Investment and other financial matters

Archive for December, 2012

Warmists Think We're Stupid

By Ross Kaminsky

But they’re not so hot themselves, as a Reason Foundation study

delicately points out.

One of the key attributes of the global warming movement, like any cult,

is that it posits a doomsday scenario if we don’t follow their dangerous

prescriptions. Whether it is cyanide-laced Kool Aid or the economic

equivalent (were we to follow the cap-and-trade crowd), the "cure" is

not only worse than the so-called problem but premised on the idea that

people are stupid.

The warmists say that we’ll have more disease and death if the planet

warms even though studies by actual scientists frequently conclude

otherwise.

This week’s five-alarm fire (literally) comes from the NY Times which

warns us that "Across millions of acres, the pines of the northern and

central Rockies are dying, just one among many types of forests that are

showing signs of distress these days." The article, which implies that

the earth will die if we don’t stop climate change from killing trees,

is at least honest enough to use "if" six times, "might" three times,

"may" seven times, and other qualifiers of their doomsday view such as

"not sure," "possible," and "could."

While this particular Times story concerns North America, an actual

study of African rainfall, done by scientists from NOAA and the National

Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder (both hotbeds of climate

change alarmism), concludes that changes in rainfall levels in both

northern and southern Africa are due to changes in sea surface

temperatures, and that those temperature changes are not human-caused.

Furthermore, when the UN’s IPCC tried to model the change in African

rainfall based on human causes, they failed: "The ensemble of

greenhouse-gas-forced experiments, conducted as part of the Fourth

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

fails to simulate the pattern or amplitude of the twentieth-century

African drying, indicating that the drought conditions were likely of

natural origin."

But if you really want to scare people into wasting their lives on

public transport or sleeping in uncomfortably cold houses during the

winter or subsidizing Solyndra, you have to make them think that human

life is directly at stake.

One such example regards malaria, long the bogeyman for those warmists

who, in the interest of scaring us about what the evil rich are doing to

the southern hemisphere’s poor, claimed for years that warming will

cause a massive increase in the prevalence of and deaths from malaria.

However, a 2010 study led by scientists from the University of Florida

concluded that "widespread claims that rising mean temperatures have

already led to increases in worldwide malaria morbidity and mortality

are largely at odds with observed decreasing global trends in both its

endemicity and geographic extent." Furthermore, they said that any

increase in malaria cases from warming would likely be two orders of

magnitude smaller than the reduction in cases due to "control measures"

taken by humans, such as bed nets and anti-malarial drugs. (Two orders

of magnitude means 100x, so 10 is two orders of magnitude smaller than

1000.)

It’s also worth noting that the lead scientist, whom I interviewed, was

a full member of the cult of Algore. It was fascinating to hear him

claim that when it comes to warming, people like me who think it’s

somewhere between an exaggeration and a hoax (and closer to the latter)

are "bucking a broad scientific consensus." Yet when it came to his

study’s different results from other people’s claims, he suggested that

"Science is intrinsically adversarial, and we get at the truth through

critical thought. That means scientists should question every single

study they read." You don’t say.

The key point is not that malaria cases won’t increase, but that they

won’t increase because humans are smart and adaptable.

Malaria isn’t the only case of warmists trying to scare us with disease

and death: Every few years, it seems someone claims that global warming

"is to blame for cholera bacteria becoming more widespread." (And here

is another example from 2002.) But you know things aren’t going well for

the cult when even that same "the forests are burning!" New York Times

has to tell us, as they did just one month ago, that "Cholera outbreaks

seem to be on the increase, but a new study has found they cannot be

explained by global warming." (Study link here.)

Perhaps you will not be surprised by a comparison between the two

articles (at least their web versions): Last week’s article about

supposedly dying forests contained over 4,100 words, while the August

29th article saying that cholera outbreaks are not increasing due to

climate change was — wait for it — a grand total of 230 words. And if

that’s not enough, the forests article was on the paper’s front page,

whereas the cholera article was on page D6.

Humans live in deserts and in the Arctic. We live in places like Denver

and Chicago, each of which will see temperatures over more than a

100-degree (F) range in the course of a year — and routinely a 30 or 40

degree range in a day (or 20 in an hour) in the mountains and deserts.

And these aren’t even the records. Imagine being in Spearfish, South

Dakota, in 1943 when the temperature reportedly rose 49 degrees in two

minutes! Or Loma, Montana, which in 1972 reported a 103-degree

temperature rise in 24 hours? We scuba dive and mountain climb. We

invent air conditioning and efficient heating systems. We have nearly

eliminated smallpox and polio, two of the greatest scourges of eras

past. In other words, we adapt to our environment — in those cases when

we can’t adapt our environment to us.

For that reason, it defies common sense to believe that man-made global

warming, even if it were real, would have the devastating impact that

its anti-capitalist, wealth-redistributionist proponents claim.

Now we have the results of a much broader study, commissioned by the

Reason Foundation, which points in exactly this same direction of

adaptability. The study, entitled "The Amazing Decline in Deaths from

Extreme Weather in an Era of Global Warming, 1900-2010" is summarized

thus:

Aggregate mortality attributed to all extreme weather events

globally has declined by 98% since the 1920s, in spite of a

four-fold rise in population and much more complete reporting

of such events.

Other highlights from the study’s findings:

. "Droughts were the most deadly extreme weather category between 1900

and 2010, responsible for over 60 percent of extreme weather deaths

during that time. The worldwide death rate from droughts peaked in the

1920s when there were 235 deaths a year per million people. Since then,

the death rate has fallen by 99.9 percent. The study finds that global

food production advancements, such as new crops, improved fertilizer,

irrigation, and pesticides, along with society’s better ability to move

food and medical supplies, were responsible for reducing the number of

deaths in times of severe drought."

. "Floods were to blame for 30 percent of the deaths during the

timeframe studied, making them the second most deadly extreme weather

category. The death rate for floods topped out in the 1930s at 204

deaths a year per million people. Deaths from floods have fallen by over

98 percent since then and there was an average of approximately one

flood death per year per million people from 2000 to 2010."

. All of this while the advent of storm-finding and storm-reporting

technologies have massively increased the number of reported extreme

weather events. (This is not to say that the actual number of such

events has increased, just the reporting thereof.) Of course, the same

technology which allows storms to be reported allows them to be prepared

for.

If people adapt, as we manifestly do, to almost anything thrown at us,

it is difficult to take seriously the doomsday scenarios proffered by

the UN’s IPCC and their grant-chasing "scientists," supported by radical

environmental leftists whose motivation is more to impoverish the west

than to "save the planet."

That is why their "solutions" all involve two things: Curbing energy

usage and production (which is to say, curbing humans’ standard of

living), and redistributing wealth from richer people and richer nations

to poorer people and poorer nations. But if they really cared about the

impact on people, rather than satisfying their own self-loathing as

members of the human race, or even worse as Americans (gasp!), they

would focus on aiding and speeding adaptation rather than trying to do

the atmospheric equivalent of stopping continental drift.

For example, Denmark’s Bjorn Lomborg, a professor of environmental

economics, is a believer that global warming is man-made yet still

argues that massive wealth-destroying policies are the wrong way to go.

Instead, we should focus on much cheaper and more effective projects

such as increasing clean water supplies in the third world.

People are becoming skeptical of man-made global warming not just

because the warmists’ mathematical models can’t explain the lack of

warming since 1998 and not just because Climategate proved how utterly

corrupt "climate science" has become. But it’s also because the

solutions proposed, i.e. to stop using energy, are based on an obvious,

even if never-ever-ever-ever-stated by the left, premise that people who

live on 21st century Earth are too stupid to adapt to a changing

environment — even though we have as a species, even without the

benefit of modern technology, done just that for millennia.

Reason’s new study is just confirmation of what we all know in our gut:

that "climate change," even if it were partially caused by man, is not

the threat the left claims and not to be responded to by cutting our own

economic throats,

.
posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comment (1)

ROFLMAO – The newest member of the Union of Concerned Scientists

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/07/friday-funny-the-newest-member-…

A good laugh for the weekend.

"Since becoming a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists when I found
out

all you needed was a valid credit card, my curiosity about who and what they

really are has spiked.

I decided to put that theory to the test. I am very proud to announce that a

member of my family has been accepted into this prestigious organization.
With

pride, I present new UCS member, Kenji Watts: … "

See for yourself, but prior, put aside your coffee cup …

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Last resorts of AGW crumbling – Roy Spencer finds "the Big Picture" on cloud feedback

Spencer finds "the Big Picture" on cloud feedback

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/09/spencer-finds-the-big-picture-o…

.sometimes, the most powerful evidence is right in front of your face…

I never dreamed that anyone would dispute the claim that cloud changes can

cause "cloud radiative forcing" of the climate system, in addition to their

role as responding to surface temperature changes ("cloud radiative

feedback"). (NOTE: "Cloud radiative forcing" traditionally has multiple

meanings. Caveat emptor.)

But that’s exactly what has happened. Andy Dessler’s 2010 and 2011 papers
have

claimed, both implicitly and explicitly, that in the context of climate,
with

very few exceptions, cloud changes must be the result of temperature change

only.

Shortly after we became aware of Andy’s latest paper, which finally appeared

in GRL on October 1, I realized the most obvious and most powerful evidence
of

the existence of cloud radiative forcing was staring us in the face. We had

actually alluded to this in our previous papers, but there are so many ways
to

approach the issue that it’s easy to get sidetracked by details, and forget

about the Big Picture.


Now, our 3 previous papers on this subject have dealt with trying to

understand the extent to which this large radiative forcing signal (or

whatever you want to call it) corrupts the diagnosis of feedback. That such

radiative forcing exists seemed to me to be beyond dispute. Apparently, it

wasn’t. Dessler (2011) tries to make the case that the radiative variations

measured by CERES are not enough energy to change the temperature of the
ocean

mixed layer.but that is a separate issue; the issue addressed by our
previous

3 papers is the extent to which radiative forcing masks radiative feedback.

[For those interested, over the same period of record (April 2000 through
June

2010) the standard deviation of the Levitus-observed 3-month changes in

temperature with time of the upper 200 meters of the global oceans
corresponds

to 2.5 Watts per sq. meter]

I just wanted to put this evidence out there for people to see and
understand

in advance. It will be indeed part of our response to Dessler 2011, but
Danny

Braswell and I have so many things to say about that paper, it’s going to
take

time to address all of the ways in which (we think) Dessler is wrong,
misused

our model, and misrepresented our position.

DANG!

:-D

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Warmists Think We're Stupid

By Ross Kaminsky

But they’re not so hot themselves, as a Reason Foundation study

delicately points out.

One of the key attributes of the global warming movement, like any cult,

is that it posits a doomsday scenario if we don’t follow their dangerous

prescriptions. Whether it is cyanide-laced Kool Aid or the economic

equivalent (were we to follow the cap-and-trade crowd), the "cure" is

not only worse than the so-called problem but premised on the idea that

people are stupid.

The warmists say that we’ll have more disease and death if the planet

warms even though studies by actual scientists frequently conclude

otherwise.

This week’s five-alarm fire (literally) comes from the NY Times which

warns us that "Across millions of acres, the pines of the northern and

central Rockies are dying, just one among many types of forests that are

showing signs of distress these days." The article, which implies that

the earth will die if we don’t stop climate change from killing trees,

is at least honest enough to use "if" six times, "might" three times,

"may" seven times, and other qualifiers of their doomsday view such as

"not sure," "possible," and "could."

While this particular Times story concerns North America, an actual

study of African rainfall, done by scientists from NOAA and the National

Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder (both hotbeds of climate

change alarmism), concludes that changes in rainfall levels in both

northern and southern Africa are due to changes in sea surface

temperatures, and that those temperature changes are not human-caused.

Furthermore, when the UN’s IPCC tried to model the change in African

rainfall based on human causes, they failed: "The ensemble of

greenhouse-gas-forced experiments, conducted as part of the Fourth

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

fails to simulate the pattern or amplitude of the twentieth-century

African drying, indicating that the drought conditions were likely of

natural origin."

But if you really want to scare people into wasting their lives on

public transport or sleeping in uncomfortably cold houses during the

winter or subsidizing Solyndra, you have to make them think that human

life is directly at stake.

One such example regards malaria, long the bogeyman for those warmists

who, in the interest of scaring us about what the evil rich are doing to

the southern hemisphere’s poor, claimed for years that warming will

cause a massive increase in the prevalence of and deaths from malaria.

However, a 2010 study led by scientists from the University of Florida

concluded that "widespread claims that rising mean temperatures have

already led to increases in worldwide malaria morbidity and mortality

are largely at odds with observed decreasing global trends in both its

endemicity and geographic extent." Furthermore, they said that any

increase in malaria cases from warming would likely be two orders of

magnitude smaller than the reduction in cases due to "control measures"

taken by humans, such as bed nets and anti-malarial drugs. (Two orders

of magnitude means 100x, so 10 is two orders of magnitude smaller than

1000.)

It’s also worth noting that the lead scientist, whom I interviewed, was

a full member of the cult of Algore. It was fascinating to hear him

claim that when it comes to warming, people like me who think it’s

somewhere between an exaggeration and a hoax (and closer to the latter)

are "bucking a broad scientific consensus." Yet when it came to his

study’s different results from other people’s claims, he suggested that

"Science is intrinsically adversarial, and we get at the truth through

critical thought. That means scientists should question every single

study they read." You don’t say.

The key point is not that malaria cases won’t increase, but that they

won’t increase because humans are smart and adaptable.

Malaria isn’t the only case of warmists trying to scare us with disease

and death: Every few years, it seems someone claims that global warming

"is to blame for cholera bacteria becoming more widespread." (And here

is another example from 2002.) But you know things aren’t going well for

the cult when even that same "the forests are burning!" New York Times

has to tell us, as they did just one month ago, that "Cholera outbreaks

seem to be on the increase, but a new study has found they cannot be

explained by global warming." (Study link here.)

Perhaps you will not be surprised by a comparison between the two

articles (at least their web versions): Last week’s article about

supposedly dying forests contained over 4,100 words, while the August

29th article saying that cholera outbreaks are not increasing due to

climate change was — wait for it — a grand total of 230 words. And if

that’s not enough, the forests article was on the paper’s front page,

whereas the cholera article was on page D6.

Humans live in deserts and in the Arctic. We live in places like Denver

and Chicago, each of which will see temperatures over more than a

100-degree (F) range in the course of a year — and routinely a 30 or 40

degree range in a day (or 20 in an hour) in the mountains and deserts.

And these aren’t even the records. Imagine being in Spearfish, South

Dakota, in 1943 when the temperature reportedly rose 49 degrees in two

minutes! Or Loma, Montana, which in 1972 reported a 103-degree

temperature rise in 24 hours? We scuba dive and mountain climb. We

invent air conditioning and efficient heating systems. We have nearly

eliminated smallpox and polio, two of the greatest scourges of eras

past. In other words, we adapt to our environment — in those cases when

we can’t adapt our environment to us.

For that reason, it defies common sense to believe that man-made global

warming, even if it were real, would have the devastating impact that

its anti-capitalist, wealth-redistributionist proponents claim.

Now we have the results of a much broader study, commissioned by the

Reason Foundation, which points in exactly this same direction of

adaptability. The study, entitled "The Amazing Decline in Deaths from

Extreme Weather in an Era of Global Warming, 1900-2010" is summarized

thus:

Aggregate mortality attributed to all extreme weather events

globally has declined by 98% since the 1920s, in spite of a

four-fold rise in population and much more complete reporting

of such events.

Other highlights from the study’s findings:

. "Droughts were the most deadly extreme weather category between 1900

and 2010, responsible for over 60 percent of extreme weather deaths

during that time. The worldwide death rate from droughts peaked in the

1920s when there were 235 deaths a year per million people. Since then,

the death rate has fallen by 99.9 percent. The study finds that global

food production advancements, such as new crops, improved fertilizer,

irrigation, and pesticides, along with society’s better ability to move

food and medical supplies, were responsible for reducing the number of

deaths in times of severe drought."

. "Floods were to blame for 30 percent of the deaths during the

timeframe studied, making them the second most deadly extreme weather

category. The death rate for floods topped out in the 1930s at 204

deaths a year per million people. Deaths from floods have fallen by over

98 percent since then and there was an average of approximately one

flood death per year per million people from 2000 to 2010."

. All of this while the advent of storm-finding and storm-reporting

technologies have massively increased the number of reported extreme

weather events. (This is not to say that the actual number of such

events has increased, just the reporting thereof.) Of course, the same

technology which allows storms to be reported allows them to be prepared

for.

If people adapt, as we manifestly do, to almost anything thrown at us,

it is difficult to take seriously the doomsday scenarios proffered by

the UN’s IPCC and their grant-chasing "scientists," supported by radical

environmental leftists whose motivation is more to impoverish the west

than to "save the planet."

That is why their "solutions" all involve two things: Curbing energy

usage and production (which is to say, curbing humans’ standard of

living), and redistributing wealth from richer people and richer nations

to poorer people and poorer nations. But if they really cared about the

impact on people, rather than satisfying their own self-loathing as

members of the human race, or even worse as Americans (gasp!), they

would focus on aiding and speeding adaptation rather than trying to do

the atmospheric equivalent of stopping continental drift.

For example, Denmark’s Bjorn Lomborg, a professor of environmental

economics, is a believer that global warming is man-made yet still

argues that massive wealth-destroying policies are the wrong way to go.

Instead, we should focus on much cheaper and more effective projects

such as increasing clean water supplies in the third world.

People are becoming skeptical of man-made global warming not just

because the warmists’ mathematical models can’t explain the lack of

warming since 1998 and not just because Climategate proved how utterly

corrupt "climate science" has become. But it’s also because the

solutions proposed, i.e. to stop using energy, are based on an obvious,

even if never-ever-ever-ever-stated by the left, premise that people who

live on 21st century Earth are too stupid to adapt to a changing

environment — even though we have as a species, even without the

benefit of modern technology, done just that for millennia.

Reason’s new study is just confirmation of what we all know in our gut:

that "climate change," even if it were partially caused by man, is not

the threat the left claims and not to be responded to by cutting our own

economic throats,

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comment (1)

ROFLMAO – The newest member of the Union of Concerned Scientists

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/07/friday-funny-the-newest-member-…

A good laugh for the weekend.

"Since becoming a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists when I found
out

all you needed was a valid credit card, my curiosity about who and what they

really are has spiked.

I decided to put that theory to the test. I am very proud to announce that a

member of my family has been accepted into this prestigious organization.
With

pride, I present new UCS member, Kenji Watts: … "

See for yourself, but prior, put aside your coffee cup …

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Warmists Think We're Stupid

By Ross Kaminsky

But they’re not so hot themselves, as a Reason Foundation study

delicately points out.

One of the key attributes of the global warming movement, like any cult,

is that it posits a doomsday scenario if we don’t follow their dangerous

prescriptions. Whether it is cyanide-laced Kool Aid or the economic

equivalent (were we to follow the cap-and-trade crowd), the "cure" is

not only worse than the so-called problem but premised on the idea that

people are stupid.

The warmists say that we’ll have more disease and death if the planet

warms even though studies by actual scientists frequently conclude

otherwise.

This week’s five-alarm fire (literally) comes from the NY Times which

warns us that "Across millions of acres, the pines of the northern and

central Rockies are dying, just one among many types of forests that are

showing signs of distress these days." The article, which implies that

the earth will die if we don’t stop climate change from killing trees,

is at least honest enough to use "if" six times, "might" three times,

"may" seven times, and other qualifiers of their doomsday view such as

"not sure," "possible," and "could."

While this particular Times story concerns North America, an actual

study of African rainfall, done by scientists from NOAA and the National

Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder (both hotbeds of climate

change alarmism), concludes that changes in rainfall levels in both

northern and southern Africa are due to changes in sea surface

temperatures, and that those temperature changes are not human-caused.

Furthermore, when the UN’s IPCC tried to model the change in African

rainfall based on human causes, they failed: "The ensemble of

greenhouse-gas-forced experiments, conducted as part of the Fourth

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

fails to simulate the pattern or amplitude of the twentieth-century

African drying, indicating that the drought conditions were likely of

natural origin."

But if you really want to scare people into wasting their lives on

public transport or sleeping in uncomfortably cold houses during the

winter or subsidizing Solyndra, you have to make them think that human

life is directly at stake.

One such example regards malaria, long the bogeyman for those warmists

who, in the interest of scaring us about what the evil rich are doing to

the southern hemisphere’s poor, claimed for years that warming will

cause a massive increase in the prevalence of and deaths from malaria.

However, a 2010 study led by scientists from the University of Florida

concluded that "widespread claims that rising mean temperatures have

already led to increases in worldwide malaria morbidity and mortality

are largely at odds with observed decreasing global trends in both its

endemicity and geographic extent." Furthermore, they said that any

increase in malaria cases from warming would likely be two orders of

magnitude smaller than the reduction in cases due to "control measures"

taken by humans, such as bed nets and anti-malarial drugs. (Two orders

of magnitude means 100x, so 10 is two orders of magnitude smaller than

1000.)

It’s also worth noting that the lead scientist, whom I interviewed, was

a full member of the cult of Algore. It was fascinating to hear him

claim that when it comes to warming, people like me who think it’s

somewhere between an exaggeration and a hoax (and closer to the latter)

are "bucking a broad scientific consensus." Yet when it came to his

study’s different results from other people’s claims, he suggested that

"Science is intrinsically adversarial, and we get at the truth through

critical thought. That means scientists should question every single

study they read." You don’t say.

The key point is not that malaria cases won’t increase, but that they

won’t increase because humans are smart and adaptable.

Malaria isn’t the only case of warmists trying to scare us with disease

and death: Every few years, it seems someone claims that global warming

"is to blame for cholera bacteria becoming more widespread." (And here

is another example from 2002.) But you know things aren’t going well for

the cult when even that same "the forests are burning!" New York Times

has to tell us, as they did just one month ago, that "Cholera outbreaks

seem to be on the increase, but a new study has found they cannot be

explained by global warming." (Study link here.)

Perhaps you will not be surprised by a comparison between the two

articles (at least their web versions): Last week’s article about

supposedly dying forests contained over 4,100 words, while the August

29th article saying that cholera outbreaks are not increasing due to

climate change was — wait for it — a grand total of 230 words. And if

that’s not enough, the forests article was on the paper’s front page,

whereas the cholera article was on page D6.

Humans live in deserts and in the Arctic. We live in places like Denver

and Chicago, each of which will see temperatures over more than a

100-degree (F) range in the course of a year — and routinely a 30 or 40

degree range in a day (or 20 in an hour) in the mountains and deserts.

And these aren’t even the records. Imagine being in Spearfish, South

Dakota, in 1943 when the temperature reportedly rose 49 degrees in two

minutes! Or Loma, Montana, which in 1972 reported a 103-degree

temperature rise in 24 hours? We scuba dive and mountain climb. We

invent air conditioning and efficient heating systems. We have nearly

eliminated smallpox and polio, two of the greatest scourges of eras

past. In other words, we adapt to our environment — in those cases when

we can’t adapt our environment to us.

For that reason, it defies common sense to believe that man-made global

warming, even if it were real, would have the devastating impact that

its anti-capitalist, wealth-redistributionist proponents claim.

Now we have the results of a much broader study, commissioned by the

Reason Foundation, which points in exactly this same direction of

adaptability. The study, entitled "The Amazing Decline in Deaths from

Extreme Weather in an Era of Global Warming, 1900-2010" is summarized

thus:

Aggregate mortality attributed to all extreme weather events

globally has declined by 98% since the 1920s, in spite of a

four-fold rise in population and much more complete reporting

of such events.

Other highlights from the study’s findings:

. "Droughts were the most deadly extreme weather category between 1900

and 2010, responsible for over 60 percent of extreme weather deaths

during that time. The worldwide death rate from droughts peaked in the

1920s when there were 235 deaths a year per million people. Since then,

the death rate has fallen by 99.9 percent. The study finds that global

food production advancements, such as new crops, improved fertilizer,

irrigation, and pesticides, along with society’s better ability to move

food and medical supplies, were responsible for reducing the number of

deaths in times of severe drought."

. "Floods were to blame for 30 percent of the deaths during the

timeframe studied, making them the second most deadly extreme weather

category. The death rate for floods topped out in the 1930s at 204

deaths a year per million people. Deaths from floods have fallen by over

98 percent since then and there was an average of approximately one

flood death per year per million people from 2000 to 2010."

. All of this while the advent of storm-finding and storm-reporting

technologies have massively increased the number of reported extreme

weather events. (This is not to say that the actual number of such

events has increased, just the reporting thereof.) Of course, the same

technology which allows storms to be reported allows them to be prepared

for.

If people adapt, as we manifestly do, to almost anything thrown at us,

it is difficult to take seriously the doomsday scenarios proffered by

the UN’s IPCC and their grant-chasing "scientists," supported by radical

environmental leftists whose motivation is more to impoverish the west

than to "save the planet."

That is why their "solutions" all involve two things: Curbing energy

usage and production (which is to say, curbing humans’ standard of

living), and redistributing wealth from richer people and richer nations

to poorer people and poorer nations. But if they really cared about the

impact on people, rather than satisfying their own self-loathing as

members of the human race, or even worse as Americans (gasp!), they

would focus on aiding and speeding adaptation rather than trying to do

the atmospheric equivalent of stopping continental drift.

For example, Denmark’s Bjorn Lomborg, a professor of environmental

economics, is a believer that global warming is man-made yet still

argues that massive wealth-destroying policies are the wrong way to go.

Instead, we should focus on much cheaper and more effective projects

such as increasing clean water supplies in the third world.

People are becoming skeptical of man-made global warming not just

because the warmists’ mathematical models can’t explain the lack of

warming since 1998 and not just because Climategate proved how utterly

corrupt "climate science" has become. But it’s also because the

solutions proposed, i.e. to stop using energy, are based on an obvious,

even if never-ever-ever-ever-stated by the left, premise that people who

live on 21st century Earth are too stupid to adapt to a changing

environment — even though we have as a species, even without the

benefit of modern technology, done just that for millennia.

Reason’s new study is just confirmation of what we all know in our gut:

that "climate change," even if it were partially caused by man, is not

the threat the left claims and not to be responded to by cutting our own

economic throats,

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comment (1)

ROFLMAO – The newest member of the Union of Concerned Scientists

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/07/friday-funny-the-newest-member-…

A good laugh for the weekend.

"Since becoming a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists when I found
out

all you needed was a valid credit card, my curiosity about who and what they

really are has spiked.

I decided to put that theory to the test. I am very proud to announce that a

member of my family has been accepted into this prestigious organization.
With

pride, I present new UCS member, Kenji Watts: … "

See for yourself, but prior, put aside your coffee cup …

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

Warmists Think We're Stupid

By Ross Kaminsky

But they’re not so hot themselves, as a Reason Foundation study

delicately points out.

One of the key attributes of the global warming movement, like any cult,

is that it posits a doomsday scenario if we don’t follow their dangerous

prescriptions. Whether it is cyanide-laced Kool Aid or the economic

equivalent (were we to follow the cap-and-trade crowd), the "cure" is

not only worse than the so-called problem but premised on the idea that

people are stupid.

The warmists say that we’ll have more disease and death if the planet

warms even though studies by actual scientists frequently conclude

otherwise.

This week’s five-alarm fire (literally) comes from the NY Times which

warns us that "Across millions of acres, the pines of the northern and

central Rockies are dying, just one among many types of forests that are

showing signs of distress these days." The article, which implies that

the earth will die if we don’t stop climate change from killing trees,

is at least honest enough to use "if" six times, "might" three times,

"may" seven times, and other qualifiers of their doomsday view such as

"not sure," "possible," and "could."

While this particular Times story concerns North America, an actual

study of African rainfall, done by scientists from NOAA and the National

Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder (both hotbeds of climate

change alarmism), concludes that changes in rainfall levels in both

northern and southern Africa are due to changes in sea surface

temperatures, and that those temperature changes are not human-caused.

Furthermore, when the UN’s IPCC tried to model the change in African

rainfall based on human causes, they failed: "The ensemble of

greenhouse-gas-forced experiments, conducted as part of the Fourth

Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

fails to simulate the pattern or amplitude of the twentieth-century

African drying, indicating that the drought conditions were likely of

natural origin."

But if you really want to scare people into wasting their lives on

public transport or sleeping in uncomfortably cold houses during the

winter or subsidizing Solyndra, you have to make them think that human

life is directly at stake.

One such example regards malaria, long the bogeyman for those warmists

who, in the interest of scaring us about what the evil rich are doing to

the southern hemisphere’s poor, claimed for years that warming will

cause a massive increase in the prevalence of and deaths from malaria.

However, a 2010 study led by scientists from the University of Florida

concluded that "widespread claims that rising mean temperatures have

already led to increases in worldwide malaria morbidity and mortality

are largely at odds with observed decreasing global trends in both its

endemicity and geographic extent." Furthermore, they said that any

increase in malaria cases from warming would likely be two orders of

magnitude smaller than the reduction in cases due to "control measures"

taken by humans, such as bed nets and anti-malarial drugs. (Two orders

of magnitude means 100x, so 10 is two orders of magnitude smaller than

1000.)

It’s also worth noting that the lead scientist, whom I interviewed, was

a full member of the cult of Algore. It was fascinating to hear him

claim that when it comes to warming, people like me who think it’s

somewhere between an exaggeration and a hoax (and closer to the latter)

are "bucking a broad scientific consensus." Yet when it came to his

study’s different results from other people’s claims, he suggested that

"Science is intrinsically adversarial, and we get at the truth through

critical thought. That means scientists should question every single

study they read." You don’t say.

The key point is not that malaria cases won’t increase, but that they

won’t increase because humans are smart and adaptable.

Malaria isn’t the only case of warmists trying to scare us with disease

and death: Every few years, it seems someone claims that global warming

"is to blame for cholera bacteria becoming more widespread." (And here

is another example from 2002.) But you know things aren’t going well for

the cult when even that same "the forests are burning!" New York Times

has to tell us, as they did just one month ago, that "Cholera outbreaks

seem to be on the increase, but a new study has found they cannot be

explained by global warming." (Study link here.)

Perhaps you will not be surprised by a comparison between the two

articles (at least their web versions): Last week’s article about

supposedly dying forests contained over 4,100 words, while the August

29th article saying that cholera outbreaks are not increasing due to

climate change was — wait for it — a grand total of 230 words. And if

that’s not enough, the forests article was on the paper’s front page,

whereas the cholera article was on page D6.

Humans live in deserts and in the Arctic. We live in places like Denver

and Chicago, each of which will see temperatures over more than a

100-degree (F) range in the course of a year — and routinely a 30 or 40

degree range in a day (or 20 in an hour) in the mountains and deserts.

And these aren’t even the records. Imagine being in Spearfish, South

Dakota, in 1943 when the temperature reportedly rose 49 degrees in two

minutes! Or Loma, Montana, which in 1972 reported a 103-degree

temperature rise in 24 hours? We scuba dive and mountain climb. We

invent air conditioning and efficient heating systems. We have nearly

eliminated smallpox and polio, two of the greatest scourges of eras

past. In other words, we adapt to our environment — in those cases when

we can’t adapt our environment to us.

For that reason, it defies common sense to believe that man-made global

warming, even if it were real, would have the devastating impact that

its anti-capitalist, wealth-redistributionist proponents claim.

Now we have the results of a much broader study, commissioned by the

Reason Foundation, which points in exactly this same direction of

adaptability. The study, entitled "The Amazing Decline in Deaths from

Extreme Weather in an Era of Global Warming, 1900-2010" is summarized

thus:

Aggregate mortality attributed to all extreme weather events

globally has declined by 98% since the 1920s, in spite of a

four-fold rise in population and much more complete reporting

of such events.

Other highlights from the study’s findings:

. "Droughts were the most deadly extreme weather category between 1900

and 2010, responsible for over 60 percent of extreme weather deaths

during that time. The worldwide death rate from droughts peaked in the

1920s when there were 235 deaths a year per million people. Since then,

the death rate has fallen by 99.9 percent. The study finds that global

food production advancements, such as new crops, improved fertilizer,

irrigation, and pesticides, along with society’s better ability to move

food and medical supplies, were responsible for reducing the number of

deaths in times of severe drought."

. "Floods were to blame for 30 percent of the deaths during the

timeframe studied, making them the second most deadly extreme weather

category. The death rate for floods topped out in the 1930s at 204

deaths a year per million people. Deaths from floods have fallen by over

98 percent since then and there was an average of approximately one

flood death per year per million people from 2000 to 2010."

. All of this while the advent of storm-finding and storm-reporting

technologies have massively increased the number of reported extreme

weather events. (This is not to say that the actual number of such

events has increased, just the reporting thereof.) Of course, the same

technology which allows storms to be reported allows them to be prepared

for.

If people adapt, as we manifestly do, to almost anything thrown at us,

it is difficult to take seriously the doomsday scenarios proffered by

the UN’s IPCC and their grant-chasing "scientists," supported by radical

environmental leftists whose motivation is more to impoverish the west

than to "save the planet."

That is why their "solutions" all involve two things: Curbing energy

usage and production (which is to say, curbing humans’ standard of

living), and redistributing wealth from richer people and richer nations

to poorer people and poorer nations. But if they really cared about the

impact on people, rather than satisfying their own self-loathing as

members of the human race, or even worse as Americans (gasp!), they

would focus on aiding and speeding adaptation rather than trying to do

the atmospheric equivalent of stopping continental drift.

For example, Denmark’s Bjorn Lomborg, a professor of environmental

economics, is a believer that global warming is man-made yet still

argues that massive wealth-destroying policies are the wrong way to go.

Instead, we should focus on much cheaper and more effective projects

such as increasing clean water supplies in the third world.

People are becoming skeptical of man-made global warming not just

because the warmists’ mathematical models can’t explain the lack of

warming since 1998 and not just because Climategate proved how utterly

corrupt "climate science" has become. But it’s also because the

solutions proposed, i.e. to stop using energy, are based on an obvious,

even if never-ever-ever-ever-stated by the left, premise that people who

live on 21st century Earth are too stupid to adapt to a changing

environment — even though we have as a species, even without the

benefit of modern technology, done just that for millennia.

Reason’s new study is just confirmation of what we all know in our gut:

that "climate change," even if it were partially caused by man, is not

the threat the left claims and not to be responded to by cutting our own

economic throats,

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have Comment (1)

ROFLMAO – The newest member of the Union of Concerned Scientists

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/07/friday-funny-the-newest-member-…

A good laugh for the weekend.

"Since becoming a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists when I found
out

all you needed was a valid credit card, my curiosity about who and what they

really are has spiked.

I decided to put that theory to the test. I am very proud to announce that a

member of my family has been accepted into this prestigious organization.
With

pride, I present new UCS member, Kenji Watts: … "

See for yourself, but prior, put aside your coffee cup …

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments

"Abatement sourced from overseas"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/specials/climate-change/emission-reductions/

Work it out.
Four-hundred-plus-megatons-times-twenty-three-dollars-per-ton-equals $10
*billion* per annum that we will send overseas for ZERO BENEFIT.

Who voted for these *insane* idiots?

No wonder we have a financial crisis, with these Neanderthals running
the show!

posted by admin in Uncategorized and have No Comments