Musings

Standard

It has begun.  The global warmists are swarming around Harvey and Irma like sharks in a feeding frenzy attempting to link these storms to global warming, aka climate change.  One article I read said that “denying climate science is literally killing us.”  Another writer called for jailing “climate deniers” because they are guilty of crimes against humanity.  What is missing in all of their hype is evidence.  They do not have a shred of evidence linking the existence, the size, or strength of these storms to CO2 or global warming of any kind.  All they have are assumptions that if it is severe weather and destructive, it must be due to human-caused climate change.  They have bought into the story that CO2 emitted by humans controls everything about weather and climate.  Thinking that we can control weather or climate by simply controlling CO2 is madness.

Lets put this into perspective.  There are hundreds of factors that contribute to weather and ultimately climate, because climate is the average weather for a given area.  Such factors are the rotation of the earth around its axis, the tilt of the axis, the rotation around the sun, solar activity itself, the pull of the moon, vegetation, topography, and many more.  To hear the pundits like Al Gore speak, you would get the impression that CO2 is blanketing the earth like a thick layer of ooze.  But the reality is that CO2 is only four hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere.  To visualize this to get an idea of the relative amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, consider 10,000 tennis balls are on your living room floor.  These 10,000 tennis balls represent the entire atmosphere of the earth.  How many of those balls would represent the amount of CO2?  The answer is four.  CO2 is only 4/10,000 of our atmosphere.  Now lets apply this little bit of information to what the warmists want you to believe.

In theory, the sun’s rays warm the Earth and the Earth’s heat is radiated back to space where it hits molecules of CO2 and is re-radiated back to Earth to warm it some more.  This much is true.  But how much additional warming can be realized when CO2 is only 4/10,000 of the atmosphere?  Very little.  So little as to be insignificant.

The warmists also want you to believe CO2 traps heated air next to the earth, much like air is trapped in a hot car.  There are several problems here.  A car is enclosed with impermeable glass and steel.  Open the windows or remove the top and what happens?  The hot air escapes.  The atmosphere and CO2 will not keep the hot air inside the car.  CO2 is a gas and cannot trap anything.  How much trapping can be done when it is 4/10,000ths of the atmosphere? Again, very little or none.  It would be like trying to trap butterflies using a net made of hula hoops tied together.

Another visual is helpful.  Consider a thermos bottle with its mirrored lining designed to keep liquids warm.  Pour boiling water into the thermos and put the stopper on.  Wait 24 hours and check the liquid.  Will it be hotter than when you put it in the thermos?  No.  It will have cooled considerably.  The reflective surface of the liner did not cause reheating by reflecting the heat back into the liquid.  And, there is more of that reflective surface relative to the thermos than there is CO2 relative to the Earth’s surface.

Musings

Standard

In my last Musings, I addressed the claim of government scientists that 2016 was the warmest year on record.  In my writing I said that the fact that it was government scientists making the claim should give us all reason to be skeptical.  It now appears that my skepticism of government claims was well placed.  A former NOAA scientist has now come forward as a “whistle-blower” to state that government scientists altered data to make it show warming  and then rushed a report so that it would be published with strategic timing to support the Paris global warming accord touted by President Obama.  The government scientists then hid or destroyed the altered data so that independent researchers could not confirm the accuracy of the data.

It appears that a number of the Republican “elite” have bought into the climate change hysteria, because it has been reported that these GOP elites have approached President Trump with a proposal for a carbon tax to “confront the problem of climate change.”  One of these elites is reported to have said that he was not certain he accepted the notion that we are on the precipice of doom from climate change but it does not hurt to be proactive in dealing with the problem.  What utter nonsense.  He wants to take more money from Americans to fund a solution to a problem that does not exist.  This is further evidence that the U.N. has been successful in selling the world a ‘bill of goods” based on a science that does not exist.  We keep hearing people like Bernie Sanders tell us to “believe the science” when it is clear that they have not even bothered to read the “science” for themselves.  They are only reacting to what they are told the “science” says.

The reality is that there is no science behind global warming.  All that exists are hypothesis, altered data, and computer models based on the altered data.  That is not science.  The “science” says there should be a hot spot in the upper atmosphere because of heat “trapped” by CO2.  After three decades of searching, scientists have never found the “hot spot”.    Furthermore, a gas cannot trap anything, especially in the upper atmosphere.  In the upper atmosphere the molecules are much further apart because they are dispersed over a wider area.

There is no empirical evidence that CO2 is linked to global warming or any catastrophic climate event in the recent past.  Those of us who are skeptics do not deny that the earth could be warming.  But we attribute the warming to natural events, such as solar activity, the tilt of the earth, the earth’s rotation around the sun, etc.  Walk outside on a sunny day with dark clothing and what do you notice?  You start warming because your clothing is absorbing the solar energy.  What happens when a cloud gets between you and the sun?  You start to cool because the water vapor in the cloud blocks and filters the solar energy.  Water vapor is a “greenhouse gas” as is CO2.  There is more water vapor in the air, even on cloudless days, than CO2, in fact 96% more.  The moral of the story is that the greenhouse gases prevent the planet from over heating, because they filter and block harmful solar radiation..

CO2 is not a pollutant.  It is an essential element for all life on the planet.  Plants require CO2 to live and thrive.  We require plants to live and thrive.  At 400ppm, the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere, plants are almost starved for CO2.  If we reduce CO2 back to 290 ppm, we will be retarding the yields of food plants.  This is not a good idea while the world population is growing.

Back to the “science.”  In science one does not alter the data to fit the hypothesis.  If the data do not fit the hypothesis, the proper thing to do is change the hypothesis.

Musings

Standard

During the senate confirmation hearings, the Democrat senators seemed more focused on climate change than the real issues the cabinet picks will face.  Some of the questions asked are rather meaningless on their face.  For example, one senator asked a nominee if he believe climate change was real.  The nominee said “yes.”  That answer, in itself discloses nothing.  Certainly climate change is real.  Climate is always changing and has been doing so as long as the planet has existed with a climate.  It is a natural occurrence.  The real issue in the debate is whether humans are causing climate to change by creating more CO2.  The answer to that may seem muddled but the truth is that there is absolutely no empirical evidence that increasing CO2 levels have impacted climate.  None.  Regardless of that fact, the obsession climate change is approaching irrational hysteria.  Much of the public is accepting unfounded statements as truth, from public figures like President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, and Al Gore.  These public figures are fueling the hysteria with predictions of irreversible doom for the planet unless we act immediately.  We are being told we are at a point of no return.  People say they “believe the science.”  The problem is that they are not believing science but rather believing what they are told the science says.  There is no science in which to believe.  Skeptics do not “deny science” because there is no science to deny.  What is denied are the phony claims posing as science.

As evidence of “climate change”, government scientists have just come out heralding 2016 as having set a new record in global warmth, breaking the records of 2014 and 2015.  The fact that it was government scientists should cause anyone to question the accuracy of the claim.  Government scientists are protective of their jobs and will not present “findings” that run counter to the dogma presented by those at the top.  NASA has been known to consistently alter data in order to show warming.  The government scientists at NASA are using measurements taken at ground locations around the world.  What is not mentioned is that these ground locations are often in what is called urban heat islands (UHI), locations that are known to retain a lot of heat because of the near proximity of heat absorbing structures, such as asphalt roads, concrete/brick buildings, etc.  The measurements taken tend to reflect the retained heat from those structures rather than the normal atmospheric heat.  The scientists must then apply what they believe to be the correct “adjustments” to reflect more accurately the atmospheric and ground temperature.  What is also not mentioned by the government scientists is that about 70% of the Earth’s surface is not covered by any ground measuring station.  Temperatures for those areas are merely guesstimated and included in the average used to claim as a “record” year.  Therefore, the government’s numbers lack the precision to be meaningful.  NASA claims 2016 was .07 degrees warmer than 2015.  Climate scientists using satellite data, which are considered more comprehensive and accurate, tell us that this data shows only a .01 degree difference.  That is 1/100th of a degree.  The difference is meaningless because there are so many variables as to say that the level of precision is not adequate to make 1/100th of a degree statistically significant.  Besides, no one can feel the difference.

Satellite measurements are regarded as more comprehensive and more accurate.  Climate scientists, using satellite measurements, say that the global average temperature for 2016, as well as 2014 and 2015 were not records because they fell within the range of the statistical 95% confidence level.  Which means they were not statistically significant in the variation because they fell within the range of normal variability.

What is being passed off as “science” are projections of catastrophic warming by computer models fed with data that have been corrupted by NASA alterations.  The computer programs themselves are programed with a bias toward showing more warming and catastrophe.  The old saying “garbage in garbage out” applies here.   I offer, as evidence, several facts.  First, none of the predictions of catastrophe have occurred.  Al Gore predicted that by 2015 New York would be under water, Las Vegas would be wiped out, gasoline would be $15 a gallon and the price of milk would approach $9 a gallon from global warming.  None of this has occurred.  Secondly, meteorologists often cannot predict accurately the weather one or two days out.  How can we realistically predict the climate 10 years from now?  Nature is too variable and subject to things beyond our control and ability to predict, such as Sun spots and Sun cycles, cloudiness, etc.

Also passing as “science” is the media reporting of climate events that tend to be nothing but hyperbole.  Those that keep records of such things tell us that the number and severity of tornados has decreased in the last decade, as well as the number and severity of hurricanes, floods, forest fires, and drought.  Yet, to hear the media report it, each severe climate event is the most severe ever recorded, and they attribute it to climate change or global warming.  The media go out of their way to portray the event as catastrophic, using such words as “unprecedented”.  One reporter, during a flood, was filmed in a rowboat in the middle of a city street, giving the impression the flooding had great depth.  The fallacy of the report was shown when an unaware citizen was seen walking down the street behind the boat in ankle deep water.  Reporting on catastrophe sells TV ratings and newspapers, so the media will milk each weather event for all of its ratings value with ethical reporting set aside.

Musings

Standard

I watch with dismay, the news coverage of Donald Trump in recent days.  It is clear that the media is doing their best to take down Trump to prevent him from getting the GOP nod and winning the election for President.  Take the most recent flap regarding abortion.  It has been a media feeding frenzy trying to paint Trump as some kind of anti-woman monster or ill-prepared dummy pretending to be qualified to be a presidential candidate.  The truth of the matter is that Trump was set up to answer the way he did.  One could get almost anyone to answer in a specific way by structuring the sequence and rapidity of questions, because the sequence and rapidity prepares the mind to follow a pattern.  Note that Matthews asked the more general question of whether there should be punishment for the hypothetical crime of abortion.  Trump, being a law & order believer, said yes, there should be punishment for the commission of the crime, to which Matthews quickly said for women?  Trump’s mind was already programmed to think of punishment for the crime and without thinking said yes.  The structure and rapidity of the questioning programmed Trump to respond in that manner.

It is also laughable that the media would try to portray Trump as anti-woman by going back to some of the things he has said about and to some of the women who have attacked him. The few comments that are on the record now do not make him anti-woman.  The comments made about Carly Fiorina were not made in a public manner but in private.  Therefore it does not rise to the level of an attack.  The comment about Megyn Kelly were responses part of the on-going feud he had with her.  She attacked first and he responded.  His feud with Rosey O’Donnell is well documented.  His comments, therefore, were not against women in general but directed toward specific women who had attacked him.  He has consistently demonstrated that he respects women, but this does not get much press attention because it does not fit the media agenda.  He puts women in high positions in his organization.  He hired a young, black, female, on-the-spot, at an event last week.  A terminally ill woman made it a point to go to the town hall in which he appeared so that she could express her appreciation for the care and concern he expressed to her in her time of need.

It is also laughable that women want to have equality with men but then want to use their womanhood to protect themselves from barbs that men may throw their way.  That is hypocritical.  Women spend lots of money to look good, even sexy.  They get their hair styled.  They paint their faces to accent the eyes or lips,.  They wear shorter and tighter dresses and skirts with high heels to accent their legs.  They lift up their breasts or show cleavage to accent same.  Then, they get offended when men point out how good they look or comment that their looks may have given them an advantage in some way.

It was reported in the media that Hillary claims that world leaders are calling her expressing their fear that Trump could become president.  Could that be true?  I suppose it could because Trump is saying he would take away their candy, e.g. the billions and trillions of dollars they make off the U.S. in trade imbalances, foreign aid, NATO funding, etc.  Trump is rightly saying we are getting ripped off in a big way on the world stage and that it has to stop given that our national debt is $19 trillion and climbing.

Again, it is clear that the media are trying to take Trump down by blowing small things way out of proportion.  I would agree that Trump is not a polished politician.  But that is what is refreshing about him.  He has the knowledge and skills to renew the greatness of America.

Musings

Standard

If I had any respect for Mitt Romney, I lost it all today, after hearing the vicious way in which he attacked Donald Trump.  Romney said he was not running for anything, but it seems clear to me that he is trying to set himself up to be the savior of the GOP at a brokered convention.  Notice that he encouraged people to vote for the other candidates to prevent Trump from getting enough delegates to win the nomination.  He did not say rally behind one candidate so that candidate would win instead of Trump.  No, he wants people to vote for all the other candidates, to spread the votes around, so that a brokered convention is assured.  Only in a brokered convention could he have a chance to be nominated.  Romney’s ulterior motive is what is behind this speech.  He has to savage Trump to try and take him down so he can he can be the savior of the GOP.

The establishment GOP are in a panic now.  Trump is winning, and their boy Rubio is losing.  Cruz is not their second choice.  I believe there has been a back-room deal between the establishment GOP and Mitt Romney, to draft Mitt at the convention, if he can effectively take down Trump and assure a brokered convention.

Romney does not know what is in Trump’s tax records, nor does he even have a hint of what is there.  All he is doing is sowing seeds of doubt.  As a man who is supposedly a person of strong faith, this malicious “false witness” against Trump says more about Romney’s character than it says about Trump.

Trump’s characterization of Romney is spot on.  Romney ran a very poor campaign when he was the nominee.  The poor character he is showing now, will not endear many grassroots Republicans to him.  If Romney is successful in taking down Trump, it is almost assured that Hillary will become President.  Trump will likely regroup and continue his bid for the White House as an independent, siphoning votes from the GOP.  The establishment GOP and Mitt Romney are going to ruin the Republican Party by trying to frustrate the will of the electorate.  It is sad, but after this election, there may not be a Republican Party of any significance.

Musings

Standard

32 Reasons for not believing in Anthropogenic Climate Change and the doomsday narrative

1. The mechanism of how CO2 adds warmth to the earth, as explained by the warmists, is not consistent with known science and, in fact, violates known principles of science, such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
2. There is no empirical evidence that links man-made CO2 to climate changes. The only thing the warmists have are computer models that are programmed with the warming bias.
3. The only way NASA and NOAA can get temperature measurements to show global warming is to alter the data. That is not science. It is fraud.
4. In January 2015, NASA admitted that there was no warming trend for 15 years. Then, it altered the data to show a warming trend.
5. The claims of NASA and NOAA that 14 of the warmest years on record occurred after 2000, were based on altered data, not actual measurements.
6. NASA and NOAA once claimed that satellite data were the most accurate but now reject satellite data because it does not reflect the narrative they want to present.
7. After rejecting satellite measurements, NASA and NOAA turned to ground-based measuring stations, which only cover about 30% of the earth and are subject to warming bias due to their location. Many are located in urban areas where heat from vehicular traffic and heat retained by concrete, asphalt and brick influence the measurements.
8. Temperatures of the 70% of the earth not covered by ground-based measuring stations are not actual measurements but numbers inferred (guesstimates).
9. Predictions of dire consequences by 2015 resulting from global warming have not occurred. New York city was not totally flooded, Miami was not wiped out, Las Vegas was not abandoned, the polar ice caps did not disappear, sea levels did not rise 4 feet, gasoline prices did not get to $9 a gallon, and milk prices did not rise to $13 a gallon. Yet, man-made CO2 has not been reduced.
10. Sea ice is not disappearing but growing faster and thicker.
11. Polar ice caps are growing, not receding.
12. Sea levels have been rising slowly for hundreds of years for reasons unknown to scientists. There has been no change in the rate of sea level increases.
13. Ice core studies show that during the interglacial periods, temperature rose first and then CO2 levels rose about 800 years later. That is consistent with the known science that warmer temperatures cause the seas to release CO2 into the atmosphere. From a cause and effect standpoint, one could infer that the warming caused the rise in CO2, not the other way around.
14. Human-caused CO2 is only .00016% of the atmosphere. All CO2, natural and man-made, is only .04% of the atmosphere.
15. The dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor at .95% of the atmosphere (less than 1%). The greenhouse gases act to keep the earth cool by filtering the sun’s radiation. Greenhouse gases do not create more warmth. The presence of water vapor in clouds at night serves to slow cooling after the sun goes down. Greenhouse gases do not “trap” heat of the earth but only slows cooling.
16. Historical records show that extreme weather events have not become more frequent or more severe. It just appears that they have because of the 24hour news cycle we have now and the penchant of the media to hype the event.
17. Many of the extreme weather phenomena have been attributed to El Niño or La Niña, both of which are unrelated to increased CO2.
18. Daily weather forecasts are often as much as 5 degrees off from what actually occurs. If the computers cannot predict with accuracy what the next day’s temperatures will be, how can they predict with accuracy what will happen over the next 50 or 100 years?
19. CO2 is not a pollutant!! It is essential for all life on the planet, and an essential building block for all plant life, on which we depend.
20. Some warming of the earth will be beneficial because growing seasons for food crops will be enhanced.
21. The current atmospheric CO2 level is 385 ppm. Plants thrive at 1000 to 1200 ppm. At 385 ppm in the atmosphere, the CO2 level is close to a starvation level for plants. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will enhance crop yields.
22. Eliminating all man-made CO2 will have little or no impact on climate change.
23. Climate changes naturally as a result of many natural variables, such as solar activity, the rotation of the earth around the sun, the rotation of the earth around its axis, the tilt of the earth on its axis, and the wobble of the earth, the effect of El Niño and La Niña, and other natural variables.
24. More human suffering and death occurs during cold periods than warm periods.
25. The 97% consensus on global warming, claimed by President Obama, has been proven to be false.
26. Over 31,000 scientists in the U.S. have signed a petition rejecting the claims of anthropogenic climate change.
27. 50% of Nobel Prize winners in science rejected the AGW hypothesis by refusing to sign a statement acknowledging that AGW was true.
28. The U.N. has acknowledged that the earth has not warmed in over 18 years.
29. During the interglacial periods, the earth warmed to levels greater than it is now and with higher levels of CO2 than now, with positive results rather than devastation. This allowed for greater population dispersion as well as greater biological diversity in plant and animal life.

30. NASA used computer models to estimate temperatures for many decades past and then threw out the real measurement.
31. The United Nations has an agenda to use AGW as a tool to destroy capitalism and institute world socialism.
32. To think that man can alter the great forces of nature impacting climate is self-deceiving.

Musings

Standard

The media, especially CNN and Politico, have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to find something with which to discredit Dr. Ben Carson.  They have not found hard evidence of a scandal, but they are spinning their lack of information as a negative for Dr. Carson, using innuendo to suggest that he is lying or trying to hide something.  CNN defends its actions by saying they are just “vetting” Dr. Carson as they would any other candidate.  But is that really what they are doing?  Why are they not spending that much time “vetting” Trump, Rubio, Fiorina, or Kasich?  The reason is that, given current poling data, these candidates,except for Trump, are not likely to win the GOP nomination.

Here is my take on the situation:  CNN and Politico, and the other liberal media, are, in fact, trying to take down Dr. Carson.  Here is why that is true:  Recent polls have indicated that in a head-to-head contest with Hillary Clinton, Dr. Carson would win and Donald Trump would lose.  Trump is still slightly edging out Carson in the GOP contest but they are in a statistical dead heat.  If Trump wins the nomination, they are not so concerned, but if Carson wins, it is problematic for Hillary.  Carson could come out the winner of the GOP nomination.  Given that the media are in love with Hillary, this presents a problem.  They do not want their anointed one to lose.  Therefore they must do what they can to take down Dr. Carson with hopes that Trump will win the GOP nomination but not be able to put together a winning campaign against Hillary.