NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies reported that last October was the warmest in recorded history. Turns out this was not the case. Wrong wrong wrong. The conclusion went unquestioned, until it was questioned by some bloggers. Should the people whose job it is to notice such things have noticed a problem? Well, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports 63 local snowfall records, and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for that same October. You'd think this would raise some red flags, re it being the coldest ... or do I mean warmest? -- October for as long as there have been Octobers. How'd they get it so very wrong? A report "had a wrong month label attached." What, a report about the basement furnace? As for all that snow, a Goddard functionary dismissed it as cherry-picking: "Far more important are the long-term trends." His job, you see, is, apparently, to prove Global Warming.
Debra Saunders: "When science reporters write about, say, hormone therapy or drinking red wine, they report on studies that find that hormones or red wine can be good for you, as well as studies that suggest otherwise. Any science involving complex organisms is rarely black and white.
"When it comes to global warming, newspapers play up stories that reinforce the prevalent the-sky-is-falling belief that global warming is human-caused and catastrophic. But if a study or scientist does not portend the end of the world as we know it, it rarely rates as news."
Weather, it seems, is black and white, and no fault in this to science reporters. It's the scientists themselves. "Scientists". A recent abstracts review of 928 global warming papers concludes that, "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position." Perfect agreement. The debate is indeed over. There is debate over whether abortion ends human life, whether there is Evolution, whether there was a Holocaust -- but in the mainstream peer-reviewed journals, not one merest squeak against Global Warming.
We do know there is conflicting evidence. It does get promulgated. Just not in any journal of orthodoxy. From this what shall we conclude? A lack of courage? -- of honest? An abuse of power? -- of trust? A political agenda? A lunatic fringe unworthy of meaningful notice?
Here's what clues us into the nature of the phenomenal silence: there is no rebuttal of the other side, its arguments or its evidence. There is no survey of how they are wrong. GW, like EVLTN, is a fact, the way Obama is the Saviour is a fact. On fools, bigots and monsters can doubt it. And if we point out what we think of as evidence, the response, in the journals, in the MSM, is official silence and general scorn.
Botanist David Bellamy, produced an anti-GW documentary in Australia, and thereby ruined his career. He calls the current state of affairs "anti-science". He states that "in every year since 1998, world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased." Saunders tells us that Richard S. Lindzen, "MIT Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, recently wrote, 'There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995.'"
More than 31,000 scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition Project, which asserts that "no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." No work on this subject by any of these scientists will have been included in any scientific journal during the period of abstract review previously mentioned.
Remember the Goddard furnace gaff? Same sort of thing happened in 2007, when they had to change their tune: it wasn't 1998, but 1934 that was the hottest year in American history. Ah well. Such mistakes are understandable. Yep. Very understandable indeed, when we notice how the head of Goddard, James Hansen, gave evidence in a London criminal trial. He testified on behalf of six Greenpeace "eco-vandals" who attacked a coal-fueled power plant. The criminals were exonerated. They had a "lawful excuse" defense, based on Hansen's testimony. You see, without their actions, "400 species" could become extinct because of that particular power plant.
It's science, dude. What's a little proactive anarchy, a little religio-political dissimulation, when you're trying to save the Planet?
J
Showing posts with label GLOBAL WARMING. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GLOBAL WARMING. Show all posts
Friday, January 30, 2009
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Brrr
Another of the obscure and fascinating books that I wrote years ago dealt with global climate change. Specifically I posited a mechanism to explain the onset and duration of the Ice Age. It is an elegant and robust theory, if I do say so myself. I'm quite brilliant. Without going into detail, it supposes a rise in ocean temperatures, which increased evaporation and thus precipitation. The same presumed catastrophe that raised ocean temperatures altered the albedo and heat-retaining qualities of the continents, which preserved precipitated water as snowcover. When the oceans cooled, precipitation declined and the ice shields receded. There's more to it, but that's enough. My point is that oceans control the weather.
The NCDC reports that the average US temperature for January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 average." In the first half of February, Toronto enjoyed 70 cm of snowfall, shattering the previous 66.6 record of 58 years ago. China had its coldest winter in a hundred years; in the sultry south, powerlines iced over, broke and could not be repaired.
Last year we were informed that Arctic Sea ice was at its "lowest levels on record." Records have been kept since the distant year of 1972. This year the ice in many places has thickened by 10 to 20 cm over last year's measurements.
Computer modeling that has the oceans cooled by melted icecaps, which then halts the great heat-sharing currents out of the equatorial regions, which then brings in another Ice Age -- such models have just been shown to be wrong by Robert Toggweiler (of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University) and Joellen Russell (assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics, University of Arizona). The importance of northward wind had been missed -- its effect on ocean currents is far larger than that of ice melt in heating the Arctic.
In January, Oleg Sorokhtin, of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, dismissed the idea of anthropogenic climate change as an insignificant factor, siting the far more salient fact that solar activity has entered "an inactive phase." This is corroborated by the National Research Council's Kenneth Tapping, who supervises a massive radio telescope aim on the sun. He maintains that a sustained period of severely cold weather is due, if sunspot activity remains sluggish. Who woulda thunk it -- the sun affects the weather.
Reduced solar activity is the putative cause of the Little Ice Age, from the mid-14th to -19th centuries. It's what killed off the Greenland vikings. It's why there are no more vineyards in England. Based on the clear, irrefutable pattern of the many days and weeks of this current winter, we're in for such an ice age again.
What, I'm overextending the evidence? No I'm not. You are.
J
The NCDC reports that the average US temperature for January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 average." In the first half of February, Toronto enjoyed 70 cm of snowfall, shattering the previous 66.6 record of 58 years ago. China had its coldest winter in a hundred years; in the sultry south, powerlines iced over, broke and could not be repaired.
Last year we were informed that Arctic Sea ice was at its "lowest levels on record." Records have been kept since the distant year of 1972. This year the ice in many places has thickened by 10 to 20 cm over last year's measurements.
Computer modeling that has the oceans cooled by melted icecaps, which then halts the great heat-sharing currents out of the equatorial regions, which then brings in another Ice Age -- such models have just been shown to be wrong by Robert Toggweiler (of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University) and Joellen Russell (assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics, University of Arizona). The importance of northward wind had been missed -- its effect on ocean currents is far larger than that of ice melt in heating the Arctic.
In January, Oleg Sorokhtin, of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, dismissed the idea of anthropogenic climate change as an insignificant factor, siting the far more salient fact that solar activity has entered "an inactive phase." This is corroborated by the National Research Council's Kenneth Tapping, who supervises a massive radio telescope aim on the sun. He maintains that a sustained period of severely cold weather is due, if sunspot activity remains sluggish. Who woulda thunk it -- the sun affects the weather.
Reduced solar activity is the putative cause of the Little Ice Age, from the mid-14th to -19th centuries. It's what killed off the Greenland vikings. It's why there are no more vineyards in England. Based on the clear, irrefutable pattern of the many days and weeks of this current winter, we're in for such an ice age again.
What, I'm overextending the evidence? No I'm not. You are.
J
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Volcanoes
Those readers not surfing late of a night for references to anuses and pubes will be familiar with my themes. I have little need for viewers, so I don't tend to post images of bosoms and tumescences. But to throw a bone to my more self-abusive guests, there's this:
which came up in a Google images search for "distended anus". I'm not sure what exactly it is you're into, so if this isn't your cuppa, you'll just have to snuffle out your own homoerotic images. I consider my job done, and I wash my hands of the whole thing. Frankly, you disgust me a little. There is something seriously wrong with you, and I don't mean Global Warming!
And since you bring it up, allow me to divert your attention for a brief moment away from your briefs and toward the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, co-Laureate with Al Gore, which has released its report. Upshot? Gore says sea-levels could rise 20 feet. The IPCC says one foot, over the next century. In context, this is the same magnitude the world has enjoyed over the past 150 years. Didn't you notice? D.C. is underwater, I understand.
The Gulf Stream -- the circulation of warm water from the Gulf of Mexico up towards Europe -- is not in danger of stopping, pace Gore. Theory has it that the bursting of a mega-icedam in the Canadian Great Lakes poured icy water into the Atlantic and inhibited the Stream for hundreds of years. Alas for Gore's doctrine, 1000 times less meltwater might flow off of Greenland over the next century. Negligible effect on the Gulf Stream. Doesn't make for gripping story-telling, does it. The Gulf Steam warms both coasts of the North Atlantic. Europe has notably warmer summers because of winds, not currents.
Says the IPCC, "Catastrophic scenarios about the beginning of an ice age ... are mere speculations, and no climate model has produced such an outcome .... we can confidently exclude this scenario."
It's a matter of perspective, and of informing oneself of the facts. A few decades, when dealing with worldwide meteorological trends, are insufficient. Even centuries will not be enough. Thus, this chart, found here, prepared by them:
We find a weather universe of recurring big bangs. No steady-state at all. A roller coaster ride. My expectation is that, because there does seem to have been an issue with the ozone layer -- with that anthropogenic ozone hole at the South Pole caused by all the CFC armpit sprays and bug killers -- a certain segment of our intelligentsia has become even more unbalanced than otherwise. Passion is great, but it belongs in the bedroom. You of all people should know that, loverboy. To go into a religious ecstasy over the thought of a few degrees of average-temperature change, without bothering to look at historic trends -- well, it's a sort of jihadism, isn't it. An immoderate expression of your religiosity. Why don't you just go back to your Playgirl.
Furthermore ... ahem, I say, furthermore ... oh ... well, that seems to be all. For now. I haven't even seen the movie -- Gore's movie. Didn't see any of mikael moore's recent flicks either. These bloated politicos should stop making movies and do what they do best -- which is, uh, fundraising.
What? You're wondering about volcanoes? Use your eyes, dude. They're in the middle of your head for something more than just looking at porn. Sheesh.
J
which came up in a Google images search for "distended anus". I'm not sure what exactly it is you're into, so if this isn't your cuppa, you'll just have to snuffle out your own homoerotic images. I consider my job done, and I wash my hands of the whole thing. Frankly, you disgust me a little. There is something seriously wrong with you, and I don't mean Global Warming!And since you bring it up, allow me to divert your attention for a brief moment away from your briefs and toward the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, co-Laureate with Al Gore, which has released its report. Upshot? Gore says sea-levels could rise 20 feet. The IPCC says one foot, over the next century. In context, this is the same magnitude the world has enjoyed over the past 150 years. Didn't you notice? D.C. is underwater, I understand.
The Gulf Stream -- the circulation of warm water from the Gulf of Mexico up towards Europe -- is not in danger of stopping, pace Gore. Theory has it that the bursting of a mega-icedam in the Canadian Great Lakes poured icy water into the Atlantic and inhibited the Stream for hundreds of years. Alas for Gore's doctrine, 1000 times less meltwater might flow off of Greenland over the next century. Negligible effect on the Gulf Stream. Doesn't make for gripping story-telling, does it. The Gulf Steam warms both coasts of the North Atlantic. Europe has notably warmer summers because of winds, not currents.
Says the IPCC, "Catastrophic scenarios about the beginning of an ice age ... are mere speculations, and no climate model has produced such an outcome .... we can confidently exclude this scenario."
It's a matter of perspective, and of informing oneself of the facts. A few decades, when dealing with worldwide meteorological trends, are insufficient. Even centuries will not be enough. Thus, this chart, found here, prepared by them:
We find a weather universe of recurring big bangs. No steady-state at all. A roller coaster ride. My expectation is that, because there does seem to have been an issue with the ozone layer -- with that anthropogenic ozone hole at the South Pole caused by all the CFC armpit sprays and bug killers -- a certain segment of our intelligentsia has become even more unbalanced than otherwise. Passion is great, but it belongs in the bedroom. You of all people should know that, loverboy. To go into a religious ecstasy over the thought of a few degrees of average-temperature change, without bothering to look at historic trends -- well, it's a sort of jihadism, isn't it. An immoderate expression of your religiosity. Why don't you just go back to your Playgirl.Furthermore ... ahem, I say, furthermore ... oh ... well, that seems to be all. For now. I haven't even seen the movie -- Gore's movie. Didn't see any of mikael moore's recent flicks either. These bloated politicos should stop making movies and do what they do best -- which is, uh, fundraising.
What? You're wondering about volcanoes? Use your eyes, dude. They're in the middle of your head for something more than just looking at porn. Sheesh.
J
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Conservationism
First of all, this "ism". Brrr. Isn't there some ideologizing nounification more mellifluositous? Ism is so, so Bolshevik. But I am a conservationist. A lot. Not an environmentalist in the slightest. Screw environmentalists. They suck.
The difference is, as I make it: which is important, humanity or The Planet. I don't see myself as part of a viral infection. That's the environmentalists' position: mankind is a parasite. Gaea? No thanks. Not my goddess. She can howl in her cave. Contrariwise, conservationists are husbandmen -- handling their affairs in a competent and thrifty manner. That was the job God hired Adam for. Tending the Garden. Stewardship. God is a conservationist -- when he's not housecleaning with droughts, wildfires, floods and plagues, that is.
To confuse the complex homeostatic mechanisms that allow life to continue on this globe for something that has arise randomly or naturalistically -- it just seems foolish. Can't we at least agree on a Deistic God? Must we resort to the magical thinking of random Evolutionism? And if we posit an outside organizing force, we deflate the goddess -- we enter the hollow of the idol and find no inherent intelligence, no spirit, no music but the moaning wind.
So it's a worldview thing. Given this, how are we to act responsibly? Well, I think SUVs are just moronic. Trucks? Trucks? For soccer moms? Breaker-breaker, Mama Goose reads yer twenty an's toolin' down the slab fer the Ankle Biters. Be there short flashin' 3s an' 8s. Did they learn nothing from the seventies? Don't they remember the gas lines and the odd/even rationing?
Use what you need, and save the rest. Why aren't roofs covered with solar panels? Why are we still burning oil?
I was just watching Modern Marvels, about alternative energy sources and the like. They talked about giant windfarms and fields of mirrors all aimed at a central water tank. Well, all that's many millions of dollars. A good civic investment, perhaps. Point is, a lot of our electricity comes from burning coal. I'm fine with that. We have lots of coal. But a lot of it comes from burning oil. Maybe you've been noticing a few items in the news, recently, about oil. Seems to have some international importance. Can't quite see how, but some are suggesting a national security connection. Maybe we should do something about that, huh?
Farmers and country folk need oil. Tractors and long hauls to the city. Us city folk don't. There are these things called "electric cars" you see. Or hybrids. Biofuels seem not to be such a great idea after all. Corn is for food. Third World countries are tearing up their jungles and crops to supply Europe's 10% mandate for ethanol in their petrol. Not quite the same thing as using waste oils -- donut and french fry oils, in modified diesel engines, as my son is planning. Free gas. Neato. See? One is pseudo-ecotheory. The other is thrifty and smart.
Then there's a French company that's made a full-sized car that runs on compressed air. Yes, that's right -- like what you fill balloons with. Range of 120 miles, speed up to 70 mph -- for two bucks worth of electricity. I just like that. And you do know, don't you, that many American families actually do have more than one car. So, like, for the shorter trips, the smart car, and for the long trips, the American car. Get it?
On a smaller scale, freezing a big block of ice at night and using it in the daytime as air-conditioning coolant -- 95% cheaper as I recall. Smart. A kitchen appliance that turns food waste into compost. Takes five pounds a day and in two weeks you have a nice pile of beautiful black earth. Up to 40% of landfills are food wastes. Burns fifty cents worth of electricity per month. Well? How is that not smart? Um ... it costs $450, but, uh -- well dang it, it will SAVE THE PLANET!
The planet can save itself. Save America. Does it reduce carbon emissions? I don't see that it matters -- as long as it keeps sulfur out of the air. Global Warming! isn't anthropogenic, and if it were, it wouldn't be because of CO2. But such things reduce dependence on oil, both foreign and domestic. There are political ramifications beyond the obvious.
Freedom, my young friend, means being independent. Independent means not dependent. Well, everyone depends on something. Sometimes we just need a friend. Sometimes we need some help. It's part of being human. But part of being a free nation means not being vulnerable to manipulation. I've said it before. Iraq would be Darfur if it weren't for the oil. Lucky thing for Iraq, then. But not so good for us. It would be better if we only had to care because we were such good people, instead of because they have oil. While we ourselves don't use much Iraqi oil, if it weren't there for those who do use it, the demand for what we use would be higher, and thus oil would be more costly. Basic economics, son.
With oil approaching $100 per barrel, alternative energies are becoming cost-effective. They are expensive to set up, don't you know, so there has to be significant profit incentive. Catch is, when they are competing in the marketplace, demand for oil will fall, and thus its price will fall, and alternatives will be relatively more expensive. A see-saw effect. Sort of a Beta/VHS rivalry, where one just wins out. In which case it becomes a character issue, and one of patriotism. We have to prepare options. Think of it as a security tax, like what the airlines charge us, now, thanks to the denizens of certain oil producing nations.
If you're going to buy something, buy smart. Cars and lightbulbs and refrigerators run the gamut in terms of efficiency. This isn't the 1950s, when we thought that rivers were sewers. How is that not a conservative understanding?
It's not enough just to be smart. You have to act smart.
J
The difference is, as I make it: which is important, humanity or The Planet. I don't see myself as part of a viral infection. That's the environmentalists' position: mankind is a parasite. Gaea? No thanks. Not my goddess. She can howl in her cave. Contrariwise, conservationists are husbandmen -- handling their affairs in a competent and thrifty manner. That was the job God hired Adam for. Tending the Garden. Stewardship. God is a conservationist -- when he's not housecleaning with droughts, wildfires, floods and plagues, that is.
To confuse the complex homeostatic mechanisms that allow life to continue on this globe for something that has arise randomly or naturalistically -- it just seems foolish. Can't we at least agree on a Deistic God? Must we resort to the magical thinking of random Evolutionism? And if we posit an outside organizing force, we deflate the goddess -- we enter the hollow of the idol and find no inherent intelligence, no spirit, no music but the moaning wind.
So it's a worldview thing. Given this, how are we to act responsibly? Well, I think SUVs are just moronic. Trucks? Trucks? For soccer moms? Breaker-breaker, Mama Goose reads yer twenty an's toolin' down the slab fer the Ankle Biters. Be there short flashin' 3s an' 8s. Did they learn nothing from the seventies? Don't they remember the gas lines and the odd/even rationing?
Use what you need, and save the rest. Why aren't roofs covered with solar panels? Why are we still burning oil?
I was just watching Modern Marvels, about alternative energy sources and the like. They talked about giant windfarms and fields of mirrors all aimed at a central water tank. Well, all that's many millions of dollars. A good civic investment, perhaps. Point is, a lot of our electricity comes from burning coal. I'm fine with that. We have lots of coal. But a lot of it comes from burning oil. Maybe you've been noticing a few items in the news, recently, about oil. Seems to have some international importance. Can't quite see how, but some are suggesting a national security connection. Maybe we should do something about that, huh?
Farmers and country folk need oil. Tractors and long hauls to the city. Us city folk don't. There are these things called "electric cars" you see. Or hybrids. Biofuels seem not to be such a great idea after all. Corn is for food. Third World countries are tearing up their jungles and crops to supply Europe's 10% mandate for ethanol in their petrol. Not quite the same thing as using waste oils -- donut and french fry oils, in modified diesel engines, as my son is planning. Free gas. Neato. See? One is pseudo-ecotheory. The other is thrifty and smart.
Then there's a French company that's made a full-sized car that runs on compressed air. Yes, that's right -- like what you fill balloons with. Range of 120 miles, speed up to 70 mph -- for two bucks worth of electricity. I just like that. And you do know, don't you, that many American families actually do have more than one car. So, like, for the shorter trips, the smart car, and for the long trips, the American car. Get it?
On a smaller scale, freezing a big block of ice at night and using it in the daytime as air-conditioning coolant -- 95% cheaper as I recall. Smart. A kitchen appliance that turns food waste into compost. Takes five pounds a day and in two weeks you have a nice pile of beautiful black earth. Up to 40% of landfills are food wastes. Burns fifty cents worth of electricity per month. Well? How is that not smart? Um ... it costs $450, but, uh -- well dang it, it will SAVE THE PLANET!
The planet can save itself. Save America. Does it reduce carbon emissions? I don't see that it matters -- as long as it keeps sulfur out of the air. Global Warming! isn't anthropogenic, and if it were, it wouldn't be because of CO2. But such things reduce dependence on oil, both foreign and domestic. There are political ramifications beyond the obvious.
Freedom, my young friend, means being independent. Independent means not dependent. Well, everyone depends on something. Sometimes we just need a friend. Sometimes we need some help. It's part of being human. But part of being a free nation means not being vulnerable to manipulation. I've said it before. Iraq would be Darfur if it weren't for the oil. Lucky thing for Iraq, then. But not so good for us. It would be better if we only had to care because we were such good people, instead of because they have oil. While we ourselves don't use much Iraqi oil, if it weren't there for those who do use it, the demand for what we use would be higher, and thus oil would be more costly. Basic economics, son.
With oil approaching $100 per barrel, alternative energies are becoming cost-effective. They are expensive to set up, don't you know, so there has to be significant profit incentive. Catch is, when they are competing in the marketplace, demand for oil will fall, and thus its price will fall, and alternatives will be relatively more expensive. A see-saw effect. Sort of a Beta/VHS rivalry, where one just wins out. In which case it becomes a character issue, and one of patriotism. We have to prepare options. Think of it as a security tax, like what the airlines charge us, now, thanks to the denizens of certain oil producing nations.
If you're going to buy something, buy smart. Cars and lightbulbs and refrigerators run the gamut in terms of efficiency. This isn't the 1950s, when we thought that rivers were sewers. How is that not a conservative understanding?
It's not enough just to be smart. You have to act smart.
J
Friday, October 19, 2007
Takebacks
It's been a roller coaster of a calender week, yessiree. Former vice-president Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize -- fast on the heels of that other notable American institution, Jimmy Carter. And Ellen Degeneres cried a lot on her TV show.
As Tony Blankley observes, "It is hard to say which of Al Gore's awards seems more improbable: his Academy Award, although he does not possess a single skill required for filmmaking, or his Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming, although he has no technical skills in that area and he has misled the world profoundly as to the danger." He was, however, if memory serves, actually vice president for a time, twice, I think. Oh yes, and he ran for president a while back too -- lost that one. But isn't it funny how of the last five elections he was involved in, he won four? Wasn't there some scandal about that presidential race? Something about the Electoral College vs. the Popular Vote? Yes, I think there was. Seems like he always gets the most votes. The guy must be really charismatic.
Cuz he's not very accurate.
Gore says sea level will rise 20 feet this century. His IPCC "co-award winners said about 1 foot -- the same increase in sea level experienced during the past 150 years." Gore says there is grave and imminent danger from the fast melting of Greenland's glaciers. "His co-award winners (the scientists) concluded that if sustained, the melt would add -- at most -- just 3 inches to sea level." He ignores such inconvenient factoids as that the over-all temperature of Greenland in 1941 was higher than that of today. Gore is accurate in saying that by 2050 climate warming may kill up to 400,000 people. But he "carefully failed to point out that 1.8 million lives will be saved from the cold that global warming will replace. So global warming will save a net of 1.4 million lives, rather than cost 400,000 lives." Gore says the population of polar bears is shrinking, whereas in fact "their population is rising. The award Gore truly deserves (and the one for which I hereby nominate him is): Best Scary Campfire Storyteller. (He should beat out the hook on the car window story handily.)"
He won the Peace Prize, right? -- it wasn't for Literature?
Then there's Ellen, who got a puppy from a shelter and later gave it to her hairdresser -- the dog was incompatible with her cats -- then the shelter took it back. Honestly, seeing the clip, it's touching. She is sincere and contrite and passionate. How could she be wrong? Well, for one thing, the breed of dog in question doesn't do well with kids. Apparently it is a Brussels Griffon. Huh? A toy-sized dog. Very fragile. High-strung.
*ahem*
"You can seriously injure or kill a Brussels Griffon by stepping on him or by sitting on him when he's curled under a blanket or pillow, where he frequently likes to sleep. And Brussels Griffons can seriously injure or kill THEMSELVES by leaping from your arms or off the back of your sofa. A larger dog can grab a Brussels Griffon and break his neck with one quick shake. ... Brussels Griffon puppies are NOT suited to children, no matter how well-meaning the child. ... Even Brussels Griffon adults may feel overwhelmed by the loud voices and quick movements that children can't help making -- and stress and shyness (even defensive biting) may be the result."
Ellen's hairdresser has prepubescent girls and a dog. So the shelter has a solid case, in terms of the dog's welfare. As for the kids' welfare, that is the concern of the parents. The story turns from unfortunate to ugly, however, here: Ellen's publicist called up the shelter and warned them to return the puppy or they would get a lot of negative media attention, which, I paraphrase, 'would be bad for business.' Ellen released the name of the agency, which has received death threats and an overwhelming amount of hate mail at their website -- now down.
This is what I would call an attempt at coercion, extortion, and a vile abuse of a position of power. Ugly ugly ugly. All of a sudden Ellen's tears take on a different meaning -- one of frustrated petulance, and her passion has too much of willfulness in it. For shame.
Do you see the connection? The troublesome Gore, who has the -- would it be temerity or audacity? -- to entitle his filmstrip "An Inconvenient Truth," while distorting and misrepresenting the truth in a truly unethical manner. It's a pattern. In Gore's other world-shaking scandal, he undermined his rival in a way that no other politician has done in living memory, save of course for Jimmy Carter. Y'see, Florida had rules that determined the validity of a cast ballot. There was no honorable excuse for inventing the concept of a dimpled or hanging chad. Gawd. Likewise, the American presidency is not determined by the popular vote. It's determined by the Electoral College. That's the rule, that everyone knew about ahead of time.
If you don't like a rule, you're not allowed to just ignore it or just change it because you don't like the outcome. At best, you negotiate a new rule. Usually you just have to accept the result. If you're running for the presidency, you campaign to win states, not individual votes. That's the system that everyone knows about. If the rules were different, the Bush campaign would have run a different strategery. If you're counting ballots, you count according to the predetermined rules of validity. If you're purporting to present scientific facts, you have to be able to demonstrate and defend your conclusions, without recourse to bald assertion.
Same thing with Ellen. She signed a contact. Done deal. The dog was not hers to give away. A sort of joint custody thing. Did two little girls get their hearts broken? Well, that's what little girls do for a living. The two weeks that they played with the puppy do not constitute "bonding". The world is over-full of puppies. Get them another one, and explain to them the nature of contract law, which is a very pillar of our society. Valuable civics lesson for them, and one they are unlikely to get in school. Contraceptive pills, yes; civics lessons, no.
Adults deal with disappointment, and help usher children through it by demonstrating self-control and a sense of perspective. The puppy is fine, it's just in another home. Adults deal with positions of power by acting with integrity, by striving to be worthy of the trust they have been granted. Adults must understand that rules matter. Gawd. Isn't that what playgrounds are all about? Teaching kids to play by the rules?
J
As Tony Blankley observes, "It is hard to say which of Al Gore's awards seems more improbable: his Academy Award, although he does not possess a single skill required for filmmaking, or his Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming, although he has no technical skills in that area and he has misled the world profoundly as to the danger." He was, however, if memory serves, actually vice president for a time, twice, I think. Oh yes, and he ran for president a while back too -- lost that one. But isn't it funny how of the last five elections he was involved in, he won four? Wasn't there some scandal about that presidential race? Something about the Electoral College vs. the Popular Vote? Yes, I think there was. Seems like he always gets the most votes. The guy must be really charismatic.
Cuz he's not very accurate.
Gore says sea level will rise 20 feet this century. His IPCC "co-award winners said about 1 foot -- the same increase in sea level experienced during the past 150 years." Gore says there is grave and imminent danger from the fast melting of Greenland's glaciers. "His co-award winners (the scientists) concluded that if sustained, the melt would add -- at most -- just 3 inches to sea level." He ignores such inconvenient factoids as that the over-all temperature of Greenland in 1941 was higher than that of today. Gore is accurate in saying that by 2050 climate warming may kill up to 400,000 people. But he "carefully failed to point out that 1.8 million lives will be saved from the cold that global warming will replace. So global warming will save a net of 1.4 million lives, rather than cost 400,000 lives." Gore says the population of polar bears is shrinking, whereas in fact "their population is rising. The award Gore truly deserves (and the one for which I hereby nominate him is): Best Scary Campfire Storyteller. (He should beat out the hook on the car window story handily.)"
He won the Peace Prize, right? -- it wasn't for Literature?
Then there's Ellen, who got a puppy from a shelter and later gave it to her hairdresser -- the dog was incompatible with her cats -- then the shelter took it back. Honestly, seeing the clip, it's touching. She is sincere and contrite and passionate. How could she be wrong? Well, for one thing, the breed of dog in question doesn't do well with kids. Apparently it is a Brussels Griffon. Huh? A toy-sized dog. Very fragile. High-strung.
*ahem*
"You can seriously injure or kill a Brussels Griffon by stepping on him or by sitting on him when he's curled under a blanket or pillow, where he frequently likes to sleep. And Brussels Griffons can seriously injure or kill THEMSELVES by leaping from your arms or off the back of your sofa. A larger dog can grab a Brussels Griffon and break his neck with one quick shake. ... Brussels Griffon puppies are NOT suited to children, no matter how well-meaning the child. ... Even Brussels Griffon adults may feel overwhelmed by the loud voices and quick movements that children can't help making -- and stress and shyness (even defensive biting) may be the result."
Ellen's hairdresser has prepubescent girls and a dog. So the shelter has a solid case, in terms of the dog's welfare. As for the kids' welfare, that is the concern of the parents. The story turns from unfortunate to ugly, however, here: Ellen's publicist called up the shelter and warned them to return the puppy or they would get a lot of negative media attention, which, I paraphrase, 'would be bad for business.' Ellen released the name of the agency, which has received death threats and an overwhelming amount of hate mail at their website -- now down.
This is what I would call an attempt at coercion, extortion, and a vile abuse of a position of power. Ugly ugly ugly. All of a sudden Ellen's tears take on a different meaning -- one of frustrated petulance, and her passion has too much of willfulness in it. For shame.
Do you see the connection? The troublesome Gore, who has the -- would it be temerity or audacity? -- to entitle his filmstrip "An Inconvenient Truth," while distorting and misrepresenting the truth in a truly unethical manner. It's a pattern. In Gore's other world-shaking scandal, he undermined his rival in a way that no other politician has done in living memory, save of course for Jimmy Carter. Y'see, Florida had rules that determined the validity of a cast ballot. There was no honorable excuse for inventing the concept of a dimpled or hanging chad. Gawd. Likewise, the American presidency is not determined by the popular vote. It's determined by the Electoral College. That's the rule, that everyone knew about ahead of time.
If you don't like a rule, you're not allowed to just ignore it or just change it because you don't like the outcome. At best, you negotiate a new rule. Usually you just have to accept the result. If you're running for the presidency, you campaign to win states, not individual votes. That's the system that everyone knows about. If the rules were different, the Bush campaign would have run a different strategery. If you're counting ballots, you count according to the predetermined rules of validity. If you're purporting to present scientific facts, you have to be able to demonstrate and defend your conclusions, without recourse to bald assertion.
Same thing with Ellen. She signed a contact. Done deal. The dog was not hers to give away. A sort of joint custody thing. Did two little girls get their hearts broken? Well, that's what little girls do for a living. The two weeks that they played with the puppy do not constitute "bonding". The world is over-full of puppies. Get them another one, and explain to them the nature of contract law, which is a very pillar of our society. Valuable civics lesson for them, and one they are unlikely to get in school. Contraceptive pills, yes; civics lessons, no.
Adults deal with disappointment, and help usher children through it by demonstrating self-control and a sense of perspective. The puppy is fine, it's just in another home. Adults deal with positions of power by acting with integrity, by striving to be worthy of the trust they have been granted. Adults must understand that rules matter. Gawd. Isn't that what playgrounds are all about? Teaching kids to play by the rules?
J
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Glbl Wrrng
Debra Saunders talks about people who suppose that whether or not Global Warming is real, we should act as if it were. That way, either we mitigate a real problem, or we save energy and cut down on pollution. She sums up their reasoning thus: "It's OK if we're wrong, because we mean well."
My position is that there is clearly no Global Warming. There is definitely regional climate change, in some places warmer, in some cooler. If the Glowarms are right in their predicted catastrophes, then there is no amount of florescent bulbs and lo-flo toilets that will make the slightest difference. If complete compliance to the enviroprop of the Kyoto Protocol were actually achieved, it would have no meaningful effect. The supposed twenty-foot rise of sealevel would be nineteen feet and nine inches. And in rescuing those three inches, the economies of the industrialized world would be ruined.
That's if it's real, which it isn't. Thus, as I say in Endangered Speciousness, "'If fully implemented, its energy rationing provisions could cost hundreds of billions of dollars annually but would, according to its proponents, avert only 0.07 degrees Celsius of warming by 2050.' This, compared to the egregious reality that the non-signatory third world countries would be busily deforesting and igniting hydrocarbons to their hearts' content. (Say, here, here, here.)"
It has to do with clarity of thought. There are plenty of phony dangers. They are generally the product of neuroses. Might we somehow levitate ourselves off the chat-therapy couch and analyze the world in realistic rather than ideotropic and symbolic terms? We do, after all, have other concerns, more pressing. Transfats are indeed a health hazard. UV rays do indeed pose a risk. Power grid failures are certainly a problem. But I'm a vegetarian who uses sunscreen, and I turn the lights out when I leave a room. Get it?
Risks that are neutralized are not risks. The planet doesn't need saving. It's been rolling along for six thousand years now, surviving Noah's Flood and Joshua's long day, and mass Cambrian-Ordovician-Silurian extinctions -- oh where have all the trilobites gone? -- how we weep, weep for the archaeocyathids and the conodonts! But we must soldier on. For all that we might mourn the imminent passing of coral, we must brace ourselves to face the world as it is.
Islam, you see, has sharp edges. Its sacred crescent is both the moon and the scimitar, and it is dangerous to bump up against it. When Islam leaves its proper reserves and encroaches into the very heart of Christendom, mighty towers fall like Jericho walls. Who do you suppose will rebuild Babylon? Whose blood will slurry the bricks? We must know that appetites in the land of Sodom have not been sated by the fast of centuries. Allah is his more recent name, but Chemosh still craves blood.
Well. With some dangers it's okay if we're wrong. I expect that would be only for phony dangers, though. In our culture of abundance, we can afford to be neurotic. We'll be taken care of. Or should I be speaking in the past tense? In any case, we need to address the future. Not the immediate future. We certainly have time. A whole generation. But if during that time we do not go Spartan on ourselves, well, the Persians and the Assyrians and the mixed multitude will point out that flaw to us.
Global Warming. It really does seem a little neurotic. Maybe it's just a spelling error? Global Warring? Yes, I think so. The desert is moving in.
J
My position is that there is clearly no Global Warming. There is definitely regional climate change, in some places warmer, in some cooler. If the Glowarms are right in their predicted catastrophes, then there is no amount of florescent bulbs and lo-flo toilets that will make the slightest difference. If complete compliance to the enviroprop of the Kyoto Protocol were actually achieved, it would have no meaningful effect. The supposed twenty-foot rise of sealevel would be nineteen feet and nine inches. And in rescuing those three inches, the economies of the industrialized world would be ruined.
That's if it's real, which it isn't. Thus, as I say in Endangered Speciousness, "'If fully implemented, its energy rationing provisions could cost hundreds of billions of dollars annually but would, according to its proponents, avert only 0.07 degrees Celsius of warming by 2050.' This, compared to the egregious reality that the non-signatory third world countries would be busily deforesting and igniting hydrocarbons to their hearts' content. (Say, here, here, here.)"
It has to do with clarity of thought. There are plenty of phony dangers. They are generally the product of neuroses. Might we somehow levitate ourselves off the chat-therapy couch and analyze the world in realistic rather than ideotropic and symbolic terms? We do, after all, have other concerns, more pressing. Transfats are indeed a health hazard. UV rays do indeed pose a risk. Power grid failures are certainly a problem. But I'm a vegetarian who uses sunscreen, and I turn the lights out when I leave a room. Get it?
Risks that are neutralized are not risks. The planet doesn't need saving. It's been rolling along for six thousand years now, surviving Noah's Flood and Joshua's long day, and mass Cambrian-Ordovician-Silurian extinctions -- oh where have all the trilobites gone? -- how we weep, weep for the archaeocyathids and the conodonts! But we must soldier on. For all that we might mourn the imminent passing of coral, we must brace ourselves to face the world as it is.
Islam, you see, has sharp edges. Its sacred crescent is both the moon and the scimitar, and it is dangerous to bump up against it. When Islam leaves its proper reserves and encroaches into the very heart of Christendom, mighty towers fall like Jericho walls. Who do you suppose will rebuild Babylon? Whose blood will slurry the bricks? We must know that appetites in the land of Sodom have not been sated by the fast of centuries. Allah is his more recent name, but Chemosh still craves blood.
Well. With some dangers it's okay if we're wrong. I expect that would be only for phony dangers, though. In our culture of abundance, we can afford to be neurotic. We'll be taken care of. Or should I be speaking in the past tense? In any case, we need to address the future. Not the immediate future. We certainly have time. A whole generation. But if during that time we do not go Spartan on ourselves, well, the Persians and the Assyrians and the mixed multitude will point out that flaw to us.
Global Warming. It really does seem a little neurotic. Maybe it's just a spelling error? Global Warring? Yes, I think so. The desert is moving in.
J
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Endangered Speciousness
I don't care about global warming. Just not one of my passions. If it were real, and man-made, then we might have to do what we could to mitigate or accommodate it. But like a dream from which we wake, it is becoming less real all the time.
Thanks to that seminal genius and renowned climatologist Al Gore -- Saviour of Humanity, Spotted Owls, Cetaceans and All Creeping Things, Avatar of Enlightenment, Inventor of the Internet and Master of Southern Black Baptist Preacher Cadences -- we all know that this has been the hottest decade since dinosaurs roamed the earth. No less an authority than NASA has informed us of this inarguable fact of proven reality. Only an idiot would think otherwise. And I'm just the man for the job.
Turns out that NASA's computer program had a glitch. (See here, here.) Remember way back a few days ago, when 1998 was the "hottest year on record"? Reality itself has melted. Cuz now the hottest US year is 1934. The numbers have been reevaluated. The record books have been changed. Sort of a Barry Bonds thing going on, I guess -- asterisks -- the program was juiced up on roids.
1934. Ah, I remember it well. Little did we know how much damage we were doing to The Planet with all those hot vacuum tubes in all those blazing radio sets tuned to Jack Benny and Amos & Andy -- really did a job on the climate. Must have been the cause of the Dust Bowl. Mystery solved. And all those Dance Marathons -- jittering in those big baggy oldman pants and the friction from those flapping skirts must have generated more heat than all our new-fangled private jets rocketing their way nowadays to all our Save-the-Planet concerts. Who knew? Thankfully, Franklin Roosevelt was on top of the problem -- I seem to recall that Saving the Planet was a major thrust of the New Deal -- auspices of the TVA, I think I think.
Per the revised NASA / Goddard data, the uber-hot years of 2000 through 2004 have dropped altogether out of the top ten hot years. Indeed, all of the sweltering nineties and aughts have been officially cooled. Kyoto must be working, retroactively. Thank you, bill clinton -- you saved us, somehow! Maybe it was all the many cooling gusts of wind stirred up by your ejaculations.
Well. Not long ago I pointed out the problem with the "hockey stick" spike in global temperatures. Computer program bug. Now we have another, similar error. GIGO. We inform our opinions with what we believe to be facts. When the facts prove to be fictions, our opinions must be reevaluated. We might come to correct conclusions through illogical means. We might. We might be bitten by radioactive spiders and become super heroes. We might. We might give atoms and molecules an infinite amount of time and unlimited exposure to various forms of energy, until life evolves from inert matter. We might. But part of being rational in an empirical universe is that we give experience more weight than theories. There is an integrity of the mind, as much as of behavior.
I think the planet is getting hotter. I think this is due to the natural climatic cycles that any competent analysis of historical data will reveal. I think that the effect that mankind has had on this heating is negligible. I could be wrong on this last point. But even if the Kyoto protocols were honored by its signatories -- and they are not -- the global temperature would be affected by an utterly insignificant amount, over the next half-century: "If fully implemented, its energy rationing provisions could cost hundreds of billions of dollars annually but would, according to its proponents, avert only 0.07 degrees Celsius of warming by 2050." This, compared to the egregious reality that the non-signatory third world countries would be busily deforesting and igniting hydrocarbons to their hearts' content. (Say, here, here, here.)
If we're gonna save the planet, we gotta stop them chinamen. Forget about the Land Between the Rivers -- invade the Middle Kingdom. Now why the hell isn't Al Gore leading that parade? It just seems inconsistent, is all. What a disgrace -- a politician who sets up phony problems caused by phony enemies ... in this case, us. Unheard of. Unheard of since Hitler, that is. And every other cynical hack self-promoter.
We live on a planet that has rung like a bell from comet and asteroid strikes. But the total atmospheric CO2 is currently 3000 Gt -- that's gigatonnes. Sounds like a lot, but it's half that expected for the late Cretaceous Period, with all those brontosauruses running around all over the place, eating giant ginkoes and getting mauled by T-rexes. Where did all that extra CO2 come from? Fred Flintstone and all his woolly mammoth backyard barbecues? Well, there are homeostatic mechanisms, having to do with sea levels and global biota. But the upshot is, double the CO2 levels, and the planet did very well indeed, thank you ever so much.
The current anthropogenic CO2 released from hydrocarbon-burning is about 25 Gt per year. Much though I disrespect SUVs, I don't think they are much worse than anything else humans have done for as long as there have been humans ... all 6000 years. Burning peat, or wood, or coal, or gallons and gallons and gallons of petrol in your gigantic luxury truck -- this is not a whole lot different than the thousands of megatons of volcanogenic CO2 that the planet has been able to process in ages past.
I don't think we need to throw our civilization into the volcano, to satisfy the god of Al Gore's religion.
No, I haven't proven anything. My argument has holes, largely because I've said enough already, and couldn't be bothered to fill them. As usual, my point is basic: don't panic. It's not sufficient to simply be angry and afraid. It's not honorable to monger fear. When we put our slide show together, purporting to demonstrate the veracity of our case, we must use valid evidence. Otherwise we are liars, in effect if not intention. Even the psychotic paranoid might have enemies, but we don't generalize from the extreme cases, but from the typical ones. Inductive reasoning has brought us too many benefits, for us to start casting rune stones and reading tea leaves. Temperature data that are gathered inconsistently might as well be I Ching sticks. A computer model that generates faulty data might as well be tarot cards. We may be moved, we may be fascinated, we may be convinced -- but we are not rational if we follow along these paths.
What, then? As with everything, it come down to honesty. Integrity won't save us. But without it we're not worth saving.
J
Thanks to that seminal genius and renowned climatologist Al Gore -- Saviour of Humanity, Spotted Owls, Cetaceans and All Creeping Things, Avatar of Enlightenment, Inventor of the Internet and Master of Southern Black Baptist Preacher Cadences -- we all know that this has been the hottest decade since dinosaurs roamed the earth. No less an authority than NASA has informed us of this inarguable fact of proven reality. Only an idiot would think otherwise. And I'm just the man for the job.
Turns out that NASA's computer program had a glitch. (See here, here.) Remember way back a few days ago, when 1998 was the "hottest year on record"? Reality itself has melted. Cuz now the hottest US year is 1934. The numbers have been reevaluated. The record books have been changed. Sort of a Barry Bonds thing going on, I guess -- asterisks -- the program was juiced up on roids.
1934. Ah, I remember it well. Little did we know how much damage we were doing to The Planet with all those hot vacuum tubes in all those blazing radio sets tuned to Jack Benny and Amos & Andy -- really did a job on the climate. Must have been the cause of the Dust Bowl. Mystery solved. And all those Dance Marathons -- jittering in those big baggy oldman pants and the friction from those flapping skirts must have generated more heat than all our new-fangled private jets rocketing their way nowadays to all our Save-the-Planet concerts. Who knew? Thankfully, Franklin Roosevelt was on top of the problem -- I seem to recall that Saving the Planet was a major thrust of the New Deal -- auspices of the TVA, I think I think.
Per the revised NASA / Goddard data, the uber-hot years of 2000 through 2004 have dropped altogether out of the top ten hot years. Indeed, all of the sweltering nineties and aughts have been officially cooled. Kyoto must be working, retroactively. Thank you, bill clinton -- you saved us, somehow! Maybe it was all the many cooling gusts of wind stirred up by your ejaculations.
Well. Not long ago I pointed out the problem with the "hockey stick" spike in global temperatures. Computer program bug. Now we have another, similar error. GIGO. We inform our opinions with what we believe to be facts. When the facts prove to be fictions, our opinions must be reevaluated. We might come to correct conclusions through illogical means. We might. We might be bitten by radioactive spiders and become super heroes. We might. We might give atoms and molecules an infinite amount of time and unlimited exposure to various forms of energy, until life evolves from inert matter. We might. But part of being rational in an empirical universe is that we give experience more weight than theories. There is an integrity of the mind, as much as of behavior.
I think the planet is getting hotter. I think this is due to the natural climatic cycles that any competent analysis of historical data will reveal. I think that the effect that mankind has had on this heating is negligible. I could be wrong on this last point. But even if the Kyoto protocols were honored by its signatories -- and they are not -- the global temperature would be affected by an utterly insignificant amount, over the next half-century: "If fully implemented, its energy rationing provisions could cost hundreds of billions of dollars annually but would, according to its proponents, avert only 0.07 degrees Celsius of warming by 2050." This, compared to the egregious reality that the non-signatory third world countries would be busily deforesting and igniting hydrocarbons to their hearts' content. (Say, here, here, here.)
If we're gonna save the planet, we gotta stop them chinamen. Forget about the Land Between the Rivers -- invade the Middle Kingdom. Now why the hell isn't Al Gore leading that parade? It just seems inconsistent, is all. What a disgrace -- a politician who sets up phony problems caused by phony enemies ... in this case, us. Unheard of. Unheard of since Hitler, that is. And every other cynical hack self-promoter.
We live on a planet that has rung like a bell from comet and asteroid strikes. But the total atmospheric CO2 is currently 3000 Gt -- that's gigatonnes. Sounds like a lot, but it's half that expected for the late Cretaceous Period, with all those brontosauruses running around all over the place, eating giant ginkoes and getting mauled by T-rexes. Where did all that extra CO2 come from? Fred Flintstone and all his woolly mammoth backyard barbecues? Well, there are homeostatic mechanisms, having to do with sea levels and global biota. But the upshot is, double the CO2 levels, and the planet did very well indeed, thank you ever so much.
The current anthropogenic CO2 released from hydrocarbon-burning is about 25 Gt per year. Much though I disrespect SUVs, I don't think they are much worse than anything else humans have done for as long as there have been humans ... all 6000 years. Burning peat, or wood, or coal, or gallons and gallons and gallons of petrol in your gigantic luxury truck -- this is not a whole lot different than the thousands of megatons of volcanogenic CO2 that the planet has been able to process in ages past.
I don't think we need to throw our civilization into the volcano, to satisfy the god of Al Gore's religion.
No, I haven't proven anything. My argument has holes, largely because I've said enough already, and couldn't be bothered to fill them. As usual, my point is basic: don't panic. It's not sufficient to simply be angry and afraid. It's not honorable to monger fear. When we put our slide show together, purporting to demonstrate the veracity of our case, we must use valid evidence. Otherwise we are liars, in effect if not intention. Even the psychotic paranoid might have enemies, but we don't generalize from the extreme cases, but from the typical ones. Inductive reasoning has brought us too many benefits, for us to start casting rune stones and reading tea leaves. Temperature data that are gathered inconsistently might as well be I Ching sticks. A computer model that generates faulty data might as well be tarot cards. We may be moved, we may be fascinated, we may be convinced -- but we are not rational if we follow along these paths.
What, then? As with everything, it come down to honesty. Integrity won't save us. But without it we're not worth saving.
J
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Heat
I’ve done some serious work in climatology. No, I’m not a climatologist. I’ve depended on the researches of others for this aspect of my overall ubertheory. I’ve made original contributions in interpretation, but anything I would have written might be considered a secondary source. That’s fine. I have striven to be meticulous with my data. I was tempted only once to suppress something -- just couldn’t understand how it fit. But I kept playing at it, and it proved to be the basis for a pivotal insight. Lesson learned.
Would you like me to post some really cool stuff? Beg me prettily enough and I might.
Now we have this Global Warming thing. I’ve had a bit of fun with it, but it is a serious controversy. We decide our positions not by the degree of passion we might feel, but by the evidence. That’s much harder than you’d think. Because we all start with our biases. Once upon a time I was an Evolutionist. I’ve gone over this ground before. Upshot is, I looked in-depth at the evidence and changed my position. I’m capable of doing that, is what I mean.
Do you have a GW position? Conservatives tend to go one way, liberals tend to go the other. How odd. Science shouldn’t be political. (I really would recommend Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” -- it has its flaws, but its effect is seminal.) But of course, all systems of belief are political. Science, that ‘organized body of observations,’ is certainly ideological. So it is with Global Warming.
You’ll have noticed the tone I take here. Usually manically nasty, covered over with Mad Hatter sarcasm. Sometime maudlin, dark or pathetic. But sometimes I’m serious. My serious points generally have to do with integrity. Let’s take care to be right, in all things -- and let’s be gracious in the effort. Because maybe, despite our best efforts, we’re wrong. Apologies generally come too late to do any good. So tread lightly. I would hope that anyone who knows me would stand up for me, in this regard. I’m far from what I would wish to be, but I’m nowhere near as mad and offensive as I could be. I count that as a success. My point -- aside from congratulating myself on my wonderfulness -- is that I claim not to be a hypocrite.
Let’s consider, then, Global Warming. Martin Durkin has made a documentary that answers the one Al Gore made. Anyone can make a documentary. Here are some of the issues Durkin brings up.
Durkin could be wrong. He could be lying. He could be mishandling data. He could be ignoring powerful confounding evidence, as he suggests Gore has done. But facts are easily checked. When they seem to contradict, well, we know that facts cannot contradict. Something is being misunderstood. Thus, for all that I love paradoxes, I understand that there really aren’t any. As I said in one of the earliest things I wrote here:
My word, I do go on, don’t I. I must really be in love with myself. In the past hour I’ve written two other pieces just like this. Won’t anything shut me the hell up? Well, I’ve gotta do something with my creative urges and my imagination and all this energy. It’s either this, or masturbate.
*ahem*
The point is, there are no paradoxes. Facts cannot contradict. Yes, this is one of those either/or, not maybe, propositions. The Globe is either Warming, or it is not. If it is Warming, it is doing so either as a whole, or locally -- so that would be hemiglobal warming. If it is Warming, the primary cause would be either mankind, or nature. If the cause is nature, there’s not much we can do. You can’t stop a volcano. [Oh please. Don't. If you want to argue I suppose I can be goaded into it. Let's do it over something worth the effort, eh?] If it is mankind, it’s time for a revolution unlike anything since farming was invented.
Which is it? The question won’t be settled here. This is only one side of the issue. But you can see that the matter is not as decided as some would pretend -- as most of the media establishment would pretend. I’m all for pretending. That’s what masturbation is all about. Let’s not do it in public.
That's where I would have left it ... on my typically immature note of insanity. But Wegman's report -- the one that invalidates Mann's hockey stick graph -- is just devastating. It's not long, and starting on page six it is utterly eviscerating, in the very politest of ways. I can't figure out how to copy his "figure 4" -- if I could, I'd have written a whole post on the subject. Enough to say that there is no hockey stick. It's a pool cue. A long pool cue, so straight, so hard, so easily grasped in eager hands. Huh. I need some privacy.
J
Would you like me to post some really cool stuff? Beg me prettily enough and I might.
Now we have this Global Warming thing. I’ve had a bit of fun with it, but it is a serious controversy. We decide our positions not by the degree of passion we might feel, but by the evidence. That’s much harder than you’d think. Because we all start with our biases. Once upon a time I was an Evolutionist. I’ve gone over this ground before. Upshot is, I looked in-depth at the evidence and changed my position. I’m capable of doing that, is what I mean.
Do you have a GW position? Conservatives tend to go one way, liberals tend to go the other. How odd. Science shouldn’t be political. (I really would recommend Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” -- it has its flaws, but its effect is seminal.) But of course, all systems of belief are political. Science, that ‘organized body of observations,’ is certainly ideological. So it is with Global Warming.
You’ll have noticed the tone I take here. Usually manically nasty, covered over with Mad Hatter sarcasm. Sometime maudlin, dark or pathetic. But sometimes I’m serious. My serious points generally have to do with integrity. Let’s take care to be right, in all things -- and let’s be gracious in the effort. Because maybe, despite our best efforts, we’re wrong. Apologies generally come too late to do any good. So tread lightly. I would hope that anyone who knows me would stand up for me, in this regard. I’m far from what I would wish to be, but I’m nowhere near as mad and offensive as I could be. I count that as a success. My point -- aside from congratulating myself on my wonderfulness -- is that I claim not to be a hypocrite.
Let’s consider, then, Global Warming. Martin Durkin has made a documentary that answers the one Al Gore made. Anyone can make a documentary. Here are some of the issues Durkin brings up.
“To the utter dismay of the global warming lobby, the world does not appear to be getting warmer. According to their own figures (from the UN-linked Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), the temperature has been static or slightly declining since 1998. The satellite data confirms this. This is clearly awkward...
“Then there's the ice-core data, the jewel in the crown of global warming theory. It shows there's a connection between carbon dioxide and temperature: see Al Gore's movie. But what Gore forgets to mention is that the connection is the wrong way around; temperature leads, CO2 follows.
“Then there's the precious ‘hockey stick’. This was the famous graph that purported to show global temperature flat-lining for 1000 years, then rising during the 19th and 20th centuries. It magicked away the Medieval warm period and made the recent warming look alarming, instead of just part of the general toing and froing of the Earth's climate.
“But then researchers took the computer program that produced the hockey stick graph and fed it random data. Bingo, out popped hockey stick shapes every time. (See the report by Edward Wegman of George Mason University in Virginia [eg, here for his primary report] and others [eg, here].)
“In a humiliating climb down, the IPCC has had to drop the hockey stick from its reports, though it can still be seen in Gore's movie.
“And finally, there are those pesky satellites. If greenhouse gases were the cause of warming, then the rate of warming should have been greater, higher up in the Earth's atmosphere (the bit known as the troposphere). But all the satellite and balloon data says the exact opposite. In other words, the best observational data we have flatly contradicts the whole bally idea of man-made climate change.
“They concede that CO2 cannot have caused the warming at the beginning of the 20th century, which was greater and steeper than the recent warming. They can't explain the cooling from 1940 to the mid-'70s. What are they left with? Some mild warming in the '80s and '90s that does not appear to have been caused by greenhouse gases.”
Durkin could be wrong. He could be lying. He could be mishandling data. He could be ignoring powerful confounding evidence, as he suggests Gore has done. But facts are easily checked. When they seem to contradict, well, we know that facts cannot contradict. Something is being misunderstood. Thus, for all that I love paradoxes, I understand that there really aren’t any. As I said in one of the earliest things I wrote here:
“Imponderables are easy. It's that sophomore stuff, of, if a tree falls in the forest and no one hears does it make a sound. No -- if you define "sound" as something that is heard. Does it make sound waves? Certainly -- we live in a phenomenological universe, but subject to the laws of phenomenon. Or Zeno's paradoxes: Before it hits its target, an arrow must travel half the distance, but first half of the half, and before that half of the half of the half ... so it can never reach its target, busy as it is infinitely halving its distances. Yet it does reach its goal. The fallacy, of course, is that space, like time, is not infinitely divisible. At a certain infinitesimally small place, a thing must be either here, or there, but cannot be in between -- the quantum leap of quantum mechanics. A thing must be either now, or then, but not in between. As I say, imponderables are easy, once you clarify the terms.
“The universe is both discrete and a continuum, digital and analogue, particle and wave, virtual and actual. It is yes/no, and it is maybe.”
My word, I do go on, don’t I. I must really be in love with myself. In the past hour I’ve written two other pieces just like this. Won’t anything shut me the hell up? Well, I’ve gotta do something with my creative urges and my imagination and all this energy. It’s either this, or masturbate.
*ahem*
The point is, there are no paradoxes. Facts cannot contradict. Yes, this is one of those either/or, not maybe, propositions. The Globe is either Warming, or it is not. If it is Warming, it is doing so either as a whole, or locally -- so that would be hemiglobal warming. If it is Warming, the primary cause would be either mankind, or nature. If the cause is nature, there’s not much we can do. You can’t stop a volcano. [Oh please. Don't. If you want to argue I suppose I can be goaded into it. Let's do it over something worth the effort, eh?] If it is mankind, it’s time for a revolution unlike anything since farming was invented.
Which is it? The question won’t be settled here. This is only one side of the issue. But you can see that the matter is not as decided as some would pretend -- as most of the media establishment would pretend. I’m all for pretending. That’s what masturbation is all about. Let’s not do it in public.
That's where I would have left it ... on my typically immature note of insanity. But Wegman's report -- the one that invalidates Mann's hockey stick graph -- is just devastating. It's not long, and starting on page six it is utterly eviscerating, in the very politest of ways. I can't figure out how to copy his "figure 4" -- if I could, I'd have written a whole post on the subject. Enough to say that there is no hockey stick. It's a pool cue. A long pool cue, so straight, so hard, so easily grasped in eager hands. Huh. I need some privacy.
J
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Pitter Patter
Global Warming. Huhg. What is it good for? Nothing. Or is it Global Cooling? I get them mixed up. Maybe it's both. But that's bad too. I'm pleased to see that the world is coming around to my way of thinking. Change is bad. But "scientists" have come up with a sure-fire plan to save the world. Blast an A-bomb into the sun? No. Drill a hole into the fiery core of the orb? No. Irradiate the atmosphere with ionized particles? No. Manipulate the cosmological constant thereby decreasing the rate of entropy and in effect creating perpetual energy? No. Oh. It's so obvious. All of these other things are really good ideas, but the virtue of simplicity resides in one special solution, ever so dear to our hearts.
How do we save the planet? By not being on it. Scientists are calling for Westerns to have fewer children. Everyone knows that sex is dirty, and for all that the planet is, by definition, dirty, that's not the kind of dirt we're talking about. There's only one real problem with the world, and it's all these people polluting it. I don't mean the pollution they make. I mean the pollution they are. Language is a virus because humans are a virus. Nature is all for abortion, if it's of humans. Floods are just Mother Nature's way of changing diapers. Save the whales, kill the humans. Talk about a red-headed step-child. Nobody wants that dog. Bring back the dinosaurs. Oh, the dodos -- the poor innocent dodos.
Well, I ramble. The point is, why do you think homosexuality is on the rise? It's Mother Nature's effort at population control. Or God's. Same thing -- God, Goddess -- don't be such a sexist. So God used up all the floods, and the End by Fire is coming too soon -- albeit one small fraction of a degree per decade. I suppose he's regretting that old business about Sodom. Talk about your climate warming. What we need nowadays is more sodomy, not less. The perfect birth control method.
The fertility rate of Europe is 1.3 births per couple, or rather, per female. Replacement rate is 2.1. Europe is shrinking. Bet you didn't think a continent could shrink. Sort of an Atlantis thing going on there. Well, heat shrinks things, doesn't it? I washed a sweater once, and it came out as a mitten. Don't try to confuse me with your fancy objections -- I can't be fooled.
This shrinking population of Europe, although it is at catastrophically low levels, isn't low enough to save the planet, and please the scientists. Says bleeding-heart leftist weenie Prof John Guillebaud, "Climate change is now widely regarded as the biggest problem facing the planet. We're nearing the point of no return and people are feeling increasingly desperate and helpless. The answer lies in our own hands … We have to recognize that the biggest cause of climate change is climate changers — in other words, human beings..."
Hm. We're nearing the point of no return. It seems there are several points of no return. That of the anti-human environmentalist bleeders, and that of the anti-environmentalist human breeders. What are we saving the planet for? The children that we're not supposed to be having?
If the planet warms up, what will happen? Farmland, true, will become desert -- but tundra will become farmland. Vineyards will be found on mountainsides rather than hillsides. Populations will shift to higher or more polar climes. You'll have to pardon me, but I just don't see a problem. Oh, short term problems, sure. But long range? The climate has changed before, you know.
Mark Steyn: "Having fewer British or Spanish babies will do nothing for the polar bear on the ice floes posing for Al Gore's next documentary. But how many British and Spanish babies are born right now — this year and next year — will certainly have an impact on what Britain and Spain are like in the year 2050. These men of "science" have not called on Niger or Somalia or Afghanistan or Yemen — where women have seven or eight babies — to have one or even six less. Presumably the Optimum Population Trust (a magnificently totalitarian-lite moniker, by the way) feels the average Somali or Afghan has a more eco-friendly carbon footprint, and thus a world with fewer English and more Yemeni will be a more 'sustainable and habitable planet for our children and grandchildren.' ...Maybe the world that comes after western civilization will be more 'sustainable' but I doubt it will be more 'habitable.'"
Here's the real point. Yemenis may currently have as pitter-pattering a dainty little carbon footprint as the countless toddlers they are endlessly producing. Europeans (that's us, by culture if not by descent) may clomp around the world with our Godzilla-like carbon feet, stomping out tiny little Japanese model cities and ecosystems and endangered species. But when we go down into the self-imposed extinction of non-sustainable infertility, what will rise to take our place? Every ecological niche has a species to fill it. Something will adapt to take our place. What will that something be? We need not look to mutations and hopeful monsters to find the answer. We need only look southward, to the fabled evolutionary tidal pools of Yemen.
When the First World ties its last tube and savors the delicate bouquet of its last homosexual intercourse, the Third World, as much as it can, will become the First. To be sure of this we have only to consider India, or China, or Mexico, or any of the other industrializing nations. China has not just a larger carbon footprint than we do, now -- each of its one point three two one eight five one eight eight eight billion citizens would love to tool around in an SUV.
Populations level off. Usually it's disease that does it. Sometimes war. Sometimes infanticide. Less frequently it's the infertility that comes with decadence. (Really, it does.) It may be a common-sense homeostasis, or it may be the necessary response to limited resources. When food becomes more plentiful, populations grow. Consult Malthus. It's alimentary, my dear Watson and Crick. So, no, I'm not really concerned about the doomsday scenarios of the Chicken Little Leftists. We've been through it before. First, it's not a problem. Second, it's a problem that we've faced before. Third, it's not a problem.
All this was rather the point of that odd little joke I just played on you, about the Superiority of my Race. It's people that are important. Yes, save the planet. Save it for ourselves. I won't say more people is better. I will say fewer people is not necessarily better. Before we call for our own extinction, let's find a way to make the desert bloom. It is permissible to alter the environment. We know this, because nature does it all the time. Some species will adapt to fill it. Why not have that be us? The spiders and toads that live under the rocks can adapt too. That's how they got there in the first place. After all, the great law, the First Commandment of the Envirotheists is, The fittest will survive. Let this be a point of agreement. But for the fittest to survive, they have to breed.
Dang these confounded inconsistencies. Let's just ignore them. Wanna have gay sex? You get started -- I'll be over as quick as I can. What was your address again? No, really -- it'll be fine. The Planet wants us to.
J
How do we save the planet? By not being on it. Scientists are calling for Westerns to have fewer children. Everyone knows that sex is dirty, and for all that the planet is, by definition, dirty, that's not the kind of dirt we're talking about. There's only one real problem with the world, and it's all these people polluting it. I don't mean the pollution they make. I mean the pollution they are. Language is a virus because humans are a virus. Nature is all for abortion, if it's of humans. Floods are just Mother Nature's way of changing diapers. Save the whales, kill the humans. Talk about a red-headed step-child. Nobody wants that dog. Bring back the dinosaurs. Oh, the dodos -- the poor innocent dodos.
Well, I ramble. The point is, why do you think homosexuality is on the rise? It's Mother Nature's effort at population control. Or God's. Same thing -- God, Goddess -- don't be such a sexist. So God used up all the floods, and the End by Fire is coming too soon -- albeit one small fraction of a degree per decade. I suppose he's regretting that old business about Sodom. Talk about your climate warming. What we need nowadays is more sodomy, not less. The perfect birth control method.
The fertility rate of Europe is 1.3 births per couple, or rather, per female. Replacement rate is 2.1. Europe is shrinking. Bet you didn't think a continent could shrink. Sort of an Atlantis thing going on there. Well, heat shrinks things, doesn't it? I washed a sweater once, and it came out as a mitten. Don't try to confuse me with your fancy objections -- I can't be fooled.
This shrinking population of Europe, although it is at catastrophically low levels, isn't low enough to save the planet, and please the scientists. Says bleeding-heart leftist weenie Prof John Guillebaud, "Climate change is now widely regarded as the biggest problem facing the planet. We're nearing the point of no return and people are feeling increasingly desperate and helpless. The answer lies in our own hands … We have to recognize that the biggest cause of climate change is climate changers — in other words, human beings..."
Hm. We're nearing the point of no return. It seems there are several points of no return. That of the anti-human environmentalist bleeders, and that of the anti-environmentalist human breeders. What are we saving the planet for? The children that we're not supposed to be having?
If the planet warms up, what will happen? Farmland, true, will become desert -- but tundra will become farmland. Vineyards will be found on mountainsides rather than hillsides. Populations will shift to higher or more polar climes. You'll have to pardon me, but I just don't see a problem. Oh, short term problems, sure. But long range? The climate has changed before, you know.
Mark Steyn: "Having fewer British or Spanish babies will do nothing for the polar bear on the ice floes posing for Al Gore's next documentary. But how many British and Spanish babies are born right now — this year and next year — will certainly have an impact on what Britain and Spain are like in the year 2050. These men of "science" have not called on Niger or Somalia or Afghanistan or Yemen — where women have seven or eight babies — to have one or even six less. Presumably the Optimum Population Trust (a magnificently totalitarian-lite moniker, by the way) feels the average Somali or Afghan has a more eco-friendly carbon footprint, and thus a world with fewer English and more Yemeni will be a more 'sustainable and habitable planet for our children and grandchildren.' ...Maybe the world that comes after western civilization will be more 'sustainable' but I doubt it will be more 'habitable.'"
Here's the real point. Yemenis may currently have as pitter-pattering a dainty little carbon footprint as the countless toddlers they are endlessly producing. Europeans (that's us, by culture if not by descent) may clomp around the world with our Godzilla-like carbon feet, stomping out tiny little Japanese model cities and ecosystems and endangered species. But when we go down into the self-imposed extinction of non-sustainable infertility, what will rise to take our place? Every ecological niche has a species to fill it. Something will adapt to take our place. What will that something be? We need not look to mutations and hopeful monsters to find the answer. We need only look southward, to the fabled evolutionary tidal pools of Yemen.
When the First World ties its last tube and savors the delicate bouquet of its last homosexual intercourse, the Third World, as much as it can, will become the First. To be sure of this we have only to consider India, or China, or Mexico, or any of the other industrializing nations. China has not just a larger carbon footprint than we do, now -- each of its one point three two one eight five one eight eight eight billion citizens would love to tool around in an SUV.
Populations level off. Usually it's disease that does it. Sometimes war. Sometimes infanticide. Less frequently it's the infertility that comes with decadence. (Really, it does.) It may be a common-sense homeostasis, or it may be the necessary response to limited resources. When food becomes more plentiful, populations grow. Consult Malthus. It's alimentary, my dear Watson and Crick. So, no, I'm not really concerned about the doomsday scenarios of the Chicken Little Leftists. We've been through it before. First, it's not a problem. Second, it's a problem that we've faced before. Third, it's not a problem.
All this was rather the point of that odd little joke I just played on you, about the Superiority of my Race. It's people that are important. Yes, save the planet. Save it for ourselves. I won't say more people is better. I will say fewer people is not necessarily better. Before we call for our own extinction, let's find a way to make the desert bloom. It is permissible to alter the environment. We know this, because nature does it all the time. Some species will adapt to fill it. Why not have that be us? The spiders and toads that live under the rocks can adapt too. That's how they got there in the first place. After all, the great law, the First Commandment of the Envirotheists is, The fittest will survive. Let this be a point of agreement. But for the fittest to survive, they have to breed.
Dang these confounded inconsistencies. Let's just ignore them. Wanna have gay sex? You get started -- I'll be over as quick as I can. What was your address again? No, really -- it'll be fine. The Planet wants us to.
J
Thursday, April 6, 2006
Chicken Little for Vice-President!!!
Just enjoyed a very competent gutting of former- clinton’s- vice- president- and- failed- Democrat- presidential- candidate- who- contested- the- election- he- lost- and- threw- the- country- into- a- turmoil- that- continues- to- cause- great- harm- and- is- a- comfort- to- our- enemies Al Gore and a crony, named, somehow, Blood - *ahem* ... Blood and Gore - who were attempting to fake their way through another Eco-political Manifesto about the evils of capitalism when compared to, to, um, well, to everything else. If only, they lament, if only we had Aladdin’s Wonderful Lamp, only without the oil. We want ... we want the genie. We want a magical world where we can fly on our private magic carpets – like our private jets, now – and where those nasty busyness men work for the greatest good for the greatest number, just like our hero Karl Marx ordained. Well, I made up that last part – I think I did – but you get the idea. Point being, Nick Tredenick
Here’s my two cents worth. As I’ve intimated here and there, I’ve done theoretical research into what we of a certain persuasion are pleased to call catastrophism. Reading Tredenick recalled to my mind an odd fact that I must have used once. Water absorbs atmospheric carbon dioxide. The greater the surface area of the planet – THE PLANET!!! – covered by water, the more carbon is absorbed into the oceans. Upshot is, if glaciers and ice-caps start to melt, and sea level starts to rise, then of course more of THE PLANET!!! is covered with water – the surface area of the oceans is greater. Which means more carbon dioxide – that evil greenhouse gas - would be removed from the atmosphere. Which means less heat would be held in the atmosphere. Which means THE PLANET!!! would cool. Which means GLOBAL WARMING!!! would give way to global cooling …
Obviously, the requisite flooding of low-lying coastal areas – from higher oceans and more rain – would be a problem for locals. Obviously there are questions: would enough CO2 be absorbed to undo the foul work of
I have no problem with conservationism. Big problem with the religion of environmentalism, but conservationism is what some folks call stewardship. It is a powerful conservative principle, and an act of common decency. I’ve got a huge problem with shoddy thinking and junk science. It’s like junk politics – grand theories about how things ought to be, so let’s pretend it really is that way even though it flies in the face of universal actual human experience. Is mankind basically good or basically evil? It’s not a statistical question – we can’t average together the huge data base of indifferent moments, which are basically good, with those relatively rare instances of evil. It’s a question that has meaning only at the moment of temptation. Framed thus, you have only to examine yourself, to answer the question. The old Mae West line is, I can resist anything except temptation. Self-delusion is a huge temptation.
Does all that seem like a digression? Well, yes, I suppose it would. It has to do with clarity of thought, of analysis. It has to do with the intellectual courage to examine all the data, and approach a question with some integrity. Al Gore and his congregation need to question their religion.
Just wanted to share some ideas. Did you enjoy them?
J
Sunday, April 2, 2006
"How can it be hot out? It was just cold."
George Will, always the voice of rationality, does a good job in summarizing the Eissturm und Drang of a few decades past:
"While worrying about Montana's receding glaciers, [Governor] Schweitzer, who is 50, should also worry about the fact that when he was 20 he was told to be worried, very worried, about global cooling. Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate 'has been getting cooler since about 1950.'"
In an unrelated story - as far as we can see - controversy still rages as to whether it was Henny Penny, or Chicken Little, who first sounded the alarum that the sky is falling. Preliminary accounts are conflicting, and testimony vague, but it is clear that some meteorological phenomenon, regarding the relative position and friability of the sky, has been observed. Earlier reports, that the sky was actually becoming more solid and moving farther away, have been discarded as no longer in vogue.
Meanwhile, journalists feel comfortable in continuing to maintain that they are certain the sky is falling, and that those crackpots who assert otherwise are part of a conspiracy, or some religious cult. They will continue to promote the public welfare as they see it, while earning a nice living.
J
"While worrying about Montana's receding glaciers, [Governor] Schweitzer, who is 50, should also worry about the fact that when he was 20 he was told to be worried, very worried, about global cooling. Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate 'has been getting cooler since about 1950.'"
In an unrelated story - as far as we can see - controversy still rages as to whether it was Henny Penny, or Chicken Little, who first sounded the alarum that the sky is falling. Preliminary accounts are conflicting, and testimony vague, but it is clear that some meteorological phenomenon, regarding the relative position and friability of the sky, has been observed. Earlier reports, that the sky was actually becoming more solid and moving farther away, have been discarded as no longer in vogue.
Meanwhile, journalists feel comfortable in continuing to maintain that they are certain the sky is falling, and that those crackpots who assert otherwise are part of a conspiracy, or some religious cult. They will continue to promote the public welfare as they see it, while earning a nice living.
J
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
