Malaria Eradicated from FMDB (Fear Monger Data Base)

Malaria is often used by alarmists as a scare weapon. Their claim is malaria will increase with global warming, and we should all be alarmed, very alarmed. Everyone, who wants to, can now sip their tonic water for pleasure only.

Here’s the background:

In February 2002, Simon Hay, et al reported in the journal Nature (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3164800/ ) “The absence of long- and short-term change in the climate variables and the duration of [malaria transmission] suitability at these highland sites are not consistent with the simplistic notion that recent malaria resurgences in these areas are caused by rising temperatures.”

Warming = Increased Malaria = Simplistic Notion

What’s not to get?

A couple of months later, a “comment” by global warming/tropical disease advocate Jonathan Patz and colleagues was published in Nature. Patz disagreed with Hay, et al. The media picked up on the comment, and Reuters reported, “Climate change could be causing more than higher temperatures—it may also be helping to fuel a rise in Malaria in East Africa…Earlier research had suggested the upsurge was due to drug resistance and population growth, and not global warming. But scientists in the United States and Britain say it may not be just a coincidence that the rise in malaria parallels East African warming trends.”

Hay et al responded, “Evidence against the epidemiological significance of climate change in the recent malaria resurgences in Africa is mounting and remains unmatched by any contrary evidence.”

Not surprisingly, this wasn’t picked up and widely distributed by the media…

Now, nearly 10 years later, Hay et al, have published their latest findings in the journal PLosOne (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0024524 )

I encourage my readers to take the time to read the study. If you don’t have the time, consider the following written by Hay on Saturday, September 17, 2011, which kind of nicely sums up his findings and feelings.

Malaria Cases in Kericho, Kenya

In my IPCC AR5 chapter writing group we have been told to think of “iconic figures” we could use in the chapter. In our paper on malaria and climate change in East Africa, I think this is the iconic figure:

It just shows monthly malaria cases at the tea estate hospital in Kericho, Kenya. The increase in malaria in the 90s was linked by some researchers to climate change. But in this decade, malaria cases have collapsed at this location. In the meantime we find that there does seem to be a significant increase in temperature especially when the most recent years are included in the analysis. The figure is simple and really easy to understand.

Snap – simple and really easy to understand. Warming without malaria…who’d have thunk it? Oh yeah…Hay et al in 2002….

Don’t stay up late waiting for the MSM or AGWers to report this. They’ll likely be waiting for Patz’s response.

Baby It’s Cold Outside – Because Its Cloudy

Fresh on the heels of my recent Islands Independent article, three new studies on Climate Change have hit the streets, bringing joy and good news to all (well maybe all but the “warmists”)

#1 – CERN

As many of my readers/listeners know, I came out of the closet a couple of months ago, announcing I was a manmade global warming disbeliever, slamming Raffi’s unnecessary scaring the bejesus out of small children on the subject at the same time. (see – https://islandstrust.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/its-a-cold-earth-day/ )

It took quite some courage to do so on an island which has helped elect the first Green Party member of parliament, and believe me, I thought long and hard before I made the decision to come out.

My decision was based on reasoned conclusions after reading dozens of contrarian books on the subject, including the most convincing to me, titled “The Chilling Stars: A  New Theory of Climate Change,” written in 2007 by the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark.

In such a short retrospective period, and, much to my delight, two weeks ago (the day after I had submitted my article to II),  I marveled at what great timing my declaration was.

Allow me to expound on my joy.

Imagine being falsely accused of causing massive flooding, drought and/or being a mass murderer of thousands of people worldwide. Sounds like the attributes of a James Bond movie villain doesn’t it? Wouldn’t it be nice to have a group of the world’s top scientists, using the most sophisticated, state-of-the-art, scientific equipment on the planet, prove your innocence, while identifying the real culprit?

Well, if your name happens to be CO2, I have good news for you. You stand accused of crimes against nature and humanity, in the curious case of the gradually warming planet Earth, but, your reputation and good name are on their way to being finally exonerated.

Scientists at the CERN research centre in Switzerland, arguably the most advanced scientific research facility in existence, have been conducting experiments for the past few years on the influence of cosmic rays on the earth’s atmosphere, cloud formation, and, its theoretical implications for the temperature variations of regional climate changes measured worldwide.

They have now published their findings in the prestigious, “peer-reviewed” science journal Nature. And, just for clarification, the peer-reviewed, published study was not conducted by a bunch of so-called “deniers” (or, as Al Gore recently suggested “deniers” be called, “racists,”) but, 63 of the world’s leading scientists, from 17 institutes in 9 countries in Europe and the USA.

In a nutshell their findings strongly suggest the real driver behind temperature changes, sea level fluctuations, and sea ice variations, is not CO2, but….wait for it….the sun, its interaction with galactic cosmic rays and cloud formation.

In other words, climate change, global warming and/or global cooling is linked to the ebb and flow of sunspot activity, its influence, via electromagnetic radiation, on the amount of cosmic rays which reach the earth, which, in turn, influence the formation, or lack thereof, of clouds, the quantity of which determine the amount of solar radiation reflected back into space and hence the temperature of various regions of the planet.

Less sunspot activity = more cosmic rays reaching the planet = more cloud formation = more cooling. More sunspot activity = less cosmic rays reaching the planet = less cloud formation = more warming.

To give you an idea of the magnitude of effect clouds have on cooling, or warming, it is estimated total manmade warming is about 1.6 watts per square metre. Imagine a 1.6 watt light bulb shining on 1 square metre, and that’s the amount. Clouds on the other hand are estimated to cool the earth by about 30 watts per square metre. This means if cloud cover was decreased by just 5% in any particular year, it would have the same effect as all of the estimated manmade warming. Conversely, if cloud cover increased by just 5%, it would negate all estimated manmade warming. Clouds therefore have a major effect on the world’s temperature.

So, what is the real thermostatic climate change control mechanism of the earth? In short? – “It’s the sun, stupid.”

The CERN experiment was based on the theory put forth by Svensmark, and, from all indications, that theory grows more convincing by the day. One of the most compelling arguments for the theory is the close correlation between historical temperatures and sunspot activity. Seeing those two factors on a graph, is ten times more convincing than the rather dubious relationship between CO2 and historical temperatures which actually indicates CO2 rises in response to temperature increases, not the other way around.

And it’s not just the CERN research creating a problem for the likes of Gore, or James Hansen of NASA, or Andrew Weaver at UVic,  etc.. They also now need to explain why sea levels, like presidential approval numbers and consumer confidence, have fallen. According to NASA, the oceans are down a quarter of an inch this year compared to 2010.

I can hear the howls of Anthropogenic Global Warmists already as Al Gore’s carbon trade stocks start to tumble…and, as the world wakes up to a new and better understanding of reality. CO2 will soon be off the hook, and can be set free to promote vegetation growth, making the world a greener place – hurray!! Driving your car will be seen as helping a tree grow, which in turn is producing oxygen for you. Children worldwide can sleep well tonight.

And all of this was just in time for September 14th  the Al Gore 24 hour propaganda event titled “24 Hours of Reality.” A press release promoting the event states, “The deniers may have millions of dollars to spend, but we have a powerful advantage. We have reality.”

Unfortunately, unless that reality includes the latest news from CERN, it is reality-lite.

It appears we can now stop wasting our collective breaths and time on the theoretical/mythical benefits of carbon footprint reductions and get down to the real problems facing humanity – lack of sufficient food, water, and sanitation for billions, and, adaptation to climate change. Solve those problems, and as already been proven, you automatically improve the human condition while decreasing population growth and moving towards sustainability.

For those who want to better understand the science behind the cosmic ray connection, visit the CERN site at cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/  and watch the 2009 presentation on Cosmic rays and climate. This will give you the background on the basis of the groundbreaking research.

In my opinion, this latest announcement is perhaps the most important, small step for man in taking a much larger step for mankind in the 21st Century, and, should be heralded as such.

Everyone, including global warmists, should be elated and awed by the implications of cosmic events. Folks, we’re back to having to plan to cope with natural forces, completely outside of our control, as we have been since the beginning of civilized time.

And, from what I’ve read, winters over the next couple of decades could, on the whole, be more severe due to the observed reduction of sunspot activity.

#2 – Trenberth – Deep Sixer

The second study should bring peals of laughter as it reveals what can only be viewed as wishful thinking by one of the world’s most prominent pro-global warming scientists, Dr. Kevin Trenberth.

Dr. Trenberth, in the 2009, Climategate emails, was revealed to have written: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.. Our observing system is inadequate.”

The prime reason they couldn’t account for lack of warming (now for the past 10 years) is the CO2 theory says there must be additional heat being trapped somewhere, but they can’t find it. They’ve looked everywhere on the planet.

So, what is so funny about his latest study? It comes to the conclusion that the “missing heat” must be stored deep in the ocean. OK, but, did the study actually find heat stored in the ocean? No.

Start laugh track.

The conclusion Trenberth reached (while defying basic physics that heat rises in water),  that the missing heat is somehow magically trapped in the ocean, by unknown forces (aliens or Neptune maybe?), is based not on his “inadequate observation system,” but, instead on, wait for it….his non-existent observation system and computer modeling.

This is pathetic. Computer modeling creates conclusions based on its programming and data inputs. Create the right computer program, and you could show how the “missing heat” is stored in coconuts.

Garbage in = Garbage out.

This is the state of the art science on the AGW side?

Take a couple of minutes to read this critique of the study in the National Post – http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/Deep+sixing+global+warming/5433152/story.html

#3 – Richard P. Allen – Come on down….

The third peer-reviewed study, by Mr. Richard P. Allen, (see article http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/20/new-peer-reviewed-paper-clouds-have-large-negative-feedback-cooling-effect-on-earths-radiation-budget/) supports two previous papers (Lindzen and Choi, Spencer and Braswell), based on…wait for it….”more than adequate observation systems” that show a net negative temperature effect exhibited by clouds. Bottom line, all three of these particular studies show that, contrary to what the CO2 theorists say (CO2 creates warming due to increased greenhouse effect), as the earth warms, there are more clouds created, and, the net effect of the additional clouds is not the CO2 net warming which has been theorized (but couldn’t be found), but, in fact, net cooling.

This is the explanation for what has perplexed Trenberth, et al. (al of whom must now be seething) – there is no “missing heat” – the additional clouds have radiated it back into space.

AND, it also provides good support for the CERN experiment’s direction of study/theory on the connection between cloud formation and sunspot/cosmic ray activity. The dots, starting with the big bright one in the sky, followed by the tiny ones from space (cosmic rays), are starting to get connected.

In conclusion, any common sense individual would think all of these studies’ results will be greeted as great news to all the good, and well meaning, placard waving, “consensus” crying, doomsday scenarioists. But, why do I suspect that will not be the case? The cynical part of me says every scientist, TV-movie maker, politician and book of the month club author who has made their living on the back of the multi-billion dollar industry created by the trumped up charges against CO2, is going to be out of work soon. They will not go gentle into the good night…they will, as Dylan Thomas advised, rage. I can hardly wait…its going to be quite the debacle. Let the role reversal games begin! How long can it possibly take before the Algorian believers are declared members of the new “hot air” society?

Mean Spirited Old Codger/Selfish Bastard?

The following article, by Ms. Julie Johnstone, referencing an article I wrote which appeared in the Islands Independent, was posted on 16 September 2011, on www.greenhearted.org a website co-authored by Ms. Johnstone. My “rebuttals” to her blog are in italics below. Enjoy this diatribe….

 

In Response to a Global Warming Denialist’s Drivel, Untruths and Outright Fabrications in My Local Paper

(Eric’s note – See my article – click here) You know, the most labour-intensive part of responding to denialists is that they can say (and seem to get away with saying) whatever they want with impunity (using, by the way, hollow aphorisms repeated ad nauseum in the internet’s echo chamber by other denialists who refuse to see what’s happening around the world or just don’t give a damn about others).

But the scientists and others who are trying to explain the science always feel they have to make sure that every single tiny little weeny detail is backed up with references — or the likes of the mean-spirited old codger I’m responding to here will jump on it, using more flippant nonsense gleaned from denialist blogs and websites.

Here, then, is my detailed response, even though I would rather have spent my time on doing what’s right for the children of all species. (But then, maybe this constant recorrecting is what’s called for to ensure them a climate-safe future….)

1. Some warm periods in the last 12,000 years were warmer than today?

It is now generally accepted by paleoclimatologists and other scientists that the Medieval Warm Period (or Medieval Climate Anomaly), from 950 to 1250 A.D., saw some regions slightly warmer than today’s warmed world, but it was not a global phenomenon like today’s global warming is. For more info, see the composite graph below and http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1579/0044-7447-29.1.51.

Eric’s Rebuttal –

Visit this interactive website and check out for yourself whether it appears the MWP was regional, or occurred around the globe, or, is now “generally accepted.” No “consensus” on this question:

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

2. An ice age in the planet’s near future? No, sir. Not if we continue adding heat-radiating greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at an ever-increasing rate. According to the laws of physics, that is.

Eric’s Rebuttal: This is utter nonsense and ignores historical shifts in temperature far beyond the possible influence of CO2. This indicates just how biased the author is, ignoring basic science. I challenge her to provide credible scientific references which argue in favour of her point.

3. We’re far past the days of scientific consensus on whether man-made CO2 is actually responsible? Actually, the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) came about as the weight of more and more evidence showed that humans are causing current warming with their increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. For more info, see http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm. (“There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.”)

Eric’s Rebuttal:  – For a number of years the word “consensus” was used by warmists to suggest there was no longer any debate necessary on the science of climate change, and that there were no credible scientist opposed to the CO2 theory. This has been shown to be utter nonsense. Over 31,000 American scientists (including over 9,000 PhD’s) alone have signed the following petition:

 http://www.petitionproject.org/

These scientists certainly don’t believe there is a “consensus,” and, nearly 6 out of every 10 Americans now doubt there’s any “consensus” on the theory.

4. “Global warming” has given way to “climate change”? And the insinuation is …? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up in 1988. Perhaps you were trying to say that warming the atmosphere leads to changes in climate, which is correct.

Eric’s Rebuttal:  – Actually I was referring to the fact that alarmists, such as Al Gore, have stopped using the term “global warming” and now refer to anything they want to blame on weather as “climate change.” The vernacular change is primarily due to the fact that temperature/warming hasn’t kept up with computer predictions, so, it is easier to avoid the question altogether and just say things like sea levels are rising or there are more hurricanes, etc. due to “climate change.” The climate, like the weather has always, and will always, “change” so, Ms. Johnstone’s, et al, argument is “who can argue with that?” The problem is the hundreds of things blamed on man made “climate change” could also be blamed on natural climate change. Its just that alarmists have a tendency to blame any extreme weather event on man made climate change. 

5. Average temperature appears to have slightly declined over the past decade? No, the temperature trend is still upwards (with 2005 and 2010 tied as the hottest years on record). For more info, see the NASA graph (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) below, or http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html.

Eric’s Rebuttal:  – Cherry picking another graph, from another time period to try make an argument is fine in Ms.  Johnstone’s world I suppose, but, what I said was the last ten years are trending down. That is a true statement. Why avoid the truth? Possibly because she can’t explain it, or, like Mann and others, prefers to sidestep the issue.

6. Prompting scientists to “hide the decline”? Talk about something taken out of context! One email, written by one climate scientist, has been skewed so many different ways, it’s farcical. He was talking about an anomalous decline in northern tree ring growth starting about 1960, not global temperature. For a better explanation, see http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm.

Eric’s Rebuttal:  – This is proof Ms. Johnson while knowing what “hide the decline” actually referred to, belittles it’s meaning. Go to http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/10/ipcc-and-the-trick/ for a thorough analysis of the issue. In a nutshell, when the lead researchers involved noted that the tree ring data (red line on the following graph) diverged from the “consensus view” of warming, they truncated the data series (green line), then effectively hid it by plotting it with other time series. The larger question is this: If the truncated (red) data series was deemed to be “wrong” why did they include it as being representative of pre-1960 temperatures?

 

7. I always like to hand it to denialists when they’ve got something right. Computer projections aren’t always correct (when compared to observations). Unfortunately, for the most part they have failed to predict how quickly the warming and other disturbing trends are actually happening. However, “surface temperature observations are well within the range of model projections,” “the observed rate of sea level rise is at the upper limit of the IPCC’s projected range,” and “the end-of-summer extent of Arctic sea ice is plummeting far more rapidly than … IPCC models predicted.” For more info, see: http://www.skepticalscience.com/christy-crock-4-observations-match-models.html.

But to say that “every computer prediction of global warming from warming enthusiasts shows smooth upward curves in temperature, not declines, or fluctuations” is sheer fabrication. (See NASA graph in #5 above, for example.)

Eric’s Rebuttal:  – Once again Ms. Johnstone refuses to read what I actually said – “every computer prediction of global warming.” What is it about the word “prediction” that makes her think I meant actual recorded/reported temperature?

8. As greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere have increased (we’re over 390 parts per million of CO2 right now, and we started at 290 in the pre-industrial era), global average temperature has increased. So to ask “Why then, if CO2 has continued to rise, has our temperature not followed suit like it’s supposed to?” is disingenuous at best, because temperature has followed suit.

Eric’s Rebuttal:  – Except for the past 10 years….and for the other temperature fluctuations which have occurred since 1950, or since after the Industrial Revolution – take your pick, there’s just so many.

9. “Could it be that computer models are deficient in raw data input?” Climatologists actually study and know about “the myriad of factors that affect this world’s climate.” Really, they do! But no, they probably can’t include every single one in every single climate projection model. But, for example, they now know that temperature increase over the last three decades cannot be attributed to solar activity. For more info, visit http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm or watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Sf_UIQYc20&feature=player_embedded.

Eric’s Rebuttal:  – At least Ms. Johnstone acknowledges, albeit grudgingly, that computer models do not take into account all factors. However, she immediately dismisses “solar activity.” Solar activity not only refers to irradiance, but also to magnetic output, which, as the latest news from CERN indicates may have an effect on cloud formation and hence on climate.. It is interesting to note that a 2% change in cloud cover would balance off all alleged man made warming. This indicates just how important (a) the preliminary science coming out of CERN, and (b) the sun’s role in cloud formation.

10. The writer stopped being puzzled long ago about “why weathermen can’t even successfully predict next week’s local weather accurately.” That’s nice. But he also — as denialists often do — seems to be confusing weather (day to day changes) with climate (which is all about long-term trends).

Eric’s Rebuttal:  – Excuse me, but I’m not confused. My comment was making an analogy between weathermen and predictive climatologists. I apologize for not being clearer. Ms. Johnstone, when she speaks of “climate” appears to think that “climate” is a worldwide phenomenon, when in fact “climate” is “regional.” There is no such thing as the “Earth’s climate.” 

11. “Over the past few years governments have bowed to the political pressure of environmentalists concerned over greenhouse gasses and they’ve passed new regulations and taxes aimed at reducing CO2 emissions.” Yes, and thank goodness for that! Tragically, not nearly enough of this has happened. It’s been suggested that a $300 per ton tax on carbon would help turn the economic momentum around almost overnight, heading us toward a safer, cleaner, healthier, more equitable and more peaceful zero-carbon economy. But who’s fighting that? Yup, the denialists.

Eric’s Rebuttal:  – OK. Let’s talk about “denial” and who is actually a “denier” of facts. It is completely irrational to suggest you could actually implement a $300 per ton tax worldwide. There is no way China or India are about to significantly reduce (a) their carbon output, or (b)the increase in standard of living they are beginning to enjoy.. 

The graph below shows, at the developing world’s estimated rate of growth, the expected increase in CO2 emissions. What is interesting, is that our emissions (Canada/US) are already decreasing. However, to add a burden of $300 per ton tax would cripple our already fragile economy.

It would appear Ms. Johnstone believes “reduction at any cost” is called for. In that regard we certainly disagree on carbon tax..

12. “However, when it comes to the facts of proposals for those reductions including Kyoto, Copenhagen, and others, the political/environmental machinations regarding CO2 are shown to be nothing more than a surrealistic smoke and mirrors show.” Ah, speaking of dense fog. The surrealism actually lies in the miniscule response of governments to the greatest threat ever to face the existence of the human species. It creates cognitive dissonance for people (“I hear it’s an emergency, but I see my leaders doing nothing about it”), which in turn leads to even less political will to do the right thing for our children.

Eric’s Rebuttal: – See Point #11.

13. “I want to make it clear, I am opposed to pollution.” That’s nice. But the writer then goes on to say “However, CO2 is not a pollutant…. Without it, plants would die and stop producing the oxygen you and I so appreciate….” Why can people who appear concerned about pollution not understand that if you trap enough CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the result will be deleterious? Just like the impacts of pollution. No one wants to take all the CO2 away! We just want to get the emission and concentration of it down to levels that won’t lead to global warming and climate disruption. (Am I allowed to say “Duh!” yet?)

Eric’s Rebuttal: – While the CO2/warming theory is yet to be proven, take a few minutes and get a perspective on what 180% increase in CO2 may actually accomplish:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE

And, remember, increased plant growth = increase carbon sequestration for those of you who pray for greater sequestration.

14. I’m going to ignore his nasty rhetoric about China and India. Yes, they’re developing. And if we’d kept the promise we made when we signed onto the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change back in 1992, they would all be developing in zero-carbon —or at least carbon neutral — ways. So to blame them now is really mean. (Enjoy your daily shower while you can, sir. Water will soon enough become so valuable, you won’t have that luxury.)

Eric’s Rebuttal:  – What nasty rhetoric???? I was not “blaming” anyone, let alone the developing countries. What I was saying was I wasn’t blaming them for wanting the same standard of living as I have. How Ms. Johnstone twisted this one around is beyond me.

15. And what’s with throwing in a complete red herring critique of the UN’s Agenda 21? Because the world is urbanizing (over half of us now live in cities, and the percentage is growing all the time), Agenda 21 suggested “sustainable urbanization,” NOT a “protocol for the urbanization of the planet.” Sheesh, dude. You sure are grasping at straws!

Eric’s Rebuttal: – Difference of opinion here on a large topic – Agenda 21. Perhaps we can debate that one sometime in the future. However, if we look what is happening closer to home we find more and more regulations reducing property owners’ rights in the name of over protecting the environment to the point (e.g.-  the recent Salt Spring Riparian Area Regulation proposal), of requiring a professional biologist’s report on the impact of development on ditches.

16. Then he accuses people who understand the climate change emergency of “manipulated, exaggerated, fear mongering, child scaring, doomsday scenarios.” Let me take each of these in turn:

Manipulate – This is what denialists do to data that shows global warming due to increased CO2 emissions actually exists; it’s called “cherry-picking” and we know they do it because they keep accusing the “other side” of doing it. (This is a psychological defence mechanism called projection, which involves taking one’s own unacceptable qualities or feelings and ascribing them to other people.)

Eric’s Rebuttal:  – Examples – Mann manipulated temperature charts by “hiding the decline,” Pauchauri and Gore manipulate the media by telling lie after lie after lie, and cherry picking data happens just as often from alarmists as it does from anywhere else – Ms. Johnstone’s depiction of the Medieval Warm Period above is a good example.

Exaggerate – The sad part of this accusation is that we’re NOT exaggerating! Overheating the oceans and the atmosphere really could devastate the habitability of this planet!

Eric’s Rebuttal – Computer predictions, which have been proven incapable of reverse predictions, are being used to exaggerate reality. Yes, overheating of the planet could be disastrous, but, there is no conclusive evidence this will occur. Exaggerations which the IPCC have been involved in include – (a) Himalayan glacier melt, (b) 40% of Amazon rainforest in jeopardy, (c) increase in storms, (d) temperature records in the US, to name just a few. This past year sea levels were down slightly, the ten year temperature trend is down, sunspot activity is down, the potential influence of each additional molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than the previous molecule.

Fear mongering – People call us alarmists, but you’re not an alarmist if you’re raising the alarm about something that’s alarming! We’re not creating needless worry or panic — though we wish we were! (Do you see worry or panic anywhere?) Fear mongering is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. But we’re not using fear, we’re telling people the impacts of continuing to burn fossil fuels — and those impacts are scary.

Eric’s Rebuttal – There is a big difference in reporting “the bridge is out” as opposed to claiming, with the same ferocity, “we think the bridge may be out soon.” Exaggerations used by Al Gore (as he has openly admitted) are purposefully intended to scare people.

Child scaring – This is a low blow, designed to turn people against anyone who actually cares about children and their future! I never talk to anyone younger than 12 (or a mature 11 year old) about climate change (and most of them don’t care anyway, just like their parents). If younger children ask me, I lie and tell them there are lots of adults looking after the problem for them. I hate having to lie. And, frankly, I hate people who are quite blithely blighting the children’s future by living their own lives with no sense of responsibility toward the future.

Eric’s Rebuttal – While Ms. Johnstone may be an exception, she cannot claim ignorance of the fact that people like Raffi and others are getting their message into elementary schools, and certainly to those younger than 11 years old. Take for example this article (http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/humanist-doomsday-myth-scares-children/) which indicates “1 out 3 children ages 6-11 years old fear that the planet won’t exist when they grow up…”  I can’t find any evidence of Ms. Johnstone warning, advising or admonishing anyone on her website (directed at educational professionals) regarding the issue of scaring children.

Doomsday scenarios – My gosh, but were it not so! But if the shoe fits the scenario …. The end of life on the planet is, well, pretty doomy and gloomy. A diagnosis of cancer is doomy and gloomy, too, but doctors have to tell their patients the truth nonetheless.

Eric’s Rebuttal – So, start wearing a “The World Is Coming To An End” t-shirt (but please don’t let the children see it.) At every turn of human civilization there have been doomsayers, and Ms. Johnstone’s group are now likely the largest – perhaps apart from those who still believe in Armageddon.

17. And now the writer shows both his true colours (one of his compatriots once told me that Canadians would rather die comfortable than live uncomfortable) and his lack of understanding and imagination for solutions to the climate crisis. “Until then [until someone can show him how changing our EuroAmerican lifestyles will actually make a significant difference — selfish bastard!], I plan to continue showering in the mornings, keep driving to work in my gas dependent automobile, buy food from here, there and everywhere, fight carbon taxation, and keep wondering how we’re all going to stay warm, without carbon, when winter inevitably comes.”

Did I mention “selfish bastard” yet? And I suppose he’s never heard of solar power, passive solar, solar photovoltaic, solar thermal (for all those showers he thinks he needs), wind power, tidal power, wave power, geothermal energy? Nope, guess not. All he can picture doing is what he’s always done: burn, burn, burn.

I know, I know, this is a blog about compassionate climate action. But my patience and my compassion wear very thin with people like this. I guess I already mentioned “selfish bastards,” did I?

Eric’s Rebuttal – OK Ms. Johnstone, please tell us all, because I’m dying to know how your lifestyle is so dramatically different than mine – (a) do you not shower or bathe in hot water? (b) do you or Peter drive a car or ride in one from time to time? (c) how much carbon does it take to make the food you eat every day? (d) have you flown in a plane in the last 5 years, (e) do you use toilet paper? (f) the clothes and shoes you wear took how much carbon to produce? (g) the computer you took how much carbon to make? or (h) make one up and fill in the blank -________________________________   

My guess is Ms. Johnstone’s lifestyle is not as “holier than thou” than as one might expect from reading her response to my article.

Her assumptions that I don’t think solar power, passive solar, solar photovoltaic, solar thermal, wind power, tidal power, wave power,  or geothermal energy are all good and wonderful things, is completely wrong. She also didn’t mention my favourite potential energy source – magnetic energy.

Concluding remarks – Within the past week Ms. Johnstone has called me “a selfish bastard,” (with “selfish” scrawled graphically in what looks like blood), a “progenycidist” (sic? I’m guessing she must have meant pro-genocidist), a “mean spirited old codger,” and, has alleged I must have paid the Islands Independent editor to print my article. Did I mention she called me a “selfish bastard?”

These remarks coming from a self-styled “compassionate” person, are all either exaggerations, libel or lies – (a) My parents were married when I was born – hence no-bastard status, (b) I am a pro-lifer – hence I am certainly no pro-genocidist, (c) as my friends and acquaintances, and even opponents, will tell you, I’m not mean, or selfish, (d) I’m a young 59, and I still rollerblade and play hacksack with kids 1/3 of my age – hardly what someone of Ms. Johnstone’s own age group should refer to as being either “old” or “codger(ly),” and (e) I have never had to pay anyone to publish my numerous articles, letters or columns. Combined, her allegations perhaps reveal more about Ms. Johnstone’s lack of character or lack of knowledge (a terrible thing for an educator to be lacking) of me, more than anything else.

And, while I’m sure I could come up with a variety of adjectives/slurs describing her as well, being a gentleman, and thick skinned (3 years in local politics will do that), I won’t…at least not this time around. I’d prefer to debate, not name call, which is what scientific skeptics worldwide would prefer to do with alarmists. Now, if only we could only convince our critics that scientific debate is healthy, even for children…I’m afraid that it may be a cold day in hell before that happens, or perhaps a couple of cold decades on earth…winter is coming….

 

 

Al Gore and Reality Check

As Al Gore’s 24 hours of Reality hits the airwaves today, September 14th, I wonder if he will be showing the following slide….(the time line is from 2001 to 2009, CO2 is from Mauna Loa, IPCC computer modelling temperature and CO2 forecasts from 2001, actual temperatures from MSU Satellite.)

A Peer’s Review of Peer Review

Climate alarmists often brag that all information coming out of the UN International Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) has been “peer-reviewed.”

However, a recent examination of so-called UN IPCC “peer reviewed” articles has exposed that lie.

(See – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-scandal-deepens-ipcc-ar4-riddled-with-non-peer-reviewed-wwf-papers/ )

This has raised a number of questions, not the least of which is “How much faith can the public put in the “peer review” process?

The Lancet is one of the most prestigious medical journals on the face of the planet. Listen to what it’s Editor in Chief has to say about the “peer review” process:

“The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.” – Richard Horton, Editor in Chief, Lancet

(Source –  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Horton_%28editor%29 )

So, the next time you hear “peer review,” be skeptical…be verry, verrry skeptical.

PS – Skepticism (or scepticism) has many definitions, but generally refers to any questioning attitude of knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts,  or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere

Confess Now All Ye Sinners

When I first came out of the closet (see – https://islandstrust.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/its-a-cold-earth-day/ )  I made an analogy between members of the Catholic Church and Anthropogenic Global Warming Believers.

Little did I know that just a week or so later, an online “confession booth” would be set up in time for Easter, and not for Catholics, but, for AGW Believers, to confess their “earthly” sins.

The following is a screen snapshot of the booth (no relation) at http://www.earthconfessions.com/#home (click to enlarge)

The “directions” are “Confess your sins against Earth and swear off your evil eco ways forever.”

After entering the booth, here is the next screen (click to enlarge):

Can’t think of an eco-sin to confess to? Here are their “generated sin” suggestions:

I love horsepower more than I love the environment.

I want to clip bike commuters who slow down traffic with my side mirrors.

I fill my recycle garbage can full of trash and then put a layer of cardboard on the top to hide it.

I drink bottled water because it makes me feel fancy.

I use plastic grocery bags because paper sucks and bringing my own cloth bags sucks even worse.

I think hybrid cars are for wussies.

I dress my passenger seat in a jacket and hat and then use the carpool lane.

I justify eating watermelon all year long by telling myself it’s always in season somewhere in the world.

I refuse to read that new book or watch that new documentary about how jacked up our food supply is because I don’t want to know.

I think littering is ok as long as it’s something small.

I don’t buy organic because that shit’s expensive.

I don’t buy recycled paper because it seems dirty.

I secretly like to hear reports that global warming isn’t real because it decreases my guilt level.

I pretend to not know what a carbon footprint is.

I don’t have a compost pile because it grosses me out.

Really, what’s next? Pope Al Gore the first?

Followed perhaps by the AGW Spin-ish Inquisition?

Nobody expects the AGW Spin-ish Inquisition…

AGW Linked to Fatigue

Feel like you need another cup of coffee to get you going in the morning? Perhaps you’re suffering from AGW fatigue, a new disorder caused by incessant haranguing by apocolypticism.

http://www.clickgreen.org.uk/analysis/general-analysis/122174-climate-change-fatigue-as-global-survey-reveals-lack-of-concern.html

Strange Climate Fellows

So, what do Al Gore and Charles Manson have in common? You can’t debate with either one of them…at least not Charles for a few years yet…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/19/charles-manson-global-warming_n_851187.html

50 Million Climate Change Refugees Disappear!

In what can only be called an amazing turn of projected events, 50 million potential climate change refugees have evidently vanished into thin air, along with the official United Nations map showing where they were going to be:

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/04/16/the-missing-map/

I hope this is viewed as good news by AGW believers everywhere…but why do I have doubts they will be jumping up and down with joy?

Instead I project the “disappearance” will be seen as another tragedy of epic proportions for true believers everywhere…along the same lines as the “bad” news the Himalayan glaciers aren’t melting quite as fast as some members of the UN’s IPCC would like, or how “global” temperatures have been in decline for the last decade.

I am, however, looking forward to seeing how the “disappearance,” like the recent tsunami,  will eventually be blamed on AGW.

I mean really, how long does one have to keep saying the sky is falling before it actually falls? I don’t know the answer to that question, but I do know that after years and years and years, Chicken Little is still waiting in antici………….pation.

Moral of the story? – Patience is a virtue when it comes to chickens, and those waiting for the weather to change to whatever they think is worse.

PS – Seems unseasonably cold out there again this morning. Is that good news, bad news, or just right news? I guess that depends upon who you ask – the weather half-empty, or the weather half-full, or the weather just right crowd. I’m going to go with my sense of feeling today – baby, it’s cold outside.

Its a Cold Earth Day – (2011 with 2019 update)

So, I Guess I’m Going to Find Out What It’s Like to be Gay

OK, here I am, stepping out of the closet….I’ve been considering coming out for sometime now, and, have confided in a number of my closer friends that I am finding it harder and harder to not say what I feel. However, like all of those before me who gathered up the courage to exit their closets, here I go.

I….am……an……AGW…..disbeliever.

Whew…..That part wasn’t as bad as I thought.

For those of you who don’t know, AGW stands for Anthropogenic (manmade) Global Warming. In other words, I don’t believe mankind is responsible for planetary warming in any significant excess of what is provided for by nature, and the sun in particular. Please note I use the word dis-“believer,” as opposed to AGW “believers” who “believe” in the theory of AGW due to CO2 increases (and, even the most staunch AGW “believers,” with a modicum of understanding of the science, have to admit it is, in fact, only a theory.)

Why am I coming out now? Well I’ve been recently inspired by Raffi, who said: We need a new lens and lexicon for conveying climate change as the greatest threat on Earth, a tragedy of epic proportions, especially for the world’s young. … It’s best addressed with systems change, beginning with belief systems learned very early. To cut pollution and GHG emissions for good, change personal belief systems. Start young.  To grow Earth stewards, steward the children and youth. This is where the restoration must focus–strategically and morally. Not only do kids get sustainability, they have the most to lose or gain.”

In other words, indoctrinate our children, and indoctrinate them as young as possible on the theory of AGW. Set the schools ablaze with the message.

Okay. Let’s start with what any intelligent person can agree with – global warming has been happening for the last 12,000 years, long before the use of fossil fuels significantly increased CO2 output in the latter part of the 20th Century.

120 centuries ago there was about a mile of ice over Salt Spring. Does that make global warming a good thing or a bad thing for Salt Spring Islanders?

And, is there strong evidence to suggest it was just as warm, or warmer, during the Medieval Warm Period as it is today?

Has the last decade, actually defied AGW computer modeling, and been on a cooling trend as the now infamous email containing the line “hide the decline” admitted?

Is there some kind of magical and wonderful, perfect, static world temperature answering the proverbial Goldilock’s conundrum/question – is the porridge/world too hot, too cold, or just right?

May I suggest there is no such thing as a “just right” climate for every living organism on this planet. Some like it hot and thrive, while others like it cold and thrive. Some die because it’s too warm, some die because it’s too cold. That is the basis of all evolution – survival of the fittest in the face of changing climate.

But here, for the AGW believers, is a sad fact – more people (who are the most adaptable creature on this planet when it comes to survival, with the possible exception of the cockroach), and therefore, likely more animals and plants, die each year from cold weather than warm weather. So, does that make warm weather better, or cold weather worse?

I mean wouldn’t it be just plain “fair” to all species to allow the planet to warm up until an equal number of organisms die of warm weather as cold weather?  I’m just kidding. We can’t let/make the planet warm up, or cool it down. That’s up to the sun silly, the source of all our heat…..and sorry for all the rhetorical questions above…but jeez…

Now, back to my reason for coming out. Like Raffi, I grew up in the Cold War era. I was old enough during the Cuban Missile crisis to be scared shitless of nuclear war. I would look out my bedroom window towards Vancouver and imagine seeing a blinding flash of light and a rising orange mushroom cloud, waiting for the roar and wondering how the shock wave would feel once it hit. My worst nightmares were of nuclear war, and, over forty years later, and twenty years after the Cold War ended, from time to time they still haunt my dreams.

Fear is the worst thing you can feed a child during their formative years.

And yet, with all the good intentions in the world, that is exactly what is now being fed to our children, by the gagging truckload, by well meaning AGW believers who proclaim they are the most concerned about our children’s well being. The fear this time isn’t limited nuclear war, but, the god-awful fire and brimstone of global warming, and the underlying associated guilt that virtually everything we do has a carbon footprint attached to it. At least the Cold War didn’t have transferable guilt associated with it.

This madness must begin to stop now. The greatest non-physical crime against children is scaring them with end-of-the-world, hellish scenarios. If you want to teach children something, teach them how to grow and provide food for those less fortunate, how to provide clean water and sanitation for the billions who don’t, how to not pollute or litter, how to help their fellow children….you know….do unto others….without the “you’ll burn in hell if you don’t” undertone, which is the original method most authoritative religions developed to scare children and keep their members in line.

I’ve just watched the video of Raffi’s anti-global warming song “Cool It” http://www.childhonouring.org/coolit.html

The song’s spoken message is we need to cool the planet down (again, as if that were humanly possible).

The unspoken message to children is that the planet is burning up, because of what we, including them, do.  In that regard it expresses the “belief,” the theory of AGW, is not imaginary or theoretical, but, is real.

The graphic effect of the planet Earth burning up is shown, not once, not twice, but three times in the video. A child can come to only one conclusion – they are on the brink of their extinction. As Raffi says AGW is “the greatest threat on earth.” I would suggest there are in fact a couple of other, much more real, and not so theoretical “greatest threats,” not the least of which would be Kim Jong-Il.

And, because their parents have told them so, the children must feel guilty about their carbon footprint, including every toy they own, the food they eat, the house they live in, the clothes they wear, etc., etc., because virtually every manmade object, including food, is dependent upon releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Quick, call the travel agency and book your kids a heavy guilt trip to hell.

With all due respect, the best way to “honour” our children is to respect the fact that they are, as Raffi points out, impressionable at a very young age, and not take advantage of them, or scare the bejesus out of them, or make them feel guilty for what theory “you,” as an adult, currently happen to “believe” in.

Think about it. I mean (and with apologies to the Pope) how “Catholic” is that?

There’s lots of time, when children are older, and less naive, for them to decide for themselves what they want to believe in. Until then, let them enjoy their childhood, promote the moral foundation inherent within them, hug them and tell them you love them, and that you will protect them from all harm. Tuck them into bed, kiss them goodnight, and then go out and protest CO2 emissions with your friends and co-believers, if you must.

And finally, contrary to what many on this island believe, including our leaders, the debate on AGW is not over. Saying it is, and refusing to even consider the possibility the theory may be wrong, is like a right-wing Christian saying,  “The debate on whether homosexuality is natural or not, is over, because there is a consensus, among us Christians, that being gay is ungodly.”

That analogy is similar to the rather ironic, recent public protest by Trustee George Ehring in the Driftwood over now famous satirical video, the Ehring Bunker. Trustee Ehring decried the use, in what was an obvious political satire, of anything resembling something which may be construed as offending the memory of Holocaust survivors.

And yet, what does Mr. Ehring call those who don’t believe in AGW?  Climate “deniers,” a term (used by AGW supporters to denounce and belittle dis-believers) which clearly is a reference to “holocaust deniers.”  Don’t do as I do, do as I say…

However, I am glad to say I was raised by my parents not to be too astounded by the double standards and hypocrisy of others.

I, along with thousands of scientists, including some of the most quoted ones who espouse their current belief in AGW, disagree with the current Trustees that “the debate is over.” Like any good scientific debate in mankind’s history, it’s always just getting started. And so-called “science,” which precludes debate, becomes nothing more than religious dogma.

As a good friend of mine told me, at any given time, true science is basically a string of theories by scientists asking/begging to be refuted by other scientists, in the pursuit of truth.

Religion on the other hand is based on belief, which is not to be questioned or debated, but accepted on faith as being true.

Thus it is that I look forward as the scientific debate on AGW continues, and the religious belief in AGW dwindles ,as indicated by recent polls.

Well, I’ve got to go now, and turn up the thermostat, because contrary to what Raffi sings – “The heat is all around” – it’s the middle of April and its frikken freezing in here.

Happy Cold Earth Day!

Eric Booth,

Global Warming Believer, Anthropogenic Global Warming Dis-Believer, Climate Change Realist

PS – Raffi, I know your intentions are of the highest ideals, and I don’t for a moment doubt that. However, I hope you will agree with me that the irrational emotions of fear and guilt need to be removed from the message to children.

Having just come out of the closet, I can tell you there is no global-warming monster in there. Please either stop telling kids there is, or, at least until they are old enough to properly understand your own fears on the subject. Hopefully, by then, this AGW nightmare will be over, and we can all wake up and get back to the real task at hand – making the planet a cleaner and healthier place for all, and for all the right reasons.

“There are two basic motivating forces: fear and love. When we are afraid, we pull back from life. When we are in love, we open to all that life has to offer with passion, excitement, and acceptance. We need to learn to love ourselves first, in all our glory and our imperfections. If we cannot love ourselves, we cannot fully open to our ability to love others or our potential to create. Evolution and all hopes for a better world rest in the fearlessness and open-hearted vision of people who embrace life.” – John Lennon

PPS – Fact – Currently there are about as many people who believe in AGW as there are who believe in ghosts.

PPPS – If there is someone out there who would like to carry on a reasoned online debate on the science supporting AGW, I would love to debate them. Let’s start with the basics, so, please send your first volley supporting the theories that (a) CO2 levels are higher than they’ve ever been, or (b) increased CO2 has historically caused temperature increases (the Algorian theory as shown in the Inconvenient Truth).  After we’ve beaten those around the bush for awhile, we can move on to whether the last 100 years of temperatures on the planet are “unprecedented.”

PPPPS – (I’ve never used that many P’s before) In the meantime, do yourself a favour and spend 52 minutes watching this presentation by Professor Muller, a scientist who believes in CO2 global warming –  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI

2019 – PPPPS – A father and son team of Irish scientists have used temperature data from millions of weather balloons worldwide, and applied the physics laws of gas to show graphically why the CO2 theory (radiative transfer) is wrong. I urge anyone who is concerned about, or interested in, the theory of global warming to view it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfRBr7PEawY

Then tell me the “debate” is over.