NOTE: All temperatures reported on here use the Farenheit scale! No doubt you are familiar with "global warming" or as I say it "Global Warminingsm", "Goebbels Warming" and "globull warming". This theory holds that the entire planet is heating up significantly and that human activity is responsible for that heating up and that this is bad. Amongst the promised things are vicious storms, drought and coastal flooding due to the melting of the polar ice caps. It is worth noting that after the devastating hurricane season of 2005 that included Katrina and Rita the apocolyptoids promised us a doozie in 2006. What hurricane names stand out from that year. Well let me tell you that most of what there were really didn't maintain their strength such as it was for more that about 72 hours. Well we know what they know.See for yourself It need also be mentioned that the Artic iec cap could melt entirely and it would not raise the water level one millimeter: In fact it might lower it. First that ice is already accounted for in the sea depth; that is, it is already part of what is there. Second Ice takes up more rooom the the water it was made from. at about 4 Degrees F the water expands and that's why ice floats: Appraently the Cognicenti are not congizent of Archemedes' Principle, well maybe they should by a Eureka! About land ice, that is glaciers, 70% of the earth is covered with water. glacier melt would add an insignificant amount of water to that huge tide. You might say it wouldn't amount to a pisshole in the snow. Also, Storms and droughts are opposites so how can the same thing case them besides which they've been going on for years and all the religious texts predict them as emblematic of the "end times" on such a routine basis that I call these folks "apocalyptoids"; and it's alway apocalypse now.

What is the history of this? Well I can trace it back to 1988. The model described temperatures rising between 3 and 8 degress over the next 150 years and the other usual suspects that I listed earlier. That summer arrived late for us, almost mid-july and we did have an exceedingly long period of round the clock of 85+ degree weather. What you do not know was that in the Southern New England region from 2 Dec. 1988 to 2 Jan 1989 the high temperature struggled to reach freezing and for that entire month the temperature was said to be "15 degress below normal". the reason I know this was because my clothes dryer bit the bag and I had to use a clothesline and was wondering WTF was going on.

However, it was at about this time that the Environmentalists had been caught in a few lies. Fessing up, they said "The stuation is so dire that we felt justified in sacrificing the truth in order to speed up action" or the like, forgetting that, if they'd been lying and admitted to it. Why should the "explanation" be treated as a break with the policy of lying and not be a lie itself? This demonstrates a lack of mental sophistication that can only be described as worthy of a 12 year old, certainly nobody over age 18 who has had any interaction with grownups.

In c1990 Petr Beckmenn reported in his Acess to Energy that the earth's albeido shows no sign of any climate change. Now if you are a Space Patroller, Space Cadet or Space Fiction fan and did your homework, you will know that the "albeido" of a celestial body is its total electro-magnetic spectrum as seen from space. You would also know that the thermocouple heat sensors that we had used in astronomy by the early sixties could detect the heat from a candle more thatn 10 miles away; I think the limit is 40 miles. If the earth was warming abnormally then it would have shown up and beyond question. In c1992 the National Oceanic and Atmosphereic Agency did a study and concluded that, according to a report read by Paul Harvey "...the climate has been stable for 9,000 years" (during which time period, the apocalyptoids had predicted both an Ice and and the currnet stuff. SDSD; same dudes; different day). In 1993 we had the "bizzard of '93". In 1995 there was a record snowfall total of 106 inches in southern New England and elsewhere on PBS' Tecnopolitics, Patrick Michaels, reputed to be a climatologist for the State of Virginia and that claim has only recently been challenged by some unknown lefty publication, said "[these kinds of snowfalls]...aren't compatible with global warming...I've had to keep my horses from freezing to death". And so it went. The only things that even rmotely suggested anything were two reports, ond saying that the temperature was rising by 1/700th of a degree and the other said there was an increase of 1/200th of a degree and the latest figures for the last 60 years are 1/100th of a degree F. Now to put that in perspective. the temperature in my area generally runs from -5 to 99 degrees F and got as low as -10 in 1981 and as high as 108 in 1975: None of this is compatible with the 3 to 8 degree rise in temperature by 2138. In fact, such a temperature rise could occur just be random chance. Now who can forget the Blizzard of 2004 that beat out the Blizzard of '78 and the wonder of 2006-7 that saw it snow early and often through most of the country, including LA ("...Snow is pretty" said one Angelosan, having seen it for the first time). In early 2005. commenting on "global warming" one of the hosts of RealWeather Radio said"[that it's false]...look at the PSO, Pacific Southern [I think] Oscillation. That's the real temperature driver".Over the last 3 years, how many global warming activities had to be cancelled because of the snow or cold? This has become a standing joke.

Now, through all of this, the apocolyptoids have said "sure, we haven't proven our case yet but we can't wait for the science to catch up" [QUACK ALET! QUACK ALERT: the "not yet diesease" is, in the world of medicine, the Quack Alert]. Even Dr. Edell, the self-proclaimed Snopes of medicine said in a sanctimonious tone of voice "Not to get into the debate but what about preparedness?! [preparedness for what? would he tell a white man to practice 'preparedness' for sickle cell anemia or how about telling every women to practice 'preparedness for prostate cancer?]" And how can you be prepared for something that you have not gotten into the debate about? He did reveal his bias when he reported that "they put 113 scientists in a room and have them see Gore's movie and they all said that they were amazed at how Al had the details right" Now I listened to NPR about this movie and even they said that the science fell short of the prooof and these are leftist Kool-Aid drinkers. Now, all of this is new in '05 or 6. what everyone, including Dr. Edell, has done "I know nothing" on is that part of the scinetific process are strong vetting procedures, including repetition, generating specific, testible hypotheses and experimentation, this is a process of 2 to 5 years. I have no idea where they could get 113 climatologists who agree on the "what" of this, let alone the how. The most that any 5 of them say is that this is an interesting phenomenon of undetermined cause and mechanism and, in the context of climate (i.e. long-term weather patterns), we have not had nearly enough time to start to understand the consequences: That was in late '06. Really Dr. Dean...?!. Would you have bought into Uri Geller before James Randi outed him? Many scientists did. Randi is an illusionist/conjuror so he knows the ropes. and he did all of Geller's tricks on command, which Uri said was not possible. In the April 1991 reason Magazine aritcle "Warning: Earth Day Ahead" talking about the 20th Earth Day the reporter said that these types referred to themsleves as unwilling "eco-fascists" Well, Neal Boortz read from an issue of Gristmill in the last 4 moths that "[persons who don't accept Gobal Warmingism] out be tried Nurmeburg-style as 'global warming deniers'" (if he weren't reading it, I'd not believed him; I usually don't since he's on my low credibility list; still selling the WMD and Hussein-Al Qaeda party lines that even their creators are running away from so fast that I can't catch them with the Terra V in timewarp star drive), and some ditzy chick over at AccuWeather said that persons who don't buy int global warming should lose their meteorolgical credentials: Hey Comrades, your red slip is showing!

What is powering this phenomenon. Well suposedly the "Greenhouse Effect". the gist of this is that CO2 gas "traps" heat and makes the planet warmer. This was cited up until 1988 by the same crew as why the earth would be cooling since the Carbon Dioxide would not let heat get to the earth becuase it would absorb it and act as an insulator. This theory is not new. I heard about it in 1960, in Freshman General Science, used as the explanation as to why Venus is so hot since it was believed that the atmosphere of Venus was largely CO2. It is called "greenhouse" because sucn places are glass-enclosed structures where it is warm. What is wrong with this is that if plants were as oxygen producing and carbon using as we are told, greenhouses would be oxygen rich and carbon poor and the warmth would come from something else. Beyond this, any carbon on a world (Venus) with no significant life would be static; there would be no Carbon Cycle. On Earth the amounts of Carbon Dioxide and Oxygen are regulated by micro-organisms that are called algae and phyotoplankton. These are fast-breeders. As we all know the key to the grownth and decline of any living population is the food supply. Fast-breeding carbon consumer populations would respond rapidly and the carbon spike would be consumed and converted to the sugars that these microscopic plants use and replaced with oxygen. These are the real "lungs of the wold" (to think we owe so much to pond scum Also, the biggest eater of these "lungs", the oceanic phytoplankton, are the very whales that the looney left worships in the "save the whales" campaign. I've been saying for years "These clowns are going to get so clever that they'll bite off their own tail and not know it".). Trees and forests are relative Oxygen sinks, that is, they use more Oxygen than they make and make more Carbon Dioxide than they use. This is because the plant metablolism uses Oxygen to power it just as with animals and the eco-system includes many animals some of which, lke birds, have fast metabolisms and normal internal temperatures of over 100 degress and plenty of them.

Now as to what is really driving this phenomenon:

  1. Power. If you notice the whole leitmotif of Environmentalism is "give the government more power: that means us lefties". In fact The current president of the Czech Republic called the Global warmingists "Marxists": If anyone knows Commies, it should be those who grew up with them, right? The rip for the last 17 years was that this movement was the "home of the now-unemployed Communists" They have been called "Watermelons; green on the outside, red on the inside" One former inhabitant of then Czechoslovakia disagree: petr Becknann called them "Bell Peppers: Green on the outside and hollow on the inside". As early as 1971. Ayn Rand identified them as part of the New Left. I wondered what took her so long. It was an outgrowth of the "hippoes". You know; drugs, free love, free VD. Of whom Miss Rand said that it was "...[a travesty] to be lectured on cleanliness by persons who would pollute a river by just stepping into it".
  2. Desperation. The movement has existed for 39 years, beginning in late 1968 with the hippies [KOOK DRUGGIE ALERT] and has been wrong about 99.99% of the time. They need something to pay off to keep the scam going.
  3. Hatred of, not just the United States, but of anyone with a mind that is more active than a torpid caterpillar in 40 degree weather and about to freeze to death. Of the New Left Ayn Rand said "The Old Left believed that the government could make shoes better than the private sector. Since that has failed, the New Left is trying to convince us that we don't need (or want) shoes". this was the "Eat the Rich" crowd of the 1970's who would have known better if they spent less time in a drugged stupor and more time in the real world. To get a moral handle on these guys, when you see them in their Escalade caravans remember the lyrics of "1985"; "her yellow SUV is now the enemy [and you'll want to 'bring back Springsteen, Madonna, way before Nirvana...Make it sto!']" and they do more jet travel than Bill Gates to warn us of the dire consequences of jet travel. Ever clean up the place after an Earth Day shindig? Like Wow, dude.
There is also a good deal of ignorance about the population/land ratio. I heard Bob Grant talking abut Global Warming, now "climate change". To support this idea hw said "Just go along the New Englan Throughway and you'll see how poplulated the area is.". Well Du-uh; It's a road, a road is an "arter". It makes sense that population will congregate in such areas. Go 5 miles away and look at it. We know that in the Poples Republic of Massachusetts that in Revolutionary times there was much less forestation. We know this because of the famous "New England Stone Walls". These were put up to divide and mark the boundaries of land parcels and do something useful with the ever-present product of the glacier that once covered this area. The old-timers would not go through areas that were forested when they were built; unlike current people, they did not have too much free time. Yet a large number are found in presently forested areas. YOu believe what you see. If you, like most persons, live and work in heavily populated areas, that will be your image of the whole world (it's called "cognitive mapping" and it holds that areas you frequent most will seem bigger). I used to go to places on a daily basis where there were no habitations for miles on end. In the late 1990's Talk Show host David Brudnoy reported and argued with someone quite vigoursly that the scientist who Gore relied on for his book Earth in the Balance had recanted and repudiated his earlier statements.

You will notice that of late The mantra "global warming" is being traded for the mantra "climate change" as if global warming is coming to mean "phoney". It's deeper than that. "Climate" is made up of patterns of weather distributed over larger areas and time measured in centuries, not years or decades and mostly by means other than thermometers. "Weather" is a manifestation of climate. Climate is the long-term collection of weater patterns over large areas. Thus we speak of the wather in Paris but the climate of Southern Europe; of a hot day in Pheonix but the climate of the Southwestern United States. We know that there have been periods of warm wether and periods of cooler weather. One of these latter may have been responsible for the Viking age. In 1985 I heard about a sunspot cycle that was not the 11-year one, but a four+ century one that "...seems to affect climate". there are many ways that we know about climate and its ebb and flow: ice samples from continously frozen areas, tree ring variablily are two of these. But there are two others that perosns don't think of: Business records that show how agriculture has varied and art that showed how people dressed over time. These show variabilities that track this four and a half centruy sunspot called "Maunder" cycle. We alos know that "little ice ages" have occorred with volcanic activity. I would bet credits to crumbs that this is also cyclical (We know that the US volcanoes Hood and St. Helens are cyclical). By switching to "climate change" these UN/NPR/CPB types imply that this is some kind of change beyond the norm of climate variability. But even if we look at the original model, that 3 to 8 degree shift will fall well within the range predictable by climate variability (it almsot falls into random drift range). So we won't have the ability to prove that there is a real climate change until about 2050. I can just here the screaming meemees "By then it will be too late, we must act NOW! Here! Quick! drink this Kool-aid, the cynaide will cool you!!!!!!!!!!!". Did you ever notice that they decribe each successive year, not as the "warmest on record" but the "hottest on record"? Quick!! Hand me that, I need something to cool me!!!!!!! Yet until the past year, they conceded that there was no "smoking gun" despite studies going back to at least 1989 meaning it took them 17 years. Well if you try hard enough then you'll get what you want, and if you've admitted to making it up once: Well..., and notice how sudden this "discovery" was. The world doesn't work like that. Yet Al Bore claims that the period of global warming goes back itno the '70's. This period encmpasses the time of record snowfalls and record cold. Do you suppose that he will annouce that the green cheese on the moon is being comsumed by intergalactic mice and a rate that we will reach a "lunar emergency within 10 years" and there will be vast tidal waves as the oceans become unstable? and of coarse (pun intended) the Hollywood degenerates will give us such things as Oscars for the forthcoming movie "An Inconvenient Mozzarella": "...In five years the average pizza will cost $15.99 due to the scarcity of lunar cheese and the Earth will be so hot that Monterey Jack will be Denver Jack...". Actually I shouldn't call him "Al Bore": He does a pretty good comedy skit. if you changed the political content, and change "climate change" to "commies" you'd have a leftist's impression of a Conservative with which Robin Williams would get rave reviews and howls of laughter from the "Things Go Better With Coke" useless eaters. I think we need to worry more about a Carbon (and other hot air) mouthprint than a Carbon footprint and given what part of the anatomy that these clowns are talking though, also Methane. Someone once asked me if I'm more out to spread truth and combat lies or make fun of these folks, my answer was "What's the difference?". As a funny guy myself, it would be impolite not to give them their due even if I disagree with their politics and scientific theories. For 20 years, I worshipped at the altar of William F. Gaines: He's MAD, you know. I'm not the kind of guy who makes believe I don't see the large pile of doggy (or bull) doo-doo in the middle of the living room floor, which if I can see, must stand out like a bright light. Besides, why should they not get what they've given for over 35 years; and you know what payback is. Here's another curious thing. Dr. Edell, Champion of Truth and Science. was berating the Bush Adminstration for not paying attention to Gore's flick. Now given their record of deadly Bs, why would Edell want to introduce them to another source of lies and mischief? He ought to be cheering. Bush is already starting to sound like Jimmy Carter with the old lefty "alternative energy" scams that haven't worked since the Nazis tried it in World War II and led to the costly "synfuel" fiascoes of the late '70's (yeah Bullwinkle; I know: "This time for sure"). He really ought to stick to medicine at which I've seen him puke up the science on a couple of times, mostly relating to Measles.

So we have 3 alternative explanations for any "global warming", all of which would generate the same temperature data or could be derived from it

  1. The Maunder 4 century+ sunspot cylce
  2. The PSO aka "El Nino/La Nina
  3. Human action
And a possible fourth, volcanic activity, which showd up in the "little Ice Age" of the Late Middle Ages acted as a cooling mechanism while the eruptions of Kilauwea during the early 1980's, by redirecting the jetstream, acted as a warming mechanism. Yet the Hippies (well Gore is pretty hippy) just locked on speedier and tighter than a Sidwinder Air-to-Air Missile on a hot rocket, to the one that allows them to grab more power and intellectually, morally and politically beat up on decent folks. despite the fact that it was the more complicated theory and puts them at odds with Occam's Rzor (which is "KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid" stated as a formal principle of Logic). You don't suppse.. do you? Nah. Of the three. Maunder looks like a predictor and as was said on RealWeather Radio about this "...Look at the PSO...", and with absolute confidence, so PSO is an accepted, reliable predictor. The "human action" theory was first a theory of a coming Ice Age from 1970 to 1988. If Theory X predicts opposites then it predicts nothing. If it predicts accoring to ideological bent then it is should be studied as political science. if it is the product of a group that has lied and been wrong most of the time, then Dear Reader, draw your own conclusion. This whole business is the left's "Operation Iraqi Freedom": Just as bogus and just as dangerous. Carbon Dioxide is one of the byproducts of human metabolism. If they bring this crock off, they will have won the ultimate tyranny, one that makes Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and even the dreaded Roberto Gonzales or, for those of you in Rio Linda, Adolf H-word,look like absolute libertarian Randites; the "right" to regulate the human body itself, up to and including deciding who lives and who dies. True, not tomorrow, but what about the day after tomorrow? If the current generation is as pathetic as it is, what of 40 years from now? You've got Austrailia trying to ban incandescent bulbs and the Peoples Republic of Assatwos**ts considering it. Aren't these the same Hot-dog Hitlers that want to ban McDonald's and support the Veggan vermin? Meanwhile Fat Albert the Delusional continues to put on the Chicken Little Comedy Road Show. J'ever notice how over the last 35 years the mantra has been the same "Oh, look at the Right, they wanna jam their morality down your throat! Quickly: Elect us to protect you! But please ignore the fact that we have passed more laws to run your life, drained more of your money and sided with the criminal, slacker, The enemies of America and scumbag, whom we are more spiritually akin to than you, but if you don't call us on it, it won't be real and besides; it's for your own good.":

This claptrap is not new. It used to be the wacko relgious conservatives, mostly Democrats, back in the late '50's who used to say "All them thar newfangled satellites they've up and put up are changin' that thar weather Billy-Bob. iff'n The Lord had wanted man to fly in speace he'd'a created us with space helmets and if God wanted niggers to have rights, they'd'a been born white, too". and O'Reilly calls the left "secular progressives", the model is neither secular nor progressive: Oh, I forgot, he buys into the Evironmentalist crap.