Besides the out-of-control deficit spending and massive debt that America’s “Elected Leaders” have run-up in the past two decades the other big issue that historians will look back on one day and wonder how so many people could have lost their minds and wasted so many precious resources will be the…
Global Warming, Climate Change Absolute Nonsense…or what will be the next term the Wacko Nuts will come up with to justify all their BS?
Who the Hell knows, but when there are Billions of Dollars in “US Government money” (US Government money = the American People’s hard-earned tax money) be assured that the Al Gore Global Warming – Climate Change Gang will think of something!
Look no further than the Absolute Nonsense that has been spewing out of people that should no better than some of the stuff that politicians and mainstream news has said over the past decade in order to gin up support for Global Warming and/or Climate Change among the American People so that of course Billions of Dollars of OUR money will be spent on utter nonsense that they say will save us all from ruin! (From C3headlines.com):
Washington State – Cascade Snowpack
“Democratic Party politicians and media alarmists often claim that the Cascade Mountain snowpack has been disappearing due to man-made global warming.
“The effects of climate change are already being felt in the state of Washington in the form of … snow pack in the Cascades declining by 35%.” – Washington Governor Gregoire’s Executive Order, Feb 2007
“Snowpack levels in Washington, Oregon and California … are a fraction of what they were in the 1940s, and some snowpacks have vanished entirely.”- Time Magazine, March 2006”
Oh, so Global Warming and Climate Change are causing the snowpacks in the Cascade Mountains in the Western United States to disappear?
Consensus of Idiots: “Global Warming Will Cause Cascade Mtns. Snowpack To Decline” – Wrong, Twice
“Anti-science leftists/liberals/Democrats are particularly prone to making claims and predictions about global warming and climate change that are, in reality, unsubstantiated by empirical evidence.
Washington state Democrats have provided a classic example of this style of politics by constantly and hysterically predicting that snow will soon disappear in the Cascade Mountains due to global warming. Of course, as it always turns out, the climate did exactly the opposite of what politicians predicted and dumped gigantic, record snowfalls on this mountain region.
continuing huge problem for Democrats is their non-belief in empirical science, and the embracement of speculative, fantasy science. Indeed, they end up constantly making fools of themselves by consistently going hysterical about natural events with the end result being they always blame humans and society for incidents that occur naturally. Once they assign the blame to humans, they then immediately start proposing new regulations, laws, fees and taxes in the belief they can fix a non-fixable problem that is literally controlled by nature, not by humans nor bureaucrats.
If they would actually take the time to examine the climate/weather science, they would soon discover that changing snowfall and snowpacks are a function of natural climatic oscillations, not of civilization.
As this chart reveals, snowfall in the Cascades is strongly associated with the prevailing ENSO (El Niño and La Niña) phase. Human CO2 is a non-issue having zero correlation with the amount of snowfall in any region, including the Cascade Mountains.”
Did everyone catch what was just revealed in the above paragraphs and chart about snowpacks in the Cascade Mountains?
It’s not Global Warming or Climate Change or even increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere that controls the amount of snow that the Cascade Mountains and other Western U.S. mountain ranges get each year, but rather it is the Two Things that have controlled the weather in the Pacific Ocean and in a big part of North American for centuries now and long before the Industrial Revolution came along….
El Nino and La Nina
Of course, it would take someone that actually believes in and studies REAL SCIENCE to understand the above FACTS and people that believe in religions and false Gods like “Global Warming and Climate Change” are no better than the crowd that thought the world was going to end on May 21, 2010!
The above reality points out that it is not the amount of a trace greenhouse gas like CO2 that is in the atmosphere that controls the weather or the climate of the Earth, but forces that are far beyond the control of human beings and things that have been going for Hundreds of Thousands if not Millions of Years on OUR planet and that reminds a couple of us here Mad As Hell And… of a conversation we had from the summer of 2005 with a few Global Warming – Climate Change Nuts.
We were in Aspen, Colorado in July 2005 with our families enjoying the Rocky Mountains and attending some events around the annual Aspen Ideas Festival and at lunch one day we found that we were sitting next to some very serious “climate scientists” that were talking about a family that had brought the Crested Butte Ski Resort and were making some multi-million dollar investments to upgrade the resort and the “climate scientists” were making fun of the family because they were saying the light snow winters that Colorado had experienced in the early 2000s were only going to get worse in the coming years because “CO2 was continuing to go up and thus causing the greenhouse effect which would mean less snow for Colorado.”
That comment about the snow in the Colorado Rocky Mountains becoming lighter every year into the future caught our attention since we completely understood from the REAL SCIENCE courses we took in high school and college that the Rocky Mountains were between 65 Million and 2 Billion Years old and that snow has been falling in the Rocky Mountains for Tens of Millions of years at least in varying depths and that someone claiming that because a trace greenhouse gas like CO2 was going to increase from…
3.40 of all Greenhouses Gases in 2000
3.90 of all Greenhouse Gases in 2010
….that winters and snowfall in Colorado would be much lighter was pretty stupid on its face and required us to ask for a clarification.
Mad As Hell And… – Excuse me, we couldn’t help but overhear you talking about snow in the Rocky Mountains getting lighter and even disappearing in the coming years.
Climate Scientist – Yes, that is right. As CO2 in the atmosphere increases it causes the greenhouse effect and the Earth gets warmer and thus there will be less snow in the Rocky Mountains and other North American mountain ranges.
Mad As Hell And… – CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been going straight up now as a percentage of greenhouse gases since the 1930s…(see below CO2 chart from the 1960s onward when CO2 was first measured)
….so what you are saying is that as CO2 increases then snowfall will decrease and there is nothing that can change that?
Climate Scientist – Yes, that is right. Oh, there may be a fluke snowstorm from time to time, but if we don’t put a big tax on carbon and start decreasing the amount of CO2 that is being put into the atmosphere the snowfall in the Rockies will continue to decrease and disappear eventually.
Mad As Hell And… – You seem very confident about that, so let’s say 5 years from now and there has been nothing done to reduce the amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere by America and other industrialized countries, if there was record amounts of snowfall in the Rockies and other American mountain ranges would you be surprised?
Climate Scientists – Yes, very surprised. Science is science and the facts are incontrovertible on the fact that Global Warming is happening and that unless we put a big tax on carbon and quit driving so much as Americans that the Rocky Mountains will be snowless in the very immediate future.
Mad As Hell And… – Care to make a bet on that prediction?
Climate Scientist – I don’t gamble, but believe me on this one….the snow in the Rocky Mountains will continue to decline as more CO2 is put into the atmosphere and that is a fact.
Mad As Hell And… – I tell you what. I will bet you $1 dollar to $100 dollars that there will be record snowfalls in the Rocky Mountains in the next 10 years.
Climate Scientist – I told you I don’t gamble, but the Rocky Mountains has seen its last record snowfall because even if we stopped putting CO2 into the atmosphere right now the Earth would continue to warm because of all the CO2 that is up there (motions towards the sky).
Mad As Hell And… – That is a Helluva prediction, but I have a funny feeling that 5 years from now, 10 years from now, 100 years from now and 1 million years from now there will be snow falling in the Rocky Mountains just like there has been snow falling at this very spot we are sitting at for tens of millions of years now.
Climate Scientist – (Laughs slightly and he and his “Climate Change – Global Warming Nuts Friends” get up and leave the lunch area)
Mad As Hell And… (to friend) – One day someone is going to tell these Idiots that the world has been here several Billion years and will be here several billion years more and Mother Nature and the Universe could care less about human beings or if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 3.4, 3.9 or any other number they come up with and one day such nonsense is going to look very stupid indeed.
2 nd Mad As Hell And… – Now, you are assuming any of these folks would listen to reason and science and both of those things left the building long ago!
To our Climate Scientist friend at lunch that day in July 2005 all we can say now is…
Here are few news stories that have caught our attention in recent days:
Heavy snows spoil weekend plans in West, AP
Memorial Day weekend brings heavy snow to Sierras, Yosemite
“May snow depths are deeper than anything we have seen in the last 45 years”, Watts Up With That?
and now our favorite news story in recent days from the Aspen Times:
Lots of snow for Aspen Mountain re-opening
Oh, that last story about plenty of snow in Aspen for Memorial Day is RICH…and just think the Aspen Ideas Festival is less than a month away from its opening!
One can only wonder what that “Climate Scientist” at the Aspen Ideas Festival in 2005 must think now that we have had TWO straight record years of snowfall in the Rockies and western U.S. mountain ranges, but then our experience with most of these purported “Climate Scientists” is that they care a Whole Damn Lot about figuring out a way to get their next BIG US Government grant (meaning hard-earned US Taxpayer money) than caring about doing REAL SCIENCE that can actually help mankind.
Now, how about some REAL SCIENCE instead of the Absolute Nonsense that has been coming out of the Al Gore Global Warming – Climate Change Fruitcake Gang for the past two decades?
Yes, CO2 levels in the Earth atmosphere are going up as shown in the chart below:
But at their current levels CO2 makes up about 3.62 percent of all greenhouse gases and of that 3.62 percent of CO2 only 3.40 percent of it is caused by human activity or 0.000033% is human caused CO2 in the atmosphere right now as depicted accurately in the below heritage.org chart:
Now, the above is REAL SCIENCE and not fantasies dreamed up by “Climate Scientists” to scare people about Global Warming and/or Climate Change so they can get Millions more Dollars of the American People’s hard-earned money.
Would you like to read some REAL FACTS about CO2 and the role it plays in the atmosphere from a REAL SCIENTIST that teaches Physics at Princeton University?
Below is a recent column by William Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University in First Things:
The Truth About Greenhouse Gases
The dubious science of the climate crusaders.
William Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University
“The object of the Author in the following pages has been to collect the most remarkable instances of those moral epidemics which have been excited, sometimes by one cause and sometimes by another, and to show how easily the masses have been led astray, and how imitative and gregarious men are, even in their infatuations and crimes,” wrote Charles Mackay in the preface to the first edition of his Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. I want to discuss a contemporary moral epidemic: the notion that increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide, will have disastrous consequences for mankind and for the planet. The “climate crusade” is one characterized by true believers, opportunists, cynics, money-hungry governments, manipulators of various types—even children’s crusades—all based on contested science and dubious claims.
I am a strong supporter of a clean environment. We need to be vigilant to keep our land, air, and waters free of real pollution, particulates, heavy metals, and pathogens, but carbon dioxide (CO2 ) is not one of these pollutants. Carbon is the stuff of life. Our bodies are made of carbon. A normal human exhales around 1 kg of CO2 (the simplest chemically stable molecule of carbon in the earth’s atmosphere) per day. Before the industrial period, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 270 ppm. At the present time, the concentration is about 390 ppm, 0.039 percent of all atmospheric molecules and less than 1 percent of that in our breath. About fifty million years ago, a brief moment in the long history of life on earth, geological evidence indicates, CO2 levels were several thousand ppm, much higher than now. And life flourished abundantly.
Now the Environmental Protection Agency wants to regulate atmospheric CO2 as a “pollutant.” According to my Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, to pollute is “to make or render unclean, to defile, to desecrate, to profane.” By breathing are we rendering the air unclean, defiling or desecrating it? Efforts are underway to remedy the old-fashioned, restrictive definition of pollution. The current Wikipedia entry on air pollution, for example, now asserts that pollution includes: “carbon dioxide (CO2)—a colorless, odorless, non-toxic greenhouse gas associated with ocean acidification, emitted from sources such as combustion, cement production, and respiration.”
As far as green plants are concerned, CO2 is not a pollutant, but part of their daily bread—like water, sunlight, nitrogen, and other essential elements. Most green plants evolved at CO2 levels of several thousand ppm, many times higher than now. Plants grow better and have better flowers and fruit at higher levels. Commercial greenhouse operators recognize this when they artificially increase the concentrations inside their greenhouses to over 1000 ppm.
Wallis Simpson, the woman for whom King Edward VIII renounced the British throne, supposedly said, “A woman can’t be too rich or too thin.” But in reality, you can get too much or too little of a good thing. Whether we should be glad or worried about increasing levels of CO2 depends on quantitative numbers, not just qualitative considerations.
How close is the current atmosphere to the upper or lower limit for CO2? Did we have just the right concentration at the preindustrial level of 270 ppm? Reading breathless media reports about CO2 “pollution” and about minimizing our carbon footprints, one might think that the earth cannot have too little CO2, as Simpson thought one couldn’t be too thin—a view which was also overstated, as we have seen from the sad effects of anorexia in so many young women. Various geo-engineering schemes are being discussed for scrubbing CO2 from the air and cleansing the atmosphere of the “pollutant.” There is no lower limit for human beings, but there is for human life. We would be perfectly healthy in a world with little or no atmospheric CO2—except that we would have nothing to eat and a few other minor inconveniences, because most plants stop growing if the levels drop much below 150 ppm. If we want to continue to be fed and clothed by the products of green plants, we can have too little CO2.
The minimum acceptable value for plants is not that much below the 270 ppm preindustrial value. It is possible that this is not enough, that we are better off with our current level, and would be better off with more still. There is evidence that California orange groves are about 30 percent more productive today than they were 150 years ago because of the increase of atmospheric CO2.
Although human beings and many other animals would do well with no CO2 at all in the air, there is an upper limit that we can tolerate. Inhaling air with a concentration of a few percent, similar to the concentration of the air we exhale, hinders the diffusional exchange of CO2 between the blood and gas in the lung. Both the United States Navy (for submariners) and nasa (for astronauts) have performed extensive studies of human tolerance to CO2. As a result of these studies, the Navy recommends an upper limit of about 8000 ppm for cruises of ninety days, and nasa recommends an upper limit of 5000 ppm for missions of one thousand days, both assuming a total pressure of one atmosphere. Higher levels are acceptable for missions of only a few days.
We conclude that atmospheric CO2 levels should be above 150 ppm to avoid harming green plants and below about 5000 ppm to avoid harming people. That is a very wide range, and our atmosphere is much closer to the lower end than to the upper end. The current rate of burning fossil fuels adds about 2 ppm per year to the atmosphere, so that getting from the current level to 1000 ppm would take about 300 years—and 1000 ppm is still less than what most plants would prefer, and much less than either the nasa or the Navy limit for human beings.
Yet there are strident calls for immediately stopping further increases in CO2 levels and reducing the current level. As we have discussed, animals would not even notice a doubling of CO2 and plants would love it. The supposed reason for limiting it is to stop global warming—or, since the predicted warming has failed to be nearly as large as computer models forecast, to stop climate change. Climate change itself has been embarrassingly uneventful, so another rationale for reducing CO2 is now promoted: to stop the hypothetical increase of extreme climate events like hurricanes or tornados. But this does not necessarily follow. The frequency of extreme events has either not changed or has decreased in the 150 years that CO2 levels have increased from 270 to 390 ppm.
Let me turn to some of the problems the non-pollutant CO2 is supposed to cause. More CO2 is supposed to cause flooded cities, parched agriculture, tropical diseases in Alaska, etc., and even an epidemic of kidney stones. It does indeed cause some warming of our planet, and we should thank Providence for that, because without the greenhouse warming of CO2 and its more potent partners, water vapor and clouds, the earth would be too cold to sustain its current abundance of life.
Other things being equal, more CO2 will cause more warming. The question is how much warming, and whether the increased CO2 and the warming it causes will be good or bad for the planet.
The argument starts something like this. CO2 levels have increased from about 280 ppm to 390 ppm over the past 150 years or so, and the earth has warmed by about 0.8 degree Celsius during that time. Therefore the warming is due to CO2. But correlation is not causation. Roosters crow every morning at sunrise, but that does not mean the rooster caused the sun to rise. The sun will still rise on Monday if you decide to have the rooster for Sunday dinner.
There have been many warmings and coolings in the past when the CO2 levels did not change. A well-known example is the medieval warming, about the year 1000, when the Vikings settled Greenland (when it was green) and wine was exported from England. This warm period was followed by the “little ice age” when the Thames would frequently freeze over during the winter. There is no evidence for significant increase of CO2 in the medieval warm period, nor for a significant decrease at the time of the subsequent little ice age. Documented famines with millions of deaths occurred during the little ice age because the cold weather killed the crops. Since the end of the little ice age, the earth has been warming in fits and starts, and humanity’s quality of life has improved accordingly.
A rare case of good correlation between CO2 levels and temperature is provided by ice-core records of the cycles of glacial and interglacial periods of the last million years of so. But these records show that changes in temperature preceded changes in CO2 levels, so that the levels were an effect of temperature changes. This was probably due to outgassing of CO2 from the warming oceans and the reverse effect when they cooled.
The most recent continental ice sheets began to melt some twenty thousand years ago. During the “Younger Dryas” some 12,000 years ago, the earth very dramatically cooled and warmed by as much as 10 degrees Celsius in fifty years.
The earth’s climate has always been changing. Our present global warming is not at all unusual by the standards of geological history, and it is probably benefiting the biosphere. Indeed, there is very little correlation between the estimates of CO2 and of the earth’s temperature over the past 550 million years (the “Phanerozoic” period). The message is clear that several factors must influence the earth’s temperature, and that while CO2 is one of these factors, it is seldom the dominant one. The other factors are not well understood. Plausible candidates are spontaneous variations of the complicated fluid flow patterns in the oceans and atmosphere of the earth—perhaps influenced by continental drift, volcanoes, variations of the earth’s orbital parameters (ellipticity, spin-axis orientation, etc.), asteroid and comet impacts, variations in the sun’s output (not only the visible radiation but the amount of ultraviolet light, and the solar wind with its magnetic field), variations in cosmic rays leading to variations in cloud cover, and other causes.
The existence of the little ice age and the medieval warm period were an embarrassment to the global-warming establishment, because they showed that the current warming is almost indistinguishable from previous warmings and coolings that had nothing to do with burning fossil fuel. The organization charged with producing scientific support for the climate change crusade, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), finally found a solution. They rewrote the climate history of the past 1000 years with the celebrated “hockey stick” temperature record.
The first IPCC report, issued in 1990, showed both the medieval warm period and the little ice age very clearly. In the IPCC’s 2001 report was a graph that purported to show the earth’s mean temperature since the year 1000. A yet more extreme version of the hockey stick graph made the cover of the Fiftieth Anniversary Report of the United Nation’s World Meteorological Organization. To the surprise of everyone who knew about the strong evidence for the little ice age and the medieval climate optimum, the graph showed a nearly constant temperature from the year 1000 until about 150 years ago, when the temperature began to rise abruptly like the blade of a hockey stick. The inference was that this was due to the anthropogenic “pollutant” CO2.
This damnatia memoriae of inconvenient facts was simply expunged from the 2001 IPCC report, much as Trotsky and Yezhov were removed from Stalin’s photographs by dark-room specialists in the later years of the dictator’s reign. There was no explanation of why both the medieval warm period and the little ice age, very clearly shown in the 1990 report, had simply disappeared eleven years later.”
Read the rest of the column here.
Now do you think you have finally gotten some TRUTH about the role that CO2 plays in the atmosphere and were told a funny story about yet another “Climate Scientist” making Bogus Claims that anyone that has taken Geology 101 and Physics 101 courses in college could debunk with little effort?
Now go out and debunk some more of these Bogus Climate Change – Global Warming myths yourself which are everywhere in the mainstream media and are put forward the vast majority of time because there are people hiding in the shadows that want more of YOUR hard-earned money….
…and unfortunately we have lots of Very Stupid People in Washington DC and across the country in state capitals that will fork over OUR hard-earned money to any Moron that shows up and claims the world is coming to and end….but that if you give him Millions of Dollars of OUR hard-earned money he might….just might…be able to save us all from Armageddon!
Oh, STOP THE MADNESS!