Stifling Debate
Posted here for 3-10-08

The science is settled, Al Gore tells us. Man-made carbon-dioxide emissions are heating up the planet. All the scientists agree.

Well, like so much of what issues forth from the lips of global-warming Al, this isn't exactly true. Let me say it another way: it's a lie!

There are thousands of highly-qualified scientists who believe the former vice president is, well, full of hot air. For example, last week, hundreds of scientists and engineers and others met in New York City at The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change to present solid arguments refuting the contention global warming is caused by man. As I understand it, Apocalypse Al was invited to present his views, but refused the invitation. Here's what some experts (as opposed to politicians) have to say:

"The relationship between the air temperature and the amount of ... consumed fossil energy is not obvious at all. [. . .] [I]t is not possible to say with confidence that [an earth temperature increase] is mostly caused by the greenhouse effect." -- Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, director, International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska-Fairbanks.

"The planet may rest assured: this hypothetical catastrophe [rapidly melting ice sheets] could not take place anytime within the next thousand years. [. . .] The period of warming was tangible, but now it may be drawing to a close. Most natural processes on the earth are cyclical, having shorter or longer rhythm . . . [and] a temperature rise is inevitably followed by a decline, and vice versa. Studies of the ice core retrieved by Russia's Vostok Antarctic station show that this is what has been happening on earth for at least the last 400,000 years." -- Glaciologist Nikolai Osokin, Institute of Geography and member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

"My biggest concern is their [computer models'] lack of ability to adequately handle water vapor and clouds, which are much more important as climate factors than anthropogenic [human] contributors. Until we can realistically simulate types of clouds, their optical thicknesses, and their altitudes, which we have a difficult time doing for short-term weather forecasts, I can't have much faith in climate models." -- Dr. James P. Koermer, Director of the Meteorological Institute at Plymouth State University.

"In the Southern Hemisphere, the land-area mean temperature has slowly but surely declined in the last few years. [. . .] Further, the sea surface temperatures over world oceans are slowly declining since mid-1998, according to a recent world-wide analysis of ocean surface temperatures." -- Dr. Madhav Khandekar, IPCC 2007 expert reviewer and meteorologist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project.

"[My conversion from believer to skeptic] probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not where activists want me to go." -- Dr. Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist at Carleton University in Ottawa.

"In a way, their situation [that of Al Gore and his supporters] is very similar to that of the software engineers who sold the concept of the Y2K bug a decade ago. The 'reputation stakes' have become so high that it is absolutely necessary for some form of international action (any action, whether sensible or not) to be forced upon mankind. Then, should disaster not in fact befall, the avoidance of doom can be attributed to that action rather than to the probability that the prospects for disaster were massively oversold." -- Dr. Garth W. Paltridge, atmospheric physicist and professor emeritus from the University of Tasmania.

"I urge [those who support the IPCC report] to browse through recent issues of major international journals in climate and related science. Hardly a week goes by without a significant paper being published questioning the science. [. . .] The IPCC and its authors have closed their minds and eyes to this evolving science which points to solar variability as the prime driver of earth's climate and not the human-added greenhouse gases." -- Dr. Madhav Khandekar, IPCC 2007 expert reviewer and meteorologist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project.

"It appears to be the policy of the [UK] Royal Society to stifle dissent and silence anyone who may have doubts about the connection between global warming and human activity. That kind of repression seems more suited to the Inquisition than to a modern, respected scientific body," -- Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace and former director of Greenpeace International.

"Warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing. [. . .] In the oceans, major climate warming and cooling is a fact of life, whether it is over a few years as in an El Nino or over decades as in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation or the North Atlantic Oscillation. Currents, temperatures. salinity, and biology changes rapidly to the new state in months or a couple years. These changes far exceed those expected with global warming and occur much faster." -- Dr. John T. Everett, former chief of the NOAA Fisheries Division of Research.

A recent report by Senator James Inhofe and minority members of the Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works cites "over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries [who] voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming." (Source for above quotes: "Climate-Change Dissenters," by Dennis Behreandt, The New American, February 18, 2008, pages 22-27. Published by American Opinion Publishing Incorporated, 770 Westhill Boulevard, Appleton, Wisconsin 54914. Phone: 920-749-3784. Fax: 920-749-3785. E-mail. Website.)

Temperature Forecasts
Posted here for 1-21-08

I decided to perform a very simple experiment. On January 3rd I looked up the ten-day AccuWeather high-temperature forecasts for twelve selected cities around the U.S. (Anchorage, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Honolulu, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Seattle, and St. Louis). I thought these locations provided a pretty good sampling of temperatures across the country.

Then I waited ten days and checked the same source for the actual high temperatures in each city. Of course the question was: how good were the temperature forecasts? The answer: pretty bad.

Honolulu's was the best prediction: 79 degrees. The actual temperature on the 13th: 78. But for Honolulu if you predict the high 70s, you're likely to be pretty close for every day in January.

The worst prediction: Anchorage. It was 25 degrees off! The projection was 30, the actual: 5. The next worst: St. Louis. The projection was 30, the actual: 51, an error of 21 degrees! The average error predicting highs for 1-13-08 was 11.9 degrees F. (I did the same analysis for the eleven-day forecast. The average error predicting highs for 1-14 was 10.5 degrees F.)

You may say predicting temperature ten days ahead of time is a really difficult task. Even with all the sophisticated computer equipment and forecasting techniques employed now, forecasting actual temperatures for a specific location is incredibly complicated. Of course it is. Any sensible person would have to agree.

So what would you say about forecasting temperatures 100 days from today? It's silly to even raise the question.

But there are those [examples] who suggest they know what the temperatures are going to be over 33,500 days from today -- in the year 2100. Not the temperature in Atlanta or Seattle, but the average temperature for the entire world.

I'd say such a prediction is akin to stating precisely when a fly will alight on a certain spot, just how far a wave will splash up on a beach at a given moment in the future, or the exact time a future U.S. president will be born. Certain things are simply impossible to predict: when Mount St. Helens will next erupt, how many Category 3 hurricanes will hit the U.S. next year, how many gallons of water will flow out the mouth of the Mississippi River on any future day, and the average temperature of planet earth in 2100.

City	Actual High Temperature 1-3-08	Predicted High Temperature for 1-13-08	Actual High Temperature 1-13-08	Error in Degrees F
Anchorage	22	30	5	25
Atlanta	42	40	58	18
Boston	17	28	44	16
Chicago	23	26	40	14
Dallas	47	42	60	18
Denver	50	43	40	3
Honoululu	77	79	78	1
Los Angeles	68	69	76	7
Miami	62	72	83	11
New York	23	38	45	7
Seattle	48	48	50	2
St Louis	36	30	51	21

Missing: Common Sense
Posted here for 11-26-07

In spite of increasing evidence from calm and thoughtful scientists, global warming advocates continue their harangue that our planet is doomed because of man-made greenhouse gases. The computer models prove it, they scream. The science is settled, they repeat over and over. Anyone who doesn't accept their conclusions is the modern-day equivalent of those who believed the Earth was flat.

Well, let's just take a look at some of those "infallible," "scientific" computer models that predict planet warming by the year 2100. Let's see how well the global-warming gurus do with some actual climate predictions.

This chart shows results from numerous weather-forecasting models (the many light lines). It compares predictions of average percent cloud cover (y-axis) versus latitude (x-axis) around the world versus actual observations (the single heavy line). (Source.)

Hmmm. It should be noted that not one of the models was correct. Most weren't even close. Some were embarrassingly off mark.

These "scientific," computer-generated results are representative, mind you, of the "infallible" computer models that show world temperatures 93 years from now will be higher than they are today. They predict not only higher temperatures, but exactly how many degrees warmer the world will be in 2100.

I tend to think that anyone who buys into this craziness is a lot dumber than those who believed, hundreds of years ago, that the Earth was flat.

(By the way, I've recently completed a 30-minute PowerPoint presentation on the subject of Global Warming. If you'd like a copy (on CD), please send me your name and address and two bucks. The presentation itself is free; the $2 covers materials, postage, and handling. Send to Fred Gielow, 17234 Boca Club Boulevard #102, Boca Raton, Florida 33487.)

Global Warming on YouTube
Posted here for 10-15-07

I've found there's a good deal of global warming information to be found in YouTube videos on the Internet. These are the best of those I looked at:

Economist Bjorn Lomborg: Global Warming Is Not a Priority (17 minutes, 27 seconds).
Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (1/5) (9 minutes, 47 seconds).
Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (2/5) (9 minutes, 59 seconds).
Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (3/5) (8 minutes, 45 seconds).
Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (4/5) (8 minutes, 5 seconds).
Global Warming - Doomsday Called Off (5/5) (6 minutes, 10 seconds).
Another Global Warming Hoax Exposed (2 minutes, 54 seconds).
Global Warming Hoax (9 minutes, 21 seconds).
The Myth about Global Warming (2 minutes, 28 seconds).
Global Warming? Really Bad? (3 minutes, 59 seconds).
Global Warming - Opportunities (3 minutes, 38 seconds).
The Myth of Man-Made Global Warming (4 minutes, 44 seconds).
Global Warming Swindle (4 minutes, 54 seconds).
Beck Cheers New York Times Admission of Global Warming Swindle (9 minutes, 54 seconds).
Man-Made Global Warming is Bunk (Full Video) (9 minutes, 45 seconds).
Senator James Inhofe on the Global Warming Scam (8 minutes, 58 seconds).

Maybe information debunking global warming presented in this form (via YouTube) will turn the debate around, and common sense will emerge out of today's hype and hyperbole. Alan Caruba thinks the turnaround is well underway. He opines: "When did the global warming hoax die? Historians are likely to pinpoint 2007. It will take another decade to insure it cannot be revived, but the avalanche of scientific studies and the cumulative impact of scientists who have publicly joined those who debunked the lies on which it has been based will be noted as the tipping point." ("The Year the Global Warming Hoax Died," by Alan Caruba, Resource Roundup, September 2007, page 6.)

Let's hope Alan is correct.

Putting CO2 in Perspective
Posted here for 10-8-07

Let's think this through. We're now told that much of the scientific community and vast numbers of common, ordinary folk believe global warming is taking place and it's man-made. It's caused by the production of man-made greenhouse gases, principally CO2, and we must take immediate action to save the planet. Right? We must drastically curtail CO2 production, even if it savages our economy, trashes our standard of living, and results in "sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation of society". That's what we've heard time and time again from the mainstream media, certainly Al Gore, and indeed from most of those on the left.

Well, first of all, as the chart at left shows (source), the most important greenhouse gas effecting global warming is water vapor. It's by far the most important factor.

But secondly, as the chart at right shows (source), nearly all of the CO2 in the atmosphere is the result of "natural" not man-made causes. (Another source: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, by Christopher C. Horner, 2007, page 69.)

So that means if we were somehow able to stop using all automobiles, trucks and other gas-powered vehicles; stop the generation of all gas and coal-generated electricity; stop all industry; stop the production of most of the foods we eat; and stop all other activities that result in the production of manmade CO2, then we would completely remove from the atmosphere a grand total of three percent of the CO2. (Oh, excuse me, 3.225%.)

Most analysts (like this one) simply ignore the "natural" CO2 in the atmosphere, but some explain it away saying it's merely a "closed system". But it seems to me it doesn't matter if it's a closed system, because it still accounts for some 97 percent of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. And natural CO2 is no different than man-made CO2.

I've spent hours searching the Internet for an answer to the following question: Why are we now spending billions of dollars -- and some are anxious to spend trillions -- to reduce CO2 emissions, when doing so will address less than twelve one-hundredths of one percent of the greenhouse gases "problem"? (Manmade CO2 production is 3.225% of the total CO2, CO2 accounts for 3.618% of all greenhouse gases. Thus, .03225 x .03618 = .00117, or 0.117%.) I haven't found an answer to my question.

Environmental Pied Pipers
Posted here for 9-17-07

There was a time not too many years ago when someone deeply concerned about the environment spoke up to warn the country and the world about approaching environmental disaster. Her name was Rachel Carlson and she wrote a book, published in 1962, titled Silent Spring. The book claimed pesticides, particularly DDT -- but others, too -- were a great danger to birds and to humans as well. Her message was dramatically influential. The book was named one of the "25 Greatest Science Books of All-Time" by the editors of Discover Magazine.

In 1972, as a result of Carlson's warnings, the U.S. banned DDT. Further, the U.S., with the help of a variety of environmental groups, pressured countries around the world to also ban DDT.

The result was utter catastrophe. DDT had been a marvelously effective measure in the fight against malaria. With its ban, tens of millions became afflicted and millions died each year! The impact was largely in poor countries. Some 80 to 90 percent of these deaths occurred in sub-Saharan Africa.

Now we know Rachel Carlson was a Chicken Little. She raised all manner of concern about DDT, but she got her facts wrong. She spoke out passionately of the dangers DDT posed. She warned of cancer outbreaks, of bird extinctions, of irreversible environment damage. Intentionally or unintentionally, she peddled half-truths and lies. She called for action that resulted in the death of millions, tens of millions actually. (YouTube remarks on the subject.) Her environmental sensitivity drove her to conclusions and prescribed actions that rival the greatest atrocities ever perpetrated on mankind.

* * * * * * * * * *
There was a time not too many years ago when someone deeply concerned about the environment spoke up to warn the country and the world about approaching environmental disaster. His name was Al Gore and he wrote a book . . .

Global Warming Always Comes Before Global Cooling
Posted here for 8-6-07

In testimony before a Congressional committee on March 21, 2007, Al Gore spoke with passion:

"This is not a normal time. We are facing a planetary emergency. The relationship between humankind and Planet Earth has been radically altered in a very short period of time. . . The 10 hottest years ever measured in the record have been since 1990. Twenty of the 21 hottest years have been . . . in the last 25 years. The hottest year of all was 2005. . . The hottest winter ever measured worldwide was this winter: December and then January and February of this year [2007] . . ."

Pretty scary statistics! And when you look back over the last hundred and fifty years or so, the data (as depicted in The Global Warming Scare by David Pratt) show even more warming has taken place.


Yikes!

But wait a minute. An awful lot of global warming was taking place between 1920 and 1940. Hmmm. I don't think there were lots of SUVs buzzing about back then. There weren't nearly as many people consuming energy, either. How could so much warming take place if humans didn't cause it?

Let's look back even further.


Oops! This chart (from Global Warming: Myths and Reality by Jarret Wollstein) indicates that the Medieval Warm Period was even warmer than it is today! How is it Mr. Gore missed this data? And how could it be that so much warming took place without a single SUV?

Suppose we look back even further in time. Not just thousands of years ago, but hundreds of thousands. This is what the scientists say the temperatures were way back then (from an article titled Temperature Change History):


Well, well, well! What a surprise! The Earth's temperature goes up and down. Sometimes it's warmer, sometimes cooler. (Here are temperatures for the last 4.6 billion years, from Temperature, by John Baez)

All of a sudden today's "global warming" temperatures don't look quite so intimidating. And Al Gore's scare rhetoric doesn't sound quite so ominous.

But then if Gore spoke the truth and told us the whole story, then he wouldn't win an Academy award, or be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. His "An Inconvenient Truth" movie wouldn't be required propaganda in our public schools. And he'd be merely a former vice-president who ran for president and lost.

(I should perhaps add that there isn't scientific agreement regarding the validity of the graphs above. Some scientists and politicians say consensus has been reached on the subject of climate change, and the warming trend is man-made. This, of course, is not true.)

Explaining the Rise in Global Temperatures
Posted here for 6-18-07.

I'd say this chart is pretty important. The dark red bars signify the average global temperature from 1950 to 2000 in degrees centigrade, using the scale on the left. The little blue boxes signify the number of weather stations used in the determination of that temperature reading, using the scale on the right. (Source.)



Notice that the temperatures take a big step up in 1990, at the very same time the number of weather stations takes a big step down. In a period of just two years, over 4,000 stations -- about a third of the total -- were excluded from the data. Many were located in cold, cold Siberia. (Others were elsewhere in Russia, in China, Africa and South America.)

Wouldn't you think the media would inform the public that the temperature "jump" is likely due to a reduction in the number of temperature-sensing stations? You would if the media were not biased. Wouldn't you think Al Gore would mention this little "inconvenient truth" just in the interest of giving the full picture? You would if Al Gore was interested in giving the full picture.

All sorts of people are buying into the idea that man is responsible for a "warming" of the globe. They are because that's the only side of the issue they hear. And those who offer any opposing view are ridiculed, belittled, and besmirched.

Science isn't a popularity contest where everyone votes to determine an outcome. And the scientific method rejects the notion that only one side of an issue can be discussed. That there are those who are anxious to close the debate should be evidence enough to doubt their position.

The PIG to Global Warming
Posted here for 6-11-07.

I'm reading The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism, by Christopher C. Horner (Regnery Publishing, 2007), and I think it's excellent. Here are a few excerpts:

Measurement of "global mean temperatures" [appears] to have been affected when hundreds of weather stations (many in the Soviet Union's Arctic) went offline at the beginning of the decade.

Historically, atmospheric C0₂ typically increases after warming begins, not before.

If [global warming "science"] is really settled, why don't the scientists forgo the $5 billion in taxpayer money they get every year to research climate?

The glacial retreat we read about is selective [. . .]. Glaciers are also advancing all over, including lonely glaciers nearby their more popular retreating neighbors. If glaciers retreating were proof of global warming then glaciers advancing are evidence of global cooling: they cannot both be true and in fact neither is.

[The U.S. is not going it alone on Kyoto and "global warming."] The U.S. rejects the Kyoto Protocol's energy rationing scheme, along with 155 other countries, representing most of the world's population, economic activity, and projected future growth. Kyoto is a European treaty with one dozen others, none of whom are in fact presently reducing their emissions."

[T]he planet is getting warmer. This warming seems to be mostly at night, in the winter, and at the North Pole. In fact, the Southern Hemisphere as a whole seems not to be experiencing any statistically significant warming.

Greenhouse gases have always been in our atmosphere, sometimes in far greater quantities than today, and are in fact a condition for human life -- without any greenhouse effect, our surface climate would be comparable to Mars's.

The modern environmentalist's motivation is generally not a love of biological diversity or horticulture, nor a desire to expand animal habitats and so on -- though these advocates certainly do exist, in obscurity. Instead, today's environmentalist is generally "anti" something, and that something is typically related to growth: economic growth, population growth, physical development, or simply the individual property rights necessary for growth.

Ecology offered liberal-minded people what they had longed for, a safe, rational and above all peaceful way of remaking society. . . [and] developing a more coherent central state. . . . "

[E]nvironmental causes always include -- and often are primarily -- campaigns to gain more government control over the economy and individual activity. They are never fights for less control or greater liberty. When communism didn't work out, environmentalism became the anti-capitalist vehicle of choice, drawing cash and adoration from business, Hollywood, media, and social elites. [. . .] "[E]nvironmentalism" has matured into a nightmare for anyone who believes in private property, open markets, and limited government. Environmental pressure groups have no use for limiting governmental powers or expanding individual liberties. Instead, environmental claims are without fail invoked to advance the statist agenda.

What I like most about the book is that it paints the big picture; not just the scam of "global warming," but how that issue is being used by the Left as a tool to undermine capitalism, expand world government, and curtail individual freedom.

Hot and Cold Running Temperatures
Posted here for 5-14-07.

Let's see if there's a pattern here.

DANGER: The Globe Is Cooling
- - New York Times, February 24, 1895: "Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again."
- - New Your Times, October 7, 1912: "Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age."
- - Los Angeles Times, October 7, 1912: "Fifth ice age is on the way. Human race will have to fight for its existence against cold."
- - Chicago Tribune, August 9, 1923: "Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada."
- - Washington Post, August 10, 1923: "Ice Age Coming Here."
- - Los Angeles Times, April 6, 1924: "If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just teetering on an ice age."

DANGER: The Globe Is Warming
- - Los Angeles Times, March 11, 1929: "Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will continue to get warmer."
- - Chicago Daily Tribune, November 6, 1939: "Chicago is in the front rank of thousands of cities [throughout] the world which have been affected by a mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades."
- - New York Times, August 10, 1952: "[W]e have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half century."
- - New York Times, 1953: "[N]early all the great ice sheets are in retreat."
- - U.S. News & World Report, January 8, 1954: "[W]inters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing."
- - New York Times, February 15, 1959: "Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures."
- - New York Times, February 20, 1969: "[T]he Arctic pack ice is thinning and [. . .] the ocean at the North Pole may become an open sea within a decade or two."

DANGER: The Globe Is Cooling
- - Science News, November 15, 1969: "How long the current cooling trend continues is one of the most important problems of our civilization."
- - Washington Post, January 11, 1970: "[G]et a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters -- the worst may be yet to come." The article was titled, "Colder Winters Herald Dawn of New Ice Age."
- - New York Times, December 29, 1974: "[P]resent climate change [will result in] mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence."
- - Christian Science Monitor, 1974: "[T]he North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool."
- - Newsweek, April 28, 1975: "The drop in food output [as a result of climate change] could begin quite soon, perhaps only ten years from now. [. . .] [The] central fact [is] the earth's climate seems to be cooling down."
- - New York Times, 1975: "A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable."
- - Science News, 1975: "[T]he cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed."
- - New Scientist editor Nigel Calder, 1975: "The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind."
- - The Cooling, by Lowell Ponte, 1976: "The cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people in poor nations."

DANGER: The Globe Is Warming
- - New York Times, August 22, 1981: "[Global warming of an] almost unprecedented magnitude [is predicted]."
- - Washington Post, January 18, 2006: "[Rising temperatures] could literally, alter the fundamentals of life on the planet."
- - Time, March 26, 2006: "Polar Ice Caps Are Melting Faster Than Ever . . . More and More; Land is Being Devastated by Drought . . . Rising Waters Are Drowning Low-Lying Communities . . . By Any Measure, Earth Is at the Tipping Point; The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame."

Let me check my calendar. My guess is it won't be too long before we'll be worried to death about the next big cooling scare.

Quotations from "Fire and Ice," by R. Warren Anderson and Dan Gainor, Whistleblower, March 2007, pages 8-11, 13-16. Address: PO Box 2450, Fair Oaks, California 95628. Phone: 916-852-6300. Fax: 916-852-6302. Website.

An Inconvenient Lie
Posted here for 5-7-07.

“Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous [global warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.”

The man said "an overrepresentation of factual presentations.” Some might interpret such words as justifying lies to achieve a desired end result. And, yes, if you haven't guessed by now, the words were spoken by Al Gore.¹

So, when the former vice president says global warming will melt snow and ice and raise sea levels by 20 feet,² does he mean 20 feet? Or is that “an overrepresentation”? Does he really mean two feet? Or perhaps two inches?

Of course there's no way to know.

And since “scientist” Al seems to have neglected to mention that all the phenomena he describes in such hot (pun intended) rhetoric fall within the natural range of environmental change on Planet Earth,³ are we to assume that was merely an honest oversight? Or was it part of a deliberate indoctrination effort to misrepresent a true view of reality?

Many, no doubt, will excuse Al's enthusiasm and exaggeration as, well, enthusiasm and exaggeration. But his romancing of the facts could have catastrophic consequences. For he is intent on totally transforming this country's principles. He wants a “new ‘central organizing principle'” of society to be “the task of protecting the earth's environment while fostering economic progress.”⁴ Hello environmentalism. Hello global government. Goodbye capitalism. Goodbye freedom.

The world's top hurricane expert, Dr. William Gray -- a real scientist -- said April 6th in New Orleans that Al Gore is a “gross alarmist.”⁵ “He doesn't know what he's talking about.” In his study of the oceans' effect on climate, Dr. Gray, along with research associate Phil Klotzbach predict that “the last 30-year global warming trend will come to an end in the next 5-10 years.”⁵

Clearly the judgements and opinions of scientist Dr. Gray are a lost whisper in the avalanche of global warming propaganda. Meanwhile, the scare tactics of politician Gore are being force-fed into the innocent minds of school kids all across the country.

What's wrong with this picture?

¹ “Lessons of Napoleon,” Inside the Beltway, by John McCaslin, The Washington Times National Weekly Edition, February 12, 2007, page 6.
² “Al Gore Discusses 'An Inconvenient Truth',” by Amy Crawford.
³ “No Fan of Gore from Down Under,” Quick Quotes, The New American, April 30, 2007, page 11.
⁴ “Earth in the Balance,” by Al Gore, paperback, page xv.
⁵ “Storm Forecaster Calls Al Gore an Alarmist,” The New American, April 30, 2007, page 9.

Measuring Scientific Probabilities
Posted here for 2-12-07.

I was interested to read an article by James Lewis, Why Global Warming Is Probably a Crock, that scientific global warming theory is dependent on a multitude of factors. Factors "like the amount of cloud cover over Antarctica, the changing ocean currents in the South Pacific, Mount Helena venting, sun spots, Chinese factories burning more coal every year, evaporation of ocean water (the biggest "greenhouse" gas), the wobbles of earth orbit around the sun, and yes, the multifarious fartings of billions of living creatures on the face of the earth, minus, of course, all the trillions of plants and algae that gobble up all the CO2, nitrogen-containing molecules, and sulfur-smelling exhalations spewed out by all of us animals." As you can imagine, there are hundreds of such factors that must be considered to make reasonable projections of weather phenomena we can expect in the future.

Mr. Lewis speculates about the accuracy of computer forecasting models when they must depend on great numbers of variables. He states that the overall accuracy of these models can be calculated by multiplying the certainty level for each variable. Thus, if there are only two variables, but each can be predicted with 90% accuracy, then the probability the resulting prediction is accurate will be 81% (0.90 x 0.90).

With a vast array of variables, however, the probability drops precipitously. Let's say there are only 100 weather factors necessary to predict weather patterns (we know that's an unrealistically low number). If each could be determined with 90% accuracy (an outlandishly high accuracy rate), then the probability of attaining accurate results will be 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9 . . . one hundred times. That's (0.9)¹⁰⁰, or 0.00266 percent. Not too impressive.

Let's say there are 200 variables that must be considered and each is understood with only 80% accuracy (still a spectacularly high accuracy rate, given that weather forecasters have trouble predicting rain or sunshine for next week Thursday). Then the probability of accurate predictions drops to 0.80²⁰⁰ or an infinitesimally small 0.00000000000000000415 percent.

Al Gore and his buddies tell us global warming will cause the seas to rise 20 feet by the end of the century. What do you suppose the accuracy of that prediction is? I'm guessing: zero!

Temperature Highs and Lows
Posted here for 2-5-07 and 1-29-07.

It seems to me that if the world is really heating up like the global-warming alarmists claim, we'd be seeing a lot of recent maximum temperatures in spots around the U.S. and around the world. Everyone keeps saying the summers are so much hotter and the winters so much warmer than they used to be. If that's really the case, then the hottest it has been in each of the states should be of recent vintage, certainly within the last ten years. Wouldn't you think so?

Okay, let's look at the record. I got these statistics from this website. Look closely to see when the maximums occurred. How many were during the last decade?

State	Hottest Temp	Date	City	State	Hottest Temp	Date	City
Alabama	112	Sep 5, 1925	Centerville	Alaska	100	Jun 27, 1915	Fort Yukon
Arizona	128	Jun 29, 1994	Lake Havasu City	Arkansas	120	Aug 10, 1936	Ozark
California	134	Jul 10, 1913	Greenland Ranch	Colorado	118	Jul 11, 1888	Bennett
Connecticut	106	Jul 15, 1995	Danbury	Delaware	110	Jul 21, 1930	Millsboro
Florida	109	Jun 29, 1931	Monticello	Georgia	112	Aug 20, 1983	Greenville
Hawaii	100	Apr 27, 1931	Pahala	Idaho	118	Jul 28, 1934	Orofino
Illinois	117	Jul 14, 1954	E. St. Louis	Indiana	116	Jul 14, 1936	Collegeville
Iowa	118	Jul 20, 1934	Keokuk	Kansas	121	Jul 24, 1936	Alton
Kentucky	114	Jul 28, 1930	Greensburg	Louisiana	114	Aug 10, 1936	Plain Dealing
Maine	105	Jul 10, 1911	North Bridgton	Maryland	109	Jul 10, 1936	Cumberland; Frederick
Massachusetts	107	Aug 2, 1975	New Bedford; Chester	Michigan	112	Jul 13, 1936	Mio
Minnesota	114	Jul 6, 1936	Moorhead	Mississippi	115	Jul 29, 1930	Holly Springs
Missouri	118	Jul 14, 1954	Warsaw & Union	Montana	117	Jul 5, 1937	Medicine Lake
Nebraska	118	Jul 24, 1936	Minden	Nevada	125	Jun 29, 1994	Laughlin
New Hampshire	106	Jul 4, 1911	Nashua	New Jersey	110	Jul 10, 1936	Runyon
New Mexico	122	Jun 27, 1994	Waste Isolat. Pilot Pit	New York	108	Jul 22, 1926	Troy
North Carolina	110	Aug 21, 1983	Fayetteville	North Dakota	121	Jul 6, 1936	Steele
Ohio	113	Jul 21, 1934	Gallipolis	Oklahoma	120	Jun 27, 1994	Tipton
Oregon	119	Aug 10, 1898	Pendleton	Pennsylvania	111	Jul 10, 1936	Phoenixville
Rhode Island	104	Aug 2, 1975	Providence	South Carolina	111	Jun 28, 1954	Camden
South Dakota	120	Jul 5, 1936	Gannvalley	Tennessee	113	Aug 9, 1930	Perryville
Texas	120	Aug 12, 1936	Seymour	Utah	117	Jul 5, 1895	Saint George
Vermont	105	Jul 4, 1911	Vernon	Virginia	110	Jul 15, 1954	Balcony Falls
Washington	118	Aug 5, 1961	Ice Harbor Dam	West Virginia	112	Jul 10, 1936	Martinsburg
Wisconsin	114	Jul 13, 1936	Wisconsin Dells	Wyoming	116	Aug 8, 1983	Basin

So how many were between 1997 and the present? I counted . . . one. Hmmm. I found 33 before 1950!

I should point out that the date of the data is August 2006. It could be there were some records in the last eight months or so.

Is this really the kind of result you'd expect if we were witnessing true global warming?

So, what about the low temperatures? The following statistics were found here (dated: August 2006).

State	Coldest Temp	Date	City	State	Coldest Temp	Date	City
Alabama	-27	Jan 30, 1966	New Market	Alaska	-80	Jan 23, 1971	Prospect Creek
Arizona	-40	Jan 7, 1971	Hawley Lake	Arkansas	-29	Feb 13, 1905	Pond
California	-45	Jan 20, 1937	Boca	Colorado	-61	Feb 1, 1985	Maybell
Connecticut	-32	Feb 16, 1943	Falls Village	Delaware	-17	Jan 17, 1893	Millsboro
Florida	-2	Feb 13, 1899	Tallahassee	Georgia	-17	Jan 27, 1940	N. Floyd County
Hawaii	12	May 17, 1979	Mauna Kea	Idaho	-60	Jan 18, 1943	Island Park Dam
Illinois	-36	Jan 5, 1999	Congerville	Indiana	-36	Jan 19, 1994	New Whiteland
Iowa	-47	Feb 3, 1996*	Elkader	Kansas	-40	Feb 13, 1905	Lebanon
Kentucky	-37	Jan 19, 1994	Shelbyville	Louisiana	-16	Feb 13, 1899	Minden
Maine	-48	Jan 19, 1925	Van Buren	Maryland	-40	Jan 13, 1912	Oakland
Massachusetts	-35	Jan 12, 1981	Chester	Michigan	-51	Feb 9, 1934	Vanderbilt
Minnesota	-60	Feb 2, 1996	Tower	Mississippi	-19	Jan 30, 1966	Corinth
Missouri	-40	Feb 13, 1905	Warsaw	Montana	-70	Jan 20, 1954	Rogers Pass
Nebraska	-47	Feb 12, 1899	Camp Clarke	Nevada	-50	Jan 8, 1937	San Jacinto
New Hampshire	-47	Jan 29, 1934	Mt. Washington	New Jersey	-34	Jan 5, 1904	River Vale
New Mexico	-50	Feb 1, 1951	Gavilan	New York	-52	Feb 18, 1979*	Old Forge
North Carolina	-34	Jan 21, 1985	Mt. Mitchell	North Dakota	-60	Feb 15, 1936	Parshall
Ohio	-39	Feb 10, 1899	Milligan	Oklahoma	-27	Jan 18, 1930	Watts
Oregon	-54	Feb 10, 1933*	Seneca	Pennsylvania	-42	Jan 5, 1904	Smethport
Rhode Island	-25	Feb 5, 1996	Greene	South Carolina	-19	Jan 21, 1985	Caesars Head
South Dakota	-58	Feb 17, 1936	McIntosh	Tennessee	-32	Dec 30, 1917	Mountain City
Texas	-23	Feb 8, 1933*	Seminole	Utah	-69	Feb 1, 1985	Peter's Sink
Vermont	-50	Dec 30, 1933	Bloomfield	Virginia	-30	Jan 22, 1985	Mountain Lake
Washington	-48	Dec 30, 1968	Mazama; Winthrop	West Virginia	-37	Dec 30, 1917	Lewisburg
Wisconsin	-55	Feb 4, 1996	Couderay	Wyoming	-66	Feb 9, 1933	Riverside

* The same temperature was also recorded on one or more earlier dates at the same or other places in the state.

The number of coldest days between 1997 and the present? One; Illinois. The number before 1950: 28. There were 36 hot temp records before 1950.

Wouldn't you think that if things were really warming up there would be more cold temp records and fewer hot temp records before 1950? The number of cold temp records since 1990: 7. The number of hot temp records since 1990: 5. With "global warming," shouldn't there be more hot-temp records and less cold-temp records?

What's Behind Global Warming?
Posted here for 1-22-07

Now, apparently, most people believe that as a result of greenhouse gasses produced by man-made devices, global warming is heating up our planet and, unless countered, will ultimately cause irreparable damage: dramatically higher sea levels, flooding of thousands of square miles of land, unbearably hot living conditions, eradication of numerous species, significant increases in natural disasters, and destruction of crops unable to tolerate elevated temperatures.

Just for the sake of argument, let's say the amount of C02 increases significantly. Let's say it doubles! Do all the plants in the world shrivel up and die? Well, not exactly. Early in the evolution of plant life on Earth, C02 was in much greater abundance than it is now. Studies show that if C02 levels doubled, plant productivity would actually improve an average of 32% across all species! ["Mr. Gore, Carbon Dioxide Is Not a Pollutant," Human Events, March 6, 1998, Page 22.] Tomato yields would increase up to 50%, grains up to 64%, corn and sugar cane up to 55%, potatoes up to 75%. Not only that, you might not need long johns and a parka when you go out shopping in the wintertime.

If the consequences of a warmer Earth would actually be beneficial, then why all the fuss? Some of those who dispense the fear provide a clue:

“We’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” -- Timothy Wirth, 1990.

“Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.” -- Ross Gelbspan , July 2000.

“[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios [about global warming and destruction of the environment], make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts one might have . . . . Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” -- Stephen Schneider, October 1989.

“A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.” -- Richard Benedict.

“I would freely admit that on [global warming] we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.” -- Charles Alexander.

“Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an overrepresentation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” -- Al Gore, in an interview for Grist magazine.

These remarks sound to me like those who spoke them know man-made global warming is a hoax. But they're willing to perpetrate a massive deception if it will advance their agenda. What agenda? First, harm to the U.S. People around the world (and many on the far left here) hate America for its success and wealth and wish to inflict pain on this country and its residents. Second, immense redistribution of income. All the poor countries are salivating at the prospect of receiving a generous handout of dollars. Third, control. If you believe in the scam, you'll yield some of your freedom to the elites who say they have a solution to the "problem". Fourth, the advance of socialism. Most of the world is in the grip of socialism and we, too, are sliding off swiftly in that direction. Embracing the idea of global warming will quicken the slide. And fifth, pride. Liberals have much invested in the global warming lie. Their reputations and their honor are at stake. They must win the debate.

And so far they're doing just that.