Glacier-less National Park

                A syndicated  story out of the New York Times  headlined “Glacier Park’s namesakes dissolving” is claiming that in 30 years there may be no glaciers left in the park. The story Cited the opinions of a U.S. Geological Survey ‘research ecologist’ among others.

                Most of the claims in the article are of the specious variety. It’s not that there are outright lies per se’, but that the data cited covers so few years as to be  statistically irrelevant. Claims such as “The number of days above 90 degrees in the national park has tripled in a century” is- in and of itself- proof of absolutely nothing. Period. It isn’t stated how many days were over 90 a century ago or today. Obviously it varies year to year anyway. Some centuries/ eras are dramatically colder, some dramatically warmer than others. The last “Ice Age” (not the movie) ended about 10-12,000 years ago. Indigenous folks at that time were probably a lot more worried about global cooling and were hoping desperately for a little global warming. Liking that climate change!

                “Streams fed by snow-melt are reaching peak spring flows weeks earlier than in the past” is another lame claim. Not the past two years they haven’t. And how many weeks earlier than in what past years? And then a clue: “In the Colorado Rockies, the median date of snow-(yet amusing). In that geologic span of 29 years! 29! Really. This seems highly likely as the 1970’s was an unusually cold decade. People (and scientists) were terrified  that the earth was cooling).And what, precisely, constitutes ‘median date of snow-melt’? The snow-pack or cover melts over a period of time. A week? Two weeks? A month? What if it snows again after that, as it often does?

                While the article does allow that “the rate of melting has alternately sped up and slowed in lockstep with decade-long climate cycles” and that “glaciers came and went millenniums ago” it refuses to admit that this natural cycle is what could be occurring now!

                It continued: “A century ago, the last brutally cold day occurred around March 5. By last decade, it had receded to February 15.”  This is just embarrassing. No definition of ‘brutally cold’ and… last winter it was ‘brutally cold’ (pending definition) more frequently and at later dates than anytime in recent memory. ‘Polar Vortex’ and all of that.

                There has been less snowfall ‘recently’ in addition to the melting glaciers, leading to claims that the ‘snowfields’ will vanish as well. The obvious problem with this is less snow-melt and therefore downstream water supply, but this doesn’t stop those responsible for the information in the article from piling on other potentially ‘disastrous’ consequences.

                The article states that  “Fewer avalanches will open up less clearings for wildlife and push fewer felled trees into streams, creating less habitat for trout. Tree lines may creep up mountains, erasing open meadows that enable mountain goats to keep watch against mountain lions.” So avalanches good, plant life bad, unless tossed into otherwise pristine streams?

                Wow. We can toss a tree or two into trout streams. Mountain goats will continue to be on guard against those damn mountain lions that only prey on them from below.

And finally, this: “Wolverines need deep snows to build their winter dens. I’m not sure what’s going to happen to them” states the research ecologist. Well, what the hell do they do in the other three seasons, Einstein?

What, to me, is most remarkable about articles like this one from extremely progressive people and sources isn’t the lack of scientific rigor and discipline. It’s the conservative, almost reactionary, belief, in these specific matters only, that everything is perfect as it was. As God made it. And that therefore any change in the climatic or environmental status quo is not only not normal (even if they believe we are just another ‘animal’ ourselves), but disastrous! This is completely at odds with their world view on everything else. Gays great. The more illegal immigrants the better! Bi-sexual, polyamorous  transvestites in the ministry? Fabulous! Screw the Constitution. “Hey, hey, ho, ho, western culture’s got to go! Legalize pot, but ban smoking!”

“Hope and Change” baby.

Just not in Glacier National Park.

               

Blinded Me With "Science"

                What other “scientific method” (theory) is allowed the leeway that’s granted to “Climate Change?” From junior high school one’s taught that you come up with a hypothesis, test it, and go where the facts/results take you. Period. That is called “the Scientific Method.” What other scientific area allows observable data to be chronicled, touted and then changed in midstream when results don’t buttress the theory?

                Take the infamous hockey stick graph…please. That “old trope” is now in the process of being proven wrong. Temperatures aren’t continually rising. And the rate of increase of the rate of increase in the global temperature is certainly not increasing, either. But those who originated that graph and its predictions can’t be wrong. Therefore global warming certainty becomes…climate change certainty. Viola’! Yet, instead of being chastised, questioned, tossed-out or re-evaluated, these folks and their theories just get an absolute free pass. Remarkable.

                Let’s posit a theory here by way of example, using a hockey stick, in fact. All hockey sticks used to have straight, flat, blades. Let’s say we were proposing the curved blade. Radically different! We hypothesize that the curved blade will increase goal-scoring as it will lead to faster shots and more movement of the puck after the shot is released. We are surprised and chagrined to find that scoring didn’t go up, and in fact may have decreased a bit, because it is more difficult to corral and control the puck with a curved blade. Well, we don’t want to look like fools, so…we either find the exact time range where the results did look like they conformed to our hypothesis (“look at this 10-game stretch or these 3 teams only”, etc.). Or…

                We just claim that we didn’t mean that scoring would go up per se’, we just meant that the curved sticks would change scoring  or…something!  It could’ve been the reverse. It doesn’t matter, if the facts don’t matter. Say our theory was scoring would go down, but it actually stayed the same or went up. If our theory doesn’t fit the observable facts, we just claim we knew something(s) would change and that the altered stick blades were responsible for this/these change(s).

                 Yes, since everything had forever stayed the same before we trotted out our precious theory!

Total Eclipse of the Sun?

                Human caused global warming is one of the biggest threats of our time, correct? After all, we are responsible for the industry that sends all those greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, right? And we engineered the cow, with their horrible greenhouse gas expanding flatulence!

                Well, let’s see. What countries are currently thought to be the biggest contributors to global warming, greenhouse gas emissions/climate change? China and the U.S.

                What was the high temperature in the capitols of these two nations on October 25^th, 2014? In Beijing (City) it was 74 degrees. Pleasant. Coincidentally, in Washington, D.C. it was also 74 degrees. Very pleasant. If you went back 10 years, you’d  find reasonably similar temperatures in both cities for this date. Or if you went back 50 years. Or one hundred. Or two hundred. This despite the fact that we’ve put millions upon millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere since then. Sure, the high might have been 80 one year and 50 another in either or both of these cities, but that’s about the range of their temperature “extremes.”

                I ask you, what would be the  temperature in these two cities now- and everywhere else on planet earth- if there was no sun?

                Only in our own benighted minds does man’s “power”  eclipse  the sun.

The U.S.A.? R.I.P.

                Ironically, the '8th- grade' educated Americans of our past were more mature and self-disciplined- and possessed of more common sense- than the '18th- grade' educated and hyper-credentialed Americans of today, who have been both feminized and infantilized. It shows in the inane actions of 'our' government today as well as those of some of 'its' citizens, as opposed to the remarkable achievements of both in our past. We’re not going to the moon anymore, nor are we winning any wars…or even declaring them, no matter the barbarism and existential threat we face. And natural law, the founding bedrock of our nation, our uniqueness, is either unknown, ignored or mocked.  Those who have jobs requiring highly specific skills and/or  an extensive education toss away the ladder after they've climbed to the top. They protect and isolate themselves by unionizing and requiring more and more degrees, certificates and the like for anybody to follow them into their chosen field. Then, the unions take their money and use it to fund only one political party. America as it was founded-and intended to be- is dead. The victim, in part, of a “community organizer’s” jealousy and hatred-spawned plea for “hope and change”. And of American’s naivete’ and tolerance, lack of historical knowledge and understandable desire for a black president to get a chance to do great things.

                We literally possess all the energy needed to insure a stout economy indefinitely, but not the will or mental acuity and toughness to do so. We don’t make much anymore, or invent as many things as we used to. Although we have helped invent the “global warming/climate change” fallacy and are the home of many- if not most- of its besotted “true believers”.

                The rest of the world will have to deal with our demise, and the resulting ramifications on hope, faith and especially freedom. (Some of you should have been more careful what you wished for).

                The “shining city on a hill” has slid into the abyss.

                The U.S.A.? R.I.P.

                Notice what’s happening around the world lately?

                Welcome to a thousand years of darkness.

              

Is the Climate Right for a Change?

               

                Recently, Climate Change scares/threats have been published, aired, trumpeted and touted at an alarming pace. But what is meant by change? (And why is it no longer called Global Warming)?

              Change is the one constant. In fact I’d say it always has been, but that would be redundant. No one can logically claim to use evidence of ‘change’ alone as proof of anything or any theory, crackpot or not.

                Day into night, summer into fall, fall into winter, the cycles of life. Everything changes. People are born and people die, changing all the while as they age; physically, spiritually and intellectually (except, perhaps, for some climate change scientists).

                Some winters- and epochs- are colder and snowier than ‘normal’ ( we shouldn’t generalize and label!) around these parts, some warmer and drier, some colder and drier, some warmer and wetter. It’s the same anywhere else.

                What is the exact correct period of time to ascertain/determine and measure ‘normal’- or change? Is it a day, a week, a month, a year? Silly, of course not! Ten years then, a hundred, a thousand? Million?  Perhaps a billion years is the correct measuring stick. Does it matter? Yes, and I happen to know it’s  2,014 years. But that’s just me and I am not a scientist. But I digress.

                Cosmically speaking, a nanosecond ago (in the 1970’s) we were terribly worried about global cooling. Now it’s the opposite. Yet the 1930’s were ‘historically’ warm, and this summer has been historically cool across the U.S. Last winter was brutally cold. The farmer’s Almanac predicts this winter to be of similar frigidity. The record high temperature for September 8^th in these parts was 104 degrees in 1931. The record cold temperature for the same date? 26  degrees in 1942. That’s 78 degrees of separation on the same date just eleven years apart.

               According to scientists, the supercontinent Pangaea drifted apart  (for some reason; we weren’t here yet) 250 million years ago or thereabouts. That was change. The ‘Big Bang’ was change on a vast and inconceivable scale.  The Mother of All Changes.

 

                The point? The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) now claims that Illinois alone has enough coal to power the United States for 163 years at 2014 consumption levels!  Think about that. Yet we are being told by certain ‘authorities’ and governmental policy wonks that we can’t use it, have to leave most of it in the ground so we don’t risk exacerbating climate change. Folks, we voted to fundamentally change America- twice- in the past six years. And changed it is. We are poorer, less free, farther from our founding principles and less respected around the world. Cheaper energy would change many family’s lives for the better. In fact, economically speaking, cheaper energy changes everything.

                Let’s change our representatives in Washington in the next two plus years. Let’s deny the climate change fascist’s sycophants in government the power to aid and abet them.

                And let’s utilize something from Illinois that will actually benefit this country…for a change.

               

               

               

           

Climate Change and Global Lying

                A recent article (by a New York Times reporter)  published in a local paper cited a new U.N. report claiming that “the world may already be nearing a temperature at which the loss of the vast ice sheet covering Greenland would become inevitable. The actual melting would then take centuries, but it would be unstoppable and could result in a sea level rise of 23 feet (I would’ve guessed 22’, 11” but I’m not a scientist), with additional increases from other sources like melting  Antarctic ice, potentially flooding the world’s major cities.”

                Antarctic ice is currently expanding (and rather dramatically so, at that), not contracting. Chicago, Paris, London, Berlin, Moscow, New Delhi, Mexico City, Montreal, Madrid, Warsaw… all at risk?

                The report, almost comical in its lack of logic and considered rationale, goes on to state “the risk of abrupt and irreversible change increases as the magnitude of the warming increases.” If a change is ‘irreversible’ it, by definition, precludes any future change, abrupt or not. A self-defeating argument. Hypocrisy is a strong suit of leftist dogma, logic is not.

                This new report was more aggressive in its ‘findings’ than any of the reports that underpin it. Odd.  According to the article, it highlights the urgency of the risks likely to be intensified by continued emissions of heat-trapping gases, primarily carbon dioxide released by the burning of fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas. The report went on to state that companies and governments had identified reserves of these fuels at least four times larger than could safely be burned “if global warming is to be kept to a tolerable level.

              “ That means if society wants to limit the risks to future generations, it must find the discipline to leave the vast majority of these valuable fuels in the ground” the report states.

                That’s funny, as experts back in the 1970’s and 1980’s were warning that we were running out of oil. And every other energy source. Had to conserve every ounce we could. Drive 55. Look at alternative energy sources. We’re still looking at- and subsidizing- alternative energy sources. Guess we now know the real reason why. We have too damn much energy. But, it’s of the carbon-based variety, so we can’t use it or the entire  Earth becomes a swamp. (I thought higher temperatures led to more evaporation).

                Where is the study chronicling the affects of not using all this abundant energy?! The needless (at least relative) impoverishment and degradation of virtually all peoples of the Earth. F.A. Hayek said “our hopes of avoiding the fate which threatens must indeed to a large extent rest on the prospect that we can resume rapid economic progress which…will continue to carry us upward.” He continued, “and the main condition for such progress… is that we learn once more to turn all our resources to wherever they contribute most to make us all richer.”

                Those resources would be oil, natural gas and coal. And they could potentially make us all much better off, indeed. See, for example, North Dakota.

                Interestingly, the report states that the effort to counter climate change is gathering force at the regional and local level in many countries, particularly the United States, with states like California, New York and Massachusetts taking the lead. Yes, those three bastions of staggering economic growth, with their booming state economies are bravely showing us the way forward!

                Yet, in reality, President Obama is seeking- somewhat openly- to impose national limits on emissions of green-house gases, circumventing the United States Congress and the Constitution to cut a deal with the U.N. before leaving office in early 2017.

                Seems ‘political climate-change’ will destroy us, even as ‘global-warming’ would not.

Global Warming?

         Global warming cannot be proved to be either permanent or caused by man. Period.

         The last ‘ice age’, ended approximately 10,000-12,000 years ago. Much of the northern part of this country was covered by a mile-plus deep glacier. Up to thousands of feet of ice-top to bottom-brought about by massive global cooling now melted and retreated due to a massive global warming. This glacial retreat created the Great lakes. You may have heard of them. It created the beautiful lakes regions of northern Minnesota and Wisconsin, Michigan and New York. Wonderful resources. Without this global warming these areas would still be uninhabitable (some say they still are in the bitter winter months!).

        How could this warming/melting have occurred? There were no factories, no internal combustion engines. (There were no cows either, speaking of internal combustion leading to gas emissions). No man-made greenhouse gasses. There was no United States! Who the hell was to blame for this Global Warming that gave us so much??!

         In the last 800,00 years global temperatures have varied by approximately 12 degrees Celsius.

        Twelve Celsius! There have been repeated cooldowns and repeated warmings.

         The supercontinent Pangea broke apart and the seven continents were eventually created. To paraphrase President Obama, “we didn’t do it!”

         Ice ages and ‘tropical ages’ have come and gone, glaciers have formed and expired over the millennia. “We didn’t do it.”

         The big bang happened. “We didn’t do it.”

         The Earth was created. “We didn’t do it.”

         Life "occurred" and developed, and whether you believe in evolution or creationism, one thing is clear. Say it with me now, “We didn’t do it!!”

         “Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?” Have you scientists and educators forgotten this cautionary phrase?

         It means, “After this, therefore because of this” to use the Webster’s New World Law Dictionary definition. “An illogical notion that because one thing occurred after another, it must have been caused by the first thing.”

         I have eaten the same thing (spaghetti) in the same restaurant three times in recent years and arrived back home to find massive storm damage to my property. Uncanny. Hard to believe. I’m not a big believer in coincidences. I never ate at any other restaurant-spaghetti or not-in that time period and came home to storm damage. Did I cause these storms and the resultant damage by patronizing this restaurant?

         Does global warming cause global cooling? Does global cooling cause global warming?  It would appear so if one looks at the historical record.

         Those on the left-always believing us to be bigger than God, yet lesser than animals, may be having an affect of their own.

         Global dumbing I can believe in.