Archive for January 13th, 2007

Global Warming politics heats up.

January 13, 2007

Hi Brit,

Once again, I told you so 😉  Six senators back mandatory greenhouse gas cuts, and it’s not just liberals playing the climate crisis card, conservatives are in on this one as well.  And, of course, the liberal press won’t report just how much this is going to add to our utility bills, which are not insignificant at the moment, thank you very much.  It would also stifle attempts to expand our electric production, so California can look forward to more rolling blackouts in the future, which, I have no doubt, will be blamed on President Bush, who will deserve it if he signs any such legislation into law.  I’m going to save the list of Senators sponsoring this bill, and the list of those who vote for it, and can promise them now that my vote won’t tally under their names, unless the electronic voting machines are, as suggested, rigged.

the Grit

Party naked! It pays!

January 13, 2007

Hi Brit,

Do you recall our Miss Nevada, Katie Rees, who lost her title when photos of her nearly naked and very naughty came to light?  Well all is not going badly for the hot tart, Ex-Miss Nevada Back to Work in Sin City.  How appropriate that she has found a gig in Las Vegas.  It would also seem that the money is better as well.  It makes me feel good to see people finding their true place in the world.

the Grit

Facts! We don’t need no stinking facts!

January 13, 2007

Hi Brit,

I hate to say it, but it’s too late to worry about the facts in the Global Warming debate.  Politicians all around have stuck their fingers in the wind of public opinion, and are spreading their sails to ride the hot gale coming from the mouths of the environmentalist wacko movement back into office.  Check this one out: EU plans attack on car emissions.  While I expect a certain amount of insanity from socialists, like attempting to destroy Europe’s auto industry, the surprising naughty bit is down at the bottom.

Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, “…people should start talking about climate change as a war.  It could lead to the death of millions of people, and it could transform the world economy into a war economy, where every sector was involved in the fight against climate change.”

Is this guy German?

the Grit

Britney slipped disc

January 13, 2007

Hey Grit

The Britney bandwagon is in the news again. This time it appears that she is in trouble with her record company. They say that her latest album is rubbish and needs to be re-recorded, otherwise they might drop it, and her.

It seems that, at the moment, the lady cannot do anything right.

the Brit

Power from space.

January 13, 2007

Hi Brit,

There is a way to power England with solar power, and only take up a tiny bit of your island: Whatever happened to solar power satellites?  This concept, putting the solar cells in space and beaming the energy to Earth as microwaves, has been around for a long time.  It would have been almost practical back in the early seventies to establish a lunar colony to do the manufacturing of parts.  This was discussed, but the political situation made it impossible to divert the investment capital needed away from social and military programs.  There was also a bunch of chatter from environmental groups, claiming that the SPSs would heat the Earth too much, use too much land for the microwave collectors, and potentially get out of control and destroy all life as we know it.  As I recall, the deciding factor against even putting up a test version was that the USSR would have seen it as a weapon system.  Of course, as energy costs rise and space flight gets cheaper…

the Grit

Global warming

January 13, 2007

Hi Grit

The issue of global warming seems to create so many arguments and the media particularly appears to be embarking upon a “fear-mongering” campaign. However, there are still some questions in my mind that need to be addressed, so I hope you don’t mind me posting a rather long item on the subject.

Is global warming as bad as it is made out to be?

In truth, no one has produced a definitive answer to this question. Scientific evidence is divided on the issue and the basis for much of the argument put forward in support of global warming can be questioned. Although I agree that we should take protective measures to care for the environment, in my view there are not enough facts to make a judgement as to how bad global warming really is. Similarly, the effectiveness and suitability of measures being taken to address the issue have not been adequately researched. To illustrate these points, it is worth looking at a sample of the specifics in more detail. 


1) Manmade. 

Whilst there is evidence that carbon dioxide has an impact upon global warming, no one has yet been able to determine the exact level of impact that human activity has upon it. Are we responsible for 10% or 100%? Surely, it is important to know this because it is difficult to control something that we cannot quantify. 

Even carbon dioxide is not totally to blame. If you look at the graph produced at, entitled “Global Temperature v CO2 1940-1970, it will be noted that whilst CO2 rose consistently during that period, temperatures actually fell on a consistent basis.    

2) The Melting of icecaps and glaciers. 

Significant media attention is being given to stress the point that the icecaps and glaciers are melting, but is this a reality. Let us take Antarctica as an example, where it is stated that the melting is at an alarming rate. It is possible to produce scientific research results, all conducted in this century that find the opposite to be true. Below are quoted just three. 

P. Doran (2002). Nature 415: 517-20. “From 1986-2000 central Antarctic valleys cooled 7 degrees per decade.”

J.C. Comiso (2000). Journal of Climate 13: 1674-96. “Satellite data and ground stations show slight cooling over the last twenty years.”

D. Thompson and S. Solomon (2002). Science 296: 895-99 “Antarctic peninsular has warmed several degrees while interior has cooled somewhat. Ice shelves have retreated, but sea ice has increased.” 

In terms of glaciers, it has been indicated that these are melting and withdrawing. Is this data correct? In reality, there are around 160,000 glaciers in the world, yet only seventy-nine have been studied in depth over a reasonable period. (H. Kieffer 2000. American Geophysical Union 81: 265, 270-71). Thus, the truth is that no one knows for sure. One of the prime examples used in support of the glacier melting theory is Kilimanjaro. However, this glacier has been melting since the 1800’s. It is believed by experts that deforestation is the cause of this and that, if they are replanted, the glacier will increase in size. (Betsy Mason (2003). Nature 24, November 2003). 

3) Weather Worsening. 

It is claimed that the weather is worsening and, in support of that claim, phenomena such as El Nino’s and Hurricanes are used as examples. El Nino’s occur about every four years and last for roughly eighteen months. However, they have been occurring for centuries and therefore precede the global warming threat. (Biorn Lomberg (2002). The Sceptical Environmentalist, Cambridge University Press.) With regard to hurricanes, a graph from, entitled “US Hurricane strikes by decade 1900-2004,” shows that, apart from the 1940’s, which were particularly active, strikes have not increased in number.  

4) Is it global? 

One also has to question where it is right to use the term global in regards to warming. Charts available from the United States Historical Climatology Network casts doubt on this. For example when comparing New York and Albany, both in New York state, it shows that for the period 1820 to 2000, New York temperatures rose 5 degrees (F) and Albany reduced by half a degree. Other data shows that there are sharp differences when comparing temperature data from the US with data from Europe and the same is the position around the world. If this proves that warming is not a global phenomena, then is it right to attack the issue with a global plan? Should it not be addressed on a localised basis? 

There is two other interesting fact to come out of this chart data. One is how different reference points (span of years) can completely alter the picture. For example, if one looks at West Point for the years a) 1931-2000, b) 1900-2000 and c) 1826-2000, the temperature movement is a) a fall, b) a rise and c) no discernable difference. 

The second point addresses the issue of carbon dioxide being responsible for global warming. Albany and New York are only 130 miles apart and they both have the same carbon dioxide levels. If carbon dioxide is the cause, why is it that the temperature movement in these two areas are so diverse? 

5) Predictions.  

There have been a number of predictions in regards to when Global warming will become a problem, how much temperatures will rise by, sea level rises etc. How accurate are these? Not very is the answer. For example, in 1988 James E. Hansen predicted that the earth would warm by .35 degrees Celsius in the following decade. The reality was that it increased by .11. That is a margin of error of over 300 percent. Similar errors have been made in other predictive research. How can we accurately predict the effect of counter measures if we cannot accurately predict the original data that these are based upon? You cannot say that a turn of 90 degrees left from due north will take you west if you do not know whether north is in the first place. 


1) Alternative energy. 

Internationally, there have been calls for changing the energy sources, claiming that alternatives, such as solar, wave etc. can meet our needs. This is not proven and, in addition, reports suggest that energy use will triple by 2050. Martin Hoffert (2002), in science 298 (1 November 2002) stated, “energy sources that can produce 100 to 300% of present world power consumption without greenhouse emissions do not exist.”    

2) Natural environment management 

Whilst many attempts have been made at managing natural resources, it seems that man has not mastered this sufficiently to date. The Yellowstone Park in the US is a classic example. The intention was to create a natural environment that would last. However, what was not taken into account was the every-changing structure of nature and all that happened was that in this instance the natural environment was made worse. (See Playing God in Yellowstone Park: The destruction of America’s first National Park (1986), New York: Atlantic) 

What does not seem to be allowed for in such instances is the natural balance that nature maintains. If you disturb plant and tree growth or animal population, the is a resultant cost. For example change tree species and it can have an adverse effect on wildlife and the land around it. Similarly, artificially reduce predators and the resultant increase in their prey numbers may damage the plant structure. 

3) Kyoto Agreement 

Many have hailed the Kyoto agreement as the most effective answer to global warming. However, even if the US were to sign up to this agreement, the reduction it would have is to reduce global warming by the year 2100 by between .04 and .28 of a degree Celsius. (See IPCC publications and Bjorn Lomberg). If the predictions of the problem are to be relied on these levels, will not sufficient to address the issue effectively. 

The conclusion from this is that we simply do not know how bad global warming is. Neither can we be sure that the measures being taken to address it are effective. The problem is that if one says to a scientist “there is an issue here, can you look into it?” the natural human tendency is for research to concentrate on finding the issue, without addressing the possibility that it may not exist. Therefore, even if it is sub-conscious, the potential for data to be manipulated to prove the point exists. Similarly, if you do not accurately know the level of the problem, how can you be sure to take the correct measures to address it? 

There is no doubt that more research is required, but it is also important in my view, that the conflicting data is analysed, compared and evaluated in an effort to achieve a more definitive and accurate interpretation of all the facts. Only then can we consider the best and most effective measures, if needed, to address the issues.  

There is one final point I would like to make. If one accepts that there is global warming and the human race can do something about halting or reducing it, will we be able to stop the reversal at the right time? In other words, if we succeed in measures that achieve a year on year reduction of temperature, will we be in a position to stop the process at an optimum temperature level, or will the reducing measures continue, sending us into a period of global cooling that might have equally devastating effects on us and the planet?

the Brit