Climate Change Hysterics are Hypocrites

Originally posted Tuesday, January 5, 2010

I hope this is the last article I write on this subject as the ideas making it necessary die. At this writing, the first ten items on drudgereport.com, all decry a winter season without mercy. Havoc wreaked on a “global” scale as humanity is buffeted by record low temperatures and unprecedented snowstorms. People dying, crops in danger, travel restricted, baby it’s cold outside.

The hysterics continue to cite global warming, or the new catch all term, “climate change”, I simply call it winter. The very term climate change promotes a sense of bemused weariness in most people. It came into use when the hysterics realized it was becoming increasingly difficult to sell people on the idea they need to have fewer barbecues on vacation and eat less meat to combat the scourge of global warming, while they are using their neighbors four wheel drive SUV to extricate the hybrid they bought last summer to aid in the battle from a huge snow drift.

I posted an article last week from sciencedaily.com highlighting the fact that there has been no rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide in 150 years. As I have pointed out in earlier articles on this subject, the majority of the Co2 produced is consumed by the oceans and plants, which is then converted to oxygen. The article points out, only about 45% of produced Co2 remains in the atmosphere.

A friend on facebook who falls decidedly amongst the hysterics in this contemporary narrative, in an effort to show how wrongheaded my denial of global warming is, began to cut and paste from an article he’d read, numbers that on the surface sound impressive. He posted:

“To put it in terms that you may be more familiar with, consider that carbon sinks are a discount on the 'cost' of CO2, a discount of around 57%. That means that of the around 1,000,000 metric tonnes of CO2 that Swaziland emits every year, around 430,000 stays in the atmosphere, and the rest is absorbed by forests, oceans...etc. If they industrialize and produce 2,000,000 metric tonnes of CO2, that means that 860,000 tonnes will be added to the atmosphere: The *percentage* stays the same, but an increase in CO2 is still an increase in CO2.

Okay, homework: If this study is correct, and 43% of the produced CO2 remains in the atmosphere, how much of the 5,752,289,000 metric tonnes of CO2 generated by the USA in 2006 remained airborne?”

My answer, who cares? 430,000 metric “tonnes”, 2 billion metric “tonnes”, it all sounds so formidable, so harrowing that we are dumping all this Co2 into the atmosphere. That is until you examine the numbers found only in the all to revealing big picture.

The amount of Co2 in the atmosphere stands at 0.038% NASA.GOV says 0.01-0.1% Period.
 

Co2 is still measured in parts per million of 1% of the atmosphere regardless of the hysteric’s number juggling. Again my question to the hysterics is:

What are the mechanics of a trace element in our atmosphere allowing for so disastrous an effect on weather patterns?

Here’s the thing--the earth's atmosphere  has a mass of about five quadrillion (5x10 to the 15th power) metric tons (since I'm a Yankee I'll use tons instead of tonnes). As the numbers my hysterical facebook friend likes include the entire ecosystem, the earth has a mass of 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000.0 metric tons.

That's 5 sextillion, 973 quintillion, 600 quadrillion. A far cry from the hysteric’s insignificant 6, 7 even 10 figure numbers, no matter how you slice it. I have been accused on many occasions of using “bar napkin” mathematics when proving my points, my accusers never offer more substantial chalkboard work to counter my points though.

The Science Daily article concludes by validating my point, man's activity has not changed the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere, so the idea of anthropogenic (man made) climate change is a joke. A joke that is about as funny as a root canal, when you consider the ramifications of the policy changes the Democrats want to and have implemented to deal with a non-existent problem.

The weak apologetics offered by the left and bolstered by the mainstream media for the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit’s less than honest hacked emails, are trumped only by liberal global warming hysterics hypocrisy. No one likes a good whistleblower story more than the left. As long as it attacks big business or some other leftist cause célèbre.

They’ll give you an Oscar for “Erin Brokovich” and Celebrate “Silkwood”. You’ll find “Thank You For Not Smoking” in the must see section next to “Roger and Me” and “All the President's Men”, as you pass copies of “Redacted”, “Valley of Elah” and “rendition”.

The CRU hackers are "just criminals." Never you mind they uncovered one of the greatest scientific scandals ever! It doesn’t fit into the politically correct; nature good, man bad reports so popular with the left.

This is the same pattern being followed by the Obama administration when it comes to securing the nation against terrorists. When you constantly ignore the big picture to advance a politically correct narrative, you are placing the narrative above people. The philosophy becomes more important than the people it is meant to serve and enlighten.

The truth is, there are literally millions of Islamic terrorists hellbent on killing anyone who disagrees with their faith. Calling them extremists, or isolated individuals doesn’t change the reality of the danger they pose to America and the rest of the world. Failing to recognize you are in a shooting war with forces that hate you, is as stupid as forwarding the notion that man can effect climate.

Both ideologies establish a pattern of liberal self deception in the case of those who are merely unwilling to think for themselves. Out and out prevarication ensues when Democrats are confronted with hard questions and they practice down right deceit when it advances the liberal agenda.

“It is easier to believe a lie that one has heard a thousand times than to believe a fact that no one has heard before”, This is a less than comforting old saw considering todays political and philosophical struggles. The liberal media is certainly doing it’s part to make it so. We need to think!

“If a ruler hearken to lies, all his servants are wicked.” Proverbs 29:12

Digital Publius

Brrr... This Global Warming Sure Is Cold.

Originally posted, Sunday, November 23, 2008

No where can the “icy” grip of the mainstream media’s liberal fascism, be felt with more “chilling” effect, than the “freeze out” of contrasting data in regards to man made global warming orthodoxy. it would appear to the casually and mostly uninterested public; that man made climate change is as accepted by the scientific community as the law of gravity. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact the public is so ill informed on this issue is very dangerous; as many public and private policies are being formulated based on specious assumptions. The fact there are data and logic contradicting the concept of anthropogenic climate change is almost completely hidden from view by the mainstream media.

For example: in 2007 the US Senate released a report from over four hundred scientists, from twenty-four countries, many of whom are, or were participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticizing the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. 

Just a few quotes from the report:

Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number – entirely without merit,” Tennekes wrote. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”

New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policy makers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.” 

Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: “The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate.”

USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”

Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”

Note: there were only 52 scientists that participated in the UN IPCC summary. The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policy makers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. The senate report is in stark contrast to the consensus claims made by the mainstream media and man
made climate change proponents, as illustrated by the following:

CNN’s Miles O’Brien (July 23, 2007):  "The scientific debate is over," O'Brien said. “We're done." O’Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.”

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: “About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members.”

The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of man-made climate fears.

ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006:  “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” on global warming.

Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007):  “While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case."

Source, US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Mr. Blakemore and Mr. Dessler may need to reassess they’re career choice as reporters, I always believed that the ability to dig up facts and people was a prerequisite for sound reporting. Over 31,000 scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition Project. Including 9000 with PhDs. How many scientists does it take to constitute the “lots” that Mr. Dessler is looking for?

I submit good readers--that it does not take a scientific degree to reveal the absurdity of the concept of anthropogenic climate change. Just a little time, curiosity and as Carl Sagan used to put it; a well oiled “baloney detector”. The earths atmosphere is comprised of 78% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen and everything else makes up the last 1%. The amount of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is 0.0384 of 1%. In other words the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere is measured in parts per million of a single percentage point. Yet we are being asked to accept so infinitesimal an amount of Co2 can have so profound an effect on our planet.

The earth is not a closed system. According to Mr. Desslers Grist Magazine website 2% of the earths surface is covered with man made cities, towns, villages and roads. I have seen other sources that say it is 3%, be that as it may, it would follow that less than one percent of that man made space is used for industrial use, factories that produce Co2 and machines like trucks, cars, trains...Yet 20% of the worlds land mass is covered with oxygen producing and Co2 consuming grass, and 29% is covered with even larger trees. Not to mention 70% of the earth is covered with water, teeming with plant life that produces the majority of the earths oxygen. Yet though the earths atmosphere is 99% colder gases, those gases are overcome by a millionth of a percent of Co2? What are the mechanics of such a feat? People really don’t have an appreciation for just how large our world is.

I think a good illustration may be that if you took a glass and filled it with water, and put it under a faucet with the tap open, water constantly filling it, and you took a dropper that would dispense a drop of hot sauce 1% of the glasses volume every time you squeezed it. You then squeeze the dropper every minute or so. then give it to a thirsty friend, do you think it would burn his mouth? He wouldn’t even know the hot sauce was there.

So man’s creation of high levels of Co2 is causing a catastrophic rise in the earths temperature according to “todays expert scientists”  But what did the scientists just some 30 years ago think that a rise in man made atmospheric Co2 would portend? Lets take a look shall we?

"The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population. Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)

"I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000_ - Paul Ehrlich in (1969)

"This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century" - Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976

"There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it." Newsweek, April 28, (1975)

"This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000". - Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976

"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)  Source, Writer John Breyer

Scientists for over a hundred years believed that in conjunction with the classical four elements of the Greeks there was a fifth element called phlogiston. it was theorized that phlogiston was contained in all combustible materials and released during combustion and was supposed to explain oxidation processes like burning and rust. Those 17th and 18th century scientists also comprised a consensus.

And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. II Thessalonians 2:10-12

Digital Publius.

President Obama Is Slippery When Dry

Someone really ought to inform President Obama that the Moses Webbster’s Dictionary he received in his youth was a gag gift—That it is in fact Noah Webster’s dictionary, Webster with one “B” that is in fact the compendium of trustworthy definitions of common English words.

Perhaps it wasn’t a gag gift. Maybe one fall when the President’s mom was on her way to K-Mart to buy young Barack’s school supplies, she stumbled into a dimensional rift leading to the Bizarro world, hence the dictionary where up means down, a world where things are “As quiet as a bell” and “As heavy as a feather”.

How else do you charitably explain Mr. Obama’s opaque approach to transparency? It seems “As clear as a mouse” to me the thinking portion of the American population have a much different working definition.

It is amazing when you consider the American media has had no problem giving President Obama the benefit of the doubt these past five years. For example, when he said he would openly debate his healthcare plan on CSPAN for the nation to see, a promise it appears he never actually meant to keep they made excuses.

Though he lied about his intent to openly debate Obamacare before public eyes—you understand why he didn’t hold such public discussions when you remember how Herman Cain destroyed Bill Clinton on public television when Mr. Clinton was trying to advance Hillarycare, his own socialized healthcare plan.

How the nation expected a man who has done all he can and spared no expense in keeping even his school records sealed could be relied upon to be forthcoming is God’s own mystery. It is racist to even question such actions…isn’t it?

Even more profoundly perplexing is when the President does tell us his true plans, like his intention to raise energy costs for all Americans, his sycophants don’t believe him--or because the media, as Greg Gutfeld so amusingly put it, acts as President Obama’s scandal condom, they never hear of it and the people less able to absorb such a policy vote him into office…Eagerly!

The only thing green about the energy policies and schemes the President and his party advances—is the taxpayer’s money he has flushed down the toilet backing companies like Solyndra. Yet the blinkard American liberal democrat seems more willing to “Change” the definition of transparent to meet the President’s definition than to admit what they are seeing with their own eyes.

America, you have precisely the leadership you deserve!

Even with revelation after revelation coming to light, confirming the Obama administration and his State Department lied to the American public regarding the nature of the 9/11/2012 attack on our diplomats in Benghazi, the liberal media is still all too eager to dismiss those proofs as trumped up right wing politicking.

President Obama told us who and what he was long before he won his first term. Shamefully, enough of the nation was so blinded by racial identity, liberal wrongheadedness and indifference to truth and reality, they voted for a man obviously ill equipped and morally questionable and he now inhabits the highest office in the land.

The media now disingenuously feigns high dudgeon when they realize the character they have shielded low these last six or so years has used the resources they helped procure for him to spy on the fourth estate they themselves are a part of. Even with this fact coming to light the press has not gone full bore to hold this President accountable.

The democrat and liberal lickspittles still pretend to believe the President when he tells them he heard about his administrations improprieties at the same time the public did through the media. He had no idea elements in his trust would abuse the IRS or the Justice Department to attack his political rivals.

Meanwhile, the very person most responsible for using the resources of the IRS to target and weaken right wing organizations for leftist political gain is now the President’s choice to run the most sensitive and powerful segment of the IRS. This same person will now head up the section responsible for examining your healthcare records and enforcing the public’s compliance with Obamacare.

How do you continue to extoll the virtues of a man’s leadership abilities when he makes decisions like that, or at other times confesses an utter lack of awareness of the goings on in his own organization? The constant refrain from the left during the George W. Bush years was President Bush was too dumb to run his own office, that it was Dick Chaney, Donald Rumsfeld and the like who were really in charge. This tiresome bromide was raised to the level of holy writ for the leftists.

This begs the question: Who is in charge of the Obama White House? It clearly isn’t President Obama! Like Sgt. Hans Georg Schultz Mr. Obama is never culpable due to a blissful state of perpetual ignorance. Yet somehow, the same media that was the ever-present skeptic of President Bush’s leadership never accuses David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and the like of being President Obama’s puppet masters.

As a Holy Bible believing Christian I have no doubt who is running things in the Obama White House. God tells us precisely who and what inspires the sort of twisted morality and philosophies the left and president Obama “cling to”:

“Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.

Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” Ephesians 6:10-12

It is those spiritual principalities and powers that inspire the President and his appointees indifference to the truth. It is the same ones who closes the eyes of the President’s followers in the media and electorate. If you want the whole truth, it was again the same spiritual principalities and powers that lead the right wing leadership to promote the nomination of President Obama’s opponent in the 2012 elections.

For the people who voted for Barack Obama and nominated Mitt Romney, I will close with a couple of old saws untouched by the President’s Bizarro world—You were “Asleep at the wheel” and we now find ourselves “Between a rock and a hard place.”

Digital Publius