Global Climate Change

Global warming enthusiasts have reached a consensus of agreement. They know best how everyone else should behave.

But seriously… Did you hear the one about the consensus among scientists that global warming is caused by human produced carbon dioxide? It turns out, they all read the same book.

They may be right. I’ve got a little thermometer stuck to the outside of my kitchen window. For the last nine months now, it’s been 120 degrees out there. I’m afraid to leave the house. Luckily it didn’t heat up that much before the tree blew down and hit the side of the house last July. I wouldn’t have wanted to clean-up the mess in that heat. Then again, maybe it’s the tree’s fault. Maybe it’s the butterfly effect and that tree was the “tree that broke the climate’s back.”

I’ve heard a number of commentators, particularly Rush Limbaugh, deride the whole notion of consensus. “There’s no such thing as consensus in science,” they say.

With all due respect to my fellow realists, there has always been consensus in science. Science is also contentious. Most of the time there’s even contentiousness between consensuses. So I guess we realists have a contentious consensus. Or would that be a consensus of contentiousness?

There is consensus in science. Actually, there are two types of consensus in science.

First, there is the valid, verifiable consensus of truth-seeking science. Take gravity, for example. Everybody learns about it in school. Every scientist uses the same formula for defining it. There is essentially universal consensus about gravity, except for one thing. What causes it? The answer to that is still under contention. The facts concerning gravity, as we know them, are as true as true can be. It’s still only theory because true science accepts no absolute, definitive, final truth. We accept our current gravity theory as true because it works, all the time. It is verifiably, consistently predictable.

Second, there is the consensus of politically correct science. PC science is the science of facts. Facts are what the dominant authority says they are, true or not. Gravity is a true fact. Abortion kills a human being? True but not a fact. If it were a fact, it would be murder. If every American home replaced just one light bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified bulb, we would save enough energy to light more than 3 million homes for a year, more than $600 million in annual energy costs, and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of more than 800,000 cars. This is a fact. Is it true? We can’t know. It’s unverifiable. The truth is, it’s no more than a prediction. In practice, it’s a fact.

PC science is not new. If the ruling authority says the sun revolves around the earth, that’s what it does. It’s a fact. Ask Galileo. Or consider what Thomas Jefferson reportedly said after hearing about a meteorite: “I would more easily believe that two Yankee professors would lie, than that stones would fall from heaven.” And I’ll bet more than one “witch doctor” has taken a spear in the back because he didn’t say enough nice things about the chief. PC science often suppresses true science. Much of what we readily accept today was, at one time, definitely not politically correct. This is not to say that PC facts aren’t true. They can be. Often times are. They just don’t have to be.

I thought about adding a third, popular consensus, but decided, among the public at large, there is no consensus when it comes to science. People out there believe a lot of stuff that is currently not accepted, in terms of consensus, as either fact or truth. This, however, doesn’t stop the PC consensus crowd from claiming it also has a popular consensus, as if that should matter to science.

Now, in our modern, high-tech world, PC scientific consensus generally includes what is accepted by true scientific consensus. It also includes a lot more. The burden of proof is less stringent. It’s like the difference between criminal court (truth) and family court (fact). In one, you’re innocent until proven guilty (false ’til proven consistently true). In the other, you’re assumed to be guilty but they might be persuaded otherwise. (believe the claim, better to err on the side of caution).

The whole environmental movement has prospered because it operates, almost exclusively, in the realm of PC scientific consensus. If you can convince enough of the right people that your hypothesis is correct, it becomes accepted fact. Laws can then be passed, grants bestowed, regulations established, agencies created, mitigation begun, based on this fact. If you can get enough scientists financially dependent on your eco-socialist dogma, PC consensus is almost automatic. Environmentalism has been so successful that it has corrupted what were once the most prestigious journals of true science.

In environmental science, you can start with a predetermined result, then design your experiments to achieve that result. Inconvenient, contradictory data can be ignored with impunity. You can take minimal information and speculate wildly, as long as you use a lot of “mays”, “mights,” and “coulds” when making your outrageous predictions. If someone notices a discrepancy in your presentation, or presents contradictory data; inventing an answer on the fly, though not recommended, is acceptable. It’s better to be prepared for these ahead of time.

The world of environmental science is filled with studies that are nothing but studies of other studies. These studies are then studied. This is followed by more studies of studies that studied studies. Each successive study cites all the previous studies as source material. You end up with a thousand studies, all saying the same thing because they’re all based on the one original study. That original study might read something like:

We found less fish at mile 48 than at mile 51. We speculated that this could be caused by a greater sediment load so tested both locations. The sediment count was 15% greater at mile 48 than at mile 51. We therefore think it likely that excess sediment loading is causing the lower than expected fish population at mile 48. Since mile 48 is adjacent to a cornfield, we believe the excess sediment at mile 48 may be attributable to erosion from this plowed field. We estimate that up to 45% of this excess sediment loading could be stopped by widening the grass buffer strip another 12 feet. A crop residue management plan would likely reduce runoff by a further 20-25%. Another 25% could likely be retained with a no-till program. Further study is recommended.

You think that’s funny? You think I just made that up?

Yeah, I did. But I’ve read enough of them to know, that’s what they tend to look like. Go read a few yourself. That’s your environmental science. In the end, nobody’s really tested the original hypothesis, but they all accept the findings as fact.

This is a deep-seated problem. For at least 30 years now, children have been going to school, elementary - college, and learning all sorts of dubious environmental facts. They carry these forward into real life, and, like gravity, they don’t have to be proven. They just are. They assume they work in the real world, without really knowing. Like most students, they accept what they’re taught without question. They’re conditioned to feel good about believing, and to distrust and shun non-believers.

Politically correct scientists and their minions are constantly telling us exactly what future results will be for specific actions. It doesn’t matter that they can’t possibly know. Like the light bulbs above, they run subjective calculations using subjective numbers to extrapolate a precise, projected result. Later, when results are different, it doesn’t matter because no one is measuring anyway. The projection is as good as the deed done. Global warming advocates can’t give you precise figures for how much hotter it will get, even if you give them precise figures to work from. Instead, they give you a spread with a lot of vague if/then statements. So how is it these same people can tell you precisely how much good you’ll do if you only follow there recommendations?

Environmentalists are masters of the art of deceptive analysis and presumed results. They simplify the complicated and complicate the simple. All in pursuit of, not truth, but what is really a social agenda. Global warming, a dubious claim in itself, can be reduced to something as simple as carbon dioxide in the air by these artists. You want to build a shed?

Well…, we’ll have to check your hardcover restrictions to avoid excess stormwater runoff. Since you’re near a floodplain you won’t be able to store any volatiles or chemicals unless you put it on a solid foundation and provide secure storage. You’re lucky. If you were in the floodplain you’d need to get a variance. Oh wait. I see you’re bordering an environmentally sensitive area, so if you want to put it within a hundred feet of this border you’ll have to get a variance anyway. To do that you’ll first have to go through the planning commission. If they approve it then the council has to pass judgment. Hold on, I see you have here a restrictive covenant requiring approval from your homeowner’s association. You’re going to have to get that taken care of first, then come on back. We’ll talk some more.

Still want to build a shed?

Yes, there is such a thing as consensus in science. It doesn’t mean they’re right. So how do you know what to believe? That’s hard to answer, but the more nonspecific and speculative sounding the language, the more reason to be suspect. If they’re claiming a problem needs fixing, that’s suspect in and of itself. If their solutions seem inordinately expensive or primarily require legal restrictions on you or others, it’s almost certainly a load of hogwash. If your first response to some assertion is: How can you possibly know that? You’re probably right. They can’t.

If I throw a rock in the air, I know it’s going to come back down. I can do this a thousand times and the result will always be the same. If I get sick tomorrow and decide it must be something I ate, that’s pure speculation. If I ate some week-old leftover tuna, it’s still speculation but with circumstantial evidence. If I go to the doctor, have a battery of tests done, and am told it was definitely the tuna, that’s a hypothesis with credible scientific evidence. If I go to three more doctors and they all say the same, that’s verifiable, repeatable scientific confirmation. Even then, they still could be wrong.

If you want to see a wonderful example of politically correct scientific consensus in action, watch the History Channel production A Global Warning? Just make sure your BS detector is turned-up to full power. I really liked the “controversial” hypothesis they throw out as a possible explanation for the retreat of the glaciers 12,000 years ago. No conventional theory for the cause of this event includes an extraordinary increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This doesn’t do much to bolster the cause of man-made global warming. Enter the comet, bringing with it just scads of carbon dioxide to overload the atmosphere. Sure, they acknowledge clearly that this possible explanation is “controversial,” but that doesn’t stop them from tossing it into the public discourse. It’s good for the cause.

Phil

Global Warming: A Chilling Perspective
Global Warming: How It All Began
The Discovery of Global Warming
Global Warming: The History of an International Scientific Consensus
globalwarming.org
BEYOND THE IVORY TOWER: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Our Planet
Climate Skeptics Reveal ‘Horror Stories’ of Scientific Suppression
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility
Energy Star

Today is Dearthday +38.

(Moment of Silence)

If you were to ask a global warming advocate (hey, don’t yell at me, that’s what they call themselves) how 22nd century historians will record the first Earthday in 1970, he/she will likely respond with something like:

That’s the day people first really acknowledged that humanity was trashing the planet; too bad the stupid a**h***s were too f***ing greedy to do anything about it until it was too late. That’s what they’ll say if anyone’s left to say it.

I have a different view. On Dearthday +150, I think historians will identify Dearthday (April 22, 1970) as the dawn of eco-tyranny. That’s what they’ll say if the eco-tyrants aren’t still in power. If they are still in power, it’ll be because they have successfully taken credit for saving a planet that was never at risk. Then historians will mark April 22, 1970 as the beginning of the glorious People’s Environmental Revolution to overthrow the tyrannical, Earth defiling, resource exploiters.

Whatever happens, the environmental movement in general, and human-induced global warming in particular, are a sham and a scam. It’s not just that I don’t accept the dire predictions of global calamity, and find a lot of this so-called “environmental science” to be seriously flawed and therefore suspect. The truth is, if I’m wrong, and humanities addition of an itty-bitty-bit of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is enough to do what they say it will, then it was already way too late on April 22, 1970. In that case, every “environmental” thing they’ve done since then has been nothing but a waste. Doing all the silly, expensive things they’re now doing to curb emissions will also accomplish nothing, and meantime will waste precious time and resources that could be utilized preparing for the inevitable. A lot of people now living on low-lying coastlines will drown while our self-appointed saviors line their pockets and play at being miracle-workers. Shouldn’t we be helping these people relocate to higher ground? Shouldn’t we be preparing for a flood of refugees from the unbearable heat to the south? Shouldn’t we be quietly buying up as much of Canada as we can? No, we need to change our lightbulbs. What a sham. And we’re swallowing it hook, line and sinker. My only consolation is, if they’re right, they won’t be able to hold onto their power because the masses of starving, angry refugees will eat them for lunch.

Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of “Emergency.” It was a tactic of Lenin, Hitler and Mussolini. — Herbert Hoover

In 1970, the U.S. was in a turmoil of youthful, politically volatile unrest. The vocal, sometimes violent minority of the time sought to bring down “The Establishment.” Most of these protesters could be categorized as “useful idiots.” They rightfully opposed things like enforced segregation, imperialist aggression, and dangerous pollution; but had no idea how to even correctly identify, much less fix these things. To this day, I believe most of these “socially-conscious youth” really only wanted, for everyone, the freedom to live as we please without a lot of elitists telling us what we can and can’t do. So they followed the leaders who claimed to want the same thing. They echoed whatever they were told, and became believers. Most didn’t know, at least at first, that they were being led by communists and socialists intent on transforming the very fabric of our free-wheeling culture. Instead, they thought these collectivist ideas, couched in the language of freedom and liberty, reflected either pure altruism or enlightened self-interest.

Into this turmoil came dire warnings of global ecological calamity of all sorts. Overpopulation, mass-extinctions, poisons in the soil, poisons in the air, deforestation, global climate change, these things and more were scrutinized and publicized by a variety of revolutionary, forward-thinking “scientists.” Their conclusions: DOOM!

Now here was something even the most ardent, turned-on, flower-power hippie could agree government should do something about. And what was the cause of this impending ecological doom? Human industrial development. Also known as “The Establishment.”

There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. — Robert Heinlein

Along came Earthday, legacy of Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-Wis). By this time, politicians not already leaning left recognized the power of this loud leftist minority and chose either to fight the surge or ride the wave. Nixon chose to ride the wave and created the Environmental Protection Agency. All of a sudden, it was up to the enlightened few to lead us to salvation. All of a sudden, saving the planet from ourselves became a government priority. All of a sudden, we had to start spending like crazy on “environmental programs” and adopting scads of “environmental regulations.” Oh there have been detractors, but even they can be persuaded to fund studies or authorize water clean-up; especially if to not do so gets them labelled as “in the pocket of big polluters,” and “an opponent of clean air and water.” Other non-believers opted to join the party and belly-up to the gravy train. They provided just enough of a counterpoint to give the whole thing an aura of credibility. As more and more studies consistently echoed previous cries of doom and gloom, political detraction became increasingly risky. Before almost anyone had realized it had happened, we had allowed the creation of a huge, government backed and endorsed, enviro-socialist machine capable of politically and judicially monkeywrenching anyone or anything it targets. At the same time, similar campaigns were being successfully waged in the broader arena of public safety and general welfare. Once you support any socialist ideal, you pretty much have to do the same for the rest. It didn’t take long before everyone was looking to Uncle Sam for everything. We have now come to expect big government to do everything it can for us while at the same time protect us from every possible harm. The irony of it all is that, although environmentalists and other social do-gooders are still usually able to represent themselves as altruistic and anti-establishment, they have actually become “The Establishment.”

The result has been nothing less than the redefinition of our most basic cultural identity. “Freedom to…” has become “Freedom from….” Rights are no longer passive things that can’t be given – can only be infringed. Rights are aggressive entitlements that require government enforcement. You are no longer free to pee in the river. Instead, you are entitled to a river free of pee. You don’t have a right to smoke. You have a right to be free from smoke. One of these days you’ll no longer be free to hire a doctor. Instead, you’ll be entitled to access the healthcare system. Yesterday you had a right to take your motorboat out for a spin. Today you are allowed to operate it in a legally prescribed manner. Tomorrow? One can only wait and see. Your neighbor may decide they have the right to be free from the noise of your motor.

We now live in a country in which everything you do is subject to environmental regulation. A country in which a large but incalculable piece of every dollar spent feeds the growth of eco-tyranny. This is big big business and almost everybody’s playing along, either because they don’t see any other option, or because they are now part of the “green” machine. Yesterday’s idealistic altruists are today’s environmental authoritarians. Those enlightened self-interested of the past? Now are greedy cynics milking the “green” cash-cow with unrepentent vigor. So what about the evil industrial polluters that caused all this? If they play along, generously feed the machine, they’ll do fine. They might eventually even be loved for their commitment to environmental causes. Resistors will be righteously crushed. Meanwhile, any detractors left standing are either totally ignored or thoroughly vilified, at least for the time being. One of these days it might be considered seditious.

The anointed have spoken. The debate is over (as if there ever was a debate). You’re either part of the solution or part of the problem. Join the “green” machine or go the way of the dinosaurs.

You can call me

Philosophisaurus

I was watching This Week with George Stephanopoulos Sunday morning, and heard John McCain say “I know what it’s like in America not to have health care.”

Exsqueeze me?

Son and grandson of Navy Admirals, 1958 Naval Academy graduate, naval officer until 1981, congressman or senator since 1982; John McCain knows what it’s like to be an American without health insurance in the same way that Ted Kennedy knows what it’s like to be an impoverished alcoholic.

C’mon John, you’ve had free access to the best medical care in the world for 25 years. You may know what it’s like to not need health insurance, but that’s a far cry from doing without. Folks like me do without because we can’t afford it. We can’t afford it because your behemoth bureaucracy has driven medical costs through the roof. We can’t afford it because your behemoth bureaucracy confiscates our money to feed and care for itself. We can’t afford health insurance so that you and 25 - 50 million other freeloaders* can.

Phil

* People whose health care is primarily funded by government expenditures.

Earthday: A day set aside to thank Planet Gaia for her hospitality, apologize for the empty beer cans and overflowing ashtrays cluttering up the place, and promise to clear out as soon as we can get everybody on the bus.

On this Earthday, we should all do our part to show our love for dear old Mother Gaia. That’s why I’ve prepared this list of 20 things you can do to celebrate Earthday.

1. Wear a “Stop Global Warming” t-shirt to show your awareness of global warming.
2. Give every tree you see a big hug.
3. Stick pinwheels in your hat to show your support for renewable energy.
4. Strip naked and spend the day with the bears and wolves to demonstrate your love of all Gaia’s creatures.
5. Go to a church and explain to the congregation that humanity does not hold dominion over the Earth.
6. Take a pee behind a tree to reconnect with nature’s flow.
7. Drive your dad’s rusty old, smoke belching Delta 88 in the local Earthday Parade to symbolize the destruction wrought by the internal combustion engine.
8. Leave some food out for the mice and cockroaches to acknowledge their right to be here too.
9. Use eco-friendly candles on your Earthday cake.
10. Enter a wet t-shirt contest wearing your “Stop Global Warming” t-shirt to stimulate awareness in others.
11. Sabotage a pipeline to show your intolerance for wholesale industrial destruction of the environment.
12. Hold a public hunger strike to make the point that eating makes you an accessory to murder.
13. Lobby congress to make Earthday a national holiday.
14. Streak a NASCAR race to protest the wanton exploitation of Earth’s precious resources.
15. Exhale into a very large balloon all day to dramatize how much carbon dioxide each human contributes to global warming.
16. Release all the animals from the local zoo to foster a spirit of interspecies understanding.
17. Organize a global sing-along of Happy Earthday.
18. Peel-off your wet t-shirt and give it to the first guy who says “your t-shirt has really stimulated my awareness.”
19. Lie quietly in your cave to minimize your impact on the environment.
20. Donate all your worldly possessions to Algore so he can save the planet with his slide show.

Happy Earthday Mama G.

Phil

Temp

When I turn on the television to catch the local weather report our local
meteorologist is shown standing next to a chart displaying the day’s high and low temperatures, the “normal” high and low for the day, and the record high and low for the day.

Now let me say first that this term ”normal” has always upset me. I consider it
ignorant. It is not “normal.” It’s a 30-year average.

Of course, when you tell the weatherman what you think he just responds that
it is accepted meteorological terminology.

Lately, however, our local guy has really been giving me fits. For at least three
weeks now we’ve experienced local high temperatures that are 10 to 30 degrees below the average high for the day. And just about every day our guy comments
on the unseasonably cold temperatures, points at the ”normal” temperature and says: “This is what it’s supposed to be.”

Say What!?  Supposed to be!? Who says? Who decides?

Case in point. The other day our official high temperature was 13 degrees. The low was one degree below zero. The record high for the day is 82 degrees. The record low is minus 9. The average high for the day is 40 degrees. The average low is 21.

This means we have a potential temperature spread of at least 91 degrees. If you check the 30-year records for any given day you might find four or five days that fall within five degrees  either side of “normal.” One or two of these might actually hit it right on. The rest fall somewhere within the spread. In any case, with a 91 degree spread it’s hard enough to consider anything “normal” much less try to suggest “this is what it’s supposed to be.”

Going back to our local TV weather report. Another thing I notice is the various temperatures around the region. What I find interesting is that within a 100 mile
radius we usually have temperatures reported that commonly differ by six to 10
degrees between the highest and lowest. Two or three degrees difference
over about 25 miles is common. All this makes me wonder. How can these global climate change advocates even begin to get an accurate average annual temperature that doesn’t have at least a plus or minus five degree margin-of-error, then turn around and tell us about half-degree changes.

Time

Today is the first day of daylight saving time. I despise it. I don’t change my clocks.
They stay on standard time.

When I awoke this morning at six  my time I turned on the radio. The first thing I heard was some local broadcast journalist lamenting about losing an hour of sleep, then gushing how she was looking forward to that extra hour of sunshine. That was the eighth time I heard someone, on TV or radio, say something along those lines. I’d swear by the way they say it they actually believe, thanks to an act of congress, that we are suddenly blessed with an extra hour of sunshine. King Knut must be rolling in his grave.

Well, maybe I’m wrong and they’re right. Maybe that’s why everybody blames the United States of America for global warming. We did start this daylight saving time
stuff and it stands to reason that if you add an hour of sunlight to the day,
you might cause global warming.

So I say: Stop global warming - repeal daylight saving time.

Phil