The Continuing Non-Debate Debate

In 1993 President Clinton established the President’s Council on Sustainable Development, headed by Al Gore. If I ever heard of it, I took no notice, as was probably intended. When I started trying to learn about global warming, I was surprised at the almost total lack of objective scientific debate. This policy statement explains what happened to the debate we were promised:

"The Council should not debate the science of global warming, but should instead focus on the implementation of national and local greenhouse gas reduction policies and activities, and adaptations in the U.S. economy and society that maximize environmental and social benefits, minimize economic impacts, and are consistent with U.S. international agreements."

Why Al Gore Refuses to Debate Anyone

I heard a commentator speculate recently that he thought there could be credible opposition to President Obama for the Democrat nomination. He thought that the most likely contender would be Al Gore. I cannot think of anyone else who would cause me to wish for four more years of Barack Obama.

Anti-Global Warming Scientist Site

Dr. Spenser is one of those non-existent scientist who does not believe in man made global warming. Al Gore and his pals have said over and over and over that there is no legitimate scientific opposition to their global warming view. Even the supreme court bought the argument of the cap-and-trade crowd, not that they even tried to get the facts. The press of course repeats it every chance they get. Chickenshit to the max.

I try to take a look at Dr. Spenser's site as often as I can"

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Art Bell Continues the Non-Debate

I sent Art Bell the following:

"As soon as I have the time, I will put a new post on my blog: Art Bell Continues the Non-Debate. My website is called chickenshitnewworld.blogspot.com. Pardon the name. I started it chiefly because of the direction things were going. However, it is not an angry website. If anyone is angry about your program tonight, it is because the alternative global warming view is entirely ignored, or mischaracterized. Long ago, we were promised a scientific debate but the proponents debated themselves then declared that the debate was over and we lost.

I realize that Coast to Coast has been great in presenting both sides. I have listened ever since some guy called in about bats i his bedroom about 15 years ago. George Noory especially does a better job than anyone on the air with presenting both sides of all disputed issues. (By the way, man-made global warming is disputed.) So I would ask you to have a rebuttal program yourself. Hearing both sides is only fair."

Art was filling in on Coast to Coast AM for George Norry. I used to agree with most of his views, but tonight, he is off his rocker! The guest, the head of the National Wildlife Foundation was a real global warmy. He said the same old things that we have been hearing for years, as if no arguments to the contrary had ever been advanced. Of course, tonight he talks a lot about the Gulf Oil Spill. Likewise, he does not address the claims that regulations that stopped drilling in safer places helped to cause the spill. He mentions that Republicans and older people are just unable to understand the obvious and are obstructing progress, by which he means cap-and-trade legislation. He does not mention the accusations that PB is a very Democrat leaning company that favored cap-and-trade and donated a million to BHO's campaign.

They do not address the cost of cap-and-trade. They do not mention any alternative defense against global warming, if there is any, man-made or otherwise. They certainly do not mention the massive graft, greed, and conflicts of interest of the cap-and-trade proponents. They question, without phrasing it as such, the value of our constitutional form of government. They do not question the cost to liberty. Art goes along with it all, hook, line, and sinker! He wants "this" done now, by whatever means it takes. I couldn't believe it, he was totally off the deep end.

They ignore the arguments against cap-and-trade. That's nothing new; they only get away with it because of their virtual control of the press. So much can be said about the attitude of the guest (is he a god of the copybook heading?) but I have already said it. I guess it must be repeated. ... to be continued.

Petition to RFK, Jr. RE: Get Some Sense

[left click to enlarge, back arrow to return]

I received a letter from Robert F Kennedy, Jr. today. I was flattered and thought that maybe he had been reading chickenshitnewworld. However as I read the letter I realized that he certainly didn't learn anything if he had been reading this blog or the linked sites. In fact he started out bad-mouthing Sarah Palin, which I thought was very unbecoming and unimaginative. What he wanted was money, like everyone else. He wanted to help some polar bears who he thought were in danger. I was disappointed. I thought that he and a few of his friends could get together enough cash to help hundreds of polar bears.

Anyway, I did not send any money because of his attitude. Besides not liking Her Excellency, Gov. Palin, he was against drilling for oil. Even though some oil companies want to drill on only a very tiny area of Alaska, he is against it. Because he believes in man made global warming (MMGW), he is against oil altogether. He obviously has been taken in by the Al Gore tricksters, too bad.

I did sign and return the petition that he sent, after making a few corrections. As the nephew of a president of the United States and son of an attorney general, I felt he was due that respect. Hopefully, he will use some common sense and stop being a Democrat. I attach the the petition above. On the envelope, I used the Alaska Statehood 50th anniversary stamp and the 3 cent Lincoln Gettysburg address stamp from the 1960's. ("That government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth")

More Global Warming, Emperor still Naked

For radio talk show junkies, there has been plenty of Global Warming discussion lately. There is not much to add to the incessant questioning of what seems like the mass-insanity of the Man Made Global Warming movement (MMGW). However, tonight on Coast To Coast, there was a discussion of the data. Trouble was, without knowing how the data is used in the theory, there is no way of knowing if the fudged data is significant. Of course, as aforesaid ad infinitum at this site, the warmies have not given us a definitive mathematical statement of their theory, so how can we judge? The Coast to Coast guest also calls into question the validity of computer 'models' to arrive at valid conclusions. He also mentions that the same financial brokers who made a mess with the mortgage derivatives, will be in charge of trading carbon credits. Since this would involve billions of dollars, don't we have the right to question and to know? He might also have mentioned that is was computer models that concluded the mortgage derivatives had extremely little risk of default problems. It's been said before: garbage in, garbage out. With global warming it appears that there was garbage in, so don't they need to show us explicitly why it isn't garbage out?

One of the famous studies of CO2 in the atmosphere were the measurements made in Hawaii that gave rise to the MMGW theory. For no reason that they could explain, the CO2 concentrations were rising so they kept up the measurements through the present. The increase was from approximately 325 parts per million to approximately 385 parts per million from 1960 through 2009. My first naive question would be, is that really enough to make any difference? After all, the Green House Effect hypothesis was born to explain warming of the early earth, when CO2 concentrations were .6 to .7 million parts per million. That's about 2,170 times as much as at present. That's a big difference to extrapolate any conclusions of the original hypothesis to the present day.

Albert Einstein was concerned that he was asking the world to believe the theory of relativity without his being able to proof it. This bothered him because he was a real scientist who realised that without proof science would become useless speculation. He offered three experiments that could be performed to prove that his theory was wrong. At the time we did have the technology to perform the experiments. Since then, Relativity's predictions were found to be essentially correct. Einstein acted as the devil's advocate for his own theory. On the contrary, the so-called scientists of global warming censor any dissenting views and are very defensive of their theory. If truth was their goal, they should be happy to listen to dissenters. They should insist upon having a devil's advocate. (A term that originated with the Catholic Church's practice of appointing someone to research a candidate for sainthood and to argue why he or she is not worthy of canonization.)

Why would supposedly intelligent world leaders expend trillions of their people's resources based upon the word of these disreputable so-called scientists? Instead of listening to the politicians in Copenhagen, they should listen to a different Dane, Hans Christian Anderson, who said the emperor has no clothes.

To mention one last questionable claim: Man is causing melting of Arctic ice. I read in 1421, The Year that China Discovered America, that 580 years ago, the Chinese sailed around the north coast of Greenland. It must have been melting then and there was little human-generated greenhouse gasses then. Also, while reading about my ancestors, the northern Indian
tribes, I found that at the time of early European exploration, the past warming was known to the indigenous people. It was their belief that melting of the ice disrupted the Eskimo whaling. As a result the Eskimos moved south where they ran into my relatives who engaged in warfare with the Eskimos ever since. (My apologies to J. D. Salinger)

My conclusion has long been that Al Gore and his compadres are fools and/or thieves, at any rate their proposals are very dangerous. /See the first post of this blog which consists of the whole story of The Emperor's New Clothes. /

Global Warming Non-Debate Continues

There is so much to find fault with in the stance of man-made-global-warming [MMGW] advocates (warmies) that it is astounding that so little notice is taken of those faults. Let me reiterate a few:

1) The proponent of a policy has the burden of establishing a case for the adoption of their policy. This is particularly true of a major policy change like cap-and-trade, which would significantly increase the cost of our most important fuel sources. Instead of making the case, they ask that we accept on authority alone, the conclusions of scientists. They have never simply and clearly explained either their MMGW theory or their Cap-and-trade proposal, much less made their prime fascia case.

2) Unlike the claim made by proponents, there is not a consensus among scientist that MMGW is a concern. Unfortunately, the government bodies that wield the most political weight in matters of science seem to have been co-opted by the warmies. They will not let the dissenters be heard. They discredit them and the publications in which dissenting views have been published.

3) The internet, being thus far free of government control, does give dissenters a voice. An interesting website that I linked to in an earlier post (and which I will check on) offers several scientific arguments against MMGW. One argument states that whereas it it true that CO2 absorbs and reradiates heat radiation, thus returning to earth heat that would be lost, it absorbs only heat radiated in specific wavelengths. (What wave lengths and under what conditions co2 absorbs radiation and what it does with the heat thus absorbed would be part of the theory that the proponents should be more fully explaining, but which they do not.) The website in question calculates the heat lost due to this process and concludes that even if there was enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb all of the radiation within the given wavelengths, it would not have a significant affect on climate. (Perhaps the proponents have ways of explaining their way around this but they will not say, except that their computer model says that the result will be warming, a LOT of warming, we better really be scared-- and that they say is their scientific opinion.)

4) Eventhough he theory of the proponents is never fully stated (even to a first approximation), they do (or at least did initially) offer empirical evidence of recent warming in support of their theory. This breaks dwon in two ways. a) their methods of measurement have been called into question. Measurements made near cities, for example, are usually higher, as cities grow then the temperatures will increase. Therefore, many of their results taken near cities were merely confirmations of urban growth. (There are other problems with their measurements too.); b) Most temperature measurements , even those of proponents, show that in the very recent past, 15 to 20 years, temperature have gone down. This was while atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased. (This is one of the things they tried to lie about)

5) The Theory of MMGW via CO2 production, (which is the most important part of the theory for public policy) does not explain how the relatively small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere could have a significant affect. (This could be considered a part of objection #2) Even with the increases of CO2 in the atmosphere (which measurements they project by questionable, indirect means to times before measurements were taken), the concentrations are far below 1% of the total atmospheric gasses. This is in comparison to the atmosphere of the early days of planet earth, which other scientist have long told us was about 60% CO2. Connected to this, is the argument that it is the warmer earth that causes the CO2 increases, not the other way around. Dissenters have graphed the changes and they claim that the CO2 increases followed the warming, not the other way around. Again, many details of the theory could be more rationally discussed if they would tell us just what is in their computer model (and what is left out). As it is their model is a black box: we aren't told what goes on inside. This is because, no doubt we are mostly just not as smart as Al Gore and the rest of them. (Prince Charles of Great Britain is apparently another of the hyper intelligent warmies.)

6) An objection to the Cap-and-Trade scheme is that it would not bring about much reduction in the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere anyway. If CO2 really is causing global warming or if something else is causing warming (such as cyclical changes in the sun's output), there may be nothing we can do to reverse it. Therefore, instead of imposing trillions of dollars of burdens on the world economy, which would leave us with virtually no resources for other remedies, we should be spending our money and time on something that would help. The Maldive Islands is understandably concerned about possible rising sea levels, since most of the country is three feet above sea level. Besides lobbying for cap-and-trade (because A. Grore says to), they also created a new island and built a six foot wall around it. Building dikes would be a more efficient use of resources that capping and trading. (I must say that cap-and-trade should win an award as the most astoundingly stupid idea ever. It is obviously a thinly disguised method of obtaining the results that environmentalists have wanted all along, which is a word with much diminished industry. They do not say how we will support ourselves without fossil fuel, the most efficient form of energy discovered to date, with the possible exception of nuclear, which they don't want either.)

7) One of my favorite objections (as I sit here with 10 degree weather outside.) The warmies do not address the advantages to some, if not most areas of the world, that would result from warming. This could easily outweigh the unwanted consequences, and at any rate, should be calculated into the cost-benefit analysis.

8) contiued

Bill Cunningham's Rating Set To Improve

According to Billy Cunningham on his Sunday radio talk show, he is only number 19 on the Barack Husein Obama [BHO] enemies list. After some of his remarks tonight, I think he may make the top ten. He says that Al Gore is a fake, a fraud, and a farce (also a clown and a sycophant). Jimmy Carter is an old fool and BHO did nothing to deserve the Nobel Prize. He later noted the Nevile Chamberlain was considered for a Nobel Prize just before the start of WWII, which he helped to start by backing down from Adolph Hitler. BHO appears to be an appeaser in like manner.

I note that in some translations of "The Emperor's New Clothes," the fake tailors are awarded a prize for their beautiful work, which no one had the courage to admit they could not see.

Mr. Cunningham talked about BHO organizations ACORN and the Apollo Alliance and the evils inherent therein.

Mr. Cunningham goes on to discuss the past calls from feminists for the resignation of various Republicans and conservatives for sexual contact with younger female employees. (Or even foolish allegations, as in the case of Clarance Thomas.) According to feminists, these relatively innocuous actions were the epitome of exploitation. He asks why the rules are different for liberals such as Bill Jefferson (B. J.) Clinton and Dave Letterman. He also asks why the remarks of Letterman regarding Sarah Palin and her daughters are regarded as OK by feminists and liberals and the press. He asks about the lack of concern about Roman Polanski, of which Oprah says that he was not guilty of rape rape. Mr. Cunningham and his guest, John Ziggler, discuss many other interesting examples.

I wonder about these things. Obviously many feminists are not really concerned about the treatment of women just as many environmentalists are not concerned about the environment. They are using their feigned outrage as a means of advancing their political aims. The press is obviously going along because it supports the same political aims, as does BHO. I should be on that list too.

Biggest Fools to Ever Hit the Big Time

St. Thomas Aquinas stated that knowledge comes from three sources: authority, tradition, and reason; with authority being the least reliable. Today, Paul Krugman writing in the New York Times, states that, "Al Gore was right: We can't put climate-change on the back burner." Paul Krugman, based upon what he has written, knows little or nothing about atmospheric science. He repeats the Al Gore and global warming lobby's line. This is different that economics, which he does know something about, but most of what he knows is wrong. About global warming and natural science in general, from the arguments he advances, he knows next to nothing. He merely accepts various conclusions of impending doom on authority. This can never be wise. Personally, I have tried to follow the arguments of the proponents of man-made global warming but those arguments lead nowhere. When it gets to the point of calculating the magnitudes, even estimates to within an order of magnitude, there is nothing but a statement of their conclusions. They claim this comes from their mathematical models that others, possibly even they, do not understand. This is complete and blind acceptance of authority. Moreover, authorities whose motives have been called into question. (See 'emotionalizing', i.e. lying, to save the planet. footnote (1)

Claims like this go on and on until it gets to the point that there is no reason to even read articles like the instant one of Mr. Krugman. It offers no new insight and, other than for reasons of piling on, it seems pointless. It bears repeating the quotation from Bastiat: "This is the way an opinion gains acceptance in France. Fifty ignoramuses repeat in chorus some absurd libel that has been thought up by an even bigger ignoramus; and, if only it happens to coincide to some slight degree with prevailing attitudes and passions, it becomes a self-evident truth."
Before I read the article, I wrote a comment on the NY Times website (slightly revised): To Comment in the vein of what passes for deliberative thought today, I will first of all, not read the article, secondly, I will run it through my new and improved 97.265% accurate scientific model, my conclusion:
1) Chickenshit
2) The only fool bigger than Mr. Krugman is Mr. Gore.


1. The outgoing leader of Greenpeace has admitted his organization’s recent claim that the Arctic Ice will disappear by 2030 was “a mistake.”
Greenpeace made the claim in a July 15 press release entitled “Urgent Action Needed As Arctic Ice Melts,” which said there will be an ice-free Arctic by 2030 because of global warming. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/19/ice-capades-greenpeace-recants-polar-ice-claim/

Environmentalism is a Fake

I enjoy hiking, camping, running, photography, and other outdoor activities. I do not like seeing the natural world degraded. I pick up litter and do not leave any behind. Unfortunately, environmental organizations that I have respected in the past have not been honest and I now distrust any sort of environmentalism. They seem more intent on destructionism that preservation. The global Warming hoax is so outlandish that it at long last exposes them for what they are. Environmentalism is being used to advance socialistic type of control over the national economy. This will destroy the only thing about this country that separates us from the rest of the world: FREEDOM. Freedom is the only thing that I write about in this blog.

Ludwig von Mises: "Socialism... is not the pioneer of a better and finer world, but the spoiler of what thousands of years of civilization have created. It does not build; it destroys. For destruction is the essence of it. It produces nothing, it only consumes what the social order based on private ownership in the means of production has created." - Socialism

Regarding global warming there are many sources of scientific inquiry that attempt to explain and refute the warmist ideology. However, it is difficult to refute their theory because the theory has no definitive statement. How do you refute something that does not exist? Opponents almost have to develop their own theory and explain its flaws. Al Gore is a spokesperson for a theory that he says scientists agree upon. Show me the theory. Scientific theories are necessarily stated in mathematical terms that allow for no rhetorical tricks. It is what it is. Global warming theory seems to morph whenever it is attacked. Proponents claim that it exists in the ever expanding, ever improving black boxes of their computer models. That is like the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain or the swindlers behind locked doors weaving the emperor’s non existent new clothes. I want a statement of the theory with numbers that can be checked and that are based upon empirical results, which can also be checked.

A good starting point to understand why manmade CO2 generated global warming is not scientifically plausible is:
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

Global Warming

Once upon a time there lived a vain Emperor whose only worry in life was to dress in elegant clothes. He changed clothes almost every hour and loved to show them off to his people.
Word of the Emperor's refined habits spread over his kingdom and beyond. Two scoundrels who had heard of the Emperor's vanity decided to take advantage of it. They introduced themselves at the gates of the palace with a scheme in mind.
"We are two very good tailors and after many years of research we have invented an extraordinary method to weave a cloth so light and fine that it looks invisible. As a matter of fact it is invisible to anyone who is too stupid and incompetent to appreciate its quality."
The chief of the guards heard the scoundrel's strange story and sent for the court chamberlain. The chamberlain notified the prime minister, who ran to the Emperor and disclosed the incredible news. The Emperor's curiosity got the better of him and he decided to see the two scoundrels.
"Besides being invisible, your Highness, this cloth will be woven in colors and patterns created especially for you." The emperor gave the two men a bag of gold coins in exchange for their promise to begin working on the fabric immediately.
"Just tell us what you need to get started and we'll give it to you." The two scoundrels asked for a loom, silk, gold thread and then pretended to begin working. The Emperor thought he had spent his money quite well: in addition to getting a new extraordinary suit, he would discover which of his subjects were ignorant and incompetent. A few days later, he called the old and wise prime minister, who was considered by everyone as a man with common sense.
"Go and see how the work is proceeding," the Emperor told him, "and come back to let me know."
The prime minister was welcomed by the two scoundrels.
"We're almost finished, but we need a lot more gold thread. Here, Excellency! Admire the colors, feel the softness!" The old man bent over the loom and tried to see the fabric that was not there. He felt cold sweat on his forehead.
"I can't see anything," he thought. "If I see nothing, that means I'm stupid! Or, worse, incompetent!" If the prime minister admitted that he didn't see anything, he would be discharged from his office.
"What a marvelous fabric, he said then. "I'll certainly tell the Emperor." The two scoundrels rubbed their hands gleefully. They had almost made it. More thread was requested to finish the work.
Finally, the Emperor received the announcement that the two tailors had come to take all the measurements needed to sew his new suit.
"Come in," the Emperor ordered. Even as they bowed, the two scoundrels pretended to be holding large roll of fabric.
"Here it is your Highness, the result of our labour," the scoundrels said. "We have worked night and day but, at last, the most beautiful fabric in the world is ready for you. Look at the colors and feel how fine it is." Of course the Emperor did not see any colors and could not feel any cloth between his fingers. He panicked and felt like fainting. But luckily the throne was right behind him and he sat down. But when he realized that no one could know that he did not see the fabric, he felt better. Nobody could find out he was stupid and incompetent. And the Emperor didn't know that everybody else around him thought and did the very same thing.
The farce continued as the two scoundrels had foreseen it. Once they had taken the measurements, the two began cutting the air with scissors while sewing with their needles an invisible cloth.
"Your Highness, you'll have to take off your clothes to try on your new ones." The two scoundrels draped the new clothes on him and then held up a mirror. The Emperor was embarrassed but since none of his bystanders were, he felt relieved.
"Yes, this is a beautiful suit and it looks very good on me," the Emperor said trying to look comfortable. "You've done a fine job."
"Your Majesty," the prime minister said, "we have a request for you. The people have found out about this extraordinary fabric and they are anxious to see you in your new suit." The Emperor was doubtful showing himself naked to the people, but then he abandoned his fears. After all, no one would know about it except the ignorant and the incompetent.
"All right," he said. "I will grant the people this privilege." He summoned his carriage and the ceremonial parade was formed. A group of dignitaries walked at the very front of the procession and anxiously scrutinized the faces of the people in the street. All the people had gathered in the main square, pushing and shoving to get a better look. An applause welcomed the regal procession. Everyone wanted to know how stupid or incompetent his or her neighbor was but, as the Emperor passed, a strange murmur rose from the crowd.
Everyone said, loud enough for the others to hear: "Look at the Emperor's new clothes. They're beautiful!"
"What a marvellous train!"
"And the colors! The colors of that beautiful fabric! I have never seen anything like it in my life!" They all tried to conceal their disappointment at not being able to see the clothes, and since nobody was willing to admit his own stupidity and incompetence, they all behaved as the two scoundrels had predicted.
A child, however, who had no important job and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him, went up to the carriage.
"The Emperor is naked," he said.
"Fool!" his father reprimanded, running after him. "Don't talk nonsense!" He grabbed his child and took him away. But the boy's remark, which had been heard by the bystanders, was repeated over and over again until everyone cried:
"The boy is right! The Emperor is naked! It's true!"
The Emperor realized that the people were right but could not admit to that. He though it better to continue the procession under the illusion that anyone who couldn't see his clothes was either stupid or incompetent. And he stood stiffly on his carriage, while behind him a page held his imaginary mantle.

translation from: http://deoxy.org/emperors.htm
appears to be Public Domain
(Also see: http://hca.gilead.org.il/emperor.html)