4 Mar 2008, 7:09pm
Climate and Weather
by admin

Global Warming Debate Rages On

Guess what? The debate about global warming is not over. The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change took place March 2-4 in New York City, and 100 global warming skeptics made their case.

Sponsored by the Heartland Institute of Chicago, the 2008 conference included the top names in the skeptics’ circle [here].

It is too early for this reporter to relate what transpired. I am 3,000 miles away and am not wired into the Conference proceedings. Various news outlets have given cursory reports, but none I have found report on the specific talks that were given. Various blogs have spouted off, though, and I see no reason not to do so myself.

The following are my opinions, based on my reading of all the major climatology sites and discussions with experts I know personally. I do not pass off the responsibility, however. This is what I think:

1. Climate change within the Holocene has been a relatively slow process. If the Earth’s temperature has risen 0.5 degrees C in the last 100 years, as is claimed by many, that change is very minor and difficult to separate from statistical error (noise). The very idea that the Earth has a measurable temperature is a rather vague one.

2. Paleoclimatology evidence indicates that we are still in the Ice Ages, albeit in an interglacial hiatus between deep cold periods. Interglacials have been as regular as clockwork for the last 1.6 million years, occurring 16 times at 100,000 year intervals. Each interglacial began with a sudden rise in temperatures and then a slow descent back into glaciation. The warm periods have lasted about 10,000 years, and the cold periods about 90,000 years.

3. The interglacials correspond exactly to Milankovitch Cycles, in particular to the eccentricities in the Earth’s orbit around the Sun. Our orbit swings from nearly circular to more elliptical and back again in a 100,000 year periodicity. The interglacials correspond to the more circular orbital condition.

4. We passed through the most recent maximally circular condition about 10,000 years ago. At that time the Earth is estimated to have been 5 degrees C warmer than now. That is only an estimate because the thermometer had not been invented yet, and the Earth’s temperature is a difficult thing to measure anyway (see #1 above). At any rate, all the proxies (such as tree ring studies, ice core studies, pollen studies) yield consistent evidence that the Earth has been gradually cooling ever since. Further, evidence of gradual cooling from interglacial maximums is consistent with the proxy evidence from previous interglacials.

5. The recent (last 100 years) purported 0.5 degree C rise has not gotten us back to anywhere near the Holocene maximum, also known as the Climatic Optimum. We know from fossil pollen records that forests flourished at the time of the Climatic Optimum. We also know that forests did not flourish during the long glaciations. For instance, the great boreal forests of Canada did not exist during the most recent glaciation (the Wisconsin). Instead great ice sheets covered most of Canada and much of the northern U.S. as well. Trees do not grow on ice.

6. Life is most prolific near the equators, where it is warmer, rather than near the poles, where it is bitterly cold. Life likes warm. Both plant and animal biodiversity is greatest in the warmer latitudes. Indeed, prior to about 2.3 million years ago the Earth was much warmer than now, as much as 15 degrees C, and that warm period extended backwards in time for about 300 million years. For 99 percent of the time that life has existed on dry land, it has been warmer than now.

7. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but one of the basic building blocks of life. Photosynthesis occurs only in the presence of CO2.

8. Human beings are adaptable creatures. We arose as a unique species about 150,000 years ago, during the Illinois Glaciation. We survived that, and the Sangamon Interglacial, and the Wisconsin Glaciation. People live from the Equator to near the poles in every climate the Earth has to offer.

9. The current hysteria over global warming is unfounded. We are not shooting up in temperature (the upward trend has been minor and appears to have topped out ten years ago), but if we were, it would be no great disaster. Warmer has been the normative condition for most of the last 300 million years.

10. There is strong evidence that many people are using global warming alarmism as an excuse or driver for increasingly authoritarian governments worldwide.

11. Authoritarian movements murdered or otherwise caused the untimely deaths of over 100 million people in the 20th Century. In the century previous to this one we experienced the most brutality and the most inhumanity of man upon man ever in the history of humankind. Authoritarianism is a mass killer.

12. Regardless of global warming, cooling, or temperature stasis, authoritarianism is a bad idea.

13. Freedom, democracy, individual liberty, and protection of individual human rights are better ideas, regardless of climate.

Those are my opinions on the matter. You are free to think otherwise, or at least I hope you are free to do so. I certainly treasure my freedom to think for myself and to hold opinions that others may or may not agree with. My philosophy is anti-authoritarian.

Warmer Is Better-Fight the Ice

Freedom Is Better-Fight the Fascists

4 Mar 2008, 7:44pm
by Joe B.


6 Mar 2008, 1:31pm
by bear bait

The way this works is that the victim has to be thoroughly demeaned first. “Welfare rancher” “subsidized farmer” “beer swilling logger” “forest raper” “lumber baron” “timber hog” “indiscriminate fish and bird killer”, the list is very, very long.

After painting whoever you want to take from as the worst of villains, you begin the syrupy smooth talks about how much better your idea is, how much more humane, how much better for the environment, and you do it using tax forgiven foundation and trust money. Use the victim’s money to take all that he has.

That process is ongoing with people who live anywhere a purposeful US Govt wildfire might burn. There is no value to the Govt of resources lost, only fire suppression costs are accounted for. There is no risk/reward, profit/loss, net gain or loss on investment calculated by Govt arsonists and fire apologists. What you lose means nothing. hat they spend as a Govt agency is the be all and end all of their policy. It is proof positive that Govt is not of and for the people, but now for Govt itself.

We took God out of public life and in schools and put her in the Chief’s chair. The Forest Fascists are already here and working, under their new leaders the BINGOs. And here I have been told that Cheney was evil and Halliburton sat at the policy table and had their way with the regulators. I guess it is just a matter of degree and whose ox is being gored. Frampton scares me more than Cheney.

But when it all boils down, I think GW is a way to justify burning forests and ranges. It is GW, not fuels, that make the big fires, wink wink …

The Global Warming Debate is mostly about research money for university staff. It is about money. They want yours and I want to keep mine. The old saw about a little knowledge being a bad deal is being proved every day in the GW debate. But if you know how a sports book works, you can really see what is going on. When you bet on a game and the points spread, the bookie just wants volume. It matters not which side of the deal wins or loses. Ideal is to have an even split, and a lot of players. You get 10% of the winnings, and your losers cover the winners. So you adjust the point spread to reflect the betting, and to keep the split as even as possible. If you end up with too much on one side, and there is a big risk in that, you just buy insurance offshore in the Cayman Islands or where ever you might find the insurance.

I see the Global Warming Debate as that kind of deal. Keep it even. And the intellectual community keeps the vigorish. In that light, Al Gore is nothing more than a bookie in his dealing of carbon credits. A scammer.



web site

leave a comment

  • Colloquia

  • Commentary and News

  • Contact

  • Follow me on Twitter

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • Meta