3/27/08: Get Real.

So, addressing a hot emotional and political topic here. Just because I feel like it and it’s my blog.

When is everyone going to open theirs eyes to the erroneous subject of “global warming” as something influenced by humans? The earth’s climates – it is not one singular climate, for starters – is in a constant state of flux. Places that were once frozen solid with ice are now verdant rain forests; places which were once home to myriad species have since been rendered stagnant. Ice caps advance, recede and advance again. We’re still coming out of a mini-ice age which, in part, accounts for rising temps and receding ice.

But, did you know that the “melting Arctic ice” everyone cries about is limited to about 2% of the entire Antarctic ice cap? To be sure, the ice over the remaining 98% of the ice cap is either just as thick or actually getting thicker with the passage of time. Oceans are not going to flood the lands. Some glaciers – the ones the talking heads choose to report on – are actually receding. However, are you aware that there are just as many which are advancing currently? Didn’t think so.

And here is a staggering and quite sad bit of verified info: Temps over the past 10 years have actually cooled. This is categorically not in dispute. In fact, the head of the IPCC – the global organization leading the global warming charge and to which employees of NCAR are affiliated, the same organization which shared last year’s Nobel Peace Prize – has admitted this trend. Holy crap!! Carbon dioxide levels continue to rise, but temps have receded. So, where the hell is the correlation between rising global temps and humanity’s ability to directly affect global temps? There is none.

And a better question is why isn’t this being discussed? Why is this significant info being swept under the rug? Why is it that any significant weather event is immediately linked to “gloom-and-doom” global warming, but the fact that temps have hit a plateau and even receded while carbon dioxide continues to rise is never reported?

Without getting too scientific, it is also abundantly clear that the climate models the IPCC uses are broken. How can you believe that they can predict the future when they 100% fail to predict the known past? That’s right, when the models are turned on the past, they fail categorically to be able to predict what we already know happened. What the NASA Aqua satellite is showing is that the current climate models do not take into consideration the full breadth of factors which affect and determine climate. For example, current climate models suggest that an increase in carbon dioxide leads to an increase of water vapor which leads to increased temps. If you believe in global warming as a human-spurred condition, then this makes sense to you (my condolences). But NASA’s Aqua satellite shows exactly the opposite occurs – with a little bit of warming, weather processes inherently compensate and, thus, limit the greenhouse effect.

In other words, climate is much more robust of a system than the climate models take into account. These findings, again, are not in dispute by the meteorlogical community. The implications of this to the global warming movement are huge. Their gloom-and-doom predictions are blatantly false and, now, clearly irresponsible.

Think of this. Back in the 1970s, temps were dipping at “an alarming rate.” I recall the great blizzard of 78 where I grew up. Back then, scientists were talking about global cooling and how it was going to devastate the world, and that disease and famine were going to decimate the global population. The wording of those contentions is eerily similar to today’s global warming scare. And what happened 30+ years ago? Nothing which was predicted. Global cooling turned out to be false just like global warming will be proven false in another 10 years or so.

The sad part? When all is said and done, upwards of $4 TRILLION dollars will have been wasted on preventing something we humans have absolutely ZERO control over. Who’s going to foot that bill? Who’s going to apologize for this gross fiscal negligence? And to think that we puny humans can affect something as immense and diverse as the entire world atmosphere and it’s endlessly diverse number of climates is too self-important to even find words to describe.

I could go on and on about this. Before you jump to any conclusions, I would suggest you do your research rather than simply listen to the talking heads (who have their own agendas). Read up on authors without agendas who chime in about the climate, natural resources and global warming. I’ve read several thousand pages on the stuff. I used to believe in global warming as something influenced and directed by humans; now, I realize it’s all BS.

Three things in closing:
(1) The amount of fossil fuel energy it takes to power recycling plants far outweighs the benefits of recycling. So, should we be recycling given the current recycling technology in place? You can’t even argue that “morally” we should given that it is worse for the environment to keep today’s recycling centers operating. Yet, we recycle with passion.
(2) I am all for finding better and more efficient and cleaner ways to produce energy. The beauty of the free market system is that new technologies will always be created. And, once new ways of doing things become more cost-effective than the current way of doing things, those new technologies are adopted and embraced. But not before. Once solar power is readily available and does not strap you with an unrealistic break-even point, then solar energy will be mass adopted. But not one day before. Would you have paid $20,000 for a plasma TV a handful of years ago knowing you could get one for $1,000 today – a cheaper TV with better technology than was available less than a decade ago.
(3) If you want to read up on any of this but don’t know where to start, email me and include your real email address. I would be happy to send you a list of authors and titles which look at the environment and the climate without letting emotion get in the way and who clearly have no agenda other than to tell it like it truly is.

So that’s it. For now. If you choose to disagree with me, that’s fine. To each his own. If you choose to berate me, that’s cool, too. Just be sure that you can back up your assertions with peer-reviewed, double-blind studies. Otherwise, don’t waste your breath.

See everyone on Sunday at the Kopp.

Nate