This is a long one. CentsToChange is easy to read on a tablet or e-reader (The Kindle Fire is the single greatest piece of technology, ever) so cozy up on the couch, get a cup of coffee, and enjoy.
Dire warnings from the Great White North. To quote a NOAA Monthly Weather Review:
The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen [an island 12 degrees south of the North Pole – ed.] and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The warmth of the waters makes it probable that the favorable ice conditions will continue for some time.
Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now often accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared. The change in temperature has also brought about great change in the flora and fauna of the Arctic. There were few [white fish and] seal in Spitzbergen waters this year, and last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast. With the disappearance of white fish and seal has come other life in these waters. This year herring in great shoals were found along the west coast. Shoals of smelt were also met with.
*I practice catch-and-release when smelt fishing
This is bad news. Maybe Al Gore was right. Maybe by powering a 14,000 sf home where he rarely stays while flying private jets around the world and driving big SUV’s followed by flocks of Secret Service, he is saving us from the impending collapse of a climate catastrophe due to carbon pollution. Yes, Al Gore has the carbon footprint of Mt. Pinatubo.
*not Al Gore
Open Minded: Having strong convictions or beliefs yet willing to seek out opposing viewpoints with the intellectual honesty to change your view should you encounter evidence to counter your conviction.
I consider myself a very open minded person. I have changed my views, opinions, beliefs, or convictions without remorse when confronted with new and enlightening information. Ask Mark about the whole red light camera thing.
For years I have studied, read, discussed, sought, explained, and meditated on the whole climate thing. In 2001, I actually read the entire Kyoto Treaty, you know the global climate tax that was defeated unanimously during the Bill Clinton and Al Gore administration? Regardless of what I find, I keep arriving back at my original hypothesis:
The Earth exists to serve human beings. It is our responsibility to be good stewards of our home. The Earth is much bigger and more resilient that we can ever imagine. Soccer mom’s driving SUV’s will not change our global climate. Coal fired power plants will not destroy the environment. I would like to see cleaner and cheaper ways of generating electricity as power (combined with clean water) is the fuel to bring any society out of huts and into prosperity. Finally, history shows that climate alarmists are social engineers that use dire and impossible to prove predictions to manipulate society into their form of utopia.
There is more science in Scientology than in climate science.
*an actual Scientologist
But maybe I am wrong. The quote above is pretty damaging evidence to the shrinking polar cap and the onset of global heating that may be irreversible. We may have found the silver bullet to the climate debate. Looks like the skeptics were wrong and all the people at the IPCC, East Anglia University, Michael Mann and his Hockey Stick Chart, were right….
*neither Al Gore nor a Scientologist. I believe his name is Phil
Whoops. My bad….. I just looked at the date of the NOAA report and it was November, 1922. A full 90 years ago this Fall. You can read the original report here on the NOAA site. So maybe I am still correct in my assessment of the climate movement.
The climate movement is so convinced of mankind’s effect on our atmosphere that they look for any and every possible way to connect the two. Even when it doesn’t make any sense. Like this story about tracking the carbon footprint of wasted milk. Really. Wasted milk.
In Other News of the Ironic, our crack reporters did exhaustive investigative research and discovered that the same people worrying about the carbon footprint of wasted milk were, in fact, crying.
*not the actual spilled milk, this image is from a reenactment of the event for the purposes of this blog.
So there you have it. 1922 predicted the end of the polar ice caps and a global warming that would cripple civilization. All before the onslaught of SUV’s and the evil soccer mom’s who drive them. (For the record, well intended environmental supporters drive SUV’s because they have too and therefore don’t make as big of an impact as the people who chose to drive those evil monstrosities).
I think it’s time for all the world’s climate scientist to gather in Bali for another meeting about reducing everybody else’s carbon footprint. Or Bangkok. Or Bonn. Or Accra. I guess climate scientist have never heard of GoTo Meeting. I wonder if there needs to be a panel to put together a report of the carbon footprint of the people traveling to talk about carbon footprints.. Much like the study study study study from earlier.. Hmmm….
It works like this. The Earth is a lot older than us. We can debate exactly how much older, but regardless it is older. Does it have naturally occurring weather and climate patterns that shift over time? Yes. Can we really stop the Earth from changing over time? Not a chance.
In Other New of the Ironic Part Deux, the very same scientists who say that The Theory of Evolution is the only way the Earth, all life, and the entire universe was created argue against the Earth naturally changing over time. And that any changes to the Earth are man made… So on one hand, everything ever created was the result of random chance and natural evolution (changing over time), but any changes here on Earth are the result of a greater being forcing the environment to be altered. Makes perfect sense.
Back to my thought.
Does mankind have an effect on the environment. Yes. The very first caveman fart did that. *side note* Those in the Cents To Change newsroom deep in the bowels of the International Worldwide Headquarters (IWH) often accuse this author of having the single largest carbon footprint, due to flatulence. This author opines that (a) he who smelt it, dealt it, and (b) everybody likes their own brand.
*still not as bad as pink nightmare from earlier in the week
All of this climate studying is extremely expensive. And never ending. Let’s look at Michael Mann, the chief propagandist. For years he has toured the globe drumming up support for the global warming cooling climate catastrophe. He was the author of the 1999 report that debuted the famous Hockey Stick Chart showing global temperatures sharply rising in the 20th century. Of course he has yet to release his source data or the computer code for the models he ran. He later became a pivotal figure with the IPCC and was responsible for reviewing the data included into the IPCC Climate Reports, including his own research. No bias there.
So the big question is simple… What would he (much less all the self appointed climate experts and Al Gore) do for a living without a catastrophic global climate prediction? I took a recent poll and here are my findings:
1. Fry cook
2. Barista regaling customers with tales of the good ole’ days when he was king of the climate world
3. Set designer for the smash Broadway hit “River Dance on Ice”
4. Chuck E Cheese impersonator in an off-strip Vegas casino
Please remember, that Mann is considered the world’s foremost expert on climate. Let’s look at his bio:
“Dr. Michael E. Mann received his undergraduate degrees in Physics and Applied Math from the University of California at Berkeley, an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale University, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale University.”
<sarcasm> Lot’s of degrees dealing with the weather and atmospheric sciences. </sarcasm> I’m sure his qualifications as a climate scientist stem from watching the news at 6 and 11. They talk about weather.
So, in the often heard screams of the liberal environmental left, follow the money. And it all leads back to the people who are claiming that something has to be done. And by “something” they mean keep writing big checks to their research departments…
Really quick, back to the topic of volcanoes… Read this, then come back.
*still not Al Gore
Two very interesting things jumped out.
1. According to Al Gore, the debate on man-caused climate change is over and done. Without questions. Like here. Yet NASA reports that the effect of VOLCANOES on the climate:
“Volcanic eruptions [1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption] of this magnitude can impact global climate, reducing the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth’s surface, lowering temperatures in the troposphere, and changing atmospheric circulation patterns. The extent to which this occurs is an ongoing debate.”
So, it is 100% science that soccer mom’s are destroying the atmosphere, but we’re not sure if volcanoes have any affect.
2. Later in the article we accidentally see the truth in the climate left research. Read this:
“Man-made, or “anthropogenic” emissions can make the consequences of volcanic eruptions on the global climate system more severe, Stenchikov says…
“While we have no observations, the 1963 Agung eruption on the island of Bali probably did not deplete ozone as there was little atmospheric chlorine in the stratosphere. In 1991 after the Pinatubo eruption, when the amount of CFCs in the stratosphere increased, the ozone content in the mid-latitudes decreased by 5 percent to 8 percent, affecting highly populated regions,” says Stenchikov.”
So they are claiming fact, man-made emissions make volcanic eruptions worse, and then use a 1963 eruption as the control in their testing. Yet they admit that have no observations, records, calculations, data, or accounts of any kind, but assume that the eruption probably didn’t have an effect.
In 2011, the Imperial Government spent at least $2,481,000,000.00 on climate research in no less than seven different departments. With no results. Nothing to show for the effort. Nada. And there never will. Think about this… IF there is an actual problem then a solution will need to be found. Once that solution is enacted the problem will be solved. As long as the problem continually changes, there can’t ever be a real solution. Thus never ending research that nets the tax payers nothing at all. At least the space race gave us velcro and Tang.
And by nothing, I mean Solyndra. But you can read all about that in a soon to be published post.
What would you do with $2,,481,000,000.00?