EARTH'S TEMPERATURE IS A BIT UP AT THE MOMENT BUT THAT STARTED WAY BACK
"In a study of lichens of the subspecies Rhizocarpon geographicum found on avalanche boulder tongues in the eastern part of the Massif des Ecrins of the French Alps (45ø00' S, 6ø30' E), Jomelli and Pech (2004) make an important discovery that adds to the growing body of evidence which demonstrates that what climate alarmists call the unprecedented and CO2-induced warming of the 20th century was neither unprecedented nor driven by rising CO2 concentrations.
According to the findings of Jomelli and Pech, high-altitude avalanche activity during the Little Ice Age (LIA) reached an early maximum prior to 1650, after which it decreased until about 1730, whereupon it increased once again, reaching what was likely its greatest maximum about 1830. In support of these findings, Jomelli and Pech note that "a greater quantity of snow mobilized by avalanches during the LIA can be supported by the fact that the two periods, AD1600-1650 and 1830, during which the run-out distances [of the avalanches] were maximum at high elevation sites, have corresponded overall to the periods of maximum glacial advances for these last 500 years (Le Roy Ladurie, 1983; Reynaud, 2001)."....
In contrast to these observations, the infamous temperature history of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) -- which is cited by climate-alarmists as justification for the ungodly warming power they attribute to anthropogenic CO2 emissions -- post-Little Ice Age warming did not begin until about 1910. Consequently, it can be appreciated that (1) perhaps half of the warming experienced by the earth in recovering from what was likely the coldest part of the Little Ice Age occurred well before the Mann et al. temperature history indicates any warming at all, that (2) an even greater part of the total warming occurred before the air's CO2 concentration began increasing in earnest (approximately 1930, which is actually close to the time when warming peaked in the United States and many other parts of the world), and that (3) the lion's share of the warming of the past nearly two centuries must therefore owe its existence to something other than rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations."
More here
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
Saturday, July 31, 2004
Friday, July 30, 2004
PRO-GREEN BIAS AMONG JOURNALISTS
"In 1995, they told us that Yucca Mountain was going to explode in a nuclear firestorm. It won't. In 1998, they told us that nuclear-weapons installations were making people sick. They weren't. In 2000, they weren't concerned with arsenic in the water. In 2001, they were. This year, they have claimed that the Pentagon is worried about global warming and that phosphate mines are harming Floridians. "They" are journalists, and the issue is the environment. What makes this particular issue so susceptible to bad journalism?
At least part of the answer has to be politics. If you followed the controversy over arsenic in drinking water in 2001, you could be forgiven for thinking that the Bush administration was plotting to poison the reservoirs. Yet, in fact, the Environmental Protection Agency had simply chosen to revert to standards that were changed only in the last few days of the Clinton administration. The press had gone almost eight years without noticing that Carol Browner and the Clinton EPA were happy to allow these "dangerous" standards of arsenic in the water.
In other areas, too, the press deliberately changed its tune. In 1987, The Washington Post had editorialized in favor of oil exploration in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve, saying, "That part of the Arctic coast is one of the bleakest, most remote places on this continent, and there is hardly any other where drilling would have less impact on the surrounding life." By 2000, when George W. Bush had made drilling in ANWR part of his proposed energy policy, the Post became concerned about whether "the oil to be gained is worth the potential damage to this unique, wild, and biologically vital ecosystem." The New York Times similarly reversed its position on the issue between 1989 and 2001.
As strong environmentalism is one of the defining characteristics of the modern liberal, it should come as no surprise that the media lean toward environmentalism in their coverage of key issues.....
When journalists are happy enough to junk the well-established scientific tools that help us separate truth from fiction in favor of their own methods, there's a problem. Whether they are motivated by politics, sensationalism, or a strange mixture of ignorance and arrogance, journalists the world over are painting a misleading picture of the environment. Small wonder that the issue is of little importance to Americans. In a Gallup poll for "Earth Day" this year, they ranked it second-last in importance from a list of no fewer than twelve major political issues".
More here.
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
"In 1995, they told us that Yucca Mountain was going to explode in a nuclear firestorm. It won't. In 1998, they told us that nuclear-weapons installations were making people sick. They weren't. In 2000, they weren't concerned with arsenic in the water. In 2001, they were. This year, they have claimed that the Pentagon is worried about global warming and that phosphate mines are harming Floridians. "They" are journalists, and the issue is the environment. What makes this particular issue so susceptible to bad journalism?
At least part of the answer has to be politics. If you followed the controversy over arsenic in drinking water in 2001, you could be forgiven for thinking that the Bush administration was plotting to poison the reservoirs. Yet, in fact, the Environmental Protection Agency had simply chosen to revert to standards that were changed only in the last few days of the Clinton administration. The press had gone almost eight years without noticing that Carol Browner and the Clinton EPA were happy to allow these "dangerous" standards of arsenic in the water.
In other areas, too, the press deliberately changed its tune. In 1987, The Washington Post had editorialized in favor of oil exploration in the Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve, saying, "That part of the Arctic coast is one of the bleakest, most remote places on this continent, and there is hardly any other where drilling would have less impact on the surrounding life." By 2000, when George W. Bush had made drilling in ANWR part of his proposed energy policy, the Post became concerned about whether "the oil to be gained is worth the potential damage to this unique, wild, and biologically vital ecosystem." The New York Times similarly reversed its position on the issue between 1989 and 2001.
As strong environmentalism is one of the defining characteristics of the modern liberal, it should come as no surprise that the media lean toward environmentalism in their coverage of key issues.....
When journalists are happy enough to junk the well-established scientific tools that help us separate truth from fiction in favor of their own methods, there's a problem. Whether they are motivated by politics, sensationalism, or a strange mixture of ignorance and arrogance, journalists the world over are painting a misleading picture of the environment. Small wonder that the issue is of little importance to Americans. In a Gallup poll for "Earth Day" this year, they ranked it second-last in importance from a list of no fewer than twelve major political issues".
More here.
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
Thursday, July 29, 2004
SOME UNCOMMON SENSE ABOUT RECYCLING
An excellent post from Madsen Pirie about recycling newsprint
"Why do people recycle newsprint when the practice is so bad for the environment? The collection and transportation of the stuff uses fossil fuels and causes atmospheric pollution. The treatment of the pulp leaches both bleach and chemical pollutants into the environment, and uses energy. Even at the end the resultant recycled paper is of lower quality.
Some people seem to suppose that by recycling paper they are saving trees, but the opposite is often true. Paper is mostly made from trees planted for the purpose, and it is young trees that soak up most of the carbon dioxide. If those trees are not planted, that carbon is not soaked up. Nor is it if they are not harvested and replaced.
Recycling paper may make people feel good, but gesture politics can be environmentally unfriendly. Should the planet as a whole pay so that a few can enjoy feeling good? Or should those who enjoy the gesture pay for the consequences of their actions?
No doubt some would argue for a paper recycling charge. A dollar a ton could be levied on those who recycle paper, and used to plant more young trees to undo the damage caused. (Maybe not.)"
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
An excellent post from Madsen Pirie about recycling newsprint
"Why do people recycle newsprint when the practice is so bad for the environment? The collection and transportation of the stuff uses fossil fuels and causes atmospheric pollution. The treatment of the pulp leaches both bleach and chemical pollutants into the environment, and uses energy. Even at the end the resultant recycled paper is of lower quality.
Some people seem to suppose that by recycling paper they are saving trees, but the opposite is often true. Paper is mostly made from trees planted for the purpose, and it is young trees that soak up most of the carbon dioxide. If those trees are not planted, that carbon is not soaked up. Nor is it if they are not harvested and replaced.
Recycling paper may make people feel good, but gesture politics can be environmentally unfriendly. Should the planet as a whole pay so that a few can enjoy feeling good? Or should those who enjoy the gesture pay for the consequences of their actions?
No doubt some would argue for a paper recycling charge. A dollar a ton could be levied on those who recycle paper, and used to plant more young trees to undo the damage caused. (Maybe not.)"
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
MORE ON THE ATLANTA OZONE FRAUD
Australian earth scientist Warwick Hughes has weighed in here on the fraud I reported below on 19th. The fraudulent Greenie claim was that reduced traffic during the Atlanta Olympic games reduced ozone in the air and hence asthma.
Warwick's findings in brief are that ozone fluctuations observed in other areas well away from Atlanta traffic mirrored those of Atlanta -- so traffic had no role in the matter. A few excerpts:
"All my ozone data analysis experience tells me that big city summer ozone peaks will be broadly influenced by daytime max temperature and meteorological factors such as wind; I would be sceptical that a slight decrease in vehicle emissions could dominate over these more important factors....
The graph below shows clearly that across a broad region of Georgia and Alabama the Olympic period happened to be characterized by the lowest ozone levels of the 1996 summer. So you would have to suspect that the lower ozone levels in Atlanta during the Olympics are also following this regional trend which is no doubt due to broad scale meteorological factors and nothing to do with traffic....
We decided to compare data from a central Atlanta station and a rural site 80 kms NW, Yorkville; taking ozone and nitrous oxide (NO) numbers for August 2001, a cooler year with lower ozone similar to 1996... It is strikingly obvious that Atlanta and Yorkville have broadly similar daily ozone peaks, some days Yorkville even exceeds Atlanta !!! This is despite much higher overall NO numbers in Atlanta, those car exhausts, with several very high peaks. Note the very high NO peaks do not shift the ozone peaks much, so it is hard to see a strong relationship between NO and ozone. So where does this leave the much trumpeted claim that a slight reduction in traffic during the Olympics could have caused lower ozone levels ? NO numbers for Yorkville are insignificant, just showing as the purple trace along the bottom of the graph. When will the EPA's start telling the truth about urban ozone?"
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
Australian earth scientist Warwick Hughes has weighed in here on the fraud I reported below on 19th. The fraudulent Greenie claim was that reduced traffic during the Atlanta Olympic games reduced ozone in the air and hence asthma.
Warwick's findings in brief are that ozone fluctuations observed in other areas well away from Atlanta traffic mirrored those of Atlanta -- so traffic had no role in the matter. A few excerpts:
"All my ozone data analysis experience tells me that big city summer ozone peaks will be broadly influenced by daytime max temperature and meteorological factors such as wind; I would be sceptical that a slight decrease in vehicle emissions could dominate over these more important factors....
The graph below shows clearly that across a broad region of Georgia and Alabama the Olympic period happened to be characterized by the lowest ozone levels of the 1996 summer. So you would have to suspect that the lower ozone levels in Atlanta during the Olympics are also following this regional trend which is no doubt due to broad scale meteorological factors and nothing to do with traffic....
We decided to compare data from a central Atlanta station and a rural site 80 kms NW, Yorkville; taking ozone and nitrous oxide (NO) numbers for August 2001, a cooler year with lower ozone similar to 1996... It is strikingly obvious that Atlanta and Yorkville have broadly similar daily ozone peaks, some days Yorkville even exceeds Atlanta !!! This is despite much higher overall NO numbers in Atlanta, those car exhausts, with several very high peaks. Note the very high NO peaks do not shift the ozone peaks much, so it is hard to see a strong relationship between NO and ozone. So where does this leave the much trumpeted claim that a slight reduction in traffic during the Olympics could have caused lower ozone levels ? NO numbers for Yorkville are insignificant, just showing as the purple trace along the bottom of the graph. When will the EPA's start telling the truth about urban ozone?"
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
Tuesday, July 27, 2004
GLOBAL WARMING IS RACIST!
The Black Caucus says it is so it must be so
"A new study released by the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation suggests rising temperatures will kill more black citizens than whites in the U.S., while claiming African-Americans are less responsible than others for causing so-called "global warming." The research, conducted by the Oakland, Calif.-based group Redefining Progress, is being billed as the first-ever comprehensive examination of the health and economic impact of climate change on the black population. "We are long past the point where global warming is considered a myth," said U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., chairman of the CBCF. "We are seeing its effects all around us."
The new report for the CBCF has three main findings:
America's black population will be disproportionately burdened by the health effects of global warming;
Blacks are less responsible for contributing to global warming than other Americans; and
Policies designed to mitigate global warming can generate large health and economic benefits for blacks, depending on their implementation.
"Time and again, the world's leading atmospheric scientists have warned us about the devastating impact of climate change," said Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas. "We now have irrefutable proof of its impact on our economy, our way of life, our health and our children." The study alleges responsibility for the problem does not lie primarily with blacks, stating, "African-American households emit 20 percent less carbon dioxide than white households. Historically, this difference was even higher."...
"The most direct health effect of climate change will be intensifying heat waves that selectively impact poor and urban populations," according to the study, noting cities like New York, Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia have large concentrations of blacks."
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
The Black Caucus says it is so it must be so
"A new study released by the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation suggests rising temperatures will kill more black citizens than whites in the U.S., while claiming African-Americans are less responsible than others for causing so-called "global warming." The research, conducted by the Oakland, Calif.-based group Redefining Progress, is being billed as the first-ever comprehensive examination of the health and economic impact of climate change on the black population. "We are long past the point where global warming is considered a myth," said U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., chairman of the CBCF. "We are seeing its effects all around us."
The new report for the CBCF has three main findings:
America's black population will be disproportionately burdened by the health effects of global warming;
Blacks are less responsible for contributing to global warming than other Americans; and
Policies designed to mitigate global warming can generate large health and economic benefits for blacks, depending on their implementation.
"Time and again, the world's leading atmospheric scientists have warned us about the devastating impact of climate change," said Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas. "We now have irrefutable proof of its impact on our economy, our way of life, our health and our children." The study alleges responsibility for the problem does not lie primarily with blacks, stating, "African-American households emit 20 percent less carbon dioxide than white households. Historically, this difference was even higher."...
"The most direct health effect of climate change will be intensifying heat waves that selectively impact poor and urban populations," according to the study, noting cities like New York, Detroit, Chicago and Philadelphia have large concentrations of blacks."
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
Monday, July 26, 2004
GREENIE CLIMATE MODELS NOW PROVEN WRONG
"Every climate model that is run with increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases produces some degree of warming at earth's surface and even greater warming above the surface, especially in the atmospheric layer between 5,000 to 30,000 feet in altitude (the troposphere). Models calculate this warming to be especially strong in the tropical half of the planet and weaker in a very small region around both poles.
Observations of real world temperature trends in the lower atmosphere don't confirm these model results and instead show that, generally, warming trends decline with altitude.
Why is this important? The atmosphere is an integrated whole. Temperature aloft is an important determinant of temperature at the surface. If the models have the "upstairs" wrong but have it right "downstairs" in the area near the surface, they've been pretty lucky. Some might say, pretty "adjusted."
The discrepancy between models and observations is the crux of one of the major arguments against the models and over reliance on them to anticipate future climate. If the models can't accurately portray present observations, they cannot be relied upon to predict the future.
The hypothesis that models continue to get it wrong is strongly supported by results from a research effort led by The University of Rochester's David Douglass and published in a pair of articles in Geophysical Research Letters (online on July 9, 2004). Two other scientists involved in the effort were Patrick Michaels and Paul Knappenberger, chief editor and technical supervisor of World Climate Alerts"......
In sum, the results of research presented in Douglass's two papers provide strong evidence for three important points:
1) The discrepancy between temperature trends measured at the earth's surface and those measured in the earth's lower atmosphere is real.
2) A large part of this discrepancy likely is caused by local, non-climatic influences on surface thermometers not by stratospheric contamination of the lower tropospheric data.
3) Climate models that include observed changes to known climate forcing agents (both natural and anthropogenic) are unable to replicate the observed behavior of the temperatures in the lower atmosphere. Furthermore, if local, non-climatic influences are largely responsible for the surface temperature trends, then the climate models are getting the surface trends right for the wrong reasons - indicating their failure at that level as well.
Such findings should give pause to anyone who relies on climate model output to inform their decision-making."
More here
"Every climate model that is run with increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases produces some degree of warming at earth's surface and even greater warming above the surface, especially in the atmospheric layer between 5,000 to 30,000 feet in altitude (the troposphere). Models calculate this warming to be especially strong in the tropical half of the planet and weaker in a very small region around both poles.
Observations of real world temperature trends in the lower atmosphere don't confirm these model results and instead show that, generally, warming trends decline with altitude.
Why is this important? The atmosphere is an integrated whole. Temperature aloft is an important determinant of temperature at the surface. If the models have the "upstairs" wrong but have it right "downstairs" in the area near the surface, they've been pretty lucky. Some might say, pretty "adjusted."
The discrepancy between models and observations is the crux of one of the major arguments against the models and over reliance on them to anticipate future climate. If the models can't accurately portray present observations, they cannot be relied upon to predict the future.
The hypothesis that models continue to get it wrong is strongly supported by results from a research effort led by The University of Rochester's David Douglass and published in a pair of articles in Geophysical Research Letters (online on July 9, 2004). Two other scientists involved in the effort were Patrick Michaels and Paul Knappenberger, chief editor and technical supervisor of World Climate Alerts"......
In sum, the results of research presented in Douglass's two papers provide strong evidence for three important points:
1) The discrepancy between temperature trends measured at the earth's surface and those measured in the earth's lower atmosphere is real.
2) A large part of this discrepancy likely is caused by local, non-climatic influences on surface thermometers not by stratospheric contamination of the lower tropospheric data.
3) Climate models that include observed changes to known climate forcing agents (both natural and anthropogenic) are unable to replicate the observed behavior of the temperatures in the lower atmosphere. Furthermore, if local, non-climatic influences are largely responsible for the surface temperature trends, then the climate models are getting the surface trends right for the wrong reasons - indicating their failure at that level as well.
Such findings should give pause to anyone who relies on climate model output to inform their decision-making."
More here
"NATURAL" PRODUCTS CAN KILL YOU
Excerpt from an article in the Brisbane "Sunday Mail" of July 25, 2004 -- not apparently online. The article was written by Daryl Passmore and appeared under the heading: "How that 'natural' pesticide harms us"
"Consumers had a mistaken notion that natural had to be better and safer, said Professor John Trumble... "In fact, these natural materials contain toxic chemicals that are often far more dangerous to humans and animals than the pesticides available from chemical companies". Hazards included skin diseases, exposure to carcinogens, mutagens, neurotoxins and substances known to cause organ failure.
The University of California insect expert will be one of the speakers at the International Congress on Entomology at the Brisbane Convention Centre from August 15 to 24. "Given the size of the market and an increasing interest in all things natural, it is not surprising that commercial products are being developed for a wide range of human and animal uses," he wrote in a paper for The American Entomologist. "Unfortunately, most natural products including those used for insect control are not always subject to rigorous testing." While some serious research was being done and some of the solutions worked as promised, he was alarmed by the lack of scientific work to back up many claims. "For a scientist, reading the new-age literature or some of the holistic writing is roughly equivalent of suddenly entering a parallel universe where the rules of physics and chemistry do not apply. Biology is replaced by mysticism," Professor Trumble said. "Plants contain many toxins ... Some of these toxins can cause significant human or animal health effects and many deaths have been reported."
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
Excerpt from an article in the Brisbane "Sunday Mail" of July 25, 2004 -- not apparently online. The article was written by Daryl Passmore and appeared under the heading: "How that 'natural' pesticide harms us"
"Consumers had a mistaken notion that natural had to be better and safer, said Professor John Trumble... "In fact, these natural materials contain toxic chemicals that are often far more dangerous to humans and animals than the pesticides available from chemical companies". Hazards included skin diseases, exposure to carcinogens, mutagens, neurotoxins and substances known to cause organ failure.
The University of California insect expert will be one of the speakers at the International Congress on Entomology at the Brisbane Convention Centre from August 15 to 24. "Given the size of the market and an increasing interest in all things natural, it is not surprising that commercial products are being developed for a wide range of human and animal uses," he wrote in a paper for The American Entomologist. "Unfortunately, most natural products including those used for insect control are not always subject to rigorous testing." While some serious research was being done and some of the solutions worked as promised, he was alarmed by the lack of scientific work to back up many claims. "For a scientist, reading the new-age literature or some of the holistic writing is roughly equivalent of suddenly entering a parallel universe where the rules of physics and chemistry do not apply. Biology is replaced by mysticism," Professor Trumble said. "Plants contain many toxins ... Some of these toxins can cause significant human or animal health effects and many deaths have been reported."
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
Sunday, July 25, 2004
TOP AUSTRALIAN SCIENTIST KNOCKS GLOBAL WARMING
"A former head of the National Climate Centre has challenged forecasts of dramatically higher temperatures in the Murray Darling basin which underpin Victoria's radical water-reform policies. Victoria was using "unrealistic" CSIRO projections based on flawed international forecasts, according to consultant climatologist William Kininmonth. The scepticism comes as fractures emerge within the Bracks Government between those pushing for immediate action on greenhouse issues and those seeking to defend the state's manufacturing base.
Mr Kininmonth, who headed the Bureau of Meteorology's National Climate Centre between 1986 and 1998, said predictions of warming of two degrees in the Murray Darling basin within 25 years were unrealistic. The forecasts are the key scientific basis for Victoria's white paper on water reforms, released earlier this month, which are also likely to influence other Labor states.
Based on CSIRO models, the white paper says water supplies will decline in the Murray Darling basin because temperatures will rise by up to two degrees centigrade by 2030 and six degrees by 2070. Any such increase would be a dramatic shift in the pattern of temperatures rising in Australia.
The mean temperature has risen by 0.9 degrees in the past 100 years, according to work by the Bureau of Meteorology, and there was no agreement on whether that change was from natural or man-made influences. The CSIRO forecasts are based on those given by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which simulate a range of future scenarios.
Mr Kininmonth said the IPCC forecasts were flawed because the different models did not properly represent the radiation exchange between the atmosphere and the earth's surface. "(The IPCC and CSIRO forecasts) do not adequately reflect the dynamics of the atmosphere and the oceans. This leads to errors in the radiation physics," he said. "They are forecasting conditions which I don't believe are really achievable under these conditions."
More here
One of the journalists who wrote the article excerpted above also wrote another much longer article for a magazine section in the same issue of the same newspaper -- in which she interviewed not one but SIX of Australia's leading climate scientists about possible warming of the Australian climate. That article is also excerpted below. Note that NOT ONE of the six was prepared to assert that there was anything but natural temperature variation going on.
"A former head of the National Climate Centre has challenged forecasts of dramatically higher temperatures in the Murray Darling basin which underpin Victoria's radical water-reform policies. Victoria was using "unrealistic" CSIRO projections based on flawed international forecasts, according to consultant climatologist William Kininmonth. The scepticism comes as fractures emerge within the Bracks Government between those pushing for immediate action on greenhouse issues and those seeking to defend the state's manufacturing base.
Mr Kininmonth, who headed the Bureau of Meteorology's National Climate Centre between 1986 and 1998, said predictions of warming of two degrees in the Murray Darling basin within 25 years were unrealistic. The forecasts are the key scientific basis for Victoria's white paper on water reforms, released earlier this month, which are also likely to influence other Labor states.
Based on CSIRO models, the white paper says water supplies will decline in the Murray Darling basin because temperatures will rise by up to two degrees centigrade by 2030 and six degrees by 2070. Any such increase would be a dramatic shift in the pattern of temperatures rising in Australia.
The mean temperature has risen by 0.9 degrees in the past 100 years, according to work by the Bureau of Meteorology, and there was no agreement on whether that change was from natural or man-made influences. The CSIRO forecasts are based on those given by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which simulate a range of future scenarios.
Mr Kininmonth said the IPCC forecasts were flawed because the different models did not properly represent the radiation exchange between the atmosphere and the earth's surface. "(The IPCC and CSIRO forecasts) do not adequately reflect the dynamics of the atmosphere and the oceans. This leads to errors in the radiation physics," he said. "They are forecasting conditions which I don't believe are really achievable under these conditions."
More here
One of the journalists who wrote the article excerpted above also wrote another much longer article for a magazine section in the same issue of the same newspaper -- in which she interviewed not one but SIX of Australia's leading climate scientists about possible warming of the Australian climate. That article is also excerpted below. Note that NOT ONE of the six was prepared to assert that there was anything but natural temperature variation going on.
A change in the weather?
Extremes like a drought aren't reliable indicators of global warming, reports Michelle Gilchrist
"The official record of one of Australia's worst droughts is depressingly familiar. "The five years had been intermittently dry over most of the country ... very dry conditions set in across eastern Australia during the spring, and became entrenched over the following months," the Bureau of Meteorology reports. "The long drought and its severe climax had devastated stock numbers, and began focusing attention on planning for irrigation, especially in the three states through which the Murray River flows."
To rural Australians, these words are no surprise. But the report is an official history of the great drought, which lasted from 1896 to 1901 .... Mathematicians and meteorologists say extreme events give little useful information about long-term climate change ... "Statistically speaking, looking at extremes is not the right thing to do if you are concerned with long-term changes," says Kevin Judd, of the University of Western Australia. "Extremes don't tell you much. Nothing may have changed yet you might get some extreme [events] occurring." Using everyday weather - high and low temperatures, their mean or average over time - can provide more useful information in a much shorter period....
"We are really, in many ways, at the very early stage of understanding the variability of the weather system," says William Kininmonth, a former head of the Bureau of Meteorology's National Climate Centre. "We understand the overall annual weather cycle, and we know quite a lot about the seasons and some of their variability. But there are other subtle factors that we don't really know." Kininmonth says new technology compounds the confusion. "We have started to develop computer models and people believe such models can tell us the answer. But they are ... only simulations," he says.
Australia's former chief meteorologist John Zillman agrees that the study of longterm weather remains a nascent science. "The atmosphere is a tricky and complex creature." says Zillman. "The climate is hugely variable and every now and again we do get extremes that go way beyond the previous records we have in Australia." Queensland in 1994 recorded almost 8OOmm of rain in one month, with figures off the scale for Brisbane. "If we had, say, another 300 years of highly reliable rainfall records for Australia, say back until the 1500s, we would perhaps be able to say it falls within the range of natural variability," Zillman says. "But we don't have those records and we therefore cannot say things like that. The shortage of records limits us."
Those claiming weather patterns have changed beyond natural variation turn to work by Bureau of Meteorology researcher Neville Nicholls, who argues the 2002-03 drought is at least the worst since the 1950s. Last month Nicholls wrote that the previous drought was a triple whammy of high mean temperatures, high evaporation rates and very low rainfall figures. especially in the Murray/Darling Basin. In 2002, the mean daily temperature in that region was 0.7C higher than previous records; and more than 1C warmer than the droughts of 1982 and 1994. Importantly, though, the Nicholls paper does not say the 2002-03 drought is the worst on record; instead, it can only say that the weather appears to have changed during the past 50 years....
Average rainfall in the southwestern corner of Western Australia has dipped by 10 percent to 20 percent since the '70s, puzzling meteorologists and scientists. "With rainfall, more so than temperature, you get very large year to year variations and these shifts mean we need much longer records before you can unequivocally say we have had a significant shift", says Neil Plummer of the Bureau of Meteorology.
Kininmonth agrees the climate has changed but believes it is for natural, not man-made, reasons. "All of the evidence points to the fact that the globe has warmed slightly over the past 100 years. That's something almost everybody agrees on. Whether that's unusual or not is what becomes debatable."
Plummer says the rise in mean temperatures may be within normal variability but adds that it appears to be unusual... Climate-change sceptic Warwick Hughes questions that data, arguing that the bureau's long-term mean temperature trend is tweaked. "My belief is that a true Australian trend has less warming than they show and their time series should extend a few decades back to cover the warm spell in the late 19th century." he says. Hughes argues the mean temperature trends also disregard the recent effect of 'urban heat islands" - cities such as Sydney and Melbourne and even smaller places such as Canberra, which create their own heat and raise ground temperatures."
More here
It should be noted that Australia is a large country (roughly the same size as the United States) and is one of only four large Southern hemisphere land-masses. So if there is no warming going on in Australia, it would be most odd if there was warming going on in the Southern hemisphere generally. And in one of the other large Southern land-masses (Antarctica) significant cooling (as signified by recent thickening in the West Antarctic ice sheet) seems to be going on at the moment
Extremes like a drought aren't reliable indicators of global warming, reports Michelle Gilchrist
"The official record of one of Australia's worst droughts is depressingly familiar. "The five years had been intermittently dry over most of the country ... very dry conditions set in across eastern Australia during the spring, and became entrenched over the following months," the Bureau of Meteorology reports. "The long drought and its severe climax had devastated stock numbers, and began focusing attention on planning for irrigation, especially in the three states through which the Murray River flows."
To rural Australians, these words are no surprise. But the report is an official history of the great drought, which lasted from 1896 to 1901 .... Mathematicians and meteorologists say extreme events give little useful information about long-term climate change ... "Statistically speaking, looking at extremes is not the right thing to do if you are concerned with long-term changes," says Kevin Judd, of the University of Western Australia. "Extremes don't tell you much. Nothing may have changed yet you might get some extreme [events] occurring." Using everyday weather - high and low temperatures, their mean or average over time - can provide more useful information in a much shorter period....
"We are really, in many ways, at the very early stage of understanding the variability of the weather system," says William Kininmonth, a former head of the Bureau of Meteorology's National Climate Centre. "We understand the overall annual weather cycle, and we know quite a lot about the seasons and some of their variability. But there are other subtle factors that we don't really know." Kininmonth says new technology compounds the confusion. "We have started to develop computer models and people believe such models can tell us the answer. But they are ... only simulations," he says.
Australia's former chief meteorologist John Zillman agrees that the study of longterm weather remains a nascent science. "The atmosphere is a tricky and complex creature." says Zillman. "The climate is hugely variable and every now and again we do get extremes that go way beyond the previous records we have in Australia." Queensland in 1994 recorded almost 8OOmm of rain in one month, with figures off the scale for Brisbane. "If we had, say, another 300 years of highly reliable rainfall records for Australia, say back until the 1500s, we would perhaps be able to say it falls within the range of natural variability," Zillman says. "But we don't have those records and we therefore cannot say things like that. The shortage of records limits us."
Those claiming weather patterns have changed beyond natural variation turn to work by Bureau of Meteorology researcher Neville Nicholls, who argues the 2002-03 drought is at least the worst since the 1950s. Last month Nicholls wrote that the previous drought was a triple whammy of high mean temperatures, high evaporation rates and very low rainfall figures. especially in the Murray/Darling Basin. In 2002, the mean daily temperature in that region was 0.7C higher than previous records; and more than 1C warmer than the droughts of 1982 and 1994. Importantly, though, the Nicholls paper does not say the 2002-03 drought is the worst on record; instead, it can only say that the weather appears to have changed during the past 50 years....
Average rainfall in the southwestern corner of Western Australia has dipped by 10 percent to 20 percent since the '70s, puzzling meteorologists and scientists. "With rainfall, more so than temperature, you get very large year to year variations and these shifts mean we need much longer records before you can unequivocally say we have had a significant shift", says Neil Plummer of the Bureau of Meteorology.
Kininmonth agrees the climate has changed but believes it is for natural, not man-made, reasons. "All of the evidence points to the fact that the globe has warmed slightly over the past 100 years. That's something almost everybody agrees on. Whether that's unusual or not is what becomes debatable."
Plummer says the rise in mean temperatures may be within normal variability but adds that it appears to be unusual... Climate-change sceptic Warwick Hughes questions that data, arguing that the bureau's long-term mean temperature trend is tweaked. "My belief is that a true Australian trend has less warming than they show and their time series should extend a few decades back to cover the warm spell in the late 19th century." he says. Hughes argues the mean temperature trends also disregard the recent effect of 'urban heat islands" - cities such as Sydney and Melbourne and even smaller places such as Canberra, which create their own heat and raise ground temperatures."
More here
It should be noted that Australia is a large country (roughly the same size as the United States) and is one of only four large Southern hemisphere land-masses. So if there is no warming going on in Australia, it would be most odd if there was warming going on in the Southern hemisphere generally. And in one of the other large Southern land-masses (Antarctica) significant cooling (as signified by recent thickening in the West Antarctic ice sheet) seems to be going on at the moment
RECORD SNOWFALLS IN AUSTRALIA
And to top it off, here is an excerpt from another Australian report that should help to make the Greenie's yoghurt go sour
"In the alpine village of Falls Creek, nestled amongst the snowgums in Victoria's high country, they call this gentle slope the Drover's Dream. But after some of the best early-season snowfalls ever recorded in the region, the mythical drover is not the only one fantasising about strapping on some skis.
With the mountains draped in powder and the sky a piercing blue, Ramona Bruland and Chris Hockey yesterday lapped up the idyllic conditions before the weekend onslaught of skiers and snowboarders. With an average snow depth of 101cm, Falls Creek, as with all Australian alpine resorts, is attracting record numbers of visitors.
Colin Hackworth, managing director of Australian Alpine Resorts, which runs Falls Creek and the neighbouring Mt Hotham resort, said the past three seasons - including 2004 - were some of the most successful in terms of numbers. "The good snow conditions are the driver. On this day last year we had a 40cm base of snow," Mr Hackworth said. "And it's true of all Australian resorts. There's not a rock to be seen. It's has never looked better."
And the broad smiles have not been confined to Victoria. At Thredbo in NSW, where snow falls are measured at the 1820m Spencers Creek station, the snow depth is 125.5cm. And there has been a 15 per cent rise on last year's record booking rate to match. "For early July, we've just seen the best falls in memory," a Thredbo spokeswoman said.
And at Perisher, where all 50 lifts are open, resort operators are boasting the same cover".
Also from an article in "The Australian" of 24 July, 2004. Apparently online to subscribers only. It is found under the heading "Snowfalls deliver a dream run at ski resorts" on P. 4 and was written by Drew Warne-Smith
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
And to top it off, here is an excerpt from another Australian report that should help to make the Greenie's yoghurt go sour
"In the alpine village of Falls Creek, nestled amongst the snowgums in Victoria's high country, they call this gentle slope the Drover's Dream. But after some of the best early-season snowfalls ever recorded in the region, the mythical drover is not the only one fantasising about strapping on some skis.
With the mountains draped in powder and the sky a piercing blue, Ramona Bruland and Chris Hockey yesterday lapped up the idyllic conditions before the weekend onslaught of skiers and snowboarders. With an average snow depth of 101cm, Falls Creek, as with all Australian alpine resorts, is attracting record numbers of visitors.
Colin Hackworth, managing director of Australian Alpine Resorts, which runs Falls Creek and the neighbouring Mt Hotham resort, said the past three seasons - including 2004 - were some of the most successful in terms of numbers. "The good snow conditions are the driver. On this day last year we had a 40cm base of snow," Mr Hackworth said. "And it's true of all Australian resorts. There's not a rock to be seen. It's has never looked better."
And the broad smiles have not been confined to Victoria. At Thredbo in NSW, where snow falls are measured at the 1820m Spencers Creek station, the snow depth is 125.5cm. And there has been a 15 per cent rise on last year's record booking rate to match. "For early July, we've just seen the best falls in memory," a Thredbo spokeswoman said.
And at Perisher, where all 50 lifts are open, resort operators are boasting the same cover".
Also from an article in "The Australian" of 24 July, 2004. Apparently online to subscribers only. It is found under the heading "Snowfalls deliver a dream run at ski resorts" on P. 4 and was written by Drew Warne-Smith
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
Saturday, July 24, 2004
GREENIE RELIGIOUS DOGMATISM
"The scene was a scientific workshop set up to discuss the science of global warming. It took place in a non-Western country and was convened by the country's Academy of Sciences. Delegates came from all over the world. Yet the delegation from one major Western power behaved in a most undiplomatic fashion. The way the science was being presented was inconvenient to their political agenda, so they tried to get the scientists they disagreed with silenced. The organizers refused, so the delegation went to its government to exert political pressure. The organizers still refused, so the delegation disrupted the conference. When it became apparent they weren't going to get their way, they walked out.
Yet another example of arrogant America disrupting the world's attempts to solve the climate change program? No. The delegation in question was that of the United Kingdom, and the conference was that held last week in Moscow, hosted by the Russian Academy of Sciences.
The British delegation was led by Sir David King, chief scientific adviser to Her Majesty's government. Sir David has gone on record as saying that, "Global warming is worse than terrorism." ... The religious fervor with which Tony Blair's government is acting on this belief has many Britons unnerved. Dr. David Bellamy, one of the titans of the British environmental movement, wrote in the Daily Mail that he considers global warming alarmism "poppycock." Analysts predict a 40 percent rise in electricity prices as a result of the government's energy suppression policies. British manufacturers foresee having to put thousands out of work as they lose out in competitiveness to overseas suppliers. The Times's economics editor has written that the environmentalists pushing these policies "are like the medieval monks who favored self-flagellation as the road to virtue. For a Government to enshrine such thinking in policy is truly perverse."
In equally medieval fashion, adherents of the environmentalist religion have launched an inquisition against scientific views that they consider heretical. Hence, Sir David's outrageous behavior at the Moscow conference..... Sir David apparently walked out with his delegation in mid-answer to one question. Commenting on this display, Illarionov said, "It is not for us to give an assessment to what happened, but in our opinion the reputation of British science, the reputation of the British government, and the reputation of the title 'Sir' has sustained heavy damage."
If Americans had behaved this way, the world would be full of stories charging America with arrogance, boorishness, and disdain for the spirit of free inquiry. Yet Sir David King continues on his way, the Torquemada of the global-warming inquisition."
More here
The Russian scientists of course think global warming is poppycock too -- even though they wish it was real! And there has never been anything wrong with Russian science. Russians have the brains even if they never seem to have good government
"The scene was a scientific workshop set up to discuss the science of global warming. It took place in a non-Western country and was convened by the country's Academy of Sciences. Delegates came from all over the world. Yet the delegation from one major Western power behaved in a most undiplomatic fashion. The way the science was being presented was inconvenient to their political agenda, so they tried to get the scientists they disagreed with silenced. The organizers refused, so the delegation went to its government to exert political pressure. The organizers still refused, so the delegation disrupted the conference. When it became apparent they weren't going to get their way, they walked out.
Yet another example of arrogant America disrupting the world's attempts to solve the climate change program? No. The delegation in question was that of the United Kingdom, and the conference was that held last week in Moscow, hosted by the Russian Academy of Sciences.
The British delegation was led by Sir David King, chief scientific adviser to Her Majesty's government. Sir David has gone on record as saying that, "Global warming is worse than terrorism." ... The religious fervor with which Tony Blair's government is acting on this belief has many Britons unnerved. Dr. David Bellamy, one of the titans of the British environmental movement, wrote in the Daily Mail that he considers global warming alarmism "poppycock." Analysts predict a 40 percent rise in electricity prices as a result of the government's energy suppression policies. British manufacturers foresee having to put thousands out of work as they lose out in competitiveness to overseas suppliers. The Times's economics editor has written that the environmentalists pushing these policies "are like the medieval monks who favored self-flagellation as the road to virtue. For a Government to enshrine such thinking in policy is truly perverse."
In equally medieval fashion, adherents of the environmentalist religion have launched an inquisition against scientific views that they consider heretical. Hence, Sir David's outrageous behavior at the Moscow conference..... Sir David apparently walked out with his delegation in mid-answer to one question. Commenting on this display, Illarionov said, "It is not for us to give an assessment to what happened, but in our opinion the reputation of British science, the reputation of the British government, and the reputation of the title 'Sir' has sustained heavy damage."
If Americans had behaved this way, the world would be full of stories charging America with arrogance, boorishness, and disdain for the spirit of free inquiry. Yet Sir David King continues on his way, the Torquemada of the global-warming inquisition."
More here
The Russian scientists of course think global warming is poppycock too -- even though they wish it was real! And there has never been anything wrong with Russian science. Russians have the brains even if they never seem to have good government
STATE GOVERNMENT A.G.'S TRY TO SET NATIONAL GLOBAL WARMING POLICIES
From the National Center for Public Policy Research:
"According to a press release announcing the events, "New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, New Jersey Attorney General Peter C. Harvey, Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch, Vermont Attorney General William H. Sorrell and the office of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg will announce on July 21, 2004 the filing of a major lawsuit to curb global warming in the United States, in conjunction with the attorneys general of California, Iowa and Wisconsin.".....
According to a July 20 Associated Press article by Mark Johnson, "Eight states and New York City intend to sue five of the country's largest power producers to demand they cut carbon dioxide emissions, which are believed to be linked to global warming. The attorneys general from California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, as well as New York City's corporation counsel, will file a public nuisance lawsuit Wednesday in federal court in Manhattan, according to a draft news release...
The states contend carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced by increasing efficiency at coal-burning plants, switching from coal to cleaner burning fuels, investing in energy conservation, and using clean energy sources such as wind and solar power.
Environmental policies properly are established by legislators voting in view of the public, not by lawyers in courtrooms. As the New York Attorney General's office describes it, "the Attorney General serves as the guardian of the legal rights of the citizens." What happened to the citizens' right to be governed by a legislature it selects?
"Global warming" -- the theory that behavior by human beings is causing the Earth to warm significantly -- is highly contested scientific issue, one on which many climate scientists disagree. Even those scientists who believe human behavior is causing the planet to warm disagree significantly about causes and degree.
Scientists furthermore differ on the impact global warming would have on the Earth. Some expect global warming would cause sea levels to rise. Others believe it could cause sea levels to lower -- as increased amounts of water vapor in the air result in more snow congregating at the still-frozen poles.
Some global warming debaters stress the possibility that global warming could hurt plants, while others note the beneficial effect of increased carbon dioxide levels on plant life (carbon dioxide is, roughly speaking, to plants what oxygen is to human beings).
Court decisions are blunt instruments and ill-suited for determining policies on such matters as global warming, where opinions are constantly undergoing change as new scientific knowledge is gained. The judicial branch, unlike the legislative, is not designed to accommodate the easy repeal or amendment of flawed policies."
I suspect this might be a blessing in disguise. As long as the courts are unbiased (a big ask) the result should be to show that the evidence for global warming does not stack up
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
From the National Center for Public Policy Research:
"According to a press release announcing the events, "New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, New Jersey Attorney General Peter C. Harvey, Rhode Island Attorney General Patrick Lynch, Vermont Attorney General William H. Sorrell and the office of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg will announce on July 21, 2004 the filing of a major lawsuit to curb global warming in the United States, in conjunction with the attorneys general of California, Iowa and Wisconsin.".....
According to a July 20 Associated Press article by Mark Johnson, "Eight states and New York City intend to sue five of the country's largest power producers to demand they cut carbon dioxide emissions, which are believed to be linked to global warming. The attorneys general from California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin, as well as New York City's corporation counsel, will file a public nuisance lawsuit Wednesday in federal court in Manhattan, according to a draft news release...
The states contend carbon dioxide emissions can be reduced by increasing efficiency at coal-burning plants, switching from coal to cleaner burning fuels, investing in energy conservation, and using clean energy sources such as wind and solar power.
Environmental policies properly are established by legislators voting in view of the public, not by lawyers in courtrooms. As the New York Attorney General's office describes it, "the Attorney General serves as the guardian of the legal rights of the citizens." What happened to the citizens' right to be governed by a legislature it selects?
"Global warming" -- the theory that behavior by human beings is causing the Earth to warm significantly -- is highly contested scientific issue, one on which many climate scientists disagree. Even those scientists who believe human behavior is causing the planet to warm disagree significantly about causes and degree.
Scientists furthermore differ on the impact global warming would have on the Earth. Some expect global warming would cause sea levels to rise. Others believe it could cause sea levels to lower -- as increased amounts of water vapor in the air result in more snow congregating at the still-frozen poles.
Some global warming debaters stress the possibility that global warming could hurt plants, while others note the beneficial effect of increased carbon dioxide levels on plant life (carbon dioxide is, roughly speaking, to plants what oxygen is to human beings).
Court decisions are blunt instruments and ill-suited for determining policies on such matters as global warming, where opinions are constantly undergoing change as new scientific knowledge is gained. The judicial branch, unlike the legislative, is not designed to accommodate the easy repeal or amendment of flawed policies."
I suspect this might be a blessing in disguise. As long as the courts are unbiased (a big ask) the result should be to show that the evidence for global warming does not stack up
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
Friday, July 23, 2004
THE BEST DATA SHOW NO RECENT RISE AT ALL IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
And even crooked science cannot make it
Those awkward satellites: "A study of global temperature data in the May 5 issue of Nature claims to solve a discrepancy between surface-station temperature readings and global temperature readings taken from orbital satellites. Experts reviewing the Nature study, however, say it fails to impugn the satellite readings. Ever since the first temperature-reading satellite was launched in 1979, scientists have tried to explain the discrepancy between satellite and ground-based readings of global temperatures." Satellite readings have shown virtually no warming trend since 1979, while ground-based readings have registered significant warming.
According to scientific studies, the discrepancy results from an urban heat island effect. Concrete, factories, office buildings, and automobiles produce heat in and around cities, causing temperatures to be somewhat warmer than the surrounding region. Moderate warming trends at land-based weather stations, typically located at airports in and around growing cities, merely reflect the growing population of the nearby city, studies show.
The recent Nature study attempts to contest the urban heat island evidence and cast doubt on the satellite readings. To support their theory, the study's authors introduced a "fudge factor" that attempts to explain and dismiss a significant amount of documented atmospheric cooling. The fudge factor, say experts, is where the Nature authors go wrong.
"You can't subtract more signal than is there, but that's what they've done," said Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). The problem, said Spencer, is that the study's fudge factor removes more stratospheric cooling than actually appears in the data, thus creating a spurious warming signal.
"Simply put, this method overcorrects for stratospheric cooling," said Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at UAH and director of the ESSC. "We tried this same technique in the early 1990s but it didn't work. "This kind of mistake would not get published with adequate peer review of manuscripts submitted for publication," observed Spencer.
And even crooked science cannot make it
Those awkward satellites: "A study of global temperature data in the May 5 issue of Nature claims to solve a discrepancy between surface-station temperature readings and global temperature readings taken from orbital satellites. Experts reviewing the Nature study, however, say it fails to impugn the satellite readings. Ever since the first temperature-reading satellite was launched in 1979, scientists have tried to explain the discrepancy between satellite and ground-based readings of global temperatures." Satellite readings have shown virtually no warming trend since 1979, while ground-based readings have registered significant warming.
According to scientific studies, the discrepancy results from an urban heat island effect. Concrete, factories, office buildings, and automobiles produce heat in and around cities, causing temperatures to be somewhat warmer than the surrounding region. Moderate warming trends at land-based weather stations, typically located at airports in and around growing cities, merely reflect the growing population of the nearby city, studies show.
The recent Nature study attempts to contest the urban heat island evidence and cast doubt on the satellite readings. To support their theory, the study's authors introduced a "fudge factor" that attempts to explain and dismiss a significant amount of documented atmospheric cooling. The fudge factor, say experts, is where the Nature authors go wrong.
"You can't subtract more signal than is there, but that's what they've done," said Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). The problem, said Spencer, is that the study's fudge factor removes more stratospheric cooling than actually appears in the data, thus creating a spurious warming signal.
"Simply put, this method overcorrects for stratospheric cooling," said Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at UAH and director of the ESSC. "We tried this same technique in the early 1990s but it didn't work. "This kind of mistake would not get published with adequate peer review of manuscripts submitted for publication," observed Spencer.
TREE GETS GREENIE
Poetic justice?
"Blake Champlin, a Tulsa lawyer and environmental activist, died Monday at his home when a tree supporting a hammock fell and crushed him. Champlin, 45, died instantly, said Gerald Hilsher, an attorney with Shipley & Kellogg, Champlin's former law firm.
Champlin was a member of Sierra Club and Save the Illinois River, and the director of Keep Tulsa Beautiful. He also pushed for an agreement between Oklahoma and Arkansas on phosphorus limits in northeast Oklahoma waters, Hilsher said.
Champlin was a past director of the Oklahoma Society of Environmental Professionals and a past chairman of the Environmental Law Section of the Oklahoma Bar Association."
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
Poetic justice?
"Blake Champlin, a Tulsa lawyer and environmental activist, died Monday at his home when a tree supporting a hammock fell and crushed him. Champlin, 45, died instantly, said Gerald Hilsher, an attorney with Shipley & Kellogg, Champlin's former law firm.
Champlin was a member of Sierra Club and Save the Illinois River, and the director of Keep Tulsa Beautiful. He also pushed for an agreement between Oklahoma and Arkansas on phosphorus limits in northeast Oklahoma waters, Hilsher said.
Champlin was a past director of the Oklahoma Society of Environmental Professionals and a past chairman of the Environmental Law Section of the Oklahoma Bar Association."
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
Thursday, July 22, 2004
HISTORY SHOWS UP GREENIE ECONOMIC ILLITERACY
Does anybody make more wrong predictions than the Worldwatch Institute? It keeps predicting that we're going to run out of food, water, energy, and other resources, and we keep not running out. Yet every year journalists solemnly report its annual predictions. Anyway, China didn't suck up the world's wheat and prices didn't rise.
Instead, starting with Deng Xiaoping's reforms after the death of Mao, Chinese agricultural production soared -- so much so that peasants began leaving the farms, going to the cities, looking for jobs, and setting up enterprises. Despite his Communist Party years, Deng may have done more good for more people than anybody else in history. Thanks to his reforms, over a billion people can now not only feed themselves but export food and shift labor to more productive uses.
The positive-sum character of trade is the very foundation of the liberal world order, the underpinning of expanding trade, international harmony, and peace. If one country's success was another's woe, then the socialists and nationalists would be right: World trade would be a war of all against all. Thankfully, they're wrong. The growing productivity of China, Russia, and India is wonderful news for their two billion citizens and good news for everyone else in the world economy as well.
More here
HYPOCRITICAL ALASKAN GREENIES
Do as I say, not as I do: "State environmental officials say the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise broke Alaska law by not filing an oil spill response plan or having a certificate of financial responsibility. The ship was ordered to anchor until both requirements are met, said Department of Environmental Conservation spokeswoman Lynda Giguere. An investigation is being conducted to decide whether a fine will be levied, she said."
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
A decade ago, a report from the Worldwatch Institute, a Washington-based environmental research group, set off a firestorm in Beijing. Chinese imports were rising after a series of lackluster harvests and Worldwatch predicted that China's demand would suck up a huge amount of the world's wheat and other grains, forcing up prices.
Does anybody make more wrong predictions than the Worldwatch Institute? It keeps predicting that we're going to run out of food, water, energy, and other resources, and we keep not running out. Yet every year journalists solemnly report its annual predictions. Anyway, China didn't suck up the world's wheat and prices didn't rise.
Free-market reforms in the late 1970s allowed a return to household farming. National wheat production began to soar as farmers were able to buy chemical fertilizers and new seed strains. The Chen family's harvests have increased seven-fold since China's market reforms.
Instead, starting with Deng Xiaoping's reforms after the death of Mao, Chinese agricultural production soared -- so much so that peasants began leaving the farms, going to the cities, looking for jobs, and setting up enterprises. Despite his Communist Party years, Deng may have done more good for more people than anybody else in history. Thanks to his reforms, over a billion people can now not only feed themselves but export food and shift labor to more productive uses.
The positive-sum character of trade is the very foundation of the liberal world order, the underpinning of expanding trade, international harmony, and peace. If one country's success was another's woe, then the socialists and nationalists would be right: World trade would be a war of all against all. Thankfully, they're wrong. The growing productivity of China, Russia, and India is wonderful news for their two billion citizens and good news for everyone else in the world economy as well.
More here
HYPOCRITICAL ALASKAN GREENIES
Do as I say, not as I do: "State environmental officials say the Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise broke Alaska law by not filing an oil spill response plan or having a certificate of financial responsibility. The ship was ordered to anchor until both requirements are met, said Department of Environmental Conservation spokeswoman Lynda Giguere. An investigation is being conducted to decide whether a fine will be levied, she said."
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
Wednesday, July 21, 2004
CAPITALISM HELPS THE ENVIRONMENT
The latest Robert Kennedy is a fairly hysterical environmentalist with a typically Greenie liking for exaggeration and prophecies of doom but some of his ancestral brains do show through. He is one of the few Greenies who recognize that competitive capitalism is good for the environment. He says that the problem lies with capitalists who rely not on open competition for what they get but rather on privileges that they get from government. Almost any economist would agree with that. In economists' terms, Kennedy is advocating full costing of "externalities" (roughly, harm that businesses do to the interests of people generally in the course of their activities) and believes that only government can enforce such costing (i.e. charge polluters for the harm done by their pollution) -- which is probably true in the world as we have it today. I think it is mostly clever talk, though. I get a strong impression that he would have a wildly higher estimate of the externalities than would be warranted by any reasonable evidence. Excerpt:
"The best thing that could happen to the environment is free-market capitalism. In a true free-market economy, you can't make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community. In a true free-market economy, you get efficiencies and efficiency means the elimination of waste. Waste is pollution. So in true free-market capitalism, you eliminate pollution and you properly value our natural resources so you won't cut them down. What polluters do is escape the discipline of the free market. You show me a polluter, I'll show you a subsidy -- a fat cat who's using political clout to escape the discipline of the free market....
Laissez-faire capitalism does not work, particularly in the commons. Individuals pursuing their own self-interest will devour the commons very quickly. That's the economic law -- the tragedy of the commons. You have to force companies to internalize costs. All of the federal environmental laws are designed to restore free-market capitalism in America in this regard.
I don't even consider myself an environmentalist anymore. I'm a free-marketeer. I go out into the marketplace and I catch the polluters who are cheating the free market and I say, "We are going to force you to internalize your costs the same way you are internalizing your profit." That's what the federal environmental laws allow us to do: restore real property rights in America. You cannot get sustained environmental protection under any system but a democracy. There's a direct correlation around the planet between the level of tyranny in various countries and the level of environmental degradation."
More here. (Via Tyler Cowen)
The latest Robert Kennedy is a fairly hysterical environmentalist with a typically Greenie liking for exaggeration and prophecies of doom but some of his ancestral brains do show through. He is one of the few Greenies who recognize that competitive capitalism is good for the environment. He says that the problem lies with capitalists who rely not on open competition for what they get but rather on privileges that they get from government. Almost any economist would agree with that. In economists' terms, Kennedy is advocating full costing of "externalities" (roughly, harm that businesses do to the interests of people generally in the course of their activities) and believes that only government can enforce such costing (i.e. charge polluters for the harm done by their pollution) -- which is probably true in the world as we have it today. I think it is mostly clever talk, though. I get a strong impression that he would have a wildly higher estimate of the externalities than would be warranted by any reasonable evidence. Excerpt:
"The best thing that could happen to the environment is free-market capitalism. In a true free-market economy, you can't make yourself rich without making your neighbors rich and without enriching your community. In a true free-market economy, you get efficiencies and efficiency means the elimination of waste. Waste is pollution. So in true free-market capitalism, you eliminate pollution and you properly value our natural resources so you won't cut them down. What polluters do is escape the discipline of the free market. You show me a polluter, I'll show you a subsidy -- a fat cat who's using political clout to escape the discipline of the free market....
Laissez-faire capitalism does not work, particularly in the commons. Individuals pursuing their own self-interest will devour the commons very quickly. That's the economic law -- the tragedy of the commons. You have to force companies to internalize costs. All of the federal environmental laws are designed to restore free-market capitalism in America in this regard.
I don't even consider myself an environmentalist anymore. I'm a free-marketeer. I go out into the marketplace and I catch the polluters who are cheating the free market and I say, "We are going to force you to internalize your costs the same way you are internalizing your profit." That's what the federal environmental laws allow us to do: restore real property rights in America. You cannot get sustained environmental protection under any system but a democracy. There's a direct correlation around the planet between the level of tyranny in various countries and the level of environmental degradation."
More here. (Via Tyler Cowen)
SOLAR OUTPUT IS VARIABLE
And so -- surprise, surprise -- is global temperature. Get the Sun to sign the Kyoto treaty!
"Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. "The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."
To determine the Sun's role in global warming, Dr Solanki's research team measured magnetic zones on the Sun's surface known as sunspots, which are believed to intensify the Sun's energy output.
The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer. The scientists also compared data from ice samples collected during an expedition to Greenland in 1991. The most recent samples contained the lowest recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth's atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists can currently trace beryllium 10 levels back 1,150 years.
Dr Solanki does not know what is causing the Sun to burn brighter now or how long this cycle would last. He says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes but believes that the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself.
Dr Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, welcomed Dr Solanki's research. "While the established view remains that the sun cannot be responsible for all the climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years or so, this study is certainly significant," he said. "It shows that there is enough happening on the solar front to merit further research. Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor."
Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming. He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase. This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said".
More here
The solar changes appear to have been slight in recent years but they show you cannot rule out solar variations as an influence on global temperature variations -- which is precisely what the Greenies do. So if there is any significant global warming going on, the Greenie claim that mankind caused it is sheer, unproven assertion
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
And so -- surprise, surprise -- is global temperature. Get the Sun to sign the Kyoto treaty!
"Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. "The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."
To determine the Sun's role in global warming, Dr Solanki's research team measured magnetic zones on the Sun's surface known as sunspots, which are believed to intensify the Sun's energy output.
The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer. The scientists also compared data from ice samples collected during an expedition to Greenland in 1991. The most recent samples contained the lowest recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth's atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists can currently trace beryllium 10 levels back 1,150 years.
Dr Solanki does not know what is causing the Sun to burn brighter now or how long this cycle would last. He says that the increased solar brightness over the past 20 years has not been enough to cause the observed climate changes but believes that the impact of more intense sunshine on the ozone layer and on cloud cover could be affecting the climate more than the sunlight itself.
Dr Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, welcomed Dr Solanki's research. "While the established view remains that the sun cannot be responsible for all the climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years or so, this study is certainly significant," he said. "It shows that there is enough happening on the solar front to merit further research. Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor."
Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming. He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase. This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said".
More here
The solar changes appear to have been slight in recent years but they show you cannot rule out solar variations as an influence on global temperature variations -- which is precisely what the Greenies do. So if there is any significant global warming going on, the Greenie claim that mankind caused it is sheer, unproven assertion
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
A STRAIGHT-SHOOTING MINISTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
In Australia
"JOHN Howard's new Environment Minister, Ian Campbell, has signalled a hard-edged approach to his new portfolio, refusing to be captive to the demands of a "myopic" conservation movement. Senator Campbell wants to continue the Government's agenda linking the nation's future power needs to coal and oil, rejecting the global framework for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
In an interview with The Weekend Australian, he said that while he respected the environment movement, its focus was often too "myopic". "Those who have a myopic focus on one area tend to fail that area," Senator Campbell said. "You've got to put all of the issues into the broader context. We operate within real-world constraints."
He believes environmental leaders such as Greens senator Bob Brown fail to see the links between the economy and the environment and are failing the environment as a result. "You should be looking at the donut and not the hole," he said. Senator Campbell, who habitually recycles and composts, argues that the answer to environmental sustainability is in successful business. "Businesses that are successful are much better at upholding their environmental responsibilities," he said. "If a business is failing or operating in a bad economy they (will) ... cut corners and won't uphold their environmental responsibility."....
Senator Campbell said he would vigorously defend the Coalition's green credentials if the environment shaped up to be a big election issue.... I'm a practical hands-on sort of bloke who will want to get on and deliver good results."
More here
GLOBAL WARMING IN BRIEF:
"The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that human activities are responsible for nearly all earth's recorded warming during the past two centuries. A widely circulated image that dramatically depicts these temperature trends resembles a hockey stick with three distinct parts: a flat "shaft" extending from A.D. 200 to 1900, a "blade" shooting up from A.D. 1900 to 2002, and a range of uncertainty in temperature estimates that envelops the shaft like a "sheath."
Michael Mann of the University of Virginia and Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia updated the influential reconstruction of (Geophysical Research Letters, 2003) used in the IPCC's third assessment of climate change. However, researchers are calling into question all three components of the "hockey stick,"
Mann's research does not fit with the overwhelming evidence of widespread global warming and cooling within the previous two millennia, making his assertions -- and, consequently, the IPCC -- open to question"
More here
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
In Australia
"JOHN Howard's new Environment Minister, Ian Campbell, has signalled a hard-edged approach to his new portfolio, refusing to be captive to the demands of a "myopic" conservation movement. Senator Campbell wants to continue the Government's agenda linking the nation's future power needs to coal and oil, rejecting the global framework for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
In an interview with The Weekend Australian, he said that while he respected the environment movement, its focus was often too "myopic". "Those who have a myopic focus on one area tend to fail that area," Senator Campbell said. "You've got to put all of the issues into the broader context. We operate within real-world constraints."
He believes environmental leaders such as Greens senator Bob Brown fail to see the links between the economy and the environment and are failing the environment as a result. "You should be looking at the donut and not the hole," he said. Senator Campbell, who habitually recycles and composts, argues that the answer to environmental sustainability is in successful business. "Businesses that are successful are much better at upholding their environmental responsibilities," he said. "If a business is failing or operating in a bad economy they (will) ... cut corners and won't uphold their environmental responsibility."....
Senator Campbell said he would vigorously defend the Coalition's green credentials if the environment shaped up to be a big election issue.... I'm a practical hands-on sort of bloke who will want to get on and deliver good results."
More here
GLOBAL WARMING IN BRIEF:
"The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that human activities are responsible for nearly all earth's recorded warming during the past two centuries. A widely circulated image that dramatically depicts these temperature trends resembles a hockey stick with three distinct parts: a flat "shaft" extending from A.D. 200 to 1900, a "blade" shooting up from A.D. 1900 to 2002, and a range of uncertainty in temperature estimates that envelops the shaft like a "sheath."
Michael Mann of the University of Virginia and Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia updated the influential reconstruction of (Geophysical Research Letters, 2003) used in the IPCC's third assessment of climate change. However, researchers are calling into question all three components of the "hockey stick,"
Mann's research does not fit with the overwhelming evidence of widespread global warming and cooling within the previous two millennia, making his assertions -- and, consequently, the IPCC -- open to question"
More here
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
Monday, July 19, 2004
THE ATLANTA MYTH: REDUCING TRAFFIC REDUCES ASTHMA
"The Summer Olympics came to Atlanta in July and August 1996, and some people are still talking about it, as I observed at a recent forum. Nothing about the events' winners and losers, of course, but about the environmental ramifications.
Cars stayed away from downtown in droves. Ridership on public transportation was reported up 250 percent. The media hailed the experiment in reducing traffic, pollution and asthma. Even the Department of Natural Resources' Environmental Protection Division saw it as a successful, if brief, solution to Atlanta's air pollution problem: The agency still has a separate Web page devoted to ozone readings during the Games.....
In fact, ozone did not decrease during the Olympics compared to the week before (July 12-18); the average of maximum daily levels was the same (58 ppb average of levels at Decatur, Tucker and Confederate Avenue). And average ozone was only 10 percent higher during the following 10 days. How far on either side could the Games have an effect on ozone?....
Even the basic premise fails. It was known in the fall of 1996 that traffic was not reduced. The conclusion of DNR was; "Data from DOT indicates that the actual total daily amount of traffic reduction was not that significant." Some feared an increase in traffic and air pollution, but as David Goldberg wrote for the Atlanta Constitution on Oct. 11, 1996, " . the surprise was that traffic levels during the Olympics were similar to those before the Games."
Although the JAMA paper lists traffic reduction during weekday one-hour morning peaks as 22.5 percent, it says weekday 24-hour total traffic was down only 2.8 percent. In the highly variable patterns of ozone and asthma, 2.8 percent less traffic for a few days would cause hardly a blip. If 2.8 percent less traffic could reduce asthma cases 40 percent or more, as reported in the JAMA article, 7 percent less would wipe out them out altogether".
More here
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
"The Summer Olympics came to Atlanta in July and August 1996, and some people are still talking about it, as I observed at a recent forum. Nothing about the events' winners and losers, of course, but about the environmental ramifications.
Cars stayed away from downtown in droves. Ridership on public transportation was reported up 250 percent. The media hailed the experiment in reducing traffic, pollution and asthma. Even the Department of Natural Resources' Environmental Protection Division saw it as a successful, if brief, solution to Atlanta's air pollution problem: The agency still has a separate Web page devoted to ozone readings during the Games.....
In fact, ozone did not decrease during the Olympics compared to the week before (July 12-18); the average of maximum daily levels was the same (58 ppb average of levels at Decatur, Tucker and Confederate Avenue). And average ozone was only 10 percent higher during the following 10 days. How far on either side could the Games have an effect on ozone?....
Even the basic premise fails. It was known in the fall of 1996 that traffic was not reduced. The conclusion of DNR was; "Data from DOT indicates that the actual total daily amount of traffic reduction was not that significant." Some feared an increase in traffic and air pollution, but as David Goldberg wrote for the Atlanta Constitution on Oct. 11, 1996, " . the surprise was that traffic levels during the Olympics were similar to those before the Games."
Although the JAMA paper lists traffic reduction during weekday one-hour morning peaks as 22.5 percent, it says weekday 24-hour total traffic was down only 2.8 percent. In the highly variable patterns of ozone and asthma, 2.8 percent less traffic for a few days would cause hardly a blip. If 2.8 percent less traffic could reduce asthma cases 40 percent or more, as reported in the JAMA article, 7 percent less would wipe out them out altogether".
More here
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
Sunday, July 18, 2004
WINDY NONSENSE
The Greenies have gone off wind power now but no-one has had the heart to tell the British government. Niall Ferguson is irate. Excerpts:
"My objection is not just that wind turbines are a much more expensive way of generating power than conventional power stations. We could all put up with bigger bills if it meant, in the cant phrase, saving the planet. The key problem is that wind power is so inefficient that it scarcely replaces conventional sources of energy at all.... wind varies: any energy supplier wanting to buy power from wind farms must also line up substitutes for those days when the wind is either too weak or too strong. Wind farms can stand in for other forms of power only when the wind is not too weak and not too strong, but just right. The rest of the time, the more reliable power stations have to step in. This means that the true cost of wind power includes the cost of providing back-up power to compensate for the wind turbines' intermittent output. And guess who picks up these extra costs? Step forward the consumer - not to mention the taxpayer.
The Department of Trade and Industry has decided that nearly three quarters of the additional "renewable" energy should come from wind turbines. To ensure that this happens, electricity suppliers are being forced by law to buy a rising proportion of their power from wind farms..... What this represents is a return to the planned economy in the name of environmentalism - a kind of Green Stalinism. The consequences are the familiar Soviet ones: centralised decision-making and localised devastation.
What is so absurd is that, no matter how many wind turbines we build, global dependence on fossil fuels will scarcely be diminished at all. Indeed, if we are not careful, we ourselves could end up relying even more on precisely the sources of power the Government claims it is against. Why? Because even as it has pumped money into the white elephants known as wind farms, the Government has been unthinkingly running down the one reliable source of CO2-free power. Over the next 20 years, all but one of Britain's 16 nuclear power stations will close.
More here
Junk law: "They all deserve a good spanking. 'They' are the state attorneys general (AGs) and other lawyers who will soon file briefs with the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia demanding, in effect, that the U.S. Government ration and restrict the American people's access to energy."
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
The Greenies have gone off wind power now but no-one has had the heart to tell the British government. Niall Ferguson is irate. Excerpts:
"My objection is not just that wind turbines are a much more expensive way of generating power than conventional power stations. We could all put up with bigger bills if it meant, in the cant phrase, saving the planet. The key problem is that wind power is so inefficient that it scarcely replaces conventional sources of energy at all.... wind varies: any energy supplier wanting to buy power from wind farms must also line up substitutes for those days when the wind is either too weak or too strong. Wind farms can stand in for other forms of power only when the wind is not too weak and not too strong, but just right. The rest of the time, the more reliable power stations have to step in. This means that the true cost of wind power includes the cost of providing back-up power to compensate for the wind turbines' intermittent output. And guess who picks up these extra costs? Step forward the consumer - not to mention the taxpayer.
The Department of Trade and Industry has decided that nearly three quarters of the additional "renewable" energy should come from wind turbines. To ensure that this happens, electricity suppliers are being forced by law to buy a rising proportion of their power from wind farms..... What this represents is a return to the planned economy in the name of environmentalism - a kind of Green Stalinism. The consequences are the familiar Soviet ones: centralised decision-making and localised devastation.
What is so absurd is that, no matter how many wind turbines we build, global dependence on fossil fuels will scarcely be diminished at all. Indeed, if we are not careful, we ourselves could end up relying even more on precisely the sources of power the Government claims it is against. Why? Because even as it has pumped money into the white elephants known as wind farms, the Government has been unthinkingly running down the one reliable source of CO2-free power. Over the next 20 years, all but one of Britain's 16 nuclear power stations will close.
More here
Junk law: "They all deserve a good spanking. 'They' are the state attorneys general (AGs) and other lawyers who will soon file briefs with the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia demanding, in effect, that the U.S. Government ration and restrict the American people's access to energy."
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
Saturday, July 17, 2004
Millennia of global warming
A new study suggests that cutting down trees over the last few thousand years has increased global warming BENEFICIALLY -- staving off a new ice age.
Scientific, economic, and political discussions about global warming caused by human activity have tended to focus on the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) by the burning of fossil fuels, a process that became significant only 200 years ago. But deforestation, the conversion of forest land to agricultural or pasture land, also increases CO2 as carbon stored in trees is released to the atmosphere. Indeed, a new study by William F. Ruddiman of the University of Virginia indicates that human agricultural and deforestation activities have been increasing greenhouse gases and inducing global warming for thousands of years (Climatic Change 2003, 61, 261; Nature 2004, 427, 582) and may have prevented the return of Ice Age climates.
Ruddiman's analysis begins with the well-accepted theory that the cyclical alternation of Ice Ages with brief interglacial periods, such as the present, is controlled by regular oscillations in Earth's orbit. The amount of sunlight received by the planet in summer and winter varies by as much as ñ10% as Earth's orbital eccentricity (ellipticity) changes, as the point in Earth's orbit nearest the sun moves around the orbit, and as Earth's axis wobbles (precesses). This 20% oscillation-a combination of 100,000-, 41,000-, and 23,000-year cycles-sets in motion changes in Earth's climate that amplify the variation in solar radiation. In the end, the oscillation determines the advance and disappearance of the giant ice sheets that have periodically covered much of the northern hemisphere for the last 2.75 million years.
Samples of atmospheric gases trapped in ice in Greenland and Siberia show that the levels of two greenhouse gases, CO2 and methane, closely track solar-radiation cycles, with the gases increasing as the radiation and temperature rise and declining when they fall. But this close correlation, valid over hundreds of thousands of years, breaks down in the most recent period.
Although solar radiation started to decline 10,000 years ago, CO2 in the atmosphere began to rise 8,000 years ago and methane started to rise 5,000 years ago, rather than falling as expected. The anomaly amounts to a rise of one-sixth in CO2 and nearly one half in methane over the levels that would be expected by the radiation cycle alone. After ruling out possible nonhuman causes for the rise in greenhouse gases, Ruddiman showed that deforestation, which began with the development of agriculture in the Eastern Mediterranean some 8,000 years ago, could account for the observed rise of CO2. Deforestation during the last 8 millennia has resulted in clearing nearly 13 million square kilometers of land and the release of some 320 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere. This is about twice the carbon released by the burning of fossil fuels. Also, beginning about 5,000 years ago, East Asian farmers began widespread rice farming with irrigated paddies, which would emit roughly enough methane, in Ruddiman's view, to account for the methane anomaly.
The gases released by deforestation and agriculture may have pushed back the onset of a new Ice Age. In the past, ice caps in North America started to form 5,000 years after solar radiation began dropping, which would mean some 3,000 to 6,000 years ago. Ruddiman estimates that the additional CO2 released by human activities would have elevated temperatures at high latitudes by the 2 øC needed to prevent glaciation. His estimates assumed that the deforestation alone affected climate through CO2 release, and ignored the effects of reduced cloud cover caused by fewer trees recycling water to the atmosphere.
"Although the conclusion that humans have been warming the climate for thousands of years seems startling, my colleagues have generally been quite supportive," Ruddiman reports. There have been disputes over the possible magnitude of the effect but general acceptance of its reality. For the present, the knowledge that deforestation has already caused substantial climatic modification serves as a warning because export-driven deforestation in tropical areas is now proceeding at a record pace. Although staving off the growth of Earth's ice sheets is certainly beneficial, melting them clearly would not be.
Source
The closing observation -- that the cutting down of trees may have gotten out of hand in recent years -- fails to take account of INCREASED forest cover in North America and Scandinavia in recent years
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
A new study suggests that cutting down trees over the last few thousand years has increased global warming BENEFICIALLY -- staving off a new ice age.
Scientific, economic, and political discussions about global warming caused by human activity have tended to focus on the emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) by the burning of fossil fuels, a process that became significant only 200 years ago. But deforestation, the conversion of forest land to agricultural or pasture land, also increases CO2 as carbon stored in trees is released to the atmosphere. Indeed, a new study by William F. Ruddiman of the University of Virginia indicates that human agricultural and deforestation activities have been increasing greenhouse gases and inducing global warming for thousands of years (Climatic Change 2003, 61, 261; Nature 2004, 427, 582) and may have prevented the return of Ice Age climates.
Ruddiman's analysis begins with the well-accepted theory that the cyclical alternation of Ice Ages with brief interglacial periods, such as the present, is controlled by regular oscillations in Earth's orbit. The amount of sunlight received by the planet in summer and winter varies by as much as ñ10% as Earth's orbital eccentricity (ellipticity) changes, as the point in Earth's orbit nearest the sun moves around the orbit, and as Earth's axis wobbles (precesses). This 20% oscillation-a combination of 100,000-, 41,000-, and 23,000-year cycles-sets in motion changes in Earth's climate that amplify the variation in solar radiation. In the end, the oscillation determines the advance and disappearance of the giant ice sheets that have periodically covered much of the northern hemisphere for the last 2.75 million years.
Samples of atmospheric gases trapped in ice in Greenland and Siberia show that the levels of two greenhouse gases, CO2 and methane, closely track solar-radiation cycles, with the gases increasing as the radiation and temperature rise and declining when they fall. But this close correlation, valid over hundreds of thousands of years, breaks down in the most recent period.
Although solar radiation started to decline 10,000 years ago, CO2 in the atmosphere began to rise 8,000 years ago and methane started to rise 5,000 years ago, rather than falling as expected. The anomaly amounts to a rise of one-sixth in CO2 and nearly one half in methane over the levels that would be expected by the radiation cycle alone. After ruling out possible nonhuman causes for the rise in greenhouse gases, Ruddiman showed that deforestation, which began with the development of agriculture in the Eastern Mediterranean some 8,000 years ago, could account for the observed rise of CO2. Deforestation during the last 8 millennia has resulted in clearing nearly 13 million square kilometers of land and the release of some 320 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere. This is about twice the carbon released by the burning of fossil fuels. Also, beginning about 5,000 years ago, East Asian farmers began widespread rice farming with irrigated paddies, which would emit roughly enough methane, in Ruddiman's view, to account for the methane anomaly.
The gases released by deforestation and agriculture may have pushed back the onset of a new Ice Age. In the past, ice caps in North America started to form 5,000 years after solar radiation began dropping, which would mean some 3,000 to 6,000 years ago. Ruddiman estimates that the additional CO2 released by human activities would have elevated temperatures at high latitudes by the 2 øC needed to prevent glaciation. His estimates assumed that the deforestation alone affected climate through CO2 release, and ignored the effects of reduced cloud cover caused by fewer trees recycling water to the atmosphere.
"Although the conclusion that humans have been warming the climate for thousands of years seems startling, my colleagues have generally been quite supportive," Ruddiman reports. There have been disputes over the possible magnitude of the effect but general acceptance of its reality. For the present, the knowledge that deforestation has already caused substantial climatic modification serves as a warning because export-driven deforestation in tropical areas is now proceeding at a record pace. Although staving off the growth of Earth's ice sheets is certainly beneficial, melting them clearly would not be.
Source
The closing observation -- that the cutting down of trees may have gotten out of hand in recent years -- fails to take account of INCREASED forest cover in North America and Scandinavia in recent years
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
Friday, July 16, 2004
BELLAMY AGAIN
I mentioned on 5th an article by distinguished botanist and environmentalist David Bellamy which rubbished the global warming scare. I have now tracked down a fuller version of the article. You can find it here or here (PDF). Some excerpts:
"Ah, ice ages ... those absolutely massive changes in global climate, that environmentalists don't like to talk about because they provide such strong evidence that climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon. It was round about the end of the last ice age, some 13,000 years ago that a global warming process did undoubtedly begin.
Not because of all those Stone Age folk roasting mammoth meat on fossil fuel camp fires but because of something called 'Milankovitch Cycles', an entirely natural fact of planetary life that depends on the tilt of the Earth's axis and its orbit around the sun....
Up and down, up and down - that is how temperature and climate have always gone in the past and there is no proof that they are not still doing exactly the same now. In other wards, climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon, nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels.
In fact, a recent scientific paper, rather unenticingly titled 'Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination,' proved it. It showed that increases in temperature are responsible for increased in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels not the other way around....
The real truth is that the main greenhouse gas - the one that has the most direct effect on land temperatures - is water vapour, 99 percent of which is entirely natural. If all the water vapour was removed from the atmosphere, the temperature of the planet would fall by 33 degrees Celsius. But remove all the carbon dioxide and the temperature might fall by just 0.3 percent. Although we wouldn't be around because without it there would be no green plants, no herbivorous farm animals and no food for us to eat.
It has been estimated that the cost of cutting fossil fuel emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol would be £76 trillion. Little wonder then that world leaders are worried. So should we all be. If we signed up to these scaremongers, we could be about to waste a gargantuan amount of money on a problem that doesn’t exist - money that could be used in umpteen better ways, fighting world hunger, providing clean drinking water, developing alternative energy sources, improving our environment, creating jobs."
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
I mentioned on 5th an article by distinguished botanist and environmentalist David Bellamy which rubbished the global warming scare. I have now tracked down a fuller version of the article. You can find it here or here (PDF). Some excerpts:
"Ah, ice ages ... those absolutely massive changes in global climate, that environmentalists don't like to talk about because they provide such strong evidence that climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon. It was round about the end of the last ice age, some 13,000 years ago that a global warming process did undoubtedly begin.
Not because of all those Stone Age folk roasting mammoth meat on fossil fuel camp fires but because of something called 'Milankovitch Cycles', an entirely natural fact of planetary life that depends on the tilt of the Earth's axis and its orbit around the sun....
Up and down, up and down - that is how temperature and climate have always gone in the past and there is no proof that they are not still doing exactly the same now. In other wards, climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon, nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels.
In fact, a recent scientific paper, rather unenticingly titled 'Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations over the Last Glacial Termination,' proved it. It showed that increases in temperature are responsible for increased in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels not the other way around....
The real truth is that the main greenhouse gas - the one that has the most direct effect on land temperatures - is water vapour, 99 percent of which is entirely natural. If all the water vapour was removed from the atmosphere, the temperature of the planet would fall by 33 degrees Celsius. But remove all the carbon dioxide and the temperature might fall by just 0.3 percent. Although we wouldn't be around because without it there would be no green plants, no herbivorous farm animals and no food for us to eat.
It has been estimated that the cost of cutting fossil fuel emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol would be £76 trillion. Little wonder then that world leaders are worried. So should we all be. If we signed up to these scaremongers, we could be about to waste a gargantuan amount of money on a problem that doesn’t exist - money that could be used in umpteen better ways, fighting world hunger, providing clean drinking water, developing alternative energy sources, improving our environment, creating jobs."
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
Thursday, July 15, 2004
GREEN BOLSHEVIKS
They're just as destructive as the Russian ones
"As his inauguration in March 1933 came to an end FDR found that his promises for economic recovery and for keeping us out of war had to take priority. He blasted full force with his New Deal and thus initiated the era of the alphabet soup agencies which were to cure our ills. He created an unfettered allotment of Frankenstein Departments which many to this day still plague us starting with the FCA, FCC, FDIC, FHA, FLA, MLB, NLB, NRA, NYA, PWA, WPA, SSB, TVA and over 40 others.
These agencies, spawned and ennobled by the American Bolsheviks over a period of years, have shredded our constitution and delivered telling blows to everything that we historically have held dear. The hundreds upon hundreds of cases throughout our nation have impinged upon our basic constitutional rights, especially in the last 15 years....
Here are a few: In California a landowner was bankrupted while in farming his land he interfered with the kangaroo rats. The fanatic concern for the snail darter, the spotted owl, the mousey desert shrew and the kangaroo rat at the expense of human productive energy is a sickness which falls parallel to the disease of socialism which is now running rampant in our country. In Michigan recently a landowner was harassed for the farming of so-called wetlands (commonly referred to as mosquito havens) which in the past both the courts and the army engineers had deemed as not wetlands. What these leeches representing government are trying to do has not been fully understood other than the landowner had been targeted and for some strange reason possibly being used as an example of government power. In Michigan the Dept. of Environmental Quality has made the call for a Midland dioxin cleanup upon the suspicion that dioxin levels may cause various illnesses. At risk are property values, homes, businesses and the livelihood of all Midland residents. There had been no study made of any potential health risks nor a shred of evidence that there is a problem of any kind. In Gross Ile, Michigan the Township has been temporarily thwarted in its attempts to confiscate a privately owned bridge. And now the EPA has decreed that a seven county area in Southeast Michigan is out of compliance with new clean air standards for fine particle pollution. SEMCOG, a regional planning partnership of local governmental units serving almost 5 million people, strongly disagree since their monitors claim otherwise. Seemingly nothing is available to stop these people from exercising their powers. They have happily assisted government in where, when and why people should smoke or not smoke; they have entered our bathrooms and told us how much water should be in the toilets and they are now in the process of determining our diets in compliance with the latest fads.
These legal felons imbued with orgiastic rites have subjected us to global warming; the ice age; the earth is now getting brighter; one third of the earth's surface is at risk to becoming desert; mercury emissions; earth day; the DDT fiasco; carbon dioxide emissions; tree thinning; asbestos scare; the combustion engine; ozone depletion; and whatever else will ensure them more money and power. Their agenda has evolved slowly and has become a mindset emboldened by the encouragement and the emotional bondage of the Bolsheviks in the Congress. Only the people themselves can stop this blatant tyranny. Possibly we need another Boston Tea Party".
More here
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
They're just as destructive as the Russian ones
"As his inauguration in March 1933 came to an end FDR found that his promises for economic recovery and for keeping us out of war had to take priority. He blasted full force with his New Deal and thus initiated the era of the alphabet soup agencies which were to cure our ills. He created an unfettered allotment of Frankenstein Departments which many to this day still plague us starting with the FCA, FCC, FDIC, FHA, FLA, MLB, NLB, NRA, NYA, PWA, WPA, SSB, TVA and over 40 others.
These agencies, spawned and ennobled by the American Bolsheviks over a period of years, have shredded our constitution and delivered telling blows to everything that we historically have held dear. The hundreds upon hundreds of cases throughout our nation have impinged upon our basic constitutional rights, especially in the last 15 years....
Here are a few: In California a landowner was bankrupted while in farming his land he interfered with the kangaroo rats. The fanatic concern for the snail darter, the spotted owl, the mousey desert shrew and the kangaroo rat at the expense of human productive energy is a sickness which falls parallel to the disease of socialism which is now running rampant in our country. In Michigan recently a landowner was harassed for the farming of so-called wetlands (commonly referred to as mosquito havens) which in the past both the courts and the army engineers had deemed as not wetlands. What these leeches representing government are trying to do has not been fully understood other than the landowner had been targeted and for some strange reason possibly being used as an example of government power. In Michigan the Dept. of Environmental Quality has made the call for a Midland dioxin cleanup upon the suspicion that dioxin levels may cause various illnesses. At risk are property values, homes, businesses and the livelihood of all Midland residents. There had been no study made of any potential health risks nor a shred of evidence that there is a problem of any kind. In Gross Ile, Michigan the Township has been temporarily thwarted in its attempts to confiscate a privately owned bridge. And now the EPA has decreed that a seven county area in Southeast Michigan is out of compliance with new clean air standards for fine particle pollution. SEMCOG, a regional planning partnership of local governmental units serving almost 5 million people, strongly disagree since their monitors claim otherwise. Seemingly nothing is available to stop these people from exercising their powers. They have happily assisted government in where, when and why people should smoke or not smoke; they have entered our bathrooms and told us how much water should be in the toilets and they are now in the process of determining our diets in compliance with the latest fads.
These legal felons imbued with orgiastic rites have subjected us to global warming; the ice age; the earth is now getting brighter; one third of the earth's surface is at risk to becoming desert; mercury emissions; earth day; the DDT fiasco; carbon dioxide emissions; tree thinning; asbestos scare; the combustion engine; ozone depletion; and whatever else will ensure them more money and power. Their agenda has evolved slowly and has become a mindset emboldened by the encouragement and the emotional bondage of the Bolsheviks in the Congress. Only the people themselves can stop this blatant tyranny. Possibly we need another Boston Tea Party".
More here
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
GEOLOGY SPEAKS
And tells us we are in the middle of a warm period between ice ages. The last similar warm period ran for 28,000 years WITHOUT any nasty industry to create it.
"Despite the recent trend toward global warming, scientists have long wondered whether the Earth is nearing another ice age, an end to the 12,000-year temperate spell in which civilizations arose. Some have said such a transition is overdue, given that each of the three temperate intervals that immediately preceded the current one lasted only about 10,000 years. But now, in an eagerly awaited study, a group of climate and ice experts say they have new evidence that Earth is not even halfway through the current warm era. The evidence comes from the oldest layers of Antarctic ice ever sampled.
Some scientists earlier proposed similar hypotheses, basing them on the current configuration of Earth's orbit, which seems to set the metronome that ice ages dance to. Temperature patterns deciphered in sea-bottom sediments in recent years supported the theory.
But experts say the new ice data is by far the strongest corroborating evidence, revealing many similarities between today's atmospheric and temperature patterns and those of a prolonged warm interval, with a duration of 28,000 years, that reached its peak 430,000 years ago. The findings were described Thursday in the journal Nature by the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica. The evidence comes from a shaft of ice extracted over five years from Antarctica, composed of thousands of layers that were formed as each year's snowfall was compressed over time. The deepest ice retrieved comes from 10,000 feet, or 3,000 meters, deep and dates back 740,000 years. The relative abundance of certain forms of hydrogen in the ice reflects past air temperatures.
No ice core worldwide had reached back beyond 420,000 years, making this core the first to capture fully the conditions during that long warm period. Several independent researchers familiar with the project said the case that the current warm period would be prolonged was now strong."
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
And tells us we are in the middle of a warm period between ice ages. The last similar warm period ran for 28,000 years WITHOUT any nasty industry to create it.
"Despite the recent trend toward global warming, scientists have long wondered whether the Earth is nearing another ice age, an end to the 12,000-year temperate spell in which civilizations arose. Some have said such a transition is overdue, given that each of the three temperate intervals that immediately preceded the current one lasted only about 10,000 years. But now, in an eagerly awaited study, a group of climate and ice experts say they have new evidence that Earth is not even halfway through the current warm era. The evidence comes from the oldest layers of Antarctic ice ever sampled.
Some scientists earlier proposed similar hypotheses, basing them on the current configuration of Earth's orbit, which seems to set the metronome that ice ages dance to. Temperature patterns deciphered in sea-bottom sediments in recent years supported the theory.
But experts say the new ice data is by far the strongest corroborating evidence, revealing many similarities between today's atmospheric and temperature patterns and those of a prolonged warm interval, with a duration of 28,000 years, that reached its peak 430,000 years ago. The findings were described Thursday in the journal Nature by the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica. The evidence comes from a shaft of ice extracted over five years from Antarctica, composed of thousands of layers that were formed as each year's snowfall was compressed over time. The deepest ice retrieved comes from 10,000 feet, or 3,000 meters, deep and dates back 740,000 years. The relative abundance of certain forms of hydrogen in the ice reflects past air temperatures.
No ice core worldwide had reached back beyond 420,000 years, making this core the first to capture fully the conditions during that long warm period. Several independent researchers familiar with the project said the case that the current warm period would be prolonged was now strong."
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
GETTING ATTENTION AT ANY PRICE
I regularly point out that Greenie motivation is best explained as attention-seeking behaviour rather than any desire to do anybody any good. The example below is a rather extreme case. It's attention-seeking behaviour of an extreme kind with only the slightest pretence of Greenie righteousness. Note that Norway does not have any rainforests:
"Controversial Kristopher Schau loves to shock his audience, and few knew what was in store for them as they went to his concert at the Quart music festival. In the middle of the concert, a young couple entered the stage. "How far are you willing to go to save the world?" asked the young man, and without much ado, the couple pulled off their clothes.
Cumshots provided the background music as the couple had intercourse right in front of the audience. A banner was raised on stage informing the audience that the couple was having sex to save the rainforest. After completing the intercourse, the couple received applause from the audience and disappeared.
The young couple, Tommy Hol Ellingsen, age 28, and Leona Johansson, age 21, are members of the environmental organization "Fuck for Forest." They have sex in public in order to put focus on the rainforest."
More here.
I regularly point out that Greenie motivation is best explained as attention-seeking behaviour rather than any desire to do anybody any good. The example below is a rather extreme case. It's attention-seeking behaviour of an extreme kind with only the slightest pretence of Greenie righteousness. Note that Norway does not have any rainforests:
"Controversial Kristopher Schau loves to shock his audience, and few knew what was in store for them as they went to his concert at the Quart music festival. In the middle of the concert, a young couple entered the stage. "How far are you willing to go to save the world?" asked the young man, and without much ado, the couple pulled off their clothes.
Cumshots provided the background music as the couple had intercourse right in front of the audience. A banner was raised on stage informing the audience that the couple was having sex to save the rainforest. After completing the intercourse, the couple received applause from the audience and disappeared.
The young couple, Tommy Hol Ellingsen, age 28, and Leona Johansson, age 21, are members of the environmental organization "Fuck for Forest." They have sex in public in order to put focus on the rainforest."
More here.
OPTIMISTS
"Trying to sell SUVs to environmentalists may be akin to pitching mink coats to animal-rights activists, but that's the approach Ford is taking with its soon-to-be-released Escape Hybrid SUV. So far, activists who strongly oppose gas-guzzling vehicles are giving a lukewarm reception to the first SUV designed to appeal to the green community.
Hybrid vehicles offer increased fuel efficiency by supplementing the gas engine with a battery-powered electric motor. But Ford's Escape will look just like its popular conventional-engine SUV when it goes on sale at dealerships in September, which could lead to a less-than-polite reception for its drivers on roadways and avenues."
More here. (Via Say Anything).
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
"Trying to sell SUVs to environmentalists may be akin to pitching mink coats to animal-rights activists, but that's the approach Ford is taking with its soon-to-be-released Escape Hybrid SUV. So far, activists who strongly oppose gas-guzzling vehicles are giving a lukewarm reception to the first SUV designed to appeal to the green community.
Hybrid vehicles offer increased fuel efficiency by supplementing the gas engine with a battery-powered electric motor. But Ford's Escape will look just like its popular conventional-engine SUV when it goes on sale at dealerships in September, which could lead to a less-than-polite reception for its drivers on roadways and avenues."
More here. (Via Say Anything).
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
Monday, July 12, 2004
DO GREENIE ACTIVISTS EVEN KNOW THE MEANING OF "INTEGRITY"?
Science "integrity" award a laugh again:
"I was much amused last year at this time when the junk science-fueled Center for Science in the Public Interest announced that the University of Pittsburgh's Herbert Needleman would be honored with CSPI's inaugural "Rachel Carson Award for Integrity in Science." The recently-announced honoree of the second annual "Integrity in Science" award is no less comical - Theo Colburn, co-author of the infamous 1996 book, "Our Stolen Future: Are We Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence and Survival." Her book's theme is that man-made chemicals are causing a myriad of diseases and conditions ranging from cancer to infertility to attention deficit disorder....
Colburn wrote that 80 percent of Florida's bald eagles were sterile in the mid-1950s, implying that man-made chemicals were to blame. What was her source for the estimate? How about a banker whose science credential was his claim to be an amateur bird watcher? Now that's authority.
Based on nothing more than bold-faced assertion, Colburn linked the decline of a particular otter population with a pesticide. Far more probable causes for the decline - overhunting or disease - were ignored.
The mid-1960s crash of a captive mink population near Lake Michigan was attributed by Colburn to the minks' diet, which included fish containing chemicals called polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs. But Colburn never scientifically linked the PCBs with the population crash while, once again, overlooking other possible explanations. In a subsequent unrelated passage in the book, however, she noted that it is, in fact, normal for animal populations, particularly those in captivity, to peak and then crash.
She wrote about observations of seagulls living in "lesbian relationships," which were attributed to chemicals without the slightest bit of credible evidence. Colburn also tried to promote the notion that man-made chemicals caused a decline in human sperm counts - a myth that has since been discredited by research questioning whether sperm counts have even declined.....
In the more than eight years since the publication of "Our Stolen Future" and untold millions, if not billions, of dollars spent researching Colburn's ideas, no credible science supports any of her allegations. In 1999, an expert panel of the National Academy of Science's National Research Council found no persuasive evidence that the trace levels of chemicals typically in the environment are disrupting hormonal processes in humans or wildlife.
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
Science "integrity" award a laugh again:
"I was much amused last year at this time when the junk science-fueled Center for Science in the Public Interest announced that the University of Pittsburgh's Herbert Needleman would be honored with CSPI's inaugural "Rachel Carson Award for Integrity in Science." The recently-announced honoree of the second annual "Integrity in Science" award is no less comical - Theo Colburn, co-author of the infamous 1996 book, "Our Stolen Future: Are We Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence and Survival." Her book's theme is that man-made chemicals are causing a myriad of diseases and conditions ranging from cancer to infertility to attention deficit disorder....
Colburn wrote that 80 percent of Florida's bald eagles were sterile in the mid-1950s, implying that man-made chemicals were to blame. What was her source for the estimate? How about a banker whose science credential was his claim to be an amateur bird watcher? Now that's authority.
Based on nothing more than bold-faced assertion, Colburn linked the decline of a particular otter population with a pesticide. Far more probable causes for the decline - overhunting or disease - were ignored.
The mid-1960s crash of a captive mink population near Lake Michigan was attributed by Colburn to the minks' diet, which included fish containing chemicals called polychlorinated biphenyls or PCBs. But Colburn never scientifically linked the PCBs with the population crash while, once again, overlooking other possible explanations. In a subsequent unrelated passage in the book, however, she noted that it is, in fact, normal for animal populations, particularly those in captivity, to peak and then crash.
She wrote about observations of seagulls living in "lesbian relationships," which were attributed to chemicals without the slightest bit of credible evidence. Colburn also tried to promote the notion that man-made chemicals caused a decline in human sperm counts - a myth that has since been discredited by research questioning whether sperm counts have even declined.....
In the more than eight years since the publication of "Our Stolen Future" and untold millions, if not billions, of dollars spent researching Colburn's ideas, no credible science supports any of her allegations. In 1999, an expert panel of the National Academy of Science's National Research Council found no persuasive evidence that the trace levels of chemicals typically in the environment are disrupting hormonal processes in humans or wildlife.
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
Sunday, July 11, 2004
Better air vs. hot air
"According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the overall quality of our air has improved steadily on President Bush's watch. Specifically, concentrations of carbon monoxide have fallen by 15.5 percent, lead by 31.5 percent, nitrogen dioxide by 5 percent, sulfur dioxide by 11 percent, and particulate matter by more than 4 percent. The two pollutants that contribute to ozone formation, moreover, are at their lowest levels since 1970.
President Bush has advanced regulatory proposals to allow outmoded power plants, oil refineries and other industrial facilities to modernize, and thereby cut their emissions of harmful pollutants, and to require the overseers of our national forests to use proven forest management techniques to limit the number and extent of the devastating fires that have ravaged millions of acres of forest in recent years.
President Bush also has implemented the first-ever snowmobile emission standards, which would have the same effect as taking 30 million cars off the road. In May, his administration tackled pollution from heavy construction equipment by approving a rule that will reduce the pollution from sulfur in diesel fuel by 99 percent.
As an impressive environmental record, that's not bad, right?
Au contraire. The League of Conservation Voters reviewed this record and concluded that President Bush "is well on his way to compiling the worst environmental record in the history of our nation." Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry concurred, assessing these actions as "Abysmal. Worst record in modern history.""
More here
"According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the overall quality of our air has improved steadily on President Bush's watch. Specifically, concentrations of carbon monoxide have fallen by 15.5 percent, lead by 31.5 percent, nitrogen dioxide by 5 percent, sulfur dioxide by 11 percent, and particulate matter by more than 4 percent. The two pollutants that contribute to ozone formation, moreover, are at their lowest levels since 1970.
President Bush has advanced regulatory proposals to allow outmoded power plants, oil refineries and other industrial facilities to modernize, and thereby cut their emissions of harmful pollutants, and to require the overseers of our national forests to use proven forest management techniques to limit the number and extent of the devastating fires that have ravaged millions of acres of forest in recent years.
President Bush also has implemented the first-ever snowmobile emission standards, which would have the same effect as taking 30 million cars off the road. In May, his administration tackled pollution from heavy construction equipment by approving a rule that will reduce the pollution from sulfur in diesel fuel by 99 percent.
As an impressive environmental record, that's not bad, right?
Au contraire. The League of Conservation Voters reviewed this record and concluded that President Bush "is well on his way to compiling the worst environmental record in the history of our nation." Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry concurred, assessing these actions as "Abysmal. Worst record in modern history.""
More here
WHO CARES ABOUT THE POOR?
Not Greenies
"A gas tax capable of inducing consumers to switch to smaller cars would almost certainly have to be high enough to still raise overall driving costs. Hardest hit would be the working poor, some of whom would be priced off the roads entirely. These workers would be deprived of the expanded job opportunities that come with being able to drive to work and instead would be limited to the subset of jobs accessible by public transportation."
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
Not Greenies
"A gas tax capable of inducing consumers to switch to smaller cars would almost certainly have to be high enough to still raise overall driving costs. Hardest hit would be the working poor, some of whom would be priced off the roads entirely. These workers would be deprived of the expanded job opportunities that come with being able to drive to work and instead would be limited to the subset of jobs accessible by public transportation."
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
Saturday, July 10, 2004
A SILLY GREENIE TRACT
I never "fisk" anything on any of my sites but sometimes I am tempted. I reproduce below two of the opening paragraphs of a piece of Green/Left propaganda written by Andrew Simms as an article in the June 28th issue of New Statesman. The full article is no longer free online but I have saved a copy to disk and it is still at the moment available via the Google cache here. I will reproduce below it a comment from the Australian Libertarian site and then add a couple of comments of my own.
Simms writes:
"In the energy-supply industry, the inferior technology is a global economy increasingly addicted to fossil fuels. The result? We are hooked up to devastating climate change, and, because of the imminent divergence between peak oil production and rising energy demand, we face a lasting economic shock. Waiting in the wings, too, is a resurgent nuclear industry still grappling with unsolved problems of immortal waste, pollution, high costs and security demands that are both oppressive and vulnerable.
Energy economists are fond of saying that, with energy, there is no such thing as a free lunch. True, there are costs involved in tapping clean, renewable energy sources such as the sun, the tides and wind. But they are, in important senses, free. They are free of greenhouse-gas emissions, free from the threat of depletion, and free of the risks and authoritarianism associated with nuclear power. While there is no getting round the fact that it takes energy to make energy, the energy gain from renewables is much greater than other sources of power. The energy gain from coal, for example, can be as little as five times the energy expended, whereas a windfarm can generate 80 times the energy input."
Comment on the above from the Australian Libertarian site follows:
In a recent edition of New Statesman I read an article by Andrew Simms on the need for the government to force people to switch to renewable power. Apparently there are two problems with using fossil fuels which mean that we all need to hurry up and switch to renewable energy now - or else!
The first problem is that we're going to run out of fossil fuels soon. The second problem is that we're going to keep using the fossil fuels well into the future.
Huh? It may have occured to you, dear reader, that these concerns appear to contradict each other. But that is only because you're thinking like a rational person and not a green ideologue. Shame on you. You probably kill babies too.
The basic argument, as put forward by Mr Simms, was that energy requirements would continue to grow, and that this would be met largely through fossil fuels. However, the "dwindling supplies of oil" is going to cause a problem, with "energy prices on a sky-high trip that most developing countries may never recover from". But because people will continue to use fossil fuels, we are going to run head first into global warming. Or cooling. Or something.
Somebody with less faith in government and more faith in reality may quibble over the exact dangers of global warming and the liklihood of running out of oil any time soon. But there is a more fundamental error in the above logic that shows a scary inability to think these issues through. This error is that Simms has ignored behavioural change.
Elsewhere in his article Simms notes that the cost of renewable power has come down significantly and is now only a bit more expensive than fossil fuels. Renewable energy sources are expected to get even more competitive in the near future. So if we accept the argument that we'll run out of oil soon, then oil prices will increase and renewable energy will be relatively cheaper. People will naturally switch to renewable energy and the consumption of fossil fuels will decrease. No "sky-high" energy prices. No global melt-down. Simple economics.
If, however, people are going to continue to use fossil fuels into the future - resulting in the flooding of California (is this a benefit or cost?) - then this implies that oil prices will remain below the cost of renewable energy, which means we wouldn't be running out of oil.
Simms can't have it both ways. Either oil prices are going up (so we switch to renewables naturally under the free market) or they're not. It's not possible for us to suffer the costs associated both with high oil prices and low oil prices at the same time. Unfortunately for the green movement - the world isn't in as much trouble as they think.
Some further comments:
Simms plugs wind power but fails to mention that most Greens now oppose it because the windmills spoil the scenery and kill birds. And windmills need coal-fired backup anyway for when the wind is not blowing. So you have the huge cost of doubling all your generating capacity if you use wind. Thank goodness the Greenies have gone off the idea.
"Authoritarianism" as a danger from nuclear power is a new one on me but my first response is that using nuclear power is nowhere nearly as authoritarian as the Greenies trying to dictate to us how to live every detail of our lives.
Counter-intuitive though it at first seems, oil reserves are increasing, not decreasing. But even if we do run out of oil, industrial alcohol brewed from sugar costs at the moment only about double what gasoline costs. And most of the world already pays many times more than double what gasoline costs because of taxes on it. So a switch to alcohol as a motor fuel need only involve a slight cut in the overall government tax take for the motorist to notice no difference. And the motor fuel sold in many countries is already part-alcohol. See my post of May 20th.
And the only barriers to safe disposal of nuclear waste are legal ones thrown up by Greenies. And one of the last of those barriers has just been removed.
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
I never "fisk" anything on any of my sites but sometimes I am tempted. I reproduce below two of the opening paragraphs of a piece of Green/Left propaganda written by Andrew Simms as an article in the June 28th issue of New Statesman. The full article is no longer free online but I have saved a copy to disk and it is still at the moment available via the Google cache here. I will reproduce below it a comment from the Australian Libertarian site and then add a couple of comments of my own.
Simms writes:
"In the energy-supply industry, the inferior technology is a global economy increasingly addicted to fossil fuels. The result? We are hooked up to devastating climate change, and, because of the imminent divergence between peak oil production and rising energy demand, we face a lasting economic shock. Waiting in the wings, too, is a resurgent nuclear industry still grappling with unsolved problems of immortal waste, pollution, high costs and security demands that are both oppressive and vulnerable.
Energy economists are fond of saying that, with energy, there is no such thing as a free lunch. True, there are costs involved in tapping clean, renewable energy sources such as the sun, the tides and wind. But they are, in important senses, free. They are free of greenhouse-gas emissions, free from the threat of depletion, and free of the risks and authoritarianism associated with nuclear power. While there is no getting round the fact that it takes energy to make energy, the energy gain from renewables is much greater than other sources of power. The energy gain from coal, for example, can be as little as five times the energy expended, whereas a windfarm can generate 80 times the energy input."
Comment on the above from the Australian Libertarian site follows:
In a recent edition of New Statesman I read an article by Andrew Simms on the need for the government to force people to switch to renewable power. Apparently there are two problems with using fossil fuels which mean that we all need to hurry up and switch to renewable energy now - or else!
The first problem is that we're going to run out of fossil fuels soon. The second problem is that we're going to keep using the fossil fuels well into the future.
Huh? It may have occured to you, dear reader, that these concerns appear to contradict each other. But that is only because you're thinking like a rational person and not a green ideologue. Shame on you. You probably kill babies too.
The basic argument, as put forward by Mr Simms, was that energy requirements would continue to grow, and that this would be met largely through fossil fuels. However, the "dwindling supplies of oil" is going to cause a problem, with "energy prices on a sky-high trip that most developing countries may never recover from". But because people will continue to use fossil fuels, we are going to run head first into global warming. Or cooling. Or something.
Somebody with less faith in government and more faith in reality may quibble over the exact dangers of global warming and the liklihood of running out of oil any time soon. But there is a more fundamental error in the above logic that shows a scary inability to think these issues through. This error is that Simms has ignored behavioural change.
Elsewhere in his article Simms notes that the cost of renewable power has come down significantly and is now only a bit more expensive than fossil fuels. Renewable energy sources are expected to get even more competitive in the near future. So if we accept the argument that we'll run out of oil soon, then oil prices will increase and renewable energy will be relatively cheaper. People will naturally switch to renewable energy and the consumption of fossil fuels will decrease. No "sky-high" energy prices. No global melt-down. Simple economics.
If, however, people are going to continue to use fossil fuels into the future - resulting in the flooding of California (is this a benefit or cost?) - then this implies that oil prices will remain below the cost of renewable energy, which means we wouldn't be running out of oil.
Simms can't have it both ways. Either oil prices are going up (so we switch to renewables naturally under the free market) or they're not. It's not possible for us to suffer the costs associated both with high oil prices and low oil prices at the same time. Unfortunately for the green movement - the world isn't in as much trouble as they think.
Some further comments:
Simms plugs wind power but fails to mention that most Greens now oppose it because the windmills spoil the scenery and kill birds. And windmills need coal-fired backup anyway for when the wind is not blowing. So you have the huge cost of doubling all your generating capacity if you use wind. Thank goodness the Greenies have gone off the idea.
"Authoritarianism" as a danger from nuclear power is a new one on me but my first response is that using nuclear power is nowhere nearly as authoritarian as the Greenies trying to dictate to us how to live every detail of our lives.
Counter-intuitive though it at first seems, oil reserves are increasing, not decreasing. But even if we do run out of oil, industrial alcohol brewed from sugar costs at the moment only about double what gasoline costs. And most of the world already pays many times more than double what gasoline costs because of taxes on it. So a switch to alcohol as a motor fuel need only involve a slight cut in the overall government tax take for the motorist to notice no difference. And the motor fuel sold in many countries is already part-alcohol. See my post of May 20th.
And the only barriers to safe disposal of nuclear waste are legal ones thrown up by Greenies. And one of the last of those barriers has just been removed.
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me or here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Jim Hansen and his twin
