Posts Tagged ‘global warming’

The Climate Accords

Monday, June 5th, 2017

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, science is not done by consensus, in fact, it is almost always the guy who goes against consensus, that moves science forward. Politics on the other hand, is done by consensus, and no one in their right mind would say politics is science, or visa versa. Confusing politics with science is a function of a weak mind. Decisions in politics are reached by the consensus of those in power, while science progresses by ground breaking paradigm shifts in thinking, by individuals with genius. So when someone tells you global warming is a fact, because the consensus of scientists claims it is so, you could remind them that consensus among scientists at one time, was that the world is flat. When a politician tells you that it is the consensus of scientists that such and such is true,what he or she is really telling you, is to set down and shut up, scientists have reached a political decision about what we should think… rather than any intelligent answer to a scientific question.

Science and politics are fundamentally different pursuits. The scientists looks for provable, reproducible results while the politician cares nothing for empirical reality, all they care about is power and amassing more of it. If reality gets in the way it is to be ignored, ridiculed and rejected. That is why politicians and economists “believe,” as a religious zealot does, in their favorite fiction. Politicians worship socialism, as the be all end all to advance their political power, while economists bow down at the alter of Keynes. Both are self serving. To the politician socialism wins them autocracy and costs everyone else everything. Economists love Keynes because his theory gives them ultimate power to decide what and how much government spends. To both science and reality is a mere inconvenience.

Scientific advancement never comes by consensus, it always comes by some loner coming up with a new theory, that is initially ignored, then ridiculed, and finally accepted as truth. Scientific advance is always a paradigm shift. The consensus of scientists study the world within the boundaries of their schooling, polishing and looking for white swans to prove their paradigm correct, and rejecting any black swans they may come across as one offs. No advance in human understanding of the universe has come from a consensus, every advance has come from a nutty professor, bucking the trend. Copernicus was considered insane, Newton was called crazy and Einstein found even his own theory of special relativity to have fundamental flaws, most notably the inevitable result that if his equations were correct, there could be a place in the universe that would have such gravity that even light couldn’t escape. He found it absurd, today we call them black holes and they are ubiquitous throughout the universe.

The Enlightenment was all about using debate, empirical evidence and logic to come to a rational conclusion. It was overtly a rejection of authority as the final arbiter of all questions. To accept the argument that a consensus of scientists believe anything… is to return to pre Enlightenment thinking. It is a rejection of the scientific principle and embracing the rights of kings. All people are self interested. Those scientists who “believe” in global warming always have a dog in the race. Billions of dollars of political funding is available if they go along with the hoax, and the utter destruction of their careers, is the consequence of disagreement. The incentives to agree with the consensus are overwhelming while there are only pernicious incentives to follow the scientific method. How many of us wouldn’t go along if we stood to gain millions of dollars for agreeing and our careers would be destroyed if we don’t?

The inconvenient facts against global warming being man made are overwhelming, but are either ridiculed, ignored or outright rejected by politicians and “scientists” that promote global warming. In normal science, when evidence shows a theory has a flaw, that theory is discarded, but today, when global warming faces evidence proving it is false, the evidence is discarded. That Mars has warmed in virtual lockstep with Earth in the period between 1959 and 2000, or that Ceres has also warmed as well as several Jovian moons, such provable evidence is ignored, attacked and rejected by the global warming zealots.

Now Trump has pulled the US from the hoax accord. Notice the people who are the most upset are the politicians who stand to gain undue power from it. Rightly so, since billions of dollars, the enslavement of mankind and perpetual power are all at stake, if people realize man made global warming is a hoax. Therefore anyone who gets in the way is to be personally destroyed. Lets face it, if you stood to loose a billion dollars and absolute power over the rest of mankind, you wouldn’t take kindly to anyone who tossed a monkey wrench into it, would you? Trump has got in the way of the global enslavement scheme and so will be attacked mercilessly. He did it for us, and so we must stand with him, on this point at least. Else the power hungry politicians and lap dog “scientists” will subdue the rest of us, in perpetuity, and the scientific principle that has so well served us for several centuries will be destroyed. I pray most of us do not have weak minds.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Eschewing the Enlightenment

Thursday, December 31st, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, we are loosing the advancements of the enlightenment, and it is being done by the very people who claim to be it’s heirs. The Enlightenment was a philosophical advancement that allowed humanity to move into the space age. Since all scientific advancement is preceded by a philosophical advance, our modern era of scientific discovery and unheard of standard of living, required that philosophical advance. The basic tenets of the Enlightenment are, argument instead of authority should be the determinant of right, skepticism, the concept of natural law and empiricism. Today, the new class intellectuals, intelligentsia and our politicians, would rather us accept authority rather than rational argumentation, wander through life as babes, exchange natural law for the power of the state and the forget that all knowledge is based on what is sensible. In turning away from the advances of the Enlightenment the gains we take so for granted cannot long last.

The argument that there is a consensus of scientists that agree to such and such is a call to authority. That call to authority is magnified when rational debate is eschewed for fear mongering. Other than the number of people who’s lives will be negatively effected, what is the difference between a superstitious people burning a woman at the stake for being a witch, because of their irrational fear of witches, from today’s fear mongers calling for burning our economy, because of an irrational fear of global warming? They both rely on authority, they both eschew argumentation, they both cause suffering, they are both acts of self aggrandizement and they are both based on fear. If anthropogenic climate change were argued rationally, without vilification and lacking the blacklisting anyone who argues climate change might not be as bad as the alarmists claim, we couldn’t say it is a call to authority, but since it has all the qualities of a call to authority, that is obviously what it is.

Socialism is taught in our schools to our children without any skepticism about the past results at all. Moreover we are supposed to accept absurdity after absurdity from our leaders without question. In other words, we are told not to be skeptical but accept the word of our leaders and new class intellectuals, by faith. Our children are being filled with faith in socialism, we are supposed to accept that multiculturalism will not be the end of western culture and society, we are to be faithful to the media that calls itself unbiased, despite the absurdities we are force fed by them. The only thing we are skeptical about today are the miracles documented in the Bible, the words of the Founding Fathers and our own sense of right and wrong.

The American system of government is based on natural law. Natural law states that each human being has certain rights that come from God or nature rather than government. The Bill of Rights is based on natural law, the right to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom to keep arms, security in one’s own home, and so forth, these rights come from our natural state not from government. Government however, or more precisely, those in government, disagree. They believe that all rights flow from the governors to the governed, or put another way, they favor arbitrary rule. Constitutionalism was based on natural law, but today that attempt to stymie the natural tendencies of leaders to become power hungry, has been perverted to empower despots. Today the concept of natural rights is being attacked by new class intellectuals and intelligentsia in the media, business, government and universities.

Saint Thomas Aquinas invented the concept of Empiricism. He said all that is knowledge is sense knowledge. Which gave rise to the term nonsense. If a thing cannot be sensed it cannot be proven true. Empiricism was then polished and plumbed by John Locke and David Hume. The idea of a germ is based on our ability to increase our vision with scientific instruments, so we can “see” bacteria. Science is all about sense knowledge, based in large part on our ability to magnify our senses with technology. Even Christianity is based in sense knowledge since people saw Christ crucified, witnessed him rise from the dead, probed the wound on his hands, then recorded the experience. Today some things that are call sciences are nothing of the sort, they are at best pseudoscience since they are not based on what is sensible. Economics and Psychology are examples. They seek to emulate the advancements of physics and math but cannot. They are philosophies that masquerade as science that we are supposed to accept as empirically true by the new class.

Human societies advance and retreat in science, economic power and justice as their philosophies advance and retreat. Every real advancement in human history has been preceded by an advance in philosophy. The Greeks advanced the philosophy of democracy, the Romans with limited governmental power, and the west with the Enlightenment, which led to the outlawing of human slavery, all the freedoms we enjoy today, constitutionally limited government to protect those rights, the phenomenal advancements in science and our natural rights. Just as Greece fell when they abandoned their philosophy of democracy for arbitrary rule and Rome fell when they abandoned limited government for a Caesar… our civilization will fall if we abandon the advances of the Enlightenment. Sadly, we are well on our way to forsaking them, led by those who are tasked with protecting them.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Glittering Lies and Hubris

Monday, September 14th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, many people have a sense of superiority because they refuse to see what is right in front of them, instead believing a glittering lie. By their very nature a glittering lie is easier to believe than an ugly truth. A glittering lie is crafted so it catches the eye, tempts the mind and wets the appetite while an ugly truth is unappealing, the mind recoils at it and the stomach turns when it is said. In this way those who spread glittering lies catch so many people in their net. Of course when a glittering lie is questioned you can rely on those spreading it to attack the person making the argument instead of the argument, this is because it is a lie and so cannot stand the scrutiny of reason. Another sure fire way to spot a glittering lie is by asking yourself, “who will benefit?” If the answer is the person making the allegation, and it will cost you handsomely… it is probably a lie. To fall for a glittering lie is the easiest thing to do, many have and met with catastrophe for it, will you?

Human history is just a series of people falling for glittering lies. The German people fell for a glittering lie in the 1930s, the American people fell for a glittering lie in the same decade, the French fell for a glittering lie in the 1790s, the people of Cambodia in 1975, and the list goes on and on. The people fell for the lie, then realized too late it was a lie, then lived through horrors, economic hardships and unimagined violence as a result. A glittering lie is never told for the benefit of the people, no, it is told so some villain can seize power over the people. Any time a villain gets power over people he or she uses it. The result is never equality, a better environment, prosperity or peace, the result is always the opposite.

During the time the people are actively falling for the lie, those who have swallowed the hook have a sense of righteousness. They look down their noses at those idiots who are too dull to see the glitter and stand amazed at their own intelligence, acumen and open mindedness. Those who try to call attention to inconsistencies are hated, and when they are proven right, they become despised. Take the example of Edmund Burke. History proved him correct about the eventual result of the French Revolution, which made those who fell for the glittering lie loathe him all the more. No one likes someone who is right when they themselves are wrong, it proves the other’s greater acumen, intelligence and open mindedness, to hate that is human nature.

People who tell glittering lies always appeal to the emotions, but a lie is best when it contains bits of truth, so by combining emotion with a little truth, they make their lies appear to be obvious truths. Hitler told the German people such a lie, he appealed to their emotions in the slogan, “Strength through joy,” and the superiority of the German people, the super race… He spoke to their recent economic hardships by claiming the planned economy would give them prosperity, and he connected with the German idea of the Volk. When Winston Churchill said Nazism was a threat, he was drummed out of office, called a Luddite and spent years on the desert. Once he was proven right, the British people realized they needed him and elected him to office. When the war was over however, they summarily drummed him back out of office, because while they knew they needed him during the war, that he had been right all along made him hated by the new class who had been wrong.

The planned economy is another such glittering lie. Just as it failed in the French Revolution, USSR, Cambodia, China and everywhere else it has been tried, those who shill for it, never tire of it and ignore the tremendous human suffering it has brought into the world, and go on to claim it is inevitable. Those who have been proponents of the planned economy have been lionized regardless of the atrocities they have wrought, Che Guevara, Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, and a whole host of college professors and deans. Those who disagree are attacked personally and are marginalized. John Maynard Keynes is a economic giant even today, after his theories have led to successive bubbles, while Frederick Hayek is still wandering in the desert of economic theory. Keynes told a glittering lie while Hayek told an ugly truth.

Look at the vitriol Christianity is showered with today by the new class. They despise Christianity, all the more when it is proven right about an issue, be it the atrocity of abortion on demand, Pope John Paul’s stand against socialism, miracles or any number of issues. Those atheists who tell the glittering lie that Christianity is evil, always point to some atrocity someone who called him or herself a Christian did, hundreds of years ago, that was in direct contravention of Christian doctrine, principles and Jesus himself would find revolting. Some even justify the present genocide against Christians in the Middle East, as deserving, because of colonialism, antisemitism and the dark ages. Despite their own antisemitism, colonialist intentions and despotic policies, policies that are exactly what they claim Christians did wrong! While they point an accusatory finger at Christianity, for what it doesn’t say, three point back at them for what they do and intend. What the atheists who turn a blind eye to Christian genocide are really arguing, is that the innocent little 9 year old girl deserves a daily gang rape, it is just, since people she never met, is not related to, acted unchristian like and lived hundreds of years ago… did.

Those that believe the glittering lie will say, the science is settled, history has spoken, it is justice, it is inevitable and call it historical responsibility, etc… they will personally attack anyone who points out the inconsistencies as being Luddites, unable to grasp the intricacies, the argument is too subtle and dull witted, along with a whole host of pejoratives, withheld for those who apply logic to a glittering lie. Those who start and further a glittering lie always stand to gain power over the people if their lies are accepted. Just as today’s global warming alarmists stand to gain total control over the economy, our lives and gain power that historical despots could only dream of. To see a glittering lie for what it is, requires an open mind, probing logic and an eye for inconsistencies, that so few human beings are able to do these things and stand up to the personal attacks, smears and laughter of those who have fallen for the lie, is why our history is littered with human suffering.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Repent! The Global Warming Apocalypse is Nigh!

Thursday, March 12th, 2015

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, the global warming crowd have become like the guy who stands on a street corner with a sign that says, “Repent! The end is near!” The main differences are, the guy on the street corner doesn’t exact money from taxpayers to prove his ideas, and his prediction is based on the prophets, who made accurate predictions in the past, where the global warming alarmists, extract money from the rest of us at gunpoint, demand our unquestioned obedience and have never made an accurate prediction. Despite the many predictions of catastrophe by the anthropogenic climate change doomsayers not one of their predictions has ever panned out. Not only has the global warming crowd failed to make any accurate predictions, based on their hypothesis, but all the Eco Henny Penny’s are uniform in that they are always wrong, at least so far. Despite the track record of failure to predict anything, the people that shill for global warming claim, we must act now! Of course, acting now means giving them unlimited power over us and smashing our economy, else they predict terrible things will happen… like a collapsing economy and tyranny.

Millions, perhaps billions of research dollars are handed out every year, to promote and dream up what terrible consequences might happen when our planet warms, because you drive to work and live in a heated house. Anyone can get access to that treasure trove of money just by writing a grant paper in which you will predict some disaster that “will” be generated by anthropogenic climate change. I predict… global warming will result in more big toe bones being broken. Since the temperatures will be higher, and people are more lethargic in heat, more people will stub their toes, and voila, more broken toe bones, all because you want to be able to cook your food! That should be worth a few million to verify.

The reason we drive past the guy on the street corner with a sign claiming the end is nigh, and shake our heads, is because nut jobs have been claiming the end is nigh, since the time of Christ. Every generation has had it’s supposed prophet of doom giving the day and time of the apocalypse, and every one has been wrong. Someday one will be right, the world will end, not because they see the future… but in the same way a stopped clock is correct twice a day. The stopped clock is not accurate but time overtakes it. The street preacher bases his or her warnings, on the predictions of the prophets, who have made accurate predictions in the past. Prophecy however is not subject to time constraints, and makes no such claim, as do climate change fear mongers.

The enlightenment was all about not taking the word of authorities just because of their authority. The new means was supposed to be debate and logic, as the arbiters of what is right, instead of authority. The heirs of the enlightenment however have a different take. They agree that we shouldn’t believe anything certain authorities tell us, even when their predictions turn out to be correct, but to accept without question their word, because they are the authority in science. Not to take a position on birth control but to illustrate the point… When the Pill came out, Pope Paul VI wrote Humanae Vitae, in which he predicted a dramatic rise in divorces, children born out of wedlock, abortions and venereal diseases, (all of which have happened), he was vilified by the heirs to the enlightenment, and is even more hated today for his correct predictions.

The global warming crowd, on the other hand, have a zero track record in their predictions. So far not one prediction of any of the Eco alarmists has come true. Who could forget Al Gore’s prediction in 2008 that the polar ice caps would be gone in 5 years? Well, 2013 has come and passed and the ice caps are bigger than ever. In the 1970s the new class was shilling a new round of glaciation. To stop it they envisioned all kinds of dangerous remedies. Rachel Carson predicted, in her book Silent Spring, millions of deaths by pesticide poisoning, the extinction of birds and bees, none of which came true. Her book was largely responsible for the eradication of DDT however, which led to the resurgence of malaria… and millions of deaths from that dreaded disease.

Which brings me to the focal point of this article, that entrusting self appointed egoists the power to make planet wide changes based on their self interested predictions, is a recipe for true disaster. Today, there are scientists who want to put mirrors in orbit to direct some sunlight away from the planet, some want to seed the oceans with iron to stimulate algae growth to suck up carbon dioxide and others want to force millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the Earth’s crust to sequester it. No way any of those schemes could go disastrously wrong. Like introducing the cane toad to Australia.

Global warming alarmists are similar to the guy on the street corner, but the guy on the street doesn’t demand you give your money and sovereignty to him, only to repent. The climate change crowd refuses debate, because it might diminish their authority, and thereby reject the advances of the enlightenment. While a sign that tells us to repent is based on past predictions, that have come true, those of the Eco fear mongers are based on predictions that have never panned out. When you drill down to the reality of what the green movement stands for, it is not environmentalism, nor saving the whales, but socialism and the unlimited power socialism will give them. That is why their arguments are so inconsistent, the voracity of their predictions irrelevant and they argue against the enlightenment, it is because they are not advocating for their real goal, total control of the hoi polloi.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

Anthropogenic Climate Change Hoax

Thursday, June 26th, 2014

 

Dear Friends,

 

It seems to me, the man made part of global warming is a hoax, a fallacy perpetrated on us by the New Class in a bid for power, the type of power Nietzsche said the uberman should strive for. They know it is impossible to prove a negative, and so they have convinced many that we are in dire straights if we do not follow their dictates and commit economic suicide, else we might face economic Armageddon. For the same reason I am skeptical when a cigarette company claims cigarettes are good for you, we should look at the arguments of those who stand to gain essentially arbitrary rule if we believe them… with a skeptical eye too. Climate change alarmists stand to gain tremendous power, wealth and prestige, by having the hoi polloi fall for the scam, and power is a compelling incentive to lie. It is in our self interests to be rational maximizers and look at the facts not the rhetoric.

 

I used to believe in anthropogenic climate change. It made me hopeful we can terraform Mars into a world we can live on. I looked at all the facts with a hopeful eye. As time went on, and the “facts” became ever murkier and confounding facts came up, my enthusiasm waned. As I began looking into the political reasons someone would perpetrate such a hoax on the world, the reality of human nature opened up to me, and I became a man made climate change denier.

 

Their arguments are based on spurious logic and have no real bearing on what is really happening. Many of the temperature data is knowingly fallacious. As land is industrialized, the same location that once was forest and fields, has become asphalt and buildings. The localized warming of a city is a well documented theory, and as civilization has encroached on locations that are cited by the climate change alarmist, the temperature will certainly go up. This is called the Urban Heat Island effect. That is not to say however, the temperature of the planet in it’s entirety has gone up, only those locations where temperature has been traditionally taken has. This makes the temperature data decidedly biased and thus dubious at best.

 

The nail in the coffin for me however, was finding out by reading Science News, (a strong voice for anthropogenic climate change), that planets around our solar system are in fact warming at a similar rate to Earth. I admit I was a bit depressed, because if planets around the solar system are warming, that pesky fact makes the likelihood of “man made,” evaporate like so much dry ice. Mars is the example most cited but there are other examples too. The planetoid, or asteroid, Ceres has been shown to be warming, Pluto seems to be warming even though it is traveling away from the sun, along with other planets and moons. The measurements of these planets and moons is not based on local temperature fluctuations, they are based in infrared measurements of the entire planet or moon, and so are more telling of the actual planet wide temperature than localized data. In other words, we have better perspective on them, then we do our own planet.

 

 

The alarmists argue that this is irrelevant because at any given time a planet or moon could be warming or cooling. It is mere coincidence that they are warming. Many pages of sophist arguments have been written with this perspective. They also claim the Sun has cooled so it is impossible for these places to be warming, and some simply deny the facts. These arguments are of course the pleas of a huckster who has been exposed trying to justify the utility of his snake oil. If their argument, that any one could be warming or cooling, then why are they all warming, and none are cooling? Logic would at least incline one to believe that if they could be warming or cooling, the ratio of planets and moons warming versus cooling, should be about fifty percent. The data flies in their face. Since there is not a single example of a planet cooling in our solar system, but many examples of planets and moons warming, this is at least strong evidence the warming trend is a solar system wide phenomenon. Since there are no carbon spewing cars on Mars, (as far as we know), Jupiter, Triton, Ceres or Pluto, the solar system wide warming cannot be human generated.

 

 

The scientific method is not a popularity contest. If it was, then the world would be flat, since most scientists believed at one time it was. There was a philosopher, Karl Popper, who posited a theory of science. In it he said that scientists are exceedingly bigoted people. They work diligently in their labs testing and proving ever smaller bits of fact about a theory, until it is proven false, then there is a paradigm shift culminating in a new theory. Since scientists have worked so long and so hard on their piece of a theorem, they have cognitive dissonance, in other words they are very resistant to change. In the case of anthropogenic climate change anyone who offers a different view is attacked as a heretic. No differently than Galileo, Kepler or Newton were in their day. Their ideas led to a paradigm shift in scientific thinking however, and are worshiped today, even as the modern equivalents of these great thinkers are vilified. Couple the propensity of science, and scientists, to cling to an idea, with the potential power such an idea as man made global warming puts in the hands of the new class, and you have the modern equivalent of the inquisition.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

John Pepin

 

Politicizing of Our Energy

Sunday, March 18th, 2012

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that our energy supply has become politicized to such an extent that our access to it is being jeopardized. Access to energy is of the utmost importance to us. Our entire system of not only economy but society, and even civilization, depend on access to it. If you don’t want your lives to be upended due to the politicizing of our energy supply, and you want to understand how and why, then read on…

The primary way our energy supply has been politicized, is by the environmental movement, imposing it’s socialistic ethos on the rest of us. Having been largely taken over by anti capitalists, who understand the need, of the market system to function, of energy, thus politicizing our energy supply as a means to disrupt the market system. Then they can point to the disruptions as proof the market system doesn’t work. If people are sufficiently ignorant of the historical incarnations of socialism, and the horrors they individually and cumulatively visited on Mankind, the ignorant may be persuaded to voluntarily give up their and our liberty… by handing over access to energy to the would be despots and our children will live the worst parts of human history. Here is what they understand.

The economy is profoundly effected by the cost of energy. Those that own the means of production, which increasingly has become widows and retirees through the retirement funded equities markets, have little ability to switch from one energy source to another, if the one they are using has become more expensive, relative to the rest. If they then change to the cheaper source then that source may become more expensive as well. This is primarily due to the politicizing our our energy supply. Countries that have not allowed their energy supplies to be politicized will get a distinctive advantage in the Global Marketplace.

Energy not only represents liberty but is the means by which we enjoy so much freedom where energy is most available. Energy is what makes our cars go on the Sunday drive in the country after church. Energy is how we take warm showers in the morning instead of cold ones. Energy is why some of us can stay up until midnight and beyond eschewing the natural day-night cycle. Energy give us the exhilaration of ride a snowmobile through the woods on a cold winter’s night, or ski down a triple diamond trail. Energy makes it possible for one man to plow a hundred acres in one day. Energy lights the movie you loved as a kid, and it is energy that gets the stuff we want and need, to us. Control energy and you control everything. Control everything and you are master of the World.

The Elite try to sow panic with their scam of Man Made Global Warming. When it is pointed out that, other planets and moons in our Solar System are heating as well, in lockstep with Earth, the alarmists argue they are all local phenomenon, at any time they might be going up or down. If that is the case, I ask, point out the ones that are going down… There are none. Mars, Venus, Pluto, and some Galilean Moons are shown to be warming about the same time frame Earth has. Are we to believe that every case is localized but they all just happen to be climbing? Is this sufficient reason, why I should hand over access to energy, (economic well being, liberty, and even societal ethos), to the Elite? Really.

The reason we are paying so much for gas, oil, propane, electricity and even natural gas is because it has been politicized. If coal to oil technology were allowed to be implemented in the US the flood of crude on the market would cause widespread bankruptcies by speculators in the speculation markets, the unleashing of the World’s economies and a total collapse of the economy of Iran. The Global warming fraud has been a boon to the radical islamofascists, greatly empowering them to murder innocent people, to further their evil agenda. The politicizing of our energy supply is one of the biggest reason we live with the problems we do in the World today, isn’t it time to grow up and put our combined foot down? Else they will put theirs down, on our throat, our access to energy.

Sincerely,

John Pepin

The Price of Anything

Thursday, March 10th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, that everyone who has grown up in a market based economy, should have a basic understanding of the way supply interacts with demand, to reach a price equilibrium, and that if demand is reduced, cost goes down and if supply is reduced, cost goes up. But I run into more and more people, who profess no knowledge of this economic law whatsoever, and maintain that it is totally the oil companies that set the price of gasoline.

The supply, real and perceived, of any thing, not only commodities, is a factor in it’s economic value. The value of gold is high because the supply is very limited and the demand, for all uses, is great. The value of a thing is not determined by it’s utility, water for example is usually cheap, because it is plentiful, but put a person in a desert for a day, where it is not plentiful, and he or she will pay a fortune for it. This is another example of the relationship between supply and demand.

The Obama administration, has at every turn, made decisions that will lower the supply of crude and coal. From changing drilling regulations and outright bans on drilling to curtailing coal production the administration has proven it’s willingness to raise the price of energy to protect the environment. This is one of the planks of their platform. Energy prices will necessarily rise… To make renewables competitive with dirty energy.

Due to a hoax. The hoax of anthropomorphic global climate change. They changed the name from warming to change, because they aren’t sure if the planet is still warming or cooling, so the name, change. The global warming we have experienced from 1959 to 2008, (or sooner) has been mirrored on Mars with a congruous shrinking of the Martian polar ice caps. The predicted warming has not materialized here however. It seems to have leveled off. But what it all boils down to is this, they don’t know if the planet is warming or cooling, they don’t know the mechanism of it’s warming or cooling, but the one thing they are sure about, is that it is our fault.

With a hoax in hand they have sought to shrink the ability of the market to meet short term supply interruptions. Take bobby pins, say there are 4 factories running at 50% capacity, meeting the demand for bobby pins. Now take one factory down, perhaps from a fire, what will happen to the price of bobby pins? Probably nothing… the remaining factories can ramp up production to meet the increased demand.

Take the same example but the 4 factories producing bobby pins are now running at 100% of capacity. Take 1 out, from a fire, and now what happens to the price of bobby pins? The price necessarily skyrockets. It is necessary because, the factories remaining cannot ramp up production, they were already at 100% of capacity. So the price will rise to a new equilibrium. Higher then you would think due to the perception that the supply of bobby pins is now at risk…

The result, of the administrations decisions, is that the US is producing far less oil and coal than it could. If the US was producing even 10% more, than it is now, there would be a dampening effect on global prices. But with a hold on US oil sands, coal to oil, intractable permitting for coal, nuclear and most of the US’s coastline off limits, the US government, under this administration, is intentionally lowering the ability of the US to produce energy. This puts not only the citizens of the US at risk but the citizens of the world.

Economic production is tied to energy prices. The single biggest factor in the rise in the economic production of the worker, since the industrial revolution, is the leveraging of his or her productivity, with mechanical power. This leveraging has led to the rise in the standard of living in countries that participate in a market economy. The application of mechanical power makes the price of energy a major portion of any economic player’s cost structure.

Now that the ineptitude of this administration, has set the Middle East and North Africa on fire, like a child with a matchbook, the supply of oil in the world is being interrupted. Overtly undermining Momar has led to him setting oil wells on fire, even a hint of unrest in Saudi Arabia will drive the price of crude to $200.00 a barrel, (from Bloomberg Radio) and the continued unrest in Egypt and Tunisia is leading to a possible flood of refugees. How will that effect the world economy?

But people keep insisting it is all the oil companies…

Can We Count on Foundational Climate Data?

Wednesday, December 30th, 2009

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the back story about the German 6th Army’s destruction at the battle of Stalingrad is an apt metaphor for how global warming is being inflated.

After thee Russian Guards Armor had encircled 6th Army under Field Marshal Von Paulos, OKH and OKW were keen to free them. 6th Army was the spearhead of the German Army and contained the most battle hardened units. A communiqué went out to Von Paulos asking how much reserve supplies were at hand for a breakout.

Paulos then sent a communiqué to his commanders who then sent them out to their subordinates. The subordinates knowing that whatever they reported, more would be asked of them than their reported supplies would allow, so they withheld some from the tally… as a buffer. The commanders then added the reported amounts, then subtracted some, to make up for the fact that more would be asked than the supplies would allow. Then Paulos did the same thing. By the time the supply report got back to OKW and OKH the amount of supplies reported was a fraction of what was available. Making the picture more grim than it in fact was. The total amount was under reported at every step of the way to the point that, a breakout was not ordered, and 6th Army perished as a result.

Global warming is similar in that all it takes is for the ground units to inflate or deflate their reports a little. In the aggregate the slight over reports add up to a great over report of temperature rise. Each person thinks he or she is helping by showing the crisis is urgent and so is buffering the data a little. Just as the subordinate officers of the German 6th Army under reported their supply situation to “help” by being able to do the impossible if asked, some modern weather data collectors might inflate their numbers a little. Inflating the foundational information and skewing the reported rise in global temperatures dramatically.

For example the National Weather Service reports the Heating Degree Days. The heating degree day is a scalar of how much the daily average temperature was above or below 65 degrees Fahrenheit.

To illustrate, I have taken some days from December 2009 that were reported in the Burlington Free Press, the paper of record for the State of Vermont;

dec18 2009 wsscm 2

On December 18, 2009 the National weather service reported 48 heating degree days for December 17th 2009. The High was 9 degrees and the low was 1 degree. 9+1=10 10/2=5 The average temperature for December 17th 2009 was 5 degrees Fahrenheit in Burlington Vermont. Subtract 5 from 65 to get the heating degree days and you have 60. But the National Weather service reported only 48 heating degree days for that day. Under reporting the actual figure by 12 degrees. Last year that day the Weather Service reports that the high was 31 and the low was 30. So 31+30=61 61/2=30.5 round up and you have 31. The average temperature for December 17 2008 was 31 degrees. Subtract 31 from 65 and you have 34 heating degree days for December 17 2008. The Weather Service reports exactly 34. The averages for December 17 are 32 for a high and 17 for a low. 32+17=49 49/2=24.5 round up to 25. Subtract 25 from 65 and you have 40 heating degree days for December 17th on average and that is what the National Weather Service reports is normal.

The question I have is why is December 17 2009 so underreported for heating degree days? The heating degree days as I have show were actually 60 when the National Weather service reported only 48. That would have made the average temperature on that day 17 degrees. Double the highest temperature seen on that day. This skews the seasonal heating degree days by showing less than there really was.

I have included another day to compare. December 21 2009. They under reported the heating degree days for the year prior;

dec 22 2009 wsscm 2

What do you think about that? I have found that at least once a week the heating degree days are under reported or, in the summer, the cooling degree days are over reported The heating degree day figure is a foundational figure used in computing global climate change. As the heating degree days are under reported and the cooling degree days are over reported it skews the IPCC’s reported global temperature increases. In the aggregate, all the little over and under reporting adds up to a lot, due to errors in the “original” data. At least the data that hasn’t been destroyed.

Check it out yourself in your local news papers. The math isn’t hard. Maybe it’s time we started looking into things for ourselves… and stop trusting people who have shown themselves over and over to be untrustworthy. Under tyrannies, the people have no means, in the democratized countries we have the means. Until we give it up to the global warming panic mongers.

Lets hope and work so that the little buffers, don’t have the same result on us… as it did 6th Army.