Wednesday, August 7, 2019

Fact Check: The Truth About Stopping Gun Violence


Democrats really like gun buybacks.  Joe Biden says he'll order a gun buyback on day one of his Presidency.  It would be mandatory, of course.  Democrats claim this will end the wave of mass shootings and inner city gun violence in America.

Except, that's not the root cause of the problem. 

We've always had guns.  In fact, people used to carry them around.  In Switzerland, nearly every household has an automatic assault weapon.  You see young people in Israel carrying UZIs  everywhere.  Canada has lots of guns too.  None of those countries has the gun violence problem we have.

What's the difference?

Of the 27 worst mass shooting incidents in America, 26 of them were committed by men raised without fathers.  The same goes for inner city gun violence.  America has a fatherlessness problem.  That's because America has a government dependency problem.  The more politicians promote government dependency, the more children grow up fatherless.   Those other countries do not have epidemic fatherlessness like us.

So what's the solution?

Rather than a gun buyback, how about a father buyback?  The government should end all government dependency programs and replace them with a one time father buyback program of equal value.  Pay families to reform.  Bam.  Epidemic solved.

Write your representatives and urge them to support the father buyback program.  Let's put fathers back in families and reduce gun violence for real.   

Tuesday, August 6, 2019

Fact Check: The Truth About Blame For Recent Mass Shootings


2020 Democrats lay blame on Trump’s rhetoric for shootings
AP Headline today

Democrat politicians, media personalities, and celebrities were quick to place blame on Donald Trump for the mass shootings this weekend that left 31 dead in El Paso and Dayton.  They called Trump a white nationalist, white supremacist, hater, bigot, racist, etc.  He has "blood on his hands" they said.  There was no ambiguity.  The shooters were taking direct orders from The White House, according to Democrats.

Except there's only one problem;  both shooters left trails that lead to different conclusions.

The Dayton shooter referred to himself as a LEFTIST.  He was an antifa guy, dressed as an antifa guy, and was an enthusiastic socialist supporter of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. 

The El Paso guy wrote a detailed manifesto in which he mentioned:   

Immigration 15 times
Environmental issues 16 times
Hispanics 10 times
Corporations 10 times

Wait.  He railed against corporations and the environment in equal measure to Hispanics and immigrants?

For much of his manifesto he sounded exactly like AOC, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Bernie Sanders.  And on illegal immigration, he mirrored Democrats alarmist language as much as Donald Trump's.  Every Democrat running today has used language like "crisis" and "flood" when referring to the illegals pouring across our border.  So have Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. 

But what turned the El Paso shooter into a killer was his despondency over the environment, corporations, and automation.  He singled out these concerns as the reasons he believed he had no future.  It's that kind of Nihilism that turns a political concern into a mass murder tragedy.  After all, in a twisted mind, if we are doomed anyway why not kill in order to wake people up to save civilization?  Where did he get these ideas?  Not from Donald Trump.

For those of you playing the blame game, here's the actual score: of the 22 dead in El Paso, 11 are charged to Democrats based on the very words of the shooter.  The 9 dead in Dayton are all charged to Democrats.  That makes the final score:  Democrats 20, and Republicans 11.   

The truth, though, is these two shootings can be blamed on two sick individuals.  The question we need to ask is why are we breeding insane people and allowing them access to weapons.  The second amendment IS compatible with preventing mass murderers from obtaining guns.

If you're wondering why we haven't fixed that yet, research who's blocking this NRA supported bill that would flag mental illness during background checks.  And if you're wondering why we have so many insane young single men, read this.  (Hint: they are almost all fatherless!) 
_________________________________________________________________________________


For further reading, here are some excerpts from the El Paso shooters manifesto:
My ideology has not changed for several years. My opinions on automation, immigration, and the rest predate Trump and his campaign for president. I('m) putting this here because some people will blame the President or certain presidential candidates for the attack. This is not the case. I know that the media will probably call me a white supremacist anyway and blame Trump’s rhetoric. The media is infamous for fake news. Their reaction to this attack will likely just confirm that. 

He specifically stated his ideas predated Trump.  No one screaming about blame read his own words.   
...The inconvenient truth is that our leaders, both Democrat AND Republican, have been failing us for decades. They are either complacent or involved in one of the biggest betrayals of the American public in our history. The takeover of the United States government by unchecked corporations... 

Both parties are to blame for the... corporate takeover.
...My whole life I have been preparing for a future that currently doesn’t exist. The job of my dreams will likely be automated. Hispanics will take control of the local and state government of my beloved Texas, changing policy to better suit their needs. They will turn Texas into an instrument of a political coup which will hasten the destruction of our country. The environment is getting worse by the year...
There is no future...and the environment is getting worse. 

...The American lifestyle affords our citizens an incredible quality of life. However, our lifestyle is destroying the environment of our country. The decimation of the environment is creating a massive burden for future generations. Corporations are heading the destruction of our environment by shamelessly over harvesting resources. This has been a problem for decades. For example, this phenomenon is brilliantly portrayed in the decades old classic “The Lorax”. Watersheds around the country, especially in agricultural areas, are being depleted. Fresh water is being polluted from farming and oil drilling operations. Consumer culture is creating thousands of tons of unnecessary plastic waste and electronic waste, and recycling to help slow this down is almost non-existent. Urban sprawl creates inefficient cities which unnecessarily destroys millions of acres of land. We even use god knows how many trees worth of paper towels just wipe water off our hands. Everything I have seen and heard in my short life has led me to believe that the average American isn’t willing to change their lifestyle, even if the changes only cause a slight inconvenience. The government is unwilling to tackle these issues beyond empty promises since they are owned by corporations. Corporations that also like immigration because more people means a bigger market for their products. I just want to say that I love the people of this country, but god damn most of y’all are just too stubborn to change your lifestyle. So the next logical step is to decrease the number of people in America using resources. If we can get rid of enough people, then our way of life can become more sustainable....
See, he was just striving to make America more "sustainable".  He railed against depleted resources, depleted watersheds, pollution, drilling, plastic and electronic waste, urban sprawl, disposable paper towels, etc.  This all sounds like standard issue environmental leftism.  Might as well blame "The Lorax" for these murders, since that is the only "entity" he cites by name! 

Sunday, August 4, 2019

Fact Check: The Truth About Mass Shootings [UPDATED]

Investigators search for answers after mass shootings in El Paso, Dayton
(Headline today)

Insanity is often defined as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.  That pretty much describes our approach to mass shootings.  How's it working so far?

Here’s a radical but eminently logical proposal to finally stop the kind of mass shootings that just happened twice in a day:  Vote Republican!

I know. I know. You think Republicans ARE the problem!  Heck, they’re the NRA party, right?  At least one of these murderers targeted illegal immigrants, and isn't the Republican party the one against open borders? How can Republicans possibly fix this?  Bear with me and I’ll explain...   

The first thing to know is that Democrats have had either total control, filibuster control, or veto proof control of the federal government for the last 110 years.  That's right.  Despite what you've heard, this has been a one party country for over a century.  The last time Republicans had the Presidency, the House, and a super majority in the Senate was in 1909... when Theodore Roosevelt was President! Democrats have had complete control or filibuster control for the entirety of that time.  For about 25 years they had complete or near complete control, and for the remaining 85 years they had filibuster or veto control.  The last time Democrats had absolute complete control was waaay, waaay, back during the ...Obama Administration! What did they do to stop mass shootings in 110 years?  Nothing. At least nothing effective.

A fair question would be, OK, what if Republicans could get the kind of control Democrats have had, what would they do differently?  Here's a hint, and then some specifics:

The Democrat voting coalition is made-up largely of groups who are on some level dependent on the federal government.  Among them are the poor, minorities, the sick, the oligarchs, union members, government employees, social liberals, and single parent families. These groups look to the Federal Government for protection and  money, and therefore Democrats accrue power by maximizing their numbers.  Democrats want you poor, vulnerable, dependent, and afraid;  they have NO interest in solving problems that would prevent this.     

The Republican voting coalition is largely made-up of individuals who seek independence from the federal government.  Among them are people of faith, much of the middle class, small and mid-sized business people, social conservatives, and nuclear families.  These groups look to the federal government for freedom and independence, and therefore Republicans accrue power by maximizing their numbers.  Republicans want you prosperous, secure, independent, and unafraid; they have EVERY interest in solving problems to promote this.           

Now, who do you suppose wants people to live in fear of someone getting into a school, or mall, or concert, and committing mass murder?  Could that be why Democrats did nothing when they had the power for 25 of the last 110 years?  Could that be why an NRA supported bill since 2007 that would prevent dangerous homicidal maniacs from obtaining guns has never been passed?  Could that be why every time there is legislation to screen these people, Democrats insert a poison pill to kill it?  Could that be why Democrats torpedoed their own "Fix NICS" bill just last year? (NICS is the database of gun purchases and background checks)  Could that be why Democrats have done nothing to find the SSRI, drug, gaming, and mental health connection between young people and mass shootings?  (SSRIs are the Prozac type drugs that treat mental illness and correlate with mass shootings)  And who do you think passed the laws that allowed Nikolas Cruz and so many others to escape the criminal justice system entirely?  Why do you suppose no one is ever held accountable for the failures when murderers are red-flagged, but not stopped?

But the biggest factor connecting all gun violence, black and white, is the breakdown of the family.  Of the 27 worst mass shootings in America, 26 of them were committed by men who grew up without fathers.  The same holds true for the weekly violence in the inner cities across America. Democrat policies since 1909 have grown the government ten fold, made people dependent, and shrunk the family accordingly.  The most effective buy-back program to stop this madness would be a buy-back program for fathers!    
      
Democrats, however, have one solution: gut the Bill of Rights.  But would that solve anything?  According to Democrats themselves, banning assault weapons for a decade did nothing.  They ended the ban themselves under Bill Clinton.  Mass shootings happen all the time in countries without gun rights.  Some countries just use bombs and vehicles for mass murder.  The problem is not the tool, but the conditions that breed mass murderers.  And we are breeding them.  There was a time in America when every household had a gun, every kid could shoot, dynamite was sold in stores, fathers were common, and mass murders were rare.

Democrats will never fix this problem because the incentives are for them to keep people afraid, vulnerable, and dependent.  Give Republicans the Presidency, the House, and over sixty votes in the Senate for the first time in 110 years and this problem gets fixed, along with many others.  Or, keep voting Democrat and watch more innocent people die.  Your choice. 

Thursday, August 1, 2019

Fact Check: The Truth About Special Counsel Robert Mueller



“It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”
Often attributed to Mark Twain who said similar things, but apparently not this exact quote.

If you asked anyone who consumed news over the last two years, they would all agree with metaphysical certainty on several key facts:

  1. There was a Special Counsel investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election
  2. The Special Counsel’s office was led by a man named Robert Mueller
  3. Robert Mueller was among the most competent, honest, and non-partisan men in America
  4. In Robert Mueller’s America you are innocent until proven guilty and no one is above the law
We knew these facts to be true because regardless what media we consumed, there was an overwhelming consensus. It didn’t matter if you got your news from NPR, CNN, Fox, NYT, WaPo, HuffPo, NYPo, NBC, ABC, WSJ…well you get the idea. Everyone agreed. There were no dissenters.

Except, none of it was true. Thanks to Mueller's testimony last week we learned the truth:

  1. “Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election” was the title of the final product, yet when asked directly several times about Russian interference in the 2016 election, Robert Mueller responded, “That's beyond my purview”. How could Russian interference be beyond his purview? In truth, Russian interference WAS beyond his purview when it reflected negatively on Democrats. The entire Special Counsel exercise was a hit job on Donald Trump and should have been titled accordingly.
  2. If there is one thing we learned from Robert Mueller’s testimony, he had almost nothing to do with the report with his name on it. He certainly didn’t lead the investigation and probably never read the report. As was painfully apparent, Robert Mueller knew almost nothing about “The Mueller Report”.
  3. Robert Mueller may have been competent, honest, and non-partisan at some point in his life, but that ship sailed long ago. How could a competent, honest, non-partisan person allow his name to be associated with a partisan hit job that he knew almost nothing about?
  4. According to the formerly competent, honest, and non-partisan Robert Mueller, innocent until proven guilty does not apply to Donald Trump. The laws protecting the accused are not for him. Far from above the law, Donald Trump is beneath the law. Above the law are all Democrat miscreants, including those who ran a coup d’etat against the President. One of them, Hillary Clinton, was actually accused of breaking several laws by a Democrat FBI, but in an unprecedented move they exonerated her.  So Republicans are beneath the law and Democrats are above it.  Republicans are guilty until proven innocent and Democrats are innocent despite proof of guilt. Got that?
If everything we knew with 100% certainty the last two years was wrong, what other propaganda has gotten through? What else is consensus BS? What else do we know for sure that just ain’t so? Here’re just a few I’ve covered on this blog:

Manmade Global Warming
The causes of The Great Recession
Donald Trump’s temperament
Barack Obama’s scandal free administration & here too
Socialism is awesome
The causes of the health care crisis
Common news myths
Progressive taxation is awesome
Our Two Party System

I’m sure you can name others.

Do you notice that all those busted myths serve to promote a certain agenda? Why is that? Who’s controlling what you think you know?

Question everything. Because the stuff you know that ain’t so is all designed to further a totalitarian agenda.

(I’ll explain in a subsequent post why the dichotomy in U.S. politics is NOT Dem vs Rep, or liberal vs conservative, or left vs right. It is actually totalitarian vs limitarian. You read that right; limitarian NOT libertarian. Again, I’ll flesh this out soon…)

Friday, May 31, 2019

Fact Check: The Truth About Recessions [UPDATED]

"ANOTHER BUSH, ANOTHER RECESSION" - That was the bumper sticker that appeared on my despondent friend's car right after the election of George W Bush.  Haha, I thought, that's not how recessions happen!

You see, I'd been to business school and was taught that there was something called "the business cycle" that determined when recessions happen.  The theory was that economies inevitably grow too fast, peak, and then shrink. It was just what happened, we were told.

Except that's not what happens.

It turns out The Federal Reserve (Fed) causes recessions.  At least every one in modern times. They decide if, when, and how a recession occurs. They can turn elections. They can drive markets.  In many ways the Federal Reserve is the most powerful government institution in the U.S.  They have more power over our day to day lives than any other branch of government.  And they are unelected.

Here's the proof:  There have been nine recessions since 1954.  Each one followed two specific Fed caused conditions:

  • A marked increase in the Federal Funds rate
  • A negative spread between the 10-Year Treasury Bond, and either the Federal Funds rate or the 1-Year Treasury.  Also known as an inverted yield curve.

There were no exceptions.  You would think that  in sixty five years at least one recession would be strictly tied to economic issues.  But not a single one occurred independent of those two deliberate Fed caused conditions.
 
Click on the graphs below to see them in greater detail.  Grey bars are recessions.  Or use these links to see the interactive originals:  10-Year Treasury minus Fed Funds  ,  Fed Funds Rate  (The first two recessions on these graphs had inversions in the 10-Year minus the 1-Year.)

10-Year Treasury minus Fed Funds (Yield Curve) 1954-2019

Fed Funds Rate 1954-2019

There were two times when those two conditions did not result in a recession and there were two cases when only one condition was present.
  1. 1966 had both an inverted yield curve and a Fed Funds hike, but no recession ensued.  1966 immediately followed the Kennedy/Johnson tax cuts which stimulated the economy enough to overcome the Fed caused weakness.
  2. 1995 had a flat yield curve and a rate increase, but again no recession followed. 1995 also came on the heels of anticipated tax cuts promised by the congressional election of 1994 and The Contract With America.    
  3. 1998 had an inverted yield curve, but no Fed Funds hike or recession.  1998 also followed the 1997 signing of the tax cuts first passed by the House in 1995. 
  4. 1984 had an increase in the Fed Funds rate, but no change in the yield curve.  1984 also followed the Reagan tax cuts of 1981, and preceded the promised tax cuts of 1986.
CAVEAT: The only times recessions did not occur there were recent or anticipated tax cuts.  Hopefully, 2020 will prove similarly resistant following the tax cuts of 2017.

Curiously, of those nine recessions, all but one coincided with Republican presidents.  None occurred while the GOP held both houses of congress.  All tax laws originate in congress.  All interest rate policy originates at the Fed.  Presidents originate neither.     





This is all worth noting now that the Fed has initiated both conditions following eight years of ~ 0% rates under Obama.  The tightening from .12% to the current 2.41% amounts to an increase of 1900%,  the largest ever in percentage terms.  And in May 2019 the yield curve predictably inverted.  (The graphs above only go to March, 2019 when the yield curve was still slightly positive. )

It looks like the next recession is scheduled to begin precisely as we head into the next election. It will likely begin sometime between February and September of 2020 based on past timelines.  (See CAVEAT above.)

Maybe my Al Gore supporting friend was right after all... though for all the wrong reasons!

[UPDATE 7/30/19]
The Fed is expected to cut rates at their next meeting a day from now,  but it will have no impact on the scheduled recession which is already baked into the economy.  The only thing the president can do at this point is pray his 2017 tax cuts and ongoing deregulations overcome the Fed caused weakness and avoid a recession. My money is on the Fed, only because they are experts at causing recessions, and they have way more power and experience than Trump in these matters.   


___________________________________________________________


Footnote 1:  Here's why these particular Fed actions cause recessions:  The essential raw material for economic vitality, aside from humans, is credit.  When the Fed raises its Fed Funds rate, banks and lenders pay more for their own credit which ripples through the economy raising borrowing costs.  If the increase is too fast and too much, the yield curve inverts which temporarily misaligns lenders and borrowers.  Lenders want to lend at the higher short rates and borrowers want to borrow at the lower long term rates. Credit slows, and a recession follows.


Footnote 2:  Of course the Fed does not operate in a vacuum.  They would argue they are acting on economic conditions.  Still, the timing and predictability of recessions following those two Fed actions cannot be denied.


Footnote 3:  The reason this analysis only goes back to 1954 is because that is the extent of available Fed data for the 10-Year minus Fed Funds.  The 10-Year minus 1-Year does not exist as a single graph but both can be plotted on the same graph by visiting the FRED site. 

Here's the result: 

 

Tuesday, April 2, 2019

Fact Check: The Truth About Global Warming



A Socratic Guide To The Burning Question Of Our Time


Intro I

There's an old Jewish joke that goes something like this:

No matter what Shlomo did in bed, his wife could never achieve an orgasm. 

Since by Jewish law a wife is entitled to sexual pleasure, they decide to
 consult their Rabbi.

 
The Rabbi listens to their story, strokes his beard, and makes the
 following suggestion: "Hire a strapping young man. While the two of you are
 making love, have the young man wave a towel over you. That will get God's attention and he will provide an orgasm."

They go home and follow the Rabbi's advice. They hire a handsome young man 
and he waves a towel over them as they make love. It does not help and the
 wife is still unsatisfied. Perplexed, they go back to the Rabbi.



"Okay,' he says to the husband, "Try it reversed. Have the young man make 
love to your wife and you wave the towel over them."

Once again, they follow the Rabbi's advice. They go home and hire the same 
strapping young man.



The young man gets into bed with the wife and the husband waves the towel.
 The young man gets to work with great enthusiasm and soon she has an
 enormous, room-shaking, ear-splitting, screaming orgasm.



The husband smiles, looks at the young man and says to him triumphantly,
 "See that, you schmuck? THAT'S how you wave a towel!"
_________________________________________________________________________________

Intro II

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

Michael Crichton, author of "Jurassic Park", "Andromeda Strain", "Westworld", and numerous other works of fiction and non-fiction. Crichton also held a medical degree from Harvard.
_________________________________________________________________________________

A Brief History of the Theory of Global Warming (aka Climate Change)


It all began back in the late 1700s when some rock stars - no, not that kind of rock star, geologists actually - were traipsing around Europe and noticed that some of the boulders in the valleys matched the rocks on distant peaks.  The only plausible explanation for how those boulders traveled so far was that they must have been carried by ice.  This idea was fleshed-out a few decades later by a scientist studying skeletons and frozen remains of large mammals in Siberia.  Thus was born the idea of The  Great Ice Age.  But that opened up a whole new can-o-worms; if ice once covered the Earth, what melted the ice?

In 1824, around the same time these ideas were percolating, a scientist named Joseph Fourier figured out that Earth would be much colder without its atmosphere.  Air was trapping heat from the sun and keeping us warm, he said.  Fourier had discovered the greenhouse effect.

Building on Fourier's work, other scientists found that about 70% of the greenhouse effect was due to water vapor, 20% was due to carbon dioxide (CO2), and the final 10% was due to methane, ozone, and other gasses.  A theory developed that maybe changes in the atmosphere had ended The Great Ice Age.

Water vapor was dismissed as a cause because excess water condenses and falls-out as precipitation.  CO2, methane, and ozone do not cycle as quickly, so the theory of melting ice focused primarily on CO2, which while only .04% of the atmosphere, accounts for 20% of the warming effect.

Two things were going on at the same time as all this.  One was the industrial revolution and the burning of coal in newly invented steam engines.  The other was the observation that the existing glaciers were continuing to melt!   Could they be related and tied back to changes in CO2?

Along came a Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius, who in 1898 calculated the hypothetical climate change that would result if atmospheric CO2 was cut in half.  He calculated that the Earth would be glaciated...as it was during The Great Ice Age!  He also calculated that if CO2 doubled, we'd have melting ice and ...global warming!  So, the "modern" CO2 theory of global warming dates back to the calculations Arrhenius did 120 years ago in an attempt to explain the onset and demise of The Great Ice Age.   

Meanwhile, we've been burning progressively more carbon fuels like coal, oil, and gas in the last 120 years.  Finally, in 1960, an American scientist named David Keeling began measuring CO2 levels at an observatory in Hawaii.  What he discovered was that CO2 was trending up at an alarming rate!  

So with Keeling showing CO2 skyrocketing, Arrhenius' saying we are going to fry if CO2 rises, and glaciers continuing to melt, that eventually leads to Al Gore, Kyoto, Paris, The UN IPCC, and a scientific "consensus" saying global warming is an "existential threat". (Meaning, the end is nigh!)

In 2009, the U.S. government under Barack Obama officially declared that CO2 emissions endangered life on Earth.  Whole generations now believe we are doomed.  Some have even stopped having children thinking there is no future.   

All from a gas that humans exhale, that plants inhale, that makes up only .04% of our atmosphere, and that formed the basis of a theory developed in the 1800s to try and explain the The Great Ice Age!

_________________________________________________________________________________

Pop Quiz:
So, what really ended The Great Ice Age?
A. CO2
B. Mr. Milankovitch
Since this whole CO2 inquiry began as an attempt to explain The Great Ice Age, one of the first questions to ask is, was the premise right?  Have we learned anything new since Fourier, Arrhenius, Keeling, et al?  Do we now know what caused and ended The Great Ice Age?

You are probably certain it was CO2.  After all, you've been told for years that CO2  drives climate.  Since the 1800s and Arrhenius we've believed that changes in CO2 can have dramatic effects.  We still believe CO2 is melting glaciers today.  It's "settled science" after all.

Except, that's not what happened.  It turns out, Mr. Milankovitch did it.  (Yup, our climate has been hacked by the Russians! Actually, he was Serbian, just sounds Russian.)  Milutin Milankovitch was a scientist who figured out in the 1920s that the Earth has a cyclical relationship to the sun.  It tilts. It wobbles. It's orbit changes.  Some cycles take 100,000 years to complete.  Some take 41,000 years.  Some take 23,000 years.  The effect of all this is rather dramatic... ta da... climate change!

MILANKOVITCH CYCLES


Of course, Milankovitch was instantly dismissed as a kook.  Even today as I'm typing this, his name is unrecognized by the spell-check gremlins in my computer.  Fourier, Arrhenius, and Keeling, however, are spell-check VIPs.

Until 1998, Milankovitch got no respect.  But then a funny thing happened down in Antarctica.  Scientists drilled an ice core at a place called Vostok (more Russians!) that gave them a 420,000 year climate history, and voila, there were major ice ages and warmings every 100,000 years.  There were also shorter cycles in between.  Milankovitch could no longer be dismissed, except of course by spell-check.

           


Then in 2000 another Antarctic ice core was obtained at Dome C that goes back 800,000 years.  Again it confirmed Milankovitch.  The Great Ice Age now had a plausible explanation.  The Earth's relationship to the sun caused major climate change - global coolings and global warmings - going back as far as we can see.

Dome C Temperature Estimates


If major climate change happens at least every 100,000 years, as Milankovitch theorized, and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, then there have been 45,000 of those alone.  The Great Ice Age was just the latest in a countless series of coolings and warmings!

Another name that should get mentioned at this point is Eddy, as in John A. Eddy.   Eddy was one of the most recent astronomers to study the cyclical output of the sun.  He published a groundbreaking study in 1976 and named the most recent solar minimums and maximums.   While Milankovitch cycles play out over tens of thousands of years, solar cycles can be as short as 11 years.  They are also closely correlated with...ta da...climate change!

Here are some of the solar minimums and maximums from recent Earth history that resulted in major global warmings and mini-ice ages:



You can see why glaciers are melting today by looking at the right side of the solar activity graph. We are also near a peak in the Milankovitch cycle.  Something would be horribly wrong if glaciers were NOT melting today!

So between Milankovitch's orbital cycles and Eddy's solar cycles, these are the bases for ice ages and their demise.  These are the bases for perpetual climate change.  In addition, one-time events like volcanoes and asteroids can also produce dramatic and sudden climate swings.

So, CO2 did not cause either The Great Ice Age or any of the many tens of thousands of cyclical coolings and warmings that preceded it.  It's the fluctuating sun and our wonky orbit that cause climate change.

(A newer ice core at Allan Hills, Antarctica claims to go back over 1.2 million years, and it also confirms Milankovitch.)
_________________________________________________________________________________

Pop quiz:
Still, within the Milankovitch and Eddy cycles, we know that:
A. CO2 drives climate change 
B. Climate drives CO2 change
Just because Arrhenius et al were wrong about The Great Ice Age doesn't mean they are also wrong about what will happen if we add massive amounts of CO2 to our atmosphere.  According to the CO2 theory of global warming, as CO2 increases, so will temperatures.
    That's why you are probably certain that CO2 still drives climate change.  A consensus of scientists, academics, politicians, and celebrities have been telling you for years that higher CO2 concentrations will cause the Earth to get hotter.  As we burn more and more fossil fuels, that releases more CO2 into the air.  CO2 is a greenhouse gas, ergo the Earth gets hotter.  It's simple.

    Except, that's not what happens.  Along with temperature records going back 800,000 years, we also got CO2 records for the same time span.

    Here's the CO2 and temperature record from the Dome C ice core: 

    Dome C Temperature and CO2 for 800,000 Years (Red = CO2, Blue = Temps)




    At first glance temperature and CO2 appear to be closely correlated.  One might even conclude that Arrhenius was right and that CO2 caused the ice ages.      

    But when zooming in on this graph, something interesting is revealed; CO2 trails temperature by 1200 years, + or - 700 years!  

    Climate Change (blue) precedes CO2 Change by 1200, + or - 700 Years


    CO2 and the other atmospheric gasses behave somewhat like water vapor, except over a longer timeframe.  We know that hotter air can retain water vapor in greater concentrations than colder air.  There is also a water cycle that is constantly moving water from vapor, to precipitation, to ground, to sea, and then back to vapor.  CO2 has a similar cycle, just not as quick. 

    A number of datasets from ice and sediment cores confirm this finding.  The hotter it gets on Earth, the more CO2 can be found in the atmosphere.  Contrary to what you've been told, CO2 does not drive climate.  Climate drives CO2!  The alleged cause is actually an effect.
             
    _________________________________________________________________________________

    Pop Quiz:
    Still, pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is a new thing, and that's what makes this an existential threat!
    A. True
    B. False 
    As everyone since Keeling knows, CO2 levels are in-fact rising.  And who can forget Al Gore on the scissor lift in his movie showing CO2 going literally off the chart?  And as everyone knows since Arrhenius, more CO2 makes Earth hotter, right?

    Except, that's not what's happening.  Yes, we are in a warm period due to both Milankovitch and Eddy, and accordingly, CO2 is rising.  That's to be expected.  But the question remains: is this time different because we are burning fossil fuels?  Can CO2 work both ways?  Can it both be driven by temperature and also drive temperatures up?

    If greenhouse gasses both increase as temperatures go up, and then cause even more warming, why is the greenhouse effect not a runaway reaction? According to Arrhenius and modern global warming theory, the greenhouse effect should create a feedback loop.  Why isn't that visible in the ice core data? 

    The answer has to do with the light spectrum and each gasses' role in trapping radiation in the troposphere.  

       

    At the affected upgoing wavelengths, which are the ones involved in global warming, CO2 is already absorbing 100% of the radiation it is capable of absorbing.  Adding more CO2 into the atmosphere can not trap more than 100% of the affected radiation!  This is why the greenhouse effect is not a runaway reaction or a feedback loop.  It's a self-limiting reaction.

    In the 1800s, when Arrhenius was doing his calculations, the instruments for measuring the light spectrum this accurately did not exist. (Then again, neither did antibiotics, airplanes, Model T Fords, transistors...)

    Additionally, as CO2 increases, the CO2 cycle speeds up.  Here's an example of how the biosphere absorbs CO2 at faster rates:



    So, adding more CO2 into the atmosphere will not effect climate, and any CO2 increases will just grow the biosphere.  
    _________________________________________________________________________________

    Pop Quiz:
    Still, there is a scientific consensus that says CO2 is uniquely warming our planet, and no one can prove otherwise.     
    A.  True
    B.  False

    Anyone who's taken a middle school science class knows the value of a control group.  Luckily, scientists have the ability to track temperature and CO2 on some of the other bodies around Earth.  Venus, Mars, and the Moon are particularly close to us and have yielded some interesting data.  If global warming theory is right, temperatures on those bodies should be un-correlated to Earth temps because they are free from the effects of industrialization!

    Except, that's not what's happening.  In an odd coincidence both Mars and the Moon are warming!  (Of course, it's still man's fault!)  Milankovitch is particularly relevant to the Moon, because as goes the Earth, so goes the Moon.  Eddy is particularly relevant to Mars, because as goes the Sun, so goes Mars.

    But there's more.

    In our solar system, only Venus, Earth, and Mars have CO2 in their atmospheres.  In another amazing coincidence, the concentrations of CO2 closely match their relative distances from the sun, which in turn determines their temperatures.  Venus, closest to the sun and very hot, has about 2400 times the CO2 concentration Earth has.  Mars, furthest from the sun and cold, has about 24 hundredths as much CO2 as Earth.  Curious, no?  So, it appears climate drives CO2 even on the other planets!

    _________________________________________________________________________________

    Pop Quiz:
    Still, we know that global warming is true because all the predictions have been right!
    A. True
    B. False
    Real science can accurately predict the future.  If a cannon ball with a known mass, is fired from a cannon with a known amount of force, at a known trajectory, etc., science can predict exactly where it will land.  That's how science works.

    If global warming science is real and quantifiable, scientists would be able to similarly predict the future of climate.

    Except that's not what has happened.  In fact, every single dire prediction has been proven wrong.  100% wrong.  Here's a brief summary of what the experts have predicted:

    • Global famine by the year 2000 - Dr. Paul Ehrlich, Nobel Prize recipient, Professor 
    • Entire nations wiped out by 1999 - Noel Brown, U.N. Environmental Director
    • Ice caps will melt away and oceans will rise causing massive flooding by 2014 - Al Gore, VPOTUS, global warming evangelist
    • End of snow in England by 2015 - Dr. David Viner,  climate scientist at The University of East Anglia
    • Increased tornadoes and hurricanes - James Hanson, professor of climate at Columbia University & the high priest of global warming, and The U.N. IPCC
    • New Ice Age in Europe - Dr. Paul Ehrlich
    • Sub-Saharan Africa drying up - U.N. and World Bank
    • Massive flooding in China and India - Asian Development Bank and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research
    • Polar Bear extinction - National Geographic, The New York Times, Guardian, among many.
    • Drastic Temperature Increases - James Hanson
    • The Earth will be in a “True Planetary Emergency” by 2016 unless greenhouse gasses are reduced - Al Gore
      None of those predictions came true.  Not one.  And that is just a tiny sampling.   

      And here are some of the bad predictions from just this past year!
      _________________________________________________________________________________

      Pop Quiz:
      Still, we are under an existential threat because the Earth is progressively getting:
      A: Hotter 
      B: Colder 
      You are probably certain that the Earth is getting hotter.  The name global warming itself describes the danger.  You are probably familiar with the apocryphal "hockey stick" graph featured in "An Inconvenient Truth":



      Except, that's not what's happening in the long run:
        




      The Earth is actually getting cooler! 

      Five million years is not much when you consider the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.  That would take 900 - five million year graphs!  So, here's another graph estimating 65 million years of global climate change, still only a fraction of Earth's life.  Again, it clearly shows Earth is cooling.  

          
      The existential threat is that we will eventually freeze, not bake!

      _________________________________________________________________________________

      Pop quiz:
      Still, in the 200,000 year history of mankind:
      A. It has never been this hot
      B. It's been much hotter before 

      No doubt you are sure it's never been this hot.  It says so on the "hockey stick" graph.  And just consider the melting glaciers!

      Yet, we know that 1100 years ago, when the Vikings first went to Iceland, there were no glaciers there.  Today, glaciers cover much of Iceland.  Similarly, Vikings settled on Greenland around the same time and successfully farmed there for 500 years.  But they abandoned Greenland in the mid 15th century, presumably because it got too cold.  Those two events are known as the Medieval Warm Period and The Little Ice Age. Curiously, you won't find either of those events on Al Gore's graph.

      Here's a graph that shows 10,000 years of climate change from ice cores on Greenland:





      And here's a map of glacial retreat in Glacier Bay, Alaska going back 2 1/2 centuries.  As you can see, glaciers have been in retreat since long before your SUV!





      We have enough data to know that this warm period is nothing new.   It's been hotter than this many times before, even in man's brief 200,000 year history.

      _________________________________________________________________________________

      You are still free to believe in the CO2 theory of global warming.  Heck, you are free to believe in anything you want, including Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy!  But any serious person who looks into global warming must reflect long and hard before blindly waving a towel for the consensus.   

      Sunday, March 24, 2019

      Fact Check: The Truth About The Mueller Report



      Mueller has spoken.  No Collusion.  No Obstruction.  Democrats are crestfallen.  Republicans are ebullient.

      But, do they both have it backwards?

      Remember what former Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D, NV) said after being confronted for lying about Mitt Romney not paying taxes.  When asked if he had any remorse, he said, "We won the election, didn't we?"

      Look, anyone with half a brain knew there was no basis for a special counsel on Russian collusion. But Mueller had important Democrat work to do:

      • Trump was thrown off-balance and put under a cloud for his entire Presidency
      • It slowed his progress and hurt his agenda
      • Democrats retook the House
      • Trump's legislative agenda died when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker
      • Blocking immigration reform ensures 4 years of massive illegal influx into border states
      • When Texas flips, no Republican, even Abraham Lincoln, can ever be elected President again 
      • Throwing Paul Manafort into solitary confinement sent a strong signal to anyone entertaining the idea of working for the Trump 2020 campaign
      • By torturing Manafort, they were able to flip Michael Cohen
      • Cohen is now working with the SDNY, which now has the baton
      • It's too late for a full investigation into the attempted coup d'etat before 2020
      • Big investigations take a minimum of 2 years and the election is only 19 months away
      • Meanwhile, election season is in full-swing, so anything Trump does will be dismissed as political

      Democrats and their media accomplices will pay no price for attempting a coup d'etat and perpetrating a massive fraud on the American people.  It's all upside for them, just as it was for Harry Reid. 

      Friday, March 22, 2019

      Fact Check: The Truth About Global Warming


      Intro I

      There's an old Jewish joke that goes something like this:

      No matter what Shlomo did in bed, his wife could never achieve an orgasm. 
      
Since by Jewish law a wife is entitled to sexual pleasure, they decide to
 consult their Rabbi.

 
      The Rabbi listens to their story, strokes his beard, and makes the
 following suggestion: "Hire a strapping young man. While the two of you are
 making love, have the young man wave a towel over you. That will get God's attention and he will provide an orgasm."

      They go home and follow the Rabbi's advice. They hire a handsome young man 
and he waves a towel over them as they make love. It does not help and the
 wife is still unsatisfied. Perplexed, they go back to the Rabbi.



      "Okay,' he says to the husband, "Try it reversed. Have the young man make 
love to your wife and you wave the towel over them."

      Once again, they follow the Rabbi's advice. They go home and hire the same 
strapping young man.



      The young man gets into bed with the wife and the husband waves the towel.
 The young man gets to work with great enthusiasm and soon she has an
 enormous, room-shaking, ear-splitting, screaming orgasm.



      The husband smiles, looks at the young man and says to him triumphantly,
 "See that, you schmuck? THAT'S how you wave a towel!"
      _________________________________________________________________________________

      Intro II

      Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

      In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

      Michael Crichton, author of "Jurassic Park", "Andromeda Strain", "Westworld", and numerous other works of fiction and non-fiction. Crichton also held a medical degree from Harvard.
      _________________________________________________________________________________

      A Brief History of the Theory of Global Warming (aka Climate Change)


      It all began back in the late 1700s when some rock stars - no, not that kind of rock star, geologists actually - were traipsing around Europe and noticed that some of the boulders in the valleys matched the rocks on distant peaks.  The only plausible explanation for how those boulders traveled so far was that they must have been carried by ice.  This idea was fleshed-out a few decades later by a scientist studying skeletons and frozen remains of large mammals in Siberia.  Thus was born the idea of The  Great Ice Age.  But that opened up a whole new can-o-worms; if ice once covered the Earth, what melted the ice?

      In 1824, around the same time these ideas were percolating, a scientist named Joseph Fourier figured out that Earth would be much colder without its atmosphere.  Air was trapping heat from the sun and keeping us warm, he said.  Fourier had discovered the greenhouse effect. 

      Building on Fourier's work, other scientists found that about 70% of the greenhouse effect was due to water vapor, 20% was due to carbon dioxide (CO2), and the final 10% was due to methane, ozone, and other gasses.  A theory developed that maybe changes in the atmosphere had ended The Great Ice Age.

      Water vapor was dismissed as a cause because excess water condenses and falls-out as precipitation.  CO2, methane, and ozone do not cycle as quickly, so the theory of melting ice focused primarily on CO2, which while only .04% of the atmosphere, accounts for 20% of the warming effect.

      Two things were going on at the same time as all this.  One was the industrial revolution and the burning of coal in newly invented steam engines.  The other was the observation that the existing glaciers were continuing to melt!   Could they be related and tied back to changes in CO2?

      Along came a Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius, who in 1898 calculated the hypothetical climate change that would result if atmospheric CO2 was cut in half.  He calculated that the Earth would be glaciated...as it was during The Great Ice Age!  He also calculated that if CO2 doubled, we'd have melting ice and ...global warming!  So, the "modern" CO2 theory of global warming dates back to the calculations Arrhenius did 120 years ago in an attempt to explain the onset and demise of The Great Ice Age.   

      Meanwhile, we've been burning progressively more carbon fuels like coal, oil, and gas in the last 120 years.  Finally, in 1960, an American scientist named David Keeling began measuring CO2 levels at an observatory in Hawaii.  What he discovered was that CO2 was trending up at an alarming rate!  

      So with Keeling showing CO2 skyrocketing, Arrhenius' saying we are going to fry if CO2 rises, and glaciers continuing to melt, that eventually leads to Al Gore, Kyoto, Paris, The UN IPCC, and a scientific "consensus" saying global warming is an "existential threat". (Meaning, the end is nigh!)

      In 2009, the U.S. government under Barack Obama officially declared that CO2 emissions endangered life on Earth.  Whole generations now believe we are doomed.  Some have even stopped having children thinking there is no future.   

      All from a gas that humans exhale, that plants inhale, that makes up only .04% of our atmosphere, and that formed the basis of a theory developed in the 1800s to try and explain the The Great Ice Age!

      _________________________________________________________________________________

      Pop Quiz:
      So, what really ended The Great Ice Age?
      A. CO2
      B. Mr. Milankovitch
      Since this whole CO2 inquiry began as an attempt to explain The Great Ice Age, one of the first questions to ask is, was the premise right?  Have we learned anything new since Fourier, Arrhenius, Keeling, et al?  Do we now know what caused and ended The Great Ice Age?

      You are probably certain it was CO2.  After all, you've been told for years that CO2  drives climate.  Since the 1800s and Arrhenius we've believed that changes in CO2 can have dramatic effects.  We still believe CO2 is melting glaciers today.  It's "settled science" after all.

      Except, that's not what happened.  It turns out, Mr. Milankovitch did it.  (Yup, our climate has been hacked by the Russians! Actually, he was a Serbian, just sounds Russian.)  Milutin Milankovitch was a scientist who figured out in the 1920s that the Earth has a cyclical relationship to the sun.  It tilts. It wobbles. It's orbit changes.  Some cycles take 100,000 years to complete.  Some take 41,000 years.  Some take 23,000 years.  The effect of all this is rather dramatic... ta da... climate change!

      MILANKOVITCH CYCLES


      Of course, Milankovitch was instantly dismissed as a kook.  Even today as I'm typing this, his name is unrecognized by the spell-check gremlins in my computer.  Fourier, Arrhenius, and Keeling, however, are spell-check VIPs.

      Until 1998, Milankovitch got no respect.  But then a funny thing happened down in Antarctica.  Scientists drilled an ice core at a place called Vostok (more Russians!) that gave them a 420,000 year climate history, and voila, there were major ice ages and warmings every 100,000 years.  There were also shorter cycles in between.  Milankovitch could no longer be dismissed, except of course by spell-check.

                 


      Then in 2000 another Antarctic ice core was obtained at Dome C that goes back 800,000 years.  Again it confirmed Milankovitch.  The Great Ice Age now had a plausible explanation.  The Earth's relationship to the sun caused major climate change - global coolings and global warmings - going back as far as we can see.

      If major climate change happens every 100,000 years, as Milankovitch theorized, and the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, then there have been 45,000 of those alone.  The Great Ice Age was just the latest in a countless series of coolings and warmings!

      Dome C Temperature Estimates



      Another name that should get mentioned at this point is Eddy, as in John A. Eddy.   Eddy was one of the most recent astronomers to study the cyclical output of the sun.  He published a groundbreaking study in 1976 and named the most recent solar minimums and maximums.   While Milankovitch cycles play out over tens of thousands of years, solar cycles can be as short as 11 years.  They are also closely correlated with...ta da...climate change!

      Here are some of the solar minimums and maximums from recent Earth history that resulted in major global warmings and mini-ice ages:



      You can see why glaciers are melting today by looking at the right side of the solar activity graph. We are also near a peak in the Milankovitch cycle.  Something would be horribly wrong if glaciers were NOT melting today!

      So between Milankovitch's orbital cycles and Eddy's solar cycles, these are the bases for ice ages and their demise.  These are the bases for perpetual climate change.  In addition, one-time events like volcanoes and asteroids can also produce sudden swings.

      So, CO2 did not cause either The Great Ice Age or any of the many tens of thousands of cyclical coolings and warmings that preceded it.  It's the fluctuating sun and our wonky orbit that cause climate change. 

      (A newer ice core at Allan Hills, Antarctica claims to go back over 1.2 million years, and it also confirms Milankovitch.) 
      _________________________________________________________________________________

      Pop quiz:
      Still, within the Milankovitch and Eddy cycles, we know that:
      A. CO2 drives climate change 
      B. Climate drives CO2 change
      Just because Arrhenius et al were wrong about The Great Ice Age doesn't mean they are also wrong about what will happen if we add massive amounts of CO2 to our atmosphere.  According to the CO2 theory of global warming, as CO2 increases, so will temperatures.
        That's why you are probably certain that CO2 still drives climate change.  A consensus of scientists, academics, politicians, and celebrities have been telling you for years that higher CO2 concentrations will cause the Earth to get hotter.  As we burn more and more fossil fuels, that releases more CO2 into the air.  CO2 is a greenhouse gas, ergo the Earth gets hotter.  It's simple.

        Except, that's not what happens.  Along with temperature records going back 800,000 years, we also got CO2 records for the same time span!

        Here's the CO2 and temperature record from the Dome C ice core: 

        Dome C Temperature and CO2 for 800,000 Years (Red = CO2, Blue = Temps)




        At first glance temperature and CO2 appear to be closely correlated.  One might even conclude that Arrhenius was right and that CO2 caused the ice ages.      

        But when zooming in on this graph, something interesting is revealed; CO2 trails temperature by 1200 years, + or - 700 years!  

        Climate Change (blue) precedes CO2 Change by 1200, + or - 700 Years


        CO2 and the other atmospheric gasses behave somewhat like water vapor, except over a longer timeframe.  We know that hotter air can retain water vapor in greater concentrations than colder air.  There is also a water cycle that is constantly moving water from vapor, to precipitation, to ground and sea, and then back to vapor.  CO2 has a similar cycle, just not as quick. 

        A number of datasets from ice and sediment cores confirm this finding.  The hotter it gets on Earth, the more CO2 can be found in the atmosphere.  Contrary to what you've been told, CO2 does not drive climate.  Climate drives CO2!  The alleged cause is actually an effect.
                 
        _________________________________________________________________________________

        Pop Quiz:
        Still, pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is a new thing, and that's what makes this an existential threat!
        A. True
        B. False 
        As everyone since Keeling knows, CO2 levels are in-fact rising.  And who can forget Al Gore on the scissor lift in his movie showing CO2 going literally off the chart?  And as everyone knows since Arrhenius, more CO2 makes Earth hotter, right?

        Except, that's not what's happening.  Yes, we are in a warm period due to both Milankovitch and Eddy, and accordingly, CO2 is rising.  That's to be expected.  But the question remains: is this time different because we are burning fossil fuels?  Can CO2 work both ways?  Can it both be driven by temperature and also drive temperatures up?

        If greenhouse gasses both increase as temperatures go up, and then cause even more warming, why is the greenhouse effect not a runaway reaction? According to Arrhenius and modern global warming theory, the greenhouse effect should create a feedback loop.  Why isn't that visible in the ice core data?   

        The answer has to do with the light spectrum and each gasses' role in trapping radiation in the troposphere.  

           

        At the affected upgoing wavelengths, which are the ones involved in global warming, CO2 is already absorbing 100% of the radiation it is capable of absorbing.  Adding more CO2 into the atmosphere can not trap more than 100% of the affected radiation!  This is why the greenhouse effect is not a runaway reaction or a feedback loop.  It's a self-limiting reaction.

        In the 1800s, when Arrhenius was doing his calculations, the instruments for measuring the light spectrum this accurately did not exist. (Then again, neither did antibiotics, airplanes, Model T Fords, transistors...)

        Additionally, as CO2 increases, the CO2 cycle speeds up.  Here's an example of how the biosphere absorbs CO2 at faster rates:



        So, adding more CO2 into the atmosphere will not effect climate, and any CO2 increases will just grow the biosphere.  
        _________________________________________________________________________________

        Pop Quiz:
        Still, there is a scientific consensus that says CO2 is uniquely warming our planet, and no one can prove otherwise.     
        A.  True
        B.  False

        Anyone who's taken a middle school science class knows the value of a control group.  Luckily, scientists have the ability to track temperature and CO2 on some of the other bodies around Earth.  Venus, Mars, and the Moon are particularly close to us and have yielded some interesting data.  If global warming theory is right, temperatures on those bodies should be un-correlated to Earth temps because they are free from the effects of industrialization!

        Except, that's not what's happening.  In an odd coincidence both Mars and the Moon are warming!  (Of course, it's still man's fault!)  Milankovitch is particularly relevant to the Moon, because as goes the Earth, so goes the Moon.  Eddy is particularly relevant to Mars, because as goes the Sun, so goes Mars.

        But there's more.

        In our solar system, only Venus, Earth, and Mars have CO2 in their atmospheres.  In another amazing coincidence, the concentrations of CO2 closely match their relative distances from the sun, which in turn determines their temperatures.  Venus, closest to the sun and very hot, has about 2400 times the CO2 concentration Earth has.  Mars, furthest from the sun and cold, has about 24 hundredths as much CO2 as Earth.  Curious, no?  So, it appears climate drives CO2 even on the other planets!

        _________________________________________________________________________________

        Pop Quiz:
        Still, we know that global warming is true because all the predictions have been right!
        A. True
        B. False
        Real science can accurately predict the future.  If a cannon ball with a known mass, is fired from a cannon with a known amount of force, at a known trajectory, etc., science can predict exactly where it will land.  That's how science works.

        If global warming science is real and quantifiable, scientists would be able to similarly predict the future of climate.

        Except that's not what has happened.  In fact, every single dire prediction has been proven wrong.  100% wrong.  Here's a brief summary of what the experts have predicted:

        • Global famine by the year 2000
        • Entire nations wiped out by 1999
        • Ice caps will melt away and oceans will rise causing massive flooding by 2014
        • End of snow in England by 2015 
        • Increased tornadoes and hurricanes
        • New Ice Age in Europe
        • South Sahara drying up
        • Massive flooding in China and India  
        • Polar Bear extinction
        • Drastic Temperature Increases
        • The Earth would be in a “True Planetary Emergency” by 2016 unless greenhouse gasses reduced
        None of those predictions came true.  Not one.  

        And here are some of the bad predictions from just this past year!
        _________________________________________________________________________________

        Pop Quiz:
        Still, we are under an existential threat because the Earth is progressively getting:
        A: Hotter 
        B: Colder 
        You are probably certain that the Earth is getting hotter.  The name global warming itself describes the danger.  You are probably familiar with the apocryphal "hockey stick" graph featured in "An Inconvenient Truth":



        Except, that's not what's happening in the long run:
          




        The Earth is actually getting cooler! 

        Five million years is not much when you consider the Earth is 4.5 billion years old.  That would take 900 - five million year graphs!  So, here's another graph estimating 65 million years of global climate change, still only a fraction of Earth's life.  Again, it clearly shows Earth is cooling.  

            
        The existential threat is that we will eventually freeze, not bake!

        _________________________________________________________________________________

        Pop quiz:
        Still, in the 200,000 year history of mankind:
        A. It has never been this hot
        B. It's been much hotter before 

        No doubt you are sure it's never been this hot.  It says so on the "hockey stick" graph.  And just consider the melting glaciers!

        Yet, we know that 1100 years ago, when the Vikings first went to Iceland, there were no glaciers there.  Today, glaciers cover much of Iceland.  Similarly, Vikings settled on Greenland around the same time and successfully farmed there for 500 years.  But they abandoned Greenland in the mid 15th century, presumably because it got too cold.  Those two events are known as the Medieval Warm Period and The Little Ice Age. Curiously, you won't find either of those events on Al Gore's graph.

        Here's a graph that shows 10,000 years of climate change from ice cores on Greenland: 





        And here's a map of glacial retreat in Glacier Bay, Alaska going back 3 1/2 centuries.  As you can see, glaciers have been in retreat since long before the industrial revolution!





        We have enough data to know that this warm period is nothing new.   It's been hotter than this many times before, even in man's brief 200,000 year history. 

        _________________________________________________________________________________

        You are still free to believe in the CO2 theory of global warming.  Heck, you are free to believe in anything you want, including Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy!  But any serious person who looks into global warming must reflect long and hard before blindly waving a towel for the consensus.