Harvard Study Disproves Unprecedented Global Warming

I started a discussion in the on-line edition of the Contra Costa Times, which covers the East Bay section of the San Francisco Bay Area. Alice and I lived in this area for many years. Before we met, Alice lived in Dublin thirty miles east of Oakland for about fifteen years, and I lived in Vallejo and Walnut Creek for seven years. Together we lived in Livermore for nine years. Alice’s daughters have lived in the area for several years now, and we visit them frequently.

All of this may explain why I started the discussion in our former “hometown” newspaper by posting “Global Warming – A Stroll Through the European Countryside” in its entirety on the news forum section of ContraCosta.com. I titled my contribution (modestly), “Global Warming Totally Debunked.”

If you have been one of several fortunate visitors to “Strong As An Ox etc.,” you will remember that my post leans heavily on a study from Harvard: "20th Century Climate Not So Hot"

A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century.

When I found this study I said words to the effect of: “Hot Damn! A Harvard study – a Harvard study! Can you flipping believe it!? Harvard!” – that succinctly states my argument that today’s Global Warming has meaning and significance only because Al Gore has cynically milked it to arouse a cult of True Believers; True Believers in the usefulness of Global Warming to put government in charge of all our personal and economic decisions by making the task/objective/campaign/war to stop Global Warming the overarching concern of mankind.

Anyway, I copied and posted my entire article, and was extremely and pleasantly surprised when everything – the links, the graphs – posted identically to what I’d painstakingly crafted on “Strong As An Ox etc.”

I had mentally established criteria for evaluating any replies my article generated. A reply to be considered responsive would have to directly refute the Harvard study on factual grounds, not on the basis of such “proof” as computer generated models of expected future events based on the ability of computers to project the future from selectively chosen data. “Garbage in, garbage out” is not proof of anything, except computers’ abilities to recycle garbage and have it come out smelling like prophecy.

A further criterion: The reply would have to respond to the Harvard study instead of criticizing me personally or professionally for my role in bringing the study to the readers’ attention. Although I am an admittedly partisan Republican supporter, I know for absolute fact I had nothing to do with causing the Harvard study and its conclusions. I assume the same can be said for the Republican Party, since recent surveys of political affiliations in academia show that less than ten percent of faculty and administration in schools of higher education admit or profess support of the Republican Party.

Claiming there is a vast conservative conspiracy that created the Harvard study is not adequate refutation of the study. Name the names. If you know the conservatives did the evil deed, you must know how and with whom they conspired to do it, right?

The reply should also show why a scientific consensus that man is causing unprecedented global warming trumps a scientific study that proves he is not.

This was the opening reply from “coolerhead”:

I find the reaction of the religious right on this issue apt.
On the one hand they are quick to warn that God is ready to return and wreak his vengeance on all sinners, engulfing the world in flaming destruction.
But that fiery end can't come in the form of "global temperature change" because that is merely a liberal hoax.

I replied:

I suppose any things can be connected in some way, but it's hard for me to connect Global Warming with a Biblical fiery end.

I think a belief in man-caused Global Warming is a belief system, a religion, not a science, because there have been many previous periods of global warming, the interglacial periods, and none were caused by man. Why we feel compelled now to take credit for it and turn over control of our lives and economies to governments defies logic.

The Earth itself tells its story, and it is clear and unambiguous. Any reasonable person standing next to an archeologist explaining the evidence of the Medieval Warm Period can never believe in the hysteria fanned by Al Gore and his "consensus-based" scientists.

Coolerhead responded:

Sure, but the world didn't end in those previous periods of "global temperature change."
It is possible and perhaps likely that civilization will end from burning up, whether from greenhouse gasses (which is what the "consensus" scientists have been talking about for decades and currently warn is ominously spiking), or by solar combustion, or nuclear war, etc.
Whatever the manner, it is typical for religious zealots to ascribe disasters to acts of God punishing sinners. If, in 40 years, the Republican position maintains its predominance and the dire predictions (sic) do come about, I fully expect non-Republicans to be blamed for incurring God's wrath.
However, at present, this is a political issue, and the reality of it can be dismissed without consequence. After all, this is not our problem, but that of our children and
their children. It is the Republican thing to do to dismiss and ignore it because it can be plausibly denied.
Like the Iraq War, the only significant block of people who don't hold the majority position are partisan Republicans. I don't mean the position that Global Warming is true, but that it MIGHT be true.
Only partisan Republicans argue that THEY KNOW it is bogus, and they do so ONLY because that is their official party position. After all, the good of the Republican Party is equal to, if not more important than, the good of the country or the world.
If you are wrong, however, you have contributed to the end of civilization for the sake of your Party and its machine.

Time out. Before I post my reply to Coolerhead’s response, please note how he/she/it conveniently proves my point for me:

Sure, but the world didn't end in those previous periods of "global temperature change."

My point precisely. That’s why I don’t think the world will end this time either. Coolerhead is not very aware of irony. It reminds me of the remark Jack Nicholson is reputed to have made that his mother never understood the irony when she called him a “Son of a Bitch.”

My next response:

Republicans did not place the artifacts all across Europe and in tree rings and ice core samples that prove the world was once, and many times before, much warmer than it is today. One study I cite was done by Harvard Astrophysics, not ever considered to be a hotbed of Republicanism.

I'm an agnostic, so the only belief system I can claim is belief in what can be clearly and logically demonstrated to me. Man-caused global warming does not in any way meet that simple test.

The Left amazes me. It can be clearly and easily demonstrated and proven that Social Security will be bankrupt in a decade, yet the Left persists in pursuing their phantoms like global warming because that is the path to power and control over all aspects of individual lives and economic activity. Solving the Social Security disaster would require freeing it from government control, something the Left could never tolerate.

I kept hoping Coolerhead would respond to the challenge presented Global Warming enthusiasts by the Harvard study.

Coolerhead wants nothing to do with it. The words “Harvard” combined with “study” may be part of an auto edit program he has placed in his word processor. He continued.

The Republican Party does not bat 1,000, though its members delusionally (sic) think so. In this case, if you are wrong the consequences will be terminal. Only partisan Republicans actually believe that Global Warming is nothing to worry about, so you shouldn't bother trying to convince anybody outsde (sic) the choir, unless you are in fact an unbiased, informed credible scientist yourself, then by all means state your case. Add light not heat please.
Believe whatever you want but be aware of the scope of your responsibility you are
taking. You are betting your solitary loyalty to the Republican party against the actual potential destruction of the entire world.
In this case I would hope that partisan Republicans will look at what they're being fed before blindly swallowing it down. If they don't, the world, because of those poor Republican tools, may be doomed.

At this point, it doesn’t appear Coolerhead is going to respond to the point that is central to our entire debate, the flaming Harvard study. I reply:

You really need to read what I write before you reply. If you carefully read my original post, you will note at the bottom that there is a study: From Harvard: "20th Century Climate Not So Hot" (Then I reposted the Harvard study, and all the rest of my original post that followed it, including the links and graphs)

I then concluded thusly:

None of this has anything to do with the Republican Party. These are reputable scientists, not politicians.

Since when was a prestigious body of Harvard scientists drafted into the Republican Party? By whom and by what means?

You ask me to add light, not heat, yet you're the one who insists that anyone not believing in the Gospel according to Al Gore is a Republican tool, and I guess from the way you keep responding that you include the Harvard scientists as Republican tools.

I am not and have not claimed to be a scientist. I'm a retired Air Force officer who was a Russian linguist, financial manager, and a Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Warfare Defense Officer. A CPA and an MBA. Smart enough and educated enough to search for expert opinion and weigh the evidence presented.

To me it is a matter of rational thought, not belief, that when, "A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years." I find their studies and conclusion credible. If I have to wait to become an Astrophysics researcher myself before I can pass on their findings, then all you civilians have to become military veterans like me before you can pass judgment on the War in Iraq.

And don't criticize doctors until you become one. The same goes for teachers, police, politicians, etc.

By the way, Al Gore was a poor student and is not and never was a scientist or weather practitioner.

In closing, I shouldn't be surprised you don't read any of the things I post before you write your response. An excerpt from your last response: "You are betting your solitary loyalty to the Republican party against the actual potential destruction of the entire world."

The "actual, potential destruction of the entire world"?

You don't even read your own stuff, or you could never have posted a comment like that.

Actual potential"? From Dictionary.com:

Actual - existing in act or fact; real; existing now; present; current
Potential - possible, as opposed to actual

Anything may be possible, but what is the probability? From all that has gone before, the evidence of which is incontrovertible, the possibility of destruction of the entire world through global warming is very close to zero.

The potential for destroying our personal and economic freedoms through unscientific, energetic, and ill-advised government intervention to
"stop global warming" - too damn high.

Give me a break.

Coolerhead would not “give me a break” by responding to the Harvard study. Instead Coolerhead builds an army of straw men, and proceeds to knock them all down. What they have to do with the Harvard study and its examination of over 200 climate studies that prove our current period of global warming is nothing special is beyond me. Please note the continued unusual usage of “actual” and “potential.”

actual potential refers to potential that does in fact exist as opposed to the potential that does not exist according to your experts.
The potential does exist and it is actual and real.
I don't have a certain opinion because the stakes are too high. Either party can be wrong about issues of personal freedoms, or Social Secrity, (sic) or WMD's, or actual potential benefits of stem cell research (as opposed to non-existent benefits), or whether Terry Schiavo was conscious or not and so on and so forth. Those issues play out and the world goes on.
This one does not belong in the arena of political debate.
But there is no question that you are a partisan Republican fighting for you (sic) party because you are absolutely certain there is no potential based on selected expert opinions that support your view. You have no problem
simply dismissing the massive amount of contrary expert opinions as well as anectodal (sic) data (glaciers disappearing, polar bears and other arctic wildlife disrupting their regimens, etc.), and you also act in a typically Republican manner by trying to characterize my statements as evidence of my stupidity.
I am not a doctor, but I am an MBA and CPA. I am neither Republican nor Democrat. Partisan politics is the bane of civilized progress. It is both the problem and the solution.
Your sir are part of the problem. You would defer all judgement (sic) to the proclamations of the Republican Party and lampoon and otherwise discredit any dissenting opinion. To you the Republican Party's position is beyond reproach. It is for you an essential element of your existence.
But the Republican Party is not always right.
You claim that this one set of opinions now settles the debate. But what of the differing opinions? For you there are none that you will give any credence to, though they are as credible as any you offer up. And I assume you know of these sources by
way of a Republican mouthpiece (Dennis Prager (sp?) perhaps).
I have no doubt a Democrat mouthpiece can match your opinion at least 1 for 1 with at least equal credibility.
This is the problem.
You are indeed bringing heat because you will argue that NO other opinions matter at all except those that confirm what you support.
This is the problem.
The debate is not over as you imply.
This is the problem.
The debate hasn't even begun.
All we have is partisan warfare. I am not your enemy. In fact no one in this country is your enemy, not even if she is a Democrat.
The enemy is ignorance, divisiveness and partisan politics, and you sir support the enemy.
You just don't know it.
You don't know it any more than you know that Global Warming is nothing to worry about simply because the set of experts on your side of your parisan war say one thing while the party you're fighting says the opposite.
You're willing to to bet your individual loyalty in your party, expressed in the automatic embracement of their selected set of expert opinions, along with a concurrent unthinking dismissal of all contrary opinions of at least equal credibility, against the results of a genuine, non-political examination of what could actually potentially be a cataclysmic threat to the very existence of life on the planet.
That is partisan politics at its absolute worst and it is disgusting.
I would implore you and everyone like you, whatever party you support, to confine yourself to merely supporting your party and not hating the other.
On this issue at the very least it is imperative that a consensus scientific determination be made, and not as a result of a polical (sic) victory. Neither Al Gore nor Bill O'Reilly or any other polical (sic) hack can decide this for the entire global population. And certainly not you or I.
If the country can't come together on this one, we're all in trouble. Surely you can see this, can't you?

I finally get a bit impatient and a bit insistent.

Would you just address the Harvard study?

What are its failings or shortcomings?

What does partisan Republicanism have to do with the study and its conclusions?

Would the exact same study, with the exact same conclusions, be more credible if a Republican was not the instrument bringing it to your attention?

The study! The Harvard study! Address it, not me!

I'm not even its reporter. My role is just as simple and as uncomplicated as the mailman who delivers the book containing the study. He may have read the book, may even comment on it: "I think this is interesting. What do you think?"

What do you think? Is the Harvard study interesting?

What about its conclusions that this is not the warmest period of the past thousand years? Isn't the statement that it is the basis for the Global Warmists' predictions of doom?

Obviously we survived warmer periods in the past. We have voluminous proof that the most recent period we survived wasn't all that long ago. Why won't we make it this time?

The Harvard study!

It has the actual potential of settling the whole debate.

Speaking of potential, everything is possible when you don't know what you're talking about.

Coolerhead finally responds:

Okay, here is my initial reaction to your report of the study. I'm not going to read this or any other study because I am not qualified to parse out the findings, but here are the questions that were raised.
First, what about the apparent spike in last couple of years. It is fairly intuitive to expect that at some point the greenhouse effect will begin to advance exponentially, and the abundance of recent ancectodal (sic) evidence strongly suggests that we are
nearing that point. Not that we have reached it , but that we are perhaps a decade, two or three away.
That is, we haven't seen unprecedented levels yet but they are perhaps a couple of decades away because of profligate, unchecked, global industrial activity.
The daunting concern is that if we do reach that point it will be too late to avert a cataclysm. I have heard Republican commentators say that the critical point is in fact inevitable, and nothing we do now will make a difference anyway, so let's just ignore the problem and enjoy life anyway. I reject this with utter disdain by the way.
Whatever the case may be, historical refernces (sic) do not settle the debate. The greenhouse effect is something I learned about as far back as grade school so it is difficult for me to merely dismiss it as a "liberal hoax" given the anectodal (sic) data along with a common notion that attributes the particular Republican position dismissing the issue more because it is too costly to Corporate America than on the merits of any scientific arguments.
I believe I share a common perspective - A natural inclination to perceive (sic) global warming as a known, eventual threat that needs to be impartially and thoroughly monitored and assessed, alongside a view that the Republcan (sic) see-no-evil position is driven more by self-serving economics and politics than anything else. In other words, it is perfectly believable that Republican powerbrokers would go ahead
and throw the world under a bus to serve their immediate political interests.
I expect that if one does not share that second suspicion about Republican motives the first is far easier to overcome. But realistically, only those who regularly drink from the Republican grail can easily dispel the notion from their minds. This is all the harder to do when we are talking about global annhiliation (sic).
The other major question raised is that it seems preposterous that the range of serious contrary evidence is so conveniently dismissed by proving that it hasn't really been all that hot. The claim isn't that the heat has been unprecedented, but that it soon will be, and that by the time it is obvious to everyone, even the sceptics, (sic) it will be too late.
Bottom line is that no one single opinion or set of opinions is going to settle this debate, and (sic) nor should it.
It is unfortunate that there have to be sides on this issue, but since there are, both sides need to acknowledge all the evidence, and I mean ALL the evidence, and assess it for the benefit of every living soul, and not because of a narrow-minded war between political parties.
Global warming is not a black and white issue. Neither party is entirely right or entirely wrong on this (and the same can be said for just about all issues).
We need a more mature approach to politics so that vital problems are productively addressed. The kind of advocacy you are enganging (sic) is, though I am certain it is well-meaning and genuine, serves more to poison the atmosphere than anything else.
Very few things in life are absolute, but the current political climate holds that everything is absolute. This needs to change to account for the subleties (sic) and
complications we all know make problems difficult to solve.
Republicans should find the subtleties that underpin the global warming issue, not what will expediently negates it, and then non-Republicans will listen and accept your motives as genuine and not merely political trickery.
In other words if you resent the easy dismissal of your valued argument, start by practicing what you preach. Republicans typically recharacterize (sic) what they disagree with and tear down that recharacterization. The global warming problem isn't a simple proposition that you flick away without much effort. Look as thoroughly into the problem as you do into your solution and you won't conclude that global warming is total nonsense. A more subtle assessment is called for to benefit the world.
A simple debunking of a complex problem only serves your partisan war, and on this issue as much as any other, the warfare needs to be ended.
So I don't buy either side's position. Working together will get to truth. Fighting a black and white war won't.

So Coolerhead addressed the Harvard study (but not by name), and says that I, by virtue of bringing it up, am engaging in the “kind of advocacy” that “serves more to poison the atmosphere than anything else.”

Coolerhead dismisses the Harvard study by stating “that it seems preposterous that the range of serious contrary evidence is so conveniently dismissed by proving that it hasn't really been all that hot. The claim isn't that the heat has been unprecedented, but that it soon will be, and that by the time it is obvious to everyone, even the sceptics, (sic) it will be too late.”

Coolerhead’s logic is a study in perfect circularity. The (not mentioned by name) Harvard study proves it hasn’t really been that hot. However, today’s hot climate proves that it soon will be, and by then it will be too late.

Didn’t we just agree that the study proved we are not experiencing unprecedented heat? Then how can this heat, which is not remarkable in historical terms, be the sign that we are going to have unprecedented global warming? Don’t the scientific studies I cited in my original post indicate there has been no appreciable warming in recent years? And that there was a thousand years ago, and it has been fully studied and documented?

Coolerhead still doesn’t address why a Republican-free zone like Harvard and its scientists produced a study disproving man-caused global warming, and yet Coolerhead gives all the credit for skepticism to Republicans.

I suppose Coolerhead is applying a syllogism: “Only Republicans are global warming skeptics; therefore, all global warming skeptics are Republicans.”

Coolerhead, that’ll never fly at Harvard.

Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.

Minimum Wage Laws Illustrate Dumb Democrats' Ideas

Most minimum wage workers are not even fully supporting themselves

Demonstrating the economic inadequacies of its editorial staff, the January 22, 2007 edition of Newsweek had a really dumb quote on its “Perspectives” page. Actually, the quote probably became dumb only after Newsweek tweaked it to get their message across that America needs a big raise in the minimum wage. The restaurant owner credited with the statement probably meant that if he only offered the Idaho minimum wage, he wouldn’t get any applicants.

The quote was a statement by Idaho restaurant owner Rob Elder, who said, “At $5.15 an hour, I get zero applicants – or maybe a guy with one leg who wouldn’t pass a drug test.” His comment was to illustrate the difficulties of finding good workers with Idaho’s low minimum wage, compared to nearby Washington State’s $7.93 an hour, the highest in the nation.

If Mr. Elder understood the simple Laws of Supply and Demand, he could hire all the workers he wants by just offering to pay them what their labor is worth to him, as long as it is more than $5.15 an hour. If the work he wants them to do is not worth $5.15 plus benefits or more an hour, Mr. Elder’s options are to reorganize his business to get by with a different number and possibly a different type of employee (part-time, subsidized, disabled, etc.), and/or have illegal employees and pay them less.

Obviously Mr. Elder would like to hire legal workers for his restaurant at $5.15 an hour, and if the Laws of Supply and Demand for restaurant employees in his area were not distorted by minimum wage legislation , he possibly could. However, neighboring Washington has established the going rate for such labor at $7.93 an hour. Why work in Idaho at $5.15 when you can work in Washington at $2.78 an hour more?

Smart Idaho employers understand the labor market they’re in, and offer prospective minimum-wage type employees something above $5.15 but lower than $7.93.

How can they get by paying Idaho workers less than the nearby Washington minimum wage? Several reasons. One reason, at $7.93 an hour, Washington is attracting more people looking for work at that wage (some of them from nearby Idaho) than Washington businesses are willing to hire. Some of them, especially those living in Idaho, would accept a lower wage to work in Idaho closer to home compared to driving to Washington to join the surplus of unemployed job applicants there.

Plus some of the unemployed in Washington would rather have a lower paying job in Idaho than no job at all.


The minimum wage - Much Ado About Nothing

As with all government regulation, minimum wage laws have serious unintended consequences.

Many willing young workers are not hired into “starter” jobs because the return on their labor doesn’t justify their costs as unskilled, untrained, unreliable, undisciplined, inexperienced workers. Minimum wage employment is not meant to support heads of families, or to provide lifelong occupations. Minimum wage jobs are to start young people out in the working world, usually while they are single, still going to school, and living at home.

Minimum wage laws discourage hiring legal workers, and encourage hiring illegal aliens. The illegals work for less, administrative costs are less because income and social security taxes are not withheld, and the employers don’t pay the employers’ contributions to Social Security, workers compensation insurance, or other regulatory costs of using legal employees.

Minimum wage laws discourage hiring the young, inexperienced workers who need starter jobs to learn good work habits and job skills, and to help their transition from school and home into the working environment.

Minimum wage laws hurt the employment of the young, minorities, and the poor.


Youth, and particularly black youth unemployment, went up sharply and steadily since minimum wage laws were expanded beginning in the mid-1950's, killing teen-age jobs

The unions will love the following unintended consequences of minimum wage laws, because they add to the accelerating reduction in the number of unionized employees and to the loss of unions’ political clout. Minimum wage laws inspire employers to outsource jobs, replace human labor with machines, substitute part-time employees for full-time, and to contract out more work.

The unions are already losing their grip on their only wholly owned subsidiary, the Democratic Party. When the unions lose mandatory collection of dues for political contributions, even the Democrats will stop taking their calls.

Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.

Libby Trial – How Can You Have “Plamegate” Without Plame?

At first, President Bush was supposed to be in deep trouble. Then the focus went to Vice President Cheney. Mr. Fitzgerald knew all along that Cheney was not involved, yet for months he allowed that to be the focus of Plamegate.


When that didn't work, Rove became the target. Fitzgerald knew Rove wasn't involved either.


The dreams of the Left die hard. Fitzgerald could have ended the speculation and the costs of an investigation he knew was a complete waste. Why didn't he?


The New York Times finally threw in the towel. All this because Libby can't remember everything that no one else remembers either? Thats sounds like Libby was a Times reporter.

I read the first breathless reports of “Scooter” Libby’s trial, and the only noteworthy news was what wasn’t reported.

It wasn’t reported that Richard Armitage was the one who disclosed Valerie Plame’s CIA identity to Robert Novak. And that the Prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, knew that from the outset.

The Associated Press (AP) report said: "Plame's identity and her role in Wilson's trip were leaked to columnist Robert Novak in July 2003 shortly after Wilson publicly criticized Bush for portraying Iraq as trying to purchase uranium in Niger _ months after Wilson told the government the story was untrue."

Of course the AP did not report that the Senate Committee investigating Plamegate found that Wilson in fact reported just the opposite; that Iraq did indeed approach Niger about buying uranium. (Please go to this link to "Plameout" by Christopher Hitchens. Please. Pretty please. I'll be ever so grateful you did)

It didn’t disclose that Libby is not charged with anything about compromising Plame’s CIA position. How could he when Armitage beat him to it?

What is Armitage charged with? Wasn't the charge that top White House officials committed treason by outing a "covert" CIA agent.

The reporting never disclosed that a covert CIA agent was outed.

The reporting never disclosed that Valerie Plame was not acting as a covert CIA agent when her identity was disclosed either.

It was mentioned in passing that Plame was the one, not Vice President Cheney, who suggested and organized her husband Joe Wilson’s Niger “fact-finding” trip. The only ones who haven't conceded these facts are Plame and Wilson.

The irony was not noted that the Prosecution witnesses forgot details and changed their stories much more than Libby, and Libby is now being prosecuted for something that doesn't involve the individual he supposedly damaged.

Not bad, after only two days, how much the Main Stream Media has not reported. At this rate, they may set a new record for not reporting news.

Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.

Global Warming - A Stroll Through the European Countryside

Al Gore and the True Global Warming Believers, and the Skeptics

A stroll upwards through the Alps discloses many changes. Glaciers have retreated farther than ever before. The tree line is 300 meters higher than previously.

In Estonia, cereal crops are raised where previously the growing season was much too short.

In England vineyards are flourishing, and there is talk that English wine will soon challenge French.

Yes, the world was a different place a thousand years ago during the Medieval Warm Period. (For the whole story, read the Freeman article, "Unprecedented Global Warming?" linked here, written by Michael Heberling)

One of the most remarkable aspects of the Medieval Warm Period is that Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” finds its existence an inconvenient truth. The science Al Gore calls on to prove man-caused Global Warming doesn’t reflect the Medieval Warm Period. In fact, some of the scientists say their research into tree rings and ice cores shows absolutely that there was no Medieval Warm Period.

It reminds me of a story about a man who was surprised by his wife while he was making love to another woman. “What you goin’ to believe?” he cried. “Your loving husband, or your lyin’ eyes?”

Al’s scientists pose the same question. “What you going to believe? All that archeological junk laying around, or my super scientific studies, which prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the tree line couldn’t have been 300 meters higher than it is today, the glaciers couldn’t have been smaller than they are today, that Estonians couldn’t have raised cereal crops where they can barely raise them now, and the English couldn’t have had lush vineyards where they’re struggling today to reintroduce grape vines.

Guess what? Archeologists have found conclusive evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today. If you have lingering doubts, go to Iceland and Greenland. There you will find such evidence of previous Global Warming as ruins of ancient farms that are covered with ice today. The effects of the Little Ice Age which followed the Medieval Warm Period haven’t been reversed by the current period of warming.

Inconveniently for Al and his Global Warming hoards of “scientists,” there is ample widespread evidence of the Medieval Warm Period. Further, it is obvious that natural climate forces, not man, caused warming then, and the hundreds of times before when the earth was warmer than it is today.

Nature also has caused Global Cooling many times before, and scientists who study long-term climate trends, rather than the climate panic du jour, are convinced we are on the verge of another glacial, or cooling, period.

As far as carbon dioxide being the causative factor for warming, scientific studies demonstrate that increased carbon dioxide followed the warming and was a result of it, rather than its cause.

Of course, carbon dioxide is a small factor in the composition of greenhouse gases. Water vapor and clouds have five or six times the impact of carbon dioxide. In terms of total carbon dioxide produced, Nature produces 97% (180 billion tons), and man only 3% (6 billion tons) per year. And since carbon dioxide is only roughly 15% of greenhouse gases, the man-made portion is an insignificant 0.45%. Read that once again carefully. Man only affects less than one-half of one percent of total greenhouse gases.

If Global Warming Panic is not science, what is it?

It’s simply the last best chance for the Left to seize control over all aspects of personal and economic activity.

With Communism dead, and Socialism dying, Environmentalism is their last gasp at world control. If it doesn’t work, the Left will be stuck with Capitalism and democracy. All of their Utopian dreams will be dashed on rocks of personal freedom and liberty.

That defines the Left’s scariest nightmare.


The following is included in the "Testimony of Prof. S. Fred Singer, President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project, before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on Climate Change, July 18, 2000.



1. There is no Appreciable Climate Warming
Contrary to the conventional wisdom and the predictions of computer models, the Earth's climate has not warmed appreciably in the past two decades, and probably not since about 1940. The evidence is overwhelming:
a) Satellite data show no appreciable warming of the global atmosphere since 1979. In fact, if one ignores the unusual El Nino year of 1998, one sees a cooling trend.
b) Radiosonde data from balloons released regularly around the world confirm the satellite data in every respect. This fact has been confirmed in a recent report of the National Research Council/National Academy of Sciences [1].
c) The well-controlled and reliable thermometer record of surface temperatures for the continental United States shows no appreciable warming since about 1940. [See figure] The same is true for Western Europe. These results are in sharp contrast to the GLOBAL instrumental surface record, which shows substantial warming, mainly in NW Siberia and subpolar Alaska and Canada.
d) But tree-ring records for Siberia and Alaska and published ice-core records that I have examined show NO warming since 1940. In fact, many show a cooling trend.

Conclusion: The post-1980 global warming trend from surface thermometers is not credible. The absence of such warming would do away with the widely touted "hockey stick" graph (with its "unusual" temperature rise in the past 100 years) [see figure]; it was shown here on May 17 as purported proof that the 20th century is the warmest in 1000 years.


The "hockey stick" graph, which labors mightily to avoid showing the Medieval Warm Period.

From Harvard: "20th Century Climate Not So Hot"

A review of more than 200 climate studies led by researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics has determined that the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. While 20th century temperatures are much higher than in the Little Ice Age period, many parts of the world show the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century.

Inconvenient truths, indeed!

Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.

A Sign of The Coming of The Global Warming Plagues

A couple of days ago, when record low temperatures were being set in several California cities, the San Francisco Chronicle highlighted the fact that no records for low temperatures were set in many California cities. That’s the exact opposite of the way the Chronicle reports when a record high temperature is set, because that’s a sure Sign of The Coming of The Global Warming Plagues.

Whenever a record high temperature is reached, or a river overflows its banks, or a glacier calves an iceberg, or just about any other weather event occurs, Al Gore and the Global Warming True Believers (All Praise Be To Gore) cry out that it’s a sure sign of man-caused Global Warming. It matters not to The True Believers (APBTG) that:

Climate is the average of weather conditions over long time periods; because the climate system is inherently variable, individual weather events are not indicative of trends. Nonetheless, Gore overwhelms the reader with many individual events, claiming this is global warming in action.

In other words, Al-Bert, the Grand Ayatollah of Global Warming (All Praise Be Unto Him), spreads the Baloney Sauce thickly, using every recent dramatic weather event as a Sign (Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Hal-le-lu-jah!) that The Time of Global Warming is upon us.

During the past several days, we in California have been freezing our butts off, experiencing what in several places were new record low temperatures.

Of course, freezing our butts off in California is not like freezing your butt off in Quebec.

A young man who came from Quebec,
Stood in snow up to his neck.
When asked “Is you friz?”
He said “Yes I is,
But we don’t call this cold in Quebec.”

However, there is some serious butt freezing going on. In Oklahoma. Texas. Malibu. Malibu? Electricity is out over a large area of the United States. Long stretches of roads are closed.

I joked with our office Liberal, who thinks Global Warming is a fact, that "all this cold weather is caused by Global Warming, right?"

She said, "Absolutely. Extreme weather, either cold or hot, shows Global Warming has arrived."

When Hell freezes over, you'll know what caused it.

A little Global Warming might have prevented the disastrous loss of three-quarters of our California citrus crop, and now our avocados, strawberries, and cut flowers are threatened.

"If you're going to San Francisco

Be sure to bring your own flowers to wear in your hair."

(Part of my revenge on San Francisco Liberals is making sure the insipid lyrics of that banal song never fade away and die)

I wonder if the scientists thirty years ago were right, and this is a sign of Global Cooling?

Of course, when we speak of record high and low temperatures we must add a caveat that I never hear from the High Priests and Acolytes of Global Warming: the Earth has only had graduated thermometers for 300 years, and only during the past 100 years has there been systematic and widespread record keeping of global temperatures and weather events.

As an example of the last point, Pope Albert the Pontificator, and his Proselytizers of Global Warming, have pointed at increased tornados and hurricanes as a Sign. Unmentioned is the fact that only recently could most tornados and many hurricanes be assured of being recorded for posterity.

Changing technology is one reason for the uncertainty about long-term hurricane trends. Before the age of weather satellites and weather radar, scientists didn't know for sure how many hurricanes were forming in the Atlantic. Often they had to rely on scattered reports from nonexperts, such as sailors on fishing boats who returned to port with horror stories of awful storms far at sea.

I might add that the worst storms probably weren’t reported, 'cause “dead fishermen tell no tales.”

Only recently, with continuous satellite weather coverage, have we been able to meticulously track, measure, and record the number, type, and strength of most major weather phenomena. Even with the scant records of the recent past, we can still demonstrate that there have been periods of very severe weather long before there was even a hint that man could affect weather trends.

Among many examples are the large number and great strength of past hurricanes:

The 1940s through the 1960s experienced an above-average number of major hurricanes, while the 1970s into the mid-1990s averaged fewer hurricanes," Mayfield said. A new wave of hurricane activity resumed in the mid-1990s, and "the current period of heightened activity could last another 10 to 20 years.

Al Gore and the Acolytes trumpeted the record number of hurricanes in 2005 as proof positive that The Age of Global Warming was upon us. Then came 2006, one of the wimpiest hurricane seasons in recent memory.

Mayfield said, that in his opinion, the increased hurricane activity since 1995 is due to natural cycles of hurricane activity and is "not enhanced substantially by global warming."

According to True Believer Theorists, “global warming of the atmosphere could breed hurricanes via several complex mechanisms. To give one example, global warming could directly warm Atlantic waters, thereby encouraging evaporation of tropical waters. Like a man throwing oil on a fire, evaporation would boost skyward the kind of warm, moist air parcels that fuel hurricanes.”

This is highly circular reasoning. Global warming could cause more hurricanes, if hurricanes were formed by Global Warming as theorized. Therefore, more hurricanes prove Global Warming.

By that line of reasoning, Global Warming existed in the 1940s through the 1960s, then took a hike for 25 years, and has now come back. I wonder where Global Warming goes when it goes away?

We know what followed Global Warming the last time it went away. It was called the Little Ice Age (1300-1750 AD).

The last long period of Global Warming lasted 500 years (800-1300 AD), but we called it the Medieval Warm Period. People then wouldn't have called it Global Warming, because they were ignorant and didn't know they lived on a globe.

They didn't call it "Medieval" either, because at the time no one knew it was the Middle Ages.

Their ignorance rivals Al Gore's, who still doesn't know we already had a period of Global Warming we call the Medieval Warm Period, so Al should call his Global Warming II.

Or probably more like Global Warming MCMXCVIII, or MMDCLI, or even more likely, Global Warming MMMMMMMMMMMMM and a whole lot more.

If Global Warming was here to cause 2005, where was it in 2006? Will it be back in 2007, which is supposed to be an El Niño year? Hurricanes don’t like El Niño, you know.

Scientists seem to agree that El Niños and La Niñas come in cycles, regardless of Global Warming, yet we still have True Believer Scientists who preach that recent hurricanes are caused by Global Warming. The obvious question to ask them is if that is true, what caused the high periods of hurricane activity before Global Warming came along?

“However, most weather scientists seem more comfortable with the cycles hypothesis, according to which the recent super-hurricanes aren't something new; rather, they're just the latest manifestation of a long-running hurricane cycle -- a recurrent nuisance.”

God gave Pharoah ten plagues, and Pharoah was sorely vexed.

Saint Albert of Gore says we will have floods, droughts, violent storms, raging fires, roaring winds, skinny polar bears, fat mosquitoes, beri beri, dysentery, how does your garden grow?, and we'll have to face all this without a national health plan.

If we're lucky.

By then, the workers will just give everything they make to cover what has to go to Social Security recipients.

It won't be enough.

Things will be so bad that we'll give the illegal aliens California, and then we'll leave en masse for Canada.

California will be so bad by then we couldn't give it away, so the illegals will head to Canada too.

The gun-controlled Candadians will try to stop us at the border, shouting "49º 0' or Fight!" and swinging their Al Gore autographed temperature trend hockey sticks, but since we'll outnumber them by a quarter billion, they'll have as much luck as we did stopping twelve million illegal "immigrants" at our borders.

Quebec, here I come!

You Quebecois can forget French, just like los Californios can say adios to English.

Se habla español?

Democrat Fear And Anger

"Throats get cut, blood runs, just like we did for Rwanda!"

President Bush’s decision has set off a wave of fear and anger amongst Democrats. “This decision by the President,” Nancy Pelosi said, “opens up a frightening new prospect, one that is so awful that I find it hard to describe what might happen. After all we Democrats have done, all our hard work, our fiery speeches, our constant repetition of every real and imagined problem of Iraq, how could President Bush do this?

“Doesn’t he know how terrible this is for all of us?

“It just might work!

“Oh, woe is us, what will we do then?”

(As my loyal readers – both of you – know, I make up quotes which convey truth much more accurately than anything that Democrat politicians ever say. I was taught this technique by Dan Rather, who said that the Texas Air National papers expressed the underlying truth about President Bush. In fact, knowing Dan, I’ll bet he said “they spoke truth to power.” The problem with Dan was that he couldn’t bring himself to admit they were forgeries, while I proudly trumpet that mine are.)

The long, relentless Democrat campaign to achieve defeat in Iraq may be coming off the tracks. Now that she is Squealer of the House, Nancy Pelosi can no longer stand by the Democrat's assertion that Democrats have a plan for Iraq, and will let us know what it is when they have a chance to do something about it.

Well Nancy, it’s time to put up or shut up.

What’s the Democrat’s plan?

If it’s still cut and run, and defeat in Iraq, please tell us now so we can get on about winning.

Even Democrats know that you can’t lose a war when you only suffer 3,000 killed in over three years of fighting, unless you just give up.

Plus, most of the suffering in America is confined to the Democrat’s credibility as they whine about how horrible the economy is as sales, profits, incomes, and productivity soar, and unemployment continues to fall to new lows.

Even Democrats know that they can’t plead that they want American troops out of Iraq to relieve the suffering of the Iraqi people, because anyone with a brain (maybe I spoke too soon about Democrat’s knowledge) knows the suffering of the Iraqi people after we left would be horrendous, far worse than the genocide in Rwanda when President Clinton studiously ignored it.

In Rwanda, the Hutus only had knives and axes, so it took them a couple of months while Clinton dithered to slaughter almost a million Tutsis. In Iraq, the Shi’ites are much better armed, thanks to Iran, and the Sunnis have stockpiles that Saddam hid away.

Democrats are a nutty bunch (read anything by Dennis Kucinich or Barbara Lee), but even they are not crazy enough to want to be held responsible for unleashing the worst bloodbath of the new millennium.

The Democrats are facing a perfect storm right now. The economy continues to improve, and President Bush is taking effective action to win in Iraq.

Nancy Pelosi can proudly blow the whistle on the Democrat Titanic to get her people into the lifeboats!

Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.

Give Health Care Away, And They Will Take It

A San Francisco Chronicle editorial supporting Governor Schwarzennegger’s proposal for universal California health insurance noted that 52% of Californians are for universal coverage, yet 52% oppose it for illegal aliens. The Chronicle wonders how Californians can be for universal coverage, but not for it to be truly universal. The Chronicle, or course, believes that illegal aliens should be given health care, and contends that wouldn’t attract more illegal aliens to California.

I, of course, believe that when you give away something of value, you attract people who would like to have it. They may be illegal aliens that would have gone to some other state, but find the free health coverage too attractive to pass up. They might be legal residents or citizens of other states, who find free health care too attractive to pass up and come to California for it. Free health care in California for anyone who comes to California and wants it certainly won’t discourage anyone from coming to California.

Send us your poor, your sick, your uneducated, your unskilled, your seekers after freebies, your cash basis workers who pay no taxes, your criminals, your gang-bangers...

The Chronicle doesn’t worry about the issues that bother Californians and make them oppose free health care for illegal aliens. According to the Chronicle editorial:

For Schwarzenegger to sell Californians on his plan, he will have to confront these fears -- firmly but empathetically. This includes fears about how universal insurance could have a so-called "magnet effect." Illegal immigrants come here to work, not to milk our social programs. Regarding cost, a recent Rand Institute study showed that illegal immigrants use fewer health services than their American-born counterparts -- and little public money.

Actually, the Chronicle is either lying or in error in its last remark that the Rand study found that illegal immigrants use “little public money.” Perhaps the Chronicle would say it was clear that they only meant illegals used little public money for health services, but their comment is not clearly qualified that it is just about health services. It actually should read that “illegal aliens use relatively little public money for health care.”

The word “relatively” has significance, since illegal aliens do consume at least a billion dollars ($11 in taxes per household) in government funded health services each year, per the Rand study, compared to $88 billion for legal non-elderly adults in 2000. Since this is an area where you would expect significant underreporting because of the difficulty in identifying expenditures for illegal aliens, it is a logical assumption that the cost for illegal alien health services is actually much higher. Also, the cost is not distributed evenly across the country, but is concentrated on the taxpayers of certain states, like California, and of certain cities, like Los Angeles.

As this news series in 2005 found:

Sixty percent of (Los Angeles) county's uninsured patients are not U.S. citizens. More than half are here illegally. About 2 million undocumented aliens in Los Angeles County alone are crowding emergency rooms because they can't afford to see a doctor.

The Rand study dilutes the impact of illegal aliens on health services by spreading the numbers and cost over the entire country, and the Chronicle aids their effort by acting as if this national study describes the California scene.

However, in a Los Angeles TV special series: “(In 2004), Los Angeles County spent $340 million to treat the uninsured; that's roughly $1,000 for every taxpayer.”

Based on the estimates that half of the uninsured patients are illegals, that’s a yearly cost of roughly $500 for every Los Angeles taxpayer for illegal alien health care, a lot more than $11 per household.

Of course, it is not true that illegal aliens use little public money, and even the Rand study pointed out that: "Costs will be much higher for educating the children of undocumented immigrants, so that's where debate should center, not on these relatively small health care costs."

The Chronicle doesn't make any mention, or even hint, that there might be a cost in an illegal alien crime wave.

Or that the illegal alien's "cash economy" is destructive of employment and businesses of citizens and legal immigrants.

Drawing from the information above, twenty percent of the population of Los Angeles County are illegal aliens. Further, “By 2002, more than 70 percent of the students in the Los Angeles Unified School District were Hispanic, predominantly Mexican, with the proportion increasing steadily.”

For California in 2004, roughly $7.7 billion was spent to educate the children of illegal aliens, or 13% of the statewide school budget. Naturally, the costs were high in areas of illegal alien concentration such as Los Angeles.

Defenders of illegal aliens assert that the cost of educating illegal alien students is offset by the taxes paid by their parents, but study after study shows that immigrants cost taxpayers much more in public services used than they pay into the system via taxes. This is particularly true of illegal immigrants, who are disproportionately low-skilled and thus low-earning and are much more likely to be working in the underground economy or providing contractual services and not withholding taxes.

The bottom line, don’t take editorials in Liberal mouthpieces like the San Francisco Chronicle at face value. The Chronicle, like the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, & Etc, is pedaling a political agenda and has no ethical or professional reservations about how they selectively choose and distort information to make their point.

Yeah, I'm shocked too.

Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.

Really Dumb Football Players

(In fairness to Tom Brady and the Patriots, I should retitle this as "Really Dumb Chargers, and One Brilliant Patriot")


When football had a brain - and a sense of humor!
(The Longest Yard, 1974)

I have been an avid fan of the National Football League since I watched my first game on the television we had just bought in 1954. The team I watched that day was the San Francisco 49ers, and I’ve been a 49ers fan ever since. So was everyone else in my hometown, 150 miles north of San Francisco.

Over the years the players have become more athletic - better, stronger, faster - and bigger, much bigger. Sort of like Steve Austin, the $6,000,000 man, only more expensive and bigger, but dumb and dumber. A perfect example, Terrell Owens.

Unlike the professional athletes of the 1950’s, today’s athletes are paid so much that they can concentrate on football year round, and never have to work a day after they retire assuming they get professional investment advice and follow it. The ambitious ones devote most of their off-season to working out to maintain or improve their physical conditioning.

Even the star players of the 1950’s had regular jobs in the off season, and had to have an occupation to support themselves and their families after their playing days were done. While playing, they would spend half the year working at a regular job, then struggle to get back into playing shape for the football season.

Therefore, I am amazed by how much more knowledgeable the players fifty years ago were about how to play the mental part of the game. (Maybe it was because they paid more attention then to playing the game, and less to choreographing their celebrations a la Terrell Owens)

Mental part?

Yes, football has a very important mental element, and most close games are won or lost because of it. During my very enjoyable and remarkably undistinguished playing days as a Point Arena High School Pirate, 1956 -1960), I remember Coach Snow frequently yelling at us and pointing at his head when we didn’t use ours in practice. He wanted us to always be aware of the down and distance before every play, and know what we should do because of it and the game situation.

The Chargers lost today because they lost awareness on a fourth down Patriot pass play.

The game I watched today between the San Diego Chargers and the New England Patriots was a classic example of the very ragged football you see today, and neither team seemed particularly capable of challenging for a Super Bowl. The Patriot’s quarterback, Tom Brady, frequently mentioned in the same breath as Joe Montana, didn’t look the part of a three-time Super Bowl winner. (However, please see my update and apology to Tom Brady at the bottom of this post)

The San Diego Chargers seemed to be far superior physically. During the early part of the game I thought that the Chargers would really have to mess up to lose the game. As the game progressed it became obvious that they were capable, even more than willing, to do just that.

The mental element, or the lack of it, seems to be a characteristic of teams coached by Marty Schottenheimer, who has now only won 5 of 18 playoff games, including losing the last six. The Chargers totally dominated the Patriots for all but the last two minutes of the first half, at which point they decided to play it safe and, as is usual when teams decide to play it safe, gave up an easy touchdown to the Patriots. Chargers 14, Patriots 10 at halftime.

The mental lapses of the first half were only a prelude to the collapse in the second. The Chargers had the Patriots stopped and would have forced a punt, but their hot-headed right corner back, Florence, just had to deliver a head butt right in front of the officials after the play was over, which gave the Patriots a first down and great field position. Later, the Charger punt returner, Parker, tried to pick up a punt he muffed instead of falling on it, and the Patriots recovered it in Charger territory and eventually kicked a field goal.

Later, when the Chargers scored a touchdown that seemed to put the game out of reach, their right tackle Olivea committed a personal foul after the point-after-touchdown and the Chargers had to kick off from their 20 yard-line, again giving the Patriots good field position.

At about this time I was exasperated at how poorly both teams were playing. Tom Brady had already been intercepted twice on very poorly thrown balls, and both quarterbacks would have suffered even more interceptions except their teams’ defensive backs seemed to have their hands encased in iron.

Fortunately for Brady, and unfortunately for the Chargers, the Charger free safety Marlon McCree got over his case of “iron hands” at precisely the wrong time. On fourth down, Brady threw a desperation pass right at McCree.

As an aside, when I played high school football we were taught to yell at each other, “If it’s a pass, knock it down!”, whenever the opposing team was about to run a fourth-down play. Our coach knew, and taught us painstakingly, that if we just knocked the ball down we would take possession at the original line of scrimmage. If we intercepted the pass, we probably wouldn’t be able to run it back as far as the original line of scrimmage, so we would be better off just knocking it down.

McCree, a highly trained (and highly paid) football professional, didn’t knock the pass down. He intercepted it, and then fumbled the ball back to the Patriots. Of all the things that could have happened on the play, McCree did the only thing that could set up the Patriots to win. Had McCree knocked the ball down, the Chargers would have gotten the ball at almost mid-field still leading by eight points.

If all they did was hand off to LaDainian Tomlinson, and then punt or eventually kick a field goal, they probably would have sewed up the victory. But McCree made all of this academic. He gave the ball back to the Patriots with four new downs and great field position just because he didn’t learn the basics we learned playing eight-man high school football fifty years ago.

He'll probably want a big raise on his next contract because of his interceptions.

Years from now he’ll brag to his grandchildren, "Your granddaddy intercepted Hall of Fame quarterback Tom Brady in an AFC playoff game."

UPDATE, and a sincere apology to Tom Brady:

After a night of sound sleep and a morning of reflection, I realize how totally I erred in my disparaging comments about Tom Brady. Tom Brady was flaming brilliant!

As a Bloke might say.

As Tom Brady dropped back to pass, fourth down and five yards to go for a first, trailing by eight points, over half way through the fourth quarter, the situation looked hopeless for the Patriots. His deep receivers were well covered, and a completion to one of them was highly unlikely. The most probable outcome of a deep pass was an incompletion, and the Chargers would get the ball with good field position and just run out the clock with LaDainian Tomlinson.

A short pass would have been easy to complete, but the Charger linebackers had dropped deep enough to be able to tackle the receiver before he made first-down yardage. The Chargers would take over at the spot of the tackle.

At this point Tom Brady’s brilliance took charge. “If I throw an easy interception, what could happen? If I make it easy enough, the defensive back will be able to catch it instead of dropping it or knocking it down like any smart, well-trained defensive player would. Since these guys were coached by Marty, I just know they’ll do the dumbest thing and catch it.

“Then what happens? Anyone dumb enough to intercept it would be dumb enough to try to make a big play instead of just falling down and covering the ball. Then it’ll be easy to strip the ball, and recover the fumble. We get a first down at the spot of the fumble recovery, even if it’s not far enough downfield to get a first down if a Patriot receiver caught it.

“Here McCree, don’t drop it for God's sake!”

As a bonus, Marty wasted a timeout by requesting a useless instant replay review. That timeout would have been invaluable on the last drive to tie the game with a field goal.

Other interesting blogger comments.


Gale Sayers: Locker-room Address to Players on Brian Piccolo's Cancer, from "Brian's Song" - 1971
(When football had a heart) Click on this link, then click on the MP3 player to hear Billy Dee Williams as Gale Sayers ask his teammates to dedicate the game ball to Brian Piccolo. Don't let anyone see you, and have some kleenex handy.

Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.

Tax Cuts Increase Tax Revenues

Tax rates are down, tax revenue is up

President Bush saw the record surpluses created after Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994 quickly become deficits as the country sank deeper into the recession that began during the last quarter of the Clinton presidency caused by the dot.com collapse in 2000. Then, just half a year after his inauguration, the economy suffered further from the effects of 9/11.

After these twin blows to the economy, the Bush tax cuts began to power the economy back to life, and even now, after Katrina and three years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the improvement continues strongly.

According to the Associated Press, which only grudgingly reports good news for President Bush:

Tax collections are running 8.2 percent higher than a year ago while government spending is up by just 0.7 percent from a year ago. Last year's spending totals were boosted by significant payments to help the victims of the Gulf Coast hurricanes.

The Treasury said for December, the government actually ran a surplus of $44.5 billion, the largest surplus ever recorded in December and a gain that reflected a big jump in quarterly corporate tax payments.

Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.

Procrastination is the Thief of Time

After 10 years of research on a project that was only supposed to take five years, a Canadian industrial psychologist found in a giant study that not only is procrastination on the rise, it makes people poorer, fatter and unhappier.

Studying procrastination as a field has a benefit, said the professor. The more he knows about the problem and the causes, the less he procrastinates — even though he sheepishly acknowledges his study was completed five years late.

The good thing about studying procrastination, he said: "If you take a day off from it, you can always say it's field research."

I have always been a believer in “creative procrastination.” Basically, that’s the idea that there is a time for everything, and that time should not be rushed.

Vintners know this concept. They “will serve no wine before its time.”

Ben Franklin knew it: “Haste makes waste.”

Realists know it: “If it wasn’t for the last minute, nothing would get done.”

Husbands know it: ”Honey, everything can’t be your top priority,” we whine.

Alice wants me to burn a lot of brush and trimmings created by all the landscaping and tree trimming she has caused to be done the past several years. I know that if nature is allowed to take its course, it won’t be long – a few decades at the most – before all of the woody waste decomposes naturally.

Natural is good, right?

Alice doesn’t understand that rushing Nature is a waste of time and effort, and that watching NFL games is not.

All this reminds me, I need to publish an item in the Point Arena Elementary School newsletter for June, 1955, that I haven’t got around to yet.

The class motto for the graduating class of 1955 (I graduated the following year) was: “Procrastination is the thief of time.”

I’m sorry for the delay, but I’ve been busy.

Луче пожде чем некогда, as they say in Russian.

Or as we say in English, “Better late than never.”

Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.

Boxer Tells Rice: "No Child? Shut Up!"

Liberals are really hung up on Condoleezza Rice not having any children. They think single Black women just naturally pop out a bunch, and that Condoleezza is off the plantation.
Notice how the cartoonist Danziger thinks educated Black professionals speak, sho' nuff.

The New York Post Online edition reported that, “(Condoleezza) Rice appeared before the Senate in defense of President Bush's tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered (Dem. Sen. – Cal. Barbara) Boxer.

"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price," Boxer said. "My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young."

Then, to Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

Incredibly, Senator Boxer, drawing upon all of her room-temperature level IQ, finds, as the Post comments, that “an accomplished, seasoned diplomat, a renowned scholar and an adviser to two presidents like Condoleezza Rice is not fully qualified to make policy at the highest levels of the American government because she is a single, childless woman.”

Basically, Senator Boxer is criticizing Dr. Rice for "making policy while childless."

A New York Times article points out the obvious, that Senator Boxer is incapable of knowing what she said, even though she repeated herself often, "who pays the price?"

The Post then goes on to puzzle about how such a statement would be greeted and treated if a Republican, particularly a white male Republican, had made it to a Democrat or to a woman. I wish to add to the speculation, and wonder how such a statement would be treated by the Main Stream Media if a white Republican male had made it to a single, childless, Black Democrat woman.


Anything goes, as long as the racism and sexism of Pat Oliphant is directed at a Republican Black woman

Instead of being buried in paragraph 18 of a routine Associated Press dispatch from Washington, D.C., it would be in the first paragraph under the headline, “Democrats Demand Resignation,” followed by the sub-headline, “An Unspeakable Insult to all Childless Persons – Including Single and Married Women, Gays, Lesbians, Bisexual, and Transgender Americans.”

Instead of ignoring the story, the San Francisco Chronicle – Motto: “All Nancy Pelosi, all the time” – would be publicizing and coordinating the protest rallies, and demanding that President Bush apologize to the American public for being the leader of such a narrow-minded party.

Are the only Americans qualified to give advice or decide issues those who have a direct stake in an issue? The Democrats think so. Senator Boxer insists Condoleezza Rice is unqualified because she personally has no family at risk in Iraq. Not long ago Republicans who had never served in the military were called “Chicken hawks” for supporting the war in Iraq. Apparently only veterans can decide military issues, only Blacks can legislate Black issues, only Hispanics decide issues of illegal immigration, only teachers are qualified on education matters, only nurses (not doctors, they’re not unionized) on medical matters, & Etc.

If that’s the way it is, I think only taxpayers should get to decide income taxation questions. Since half of American voters pay little or no income taxes, that would end a lot of Democrat tax-the-rich-and-give-the-money-to-the-ones-who-deserve-it schemes.

Only property owners should have a vote on property taxes. Only business owners would vote on business issues.

I’m starting to warm up to the Democrat’s approach to who is qualified to run things.

Then Senators Boxer and Feinstein would get to vote on issues involving women who marry rich men, which are about the only ones in which they seem to be paying a personal price. They’ve never served in the military – no personal price there. They aren’t Blacks or Hispanics, not impoverished, not homeless, not unemployed, not teachers or nurses – the best thing they can do is just keep their mouths shut.

If Barbara Boxer can keep hers shut, that’s proof positive that the Age of Miracles has not passed.

UPDATE: Barbara Boxer displayed her monumental lack of intellect again today (in a San Francisco Chronicle article, of course) buttressed by the most tired of current Liberal clichés when she explained her remarks were "speaking truth to power." By now, not even the most clueless dare say that without suffering terminal embarrassment. What Boxer should have said was that she was "speaking truthiness to power," in essence that she knew something intuitively, instinctively, or "from the gut" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or actual facts.

To confirm this, Boxer was quoted in the article: "I was just saying what I felt."


We close out with an excerpt from the lowest of the low, a Ted Rall cartoon, that instructs Condi Rice "You're not white, stupid," and sends Dr. Rice, graduate cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, member of the Stanford faculty, off to the education the Left thinks she really needs, on how to be Black.

And take care of all dem chill'un.

I'm amazed that Blacks and women don't find these icons of the Left racist, sexist, and insulting. I guess that as long as you're a white Liberal Democrat, you're OK.

Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.

Science Opposed to Global Warming Theory - An Index

Several Global Warming enthusiasts have read one of my posts (here), then commented on the fact that I only have a few citations of science supporting my position or attacking Global Warming theories. Apparently, no matter how many citations I give, it will never satisfy true Global Warming Believers (Praise Be To Gore).

Oddly enough, when making their comments they never refute the points in my post, i.e., "Was there a Medieval Warming Period, and if so, how did that happen if man is the cause of Global Warming?"

"Was there a Little Ice Age, and if so, if man causes warming, what caused cooling?"

Their only answer is a non-answer; they want me to go to realscience.org, or to some other website, to frustrate me when I find that the answers to my fundamental questions are not there either.

I've gone to those websites, and looked, and so far have not found why there is abundant evidence in history of a Medieval Warming Period that is not reflected in the science of the Global Warming high priests and acolytes. All over Europe is strewn the evidence that it was as warm or warmer a thousand years ago than it is today, and that this warm period lasted about five hundred years (800-1300) compared to our present decade or two. Hell, we haven't gotten back to the heat of the 1920's or 1930's yet. Would anyone like to compare 1935 to 1998; or 1999, 2000, 2001, etc.?

Therefore, what I need is an index of all my sources, with pithy comments to give the reader a feel for what they will find if they take up my challenge to face the Dark Side.

Here they will find science that debunks Kyoto, including Liberal science that admits that if Kyoto is enacted, and miraculously complied with, it will only reduce global temperatures a fraction of a degree celcius. Kyoto will only slow sea level increases by an amount so small that it will be impossible to measure the Kyoto effect conclusively.

After you browse the articles below, you'll be moved to remark, "I didn't know there was so much science debunking Global Warming!"

That's OK.

Al Gore still doesn't know that.

You should be proud you're no longer as ignorant as a former Vice-President of the United States.


Another illustration of the arrogance of the ignorant. Water vapor and clouds are the prime players in the so-called "greenhouse effect," CO2 is a minor player, and we are a minor producer of it.

Have you ever heard an ant break wind in a hurricane? Or a flatulent herring in its school?

Speaking of ants, termites produce large quantities of both methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2), but scientists only record the methane produced as a greenhouse gas because: "These CO2 emissions are part of the natural carbon cycle, and as such should not be included in a greenhouse gas emissions inventory."

(Drum roll!) The dirty science secret is out! As long as CO2 production is "part of the natural carbon cycle," it doesn't count!

It seems our ignorance of nature's contribution to greenhouse gases is courtesy of our scientists.

I wonder how much more they don't include in their "science"?

The following are some of my many sources. I have attempted to excerpt or add comments to each to give you a flavor of the detailed information you will find if you click on the link. Given the time, I would look at the details of each and everyone.

Come to think of it, I already have.

Now it's your turn.

(The bold highlighting in the following are my words, although much of what I have written is just summarization of information from the articles. I try to give credit where credit is due, and I am just the compiler of the information, not its creater.)

Bad Climate Science Yields Worse Economics, by Peter Malloy, October 26, 2006

A critical commentary on the "Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change"
Climate modelers pile guess upon guess to arrive at an answer that is rendered invalid by the historical temperature record. Recent research shows:

(1) Cosmic rays impact global climate.
(2) Carbon dioxide has limited physical capability to impact global temperature.
(3) Greenhouse myths are propogated by climate alarmists.

Testimony of Prof. S. Fred Singer, President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project, before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on Climate Change

An excerpt:

"We hold a skeptical view on the climate science that forms the basis of the National Assessment because we see no evidence to back its findings; climate model exercises are NOT evidence. Vice President Al Gore keeps referring to scientific skeptics as a 'tiny minority outside the mainstream.' This position is hard to maintain when more than 17,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition against the Kyoto Protocol because they see 'no compelling evidence that humans are causing discernible climate change.'"

Dr. Singer goes on to note that scientists that speak out against Global Warming orthodoxies are subjected to ad hominem attacks for having the courage to defend dissenting science.

I previously posted that some "scientists" and politicians (Senators Olympia Snowe and Jay Rockefeller in the United States, and others in Europe) even want to use the law and political pressure to silence dissent.

The Climate Change Debate, Professor S. Fred Singer
Stern Critque: The Climate Change Debate is far from Over, World Economics, Vol. 7, No. 3, July-September 2006

Dr. Singer poses three fundamental questions, then answers them:

(1) Is there evidence for or against an appreciable human contribution to climate warming?

There is a lot of evidence for past variation in climate with no human contribution at all. There is some evidence that human contributions may have a minor effect on climate warming. There is no overwhelming evidence of an appreciable contribution to global warming.

(2) Would a warmer climate be better or worse than the present one?

We know from voluminous records that the human condition was better in 1100 AD during the Medieval Warm Period than during the following Little Ice Age. We know that things are better now than during the 1970 recent cold period. We also know that the reason for improvement since 1970 was due to technological advances, not a warmer climate, and that is exactly the point: Technological advances and the mobilization of capital far outweigh any climate factor one can think of in promoting prosperity.

Most agree that a colder climate would damage the economy. Would that be true for a slightly warmer climate? Is our current climate the optimum, and would any change to either warmer or colder be damaging?

(3) Realistically speaking, can we really do something about climate? Is it possible to influence the climate by policy actions in an effective way?

The Kyoto Protocol fully realized yields a calculated reduction of one-twentieth of a degree. At what cost? Further, would the enormous costs required to reduce emissions by the 60 to 80 percent required to stabilize atmospheric carbon dioxide be worth the effort, particularly if the result of warming was beneficial?

Dr. Singer has experience debating radical Left climate mythology. During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, Singer debated Carl Sagan on the impact of the Kuwaiti petroleum fires on the ABC News program Nightline. Sagan said the smoke would loft into the upper atmosphere, disrupt the monsoons and lead to ecological disaster. Singer said such a view was ridiculous, that the smoke would go up only a few thousand feet and then be washed out of the atmosphere by rain. Three days later, black rain began falling over Iran, which essentially put an end to the speculation.

And the threat of ecological disaster. If only all Liberal threatened disasters could be conclusively cleared up in only three days, like this one.

Global Warming or Global Cooling? An excerpt, from The Times of India:

Things were different in 1940-70, when there was global cooling. Every cold winter then was hailed as proof of a coming new Ice Age. But the moment cooling was replaced by warming, a new disaster in the opposite direction was proclaimed.

A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling!

In the media, disaster is news, and its absence is not. This principle has been exploited so skillfully by ecological scare-mongers that it is now regarded as politically incorrect, even unscientific, to denounce global warming hysteria as unproven speculation.

Bob Carter: British report the last hurrah of warmaholics
in The Australian

The Stern warning could join Paul Ehrlich's The Population Bomb and the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth in the pantheon of big banana scares that proved to be unfounded.

An accomplished cost-benefit analysis of climate change would require two things: a clear, quantitative understanding of the natural climate system and a dispassionate, accurate consideration of all the costs and benefits of warming as well as cooling.

Unfortunately, the Stern review is not a cost-benefit but a risk analysis, and of warming only.

Falsehoods in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth

Errors include:

* Misleading links between weather events and climate change

Climate is the average of weather conditions over long time periods; because the climate system is inherently variable, individual weather events are not indicative of trends. Nonetheless, Gore overwhelms the reader with many individual events, claiming this is global warming in action.

* Misrepresentation of data

Gore presents one graph, said to be temperature data derived from ice cores, to support the controversial claim of one research group--Mann et al.--that current temperatures are higher than anytime in the last 1,000 years. The graph is not the ice core data, however, but the Mann et al. data derived from tree rings and other proxies.

* Exaggerations about sea level rise

Gore claims that potential melting of ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctic will force the "evacuation" of millions of people to escape sea level rise of 6 meters (20 feet). This flatly contradicts even the worst-case scenarios described by the scientific community.

* Misleading claims about effects of climate change

Gore claims that the emergence of new diseases is related to global warming, but most of the diseases he lists have little or no relationship to climate.

* Reliance on worst-case scenarios

Much of the claims about the consequences of future global warming rely on climate models that Gore calls "evermore accurate", but significant questions about the reliability of these models remain, and the effects cited by Gore presume that the worse-case predictions of these models are the correct ones.

* False claims about scientific views on global warming

Despite the abundance of scientific research contradicting his position, Gore instead concentrates on refuting a handful of skeptical claims from outside the scientific community--and can't even get the facts right on those.

* Misleading claims about the responsibility of the United States

(Gore) criticizes the U.S. failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol without acknowledging the ways in which the Protocol disproportionately targeted the U.S. economy. Or that the Senate unanimously rejected Kyoto during the Clinton/Gore Administration.

* Conceptual errors

Gore's explanation of several topics, including the greenhouse effect, the relationship of carbon dioxide and global temperature, decline in Arctic Ocean pack ice, structure of the Greenland ice sheet, and ozone depletion, contain conceptual errors.

Al Gore's "science" is pretty sloppy, but of course, Al is not a scientist.

It shows.

The cows missed the movie, By Debra J. Saunders

I'm not a vegetarian, so I have mixed emotions about including this article. The left want to get rid of red meat so we will all live long enough to bankrupt Social Security (only twelve year to go!). Now they'll want to get rid of cows to prevent Global Warming too.

Two British news reports could not have come at a better time for Fred Singer, a scientist and global-warming denier, who has incurred the wrath of global-warming guru and former Vice President Al Gore.

The Independent reported Sunday that a new U.N. report found that livestock is responsible for 18 percent of global greenhouse gases. In other words, in the universe of global-warming alarmism, cow gas does more damage to Mother Earth than SUVs. (American cars are responsible for some 6 percent of greenhouse gases.)

Gorey Truths: 25 inconvenient truths for Al Gore, by Iain Murray

Mr. Murray lists 25; he could have listed many more. In each point he includes a link to the supporting article, so all you Global Warming True Believers -- both of you who don't accept Gore's teachings (Praise Be To Gore) on belief alone -- will have a lot to ponder. The rest of you true believers should hold up your "holy hockey sticks" to protect you from learning inconvenient truths.

1. Carbon Dioxide’s Effect on Temperature.
2. Kilimanjaro.
3. Glaciers.
4. The Medieval Warm Period.
5. The Hottest Year.
6. Heat Waves.
7. Record Temperatures.
8. Hurricanes.
9. Tornadoes.
10. European Flooding.
11. Shrinking Lakes.
12. Polar Bears.
13. The Gulf Stream.
14. Invasive Species.
15. Species Loss.
16. Coral Reefs.
17. Malaria and other Infectious Diseases.
18. Antarctic Ice.
19. Greenland Climate.
20. Sea Level Rise.
21. Population.
22. Energy Generation.
23. Carbon-Emissions Trading.
24. The “Scientific Consensus.”
25. Economic Costs.

"Gore quotes Winston Churchill — but he should read what Churchill said when he was asked what qualities a politician requires: 'The ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn't happen.'"

Greenland and Sea Level Rise

The Greenland ice sheet cannot slip into the sea since it is resting in a bowl-shaped depression produced by its own weight, surrounded by mountains which permit only limited glacier outflow to the sea.

Changes in Sea Level

Projected sea level changes from 1990 to 2100: Including thawing of permafrost, deposition of sediment, and the ongoing contributions from ice sheets as a result of climate change since the Last Glacial Maximum, we obtain a range of global-average sea level rise from 0.11 to 0.77 m. This range reflects systematic uncertainties in modelling.

Will Sea Levels Rise 20 Feet As Gore Predicts?

"(T)he world’s warming in the past 150 years has produced a change in Antarctica. The huge East Antarctic ice sheet, which contains nearly 90 percent of the world’s ice, has been thickening. European satellites measured the ice sheet’s thickness 347 million times between 1992 and 2003, and found it is gaining about 45 billion tons of water per year because the planet has warmed enough for snow to fall at the coldest place on earth.

"Thickening ice in the Antarctic, in fact, is just about offsetting the meltwater being released from the edges of the Greenland ice sheet—which has also been thickening in its center. This leaves us with a global warming sea level gain of about 1.8 millimeters per year—or 4 inches per century. The rise has remained constant during the 20th century despite the moderate 0.6 degree C warming of the planet."

The Real 'Inconvenient Truth', by Junkscience.com

An excerpt:

"Well, I heard that carbon dioxide is bad -- it's pollution, isn't it?

"There seem to be a few things that your informant forgot to tell you -- like carbon dioxide being an essential trace gas that underpins the bulk of the global food web. Estimates vary, but somewhere around 15% seems to be the common number cited for the increase in global food crop yields due to aerial fertilization with increased carbon dioxide since 1950. This increase has both helped avoid a Malthusian disaster and preserved or returned enormous tracts of marginal land as wildlife habitat that would otherwise have had to be put under the plow in an attempt to feed the growing global population. Commercial growers deliberately generate CO2 and increase its levels in agricultural greenhouses to between 700ppmv and 1,000ppmv to increase productivity and improve the water efficiency of food crops far beyond those in the somewhat carbon-starved open atmosphere. CO2 feeds the forests, grows more usable lumber in timber lots meaning there is less pressure to cut old growth or push into "natural" wildlife habitat, makes plants more water efficient helping to beat back the encroaching deserts in Africa and Asia and generally increases bio-productivity. If it's "pollution," then it's pollution the natural world exploits extremely well and to great profit. Doesn't sound too bad to us.

Greenlanders Like Global Warming

An Excerpt:

For Greenlanders, adapting to the effects of climate change is nothing new. Oxygen isotope samples taken from Greenland's ice core reveal that temperatures around 1100, during the height of the Norse farming colonies, were similar to those prevailing today. The higher temperatures were part of a warming trend that lasted until the 14th century.

Near the end of the 14th century, the Norse vanished from Greenland. While researchers don't know for sure, many believe an increasingly cold climate made eking out a living here all but impossible as grasses and trees declined. Farming faded away from the 17th century to the 19th century, a period known as the Little Ice Age. Farming didn't return to Greenland in force until the early 1900s, when Inuit farmers began re-learning Norse techniques and applying them to modern conditions. A sharp cooling trend from around 1950 to 1975 stalled the agricultural expansion.

Al Gore Calls United States and Australia "Bonnie & Clyde" of Global Warming, by Greg Strange, Blogger News Network

An excerpt:

When the Kyoto treaty was voted down by the U.S. Senate it was during the Clinton-Gore administration and the vote wasn’t simply along party lines — it was unanimous. That means that not even the most flamingly liberal and rabidly environmental senator thought it was worth a plugged nickel.

That's right. Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, and the whole Liberal lot voted against the Kyoto treaty! Even Democrats can recognize that bad science makes bad politics.

Behavior of the Greenland Ice Sheet

From the point of view of Global Warming True Believers, Greenland has been behaving rather badly. An excerpt:

... Greenland's thermal history has been incredibly volatile over the past century, with its mean near-surface air temperature rising between 2 and 4°C in less than ten years during the Great Greenland Warming of the 1920s (Chylek et al., 2004), which occurred over a period when the atmosphere's CO2 concentration rose by a grand total of only 3 or 4 ppm. And when Greenland temperatures began to fall in the 1940s, the air's CO2 content significantly accelerated its upward climb [my emphasis]. In addition, the most recent warming on Greenland - which climate alarmists describe as being unprecedented and driven by an even more unprecedented increase in the atmosphere's CO2 concentration - has resulted in coastal temperatures that Chylek et al. report are still "about 1°C below their 1940 values," which peak temperatures prevailed when the air's CO2 content was far less than it is today.

Detailed Chronology of Late Holocene Climatic Change, by James S. Aber

Some excerpts that illuminate Global Warming that occured over 1,000 years ago, and that caused higher temperatures and as great or greater glacier and ice retreat than has occured to date or is credibly forecasted.

* 800-1000s: Aletsch and Grindelwald glaciers (Switzerland) were much smaller than today.
* 874: Settlement of Iceland began; Viking immigration from Norway, England, Ireland, Faeroes, etc. Glaciers of Iceland much smaller than today.
* 880-1140: Radiocarbon dates on trees that grew in Canada far north of modern timberline.
* 1000-1200: Rapid population growth in Estonia based on cereal grains--barley, rye, wheat. Northernmost region for crop tillage as the primary means of subsistence. Population by early 13th century at least 150,000 people (Tannberg et al. 2000).
* 1020-1200: Minimal sea-ice cover around Iceland.

The Medieval Warm Period was followed by a period of glaciation that engulfed settled areas throughout Europe, Iceland, and Greenland.

Glacier retreat started again at the end of the Little Ice Age.

* 1855: Signs of moderate retreats by Chamonix glaciers.
* 1860-80s: Evidence of pronounced glacier withdrawal all over continental Europe; many Alpine glaciers retreated >1 km by beginning of this century. Icelandic glaciers remained in advanced positions, however.
* early 1900s: Rapid retreat by glaciers on Mt. Kenya, Africa.
* 1920: Marked decrease in sea ice in coastal waters of Iceland.
* 1920-30s: Glaciers declined rapidly everywhere, except Antarctica; end of Little Ice Ages.

These are a few of the many examples of global warming and cooling during the past 1200 years that were not caused or even influenced by the activities of man. So why do we take all the credit now?

To feed the egos of Chicken Little politicians and scientists, that's why.

Please click on the label below to see all my articles on this topic.