Global Warming "Consensus" via George Orwell

Some words from Thomas Sowell, funky economist from Stanford University, in a recent article. Click above to go to the full article.

Going over this stuff becomes boring, but since it does not seem to sink it, I will adopt the media approach of saying something over and over and over and over until Alec Baldwin starts repeating it. But, at least, I will not lie to create double plus good newsspeak. Sowell:

...There is S. Fred Singer, who set up the American weather satellite system, and who published some years ago a book titled Hot Talk, Cold Science. More recently, he has co-authored another book on the subject, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.

There have been periods of global warming that lasted for centuries — and periods of global cooling that also lasted for centuries. So the issue is not whether the world is warmer now than at some time in the past but how much of that warming is due to human beings and how much can we reduce future warming, even if we drastically reduce our standard of living in the attempt.

Other serious scientists who are not on the global-warming bandwagon include a professor of meteorology at MIT, Richard S. Lindzen.

His name was big enough for the National Academy of Sciences to list it among the names of other experts on its 2001 report that was supposed to end the debate by declaring the dangers of global warming proven scientifically.

Professor Lindzen then objected and pointed out that neither he nor any of the other scientists listed ever saw that report before it was published. It was in fact written by government bureaucrats — as was the more recently published summary report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that is also touted as the final proof and the end of the discussion.

You want more experts who think otherwise? Try a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, Patrick J. Michaels, who refers to the much ballyhooed 2001 IPCC summary as having “misstatements and errors” that he calls “egregious.”

A professor of climatology at the University of Delaware, David R. Legates, likewise referred to the 2001 IPCC summary as being “often in direct contrast with the scientific report that accompanies it.” It is the summaries that the media hype. The full 2007 report has not even been published yet.

Skeptical experts in other countries around the world include Duncan Wingham, a professor of climate physics at the University College, London, and Nigel Weiss of Cambridge University.

The very attempt to silence all who disagree about global warming ought to raise red flags....

--
One has to be very careful about the "Dad, everyone else is doing it!" argument. Everyone else is not doing it, even if the New York Times says so or some professor of history dismisses the climatologist as a "kook," as if he would know.

In fact, when you hear an alleged supporter of a position has published objections to a report saying he never even saw it, the burden of proof that any of the report is acceptable is on its writers - unknown bureaucrats.

BIG BROTHER IS GOOD
BIG BROTHER IS GOOD
BIG BROTHER IS GOOD....

New Scoring Method

We keep reading that x number of soldiers were killed and wounded today, and the same type of report about the innocent Iraqi people who are trying to buy food. Yessir, we all know about how many soldiers have died (though it is rarely broken down into accidents vs. armed conflict).

At least during the Viet Nam war the number of alleged enemy killed was published. After all, the genius McNamara had a spreadsheet that would show we can't lose if the daily ratio of kills were met. You gotta love geniuses.

Permit me to posit a fantasy sports score reportage for tonight:

In a stunner, Syracuse's Orangemen scored 81 points. Then in an overtime battle, North Carolina ran up 79 points in a tough, see-saw game. In Hockey, the Rangers skated well scoring 3.

Pretty stupid way to keep score.

So, you say, but we are not keeping score in a war.

Like hell, we aren't. That is the nature of war, though no longer war reportage. Today, we are suppose to believe, if someone is killed, we had better stop. If one believes that, he or she should not have voted to use force. It is a binary thing.

Below is real war reportage, old school style. You will see keeping score means something in the real world, as does useful commentary. The battle discussed below was at the very end of the past January. A longer article can be found here,
That article, in the Australian, noted that about of the third killed were from Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan.

Iraqi Forces Kill Cult Leader Who Claimed To Be The Islamic Messiah

Iraqi military forces -- backed up by U.S. and British forces and helicopters -- scored a big victory in Najaf over the past several days. "The final toll in the military operations north of holy Najaf totalled 263 [terrorists] killed, and 502 [terrorists] arrested including 210 injured," Iraqi spokesman Mohammed al-Askari said Tuesday. Askiri said Iraqi forces had seized "500 weapons and 11 mortar tubes along with numerous pick-up trucks mounted with machine guns and very important documents."

The impressively executed operation was a testament to the steadily improving combat capabilities and discipline of the Iraqi forces, especially since these were mostly Shiite soldiers fighting against Shiite insurgents. [My emphasis] President Bush has promised Americans that the U.S. will stand down when the Iraqi forces are ready to stand up. The past few days are evidence that Iraqi forces are getting closer to being ready to assume full command of their country, despite the carping of the critics in Washington.

Perhaps most interesting was that Iraqi forces killed the commander of a Shiite militia, a cult leader who actually claimed to be the Islamic Messiah (or Mahdi). The armed cult known the "Soldiers of Heaven" was plotting to assasinate top Shiite religious leaders in Najaf as part of an effort to bring about the end of the world.

"He claimed to be the Mahdi," Shirwan al-Waeli, Iraq's National Security Minister, said of the cult's leader, adding that the cult leader had used the full name "Mahdi bin Ali bin Ali bin Abi Taleb," claiming descent from the Prophet Mohammad. "One of the signs of the coming of the Mahdi was to be the killing of the Ulema (hierarchy) in Najaf," Waeli told Reuters. "This was a perverse claim. No sane person could believe it." Waeli said that when police first approached the militia camp, the cult leader answered: "I am the Mahdi and I want you to join me." Iraqi officials says they have arrested other Shiites claiming to be messengers of the Mahdi, further evidence that an apocalyptic fervor -- largely inspired by Iran -- is spreading through the Shiite world.

Match this against a report:

Antarctic Sea Ice Increasing

My friends who get their facts from not watching the movies I do, tell me about the huge break in the ice shelf in Antarctica as being a dangerous result of global warming. You know, the ocean will flood NYC, etc.

I had been reading otherwise for some time, but it was hard to argue in the face of a movie and a New York Times headline. I did have direct input from a scientist in Antarctica, who I was helping publish a blog, that they had just gone through the coldest winter in recorded history, but that is not much of proof of anything where non-stellar stars know otherwise.

Below is the introduction of a NASA report regarding the overall increases in the sea ice. This is just from a peer-reviewed analysis of data from satellites, so feel free to ignore it. After all, some unnamed UN experts might disagree, though not for several months as they refine their data to fit the already published conclusions. You can click on the title to go to the NASA article.

There was the big break off of the ice shelf, what - a year ago, but what that means and what caused it have not been voted on, yet. I do recall reading about increased undersea volcanic eruptions, but never in the context of warming the ocean under the ice shelf.

The author, Claire Parkinson, Senior Research Scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, mentions that what is happening in Antarctica is "not what would be expected from a straightforward global warming scenario, but a much more complicated set of events."

I am not sure we want any set of facts to be complicated, these days.

SATELLITES SHOW OVERALL INCREASES IN ANTARCTIC SEA ICE COVER Image 1 While recent studies have shown that on the whole Arctic sea ice has decreased since the late 1970s, satellite records of sea ice around Antarctica reveal an overall increase in the southern hemisphere ice over the same period. Continued decreases or increases could have substantial impacts on polar climates, because sea ice spreads over a vast area, reflects solar radiation away from the Earth’s surface, and insulates the oceans from the atmosphere. In a study just published in the Annals of Glaciology, Claire Parkinson of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center analyzed the length of the sea ice season throughout the Southern Ocean to obtain trends in sea ice coverage. Parkinson examined 21 years (1979-1999) of Antarctic sea ice satellite records and discovered that, on average, the area where southern sea ice seasons have lengthened by at least one day per year is roughly twice as large as the area where sea ice seasons have shortened by at least one day per year. One day per year equals three weeks over the 21-year period. Image 2 “You can see with this dataset that what is happening in the Antarctic is not what would be expected from a straightforward global warming scenario, but a much more complicated set of events,” Parkinson said. The length of the sea ice season in any particular region or area refers to the number of days per year when at least 15 percent of that area is covered by sea ice. Some areas close to the Antarctic continent have sea ice all year long, but a much larger region of the Southern Ocean has sea ice for a smaller portion of the year, and in those regions the length of the sea ice season can vary significantly from one year to another....

JFK: Why Iraq?

Listen to JFK's Inaugural Address. It is short and says what W can't seem to convey. Or is it we are not listening? Or, have we abandoned a sense of purpose greater than being properly entertained?

EXCERPT:

...We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans -- born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage, and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge -- and more....

Why Iraq?

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

John Donne

J'accuse Homme (not Home)

Just a few years ago, during global warming, I had a plastic pipe split in the Rube Goldberg plumbing system of the Vermont house. (I once spent a day mapping the system, trying to identify unknown pipes.) Lost in the flood was a Scientific American magazine, back when it read like science, not first person travelogues. The 1970's cover image and story: OH MY GOD GLOBAL COOLING!



Well, I exaggerate on the headline, but that was the theme. I kept the magazine to be my exemplar of how lemmings run off the cliff. Or, was that chicken littles? Now we have the UN taking a vote on aspects of climate change to prove a political point - we need billions more to stamp out human activity. I never heard of a scientific axiom being proved by a vote. How democratic. The first sign of stupidity is judging the messenger instead of the message.

Indeed, I no longer take anyone's ideas seriously that are based upon a listing of others who say the same thing. If someone says 800 scientists agree with me within the first three minutes, they have nothing to add; they have properly identified their true believer status.

TIME Magazine, that bastion of (politically) correct reporting had a piece in a June 24, 1974 piece, Another Ice Age?, where a sad, familiar rhetoric could be found:

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F....

I hope you sense the same ignorant rant in the language and approach to science. This could have been written by Al Gore's doppelganger. Of course, you may feel that because of the proven fact of evolution, today's scientists are more evolved than those of the era when people used to read and think, so when UN "experts" vote on establishing a scientific principal, they know what they are doing.

Contrast this: in April 2001, TIME had a 16 page section on OH MY GOD WE ARE ALL GOING TO BE BURNED TO DEATH. There was a frying pan on the cover. (OK, I made up the name of the section.) Apparently, TIME does not use TIME as a source. Good fact checking, at least.

In a recent article by Climatologist Tim Ball, I was reminded of the 1970's. Doctor Ball quoted:

"It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

Good thing the UN didn't vote on that one, we would all be under glaciers.

As you will see, if you read the article, Dr. Ball dismisses the causality of human activity after working through what seems to be half a century of work in climatology, being the first PhD in Canada in that field, the degree from University of London. He explains how academics are highly defensive, which non-academics already know, and that the J'accuse homme (I just made this up) element of this discourse is purely political, driven by the color of money. (If that is crappy French, please advise. I voted on it being correct, but it may not be.)

He indicated the Canadian government brags about spending $3 billion CAD on the issue. The money was spent where? Public relations - media. The media that pushes the issue.

Anyway, you can read the musing of an expert in the field at your leisure. I do wish to quote, however:

Another cry in the wilderness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

Just another right wing crack-pot.


fn: When I tell you who has opinions that are contrary to consensus, its not the same things as me disregarding others who tell me who holds their consensus opinion. When I figure out the difference, I will let you know.

2007 Boldface Lies: No. 1

I have been a fan of the Clinton technique of lying in plain view ever since the whoppers about the spelling of her name was influenced by the great climb of Sir Edmund Hillary, which was a few years after Hillary's birth. I also like the one Bill told about reading about black churches being burned in his state as a boy and being disturbed. Within days of that whopper, the state historian went public to say no church had been burned.

Today, we have her position on Iraq which spells out for sure she was against the war before she voted for it. Her new position will, of course, be repeated by the major media without so much as comment, thus providing further protection of the Clintons in the never-ending double-standard regarding double-talk. The problem is, this time, other Democrats will refresh the electorates RAM about her lie.

Recall, as a primary axiom:

Clinton votes YES on House Joint Resolution 114, "to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." The measure passes the Senate 77-23. Oct., 2002

Below are her wonderfully creative words and those of the Guardian, hardly a right-wing paper, and of a Hate-Bush- Now group called Codepink. (Is that onomatopoeia?)

Clinton Promises to End War if Elected (2/2/07)

By NEDRA PICKLER

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday she would not have attacked Iraq if she were president in 2002 and would end the war if elected, as she tried to blunt rivals like John Edwards who are stoking anti-war passions in the Democratic Party.

Clinton, raising her voice at one point to be heard above anti-war hecklers, suggested that calls from Edwards and others to cut off funding for President Bush's troop increase are unlikely to win approval in a narrowly divided Senate.

"Believe me, I understand the frustration and the outrage," Clinton said in a speech to the Democratic National Committee meeting that brought the party's nine White House hopefuls together for the first time. "You have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding to do anything. If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will."

------

At least, the Guardian writer remembers what he read a few years ago:

Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Thursday January 18, 2007
The Guardian

Hillary Clinton risked being outflanked in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination yesterday when she revised her stance on the Iraq war but failed to go far enough to satisfy anti-war critics.

Mrs Clinton, who voted for the war in 2002 and has so far refused to repudiate that, took to television and radio studios for a media blitz yesterday morning to set out a new position after a visit to Iraq and Afghanistan last week.....

-----
Here is a Codepink's view of Ms. Clinton's flip-flop, which was not floppy enough:

Hillary Clinton's Senate Record on the War in Iraq:

January 2007: Hillary says that it was President Bush’s “decision to go to war with an ill-conceived plan and an incompetently executed strategy." She adds, “We expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office,” e.g., before 2009, but she hedges when asked if this means troop withdrawal by then. In short, Hillary once again makes it clear that her ever-changing positions on the war are tied completely to her domestic political calculations January 2007: Hillary places the blame for the situation on the Iraqis themselves: "I don't think we should continue to fund the protection for the Iraqi government leaders or for the training and equipping of their army unless they meet certain conditions…." She opposes Bush's "troop surge" and calls for a "cap" on troop levels, but refuses to call for withdrawal or to support Senate measures that would restrict funding for the war. December 2006: Hillary still doesn't join John Kerry and John Edwards in apologizing for the war authorization vote, but she does say: "Obviously, if we knew then what we know now, there wouldn't have been a vote and I certainly wouldn't have voted that way." October 2006: Hillary calls for the firing of Donald Rumsfeld. "If we could get some adult supervision right now in the administration with respect to their war strategy, this could be handled," she said. She's not against the war-she just thinks it's being managed badly. September 2006: Clinton votes NO on Senate Amendment 4882 sponsored by Diane Feinstein that would ban the sale of cluster munitions for the use in heavily populated civilian areas. The amendment is defeated 70-30. June 2006: Clinton votes NO on Senate Amendment 4442 sponsored by John Kerry that would require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq. The amendment is defeated 86-13. November 2005: A few days after Representative John Murtha bravely calls for the redeployment of troops currently in Iraq, Hillary offers this response: an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be "a big mistake." February 2005: Hillary makes the somewhat dubious statements that much of Iraq is functioning well, that elections there have succeeded and that the insurgency is failing. Hillary says the US should not set a deadline for troop withdrawal because it will "play into the hands of the insurgents." April 2004: Hillary says she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing the president to take military action in Iraq, but she does regret "the way the president used the authority." October 2002: Clinton votes YES on House Joint Resolution 114, "to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." The measure passes the Senate 77-23. All voting records from www.vote-smart.org