I haven’t posted lately, but that doesn’t mean I am not horrified and outraged at the Obama Administration and the Democrats in Congress. This cartoon by Michael Ramirez sums it up for me:

I hate to say it, but I truly believe that Obama’s presidency will be seen as the inflection point where the United States began its slide from being the greatest country on Earth to just another socialist Euro-Weeny nanny-state mediocrity. China will become the world’s greatest power. I pray that the next two elections (mid-terms in 2010 and presidential in 2012) rescue us from that fate.

One more rant please, on a different topic. After this coldest winter in memory (and on record, at least in some ways), you might think that the global warming alarmists would shut the hell up -- forever. I’ll make an easy prediction: when the next winter rolls around, if it is warmer than this winter (a low bar to cross, if there every was one), the alarmists will come out of the woodwork screeching about how the temperature has risen. “It was 38 degrees in January 2011! It was only 36 degrees in January 2010! Global warming is real! We need cap and trade! Shut down capitalism! People are a scourge to the planet!” How utterly annoying they are.

Rants over. Have a nice day.

You might think that, as much as I have written about climate change (click on the “climate change” tag to the left), I’d have been all over the scandal involving the East Anglia scientists who hid and changed data to fit the “consensus” and who tried to silence skeptics. The truth is that my reaction isn’t much more than a big sigh of relief.

Relief that my instincts regarding the global warming promoters were right.

Relief that skeptics, such as myself, were justified in their skepticism.

Relief that monstrous schemes like “cap and trade” are dead in the United States, or at least mortally wounded.

Relief that there will be (or should be) calls for a more open and critical look at the actual data, rather than a blind devotion to the global warming religion.

Relief that the scientific community might purge some of these charlatans.

I realize the scandal hasn’t gotten much attention in the liberal media, but I’m not sure that matters much. I was going to look through the last several Sarasota Herald-Tribune newspapers to see if they deigned to mention it, but I’m pretty sure they didn’t, at least not in a substantial way, and frankly, who cares? I long ago came to the conclusion that the principle weakness and distinguishing characteristic of today’s liberalism is its willingness to set aside facts, truth, and logic in favor of policy objectives. Inconvenient events are mentally discarded.

Global warming, as political scaffolding with which to construct an ever larger government, is thankfully collapsing. Climate change, as an actual physical phenomenon, will continue in its cycles of cooling and warming, as it has done for millions of years, oblivious to the affairs of man.

Thomas Friedman of the New York Times wrote a column on November 17 entitled, “What They Really Believe.” Curiously, when the column appeared in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune, a new, although far clumsier, title was created: “Climate-bill critic’s fantasy.”

To his credit, Friedman doesn’t even try to support the claim that the earth is still warming (it has actually cooled slightly over the last decade), nor does he assert that man is the principal cause of climate change, rather than the sun. In fact, he abandons the global warming argument (since he apparently knows it won’t stand up) in favor of a “green hawk” argument.

Friedman spends most of the column trying to construct rhetorical interest by “logically” deducing certain climate skeptics’ beliefs based on known beliefs. Despite the fact that these discovered beliefs are ridiculous and obviously untrue, it’s hard to tell whether he is being serious or not. After all the column is entitled, “What They Really Believe.” What do the climate-change skeptics believe, according to Friedman?

- The world is going to face a mass plague, like the Black Death, that will wipe out 2.5 billion people sometime between now and 2050.

- It is much better for America that the world be dependent on foreign oil for energy rather than on clean power.

- People in the developing world are very happy being poor.

If, on the other hand, he is merely trying to assert that skeptics are thinking illogically, well, I am afraid Friedman falls into the very trap he is projecting onto others. He finally gets to his point near the end:

So either the opponents of a serious energy/climate bill with a price on carbon don’t care about our being addicted to oil and dependent on petro-dictators forever or they really believe that we will not be adding 2.5 billion more people who want to live like us, so the price of oil won’t go up very far and, therefore, we shouldn’t raise taxes to stimulate clean, renewable alternatives and energy efficiency.

So, it’s:
A: Skeptics don’t care about oil dependency, or
B: Skeptics don’t think the price of oil will rise over time, therefore
C: We shouldn’t raise taxes.

Friedman is wearing intellectual blinders and doesn’t realize there are other possibilities, such as:

A: Beliefs about climate change are totally unrelated to thoughts about our dependence on hostile regimes for oil. I don’t know a single person, conservative or liberal, who is happy about such dependency.

B: Beliefs about climate change are totally unrelated to thoughts about what will happen to the price of oil in the future.

C. There is already an enormous profit incentive to develop alternative sources of energy. Can you imagine the money to be made from an invention or process that would provide an alternative source of energy at (and here’s the key) a price better than oil’s?

D. The government does not need to turn to a massive business tax to create alternative energy interest. The interest is already there. There is all kinds of research being conducted, much of it privately, and new developments are occurring rapidly.

E. A massive tax is simply a way to make energy more expensive today. Gee, just what our miserable economy needs. If the concern is the price of energy in the future, why make it more expensive now?

F. At the end, after advocating a massive cap-and-trade tax, he hilariously wants us to “let the free market and innovation do the rest.” In fact, the free market and innovation can occur without a job- and economy-killing tax.

G: In the meantime, yes, let’s drill oil domestically where we can, and yes, let’s build nuclear power plants that provide nearly limitless energy with no CO2 emissions. Both would reduce our dependence on foreign oil. What do you say, Mr. Friedman?

You see, all the above are true, but the big-government liberals either can’t understand or address those possibilities effectlvely. So, they resort to constructing fantasies about those who can.

First, I am rather proud of myself: I competed in the Siesta Key Triathlon yesterday (0.5 mile swim, 13 mile bike, 3.1 mile run) and, while I wasn't near getting a medal, I did finish 12th out of 35 in my age group.

More than the decent finish (I had a better finish in the Venice Triathlon, 3rd, although it was against a smaller and weaker field), however, I am pleased with how fresh I felt at the end. Yes, I was breathing very heavy for the first minute or two after finishing the run, but I recovered quickly and felt great. I'm just better now at managing the race and myself. Nice feeling.

All right, this is old, old news by internet standards (> 30 days), but I still want to comment. This picture is the world's first image of an actual molecule, a million times smaller than a grain of sand. Mind blowing.

There is more evidence that global warming is non-event, and Jonah Goldberg discusses the matter quite reasonably. It all shows how legislation such as the proposed "cap and trade" bill are not really about the environment, but about the expansion of government at the expense of capitalism and sound science.

Rich Lowry has Obama the Arrogant nailed in An Obama Speech in 13 Easy Steps. If there was every a president that was actually the complete opposite of what he claimed to be during his campaign (in Obama's case, a "uniter"), it's Obama.

I haven't quite made up my mind about Sarah Palin. My horse sense tells me that she is what she appears to be: a plain-spoken, honest, corruption-fighting conservative who is not afraid to speak her mind. Her message and language aren't focused-grouped and slickly packaged to move polls, thank God. She's more like the people of America than she is like the people in Washington. She "gets it," so to speak.

No, she's not perfect human being, and yes, she needs experience, but there is no denying that she has one quality that conservative politicians (as distinct from conservative pundits or voters), at least on the national stage, have recently lacked: she's very, very attractive. I hate symbolism over substance, but the harsh reality is that more attractive people have a distinct edge over less attractive people, in a number of situations, most especially including politics.

Let's face it, she's hot. She's as far from the stereotypical old-white-man GOP politician as you can get.

A number of new stories stuck me today as being incredible. Taken together, they represent the disturbing extent to which people and society have lost their bearings. You be the judge.

Just 53% Say Capitalism Better Than Socialism. That absolutely blows my mind, and it's the scariest statistic I've read in a long time. The survey concludes that Democrats, naturally, are far more inclined to favor socialism. I suppose the silver lining is that at least the Democrats are now being honest about it.

The White House is denying that Obama bowed to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Look, no sane person can say that Obama didn't bow, so this denial shows that the Obama Administration is willing lie to the American people. And if they are willing to lie about such a minor incident (thus risking the the often-repeated PR blunder of turning a small incident into a large incident), they surely will be willing to lie when the political stakes are higher.

Oh, and if you don't believe that much of the media is just a mouthpiece for liberal organizations, see this: The curious case of 200 nearly identical MSM headlines.

A Democrat delegation to Fidel Castro ends up praising him. I have nothing to add.

Obama's "science advisor" is considering shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Can you imagine how the Bush Administration would have been mocked had it proposed such insanity?

I added a few more Mark Twain quotes to my Favorite Quotes section. You know the old cocktail party question, "If you could have dinner with someone from history, who would you choose?"? I'm certainly not a Mark Twain expert, but just based on Tom Sawyer, Huckleberry Finn, and his wonderful quotes, he'd be on my short list.

I've decided to run the Sarasota Half-Marathon in February, a 13.1-mile race. I've never run that kind of distance before, and I have had doubts that my knees and back would be able to handle it. On Sunday, I took a big step in the right direction by running further than I ever have: 9 miles. I'm pleased.

I love this cartoon.
Speaking of media bias, I wonder if, at the end of 2008, the media will report that it was one of the coldest years we've had recently (yes, I am making a prediction here). Nah, if I'm right, they will bury the story. It would put another nail in the man-made global warming coffin. 2008 will mark the 10th year in a row that has been cooler than 1998. Does that sound like a crisis to you? Does that sound like a situation that demands an upheaval of capitalistic economies or burdensome, ridiculous schemes like "cap and trade"?

I haven't posted a lot lately, but that doesn't mean I haven't had anything to write about. I just haven't had much time. Time to clear the decks with these quick hits.

First, if you live in Sarasota and you don't know about From the Duke, a conservative blog by Rich Swier, do yourself a huge favor and check it out. Rich writes well, posts every day, and, among other things, takes on the monumental task of refuting the liberal nonsense that pervades the Sarasota Herald-Tribune. Highly recommended.

Next, here is one of those news stories that, upon reading it, will divide people into conservative or liberal camps. No, that's not strong enough. Let me elaborate. When you read this story, your reaction will be one of the following:

1. "That's great! I love it! It's about time we got serious about being green! But are they going far enough?"

If this is your reaction, you are insane or, if not insane, then at least completely out to lunch. You live in a fantasy world. You are lost in the deep end of liberalism. You are beyond help. Please, please don't ever get into a position of power.

2. "OK, that's fine with me. It makes me feel good."

You aren't insane, but you have been lightly brainwashed by the media and other members of the left. You aren't strong in critical thinking skills. You are not beyond help, but it will take a jarring episode to snap you out of your trance.

3. "Wow, that seems a little extreme. It makes me a little uncomfortable."

You are a moderately conservative and sensible individual, but probably not one who spends much time thinking or reading about politics. However, your horse sense tells you when something is wrong.

4. "The idea that those people will be running our country if Obama is elected scares the living bat poop out of me."

You are a rock-ribbed conservative, and you know the direction this country is headed, and you know well the dangers of liberalism.

Concerning Obama

The Friends of Barack Obama. Can you imagine the mainstream media's reaction if George Bush, when he first ran for President, had the kind of slimy friends that Obama has?

But Can He Walk On Water? Of course Obama gets away with so much because he believes he is a Messiah figure, and the press and other liberals agree.

Opportunism Knocks. As a Messiah, he gets away with flip-flops...

Obama Rejects Public Financing. ... and more flip-flops...

Cocky Ignorance. ... and can say whatever he wants, however ridiculous, and...

Does Obama Know What He's Talking About? ... then say some more ignorant things. It doesn't matter. He's the Obamessiah.

Obama's Own Presidential Seal. He can even create his own presidential seal. The arrogance of this guy knows no bounds. Again, imagine the reaction if George Bush the candidate, running against Al Gore, had made his own seal. Can you imagine the mockery?

Total Confusion. ... he gets away with moments of complete confusion and stumbling. If you haven't seen the video shown at that link, please do so. The point is not that Obama got completely lost. It happens to everyone now and then (well, maybe not to such a degree). The point is that Obama gets away with it. Can you imagine if McCain had lost himself in the same way? The media would have fallen all over themselves in calling it a "senior moment" and evidence that he is too old. They would have played the video on a continuous loop for weeks.

Obama's Web Site: How the Jewish Lobby Works. It's amazing how many unsavory people are attracted to Obama...

Communist Party of the USA Endorses Obama. ... like communists.

10 Concerns About Barack Obama. How did they possible narrow it down to just 10?

Concerning Radical Environmentalism

The Truths Shall Set You Free. A nice summary of the unintended consequences that result from overbearing liberal environmental policies.

Who's To Blame For High Gas Prices? A nice reminder of how we got where we are.

Our Greener Planet. Greener because trees, crops, and other vegetation love the extra CO2 in the atmosphere.

Energy Guzzled by Al Gore’s Home in Past Year Could Power 232 U.S. Homes for a Month. Is there an award for the biggest hypocrite of all time? If so, Gore has it absolutely locked up. No one else is even in the same league. They can name the award "The Gore," and call off all future competitions. Just retire it. No one else will ever be close.

Concerning Iraq

As Surge Succeeds-- Iraq Coverage Declines 92% In One Year. Gee, what a surprise. We are winning in Iraq, so the press is no longer interested. Actually, I would argue, as I have for quite awhile, that we have won, period. The war is over. What we are seeing and doing now is really police action to clean up stragglers. The Iraqi army and civilians have asserted themselves to such an extent that there is no turning back. Finally.

Bush Announces Withdrawal of 30,000 US Troops From Iraq (In Victory). This story was completely ignored since reporting it would help Bush and McCain way, way too much, and would completely trash the liberals' fantasy of defeat in Iraq.

Whew! That's enough for now. My mind is cleared of negativity. Next time, some positive thoughts.

I have accumulated a few bits about global warming that tie nicely together:

First, anecdotal evidence that world isn't ending: Snow falls on Baghdad for first time in memory

Br-r-r! Where did global warming go? by Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe is a very interesting and persuasive piece on recent temperature patterns and the chill the southern hemisphere has been experiencing. Just over a year ago, the BBC News announced that "experts" were predicted that 2007 would be the warmest year on records.

It wasn't.

In fact, since the high in 1998 (recent high that is -- we're not talking about the high temperatures from the middle ages or the age of the dinosaurs), temperatures have declined slightly. Since 2001, temperatures have remained essentially unchanged, despite the supposedly massive amount of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere.

Wake me when we beat 1998...

And finally, this classic Day-by-Day strip (an online comic) poking fun at the Doomsayer-in-Chief, Al Gore.

I haven't posted in awhile, but not because I haven't had anything to say. Rather the opposite: there have been so many crazy events that I sometimes think the world has gone insane.

If it's not 10,000 people traveling by jet to Bali for a global warming conference, it's CNN's utterly embarrassing attempt to host a Republican presidential debate. If it's not the Dem's antics over what appears more and more to be victory in Iraq, it's the reaction to the NIE report about Iran, as though good news about Iran is bad news for Bush (if only the report could be trusted!).

If it's not the madness associated with the college football BCS system (if this year doesn't show the need for a playoff system, nothing ever will), it's insane Islamists calling for imprisonment/lashes/death for an English teacher over a teddy bear. If it's not the welcome surprise of Chavez being denied dictator-for-life status by his own people, it's the significant and growing (and therefore disappointing) flaws in all the presidential candidates.

I will post again with more substance soon, but in the meantime, I'm shaking my head.

"When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained."
- Mark Twain

Tony Blankley has written an very amusing piece for RealClear Politics on the Goracle: Gore Wins; Facts Lose.

As I read the piece, I couldn't help but recall a recent headline in the local Sarasota Herald-Tribune: "Gore Vindicated". The SH-T has become increasingly liberal over the years, especially since they were bought by the Mother Ship, the New York Times. They used to have a single conservative editorial writer (Rod Thomson) among their liberal throng, but he left (or was asked to leave, I don't know which) and now they have no conservative writers at all.

Blankley shreds the notion that Gore was in any way vindicated, and so did Dr. William Gray, the famed meteorologist in a story carried by the Sydney Morning Herald, in which he says Gore winning a share of the Nobel Peace Prize is "ridiculous" and the product of "people who don't understand how the atmosphere works". Other highlights from the article:

"We're brainwashing our children," said Dr Gray, 78, a long-time professor at Colorado State University. "They're going to the Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] and being fed all this. It's ridiculous."

..."We'll look back on all of this in 10 or 15 years and realise how foolish it was," Dr Gray said.

..."The human impact on the atmosphere is simply too small to have a major effect on global temperatures," Dr Gray said.

..."It bothers me that my fellow scientists are not speaking out against something they know is wrong," he said. "But they also know that they'd never get any grants if they spoke out. I don't care about grants."

What's interesting is that the SH-T hangs on Dr. Gray's every word when he makes his hurricane predictions for the upcoming season or revises his predictions as the season progresses. But they, along with almost all of the mainstream media, did not carry a story on Dr. Gray's comments at all, even though they took place the day after Gore was given his prize. Did the SH-T think that its Florida readers would not be interested in the renowned hurricane forecaster's viewpoint concerning Gore's doomsday predictions?

I guess Dr. Gray's comments were too inconvenient for the liberals at the Sarasota Herald-Tribune.

It's sad to see what's become of the Nobel Peace Prize over the years. PowerLine has a good summary:

When did the Nobel Peace Prize go off the tracks? Today's award to Al Gore and the IPCC "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change" fits in with a subset of cosmopolitan frauds, fakers, murderers, thieves, and no-accounts going back about twenty years:

2005: MOHAMED ELBARADEI (joint winner). He's done such a nice job with Iran.

2002: JIMMY CARTER JR., former President of the United States of America. A true cosmopolitan, he has undermined the foreign policy of his own country and vouched for the bona fides of tyrants and murderers all over the world.

2001: UNITED NATIONS, New York, NY, USA. KOFI ANNAN, United Nations Secretary General. Among other things, respectively served as the vehicle for, and presided over, one of the biggest scams in history.

1994: YASSER ARAFAT (joint winner), Chairman of the Executive Committee of the PLO, President of the Palestinian National Authority for his efforts to create peace in the Middle East. A cold-blooded murderer before and after receiving the award.

1992: RIGOBERTA MENCHU TUM, Guatemala. Faker and author, sort of, of I, Rigoberta Menchu.

1988: THE UNITED NATIONS PEACE-KEEPING FORCES New York, NY, U.S.A. Notwithstanding rapes and sex abuse committed by the team in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea and the Congo, still doing fine work all over the world.

Jay Richards, on National Review Online, notes how Al Gore is dropping all pretense that his global warming crusade has anything to do with hard science:

Keeping to the trend of politicized awards, the Nobel Peace Prize has been given jointly to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In his initial statement, however, Gore explains that global warming isn't a political issue at all: "The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift global consciousness to a higher level."

Glad he cleared that up. I had been thinking it had something to do with science.

Of course, Gore winning the Nobel Liberal Prize comes right on the heels of a UK judge ruling about the many inconvenient inaccuracies in Gore's alarmist propaganda film:

Al Gore’s award-winning climate change documentary was littered with nine inconvenient untruths, a judge ruled yesterday.

Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children.

...In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the class-room, Mr Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.

The claim that sea levels could rise by 20ft “in the near future” was dismissed as “distinctly alarmist”. Such a rise would take place “only after, and over, millennia.

...Mr Gore’s suggestion that the Gulf Stream, that warms up the Atlantic ocean, would shut down was contradicted by the International Panel on Climate Change’s assessment that it was “very unlikely” to happen.

The drying of Lake Chad, the loss of Mount Kilimanjaro’s snows and Hurricane Katrina were all blamed by Mr Gore on climate change but the judge said the scientific community had been unable to find evidence to prove there was a direct link.

The drying of Lake Chad, the judge said, was “far more likely to result from other factors, such as population increase and overgrazing, and regional climate variability”.

The judge also said there was no proof to support a claim that polar bears were drowning while searching for icy habitats melted by global warming. The only drowned polar bears the court was aware of were four that died following a storm.

What's so amazing about the Al Gore phenomenon is that his followers view him, and he views himself, as some sort of quasi-religious figure. This is part, I think, of a larger movement, especially among liberals, but not exclusively, to fill a spiritual void in their lives, a void caused by, among other things, the rejection of any kind of traditional religion, or belief in God, and the fantastic standard of living most in the West have achieved.

Hmmm, sounds like a post for another day.

Dr. Howard D. Greyber wrote a letter to the (liberal) International Herald Tribune that is probably the best, very short summary of the global warming issue that I've seen. Here it is:

"When Thomas Friedman touts carbon dioxide as the cause of global warming in his column 'Doha and Dalian' (Sept. 20), I respond as a physicist that he cannot comprehend that it is still not proven that carbon dioxide emissions actually are causing global warming. Correlation does not prove Causation.

The Earth's climate changes all the time. Did carbon dioxide emissions cause the Medieval Warm Period, when Vikings raised crops on Greenland's coast? What caused the cold climate from 1700 to 1850? In 1975, articles were published predicting we were entering a New Ice Age.

Reputable scientists oppose this unwarranted alarmist hysteria. If fanatic leftists who hate America's progressive capitalistic system had not opposed the building of nuclear power plants by wild allegations and interminable lawsuits, the United States could have built dozens of safe, modern reactors. These provide plentiful, reliable energy and, incidentally, emit zero carbon dioxide.

Understanding climate change is an extremely difficult scientific problem. Giant computers generating climate models cannot be trusted so far. As any computer person knows, garbage in means garbage out. If research suggests subtle variations in our Sun's radiation reaching Earth are causing global climate change, what would Friedman recommend?"

Brilliant.

This is a big deal.

A gentleman named Steve McIntyre discovered that the methodology used by NASA to determine the temperature of each year in the U.S. was flawed. NASA, to its credit, corrected its methodology and released updated data. As a result, the hottest year on record is no longer 1998, but 1934. That's right, all this panic about global warming, and we still haven't beat the temperature set in 1934. Here are the warmest years on record:

1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939

Three out of the top five warmest years occurred prior to 1935. Six of the top ten occurred before 1954. If that doesn't give one pause about global warming hysteria, nothing will.

Here's a link to Mr. McIntyre's web page, although as of this writing, it's partially inoperative due to, apparently, denial-of-service attacks. Yup, some of the alarmists are so upset about the corrected data, it appears they attacked Mr. McIntyre's web site.

So, go to this page instead for a rundown of the new data. And beware of false prophets of doom.

A private forecaster, WSI Corp, downgraded its prediction of the number of named storms that will form in the Atlantic. The reason for the downgrade? Cooler than expected water temperatures:

"Because the ocean temperatures have not yet rebounded from the significant drop in late spring, we have decided to reduce our forecast numbers slightly," said Todd Crawford, a WSI seasonal forecaster.

Regardless of whether WSI's forecast ends up being correct, the fact that the Atlantic is cooler than expected is interesting information for global warming skeptics.

The article Read the Sunspots, by R. Timothy Patterson, professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, for Canada's Financial Post, is a crusher for the warming alarmists. Professor Patterson shares his belief, based on years of research, including the "highest-quality climate records available anywhere today," that the variations in solar activity is driving climate change, and has been doing so for thousands of years.

I think he's right. Based on the articles I've read (many of which I've previously linked to), the sun's role in affecting our climate is greatly underestimated. I am still open to new information and new studies, but I'd be willing to wager that when we finally have a firm handle on climate change, the most complex system science has every grappled with, we'll find that the sun is the dog wagging the our climate tail.

How's this for a wrap-up quote?

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world...

They call this a consensus? OK, some of the content of this article is thought-provoking enough for me to post a longish quote. The "series" mentioned in the quote is here. It is an absolute fact that there is no consensus on global warming, no matter how much the alarmists want there to be.

"More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies.

Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction. Not only do most of my interviewees either discount or disparage the conventional wisdom as represented by the IPCC, many say their peers generally consider it to have little or no credibility. In one case, a top scientist told me that, to his knowledge, no respected scientist in his field accepts the IPCC position."

The $8-billion global-warming swindle. Read it.

A Faithful Heretic. An enlighting Q&A with an absolute expert in climatology. Here's a juicy bit:

"A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?

Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…

A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide."

Prius Outdoes Hummer in Environmental Damage. Talk about a story you won't see in the MSM! This ought to send the hard-core enviromental types into conniptions.

Gore as religious figure. This is not satire, it's a real look at a spooky phenomenon.

Scientists Surprised by NASA Chief's Climate Comments. Suprised, evidently, by hearing common sense:

"I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists," Griffin told Inskeep. "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with.

To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change," Griffin said. "I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."

Global warming debunked. The meteorologist in this article thinks global warming "is a joke." I don't think I'd go that far, but he sure seems convinced.

Billy Donovan remains a Gator. The sun is a little brighter today, the sky a little clearer, and the world makes sense again.

Scientists invent wireless device that beams electricity through your home. When I was a kid, I used to dream about this kind of thing as I watched the Jetsons.

Rising immigration fuels 26-year fertility high (in the U.K.) and Mohammed is expected soon to be the most popular boy's name. Hmmm, I wonder what ethic group is having all those kids...

Jimmy Carter: Profile in Incompetence. A Ten Part Series on the Worst President in American History. Ten Part? Ouch!

Revolt Against Al Qaeda Spreading. I think the only way the Iraqis, and the allied forces, will find peace is if the revolt keeps spreading.

Finally, I know one thing this guy in Wyoming is not thinking, as he shovels snow on June 7:
"We need to tackle global warming!"

Some quick hits:

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics. Speaks for itself.

Facts About Sea Level Rise. After presenting the data, here's the author's key quote:

"From this article, we learn from the actual data that (a) sea level is generally rising, (b) the rate of rise decelerated during the 20th century, (c) the rate of sea level rise over the past two decades has been both positive and negative, (d) the rate of sea level rise has been quite small over the last few years, and (e) stations can witness an increase or decrease of sea level quite independently of one another."

Yes, you read correctly. Decelerated. Negative. Quite small over the last few years. Hmmm.

Global Warming Comes to Neptune. There is more and more evidence that the sun plays a major role in climate change.

Soil's Contribution to Global Warming. Don't forget that there are other, more potent greenhouse gases than CO2.

All these stories point to how little we understand about climate change. It's depressing and scary to see how quickly people are jumping on the doomsayers' bandwagon.

Finally, a hero: James Wanliss, a space physicist at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. He had the brilliant idea of presenting both sides of the global warming controversy to his students and letting them decide. What an concept! His quote:

"I fear that attempts are being made to purposefully subvert the public understanding of the nature of science in order to achieve political goals," he wrote in an e-mail. "Science is not about consensus, and to invoke this raises the hackles of scientists such as myself. The lure of politics and publicity is no doubt seductive, but it nevertheless amazes me that so many scientists have jumped on the bandwagon of consensus science, apparently forgetting or ignoring the sad history of consensus science."

He's one of the few candles in the darkness of today's liberal academia.

In Part 1 of my "Hard to Find Global Warming Stories," I pointed out some funny or ironic articles related to global warming. This entry covers more serious ground. As discussed in my entry on the broad themes of climate change, there are several basic questions that need to be answered by science. Only the first one is largely settled:

1. Is the Earth warming? Yes, it has warmed and cooled in cycles of varying lengths for millenia.
Interview - Dr. Fred Singer - super overview of the topic
Podcast discussing the book Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1500 Years

The other questions are unsettled, despite what warming alarmist want you to believe. Here are those questions, and a quick smattering of interesting articles which address them. The articles are often either ignored or buried by mainstream media.

2. Is man causing the recent warming? We do not know with certainty.
Scientist: Warming Not Caused By Humans
Cosmic Rays Blamed for Global Warming
Hotter-Burning Sun Warming the Planet - the sun clearly plays a role, which is why...
Climate Change Hits Mars - ... yes, Mars is warming too
Impact of Global Warming Looms on the Horizon - misleading headline, good article
Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming
New Source of Global Warming Gas Found: Plants - shows how much there is yet to learn

3. Is carbon dioxide increase causing the warming, or is the warming causing the carbon dioxide increase?
A Climate Skeptic... - extremely interesting since it was written by a former believer. I'm seeing an increasing number of references to this crucial topic, and I'll keep my eye out for more. I know it is mentioned in this must-see videos:
The Great Global Warming Swindle
An Inconvenient Truth or Convenient Fiction?

4. Is the warming trend likely to continue?
Although I didn't bookmark them, there have been a number of predictions that a cooling trend may be coming -- either in a few years or in a few decades. The Climate Skeptic article above mentions the issue. Until we understand climate change better, any predictions must be taken with a grain of salt.

5. Is the warming trend a bad thing?
It's far, far from unclear. - I'll keep my eyes open for more on this topic.

6. If warming is bad, is there anything we can do about it now? The short answer: no.
Kyoto is Pointless, Say 60 Leading Scientists
Global Warming Progress? Not for All the Coal in China

Finally, regarding topic of Al Gore-style alarmism:
Forecaster Blasts Gore on Global Warming
Global Warming Fears Overblown - nice overview of climate change
Doubting Doomsday
We're Not Going to Melt - another nice overview
No Scientific Basis for Global Warming Contention - how an anecdotal story can run amok
Not That Simple - on the complexity of climate change

Now that I've cleared out my saved links, in the future I can focus on shorter posts on individual articles.

There are all sorts of news stories concerning global warming that are buried by the mainstream media, including the local Sarasota Herald-Tribune, which, as far as I have noticed, carries only alarmist articles. Some of the hard-to-find stories are funny or ironic. Other are anecdotal "evidence" that, at a minimum, give one pause.

I've never quite understood why the alarmists would schedule events in northern latitudes the winter time. Over the years, I've seen many stories of such events being canceled due to snow or cold. This story is particularly funny since the event was cut short even though it was held in mid-April, for crying out loud: "Cold, Rain Cuts Short Global Warming Rally".

Similarly, an Earth Day event finds the weather a nuisance: "While snow piles up outside our windows, we may be hard-pressed to believe climate change is occurring..." Gee, really?

And let's not forget back in January: "California citrus growers face big losses as cold snap continues." The "cold-snap" was actually two nights of record cold temperatures which devastated the citrus crops.

Personally, this the coldest April I can recall. Now, any one event, whether it's one cold April, record cold in California, dozens of ice-storm deaths, or snow causing baseball game cancellations, doesn't mean that the planet isn't warming, but those stories, collectively, are interesting to note. Likewise, when we finally get the inevitable summer heat waves, it won't mean that the global warming doom-sayers are right either, despite the vast publicity they will get. Anecdotal evidence, on either side, is not statistically significant.

By the way, if you are are hard-core skeptic and are looking for a good, ongoing repository of article links and global warming skepticism, check out the site Global Warming Hyperbole.

Coming in "Hard to Find Global Warming Stories, Part 2" will be the more important missing stories -- those of scientists, research, and studies which challenge the so-called consensus.

When I think about the most important issues in the world today, three spring immediately to mind. They are, in order of importance: the rise of radical Islam, media bias, and global warming hysteria. I'll eventually cover the first two, but global warming is on my mind today.

The many facets of climate change (science, politics, public perception, humor, economics) are too much to address in one entry, so I'd thought I'd start with an overview of, primarily, the science. In future installments, I'll cover other facets. I need to lay some science groundwork first.

I am very much open-minded about what, if anything, is happening to the Earth's climate and the reasons for change. I am disturbed by the arrogant (or is it ignorant?) "certainty" of the environmental doomsayers. Remember when the fear in the 1970's was global cooling? As new studies are completed and information is received, I will adjust my understanding and opinions accordingly. I'm not a scientist, but I've read a fair amount about climate change. No, I don't claim to have read, much less understand, all the science and various reports that have been issued over the last several decades. However, I am comfortable that I've learned enough to comment on the issue.

Let start with this inconvenient truth: the Earth's climate is the most complex, tangled, chaotic, difficult-to-understand system in science. Understanding climate change is made doubly difficult by the lack of accurate, widespread temperature measurements prior to the modern age of satellites and other precise equipment. Scientists use proxies (ice core samples, etc.) to estimate temperatures in the early 1900's or even thousands of years ago, but no one should pretend that the global temperature record over the last 1000 years is a settled matter. It isn't.

Computer models which attempt to forecast climate change for the next 100 years are noble, important efforts, but they should not be assumed accurate. Scientists have real difficulty accurately predicting the temperatures for next week, much less 100 years from now. There are huge unknowns and assumptions that must be plugged into those models. Not only is our understanding of the global climate in its infancy, but there are factors which dramatically complicate the issue:

- Changing energy technologies. Think back 100 years ago to 1907. Automobiles had just been introduced. The Wright brothers were still experimenting with their airplane. Plastics were virtually unknown. Computers, microwave ovens, cell phones, nuclear technology, MRI scans, and so on had not been invented. Life expectancy in the US was less than 50 years old! In short, it is absolutely stunning how far we have come in the last 100 years. Now, what technologies will be invented in the next 100 years? It is impossible to know, but we can say with near certainty that some of them will be astounding and will include more efficient, cleaner energy production. It will not be surprising at all if our petroleum-based economy shifts toward some other solution, purely as a result of capitalism (build a better mousetrap...).

- Changing economic conditions. Wealthier countries tend to be cleaner, more efficient countries. The United States is far more energy efficient than China. How will the world economic condition change? What impediments to growth will stand in the way?

- Solar energy cyles and cosmic radiation which not only have a direct impact (changes in warming energy reaching the Earth), but also indirect impacts like cloud formation and water vapor.

Scientists are working hard to understand our climate, but it will take many years until we understand it with anything approaching certainty. (Unfortunately, scientists know they can receive vast amounts of funding and publicity if they produce studies which show that global warming is perilous and man-made.) Making dramatic policy decisions (e.g. Kyoto) now is simply insane, especially since there is so much ignorance on the part of policy makers and the public.

Just for fun, answer the following questions:
A. Are greenhouse gases natural or man-made?

B. Are greenhouse gases bad?

C. What is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas?

Answers:
A. Only a tiny portion of greenhouse gases were produced by man. The rest are completely natural.

B. No, without them the Earth would be much, much colder and uninhabitable.

C. Not carbon dioxide. By a wide margin, the most important, abundant greenhouse gas is plain old water vapor.

There are several fundamental questions we need to answer. Unfortunately, uncertainty abounds:

1. Is the Earth warming? Yes, we are currently in a warming period; the global temperature has risen less than 1 degree celcius over the last 100 years. The planet has warmed and cooled, without any help from man, for millions of years. Mars, by the way, has also warmed recently, giving further support to the idea that the sun itself may be playing a larger role that we think.

2. Is man causing the recent warming? We do not know with certainty. The sun may play a large role. The Earth became warm during the Middle Ages without any SUVs around. It then cooled dramatically during a period known as the Little Ice Age. It warmed during the early part of the 20th century (without any apparent human cause), then cooled during the 1970's, when industrial production was booming. It is now warming again. Keep in mind the simple act of people and animals breathing produces carbon dioxide. Misanthropic environmentalist nirvana!

3. Is carbon dioxide increase causing the warming, or is the warming causing the carbon dioxide increase? We don't know for sure, but there are strong indications it may be the latter. We do know that the oceans retain huge quantities of carbon dioxide, and that they release carbon dioxide as they get warmer.

4. Is the warming trend likely to continue? It seems to me that most scientists think likely that the warming will continue for the next few decades, even if solar variation is the primary cause of warming. It is, however, interesting to note that a high temperature was reached in 1998, and has not been exceeded since. Last year, 2006, was cooler than all of the previous four years (2002 - 2005). A Russian scientist predicts a continued cooling trend.

5. Is the warming trend a bad thing? It's far, far from unclear. Is it bad that some previously frozen parts of Greenland can now be farmed? While the Earth has warmed over the last 100 years, it has also flourished economically (rising standards of living), medically (long life spans, less infant mortality), and socially (spread of democracy and freedom). Rising sea levels? It's hard to find examples where sea levels have risen over the last 100 years and had much of an impact. Even if sea levels rise, say, 18 inches over the next 100 years (Gore's alarmist predictions are nonsense), people and cities will have no trouble adapting over such a long period of time. Again, think about how much the world has changed over the last 100 years.

6. If warming is bad, is there anything we can do about it now? This is where global warming really becomes a political issue for some. Many scientists believe that policy prescriptions like Kyoto would do little or nothing to prevent climate change, yet the cost is enormous. It is entirely possible that if man is causing the warming, and if the warming is bad, that there is nothing we can do about it now without dismantling society around the world (eliminating cars and factories). Obviously, such drastic measures are unacceptable. It is much more reasonable to seek out new energy technologies (with the not-insubstantial benefit of ceasing to enrich Middle Eastern dictators), and simply adapt to whatever changes (slowly) occur. Human are extremely good at both of those tasks.

That's enough for today, yet I have barely scratched the surface. Check out this PBS interview with Dr. Fred Singer for answers to many common questions about global warming. Stay tuned for more, especially about political and social angles, and coverage of skeptical scientists, which we rarely see in the mainstream media.