Thursday, February 28, 2008

Anthropomorphic Global Warming is Cooling!

I have written much on the topic of Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW) to denounce it as a hoax, at best; as a swindle, more likely; and also as a cover for a nascent eugenics war based on the genocide of African and other Third-World populations, being waged by, or at least with the willing cooperation of, the UN.

Recently much of what I have said on the topic has been verified by current events and also by the scientific community. In particular, that the sun is the primary contributor to our climate, in many ways, not simply by providing all the energy the Earth receives. (Arguably, nuclear energy does not come from the sun but that has never been viewed as a contributor to climate or weather; so for all intents and purposes, I will leave nuclear energy out of the discussion for the sake of clarity and simplification.) To me the fact that Mars and other places in the Solar System are also warming left no doubt as to the sun being the dominant factor in climate and climate changes.

Since the AGW proponents have come forward, none of their predictions have born fruit; that is a sure sign that a theory is in error. It would seem, in fact, that they continually forecast the opposite of what has been happening. (This is above and beyond ice storms following Algore wherever he went to speak about the dangers of Global warming. That was just an amusing side note.) There are some examples of this in the following stories gathered from the internet this February, 2008. Please follow the links to the stories them selves to follow their references…

The following story is pasted (text only) in its entirety from:
Blog: Science
Temperature Monitors Report Wide-scale Global Cooling
Michael Asher (Blog) - February 26, 2008 12:55 PM

World Temperatures according to the Hadley Center for Climate Prediction. Note the steep drop over the last year. Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming.

There was an outrage, albeit a quiet one, from within the scientific community over the UN’s report on Climate Change. Names were used over the objections of the people who’s names were attached to the report; the UN refused to remove other names from the report after those people requested they be removed from it; other names on the report were not the scientists the report intimated they were, but rather just names of UN workers including janitors and maintenance workers. (Honorable enough professions but not experts on climate nevertheless.) Angry scientists focused on the issue.

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has turned into hard data out of that scientific community. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad saw its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.
The story (behind that story) about solar activity driving our climate: (It starts out a bit chilling - pun intended):

Blog: Science
Solar Activity Diminishes; Researchers Predict Another Ice Age
Michael Asher (Blog) - February 9, 2008 11:53 AM
A typical sunspot compared to the size of the earth. Sunspots have all but vanished in recent years.

Henrik Svensmark explains the SKY experiment (Source: Dr. Nir Shaviv)Global Cooling comes back in a big way

Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a "Maunder Minimum," along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age."

Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, says it may be happening again. Overseeing a giant radio telescope he calls a "stethoscope for the sun," Tapping says, if the pattern doesn't change quickly, the earth is in for some very chilly weather.

During the Little Ice Age, global temperatures dropped sharply. New York Harbor froze hard enough to allow people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island, and in Britain, people reported sighting eskimos paddling canoes off the coast. Glaciers in Norway grew up to 100 meters a year, destroying farms and villages.

But will it happen again?

In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov predicted the sun would soon peak, triggering a rapid decline in world temperatures. Only last month, the view was echoed by Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. who advised the world to "stock up on fur coats." Sorokhtin, who calls man's contribution to climate change "a drop in the bucket," predicts the solar minimum to occur by the year 2040, with icy weather lasting till 2100 or beyond.

Observational data seems to support the claims -- or doesn't contradict it, at least. According to data from Britain's Met Office, the earth has cooled very slightly since 1998. The Met Office says global warming "will pick up again shortly." Others aren't so sure.

Researcher Dr. Timothy Patterson, director of the Geoscience Center at Carleton University, shares the concern. Patterson is finding "excellent correlations" between solar fluctuations, a relationship that historically, he says doesn't exist between CO2 and past climate changes. According to Patterson. we shouldn't be surprised by a solar link. "The sun [is] the ultimate source of energy on this planet," he says.

Such research dates back to 1991, when the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study showing that world temperatures over the past several centuries correlated very closely with solar cycles. A 2004 study by the Max Planck Institute found a similar correlation, but concluded the timing was only coincidental, as the solar variance seemed too small to explain temperature changes.

However, researchers at DMI continued to work, eventually discovering what they believe to be the link. The key factor isn't changes in solar output, but rather changes in the sun's magnetosphere A stronger field shields the earth more from cosmic rays, which act as "seeds" for cloud formation. The result is less cloud cover, and a warming planet. When the field weakens, clouds increases, reflecting more light back to space, and the earth cools off.

Recently, lead researcher Henrik Svensmark was able to experimentally verify the link between cosmic rays and cloud formation, in a cloud chamber experiment called "SKY" at the Danish National Space Center. CERN plans a similar experiment this year.

Even NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies -- long the nation's most ardent champion of anthropogenic global warming -- is getting in on the act. Drew Shindell, a researcher at GISS, says there are some "interesting relationships we don't fully understand" between solar activity and climate.

The Sun Also Sets
Posted 2/7/2008
Climate Change: Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus." Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV — the sun.

Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

To many, those data were convincing. Now, Canadian scientists are seeking additional funding for more and better "eyes" with which to observe our sun, which has a bigger impact on Earth's climate than all the tailpipes and smokestacks on our planet combined.

And they're worried about global cooling, not warming.

Kenneth Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, is among those looking at the sun for evidence of an increase in sunspot activity.

Solar activity fluctuates in an 11-year cycle. But so far in this cycle, the sun has been disturbingly quiet. The lack of increased activity could signal the beginning of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event which occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century.

Such an event occurred in the 17th century. The observation of sunspots showed extraordinarily low levels of magnetism on the sun, with little or no 11-year cycle.

This solar hibernation corresponded with a period of bitter cold that began around 1650 and lasted, with intermittent spikes of warming, until 1715. Frigid winters and cold summers during that period led to massive crop failures, famine and death in Northern Europe.

Tapping reports no change in the sun's magnetic field so far this cycle and warns that if the sun remains quiet for another year or two, it may indicate a repeat of that period of drastic cooling of the Earth, bringing massive snowfall and severe weather to the Northern Hemisphere.

Tapping oversees the operation of a 60-year-old radio telescope that he calls a "stethoscope for the sun." But he and his colleagues need better equipment.

In Canada, where radio-telescopic monitoring of the sun has been conducted since the end of World War II, a new instrument, the next-generation solar flux monitor, could measure the sun's emissions more rapidly and accurately.

As we have noted many times, perhaps the biggest impact on the Earth's climate over time has been the sun.

For instance, researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over the last 100 years.

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, says that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales."

Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."

Patterson, sharing Tapping's concern, says: "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth."

"Solar activity has overpowered any effect that CO2 has had before, and it most likely will again," Patterson says. "If we were to have even a medium-sized solar minimum, we could be looking at a lot more bad effects than 'global warming' would have had."

In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov made some waves — and not a few enemies in the global warming "community" — by predicting that the sun would reach a peak of activity about three years from now, to be accompanied by "dramatic changes" in temperatures.

A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion.

"The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.

The study says that "try as we might, we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption and changes in global temperatures."

The study concludes that if you shut down all the world's power plants and factories, "there would not be much effect on temperatures."
But if the sun shuts down, we've got a problem. It is the sun, not the Earth, that's hanging in the balance.

Click here for copyright permissions!
Copyright 2000-2008 Investor's Business Daily, Inc.
[We might want to build a few more coal fired electrical plants, perhaps in Africa?]
The temperature chart used in all the above quoted articles by itself is at: and here:

Note that the past year shows the single sharpest downward spike ever! Never has a .6°C annual temperature change been seen; and this one is negative (cooling), not warming! Note that they are stating that the sun is responsible for it. What has your humble author been telling you all these years about that? You doubt my humility, perhaps; but I doubt the need for humility here so it balances out. Read the last three paragraphs in the above story a couple of times and you might start agreeing with me about that, too.

Here’s how the sun’s influence impacts our climate and an experiment that verifies it: The entire galaxy seems to be involved – talk about influences not intuitively included in much research!

The first question always was, “Is the Earth’s climate going through a long-term change?” Followed by the second question (if the answer to the first one was yes), “Is it caused by the industry of mankind?”

Well, as of this year at least, the answer to the first question seems to be no, there is no long-term global weather/climate change; so there is no second question. That is, there is a new second question, “Should Algore, et al, be tarred and feathered along with the Nobel Committee and ridden off the planet on a rail?” That answer to that one is an unequivocal, “YES! They should be shot into the sun to get them some real warming.”

On a sobering note, monitoring world-wide temperature is very tricky. Having monitoring stations in cities artificially shows warmer temperatures, for example, so if the majority of them are in population centers we’d get false readings – and many are so situated. Therefore this negative spike might actually be worse (or lower) that it shows, just as the warmth recorded in the past couple of decades might be overstated.

What I think should be done is to install a world-wide network of simple weather stations positioned at the intersection of parallels and meridians set 10° latitude/longitude apart, making for 1296 stations linked to a central (or a couple of central) data centers to maintain a continuous global temperature record. Half would be in winter, half in summer, half in day, and half in night, making for a pure global average.

Wind, cloud cover, barometric pressure, and rainfall would complete the averages and provide a great deal of global averages and might be extremely helpful in understanding what drives climate, at least insofar as surface conditions effect it. Still it would be far less than perfect. What would be needed for a complete picture would be if those stations could have a weather balloon tethered, reaching to 100,000 ft with weather stations every thousand feet on the way up. (That’s not at all plausible but would be idyllic.)

The sad facts are that we, as a collective intelligence, have no idea what global averages are, ever, and short of such a system we most likely never will.

Maybe we should send all this to our Congressmen? It might do some good… Who knows? One benefit I’d personally like to see is Algore going back into obscurity, where he belongs. Perhaps he could invent something else new, like rainbows or automobiles…


There is a virtuous fear which is the effect of faith, and a vicious fear which is the product of doubt and distrust. The former leads to hope as relying on God, in whom we believe; The latter inclines to despair, as not relying on God, in whom we do not believe.Persons of the one character fear to lose God; those of the other character fear to find Him.--Pascal

“Democracies are most commonly corrupted by the insolence of demagogues.” —Aristotle

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

Veritas vos Liberabit!

God Bless America, it needs it!


Friday, February 08, 2008

Liberal V Liberal - For the Future

In the nightmare scenario of a choice between McCain or Clinton come next November what should the choice be?

I have always said “ABC” (Anybody But Clinton) but I have been listening to a logical argument from Ann Coulter that has me pausing. It goes like this:

If we get McCain he will be the (so-called) republican Jimmy Carter and lock the White House for decades for the Democrats. Republicans will be blamed for him and scare people from voting for any republican for at least a generation.

On the other hand, if Clinton gets in it will surely be for one term and the country will be screaming for the republicans to undo all the damage she did.

In both cases there will be so much damage done to the republic that, along with all the damage that’s been done over the past seventy years, we may never recover. If the democrats lock up the White House for decades there will certainly never be a chance to undo it. We will have a socialist hell-hole with unbridled numbers of illegal immigrants pouring over the borders to reap the harvest of everybody else’s hard work. There will no longer be a reason for people to aspire to ‘get ahead’ because there will be no place to go. Every raise, every dime over the poverty level will be ripped out of our paychecks before we ever see it, to feed the unquenchable thirst of people who would rather collect a handout than contribute to the bankrupt system; and who can really blame them?

If the damage was done by Hillary, however, the country might be so incensed, finally, that the Constitution might be modified by the republicans to undo all the socialist damage done by her and seventy years of abuses by liberals who think they are saviors because they redistributed our hard-earned industry to those who will not help themselves or others.

I will not spend a lot of time qualifying that, just to say that, yes, people should help their neighbors in genuine need; but that is not the business of the Federal Government. One change that needs to be made before any others is that the Constitution should be taught at every grade in school along with the Declaration of Independence so that people will understand what our republic is. That’s something that has long been lost; that’s the first thing that was removed from the curriculum so that all the abuses could be fostered on an ignorant electorate.

I wonder how many of us could pass a comprehensive test on those two documents as well as the Bill of Rights that came with them? Just a guess here but I think less than 5% of the general public would get over a ‘C’ on such a test. (Quick, what is the eighth amendment about?) Feeling queasy?

This may be a case when you see two evils and rather than which would be worse now we have to ask ourselves, which would have the most long reaching effects?

Reference: & for the Constitution and Declaration of Independence (respectively).


(Could it be that the only reason McCain running now is to get Hillary into the White House? (He has been helping a variety of liberal causes since he begrudged Bush the nomination in 2000; and he’s really too old and infirm to serve a whole term.) Is he getting help behind the scenes from the Clintons? The MSM have been on his side for quite some time. What I don’t understand about that is why some people allow the liberal press/media to help them choose a republican candidate – they sure as hell don’t want a conservative running the country; but they sure are enamored with Team Clinton!)

It may be worth looking at whom he chooses as his running mate because there is a real chance that’s who will be President shortly after McCain is inaugurated. (Just a thought…)

It’s looking like we are going to have two liberals running for President this year, one on the democrat ticket and the other on the republican ticket. The real big problem is that people will blame all republicans for a generation for whatever McCain does and we’ll have liberal Presidents there after… The other way, if Clinton (or Obama) wins, the liberals will get their justly deserved blame and maybe, just maybe we’ll have a generation of republican Presidents and Congress to right the wrongs of the past – if we can get one or two with some real testicles (or ovaries, don’t get riled girls) to get some real changes to the Constitution like repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments for starters!

A National Sales Tax (with rebates for the poorest) will go a long way to repairing our very sick economy; and having Senators represent their States instead of being a second House of Representatives will get States’ Rights back where they belong, too!

Then (mostly) privatize the public pensions (Social Security) and get the government completely out of the health-care industry and regulate the insurance companies, which should be highly regulated anyway as well as protected from unscrupulous lawyers. All the country needs to guarantee everybody is covered is to pool the insurance carriers and we’d all be part of a 600,000,000 member (what’s out population, minus illegals?) coalition of insured people. Insurance is covered under interstate commerce and as such the feds do have authority to do that; but what they do not have authority to do is be the insurers!

Get the Federal Government completely out of the education industry, period! That’s State business, period.

The FCC has control over the broadcast media; we don’t need any campaign finance legislation to protect incumbents and it never should have been signed into law in the first place. Cleaning it up just takes spending caps and equal access to free broadcast time, which should also be capped. The broadcast companies could still sell commercial time and with all of them broadcasting the political ads, etc. at the same time, (coordinated by the FCC) all the sponsors would get equal time, too. Nobody losses and more people would be able to afford to run for office, not just the wealthy ones. or with rich friends, and high-paid media & marketing companies to raise untold capital, not to mention the corruption involved with campaign finance (Charlie Tre, Normand Shu, and countless others both known and unknown.

Term limits has always been a good idea; we never needed long-term windbags who become expert at pork-barrel spending and pandering to lobbyists to keep their jobs. I do think, though, that after sitting out a term or two that all elected offices should be open to everybody, even people who had served previously. After a hiatus, if a person could get re-elected that just might mean they are who the people want, not just who use their office to hold on to that office. With the 17th Amendment repealed, the Senate wouldn’t have that problem very much anyway; they’d change with the states’ governors.

The only way to even have a chance at any of that, though, just might mean getting the democrats to rightfully take the blame for the liberal administration that we’re going to have anyway. That’s a bitter pill for sure; but these are bitter times with no choice about having a liberal in the White House anyway. One way gets rid of them for the long-term; the other insures a liberal government for many, many years, perhaps for decades to come. Really, what’s worse, four years of liberals or twenty? That’s what this may well have come to.

This is not good however I look at it. Does anyone have a better future in view? Please? I need to hear about it. What choices do we have?


There is a virtuous fear which is the effect of faith, and a vicious fear which is the product of doubt and distrust. The former leads to hope as relying on God, in whom we believe; The latter inclines to despair, as not relying on God, in whom we do not believe.Persons of the one character fear to lose God; those of the other character fear to find Him.--Pascal

“Democracies are most commonly corrupted by the insolence of demagogues.” —Aristotle

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

Veritas vos Liberabit!

God Bless America, it needs it!