If the atmosphere was the like a football field, then carbon dioxide would only be an inch, and man's contribution would measure the size of a dime standing on edge. Still scared?

Scientific method says that if your observations do not support your hypothesis, then your theory is probably wrong.

Here is a great editorial on something I have been saying for some time - Global Warming researchers were "cooking the books" with regards to their statistical analysis and prediction of increasing global warming (and laying it at the feet of Mankind).

Climate Panel on the hot seat, by H. Sterling Burnett, Washington Times

 

 

Please note the commentary on the mathematical analysis conducted by Dr. Ed Wegman, George Mason University. For those not familiar with him, Dr. Wegman is a brilliant and respected researcher in Statistics.

Shame on Governor Kaine of Virginia. He appears to be going down the path of promoting Global Warming and reprehensibly pursuing punishing regulations and, perhaps, taxpayer-based funding (i.e. taxes) so that the great state of Virginia can be on the bandwagon when it comes to detering MMGW (Man-Made Global Warming). This has all the appearance of contemptible pandering to those that know little about science but a lot about political extremism. When you see politicians embracing science issues you'd better hold onto your wallets!

The Governor's blue ribbon commission states that they are asking for input. Well, I made my thoughts known after the Governor's Secretary for Natural Resources, L. Preston Bryant, published a letter in our paper recently.

Here is Mr. Bryant's bio. He is an accomplished politician with an English major background. He is certainly eloquent, but it does appear he is somewhat light on the sciences. That is not going to help him if he has to explain how unimportant things like error factors are in weather measurements directly related to the climatological statistical models used to prognosticate the potential calamities associated global warming.

 

Here is my response to Mr. Bryant's article:

 

On climate change, let's not rush into things, Gov. Kaine Date published: 3/7/2008 On climate change, let's not rush into things, Gov. Kaine Gov. Kaine's study to determine how Virginia can address climate change is admirable, but L. Preston Bryant Jr.'s Feb. 27 op-ed does not address key issues ["A common-'wealth' of global solutions?"]. Is climate change occurring? Always, if you believe the historical record. Information suggests that our current climate is neither the warmest nor the coldest during written history. Are greenhouse gases bad? Greenhouse gases are naturally occurring (water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane). Without the greenhouse effect, scientists hypothesize that the Earth would be a far colder and inhospitable place. Is man the cause of climate change? The governor's administration would have us believe that the debate on the man-made impact on the climate is over, and all scientists are in agreement. There are many strong scientific voices that dispute the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the international body that is at the heart of the global climate-crisis call to arms. Much of the fear-mongering is based on computer models that are reported to be inaccurate when compared with current weather trends. Are the governor's advisers well-balanced? Besides the host of business and government personages, there is one scientist of note who is strongly associated with the IPCC. But no scientists are listed who have opposing opinions. How can the governor make informed policy decisions for all Virginians if he does not consider contrary views? What if man-made climate change is not an issue? It would be unwise to rush headlong into enacting laws and raising taxes that would affect our financial well-being, when the impacts of such laws on the environment are minuscule, unmeasurable, and not needed. Hal Hayes Spotsylvania

Why is a U.S. Government Agency, NASA, blocking climate data and how they calculated the results of their analysis? Shouldn't that be illegal? After all, we taxpayers are providing the funding for NASA to conduct this research. Think it isn't happening? Read this article about Steven McIntyre, of the infamous Climate Audit website.

Science data (particularly if federally funded) should be open to all. The very nature of discovery and understanding is to question and analyze. When I hear pundits say "The debate on Global Warming is over", I am at a loss because I don't recall exactly when that debate ever occurred and who decided it was over. And it is looking more and more like there are many that do not want this topic to be analyzed, audited, or debated.

 

Facts and Fictions of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", by Kristen Byrnes. This is an extremely detailed examination of Al Gore's claims in his movie concerning Global Warming.

A good read. Please note the complexity of issues involved.

I love this quote. "Al Gore doesn’t know what he’s talking about." But, he does know how to make a buck!

What is becoming clearer is that the Global Warming "scam" isn't about saving the Planet (which doesn't need much saving if you ask me), but is about money, influence, and power.

 

 

Global climate modeling is far from an exact science, but to the politicos it appears to be gospel.

 

Here is an article by Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary W. Robinson, of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, entitled "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide". It includes a petition purpotedly signed by 19,000 scientists.

 

It is a fairly long look at the data on Earth tempature data, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and climate impact. It is not very good news for the "Global Warming is Real and the Earth is going to end" crowd. Here are some excerpts:

 

"Not one of the temperature graphs shown in figures 4 to 7, which include the most accurate and reliable surface and atmospheric temperature measurements available, both global and regional, shows any warming whatever that can be attributed to increases in green-house gases."

 

"There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause catastrophic changes in global temperatures or weather. To the contrary, during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, atmospheric temperatures have decreased."

 

There are a lot of people who believe global warming is real. Of course, there are a lot of people who believe in the Easter Bunny, too. Global climate modeling involves a complex combination of sciences in aerodynamics, physics, chemistry, and computational mathematics.

 

The statistical modeling by the leading authors on the existence of global warming was analyzed by a group of Statisticians, including my advisor at George Mason University, Dr. Ed Wegman, and resulted in their congressional testimony, an excerpt of that you can find here.

 

Here is an excerpt from Congressman Ed Whitfield's (Kentucky) opening statement from the hearings on "Questions Surrounding the 'Hockey Stick' Temperature Studies: Implications for Climate Change Assessments", on July 27, 2006:

"Dr. Wegman was not seeking to impugn the integrity of any of the scientists who work in this area, but it is clear that peer review somehow failed to pick up the flaws in the hockey stick studies. Dr. Wegman simply raises the possibility that, given the evident publishing relationship among the authors of many of the relevant works, combined with the failure to involve statisticians, Dr. Mann's peers may have been too close to the topic to scrutinize the studies as rigorously as they might have. Whatever the case, Dr. Mann's peers failed to catch the errors Wegman, the NRC, and McIntyre identified."

Proving that Global Warming exists just took another hit.

They can't predict the local weather for the next day, but Global Warming is an absolute certainty. What's wrong with this picture?