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.
All you hear from Democrats is that we need to spend more on education. They call it investing in our future. Which is a lie. For ‘investing in our future’ is code for shoring up teachers’ pensions. And keeping higher education doing what those in control of higher education want it to do. Produce Democrat voters. Which actually starts in our public schools. Where they teach our kids to come home and tell their parents that they are ashamed of them. For all the global warming they’ve caused. And bringing them into the world in the evil, rotten United States.
These are the things our kids seem to know about. Global warming. Slavery. Stealing land from the Native Americans. American imperialism. But ask them to name the first four presidents of the United States? Four of the greatest Americans ever to live? Those in control of our public education don’t think knowing anything about them is important. Apparently (see Rolling Stone, Groupon Show The Viral Benefits of Historical Inaccuracy by Nathan Raab posted 4/11/2014 on Forbes).
In 2007, a US Mint poll showed that only 7 percent of those surveyed could name the first four Presidents in order. A later poll by Marist was not more encouraging.
George Washington (#1) kept the Continental Army together for 8 years under circumstances few could imagine today. Near the end of the Revolutionary War his character alone put down a mutiny in the officer corps. He turned down the offer to make him king. An unprecedented act at the time. King George of Britain had said if he turned down absolute power “he will be the greatest man in the world.” And Washington did. Twice. His presence was the only thing that got the states to ratify the Constitution. And his two terms in office was the only thing that gave the United States of America a chance of succeeding. This is why there is only one man we call the Father of his Country. And only one man we call the Indispensible Man. George Washington.
John Adams (#2) was a driving force for American independence. So much so that King George could not forgive him. Had they reconciled with the mother country the king would have pardoned many patriots. But not Adams. He would hang. Adams nominated George Washington to command the Continental Army. He chose Thomas Jefferson to write the Declaration of Independence. He worked with Benjamin Franklin to negotiate the peace treaty that ended the Revolutionary War. And negotiated America’s first loan from Amsterdam bankers. The first nation to recognize and do business with the new nation (other than France). And he averted war with France following the French Revolution. Giving the fledgling nation a chance to survive.
Thomas Jefferson (#3) was the author of Declaration of Independence. The author of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom. And the Father of the University of Virginia. The three things Jefferson was most proud of and appear on his tombstone. As president his administration bought the Louisiana Territory from the French. More than doubling the size of the United States. And sent out Lewis and Clark to explore these vast new territories. And he slashed government spending wherever he could. A true believer in limited government.
James Madison (#4) is the Father of the Constitution. He wrote the Federalist Papers with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay to encourage ratification of the Constitution. The Federalist Papers are still referenced today in Constitutional law. He also helped the effort to ratify the Constitution in Virginia where he battled the great patriot Patrick Henry. Who feared a large central government. Madison served in the first Congress. Where he championed the Bill of Rights. And, later, supervised the Louisiana Purchase as President Jefferson’s Secretary of State.
It is indeed a sad commentary on our educational system that only 7% of those questioned could identify these great Americans. And it’s not a lack of money causing this. It’s a lacking in the curriculum. Choosing global warming, slavery, stealing land from the Native Americans, American imperialism, etc. Instead of teaching our kids why the United States is the greatest country in the world. Because of men like these. Who put the individual before the state. Who made freedom and liberty things we take for granted. Instead of things people can only dream of. Which is the case in much of the world today. And has been the norm throughout history.
The CEO of Mozilla resigned for Thinking ‘Incorrectly’
In 2008, Brendan Eich donated $1,000 to support California Proposition 8. A proposal to keep marriage in California between only a man and a woman. Proposition 8 passed as most Californians agreed with Brendan Eich. They did not want to change law, tradition and custom. The left has determined that the people of California are hate-filled people. And liberal judges have since overruled the will of the people of California.
So who is Brendan Eich? Until recently he was the CEO of Mozilla. The company that puts out the internet browser Firefox. He rose to CEO this year. He cofounded Mozilla Foundation in 1998. So he’s been there for awhile. And did good work. To rise to CEO you have to be pretty darn good. And you can’t be a monster. For if you are a monster the odds are slim of becoming CEO. For it tends to garner bad press.
Well, as it turns out, exercising your free speech can make you a monster. A hate-filled individual. Which the left said he was. Because of this $1,000 donation. Just because he thought like the majority of all Californians. That marriage should be between a man and a woman. And because he did the left demanded his resignation for daring not to think ‘correctly’ like them. So he did. He resigned for thinking ‘incorrectly’.
Conservatives were not Welcomed at a Feminist Conference on Inclusivity
This is not the only ‘thought crime’ the left has leveled at someone. For anyone that dares to think differently from them they call a thought criminal. And do everything in their power to silence them. For the ‘tolerant’ left is very intolerant of anyone that thinks differently from them. Because the left hates dissenting views. Especially those of conservatives. As there are about two conservatives for every liberal they face a lot of dissenting views. So they have a lot of ‘thought crime’ to police.
Universities are mostly liberal these days. And whenever a conservative is invited to speak the thought police come out. They protest. They heckle. They throw pies. Just ask Ann Coulter. Even when conservatives are invited back to their alma maters to give a commencement speech the thought police turn out to keep them from speaking. Just ask Dr. Ben Carson. Or Condoleezza Rice.
Feminists on university campuses are particularly intolerant to other points of view. Even at a feminist conference about inclusivity. Everyone was welcomed. Except conservative women. In fact, the feminists at this conference identified a woman as being a conservative. Telling the students gathering there that they shouldn’t talk to her. Because conservatives were not welcomed at this conference on inclusivity. Just ask Katherine Timpf.
It’s hard to Pass your Agenda when you’re Outnumbered Two to One
Liberals have long wanted to revive the fairness doctrine. For the one area they can’t control is talk radio. And they don’t like what they’re saying on talk radio. So they want to shut them up. To balance the content broadcasted over the public airwaves. As determined by the Federal Communications Commission. Which could, of course, find that 3 hours of Rush Limbaugh a day is not balanced. And require that he give up an hour or two of his time for an opposing viewpoint. Hence the moniker the ‘Hush Rush Bill‘.
The left has been warning us about the calamity of global warming for the last three decades or so. Telling us if we don’t act now the world will end within the decade. But the people aren’t quaking with fear. Some are even debunking their ‘science’. With real science. Something the left does not like. And they want to do something about. They want to shut them up. Some even want to jail them.
Conservatives don’t do this. They don’t call for boycotts or resignations when people exercise their right to free speech. They don’t throw pies at people. They don’t pressure universities to shut down debate by preventing someone from speaking that disagrees with them. They don’t warn young women that someone ‘thinks wrong’. That they shouldn’t talk to ‘wrong thinkers’. They don’t try to balance the content in the liberal-dominated media. And they don’t put politics over science. Liberals do. But conservatives don’t.
There have been some in history that put politics above everything else. Just like liberals do. People who punished those who said the wrong things. And punished those for thinking wrong. They had state censorship. Propaganda. And jail for those who weren’t like them. Or worse. Things the left would love to do to stifle all debate. Because it’s hard to pass your agenda when you’re outnumbered two to one. So who are these people from history? Nazis. And communists. Yes, liberals are about as open-minded and tolerant as Nazis and communists were.
As the government has gotten more involved in education the further test scores have fallen. Indian kids and Chinese kids blow American kids away on their tests. Which is why employers who are looking to hire employees with strong math and science skills turn to the H-1B visa. And hire foreign workers with those strong science and math skills. As American kids aren’t graduating with them. Instead they’re learning about global warming and what a rotten country the United States is.
So we shouldn’t spend another dime on education. What we need to do is start teaching useful skills. Like math and science. Instead of the primary focus of public education. Turning kids into Democrat voters. Which is why Democrats are all for universal Pre-K (see Should the Government Fund Universal Pre-K? posted 3/28/2014 on U.S. News and World Report).
One of the centerpieces of Mayor Bill de Blasio’s successful campaign in New York City was a proposal to fund universal pre-kindergarten with higher taxes on the rich. “We’re ready to offer high-quality, full-day, universal pre-K this September for 53,000 New York City children,” de Blasio said during a press conference this week, even as his plan for a tax increase has run into stiff opposition.
And de Blasio isn’t alone in pushing for government funded universal pre-K, as President Obama has also unveiled a proposal to provide pre-school to every four-year-old from low- and moderate-income families. “The size of your paycheck shouldn’t determine your child’s future,” Obama said. “Let’s make sure none of our kids start out the race of life a step behind.”
The liberals are destroying public education. They have control over the curriculum. And that curriculum is to turn kids into Democrat voters. Instead of teaching math and science. Our college graduates may be unable to fill high-tech job openings but they know that their parents’ selfishness caused manmade global warming. That Christopher Columbus single-handedly killed everything that was good in the New World. And that America grew into the number one economic power in the world because of slavery. Despite the South’s slave economy being so poor that they could not compete against the richer paid-labor economy in the North. And lost the American Civil War.
This is why they want universal Pre-K. To start the programming earlier. To get our kids away from their parents sooner. So the state can have a bigger influence in what they learn. And what they think. Does it work? Well, who do young people typically vote for? That’s right. Democrats. Because Democrats get them while they’re young, uneducated and inexperienced. Guaranteeing them a few election cycles out of them before they wise up. And perhaps they can add an election cycle or two if they get these kids sooner with universal Pre-K. Which can be the only reason why they want universal Pre-K. At least it would explain our poor test scores. And why high-tech firms have to use the H-1B visa to find qualified workers.
We are continually told that there is a consensus among climate ‘scientists’ that global warming is real. And that man is causing it. It’s settled science they say. But have you ever wondered how real scientists do things? The kind that don’t take a vote on whether something is settled science? Here is a look into the world of theoretical physicists. A group of people that theorize about things far bigger than mere climate (see Physicists say Big Bang theory revelation may be premature by Liat Clark posted 3/25/2014 on Wired).
Three theoretical physicists have penned a paper suggesting last week’s announcement that cosmic ripples from the Big Bang have been identified may have been premature.
The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announcement rocked the scientific community with the revelation the South Pole BICEP2 telescope had captured twisted patterns in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) left behind after the Big Bang. The Smithsonian team believes these are a glimpse of the gravitational waves that were generated by cosmic inflation — an epic distortion of space-time just after the Big Bang when the universe expanded in a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a second.
James Dent of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lawrence Krauss of Arizona State University and Harsh Mathur of the Case Western Reserve University have argued on the open access platform arxiv.org that the claim of definitive proof should not be made until all other possibilities have been ruled out.
Even after a paper has been published claiming definitive proof the subject is still open for debate. Now that’s science. And note that part about ruling out ALL OTHER possibilities. You never hear that kind of language from the climate ‘scientists’. Have they done that in their research? Or did they only look at selective data to prove what they want to prove? Did they rule out sunspot activity and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation? A warming of the oceans that shifts the jet stream? Or did they ignore this because it contradicts what they want the data to show? There is a correlation between the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and recent warming periods. Which would be one other possibility they need to rule out. But can’t. So they simply ignore it. Proving that ‘climate science’ is more politics than science. A tool for big-government leftists around the world to do what they’ve always wanted to do. To use the power of government to create a ruling class. Of a small group of people that has power over the masses. And who live quite comfortably while telling us what we must go without.
It’s nothing new. Since the dawn of time there have been those who seek power. To create a small ruling elite that lives better than everyone else. Much better. As every dictator in history has shown. North Korea still suffers from famine. But the ruling powers (currently Kim Jong-un) ate so well that they suffered from a little obesity. Kim Jong-un lives a privileged life. He has the best of everything while his people still go hungry. If that country were free, however, Kim Jong-un would live a less extravagant life. Perhaps even doing manual labor. For his only skill was having the right last name to become dictator.
This is why people want power. For even in the poorest countries those at the top live like kings. And those on the left, rabid anti-capitalists that they are, have no skill other than political skills. They want to live like kings. But they don’t want to work hard to earn it. So they use politics. Expand the size of government. To create as many high-paying posts that do nothing worthwhile as possible. So there is a place for these people. Where they can live better than everyone else without having earned it. This is why they want to nationalize health care. For that can create many levels of high-paying bureaucratic positions. And if they can get the economy of every country to bow down to their climate panels they can live better than kings. They can live as emperors. Over a vast empire they control. Living in the lap of luxury. Accumulating great wealth. And drunk on the power they can wield. Where they can get back at anyone that was ever better than them if they don’t bow down and kiss their fanny.
Hydrogen is very flammable. It’s why we use helium in our blimps. Because using hydrogen is just too dangerous. As the Hindenburg disaster has shown us.
So hydrogen is a pretty dangerous thing to be messing with. Unlike gasoline. Which is pretty safe and stable in the liquid form. You could even put out a cigarette in a puddle of gasoline. It’s dangerous doing so. And you shouldn’t try it. But the most dangerous thing about gasoline is its vapor. Ignite that and there will be an explosion. Which is what happens inside our internal combustion engines. Where our cars first aerosolizes the gasoline, mixes it with air, compresses it and then ignites it. Of course that explosion is deep within our engines. Where it can’t harm us. Still, it isn’t advised to smoke while refueling. Because there are gas vapors typically where there is gas. And you don’t want you car exploding like the Hindenburg.
Fuel cells use hydrogen to make electric power. All you have to do is stop at your hydrogen fueling station and fill up your hydrogen tanks. Just don’t smoke while doing this. Because hydrogen in its natural state is an explosive gas. This danger aside the hydrogen fuel cell is about to give the all-electric car a run for its money. And last’s night meal may be providing the hydrogen (see POO-power comes to California: Orange County residents to trial SUVs fuelled by human waste by Mark Prigg posted 2/25/2014 on the Daily Mail).
The fuel-cell powered Tucson can drive for 50 miles per kilogram of hydrogen, and its two tanks hold about 5.64 kilograms (12.4 pounds).
Costs of compressed gas in California range from about $5 to $10 per kilogram, depending on the facility, and it takes around three minutes to fill the tank.
Hyundai says it hopes the technology will become popular – and will take on the electric car as the eco-vehicle of choice.
‘Hydrogen-powered fuel cell electric vehicles represent the next generation of zero-emission vehicle technology, so we’re thrilled to be a leader in offering the mass-produced, federally certified Tucson Fuel Cell to retail customers,’ said John Krafcik of Hyundai Motor America.
‘The superior range and fast-fill refueling speed of our Tucson Fuel Cell vehicle contrast with the lower range and slow-charge characteristics of competing battery electric vehicles.
‘We think fuel cell technology will increase the adoption rate of zero-emission vehicles, and we’ll all share the environmental benefits.’
If you crunch the numbers and compare it to a gasoline-powered Ford Taurus the numbers aren’t so good. A Ford Taurus gets 29 miles per gallon on the highway. And has an 18 gallon gas tank. Which means one tank of gas will take you 522 miles on the highway. At $3 per gallon for gas that one tank of gas will cost you $54. By comparison the fuel cell gives you only 282 miles on a full tank. And costs between $28.20 and $56.40 for a full tank. Dividing cost per mile that comes to somewhere between $0.10 and $0.20 per mile. While the gasoline-powered Ford Taurus costs about $0.10 per mile.
So at best the fuel cell will have a fuel cost equal to the gasoline-powered engine. But it only has about 54% the range on a full tank. Meaning you’ll have to stop about twice as often to fuel up with the fuel cell. And good luck not blowing yourself up playing with hydrogen at the fuel pump. That is if you can even find hydrogen fueling stations along your drive. The only real good thing you can say about a fuel cell when comparing it to a gasoline-powered car is at least it’s not as bad as an all-electric car. And those zero-emissions? Sorry, that’s not exactly true. The hydrogen may be zero-emissions but making the hydrogen isn’t.
First, sewage is separated into water and biosolids.
The waste water is cleaned, filtered and treated for reuse, while solid waste is piped into airless tanks filled with microbes.
A byproduct of their digestion is a gas that’s 60 percent methane and about 40 percent carbon dioxide, which is burned at the plant for power generation.
However, some is filtered and piped into a unique, stationary ‘tri-generation’ fuel-cell device, designed by the Irvine team, that produces electricity, heat and hydrogen.
The hydrogen gas is then piped several hundred feet to the public pump where fuel-cell autos are refueled daily.
Almost half of the source gas is carbon dioxide. And carbon dioxide has carbon in it. This is the same gas they want to shut down coal-fired power plants for producing. Oh, and methane? That’s a greenhouse gas. This is the gas coming out of the butts of cows and pigs that some are saying are warming the planet. And when you burn methane guess what you get? Water and carbon dioxide. More manmade carbon emissions. That’s a lot of global warming they’re creating in the effort to prevent global warming.
This is one thing fuel cells share with all-electric cars. They may be emission free. But the chemistry to make them emission-free isn’t. We’re still putting carbon into the atmosphere. We’re just doing it in different places. And if we are wouldn’t it be cheaper and easier just to keep using gasoline?
Those on the left are wringing their hands as they look into the abyss of global warming. For to them there is nothing worse than a warming planet. But as it turns out there are things worse than a warming planet. Cold (see 6-year-old Minnesota girl found dead in subzero cold by Crystal Dey, Forum News Service, posted 2/28/2014 on Duluth News Tribune).
A 6-year-old Bemidji girl was found dead of exposure to the winter elements Thursday morning at her apartment complex, police said…
Temperatures in Bemidji early Thursday were in the 25-below-zero range with wind chills of 40 below.
According to the wind chill index from the National Weather Service office in Grand Forks, N.D., with wind chills of 40 below frostbite can set in in less than 30 minutes.
Since Dec. 1., there have been 21 recorded deaths due to cold weather in Minnesota, according to the state Department of Health. From Dec. 1, 2012 to March 30, 2013, a total of 46 deaths attributed to extreme cold and cold temperature were reported.
How tragic. Sadly, she’s not the only victim the cold has claimed in Minnesota. 46 deaths since December, 1, 2012. This is what is worse than a warming planet. Cold. Such extreme cold that frostbite takes less than 30 minutes to set in. With hypothermia not that far behind. As well as death. Things that don’t happen where it’s warm.
Yes, people have died from exposure to extreme heat. But we should note what else happens in extreme heat. Life. For the first great civilizations didn’t happen near the Polar Regions. They happened near the tropics. The Nile river valley, the Tigris and Euphrates river valleys and the Indus river valley are all in the subtropics. Close to the tropics. Where it is hot. Allowing the Egyptians, the Sumerians and the Harappan to grow food. In the rich soil of these river valleys. Soil that was NOT covered by ice and snow. But warm. Warm enough to allow seeds to germinate. So there could be food. A lot of food. So much food that there were food surpluses. Allowing these great civilizations to live through the cooler and wetter winters. Which were nowhere near as cold and snow/ice covered as they are in Minnesota.
A cooling planet means more farmland under snow and ice for greater periods of time. And less food. Whereas a warming planet brings more land into cultivation. Allowing more food production. So a warming planet gives us life. While a cooling planet gives us less food. And if it continues to cool, famine. Which leads to death. So if there is anything to fear it’s a cooling planet. Not a warming planet. For not only is there no frostbite or hypothermia in a warm climate there is useable farmland. And life.
In what was painfully obvious to each and every viewer, the just-completed celebration of snow sports in the southern Russia resort city of Sochi was the warmest Winter Olympics ever.
The Olympics were plagued by spring-like weather: Skiers landed in puddles at the bottom of their runs, snow was trucked in from more northern mountains, and tourists were caught sunbathing between events.
A comprehensive analysis by American meteorologist Matt Lanza, updated on Monday, showed Sochi was head-and-shoulders the warmest Winter Olympics since at least 1950, as far back as reliable weather records go.
Now, to be fair, Sochi had a head start. It has the warmest average climate of any winter Olympics venue in history. But it was even warmer than normal this month in southern Russia: The highest temperature recorded during the games was a whopping 68 degrees Fahrenheit. Six days were in the 60s.
Of course there are those that are saying this is further proof that the planet is warming. Because of manmade carbon emissions. And they have the data to prove it. Because they have ‘reliable’ weather records going all the way back to 1950. Some 64 years ago. That is, they have reliable data covering 0.0000013% of the climate history of the planet. So there you have it. The science of manmade global warming is settled. At least they say there is a scientific consensus.
It’s a pity we can’t use such ‘scientific’ sampling like that to determine whether or not to repeal Obamacare. Because if we did all we would have to do is find 2 people out of one million who say it should be repealed. For 2 out of one million is 0.000002%. Which is greater than 0.0000013%. And the odds of finding 2 people out of one million that would want to repeal Obamacare are pretty good. Just as good as the odds of finding a favorable weather pattern in 64 years out of a total of 5 billion years of weather to settle the science of global warming. But the left would never repeal Obamacare if only 0.000002% of the people wanting it repealed. For they’re refusing to repeal it now even though a recent New York Times/CBS News poll shows 42% of those asked want a full repeal of Obamacare.
For the left 0.0000013% settles science when it comes to their junk science. But 42% is only a statistical anomaly when it goes against their political agenda. Showing how ridiculous both global warming and Obamacare are. And how arrogant and deceitful they are when it comes to their political agenda.
Anyone saying that manmade emissions cause global warming is settled science shows both ignorance and arrogance. As well as a political agenda. For there is no such thing as settled science. Especially when you use computer models to prove your case in the scant 2 decades when it became all the rage with people like Al Gore telling us if we don’t act now the earth will turn to a burnt cinder by Saturday. But that’s not science. This is looking at extremely recent events in our planet’s approximately 5 billion year lifespan to determine what is normal for that 5 billion year lifespan. Or abnormal.
If you like math those 2 decades of global warming handwringing over 20 years of ‘incontrovertible’ evidence amounts to about 0.0000004% of the planet’s life. Or, if you want to go back all the way to the mid Seventies when the handwringing went from fear of the coming ice age to the fear of global warming (about 40 years) that time period is but 0.0000008% of the planet’s life. Meaning the current data means nothing. Because it’s too small of a sample. No, real science takes a much longer look at empirical data. And even then it’s still not settled science (see Scientists Make Largest Quark, Solving A 20-Year Mystery by Douglas Main posted 2/24/2014 on Popular Science).
After working at it for nearly 20 years, scientists at the Tevatron particle accelerator at Fermilab have discovered the last as-yet-unproven way of making this quark–and it only took 500 trillion particle collisions to do it. “It’s a very rare process… and it’s very exciting” to finally witness it, Fermilab physicist Dmitri Denisov told Popular Science.
Under the Standard Model, the theory by which these particles are understood, there should be three ways of producing quarks. The first two had been shown in 1995 and 2008. In the first instance, top quarks were produced by strong nuclear force, by slamming a proton and anti-proton into each other. But in the 2008, and now the 2014 discovery, top quarks were produced in a rare event, via weak nuclear force. The finding helps reinforce the Standard Model, which predicts that quarks can be made by exploiting both types of forces, Denisov said. “It’s important that all forces in nature, strong and weak, equally produce the top quark.”
Now that’s science. Not like observing annual climate a scant 40 times. No. Real scientists conduct an experiment 500 trillion times. And when you do something 500 trillion times the patterns you see actually mean something. It’s still not settled science. But it raises the bar a lot higher for other scientists to disprove this theory in favor of their own. Even the ‘accepted science’ of the Standard Model is still being questioned. Which dates back as far as global warming handwringing. But it’s not settled science. Despite 500 trillion particle collisions. The results only reinforce the Standard Model. Which is all these collisions can do. Because there is no such thing as settled science. And anyone claiming anything is settled science is just demonstrating their woeful ignorance. Or extreme arrogance in their ability to lie to advance a political agenda.
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.