Friday, October 10, 2008

Global warming is as fictional as a Hitchcock film

Amusing: The article below by "sararasmussen" is from the student newspaper of Whitman College, a liberal arts college in Washington State -- a college of vast Leftist bigotry. Although datelined the 9th, the article has already been taken down!

I remember my parents, two alumni of the infamous UC Berkley, picking up the book State of Fear by Michael Cricthon. When my mother handed it over to me on an airplane to read, I was a little skeptical as to whether or not I would enjoy it, because it was a fiction book about global warming. I am not an activist of climate change and do not care much about receding ice that is melting, but I do, why not? Plus, it was fiction.

After reading it, I thought, finally, something that makes sense! Something that speaks to why I am so skeptical of the climate change movement! The book posed scientific evidence, which is not very accurate, but proves a point, from both sides of an argument about a sinking island and how global warming caused the sinking of said island. It showed how both sides of a legal argument used ca refully selected information (graphs over a certain amount of time) to prove whether or not ice was melting, a section of the earth was cooling, or a certain species was becoming extinct because of climate change.

The characters, with their jargon, skeptical natures, and likable personalities, got to me. I started to doubt the existence of the terror of global warming. I started to doubt the one-sided argument I was hearing. I started to doubt the apocalypse of global-warming rhetoric, the arguments about heating/cooling.

The world goes through trends. We had the ice age and now its melting. Maybe there is a reason the earth is warming (which is not only effected by human beings, though it mostly is) other than humans deal with carbon stupidly. And maybe, the awareness of global warming, and its devastating effects on the earth is a trend because just like our generation, the baby boomers believed as my mom said "the core was going to melt and kill us all".

Global warming, seems to me, to be something out of a science fiction movie of the 50s or 60s. Something like the cheesy scary movie, the birds, but instead, of appearing randomly to swoop menacingly, they drop from the sky. Global warming, like never before, has transformed ever since 9/11. It has become about telling people about how the world is going to end, species are going to die, the core will emerge from the cement, melting us like the atomic bomb, ice will flood Ca lifornia and sink it..the list just goes on and on. The threat of global warming has existed for a long period of time, and yes, carbon emissions have gone up since Bush was in office, but seriously? The climate is supposed to change over time.


Another Dissenter: We 'do not know enough about the atmospheric changes' to 'draw any conclusions about global warming'

Prof. Wayne Hocking speaks below. His extensive publication list makes him a man of considerable authority in his field

University of Western Ontario physics professor Wayne Hocking says it is important to look to the poles - the Arctic and Antarctic poles - to find the truth about global warming and other atmospheric changes. Images of glaciers crumbling and polar bears walking between cracks in the ice shelf are synonymous with global warming, but Hocking says this only scratches the surface of climatic change. But, he says in order to gain a better understanding of what these changes mean, the atmosphere above the poles are the best place to start. "I'm not against global warming, but I want people to realize it is only one of many dynamic events that occur in the atmosphere and we need to understand them all," he says.

Hocking recently presented his polar research to a crowded room at the Physics and Astronomy Colloquium. The poles are important to study "because there's no people living there, which makes it easier to monitor. But also, there are many different processes which originate in the poles," he says.

As a member of AxonMet, a consortium of scientists and organizations which operate meteor radars in the America longitudinal sector, Hocking is able to gather data about the atmosphere and compare measurements with other researchers. AxonMet operates 12 radars that are distributed across North and South America - from Eureka, Nunavut to Rothera, Antarctica. Included among those is the Clovar radar, which is located in London, Ont. and owned and operated by Western.m Meteor radars can measure atmospheric changes in temperature, wave activity, planetary motions and the structures of plasmas, among others, up to 80 to 100km above the earth's surface. Hocking also uses wind profilers, which can detect changes in the lower atmospheres, recording measurements at 14 km altitude.

Aside from satisfying general scientific curiosity about changes in the atmosphere, Hocking says the data can be used to measure trends which can be interpreted through computer models to gain a better understanding of global warming. But with all of the data he has collected on atmospheric changes over the last 15 years, Hocking is hesitant to claim he can make any predictions about global warming. "For this to be effective, we need to be there for 20, 30, 40 years, have a long-term data set and then we can start to make useful predictions," he says.

He says researchers do not know enough about the atmospheric changes and how they influence each other to draw any conclusions about global warming. "We know there is so much complexity involved, we want to tread more cautiously," he says. "Maybe in 10 years time, it'll all start to freeze over, we just don't know."

As well, Hocking cautions against focusing solely on global warming, but rather to view it as one of many atmospheric changes that must be researched and understood. "I think it's too narrow of a view," he says. "You've got to consider everything together and see global warming as part of a larger picture rather than something in isolation."

Although he is working in remote regions, Hocking's measurements in the poles have implications around the world besides studying global warming, such as increasing the accuracy of weather monitoring systems. "You could have a hundred cities in Europe and you get the weather from all of them, but having one city in the Arctic ties down the predictions much more tightly," he says. "Having a remote site can help to define the forecast much more clearly."


Scientists Predict Colder, Snowier Winter for United States

Weather forecasters around the country warn of one of the coldest winters in several years. Scientists also say that the Eastern United States will have more snowfall than last year's record highs. "The winter as a whole in the population-dense Eastern third of the nation will be a one-two punch of higher heating prices and lower temperatures," he said. "It may be a shock to some when compared with above-average temperatures of last year in the East," said Joe Bastardi of AccuWeather.

Bastardi on Wednesday said that this winter will be off to a cold start in mid-December. The cold spell will continue through February. He also mentioned at least three cold spells between the three months. "Given this economic environment, the winter will push some homeowners to the brink," Bastardi said.

On the other hand, scientists say that warmer temperatures are predicted in the West. The warmer than average temperatures will be from December through February. Some scientists believe it is in result of climate change, or global warming.

The Midwest will get less snow than last year. However, a pair of cold spells are predicted but temperatures will be not as low as the Eastern United States.


UK's new 'Climate Change Secretary' mocked

Whether you are a climate-change denier, a sceptic or a believer in the scientific consensus on global warming, you have to admit that there is something preposterous about making someone Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. It's a bit like giving King Canute added responsibility for sea level rise: it implies that he can do something about it.

Given that there is a less than 50 per cent chance, in my view, that mankind could do something about its greenhouse gas emissions in time to prevent dangerous climate change - thereby proving itself rational - Ed Miliband, the newly appointed Secretary, would appear to have his work cut out.

Given, too, that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admits that there is only a 95 per cent probability that man-made factors caused the warming we have seen, you might think that Gordon Brown might have seen fit to create a few more new posts in his reshuffle.

The suggestion from the sceptic, Philip Stott, is that if the Prime Minister wanted to leave no stone unturned, he might also have created a minister for cosmic ray fluxes, solar magnetic cycles and sunspots; a minister for meteorites and cosmic dust, a minister for the earth's orbit, tilt, wobble, shape and velocity; a minister for volcanic eruptions and ocean circulations; and a minister for water vapour, clouds and atmospheric gases.

All of those have something to do with climate change. The unresolved question is how much.

Seriously, though, the new Energy and Climate Change post is a way of dealing with a serious problem: relentless squabbling between what used to be called BERR and what still is called DEFRA. That was a recipe for nothing happening at all, for example, on the timetable for cleaner coal-fired power stations.

One can see the point of the tradeoffs being made in Mr Miliband's head, rather than in two separate departments, between the long-term need for clean coal and the short term need to keep the lights on.

But there is no use pretending that the political landscape hasn't changed. With the new remit comes new dangers - in this case the suspicion is that what has been created is the ministry for nuclear power, wind farms and the Severn Barrage. And toffee nuts to the environment.


Global warming is causing 'deathwatch beetle to chew through precious, historical books'

Since there has in fact been no global warming for many years, we know this story is false. Imagine the hysteria if there was actually something going on

Ah, climate change. We're all familiar by now with the culprits behind global warming (ok, maybe not certain candidates running for office) and the phenomena's handiwork: surging seas, dwindling populations of certain fish and fowl, more volatile weather, and the like. Here are a couple you may not have thought of: corroding 18th century mansions and priceless books teeming with beetles.

The National Trust, a huge charitable organization that owns and operates 300 natural and historical sites all over the United Kingdom, including Stonehenge, parts of Hadrian's wall, and dozens of mills, farms and castles, says climate change is having a measurable impact on its properties and structures. On a recent swing through California to examine how different organizations run the Presidio, Yosemite and Point Reyes National Seashore, The National Trust's Tony Burton said the climate change chain reaction is reaching down to the tiniest levels. Like, really tiny.

For instance, more bugs are able to withstand Britain's warmer winters, leaving more, hardier species like the deathwatch beetle to chew through precious, historical books. Same story for tapestries and other items made from fragile materials. In addition, more heavy-duty rains are suddenly damaging roofs and gutters that have previously weathered 300 years of winds and storms.

In all likelihood, the same is happening here -- just look at the wildfires that destroyed parts of significant lands and sites in Big Sur.

Some might not compare it to the extinction of the polar bear, or the loss of a huge chunk of Arctic glacier, but it does show some the tangible, unforeseen costs associated with altered weather patterns. And really, if industrial-age human activity were to somehow obliterate Stonehenge -- a structure that dates back thousands of years -- that would be something.


Five-Star Green Hypocrisy - WWF's luxury getaway called 'Around the World: A Private Jet Expedition'

Move over Al Gore. Swankier carbon charlatanism has come to town in the form of the World Wildlife Fund's luxury getaway called "Around the World: A Private Jet Expedition." "Join us on a remarkable 25-day journey by luxury private jet," invites the WWF in a brochure for its voyage to "some of the most astonishing places on the planet to see top wildlife, including gorillas, orangutans, rhinos, lemurs and toucans."

For a price tag that starts at $64,950 per person, travelers will meet at the Ritz-Carlton in Orlando, Fla. on April 6, 2009 and then fly to "remote corners" of the world on a "specially outfitted jet that carries just 88 passengers in business-class comfort." "World class experts - including WWF's director of species conservation - will provide lectures en route, and a professional staff will be devoted to making your global adventure seamless and memorable." Travelers will visit the Amazon Rain Forest in Brazil, Easter Island, Samoa, Borneo, Laos, Nepal, Madagascar, Namibia, Uganda or Rwanda, and finish up at the luxury Dorchester Hotel in London.

This is the very same WWF that says "the current growth in [carbon dioxide] emissions must be stopped as soon as possible" and that blames Americans for emitting 21 percent of global CO2 emissions even though the U.S. accounts for only 5 percent of the global population. In December 2007, the WWF launched its "Earth Hour" campaign, a global initiative in which cities and communities simultaneously turn out their lights for one hour "to symbolize their leadership and commitment to finding solutions for climate change."

So how does this fantasy trip square with the WWF's alarmist rhetoric? Using the carbon footprint calculator on the WWF's own web site, the 36,800-mile trip in a Boeing 757 jet will burn about 100,000 gallons of jet fuel to produce roughly 1,231 tons of CO2 in 25 days - that's the equivalent of putting about 1,560 SUVs on the road during those three-plus weeks and that doesn't even include emissions related to local air, ground and water transport and other amenities.

The WWF laments on its web site that the average American produces 19.6 tons of CO2 annually, which is nearly five times the world average of 3.9 tons per person. But during the WWF's posh excursion, travelers will produce 14 tons of CO2 per person. That's 71 percent of the average American carbon footprint and 360 percent of the average global footprint in a mere three-and-one-half weeks. But who's counting - especially when you're in "19 rows of spacious leather seats with full ergonomic support" enjoying "gourmet meals, chilled champagne [and] your own chef."

I guess those are the rules when you're one of WWF's wealthy donors, but now contrast this with the how the WWF says the rest of us should live our lives. The group's web site states that "It clearly is time for all Americans to roll up their sleeves, to take steps to reduce emissions, to prepare for climate change, and to encourage others to do the same."

We, the masses, should - nay, must - use compact fluorescent light bulbs, reduce hot water use, turn thermostats down in the winter and up in the summer and use low-flow shower heads and faucets. We should pledge to commute by car pool or mass transit, switch to "green power," and get more fuel efficient cars. We should make our lives more expensive and less convenient so that the Green elites don't feel too guilty while jet-setting to exotic locales.

Maybe, you're thinking, the WWF plans to makes its trip "carbon neutral" by purchasing carbon offsets - after all, the group does offer a carbon offset calculator on its web site under the heading "Join WWF in our mission to save life on Earth." But neither the trip brochure nor the WWF web site mentions that any offsets will be purchased - and there seems to be good reason for that.

According to the WWF's calculator, it would cost in excess of $44,000 to offset the carbon emissions from the jet travel alone. Then there's the September 2008 report from the General Accounting Office which concluded that the carbon offset market lacked credibility. The Republican leader of the congressional committee requesting the report commented that "that the lack of standardization of offsets and fundamental problems assessing and verifying credibility, leave consumers in the dark and exposed to waste, fraud, and abuse." Former Clinton official Joseph Romm wrote on his blog that, "the vast majority of offsets are, at some level, just rip-offsets." The Greens are apparently reluctant to fall for their own scams.

If you can't make the WWF's private jet expedition, the group offers a wide variety of other pricey, carbon-spewing tours. You might be interested in the WWF trip to the Galapagos or Fiji Islands, where you're less likely to run into pesky downscale local tourists. The WWF has called for limitations on local tourism in the Galapagos and Fiji Islands saying that it causes greater environmental damage than "larger tourist operations" - like the WWF's.

I've been thinking that WWF's bandit-like panda bear was an appropriate logo given the group's promotion of "rip-offsets." But now, I think that a new logo may be in order - perhaps a hippo-crite?



For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.


No comments: