Massachusetts Commercial Wind :News Media Untrustworthy

Background of the extensive misleading media commercial wind renewable energy campaign carried out in Massachusetts.

The public continues to express skepticism about what they see, hear and read in the media.

Massachusetts bet big on land based commercial wind turbines. The state created a monster called the Massachusetts Technology Collaborative today known as the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center.

The agency was tasked with getting 2000 megawatts of commercial wind energy by the year 2020. A single commercial wind turbine has a rating of around 1 or 2 megawatts.

In order to achieve the renewable energy agenda the state politicians called for a real all out war on fossil fuels and they are fighting the war just like a real war. The war calls for agencies of the state to look the other way when it comes to enforcing laws that affect the installation and operation of commercial wind turbines. That equates to taking your health and your property rights for the “Agenda.”

Today it is an established fact families and communities throughout Cape Cod and our commonwealth are being severely affected by land-based wind turbines. Individuals have developed health problems. Real estate prices have dropped. Otherwise peaceful towns are in an uproar over existing and proposed turbines.
Falmouth is ground zero for poorly placed commercial megawatt wind turbines in the United States.

Would it surprise anyone in Massachusetts to report on corrupt hiring and promotion practices within the state or political connections in obtaining state jobs of course not.

How many people have gone to work for the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center and then gone on to work for commercial wind turbine companies. The MassCEC is a stepping stone to a promise of a higher paying job. One hand washes the other for a six figure job.

The news media in Massachusetts has a cute trick when it comes to commercial wind turbines. The majority of news reports only report positive news about commercial wind never any negative news. They call this reporting by omission or just plain lying to the public.

The former Massachusetts Attorney General sat on her hands while the wind turbine industry created a second class group of citizens in Massachusetts called the wind turbine victims. These citizens health and property rights are considered collateral damage on the war on fossil fuels by our politicians and news media. Their health and property rights were taken with no notice or compensation.

The former Massachusetts Attorney General now works for a law firm that specializes in wind turbine installations.

Now comes the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal that started out at 35 million in 2010. The news media has the general population of Massachusetts thinking the terminal is complete at 113 million. Don’t believe it ! It’s an outright lie !

The terminal remains incomplete. It has two temporary entrances on Blackmer Street because of a radio station that had to be moved off four acres of toxic land. There are no large walking type cranes and the rail link is half a mile away.

The hurricane gates have an opening of 150 feet but only a legal opening of 120 feet. Commercial wind turbine “ jack-up” barges don’t fit through the gates.
The public was told Cape Wind was going to build and construct wind turbines in New Bedford. Cape Wind never had a Bureau of Ocean Energy Management permit to build in New Bedford. The BOEM permit was issued ten years ago for Quonset Point, Rhode Island.

Quonset Point, RI has two 1500 foot wide channels to the ocean. During World War II the base could handle 4 full size US Battle Ships at one time. Deepwater Wind is currently using Quonset Point as its construction and assembly area. Compare that to New Bedford Harbor with a legal opening of 120 feet at the hurricane gate.

The former editor of a local New Bedford newspaper is also a wind turbine consultant. Your local news media in Falmouth told you the town Falmouth Harbor was going to host Cape Wind. Every town and city on the coast of Massachusetts was told they were going to profit somehow by Cape Wind.

The state and media does a good job of hiding spending. The bonds borrowing with intersest is costing taxpayers $187,500.00 a month for the next thirty years on the incomplete financial fiasco at the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal.

The Massachusetts Clean Energy Center months ago put out an RFP, Request for Proposal to operate the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal. The MassCEC has refused to announce the operator that was awarded the bid.
Who could afford to lease the terminal for more than the $187,500.00 a month in bond payments being paid by taxpayers.

Massachusetts next week is considering more spending on ocean wind turbine projects.

The New Bedford port if it was built with Cape Wind in mind with smaller 3.6 megawatt ocean wind turbines what now? Today ocean wind turbines are nearing 10 megawatts three times the size of Cape Wind.

The seeds of public distrust were sown long before the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal financial fiasco. The poorly placed land based turbines led the way to the credibility crisis in the news media.

The news media has hit a low point with Massachusetts citizens and taxpayers over commercial wind. We are now reluctant to trust the news media in this regard. After all, more and more citizens each year don’t think they can trust the press at all.

The Massachusetts legislature next week is about to multiply the land and ocean wind turbine financial fiasco by ten times what happened in the past ten years. 

Strange New Climate Change Spin: The Hottest Year Ever Inside a Global Warming ‘Pause’?

By WILLIAM M BRIGGS

There are two stories floating around about the state of the earth’s atmosphere. Both are believed true by government-funded scientists and the environmentally minded. The situation is curious because the stories don’t mesh. Yet, as I said, both are believed. Worse, neither is true.

Story number one is that this year will be the hottest ever. And number two is that the reason it is not hot is because “natural variation” has masked or stalled man-caused global warming.

Which is it? Either it’s hotter than ever or it isn’t. If it is, then (it is implied) man-caused global warming has not “paused.” If it isn’t, if man-caused global warming has “paused,” then it is not growing hotter.

There are two things to keep straight: (1) why these divergent contentions are believed, and (2) why they are incompatible and individually false. The first point is easy. Climatology has become a branch of politics. And in politics, particularly in our rambunctious democracy, statements asserted in the name of some political goal are usually believed or at least supported by those who share the goal. It is necessary for global-warming-of-doom to be true in order to attain the government’s goal (of increasing in size and power), so any statement which supports global warming is likely to be touted by government supporters, even mutually incompatible statements.

Scientists — and some very big names indeed — who have made their living on government grants, and who provide arguments in line with the government’s desire that global-warming-of-doom be true, recently wrote a letter to the President and Attorney General asking these officials to criminally prosecute under the RICO Act scientists like myself and organizations that might fund me. Which scientists and organizations? Those, they say, who have “knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change.”

In other words, arguments put forth by independent scientists and organizations that do not support the government’s line cannot be considered science, but should instead be classified as criminal acts. Incidentally, it has come out that the scientist leading the effort to prosecute the innocent has “paid himself & his wife $1.5 million from gov’t climate grants for part-time work.” Climatology is thus a branch of politics. Quod erat demonstrandum.

I’m no politician and can’t predict what will come of this. But I am a scientist and know good physics from bad. To understand why the claims about the atmosphere mentioned above are false, it is necessary to grasp, at least in broad outline, some rather complicated statistics and physics. Let’s try.

Claim Number One: This Year Will Be The Hottest Ever
The first claim is not only false, it is ludicrously false. It’s not even close to being true. There have been times in the history of the earth when it was much hotter. Here is a link to one estimate of the earth’s mean temperature over time.

But haven’t atmospheric carbon dioxide levels risen over the past few decades? Yes, but here is another link with carbon dioxide levels plotted alongside temperature (see the second graph down at the link) showing how the two do not track each other and at times have even moved in opposite directions.

Jurassic Period Hot Steamy JungleWe are now geologically in what is called the Quaternary Period, which is characterized by periodic cold snaps, which is to say, glaciations. Glaciers have come and glaciers have gone for more than two million years, and we expect they’ll continue to come and go mainly because of the way the earth wobbles and wends it way around the sun. Before the Quaternary was the Pliocene, and well before this was the better known (thanks, Hollywood!) Jurassic, which ran 145 to 200 million years ago. And before the Jurassic was the Triassic, extending back another 25 millions years.

From the Triassic to the Quaternary, a time spanning more than 200 million years, the earth was hotter than it is now, and not just a little hotter, but downright steamy at times, with temperatures 10 or more degrees Celsius higher. It was so hot that the entire planet was green and fertile, and animals, you might recall, grew to tremendous size. Before the Triassic there were other periods, some of which more closely resembled ours in climate.

The lesson to be learned from this is that the climate is never constant; it always has changed and always will. Stopping climate change is a human impossibility. I mean this word in its strict sense. There is no power short of Omnipotence that can stop the climate from changing. Certainly no government can. To plead, therefore, that we should stop climate change is not to engage in science, but politics.

Above I said the linked picture represented an estimate of the temperature, and this is so. Thermometers didn’t exist in any reliable or widespread sense until the last 100 or so years of earth’s history, and even now these only cover a small fraction of the earth’s surface. And even in the modern era, the ways we have of measuring temperature have varied and still vary. Satellites, which provide some of the best, but still imperfect, global measurements have only existed about 50 years.

That means if we want to know the temperature before 50-100 years ago, we have to guess. It’s not a blind guess, though, since we can use so-called “proxies.” These are chemical and physical measurements known to be correlated with air temperature. We can tally these over geologic times and plug them into a statistical model that predicts what the temperatures were. There is nothing wrong with this except for two things. Here it gets a bit technical.

No statistical guess should be stripped of its uncertainty. We don’t want the temperature guess alone, we want it with a plus-or-minus the guess attached. The first problem is that these plus-and-minuses are almost always absent. The result is over-certainty in statements about what the past was compared with the present. Sometimes uncertainty in the temperature guesses is provided, but it’s the wrong kind of uncertainty, the wrong plus-or-minuses.

All these statistical models have innards called parameters, which are nothing more than mathematical “dials” necessary for the equations to work out. Unfortunately, a fallacy has become ingrained in science that these parameters directly represent or are reality. This fallacy is so ubiquitous that I call it the Cult of the Parameter. The fallacy is harmful because the plus-and-minus bounds to reality are necessarily larger than the plus-or-minus bounds to model parameters (usually 4 to 8 times larger). The result is always dramatic over-certainty.

And it’s still worse. The models take proxy measurements, but the uncertainty in the time those proxies were laid down in history is always discarded in the statistical models. How do you know the proxy you measured was 1.10 and not 1.11 million years ago? Answer: you don’t.

The end result is to make temperature guesses appear smooth and uncomplicated, which is an illusion. That illusion makes it easier for (actually measured) temperatures in modern times to appear more variable. And that makes it easier to appear that we are hotter now, even if we’re not. Add to that the observations that modern records are continually being tweaked by scientists (and strangely always in a direction that makes it appears colder then and warmer now), and it’s no surprise to hear talk of “record temperatures.”

Global Warming Polar Bear – 400Now if we only go by the satellite record, it’s quite easy to be in a “record-breaking” year, for the trivial reason that there only a few years on the books. Every year stands a good chance at breaking some kind of atmospheric record. But because of the entire geologic record, the chance of breaking real records is not even remote; it’s nearly impossible.

Scientists know all these facts, yet some still make the statement that this year will be (or could be) the hottest. They say it while knowing it isn’t true. Why?

(Those who want more technical detail can go here to learn about the BEST project’s statistical reconstruction of historical temperatures, which is touted to be the “best” but which commits the errors noted here.)

Claim Number Two: Natural Variation Caused A “Pause”
The American Meteorological Society is, or rather was, the preeminent organization for those who study weather and climate. Its official organ is known as BAMS, the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. BAMS is used to impart news items of interest and the like, but it also publishes review articles on the state of science.

Now the AMS has, like nearly all other government-money-dependent scientific organizations, given up all pretense of physics and has instead embraced politics as its raison d’etre. So far removed from its original mission is the AMS that they are publishing a BAMS review article by two non-scientist ideologues and one scientist who writes mostly about politics. The title is “The ‘Pause’ in Global Warming: Turning a Routine Fluctuation into a Problem for Science.”

The authors are Stephan Lewandowsky, a psychologist who specializes in gimmicked surveys, Naomi Oreskes, a historian who believes in a vast right-wing conspiracy, and James Risbey, a real climatologist who spends much of his time wondering why everybody doesn’t agree with him (he has more than one paper with Lewandowsky and Oreskes on this theme).

The point of this new paper is the same as all of Lewandowsky’s works. He wants to paint detractors of The Consensus as crazy or oil-industry stooges. For these authors, and for many, the mere fact that government-funded scientists have said a problem with the atmosphere exists and that only government can solve it is more than sufficient proof of the contention. Any who disagree must be doing so out of ignorance, insanity or evil intent. That their position on the science might be wrong never occurs to them.

Satelite – 400And they are wrong. Their claim is that the (satellite) observed non-increase in global temperatures over the past two decades was caused by any or some combination of these: “natural variations,” El Niño, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, “random” or “routine fluctuations” and the like. They say that if these “causes” did not exist, the temperatures would have increased just as they were predicted to under the theory of enhanced-feedback carbon-oxide-driven (EFCOD) global warming.

Do you see the fallacy? They use the absence of predicted increases as proof the increases were really there, but in masked or modified form! To them, the repeated, consistent and egregiously mistaken predictions made by climate models are true no matter what because EFCOD global warming is true no matter what. It used to be in science that when a theory made predictions even as fractionally lousy as EFCOD global warming, it was quietly removed from service. But global warming can’t be dropped. There is too much riding on it remaining in force.

And this is not the only or even the worst fallacy. Having faith in lovingly created but failed theories is an error, but it is an understandable human foible. No one wants to disown his child, no matter how ugly. Our response to a scientist who doesn’t want to give up his life’s work should be pity, not condemnation.

But making statements physically impossible is not forgivable, not for those who call themselves physicists. The real blunder is this. Scientists claimed to understand how the atmosphere worked. Based on this understanding, they said that “disruptive,” “dangerous” global warming would soon be upon us. It didn’t happen. What went wrong? El Niño, they say.

Climate Change – 400But El Niño, “natural fluctuations” and the like are not things separate from the atmosphere. They are part of the atmosphere. These things are nothing more than human-labels given to particular measures of the atmosphere. El Niño is not a primary cause, it is an effect, an observation. “Natural fluctuations” means “what the atmosphere does.” Thus it is a tautology, an observation empty of scientific content, to say “what the atmosphere does” caused “what the atmosphere did.”

These “routine fluctuations” and the like are part of what the scientists said they already understood. They are not alien entities that arrive unexpectedly and upset theory; they are, or should have been, an integral part of EFCOD global-warming theory. These things are the atmosphere, they are the climate.

It is thus clear that scientists who blame these phenomena for their failings don’t know what they are talking about. They said they understood the atmosphere, and here is proof they did not. So why should we continue to believe them when they say, “The time to act is now”?

We now see that the word “pause” is a terrible misnomer, a circularity. It states what it seeks to prove. To say there is a “pause” is to claim that we know why the atmosphere is doing what it is doing. But if that were so, then the models over the past two decades would have made successful predictions. They made atrocious predictions, and they are growing worse. That means to say there is a “pause” is equivalent to we know global warming is there because we can’t see it.

It is well past the time to move on from EFCOD global warming and return to doing real science.

A new word for the repellent New York Times: “Fasmunists”

Right to Reply   |   Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The Marxstream news media have always been champions of every passing totalitarian fad, however murderous. Hitler only got away with the slaughter of 6 million Jews because the Western news media fawned upon him and demanded appeasement almost until the first shots were fired in the Second World War. Likewise, the totalitarian Press fawned upon Communism, even as it killed 100 million in the 20^th century alone, to such an extent that some papers could scarcely bring themselves to cheer when the Berlin Wall was torn down.

Naturally, therefore, they all signed up dutifully to the climate scam, the new and ingenious but false and intrinsically genocidal pretext for the global government centered on the UN that, barring a miracle, will be established in Paris this December. In support of this ghastly endeavor, the New York Times yesterday ran an outstandingly repellent op-ed article by a useless professor of tiddlywinks and raffia work at Yale, one Snyder (by name and nature) describing those of us who dare to question the climate scam as adopting “an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s”.

Let us put that revolting and stunningly inapt comparison into its context. This is what the evil Snyder wrote and the New York Times (“all the junk that’s fit to debunk”) published, under the heading The Next Genocide:

“Hitler spread ecological panic by claiming that only land would bring Germany security and by denying the science that promised alternatives to war. By polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, the United States has done more than any other nation to bring about the next ecological panic, yet it is the only country where climate science is still resisted by certain political and business elites. These deniers tend to present the empirical findings of scientists as a conspiracy and question the validity of science – an intellectual stance that is uncomfortably close to Hitler’s.”

I have no idea how much taxpayers’ money this egregious waste of space has accumulated over the decades. Every cent of it was wasted.

Let us take apart Snyder’s tortuous attempt not only to deny that Hitler was a greenie but also to make out that he was somehow “anti-science”. First, Hitler did not “spread ecological panic”: he exploited environmentalism as a method of ruthless control.

The National Socialist Workers’ Party of Germany was the first in the world to adopt the “green” mantle, for Hitler and his goons were ahead of the pack in appreciating what Snyder and his overpaid, under-educated fellow goons in the batik and tie-dyeing department at Yale Kindergarten well understand: if you are arrogant enough to want to control the populace the “green” agenda – let us call it “Agenda 21” – is the very best program to provide nonsensical excuses for the governing elite to interfere expensively in every tiny detail of our lives.

And Hitler’s problem was not that he “denied the science that promised alternatives to war”. He wanted war, and embraced the science that made it possible.

The reason for Snyder’s more than usually dumb comparison was, of course, so that he could clamber on to the “global warming” bandwagon just as all the wheels are coming off. Snyder, plainly no scientist, labors under the elementary delusion that CO₂ is “pollution”. For what does a Communist need to know about science? One thing and one thing only – the Party Line. And Snyder knows the Party line all right, for it is spouted interminably in the knitting and crochet-work department at Yale and Harvard and other places where they used to think and now merely chant currently-fashionable hard-Left slogans.

Snyder is, in effect, accusing the Republican Party and the few business interests not yet profiteering monstrously from the climate fraud of being as genocidal as Hitler. The truth, of course, is that the real genocide is happening unseen every day in Africa, where for a tenth of what we are already squandering on the non-problem that was “global warming” we could give everyone cheap, reliable, clean, fossil-fueled electric power, lift them out of poverty, disease and death, and hence stabilize the population, minimizing its environmental footprint.

To get the scare going, the climate Communists made certain definite predictions that have just as definitely not come to pass. Those first predictions in 1990 were to the effect that by now there would have been almost three times as much global warming. It is legitimate, therefore, to raise questions about why there has been negligible global warming in the oceans throughout the entire 11 years of systematic measurement, and none at all in the lower atmosphere for 18 years 8 months, according to the satellites.

It is Snyder, then, who is anti-science – or would be, if he or anyone in the origami and card-tricks department at Yale were bright enough. All the predictions of doom in which he believes because they constitute the Party Line have been proven utterly false. All the ice gone in the Arctic by 2013: nope, it’s still there. Droughts increasing (Snyder’s hate speech is illustrated with a photo captioned to the effect that droughts are worsening): nope, the area of the globe under drought has been declining for 30 years. Sea level rise accelerating (Snyder’s article has a photo caption alleging that “in Bangladesh millions of people have been displaced by floods and the rising sea level”: nope, sea level off Bangladesh has actually fallen throughout the recent record. Storms increasing: nope, there’s been no land-falling hurricane in the U.S. for longer than at any time since records began, and global storminess has remained much the same throughout the satellite era.

Should Snyder have been allowed to preach so much malice and hate so openly, so mendaciously, and with so scandalously little intellectual rigor or moral justification? One might have hoped for better from the coloring-by-numbers department at Yale. Your Constitution, though, says hate speech is fine, and the Supreme Clots will uphold it as long as the speaker is Left-wing.

However, the New York Times, though it takes full advantage of the Constitutional right of free speech, has shown itself to be culpably determined not to allow any point of view but its own to be argued in its pages, particularly on any question – such as climate – that lies at the heart of the Communist party line that it espouses. Do not hold your breath for an early reply to Snyder’s goose-stepping in that once-great paper’s shabby columns.

Let us hope that the Grand Old Party will remember Snyder’s words of sheer, hate-filled wickedness and make absolutely sure that every penny that might otherwise have gone to the face-painting and dressing-up department at Yale in funding for any purpose is cut off and put straight back into the pockets of the hard-pressed taxpayers from which it was wrenched.

It is Snyder who is the little Hitler here. Like Hitler, he believes that only one point of view is permissible on the question of the hour. Like Hitler, he espouses what history will reveal to have been entirely the wrong point of view. Like Hitler, he accuses his opponents of genocide while advocating it himself by demanding that the U.S. should adopt the brutal, genocidal climate-Communist Party Line. Like Hitler, he uses the environment as a threadbare cloak for rank totalitarian advocacy. Like Hitler, he hates his own country enough to spit upon it and to wish to do it harm for absolutely no good reason. Like Hitler, he distorts the scientific truth and exploits it in an unprincipled fashion for the sake of spreading hatred. Like Hitler, he knows little or no science himself. Like Hitler, he flagrantly, knowingly, repeatedly, hatefully states the direct opposite of the objective truth.

What, then, to do about Snyder? No doubt there are still a few red-blooded Americans at Yale, mingling among the etiolated, apolaustic epicenes who mince about the place. Let them, passing Snyder as he scurries earnestly towards the stencilling-and-crayons department, throw him a mocking Nazi salute and, at the tops of their voices, yell “Heil Snyder!”

The odious Snyder deserves the minting of a new word. For there are two species of totalitarian Socialism on this planet, alas, and that shambling, bleating wretch is the very embodiment and quintessence of both. There is Communist Socialism, which believes that everything that moves should be nationalised and that everything that doesn’t move should be arrested or left to rust, and down with the United States. And there is Fascist Socialism, which believes grinding the poor under its jack-booted heel and cosying up to big business and allowing it to be independent just so long as it toes the Party Line, and down with the United States.

The New York Times and its dismal professor of silly walks and cupcake-baking are Communists and Fascists rolled up into one. They are Fasmunists. It’s an ugly word for ugly people. Heil Snyder!

 

wnd-snyder

Cornwall Alliance Releases Open Letter and Petition on Climate to American People and Leaders

Cornwall Alliance

Over 300 scientists, religious leaders, and others have signed an open letter to the American people and their elected leaders opposing policies meant to fight manmade global warming.

“An Open Letter on Climate Change to the People, their Local Representatives, the State Legislatures and Governors, the Congress, and the President of the United States of America” argues, among other things:

1. Computer climate models have been falsified by actual temperature records, leaving fears of dangerous manmade warming baseless.
2. Fossil fuels, which provide about 85 percent of the world’s energy, are the most abundant, affordable, reliable source for the energy essential to lifting and keeping societies out of poverty.
3. Policies to reduce fossil fuel use to fight global warming not only are useless but also would waste trillions of dollars that could be spent addressing much more urgent problems for the poor around the world.

“The poor, whether in America or elsewhere, will suffer most from such policies,” the letter says. “The world’s poorest—the 1.3 billion in developing countries who depend on wood and dried dung as primary cooking and heating fuels, smoke from which kills 4 million and temporarily debilitates hundreds of millions every year—will be condemned to more generations of poverty and its deadly consequences.”

At the same time, the Cornwall Alliance introduced a brief “Petition: For the Sake of the Poor, Don’t Fight Global Warming!” based on the open letter.The petition asks President Obama, Congress, state governors and legislatures, and county and city governments “to repeal all policies previously adopted to fight global warming and not to adopt new ones (such as the currently proposed ‘Clean Power Plan’)” and President Obama and the U.S. Senate “to refrain from embracing any global treaty or agreement to limit carbon dioxide emissions to fight global warming.”

Sign the petition here. Then encourage others to join you by forwarding this email to them or posting the link on Facebook and other social media.

What can you do with the open letter? Print it, give it to friends and pastors, send it to your elected officials at city, county, state, and federal levels, and to your local newspaper editors. Promote it through Facebook, Twitter, your own blog, and other social media.

The 4-page open letter was signed by over 175 scientists and engineers (including over 20 climate scientists) and over 50 religious leaders, philosophers, and ethicists, plus scholars in business, economics, and other fields. They include 125 Ph.D.’s and other terminal degrees—10 in climate fields, 13 in biology, 9 in chemistry, 12 in engineering, 8 in physics, 6 in mathematics, 14 in theology, and 12 in philosophy, among others—and 80 master’s degrees (over 30 in science) and over 60 bachelor’s degrees (43 in science). Signers include nearly 140 evangelicals, 59 Roman Catholics, and 51 Mainline Protestants, plus Eastern Orthodox, Jews, and others.

Some of the more prominent signers include:

• Donna Fitzpatrick Bethell, former Under Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy
• Freeman Dyson, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University, one of the world’s foremost physicists
• Kenneth W. Chilton, Senior Environmental Fellow, Lindenwood University
• John Coleman and Joseph D’Aleo, meteorologists and co-founders of The Weather Channel
• Mark Coppenger, Professor of Christian Apologetics, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
• Harold H. Doiron, Chairman, The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, former engineer in NASA’s Apollo, Space Shuttle, and Space Station programs
• Neil Frank, former Director, National Hurricane Center
• George Grant, Pastor, Parish Presbyterian Church, King’s Meadow Study Center, Chalmers Fund, popular Christian author and leader in home school movement
• William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, one of the world’s foremost hurricane specialists
• Wayne Grudem, Research Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies, Phoenix Seminary
• William Happer, Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics (Emeritus), Princeton University; former Director, Office of Science; Fellow of the American Physical Society; U.S. Department of Energy
• David J. Hesselgrave, Professor Emeritus of Missions, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
• Madhav L Khandekar, meteorologist, retired staff scientist, Environment Canada
• Richard Land, President, Southern Evangelical Seminary
• Rabbi Daniel Lapin, President, American Alliance of Jews and Christians
• David R. Legates, Professor of Climatology and Geography, University of Delaware
• Mark J. Perry, Professor of Economics, University of Michigan
• Jay Richards, Assistant Research Professor, The Catholic University of America
• Roy W. Spencer, Principal Research Scientist, The University of Alabama in Huntsville; U.S. Science Team Leader, Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer aboard NASA’s Aqua Satellite, source of the world’s most reliable global temperature data
• Mark Tooley, President, Institute on Religion and Democracy
• Melinda Walker, Chair & Professor of Biology, Charleston Southern University
• David F. Wells, Distinguished Research Professor, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
• Kathleen Hartnett White, Distinguished Senior Fellow and Director, Texas Public Policy Foundation
• Wendy Wright,, Vice President, Center for Family and Human Rights
• Elizabeth Yore, International Child Rights Attorney, YoreChildren.com

Standing for the Poor,

E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D.,
Founder & National Spokesman

The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation seeks to magnify the glory of God in creation, the wisdom of His truth in environmental stewardship, the kindness of His mercy in lifting the needy out of poverty, and the wonders of His grace in the gospel of Jesus Christ. A coalition of theologians, pastors, ministry leaders, scientists, economists, policy experts, and committed laymen, the Cornwall Alliance is the world’s leading evangelical voice promoting environmental stewardship and economic development built on Biblical principles. The Cornwall Alliance is a non-profit religious, charitable, and educational organization. All gifts are tax deductible.

An Open Letter to Kaity Thomson in New Hampshire

ALSO SEE The UCS report on climate – NOTE THIS WAS A RESPONSE TO THE UNH UCS PRESS RELEASE THAT WAS VERY, VERY SHORT ON FACTS RELATIVE TO CLIMATE. SEE BELOW HOW BOB WEBSTER RESPONDS TO  AN INDOCTRINATED YOUNG STUDENT WHO CAN’T BELIEVE A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY WOULD BE CAPABLE OF TELLING FALSEHOODS. BTW, THEY HAVE TESTIFIED TO THE STATE LEGISLATURES YEARLY SINCE 2007 ABOUT THE DECREASE IN SNOWFALL DUE TO WARMING WHEN IN REALITY THE STATE HAS COOLED FOR 20 YEARS IN WINTER WITH RECORD SNOWS. THEY SMUGLY RETURNED LATE LAST FALL AND EARLY WINTER BEFORE 100 INCHES FELL IN JUST 39 DAYS.

Kaity Thomson in New Hampshire posted a YouTube video of her exchange with Senator Ted Cruz about her concerns over climate change (code phrase for human-caused-catastrophic-global-warming). Kaity claims she was insulted by Sen. Cruz. Yet the video she posted clearly shows Kaity repeatedly interrupting Sen. Cruz as he tried to respond to her questions. One is left with the impression that Kaity wasn’t really interested in hearing Sen. Cruz’s responses.

To Kaity Thomson in New Hampshire,

Regarding your recent exchange with Sen. Ted Cruz over climate change, I hope you will take a little time to carefully consider the facts and advice that follow below.

You seem like a bright, young, enthusiastic woman, passionate about her ideals. But if you want to be taken seriously and have your concerns given due consideration, it is very important that you be considerate of those you view as your adversary.

For example, when engaging others on any topic, civility demands you curb your passions sufficiently to listen respectfully to their response, remaining silent until they have finished replying to the concern you raise. Always be prepared to reexamine your premises because they may be faulty. We learn by listening, not by speaking or “motor mouthing” to drown out those with whom you may disagree.

When you confronted Sen. Cruz with your views on climate change, you repeatedly asserted that, because Cruz was not a “climate scientist” he had no right to an opinion different from that of your college professor who, apparently, claims to be a climate scientist. Is it your view that all scientists must share the same views? Do you believe college professors are infallible?

Your YouTube transcribed conversation with Sen. Ted Cruz begins with:

“I’m a recent graduate of the University of New Hampshire. Thank you. One thing I learned is that the Gulf of Maine is warming. That’s causing lobsters to move off shore. I learned that in my university, a public university. That is caused by climate change. So are you saying that you disagree with what public universities are teaching students?”

Do you realize that your ending question does not logically follow from what precedes it?

Do you understand that your statement concluding, “That is caused by climate change.” is reasonably disputed? Are you aware that it is entirely possible for natural cyclic changes in ocean circulation patterns to be responsible for Gulf of Maine temperature changes to which you refer?

Do you equate “climate change” with “human-caused-climate-change”? If so, on what truly scientific basis?

How do you distinguish between natural climate change, and climate change you believe to be caused by humans?

Have you considered that no reasonable person would disagree with clear evidence that lobsters are moving offshore in a warming Gulf of Maine, but that doesn’t confer any legitimacy to the contention that such changes have anything to do with human activity?

Do you believe intelligent people cannot read scientific material and make informed conclusions based on the information they learn? If so, who do you think taught the first teachers?

Do you seriously believe that the views of your professor are superior to those of renowned international scientists whose opinions on the subject are shared by Sen. Cruz and differ dramatically from your professor’s?

What of the more than 30,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 PhDs who have gone on record supporting the view that humans have nothing to do with climate change? Do you believe they do not have sufficient knowledge and intelligence to make an informed decision contrary to your professor’s?

Is it scientific to be close-minded to views that are different from your own? Is that what you’ve been taught in public schools and college?

Clearly, you are very young and passionate about the climate change issue. That is good. But you would do well to understand your obligation to both yourself and others that you be well-informed on the subject before you support it with the passion you displayed in your confrontation with Sen. Cruz.

You made several statements that clearly demonstrated you are either misinformed or poorly informed and have not done your homework.

First, you spoke of the Gulf of Maine warming.

Did your professor tell you the cause of that warming?

Did he discuss with his class any alternatives to the belief that such warming is the result of human production of CO2? If not, why not?

Did he teach you anything about relatively short duration global atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns that change on a cyclic basis? Or how such changes can dramatically affect things like the temperature of the Gulf of Maine or droughts or weather patterns that bring substantial snowstorms to the northeast?

Did he provide you with sufficient background information that demonstrates recent climate warming is indistinguishable from climate warming in the past, well before human activity you blame for climate change?

Can you tell which of the following 50-year periods is 1895-1946 and which is 1957-2008?

Can you (or your climate science professor) answer the questions posed on the chart above?

Second, you indicated that your professor was a “climate scientist”.

Did he teach you about Earth’s typical climate that is far warmer than anything humans have ever experienced?

Are you aware that the age of dinosaurs was, climatologically, very, very recent and that the climate that existed for the 200+ million years of that age was typical of Earth’s climate for most of the past 3.5 billion years?

Did he tell you Earth’s typical climate is nearly 18° F (10° C) warmer than anything humans have experienced, and that such climate has been the norm for 93% of the time since the earliest life first appeared on Earth?

Did he inform you that during Earth’s typical climate, there is no permanent ice at sea level anywhere on the planet?

Did you learn Earth’s typical very warm climate has been interrupted seven times by climate eras known as Ice Eras?

Did he inform you an Ice Era can interrupt Earth’s typical very warm climate for between 20 and 60 million years?

Were you told Earth is in an Ice Era that began 60 million years ago at the end of the dinosaur era, possibly both events triggered by a major impact in the vicinity of what is today the Yucatán Peninsula?

Did you learn Ice Eras are punctuated by numerous Ice Epochs, even colder periods within Ice Eras that can span hundreds of thousands of years to a few million years?

Were you taught Earth’s climate during an ice epoch of an ice era experiences Ice Age cycles that typically span 100,000 years and which include both a long glacial and and short interglacial period?

Did you learn these relatively warm interglacials range from 5,000 to 15,000 years duration?

Were you taught Earth is currently near the end of a long interglacial period of an ice age cycle within an ice epoch of an ice era?

Did your professor teach you about the major natural forces causing warm and cold phases of Earth’s climate that include tectonic (continental drift), volcanic (geothermal), orbital (Milankovitch Cycles), solar (variability, as measured by sunspot activity) and relatively short duration cycles in global atmospheric and oceanic circulation?

If not, you have not been taught the basics of natural climate variability which are an essential prerequisite for your understanding climate and natural climate change.

Are you unaware that over the decade beginning in 1998 there was no global warming while atmospheric CO2 continually rose?

How can you possibly form a valid opinion of the causes of the Gulf of Maine’s warming if you are unaware of the natural climate cycles that are most likely the cause of such localized warming?

Third, have you taken physics courses in college?

Are you aware that, by far, the dominant source of heat on Earth is solar?

Are you aware that a recent study found the typical surface temperature of a rocky planet (which include moon-sized objects) can be deterministically predicted based on only two variables, distance from the sun and weight of the atmosphere? That study accurately predicted the surface temperature of Venus, Earth, our Moon, Mars, Titan (largest moon of Saturn) and Triton (largest moon of Neptune). Based on the findings of this study, it is clear that Venus’ surface temperature, incorrectly thought the result of “greenhouse” gases, would not change one iota if all the so-called “greenhouse gases” in Venus’ atmosphere were replaced with non-greenhouse gases of the same molecular weight!

Are you aware that surface temperatures of rocky planets having no atmosphere are determined exclusively by their distance from the star they orbit?

Did you know that Venus is much hotter than Earth because (1) it is much closer to the sun and, (2) its atmospheric surface pressure is 90 times that of Earth’s surface pressure?

Are you aware that Earth’s atmosphere has no special properties that allow it to multiply (or create) heat?

Have you considered that the Earth system is composed of solids (land, etc.), liquids (oceans, lakes, etc.) and gases (invisible atmospheric)?

Are you aware that these elements are heated by the sun, without which Earth would be a frozen speck in the universe?

The contention that greenhouse gases “add heat to” Earth by “trapping” heat necessarily means such gases could create extra heat in order to increase the temperature of Earth (to warm anything, a higher degree of heat must be supplied to it, either by conduction, convection or radiation). From where does the “extra” heat come to heat (“globally warm”) Earth more?

Are you aware that “climate scientists” use highly complex computer simulations of crude climate models as a gimmick to claim that there is some miraculous heat production process at work in our atmosphere that can multiply the heat energy from our sun by bouncing it around between the atmosphere and Earth’s surface?

If global warming greenhouse theory were valid, then why hasn’t there been a real effort to develop “greenhouse furnaces” to help heat northern homes in winter? Isn’t CO2 relatively abundant as the “fuel” for these furnaces?

Do you recognize the difference between the mechanism by which solar radiation naturally heats Earth’s atmosphere (just as it heats both lands and seas) and the premise of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that distorts that process by speciously claiming the atmosphere can multiply solar heat energy to create additional heat needed to claim responsibility for “global warming”?

Do you recognize the specious nature of claims Earth is getting warmer as a consequence of the minuscule increase of atmospheric CO2 (0.25%) from human activity and that such pseudo-science quackery receives billions in annual funding from the US Government (your tax dollars being wasted to promote control of relatively abundant inexpensive energy)?

Do you understand that atmospheric water vapor (H2O) overwhelms atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) in terms of both its abundance and capacity to interact with solar radiation in Earth’s atmosphere?

Are you aware the late French climatologist (doubly a PhD in climatology), Marcel Leroux, did an exhaustive investigation of the causes of global climate change and concluded that greenhouse gases, and in particular CO2, were insignificant to global climate change? [Leroux’s book describing his investigation: Myth or Reality?: The Erring Ways of Climatology]

Do you realize that the greenhouse theory claim is analogous to a claim that if you walked into a mirrored room with a bright flashlight, the light would increase in intensity? While the light will be reflected around the mirrored room, the mirrored walls are incapable of making the light more intense, which is essentially the contention of advocates of greenhouse gas global warming who maintain Earth’s temperature increases simply due to fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 (equivalent to adding or subtracting mirrors in the flashlight-in-a-mirrored-room analogy).

Are you aware that natural solar warming of the atmosphere is compensated by atmospheric re-radiation (emissive cooling) and that such natural warming does not collect indefinitely in the atmosphere, and that radiative cooling is the basis for the stability of Earth’s global average temperature? When solar energy increases, Earth both acquires and sheds more heat. When solar energy decreases, Earth both acquires and sheds less heat.

Were you taught that, just as are the lands and waters of the Earth, its atmosphere is also warmed by the sun?

Do you understand that the annual production of CO2 by humans constitutes just 4% to 5% of total annual natural natural production of CO2?

Are you aware that CO2, far from being a “pollutant”, is essential for all life on Earth and must be above a minimum level in Earth’s atmosphere for life to exist? Did you learn that plants evolved when Earth’s atmospheric CO2 levels were more than double what they are today? Do you realize that doubling atmospheric CO2 would enable agriculture to feed vastly more people without any consequences to global climate?

Have you learned that if the US completely stopped any industrial emissions of atmospheric CO2, there would be no discernible impact on global climate? If you’ve been taught otherwise, you’ve been reprehensibly misled.

Has your professor attempted to provide any cost-benefit analysis that shows substantially raising the cost of living and putting costly draconian limits on energy and industry will yield any economic benefit whatsoever?

Did you know that CO2 from all sources is responsible for less than 5% of atmospheric greenhouse gases? This means human-produced CO2 represents at most 0.25% of atmospheric greenhouse gases!

Are you aware that greenhouses do not warm up by “trapping” IR (infrared)? A greenhouse warms up because it traps warmed air, not IR radiation. Open a window and the greenhouse cools. Substitute a translucent surface that is invisible to IR for the greenhouse glass (which is somewhat opaque to IR) and you will observe no difference in the temperature inside the greenhouse! (as shown by experimentation in 1909 and again in 2011)

Twice over the past 106 years the greenhouse gas theory has been disproven experimentally.

Predictions based on the greenhouse gas global warming theory have failed to occur. These include (1) no warming for 18 years running, (2) a cool spot in the tropical mid-troposphere where a “hot spot fingerprint” of human-caused-global-warming was predicted, (3) no dramatic rise in sea levels, and (4) failure of polar regions to warm dramatically (Arctic ice is now expanding and Antarctica continues its cooling that began six decades ago).

Are you aware that satellite measurements of incoming solar heat energy on Earth are matched by measured heat energy radiated off the top of the atmosphere? If heat energy in equals heat energy out, there is balance. Therefore, any fluctuations in globally measured temperatures must be the result of any or a combination of factors such as (1) temperature measurement errors, (2) changes in solar output, or (3) other natural processes influencing surface climate that were identified above.

Did you learn that over the past thousand years of observations, Earth’s natural climate cycles have accurately tracked solar activity as measured by sunspots and that current sunspot trends indicate severe cold in the near future?

Were you taught that, according to ice core data, over the past 400,000 years, Earth’s temperature changes have preceded changes in atmospheric CO2 by an average of 800 years? If atmospheric CO2 responds to temperature, by what rationale do you believe a change in atmospheric CO2 is responsible for a temperature change that preceded it?

Are you aware that the only basis for claiming recent years are the “warmest on record” is NOAA’s “adjusted” (fudged) data that altered the real data record by adjusting downward earlier temperatures in an effort to discredit the inconvenient truth that the past 18 years has revealed no discernible global warming, despite IPCC predictions of substantial warming during this period?

Did you know that the actual measured temperatures during the 1930s remain the warmest years on record?

Do you know that NOAA’s adjusted data does not match any other data set, including the gold standard at the UK MET office (Hadley CRUT) as well as well-documented US satellite data?

Which are you inclined to believe? Conveniently adjusted data at NOAA designed to fit warmist dogma, or every other data set that exists on the planet?

The answer to that question will tell you a lot about your objectivity and the extent to which you are prepared to question the premises your professor taught you.

Conclusions.

You owe yourself some serious introspection on this topic.

Given that all legitimate science is based on accepted scientific laws (not theories), then you must understand that scientific theories are always subject to scientific scrutiny to either confirm their hypotheses or reject them if they fail the test of either experimentation or observation.

It is the obligation of scientists to challenge theories, not to dogmatically defend them!

You will truly learn by challenging dogma.

Based on your recent exchange with Sen. Cruz, you evidently have not challenged your professor’s dogma.

This suggests three final questions for you:

Other than scientific law, do you seriously believe that any scientific theory is “settled science”?

 

Would you agree that those who claim a theory is “settled science” are really attempting to stifle dissenting views?

 

If scientists warned that Earth was entering another bitter cold glacial phase, do you honestly believe a proposal to compensate dramatic cooling by burning more fossil fuels would be taken seriously?

Please direct any comments or questions to editor@webcommentary.com.

Bob Webster
WEBCommentary (Editor, Publisher)

Send email feedback to Bob Webster

---

Biography – Bob Webster

Bob Webster is a descendent of Daniel Webster’s father and early American patriot, Ebenezer Webster. Bob has always had a strong interest in history, our Constitution, U.S. politics and law. Politically he is a constitutional republican (“little r” republican) with objectivist and libertarian roots, he has faith in the ultimate triumph of truth and reason over deception and emotion. He is a strong believer in our Constitution as written and views the abandonment of constitutional restraint by the regressive Progressive movement as a great danger to our Republic. His favorite novel isAtlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and believes it should be required reading for every high school student so they can understand the dangers of tolerating the growth of unconstitutional crushingly powerful central government. He strongly believes, as our Constitution enshrines, that the interests of the individual should be held superior to the interests of the state.

A lifelong interest in meteorology and climatology spurred his strong interest in science. Bob earned his degree in Mathematics at Virginia Tech, graduating in 1964.