Contemplations of a United States Constitution loving, big-government hating right-wing extremist whacko-bird - Contemplations of a United States Constitution loving, big-government hating right-wing extremist whacko-bird

AGW meets its Waterloo?

It looks like Global Warming er … Climate Change errr … Global Climate Disruption, or whatever euphemism is currently being used by the watermelons to push taking control of all fossil-fueled energy use, is falling apart.

From today’s UK Guardian (yes, that green rag!):

The European parliament on Tuesday rejected a key report that would have toughened the EU stance on greenhouse gas emissions, after political wrangling that wrecked hopes of a compromise.

A rebellion by the UK’s Tory MEPs helped to swing the vote against a tougher target on how much carbon emissions should be cut by 2020, but was not decisive, according to insiders.

Oh let not your heart be troubled, ye true believer:

The vote does not put an end to green campaigners’ hopes of a more ambitious emissions reduction target – a higher cut of 30% by 2020 on 1990 levels rather than 20% – as the issue will continue to be debated, but is a setback.

The political wrangling involved a series of amendments, proposed by Conservative groupings of MEPs, that would have weakened the resulting resolution to an extent that was not acceptable to the Green MEP grouping.

Greens in the parliament will now try to push for the tougher target in future votes, and through the involvement of member states and the European commission.

If the EU can no longer get the support to pass their socialist agenda, the AGW movement is dead! Unfortunately, the green zombies just don’t know it yet. So you’ll see them in the future skipping merrily along, singing “??at the next meeting, ?we’ll finally get it all done and there will ? finally ? be rainbows ?everywhere? again!??”

Andy Atkins, executive director of Friends of the Earth, said: “As well as snubbing David Cameron, Tory MEPs are defying the latest scientific advice and playing fast and loose with our future. Preventing the necessary action on climate change also goes against EU economic interests – scores of Europe‘s leading companies back a 30% cut in emissions because it will create new jobs and business opportunities.

“David Cameron came to power with an intelligent approach to tackling climate change, but he must act fast to prevent his promise to lead the greenest government ever from unravelling. The prime minister must redouble his efforts to show his entire party the enormous benefits of building a cleaner, safer future,” he added.

You guys might want to come up with some new music!

Update 20110706 13:30: I tried to get cute and insert musical notes in my penultimate paragraph where you now see question marks in strange places, but alas, #fail!

More Evidence for Global Warming

I know that you’ve all been holding off the attacks from them dirty “deniers” following the exploitation of the stolen emails and what is being nastily called “Climategate” … Well below is a video you can refer folks to proving that the climate is warming.

See!!! Proof!!!


Agreement in Copenhagen … NOT!

Obama spoke today at the Climate Change Circle Jerk Conference in Copenhagen and in an unusual bit of specifics, committed us to the following:

First, all major economies must put forward decisive national actions that will reduce their emissions, and begin to turn the corner on climate change.  I’m pleased that many of us have already done so.  Almost all the major economies have put forward legitimate targets, significant targets, ambitious targets. And I’m confident that America will fulfill the commitments that we have made:  cutting our emissions in the range of 17 percent by 2020, and by more than 80 percent by 2050 in line with final legislation.

Do you have any idea what would be required to cut CO2 emissions in the US by 17 percent in the next 10 years? Further, where is the money going to come from to pay for the measures that countries would have to put in place? With the US debt at its current $1.5 to $1.7 trillion, our economy will not withstand the kind of taxation that would be needed to support such expenditures. Cutting our emissions by 80 percent would require that our emissions equal the US emissions at the beginning of the 20th century … when we had a population less than 100 million. Can you say stone-age?

However, Obama left a back door for himself:

Second, we must have a mechanism to review whether we are keeping our commitments, and exchange this information in a transparent manner.  These measures need not be intrusive, or infringe upon sovereignty.  They must, however, ensure that an accord is credible, and that we’re living up to our obligations.  Without such accountability, any agreement would be empty words on a page.

I don’t know how you have an international agreement where we all are not sharing information and ensuring that we are meeting our commitments.  That doesn’t make sense.  It would be a hollow victory.

China will never agree to the reduction verification regime envisioned by the other industrialized countries and Obama knew this was a likely outcome:

Obama, in his highly anticipated speech, declared: “The time for talk is over.” He acknowledged that the leaders were still far from a deal. “At this point, the question is whether we will move forward together, or split apart. Whether we prefer posturing to action.”

But his eight-minute speech offered nothing new or concrete about America’s actions on global warming, and he was as indisposed to be conciliatory as China.

He, like France’s president, Nicolas Sarkozy, also used the speech to take a shot at China for refusing to bow to American and European demands to submit to inspections of its actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions. “I don’t know how you have an international agreement where you don’t share information and ensure we are meeting our commitments,” he said. “That doesn’t make sense. That would be a hollow victory.”

Obama can promise anything as long as he can say “if only China would have … ” However, Obama remains disposed to use the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement a taxing policy based on our “carbon footprint,” but the money spent to reduce carbon output will not match the taxes imposed. However, all of this … Copenhagen, global disaster, human tragedy-in-the-making, and a global agreement (or lack thereof) is not what the whole Climate Change Extravaganza is about.

Let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s say that astronomers in several countries, just say the US, France, Japan, Australia, South Africa, Russia, Iceland and Indonesia among others all announce the discovery of a five kilometer diameter asteroid that was on a collision course with the earth. All also agree on the estimated date of collision to be three years hence. Let’s also say that this discovery is confirmed by a number of respected amateur astronomers. Now we can be fairly certain that this is settled science. Sure, we’ll get some people who disagree, but their position isn’t based on anything other than, oh, let’s say their religion.

Do you believe that under the above scenario the major countries of the world would be unable to come to agreement to collectively develop a strategy to somehow meet this grave threat? I doubt it. They may have difficulty agreeing on exactly what form the strategy should take … send nuclear weapons to blow the asteroid into small pieces, attempt to attach multiple rocket engines to one side to “push” it on another trajectory, whatever … it doesn’t really matter. Most everyone sees the threat and knows something needs to be done, otherwise some or all of us will not survive.

So why wasn’t an agreement reached in Copenhagen to do something about Global Climate Change? Why couldn’t the developed countries reach an agreement on what everyone will do to reduce the “cause” of the so-called “climate disaster?”

First, there isn’t one single overriding reason for attending for all the countries that in fact are participating. No one big purpose. Some countries of the developing world are there for no other reason than to see how much they can shake down the first world for. Others are there so that if there is a hand-out, they won’t miss theirs. Some first would countries are attending because their leaders feel guilty for their predecessors’ colonial adventures; they need to give away their citizens’ hard-earned money to anyone with dark skin and a hand extended. Others just want an excuse to increase taxes.

Second, I suspect very few of the conference participants truly believe there is problem needing a solution. They all spout the doctrine of climate change, but if in fact most of them believed it, they would have a much less difficult time developing an agreement to do something about it.

Third, many are there because of the money … vast amounts of money. In addition to the transfer of wealth that many third-world countries would love to be the recipient of, there will be massive amounts of money from a commercial perspective. Questionably effective green technology, shoved down the throats of consumers through regulation by pliable governments, will create many very wealthy people so long as they can buy the right politicians or bureaucrats.

Lastly, the elitist are there for power … more power over the lives of any country stupid enough to buy into this global warming/climate change clap-trap. These generally have a “UN” somewhere on their business cards, or at least wished they did.

In my opinion, Climategate did much more damage to this conference than any of the participants would ever admit. Was it the cause of the failure? Probably not entirely. Lack of a central purpose was probably the primary reason for failure. When the participants all want more than they are willing to give, it’s a recipe for failure.

Climategate will be the end of the Global Warming scam

The story of the recently “hacked” released documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Great Briton is exploding across the internet. Sites such as Climate Audit, Watts Up with That (which I’ve depended on for all things climate), ICECAP, Climate Science: Roger Pielke, Sr. and others have been sounding the warning bell for years on this scam.In this post I’ll discuss some of the background and details of this saga and then discuss what all this means to the average Joe … at least in the USA.

The Main Stream Media, as usual, has for the most part been MIA. Most within that august body (carcass?) long ago drank the koolaide … became Believers … sold out to the liberals … whatever phrase you want to use to characterize the loss of their so-called journalistic ethics.

A couple of MSMers have begun to realize the scam for what it is, most notably George Monbiot, a reporter with The Guardian in the UK. There are a couple of others, though not as well known in the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) reporting sphere. Two major news outlets have always been “deniers” of AGW or at least reported both sides; the Wall Street Journal and Fox News … shock!

More and more evidence is being found within the emails and documents that clearly demonstrate that:

  • the data quality was poor, poorly compiled and poorly managed,
  • computer models on which all the Believers hang their hat were at a minimum not robust and possibly used “tricks” to skew the results,
  • some of the AGW scientists conspired to or actually did delete correspondence and data files that were subject to “freedom of information act” (FOIA) requests from skeptics,
  • data and results were not truly peer-reviewed from an ethical perspective, and
  • there were “respected” scientist actively conspiring to block recognition of other scientist that were skeptical of AGW.

The document that began to open the eyes of real-world programmers is a text file called HARRY_READ_ME.txt … a text file most likely written by an unidentified programmer named Harry over a period from 2006 to 2009. Within the document there are countless passages where he openly notes his frustration with the quality of the data files he is trying to integrate into the model he is charged with developing.

Examples from Harry are;

5. Currently trying to convert .glo files to .grim files so that we can
compare with previous output. However the progam suite headed by
globulk.f90 is not playing nicely – problems with it expecting a defunct
file system (all path widths were 80ch, have been globally changed to 160ch)
and also no guidance on which reference files to choose. It also doesn’t
seem to like files being in any directory other than the current one!!

6. Temporarily abandoned 5., getting closer but there’s always another
problem to be evaded. Instead, will try using rawtogrim.f90 to convert
straight to GRIM. This will include non-land cells but for comparison
purposes that shouldn’t be a big problem… [edit] noo, that’s not gonna
work either, it asks for a ‘template grim filepath’, no idea what it wants
(as usual) and a serach for files with ‘grim’ or ‘template’ in them does
not bear useful fruit. As per usual. Giving up on this approach altogether.


This produces anomoly files even when given a normals-added
database.. doesn’t create the CLIMATOLOGY. However we do have
it, both in the ‘normals’ directory of the user data
directory, and in the dpe1a ‘cru_cl_1.0′ folder! The relevant
file is ‘clim.6190.lan.tmp’. Obviously this is for land


11. Decided to concentrate on Norwich. Tim M uses Norwich
as the example on the website, so we know it’s at (363,286).
Wrote a prog to extract the relevant 1961-1970 series from
the published output, the generated .glo files, and the
published climatology. Prog is norwichtest.for. Prog also
creates anomalies from the published data, and raw data
from the generated .glo data. Then Matlab prog plotnorwich.m
plots the data to allow comparisons.
First result: works perfectly, except that the .glo data is
all zeros. This means I still don’t understand the structure
of the .glo files. Argh!


So.. we don’t have the coefficients files (just .eps plots of something). But
what are all those monthly files? DON’T KNOW, UNDOCUMENTED. Wherever I look,
there are data files, no info about what they are other than their names. And
that’s useless.. take the above example, the filenames in the _mon and _ann
directories are identical, but the contents are not. And the only difference
is that one directory is apparently ‘monthly’ and the other ‘annual’ – yet
both contain monthly files.

The note above ends on line 953 and the file goes on to a total 15,004 lines! Many of the web sites I noted in the opening paragraph have many more examples from of this file with comments on what they mean in layman’s terms. Some of Harry’s last notes of interest are found on lines 14,863 to 14,873:

Well, the merged database is written principally from dbm*, with dbu* chipping in ‘new’ stations.
I guess that new stations should be added to the wmo reference file? They are pan-parameter (well
the MCDW ones are) but I have an eerie feeling that I won’t experience joy when headers are
compared between parameters :/

Wrote metacmp.for. It accepts a list of parameter databases (by default, latest.versions.dat) and
compares headers when WMO codes match. If all WMO matches amongst the databases share common
metadata (lat, lon, alt, name, country) then the successful header is written to a file. If,
however, any one of the WMO matches fails on any metadata – even slightly! – the gaggle of
disjointed headers is written to a second file. I know that leeway should be given, particularly
with lats & lons, but as a first stab I just need to know how bad things are. Well, I got that:

It is astounding that the “results” of a model that is being used by governments around the world to tax their citizens into the stone age appears to be nothing more than a Erector Set construction, cobbled together by a bunch of elite socialists in an attempt to push their view on the citizens of the world.

One element of this unfolding scandal goes beyond scientific misconduct and broaches on illegality, both in the US and Great Briton (and maybe Australia and New Zealand). Several emails reveal some of the main players discussed deleting files that were being requested through FOIA requests.

For example, in file 1074277559.txt, Phil Jones, the head of CRU, writes to Michael Mann, Professor Director of the Earth Science Center at Penn State and creator of the infamous “hockey-stick graph” the following:

This is for YOURS EYES ONLY. Delete after reading – please ! I’m trying to redress the
balance. One reply from Pfister said you should make all available !! Pot calling the
black – Christian doesn’t make his methods available. I replied to the wrong Christian
so you don’t get to see what he said. Probably best. Told Steve separately and to get
advice from a few others as well as Kluwer and legal.
PLEASE DELETE – just for you, not even Ray and Malcolm


What is one to make of such behavior? There are many more similar examples among the thousands of emails “hacked” released.

Moving on, one of the celebrities most identified with AGW and climate change (besides alGore) is Ed Begley Jr. I heard Ed speak at an energy conference in Long Beach California last June, and he has been a a staunch supporter of doing whatever it takes to live “green.” I’ll be the first to admit that he, unlike alGore,  actually walks the walk. I’ve admired Ed for this, even though I’ve disagreed with many of his beliefs. Well, Ed was interviewed by Stuart Varney, standing in for Neil Cavuto on Fox News last Monday.

This interview can be used as a compendium of the arguments put forth by the AGW community. When Stuart asks Ed his view on where these Climategate revelations are going, he responds by saying ‘that “peer review studies” will determine what is the “truth.”‘ Within the thousands of emails released from the CRU servers, the evidence is becoming clear that the peer review process within the AGW community was a sham. The Believers were reviewing each others’ studies in a very incestuous cabal and not releasing the underlining data and methods into the public sphere, where skeptics of their work could see how the AGW Believers’ work was constructed.

Ed then goes ballistic when Stuart says ‘the science isn’t “in” … there are climate scientists that disagree with the “consensus” of AGW’. Ed goes on to say ‘we need to trust science publications such as Nature, National Geographic (a publication I used to love until they became so multi-cultural and liberal that I dropped my subscription) and says “don’t get it from me, don’t get it from Rush Limbaugh,” etc.’

Ed goes over the top when Stuart asks why he (Stuart) should allow the government to “demand” that his house be energy efficient and not allow the use of incandescent light bulbs. FYI … for those of you living in areas where the temperature routinely drops below freezing … compact fluorescent light bulbs (the acceptable alternative to the old standby incandescent) won’t work when the temperature drops below about 35F. Good luck when you expect company at 7:30 PM in January and want to make sure they can see so they don’t fall on the ice  patches on the porch!

Lastly, Ed says that you can only listen to “climate scientists” … not weathermen, physicists or others that don’t have “climate” in their title. So where does that put alGore? James Hansen (the NASA scientist most responsible for pushing the global warming sham on US politicians and citizens)? He ends yelling that we wouldn’t have such clean air in Los Angles were it not got the fight against global warming … as if smog-producing chemicals such as NOx and SO2 are the same type of air pollutant as CO2 … a compound we exhale in every breath and that all that green stuff out there that we call plants and trees require as food to grow!

There are more and more information being posted on line exposing additional details, such as the video below:

So what does all this mean to those of us who go about our day-today lives, not understanding how a tree ring could be related to the temperature here on earth?

I’ve written about alternative energy issues here and in other posts. In many States here in the US (California is, unfortunately, the “leader”) as well as countries in Europe and elsewhere, governments have or will soon mandate utilities install “alternative” or “sustainable” generation technologies (read solar and wind generation). While it is true that the “fuel” used to power these technologies is “free,” the cost to install them is far from free.

Electric energy costs are going to rise by 20 to 50% in order to pay for all of this wonderful “green” energy, and reliability will suffer as these technologies are not reliable in the sense that the wind doesn’t blow everywhere all the time, and the sun is sometime blocked by “unscheduled” clouds and does go down … if I’ve heard correctly … almost every night.

The cost for these technologies is three to five times as expensive as traditional coal or natural gas fired generation. In the US, Federal and some States provide various financial subsidies, up to or over 50% of the total cost to promote these technologies. We have paid for these subsidies through our state and federal taxes and will be soon paying for them when we pay our electric bill.

And for what?

To replace coal or natural gas-fired generation that emits that nasty CO2!  That’s it! Sham models “prove” CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by traditional generation “causes” global warming and we waste our hard-earned paychecks to replace it with less-than-cost effective technology! And there’s more!

We are also being forced to drive small, less safe automobiles so as to rid the world of those evil SUVs and pay for some other citizen’s desire (embarrassment?) to dump their clunker for a “fuel-efficient” car.

We are being told what type of light bulbs we are allowed to use in our homes, being required to purchase thermostats that can be controlled by government-mandated programs and turn off your air conditioning when the government decides. Electric rates in many areas are designed to “punish” you if you use too much!

On of the most intrusive programs being pushed here in the US, in Australia and already in place in parts of Europe and the UK is the Cap and Trade … and Tax and Tax and Tax programs. There purported primary “purpose” is to “cap” the amount of CO2 emitted by businesses and utilities each year, lowering the cap until reaching some magical number that is “sustainable.” In fact, it is nothing more than a new way of collecting more tax from everyone and gaining more control over our lives.

I could go on with many more of the crazy programs being pushed in the name of Global Warming, but I’m getting too angry. So … I’ll give you the chance to let us all you know about government and environmental programs where you live that do nothing more than take away your freedom and hard-earned cash.

Update: This link is to a very well done video that gives lie to the sham referred tp as the “peer-review” process.