If Democrat Senator Max Baucus was not drunk while giving this speech, he's in really bad shape.
If he is this rambling and incoherent when sober, maybe he should drink more so he could have an excuse for sounding like a drunken idiot for over five minutes on the Senate floor.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Send Democrats to Greenland
It seems just yesterday that Al Gore directed our attention to Greenland, for which we should all be grateful. Greenland artifacts of Viking habitation demonstrate that the Medieval Warm Period was, indeed, warmer than the present.
However, Al Gore and his Acolytes are nothing if not history challenged. To them "unprecedented" warming means the end of the inconvenient cooling in 1975. For awhile they tried to say that present warming was the most in the past 1,000 years, but then Mann's "hockey stick" was shattered and they had to concede the Medieval Warm Period (800 to 1350 AD, well within the past 1,000 years).
Then it was unprecented warming for the past 400 years, which conveniently begins during the Little Ice Age. There sure wasn't much warming then.
Unfortunately for Al, science marches on and recent climate records for Greenland show that it was warmer, and got warmer faster, in the 1930's than our current period. (Click here for the report)
This chart of Greenland climate change for the past 170 years show that the 1930's warming was greater and faster than now.
What's a warming alarmist to do?
Friday, December 18, 2009
Wind Power is Stupid
There is a book out that for me is a must read: "The Wind Farm Scam" by John Etherington.
The following is my comment on wind farms:
Wind power is such a stupid idea it is no wonder it is so popular with the left. It is expensive, unreliable, requires 100% conventional generation backup, kills endangered species birds, visually pollutes scenic vistas, and must be located far away from population centers.
To “solve” this last objection, the most ludicrous plan I’ve seen for wind power was first for New York city, and recently for San Francisco, to install urban wind turbines – with no apparent appreciation to their noise and vibration characteristics, loss of generating capacity because of wind drag from buildings and the necessity to use relatively small wind turbines, and the unsafe conditions caused by mechanical stresses on the buildings upon which they are erected.
In farcical attempts to design ways to overcome the intermittent power generation factor – it is an exceptional wind farm that produces at 25% of rated capacity – there are proposals to use excess energy generated during the night to compress air (or to store energy in some other mechanical way) to generate power when the wind doesn’t. Of course these alternative power schemes will be very expensive and, as yet, have not been created to operate in the real world.
I lived nine years within sight (but thankfully not sound) of the wind farm at the Altamont Pass, California, and observed that most of the time none of the turbines were turning, and when some were, a lot were not because they were down for maintenance. About the only thing they did well was kill eagles and hawks – thousands each year. I would hazard a guess that more energy went into creating the Altamont Pass wind farm than was generated by it, and that its operation never made, and never will, make economic sense.
The following is my comment on wind farms:
Wind power is such a stupid idea it is no wonder it is so popular with the left. It is expensive, unreliable, requires 100% conventional generation backup, kills endangered species birds, visually pollutes scenic vistas, and must be located far away from population centers.
To “solve” this last objection, the most ludicrous plan I’ve seen for wind power was first for New York city, and recently for San Francisco, to install urban wind turbines – with no apparent appreciation to their noise and vibration characteristics, loss of generating capacity because of wind drag from buildings and the necessity to use relatively small wind turbines, and the unsafe conditions caused by mechanical stresses on the buildings upon which they are erected.
In farcical attempts to design ways to overcome the intermittent power generation factor – it is an exceptional wind farm that produces at 25% of rated capacity – there are proposals to use excess energy generated during the night to compress air (or to store energy in some other mechanical way) to generate power when the wind doesn’t. Of course these alternative power schemes will be very expensive and, as yet, have not been created to operate in the real world.
I lived nine years within sight (but thankfully not sound) of the wind farm at the Altamont Pass, California, and observed that most of the time none of the turbines were turning, and when some were, a lot were not because they were down for maintenance. About the only thing they did well was kill eagles and hawks – thousands each year. I would hazard a guess that more energy went into creating the Altamont Pass wind farm than was generated by it, and that its operation never made, and never will, make economic sense.
Nail in Man-Caused Global Warming Coffin
I have often mentioned that previous periods were warmer than the present.
Further, that these warmer periods did not cause runaway warming, although from all that the current alarmists say, they should have. If man-caused warming triggers positive feedbacks - increased water vapor traps more heat, more heat increases water vapor and generates more release of CO2 from oceans and methane from thawing permafrost - then previous warming should have done the same.
It didn't.
More proof of that, or the lack of runaway warming, is clearly shown in a recent video.
The video is great, but for quiet contemplation of the graphs showing previous periods of greater natural warming compared to the present, go to "Hockey stick observed in NOAA ice core data."
Further, that these warmer periods did not cause runaway warming, although from all that the current alarmists say, they should have. If man-caused warming triggers positive feedbacks - increased water vapor traps more heat, more heat increases water vapor and generates more release of CO2 from oceans and methane from thawing permafrost - then previous warming should have done the same.
It didn't.
More proof of that, or the lack of runaway warming, is clearly shown in a recent video.
The video is great, but for quiet contemplation of the graphs showing previous periods of greater natural warming compared to the present, go to "Hockey stick observed in NOAA ice core data."
Click on this graph showing periods of climate change during the past 10,000 years. Of interest are the two periods of greater warming during the past 2,000 years - the Medieval Warm Period of about 1,000 years ago, and the even warmer Roman Period at year "0". So much for Al Gore's claim that the current warming is "unprecedented."
Obviously Al learned from Bill Clinton how to parse the truth. What Al meant to say is the current warming is unprecedented if you only look at the last 1,000 years, and then only if you use the discredited "hockey stick" prepared by Michael Mann of "Climategate" fame that eliminated both the Medieval Warm Period (850 to 1350AD) and the Little Ice Age (1350 to 1850AD).
In other words the current warming is unprecedented if you only go back to the Little Ice Age, or if you hide or overlook all the previous warming periods. For example, the graph shows at least a dozen in the past 10,000 years warmer than the present.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Climategate - FactCheck.Org is Clueless
I have previously doubted the neutrality of FactCheck.Org, and their "fact checking" of Climategate added to my doubts. Rather than demonstrating a "nose" for facts, they mischaracterized the position of man-caused global warming skeptics, and then proceeded to knock their strawman down.
They said: "Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming."
That's not what the skeptics say. We say that the scientific misconduct raises doubts about the science of man-made global warming. It's unprofessional of FactCheck.Org to charge skeptics with thinking that information about a segment of the science is proof of its complete fabrication. Just as we skeptics believe that the rise in CO2 since 1950, and the fluctuations in cooling and warming in that period, invalidate alarmists claims that CO2 drives global temperatures.
The following is my reply to FactCheck.Org: (with some minor alterations for grammar and to add a dig about Al Gore lying about the emails)
As you possibly don’t know, or are taking pains to not know, the point is that the science underlying the validity of reconstructing global temperatures by means of tree-ring and other proxies has been placed in doubt by the actions of Drs. Jones, Mann, Briffa et al. The tree-rings post 1960 show cooling or no warming when compared to instrumental records. This divergence led Mann, Briffa, and others to drop the tree-ring temperatures and replace them with instrument readings without disclosing their divergence. The point in challenging this is quite simple: if current tree-ring temperatures don’t agree with current instrument temperatures, why is there any confidence that tree rings were good proxies for temperature in the preceding 1000 or 2000 years?
This question has far-reaching implications. Mann et al say that current warming is unprecedented. Al Gore showed Mann’s hockey stick in “An Inconvenient Truth” to make this very point. The hockey stick obliterated the warming of the Medieval Warm Period, and the cooling of the Little Ice Age, just as tree rings now don’t show recent warming.
If the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the present, as evidence of vineyards in England and pastures and farming in Viking Greenland show – and a Harvard/Smithsonian study by Soon et al of 240 climate studies worldwide show it was warmer then than now – then the positive feedback from increased water vapor trapping heat in the troposphere, thereby causing runaway warming, should have happened 1,000 years ago, and the runaway warming forecasted for this century should be part of our historical record.
Of course if its effects were as dangerous as forecasted, we wouldn’t be here to read the record.
Catastrophic warming didn’t happen then, and it didn’t in the very warm Roman Warm Period or in the earlier, even warmer Holocene Climate Optimum. What did happen naturally was that the Ice Age ended, sea levels rose over 400 feet in the past 10,000 years – an average of over four feet a century compared to the eight inches sea levels rose in the past century – and that humankind progressed and prospered during the warm periods and suffered famine, violent storms, and pestilence during the intervening cold periods.
All of these dramatic climate changes happened naturally. In the past two centuries 30-year periods of warming have alternated with 30-year periods of cooling, possibly caused by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. NASA records show that the United States had warming from 1915 to 1945 equal to or greater than the recent warming, and that the cooling 1945 to 1975 spurred predictions of catastrophic global cooling even as atmospheric carbon dioxide increased steadily and rapidly.
Glaciers were in retreat during the 1800’s, long before the rapid industrialization beginning around 1950 started the rapid rise of CO2. Mount Kilimanjaro, contrary to Al Gore’s posturing, lost most of its ice cap prior to 1953 from sublimation - which turns ice directly into water vapor at below-freezing temperatures - not warming, since at the elevation of Kilimanjaro’s ice cap the temperature hardly ever of never rises above freezing.
One climate alarmist is on record in the Climategate emails stating that it is a “travesty” that the lack of warming during the past decade can’t be explained. Al Gore denigrates the emails, saying that they are all over ten years old, even though many are recent.
It’s a travesty that your fact checking missed the critical points the exposed emails uncovered. I would have expected better from an unbiased pursuit of the truth.
They said: "Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming."
That's not what the skeptics say. We say that the scientific misconduct raises doubts about the science of man-made global warming. It's unprofessional of FactCheck.Org to charge skeptics with thinking that information about a segment of the science is proof of its complete fabrication. Just as we skeptics believe that the rise in CO2 since 1950, and the fluctuations in cooling and warming in that period, invalidate alarmists claims that CO2 drives global temperatures.
The following is my reply to FactCheck.Org: (with some minor alterations for grammar and to add a dig about Al Gore lying about the emails)
As you possibly don’t know, or are taking pains to not know, the point is that the science underlying the validity of reconstructing global temperatures by means of tree-ring and other proxies has been placed in doubt by the actions of Drs. Jones, Mann, Briffa et al. The tree-rings post 1960 show cooling or no warming when compared to instrumental records. This divergence led Mann, Briffa, and others to drop the tree-ring temperatures and replace them with instrument readings without disclosing their divergence. The point in challenging this is quite simple: if current tree-ring temperatures don’t agree with current instrument temperatures, why is there any confidence that tree rings were good proxies for temperature in the preceding 1000 or 2000 years?
This question has far-reaching implications. Mann et al say that current warming is unprecedented. Al Gore showed Mann’s hockey stick in “An Inconvenient Truth” to make this very point. The hockey stick obliterated the warming of the Medieval Warm Period, and the cooling of the Little Ice Age, just as tree rings now don’t show recent warming.
If the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the present, as evidence of vineyards in England and pastures and farming in Viking Greenland show – and a Harvard/Smithsonian study by Soon et al of 240 climate studies worldwide show it was warmer then than now – then the positive feedback from increased water vapor trapping heat in the troposphere, thereby causing runaway warming, should have happened 1,000 years ago, and the runaway warming forecasted for this century should be part of our historical record.
Of course if its effects were as dangerous as forecasted, we wouldn’t be here to read the record.
Catastrophic warming didn’t happen then, and it didn’t in the very warm Roman Warm Period or in the earlier, even warmer Holocene Climate Optimum. What did happen naturally was that the Ice Age ended, sea levels rose over 400 feet in the past 10,000 years – an average of over four feet a century compared to the eight inches sea levels rose in the past century – and that humankind progressed and prospered during the warm periods and suffered famine, violent storms, and pestilence during the intervening cold periods.
All of these dramatic climate changes happened naturally. In the past two centuries 30-year periods of warming have alternated with 30-year periods of cooling, possibly caused by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. NASA records show that the United States had warming from 1915 to 1945 equal to or greater than the recent warming, and that the cooling 1945 to 1975 spurred predictions of catastrophic global cooling even as atmospheric carbon dioxide increased steadily and rapidly.
Glaciers were in retreat during the 1800’s, long before the rapid industrialization beginning around 1950 started the rapid rise of CO2. Mount Kilimanjaro, contrary to Al Gore’s posturing, lost most of its ice cap prior to 1953 from sublimation - which turns ice directly into water vapor at below-freezing temperatures - not warming, since at the elevation of Kilimanjaro’s ice cap the temperature hardly ever of never rises above freezing.
One climate alarmist is on record in the Climategate emails stating that it is a “travesty” that the lack of warming during the past decade can’t be explained. Al Gore denigrates the emails, saying that they are all over ten years old, even though many are recent.
It’s a travesty that your fact checking missed the critical points the exposed emails uncovered. I would have expected better from an unbiased pursuit of the truth.
Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Tiger's Eleven
I had to claim the prize for being the last blogger to post about Tiger Woods.
The latest "news" article says his mistress total is now eleven.
For awhile I thought Tiger was a Democrat plant to take attention away from "Climategate," but now I realize that the main stream media needs no distraction to ignore Climategate. They only cover the news that suits their agenda.
Tiger's next will be number twelve.
I wonder if he will find they are "Cheaper by the Dozen?"
The latest "news" article says his mistress total is now eleven.
For awhile I thought Tiger was a Democrat plant to take attention away from "Climategate," but now I realize that the main stream media needs no distraction to ignore Climategate. They only cover the news that suits their agenda.
Tiger's next will be number twelve.
I wonder if he will find they are "Cheaper by the Dozen?"
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Climategate - Cherry Picking
A Salon article on Bjørn Lomborg's "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming," criticizes Mr. Lomborg for "cherry picking" support for his position that resources spent combating global warming could be spent better elsewhere. Eban Goodstein, the Salon reviewer, discredits Mr. Lomborg's benefit-cost analysis for using the most likely outcome, rather than the most dire. Without saying "precautionary principle," that is what Mr. Goodstein is advocating.
To fight fire with fire, the use of the precautionary principle leads to cherry picking the worst-case scenario from the spectrum of possible outcomes. Again and again in his criticism, Mr. Goodstein finds one, maybe two, examples of a prediction that is far beyond the realm of even the IPCC's expectations. Not surprisingly, Dr. James Hansen is the author of most of them, and Al Gore concurs.
However, the central fact is that Hansen/Gore et al construct their apocalyptic prognostications on an element of climate change that has not been demonstrated in any recent periods of even higher temperatures. Apparently they believe - they can't know - the concept that the very limited ability of atmospheric carbon dioxide to increase global temperatures will trigger "positive forcings" - the release of vast quantities of methane from frozen tundra deposits - and those temperatures will then increase far beyond expectations.
Other equally eminent scientists have theorized, on the basis of past warming periods, that negative forcings will dampen, not accentuate, the warming trend. Considering that there is evidence for expecting negative forcing, and none for positive forcing, Mr. Lomborg's position is far more likely.
Recent headlines also add weight to this. The bright light shining on the Climate Research Unit e-mails and records liberated in the UK this week has disclosed that the top "hockey stick" scientists, Drs. Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, and others, cherry picked (there's those words again) climate proxies to exaggerate current warming and to understate historical warming. In particular, proxies were used and abused to suppress or eliminate the inconvenient Medieval Warm Period of roughly 800-1300 AD.
The Medieval Warm Period cannot be allowed to stand if the current warming alarmists are to prevail, because the positive forcings their predictions require did not appear when natural climate change gave them the opportunity. In fact, one of the Warmists unknowingly confided to a warming skeptic that "we have to eliminate the Medieval Warming Period."
Unfortunately for the Warmists, the evidences of the Medieval Warming Period, and the even warmer Holocene Climate Optimum which preceded it by 4,000 years, are abundant and irrefutable.
What really must be eliminated is the cherry picking the Warmists use to accuse skeptical scientists of cherry picking, and then their corruption of peer reviews to hide their ethical lapses.
Just the tip of their unethical activities was exposed this week, and much more is coming out as investigators pore over the e-mails.
"Tighten your seat belts."
To fight fire with fire, the use of the precautionary principle leads to cherry picking the worst-case scenario from the spectrum of possible outcomes. Again and again in his criticism, Mr. Goodstein finds one, maybe two, examples of a prediction that is far beyond the realm of even the IPCC's expectations. Not surprisingly, Dr. James Hansen is the author of most of them, and Al Gore concurs.
However, the central fact is that Hansen/Gore et al construct their apocalyptic prognostications on an element of climate change that has not been demonstrated in any recent periods of even higher temperatures. Apparently they believe - they can't know - the concept that the very limited ability of atmospheric carbon dioxide to increase global temperatures will trigger "positive forcings" - the release of vast quantities of methane from frozen tundra deposits - and those temperatures will then increase far beyond expectations.
Other equally eminent scientists have theorized, on the basis of past warming periods, that negative forcings will dampen, not accentuate, the warming trend. Considering that there is evidence for expecting negative forcing, and none for positive forcing, Mr. Lomborg's position is far more likely.
Recent headlines also add weight to this. The bright light shining on the Climate Research Unit e-mails and records liberated in the UK this week has disclosed that the top "hockey stick" scientists, Drs. Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, and others, cherry picked (there's those words again) climate proxies to exaggerate current warming and to understate historical warming. In particular, proxies were used and abused to suppress or eliminate the inconvenient Medieval Warm Period of roughly 800-1300 AD.
The Medieval Warm Period cannot be allowed to stand if the current warming alarmists are to prevail, because the positive forcings their predictions require did not appear when natural climate change gave them the opportunity. In fact, one of the Warmists unknowingly confided to a warming skeptic that "we have to eliminate the Medieval Warming Period."
Unfortunately for the Warmists, the evidences of the Medieval Warming Period, and the even warmer Holocene Climate Optimum which preceded it by 4,000 years, are abundant and irrefutable.
What really must be eliminated is the cherry picking the Warmists use to accuse skeptical scientists of cherry picking, and then their corruption of peer reviews to hide their ethical lapses.
Just the tip of their unethical activities was exposed this week, and much more is coming out as investigators pore over the e-mails.
"Tighten your seat belts."
Climategate - Man-Caused Global Warming is Dead!
I've had so much fun reading the hundreds of e-mails that were hacked from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, UK, that I forgot that one of my duties as a global-warming skeptic is to help publicize evidence that the alarmists are lying, distorting, or fudging climate science.
A very good spot to get a lot of information directly from the e-mails is the Bishop Hill Blog. Forinstance, Michael Mann, the creator of the discredited "hockey stick" that was/is the core of Al Gore's presentations, discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
So far all the main stream media reports have only reported the records being hacked, and their only analyses have been that the consensus for man-caused global warming will stand. How this can be concluded without looking at the e-mails involved is beyond me, except it again illustrates how the media wants to advocate rather than report.
Bloggers will have to stay on this and keep pushing the disclosures, or the main stream media will do as usual - ignore it and hope it all goes away.
How reporters can walk - run - away from such a juicy opportunity to engage in momentous investigative reporting boggles my mind. Their editors have to really want them to carry the water for Al Gore to let that happen.
A very good spot to get a lot of information directly from the e-mails is the Bishop Hill Blog. Forinstance, Michael Mann, the creator of the discredited "hockey stick" that was/is the core of Al Gore's presentations, discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
So far all the main stream media reports have only reported the records being hacked, and their only analyses have been that the consensus for man-caused global warming will stand. How this can be concluded without looking at the e-mails involved is beyond me, except it again illustrates how the media wants to advocate rather than report.
Bloggers will have to stay on this and keep pushing the disclosures, or the main stream media will do as usual - ignore it and hope it all goes away.
How reporters can walk - run - away from such a juicy opportunity to engage in momentous investigative reporting boggles my mind. Their editors have to really want them to carry the water for Al Gore to let that happen.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Why Do Muslims Hate Us?
According to Liberals, Muslims don't hate us, we just don't understand them. What we have is a failure to communicate, and if we would just listen to Muslims everything would be wonderful.
I admit I don't understand Muslims. Their religion has never seemed peaceful and tolerant to me, and those seem like worthy expectations of religion.
Thinking about the prescription for peaceful relations with Muslims - improved communications - leads me to consider Muslim violence against other Muslims. Don't Sunnis and Shiites understand each other, live together, worship the same God, yet kill each other viciously and indiscriminately given the opportunity?
When Muslims kill Muslims - Saddam Hussein killed more Muslims than all the Crusaders combined - what chance do we hated infidels have? Suppose you are a gay, or a feminist; will your views be tolerated in Saudi Arabia? Iran? Pakistan? Afghanistan? How about if you're a Christian or Jew? Or a Muslim who wants to be an atheist or convert?
The political correct say we are the problem, not the Islamists.
Such are the fruits of colossal ignorance and stupidity.
I admit I don't understand Muslims. Their religion has never seemed peaceful and tolerant to me, and those seem like worthy expectations of religion.
Thinking about the prescription for peaceful relations with Muslims - improved communications - leads me to consider Muslim violence against other Muslims. Don't Sunnis and Shiites understand each other, live together, worship the same God, yet kill each other viciously and indiscriminately given the opportunity?
When Muslims kill Muslims - Saddam Hussein killed more Muslims than all the Crusaders combined - what chance do we hated infidels have? Suppose you are a gay, or a feminist; will your views be tolerated in Saudi Arabia? Iran? Pakistan? Afghanistan? How about if you're a Christian or Jew? Or a Muslim who wants to be an atheist or convert?
The political correct say we are the problem, not the Islamists.
Such are the fruits of colossal ignorance and stupidity.
Obama Gets Something Right
Obama finally gets something right. He has dithered on many things, the latest Afghanistan, and things have gotten worse.
But his dithering on climate change is the best thing he has done. A Spiegel Online article takes Obama to task for causing the failure of Copenhagen before it fails - Obama Has Failed the World on Climate Change - and for that the world should be truly grateful.
Obama has saved the world from misguided leaders that who would fruitlessly destroy economic progress in the developing nations that will enable their people to adapt to natural climate change.
It's too bad that Obama is clueless about the good he is doing.
But his dithering on climate change is the best thing he has done. A Spiegel Online article takes Obama to task for causing the failure of Copenhagen before it fails - Obama Has Failed the World on Climate Change - and for that the world should be truly grateful.
Obama has saved the world from misguided leaders that who would fruitlessly destroy economic progress in the developing nations that will enable their people to adapt to natural climate change.
It's too bad that Obama is clueless about the good he is doing.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Thomas Friedman Bombs Out on Global Warming
According to: Our Three Bombs, By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, Published: October 6, 2009, The New York Times:
The misuse of “unprecedented” by anthropogenic global warming enthusiasts, such as the literate Thomas L. Friedman, the polemicist Al Gore, and many other college educated liberals is unprecedented. So much so that I consulted a dictionary to ascertain whether its meaning had changed, or whether there was a nuance that allowed its seeming perversion. There wasn’t. “Unprecedented” still means what I thought: without previous instance; never before known or experienced; unexampled or unparalleled.
For the current level of carbon in the atmosphere to be unprecedented, it simply means that the current level was never before achieved – or surpassed. Five hundred million years ago atmospheric carbon dioxide was twenty times today’s level. Does that qualify as a previous instance? About 150 million years ago, during the Jurassic Period, it was four to five times as high. Does that qualify as something known before or experienced?
Apparently what should alarm us is not the build up of carbon in the atmosphere, which is obviously not unprecedented, but that it will “tip over some ecosystem and trigger a nonlinear climate event.” Perhaps as happened 10.000 years ago during the Holocene Climate Optimum, when average global temperatures were about 4ºC higher than today? Except nothing was tipped to melt the Siberian tundra and release all its methane, the Amazon didn’t dry up, and although all the sea ice at the North Pole melted in the summer, nothing catastrophic ensued.
All that happened is that human civilization prospered and thrived in the warmer, wetter environment. The same thing happened during subsequent warm periods following cold periods in cycles of hundreds of years up to the present. The Roman Warming was good for humanity; the following Dark Age wasn’t. Then about 1200 years ago the Medieval Warm Period began, and mankind again prospered for five hundred years until the Little Ice Age began about 1300 AD. Crops failed, famine stalked the land, glaciers advanced over farms and villages, mighty storms spread devastation, droughts (which are more frequent and last longer during cold periods) added to the misery, and disease and pestilence cut weakened populaces in half.
Happily, the Little Ice Ages ended and our Modern Warming began naturally, just as would be expected, given that similar cycles are not unprecedented.
As we continue to build up carbon in the atmosphere to unprecedented levels, we never know when the next emitted carbon molecule will tip over some ecosystem and trigger a nonlinear climate event — like melting the Siberian tundra and releasing all of its methane, or drying up the Amazon or melting all the sea ice in the North Pole in summer. And when one ecosystem collapses, it can trigger npredictable changes in others that could alter our whole world.
The misuse of “unprecedented” by anthropogenic global warming enthusiasts, such as the literate Thomas L. Friedman, the polemicist Al Gore, and many other college educated liberals is unprecedented. So much so that I consulted a dictionary to ascertain whether its meaning had changed, or whether there was a nuance that allowed its seeming perversion. There wasn’t. “Unprecedented” still means what I thought: without previous instance; never before known or experienced; unexampled or unparalleled.
For the current level of carbon in the atmosphere to be unprecedented, it simply means that the current level was never before achieved – or surpassed. Five hundred million years ago atmospheric carbon dioxide was twenty times today’s level. Does that qualify as a previous instance? About 150 million years ago, during the Jurassic Period, it was four to five times as high. Does that qualify as something known before or experienced?
Apparently what should alarm us is not the build up of carbon in the atmosphere, which is obviously not unprecedented, but that it will “tip over some ecosystem and trigger a nonlinear climate event.” Perhaps as happened 10.000 years ago during the Holocene Climate Optimum, when average global temperatures were about 4ºC higher than today? Except nothing was tipped to melt the Siberian tundra and release all its methane, the Amazon didn’t dry up, and although all the sea ice at the North Pole melted in the summer, nothing catastrophic ensued.
All that happened is that human civilization prospered and thrived in the warmer, wetter environment. The same thing happened during subsequent warm periods following cold periods in cycles of hundreds of years up to the present. The Roman Warming was good for humanity; the following Dark Age wasn’t. Then about 1200 years ago the Medieval Warm Period began, and mankind again prospered for five hundred years until the Little Ice Age began about 1300 AD. Crops failed, famine stalked the land, glaciers advanced over farms and villages, mighty storms spread devastation, droughts (which are more frequent and last longer during cold periods) added to the misery, and disease and pestilence cut weakened populaces in half.
Happily, the Little Ice Ages ended and our Modern Warming began naturally, just as would be expected, given that similar cycles are not unprecedented.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
San Francisco Tilts Towards Mass Hysteria
San Francisco may think it is on the cutting edge concerning urban wind farms (San Francisco tilts towards wind power, September 29, 2009), but the idea has long been tried and found wanting in Great Britain. The following critiques of urban wind power were all gleaned from the writings of wind power enthusiasts.
The first problem with urban wind turbines is the urban environment; buildings and other structures cause turbulence which reduces wind speed and causes it to swirl. The only rooftop wind turbines suited to a swirling wind are vertical axis (“eggbeater”) turbines, which are severely limited in size and are subject to frequent – and very expensive – gearbox failure.
Roof mounted wind turbines also are very noisy and produce heavy – and very annoying – vibrations. In an urban setting they may pay off on their investment in twenty years if they’re maintenance free, and none are. In urban settings small windmills usually don’t even pay back their carbon investment and are more likely to be net consumers of electricity than producers, since the inverter uses electricity when the turbine is not generating.
To operate efficiently, the larger the wind turbine the better, necessitating tall towers and long blades which are not appropriate in an urban setting. Manufacturers recommend that even small wind turbines be mounted on 80- to 120-foot towers to clear turbulence since nothing is generated until wind speed exceeds the cut-in rate of 7 to 10 mph. Such towers are unsuitable for installation on most rooftops.
San Francisco’s 44-member urban wind power task force producing a report recommending urban wind power is an illustration of how anthropogenic global warming inspires mass hysteria.
The first problem with urban wind turbines is the urban environment; buildings and other structures cause turbulence which reduces wind speed and causes it to swirl. The only rooftop wind turbines suited to a swirling wind are vertical axis (“eggbeater”) turbines, which are severely limited in size and are subject to frequent – and very expensive – gearbox failure.
Roof mounted wind turbines also are very noisy and produce heavy – and very annoying – vibrations. In an urban setting they may pay off on their investment in twenty years if they’re maintenance free, and none are. In urban settings small windmills usually don’t even pay back their carbon investment and are more likely to be net consumers of electricity than producers, since the inverter uses electricity when the turbine is not generating.
To operate efficiently, the larger the wind turbine the better, necessitating tall towers and long blades which are not appropriate in an urban setting. Manufacturers recommend that even small wind turbines be mounted on 80- to 120-foot towers to clear turbulence since nothing is generated until wind speed exceeds the cut-in rate of 7 to 10 mph. Such towers are unsuitable for installation on most rooftops.
San Francisco’s 44-member urban wind power task force producing a report recommending urban wind power is an illustration of how anthropogenic global warming inspires mass hysteria.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
I Hate White Guys' Health Care Plans
I must confess that I oppose all the health care reform plans that white guys have come up with for over forty years. It all started with LBJ, who gave us a plan which is not only already bankrupt, but which will bankrupt generations not yet born until it is mercifully euthanized. Then Jimmy Carter proposed a health care reform, but he had things so screwed up that America pulled the plug on him and turned the mess over to Ronald Reagan to clean up.
I have to thank Bill and Hillary Clinton for their attempt at health care reform. It was so awful than it brought us the Republican takeover in 1994, which lasted until the Republicans forgot why the American people voted for them to replace the feckless Democrats.
Al Gore had a plan, and John Kerry too, which the voters spared us from suffering.
Now another white guy has a plan, and I now know, thanks to the media, what motivates me to oppose it: racism.
That's right.
All along I thought I didn't like dumb Democrat health care plans, but thanks to the media I see the light.
It was racism all along.
LBJ, Jimmy, Bill and Hillary, Gore, Kerry, Obama - what's the common link?
That's right, they're white!
And I don't like their health care plans because I'm racist.
Of course!
I have to thank Bill and Hillary Clinton for their attempt at health care reform. It was so awful than it brought us the Republican takeover in 1994, which lasted until the Republicans forgot why the American people voted for them to replace the feckless Democrats.
Al Gore had a plan, and John Kerry too, which the voters spared us from suffering.
Now another white guy has a plan, and I now know, thanks to the media, what motivates me to oppose it: racism.
That's right.
All along I thought I didn't like dumb Democrat health care plans, but thanks to the media I see the light.
It was racism all along.
LBJ, Jimmy, Bill and Hillary, Gore, Kerry, Obama - what's the common link?
That's right, they're white!
And I don't like their health care plans because I'm racist.
Of course!
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Jimmy Carter Continues Idiocy
Jimmy Carter continues to show us why he is considered the worst president of all. His comments about racist motivation are both stupid and irresponsible. And his comment about how it smacks of Nazism is particularly egregious, given that Democrats continually compared George Bush and Republicans to Nazis.
In fact, Democrats love to "Nazify" Republicans, as you will find if you click on this link which will take you to voluminous examples.
Bill Clinton may have earned the title of our first Black president when he started messing with Monica, but he was still lilly white when Hillarycare was shot down.
Jimmy Carter has been called many things over the years, but Black isn't one of them. Still, his health care reform was shot down on the basis of its lack of merit, just like Clinton's and Obama's.
Calling your opponents' disagreement with your policies racism is the last refuge of desperate scoundrels.
In fact, Democrats love to "Nazify" Republicans, as you will find if you click on this link which will take you to voluminous examples.
Bill Clinton may have earned the title of our first Black president when he started messing with Monica, but he was still lilly white when Hillarycare was shot down.
Jimmy Carter has been called many things over the years, but Black isn't one of them. Still, his health care reform was shot down on the basis of its lack of merit, just like Clinton's and Obama's.
Calling your opponents' disagreement with your policies racism is the last refuge of desperate scoundrels.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
House Hypocrites Threaten to Sanction Joe Wilson
The House Democrats threaten to sanction Joe Wilson for yelling "you lie" at Obama.
Hypocrites!
None were santioned when Democrats heckled President Bush during his 2005 State of the Union speech.
Liberal hypocrites!
Bill Clinton was not sanctioned for lying to Congress under oath when he said "I did not have sex with that woman."
Democrat hypocrites!
Please excuse the redundancies. When writing about Liberals and Democrats, the word "hypocrite" isn't necessary.
Hypocrites!
None were santioned when Democrats heckled President Bush during his 2005 State of the Union speech.
Liberal hypocrites!
Bill Clinton was not sanctioned for lying to Congress under oath when he said "I did not have sex with that woman."
Democrat hypocrites!
Please excuse the redundancies. When writing about Liberals and Democrats, the word "hypocrite" isn't necessary.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Obama School Speech - San Francisco Chronicle Displays Bias
According to the Chronicle, “(T)he frenzied reaction to the innocuous news that President Obama will address schoolchildren Tuesday suggests that the ever-louder fringe of the Republican Party has lost control of its senses.” (Senseless reaction to Obama’s school talk, Sept. 5, 2009) I wonder what the Chronicle’s position was in 1991 when President George H. W. Bush delivered a similar speech. The day after the speech, the Washington Post denounced it on its front page. The Congressional majority Democrats directed a General Accounting Office investigation, then held an extensive hearing. The National Education Association added a denunciation, even though Bush’s speech was as unremarkable as Obama’s. No doubt the Chronicle editorialized then that the entire Democrat Party had lost control of its senses.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
New York Times is Right - Obamacare
Once again I find myself agreeing with The New York Times.
That's scary!
Now The Times editorializes that the Democrats should pass Obamacare without any Republican votes.
I agree.
I can't think of a faster way for Democrats to commit political hari kari. The effect on the political futures of Blue Dog Democrats would be delightfully drastic. Election Day 2010 is just around the corner, and public support of Democrats is falling because of their attempts to socialize healthcare reform, not because of their inability to do so.
Medicare/Medicaid are bankrupt.
Obama wants Medicare/Medicaid for all.
"Everybody abandon the healthcare insurance that you like, and jump onto the USS (Universally Sinking Swiftly) Obamacare."
"And have faith in our Great Pilot."
Mao?
Kim Jong Il?
No, in Obama-messiah, following the wisdom of his Great Teacher, Saint Teddy of Chappaquiddick.
That's scary!
Now The Times editorializes that the Democrats should pass Obamacare without any Republican votes.
I agree.
I can't think of a faster way for Democrats to commit political hari kari. The effect on the political futures of Blue Dog Democrats would be delightfully drastic. Election Day 2010 is just around the corner, and public support of Democrats is falling because of their attempts to socialize healthcare reform, not because of their inability to do so.
Medicare/Medicaid are bankrupt.
Obama wants Medicare/Medicaid for all.
"Everybody abandon the healthcare insurance that you like, and jump onto the USS (Universally Sinking Swiftly) Obamacare."
"And have faith in our Great Pilot."
Mao?
Kim Jong Il?
No, in Obama-messiah, following the wisdom of his Great Teacher, Saint Teddy of Chappaquiddick.
How Do You Get Obama off the Time Cover?
I finally found something to thank Ted Kennedy for. He got Obama off the cover of Time!
Not just once, but by breaking the Obama chain, the following week Time put Jay Leno on its cover.
Of course, it won't last.
I think the Time/Obama cover watch will end next week, featuring Obama's infomercial to the students of America.
Essay topic for students: "How should we worship Obama? Let us count the ways."
Does anyone think that Obama will say anything to the students that the teachers' unions haven't fully vetted?
"Listen to your teachers, O boys and girls, and they surely will show you the way to Obama."
Not just once, but by breaking the Obama chain, the following week Time put Jay Leno on its cover.
Of course, it won't last.
I think the Time/Obama cover watch will end next week, featuring Obama's infomercial to the students of America.
Essay topic for students: "How should we worship Obama? Let us count the ways."
Does anyone think that Obama will say anything to the students that the teachers' unions haven't fully vetted?
"Listen to your teachers, O boys and girls, and they surely will show you the way to Obama."
Friday, September 04, 2009
History Dunce Joe Biden
Joe Biden was a poor student. He graduated near the bottom of his class. As the years rolled by, he didn't improve. He has been found to be a plagiarist and a liar.
The passage of time hasn't improved him, particularly in his knowledge of history. That doesn't stop him from making wildly inaccurate statements. He's too dumb to realize that the age of the Internet has made fact checking very easy.
Biden's latest false remark was that Social Security, created in the 1930s, and Medicare, passed in the 1960s, lacked much initial Republican support.
I wish they did, but they didn't. As reported in The Hill:
Biden and the Democrats get failing grades in history, but straight "A's" in lying about it.
The passage of time hasn't improved him, particularly in his knowledge of history. That doesn't stop him from making wildly inaccurate statements. He's too dumb to realize that the age of the Internet has made fact checking very easy.
Biden's latest false remark was that Social Security, created in the 1930s, and Medicare, passed in the 1960s, lacked much initial Republican support.
I wish they did, but they didn't. As reported in The Hill:
But the Social Security Act, passed in 1935 as part of President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, passed 372-33 in the House. Some 81 House Republicans crossed the aisle to back the bill. Just 15 Republicans opposed it. In the Senate, the legislation passed 77-6, with 16 Republicans supporting it and five Republicans voting against it.This reminds me of Democrat mythology about Republicans opposing Civil Rights legislation. In truth, higher percentages of Republicans voted to pass Civil Rights legislation than the Democrats. History-challenged Democrats like Biden somehow overlook that the opposition to passing Civil Rights came from Southern Democrats - the "Dixiecrats" - such as Al Gore, Senior, and their long-serving and revered former Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan, Robert Byrd.
The bill creating Medicare, a cornerstone of President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, passed in 1965 with similar GOP backing. In the House, the bill passed 307-116, with 70 Republicans supporting it. The bill passed 70-24 in the Senate, with 13 of the 32 Republicans voting for it.
Biden and the Democrats get failing grades in history, but straight "A's" in lying about it.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Ted Kenndy Died to Save Our Healthcare
Teddy died for us - for our healthcare - and Mary Jo Kopechne can finally tell him how proud she is of her part in making it all come true.
Healthcare Apostle Harry Reid brings us the gospel according to Obama.
Hallelujah!
Healthcare Apostle Harry Reid brings us the gospel according to Obama.
Hallelujah!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)