Cap'n Bob & the Damsel

Whacko Politics

A 58 Year Old Inconvenient Truth

A truth inconvenient to Al Gore perhaps. And a truth inconvenient to ozone-obsessed greenbats, as well. Gore, producer of the over-represented global warming hype documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” doesn’t take the time to evaluate actual scientific observations, but rather jumps to the politically inept conclusions found by scientific consensus.

Notice that the conclusion made in the article quoted below by a Swedish scientist in 1948 is still the most likely reason for climate change — to wit: Solar fluctuations.

I found this on NRO’s The Corner:

Global warming, 1948 style [Iain Murray]

A scientist friend discovered an article from 1948 entitled “The Present Climatic Fluctuation.” Written by Professor Hans Ahlmann of the University of Stockholm, it begins:

“The present climatic fluctuation has been discussed since the 1920’s almost exclusively in scientific circles, although it has recently become a subject of more than academic interest…Ordinary people are beginning to realize that something has happened and is happening which is of great interest to themselves. The last dry summer, which transformed large parts of Western Europe into a virtual steppe, increased this interest and also caused anxiety, though this drought cannot be said with any certainty to belong to the present climatic fluctuation.”

Sound familiar? All that is missing is a documentary by [then presidential losing candidate] Thomas E Dewey on the subject. Anyway, Ahlmann documents rapidly rising temperatures, glaciers melting like crazy, atmospheric circulation changes, species shifting, sea level rise, and so on from all around the world. But he concludes:

“If we find in the Antarctic similar evidence of the present climatic fluctuation as has been found in other parts of the world, we shall be justified in concluding that the present fluctuation is a world-wide phenomenon and probably the result of variations in solar activity which, slow as they may be to take effect, are actually resulting in an improvement in the climate of our world.”

How times change!

Stare into this yellow ball for a while and tell me that it has lesser effect than some paltry greenhouse gasses (which amount to less than 1 percent of the entire volume of the atmosphere):

Please read about solar activity and climate in these articles:

Solar X-Flares and Hurricanes
Global Warming – A Hot Topic
Ultimate Global Warming – SPF 2 Million Won’t Be Enough
Solar and Terrestrial Conveyor Belts
Sizzling Solar Snapshot
Scientific Consensus

03 Aug 2006 by Environment Global Warming Science Whacko Politics

Scientific Consensus

Update – 04 August 2006 – GRIM, posting at Blackfive comes up with an interesting essay about the scientific community and various scientists’ persuasions about global warming and climate change.

Beware when the words scientific and consensus are used together.

It’s interesting how Newsweek Magazine, long known in conservative circles to be politically left, seems to have changed it’s mind about long-term climate change. They couldn’t be merely harping about the latest trends in junk science, could they?

Image (Courtesy NASA SOHO): A three-day movie of the Sun reveals why this seething monster is the main source of climate effects on Earth. After watching this for a few moments, the notion that mankind could have a more significant effect than the Sun seems patently ridiculous. Just look at the bubbling cauldron of the photosphere and the massive plasma ejections! Awesome!

Dan Walters of the Sacramento Bee writes an interesting editorial about current climate junk science and the political outcroppings in California:

Global warming, whether theory or fact, spawns political heat

Thirty-one years ago, Newsweek magazine published an extensive account of what it described as a growing scientific consensus of global climate change.

“There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production,” Newsweek said, adding, “The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it” and “to scientists these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather.”

Global warming? Not quite. The Newsweek article about the emerging scientific consensus was about global cooling and the potential onset of a mini-ice age, akin to the one that chilled the Northern Hemisphere between 1600 and 1900. [See the facts about the Maunder Minimum and mini-ice-age — Ed.]

Now we are told, of course, that there’s a growing scientific consensus about global warming, with hydrocarbon emissions from humankind’s economic activities the chief culprit, although there’s a significant body of contrary opinion.

Whether global warming is a scientific fact or, alternatively, a theory being propagandized for ideological reasons is still an open question. But it clearly is a political fact and in politics, perceptions are always more powerful than reality, whatever it may be.

Walters goes on to write about how all this plays out in California politics.

Now, it’s no surprise to me that the politically-left Newsweek jumped all over the latest junk science in their October 1997 issue devoted to global warming. Shame on them for being junk science mongers.

The words scientific and consensus used together are always a sham. True science requires that proof be demonstrated — quad erat demonstratum — which is never the case with scientific consensus.

30 Jul 2006 by California Global Warming Whacko Politics

Climate and Global Warming Resources

For a long time now. I have been threatening to create a sidebar item for the all-important issue of Climate and Global Warming. Ultimately, I want to transfer most of the resources I have used into a database of relevant articles sorted by article type. Well, that hasn’t happened yet, but I managed to get a few articles posted and a database window to all articles on this site that reference the “Global Warming” topic. The reference page may now be found on the sidebar under “information” as Climate and Global Warming. Click on it and go to the page and have a look around.

Please, please offer any suggestions, articles and any other information that I can add to this page — I already have used several articles to email my hippie moonbat congressperson‘s staff debunking their insane position on these issues. I’m not certain if it ever gets to her, but at least I’m inserting some sanity into their space.

Use caution — still under construction.

28 Jul 2006 by Environment Global Warming Whacko Politics

The Real Disproportionate Response

Cox and Forkum nail it . . .

Why the hell do these various entities reject Israel’s response to Hamas and Hezbollah aggression? Anti-Semitism is the reason. C’mon Vatican — get real about this! To the rest of you anti Semites — why don’t you take a look at your own human rights records, oil-for-food involvement and over-the-top socialist policies?

Get US out of UN and vice versa.

16 Jul 2006 by International Islamic Terrorism United Nations Whacko Politics

A Win for Kim

As I predicted in a previous article, the UN resolution passed today to censure North Korea had no teeth in it and in “record time” (according to US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton), was rejected by the North Korean delegate. Nothing — NOTHING — will get the attention of Kim Jong Il short of vaporizing his missiles and the launch and engineering facilities — nothing short of that.

Once again the UN proves itself to be completely useless.

15 Jul 2006 by Current Events International United Nations Whacko Politics

Truth in Aerial Advertising

After today’s most ridiculous performance by Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame at the National Press Club, there can only be one thing to say about their message:

For more on this story visit Blackfive – One Last Photo OP . . .

Update: Captain’s Quarters posts about the judge assigned the case in “Talk about a bad draw.”

Update 7/25/2006: GOP Bloggers: Once Again, Joe Wilson Lied. Christopher Hitchens presents a case for Wilson lying about the yellowcake uranium issue brought by British intelligence. The unmitigated gall of the Wilsons is totally unbelieveable yet alone their lies!

14 Jul 2006 by Aviation California Degenerates Whacko Politics

Drought, Forest Fires and Global Warming

World Climate Report takes a deliberate and sensible look at the relationship between rising global temperature and frequency of forest fires in the west. Warning to Greenbats — The WCR post contains actual science which may offend and confuse you, and we wouldn’t want your little green brains exploding.


The Fire This Time: More Perspective Needed

Some prominent scientists are becoming increasingly restive about the shrill portrayal of global warming science in popular media. The latest round concerned a paper by A. L. Westerling (Scripps Institute of Oceanography) relating an dramatic increase in western forest fires to regional warming and changes in the onset of snowmelt.

Colorado University’s Roger Pielke Jr., one of the nation’s preeminent scholars about how science and society interact, called it “a useful paper that adds to our knowledge and hopefully will stimulate further research on the integrated effects of climate-society-policy.” But then, he warned that “At the same time I can envisage the paper being used simply as a caricature in the global warming debate—Global Warming Causes Forest Fires!—but that would be a shame because fire policy is more complex than that.”

Well, of course, what he feared would happen, did happen. And the resultant headlines are another sad commentary on how cursory reporting on global warming has become, and how little attention is paid to the facts as they stand. Nowhere, for example, did we read Westerling’s words: “Whether the changes observed in western hydro-climate and wildfire are the result of greenhouse gas-induced global warming or only an unusual natural fluctuation, is presently unclear.”

Why so unclear? In large part, because the science isn’t straightforward, and three decades is a very short period of climate time.


[more]

The article concludes by comparing temperature anomaly with the drought index. Using a “scatter plot” which reveals any correlation between temperature and drought. The plot found nothing to indicate correlation between the two. Nothing to see here, just a random scattering of dots — no lines, no circles, no wavy curves and no correlation.

Of course, Enviroloons and Greenbats will undoubtedly come up with a way to connect the dots.

12 Jul 2006 by Environment Global Warming Science Whacko Politics

Categories

Archives