News Snippets From All Beats

Although California is expected to come up short on water this summer due to abnormally low rainfall, the extended forecast calls for climate cooling that could be harmful to California’s agriculture industry. NASA scientists, using a satellite, have measured the shape and temperature of the oceans’ surfaces to identify currents and calculate their impact on climate change. The data has revealed that a slow cycling long-term fluctuation in the Pacific called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is entering its cool phase, and this translates into 20 to 30 years of cold weather. How this affects climate is by altering the course of the jet stream, driving it further north to bring more storms to the United States. This means shorter growing periods, and colder temperatures overall.¹

Meteorologist Anthony Watts is warning the wine, fruit, and nuts industry to be on guard for threats of frost, and even the apples will not be safe.²

While it might be an appealing political solution for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to sponsor tax rebates for the purchase of Hummers and other large SUV’s, scientists say that CO2 emissions have absolutely no effect on such large natural climate changes. Ironically for the global warming theorists, this change in the PDO is from a previous warm cycle that accounted for, in part, warmer temperatures over the past two decades.

Notes:

^1. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Ocean Surface Topography From Space, Science - El Niño/La Niña & PDO: Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).

http://topex-www.jpl.nasa.gov/science/pdo.html (Retrieved May 3, 2008).

^2. Phil Brennan, “NASA Says Climate Shifting to Cooler Temperatures,” Newsmax.com, May 1, 2008.

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/NASA_Climate

_cooling/2008/05/01/92541.html

^3. Graph: http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/. Units are degrees Celsius.

The idea behind the theory of Global Warming is that mankind’s influence over climate is so powerful that nothing short of sharp reductions in our use of fossil fuels will prevent catastrophic consequences in the next few years. Alas, scientific research into climate change continues to produce data which disputes the theory, and now Noel Keenlyside, marine scientist in Germany, finds that temperatures for the coming decade will be opposite those forecasted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC). “The IPCC would predict a 0.3°C warming over the next decade,” Keenlyside reports, “Our prediction is that there will be no warming until 2015 but it will pick up after that.”¹

The reason for the discrepancy between the two predictions is that the IPCC neglected to use these ocean temperature figures in their climate models. This would lead them, for example, to misinterpret the cause for 1998 supposedly being one of the warmest years on record. What should the IPCC models have included in them? El Nino, and Gulf Stream records reveal them as the real culprits.

But don’t look for retractions from the IPCC, or Al Gore, just yet. Scientists getting paid to be in the global warming camp are now in the majority, and the few who dare to publish their findings that discredit them timidly advance that natural climate variations only “temporarily offset” manmade global warming.²

In related news, snow surveys conducted by state and federal agencies in the United States are forecasting the best year for water runoff in 11 years in places like Colorado, which has a snow pack that is 23% above average. These wet conditions are also said to be in store for the Pacific Northwest, where snowfall has been significant, and cold temperatures have prevented it from melting before the spring thaw. Lake Powell and other reservoirs are expected to gain enough water from the runoff for hydroelectric plants “to power 33,00 homes for a year,”³ in addition to reversing drought conditions (an 8% increase) . The culprit in this cool development: the Jet Stream. With temporary offsets like these, who needs the IPCC? Answer: politicians without a career, and a United Nations without a claim to authority.

Notes:

^{1, 2.} Charles Clover, “Global warming may ’stop’, scientists predict,” Telegraph, April 30, 2008.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=

/earth/2008/04/30/eaclimate130.xml

^3. Dan Elliott, “Heavy Winter Snows Could Ease Drought,” New York Sun, April 23, 2008.

http://www.nysun.com/news/national/heavy-winter-snows-could-ease-drought

Examining the roots of Environmentalism reveals a religious creed unlike any world view in the history of civilization. It departs from Christianity, humanism, and the philosophers (who gave us logic) by turning the pyramid of all things upside down and placing mankind at the bottom. Here, the lowest rung is not merely a poor showing on our part that can be improved upon with development. Mankind represents, for Environmentalists, the scourge and cancer on the earth that must be eradicated in order to redeem–the earth. In Adam Kirsch’s book review of American Earth, he shows that Environmentalism’s history points to a religious following that truly believes in, and desires to practice, human sacrifice to appease their goddess.

Notes:

Adam Kirsch, “The Underside of Environmentalism,” New York Sun, April 16, 2008.

http://www.nysun.com/arts/underside-environmentalism

A new energy law effectively kills the incandescent light bulb by replacing it with Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs by the year 2020. By no coincidence, General Electric and Phillip’s stocks both spiked several percentage points on the day the bill passed by the Senate.¹ It turns out that GE manufactures the CLF’s in China, paying far less for labor than it does manufacturing the incandescent bulb here in the United States.

The CFL’s are supposed to be much more efficient than the incandescent, making them the easy choice for meeting the 70% more efficient standard set by the new law,² but this federal incursion into private homes on a premise still unproven, Global Warming, is particularly repugnant.

Firstly, the CFL’s contain mercury.³ It is ironic that lead has been outlawed from paint only to subject the citizenry to another poison. Secondly, it is insulting to Americans, who have proven track record in conservation and recycling, for the Federal government to pass a mandate expressing the government’s lack of confidence in citizens being able to achieve efficiency by other means. To wit, turning off lights when not in use, and using bulbs appropriate for a task.

Not shaving off enough percentage points yet? Try this: a dimmer switch. That’s what enables all those bulbs to make our rooms look so good in the indirect and track lighting we will no longer be able to use. For an idea of how efficient controlled lighting can be (controlled by the home owner, that is), we sent the staff at TheNewsBeats.com out shopping (they were on a roll, anyway). Here is some of what they found.

A 65 watt, 120 volt, flood light bulb will provide 65 watts of lighting for 2000 hours, but the 65 watt, 130 volt flood will provide 57 watts lighting for 5000 hours. The principal seems to be that the bulb designed for the beefed-up 130v wiring and then used on the 120v wiring (in most residential housing) lasts significantly longer while producing light that is reduced by only 8 watts.

With this in mind, consider that the actual use of most recessed and track lighting is governed by a dimmer switch that typically reduces the wattage of a 65 watt flood to around 40 watts and less (these are, admittedly, casual observations). Even without attempting back-engineering formulas, it’s not a stretch to suppose that most of the 70% of increased efficiency mandated by the new bulb law is already being met, and exceeded.

Well, this happy news was not lost on our shoppers, and TheNewsBeats.com is now stock full of all manner of incandescent bulbs. Oh, the warm glow of a 65 watt flood in a room, and the way that a 65 watt spot lays across a page of text, and that crystal clarity of those 40 and 60 watt clear bulbs. Yep, things are going to be a lot brighter around here in the coming New Year, and as always, more efficient.

[Editor’s note: This story is filled under Levity, synonymous for “lighthearted,” as opposed to the “darkhearted,” who would have us all set in the dark with them.]

Notes:

^1. Planet Gore, “How Many Lobbyists,” NRO nationalreviewonline

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/ (accessed December 28, 2007).

^2. Josiah Ryan, “Reid: Banning Incandescent Bulb Appropriate Federal Act,” CNSNews.com, December 20, 2007.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=

/Politics/archive/200712/POL20071220f.html

^3. Planet Gore, “Lobbyists.”

Details of a final solution plan are surfacing as Global Warming insiders break silence and go public with the methods of choice for ushering in a Green Reich. Professor Barry Walters of Australia leaked particulars of the radical agenda that includes a birth levy of $5,000 and an annual carbon tax of $800 thereafter for families exceeding two children.

But that may be only the tip of the “greenhouse-friendly”¹ living conditions to be enforced on wayward humans who are “profligate”² consumers before the goddess Gaia. Other services will be offered to allow the irreverent to earn carbon credits and will include credits for voluntarily undergoing sterilization.

Ostensibly, parents who are unable to meet the tax burdens will have their children confiscated and terminated, and then be forced to undergo sterilization themselves. No word yet on the amount of carbon credits earned during this penalty phase of greenhouse-friendly service.

Notes:

^1,2. source: here

In a Newsweek article by Sharon Begley titled “Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine,” published on MSNBC.com, Begley sets out to expose opposition to global warming theorists as coming form disingenuous politicians and big business lobbyists. That, she asserts, is the truth behind the denial of the theory: money and politics. But unwittingly, Begley exposes another sort of denial, and that by her own example.  Begley’s article criticizes the findings of others which are not in agreement with the theory as efforts to “reinforce the appearance uncertainty” within the scientific community over the theory of global warming,¹ and belittles their reports as “not empirical research, but critiques of others’ work.”² Such disparaging slights are not cast, however, when studies supporting this theory are seconded by those who happen to agree with them. These concurring opinions result in the reporting on questionable studies as “peer-reviewed.”³

Yet, research conducted by other scientists using ice core samples, and even ancient DNA, produced results that run counter to the global warming theory studies; and research on published studies claiming to prove global warming have pointed out omissions, and even blatant manipulation of the data tables used in those studies.  For instance, the first IPCC report that produced lots of traction for the theory, and successive reports with discredited methodologies.

In reality, there is plenty of misinformation masquerading as fact that can be reasonably questioned and exposed by scientists and non-scientists alike. To wit, Begley’s criticism appears in Newsweek, decidedly not a scientific journal, where she is critical of scientists and others whose investigations disprove global warming. It’s a privilege, it seems, that Begley would reserve for only those who ascribe to the theory.

Begley clearly disapproves of others, like herself, who would logically examine the case, but find the evidence wanting; and she goes so far as to ridicule them by repeatedly referring to them, along with opposing scientists, as members of “the denial machine.”⁴ While they may not be journalists of Begley’s stature, they do include; other journalists, economists, senators, scientists, including Timothy Ball, Climatology professor, Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, and Michael Griffin, a top administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. If only they worked at Newsweek, then they could be relied on.

For an example creating your own agreement, Begley references a Newsweek poll which identified “climate change as the gravest environmental threat,”⁵ and this to imply that there is a groundswell of public intellect which has determined global warming is a fact. It’s not carelessness; Begley is too thorough, and has too much help (Eve Conant, Sam Stein and Eleanor Clift in Washington and Matthew Philips in New York contributed to the article). This is a shell game of using the two terms, meaning two different things, interchangeably to bolster what can’t be supported on its own with the evidence (climate change itself is independent of anthropogenic causes). But it fits the worldview according Begley and Newsweek, and that’s what matters. This is the emerging truth about denial; it has taken over large media conglomerates.

Notes: 

^{1 - 5.} Sharon Begley, “Global Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine,” MSNCB.com, (accessed August 20, 2007). Originally pubublished as  “The Truth About Denial,” Newsweek, August 13, 2007. citations are from the MSNBC title. http://www.newsweek.com/id/32482. 

Lake Superior is warming and losing water. Since 1979, the average water temperature has increased 4.5 degrees, and in some places the surface temperature has reached 75 degrees. At the same time, Superior’s level is lower than it has been in eighty years. Scientists, however, are mystified. While global warming climate models predict increasing evaporation rates due to the shrinking winter ice cap, those models also predicted more precipitation in the region as global warming continues. It hasn’t happened, and theories are running wild.

Cynthia Sellinger, deputy director of the Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory in Ann Arbor, believes the model discrepancy might be caused by a residual effect of the 1990’s El Nino.

Perhaps tiring of stepping on pieces of broken climate models, journalists themselves have begun seeking out alternate explanations for explaining climate change.

Ted Sietsema, a retired guy smoking a pipe in a pub who was interviewed in the same AP news story, went on record to say: “Don’t give me any that global warming stuff. That water is going west.” Sietsema believes the government is secretly draining the lake to water the arid western states where there is more political clot.

As speculative, and unsubstantiated, as the covert water siphoning theory sounds, it is remarkably similar to the tone scientists are striking as successive climate models fail to support the theory of global warming.

Where once the predictive value of climate models was touted by scientists as forthcoming evidence of anthropogenic global warming, the evidence today suggests that many scientists remain blindly committed to their view, despite the models’ failure.

Jay Austin, an assistant professor at the University of Minnesota at Duluth’s Large Lakes Observatory, made this revealing comment on the Lake Superior, climate model mystery: “It’s just not clear what the ultimate result will be as we turn the knob up.” That is really the global warming theory: we’re the ones turning up the heat, no matter what the evidence shows.

Yet, a genuine attempt to prove a theory is an attempt to falsify it, and a genuine attempt to hold on to a prejudice is evident when scientists discard evidence that refutes it.

(read about it here in CNN.com)

It’s summer in Iowa, and hailstones the size of basketballs are falling from out of the clear, blue sky. Theories about their origin include high-altitude formation, and toilet waste from commercial airplanes. But the hailstones, estimated at 50 pounds, are clear, too big for plane discharges, and the thunderstorms usually required for their formation were absent.

Called megacryometeors, this phenomenon can occur over coastal areas where there is sufficient atmospheric turbulence capable of holding ice in the upper atmosphere until it grows to be very large, but that doesn’t explain their accumulation over Iowa in the summer. Scientist, however, were quick to round up the usual suspect, and David Travis, a professor of geography at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater, tentatively identified global warming as a possible culprit.

The theory is often placed in line-ups for adverse climate occurrences. Because global warming can be ambiguously interpreted (e.g. cooling and flooding are due to warming, but so are drought and heat) to cover unexplained weather phenomena, and because it is also politically advantageous for career building, global warming is becoming the go-to explanation whenever weather makes news. Hailstones as a phenomenon, however, have an established alibi for global warming.

There are hailstones from the past, and ones destined for the future, that defy the global warming explanation. For instance, when the Lord fought for Joshua against the Amorites:

And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Bethhoron, that the LORD cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword.(Jos 10:11; emphasis added)

Then there is the future where God will again fight for Israel, and leave no doubt at to the cause, and the reason, for the coming hailstones:

And I will call for a sword against him [Gog] throughout all my mountains, saith the Lord GOD: every man’s sword shall be against his brother. And I will plead against him with pestilence and with blood; and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many people that are with him, an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone. Thus will I magnify myself, and sanctify myself; and I will be known in the eyes of many nations, and they shall know that I am the LORD. (Eze 38:21-23; emphasis added)

Certainly, things are about to heat up, but will the theory of global warming be seriously entertained in the eyes of many nations when they do?

(read about it in CBS News)

New evidence uncovered by scientists has revealed that, prior to the use of fossil fuels, the temperatures on earth were much warmer than was generally believed. Estimated to date between 450,000 to 900,000 years ago, DNA samples obtained from a Greenland glacier, including trees, plants, insects and spiders, show that a lush forest not only existed during the period, but also indicate that temperatures were as much as 5 degrees Celsius (9 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than they are now. Even more surprising, to some, is that in spite of these warm temperatures, the glaciers on Greenland did not melt away.

In another development, the glacier record again came to mankind’s defense from the East Antarctica icesheet. Scientists analyzed “the world’s deepest ice core, enabling them to reconstruct patterns of warming and glaciation over the past 800,000 years.” Their results showed that temperature varied by an astounding 27 degrees Fahrenheit.

To put these new findings in perspective, mankind was blamed for a temperature increase of one degree Fahrenheit over the last 100 years in the United States, and was forecasted to be responsible for the extinction of several species of plants and animals by 2100, along with melting glaciers that would raise sea levels by three feet (putting a large part of Florida under water).

Many scientists have criticized these sea level estimates for not taking into account corresponding condensation and precipitation that would increase in response to warmer temperatures. Nevertheless, with temperatures documented to occur naturally with variations up to thirty times wider and nearly ten degrees warmer than those blamed on mankind, it is safe to say that a reprieve has been found that puts the global warming prosecution on ice.

(read about in Breitbart.com)

Americans may be willing to risk having some small, still unproven, effect on climate change, and suffer the consequences. But what if driving to work and eating meat meant killing scores of innocent people every day in Darfur?

Global Warming theorists are wagering that this sort of second-hand smoke connection to Global Warming can be just as successful in ushering in restrictive laws, punitive fines, and taxes as the one that was used so successfully against cigarettes.

Of course, it’s a smoke screen. Climate change happens, but Global Warming (human induced warming) is a political tool of Green Evangelicals. They hope to gain many forced conversions misrepresenting the motivating force behind evil murderers. Wicked and depraved murderers murder not because there is a drought on, but because they are evil murderers.

Note: not all Green Evangelicals make use the cross as a religious symbol, but they all worship the same goddess: Gaia. They will also all utilize the power of the UN to mandate their sacraments.

David Dansker

Read about in Breitbart.com