Posts Tagged ‘Climate Change’

July 20, 1933 – General Hugh S. “Iron Pants” Johnson, the head of the National Recovery Administration, declares the Blue Eagle to be the symbol of compliance with the National Industrial Recovery Act. The NRA was an agency created by Franklin D. Roosevelt as part of the New Deal, modeled on the War Industries Board of WWI, and was a part of the continuation of the war time economy, shifted to combat the Great Depression.

The Act instituted codes of “fair competition” for a multitude of industries, set minimum wages, maximum hours, and a pricing floor for almost all goods. This intrusion into the workings of the free market, even though the different elements were “voluntary,” were partly responsible for prolonging the depression, as well as highly unconstitutional. Housewives were urged, pressured, and embarrassed into purchasing products only from companies displaying the Blue Eagle symbol. Slogans of “doing your part” and “Buy now under the Blue Eagle” were rampant.

In a fireside chat, even Roosevelt spread the propaganda

In war, in the gloom of night attack, soldiers wear a bright badge on their shoulders to be sure their comrades do not fire on comrades, on that principle those who cooperate in this program must know each other at a glance.



Read Full Post »

The Obama Administration, through the EPA, is prepared to use the Clean Air Act to enforce mind-numbingly strict regulations upon all elements of our economy which depend upon the burning of carbon-based fuels (story link). While EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is quick to point out that regulations are not imminent, she did make it clear that they are ready to move if Congress fails to curb emissions.

Representative Ed Markey (D-MA), who heads the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee that will craft the legislation over the next few weeks is quoted as saying

It now changes the playing field with respect to legislation. It’s now no longer doing a bill or doing nothing. It is now a choice between regulation and legislation.

The regulatory barrage will be unleashed against six gases and compounds which are claimed to be responsible for “Global Climate Change”: Carbon Dioxide (CO2); Methane (CH4); Nitrous Oxide (N2O); Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC’s); Perfluorocarbons (PFC’s); and Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6).

I’d like to take you through each of these, and try to determine why the EPA is hell-bent on removing these emissions.

CO2 is a normal byproduct of any combustion and respiratory function, as well as a normal product of countless chemical reactions. It is a necessary gas for photosynthesis and therefore is required for plant life. It accounts for a very small percentage of our atmosphere, just a bit over 0.038%. Water vapor, by comparison, makes up around 1%.

To be considered as a contributing factor to Global Warming, it must retain heat, or infrared (IR) radiation. While all matter absorbs some heat, CO2 is particularly bad at it. Three very narrowly defined frequencies, in the upper IR band are all that is absorbed. The upper IR band is a lower energy section of what is called the overall radiation power curve. The higher the frequency, the lower the amount of “energy” is present. The frequencies absorbed by CO2, in their voyage from the Sun, are absorbed completely within the first few dozen meters of our atmosphere. They never have reached the ground. They never will reach the ground. Additional quantities of CO2 does not change this fact. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere becomes completely irrelevant to the discussion of atmospheric, or ground level temperatures. (more…)

Read Full Post »

Event Link

A veritable “who’s who” of climate scientists, who are “in the same camp with Holocaust Deniers,” are meeting this week in New York City. An expected crowd of 800 will be in attendance for the three day event, featuring no less than 73 conference speakers (most with Ph.D.’s), sponsored by the Heartland Institute. Details of the event are being posted on The Climate Scam blog.

Here is a snipit from the opening remarks by Joseph L. Blast

If the scientific community were convinced that we could reliably forecast future climates, or that the consequences of some warming would be catastrophic, then perhaps no price would be too high to pay to save the Earth. But that is not what the scientific community is telling us. According to the most recent international poll of climate scientists,

* Most climate scientists believe global warming “is a process already underway.”

* But that “consensus” drops to below 60 percent when climate scientists are asked if “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.”

* 65 percent of climate scientists do not believe “climate models can accurately predict climate conditions in the future.”

* 68 percent do not believe “the current state of scientific knowledge is able to provide reasonable predictions of climatic variability on time scales of ten years.”

* 73 percent do not believe it is possible to predict climate “on time scales of 100 years.”

* About 70 percent of climate scientists think “climate change might have some positive effects for some societies.”

* Finally, on the question that might matter the most, climate scientists are perfectly split over the question of whether they know enough about global warming to turn it over to policymakers to take action, with 44 percent saying we do and 46 percent saying we do not.

This extensive disagreement within the scientific community is not reflected in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Why is that? Maybe because, to quote Alexander Cockburn again, “the IPCC has the usual army of functionaries and grant farmers, and the merest sprinkling of actual scientists with the prime qualification of being climatologists or atmospheric physicists.”

Here is a small part of the remarks made by Richard Liznden, Ph.D.

Global warming alarm has always been a political movement, and opposing it has always been an up-hill battle.

In this talk I wish to point out some simple truths that are often forgotten by our side of this issue.

First, being skeptical about global warming does not, by itself, make one a good scientist; nor does endorsing global warming make one, per se, a poor scientist. Most of the atmospheric scientists who I respect do endorse global warming. The important point, however, is that the science that they do that I respect is not about global warming. Endorsing global warming just makes their lives easier.

For example, my colleague, Kerry Emanuel, received relatively little recognition until he suggested that hurricanes might become stronger in a warmer world (a position that I think he has since backed away from somewhat). He then was inundated with professional recognition.

Another colleague, Carl Wunsch, professionally calls into question virtually all alarmist claims concerning sea level, ocean temperature, and ocean modeling, but assiduously avoids association with skeptics; if nothing else, he has several major oceanographic programs to worry about. Moreover, his politics are clearly liberal.

Perhaps the most interesting example is Wally Broecker, whose work clearly shows that sudden climate change occurs without anthropogenic influence, and is a property of cold rather than warm climates. However, he staunchly beats the drums for alarm and is richly rewarded for doing so.

For a much larger group of scientists, the fact that they can make ambiguous or even meaningless statements that can be spun by alarmists, and that the alarming spin leads politicians to increase funding, provides little incentive to complain about the spin.


The process of coopting science on behalf of a political movement has had an extraordinarily corrupting influence on science — especially since the issue has been a major motivation for funding. Most funding for climate would not be there without this issue. And, it should be added, most science funded under the rubric of climate does not actually deal with climate, but rather with the alleged impact of arbitrarily assumed climate change.

Strangely, no news has been released by the MSM. I guess Al Gore was unavailable for comment.

Read Full Post »