Why Morning Will Come

By J. Robert -- Bio and Archives 
 March 20, 2015  

Recognition of the inevitability of comprehensive bureaucratization does not solve the problems that arise out of it.—Joseph Schumpter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy

Many of us—including me—worry about the downward arc of liberty, ethics and economic freedom. If you are taking the time to read this short article, in all likelihood, I needn’t detail the myriad challenges we face, even at a high level.  Rather, the question is: is there any hope? Or are we fated to descend into a new Dark Age, aided and abetted, in the famous words of Winston Churchill regarding National Socialism, by “perverted science?”

Notwithstanding those who look forward to the return of Jesus Christ—of which I count myself one—or a spiritual revival, are there any other reasons to hold out hope in the interim? I think there is reason for optimism. It is not a certain hope, but is a hope that—accompanied by courage, elbow grease, intelligence and audacity—should give conservatives, libertarians, Constitutionalists and other allies a reason for positivity. And please note by “audacity,” I do not allude to the book by Barack Obama, who is one of the leading unlights pushing us towards a new Dark Age; rather, I make reference to the words of a true American hero, George Patton, whose motto was “Audacity, audacity, always audacity.”  Patton, of course, led the charge in destroying a similar national socialism we see here today.

What is this hope for a better morning based on? Simply this: the leftist experiment has always and everywhere—by virtue of its complete misapprehension of human nature - eventually reverted to its natural ouroborotic state. It is, as Jacques Mallet du Pan (1749—10 May 1800), wrote about the first leftist reign of terror, in his 1793 essay
that ”...the Revolution always eats its own children” (“A l’exemple de Saturne, la révolution dévore ses enfants”)

Examples of du Pan’s thesis? The prototypical example is Robespierre falling to his own guillotine, of course. But let’s look at more history. Do you recall the Red Chinese attack on fellow communist Vietnam immediately on the heels of the US withdrawal and collapse of South Vietnam? If not, perhaps you recall the Sino-Soviet war on the Ussuri River border area in 1969, amid reports Soviet leadership had inquired of US leadership if there would be any problems if the Russians nuked Mao’s China. Or you may recall Leon Trotsky, one of those who brought into being the Soviet nightmare along with Lenin, becoming persona non grata in the Soviet People’s Workers Paradise, being forced to flee to Mexico and finally being murdered there with an ice pick. The story of former NKVD (predecessor to the KGB) head and Stalin buddy Lavrentiy Beria falling out of favour, is particularly chilling. He was dragged before a special session (“Spetsialnoye Sudebnoye Prisutstvie”) the a day before Christmas 1953 with no defense counsel and no right of appeal, then summarily dragged off to be shot—after they stuffed a rag in his mouth to shut up his whining before they pulled the trigger.  A little more recently, perhaps you recall Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo in the old Rhodesia? Of course. Operation Barbarossa, where the National Socialists of Germany invaded the socialists of the Soviet Union is a classic example. (Please… if you do not understand that the war between Hitler and Stalin was an internecine one, one version of socialism vs. another, simply go read the planks adopted at the very first Nazi convention, Munich, Feb. 1920, and tell me how they differ in any substantive way. Or consider Hitler’s own words, “There is more that binds us to Boshevism than separates us from it… I have always made allowances for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once,” or again, “I am not merely the vanquisher of Marxism, I am its implementer… The whole of National Socialism is contained in Marxism… the industrial cells, the mass demonstrations, the propaganda material.”) Most recently, we see similar dynamics where “Obama’s brain” Valerie Jarrett has made vigorous attempts to derail the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign by purportedly being the agent behind Hillary’s State Department email imbroglio.

But of course, the Fabian socialists in power today deign to use a velvet glove rather than the hammer and sickle to crush the skulls of their opposition—at least much of the time. That is, the new socialists desire to not smash your skull, but rather to get in and reside within it (another mindless “Yes we can!” chanting session, anyone?).  The goal today is generally not the guillotine (though all those banker “suicides,” or the abnormal deaths of Andrew Brietbart, Tom Clancy or Michael Hasting do not leave one with warm and fuzzies), but rather, as Charleton Heston wrote, the usurpation of culture:  “Modern media fills the cultural airwaves with a mist of anesthesia, so that principles and values are slowly desensitized to the coming onslaught. The new culture arrives on the heels of this propaganda. It simply moves in and takes over, like slipping a fine new glove over a numbed hand. The outcome of the war is just as devastating, but without bombs bursting, twisted bodies to bury, or rubble to rebuild. A new class, a different culture, simply takes over.” Andrew Brietbart, before his peculiar death, put it more succinctly: “Politics is downstream from culture.” In fact, the quotes from Heston and Brietbart are merely a shortened version of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

Where the velvet hammer fails, there is cultural marginalization, or failing at that, always the hammer of punitive legal measures, such as fining an Oregon baker a quarter million dollars for exercising her freedom of conscience re. homosexual marriages; sending another baker in Colorado to a re-education camp for the same “sin,” or Elaine Huegenin-  the photographer who graciously refused to photograph a gay “wedding” - who was informed by the New Mexico Supreme Court that her very right of citizenship was predicated on her submitting to the radical Brownshirt homosexual agenda.

Homosexuality uber alles… including the 1^st Amendment—is just part of the game.  Al Gore and his merry band of anti-science global warmers also illustrate the naked leftist hammer, where Gore recently stated that those who question global warming should “be punished.” And of course, there are always the ubiquitous campus speech and thought police, who are no more than Red Guards without the Mao suits . For them, it is as famed leftist Herbert Marcuse—who popularized the “repressive tolerance” theory of modern progressives ‚Äìsaid:“Liberating tolerance would mean intolerance against movements from the right and toleration of movements from the left. Certain things cannot be said, certain ideas cannot be expressed, certain policies cannot be proposed.”

Famed leftist Mario Savio and his free speech crusade on the steps of the student union at UC Berkeley in the 1960s is now proven to be just part of the “realpolitik” in taking over the levers of control. Free speech be damned when there is control to be had!

But here is the optimistic twist about the leftists/fascists: As there is no God, power is the highest value in their universe. Indeed, it is ultimately all that exists for them. You know this from watching Hillary and Obama.  And from this assumption flows their whole hellish world, where it is as Dostoyevski wrote,“if there is no God… everything is permitted.”  (Без бога всё позволено, всё дозволено (the second clause is a variant of the phrase “everything is permitted.”).  And because power is their “god”—as opposed to the God the Founding Fathers invoke —the left is open to all kinds of distortions, corruptions and self-destructiveness. These self-proclaimed leftist savants have rejected the wisdom of those informed by absolutes (again… think here of America’s Founding Fathers, who were generally informed by Judeo-Christian presuppositions, which - critically - led to the division of powers) and instead have left themselves open to raw, fallen human nature… without having the intellectual grid to even be aware of the full ramifications of this.  Or as one two thousand year old book—not much read today—once stated, “Proclaiming themselves wise, they became fools.”  Or as another writer from that era, Roman satirist Juvenal, asked, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  (Who will guard the guards?) There is no answer to this, because none is possible in the amoral world of the left.

And herein lies the hope: Simply, that the left will, as it always has, destroy itself. The only question is, of course, how many must suffer or die before that implosion? Will it be the 100 million that the Black Book of Communism (Oxford Univ. Press) says were murdered last century by the left? Or will people rise before that to derail the train to darkness?

It has often been observed that the Soviet leftist beast died of its own internal contradictions and misapprehension of human nature (that is the reason why Ludwig von Mises’ best known book was called “Human Action”—downloadable here.) The point is, the leftist gyroscope is, by definition, not “in spec,” and thus can never lead anywhere that is recognizably human.  And of course a million human decisions made locally every second will always and everywhere trump the decisions by some self-appointed “best and brightest (the same “best and brightest” that gave us Vietnam) constructing today’s version of a Soviet 5 year plan while isolated in Moscow or Washington DC.

There is hope in that the left is utterly intellectually dishonest. Think the global warming scam. Science is decided by “consensus” rather than experimentation and hypothesis testing?

Notwithstanding the fact that there has been ZERO global warming since 1998, has anyone told Galileo, Copernicus about this? Has anyone told Ignaz Semmelweis—who insisted his doctors wash their hands between operation and was drummed out of the medical business in the mid-1800s because germs were not in the consensus—about this? Perhaps Mr. Gore could ask Albert Einstein - about whom Hitler had published a book entitled “100 Scientists Against Einstein” (to which Einstein replied “Why one hundred? If their facts are right, only one would be needed)—about that “consensus” scam.

The left thinks it can create a new man, a new reality based on their utterly flawed premises about human nature. But they are wrong—and permanently and forever wrong. No matter how much propaganda the left musters, it is as Horace (65—8 BC) said, “You can drive nature out with a pitchfork, but she will nevertheless come back.” Similarly, Solzhenitsyn predicted the downfall of the Soviet Union many decades ago, by noting simply that Communism could not, by their central presuppositions, see man as he was, and was thus inexorably doomed to fail.

There is more. Once the inevitable economic and ethical implosions occur, exactly how long will they be able to find the foot soldiers required to do leftist bidding? Not only will there be little money with which to hire mercenaries, the intellectual bankruptcy of the matter will be visible to all. In short, the Wicked Witch of the West will have no more flying monkeys at her command. People will not sacrifice their lives for something they know is bankrupt. And once this state is arrived at, the end is only a matter of time.

How do I know? I have lived in the capital of socialist Canada for many, many years, and worked with thousands of government employees. Exactly how many do you think really gave a flying rat’s derriere about anything other than their pensions and getting out the door precisely at 4 PM? Need I go through the litany of stories the US side of the border (my favourite being that distasteful issue where the EPA was having problems with employees defecating in the hallways).  Let me ask you this: this article is being written for free—my only interest is truth and justice. How many on the Big Government side would take even five minutes of their time to do the same? The truth is, that as the leftist Orwellian dystopia continues its descent, more and more will see the intellectual bankruptcy of the naked emperor, or—more narrowly—at least become disenchanted as they see a chronically unemployed brother, an elderly parent living in poverty, or their children with no future. Slowly but surely, with no bell rung at the bottom, people will one by one check out of Hotel Kalifornia.

It is true that there will always be the committed Bolsheviks; and it is true, as Margaret Mead said, that change generally comes through small committed groups (think the vile Saul Alinsky here). But recall, too, that there is no honour among thieves—let along ethics—and the world of the left will—long or short - devolve into a Lord of the Flies scenario. Worse, as the left knows it is creating an ever shrinking pie, there will be mad scrambles for the diminishing number of crumbs. There can only so many Michelle Obama-style vacations available, and that number will become smaller each year.  In fact, the old apocryphal story of Leonid Brezhnev is a perfect example:  In the 1970s, Leonid Brezhnev’s elderly grandmother, who had lived in pre-communist Russia, came to visit him at his communist headquarters. Leonid is beaming with pride as he introduces her to all his aides and servants, shows her his gold plated desk, his 15 Zil limousines waiting, all with engines running, pictures of all his well-appointed dachas in exclusive, VIP areas across the USSR, etc. Finally, at the end of the day, all the assistants, aides and servants leave. The old granny very nervously and very carefully looks around to make sure absolutely no one is anywhere near, then leans over and very, VERY quietly whispers in Leonid’s ear:
 
“This is all very well, Leonid…. BUT WHAT IF THE COMMUNISTS COME!?!?”

The truth is, formerly an army travelled on its stomach. However, today, with MREs, McDonalds and GMOs, food is not as great of an issue. There will be food (as non-nutritious as it may be!). Rather, today’s army travels on its worldview—but just like every other socialist experiment, ranging from Zimbabwe to the USSR, this worldview is neither intellectually tenable, economically sustainable nor morally bearable. Therein lies our hope.

Finally, for the left, their very fallen, imperfect human nature—which is addressed through the division of powers in traditional America, but dominated by czars, elites and autocrats in the totalitarian leftist world (remember: power is the only “god” they worship, and people become increasingly like that which they worship)—will be the final cause of their downfall.

In sum, there is hope. It is, as Dale Dauten wrote in his Greatest Quotations of All-Time “Willpower subverts passion. Bureaucracy subverts willpower. Idiocy subverts bureaucracy. If you need an example of this, just look at Obama’s cabinet.

Canada Free Press

Top scientist resigns from post – admits Global Warming is a scam

October 9, 2014

Hal Lewis, Professor Emeritus UCSB

As reported by the Gateway Pundit:  Top US scientist Hal Lewis resigned this week from his post at the University of California at Santa Barbara.  He admitted
global warmingclimate change was nothing but a scam in his resignation letter.

From the Telegraph (because for some reason the Liberal Media here in the U.S don’t like this stuff getting out).

The following is a letter to the American Physical Society released to the public by Professor Emeritus of physics Hal Lewis of the University of California at Santa Barbara.

Sent: Friday, 08 October 2010 17:19 Hal Lewis
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010

Dear Curt:

When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).

Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue.  I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club.

thereisNOglobalwarming.com 

Gore’s Latest ’24 Hours of Reality’ Promotes Tragic Mistake

by Tom Harris

 
 After each of Al Gore’s prior 24 Hours of Reality broadcasts, climate experts have publicly corrected his many basic science errors. But he pays no attention whatsoever, committing the same blunders year after year. As a consequence, the former vice president’s initiative encourages the continuation of one of the greatest tragedies of all time.

Leading up to the fourth annual Climate Reality marathon starting at noon EDT on Tuesday, Gore is promoting Climate-101, a website dedicated to the science of the issue as he understands it. Like his global warming presentations, Climate-101 is riddled with fundamental mistakes. Especially irksome to anyone with a science background is the statement:

Carbon pollution is warming our planet and creating dirty weather like extreme droughts, flooding, wildfires, and superstorms.

Gore frequently says this sort of thing. During last year’s Climate Reality broadcast he told a worldwide audience of millions:

The Earth’s atmosphere is awfully thin and we are now filling it up with 90 million tons of global warming pollution being spewed into the atmosphere every 24 hours as if the atmosphere is an open sewer.

Scientists have repeatedly explained that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, which are Gore’s principal concern, are neither “carbon” nor “pollution.” Reporters on both sides of the debate understand this, of course, but give him a pass on the error. They should no longer do this. Carbon is a naturally occurring, non-toxic element found in all living things. Everything from medicines to trees to oil to our own bodies and those of all other creatures are made of carbon compounds. Pure carbon occurs in nature mainly in only two forms: graphite and diamonds.

Ignoring the oxygen atoms and calling CO2 merely “carbon” makes about as much sense as ignoring the oxygen in water (H2O) and calling it “hydrogen.”

This is not just an academic point. This is part of the way in which Gore distorts language to bolster concerns about human-caused climate change. University of Florida linguist M.J. Hardman explains:

Language is inseparable from humanity and follows us in all our works. Language is the instrument with which we form thought and feeling, mood, aspiration, will and act[ion], the instrument by whose means we influence and are influenced. (Language and War, 2002)

It is not surprising that language has always been a crucially important weapon of war. Gore, President Obama, and their allies use language tricks to justify the unjustifiable in the war of words over global warming and its recent offspring, the “war on coal,” coal being the world’s least expensive and most abundant energy source. Calling the gas “carbon” encourages people to think of CO2 as pollution or something dirty, like graphite or soot.

Calling CO2 by its proper name would help people remember that — regardless of its role in climate change — it is an invisible gas essential to plant photosynthesis and thus all life.

Commercial greenhouse operators routinely run their internal atmospheres at up to 1,500 parts per million (ppm) CO2, more than four times the “safe” limit of 350 ppm that Gore promoted at the 2008 UN Climate Change Conference. Yet there is no hint of any consequent temperature rise, while the plants inside grow far more efficiently than at the 400 ppm in the outside atmosphere. This is not surprising. Grade school students understand that CO2 is plant food.
Interestingly, CO2 concentrations in submarines can reach levels well above 10,000 ppm — thirty times the “safe” limit — with no harmful effects to the crew.

While 90 million tons/day of CO2 emissions sounds like a lot, scientists tell us this is only a small fraction of the amount nature emits on its own. Almost ten times more comes each year from the consumption of terrestrial vegetation by animals and microbes (i.e., rotting). Respiration by vegetation also emits almost ten times that produced by human activities.

Similarly, depending on temperature and rates of phytoplankton photosynthesis, parts of the oceans release over twelve times as much CO2 as we do. Environmental consultant Dr. Tim Ball, former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, explains that the uncertainty alone in our estimates of CO2 emitted by oceans and decomposition of vegetation is greater than the emissions of all human sources combined.

We are actually near the lowest level of CO2 in Earth’s history.
During a multi-million year period around 440 million years ago, CO2 was about 14 times today’s level, while Earth was stuck in the coldest period of the last half-billion years. The climate models’ assumption that temperature is driven by CO2 is clearly mistaken.

Dr. Ball adds:

The only place CO2 is significantly altering our climate is in the computer models of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). They are programmed so that an increase in CO2 causes a temperature increase. But, in every record for any time period, temperature increases before CO2, so Gore’s fundamental assertion is absolutely wrong.

Gore is also wrong about extreme weather events. This is one of the few areas of agreement between the IPCC and the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
In 2012, the IPCC asserted that a relationship between global warming and wildfires, rainfall, storms, hurricanes, and other extreme weather events has not been demonstrated. The 2013 NIPCC report states that:

In no case has a convincing relationship been established between warming over the past 100 years and increases in any of these extreme events.

University of Ottawa Earth Sciences Professor Ian Clark:

The idea that we are responsible for extreme weather, let alone that we can change weather patterns, is preposterous. Extreme weather is not new, it is natural. For any extreme event we have now, there is precedence in the recent past or distant past. The only difference between past events and now is our greatly expanded population and development of infrastructure that increases impact of extreme weather. The recent events Gore calls dirty weather come at a time when the planet has stopped warming. Only the rhetoric is increasing.

Besides 24 Hours of Reality, we will be bombarded with even more climate rhetoric than usual in late September:

• Working with television weather presenters and national broadcasters from around the world, the UN World Meteorological Organization is releasing “weather reports from the future,” a sensationalist series of films depicting what they claim are realistic scenarios for the year 2050 if we do not dramatically cut back on CO₂ emissions.
• The People’s Climate March, a massive rally to be held in New York on September 21, will involve 950 organizations with 63 other events in North America, six in South America, 54 in Europe, 10 in South Asia, and 32 in Australia.
• The last three of Leonardo DiCaprio’s four-film series, Green World Rising, are about to be released.

Like Gore’s event, all of these are designed to influence the UN’s Climate Summit 2014 in New York City on September 23. Hosted by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the Climate Summit is intended “to mobilize political will for a meaningful universal agreement at the climate negotiations in Paris in 2015.” Inevitably, the summit will result in pronouncements from governments about new taxes, regulations, and agreements to “save the climate,” paid for by the citizens of developed countries, of course.

The real tragedy in all of this is clear: because of the unfounded belief that humanity is the master controller of our planet’s climate, the focus is always on mitigation: trying to stop climate change in the distant future instead of helping vulnerable people adapt to climate change today. Consequently, of the almost $1 billion per day spent on climate finance across the world, only 6% of it goes to adaptation. The rest is wasted trying to control what might happen someday.

Allocating more importance to the unpredictable problems of people yet to be born than to the serious issues faced by those suffering in the present is immoral. Denying poor nations — many of whose citizens lack adequate sanitation, schooling, clean water, and health services — the finances to build inexpensive hydrocarbon-fired power stations is immoral.

Africa, for example, has plenty of coal, oil, and natural gas. But they often cannot develop these resources because governments and financial institutions insist the focus be on “climate-friendly” energy sources that are too expensive even for wealthy countries.

India has long appreciated the immorality of the current approach. In its June 2008 National Action Plan on Climate Change, the Prime Minister’s Council on Climate Change explained that India would not cut growth to reduce CO2 emissions since it would rather save its people from poverty than global warming. Disputing the link between CO2 emissions and climate problems, the report declared:

It is obvious that India needs to substantially increase its per capita energy consumption to provide a minimally acceptable level of well-being to its people.

Although the UN pushed for a 50:50 division of funding between mitigation and adaptation, it did not happen. Mitigation projects are far more attractive to players who have motivations other than environmental protection, such as: energy companies, environmental groups, carbon traders seeking to maximize revenue, media executives in search of exciting headlines to boost circulation, politicians wanting to increase taxes and control over their citizens, and, of course, one-world government advocates. The “boots on the ground” approach typically required by adaptation initiatives do not so nearly fulfill the ulterior motives of these groups. Al Gore is right, in one respect. The way the world handles climate change is a moral issue. Sadly, our current approach is a tragic blunder that his 24 Hours of Reality is helping to prolong.

PJ Media

GOP Candidate Releases Video: Global Warming 'Greatest Deception in the History of Mankind'

Greenhouse Gas Lunacy

By James Simpson  

 Once again, President Obama is circumventing Congress and using the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and a compliant and corrupt media to push his radical agenda. This time it is to save the world from climate change, formerly known as global warming at a time when there was actual evidence that the average global temperature was increasing, however slightly. But that was nearly two decades ago. Let’s set the matter straight, shall we?

Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) is a colorless, odorless “greenhouse gas” which currently comprises 400 parts per million (ppm), that is 0.04 percent of all atmospheric gasses—an infinitesimal amount. CO₂ concentration has increased by about 40%, or 120 ppm, (0.012% of atmospheric gasses) over the last 200 or so years. During that time, world mean temperature has increased by about 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit).

Global warming alarmists have used these observations to warn of future calamity. Many predict an increase in the frequency and intensity of storms, or other effects including “flooding, drought, erosion, turbidity, debris in reservoirs, nutrient and pollutant loading, and wildfires.” The National Wildlife Federation claims that “Global warming is making hot days hotter, rainfall and flooding heavier, hurricanes stronger and droughts more severe.” Don’t worry, though. Barack Obama promised to fix it all. Demonstrating early on his almost delusional arrogance, then-candidate Obama accepted his party’s 2008 presidential nomination claiming, “this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal…”

In fact, weather has not become more intense. Despite severe tornado damage from recent storms, the number of tornadoes in the past year is the lowest since 1954, and there has been no discernible upward trend in recent years. Similarly, as of June 10^th, the U.S. has not experienced a category three or higher hurricane for 2,787 days—a record. Wildfires are at their lowest since 1985, and again, this is not an anomaly. There is no discernible trend.

But even respected journals like National Geographic are playing fast and loose with the facts. On its “Global Warming Fast Facts” page, NG claims “Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.” But when you click through to the link, there is no mention of bears at all. Actually, Al Gore’s beloved bruins are doing just fine. A recent analysis found that since 2001, polar bear populations have increased, and that official estimates could have undercounted by as much as 9,000 animals. Canada has refused to put bears on their endangered species list despite pressure from U.S. environmental groups.

Global warming alarmists also keep insisting that there is a “consensus” that 97 percent of scientists believe manmade global warming exists and is an existential threat. Even NASA gets into the act, claiming that “97% of climate scientists agree.” The media have uncritically shouted the 97 percent shibboleth to the four corners of the globe, viciously attacking anyone who has the temerity to question it. A Talking Points Memo post demanded that “climate change deniers” be executed. An Austrian university musicology professor (what are his qualifications?), who ironically claims to oppose the death penalty, echoed the call. He did later apologize for it, however.

Even former NASA climate guru James Hansen has said that oil executives should face criminal trials for spreading doubt about global warming. This is the same James Hansen caught in the “ClimateGate” scandal, where he and climate scientists of the UK’s East Anglia University Climate Research Unit deliberately manipulated world temperature data to support global warming claims. Most notoriously, Al Gore’s famous “hockey stick,” graph was found to be the result of a flawed study by Penn State University’s Michael Mann. No trials for Hansen, Mann or Gore yet, though.

Just like their other claims, the 97 percent figure has been widely debunked. Even the IPCC’s lead author, Dr. Richard Tol mocks the 97 percent figure. He states, “People who want to argue that climate researchers are secretive and incompetent only have to point to the 97% consensus paper.” He refers to a report authored by John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli and others that examined 11,944 “climate abstracts” in the scientific literature. But the authors of that study themselves found otherwise, noting that “66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.” In other words, examining the abstracts alone found only 32.6 percent supported the notion of man-caused global warming. The 97 percent figure was derived by comparing the 32.6 percent with those who rejected (0.7%) or were unsure (0.3%), and essentially ignoring the rest.

In another study, authors claimed to have surveyed over 10,000 “earth scientists,” finding again that 97 percent agreed. Upon closer inspection however, one discovers that less than a third actually responded and that the survey was further stratified to analyze “climatologists who are active publishers on climate change.”

 That subset yielded only 77 respondents, 75 of whom responded positively to the question, “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” The 97 percent figure was thus based on only 77 people.

Meanwhile, a 2009 petition received over 31,000 signatures—more than any other petition on this subject—from physicists and physical chemists who agreed with the statement, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of … carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

Most of the alarmist crowd has a strong vested interest in hyping global warming because they are being showered with research dollars to prove it. But cooler heads have remained resolutely skeptical, and for good reason. It is difficult, for example, to reconcile a 2009 study which found that a reduction in atmospheric CO₂ levels to 760 ppm, 34 million years ago, caused Antarctica to freeze over, with the modern arguments that: 1) current CO₂ levels half that high are causing Arctic ice to melt; and 2) CO₂ levels are at record highs, which some claim to be the “maximum safe limit.” Maybe CO₂ killed the dinosaurs too?



Meanwhile, as shown in the chart above, the average global temperature has not risen in 17 years, even trending downward since 2002, while CO₂ continues to rise—a fact which directly contradicts climate alarmists’ stated claims. A September 2013 report from the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) struggled to hide this seeming anomaly, and the organization was pressured by the U.S., Germany and other countries to do so. MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen characterized the IPCC report as “hilarious incoherence.” A 2012 study published in Nature magazine shows that global temperatures have not been historically high over the long term, even suggesting a downward trend.



Just for the sake of argument, however, we are going to completely ignore the foregoing and engage in a thought experiment. We will grant the left every single one of its assumptions. Nothing soothes lunatics more than to tell them they are “right,” so let’s suspend disbelief for a moment and pretend they are.

Let’s generously assume that all of the CO₂ increase since colonial times was caused by man’s activity, and that 80 percent of it occurred after 1900. That would mean that man’s activity since 1900 increased atmospheric CO₂ by 96 ppm; (120 ppm x 0.8). This represents 0.0096 percent of all atmospheric gasses.

Let’s further assume the 1°C temperature increase was also solely caused by CO₂, and that 80 percent (0.8°C) of that 1-degree change occurred in the 20^th Century. (The actual temperature increase since 1900 is estimated to have been between 0.6 and 0.8°C.)

We will also generously assume that all along the U.S. has been responsible for 20 percent of these global emissions. This is somewhat more than our current contribution (16 percent in 2010, according to the Energy Department’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.) If the 20 percent figure were accurate, however, it would mean that over the past 114 years, America has been responsible for an increase in atmospheric CO₂ of 19.2 ppm (96 ppm x 0.2). That’s 0.00192 percent of all atmospheric gasses. If the relationship between CO₂ and temperature holds, we would therefore be responsible for 20% of the 0.8°C increase in global temperature since 1900, which equates to 0.16°C (0.29°F).

So if we buy the Left’s argument entirely, the big, bad US of A, the imperialist destroyer of the global environment, promiscuously burning excessive carbon fuels to satisfy its gluttonous, ravenous, insatiable appetite for warmth, air conditioning and automatic dishwashers, has raised global temperatures over the last 100 years a whopping one third of one degree Fahrenheit.

But here is where it gets truly insane. The Obama administration and its allies are telling us that reducing CO₂ emissions from U.S. power plants by 30 percent will bring a cornucopia of benefits, and they are willing to destroy the entire coal industry and force other conventional energy sources onto life support to accomplish this. However, power plants targeted by this rule produce only 38 percent of total U.S. manmade CO₂, and half this target has already been met.

So in actuality, total U.S. CO₂ will be reduced by only 5.7 percent (1/2 x 0.3 x 0.38) under this rule. This translates to a mere 1.026 ppm (0.057 x 18 ppm) representing 0.0001026 percent of atmospheric CO₂, for a temperature reduction of—wait for it—0.00912°C (0.16°C x 0.057). Converting to Fahrenheit yields 0.01642°F. Another way of saying this is that, if we are to take the left’s argument at face value, the average world temperature would decline from its historic average of 54.8°F to 54.784°F. That is less than three one-hundredths of one degree.
Liberalism is a mental illness.

But even this doesn’t tell the whole story. Our example assumes that all the recent climate change is due to man’s production of carbon dioxide. There are many so-called greenhouse gasses, and CO₂ does not have the greatest impact; water vapor does. See the chart below.



Source: RealClimate.Org
Furthermore, temperature has been increasing and decreasing in regular cycles over the past two hundred years. According to Friends of Science, a non-profit group comprised of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals, “The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium.”

The U.S. Energy Information Administration lists China as the largest coal producer and consumer in the world, producing almost as much coal as the rest of the world combined, and almost four times more than the U.S. In 2012, China consumed 49 percent of the world coal supply, compared to 11 percent by the U.S. Over the past 10 years, Chinese coal consumption has accounted for 83 percent of increased demand. Thus, it is not surprising that China is the world’s largest producer of anthropogenic CO₂, contributing 24.7 percent of the world’s total in 2010, the latest data available. This is 53 percent more than the U.S. produces, and China has no intention of slowing down. Current use and anticipated increases in carbon fuel use by China promises to swamp any decrease the U.S. is able to obtain.

In a Congressional hearing last September, EPA Director Gina McCarthy could not list a single effect EPA actions were having on any of 26 indicators of climate change, admitting, “It’s unlikely that any specific one step is going to be seen as having a visible impact on any those [indicators]—a visible change in any of those [indicators].” Her rationale was that it “positions the U.S. for leadership on this issue,” that could be used to prompt other nations to take action. But has the U.S. had any success influencing China on any front at all?

How about Russia or India, who together produce 11 percent of worldwide emissions? The EPA acknowledges the rule will have no impact on atmospheric CO₂.

 When the rule was finally announced, however, the EPA claimed it would bring copious benefits. Most media outlets and leftwing organizations sang its praises. The Union of Concerned Scientists called it a “climate game changer.” They compared Director McCarthy to Thomas Jefferson “at the Dawn of America,” and the EPA rule with the Declaration of Independence.

Most media ignored the serious economic impacts this rule will likely create. The Heritage Foundation estimates a loss of over 500,000 jobs, a decline in average family income by $1,000 and a 20 percent increase in energy costs. The EPA acknowledged that electricity rates will rise, but if we can hold out until 2030, they assure us that prices will fall after that. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce claimed compliance costs for the new rule could exceed $50 billion per year. The Natural Resources Defense Council sides with EPA, claiming a maximum cost of $14.6 billion by 2020 with offsetting benefits between $37 and $60 billion. The liberal Brookings Institution, however, dismisses EPA’s claimed benefits as being exaggerated by as much as 15 times.

Other liberals acknowledge the scam but support it anyway. Former Canadian Environment Minister Christine Steward said, “No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” For comparison, the most expensive EPA regulation to date addresses mercury and costs $9.6 billion per year.

The carbon regulation will have a much broader impact on our economy.

Other countries are beginning to recognize the global warming lunacy for what it is: an opportunity for well-connected liberals to fleece their nations’ treasuries in the name of “saving the planet.” In my previous article, Germany’s energy chief, Stephan Kohler, was quoted as calling Germany’s Renewable Energy Act “sheer lunacy.” Newly elected Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott is now is cultivating an alliance with Canada, Britain, New Zealand and India in an effort to oppose Obama’s call for onerous carbon regulation.

The EPA rule is sheer lunacy.

Canada Free Press

Global Cooling Underway

May 7, 2014

By Sierra Rayne

With global temperature data now available for the first three months of 2014, an interesting trend has clearly emerged: global cooling.

No longer is it just a hypothesis.  For the first quarter of each calendar year since 2002, it is effectively a fact at reasonably strong statistical significance.  Here is the data.

That downward trend since 2002 has a p-value of 0.097 (r=-0.48), which is below the p=0.10 (90%) threshold used in many climate science studies for statistical significance, and very close to the standard p=0.05 (95%) threshold generally employed across the physical and biological sciences.  The same level of statistical significance is obtained regardless of whether parametric or non-parametric trend analysis methods are employed.

Some readers may be looking at this plot and thinking that the global climate data since 1880 looks a lot like a cycle, with a stable period (of neither warming nor cooling) of, say, 140 years in length between the approximately 70-year long alternating cool and warm periods.  It certainly has that appearance.  If such is the case, we would expect a return to "normal" January-March global temperatures by 2050, give or take a decade or two.

In the United States, the January-March 2014 temperature was well below the 20^th-century average.  There has been no statistically significant trend in January-March temperatures in the contiguous USA since 1980.

None, for 35 years and counting.  The same lack of trend applies for the December-February temperatures.  Depending on how you define winter, either – or both – of these timeframes is considered the wintertime period.

So there has been absolutely no change in wintertime temperatures in the United States since before Reagan was president, and yet the The Guardian is reporting that the latest National Climate Assessment finds climate change to be a "clear and present danger" and that "Americans are noticing changes all around them ... Winters are generally shorter and warmer."

There is no trend – I repeat: no trend – in wintertime temperatures in the United States since 1980.

On an annual basis ending in March, there has been no change in the contiguous U.S. temperature since 1986 (actually, probably since 1985, but we'll give the alarmists the benefit on this).  You get the same result on a calendar-year basis.  That's right: there has been no change in annual temperatures for the United States since Bon Jovi had a number-one hit with "You Give Love a Bad Name," the Bangles were telling us to "Walk Like an Egyptian," Madonna was asking her papa not to preach, and Robert Palmer was "Addicted to Love."

According to Virginia Burkett, the chief scientist for global change at the U.S. Geological Survey, "all areas are getting hotter."  All of them?  So bold, yet so inaccurate.  The entire Ohio Valley climate division has not seen any significant warming on an annual basis since 1896.  The entire U.S. South climate division hasn't warmed since 1907.  Neither has the entire Southeast climate division since 1896.

The National Climate Assessment claims that "summers are longer and hotter."  Hotter summers?  There is no trend in the average June-August temperature (aka summer) in the USA since 1930.  Same lack of trend for July and August average temperatures.

On an annual basis ending in March (allowing us to use the most complete dataset possible), global warming stopped cold in statistical terms during 1997.  And since 2002, the correlation coefficient has – in fact – turned slightly negative.  Very weak evidence for global cooling, but on the balance of probabilities, since 2002, there is more statistical evidence for global cooling than there is for global warming.  Scientists such as Don Easterbrook, a professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University, have been making similar predictions for global temperatures.

In the Southern Hemisphere, where climate scientists are now apparently warning that the "Antarctic Ice Shelf [is] on [the] brink of unstoppable melt that could raise sea levels for 10,000 years," the annual cooling trend since 2003 is even more probable (r=-0.22, p-value as low as 0.34 using non-parametric approaches).

The poor-quality science reporting on climate change is ubiquitous.  Over at the Daily Kos, we find a plot of "Global Temperature (meteorological stations)."  Given that oceans cover 71 percent of the planet's surface, what possible meaning could a "global temperature" derived only from "meteorological stations" have?  The answer is none.  Any talk of a global temperature must include both land and sea data, and be properly weighted according to station type and location.  And this assumes that the data itself is correct.  Various climate skeptic websites have repeatedly shown that we need to doubt the data itself, not just the analyses.

As the countdown to the proposed climate agreement in 2015 ticks along, expect more of this hysterical nonsense not founded in the underlying data, as well as more concerted and emphatic denials of the global cooling phase we may be entering.  One can only hope that the moderately conservative leaders in Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom will not fall prey to the hysteria, but instead take a principled scientific stand in 2015 and lead the charge to reject any international climate agreements.

Unfortunately, many crony capitalists – including a number in the fossil fuels industry itself – are starting to see greater financial benefits for themselves by going along with the hysteria, rather than fighting for reality.

Perilous times indeed.  The next couple years may not only see the end of America's economic domination on the world stage, passing the torch instead to communist China, but also witness the final death throes of rigorous, objective science in the public interest.

American Thinker

Ice and Cold: Global Warming Believers are Today's Climate Deniers

by John Nolte

 Just this week we had dozens of Global Warming-believing scientists, who specialize in researching ice melt in Antarctica, run into a helluva lot more Antarctic ice than their research told them would be there. So much more ice that their ship and three ice-breaking rescue vessels were stuck in ten feet of it for days (two of the vessels are still stuck). As I write this, the big news of the weekend is a cold snap across much of the country with temperatures reaching 20 and 30-year lows. And yet, despite all of what should be good news, the Global Cooling Global Warming Climate Change community is not celebrating.   Not only are Climate Change Truthers not celebrating, they are hysterical with worry that unexpected Antarctic ice discoveries and American winters returning to the normalcy those of us of a certain age remember, might hurt their religion crusade. The media is so worried they have coordinated a cover-up of the news from Antarctica and those of us pointing to what one might call the "science" of colder temperatures and increased Arctic ice are being mocked for doing so.

Granted, more ice in one area of a vast South Pole is not empirical proof that all is well in the Antarctic, but it is a great way to call attention to the fact that according to NASA, "In late September 2013, the ice surrounding Antarctica reached its annual winter maximum and set a new record."

Who is anti-science now?

The chief of today's Climate Deniers is President Obama, whose second term will end up being "all about Climate Change." Despite all this good climate news, Obama still intends to circumvent Congress and use the Tyranny of the Bureaucracy to strangle the kind of industries that create solid middle class jobs. But don't worry, while Obama is killing good-paying energy jobs he will be rescuing us from income inequality that good paying energy jobs would help to solve.

There are all kinds of reasons not to believe in Global Warming -- the cover-ups, the media bias, the outright lies; the science just being plain old wrong; the absurdity of using a hundred-or-so years of data on a planet billions of years old;  the oh-so bizarre coincidence that the only solution to the "crisis" is to check off every item on the Marxist wish-list; the fact that Global Warming Believers live their lives like the rest of us instead of preparing for imminent catastrophe…

And let's not forget the oily shift in branding from Global Cooling to Global Warming to Climate Change…

Well, now we can add to this list the fact that the very good news of unexpected Antarctic ice, and a return to the kind of winter weather we experienced before this Climate Change hysteria began, hasn't so much as made a single Truther pause for just a moment to wonder aloud if this might be good news.

Instead, they are ignoring the science to double down on their denial and partisan bitterness.

Big Government

The End Of The World

Sunday, June 23, 2013 
by Daniel Greenfield 

Two years ago, the media had a prolonged belly laugh at a group that predicted the end of the world. Now media outlets from The New York Times to The New Republic to The Economist are wrestling with the question of why their own ideology's doomsday predictions are not coming to pass.

"If scientific models can’t project the last 15 years, what does that mean for their projections of the next 100?," the New Republic asks. It means that the world isn't going to end.

Even as Obama exploits Global Warming to launch a War on Affordable Energy, the doomsday environmentalists look as foolish as any other group that set a date for the end of the world, only for the world to stubbornly go on existing.

True believers in Gore would say that's the difference between science and eschatology. But when bogus science warns us of an apocalypse if we don't follow the tenets of their ideology, then how much difference is there anyway?

Of course no one expects MSNBC to do sneering reports of global warming activists freezing at a protest or Al Gore being forced to watch a count down of a solidly frozen North Pole. Such mockery is only directed at people who believe in more unpopular forms of apocalypses. At least unpopular at the broadcasting studios of Manhattan.

It's fashionable to mock religious leaders for hypocrisy, but there isn't a peep when the Vice President turned Prophet of Gaia lectures on watching our carbon footprint and then flies on jet fueled carbon wings to another concert on behalf of the planet.

Other aspiring prophets like Prince Charles, who admires poverty, but lives in privilege, are no better. Or Obama who told Americans that they couldn't heat their homes as they pleased, while keeping his thermostat up to Hawaiian standards.

If the invariably prosperous believers in Death by Global Warming really believed in the creed, wouldn't they be selling their homes and cars, and going off to live a simpler life in the Himalayan mountains. But it's easier to believe in something than to practice it.

Like all liberal social engineering projects, environmentalism is meant to change everyone's life. And there's no point in its proponents doing more than paying lip service to it, as they make it the law of the land. If Osama bin Laden could preach Islamic morality while stocking up on X rated tapes, surely Al Gore can foretell the doom of the North Pole and still take a private jet around the world.

If liberals have turned to doomsday predictions, it's because they have discovered that religion and the apocalypse can be a marvelously effective way of controlling human behavior. But their religion is materialistic, concerned with the human presence in the natural world. Even its materialism is consumeristic.

The Reds had no truck with environmentalism. To a Communist, the natural world was a mass of raw resources to be used to build socialism. But to the children of the capitalists, concerned more with what they buy, than with what they do, environmentalism restraints and directs their buying habits. As religions goes, environmentalism is the Consumer Reports of theologies.

For all the talk of apocalypse and melting poles, the environmentalists really only care about your economic activity. Buy or don't buy. But preferably buy, so long as you're buying green, or buying carbon credits along with whatever you're buying.

The sinner fills up on paper towels, but the righteous man buys paper towels with a green stamp on the box. The man of little faith may drive an SUV, and the faithful may also drive an SUV, but the faithful man's SUV has a bumper sticker warning everyone to conserve something or other. Such hypocrisies are constant, pervasive and little commented on.

What began as a movement for the responsible stewardship of the earth has been corrupted from the ethical to the fanatical. Conservationism kept humanity in the picture. Environmentalism rages at humanity. Behind its colorful drawings and its dolphin key chains is the vision of a world in which humanity and its fire sticks are the original sin.

That primal rage has been channeled and diluted into a million businesses, into countless regulations and profitable ventures. The new environmentalists are regulatory robber barons like Al Gore, green rent seeking tycoons looking to use cap and trade, and a thousand mandatory revenue streams to fleece both the faithful and the unfaithful. There is no further way to corrupt environmentalism, its existence is already an abiding corruption. For the false prophets, the lab coated peddlers of junk science and the writers dreaming up ever more fanciful depictions of the day when the oceans rise and man finds himself paddling for safety besides the polar bear, there is nothing left but the lie.

The religious apocalypse is the break between a fallen world and a better world. But in the environmental apocalypse, it is only the end. Materialistic eschatology cannot see any way past the end or any purpose for it. Only a Waterworld in which some of us develop gills and others have to learn to kayak.

The threat of their end of days is meant to badger us into bowing our heads and opening our wallets. Buy Green or the North Pole will end in 5 years. Bicycle to work or a polar bear will chew your ear off. Their end of days lacks imagination and proof. It is constantly imminent, yet never arrives. It is held to be proven so thoroughly that it can never be disproven. And who would want to disprove it, except someone who doesn't already have a grant to prove it.

There's hardly a problem in the world that the media doesn't blame on Global Warming. When it's hot, they point to Global Warming. When it's cold, they also point to Global Warming. Earthquakes,civil wars and the end of WiFi are all laid at the door of one single phenomenon. The difference between religion and science is that one is revealed truth and the other is theory. But when men and women in lab coats start predicting the end of days if the heretics don't repent and cast out their incandescent light bulbs and SUV's, then what you have is theory as revealed truth. An experiment in eschatology.

Science requires objectivity. Combine science with ideology and you get a mandatory belief in absurdity. Everyone who self-righteously insists that global warming is science misses the point. The scientific orthodoxy of every generation has embraced ridiculous and wrongheaded theories. Science is not a pure form of revealed truth, it is the trial and error process by which we crawl toward a better understanding. A less flawed picture of the universe. Turn the scientific orthodoxy of any era into a mandatory ideology and you have killed the science and left only another belief system.

Environmentalists parade around the corpse of science on their shoulders, mount it on their walls and proclaim that science is on their side. Once you completely murder a system of using trial and error experimentation to confirm a theory, then you might as well use it as a banner on a flagpole or a trophy in your living room. But the environmentalist' science has as much relation to a living field, as the head of a dead moose mounted over a bed and breakfast's fireplace does to a living creature.

Ideology has killed science and now claims its intellectual credibility for its own. But purging dissenting scientists, burning books and silencing all critics with jeers is not science, no more than what passed for it in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany was science. It is the fanaticism of an ideology, the championing of backwardness, the exploitation of titles and terminology to silence debate and betray the ethical trust of inquiry.

The end of the world? The same people who ridicule religious people waiting for the end, are waiting for their own end of the world without any real faith in it.

Their end of the world is only another consumeristic strategy for convincing people to buy the right brands and donate to the right causes. It is as hollow as everything else.

No one will hang around with a count down clock in 2014 and wait for the North Pole to end. Not even if Gore's prediction were better known. Those who believe in Global Warming, paradoxically don't really believe that the world could actually end. They may eat up the cinematic spectacle of oceans rising, cities sinking underwater and whales doing belly flops over the Grand Canyon, but it never really touches them.

To understand why is to understand the purpose of environmentalism. Its harsh criticism of consumerism turns it into a moral activity. The Whole Foods shopper is elevated above the Wal-Mart shopper. The woman who buys sneakers made of recycled tires isn't shopping, she's engaged in an ethical communion with the earth. Environmentalism is the theology of consumerism, uplifting it rather than proscribing it, taking a cut of ordinary economic activities in exchange for its blessing.

Environmentalism is the religion of the comfortable, and the theology of the convenient. It injects a false spirituality into the materialism of the faithless. There is nothing to it but greed. From the false prophets spinning tales of the end, to scientists doing a more elevated version of the same for grant money to scribes envisioning the end for a lucrative book or movie deal. It's not the end of the world they're waiting for, but a commercial break.

Sultan Knish

Global Warming? Oops! Never Mind!

April 1, 2013
By Jonathon Moseley

What was the Earth's temperature yesterday?  Nobody knows.  In fact, it's a ridiculous question.  Almost every place on Earth today has a different temperature from that of any other location.  So, is our planet's temperature rising?  Do we even know?

However, it is officially admitted:  Global warming stopped 15-20 years ago.  The mainstream media is struggling very hard to explain this away.  They admit that the Earth stopped warming 15 to 20 years ago.  
But just you wait -- disaster is coming unless we vote liberals into office.  They cannot explain the pause.  Yet they "know" global warming will kill us all unless we vote Democrat.

So was global warming ever real?  Or is this hysteria a hoax, like the Y2K computer disaster that never happened? 

Just concerning today's temperature first, we would have to measure hundreds of thousands of locations and then average temperatures from all over the planet.  We don't have that many weather stations.  So we don't even know what yesterday's temperature for the planet was.  We certainly don't know what the temperature was a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago. 

Are today's weather measurements accurate?  Heck no.  Weather stations are measuring the jet blast from airplanes taking off at airports, the heat from air conditioners on office building rooftops, the heat of asphalt parking lots and streets and cities.

Meteorologist Anthony Watts is one of the greatest heroes of truth and freedom.  His blog "Watts Up With That?" has changed the world and is one of the most influential resources on global warming.  Watts became truly famous with his recurring "How Not to Measure Temperature" series reviewing the world's automated weather stations. 

For example, concerning Henderson Field, in the Solomon Islands, Watts reported that jet exhaust from taxiing airplanes blows straight into the weather equipment.  Do we care about the Solomon Islands?  Well, if you are trying to track the planet's overall temperature, yes, you must include the whole world.  Otherwise, you are simply watching weather variations moving around from one part of the planet to another.

Rooftop weather stations were busted.  Many weather stations are on the roofs of major office buildings, where they are affected by the heat blast from massive industrial air conditioners.  The sun also heats the top of the building and the surrounding buildings and streets.  So the weather station is actually measuring the "heat effect" of the city -- not the climate.  They are also measuring the nearby air conditioner.  "How Not to Measure Temperature, Part 48" exposed a building-top station in Baltimore. 

In "How Not to Measure Temperature, Part 93," Watts reports how the weather station most responsible for claims of warming temperature in England is stationed next to a massive air conditioner on the ground and a brick building.  And they are all together inside a ground depression.  This traps artificial heat, causing an inaccurate temperature reading.  The temperature reading is also near industrial activity in London.

In "Part 90," Watts reports on a station set in a small parking lot, on the asphalt, next to an air conditioner.  
The blog "Gust of Hot Air"  reports on a weather station at the Marysville, California Fire Department.  It used to be in a grassy yard.  Now the yard is a parking lot.  And the measurement equipment is within 10 feet of an air conditioning unit that cools cell tower electronics and the bar-be-cue that firefighters cook with a couple times a week. 

Nearly all of the weather stations in the world were created only after the invention of the airplane (at least those which report organized, historical records).  Very few spots on the Earth were being sampled before World War I.  But the farther back in time we go, the worse it gets.  So the sampling of the Earth's temperature was changing over time.  We are comparing apples and oranges when we compare the sample set that exists today with the much smaller sample sets the farther we go back through the decades of data.

But isn't sampling an accepted scientific tool?  Only if it is truly random according to careful rules and techniques.  Weather station samples are fixed in certain locations, always the same, not randomly selected for each year.  And the Earth's weather is tremendously variable.  But it is not random in the sense necessary for statistical measurement.  We may not understand all the highly complex weather patterns.  But the sample of weather stations is fixed -- or in other words, not random.

We are measuring not changes in the climate, but rather the "heat effect" of expanding cities due to urban sprawl.  Most temperature measurements are at airports.  A great many airports were built out in the empty countryside, perhaps 5 to 25 miles from the city they serve.  But urban sprawl has now extended outward to those airports.  So as we compare data over past decades, we are seeing the increase in temperature caused by expanding cities -- not a change in the planetary climate.

It is well-known that there is a "heat effect" when asphalt roads and concrete buildings replace trees, grass, and open fields.  This creates a localized increase in temperature at ground level.  (However, this affects the distribution of heat, since sunshine is still the same over the entire planet.  It probably does not change the global temperature overall.  It will increase convection and temperatures near the ground.)  Yet it's actually worse than that.  And the heat content held within water, air, and rock is different from one to the next.  So temperature swings in the air may be misleading.

Although the concept of a thermometer is thousands of years old, no scale of precise standardized measurement was invented until the 1700s.  Therefore, we have no meaningful records of temperature earlier than the Industrial Revolution, in terms of the ability to compare measurements recorded over time.  Even then, scientific instruments must be calibrated for accuracy.  Even a thermometer attempting to measure temperature on a standardized scale may not read the same as another thermometer.  Accuracy in scientific instruments requires standardization and careful calibration.  Quality has not been consistent since the 1700s.

So global warming hysteria is based not on any accurate measurements of global climate, but rather on "proxies."  That is, scientists give their interpretation of tree rings and bacterial samples in fossils.  Global warming "science" is strikingly similar to a witch doctor reading the entrails of a goat.

Here's the problem, and it is a foundational precept in science: you cannot analyze data to a greater precision than the original measurement.  So if you have data measured only in yards, you cannot analyze that data to draw conclusions at the level of inches.  You will get errors.  With global warming, we don't know historical temperatures with precision.  Therefore, imprecise historical data cannot support the attempted predictions. 

Well, then, how can we say that global warming stopped 15-20 years ago if we really don't know what the temperature is or has been?  We have no valid basis for saying that the world is warming.  We can't say that it is or it isn't.  But the whole global warming concept is simply...well...hot air.

American Thinker