Sunday, February 28, 2010

"Climate Change and Open Science," Wall Street Journal

"Skeptics don't doubt science—they doubt unscientific claims cloaked in the authority of science. The scientific method is a foundation of our information age, with its approach of a clearly stated hypothesis tested through a transparent process with open data, subject to review."

The Wall Street Journal's "Climate Change and Open Science" by L. Gordon Crovitz is an excellent article explaining the point of view of the scientific global warming skeptic.

Too often, climate alarmists and global warming enthusiasts try to marginalize climate skeptics by calling us "denialists," "deniers" and other terms less acceptable in polite company. We are excoriated as unpatriotic, anti-American and damned by association with Exxon, right-wing think tanks and pro-energy media campaigns. As usual, the science of global warming skepticism is lost in the rhetoric.

Climate change skepticism is about the free and open access to data and methodology, the hallmark of all scientific endeavor. Science embraces contradictory evidence as a critical part of evaluating and interpreting data and observation. Were it not for skeptical scientists, we would still view the Universe as revolving around the flat Earth, a demon haunted world where dragons peer over the rim.

As Carl Sagan taught us, science is a candle in the darkness. Let's not snuff it out in the heat of political expediency.

Your Mother Called!


The Pacific Plate is restless these days. We watch and wait from our perch near the cusp, on which we cling precariously, temporarily welded as we are to the North American Plate. Japan, Indonesia, Chile... the Ring of Fire, rumblings of a planet on the move.

They're still bouncing around in Chile, with 6.1 magnitude after shocks. The 8.8 yesterday sent waves throughout the Western Bath Tub, sloshing ashore even here on Monterey Bay. Here's the obligatory video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUyuXPVcw58

Not to worry, this is just Mother Nature's way of reminding us who's in charge.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Making a Killing in Public Relations


Marja Offensive Aimed to Shape US Opinion on War

The Pentagon is now using the deaths of innocent men, women and children as tools to bolster public opinion of citizens in the United States in support of continuing the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

In an act of brazen cowardice, US military officials targeted the city of Marja in Helmland, Afghanistan, knowing that the city was of little strategic importance, that it could easily be "subdued" (read: destroyed), in order to demonstrate the power of the new "surge" to win the war against the people of Afghanistan.

The US military has, once again, become an independent entity, dictating policy to the United States government and its civilian leaders, seeking to lobby the American people to support it's useless and purposeless invasion and occupation of Afghhanistan. The deaths of civilians have been cynically deployed against the people of the United States in a carefully controlled and purposefully designed propaganda program, aimed at building support for increased military presence and deadly activities in this exceedingly poor and beleaguered country.

It's time to take back control of the US military, to rein in the mad power mongers who seek total control over all aspects of US foreign policy. As Kennedy threatened to break the CIA into a thousand pieces, the Pentagon must be broken of its aspirations to unfettered power and returned to civilian control.

The military can never be allowed to hold power over the President, Congress or the people of the United States, nor must the Pentagon be allowed to conduct operations outside of government oversight.

The purpose of the US military is to kill people and destroy their infrastructure. This great power must always be held in close check, watched jealously, released only reluctantly and under a strong, short leash. The US military is far too close to wielding power over the US government and the people of the United States.

It's time for a clean sweep down, fore and aft.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

How to Help Save Arana Gulch


Plan to attend the March 10, 2010 California Coastal Commission meeting in the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Chambers, 5th Floor, 701 Ocean Street in Santa Cruz. Check the Hearing Agenda for specifics on time of the Hearing and other events.

Testimony at the hearing should include the following critical points:





  1. The proposed Broadway-Brommer Bike project (now called an "interpretive trail") will cause "significant and unavoidable impact" to habitat of the endangered and threatened Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia).

  2. The B-B Bike project ("interpretive trail") will violate an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) as defined in the CA Coastal Act (Policy 30240). The City of Santa Cruz has failed to demonstrate that this proposed project is "resource-dependent," as specified by the Act.

  3. The City of Santa Cruz has never substantiated its claim that money for management of tarplant habitat will come from construction funding for the Broadway-Brommer Bike project. The City has not identified any dedicated funding mechanism to mitigate "significant and unavoidable" damage to Santa Cruz tarplant habitat.

  4. Urge that the CCC only approve the Arana Gulch Master Plan contingent on the removal of the Broadway-Brommer Bicycle Path Connection project (as found in six Public Use objectives on page 30 of the Draft Master Plan, as well as portions of Sec. 3.4).

  5. Finally, ask that the CCC instruct the City to consider alternatives outside of Arana Gulch for any proposed east-west bicycle transportation project.


If you cannot attend the hearing, please send your letter covering the above critical points, BY MARCH 1, 2010, to:

Dan Carl, District Director
California Coastal Commission
725 Front Street, Suite 300
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Please share this information with others and encourage them to write letters and attend the hearing. All City, County and State residents can participate to Save Arana Gulch!

Friends of Arana Gulch web site: http://members.cruzio.com/~arana

Thursday, February 18, 2010

CLIMATE PATRIOTS UNITE!


The New York Times weighs in with this video: Of National Security and Climate Change







“Climate change affects the sons and daughters who are currently stepping up to wear the uniform of our country,” says former Senator John Warner, a Virginia Republicanwith the Pew Environment Group. “They may be called upon to perform missions which are a consequence of an erratic climate change or shortage of energy or a variety of both.”

Saturday, February 13, 2010

World may not be warming, say scientists


According to this article:it's probably cooling!

Here it is in a nutshell: energy from the sun enters the Earth's atmosphere as infra-red radiation. This long wave radiation is reflected from the earth's surface back out into space. Some of that radiation is absorbed by "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere and converted to heat.

Thus the earth is a cozy warm place for life, rather than a frigid ice box.

The idea behind global warming is that humans are producing CO2 that increases the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, thus heating the atmosphere and the planet. This implies that less long wave radiation should be escaping the Earth into space.



Hey, why don't we test this hypothesis? Let's measure it and see what's really happening!

As it turns out, measurements comparing 1970, 1997 and 2006 have been made, and guess what?

There is more outbound longwave radiation leaving the earth's atmosphere now than there was in 1970. More radiation leaving the earth means ... oh dear ... the earth is cooling.

So what about the global average surface temperature?

Urban heat island effect.

The cat's out of the bag. Don't throw those woolies out just yet.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/24874.pdf

The Commodification of Science

In an article in the Washington Times, Leonard Evans notes that the scientific community has abandoned the practice of science in favor of lobbying and seeking political favor in the name of science.

The "scientific community" in the article is identified as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but this could also apply to such regulatory agencies as the International Whaling Commission, large international environmental groups such as the World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace and the Sierra Club. These organizations have largely abandoned scientific research as a basis for policy decisions and statements and instead rely on anecdotal reports, media hyperbole and celebrity advocacy, aka, the Al Gore Effect.

Rather than advancing science, the activities of these organizations derail the scientific process as they deligitimate the results of scientific investigation. Recent revelations concerning errors in climate change research through the IPCC and the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit have cast doubt not only on the results of this research, but on the methods employed by the IPCC and scientists in coming to the conclusion of anthropogenic climate change and its implications. The negative effects on public perception of the research and science itself is readily apparent.

But it's not only public perception that comes into play. Scientists themselves are affected by such practices.


"Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis." Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

This has the effect of driving research in a particular ideological direction toward preconceived conclusions. Whether the subject is climate change, Peak Oil, space exploration or cosmology, the commodification of science moves research from theory based to political and economically based.

The danger of this approach is especially apparent in environmental research. If the ideology of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is the incentive for climate change research, what happens when AGW is proven wrong? And what has been the opportunity cost forgone by applying the bulk of our resources toward an ideologically driven conclusion? Where are the resources for pollution control, critical habitat preservation, biodiversity protection?

Perhaps more importantly, what does the corporate approach to climate change research tell us about those driving the agenda? Are they interested in the free and open exchange of data, methodology and results? Do they have pecuniary economic interests at heart? Do they have interests in perpetuating the economic and political status quo?

Look at the history of climate change and compare it chronologically with political and economic developments since the "Oil Crisis" of the 1970s.

Maybe someone took Carter's "Moral Equivalent of War" speach seriously!

Friday, February 05, 2010

Global Warming and Grasping at Socialist Straws

Anthropogenic Global Warming is being used by the Left as a hammer to bash capitalism in the name of Climate Justice. This is a grave mistake. The assumption is that rich countries have created Global Warming at the expense of poor countries, and, therefore, rich countries should stop Global Warming and recompense the poor countries suffering from its effects.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Climate Change is a natural phenomenon that has occurred since there was atmosphere on the Earth.

Is the average surface temperature increasing? Yes, as it has increased for the past 15,000 years since the beginning of the present interglacial.

How has that warming occurred in the past in the absence of human industrial activity?

Is the increase in average surface temperature of the past 240 years unusual in climatological history? No, not at all.

Most importantly, who benefits from the widespread impression that Global Warming is a threat to humans and human civilization? The Pentagon, the military-industrial complex, capitalists everywhere. "Green" technology is the new glowing hope of capitalism, built on a sham, supported by the IPCC whose head is deeply invested in green technology and carbon trading schemes.

The scientific community faces declines in funding due to the current recession. Grant funds are drying up. Departmental budgets are down. Administrators are demanding that researchers find new sources of grant funds. Who is offering grant funding? Those very same sources seeking to bolster the image of global warming. Researchers are forced to publish in professional journals feeling the pinch of recession. Pressure is brought to bear to encourage "positive" articles on global warming. Researchers must choose between publishing articles acceptable to professional journals or step outside the mainstream "consensus" cohort.

Yet, the science is still there, when it is not withheld from public examination, as is the case with the CRU data. Independent scientists, emeritus faculty and others whose livelihoods do not depend on kow-towing to the capitalist agenda, publish dissenting articles. Meanwhile, global capitalists lap dogs, such as the IPCC, cite such paragons of scientific acumen as Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund (with its capitalist partner Allianz) and dodgy data sources that, on close examination, cannot be verified.

Before we adopt Global Warming as the Socialist Big Stick, we would do well to examine all the research, and listen to the interpretations of all the scientists. Socialism may end up, once again, swinging in the chill winds of history.