Monday, May 13, 2013

Sorry Global Warmists, But Extreme Weather Events Are Becoming Less Extreme

Just about every type of extreme weather event is becoming less frequent and less severe in recent years as our planet continues its modest warming in the wake of the Little Ice Age. While global warming activists attempt to spin a narrative of ever-worsening weather, the objective facts tell a completely different story.

New Records for Lack of Tornadoes

New data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show the past 12 months set a record for the fewest tornadoes in recorded history. Not only did Mother Nature just set a record for lack of tornado activity, she absolutely shattered the previous record for fewest tornadoes in a 12-month period. During the past 12 months, merely 197 tornadoes struck the United States. Prior to this past year, the fewest tornadoes striking the United States during a 12-month period occurred from June 1991 through July 1992, when 247 tornadoes occurred.

The new tornado record is particularly noteworthy because of recent advances in tornado detection technology. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is able to detect more tornadoes in recent years than in prior decades due to technological advances. Even with such enhanced tornado detection capability, the past 12 months shattered all prior records for recorded tornadoes.

NOAA posted a list of the five “lowest non-overlapping 12 month counts on record from 1954-present.” Notably, each of these low-tornado periods occur since 1986, precisely during the time period global warming alarmists claim global warming is causing more extreme weather events such as tornadoes. According to NOAA, the lowest non-overlapping 12 month counts on record from 1954-present, with the starting month, are:

197 tornadoes – starting in May 2012

247 tornadoes – starting in June 1991

270 tornadoes – starting in November 1986

289 tornadoes – starting in December 2001

298 tornadoes – starting in June 2000

On a related note, a new record for the longest stretch of consecutive days without a tornado death occurred during 2012 and 2013.

New Records for Lack of Hurricanes

Hurricane inactivity is also setting all-time records. The United States is undergoing its longest stretch in recorded history without a major hurricane strike, with each passing day extending the unprecedented lack of severe hurricanes, according to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration data.

It has been more than 2,750 days since a major hurricane struck the United States. This easily smashes the prior record of less than 2,300 days between major hurricane strikes.

Although global warming activists and their media allies often claim global warming is making extreme weather events more frequent and severe, virtually all extreme weather events are becoming less frequent and less severe as our planet gradually warms.

Droughts, Wildfires, Etc.

Pretty much all other extreme weather events are becoming less frequent and less severe, also. Soil moisture is in long-term improvement at nearly all sites in the Global Soil Moisture Data Bank. Droughts are less frequent and less severe than in prior, colder centuries. The number of wildfires is in long-term decline despite a recent change in wildfire policy that no longer actively suppresses wildfires. Just about any way you measure it, extreme weather events are becoming quite rare.

Anecdotes vs. Objective Data

Despite all this good news, a growing number of people believe global warming is causing an increase in extreme weather events. This is no accident. Fully aware of the objective facts, global warming activists are doing everything they can to distract people from the truth. Although extreme weather events are becoming less frequent, the Earth is a big place with a dynamic climate. There will always be some extreme weather events, even as they become less frequent and less severe. Global warming activists can always highlight some extreme weather event occurring somewhere on the planet and paint a false narrative that global warming must be to blame, even though extreme weather events are becoming rarer as the planet gradually warms and returns to pre-Little Ice Age norms.

Major hurricanes struck the U.S. Northeast on a fairly regular basis during the first half of the 20th century when temperatures were cooler. Now, as our planet warms, hurricanes of any sort almost never strike the U.S. Northeast. As a result, when even a minor hurricane like Sandy strikes the Northeast, it is a seemingly unheard of weather event. We can thank global warming for the fact that even a small hurricane like Sandy is a rare event in the U.S. Northeast. The same applies for tornadoes, droughts, etc.

Thank goodness science is conducted according to objective facts rather than activist propaganda!


The Donald is angry

For good reason

By Donald Trump

Next week, I have instructed my lawyers to launch an all-out challenge at the Scottish Supreme Court to ‘Mad Alex’, as I believe history will some day call Alex Salmond.

The First Minister’s obsession with turning his nation into the Saudi Arabia of ‘renewables’, as he refers to his plans for thousands of industrial windfarms, is a disgrace.

Windfarms are not only hideous, they kill birds and sea mammals, they destroy housing values, they are a danger to our health and tranquillity – and it is an absolute scam to claim that they save energy.

They raise electricity rates by at least four to five times. Much of England and Wales, like Scotland, is threatened by this unreliable, inefficient, discredited, obsolete technology, which continues to exist only because of enforced taxpayer subsidies. World opinion is turning against them because of the havoc they wreak.

There is a reason why banks don’t lend to build windfarms .  .  . they lose money.

This is a subject on which I reluctantly have become an expert: With the aid of a £34 million European Union grant, Mad Alex’s latest pet project is to be erected just off the beautiful stretch of coast where I am investing hundreds of millions of pounds in a major resort.

The Trump International Golf Links is much more than business to me. It is near and dear to my heart. My mother was born Mary MacLeod on the Isle of Lewis and grew up speaking Gaelic before she fell in love with my father, builder Fred C. Trump, during a holiday in New York.

For years, I dreamed of building a world-class golf facility in Scotland. It’s the home of golf, and there is no better links land in the world.

I felt that I was doing something special for my mother when I bought 1,400 acres north of Aberdeen. This was in 2006. Four years later, I learned that my dream was to be the latest victim of Mad Alex’s flawed ideas.

The European Offshore Wind Deployment Centre will loom ominously from a platform in the North Sea just a mile and a half from my golf courses. Its sub-station will be built in the tiny nearby village of Blackdog, rendering that community unfit for healthy living.

Each of its 11 turbines will be 65 storeys high. That’s twice the height of Big Ben and eight storeys higher than Trump Tower, the Manhattan building that is my corporate headquarters and the setting for my US TV show, The Apprentice.

Because this windfarm is a ‘testing facility’, each turbine will be a different colour, shape and size. It will look like an industrial junk yard.

Mr Salmond says that windfarms ‘encourage tourism’, which shows the level of thinking, the kind of insane mentality we’re dealing with. People will come to Scotland to look into the trunk of one of these monsters? Faulty thinking.

It is ludicrous to even suggest that this horrible industrial zone would be compatible with a luxury resort that will eventually include hotels, restaurants and high-quality residences.

These turbines will be visible from the links and will be located so close that you will hear the whooshing of the blades. That is not a sound anyone wants to hear.

It will create a whole spectrum of health-and-safety issues, and when the sun hits the turbines it will cast shadows over wide areas of land in what is known as the ‘flicker effect’.

My company, the Trump Organisation, took out our first advert last year in Scotland to explain the destruction windfarms have wreaked elsewhere in the world.

Under the headline ‘Welcome to Scotland!’, it showed rusting wind turbines at a failed and closed windfarm on Hawaii and – using calculations made at the University of Strathclyde – warned: ‘Alex Salmond wants to build 8,750 of these monstrosities.’

Incredibly, the ad was banned by the British Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) on the grounds that, although we made it clear that the photograph was not taken in Scotland, it gave a ‘misleading impression’.

The authority also claimed: ‘Although it was likely that some wind turbines would at some point in the future be decommissioned and others might stop working for a variety of reasons, we understood that Scottish regulations were in place to prevent the turbines from deteriorating to the condition shown in the photograph.’

It added that, if one believes Mad Alex’s government, a mere 5,645 turbines will be built, ‘significantly less than the claimed figure in the ad’. Actually, I believe the number will be over 12,000. Moreover, contrary to Mad Alex’s claim that this will create jobs in Britain, most of the equipment will be made in China.

We retaliated by taking out a  second advert. Over a photograph of a bank of wind turbines that (as we plainly declared) stand on a hillside in California, we warned: ‘Is this the future for Scotland? Tourism will suffer and the beauty of your country is in jeopardy!’

The ad included a second image – of a smiling Alex Salmond. The intention was to shock and wake people up to a big problem. The politician who released a mass murderer – one of the world’s worst terrorists, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi – now was invading the Scottish countryside.

‘This is the same mind,’ we pointed out, ‘that backed the release of terrorist al-Megrahi “for humane reasons’’ – after he ruthlessly killed 270 people on Pan-Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie.’

We also gave Alex Salmond’s email address, for the benefit of those who might wish to exercise their constitutional right to join our protest. The ad was approved by the ASA’s sister organisation – the Committee of Advertisement Practice – and then, suddenly, it was banned.

I wondered: Is Scotland censored? Was Alex Salmond able to kill the ad? In what sounded uncannily like his words, the regulators said the photograph made windfarms look bad. I can tell you that the eyesore they are planning next to our resort will look much worse.

The windfarm in the advert is next to a busy American freeway. Can you imagine the blight that these turbines will impose on the peaceful and beautiful Aberdeenshire shores and bay?

The ASA also said it was ‘distasteful’ for me to draw parallels between Mr Salmond’s contempt for the wellbeing of the citizens of Scotland and the lack of compassion I believe he has exhibited for the victims of the Lockerbie atrocity and their families.

In the case we are filing next week in the Court of Session in Edinburgh, we intend to rebut this by seeking a judicial review of the decision to build the windfarm, in the hope that sanity will prevail and that the scheme will be scrapped.

We will lay down the full and embarrassing facts. We will reveal that, in this matter, the First Minister has been ruthless and cynical. He misled me and my company, even as he was secretly begging me to help him manipulate world opinion over the freeing of al-Megrahi.

I remember a dinner that the Scottish Government gave in October 2007 at Le Perigord, a New York restaurant. The invitation said it was to mark Mr Salmond’s first trip to the US as First Minister.

It was a small gathering and during the cocktail hour, my legal  counsel, George Sorial, and I spoke at length with Mr Salmond about the possibility of a windfarm application and the First Minister promised us that this would not and could not happen.

If it were to be built close to land, it would interfere with shipping lanes, Mr Salmond said, and it would also interfere with military radar installations. No windfarms will be built there, he said.

My company continued to invest in the resort in good faith. It wasn’t until August 2009 that Mr Salmond began to show his true mindset. My son, Donald Trump Jr, and George got a call from the First Minister’s special adviser, Geoff Aberdein, lamenting the ‘terrible criticism’ over the release of al-Megrahi.

Mr Aberdein told them Mr Salmond wanted to phone me and ask me to support his decision. He said: ‘I’m going to send you a draft of a statement for Mr Trump to release.’

They emailed it over. It said: ‘It must have been a hugely difficult decision for the Scottish Government to make and, of course, for most of our own United States families who lost loved ones, it would always be impossible to accept.

‘However, I am certain that the Scots issued this release for good reasons and I would like to hope that it might help to break the cycle of violence around the world and replace it with reciprocal gestures.

‘In any event, it won’t stop my love affair with Scotland and the Scots. No one should ever demean that country. Too many Scottish soldiers have died in Iraq and Afghanistan for the head of the FBI to lecture Scots on fighting terrorism.’

The statement was preposterous. I’m a New Yorker who lived through the September 11 attacks.

I couldn’t believe Mr Salmond would ask me to sign such a letter.

I am going to fight him for as long as it takes – to hell if I have to – and spend as much as it takes to block this useless and grotesque blot on our heritage.

By exposing the fallacy and danger of wind turbines, I will be honouring Mary MacLeod’s memory in an even more important way than building the greatest golf course anywhere in the world.


How Government Wrecked the Gas Can

The gas gauge broke. There was no smartphone app to tell me how much was left, so I ran out. I had to call the local gas station to give me enough to get on my way. The gruff but lovable attendant arrived in his truck and started to pour gas in my car’s tank. And pour. And pour.

“Hmmm, I just hate how slow these gas cans are these days,” he grumbled. “There’s no vent on them.”

That sound of frustration in this guy’s voice was strangely familiar, the grumble that comes when something that used to work but doesn’t work anymore, for some odd reason we can’t identify.

I’m pretty alert to such problems these days. Soap doesn’t work. Toilets don’t flush. Clothes washers don’t clean. Light bulbs don’t illuminate. Refrigerators break too soon. Paint discolors. Lawnmowers have to be hacked. It’s all caused by idiotic government regulations that are wrecking our lives one consumer product at a time, all in ways we hardly notice.

It’s like the barbarian invasions that wrecked Rome, taking away the gains we’ve made in bettering our lives. It’s the bureaucrats’ way of reminding market producers and consumers who is in charge.

Surely, the gas can is protected. It’s just a can, for goodness sake. Yet he was right. This one doesn’t have a vent. Who would make a can without a vent unless it was done under duress? After all, everyone knows to vent anything that pours. Otherwise, it doesn’t pour right and is likely to spill.

It took one quick search. The whole trend began in (wait for it) California. Regulations began in 2000, with the idea of preventing spillage. The notion spread and was picked up by the EPA, which is always looking for new and innovative ways to spread as much human misery as possible.

An ominous regulatory announcement from the EPA came in 2007: “Starting with containers manufactured in 2009… it is expected that the new cans will be built with a simple and inexpensive permeation barrier and new spouts that close automatically.”

The government never said “no vents.” It abolished them de facto with new standards that every state had to adopt by 2009. So for the last three years, you have not been able to buy gas cans that work properly. They are not permitted to have a separate vent. The top has to close automatically. There are other silly things now, too, but the biggest problem is that they do not do well what cans are supposed to do.

And don’t tell me about spillage. It is far more likely to spill when the gas is gurgling out in various uneven ways, when one spout has to both pour and suck in air. That’s when the lawn mower tank becomes suddenly full without warning, when you are shifting the can this way and that just to get the stuff out.

There’s also the problem of the exploding can. On hot days, the plastic models to which this regulation applies can blow up like balloons. When you release the top, gas flies everywhere, including possibly on a hot engine. Then the trouble really begins.

Never heard of this rule? You will know about it if you go to the local store. Most people buy one or two of these items in the course of a lifetime, so you might otherwise have not encountered this outrage.

Yet let enough time go by. A whole generation will come to expect these things to work badly. Then some wise young entrepreneur will have the bright idea, “Hey, let’s put a hole on the other side so this can work properly.” But he will never be able to bring it into production. The government won’t allow it because it is protecting us!

It’s striking to me that the websites and institutions that complain about government involvement in our lives never mentioned this, at least not so far as I can tell. The only sites that seem to have discussed this are the boating forums and the lawn forums. These are the people who use these cans more than most. The level of anger and vitriol is amazing to read, and every bit of it is justified.

There is no possible rationale for these kinds of regulations. It can’t be about emissions really, since the new cans are more likely to result in spills. It’s as if some bureaucrat were sitting around thinking of ways to make life worse for everyone, and hit upon this new, cockamamie rule.

These days, government is always open to a misery-making suggestion. The notion that public policy would somehow make life better is a relic of days gone by. It’s as if government has decided to specialize in what it is best at and adopt a new principle: “Let’s leave social progress to the private sector; we in the government will concentrate on causing suffering and regress.”

You are already thinking of hacks. Why not just stab the thing with a knife and be done with it? If you have to transport the can in the car, that’s a problem. You need a way to plug the vent with something.

Some boating forums have suggested drilling a hole and putting a tire stem in there and using the screw top as the way to close the hole. Great idea. Just what I wanted to do with my Saturday afternoon, hacking the gas can to make it work exactly as well as it did three years ago, before government wrecked it.

You can also buy an old-time metal can. It turns out that special regulations pertain here, too, and it’s all about the spout, which is not easy to fill. They are also unusually expensive. I’m not sure that either of these options is ideal.

It fascinates me to see how these regulations give rise to market-based workarounds. I’ve elsewhere called this the speak-easy economy. The government bans something. No one likes the ban. People are determined to get on with their lives, regardless. They step outside the narrow bounds of the law.

It wouldn’t surprise me to find, for example, a sudden proliferation of heavy-duty “water cans” in 1- and 5-gallon sizes, complete with nice spouts and vents, looking almost exactly like the gas cans you could get anywhere just a few years ago. How very interesting to discover this.

Of course, this law-abiding writer would never advocate buying one of these and using it for some purpose other than what is written on the package. Doing something like that would show profound disrespect for our betters in the bureaucracies. And if I did suggest something like that, there’s no telling the trouble that it would bring down on my head.

Ask yourself this: If they can wreck such a normal and traditional item like this, and do it largely under the radar screen, what else have they mandatorily malfunctioned? How many other things in our daily lives have been distorted, deformed and destroyed by government regulations?

If some product annoys you in surprising ways, there’s a good chance that it is not the invisible hand at work, but rather the regulatory grip that is squeezing the life out of civilization itself.


The Way Nature Intended

It turns out there’s an entire magazine aimed at sucking the joy out of parenthood. It’s called Green Child. Apparently, we aren’t smart enough to teach kids to respect Mother Earth all on our own. We need a preachy periodical to show us the way. A periodical whose mission is to help us “raise a child the way nature intended.”

I find that statement astonishing. Allow me to explain.  Shortly after it appeared back in 1980, I read a book titled The Sceptical Feminist. It left an indelible imprint on my thinking.

For thousands of years, women were considered intellectually inferior to men. Our great-grandmothers were told that nature was responsible for this state of affairs, and that fighting for property or voting rights was therefore unnatural.

Shamefully, many feminists now employ similarly specious reasoning. For example, they believe women should get custody of the kids when a marriage breaks down because nature made the mother-child bond more intense than the father-child bond.

Rigorous thinking shining from every page, The Sceptical Feminist eviscerates this sort of shoddy analysis. In Radcliffe Richards’ view, equating what’s “natural” with virtue amounts to a cheap debating trick.

Chapter 2 is titled The Proper Place of Nature. Several pages in, Section 5 is headed: An Analysis of the Natural. Like a splash of cold water, it asks:  "why should it be considered good to act naturally? The natural world contains quite as much evil as good."

Surely anyone who has spent an afternoon watching the Nature Channel has figured this out. Wild animals terrorize their prey before tearing it to pieces. Nature is vicious, cruel, heartless.

It is civilized human beings who believe that the weak, the sick, and the old deserve protection. Nature destroys those beings first. She cares not whether we suffer, whether we live or perish.

Getting to the heart of the matter, Radcliffe Richards challenges the “what nature intended” promoters to turn their backs on modern medicine. Dying in childbirth is perfectly natural. So is suffering brain damage due to infections such as syphilis.

In her words: "This sort of arguing from the natural is an unmitigated menace. If the people who use [these] arguments come to the right conclusions, it is entirely by accident and for the wrong reasons."

Amen to that.

Today is Mother’s Day here in Canada. A female acquaintance has long argued that green initiatives aimed at altering people’s everyday behaviour are another manifestation of busybodies using maternal guilt to push their own agendas.

Breast milk rather than formula. Cloth diapers rather than disposable ones. Homemade baby food rather than the sort that comes in jars. Packaging your child’s school lunch in a washable plastic container rather than a disposal sandwich bag.

Far too many decisions that should be matters of personal choice have become emotionally-charged opportunities for strangers to boss parents around. My friend is especially resentful of people whose “green solutions” invariably  increase the amount of time the average mother spends on mind-numblingly boring tasks.

There’s a growing mountain of evidence, for example, that curbside, consumer recycling is close to pointless. In some respects, it’s actually worse for the environment. But every week millions of mothers sort (and, in the case of empty cans and jars, wash) their family’s refuse.

As if they had nothing better to do with that most non-renewable resource of all – their limited time on this Earth.


Greenie hatred of the world they live in on display

They really do want to impoverish us.  Warmist Louise Gray writes below

At the moment the UK is committed to cutting greenhouse gases by a third by 2020.

However a new report from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research said these targets are inadequate to keep global warming below two degrees C above pre-industrial levels.

The report says the only way to avoid going beyond the dangerous tipping point is to double the target to 70 per cent by 2020.

This would mean reducing the size of the economy through a "planned recession".

Kevin Anderson, director of the research body, said the building of new airports, petrol cars and dirty coal-fired power stations will have to be halted in the UK until new technology provides an alternative to burning fossil fuels.

"To meet [Government] targets of not exceeding two degrees C, there would have to be a moratorium on airport expansion, stringent measures on the type of vehicle being used and a rapid transition to low carbon technology," he said.

Prof Anderson also said individuals will have to consume less.

"For most of the population it would mean fairly modest changes to how they live, maybe they will drive less, share a car to work or take more holidays in Britain."

More than 190 countries are due to meet in Copenhagen in December to decide a new international deal on climate change.

Speaking at an Oxford University conference on the threat of climate change, Profjkj Anderson said rich countries will have to make much more ambitious cuts to have any chance of keeping temperature rise below four degrees C.

"If we do everything we can do then we might have a chance," he said.


In Defense of Carbon Dioxide

The demonized chemical compound is a boon to plant life and has little correlation with global temperature

By Harrison H. Schmitt and William Happer:

Of all of the world's chemical compounds, none has a worse reputation than carbon dioxide. Thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control of energy production, the conventional wisdom about carbon dioxide is that it is a dangerous pollutant. That's simply not the case. Contrary to what some would have us believe, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.

The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA's and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been—and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isn't the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather.

The current levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere, approaching 400 parts per million, are low by the standards of geological and plant evolutionary history. Levels were 3,000 ppm, or more, until the Paleogene period (beginning about 65 million years ago). For most plants, and for the animals and humans that use them, more carbon dioxide, far from being a "pollutant" in need of reduction, would be a benefit. This is already widely recognized by operators of commercial greenhouses, who artificially increase the carbon dioxide levels to 1,000 ppm or more to improve the growth and quality of their plants.

Using energy from sunlight—together with the catalytic action of an ancient enzyme called rubisco, the most abundant protein on earth—plants convert carbon dioxide from the air into carbohydrates and other useful molecules. Rubisco catalyzes the attachment of a carbon-dioxide molecule to another five-carbon molecule to make two three-carbon molecules, which are subsequently converted into carbohydrates. (Since the useful product from the carbon dioxide capture consists of three-carbon molecules, plants that use this simple process are called C3 plants.) C3 plants, such as wheat, rice, soybeans, cotton and many forage crops, evolved when there was much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than today. So these agricultural staples are actually undernourished in carbon dioxide relative to their original design.

At the current low levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, rubisco in C3 plants can be fooled into substituting oxygen molecules for carbon-dioxide molecules. But this substitution reduces the efficiency of photosynthesis, especially at high temperatures. To get around the problem, a small number of plants have evolved a way to enrich the carbon-dioxide concentration around the rubisco enzyme, and to suppress the oxygen concentration. Called C4 plants because they utilize a molecule with four carbons, plants that use this evolutionary trick include sugar cane, corn and other tropical plants.

Although C4 plants evolved to cope with low levels of carbon dioxide, the workaround comes at a price, since it takes additional chemical energy. With high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, C4 plants are not as productive as C3 plants, which do not have the overhead costs of the carbon-dioxide enrichment system.

That's hardly all that goes into making the case for the benefits of carbon dioxide. Right now, at our current low levels of carbon dioxide, plants are paying a heavy price in water usage. Whether plants are C3 or C4, the way they get carbon dioxide from the air is the same: The plant leaves have little holes, or stomata, through which carbon dioxide molecules can diffuse into the moist interior for use in the plant's photosynthetic cycles.

The density of water molecules within the leaf is typically 60 times greater than the density of carbon dioxide in the air, and the diffusion rate of the water molecule is greater than that of the carbon-dioxide molecule.

So depending on the relative humidity and temperature, 100 or more water molecules diffuse out of the leaf for every molecule of carbon dioxide that diffuses in. And not every carbon-dioxide molecule that diffuses into a leaf gets incorporated into a carbohydrate. As a result, plants require many hundreds of grams of water to produce one gram of plant biomass, largely carbohydrate.

Driven by the need to conserve water, plants produce fewer stomata openings in their leaves when there is more carbon dioxide in the air. This decreases the amount of water that the plant is forced to transpire and allows the plant to withstand dry conditions better.

Crop yields in recent dry years were less affected by drought than crops of the dust-bowl droughts of the 1930s, when there was less carbon dioxide. Nowadays, in an age of rising population and scarcities of food and water in some regions, it's a wonder that humanitarians aren't clamoring for more atmospheric carbon dioxide. Instead, some are denouncing it.

We know that carbon dioxide has been a much larger fraction of the earth's atmosphere than it is today, and the geological record shows that life flourished on land and in the oceans during those times. The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science.




Preserving the graphics:  Graphics hotlinked to this site sometimes have only a short life and if I host graphics with blogspot, the graphics sometimes get shrunk down to illegibility.  From January 2011 on, therefore, I have posted a monthly copy of everything on this blog to a separate site where I can host text and graphics together -- which should make the graphics available even if they are no longer coming up on this site.  See  here and here


1 comment:

RedStateCool said...

Here are some more thoughts on the weak case for global warming.