Tag Archives: Climate Change

Global Boooooooring (Part 2)

In my last BRILLIANTLY written article “Global Boooooooring” I spent most of the time explaining how the “science isn’t settled” just because a bunch of scientists say it is. As much as it pains me, I have more to say about the subject.

When I was a wee little lad in, hmmm…I dunno, second grade, I learned that one of the main reasons the Great Salt Lake, in Utah, is salty is because it is the remains of what was a huge lake, Lake Bonneville. Apparently 14,000 years ago the majority of the lake dried up and all the sediment from Lake Bonneville was left over in the Great Salt Lake.

lake bonneville

About the same age I learned about Woolly Mammoths and the ice age.
Long story short, I have been acutely aware of “Climate change” since second grade. (I say “acutely” because of how much of “acutie” I was.)

DQ -1

I know!!! Adorable, huh?

If you recall from my last article, of the 12,000 peer reviewed papers only 65 said that humans are the primary reason for climate change. Now, 2nd grade Danny thinks the people who wrote these 65 papers are stupid pooh-pooh heads (the current Danny thinks the same thing, but with more of an “R” rating). You remember Lake Bonneville? According to the source of all knowledge, Wikipedia, “With the change in climate, the lake began drying up.” That begs a question: Why was there a change in climate all those years ago? I don’t recall learning about all the SUV’s the Woolly Mammoths drove.

You may also recall in the last article that 97% of the 12,000 papers believed that humans probably contribute something to climate change. These authors would be thrilled to learn that both 2nd grade Danny and current Danny could buy into that. I’ll buy into the argument that humans have an impact on the environment. Am I willing to gamble $2.23 trillion (of US economy) and the economy of the world on it? Absolutely not.

Quick tangent: According to the other source of all knowledge, Google, the earth is 4.54 billion years old. We have been measuring its temperature for what, 200 years? If my calculations are correct we have been measuring the temperature for .000000044% of the time the earth has been in existence. Who are we to say what the average temperature of the earth is? Just because 72 degrees is comfortable for us does that mean it’s the average temperature of the earth? I dunno.

“But Danny,” you whine, “I saw the movie ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ and they showed scientists drilling ice out of Antarctica to measure the earth’s temperature – they can go back hundreds, maybe even thousands of years.”

And?

This winter has been one of the coldest winters in years. Unless you happen to live where I live, Utah. It was super cold for about a week in December and it’s been warm since. Can you honestly tell me the record cold in New York can be measured and somehow applied to Utah? If you can, I’m willing to learn. End of tangent.

Let me give you two little facts:

1- Global warming stopped seventeen years ago. Al Gore didn’t invent the internet, but he sure as hell invented “global warming”…until it stopped. Now everything is blamed on “Climate change.” In the summer, if it’s hot “Climate change!!!.” In the winter, if it’s cold “Climate change!!!.” Whatever happens “Climate Change!!!” (Whew…it makes me really happy that seasonal depression only happens four times a year). Oh wait. I misspoke, according to the article cited global warming “paused” seventeen years ago. The word “paused” heavily implies it could start up again at any moment. It’s super scary. The only reason it isn’t “super-duper scary” is that the environmental alarmist have been sooooo far off in their predictions in the past. In 1986 the best and brightest wrung their hands and predicted how much warming there would be between 1997 and today. They were slightly off. By roughly 300%.

You read correctly. 300%. I don’t care how famous you are or how many letters you have after your name, no credentials can compensate for an error that big.

Twain

While I’m on it, no one in the scientific community predicted the “pausing” of global warming between 1997 and today. And yet we are supposed to follow, zombie-like, the suggestions (nay, demands) these jackasses are ramming down our throats. If we follow the cry that “We have to do something,” we are going to radically change the economies of the industrialized nations, thus harming the poorest of the poor in developing nations. Which brings me to fact number two.

2- None of suggested proposals will do anything to curb the (non-existent) rise in global temperatures.

Cap and Trade, a carbon tax, The Kyoto Protocols, climate reparations for poor countries. All different approaches, all the same outcome: Not one will reduce global temperatures. Many proponents of these policies have publicly conceded they will do nothing to the climate. It is complete and utter B.S.

More then just B.S. To me, these policies are immoral.

“But Danny,” you whine “how is it immoral? Are you suggesting we do NOTHING?”

It is immoral.

How is it moral to drive around in our air conditioned cars, or sit in our air conditioned home or office and then bitch when they do the same in developing countries?

How can we smugly tell an African country that they can’t drill for oil or mine coal because an international climate control protocol tells them they can’t? Many of these developing countries have a GDP a thousandth of the United States. Further development of these countries will lead to freedom, prosperity and hope. That’s good for everyone. That’s good for the world. Yes, we can feel morally superior as we drive our SUV’s and drink our bottled water, as long as we feel horrible about it. Passing these proposals means the deliberate oppression of the worlds poor, ensuring people will continue to live in poverty and will continue to die.

It really, really chaps my ass.

The last thing we need is another “symbolic gesture” or “good start.” What we need are concrete facts, and years of accurate and verifiable predictions. Until then this should NOT be a political issue.

Crank the A/C. It’s getting hot.

 

LIFEZILLA:  No animals were harmed in the writing of this article.  A cat got stepped on, and someone shot a duck.  But that’s it.

King Germ

Have a Nice Day

Peter Pan

Global Boooooooring

I haven’t even started writing this and I’m already bored to tears.  This is going to cause me physical pain. It is so incredibly stupid.  But…here goes.

For my real life job I work for a company that manufactures high quality accessories for cars and trucks.  I’ve worked there for 23 years.  Several years ago we were introducing a new widget at the big yearly trade show.  Someone came up with the idea of making a big sign to go over the item that simply proclaimed “Product of the Year.”  I witnessed a lot of traffic come into our booth to ask about the highlighted item.  We were three days into a four day show before the first person asked, “Product of the year.  According to who?” (He didn’t say “whom”.)     I told him we took a poll in the office and we all agreed.

Back in February Secretary of State John Kerry said that climate change was the “world’s most fearsome” weapon of mass destruction, he went on to say, “the science of climate change is leaping out at us like a scene from a 3D movie. It’s warning us; it’s compelling us to act.”

Wow.  “Leaping science” sounds kind of scary.

Confuse an Idoit

I don’t recommend it, but if you want to slip into a self induced coma you can read the speech here.

Then, more recently 30 Democratic senators spent the entire night having a “’talkathon‘” about climate change. Can you imagine anything more boring?

In John Kerry’s speech he said, “When 97 percent of scientists agree on anything, we need to listen, and we need to respond.  Well, 97 percent of climate scientists have confirmed that climate change is happening and that human activity is responsible.”  And then Democrat Senator, after Democrat Senator, after Democrat Senator repeated the same thing.  “97%! 97%! 97%!”  Some even upped it to 98% – which is even more.

Global Warming

First of all.  Who cares what 97% of scientists think?  I’m willing to bet 100% of the greatest thinkers at the time agreed the world was flat.  Doesn’t make it so.  And when, exactly, did science become “settled” through consensus?  “We all agree so it must be true.”  Really?  Is that how it works now?  In the olden days science was settled by a consistent series of observed results.  If I drop this ball gravity is going to pull it down.  My son once told me that “for fun” he figured out exactly how long it would take for a quarter to hit the ground from his desk.  He calculated the trajectory and a few other fancy words and was able to predict with a high degree of accuracy how long it would take.

Cool, huh?

The reason there are no “gravity deniers” is because the science is settled.  There is such a thing as gravity.

Now, because I remembered the “Product of the Year” experience and I know that anybody and do almost anything with numbers, I decided to do a little digging to find the source of the 97% mantra.

Awake and Aware

That 97% figure comes from a website, where a guy ran an analysis of 12,000 peer-reviewed papers, 97% of which claimed that humanity is having an impact on the climate.

Well.  There you go.  There’s your consensus. The science is settled. Humans are the dominant factor in climate change.  Oh wait.  Not true.  The website acknowledges that 97% of the papers attribute some human impact; in truth less than 50% of those papers maintain that humans are the primary contributor of global warming.

Well okay, that’s not really a consensus, but it’s still damning.

Oh…but wait.

If asked, most people would say that a phrase like, “Less than 50%” would imply something in the 41-49% range.  But no.  It’s less than that.

How much less?  I’ll give you a hint.  If you guessed 65 papers out of the 12,000 reviewed, you would be right.

65.   Out of 12,000.

Now, I’m no mathematician, but I can tell you with certainty that that is indeed less than fifty percent.  Going out on a limb, I would say it is less than one percent.  But still, every Al Gore tirade, every screaming news story, and every global warming alarmist demands that if you dare question the “settled science” you are to be boiled in oil – or disposed of in a more environmentally friendly way.  Just as long as you lessen your carbon footprint.

Scary

While I’m on the subject, since when are there science “deniers?”  I would have thought only religion has deniers, disbelievers, or heretics. The truth is this really doesn’t have anything to with science.  Science is about evidence, plain and simple.  It has nothing to do with belief or disbelief.  In the olden days science was dependent upon skepticism. Without skepticism, you do not have science. Or am I wrong?

Unless you are completely ignorant of the facts (which is exactly how most liberals stay liberal) than I would say a consensus doesn’t exist.  In fact I would say any time a politician says “the science is settled” the science is indeed not settled.

TO BE CONTINUED…? (If I can wake up after that)

 

LIFEZILLA:  Me so ornery.  Me loathe you long time.

obama_media

Be This Guy

Three Branches