Welcome to a new world order where corporations help shape and create tyrannical policy, having GovCo be the copyright police for them. If anyone has any doubt that corruption has reached new heights, they need look no further….

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/policy-laundering/

Secret(sic) Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Document

Bookmark and Share This Entry

Disproving The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Problem

Leonard Weinstein, ScD

April 25, 2009

A theory has been proposed that human activity over about the last 150 years has caused a significant rise in Earth’s average temperature. The mechanism claimed is based on an increased greenhouse effect caused by anthropogenic increases in CO₂ from burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, cement manufacture, and also from increases in CH₄ from farm animals and other causes. The present versions of the theory also include a positive feedback effect due to the increased temperature causing an increase in water vapor, which amplifies the effect. The combined result are used to claim that unless the anthropogenic increases of CO₂ are slowed down or even made to decrease, there will be a continuing rapid increase in global temperature, massive melting of ice caps, flooding, pestilence, etc.

In order to support a theory, specific predictions need to be made that are based on the claims of the theory, and the predictions then need to happen. While the occurrence of the predicted events is not proof positive of a theory, they increase the believability of the claims. However, if the predictions are not observed, this tends to indicate the theory is flawed or even wrong. Some predictions are absolute in nature. Einstein’s prediction of the bending of light by the Sun is such a case. It either would or would not bend, and this was considered a critical test of the validity of his theory of general relativity. It did bend the predicted amount, and supported his theory.

Many predictions however are less easily supported. For example weather forecasting often does a good job in the very short term but over increasing time does a poor job. This is due to the complexity of the numerous nonlinear components. This complexity has been described in chaos theory by what is called the butterfly effect. Any effect that depends on numerous factors, some of which are nonlinear in effect, is nearly impossible to use to make long-range predictions. However, for some reason, the present predictions of “Climate Change” are considered by the AGW supporters to be more reliable than even short-term weather forecasting. While some overall trends can be reasonably made based on looking at past historical trends, and some computational models can suggest some suggested trends due to specific forcing factors, nevertheless, the long term predicted result has not been shown to be valid. Like any respectable theory, specific predictions need to be made, and then shown to happen, before the AGW models can have any claim to reasonable validity.

The AGW computational models do make several specific predictions. Since the time scale for checking the result of the predictions is small, and since local weather can vary enough on the short time scale to confuse the longer time scale prediction, allowances for these shorter lasting events have to be made when examining predictions. Nevertheless, if the actual data results do not significantly support the theory, it must be reconsidered or even rejected as it stands.

The main predictions from the AGW models are:

1. The average Earth’s temperature will increase at a rate of 0.2⁰C to 0.6⁰C per decade at least to 2100, and will continue to climb after that if the CO₂ continues to be produced by human activity at current predicted rates.
2. The increasing temperature will cause increased water evaporation, which is the cause for the positive feedback needed to reach the high temperatures.
3. The temperature at lower latitudes (especially tropical regions) will increase more in the lower Troposphere at moderate altitudes than near the surface.
4. The greatest near surface temperature increases will occur at the higher latitudes.
5. The increasing temperature at higher latitudes will cause significant Antarctic and Greenland ice melt. These combined with ocean expansion due to warming will cause significant ocean rise and flooding.
6. A temperature drop in the lower Stratosphere will accompany the temperature increase near the surface. The shape of the trend down in the Stratosphere should be close to a mirror reflection of the near surface trend up.

The present CO₂ level is high and increasing (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/). It should be fairly easy to show the consequences of AGW predictions if they are valid.

Figure 1. Global average temperature from 1850 through 2008. Annual series smoothed with a 21-point binomial filter by the Met Office. (http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/)

It should be noted that the largest part of the last 150 year increase in CO₂, which is blamed on human activity, did not occur until after 1940, so the largest temperature rise effects should have occurred in that time. The proponents of AGW have generally used the time period from 1970 to 2000 as the base line for an indicator of the rapid warming. In that base line period, the average temperature rose about 0.5⁰C, which averages to 0.16⁰C per decade. The claim was then made that this would accelerate due to continuing increases in CO₂ level. However if we look at the temperature change from 1940 through 2008, the net increase is only 0.3⁰C. This is due to a drop from 1940 to 1970 and a slight drop from 2000 through 2008. Now the average rise for that period is only 0.04⁰C per decade. If the time period from 1850 through 2008 is used as a base, the net increase is just under 0.7⁰C and the average rise is also 0.04⁰C per decade! It is clear that choosing a short selected period of rising temperature gives a misleading result. It is also true that the present trend is down and expected to continue downward for several more years before reversing again. This certainly makes claim 1 questionable.

The drop in temperature from 1940 to 1970 was claimed to have been caused by “global dimming” caused by aerosols made by human activity. This was stated as dominating the AGW effects at that time. This was supposed to have been overcome by activity initiated by the clean air act. In fact, the “global dimming” continued into the mid 1990’s and then only reduced slightly before increasing more (probably due to China and other countries increased activity). If the global dimming was not significantly reduced, why did the temperature increase from 1970 to just past 2000?

A consequence of global dimming is reduced pan-evaporation level. This also implies that ocean evaporation is decreased, since the main cause of ocean evaporation is Solar insolation, not air temperature. The decreased evaporation contradicts claim 2.

Claim 3 has been contradicted by a combination of satellite and air born sensor measurements. While the average lower Troposphere average temperature has risen along with near ground air temperature, and in some cases is slightly warmer, nevertheless the models predicted that the lower Troposphere would be significantly warmer than near ground at the lower latitudes, especially in the tropics. This has not occurred! The following is a statement from:

Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1

Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program

and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research

April 2006

“While these data are consistent with the results from climate models at the global scale, discrepancies in the tropics remain to be resolved”.

Claim 4 implies that the higher latitudes should heat up more than lower latitudes. This is supposed to be especially important for melting of glaciers and permafrost. In fact, the higher latitudes have warmed, but at a rate close to the rest of the world. In fact, Antarctica has overall cooled in the last 50 years except for the small tail that sticks out. See:

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20061013/20061013_02.html

Greenland and the arctic region are presently no warmer than they were in the late 1930’s, and are presently cooling! See:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/11/17/cooling-the-debate-a-longer-record-of-greenland-air-temperature/

The overall effect of Antarctic and Greenland are now resulting in net gain (or at least near zero change) of ice, not loss. While some small areas have recently lost and are some are still losing some ice, this is mostly sea ice and thus do not contribute to sea level rise. Glaciers in other locations such as Alaska have lost a significant amount of ice in the last 150 years, but much of the loss is from glaciers that formed or increased during the little ice age, or from local variations, not global. Most of this little ice age ice is gone and some glaciers are actually starting to increase as the temperature is presently dropping. For more discussions on the sea level issue look at the following two sites:

http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dnc49xz_19cm8×67fj&hl=en

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

This indicates that claim 5 is clearly wrong. While sea level will rise a small amount, and has so since the start of the Holocene period, the rise is now only 10 to 15 cm per century, and is not significantly related to the recent recovery from the little ice age, including the present period of warming.

The claims in 6 are particularly interesting. Figure 2 below shows the Global Brightness Temperature Anomaly (⁰C) in the lower Troposphere and lower Stratosphere made from space.

a) Channel TLT is the lower Troposphere from ground to about 5 km

b) Channel TLS is the lower Stratosphere from about 12 to 25 km

Figure 2. Global satellite data from RSS/MSU and AMSU data. Monthly time series of brightness temperature anomaly for channels TLT, and TLS. Data from: http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html

The anomaly time series is dominated by ENSO events and slow troposphere warming for Channel TLT (Lower Troposphere). The three primary El Niños during the past 20 years are clearly evident as peaks in the time series occurring during 1982-83, 1987-88, and 1997-98, with the 1997-98 being the largest. It also appears there is an aditional one at 2007. Channel TLS (Lower Stratosphere) is dominated by stratospheric cooling, punctuated by dramatic warming events caused by the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991). In these, and other volcanic eruption cases, the increased absorption and reflectivity of the dust and aerosols at high altitudes lowered the surface Solar insolation, but since they absorbed more energy, they increased the high altitude temperature. After the large spikes dropped back down, the new levels were lower and nearly flat between large volcanic eruptions. It is also likely that the reflection or absorption due to particulates also dropped, so the surface Solar insolation went back up. It appears that a secondary effect of the volcanic eruptions is present that is unknown in nature (but not CO₂)! One possible explanation is a modest but long-term drop in Ozone. It is also clear that the linear fit to the data shown is meaningless. In fact the level drop events seem additive if they overlap soon enough for at least the two cases shown. That is, after El Chicon dropped the level, then Pinatubo occurred and dropped the level even more. Two months after Pinatubo, another strong volcano, Cerro Hudson, also erupted, possibly amplifying the effect. It appears that the recovery time from whatever causes the very slow changing level shift has a recovery time constant of at least several decades.

The computational models that show that the increasing CO₂ and CH₄ cause most of the present global warming all require that the temperature of the Stratosphere drops while the lower atmosphere and ground heat up. It appears from the above figures that the volcanic activity clearly caused the temperature to spike up in the Stratosphere, and that these spikes were immediately followed by a drop to a new nearly constant level in the temperature. It is clear from the Mauna Loa CO₂ data (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/) that the input of CO₂ (or CH₄) from the volcanoes, did not significantly increase the background level of this gas, and thus, this cannot be the cause of the drop in the Stratosphere temperature. The ramp up of atmospheric CO₂ also cannot explain the step down then level changes in high altitude temperature. Since the surface temperature rise is supposed to be related to the Stratosphere temperature drop, and since a significant surface rise above the 1940 temperature level did not occur until the early 1980’s, it may be that the combination of the two (or more) volcanoes, along with Solar variability and variations in ocean currents (i.e., PDO) may explain the major causes of recent surface temperature rises to about 2002. In fact, the average Earth temperature stopped rising after 2002, and has been dropping for the last few years!

The final question that arises is what prediction has the AGW made that has been demonstrated, and that strongly supports the theory. It appears that there is NO real supporting evidence and much disagreeing evidence for the AGW theory as proposed. That is not to say there is no effect from Human activity. Clearly human pollution (not greenhouse gases) is a problem. There is also almost surely some contribution to the present temperature from the increase in CO₂ and CH₄, but it seems to be small and not a driver of future climate. Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!

Bookmark and Share This Entry

The University of East Anglia, in Norwich, England, said hackers last week stole about a decade’s worth of data from a computer server at the university’s Climatic Research Unit, a leading research center on climate change.

About 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents have been posted on climate change skeptic websites that show collusion between scientists to overstate the case for global warming, and evidence that some have manipulated evidence.

• You can read the huge archive of e-mails at this site.

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., a global warming skeptic, said Tuesday that he’d begun an investigation into the manipulation of global warming research.

http://science.slashdot.org/story/09/11/30/0152244/Where-the-Global-Warming-Data-Is

Bookmark and Share This Entry

Clark Howard, a consumer advocate who regularly appears on TV/Radio/etc, got it absolutely right when he delivered his own health care reform ’speech’. This reform must be consumer driven, with the emphasis placed on the individual taking responsibility for their own health care!

http://clarkhoward.com/liveweb/shownotes/2009/09/09/16614/

“Madam Speaker, Mr. Vice President, members of Congress and the most beautiful First Lady in the history of the United States (Clark’s wife Lane), I want to address you about health care reform and what I want you to put on my desk to sign into law.

For months, there have been angry words and both sides of the aisle have been talking past each other. But tonight I propose we go to a health care system that we can afford and that will allow market forces to finally enter health care in the United States.

We must address head-on that the federal government deficits we are running are not sustainable. The commitments to seniors with Medicare and the impoverished with Medicaid are not sustainable. We can not afford as a federal government to provide for the health care of the citizenry. It’s just not possible.

In addition, our current system is based largely on luck. Either you’re lucky enough to work for an employer that provides health coverage or you unlucky enough to be self-employed, work for a smaller employer or have a pre-existing condition that makes you a pariah for insurers.

Employer provided health care was an accident of history. It only exists because of a move by employers some 50 years ago to provide health care as a back-door way to give raises during the days of wage price controls — when the feds said that employers couldn’t give pay raises.

Unfortunately, it’s grown into an unsustainable haphazard system. If you go back 50 years, an employee would be a “lifer” at a job and there was a reciprocal relationship between employer and employee. Today it doesn’t work like that. Employers add or subtract employees at will and we pick up and move as we see fit.

But many times someone may have an illness and can’t leave an employer because of health coverage. We need a new system to address the fact that we don’t stay put for a long time. We need to move away from centralization of health care from government or employers.

We also need to introduce the marketplace. How can this be done? We need to create an individual health insurance market where each individual in each family buys his or her own coverage. We can’t allow employers to be the sole source of safe venue for coverage, but instead have to create an insurance market based on the principles of standardized policies.

Insurers will be allowed to charge what they wish based on age/sex, but we need standard policies you can pick and choose from.

Choice is the key to driving smart decisions. Some like the structure of an HMO, some like the freedom of a traditional fee-for-service plan. Others want an in-between option like a PPO with a list of cheap in-network providers and more costly out-of-network ones. Yet others, such as entrepreneurs, love HSAs, where you take a high-deductible health insurance plan and you are essentially your own insurer for routine things.

We should allow Americans to choose from all 4 options, but the coverage should be standardized across all insurance companies so consumers can comparison shop.

Not everybody should have to buy the same HMO or the same PPO coverage. I think there should be 3 levels of choice in each — 3 different HMOs, 3 PPOs, 3 traditional plans and 3 HSAs, each with different levels of coverage.

For example, a basic plan would provide only generics medications and no experimental treatments. Each level would have different care for you. But you would have the choice of what you want to buy.

If an employer wants to subsidize the health care with a voucher, that’s fine, but you would still be in control of the purchase. So even if you left your employer, you would still have insurance.

If someone chooses not to buy insurance, that’s fine too. If you do become ill, you’ll be barred from buying coverage for 24 months. Otherwise, the healthy would never buy until they’re sick.

The moral choice is so key here. If we rely on government or an employer to decide what coverage is good for us, we give them the power of life and death over us. But if we make our own choice, then it puts us in control and eliminates the moral dilemma of will we tax ourselves more to provide more coverage or tax less to provide less coverage.

And for those without means, both sides of the aisle seem to agree on a voucher system that would scale back as the level of income rises. I think that’s a reasonable option. But I can tell you that we can not solve the cost issue with health care, without having a collision with morality, if we do not put the patient in charge. That’s the key.

You must be the person who decides what coverage you want, what coverage you choose not to buy and who you buy it from. It’s that simple. Health care costs account for one-sixth of our economy and we have to get control of that one-sixth, but at the same time provide true power back where it belongs — with the American people. Thank you very much.”

Bookmark and Share This Entry

ABC’s John Stossel Destroys/Pulverizes/Crushes Obama’s anti-American ‘Health Care’ Plan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9GMKK_fWKg

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/

And as a heads up, John Stossel is moving to Fox come October 2009, after 28 years with ABC. As far as mainstream news goes, Mr. Stossel is one of the very few who GETS IT. He probably was pushed out considering the political climate, but he will probably do better on FOX anyway:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/2009/09/im-moving-to-fox.html

Bookmark and Share This Entry