Man-Caused Global Warming Myth

Mr. George Bush of The Sea Ranch, natural climate change denier, chose a cartoon as his response to the science studies I include in my letters. From his description, it wasn’t a particularly clever cartoon. It’s amazing how the myth of the ostrich hiding its head in the sand has been around since Pliny the Elder (AD 23-79, who said it was in a bush, not sand), just as the anthropogenic global warming myth persists even after over 15 years of flat global temperatures, no accelerating sea level increase, and numerous reports of previous warmer periods.

NASA, with James Hansen famously leading its climate alarmism, just released a study of warming in the Arctic during the past century. According to a graph published on the NASA Earth Observatory site, Arctic temperatures were warmer in the 1930's than now. In addition, the graph shows the Arctic warmed 1.6C over the 19-year period from 1918-1937 at a rate of 0.84C/decade, 75% faster than the 0.48C/decade from 1980-2000. Between these two warming periods, Arctic temperatures dropped as CO2 increased. Thus, alarmist claims that recent Arctic warming is unprecedented or accelerating are bogus.

At the European Geosciences Union meeting, Authors Steirou and Koutsoyiannis, reported global warming over the past century was only about one-half [0.42°C] of that claimed by the United Nations IPCC [0.7-0.8°C].

A paper in the Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology journal finds that the Medieval Warming Period “was warmer than the late 20th century by ~1°C.” The paper adds to the peer-reviewed publications of over 1000 scientists in the Medieval Warm Period Project showing that the global Medieval Warming Period was warmer than the current warming period.

I’m pleased Mr. Bush apparently has accepted the debate offer I’ve had open for over three years. It’s about time.

Obama's Impressive Mediocrity - Leadership

Last week a letter in the ICO mentioned that its author had over four decades of researching and writing in the field of leadership. That reminded me that I have over four decades myself of studying, instructing, and experiencing leadership (and followership) in the Air Force, in business, and in community activities.

Interestingly, the President, the object of the letter writer’s admiration, has demonstrated few attributes of effective leadership, not surprising since as a community organizer and junior politician he had minimal experience leading anything. Instead of examples of effective leadership, the writer provided platitudes; instead of leadership objectives she provided wishful outcomes that haven’t been achieved.

When did the President create a more knowledgeable and participatory electorate? Now Democrats complain that people not understanding Obamacare is the reason huge majorities oppose it. Actually, it should be called Pelosicare because Obama’s vision was so cloudy he stepped aside and let her and Harry Reid create this monstrosity.

The President still blames President Bush and Republicans for his ineffectiveness. His motto: “The buck never got here!” Strange, since Democrats controlled Congress for two years before he was elected, and only lost the House and almost the Senate because of his failures in his first two years. Obama’s recent statement that “the private sector is doing fine” shows a leader out of touch with the electorate (the Misery Index is up 2% since he became president).

The economy has stagnated and the economic growth forecast for the year is under 1.5%, with job growth less than population increase. The chance of recession is 50%, up from 20%. These are not praiseworthy accomplishments.

The writer’s assessment of Obama recalls a performance review of a junior officer commended for using “outstanding methods” while not achieving performance objectives. Translation: he failed, but impressed leadership researchers.

How Insurance Really Works - Not Obamacare

I dislike belaboring the obvious, but often the ICO leaves me no choice. In this instance, it’s the “Shared responsibility” editorial about health insurance, particularly: “The way to pay for it, of course, is for everyone to participate, including those who are currently in good health. That’s how insurance works.”

Except that’s not how insurance works.

Alice and I recently purchased our next 15 years of term life insurance just before our 70^th birthdays. Our excellent health qualified us for the lowest rates for our age group, but we are now paying three times what we did 15 years ago. If we smoked it would be four to seven times our current rate. A term life insurance rate depends on your state, age, gender, height, weight, health classification, and if you are a smoker or when you stopped smoking. If your state of health is in the lowest of four classes instead of the highest, your premium increases about 40%. The healthy don’t subsidize the unhealthy.

Auto and home insurance are similarly discriminatory.

The argument that everyone, insured or not, will place demands on the taxpayer funded system is specious. The Los Angeles Times reported (Cash discount for health care, May 28, 2012), that it was much cheaper to pay for health services in cash than through many health insurers. For example, a $6,707 CT scan cost an insured person $2,336, but only $1,054 if paid in cash and not claimed on insurance. A $4,423 CT abdominal scan through insurance cost $2,400, but the cash price was $250.

One of my friends in Fort Bragg has paid cash for health care all his life, saving a fortune while never burdening taxpayers. For more about paying your own way and saving money, see Paying Cash for Healthcare.

Ocean "Acidity" Mythology

Since Mr. Hunt continues citing a “30% increase in ocean acidity” caused by a change in pH from 8.2 to 8.1, in the interest of scientific accuracy this error demands correction. The equation for the pH of an aqueous solution is logarithmic and defined as pH = -log[ H+ ] .  There are 14 orders of magnitude that define the pH scale from zero to fourteen units as per this equation, so a lowering of alkalinity of .1 units pH cannot equal a 30% increase in acidity as claimed. It is actually .1/14 or only 0.7%. The natural variation of ocean pH can be up to 5% in either direction, making meaningless a variation plus or minus 0.7%.

Neutral pH is 7.0, so acidification is not appropriate terminology. A reduction in pH from 8.2 to 8.1 is a lowering of alkalinity, not an increase in acidification.

“There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

“The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today.”