Last October 20, C&E News had a short article on the military and climate change. This was prior to the resignation of the Secretary Hagel from the Department of Defense.
The basis of the article was the issuance of a Pentagon report entitled, "2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap".. The general conclusion was that climate change could complicate military challenges ranging from infectious disease to terrorism. More specifically, "expected" climate change could involve rising global temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, rising sea level and more extreme weather events.
My sincere compliments to Pentagon officials for recognizing that climate change can have a significant impact on military operations. My only criticism is the implication that Pentagon officials have been slow in recognizing the effects of climate change on their operations. We've always had climate change and will continue to do so. The mere fact that it occurs over a longer period of time, as opposed to weather, is not an excuse for ignoring it up to now.
Secretary of defense Chuck Hagel was not satisfied to leave climate change in the natural category to which it belonged. He had to go one step further and relate it to man-made activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels with generation of CO2 and the myth that CO2 affects climate change. It was the Obama playbook, and it is surprising that with this position, Pres. Obama found other causes to fire him.
Friday, January 23, 2015
Friday, January 16, 2015
Sen. Bernie Sanders (VT) on Global Warming
Sen. Bernie Sanders is a Democrat from Vermont. Typical of most Democrats, he believes in fairytales, partial truths as proof of the whole, and routinely enters the element of fear into his suppositions. His latest ill-developed position is on global warming.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, the new Senate Majority Leader replacing Harry Reid, has said that he will bring open discussion of the Keystone pipeline to the Senate floor. This offers to Sen. Sanders an opportunity for what he considers a "beautiful" amendment. He wants to poll each senator on whether they believe in global warming.
Sen. Sanders will ask this question as an indirect way to kill the Keystone pipeline. The pipeline will allow greater access to oil, which is used only as a source of energy by burning. In the burning process, carbon dioxide is generated, on which the Obama administration has been pouring billions of dollars into a propaganda campaign for many years to convince the public that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is dangerous to the extent that it contributes to global warming. While there is actually no scientific basis to support this position, it is also true that many pseudo-scientists have signed on to the propaganda. The chances are also that Senators have been tainted by this misinformation and could be believers in carbon dioxide emissions causing global warming. If there enough falling into this category, Sen. Sanders expects that they will automatically vote against the Keystone pipeline.
Sen. Sanders has already tried to lead the group or Senators into misinformation by the wording of his statement as recorded by the Washington Times. He plans, "To ask each senator if he or she agrees with ‘the opinion of virtually the entire worldwide scientific community’ that climate change is a factually proven problem resulting in ‘devastating problems in the United States and around the world."
There are a couple of things wrong with his apparent opinion and his statement. While climate change is a fact as shown by long-term historical data, it is a natural occurrence, and there is no scientific evidence showing that climate change is significantly connected with human operations. Sen. Sanders is trying to give the impression that the only climate change is man induced. Obviously wrong!
Considering climate change as a natural occurrence, then Sen. Sanders' question to the senatorial group will be misleading. What he should be asking is a twofold question. Is there such a thing as climate change? The answer is "yes". Is man's activity significant in contributing to climate change? The answer is "no". The "no" answer comes from the fact that man's burning of fossil fuel only generates an insignificant amount of heat, compared to global heating by the sun. The supposition that common dioxide emission in burning fossil fuels increases the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is true, but any implication that it causes global warming is false. There is no acceptable theory as to why tiny amounts of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere should affect global heat, and there is no statistical data, which would show that.
Sen. Mitch McConnell, the new Senate Majority Leader replacing Harry Reid, has said that he will bring open discussion of the Keystone pipeline to the Senate floor. This offers to Sen. Sanders an opportunity for what he considers a "beautiful" amendment. He wants to poll each senator on whether they believe in global warming.
Sen. Sanders will ask this question as an indirect way to kill the Keystone pipeline. The pipeline will allow greater access to oil, which is used only as a source of energy by burning. In the burning process, carbon dioxide is generated, on which the Obama administration has been pouring billions of dollars into a propaganda campaign for many years to convince the public that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is dangerous to the extent that it contributes to global warming. While there is actually no scientific basis to support this position, it is also true that many pseudo-scientists have signed on to the propaganda. The chances are also that Senators have been tainted by this misinformation and could be believers in carbon dioxide emissions causing global warming. If there enough falling into this category, Sen. Sanders expects that they will automatically vote against the Keystone pipeline.
Sen. Sanders has already tried to lead the group or Senators into misinformation by the wording of his statement as recorded by the Washington Times. He plans, "To ask each senator if he or she agrees with ‘the opinion of virtually the entire worldwide scientific community’ that climate change is a factually proven problem resulting in ‘devastating problems in the United States and around the world."
There are a couple of things wrong with his apparent opinion and his statement. While climate change is a fact as shown by long-term historical data, it is a natural occurrence, and there is no scientific evidence showing that climate change is significantly connected with human operations. Sen. Sanders is trying to give the impression that the only climate change is man induced. Obviously wrong!
Considering climate change as a natural occurrence, then Sen. Sanders' question to the senatorial group will be misleading. What he should be asking is a twofold question. Is there such a thing as climate change? The answer is "yes". Is man's activity significant in contributing to climate change? The answer is "no". The "no" answer comes from the fact that man's burning of fossil fuel only generates an insignificant amount of heat, compared to global heating by the sun. The supposition that common dioxide emission in burning fossil fuels increases the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is true, but any implication that it causes global warming is false. There is no acceptable theory as to why tiny amounts of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere should affect global heat, and there is no statistical data, which would show that.
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Climate Action
The September 29 issue of Chemical Engineering News has an article entitled, "Calls to Climate Action; Global Warming: World leaders assemble at UN Summit as scientists layout data on CO2 emissions".
Silly!
They continue to ignore the fact that no one has ever shown any connection between climate change and CO2 emissions. Why not layout data on baseball scores. They are just as applicable to climate change.
But, I suppose if you holler that the sky is falling often enough, you can get a lot of people to believe it.
Silly!
They continue to ignore the fact that no one has ever shown any connection between climate change and CO2 emissions. Why not layout data on baseball scores. They are just as applicable to climate change.
But, I suppose if you holler that the sky is falling often enough, you can get a lot of people to believe it.
Monday, September 15, 2014
More on Man-made Climate Change
Tom Harrison and Bob Carter have written a new article on climate change for the New York Post. The reference is: http://nypost.com/2014/09/14/leo-v-science-vanishing-evidence-for-climate-change/.
They start out castigating Leonard DiCaprio. Wikipedia says DiCaprio is an American actor and film producer.. He is releasing a series of films about the “climate crisis. The first is “Carbon,” which tells us the world is threatened by a “carbon monster.” He says, "Coal, oil, natural gas and other carbon-based forms of energy are causing dangerous climate change and must be turned off as soon as possible".
From here on, I will insert some chosen paragraphs from Harrison/Carter's article in the New York Post.
DiCaprio is an actor, not a scientist; it’s no real surprise that his film is sensationalistic and error-riddled. Other climate-change fantasists, who do have a scientific background, have far less excuse.
Science is never settled, but the current state of “climate change” science is quite clear: There is essentially zero evidence that carbon dioxide from human activities is causing catastrophic climate change.
Oregon-based physicist Gordon Fulks sums it up well: “CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring . . . and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.”
• According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.
•Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
• Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
• A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.
The climate scare, Fulks sighs, has “become a sort of societal pathogen that virulently spreads misinformation in tiny packages like a virus.” He’s right — and DiCaprio’s film is just another vector for spreading the virus.
The costs of feeding the climate-change “monster” are staggering. According to the Congressional Research Service, from 2001 to 2014 the US government spent $131 billion on projects meant to combat human-caused climate change, plus $176 billion for breaks for anti-CO2 energy initiatives.
Federal anti-climate-change spending is now running at $11 billion a year, plus tax breaks of $20 billion a year. That adds up to more than double the $14.4 billion worth of wheat produced in the United States in 2013.
Dr. Bjørn Lomborg is Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and for some unfathomable reason seems to support the UN's position on climate science. However, he also calculates that the European Union’s goal of a 20 percent reduction in CO2 emissions below 1990 levels by 2020, currently the most severe target in the world, will cost almost $100 billion a year by 2020, or more than $7 trillion over the course of this century. He also notes that this would buy imperceptible improvement: “After spending all that money, we would not even be able to tell the difference.”
Al Gore was right in one respect: Climate change is a moral issue — but that’s because there is nothing quite so immoral as well-fed, well-housed Westerners assuaging their consciences by wasting huge amounts of money on futile anti-global-warming policies, using money that could instead go to improve living standards in developing countries. That is where the moral outrage should lie. Perhaps DiCaprio would like to make a film about it?
They start out castigating Leonard DiCaprio. Wikipedia says DiCaprio is an American actor and film producer.. He is releasing a series of films about the “climate crisis. The first is “Carbon,” which tells us the world is threatened by a “carbon monster.” He says, "Coal, oil, natural gas and other carbon-based forms of energy are causing dangerous climate change and must be turned off as soon as possible".
From here on, I will insert some chosen paragraphs from Harrison/Carter's article in the New York Post.
DiCaprio is an actor, not a scientist; it’s no real surprise that his film is sensationalistic and error-riddled. Other climate-change fantasists, who do have a scientific background, have far less excuse.
Science is never settled, but the current state of “climate change” science is quite clear: There is essentially zero evidence that carbon dioxide from human activities is causing catastrophic climate change.
Oregon-based physicist Gordon Fulks sums it up well: “CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring . . . and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.”
• According to NASA satellites and all ground-based temperature measurements, global warming ceased in the late 1990s. This when CO2 levels have risen almost 10 percent since 1997. The post-1997 CO2 emissions represent an astonishing 30 percent of all human-related emissions since the Industrial Revolution began. That we’ve seen no warming contradicts all CO2-based climate models upon which global-warming concerns are founded.
•Rates of sea-level rise remain small and are even slowing, over recent decades averaging about 1 millimeter per year as measured by tide gauges and 2 to 3 mm/year as inferred from “adjusted” satellite data. Again, this is far less than what the alarmists suggested.
• Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.
• A 2012 IPCC report concluded that there has been no significant increase in either the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events in the modern era. The NIPCC 2013 report concluded the same. Yes, Hurricane Sandy was devastating — but it’s not part of any new trend.
The climate scare, Fulks sighs, has “become a sort of societal pathogen that virulently spreads misinformation in tiny packages like a virus.” He’s right — and DiCaprio’s film is just another vector for spreading the virus.
The costs of feeding the climate-change “monster” are staggering. According to the Congressional Research Service, from 2001 to 2014 the US government spent $131 billion on projects meant to combat human-caused climate change, plus $176 billion for breaks for anti-CO2 energy initiatives.
Federal anti-climate-change spending is now running at $11 billion a year, plus tax breaks of $20 billion a year. That adds up to more than double the $14.4 billion worth of wheat produced in the United States in 2013.
Dr. Bjørn Lomborg is Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and for some unfathomable reason seems to support the UN's position on climate science. However, he also calculates that the European Union’s goal of a 20 percent reduction in CO2 emissions below 1990 levels by 2020, currently the most severe target in the world, will cost almost $100 billion a year by 2020, or more than $7 trillion over the course of this century. He also notes that this would buy imperceptible improvement: “After spending all that money, we would not even be able to tell the difference.”
Al Gore was right in one respect: Climate change is a moral issue — but that’s because there is nothing quite so immoral as well-fed, well-housed Westerners assuaging their consciences by wasting huge amounts of money on futile anti-global-warming policies, using money that could instead go to improve living standards in developing countries. That is where the moral outrage should lie. Perhaps DiCaprio would like to make a film about it?
Saturday, August 9, 2014
17 Year Global Warming
Katharine Hayhoe is an Associate Professor in the Public Administration program at Texas Tech University and Director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech. She is one of the most well-known climate scientists. She is included in the 2014 Time100 as a well-known scientist, and she is a lead author for the 2014 Third U.S. National Climate Assessment.
Last month, Katherine Hayhoe sent out a tweet saying that other peoples' claim of NO global warming in the past 17 years "is a lie [that] just will not die". She then goes on to to show a graph of 17-year data with a positive slope (increase) of 0.5 to 0.6°C.
Dr. Sierra Rayne holds B.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in Chemistry and a diploma in water engineering technology. He has authored over 100 peer-reviewed journal articles in chemistry and environmental science, as well as hundreds of technical reports, preprints, and articles for media outlets.
Dr. Rayne has recently taken issue with Dr.Hayhoe's claim that no global warming in the past seven years is a lie. He does this on the basis of statistical analysis of the data. His extensive explanation appears in the July 26 issue of American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/07/rigorous_climate_science_is_now_lying.html).
Dr. Rayne says scientist should start using statistical tests when discussing data in public. Otherwise, they are not illustrating rigorous science and are simply contributing to a poor understanding of science by the public audience.
To illustrate his point, Dr. Rayne plotted 17 randomly generated numbers. The trend line on the graph was down. If they had been global temperatures, it would have indicated a cooling effect. A second plot with 17 other randomly generated numbers showed a trend line increase (hypothetical global warming). A third plot of randomly generated numbers gave a shallow negative trend line; very slightly down. If three sets of randomly generated numbers can give such different trendlines when plotted, it is apparent that the trendlines from those three sets are not statistically significant. It is also obvious that Dr. Hayhoe's plot of 17 global temperatures is also not statistically significant.
Dr. Rayne goes on to explain that statistical significance is measured as a P value. In his first plot, the P value was 0.10. He says that In science the statistical P value must be 0.05, which is 95% certainty. He also says that in the case of issues such as climate change, whereby action would necessitate a near-complete alteration to our entire socio-economic and political structures and relationships, we should be demanding even higher statistical significance, such as a P value of 0.01 which is a 99% probability of the trend not being a result of chance.
I suppose we can excuse Dr. Hayhoe for her negligence in not considering the statistical significance of the trend line on her graph. I am also a scientist and would not have thought of it, but I have an excuse. I was initially trained in science 70 years ago and never took a course in statistical analysis. However, Dr. Hahoe's more recent training would likely have included statistics. If it did, she decided not to use it. Her error is especially egregious when one considers that she has called the global warming dissenters "liars".
Last month, Katherine Hayhoe sent out a tweet saying that other peoples' claim of NO global warming in the past 17 years "is a lie [that] just will not die". She then goes on to to show a graph of 17-year data with a positive slope (increase) of 0.5 to 0.6°C.
Dr. Sierra Rayne holds B.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in Chemistry and a diploma in water engineering technology. He has authored over 100 peer-reviewed journal articles in chemistry and environmental science, as well as hundreds of technical reports, preprints, and articles for media outlets.
Dr. Rayne has recently taken issue with Dr.Hayhoe's claim that no global warming in the past seven years is a lie. He does this on the basis of statistical analysis of the data. His extensive explanation appears in the July 26 issue of American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/07/rigorous_climate_science_is_now_lying.html).
Dr. Rayne says scientist should start using statistical tests when discussing data in public. Otherwise, they are not illustrating rigorous science and are simply contributing to a poor understanding of science by the public audience.
To illustrate his point, Dr. Rayne plotted 17 randomly generated numbers. The trend line on the graph was down. If they had been global temperatures, it would have indicated a cooling effect. A second plot with 17 other randomly generated numbers showed a trend line increase (hypothetical global warming). A third plot of randomly generated numbers gave a shallow negative trend line; very slightly down. If three sets of randomly generated numbers can give such different trendlines when plotted, it is apparent that the trendlines from those three sets are not statistically significant. It is also obvious that Dr. Hayhoe's plot of 17 global temperatures is also not statistically significant.
Dr. Rayne goes on to explain that statistical significance is measured as a P value. In his first plot, the P value was 0.10. He says that In science the statistical P value must be 0.05, which is 95% certainty. He also says that in the case of issues such as climate change, whereby action would necessitate a near-complete alteration to our entire socio-economic and political structures and relationships, we should be demanding even higher statistical significance, such as a P value of 0.01 which is a 99% probability of the trend not being a result of chance.
I suppose we can excuse Dr. Hayhoe for her negligence in not considering the statistical significance of the trend line on her graph. I am also a scientist and would not have thought of it, but I have an excuse. I was initially trained in science 70 years ago and never took a course in statistical analysis. However, Dr. Hahoe's more recent training would likely have included statistics. If it did, she decided not to use it. Her error is especially egregious when one considers that she has called the global warming dissenters "liars".
Friday, August 1, 2014
Jerry Brown's False Predictions
The Wall Street Journal reported that California Gov. Jerry Brown had a three-day trade mission to Mexico, during which time he tried to tried to make a connection between global warming and immigration. He is quoted as saying, "“We can see how some are fearful of children walking across the border. What will they think when millions of people are driven north from the parched landscapes of a world degraded by intensifying climate change?”
This is typical of a hack politician like Jerry Brown. He is taking a real situation of illegal immigration at our southern borders and connecting it with a pie-in-the-sky theory of global warming. He has done so, because of the accepted disaster of global warming by many uninformed people, who conform to the Chicken Little Theory that the sky is falling.
This is typical of a hack politician like Jerry Brown. He is taking a real situation of illegal immigration at our southern borders and connecting it with a pie-in-the-sky theory of global warming. He has done so, because of the accepted disaster of global warming by many uninformed people, who conform to the Chicken Little Theory that the sky is falling.
Thursday, July 10, 2014
Global Warming Disbelief
Enthusiasts
for man-made global warming say that the debate on its existence is over. In
effect, they say that man-made global warming is a fact and there should be no
more discussion about its validity.
However,
Rasmussen Reports says voters strongly believe the debate about global warming
is not over yet and reject the decision by some news organizations to ban
comments from those who deny that global warming is a problem.
Only 20% of
Likely U.S. Voters believe the scientific debate about global warming is over,
according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.
Sixty-three percent (63%) disagree and say the debate about global warming is
not over.
I could be
egocentric and say that because I have been pounding on the subject of
disbelief in man-made global warming for a few years, I’m finally making
progress. However, I will give the credit to a logical and informed public.
Either way,
it looks like we’re making good progress in limiting government’s attempts to
push down our throats a climate control program which would assure that the US
quickly becomes a second rate political and financial power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
