Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Global Warming’

Dear Readers: Regular visitors to the Shrine followed the efforts of California’s Tea Party groups (including the Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition) to promote Proposition 23 in November’s General Election. Proposition 23 would have delayed the implementation of California’s version of Cap&Trade (aka AB-32 – Global Warming Solutions Act). Sadly, it went down to defeat (and, even more sadly, it seems our opponents think it hurt Texas oil companies more that it will hurt California’s citizens). However, there was a proposed ruling issued yesterday that gives our team good hope that the impact of the economy-crushing AB-32 will be nullified:

Calif. cap-trade plan dealt blow by S.F. judge, by Wyatt Buchanan


The California Air Resources Board violated state environmental law in 2008 when it adopted a comprehensive plan to reduce greenhouse gases and again last year when it passed cap-and-trade regulations, a San Francisco Superior Court judge has ruled in a tentative decision.

….In his decision, Superior Court Judge Ernest Goldsmith ruled that the air board approved the larger plan to implement AB32 prior to completing the required environmental review, and that the board failed to adequately consider alternatives to cap and trade.

Superior Court Judge Ernest Goldsmith determine that the air board approved the blarge-scale implementation plans for AB32 without properly conducting an environmental review or considering alternatives to Cap and trade.

I must note that the plaintiffs are not exactly Tea Party types: The plaintiffs, who include “the Association of Irritated Residents”, initially backed AB32 and were opponents of Proposition 23. It seems these plaintiffs have problems with the ethics of how the Global Warming Solutions Act would be implemented.

Welcome to the Tea Party, my friends. You all may want to check out this website, to get a full scope of the eco-tyrants that YOUR ideology has inflicted on the rest of California’s wealth producers.

Anthony Watts of Watts Up with That (a great website mingling science, culture, and commentary) had an assessment of the Proposition 23 battle that should be reviewed by ALL CALIFORNIANS in light of the proposed ruling: A money quote is: And while we are on the subject of money, I want to say that money has turned the Prop 23 issue into a veritable circus here. TV radio and web is being carpet bombed with anti prop 23 ads. It’s so bad that some other political candidates are complaining they can’t buy ad space on radio and TV.

One of the main anti-Prop 23 contributors was Hollywood’s James Cameron (he of the Titanic fame), who will never have to worry about making payroll for a small business nor making a decent salary for his family. Never forget the Ruling Class includes entertainment elites!

The rest of Watt’s analysis is essential Tea Party reading (click HERE to do so).

While I am not thrilled at who brought to lawsuit, the fact is I am delighted with the outcome. I will keep an eye on this situation closely. It seems like CARB isn’t the only rogue agency we need to worry about, either. They are all around is, it seems.

Read Full Post »

Dear Readers: It seems a lot of my Republican friends are super-duper excited about Jon Huntsman (former Governor of Utah) resigning as Ambassador to China so that he can run for President in 2012. They seemed as happy with that as the voiding of Obamacare. The fact that it tweaked Obama’s plans is a delicious bonus:

“Betrayal”? One of the reasons they made him ambassador was to take him out of the field for 2012. They tried to use him, and instead he used them to burnish his foreign policy cred. Turnabout, fair play, etc.

However, there is no joy for me. Huntman is essentially a global warming activist dressed up as a conservative. Proof? Check this link: Governors Challenge Congress to Cap Global Warming Pollution in New TV Ad. Watch the video, and weep. He appears with our former governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to extol the joys of Cap&Trade. Meanwhile, Californians fleeing our state’s version of this green law are often landing in Utah.

So, at this point, the only 2 candidates hinting that they may be in that excite me are Mitch Daniels (who swatted the public service employees unions on his first day in office) and Sarah Palin (her WTF statement on SOTU is the kind of direct, but sensible, perspective that makes me appreciate how much she would shake things up). Just to let you know: FEBRUARY 2011 IS PALIN-PALOOZA AT THE SHRINE. Elite media types want to use this month to go silent on Sarah; frankly, they can kiss my TEA PARTY POSTERIOR.

PALIN POSTER in SAN FRANCISCO (via HILLBUZZ)

.

So, for this month, ALL my posts will have Palin in the title. ALL My articles we have egregious Palin references. And, I will link profusely to her key support sites: HELLO TO CONSERVATIVES4PALIN.

Now, onto some science for today:

**********************************************************************************************************

“HEATED RHETORIC?” Climate Expert Reviews Hard Data; Concludes Natural Causes for Global Warming.

With all this discussion about “heated rhetoric”, I wanted to return to a discussion involving both heat and rhetoric – that covering Anthropogenic (Man-Caused) Global Warming (AGW). To bring everyone up to speed: California is poised to implement the country’s only version of Cap&Trade based on a scientific fraud, with that implementation occurring at the hands of one of the most draconian, punitive, power-mongering bureaucracies known to man.

The proponents of the AGW state that there is “scientific consensus” and little disagreement with their conclusions. It has been my pleasure to meet some of the best scientists in this country, and they have the following message: THERE IS NO CONSENSUS ON MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING. I had the chance to hear Dr. S. Fred Singer speak during a presentation by the Lynceans. There were AWG proponents in the audience. There was debate. There was no consensus. Yet, it was a very polite and civilized exchange of data and interpretations.

Singer is the Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and the Chairman of the NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change). His NIPCC group, among other activities, analyzes the data utilized by the IPCC (the United Nation’s International Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC says these data demonstrate that man is causing global warming. However, using the same material, the NPICC asserts that 20th century global warming was the result of natural causes. Singer theory is that the bulk of climate change is the result of natural causes.

“The IPCC used adjustable parameters,” noted Singer. “The analysis is simply an exercise in curve-filling. The NIPCC emphasizes a broad collection of real data.” To sum-up for the non-scientist:

• IPCC relies on computer models, in which many different parameters can be selected at the discretion of the individual scientist.
• NIPCC uses almost exclusively real data actually attained in the real world.

Nothing beats using real data to do real science!

Below is a graph that displays the difference between the models and the hard data. the context is the prediction by the climate models (shown in red) that there should be a “hot spot” at upper altitudes in the tropical zone – an altitude where the temperature would increase much faster than it does on the surface. This hot spot would then be a “fingerprint” of human-caused greenhouse gas warming. The problem is that the observations (blue and green) do not find such a hot spot, when data taken over several decades are compiled. The warming trend is observed trend actually decreases with increasing height in the atmosphere, and there is actual cooling at some altitudes.

“When the IPCC report was released, and it became apparent the observations of actual data did not agree with the model, they fudged,” Singer said. “The IPCC’s Executive Summary simply said there was some trouble with the tropical zone But the tropical zone is important because of its large area and the huge amount of energy it receives from the sun.

Singer and his team then prepared a report in March 2008: Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate. The NIPCC took a look at the collected data and came to the conclusion that natural causes impacted the climate most significantly. The IPCC would have none of that! Supporters of strong anthropogenic global warming prepared a counter-report, based on even more computer model information (the core of that analysis is presented graphically below). The green curve is typical of the actual data obtained from balloons over several decades, and the thick black curve is an average of the model predictions.

Singer explained that the IPCC did its best to make it seem like the computer models used actually mirrored the data collected from balloons and satellites. “The trends from the re-analysis are spurious,” noted Singer.

Singer then turned to a display of the actual satellite-measured global average temperature.

Singer discussed a better way to analyze the data: The degree change per decade over a 30-plus period of time in the Middle and Lower Troposphere – which shows no truly significant change, especially in the last few years.

Singer covered one of the major problems with the IPCC computer models: chaos. “The models are non-liner differential equations, which by their nature are highly chaotic. The trend line calculated during one run can be ten times of another. Models produce results that are highly variable.” This graphic shows how variable the model results can be:

How many runs does a computer model need to complete before it stops being so variable? To examine this, he used 1000 years of temperature data, dividing it into 25 chunks of 40 years each and using an “unforced model.” Singer found fairly steady results after a minimum of about 10 runs.

How many runs do the IPCC model results rely on? “Running ten models would be very expensive; about half the 22 data points the IPCC used were based on 1-2 runs, and the most runs on a model would be about five. Furthermore, because the IPCC is international, it had to use data from all models submitted – not necessarily the just best ones.”


“Nature changes climate all the time; the time-scale is what differs,” described Singer. “Over millions of years, it is plate tectonics; over hundreds-of-thousands of years, it is changes in the Earth’s orbit; over decades, it is solar activity.”

Singer points to stalagmite records in Oman as just one of the many proofs that the climate is influenced the most by solar activity. The cave readings show Carbon-14 levels (a proxy for solar activity) is directly proportional to Oxygen-18 levels (a recognized proxy for temperature). When the sun is more active, the Earth is warmer. This same fluctuation is also observed on other planets.

What can be done about climate change? Lorraine Yapps Cohen sums up Singer’s thoughts in her piece:

Breaking from protocol with a few economic and political remarks, Singer announced that climate change is a non-problem. Regarding politicians holding climate change as a social issue, Singer lamented that they’re destroying the economy.

“The best solution is to do nothing,” he said, adding an opinion that “it takes real courage for politicians to do nothing.” After all, politicians must think we elect them to do something, even if that something does nothing, costs dearly, or, at the worst, ruins the nation.”

Dr. Singer’s authoritative grasp of climate science was fully evident. During and after the talk, an attendee from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography argued that Singer was ignoring the basic temperature trends. He was not; rather Singer was dissecting the trend data to examine what was happening at higher altitudes in the Tropical Zone. Dr. Singer simply replied “That’s interesting” and was seen later giving the SIO gentleman a consultation.

Read Full Post »

Dear Readers: An interesting set of news items have been placed in my INBOX, and I wanted to share them with you. I also wanted to feature a few images from Shrine friend, Anthony Porrello — taken during the 10-10-10 Oceanside rally.

I am interested in definitions of words, and here is one I think is apt for this week: Blowback: a reaction or effect resulting from an action or cause, usually a negative reaction.

Here are some prime examples:

The Veterans of Foreign Wars (the real ones, not the PAC) battles the PAC over its endorsement of Sen. Ma’am, Babs Boxer. Real veterans do not support Boxer’s anti-defense stances, her arrogant treatment of other servicemen, or her self-serving work in the Beltway. The comments in the Hot Air post were telling: Many VFW members are rescinding their membership, not wanting dues to end up in Boxer’s coffers. It is reported that the VFW will close the PAC in an upcoming meeting (too late for 2010, but not for 2012).

BLOWBACK!

Many friends have emailed me about the resignation from the American Physical Society by Hal Lewis, a a UC Santa Barbra professor and physicist with a long, distinguished career of service to the physics profession and to the country. Shine friend Lorraine Yapps Cohen has more on the letter and Lewis’ background (click HERE). As a reminder, many members have chaffed at the APS position on man-made global warming. The money quote:

I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare.

BLOWBACK!

The APS response to this very public repudiation is being soundly mocked by scientists well-versed in the fraud that is the basis of “man-made global warming.

What do Babs and Man-Made Global Warming have in common? They both use this as the basis of their persuasive power (from the 10-10-10 Tea Party):

Mut's Sign of the Day for 10-10-10

Other examples of Blowback:
* White House attacks on Rove’s group lead to massive influx of donations
* Whore-gate replaces Maid-gate in CA Gubernatorial election discussions, which highlights the nasty incompetence that is the hallmark of Jerry Brown’s governing style.
* Sharron Angle’s campaign has benefited from Harry Reid’s tactics (from W.C. Varones).
* And this from the Great State of Massachusetts: “I was speaking with a prominent Tea Party member in the eastern part of the state — she has been doing the heavy work of going door to door on days off to talk to voters, passing out literature and pushing her candidates. The report I got was astounding. Over and over doors were about to be closed until the voter heard the Magic word ‘Republican’. When the voter heard that word, doors were opened, literature accepted and thumbs up given. Only one in four at best thought otherwise.”

Based on the news coming out, all I have to say November 2nd will be the ULTIMATE BLOWBACK!

Read Full Post »

Dear Readers: This weekend I read an inspirational piece about dealing with New York’s “Parasite Party” in HillBuzz; as a Californian, it really spoke to me. The money quote is here:

The interests of NYC are not the interests of the rest of the state. Outside NYC, the chief business is agriculture. Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Schenectady, Rome, Utica, are not the centers of manufacturing or technology they once were. They are now struggling populations, asphyxiated with mandates imposed – – but not adequately funded – – by the state. New Yorkers are nickled and dimed to feed the Parasite Party. We are bizarrely divided between those who resent the nickel and diming, and those who are not affected. High taxes and oppressive regulations are irrelevant to a powerful elite who transcend New York State, and to those who contribute little or nothing. The elite dominates, and is indifferent to, the rest of the state, and the rest of the state knows it.

Carl Paladino understands: this is personal, it is not business. The Parasite Party is not good for most New Yorkers. They are the Soviet, and he is Lech Walesa.

I was planning to spend this week discussing the California ballot (click HERE for the specific recommendations of the Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition). Proposition 23 is first and foremost among those, at it would delay the toxic state version of Cap&Trade’s implementation, at least until reasonable employment levels were achieved. It seems that support for Proposition 23 is surging in the polls. Our political class in unhappy with this new development, and is using the CA budget as a tool to inflict real pain on businesspeople who do not agree that global warming is so significant a problem that Californians need to be burdened with increased taxes and senseless regulations.

Lorraine Yappes Cohen, a chemist active in getting out the real science refuting the assertion there is man-made global warming, has this piece out in her Examiner column today: California state budget late, stalls for time to blackmail Prop 23 supporters. The money quote is this one:

Very reliable sources tell us that the reason for the delay is that CA Gov. Schwarzenegger, with the collaboration of the State Legislature, is blackmailing potential business supporters of Proposition 23, the California Jobs Initiative that would delay implementation of AB32. They are threatening these supporters with reprisals of special taxes and other punitive measures if they support Prop 23. But once the budget is passed, it is no longer possible to include these taxes in the budget. This is a big reason why the budget is late.

Don’t count on reading about this in media outlets in the tank for the administration and the Wall Street “financial engineers” positioned to profit from AB32.

The State of California must really want that AB32 money from the pockets of working people. To stoop to such political power maneuvers is out-and-out blackmail.

Parisite Party Kills Business Builders

I hope all my cherished readers get this information out to as wide a sphere as possible. Furthermore, it is time to make a few calls/emails today. CA’s political bedbugs need to be taken-care of in the next election. The Parasite Party needs to go!

Governor’s Office:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-445-2841
Fax: 916-558-3160

Note: Click HERE for district office numbers.

Email for California Senators: Click HERE

California Assembly Roster is HERE.

If we fail to suspend AB 32 – the Global Warming Solutions Act based on bad science, the consequences will be as horrendous as the scene in the movie Alien. Many businesses have already been victimized by CARB’s bureaucrats and have been forced to shut down or pay tens of thousands in fines and fees to continue operating. Stories about CA’s citizens fleeing the state’s insanity are legion. Please “REFUDIATE” CA’S PARASITE PARTY BY DONATING TO YES ON 23! TODAY!!!

For a look at extremist environmentalist power-grabs at the nation level, check out this Pajamas Media piece: How the Environmental Movement Became Just Another Washington Power Bloc

Read Full Post »

UPDATE 1: I am pleased to report that some major media is checking on Dr. James Enstrom’s unfair firing from UCLA, which is detailed below.

UPDATE 2: Left Coast Rebel has a great take on the same subject in his latest post on the Daily Caller, done in his inimitable style – Of smurf and swine: James Cameron should read The Daily Caller. Check it out, and please support his work on The Daily Caller by commenting and sharing. :)

Dear Readers: I was amused to hear my least-favorite-director James Cameron fled from a debate with “anti-Global Warming Swine” today. This was especially humorous, because last week I engaged in a hearty debate with a global-warming believer using the Cohen 3-Point Plan described so ably by Left Coast Rebel. Perhaps Cameron has become aware that some of America’s leading scientists are now leading the charge to refute man-made global warming inanity.

Adding to my happiness, Gateway Pundit reports: Obama Scrubs White House Website of Climate Change Promises, Media Mum

Hat-tip, Gateway Pundit

But this joy is tempered with some sorrow. It turns out that one of my personal heroes, a man who was leading-the-charge against the voodoo science perpetrated by the California Air Resources Board, was punished by a group of academic eco-tyrants: UCLA School of Public Health Fires Professor James Enstrom Because It Does Not Like His Research Findings

Dr. James Enstrom, American Hero

Needless to say, many of us in citizen action groups focusing on the environmental kleptocracy that our state’s bureaucracy has become, are upset. The California Dump Truck Owners Association has taken action, and written the following letter to UCLA (full TEXT, click HERE):


The undersigned association directors, company owners and interested parties write to protest the actions taken by UCLA to terminate Dr. James Enstrom as a member of the UCLA research faculty after more than 35 years of exemplary work. We believe that the actions are being taken in retaliation for Dr. Enstrom’s
efforts to expose scientific and professional misconduct by UCLA Faculty members, including Dr. John Froines and Mary Nichols. Both brought on criticism of UCLA because of their misuse of their faculty status and participation in conduct that was unethical while serving the State of California (their appointments due in part to their status as UCLA faculty members). Their conduct involved the cover-up of violations of state statutes by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in its management of a key author of at least two key CARB scientific reports. It is now a fact that CARB head researcher, Hien T. Tran fraudulently represented that he had a PhD. We know that Dr. Froines and Mrs. Nichols knew of Dr. Enstrom’s participation in efforts by citizens groups to uncover the scandals, and the timing of these actions
to lay off Dr. Enstrom by UCLA is no coincidence. Mr. Skip Brown alerted UCLA administrators of these faculty members unethical actions in 2009, to no avail (see attached Delta letter of November 13, 2009).

In addition, Dr. Enstrom’s extensive studies showing no deadly effects of diesel PM2.5 (specific to Californians) refute the stated positions of other professors at the UCLA Department of Environmental Health Sciences (EHS), namely Drs. Jackson and Winer along with SPH Dean Linda Rosenstock (http://www.arb.ca.gov/lists/truckbus08/426-public-health-letter–truck-and-bus-rule-dec-2008.pdf). UCLA is now involved in retaliation against a long-term, honorable member of the faculty in order to protect, cover up or intimidate (or all three).
……
….
This matter is a public matter, since it has the smell of retaliation against Dr. Enstrom for exposing UCLA faculty for misconduct and revealing a serious and continuing problem of UCLA looking away from misconduct. CARB and CA EPA have provided UCLA and UC with tens of millions of grant research dollars over the years and these campuses have returned political correct conclusions, justifying onerous CARB regulations. These draconian Regulations command the destruction of personal property; the resulting actions will guarantee that California will not recover from its current financial debacle.

We ask you to rescind the dismissal of Dr. Enstrom, as we refuse to consider it a justifiable “non reappointment.” Please be mindful that we are men of experience and we know retaliation when we see it. Dr. Enstrom is not a popular person at UCLA in the faculty lounges where the consensus rules, but many scientists have been scorned and vilified for holding a minority position that was eventually vindicated. Dr. Enstrom’s receipt of notice of acceptance for the paper, “Criteria Pollutants and Mortality in the NIHAARP Diet and Health Study Cohort,” by the Health Effects Institute (July 6, 2010) speaks favorably of his status and continued excellent scientific efforts and peer approval in his area of expertise, even if he has suffered from a great deal of intolerance at UCLA. His continued position at UCLA will allow him to
complete this important work.

The undersigned individuals are representative of many trade associations and several thousand California business owners who want this matter promptly and fairly resolved in favor of one UCLA faculty member they consider to be an ally in the effort to demand fair treatment by California agencies in these harsh economic times.

For those of you who would like to write UCLA directly to protest this unfair action — especially if your kids are alumni, and the university expects more dollars from you — then here is who and where to write:

Chancellor Gene D. Block
Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost Scott Waugh
University of California
2147 Murphy Hall
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1405

And, being the Tea Party activist I am, I always encourage the personal touch of a call or email:

Phone: 310-825-2151
Fax: 310-206-6030
E-mail: chancellor@ucla.edu

I have been working with Scott Watson a bit on this matter, and earlier he had prepared a wonderful essay on Diesel-gate, which I will share with you now. Scott is promising to update me on the situation with Dr. Enstrom shortly.

*****************************************************************************

Climate scientists falsifying data…fake PhD’s…global warming….dogs and cats living together…..mass hysteria!

Yes admittedly over dramatic but are we witnessing the death of real science? You remember like I do from grade school that science was supposed to be a bastion of truth. The scientist develops a theory and then sets about through experimentation to either prove or disprove their theory. It never seemed to me that it was open to interpretation. It was supposed to contain no ambiguity or interpretation, no room for a hunch or gut feel or the hairs on your neck standing up or little angels or devils on your shoulder questioning you. It was supposed to be one of the last frontiers of truth…so much so that to prove the theory one had to be able to replicate the experiments over and over again because that was the objective…scientific FACT.

Well it appears that I have bee naive and will have to file science along with the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny….enduring fairy tales that make you feel warn and fuzzy but have no basis in fact.

I have often wondered why it is that science has so much debate and it seems patently obvious now…it’s money. Research money….the life blood of any scientific research organization. But we also have just recently watched the discussion in Copenhagen where we have witnessed walk outs by the poor countries against the rich countries. The poor countries agree that everyone needs to take action against global warming but for the poor countries to be able to participate they need one thing….money from the rich countries. Now perhaps I am a hopeless cynic but consider this for a moment. Is it within the realm of possibility that a country such as Somalia of Gabon of Fiji or Guyana could pledge to fight the global warning fight along with the rest off the world…happily accepting their several million dollars to do their part to combat global warming only to suddenly not have enough funding and to need more money because the last money they were given has disappeared or been exhausted according to their claims?

Say it ain’t so…Dieselgate?

So we live in an era off science cooking the data to prove whatever the highest bidder wants to make into a certainty. Science is now about the money and inherently corrupted. It also seems that we can no longer leave these academics to police them because there is too much money in it. Now we, as members of the laymen populous now have to begin policing the science so that we can have some faith that what is determined is for real instead of some buy off. We have no choice in this any longer. Just like police forces or the military, there is the feeling that unless they are watched by the regular people, that they will always protect themselves and must be monitored. Apparently that is now the model of practicality – don’t let an organization police itself because they are inherently corrupt – so let’s get together a group of people that we will charge with watching them. And why is this the case….because we ….the mindless sheep populous are the ones that ultimately have to pay for the follies of this science.

That is right, we all pay for the cost of these moves by our supposed “protectors” to help protect us from ourselves, but of course it is less popular is we all have to actually pay directly so whom better to shove the regulation onto but business. And yes. We all ultimately pay for is in the goods and services as a hidden tax on all of us.

But let’s bring this theory back to the State of California and we have our own examples of the corruption of science…..what I am now branding as “Dieselgate”…

Never mind that California has a record unemployment rate but the Air Resources Board is in the middle of taxing small business and therefore consumers via the diesel regulations that are being enacted. Never mind that the lead scientist who’s name shows on the report falsified his PHD to get the position he did in handling this important regulation. Never mind that the data was skewed and that the peer review process that the ARB is supposed to be administering is a joke.

Yes, the peer review process is another tool of the scientific community used to check their work before publishing it. The idea is that the report or finding before publishing is shared with a group of peer scientists that review the work to offer an opinion as to the scientific value and validity of the entire exercise.

Yet we have a problem here as well under CARB. It seems that CARB s so busy burying business under arcane regulations that they have failed to properly follow the rules of the peer review appointments – resulting in peer review scientists that are on the peer review committee unfairly ort illegally. But honestly, who needs to worry about things like rules when the intent is not to have any real scientific review at all, but instead a rubber stamp of what has already been concluded in the report? Of course the review doesn’t matter when you can buy the conclusion you want but it actually making the existence of CARB self-perpetuating. Who could imagine that a state department would actually justify its own existence and value by concluding that the regulations necessary are vital to the state of California? Gosh! What a surprise that is…I liken it to some of my children trying to justify an increase in weekly allowance and then asking the other children is the report of why they should get more allowance was valid.

I for one am disgusted with the whole thing. Now we the layman’s need to police these run away rouge agencies to make sure that we are not getting a rotten Red Herring slipped into the process while no one is looking. And this has lead to a theory of my own developed in countless hours on the soccer field as a referee and equally as many hours on the baseball diamond as an umpire. If both sides of teams and spectators at any game leave equally unsatisfied after the outcome of the game – it was probably a fair game buy the officials. So let’s take all of the data and assumptions that are used in these 2.5PM diesel regulations (and any other for that matter) models to “protect” us – lets all average them to the middle. That way no one can skew the science until such time that they figure out that they have to skew the possibilities to get the outcome they want.

For example the diesel regulations are said to reduce “premature death by 3,900” per year. Okay fair enough…….we all treat life with respect and this is a good thing. But think about this for a moment. Premature death. What the heck is premature death? By virtue of the phrase its simple enough to decide that it is 3900 deaths that otherwise would not have taken place. Okay….so how long is their life extended? Well, we don’t have an answer for that. But if you think about the term, it seems obvious to me that it is purposely constructed to resonate with an uneducated public. Saving people from premature death is a good thing. But it really doesn’t mean anything other than in theory. We all have heard that life expectancy in the US stands at 78.1 years in the US and it is 77.9 in the state of California[1] for a person born today but what about the people that die in traffic accidents? A quick search on Google says that in 2006 there we a total of 4,195 deaths by traffic accidents per year in the State of California. I would consider those to be “premature deaths” all be it in another category I suppose. But the next question is how many of those that dies in traffic accidents would have otherwise died from premature death from 2.5PM? I don’t have a clue but I am sure there is a statistician that could come up with a figure somewhere. So since I can’t trust science to calculate the difference for me – we will attempt to do it ourselves. The difference nationally and in California is 0.2 years of life or 73 days out of 365 in the course of a year. So is this a fair number? Well it is for my purposes of evaluation so let’s say that those 3,990 people all would have averaged an increase of life – had they not lived in California of 73 days. So it would seem reasonable to say that we could have extended those 3,990 lives by 73 days each? If we were able to do that then we would equal the national average….but at what price?

Estimates of cost range from 4.5 Billion dollars per year up to 20 billion a year for the cost of these diesel regulations. So let’s apply my own theory and say that we will take an average number of $12.25 billion dollars per year. That comes out to $3,070,175.44 per each of the 3,990 deaths that CARB is trying to prevent each year. Now, we have to ask the ugly question is a single life extended by 73 days worth $3.07 million dollars per year or $42,057.20 per day for each of those additional 73 days. I for one will tell you that I don’t think that I am worth that much more, but I consider myself a pragmatist. So then we are tasked with trying to quantify the value of a portion of an individual life and believe it or not, it has been done. I had no idea that statisticians had the models available to quantify the cost of a life and have studied it for purposes of this opinion but I am going to suggest to you that the cost of this debacle is an exercise in futility.

Now I suppose that the first attack from the proponents of the diesel regulation would be that the costs that I have estimated are in total and are spread over say 10 years. Once a truck is converted then one need not spend any additional cash for the remainder of the life of the truck. Okay so we take the savings of life as suggested by the regulation and multiply that times 10 and we now have 39,900 people that are saved over the 10 year period. So back to the costs – $12,250,000,000 and we divide that by 39,000 lives and come up with a cost per person of $307,017.54. Still not worth it in my own circumstances in my opinion.

Now, my final point for those of you ready to drool down your face like I am. Life expectancy for someone born in the United States in 1850 was 38.3 years. In 1900 it was 50.23. In 1950it was 66.31 years in 1990 72.7 years[2] and today as stated earlier it is now 77.9 in California. We have gained an additional 10 years during my lifetime and when is it enough? Surely the horrible 2.5PM that I have lived through should have done me in by now but I can expect to live 10 years longer in my generation than the one before and assumedly, those born today will live even longer so what is it that we are ultimately doing? Trying to preserve life when we have already made incredible gains? And for what? Some footnote for those that somehow believe they are making a difference when that difference – if any is almost imperceptible.

I view this as I do many things….keep the government and it’s supposed “help” the hell out of my life. There are already enough things in my lifetime that I need to work on because of myself let alone have some bureaucrats out there trying to prolong my life by 73 days.

Enough is enough…
****************************************************************************
MUT’s Money Links

* Michelle Malkin: White House War on Jobs
* Big Hollywood: Exclusive: James Cameron Talks Tough, Runs From Fight, Let’s Flunkie Take Blame
* Big Government: pro-Neutrality Network Coalition is Collapsing
* Big Journalism: Gulf? What Gulf? Right on Schedule, It’s ‘Hurricane Katrina’ Week in the MSM!
* The Anchoress: Rhetorical Axes and Park51

Read Full Post »

Dear Readers: I came across a line from KT of the Scratching Post that perfectly underscores the nature of the Tea Party Movement: In the tone of The Most Interesting Man in the World: “I don’t always get politically involved, but when I do, I prefer to join Tea Parties. Stay ungovernable, my friends.”

And here are two juicy bits showing that our merry band of agitators at the Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition and other citizen action groups intend to remain just that.

FILNER VS POPADITCH DEBATE

American hero and veteran Nick Popaditch is running to replace Bob Filner in California’s 51st district.

“Today at the Lemon Festival in Chula Vista, Nick Popaditch and Bob Filner crossed paths while walking around”, said Cheryl Perez of the Chula Vista Patriots. “Nick went up to Filner to shake hands and say hello. I told Filner we would love to hear him and Nick debate. I tried to get him to say a date or time frame, but the best we could get was yes he would debate Nick, but he wanted it set up by a neutral group. I tried as many times as I could to point blank ask if he would debate Nick. Each time, right in front of Nick, he said yes.”

Cheryl continued: “I emailed Steve Yuhas (there is a history with Yuhas trying to get Filner to debate Nick and my understanding is that Filner told Yuhas he would debate Nick on his radio show after the primary). Yuhas, on the air, offered to moderate a one hour debate. Nick quickly called the show, and on the air said any date, any time.”

Cheryl suggests the following action items, and asks everyone to take a moment from their day:

1 – Call Filner’s office and ask him to answer Yuhas’s invitation to debate. Though calling is preferred, an email would also work, too.

Filner’s campaign website is: http://www.bobfilnerforcongress.com
Contact Filner at: info@bobfilnerforcongress.com

Filner’s Congressional office is:
333 F Street, Suite A
Chula Vista, CA 91910
619-422-5963

(“Popaditch’s campaign office is the next block over,” noted Cheryl. “You can stand in the front of both offices and see each other. Nick has walked into Filner’s office a few times with questions. I love this. It must drive Filner crazy and shows something about Nick. He is going into the middle of the battle ground, not stand around the outside waitting to see what will happen.”)

His campaign office is:
619-425-1998
240 Woodlawn #7
Chula Vista CA 91910

2 – Let people know Filner said, in person, he would debate Nick. Call Filner’s office and ask him to do what he said he would and debate Nick. (If anyone gets an answer that Filner never said that, please let me know. I will go down to his office and have him say that to me in person).

3 – Email Steve Yuhas (steve@steveyuhas.com) and let him know we appreciate his offer to host this debate. This is not a usual format for Steve’s show as he rarely has guests. (side note: Steve also broke the story about the distastefulcartoon of Nick on his show a few weeks back). Steve’s show is on KOGO 600 am from 5:00 – 7:00 on Sundays.

For those of you not acquainted with the full magnitude of Filner’s charm, here is a piece I wrote: Filner tells Blue Dogs to go away.

YES on 23! RALLY AT THE CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY CONVENTION

Meg Whitman’s horrendous interview on the John and Ken Show is still making waves. Many Tea Party types are none too happy with the weak stance being taken by the state’s Republican Party elites on the YES on 23! campaign (to repeal, at least temporarily, CA’s version of Cap and Trade). The GOP’s state of confusion is detailed in this SFgate story: Prop. 23 is a hot potato for state GOP: confusion reigns on endorsement.

“We are going to do a Yes on 23 rally in front of the CRP convention the day Meg speaks,” says Sarah Bond, co-founder of the Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition. “The SFGate story is going haywire on Facebook and people are
chomping at the bit to do something about it. So we are.”

The CRP Fall Convention is August 20-22 at the Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego. It’s time to start preparing those Yes on 23! posters and brushing up on the latest data refuting man-made global warming. The Shrine will post the details of the rally as soon as they are available.

STAY UNGOVERNABLE, MY FRIENDS!

Michelle Malkin has a more nationally-oriented action item: Stop the BigGovJobs bill

Read Full Post »

Dear Readers:

Big government politicos keen to control American wealth and lifestyles via environmental regulation had a major failure recently: The US Senate recently passed an energy bill that abandons cap-and-trade, the legislation touted to “solve” the man-made global warming crisis. Despite the hopes of environmental activists and “green” business entities that worked to promote Cap&Trade at the federal level, the bill avoids all mention of economy-wide emission caps and does not impose renewable electricity standards on utility companies.

Americans, who are increasingly dismissing the assertion that man-made global warming is a serious concern, have dodged an economic bullet. Cap&Trade’s taxes and regulations would have placed a serious crimp in the country’s economic health. However, California’s regulators are still going forward with their plans to enforce the state equivalent to this plan: AB-32, the Global Warming Solution’s Act. In other words, California will confine the deleterious impact on business and lifestyle to this state. In fact, GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman just stated on the John and Ken show (AM640, click here for the 8/4 podcast/third hour) that she wants AB-32 to go into effect and then she will suspend it for one year while SHE decides the best way to implement Cap & Trade.

“Angry doesn’t even begin to describe what I’m feeling right now, “ said Sarah Bond, Chief Executive Officer of the Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition. “ We must VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 23. The ballot measure, also known as the Jobs First Initiative, will temporarily suspend implementation the state’s global warming law California’s unemployment rate is lower and the state is in less economic danger.”

Hopefully, the temporary suspension will lead to a permanent one, as the theory of man-made global warming has been seriously questioned, and many parts refuted, by experienced scientists. I was privileged to attend a talk hosted by the Lynceans, a organization of physicists and engineers in the San Diego Area, that focused on the actual data pertinent to science supposedly driving the Cap&Trade schemes. It seems that the “debate” is not over, and there are several scientists who would relish the opportunity to rebut man-made global warming proponents directly in a live match.

Dr. Martin Fricke of San Diego, a nuclear physicist and Senior Fellow of The American Physical Society, arranged for two experts to review aspects of the “debate”. These experts were Dr. William Happer, the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University and a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and Dr. Roger Cohen, who spent over 40 years in industrial research in the electronics and energy industries and was the Senior Director for Exxon’s Corporate Research Laboratories and Manager of Strategic Planning and Programs.

Both men have stellar scientific biographies. For example, Happer was appointed as the Director of Energy Research, serving under the Secretary of Energy, where he oversaw basic research programs including much of the federal funding for high energy and nuclear physics, materials science, magnetic confinement fusion, environmental science, and the human genome project. Happer’s term of service included some time under Clinton Administration. Cohen initiated and managed a basic research program in climate science and has remained actively involved in the area since that time. Both men are members in several prestigious professional organizations — in other words, they represent some of the best scientific minds in America.

Californians interested in our state’s future can use the information presented in this seminar effectively in countering the global warming proponents wherever and whenever they encounter them. Cohen’s discussion focused on the dynamics of the debate, and how to address global warming believers effectively. Happer’s talk was focused on the technical side, refuting the global warming evidence and providing facts necessary for risk assessment related to carbon dioxide levels. Both presentations offered a lot of solid background material.

DEBATING the DEBATE TACTICS

“A remarkable feature of the dynamics is what happens when you ask the simple question regarding the case for serious anthropogenic global warming,” Cohen explained. “Responses tend to fall into three categories.” These categories are:

  1. Appeal to Authority. Cohen cited the argument that “the evidence for man-made global warming is overwhelming” as an example of this response.
  2. Precautionary Principles. “Proponents argue that even if the science supporting man-made global warming is wrong, if there is any risk at all, we need to do something heroic to reduce it.”
  3. Pure Anger. Probably, the class of response best known to pundits, in which people challenging the assertion man is causing global warming are called “deniers”, “oil company shills”, or are otherwise insulted.

The thrust of Cohen’s talk was to address these three debate styles. For example, the Appeal to Authority argument counters itself: over 30,000 scientists (including myself) have signed the Petition Project that challenges the man-made global warming hypothesis. Additionally, the American Physical Society Petition of 266 experienced and distinguished physicists calling for a new, independent, and objective assessment of the science. Furthermore, a recent open letter to the UN Secretary General, signed by dozens of highly-placed climate science professional, calls Global Warming science unsettled and challenged the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming.

Interestingly, the “thousands of scientists” often referred by proponents boils down to a group of about 30 who actually write the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), after consulting with governments. In fact the last SPM (2007) was written before the science reports were completed. The SPM is the overall assessment of the science that is all the media ever sees, and the IPCC press release is based on it. There has been much made of the fact that this Summary does not faithfully represent the body of science that goes into IPCC reports. One key item of many of the IPCC reports was the infamous “hockey stick” graphic.

Fraudulent "Hockey Stick" graph "proving" man-made global warming

“The hockey stick became the poster child of global warming, the most celebrated graph since Descartes invented the idea of graphs,” explained Cohen. “ We saw it in Gore’s movie. It appeared over and over again in the IPCC report. Let me read from that report, “The rate and duration of warming of the 20th century has been much greater than in any of the previous nine centuries. Similarly, it is likely that the 1990s have been the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year of the millennium.

End of argument? Well no. We now know that this statement is baseless; it rests on work laden with technical errors and outright finagling. Climate-gate told us about the behind-the-scenes manipulations to promote and defend the stick, and to prevent opposing views from being published. But even before Climate-gate, the work of Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Hans Von Storch, and others had disposed of it from a science perspective. There are many documented serious problems with the stick. The early statistical methods were found to be flawed; they would produce an upward blade even from bogie proxies with no trend whatsoever.

“The most notorious issue involves a widely publicized e-mail string that has scientists discussing a so- called trick to hide the decline. They were talking about how to deal with a problem in showing how tree ring proxies stack up to the actual temperature record. The problem is that tree rings show a decline in their inferred temperature after 1960, while the actual temperature is believed to have increased. This is called the divergence problem. At issue is whether tree rings can be trusted as proxy “thermometers” going back 1,000 years or more if they can’t reproduce the last 40. The divergence problem was well known before the revelations. What is new is that we now know the details of an organized effort to cover up the discrepancies.”

After rebutting the Appeal to Authority argument, Cohen addresses how to handle Precautionary Principals. The Precautionary Principle warns that no matter how small the environmental risk, we should drive this risk as close to zero as we can. But environmentalists fail to include economic risk in the equation. In fact, a thorough economic/environmental study was conducted by Professor William Nordhaus of Yale (who has an award from the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists and serves on the Congressional Budget Office Panel of Economic Experts). Nordhaus’ work is based on the most dire global warming data approved by the IPCC, erroneous as it is, and indicates that essentially doing nothing for the next 50 years is one of the best options.

W. D. Nordhaus, A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies ( 2008)

“So the Precautionary Principle is hazardous to our future economic health,” explained Cohen. “Following the Precautionary Principle would logically lead us to spend trillions on other improbable events such as the next large asteroid collision, and we know that will happen someday. One purpose of science is to reduce uncertainty so as to facilitate wise decisions to promote human progress. The Precautionary Principle claims that one special brand of uncertainty is itself a reason to make decisive economic sacrifices. But the science does not support such economic interventions. Beware of the It Doesn’t Matter response. It does matter, and it matters a great deal.”

Lastly, Cohen noted that there only way to address the Pure Anger approach is to enjoy the fact that it a sign that the man-made global warming supporters are losing the debate. Cohen describes it as cognitive dissonance: The idea is that when presented with information that is dissonant from strong beliefs that people have invested in, the easiest way to deal with it is to ignore it, refuse to accept it, or simply avoid that type of information.

“But how can a belief be held so strongly when most people do not have the training or the inclination to make a scientific assessment?” queried Cohen. “Well, it is easy for people to fold their global warming cognitive into their political cognitive or their too-many-people cognitive. There it becomes heartily resistant to new information.”

CARBON DIOXIDE REALITIES

Dr. Happer’s talk focused on the physical science, highlighting evidence of the variability of carbon dioxide levels throughout Earth’s history, showing the complexity of trying to account for clouds and water vapor in computer climate models, showing that enhanced carbon dioxide levels can be good for the environment, and higher temperatures in the recent past have been very beneficial to mankind. In fact, the first part of Happer’s talk was actually on carbon dioxide itself.

“The Supreme Court recently ruled that carbon dioxide was a pollutant,” Happer said. “However, carbon dioxide is an essential component of the atmosphere. “The reading in this room is about 900 ppm (parts per million), after the meter was moved from under the A/C vent; yet, limits of 350 ppm are being discussed by the EPA as part of potential regulation. And in the air you exhale is 45,000 ppm. Additionally, people drink carbon dioxide in soda daily – are they actually drinking a toxic substance?”.

He then discussed how the molecule of carbon dioxide actually responded when exposed to sunlight of various wavelengths. It turns out that the water molecule is actually a much more potent global warming agent than CO2. Happer noted that cloud cover impacted how much heat was either received or radiated out from Earth, and how climate model programs were just not designed to adequately address this fact and can produce any answer you want by varying unknown parameters.. Happer reviewed a lot of detailed scientific research, including the Vostok Ice Cores that demonstrate the carbon dioxide levels are a lagging indicator – they actually rose AFTER global temperature increases, not vice versa.

“The Climate-gate scandals show that global-warming proponents have a high threshold for embarrassment, remarked Happer. “Essential surface data was not shared.” Happer continued to explain that through geologic history, research indicates that carbon dioxide levels varied widely – with seemingly no relationship to the actual global temperature. The following graph illustrates this important point.

Atmospheric CO2 levels and Temperature through Geologic History

Happer also described advertisements for equipment that elevate carbon dioxide levels. Plants thrive in atmospheres with about four times more carbon dioxide than average. Greenhouses will use the equipment for better crop yields and healthier plants. Happer highlighted this point: “In fact, if you do the math, 15% of the food yield increase we have seen in recent years is related to the increase in CO2. If we reduce the levels of CO2, we will noticeably reduce food yields.”

It is essential that Californians become better informed about the Climate-gate scandal, as well as proposals to regulate carbon dioxide coming from Sacramento and Washington. A LA Times Poll indicates that 67% of Californians currently support AB-32. It seems that the environmental activists’ talking points have been better promoted by the traditional media, but I know that Californians can be persuaded by facts once they have them. For example, a California State University study estimates AB-32 will result in an average family cost of about $3,900 per year, a small business cost of about $50,000 per year and a total loss of output in the range of $180 billion. And economists anticipate that AB-32’s implementation can cost California up to 1.1 million jobs.

It is up to knowledgeable citizens everywhere to talk to their friends, neighbors, and fellow voters about the types of information that leading scientists and engaged Americans, such as Drs. Cohen and Happer, have presented. Our future, and the future of the state, are on the line this November.

*********************************************************************************************************

For readers interested in technical details and further information, please use the following links.

Dr. Cohen’s Presentation
Dr. Happer’s Presentation
List of Related References
Dr. Roy Spencer’s site: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
**********************************************************************************************************
MUT News and Views:

AUG 7 – NATIONAL DOCTORS TEA PARTY – SAN DIEGO

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and the Physicians Against Obamacare are organizing a Tea Party on Aug 7th to demand a repeal of Obamacare. Speakers include, Roger Hedgecock, Sharron Angle, Joseph Rarah, Sally Pipes, Nick Popaditch, Chuck Devore and many more! This event will be held in conjunction with other events across the U.S. On the same day.

Date: Sat. Aug. 7
Time: Noon – 3:00 pm
Location: Spanish Landing East; 3900 N. Harbor Dr.; San Diego, CA 92101

* Michelle Malkin discusses other elite-business/leftist regulator partnerships that hurt the average citizen: The shady Shorebank bailout revisited
* Hot Air notes the dire economic situation natioanally: ADP report shows anemic private-sector job growth
* Gateway Pundit reveals the use of tax dollars: Michelle And Sasha’s Excellent Spanish Adventure…At Taxpayers Expense!BizzyBlog follows up with equally excellent analysis!
* The HillBuzz Team have a gripping review of Obama on his birthday.
* Patterico, the Anchoress, Althouse, and Malkin all cover a key California issue – the overturning of Proposition 8.

From the SLOBs:

* Beers with Demo continues his Elton John Appreciation Week with a humble suggestion from me, to express our gratitude to the citizens of Missouri for their brave choice on Proposition C!
* Left Coast Rebel reports on a British Citizen arrested in Dubai for wearing a bikini.
* Kimberly Dvorak has two HOT stories.

1) Why did the taxpayers of California have to fund a bunch of state government employees’ trip to protest an Arizona matter? Astro Turf provided by SEIU hijacks Arizona 1070 rally

2) MUT MUST READ: A comprehensive analysis of the deterioration of the US/Mexican border situation that is under-reported by the elite media (as it is mired in endless distractions): Drug cartels, media blackouts and more are commonplace along border

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,034 other followers