Anthro-centric global scare-mongering, XXXII

Another computer model follows a geometric trend line upward and concludes ... wait for it! ... that about half the climate zones in the world will "disappear" by 2100! No, silly, those parts of the globe won't evaporate or melt, they'll just become different climate zones! Just, you know, warmer. The article doesn't give a lot of detail. We'll have "unfamiliar climes" around the equator and in the present rainforest belts, according to the computer models.

And, of course, there's the threat to animals:

The trend poses the greatest threat to areas of rich, but threatened, animal and plant life, in regions such as the Himalayas, the Philippines and African and South American mountain ranges. The changes could threaten some species with extinction and also displace or fragment local human populations.

It's the equivalent of Bill Clinton's "It's for the children", in the global warming imbroglio.

Of course, those computer models can't model the past at all. That's one of the curious features about this whole global warming modeling craze: just plug in some assumptions into the various models and you get a wonderful 300-400% variation in the results. A former Vice President's "documentary" about global warming can then fan the flames of fear, uncertainty, and doubt, goading us into doing something, anything to avert the holocaust to come.

But when asked to model the past, things that have actually happened climate-wise in other words, nobody seems interested. Natural variations in climate over the past 1000 years that had nothing to do with man-made causes don't seem to interest these folks at all. It's the glorious prospect of gaining control over the global affairs of all mankind that trips their trigger, while denying developing nations the chance to develop.

Then, of course, mention that atomic power could remove gobs of CO2 from the air and whoa! You're worse than the CO2 polluters, you nuclear nut-job you!

Bah! I have faith that peoples' good sense and resistance to scare-mongering will win out and people like Al Gore and his ilk can fade into well-deserved obscurity.

Zero intelligence, XCV

I don't know what to make of this story. The state of Washington public school system appears to be ready to change the content of the state-wide 10th grade Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) by removing the math and science sections. It appears that the reason is that too many students were flunking those parts of the test:

But the proposed remedy is generating a lot of concern because it could mean big changes in what students are expected to learn, and how they're tested.

Nearly 85 percent of the students in that class who've taken the exam have passed reading and writing. But it's a different story in math and science, with just 56 percent passing math and 38 percent passing science.

Two bills under consideration — one passed by the House, a similar version by the Senate — would phase out math and science on the 10th-grade WASL. The state Board of Education then would select new tests in algebra, geometry and biology to be given right after students finish courses in those subjects.

The math WASL now includes probability and other topics in addition to algebra and geometry. The science WASL covers more than biology.

The House bill also says the new exams "must rely" on multiple-choice questions, which the WASL doesn't. It has some fill-in-the-bubble items, but among its hallmarks are short-answer and "extended response" items that require students to solve problems, apply what they've learned, or explain how they arrived at an answer.

I have very mixed feelings about all of this. My wife and I have just brought our sophomore back into our home-based private education program. We had serious concerns about the school environment and its contribution our 10th-grader's unwillingness to work. So, from that perspective, it's not hard for me to believe that test scores in math and science have tanked.

On the other hand, I was not in favor of the No Child Left Behind Act. It urged states to try a bit too hard to get a share of some serious federal dollars. Now those states have found that it isn't so easy feeding from the federal trough.

On the gripping hand, Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy holds for school systems as well as big companies and the government. The government-funded public matriculation centers have made their own bed. It's unfortunate that we spend so much for such mediocre results, but it's apparently what we want. At least in Neenah the majority voted for the lastest school funding referendum and I'm sure there are more to come.

Better living through lefty activism

The inspiring things one finds on the GoreNet!

Here's something you don't see every day

Public school 6th graders determining for themselves that humans don't cause global warming! Somehow the kids at Trail Ridge Middle School in Longmont, CO, have shaken off the indoctrination and put anthro-centric global warming on trial:

Humans don’t cause global warming, a jury of sixth graders at Trail Ridge Middle School concluded Thursday after hearing opposing arguments from their peers.

“They’re pretty young for this kind of thinking. They did great,” paleontology teacher Ken Poppe said after the 40-minute “trial” in his classroom.

With Earth’s warming accepted as a tenet, pre-teen “lawyers” and “scientists” debated whether humans have caused it.

Eleven jurors listened intently as prosecutors and defendants flashed contradictory graphs tracking global temperatures, carbon dioxide levels, polar ice cap statistics, volcanic activity and sea surface temperatures — all of which were found Wednesday in the school’s computer lab.

“The earth has warmed and cooled over many years. If it’s caused by CO2, why haven’t the charts shot up?” Poppe’s son and lead prosecutor Caleb argued during a rebuttal.

In a climax that sent half the class to its feet and forced the judge to call for order, opponent Monique Nem slapped a contradictory graph onto the prosecution’s table.

“We’ve proven you wrong! The CO2 levels have shot up,” she said.

The jury responded more warmly, however, to Caleb Poppe’s response: The graphic cited a Hawaiian source; Hawaii has volcanoes; volcanoes emit CO2.

In closing arguments, Alexia Hegy said global temperatures actually decreased in the 1960’s, while the global population rose. Humans cannot be at fault, she concluded.

With the final word, defense attorney Sarah Steed countered: “It all comes back to us, the people — not the sun, not the weather. We need to turn off lights when we don’t need them. Bikes can work. The environment can be richer.”

Seven of 11 jurors decided humans are not to blame, but everyone agreed classroom debates make for fun learning.

“It was a hard decision, because both sides made good points,” said student Samantha Roberts.

Ken Poppe said he let students choose which side of the debate to argue. Poppe personally believes global warming is cyclical and not affected by humans, while his Colorado State University student aide David Richards believes the opposite. Both, however, said they presented both sides equally to the students leading up to Thursday’s debate.

At the end of the article Poppe related that one parent expected him to show Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" before the debate and present it as fact. This, unfortunately, is pretty much the position that Mr. Gore takes himself. He doesn't want to be confronted with opposing viewpoints or data; he wants a clear field and an audience willing to suspend disbelief.

Magna est veritas, et praevalet

May the Truth Win! That's the challenge issued by the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to erstwhile Vice President, Al Gore:

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley presents his compliments to Vice-President Albert Gore and by these presents challenges the said former Vice-President to a head-to-head, internationally-televised debate upon the question “That our effect on climate is not dangerous”, to be held in the Library of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History at a date of the Vice-President’s choosing.

Forasmuch as it is His Lordship who now flings down the gauntlet to the Vice-President, it shall be the Vice-President’s prerogative and right to choose his weapons by specifying the form of the Great Debate. May the Truth win! Magna est veritas, et praevalet.

Given at Carie, Rannoch, in the County of Perth, in the Kingdom of Scotland, this 14th Day of March in the Year of our Lord Two Thousand And Seven.



The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Carie, Rannoch, PH17 2QJ, Scotland
011 44 1882 632341
monckton@mail.com

I'd say, "Put up or shut up, Mr. Vice President!"

The spunkiest political ad ever

The Truth

The BBC has been the source of some fabulous television over several decades. My personal favorites are "I, Claudius", the Sherlock Holmes series with Jeremy Brett in the title role, "Cadfael", "Jeeves and Wooster", and "Pride & Prejudice" with Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth.

But today I'm in a state of complete admiration over a broadcast that might put a crimp in the juggernaut of anthro-centric / anthropogenic global warming: "The Great Global Warming Swindle". The full 75-minute program is available on YouTube. I offer it here for your delectation and enjoyment.

Anthro-centric global scare-mongering, XXXI

It's interesting to me to see the sorts of people that gravitate to the anthro-centric global warming movement. This article quotes James Lovelock, "a renowned environmental scientist":

"Before this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic."

I thought at first that the guy was just another global warming doom-sayer, but he's a doom-sayer with a difference. That is, he has very strong ideas about what should be done to prevent the doom he predicts.

Lovelock is the originator of the "Gaia" hypothesis:

The close interrelation between life and its environment, and its philosophical significance, was noted by the British chemist James E. Lovelock and the American biologist Lynn Margulis. They called this idea of complementary evolution of life and environment the Gaia hypothesis after Gaia, the ancient Greek goddess of the Earth. As Lovelock put it, this is “a new insight into the interactions between the living and the inorganic parts of the planet. From this has arisen the hypothesis, the model, in which the Earth's living matter, air, oceans, and land surface form a complex system which can be seen as a single organism and which has the capacity to keep our planet a fit place for life.”

The Gaia hypothesis is highly controversial because it intimates that individual species (e.g., ancient anaerobic bacteria) might sacrifice themselves for the benefit of all living things. Furthermore, the hypothesis has yet to be formulated quantitatively and in a scientifically testable manner. However, regardless of the eventual validity of the idea that life controls its environment for its own benefit, the recognition that the Earth's physical, chemical, and biological components interact and mutually alter their collective destiny, by accident or design, is a profound insight. [ "climate." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 18 Mar. 2007 < http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-53371 >. ]

Lovelock was embraced by many in the environmental movement until one fateful day in 2004 when he ruined the ride for everybody by declaring that "only nuclear power can now halt global warming". This makes me like the guy. The originator of the New Age Gaia theory believes that technology can save the planet. What a concept!

Anthro-centric global scare-mongering, XXX

It's so annoying! How is a self-respecting global warming group supposed to hold a march to end global warming when there's a snowstorm?

Interfaith group braves storm in climate change trek

By Adam Gorlick
Associated Press
March 16, 2007

NORTHAMPTON, Mass. --As the world's warmest winter on record drew to an end with a weekend snow storm, a group of religious leaders started walking across the state Friday to bring attention to global warming.

"People have been asking me what happens if it snows," said the Rev. Fred Small of the First Church Unitarian in Littleton. "I tell them: 'we walk.'"

The nine-day haul from downtown Northampton to Copley Square in Boston was planned far before forecasts called for a weekend of snow and sleet just a few days before the start of spring.

"It was windy and cold. I was walking on the front of the line and I felt like I was bow of a ship with the wind just coming into my face," said the Rev. Margaret Bullitt-Johns of the Grace Episcopal Church in Amherst, where the group warmed up on bowls of lentil and minestrone soup after walking eight miles in deep snow from Northampton to Amherst."God has given us this Eden, and our behavior is making a mess of it," said the Rev. Jim Antal, president of the Massachusetts Conference of the United Church of Christ, the state's largest Protestant denomination.

The religious walkers are part of Religious Witness for the Earth, a 6-year-old national interfaith environmental organization. Supporters include clergy from the Catholic, Unitarian, Jewish, Episcopalian, and Muslim faiths.

The leaders are calling for individuals, businesses and government entities to reduce fossil fuel emissions by 80 percent by 2050.

With most of its members based in the Northeast, it made sense for the group to walk in Massachusetts. About 1,000 clergy members are expected to take some part in the trek, which will include prayer and information sessions along the way before ending with a rally on March 24.

This falls right in line with this recent story. Global warming is a religion.

Recent commentary: Will I be voting?

Are you planning to vote in the April elections?

(published 19-Mar-2007, Appleton Post-Crescent)

You're kidding, right? Like, I'm in the April elections! Yer darn tootin' I'll be votin'! Two or three times if I can swing it! Say! My district includes the Oak Hill Cemetery. Lots and lots of nice, quiet potential voters. Just have to figure out how to get 'em to the polls. If Mayor Daley could do it, I sure can! [Full disclosure: Your humble, yet deadly accurate, correspondent is the incumbent candidate for 3rd District alderman in Neenah, running against Lee Hillstrom, chairman of the Neenah Park and Rec Commission, and the most gracious and cordial opponent a guy ever had. Come see us at the League of Women Voters Candidates' Forum Thursday at Neenah City Hall, 6:30.] [Further full disclosure: I had nothing whatsoever to do with the selection of today's topic. Absolutely nothing. Nope. Not a thing to do with it. Had no clue. Wasn't aware. Merest coincidence. Really.]

Anthro-centric global scare-mongering, XXIX

This represents the most plausible explanation I've seen yet for the rise in global temperatures: a lack of faith. Since environmentalism is a religion (click here and here), it's only natural that a paucity of faith would lead to our current predicament (emphasis mine):

Drought blamed on lack of faith

By Liam Houlihan
March 11, 2007 12:00am
Article from: Sunday Herald Sun

A LEADING Muslim cleric has blamed the devastating drought, climate change and pollution on Australians' lack of faith in Allah.

Radical sheik Mohammed Omran told followers at his Brunswick mosque that out-of-control secular scientific values had caused environmental disaster.

"The fear of Allah is not there. So we have now a polluted earth, a polluted water, a wasteland," he told a meeting this year.

"What are the people now crying for? The prophet told you hundreds of years ago, 'Look after the water'."

A Sunday Herald Sun investigation also found clerics railing against "evil" democracy, vilifying Jews and Christians and encouraging jihad and polygamy.

And in a popular DVD selling locally, a foreign sheik exhorts Muslims to take control of Australia by out-breeding non-believers.

British-based Sheik Abdul Raheem Green forbade Muslims from having fewer than four children so Australia would become an Islamic state.

So, while you're refueling your faith, make sure to procreate plentifully in order to swarm over the landscape. Oh, and renounce democracy, vilify the Jews, and marry four wives, too.

Stay tuned

Condoleezza Rice may yet be in the running. This op-ed from NewsMax.com gives the details:

Vice President Dick Cheney's health problems have triggered speculation that he may be forced to step down, a move that could potentially throw the Republican 2008 presidential nomination race into disarray.

In the event of the vice presidency becoming vacant through resignation or death, the Constitution requires the president to nominate a vice president who must be confirmed by majority vote of both houses of Congress.

Bush would find it difficult to get a Democratic-controlled Congress to approve a conservative nominee, analysts say. At the same time, neither of the leading GOP 2008 presidential aspirants - former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani or Sen. John McCain of Arizona - would be eager to be seen as President Bush's heir apparent, should he tap either of them for the job.

If, on the other hand, Bush were to replace Cheney with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice - a move analysts consider not unlikely in the event of a vacancy - Rice would almost certainly accept the position only if she was also prepared to run for president in 2008.

I still have a Condi bumper sticker on my car...

My favorite car doing its thing

Bugatti Veyron at top speed
Uploaded by Flabber

Anthro-centric global scare-mongering, XXVIII

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Anthro-centric global scare-mongering, XXVII

Doesn't this just confuse people? I mean, it's coal-burning power plants and pollution-spewing SUVs and burning rain forests and stuff that's increasing the CO₂ levels in the atmosphere which is leading to the big GW, isn't it?

Well, no. According to People Enjoying Tasty Animals (PETA), it's because we're so carnivorous that we're going to fry ourselves.

Norfolk, Va. — This morning, PETA sent a letter to former vice president Al Gore explaining to him that the best way to fight global warming is to go vegetarian and offering to cook him faux “fried chicken” as an introduction to meat-free meals. In its letter, PETA points out that Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth—which starkly outlines the potentially catastrophic effects of global warming and just won the Academy Award for “Best Documentary”—has failed to address the fact that the meat industry is the largest contributor to greenhouse-gas emissions.

In the letter, PETA points out the following:

• The effect that our meat addiction is having on the climate is truly staggering. In fact, in its recent report “Livestock’s Long Shadow—Environmental Issues and Options,” the United Nations determined that raising animals for food generates more greenhouse gases than all the cars and trucks in the world combined.
• Researchers at the University of Chicago have determined that switching to a vegan diet is more effective in countering global warming than switching from a standard American car to a Toyota Prius.

PETA also reminds Gore that his critics love to question whether he practices what he preaches and suggests that by going vegetarian, he could cut down on his contribution to global warming and silence his critics at the same time.

“The single best thing that any of us can do to for our health, for animals, and for the environment is to go vegetarian,” says PETA President Ingrid E. Newkirk. “The best and easiest way for Mr. Gore to show his critics that he’s truly committed to fighting global warming is to kick his meat habit immediately.”

You just can't win with these people! So, if we all become vegans and just let those doomed meat animals die, we'll save the planet! Oh, gawd!

And doesn't this make more sense?

"I think this is a turning point and in five years the idea that the greenhouse effect is the main reason behind global warming will be seen as total bollocks." Thus spake Martin Durkin, director of a new documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle". From the article:

One major piece of evidence of CO2 causing global warming are ice core samples from Antarctica, which show that for hundreds of years, global warming has been accompanied by higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

In ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ Al Gore is shown claiming this proves the theory, but palaeontologist Professor Ian Clark claims in the documentary that it actually shows the opposite.

He has evidence showing that warmer spells in the Earth’s history actually came an average of 800 years before the rise in CO2 levels.

Prof Clark believes increased levels of CO2 are because the Earth is heating up and not the cause. He says most CO2 in the atmosphere comes from the oceans, which dissolve the gas.

When the temperature increases, more gas is released into the atmosphere and when global temperatures cool, more CO2 is taken in. Because of the immense size of the oceans, he said they take time to catch up with climate trends, and this ‘memory effect’ is responsible for the lag.

Another:

The programme claims there appears to be a consensus across science that CO2 is responsible for global warming, but Professor Paul Reiter is shown to disagree.

He said the influential United Nations report on Climate change, that claimed humans were responsible, was a sham.

It claimed to be the opinion of 2,500 leading scientists, but Prof Reiter said it included names of scientists who disagreed with the findings and resigned from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and said the report was finalised by government appointees.

The documentary even features the co-founder of Greenpeace:

Patrick Moore is shown saying: "Environmentalists have romanticised peasant life, but this is anti-human.

"They are saying the world’s poorest people should have the world’s most expensive form of energy – really saying they can’t have electricity."

So, will this anti-global warming documentary have a chance at an Academy Award nomination? Not in a million years!

Finally, putting the onus right on the politicians where it belongs:

Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London , who also features in the film warned the issue was too complex to be down to one single factor, whether CO2 or clouds.

He said: "The greenhouse effect theory worried me from the start because you can’t say that just one factor can have this effect.

"The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be, or indeed of continuing to produce CO2.

"It’s ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2C or 3C."

Now, doesn't this make sense?

Global warming caused by increased solar activity? No! It can't be! Humans cause global warming!! Everybody knows that!!!

Well, here's a Russian scientist who suggests otherwise:

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

But what's the sun got to do with global warming which is human-caused? HUMAN! Do you hear me?!?!?!

The story continues by pointing out

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

Sounds like that'll hit sooner than global warming, anyway. The recent TV ad produced by fightglobalwarming.com says that irreversible global warming changes will have occured in 30 years. So how about waiting 20 years to see if Abdussamatov's theory is correct?


Speaking of fightglobalwarming.com, they've got email updates with tips on how you can fight global warming. From the site:

Sign up for updates and tips on how you can help. We'll get you started with our Low Carbon Diet Guide.

Some things are beyond parody.

High above the fray

One thing that's very attractive about astronomy and solar system exploration is the feeling one gets of being detached from the crazy goings-on here on this dizzy planet.

Here we have the latest from the Cassini spacecraft busily orbiting Saturn, giving us breath-taking views of the 6th planet. The one above was composed from 36 separate images. The planet itself is over-exposed to give a better view of the rings.

Here's the link to the NASA Cassini page. There you can find a huge version (4088 x 2908 pixels) of this photo to download if you're so inclined. I sure am. It's now the wallpaper for my Windows desktop.

Zero intelligence, XCIV

"School authorities confiscated the tape." This would have been a much more significant story if that hadn't happened; that is, if the students had managed to post it on YouTube.

What am I talking about?

Tennessee High School Students Make Porn Film Between Classes

Thursday, March 01, 2007

MAYNARDVILLE, Tenn. — A group of Tennessee high school students are in hot water for trying to make a steamy porn movie between classes.

Four female and two male students were punished after a drama teacher caught them filming the flick in a Union County High School classroom.

A rip snorter!

It's hard to beat Ann Coulter for outrageous, inflammatory, and hackle-raising commentary. This time she's after the global warmists. Some excerpts:

Simply consider what noted climatologists Al Gore and Melissa Etheridge are demanding that we do to combat their nutty conjectures about "global warming." They want us to starve the productive sector of fossil fuel and allow the world's factories to grind to a halt. This means an end to material growth and a cataclysmic reduction in wealth.

It does not occur to them that someone has to manufacture the tiles and steel and glass and solar panels that go into those "eco-friendly" mansions, and someone has to truck it all to their beachfront properties, and someone else has to transport all the workers there to build it. (And then someone has to drive the fleets of trucks delivering the pachysandra and bottled water every day.)

Our lives depend on fossil fuel. Steel plants, chemical plants, rubber plants, pharmaceutical plants, glass plants, paper plants –- those run on energy. There are no Mother Earth nursery designs in stylish organic cotton without gas-belching factories, ships and trucks, and temperature-controlled, well-lighted stores. Windmills can't even produce enough energy to manufacture a windmill.

"Global warming" is the left's pagan rage against mankind. If we can't produce industrial waste, then we can't produce. Some of us — not the ones with mansions in Malibu and Nashville is my guess — are going to have to die. To say we need to reduce our energy consumption is like saying we need to reduce our oxygen consumption.

If we accept for purposes of argument their claim that the only way the human race can survive is with clean energy that doesn't emit carbon dioxide, environmentalists waited until they had safely destroyed the nuclear power industry to tell us that. This proves they never intended for us to survive.

Love her or hate her, there aren't many that can turn a phrase like she can.

Do I associate myself with her remarks? To the extent that I believe that the foundation of future political action taken by governments to attempt to circumscribe anthropogenic global warming will be based on the insufficient precautionary principle, yes. The precautionary principle, in my humble yet deadly accurate opinion, is a fancy justification for legislating good intentions. Michael Crichton put it more pungently:

It is a nice way of saying, "We got ours and we don't want you to get yours, because you'll cause too much pollution."