Printed as a letter to the editor in the OMR in Mar. '07.
On 02-26-07 this paper carried an AP story and placed it on the front page just below the fold. The AP would lead us to believe that the advocates for depression had won the debate on the cause of global warming. It’s not just that their whole premise is flawed unsupported by science but their own words as they describe their stand contradict their conclusion. Look at the 1st 39 words. They use “almost certainly”, but at the IPCC news conference that announced the “summary”, the VP of the group would not be pined down on what he considered to be the 100% certainty of the actual percent variable of human causation. In other words, they are certain it’s our fault but not sure to what extent. Now my friends, that’s scientific. The AP goes on in the 1st 39 words, that we are the cause of the most dramatic shift in a thousand years, never concerning themselves with what may have caused the previous most dramatic shift and why there is no correlation that may demonstrate a relational factor.
Then, in the 4th paragraph, the AP claims the IPCC to be a scientific body, which it is not, though scientists who have political motivations head it. The Ap buries half of the truth on the back page near the end of their piece where they finally (after they’ve scared you to death) alluded to the others in the scientific community (they say “some”, but there are far more than that) that claim the affects will be minimal. The AP also uses the words “not enough is known”, and the IPCC distances itself from the fanatical views of Al Gore and his extreme sea level predictions or the time frame for any rise happening. To the Oroville Mercury-Register, put gossip on a different page.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Floating On Sea Ice
One more letter to the editor on the Global Warming scare.
I’m sorry I missed the letter writer’s name (my wife put the paper in the recycling), but he or she was concerned about the melting of the arctic sea ice, I guess rendering the world uninhabitable. You must have viewed the video of Mr. Ban Ki-moon, Un Sec. Gen., standing some 700 miles from the pole (as near as the stubbornly present ice would allow his ship to go), making a series of laughable statements, propaganda of the silliest kind. This undoubtedly frightened the writer into trumpeting the ridiculous gibberish
Sea ice melts every year, about 3.8 million sq miles, depending on the sun, not your tail pipe. Go to the Cryosphere Today web site (it has great pictures for those of you who aren’t into scientific data). There you will find that Sept. 2007, the sea ice was at its lowest point recently recorded. By the end of winter, 2008, it gained back an additional 500 sq km (about 190,000 sq miles) and the cold of the ‘09 winter saw another 500 sq km added on. By April 2010, it will be back up to 14 million sq miles. To get a sense of that, the great state of Texas is half a million sq miles.
Now, cold slows food production and if you need something real to be frightened about, there it is. Not me! I survive quite nice on red meat, and with all the new ice, it will soon be polar bear season.
I’m sorry I missed the letter writer’s name (my wife put the paper in the recycling), but he or she was concerned about the melting of the arctic sea ice, I guess rendering the world uninhabitable. You must have viewed the video of Mr. Ban Ki-moon, Un Sec. Gen., standing some 700 miles from the pole (as near as the stubbornly present ice would allow his ship to go), making a series of laughable statements, propaganda of the silliest kind. This undoubtedly frightened the writer into trumpeting the ridiculous gibberish
Sea ice melts every year, about 3.8 million sq miles, depending on the sun, not your tail pipe. Go to the Cryosphere Today web site (it has great pictures for those of you who aren’t into scientific data). There you will find that Sept. 2007, the sea ice was at its lowest point recently recorded. By the end of winter, 2008, it gained back an additional 500 sq km (about 190,000 sq miles) and the cold of the ‘09 winter saw another 500 sq km added on. By April 2010, it will be back up to 14 million sq miles. To get a sense of that, the great state of Texas is half a million sq miles.
Now, cold slows food production and if you need something real to be frightened about, there it is. Not me! I survive quite nice on red meat, and with all the new ice, it will soon be polar bear season.
Data to Support Science
A letter to the editor, OMR, published Apr. '07.
I’d like to congratulate Susan Sears on her purchase of a Toyota Prius. As she correctly described on 03-31-07 in her LTE, the Prius gets great fuel economy out of the show room and even more importantly for an old motor sport competitor like myself, it flat gets off 0 in a hurry. I’d love to own one and a Hummer as well; alas each price sticker is way out of my income reach. Of coarse in my LTE 03-23-07 I did not refer to a marketing clip from Toyota and I should have used any number of other vehicles other than the Hummer (CNW used the H3 in its research) to make my point. The point still stands and Susan Sears missed it.
In today’s world we are rushing to discover alternate forms of energy, not only for transportation, but also for manufacturing. J.D. Powers, whom my industry depends for marketing share, will not attempt to consider “dust to dust” information. CNW Marketing did an extensive study on pre-showroom energy costs. Even on “green” blogs where the group is slammed hard, there is an acceptance that a good deal of the research is valid. But the “feel good about doing something” syndrome is not data based nor is it correct to assume that as long as Susan is saving cash on gas that she is saving the world energy supply.
Let me give two examples of at least a hundred studied where energy costs differ.
1. Susan did not consider the energy consumed for the nickel in the Prius battery to travel from Canada to Europe, then to China, Japan and finally back to the US.
2. The production of lightweight steel in the hybrid consumes 15%-20% energy more than conventional steel that also is easier to recycle.
Drive that around in your environmental conscience for awhile, would you please!
I’d like to congratulate Susan Sears on her purchase of a Toyota Prius. As she correctly described on 03-31-07 in her LTE, the Prius gets great fuel economy out of the show room and even more importantly for an old motor sport competitor like myself, it flat gets off 0 in a hurry. I’d love to own one and a Hummer as well; alas each price sticker is way out of my income reach. Of coarse in my LTE 03-23-07 I did not refer to a marketing clip from Toyota and I should have used any number of other vehicles other than the Hummer (CNW used the H3 in its research) to make my point. The point still stands and Susan Sears missed it.
In today’s world we are rushing to discover alternate forms of energy, not only for transportation, but also for manufacturing. J.D. Powers, whom my industry depends for marketing share, will not attempt to consider “dust to dust” information. CNW Marketing did an extensive study on pre-showroom energy costs. Even on “green” blogs where the group is slammed hard, there is an acceptance that a good deal of the research is valid. But the “feel good about doing something” syndrome is not data based nor is it correct to assume that as long as Susan is saving cash on gas that she is saving the world energy supply.
Let me give two examples of at least a hundred studied where energy costs differ.
1. Susan did not consider the energy consumed for the nickel in the Prius battery to travel from Canada to Europe, then to China, Japan and finally back to the US.
2. The production of lightweight steel in the hybrid consumes 15%-20% energy more than conventional steel that also is easier to recycle.
Drive that around in your environmental conscience for awhile, would you please!
California Political Gas
Back to '06 and a "Local Voices" submission to the OMR that they refused to print but did so latter as a letter to the editor.
The Oroville Mercury-Register has printed no fewer than four stories in the last several weeks concerning global warming, not including those that I have contributed. They each point toward more regulation and less freedom. Both mean less money in your pocket. I have attempted to initiate consideration for a more thoughtful approach. The political climate has become far to over heated (no pun intended) for our own good so I will continue to present logical and scientific research data and alternatives to this hyper inflated problem.
California just passed the California Climate Act of 2006, giving the state broad authority to regulate emissions from “stationary sources” and trucks and cars. This past week the U.S. Supreme Court accepted arguments from 12 northeastern states attempting to require the EPA to regulate greenhouse emissions standards on motor vehicles, which, supported by the DC Circuit Court, lacks the authority, and so, declines to do so. Earlier this month, Sen. Barbara Boxer called on the president to “move quickly to adopt economy-wide constraints on domestic greenhouse gas emissions and then work with the international community to forge an effective and equitable global agreement.” When the new congress takes over, she will be the chair of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, held by James Inhofe who, like many others, and myself show skepticism of the cause and effect of minor warming. Look for carbon taxes to be on the horizon that would be paid by large company’s who will pass that cost right on to you and me in the form of higher prices.
My point is to make you aware of political rather than scientific facts. Despite accepting constraints on its economy by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, the European Union emissions have increased an average of 9% per year between 2000 and 2005. By comparison, the U.S., which didn’t ratify, only increased 1.7% for the same period. Kyoto exempts developing nations such as India and China that increased emitted CO2 gases by 11.2% and 55% respectively.
Stupid liberal alarmism demands that we handcuff our economy to promote solutions that won’t solve a problem which extensive evidence suggests is moderate, manageable and primarily natural in origin. Infinitely worse, they use faulty models, extreme what-if scenarios and exaggerated fears of climate cataclysm to justify depriving Earth’s most impoverished citizens of electricity, water purification and other modern technologies that would improve and save countless lives. Countries like Malawi, Kenya, Mozambigue and Namibia, to name a few, struggle to provide adequate power, and in total, only 10% of sub-Saharan Africa has electricity, which is produced primarily by burning fossil fuels. Kyoto supporters would deny them this basic need.
How many more must go hungry and die before Western leaders understand that this is not a political game. That is unconscionable and immoral. It is the real climate change catastrophe. Truly ethical and socially responsible policies would foster robust debate about costs and benefits, leaving with the great American people, their charitable ability to alleviate the conditions of these poor countries.
The Oroville Mercury-Register has printed no fewer than four stories in the last several weeks concerning global warming, not including those that I have contributed. They each point toward more regulation and less freedom. Both mean less money in your pocket. I have attempted to initiate consideration for a more thoughtful approach. The political climate has become far to over heated (no pun intended) for our own good so I will continue to present logical and scientific research data and alternatives to this hyper inflated problem.
California just passed the California Climate Act of 2006, giving the state broad authority to regulate emissions from “stationary sources” and trucks and cars. This past week the U.S. Supreme Court accepted arguments from 12 northeastern states attempting to require the EPA to regulate greenhouse emissions standards on motor vehicles, which, supported by the DC Circuit Court, lacks the authority, and so, declines to do so. Earlier this month, Sen. Barbara Boxer called on the president to “move quickly to adopt economy-wide constraints on domestic greenhouse gas emissions and then work with the international community to forge an effective and equitable global agreement.” When the new congress takes over, she will be the chair of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, held by James Inhofe who, like many others, and myself show skepticism of the cause and effect of minor warming. Look for carbon taxes to be on the horizon that would be paid by large company’s who will pass that cost right on to you and me in the form of higher prices.
My point is to make you aware of political rather than scientific facts. Despite accepting constraints on its economy by ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, the European Union emissions have increased an average of 9% per year between 2000 and 2005. By comparison, the U.S., which didn’t ratify, only increased 1.7% for the same period. Kyoto exempts developing nations such as India and China that increased emitted CO2 gases by 11.2% and 55% respectively.
Stupid liberal alarmism demands that we handcuff our economy to promote solutions that won’t solve a problem which extensive evidence suggests is moderate, manageable and primarily natural in origin. Infinitely worse, they use faulty models, extreme what-if scenarios and exaggerated fears of climate cataclysm to justify depriving Earth’s most impoverished citizens of electricity, water purification and other modern technologies that would improve and save countless lives. Countries like Malawi, Kenya, Mozambigue and Namibia, to name a few, struggle to provide adequate power, and in total, only 10% of sub-Saharan Africa has electricity, which is produced primarily by burning fossil fuels. Kyoto supporters would deny them this basic need.
How many more must go hungry and die before Western leaders understand that this is not a political game. That is unconscionable and immoral. It is the real climate change catastrophe. Truly ethical and socially responsible policies would foster robust debate about costs and benefits, leaving with the great American people, their charitable ability to alleviate the conditions of these poor countries.
Polar Bear Science
Letter to the editor, published in the OMR, Feb '07.
In a recent column published in the Pittsburgh Tribune, author Sterling Burnett called attention to satirist Stephen Colbert’s coined term, ‘truthiness’, which Wikipedia explains is “to claim to ‘know’ something….‘from the gut’ without regard to evidence, logic…. Or actual facts.” “Truthiness is an emotional appeal meant to short-circuit intellectual examination of the claims being made” says Mr. Burnett.
A great example is the claim of radical, capitalism bashing environmentalists who have presented one, one mind you, study of ‘a’ population of polar bears in Western Hudson Bay whose numbers have fallen by 21%, and with that claim attempted to persuaded all of us the bears should be listed as endangered due to “human caused global warming that will melt most of the North Pole in 50 years”.
For those of you who claim science backs this up, I present Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a biologist with Nunavut Territorial government in Canada, who pointed out in testimony to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, that warming may be beneficial to bears since it creates better habitat for seals and would dramatically increase blueberry production which bears gorge themselves on when available.
Fortunately for polar bears, Dr. Taylor is correct, supported by facts. Not diminishing the plight of one group of bears, population trends on the whole are on the rise. Since 1970, “all while the world was warming”, numbers of bears have increased from 5,000 to 25,000. Historically, polar bears have thrived in temperatures even warmer than today, calling your attention to the medieval warm period 1000 years ago and during the Holocene Climate Optimum between 5,000 and 9,000 years ago.
The true problem for polar bears is competing for food and overpopulation, not extinction, and if blueberries are growing, “Watch out Mr. Bear, I have blueberry pancakes every Sunday morning.”
In a recent column published in the Pittsburgh Tribune, author Sterling Burnett called attention to satirist Stephen Colbert’s coined term, ‘truthiness’, which Wikipedia explains is “to claim to ‘know’ something….‘from the gut’ without regard to evidence, logic…. Or actual facts.” “Truthiness is an emotional appeal meant to short-circuit intellectual examination of the claims being made” says Mr. Burnett.
A great example is the claim of radical, capitalism bashing environmentalists who have presented one, one mind you, study of ‘a’ population of polar bears in Western Hudson Bay whose numbers have fallen by 21%, and with that claim attempted to persuaded all of us the bears should be listed as endangered due to “human caused global warming that will melt most of the North Pole in 50 years”.
For those of you who claim science backs this up, I present Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a biologist with Nunavut Territorial government in Canada, who pointed out in testimony to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, that warming may be beneficial to bears since it creates better habitat for seals and would dramatically increase blueberry production which bears gorge themselves on when available.
Fortunately for polar bears, Dr. Taylor is correct, supported by facts. Not diminishing the plight of one group of bears, population trends on the whole are on the rise. Since 1970, “all while the world was warming”, numbers of bears have increased from 5,000 to 25,000. Historically, polar bears have thrived in temperatures even warmer than today, calling your attention to the medieval warm period 1000 years ago and during the Holocene Climate Optimum between 5,000 and 9,000 years ago.
The true problem for polar bears is competing for food and overpopulation, not extinction, and if blueberries are growing, “Watch out Mr. Bear, I have blueberry pancakes every Sunday morning.”
Paper Or Plastic
Letter to the editor to the OMR, printed in May '07.
I am constantly in search of examples of the contrasts between liberal and conservative policies. I expect that we all will agree that the SF Board of Supervisors is liberal. Several weeks ago they outlawed the plastic bag, which historically was their icon for saving trees by influencing consumers to choose the latter of the question; Paper or Plastic? I guess they have just realized the plastic is petroleum based and “we all know that’s evil”. But wait! It’s not back to paper. Oh no, they want the citizens to “choose” compostable bags. But the new compostable industry can’t even get close to replacement production. It also creates another segregated recyclable, which makes those efforts more difficult. All this to say, the law, in reality, will force the use of paper in the foreseeable future.
Consider these facts about; Paper or Plastic? Plastic: $0.01 ea., Paper: $0.04 ea., Compostable: $0.10 ea. Paper: 70% more air pollution and 50% more water pollutants than plastic according to the EPA. Plastic: 4 times less energy to produce and 85 times less energy to recycle. Paper: 9 times as much space in landfills and doesn’t break down at a substantially faster rate than plastic.
And riddle me this oh wise liberal. At a time when we are threatening to push the third world towards starvation by laying claim to their food supply to fuel our vehicles, we then will compound their frustration by claiming more to fill our land fills. Oh, that will go over just great!
I am constantly in search of examples of the contrasts between liberal and conservative policies. I expect that we all will agree that the SF Board of Supervisors is liberal. Several weeks ago they outlawed the plastic bag, which historically was their icon for saving trees by influencing consumers to choose the latter of the question; Paper or Plastic? I guess they have just realized the plastic is petroleum based and “we all know that’s evil”. But wait! It’s not back to paper. Oh no, they want the citizens to “choose” compostable bags. But the new compostable industry can’t even get close to replacement production. It also creates another segregated recyclable, which makes those efforts more difficult. All this to say, the law, in reality, will force the use of paper in the foreseeable future.
Consider these facts about; Paper or Plastic? Plastic: $0.01 ea., Paper: $0.04 ea., Compostable: $0.10 ea. Paper: 70% more air pollution and 50% more water pollutants than plastic according to the EPA. Plastic: 4 times less energy to produce and 85 times less energy to recycle. Paper: 9 times as much space in landfills and doesn’t break down at a substantially faster rate than plastic.
And riddle me this oh wise liberal. At a time when we are threatening to push the third world towards starvation by laying claim to their food supply to fuel our vehicles, we then will compound their frustration by claiming more to fill our land fills. Oh, that will go over just great!
The Chicken Little's Are Squaking
Another response to you know who, are you getting a pattern here. Ya think!
Reading the letters of Don Fultz is an interesting study of abject condescending hypocrisy, no better displayed than in his most recent (12-26-06) in which he accuses me of debating myself. Mr. Fultz’s silly verbal attacks only demonstrate his lack of knowledge on any subject, including, global warming. His arrogant proclamations and name calling only serve as an attempt to suppress the critical thoughts of those who would challenge his deficiency of sound information. However, Don Fultz remains true to one consistent approach to conflict most liberals exhibit. It is their age-old “stand back and finger point”, “cut and run” modus operandi.
I’m glad to be able to accentuate your amateurish viewpoints Don, because there is excellent, well-documented, scientific information that raises serious questions about the Al Gore assumptions and methods to combating global warming. If my memory serves me correctly, it seems that in the early 70’s you alarmists were raising the red flag on an impending freeze. Just in the nick of time, amazingly, the world corrected itself and the “gloom and doomers” sent up another red flag. You “chicken little’s” ought to get your catastrophic pontifications in order.
When politicians approach the subject of global warming, most have little concern what their policy offerings might cost, and even less, what percentage of effectiveness their course of action might have on naturally occurring phenomenon. The acknowledgement the globe is warming by the President in no way lends credence to any policy change.
President Bush may have made a mistake by not consuming Iraq with overwhelming force, but doubling down and leaving would be catastrophic. The world would certainly feel the effects of a “heat” of untold magnitude and you alarmist can switch to a new flag pole, alerting us all to the nuclear melting of humanity, as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and Israel go at it in the middle of Iraq’s sand box. Of course “libs” will declare none of that would have happened if not for our action. That just demonstrates a total disregard of history in the hate filled Middle East.
One thing will be certain; there will be a shortage of oil. Most likely the US will have to stay in the fight. The former USSR, reconstituted, will join in to keep some flow moving, and who’s side will they be on? Because of liberal obstruction, their rant that the war on terror was all about oil will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The oil fields and technologies available to us in our own country obstructed by liberals will have to lay dormant while infrastructure is put in place, allowing the greatest economy in the world, that in reality feeds the world, grinds to a halt, and we all line up at our local horse sales showroom to read the disclaimer on the tail-end of our new transportation vehicle that this product causes global warming to a degree much greater than the old method of travel.
Sir, that horse don’t fly, in my humble opinion.
Reading the letters of Don Fultz is an interesting study of abject condescending hypocrisy, no better displayed than in his most recent (12-26-06) in which he accuses me of debating myself. Mr. Fultz’s silly verbal attacks only demonstrate his lack of knowledge on any subject, including, global warming. His arrogant proclamations and name calling only serve as an attempt to suppress the critical thoughts of those who would challenge his deficiency of sound information. However, Don Fultz remains true to one consistent approach to conflict most liberals exhibit. It is their age-old “stand back and finger point”, “cut and run” modus operandi.
I’m glad to be able to accentuate your amateurish viewpoints Don, because there is excellent, well-documented, scientific information that raises serious questions about the Al Gore assumptions and methods to combating global warming. If my memory serves me correctly, it seems that in the early 70’s you alarmists were raising the red flag on an impending freeze. Just in the nick of time, amazingly, the world corrected itself and the “gloom and doomers” sent up another red flag. You “chicken little’s” ought to get your catastrophic pontifications in order.
When politicians approach the subject of global warming, most have little concern what their policy offerings might cost, and even less, what percentage of effectiveness their course of action might have on naturally occurring phenomenon. The acknowledgement the globe is warming by the President in no way lends credence to any policy change.
President Bush may have made a mistake by not consuming Iraq with overwhelming force, but doubling down and leaving would be catastrophic. The world would certainly feel the effects of a “heat” of untold magnitude and you alarmist can switch to a new flag pole, alerting us all to the nuclear melting of humanity, as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, and Israel go at it in the middle of Iraq’s sand box. Of course “libs” will declare none of that would have happened if not for our action. That just demonstrates a total disregard of history in the hate filled Middle East.
One thing will be certain; there will be a shortage of oil. Most likely the US will have to stay in the fight. The former USSR, reconstituted, will join in to keep some flow moving, and who’s side will they be on? Because of liberal obstruction, their rant that the war on terror was all about oil will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The oil fields and technologies available to us in our own country obstructed by liberals will have to lay dormant while infrastructure is put in place, allowing the greatest economy in the world, that in reality feeds the world, grinds to a halt, and we all line up at our local horse sales showroom to read the disclaimer on the tail-end of our new transportation vehicle that this product causes global warming to a degree much greater than the old method of travel.
Sir, that horse don’t fly, in my humble opinion.
A Bit More Science
Published as an Openline call to the OMR in early 2007.
I noticed an Openline callers comments on the February 16th Opinion page which caught my attention and I hope that I am not presumptive in offering some advice to the caller and also some facts. The Rush Limbaugh show is satire and informative and a good starting point to understanding truth. The caller is right that Rush is not a scientist but please don’t step of the cliff and land on Al Gore, who isn’t a scientist either.
The most prevalent and efficient greenhouse gas is not CO2, it is water vapor, which accounts for 60% of the heat-trapping gases, CO2 accounts for 26%. Currently, we have about 380 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere. A recently completed UC Davis study concluded that 300 million years ago the level was on the order of 2,000 ppm. Methane, another greenhouse gas, has other than human sources as well. 76% comes from wetlands, which produce 145 million metric tons of the gas each year during the decomposition of organic material. The worlds production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s) peaked at 1.1 million tons per year and if 100% of that was released it would have added 750,000 tons of chlorine into the atmosphere. That number is insignificant compared to the 300 million tons the oceans yield annually by the evaporation of seawater alone.
Don’t be fooled by those who claim that the science is conclusive on the cause or the level of warming or that the science community is in agreement. Well over 5,000 scientists have signed the petition and whose names can be found at The Petition Project. Don’t blame yourself for your pursuit of happiness and a healthy and whole life. But please feel free to buy a $50,000 electric car if that makes you happy.
I noticed an Openline callers comments on the February 16th Opinion page which caught my attention and I hope that I am not presumptive in offering some advice to the caller and also some facts. The Rush Limbaugh show is satire and informative and a good starting point to understanding truth. The caller is right that Rush is not a scientist but please don’t step of the cliff and land on Al Gore, who isn’t a scientist either.
The most prevalent and efficient greenhouse gas is not CO2, it is water vapor, which accounts for 60% of the heat-trapping gases, CO2 accounts for 26%. Currently, we have about 380 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere. A recently completed UC Davis study concluded that 300 million years ago the level was on the order of 2,000 ppm. Methane, another greenhouse gas, has other than human sources as well. 76% comes from wetlands, which produce 145 million metric tons of the gas each year during the decomposition of organic material. The worlds production of chlorofluorocarbons (CFC’s) peaked at 1.1 million tons per year and if 100% of that was released it would have added 750,000 tons of chlorine into the atmosphere. That number is insignificant compared to the 300 million tons the oceans yield annually by the evaporation of seawater alone.
Don’t be fooled by those who claim that the science is conclusive on the cause or the level of warming or that the science community is in agreement. Well over 5,000 scientists have signed the petition and whose names can be found at The Petition Project. Don’t blame yourself for your pursuit of happiness and a healthy and whole life. But please feel free to buy a $50,000 electric car if that makes you happy.
More Science
Another response pointed at Don, printed as a letter to the editor, in OMR. Jan '07.
As usual, Don Fultz fans don’t require him to produce any factually based, scientific research that supports his allegiance to Al Gore, only that he check in. (see Ltr 12-14-06) Not to worry, I will provide the facts of this debate, supporting commentary, and the sources. My science research comes from the Quatemary Science Reviews, a research journal from the Reed Elsevier Group, plc., a global publisher of science and health information. I call your attention to QSR 25: 2357-2379, an investigation of the “Holocene history of the Northeastern Antarctic Peninsula Larsen Ice Shelf [sections A and B] to determine whether the recent retreat pattern is unique or has previously occurred on a millennial time scale.” More particularly, they analyzed “the composition of ice-rafted debris to distinguish seasonally open-marine sediments from sub-ice shelf facies,” and they examined “benthic foraminifera for clues to the former presence or absence of the ice shelf. Al Gore claims that the ice shelf had remained in tact for at least the last 10,000 years and the break-up is evidence for the climate-alarmist claim that modern global warming is equally unique. I want to reference two study groups, Pudsey and Evans (2001 and 2006), Geology 29 & 25 respectively, and Vaughan (2001), Science 293. Fultz fans, are you with me so far?
Pudsey data indicates “widespread ice shelf breakup in the mid-Holocene,” of both the APLIS-A & B and the adjacent Prince Gustav Channel ice shelf, but that subsequent colder conditions “allowed the ice shelf to reform. That is in harmony with the finding of Vaughan, that from 6000 to 1900 years ago the PGCIS, as they describe it, “was absent and climate was as warm as it has been recently.” Consequently, and most recently, Pudsey concluded that “the maximum ice shelf limit may date only from the Little Ice Age,” which they report is “widely recognized” to have held sway in that part of the world between 700 and 150 years ago.
A large body of data makes it clear that the greatest extent of the Larsen ice shelf during the current interglacial likely occurred only a few hundred years ago, and that the portions of it that recently disintegrated (Larsen A & B) were probably created about that same time. Temperatures were likely as warm or warmer 2000 years ago. Furthermore, there was approximately 100 ppm less CO2 in the air of that time than there is in the air today. That fact suggests that something other than anthropogenic CO2 emissions was the cause of the earlier “balmy” conditions of the northeast Antarctica, which implies that “that same something else” or something different yet, could be responsible for the current warmth of the region, possibly solar intrusion.
So, Don Fultz fans, should you not hear from your guru for awhile, I’m sure he’s just trying to digest all of this data and probably getting Al Gore on the phone to find out where his supporting evidence might have fallen off the “loony” train. Meanwhile, be assured, more data forthcoming.
As usual, Don Fultz fans don’t require him to produce any factually based, scientific research that supports his allegiance to Al Gore, only that he check in. (see Ltr 12-14-06) Not to worry, I will provide the facts of this debate, supporting commentary, and the sources. My science research comes from the Quatemary Science Reviews, a research journal from the Reed Elsevier Group, plc., a global publisher of science and health information. I call your attention to QSR 25: 2357-2379, an investigation of the “Holocene history of the Northeastern Antarctic Peninsula Larsen Ice Shelf [sections A and B] to determine whether the recent retreat pattern is unique or has previously occurred on a millennial time scale.” More particularly, they analyzed “the composition of ice-rafted debris to distinguish seasonally open-marine sediments from sub-ice shelf facies,” and they examined “benthic foraminifera for clues to the former presence or absence of the ice shelf. Al Gore claims that the ice shelf had remained in tact for at least the last 10,000 years and the break-up is evidence for the climate-alarmist claim that modern global warming is equally unique. I want to reference two study groups, Pudsey and Evans (2001 and 2006), Geology 29 & 25 respectively, and Vaughan (2001), Science 293. Fultz fans, are you with me so far?
Pudsey data indicates “widespread ice shelf breakup in the mid-Holocene,” of both the APLIS-A & B and the adjacent Prince Gustav Channel ice shelf, but that subsequent colder conditions “allowed the ice shelf to reform. That is in harmony with the finding of Vaughan, that from 6000 to 1900 years ago the PGCIS, as they describe it, “was absent and climate was as warm as it has been recently.” Consequently, and most recently, Pudsey concluded that “the maximum ice shelf limit may date only from the Little Ice Age,” which they report is “widely recognized” to have held sway in that part of the world between 700 and 150 years ago.
A large body of data makes it clear that the greatest extent of the Larsen ice shelf during the current interglacial likely occurred only a few hundred years ago, and that the portions of it that recently disintegrated (Larsen A & B) were probably created about that same time. Temperatures were likely as warm or warmer 2000 years ago. Furthermore, there was approximately 100 ppm less CO2 in the air of that time than there is in the air today. That fact suggests that something other than anthropogenic CO2 emissions was the cause of the earlier “balmy” conditions of the northeast Antarctica, which implies that “that same something else” or something different yet, could be responsible for the current warmth of the region, possibly solar intrusion.
So, Don Fultz fans, should you not hear from your guru for awhile, I’m sure he’s just trying to digest all of this data and probably getting Al Gore on the phone to find out where his supporting evidence might have fallen off the “loony” train. Meanwhile, be assured, more data forthcoming.
Just Science Please!
This is a letter to the editor, published in the OMR, in response to another letter my a man named Don Fultz and printed about X-mas time '06.
Denis Diderot, a French philosopher from the 1700’s, once said, “Skepticism is the first step towards truth.” That, Don Fultz, is the first explanation for my thinking from my presentation in the Local Voices column (10-27-06). The other and more important is science. Is your letter (11-04-06), Don, some lame attempt at a rebuttal? For awhile, Mr. Fultz, leave your silly, snide remarks aside and provide data from your informed sources, likely, scientists who have vested interests in alarmism and propped up by the radical left wing media. The success of these alarmists is no more evident than the increase in federal expenditures on climate research from pre-1990 (about $300 million) to today ($1.7 billion). Following the money trail is educational, but research data and source is far more instructive. If this is of any interest to Mr. Fultz, I’d be happy to provide him a place to start. Most liberals proclaim the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, established 1988) to be their bible on this subject. Of coarse, you need not be a scientist to be a member of this group, nor, by their own mandate do they carry out any research, monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters, but lets leave that aside for now. In the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report, the consensus (for Don the liberal, that means compromised agreement) was reached that the global average surface temperatures had risen 0.6 plus or minus 0.2 degree C since the late 19th century. The report goes on to use very scientific words like, “most” and “if, to describe the causes and effects of this mild warming. Liberals are attracted to those areas of the report to extrapolate their alarmism.
Galileo said “the crowd of fools who know nothing is infinite”. Below is a list of scientists with records of scholarship not associated, by Don Fultz’s claim, with petroleum web sites, and who come to quite different conclusions than the IPCC as to the causes and effects of warming.
Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences.
Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and an associate professor of geography at Arizona State University.
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.
William M. Gray, Colorado State University.
Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences.
Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia.
Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Lab at James Cook University, Australia.
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada.
David Deming, geophysicist, Associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma and adjunct scholar with the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs.
There is increasingly strong evidence that the previous research conclusions, including those of the UN, concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations.
Denis Diderot, a French philosopher from the 1700’s, once said, “Skepticism is the first step towards truth.” That, Don Fultz, is the first explanation for my thinking from my presentation in the Local Voices column (10-27-06). The other and more important is science. Is your letter (11-04-06), Don, some lame attempt at a rebuttal? For awhile, Mr. Fultz, leave your silly, snide remarks aside and provide data from your informed sources, likely, scientists who have vested interests in alarmism and propped up by the radical left wing media. The success of these alarmists is no more evident than the increase in federal expenditures on climate research from pre-1990 (about $300 million) to today ($1.7 billion). Following the money trail is educational, but research data and source is far more instructive. If this is of any interest to Mr. Fultz, I’d be happy to provide him a place to start. Most liberals proclaim the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, established 1988) to be their bible on this subject. Of coarse, you need not be a scientist to be a member of this group, nor, by their own mandate do they carry out any research, monitor climate related data or other relevant parameters, but lets leave that aside for now. In the 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report, the consensus (for Don the liberal, that means compromised agreement) was reached that the global average surface temperatures had risen 0.6 plus or minus 0.2 degree C since the late 19th century. The report goes on to use very scientific words like, “most” and “if, to describe the causes and effects of this mild warming. Liberals are attracted to those areas of the report to extrapolate their alarmism.
Galileo said “the crowd of fools who know nothing is infinite”. Below is a list of scientists with records of scholarship not associated, by Don Fultz’s claim, with petroleum web sites, and who come to quite different conclusions than the IPCC as to the causes and effects of warming.
Richard Lindzen, MIT meteorology professor and member of the National Academy of Sciences.
Robert C. Balling, Jr., director of the Office of Climatology and an associate professor of geography at Arizona State University.
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.
William M. Gray, Colorado State University.
Willie Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences.
Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia.
Robert M. Carter, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Lab at James Cook University, Australia.
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada.
David Deming, geophysicist, Associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma and adjunct scholar with the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs.
There is increasingly strong evidence that the previous research conclusions, including those of the UN, concerning 20th century warming, may have been biased by underestimation of natural climate variations.
Environmentally Friendly?
A letter to the editor printed in OMR about Apr. 07
I know there are several of you die hard environmentalists who have teamed up with the other anti- big oil enthusiasts to exhort and propel (no pun intended) the hybrid car dream. Please keep dreaming but consider your worst nightmare as well. The Toyota Prius seems to be the favorite hybrid. The nickel in the cars battery is mined and smelted in Canada where the extent of environmental damage around the plant has provided NASA with a ‘dead zone’ on which to test its moon rovers. The factory has spewed sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario. Acid rain around the area was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down the hillside, according to Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin. After leaving the plant, the nickel makes an around the world trip before it even makes it into a single battery.
According to a study by CNW Marketing, the total combined energy to produce a Prius is greater than what it takes to produce a Hummer. They considered electrical, fuel, transportation, materials, and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetimes. The conclusion was that the Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile during its 100,000-mile life span compared to the $1.95 per mile of a Hummers expected 300,000 miles.
That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use almost 50% less combined energy doing it. So, buy a Prius and charge the economy (another pun not intended), or buy a Hummer and save your cash for an acid rainy day.
I know there are several of you die hard environmentalists who have teamed up with the other anti- big oil enthusiasts to exhort and propel (no pun intended) the hybrid car dream. Please keep dreaming but consider your worst nightmare as well. The Toyota Prius seems to be the favorite hybrid. The nickel in the cars battery is mined and smelted in Canada where the extent of environmental damage around the plant has provided NASA with a ‘dead zone’ on which to test its moon rovers. The factory has spewed sulfur dioxide across northern Ontario. Acid rain around the area was so bad it destroyed all the plants and the soil slid down the hillside, according to Canadian Greenpeace energy-coordinator David Martin. After leaving the plant, the nickel makes an around the world trip before it even makes it into a single battery.
According to a study by CNW Marketing, the total combined energy to produce a Prius is greater than what it takes to produce a Hummer. They considered electrical, fuel, transportation, materials, and hundreds of other factors over the expected lifetimes. The conclusion was that the Prius costs an average of $3.25 per mile during its 100,000-mile life span compared to the $1.95 per mile of a Hummers expected 300,000 miles.
That means the Hummer will last three times longer than a Prius and use almost 50% less combined energy doing it. So, buy a Prius and charge the economy (another pun not intended), or buy a Hummer and save your cash for an acid rainy day.
Good To Be Warm
This is a reprint from an opinion column I wrote under the heading of "Local Voices" in the Oroville Mercury, dated Oct. 27, 2006. This is the first of a series I will produce on the subject here in my blog. I have purposely stayed away from politics for the most part but must now start to push into that arena. God be with us!
The recent film, An Inconvenient Truth, highlights the efforts of Al Gore to inform the public about the causes of global warming and its looming effects. Even liberal scholars have trouble with some of the conclusions, primarily with Antarctic core sample changes and the relationship of CO2 emissions to invasive plant species. These things are minor compared to the historical record misread and the evidence of the undeniable good that flows from this warming. The primary conclusion that Mr. Gore would have you take away from his propaganda is that America should give up fossil fuels, cars, and air conditioning.
Another recent film, The Day After Tomorrow, depicts a scientist trying to save the world from catastrophic temperature change, brought on by burning fossil fuels, another wrongly asserted conclusion, and is no more realistic than, The Planet of the Apes.
Here are some incontrovertible facts you should consider when liberal politicians and Hollywood elites spew out their polluted “hot air” from a lack of historical perspective.
There is no question that the Earth has warmed over the last 150 years. This is not a dangerous trend caused by human-emitted CO2. Virtually all of the Earth’s current warming occurred before 1940, and CO2 emissions have soared since then and temperatures aren’t significantly higher. The Antarctic ice cores say CO2 and temperatures have tracked closely together over the past 400,000 years. But CO2 changes have lagged behind the temperature changes by 200-800 years. More CO2 hasn’t produced higher temperatures; higher temperatures have produced more CO2. Greenhouse theory suggests that the trapped CO2 will warm the atmosphere and radiate down to warm Earth. That is not happening according to satellite data that confirms the atmosphere is warming more slowly than the earth, at 1 degree C per 300 years. Under the same theory the polar regions should warm first, but 21 Antarctic surface stations have recorded declines since 1979. Is an Ice Age coming?
There is new but already-convincing evidence of an unstoppable, moderate, solar-driven 1500-year climate cycle. This cycle is occurring due to very small variations in solar activity that we can now measure with satellite instruments, and measure chronologically through carbon and beryllium isotopes in the ice cores. Historical documents indicate there was a Roman era warming (200BC-600 AD) and a Medieval warming (950 -1300 AD) and that it was colder with more storms in the Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age (1300-1850).
Wine grape vines are one of humanity’s most accurate and sensitive indications of temperature. The Romans grew wine grapes in Britain in the first century near the end of a warm period. There was another growing period where the British tax records of 1068 AD, for instance, show 50 vineyards. Britain essentially has not been able to produce any since the Little Ice Age.
12,800 years ago, Stone Age hunters walked to America across the “Bering Sea” with, cold, dry feet. There was no wine to welcome them, but thank God, wine grapes grow in Oroville today. Here, Here.
The recent film, An Inconvenient Truth, highlights the efforts of Al Gore to inform the public about the causes of global warming and its looming effects. Even liberal scholars have trouble with some of the conclusions, primarily with Antarctic core sample changes and the relationship of CO2 emissions to invasive plant species. These things are minor compared to the historical record misread and the evidence of the undeniable good that flows from this warming. The primary conclusion that Mr. Gore would have you take away from his propaganda is that America should give up fossil fuels, cars, and air conditioning.
Another recent film, The Day After Tomorrow, depicts a scientist trying to save the world from catastrophic temperature change, brought on by burning fossil fuels, another wrongly asserted conclusion, and is no more realistic than, The Planet of the Apes.
Here are some incontrovertible facts you should consider when liberal politicians and Hollywood elites spew out their polluted “hot air” from a lack of historical perspective.
There is no question that the Earth has warmed over the last 150 years. This is not a dangerous trend caused by human-emitted CO2. Virtually all of the Earth’s current warming occurred before 1940, and CO2 emissions have soared since then and temperatures aren’t significantly higher. The Antarctic ice cores say CO2 and temperatures have tracked closely together over the past 400,000 years. But CO2 changes have lagged behind the temperature changes by 200-800 years. More CO2 hasn’t produced higher temperatures; higher temperatures have produced more CO2. Greenhouse theory suggests that the trapped CO2 will warm the atmosphere and radiate down to warm Earth. That is not happening according to satellite data that confirms the atmosphere is warming more slowly than the earth, at 1 degree C per 300 years. Under the same theory the polar regions should warm first, but 21 Antarctic surface stations have recorded declines since 1979. Is an Ice Age coming?
There is new but already-convincing evidence of an unstoppable, moderate, solar-driven 1500-year climate cycle. This cycle is occurring due to very small variations in solar activity that we can now measure with satellite instruments, and measure chronologically through carbon and beryllium isotopes in the ice cores. Historical documents indicate there was a Roman era warming (200BC-600 AD) and a Medieval warming (950 -1300 AD) and that it was colder with more storms in the Dark Ages and the Little Ice Age (1300-1850).
Wine grape vines are one of humanity’s most accurate and sensitive indications of temperature. The Romans grew wine grapes in Britain in the first century near the end of a warm period. There was another growing period where the British tax records of 1068 AD, for instance, show 50 vineyards. Britain essentially has not been able to produce any since the Little Ice Age.
12,800 years ago, Stone Age hunters walked to America across the “Bering Sea” with, cold, dry feet. There was no wine to welcome them, but thank God, wine grapes grow in Oroville today. Here, Here.
Friday, February 19, 2010
1 in 7 or 24/7
I do not sit in front of this screen and assume to speak at you, holier than thou. If I pose a question, my answer should be foremost and without hesitation. I am ashamed to report to you that I cannot even meet the minimum standard of spirituality and adherence to my beliefs. I am not a 1 in 7 Christian, let alone 24/7; I am a 3 and 1/2 hour Christian. A church attendee, if you will. Please don’t get me wrong. This self-chastisement is only a public recognition of my humanity. The fact of the matter is, I try everyday and look forward to that day on which I can proclaim myself a 24/7 believer and follower of the Creator and Lawgiver of the universe.
You see, there is something quite unique about the human species. We were created with the ability to understand right from wrong, good and evil. We also are a sinful creature and cannot help ourselves away from the circumstance of doing that which we know to be against our best interest. Therefore, each one of us must be diligent in a daily reflection of what we want the world to see. To accomplish that goal, we must set our sights on becoming a 24/7 Christian.
First, we must start with this anatomical contraption called a body. Radio host and Ph.D in Physiology, Dr Laura, recently wrote a book called “The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands”. The book has been the salvaging of countless marriages. Isn’t it interesting that we have had a handbook for centuries that lays out a step-by-step approach to the spiritual and physical maintenance of this human vehicle? Later, I would like to explore into the deeper micro aspects of that discussion. As you ascend the ladder in your Christian or spiritual experience, your body changes. Its outer shell, in health and expression, changes. Your assurance of belief becomes evident and is witnessed by those in your family. The community in which you live reaps the reward of your new life. You have become active in making this a better place to live. The 24/7 Christian closes in on the macro, in so much as he influences outcomes of living in a state, his country, and finally, the world.
And what would my offering in this forum be, if there where not a problem? Well, of coarse there is! However personal you view your walk with God, you can not allow your country to fall into the abyss of a secularized mantra that states that you as a Christian have no right to bring forward your moral values into the procedural and legal entanglements of government. The 24/7 Christian must and will effect how a secular government does business. A 24/7 Christian will, by his action and deed, affect the world. It is in this age, we find our western values challenged by a different faith. A group dedicated to the worship of our God but with a different enthusiasm and often compared to a 24/7 Christian. Our country fights their radical wing while beseeching the vast majority of Muslims to fight with us. They are hesitant at best for one major reason. Our lifestyle and our doctrine do not connect. Are we 24/7 believers, or not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
