Cliff Mass: You will believe. THAT'S AN ORDER!!

Cliff Mass is a professor at a Sate University here, I believe the University of Washington. He wrote a book: The Weather of the Pacific Northwest. The other day, on Public Television,he gave a very interesting lecture regarding the types of local weather patterns and their causes. However, he wrapped up with a quick and dirty condescending discussion of Man-Made-Global-Warming (mmgw). Condescending because, although he obviously had not made a detailed study of the issues, he gave us the same old lines: yes it is real, us scientists say so. You will believe. THAT'S AN ORDER!!

He says we should picture CO2 as a blanket around the Earth. OF COURSE it is warming, he assures us. He does not say, and may not know, what a thread-bare blanket it is. Science is nothing without magnitudes -- measured with NUMBERS -- What a concept.

His discussion consisted of a few statements and a few charts. It was interesting that his pages showing the coming warming were printed in darker and darker shades of red. His graph, employed a highly skewed choice of scale to show that CO2 concentration on earth's atmosphere has grown from a tiny, tiny line at the bottom of the chart straight up, up, up -- It shoots up off the page lake a rocket launched into the stratosphere. In fact the CO2 concentration has increased over 50 or so years from about 300 parts per million to a little over 400 per million. (I believe those are the approximate claimed figures.) So with a different choice of scale, the graph would appear to not even move. The change would not even be visible. Obviously, a choice of scale somewhere in between would be appropriate. Scientists know this; they often spend a few minutes lecturing on the proper choice of scale to convey information on a graph properly. I have never heard a scientist explain how to choice a scale that would be persuasive of a disputed issue. Real scientists go out of their way to develop and sympathetically address the opposing point of view; they do not intentionally misrepresent it. This scientist is a fraud.

By the way, they are constantly telling us that we cannot draw conclusions about climate, which is a very long term phenomenon, from observations over a short period of time. Why then does the CO2 change over a few decades matter? (Because it is caused by industrialization, they will say, and that is something new.) That it is caused by industrialization is a hypothesis yet to be proved. In any case, it is significant that they have not measured the concentrations every 50 years for the last 10,000 years. I do not think they could measure that. They may have connected the dots of many (questionable) observation in ice cores, which have gaps of hundreds if not thousand of years. They assume that past concentrations are continuous and smooth because there was no industrialization to cause spikes in the concentrations. That is, they are assuming as true that which is to be proved. (Which is to say they are self-deluded, dishonest fools.)

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. /

Silent Majority No More

I heard Rep. Dave Reichert (R. Wash.) questioned on a local radio program after he had voted for Cap-and Trade (see http://www.redcounty.com/cap-trade-vote-offers-washington-republicans-one-important-thing ) I wanted to hear why he thought it was a good idea. Instead, I heard him filibuster the interview by going into a long monologue explaining that representatives cannot possible read all of the bills before them. I wanted to ask him why he thought this was just any bill, and not the biggest power grab in history? At least he should insist upon time to read or thoroughly understanding this bill before voting on it. He went on and on about irrelevancies since he obviously didn't know anything beyond a few talking points. I felt like yelling at the radio. If I was there, I would have interrupted him out of sheer frustration with his unwillingness or inability to address an actual issue.

Our legislators have returned to their home states for Congress's August recess. We have all heard how the crowds at their town meetings back home have been characterized: angry unruly mobs doing the bidding of insurance companies by interrupting and shouting down their elected representatives. (We have all heard the far more outrageous accusations of Pelosi et al. See following for a reasonable discussion of the Democrat's response to the exercise of free speech by anyone who disagrees with them: http://www.examiner.com/x-19160-Bucks-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m8d7-Angry-mobs-swastikas-and-healthcare-town-hall-meetings ) Excerpt:

"The so called mobs are angry because they know that the "Affordable Healthcare Act of 2009." is bad legislation and will hurt businesses and those who work hard in this country. It will take away rights and freedoms, steering this country toward a Socialist agenda which Americans do not want. This is the American way. Americans will always speak out against tyranny and voicing dissent. Deal with it!"

Are they loud? Maybe that is because they are tired of not being heard.
Are they interrupting? Maybe it's because they are tired of being fed the same old lies.

As Miss California, Carrie Prejean, said recently to Glenn Beck, "We will not be silenced...[by those who think] tolerance isn't a two way street."