Ok - some global warming stuff

So we are all going to die soon because: (1) we are going to boil in a hothouse created of excess water vapor; (2) we are going to burn because there is no more rain; (3) all the plants are going to die because of too much CO2 (talk about BS on its face); (4) our crops are going to fail because of no rain as a result of global warming; (5) the seas are going to boil; (6) the hurricanes caused by too much sea warmth will obliterate us; (7) too much heat will create a global desert; ... are you starting to see some contradictions? Climate change? Probably ... or maybe. All of the above, maybe in some places and not others. Did you know that the magentic pole swaps ends ever once in a while -- very quickly and without warning ... what would that do? What would happen if the magnetosphere disappears during the swap .. allowing all those deadly solar rays in? Mass mutations? Baked earth?

Lets focus on what we know is NOT true -- but panic merchants would have you believe IS true.

The latest comprehensive panic report was the Stern report on climatic change, a Brit report with collusion of UN "scientists" and other eco-warriors, worldwide. Let me be clear: I advocate lower emissions of pollutants, more reforestation, less pollution of our oceans, etc. All to provide a place on Earth for my heirs that is more like what I have seen or known. BUT, the drivel that passes for science to support the URGENT NEED OR ELSE mentality is really annoying.

People have been claiming that the sky is falling down -- the climate is warming drastically, since we really took notice of climate in the first place. And in the early 1700's, it WAS warming at an alarming rate ... far faster than it is now, notwithstanding the almost complete inability of mankind to impact the climate at that time.

In the 1980's Jim Hansen, a climatologist told Congress that world temperatures would increase by 0.3C by the end of the century and the seas rise several feet. Uh, the number came out to be 0.1C and less than 1 inch. So much for that dose of wisdom. The UN then set up (another wasteful and unaccountable) bureaucracy, the IPCC, to produce a report (the third in a line of fibs) which turned out predicting biblical-level catastrophes due to climate change. Surprised? Like paying a management consulting firm to find a problem ... they will, and it will be exactly what you that it was and paid dearly to confirm.

The UN asserts that it was increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide that triggered the ends of the last four ice ages and to prove this, they showed two graphs, one plotting CO2 and the other temperature ... but they do not superimpose them over each other on the time line. If they had, it would show CLEARLY that in fact first temperature went up, then CO2 ... which makes sense! More plants, more decay, more CO2. When it is icy, nothing much is happening!

The UN report simply chose to ignore the warm period in the early Middle Ages (from 800 through 1400's). During this period, people moved to and sort of prospered farming on GREENLAND. Not exactly what one would try and do on the permafrost present during today's balmy period of catastrophic warming. A Chinese Squadron sailed entirely around the Arctic Ocean in 1421 -- (our Western-oriented history conveniently fails to note voyages of exploration -- Columbus was late and ignorant), the high Andean glaciers of today were absent, and there was little polar sea ice. Al Gore will have you believe that the snows of Kilimanjaro are receding due to increased temperatures. Folks were are certain that temps are NOT rising there, but the deforestation of the slopes and surrounding land IS eliminating what paltry snow there was in the first place. Antarctic ice mass in INCREASING, not decreasing as is supported by borehole data. Roman and other earlier times associated with zeniths of civilization were also warmer than the present day. Togas, anyone? It was the SUN that created climate change, not man.

But mankind HAS deforested much of what was tall and leafy that was present some 2000 years ago and as little as 100 years ago.

Interestingly, the UN's Second Assessment, published in 1996, DID show a graph charting temperatures over the past 1000 years which clearly showed that the medieval warm period was warmer than today ... but they completely ignored that data in the Third Assessment.... Why? The data was too unreliable -- those tree rings were lying back then but are accruate now. You see, the rings are wider in warm areas, but also when there is more CO2 ... so how does invalidate them? It doesn't seem that the UN can explain that either, although they claim that greater atmospheric CO2 skewed the growth. But more CO2 came from where? Mars?

The truth of the matter was exposed by David Demming, a scientist at the Univ. of Oaklahoma ... who was doing a reconstruction of the last 150 years of U.S. temps from boreholes. He published and the eco-warrior "scientists" came to think that Demming was one of them and would push a political agenda ahead of rational scientific thought. They were wrong, but Demming received an email from one of the leading investigating "scientists" involved in global warming stating that "we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." Thus, it was done away with. A certain technique for estimation of pre-thermometer temp values was given 390 times more weight than any other. If that is that good, why keep records today?

The Third Assessment shows a hockey stick graph showing almost no warming for the last 1000 years then a sudden sharp uptick. It also happens that when random data was fed to the model that the UN used, it also created a hockey stick. That graph was used 6 times in the report and given to every household in Canada by the Canadian government. Be scared. Be very scared. After 4 years, a major academic journal finally debunked the hockey stick graph, but the UN continues to use it and the Canadian government has never acknowledged the patent falsity of it, or apologized for its use. Needless to say, neither has the UN.

So what other tricks are used by "eco-scientists?" I particularly like "forcing." That is where you look at an effect on temperature by use a baseline of data covering one period then apply it to another, excluding the data on which the baseline was created. So when we look for solar data which extends back to 1750, we see it applied to a start date of 1900 -- which was colder than it is now. Back in 1750, at the end of that mini-global warming spurt taking us out of the mini-iceage of the 1600's, it was as warm as it is now. Net result is a far greater impact of global warming influences than could be ascribed to the sun alone ... man must have done something ... (yes, jiggered the numbers). If we look to the forcing of solar radiation on temperature taking 1750 to now as a base, it has been calculated that virtually all of the temperature increase since 1900 can be attributable to solar warming alone.

Without going into an area where the math and methods are too complex for this writer, the greenhouse gas effect has similarly been played-around with. The idea is to show that the warming since 1900 was the result of CO2 and the other greenhouse gases. Stern adn the UN estimate that CO2 levels will increase at a rate of 1.0 pct per annum. The rate observed since 1958 is but 0.38 pct. The effect of this multiplying over a century is large. Stern estimates that temperatures will increase up to 10c over that period of time, the UN more conservative with 6c and the figure suggested by clean data? 0.6c or lower.

Recent papers from the "eco-scientists" have tried to explain why they have been wrong so far: the oceans act as a giant heat sink and the deep ocean temps have been essentially unmoved, as well as over-modelling of the surface layers. One little publicized note: NOAA has found that the oceans (taken as a whole) have COOLED in the last two years. Uh, oh ... thats got to be a result of the melting glaciers and polar caps.... Compared to the ocean's bulk, that amount is piddle in a thunderstorm, so get over it.

The blatant manipulation of the models to "fit" the data and yet predict ever escalating consequences approaches more than the dishonest -- rather fraudulent. Google Christopher Monckton in the Daily Telegraph (whose articles I have shamelessly plagiarized for this blog entry -- he more articulate/entertaining than some of the other reliable SCIENTISTS). Monckton does get rather technical, but the take is unmistakable: we are being had for idiots by the SPs bent on a POLITICAL agenda for a way to lead life, and not for dire humanistic reasons.

So, drive a Prius. Scrap SUVs. Build wind farms. Build a few Nuc plants. By all means lets get the heck out of the sandbox (Middle East) -- these are ALL good things. But we should get the reasons straight.