Archive for the ‘climate-scientists’ Category

Global Warming, global roundup.

February 23, 2007

Hi Brit,

Not surprisingly, Global Warming is rearing its ugly head in today’s news.

First, and also not surprisingly, we find that Al Gore lied in his alarmist “documentary” by indicating that hurricanes are wore lately because of, you guessed it, Global Warming.  However, in this article, Expert disputes storms’ link to global warming, we find just what the title says:

Chris Landsea, science and operations director of the National Hurricane Center in Miami, said the notion that global warming is causing an increase in hurricanes gained widespread attention after the stormy seasons of 2004 and 2005.

But that perception is wrong and the statistics don’t bear it out, Landsea told about 200 students and professors in the auditorium at USC’s geography building.

It seems that even the IPCC bought into the Gore propaganda, as on page 5 of the IPCC WGI Fourth Assessment Report, they also blame Global Warming for an increase in intensity of tropical cyclones. 

Moving on we have, State distances itself from climatologist.  Here we find an expert “climate scientist,” who is experiencing political pressure because he does not hold with the consensus opinion on Climate Change.  The article mentions that this has also happened in other States than Delaware.  So much for “science.”

Which leaves us with the Business of Global Warming, China, India Smile as West Overpays for Climate: Andy Mukherjee.  You really should read this one as it’s choked full of information.  However, this bit bares repeating:

Sydney-based Easy Being Green says it will mitigate your cat’s flatulent contribution to global warming for A$8 ($6). The same company could also make your granny “carbon-neutral” at A$10 a year, according to a report in the Australian newspaper last weekend.

Then there’s Carbon Planet Pty, another company cited in the article. If you are hopping on a short-haul flight between Sydney and Canberra, and feeling bad about the damage you are doing to the ecosystem, you can buy credits worth A$23, for which the Adelaide-based company will guarantee to keep 1 ton of carbon dioxide out of the air for 100 years.

Well, I must go now as I have some scheming, ah, thinking to do.

the Grit

Stop and smell the Global Warming

February 20, 2007

Hi Brit,

I believe I may have mentioned that the Global Warming Scare is about forcing social change and making money?  If not, consider it mentioned now.  Here’s another little bit of the life style make over the environmentalist wackos are planning for our future, Humans’ beef with livestock: a warmer planet.  The reason for this is that part, a large part, of their supporting mob are the lunatic “meat is murder” crowd.  This is just a bone to keep them in lock step.  Of course, they haven’t taken into consideration that the cause behind the massive flatulence capacity of cattle is their vegetarian diet.  Remember the old saying: “beans, beans, precious fruit.  The more you eat the more you…”  This, if they were rational, would leave them in paradox, keeping them paralyzed with circular thought, until their heads exploded.  I’m afraid our luck isn’t that good, since they show few signs of thought.  I would also point out, that this another example of why it is so important to liberals to disarm the general public. 

the Grit

Some sense from Down Under

February 19, 2007

Hi Brit,

It appears that the good folks in Australia haven’t fallen as hard for the Global Warming hoax as we have up here, Scaremongers.  While the whole article by Cardinal Pell is worth reading, and it’s not very long 😉 there are a couple of quotes that are really good.  He starts with, “Global warming doomsdayers.”  I like that turn of phrase.  Besides, who should know more about doomsdayers than the Catholic Church?  The ending is great, “The science is more complicated than the propaganda!”  Which hits right to the heart of the problem with understanding Global Warming, and why it’s such a good scheme.  One would think that a list of temperature readings would be simple to understand, and, if we could see the raw data, it probably would be.  That, however, is keep carefully hidden in a web of statistics, corrected data, computer models, ice core samples, and graphs that have been “smoothed.”  When one gets right down to it, the Global Warming Alarmists sound more like lawyers than scientists.

the Grit

Yet another poke in the eye of Global Warming!

February 17, 2007

Hi Brit,

Once again I have the pleasure of poking the myth of Global Warming in the eye with a literary pointy stick.  According to the “science” behind the theory, the more CO2 in the air, the higher the temperature should climb.  Fair enough.  However, according to this, 2006 was Earth’s 5th warmest year, it would appear that CO2 levels have dropped, else, 2006 would have been the warmest year.  Other than making the obvious case that Global Warming rests on shaky foundations, the story is short enough to include completely, and make detailed commentary on.  My comments will start with ***


Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2006 was the fifth warmest year in the past century.

Other groups that study climate change also rank these years as among the warmest, though the exact rankings vary depending upon details of the analyses. Results differ especially in regions of sparse measurements, where scientists use alternative methods of estimating temperature change.

*** What?  Temperature is temperature.  If you don’t have adequate measurements, concentrate on getting them, not “alternative methods!”  How many BILLIONS of dollars do you “scientists” need to scatter some thermometers around?  Of course, until you do, all the jabber about Global Warming has to be considered a total lie.

Goddard Institute researchers used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea surface temperature since 1982 and data from ships for earlier years.

*** Which is like mixing apples and oranges?  If the satellite measurements are reliable, why bother with other means?  Could it be that the satellites don’t confirm your predictions?

“2007 is likely to be warmer than 2006,” said James Hansen, director of NASA GISS, “and it may turn out to be the warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements. Increased warmth is likely this year because an El Nino is underway in the tropical Pacific Ocean and because of continuing increases in human-made greenhouse gases.”

 *** Which is like, hedging one’s bet?  If El Nino is responsible, why, if not for propaganda purposes, blame greenhouse gases?  Can you prove that guess?  Obviously not, else you would.  Does your research grant depend on connecting Global Warming to human activity, obviously it does.

Most places on the globe have warmed in recent decades, with the greatest warming at high latitudes in the Arctic Ocean, Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula. Most ocean areas have warmed. Climatologists say that warming is not due to local effects of heat pollution in urban areas, a point demonstrated by warming in remote areas far from major cities.

*** Except earlier in the article it was pointed out that adequate data is not available for remote regions.  So, this bit is obviously a lie.

In their analysis for the 2005 calendar year, GISS climatologists noted the highest global annual average surface temperature in more than a century.

*** Which leaves us with the obvious, and unanswered, question, why wasn’t 2006 even warmer?  I don’t recall seeing any reports that CO2 levels were declining, or levels for any other greenhouse gas going down for that matter.  This tends to indicate that the “climate scientists” may not know as much as they claim they do.


Heck people, if this doesn’t wake you up to the fact that you are being played, I don’t know what will.  Make sure you click over to the original article; they deserve the traffic.

Oh, it occurred to me that even if I quit driving a vehicle powered by internal combustion and went back to a horse and buggy, these same twits would be bitching that my equines were causing Global Warming because of their flatulence. 

the Grit

Well, well, more bad news for Al Gore.

February 16, 2007

Hi Brit,

Sorry to keep bringing this up, but news is news.  It would seem that there is another blow to the crotch of the Church of Global Warming riding the wires of the press services, not that it will make it to TV or anything higher than page 30 of a major paper, Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions.  Now, just the title should be enough to make us Deniers sing and dance, but, buried in the report, is this gem, “Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe.”  This brings us back to the methodology the “climate scientists” use to “average” temperature data in order to prove their pre-decided conclusion of Global Warming.  Using this method, each of these weather stations is given the same weight as hundreds of stations in other areas.  Obviously, this has the potential to propagate even tiny errors into serious ones, bringing the whole data set the theory is based on into question.  It’s also interesting to note that the number of weather stations in the Arctic, where the most Warming is said to be occurring, is never mentioned.  For that matter, I spent an hour or two not that long ago trying to find that information on the net, with no success.  Now, I may not be the best researcher, but I can find out what Britney Spears’ beaver looks like, the background of the head writer of the latest IPCC report, raw economic data on almost any country, that John Kerry had the worst attendance record in the Senate last year, and the lyrics to almost any song ever recorded.  That something as important as the number of weather stations in the Arctic doesn’t jump off the screen with a simple Google search, makes me very suspicious of the data.  I would say that I’d just look it up in the latest IPCC report, but only the summary of that has been written.  While we are on the subject of raw data to support Global Warming, just try to find the actual temperature data record.  If you can find it, kindly leave me a link.

the Grit

Global Warming, following the money trail

February 15, 2007

Hi Brit,

I’ve said before that the case for “Global Warming, end of the world so we must act NOW” is motived more by money and politics than science.  It seems that I am not alone in this belief, On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!  However, even though the lie of Global Warming is now so entrenched in the public mind that there is no stopping these fear mongers from winning, we can still learn some lessons from this gigantic and corrupt conspiracy.

1.  Always follow the money before trusting anyone’s motives.

2.  Never, under any circumstances, ever, trust anyone either employed by, or connected to, the United Nations.

3.  It’s past time to question why scientific research needs to be funded by the Government.

4.  It’s way past time to question our continued funding of the UN.

5.  Most politicians get their jobs by being good liars.  Why do we expect them to change their ways once they get in office?

6.  We, as a country, have few friends outside our boarders.  We should start acting like it.

7.  Almost all fanatics, be they religious, political, or environmentalists, are evil and should be dealt with accordingly.

the Grit

Al Gore, wrong again.

February 14, 2007

Hi Brit,

By now I’m sure you’ve seen the glacier melting scene from Al Gore’s propaganda film, “An Inconvenient Truth.”  Well, it turns out that the Global Warming alarmist wasn’t telling the whole truth:

Study: Glacier melting can be variable

Experts question theory on global warming

It appears that the Climate Change fanatics have been cherry picking the data they consider, and not bothering to mention that not all glaciers show signs of melting or behave in consistent ways.  Of course, that would make the theory easier to support and, as a minor benefit, keep billions of dollars in research funding poring into the coffers of an otherwise minor area of science. 

the Grit

Great, new evidence of Global Cooling!

February 13, 2007

Hi Brit,

Great news on the Global Warming front!  “Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2006 was the fifth warmest year in the past century. ”  Since we had the hottest year on record was 2005, then, logically, if last year wasn’t warmer, we are cooling.  What fantastic news!  This, of course, means that we can call off all the Climate Change taxes, cut the billions of dollars in research grants for “climate scientists”, and go back to spending that money on fighting disease, poverty, and starvation.  Oh, and we can officially tell AlGore to kiss the collective Global Ass.  Pucker up you evil tobacco farmer!

 The article also adds, “Most places on the globe have warmed in recent decades, with the greatest warming at high latitudes in the Arctic Ocean, Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Peninsula.”  Which, obviously, means it’s not a GLOBAL phenomena, but appears to be localized to the poles.  It would seem that the “climate scientists” need to come up with a better story to justify the massive investment in their theorizing.

the Grit

Global Warming and cosmic rays

February 12, 2007

Hi Grit

Yet again, hard on the heels of a report saying that humans are creating Global Warming and it is nearly too late to do anything about it, we find another contradictory report. This time it is in the Sunday Telegraph (11 Feb).  To be fair this report is not saying that man is not contributing to Global Warming, just that, because of the effects that cosmic rays are having, the extent of man’s effect, and its growth pattern may have been seriously miscalculated.

The theory behind this research is that the cosmic rays activity affect the cloud cover that the earth experiences. The higher the cosmic ray activity, the lower the cloud cover and the more warming occurs. At present we are in such a high cosmic ray activity period. If correct, this research means that the calculations used in the IPCC report need to be adjusted. Although there are some scientists who dismiss these claims, it is important enough for a group of at least 60 to conduct tests to check its validity. 

You will hardly be surprised to note that this report was relegated to page 16 of the newspaper in question, rather than the front page. However, this is not my main criticism. It is obvious from the comments of the scientists in question that they are not “denialists.” They accept that man does contribute to global warming, just that the rate is significantly different than has been reported. My problem is, as I have mentioned before, the lack of full research when addressing an issue such as climate change. Three points I would like to make, which I have probably covered before.

Firstly, if one is researching a subject, it is encumbent upon the researcher to fully address and study issues that contradict the findings. This does not appear to have been done in the case of cosmic activity, as the fact that only now 60 scientists are going to do research suggests.

Secondly, in environmental issues the accuracy of numerical findings is paramount. This is important so that one can accurately measure the impact and the level of remedy needed. In this case, if cosmic rays are proved have a significant effect it means that man’s response can be more controlled, accurate and less damaging both to the environment and the economic structure than has been suggested by the IPCC. As has been mentioned in other posts, overkill responses to these issues can be just as damaging to the environment as the global warming itself.

Thirdly, the habit of labelling people because they do not fully accept ones findings, in this case as denialists or sceptics, is becoming boring and counter-productive. There are no absolutes in science. The scientists who have come up with this current research cannot be labelled as sceptics or denialists, because they accept the concept of Global Warming and man’s contribution. All they are saying is get the facts straight. I wonder if those who support the IPCC report will respond positively to this challenge?

It is time to stop the media dramatics and hype and approach this subject on a sensible, factual discussion basis.

the Brit

This is most UNusual.

February 11, 2007

Hi Brit,

I did not know that this was possible, but the UN just fired a staff member for being UNqualified, U.N. Fired Staff Members With Academic Degrees From Diploma Mill.  This is disturbing on several levels. 

First, how can such a massive bureaucracy not have several people who have nothing else to do but check the backgrounds of job applicants?  What have they instituted the Old World tradition of buying one’s job?

Second, since the position filled by the UNcredentialed individual is chief of the Human Resources Information Technology Section, how could someone without the proper education do the job to begin with?  Perhaps, besides improving their applicant screening process, the UN needs to prune some of the deadwood from their organizational charts.

Third, this does cast some light on the lack of educational credential listings for the “scientists” working for the IPCC.  Could this be the reason for keeping that information secret?

On the bright side, one down, tens of thousands to go.

the Grit

Disorder in the ranks of Global Warming fanatics?

February 10, 2007

Hi Brit,

It seems that the Church of Global Warming should pick a High Priest to coordinate things.

On one hand we have, Congress eyes legislation to fight climate change (which I mentioned previously,) many countries are trying to implement the Kyoto Treats, and the EU is in the process of adding all sorts of new environmental laws.

On the other hand, we have, Climate Change Verdict: Science Debate Ends, Solution Debate Begins.  While I contest the “Science debate ends” part, having posted about this several times in the recent past, I point out the “Solution debate begins” part, as it relates to what I just mentioned above.  If there is still debate, even among the ranks of the faithful, as to what to do about Global Warming, then a rational person would have to question how our politicians can know what laws to pass to fix it?  If they understand things better than the Climate Scientists on who’s’ knowledge rests the concept and proof of Global Warming, perhaps they should write the IPCC reports on the subject.  Wait, sorry, I forgot, they did.  Still, one would think that some scientific basis would be needed to formulate solutions to a real problem.

On the gripping hand, I found this, UTSA researchers examine effects of global warming on Antarctic.  Now, call me crazy, but I thought this was “settled science,” and we know that the Antarctic ice is melting.  So, a rational person must ask, why are we waisting money examining things we already know all about?  Shouldn’t those funds be going to find a solution to Global Warming, or at least to implementing the solutions the politicians already seem to know about?

I have to say, Global Warming fanatics, y’all really should anoint a High Priest in an effort to get your act together.  How about AlGore?

the Grit

How long can you hold your breath?

February 9, 2007

Hi Brit,

I just read this, Congress eyes legislation to fight climate change, and immediately asked myself “how long can I hold my breath?”  After all, each of us expel the Evil Greenhouse Gas CO2 with each breath, and, now that Nanny Pelosi has the issue firmly clinched in her dentures, I expect that soon we will be faced with a Breath Tax, to encourage us to slow down our individual contributions to Global Warming.  By my quick, and not necessarily totally accurate, calculations, we in the US can offset her jet set life style if we each take 30 fewer breaths per day.  Of course, this increased interest in decreasing our breath rates will have at least one benefit, that being, getting some of the joggers off the road.

Although, considering that:

The White House said Snow was referring to figures from the International Energy Agency that from 2000 to 2004, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion grew by 1.7 percent, while in the European Union such emissions grew by 5 percent.  From: U.S. cuts emissions better than Europe: White House.

It would seem obvious to any rational person, thus excluding most Democrats I admit, that we are on the correct path to achieve the liberal agenda of reducing CO2 emissions without further Government meddling.  With liberals in control, of course, they will ignore the facts, raise taxes and piddle around in our lives until they manage to, not only, increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions, but, also, screw up our economy.  Typical.

the Grit

Global Warming – Branson to the rescue

February 9, 2007

We can rest easy in our beds tonight, knowing that the solution to global warming is in safe hands. One of our most popular entrepreneurs, Richard Branson, has come up the solution. His idea is to offer a $25 million dollar prize to the first scientist to come up with a solution to extract CO2 from the atmosphere.

There are of course three problems here. One is that, if the past is anything to go by, it will be difficult to get scientific agreement. Two, by the time such a project is completed it will be too late and three, how will the machine or whatever be able to distinguish between so-called man-made emissions and natural emissions?

However, not to miss the opportunity to accumulate some wealth, I have come up with a couple of ideas you might want to help me with Grit.


STEP ONE – Build one chimney in the middle of the Atlantic.  It needs to be 15 miles high and 100 feet in diameter and stand on pylons sunk into the earth.

STEP TWO – Build a second chimney at a spot 180 degrees around the earth from the first chimney with the same dimensions.

STEP THREE – two miles above the earth’s surface around each chimney attach a network of horizontal pipes, one for each country within that chimneys hemisphere. The lengths of these pipes will be to be custom made so that they extend to reach each individual country.

STEP FOUR – At the end of each pipe attach a multi head large extractor fan, rather like a shower head. These will be directed to all points of the compass so that there is even coverage.

JOB DONE. Caution. All of the extractor fans will need to be turned on simultaneously to avoid unbalancing the earth.


Possibly a more simple solution. I am given to understand that man-made emissions can be collected in containers of some nature. Therefore why don’t we constuct a fleet of CO2 garbage shuttles capable of holding these containers and run a weekly CO2 disposal service. By this route we can dump the emissions somewhere in outer space and give the problem to another galaxy.

the Brit

PS: Where do we find the application forms for the $25 million? 

Global Warming, the political battle.

February 7, 2007

Hi Brit,

As we’ve discussed before, Global Warming has gone beyond science and is now a political issue.  For instance, in today’s news I’ve found two instances of Climate Scientists being attacked by the news media and/or politicians just for expressing their professional opinion that Global Warming facts don’t fit the politically correct version of the United Nations’ lap dog group, the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change.)

Global warming debate spurs Ore. title tiff

Del. scientist’s view on climate change criticized

If you need more proof that this issue is now all about politics, check out this poll of politicians.  Not only does it show that Global Warming has moved into the realm of politics, it makes it clear that our two parties have chosen sides. 

the Grit

I found another Global Warming Denier!

February 5, 2007

Hi Brit,

It would seem that we are not alone in questioning the whole Global Warming/Climate Change issue, and this guy has some high powered credentials, Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?  Just as a general question, how many Climate Scientists have to tell you that the UN, through their puppet group the IPCC, is not being honest, no doubt for financial and political reasons, about Global Warming before you get the message?  Keep in mind, that the price for this scam is going to come out of your pocket.

the Grit

Global Warming, the real story

February 4, 2007

Hi Brit,

I’ve found a few bits and pieces of evidence that the Church of Climate Science rests on a hoax, but it’s difficult to tie them all together.  Fortunately, I found where someone else has had a go at that task, Statistics needed.  This is the first in a series of articles about Deniers of Global Warming, why the science put forth by the IPCC is wrong, what tactics are used within the scientific community to stifle any hint that the science of Climate Change is not settled, and points out some of the lies the UN has placed in the reports on the subject.  Links to the other 9 articles are included on that page.  Considering that this series contains enough evidence to seriously damage the Myth of Man-Made Global Warming, and we all know how angry people get when their religion is questioned, it would be best to read it soon, as I suspect the host will be brought under great pressure to remove it.

Oh, and I just found this, Researchers build lasers for NASA climate studies, which points out even more of the inadequacies in the current state of Climate Science.

 Oh, oh, and in case there is some question as to what other motives may be at work behind the scenes, 45 Countries Push for New Worldwide Environmental Body.

the Grit

Global Warming 2007

February 4, 2007

Hi Grit

I believe our first post on the issue of Global Warming was getting on for three months ago. Since then I have participated a few times and read with interest all of the comments from both sides of the divide, along with studying all of the literature that people who have commented have posted have directed us towards. I hasten to add here that I am not a scientist, so there are aspects that I would not understand. However, I consider myself an intelligent person capable of assimilating sufficient data and making a reasoned judgement. Therefore, I feel that I have a reasonable understanding of the issues so far made available. A rider to this of course is that, in view of the enormous amount of data on the subject, both for and against, it is impossible for any one individual, scientists included, to be able to assimilate it all and I would be no exception to that rule.

I do not intend this post to become embroiled in detailed scientific argument, as that will produce just a series of scientific counter arguments from both sides. It is my intention to comment on the structure and management of the analysis and the way the global warming issue is being handled.

With the IPCC report being published this month (February 2007) and it being one of a series being produced this year, many are claiming that this puts beyond doubt all of the global warming issues, particularly with regard to this being a “man-made” phenomena. However, whilst I accept that global warming exists, there are several factors that I would take issue with, both in terms of the report itself and the general reaction.

My first point of concern here is the secret nature of parts of the process building up to the report issue. In letters to Governments and Organisations in December and October 2006, although having made these letters public, they have deleted text within them, which appears to be access to the draft report. This raises two issues. Firstly, as the report is intended to benefit all of mankind, why is there a need for withholding any information? Secondly, does one presuppose that, by virtue of some deletions there could be changes of significance that the IPCC would rather the public did not see? In my view, transparency in this above all issues facing mankind is of paramount importance. Anything less is unacceptable.

(Un)Certainty – In a document issued in July 2005, the IPCC issued guidance notes regarding the ways the lead authors should address uncertainty. It could be construed that some of these guidance are of a leading nature as it is asking that all issues to be consistent with the approach determined in the document. Another issue related to this document, which I will come to later is Table 4 – Likelihood Scale (on page 4.)

Consensus – My understanding of the term consensus is that it is the agreement of the majority, after having mitigated the objections of the opposing views. I read somewhere that, in this report it was to be a consensus of 300. I believe this needs more clarification. Bearing in mind that the report was produced by over 2,500 scientists, plus 800 contributing authors, plus 450 lead authors, I have difficulty in equating the consensus of 300 with these figures and feel they need further explanation.

Confidence – The levels of confidence are divided into five sectors, as can be seen on page 3 (table 3) of the summary report. On the other hand, the likelihood scale is divided by seven. In my view, this inequality between the two scales is confusing. Surely, it would have been more rational to have equal divisions on the two scales.

2.) The Response
In a number of areas, the immediate response to the report has not been rational. The hype concentrated on the term moved from “likely” to “very likely.” As you say Grit, the latter term relates to 90% probability. However, this also does not accurately reflect the findings of the report.

On the summary for policymakers, page 3, there is a chart of human influence on trends. The chart lists seven areas of influence under three references. The term “very likely” only appears in two instances. In media and other responses, there is no reference to other aspects of this table. Whilst I do not blame the scientists for this, it does appear that the “powers that be” are guilty of misrepresentation in this instance. Again, this raises suspicions in the minds of the public and questions as to the agenda for the report.

Is it thought that the public is not intelligent enough to understand the full information or was the hype deliberately directed by politicians?

3.) Remedies
It is disappointing to learn that a detailed study on remedies will not be available from the IPCC until later in the year. If, as has been reported, we only have ten years to address this problem, I fail to see any conceivable reason why the research on remedies was not designed to produce results in the same timescale as this current report. Six months or more has been lost. The argument that the scale of the problem has only just been defined does not wash as this report follows on from one that was issued six years ago.

Of the remedies that are being put into action, there are some issues as well. Firstly, there is serious concern regarding the consequences on remedies and cooperation between agencies. The case of Basel in Switzerland as I reported earlier is a classic example. Looking to achieve global warming saving measures, people began drilling into the earth’s surface starting a chain tremor reaction that they cannot possibly control, potentially unleashing more harm than good. How many more projects are being mishandled in this way?

In addition, there is the problem that has been raised regarding the potential danger from energy saving light. Has anyone evaluated the potential future harm of following this route, if not, why not?

Only a few weeks I posed the question how do we know that remedies can be controlled. The above are two obvious examples of that not being the case.

Another contentious issue is nuclear energy. Scientists say that this will go a long way to addressing the global warming issue, and I agree that this is one of the most efficient ways of producing energy. However, it is almost impossible to use this option within a volatile world, where there are countries such as Iran and North Korea who could not be guaranteed to utilise this method for peaceful purposes. Similarly, accidents happen as we saw in Russia, and that can be equally damaging.

In the UK, the go ahead has been given to build two huge wind farms off the coast. All of the reporting on this has concentrated on the benefits, which is admirable. Nevertheless, little has been written about the downside of such action. The effect on the bird life needs to be identified, an area where naturalists have raised concerns. But what about the effect on tides and wave patterns?

Finally, in this section, I would like to ask why existing remedies, which require little cost, are not being used. For example, with the airline issue there is a “greener” fuel available, but is currently only being used in military aircraft. The emission levels are significantly lower than normal aircraft fuel and there is, as I understand it, no cost differential. I have heard that the argument against it is safety, which I find incredible. Are we saying that the lives of the military are of less value than other citizens? If not, take the step and change the fuel.

4.) The Carbon Footprint
Much is being made of the need to reduce the global footprint. However, there seems to be a great deal of double standards in this area. The media, the UK BBC organisation being a case in point, are saying that their contribution is by publishing the issues and that, in some way, this seems to exempt them from responding to the carbon footprint limitations. At the same time, the IPCC, governments and other NGO’s are spending millions of dollars transporting thousands of people to conferences and meetings all over the globe. Yet, these organisations are asking us, airlines, and other sectors to reduce our carbon footprint. Surely, one should lead by example. Whatever happened to the ability to achieve video and Internet conferencing?

There is a lot of pressure being placed upon airlines to cut their carbon footprint, yet unless I have missed it, no one has answered the question of why, in the 24 hours post 9/11 when most air travel was grounded, there was an increase in earth warming for that day. Has anyone analysed what effect reducing the carbon footprint, particularly in air travel, will have in this respect? In other words, has the downside of the equation been quantified?

In my view, one of the largest and most expensive carbon footprints is laid by governments nationally and globally. Yet, we see no clear picture of measures that these people are taking steps to address this. In the UK, politicians are asking us to reduce our carbon footprint, and even putting pressure on the Royal family to do so. All well and good, but what do we see the politicians doing? The answer is very little. Do not ask me to do something unless you are prepared to match it and lead by example Mr Government.

5.) Political
I have to admit that I was amazed at the token gestures made by some governments by calling for an hour without lights. This seems to me to have been counter-productive. Did anyone monitor the results of these actions? As I have said, I am no scientist, but from what little I know the resultant surge from it, with all electrical compliances being switched on again more than counteracts the benefits of the gesture in the first place. Has there been a study made of this and is it a responsible response? Surely, such theatricals should have been left until the position was well known by the public and they could have been advised about the cost.

In respect of the above, the political response is similar in many ways to the media reaction. It is uncontrolled, irrational and without serious thought as to how to present the issue in a way that will generate the right response. The political response between nations is also not harmonious, which does little to engender confidence.

6.) The media Circus
Unfortunately, the media circus has continued, even on the latest event. I watched a news programme in the UK, which was designed purely to entertain the public, rather than get the message across. In this programme, they spend the time passing a copy of the report through screens to reporters in different countries, such as Europe, Australia, India and the US. No attempt is made to explain the message properly.

In addition to the previously mentioned carbon footprint of this situation, I noticed also another problem. The report they were passing was a fake. They were wads of blank paper with just the title cover printed. It was obvious from the reporter’s comments that none of them had read any of the documents and it was just a publicity stunt to show how clever the network was.

Can this be the right approach to what is meant to be a serious matter? I seriously doubt it.

7.) The Cost
Another issue that really annoys me is cost, and here I am talking about the financial side. Every aspect of the global warming issue in terms of conservation and remedies always seems to be followed by additional cost to the individual. What happens to the resultant savings from change? Who gets those?

Leaving aside the dangers of energy efficient light bulbs discussed earlier, one of the main reasons their use is limited is the cost. In the UK, they are over 6 times the price of current bulbs. If politicians and scientists are serious about this issue, then use some of the billions of waste to reduce the cost of remedies to a competitive level. It is a short-term commitment. Then demand will grow and the effective change desired will be achieved with far more speed and fluency. Another example is public transport service. Raising prices and cutting services on what is considered a “greener” method of transport does not seem to me to be an approach that will increase its usage.

Every time someone mentions global warming, it seems to result in the public having to put their hands in their pockets. Is it any wonder that this meets with resistance?

8.) Kyoto Agreement
There have been arguments about the effectiveness of the Kyoto agreement, mainly centring on those countries that have not signed up to it. However, there are countries within the agreement that have not met their targets, such as Canada. Before the world goes off trying to find another agreement, we need to know how effective this one has been, and that information has not been publicly forthcoming.

How many countries met the targets set? What effect has it had on carbon emissions? How much worse would it have been were the agreement not in place? Surely, we are entitled to this information in the public arena. If it has not been effective, even with those countries that signed up, then it is the wrong answer or structure and we need to look for another resolution.

The other matter here is the developing countries, which has still not been properly addressed in my view. All this documentation seems to be indicating that the only way they can help is to deprive themselves of the advances in technology that the developed world has. Is this going to be acceptable to them? I cannot see this being the case. Therefore any agreement needs to take their situation into account, without placing an untenable burden on the developed world. 

9.) Nation, NGO Bashing and fairness
Why is it that every time there is an issue of global importance there is an automatic nation, NGO or business witch-hunt? This posturing does nothing to confirm the validity of the situation, in fact the opposite. The French attack on the US is a prime example. It is almost as if it is just a fight amongst politicians to see who can be top dog, rather than a serious issues that requires global accord. Besides, there are other countries that have taken the same stance as the US, so singling out the big boy on the block is not only unfair, it smacks of this will get me the biggest headline. Countries antagonising each other will lead only to one conclusion, namely that nothing constructive will be done.

Other sectors are also being bashed, in my view sometimes unfairly. Business is always a favourite. Whilst I accept that, in some cases their response is not good on some issues, they are generally responsive to consumer demands. In the case of global warming, it is fair to say that in many cases business is being far more positive in their actions than politicians are. For example, the supermarket industry in the UK is taking active reduction measures, whereas politicians are looking at costly offset programmes, which in the end are second best options.

Similarly, I object to some of the rhetoric and language that is used by the various lobbies on global warming, from both sides of the divide. To call someone a denialist or sceptics because they do not accept ones argument is as bad as calling someone an “eco-nut” for proposing the argument in the first place. Serious issues demand serious discussion and conversation and this requires patience. At present, the stance taken by some scientists and many politicians on the issue of global warming is too dictatorial, dismissive and impatient. All it does is make both sides more entrenched in their views, which is counter-productive.

The problem with a divide of this nature is that both sides lose. Both sides spend so much time attacking the other that they do not a) fully understand the argument of the other and b) do not gain from the potential valid points within the others cases, validity that could be of significance to their own studies.

I do not consider myself a denialist or a sceptic on this issue. However, I am also not going to be sat down and told this is the problem and anyone who disagrees is wrong. I need to understand the full facts supporting the issue, including analysis of assumptions; explanations of provable facts and honest acceptance and discussion on those that cannot be proven. I want risk assessment on all aspects of the issue, including remedies and I want acknowledgement of and discussion regarding opposing views.

As I said previously, one of the things that infuriate me about the current IPCC/Political situation is the piecemeal approach. In my years as a business consultant any report that I produced did not only identify and make conclusions about the problem, it was also required to provide recommendations that had been expertly evaluated. If it did not I was failing in my task. Governments and the scientific world have taken six years to prepare this report. I fail to see why, at the same time, and for publication at the same date, the remedial data could not have been produced.

the Brit

Thank you Scientific American!

February 3, 2007

Hi Brit,

Well, the buy in to the Global Warming hoax is complete with this bit from Scientific American, Final Report: Humans Caused Global Warming.  The once independent and respected science magazine has, obviously, been either bought or pressured by Higher Powers into this trite piece of crap journalism.  What a sad day.

For instance, they say “a panel of climate experts has confirmed,” when they know, or should know, that the “climate experts” have backgrounds in a wide range of disciplines having nothing to do with climate studies.

Then they continue with, “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a working group of some 3,000 delegates from 113 countries, today issued its final report here on the state of climate change”  Which is another bit of reportage dung, since this isn’t the final report but, rather, the premature release of the summary of a report that will be issued later, but which will be edited to conform to the political statement represented by this summary.  Shame on you once great science journal.

Then they go on to include this bit of drek, “Some of the models show an ice-free Arctic. We see more severe extremes, heat waves. We see a lot of heavier precipitation, drought increases in a lot of regions. Tropical cyclones are projected to become more intense in a lot of areas with ongoing increases in sea surface temperatures,” says Gerald Meehl, an atmospheric scientist at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and a contributing author. “We see what we’ve already seen but everything becoming a lot more extreme.”  Knowing full well that computer models of climate change are not intended to be predictive, but, rather, are merely a means of testing scientists’ understanding of what has happened to date.  I would ask, “who is paying you off SA, and what is the dollar amount necessary to buy your integrity?”

 Then they slip this in, “This warming would vary from place to place, with some regions experiencing far more,” begging the question of what is actually meant by “global warming?”

Back to computer models we have this pearl of wisdom: For instance, thanks to a diversity of computer models—as well as several runs of each—the scientists can now provide a best estimate for the temperature change based on a doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere: three degrees Celsius.  To which I must ask, if the models are worth the cost of the electricity it takes to run them, then why are several runs of each necessary?  The answer, of course, is that the models are tossing dice (random numbers) somewhere in their bowels so each run comes out different.  Keep this in mind when your taxes go up based on these “facts.”

Finally, we come to the real problem with this article, and the IPCC report.  Instead of being based on science, it’s based on politics and committee meetings as is shown by, “The process of drafting this summary report proved contentious at times. For example, a sentence was ultimately removed that said man-made greenhouse gases outweigh the contribution of the sun by a factor of five.”  Sorry to bother you “climate scientists” with this, but “facts” are either true, or they are not true.  Anytime data has to be followed with a plus/minus degree of accuracy, it’s a guess just like an opinion poll.  Scientific American should know better than to fall for this crap.  You disappoint me greatly.

the Grit

Congress calls on Climate Change expert!

February 3, 2007

Hi Brit,

If there was any doubt in your mind about Global Warming being nothing but a political ploy, this should remove it: Gore to Testify on Climate Change.  One other thing that is brought up in the article is that Al Gore may make a late entrance into the 2008 Presidential race.  Oh what fun that would be!  Who wouldn’t want to see a knock down drag out fight between Hillary and Al?  Of course, considering that Hillary has bigger stones than Al, my money would be on Clinton.  Go Colts!

the Grit

It looks like it’ll be our turn next.

February 2, 2007

Hi Brit,

As you probably know, just about every country in the world has, at one time or another, invaded and conquered France.  I’ve always felt cheated that the US has not had a turn.  Now it looks like my dream may come true, France Tells U.S. to Sign Climate Pacts or Face Tax.  I say that, coming as the remarks in the article did from President Jacques Chirac, this is tantamount to a declaration of war, and we should start gathering an invasion force at once.  That shouldn’t take long, since the French would probably surrender in short order to a well armed troop of Boy Scouts.  I would tell France and Jacques to kiss my ass, but I fear they might enjoy the experience.

the Grit