Blog: Scientist confesses he made up polar bear population estimates

As we head towards new Presidential mandates on carbon emissions, it is helpful that a scientist responsible for the globwl warming hoax admits that he lied. This was no ordinary lie. This was the lie that caused polar bears to be placed on the endangered species list, when in fact, they weren’t endangered.
There are many lies about climate, Michael Mann’s “Hockey Stick Graph” being a prime example of that. This lie is the one that caused millions of people to feel pain over the plight of the cuddly polar bears and believe that regulations that lessend their economic freedom and raised utility costs were worthwhile if they could save the drowning polar bears. The polar bears, of course, were not drwoning, and, as this article points out, were prospering.

The serial lies about the climate have lead Obama to expand government’s control over peoples lives, that is why the lies keep coming. Stay alert, my friends.

Blog: Scientist confesses he made up polar bear population estimates.

How Baseball Teams Became Tribes

Prior to the middle of the 1970’s there was a separation in baseball between fans and teams. In the thousands of photos that exist of crowds prior to 1975, you will not see team hats and shirts on fans. Now, such a photo shows that fans are also in uniform. This change occurred in 1975 or 1976 due to a chance encounter with an anthropology professor and the new Vice-Chairman of Major League Baseball Promotion Corporation, Now MLB Properties. (The reason the company had that long, awkward title was that the NFL had a “Properties” organization, and baseball didn’t want to appear to be copying the NFL! )

I was that Vice-Chairman and we were starting a program that registered team trademarks (they weren’t all registered at the time) to allow licensing of those treadmarks to merchandise manufacturers. In those days, it was commonplace for teams to allow others to sell merchandise with, say, the Detroit classic Old English ‘D’ logo as it was seen as good advertising. No uniform parts were sold, however. Teams received no revenue from such practices. I was looking for ways to gain conttrol over that intellectual property and increase sales and generate revenue from the licensing of team trademarked merchandise, especially uniform shirts, jackets and official hats.

A chance meeting with an anthropology professor provided the rationale. In an hour long meeting, he explained that fans were like Tribes in that they were organized around their teams, had a pantheon of gods, the venerable old stars, shared lore of games and pennants won, songs, “Skoal VIkings” and “We’re Gonna Win Twins,” and, most importanly, similar uniforms in designs and colors. The team’s hats and shirts being primary in this regard.

The. Professor went on to say that in a community, the members of tribes for various teams had allegiance only to that team. Where there was overlap, it was minor and a fan would have allegiance to one tribe only, but may have interest in another. In Minnesota, for example, a Twins fan may have interest in the VIkings, Wild and Timberwolves, or even the University’s teams, but were bound viscerally to the Twins.

I remember returning to the stadium that day wondering how to implement this information. I went to the merchanise department and checked on the Team trademarked goods being sold. there was little other than pins and badges, no real, authentic uniform articles, Wearing a T-shirt was interesting, but wearing an actual uniform shirt was critical to the link between the fan and the player. This is the essence of this change in marketing. The fan and player would now wear the same clothing. Isn’t that what members of the same tribes did, afterall?qq Is there any wonder at why some teams are named for tribes, like “Fighting Irish” and “Quakers?” (Furthermore, baseball is unique in that it has a maximum of fan participation in the game as fans chase foul balls and there are even civilian casualties from this pursuit.)

Prior to this moment, the rule was that only uniformed personnel could wear the actual uniform. I had once given a highschool baseball coach a fitted official team cap that he proudly wore everywhere. I was chastised for breaking a sacrosanct rule. I was about to break that rule again. I went to the clubhouse and asked the equipment manager for some team jackets. These had previously been worn only by players on the field, a foreign concept today. I asked what they cost, tripled the amount (the seller would receive 20% of the sale price), and took them to a merchandise kiosk, hung them up and waited. The sale price, probably $45, was very high and nothing else sold for $10, so I asked a friend of mine to buy one and wear it. (What cost $45 in 1976 would cost $192 today!)

What was dramatic was the reaction of other fans, who wanted to know where he bought that jacket. A new market had been created. This event was reported to Promo Corp Executive DIrector, Joe Podesta, in New York the next day and we started focusing on this concept as the core of merchandise sales. Some teams embraced it quicker.than others and I was again chastised internally for this behavior, but the industry had changed.

I was at Target field last night and it seems everyone wears some tribe/team clothing. Some celebrate the demi-gods, Killebrew, Oliva etc. Or the modern demi-gods, Mauer, others remind us of things gone wrong like Cuddyer and Morneau, players playing for other tribes now. Surrounding the stadium are statues to the famous and most important executives and players in the team’s history. Your team is your tribe, act and dress accordingly.

Global Warming and The Corruption of Science

Dwight Eisenhower warned about the dangers of undue influence of government money in the Military/Industrial Complex and sugggested that the same influence could be felt in the government/scientific complex. The article below, (see link), describes the numerous threats of great and horrible consequennces from so called catastrophes resulting, for example, from acid rain, radon, DDT, plutonium, ozone hole, lead, fracking, second hand smoke, ocean acidification, vaccines, global cooling, and finally, global warming. Many of us remember the horror DDT caused, yet, after millions have died from malaria due to its being banned, the World Health Organization has removed the ban and now allows its use. The US government has not followed in this as to do so is to suggest that the “settled science” was wrong. If “settled science” was wrong on DDT, and the other “calamities,” it could be wrong on global warming.

The alarmist community, a combination of government that wants to take more control over people, science that wants to continue the billions of dollars funding “research” on the subject, and industry that wants billions of dollars to subsidize inefficient and unnecessary “green” industries. The war on coal, a hold over from the acid rain scare, is a example of this. The absurdity of this is Nancy Pelosi’s plea that “we stop using fossil fuels and use more natural gas.” Of course, natural gas is a fossil fuel, but details and accuracy don’t matter to the alarmist crowd. What matters is the continuing flow of government money to spurious research and inefficient green industries.

Science is a imperfect study. There are many scientists who object to the alarmist claims but they are struck down by the alarmist community that has no interest in debate or peer review, the classic method of proving a scientific principle. An example of this is Roy Spencer’s aricle in “Remote Sensing,” a Swiss Journal. Such was the outrage for this blasphemy, that the. Editor was forced to resign. Galileo would have been hung by this crowd, Einstein may have just gone back to his job at the pateht office. Richard Linzen of MIT, Tim Ball, author of the book, “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science” have been hounded by the alarmists and groundless lawsuits have been filed to silence them. They are acting as whistle blowers and are serving a very important function.

Curiously, even with a gullible media feeding the frenzy, the public, the ultimate jury here, is not buying the alarmist nonsense as common sense shows that there is no global warming or, if there is, it’s not harmful, and what’s so bad with temperatures rising another degree this century? We may even recover from the Little Ice Age and get close to the salubrious climate of the Rennaissance. People even notice that there has been no warming for over 15 years and the last winter was horrible. Facts such as that will win the day. For example, when the fear mongers say that the West Antarctic Ice sheet is melting and sea levels will rise three feet, smart people analyze the amout of ice involved and state that there just is not enough water there. If the Ice Sheet melts, which is doubtful give average tempuratures of -49 degrees, sea levels will rise 2.7 microns! Facts will win the day in this battle and the people who say Climate Change is important are less then 4% of the population. Until then, we will spend billions of dollars on faulty computer models, kill millions of birds with wind and solar power installations, (a farmer was fined heaviiy for shooting a Bald Eagle, but wind power is killing them regulary), and paying ever higher utility bills to accomodate the climate alarmists. Remember, if you are still scared by CO2, that that it is less than. .0004% of the atmosphere and it is essential for life on earth. Remove green house gasses that create our “Goldilocks Zone” climate, and you have Mars.

The article “The Corruption of Science” by Norman Rogers, that I’ve linked to below says it all and must be read by thoughtful people like you.

Articles: The Corruption of Science.

The Climate Controversy Explained in Detail.

My friend, John Hinderaker has posted this complete, and I assume, accurate account of climate history since the last ice age. Curiously, I was looking at the data since the last ice age earlier this week to gain a prospective on the fallacy of the recent federal report on climate change. Simply stated, the threats and alarms raised by that report have no basis in fact. That the current co2 level, less than .0004% of the atmosphere, is far below ice age levels, .001% to .002% of the atmosphere, debunks the threats.

This article makes the simple observation that it is the presence of “greenhouse gases” that make the earth habitable, for without these heat retaining gases, solar heat would escape to space, as it does on the moon. Furthermore, the sea level rise predicted by the federal report is impossible as the only source of water is locked in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, and these ice sheets survived the co2 levels during the ice age.  

The complete article, from powerlineblog.com, is below. 

WHY GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM ISN’T SCIENCE

Science is not a set of dogmas, and it is not a pronouncement by a committee. It is a method. Richard Feynman, perhaps the world’s most eminent physicist, put it this way:

In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with the experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is—if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.

The catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory is based entirely on models, which are programmed by their creators to predict disaster. But we know for a fact that the models are wrong, because they disagree with reality. When the facts collide with a theory, the facts win.

At Watts Up With That?, Don Easterbrook applies the scientific method to the recently-produced National Climate Assessment (NCA). The NCA predicts all kinds of awful consequences from a hypothetical rise in temperature that is based exclusively on models, not on observation. Easterbrook finds that the NCA fails the test of reality. Here are a few examples.

NCA assertion: “Temperatures are projected to rise another 2°F to 4°F in most areas of the United States over the next few decades.” “By the end of this century, a roughly 3°F to 5°F rise is projected under a lower emissions scenario, and a 5°F to 10°F rise for a higher emissions.”

Facts: How do we check the validity of this prediction? Well, we can look at comparisons of previous computer model results to recorded satellite temperatures. Figure 2 shows Roy Spencer’s plot of 44 of the latest climate models versus satellite measurements. As his graph shows, the models were not even close to the real measured temperatures. The obvious conclusion here is that the models failed miserably, a fact admitted to by the IPCC in their latest report.

clip_image004

2. NCA assertion: “It has been known for almost two centuries that carbon dioxide traps heat.”

Facts: That’s not the question—it’s not if CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it’s how much is there in the atmosphere (Fig. 3) and how much can it affect climate? CO2 makes up only 3.6% of the greenhouse gases (Fig. 4) and coupled with the fact that the atmospheric concentration has changed only 0.0065% since recent warming began in 1978 (Fig. 3), there is no way that this miniscule amount can have any significant effect on climate. Water vapor accounts for ~95% of the greenhouse effect and computer modelers put a large arbitrary water vapor factor in their computer programs, claiming that if CO2 increases, so will water vapor. But that isn’t true—atmospheric water vapor has been declining since 1948 (Fig. 5), not increasing, so modelers who put a water vapor driver in their programs will not have a valid output.

This is a critically important point. Everyone agrees that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. (That’s a good thing; the Greenhouse Effect makes life on Earth possible.) The problem from the hysterics’ point of view is that doubling the tiny concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would, without more, have only an insignificant–and in fact, beneficial–effect on the Earth’s climate. The Earth would become a greener and slightly warmer place. (It is ironic that “greens” are obsessively hostile to the very substance–carbon dioxide–that makes the Earth green.) The hysterics admit this, so their models are programmed to amplify the effect of increased CO2. They hypothesize positive feedbacks, most notably by assuming that increasing CO2 will lead to a higher concentration of water vapor. The supposedly baleful consequences of burning fossil fuels are mostly indirect; they derive primarily from the feedbacks, not from the CO2.

But, as Easterbrook says, we know that this assumption is false. Carbon dioxide levels have been increasing for some decades now, and that has not led to an increase in water vapor in the atmosphere. On the contrary, as Easterbrook notes, atmospheric water vapor has declined since 1948. So, once again, the alarmists’ models are simply wrong.

Let’s conclude with the NCA’s predictions about sea level rise. For some reason, more liberals seem to make fools of themselves over the idea of a rising sea level than anything else. You see pictures of the Statue of Liberty, up to her waist in water. California’s Governor Jerry Brown recently had to retract a dumb comment about needing to move LAX because the present location will soon be under water. The whole thing is a fantasy:

NCA assertion: Global sea level has risen by about 8 inches since reliable record keeping began in 1880. The future scenarios range from 0.66 feet to 6.6 feet in 2100. This recent rise is much greater than at any time in at least the past 2000 years.

Facts: During the last Ice Age (~10-20,000 years ago), vast areas of continents were covered with ice sheets up to 10,000 feet thick. [Ed: That’s almost two miles.] There was so much water tied up in these ice sheets that it caused sea level to drop about 120 meters (400 feet). 11,500 years ago, the climate changed abruptly, warming at rates up to 20 °F in a century, bringing the Ice Age to a very sudden end. The ice sheets melted at an astonishing rate, causing sea level to rise sharply. We know the chronology of this sea level rise (Fig. 21), so we can calculate the rate of sea level rise as the ice sheets melted. Sea level rose 50 meters (160 ft) between 12,000 and 8,000 years ago. That’sa rate of sea level rise of 4 feet per century, during a time when gigantic ice sheets were melting from warming of tens of degrees per century.

clip_image044

Figure 21. Sea level over the past 12,000 years.

The authors of the NCA report (and NOAA) want us to believe that sea level may rise as much as 6.6 feet by 2100 (86 years from now), a rate of sea level rise of 7.7 feet per century! That’s about twice the rate at which sea level rose while the huge Ice Age ice sheets melted under warming of tens of degrees per century. So where do the so-called scientists of this report think all this water will come from? Those huge Ice Age ice sheets no longer exist, so the only possible source is melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets? How likely is it that a 0.006% rise in CO2 is going to melt a significant portion of the Antarctic ice sheet? Probably zero to none. Why couldn’t the so-called scientists who authored the NCA report do the simple math? If they had even read the literature, this analysis has already been published (Morner, 2010).

The East Antarctic ice sheet (the major Antarctic ice sheet with ice up to 15,000 feet thick) first appeared in the Miocene, 15 million years ago. Throughout most of the Antarctic ice sheet history, global CO2 levels were 1000-2000 ppm (compared to present 400 ppm), so the recent miniscule rise of CO2 is peanuts compared to what it has been. So even doubling, tripling, quadrupling, or quintupling of CO2 would still be well below the levels of most of the ice sheet’s history and the ice sheet survived those quite nicely.

I am sure most people don’t realize how low contemporary CO2 levels are. We are living in a carbon-deprived era. CO2 levels have been 15 times higher than they are at present without any runaway warming, or any other adverse consequence.

The Antarctic ice sheet is continuing to grow, not melt, and sea ice is presently at an all-time high (Fig. 22). The average daily temperature in Antarctica is –58° F, so to get significant ice to melt would require raising the average daily temperature from -58 to +32 ° F (melting point of ice), plus another ~10 ° F, a total warming of +100° F. Not likely!

clip_image046

Figure 22. Antarctic sea ice is presently at an all-time high, about a million square kilometers above average.

Another way to look at the ridiculousness of the NCA predicted sea level rise is to compare their predictions with history sea level rates. The rate of sea level rise from 1900 to 2000 was 1.7 mm/yr (~7 inches per century) (Fig. 23). Figure 24 shows a comparison of the sea level rise over the past century with the NCA predicted sea level rise. The huge difference is impossible becausethere is no source of water for the NCA predicted rise.

clip_image048_thumb

Figure 23. Sea level since 1700 AD

clip_image050

Figure 24. NCA sea level rise prediction compared to projecton of sea level rise over the past century.

Global warming alarmism fails the test of science. The alarmists’ models generate one false prediction after another. When a model is falsified by experience, we know that the model is no good. A bad model cannot be a basis for predicting the future, or for making decisions about public policy. Global warming alarmism is not science. It is, rather, an industry fueled by billions of dollars that the world’s political class showers on climate “scientists” to compensate them for producing silly projections of doom. The political class needs the predictions of doom to justify its own grab for more power and money, and certain compliant “scientists” are happy to oblige. Money talks, but it doesn’t necessarily produce good science.

6 Surprising Facts About Caffeine

I started drinking coffee when I was a sailor facing a mid-watch, the midnight to 4:00AM watch, 0 hours to 0400, one bell to eight bells in the mid-watch for landlubbers. I continue the habit and have investigated various ways to make coffee from the old percolator where I learned to keep the temperature low to avoid scalding the coffee to the Jura coffee maker that requires one to push a button to get a perfect, with crema, cup of coffee.
News that coffee is damaging causes some alarm, so this article that clears that up is welcome. So, fellow caffeine users, this one is for you.

6 Surprising Facts About Caffeine.