Ever wonder how the education and healthcare sectors will deal with GW? Me neither. But you can find out by attending a Wisconsin government agency’s workshop. Since it’s in Wisconsin, my guess is they will be educating the participants on the proper application of sunscreen. (And you were worrying that your tax money wasn’t well spent.)
MARCH 10, 2008
Country Springs Hotel Waukesha, WI
WISCONSIN HEALTH & EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES AUTHORITY
2:15 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. Global Warming and it’s Impact on the Healthcare & Education Sectors
This comes from one of my favorite tech blogs, Gizmodo. Usually pretty informed about all things gadgety, these guys pass some news along without noticing how silly they sound.
Sure, Hummers are bad for the environment, but do you know what else is? Cow farts. Yep, the methane in cow farts contributes to a surprisingly-high 5% of all global warming gasses out there, with methane being 22 times more potent at capturing atmospheric heat than carbon dioxide. The good news? A couple of Japanese scientists seem to have stumbled upon a way to neutralize this problem.
According to the article, the solution would cost about $1 per day, per cow. Wait, what? I don’t know how much it costs to feed a cow for a day, but I think you’d be hard pressed to find a dairy farmer willing to pay the extra charge to “neutralize” their cows’ farts.
I looked around and found this source that puts the average number of cows on a dairy farm in Massachusetts in 2004 at 111 cows. At $1 per cow per day, that’s an extra $40,515 per year! Sounds to me like more of a profit saving quest for feed producers than a global warming solution. At first, I thought the story was just another in a long line of funny fart-blaming stories, but this one really showed some true colors.
Is the IPCC guilty of fraud about sea levels? This highly respected scientist thinks so. The whole interview is a fascinating look at how computer models are tweaked to come up with the “right” answer.
Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud
EIR: What is the real state of the sea-level rising?
Mörner: …we can see that the sea level was indeed rising, from, let us say, 1850 to 1930-40. And that rise had a rate in the order of 1 millimeter per year. Not more. 1.1 is the exact figure. And we can check that, because Holland is a subsiding area; it has been subsiding for many millions of years; and Sweden, after the last Ice Age, was uplifted. So if you balance those, there is only one solution, and it will be this figure.
That ended in 1940, and there had been no rise until 1970; and then we can come into the debate here on what is going on, and we have to go to satellite altimetry, and I will return to that. But before doing that: There’s another way of checking it, because if the radius of the Earth increases, because sea level is rising, then immediately the Earth’s rate of rotation would slow down. That is a physical law, right? … So you can look at the rotation and the same comes up: Yes, it might be 1.1 mm per year, but absolutely not more. It could be less, because there could be other factors affecting the Earth, but it certainly could not be more. Absolutely not! Again, it’s a matter of physics.
… They go up and down, but there’s no trend in it; it was up until 1930, and then down again. There’s no trend, absolutely no trend.
Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. But we have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn’t use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting.
And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. So tide gauges, you have to treat very, very carefully. Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.
Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced factors from outside; it’s not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don’t say what really happened. And they answered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!
That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don’t find it!
I have been the expert reviewer for the IPCC, both in 2000 and last year. The first time I read it, I was exceptionally surprised. First of all, it had 22 authors, but none of them— none—were sea-level specialists. They were given this mission, because they promised to answer the right thing. Again, it was a computer issue. This is the typical thing: The metereological community works with compu-ters, simple computers.
Sorry about the length of this post but there was so much said so well that I couldn’t find a good place to stop.
The Dangerous Rise of Carbon Fundamentalism
Source Brad AllenbyA professor writing in the Medical Journal of Australia calls on the Australian government to impose a carbon charge of $5,000 on every birth, annual carbon fees of $800 per child and provide a carbon credit for sterilization. Another recent article in the New Scientist suggests that the problem with obesity is the additional carbon load it imposes on the environment; others that a major social cost of divorce is the additional carbon burden resulting from splitting up families.
A recent study from the Swedish Ministry of Sustainable Development argues that males have a disproportionately larger impact on global warming (“women cause considerably fewer carbon dioxide emissions than men and thus considerably less climate change”).The Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change states that those who suggest that climate change is not a catastrophic challenge are no different than Hitler (he now claims that his words were taken out of context, but the reporter who conducted the interview, Lars From, stands by it). E. O. Wilson calls such people parasites. Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman writes that “global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.”
There are always fringe articles and unfortunate comments in areas of active public debate. But the sheer volume of articles, the vicious language and the retranslation of so many social and cultural trends — divorce, obesity, gender conflict and much else — into terms of carbon footprint suggests that something more fundamental is going on.
Most obviously, the extreme language — comparing academics who disagree about interpretation of data to Hitler or to Holocaust deniers — is indicative of a profound if subtle reframing of climate change. One does not debate Hitler: the use of such language indicates a shift from helping the public and policymakers understand a complex issue, to demonizing disagreement, especially regarding policies favored by the scientific community.
The data driven and exploratory processes of science are choked off by inculcation of belief systems that rely on archetypal and emotive strength. Importantly, the extreme language is directed not against those who deny anthropogenic climate change completely, for there are few of those left (a credit to the traditional scientific debate process while it still existed in this area), but those who, while accepting the existence of the phenomenon, do not believe it is an existential and immediate crisis. The authority of science is relied on not for factual enlightenment but as ideological foundation for authoritarian policy prescriptions which might otherwise be difficult to implement.
This is reinforced by the number of articles, some verging on self-parody, that redefine more and more social and cultural phenomenon in terms of carbon footprint. It is not that each assertion may be wrong; indeed, since life at base is creating order, it is not surprising that changes in individual, social and institutional networks will have concomitant implications for coupled natural systems — especially energy and material consumption and thus the carbon cycle.
Defining complex human behaviors and states, such as obesity or having children, in terms of carbon footprint, however, enables a new structure of good and evil to be imposed on society. Obesity is now morally questionable not for health reasons or Calvinist theology, but because it is evil in that you are destroying the world through your carbon footprint-generating gluttony. A complex public health problem is nicely converted into a simplistic moral mapping.
Similarly, the Swedish article uses climate change to reinvent the ecofeminist condemnation of males as evil destroyers of the environment (the New Scientist lead on the news item read “Male eco-villians”). The campaign to create a moral universe predicated on carbon footprint, which began with anti-SUV initiatives, is now extending across society as a whole. Climate change science and policy is rapidly becoming carbon fundamentalism, an over-simplistic but comprehensive structure of moral valuation that can be applied to virtually any individual or institution.
As the IPCC Nobel Peace Prize and perusal of journals reveals, many scientists are active participants in this process. But fundamentalism of any stripe is dangerous because it oversimplifies complex problems and because it facilitates “good” versus “evil” framing that cuts off dialog and thus tends to be profoundly anti-democratic, anti-intellectual, anti-rational — and anti-scientific. Because science is for many people an important source of information, guidance and truth, in the short run it can provide substantial authority for carbon fundamentalism. Converting science into an authoritarian belief system is, however, dangerous not just to those whom it demonizes but, eventually, to the health of the institution itself.
A RUSSIAN scientist believes we have seen the end of global warming and is warning people to start preparing for an ice age.
Climate expert Khabibullo Abdusamatov insists global warming is not caused by carbon dioxide emissions but by changes in solar radiation.
He said: “A freeze will come about regardless of whether or not countries put a cap on greenhouse gas emissions.”
Abdusamatov says that by 2041, solar activity will reach its minimum according to a 200-year cycle and a cooling period will hit the Earth around 2060.
The new mini ice age will last between 45 and 65 years, with Britain experiencing Siberian temperatures.
Churches invited to help save the Earth
Local congregations of all faiths are being invited to do their part to save the Earth.
Zion Lutheran Church in Iowa City is hosting the “Cool Congregations” workshop Saturday. The workshop is designed to get parishioners to learn how to reduce their carbon footprint, said Sarah Webb, co-creator of the Cool Congregations program.
“Global warming is the hottest issue out there,” Webb said. “We’re trying to reduce our global warming pollution.”
Another factor might be contributing to the thinning of some of the Antarctica’s glaciers: volcanoes.In an article published Sunday on the Web site of the journal Nature Geoscience, Hugh Corr and David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey report the identification of a layer of volcanic ash and glass shards frozen within an ice sheet in western Antarctica.”This is the first time we have seen a volcano beneath the ice sheet punch a hole through the ice sheet” in Antarctica, Vaughan said.Volcanic heat could still be melting ice to water and contributing to thinning and speeding up of the Pine Island glacier, which passes nearby, but Vaughan said he doubted that it could be affecting other glaciers in western Antarctica, which have also thinned in recent years. Most glaciologists, including Vaughan, say that warmer ocean water is the primary cause of thinning.
SPPI today reveals 35 errors in Al Gore’s discredited climate movie An Inconvenient Truth .
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, an expert witness in the UK legal case condemning the movie, compiled the science-based list in response to recent inaccurate public comments by Gore’s environment advisor relative to the High Court’s findings.
Said Monckton, “Each of Gore’s 35 errors distorts or exaggerates in one direction only – toward unjustifiable alarmism. The likelihood that all 35 would fall one way by inadvertence is less than 1 in 34 billion. Gore’s movie is not only inaccurate but prejudiced. The movie is unsuitable for children. It should not be shown in schools.”
The nine discrepancies between scientists and Gore listed by the Judge include:
Scientists: Greenland and Antarctica may add 2.5in to sea-level rise in 100 years. Gore: 20ft. Scientists: Pacific sea level has hardly changed. Gore: whole populations have been evacuated. Scientists: the thermohaline circulation may slow. Gore: it will stop. Scientists: in past climate, temperature rose before CO2. Gore: CO2 changed first. Scientists: long-term climate shifts and deforestation are melting the snows of Kilimanjaro. Gore: “global warming” is at fault. Scientists: over-extraction of water and new farming methods dried Lake Chad. Gore: “global warming”. Scientists: one-off events like Katrina cannot be attributed to “global warming”. Gore: “global warming”; Scientists: high winds killed four polar bears where sea ice is growing. Gore: they died swimming to find ice. Scientists: an exceptional El Nino bleached corals in 1998. Gore: “global warming” did.
Some of the additional 26 errors include:
CO2 effect on temperature will be ten times the consensus value. “Global warming” caused a south Atlantic hurricane, additional Thames Barrier closures, malaria and other diseases, bigger weather-related insurance losses, more US tornadoes and Japanese typhoons, unprecedented Arctic warming, stronger hurricanes and Mumbai floods. The sun directly heats the ocean. Greenland and West Antarctic may soon melt. Himalayan melt waters are failing. Peruvian and other mountain glaciers worldwide are in unprecedented retreat. The Sahara is drying. CO2 is “pollution”. Footage of an advancing glacier calving is evidence of “global warming”. CO2 concentration will reach 600 ppmv by 2050.
When McCain and Joe Lieberman introduced legislation empowering Congress to comprehensively regulate U.S. industries’ emissions of greenhouse gases in order to “prevent catastrophic global warming,” they co-authored an op-ed column that radiated McCainian intolerance of disagreement. It said that a U.N. panel’s report “puts the final nail in denial’s coffin about the problem of global warming.” Concerning the question of whether human activity is causing catastrophic warming, they said, “the debate has ended.”Interesting, is it not, that no one considers it necessary to insist that “the debate has ended” about whether the Earth is round. People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues.
I just found this ad today. The copy at the bottom of the image reads: “Global Warming: If we don’t act today, future looks blue.” Apparently it ignores all of the more reasonable science that says that the oceans won’t rise anywhere near the Gore-predicted 20 ft. Plus, there is so much alarmist dew dripping off of it that it’s getting hard to see clearly.