Global Warming Anti-Science

Hello all,

I have taken these tidbits from The American Policy Roundtable, and you may find the full text here:

http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/globalwarmup.html


"Global Warming" is the hypothesis that our atmosphere heating up due to the (man-made) increase in "greenhouse gases," such as carbon dioxide. The main source of greenhouse gas is burning of "fossil fuels" such as oil, coal, and wood. The increased gasses make the atmosphere act like a greenhouse and hold heat in - causing an overall rise in the Earth's temperature.

For anyone who professes to maintain a "scientific" attitude toward all things (Yes global warming fanatics, you are excused), here are some positions that refute the hypothesis of Global Warming:

A) Over 17,000 scientists signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

me: Why should these 17,000 scientists be ignored, while the 1,500 that signed the 1997 “World Scientists Call For Action” petition be considered almost God-like in their prognostication? Why should scientific research that refutes Global Warming or even Man's contribution to Global Warming be any less valid than its counterpart?

B) Wikipedia lists many sources of temperature data. I see no global warming trend. Satellite temperature readings show no warming since such readings began, 23 years ago. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe. And what about introduction of human error?

C) "Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes." Predictions of global warming come from computer models rather than historical data. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”

D) The IPCC did not prove that man is causing global warming. Alarmists like to cite the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to support their predictions. What does the IPCC’s latest report say? “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”

E) Let's be real. A little "global warming" wouldn't hurt anybody. Between 800 and 1200 AD "global warming" allowed the Vikings to settle in Greenland. Was that bad? What about creation of more hospitible and inhabitable land on earth? What about increased food production? What about more warm places to vacation?

F) Trying to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions quickly would be horrendously expensive, and it is doubtful that they would do anything to stop the climate from from changing. The Kyoto Treaty wanted us (America) to lower carbon emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels 2012. Reasoned estimates are that such a drive would cost 2.4 million jobs, over $300 billion in economic output, and more than $2,700 per year in household income.

For you libs: tax revenues for states would decline by nearly $95 billion because of lower earnings a property values. How are you going to pay to give illegal immigrants driver's licenses?

G) "The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right."

The United States (under the reviled Bush, I might add) "spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined."

U.S. companies "are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing...greenhouse gas emissions." Let's help them out with tax breaks and other incentives. Let's not punish them for producing and innovating, as Obama desires.

If you want some legitimate reasons to question the absolutism of Global Warming, I have given them to you. If you are only interested in spouting the party line: "Man Bad, Mother Earth Good, U.S. Worst Of All", then you have wasted your time reading this.

This too, shall pass

Wowsers - the Dow has lost 15% of its value in 1 week! That's a shaker, and no mistake.

Here's my take. We are building. We are buying. We are innovating. We are servicing. All this has not stopped, and will not stop. Oil is coming down in price. The dumb-o-cratic leadership have decided we may drill for our own oil - at least a little bit, and Obama even said we might relook at nuclear and clean-coal energy alternatives. Halleluja - the blind have seen the light.

I have stopped looking at my investments. They are as sound as any, and my losses so far are on paper. I will not cash out and make those losses real. I hope you refrain from such action as well.

My real regret right now is that I do not have some money laying around to dump into the market. These are the times that make people rich, if they have the resources and the nerve to invest. Warren Buffett must have confidence. He just bought $3 billion of GE stock. Now why do that if the world is going to hell in a handbasket? Hmmm?.

At the seasoned age of 51, I have now lived through 3 or 4 market "crashes" since I began investing. They all hurt. They are all frightening. But in each case, the recovery has been bigger and substantially more sustained than the crash. If you were to look at a stock market time line on Yahoo here:

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=%5EDJI#chart1:symbol=^dji;range=my;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined

you will see that the current downturn is still not as drastic as it seems when looking up close. Check out the dip from January 1973 to July of 2004 (1.5 years) when the Dow went from 1,020 (that's right, one thousand and twenty) to 607.

That's a "loss" of 40% FORTY PERCENT, sustained over a year and a half. Funny - I don't even remember it being dinner table conversation in my house.

Now the Dow has been as high as 14,000, and is currently in the high nine thousand range.

Personally - I believe it will recover and do so quite nicely. It may take a little bit - maybe more than a week! Holy smokes. Can we ever survive?

Sure we can. Take a breath. Go for a walk. Watch a movie. Have some ice cream. Read a good book. Live your life. Stop watching the news. Just stop. We'll be OK.

Even if Obama gets into office.

Feeding the Hogs

How is it, friends and foes, that we are giving our money to the very people that caused our economic troubles, in order that those people might "fix" the trouble?

How is it, friends and foes, that the people that killed the messenger in 2001, 2004, and 2005 when warned of Fannie and Freddie improprieties, are today trying to escape all blame for the debacle? Why aren't Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, Bill Clinton, and Chris Dodd being investigated? Where are the calls to see Maxine Waters "frog marched out of the Congress"?

How is it, friends and foes, that a bill that is rammed down our throats as an "emergency measure" intended to fend off economic collapse has billions and billions of pork barrel spending added to it to convince reluctant representatives to even vote for it?

How is it, friends and foes, that the very folks that called again and again for reform of Freddie and Fannie in 2001, 2004, and 2005 are ignored and even excoriated for somehow being implicit in the collapse of these entities? George Bush, John McCain, and a host of other Republican lawmakers warned loudly and often of the coming crisis. Their reward was to have voters put Democrats in power in 2006. At the end of the Democrats' reign, the dam burst, we all are soaked, and no one seems to remember who was warning us that this would come to pass. How is this?

How is it, friends and foes, that the American Public would even consider voting for the very people that caused this to happen to us in the upcoming national elections?

We seem to be feeding the hogs.

I am at a loss.