GraniteGrok

Well, ClimateGate certainly let the cat out of the bag with the megabyte dump of all that damning email, code, and data evidence of "hiding the decline".  Just before Copenhagen's fiasco for Obama (yup, had to get that in somehow), that was the linchpin that finally let the door burst open wide.  In this time of economic decline, who in their right mind could stare down the poor, the hungry, and the helpless (hey, this works all the time for Progressives, right?) and tell them "you lost your job and are homeless but think of how you are helping the cause of saving 0.1 degrees of warming over the next 100 years". Only those that either have that "old time religion" or is a true green socialist (green on the outside and red on the inside, as Chan is oft to say) would or could pull that off.

Adding to the "warmists" problem was this gaffe by one of the High Priests of the movement:

• Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
  

• And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
  

Right - and Al Gore gets an Oscar for spouting "The Earth has a fever!".  Hey, all you chumps out there that actually gave him your money so that he's a multi-millionare?  Got second thoughts about "your donations"?

And these were not the only data points from that interview.

• Data: Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is 'not as good as it should be'

So, NONE of the original data is around to actually put it through the scientific process of multiple validations?  Add to that, Ah-gain, to that simply awfully bad code that "homogenized" the data points (remember, mixing and heating not only uses the good stuff, but can hide the bad stuff too!)

I'm considering this a "walkback" in baby steps to try to save face.  And his case, perhaps an attempt to save himself lawsuits and possible jail time.

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

Right - and without good data, he knows this...how?  After all, Anthony Watts has a new report out just concerning how that present day data is collected, and as a holder of two scientific degrees, how the heck could the warmists keep a straight face when confronted with this?  After all, WHERE the thermometers are located are JUST as important as WHAT they read!

Some are next to air-conditioning units or on waste-treatment plants, while one sits alongside a waste incinerator. A weather station at Rome airport was found to catch the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets.

Rising temperatures around the stations, which have been in use for 150 years, could also have been caused by urbanisation, the study claimed. One weather station at Manchester airport, which was built when the surrounding land was mainly fields, is now surrounded by heated buildings.

The IPCC used data from the weather stations to back up claims that greenhouse gases had already caused a 0.7C rise in temperature, and gave warnings that further warming of up to 6C by 2100 could have devastating effects on civilisation and wildlife.

But the panel has been mired in controversy since the leaking of emails from the climate change unit at The University of East Anglia, which appeared to show that data used to bolster the IPCC's claims had been manipulated.

Four major errors have also been uncovered in the second of the panel's four reports on the state of global climate change, published in 2007.

Yeah, 1500 scientists collaborated on this puppy - big Oops!  And the Left makes fun of Sarah just because of real hand writing.....amazingly, they are rather silent about this....who knew?

Most embarrasing for the IPCC was the inaccurate claim that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 - hundreds of years earlier than other studies suggest - which was not backed up by any research.

The damaging new findings by Mr Watts, whose study has not been peer reviewed, are backed by Professor John Christy, a former lead author on the IPCC who specialises in atmospheric science at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.

Meltdown?  Not in this case am I talking glaciers...

Posted by Skip at 8:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

...so where is OUR mainstream media in asking the hard questions?!?!?!?

This journalist just HAMMERS this guy and is doing his job like a pit bull!

(H/T: BBC)

Posted by Skip at 11:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Third coldest October on record in the US

Speaking of climate....A wee bit of Global Warming may be a good thing here in Central NH come the end of the week - I'm betting that overnight will be subzero again. 

But given this from Watts UP With That?, I'm betting people all over from the Lower 48 are wishing for a few degrees of warmth....

Wood stove is cranking, the snow is falling, and while I like the colder weather (hate it when it goes over 80 F or 60 degree + dew points), I can appreciate a bit of a warm breeze instead of a 20-40 mph at -20 F outside (and that's coming soon enough!).

There's a few more charts, including one of December that seems to be repeating the data for October - colder than normal.  Let me leave you with this thought:

So my question is – if the climate models can’t reliably predict the next three months, what basis do they have to claim their ability to forecast 100 years out?  It is well known in the weather modeling community that beyond about three days, the models tend to break down due to chaos.

We have all heard lots of predictions of warmer winters, less snow, animal populations moving north, drought, dying ski resorts, etc.  But did anyone in the climate modeling community forecast the cold, snowy start to winter which has occurred. If not, it would appear that their models are not mature enough to base policy decisions on.

It is becoming painfully aware that we all got snookered by Chicken Littles with PhDs, wallets to be filled, and dreams of grandiosity and global acclaim.

Posted by Skip at 7:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Never underestimate the power of crowdsourcing - at some point, somebody out there will take a different view of events, data, or context and present "stuff" in a way that is rather peculiar yet "it makes sense".  Emails, charts, data - all the stuff from the CRU arranged on a timeline.

• lost their way
• perverted the methodology for fame and money (even if "just" for research staff et al and not personally)
• shut to door (Political Correctness, anyone) to rivals or those going "er, but what about this from history?"
• allowing themselves to be caught up in the world's largest political arena - badly.
  

Download the PDF to see the gory details.

(H/T: JoNova via  Ed Driscoll via Instapundit)

Posted by Skip at 7:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

For a few weeks now I have been working with a great team of conservatives over at www.eganentertainment.com to produce a weekly web series called First In the Nation. I wanted to pass along the link to you as we are starting to gain some traction, and as my friends I wanted you all to know about it. If you like what you see, please pass it along, and be sure to check back, as I am posting new videos three times a week.

We all know that video and the web are destined to change the way we communicate, and especially how an elected official communicates with their constituents. Dan Egan has been producing nationwide television shows for a very long time, and his production crew is second to none. He has been working with me to produce this show for free, as he wants to help the cause. I would love to see candidates use web video more effectively, and that would start by calling Dan- 603 254-8000.

Did not mean that to be an ad for him, just excited about all that he is doing to further the conservative cause.

Here is he link to my show: http://firstinthenation.blip.tv

Have a Happy New Year!

Posted by Andrew Hemingway at 7:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If someone should know ClimateGate better than I, it would be this person - Lee Gerhard who is an IPCC Reviewer:

It is crucial that scientists are factually accurate when they do speak out, that they ignore media hype and maintain a clinical detachment from social or other agendas. There are facts and data that are ignored in the maelstrom of social and economic agendas swirling about Copenhagen.

• Greenhouse gases and their effects are well-known. Here are some of things we know:
• The most effective greenhouse gas is water vapor, comprising approximately 95 percent of the total greenhouse effect.
• Carbon dioxide concentration has been continually rising for nearly 100 years. It continues to rise, but carbon dioxide concentrations at present are near the lowest in geologic history.
• Temperature change correlation with carbon dioxide levels is not statistically significant.
• There are no data that definitively relate carbon dioxide levels to temperature changes.
• The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide logarithmically declines with increasing concentration. At present levels, any additional carbon dioxide can have very little effect.

We also know a lot about Earth temperature changes:

• Global temperature changes naturally all of the time, in both directions and at many scales of intensity.
• The warmest year in the U.S. in the last century was 1934, not 1998. The U.S. has the best and most extensive temperature records in the world.
• Global temperature peaked in 1998 on the current 60-80 year cycle, and has been episodically declining ever since. This cooling absolutely falsifies claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are a controlling factor in Earth temperature.
• Voluminous historic records demonstrate the Medieval Climate Optimum (MCO) was real and that the “hockey stick” graphic that attempted to deny that fact was at best bad science. The MCO was considerably warmer than the end of the 20th century.
• During the last 100 years, temperature has both risen and fallen, including the present cooling. All the changes in temperature of the last 100 years are in normal historic ranges, both in absolute value and, most importantly, rate of change.

Contrary to many public statements:

• Effects of temperature change are absolutely independent of the cause of the temperature change.
• Global hurricane, cyclonic and major storm activity is near 30-year lows. Any increase in cost of damages by storms is a product of increasing population density in vulnerable areas such as along the shores and property value inflation, not due to any increase in frequency or severity of storms.
• Polar bears have survived and thrived over periods of extreme cold and extreme warmth over hundreds of thousands of years - extremes far in excess of modern temperature changes.
• The 2009 minimum Arctic ice extent was significantly larger than the previous two years. The 2009 Antarctic maximum ice extent was significantly above the 30-year average. There are only 30 years of records.
• Rate and magnitude of sea level changes observed during the last 100 years are within normal historical ranges. Current sea level rise is tiny and, at most, justifies a prediction of perhaps ten centimeters rise in this century.

The present climate debate is a classic conflict between data and computer programs. The computer programs are the source of concern over climate change and global warming, not the data. Data are measurements. Computer programs are artificial constructs.

Public announcements use a great deal of hyperbole and inflammatory language. For instance, the word “ever” is misused by media and in public pronouncements alike. It does not mean “in the last 20 years,” or “the last 70 years.” “Ever” means the last 4.5 billion years.

For example, some argue that the Arctic is melting, with the warmest-ever temperatures. One should ask, “How long is ever?” The answer is since 1979. And then ask, “Is it still warming?” The answer is unequivocally “No.” Earth temperatures are cooling. Similarly, the word “unprecedented” cannot be legitimately used to describe any climate change in the last 8,000 years.

There is not an unlimited supply of liquid fuels. At some point, sooner or later, global oil production will decline, and transportation costs will become insurmountable if we do not develop alternative energy sources. However, those alternative energy sources do not now exist.

A legislated reduction in energy use or significant increase in cost will severely harm the global economy and force a reduction in the standard of living in the United States. It is time we spent the research dollars to invent an order-of-magnitude better solar converter and an order-of-magnitude better battery. Once we learn how to store electrical energy, we can electrify transportation. But these are separate issues. Energy conversion is not related to climate change science.

I have been a reviewer of the last two IPCC reports, one of the several thousand scientists who purportedly are supporters of the IPCC view that humans control global temperature. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of us try to bring better and more current science to the IPCC, but we usually fail. Recently we found out why. The whistleblower release of e-mails and files from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University has demonstrated scientific malfeasance and a sickening violation of scientific ethics.

If the game of Russian roulette with the environment that Adrian Melott contends is going on, is it how will we feed all the people when the cold of the inevitable Little Ice Age returns? It will return. We just don’t know when. Read more here.

(H/T: Powerline)

Posted by Skip at 8:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I had put up this post a while ago concerning putting the "global warming" into a bit of a context.  Well, here's another rendition - this time a bit more animated.

(H/T: Powerline)

Why am I repeating this?  Well, it seems that there is more and more evidence that the keepers of the climate growth data, the Climate Research Unity at the University of East Anglia, have tinkered with the data.  The Russians have have reviewed some of their data, and have discovered that what was given to the CRU has been "cherry picked" before "adjusted" - leaving out those measuring stations that didn't fit the global warming narrative and what was used, was homogenized and adjusted to account for factors such as poor placement (e.g., putting a thermometer near asphalt or air conditioners) and adjusted wrongly.  Or adjusted when there was no reason to be adjusted.

Also from Powerline (emphasis mine):

Climategate opened the floodgates, and the faux-scientific edifice of global warming is being swept away.

It is important to understand that none of the charts and graphs that purport to depict the Earth's climate ever show you raw data. None. Always, the data are adjusted; and always, the data for the late 20th century are adjusted upward. Computer scientist Charlie Martin cites an example:

The Climategate files forced the UK Meteorological Office to make at least part of their raw data available. One of the first was Willis Eschenbach, at Watts Up With That. Read the whole discussion and also Eschenbach's answer to a critique published in the Economist for the details, but here is the "money shot":

In this figure, the blue line is the raw data. The black line is the adjustments that had been applied to that data, and the red line is the result following the adjustments.

And with the startling admission a bit ago that the dog ate my homework they tossed the raw data away years ago "for storage reason", it seems that we may be on the cusp of destroying our economy here in the States because a few scientists (acting like politicians) decided that "they knew better" than the rest of us and have tried to "nudge us" (a la President Obama's advisor, Cass Sunstein) to conform our lives to their idea of "good behavior".

Fraudulently, that is.

Posted by Skip at 9:48 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Just a quick post to see if I can get anyone's blood warming....

"HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made":

1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.
       
8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds

13) Peter Lilley MP said last month that “fewer people in Britain than in any other country believe in the importance of global warming. That is despite the fact that our Government and our political class—predominantly—are more committed to it than their counterparts in any other country in the world”.

Continue reading "During this time of Hopenhagen...." »

Posted by Skip at 7:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Charles Krauthammer is one of my favorite pundits - and he really knows how to just twist that rhetorical knife, oh, just so carefully.  So well, in fact, all of us are still looking well after he has pulled it from his victim's ribs.

Such an edge:

Posted by Skip at 9:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Haven't had a lot of time to do posting either last night for today, or for today - sorry! But this series of "data context" over at The Foresight Institute I think is important - it shows that when data is presented, the context is important.  In this case, it is estimated temperature data - just in time for Hopenhagen.

All we've been hearing about is "the hockey stick" - the rise in temperatures due to "man made warming".   Anyone that has read the 'Grok for a while knows that I'd allow that we have warmed, but not due to us.  And the operative question that seldom is asked - warm in relationship to what and when?  For instance, looking at the short term may make it look like we're about to be toast:

 Certainly, it looks like that, right? Now, stretch out that timeline (e.g., "more context, Scotty!"):

Wish everyone at Copenhagen could see these - context, folks, context.

Posted by Skip at 9:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Guest Post by AWR Hawkins:

Former Vice President Al Gore is the most recognizable face of the anthropogenic global warming movement. He has authored books, starred in a documentary, and spoken innumerable times on the supposed threat global warming poses to life’s very existence.

Gone is the dry, stiff Gore who bored us to death in presidential debates during the 2000 election cycle. His passion for global warming has so enlivened him that he speaks of isotopes and carbon emissions with a fervor befitting an old-timey revival preacher talking about brimstone and fire. London’s Times Online actually went so far as to claim Gore’s passion “invoked the spirit of Winston Churchill” when Gore spoke on global warming at Oxford University in July 2009.

But putting aside the fact that Gore has honed his public speaking skills, the fly in the ointment is that he’s a fraud. Like the very global warming movement to which he has attached himself, he’s a snake oil salesman whose sales pitch is laced with scare tactics designed to push the public into embracing a radical, carbon-free agenda that rests on a combination of half-truths and outright fabrications.

And Gore’s fraudulence is not only seen in the fact that he pawns a lie, but also in the fact that he refuses to abide by the very lie he pawns.

Continue reading "Guest Post on Al Gore - Climate Fraudster?" »

Posted by Skip at 8:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Mr. Hodes is NH's CongressCritter for our Congressional District 2 (I'm stuck with Pelosi cheerleader, Carol Shea-Porter in CD-1) that wants to become the Jr. Senator from NH.

As long as you both are insistent that Cap N Trade is flat out going to work here in the US, how about looking to see if it actually works (you know, actually reduces emissions)?  From NRO

Today's Cap and Trade News   [Iain Murray]

The Head of the European Carbon Exchange admits what we've known for some time, that Europe's cap-and-trade scheme has not reduced greenhouse-gas emissions since it began in January 2005:

The Commodities and Futures Trading Commission even believes that within five years, carbon could surpass crude oil as the world's most traded commodity. Mr Birley is the first to admit that the European system "hasn't actually reduced emissions" so far.

This complete failure to meet its supposed objective comes at a high cost. The Taxpayers Alliance in the U.K. estimates that cap-and-trade cost European consumers around $140 billion last year, and possibly much more. That's a high price to pay for not actually reducing emissions. Just wait till it starts actually working, then we'll see real money being spent!

Billions of taxes (when not gaming the system of "credits and allowances") paid - for nothing?  Lots of posturing ("oh, its for the poor!"; "Oh, it's for the earth!"; "Oh, it's for the children!"; Oh, my head hurts).  NOTHING changed - the system, with much ballywho, FAIL. 

Oh yeah, I remember: being a Lefty means that only intentions matter - not results. 'scuse me.

Oh, while I'm at it - what's your reactions that the base information for all this nonsense is....gone?  That using the scientific method is all but impossible as the Brits threw away pretty much all the basic  data so that NO ONE can replicate their results?  Add to it, that the baseline computer programs (and that what I do for a living) that did the "so-called modeling" are nothing but crap?

Are you STILL going to raise taxes on NH residents (and remember, the CBO only scored the actual taxes - do you three (let's throw in my current Jr. Senator, Shaheen) know what a "supply chain" means in this scenario???

Posted by Skip at 8:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As the Newsbusters post said:

Stow all fluids far from your computer, for the following is guaranteed to induce uncontrollable fits of laughter (video embedded below the fold with transcribed lyrics):

More and more is coming out of that 63 MB zip file (which originally I thought was ALL the date - when unzipped, it is more like 175 MB) - this may now define the phrase of "transnationalist hubris".

The MSM still hasn't done their job as watchdogs - little has been said on their part on the actual ramifications of what the data hiding and the RICO worthy collective collusions have wrought.

To my satisfaction, they have some of the computer programs now in hand that were being refused in peer-review sessions. Now, we will be able to see how that data was compromised as folks start in on the forensics.

Posted by Skip at 10:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

"Hide the Decline "

Copenhagen - kiss off!  Al Gore?  I think your stocks are slipping and I hear that the Academy may want their statue back and Nobel is coming back from the dead for his medal (and $$).

This was a great line:

LONDON — A leading climate change scientist says the leak of documents stolen from a British research institute may be aimed at undermining talks at next month's Copenhagen global climate summit.

Kevin Trenberth — of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado — said in an interview Sunday that hackers cherry-picked from the stolen data and distributed selected documents to try to undermine scientific consensus on man-made climate change.

Trenberth says the hackers took data out of context.

Yeah, it is just SO hard to take 65 MB of data "out of context".

I'm late to the party on this - but the entirety of it's meaning is clear:  we've been "had" at best and global warming alarmist / scientists have been running a con-game at worst.  While they may have personally been invested in their personal reputations and inbound grant monies, what was really at risk was a new religion, GAIA worship, persuading the West to give up its Liberal tradition of democracy for the sake of a hoax.  Untold treasure and untold freedoms sacrificed so as to not have these folks "lose face" and their personal standings.

After all, can't say "Oops, we screwed up!", can we?

What I am talking about is the hacking of climate data and emails from CRU (University of East Anglica Climate Research) - one of the main centers for climate study.  The emails are damning - time after time after time, their own emails (scientists from across the globe) discuss how to:

• "slow roll" requests for data
• obfuscate over data that "does not fit the narrative"
• lock out "deniers" from peer-review scientific journals
• Outright data manipulation so as to not allow for direct replication of stated warming results
• Figure out (here in the US and in Britain) how to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests

The blogosphere is ALL lite up over this - the best places that are pursuing this as hard as LGF did for RatherGate before it turned to the dark side (and some that are just listing some of the emails in order) are some of these sites:

• WattsUpWithThat?
  
• Bishop Hill
  
• Climate Audit (mirror site; Rush mentioned the main site and promptly crashed the server)
• Climate Depot
  
• Herald Sun
• Plant Gore
  

Speaking of Planet Gore - they have a decent summary that I am reposting after the jump

It seems that the "consensus" and "settled science" may indeed be nothing more than fabrications.

Pride before a fall - never forget that even in science, money and politics plays supreme over real data. 

Continue reading "Er - Cap 'N Trade? Just took a trip to "Davey Jones's Locker"?" »

Posted by Skip at 8:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Over at Planet Gore, Edward Craig brings up an article by Bendan O'Neill arguing how environmentalists of the Malthus persuasion (i.e., there's too many of us for our environment; we're all gonna die - so start killing ourselves and have government implement mandatory population control) keep the same meme - and are wrong (emphasis mine and shortened to bullet points):

The language used to justify population scaremongering has changed dramatically over the centuries. In the time of Malthus in the eighteenth century the main concern was with the fecundity of poor people. In the early twentieth century there was a racial and eugenic streak to population-reduction arguments. Today they have adopted environmentalist language to justify their demands for population reduction.

The fact that the presentational arguments can change so fundamentally over time, while the core belief in ‘too many people’ remains the same, really shows that this is a prejudicial outlook in search of a social or scientific justification; it is prejudice looking around for the latest trendy ideas to clothe itself in. And that is why the population scaremongers have been wrong over and over again: because behind the new language they adopt every few decades, they are really driven by narrow-mindedness, by disdain for mankind’s breakthroughs, by willful ignorance of humanity’s ability to shape its surroundings and its future.

• The first mistake Malthusians always make is to underestimate how society can change to embrace more and more people. They make the schoolboy scientific error of imagining that population is the only variable, the only thing that grows and grows, while everything else — including society, progress and discovery — stays roughly the same.
• The second mistake Malthusians always make is to imagine that resources are fixed, finite things that will inevitably run out. They don’t recognize that what we consider to be a resource changes over time, depending on how advanced society is.
• And the third and main mistake Malthusians always make is to underestimate the genius of mankind.

We don’t merely use up finite resources; we create infinite ideas and possibilities. The 6.7billion people on Earth have not raped and destroyed this planet, we have humanised it.

The glass is always half full, in my outlook.  The major problem is that this Malthusian outlook is being adopted by the political class via the environmentalists - requiring the baby steps of loss of individual freedoms and greater governmental interference all in the name of sustainability.  

Example?  Read your history and re-discover the wailing over diminishing whale oil.  Or the stink over horse manure in the cities before the internal combustion engines.

Have or allow Big Government the ability to clamp down too much and we may lose the political and intellectual environment necessary to dream of, design, and bring to fruition those inventions that can solve our problems.

Posted by Skip at 5:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As you can see here, CO2 emissions world wide show a big up-tick - pretty much by "other than" industrialized countries.  Given the slope of that rise, given the climate change models we keep hearing about, we should be seeing temps going up as quickly, right?

Problem is, what the models may show are, once again, is not mirroring the actual empirical evidence:

Thus far, 2009 is looking like another normal year—further indication that the warm period from 1998-2007 was an anomaly, rather than a step change to a new climate across the U.S. (be sure to check back in two months to see how the final 2009 numbers pan out).

No wonder the U.S. Senate is slow to get behind the need for restricting our fossil fuel-related energy supply in the name of climate change. 

The article points out that 1998 was the initiation of a peculiar weather event - a huge El Nino.  The questions to be answered in my mind are:

• Did the El Nino event "queer" the stats so as to make people believe AGW?
• Is this just a "pause" in an otherwise upward climb?
  
• Will this turn out to be the 70's all over again ("We're all gonna die in an Ice Age!")?
• Are we about to blow Trillions on something that just isn't ours to control?

After all, we all have to admit that the true believers think the second and via the "Precautionary Principle" (which to me translates to "we never take any unknown (or stray into unknowable areas) risks at all) and that ALONE, gives them the right to determine how the rest of us lead our lives.

Government has already determined, in the name of environmentalism:

Continue reading "CO2 levels going up? Hmm, that should mean that temps should ALSO be going up, right?" »

Posted by Skip at 7:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

From Watt's Up With That:

Now, it seems to be, to my unsophisticated eye, that there are three sources of emissions, the US, the EU, and everyone else.  A rough eyeballing of this looks like the US is twice that of the EU but they track fairly well - industrialized nations with advanced technological / energy needs tend to do that.

However, there's a "swamping" effect there too - the "everyone else". The takeaway is that even if we were to reduce our "emissions" by half overnight, it would be for naught.

Think about that as once again, the State loving Progressives once again wish to "remove" trillions of $$ for very little benefit at all.  If you take their actions to the logical ending, it is simply just a way to not waste a man-made crisis and enrich the State - and regulate the heck out of everyone else.

It is, of course, what they do - greedy politicians just aching for more and more control over your life.  Think I'm kidding - try reading Waxman-Markey or Boxer-Kerry.  This is not about reducing emissions - it IS about telling you how to live your life according to THEIR ideas of what is best for you.

Once again - Freedom?  Liberty?  Oh, of COURSE they say it - but their definition of such is FAR different than yours or mine....

Oh, yeah - almost forgot - I KNOW I used more wood this year than last year:

I can be a bit dim at times, but last time I knew, if GHGs were going up, so should the temps...but last time I looked, global temps are down just over a degree since 1998 - gee, a degree a decade!

IPCC models aren't showing that now, are they.....

Posted by Skip at 8:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In their 1975 album, “Wish You Were Here,” Pink Floyd sang of an all-knowing machine:

“Welcome my son, welcome to the machine. Where have you been? It's alright we know where you've been. You've been in the pipeline, filling in time…”

More recently, the band Velvet Revolver (featuring Slash of Guns n Roses fame on guitar) paid homage to the big machine:

“It's a big machine, it's a big machine. We're all slaves to a big machine. It's a big machine, it's a big machine. We're all slaves to a big machine. All tied up to a big machine.”

And of course, there is the band simply named, “Rage Against the Machine.” No need to describe it. Just rage. At the machine.

Does anybody remember how uptight everybody got over certain over-generalized parts of the Patriot Act passed in the wake of the September 11 attacks? The naysayers breathlessly announced, “They’re gonna look at peoples’ library cards and records!” Recall the privacy advocates warning, “They’re sharing phone records with the government! I know it’s for suspected terrorists, after judicial review, but still…” To them, George Bush and Dick Cheney were spying on EVERYBODY. To listen to them talk, there was to be found a government listening post on every corner. Welcome to the machine!

This week, to much fanfare and little dissent, the Obama Administration announced it was unleashing another round of government “stimulus” dough in the name of financing the so-called “smart-grid.” Heralding the 3.4 billion dollar program, President Obama called it

“the largest single energy grid modernization investment in U.S. history, funding a broad range of technologies that will spur the nation’s transition to a smarter, stronger, more efficient and reliable electric system.  The end result will promote energy-saving choices for consumers, increase efficiency, and foster the growth of renewable energy sources like wind and solar.”

At the center of this new program, ostensibly in the name of helping the economy, is the move towards “smart meters.”

Says Obama, apparently now an expert on energy matters,

“Most of the projects that are receiving grants involve the installation of what are known as smart meters -- devices that will have a direct benefit for consumers who want to save money on their electric bills.”

Think about that for a moment—has Obama ever done or proposed ANYTHING that won’t cost you more money? Or doesn’t involve you having to make do with LESS of something you presently enjoy or use? Don’t forget- that 3.4 billion dollar handout is coming from someplace, and it isn’t Obama’s pocket. At some point, this is simply more money borrowed from communist China that our children and their children’s children will be on the hook to repay. But I digress…

Back to the smart meters. What—you don’t know what that is? Who better to explain that the President himself, speaking in Florida touting the latest government foray into areas previously tended to by private industry:

“Now, let me explain what's going on with these smart meters.  Smart meters will allow you to actually monitor how much energy your family is using by the month, by the week, by the day, or even by the hour.  So coupled with other technologies, this is going to help you manage your electricity use and your budget at the same time, allowing you to conserve electricity during times when prices are highest, like hot summer days.”

Sounds great, right? Who doesn’t want to be able to maximize their energy dollars?

The devil, as always, is in the details. You see, a smart meter provides for two-way communication in order to make all this happen. It will track and monitor usage, and allow all these wonderful adjustments to be made remotely—as in by someone outside your home. This will allow users, say proponents of these devices, to be provided with feedback that can be used to help conserve and reduce consumption.

Another great feature, in addition to monitoring how much energy is consumed, and at what times of the day and particular use patterns, the smart meter can be used to throttle back (restrict) electricity at certain times under specific conditions.

“But Doug, really. None of this sounds all that bad. I WANT to save on energy!” Yes, indeed you do. And so do I. The problem is the fact the government is funding it. And not just ANY government, mind you… We’re talking about a government headed by Barack Obama- a president who has been inserting government into nearly every industry and facet of life here in America in the belief that only it can save us from all challenges placed before us.

Think about it for a minute… We have a government that dictates and regulates what kind of toilets we crap in, what kind of light bulbs we can put in our homes, and what our vehicles must look and perform like. NOW we’re going to let them install electric meters in our homes that can be controlled from afar?! Where do you suppose THAT will all end up?

“Welcome my son, welcome to the machine. What did you dream? It's alright we told you what to dream.”

Posted by Doug at 8:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The "let's constrain our energy / commodity consumption" crowd is always berating the rest of us for being selfish, that we are using much more than "is fair".  I just keep thinking what I just found again:

True enough, as green critics keep saying, we produce nearly 20% of the world's CO2 and other greenhouse gases with just 5% of the world's population. But our GDP of roughly $14 trillion is nearly 25% of the world's total — in line with our gas output.

Hmm, doesn't that say something?  That we, the 5%, while producing 20% of CO2 have the smarts and efficiencies to turn out 25% of the world's economic wealth?  I daresay that China and India are far worse when measured on an economic basis (vs the per capita basis that we normally are hit with).

I've heard the same dribble about energy and commodities - again, it is not just the consumption of such that matters, it is what is being done with it that does.

Posted by Skip at 8:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The day of reckoning is here. For Al Gore, that is. After the passage of several years, and many showings to school children and non-thinking adults, the propaganda film "An Inconvenient Truth" is finally meeting its match: the TRUTH. Thanks to journalist/filmaker Phelim McAleer, (who appeared as a guest on this week's MTNP Radio) the lies and deceptions that make up the movie and the global warming movement it supports will get laid bare for the world to see in his new movie, Not Evil, Just Wrong, which makes its world premiere tonight. According to a synopsis on the film's website,

Global warming alarmists want Americans to believe that humans are killing the planet. But Not Evil Just Wrong, a new documentary by Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney, proves that the only threats to America (and the rest of the world) are the flawed science and sky-is-falling rhetoric of Al Gore and his allies in environmental extremism.

The film drives home the realities of that extremism. "Turn off your lights. Turn off your heat when you get cold. Turn off your air when you get hot," one man on the street says. "And then think about that."

Not Evil Just Wrong warns Americans that their jobs, modest lifestyles and dreams for their children are at stake. Industries that rely on fossil fuels will be crippled if the government imposes job-killing regulations on an economy already mired in recession.

[snip]

The damage that would be wrought is unjustified by the science. Not Evil Just Wrong exposes the deceptions that experts, politicians, educators and the media have been force-feeding the public for years. Man-made pollution is not melting the polar icecaps. The ocean will not rise 20 feet in a flash. And the only polar bears dying because of man are the ones who try to eat men.

McAleer and McElhinney debunk what for a time was the environmental movement's most powerful weapon of disinformation, the infamous "hockey stick" graph that attributed a supposedly unique burst of warming in the 20th century to humans. They also shatter the myth that the hottest years in the United States were 1998 and 2006. The hottest year was 1934, and the hottest decade was the 1930s -- when there were half as many people and no SUVs or jumbo jets.

Sadly, though, we know that fact and reality don't often come into the picture for the global warming believers. Hopefully, this film will help those who have fallen into the trap laid by the enviro-marxists by helping them grasp the actual truth of what's going on, and being perpetrated on our country in the name of "saving the planet."

I will be joining our friends from the Josiah Bartlett Center at the Draft in Concord for a screening of the film, along with many tens of thousands of people throughout the country. In fact, the film's makers are hoping to set a new record for a simultaneous screening of a movie premiere. With over 6,000 screenings planned in some 27 countries, they just might achieve that goal. In addition to the Concord screening, there are some 6 or 7 others here in NH, including one hosted by the Young Republicans at UNH. If you cannot get out to one of the screenings, there are now at least two places where you can view the movie tonight for free over the Internet: Big Hollywood (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com) and the American Family Association (http://action.afa.net).

Hopefully, the truth will now begin to set us free from the clutches of AlGore and his fellow global warming chicken littles and put an end to the economic destruction that will be the ultimate result should these people get their way...

Posted by Doug at 5:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Global Warming?  Not so much...

Time to see if the plow actually works, I guess....I usually don't do that until after the start of November....

More here, but is summed up by this:

 And then this from Watt's Up With That?:

My take on this (from the post title) - This shows over 4500 new snowfall, low temp, and lowest max temp records set last week.

Global Warming?  "Oh, Mahtha? Bring the fawk heah - Al Gore's 'bout done!"

Posted by Skip at 4:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

It's the middle of summer; mid-July even!  Now, take me with a bit of salt here - I wait all summer for February.  I actually LIKE the colder weather (although I'll admit, by the time it goes below 0 degrees F, it's just plain cold - that's cold enough).

Anyways, even I'm starting to wish for a bit of summer style weather (everyone has their limits, dontcha know). Has it been really summer time here?  Umm, not really.  Sat, Sun, Mon, today - first 4 days in a row that have been mostly sunny.  Temps?  Well, let's just say that the Big house air conditioner has yet to be plugged into the wall.  As The Most Esteemed Wife likes it warmer than not, I hate to admit that the more important air conditioners (in my home office and in the master bedroom) have yet to be taken out of storage.

Warm?  I think not....we are running WAY low on average temps.  Don't believe me?  Take a listen

(H/T: Now!Hampshire)

Posted by Skip at 5:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Once again, it’s Bike Week here in Central New Hampshire, and like always, it’s all eyes on the weather. While some reports focus on the economy and its effect on this, the 86th annual occurrence of the world renowned event, make no mistake about it—the weather is what makes or breaks the week.

As I headed off to work Wednesday morning, the thermometer in the truck said it was 46 degrees outside and, a rare happening as of late—it wasn’t raining. Yes indeed, it’s Bike Week and, as those of us that have been here for any length of time, it ALWAYS deluges at least once during the event (on a good year) and, honest to goodness summer never really starts till the thing is over. This year is really no exception, except that is does seem cooler than some years past.

Enter Barack Obama, ready to rain on the already rained on parade. On the same day I noted 46 degrees, I also read about the Obama Administration’s newly released report regarding global warming… I mean, “climate change.” According to the AP story,

“Rising sea levels, sweltering temperatures, deeper droughts, and heavier downpours — global warming’s serious effects are already here and getting worse, the Obama administration warned on Tuesday in the grimmest, most urgent language on climate change ever to come out of any White House.”

Once again, we are being asked, en masse, to suspend disbelief and firsthand observation and facts in order to get with the program of drastic change prescribed as the fix.

And while the situation gets seemingly worse, nothing has really changed fact-wise since the Bush Administration issued its version of the report.

“The document, a climate status report required periodically by Congress, was a collaboration by about three dozen academic, government and institute scientists. It contains no new research, but it paints a fuller and darker picture of global warming in the United States than previous studies.”

 

Continue reading "Climate Report: "It contains no new research, but it paints a fuller and darker picture of global warming..."" »

Posted by Doug at 8:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I'm guest posting over at WeekendPundit - just put this up:

DCE noticed that I had been blogging about the latest step into socialism / fascism, the Waxman / Markey Tax and Pay, die deaths by regulation Cap and Trade here.  Well, here's a little more, courtesy of The Heritage Foundation:

• Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $7.4 trillion,
• Destroy 844,000 jobs on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 1,900,000 jobs,
• Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation,
• Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent,
• Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent,
• Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,500, and
• Increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 29 percent, or $33,400 additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation.

• Look at your Electric Bill - double it - now thank Congress!
• $3.50 / gallon for gas.  Again, food or gas?  Thank Congress!
• $100 more / month for heat (I live in NH, it WILL be more) instead of a week away on vacation - thanks Congress!

Posted by Skip at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

As I said here, we are going to be spending TONS of money for not a lot of bang for the buck if this thing passes.  Not only that, there will be TONS of regulations that will hamstring us if we do not fight this thing.

If we were a highly polluted country, I might say - fine, clean it up and then we'll talk.  The problem is, we have - all kvetching aside from the extreme environmentalists that won't be happy until every "artificial" molecule is removed (along with much of the human race) - already done so.  Let's put a little context into place.  Jack Dini over at American Thinker has put a few factoids into place (reformatting and emphasis mine):

• No American city is among the top 50 cities in the world for air pollution according to the World Bank.

•  Another list, ‘The Top Ten of the Dirty Thirty,' compiled by the Blacksmith Institute of New York compared the toxicity of contamination, the likelihood of it getting into humans and the number of people affected. Places were bumped up in rank if children were impacted. No US or European sites made the list. Sites in China, India and Russia occupied six of the top ten spots.

• Another report states that seven of the world's ten most polluted cities are in China.
  

• Of the ten cities in the world with the highest levels of air pollution, three are in India.

• China has some of the worst pollution problems in the world. Nearly two-thirds of China's 343 major cities currently fail to meet the nation's air quality standards. Pollution levels in China's major cities are 10 to 50 times higher than the worst smoggy day in Los Angeles
  

• China is adding 100 gigawatts of coal-fired electrical capacity a year. That's another whole United States' worth of coal consumption added every three years, with no stopping point in sight. Much of the rest of the developing world is on a similar path.
  

As Fareed Zakaria notes,

"The combined carbon dioxide emissions from the 850 new coal-fired power plants that China and India are building between now and 2012 are five times the total savings of the Kyoto accords. So you can put in all those curly light bulbs and drive all the Priuses you want: India just ate that for breakfast and China will eat the next round of conservation for lunch." (7)

• Carbon emissions in India are rising faster than nearly every other country on the planet. Between 1980 and 2006, India's carbon output increased by 341%, compared to 321% for China, 103% for Brazil 238% for Indonesia and 272% for Pakistan. (9)
  

Peter Huber sums this up quite well:

"Cut to the chase. We rich people can't stop the world's 5 billion poor people from burning the couple of trillion tons of cheap carbon that they have within easy reach. We can't even make any durable dent in global emissions-because emissions from the developing world are growing too fast, because the other 80 percent of humanity desperately needs cheap energy, and because we and they are now part of the same global economy. What we can do, if we're foolish enough, is let carbon worries send our jobs and industries to their shores, making them grow even faster, and their carbon emissions faster still."

So, we want to slit our collective economic and energy throats....why?

Posted by Skip at 8:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Senator Shaheen,

As one of the coordinators of the recent tea party gathering in Manchester, I heard many comments about the price of gas and whether proposals in the president’s budget plan would cause fuel costs to increase.  I believe there is a good deal of concern among residents and small business owners in this area that if the administration continues on its current path gas will again hit the $4 per gallon price we saw last summer.  No one can afford this!

The Waxman-Markey Bill is just the latest piece of legislation that showcases the weaknesses of Cap and Trade --- truly a shell game.  As the ‘mother of all pork bills;’ Congressional leadership in Washington are carving out CO2 allowances -- offering up billions of dollars in free emission credits to favored industries.

And here we thought the plan was to reduce emissions. Instead Congress offers selected freebees for some, leaving only punitive climate taxes upon the industries of their choosing.

Each New Hampshire family has experienced significant setbacks and now we have our House Reps Hodes and Shea-Porter positioning a bill that will seek to curb Carbon footprints; but who benefits and who pays?

If it’s just for a few select industries; is this a well thought out plan?

Is this type of change Paul Hodes and Carol Shea-Porter joined with you to accomplish last campaign season? 

We need more clarity on costs and less gaming from the ‘Cap and Trade’ mission in Washington.  We’ve just been through a financial meltdown brought about by unaccountable, non-transparent trading of complex derivatives --- all endorsed by legislative action as propery lending practices. Why would anyone take a national climate policy down this road?  A policy that takes from one hand and cuts off the other leaves us more than empty handed in the whole scheme.

Cap and Trade gaming strategizes a plan to reduce carbon by trusting a government agency for carbon emissions credits – what do they know about production and supply cost?  They no nothing!!  This is definitely a ‘know-nothing’ Congress.  Wasn’t it the government’s ignorance that caused the mortgage meltdown?

This is just unacceptable.

Who are these ‘Cap and Traders’ to decide which businesses can operate properly on some bureaucrat’s idea carbon output?  Any climate policy that is not transparent, accountable and unaffordable for the American people cannot be an option.

Please work with our House Delegation (Rep. Paul Hodes and Carol Shea Porter) to defeat the Waxman-Markey Bill.  New Hampshire simply cannot afford it and knows better than to put the sham Waxman-Markey Bill burden upon the New Hampshire taxpaying family.

Sincerely,

Posted by Doug at 1:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, I know that the temps these past two winters have stayed rather cool....and my wood supplier rather busy:

CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen over the past 150 years and certainly since 1976. But that surface warming stopped in 1998. Now the most accurate ocean temperatures ever recorded tell us that the oceans stopped warming in 2003, and the CO2 emissions from Mauna Loa began to decline the next year! Have the oceans begun re-absorbing the CO2 they released as they warmed from 1976-1998? (The global thermometer record has plunged about 0.5 degree C since early 2007.)

Empirical evidence will win out....hey, Obama DID say he'd make decisions based on just the science...

Right?

Posted by Skip at 8:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Via Michelle Malkin:

Washington, D.C., March 19, 2009—The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a leading free-market think tank, plans to recognize “Human Achievement Hour” between 8:30pm and 9:30pm on March 28, 2009. The new one-hour holiday coincides with Earth Hour, a period of time during which governments, individuals, and corporations have agreed to dim or shut off lights in an effort to draw attention to climate change.

“We are so proud that millions of people plan to show their appreciation for human achievement by doing things like eating dinner, watching television, going to the movies, and brushing their teeth,” says Human Achievement Hour Founder and CEI Policy Analyst Michelle Minton. “Never before has a new holiday caught on so quickly.”

The new one-hour holiday, unknown prior to this press release, has already received overwhelming support from many of Washington, D.C.’s leading institutions. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, for example, tells CEI that it does not plan to shut down all of the city’s bus and rail lines for the “Earth Hour.” The Kennedy Center, likewise, has scheduled a performance of the long-running play Sheer Madness, a jazz concert, and a dance performance to coincide with the Human Achievement Hour. Washington, D.C.’s Target store, furthermore, will remain open until 10:00pm on the evening of the 28th. The Smithsonian Institution also plans a film showing that will extend into Human Achievement Hour.

“We salute the people who keep the lights on and produce the energy that helps make human achievement possible,” says Myron Ebell, CEI’s Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy.

Other organizations around the world and the nation have planned events in support of the new holiday. For example, The United State Marine Corps will continue its combat and humanitarian operations around the world during Human Achievement Hour. The New York Times confirms that it intends to put out a paper on March 29th, 2009 (preparation and printing for that issue will take place during Human Achievement Hour). At least 30,000 movies will also be screened in celebration of Human Achievement Hour. Hospital emergency and operating rooms, likewise, will remain open in Washington and in the rest of the country. Nearly all of the nation’s Wal-Mart locations will also be open during Human Achievement Hour.

Those wishing to celebrate Earth Hour, however, do not need to take part in Human Achievement Hour. “Earth Hour is a viable alternative to human achievement hour,” says CEI Senior Fellow Eli Lehrer. “Those who wish to celebrate Earth Hour should sit in the dark, turn off the heat, and breathe as little as possible.”

It goes without saying that, except for CEI itself, the institutions listed above have not actually endorsed “Human Achievement Hour.” (All the quotes and facts, however, are real and may/should be used.)

Check out the excellent video on human achievement by clicking here.

Posted by Doug at 7:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I guess there IS a good reason to have felt chilly this year....

Now, I know a single day / week / month does not make a trend - just anecdotal evidence.  But a year?  Perhaps time to s-l-o-w-l-y let AlGore know....it might do him permanent harm....

(H/T: Doug Ross)

Posted by Skip at 6:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

All we keep hearing is Global Warning from the true believers.  Yet, even with rising CO2 concentrations, global temperatures are level or declining (and the climate models are still saying temps should be rising because of that rising CO2).  With temps and snowfalls at record lows and highs, respectively, in many places, here's one more anecdotal story to throw onto the bonfire:

 AMSTERDAM (Reuters) – The Dutch strapped on skates and flocked to icy canals this weekend as freezing temperatures afforded an increasingly rare chance to skate across their flat country.  After more than a week of cold, an estimated 2.3 million skaters, out of a population of 16 million, have taken to frozen canals and lakes, according to a poll released ahead of the weekend. That number is expected to double if Queen Beatrix decides to don her skates as well...

...Warmer global temperatures have led to less natural ice forming in the low-lying Netherlands, where the topography of interconnected waterways makes it an ideal winter skating playground. Speed skating is the national sport....

So, less ice in the last few years....it fits with the idea of global warming.  But, if global warming is continuing, as Al Gore maintains, should there be any ice at all?

Anticipation is growing for the "Elfstedentocht" or "11 Cities Tour," a national event where speed skaters race along a 200-km (120-mile) course beginning and ending in the northern city of Leeuwarden.

This year marks the 100th year since the race began and if held, the tour would be the first in over a decade...

The first time in a decade....pretty much fitting in with the idea that warming has stopped and perhaps has reversed.

Skates are sold out in stores after many who thought that ice would never return to the Netherlands threw their rusty blades away or simply lost them.

Hmmm, sounds like the time to open a skate shop?

Posted by Skip at 8:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

For the first time in years, western part of Lake Superior freezes over

If the big lake seems to have an unusually placid appearance off Duluth’s shores these days, it’s because you’re looking at ice.

The western tip of Lake Superior has frozen over in December for the first time in recent memory, and that could mean a long season of ice angling that hasn’t been seen in years.

“We were just talking that it’s been something like 17 years since we had a good, long ice fishing season at this corner of Lake Superior,’’ said Russ Francisco, owner of Marine General sporting goods store in Duluth. “This is the most ice I’ve seen in December in years. … I wouldn’t go out yet, but if it stays cold and we don’t get a big wind, people will be out there fishing soon.’’...

...Francisco said in the rare years recently when Lake Superior has partially frozen, it’s usually in February or early March, after months of cold weather. Anglers and ice skaters had a few weeks of good ice in February 2007, for example, before temperatures rose and the ice blew out...

...There’s also thickening ice in the channel between Bayfield and Madeline Island, and the Madeline Island Ferry Line is about to close for the season — the first time it’s closed in December since 1985. Locals and visitors hope the ice quickly becomes thick enough to drive on between the island and mainland...

...December’s average temperature at the Duluth office of the National Weather Service has been an unusually cold 9.3 degrees below normal, with a dozen nights below zero and one as cold as 22 below. Tom Lonka, meteorologist intern for the Weather Service in Duluth, said satellite photographs show just the western tip of Lake Superior ice-covered this week.

Oh yeah, then there's this:

And increased ice can help keep water from evaporating, leading to more water in the lake next spring. It’s believed the lack of ice cover in recent years has been a big factor in declining lake levels.

Posted by Skip at 10:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday on Meet The New Press (podcasts will be coming!), we had Chan from WeekendPundit on the show to fill in for me for the majority of the show as I had to bug out early (TMEW, The Oldest, and I went down to Boston's Logan airport to pick up the Youngest coming home from Army Boot Camp at Fort Benning).

Anyways, during the opening part of the show, Chan and I led the discussion about Global Warming and how the underlying facts concerning global warming are starting to be shown to have been cherry-picked, data analysis have been "shaded", and the failure of the models that have used to "prove" global warming to even "predict" past climate changes. Add to that - a number of current data observations should be giving us cause to worry about Global Cooling - a much more disasterous scenario than Gobal Warming.

So, when I ran across this from Down Under, showing that a number of the scenarios that have been used to show the soon-to-happen outcomes of this impending doom and gloom have proven to have been way overblown and used for fearmongering, I just thought that I'd share:

Column - The 10 worst warming predictions

GLOBAL warming preachers have had a shocking 2008. So many of their predictions this year went splat.  Here’s their problem: they’ve been scaring us for so long that it’s now possible to check if things are turning out as hot as they warned. And good news! I bring you Christmas cheer - the top 10 warming predictions to hit the wall this year.

2. OUR REEF WILL DIE...In 2006, he warned high temperatures meant “between 30 and 40 per cent of coral on Queensland’s great Barrier Reef could die within a month”.  In 2007, he warned that temperature changes of the kind caused by global warming were again bleaching the reef. In fact, the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network last week said there had been no big damage to the reef caused by climate change in the four years since its last report, and veteran diver Ben Cropp said this week that in 50 years he’d seen none at all.

Lesson: Reefs adapt, like so much of nature. Learn again that scares make big headlines and bigger careers.

3. GOODBYE, NORTH POLE......“We’re actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time,” claimed Dr David Barber, of Manitoba University, ignoring the many earlier times the Pole has been ice free...In fact, the Arctic’s ice cover this year was almost 10 per cent above last year’s great low, and has refrozen rapidly since. Meanwhile, sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere has been increasing.

Lesson: The media prefers hot scares to cool truths. And it rarely holds its pet scaremongers to account.

Continue reading "Speaking of the future of Global Warming..." »

Posted by Skip at 10:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, I tend to take people, especially when they are considered to be expert in their fields AND they are talking about something IN their field:

There is no clear evidence that global warming is an imminent danger to the world, says Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Sooo, does this mean that Al Gore's Academy Award is a hoax?  That we're not going to see oceans rising 20 feet?  That we are not all doomed tomorrow?

Seems to be right.  Frankly, I never quite understood that in 100 years, that if some of the coastlines might be in trouble, why humans just couldn't just pick up and move.  An inch or so a year - I think, even with a bad back and two bad knees, I could outrun that!

As per usual, humans tend not to always prioritize well - let's take care of something much more serious of a much more timely fashion and concentrate on that to save people (hint - try eradicating malaria - it is much more costly in terms of money and people in the short term).

And then all these crazy people who want to put the environment in front of "the folks" will leave us alone, right?

Nope - just consider them to be what they are - haters of individual freedom and hypocrites (e.g., Al Gore wants me to ramp down my energy consumption and refuses to lead by example).

OK, I'll shut down the snark for a moment and go real scientific.  The global warming theorists based all of their calamity shoutings based on the current climate models that are supposed to be able to predict out long time frames (even though they have problems going backwards and matching known results - not good in itself for a confidence level).

Dr. Tim Ball, a world renown climatologist, offers a rather disturbing "look under the rock" moment - it seems that the Warmists may well have been "data picking" again!  By this, I mean that some of the scientists (who either do believe in this or do not want their government funding cut) decided to "leave out some data points":

Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today. How and why we are told otherwise?

How many failed predictions, discredited assumptions and evidence of incorrect data are required before an idea loses credibility? CO2 is not causing warming or climate change. It is not a toxic substance or a pollutant. Despite this President Elect Obama met with Al Gore on December 9 no doubt to plan a climate change strategy based on these problems. They make any plan to reduce of CO2 completely unnecessary.

Proponents of human induced warming and climate change told us that an increase in CO2 precedes and causes temperature increases. They were wrong. They told us the late 20th century was the warmest on record. They were wrong. They told us, using the infamous “hockey stick” graph, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) did not exist. They were wrong. They told us global temperatures would increase through 2008 as CO2 increased. They were wrong. They told us Arctic ice would continue to decrease in area through 2008. They were wrong. They told us October 2008 was the second warmest on record. They were wrong. They told us 1998 was the warmest year on record in the US. They were wrong it was 1934. They told us current atmospheric levels of CO2 are the highest on record. They are wrong. They told us pre-industrial atmospheric levels of CO2 were approximately 100 parts per million (ppm) lower than the present 385 ppm. They are wrong. This last is critical because the claim is basic to the argument that humans are causing warming and climate change by increasing the levels of atmospheric CO2 and have throughout the Industrial era. In fact, pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today, but how did they conclude they were lower?

In a paper submitted to the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski explains,

The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false.”

Continue reading "More cracks-in-the-facade for the global warming believers..." »

Posted by Skip at 4:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From CNSNews:

When asked if environmentalists were placing demands on the Big Three to produce vehicles that perhaps they cannot afford to manufacture now given their financial woes, Tidwell told CNSNews.com that if Detroit produced 50 mpg vehicles --“We’ll buy them.” 

OK, in this last post, I decried the non-use of the democratic of changing things.  And now, I'm about to do the exact opposite - but for a different reason.  Yet, the main principle is the same - not letting people decide, via the free marketplace, what is best for their families and themselves.

Fundamentally, I have a big problem with Mr. Tidwell in that his main supposition is absolutely wrong - not every one wants to buy a 50mpg car!  Why?  Most cars that can meet his standard are not the kind of cars that people HAVE wanted to buy.  The free market is pretty good about filling voids - if there is a need, it generally gets filled.  People get rich catering to the needs and wants of consumers who want things.  His statement is provably false in that if sufficient demand had existed for quite some time for the kind of cars he wants, they would already exist.

(CNSNews.com) – Environmental groups say consumers want to buy cars that get 50 miles per gallon and they want electric vehicles – but Big Three automakers don’t want to have to produce them.

When asked why the Big Three – Ford, GM and Chrysler LLC -- should be forced to make cars that the automakers say there is no demand for, Mike Tidwell of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network claimed that the market actually wants environment-friendly vehicles.

“Detroit claims that consumers don’t want these vehicles, while every day Detroit pays thousands of dollars to lobbyists to stop any kind of passage of higher gas mileage standards that would lead to hybrid cars, while it sues states that try to go on their own,” Tidwell told CNSNews.com.

Well, Detroit is right.  I don't hear people moaning about the lack of MPG when they replace their cars, I hear the complaints about how much they cost!  And much of that cost is due to governmental regulation (I'm about to leave the UAW costs aside for now).  Tell me, if people had REALLY wanted high mileage vehicles, when why have we been buying so many SUVs and pickups and vans over the last few years? 

Let me give Mr. Tidwell a couple of hints: families and environment 

Families - Go ahead, try shoehorning in two adults, three kids, the family dog, and groceries or luggage into a car that gets 50mpg - it ain't happening. 

Environment - I drive a 10 year old 4-wheel drive Suburban, often by myself.  Why?  One reason is that it is paid for; another is that it is left over from a business I once had.  The biggest reason?  I get to put my snow plow on it as living in central NH means a lot of snow here. With a bad back, shovels or snowthrowers aren't an option and it's not cheap to have someone else come in an plow.

So, Mr. Tidwell, not content to let individual consumers make their own decisions, have decided that the force of government (similar to this) must be used to forced people to live what he believes.

“For Detroit to say that consumers don’t want it  (fuel efficient cars) while simultaneously trying to stop state houses and Congress from improving standards is a circular and duplicitous argument,” he added.

Tidwell’s group, along with the Global Exchange and California Cars Initiative, called on Congress Friday to require automakers to commit to meet fleet-wide fuel economy standards of 50 miles per gallon (MPG) by 2015 and to produce 500,000 Plug-In Electric Vehicles (PHEV) by 2012, and 3 million by 2015 – before any bailout money is made available.

Don't you just love these kinds of "I know better than you do" folks?  No, this is not about choice and this is not about letting the marketplace decide.  This is taking that freedom to decide away from citizens and placing it with Government instead.  After all, Government is just sooo efficient itself, right?

If he really sees such a need, why doesn't he build them himself?  I don't mean that flippantly - I really do mean it?  If there is such a whole in the marketplace, he really could make a difference for himself, his family, others, AND the environment.  Instead of saddling others with the dictates of government, he could be an activist with his hands and skills - build it!

Instead, why does it seem that people automatically believe that it is government's role to fix everything?  Instead of trying to solve it themselves or with a group of like minded people?

“The problem,” he added, “is that I would rather buy a Ford car that gets 50 mpg so I can support an American company.”

Right.  Force Ford to make a car that you would like but not the rest of us?

Tidwell, who claims that the corporate culture in Detroit, especially at GM, is one that dismisses climate change and energy security as “real concerns” said that if Detroit would “stop suing” then consumers would “get their hands on the hybrids sooner and they would see the demand they claim is not there.”

When asked if environmentalists were placing demands on the Big Three to produce vehicles that perhaps they cannot afford to manufacture now given their financial woes, Tidwell told CNSNews.com that if Detroit produced 50 mpg vehicles --“We’ll buy them.”

We'll buy them only if that is the only choice we'll have.  Make no mistake - this is not about cars or MPG or American or foreign manufacturers.  These are people who elevate their view of the environment above the rights of individuals to choose for themselves.  

Posted by Skip at 3:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Stopping flights from arriving / departing at a major airport will get you media attention. On the flip side, hindering people on their way to somewhere else on vacation or for business is not a way to persuade these self-same folks to believe in your cause. Peoples' time, once lost by those that think they know better than you do, is not replaceable.  Wasting their money can get them rather steamed at you.  I'm quite sure that the verbiage is not "how nice, how do I sign your petition?" but more along the lines of "HOW the .... DARE YOU SCREW UP MY FAMILY'S VACATION - WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE....SCREW YOU!  Where's my lawyer.....":

Passengers' fury as climate change protest at Stansted airport forces dozens of flights to be cancelled

Climate change protesters stormed Stansted (London) Airport today in an astonishing breach of security that brought flights to a standstill.

More than 50 protesters from the Plane Stupid group cut through fencing in the early hours before chaining themselves together just yards from the runway.

Thousands of furious passengers left stranded after dozens of flights were cancelled and others seriously delayed had to be kept calm by armed police...

...It took police hours to cut them free and it was not until 8.30am - almost five hours after the protest had started - that the airport was able to resume flights.

...Ryanair advised people waiting to travel to go home and try re-booking because flights only had 'limited availability' for the next three days.

...Next to one officer was a large advertising board declaring: '100 per cent Guest Satisfaction Guarantee - Because we love to leave you satisfied.'

One woman in the queue remarked wryly: 'It's good to see that irony isn't dead.'

Gordon Brown's spokesman said: 'Of course everybody has a right to protest, but people also have a right to be able to travel without unnecessary hindrance.'

I think that this sums it up as far as these chuckleheads persuading anyone that their cause is good:

Asked if she had any sympathy for protesters, she added: 'Not at all. They have caused great inconvenience.'

So, how do they justify themselves?

In a statement, Plane Stupid said the disruption had prevented 'the release of thousands of tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere'.

So, will they eschew violence and work to change society democratically?

But fellow activists warned it was a 'sign of things to come' if the Government failed to back down.

A Greenpeace spokesman added: 'The climate change secretary Ed Miliband called for a Suffragette-style movement to pressure governments to act. Well, he got his wish.

'The delays to passengers are unfortunate, but right now we're in the most important hundred months in human history as we try to beat climate change before it's too late - and the Government's plans to expand airports could destroy our chances before we start.'

One hundred months?  Oh my, what fools!  In the big scheme of things, this isn't even a geological eyeblink; it is nothing but hubris based on absolutely nothing.

I'm quite sure that a lot of people lost a lot of money over these nutcases's silly attempt to save others from themselves.  Please, save us from these wackos!  

First Principle: personal freedom - and these wackos, in the name of climate change, decided that they had the right to take that freedom from these travelers.  

I think that could be classified as fascism....

Posted by Skip at 2:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As with a lot of cable channels, the Animal Planet channel ran a min-marathon called Whale Wars last night.  Seeing that I am from New England and that whaling was a large part of our nautical history (my Dad was a commercial sport fisherman captain-owner), I decided to watch.

Tangent - back in the late 1800s, the concern was "what are we going to do when the whale oil runs out???" - the local populace used it to light their lanterns at night.  Of course, humans being ingenuitive, they discovered other sources of energy other than whale blubber derived oil - natural gas and petroleum oil.  Because we humans seem to not learn from history, when I hear cries of "oh what shall we do when oil runs out??", I just shrug my shoulders and think "been there, done that; there will be something to replace it".

Well, I expected to see a bunch of environmentalists trying to stop whalers from doing what they do with, perhaps, a little civil disobedience thrown in.  What I saw instead was an egomaniac by the name of Paul Watson that was more concerned with "the mission" and using any means and anyone to achieve it. 

Ignore established international law?  No problem!  Ignore long accepted laws and practices of the sea with respect to safety and piracy?  Anything to further the mission! Manipulate and psychologically bully new volunteers to put their life on the line just to score media points?  Sure, bring me more!  Am I not your leader?  You had better believe it!   Not willing to die to save a whale, not willing to elevate the worth of a whale over that of your fellow humans?  You scum...

I can only think of one other person who is as obsessed with "a mission" (name withheld to protect the stupid and inglorious) as this jerk.  Ok, maybe not as obsessed, but well along the same road of always being in control.

Unlike the eco-terrorists on land that burn down expensive homes and SUV dealerships, this guy, who founded the radical Sea Shepherds group, seems to not care what the means utilized is as long as his ends are accomplished and he can make a media splash from it.   I really wonder if he realizes how bad he comes off, along with his other sycophants, in this series? Frankly, he ranks right up there with the other eco-terrorists that put human lives at risk. As TMEW just said "He is willing to break the law and then cry foul". 

Example? 

First he hunts down one of the whaling ships which is fine all by itself.  Then his crew launches a small "go fast" (dual outboard "rigid" boat) that approaches the whaler (all the time being filmed by a small helicopter flown off the deck of the Sea Shepherd) and all the while radioing the whaler that they were in voilation of international law (which the whalers are not and I am not in knowledge of any Letters of Mark (Marquee?) that would render any kind legal ability of the Sea Shepheds to enforce any such law).  My first thought is that with the go-fast boat, they'd go 'round and round' the target to slow it down from hunting whales in trying to avoid this "go fast" boat.  Well, it turns out that go-fast's crew started heaving butyric acid (think vomit smell that isn't going away for a long time) and then some very slippery liquid that would render it almost impossible to walk on a heaving deck.  So much for civil civil-disobedience... 

Continue reading "We are hooligans...er, not US, these other people..." »

Posted by Skip at 1:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

..

In this prior posting, GraniteGrok's Ann Marie Banfield writes,

“As we try to play catch up to the Democrats, one area that continues to fly under the radar screen is our public education system.  This is a system that continually indoctrinates children into the ideals of liberalism.  This is a system that Republicans have virtually washed their hands of.  Yet this is the most pressing issue we face.”

She continues,

“It is hard to run behind this indoctrination program and do repair work.  It is best avoided when the indoctrination is not allowed to be conducted in the classrooms.”

Exactly. It is much harder to change something, in this case, ideology, once it starts to take root.

The Bedford mom-turned-educational activist asks,

“Where are these strong Republican leaders?  Are they at school board meetings each week?  Running for school board?  Forming a relationship with board members to give their input?  Supporting a Superintendent that promotes an apolitical atmosphere rather than a liberal indoctrination camp?  I bet they are meeting for their weekly or monthly Republican meetings.  All the while, the school board is voting in more programs that completely undermine the family, and every other conservative principle.”

“Where are Republicans on education?”

she wants to know. Of course, she does know:

“Many have checked out of the public school system and washed their hands of the mess.  Yet they send them a hefty check each year, paying for the rest of those kids to be indoctrinated into liberalism and globalism at their expense without one word of criticism.  How many of you would send $10,000/year to a company for nothing in return?   Not only NOTHING, but to do a job you are in complete odds with?  Yet that is exactly what is happening when they steal your tax dollars and dictate liberal curriculum in the classrooms.”

Consider the latest play presented by the school performing arts program here in the 'Grok's hometown. After reading in the Citizen newspaper of the rather-crudely named play currently being presented by Gilford students, “Urinetown,” that featured themes of “greed love and a ‘world without water’” I just knew it was yet another instance of leftist anti-capitalism indoctrination. All the buzz words were there.

“‘Urintown’ is an award-winning satirical musical comedy that pokes fun at capitalism, social irresponsibility, populism, bureaucracy, corporate mismanagement and petty small town politics.”

I’ll bet it “pokes fun at capitalism” all right. In addition, it carries the standard radical environmentalist agenda as well—After all, what public school activity would be complete without that? The Citizen notes that

Continue reading "The children are the future. We must take care as to who is filling their heads and with what..." »

Posted by Doug at 11:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

From planet gore:

Given this unanticipated format change, I was unable to make all my points. The one I did most enjoy offering to this mostly foreign, largely European audience interested in “the politics of global warming” was that we are on track to see the global temperatures having cooled by the day George W. Bush leaves office compared to when he entered.

IF the rise in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere denotes global warming, how does one explain the continued rise in that concentration with the observed decline in measured temperature?

Posted by Skip at 7:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

One of the foremost climate scientists in America, Dr. Roy Spencer - principal research scientist at the University of Alabama, recently spoke at a breakfast where the topic was global warming policy (he also has a book out, Climate Confusion) and these articles covered it here and here on what his research was showing.

And yes, he is pooh-poohing the idea of global warming.

...Dr. Spencer observed that the most important thing we need to know about climate is its sensitivity (i.e. positive and negative feedbacks). He demonstrated just how out of whack the IPCC climate models are when it comes to those feedbacks.

A few statistics from his presentation:

Only 39 out of every 100,000 molecules of air are CO2, and only about 5 percent of CO2 is man-made.  Furthermore, it takes 5 years to go from 39 molecules of CO2 to 40 molecules.

Nature consumes about 50 percent of our CO2 emissions.

Some 90-95 percent of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor and clouds.

You can see Dr. Spencer’s presentation on our website.

Notice that?  Water vapor and clouds (which are also made, pretty much, of water). We hear CO2 this and CO2 that, that we have to tax the production this source of CO2, that source of CO2, yadda, yadda, yadda.  Methane?  Only PETA and the vegetarians are after that - we shouldn't be eating meat after all (the new PC area - you just wait).

So, if CO2 is, at best, only 10% of the problem, why are our politicians concentrating on it so much?

He also answered questions - a few here:

For you is there any observation that would make you believe humans are causing the planet to warm significantly?

In order to have a smoking gun we would have to have about 50 years of really accurate satellite temperature data. It's even questionable whether the satellite data we have from the last seven years, which are our best, are good enough. But I think 50 years of satellite measurements would do it. But we don't have it.

The global temperature trend since the year 2000 has been relatively flat. Have you seen any change in climate scientists' point of view as a result? Does this cause them consternation?

Not that I know of. I think too much is being made of that. I don't use that, or see that as any evidence that global warming has stopped. Because if you just look at the last 30 years we've had periods of no temperature increase for 7 or 8 years. That's because of natural climate variability on top of the global warming signal, whatever the global warming signal is due to. So I don't point to that. . . .

In Science, in 2005, you, John Christy and others admitted there was a correction needed in some of your data. Has that actually been incorporated into your temperature data?

Yes. I can't believe this keeps coming up. We made the corrections. It's a non-issue although it's one the BBC, I think it was two weekends ago, they had a special and they interviewed skeptics. It was a hit piece. I remember them interviewing me for two hours, and they kept asking me about this whole satellite data thing and basically what they wanted me to do was admit on camera that I made a mistake. Which I did, and we corrected it. That's science. But that's all the BBC showed from the interview.

You've argued that temperature doesn't necessarily move in lock step with carbon dioxide emissions. But it's still not a good idea to emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide were 270 parts per million in the atmosphere. We're now at 385 or 390 ppm. Big greenhouses run CO2 at 1,000 ppm. I think the assumption that CO2 is necessarily bad is a philosophical assumption, not a scientific statement. Nature has picked a certain balance, but I don't see it as preordained, or necessarily the best balance. If you talk to some plant physiologists they make it sound like life on Earth is actually starved for CO2. I think that is a position that ought to be impassionately considering, rather than automatically assuming that putting more CO2 into the atmosphere is bad because that is not a scientific statement.

Posted by Skip at 9:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

If it wasn't so serious, it would be so silly.  From the Wall Street Journal:

ZURICH -- For years, Swiss scientists have blithely created genetically modified rice, corn and apples. But did they ever stop to consider just how humiliating such experiments may be to plants?

That's a question they must now ask. Last spring, this small Alpine nation began mandating that geneticists conduct their research without trampling on a plant's dignity.

"Unfortunately, we have to take it seriously," Beat Keller, a molecular biologist at the University of Zurich. "It's one more constraint on doing genetic research."

Daft?  Is that a word that translates well? 

Sheesh!  You know, you keep seeing this idea that everyone has rights, and those rights are seemingly extending to all aspects of normal life.  We have the Spanish giving rights to the Great Apes and animal rights folks here in the US pushing laws that we humans are not the owners of our pets (merely stewards).

Now Switzerland has declared that plants have rights??   Are we in the West becoming insane?

Dr. Keller recently sought government permission to do a field trial of genetically modified wheat that has been bred to resist a fungus. He first had to debate the finer points of plant dignity with university ethicists. Then, in a written application to the government, he tried to explain why the planned trial wouldn't "disturb the vital functions or lifestyle" of the plants. He eventually got the green light.

The rule, based on a constitutional amendment, came into being after the Swiss Parliament asked a panel of philosophers, lawyers, geneticists and theologians to establish the meaning of flora's dignity.

"We couldn't start laughing and tell the government we're not going to do anything about it," says Markus Schefer, a member of the ethics panel and a professor of law at the University of Basel. "The constitution requires it."

In April, the team published a 22-page treatise on "the moral consideration of plants for their own sake." It stated that vegetation has an inherent value and that it is immoral to arbitrarily harm plants by, say, "decapitation of wildflowers at the roadside without rational reason."

On the question of genetic modification, most of the panel argued that the dignity of plants could be safeguarded "as long as their independence, i.e., reproductive ability and adaptive ability, are ensured." In other words: It's wrong to genetically alter a plant and render it sterile.

With all of the problems surrounding us, this is just one more indication that priorities of Western society are just plain nuts.  This moral relativism that other things are co-equal with humans will be the death of us - just like the West's idea that the supreme uplifting of "multiculturalism" is of a more importance than those elements in Western society.

I just can't WAIT to see the official EU Plant Courts start to be held ("10 years for trampling that daisy!").  So, what do you get for prepping them for gastronomical purposes - wouldn't eating them damage their dignity?

It also begs an obvious, if unrelated question: For a carrot, is there a more mortifying fate than being peeled, chopped and dropped into boiling water?

"Where does it stop?" asks Yves Poirier, a molecular biologist at the laboratory of plant biotechnology at the University of Lausanne. "Should we now defend the dignity of microbes and viruses?"

So, when the Schools of Law start hiring botanists, we're all in trouble...

(H/T: NRO)

Posted by Skip at 9:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

If you're like me, you are most likely anxious to learn as much as possible about Senator McCain's exciting VP pick of AK Gov. Sarah Palin. Here is an exchange from the Glenn Beck Show that aired back in June:

Given the importance of energy and its bearing on the upcoming election, Mrs. Palin is obviously well "up to speed" on the issue of drilling and utilizing America's domestic sources. If this interview is any indication, she will do quite well on TV as she hits the road as part of the McCain/ Palin ticket. I like her repeated references to the "radical environmentalists", too. I have a friend that lives in Alaska. I can tell you that Alaskans aren't too keen on folks from Massachusetts and New Jersey telling them what they can and cannot do.

Posted by Doug at 1:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Given the massive shortfalls in their State budget, you'd think that CA would be happy to have a new business that would provide for more jobs, right?  After all, new businesses and employees all pay taxes that can help out their self-made fiscal crisis.

Naw!  From NRO:

California, The Nanny State, continues to trail-blaze America’s Green future with carbon caps, fuel-economy laws, even a South L.A. ban on new fast-food restaurants (to force residents to lead a healthier lifestyle). Now comes Attorney General Jerry Brown’s threat this week to block a proposed water-bottling plant in Northern California unless its effects on global warming are evaluated.

Well, I can tell you without an expensive survey (which is probably more to the point - not so much pro-environment but anti-business which, after all is said and done, the same thing).

According to AP’s report, Brown said the plant “failed to include an examination of whether the operation will contribute to global warming through the production of plastic bottles, the operation's electrical demands and the diesel soot and greenhouse gas emissions produced by trucks traveling to and from the plant.”

If you are asking the question, I can give you the answer from 3,500 miles away - it will have an impact, one that you will not approve of no matter how much money the company spends.  Making things costs energy and uses other materials.  The people who would be employed there would exude CO2 as a matter of living (and a fair amount of methane from time to impolite time too!).  Moving that product will add to emission as its consumers are probably not going to travel there to personally pick up such water containing bottles.

Of course, AG Moonbeam’s criteria would kill all new manufacturing business in the state, but I suppose we should be used to such lunacy by now. 

Thank God that they haven't gotten to the worst question with regards of eliminating CO2 emissions - "are you breathing"?

In time, they will.  CA leads the country in this kind of nuttiness. They have yet to learn that decisions have consequences and so do idiotic ideologies (like carbon emission is the worst sin in the world).

Posted by Skip at 8:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

We hear so much that the US is the enemy when it comes to global warming.  Listening to the true believers would have you think that we are JUST.BAD.PEOPLE.AND.BUSH.IS.EVIL. All the time forgetting that it was Clinton that failed to get that Kyoto treaty ratified (as Congress refused to vote for it, killing it 98-2, or so).

If you listened to the Europeans who have flapped their gums incessantly over the last few of years (not to mention our own homegrown "environment before humans" environmentalists), you'd think that they'd be pretty much emission free, right?  So, this must mean that the US has been chugging up a disaster - all the signatories of Kyoto must really be lowering their levels of the dreaded greenhouse gases, right?

Not so much! (H/T: RedState)

As this shows, we're not doing so bad.  More doers than talkers.  And that's the way it should be - less hot air....more results.  We do- they don't.  

So let's try this - how about the Kyoto signatories paying US for missing their targets?  After all, they'd certainly be trying the same if we were held accountable, right?

Posted by Skip at 2:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

Our friend Chan over at Weekend Pundit has a derisive term for many of the overbearing, snot-mannered, holier-than-thou environmentalists that Mother Gaia comes before any needs of humans:

Green on the outside - red on the inside.  A thin veneer of green encasing a whole lot of red.  Red as in Communist Red.  Red as in fascist - we want you to behave as we believe you should because we know better than you.  We want to control all that can do - all in the name of saving the planet.  After all, Gaia comes before you.  

Liberty? Freedom?  Rights?  Not a chance.  What counts to them are birds, slithering reptiles, snail darters, fish....not your neighbor, your cousin, your spouse, your children.  Even if they are wrong (as they are about to find out that global warming is about to become global cooling - and that will be much more dangerous).

And how do they believe they can act? Brendan O'Neil hits it out of the park!

Imagine a society where simply speaking out of turn or saying the "wrong thing" was openly discussed as a crime against humanity, and where sceptics or deniers of the truth were publicly labelled "criminals", hauled before the press and accused of endangering humanity with their grotesque untruths.

Imagine a society where even some liberals demanded severe restrictions on freedom of movement; where people campaigned for travelling overseas to be made prohibitively expensive in order to force people to stay at home; and where immigration was frowned upon as "toxic" and "destructive".

Imagine a society so illiberal that columnists felt no qualms about demanding government legislation to force us to change our behaviour; where the public was continually implored to feel guilty about everything from driving to shopping – and where those who refused to feel guilty were said to be suffering from a "psychological" disorder or some other species of mental illness".

[snip]

In the current debate on liberty, we hear a lot about the attack on our democratic rights by the government's security agenda, but little about the grave impact of environmentalism on the fabric of freedom. It seems to me that green thinking – with its shrill intolerance of dissenting views, its deep distaste for free movement and free choice, and its view of individuals, not as history-makers, but as filthy polluters – poses a more profound threat to liberty even than the government's paranoid anti-terrorist agenda.

Environmentalists are innately hostile to freedom of speech....

[snip]

But perhaps the main way that environmentalism undermines the culture of freedom is by its ceaseless promotion of guilt. In the environmentalist era, we are no longer really free citizens, so much as potential polluters. We are continually told – by government, by commentators, by radical activists – that everything we do, from wearing disposable nappies to using deodorant to allowing ourselves to be cremated, is harmful to our surroundings.

Posted by Skip at 8:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

.

On her campaign website, Jeanne Shaheen puts forth, in a style quite similar to that of one of her ideological comrades, Chicken Little, dire warnings of the consequences of not addressing global warming immediately. Says Jeanne,

"A new energy policy is an environmental, national security and economic imperative, and there is no time to waste.”

Got that? She says THERE IS NO TIME TO WASTE. You can almost feel the panic laid before visitors to the website:

Reversing global warming is an economic, environmental and health imperative for New Hampshire. If we don’t act to reverse global warming, New Hampshire’s snow season is projected to shrink by almost 50 percent by mid-century, severely impacting our skiing and snowmobile industries. Increasing temperatures also will negatively impact fall foliage tourism, the hunting and fishing industries, and maple sugar production. Our small but precious coastline faces substantial increases in the extent and frequency of coastal flooding, erosion, and property damage. Global warming worsens air quality, putting more stress on people with heart conditions and respiratory conditions, like asthma, and New Hampshire already has one of the highest rates of childhood asthma in the country.

Bad stuff, eh? She then spews the usual blather one expects from politicians choosing this route to scare voters into casting their vote for them, rather than the opponent that "obviously" works against the planet:

Jeanne Shaheen believes it’s long past time that Washington take action. Jeanne Shaheen supports the goal of cutting carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050...

So you'd imagine someone so committed to such drastic measures would be leading the way in all regards, right? Come on, it's JEANNE SHAHEEN we're talking about, here. You know about politicians of her ilk: "fine for thee, but not for me..." In the same vein as her famous canoe trip with Al Gore-- you remember, the one where the river dams were opened during a drought while she was the governor so that she and AlGore could have their picture taken in a canoe-- comes the latest, provided by regular 'Grok reader Peter G:

Continue reading "Jeanne Shaheen: DO as I say, not as I do..." »

Posted by Doug at 8:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Skeptic?  No, I do believe that the Earth has warmed up a bit, as it has in the past.  And it will cool again, as it has in the past (as the natural state of most of North America is generally one with ice on top of it). Skeptic, yes, when it comes to the "truth" that mankind is solely responsible for it - this I reject.  Perhaps to a little degree (pun intended) but not to the irrational reactions that popular society of the Left seems to absolutely believes in.  Let's play "can you see the Mantra?":

Even with the rise in fuel prices, the low-cost airlines in this extremely competitive market still offer flights for less than the cost of a train ticket in Britain or Germany.

At a time when airlines are already the fastest growing source of climate-warming carbon dioxide emissions — increasing nearly 5 percent a year according to a report last week from the European Environment Agency — the new low-cost industry is pumping a huge amount of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

It is also laying down an infrastructure that guarantees high emissions for years. Low-cost flights have spawned dozens of new pastel-colored, low-cost condominium developments catering to foreigners, which now line Murcia’s scraggly roads.

“Low cost carriers are growing at 9 percent a year, and from an environmental point of view that is a problem,” said Christian Brand, a researcher at Oxford University who specializes in the mathematical modeling of transportation emissions. “Their cheap prices encourage more travel.” 

[snip]

But for many, the economics of flying cheap are proving more compelling than the environmental consequences. With prices for gas and hotels at all-time highs in Britain and Germany, it is, somewhat bizarrely, more economical to fly to Spain, even for a weekend, than to take a traditional driving vacation near home.

Yeah, you got it.  Not only is the author, Elizabeth Rosenthal, in the tank for this, but so is Christian Brand who she quotes for the article.  The article assumes that one agrees with the premise that travel is bad, that air travel is even worse, and worst of all, adults should not be allowed to choice what to do with their time and their money because it conflicts with their Mantra which, according to AlGore, is both the highest truth and calamity facing mankind.

Rubbish!

Continue reading "Which is more important - personal freedom or hewing to "the Mantra"?" »

Posted by Skip at 8:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In compliance w/ Kyoto...

I'm for clean air, clean land, and clean water.  Yet, there is that old truth of 80/20 - it takes 20% of the effort to get the job 80% done.  Then the Law of Diminishing Returns kicks in and it then takes 80% of the effort (and cost) to get the rest of the 20% done.  Please remember that as you climb that last 20% slope, the cost goes up very cost for that next incremental bit of "goodness".

Yes, there is the fact that I do not believe that Global Warming is largely due to mankind.  Or even a substantial degree.  Spending hundreds of billions of dollars trying to prevent something of the order of 0.0015 degree / year - kinda fruitless.  For instance, for the possible rise in sea levels of a foot over the next 100 years (as has happened over the last 100 years without getting our knickers in a knot), I'd think that simply shoring up shorelines would be a heck of a lot less expensive.  After all, we humans are quite the adaptable bunch...

And why do the "cap and trade" or "carbon tax" zealots want the rest of us Americans to live lifestyles (energy wise) of paupers for not much gain at all?  Frankly, my only thoughts are "this is a huge tax posing as "saving the world" and "science as politics" (or is this politics as science)?

Especially when one sees this:

Russians snub offer to help cut emissions

The Russian owners of the Norilsk Nickel plant on the Kola Peninsula earned huge profits last year but haven't made any efforts to cut the plant's emissions. Nor have they taken up a Norwegian offer to fund a clean-up.

Never before has it released such high emissions, and never before has it earned so much money. It's part of the Norilsk Nickel concern, which in turn is part of holding company Interros, controlled by Russians Mikhail Prokhorov and Vladimir Potanin. Forbes Magazine estimated their wealth at about USD 45 billion.

"We are worried over the increased emissions, and we don't know the reason for them," Bente Christiansen, environmental chief for Finnmark County, told newspaper Aftenposten. "We'll be following the situation carefully."

Last year, Norwegian politicians vowed to withdraw the support unless some environmental improvements were made. The money remained, however, in the government's revised state budget that it released earlier this month.

"As long as they're earning money, they'll probably let the plant keep going," said researcher Margrethe Aanesen. "They'll probably never invest in it."

Right.  So if we follow the GAIA religionists, we'd be handcuffing ourselves for not much reason at all.  After all, if China, India, and this example from Russa holds true, it is nothing but talk.  Why?  If we only handcuff ourselves, what is the gain?  If one Russian plant can issue more of a pollutant than an entire country and nothing is done, what is learned?

The short story - unless ALL go into lockstep, those countries pulling on their collective hair shirt will look rather silly in a few years.   Besides, who is going to enforce emission controls on the worse large scale emitters in the world - volcanoes! 

Remember:

• Kyoto signatory countries - emissions up 22%
• US - emissions up 6%

Posted by Skip at 6:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

You just knew this was coming...

The BMI reports

Using tragedy to advance an agenda has been a strategy for many global warming activists, and it was just a matter of time before someone found a way to tie the recent Myanmar cyclone to global warming.

Former Vice President Al Gore in an interview on NPR’s May 6 “Fresh Air” broadcast did just that. He was interviewed by “Fresh Air” host Terry Gross about the release of his book, “The Assault on Reason,” in paperback.

 “And as we’re talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated,” Gore said. “And last year a catastrophic storm from last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China – and we’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.”

Got that? We're seeing things that have been predicted "MIGHT be associated with global warming." And then again, maybe not, right Al? This is such bunk...

Posted by Doug at 1:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Having now been on this ball of mud for a few years, I take with a grain of salt the splendiferous pronouncements of "WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!" from the environmental wackos.  While some of the underlying reasons for doing so did really exist (face it, pollution WAS a HUGE problem here in the US back in the 60s and 70s as lots of "spaces" were treated as dumping grounds).  Since then, however, we have seen tremendous efforts with tremendous results.

Thus, when I hear more of the same, I just go "been there, done that - and we fixed it too".  That is not to say that more cannot be done - it's just that the "gloom and doom" just doesn't excite me any more as I've been Chicken Little'd far too often with the long ago predictions just not jiving with empirical evidence.

Such as these that I found over at PowerLine:

• “...civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind,” biologist George Wald, Harvard University, April 19, 1970.
• By 1995, “...somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.
• Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor “...the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born,” Newsweek magazine, January 26, 1970.
• The world will be “...eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age,” Kenneth Watt, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970.
• “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” biologist Barry Commoner, University of Washington, writing in the journal Environment, April 1970.

Continue reading "We've heard this all before....." »

Posted by Skip at 8:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Global warming?  1.7 degree F over the last 100 years.  This winter - not so much!

Get a load of this pix:

So what Doug says here actually is not just "local weather".   Thanks to "Watts Up With That"

There have been a number of indications that January 2008 has been an exceptional month for winter weather in not only North America, but the entire Northern Hemisphere.

We’ve had anecdotal evidence of odd weather in the form of wire reports from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and China where record setting cold and snow has been felt with intensity not seen for 30-100 years, depending on the region.

From our remote sensing groups, we have reports of significant negative anomalies in both the RSS and UAH global satellite data for the lower troposphere. The there’s NOAA’s announcement that January 2008, was below 20th century averages, plus news that Arctic sea ice has quickly recovered from the record low extent of Summer 2007.  Finally, there’s the massive La Nina said to be the driver of all this but may be a harbinger of a more permanent phase shift according to veteran forecaster Joe Bastardi.

 [snip]

January 2008 had the largest areal Northern Hemisphere snow cover for the period of 1966-2008, just slightly larger than the previous largest anomaly of January, 1984.

Here are the rankings for the top 10 months, ranked by Northern Hemisphere coverage. January 2008 comes in second to Feburary of 1978.

Here in NH, we are getting close to or will break the season's most snowiest!  And as they say in the Infomercials "Wait, there's more!" 

Continue reading "How cold did you say it was????" »

Posted by Skip at 9:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

So, now the environmental extremists want to tax you, take the money, and berate you parents for letting your kids get fat:

The Sierra Club and other environmental groups are calling for a couch potato sin tax to finance their outdoor classrooms, reportedly to fight childhood obesity. It’s part of a growing “Leave No Child Inside” movement to get kids outside of classrooms and reduce screen time. We want to “tax part of the problem to fund the solution,” a Sierra Club spokesperson told KOB-TV news.

Remember - it's for the children.  What scolds - "since you can't take good care of your kids, based on our standards, we'll take your money and spend it our way on them...or is that, for our purposes masked as 'for them'".

It is now a SIN to do what you want to do with your own time and own money for your own children.  After all, along with global warming, childhood obesity is the obsession du jour.  

An alliance of more than a dozen New Mexico environmental groups will lobby again for legislative approval of a 1 percent sales tax — or “sin tax" — on new televisions and video games to fund outdoor education programs. Such a tax could raise an estimated $4 million a year....

The environmental alliance will ask for a half-million dollars to continue the fledgling Outdoor Classroom program. The Environmental Alliance of New Mexico boasts 30,000 members among its combined groups, which include the Sierra Club, New Mexico Wildlife Federation, Nature Conservancy and 1000 Friends of New Mexico. ...The program works with educators to develop curriculum, provide teaching materials, pay for busing students to the parks and for service-learning grants. A portion of the money also went to the Rural Education Bureau of the Public Education Department. “I would love to see this move forward and get funding. A lot of it needs to be used to train teachers," said Donna Grein, the bureau's education administrator....

Mark my words, this is just an attempt to get more money for THEIR projects for the wilderness; I bet that if strict audit procedures are sprung on them that they would find that not all of this new revenue stream would end up "for the children" (cynical, aren't I).

Continue reading "We want to tax you and use it to shame you" »

Posted by Skip at 8:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

after a male grooms a female, the likelihood that she will engage in sexual activity with the male was about three times more than if the grooming had not occurred.

.

And as with other commodities, the value of sex is affected by supply and demand factors: A male would spend more time grooming a female if there were fewer females in the vicinity.

.

"And when the female supply is higher, the male spends less time on grooming ... The mating actually becomes cheaper depending on the market," Gumert said.

Posted by Doug at 6:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

I grew up around Boston and went to school / lived in there during the 70's.  During that time, as the late 60's radicalism started to abate, one thing kept appearing in the news:

Seabrook

For those outside of the New England area, that is the nuclear power station that was built in Seabrook, NH.  Given the projections of the time, it was needed as the New England area was importing most of its electrical power from outside the area.  While Plymouth Station also was nuclear, my memories are of the protests of the Clamshell Alliance (a hodge-podge, often raggedy clad, mixture of early environmentalists and hippies) ready at the drop of a hat to go protest the building of the two reactors at Seabrook.  Or, stand in front of a judge with reams of paper to slow the process down.

Fast forward 30 years, and once again, I see the rounding up of the same mentality, this time, down Texas way:

Texas anti-nuclear activists are rallying their forces to challenge the so-called nuclear renaissance that could see the state become home to the country's first new nuclear power plant project in nearly 30 years.

On Friday a coalition of groups said it will intervene in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's review of NRG Energy's application to build two new reactors in Matagorda County, next to the existing South Texas Project nuclear plant.

The commission filed notice this week that a 60-day public comment period is now open for groups to intervene in the review for the joint construction and operation permit.

Austin-based officials with the Sierra Club, Public Citizen and the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition said they don't yet know if they will intervene in the review separately or under one name. But they don't plan on sitting on their hands.

"We need to draw a line in the sand here in Texas and create a new nuclear resistance movement to say no to the nuclear regurgitation," said Karen Hadden, director of SEED.

Sure.  The problem is, I don't see a whole lot of ability, country wide, to increase the supply of electricity easily and quickly and at no cost to the environment.  One only has to look back at California a few years ago and remember how crippling the the blackouts were to the economy and to life in general.  Lots of people, deprived of their air conditioners and other modern conveniences were not impressed (or in Maine, for that matter).

Yes, I know that the Enron market manipulators played their roles in that fiasco - and I am glad that those that were found guilty are paying the price.  However, in watching things around the country, and locally, I see often see self-righteous environmentalists decrying "how could you even THINK of something like this"?  Yet, what do they offer in return?

Er, not much.....

Continue reading "And so it starts again...NIMBYism and nukes" »

Posted by Skip at 8:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Once again, on the road and as always, I get to read USA Today, the travelers' newspaper, as it is properly delivered to my front door in the wee early hours of the morning.  Generally, there's always a couple of articles that are a hoot that evoke a "oh really?" response (re: smack forehead with open hand "oh really?" roll eyes kind) response.

Today?  Right on time.... 

The research, led by ecologist Jianguo "Jack" Liu, a Michigan State University professor of fisheries and wildlife, looked at international data comparing utility consumption and housing space per capita in married and divorced households. He found that divorce creates more households with fewer people, using more energy and water and taking up more space.

Oh, the ignominy of it all!  Now, I think divorce is a horrible thing and certainly I believe that divorce in this country has become far too easy - and not just from the legal aspect.  Starting with the Boomer generation (and more on what we Boomers are teaching the next generations), it is all about

ME

Nothing seems to be as important as ME - our culture is skewed too much to the individual and not realizing that there are things more important than ME.  Don't worry - I'm going all collective-like the Democrats Prez wannabees here, but there is something of great value in understanding that while ME is important, there are times that MORE THAN ME is more important.  We seemingly, as a society, are all too willing to pull up stakes and move on (or is "abandon" more the word to use) when the going gets too tough?  "Oh, my needs are not being fulfilled - I'm not a complete person" after dealing with a problem for merely a couple of weeks or months.  Try a couple of years - or decades, bucko.

Anyways, I digress and back to topic.  Why do I get this feeling that this is one of those studies that mere common sense would seem to answer almost right away and at little cost?  Let's see - folks like to have their own places.....get married and share one space....split up - go back to previous state (own place).

Own place means space and power and stuff, right?  Increased individual expenses, right: 

Continue reading "Oh My - Such a reason not too!" »

Posted by Skip at 8:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Power Watch Declared for Maine for Second Straight Day

For the second day in a row, the operator of the region's power grid has declared a power watch for the state of Maine.

[snip]

Consumers are being asked to reduce their electricity use by shutting off unnecessary lights and electrical appliances and putting off activities such as laundry and dishwashing.

In Baghdad this might be expected, but MAINE? It's too bad, really. At one time, they had a nuclear power plant all to themselves, which, according to the Wikipedia,

Over its 25 years as Maine's sole operating nuclear power plant, the power station produced much of Maine's power.

But that was before it was shuttered. While planned with a forty year lifespan, it barely operated past the halfway point. Again from Wikepedia:

Initial opposition to constructing the plant was led by Citizens for Safe Power, from 1967 through 1972; the group failed to stop construction but succeeded in persuading the Nuclear regulatory Commission to impose stricter environmental standards and monitoring. During the 1980s, when nuclear opposition was provoked by the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island, two attempts by referendum (1980 and 1982) at closing the plant were defeated. A third referendum in 1987 was triggered by the catastrophic accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in the Ukraine. The referendums all failed despite gaining more than 40% of the vote. Ultimately the questions raised in the referendums by the Maine Nuclear Referendum Committee, and its allied citizen groups, proved persuasive to policy makers who made the ultimate decision for early closure of the plant.

If and when nuclear power comes back into favor, what do you suppose their chances will be of getting another one of these? Throw another log on the fire...

Posted by Doug at 7:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Riinnnggg - Hi, I'm <cute young female voice on the line, CYFVONL> and I'm calling from the Sierra Club.  We're not calling to ask for money, but we are asking if you would be willing to sign our petition to fight global warming and outsourcing of American jobs.

OK, I think, is this a repeat of the Purple People ("Hi, would you be in favor of affordable health insurance for all Americans?").  Ask a rather inane question, get an assent to a petition, and then turn it into a political play not quite when the signatory believed.

Yup, I decided to ask questions!

Me: Well, can I ask a couple of questions first?

CYFVONL: sure!

Me: Before I say yes, can you tell me how you are planning on stopping outsourcing?  Is a through tax policy?  Or legal definitions?  Or something else?  Are you planning on advocating for change in the other countries that take those jobs to give them back? 

CYFVONL: We want to give this petition to the politicians...

Me: I got that....but what are you going to tell them to do - what are you advocating for? 

CYFVONL: Uh, I don't know

Me: Can I talk to your manager then? 

CYFVONL: Let me go find an answer

(Medium length silence) 

CYFVONL: We think that American companies should keep American jobs here and not send them overseas and...

Me: OK, I guess you cannot answer the question.  Let's go back to global warming, OK?

CYFVONL:  OK, we want to stop global warming

Me: how?

CYFVONL: huh?

Me: what policies are you advocating for in order to slow global warming?

CYFVONL: I'm not sure I know what you mean...

Continue reading "The Sierra Club - dialing for dummies" »

Posted by Skip at 7:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Ever since I can remember, my Dad was complaining about the demise of the pesticide DDT. "There were no mosquitos back then," he still says to this day. He always insisted that the reasons used by the environmentalists to create the near panic that led to its being outlawed was nothing but a bunch of hogwash.

* 

West Nile Virus and Eastern Equine Encephalitus (EEE) were unheard of back then. Malaria was in check - even in the poorest parts of the globe like Africa. How many thousands have died as a direct result of the infamous 1972 ban of DDT?

This September marks the 45th anniversary of the publication of Silent Spring, Rachel Carson's anti-pesticide manifesto credited with inspiring the environmentalist movement.

But this anniversary is no cause for celebration. The legacy of Silent Spring includes more than a million deaths a year from the mosquito-borne disease malaria. Though nearly eradicated decades ago, malaria has resurged with a vengeance because DDT, the most effective agent of mosquito control, has been essentially discarded--discarded based not on scientific concerns about its safety, but on environmental dogma.

Click here to read his entire piece. It not only sums up the history of how it all went down rather nicely in a clear and concise manner, but also undeniably shows the pattern that remains in use to this day by those with radical environmental agendas. Reread the piece and substitute "global warming"  for "DDT"-- See how it fits? 

Again, from Mr. Lockitch's essay:

[T]he scientific case against DDT was, and still is, nonexistent.

Posted by Doug at 8:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

OK, so which is it?  If I am skeptical, I'm lower than whale poop.  If I am an acoloyte, is it rational to be one?  From NRO, this observation:

Re: Mmmmm Saltier Oceans   [Iain Murray]

Point and counterpoint:

Since the late 1960s, much of the North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty, in part due to increases in fresh water runoff induced by global warming, scientists say.

—Michael Schirber, LiveScience, 29 June 2005

The surface waters of the North Atlantic are getting saltier, suggests a new study of records spanning over 50 years. They found that during this time, the layer of water that makes up the top 400 metres has gradually become saltier. The seawater is probably becoming saltier due to global warming, Boyer says.

—Catherine Brahic, New Scientist, 23 August 2007

Whatever the anomaly, the cause is global warming.

Can you have it both ways?  Doubtful - not in the same place in such a small amount of time.... 

While I do admit that the global temp has risen a degree C over the last 100 years, it is not clear that we know enough in sufficient detail to say with much rigor that humans are responsible.  The sims are incomplete as almost every week there seems to be something that raises the eyebrows (one way or the other).

Science is based on skepticism and not consensus until all empirical data and observations are accounted for and can be explained.  I am of the opinion that we just don't know enough to say one way or the other. 

Posted by Skip at 12:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Democrats have got it wrong – as usual! 

The Democrat dominated US House, searching for a snake in the petroleum woodpile have gone after the first snake they saw while ignoring the real menaces that are still there. They have pushed through a bill allowing for lawsuits against OPEC. Wow, they really care about high gas prices so much that they are willing to go after OPEC.

.

But the problem of high gas prices has little to do with OPEC and its quotas and much to do with NIMBY! Now NIMBY is not a cartel making billions of dollars so they don't want to sue them. In fact, NIMBY has more lawyers than Congress. And NIMBY is always in court with their own suits. They sue everyone over everything and they have succeeded in driving up gas prices.

.

Of course NIMBY is an attitude more than an organization. Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) has prevented building or expanding oil refineries in this country for so long that the few existing refineries can not keep up with the demand. NIMBY has also kept oil from being produced off the coast of Florida, the coast of California and in the Alaskan Wildlife refuge. We can't refine it, we can't drill for it – the cost goes up.

.

Posted by Doug at 7:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 7:09 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, I've seen the word "FredHead" standing for those that are campainging for a Presidential run by Fred Thompon (actor, former US attorney, and former Senator).  I know another conservative in the local area seems to be all for this!

IF this is an indication, I could be interested....maybe it's time to look into him.....the actor that was a President wasn't bad at all......

Some people think that our planet is suffering from a fever.  Now scientists are telling us that Mars is experiencing its own planetary warming: Martian warming. It seems scientists have noticed recently that quite a few planets in our solar system seem to be heating up a bit, including Pluto. 

NASA says the Martian South Pole’s “ice cap” has been shrinking for three summers in a row. Maybe Mars got its fever from earth. If so, I guess Jupiter’s caught the same cold, because it’s warming up too, like Pluto.

This has led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air-conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle.

Silly, I know, but I wonder what all those planets, dwarf planets and moons in our SOLAR system have in common. Hmmmm. SOLAR system. Hmmmm. Solar? I wonder. Nah, I guess we shouldn’t even be talking about this. The science is absolutely decided. There’s a consensus.

Ask Galileo.

Humor...I like it!

(H/T: NRO mention of Fred Thompson on the Paul Harvey commentary) 

Posted by Skip at 8:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Actually, it was Vice President Gore that "signed" Kyoto, but the Congress refused to ratify it (I think, 93-4).  Yet it is Bush that is taking the heat for the decision of Congress.

At the same time, it is the Europeans that tout their participation in that treaty are failing to keep to their own committments.  By larger and larger amounts.

Right - say you believe in it, keep making pronouncements about keeping to limits, and then blow through them like they didn't exist.  But hey, its the intentions, right? 

Thus, I found this quite amusing.  Once again, Europe makes another committement, a "binding committment" to cut their CO2 by 20%  by 2020 compared to 1990.

Good luck with that!  Actually, go ahead - it WILL ruin your economies.  Are they really all that willing to bet their welfare states on this?

No, not really, especially when you read about  Germany:

There's a hitch, though, for Germany, said Reinhard Loske, a member of the German parliament and climate expert for the Green party parliamentary group: Currently, up to 26 coal-fired power plants -- which would burn either hard (anthracite) or brown (lignite) coal -- are either being built right now or are in the planning stages in Germany.

 

"If all of those plants end up being installed, there is no way we can reach our climate protection goals for reducing emissions," Loske said.

 

Coal-fired power plants are one of the biggest producers of greenhouses gases, which scientists have said are primarily responsible for global warming.

Like what has been said....do Kyoto and ruin your economy.  But we support Kyoto!!! But building more COAL fired power plants?  Seems to be supporting the economy first.  But we support Kyoto!!!

Sorta like Gore - wants us to reduce our living standards while he uses the equivalent of the environmentalism religion's papal indulgences -> carbon offsets.  I will believe it when the celebrity environmental evangelists and countries walk their talk. 

Otherwise, it is nothing but pontificating and...

...hot air

what a coincidence..... 

Posted by Skip at 8:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

“The Legislature led by Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin has ridden a wave of good will on its effort to make Vermont a leader in reducing the human impact on climate change. The initiative, launched with two weeks of hearings and backed by a timely U.N. report that links global warming to human activity, has been hailed as the right thing to do that's also good for the economy by branding the state as a green leader.”

Continue reading "Global warming. Fixing it's as easy as... well, raising taxes." »

Posted by Doug at 9:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Al Gore’s Personal Energy Use Is His Own “Inconvenient Truth”
Gore’s home uses more than 20 times the national average

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.
. 
Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).
. 
In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.
. 
The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.
. 
Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.
. 
Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.
. 
Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.
.
“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.
.
In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

What more can one say, except... 

Al Gore, thy name is hypocrisy!

Posted by Doug at 5:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This Sunday, Al Gore will probably win an Academy Award for his global-warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth, a riveting work of science fiction.

The main point of the movie is that, unless we do something very serious, very soon about carbon dioxide emissions, much of Greenland’s 630,000 cubic miles of ice is going to fall into the ocean, raising sea levels over twenty feet by the year 2100.

.

Where’s the scientific support for this claim? Certainly not in the recent Policymaker’s Summary from the United Nations’ much anticipated compendium on climate change. Under the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s medium-range emission scenario for greenhouse gases, a rise in sea level of between 8 and 17 inches is predicted by 2100. Gore’s film exaggerates the rise by about 2,000 percent.

Mendacity on global warming is bipartisan. President Bush proposes that we replace 20 percent of our current gasoline consumption with ethanol over the next decade.

But it’s well-known that even if we turned every kernel of American corn into ethanol, it would displace only 12 percent of our annual gasoline consumption. The effect on global warming, like Kyoto, would be too small to measure, though the U.S. would become the first nation in history to burn up its food supply to please a political mob.

Posted by Doug at 8:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Run for your lives!!! It's SNOWING!!!!

Posted by Doug at 6:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning.

.

Last Saturday, I addressed the annual retreat of Democrats from the House of Representatives. I thanked the Members of the new majority for their service in Congress. And we discussed our responsibility to work together on a wide range of issues -- from fighting the global war on terror, to making health care more affordable, to balancing the Federal budget.

One area with great potential for bipartisan cooperation is energy policy. The need for action is clear. Our Nation's reliance on oil leaves us vulnerable to hostile regimes and terrorists, who could damage our economy by disrupting the global oil supply. A spike in oil prices anywhere in the world could lead to higher prices at gas pumps here in America. And burning oil and gasoline creates air pollution and greenhouse gases.

Republicans and Democrats both recognize these problems. We agree on the solution: We need to diversify our energy supply and make America less dependent on foreign oil. The best way to do that is by developing new energy technologies here at home. So the Federal government has provided more than $10 billion over five years for research into alternative sources of energy. Our scientists and engineers have made great progress, and our Nation is now on the threshold of dramatic breakthroughs in clean energy technology.

Continue reading "Bush on energy and how the Dems will help. Sure they will." »

Posted by Doug at 9:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Prime Minister Stephen Harper once called the Kyoto accord a "socialist scheme" designed to suck money out of rich countries, according to a letter leaked Tuesday by the Liberals.

Amen brother! Don't forget, when that money is "sucked out", it will mostly come from Joe and Jane Sixpack's wallets in the form of escalated energy costs. The story notes Harper wrote of the treaty

that it's based on "tentative and contradictory scientific evidence" and it focuses on carbon dioxide, which is "essential to life."

He says Kyoto requires that Canada make significant cuts in emissions, while countries like Russia, India and China face less of a burden.

The question now is whether he will stay true to his prior spoken beliefs and be a leader in the counterassault on this treaty that's so bad, even the spineless invertebrates known as the US Senate haven't approved it yet.

Click here to read the whole article. (via Drudge)

Posted by Doug at 9:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This week, I appeared before Congress to report on the state of our union. I asked members of the House and Senate from both sides of the aisle to join me in confronting the great challenges before us, so we can build a future of hope and opportunity for all Americans.

Two key challenges we face are reducing our dependence on oil and expanding access to affordable health care. I have asked Congress to take several vital steps to address these issues. And while some members gave a reflexive partisan response, I was encouraged that others welcomed this opportunity to reach across the aisle. One Democratic Senator said the initiatives I put forward were "serious proposals" and encouraged his fellow Democrats to "respond in a constructive way." Another Senate Democrat pledged to work toward these goals "through sincere bipartisan efforts." This is a good start, and I look forward to working with Republicans and Democrats in Congress to reform our health care system and increase energy security.

Our Nation's dependence on oil leaves us vulnerable to hostile regimes and terrorists who can hurt our economy by disrupting our oil supply. To protect America against supply disruptions, I have asked Congress to double the current capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We also must diversify our Nation's energy supply, and the way forward is through technology. On Wednesday, I visited DuPont's Experimental Station in Wilmington, Delaware, where researchers are developing new methods of producing cellulosic ethanol and other advanced biofuels using everything from grasses to cornstalks to agricultural wastes. By expanding our use of renewable and alternative fuels like ethanol, we can become less dependent on oil, and confront the serious challenge of climate change.

Message to President Bush: the whole "man (American ones, that is) causes global warming" mantra remains unproven. Don't you know that this issue is nothing more than the latest attempt by America's global competitors (aided by an army of unwitting dupes) to somehow destroy our economic abilities once and for all? If the global warming acolytes were at all serious about carbon emmisions and the like, they would be after Russia, China, and India, where emissions controls and caring about the environment are all but nonexistent...

Bush went on...

Continue reading "Bush to tackle 2 tough issues... and looks forward to the Dems working with him. Sure they will..." »

Posted by Doug at 2:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Just watching a clip on Fox....the LA Dept. of Sanitation wants its employees to save their food scraps under their desk in a bucket of worms.  The claim is that it will help to keep the waste out of landfills.

Now, from a biological standpoint, it makes sense.  And I have no problems with worms.  But what I would have a real problem with would be the smell.  No matter WHAT enviro-PC guy wants to tell me, I have a problem with sticking rotting food under my desk.....earthy smell my foot!

Listen, my nose doesn't work too well.....but if there are 50 or so desks in a cube farm, I bet that even I would pick that up.  And even I didn't, I wouldn't want to leave the office with that smell in my clothes.  

Go ahead, defend that! 

Posted by Skip at 8:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This is the day the Lord has made. Let us rejoice and be glad!

Posted by Doug at 2:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) has released a new book debunking the notion that global warming is caused by human activity...

DALLAS (November 16, 2006) - Human activities have little to do with the Earth's current warming trend, according to a new book by Denis Avery and Fred Singer, Adjunct Scholars with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA).  In fact, the book concludes that global warming and cooling seem to be part of a 1,500-year cycle of moderate temperature swings.  Coming out as the leadership of Congress shifts, the book - "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years - builds on research the two previously outlined in an NCPA study.

The nine-member US Supreme Court appeared split as it took up the debate over global warming, with rival lawyers arguing whether some greenhouse gas emissions should be regulated.

.

Despite its symbolic importance, the case is limited to whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to regulate vehicle emissions of four greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide.

.

But environmentalists hope a ruling in their favor would force changes in the policies of President George W. Bush's administration, which has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming.

.

The plaintiffs in the case include several US state governments who argue that the EPA should use its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the 1963 Clean Air Act.

.

But the federal agency has refused, arguing that the act, which does not address global warming, does not require it to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia insisted that the greenhouse gases in question represent "only" six percent of the world total and that they pose no "imminent harm," agreeing with Deputy Attorney General Gregory Garre, who represented the EPA.

.

Liberal Justice David Souter slammed the government's contention that cutting greenhouse gas emissions on new US-made cars would only have a very marginal effect on global warming.

The United States is the world's biggest single contributor to man-made global warming, accounting for a quarter of global emissions of greenhouse gases.

That is, if it exists at all. Scientists can't agree. Thank goodness we have the all-knowing judges to decide this for us. After all, who knows more about this than noted  judge (and scientist) David Souter?

Saturday on our radio program, Meet the New Press, we will have H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow of the National Center for Policy Analysis to discuss this issue. The interview will be available, as always, on the GraniteGrok podcast page. 

Posted by Doug at 9:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

UPC Demo for Turkeys at White House November 21, 2006
 
Join United Poultry Concerns in handing out Turkeys brochures and holding banners for turkeys and a vegan Thanksgiving on Tuesday, Nov. 21.

Place: Lafayette Park-South West Quadrant across the street (Pennsylvania Avenue) from the White House.
Time: Noon – 4 PM. Brochures and Banners Provided.
Metro Stops: Farragut West-17th St Exit & McPherson Square-Vermont Ave Exit
Both Metro stops are on the Blue/Orange line.

.

What are we telling people? Turkeys are painfully debeaked and detoed without anesthesia as soon as they’re born. A North Carolina State University researcher described the mutilations turkeys suffer at the hatchery as “trauma” and “major surgery.”

.

In the turkey houses, the young birds are crowded in filth. They suffer from manmade respiratory and intestinal diseases, ammonia burned eyes and ulcerated feet. Most turkeys are painfully lame. Some turkeys try to walk on their wings to get food and water. Many turkeys die of heart attacks from forced rapid growth.

.

At the slaughterhouse, turkeys are torn from the transports crates, hung upside down and given painful electric shocks through their faces, bodies and feet. Turkeys are Not Stunned. They are excluded from the Humane Slaughter Act. They are paralyzed and kept alive during the slaughter process to keep their hearts beating. Many turkeys are scalded alive.

.

A recent PETA investigation at a Butterball slaughter plant in Arkansas shows workers stomping on live turkeys, slamming them against walls, exploding their skulls and popping out their spines. (www.ButterballCruelty.com)

.

A recent investigation by Farm Sanctuary at one of the largest turkey breeding operations in the Midwest shows the obscenity of artificial insemination of female birds and milking of male birds and the total sadness of the lives of these birds. “The guys pick the toms up and put them on the bench and they rub them up, squeeze them, and it ejaculates the tom.” The rest of the time these bright-eyed male birds are penned in the dark.

And “We observed employees pushing and pulling fearful turkey hens through a small door, into the artificial insemination (AI) room, and we were told the young hens are curious and friendly with employees until the first couple of AIs – and then they run from you. . . . Music blares in the background, as we come to a pile of dead turkeys lying on the floor and others stuffed into plastic bags near a wheelbarrow,” and so on. (“Thanksgiving’s Nasty Little Secret,” Satya Nov. 2006.www.satyamag.com)

Turkeys are alert, intelligent, friendly birds. They are friends, not food.

.

Please join United Poultry Concerns in the Lafayette Park Southwest Quadrant on November 21 across from the White House from Noon – 4 PM. Stay as long as you can. The turkeys need you. For more information, call ...

The turkeys need you!

Posted by Doug at 4:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I drive a big old Suburban with a 5.0 liter engine (growing up, it was a 350 cubic inch) and a lot of times, I am by myself.  Yup, not exactly politically correct from an environmentalist viewpoint (doesn't matter that my home is a passive solar home, or that my former home in MA was an active solar house (hot water and space heating).

That big blue beast is anathema!  Some would say I am committing a crime against Gaia (the name for the Earth in a religious sense), that I am being selfish, burning all that gas all by myself, violating some as unwritten carbon tax law.  Stating that it is paid for doesn't seem to make any difference - when talking to those really into the environmental causes, I should be held responsible to go out and spend my hard earned money just to buy a gas efficient car - better still - a hybrid!  Think Prius!

For these folks, it makes no difference that the economics of this just don't play out.  Looking at a gas powered car and its hybrid cousin carefully, you can see right from the get go that you are paying a premium for that enhanced gas economy.  If the price of gas continues to drop, one might never recover the additional cost of "going green".

And, to back that up, comes this report (H/T: The Corner - National Review Online) 

It’s easy to focus exclusively on gas mileage when making an environmentally conscious car choice. But there’s more to the story.

CNW Marketing Research Inc., an Oregon-based auto research spent two years collecting data on the energy necessary to plan, build, sell, drive and dispose of a vehicle from initial concept to scrappage. They call it a dust-to-dust analysis of the environmental impact of a car.

You may be surprised if you thought hybrids were the obvious winners.

"The Honda Accord Hybrid has an Energy Cost per Mile of $3.29 while the conventional Honda Accord is $2.18. Put simply, over the “Dust to Dust” lifetime of the Accord Hybrid, it will require about 50 percent more energy than the non-hybrid version, CNW claims."

And you may do a doubletake after reading this:

"For example, while the industry average of all vehicles sold in the U.S. in 2005 was $2.28 cents per mile, the Hummer H3 (among most SUVs) was only $1.949 cents per mile. That figure is also lower than all currently offered hybrids and Honda Civics at $2.42 per mile."

Basically, when considering all relevant variables such as materials, fabrication, plastics, carpets, chemicals, shipping, and transportation, gas mileage turns out to be significantly less relevant than many people assume.

Yup,  a HUMMER is better than a Honda!!!!  In trying to save energy, these pious people (or ignorant of all of the facts) who think that they can look down their collective noses down at me (even in my 4 cylinder Saab) have a bit of groveling to do. 

Again, things are not always what they seem.... 

Posted by Skip at 8:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

DALLAS (November 16, 2006) - Human activities have little to do with the Earth's current warming trend, according to a new book by Denis Avery and Fred Singer, Adjunct Scholars with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA).  In fact, the book concludes that global warming and cooling seem to be part of a 1,500-year cycle of moderate temperature swings.  Coming out as the leadership of Congress shifts, the book - "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years - builds on research the two previously outlined in an NCPA study.

.

"The evidence supporting a 1,500- year cycle is too great to dismiss," said S. Fred Singer, co-author of the book, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia and president of the Science and Environment Policy Project.  "Evidence from every continent and ocean confirms the 1,500-year cycle," added Dennis Avery, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and the book's other co-author.

.

According to Avery and Singer, within the 90,000-year Ice Age cycles, the Earth also experiences 1,500-year warming-cooling cycles. The current warming began about 1850 and will possibly continue for another 500 years. Their findings are drawn from physical evidence of past climate cycles that have been documented by researchers around the world from tree rings and ice cores, stalagmites and dust plumes, prehistoric villages and collapsed cultures, fossilized pollen and algae skeletons, titanium profiles and niobium ions, and other sources. 

Considered collectively, the author's findings are clear and convincing evidence of a 1,500-year climate cycle.  And if the current warming trend is part of a natural cycle, then actions to prevent further warming would be futile, could impose substantial costs upon the global economy and lessen the ability of the world's peoples to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

"Are human activities, including the burning of fossil fuel, the primary or even significant cause of the current warming trend?  The scientifically appropriate answer - cautious and conforming to the facts - is probably not," the authors said.

The book is published by Rowman and Littlefield and is available through book sellers such as Amazon.com.

"The message is clear. Global climate change must take its place alongside those threats -- conflict, poverty, the proliferation of deadly weapons -- that have traditionally monopolised first-order political attention."

Posted by Doug at 1:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Government agents have served notice on a Camden [ME] restaurant that the stuffed bird that adorned its upstairs dining room for more than 20 years is illegal.

.

The US Fish and Wildlife agents, unshaven and clad in camouflage pants and plaid shirts, arrived Thursday at Cappy's Chowder House to confiscate the 150-year-old greater black backed gull...

Posted by Doug at 10:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, AUG. 11, 2006….By investing in renewable energy and encouraging conservation, the state can rein in its appetite for fossil fuel consumption, Gov. Mitt Romney said Friday, rolling out a 10-year plan he said could net the state $575 million, shield ratepayers from federal surcharges, and protect the environment.

The plan relies on wind and biomass power for new energy sources, and reduction measures like pricing techniques that reward consumers for avoiding peak hours of electricity use.

Romney opposes the most visible wind power proposal, a 130-turbine development off Cape Cod. Cape Wind is supported by environmentalists, but opposed by many Cape residents.

Plans for a wind farm off of Buzzards Bay may need to be revised after a report from the Romney administration finds the project would violate state law and may threaten an endangered bird species.

Posted by Doug at 12:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (2)

DDT, a notorious symbol of environmental degradation, is poised to make a comeback. International experts are touting the widely banned pesticide as a best bet to save millions of human lives threatened by malaria.

The chemical's return is sure to raise some eyebrows, but people on the front lines of the malaria fight generally support the decision.

"It's about 20 years too late, but it's a good thing," said Don Roberts, a professor of tropical public heath at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland. "I think it's going to make a huge difference in the health of people at risk of malaria."

That is, of course the crux of the debate: whether the benefits to mankind outweigh the potential danger to some part of the environment. Many people believe (myself included) that the US ban of DDT was the first major victory for practitioners of junk science. I do not believe that the victors, and those following in their footsteps will allow this to happen without a fight. This should be interesting. read the whole piece by clicking here. Read my previous posting about DDT here.

Posted by Doug at 8:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

-Developers of a proposed windmill project on two western Maine mountains said yesterday that scaling back the project, as suggested by an environmental group, would doom their Redington Wind Farm plan.

• Prevent more than 800,000 pounds of pollution per day from existing power plants — equivalent to taking 26,000 cars off the road.
• Allow Maine customers to be the first to have an opportunity to buy the energy produced.
• Save the equivalent of 50,000 gallons of oil per day.
• Reduce emissions that cause global warming.
• Produce enough power for 40,000 Maine homes.

Maine Mountain Power [primary utility purchaser] says the one-mountain plan would deter investment and effectively kill the project.

Posted by Doug at 5:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

The Vermont Public Service Board has nixed a proposed wind project on East Mountain in East Haven almost three years after EMDC filed a petition with the board to build four 329-foot-tall wind turbines at the former U.S. Air Force radar base. EMDC is the parent company of East Haven Windfarm. In its decision released Monday, the board wrote that EMDC had failed to provide studies showing the effect the project would have on birds and bats.

.

LED [Lyndonville Electric Department] had a contract with East Haven Windfarm to buy the electricity generated from the project at a 5 percent discount. Now, the village-owned utility will have to look elsewhere for future power needs.

Posted by Doug at 11:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

“is enthusiastic about the project, saying it will help diversify the city’s mill-based economy.”

“Some environmentalists are fighting the larger wind projects. They say 300- to 400-foot towers are too big, noisy, and destructive to birds and bats, which can be killed by the spinning blades.” The piece concludes: “Lisa Linowes of National Wind Watch says a project on the scale of Loranger’s isn’t nearly as bad as some. But if it succeeds, she predicts big companies will try to move in to capitalize on the resource. ‘What we will do is invite big wind into Berlin,’ she predicted.”

Continue reading "Big Wind" »

Posted by Doug at 6:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In its July 4 article reporting that the number of bald eagle pairs in Pennsylvania had increased from 3 in 1983 to 100 for the first time in over a century, the Associated Press reached into its file of bald eagle folklore and reported, “DDT poisoned the birds, killing some adults and making the eggs of those that survived thin. The thin eggs dramatically reduced the chances of eaglets surviving to adulthood. DDT was banned in 1972. The next year, the Endangered Species Act passed and the bald eagles began their dramatic recovery.”

Continue reading "DDT: The big lie continues" »

Posted by Doug at 6:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)