Garbage In Garbage Out

Say it isn't so.

Apparently, a quite significant number of the nation's temperature monitor stations are providing unreliable data...data which is being used to bolster claims of Global Warming. This according to Anthony Watts, who is currently in the process fo surveying all 1,221 temperature monitor stations in the U.S. A visit to the effort's website (http://www.surfacestations.org/) will give you more information about the program, including examples of some severely compromised stations.

Bringing "Currency" to Things



OK, it's been awhile since I've posted anything, largely because work and personal life have not permitted me much time. Of course, that hasn't stopped the world from turning :)



Among the articles that caught my attention today is a British judge's ruling that Al Gore's pseudo-scientific fantasy film An Inconvenient Truth cannot be shown in schools without government "guidance notes." The ruling comes in response to a suit filed by a concerned school parent which labelled the film as containing "serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush." According to the article, the judge ruled that showing the film without government guidance notes would "breach education laws prohibiting the promotion of unbalanced political viewpoints."



At least the English have some sense! :)



Meanwhile, it appears things have indeed been set in motion to move the United States further down the path of integration with its neighbors to the north and south. The most recent (and most public) proof of this came in an interview with Former Mexican President Vincente Fox by Larry King. According to Fox, an agreement had been reached between Fox and President Bush to pursue the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA), which in part called for a regional currency similar to the euro to be used throughout the Western Hemisphere.

There is of course speculation that the recent devaluation of the dollar is intentional, and that in part it could be a move being made to pave the way for a "more stable" regional currency.

Folks, if we move to regional currency we move towards regional governance. Plain and simple. Between the illegal immigrant crisis and the constant (and somewhat clandestine) move towards regional economic and political governance, there is no doubt that the future sovereignty of the Unites States of America is in jeopardy.

More Global Warming in the News

I didn't have much time today to comment, so I'll just leave you with these articles...

CEO Lashes Out at Gore: 'He is more dangerous than his global warming'...

William F. Buckley: Business of Global Warming Feels a Lot Like Inquisition...

DiCaprio: 'We find ourselves on the brink. It's clear humans have had a devastating impact on our planet's ecological web of life'...

Global warming hits Mars too: study...

Gore booed, heckled by students at Canadian University - Protesters shouted: 'What about your swimming pools?'...

Republicans demand investigation of U.N. climate-change agency...

Are You Smarter Than a Sixth Grader?

It's good to know that some kids are still being taught to think critically for themselves, and the result was a jury of sixth graders concluding that human beings don't cause global warming.

There are so many wonderful things in this article that need to be pointed out.

First, and most timely, is the heated exchange at the climax of the trial. Whereas those defending Global Warming Alarmism "slapped" cute charts onto the prosecution's table and blustered loudly, "We've proven you wrong!" the prosecution simply gave a rational rebuttal to an emotional argument by pointing out that the data was unreliable when taken out of its context.

Second is what followed the first point: the rational argument won the day.

Third is the fact that the teacher and his assistant, who held views against and for Global Warming Alarmism respectively, presented the issue objectively to the class and allowed them to make their own decision based on the facts. It's much more often the case that one side is presented as fact while the other is presented as a competing and untenable theory (if it's presented at all).

Fourth is the obvious concern of one parent over what their child was being taught, to the extent that they were willing to restrict their child's participation if the issue was going to be taught unobjectively.

And of course the final point is that this teacher, in addition to rejecting the religion of Global Warming Alarmism also rejects the religion of Darwinian Evolution. He's a teacher after my own heart :)

Another Reason I Love Ann Coulter

Many people, even conservatives, really dislike Ann Coulter for her unabashedly harsh and direct tone. Say what you will about her, she's usually dead on with what she says even if you disagree with the way she says it.

On the heels of Pope Gore's appearance before Congress to further prosyletize on behalf of the Church of Global Warming, Ms. Coulter mused upon one of my (obviously) favorite themes: that Global Warming has taken on religious aspects. Of course, she couldn't miss an opportunity to point out a proportional growth between Gore's liberal influence and his physical girth.

Among the other gems from Ann was a brilliant comparison of Gore's hypocrisy in his own energy usage to the abusive practices of the medieval Catholic Church:

"As has been widely reported, Gore's Tennessee mansion consumes 20 times the energy of the average home in that state. But it's OK, according to the priests of global warming. Gore has purchased 'carbon offsets.'

It took the Catholic Church hundreds of years to develop corrupt practices such as papal indulgences. The global warming religion has barely been around for 20 years, and yet its devotees are allowed to pollute by the simple expedient of paying for papal indulgences called 'carbon offsets.'"

Comparing "carbon offsets" to papal indulgences brought a huge smile to my face because it is so incredibly appropriate. The notion is that you can do whatever you want and then buy your way out of it. And of course the Church is the keeper of the "treasury of merit" in this case. The further comparisons to the historical Catholic Church alone make this article an entertaining read.

Catching Up on Global Warming

I've been very busy lately, so it's been difficult to keep up with all the Global Warming news. I had half a dozen draft blog posts that I'm just going to merge into one big update.

First, and perhaps funniest, is an article from back around Valentine's Day warning of the dire consequences of Planet-Killing Roses. That's right...Global Warming Alarmists are now tracking "flower miles" and decrying the evil means of commerce used to deliver them.

Next we have the unexpectedly straightforward admission that balance and objectivity hurt the acceptance of Global Warming. According to Mr. Gore, the mainstream media have chosen "balance as bias." Rather than just accepting the Global Warming Whopper hook, line and stinker, the media is actually doing it's job by reporting both sides of the story. That continues to be a foreign concept to ultra-liberals like Gore.

Canada's National Post has a series entitled Climate Change: The Deniers (gee...which side do they fall on?) which in one segment details the 'defection' of French Socialist Claude Allegre, one of the first scientists to sound the alarm on Global Warming who now sees it as "over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank."

Life Style Extra posted an interesting review of a new documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle which challenges the persistent and misleading claims of Global Warming Alarmists. The article describes the documentary as "essentially a polemic... [expected] to cause trouble" and quotes scientists who refers to Global Warming Alarmism as "almost a McCarthyism movement in science where the greenhouse effect is like a puritanical religion." Amen!

In keeping with that theme, Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus recently declared environmentalism a religion that "seeks to reorganize the world order as well as social behavior and value systems worldwide." Former climatology professor Timothy Ball would agree, having received at least five death threads for being a Global Warming Denier. He for one is tired of being compared to Holocaust deniers, which he calls "an obscenity...really nasty and personal."

And finally, just recently scientists have continued to speak out and add to the growing skepticism of Global Warming Alarmism. Researchers at esteemed places such as the Niels Bohr Institute cast doubt on the "global temperature" as a "concept [that] is thermodynamically as well as mathematically an impossibility" and basically describes it as an average without any real meaning. Meanwhile, other scientists are decrying the use of Hollywood fear-mongering to increase public concern over Global Warming, and (predictably and hypocritically) it was revealed that a scientist who claimed the Bush Administration muzzled him has done over 1400 interview opportunities to spread his Alarmist views.

Global Warming has definitely become the current battle ground for socialist liberalism, and I shudder to think what's going to happen should one of these radicals be put in the Oval Office next year.

Opening Day for Cameron; More Gore Hypocrisy

Today is the day James Cameron will unveil the coffins of Jesus, Mary and Mary Magdalene ("Jesus' wife"). Or so the story goes.

Cameron is billing this as "one of the greatest archaeological finds of all time" in advance of his Discovery Channel documentary, The Lost Tomb of Christ. Except that his findings aren't so much the result of archaeology as of moviemaker pseudo-science. The coffins were found some 27 years ago. The Israeli Antiquities Authority (who certainly have a vested interest in anything which disproves the Messiaship of Jesus Christ) stated at the time that there was little cause for interest because the names were so common at that time in history. According to the article, "a connection to the holy family was not made until 15 years later, when a film crew stumbled across the collection in a storeroom."

That's right. Archaeologists pretty much agreed then that there wasn't anything of interest...but then the "Reel Experts" arrived on the scene and saw an opportunity for a big story. Forget the fact that the same names had been found in other tombs before, or that Jesus' family were Galileeans with no real ties at all to Jerusalem (and therefore no reason to have been buried there). Never let facts get in the way of a good story (right Michael Moore?).

Fortunately, the real experts still agree that the idea "fails to hold up by archaeological standards" and regard Cameron's work as nothing more than an attempt to make money.

Just as with every other fraudulent, overzealous claim of proof against the Word of God, this too will eventually be exposed and summarily forgotten while the next one is sought out and brought forth.

Meanwhile, in the wake of Gore's unsurprising Oscar win last night the Tennessee Center for Policy Research issued an interesting little press release showing that the Global Warming Alarmist Extraordinaire consumes more electricity in a month than the average American household uses in an entire year. As expected, the liberal elitist expects you all to do all you can to conserve energy and reduce consumption while he uses 20 times the national average per year of electricity.

If I'm the equivalent of a Holocast Denier for my refusal to buy the pseudo-science of Global Warming, I should think that makes Mr. Gore a dirty war profiteer.

An Inconvenient Irony

I could hardly contain the laughter when I read these two snippets from Drudge this morning:

HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER ICE STORM
HEARING NOTICE
Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”

and even better...

Maryville Univ. in St. Louis area cancelling screening of Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' because of a snowstorm...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Voices of Dissent from India, Colorado

Scientists in India have now added their names to the list of Global Warming Deniers, stating that "the issue of glacial retreat is being sensationalised by a few individuals."

Among the many attempts to bolster support of Global Warming Alarmism was the claim of the retreat of glaciers in the Himilayan ranges. The problem is that of the 9,575 glaciers in the Indian Himilayas, only 50...barely one half of one percent...have actually been the subject if individualized research. With respect to those 50, leading glaciologist VK Raina says that "nearly 200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers." Many other scientists from that area are agreeing with Raina's view as well.

Lest they be slandered by the Alarmists with the usual lies, the article goes on to describe how little pay these scientists receive, especially compared to those of other countries who are more vocally in support of Global Warming Alarmism. In other words, these scientists have no reason at all to state anything other than what they actually are observing. The same could hardly be said for "Hollywood" Al Gore and his militant Global Warming Alarmists.

Not the only one questioning Gore's sanity

(A bit of a delay on this one, but that's what happens when I don't check my drafts)

Posted on DrudgeReport 2/12/07:

President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity
Mon Feb 12 2007 09:10:09 ET

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.

In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

• Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•

A: ...I am right...•

Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•

A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.

[English translation from Harvard Professor Lubos Motl]

"Hollywood" Al Gore's Convenient Lie

Perhaps to bolster his support for the Nobel Peace Prize (barf!), or because he's still sore about being unable to lawyer his way into the White House six years ago, Al Gore is now claiming that the President Bush's administration is paying scientists to dispute Global Warming.

Really? I'd LOVE to see some shred of proof supporting this claim from the Love-Canal-whistleblowing, Love-Story-inspiring, tobacco-harvesting creator of the Internet. And of course we know that the scientists and politicians who are on the Global Warming Alarmist bandwagon can't possibly be doing so because of the cash flowing in all over the place from environmental advocacy groups and lobbyists.

Please, Mr. Gore. It's bad enough that you are not practicing what you preach when it comes to energy conservation, but to use such underhanded smear tactics to attack anyone who dares threaten your cash cow is, while not at all unexpected from you, nevertheless weak and absurd.

Feel free to provide the evidence, Mr. Gore. But don't expect that you simply get a free pass from scrutiny of that evidence, even though you seem to expect all your lecture circuit "facts" will be taken at your word.

"The Greatest Deception in the History of Science"

Hey, they aren't my words! These are the words of Dr. Timothy Ball, the first Canadian PhD in Climatology, who says that "Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist."

Among the interesting tidbits in his article:

• Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), agrees that there is "no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change."
• Back in the 70's, scientists like Lowell Ponte were saying the following about the supposedly irrefutable 'global cooling' occuring: "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species." Sound familiar?

What really strikes me about this article is not only how concisely and directly he addresses what those who dare speak against Global Warming are facing, but also how similar his arguments are to those Creationists and Intellegent Design proponents who dare to speak against Darwinian Macroevolutionism.

European Union Talks Big

French President Jacques Chirac has threatened to push for a tax against American goods if it doesn't sign liberal environmentalist "treaties" like Kyoto and other such agreements. It's admittedly a strong-arm tactic by the EU to force the United States into compliance, believing that it's status as the number one export market for American goods will carry enough weight.

I wish I could say "go ahead...and watch what we do in return" but I'm betting this will become a political issue rather than an economic one, and the liberals will twist it around to make claims such as "My conservative opponent supports economic policies that isolate us from world markets and cost us jobs." After all, that's exactly what they did with the bogus "tax cuts to ship jobs overseas" mantra of the 2004 election.

No AMS Seal of Approval for you!

I don't normally reproduce full articles here, but in this case the DrudgeReport issued a newsflash that I know will disappear soon and wanted to post here for informational purposes. It seems there are two books available (one already out, one soon to be released) which challenge the supposed scientific high ground of the Global Warming Theorists by documenting the reality of natural warming patterns and demonstrating how and why they occur:

Two New Books Confirm Global Warming is Natural; Not Caused By Human Activity
Tue Jan 30 2007 10:02:32 ET

Two powerful new books say today’s global warming is due not to human activity but primarily to a long, moderate solar-linked cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas. The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March.

Singer and Avery note that most of the earth’s recent warming occurred before 1940, and thus before much human-emitted CO2. Moreover, physical evidence shows 600 moderate warmings in the earth’s last million years. The evidence ranges from ancient Nile flood records, Chinese court documents and Roman wine grapes to modern spectral analysis of polar ice cores, deep seabed sediments, and layered cave stalagmites.

Unstoppable Global Warming shows the earth’s temperatures following variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings. The book cites the work of Svensmark, who says cosmic rays vary the earth’s temperatures by creating more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that cool the earth. It notes that global climate models can’t accurately register cloud effects.

The Chilling Stars relates how Svensmark’s team mimicked the chemistry of earth’s atmosphere, by putting realistic mixtures of atmospheric gases into a large reaction chamber, with ultraviolet light as a stand-in for the sun. When they turned on the UV, microscopic droplets—cloud seeds—started floating through the chamber.

“We were amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the electrons [generated by cosmic rays] do their work of creating the building blocks for the cloud condensation nuclei,” says Svensmark.

The Chilling Stars documents how cosmic rays amplify small changes in the sun’s irradiance fourfold, creating 1-2 degree C cycles in earth’s temperatures: Cosmic rays continually slam into the earth’s atmosphere from outer space, creating ion clusters that become seeds for small droplets of water and sulfuric acid. The droplets then form the low, wet clouds that reflect solar energy back into space. When the sun is more active, it shields the earth from some of the rays, clouds wane, and the planet warms.

Unstoppable Global Warming documents the reality of a moderate, natural, 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why and how.

Of course, this article doesn't exist and neither do these two books, because after all no reputable scientists would dare challenge the Church of Global Warming!

Global Warming: Giving Darwin a Run for His Money

Forget where we've been...now it's about where we're heading.

One of the most consistent tactics of liberalism is the rewriting of history to manufacture support for what they want to do. Secular humanists have spent the last 150 years diligently rewriting history (and "other animals" which preceeded him) by promoting the pseudo-scientific myth of Darwinian Macroevolution. It was certainly pervasive and persistent enough to see the Haeckel Chart appearing in school textbooks even well after they had been proven a hoax. While there continues to be a growing chorus of dissent among the scientific community as to the viability of the prevalent Darwinian Macroevolutionary theories (and, ironically, it is self-defeating as it increasingly fails to adapt fast enough to maintain plausibility), it is still a concept firmly entrenched in the America psyche as fact.

Well, they are no longer content to sit fixated on that issue any longer. Continuing down the path of pantheistic nature-worship, they are now fighting to establish the Global Warming Theory as irrefutable fact. A major salvo was launched this past month by Dr. Heidi Cullen of The Weather Channel. In one of her recent blog posts, Dr. Cullen stated her belief that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) should withdraw their "Seal of Approval" from any meteorologist who does not tow the party line in subscribing to and publicly supporting the Global Warming Theory should have their "Seal of Approval" revoked. The statement generated quite an outcry, and in a subsequent blog post she stated the following:

I've read all your comments saying I want to silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the science of global warming. That is not true. The point of my post was never to stifle discussion. It was to raise it to a level that doesn't confuse science and politics. Freedom of scientific expression is essential.

Actually, Dr. Cullen, you stated that those meteorologists who expressed such skepticism of the Global Warming Theory were unable to "distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy." In other words, you are free to be a skeptic all you want...so long as you keep your mouth shut.

She goes on to say: "Many of you have accused me and The Weather Channel of taking a political position on global warming. That is not our intention. " Dr. Cullen, you ARE making it political by your ridicule and advocacy of punitive actions for those who dare disagree with you.

Yes, we are well aware of the AMS's public position on Global Warming, but perhaps you should also read their Statement on Freedom of Scientific Expression:

Advances in science and the benefits of science to policy, technological progress, and society as a whole depend upon the free exchange of scientific data and information as well as on open debate. The ability of scientists to present their findings to the scientific community, policy makers, the media, and the public without censorship, intimidation, or political interference is imperative. With the specific limited exception of proprietary information or constraints arising from national security, scientists must be permitted unfettered communication of scientific results. In return, it is incumbent upon scientists to communicate their findings in ways that portray their results and the results of others, objectively, professionally, and without sensationalizing or politicizing the associated impacts.

Contrary to Dr. Cullen's bluster, this is all about politics. Take a minute to read Melanie Morgan's article on the political leanings of The Weather Channel over at WorldNetDaily, and ABC-TV's AMS-certified meteorologist Marc Morano in his response to Dr. Cullen's call for decertification.