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: , , , , , , , , ,

Those in Power use Climate ‘Science’ to Expand their Power and Accumulate Wealth

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 29th, 2014

Week in Review

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.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Repealing Obamacare has a larger Scientific Consensus than Global Warming

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 1st, 2014

Week in Review

If you’re a fan of alpine skiing you probably were disappointed with the Sochi games.  Because it was too warm.  In fact, they were the warmest Winter Games ever (see It’s Official: Sochi Was the Warmest Winter Olympics Ever by Eric Holthaus posted 2/24/2014 on Slate).

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.

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: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Fighting a Fire in Sub-Freezing Temperatures Shows how Global Warming is better than Global Cooling

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 25th, 2014

Week in Review

The left has been warning us about the global warming apocalypse since the Nineties.  And how the warming of the planet will kill us. But global warming is not high on the list of concerns for many these days.  Especially during brutally cold weather of late (see About 35 feared dead in Quebec senior citizens’ home fire by The Associated Press posted 1/24/2014 on The Washington Times).

Using steam to melt the ice, investigators searched the frozen-over ruins of a retirement home Friday for victims of a fire that left about 35 people feared dead and cast such a pall over the village of 1,500 that psychologists were sent door to door.

The spray from firefighters’ hoses left the senior citizens home resembling a macabre snow palace, the ruins encased in thick white ice dripping with icicles.

Search teams of police, firefighters and coroners slowly and methodically went through the ruins, working in shifts in the extreme cold about 140 miles (225 kilometers) northeast of Quebec City. The afternoon temperature was around 3 degrees F (minus 16 Celsius.)…

Hivon said the home was up to code and had a proper evacuation plan. A Quebec Health Department document indicates the home which has operated since 1997, had only a partial sprinkler system. The home expanded around 2002, and the sprinklers in the new part of the building triggered the alarm.

The cold caused fire equipment to freeze, and firefighters used so much water that they drained the town reservoir.

Warm is better than cold.  For we can survive in warm better than we can in cold.  Here’s a fire in northern Quebec that became a dangerous labyrinth of ice as they fought a fire.  Yet just another example of how dangerous cold can be.

The last of the great famines that weren’t manmade (like those resulting from the communism of Stalin or Mao or the current dictator in North Korea) were during the little ice age.  When global temperatures cooled slightly.  Shortening the growing season.  Thus diminishing the food supply.  And without sufficient food people die.  This is the danger of climate.  Cooling.  For we can handle global warming.  As long as it’s warm we can grow food.  If the soil is too dry we can irrigate.  If it doesn’t rain we can irrigate the land with desalinated seawater.  Of which there is a never ending supply of in the world’s oceans.  And we can turn seawater into fresh water with the energy from nuclear power plants that provide our electricity to drive our air conditioners during the greatest of heat waves.

If it’s warm there is no limit to what man can do.  If the world is covered in snow and ice, though, not even man can save the human race.  Unless, that is, manmade global warming is real.  If so then man could warm an ice age and grow the food to sustain the human race.

Global warming?  Pish tosh.  The great civilizations arose once man took control of his environment.  And if he’s warming it so much the better.  For that just means longer growing seasons and more food to sustain a growing world population.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT203: “People vacationing in warmer climes know global warming is better than global cooling.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 3rd, 2014

Fundamental Truth

It is very rare for People to Vacation somewhere where they have to wear more Clothes

People love a white Christmas.  Looking out your front window as a gentle snow falls.  Christmas lights and reindeer on the lawn poking out from the fields of snow.  Coming in from the cold and shaking the snow off.  Then warming up with a cup of cocoa in front of the fireplace.  Feeling the warmth radiate out while listening to the pops of the burning wood.  The warm memories of Christmases past.  Then comes New Year’s Day.  And then you just hate that foul white stuff as you shovel it for the umpteenth time.

As you shovel and your back aches and you feel what may have been a hernia you now understand why people retire to someplace warm.  To get away from this.  Before they have a heart attack shoveling it.  Because you’re sick and tired of shoveling snow.  Cleaning the snow off your car.  Fearing for your life when cars ahead of you spinout.  Wondering how many times can you slip and fall before you start breaking something.  But most of all you just hate being cold.  All you can think about is the joy of last summer sitting in the shade with a cold beer.  Doing nothing.  And loving it.

Even young and healthy college kids hate the cold.  Which is why when they go on spring break they head south.  And between the boozing and the sex they spend time lying on the beach doing nothing.  And loving it.  With the ladies practically naked in tiny bikinis sunning themselves.  And the men looking at the practically naked ladies.  For it is very rare for any vacationer (other than those on a ski getaway) to vacation somewhere where they have to wear more clothes.  Because people just don’t like being cold.

The Fall Harvest feeds most People most of the Year

But we complain when it’s too hot, too.  During the dog days of summer.  When it’s the humidity, not the heat, that makes it so insufferable.  Until we step inside our air conditioned home.  Or sit in an air conditioned movie.  While enjoying a cool beverage.  And some delicious popcorn.  Or spend time in the pool.  Or at the beach.  Where the ladies are practically naked.  Or going out to eat.  Enjoying cool adult beverages and a nice meal at an outdoor cafe while wearing shorts.  Or dining inside an air conditioned restaurant.

You may sweat and stink when you get home.  But you won’t be tracking snow and salt into the house.  Soaking the rugs and carpets.  Or leaving puddles of water on the tiled floor.  No.  During the summer there’s no mess.  There are no wet socks in your shoes.  No frost bite.  No hypothermia. If you car breaks down in the summer you don’t have to worry about freezing to death before someone rescues you.  Whereas if you slip off the road and down the embankment on an expressway during a blizzard frostbite and hypothermia are real possibilities.  As is freezing to death.  Because being cold is dangerous.  And being cold when you’re stranded a long way from home or help can be lethal.

Another bad thing about cold is that things don’t grow in the cold.  Which is why farming is seasonal.  A problem throughout history.  As people’s need to eat is not seasonal.  So not only did farmers have to grow food to eat during the summer they had to grow enough during the summer to feed everyone throughout the winter.  With the fall harvest feeding most people most of the year.  Making a long growing season essential for survival.  Because if you ran out of food before the next harvest you went hungry.  Or died.

If we have another Little Ice Age we may suffer Recurring Famines once More

There were recurring famines during the Little Ice Age.  Which ran from approximately 1350 to about 1850.  The climate cooled enough to shorten the growing season.  Which were cooler and wetter than they are today.  And because of that they didn’t grow enough food to feed everyone.  With the occasional famine wiping out about 10% or more of a country’s population.  As masses of people starved to death because of global cooling during the Little Ice Age.

The United States suffered some droughts the past few growing seasons.  And food prices went up because of these droughts.  But there were no famines in the United States.  Or in the countries the United States exports food to.  No, today the only countries having recurring famines are hard-line communist or other such closed and oppressive states.  Such as North Korea.  Al Gore has been warning us about the perils of global warming since the Nineties.  We did nothing.  And a few decades later there are still no famines.  Because even in regions suffering from the worst drought farmers can still irrigate their land.  And grow food.  Food may be more costly but there will be food.  But no famine.

People who worry about global warming fret about these droughts.  And the lack of fresh water.  But about 70% of the earth is nothing but ocean.  And we can desalinize seawater.  It’ll make water more costly.  But there will always be water.  Even during the worst of droughts.  So even if global warming does its worst to us we will be all right.  No.  The real fear is global cooling.  Because global cooling will shorten our growing seasons.  Which will reduce our food supply.  And if you ever looked at an aerial view of our vast farmland you will understand the problem that is.  It’s just too big to bring indoors.  If we have another Little Ice Age we may suffer recurring famines once more.  And not just in North Korea.  But throughout the world.  Those people vacationing in warmer climes know it.  Global warming is better than global cooling.  For our personal comfort and safety.  And our food supply.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Democrats Lie because they Must

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 2nd, 2014

Politics 101

Democrats lie because they have a Track Record of doing things Poorly

Democrats lie.  They have to.  Because they want power.  And they have no good reason for accumulating it.  They lied about Obamacare to pass it into law.  With the top Democrat telling the biggest lie of 2013.  President Obama.  “If you like your insurance plan you can keep it.  Period.”  They lied because they want the power to control one-sixth of the U.S. economy.  Even if they reduce the quality of health care.  Which they will.  So they can spend the ensuing years demanding more money (i.e., higher taxes) to fix Obamacare.

They blamed the killing of 4 Americans including our ambassador in Benghazi on a YouTube video.  Even the left-leaning (it leans so far left it has actually fallen over) New York Times is rehashing this story.  Saying it was a spontaneous uprising over that YouTube video that had nothing to do with al Qaeda.  Despite using military armaments like rocket propelled grenades and pre-sighted motors.  Things crowds don’t typically have on them to commit spontaneous mischief.  But President Obama’s 2012 campaign claimed that President Obama had al Qaeda reeling.  And just couldn’t let the American people know that they were negligent in protecting Americans in Benghazi.  Which was so dangerous that the British had pulled out before the anniversary of 9/11.  But they still denied Ambassador Stevens’ request for more security.  Despite the anniversary of 9/11 being around the corner.  Because it wouldn’t look good during a campaign that claimed to have al Qaeda reeling.

So Democrats lie.  Because they have a track record of doing things poorly.  Preventing them from saying “let us do this and that and the other thing because we have a great track record of doing this and that and the other thing.”  When in fact their track record is so poor that no one would ask them to do more so we can enjoy more failure.  So they lie.  To expand the size of government.  So they can reach out and strangle the private sector.  Such as with their lies about global warming that raised the cost of heating our homes.  As well as to light our homes.  Making the incandescent light bulb now illegal.  Forcing us to use more costly lower wattage lamps.  Compact fluorescents.  And LEDs.  So we use less energy.  And put less carbon into the atmosphere.  Because manmade global warming is killing us.

You can irrigate a Desert and grow Grass but you can’t grow Grass where Ice and Snow cover the Soil

One of the iconic images of the American Revolutionary War is our troops freezing at Valley Forge.  The winter was brutal.  And for good reason.  It was part of the Little Ice Age.  A period of cooling from approximately 1350 to about 1850.  Where temperatures fell.  Making the winters colder.  Longer.  And snowier.  Rivers and harbors froze that don’t freeze today.  Glaciers destroyed mountain top villages.  And the shorter and wetter growing seasons caused famines in many countries.  Famines in France, Norway and Sweden killed about 10% of their populations.  Famines in Estonia and Finland killed more.

A cooling climate is dangerous.  It shortens the growing season.  Leaving people hungry, malnourished and sickly.  For you need sun, warmth and moist soil (not mud) through many months to grow food.  If you don’t you have poor harvests.  Providing less food for the people to eat.  And less forage to sustain livestock over the winter.  Which reduces the food supply during the winter further.  Giving you famines.  Like those in the Little Ice Age.

Dubai is a city in a desert.  From May through September they get less than one inch of rain each month.  The average high in July is 105.4 degrees.  The average high in January is 75.2 degrees.  The average annual humidity is 59.8%.  So Dubai is hot and dry.  A city of buildings and sand.  But you know what else Dubai has?  Lush, green, championship golf courses.  Something Greenland doesn’t have.  Because you can irrigate a desert and grow grass.  But you can’t grow grass where ice and snow cover the soil.  And the same holds true for food.  Making a cooling climate far more dangerous than a warming climate.  As those valiant soldiers at Valley Forge could have attested to.

Because of Global Warming Dr. David Viner said in 2000, “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

The global warming alarmists have been warning that the polar ice caps are melting.  And the poor polar bears have no ice to rest on.  Soon the ice will all melt and flood our coastal regions.  They say this even today.  Interestingly, a ship is retracing the steps of Australian explorer Douglas Mawson in the Antarctic.   Whose expedition suffered horribly during the winter months there about a century earlier.  The current expedition is aboard the MV Akademik Shokalski.  Which has been stuck in the ice since Christmas Eve.  And this during the summer months in the Antarctic.

Noted climate ‘scientist’ at the University of East Anglia, Dr. David Viner, said in 2000 that because of global warming “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”  Currently, the eighth winter storm this year, Winter Storm Hercules, is dumping over a foot of snow from Buffalo to Boston.  With blizzard warnings for Cape Cod and Long Island.  And bitter cold Arctic air will follow the snow.  About as bad as it was at Valley Forge.  With another winter storm following Winter Storm Hercules.  Funny.  Here we are almost 14 years later and there is still snow.  Proving how wrong the global warming alarmists have been.

Still, the global warming alarmists say we must fight global warming.  To allow the climate to cool.  Even though history has shown that a cooling climate leads to hunger, malnourishment and sickness.  And famine.  But the left fights for those things.  Why?  Because there ain’t a damn thing you can do with regulations to warm the planet.  But if you paint manmade global warming as the villain you can blame carbon.  And regulate the hell out of the economy.  And that’s something they will never let go of.  Hence their lying.  Because they just don’t want to give up the power that allowed them to make the incandescent light bulb illegal.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

‘Scientists’ predict Climate Crisis after Studying 19 Years of the 4.5 Billion Year Climate Record

Posted by PITHOCRATES - June 30th, 2013

Week in Review

The earth is, what, 4.5 billion years old?  And climate ‘scientists’ can look at a 19-year snapshot of data and know everything that is going on with climate?  That 19-year snapshot represents only 0.00000042% of the earth’s total climate picture.  That’s a small percentage.  Very small.  Much, much smaller than 1%.  Statistically speaking it’s meaningless.  Yet by this 19-year snapshot today’s climate ‘scientists’ know all when it comes to climate (see Greenland, Antarctica ice melt speeding up, study finds by Matt Smith posted 11/29/2012 on CNN).

Two decades of satellite readings back up what dramatic pictures have suggested in recent years: The mile-thick ice sheets that cover Greenland and most of Antarctica are melting at a faster rate in a warming world…

The net loss of billions of tons of ice a year added about 11 millimeters — seven-sixteenths of an inch — to global average sea levels between 1992 and 2011, about 20% of the increase during that time, those researchers reported…

Long-term climate change fueled by a buildup of atmospheric carbon emissions is a controversial notion politically, but it’s one accepted as fact by most scientists. Previous estimates of how much the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets contributed to the current 3 millimeter-per-year rise in sea levels have varied widely, and the 2007 report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change left the question open.

While the 19-year average worked out to about 20% of the rise of the oceans, “for recent years it goes up to about 30 or 40%,” said Michiel van den Broeke, a professor of polar meteorology at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. The rest comes from thermal expansion — warmer water takes up more space.

So in other words, 80% of the rise in sea levels has nothing to do with melting ice sheets.  Yet they predict doom and gloom that global warming will melt these glaciers and raise sea levels and wash away all of our coastal communities.  So global warming may be melting the ice sheets.  But not much.  Surely not as much as they melted after the ice ages.  When some glaciers retreated from nearly the equator back towards the poles.  And that happened before manmade activities began releasing carbon into the atmosphere.  Meaning that ice sheets melted far more before any manmade global warming.  But when your data sample looks only at 0.00000042% of the climate record you’re likely to miss significant things like this.

They concluded that Greenland and two of the three ice sheets that cover Antarctica have lost an estimated 237 billion metric tons, give or take a few billion, in the past 19 years. The ice sheet that covers eastern Antarctica grew, but only by about 14 billion tons — not nearly enough to offset the losses from the layer that covers the western portion of the continent and the Antarctic Peninsula.

They call it global warming.  Not warming in small pockets of geographic areas.  For if the warming was only in small pockets there would be no global warming.  No coming cataclysmic global climate disaster.  And nothing to worry about.  But if global warming is truly global then the warming would be uniform.  Global.  And surely equal throughout a small geographic region like Antarctica.

Okay, so they put the fear of God in us that the world will end if we don’t act within the next 5 minutes.  Okay.  So tell us, how much time do we have?

Don’t panic: At the current rate, it would take between 3,000 and 7,000 years for those regions to become ice-free, said Ian Joughin, a glaciologist at the University of Washington…

In July, researchers watched as a stretch of unusually warm temperatures melted nearly the entire surface of the Greenland ice sheet…

“Any model that someone would use to predict sea level rise is only really as good as the data that goes into it,” Shepherd said. “And the fact that our data is twice or three times as reliable as the most recent overarching assessment has to give some weight to improving the value of those model predictions in the future…”

“Right now, all of that is very complicated stuff, and we’re not at the point where all of that is integrated into the models we have now,” Schmidt said.

Really?  They look at a 19-year snapshot and can predict 7,000 years out?  Even though it’s complicated stuff?  I suppose that would be easy once you assume in your model that everything in the world will continue as they have during that 19-year snapshot.  Of course that would make it hard to explain how the glaciers retreated from near the equator all the way back to the poles a few times following the ice ages.  Ah, they probably just consider that a statistical anomaly.  Despite there being 5 major ice ages so far.  That lasted in the tens of millions of years.  Some even lasted in the hundreds of millions of years.  And according to the climate ‘scientists’ another one was right around the corner from the Seventies.  Before, of course, they changed their minds and started warning us about global warming.  Which was a lot more fun.  Because you couldn’t enact a lot of environmental regulations on business to stop the cooling.  But you can make an argument for environmental regulations to stop the warming.  Which is why they’re sticking to the warming.  Because it’s a lot more fun.

Interestingly, between these ice ages the earth may have been ice free.  Meaning that the ice sheets they’re wringing their hands over may not have existed during other interglacial periods.  Again, those ice-free times were BEFORE any manmade greenhouse gases entered the atmosphere.

It’s bad science that only looks at a 19-year snapshot of data.  Especially when other scientists have found a cyclical warming and cooling of sea surface temperatures every 20-30 years.  Something called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).  Perhaps this is why they looked at 19 years of data.  To keep their models predicting what they want to find.  Not what actually may be happening.  And something like the PDO could really throw a wrench in things.  Which is why much climate science is not science.  It’s politically motivated.  Where ‘scientists’ are funded by governments.  And these scientists conclude what these governments want them to conclude.  So they will keep funding them.  For after all, if they found there was no manmade global warming what would these scientists do for a paycheck?

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

« Previous Entries