Tuesday, February 18, 2014

How did global warming discussions end up hinging on what's happening with polar bears, unverifiable predictions of what will happen in a hundred years, and whether people are "climate deniers" or "global warming cultists?" If this is a scientific topic, why aren't we spending more time discussing the science involved?

Why aren't we talking about the evidence and the actual data involved? Why aren't we looking at the predictions that were made and seeing if they match up to the results? If this is such an open and shut case, why are so many people who care about science skeptical? Many Americans have long since thought that the best scientific evidence available suggested that man wasn't causing any sort of global warming. However, now, we can go even further and suggest that the planet isn't warming at all.

1) There hasn't been any global warming since 1997: If nothing changes in the next year, we're going to have kids who graduate from high school who will have never seen any "global warming" during their lifetimes. That's right; the temperature of the planet has essentially been flat for 17 years. This isn't a controversial assertion either. Even the former Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, Phil Jones, admits that it's true. Since the planet was cooling from 1940-1975 and the upswing in temperature afterward only lasted 22 years, a 17 year pause is a big deal. It also begs an obvious question: How can we be experiencing global warming if there's no actual "global warming?"

2) There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by man: Questions are not decided by "consensus." In fact, many scientific theories that were once widely believed to be true were made irrelevant by new evidence. Just to name one of many, many examples, in the early seventies, scientists believed global cooling was occurring. However, once the planet started to warm up, they changed their minds. Yet, the primary "scientific" argument for global warming is that there is a "scientific consensus" that it's occurring. Setting aside the fact that's not a scientific argument, even if that ever was true (and it really wasn't), it's certainly not true anymore.

Over 31,000 scientists have signed on to a petition saying humans aren't causing global warming. More than 1000 scientists signed on to another report saying there is no global warming at all. There are tens of thousands of well-educated, mainstream scientists who do not agree that global warming is occurring at all and people who share their opinion are taking a position grounded in science.

3) Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012: The loss of Arctic ice has been a big talking point for people who believe global warming is occurring. Some people have even predicted that all of the Arctic ice would melt by now because of global warming. Yet, Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. How much Arctic ice really matters is an open question since the very limited evidence we have suggests that a few decades ago, there was less ice than there is today, but the same people who thought the drop in ice was noteworthy should at least agree that the increase is important as well.

4) Climate models showing global warming have been wrong over and over: These future projections of what global warming will do to the planet have been based on climate models. Essentially, scientists make assumptions about how much of an impact different factors will have; they guess how much of a change there will be and then they project changes over time.

Unfortunately, almost all of these models showing huge temperature gains have turned out to be wrong.
Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.” Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95 percent of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH).”
There's an old saying in programming that goes, "Garbage in, garbage out." In other words, if the assumptions and data you put into the models are faulty, then the results will be worthless. If the climate models that show a dire impact because of global warming aren't reliable -- and they're not -- then the long term projections they make are meaningless.

5) Predictions about the impact of global warming have already been proven wrong: The debate over global warming has been going on long enough that we've had time to see whether some of the predictions people made about it have panned out in the real world. For example, Al Gore predicted all the Arctic ice would be gone by 2013. In 2005, the Independent ran an article saying that the Artic had entered a death spiral.
Scientists fear that the Arctic has now entered an irreversible phase of warming which will accelerate the loss of the polar sea ice that has helped to keep the climate stable for thousands of years....The greatest fear is that the Arctic has reached a “tipping point” beyond which nothing can reverse the continual loss of sea ice and with it the massive land glaciers of Greenland, which will raise sea levels dramatically. Of course, the highway is still there.
Meanwhile, Arctic ice is up 50% since 2012. James Hansen of NASA fame predicted that the West Side Highway in New York would be under water by now because of global warming.

If the climate models and the predictions about global warming aren't even close to being correct, wouldn't it be more scientific to reject hasty action based on faulty data so that we can further study the issue and find out what's really going on?
The Afghanistan government's recent release of dozens of imprisoned terrorists, many of whom had killed Americans, was a galling betrayal of those Americans who died defending Afghanistan against the Taliban terrorists -- as well as those Americans who have returned home with arms or legs missing, or with minds traumatized beyond repair. 
If we learn nothing else from the bitter tragedy of the war in Afghanistan, it should be that we should put an end forever to the self-indulgence of thinking that we can engage in "nation-building" and creating "democracy" in countries where nothing resembling democracy has ever existed.

It would be a feat to achieve one of these objectives, but to achieve both at the same time is a gamble that makes playing Russian roulette look like a harmless pastime.

F.A. Hayek said, "We shall not grow wiser until we learn that much that we have done was very foolish." Nothing is more foolish -- and immoral -- than sending men into battle to risk their lives winning victories that are later lost by politicians for political reasons.

That started long before the war in Afghanistan. Vietnam was a classic example. Years after that war was over, the Communist victors themselves admitted that they lost militarily in Vietnam, as they knew they would. But they won politically in America, with the help of Americans, including the media -- as they also knew they would.

The war in Iraq was more of the same. American troops won that war but our politicians lost the peace. Terrorists have now taken over, and raised Al Qaeda flags, in some Iraqi towns that American troops liberated at the cost of many lives.

How did this happen? It happened much the same way it happened in Afghanistan. We insisted on trying to create a "democracy" in the Middle East -- a place with a history going back thousands of years, without a single democracy.

What we created instead was a local ruler, placed in charge as a result of the blood and treasure of Americans, but independent of us, because he won an election that we insisted on holding -- as if there are no prerequisites for democracy.

To compound the problem, we had members of Congress constantly talking about pulling out of Iraq, and demanding a timetable -- despite what military madness it is to tell your enemy when you will be gone.

With American military support likely to be temporary and Iran's military presence next door certain to be permanent, how surprising is it that Iraq's leadership took Iran much more seriously than it took the United States?

Today, the Iraqi government is much more accommodating to Iran than to the United States, despite the fact that Americans put them in power. The very same scenario was repeated in Afghanistan, with President Obama himself announcing a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai saw the handwriting on the wall -- and what it said was that American support was temporary but the Taliban was going to be around long after the Americans were gone. He too decided that it was better to try to get on the good side of our enemies, in this case by turning loose some terrorists.

It doesn't have to be this way.

After World War II, the American military took over the governments of Japan and West Germany.

We did not start out by setting up some local leader who would be able to put his own interests above ours and work at cross purposes against us. Nor did we announce to the whole world when we planned to start reducing our troop levels in these countries.

Under the unchallenged supremacy of General Douglas MacArthur, Japan was indeed turned into a very different country, one in which democratic institutions could be phased in, at whatever pace the circumstances made prudent. Something similar happened in West Germany.

But this was not something that could be done quickly or on the cheap, with politicians sounding off in Congress about pulling out, and trying to micromanage from thousands of miles away. If we can't be serious, we have no right to send young Americans out into the hell of war.
Today is BOWE TUESDAY. How about making a difference and contacting any or all of these Elected Officials. I made it easy for you whether you prefer to e-mail, call or send a letter. Here is all the information at your fingertips. Thanks.

King, Angus S., Jr. - (I - ME)
359 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-5344
Contact: www.king.Senate.gov/contact

Sanders, Bernard - (I - VT)
332 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-5141
Contact: www.sanders.Senate.gov/contact/

Alexander, Lamar - (R - TN)
455 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-4944
Contact: www.alexander.Senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Email

Ayotte, Kelly - (R - NH)
144 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-3324
Contact: www.ayotte.Senate.gov/?p=contact

Barrasso, John - (R - WY)
307 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-6441
Contact: www.barrasso.Senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Conta

Blunt, Roy - (R - MO)
260 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-5721
Contact: www.blunt.Senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-form?p=cont

Boozman, John - (R - AR)
320 Hart Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-4843
Contact: www.boozman.Senate.gov/public/index.cfm/e-mail-me

Burr, Richard - (R - NC)
217 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-3154
Contact: www.burr.Senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.C

Chambliss, Saxby - (R - GA)
416 Russell Senate Office Building Washington DC 20510
(202) 224-3521
Contact: www.chambliss.Senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Email