Thursday, August 30, 2007

Less than Half is Not Consensus

The scientific "consensus" of opinion on man-made global warming boasted by the IPCC seems more and more tenuous by the day. The list of skeptical scientists with impressive credentials grows by the day while fewer and fewer people are falling for the media hype. Even the hype has slowed down as the media fails to inspire a sufficient level of panic in average citizens.

Now Daily Tech's Michael Asher reveals in his blog that less than half of all published scientists endorse global warming theory. Recent research into the peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science revealed some surprising figures.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

While the IPCC claims that the Fourth Assessment report was the work of thousands of scientists, in actual fact what has been reported in the media is only the Summary For Policymakers which was written by bureaucrats and political advisors.

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Greenpeace Founder Critical of 11th Hour

Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, has some harsh criticism for The 11th Hour, Leonardo DiCaprio's newest edition to the Global Warming film library of scare tactics. He says that DiCaprio and co-conspirator collaborator Tzeporah Berman are overlooking important facts about forests and global warming.

"As a lifelong environmentalist, I say trees can solve many of the world's sustainability challenges. Forestry is the most sustainable of all the primary industries that provide us with energy and materials. Rather than cutting fewer trees and using less wood, DiCaprio and Berman ought to promote the growth of more trees and the use of more wood."

Moore says that cutting old trees doesn't make them release carbon - rotting and burning do. He further states that young trees are more effective in sequestering carbon from the atmosphere. Use of more wood would encourage the cutting of old trees, management of forests and the planting of young forests that do a better job of removing carbon from the atmosphere.

Read the article in The Vancouver Sun

Sunday, August 26, 2007

Polar Ice Clouds Due to Global Warming

Here's an important bit of speculation about climate change and global warming. Polar ice clouds may be a symptom of climate change, according to Associate Professor Richard Collins of the University of Alaska-Fairbanks.

The reasoning goes something like this: carbon dioxide causes heating in the lower atmosphere and cooling in the upper atmosphere so these icy clouds could be a result of global warming.

The article goes on to say that these clouds were first noticed in the Arctic sky in the 19th century and have become more prevalent since.

My question would be, since no one really began to explore the north pole before the 19th century, how could anyone have possibly recorded them prior to that? And since there are more explorations of the Arctic now than there were in the 1800s, wouldn't that explain the increased sightings of these clouds?

The beauty of global warming theory is that nearly anything can be examined in such a way as to prove a link to climate change. The ability to use logic is not necessary, in fact, it's a definite hindrance.


Friday, August 24, 2007

Polar Bears Can Swim

Animals have always figured heavily into global warming theory. The polar bear, of course, because he is the symbol of the great icy north. If you want to grab someone's attention, there's no better way than to show a photo of the majestic polar bear, stranded far at sea on an ever-shrinking ice floe. I am sure you have seen this picture.

This photo was distributed widely across the net with accompanying articles that would have had you believe that these polar bears stepped upon an ice floe, and before they knew it, the ice floe had drifted out to sea, melting beneath their paws. The truth of this photo is that it was taken a couple of years ago and had nothing to do with polar bears being stranded at sea, these are just two polar bears who stopped off on an ice floe to rest from their swimming and have a look about.

Yes, polar bears can swim. They can swim as much as a hundred miles offshore in search of food, and regularly do so.

This photo was taken in 2004 by members of the Beaufort Gyre Exploration Project during late summer. The cruise was delayed due to unusually heavy ice for August according to the dispatches from the crew. The original caption to the photo says "Mother polar bear and cub on interesting ice sculpture carved by waves".

So why does this photo with the accompanying heart-wrenching captions such as "polar bears stranded on melting ice" appear suddenly in articles across the globe?

Aw, c'mon. You know why.

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Moose Commit Suicide Through Climate Change

Animals have been at the heart of the global warming controversy since the beginning.

The cow was the first to be targeted in the name of climate change. Bovine burping and flatulence have been blamed for everything from destroying the ozone layer to an increase in global warming. Worse, those who eat beef are called environmental criminals, for beef must be transported and processed, causing even more harm to the environment. No cheeseburgers if you want to be green.

And now there is a new scapegoat, or should I say scape-moose. Moose are the current focus in Norway, where it is the national animal. Norwegian researchers claim that moose contribute 2100 kilos of carbon dioxide per year through perfectly natural means.

Like the much-maligned cow, the moose, through no fault of its own, is a great purveyor of methane as a result of the bacteria in its stomach. Methane is at the top of the list of dangerous greenhouse gases. Even with the annual moose hunt season, the moose population will still be at about 90,000 in Norway.

Because moose meat is not found in every supermarket and they are not being raised for slaughter, as are cows, it is not as simple as vilifying anyone who eats moose and forcing the world into vegetarianism. It is going to be harder to solve the moose problem.

Or is it? According to Science Daily, global warming is going to kill off the moose. As temperatures get warmer, moose ticks multiply which make moose ill and die. Moose also get lazy in the warm and forage less, rest more. What's worse, as moose numbers begin to dwindle, wolves will have no moose to eat and they will also become extinct.

So perhaps the problem will take care of itself. Moose cause global warming, warm temperatures decimate the moose population and so the cycle is broken.

The whole story reminds us of the elasticity of global warming theory. Now, it is responsible for moose suicide.

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Protestors Pose Nude on Glacier

On the Aletsch glacier, high in the Swiss Alps, famed photographer Spencer Tunick awaited nearly 600 volunteers in his next project.

Tunick is famous for his "living sculptures" - groups of nude people posed around landmarks, like Grand Central Station in New York.

But this time, Tunick was working with Greenpeace to highlight the dangers of global warming. All the volunteers would strip nude and pose on the glacier to call attention to climate change.

According to Swiss glaciologist Andreas Bauder of the Zürich-based Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), "The Aletsch has been receding steadily over the past 150 years".

I've got news for him. The glaciers all over the world have been retreating for thousands of years, ever since the last ice age. That's what makes it possible for us to live on as much of the earth as we do.

The combination of people willing to participate in Tunick's "modern art", and the media attention given this stunt highlight more than global warming dangers. It highlights how ridiculous the protest is.

Why would you have hundreds of warm human bodies lie down on something you don't want to melt?

Thursday, August 16, 2007

The Hottest Years Were 1930s

Now that NASA has conducted a full review of the climate data in the US, and admitted that 1998 was not the hottest year they had records for, they are scrambling to keep the findings from being used by climate skeptics.

The new list of thetop ten hottest years contains 4 years from the 1930s and only 3 from the last decade. As the rise in carbon emissions is considered to begin around 1940, this data can be unsettling to the anthropogenic climate change theorists.

The director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies is downplaying the recent discovery saying "The figures have slight significance for U.S. temperatures, but the U.S. only covers 2 percent of the world's surface, so there is very little significance globally."

Funny, they found it very significant when they thought the data proved their theory.

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

1934 Hottest Year on Record in US

First there was the admission by NASA that there was a flaw in their climate calculations and that having conducted a full review of the data, the hottest year on record was NOT 1998 as previously proclaimed by global warming alarmists, the hottest year on record in the US was actually 1934. The early 1930s were the period of the catastrophic dust storms that turned American prairie lands into The Dust Bowl.

The flaw in the data was found by none other than Stephen McIntyre, the same guy who pointed out that the famous "hockey stick" graph was erroneous and produced by a computer program that was designed to exclude any data that didn't fit the hockey stick shape, thereby eliminating the medieval warm period and the subsequent "little ice age" that occurred between approximately 1650 and 1850. Leave it to a Canadian to know his way around a hockey stick.

Then comes this little gem of information from The Washington Times' John McCaslin in his "Inside the Beltway" column.

D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."

Sunday, August 12, 2007

Global Warming - Himalayan Connection Melts

US researchers announced recently that a study of Asia's brown clouds shows that they cause as much warming as greenhouse gases. According to the study, the brown haze is a mixture of light absorbing aerosols and light scattering aerosols which cause the atmosphere to warm while causing the Earth's surface to cool.

The vast brown cloud originates from the dung and kerosene burning stoves used in many parts of Asia.

Although scientists previously thought that only carbon dioxide and other, lighter greenhouse gases could travel across the Earth, they now say that these aerosol clouds are capable of going half-way round the earth in a week.

This warming is now being blamed for the melting of glaciers in the Himalayas, according to news reports released this August.

The most interesting thing about this study is that it is not news. The same story ran in August of 2002. In fact, the report came from the UN and was presented at the Earth Summit in Johannesburg on August 26,2002.

So, if the UN, and presumably the IPCC knew about the origin and nature of the melting of the Himalayan glaciers why did they report the following in 2007?

"Himalayan glaciers are receding faster than in any other part of the world. Half a billion people in the Himalaya-Hindu-Kush region and a quarter billion downstream who rely on glacial melt waters could be seriously affected.

Glaciers in these areas could, at current rates of global warming, disappear altogether by 2035, if not sooner. "

I guess the question is not why have the global warming alarmists have been spreading the hype about the Himalayan glaciers melting as a result of carbon-emission caused climate change when they have known the real cause since 2002 - the question is, why are we surprised?

BBC News August 2007
CNN 2002
Science Daily 2007

Thursday, August 9, 2007

Global Seesaw - Warming or Cooling?

The versatility of global warming theory is amazing. If it snows in the midwest, it's global warming. Droughts? Global Warming. Floods? Global Warming. The UN has announced that wacky weather is just more proof of global warming. Because, I guess, weather was always constant before the last century - nothing ever changed.

And for the piéce de resistance, the data that shows that temperatures are starting to go down is also proof of global warming.

According to a story in the journal Science, global warming is now expected to drop off for the next ten years. Global warming is going to slow down. But even though that sounds like good news, don't think you can rest on your carbon offsets just yet. After that, it's going to speed up!

Talk about hedging your bets!

The problem is, that if the Earth is starting to cool, then the hype will too and all the global warming theorists will look rather foolish and some will lose a good deal of money they planned to make off of the frightened masses.

To offset the possible calming effect of cooling, the story is that it's just the calm before the storm.

"Sure, it might be snowing and frigid now, but if you don't buy a hybrid car, in ten years this entire area will be a desert. Where will you build your snowman then, huh"?

Honestly, they get sillier and sillier.


Monday, August 6, 2007

The Truth About CFLs

The evangelists of environmentalism and the fiery global warming preachers are fervently exhorting us to replace our standard light bulbs with more energy-efficient and cooler-burning fluorescent bulbs.

However, a controversy over the safety of these "green" fluorescent bulbs has arisen to make the layfolk wary.

I have seen a lot of stories about Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs (CFLs) across the net. A popular tale is of a woman in Maine who accidentally broke a light bulb in her daughter's bedroom and was told to call poison control, had the room declared a hazardous waste site and was quoted an estimate of $2000 to stage a proper clean-up.

Some blogs call the story is a hoax. National Geographic, on the other hand, says it is true, but the hefty clean-up bill was due to some bad advice. The truth is that there is a danger in CFLs, in the form of Mercury. Each CFL contains about 5 milligrams of Mercury. Mercury is a neurotoxin and exposure can have serious effects on health.

Some sources say that extreme caution must be taken should you break a CFL, something bound to happen to nearly everyone at least once (they are encased in glass, after all). Others say clean up is as simple as clearing away any other broken bulb.

I decided to see what the experts in our government have to say on the matter.

This is from on frequently asked questions about CFLs.

What should I do with a CFL when it burns out?
EPA recommends that consumers take advantage of available local recycling options for compact fluorescent light bulbs. EPA is working with CFL manufacturers and major U.S. retailers to expand recycling and disposal options. Consumers can contact their local municipal solid waste agency directly, or go to or to identify local recycling options.

If your state permits you to put used or broken CFLs in the garbage, seal the bulb in two plastic bags and put it into the outside trash, or other protected outside location, for the next normal trash collection. CFLs should not be disposed of in an incinerator.

This is important to note. You must double seal the bulb in two plastic bags. That's because despite their reassuring words about the "tiny" amount of mercury in the bulbs, it is nonetheless, poisonous.

How should I clean up a broken fluorescent bulb?
The following steps can be performed by the general public:
1. Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.
2. Carefully scoop up the fragments and powder with stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a sealed plastic bag.
.Use disposable rubber gloves, if available (i.e., do not use bare hands). Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes and place them in the plastic bag.
.Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.
3. Place all cleanup materials in a second sealed plastic bag.
.Place the first bag in a second sealed plastic bag and put it in the outdoor trash container or in another outdoor protected area for the next normal trash disposal.
Note: some states prohibit such trash disposal and require that broken and unbroken lamps be taken to a local recycling center.
.Wash your hands after disposing of the bag.
4.If a fluorescent bulb breaks on a rug or carpet:
.First, remove all materials you can without using a vacuum cleaner, following the steps above. Sticky tape (such as duct tape) can be used to pick up small pieces and powder.
.If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken, remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister) and put the bag or vacuum debris in two sealed plastic bags in the outdoor trash or protected outdoor location for normal disposal.

Okay, did you get that? First of all, open a window and leave the room. When you clean up the broken bulb, wear rubber gloves, and double bag the broken bits. Make sure you get all the tiny pieces by using sticky tape. If you vacuum, make sure you wipe down your vacuum cleaner and dispose of the bag by sealing it inside two plastic bags. Note how often the double bagging is mentioned. Now think of the last time you had to fumigate a room because you broke a light bulb, or wear rubber gloves to clean it up, or wash down your broom or vacuum to remove a poisonous element.

The last thing we are told on the Energystar fact sheet is that compared to the small amount of mercury in CFLs, there are ghastly huge amounts of mercury being released into the atmosphere by coal-burning power plants. (Note: Power plants are always bad per environmentalists and the words "coal-burning" are equivalent to "puppy-strangling".) Just too horrible to envision. So if you want to reduce the mercury emissions from power plants, use lightbulbs that demand less power and keep the mercury emissions in your own house.