The New Clarion

The New Clarion header image 2

Weekend Reading

August 7th, 2010 by Myrhaf · 7 Comments · Uncategorized

A new book, The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled The World’s Top Climate Scientists by Roy W. Spencer argues that global temperatures are determined by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation rather than man-made CO2.

Claude Sandroff sees this book putting the anthropogenic global warming idea in the grave — if people listen to Dr. Spencer, and with MSM serving as the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party, that’s a big if.

At the end of Spencer’s careful analysis, a simple picture emerges. The PDO is a long-lived ocean-to-atmosphere heat transfer process (similar to the better-known El Niño and La Niña) but of much longer duration. Cloud cover decreases significantly during the positive PDO phase, allowing more sunlight to reach the earth’s surface. In the ocean, this extra energy is stored as heat. In its negative phase, the PDO acts in reverse and cools the atmosphere. And all of this occurs in roughly thirty-year cycles. While this mechanism is operating, mankind is dumping a small, vanishing amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. Big deal.

It’s outrageous that buffoons like Al Gore have led this nation to the brink of Cap and Trade legislation that would devastate the economy in the name of a fantasy.

Pakistan is playing a double game with the US, taking its money and aiding the Taliban. We give $1.5 billion in foreign aid to Pakistan annually. Now, imagine you are President Musharraf. You know you can skim off 5% of this money, $75 million,  put it in a Swiss bank account, and no one will notice. Those who do notice, if they are so unwise as to speak out, you can have assassinated. What do you do? Do you put a little away for yourself or, because you are a noble idealist who wants to help the poor, do you pass it all on to your welfare state bureaucracy, which is so riddled with corruption that much of the money will never reach the poor?

American taxpayers, you suckers, you’re busting your ass from 9 to 5 so that dictators around the world can send their children on gambling vacations to Monaco.

Ever since Obama became a serious presidential candidate in 2008 I’ve written a series of blog posts trying to figure the guy out. He’s a strange bird, both leftist ideologue and Peter Keating-like second hander. He’s a politician beloved by many Americans, especially African-Americans, but he is also so distant and cool that one wonders if he is even paying attention to the daily crisis.

Mark McKinnon sees parallels between Obama and LBJ.

Christopher Hitchens talks about God as he is “battling” cancer. Most disappointing. I had always thought he was a hardcore atheist, but it turns out he’s a squishy agnostic. It looks like Hitchens and Martin Amis in this clip get hung up on epistemology. Since man is not omniscient, there’s a possibility that God exists. Once again, only Objectivists with their doctrine of the arbitrary get it right.

Paul Krugman gives up.

What causes the Great Stagnation? I’m no economist, but I would guess it has something to do with increasing size of government and increasing regulation, which decrease productivity. That and inflation end up keeping the little guy little. I’m certain it is not because the greedy rich refuse to spread the wealth around.

7 Comments so far ↓

  • Inspector

    Definitely have to second your take on Obama. He’s indisputably taught the kind of Marxism reserved for the hardest of the hard-core left, yet he’s appeared to put that aside at times. The best I can figure is that he is only *appearing* to do so for the cameras, or is so thoroughly a pragmatist second-hander that he will switch ideological lines like hats, if it means he can get what he wants.

    I don’t think either option is any less dangerous, despicable, or fundamentally anti-American.

  • Inspector

    And to clarify: by “what he wants,” above, I mean the goals of that very same hard-core Marxism.

  • Antacid

    In my studies in Civil and Environmental Engineering at Arizona State University, I ran across a professor who weighed in on the scientists and researchers who publish their work on environmental science in a book form rather than via a “respectable peer reviewed journal” (his words, not mine). He was adamant that anthropogenic global warming was real and that any researcher saying otherwise was probably a shill hired by the oil companies. He was a vulcanologist, which in his mind perfectly qualified him to weigh in on the validity of popular climate science dogma.

    Later, I took a course from a professor who actually had a PHD in Environmental Science (he was an internationally recognized award winning scientist at that, and he also had a J.D. in law). His opinion was that the IPCC is a misguided organization plagued by inbred thinking *at best*, and he hinted strongly that they seem to have more of a goal of hindering the productivity of the United States than anything else. He also pointed out that the “peers” referred to in peer reviewed journals are mostly part of an “old boys club” of like-minded scientists who review each others’ work and who sometimes team-up to defeat the research and reputation of anyone who attempts to publish research which disagrees with their own conclusions.

  • Antacid

    Sorry, I forgot to bring my former comment to a point. My point is that the majority of people who I have spoken with about this issue tend to be in the former camp rather than the latter. They have some pre-conceived notion that the “big oil” companies are trying to pull the proverbial wool over their eyes and that the global warming advocates are somehow this morally superior core of super-scientists who aren’t motivated by the “evils” of greed and profit.

    My guess is that this book will be largely disregarded by the majority of the media and people as another desperate attempt by “big oil” to sway popular opinion away from the “truth” to allow them to continue to reap “obscene” profits while simultaneously screwing up the environment for everyone else.

    This, of course, is just my opinion. I hope I’m wrong.

  • Steve D

    “Once again, only Objectivists with their doctrine of the arbitrary get it right.”

    There are two possible arguments which are correct. First is the fact described by the Objectivists that the concept of God is arbitrary. Therefore even the question of whether or not God exists is invalid. You are literally asking nothing.

    The second is that God as defined in modern times (omnipotent etc.) is by definition impossible. This is a correct argument but is restricted only to an omnipotent God (one that was almost omnipotent wouldn’t necessarily be covered)

  • madmax

    This is a correct argument but is restricted only to an omnipotent God (one that was almost omnipotent wouldn’t necessarily be covered)

    Many theists do just that. They redefine omnipotence. “Of course God can not square circles. God can’t do anything that violates his nature and his nature is logical.” or “Of course humans have free will despite God’s omnipotence. God’s omnipotence means that he has absolute knowledge of what has happened not of what has not happened. God doesn’t know your future, that would go against his nature.” On and on, etc..