Monday, February 24, 2014
Have you ever seen one of those wild-eyed people with a sandwich board around his neck standing on the corner, screeching incoherently about how the end of the world is coming? Now, what if those people were insisting that you were really the crazy one? What if the newspapers agreed with them and the politicians wanted to pass taxes and spend hundreds of billions to implement their ideas? Sound too unbelievable to be true? Well, guess what? It's happening.
Global warming alarmists are regularly prophesying about doomsday scenarios -- except they're doing it in newspapers and from the stages of swanky resorts where they've flown in their private jets. Unlike the old school soothsayers, the Al Gore's of the world have figured out how to turn doom-mongering into a multi-billion dollar industry.
As you read these global warming predictions, visions, prophecies, fantasies, whatever you want to call them, ask yourself a question: if this is based on science, why do we have these huge differences in scenarios and dates? It's almost as if these people are all just pulling numbers out of their hats and putting them out there instead of basing their projections on any sort of real scientific evidence.
Whoops! Those were all about global cooling, not global warming. My mistake. You see, that was the fashionable doomsday story for alarmists to go on about back in the early seventies and it essentially worked the same way. Mankind is causing the earth to cool and scientists agree we're all going to die! Now, it's mankind is causing earth to warm and scientists agree we're all going to die! See? It's very easy to get those two confused. Now, back to your regularly scheduled doomsday prophecies:
So, wait a second: are we in the middle of an ice age or is the globe afire? Are we passing the point of no return now, is it happening in 2017, did it happen in 2005, or was the UN right that it happened in 1999? Why is there a difference? How did they come up with these numbers in the first place? Do the global warming alarmists, some of whom used to be global cooling alarmists, understand why they were wrong before? Maybe a little less uncritical acceptance of what these people are saying and a lot more skepticism might be in order at this point.
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Global warming "admitters" -- to distinguish you from those of us you call "deniers" -- I have a question for you: Do any of you have an answer to the cataclysm your settled science has proven beyond any possible doubt is coming which does not require totalitarian measures?
Let me rephrase that, in case the connotations of the phrase "totalitarian measures" have not yet passed peer review, in which case their meaning may not be able to reach minds occupying the rarefied atmosphere of pure science. My question, then, is: Do you, or any of your gods of peer review, propose solutions to anthropogenic global climate change which do not involve the violation of property rights, the restraint of liberty regarding matters of self-preservation (i.e., jobs and wealth-creation), the weakening of every nation's sovereignty in favor of increased "global governance," and the expanded empowerment of thousands of bureaucrats, think-tankers, and advisors accountable to no one?
I ask this only because it has become apparent that you admitters, who are undoubtedly on the right side of history -- at least compared with the anti-science Neanderthals over on this side of the fence -- are absolutely at wit's end (or even a little beyond that) in seeking to understand how anyone could possibly continue in ignorance, when both Leonardo DiCaprio and Scarlett Johansson are on the side of Truth. Concerned about your shattered (but scientifically settled!) nerves, I propose to help you out with a little inside baseball concerning the intellectual (yeah, I know, silly word choice) reticence of the unbelievers to join in your celebration of the revealed religion.
Having lived for some time as a kind of fellow-traveler in the ranks of the denier -- I know how your leaders on the political side of things like the word "class" -- I believe I have divined one of the major causes of their decision to remain steeped in blindness. To wit, one of the deniers' real bugaboos about accepting the world's first ever settled science -- and if we can't accept science that certain, then what must we think of the heliocentric universe? -- is that the pure science of global warming seems to have allowed itself to be absorbed completely into a political movement bent on circumventing the rule of law and individual rights in the name of unlimited power. Yes, I know it seems crazy, but some us still imagine we are individual living entities, with a natural urge to preserve ourselves and determine our own paths in life with a view to -- I'll wait for you to catch your breath and stop laughing - the pursuit of happiness, through virtuous action freely chosen and intellectual interests freely pursued.
In light of this archaism of individualism that we choose to cling to -- rather bitterly I'm afraid -- we tend to be somewhat touchy about authoritarianism, regardless of the auspices under which it is pursued. Hence, although we like a bit of national security from our national governments, we tend not to be so keen on government agencies gaining clandestine access to our private communications, fondling our women-folk at airports -- "women-folk" was just to remind you that we're hicks -- or otherwise intruding upon our daily lives in the name of protecting us. Similarly, although we are more than capable of feeling concern for, and sympathy with, the poor, infirm, and elderly, we see no justification in this for the state to confiscate our income -- which is to say our time and labor, i.e., our lives -- in order to do generically and coercively what we could more easily (and in all likelihood more effectively) do through voluntary action, i.e., as free, moral citizens. To put this another way, I do not see how my desire to help someone in need affords me the privilege of forcing my neighbor at gunpoint to do the same.
And this last observation brings us back to the matter at hand. Listen carefully now -- painful as it may be to decipher my non-peer-reviewed accent, I really am trying to do you a favor. After all, we all believe plenty of dumb things in our lives, and get suckered by dozens of false prophets of one kind or another. I see no reason why you climate change admitters should be forcibly divested of your faith. Perhaps, in the long run, it will advance the cause of happiness for you in some unforeseen way, as our most regrettable follies often seem to be able to do. Who knows what benefit might accrue to a true believer of your sort, assuming he does not find himself on the business end of a glass of progressive Kool-Aid before he finds his way back to non-settled reality?
Here, then, is my point. Is it conceivable -- just conceivable -- to you that, having achieved the Nirvana of settled science regarding man-made climate change, you might seek to persuade your unfortunate brothers on the outside to see the light, and to join you in voluntarily altering your collective behavior in the direction of a less carbonated world? And that you might just accept the unfortunate possibility that, should you be unable to persuade us, the imaginary effect you suppose us to be having on the climate may have to continue through to its ultimate imaginary apocalypse, given that the alternative solution -- brute force aimed at curtailing human life -- would be draconian, tyrannical, and inhuman?
The fear we deniers have, and one reason we are unable to submit to all your peer-reviewed , is that your bottom-line answer to these questions is, has been, and apparently always will be "No." Here's the little secret you seem to have overlooked: As long as your AGW advocacy -- has there ever been a more "advocated" scientific hypothesis? -- remains consubstantially linked to progressive collectivist political advocacy, no one out here in the non-settled world is ever going to take you seriously.
Oh, I know -- this is not about totalitarianism; it's just that the severity of the impending cataclysm should we "do nothing" makes strong, coordinated, immediate government action necessary in this case. That "this case is different" mantra has been essential to the cause from day one. And that is exactly what bothers some of us. Where are the global warmists for freedom? Where is just one such person? Instead you have Michael Mann, who has officially parlayed his peer-reviewed status into a Nobel Prize he never actually received, a refusal to release the data he used to settle the science, and a season as the poster boy for the left's new strategy of silencing "deniers" through legal intimidation, via his lawsuit against Mark Steyn and the National Review.
Why is every "concerned" response to the settled science some variation on tyranny, Goebbels-style propaganda ("97 percent of scientists agree"), or violent accusations of "idiocy" (polite version) against everyone who does not swallow the propaganda whole, and follow you into your tyranny? This is your problem: credibility. This may seem strange, given that you have all the peer-reviewed settled science on your side. Unfortunately, you also have Al Gore, Barack Obama, Herman van Rompuy, the United Nations, Prince Charles, and sundry other progressive elite men and organizations on your side. And they are using your settled science as an excuse to impose tyranny. And you are saying nothing against this -- quite the contrary, in fact.
In brief, "I need to take over your life, but it's for your own good," is not a line of argument men who still imagine themselves to be human are likely to accept, regardless of how many models you can provide to show them why you are demanding it. You see? It's a credibility issue after all. For, in our (admittedly unsettled) minds, you are not enlightening us with science; you are enslaving us with lawless government.
In case you still cannot understand what I am talking about, allow me to conclude by seeing your settled cataclysm, and raising you a moral calamity.
I believe our society has become morally unhinged. Our popular entertainment is rife with sounds, words, and images that would have been considered hardcore pornography in the not too distant past, but that are now available to -- indeed, aimed at -- every twelve year old, everywhere, all the time. The effect of this degradation of the sentiments on education, the development of moral character, marriage and family, and adult socio-political life, is as settled, in the sense of unmistakably obvious, as any of your computer climate models -- and even has the added significance of being observable in the real world, rather than merely in the computer model.
I sincerely believe that if this trend continues, there will be no saving civilization and rational thought on this planet, barring a complete breakdown and renewal which could take centuries before anything resembling a decent social order was regained. It is possible -- and I do not exaggerate -- that the only way to turn this around before it is too late would involve, at a minimum, eliminating all modern popular music, and its accompanying imagery, from public availability immediately.
Furthermore, I believe it might be necessary to institute a program of forced "access" to corrective musical forms for every human being -- let's say two hours per day consisting exclusively of Mozart, Bach, Vivaldi and Telemann, with one hour per week allowed for free choice from among any approved selections from any historical period prior to 1820. Anyone caught listening to music composed after that year would face fines or imprisonment, depending on the severity of the offense. One who abstained from his weekly free choice hour for a given number of weeks might be permitted to trade those hours for an hour of some more recent compositions, though the options would of course be limited to avoid overtly negative influences, e.g. Wagner.
Crazy, right? And yet I am one hundred percent sure that if everyone followed a music-listening program similar to the one I have just advised, rather than the one most people have reduced themselves and their children to today, the world would be a better place on all levels, and just might avoid any further moral collapse of the sort that allows people to run submissively into the arms of totalitarian government just because Al Gore or Michael Mann told them to.
I have described, somewhat fancifully, what might save us. And yet I would never actually propose it in practice, or advocate for it during political campaigns, or call people who disagree with me about the effects of Miley Cyrus and Lady Gaga "morons." (Okay, I might do that last one.)
Why not? Because, through it all, and in spite of my belief that all my arguments are likely to be in vain, I cannot accept the proposition that my diagnosis of the ills of modern life, or my prognosis for the future if the current trajectory continues, give me -- or anyone else, elected or otherwise -- the moral authority to impose a new way of life on other human beings against their will. So I am forced by the moral self-restraint of a rational individualist to try to persuade people, to show them what I mean, and to convince them to pursue a better life according to my best lights. I cannot force them at gunpoint, just as they cannot force me.
So why, then, do you climate change admitters unanimously reject this option, and head straight for the Obamas, Kerrys, and Clintons of the world as your saviors? Go ahead, try to persuade me. Bury me in peer-reviewed articles, arguments from authority, decline-hiding fudgable facts and figures, anything you like. I will listen, if your case is at least entertaining. But I will shut you out the moment you begin telling me what I must do, or what governments are going to impose upon me in violation of my natural rights, "for my own good."
As soon as you go that way, we deniers start to suspect that tyranny, not science, was your real motive all along. Get it? Then try to prove us wrong.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/02/where_are_the_global_warmists_for_freedom.html#ixzz2uBrsJLpX Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Thursday, February 20, 2014
What exactly is the one per cent's problem with cheap energy, scientific evidence and free market capitalism?
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Great lakes are on the verge of record ice cover. Now at 87%The heat is hiding in Lake Ontario which is only at 37%. Something about surface to volume ratio.
The total ice cover on the Great Lakes continued to increase in the past seven days. At the rate the ice is growing, ice cover would reach record levels sometime next week.
We also had a mostly clear day Tuesday February 11, 2014. The high resolution satellite was able to generate some fascinating images.
The total ice cover on the entire Great Lakes system is reported at 87.3 percent today, according to the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory(GLERL). The ice cover is up from 77 percent covered seven days ago.
The highest recorded total ice cover on the Great Lakes is 94.7 percent back on February 19, 1979. It should be emphasized that the most modern data set only goes back to 1973.
So the entire Great Lakes system has gone from 77 percent ice covered last week to 87 percent ice covered today. At that rate of increase, the Great Lakes would set a new modern day record for ice cover sometime next week.
Here's a rundown of all the individual lakes ice growth this week:
Lake Superior is almost frozen over, but not completely as of this morning. Lake Superior is now covered 95.3 percent with ice. Last week at this time it was 92 percent covered. At this pace it could get to 100 percent ice covered before the warm-up hits Wednesday of next week. In the modern day data set, Lake Superior was 100 percent ice covered on March 3, 1996.
The high resolution satellite image is even showing a thickness to the southern edge of the ice.
The ice on Lake Michigan grew the most in the past seven days, adding an impressive 29 percent ice. Lake Michigan is now rated as 80 percent ice covered. The highest ice cover in recent times is 93.1 percent on February 9, 1977. At this rate of ice growth, Lake Michigan could set its individual lake record on ice also next week.
Lake Huron is also almost entirely frozen. Lake Huron is covered 94.7 percent in ice. Last week at this time, Huron was covered 85 percent with ice. The record ice cover is 98.3 percent on February 9, 1994. Lake Huron could reach that any day now.
Lake St. Clair
Lake St. Clair is small enough that it is almost entirely ice covered, with 99 percent covered in ice as of today.
Lake Erie is 95.9 percent ice covered, which is up from 93.9 percent ice covered this time last week. You can see that the last few percentage points heading toward 100 percent ice cover take the longest time. Lake Erie has been completely covered in ice three years since 1973. 1978, 1979, and 1996 were ice filled years for Lake Erie.
Lake Ontario is still only 32 percent ice covered, and has only added one-half of one percent of ice cover in the last week. This lack of ice cover in comparison to the other lakes is a mystery to some. I'll solve that mystery. According to George Leshkevich, physical scientist and Great Lakes ice expert at NOAA's GLERL, Lake Ontario has a larger amount of heat storage than it has heat loss. Lake Ontario appears as the smallest Great Lake when looked at from above. But Lake Ontario has three times the volume of water of Lake Erie. Leshkevich says the heat is lost through the surface area, which is small on Lake Ontario. Lake Superior, on the other hand, is much deeper with much more volume, but also has a large surface area for heat loss. Leshkevich also points toward the large volume of relatively warmer moving water that enters Lake Ontario through the Niagara Falls. This rapid water flow certainly keeps some ice from forming.
Will record ice be reached
The temperatures over all of the Great Lakes are going to stay below freezing until next Tuesday. So ice cover will continue to increase from now through next Tuesday. Record ice better be reached by Tuesday, or it may fall short. A several day significant warm-up will move into the Great Lakes from next Wednesday through next Friday. Some ice could even be taken away during that period. After that warm-up another round of below freezing temperatures will move in, but it won't be as cold as it has been recently. Also, we are approaching March and occasional days above freezing will be more common.
So if you are hoping to live through historic ice cover, it will probably have to happen before next Wednesday.
In my mind, if we are going to come this far, we might as well set a new record.
But then let's get on to spring.