Is This Blog On? version 2.0

I forgot to add, Maggie gets the hat tip for the post below.

Graphs, and links can be found here:

Yes, look at that scary trend line for the modern age! And see *exactly* what happens when you squash a graph down, too. Still, these folks are proving the point that the trend of the entire global climate since the end of the Cretaceous is downwards. The expanded near-term global temperatures puts the present day within the normal range for this post-glacial period, far below the inter-glacial highs that normally happen and barely within the normal range for standard temperature highs within the last 2MY. Notice that such distorted graphs as those used by Chatham are an example of how to lie with numbers and graphs. They intend to make one point, however, while their graph, taken in context, shows exactly the opposite.

And the squealing begins with the ‘look at the scary upward slope due to levels of carbon dioxide!’ That is called an “extrapolation” and it is based on shakey science at best and political science at worst. The answer of current volcanic and hot spot based emissions against past history and climate change is a difficult one, but the evidence is that volcanic emissions do tend to cause global cooling and may be trigger events for glacial periods. Weather data is spurious as records beyond tree rings, varves and ice cores is sparse. What we *do* know is that the global oceanic currents tend to change in a cycle that is not well understood, suddenly shifting large masses of warm and cool water across hemispheres. And while the undersea current movement below South Africa links the worlds oceans, their interactions based on that slow current are also not well understood. So what is that extrapolation based on? Well if you take a mere 100 year trend and extrapolate outwards…. why, yes, mathematically you can do that. Now what is the actual *science* behind that?

All I know, is that Michigan used to be one big glacier. Funny – I find this:

At various times throughout its history, the Great Lakes basin has been covered by thick glaciers and tropical forests, but these changes occurred before humans occupied the basin. Present-day concern about the atmosphere is premised on the belief that society at large, through its means of production and modes of daily activity, especially by ever increasing carbon dioxide emissions, may be modifying the climate at a rate unprecedented in history.

The very prevalent ‘greenhouse effect’ is actually a natural phenomenon. It is a process by which water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere absorb heat given off by the earth and radiate it back to the surface. Consequently the earth remains warm and habitable (16°C average world temperature rather than -18°C without the greenhouse effect). However, humans have increased the carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution from 280 parts per million to the present 350 ppm, and some predict that the concentration will reach twice its pre-industrial levels by the middle of the next century.

So, climate change has happened over and over in the world’s history, but THIS TIME, it is due to man. Because of teh CONSENSUS, baby! The debate is far from over:

The first centuries of this millennium saw a period of especially mild temperatures that may have reached their maximum during the 12th and 13th centuries. This was the so-called “Medieval Warm Period.” This period was followed by the “Little Ice Age” in which average global temperatures dropped by 0.5 to 1 degree Celsius (fig. 4). The consequences of this drop was the advance of alpine glaciers and harsh winters that froze many rivers solid.

The Little Ice Age is considered to have stopped between 1840 and 1860. Since then the planet has grown warmer. This point in history is also recognized as the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in which man learned to use the energy trapped in fossil fuels to power industry.

It can be seen from the history of our planet that climatic change has happened often. The changes are dramatic and often results in massive extinction’s due to changes in habitats. Recent evidence from ice cores also indicate that massive changes can occur in a relatively short span of time. Perhaps within 50 years, the life span to a typical human.

The question facing mankind now is are we facing a major climatic change, and, if so, what is the cause? Popular press presents the case that human activity has caused a massive buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere. This buildup is causing a global increase in temperatures due to the “Greenhouse Effect.”

Of course, little discussed is the most common of the greenhouses gases: water vapor:

As mentioned, the most common of the greenhouse gases is water vapor. It presents a quandary to those attempting to model the climate and what is happening to it. For water vapor condensed as high clouds reduces insolation, and so cools the planet down. Water vapor condensed as low clouds reduces radiation, and so warms the planet up. As the planet warms up, more water evaporates which means more cloud cover. The question is unresolved on how this increase in cloud cover will affect the climate.

Of course, in the beginning (or 770 Million years ago):

Dramatic changes in the earth’s climate is a normal state for our planet. Recent geologic discoveries underscores this basic fact. 770 million years ago a single continent broke apart into smaller continents due to plate tectonics. The result of this break up was to expose formerly landlocked areas to oceanic sources of moisture.

Our planet has a thermostat, found within the carbon cycle, that controls the temperature of the planet. During the breakup of this continent, increased rainfall from the oceans scrubbed carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. The rain combined with atmospheric carbon dioxide to form carbonic acid which reacted with exposed rocks, weathering them and carrying the products into the ocean. Here the weathered material precipitated out into carbonate rocks, locking up the carbon dioxide for millions of years.

Global temperatures fell and ice packs started to form in the oceans and glaciers appeared above the snowline of mountains. The ice reflected more solar energy than the dark ocean water causing a further drop in temperatures. This feedback cycle triggered a planet wide cooling that resulted in “snowball earth.”

On this snowball earth temperatures drop to –50 degrees Celsius and the oceans are frozen to a depth of a kilometer. The air is so cold that no moisture exists in it, stopping the growth of glaciers. However, without moisture there is no rainfall, allowing the carbon dioxide from erupting volcanoes to gradually build up over 10 million years. The 1,000 fold buildup of carbon dioxide triggers a rapid warming of the planet.

Increased warming increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere due to evaporation. This acts to intensify the greenhouse conditions until the surface temperature reach an average of 50 degrees Celsius. Torrential rains on this hothouse earth wash the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, forming carbonic acid, which weather the exposed rocks. The cycle begins again.

Methinks that climate change is beyond human control. We should care for the environment for no other reason than that we LIVE in the environment. But, attempts to tax or punish will do little on a world-wide scale because growing countries (I’m looking at China and India) are, and will continue to be, exempt. Whatever gains made in the US (and these gains will be made regardless of Kyoto or any other environmental strategies aimed at punishing our economy) will be offset by the increased, and unregulated, energy use in other countries.

Al Gore’s propaganda movie is exposed as the political tool of left when you dig a bit deeper. But, that’s not just me talking :

had eight years in his own little office in the White House and he never did a damn thing about the environment. Now he has no power, he is trying to coat-tail on the green movement to win some influence back, and, say it’s not true, have another run at the Presidency.

This is no poster boy for the Green movement. This is a self-satisfied blob of a hypocrite, criss-crossing the country by Jet (citing his important work as an excuse), and preaching only to the already converted – because the sort of liberals who will listen to Gore are already environmentally minded.

This morning, I read a letter to the editor in my local paper that got to the crux of the matter:

There is no doubt in my mind that the global warming movement is the refuge of communists/socialist. It is American capitalism, freedom and culture that are their target, not some apocalyptic environmental boogy man.

Sound harsh? Off target? Well, here is another critic of Al Gore’s “truth”, who disagreed not with the message of his movie, but the instead the offered “solutions”:

This is my beef with the movie, that despite the 2 hours of spelling out the problem, the answers boil down to buying hybrid cars and energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs. Buy, buy, buy. The great American solution to all its problems, no matter how “green” the politician seems to be. (Didn’t Bush Jr. say we should shop a lot to help the economy post-9-11?)

***********
One of the main reasons we’re in this mess is because of the global capitalist economy that drives most countries to manufacture goods that contribute to global warming through its production, on top of the lies pushed on us by first-world countries that “bigger is better”, “grow or die”, that everyone wants to live the American dream and own all the luxuries in life, perpetuating this destructive cycle of production and consumption to a frantic pace.

The “inconvenient solution” is to completely ditch globalism and switch to local economies — this only allows for so much wallet power. This would mean no more cheap goods from China, or GAP clothes made in Indonesia, or imported coffee, sugar and chocolate off the broken backs of exploited workers. The point is to change the way we think and live, in order to consume in the most thoughtful, responsible and self-sustaining way possible. It’s about eliminating all jobs that are destructive to the planet, creating egalitarian workforces that build our local economies to be self-sustaining, and retrofit all polluting systems to clean ones.

So, when I see Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Streistand (with her climate-controlled horse barn), and Arianna Huffinigton give-up their mansions and start living that egalitarian, self-sustaining lifestyle, then maybe then I’ll start listening to a word they have to say.

What are you doing to save our planet from climate change? I wonder what Al Gore is doing, personally. How big is his house? How many houses does he have? What does he drive? How does he live? The thing that bugs me about most of the Hollywood yes men regarding the environment is what big fat hypocrites they are. They certainly will leave a much bigger “footprint” on the earth with their cars, and huge homes, and lavish lifestyle. So, who are they to say a thing?

I did a bit of a search, and found this:

When it comes to it, what can we do about climate warming?
We can do little about the climate itself, but we could try to stop the increase of atmospheric CO2. Even that task is daunting; it requires that we cut emissions–worldwide–by 60 to 80 percent. In effect, this means cutting energy consumption by comparable amounts–including all transportation, heating, air conditioning, and electricity use. It would have an enormous negative impact on people’s welfare–particularly for the poor and those in developing countries.

Humn, let me evaluate my evil BushhilterCo-self. I drive a minivan that gets good gas milage (especially considering I move a family of 5 kids.) It’s an older (over 9 years) car- I’m not a slave to the excessive consumerism and will probably run this car until it’s dead on the side of the road. I don’t drive excessively. Mostly, because I just don’t want to go to a lot of places. I live in a (very) small house, thus minimizing the amount of heating energy used. And, believe me, seven people in one small house heats up the house a bit on it’s own. We don’t have Air conditioning (although we have window units that are used in the bedrooms if it gets really hot.) My car does not have air conditioning. I think the small house covers the electricity use as well -can’t use THAT much electricity if you don’t have that much to turn “on.”

Well, so I’m leading a rather “green” life if you ask me. Now, what is Hollywood doing besides driving their (new and expensive) Priuses?

Regardless, whether or not a “Climate Change” disaster lies in our future, the answer is new technology (or old, can you say “nuclear energy?”), not punitive measures that will ruin our economy. China builds one new coal-plant per-week. And, the developing countries, unless you prefer they remain mired in poverty, will only have increased energy needs.

My all-time favorite comment by Marcotte (you know, Edwards’ new blogtress) is this:

One thing I vow here and now–you motherfuckers who want to ban birth control will never sleep. I will fuck without making children day in and out and you will know it and you won’t be able to stop it. Toss and turn, you mean, jealous motherfuckers. I’m not going to be “punished” with babies. Which makes all your efforts a failure. Some non-procreating women escaped. So give up now. You’ll never catch all of us. Give up now.

She is referring to the death of Rehnquist, and how this is going to lead (first) to the over turning of Roe v Wade, and then the outlawing of birth control. To leave aside the matter that overturning R V W would NOT make abortion illegal, but instead would turn it into a state matter. But, to further say that this is a slippery slope leading to “A Handmaid’s Tale” is just ridiculous.

I get a kick out of all that angry, non-procreative “fucking” Marcotte brags about having. But, praise the Lord (Godbag that I am) that she is taking precautions to insure that she doesn’t become a mother – oh, I mean, that she isn’t punished with a baby. Because, in such a scenario, I would say that it was the baby that was being punished.

The picture discussed in this post was in my paper today. And they are STILL claiming it is an image of polar bears stranded on melting ice caps

If you don’t know why this is funny, you haven’t been paying attention.

Since we all know that there is no thing as media bias in the this county, would someone please explain to me why it is so hard to find any more information on this story:

The office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pressing the Bush administration for routine access to military aircraft for domestic flights, such as trips back to her San Francisco district, according to sources familiar with the discussions.
    The sources, who include those in Congress and in the administration, said the Democrat is seeking regular military flights not only for herself and her staff, but also for relatives and for other members of the California delegation. A knowledgeable source called the request “carte blanche for an aircraft any time.”

My google search didn’t even come-up with this story (I had to use yahoo.)

Former Speaker Hastert starting using U.S. Air Force planes for security reasons, for trips to and from his district. But, he did not use them for political trips, or to (regularly) transport family members. Pelsoi, from what little I have been able to gather, was offered the same service as Hastert, which she deemed insufficient for her needs. I think now would be a wonderful time to revisit Pelosi’s speech from November:

“A new America with a vibrant and strengthened middle class for whom college is affordable, health care is accessible, and retirement reliable.

“A new America that declares our energy independence, promotes domestic sources of renewable energy, and combats climate change.

“A new America that is strong, secure, and a respected leader among the community of nations.

“And the American people told us they expected us to work together for fiscal responsibility, with the highest ethical standards and with civility and bipartisanship.

“After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: pay as you go, no new deficit spending. Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.

“In order to achieve our new America for the 21st Century, we must return this House to the American people. So our first order of business is passing the toughest congressional ethics reform in history. This new Congress doesn’t have two years or 200 days.

“Let us join together in the first 100 hours to make this Congress the most honest and open Congress in history – 100 hours.

Doesn’t that just give you CHILLS?!?

The Global Warming is kicking my arse today. I think all the schools in Michigan are closed.

Where’s Al Gore when you need him?

My husband somehow caught sight of the show “Real Desperate Housewives of Orange County” (he was probably on the road), and he insisted that I watch a bit. So, I did.

I could go on and on about these people, but I will just leave you with this one small vignette. They are all VERY rich, materialistic, and live in gated communities. Most of them (the women) appear to work in real estate, and work hard. One finally took a vacation with her family (two-and a half weeks in Europe) and had an epiphany of some sort, saying something vaguely alone the lines of the following:

Europeans spend much less time working, and more time on vacation and with their families. They are not as materialistic (as Americans) and live in smaller houses, and value their family more. I don’t need such a big house, I don’t need so much stuff.

You know, this babe didn’t need to go to EUROPE to find people living in smaller houses and spending more time with their families. Perhaps she should have wandered out of her gated community. But, of course, she’d rather blame the culture of America for her materialistic greed. Certainly it’s no fault of her OWN, everyone in America is like this, right? But, those Europeans with their smaller houses, and increased family time … THEY are wise.

My husband drolly said this woman didn’t need to go to Europe, she could have just flown over here to Detroit.

Regardless, no matter how “rich” this show is for material, I just can’t stand watching it.

What does everyone think about Chavez’s new power grab in Venezuela?

I’d tell you what I think … but I first I must mention that I’m having a hard time getting the image of Cindy Sheehan hugging that man out of my head. And, I seem to remember her saying something along the lines that she’s rather live in Venezuela under Chavez than in the US under Bush. I could never understand why, if she felt this way, she wouldn’t just move?

Anyway, Chavez put his croonies into the National Assembly, and then those croonies granted him unlimited power for the next 18 months. Anyone have an over/under regarding when he “decrees” that he is ruler for life?

Long live the sovereign people! Long live President Hugo Chavez! Long live socialism!” said National Assembly President Cilia Flores as she proclaimed the “enabling law” approved by a show of hands. “Fatherland, socialism or death! We will prevail!”

Really, I think Cindy would fit right-in with these people.

The law gives Chavez, who is beginning a fresh six-year term, more power than he has ever had in eight years as president, and he plans to use it during the next 18 months to transform broad areas of public life, from the economy and the oil industry in particular, to “social matters” and the very structure of the state.

No, nothing here to worry about. Because, you know, he’s a socialist. And he’s got big plans:

Chavez, a former paratroop commander re-elected with 63 percent of the vote in December, has said he will decree nationalizations of Venezuela’s largest telecommunications company and the electricity sector, slap new taxes on the rich, and impose greater state control over the oil and natural gas industries.

The law also allows Chavez to dictate unspecified measures to transform state institutions; reform banking, tax, insurance and financial regulations; decide on security and defense matters such as gun regulations and military organization; and “adapt” legislation to ensure “the equal distribution of wealth” as part of a new “social and economic model

Chavez plans to reorganize regional territories and carry out reforms aimed at bringing “power to the people” through thousands of newly formed Communal Councils designed to give Venezuelans a say on spending an increasing flow of state money on projects in their neighborhoods, from public housing to potholes.

It’s really interesting how that in order to bring “power to the people”, you have to first consolidate ALL the power into the hands of one person. You know, like Castro did. And Stalin. And Hitler.

Yet, this concerns no one but right-winged nuts like myself.