Topic: The Environment
Anthropogenic Global Warming or an Ice Age, Which Is It? (PART 2/2)
Barack Obama just crowned socialist and environmental regulator Carol Browner as our Climate Change Czar. Propelled by her English degree, Browner is a vocal proponent of Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory. What if her pet theory is wrong?
by Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution
(libertarian)
Thursday, January 15, 2009
OK, just to bare some personal baggage first, in the not-so-distant past I once believed in anthropogenic global warming theory. After I watched Al Gore's 2006 "An Inconvenient Truth," I practically danced in fright around my dining room table wondering if my incandescent light bulbs were going to ruin the world. [Anthropogenic, by the way, is just a big science word that means man-made, and the theory in a nutshell holds that mankind is 1) creating large amounts of carbon dioxide and 2) this CO2 is and will significantly increase the earth's temperature, which has all types of ramifications for those, like me, who like to surf. The idea is that too much CO2 in the atmosphere serves to trap heat within the earth's atmosphere and significantly increases the global temperature.] (photos from NASA)
I earned a chemical engineering degree by passing a lot of math and science tests with the help of Caaaptaaaain Calculator!, and in my professional life I remain a very inquisitive engineer. This, of course, does not make me an expert on climate change, so at least Carol Browner and I share this much in common. However, quite surprisingly to even me, after my 2006 scare, I became decently well-read on the topic. I read/skimmed the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) report since I figured if American taxpayers are kind enough to pay UN about 30-40% of the cost, I might as well read it. [Well over $25 million USD see page 4/11 and 4/7 here, it's all paid via the IPCC's Trust Fund, which gets paid by our federal government.]
However, I find that the IPCC work, while comprehensive and a seemingly mountainous pile of evidence, is not very scientific. By this I mean that it appears to me that they started "with the end already in mind." While this practice is good if you are building a factory, free scientific inquiry forbids any misconceptions as any you hold will simply blind you to the truth. However, in the IPCC's case, their intent is not to build a factory,' it is to provide a "Summary to Policymakers" with the assumption that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is "incontrovertible" and "warming of the climate system is unequivocal." In fact, I have yet to see where they make an honest attempt to prove themselves wrong, which is what make the best scientists great.
_______________________________________________________________
ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING - Beach volleyball in Antarctica?
What is very dangerous is that the IPCC work is being used as a tool just like the infamous Stadler Research Institute of Atlas Shrugged fame. They manipulate data to "prove" a theory, and this is then used to A) economic suppression by stifling Third World economic growth (no burning coal for you, Africa - keep grubbing in the dirt for our diamonds - but it was fine when WE did it) and B) evolve new taxes for the governments of Industrialized Nations via brand new carbon tax and cap-and-trade schemes.
Now on the theory itself, I have four critical problems with the theory:
- Let's stick with the Policymakers report, although this error runs rampant through much of the IPCC's thermometer data. Look at page 6/18, graph (a) where the IPCC reports global air temperatures from 1850-2000. Note it is very sensitive to even tenths of a degree Celsius (0.1 C = 0.18 F). As an engineer, I must challenge what is called the "gage reproducibility and repeatability" which is just fancy-talk for questioning how much error is in the person reading of the level on the mercury thermometers, and the accuracy & precision of the thermometers themselves back in the 1800s, and even in the last century. Plus the infamous "urban heat island" effect which is somehow correctly canceled out to within several tenths of a degree Celsius a century later. This gage data, of course, does not exist, but this has not stopped the IPCC from making their conclusions.
- Second, remember to prove the man-made global warming theory, the IPCC must conclusively demonstrate man-made greenhouse emissions CAUSE the warming effect. They have made a good attempt in documenting the ascent of man's industrial revolution as a possible "cause," but their failing arises from failing make the tie-in to climate warming. In other words, just because you show me two charts and both are going up, one is not necessarily the cause of the second. Indeed, the greatest failing of IPCC scientists was failing to acknowledge the SUN as a possible cause and scrutinizing it carefully. Where is the data that says the Sun is not causing any heating or cooling?
- Third, I challenge the fact that carbon dioxide is a (taxable) pollutant and a significant "greenhouse gas." First of all, plants flourish in CO2-rich environments - modern greenhouses pump in CO2 to promote faster growth. Animals flourish off the oxygen created by these plants. As a matter of fact, from my certification classes as an Emergency Medical Technician and some really wicked engineering problems that even fazed Captain Calculator a little bit, air is 79% nitrogen and 21% oxygen when you breathe it in. When you exhale, it is 79% nitrogen, 16% oxygen, and ~5% carbon dioxide. Furthermore, some (wait for the below) even claim that increasing carbon dioxide levels have a reverse logarithmic effect on global warming. Simply put, the first couple hundred ppm have a large effect, but each succeeding 100 ppm contributes smaller and smaller warming effects.
- Fourth, the IPCC must conclusively demonstrate that the earth is warming. Now, most Americans have been bombarded the last 8 years or so with the information that the earth is heating up faster and faster, and Al Gore and the IPCC have both shown us their infamous "hockey stick" which demonstrates that we will be playing beach volleyball on the beach in Antarctica before 2100 AD arrives. However, in 2008 China had its coldest winter in recorded history, and I can personally report it is damn chilly in 2009 so far. Pravda and the Chicago Tribune recently published articles skeptically challenging the whether the globe is warming.
_______________________________________________________________
GLOBAL COOLING PROPONENT CONCLUDES ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL...
"But it's completely insignificant!" claims Australian David Archibald, whom Nolan Chart founder Walt Thiessen introduced here. Please note that Dr. Archibald has also derived some of his income as an expert in oil exploration as well as climate change, so we do need to restrain ourselves, for the same "starting with the end in mind" reason above.
In his quite contrarian 2008 paper "Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States," Archibald makes the case that actually the world is heading for a bout of global cooling that will diminish global agricultural output and possibly even herald the end of our current warm interglacial period.
I recommend reading his paper and perhaps watching his lecture linked below, but his case against the global warming group is pretty simple:
- The Sun has a much larger effect on the earth's climate, as can be seen from studying past ice ages and sunspot activity. This sunspot activity correlates very well with a period of cooler temperatures in our current interglacial period known as the Dalton Minimum.
- The sunspot cycle we are heading into indicates we are entering a time period when the earth will cool rapidly, similar to the 1970s.
- Man-made global warming via carbon dioxide is very real, but insignificant compared to the sun. (Archibald is my only source on the logarithmic effects outlined above, I would absolutely love to look at any evidence to the contrary. See page 22/30.)
Perhaps the most interesting takeaway I've had from reading Archibald and others is that global warming could conceivably be abated by mankind or a volcano, for instance the fairly recent Pinatubo eruption which dropped global temperatures by 1 F due to all of the volcanic dust ejected into the stratosphere. It is not impossible to imagine a very expensive fleet of planes ejecting a similar dust into the atmosphere if necessary.
However, global cooling? How does one heat the earth up? That is quite a bit tougher since we are talking about retaining enormous amounts of energy. Let's just say I bought a book on how to grow my own personal ring of insulating blubber around my waist and I think I would make a fantastic nuclear engineer. I am just being on the safe side, of course! :)
_______________________________________________________________
A Few Concluding Comments
Now, we could debate back and forth all day, and while that would be fun, my simple stance is I do not know which theory is correct, if either are. I would even like to see a third middle road to this debate perhaps call it "Dude, the Weather Changes, Just Get Used to It" - that looks at the data and makes a case to both of these fairly extreme sides that the weather is unlikely to significantly effect our lives in the next couple decades, barring catastrophes like tsunamis, volcanoes, and hurricanes. This side exists but is pretty much drowned out in the media since it is currently not "chic" to discuss this mundane view.
I hold that constraining Third World economies from using First World industrial advantages for fear of global warming theory should not be done.
I hold that all this talk about taxing carbon dioxide emissions (how about my breathing too?) and carbon cap-and-trade is all utter nonsense. Carol Browner's new post as Global Warming Czar is a complete waste of money; she will probably even manage to do a lot of harm.
I hold that giving the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize to Al "My-personal-mansion-has-a-carbon-footprint-larger-than-Rhode-Island-and-my-wife's-mansion's-is-bigger-than-Angola's" Gore and the IPCC was complete world government hogwashed propaganda. Actually if you consider the full ramifications of his views slashing living standards worldwide - especially while constraining China, India, etc.- a Nobel War Prize may have been more apt.
With that said, if you are in the global warming camp, you might be a little incredulous to know that I consider myself to be very environmentally-minded. However, not only do I refuse to leave an iota of trash in the wilderness when I go hiking, but, as a matter of fact, the two highest priorities I have within politics are Peace and the Environment. However, it is a little hard to worry much about the Environment without Peace; for instance, our armies starting a nuclear war with Pakistan has precedence over deforestation in California. Of course I am against, for instance, corporate pollution that damages, or has the future potential to damage, the private property or freedoms of another party, or even voluntary banning of certain uses for chemicals like CFCs which appear to have had an immediate and beneficial effect on shrinking holes in the ozone layer. In fact, one of the nice outcomes from the global warming movement is that many Americans are more environmentally-conscious than they were a decade ago.
[Actually obtaining a state of relative peace is more complicated than just stopping wars. Believe it or not, I hold that one must first have Honest Money, as I am explaining in my Money Matrix series.]
So what to do? Here is my suggestion:
Forward this article to and ask one of these rich "philanthropists" like the Gates Foundation, George Soros, Ted Turner, or any rich Hollywood actor or actress whom claim to give a damn about the environment to fund a "Climate Debate." Or just get enough star power from Hollywood and U2 to start a website and get enough people to donate. Fund the air travel, a conference room, hotel rooms and food for the debaters. Request the IPCC to send their top 10 Global Warming gurus. Ask Dr. Archibald to bring another 9 of his Global Cooling gurus, and see if there is a third school of thought out there. Set some debate rules like no yelling, let the other team finish their sentences, don't trip Dr. Archibald while he is returning to his seat, etc. Film the whole proceedings, say 2 weeks of debate, and share it worldwide and use the internet to gather all opinions and questions from observers. Then, have our valiant debaters take a break - my suggestion is to send the Cooling gurus to the Caribbean, send the Warming gurus to Siberia - and prepare to counter the best points from the other sides a month or so later. Maybe we could even have the TV and internet audience vote on which points should be addressed.
Bottom line is this would not be all THAT expensive, and would probably benefit mankind immensely.
As a matter of fact I would fund this myself if I had enough crappy paper dollars and connections with the IPCC (I think Dr. Archibald would be quite eager), I bet I'd find a way to profit from a TV contract, all the advertising and publicity. Unfortunately, all I've got are piles of gold and silver, and right now they are not worth anywhere near the amount necessary. Oh well, maybe next year :)
Freezing in Shanghai,
Jake, the Champion of the Constitution
Recommended Climate Change Source List
- IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, recommend the Summary for Policymakers
- IPCC Synthesis Report of the above report. (After you tour their site, you realize this group loves to reissue and reissue new reports with the same stuff)
- Adam Rink, Nolan Chart columnist from June 2008 "Global Warming Man Made or Natural Cycle?"
- Edward Townes, Nolan Chart columnist from December 2007 "Anthropogenic Global Warming is Nonsense" What a difference a year makes!
- David Archibald's website with all of his articles
- David Archibald Lecture, about 35 minutes Part (1) (2) (3) (4)
- Note: Of course there are plenty of debate sites out there already with criticism of both Archibald and the IPCC, have a blast!
Barack Obama Appoints Socialist Carol Browner as Global Warming Czar (PART 1/2)
Published: January 13, 2009
The veneer on the Barackcuda's real agenda has worn thin even before he takes office.
"There's no reason to be afraid!
You can't blame youself for the world's mistakes, now it's time to let it go!
Look out, look in and realize,
You always get so carried away!
There's times and things you can never change!
Don't get so carried away!"
- Shinedown, "Carried Away"
_______________________________________________________________
Other Recommended Articles by the Author
Israeli Conscientious Objectors - The Shministim (The Gaza Slaughter PART 1/6)
Published: January 1, 2009
This series is dedicated to your self-respect. Modern slavery still exists. Just look at Israel - prisons inside and outside Gaza. America, is this what you really want?
Silver - The Cure for AIDS
Published: December 29, 2008
To be fair, the United States Patent and Trademark Office makes this claim, not I.
The "Great Slump" of 2008 (PART 1/2)
Published: December 20, 2008
One of Lord John Maynard Keynes's essays "The Great Slump of 1930" is extremely relevant today as we look forward at the 2009 economy and future governmental antics. Let's take a look!
Bernanke's Great Lie - The "Gold Standard" and the Great Depression (PART 2/2)
Published: December 25, 2008
The claim that the "gold standard" caused or worsened the Great Depression debunked.
Rioting at the Gates of Thermopylae: The Ramparts of the FED & Central Banks Shudder
Published: December 14, 2008
M1 hits 37% growth!! "Most of the significant American banks, the larger banks, are bankrupt, totally bankrupt." - Jim Rogers, 12/11/2008
The Money Matrix - What the Heck Are Derivatives? (PART 10/15)
Published: December 9, 2008
This article seeks to define financial derivatives and why they are so important. Future and spot market basics are also examined so the Reader understands how the price of gold and silver is determined.
The End for the Dollar and all Fiat Currencies (1/5)
Published: December 6, 2008
Gold is now in backwardation. I submit to you, Reader, the US Dollar is now officially a DEAD MAN WALKING.
The Drones Did It!
Published: November 8, 2008
"The catch-all phrase - The War on Terror. In all honesty, has no more meaning than if you want to wage a War on criminal Gangsterism. Terrorism is a Tactic. You can't have a War against a Tactic. It's deliberately vague and nondefinable in order to justify and permit perpetual War anywhere and under any circumstances." - Dr. Ron Paul. Pakistan's Chaos Continues.
Police State Stomps on Iraq Veteran's Face as McBama Sanctions Attack on Freedom of Speech: The Story of the Hempstead 15 (Part 1/3)
Published: October 25, 2008
What? Yet another event the media completely missed? After multiple attempts to engage McBama to answer their questions, the Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) led a peaceful march on the last McCain-Obama Presidential Debate and were met with 30 mounted police and a horde of others in riot gear. The mounted police stamped on an Iraq war veteran's face and attacked the crowd. Ron Paul supporter and veteran Adam Kokesh was arrested as well.
MY PROPHECY - The Federal Reserve Will End! A Money Matrix Addendum
Published: October 29, 2008
Many of the Prophecies of Ferdinand Lips from 2005 are becoming true. "Right now [the FED] is creating the biggest housing bubble in history. This may lead to economic collapse. I expect that a revolution will one day take place against the Fed. It must be abolished. After all, its founders were not that intelligent but rather stupid men. Or they were devils. It is a tragedy. Not only that: It is the biggest tragedy in world history, even worse than wars. Yes, worse than wars. It made most people poor. It damaged America. It caused wars and then helped to finance them."
The Money Matrix - How the FED Works (PART 6/15)
Published: November 17, 2008
A step-by-step explanation of how the Federal Reserve, America's Central Bank, can manipulate monetary policy.
©2009 Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Thursday, January 15, 2009
Last modified: Thursday, January 15, 2009
The views expressed in this article are those of Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
| More Articles By Jake Towne, the Champion of the Constitution |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2009-01-15 11:30:04
Nice article!
One of my favorite things about some anthropogenic global warming spin doctors is that they love to make the most noise when the U.S. weather pattern is in an unusually warm period. When things "cool off" so has the rhetoric historically.
Lately, however, this isn't happening so much. Despite the huge band of sub-zero temperatures currently gripping the nation, Accuweather.com came out with an article which says that record high temperatures will be reached within the next two years, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. From the article, "It still seems likely that a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2 years, despite the moderate negative effect of the reduced solar irradiance." Looks like they're finally beginning to acknowledge the solar irradiance theory, at least to some degree. It will be interesting to see what happens in two years.
Posted By: David S
Date: 2009-01-15 11:49:32
Al Gore claims the debate is over and that no serious scientist refutes AGW. But that is absolutely not true. There are many scientists who refute the AGW theory. Over 700 scientists signed the Manhattan Declaration which says:
"We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,
Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;
Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;
Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;
Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering;
Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:
Hereby declare:
That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.
That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.
That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.
That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation, and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.
That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.
Now, therefore, we recommend –
That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth”.That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.
Agreed at New York, 4 March 2008."
Source: [link edited for length]
The lists of signatories is available at: [link edited for length]
Posted By: daddysteve
Date: 2009-01-15 15:33:54
Chemtrails anyone? I grew up in the jet age and this stuff isn't normal. Most websites seem a little over the top and not much help. Pure speculation but it could tie in with your topic.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-01-15 17:08:04
Hi Jake,
Good job coming around from the effects of cultural hysteria and propaganda. :-) The good news is once you see through the fog of misinformation, the fog ceases to exist at all.
I like to distinguish between a conservation-minded person and a preservation-minded person. The preservationists are the ones always running around making absurdly grand claims about the danger of things changing. Yes, there is danger in change; especially to those who are caught unaware.
I look at climate change the same way I look at social, political and economic change. It will happen. How can I be best prepared. People think nothing of adapting to seasonal changes from month to month but the thought of adapting to change that will take decades or even centuries to happen scares the bejesus out of them.
Yet despite this kind of pervasive irrationality, I still manage to have hope for the future of mankind. I must be one of the world's greatest optimists.
You would probably enjoy reading Stewart Pimm's work. I've only read "The World According to Pimm: a scientist audits the earth" but I've heard great things about his other books also. His book is not about climate change but about measuring the earth's biomass output. Enviro-economic-statistics-science geek that I am, I found it fascinating.
It makes sense to me to know what you're starting with before trying to manage resources.
My final comment is that I hold forth the proposition that Al Gore's hysteria will be self-evident to anyone who has read "How to Lie with Statistics". If you happen to find a copy in a public space, it may be one of mine. I've "lost" that book dozens of times.
-Jahfre Fire Eater
Posted By: Matt
Date: 2009-01-15 17:12:54
So to play on the phrase "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scondrel" can we then say that "the Green movement is the last refuge of Fabian socialists and dictators"?
Posted By: Dale Husband
Date: 2009-01-15 20:45:46
Oh, God, not this denialist crap again!
The actual scientific debate over ice age vs. global warming took place in the 1970s and was settled with the warming side winning. Why the hell are global warming denialists trying to restart that debate now before the general public? Because they can't stand that they lost the first time and they rely on public prejudices to claim there's some conspiracy to explain why they lost. It's the same as the Creationists, who lost the real scientific debate over evolution in the late 19th Century and then they attempted to restart the debate by taking advantage of religious prejudices several times in the 20th Century. And having a science degree doesn't stop you from being denialist, since some of the "scientific Creationists" also had Ph.Ds in science. But they did NOT operate scientifically at all.
The claim that we are trying to stop Third World economies from developing is an outright lie. What we are trying to do is stop them from REPEATING OUR MISTAKES. Fossil fuels will NOT last forever, and yet we are stuck using them because of the vast infrastructure that depends on them and dismantling that infrastructure will be very painful and time-consuming. It would be better for the Third World countries to go directly to solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectic sources and not bother with fossil fuels at all. If they do, then they will be in a better position to move forward. Meanwhile, we in the industrialized world will eventually crash if we continue as we always have.
Noting that there are natural causes to global warming is exactly what we should do, but that does not justify ignoring the man-made causes. In 1998, average global temperatures peaked because of an unsually strong El Nino. Then in 2005, temperatures peaked again, but this time there was no El Nino happening at that time. Temperatures then fell after 2005, because of a La Nina. El Nino and La Nina are natural events that would have occured anyway to influence WEATHER, but what we are concerned about is CLIMATE, which can only be determined over several decades. The fact remains that global temperatures in the 21st Century so far are still higher than back in the 1970s.
The idea that the man-made global warming hypothesis predicts that global temperatures must increase every year and evenly all over the world is a bogus strawman. Why are we experiencing an extremely cold winter now? Because of the terrible twins CO2 (carbon dioxide) and H2O (water vapor). A slight increase in CO2, caused by human emissions, traps slightly more heat in the atmosphere. This in turn causes more water to evaporate. Because H2O is also a greenhouse gas, it actually has an amplifying effect in the summer, resulting in the atmosphere becoming much warmer than you would expect from CO2 alone (which is why people making fun of CO2 as merely a "beneficial trace gas" is so damned idiotic). But in the winter, we have the opposite problem, because as the temperature drops, H2O forms clouds which block sunlight and this causes temperatures to plummet further. Indeed, here in Texas, my home state, we have had extreme fluctuations between warm and cold over the past couple of months that is perfectly consistent with what I know about the process of climate change. The feedback loops involved in both warming and cooling weather patterns are indeed amazing and not to be dismissed.
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2009-01-15 21:36:27
Dear Dale -
You wrote: "Oh, God, not this denialist crap again!" I guess its good that I haven't shared my thoughts on God and religion all that much; it's perhaps unfortunate I do not have a theology certificate :)
You have a valid point on the Third World. Of course, everyone is all for correcting past mistakes, or "technology leapfrogging" but the key question is HOW to do it, which would probably need another whole article. Obviously the pollution is horrible (I am not referring to CO2 here), contaminating their lands, seas, etc. However, if the industrialized world wants to play Big Bro here, perhaps its best done through NOT using FORCE to do so, pointing out that there is a cheaper, more efficient, less polluting technology option.
For instance, this nonviolent way will do a lot more than say, having the WOrld Bank/IMF withhold loans and punish the debtors until the Third World agrees to let their currencies float, agree to dubious environmental goals/contracts, etc.
Dear Matt -
I would say its just one of their last refuges. Their most important castle, so to speak, is the forbidden Money island with the 100 meter moat filled with boiling lava with the drawbridge pulled up, imprisoning gold, silver, and whatever else people decide they want to use for money.
However, forget this siege analogy, at the moment the Obama-Fabians are on the warpath and they appear sure of their success, whatever that entails.
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2009-01-16 03:26:25
FYI, an interesting comment from elsewhere:
"Life on earth is carbon based. We exhale it and plants inhale it. It's a vicious circle, and someone's got to regulate it.
war on carbon = war on life
carbon credits = life credits
carbon tax = life tax
Meanwhile, the same people who want to regulate and tax life pay no attention to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, the toxic pharmaceutical and chemical soup that is our water supply, or the fact that legalizing hemp could drastically reduce deforestation for the making of paper and eliminate most of the toxins necessary to grow cotton for clothes (and for printing fiat money on).
But maybe Ms. Browner will read this and get a clue, right...?"After reading that I decided to quick try and apply at change.gov to be the new Cooling-or-Heating-Who-the-Heck-Knows? Czar at change.gov, but I was too late by 24 hrs http://change.gov/jobs/apply_app/
Posted By: daddysteve
Date: 2009-01-16 15:26:16
No comment on the chemtrails? My tinfoil might be blocking your responses from getting through.
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2009-01-16 16:08:01
daddysteve -
Ok, I'll bite. What's a chemtrail?
Posted By: Dale Husband
Date: 2009-01-16 21:07:53
Ok, I'll bite. What's a chemtrail?
It's what some people think planes produce as they fly high in the atmosphere, delibrately leaving behind harmful chemicals as part of some experiment unrevealed to the public. WRONG! They are called contrails and they are NOT harmful, being composed only of standard engine exhaust, which may indeed have toxic fumes, but no more than a car engine might produce. Conspiracy theorists love to take a real issue and exaggerate it beyond all logical bounds.
Posted By: daddysteve
Date: 2009-01-19 17:02:49
No these are not normal contrails as they seem to be produced too low in the atmosphere. I've seen these produced below the clouds on more than one occasion. This stuff looks like sky-writing and is NOT normal condensation. As I said, I've grown up in the jet age and this "phenomenon" isn't what I witnessed all through my childhood. I don't have a clue what it is but, Jake, it aint right and people like Mr. Husband won't be any help.
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2009-01-19 20:05:16
Dear daddysteve -
I think you mean contrails like this right? Seems kinda weird to me as well.
Posted By: daddysteve
Date: 2009-01-20 13:54:25
I've witnessed one of these "contrails" come up to a cloud, slice a clear path with no trail or cloud where the plane went through and the chemtrail coming out the other side and continuing as "normal". It was very strange to see a cloud cut in half like that and I reiterate; this is NOT normal.
Posted By: tim
Date: 2009-06-29 10:35:15
Jake, welcome to the dark side!!!
Yes, anyone with any sort of scientific background who digs into this eventually comes up with some questions, so bravo for doing the legwork and asking the questions. Keep it up, not enough scientifically minded articles on here, especially AGW.