Flood plain news on Climate Change

My vacation is postponned on account of the end of the world.

It is sure easy to see how personal anecdotes can color one's view of reality.

There I was...I stood at the Amsterdam AMTRAK station/shed watching the Mohawk clean it shores and carry away loose remnants of human existence. The river was topping the canal gates, to give you some perspective.

In a few minutes, AMTRAK minutes being a quarter of an hour, a little shuttle came to scoop me up and take me to Syracuse, thereby avoiding the flood down the track. Of course, we never made it, but I did manage to share two hour sauna with former strangers. My advanced planing of having a thermos of hot coffee paid off.

So, if it rains alot, does that mean Al Gore is right?

Of course not, contrary to the upcoming ABC ANECODTAL EVIDENCE SHOW, as there are floods all the time. Memory trumps experience.

A few decades ago, Wilkes Barre even had its dead bodies rise to the occasion of a major flood. Hope they have that problem solved; folks there are being evacuated as we speak. They don't need marine helicopters, not being dopes. The actually pay attention to warnings in PA.

So, this is an unplanned blog entry, as I am jes bidin' my time. Let me just add a link to an article that addresses 25 alleged [of course, this term is just to be nice to those who are clearly wrong] errors in Mr. Gore's film.

Let me finish this entry with a quote from the article, which I threatened you with previously, that is on point regarding the theme of this blog. As an aside, the article quotes specialists in their fields who assure us we don't need to worry about the polar bears, Antarctica melting, coastal flooding, or Greenland living up to its name.

So, about the consensus position, here is their take on it:

24. The “Scientific Consensus.” On the supposed “scientific consensus”: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, (p. 262) [Ed - Gore's source for proof] did not examine a “large random sample” of scientific articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on “climate change.” Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study. He says, “As I have stressed repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the ‘consensus view.’ In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover — and despite attempts to deny this fact — a handful of abstracts actually questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years.’” In addition, a recent survey of scientists following the same methodology as one published in 1996 found that about 30 percent of scientists disagreed to some extent or another with the contention that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Less than 10 percent “strongly agreed” with the statement. Details of both the survey and the failed attempt to replicate the Oreskes study can be found here. [must be a link on the original article.]

Government never linked Saddam to 9/11

The psy-ops disinformation campaign is on again. This is a perfect opportunity to skip the final piece that deflates Mr. Gore's assumption that humans are making the world unsafe for his private jet. Back to putting the lie to other curious mass assumptions.

On Sunday, June 25, 2006, there was a Meet the Press softball interview with a Democrat Senator running for President who said that the President, along with his staff, has committed an impeachable offense by telling the American people we attacked Iraq because Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 murders. The senator was not in favor of impeachment, mind you, just a censure. You know, that formal process not in the Constitution.

The theory of the great lie is that it has to be said repeatedly with a straight face, so he diminutive Senator did his job. The sad thing is, it works, as few of us are able to really pay attention to detail or, for that matter, what happened before breakfast. We wind up with sound bites in our heads.

Let's take the 'Way-Back' machine for a ride to actual statements made by the administration in 2003.

Thursday, September 18, 2003

Bush: No Iraq link to 9/11 found
President says Saddam had ties to al-Qaida, but apparently not to attacks

By SCOTT SHEPARD
COX NEWS SERVICE

WASHINGTON -- President Bush, having repeatedly linked Saddam Hussein to the terrorist organization behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, said yesterday there is no evidence that the deposed Iraqi leader had a hand in those attacks, in contrast to the belief of most Americans. [Emphasis added. Don't think this editorial comment is at all true, nor the 'repeatedly, but these are mere lame cuts to defuse an unwanted statement.]

The president's comments came in response to a reporter's question about Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press" program that Iraq was the "geographic base" of the terrorists behind the attacks on New York and Washington.

Bush said yesterday there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said. "What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida.

"And al-Zarqawi, an al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. ... There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties."

Most of the administration's public assertions have focused on the man Bush mentioned, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a senior Osama bin Laden associate whom officials have accused of trying to train terrorists in the use of poison for possible attacks in Europe, running a terrorist haven in northern Iraq -- an area outside Saddam's control -- and organizing an attack that killed an American aid executive in Jordan last year...

Bush's statement was the latest in a series by administration officials this week that appeared to distance the White House from the widely held public perception that Saddam was a key figure in the attacks.

Publicly, at least, Bush has not explicitly blamed the attacks on Saddam. In speech after speech, however, the president has strongly linked Saddam and al-Qaida, the terrorist organization of bin Laden, the renegade Saudi whose followers hijacked jetliners and crashed them into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and rural Pennsylvania. [Note the implied rebuke in the words 'at least' and 'however.' If he doesn't say what you want him to say, then say he implied it.]

In his May 1 declaration of military victory in Iraq from the deck of the Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, Bush said, "We have removed an ally of al-Qaida and cut off a source of terrorist funding." He also said, "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror."

Two months earlier, in a speech aimed at mustering public support for a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, Bush said, "The attacks of September 11th, 2001, showed what the enemies of America did with four airplanes. We will not wait to see what terrorists or terrorist states could do with weapons of mass destruction." [Section cut out is about candidate Clarke saying the administration let people allegedly believe that there was a link. Hence, it is the same thing as saying so. Bizarre. Personally, I haven't met this alleged person.]

Sunday, Cheney began the group of Bush administration officials denying any ties between Saddam and Sept. 11. He said "we don't know" whether Saddam was connected to the attacks, but admitted, "It's not surprising that people make that connection...

White House National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, in an interview aired late Tuesday on ABC's "Nightline," said one of the reasons Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9/11 threat emerged." But she insisted, "We have never claimed that Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9/11."

Her remarks echoed those of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during a briefing for reporters at the Pentagon earlier Tuesday. Asked if Saddam was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, Rumsfeld replied, "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I could say that."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan reiterated to reporters yesterday that the administration never directly linked Saddam to the Sept. 11 strikes.

"If you're talking specifically about the September 11th attacks, we never made that claim," McClellan said. "We do know that there is a long history of Saddam Hussein and his regime and ties to terrorism, including al-Qaida."

By the way, just to clarify the mission of this blog, again. I am not an apologist for Mr. Bush and his team. I am just providing a reality check and documenting anti-consensus opinions that you don't read in the newspapers or hear on TV.

If it seems that I am constantly repairing lies, not errors, regarding the President, then there is a lesson there. Might have something to do with the media responding to a poll that 92 percent of those polled said they were 'liberals.'

If John Kerry actually did ride his swift boat into Cambodia, contrary to his boatmates' statements and military records that a dam was in place to block the river, I will promptly publish that source here.

NY Times - we are in Global Normal

It seems like The Inconvenient Truth has obviated the need for me to continue beating my point about consensus not being what it is cracked up to be. The movie has created an opportunity for the silenced to be heard.

My argument about a lack of consensus is QED, at this point, so I will try to move on to new topic soon.

I have two more items to throw into the mix. The second entry will follow, as I can't figure out an HTML error in the mess. That entry addresses the movie directly. For example, the review of peer-reviewed journal articles missed 11,000 others because the professor screwed up her search terms and only found 980. In fact, there are only THIRTEEN ARTICLES that support the 'consensus thesis' that humans are the cause of global warming. That is in the next blog.

This entry, from a questionable soure, explains how High School level graph reading is a good thing for politicians and journalists to understand.

The New York Times published a piece on June 23, 2006, don't worry I didn't buy it, where there was a review of the material used by advocates of global warming. Specifically, a 1999 study by Michael E Mann, say, didn't he produce Miami Vice, whose study started talk of a hockey stick shaped graph line. See graphs, below.

In Dr. Mann's study, the last 600 years were 'cooler than normal' while the top of the hockey stick managed to break into the warmer-than-normal part of the graph. To repeat - the top of the stick is THE FIRST TIME IN 600 YEARS North America broke into the WARMER THAN USUAL area. Before judging, one has to know the baseline, but who cares, this is only basic science. High School graph reading is a required skill here, lest you go on in vain.


Anyway, the new review of seven studies, reported in the NYT, goes out of its way to clear Dr. Mann of intentionally skewing his data - they say it was a good first shot. The new review shows North America dove in 'cooler than normal' section of the graph since 1,000 AD and has rebounded lately. So for 1950 years we remained below the normal line - much farther below than Dr. Mann found, generally 3 times deeper. If you apply stock analysis techniques to the graphs, you can say the cold period bottomed out in 1610, with a confirmation in 181o. That's when North American warming got started.

The trend since about 1810 is up, per the hockey stick, and has only breached into warmer than normal in the last twenty years, according to two studies reviewed, as best I can sort out the bunched up graph. The other five have us still below, but real close. So, let us all scream in terror as North America borders on normal temperature.

You probably heard about this review on the TV news as saying the earth [wrong - its only North America] is at the hottest point in 1,000 years. Then, it was reported - 2,000 years [Associated Press' Headline.]

Yup, sort of true, but the hottest point in 2,000 years falls directly and 'inconveniently' at the normal line. Gotta love the free press, where else can you be biased without government direction....

If my philosophically left friends, incorrectly called 'liberals,' have ever wondered why spittle forms on the side of my mouth while they talk to me, it is caused by this sort of reporting in the left's Bible. The facts are revealed, generally, but are not clear to the casual reader. Studies show we generally read the headline and first paragraph for news. If you wish to find inconvenient facts, you needs to try page six, but don't miss a day. The information won't return.

By the way, the graphs you see above from the NYT only appears if you click on the graph inserted into the online story. I stumbled on this as I was tring to find the graph in the hardcopy.

The graph that most people will see DOES NOT HAVE THE NORMAL LINE INCLUDED. This has to be done consciously. If you don't get the implication of this this, I can't help.

And you are the folks who ask me what my sources are.

Quality Quote - Jihad Generation

The CBC site has been tracking the emergence of Canadian terrorism from within, and over time, it seems to be emerging from the Canadian denial syndrome. [Recently, a reporter named Kelly interviewed the head of immigration in Denmark and when he heard the official say multi-culturalism was a mistake, the reporter, with American quality objectivity, said where he came from that was racist.

One particular quote caught my attention after the arrest of the gaggle of the terrorists who couldn't shoot straight.

'The cops have a nickname for it - the jihad generation," says Mr. Thompson, president of the Mackenzie Institute, a Toronto think tank.

"These are kids at a transition, between Islamic society and Western society," he adds. "A lot of people will get militarized if they're unsure of their own identity." Plus, Thompson says, "They're just young and stupid. If you're 17, bored, restless, you want to meet girls - hey, be a radical."

Sounds exactly like the 60's.

-Gene

Too hot for Al Gore

My spy from Canada, Irene Wolfson, sent this along to bolster me against the onslaught of the masses. Notice my added italics below. I will revisit them after the excerpt.
------------

From newsmax - 6/20/06

Gore Slams Global Warming Critics

In twin appearances last night former Vice President Al Gore dismissed critics of his global warming theory as a small minority not credible in their opposition.

In an unprecedented, uninterrupted eight-minute monologue [OK, its a little biased here] on Keith Olbermann’s "Countdown," Gore characterized those scientists who dispute the reality of global warming as part of a lunatic fringe.

Later, on Charlie Rose’s show, Gore went further. Asked by Rose "Do you know any credible scientist who says ‘wait a minute – this hasn’t been proven,’ is there still a debate?” Gore replied, "The debate’s over. The people who dispute the international consensus [itallics added] on global warming are in the same category now with the people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”

This flies in the face of such challengers as professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia who said: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

Famed climatologist and internationally renowned hurricane expert Dr. William Gray of the atmospheric-science department at Colorado State University went even further, calling the scientific "consensus" on global warming "one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people." For speaking the truth [Well, again a bias slipping in] he has seen most of his government research funding dry up, according to the Washington Post.

Neither Gray nor Dr. Carter believe that the moon landing was staged on a movie set in Arizona.

Nor does famed Oxford professor David Bellamy who sniffs that Gore’s theory is "Poppycock!" [You have to like this prose]

Writing in Britain's Daily Mail last July 9, Dr. Bellamy charged that "the world's politicians and policy makers ... have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credo of the environmental movement. Humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide – the principal so-called greenhouse gas – into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up.

"They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock. Unfortunately, for the time being, it is their view that prevails.

"As a result of their ignorance, the world's economy may be about to divert billions, nay trillions of pounds, dollars and rubles into solving a problem that actually doesn't exist. The waste of economic resources is incalculable and tragic."

--------------------------------

OK, Mr. Gore, I submit, makes my blog thesis - if you do not religiously believe in the international consensus, you must be attacked ad hominem. which is like the politics of personal destruction. The semantics of his statement reveal much about being a political animal. Also, it may be the solid consensus seems to be unraveling at an inconvenient time.

Finally, the moon-landing was staged in Nevada, as we all know. You can tell by the type of prarie dogs.

EC

Too darn hot - climate change

The "global warming" is a precept of the bash America religion - one of the fundamentalist type. It is unfortunate that the thoughtless bashing process still goes on, as there may be important things to figure out about our climate. You can't learn anything if you are howling.
One problem with the global warming crowd is they must have missed the conspiracy newsletter from Europe where the term now used is "climate change." Even the Canadians got that email.

I suppose if Al Gore is running on global warming, a term losing its grip, it would be impolite to change the term when he was not looking.
Mr. Gore, has a movie out and a slick, thick, picture filled book available for purchase, as phase one of his next campaign for the presidency. I don't go to movies unless there are giant monsters or aliens, but I did get to leaf through the book. Very slick.

For me, my first instinct is to not believe anything Gore says, so that makes my life easier. I am happy with my prejudice [which means to pre-judge, a time-saving skill.] Still, when confronted with alleged 'facts', one should listen and mull them over.

Fortunately, there are others who have the time and knowledge to mull things over much better than I. Here is an interesting piece from Canada, hardly a bastion of tree-haters, where Mr. Gore is said to be an embarrasment to scientists and to be repeating 'junk science.'
The guest column is called: Scientists respond to Gore's warning of global catastrophe

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.

One wonders how Bob seems to have missed the newsletter about there being uniform support for the global warming theories. There are many other scientists quoted in the article and these folks, unlike most scientists trotted out to comment on global warming, according to Dr. Tim Ball, former University of Winnipeg climatology professor, are trained in a relevant discipline.

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Of interest in Mr. Gore's book was that his CO2/time chart conveniently neglected to go back that far. Then, there is the hand-wringing over antarctica melting away. A scientist with a Vulcan name comments,

Dr. Wibj–rn KarlÈn, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems." But KarlÈn clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans...

In the article, you can read more about the Canadian experience where the zealots tell us the great white north is melting away,

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological OrganizationUniversity of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down.

In his analysis, he describes the ebb and flow of ice in northern Canada. It is now 'near normal.'
Well you get the point of the article, let me quote one last comment from Aussie Bob Carter, see above,

"The man [Gore] is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

I will beg off here and already know Phil Haggerty will tell me NASA has proof that antarctica is melting away. [I also read recently that there is volcanic activity under the area of recent shelf movement - have to find that for you.] As to Phil's argument, I will wait to see if he submits some proof. If not, I will see what they are up to.

Oh, feel free to provide contrary arguments. Just don't tell me about Mr. Gore. I don't even think he killed the Man-Bear-Pig, as claimed.

Major conclusion: don't use the "all scientists agree" agrument. It is dead wrong and those who are disciplined in relevant arts are pissed at being bunched in with do-gooders.

More to come...

A word from your blost [blog host]

This is the first entry, so an explanation of the blog's purpose may is in order.
I have an inbred dislike for just about anything "most people" accept as a given fact. Indeed, I don't know that I accept the notion of "facts."
Some of our working assumptions are superb and qualify as givens in science; others are indefensible. However, I can't think of one fact that is truly objective in nature and free from change or interpretation. Could be wrong, but that is not the point here.
We need assumptions for our brains to work things out. Some of these assumptions are almost religious in nature - the notion of questioning them does not even arise. Indeed, if you do, others look at you with distrust or amazement.
The more we hear our own opinions mumbled by others, the more we tend to identify our opinions as fact. Being the demigods we are, our facts are never subject to being called into question. Such is heresy. Like the animals we are, if our ideas are questioned, we turn to fight or flight, but the confrontation is in the mind.
Both f's eventually occur in all my conversations that go beyond baseball, beer involved or not. Once I put up a fight, like quoting a real scientist's name and study, nearly all visiting intellects opt for flight to another topic, usually after one ad hominem pot-shot.
This reaction is so predictable, that I no longer fight or chase. Trading blows with another's conclusions is pointless. The real game is to sneak around the battleline and chat with the soldiers about their assumptions.
If you can't get to a pow-wow, the battle of 'facts' will find both sides refusing to yield the field. You may think the jihad and crusade is about truth and honor, but it is really about the greatest sin of all - pride.
This blog, then, is merely a place to send friends when thye are on R and R. Only there, in a dark room with the comforting glow of a PC, can assumptions be reviewed without fear.
I question my assumptions as a rule. To me, questioning one's own assumptions is the key to growth, to civilization.
I can already hear the counter arguments that some source I have listed has a web site that is cheap-looking or published by a right wing paper [the coup d'grace blow for those who think they are liberals.] All I can say is read the message, don't judge the messenger. That is just not intellectually honest, it is childish.
The only truth revealed over the body of a messenger is that of the nature of the killers.
Lest your open-minded finger reach for the censor's delete button, as you withdraw from heresy, let me assure you my position on political discourse is pretty much as the prince's view at the end of Romeo and Juliet, "A plague o' both your houses!"
The yin/yang idea wars that grace our TVs are entertainment, a diversion from real life and the real course of history.