FT189: “The problem with lying is that you can’t keep everyone ignorant forever.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - September 27th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Global Warming Activists are Anti-Capitalists who want the US to be a European Social Democracy

Democrats lie.  It’s the only way they can advance a liberal agenda the people don’t want.  In the Nineties they warned us about impending doom from manmade global warming.  They said their science told them that within a decade global temperatures would rise so much that the polar icecaps would melt.  And the rising oceans would flood our coastlines.  While the hotter temperatures would turn our fertile farmland into desert.  The left wasn’t saying this could happen.  They were saying it was going to happen.

Well, it didn’t.  Every dire prediction they made didn’t happen.  The polar icecaps are still there.  Our coastlines are still there.  Our farmlands are still fertile.  In fact, they’re so fertile that America has an obesity problem.  Because we’re eating too much food.  And we’re eating too much food because we are growing so much food thanks to those fertile farmlands.  Why, we’re growing so much food that we’re using a large portion of our corn crop to make ethanol to burn in our cars.

So either the global warming crowd was so very wrong.  Or they were lying the whole time.  Why would they lie?  Well, who exactly are the global warming activists?  They’re not Republicans.  They’re not conservatives.  They’re liberals.  And it just so happens that they want the same thing liberal democrats want.  An ever growing regulatory environment strangling our businesses.  For these people are, generally, anti-capitalists.  Who want the United States to become a European social democracy.  Where there is fairness.  Egalitarianism.  And no rich people.  Other than those in government.

The Climate Scientists were wrong about Manmade Global Warming and their Hurricane Predictions

Hurricane Katrina was the deadliest and costliest hurricane to hit the United States.  And the left said, “See?  Global warming.”  Not only that they said this was only the beginning.  And because of manmade global warming we could expect a lot more Hurricane Katrinas.  In fact, it was a sure thing.  Manmade global warming was going to fill the hurricane season with a lot more hurricanes.  And a lot of them would be Hurricane Katrina bad.  Or worse.  And you could take that to the bank.  Because their mathematical models proved this.

Well, it turned out these mathematical models were wrong.  Since Katrina we’ve had nothing but mild hurricane seasons.  Exactly the opposite of what the climate scientists said we would have.  In fact, it took 7 years before we experienced another storm nearly as destructive as Katrina.  Hurricane Sandy.  Or Superstorm Sandy.  As it wasn’t quite a hurricane.  Though it was destructive.  It wasn’t Hurricane Katrina destructive.  Like the climate scientists said most hurricanes would be like following Katrina.

So either the climate scientists were just very bad at science.  Or they’ve been lying.  Or both.  During the Seventies these same brilliant scientists were upset that the world’s governments wouldn’t heed their warnings and start storing food for the coming ice age.  For they said it was a sure thing.  And there was nothing we could do about it. Then another decade or so later these same climate scientists were warning us about global warming.  Which was then a sure thing.  As global cooling and ice ages was so yesterday’s climate.

The Left is Good at Lying because they keep the People Ignorant and Gullible

Today business is strangled by environmental regulations.  The government is waging war against inexpensive and reliable coal-fired power plants.  While spending our tax dollars on costly and unreliable renewable energy.  Australia has a carbon tax.  And Europe has an emissions trading scheme.  To charge power plants, businesses, airlines, etc., for the carbon they exhaust into the atmosphere.  Adding layers and layers of costs to everything we buy.  All because the climate scientists said we were causing global warming.  Warming the same planet they said was cooling a few decades earlier.

They were wrong.  As they are on most things.  In fact, they are some of the most ignorant smart people in the world.  The political left.  Who want to run our lives because they are so much smarter than we are.  Yet their track record shows that they are not smarter than us.  Or that they’re just very good liars.  Who can tell the same lie over and over again and people will believe it.  Like global warming.  Or their Keynesian economic policies.  Policies that have given us the Great Depression.  The stagflation of the Seventies.  Japan’s Lost Decade.  The dot-com bubble and recession.  The subprime mortgage crisis.  And, of course, the European sovereign debt crisis.

Yet the left is very good at winning elections.  And that’s because they are such good liars.  For all of their policies are politically driven.  They don’t care about manmade global warming.  They just want to control the economy.  So they can pick winners and losers.  And enrich themselves.  Which is why they will tell the same lie over and over again.  Because they are so good at lying.  And the people are so gullible.  Because they are so ignorant.  Thanks to our public schools.  Which are controlled by the left (the teacher unions aren’t filling Republican campaign coffers).  The problem with lying to advance your agenda, though, is that you can’t keep everyone ignorant forever.  Eventually people grow up.  They raise families and feel the direct result of the left’s costly policies.  They live through 2 decades where there was no warming.  They see few hurricanes despite predictions of record hurricane seasons.  That’s why the left works so hard for the youth vote.  Because they are just too young to have experienced these things.  Young and dumb.  The ideal Democrat voter.  Who vote for the party that says sex is okay.  And drugs aren’t that bad.  Unlike their parents.  Who are old enough to have experienced the left being so wrong for so long.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

California may run out of Water because of the PDO and Sunspot Activity, not because of Manmade Global Warming

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 22nd, 2013

Week in Review

It’s not snowing enough in the Rocky Mountains anymore because of global warming.  According to all the relevant climate scientists today.  Whose research appears to contain more politics than scientific analysis.  For they have arrived at conclusions based on a selective set of scientific results while conveniently ignoring contradictory data.  And because they do they can make claims like this (see Why Dwindling Snow—Thanks Largely to Climate Change—Might Dry Out Los Angeles by Bryan Walsh posted 6/17/2013 on Time Science & Space).

While the national government remains slow to deal with climate change, many cities have been moving ahead. Why the difference? Well, cities tend to be more homogenous politically, which makes any kind of decisive action easier to push through. But the real reason is that city managers know they will be the first ones forced to deal with the likely consequences of global warming: rising sea levels and flooding, deadly heat waves and water struggles…

Now a new study from the University of California, Los Angeles, suggests that the local mountain snowfall — vital for water supplies — could fall 30% to 40% below 2000 levels by midcentury, thanks to global warming. And if emissions don’t decline and warming is worse than we expect, more snow will vanish, even as greater L.A. continues to grow.

Included in the article are very scientific-sounding statements from climate scientists ensconced in one of our liberal universities (UCLA) which, of course, would have no liberal bias.

The mountains won’t receive nearly as much snow as they used to, and the snow they do get will not last as long …We won’t reach the 32ºF threshold for snow as often, so a greater percentage of precipitation will fall as rain instead of snow, particularly at lower elevations. Increased flooding is possible from the more frequent rains, and springtime runoff from melting snowpack will happen sooner…

This science is clear and compelling: Los Angeles must begin today to prepare for climate change.

All because of global warming caused by rising levels of greenhouse gasses?  Well, that’s what they say.  Of course, that doesn’t explain the fall in global temperatures over the last decade.  Odd climate behavior for a climate suffering from global warming.  Their models can’t explain this.  But this can (see Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) posted 3/2/2011 on appinsys.com/GlobalWarming).

Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. … Several recent studies suggest that the observed SST variability may be misrepresented in the coupled models used in preparing the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, with substantial errors on interannual and decadal scales. There is a hint of an underestimation of simulated decadal SST variability even in the published IPCC Report.

They go on to discuss something called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).  And the PDO index.  Which they calculate “from sea surface temperatures and sea level pressures.”  What they found was a cyclical warming and cooling every 20-30 years.  This change in ocean temperatures caused a change in the low-level jet stream as it blew across the United States from west to east.  When it moves south it picks up more moisture from the Gulf of Mexico and causes more Midwest storms.  When it moves further south the Midwest suffers droughts.  Like those that created the great dust bowl of the Thirties.  And causes less snowfall in the mountains.

What causes the PDO?  Well, there is a correlation between sunspot activity and the PDO.  So that is a likely cause.  And a probable cause.  So sunspot activity causes warming and cooling of the oceans.  Which causes changes in the low-level jet stream.  Resulting in warming and cooling over land.  And depending where that low-level jet stream moves we may have floods, droughts, storms or mountain snow.  None of which has a thing to do with man-made greenhouse gases.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

New Paper shows Inverse Relationship between Global Warming and Coal-Fired Power Plants

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 6th, 2013

Week in Review

In the Seventies they were scaring kids about a coming ice age.  And about air pollution so bad that we would one day have to wear gas masks when going outside.  The planet is a lot cleaner now.  And there is no talk about Americans one day having to wear a gas mask when going outside.  And that coming ice age?  Well, they were just wrong about that.  For what they thought was global cooling was actually global warming.  An easy mistake to make.  Because they’re both about temperature.  One just moves in one direction.  While the other moves in the other.  And unless you do something like record temperatures periodically how are you going to know which direction those temperatures are moving?

Then again, perhaps there was cooling then.  Before that cooling turned into warming.  For it now appears the reverse is happening.  A move from warming back to cooling.  Thanks to the Chinese and the Indians (see Climate forcing growth rates: doubling down on our Faustian bargain posted on IOP Science).

Remarkably, and we will argue importantly, the airborne fraction has declined since 2000 (figure 3) during a period without any large volcanic eruptions… The airborne fraction is affected by factors other than the efficiency of carbon sinks, most notably by changes in the rate of fossil fuel emissions (Gloor et al 2010). However, it is the dependence of the airborne fraction on fossil fuel emission rate that makes the post-2000 downturn of the airborne fraction particularly striking. The change of emission rate in 2000 from 1.5% yr-1 to 3.1% yr-1 (figure 1), other things being equal, would have caused a sharp increase of the airborne fraction (the simple reason being that a rapid source increase provides less time for carbon to be moved downward out of the ocean’s upper layers).

A decrease in land use emissions during the past decade (Harris et al 2012) could contribute to the decreasing airborne fraction in figure 3, although Malhi (2010) presents evidence that tropical forest deforestation and regrowth are approximately in balance, within uncertainties. Land use change can be only a partial explanation for the decrease of the airborne fraction; something more than land use change seems to be occurring.

We suggest that the huge post-2000 increase of uptake by the carbon sinks implied by figure 3 is related to the simultaneous sharp increase in coal use (figure 1). Increased coal use occurred primarily in China and India… Associated gaseous and particulate emissions increased rapidly after 2000 in China and India (Lu et al 2011, Tian et al 2010). Some decrease of the sulfur component of emissions occurred in China after 2006 as wide application of flue-gas desulfurization began to be initiated (Lu et al 2010), but this was largely offset by continuing emission increases from India (Lu et al 2011).

We suggest that the surge of fossil fuel use, mainly coal, since 2000 is a basic cause of the large increase of carbon uptake by the combined terrestrial and ocean carbon sinks… Sulfate aerosols from coal burning also might increase carbon uptake by increasing the proportion of diffuse insolation, as noted above for Pinatubo aerosols, even though the total solar radiation reaching the surface is reduced…

Reduction of the net human-made climate forcing by aerosols has been described as a ‘Faustian bargain’ (Hansen and Lacis 1990, Hansen 2009), because the aerosols constitute deleterious particulate air pollution. Reduction of the net climate forcing by half will continue only if we allow air pollution to build up to greater and greater amounts.

Let’s review.  The airborne fraction carbon dioxide has fallen since 2000.  And, as a result, global temperatures did not rise as projected.  Even though there were no large volcanic eruptions.  Which cause global cooling.  Tropical forest deforestation and re-growth are balancing each other out.  So that’s not a factor in this decline of airborne carbon dioxide.  Which leaves the sole remaining answer for the decline in airborne carbon dioxide levels as China’s and India’s explosion in new coal-fired power plants.  Yes, the wonderful air pollution from burning coal apparently cools the planet.  Like a volcanic eruption does.

Are you seeing the bigger picture here?  For a hundred years or so the Industrial Revolution belched so much ash, soot, smoke, carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide into the air that it left black clouds over cities.  And a layer of soot and ash on everything.  This is why we electrified trains in our cities.  To keep coal-fired locomotives and their great black plumes of smoke out of the cities.  Was there a global warming problem then?  No.  That didn’t come into vogue until Al Gore started talking about it in the Nineties.  When the planet was doomed if we didn’t act immediately to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Despite only a few years earlier the climate scientists were warning us of the coming ice age.  Probably because of all that global cooling from our coal-fired power plants, steam engines and locomotives.

As oil, gas and electricity replaced coal-fired boilers everywhere (we even used coal in our home furnaces) all that pollution from coal went away.  And then came the Nineties.  And catastrophic global warming.  Just as China and India began to incorporate some capitalism into their economies.  Which they fed with electricity provided by more and more coal-fired power plants.  And as they belched all that wonderful pollution into the air the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide as well as global temperatures fell.  So I ask again, do you see the bigger picture here?

Yes, global warming is man-made.  At least this is what one can conclude from this paper.  And it is the climate scientists who made it.  By telling us to reduce all of the cooling emissions from our coal-fired power plants.  But, thankfully, the Indians and the Chinese still care enough about Mother Earth to pump those cooling emissions into the air.  And gave us a reprieve from the global warming apocalypse.  But if the climate scientists get their way they’ll bring on that apocalypse.  By pressuring China and India to stop putting those cooling emissions into the air.  And for the sake of the planet we can only hope that they don’t succumb to that pressure.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Climate Data shows Anti-Pollution Emission Standards cause Global Warming

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 29th, 2012

Week in Review

Global warming is real.  So says all the global warming climate scientists’ science.  With some interesting qualifiers.  Where they explain drops in global temperatures.  Which are caused by the very things that are causing global warming.  Man putting smoke, soot and ash into the atmosphere from our fossil fuels (see Climate Canard No. 2: ‘Warming Has Stopped’ — A Very Temporary Duck by Bill Blackmore posted 4/29/2012 on ABC News).

The slight dip in the 1950s is believed by climate scientists to have been caused at least partly by the post-World War II economic boom, which produced great amounts of industrial smog whose tiny particles reflect warming sunlight back into outer space — as does the thick smoke from volcanoes.

Now see, this is the reason why there are climate skeptics.  There is no science that explains this dip in temperature.  Just anti-science.  Hunches.  And guesses.  If smog and smoke lowered temperatures why didn’t they lower temperatures during World War II?  For American industry was humming during the war, too.  Not to mention all those trucks, tanks, jeeps, ships and airplanes pumping all of that pollution into the atmosphere.  None of which had any emission controls.  Then add in all those fires from the destruction of oil refineries.  Ships.  Planes.  Tanks.  And the burning down of cities.  Like Dresden.  And Tokyo.  Throw in a couple of mushroom clouds.  You add all of this up and it should at least equal the pollution we were throwing up into the atmosphere during the Fifties.  Yet this same chart shows higher temperatures during the war.  Which would make sense if pollution caused global warming.  Instead of preventing it.  As they claim happened during the Fifties.

If you back up one decade to the Thirties, it appears there was no change in global temperatures.  Again, this would make sense if man was causing all of the warming.  Because man wasn’t doing much during the Great Depression.  But then even this logic fails if you back up one more decade to the Twenties.  To the Roaring Twenties.  When the world was modernizing.  The new electric power supported a manufacturing boom.  Included in that boom was the new automobile.  That jammed our city streets.  Filling them with raw emissions.  While steam locomotives puffed soot, smoke and ash into our cities and across the country.  And what did all of this manmade pollution do?  It lowered temperatures.  Which supports their original claim that air pollution prevents global warming.  But then this doesn’t agree with the data from the Forties.  When air pollution caused global warming.  And to confuse us a little more they have another chart that shows temperatures fell during the Forties.

The dip in the global temperature from about 1942 to 1970 is believed by climate scientists to be due partly to the intense industrial activity of World War Two and the economic boom that followed.

The gray and black particles in the smoky emissions from factories actually help cool the earth by reflecting some of the warming sunlight back into outer space, thus preventing it from hitting the earth where it changes into the invisible infrared light that is trapped by greenhouse gasses, warming the air.

So what are they telling us?  Are we causing global warming by cutting emissions from fossil fuels?  Should we create more electricity from coal?  And should we let those plants belch pollution into the atmosphere?  To save us from the perils of global warming?  For if there is any correlation between the rise in global temperatures and manmade activity it is this.  Global temperatures took off when we started reducing manmade polluting emissions.  The data absolutely supports this.  And no one can deny it.  Not even the most respective global warming climate scientists.

Again, this is the reason why there are climate skeptics.  Because global warming climate scientists make it so easy to be skeptical.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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