Global Warming Follies

Oops. Never mind… again!

Posted in Uncategorized by tjgavin on March 14, 2008

NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe

March 13, 2008

The average temperature across both the contiguous U.S. and the globe during climatological winter (December 2007-February 2008) was the coolest since 2001, according to scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.



Never mind. (Again)

Posted in Follies by tjgavin on March 11, 2008

At some point you have to wonder when the press will do a proper job of being skeptical about claims by the GWers. Last year they reported unquestioningly that the floods in England were caused by GW and we should expect more. Now? Well…never mind.

Freak rain, not global warming, blamed for last year’s devastating £3bn floods

The devastating floods that deluged Britain last summer were not caused by climate change, contrary to the claims of politicians and green campaigners, scientists have said. ‘


A major new study says there is no evidence that the “exceptional river flooding” – which caused more than £3billion damage and left thousands homeless – was anything other than a freak “100- to 200-year” event.

At the time, there were claims that the floods were the result of climate change – and a taster of the sort of floods that would become more common. Last year, as Gordon Brown visited flood-damaged homes, he blamed the events on climate change. “We’re looking, if you like, at 21st-century extreme weather conditions,” he said at the time.

Remember, Gordon Brown is the same British Prime Minister that had his claims about plastic bags disproven too. (See earlier post.) Will the British press put those two facts together? Don’t hold your breath.


More junk science.

Posted in Follies by tjgavin on March 9, 2008

Imagine that a country imposed a hardship on its people based on junk science. Couldn’t happen right? In most scientific areas like medicine, food safety, drinking water, etc. you’d be right. But that’s definitely NOT true when it comes to environmental matters. In England Gordon Brown is pushing for the elimination of plastic bags based largely on the carnage they cause to marine life. One problem though…

Scientists and environmentalists have attacked a global campaign to ban plastic bags which they say is based on flawed science and exaggerated claims.

The widely stated accusation that the bags kill 100,000 animals and a million seabirds every year are false, experts have told The Times. They pose only a minimal threat to most marine species, including seals, whales, dolphins and seabirds.

Gordon Brown announced last month that he would force supermarkets to charge for the bags, saying that they were “one of the most visible symbols of environmental waste”. Retailers and some pressure groups, including the Campaign to Protect Rural England, threw their support behind him. But scientists, politicians and marine experts attacked the Government for joining a “bandwagon” based on poor science.

The problem came about as a result of a blunder by an Australian study misquoting an earlier Canadian study

The central claim of campaigners is that the bags kill more than 100,000 marine mammals and one million seabirds every year. However, this figure is based on a misinterpretation of a 1987 Canadian study in Newfoundland, which found that, between 1981 and 1984, more than 100,000 marine mammals, including birds, were killed by discarded nets. The Canadian study did not mention plastic bags.

Fifteen years later in 2002, when the Australian Government commissioned a report into the effects of plastic bags, its authors misquoted the Newfoundland study, mistakenly attributing the deaths to “plastic bags”.

The figure was latched on to by conservationists as proof that the bags were killers.

So why do you think the “conservationists” didn’t bother to check the quoted Canadian study to get the full story? And why did their campaign play so well among the public. I like Lord Tavere’s explanation.

Lord Taverne, the chairman of Sense about Science, said: “The Government is irresponsible to jump on a bandwagon that has no base in scientific evidence. This is one of many examples where you get bad science leading to bad decisions which are counter-productive. Attacking plastic bags makes people feel good but it doesn’t achieve anything.”

The “makes people feel good” explanation seems to apply to a lot of environmental policy making these days.


Global Warming and recyling

Posted in Common Sense by tjgavin on March 7, 2008

You might wonder what the two subjects have with to do with one another. No, I’m not trying to create a nexis between the activity of recycling and either an increase or a decrease in GW. I just think that when you hear the certainty with which the GW activists state their conclusions, its helpful to remember that we’ve been here before and those same people said many things with great certainty before.

They especially said a lot about garbage: we produce too much much of it, we’ll be buried in it, we’re running out of landfill space, curbside recycling can pay for itself, recycling is good for the environment and on and on. The problem is, nearly none of that is true. And yet, I dare say a majority of Americans have been taken in by the hype and dutifully try to “save the planet” by sorting their garbage.

The linked article from the New York Times Magazine is a little dated but it addresses the claims and truths of the recycling phenomenon. Its also a good reminder that group-think is the stock in trade of the environmental movement. A religion to the true believers with its own rituals, doctrines and heresies. Once those doctrines are adopted they are vigorously evangelized and the underlying assumptions are never re-examined.

Substitute the players and see if this excerpt sounds familiar in the global warming context:

The leaders of the recycling movement derive psychic and financial rewards from recycling. Environmental groups raise money and attract new members through their campaigns to outlaw “waste” and prevent landfills from opening. They get financing from public and private sources (including the recycling industry) to research and promote recycling. By turning garbage into a political issue, environmentalists have created jobs for themselves as lawyers, lobbyists, researchers, educators and moral guardians. Environmentalists may genuinely believe they’re helping the earth, but they have been hurting the common good while profiting personally… This is the real Tragedy of the Dump: the waste of public funds on recycling programs, the needless public alarm about landfills.

The article is a long one, but it helps to understand the mindset and tactics of the environmentalist lobby in order to see the patterns in today’s global warming discourse. They have clearly learnd their lessons from the success of the recycling movement and have adopted them in toto in their GW advocacy.


The debate is not over.

Posted in Common Sense by tjgavin on March 7, 2008

That’s the title of an eight minute 20/20 piece that ran last October. I didn’t see it when it was aired and just came accross it on the interweb. I found it to be a great composite of all of the hysteria surrounding GW and some sobering facts that you should know about why that hysteria is unwarranted. If you’ve got eight minutes to kill I recommend it.


Finally, more scat talk!!!

Posted in Follies by tjgavin on March 5, 2008

After a long absence our GW friends are back promoting poop to “save the planet”. I was beginning to worry that they’d lost their senses of humor. 

RIVERDALE, California (Reuters) – Imagine a vat of liquid cow manure covering the area of five football fields and 33 feet deep. Meet California’s most alternative new energy.

On a dairy farm in the Golden State’s agricultural heartland, utility PG&E Corp began on Tuesday producing natural gas derived from manure, in what it hopes will be a new way to power homes with renewable, if not entirely clean, energy.

The Vintage Dairy Biogas Project, the brainchild of life- long dairyman David Albers, aims to provide the natural gas needed to power 1,200 homes a day, Albers said at the facility’s inauguration ceremony.

“When most people see a pile of manure, they see a pile of manure. We saw it as an opportunity for farmers, for utilities, and for California,” Albers said.

As cow manure decomposes, it produces methane, a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide. Scientists say controlling methane emissions from animals such as cows would be a major step in addressing climate change.


« Previous Page