tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-150986722024-02-03T13:43:57.288-05:00The American ExperimentReflecting upon the fragile American Experiment in individual freedom. Existing for only a brief period of time against the Dark Night of History, where authoritarianism and totalitarianism have always been the norm, can we survive?The American Experimenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12045395686451946742noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15098672.post-60501763849483916342009-10-17T14:50:00.003-04:002009-10-17T15:23:13.079-04:00There are two basic changes we could make that would bring about drastic change immediately. We need to discontinue the system of welfare as currently administrated, and we need to make every adult living in this country pay income tax.<br /><br />Many people complain about the unfairness of big government's practice of income redistribution. However, the real problem is the redistribution of consequences. We take the fruit away from people who have done things right and have successfully generated good outcomes, and give them to those who have had no part in these efforts. Then, we take the bad fruit away from those who have made mistakes, done stupid things, or have not done anything at all, and place these troubles or costs on the backs of those who have done good things and worked hard to avoid the bad outcomes.<br /><br />What else can come out of this other than having successful people become discouraged at working hard only to have a third party step in and steal the accomplishment from them. And why would those with bad consequences have any motivation to change their behavior when they not only are awarded with things they had no part in earning that were confiscated from others, but see the consequences of their inadequacies and stupidity taken away from them and placed as a burden on others?<br /><br />Why should anyone who contributes nothing to the system have a right to vote for actions that steal property from others so it can be given to them? This is theft plain and simple. People who do this, and politicians who support it, should be seen as criminals and treated as such. Why would anyone who contributes nothing ever vote against any proposal or legislation that gives them benefits from their neighbor's pocket? Anyone who doesn't work, and anyone who doesn't pay taxes, should receive nothing from anyone that isn't a product of charity. And charity is something that should be provided voluntarily with expectations that it is only being given as a hand up, not a prop.<br /><br />As if these practices are not bad enough, big government actually provides incentives for people to generate bad consequences by awarding them for bad behavior. Why do we provide benefits for teenage girls to have babies without any father being held responsible. We are told not to make moral judgments about how others live and to mind our own business. This would actually be a good thing if we weren't forced to make it our business once the irresponsible behaviors produce bad consequences that are then given to us.<br /><br />Why should teenage girls be given welfare benefits consisting of food, housing, child care, and vocational training just because they behaved poorly? If it is forced upon us to provide all of these things for these girls who have babies they can't care for, and to in effect help to raise them, then we should perform this responsibility in a more effective fashion. The young children should be taken away from these irresponsible girls and raised in orphanages where they can be educated, given guidance, and socialized within a context of values. To leave them in the welfare cesspools like we do currently, only guarantees a perpetual stream of dysfunction.<br /><br />We need to get back to the old fashioned notion of "no work, no eat." Provide for your own way, or get out of the way.The American Experimenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12045395686451946742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15098672.post-58123372552336255232008-06-12T21:41:00.001-04:002008-06-12T21:41:43.193-04:00Fabricated ScienceOne of the outlandish lies promulgated by the warmist faithful is that an overwhelming majority of scientists are convinced human activity is driving catastrophic climate change. In typical Stalinist fashion they obviously feel that repeating this lie often enough makes it true. Why aren’t they compelled to share the evidence that informs their “science” with the rest of us?<br /><br />It will be very surprising if these warmists don’t try to discredit the 32,000 scientists who, so far, have signed the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine’s new petition truly demonstrating an overwhelming response from the scientific community refuting this fabricated claim of consensus. These scientists, whose numbers are increasing by a daily average of 35 signatures, are individually vetted by credentials and purpose to ensure their authenticity. The real scientific community has finally had enough of the lies and hysterical claims coming out of the politicized cabal of frauds masquerading as climate scientists.<br /><br />National Post columnist Lawrence Solomon contacted the Secretariat of the UN’s IPCC to see if he could survey the 2500 scientists who purportedly constitute the “overwhelming” consensus of the prevaricating warmists. He was told the list was not public and the scientists could not be individually contacted. The Secretariat said these people were just reviewers who hadn’t personally endorsed the conclusions of the UN’s report. Even though the media incessantly claims these scientists endorsed the report’s summary, the UN never bothered to issue a correction that they really hadn’t. In fact, the chapter in the UN’s AR4 (the most recent climate report) claiming a 90% confidence level of human-caused climate change was written and reviewed by only 51 people! Imagine that – 32,000 and counting against 51. What an amazingly fraudulent joke the warmist’s consensus turns out to be.<br /><br />The deception doesn’t stop there. Scientists employed by NASA’s GISS and Hadley’s CRU are actively engaged in re-writing the data obtained from observation. James Hansen of NASA regularly “adjusts” the data obtained over the years in a fashion that better conforms to his warmist views. He has adjusted the data at least 7 times since 2000 that makes the years previous to 1940 colder and the years following 1970 warmer. How convenient. Adding insult to injury, while adjusting the older data, he overwrites and destroys the original records! Please don’t let people like this, who should be considered criminals, take away your freedom.The American Experimenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12045395686451946742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15098672.post-5547434537996637152008-06-12T21:40:00.001-04:002008-06-12T21:40:36.944-04:00Carbon TrapOur power-hungry, money-grubbing politicians are licking their lips in anticipation of enacting legislation to bring about ostensible reductions in CO2. Although they know their actions will exert absolutely no effect upon climate or temperature, they eagerly recognize these actions will establish a process of global governance regulating our energy, economic, and political systems. Before we meekly acquiesce to the end of the American Experiment nullifying the industrial age, let’s give consideration to a few facts.<br /><br />First, the rapidly growing evidence of real science indicates that the proponents of human-caused global warming are charlatans. No warming has occurred during the past decade and a cooling period is at hand despite the continuing linear increase in CO2. The fakers promoting this fraud are desperately working to change the lexicon from global warming to climate change so that any form of extreme weather can be claimed in support of their groundless theories. Next, the incessant claim of overwhelming consensus among scientists is a blatant lie. Thirdly, the policies being championed belie their deceptive motivations.<br /><br />The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has just released an updated version of their petition containing the names of over 31,000 scientists (over 9,000 of whom are PHDs) stating “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…” Contrary to what the liars will claim, each signatory of this petition has been vetted for authenticity of credentials and purpose. In OISM’s previous survey decried by these liars, the only signature proven to be a fake was one fraudulently submitted by Greenpeace who then tried to use it as an example that the petition was flawed. These Marxists will stop at nothing to destroy our country.<br /><br />These liars want a carbon cap and trading system imposed rather than a carbon tax, although both are based on an invalid premise. They want the trading scheme because the resulting “tax” will be hidden and will not be seen as a tax. They want our ire directed against the energy companies and not government’s devious policies. A carbon tax at least holds everyone directly accountable for the release of carbon, and everyone could decide for themselves if the true facts justified the imposition of the tax.The American Experimenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12045395686451946742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15098672.post-133883973903081872008-04-20T14:07:00.001-04:002008-04-20T14:07:59.771-04:00Crazy CriticsProponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) are always claiming critics of their theory are in such a minority all of them could fit inside a telephone booth. They add to their version of a scientific argument by describing these critics as people who still believe the earth is flat and that the moon landing was actually staged in Arizona. Topping this off they state any of their remaining critics not plain crazy are nothing more than shills paid off by the oil industry. These global warm-mongers would have you believe no reasonable person in his right mind, and certainly no respected scientist, have any doubts whatsoever about their theory.<br /><br />Apparently, the false prophets of global warming aren’t as sure of themselves as they let on. A group of them, led by high priest Al Gore, are spending $300 million in an attempt to make the minds of a recalcitrant American public right. Putting his money where his mouth is, almost-President Gore is contributing three million of his $100 million dollar AGW-derived fortune into this venture. What isn’t clear, and what his adoring acolytes in the mainstream media don’t seem to care about, is where the remaining $297 million funding this campaign to convince the already-convinced public is coming from.<br /><br />Could it be coming from Gore’s fellow-traveling hucksters eager to cash in on his organized crime-like scam while it lasts? What a great deal – forcing businesses to buy credits to buy and trade hot air while a dumbed-down public is already primed to blame oil companies for all the consequential increase in costs! A public so eager to punish corporate America but too stupid to realize it is they, themselves, who will actually pay the cost.<br /><br />Clearly these mob-like conspirators realize their time is running short. The ever-increasing body of empirically-observed evidence indicates much too clearly that CO2 has very little impact with actual changes in temperature. They must sell their scam before a distracted public catches on and wises up to the fact they’re being played.<br /><br />Unfortunately for us, our politicians are just now realizing the benefits conferred to them by this scam. With Bush the Chimpmeister in lead, they are ready to place costs on our heads like we’ve never seen. Can you believe $4/gallon before June?The American Experimenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12045395686451946742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15098672.post-75862026976223192008-03-29T13:41:00.000-04:002008-03-29T13:42:19.416-04:00Another One Bites The Dust?One of the great problems with the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is that the projections of computer climate models bear absolutely no resemblance to the factual observations of the real world. Alarmists try to obscure this inconvenient truth while spinning their fabricated tales of impending catastrophe.<br /><br />The amount of warming predicted by these computer models overstates the actual observations found in the atmosphere by a factor of 3. Greenhouse theory requires the atmosphere to warm at a much higher rate than the earth’s surface. This critical signal has not been validated in the observed data. Warmers tried to blame these shortcomings on the failures of satellites to demonstrate the same levels of warming as surface-based measurements. Even after both satellite measuring systems (UAH and RSS) reconciled their data with one another, dramatic differences with the surface remained. Instead of the atmosphere warming at a rate at least 30% greater than the surface, it is warming at less than half that found on the surface.<br /><br />James Hansen, the chief NASA scientist, tried to explain this discrepancy away by claiming that the missing heat was being stored in the ocean and that when a critical tipping point was reached, this latent heat would overwhelm us. He called this fantasy his “smoking gun.”<br /><br />NPR recently disclosed another nail in the AGW coffin. In 2003, NASA initiated its ARGO system to monitor ocean temperature. They placed over 3000 robotic devices in the oceans around the world. These devices descend to over a mile deep for 10 days before rising slowly while measuring each strata layer’s temperature. At the surface they transmit their data to satellites which then relay the signals back to earth. The robots then return to their original depth and begin the cycle again. NPR reports that over this five-year period of measurements the robots have indicated a slight cooling in the oceans - a finding completely opposite to what computer models had predicted.<br /><br />Once again the alarmist scientists refuse to believe what they are seeing and make excuses for the lack of supporting data. As in their previous failures, they cling to the illusion their models are correct, and the real data is false. This is the nonsense being used to destroy our economy and impoverish us all. How long will this foolishness be allowed to continue?The American Experimenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12045395686451946742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15098672.post-36566885836235094472008-03-29T13:39:00.001-04:002008-03-29T13:39:39.299-04:00In Their Own WordsThe next time environmentalists and their Leftist friends talk about saving the planet “for the children” keep in mind the following quotes that display their true attitudes and intent:<br /><br />“Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn’t true. Somewhere along the line – at about a billion years ago – we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth. It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” - David Graber, Chief Scientist, National Park Service.<br /><br />“Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.” - Dave Forman, Earth First and Sierra Club director.<br /><br />“People are the cause of all the problems; we have too many of them; we need to get rid of some of them, and this (ban of DDT) is as good a way as any.” - Charles Wurster, Environmental Defense Fund.<br /><br />“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” - Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and business partner of Al Gore.<br /><br />“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” - Paul Ehrlich, “An Ecologist’s Perspective on Nuclear Power”, May/June 1978 issue of Federation of American Scientists Public Issue Report.<br /><br />“We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the same industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” - Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University and lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report.<br /><br />No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.” - Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister, Calgary Herald 14 Dec, 1998.<br /><br />This sounds like they’re more interested in eliminating your children than saving the planet for them.The American Experimenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12045395686451946742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15098672.post-81191197134556818992008-03-29T13:38:00.001-04:002008-03-29T13:38:36.878-04:00Carbon FakingLost in the politically correct rush to save the planet from global warming is the distinct possibility that carbon dioxide has nothing to do with climate change. New studies arrive almost everyday demonstrating the implausibility that CO2 is the culprit environmentalists and UN lackey scientists claim, while these same snake oil salesmen can’t produce one shred of evidence based on observation and science that it is.<br /><br />Within the next several years we will know for sure that CO2 emissions have nothing to do with climate change, but the damage currently being done by the anti-capitalist witch burners will have produced untold miseries and deprivations upon the humanity they despise so dearly. Real scientists, who actually adhere to the scientific method, are sadly convinced that the sun is entering a period of inactivity not seen in 300 years. The unfortunate consequence of this is that we are going to enter a cooling period lasting at least several decades.<br /><br />At a time when we should be exploiting every source of existing energy we have and finding more effective and efficient ways of producing it, we are instead shutting exploration and development down at the behest of false prophets like Al Gore who promise fairy tale fantasies of alternative fuels. Among the most egregious of these falsehoods are the government’s incentives and mandates promoting the use of ethanol. <br /><br />Ethanol produces as much CO2 as oil and is only fractionally as efficient. This means that you will use more fuel with ethanol to go the same distance as you formerly could with pure gasoline. Corn withdraws more nutrients from the soil than almost any other crop. Farmers used to carefully rotate the fields used for growing corn so as to minimize this shortcoming. The perverse incentives generated by government mean more farm land is being devoted to corn than before, Land that was used for food, and incredible amounts of land that had been returned to forest, are now inefficiently being utilized for growing biofuels .<br /><br />We are on the verge of an ecological catastrophe due to this lunacy. When the inevitable cooling period begins, we will have famines the likes of which haven’t been seen in generations. Because there are now so many more mouths to feed in the world, the starvation threatened years ago by the Paul Erlich’s of the world will become intentional self-fulfilling prophecies. Environmentalists will be responsible for this calamity.The American Experimenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12045395686451946742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15098672.post-37926033215490119892008-03-29T13:35:00.000-04:002008-03-29T13:36:00.299-04:00Doing Our ShareSeeing how the scientists on the Supreme Court have classified CO2 as a pollutant, the time to act has come. To help my liberal Democrat and environmental friends out, I would like to propose the following legislation as one small attempt to address the global warming problem. I call it “Three Breaths and You’re Out.”<br /><br />This simple but forceful initiative will help to alleviate one of the major human problems causing CO2 – breathing. Since people (especially Republican capitalist conservatives) tend to be very selfish, they take many more breaths than they should. Studies have shown that Americans take at least 25% of all the breaths in the world despite being only 5% of the population. My proposal would encourage people to be more compassionate towards their fellow man by reducing their current 10-12 breaths per minute down to a more sensible level of 6-8 breaths. This is not as difficult as it may sound.<br /><br />If people just chill a little, relax, and stop getting so worked up about silly things like work, family concerns, and blindly attacking countries we don’t like, we could easily hit these new breathing reduction targets. An additional benefit would also be provided to our economy. Industries such as Yoga and Transcendental Meditation would likely see huge growth spurts and their employment ranks could rapidly swell. Also, population control and reduction would be enhanced because heavy breathing was no longer tolerated.<br /><br />Since we all know that voluntary proposals like this usually don’t work, the federal government will be happy to join in the effort. Once they make the program mandatory, any offender who exceeds the new breathing targets three times will have a plastic bag placed over his head. This will ensure compliance and avoid any future non-conformity.<br /> While it is impossible to know how George Bush will respond (science hasn’t yet determined if mindless muttering increases or decreases CO2 output), the previous administration embodies the characteristics required to model behaviors that will make the program successful. Al Gore, the former VP, doctor, and Oscar winning actor for pretending to be a climatologist, has so much self-control he hasn’t taken a breath in several years. Although not able to match the yeoman feats of his former understudy, former President Bill Clinton at least goes halfway by not inhaling. With stalwart examples like these, how can any of us fail to do our part?The American Experimenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12045395686451946742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15098672.post-72663800796021554802008-03-29T13:22:00.000-04:002008-03-29T13:25:44.240-04:00Solar Power IIProponents of human-caused global warming claim that CO2 is 7-8 times more powerful as a warming agent than the sun. Rather than making this dubious assertion they surely mean to argue that changes in CO2 volume are greater factors in climate change than changes in solar irradiance. Although this statement is still false it is more defensible than what was originally claimed.<br /><br />Those who discount the sun’s influence focus only on solar irradiance while neglecting the solar magnetism that significantly compounds its actual effects. Recent studies have shown that cosmic rays can exert very large effects on cloud formation. As increasing amounts of cosmic rays enter our atmosphere, lower level cloud formation is increased which reflects solar radiation back into space. This exerts a cooling influence upon earth’s temperatures. When solar magnetic activity is higher, fewer cloud-forming cosmic rays are allowed to enter our atmosphere and warming of the earth increases. <br /><br />Solar activity was at its highest levels ever recorded during the last 30 years of the 20th century until declining in the past decade. The global warming that occurred until late in that century has stopped and is now showing signs of a decline. The last twelve month period has shown temperature decreases of between .65 and .75 degrees Celsius as measured by the four primary measuring facilities; Hadley, NASA’s GISS, and satellite data calculated by Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH). This represents the largest one year change ever recorded, up or down. It also is a figure that in absolute terms entirely offsets all of the global warming of the last century! <br /><br />One year’s change does not prove anything and is only anecdotal in nature. But it does provide a strong rationale for questioning the actual warming effect of CO2 which has continued upon its linear increase in volume with no apparent effect on temperature. As should be expected, natural variation dwarfs any human signal that can be found in climate change.<br /> Legislating policy that seeks to control a factor only marginally involved in climate change is not only folly, but extremely dangerous. If the signs we are seeing indicating a cooling trend are indeed accurate, our ability to produce food will be severely challenged. If anything, we should be seeking to increase, rather than eliminate, the atmospheric CO2 that promotes the growth of plants.The American Experimenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12045395686451946742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15098672.post-47953268455480727742008-03-29T13:19:00.000-04:002008-03-29T13:22:22.683-04:00Solar PowerAs the false prophets of manmade global warming continue to use their fabricated data and computer-driven scare stories in doing their best Chicken Little routines, a real crisis lurks in the background. A real catastrophe is in the making unless we tell these doom-saying profiteers and their moronic theories to take a long hike off a short pier.<br /><br />Scientists committed to discovering the truth about climate have serious concerns regarding solar activity. For at least 13,000 years the average solar cycle has lasted 10.7 years. The current solar cycle (referred to as #23) has already lasted 12 years. Seeing how the reverse polarity sunspots that signal new solar cycles have been conspicuously absent so far, the earliest cycle #24 can begin is late this year or sometime in 2009. The last time a solar cycle was extended this far was in the early 1800s – a time known as the Dalton Minimum. These extended cycles always precede eras of cold temperatures. The solar physicists are concerned that if this cycle goes longer it could presage conditions similar to the Maunder Minimum that ushered in the Little Ice Age that began in the 17th century. The occurrence of something similar to either of these cold cycles portends very difficult times for humanity. Growing seasons are dramatically shortened and areas conducive to agriculture move steadily towards the equator.<br /><br />So at a time when we should be bolstering our energy supplies and protecting our quality farmlands, we are restricting energy development and allocating ever-increasing amounts of farmland to biofuels. Already over one-third of our corn crop is used in production of ethanol – a very inefficient and polluting fuel. <br /><br />CO2 only has a very marginal effect on temperatures as its volume increases. Its recent increases will do very little to offset the cooling period we are now entering. However, CO2 is a powerful fertilizer for everything that grows. Contrary to what the charlatans say, our current level of 380 ppm is below the historical norm exceeding 1000 ppm and not much above the 200 ppm below which plants cannot grow.<br /><br />We have nothing at all to worry about our activity increasing the CO2 which is good for anything that grows. What we need to worry about is allowing alarmists to put into place policies that restrict our energy supply and ability to provide food for our families.The American Experimenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12045395686451946742noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15098672.post-65638120107081578522007-11-15T19:34:00.000-05:002007-11-15T19:35:32.291-05:00Convenient LiesOur federal government has spent more than $50 billion over the past 15 years trying to prove human CO2 emissions are causing global warming compared to the $16 million in private spending funding studies critical of the theory. Despite all this spending no conclusive proof has ever been found. No empirical research supports or validates the projections of computer models regarding climate sensitivity to CO2 forcing, whether human or natural in origin. Models consistently overstate observed warming by a factor of 3. I challenge those among the warming faithful to provide clear evidence demonstrating CO2 has caused recent climate changes. Give us actual proof – not phony claims of consensus.<br /><br />Rational people would move on after coming up empty so many times. But articles of faith continue to uphold this theory even though real science does not. Grant-hungry scientists choose to remain in the virtual realm of computers while denying what the real world tells them. The high priests of this theology fly to all corners of the earth demanding that the rest of us stop flying. The UN, while decrying the environmental damage caused by jet contrails, is flying 12,500 delegates to a two week long festival – err, I mean climate conference – in the most luxurious resort found in Bali. Many of these rooms cost more than $1,000/night. But, after all, this is to safeguard the needs of the world’s poor.<br /><br />I am astounded so many have succumbed to the mass psychosis engendered by this hoax. While so many con men are getting filthy rich running this scam, people continue to belly-up to the bar to help them. Local school teachers commit child abuse by turning 15 year old girls into mindless activists and scaring them into thinking that walking across a bridge will make a difference. Al Gore had a net worth of $1 million when the people of his home state of Tennessee had the good sense to deny him the presidency. Now, after seven years of promulgating convenient lies and making a minimum of $150,000 for closed one hour sessions of media-proof propaganda, he is worth $100 million! He has become the patron saint of the global warming faithful despite flunking out of Harvard’s Divinity School. Everyone says Gore is going to save the planet. That begs the question of who is going to save us from him?The American Experimenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12045395686451946742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15098672.post-33666208978851469022007-04-28T20:08:00.000-04:002007-04-28T20:09:16.969-04:00Siren's CallAlthough the cognitive dissonance of liberals limits them to religious zealotry and its attendant belief in man-made global warming, there may be some who haven’t yet succumbed to this siren’s call of hysteria. Even though liberals hate America and the capitalism that’s made her the greatest nation in history, and especially the oil that fuels this capitalism, maybe there are still some who are capable of reason.<br /><br />Humans don’t cause global warming. CO2 doesn't cause temperature increases, it lags behind them as an effect. The oceans store CO2 in cooler conditions and then release it into the atmosphere when they warm - this is the earth's way of providing fertilizer for plants during the periods of warmth that are conducive to growth. CO2 is logarithmic in its heat absorbing capacity. This means that each successive unit of CO2 added to the atmosphere has less capacity to absorb heat than the one before it. The volume of CO2 in the atmosphere has already generated 75% of its total heat-trapping capacity and will soon be completely saturated meaning it cannot trap any additional warmth. Any additional increases in volume beyond this point will have absolutely no effect. <br /><br />Even though alarmists can point to no empirical evidence supporting their nonsense they continue in their “Chicken Little” routines. They point to worthless computer models and refer to them as ‘science.’ Climate studies produced by the UN are fraudulent just as everything else this corrupt institution produces has been (Oil for Food!). Peer review in climate science is a joke as none of these studies can be replicated through the scientific method. The so-called scientists of these studies have not archived their data nor made available the algorithms used in their ridiculous computer models. Michael Mann, notorious for “The Hockey Stick” theory, used invalid tree rings in his study and censored data that demonstrated the 15th century was warmer than present. Phil Jones, whose work is still used by the UN to claim that the Urban Heat Island effect is not a significant factor in land-based temperature records, claims he cannot share the methods or data from his seminal research because they have been lost. Regardless, the UN still uses his results as primary evidence that humans are responsible for climate change.<br /><br />The UN should stop using these fraudulent studies and renounce their corrupt attempts at establishing global governance through the abuse of climate science.The American Experimenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12045395686451946742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15098672.post-58453433588538746612007-04-09T20:05:00.001-04:002007-04-10T09:25:41.435-04:00Moral of the StoryWarmer-in-Chief Al Gore tells us the fight against climate change is a moral crusade and encourages us all to do our part. The great German philosopher Emanuel Kant established a process known as the Categorical Imperative to help in determining what could be considered ‘moral.’ Essentially, that which is to be moral must be something we could will that everyone could do in similar fashion and we would still consider it moral in that it served the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Apparently, Gore’s morality applies only to other people and not himself.<br /><br />It would take twenty years for most of us to use as much energy as Gore does in one year at his primary residence. Yet he is always on his soapbox telling the rest of us what we need to do to save energy. “It’s not that hard to do” he says while flying all over the earth telling the rest of us not to fly. He tells us to forgo use of fossil fuels while his family fortune has come from Occidental Oil Company. He preaches environmental sanctity while the zinc mine on his property paying him hundreds of thousands of dollars in royalties is ranked one of the most polluted and toxic sites in the country. When the term hypocrite was coined they must have had Al Gore in mind. What an incredible charlatan.<br /><br />Gore claims his extravagant energy use is “carbon neutral” because he uses clean energy and buys carbon offsets. Then it turns out he “buys” his offsets from Generation Investment Management which is a firm he founded and receives the “offsets” as a form of compensation. The company doesn’t offer the offsets itself, but rather invests, for profit, in so-called “Green” companies that do. Essentially, Gore buys stock in his own company and then claims that its returns are carbon offsets.<br /><br />What would Kant say? If all of us performed as Gore does, consuming energy extravagantly and buying indulgences from others to forgive our own excesses (and who would these people be if all of us were behaving like Gore), would our actions still be considered moral? I guess just like his “legal” responsibilities at the 1996 Buddhist Temple fundraiser where he was soliciting, and collecting, money from Chinese communists he would sincerely look us in the eye and claim “there is no controlling moral authority.”The American Experimenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12045395686451946742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15098672.post-27015062110512948892007-04-09T18:42:00.000-04:002007-04-09T18:43:15.852-04:00Hot AirNow that the scientists on the Supreme Court have classified CO2 as a pollutant, the time to act has come. To help my liberal Democrat and environmental friends out, I would like to propose the following legislation as one small attempt to address the global warming problem. I call it “Three Breaths and You’re Out.”<br /><br />This simple but forceful initiative will help to alleviate one of the major human problems causing CO2 – breathing. Since people (especially Republican capitalist conservatives) tend to be very selfish, they take many more breaths than they should. Studies have shown that Americans take at least 25% of all the breaths in the world despite being only 5% of the population. My proposal would encourage people to be more compassionate towards their fellow man by reducing their current 10-12 breaths per minute down to a more sensible level of 6-8 breaths. This is not as difficult as it may sound.<br /><br />If people just chill a little, relax, and stop getting so worked up about silly things like work, family concerns, and blindly attacking countries we don’t like, we could easily hit these new breathing reduction targets. An additional benefit would also be provided to our economy. Industries such as Yoga and Transcendental Meditation would likely see huge growth spurts and their employment ranks could rapidly swell. Also, population control and reduction would be enhanced because heavy breathing was no longer tolerated.<br /><br />Since we all know that voluntary proposals like this usually don’t work, the federal government will be happy to join in the effort. Once they make the program mandatory, any offender who exceeds the new breathing targets three times will have a plastic bag placed over his head. This will ensure compliance and avoid any future non-conformity.<br /><br />While it is impossible to know how George Bush will respond (science hasn’t yet determined if mindless muttering increases or decreases CO2 output), the previous administration embodies the characteristics required to model behaviors that will make the program successful. Al Gore, the former VP, doctor, and Oscar winning actor for pretending to be a climatologist, has so much self-control he hasn’t taken a breath in several years. Although not able to match the yeoman feats of his former understudy, former President Bill Clinton at least goes halfway by not inhaling. With stalwart examples like these, how can any of us fail to do our part?The American Experimenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12045395686451946742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15098672.post-1172021791499171752007-02-20T20:36:00.000-05:002007-02-28T11:13:47.894-05:00Debating WarmersDebating warmers is very frustrating because they are so poorly informed. They claim the debate is over because scientists have reached consensus. This constitutes a logical fallacy known as appealing to authority. Moreover, science and consensus are mutually exclusive processes. Science is about questioning, experimenting, testing, and validating. Consensus is a political process of compromise and conformity.<br /><br />Their letters of last week claimed authority from the UN’s IPCC report released earlier this month. They all overlooked that the science report they were supposedly quoting hasn’t even been completed yet, let alone published. Rather, the <em>Summary for Policymakers </em>written by government-paid delegates and bureaucrats is what had been released. The scientists who actually conducted the studies had no input or review of this political summary. Unsurprisingly, the reason these bureaucrats state they have 90% certainty that humans are driving climate change is because they openly state that the science report will be edited and modified to conform to the Summary’s statements before it is released. No field other than climate science could release a summary of a report that hadn’t yet been written and do so with a straight face. This is unabashed fraud.<br /><br />The alarmists claim that the only explanation for the apparent increase in recent temperatures is because of human-generated CO2. Because the two events occur together, alarmists say nothing else can explain it. Here, they are committing the logical fallacy of confusing correlation with causation. This is nothing more than very shoddy critical thinking on the part of the alarmists.<br /><br />With no evidence to support their claims, alarmists are desperate to silence critics. The Royal Society, closely in concert with Senators Rockefeller and Snowe, tried to intimidate Exxon-Mobil into halting funding for skeptical studies. Grist Magazine is calling for Nuremburg-style trials for “climate change deniers.” The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen thinks any meteorologist who questions human-driven global warming should be de-certified and denied employment. The Democrat governors of Oregon and Delaware are trying to fire their State Climatologists because they won’t proclaim the new state religion of global warming.<br /><br />Studies demonstrating that oceans are losing heat content, and experimentally proving that cosmic rays and solar irradiance drive climate change, were not accepted for the UN’s report because of an arbitrary cutoff date. These studies would interfere with warmers ability to blame humans and to find capitalist witches to burn in atonement. Of course, this is New England.The American Experimenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12045395686451946742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15098672.post-1170212700497619392007-01-30T22:05:00.000-05:002007-01-30T22:05:00.550-05:00United Nations FraudAs distressing as the global warming scam is for those who have not yet lost their minds, today’s release of the UN climate report takes the cake. You will soon hear the latest tripe with nonsense like “the climate is changing even faster than we thought; we only have a very short time to take action; this overwhelming evidence isn’t just a smoking gun – it’s a smoking intergalactic missile; all the scientists agree; and the science is settled – the debate is over.”<br/><br/>This fear mongering will be found in the UN’s “Summary for Policymakers” report. As you hear the media breathlessly churn this drivel out, keep in mind that this report is compiled by bureaucrats and politicians. The scientists who have actually conducted the multitude of studies in the real report have no say in its composition. In fact, the scientists’ report won’t be released until May.<br/><br/>Serious people may ask why the summary would be made public before the actual scientific report. Well, hold on to your hat. The UN prevaricators want to make sure the science that is reported is consistent with what they have said in the summary! Any doubts remaining as to whether this is legit or a scam should become clear by this shameless process. Imagine a company making financial claims for potential investors, but withholding the actual data until they can revise the financial results to make them consistent with their initial promotion statements! Can you say Enron?<br/><br/>Despite the hysterical claims you will hear, the draft science report cuts their previously projected claims of sea level and temperature increases by 50% each, and states that cow flatulence produces more greenhouse gases than all human transportation activities combined. Rest assured you won’t hear any of this reported by the media.<br/><br/>Since the UN’s last climate report in 2001, we’ve been told the temperature increase from the late 19th century until the present is .6 degrees Celsius. The global mean temperature is estimated to be 14 +/- .7 degrees Celsius. This means the estimated increase in temperature over the last 150 years that we’re all supposed to be concerned about, and from which catastrophe is certain, is less than the margin of error for one year!<br/><br/>C’mon people – grow a brain! Anyone who subscribes to this absurdity should wear a sign around their neck that says, “Forgive me, I’ve lost the capacity for critical thought.”The American Experimenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12045395686451946742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15098672.post-1162347646375468762006-10-31T21:20:00.000-05:002006-10-31T21:20:46.440-05:00Ask the Democrats(When our children grow up they will want to ask today’s Democrats about 2006):<br/><br/>How come while claiming to love our country and support our military you did everything possible to undermine our war effort? Instead of presenting a united front to our enemies and letting politics end at the water’s edge (an American tradition), you gave encouragement for them to continue in their efforts to destroy us. For cheap political gain you made them realize they didn’t need to defeat our military because with your help all they had to do was defeat our resolve. You made certain we could never again be victorious in any conflict lasting more than a couple of weeks.<br/><br/>How come while marching in the 1970’s to successfully abolish an unfair and unjust military draft, you then wanted to re-impose it on our young people? While at first purporting that this would help the under-staffed military (whose size had been cut by Democrats), you revealed the real purpose was to breed dissent among society to undermine the war effort. You wanted to impose your will on our young people only to gain a political end. I thought you said you supported the military?<br/><br/>How come you blamed Bush and Republicans for the increasing national debt when everyone saw the federal treasury as a bottomless pit to fund all their pet projects and programs? How come you opposed letting people keep more of their own money through tax cuts that actually increased revenues to the treasury? How come you opposed Social Security reform that would’ve given me a chance to prepare for my retirement instead of adding deficits that dwarfed the national debt? Now you expect me to pay ever higher taxes to fund your Social Security while I have no company pension and Social Security won’t be there for me! I thought you said you cared about the children?<br/><br/>If you cared about children, how come you killed 43 million of them through your party’s sacrament of abortion? How come you were worried about the non-existent torture of terrorists but you proudly supported the partial birth abortion which ripped children to pieces moments before their birth? I’m confused, but I do feel lucky you allowed me to be born.<br/><br/>When I look at all the misery Democrat policies have caused I don’t understand how anyone could’ve ever voted for them.The American Experimenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12045395686451946742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15098672.post-1159327074660554892006-09-26T23:17:00.000-04:002006-09-26T23:17:54.706-04:00Clinton's Meltdown<span style="font-family:Arial;">President Clinton’s meltdown on Fox News indicates ABC’s “Path to 9/11” hit a sore spot while understating his incompetence regarding national security.</span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;">After his election he celebrated the “Peace Dividend” by slashing one-third of our military personnel and transferring that spending to social programs – now he blames Bush for insufficient troop strength. Clinton claimed on FNC he did more to take out bin Laden than anyone else. Not true. Yemen and Sudan separately offered bin Laden on a silver platter but Clinton refused to take him. Clinton denies this despite the account of Mansoor Ijaz who brokered the deals. Clinton was also recorded on tape claiming he refused these deals because he had no legal justification to hold bin Laden.</span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;">If you read “Dereliction of Duty” by Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson you will be aghast at Clinton’s neglect while entrusted with safeguarding our security. This first hand account by a man who carried the Nuclear Football details egregious behavior by Clinton. He recounts how our forces had bin Laden in their sights and were seeking Clinton’s authorization to take him out. Patterson was the conduit between the military command and Clinton who was attending a PGA golf tournament. Clinton kept avoiding making a decision despite Patterson’s urgent pleading. By the time Clinton found his nerve the opportunity had passed. On another occasion, Clinton lost the card containing the secret codes required to launch our nuclear weapons while he was out in public.</span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"> </span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;">Clinton’s administration failed us miserably. Jaime Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General and inexplicable member of the 9/11 Commission, built the wall preventing law enforcement and intelligence agencies from sharing information. This enabled the 9/11 terrorists in this country to evade detection. Following the bombings of the 1993 WTC, the Kenyan and Tanzanian embassies, the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, and the USS Cole, Clinton did nothing but lob a couple of cruise missiles hitting a deserted terrorist training camp in Afghanistan and an aspirin factory in Sudan.</span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;">Evidently, Clinton was more interested in chasing female subordinates than the enemies threatening our country. Now, he and his fellow Democrats are more interested in fighting global warming than Islamofacism. Democrats apparently think hiding under the bed waiting for the monster to disappear is an effective strategy for fighting terrorism. Maybe the monster will be gone in the morning when we get up. Do you want to wait to find out?</span>The American Experimenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12045395686451946742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15098672.post-1158625682480976742006-09-18T20:28:00.000-04:002006-09-18T20:28:02.536-04:00North to Alaska<span style="font-family:Arial;">Having just returned from a two week trip to Alaska, I’ve been catching up with the past few Rivereasts. Boy, my ears should’ve been burning as I’ve stirred up the Church of the Holy Warmers.</span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;">Alaska serves as a poster child for the Warmer faithful. “The permafrost is melting and glaciers are retreating” are common refrains from the Book of Common Talking Points. While exploring Glacier Bay I found as many advancing glaciers as retreating ones. Wonder why we don’t hear about that? The National Park Ranger said she believed the entire area would once again be covered by ice within 300 years.</span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;">Close to Fairbanks I learned of someone who tried to establish a farm by thawing the nutrition-rich permafrost. His attempt failed because the permafrost kept re-freezing. Fall came two weeks early this year. Shops were closing for the season and summer workers were heading south as quickly as possible. The river levels in Fairbanks were dropping because the glaciers providing the water were freezing.</span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;">I had dinner with a scientist whose work in meteorology and climatology has spanned over 40 years. He still works as a climate scientist for the federal government. I asked him point blank if he subscribed to the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. Taken aback by my question, after looking left and right, he sheepishly whispered, “What a bunch of nonsense, it’s all political.” He went on to explain how variable climate is and always has been. As a meteorologist, he also expressed his extreme skepticism about the utility and veracity of computer models as tools for predicting future climate.</span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;">Space doesn’t allow a point by point refutation of the responses to my letters. I am disappointed by the lack of robust debate and critical thinking demonstrated in most of the responses. Those who want to pursue and discover truth need to break away from their groupthink and start perusing diverse and alternative sources for their information. Otherwise, they will be stuck in the party line only to serve in the role of useful idiots.</span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;">Enjoy the echo chamber you’ve built while you can with its concomitant doctrines of settled science and disappearing skeptics. The new science and empirical evidence emerging almost daily will soon cause this myth to collapse of its own weight.</span>The American Experimenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12045395686451946742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15098672.post-1156296180239004072006-08-22T21:23:00.000-04:002006-08-22T21:23:00.290-04:00The Real Inconvenient Truth<span style="font-family:Arial;">Confronting Warmers with facts forces them into intellectual contortions. First they claim last month’s heat wave was caused by human activity. When told the warmest July occurred 70 years ago before humans could’ve been a factor, they respond (correctly) that a heat wave is not a trend. In the next breath they try to claim hurricane activity during a two year period not only represents a trend, but proves that humans caused them.</span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;">This year’s lack of hurricanes is not mentioned, but it’s guaranteed any occurring in September or October will be our fault. Record numbers of tornadoes two years ago in Kansas and Nebraska were blamed on humans while the complete absence of any this year was ignored. Warmers seize upon any event that fits their paradigm and ignore everything else that doesn’t.</span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;">The Warmer’s worldview is closer to religion than science. In some respects it resembles Puritanism where man’s original sin against the earth is provoking the wrath of nature. We are being punished for our transgressions and must repent. On the other hand it is much more primitive in nature and brings to mind the image of al-Gore and his fellow Warmers dancing around the fire in grass skirts. They are preparing to sacrifice the virgin to appease the volcano gods. Unfortunately, in this case the virgin is our capitalist economy.</span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;">CO2 is a trace gas accounting for only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect (water vapor accounts for >90%). Man contributes 3.2% of the CO2 entering the atmosphere every year with nature providing the rest. Reducing the one-tenth of 1% that humans contribute to the greenhouse effect will have absolutely no impact on temperature. Why do Warmers regard this life-sustaining element as public enemy #1?</span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;">Warmers champion so-called “clean” energy because they despise the individual freedom and capitalism fueled by oil. Their seething rage blinds them to the paradox that more fossil fuel is required in the use of “clean” energy than if the fossil fuel was used alone. For instance, solar voltaic cells require twice as much fossil fuel to produce than they will replace in their useful lives!</span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;">“Clean” energy is supposed to reduce the use of fossil fuels. Only in the tortured logic of Warmers could using MORE fossil fuel to generate less energy and more pollution at greater cost be considered “clean.” Obviously, purposes other than the environment are the real objective.</span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span>The American Experimenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12045395686451946742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15098672.post-1155091080352968272006-08-08T22:38:00.000-04:002006-08-08T22:38:00.396-04:00Heat Wave<span style="font-family:Arial;">While alarmists blame this summer’s heat wave on global warming, the warmest July on record was 1936. How could this have happened before significant increases in CO2 took place? </span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;">Only 12 states have set all-time record highs during the last 30 years while 16 set record lows. Thirty-three states set their all-time highs during and prior to the 1930’s with fourteen setting their record high in 1936 alone.</span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;">Keep these facts in mind the next time you hear claims of unprecedented warming and of untold heat waves yet to come. Did you know the average global temperature has not increased since 1998 and has actually demonstrated a very slight cooling trend? Of course you didn’t because this unpleasant fact doesn’t fit the agenda of the global warming industry.</span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;">These people have huge financial stakes in selling this lie to an unwitting public. Legions of scientists have their livelihoods and careers dependent on getting shares of the billions doled out by government every year for climate change research. The funding goes to those who present the direst scenarios. There is also a burgeoning carbon cap and trading industry fashioned from the Kyoto Protocol that essentially does nothing more than sell hot air.</span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;">While these same charlatans accuse their skeptical opponents of being owned by the oil industry, clearly it is they who are the paid shills. Industry funding is an infinitesimal fraction of that spewing from the government with their unbridled use of our tax dollars. Most of the skeptics are actually retired scientists who are immune to the blacklisting taking place against those active scientists who are apostates from the theology of global warming. When the alarmists cry they are being censored, their claims ring hollow. This really is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. As they say, follow the money.</span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"> The rhetoric is heating up because alarmists know time is running out. They claim we’re near a tipping point, but for an entirely different reason. The sun, which is the real driver of climate, is forecast by NASA to hit a low point in 2020 not seen in several hundred years. This decline in sunspot activity will bring about a cooling which really is a cause for worry. We cannot alter this fact. We must adapt to the changes that come. Following the current alarmist prescription of higher-priced energy is not a viable approach.</span>The American Experimenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12045395686451946742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15098672.post-1154482525644407392006-08-01T21:35:00.000-04:002006-08-01T21:55:15.473-04:00How To Win<span style="font-family:Arial;">Israel’s response to Hezbollah has been called disproportionate. Inexplicably, George Bush has said Israel must exercise restraint against an enemy sworn to her destruction.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah, declared war on us a long time before attacking Israel. After Jimmy Carter, the worst president in our nation's history, helped to institute radical Islam by collaborating in the ouster of the Shah, his treachery was repaid by the taking and holding hostage of our embassy for over a year. Carter impressed the Islamofascists with our impotence by failing to offer any response to their act of war. Succeeding presidents followed this same pattern of inaction with their lack of response to the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon (using the largest conventional explosion in world history to kill 241 Marines), the hijacking of TWA Flight 847, kidnapping and torturing Americans in Lebanon, kidnapping and hanging the Marine officer who was commander of UN peacekeeping forces, and killing 19 Americans while bombing the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">We should join Israel in destroying these fascists. Imagine when Hezbollah rockets are armed with nuclear warheads. While Bush’s tactics and execution of the terror war are legitimate targets for criticism, the undermining of our war efforts here at home is sedition. Many in this Fifth Column call this “Bush’s War”, making light of this struggle and fight for our survival.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">People forget we won WWII by targeting civilians. While most people know about the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, very few know this paled in comparison with the napalm bombing of 15 Japanese cities that generated a much higher death toll. This broke the back and spirit of the Bushido warriors who were prepared to fight to the last man and effectively ended the war.</span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br /><span style="font-family:Arial;">When Winston Churchill was criticized for immoral action in the firebombing of Dresden, his chief military planner responded with the challenge, “What is moral in war? What is moral about one soldier sticking a bayonet into the stomach of another soldier?” The only thing moral in war is waging it with overwhelming force bringing about the decisive situation where the beaten side knows it has been defeated. Ending it as quickly as possible is the only possible thing that is moral, using any and all means to bring this about. We better recall this lesson if we want to preserve this country for our grandchildren.</span>The American Experimenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12045395686451946742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15098672.post-1147226305098252462006-05-09T21:58:00.000-04:002006-05-09T21:58:25.103-04:00ChoiceI have been an ardent student of climate change since the 1970’s when many of today’s global warming enthusiasts were using the same rhetoric in scaring us about global cooling. I read all of the information I can find on the subject from both supporters and opponents of human-induced global warming. Because climate is one of the least understood areas in all of science it becomes necessary to make judgments regarding the credibility of the respective antagonist’s arguments.<br/><br/>I arrive at my viewpoints on the basis of the facts and evidence provided by each side. In my opinion, the alarmist side throws out one sensational claim only exceeded by the next, relies on computer simulations while completely ignoring observational evidence, and only chooses to present as fact the outliers from their models that offer up the scariest and most extreme scenarios.<br/><br/>The anti-alarmist side tries to deal with what is actually known. They point out that CO2 is a relatively weak greenhouse gas existing only in trace amounts in the atmosphere. While alarmists claim its volume has hit record levels, cooler heads point out this claim could be made for each of the past 150 years where CO2 has increased from .028% to .037% of atmospheric volume. The physical properties of CO2 enable it to only absorb 3 very small bandwidths of the infrared energy radiated from the earth. The vast majority of infrared energy still easily escapes into outer space. We are already almost one-third of the way to the doubling of CO2 volume ominously threatened by alarmists, and yet the earth’s temperature has only increased by 1 degree F. CO2 is incapable of generating the 11 degrees of warming threatened by proponents of this theory.<br/><br/>The alarmists point to the ice melting in coastal Greenland and the Western Peninsula of Antarctica. They conveniently ignore that the vast interiors making up the majority of these regions are expanding in ice mass and consequently exerting a negative impact on sea level.<br/><br/>The alarmist side is saying that the debate is over and the science is settled. I don’t dispute the climate is apparently in a warming trend. My issue is with the claim that it is primarily caused by humans rather than natural variation. The planet is rebounding from the “Little Ice Age” where temperatures declined from those existing 1000 years ago. A few years ago, 17,000 scientists signed the Oregon Petition stating their disagreement with the premise that human activities were leading to catastrophic climate change.<br/><br/>Greenhouse theory can’t explain that seven-tenths of the one degree warming occurred by 1940, well before significant human CO2 emissions went into the atmosphere. When these human-induced emissions started to dramatically increase from 1940 to 1970, the climate COOLED by .4 degree. We then saw the temperature increase again by .7 degree to the present. There is no linear correlation of CO2 and temperature. Why do alarmists believe that reducing the already miniscule 3% human contribution of CO2 volume will have any effect on the climate? Furthermore, why do they want to sacrifice our economic well-being over a spurious and unproven theory? The burden of proof is clearly on them.The American Experimenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12045395686451946742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15098672.post-1147224336466553692006-05-09T21:25:00.000-04:002006-05-09T22:05:27.313-04:00EnvironmentalistsIf only we had listened to environmentalists 30 years ago how much better off we would be. Claiming that polar sea ice was at record levels and spring was coming two weeks late, they warned that urgent action was required to avoid another ice age. (Isn’t it funny how they now claim polar sea ice is at its lowest level, spring is two weeks early, and the planet is on the verge of burning up.)<br /><br />Paul Ehrlich was making millions off his book “The Population Bomb” which stated mankind didn’t have enough food and resources to care for its exploding numbers. He claimed millions of people would starve to death in America by 1990. (He is now an active global warming enthusiast and still regarded as a visionary even though he’s never been right.)<br /><br />Remember acid rain, nuclear winter, and other assorted looming disasters the environmentalist Left taunted us with. None of these events ever happened and now we no longer hear anything about them.<br /><br />Regrettably, we did listen to them about DDT. Listening to the junkscience of Rachel Carson, and completely disregarding the scientific evidence compiled by his agency, EPA Administrator William Ruckleshaus banned the use of DDT. The result was a disaster that really did occur and is an ongoing calamity. Over 100 million people, mostly women and children, have died of malaria as a direct consequence of environmentalist lunacy. This massacre, the greatest from any cause in human history, was completely preventable.<br /><br />The brutality of this eco-imperialism is ongoing. These misanthropists oppose any efforts to allow people in underdeveloped countries to improve the quality of their lives. They protest and threaten economic damage against any financial institutions that would lend money to help these poor nations build the dams or power plants that could provide electricity and clean water. This economic terrorism sentences poor people to drink contaminated water and use animal dung for heating and cooking. “Environmentalist compassion” traps these people in misery and prohibits them from changing the conditions of their impoverishment.<br /><br />Meanwhile, these same environmental bishops think nothing of flying in jets several times a year to attend climate conferences in all corners of the earth. That’s okay because they care and know so much more than the rest of us. After all, they’re trying to save the planet. Conservation, sacrifice, and economic denial is a duty only to be borne by everyone else.<br /><br />The modern environmentalist Left has been wrong in just about everything they’ve ever said and yet we’re supposed to do their bidding? I, for one, have heard quite enough from them. In the last century life spans have doubled, food production has quintupled, and the quality of life for ever-increasing numbers of people has never been greater. I trust in the individual freedom, capitalism, and technological development that makes all this possible.The American Experimenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12045395686451946742noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15098672.post-1145413731510123662006-04-18T22:28:00.000-04:002006-04-18T22:28:51.516-04:00Global Warbling<span style="font-family:Arial;">Recent weeks have brought a media barrage of alarm about global warming. This coordinated campaign has attacked from all directions. First, “60 Minutes” presented James Hansen, the NASA scientist purportedly censored by Bush who hasn’t had much difficulty getting his chicken-little message out despite the alleged political pressures. This Executive branch employee received a grant of $250,000 from a Teresa Heinz-Kerry foundation not long before he endorsed John Kerry for President in the week prior to the 2004 election.</span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;">Next came Time Magazine’s featured fear-mongering issue entitled “Be Worried – Be Very Worried” warning us of the inevitable approaching global warming apocalypse. Those of you with a memory may recall that Time also warned us of the approaching Ice Age back in 1974. The dire warnings they present are eerily similar in wording then and now, only differing in “degree.” </span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;">Then came the Ad Council, in concert with the Natural Resources Foundation, warning us of our responsibility to prevent global warming for our children. These ads are strikingly similar to 1964 Democrat political commercials warning the public not to vote for Barry Goldwater with a mushroom cloud looming in the background.</span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;">Finally, the coup de grace is a film by Al Gore called “An Inconvenient Truth” warning us that we’re near the tipping point of incontrovertible climate change. This animated spectacular, featuring Homer Simpson as Al Gore, provides lucid instructions of what is required to prevent climatic Armageddon. (Sorry – just kidding!) </span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;">Similar themes redound in all of these fantastical assaults. Inevitably, we hear that the science is settled, ALL serious scientists agree, and the teeny, tiny minority of scientists who dare to oppose are all in the pay of Big Oil and Coal – end of story. “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!”</span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;">The alarmists are chagrined that their efforts to engage the public over the past 20 years have come to naught. Their new rationale de jour is that the media has been unduly balanced in “allowing” those skeptical of human-caused global warming to be heard. Their new approach is that these dissenting voices should be silenced, ironically at the same time as they decry the supposed censoring by the Bush administration. Talk about cognitive dissonance!</span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;">Please understand that despite the repeated claims of the certainty of human-induced climate change, no empirical evidence from observation has been presented. Everything served up to us as “science” is nothing more than the virtual world of computer models. The scary results projected by these computer models are less than the precision of the measuring instruments. This means the projected result is smaller than the stated margin of error. For instance, when alarmists threaten that temperatures could rise 2 degrees over the next 50 years, the 3 degree margin of error means we have an equal chance of seeing a 1 degree cooling! So much for their claimed certainty!</span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;"></span><br/><span style="font-family:Arial;">These charlatans want you to believe that fractionally reducing the 3% human contribution to annual CO2 volumes can create a stable climate. Truly, these people are the anacondas of snake oil salesmen.</span>The American Experimenthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12045395686451946742noreply@blogger.com0