‘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).

UN climate treaty on hold

No Comments »

Thankfully, it seems the UN climate treaty will take 6 months to 1 year longer to iron out the details.  We can only hope that some sense will prevail in that time.

One of the “roadblocks” mentioned in the article is the fact that the United States’ cap-and-trade bill has not yet made it through Congress.  A bill had made it out of committee, but I haven’t been able to find out if it has actually passed the Senate.  Even so, it scares me how close we’re getting and how much power the government is gaining over our lives with no one putting up any serious resistance.

The science pointing to global warming is far from concrete, but if it was, would we really want to give up so much of our personal and collective liberty to avert it?  Do we really think we have that much of an impact on the globe either way?  Don’t get me wrong, I think we should be good stewards of this planet that God has given us and be able to pass on a good world to our children and their children.  But such actions should be left to individuals and their own sense of responsibility.  Government has no business mandating such behaviors.

Toward a one-world government

No Comments »

In just 41 days, world leaders will attend the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Copenhagen, including President Obama.  With this innocuous-sounding name, and the supposedly noble goal of reducing or eliminating global warming, the treaty many country leaders are likely to sign will instead create a government that will control the world.  And not just any government, but a Socialist government on an immense scale.  Instead of limited wealth-redistribution from wealthy individuals to poor individuals, this treaty will transfer wealth from developed nations to developing nations, in the name of “carbon debt.”  This idea is that developed nations are the ones that have put the carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, so they owe a debt to other countries since they were the ones that caused this global warming crisis.

Much of this information comes from Lord Christopher Monckton, who was the science policy advisor to Margaret Thatcher when she was Prime Minister of the UK.  He made several warnings in a speech to the Minnesota Free Market Institute, attempting to educate the public on the danger of this upcoming treaty and the consequences for our nation and the world if it is ratified.  I think it is very interesting that the mainstream media is not reporting on this much at all, positively or negatively.  The only place I’ve heard about it is WorldNetDaily, my daily dose of reality.  At least there are some people out there who don’t gloss over or sugarcoat the dire situation this nation and the world are in.  If you need any more support, Chuck Norris feels the same way I do about this treaty and our future.

I don’t really know if anything can be done to stop this.  President Obama is almost certain to sign this treaty, in contrast to President Bush who refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol because of its threats to our national sovereignty.  Then it would usually need a 2/3 majority vote in the Senate to be ratified, but it wouldn’t surprise me to see them push it through as an amendment to the cap-and-trade bill already in progress through the Senate, which would only need a 50% vote to pass.  That’s an entirely different, and nearly as scary, piece of legislation that would limit many of our personal freedoms and tax us for many of the things we do daily.

After all of this, I certainly don’t need any more evidence that the global warming “crisis” is, primarily, a scheme to seize greater government control over our lives and push us further toward the path toward socialism.  Now I see that we’re talking a global scale, too, not merely national.  If you’ve read any of my prior posts, you already know that I fervently doubt whether global warming is even occurring, and completely convinced that mankind is not causing it.  The world has actually been cooling since 1998, which was one of the hottest on record.  I just hope we can see some reason before it’s too late.

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.