I figured for my 100th entry, I’d make it a big
one. Especially in light of the fact that a recent
editorial in the ChicoBeat
said that I’m completely wrong. Now if I’m wrong, and I see compelling and undisputable evidence
(not models or projections) that man made CO2 is the culprit and nothing else,
I’ll be happy to stand up in the middle of city plaza and announce "I was
wrong".I expect I’ll know the answer by about January to March 2018, when its expected that solar cycle 24 will be over, and temperatures on earth are postulated to drop. The year end world climate summaries will be published then. Assuming I’m still around, I’ll likely sound off in City Plaza one way or another. By then we’ll have some shade.
In the meantime, tell me how I’m doing. I don’t
hear from a lot of you whom I know are reading. Sound off, good or bad.
What I thought I’d do this time around is post some news and opinions that
aren’t mine related to the subject. These come from science and technology blogs,
forums, and newsletters that I subscribe to.
First let’s start with this headline that’s
been circulating for the past few days:
"This winter is the warmest on record
That’s from a press release from NOAA
and there are many new articles about it with essentially the same
headline. Here’s one from The Weather Channel,
Worldwide winter warmest on record
Here is the original
NOAA and their title says: "NOAA
SAYS U.S. WINTER TEMPERATURE NEAR AVERAGE" and that’s followed by the subtitle "Global
December-February Temperature Warmest on Record"
Hmmm. I have
to wonder. Which is it? and WHY do they essentially cancel each other out? No
worries though, the press will go with the more sensational headline, which is
exactly what AP did.
And here’s what the report said about the USA:
winter temperature for the contiguous United States (based on preliminary data)
was 33.6 degrees F (0.9 degrees C). The 20th century average is 33.0 degrees F
(0.6 degrees C). Statewide temperatures were warmer than average from Florida to
Maine and from Michigan to Montana. Cooler-than-average temperatures occurred in
the southern Plains and areas of the Southwest."
global land and ocean surface temperature was the sixth warmest on record in
February, but a record warm January helped push the winter (December-February)
to its highest value since records began in 1880 (1.30 degrees F/0.72 degrees C
above the 20th century mean). El Niño conditions contributed to the season’s
record warmth, but the episode rapidly weakened in February, as ocean
temperatures in the central equatorial Pacific cooled more than 0.5 degrees
F/0.3 degrees C and were near average for the month."
But, but, its THE
WARMEST WINTER ON RECORD ! We must do something scream the news stories and
blogs. Never mind El Nino is listed as the cause.
"The [news stories] are an excellent example of such unscientific hype. Linking
last winter to global warming is pure speculation that does nothing to promote
rational discussion about global warming. A mild winter might indeed be a result
of global warming or it could be just a peak in some other climatic cycle that
we don’t fully understand. Here in New Zealand, we have just had a very cool
summer, following on from a very cool winter. Where’s some of that global
warming stuff? Could have used it at the beach!
To think that we (as a human race) have a very good understanding of long-term
climatic processes is just arrogance. We have models which we are always
refining, but they will always just be speculation. We look back mockingly at
how ignorant some scientists were 40 years ago (eg. during the 1960s many/most
geologists did not accept tectonic plate theory). It is silly to think that
people forty years from now won’t be doing the same about us. That should be
particularly true of climatic modelling. There is no robust equation for
climate. People essentially just sit down and tweak the models until they get
the results they expect, then use them to generate best case and worst case
analysis. That folks, is hardly science."
In the New BBC
special regarding global warming, one very great point is made.
A man gets in his car and turns on the engine and ponders his effect on the
climate of the earth while completely ignoring the giant nuclear fireball
thousands of times the size of the earth a mere eight light-minutes away.
No one denies that the earth is getting warmer, we just disagree as to the
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer
personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my
personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose
not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where
free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged,
academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my
defined as libelous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say
what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that
universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This
becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from
governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
From Riehl World View:
Gore Funding Plan For "A New World Order"
If your employer began paying you 80 cents on the dollar, but, not to worry,
the other 20 cents was going to support "good causes", thereby giving you value
instead of capital, would you be pleased?
If not, you won’t like what Al Gore has been quietly planning along with his
Global Warming initiative. He and others are working to achieve that very thing
and to bring it about in a manner which doesn’t give you a vote in which values
your dollars end up supporting.
From Michael Crichton’s Website:
Imagine that there is a new scientific theory
that warns of an impending crisis, and points to a way out.
This theory quickly draws support from leading scientists, politicians and
celebrities around the world. Research is funded by distinguished
philanthropies, and carried out at prestigious universities. The crisis is
reported frequently in the media. The science is taught in college and high
I don’t mean global warming. I’m talking about another theory, which rose to
prominence a century ago.
Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston
Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and
Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it
included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret
Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford
University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and
hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the
Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was
built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard,
Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis
was passed in states from New York to California.
These efforts had the support of the National Academy of Sciences, the American
Medical Association, and the National Research Council. It was said that if
Jesus were alive, he would have supported this effort.
All in all, the research, legislation and molding of public opinion surrounding
the theory went on for almost half a century. Those who opposed the theory were
shouted down and called reactionary, blind to reality, or just plain ignorant.
But in hindsight, what is surprising is that so few people objected.
Today, we know that this famous theory that gained so much support was actually
pseudoscience. The crisis it claimed was nonexistent. And the actions taken in
the name of theory were morally and criminally wrong. Ultimately, they led to
the deaths of millions of people.
The theory was eugenics, and
its history is so dreadful —- and, to those who were caught up in it, so
embarrassing —- that it is now rarely discussed. But it is a story that should
be well known to every citizen, so that its horrors are not repeated.
For those who don’t know:
eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention. The purported goals have variously been to create healthier, more intelligent people, save society’s resources, and lessen human suffering. Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral and is based on, or is itself, pseudoscience.
See any similarities
or relevance? Ok, flame away folks…