The cause of Climate Change is still up in the air.

The cause of Climate Change is still up in the air. Sherlock Holmes: “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts”. From: “Scandal in Bohemia” A. Conan Doyle.

The first Earth Day in Philadelphia 1970, April 22 (the 100 year anniversary of Lenin’s Birth) featured Ira Einhorn (The Unicorn Killer) as master of Ceremonies. The big environmental scare of the day was the threat of a new Ice Age. The clarion call was: “In the year 2000 temperatures will have fallen 10 degrees”, the culprit was pollution, especially acid rain. The acid rain was so bad in the Adirondacks, Canada, Norway and Sweden that the Rainbow Trout died in droves, and even the oceans were in danger of getting too acid. Regulations were enacted to add scrubbers to power stations, waste water was purified, and – wouldn’t you know it, the cooling trend reversed itself and was followed by warming. Since the cooling trend was “obviously man-made” they had to find a reason for the sudden warming. Never mind that around the year 1200 there was at least one farm on South West Greenland that exported, among other things, cheese. How do we know that? They have excavated the ruins of a farm, “Gården under Sanden”, buried under permafrost for five centuries.  During these five centuries the Northern Hemisphere experienced what is called “the little ice age” a time when the winters could be so cold that in 1658 the Swedish army, cavalry and artillery crossed the Belts in the southern Baltic over ice and sacked Copenhagen.

Picture left: Gården under sanden excavation.

Picture right: The crossing of the Great Belt 1658.

To predict future climate changes many computer models have been developed dealing with how the earth responds to changes in atmospheric conditions, especially how it responds to changes in CO2 levels.  Most were developed in the 1970 to 2000 time frame, a time of rapid temperature rise and as such they were all given a large factor for the influence of rising CO2. Since 2005 we have had a cooling trend, so the models cooperate less and less and are given more and more unreliable predictions. It is no wonder then that they all have failed to model the past. None of them have reproduced the medieval warm period or the little ice age. If they cannot agree with the past there is no reason to believe they have any ability to predict the future. The models are particularly bad when it comes to predict cloud cover and what time of day clouds appear and disappear. Below is a chart of a number of climate models and their prediction of cloud cover versus observed data. Note especially to the right where they completely fail to notice the clear skies over Antarctica.

Is there a better way to predict future temperature trends? When you go to the doctor for a physical, at some point and without warning he hits you under the knee with a hammer and watches your reaction. He is observing your impulse response. Can we observe impulse responses for the earth? One obvious case is volcanic explosions. Sometimes the earth burps a lot of carbon dioxide or methane. But the most interesting response would be how the earth responds to a solar flare  with a sudden change in the amount of cosmic radiation hitting the earth. That would give the best indication how the sun and cosmic radiation affects cloud formation. A couple of solar flares lately have been giving us a hint how the cloud cover responds to changes in cosmic radiation, and they are consistent with the latest results from the CLOUD project conducted using the CERN particle accelerator, a confirmation of a theory forwarded by the Danish Physicist Henrik Svensmark. He first presented the theory in 1997 and finally got the results verified and published in 2007, but the prevailing consensus has been slow to accept the theory that the sun as the primary driver of climate change. We have many reasons to be concerned about the well-being of the earth, but rising levels of CO2 is not one of them. In fact, CO2 is our friend. Rising CO2 levels increases crop yields, makes the impact of land use changes less pronounced and the photosynthesis process more efficient, using less water and allowing us to grow crops on land once deemed unprofitable.

Picture right: The CERN Cloud apparatus in 2009.

James Hansen, a world famous climate science activist/NASA physicist writes in one of his publications, called “Earth’s Energy Imbalance and Implications“. It contains a quote that ties nicely in with Sherlock Holmes observation:  The precision achieved by the most advanced generation of radiation budget satellites is indicated by the planetary energy imbalance measured by the ongoing CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) instrument (Loeb et al., 2009), which finds a measured 5-year-mean imbalance of 6.5 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009). Because this result is implausible, instrumentation calibration factors were introduced to reduce the imbalance to the imbalance suggested by climate models, 0.85 W/m2 (Loeb et al., 2009).

There we have it. The observed data does not fit the climate models. Change the observed data! Then use that data to validate the climate models! How convEEnient, as the SNL Churchlady used to say. Shenanigans like this have been exposed in what has been named “Climategate1.0”, followed by “Climategate2.0” and soon to be released “Climategate3.0” This is what happens when politicians take over science and make further funding contingent on obtaining desired results.

 

Sarah Palin may yet enter the Republican field. It is not too late. Do the math.

Who said: “It is not yet too late to jump in”?

And said it no less with a Cheshire cat grin?

 Why, it’s Sarah, of course.

She will throw them off course.

Cards close to her vest; she is destined to win.

“You know, it’s not too late for folks to jump in. Who knows what will happen in the future?” former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin said near the close of her two-segment interview with Eric Bolling of Follow the Money from her home in Wasilla, Alaska, Dec 19, 2011. Bolling had questioned Gov. Palin if she would be entering the race even after Iowa and New Hampshire. Gov. Palin will not currently endorse a declared candidate. After this quote she very skillfully changed the topic to her desire to host a candidate debate together with Bolling about energy policy, and so she cut off all follow-up questions.

State….                     Deadline            Primary/Caucus               Delegates

Iowa                             closed                                1/3                     28

New Hampshire        closed                1/10                                   12

South Carolina           closed                1/21                                   25* no write-ins

Florida                          closed                1/31                                  50

Michigan                     closed                 2/28                                30*

Arizona                         closed                2/28                                 29

Tennessee                    closed                 3/6                                   58

Virginia                         closed                 3/6                                  50

Oklahoma                     closed                 3/6                                  43

Massachusetts             closed                  3/6                                   41

Vermont                       closed                  3/6                                    17

Alabama                       closed                  3/13                                  50

Mississippi                   closed                  3/13                                 40

Illinois                           closed                  3/20                                69

Louisiana                     closed                  3/24                                 46

Maryland                      closed                  4/3                                    37   Winner take all

Wisconsin                    closed                  4/3                                    42    Winner take all

Dist of Columbia         closed                 4/3                                    19     Winner take allnner take all

Rhode Island               closed                  4/24                                 19     Winner take all

West Virginia               closed                  5/8                                   31     Winner take all

Kentucky                       closed                 5/22                                 45     Winner take all

Texas                              closed                 4/3                                   155    Winner take all

Caucuses , proportional

Nevada                          none                  2/4                                   28

Maine                            none                  2-4 till 2/11                     24

Colorado                       none                   2/7                                  36

Minnesota                     none                   2/7                                 40

Washington                  none                   3/3                                  43

Georgia                          none                   3/6                                 76

Alaska                            none                   3/6                                 27

North Dakota               none                   3/6                                 28

Idaho                              none                  3/6                                 32

Wyoming                       none                  3/6 til 3/10                   29

Kansas                            none                 3/10                                40

Virgin Islands                none                 3/10                                  9

American Samoa          none                 3/13                                   9

Hawaii                             none                 3/13                               20

Missouri                          none                3/17                                52

Puerto Rico                     none                3/18                                23

Guam                               none                tba                                     9

Northern Marianas       none                 tba                                    9

Primaries  winner take all

New York                        2/9                   4/24                               95

Indiana                           2/10                  5/8                                 46

Pennsylvania                  2/14                 4/24                               72

Delaware                         2/24                 4/24                               17

Arkansas                        3/1                     5/22                               36

Connecticut                   3/2                    4/24                               28

Oregon                          3/6                    5/15                                 29

Nebraska                      3/7                    5/15                                  35

Montana                       3/12                   6/5                                   26

Utah                             3/15                   6/26                                 40

New Mexico                 3/16                  6/5                                    23

California                     3/23                  6/5                                  172

South Dakota              3/27                  6/5                                    28

New Jersey                  4/2                    6/5                                    50

Ohio                               ???                    3/6                                    66

North Carolina             ???                    5/8                                    55

January 3 – March 5, 2012: Contests of traditional early states Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina March 6 – March 31, 2012: Contests that proportionally allocate delegates April 1, 2012 and onward: Florida is winner take all, but is under challenge. All other contests including winner-take-all elections

Do the math. If Ron Paul wins Iowa all bets are off, and another entry is not only possible but probable. If Sarah gets in at this late stage she will get proportional delegates from 16 caucases totaling 534 delegates. Sarah Palin will have to catch on in the caucuses to make a challenge possible. It is a tall order, but not impossible.

The big Lye: No ID for voting, but photoID for buying draincleaner!

No ID for voting: Would Democrats lie?

But ID for buying a small can of lye.

A bitter confusion.

A basic solution:

Stand up! Campaign hard! Vote the Democrats bye.

 

Asking for Voter I.D. is a NO – NO but you need A Government ID to Buy Drain Cleaner. Asking For I.D. Before Voting Is ‘Racist’, But You Need A Govt. I.D. To Buy Drain Cleaner? Got a clogged drain? Before you can buy that liquid drain cleaner, I need to see some ID.

Does that sound like a joke? It’s not a joke. It‘s the reality in President Obama’s home state. Illinois has a new law that took effect on January 1 requiring all people who purchase drain cleaners or any caustic substances to provide a government issued photo ID. And retailers now must ask for identification from those buying drain cleaners and maintain extensive records of which caustic products have been purchased, in what amounts, and by whom. The law came about after two Illinois women were burned by acid attacks back in 2008. One of the women later admitted to burning herself with acid, but the law was still pushed through the system. And so, because of one random crime where acid was used to burn a victim, thousands of people will be forced to show identification when they purchase drain cleaners, and countless hours of business time will be spent filling out, maintaining and monitoring the government mandated forms associated with each purchase. Additionally, any person carrying caustic chemicals can be charged with a Class 4 felony in Illinois. (Class 4 felonies can carry fines up to $25,000 and 1-3 years in jail.) The Illinois drain cleaner law is just one of the 40,000 new laws that took effect in the new  year. For the record, the 40,000 new laws are a 29% increase over the previous year. Among the mass of new laws are a few that are intended to strengthen election security and protect the integrity of each vote in the upcoming elections by demanding that all voters show a photo ID before entering the voting booth. The Wall Street Journal covered this story as 2011 came to a close… Millions more Americans will be required to show photo identification when they head to the polls in four states in 2012, headlining the welter of new laws across the nation that take effect with the turn of the year. Kansas, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas will require voters to prove their identities at the ballot box, bringing the total number of states that require some form of voter identification to 30, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, a bipartisan group that provides research and data to state governments.

So what does the Attorney General and the Obama Administration do? Of all the options available to them they chose to sue South Carolina over their Voter ID Law!

 

 

Obama and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Keystone XL pipeline decision.

The Obama administration announced Nov. 10 it would delay a politically explosive decision on the proposed Keystone XL oil sands pipeline until after the 2012 elections.

Congress corrected this dithering by forcing Obama to make a decision one way or another. He chose not to build it.

This decision was bad on so many levels it is hard to count them all.

Let’s try to look at the ways: Canada has oil sands and is exploiting the resources.

U.S. is dependent on importing a large portion of its crude oil.

The cheapest and most efficient way to transport crude oil is through a pipe line. It is also the safest and most reliable way of getting crude oil from point A to point B. To not O.K. the pipeline increases the cost and makes us more dependent of crude oil from the Middle East and Nigeria, as well as Venezuela. The cost of shipping this oil via pipeline is $5/barrel. To ship it via rail is about $15/barrel. This is the way it is done right now.

Canada really, really wanted this deal. It would help improve our relations. Now they are strained.

The unions really wanted the jobs. It would supply them with more than 20000 direct, well-paid jobs. In addition there is secondary business generated whenever a project of this magnitude is undertaken. Why not generate jobs?

The newly discovered oil fields in North Dakota and Montana could use the pipeline as well. Now they will have to go it alone or transport their oil on railroad or barge traffic instead, a more expensive and less safe option.

So why did Obama delay the decision? It was because of the environmentalists.

Let us examine why this decision was equally horrible from an environmentalist’s perspective.

Canada is a sovereign nation. They have the oil and will sell or use it one way or another.

The most energy conserving way is to transport it through a pipeline. Transport via train, truck or barge uses more energy (read more CO2), Canada will sell it’s oil to China if we don’t want it. China has a well deserved reputation for producing a lot of pollution.

The best environmental solution is for us to import this oil.

Nebraska protested there was a danger to damage their aquifer. The Keystone XL management offered to reroute the pipeline away from this sensitive aquifer, thereby solving that objection.

By not importing oil from Canada the total carbon footprint will increase. We lose, and Canada loses. (I am not concerned that the CO2 is increasing, but that a valuable natural resource is excessively depleted.) Now it turns out that Canada has left the Kyoto Protocol, thereby being free to burn as much of its carbon as they want. Was that really what the environmentalists wanted?

So why did Obama first delay the decision until after the 2012 election, and then, when forced, deny the permit? Here are five possibilities:

1. Obama is a true believer that ”this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal”. As a true environmentalist his role can not be overestimated .

2. Obama is deliberately wrecking our economy, refuses to have an energy policy that will create jobs, but will support protest movements and foment unrest.

3. Obama is acting on orders from Global Governance people that do want U.S. to be totally dependent on international law and U.N. mandates.

4. Obama promised to be Brazil’s best customer from their deep sea oil drilling success, paid for by U.S. loan guarantees. He must be true to his promises.

5. Obama is half insane and surrounded by bad advisors.

This is the best I can do to explain the reasons for this decision.