Northwest Pacific Coast is Changing!

The title wave of connected dots is breathtaking. Every-day-weather is now part of a mosaic of anecdotal (unscientific) global warming proof. But weather changes all the time, you say. And I say the same. Weather does change every day. It's climate that averages and moderates the changes so that we can estimate long-term weather changes.

But what if we mix and match weather with climate, with observations, and with feelings? Some say that we will get true scientific results. But others say that mixing wine with beer and with vodka doesn't make it more precise, it makes it exactly the opposite.

Monday's (Jan 30) Seattle PI tells us that the Northwest Pacific coast is under dramatic change that will result in? Global death, due to global warming, silly!!!! It seems that ocean flows and subsequently fish movements are helping some birds feed better than ever and others to starve. We are told that this is all caused by man's need to drive a car or an SUV. And it's caused by slightly higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

So what does science say? It just nods and ahas it. In fact, there is little science on CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. And worse is that the little science is disputed. Some say that higher CO2 will increase atmospheric temperature while others say it will decrease it. And another faction says it will do nothing.



.

Ten Years or Else!!!

Today's Washington Post tells us that some now say we've got 10 years before it's too late. An article by Juliet Eilperin underscores that "the end of earth is now within sight." What's interesting is that the so called "tipping point" is now on the table. This means that events are now accelerating beyond man's ability to reverse them. And how will this happen?

Self absorbed climate researchers are now telling us that the "collapse of Greenland's ice sheet and that of Antarctica" will overwhelm the world, sinking Manhattan and south Florida. They say that events are now clearly underway that will assure that these ice sheets will melt. To Eilperin's credit, she includes real measurements that tell us that: "While both the Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets as a whole are gaining some mass in their cold interiors because of increasing snowfall, they are losing ice along their peripheries." Say what? Both are gaining ice, but in the wrong places?

It gets better. "Stanford University climatologist Stephen H. Schneider, who is helping oversee a major international assessment of how climate change could expose humans and the environment to new vulnerabilities, said countries respond differently to the global warming issue in part because they are affected differently by it. The small island nation of Kiribati is made up of 33 small atolls, none of which is more than 6.5 feet above the South Pacific, and it is only a matter of time before the entire country is submerged by the rising sea."

Imagine an entire nation and culture now ending. So I checked on the Nation of Kiribati. It seems the government has asked Australia to allow its citizens to emigrate there because they charge that Australia is part of the CO2 pollution that is raising the sea level. But Pacific Magazine's Michael J. Field writes otherwise. "The problem, however is this: the Pacific Ocean has not risen in the last decade. The data does not support any sea-level rise at all says Wolfgang Scherer, the director of Australia's National Tidal Facility at Flinders University in Adelaide. The facility, funded by Australian aid, has over the last decade installed tide gauges across the Pacific, including one at Tuvalu's capital atoll, Funafuti. Results are 0.00 gain in sea level."

In fact, the only measure is that the "sea level is lowering." For me it's again fact over fiction. If it's so clear and apparent that the earth is at risk, where's the beef? Not at the Washington Post or in Greenland or Antarctica and especially not in Kiribati.

2005 Was a Warm Year

The news is in. Year 2005 was possibly the warmest in 10,000 years by nudging 1998 for the not-so-special honor. Envirowars wonders how the scientists feel they can peg this as the warmest in 10,000 years. And we of course feel that even if it was the warmest, why was it and what caused it? These questions often seem beyond reasonable discourse because global warming is a political concept often unsupported by real science.

It's probably easy to agree that the Earth's not been very warm since the top of the last major ice age, which was not-so-coincidentally 10,000 years ago. Dah. But that's not all. We had a major mini-ice age for a few hundred years in the 19th century. Why is that important? For two reasons.

First, this mini-ice age was ignored by climatologists because it didn't fit their climate models. And second, the fact that there was a recent Northern European ice age, means that warming since then MUST accelerate. And what is our planet doing? It's warming as predicted.

So the climate cooled to a point 10,000 years ago until it started warming. Why? Cars or powerplants? Nah. Just another oscillation in the life of what appears to be a very dynamic planet. Then it warmed for about 9,000 plus years and then cooled for about 500 or so. Now it's warming again for a few hundred.

How does man and his footprint fit in? No thinking person knows. Only political scientists parading as real scientists feel they know. So why does it matter that 2005 was the warmest since the end of the last ice age? It doesn't! It's expected that every century away from an ice age will be warmer than the last, unless it starts cooling again for the short-term or begins cooling toward another ice age. Since the planet is dynamic, it will warm or cool. IT WILL NEVER STAY THE SAME!

So envirowars asks again: Does it matter that 2005 was the warmest in 10,000 years? No! Here are the sites for Goddard and National Climate Data for 2005 temperature assessment. Read them and wonder what it means.

Science Defined

Some believe that "big science," one of the world's largest industries, was highjacked by political extremists in the 1980s. On closer examination, few can argue that a political coalition dominates scientific thought. As with other American institutions, the scientific community is religiously and politically cleansed. No God believers or conservative thinkers need apply. So it's important to define the different types of science the people are exposed to every day.

I go to "Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. By Robert Park" for assistance. Park delineates what he means by voodoo science with several adjectives to deplore the misuse of acceptable science.

Admitting that "science fascinates us by its power to surprise," he describes pathological science as misinterpreting events that lead to an inclination to see what is expected. I believe that evolution theory is pathological science. Scientists know there is no God so they backfill that conclusion with make believe feelings.

Park says Junk science is misleading lawmakers and others with little or no scientific proof or background. Environmental science is generally junk science according to many legal and credible scientific minds. Very little enviroscience is based on actual observations. The vast majority is gleaned from biased climate modeling.

Pseudoscience is a belief in space aliens who travel faster than the speed of light, or a belief that wearing magnets in one's shoes will enable a person to draw energy from the earth. Global warming is pseudoscience. Energy control advocates, growth management abusers, and fossil fuel haters are all segments of a political concept that is wrapped around the need to stop man-made-activities because they cause: global warming! This is political corruption.

And fraudulent science, is the evolution of honest error to self-delusion and then to fraud. The endangered species act is a good example of fraudulent science. Early feelings that habitat and fresh water quality caused reduced salmon runs were proved wrong. Yet the fraudulent scientists took the then discredited feelings to extort tax dollars from the government and to steal property rights from the people. This fraud is criminal.

Peer Review and Conclusion Support

There is little question that the scientific community is the ultimate good old boy network. Generally it's not what you know, it's who you know. Then it's who you work with and who funds your research. This is a corrupt pyramid scheme. The higher a scientist rises in the pyramid, the greater his power, authority, and funding control.

The problem with this type of "managed research" is that the pyramid has no diversity of thought and zero tolerance for political diversity. In fact, diversity of thought is the death knell for any chance of moving up the food chain. This is not your father's form of evolution. It's political extremism.

Today's N Y Times publishes a comment about the recently discovered embryonic stem cell fraud in South Korea. The scientific community is full of papers and research that exemplifies "mission creep" and progressive bloviating. In fact, when published papers and research are randomly verified, as many as half have untruths, dishonesties, or major factual errors.

So how does the scientific community protect itself from outside scrutiny? It allows unrelated scientists to write papers and research conclusions as an honorary reward for their long-term work. Kinda like a career Oscar. This came to light recently when some in Congress sought to learn about global warming. Members subpoenaed records from the 3 most quoted climate researchers. Two ran for the exit doors. They claimed that they didn't participate in global warming work. So why pick on them, say answered? Other's asked why would scientists write conclusions for scientific work without knowing the facts or believing in the result? Honorary 5 and 6 figure compensation. Is this rent a scientist or what?

So along come some publishers that say they will now ask authors to sign that they actually understand the paper or the research and they agree with it. Dah! But not to worry! The scientific community is fighting back. They say this will silence critically important science and will sensor important opinions. I wonder how much secular socialist political pressure there is on the not so politically diverse scientific community? It seems opportune for congress to withhold research funding until scientist's understand our nation's criminal laws against fraud and tax theft.

Evolution & Ecosystems?

One of the most critical climate and habitat modeling and forecasting components is that nature requires millennia upon millennia for evolution to coordinate plant and animal evolution of a habitat like a rain forest. Yet real science tells us otherwise. An article in the Independent's Energy Bulletin tells us that an extremely complex rainforest has developed on Ascension Island in less than 150 years time.

The mid-Atlantic island is known to be the last stop for the Darwin carrying Beagle on it's way home. Darwin is said to have called it: "entirely destitute of plants and trees." Then the Royal Navy began spreading tree and plant species from several continents. Now Green Mountain, once called White Mountain, is a thriving tropical forest. Yet it grew from species collected randomly. Energy Bulletin says that "conventional theory suggests complex ecosystems only emerge through a slow evolution in which different organisms develop in tandem to fill particular niches. But Green Mountain suggests that natural rainforests and other ecosystems may be constructed more by chance than by evolution."

This turns evolution and natural climate change theory on its head. And what does this say about today's ecosystems and climate? It says that "global warming science" is just a thought. Not yet an idea but ions from being a theory. In fact many, if not most of the assumptions about ecosystems, evolution, and their relationship to climate are invalid when real observations on Ascension are given even limited weight.

What do climate and evolution specialists say: "Ascension doesn't count."

Gore's Screensaver ends!

It is said that Al, "I invented the Internet," Gore woke one morning with an idea to send a multi-million dollar camera into space to send back ongoing pictures of our planet. He says that the picture might be used in classrooms where children can see the earth in real time. He says that might put the fragile earth into children's mind. In the words of Newt Gingrich: "This is more of feel good government."

Better, the N Y Times today tells us that the end of the screensaver might be the end of the earth itself. Robert L. Park, a mostly far left wing scientist, tells us that Gore's screensaver, known as Triana, the Deep Space Climate Observatory, would have proven man-made global warming. And he says that the Bush administration flushed it to protect polluters. Ah, the little guy against the greedy global industrial complex. But where's Al, "Underdog" Gore? Why isn't he speaking to save his "invention." Truth then and now is that Triana is just another screensaver.



.

Kabuki Theatre

Energy is Freedom. Unlimited energy is as American as apple pie and Rock & Roll. So what is it about restricting energy use that Democrats feel is American? They say that the USA should never use more than it's fair share of the world's energy. They feel that we consume too much. They want to pass laws to restrict our consumption only to what they say we need. Not a kilowatt more.

Yet consumption is in the eye of the beholder. If that isn't an American value, what is? Who am I to tell you what you need? This is government by Fidel Castro. Go to Havana, as most Democrat senators do. See a need based society for yourself. See how government and it's cronies drive cars while the people walk, ride donkeys, or sometimes get to ride a 1950s style bus. It reminds me of Barbra Streisand running national adds telling us to use less energy. When asked about her consumption, she answered: I need to have my 17 houses and condos refrigerated to 68 degrees because I can't stand to be too warm."

It all goes back to freedoms. Do Americans want to cede their God given freedoms and rights to often unelected government bureaucrats who's political views are mostly way out of the mainstream? The Alito hearings tell us plenty about giving power to the unaccountable. Democrats attack Alito's support for the power of the executive. He feels that the president can and must direct and manage all executive branch agencies. Democrats say that presidents come and go while bureaucrats act independently of elections. This is un-American!


Do we want to give our freedoms to those that look to Cuba and France for leadership? I say not! I say Democrats don't get!!!! We can and should reward those that use less energy in their lives. But it's un-American to punish those that want to use more. Should we provide efficient transportation alternatives? Yes! But not at the expense of road building. Roads are the key to transportation choices and freedoms.

American energy is the key to most of our freedoms. And energy freedoms and choices are what makes America great.

What can we learn from Clinton vs Microsoft?

Nearing it's end, the Clinton administration needed to repay unending financial support from tech companies and repay their support during his impeachment. So justice lawyers and Microsoft competitors entered into a widespread conspiracy to find Microsoft an abusive monopoly. They did this by justice meeting secretly with individual officers of Microsoft's competitors. These meeting dealt with developing a strategy to prompt comments from Microsoft's staff that could be used in court proceedings as evidence.

Once enough "evidence" was collected by competitors, justice filed a case against Microsoft. They select a judge known for his hostility to Microsoft. A man who was known to have laughed at Microsoft being characterized as the "Dark Force." Judge Penfield Jackson performed his part of the conspiracy by abusing the bench to find Microsoft guilty of abuse of monopoly power.

The result is where we can gain some insight into the global warming movement. Once labeled an abusive monopolist, any marketing action or improvement or change in Microsoft's Windows platform can be challenged as abusive.

Global warming didn't come into existence until a group of political extremists joined forces in the late 1980s. This was a time when previous "end of the world" theories had been discarded. It was "proven' until then that an increase of CO2 in the atmosphere would cause an ice age. So the new, new coalition of political extremists decided to tack 180 degrees to say that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will cause world incineration. This was a breathtaking change of "science."

As with justice and Microsoft's competitors, political extremists met to define global warming and how to make it accepted science. This is necessary so that the platform of global warming like Microsoft's guilt as a abusive monopoly are accepted by the courts of law, science, politics, and public opinion. Once that was achieved, all climate events and weather changes can be connected to global warming without revisiting if it indeed exists.

Today the N Y Times leads with: "Frog Killer Is Linked to Global Warming." J. Alan Pounds says that frogs are dying due to a fungus that is spreading as a result of global warming. He fails to account for: "Temperatures rise and drop cyclically from region to region. So a recent minor temperature increase in the mid-tropics might indicate this or that: "Paradoxically, the fungus thrives best in cooler conditions, challenging the theory that global warming is at fault. But Dr. Pounds and his team, in studying trends in temperature and disease around the American tropics, found patterns that they say explain the situation. "

Not to worry, Pounds and his supporting scientists reach back to the pre-global warming days to tell us that: Because warming increases evaporation, it can create clouds that tend to make days cooler by blocking sunlight, and make nights warmer by trapping heat. In an interview, Dr. Pounds said those conditions could have created favorable conditions for the spread of the chytrid fungus. " Did Pounds study day and night temperatures and their correlating changes to make this "leap of faith?" No! He just went back to the ice age argument that he and others helped to discredit.

All this twisting and churning of so called science is only possible because of the conspiracy to make the irrefutable case that global warming is an unchallengable truth. What's breathtaking in this article for me is that some scientists are actually standing up and pushing back. Cynthia Carey of the University of Colorado risks her career by saying: "that while both climate and amphibian die-offs were serious problems, this particular paper failed to offer anything beyond circumstantial evidence." I'll keep an eye on her career.

Emanuel finds religion, Global Warming religion!

For decades one of climate scientist's major global warming holdouts was MIT's Kerry Emanuel. "Professor Emanuel asserted often that no firm link had been established between warming and the intensity and frequency of hurricanes," says the Times. But now he's found the religion.

A NY Times article tells us that: "On a recent visit to New York, Professor Emanuel, who is 50, said, "It's been quite a ride since the Nature article." He added, "But it's a really bad thing for a scientist to have an immovable, intractable position." Imagine that he is now embraced by eco-terrorists and secular socialists and communists worldwide. Whatever made him wait? Like the salmon swimming upstream, Emanuel found that opposing muggers and abusers wears one down. And it costs in grants and income.

So what's the science he used to connect the dots? It's: "There is no doubt that in the last 20 years, the earth has been warming up. And it's warming up much too fast to ascribe to any natural process we know about." In other words, he feels that since he hasn't found a reason for warming among the billion variables that contribute to weather and climate, it must be man. Sounds religious to me.

Fact is this religion is all about intelligent design. The design is man and the intelligence is that a few persons feel they know because they do. No real science! No connecting dots. Just what seems like warming and feels like it's unnatural must be what they say it is. Breathtaking. I'll hold my breath for some real science.


.

Is it the Environment after all?

Southern California Edison is America's number one renewable energy creating utility. Edison's manager divert millions annually to devise plans to create power using renewable sources. They invest in solar collection systems, they generate 45% of their renewable energy through biomass projects that benefit farmers, and now have over $3 billion in efficiency projects underway.

Along comes the Sierra Club and other Eco-extremists that say that it's all wrong. Say what? They are lining up to stop solar energy farms as large as 3 square miles and want to curtail windmill farms. Why? They are "unsightful" and they "hurt birds and other plants and animals like ants and desert bugs. " What's going on here?

The eco-crowd has stopped most fossil fuel exploration within the United States. They oppose almost every effort to tap new fossil fuel sources saying that it causes global warming. The same enviro-advocates oppose increased import of fossil fuels, especially natural gas from Canada. So what do they want? They want America to slow it's economy so that workers only buy what left wing elitists say they need. Of course these limo-elitists say THEY need limos and dozens of homes and vacation sites.

When did loving and respecting the planet become an abusive political movement? I say it was when secular socialism died. When the Soviet Union imploded and when Judea-Christian principles for self determination and personal responsibility swept the world. It was when the people learned that they can take care of themselves better than disinterested third party bureaucrats.

Today's Dribble

The Seattle Post Intelligencer encourages Washington Democrats to work toward bio-diesel use to offset fossil fuels. The "other" Seattle print media outlet, The Seattle Times, prints an opinion piece about bio-diesel that provides some background information of which Democrats and the PI seem unaware. As usual, facts seldom stand in the way of "progressive" feelings.

Word from the other Washington is that Senator Ted Stevens, (R) Alaska, is reorganizing his effort to open ANWR to drilling. Insiders say that he is exploring how imported exposes the United States to international extortion and to unpredictable and unmanageable economic events. National defense and anti-terror protections resonate with the people, especially moderate mothers. Washington's junior Senator, Maria Cantwell, (D) may yet learn a lesson from Stevens.