Spring in Colorado
Global warming, Colorado-style...
Drive safely.
by Civil Sense
Global warming, Colorado-style...
Drive safely.
by Civil Sense
Today's Denver Post contained a paeon to the Democratic Party today. This is understandable, as the Denver Post typically is nakedly partisan. Obviously, the Denver Post is catering to their visiting audience of the Democratic National Convention.
Not included in the online report is a chart of the Democrat Party platforms since 1908. Interestingly enough, except for Bill Clinton's 1996 reelection year, the Democrat Party platform advocated for small government three times: 1908, 1912, and 1932. The 1932 Democratic National Convention party platform is especially laughable as FDR's programs vastly expanded the role of government in the market and people's lives.
For those who want to see a more raw perspective on the convention, the Peoples Press Collective is an aggregator of blog posts about the Democratic National Convention. Many Colorado bloggers will have raw pictures and video of the event. I am planning to participate as well, looking for the news behind the scripted "news" from the Pepsi Center.
It will be interesting to compare the blog coverage to the dominant mass media coverage. Hopefully, everything will proceed peacefully this week, but, if not, the blogosphere will be around to cover it.
by Civil Sense
While I was on vacation last week, Governor Bill Ritter travelled on a vacation of his own: a Norwegian Arctic cruise with a “climate change” theme. From the Post:
Gov. Bill Ritter said today that his trip to the Norwegian Arctic last week improved his knowledge of climate change and reinforced his belief that his environmental policies at home are the right ones.
[ Bill ] Ritter was part of a group of that included political leaders, scientists and industrialists who journeyed aboard a ship — the Endeavour — to the Norwegian arctic to view firsthand the effects of climate change.
Besides Ritter, those on the trip included former President Jimmy Carter, Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, former U.S. Sen. Tom Daschle, Chad Holliday, CEO of DuPont USA and Hugh Grant , CEO of Monsanto Co.
The week-long trip on the vessel, sponsored by the Aspen Institute, the National Geographic Society and Linblad Expeditions, featured panel discussions on climate change and outings to glaciers.
Nothing in the Post story stated what evidence reinforced Governor Ritter’s beliefs in his own policies. Even though the Aspen Institute’s report about the vacation contains only platitudes and no actual evidence of “climate change,” it does give an idea of the ideological bent of the cruise.
Among shrinking glaciers and melting sea ice, we came to a fuller understanding that global warming poses real and serious threats: to civilization; to wildlife, forests and the ocean; to fresh water; to agriculture; to human health; to justice; to the poor; to those who are yet to be born—and to peace.
In addition to the climate crisis, we discussed resource consumption and waste, human population pressures, declining ecosystems, and the disproportionate impact of climate change on the world’s poor.
The participants came up with a bullet list of proposals as well.
· Energy: develop and encourage low-carbon and renewable power sources, as well as efficiency and conservation measures, to move us toward energy security and independence
· Economy: face these difficult challenges in ways that create work, wealth and prosperity; strengthen and adapt critical infrastructure; transform vital industries.
· Environment: better understand, protect and restore the health of the Earth’s ecological systems
· Equity: share fairly the burdens and opportunities, especially as they affect the poor and vulnerable (who contribute the least to climate change but are likely to suffer the most)
· Education: teach everyone, especially the next generation, the necessary wisdom and skills to thrive in a low-carbon future
These proposals are all top-down, command and control ideas. It seems that if one were truly concerned about equity, one would promote policies that provide the cheapest energy possible to allow everyone, poor and rich, the opportunity to improve their standards of living. “Climate change” is a concern of the wealthy elites, not the poor. Global warming is pretty far down on the list of problems for someone who lives in poverty and is concerned about skyrocketing energy and food costs.
The Post reports on the huge sacrifices Governor Ritter had to make on his cruise ship.
According to a Linblad Expeditions website, the ship Ritter was on had a fitness center, spa, swimming pool, gift shop and a library. Ritter, who traveled alone, said he had "the smallest of all the cabins" on board, with just a single berth.
Bill Ritter is really living the low carbon lifestyle. After flying halfway across the world (on a solar jet?), he had the smallest carbon (and cabin) footprint on the ship. After all, how could he be a true environmentalist without prominently displaying his hairshirt?
by Civil Sense
Almost two decades ago, I was a rocket scientist. Not really, but I had a good handle on the space debris problem.
I was asked to participate in a congressionally directed NASA led study on orbital debris. I worked on the staff of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization, derisively called "Star Wars" at the time.
The Democrats in Congress and NASA wanted to kill SDI. If you can't kill a project, you study it to death, and you stack the studies and the computer models.
The ploy being used was a claim that SDI would create too much orbital debris. NASA's contractor created a computer model for debris collisions that was obviously ridiculous. When two pieces of debris collided and generated some number of new pieces of debris, each of the new pieces had as much mass as the two originals.
The beauty of this model was that NASA could claim that by 2050 it would be impossible to operate satellites in space.
NASA wanted the study to say that trackable space debris would grow at a rate of 8% compounded annually. By being very selective in choosing their data points, they found a period in history where space debris had grown at their desired geometric rate.
My argument, which wasn't accepted, was that debris growth over the 30 years man had been putting objects in space was linear. The report, as written, projected a 4% growth. Because my presence as the SDIO representative added credibility, my name was placed in the back of the bound study as a contributor.
Fast forward to about three months ago. Astronomy magazine had a scare story about orbital debris. They were using the same charts that had been created 20 years ago. While the story hadn't changed, the charts had been updated.
Until immediately before the Chinese did their really stupid ASAT test, the growth of space debris was linear, not geometric. The slope of the line from 1960 to 1989 was almost identical to the slope of the line from 1960 to 2008.
I tell this story not to embarrass Don Kessler and the folks at NASA at the time, though they ought to be embarrassed. Rather I tell it to illustrate that the people whose names get attached to a study don't all support the conclusions. Some may object vigorously.
Would it surprise anyone to discover that IPCC was doing the same thing? An Australian site has done great work to show that an IPCC claim that 2500 scientists had reviewed a 1000 page report is, in their words, a hoax:
The numbers of scientist reviewers involved in WG I is actually less than a quarter of the whole, a little more than 600 in total. The other 1,900 reviewers assessed the other working group reports. They had nothing to say about the causes of climate change or its future trajectory. Still, 600 “scientific expert reviewers” sounds pretty impressive. After all, they submitted their comments to the IPCC editors who assure us that “all substantive government and expert review comments received appropriate consideration”. And since these experts reviewers are all listed in Annex III of the report, they must have endorsed it, right?
By doing a careful analysis, they get the number of reviewers of the summary chapter without a vested interest down to seven:
Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article - Dr Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the “Greenhouse gas forcing …” statement above, Professor McKitrick explained “A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed.”
Dr Gray labeled the WG I statement as “Typical IPCC doubletalk” asserting “The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model”.
Beware of these kinds of studies. They are often much more politics than science. So much for the consensus claim.
While we in Colorado have had an exceptionally good snow year, Europe is crying the climate change blues:
Alpine skiing and snowboarding may be under greater threat from climate change than scientists have previously thought, new research suggests.
A study of snowfall spanning 60 years has indicated that the Alps's entire winter sports industry could grind to a halt through lack of snow.
It found a dramatic "step-like" drop in snowfall at the end of the 1980s which has never recovered, New Scientist magazine reported. The average number of snow days over the last 20 winters is lower than at any time since records began more than 100 years ago.
We're confused, not only about how climate change can cause heavy snowfall in one part of the world while limiting it elsewhere, but at the same time be blamed for deadly avalanches:
Figures for the 2006/07 season show that more than 50 people died in off-piste avalanches in French Alps alone - at least 20 more than average.
Climate change has been identified as one of the factors; warmer conditions cause snow to melt, making it more unstable and prone to sliding down the mountain.
Here in Colorado, the trend line for avalanche deaths is down over the last four reported years. If the global warming theory held, one would expect that the number of deaths last year would have declined steeply because of the high snowfall, and it did. The problem with trying to use deaths as an indicator of global warming is that more skiers are using safety equipment including avalanche beacons.
Colorado State University observes:
Of the approximate 2,000 avalanches reported to the Avalanche Center in an average winter, more than 80 percent occur during or just after large snowstorms."
Have you noticed that anything that happens in the world can be and is blamed on global warming?
Only $800 billion a year for six years. Chicken feed. That is what the alarmists are saying it will take to keep global warming down to 2 degrees Centigrade.
The philanthropy phools don't have that much money, but they think that by focusing their money on "pinch points" they can force us all to pony up.
From that granddaddy of all climate alarmist organizations, the William and Flora Hewitt foundation comes this advice for other foundations:
Focus Know the facts, know the strategies, and especially know the decision-making venue. The energy industry is large and is populated by enormous vested interests—and they are generally inclined to resist change. The scale of the energy business is also huge—some $4 trillion per year, worldwide. Philanthropy in the field therefore needs to have an intense focus, aimed at changing decisions in the pinch points in the system. Building codes, utility regulations, and auto fuel efficiency standards, for example, can affect hundreds of billions of dollars of capital investments, switching these capital flows from high-carbon to low-carbon alternatives. Design to Win Build the strength to win in the venue. Use whatever tools are necessary to get the job done. When a venue is selected, learn it well, and then select the best strategies to win. The list below hints at the range of options available and gives examples of where they can be used. But these are not random choices and are not equally likely to succeed in any situation. Venue knowledge can tell you which to use, when, and with what intensity. Economics arguments (State Public Utility Commission (PUC), RPS) Technical (building codes) Science (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32)) Legal (Pavley, PUC) Public opinion (RPS) Grasstops (AB 32) Grassroots (California Zero-Emission Vehicle Regulations) Stay the course Social change is never fast. Large-scale change requires funding the full cycle, from idea origination to selling to early adopters to mass rollout to serious implementation. Jumping in and out is unlikely to produce serious results. Join with others Very few foundations have the mass, patience, and expertise to transform decisions in any one venue. An organized strategy can use the strengths of colleagues to win.
This will be short as we have some real work we need to do.
Last night, we watched Independent Thinking. It was 30 minutes earlier than scheduled because KBDI was having problems with Colorado Inside Out and did a switch after about three minutes of blackout.
The most interesting item to come out of IT was a quote from Bill Clinton. We found it on the internet at an abc news site. So far as we know, even though this was said in Denver in January, it made none of the local papers:
I don't really think there's much debate that, at least initially, a full commitment to reduce greenhouse gases would slow down the economy….
A very liberal attorney, Andrew Oh-Willeke has an excellent blog posting on how both the judicial selection and the judicial performance system works. For those who want to cut their reading time down, skip the judicial selection system and go directly to judicial performance. Just because the guy is a liberal doesn't mean that he doesn't know what is going on.
For those who have missed it, Mark Udall has a new spokesman, Absurdicus. How quaint!
Absurdicus states flatly that there is no such thing as a lie in a campaign. Lies are not lies, it seems. They are merely campaign tactics that someone else won't like.
Other gems: Mark Udall was correct expect the Supreme Court to uphold the "reasonable" total District of Columbia ban on handguns.
A 2000 Ford Ranger is the bed for a SUV, so therefore it is a SUV. We didn't know that there was such a thing as a "compact" SUV:
2000 FORD RANGER
Ford Ranger, America's best-selling compact pickup truck since 1987, adds significant youth appeal for the 2000 model year and some new options that enhance its tough and athletic reputation.
Absurdicus is an in your face liberal who, when faced with an argument he finds that he cannot win, tries to shift it to new ground where he thinks he can win. When that doesn't work, he switches to pure name calling.
When told after speculating that I owned a SUV that I actually owned an underpowered Ford Ranger, he tried to claim that what I owned was the basis for a SUV and therefore, he was right. He documents nothing that he writes about, but demands that his opponent document everything or he won't accept it.
Added: Someone drug over comments that were on Oh-Willeke's blog. The funny thing is that I wrote one of them. I didn't say OW was perfect or above criticism in his analysis, I said it was excellent, and I stand by that.
We have had permission to reproduce this email report from both the author and the original recipient for about a week. Here it is. It needs no comment:
Preface
The following commentary is a summation of what I had heard at the Professional Engineers of Colorado's Symposium on Global Warming held on Feb. 22, 2008 in Denver Colorado. It is in answer to Paul Chesser's inquiry. Paul is the Director of Climate Strategies Watch headquartered in Raleigh, North Carolina.
Speakers at the symposium included:
Mr. Nate Dowden, Professional Engineer - RMG Engineers, Colorado Springs, Colorado
Ms Heidi Vangenderen, Sr. Advisor on Climate Change & Energy, Office of the Governor, Denver, Colorado
Dr. William Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado
Dr. Howard Hayden, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut
Mr. James Taylor, Senior Fellow for Environmental Policy, The Heartland Institute, Chicago, Illinois
The subsequent series of following e-mails was in response to State Representative Kevin Lundberg's statement in the Denver Post that Governor Ritter's climate plan was based on junk science and several subsequent letters to the editor, one of which was from James Taylor, Senior Fellow for Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute in Chicago , Illinois.
Paul,
Yep, I went and it was great. Dr. William Gray was one of the speakers and during the open question period, he said it was the best presentation of this kind he had ever attended and that it was an honor to meet his hero, James Taylor. In the "afterglow" conversations, James said that he was surprised by this statement because he was honored to have met Dr. Gray. Lots of platitudes.
Some years ago, I used to belong to the Professional Engineers of Colorado, but I quit. All they seemed to want to do was to sit around and be engineers and not be a leader in community issues. This was the absolute best program that PEC has ever presented. I heartily congratulated Nate Dowden, the organizer, for doing such a fine job.
Although the event was open to the public, I was disappointed that there were only about 40 attendees who were mostly engineers. I didn't notice any members of the press, although I had personally sent an e-mail to David Harsanyi, a reporter for the Denver Post, to encourage him to attend.
Heidi Van Genderen was a very able presenter. She has charm, wit and poise. Her presentation focused on Governor [ Bill ] Ritter's Energy Plan, and for the most part was received politely by an audience that was mostly filled with AGW skeptics. James' presentation focused on a line by line rebuttal of the Governor's plan, and unfortunately, Heidi was not in attendance at this point. James' presentation simply focused on verifiable facts quoted from recognized scientific journals, which I think is the best way to debate the AGW advocates. Heidi left after her presentation.
On the other hand, Dr.s Gray and Hayden stayed for the entire day in the true spirit of seeking scientific truth by listening to all sides of an issue. Dr. Gray offered a wager that in 5 to 10 years, we will see a cooling trend in the earth's climate and that there is current evidence that the cooling has already started. Dr. Gray expressed concern that the belief in anthropogenic global warming has become a religion. Dr. Gray has worked in the observational and theoretical aspects of tropical meteorological research for more than 40 years and is know for his annual forecasts on hurricanes. He commented that the rise in CO2 is related to shifts in ocean currents which is based on changes in salinity.
Dr. Gray put in a plug for Dr. Singer's book, "Unstoppable Global Warming". He said it is a very readable book that covers GW very well. Several weeks ago, I was about to buy it from Amazon. One of the reviews was rather negative, so I passed. Now, I think I'll go back and get it.
Nate Dowden had noted that there are 42 people in Colorado that had participated in the IPCC's report. He had contacted several of them to participate in this symposium, and they all declined to participate once they found out that there would be other participants who would be speaking to the AGW skeptic's point of view. Nate had emphasized to them that the forum would not be a debate, but that it would be an opportunity for them to relate their own role in how the IPCC came to their conclusions. Dr. Gray added that once the IPCC members find out that he, Dr. Gray, will be a part of a public discussion, they absolutely refuse to participate - they're afraid to debate.
Bill Schroeder, the lunch and keynote speaker, did an outstanding job of presenting the position that utilities are being put because of "green" legislation. Of course, the costs of generating electricity will go up, which means that consumer's utility bills will also go up. Mr. Schroeder is a former member of the Colorado State Legislature.
Dr. Hayden's presentation spoke to the issues surrounding solar and other renewable energy forms and offered a primer on CO2 and climate change. He specifically made the point that there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature rise. CO2 levels rose AFTER the temperature rose. When the temperature of the oceans rise, CO2 concentrations increase in a lagging fashion and when the ocean temperatures drop, CO2 concentrations decrease, also in a lagging fashion.
Dr. Hayden has written the following two books aimed towards a lay readership: "The Solar Fraud - Why Solar Energy Won't Run the World" and "A Primer on CO2 and Climate". Both books are available from Amazon.com. In his book on solar fraud, Dr. Hayden notes his connection to the energy industry, "...I once shoveled coal into gunnysacks for 5 cents per 100 pound sack. That was my dad's way of having me earn my own candy money. Nevertheless, the fifty cents I earned was all the money I ever received from the energy industry."
Several days before the symposium and after talking with Nate Dowden, I talked with Denver City Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz, about TV coverage by Channel 8, Denver's TV station. (Please note that TV coverage was her suggestion.) Since Nate had said that he wanted to avoid a debate, Councilwoman Faatz and I decided to pass on TV coverage. However, Councilwoman Faatz would be interested in organizing a debate in the future. However, given the reluctance of the IPCC members to engage in debate, this now doesn't seem to be a likely possibility.
Overall, this was an excellent event. Kudos to Nate Dowden and to all of the panelists.
In two more years, Nate will be the president of PEC. Under his leadership, I might consider re-joining the organization.
I'm very much looking forward to seeing what kind of media coverage comes out of the conference on climate change in New York next month. James said that there will be 100 speakers and that scientists are still applying to get a chance to speak at the conference. Wow.
Warmingly yours,
Dave B.
Those of you who live near Colorado Springs and have 16 year old kids looking for summer part time jobs might like to know about the Sky Sox Job fair. Heck, they might even take on retirees.
The Sky Sox have game day positions available in several different areas such as Batboys, The Fox Den Gift Shop, Concessions and Catering as well as Stadium Staff which ranges from Ushers to Ticket Takers to Customer Service staff.
We got a personal thank-you note from Greg Garcia for going in to help out after the caucuses. It was a nice touch, though unnecessary. We'd guess that this answers the question Greg put at the bottom of the note. When we signed in, we used our short signature because it is faster, and we were already behind. He'd asked for two hours and we only had 90 minutes to spare.
Have you started using the new florescent light bulbs yet? We put our second one (in the house) in on Wednesday and then had a friend send us a link as to how bad they are.
And although fluorescent bulbs are less expensive to use in the long run, some consumers are turned off by the cost: $3 to $10, compared with about 50 cents for regular bulbs. Meanwhile, retailers such as IKEA are setting up recycling programs in response to concerns about how to dispose of CFLs, which contain mercury and could pose a health hazard if they break and are not cleaned up properly.
Such drawbacks help explain why, even though one in five bulbs sold in the USA is now a compact fluorescent, a lower percentage of American homes — estimates run as low as 11% — have at least one of the bulbs.
You might as well get used to them. The do gooders in Congress have outlawed the Edison bulb after 2012. That will change though, after someone points out that they don't work well above 77 degrees or below 30 degrees which limits their usefulness outside.
Do follow the link. The USA Today article is well balanced, but it does play down the mercury problem. If you break one of these hummers, you run the risk that your home will become a small scale hazardous waste site. We predict that there will come a time when, in order to sell your home, you will have to pay for a mercury sweep and provide full disclosure just as you do for lead based paint. No one with small children or animals will want to buy your home if it is contiminated. If the problem is bad enough, and given enough time, some will be bad enough, you might see a neighbor's home condemned as uninhabitable and demolished by men in protective suits.
The next time you see Mr. unthinking environmentalist, Mark Udall, ask him if he voted for this. You might also ask him what the risk of mercury poisoning to a small child is if one of these light bulbs breaks and is not properly cleaned up.
Earlier this week we had a link to a site that was claiming that the Pentagon was claiming that climate change would make the climate of England like the climate of Siberia by 2020. Brrr Humbug!
Part of the scam of the change in name from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" is an effort to cover all short term climate bets. The socialists like Al Gore, Bill Ritter, and Mark Udall are pushing Climate Change as a mechanism to take over our lives and our fortunes.
Did you know that anyone who argues against Global Warming is no more intellectually honest than John C. Calhoun when he argued for slavery in the 1830's Congress? So sayeth Marc D Davison of the University of Amsterdam and a high ranking member of the Hate America First Society. Someone else opined:
Whilst at first this sounds like an unlikely theory, it starts to fall into place. Slaves were a massive resource with powerful men standing to lose a lot if slavery was abolished. Senators argued first that there was no problem, then that the costs of change would be too great, that the cause was not proven and that doing the right thing before others would be counter-productive. Later the same things were argued about climate change. Which just goes to show - the obstructive arguments have a long history.
Did you know that the "C" in John C. Calhoun stands for "Caldwell?" Neither did we! Who knows what other valuable information you will learn while tromping though this document.
And one of our favorite environmentalist extremist organizations, the Wilderness Society is up in arms over their fear that a proposed wind farm will threaten caribou. We admire their attitude about this global warming hoax:
Global warming is being used as a Trojan horse to justify all manner of high-impact energy projects, and Hackney Hills is a prime example," said Wayne Sawchuk, an award-winning Peace Valley conservationist and member of the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society board.
We didn't know that anyone in Canada had ever owned slaves or argued to keep them. How dare Mr. Sawchuk call Global Warming a Trojan Horse? Would someone send this on to Mark Udall and Bill Ritter?
Best of all was an email we received on an education event on global warming held in Denver on Friday, February 22, sponsored by the Professional Engineers of Colorado...
I was told by another observer that the Governor’s climate adviser, Heidi Van Genderen, required that her PowerPoint be deleted from the laptop that displayed the presentations when she was done. The alarmism advocates are paranoid, folks
We will have more on that email in the next day or so. We asked for and received permission to quote it. One of our big concerns is that we may be transmitting anti-global warming/pro slavery arguments and we don't want to be thought of as pro slavery.
We will think on it, which is more than most of these asylum escapees are willing to do.
