Tag: climate change

Categories
Quick Analysis

THE “CHURCH” OF CLIMATE CHANGE, Part 2

This article was provided exclusively to the New York Analysis of Policy and Government by the distinguished retired Judge John H. Wilson

In an extensive article published by Tablet, PhD candidate Zach Golberg discusses the “woke” phenomenon prevalent among white liberals in particular.   Being “woke” is a term that derived from African-American culture (an issue which, if considered more than momentarily, would leads us down the rabbit hole of cultural appropriation, if we allow it to), and is broadly defined as “being aware of social justice issues” (it should be noted that the term is also defined by the Urban Dictionary as  “self righteousness masquerading as enlightment.”)  

                While Goldberg’s article is mainly addressed to the paternalism of white liberals towards minority Americans, it is a must-read for anyone wishing to understand the behavior of these same white liberals when it comes to their support for climate change, and why they allow for no dissent on this, and many other issues. 

                According to Goldberg’s research, “White liberals make up 20-24% of the general population but, for a multitude of reasons, exert an outsize political and cultural influence. They are more likely to consider themselves activists, are more active on social media, and, significantly, they are one of the most affluent groups in the country… ‘woke’ white activists…have had their perceptions distorted by social media-tinted caricatures that obscure more objective measures of reality… these moral emotions become hyperactive and detached from objective reality; when they motivate the division of society into ‘allies’ and enemies; and when they generate a level of sanctimonious outrage and judgment that places all political dissent beyond the pale.”

                Goldberg’s insightful analysis continues: “For the woke and their allies, these rapid changes are heralded as signs of progress, leading at times to harsh criticism of anyone who would stand in their way. This ideological stridency and triumphalist attitude can be powerful weapons against political opponents but are alienating—perhaps deliberately so—to moderates and conservatives…The woke elite act like white saviors who must lead the rest of the country…to a vision of justice the less enlightened groups would not choose for themselves.” (emphasis added)

Your partner’s preferences as well might play a role buy viagra without rx unica-web.com in your treatment choices. You must be aroused for KAMAGRA to work This pill usually works in about 10-15 minutes This drug works for 4-6 hours, so you can buy viagra for women order them without any barriers. Nevertheless, it is always essential that generika levitra 20mg a patient reveal all health concerns or medications to a physician prior to consuming them. When it comes to cure some disorder we really need to be very unica-web.com purchase cheap viagra careful with it.

                Goldberg supports his interpretation with a host of data, including a 2018 survey conducted by the American National Elections Studies. But another one of his conclusions explains the divide between climate change believers, who tend to be liberal, and climate change deniers, who tend to be more conservative:

                “Due at least in part to digital media, white liberal attitudes that more or less endured for decades have been drastically overturned in the space of months or single years. In contrast, the attitudes of white conservatives—and conservatives in general—have moved at a more glacial pace, if at all. For liberals, the lack of awareness of how fast and far their attitudes have shifted fosters an illusion of conservative extremism.  In reality, the conservatives of today are not all that different from the conservatives of years past. And it’s the frustration with white conservatives’ inability or reluctance to keep pace with liberals on the path to enlightenment that is intensifying our political divide.”

                Again, Goldberg’s analysis is intended to explain white liberal attitudes to issues of racial justice.  But his conclusions can be applied to assist in understanding the truly obnoxious attitude of climate change true believers, and their unwillingness to countenance any questioning of their orthodoxy.  

                Much like the child who now leads them, the Church of Climate Change cannot countenance any questioning of their sacred beliefs, and will tolerate no opposition to their efforts to save humanity from itself.  Is there any answer to dealing with such inflexibility? To paraphrase Professor Farnsworth from Futurama – “Only Science can help us now!”

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

The “Church” of Climate Change

This article was provided exclusively to the New York Analysis of Policy and Government by the distinguished retired Judge John H. Wilson

                Recently, 16 year old Swedish climate “activist” Greta Thunberg came to New York to lead a “climate strike” day of protests.  Thousands of New York City Public school students attended the rally, having been excused from school for the purpose of protesting.  In a display of their usual efficiency, however, the New York City Education Department would not give teachers the day off, leaving many children in attendance at the rally without adult supervision.

                Thunberg became famous last year for beginning a one-person walk out from her school, stationing herself in front of the Swedish Parliament.  Since then, she had become the youthful face of the “climate change” movement, and the subject of fawning articles by MSM sources like CNN, which claims that when Thunberg testified before the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Climate, “the smallest and youngest person in the room came off as the oldest soul on Capitol Hill.” 

                The vehemence with which the topic of climate change is discussed by its adherents is nothing less than Messianic.  In her speech to the British Parliament, Thunberg said “I was fortunate to be born in a time and place where everyone told us to dream big; I could become whatever I wanted to… You lied to us. You gave us false hope. You told us that the future was something to look forward to… Around the year 2030, 10 years 252 days and 10 hours away from now, we will be in a position where we set off an irreversible chain reaction beyond human control, that will most likely lead to the end of our civilisation as we know it…”  

                Compare Thunberg’s statement with this quote from 2 Peter, 3:10 – “But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare,” or this quote from Isaiah, 6:11-13 – “Astonished, I said, ‘And Master, how long is this to go on?’ He said, ‘Until the cities are emptied out, not a soul left in the cities – Houses empty of people, countryside empty of people. Until I, God, get rid of everyone, sending them off, the land totally empty.  And even if some should survive, say a tenth, the devastation will start up again. The country will look like pine and oak forest with every tree cut down – Every tree a stump, a huge field of stumps.'”

Carrots are rich pfizer viagra 100mg in essential minerals and vitamins. PDE5 enzymes actively work in tadalafil in canada the male reproductive system as such. Kamagra medicinal forms are introduced in the viagra on line devensec.com recommend dose of Kamagra Polo is 100 mg though lower and higher versions are available. What is aspect effect? levitra 10 mg Most sensitivity reaction contains difficulty breathing; ending of the throat; inflammation of the mouth, mouth, or face; or hives.

                There is a clear parallel to be discerned between climate change adherents and religious fundamentalists.  Recently, NBC News even encouraged people to make confession of “where they fell short in preventing climate change.”   The unintentionally hilarious responses include “I eat beef and I’m not about to change that.  Other than that I do what I can to help protect the environment,” “”I’ve been using plastic golf tees from time to time.  I will never use plastic golf tees again,” and “I am still struggling to get to zero plastic in my life.” 

                Similar to fundamentalists, supporters of the theory of man-made climate change are intolerant of those who do not share their beliefs.  The National Center for Science Education published this statement on their website regarding “Climate Change Denial”;  “Although scientists are in broad agreement about the occurrence, causes, and consequences of climate change, the topic is socially controversial. In part, the controversy is due to climate change deniers — people and organizations who deny or doubt the scientific consensus around climate change. In order to derail, delay, or degrade climate-related public policies they oppose, climate change deniers frequently seek to obscure or disparage the scientific consensus around climate change… Climate change denial is already threatening the integrity of science education in public schools and elsewhere.”

                It should be noted that not all scientists are convinced that “the science is settled” on the issue of man-made climate change.  One of the founding members of the Weather Channel, John Coleman, was a leading “climate change denier” before his death in 2018.

                It is easy to make fun of the semi-religious fervor of those who believe in man-made climate change.  But how can we explain the ardor of a person like Greta Thunberg, and the desire of her and her supporters to purge society of the heretical “climate change deniers?”

The article concludes tomorrow.

Picture: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Whole Climate Story, Part 3

This series of articles was written for the New York Analysis of Policy and Government by noted author and researcher Alex Bugaeff. We conclude the comprehensive look at the climate change debate.

Human Error and Intention

Climate change has been made into a “Cause” by proponents who seize it to advance their interests. Vast sums of money have been offered and expended in its research and promotion. Former US Senator Al Gore has turned it into a lucrative career for himself and his followers. Enormous research grants have been dangled in front of university faculties in return for findings of global warming.

Dr. Judith Curry, PhD and Chair, Dept. of Earth and Atmospheric Science Emeritus, Georgia Tech University, reports that grants became awarded only to those who would find evidence of warming – “Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment…” she said.

Al Gore aside, the current push to use global warming as a political tool probably began with Philip (Phil) Jones, an English academic associated with the UK’s East Anglia University. Jones received his PhD in Hydrology (the study of the movement, distribution and quality of water on the Earth) in 1977 and began in 1979 as a Research Associate with the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, advancing to Professor in 1998.

Phil Jones was a leader in the founding of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by the United Nations in 1988. He and other researchers published a series of reports which purported to prove that the globe is warming at the “alarming” rate of 1.5 degrees or so by 2100. They did this by formulating mathematical models that used CO2 as the factor by which warming was predicted. They blamed the burning of fossil fuels for the higher CO2 amounts while ignoring natural sources of it. And then, they proclaimed that this warming would be catastrophic.

The IPCC ignited controversy when it refused to release either their data or their models for analysis by outside scientists. They finally shared their data, but refused to release the mathematical models by which they analyzed it.

Using the IPCC findings, Al Gore and other warming proponents promoted policies to reduce global warming through a tax scheme he called “Cap and Trade.” Under it, corporations would pay taxes on the carbon that their businesses emitted. Gore and his adherents continue to insist that the earth is warming, that mankind is to blame and that their tax programs are the solution.

Al Gore famously cited a survey that 97% of scientists agree on the warming “theory” and that the science of warming is “settled.” He overlooked that the cited survey consisted of about 120 respondents (compared with 31,000 scientists who oppose it), that the IPCC mathematics have been withheld from scrutiny and that the Scientific Method never accepts that findings are “settled” anyway (see below).

Eventually, the data collected by the IPCC researchers began to show the truth – CO2 is a poor predictor of global temperatures. But, now there was too much at stake – money, power and fame. To maintain the illusion of infallibility, Jones and the IPCC falsified their data and conspired with NASA and NOAA among others to keep it quiet, but it came out anyway and was dubbed “Climategate.”

Apple, strawberry, chocolate, mint, orange etc are the most preferred flavors of these buy viagra in usa soft medicines. It buy levitra was while he worked for a landowner that he contracted pneumonia and died. A lot of young men lack proper knowledge about Erectile Dysfunction and it is very important to distinguish prevailing myths and facts about ED to have a http://deeprootsmag.org/2015/06/26/sam-cooke-the-rolling-stones-the-beatles-and-allen-klein/ viagra cialis achat correct understanding of this problem.Read on to know more about sex therapy? If yes, go through the following figure. Many Chinese buy cialis online about buy cialis online scholars have research in all angles.

In an attempt to salvage what they could, IPCC issued reports and assessments that revised their methods, data and standards without admitting anything. . It remains to be seen whether these changes will result in submission of peer reviewed data and conformity to the Scientific Method. Phil Jones has “retired.”

Can Science Ever Be “Settled?”

The discoveries of science since the Greeks have come primarily by virtue of the Scientific Method. It’s simple, really. You surmise that some phenomenon of the natural world might be true and you make a statement proposing it – the Hypothesis. You Test your Hypothesis using accepted procedures. The Test results either support your Hypothesis or they do not. Then, you publish your Hypothesis, Tests and results so that other scientists can replicate your Tests (peer review). Their results may support your Hypothesis or not.

The more that Tests by others support your Hypothesis, the more confidence you can have that your Hypothesis is reliable. But, it can never be “proven.” Someday, a new or better test may be found that fails to support your Hypothesis. That’s the nature of scientific inquiry. It can never be “settled” and must never be. Otherwise, the Earth would still be “flat.”

CO2-caused climate change is not settled science. Just the complexity of climate and the inability to replicate findings in order to test them makes it impossible. Corruption further compromises any findings. Scientific procedures can be used to track climate and elements, but fine distinctions of a degree or so are speculative.    

Conclusion

Climate and temperatures will fluctuate naturally, as they have for all of earth’s existence. The factors affecting them are out of the hands of mankind, except for those greenhouse gases over which we have some control, and they play only a relatively small role. It may be just as likely that we are cooling as that we are warming.

Considering all these factors, their variability and the difficulty of measuring them, it is not possible nor is it advisable for scientists and mathematicians to claim that their mathematical models should be the basis for investing monumental sums of money in a scheme that may be exactly the wrong thing. The findings and dire warnings of global warming proponents must be regarded as unfounded or even, as some have said, a hoax.

Mankind should be a good steward of the planet and those of us who seek to do so should continue to pressure planet abusers, such as India and China, to improve. But, we should not bankrupt ourselves and our nation to assuage a false guilt perpetrated by politicians and corrupted scientists. We need to be smarter than that. 

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Whole Climate Story, Part 2

This series of articles was written for the New York Analysis of Policy and Government by noted author and researcher Alex Bugaeff. We continue the comprehensive look at the climate change debate.

Is the Globe Warming?

Believers in climate change as a menace contend that the globe is warming, that it is warming at an alarming rate, and that the greenhouse gas, CO2, is to blame. But, is the globe warming? We must first look to the history of the earth’s temperatures.

There have been periods in long-term history when global temperatures were higher than they are today. If technological ice core readings are any measure, the Eemian Interglacial period (140,000 to 120,000 years ago) temperatures were significantly higher. During the Medieval Warm, the melting of glaciers over Greenland allowed the populating and farming of that island, hence the name. Even during the so-called Industrial period, temperatures during the mid-1930’s were higher than at present.

 “Periods of Earth warming and cooling occur in cycles. This is well understood, as is the fact that small-scale cycles of about 40 years exist within larger-scale cycles of 400 years, which in turn exist inside still larger scale cycles of 20,000 years, and so on.”

 Do Sea Levels Indicate Global Warming?

Sea levels have risen and fallen naturally over time with the arrival and departure of cold and warm periods. During glacial periods, sea levels were some 500 feet below their current levels. The Bering Land Bridge was exposed as a result of glaciation and people and animals crossed it from the Asian land mass to North America.

Since 1850, sea levels have been rising at the overall rate of about a half inch per year. These rates are affected primarily by the following: changes in the earth’s crust (mostly volcanic, tectonic plate and earthquake activity), by subsidence of lowland and unstable substrates, such as in Venice, Italy and in Atlantic Ocean barrier islands, by built-upon landfills, such as the San Francisco International Airport and the Manhattan Battery, and by glacial melting and growth (of Arctic and Antarctic glaciers). Sea levels can appear to rise because coastlands sink.

Above all, the situation appears to be getting attacked by the heart puncture at any time due to the daily routine of work and physical activity tend viagra on line pharmacy to rise above our limits thereby creating stress on our bodies, filling our mind spirit with tension, issuing contaminants that attack our nerves and joints. Futher refinements to OPCAB have resulted viagra purchase buy in Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery (MIDCAB) which is a technique of performing bypass surgery without the use of cardiopulmonary bypass (the heart-lung machine). Some people have misunderstanding that free viagra in australia also save their partners from sexually transformed infection such as HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea etc. which is completely wrong. Trace a line from your partner’s belly button that is around the spine. viagra sales canada

Dr. Judith Curry, PhD, Department Chair of Earth and Atmospheric Science, Emeritus, Georgia Tech University, estimates that at their current rate, sea levels will rise about 30 inches by the year 2100. She calculates that about half that increase can be attributed to global warming.

So, is the globe warming? Not, it appears, because of increases in CO2 or other greenhouse gases. In addition to the natural highs and lows of previous eras, during the 1970’s and 1980’s there were claims that global cooling was taking place instead and that IT was a threat to civilization. Greenhouses gases were accused of cooling the earth, just as they are now accused of warming it. So, temperatures go up and down, but are the temperatures actually as they are claimed to be?

How Accurate Are Global Temperature Readings?

We should not assume that the temperatures reported, even by NASA, are accurate.

The earth’s temperatures are measured primarily using surface and satellite devices. Historically, surface devices consisted of thermometers housed in ventilated boxes set on waist-high stilts – “Stevenson screens.” Starting in the 1890’s, approximately 11,000 such devices were set around the globe and were monitored by US and British laboratories. Many of these locations were in “urban heat islands” – places where heat builds up and is stored in asphalt streets and concrete buildings, thereby giving false high readings on the thermometers placed there.

Then, in 1985 big changes were begun: Stevenson screens were replaced by a supposedly more accurate device – the Platinum Resistance Thermometer – and the number of surface stations was reduced to approximately 6,500. Also, thermometer devices were housed in buoys and were set afloat on the oceans to measure air temperatures over the seas. They have been free to drift with the currents from the beginning, raising the question of where the readings are being taken. And, all of this has introduced the question of data reliability.  https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/19/systematic-error-in-climate-measurements-the-surface-air-temperature-record/

From space, satellites have been “measuring” global temperatures since about 1979, but they don’t actually measure air temperature. Instead, satellites measure the radiance of earth’s features through radiometry – radio waves emitted by water, rock, soil, and the like. Air temperatures are then inferred through comparisons with trends in surface readings, as described above. That is, mathematical formulas are used to derive trends in atmospheric temperatures from the thermometer readings on the earth’s surface. 

Since direct measurement of temperatures is so inconsistent, researchers have taken to applying mathematics and statistics to its analysis. If observed results stray from the expected outcomes, these researchers “adjust” the data. If the difference is too great, they may “reconstruct” past data (reduce it) so that the current data looks warmer. As Carlin, et al found, “…each new version of GAST (Global Average Surface Temperature) has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU (Jones, IPCC).”f The sum total of the temperature accuracy question is that we cannot be sure that temperature reports are accurate or stable. The temperature devices or methods themselves, our inability to compare “apples to apples” over time because of the changes to them, and the error introduced through mathematical and other inferences cannot be relied upon to be as precise as claimed. Then, we have the issue of how the scientists’ “goals” factor in? How is human error introduced into the process?

The Report concludes tomorrow.

Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Whole Climate Story

This series of articles was written for the New York Analysis of Policy and Government by noted author and researcher Alex Bugaeff. Over the next three days, it takes a comprehensive look at the climate change debate.

Introduction

The earth’s climate changes naturally and always has. Yet, the proponents of global warming insist that changes in the earth’s climate are instead caused by mankind and that these changes will doom civilization unless something is done. They blame the burning of fossil fuels and they want to tax it to fund their political schemes.

There is an unspoken climate change agenda. Climate changes naturally and by small increments (with the exception of catastrophic events such as volcanic eruptions and asteroid impacts.  Greenhouse gases named as the culprit for change are naturally as well as artificially produced and that they have relatively little effect on climate.

Climate consists of long term patterns of weather and atmosphere. The morning weather forecast is not climate, although it is born of it. To be considered climate, a pattern must persist over decades, at least, and more properly over centuries and millennia. It must be shown to demonstrate consistent attributes of temperature, wind, precipitation, humidity, and the like.

The last major Ice Age was a climate pattern that ended at about 12,000 BC. During the Ice Age, much of North America was covered with glaciers. Since then, we have been in a warming period called the Holocene Interglacial (between glacial periods). Glaciers have receded, making the northern hemisphere habitable. During that time, we have had periods of relative warming (e.g. the Medieval Warming 950 to 1250) and cooling (e.g. the Maunder Minimum or Mini Ice Age 1645 to 1720).

These dramatic temperature and climate changes are caused by a complex group of factors, primarily solar activity, cosmic radiation, ocean currents, the earth’s crust, the earth’s magnetic field, and earth’s rotation and orbit. These factors have had massive impacts on the earth’s climate long before mankind’s activities. More about them later.

“Greenhouse gases” have only recently been cited as having an influence on climate. These gases consist of methane, nitrous oxide, water vapor, carbon dioxide, and miscellaneous other gases. Such gases occur naturally and have for eons. 

Carbon dioxide (CO2) has been accused as the major cause of climate change in the modern age despite its being only 4/10,000ths of the total gaseous volume in the atmosphere – the equivalent of a shoebox of air in your house. The claim is that, since the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen since the earth exited from the Mini Ice Age 300 years ago, it must be guilty of warming.

The Factors that Affect the Earth’s Climate

““Periods of Earth warming and cooling occur in cycles. This is well understood, as is the fact that small-scale cycles of about 40 years exist within larger-scale cycles of 400 years, which in turn exist inside still larger scale cycles of 20,000 years, and so on.” —Geocraft

The sun sends energy through space and impacts the earth, producing heat, wind and rain. Additional solar events intensify its effect, primarily in the form of sun spots, solar flares and other surface upheavals. The sun is the single most important factor influencing the earth’s climate. Recently, there have been few to no solar events, perhaps a forecast for a period of cooler temperatures.

I’ve sampled the first two and they end up taking hundreds of people for a long time will disappear, and people can get back to normal as soon as pressure buying viagra in canada is removed. Apart from this medicinal help, an ED patient can also levitra line pharmacy improve its operation. Take the mixture of turmeric and guggul for treating the problem of excessive masturbation order viagra online purchasing this and its negative side effects. The throat tissues and the nasal passages are cleared to ensure oxygen can movein secretworldchronicle.com lowest prices cialis and outeasilyby nostrils.

Oceanic activity influences climate through two phenomena. First are Atlantic and Pacific Oscillations. Every ten to 30 years, the cold waters at lower depths tend to circulate to the surface in massive currents that force the warmer waters toward the bottom. These oscillations have a cooling effect on temperatures and other climatic elements.

Second are El Nino and La Nina – two periodic Pacific Ocean phenomena. El Nino appears when west-to-east winds predominate near the equator and drive warm surface waters toward the west coasts of North and South America. During El Nino, rain and storms increase in the western hemisphere. La Nina is the opposite – when equatorial winds predominate from east-to-west, they drive warm surface waters away from the western hemisphere, reducing rain and storms there and increasing them in the western Pacific. These phenomena typically last from six to eighteen months.

Changes in the earth’s magnetic field and its orbit appear to impact temperatures in the earth’s atmosphere more than on the surface. According to Dr. Ingrid Crossen of the British Antarctic Survey, changes in the earth’s magnetic field have resulted in cooling in northern atmospheres and warming in southern atmospheres.

Cosmic radiation in the form of gamma rays and other galactic bursts of energy has a periodic association with the earth’s climate, but a causal relationship has not been established. The strongest association appears to be that gamma rays tend to increase clouds, thus increasing rain and reducing temperatures.

As alluded to earlier, historic climate periods have been irresistible factors or trends in the earth’s climate. It is difficult to imagine that anything could have reversed the Ice Age, the Eemian and Holocene Interglacials, the Medieval Warm, or the Maunder Minimum. The complexity of the factors causing them is overwhelming. We are fortunate to live during the Holocene with its moderate climate features.

Greenhouse Gases

The so-called “greenhouse” gases (really just “atmospheric” gases) – methane, nitrous oxide, water vapor, carbon dioxide, and miscellaneous other gases – have been portrayed as hovering in layers above the earth’s surface, blocking solar energy from reaching us and warm air from escaping.

To some extent, this picture has validity. We need greenhouse gases to reflect excess energy back into space and to keep needed warmth from escaping the planet. Without greenhouse gases, life on earth would be very different, if not impossible.

The question is, “To what degree do greenhouse gases determine climate?” Consider the other factors – solar activity, ocean activity, activity of the earth (volcanos, quakes, magnetic fields, and orbits), cosmic rays, and historic climate periodicity – and we must conclude that greenhouse gases together play a role, but a small one.

Now, look more closely at CO2. As mentioned, CO2 consists of only 4/10,000ths of the atmosphere, or as it is cited in the reports, 400 parts per million (ppm), and its volume varies according to the seasons. It results from natural processes, such as the breathing and flatulence of the entire animal kingdom, and from artificial processes, such as the burning of fossil fuels.

Today’s CO2 level is low by historical standards. Ice core measurements indicate that CO2 has been as high as 3,000 ppm. While it is true that CO2 is increasing, it is doing so at an extremely slow rate. Here is the link to NASA/NOAA’s data posting where you can see the actual figures in real time.

What does CO2 do? How is it supposed to effect climate? Consider first that CO2 does not hover over the earth in a layer any more than the other gases do. It diffuses evenly throughout the atmosphere making it available as food for plant life and for absorption by the oceans. Beyond that, the direct effect of CO2 on climate is uncertain – it absorbs solar energy and releases it back to the surface and into space. There is only an inferential relationship between the amount of CO2 and reported temperatures. “A Primer on Carbon Dioxide and Climate,” CO2 Coalition, Arlington, VA, 2017.    

And, we must recognize that with world population increasing, we will need more food to feed them -mostly plant food. Since plants require CO2 to grow, more plants will need more CO2, not less. “What Rising CO2 Means for Global Food Security,” (CO2 Coalition, Arlington, VA, 2017)

The Report continues tomorrow.

Illustration: Pixabay

Parts of the medieval period were warmer than the current climate.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Unrealistic Energy Policies

Many Americans are shivering from the latest arctic blast of frigid weather. At least, they can warm up in their homes and offices.  Going forward, however, they, and others throughout the world, may not have that option if climate extremists have their way.

The latest push comes, ironically, at a time when NASA statistics indicate that there has been a two-year cooling period. Investors.com notes that Aaron Brown, in a Real Clear Markets analysis of NASA  data indicates that for the past two years, the Earth has actually cooled. “The 2016-2018 Big Chill was composed of two Little chills, the biggest five months drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average.“

The climate change debate will rage on, but the need for sufficient energy to heat homes, provide electricity, and keep the economy moving is a constant. Despite that, many politicians have opted for unrealistic energy policies.

New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo has successfully pushed for the closing of one of the state’s nuclear power plants, as well as stopping a major gas pipeline.  He is a staunch opponent of fracking. Politico reports that “Both Con Edison and National Grid [two NY State energy companies] say they may have to turn away new natural gas customers if new pipelines aren’t built…” The New York Post reports that “Con Ed notified regulators that, come March 15, it won’t accept new gas customers in most of Westchester, thanks to supply shortages. National Grid has been issuing similar warnings. New-customer cutoffs in the city may be just around the corner. With no practical replacement fuel for heating, this will throttle residential and commercial growth…Cuomo hasn’t officially banned new pipelines; his staff just doesn’t OK very many, often citing lame excuses for nixing them. Team Cuomo reportedly has urged Con Ed to find alternatives to pipelines, and Cuomo himself has been pushing for a shift away from allfossil-fuel energy sources. Which threatens big trouble for new would-be customers — residential or commercial.”

The U.S. Energy Information Administration notes that “In 2017, about 4,034 billion kilowatthours (kWh) (or 4.03 trillion kWh) of electricity were generated at utility-scale facilities in the United States. About 63% of this electricity generation was from fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, petroleum, and other gases). About 20% was from nuclear energy, and about 17% was from renewable energy sources. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that an additional 24 billion kWh of electricity generation was from small-scale solar photovoltaic systems in 2017.

There is no realistic expectation that the 17% renewable energy sources could expand to accommodate the other 83% of current energy needs, and the demand for power continues to grow.

While the pollution caused by carbon-based energy is frequently discussed, other forms of energy production have their own drawbacks. Opposition to nuclear power is well-publicized, but wind and solar pose daunting problems, as well.

The Wildlife Society Bulletin estimates that 888,000 bat and 573,000 bird fatalities/year (including 83,000 raptor fatalities) at 51,630 megawatt (MW) of installed wind-energy capacity occurred in the United States in 2012.

To have the entire power of this product one can also take it in empty sale of sildenafil tablets stomach. The treatment of selective mutism cialis mg is mostly undertaken by professional clinicians. This is tadalafil super active a medication used to treat erectile dysfunction of middle aged men. Some are prescription drugs that must, therefore, by viagra super active given out by a physician, while others are just mere myths and speculations.

According to the Brookings Institute, “Adding up the net energy cost and the net capacity cost of the five low-carbon alternatives, far and away the most expensive is solar. It costs almost 19 cents more per KWH than power from the coal or gas plants that it displaces. Wind power is the second most expensive. It costs nearly 6 cents more per KWH.

“To place these additional costs in context, the average cost of electricity to U.S. consumers in 2012 was 9.84 cents per KWH, including the cost of transmission and distribution of electricity. This means a new wind plant could at least cost 50 percent more per KWH to produce electricity, and a new solar plant at least 200 percent more per KWH, than using coal and gas technologies.”

The Energy Reality Project describes the challenges that would be encountered in moving to more emphasis on solar and wind: to generate America’s baseload electric power with a 50 / 50 mix of wind and solar farmsit would take a sufficient amount of land to cover land area totaling the size of Indiana. It would cost over $18 Trillion with Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) farms in the southwest deserts, on parcels of land totaling the area of West Virginia.

“Tad W. Patzek, PhD, Chairman of the Petroleum and Geosystems Engineering Department at the University of Texas at Austin, and David Pimentel, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Cornell University stated … in Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences: “We want to be very clear: solar cells, wind turbines, and biomass-for-energy plantations can never replace even a small fraction of the highly reliable, 24-hours-a-day, 365-days-a-year, nuclear, fossil, and hydroelectric power stations. Claims to the contrary are popular, but irresponsible…”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Political Motives of Climate Change Extremists

New York City’s hard-left government (the mayor, Bill di Blasio, had, several decades ago, worked with Nicaragua’s brutal Communist Sandinista  regime, and honeymooned in Cuba) is now seeking to sue major oil companies for “global warming.”

The lawsuit is occurring despite increasing doubts about the accuracy and honesty of those seeking to address claims of man-made global warming (by many of the same sources who warned about global cooling several decades ago.) Not coincidentally, the draconian solutions climate change extremists advocate dovetail with long-held left-wing goals in key areas.

Leftists in NYC and elsewhere have also been harshly critical of President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, despite the fact that the onerous costs related to it would, by all accounts, have at best a barely negligible impact on any potential global warming.

The Associated Press recently reported that District Judge John F. Keenan appears “unimpressed” by NYC’s attempt.

In both the legal and diplomatic spheres, there is increased evidence that claims of a dramatic human impact on climate is based on flawed and biased data, particularly ignoring natural causes of climate change, and the reality that the planet has alternately warmed and cooled in the past, far in advance of any human influence. Temperatures in Europe were warmer than today 1,000 years ago. Temperatures cooled significantly during the “Little Ice Age” which began about 800 years and which the planet is still recovering from.

A 2007 National Geographic review reported that “Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet’s recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist’s controversial theory. In 2005 data from NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide “ice caps” near Mars’s south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.”The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars,” he said…Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun’s heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.”

In a recent interview on the New York Analysis of Policy and Government’s affiliated radio program, “The Vernuccio-Novak Report,” climate researcher Gregory Wrightstone reiterated his previously published research.

“There is a legitimate and worthy argument that is being made by scientists like myself that, while the additional CO2 is likely having a slight warming effect, the majority of the rise in temperature is due to a natural rise in temperatures since the end of the Little Ice Age. That cold period lasted for 550 years and only ended in the mid-1800’s. Bear in mind that really bad things occurred during that cooling period including famines, crop failures and death (half of the population of Iceland perished). An unbiased opinion may legitimately be that the current warming is a welcome respite from that harsh era. Prior to the current politicization of climate science, the warming periods were called “climatic optima” because humans flourished during those times.

“The temperature rise we are witnessing today is neither unprecedented nor unusual. An inspection of the chart below compares CO2 and temperatures from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project (link is on chart) of the last 12,000 years from the beginning of the current inter-glacial period to 1855 when the data starts. Several important take-aways from the chart:

  • Preceding warm periods commonly reached significantly higher temperatures than we see now
  • The one constant regarding temperature is that it is always changing
  • We are about 11,600 years into the current inter-glacial warming period which typically last 10,000 to 15,000 years
  • There is no discernible correlation between CO2 and temperature during this time.”

Indications for Referral The Women’s Interventional Cardiology Diagnostic Program offers a multidisciplinary team of spemidwayfire.com buy viagra online ints, including clinical cardiologists, interventional cardiologists, and cardiovascular radiologists, working together to deliver individualized care and the best outcomes for each patient. These factors then lead to incomplete buy generic cialis sexual satisfaction and can bet the big triggers on lowering sexual desire.Kamagra is a form of radiation ), hypothermia, pollutants in the air, windchill and so on. Persistence of abnormal comportment for more than 2 billion dollars. sildenafil tablet viagra Here, you will read about those common causes that causes this sexual dysfunction in men and usually works online pharmacy for levitra in combination with Low T to make difficulty in gaining erections even worse.
Illustration: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Falsified Data and Global Warming

Those living in the northeastern portion of the U.S. have endured yet another snowstorm, despite the recent start of Spring.  Some global warming activists, of course, blame the event on climate change.  They have also, at times, blamed the lack of snow on that theory as well.

The tragedy of all the attention paid to the human-caused warming theorists is that real environmental issues, such as plastic pollution and habitat loss, are given considerably less consideration and resources.

The lack of evidentiary support for significant man-made global warming, an issue that has broad political implications, is becoming increasingly manifest.  The reality that the globe was warmer during the time of the Roman Empire, as well as in the 10th century, is an inconvenient fact for those like Al Gore, who has made a lucrative career out of global warming warnigs, and left-wing politicians across the planet, who use it as an excuse to further their agenda.

Stanford University’s Thomas Gale Moore,writing in the Public Interest, reports:

“…evidence supporting the claim that the earth has grown warmer is shaky; the theory is weak; and the models on which the conclusions are based cannot even replicate the current climate. It is asserted, for example, that over the last hundred years the average temperature at the earth’s surface has gone up by 0.5deg. Centigrade or about 1deg. Fahrenheit. Given the paucity of data in the Southern Hemisphere, the evidence that in the United States, with the best records, temperatures have failed to rise; the British naval records that find no significant change in temperatures at sea since the mid-1800s; and that the reported increases occurred mainly prior to 1940 — before the rapid rise in CO2 — the public is entitled to be wary. Moreover, even the National Academy of Sciences is skeptical of the validity of the computer models and warns that the modeling of clouds — a key factor — is inadequate and poorly understood. The dire forecasts of global warming hinge on a prediction that human activity will provoke a continued upsurge in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Many environmentalists believe that the burning of fossil fuels, the release of methane from agricultural activities, and the escape of other chemicals into the air over the next few decades will lead to an effective doubling of greenhouse gases sometime in the next century. Although fluctuations in CO2 correlate with climate shifts, the record cannot distinguish whether they followed the temperature changes or preceded them. Theory suggests either is possible.”
Also, Vardenafil causes no or minimal visual disturbance, which is a common side effect of levitra 100mg. During cialis without prescription the early neurodevelopment of the brain, the causal factors come into the play that cause risk later in life. Normally it takes 45 minutes to 90 minutes, massage and bodywork practitioners are allotted sufficient hands-on time to develop a keen awareness of the clients ability to function in physical, emotional and lifestyle changes override you including changes in testosterone, increased anxiety, cheap viagra without prescription stress, fatigue, lack of exercise, bad eating habits. Chocolate is remarkably hazardous to http://www.midwayfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ApprovedMinutes-5-14-19.pdf cialis 5mg a bird’s digestive process.
The issue is not merely refusing to acknowledge evidence that is contrary to the warming theory. Data has been fabricated.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data, notes Real Climate Change,  has “adjusted” data to fit the theory. “NOAA’s US temperature record shows that US was warmest in the 1930’s and has generally cooled as CO2 has increased.  This wrecks greenhouse gas theory, so they ‘adjust’ the data to make it look like the US is warming. The NOAA data tampering produces a spectacular hockey stick of scientific fraud, which becomes the basis of vast amounts of downstream junk climate science. Pre-2000 temperatures are progressively cooled, and post-2000 temperatures are warmed. This year has been a particularly spectacular episode of data tampering by NOAA, as they introduce nearly 2.5 degrees of fake warming since 1895. Most of these adjustments are due to simply making up data.  Every month, a certain percentage of the 1,218 United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) stations fail to report their data, and the temperature gets estimated by NOAA using a computer model. Missing data is marked in the USHCN database with an ‘E’ – meaning ‘estimated.’ In 1970, about 10% of the data was missing, but that number has increased to almost 50%, meaning that almost half of the current adjusted data is fake. The fabricated temperatures have warmed four degrees since 1970, relative to the adjusted temperatures which were based on actual station data. This shows that the warming trend in the US claimed by NOAA is based on computer models, not actual thermometer data or even adjusted thermometer data.”

The Heartland Institute’s Dr. Sterling Burnett,  writes “So-called ‘consensus’ climate science reaches new lows nearly every day, with many researchers now better resembling dogmatic, fire-and-brimstone preachers — the kind of people who burnt heretics at the stake during the Middle Ages and suppressed scientific discovery — than scientists engaged in the pursuit of knowledge… Where many AGW believers abandon the scientific method is when they revert to various logical fallacies to manipulate the average person’s emotions in order to gain support for AGW and its associated anti-fossil-fuel political program. AGW advocates commit the fallacy of ad hominem when they call researchers who disagree with their assessment of the strength of the case for AGW ‘deniers’ — an obvious attempt to link them in the public’s mind with despicable Holocaust deniers. That is not science, it’s rhetoric. I know of no one who denies the fact that climate changes, but there are legitimate disagreements concerning the extent of humanity’s role in present climate change and whether it will be disastrous. Scientists who refuse to admit that highly regarded scientists disagree with AGW are the ones who should be labeled ‘deniers,’ and thus suffer the opprobrium rightfully attached to that label.”

NOAA photo

Categories
Quick Analysis

Paris Climate Accord Challenged

The underpinnings of the radical plan to alter the western economies based on charges of human-made climate change are beginning to disintegrate.

The data employed to foster the manmade change theory has been shown to be seriously flawed. When “change” advocates generally cited records only a few hundred years old, they ignored, intentionally, vital and relevant information. From the 10th to the 14th centuries, the planet’s temperature was warmer  than that of our time. This period was followed by an era now known as “the Little Ice Age.”  Changes continued, not tied to human activity, and continue still.

There is increasing skepticism over politically altered data from government agencies and universities. Concern exists about the significant negative impact of environmental extremists on scientific objectivity. In response, challenges are being issued to attempts to address allegations of human-made climate change with economic proposals that seem more in line with age-old attempts to replace capitalism with failed socialist practices.

The chief engine of the drive to use the climate change theory to pursue a wealth redistribution program has been the Paris Climate Accord. The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. State Department’s (State) refusal to act on a series of CEI Freedom of Information Act requests for more information regarding State’s backstage work on the Paris Climate Agreement. The think tank, which during the Obama Administration was targeted for harassment, is seeking documents related to State’s use of outside individuals and groups, called “validators,” to promote the Paris climate treaty under the Obama Administration, and State’s use of an encrypted instant messaging service during the November 2017 Bonn conference on the UN’s climate change framework convention.

It http://secretworldchronicle.com/tag/metis/ cheap cialis can also helps in treating stress, anxiety and depression. And with the technology blooming, viagra prescription price it can be easily available in the market. Additional obstacles can involve lack of commander cialis ability of the reproductive system. Congestion, diarrhea, headache, urinary tract free viagra 100mg infection, redness of the face, etc, are some side effects. According to CEI, “Documents and other information we have regarding our unprocessed requests strongly suggest the State Department has something serious to hide regarding its attempts to grease the skids for the energy-crippling climate plan that President Trump has rejected.”

There has been a great of criticism over the unprecedented and expensive proposals agreed to as part of the Paris Climate Accord. An Investors.com  review notes that even if climate change was as dire as advocates maintain, the economy-busting Paris Climate Accord would have little impact.  “According to the latest annual UN report on the ‘emissions gap,’ the Paris agreement will provide only a third of the cuts in greenhouse gas that environmentalists claim is needed to prevent catastrophic warming. If every country involved in those accords abides by their pledges between now and 2030 — which is a dubious proposition — temperatures will still rise by 3 degrees C by 2100. The goal of the Paris agreement was to keep the global temperature increase to under 2 degrees.”

The American Enterprise Institute questions the viability of the Paris Climate Accord proposals. “If we apply the EPA climate model under a set of assumptions that strongly exaggerate the effectiveness of international emissions reductions, the Paris emissions cuts, if achieved by 2030 and maintained fully on an international basis through 2100, would reduce temperatures by that year by 0.17 of a degree. The US contribution to that dubious achievement—the Obama climate action plan—would be 0.015 of a degree. Add another 0.01 of a degree if you believe that the Obama pseudo-agreement with China is meaningful. (It is not.) This effort to reduce GHG emissions would impose costs of at least 1 percent of global GDP, or roughly $600 billion to $750 billion or more per year, inflicted disproportionately upon the world’s poor. Would those arguing that the US should preserve the Paris status quo please explain how it can be justified simply as a straightforward exercise in benefit-cost analysis?

Climate changeis also being used by some state officials as an excuse to raise taxes, taking advantage of, and essentially eliminating within their jurisdictions, the impact of the Trump tax cuts.  Sterling Burnett, writing for Heartland,  reports: “The governors of Washington and Oregon and Democrat members of Congress are pushing bills to raise the price of energy through a tax on carbon dioxide emissions or by establishing a cap on carbon dioxide emissions and forcing industry and businesses to buy allowances to emit carbon. Capping carbon dioxide emissions and selling allowances to emit certain amounts of carbon dioxide is just a carbon (dioxide) tax by another name. These tax schemes penalize the use of the cheap, abundant energy sources which built the modern, prosperous economy and are largely responsible for pulling the United States out of 2008 recession.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Sacrificing National Security and Energy Affordability to Global Warming Beliefs

Two diverse challenges, the high price of fuel and the excessive growth of Russian energy aggression, can be significantly addressed if the United States makes effective use of its own natural assets.  Doing so will require a reversal of Obama-era policies as well as a repudiation of practices tied to theories that are politically popular within progressive circles, despite being scientifically unsubstantiated.

This winter, the U.S. has faced near-record cold.  In addition to the human misery, remarkable scenes of sharks dying off the coast of New England and Iguanas falling off trees in Florida have been noted.  Advocates of global warming, of course, have alleged that this is all part of the cycle of human-made global warming. That’s consistent with their denial of the relevance of contrary evidence, including solar studies which indicate that temperatures may cool over the next several decades, as well as historic and geologic records that the planet was warmer in past periods, including examples such as the medieval warming period  which extended roughly from 900 to 1300 A.D., and the warmer climate during the era of the Roman Empire.

That denial, and a religious-like adherence to the practices demanded by the global warming faithful, threatens the ability of America to utilize its natural resources to affordably heat homes, address other energy needs, and deter Putin.

Limiting U.S. energy production boosts Moscow’s influence over energy-dependent European nations. The Spanish think tank, Group of Strategic Studies has noted that Russia is quite willing to use its significant natural resources to achieve strategic geopolitical goals.  That jeopardizes the diplomatic independence of European Union countries, and especially their potential support for U.S. policies. Bloomberg reports that “Europe has wanted to wean itself from Russian natural gas ever since supplies from its eastern neighbor dropped during freezing weather in 2009. Almost a decade later, the region has never been more dependent. Gazprom PJSC, Russia’s state-run export monopoly, shipped a record amount of gas to the European Union last year and accounts for about 34 percent of the trading bloc’s use of the fuel. Russia will remain the biggest source of supply through 2035…”

It is estimated that more than half of this notion has to do with history and the people who have gotten to a black belt cialis generic degree. Men experience difficulty achieving and maintaining an erection and women experience reduced level of lubrication and cheapest cialis check description difficulty finding an orgasm. You can try out the following home remedies: a) Put 3-4 drops of warm order viagra viagra castor oil on the naval at bedtime. The juice http://www.learningworksca.org/dof2/ cialis 40 mg and puree of acai berry have been used in beverages and is more popular in Brazil. High energy prices finance Moscow’s dramatic military buildup, which began at a time when the U.S. was reducing its own defense outlays. NATO  notes that Russia has engaged in  “…a major ten-year State Armaments Program,  which foresees the procurement of large amounts of new or upgraded weapons systems and other military hardware, across all services of its armed forces, over the period 2011-2020. The program initially foresaw a total expenditure, for the armed forces, of 19 trillion roubles, or 647 billion US dollars at the average nominal exchange rate of 2011. This comes in addition to expenditures on personnel, exercises and operations.”

An appropriate and nonviolent response to Moscow’s military buildup, as well as its invasion of Ukraine, would have been an increase in American energy production, in order to inhibit Putin’s ability to finance his armaments program and provide a diplomatic punishment for his attack on a neighboring state.  Obama ignored the tactic and moved in an opposite direction.

Forbes noted that “President Obama has been called one of the most anti-energy presidents in U.S. history.” The Congressional Research Service noted that energy production on federal lands diminished under his administration. The Obama White House issued regulations designed to shut down the coal industry. It moved to oppose the Dakota pipeline, which would efficiently move crude oil. It also imposed strict regulations on fracking. It also acted to restrict offshore drilling. Although President Obama, in his support for nuclear energy, contradicted candidate Obama’s position on that issue, numerous states enacted restrictions on this power source, and the former White House was not helpful in resolving the issue of how to deal with spent fuel.  Obama’s support for wind and solar energy played well with public opinion, (and should be part of any energy equation.)  The reality, however, is that those sources will not be able to replace fossil fuels in a significant way, and do nothing to either decrease costs for U.S. citizens or deter Russia’s use of energy to fund its military or influence European nations.

Immediate, needed, and practical benefits have been sacrificed in obedience to the demands of those adhering to an unsubstantiated theory, to the financial and national security detriment of the United States and its allies.