Skeptical Science Website … So, What’s Your Point?

There’s a website called “Skeptical Science … examining the science of global warming skepticism”, Skeptical Science: Examining Global Warming Skepticism.

While admitting that scientific skepticism is “a healthy thing”, he seems to take particular pleasure in deriding what he considers “skeptic arguments” while basically failing to put forward any arguments of his own to justify his support for “anthropogenic” global warming other than carefully picking his own sources, a number of which are becoming increasingly controversial.  I suppose that’s a safe approach to take … ridicule those you disagree with while hiding in a closet with like-minded people.

There are articles on his site with numerous graphs and charts pointing out various things and there’s a lot of discourse related to those articles … if you want to delve into them. I did … regarding a few. And, I frankly found it enlightening regarding how much disagreement there was over data, trends, variables, models, and “anthropogenic” effect on global warming. I forgot to mention the cartoons he posts. I suppose they’re there for the “anthropogenic” global warming advocates that can’t read. The author of the site states,

“Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports anthropogenic
global warming and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument,
op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming.”

It sounds like he’s talking about himself on the other side of the argument. He goes on to say,

“So this website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do
their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed
scientific literature say?”


Yet, what does he offer in rebuttal? Frankly, nothing that I can discern other than referencing the same sources over and over again.

He conveniently lumps together people who don’t believe in global warming at all with people who are aware that global warming has been going on for tens of thousands of years but don’t wholeheartedly and blindly buy into the current fad that any recent changes in global warming are “anthropogenic”.

Mr. “Skeptical Science” states his scientific credentials then smugly and safely hides behind his ridicule of those he disagrees with while apparently doing his own cherry picking of facts, selectively ignoring valid questions by people visiting his site while repeatedly referring to his same ole’ defenses.

Even deceased Michael Crichton has fallen victim to his and his followers’ ridicule. One of the groups referred to for debunking Crichton, RealClimate, couldn’t get it straight whether croplands cooled or heated the climate.Apparently, none of them have left their cozy air-conditioned offices to go stand barefooted in a freshly plowed field on a hot summer afternoon or flown over fields and forests to notice the difference in updrafts or downdrafts, winter and summer.

So, I think back home we would consider him some kind of cowardly piss-ant of sorts and not worth the bother of more than pointing out his deficiencies.

I’m one of those people acutely aware that global warming has been going on for thousands of years but not completely buying into the hysteria of “anthropogenic” acceleration of the process. I’ll leave that to the smug schmucks that follow their high priest, Al Gore.

Meanwhile, I’ll ride my bicycle more and plan on taking trips on it because it’s healthier and fun even if a little dangerous.

I’ll be an advocate for passenger rail because it’s more fuel efficient than air or auto for intermediate and long term travel, albeit slower and for practical purposes … nonexistent in the U.S. except in, and to service the needs or desires of, the Northeast Corridor … and selfish union employees… a 20th century mistake. It is a necessity, although an apparently neglected component of travel for the future,  in the world of the “electric car” … that can’t go more than 60 or 100 miles without an eight or ten hour charging.

I’ll also advocate for nuclear power and more oil exploration and use of coal. Somehow we’re going to have to generate electricity for those electric cars and with the current state of solar and wind power, land based and offshore, it’s going to take a while to get those energy producers up and running as well as time to determine if they actually will produce the energy we need … some more healthy skepticism regarding hypotheticals.

I don’t think the detractors of nuclear, oil and coal have considered the toxic manifestations of the disposal of millions of batteries large enough to power millions of electric cars. If you think coal and nuclear waste are polluting the planet, consider what those batteries are made of and how frequently they will have to be replaced … and at what expense. There’s some toxic waste to consider.

So …

Mr. “Skeptical Science”, what’s your point … other than an oxymoronic attempt to ridicule and suppress those you disagree with?

A Global Warming Update

While I’m sitting here on the 3rd of March in the Sunny South, the temperature  at nearly 3 PM is hovering at 41 degrees Fahrenheit outside and I’m burning, and running out of, wood I had planned to cure for next winter.

Upon receiving my last power bill, which compares a month’s average temperature to the previous year, I noticed that this past January was 4 degrees colder than January 2008.

I also found it somewhat ironic as well as humorous that yesterday a group protesting Global Warming in Washington, DC had heads covered with hoodies and bodies adorned with down jackets … while snow was falling. Do these people have any idea how stupid they looked?

I know … Al Gore … a consensus of scientists … all the usual intellectual garbage which precludes simply looking out the window and ignoring the icicles hanging from your nose.

I’m not arguing with the contention that the world has been warming for the past tens of thousands of years. The “Great Flood” of Noah was probably the result of global warming. Any idiot that can find a history book that predates some progressive historian monkeying with facts will understand that things have been warming up for a while.

What is pretentious is some scientist … or mathematician … thinking that, by coming up with some computer model or mathematical formula, they can “prove” that the world is warming at an alarming and irreversible rate based on the miniscule human factor. At this point in time it appears that there is some great big cold hole in their models, formulas and theory.

These people should know that the computer model is no better than the person who designed it or the data put into it. The mathematical equation is no more accurate than the imagination of the person who devised it.

Greenhouse gases, CO2, carbon dioxide … we all know that it’s supposed to speed up global warming and we’re all the evil villains polluting the environment with our various CO2 emissions. Well … STOP BREATHING!!!!!

Al Gore says I think the world is flat because I deny his “inconvenient truth”. The only thing that I think is flat is Al Gore’s head … starting right above his brow line and going straight back parallel to the ground … if he can stand upright.

PS: I know. My woodburning fireplace is increasing my “carbon footprint” and I’m polluting the environment. So … sue me. It’s cold. The wood came from a limb I had trimmed from a tree and I’m heating one room while the rest of my home is hovering at a cool 65 degrees so I don’t have to pay the power company any more than necessary.

When Al Gore parks his jet, cuts off his lights and starts riding a bicycle instead of driving a car, then tell him to come talk to me and complain. Until then, if he’ll bend over, I’ll show him what I think of his idea of global warming. I would be more than happy to place a “carbon footprint” where it would do some good.

Barack Obama’s Acceptance Speech in Denver

Barack Obama has finished his speech and all of the Democrats at Mile High Stadium are now celebrating and an emotional and inspiring arrrangement of music is playing in the background like a score accentuating the climax of a major Hollywood blockbuster.

I’m sure for many, it was a very inspirational speech … full of a lot of ambitious plans and lofty ideals. Personally, I admire ambitious plans and lofty ideals.

Anyone who has followed political campaigns for a few cycles, let alone half a decade, have heard it all before.

Change. Change. Change.

I’ve been listening to that mantra for the past 50 years beginning with the JFK that Obama alluded to. Sometimes it’s worked and sometimes it hasn’t as far as winning a political election.

Barack Obama is simply one more JFK, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. He’s also another George McGovern, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore or John Kerry.

Win or loose, they all have the same message … change, change change. And what do we get? More of the same, same same.

All a person simply needs to do is look at who is in Congress … Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy … the very same people who, after promising the most unified and cooperative Congress in the history of the United States, wound up giving us one of the most divisive, vindictive and unpopular Congresses in the history of the United States … one which Barack Obama was part of … consistently towing the Democratic Party line … more consistently than any other Democrat currently in Congress.

I suppose what struck me the most about Obama’s speech, other than it’s typically inspiring rhetoric, was it’s consistent and absolute hypocrisy.

Accuse McCain of doing nothing about renewable energy for his 30 years in Congress? What about Biden’s 35 years of doing nothing … as well as Ted Kennedy’s, Harry Reid’s, Dick Durbin’s … all of these senior senators that are going to kick him around like a beach ball just as John Kennedy was by the senior Democratic senators did during Kennedy’s administration. And Barack Obama is more “junior” than Kennedy was.

Education, energy, defense,reducing bureacracy, natural disasters, and on and on … ad infinitum. It’s a great shoppng list. Too bad it’s an old one that been presented time and time again by men more capable than Barack Obama.

Obama attacks lobbyists … but simply look a the who’s who list of Democratic rats that cautiously waited to see who was ahead or who it looked like was going to win before jumping on his band wagon … or look at the even more dispicable list of political cronies who either bailed on or betrayed Hillary and Bill Clinton to grab a brass ring on the winning ticket. Those are the real lobbyists who have their own strings of “registered” lobbyists who will perpetuate the system in Washington.

Barack Obama isn’t going to change that. If any of these people actually thought he would, Obama would be a distant memory known as another failed “also ran”.

While Howard Wolfson is now talking about the “meat and potatoes” in Obama’s speech, I’m sitting here wondering … “What meat and potatoes???”

I have sat here and intently listened to a generic, generalization of a laundry list which is, at least, nearly as old as I am.

What’s new????

Where is the change????

“Barack, if you want change, then ask all of those Democratic voters you have gathered there in Denver to vote out all of those old democratic cronies that have been clinging to your coat tails for what seems like eternity. Shake them off and make a real change.

“And get rid of that David Axelrod. It’s hard for people to take your cry of, “Foul.” seriously when the hypocrisy of your doing the same thing … and frequently first … is dirtying the water. That boat just doesn’t float with anyone who has half a brain.”

If you’re under 10 years old, then this is a new and inspiring speech. If you’re older than 10, then you just haven’t been paying attention for the past however many years.

Even the venue is reminescent of events that took place around 70 years ago. And that’s a little creepy.

Al Gore Says People Who Don’t Believe in Global Warming Believe the World Flat

Well, He’ probably right in general but the question really wasn’t posed correctly by Leslie Stahl.

Al Gore’s position is that not only is global warming occurring, but that it is being accelerated at an alarming rate which is being caused by humans, and that greenhouse gases, primarily in the form of carbon dioxide, which are being produced by humans, are creating that acceleration.

In support of his contention which is being sold wholesale … no … at full retail in the form of his book … to the public, is the consensus of scientists who concur with his hypothesis.

The only problem with a consensus of scientists being in agreement is that it only takes one scientist being right to prove the rest wrong. Think about that.

The controversy that Leslie Stahl was alluding to in her interview with Al Gore was not really Dick Chaney’s doubts about global warming … which gave Al a good sound bite … but the fact that during this period of time that the CO2 (carbon dioxide) levels have been rising so dramatically according to Gore and the consensus of scientists, global temperatures have actually been decreasing. That’s right. Since 1998, global temperatures have actually been decreasing.

According to Gore and the consensus, as CO2 levels increase global temperature will increase and, since CO2 levels have increased more rapidly recently, global temperatures should be correspondingly increasing more rapidly … the greatly expounded greenhouse gas effect … creating a crisis for humanity in the near future. Therefore, we need to take dramatic and draconian actions to protect humanity from itself since humans are the cause of the rapidly increasing CO2 levels.

Except … it isn’t happening that way. CO2 levels are increasing and the temperature has been decreasing, the opposite of what has been touted. The “controversy” that Leslie Stahl was alluding to isn’t really a controversy at all. It’s based on substantial data which basically brings into serious question the entire contention of Al Gore and a lot of scientists who are starting to look like they have egg on their face.

Al Gore is pushing a hypothesis which is based on computer models of climate change which aren’t being supported by current data. Al Gore just doesn’t want to admit he might be wrong and Mother Nature just isn’t cooperating with him.

CO2 is, all of a sudden, being vilified as some noxious agent which is going to kill all of us and the environment.

Let’s think about it for a little bit and review some of that basic science we were taught in school. Humans, and other animals, inhale O2, oxygen, and exhale … that’s right, CO2, carbon dioxide, while plants absorb CO2 and give off O2 … a nice, mutually beneficial cycle.

What has also been documented but has totally gone under the radar of Gore and this concensus of scientists is the fact that, as the CO2 level has increased, the rate of plant growth has correspondingly increased.

Plants are critical to our survival … for that balance in nature that we need. Rain forests are a significant factor in this balance and need to be protected and better managed since they have covered significant portions of the earth’s land mass. But … land mass is only a small portion of the earth’s surface. More critical is the part of the earth’s surface which is covered by water. And … water contains algae … which, like land plants, absorbs CO2 and produces O2. Marine plant life plays a more critical role in the CO2/O2 balance.

Global warming has been going on since the Ice Age. Humanity has adapted,increased and prospered. The warming hasn’t occurred in a straight line. Hopefully , children are still being taught about Washington crossing the Delaware River which was almost frozen over during a period frequently referred to as the Mini Ice Age. I can remember when scientists were swearing that the world was cooling back in the 1970’s. I can also remember frequent snowfalls in the 1950’s in middle Georgia as well as yearly ice storms in the early 1960’s.

Weather changes and the climate is changing. Hurricanes occur with a cyclic frequency. Are they getting worse? Look at the historical reports of hurricanes on the Atlantic coast during the 1700’s and 1800’s to find the answer to that question.

I appreciate Al Gore’s reference to the world being flat, but he may have it pointed in the wrong direction. In spite of Viking expeditions to North America which were generally unknown outside of their culture and possible earlier Phoenician trans Atlantic voyages, also unknown to 15th century Europe, the conventional wisdom … that consensus of contemporary scientists … was that the earth was flat. And one person proved them wrong.

When scientists form a consensus, a red flag should go up … especially when opposing views are ridiculed and suppressed … because the scientists have stopped being scientists … because it’s always the responsibility of the scientist to question, doubt, prove … question, doubt and try to disprove … over and over again … period. That is the only way that science advances.

Al Gore isn’t a scientist … and he’s promoting “bad” science, pseudo-science … and worse than that he’s ridiculing the true scientists … the people that are questioning the validity of his hypothesis. It’s their job, their responsibility as scientists.

The world is warming and where it will stop, no one really knows. Humanity does need to change it’s ways to protect the world we live in, but rich people like Al Gore “buying carbon credits” so he can go his merry way while the less financially fortunate return to living in unlit caves isn’t necessarily the best answer.

The American public needs to be ever diligent for egocentric demagogues who claim to have “the answer” and scientists who form a “consensus”.

I recall a science class that I took. On the first day of the course, the professor told all of us to “just sit and listen” … and began lecturing … for 50 minutes. We then took a ten minute break and returned for the next hour of the lecture. The professor began by saying, “What I told you during the last hour was what was true last year. Now I’m going to tell you what’s true this year. Start taking notes.”

I’ve never forgotten that lesson.

All the scientists in the world agreeing on something which isn’t proven can’t make it a fact … an irrefutable truth. One scientist with irrefutable facts proves a truth.