Al Gore and his favorite topic...Clim...I mean Capitalism

Al Gore was silent for days after the Hadley e-mails pointing to global warming the scam were leaked out. Fearful that his gig was up, Gore carefully crafted his next message as the fallout from Hadley began. He waited until Thanksgiving to give it a play. Interestingly enough, as Al Gore speaks up for the first time in days, he says nothing about global warming or climate change--nope, it's about responsible long-term capitalism.


Gore with David Blood ask, "Why do investors and business leaders continue to focus on the short-term and ignore the fact that businesses that think long-term end up more competitive and profitable?"


While immediately there are not obvious themes of global climate change in the essay, we know Gore's long-term plans have been to profit from the long-term scare tactics of climate change which are now public record in the Hadley e-mails. His essay is really a what is at stake for Al Gore, who has spent the better part of a decade frauding the world to fulfil his long-term goals of carbon domination similar to the very same practices liberals attack the oil for, even though Gore has made plenty of investments in big oil in his time--remember Occidental? Read More at BBCW

Global Warming Hoax and how unscience begets unscience

Hit Tip to Green Hell Blog for the Video


Earlier this week hackers broke into the computers at the Hadley CRU, one of the four institutes feeding data to the UN's IPCC.  The information that was released as a result is playing out its own little doomsday scenario on AGW science's credibility.  A UK Telegraph writer has a great breakdown of some of the more juicy details found in the hacked information, here.  However, while you watch the global warming hoax unravel, make sure to be mindful of how unscience begets more unscience.

What am I talking about?  Long before these emails were released, estimates from AGW scientists simply did not make sense.  Let me give you an example from one of my earlier posts:

The holy Grail of AGW reports, the IPCC, was estimating average global temperatures over the next 100 years, using data from the last 100 years.  Of those temperatures, any rational person would maybe grant that the last 40 years of temperatures were accurate (that's when they started using satellites to measure temperature).  If I were making an economic model with as many points in my forecast as were in my data set, I would be laughed at.  Read more here.

Such problems were annoying, but easily side stepped by the AGW crowd by justifying their unscience with more unscience.  Anyone raising these concerns were shrugged off or labeled crazy.  How scientific of them.  Thus, over the years as criticism mounted over the AGW unscience, AGW scientists were spared the rigorousness of being scientific in exchange for a bully pulpit, a microphone and a chance to play world politics.  

Problems such as the fact that the earth has been much cooler and much hotter regardless of human activity were no obstacles to the unscience of AGW.  Ian Plimer, an Australian scientist and AGW skeptic has often pointed out that in the history of the entire planet, we are in a cool period.  Today, even the most ardent AGW scientist would not disagree that the planet has been cooling for the last 4 years (many others say 10 years).  They shrug.  "Temperatures are not constantly going up, they go up and down, but trend up," the AGW crowd says without a single explanation for the temperature drop.  Does no one see the problem with declaring the issue of rising temperatures settled science even as they have no clue what is causing the receding of temperatures? A problem with a model is a problem that needs an answer according to the scientific method.  Instead, what we got was Al Gore marketing, PR and polar bears.

Instead of dealing with the unscience of their science, they chose more uscience.  Now that the house of cards is falling, don't expect them to fall back to any body of science they've been perfecting for vindication.  That is what I would do if I were using science and not unscience to promote my theory.  I'd show the world my books, my data, and let rational thought prevail.  That is not what will happen here.  It's back to the bully pulpit and unscience for these fakers.  Instead, we are about to experience a rapid expansion of even more unscience.  There will be blame games.  There will be denials.  There will be name calling, cover ups and finger pointing and none of it will have anything to do with science.  As it all unfolds, don't get caught up in the idea that real science is about to parade triumphantly down the street.  What you are about to see is the explosion of unscience.  

Evidence that the Unscience is Exploding

Newsbusters on MSM's blackout of the scandal

More recently exposed unscience

Absorption of CO2 has increased, not deteriorating and deforestation's impact embellished.

Has anyone noticed that the Party of “No” is accomplishing more than the Obama?

The media and Democrats might want to stop labeling the Republican Party as the “Party of No.” One the surface, the label “Party of No” seems like good political strategy. It is a creative attempt to define and brand the opposition party negatively as the party opposed to all progressive ideas of hope and change. So what’s the problem with a little strategic branding? The problem is that saying “No” to Obama policies as a platform is starting to prove successful in producing tangible benefits for Americans.

Here are just a few successes we’ve seen by simply saying “No” to the Obama agenda:

The Republican Party strongly opposed Obama’s Cap and Tax legislation in July and is currently working to hold the bill up in the Senate. Democrats contend that by holding up the bill, Republicans are harming the world’s efforts to abate global warming. However, a newly released report by NOAA regarding October’s temperatures is telling us a different story. According to the report, October 2009 was the third coldest month on record. The average temperatures in October were 4 degrees Fahrenheit below average for the last century. Of course global warming scientists cannot reasonably explain the shocking drop, but one thing is evident, not passing Cap and Tax into law seems to be having a powerful effect on lowering average temperatures at a dramatic rate.

Republican opposition held up health care legislation in August. Despite claims from Democrats that the Republicans are intentionally killing off the sick as a result of their opposition, Obama touted a dramatic decrease in the number of uninsured from 47 million to 30 million. The drop occurred in less than of month after just saying “No” was congressional drumbeat. Saying no proved cheaper for Americans and dramatically effective.

Let’s also take a look at Obama’s stimulus. Sadly in this case, the “Yes” votes prevailed in February. However, if you look at Obama’s projections below, you will see that following the call of “No” would have put us at 9% unemployment. A dramatic improvement over the 10.2% unemployment we currently have under the stimulus. Only a fool would overlook the obvious wisdom of the “No” strategy.



All kidding aside, (I love writing about paradoxes) it is unfortunate that most liberal media and politicians push the idea that something is better than nothing. The truth is that there are good ideas and bad ideas. We can actually come out of legislation worse then when we came in. Many of Obama’s policies fall under the category of bad ideas. Nearly all of the current administrations big agenda items are crafted and rooted in accomplishing political goals as opposed to solving problems.

For example via The American Spectator:

Liberal John Cassidy explains of the progressive agenda:

"[W]e will be dealing with its consequences for decades to come, and I think it’s important to be clear about what the reform amounts to," Cassidy wrote. He goes on to confess that, "The future cost savings that the Administration and its congressional allies are promising to deliver are based on wishful thinking and sleight of hand. Over time, the reform, as proposed, would almost certainly add substantially to the budget deficit, thereby worsening the long-term fiscal crisis that the country faces."

After explaining many of the accounting tricks the Democrats have used to obtain a passing grade from the Congressional Budget Office, which I have detailed on numerous occasions, Cassidy concludes:

So what does it all add up to? The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment to help provide health coverage for the vast majority of its citizens. I support this commitment, and I think the federal government’s spending priorities should be altered to make it happen. But let’s not pretend that it isn’t a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won’t.

The reason “No” has been so successful to date is that the “Yes” solutions aren’t intended to address any particular problem. It's easy to say "No" to solutions that don't fix problems. The health care bill will cut the spiraling costs of health care, the answer is no so just say "No." Cap and trade will reduce global temperatures, the answer is no so just say "No." The stimulus is jolting the economy back to life, the answer is no so just say "No" more spending. When the leaders in congress and the White House are not bringing viable options to the table, the productive response is "No."

Let's fight global warming; now you stop breathing first

I have not been blogging much lately, which has opened the door for other activities. Other activities include, graduate work, remodeling my house and talking about global warming with my more “greener” friends. Oddly enough, in talking with them I was able to put my finger on something that seemed awkward, but I could not put into words until last weekend. It is the fact that fighting global warming is not a unified movement, because it does not equal green and does not equal environmentally friendly.

Let me explain and set up what the “fighting” global warming side of the issue should be:

Allegedly, our planet is turning into a ball of fire because CO2 is increasing. CO2 is the result of people breathing and power plants creating energy. CO2 is also innocuous aside from setting the world on fire. As a result of CO2 increasing the average temperature of the planet will increase about 4-12 degrees Celsius over the next 90 years. The result of which will lead to famine, wars and the senseless deaths of thousands of polar bears. In essence, we will bring about the end of the world.

Here is where the greenies get goofy:

Global warming sounds pretty serious right? Like, we should probably do everything in our power to stop it? Who better to advocate fighting global warming than those that believe global warming is a serious problem, right? Not so fast! I made an error in my assumptions. Since global warming is this big, huge, and an evil malice to all mankind, I assumed that those that believe in global warming would do whatever it takes to stop it. The answer to that is a…BIG…FAT…, NO!

The truth is that global warming is only a gossamer of a problem when trying to convince the unconvinced that they need to stop hurting the planet. However, when it comes to installing renewable technologies that say, chop up endangered bats, then all of the sudden the bat is more important than CO2. Another example would be solar panels that ruin iguana’s habitat and…poof…suddenly famine and wars can be averted for the lazy lizard’s sake. If CO2 is on the verge of nuking the entire world, should we really be concerned about the minimal nuclear waste caused by nuclear power plants? I’m being told from my green friends that a small amount of nuclear waste is a more pressing concern than polar bears trapped on floating icebergs 

Do you see what doesn’t add up? The argument that is being put forth by global warming fighters is that fighting global warming equals saving the planet and failure to address global warming equals you being an ignorant Meany. Yet, those that are out preaching green don’t actually accept that global warming is a serious issue, otherwise we would be doing everything possible to stop CO2. Instead, my green friends feed me half-save-the-world-from-CO2 ideas left and right. For instance, “stop eating beef because cow raising is increasing global warming or buy LEDs, which will reduce my personal energy consumption by a tiny 2% (home consumption only, not including transportation) and stop talking about nuclear energy, which would go a long way in solving the CO2 problem (It causes frogs to grow 3 arms). Please, don’t talk about liquefying CO2 and placing it into old coal mines, either. It too is bad for the environment.”

I must admit, it is funny watching the responses from the global warming fighters when you point out the futility of half-saving a world from destruction. It is as if their noble efforts will in some way be rewarded by the empty void of their extinction. Oh, how the hens, lizards and frogs will sing your praise for restraining the growth of new energies.

What’s the reason for this inconsistency (which by the way has long been the reason that I have remained a skeptic)? Why is it that those that want me to fight global warming are willing to only half-stop CO2 when I suggest that we throw the kitchen sink at such a serious problem? The answer is that fighting global warming has nothing to do with fighting CO2. What? Isn’t CO2 causing global warming? CO2 is nothing more than a monster in the closet. No, global warming fighters don’t really take their cause of CO2 seriously when stacked against all the other named evils of man like bringing about the extinction of other animals or going to war with other nations. Once these evils are suggested it is as if the average temperature of the earth stopped ticking up.

So here is my offer to the global warming fighters. I will start taking the fight against global warming seriously when you do.

Here is how we do that. Let’s agree that any energy plan without nuclear energy is a waste of time. Let’s agree that implementing renewable energies is more important than iguanas and hens. Let’s agree to go to war with India, China and any other nation in the world that does not agree to a new Kyoto protocol that is even more restrictive than the current one and is actually restrictive enough to stop global warming (serious global warming fighters know that Kyoto in it’s current form isn’t sufficient to stop global warming). Let’s wipe them off the map if we need to (In fact, I hope they do refuse, the loss of life would be an added bonus to fighting global warming). Let’s agree to do whatever else it takes regardless of other marginal environmental impacts, like say, liquefying CO2 and filling empty coal mines with it. All of this is what will likely be needed to actually stop global warming and if you aren’t going to take it seriously and commit, then why should I. I don’t acknowledge half-saving the world as useful, noble, or intelligent. You might as well be holding your breath.

CO2 vs Solar Activity: A Summary

I wanted to follow up on my previous post on the global warming debate regarding CO2 and solar activity. Since my post was fairly long I've shortened it down to a few points. Also, Andrew33 of KOOK's Manifesto and an excellent source of global warming knowledge provided several enlightening comments that I wanted to add to the post.

I strongly believe that global warming models based on solar activity will prevail over the man-made CO2 models, because it only takes a little common sense to prove a strong cause-effect relationship. If the sun were to extinguish tomorrow, what would the temperature of the earth be? How much heat will carbon dioxide and man generate once the sun is out of the equation?

The very term man-made global warming is a joke since man does not create any heat in the model. The cause and effect chain for man-made global warming goes like this: man makes carbon dioxide, that carbon dioxide traps heat causing a .2 degree Celsius increase in temperatures over the last 50 years, which is causing water to evaporate more than usual adding another .4 degree Celsius increase over the last 50 years. The big hole in this chain reaction is that the sun is nowhere in their equation and yet it is essential for global warming to exist. That's certainly the case on Mars, where global temperatures have also been increasing.

The global warming nuts are well aware of their failing "scientific" models. When asked to comment on the sun's recent lull in solar activity and how it will effect global warming models, climatologist Mike Lockwood has this to say:

"I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down," Lockwood said. "I think that helps keep it in perspective."

This quote is an excellent example of how broken man-made global warming science has become. Instead of making a valid arguement, Lockwood resorts to comparing apples to oranges. It’s like saying, “the new F-somenumber is not faster than the new GM Greenster because the new jet has increased its top speed over the F-22 by only 1% and the Greenster beat out the top speed of a Prius by 40%." The sun is thousands of times bigger than the earth and a small change is significant. On the other hand, CO2 is .001% of the earth’s atmosphere. It requires very, very large changes to affect anything, if at all.

Andrew33 had this to say on man-made global warming:

While on the subject of "green", "green jobs", geenhouse gasses etc. I look at it like this: "Green" is the new "Red" as in communism. The color for communism was red mainly from the Russians but it has been repackaged in a nice friendly "green" wrapper to sell to Americans. The "star and sickle" don't sell well here in the States so to sell Government jobs they get called "Green" jobs now. Green sounds much nicer and less controlling than either "Government" or "red." Here's a little more "Green 101." The fact is any Carbon Dioxide emitted by a smokestack or a tailpipe sinks to and into the ground like a rock in the water because Carbon Dioxide is far heavier than air. Air is a nearly constant solution of CO2, O2 and other trace elements similar to salt water. CO2 doesn't pile up in the atmosphere because of the oxygen and other trace gasses that are far lighter than CO2. That is Global Warming hoax #1 plain and simple. Water is in the air just like CO2. Yet when there is too much water in the air, it forms clouds. When the clouds get thick enough, and the water becomes heavy enough it falls as rain, but they don't teach that in science class anymore. That is the reality behind "Green." Funny thing is when I ask those who support Global Warming about this they responded with silence."

You can prove this effect by filling a beaker with pure CO2 and corking it. Then light several candles on a table. Uncork, then turn upside down the CO2 beaker 2-3 ft directly above the candles. You will see the candles go out as the excess CO2 falls to the floor.

This is a most rudimentary way to prove what happens to excess CO2. When I have done this in front of or asked so-called experts about this, they were dumbfounded.

So remember folks, when you drive, breathe or do anything else, your CO2 goes into the ground just like rain after a rainstorm where the roots of plants absorb it as food. Also rem,ember that our bodies as well as our planet is mostly carbon. Lastly, despite what Al Gore says, it is the Sun that heats the Earth, not CO2. If "runaway greenhouse effect" was happening, Earth would be a mirror image of Venus.

Atmospheric Density is another question. With CO2 being much heavier and more dense than air, how come the measure of atmospheric density A.K.A. barometric pressure has not risen? That is because CO2 levels are not rising. The average barometric pressure at sea level has not changed one bit since readings began being recorded.

One more little thing, this year, Arctic Sea Ice is higher than average and much higher than ALGORE predicted for this year so the Polar Bears will be okay for a while.

Andrew33 also had to say:

Water acts like a battery. It is slow to store energy and slow to release energy. Land is the opposite, as it warms quickly and cools quickly. Like the Sun, the oceans go through warm and cold cycles which greatly affect the land around them. Warm Oceans nearby generally lead to warm moist weather patterns, while cold oceans nearby lead to cold dry weather patterns. The point I am getting to here is that the 0.2-0.4C increase over the last 50 years was caused by shifts in oceanic temperature. These are cyclical in nature and occur in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. They are known as the AMO and PDO respectively. The AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation) was warm from the '30s through the '50's, then cold from the '60s through early '90s. By the late '90s it was back to warm again. That is why if you do any study of hurricane history, there were many in the '30s trough '50s, then there was a general lull until 95. After 95, hurricane activity ramped up in the Atlantic. On the Pacific side, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a similar pattern although less is known about historically. The Pacific was in a warm cycle in the '80s-'90s, but seems to recently have shifted to a cold cycle. The PDO is often associated with the phenomenon known as EL NINO. It is a personal belief of mine that the warm PDO cycle and the EL NINO events it triggered led to the common belief currently held that the globe is warming. I emphasize that people reading this do not just take my word for this but look it up for themselves. This is a very rudimentary explanation of the events that I believe have led to the misinformation known as "man made global warming." I encourage everyone who reads this to look this up for themselves and educate themselves here so that those spreading lies about global warming can be countered everywhere and at all times. A simple google search to NWS AMO will lead you to all this info.

Who’s Smarter? Astrophysicists or Climatologists? 2 of 3 on global warming

Even as I write this, congress is voting on the Waxman-Markey tax and unemployment bill. In true leftist style, the bill is being crammed through congress without debate or consideration of opposing view-points. Also true to form, Henry Waxman inserted a 300 page amendment to his already 1,000 page bill last night so that no one really has a clue about what they are voting on.

My friends on the left, what does this say about the integrity of your politicians?

Today, there will be no discussion about the validity of man-made global warming on the congressional floor, lucky for you dear reader, I have no such fear of holding a debate here.

You will notice that this is my second of three posts regarding global warming. In my last post, I discussed how mathematical modeling works and the limitations of using modeling to establish scientific relationships and make predictions. My first point was that mathematical modeling cannot, in and of itself, prove a cause and effect relationship. I illustrated this point by showing a real model I’d created "proving" that voting for Barak Obama causes unemployment. My second point was that mathematical models are only useful for making predictions in the short-term. Global warming models going out 100 years are wrong.

Today I’m going to discuss how solar activity and not carbon dioxide is destined to win the debate regarding what causes fluctuations in global temperatures. I regret that there is no way to write this post without being somewhat tongue in cheek. I am sorry to those who don’t see the humor in some of this. It is merely the symptom of the willing suspension of common sense.

As I’ve often mentioned, it is difficult to parse through a “science” that is so highly politicized. However, there is a growing body of evidence that suggests that solar activity is the main cause of global temperatures. As I understand it, the sun generally goes through 11 year cycles of increasing to decreasing solar activity, which effect global temperatures. I have seen a few models online and most of the models have an R-square of 60% or higher (about the same as the carbon dioxide folks). Here is an article from a Harvard scientist here.

So what C Gen? Our man made global warming models show just as strong of a relationship! However, solar activity models will prevail because it only takes a little common sense to prove a strong cause-effect relationship. If the sun were to extinguish tomorrow, what would the temperature of the earth be? How much heat will carbon dioxide and man generate once the sun is out of the equation?

The very term man-made global warming is a joke since man does not create any heat in the model. The cause and effect chain for man-made global warming goes like this: man makes carbon dioxide, that carbon dioxide traps heat causing a .2 degree Celsius increase in temperatures over the last 50 years, which is causing water to evaporate more than usual adding another .4 degree Celsius increase over the last 50 years. The model cannot account for the fact that carbon dioxide is always increasing, but temperatures are not always increasing. However, the bigger hole is that the sun is nowhere in their equation and yet it is essential for global warming to exist. Doesn’t it sound a little presumptuous to hold solar activity constant when that is the only source for heat in your model?

It is even more concerning when it is well known that the sun has been responsible for dramatic changes in the earth’s temperature in the past. Many astrophysicists point to the little ice age, a long period where global temperatures were unusually cold and sun spot activity was nonexistent. So far, this June is likely to be one of the coldest June’s since the beginning of temperature records. Could it be a coincidence that there was no sun spot activity at the beginning of 2009?

If you need more proof of the sun’s ability to heat a planet, here is an article from that ultra conservative (laying on the sarcasm thick) Nation Geographic about how Mars has also seen global increases in temperature.

If facts weren’t bad enough, top global warming climatologists have made seriously poor defenses of their climate models as it relates to solar activity. Global warming scientist Mike Lockwood had this to say in a National Geographic article about the sun’s ability to affect global temperatures:

"I think you have to bear in mind that the CO2 is a good 50 to 60 percent higher than normal, whereas the decline in solar output is a few hundredths of one percent down," Lockwood said. "I think that helps keep it in perspective."

No Mike, it doesn’t help keep things in perspective since you are comparing apples to oranges. It’s like saying this, “the new F-somenumber is not faster than the new GM Greenster because the new jet has increased its top speed over the F-22 by only 1% and the Greenster beat out the top speed of a Prius by 40%." The sun is thousands of times bigger than the earth and a small change is significant. On the other hand, CO2 is .001% of the earth’s atmosphere. It requires very, very large changes to affect anything, if at all.

Hanson’s NASA finally admitted that the sun is having an effect on global temperatures. This would be a small sign of sanity in the organization had they not gone on to say that solar activity was responsible for 25% of global temperatures. Once again, I ask NASA to explain what the temperature of the earth would be if the sun were extinguished? We know that the sun is responsible for ice ages and temperatures far hotter than we are seeing now in the past? Even if NASA’s estimate is correct, it poses a big problem for carbon dioxide. If carbon dioxide is responsible for causing water vapor to be 66% of temperature increase, why can’t solar and not carbon dioxide be responsible for water vapor’s role?

If global warming scientists were to stay true to the scientific method, they would take their models and science back to square one. Sun-caused global warming has no such cause and effect problems. We know for certain that man has no effect on the sun. The earth also has minimal effect on the sun. The sun is necessary for any global warming to occur. In short, we are sure that the sun heats the planet.

Some light global warming reading:

Here is a post on global warming modeling

Here is a post on the insanity of the left’s tax and unemployment policy

Here is a great article about how tax and unemployment policies are killing Spain

Voting for Barack Obama Causes Unemployment: An introduction into the world of Modeling 1 of 3 on global warming

When we think of science, we think of educated men in high tech, state-of-the-art labs conducting experiments that will bring about the discoveries of tomorrow. These scientists spend their days with beakers in hand, carefully pouring various chemicals, and spending countless hours in front of a chalk board searching for the key that will complete a complex mathematical formula. Unfortunately, this picture is inaccurate to describe the science behind global warming. The science behind global warming is not in a lab with chemicals or at a chalk board with formulas, but at a computer conducting regression models based on statistics. Our culture is used to the firm formulas of Einstein and Newton, what does regression modeling mean and what are its limits?

I am not a scientist, although I’d like to think of myself as an amateur one. However, the same modeling used in global warming “science” is the same I’ve used on many occasions to make economic models. In fact, I created one to illustrate how modeling works. My model is how voting for Obama causes unemployment. Below is the mathematical output of my model. The model was created by using the April unemployment rates from the 50 states and comparing that to whether or not that state swung for Obama. For those of you who know something of modeling and want to know a little about my methodology; I set up dummy variables to establish the mathematics needed for the “did the state swing for Obama in the election” variable. States that voted for Obama were assigned the number 1 and states that voted for McCain were assigned the number 0. All of this is statistically sound. However, please note this is an example only. I’m not actually going to try and make the argument that this model actually proves voting for Obama causes unemployment.



First thing is first, how does modeling work? In the case of global warming, variables (average global temperatures and measurements of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) are placed side by side in a mathematical comparison to determine if there is a similarity between the increases and decreases in these variables. The strength of this relationship is determined by a statistical measurement called R square. It must be noted that the R square for global warming models that I’ve seen tend to be over 60%, which is a good strong relationship in the statistical sense and is part of the reason why the models have gained a lot of support. My model has an R square of 66% (pretty strong relationship). There are other statistical tests that need to be reviewed such as P-Value, F significance, and assumption testing (residual analysis). I won’t go into these because this is a political blog and not a science blog and it would probably put you to sleep. The P-Value and F significance for my model look very good. I did not do a residual analysis.

Regression modeling is not in and of itself science, it is statistics. Modeling is a tool used to help determine relationships between variables and how strong those relationships are. Modeling does not spit out scientific law, but requires scientific analysis to interpret. It is not all that different from one of global warming’s most favorite tool, the thermometer. The thermometer can measure the temperature of a single location, at a particular altitude, at a particular point in time. As a tool, the thermometer has certain limitations and operating requirements that must be followed for accuracy. For example, don’t place your thermometer in direct sunlight if you want an accurate measurement. Like the thermometer, modeling has its own limitations.

As stated above and I reitterate, statistical modeling in and of itself does not establish a cause and effect relationship. You cannot say, “My global warming model has over a 50% R square value, therefore carbon dioxide causes global warming.” I cannot say based on my model that voting for Obama causes unemployment. Instead, it shows that there is some kind of relationship. It is then left to scientists to interpret and reason what that relationship is. The cause and effect relationship must be established from this reasoning. It is in this interpretation and reasoning of the results that muddy the waters of objective science. I’m sure I could think up a couple of theories for explaining how voting for Obama could in fact lead to unemployment. For example, there were many people who voted and supported Obama who thought, “They would no longer have to worry about putting gas in their cars or pay for their mortgage (a direct quote from a zealous supporter).” States that swung for Obama probably had large populations of these types of supporters. Once Obama was elected, they followed through with their misguided beliefs and decided to stop working, since they believed Obama would take care of their every need.

For global warming, we know that carbon dioxide is a green house gas and could be a factor in global temperatures, but what about the variables that affect carbon dioxide? Could the dependant and independent variables be inverted? This would mean that increasing temperatures may be affecting and causing an increase in carbon dioxide. Perhaps, there is a third variable (like the sun), that may be affecting both global temperatures and the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the same time. These are just two of thousands of possibilities that would cause problems for the global warming models.

My model argument that explains my model could be threatened by the fact that unemployment was increasing before Obama was elected. Perhaps, the relationship is coincidental. Perhaps, there is another variable that is making it look like there is a direct relationship. For example, Dick Cheney got together with all the corporations that he secretly runs and they conspired to fire millions of people to make Obama look bad. Maybe high levels of unemployment at the time of the election became a leading reason why people voted for Obama?

Another issue is the accuracy of measurement? Most models prefer taking data from a conglomeration of 2,100 temperature stations around the world. The data at these stations are constantly being found to be overstated. For example, last October Russia’s temperatures were the exact same temperatures recorded in September. Is the methodology for determining average global temperature sound? There is a great deal of variation in temperature from one location to the next in both distance and altitude and these could have a large affect on the accuracy of the data.

The model I chose above is a sample of states and does not actually hold water in the real world. If I took all 50 states my R square would be 16%. I decided to try a population and roll the dice to see if I could get a better result with a sample model instead. Since global warming models are using sample data, the methodology for calculating average global temperature needs to be sound or else you will come up with an inaccurate model like I did.

The issues above are problems with the science that should be reported to the public and openly discussed. Doomsday predictions, on the other hand, are entirely dishonest. Using modeling to make predictions 100 years away is not only wrong, but completely outside of the acceptable use and methodology of mathematical modeling. Modeling is useful for making predictions in the short term. However, global warming alarmists are predicting temperatures for nearly more years in total than the number of years used in their data set. Scientists seem to get a pass on this rule, because they are dealing in “science.” I do not agree, there is absolutely no reason or logic that could defend these predictions as being mathematically accurate and in making these predictions, the credibility of their models must be questioned.

There are other possible issues with the science of global warming, but I’ll deal with those in my next two posts on global warming. As I stated in my last post on Science, I’m not trying to debunk or promote global warming. Instead, I’m trying to highlight on the issues that is not being discussed honestly in the media and in some cases being explained by scientists.

Cap and Trade Redux

I’ve already posted on the uselessness of Cap and Trade two days ago. However, there was a debate in congress yesterday worth viewing. I’m indebted to C Thinker from Politics and Critical Thinking. The blog is featured on my list. He does an excellent job covering the debate, so I’m only going to post the videos of Gore, Gingrich and Waxman. We need Gingrich back into some form of office!

Here is Al Gore


Here is Newt


Here is the Cap and Trade bill's owner, Waxman, getting owned by Newt


Any questions?

Those Little Cap and Trade Assumptions Sometimes Make a Big Difference

I’ve been working through the 2007 MIT study on Cap and Trade. This study is the Holy Grail in terms of how Cap and Trade will impact the economy and global temperatures with today’s proposed legislation. My goal here is to inform on those little details that get missed when politicians start talking about the doomsday that global warming will bring. The study is long and being an economist, I hope to have a full economic rundown for you. However, the idea of Cap and Trade without respect to the “science” of Global Warming is and of itself an absurdity.

One of the first things you should know about the study are the assumptions being made. Although the study tries to take into effect as many possibilities, the success and limitation of negative environmental and economic effects requires that all nations adopt a similar carbon trading system. How much of an impact you may ask? Well, if only developed nations (US, Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) follow through on enacting cap and trade, MIT estimates that we will reduce global temperatures a whopping .5 degrees Celsius over 100 years. If developing nations (India, China, Indonesia, Higher Income East Asia, Mexico, Central and South America, Middle East, Africa, and the Rest of the World) also commits, we will have reduced temperatures by 2 degrees Celsius over 100 years. These reductions are in relation to the “no cap and trade policy” case.

The study also assumes that government will redistribute the tax revenue from cap and trade back to households as a way to offset increasing cost to energy. I don’t believe I need to touch on that one. If anyone believes this will be the case, you are welcome to comment, but I will be laughing at you. Even with the redistribution, the social cost is very high.

The economic effects of the “all nations institute a similar cap and trade policy” are enormously negative for the US if it does not come true. I know this because those with government economics degrees at MIT point it out more than once. I quote! “The cost of policy in the US is greatly affected by policies in the rest of the world.” That is because Cap and Trade in and of itself is punishment to the US. Other countries can benefit in lower energy costs while the US punitively manufactures higher costs on…ourselves. This creates an incentive for countries, such as China (who has surpassed the US as the largest carbon emitter) to stay away from carbon trading, because switching to such a system requires them to punish themselves even more than the US and they would also have to forgo the reward for lower fossil fuel prices (fossil fuel prices drop significantly if the US stops using them). If only the common sense of Clinton were still around today. There’s no point in punishing ourselves for .5 degrees Celsius over 100 years if China’s not aboard. If we aren’t creating carbon, I guarantee someone else will pick up the mantle.

The study also states that it cannot account for government waste in the program. Since the government is doing two actions, taxing and spending, there inevitably will be government waste in both actions (See my post on Government Spending early in the week). Don’t worry. I’m sure John Murtha will be there to make sure enough Cap and Trade taxes are used to keep his airport open.

I’ve been working on a post on the problems for the “science” of global warming and one will be forth coming. I am having trouble finding credible information on either side of the argument so it is taking a long time. However, even without debating global warming, anyone can see the folly of Cap and Trade. Believe me, .5 degrees Celsius over 100 years lower than the no policy option is hardly worth the cost to the tax payers and the economy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update:
Actually, this is old news. I am have pointed out the ineffeciveness of Cap and Trade Legislation. Now, I do not believe in man made global warming. However, James Hansen, the NASA scientist well known for his vocal defense of global warming science, also agrees with me. The UK Guardian outlines a letter Hansen sent Obama in January pleading with him not to follow the "ineffectual...approach" of Cap and Trade. Though I don't agree with all Hansen's proposed solutions, I will agree that this country needs to invest in "fourth generation nuclear plants, which use nuclear waste as fuel."

Update #2:
The Washington Post had a sobering article on the real potential, or lack thereof for solar and wind power. The Post points out the obvious, "the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow." They also point out the large premium that we will pay for energy when nature is not being accomodating. Also, the large subsidies and money needed to lay the infrastructure.