War on Climate
It looks like the war on the climate is going to cost the world $1 TRILLION.
Obviously, these studies are shams to get more money out of the pockets of Americans.
I say we call them on it. We tell the world we have $250 billion waiting for them if they can raise the other $750 billion.
In the 100 years it will take for the rest of the world to raise that kind of cash to just THROW AWAY trying to change the climate, we can can rest assured technology would have weened us off of fossil fuels.
Posted by Aaron at 07:37 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Is that a threat?
In the ongoing battle between scientists and environmental armageddonists, we have this thinly veiled threat against human-caused global warming opponent:
"Some of this noise won't stop until some of these scientists are dead," said James Hansen, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, and among the first to sound the alarm over climate change.
Normally, I wouldn't think it was a threat, but leftists are known for their advocacy of offing their political opponents.
But notice something else, this "scientist" dismisses any questioning of his "theories" as "noise." What kind of scientist is that?
Posted by Aaron at 09:25 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
More Cold Water on Algore's Environmental Armageddonism
This man is obviously in KKKarl Rove and Chimpy McBushitler's pocket.
A Russian scientist predicts a period of global cooling in coming decades, followed by a warmer interval.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov expects a repeat of the period known as the Little Ice Age. During the 16th century, the Baltic Sea froze so hard that hotels were built on the ice for people crossing the sea in coaches.
The Little Ice Age is believed to have contributed to the end of the Norse colony in Greenland, which was founded during an interval of much warmer weather.
Abdusamatov and his colleagues at the Russian Academy of Sciences astronomical observatory said the prediction is based on measurement of solar emissions, Novosti reported. They expect the cooling to begin within a few years and to reach its peak between 2055 and 2060.
Bundle up! And don't forget the article about how "global warming" is causing glaciers to GROW.
Posted by Aaron at 11:24 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
More on that Armageddonist Hoax
How is Algore going to explain this one?
Greenland's glaciers have been shrinking for the past century, according to a Danish study, suggesting that the ice melt is not a recent phenomenon caused by global warming.
Danish researchers from Aarhus University studied glaciers on Disko island, in western Greenland in the Atlantic, from the end of the 19th century until the present day.
"This study, which covers 247 of 350 glaciers on Disko, is the most comprehensive ever conducted on the movements of Greenland's glaciers," glaciologist Jacob Clement Yde, who carried out the study with Niels Tvis Knudsen, told AFP.
Using maps from the 19th century and current satellite observations, the scientists were able to conclude that "70 percent of the glaciers have been shrinking regularly since the end of the 1880s at a rate of around eight meters per year," Yde said.
"We studied 95 percent of the area covered by glaciers in Disko and everything indicates that our results are also valid for the glaciers along the coasts of the rest of Greenland," he said.
The biggest reduction was observed between 1964 and 1985.
"A three-to-four degree increase of the temperature on Greenland from 1920 to 1930, and the increase recorded since 1995 has sped up the ice melt," he said.
The effect of the rising temperatures in the 1920s and 1930s was "visible dozens of years later, and that of the 1990s will be (visible) in 10 or 20 years," Yde said, adding that he expected Greenland's glaciers to melt even faster in the future.
So we have to wait another 4-10 years to show the Democrats are anti-science, doomsday prognosticators?
Posted by Aaron at 05:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Global Warming Also Causes Foot Fungus
This is really getting silly and absurd:
The mountains in Europe are growing taller and global warming is partly responsible, scientists say.
Heavy glaciers cause the Earth's crust to flex inward slightly. When glaciers disappear, the crust springs back and the overlaying mountains are thrust skyward, albeit slowly.
The European Alps have been growing since the end of the last little Ice Age in 1850 when glaciers began shrinking as temperatures warmed, but the rate of uplift has accelerated in recent decades because global warming has sped up the rate of glacier melt, the researchers say.
I say that glaciers stunt mountains' growth and should be destroyed.
Posted by Aaron at 03:54 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Global Warming BS
The heat hysteria on TV is driving me insane; it's more annoying than the heat itself. The "climate change" or "global warming" crowd are trying to convince people its getting hotter. It's not. All these record breaking temperatures are just compared to the same day in previous years. It has been hotter, just on different days.
I went to the NOAA climate website where you can find monthly MEAN (average) temperatures which is much more relevant than a spike on a certain day. Look at last year compared to 1937:
Looks like August last year was much more pleasant nationally than in 1937...
Posted by Aaron at 06:33 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Bestill my beating heart
WaPo supports offshore drilling:
FOR THE PAST quarter of a century, the federal government has banned oil and gas drilling in most U.S. coastal waters. Efforts to relax the ban have been repelled on environmental grounds, but it is time to revisit this policy. Canada and Norway, two countries that care about the environment, have allowed offshore drilling for years and do not regret it. Offshore oil rigs in the western Gulf of Mexico, one of the exceptions to the ban imposed by Congress, endured Hurricane Katrina without spills. The industry's safety record is impressive, and it's even possible that the drilling ban increases the danger of oil spills in coastal waters: Less local drilling means more incoming traffic from oil tankers, which by some reckonings are riskier. Although balancing energy needs with the environment is always hard, the prohibition on offshore extraction cannot be justified.
Posted by Aaron at 06:27 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Bush Hates Mammoths
Let's see. Bush hates: black people, brown people, the air, the water, the "little guy," car drivers, steel workers, the poor, cats, hippies, traitors and now the wooly mammoth:
Climate shifts were probably responsible for the extinction of the mammoth and other species more than 10,000 years ago, not over-hunting by humans, according to new research published on Wednesday.
Radiocarbon dating of 600 bones of bison, moose and humans that survived the mass extinction and remains of the mammoth and wild horse which did not, suggests humans were not responsible.
"That is what this new data points out," said Dr Dale Guthrie of the University of Alaska in Fairbanks.
"It is not that people weren't hunting these creatures. But climate would have reduced the numbers considerably," he added in an interview.
Dammit! Al Gore warned all those Eskimos and Inuits that crossing the land bridge in their haughty SUVs would destroy the earth.
Posted by Aaron at 06:42 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Let's send Al Gore to Solve this problem, immediately
New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change
I am still trying to get my head around how all of our SUV fumes are making it to Jupiter...
...oh, my bad. BUSH AND HALLIBURTON!
Posted by Aaron at 02:20 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
America's Environment is Getting Cleaner
Shhh, don't tell Algore:
Since 1970, carbon monoxide emissions in the U.S. are down 55%, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Particulate emissions are down nearly 80%, and sulfur dioxide emissions have been reduced by half. Lead emissions have declined more than 98%. All of this has been accomplished despite a doubling of the number of cars on the road and a near-tripling of the number of miles driven, according to Steven Hayward of the Pacific Research Institute.
...If arguments were won through the use of italics, Mr. Gore would prevail in a knockout. But as Mr. Hayward notes in his "Index," the environmental movement as a whole has developed a credibility problem since the first Earth Day 36 years ago. In the 1970s, prominent greens were issuing dire predictions about mass starvation, overpopulation and--of all things--global cooling. Since then, population-growth estimates have come way down, biotechnology advances have found ways to feed more people than the doomsayers believed possible, and the global-cooling crisis has become the global-warming crisis without missing a beat.
...Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, and the environmental movement pounced. The image of an American city filled with water proved irresistible to those who have been warning for years about rising sea levels--never mind that the cause was one unusually powerful storm and that New Orleans was built below sea level in the first place. As Mr. Gore puts it, Katrina "may have been the first sip of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us over and over again until we act on the truth we have wished would go away." If that language sounds familiar, that's because Mr. Gore borrowed the image from Winston Churchill, who used it to describe the Nazi menace in Europe in the 1930s.
Of course, this is the same thing that Algore did to bloggers calling us "Digital Brownshirts" a la Hitler and Nazi Germany.
Posted by Aaron at 09:24 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Environmentalism as Religion
[I am waiting for permission to post part of his lecture]
Posted by Aaron at 01:49 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
For Dr. Sid, Solar Expert ;-)
Dr. Sid is an avid reader so I am just teasing. But he claimed the sun hasn't changed much in the last 100 years (or its output). I said it has and he asked for evidence. Here it is:
In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.
The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
The sung increasing output has only been monitored with precision since satellite technology allowed necessary observations. walking is not sure if the trend extends further back in time, but other studies suggest it does.
"This trend is important because, if sustained over many decades, it could cause significant climate change," walking said.
This is from Space.com. on March 20, 2003. There is another article today that also discusses the global warming hysteria (the secularists version of the apocalypse):
Global warming may not be as dramatic as some scientists have predicted.
Using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings, Duke University scientists announced yesterday that "the magnitude of future global warming will likely fall well short of current highest predictions."
Supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, the Duke researchers noted that some observational studies predicted that the Earth's temperature could rise as much as 16 degrees in this century because of an increase in carbon dioxide or other so-called greenhouse gases.
The Duke estimates show the chances that the planet's temperature will rise even by 11 degrees is only 5 percent, which falls in line with previous, less-alarming predictions that meteorologists made almost three decades ago.
In recent years, much academic research has indicated otherwise, often in colorful terms and citing the United States as the biggest contributor to global warming. This month, a University of Toronto scientist predicted that a quarter of the planet's plants and animals would be extinct by 2050 because of rising temperatures. On Wednesday, two geophysics professors at the University of Chicago warned those who eat red meat that their increased flatulence contributes to greenhouse gases.
Last year, Oregon State University research linked future "societal disruptions" with global warming, while the Carnegie Institution reported that the insulating influence of northern forests alone would raise the Earth's temperature by 6 degrees. In 2004, Harvard University scientists informed Congress that warming had doomed the planet to climatic "shocks and surprises."
The Duke research, however, found substantial ups and downs in the Earth's temperature before modern times, countering other studies that confine noticeable temperature increases to the industrialized era. Marked climate change in other centuries resulted from "external forcing," said the Duke findings, citing volcanic eruptions and other influences.
Posted by Aaron at 08:58 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
File This Under Ewww: Porn for the Planet
Remember the couple who had sex at the live concert "for the environment?" Tommy and Lenora bill themselves "F*** for Forest," and they've taken it to a new level: They have a website where people whom they have recruited are shown cavorting (nice euphamism, eh?) amongst the trees, and subscription fees to view the site go toward saving the environment--specifically, the rainforests (formerly known as jungles). They call the people who perform in their videos "sexual environmental fighters."
So far, they've raised over $100,000.
"I was just so tired of crying about the state of nature in the world, you know?" says Tommy when he finally pitches up. "Human tragedy, you know, I can deal with. September the 11th, terrorism, war, all those kind of things. But when I see destruction of the forests, the state of rivers, I just feel like killing myself."
As Linus might say, "Good grief, Charlie Brown!"
Posted by Pam at 12:10 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Robert Redford's Priorities
Would someone please smack Robert Redford upside the head?
The actor is looking for support in his trashing of the upcoming oil drilling in Alaska.
In a letter (that one can conveniently e-mail to one's likeminded friends) on the National Resource's Defense Council website, Redford has this to say about the drilling (this is only part of the missive):
Dear Friend,
No one voted on Election Day to destroy the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But President Bush is now claiming a mandate to do exactly that.
Congressional leaders are pushing for a quick vote that would turn America's greatest sanctuary for Arctic wildlife into a vast, polluted oil field...
Don't believe for a second that the president is targeting the Arctic Refuge for the sake of America's energy security or to lower gas prices at the pump.
President Bush knows full well that oil drilled in the Arctic Refuge would take ten years to get to market and would never equal more than a paltry one or two percent of our nation's daily consumption. Simply put, sacrificing the crown jewel of our wildlife heritage would do nothing to reduce gas prices or break our addiction to Persian Gulf oil.
But if the raid on the Arctic Refuge isn't really about gas prices or energy security, then what is it about?
It's the symbolism.
The Arctic Refuge represents everything spectacular and everything endangered about America's natural heritage. It embodies a million years of ecological serenity . . . a vast stretch of pristine wilderness . . . an irreplaceable birthing ground for polar bears, caribou and white wolves...
It is the greatest living reminder that conserving nature in its wild state is a core American value. It stands for every remnant of wilderness that we, as a people, have wisely chosen to protect from the relentless march of bulldozers, chain saws and oil rigs.
And that's why the Bush administration is dead set on destroying it.
Yeah, that's it Robert...the idea behind drilling in Alaska is not to ease the energy crunch and dependence on Middle Eastern oil, but to destroy the pristine wilderness and ruin life for caribou and Leftists.
He calls ANWR our "public estate," yet how many of us have ever visited? How many of us want to? Photos of the bleak landscape don't exactly grace too many travel brochures.
Does Redford own a private jet? If he doesn't, I'd be surprised. What about all of his cronies who fly out to the Sundance Film Festival that he founded? Do they fly commercially with the rest of the rabble? How much gas do those private jets guzzle every time some "star" needs to go to a private spa or a film premiere?
Meanwhile, Redford is a big fan of Fidel Castro, dictator of Communist Cuba. He flew down there in January to promote the film he backed, The Motorcycle Diaries, a rose-colored glasses view of the early life of Ernesto "Che" Guevara, the Marxist guerrilla who joined forces with Castro to take over Cuba in the 1950s.
"I came to present the film that I produced on Che Guevara and I am very happy to be in Cuba," Redford told Reuters before the private screening at Havana's Charles Chaplin cinema theater.
Private screening? I wonder how many average Cubans could actually afford to see the film (even if they really wanted to)?
Redford sings the praises of the likes of Guevara, who "presided over the Cuban Revolution's first firing squads. He founded Cuba's "labor camp" system—the system that was eventually employed to incarcerate gays, dissidents, and AIDS victims," according to Slate.com.
That's funny...I thought the Left was for gay rights. Why would Redford celebrate someone who exterminated them like vermin? Didn't Hitler do stuff like that? Isn't Hitler excoriated by the Left? (In fact, isn't Bush often likened to Hitler? The hypocrisy is stifling.)
Let me get this straight: Robert Redford is worried about caribou in a relatively tiny section of Alaska, but he can't see the suffering of Cubans under the iron-fisted rule of one the worst dictators of modern times. He bashes President Bush for trying to ease our energy woes, yet people in Cuba are making do with cars and other goods that go back to the time Castro took over in 1959? Not to mention the scores of people who try to make it to America on makeshift boats, courting death in the process?
When will Redford learn who the real enemy is? And if he does, will he apologize to the rest of us who have had to listen to his drivel?
When will Redford apologize to the Cubans?
Posted by at 12:11 PM | Comments (12) | TrackBack
Global Warming Mythology
Don't miss Michael Crichton will be on C-Span2's BookTV discussing his new book, State of Fear, that he wrote after long research into the fantasy that human beings cause global warming. Do I believe that the earth is not warming? I don't know...but I do know that the earth warming probably has more to do with the SUN than my CAR. The program starts at 9:30 EST. You can also watch it online here.
UPDATE: I am going to live blog the program, it is very good. See below...
OMG, Michael is not only very educated (harvard college and medical school), but he's handsome and literally 9 FEET TALL! WOW.
_____
Great suggestion...when a government gives a grant to research something scientifically, it needs to give a grant to three different organizations that are opposed to each other and let them know that:
1. The organizations will be able to review each other's data and work.
2. The studies will be published simultaneously.
3. The studies in their entirety will be published on the web.
Therefore, you will not have politically active organizations fudging studies to prove their point if it can be picked apart by the likes of us!
He really is intelligent and impressive...he looks like a doctor and not an author.
_____
The term "Knowledge Workers" was discussed. 1 in 3 American workers are "Knowledge Workers" and that because of this there needs to be a new field of information liability. More on when he explains it...
_____
Arsenic levels: 50 parts per billion over the last 70 years. Clinton proposed 10 parts per billion vs. W. proposing 20 parts per billion. Therefore, even though the arsenic levels are still 50 parts per billion, because Bush didn't want to drop it to 10 parts per billion instead of 20 parts per billion: Bush is putting arsenic in your water!
Oy Vey!
_____
When do we develop desirable technologies? Never. Other than Space and the Manhattan Project, crash programs in science has NEVER worked (e.g. LBJ's War on Cancer). Legislation should be about procedures and NOT outcomes.
_____
How do we regulate a Knowledge Society?
Compares 1930's promise of "planned cities" to 1980s Blade Runner showing of more "organic" cities that grow out of necessity. Today, people are trying to regulate and manage society that is impossible...no central planning ever works.
[personal note: just like socialism and communism]
How are we going to control things like nuclear and bio technology? Some of this stuff can now be done in a garage!
[personal note: this is why meth usage is such a danger because the drug can be produced in anyone's kitchen]
No country in the world has solved the health problem well (either the US OR the central planning--of 1930--of socialistic states).
Control and central planning of knowledge is iimpossible.
_____
Can we manage complex natural systems: the Environment?
The view of the environment in the last 30 years has totally changed.
The "Balance of Nature" (just get people out of the environment and wall off the environment) was proven false.
The "more sophisticated American Indian" actually BURNED DOWN OLD GROWTH FORESTS because they affected game.
Nature/Environment changes regardless of man...something environmentalists do not understand.
Yellowstone looked so good because the American Indian hunted game to the edge of extincton: But with the game there now the landscape now looks worse because they eat everything.
You cannot manage a complex system based on a philosophy. Likens the environment with the rearing of children. You cannot just choose a philosophy (like environmentalism/Dr. Spock) and stay within that framework no matter what. You will destory both the environment and your child.
All of this will cost TOO MUCH MONEY to try to make Yellowstone look like you want it to.
Posted by Aaron at 09:21 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack