that:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

It all sounds pretty interesting to me, so I’ll let you know.  I know what I believe and why, but I don’t know enough about research (or have enough time) to back it up.  Looks like I don’t have to now!

Grasping at straws

No Comments »

Yet another article is out today with an alternate explanation for an event that had been attributed to global warming. Swiss scientists reported that alpine glaciers in their country experienced the greatest recorded melting in the 1940s (even more than now) due to increased solar radiation during that period.

I’m not surprised by that finding, since I don’t believe the earth is warming as much as they say we are, and any warming that is occurring is certainly not attributable to people.  But what I do find interesting is that, later in the article, the scientists involved in this report still cling to their ideas about global warming.  Despite the mounting evidence that there are other things that have a bigger impact on the climate than mankind, they aren’t swayed from their dogmatic beliefs.

I can’t speak to their motivations.  Maybe it’s the only way for them to get the grants that will allow them to pursue their research.  Maybe they believe it that fervently, but then they couldn’t be called scientists — instead they would be something like priests in this new global religion of climate change.  Either way, the world population is waking up, aided by the leaked e-mails recently, aka “Climategate,” and becoming less trusting of scientists and their conclusions.

And I say it’s about time.

More fringe claims

No Comments »

It’s hard to know what to believe a lot of the time. There is so much money and power to be gained by the global warming hysteria that the experts we should be able to rely on for impartial discovery and reporting of the scientific truths are at best blinded by their own beliefs, and at worst trying to fabricate or twist the data to fit their own agendas. Whether or not it’s verifiable, some hackers found data and e-mails between climate scientists regarding tricks to make the data appear to support rising temperatures.

Then, too, you have the poor countries trying to strengthen themselves by their claims of damage from climate change caused by the rich, developed countries. I remember reading somewhere that a small island country in the Indian Ocean was trying to sue the United States because of sea level rises caused by global warming.

Then there’s the recent report by Suneeta Mukherjee, country representative of the United Nations Food Population Fund (UNFPA) that poor women in countries like the Philippines would be driven to prostitution by climate change. Seriously?

Who knows what’s coming next? But it’s a pretty scary time when politicians use something like this to gain power. If the science and the dangers are that clear, you would think everyone would want to come together to do their part. Then there wouldn’t be any need for new regulations. The natural cycles of supply and demand would drive developments in alternative energy and energy efficient products, while gradually phasing out the inefficient and dirty processes and products we’ve been using.

I find it all very transparent when you look at things with an open mind and an unbiased perspective. World leaders just want to use this fabricated crisis to grab power and push us toward a world government. Or in the words of Rahm Emmanuel, Obama’s chief of staff,

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

Update: I found two new analysis articles here and here after I made this post, and you can even search the hacked documents and decide for yourself!

Has Earth’s fever broken?

No Comments »

That’s the first sentence of an article I came across on McClatchy.  You can read the whole article at this link.

It says that the high in 1998 (the warmest year in recent history) was 0.76 degrees Celsius above the 20-year average, while so far this year the high has only been 0.42 degrees Celsius above the average.  So that’s giving global warming critics some added fuel for their arguments.

I find a couple of things interesting in this article.  First, we’re talking about a mere 0.34 degree Celsius difference between the average global temperature between this year and 1998, and both years are less than a degree above the average.  Granted we’re talking the average over the entire globe, where even small differences can have a bigger impact.  But we’re still talking about minuscule changes in a very complex pattern, while climate change alarmists are advocating huge and costly changes and regulation in our lives.

The other interesting thing is that the believers in global warming can have their cake and eat it too.  No matter what the temperature averages do, they say that there are complex forces at work and are not dissuaded from their dogma.  Skeptics, however, are not allowed to use the same arguments.  They are laughed at for not using sound science.  It really confuses me.  When did we move from trying to prove a hypothesis and changing it if the evidence doesn’t support it to blindly following a belief and trying to engineer the evidence to match?  I don’t know, sounds a lot like a religion to me.

A few words on carbon dioxide

1 Comment »

Carbon dioxide — the current devil in the global warming debate — where does it really fit in?  The doomsayers call it a greenhouse gas and warn that the amounts of CO2 added by human activity will cause global chaos.  Let’s take a look at this gas.

First: CO2 occurs naturally in our atmosphere.  Here are the average percentages of the most abundant gases the make up the atmosphere:

  • Nitrogen — 78.08%
  • Oxygen — 20.95%
  • Water vapor — 0-4%
  • Argon — 0.93%
  • Carbon dioxide — 0.036%
  • Neon — 0.0018%
  • Helium — 0.0005%

And so on.  A discussion of the atmosphere and a more complete list can be found here (the list is at the bottom of the page).  Does it seem rational that our activities could really add that much to the entire global atmosphere, and could it really make that much difference to a gas in such low overall concentration?  Sure I know that everything about this earth is very delicately balanced (too much for random chance, but I’ll save that for another discussion), but it’s still arrogant to think that we could have that much effect on such a large system that we know so little about.

Next: cause and effect.  Those on the global warming bandwagon would have us believe that increasing carbon dioxide increases the global temperature.  From Arctic ice cores, we can see a definite correlation, but which comes first?  You have to look closely, but this graph shows that the peaks of CO2 actually tend to follow the peaks in temperature, instead of the other way around.Temp/CO2 trend That makes sense — an increase in global average temperature leads to warmer oceans, which retain less CO2 and thus increase the atmospheric concentration.

But are more CO2 and warmer average temperatures necessarily such a bad thing?  Plants breathe CO2 and emit oxygen, so we humans, and all other oxygen-breathing animals, share a reciprocal relationship with plants.  More CO2 would create a better environment for lush plant growth and so more oxygen for us.

Warmer average temperatures would also be beneficial for humans.  The ice caps might undergo some melting, which could lead to higher sea levels and flood some low-lying areas, but almost certainly not to the degree global warming alarmists would have us believe.  This world is an incredible machine, balancing itself and transporting heat from one place to another in ways we still don’t fully understand.  It also has relief valves to avoid too much instability.  This world will survive; it’s set up that way.  An increase in the global average will cause a more survivable environment for humans, longer growing seasons, etc.

The world as we know it will probably change, assuming that global warming is even a reality, but the science there is far from conclusive.  But, then, it always has changed and we’ve adapted.  No need to try futilely to keep things the way they are…who’s to say whatever is to come won’t be better?

2008…a turning point

No Comments »

I just found an article on the Daily Telegraph website that sums up a lot of my feelings about global warming.  Titled, “2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved,” makes several clear points without getting bogged down in a lot of esoteric science.

The author, Christopher Booker, lists three big ways the hysteria over global warming has changed this year:

  1. global temperatures have been dropping instead of rising
  2. there is no scientific consensus in favor of global warming
  3. the global economy can’t support politicians’ schemes to combat global warming

I think it’s interesting to note that the global warming apologists are trying harder and harder to get people to buy into the idea, and that anyone who even questions the “consensus” is ridiculed or even blackballed.  If your argument is sound and backed by solid science, shouldn’t it be able to stand on its own without propping it up and defending it at every turn?

Another thing I noticed within the last year or two is that they rarely call it “global warming” anymore — it’s “climate change.”  Aside from avoiding the embarrassing headlines like “Global warming conference canceled due to blizzard,” it puts the global warming crowd in the enviable, however artificial, position of being able to always be right.  Record-breaking snowfall and cold snaps can be as easily attributed to climate change as summer heat waves, in the alternate world these guys live in.

The truth of the matter is, though, that 2008 has been one of the coldest years in recent history.  I’ve only lived in the Omaha area for 5 years now, but the past summer seemed particularly cool and short, while this winter has already had a brutally cold spell the like of which I don’t recall this early in the winter.  Last week we had a morning that the wind chill was -28F, and several mornings that started below 0F to reach highs only in the single digits.  Personally, I think we could use some global warming right about now.