Alert! Alert! Catastrophic Global Cooling!

I have never thought that global warming was all that much of a catastrophe in progress. The likelihood of continued warming was slim to none in my opinion for what it’s worth which isn’t much. As it turns out the latest news on the Earth’s fever is encouraging if you had been fearful of global warming. In the past year alone, it is estimated, an abrupt drop in temperature has nearly reversed 100 years of warming. That is significant! Here is but one of 4 charts that I have seen in the past week or so:

UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature anomaly (HadCRUT) Dr. Phil Jones:

 If you think that a drop like this is going to stop as abruptly as it started, you belong in the stock market. All you have to do is look at the Sun to see that it has taken a bit of a snooze. This site gives you all the information you need to see what is happening with the sun. Sunspot numbers have been in the 150 range over the past few years until recently, when it began to go low. What this means is we are in a solar minimum. Solar cycle 23, which gave us the warming of the 90’s, is winding down but is not over. The first reverse polarity high latitude sunspot that would be indicative of solar cycle 24, occurred Jan. 4th 2008. But that is not a beginning. That probably won’t happen until the summer. And it may not happen until next summer in 2009. In either case, we are due for some chilly weather. Much colder than now. The only question I have is how cold and for how long. So, what are the consequences?

The most obvious problem the world will face is that it will be cold. Duh? Sorry about that, but cold is the most significant issue involved. Heat waves may kill some of the weaker of us but extreme cold can kill the strongest as well. Cold will require more fuel to heat our homes and other buildings. We barely have enough now and there is a reluctance to find more, at least in the USA. I am mainly talking about oil, but the same goes for nuclear energy, natural gas and coal. Drilling off shore may be possible but if there is too much ice in Alaska, ANWR may soon be inaccessible. The world needs a reliable source of cheap energy and it needs it now. CO2 will not be a consideration. Any warming from fossil fuel burning will be a benefit. It is incumbent on the world’s governments to make immediate plans to harvest all the energy supplies available. But will that be enough?

A primary result of global warming was supposed to be increased storm intensity. From what I have read that was never the case. Unfortunately, it is true for a cooler world. Storm intensity should increase dramatically. Fortunately we are better prepared to accommodate such intense weather.

 As for the other GW result, increasing sea level, that should reverse in that the melting glaciers won’t be melting anytime soon. There is , however, a related consequence to that effect. There is likely to be a shortage of water due to extensive ice formation. Desertification will begin in those same places that were deserts during the last ice age. There may actually be more land available for human habitation except for those areas that are taken by glacial activity.

As far as food is concerned, that will be a huge problem Growing seasons will be shortened in most parts of the planet. Many areas currently being farmed may be entirely unsuitable. And that nasty CO2, it will get sucked up by the oceans. There will be little available for plant food that is responsible for our current lush vegetation.  To enhance our food supply we may have to build huge expanses of greenhouses and supply them with CO2. Aquaculture may become more common if we can solve the mercury pollution problem that is not being helped by the use of Compact fluorescent light bulbs that contain 5 mgs per bulb. Now there is an environmental disaster just waiting. Food production will be a major problem.

Is this alarmist? You bet. Is it more likely than the fanciful tales of the AGW crowd? You bet. Can we do anything about it. You bet. You say”Have you gone crazy Kirt?” No, not yet. We can adapt to the changes. We can use our ingenuity. We can make use of our resources. We can build an infrastructure that is energy efficient. Not to stop CO2. Forget that! We need to make the most efficient use of what we have to last for the 20, 50, 100, or even 100,000 years before the Sun decides to warm our planet.

Maybe we can sprinkle carbon pixie dust on the ice caps to melt them. But the first thing we have to do is stop spending money on global warming. And I mean right now!!!!!

To Understand AGW You Have to Follow the Money

Everybody knows about Al Gore and his alarmist claims concerning the effects of man-made global warming but what is in it for him? He says it is a moral issue. Perhaps. He says the Earth has a fever. Very slight and dropping. He says he buys carbon offsets to pay for his indulgences. His huge house, swimming pool and of course his jet. Oh really! There is no question here. He does not buy these offsets. The Company he founded in the UK with offices in London and Washington D.C. furnishes the offsets to its employees. Generation Investment Management is set up to take advantage of green technology and the need for companies to go green. They buy carbon credits. Gore stands to make millions on the heels of ever stricter CO2 regulation. He is also an unpaid climate advisor for the UK. Unpaid? In theory he is not being paid but he is supposed to influence the US to adopt tighter CO2 regulation. This in turn will help GIM make money from which he will benefit.

What is strange about this arrangement is that as an agent of a foreign power, Al is supposed to register with the US government and present a current registration to Congress before testifying. From what I am privy to, he did no such thing. Also, it is accepted practice to divulge any vested interest in the outcome of what you are testifying about. I heard his entire testimony and I never heard him mention anything about his income being dependent on tighter CO2 restrictions. The first point concerning being an agent of a foreign power is punishable by 5 years in jail and $10,000 fine. By the way, the law is clear in that it matters not whether the agent is paid or not and the law specifically points out this kind of relationship. It does not make exceptions for ex next presidents.

 Perhaps you have heard all this before but there is more. Surrounding GIM is a network of organizations in which Mr. Gore is a significant player. He claims that he is forfeiting his salary. There is no mention of any bonuses or other compensation which could easily be multiples of any salary.

GIM has a close relationship with Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) that actually sells carbon credits while GIM buys them from CCX. Maurice Strong is the force behind CCX and a very close friend of Al Gore. Gore recommended Strong for a position with the world bank at one time. But who is Maurice Strong? He is a Canadian who some say left school after the 11th grade. From this beginning he turned himself into a multi-billionaire. Not bad for a dropout! He was employed by an oil company for a while. He then worked his way up through the UN to become an advisor to Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary General. Prior to that he was on the Commission for Global Governance. He supposedly saw the connection between carbon cap and trade and a one world Global Governance. So do I. 

 From The National Center for Public Policy Research comes this: “Strong’s most significant role at the U.N. to-date has been his position as Secretary General of the 1992 U.N. Conference on the Environment and Development, the Rio Earth Summit. In the opening session of the Rio Earth Summit, Strong commented: “The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security. Interestingly, Strong had initially been blocked from participating in the conference by the U.S. Department of State. When Strong learned of this, however, he persuaded then-President George Bush to overrule the State Department.”

This, I believe, is the true motivation behind AGW activities. He expects the US to give up it’s sovereignty to the UN in favor of environmental security for the world.

In June 2006 the World Bank, Strong’s former employer, joined CCX. World Bank’s Carbon Finance Unit works with European countries to set up funds to buy carbon credits for use in developing countries. They are traded on the European Climate Exchange, half of which is owned by CCX which is of course closely related to GIM. It should come as no surprise to you that Strong is the architect of the Kyoto treaty. They call him “Mr. Environment”. Can we see the pattern developing here yet?

From Private Equity Week we get: “One of GIM’s associated firms is Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers Notable members of the firm include partners John Doerr and Brook Byers, as well as high-profile individuals such as Sun Microsystems co-founder Bill Joy (who joined as partner in January 2005), former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell (who joined in July 2005 in the newly-created position of “strategic limited partner”), and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, who joined as partner in November 2007 as part of a collaboration between KPCB and Gore’s firm Generation Investment Management to promote green technology, business and policy solutions.^“ I find it interesting that Colin Powell is associated with Al Gore. I would never have guessed that one.

If you find this confusing and complicated, it is, and is intended to be that way. Mr. Gore would never be able to sell his alarmist program to the world if everyone knew the background behind his real intentions. Maurice Strong, for his part, is most comfortable wheeling and dealing in the background as he is prone to do. I personally believe that knowing what is behind the key individuals pushing any program says a lot about what they are pushing. What these facts say is that two individuals have taken a major role in the AGW hype, working together, and have strategically positioned themselves to clean up with no one being the wiser.

I’ll cover more on this as I firm up some really interesting facts.

Kirt Griffin

References: http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1185475433.pdf http://www.sovereignty.net/p/sd/strong.html http://www.taxtyranny.ca/images/HTML/Maurice-Strong/article1.html 

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/22C11.txt

So you want to believe in AGW

AGW for the purpose of this blog means Alarmist Global Warmers

So you want to be a believer that man is responsible for the current warming of our planet? I have here, everything that you need to be a convert. The primary prerequisite is unquestioned faith in the organizations and individuals that are the prophets of doom. Primary among these is the UN. This is the group that brought you the oil for food scandal which lined the pockets of UN cronies instead of supplying food and supplies to oppressed children and then covered it up. This is the group that made Libya the chair of the human rights committee. This is the group that issued 14 resolutions against Iraq but after more than 12 years of non-compliance refused to take any action. This is the group that exaggerated the aids epidemic to emphasize the need. But despite all this, you need to accept that this time they are honestly saving the world, not to promote their power but for purely humanitarian interests. Sounds fair so let’s move on.  

Second, it would be helpful to accept that Al Gore, who had a little difficulty with science classes and couldn’t make the grade in seminary school ( Some say, to be fair,  he had a one year scholarship to the school and managed to get through it.) has suddenly been transformed into the world’s science guru (with experience in preaching) with the help of a NASA scientist of course. A real scientist, James Hansen, that just happened to find climate alarmism profitable, won a $250,000 prize from the Heinz Foundation and also received a $720,000 grant from the Open Society Institute funded by the left wing radical George Soros. With that kind of payoff  I too could believe. There was a little confusion over hot years but what is 64 years between friends. But you must believe. Al Gore’s mentor, a scientist named Revelle hired a Scientist name Keeling who investigated CO2 induced global warming. Arrhenius’ and Callendar’s speculations that anthropogenic CO2 could cause global warming, became fact when Keeling accepted them without further testing other than CO2 was increasing. These were key prophets of the newly formed religion. Blessed be the prophets.

It is important to distinguish between the motives of big corporations in their funding of research. If you are an oil company your motives must be evil (Unless of couse you are BP which has a cooperative agreement with GE) . If you are GE, for example, your motives for getting government incentives to subsidize the purchase of your photo cells( a solar system that cost $75,000 could be had after incentives for about $20,000) and windmills, which would otherwise not be viable alternatives, are the result of the highest regard for the Earth and mankind. Not to mention profits. Discrediting scientists for working for an organization that once accepted donations from someone who was related to someone who worked in an oil refinery who was paid by “Big Oil”, is considered great sport by true believers. Fun and games. I hope you are hanging in there. Then there is the Hockey Stick reconstruction of temperature history. Never mind that the graph wiped out several well known historic climate events that were published in previous assessment reports both cold as well as warm. And of course, what is the probability that one could conceive of a mathematical scheme that generated hockey sticks from trendless data. Sure, it could happen to anyone. It happens every day. And purely by accident. I’ve done a lot of graphical representations and I’ve never been so lucky but some people have it all. I couldn’t help but notice when Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who debunked the hockey stick (Their complaints were later confirmed by 2 independent studies), pointed out the issues quite clearly to the chart’s authors The authors very vehemently cried foul to something else! As far as I know the questions were never entirely answered and no acknowledgement was ever made of the error. A religous belief is sometimes difficult to accept but if you expect to be a believer….

Like many religions, it sometimes gets a little tougher to find truth and the ultimte wisdom. Now you must have the biggest leap of faith. You must accept what seems counter intuitive in that you must absolutely, without equivication, believe that the Sun has a minimal warming effect on the planet. This is not so hard to believe when you have made it this far. There it is on the NASA web site. The sun is a one of the smallest contributors to warming and CO2 somehow actually generates heat out of very thin air. Apparently, the idea of the sun being the source of light and heat must be wrong. It is actually CO2 molecules bumping into each other that causes the heating.  I guess? What else could it be. But salvation awaits. Now is not the time to let your belief be shaken.

Then there is that nutty stuff about solar intertial motion. We all know the Sun is the center of the Solar System and how could it be possible that the Sun would find itself at some point away from the “geographical” center.  Magnetic fields of the Sun and it’s polarity vary. All 4 poles.  This affects cosmic rays that allow ice to form into clouds that reflect solar radiation resulting in cooling. But hey, the IPCC only recognizes irradiance. Hmmm? So does the Goddard Institute. And while we are at it, I believe the National Acadamy of Sciences does also. Is there any connection going on here. There are rumors but these thing would, of course, be held close to the vest. You must resist getting into this idea too much. It is too confusing. It is so much easier to blame CO2 and man. . Besides the Gurus of the religion have spoken.

If you are OK with everything so far, congratulations, you are a believer. Pass the KoolAid, Jim. And I don’t mean Jim Jones.

Is it the CO2 or is it the Sun?

There are many aspects of the current scare that can be challenged on the basis of many levels and fronts but I have settled on, at least temporarily, the effects related to our Sun as being the most likely prime driver of climate change. If the sun doesn’t supply heat, what does?

The chart below despells the myth that CO2 is causing anything. I picked this off the web from someone’s paper and I am afraid I have been unable to determine the source. If anyone knows the origin of this chart, please make a comment. It shows a poor correlation to CO2 atmospheric levels and an excellent inverse correlation to sunspot cycle length. Yes I know the oft mentioned old saw “Correlation is not causation” but let me ask one of the dumbest questions I can imagine. If you were to select from a list of potential causes for a given result, would you pick those with the best correlation to investigate further or would you look at those with poor correlation? I guess that is why so many have chosen to go with CO2.

If a picture is worth a thousand words then this is about a 1300 word entry. I’ll get into this more later. Enough said.

Some Problems with the AGW Claims

As we have noted, there have been other claims of man causing climate change. There was media hype in 1895 of an upcoming ice age. Then came warming, then cooling again and finally warming again. Four times! And each time we look at it like it was the first time. Climate changes all the time.

One of the signatures of a Green House Gas induced warming, according to the IPCC,  is that the upper troposphere would warm at 2 to 3 times the rate of warming of the surface. Not that the temperature would be higher. Just the rate of increase. In the temperature record, the upper troposphere has been almost flat and this is supposed to be the signature effect! This in itself should be enough to kill the entire idea but apparently it is not.

The AGW hype comes across as more of a religion than science. Al says it is a moral issue. Most, but not all, AGW advocates say there should be no debate. I read several scientific facts per week that support the sceptic or rationalist’s position. New information is being discovered daily. The science should never be settled.

A key point of the AGW  claims is that there is nothing else that could cause it and the warming is happening. For instance, the claim is that the sun’s variation in irradiance is not sufficient to account for the changes being observed. Really? What they miss here are the indirect effects of the solar magnetic field, erratic solar orbits, length of solar cycles, polarity changes in the sun’s magnetic fields, the link between the Earth’s magnetic field and that of the Sun, the variation in length of day (not hours of light, the 24hr+ total) and the overall effect on galactic cosmic rays (GCR) that affect cloud formation. Add all these up and you have some powerful effects. More than enough to account for the modest warming being measured. One of my favorite quotes is by Oliver Manuel, “Compared to cosmic rays, CO2 has about as much effect on climate as the weight of a flea on an elephant.” Says it all. Here is a paper on solar effects/orbits:

 http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen2/Rhodes.html

Speaking of being measured, we are told the Earth is warming. But is it? We are told that the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect is well accounted and adjusted for. There are many that have significant problems with the allowance the IPCC applies to this. There are many more sites in the US than in any other portion of the globe. There are parts of the globe where there are no temperature stations. Those temperatures are determined from adjacent squares in the grid. Many stations are inappropriately placed and poorly maintained. The net effect of most of these issues is an uncorrected increase in temperature. Since the measured global temperature has been pretty flat since 1998, despite a 4% increase in CO2 concentration, maybe the Earth is actually cooling. In my humble opinion, that is a very likely possibility.

Throw in that aerosols, once thought to offset the warming, may actually be augmenting the warming. That land use is considered a negative effect by the IPCC, yet the UHI effect is a part of that and it is definitely a positive forcing. Also the IPCC has discarded the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age that appeared in previous Assessment reports. I believe they became an Inconvenient Truth. To support their claim of warming they start most of their temperature charts at 1860 which just happens to be the minimum of the Little Ice Age. Isn’t that convenient. Move the starting point back a few hundred years and we might be wondering when we will get back to the warm times.

These problems bring into question the claims of AGW and we should be cautious in spending $Billions to solve what is probably natural variation. Kyoto, if followed to the letter, would destroy economies and have a negligible effect on the alleged warming. Wouldn’t we be better off spending the money on making inexpensive, plentiful energy available to the masses?

Cheers,

Kirtland Griffin

How Do You Know What You Know?

So you think that the world will end in a burning ball of fire, polar bears will drown, coral reefs will die, flamingos will turn green, seas will rise 20 feet, forest and brush fires will be rampant and a host of other problems will befall the Earth beacause man has added about .000040 of the atmosphere of CO2 which you breathe out every day. Did you pick out the most unlikely impact of man made CO2 off this list? You think it is the flamingo part don’t you. Actually, all the items on the list are equally improbable and I will demonstrate that for you in a, hopefully, logical process. I will point out why these things can’t happen, why you have been subjected to this hoax (yes HOAX) and why you need to do something about it.  Do not believe anything you read on this blog until you independently verify it for yourself as I have. I will give you points to focus your search as well as peer reviewed scientific literature that will support these points.Hang on, it’s going to be a wild ride!Cheers,Kirtland Griffin

How did CO2 Become the Villian?

I am revising the former first two paragraphs based  on information that there were some factual errors. I believe the following should clarify the issues.

A scientist named Arrhenius first proposed that CO2 from human activities might cause global warming in 1895 or there abouts. There was also a media hype about Geologists calling for a coming Ice Age reported in the NY Times in that same year. It didn’t happen.

Margaret Thatcher in the 1970’s took up the idea of CO2 induced global warming. Her motives have been the subject of much speculation by some but those directly involved have indicated that it may have been used to promote the development of nuclear power plants to provide UK electrical power although several coal mines ended up being closed. That was a direct result of opposition in Thatcher’s party to the National Union of Mineworkers and that lead to the systematic destruction of the coal industry in the UK. Other allegations have asserted that the cap and trade system, that was part of the AGW scare, was intended to level the economic global playing field. (The USA) The intent, although now taken on by the UN and others, is the same but it is likely to reduce the standard of living of most of the developed world. The following reference, written by a contemporary from this time, may explain better than any interpretation I may write.

http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm 

A fellow named Revelle hired a fellow named Keeling, both of whom were scientists, to investigate the effects of CO2 on climate. Two previous scientists, Arrhenius and Callander had made some speculations about this and Keeling adopted them, with no question, as fact. He reported this to Revelle who just happened to have the ear of a budding politician, Albert Gore. Revelle was Gore’s hero and Gore’s ticket to power, wealth and fame.

Then along comes Maurice Strong. Strong was a big oil guy. He was later involved in the UN developing a Global Governance plan among other things. He was very ambitious and ended up advising Kofi Annan, UN Sectrtary General. Strong looks to one day be the UN’s leader. For a complete rundown on Strong check out this site: http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.htmlAs one might guess, Strong ended up in league with none other than Albert Gore. Gore and Strong run the only two carbon trading companies certified in the USA. Guess who is taking in the cash on the global warming bandwagon? Is it any wonder that Al and Maurice are so hot on warming?There are a number of other paths here like the Molten Metal Company. Al Gore gave a presentation to celebrate their achievements in recycling metals. What they did was take a lot of money in government grants and accomplished nothing. See this site for a detailed explanation of the Gorey/Strong details: http://www.afn.org/~govern/strong.html

If this is getting a bit fishy, there’s more. Did you know that the IPCC, International Panel on Climate Change, is not charged with determining whether or not man is responsible for Global Warming? They aren’t! What they are charged with is determining the effect man is having on Global Warming. Not whether or not there is any relationship. How curious! But aren’t all the scientists in the world in a consensus agreement on the effect man is having. No, not hardly! Those 2500 scientists actually dwindles down to a handful of, literally, scientists that wrote the IPCC Summary for Policy Makers WG1 4th Assessment.  A group of reviewers and other scientists recently took the science documentation behind the 4th Assessment Report by the IPCC and came out with a different interpretation. For example, The IPCC Summary for Policy Makers WG1 says they are 90% certain that most of the warming is the result of man. The Independent Summary for Policy Makers says there is no conclusive evidence that man is responsible for the recent warming. And the two groups got that conclusion from the same data. But fear not. Before the UN publishes the data for the public to read, anything in the science will be cleansed  from the report that conflicts with the SPM that was written mostly by government officials. The ISPM is available here. It is enlightening:

http://www.fraserinstitute.org/Commerce.Web/product_files/Independent%20Summary5.pdf There is lots more to this but suffice it to say that if you think everything you see on the television is clean and the whole truth, think again. I will get to some of the science in my next post.