The Left says we need to combat Manmade Global Warming even if the Theory of Global Warming is Wrong

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 21st, 2014

Week in Review

The Democrats say manmade global warming is real.  That the science is settled.  And anyone who denies this is a fool.  So the danger of manmade global warming is real and time is of the essence.  To save the planet.  Destroy the economy.  And our way of life (see Examiner Editorial: Governments resolved to stop global warming even if it doesn’t exist posted 4/21/2014 on the Washington Examiner).

PJ Media’s Tom Harris recently noted that global warming advocates ought to heed that warning. Harris’ observation followed release of the latest report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC cried that fossil fuel energy use around the world must be reduced by as much as 70 percent by 2050 to avoid the apocalyptic “death, injury and disrupted livelihoods” caused by man-made atmospheric warming.

“This will require massive cuts in our use of coal, oil, and natural gas, the sources of 87 percent of world primary energy consumption,” Harris said. It will also require quadrupling the amount of energy generated from renewable and nuclear sources, plus widespread adoption of carbon capture and storage technology that doesn’t even exist yet.

So, to fight global warming will require the kind of spending it took to win World War II.  The cost of energy would soar and leave people with little left to spend on their families.  Crippling our economy.  While leaving us with far less reliable electric power.   Making brownouts and blackouts commonplace.  Changing our lives greatly.  And what will we get in return?  Not a whole heck of a lot.

But the IPCC is crying wolf, according to the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, a voluntary international assembly of scientists and scholars brought together by the Heartland Institute, an American think tank. The NIPCC’s goal is to “present a comprehensive, authoritative, and realistic assessment of the science and economics of global warming” independent of the political and economic interests that inevitably drive the analyses of governmental entities like the UN’s IPCC.

The NIPCC’s bottom line is that atmospheric warming comes and goes over time, with average temperatures actually declining over the past 17 years. As a result and contrary to those crying wolf on global warming, the earth’s ice cover “is not melting at an enhanced rate; sea-level rise is not accelerating; and no systematic changes have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme meteorological events.” In fact, warmer temperatures and increased carbon content in the atmosphere can be beneficial to human beings, animals and plant life, “causing a great greening of the Earth,” according to the N-GIPCC.

Yes, warm is better.  After all, no one bitched when global warming caused the glaciers to recede and end the ice ages.  Because where the glaciers receded life took to that once frozen wasteland.  And when the glaciers from the greatest ice age (ending about 635 million years ago) receded after nearly covering the planet in ice man wasn’t even using fire yet.  In fact, the greater apes man evolved from didn’t arrive until about 15 million years ago.  After the great glaciers receded back from the equator.  So when the planet warmed and pushed back those glaciers it sure wasn’t man doing it.  Which means if you believe in evolution you can’t believe in manmade global warming.  Because the planet warms and cools.  And has been doing so far longer than man has been around.

Tim Wirth, the former congressman and present vice chairman of the U.N. Foundation, said “even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” No matter that jobs, growth and comfort will be lost. Keep that in mind next time President Obama claims Americans must spend billions of tax dollars on “green” energy because global warming is “real.”

So these great costs are necessary even if they are wrong and manmade global warming is not settled science.  Because crippling our economy and causing power brownouts and blackouts are a good thing.  Why?  One reason.  It empowers government.  To further intrude in how we live our lives.  Which is the only thing battling manmade global warming does.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Carbon Emissions in the United States fall to levels not seen since 1963

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 14th, 2014

Week in Review

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently released a new climate report.  And it contained some of the most alarmist language yet used by the IPCC.  So alarmist that an author removed his name from the report.  Not because he disagrees with the underlying science.  But because the “inflammatory and alarmist claims delegitimize the IPCC as a credible and neutral institution.”  And why was the language so alarmist?  Because the fury of global warming was going to rain hellfire down upon us unless we acted immediately to curb our carbon emissions.  For the level of our carbon emissions was growing ever more perilous.  Taking us to the point of no return. Again.  So immediate action was required.  Hence the alarmist nature of the report.

Some of those in the alarmist camp even want to go as far as jailing climate change deniers.  Because it is these people that are allowing the carbon polluters to pollute with abandon.  Because people believe them and their science.  That man isn’t causing global warming.  It’s because of these people that America never signed the Kyoto Protocol.  And because they have not implemented economic strangling carbon reduction policies (such as a carbon tax) the United States is one of the driving forces of manmade global warming.  Because of their carbon emissions.  Of course, the data doesn’t agree with this (see US CO2 Emissions Per Capita Are At Their Lowest Levels In 50 Years by Rob Wile posted 4/14/2014 on Business Insider).

And the following chart from AEI’s Mark Perry shows the U.S. has been making significant gains in carbon dioxide reduction: At about 17 tons per capita, we are at a level not seen in half a century. Perry writes:

CO2 emissions per capita in the US increased slightly last year, but were back to the same level as in 1963 (50 years ago), and 23% below the peak in the early 1970s, thanks to the boom in shale gas, which has displaced coal for electricity generation.

Back to what it was in 1963?  You know what that means?  We are at risk of another ice age.  For on Earth Day in 1970 the climate scientists were warning us to store food to survive the coming ice age.  Which was coming.  For the planet had been cooling for some 20 years.  And if those present trends continued it was death by cold.  Just like they are saying now that if present trends continue it will be death by warm.  Even though there is less carbon in the atmosphere than when they were predicting death by cold.  Which is why there are a lot of climate change deniers.

Then again, perhaps man is causing global warming.  By removing so much carbon from the atmosphere.  For it was cooler when there was more carbon floating around up there.  It would explain why that when a volcano throws up the same stuff a coal-fired power plant does it causes cooling.  While the coal-fired power plant causes warming.  Even though it’s pretty much the same stuff they’re putting into the atmosphere.  Which is another reason why there are so many climate change deniers.  For it appears whether carbon will cause warming or cooling depends on the day that carbon is having.  For it appears carbon has attitude.  And is moody.  Which is the only way it can support such contradicting conclusions.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Even a Climate Scientist finds the Alarmist IPCC Report too Alarmist

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 6th, 2014

Week in Review

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recently released a new climate report.  And based on that report we’re all doomed.  Melting sea ice, thawing permafrost, floods, droughts, heat waves, cold waves, rain storms, blizzards, etc.  In other words, weather.  Weather the IPCC apparently believes is unusual.  Caused by manmade global warming.  Of course one wonders what they would say caused the glaciers to recede back from the equator to the poles long before man was even around to cause warming.  Or why ice at the poles now is normal when they were once ice-free.  Man wasn’t around polluting the planet back then.  But you know what was around back then?  The sun.  Sunspot activity could have been causing the Pacific Decadal Oscillation back then as it is now.  But one thing is for sure.  Man couldn’t have melted the polar ice caps completely.  For we’d have to discover fire before that could have happened.

An IPCC insider pulled his name from this report as he did not like the alarmist nature of it.  And the fact that they were very selective with their climate modeling (see IPCC Insider Rejects Global-Warming Report by Alec Torres posted 4/3/2014 on National Review).

Richard Tol, a professor of economics at the University of Sussex in the United Kingdom and an expert on climate change, removed his name from the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. While he considers much of the science sound and supports the underlying purpose of the IPCC, Tol says the United Nations agency’s inflammatory and alarmist claims delegitimize the IPCC as a credible and neutral institution.

“In the SPM [Summary for Policymakers], and much more largely in the media, we see all these scare stories,” Tol tells National Review Online. “We’re all going to die, the four horsemen of the apocalypse . . . I felt uncomfortable with the direction [the IPCC report] was going…”

He took his name off of the final summary because he felt the IPCC did not properly account for human technological ingenuity and downplayed the potential benefits of global warming…

One prediction has it that crop yields will begin to fall dramatically, a statement “that is particularly not supported by the chapter itself,” Tol says. “What it completely forgets is technological progress and that crop yields have been going up for as long as we’ve looked at crop yields.”

Beyond misleading statements on agriculture, Tol says the IPCC report cites only the maximum estimate for how much it will cost to protect against sea-level rise associated with current climate-change predictions…

The report also stresses that global warming will cause more deaths due to heat stress, but ignores that global warming would reduce cold stress, which actually kills more people than heat stress each year.

Tol is far from a conspiracy theorist, but he nonetheless thinks the IPCC has built-in biases that keep it from adequately checking alarmism.

First, there is a self-selection bias: People who are most concerned about the impact of climate change are most likely to be represented on the panel. Next, most of the panelists are professors involved in similar academic departments, surrounded by like-minded people who reinforce each other’s views. Those views are welcomed by the civil servants who review the report, because their “departments, jobs, and careers depend on climate being a problem,” Tol says.

This is the problem with climate ‘science’.  It is not very scientific.  Science is the competition between theories.  And the never-ending attempt to disprove previously held theories.  This is what makes good science.  For theories that hold up to every attempt at disproving them leave fewer and fewer theories that could possibly explain the data and experimental results.  But when you exclude those opposing theorists from the process the ‘science’ is decidedly one-sided.  And the ‘scientists’ are more cheerleader than scientist.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Melting Ice may return the Life back to Greenland that the Glaciers Killed

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 16th, 2014

Week in Review

The earth’s climate is not a constant.  It changes.  And has been changing over the 4.54 billion years the planet’s been here.  Going from one extreme to another over hundreds of thousands of years.  Periods of time so great nothing living has ever experienced these changes.  For example, no one ever lived to see the polar regions free of ice and glaciers extending down from the polar ice caps to near the equator.  The time between these two climate extremes was far too great for any living thing to observe.  But that’s how climate changes.  Over vast amounts of time.  We may experience hot days and cold days.  Hot summers and cold winters.  But we just won’t experience climate change.  We are likely to die in the climate we were born in.  As it has been throughout time.

The last great climatic change of the planet was the Little Ice Age from approximately 1350 to 1850.  That’s a period of 500 years.  Or 250 years of cooling and 250 years of warming.  Approximately.  And unless you remained alive for some 3 or 4 generations of your family tree you didn’t experience any climate change.  You just accepted the climate you were living in as being normal.  And got on with life.  Which makes all these climate doomsayers seem silly and needlessly frightened.  For they will be long dead and buried before there is any real climate change.  Yet they wring their hands with worry whenever something happens in a very short period of time.  As if that small change in that minute period of time means anything.  Like melting glaciers in Greenland (see Study: Ice Sheet Destabilizing, Threatening Greater Sea-Level Rise by Alan Neuhauser posted 3/16/2014 on US News and World Report).

A new region of a massive ice sheet in Greenland has become unstable, threatening to raise global sea levels beyond previous estimates, an international team of scientists has found.

The ice sheet, known simply as the Greenland Ice Sheet, is a roughly 660,000-square mile swath of ice that covers 80 percent of the country. The second-largest ice sheet in the world behind the Antarctic Ice Sheet, it’s especially vulnerable to global warming, yet its northeast portion had remained largely unaffected by rising temperatures…

From April 2003 to April 2012, the northeast portion lost about 10 billion tons of ice per year, according to GPS data. It’s a finding that researcher Shfaqat Abbas Khan called “very surprising…”

Researchers believe that melting of the ice sheet has been one of the largest factors in sea-level rise, contributing 0.5 millimeters to the total of 3.2 millimeters of sea rise per year.

Once upon a time ice didn’t cover 80% of Greenland and the land in Greenland was actually green.  There was life.  Warm weather.  And warm soil.  Where things grew.  Allowing other things to live.  Then the cold weather came.  A period of global cooling.  An ice age.  And killed it all.  But now it may be spring in Greenland once again.  Allowing life to propagate in new soil revealed beneath receding glaciers.  Perhaps even providing farmland.  And more opportunity for Greenlanders.  Of course the current generation of Greenlanders will never see this.  But their great-great-great-great-grandchildren might.  And they’ll probably like it.  Because we really know how everyone feels about ice and snow.  Based on the destination of everyone going on winter or spring break at least.  They go where it’s warm.  Because warm is better.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Earth has been Warmer and Cooler before Man created his First Carbon Emission

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 9th, 2014

Week in Review

The left likes to attack religion.  Pointing out how those in power created all religions.  To control the people.  And to increase their power.  They note that these religions are not based in scientific fact.  But on faith.  And silly superstitions.  Not intelligent thought.  Which is why the left attacks religion.  To free people from these silly superstitions.  So they can control the people with their own silly superstitions and faith (see I Spent 28 Hours on a Bus. I Loved It. by Eric Holthaus posted 2/4/2014 on Slate).

For the first time, 195 nations backed a consensus statement saying that humanity is “extremely likely” (greater than 95 percent confidence) to be the dominant cause. That’s about the same confidence doctors have that smoking causes cancer…

That means we have no choice but to change our collective path right now.

There is no such thing as consensus in science.  We don’t take votes in science.  We use the scientific method.  And here’s how Merriam-Webster defines the scientific method:

principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

Do you see anything about taking votes and forming a consensus?  No.  Because it’s not science when you take votes and form a consensus.  When empirical data and experimentation uphold a hypothesis what does that mean?  It means we haven’t disproved that hypothesis yet.  It doesn’t mean that hypothesis is a scientific fact.  It just means someone hasn’t come around to disprove it yet.

We don’t know what killed off the dinosaurs yet.  We have many hypotheses.  A massive meteorite hit the earth.  A period of volatile volcanic activity.  Continental drift cooled the planet.  Dinosaur flatulence warmed the planet.  Aliens killed them.  Or took them away.  There are many theories.  But no one knows for sure what happened.  And scientists haven’t taken a vote to settle the matter once and for all.  They are still working to figure that out.  Because that’s the scientific method.  Whereas the theory of global warming (let’s call it what it was before their warming predictions were proven wrong and they opted to use climate change) is the only ‘science’ the left wants us to accept as settled science.  Without any further inquiry.  And they even belittle anyone who believes in the scientific method as climate change deniers.  Because we don’t pray at the altar of global warming.  Turning our world over to those who want to regulate every aspect of our lives.

Climate was around a lot longer than dinosaurs.  Yet while we can only make educated hypotheses on what happened to the dinosaurs we can supposedly understand fully something that predates the dinosaurs.  Which is preposterous to say the least.  In the Seventies they were warning us about global cooling.  Then in the Nineties they were warning us about global warming.  Without ever saying that they were wrong when they said the planet was cooling.  Or why we should believe them now when they were wrong before.  And not just a little wrong.  They were the most wrong possible.  Changing from one extreme (cooling) to the other extreme (warming).

Climate doesn’t only predate the dinosaurs.  It also predates man.  And there was a lot of climate activity going on long before man created his first carbon emission.  Once upon a time there were no polar icecaps.  Then at another time glaciers reached down from the polar regions to near the equator.  These extremes happened long before the internal combustion engine.  Or the coal-fired power plant.  In fact, these things happened when there were no manmade carbon emissions.  So what caused these climate extremes that were much more extreme than the climate of today?  Whatever it was we do know one thing.  Man did not cause them.  Just as he is not causing global warming today.  For it may come a shock to liberals but man is not bigger than climate.  Climate is bigger than man.  And it can bring on another ice age and kill us in droves.

If you live in a northern clime look out your window at that snow and ice covering the ground.  Now ask yourself this.  How much food do you think our farmers could grow if their fields were covered with snow and ice all year round?  Or if the temperatures never rose enough to warm the wet soil enough to allow seeds to germinate?  None. That’s how much.  We can irrigate land during a summer drought.  But there will be nothing we can do to warm and dry the soil enough to grow food.  Which means the climate doomsayers were right in the Seventies.  Global cooling is the greater threat.  Not warming.  And anyone worried about manmade global warming should ask the climate ‘scientists’ to explain how the polar icecaps could melt, glaciers could extend down from the polar regions to the equator and then recede back to the polar regions without any manmade global warming around to cause this climate change.  And if they can explain how with a straight face than perhaps we should listen to them.  But not until then.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Global Warming is causing Record Cold Temperatures and making it Snow in the Middle East

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 15th, 2013

Week in Review

Those on the left are always sick with worry about something.  Because they are a miserable people.  Who really don’t understand anything.  But they know that whatever is happening is bad.  In the Seventies it was global cooling.  A new ice age was coming.  And they were angry that government leaders weren’t listening to them and storing up food as the ice age was imminent.  Just years away.  And if we didn’t start storing food to get us through the coming bleak, glacier-covered period we were doomed.

Well, the ice age did not come as they had warned.  And they found warning about an ice age sucked.  Because what could the government do but store food?  Global warming, on the other hand, held a lot more promise.  For they could blame that on man.  And the carbon he was putting into the atmosphere with his modern world.

Global warming was a hit with the left.  Because it led to a slew of environmental regulations.  Increasing the cost of business.  And changing the way we lived.  This was so much better than global cooling.  So the left warned us that the temperatures were rising.  And that if we didn’t enact their new insufferable regulations the world would end as we knew it within the decade.  They said this during the 1990s.  The 2000s.  And they continue to say this to this day.  Despite weather like this (see Snow closes roads in Israel, is a source of wonder in Egypt by Laura King and Batsheva Sobelman posted 12/13/2013 on the Los Angeles Times).

Snow coated domes and minarets Friday as a record Middle East storm compounded the suffering of Syrian refugees, sent the Israeli army scrambling to dig out stranded motorists and gave Egyptians a rare glimpse of snow in their capital.

Nearly three feet of snow closed roads in and out of Jerusalem, which is set in high hills, and thousands in and around the city were left without power…

In Cairo, where local news reports said the last recorded snowfall was more than 100 years ago…

Storm-driven waves lashed Egypt’s Mediterranean coast, and fishermen in the ancient port city of Alexandria were warned by authorities against putting out to sea. In the Sinai Peninsula, snow fell on Mt. Sinai and St. Catherine’s monastery at its foot. Sleet washed the dusty fronds of desert palm trees.

The left said a few forest fires in the West were proof that the climate is warming.  They said a drought in the farmland was proof that the climate is warming.  They said that super-storm Sandy was proof that the climate was warming.  Yet when we have record cold temperatures throughout the world and snow in the Middle East what do they say?  These are just isolated weather events that don’t mean a thing.  And we wouldn’t have these extreme cold temperatures if the climate wasn’t warming.

They actually say this.  But they try not to use the term ‘global warming’ anymore as it makes them look like idiots.  They prefer climate change.  As it can cover warm, cold, wet, dry, wind, calm, whatever.  They don’t have to be right about any prediction.  As they can say any weather event is the result of catastrophic climate change.  As they’ve been warning us was imminent for decades.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Hunters and Gatherers Live at the Mercy of their Environment, Farmers Control their Environment

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 26th, 2013

History 101

(Originally published October 18th, 2011)

We can Ultimately Blame Neanderthal’s Demise on the Hunter and Gatherer System

We’re Homo sapiens.  Neanderthals were here before us.  By a few hundred thousand years.  Give or take.  We have fossil evidence of their existence.  And we’ve been able to put them into the historical timeline.  But we’re not sure what happened to them.  For they were stronger than us.  And they had a similar brain size as ours.  Stronger and just as smart, you’d have to give them the edge when Homo sapiens met Neanderthal.  Yet here we are.  Homo sapiens.  Wondering what happened to Neanderthal man.

There are theories.  Neanderthal was adapted to live in the cold.  And he hunted cold-adapted mammals.  But then an ice age came.  And the temperatures fell.  It became too cold even for the cold-adapted.  The climate change pushed the 4-legged mammals south.  In search of food ahead of the advancing glaciers.  And Neanderthal followed.  Moving into what were at one time warmer climes.  Bumping into warmer-clime Homo sapiens.

The climatic change was rather sudden during this period.  One theory says that this rapid changing changed the environment.  Creating different plant and animal species.  And Neanderthal was unable to adapt.  Another theory says that as the glaciers advanced they just forced more people into a smaller area.  And they fought over a smaller food supply.  When the glaciers retreated, Homo sapiens then followed Neanderthals north.  And expanded into their hunting grounds.  Until they displaced them from the historical timeline.

Whatever happened one thing is sure.  We can ultimately blame their demise on the hunter and gatherer system.  Because this system requires large hunting grounds for survival.  Advancing glaciers reduced those hunting grounds.  Putting more people together in a smaller area.  Competing for limited food resources.  And they ultimately lost that competition.

The Hunter and Gatherer Culture Continued to do things as they had During the Stone Age

We can see a more recent example of the demise of a hunter and gatherer people.  In North America.  During the European colonization of that continent.

The North American continent is huge.  Much of it remains uninhabited to this date.  But it wasn’t big enough for the North American Indians and the Europeans.  Why?  The Indians were hunters and gatherers.  They needed a lot of land.  Each tribe had ‘braves’.  ‘Warriors’.  Soldiers.  Because they were a fighting people.  They had a warring culture.  They followed food.  Taking land from other tribes.  And protecting land from other tribes.  So they needed large numbers of warriors.  Which required large amounts of food.  And great expanses of land to hunt that food.

The Europeans, on the other hand, were farmers.  They could grow a lot of food.  And grow large populations on very small tracts of land.  They had higher population densities on their land.  They were better fed.  And they had a middle class thanks to a healthy food surplus.  Which created new technologies.  And provided tools and equipment to advance their civilization.  While the hunter and gatherer culture continued to do things as they had during the Stone Age.

Food Surpluses Created a Middle Class which allowed Advanced Civilizations

Hunters and gatherers live at the mercy of their environment.  Whereas farmers have taken control of their environment.  Creating food surpluses.  Which led to a middle class.  And to advanced civilizations.  Which is why they became the dominant civilization.  And displaced hunter and gatherer people from the historical timeline.  Simply by being a much more survivable people.  Because they took control of their environment.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Climate Scientists prove Weird Weather is Due to Manmade Global warming with Assumptions and Computer Models

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 7th, 2013

Week in Review

Every night during the weather report I watch they show the high and low temperatures as well as the average and record for each.  And even though we are supposedly suffering the ravages of global warming those record high temperatures often reach back a long time well beyond the Nineties when talking about global warming became all the rage.  After the coming ice age became so yesterday’s apocalypse.  Some of these records go back close to a century.  So this being so hot is not a new phenomenon.  As it’s been really hot before.

In fact, it was once so hot for so long that it pushed back the glaciers from near the equator back to the poles.  Where they are now.  Now that’s some global warming.  And that was from 850 to 630 million years ago.  During the Cryogenian period.  Which was before Henry Ford mass-produced the automobile.  Before John D. Rockefeller made gasoline cheap and plentiful.  Before James Watt improved the steam engine and gave us the Industrial Revolution.  Before Abraham left Ur for Canaan (if you’re religiously inclined).  Before man began using stone tools.  Even before the human and chimpanzee lineages split (if you’re evolutionarily inclined).  Putting the greatest period of global warming (based on the melting of glaciers) long before any manmade global warming existed.  Yet the leading climate ‘scientists’ tell us manmade global warming is causing climate change like never seen before (see Study finds global warming raised likelihood of about half of last year’s weirdest weather by The Associated Press posted 9/5/2013 on CP24).

A study of a dozen of 2012’s wildest weather events found that man-made global warming increased the likelihood of about half of them, including Superstorm Sandy’s devastating surge and shrinking Arctic sea ice.

The other half — including a record wet British summer and the U.S. drought last year — simply reflected the random freakiness of weather, researchers with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the British meteorological office concluded in a report issued Thursday.

The scientists conducted thousands of runs of different computer simulations that looked at various factors, such as moisture in the air, atmospheric flow, and sea temperature and level.

The approach represents an evolution in the field. Scientists used to say that individual weather events — a specific hurricane or flood, for example — cannot be attributed to climate change. But recently, researchers have used computer simulations to look at extreme events in a more nuanced way and measure the influence of climate change on their likelihood and magnitude…

All 12 events — chosen in part because of their location and the effect they had on society — would have happened anyway, but their magnitude and likelihood were boosted in some cases by global warming, the researchers said…

The different authors of the 21 chapters used differing techniques to look at climate change connections, and in some instances came to conflicting and confusing conclusions…

Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, said the study provides “compelling evidence that human-caused change was a factor contributing to the extreme events.”

Have you ever seen the classic movie Office Space?  A movie that makes fun of the corporate workplace?  In it some hardworking computer programmers lose their jobs thanks to some efficiency consultants.  So they come up with a plan to slowly steal from the company.  By modifying the code used in the finance department.  Whenever they rounded off any financial transaction any amount that was less than a penny would drop into a bank account they set up.  The corporation would never see these fractions of a penny disappearing from the books.  And when these guys approached retirement these fractions of a penny will have added up by that time to help make their retirement more comfortable.  With the added bonus of knowing that they got back at the company that so cruelly got rid of them.  A brilliant plan.  But checking the bank account shortly after putting their plan into action instead of a penny or two in that account there was over $300,000.  A number so large that the company could not NOT notice it missing.  And indeed did notice it missing.  What happened?  The guy that wrote the program put a decimal point in the wrong place.  A mistake he said he always makes.

Funny.  But believable.  For who hasn’t made a decimal point error in their life?  Especially computer programmers.  Who create very complex computer models.  That crunch an enormous amount of data.  People have spent hours trying to debug an Excel spreadsheet that isn’t working correctly.  Imagine trying to debug a complex computer program that models climate.  Where there are no ‘right’ answers.  Just a bunch of ‘what-ifs’ programmed with ‘nuance’ to produce the results they want to see.  This is what passes for science in the global warming community.  Which is more wishful thinking than science.

I have a friend who deals with construction contractors.  And he always hated dealing with the controls contractors when their stuff didn’t work.  Delaying project completion.  Because he was at their mercy.  No one but they knew what was happening inside their programs.  And these people would blame anything and everything but their programming.  To avoid getting hit with costly liquidated damages.  So they had to spin their wheels eliminating all those other possibilities.  Until all of a sudden things started to work correctly.  No one could explain what had happened.  Why things just started to work.  But my friend thought the controls contractor just finally debugged their program to make it work correctly.  But he couldn’t prove it.  No one could.  For what happened inside that box that held their program might as well have been magic.   It was just indecipherable to anyone who didn’t write it.  I think about this when I hear about these climate models.

No one can possibly know what is going on inside the boxes that contain these climate models.  It is for all intents and purposes magic to the layman.  And probably black magic at that.  Input a thousand variables and the model tells us manmade global warming is destroying the planet.  But between those inputs and that output are a lot of assumptions in the program.  And all of those assumptions and programming are proprietary information.  We’re not allowed to see it.  Or understand it.  No.  We’re just supposed to accept their conclusion.  And change the world we live in because of it.

Greater climate change happened before man ever impacted the environment.  And computer programs can tell you anything you program them to.  While taking a lot of debugging to get them to produce the ‘right’ answer.  As determined by the people looking for a specific result.  This is not science.  This is politics.  On a grand scale.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Redwoods and Sequoias love Global Warming

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 31st, 2013

Week in Review

Trees love carbon dioxide.  They breathe it in.  And exhale oxygen.  Allowing us to breathe.  The more carbon dioxide they breathe the more oxygen we get.  The happier the trees are.  And the happier we are.  So this is no surprise (see Redwoods and sequoias thrive despite climate change posted 8/26/2013 on CBS News).

A four-year study by the Save the Redwoods League called “the Redwoods and Climate Change Initiative” found that due to changing environmental conditions, California’s coastal redwoods and giant sequoias are experiencing an unprecedented growth surge and have produced more wood over the past century than any other time in their lives.

Imagine that.  Man made the trees grow faster.  And here the global warming alarmists were wringing their hands over the deforestation of the rain forest.  When there is nothing to worry about.  For we are planting trees.  And now we know we can make those trees grow faster.  All we have to do is burn more fossil fuels.

The global warming alarmists can rest easy tonight.  For man’s carbon footprint isn’t killing the planet.  It’s making it grow like a son of a bitch.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Republicans want a Hearing on Global Warming and Climate Change which worries Democrats

Posted by PITHOCRATES - August 25th, 2013

Week in Review

Global warming is like a religion.  You have to accept it on faith.  Because there is just no evidence proving it (see Global warming alarmists worried about House hearing by ASHE SCHOW posted 8/23/2013 on the Washington Examiner).

Temperatures will be a little cooler in September when Congress returns from August recess, but House Republicans may heat things up again with a hearing on global warming and climate change.

Democrats are wary of the move, according to Politico. “House Republicans have essentially called Democrats’ bluff by scheduling a long-sought hearing next month on climate change,” Politico said…

“After a quarter-century of wildly alarmist predictions that have failed to pan out — often with specific dates now in the past — we’d say the five-point decline Frank cites is dismayingly low,” said the Journal’s James Taranto, referring to a statement by physicist Adam Frank about how the percent of Americans who understand global warming as a problem has declined since 1989…

Stubborn temperatures that refuse to go up, predicted weather disasters that didn’t occur (such as record numbers of hurricanes) and arctic ice that just won’t melt — no wonder global warming alarmists are trying to diminish the hearing before it even happens.

Only the faithful believe in global warming.  Like in any religion.  They can’t prove global warming exists.  All of their dire predictions have been laughable failures.  Yet they tell the faithful to act as if global warming exists.  And to vote for them.  So they can pass more anti-business policies to save the planet from global warming.

Before global warming do you know what they were warning us about?  The coming ice age.   All during the Seventies climates experts were warning governments to start stockpiling food as the coming ice age was going to soon shorten the growing season and cause great food shortages (see Global Warming or The “New Ice Age”? Fear of the “Big Freeze” published 1/2/2013 on Global Research).  So it’s hard to take any climate expert seriously these days.  Especially when they switch warning us about global cooling to global warming within a decade or so.  For how can you be so sure about something only to change your mind and be so sure of the complete opposite thing?

Well, there is one way.  Faith.  For just as God moves in strange and mysterious ways so does climate.  To the faithful, at least.  Which is why the Democrats are wary of having a hearing on global warming and climate change.  Because Republicans don’t embrace the global warming faith.  They’ll want to move the debate into the temporal world of science and fact.  Instead of leaving any discussions of global warming in the spiritual world.  Where all discussions begin after an affirmation of the faith.  Like they do on the left.  Where they choose to accept global warming as fact.  Without proving it factually.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries