Internet Articles (2015)
cientists know there are many chemical elements in our atmosphere which are usually measured only in nano amounts that are highly toxic to humans. Methane. Gaseous mercury. Lead. Cadmium. Zinc. Chromium. Copper. Some of those elements are natural and trace amounts have always been in our atmosphere. Most of the more hazardous elements were introduced into the ecosystem by manand are toxic to humans. They are byproducts of mining and industrial activity. Once mobilized, these elements circulate in the air, water, sediments and biota.
When and wherever these elements exist, when they pose hazards to the environment and to human life, like the presence of mercury in the ecosystem, we are barraged with warnings from government health officials about toxic levels of elements like mercury in seafood. Scientists even measure concentrations of mercury in the fur of polar bears. Yet, as toxic as mercury is, it's never been banned. In fact, mercury is used to create the luminance in the compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL) that will shortly replace the traditional incandescent light bulbs in every home in the world because the eco-idiots are convinced that the heat from the standard light bulb contributes to global warming. The mercury vapors inside those bulbs are so toxic that if you break one, you are required to call your State's environmental protection agency which will send a hazmat team to clean up the hazardous spill. In 2007, Maine resident Brandy Bridges' daughter Shayley broke a CFL in her bedroom. The State charged the family $2,000 to clean it up.
Even with all of the warnings posted by the Federal Drug Administration [FDA] concerning either the toxicity of some specific chemical compound or the hazardous impact they have on the ecosystem, there is one common chemical compound that can literally eat metal for which no health warnings have ever been issued by the FDA. The compound is part of the chalcogen group on the periodic table. It was discovered by two scientists in the late 19th century. Even though Carl Wilhelm Scheele, an apprentice apothecarist in Sweden, discovered the element in 1773, Englishman Joseph Priestly is credited with its discovery because his paper describing it was the first to be published in a scientific journal in 1774. Yet, as they correctly described this element, neither Priestly nor Scheele scientifically named it. This caustic element would not be named until Antoine Lavoisier, a wealthy French chemist, began experimenting with the compound in 1777, creating it artificially in his laboratory. This compound in its pure form is an anti-cancer agent. Cancer cells die when exposed to this element. Yet the pharmaceutical community has not figured out how to harness this compound and make it an effective cancer treatment. The reason could be that since its a natural element, they can't patent it, which means they can't own the rights to using it as a treatment for cancer.
That aside for a moment, if the US Supreme Court can declare carbon dioxidea chemical compound that is absolutely essential to human lifeto be a hazardous pollutant that should be regulated and, if possible, removed from the atmosphere, why have they not yet classified Priestly's chemical compound as a pollutant? It makes sense that a chemical element more caustic than carbon dioxide should be classified as at least as much a threat to mankind as carbon dioxide. What is this deadly compound? Lavoisier named it oxygen.
Now, if you think I just tried to dupe you, think about the ecoalarmist agenda of the non-scientist, politicized justices on the US Supreme Court, the agendized bureaucracy within the government of the United States, and the highly partisan, agendized ideologues who control the Congress. Now that associate justices on the high court are appointed based on their political pedigrees, it is not surprising that the high court has taken it upon themselves to declare carbon dioxidean element that is absolutely essential to life on this planetto be an element so toxic to humankind that it must be regulation and/or eliminated. If the Supreme Court can decree carbon dioxide as detrimental to life, why should they not be able to classify oxygen, whose caustic properties can eat through metal, as a toxic element at least as harmful as carbon dioxideand ban it?
Why? You ask? Because we breathe oxygen. Without oxygen, we die. Without oxygen, everything dies. Without oxygen there would be no water, so even if scientists could synthesize oxygen for personal breathing, without oxygen in the atmosphere, there would be no water to drink. H2O is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. The air we breathe is 78% nitrogen, 20.8% oxygen, 0.9% argon and 0.03% carbon dioxide. Pure oxygen is bad because it's a toxic element. Breathing 100% oxygen is harmful and can possibly be fatal. We breathe a mixture of nitrogen and oxygen that enriches our blood (making it bright red). As blood flows through the pulmonary capillaries it is oxygen-nitrogen rich. As oxygen-nitrogen gases journeys through the body to the lungs, the air becomes oxygen-depleted and rich in carbon-dioxide (dark red). It is then exhaled. Plantlife (anything containing chlorophyll) feeds on carbon dioxide through photosynthesis to create glucose, the food plants eat to grow. The byproduct (the excrement of the choloroplasts [plant cells]) is oxygen.
To produce oxygen you need carbon dioxide. It's the magic ingredient. In addition to carbon dioxide being essential for human life, it is essential for all lifeorganic and inorganic. I mention that only because the agenda of New Age [Gaia influenced] watermelons is the elimination or radical curtailment of mankind. Ecoalarmists like Gore, funded almost entirely by Big Oil, views man as a blight on nature because man depletes the natural resources of this planetin particular, oil. Thus, the ecoalarmist is willing to sacrifice man to protect the world's pristine settingsand, of course, the oil. In the final analysis, the war against global warming is nothing more than a grand scheme to curtail the use of oil (which the Seven Sisters is convinced is a finite resource produced by the decaying carcasses of prehistoric dinosaurs and primordial fauna during the Carboniferous Age, and, not to exclude an oil company explanation for all the oil found under the seas, billion trillions of microscopic diatoms (organisms about the size of a pinhead in the primeval seas) when, in fact, intelligent research has scientifically confirmed that oil is a self-replenishing resource.
Anyone with a lick of sense knows that oil from soupy, decayed dinosaur fat is a myth. Stop and think logically. One barrel of crude oil per day equals 50 tons of crude per year. The recoverable oil from the former Soviet satellite of Azerbaijan alone is estimated to be in excess of 500 million tons. China's recoverable oil exceeds 823 million tons. In the Mideast, the recoverable oil is estimated at over 2.49 billion ton. There is enough crude oil and natural gas in the Alaskan Arctic to supply the majority of the energy needs of the United States for about 300 years. The crude oil reserves on the Northern Slope of Alaska, currently banned from drilling, could supply 100% of the oil needs of the United States for 30 years. The oil and natural gas seabeds stretching from the Marianna Trench Archipelago to the Rose Atoll in the Hawaiian Island group are believed to contain the world's largest oil and natural gas reserve yet discovered. The amount of oil and gas available is as yet undetermined because on Jan. 6, 2009, under the UN's Law of the Sea Treaty, 335,000 square miles of the South Pacific was declared to be a US national monument by then President George W. Bush. Pursuant to 34 Stat 225, 16 USC 431, The Antiquities Act of June 8, 1906.
When the Fertile Crest was actually a fertile, grassy garden eons ago, dinosaurs and primordial fauna was probably found there in abundance. But, in an abundance so great that its decayed matter could have produced over 5 billion tons of crude oil, and trillions of metric tons of natural gas? Think of just how many billions of barrels of oil and trillions of metric tons of gas have been harvested in the world since the 1860s, and ask yourself just how many dead Tyrannosaurus rexes or Apatrosauruses there could possibly have been in the primeval world, and the likelihood that billions of these creatures herded together in the same neighborhood dead zone to expire? If crude oil really was a fossil fuel\, we're looking at what would have to have been billions of trillions of tons of decayed Stegosaurus flesh and rotten fauna and flora.
The concept that crude oil is a fossil fuel is a myth. Peak oil is a myth. The world is not running out of oil even though the "factory" in the magma of the planet is not replenishing it as fast as man can use it. And, what's more, the oil industryparticularly the oil barons at 120 Broadway in New Yorkknow it. The money barons at 26 Broad Street in New York and the politicians at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC who are in their hip pockets have been lying to the American people since the turn of the century. Not this century. The last one.
On May 4, 1970 the Soviets began drilling a super-deep bore hole, named Kola SG-3, on the Kola Peninsula, 1025 km from Murmansk in far northern Russia on the Arctic Continental Shelf. The 40 thousand-plus foot deep oil well produced some 83.2 million tons of oil. Since drilling that well, Yukos Oil, the Russian oil giant, has drilled almost 400 super-deep wells.
In 2006 the former Soviet Union surpassed Saudi Arabia as the world's largest oil producer. Instead of waiting for the crude that is produced deep in the mantle of the Earth to pool to the surface, the Russians decided to sink wells deep enough to collect the oil as it seeps up through the magma and pools in subterranean lakes of oil in the mantle of the Earth where it lays until pressure forces it up into the upper crust where traditional oil rigs are able to retrieve it.
Peak oil is one of those fables like the tooth fairy or the Easter Bunny. Once the American people screw their heads on straight and think it through, they're going to realize that peak oil, like the whole myth about "fossil" fuels, is pure Santa Claus rhetoric. So is global warming. It's a myth that was originally-contrived by the fabricators of the New World Order to achieve world government. Add to that their accomplices: US industrialists trying to escape punitive government regulations and US labor unions that drive up costs. And, of course, the merchant princes who thrive on slave labor-priced goods not to lower costs to the consumers, but to increase their bottom lines.
Over the last quarter century the United States became a replacement market for consumer goods. Americans have two of everything and virtually need nothing. We can no longer use the total sum of the goods we can produce, so our factories work at 48% of capacity to create only what we can use and what can be sold to our trading partners in the industrialized world. Production costs are high, profits are low. In the third world are hundreds of millions of potential consumers for the products created in US factories, who have nothing and need everythingparticularly jobs. Our jobs.
Using the North American
Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] as a tariff-free portal to return cheap-labor
goods made in Mexicoor China, India or Indonesia and shipped to
the US through the swinging doors in Mexicoby United States companies
that use NAFTA to circumvent US labor laws by assuring they have an affluent
market in which to sell the goods made elsewhere. NAFTA and the one-sided
global warming debate both originated from the propoganda-fertilized egg
of globalism. Global warming is caused, the environmentalists argue, by
carbon dioxide emissions from our factories and from the internal combustion
engines in our motor vehicles from using fossil fuels that create the
brown smog over our urban areas. Industrialists and the oil barons have
successfully used green shills like the Sierra Club, the
Environmental Defense Fund, the Pew Center on Climate
Change and others to advocate on behalf of moving carbon-dioxide
producing factories to the pristine third world on the pretext that emissions
spewed in the third world somehow don't pollute the atmosphere, but emissions
from the industrialized nations do.
For that reason, it should come as a surprise to no one to learn that a coalition of 31 industrial corporations and environmentalists joined forces in May, 2007 to form the United States Climate Action Partnership. The purpose of USCAP was to work with Congress to enact comprehensive climate legislation to establish a mandatory economy-wide cap on carbon dioxide pollution caused by industry and fossil fuels. The mandatory caps would require greenhouse gas reductions of 80% by 2050.
According to a Sierra Club factsheet, "...Agriculture expansion and forest depletion have multiplied emissions of greenhouse gases like CO2, but it is our dependence of fossil fuels that propels monumental atmospheric change. When we burn fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas, we release unsustainable levels of C02the primary global warming culprit. Those of us living in the developed world bar a majority of the responsibility for reversing this disturbing trend. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] projects that during the lifetime of our children's lifetimes, global warming will raise the average temperatures on Earth within a range of 2.7° to 10.5°F. The ecological impact of such a rapid increase include rising sea levels, coastal erosion, decreasing agricultural productivity and accelerated extinction rates of plants and animals due to their inability to adapt to the changing climate. Global warming also poses threats to human health through increased droughts, hurricanes, tornadoes and floods."
The Sierra Club's "factsheet" is not based on facts but voodoo science. First, scientists know that increased carbon dioxide means increased, not decreased, crop yields. Instead accelerating the decline and extinction rates of plants, the opposite will actually occur. Carbon dioxide is the food plants eat. Forestation increases when carbon dioxide levels increase. The Sierra Club's statement that the depletion of forest land has multiplied greenhouse gas emissions is categorically false. First, other than in third world countries like Brazil that have cut back thousands of acres of prime forest for the lumber to build homes that are now intruding on that country's wild lands, it must be noted again that increased levels of carbon dioxide feed the fauna, causing not only tree-ring growth, but the expansion of forest size as well. In 2005, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory reported on a forestation growth study they did, noting that "...forest productivity may be significantly greater in an atmosphere enriched with carbon dioxide according to findings released today (Dec. 8, 2005) that challenge recent reports. The NASA report is based on experiments that were conducted in a deciduous forest in Tennessee, a pine forest in North Carolina and a young hardwood stand in Wisconsin." The study noted a 23% increase in tree growth and forestation productivity.
Man-induced global warming is based not just on bad science but no science at all. The computer models that theoretically "prove" that man-induced, carbon dioxide-generated global warming is real are manipulations that begin with a conclusionthat global warming is happening and the world is in crisis. The evidence, that must fit the conclusion, is then framed into the equation. Science is easier that way. There are no surprises. Since no evidence that disputes the claims is entered into the computer model, the premise supports the conclusion. When former Vice President Al Gore, Jr., author of the Oscar-winning sci-fi docudrama, An Inconvenient Truth, that loosely poses as fact, was challenged to a public forum debate by Lord Christopher Monckton, the Viscount of Brenchley, a former adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. The challenge appears in a series of ads that ran in the Washington Post, Washington Times, Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. Gore declined Lord Monckton's offer to discuss global warming in a public forum claiming "...the debate is over."
Gore did not mean that global warming is "settled science." Far from it. Global warming, like global cooling, is real. It just isn't man-made. What Gore meant was that the Democratic Congress has now passed the laws needed, and the liberal bureaucracy in Washington, DC and the globalists around the world are now regulating climate change as though it is a solvable problem that was caused by man. Among those driving the carbon dioxide free express will be enviro-wacko Harvard University professor and Director of the Office of Science and Technology John Holdren, who is currently under fire from climate scientists everywhere. Holdren was White House occupant Barack Hussein Obama's pick as one of his key White House Science Advisors.
Also tapped for Obama's Rooseveltian "brain trust," are other far left Harvardites: David Barron, Professor of Law at Harvard will serve as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel; Ashton Carter, Ford Foundation Professor of Science & International Affairs at Harvard will serve as Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisitions, Technology and Logistics; David Cutler, Professor of Economics at Harvard will advise the occupant of the White House on healthcare policy; Jody Freeman, Professor of Law at Harvard will serve Obama as Counselor for Energy and Climate Change; Holdren, whose official title is Assistant to the President for Science and Technology; Elena Kagan, Charles Hamilton Houston Professor of Law will serve as US Solicitor General; Jeffrey Liebman, Malcom Wiener Professor of Public Policy will serve as Executive Associate Director of the Office of Management and Budget; Daniel Meltzer, Story Professor of Law at Harvard, will serve as principle Deputy Counsel to the President; and Samantha Power, Anna Lindh Professor of Practice of Global Leadership and Public Policy at Harvard will serve as Senior Director for Multinational Affairs at the National Security Council. Perhaps Power was brought on board to teach the occupant of the White House how to give appropriate gifts to visiting heads of State. Star Wars and Indiana Jones DvDs aren't proper gifts even though they were good movies. Unless, of course, you're also giving that head-of-state a Popiel Popcorn maker, a soft drink dispenser and a year's supply of Raisinettes. Obama picked Jeremy Stein, Moise Y. Safra Professor of Economics at Harvard to serve on the National Economics Council. Heading up that agency will be Lawrence Summers, the 27th president of Harvard. And, finally, Obama picked Cass Sunstein, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard as the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget.
Holdren's "chair" as Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard was financed by Teresa Heinz Kerry and the socialist, antiwar Tides Foundation. When his name was announced, the Boston Globe which noted that Holdren was long-associated with population alarmist Paul Ehrlich and joined him in predicting disasters that never came to pass, also reported an observation made by Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, that Holdren's association with eco-wackos like Ehrlich "...make him the perfect person to formulate an expensive action plant to battle another disaster that will never come to passhuman-induced global warming."
Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis said that "...Holdren represents the worst of what passes for science today: a closed mind, unwillingness to brook dissent or criticism of his predetermined view of what science shows or should show."
Myron Ebell, Director of Energy & Global Warming Policy at the Competitive Enterprises Institute noted that Holdren's choice as Science Advisor in the Obama Administration contradicts Obama's promise to respect science. "Holdren," Ebell said, "collaborated with Paul Ehrlich for many years and has been a strong advocate for population control. He has made numerous predictions about the future that have been proven untrue. Most recently, his predictions about the catastrophic effects of global warming have already passed their due date and have not occurred." Concurring with Ebell is John Dunn, a civilian emergency medicine faculty member at Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center at Food Hood, TX. " In Holdren's view," Dunn said, "there are too many people in the world and we must act to limit either the number of people or the products of human society. This is an extremist worldview that severely limits human progress."
One of the growing list of White House hypocrisies was Obama's statement, in his inaugural address, pledging to restore science to its rightful place. Apparently he believes in the flat earth science view. His pick as one of his personal advisors on matters of science is an eco-wacko who recently made a statement reported by the liberal Boston Globe in which he predicted that sea levels would rise by 13 feet by the end of the century. Holdren gets his 'science" from the same text book as his friend and co-wacko, biologist Paul Ehrlich, author of the 1960s best seller, The Population Bomb (which has gone through 18 reprints)Thomas Malthus' 18th century Essay on the Principle of Population. (Even the most extremist environmentalist limit their predictions of sea level rising to up-to-13" over the next 100 years. In point of fact, the computer models are all wrong since scientific global warming (and cooling) are not man-induced, they coincide with solar cycles and not rising levels of carbon dioxide which occur naturally in nature whenever the solar cycles create long periods of warming.
The Population Bomb was propelled into best seller status by David Rockefeller and the Rockefeller Foundation because it served Rockefeller's purposes to fan the population explosion myth in order to legalize abortion in the United States in the late 1960s and early 1970s. On Jan. 22, 1973, ruling on Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton, the US Supreme Court decided the 14th Amendment provided some heretofore unknown Constitutional prerogative: women possessed the legal right to kill their unborn children for daring to intrude into their wombs. In a report on global warming by the Sierra Club, the authors noted that the population of the world grew from 1.6 billion to 6.1 billion people during the 20th centurywith CO2 emissions growing twelvefold during that century adding that the United States, which has about 5% of the world's population, is the world's worst atmospheric polluter, creating about 25% of the greenhouse gases.
Ehrlich's book was based on the un-updated theories of 18th century botanist Thomas Malthus who predicted that by the year 2000, half of the world would be starving and the other half would be killing each other for what food was left. In Malthus' world, the technology to build high rise apartment buildings didn't exist. Nor did the technology to exponentially increase crop yield exist in the 18th century. Malthus' primitive science became Ehlrich's science even though technology had advanced lights years in the 160 years between the publications of Malthus' Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798 and Ehrlich's The Population Bomb in 1968.
The ecoalarmists are convinced that people are responsible for the proliferation of carbon dioxide, and by extension, global warming. In their published view carbon dioxide, which is the food that sustains plantlife and creates the oxygen we breathe, is dangerous to mankind at high levels.Intragovernmental Panel on Climate Control [IPCC] scientist Chris Field of Sanford University and the Carnegie Institute for Science says that recent studies show that "...there is a real risk that human-caused climate change will accelerate the release of carbon dioxide from forest and tundra ecosystems which have been storing carbon for thousands of years. We don't want to cross a critical threshold where this massive release of carbon starts to run on autopilot." Field said his research shows that greenhouse gas emissions increased far more rapidly from 2000 to 2007 than scientists expected...due to the industrialization of China and India.
Field noted that computer models he has been building indicate that deforestation due to tropical forest wildfires could increase atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from 10 to 100 parts per million by the end of the century. (To the ecoalarmist, all doomsday warnings are scheduled to befall mankind at the "end of this century or the next one," since that's longer than the lifespans of the people being warnedwho won't live long enough to call out the doomsayers for their false prophecies when they fail to materialize as has been the case thus far.) Field noted that dramatic increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide could reach the highest levels in 650 thousand years. "Tropical forests," Field said, "are essentially nonflammable. You couldn't get a fire to burn there if you tried. But, if they dry out just a little bit, the result can be very large and destructive wildfires...Essentially the computer models suggest forest-carbon feedback that acts like a foot on the accelerator pedal for atmospheric CO2." Field suggested that as carbon dioxide levels build, the heat generated by global warming dries out the forests and makes them prime candidates for massive forest fires like those California experiences whenever there is a dearth of rainfall in that State. Facts simply don't support Field's views.
The Atacama Desert in north Central Chile disputes Field's computer model which is based on ecoalarmist hypotheticals and not fact. The Atacama Desert is one of the driest areas in the world. The average annual rainfall in the Atacama is less than 1.5 cm. By itself, ecoalarmists like Field could easily point out the desert terrain as the perfect example of drought caused by the extremes of carbon dioxide proliferation. They don't because above the Atacama Desert along the 600-mile long mountain spine in which the Fray Jorge National Park sits every patchwork quilt fog forests. The most rain received directly below any of the patchwork quilt forests falls on the desert floor below Fray Jorge. The low mountains below the fog forests closely resemble the American badlands in the US Southwest. Those directly under Fray Jorge receive about 6-inches of precipitation in a good "rain year." Jutting up, almost vertically, are the coastal mountains which serve as the spine of Chile. Unlike most South American mountainsides which teem with plush jungle vegetation, these mountains look like the desert plains.
But as you climbs the steep mountains, an impossible change occurs. Impossible in the sense that what happens next is a forestor rather a patchwork quilt of forestssitting on top of a desert. Forests requires rain. Rain requires rain clouds. In one of the driest areas on Earth, rain clouds are an improbability. Yet, some 1,500 to 2,000 feet above a striking view of the Pacific Ocean is an amazing patchwork quilt of small rain forests not unlike those found in the deep forests of Brazil.
Each patchwork quilt in these carbon dioxide rich mountains are literally "fog forests" as opposed to rain forests. Fog lays like a shroud over the mountains creating an atrium-like affect. (If you've ever raised plants in an atrium ecosystem you know that water and oxygen are generated by photosynthesis, and without the plants in the atrium being watered, they thrive.) The moisture trapped in nature's atrium from photosynthesis and from the condensation of moisture in the fog blanket that sits like a canopy over the treetops is supplemented by wind-driven water droplets from the Pacific Ocean
Kathleen Weathers, an ecosystem scientist from the Cary Institute of Ecosystems Studies in Milbrook, New York has been studying fog forest for 25 years and admits that she still doesn't understand how they work. "One step inside a fog forest," she told Discover Magazine for an article in the April, 2009 issue, " and its clear that you've entered a remarkable ecosystem. The ways in which trees, leaves, mosses, and bromeliads have adapted to harvest tiny droplets of water that hang in the atmosphere is unparalleled."
Field simply is not correct in his estimation that increased greenhouse gas emissions will "dry out" the fragile ecosystems, sparking fires that will add to the carbon dioxide problem, and "...as the Earth warms, it [will generate] faster winds over the oceans." According to Field, the winds which blow the surface waters [of the oceans] out of the way, like the parting of the Red Sea, allowing water with higher concentrations of C02 to rise to the surface. Field reiterated that where the oceans used to act as a "carbon sink," absorbing man-created carbon dioxide. It is Field's opinion they have now become "carbon sources" adding to the greenhouse gas problem as the frozen tundra in the Arctic and Antarctic thaws, releasing greenhouse gases that have been trapped for thousands if not millions of years in the permafrost, and releasing those carbon dioxide and methane gases from decaying organic matter back into the atmosphere, greatly adding to the greenhouse gas problem.
Today there are two inconvenient truths about global warming. First, global warming is not threatening the world. Second, global warming is not man-created. Sadly, for the last three or four decades real climate scientists, fearful of the powerful lobby behind the climate change movement, remained silent, letting 13% of the "scientific community" (most of which are leftwing teachers) form the consensus that not only was global warming real, but that it was caused by man and threatens the world unless radical changes in the lifestyles of the human race are not quickly implemented.
The global warming ecoalarmists blame everything on global warmingincluding scientific, factual evidence of global cooling. Most common is the misrepresenting of climate data by the voodoo climatologists. Even though New Jersey is receiving upwards of six inches more rain per year than it did a century ago, New Jersey Sierra Club Director Jeff Tittel was quoted in a Dec. 26, 2008 article in the Asbury Park Press (Asbury, NJ) claiming that global warming is the culprit behind the drought conditions in that State. First, National Climate Data Center [NCDC] precipitation records indicate there was no increased drought conditions in New Jersey. Second, the State actually experienced increased precipitation over the past four years. Sadly, the article did not include any rebuttal argument from the NCDC or from any reputable climatologists.
When that type of reporting happens, people read the article and accept it at face value. The newspaper, supposedly without an axe to grind in the argument, reports there is increased drought in New Jersey. They report that was caused by global warming. People file that information away in their mindsand both the drought and the cause of the drought becomes a fact in their mind. And even though the premise and conclusion of the statement are bogus, global warming becomes real to the people reading that paper. Multiply that story a hundred times a day in a hundred different markets in the United States, and suddenly sane and sensible people believe that man-induced global warming is a fact.
Another weather anomaly that should be causing Al Gore and the Sierra Club problems is the Hadley Climate Center's HadAT2 Dataset temperature measuring system that has been recording global radiosonde data since 1958. Beginning last year the collected data from 676 individual radiosonde stations around the globe twice a day show the planet is cooling. The Hadley HadAT2 graph is shown here: The HadAT2 records the global temperature departure history since 1958. (The chart on the right records temperature activity for 624 months.)
In the Jan. 22, 2009 issue of Nature, climatologist Michael Mann, author of the paleoclimate "hockey stick" theory that dismissed the 10th century warming of Iceland and Greenland, authored an article arguing that his computer model simulations prove that Antarctica is still warming even though scientific temperature measurements confirm that the continent is cooling. In the article, Mann dismissed the random placement of the temperature stations as "incredibly bad luck" since, he said, the locations picked for the stations sat in areas where isolated pockets of cooling simply defied the overall warming trend that was taking place in Antarctica and around the world.
Mann's article, Patrick Michael, Reearch Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia noted, was long on theory and short on reliable evidence. To corroborate his computer models, Mann used the data from a satellite that was not designed to measure temperatures. The data Mann retrieved appeared to confirm his theories, so that was the data he chose to use to refute years of temperature measurements that prove Antarctica is cooling. Patrick Michael argued that Mann shopped around for satellite data that would appear to confirm his global warming hypothesis, not discover the truth about whether or not Antarctica temperatures were rising or dropping.
Mann's article insists that decades of raw temperature data shows a false cooling trend in Antarctica because there are no measuring stations located between the existing measuring stations to confirm what Mann's computer models show that significant warming was taking place everywhere else on the continent. Of course, had there been measuring stations between the existing measuring stations, Mann would simply have grouped them with the other measuring stations and argued had there been measuring stations between the "then increased number of existing measuring stations," they would have noted that Antarctica was warming. Mann insisted that "...our reconstruction show more significant temperature change in Antarctica, and a different pattern for that change than reported in previous reconstructions."
The problem with Mann's "evidence" is that it isn't evidence. It's a hypothetical based on the suppositions of the person creating the computer model. It subscribes to the adage, "Garbage in, garbage out." Mann and his colleagues chose to throw away factual scientific evidence that disprove the theories of the ecoalarmists, using voodoo science and the liberal media to sell global warming to the public. The media is now force feeding society with a litany of ecoalarmist views from global warming advocates to convince the masses that man-made global warming is fact.
When former Vice President Al Gore, Jr. declined Lord Monckton's offer to discuss global warming in a public forum claiming he said "The debate is over." As noted above, Gore did not mean that global warming is "settled science." He meant was that Congress is now passed the laws needed to regulate climate change as though it is a solvable problem that was caused by man. As man tinkers with nature trying to fix what is not broken, man will suffer the consequences of his own "Chicken Little" stupidity. Today, the climate control crowd is selling carbon credits. When they succeed in erasing our carbon footprints by eliminating carbon dioxide, I suspect they will be selling both portable H2O pumps and synthetic food packets to the handful of survivors still alive on Planet Earthproviding what's left of us can afford either. And, as we struggle to breathe bottled air, we will hear Al Gore's voice somewhere off in the distance sayng, "I told you so. I told you so."