Political science of global warming.

If you begin with the belief that that wealthy countries became wealthy by exploiting poor ones, that state action does more good than harm, and that we could all afford to pay a bit more tax, you are likelier to accept a thesis which seems to demand government intervention, supranational technocracy and global wealth redistribution.

If, on the other hand, you begin from the proposition that individuals know better than governments, that collectivism was a demonstrable failure and that bureaucracies will always seek to expand their powers, you are likelier than not to believe that global warming is just the Liberals latest excuse for centralising power.

let’s suppose

let’s suppose you’re right – or, rather, let’s suppose that there’s a chance of your being right. Should we choke off economic growth in order to slow climate change by less than one degree?

Global Warming 101.

Global warming by Doc. Roy.

1) Are Global Temperatures Rising Now? There is no way to know, because natural year-to-year variability in global temperature is so large, with warming and cooling occurring all the time. What we can say is that surface and lower atmospheric temperature have risen in the last 30 to 50 years, with most of that warming in the Northern Hemisphere. Also, the magnitude of recent warming is somewhat uncertain, due to problems in making long-term temperature measurements with thermometers without those measurements being corrupted by a variety of non-climate effects. But there is no way to know if temperatures are continuing to rise now…we only see warming (or cooling) in the rearview mirror, when we look back in time.

2) Why Do Some Scientists Say It’s Cooling, while Others Say that Warming is Even Accelerating? Since there is so much year-to-year (and even decade-to-decade) variability in global average temperatures, whether it has warmed or cooled depends upon how far back you look in time. For instance, over the last 100 years, there was an overall warming which was stronger toward the end of the 20th Century. This is why some say “warming is accelerating”. But if we look at a shorter, more recent period of time, say since the record warm year of 1998, one could say that it has cooled in the last 10-12 years. But, as I mentioned above, neither of these can tell us anything about whether warming is happening “now”, or will happen in the future.

3) Haven’t Global Temperatures Risen Before? Yes. In the longer term, say hundreds to thousands of years, there is considerable indirect, proxy evidence (not from thermometers) of both warming and cooling. Since humankind can’t be responsible for these early events, this is evidence that nature can cause warming and cooling. If that is the case, it then opens up the possibility that some (or most) of the warming in the last 50 years has been natural, too. While many geologists like to point to much larger temperature changes are believed to have occurred over millions of years, I am unconvinced that this tells us anything of use for understanding how humans might influence climate on time scales of 10 to 100 years.

4) But Didn’t the “Hockey Stick” Show Recent Warming to be Unprecedented? The “hockey Stick” reconstructions of temperature variations over the last 1 to 2 thousand years have been a huge source of controversy. The hockey stick was previously used by the IPCC as a veritable poster child for anthropogenic warming, since it seemed to indicate there have been no substantial temperature changes over the last 1,000 to 2,000 years until humans got involved in the 20th Century. The various versions of the hockey stick were based upon limited amounts of temperature proxy evidence — primarily tree rings — and involved questionable statistical methods. In contrast, I think the bulk of the proxy evidence supports the view that it was at least as warm during the Medieval Warm Period, around 1000 AD. The very fact that recent tree ring data erroneously suggests cooling in the last 50 years, when in fact there has been warming, should be a warning flag about using tree ring data for figuring out how warm it was 1,000 years ago. But without actual thermometer data, we will never know for sure.

5) Isn’t the Melting of Arctic Sea Ice Evidence of Warming?Warming, yes…manmade warming, no. Arctic sea ice naturally melts back every summer, but that meltback was observed to reach a peak in 2007. But we have relatively accurate, satellite-based measurements of Arctic (and Antarctic) sea ice only since 1979. It is entirely possible that late summer Arctic Sea ice cover was just as low in the 1920s or 1930s, a period when Arctic thermometer data suggests it was just as warm. Unfortunately, there is no way to know, because we did not have satellites back then. Interestingly, Antarctic sea ice has been growing nearly as fast as Arctic ice has been melting over the last 30+ years.

6) What about rising sea levels? I must confess, I don’t pay much attention to the sea level issue. I will say that, to the extent that warming occurs, sea levels can be expected to also rise to some extent. The rise is partly due to thermal expansion of the water, and partly due to melting or shedding of land-locked ice (the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, and glaciers). But this says nothing about whether or not humans are the cause of that warming. Since there is evidence that glacier retreat and sea level rise started well before humans can be blamed, causation is — once again — a major source of uncertainty.

7) Is Increasing CO2 Even Capable of Causing Warming? There are some very intelligent people out there who claim that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere can’t cause warming anyway. They claim things like, “the atmospheric CO2 absorption bands are already saturated”, or something else very technical. [And for those more technically-minded persons, yes, I agree that the effective radiating temperature of the Earth in the infrared is determined by how much sunlight is absorbed by the Earth. But that doesn't mean the lower atmosphere cannot warm from adding more greenhouse gases, because at the same time they also cool the upper atmosphere]. While it is true that most of the CO2-caused warming in the atmosphere was there before humans ever started burning coal and driving SUVs, this is all taken into account by computerized climate models that predict global warming. Adding more “should” cause warming, with the magnitude of that warming being the real question. But I’m still open to the possibility that a major error has been made on this fundamental point. Stranger things have happened in science before.

8 ) Is Atmospheric CO2 Increasing? Yes, and most strongly in the last 50 years…which is why “most” climate researchers think the CO2 rise is the cause of the warming. Our site measurements of CO2 increase from around the world are possibly the most accurate long-term, climate-related, measurements in existence.

9) Are Humans Responsible for the CO2 Rise? While there are short-term (year-to-year) fluctuations in the atmospheric CO2 concentration due to natural causes, especially El Nino and La Nina, I currently believe that most of the long-term increase is probably due to our use of fossil fuels. But from what I can tell, the supposed “proof” of humans being the source of increasing CO2 — a change in the atmospheric concentration of the carbon isotope C13 — would also be consistent with a natural, biological source. The current atmospheric CO2 level is about 390 parts per million by volume, up from a pre-industrial level estimated to be around 270 ppm…maybe less. CO2 levels can be much higher in cities, and in buildings with people in them.

10) But Aren’t Natural CO2 Emissions About 20 Times the Human Emissions? Yes, but nature is believed to absorb CO2 at about the same rate it is produced. You can think of the reservoir of atmospheric CO2 as being like a giant container of water, with nature pumping in a steady stream into the bottom of the container (atmosphere) in some places, sucking out about the same amount in other places, and then humans causing a steady drip-drip-drip into the container. Significantly, about 50% of what we produce is sucked out of the atmosphere by nature, mostly through photosynthesis. Nature loves the stuff. CO2 is the elixir of life on Earth. Imagine the howls of protest there would be if we were destroying atmospheric CO2, rather than creating more of it.

11) Is Rising CO2 the Cause of Recent Warming? While this is theoretically possible, I think it is more likely that the warming is mostly natural. At the very least, we have no way of determining what proportion is natural versus human-caused.

12) Why Do Most Scientists Believe CO2 is Responsible for the Warming? Because (as they have told me) they can’t think of anything else that might have caused it. Significantly, it’s not that there is evidence nature can’t be the cause, but a lack of sufficiently accurate measurements to determine if nature is the cause. This is a hugely important distinction, and one the public and policymakers have been misled on by the IPCC.

13) If Not Humans, What could Have Caused Recent Warming?This is one of my areas of research. I believe that natural changes in the amount of sunlight being absorbed by the Earth — due to natural changes in cloud cover — are responsible for most of the warming. Whether that is the specific mechanism or not, I advance the minority view that the climate system can change all by itself. Climate change does not require an “external” source of forcing, such as a change in the sun.

14) So, What Could Cause Natural Cloud Changes? I think small, long-term changes in atmospheric and oceanic flow patterns can cause ~1% changes in how much sunlight is let in by clouds to warm the Earth. This is all that is required to cause global warming or cooling. Unfortunately, we do not have sufficiently accurate cloud measurements to determine whether this is the primary cause of warming in the last 30 to 50 years.

15) How Significant is the Climategate Release of E-Mails? While Climategate does not, by itself, invalidate the IPCC’s case that global warming has happened, or that humans are the primary cause of that warming, it DOES illustrate something I emphasized in my first book, “Climate Confusion”: climate researchers are human, and prone to bias.

16) Why Would Bias in Climate Research be Important? I thought Scientists Just Follow the Data Where It Leads Them When researchers approach a problem, their pre-conceived notions often guide them. It’s not that the IPCC’s claim that humans cause global warming is somehow untenable or impossible, it’s that political and financial pressures have resulted in the IPCC almost totally ignoring alternative explanations for that warming.

17) How Important Is “Scientific Consensus” in Climate Research?In the case of global warming, it is nearly worthless. The climate system is so complex that the vast majority of climate scientists — usually experts in variety of specialized fields — assume there are more knowledgeable scientists, and they are just supporting the opinions of their colleagues. And among that small group of most knowledgeable experts, there is a considerable element of groupthink, herd mentality, peer pressure, political pressure, support of certain energy policies, and desire to Save the Earth — whether it needs to be saved or not.

18) How Important are Computerized Climate Models? I consider climate models as being our best way of exploring cause and effect in the climate system. It is really easy to be wrong in this business, and unless you can demonstrate causation with numbers in equations, you are stuck with scientists trying to persuade one another by waving their hands. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that climate models will ever produce a useful prediction of the future. Nevertheless, we must use them, and we learn a lot from them. My biggest concern is that models have been used almost exclusively for supporting the claim that humans cause global warming, rather than for exploring alternative hypotheses — e.g. natural climate variations — as possible causes of that warming.

19) What Do I Predict for Global Temperature Changes in the Future? I tend to shy away from long-term predictions, because there are still so many uncertainties. When pressed, though, I tend to say that I think cooling in our future is just as real a possibility as warming. Of course, a third possibility is relatively steady temperatures, without significant long-term warming or cooling. Keep in mind that, while you will find out tomorrow whether your favorite weather forecaster is right or wrong, no one will remember 50 years from now a scientist today wrongly predicting we will all die from heat stroke by 2060.

Shocking proof of global warming!

Give it a couple min to load. It is a changing picture. oooh!

Look at the sea level rising over the last 130 years in La Jolla! Convinced yet?

More Man Made Climate Anthropomorphic Warming Globes... huh?

This is just embarrassing to read. Al Gore has driven off the cliff of sanity with this rambling incoherent Op Ed Piece. Although, there are others who believe the fear mongering to the point they killed themselves and attempted to kill their baby. There are some deranged wacko's out there, thank the lord who must have protected this child.

Seriously Mr. Gore, there must be better ways to make money off of your cultist zealots...

The fraud of the IPCC is finally being investigated! As the emerging 2007 data "errors" are FUNDAMENTAL, not incidental. (errors... yeah, right, welcome to political science)

Oddball little article from the 1989 NYT someone dug up. US Data Since 1895 Fail to Show Warming Trend! President Obama himself tells us we cannot Control Nature... Unless the "Democrat Messiah" is writing the cap and trade legislation? WTH?

Of Animals.

Defining hypocrisy when it comes to animals can be quite confusing.

First off I am a Vegetarian, for a number of reasons. My personal view is it is a choice and not one that should be forced upon anyone, nor do I think it is superior, other then certain health related aspects when compared to other dietary choices. I do enjoy knowing the positive oblique benefits from my choice. That being said...

A dog being killed (ala Michael Vick). Is ville and horrible. Unless your in Japan where this is legal entertainment. Butchering a horse, is lauded. Yet both Horse and Dog are protein sources in many countries. Pigs are pets and food simultaneously, we do not seem to care about pigs in the same way we do Dogs. Dolphins are highly intelligent and Food in Japan and used to be included in Tuna cans.

So where is the line drawn?

If you travel around the world you find culture's go from eating anything that moves to worshiping animals as sacred. Clearly this is a huge grey area morally and ethically.

In meat production in the USA has difference in Factory Farming to Hunting in the wild. I know hunters who will not buy meat in the store they only eat elk or venison. There is a claim that it is superior and more healthful. One hunter was telling me this over a bucket of Kentucky fried.

How important is animal suffering? This day and age do people really want to know where the food comes from (hint, it does not JUST come from the supermarket). Or is it enough that it is a short trip away? Is there a hypocrisy of ignorance?

Let us take the case of the Vegan Peta member, who is protesting any harm coming to any animal. First off if they own anything made of Leather, you have a case of hypocrisy. Set that notion aside for a moment and say they are consistent in protest message and lifestyle. Let us further say they are a spokes person and equate meat consumption with rape.

That is a pretty hard line harsh line.

Natalie Portman is the person I described above. Her hypocrisy? Supporting Roman Polanski.

Primer: How to stop scientific debate.

The first source I need to point to is Linked here.

There is a danger of monoculture or groupthink that has grown up around Man Made Global Warming. In particular, Warren considers the idea of "peer review", which alarmists constantly brandish as proof of the indisputability of their findings:

"Peer review was never meant as a sort of good housekeeping seal of approval on scientific work. It is not a guarantee of correctness. It is really an extension of the editorial process — bringing scientists from relevant fields to vet whether work is really new and different and worthy of publication, to make sure the actual article communicates the work and its findings clearly, and to probe for obvious errors or logical fallacies.

Climate scientists have tried to portray peer review as the end of the process– ie, once one of their works shows up in a peer-reviewed journal, the question addressed is “settled.” But his is never how science has worked. Publication in a peer-reviewed journal is the beginning, not the end. Once published, scientists attempt alternatively to tear it down or replicate its conclusions. Only work that has survived years of such torture testing starts to become “settled.”

The emails help to shed light on some aspects of peer review that skeptics have suspected for years. It is increasingly clear that climate scientists in the monoculture have been using peer review to enforce the orthodoxy. Peer review panels are stacked with members of the club, and authors who challenge the orthodoxy are shut out of publication, while authors within the monoculture use peer review as a shield against future criticism. We see in the emails members of the monoculture actually working to force editors who have the temerity to publish work critical of the orthodoxy out of their jobs. We are now learning that when alarmist scientists claim that there is little peer-reviewed science on the skeptic’s side, this is like the Catholic Church enforcing a banned books list and then claiming that everything in print supports the Church’s position.

History teaches us that whenever we allow a monoculture - whether is be totalitarian one-party rule or enforcing a single state religion, corruption follows. Without scrutiny of their actions, actors in such monocultures have few checks and little accountability. Worse, those at the center of such monocultures can become convinced of their own righteousness, such that any action they take in support of the orthodoxy is by definition ethically justified.

This, I think, is exactly what we see at work in the Hadley [sic] emails."

Next we have Watt's Up With That, and a fascinating and disturbing trip along just one thread of the CRU emails, where the UEA is asked to release a list of the meteorological stations, and the raw data for those stations. In response, UEA essentially tell him to go and screw himself.

Eschenbach takes us through his sequence of letters and FOI requests to the university, and juxtaposes the unhelpful responses he gets with the emails flying around behind the scenes in which the climate scientists are urging each other to batten down the hatches and give nothing away. It's a long post, but I strongly recommend it to you if you haven't already seen it.

"in 2005 Warwick [Hughes, climate researcher] asked Phil for the dataset that was used to create the CRU temperature record. Phil Jones famously replied:

Subject: Re: WMO non respondo

… Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. …

Cheers Phil

Hmmm … not good. Or as they say in “1984″, double-plus ungood. Science can only progress if there is a free exchange of scientific data The scientific model works like this:

* A scientist makes claims, and reveals the data and methods he used to come to his conclusions.

* Other scientists who don’t agree attack the claim by (inter alia) seeing if they can replicate the result, using the first scientist’s data and methods.

* If the claims cannot be replicated, the claim is adjudged to be false.

Obviously, if the data or the methods are kept secret, the claims cannot be verified. Attacking other scientist’s claims is what what scientists do. This adversarial system is the heart of science. Refusing scientific data because someone will attack it is an oxymoron, of course they will attack it. That’s what scientists do."

So I wonder, isn't that the role of a scientist?

Monday Errands

It rained last night. It had cleared up by morning. So I decided to run errands. By Bike!

9:00 AM I headed down our hill and over the next, through downtown and across the Umpqua River. Harvard Blvd. heads out of town West and leads to the more rural area's of our county, and heads along the river. The houses across the road all have large picture windows (for obvious reasons). It was surprisingly warmer then the cloudy sky would indicate. Next to no wind could be felt and while my cheeks got cold it was a pleasant sensation. Fall colors abound and littered the black asphalt with a mosaic that hinted at traction danger. At this time of day, on this route, I was the only person on the planet. There is an underlying noise that a lazy river makes. At the fifteen minute mark I stopped to re-hydrate and stood at a slight bluff overlooking millions of gallons of slow moving water. Wonderful, sounds, sights and smells was quite the reward.

Onward I started the loop back into Roseburg. This goes past our local farms, surprisingly busy at this time. As Garden Valley is a more popular route, I started seeing more cars. (I should note that in my town more cars are in the tens). Now was a climb into town. This bluff, at this time, thirty minutes into my journey. Second water break at the top of the hill, also a reminder that getting into shape is a journey, not a destination. The bummer is after all that climbing the downhill was nil. Just as well as I am working, which is a good thing.

Now for the Errand, locked the bike and returned some items. Then to the bank and finally buying some groceries. We are having a tight week, having paid some medical bills. So I got a 10 lb bag of potatoes, 5 lbs of carrots, a jar of sauerkraut and veggie dogs. Get that? Approx 18 pounds of food to strap on my back. It was a step backwards in weight loss.

The final leg was through the city park and along the river again. Something of a theme for this trip. For one of the first times in a long time I was not able to make it all the way up the 150 foot climb to the house and had to walk it a little. Still it was a nice ride.

14. miles. 235' ascent. I made a map link thingy of my ride. I hope it works.

America's Dim Bulbs

Original link:

Europe's ban on the incandescent light bulb began phasing in this month, and the U.S. will soon follow. Is Thomas Edison to blame for global warming? And why are we exporting green jobs?

When the warm-mongers assemble in Copenhagen this December to hammer out a successor to the failed Kyoto Protocol, no doubt their work to save the earth from the carbon dioxide that gives it life will take place under the eerie light thrown off by compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) mandated by the European Union to fight climate change.

The bulbs are more expensive, costing up to six times as much as an equivalent incandescent bulb. But they're said to be more economical in the long run because they supposedly use up to 80% less energy than old-style bulbs and don't burn out as quickly.

The change will be gradual. The clear 60-watt bulb will be allowed to be sold until at least September 2011 and clear 40-watt bulbs until 2012. In Germany there's a run on Edison's creation, with sales of incandescents up 34%. Is a black market in bulbs in the offing?

The Telegraph newspaper reports that European officials are conceding CFLs are not as bright an idea as first advertised.

An 11-watt CFL is advertised as being the equivalent of a 60-watt incandescent. Officials in Brussels responsible for the ban admit that this is "not true" and that such claims are "exaggerated."

Tests conducted by London's Telegraph found that using a single lamp to illuminate a room, an 11-watt CFL produced only 58% of the illumination of an "equivalent" 60-watt incandescent — even after a 10-minute warm-up that consumers have found necessary for a CFL to reach its full brightness.

The European Commission advises consumers of the environmental hazards posed by CFLs. If one breaks, you're advised to air out rooms and avoid using vacuum cleaners to prevent exposure to mercury in the bulbs. You can't just throw out an old bulb. It must be properly thrown out, lest your bedroom or family room become a Superfund toxic waste site.

Mercury is considered by environmentalists to be among the most toxic of toxic substances and, yes, it is dangerous if ingested or handled over time. We've been warned that high concentrations in fish are dangerous to pregnant women. We've been told mercury in vaccines causes autism.

So now it's safe in fragile light bulbs?

Carbon Dioxide irrelevant in climate debate says MIT Scientist

Here is the link to the story. This SHOULD be great news to anyone who suffered angst over the Man Made Global Warming issues. I think, rather, it will give rise to zealots. I hope I am wrong.

Here is the PDF of the released peer reviewed report. It is actually not a horrid read, as far as scientific papers go.

SPPI’s authoritative Monthly CO2 Report for July 2009 announces the publication of a major paper by Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, demonstrating by direct measurement that outgoing long-wave radiation is escaping to space far faster than the UN predicts, showing that the UN has exaggerated global warming 6-fold.Report, page 3.

Lindzen’s paper on outgoing long-wave radiation shows the “global warming” scare is over. Thanks to recent peer reviewed papers that have not been mentioned in the mainstream news media, we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate. Page 3.

The IPCC assumes CO2 concentration will reach 836 ppmv by 2100, but, for almost eight years, CO2 concentration has headed straight for only 570 ppmv by 2100. This alone halves all of the IPCC’s temperature projections. Pages 5-6.

Since 1980 temperature has risen at only 2.5 °F (1.5 °C)/century, not the 7 F° (3.9 C°) the IPCC imagines. Pages 7-9.

Sea level rose just 8 inches in the 20th century and has been rising at just 1 ft/century since 1993. Sea level has scarcely risen since 2006. Also, Pacific atolls are not being drowned by the sea, as some have suggested. Pages 10-12.

Arctic sea-ice extent is about the same as it has been at this time of year in the past decade. In the Antarctic, sea ice extent – on a 30-year rising trend – reached a record high in 2007. Global sea ice extent shows little trend for 30 years. Pages 13-15.

Hurricane and tropical-cyclone activity is at its lowest since satellite measurement began. Page 16.

Solar activity has declined again, after a large sunspot earlier in the month. The Sun is still very quiet. Pages 17-18.

The (very few) benefits and the (very large) costs of the Waxman/Markey Bill are illustrated at Pages 19-21.

Science Focus this month studies the effect of the Sun on the formation of clouds. IT’S THE SUN, STUPID! Pages 22-23.

As always, there’s our “global warming” ready reckoner, and our monthly selection of scientific papers. Pages 24-27.

And finally, a Technical Note explains how we compile our state-of-the-art CO2 and temperature graphs. Page 28.

How Do Climate Models Work?

Dr. Spencer is "my" Climatologist. His blog is critical of man made global warming and he backs that up with authority.

His blog site today (July 13th) has a great essay on how the climate models, we hear so much about, are set up to function. It is a long but educational read.

More info about Doc. Roy.

Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE.

Baby Seals

Seals aren't endangered; they're a menace to fish stocks--Daniel Hannan

This blindsided me, made me realize that I bought into a media hart tugging fantasy that really makes no sense.  Then again, should that matter?

Paraphrased text Follows: What is it about baby seals? Why do they excite our sympathy in a way that seagulls or scorpions or slugs do not? After all, they're hardly an endangered species: on the contrary, there are many millions of them, and they are extremely efficient hooverers up of fish. Canadian seals chomp their way through 1.5 million tons of cod every year. They have played a cameo role in the collapse of the Labrador and Newfoundland trawling industry. So what makes us go all gooey about them?

The answer is obvious. They are mammals. They are anthropomorphic. Their faces have deceptively human characteristics: they seem soulful, innocent, child-like. Evolutionary biologists would explain that the desire to protect babies is so deep in our DNA that it predisposes us to empathy with other species which happen to have baby-like features, such as big eyes, small noses, or a cute way of toddling trustingly towards waiting clubs.

In other words, our objection to Canadian seal-clubbing is aesthetic rather than ethical. I am not talking here to those vegans who object evenly to the slaughter of all animals: their position is consistent. I am addressing those who call for bans on seal products while happily tucking into eggs or veal produced in conditions of unimaginable horror (yes, unimaginable: try holding in your mind the image of a battery farm the next time the yolk spills across your spoon).

Then again, since when did emotion invalidate the democratic process? People have just as much right to object to something on irrational as on rational grounds. To take a recent example, the campaign to admit former Gurkha soldiers to Britain, in plain defiance of what they had clearly understood when they joined up, was not strictly logical. But it represented a sincere and generous national instinct and that, in a democracy, should be the trump argument.

So with the cute baby seals. Who am I to say that the voters are wrong? In a democracy, the voters are never wrong. They may be inconsistent, sentimental, mercurial; but not wrong. If I were to say: "People are being sappy about seals", I would be in the same category as those (politicians) who say "People are being emotional when they vote against the (topic here), and we who understand their true interests should therefore disregard their stated views".  As John Milton argued, when superior authorities make such decisions on an individual's behalf, they rob him of the capacity for virtue. 

Green Collar work

As I understand it, Green Jobs is the big thing.  That leads us to quite a few questions and exposing some myths:

Myth: Everyone understands what a green job is.
Reality: No standard definition of a green job exists.

Myth: Creating green jobs will boost productive employment.
Reality: Green jobs estimates include huge numbers of clerical, bureaucratic, and administrative positions that do not produce goods and services for consumption.

Myth: Green jobs forecasts are reliable.
Reality: The green jobs studies made estimates using poor economic models based on dubious assumptions.

Myth: Green jobs promote employment growth.
Reality: By promoting more jobs instead of more productivity, the green jobs described in the literature encourage low-paying jobs in less desirable conditions. Economic growth cannot be ordered by Congress or by the United Nations. Government interference - such as restricting successful technologies in favor of speculative technologies favored by special interests - will generate stagnation.

Myth: The world economy can be remade by reducing trade and relying on local production and reduced consumption without dramatically decreasing our standard of living.
Reality: History shows that nations cannot produce everything their citizens need or desire. People and firms have talents that allow specialization that make goods and services ever more efficient and lower-cost, thereby enriching society.

Myth: Government mandates are a substitute for free markets.
Reality: Companies react more swiftly and efficiently to the demands of their customers and markets, than to cumbersome government mandates.

Myth: Imposing technological progress by regulation is desirable.
Reality: Some technologies preferred by the green jobs studies are not capable of efficiently reaching the scale necessary to meet today’s demands and could be counterproductive to environmental quality.

Global slight of hand.

First off thank you to the Wizard for the link!  Second thank you Wizard for this article.

Chad Myers echo's quite a few of my beliefs about Man-made global warming.  To start with we have 100 years of good data.  For a .000002% sampling (based on the world being 4.5 billion years old).  With that tiny sampling it is small wonder that the best climate models preform so poorly.

Even with all the people and all the factories spewing all the greenhouse gasses into the planet. Mount Pinatubo was able to cool the planet surface 1.3 degree's for three years. 

El Nina and El Nino have had a much more profound impact on the weather then people as well.  We are pretty damn insignificant portion of a huge planetary system.

Australia realized that they could throw millions of millions of dollars without lowering the temperature 1 degree. Is the planet sending out less heat then it is attracting?

If humans are the cause and they can reverse the trend, exactly what would that look like?  We need to stop using oil, our electrical usage has to drop to the level of green production, then we have to look to stop all non-green industry, then go after natural occurring phenomena. 

Welcome to the return of the dark ages.   Do you really think we can do all of the above in the seven years we have left?  If we did indeed destroy civilization as we know it and find out that it did not matter one iota, will we all have a good collective laugh or cry?

If your listening only to the MSM about this topic, your probably mis-informed.  If you drill down to who said what and looked up the person and who is paying him.  You might have a better idea of what end they are talking out of.

Industry

GM officials say the average UAW reaches $39.68 an hour, with another $33.58 an hour for benefits. So that's $82,500.00 a year gross wages with $69,700.00 a year for benefits or $152,000 that the Auto industry pays for each worker.

Some US manufactures of auto-mobiles are not doing well. Depending upon what you read this is attributed to any number of things. The entire auto-mobile industry is not having the same problems. VW is up %15, China auto-makers are said to be looking to buy GM, Toyota and Honda are also doing well.

Some people think that regulation to make autos Greener is needed. Time Magazine

I think the national average wage being 40,405.48 and the high cost of labor making cars has something to do with it.

Check out Get Involved | Hippo Water Roller

Take a look at This: Get Involved Hippo Water Roller. This is one of those wonderful projects that make a difference.

Elegant in its simplicity.

Alternative Energy! (cuz increasing oil supply is bad)

Cold Fusion: Dunking palladium electrodes into heavy water - oxygen combined with hydrogen isotope deuterium - releases HUGE amounts of energy. Placing a voltage across the electrodes moves the deuterium nuclei to into palladium's molecular lattice, fusing them together, releasing a blast of energy.

On little snag is that fusion at room temperature is deemed impossible by every accepted scientific theory. It works fine in stars. If controllable cold fusion proved possible, many of the world's energy problems would melt away

The US Department of Energy is interested. In December 2005, after a lengthy review of the evidence, it said it was open to receiving proposals for new cold fusion experiments.

This is the same DoE that concluded in a report back in 1990 the original cold fusion results, produced by Fleischmann and Pons of the University of Utah, were impossible to reproduce, and thus probably false.

Oil .vs. Government

So there is high gas prices and depending upon editorial policy, it is either the Oil companies at fault or OPEC. 18.4 cents per gallon go to the Federal government plus 8 cents to 28 cents depending upon your state. My state the total taxes are 42 cents per gallon. According to the EIA the average profit of Gas is 28 cents per gallon. (That shows me who is really gouging...)

Final Nail for Global warming

Christopher Monckton of Brenchley has put out a paper titled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. Which is being touted as both the start of real science on the earths climate and the death of the religion of global warming.

"the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful."

A much easier read that wont glaze over your eyes is here.

Hypocrit.com

So I'm reading this article about overstock.com is going to stop selling fur. Now if you have a business of selling stuff to people I fully support you choosing what products to carry and what not to carry. If by choosing to carry or not carry some item you are making some kind of political or ethical statement which is being made into company policy, I would think that you would want some consistency to avoid looking foolish or hypocritical.

For instance if your the owner of Buy-N-Large and you decide to stop selling digital cameras because of the picture of atrocities in the country of Guilder that were published on the Internet. In your prepared statement you state that you will no longer carry Sony, Fuji, Olympus camera's in support of the genocide fighters (or some such). Now everyone knows that Buy-N-Large carries Kodak as well and that they will continue to sell those after the policy is in place.

Back to reality - Chief Executive Patrick Byrne stated:
“You don’t have to think about it very much before you realize … you’re completely objectifying an animal when you say I’m going to wear it as a decorative object. That’s over the line for anyone who gives it any thought, I would think.”

What about when the animal is made into skirts, pants, jackets, shoes, or belts...?