Saturday, October 21, 2006


LIGHTHOUSE POINT, Florida (AP, 10/19/06) -- An 81-year-old man was in critical condition Thursday after a stingray flopped onto his boat and stung him, leaving a foot-long barb in his chest in an accident similar to the one that killed "Crocodile Hunter" Steve Irwin. "Something like this is really, really extraordinarily rare," said Ellen Pikitch a professor of marine biology. "Even when they are under duress, they don't usually attack."

O’Reilly Factor, Fox News -- “It’s perfectly understandable,” said the lady scientist. “These creatures are under extreme stress from global warming.” O’Reilly wondered why a 1 degree F temperature rise would have such a dramatic effect. “It’s not like they were scalded,” he said. The lady scientist looked Bill in his unscientific blue eyes and patiently explained that he couldn’t be expected to understand the nuances of marine biology and the dire threat the ecosystem was under due to the increase in atmospheric carbon. Bill was impressed.

But I wasn’t. One of these years, the American voters are going to realize that they’ve been had, big time, by these global warming baristas and there will be hell to pay. But I get ahead of myself.

The crescendo of global warming hysteria peaked last summer with the worldwide release of algore’s horror movie (“An Inconvenient Truth”) that the naïve media and public took to be serious. Newscasts and print media kept reporting how “the science is settled,” that human caused global warming is the “consensus view.” Algore’s prediction of a 20 foot sea level rise by 2100 became an urban legend. Hollywood stars loved it and Gov. Arnold got his chops by signing a CA bill that “mandates” a 25% reduction in CO2 emissions statewide by 2020. The Democrats were delirious.

Then, unfortunately for them, some truth leaked out.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report issued Sept. 1 projected with confidence that the mean global temperature will increase by 3 deg. C and sea level will rise between 14 and 43 cm (1–3 feet) by 2100, if we do nothing. No Kyoto Protocol, no Kyoto 2, 3, 4,…N, nothing at all, and all we need to withstand is 1-3 feet higher seas. Folks started to think, “Hey, this is not so bad. In 94 years perhaps those fools living at sea level might find their way to ground 1-3 feet higher.” (Note to New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin.)

And the temperature rise will be least at the Equator (hot) and most at the poles (cold) so people in Minnesota might find their lows in the winter are 5-10 deg F higher than now, and my friend Chuck is delighted thinking about an extended duck hunting season. But don’t worry, if we somehow did stop the increase in greenhouse gas emissions the temperature increase would still be 2C by 2100, so Minnesota winter nights will still be pleasanter.

Here’s some more “inconvenient truth.”

Algore’s 20 feet of sea level rise was supposed to come from the melting of the polar ice fields. However, the huge East Antarctic ice sheet, which contains 90 percent of the world’s ice, has been thickening. European satellites measuring the ice sheet’s thickness found it is gaining about 45 billion tons of water per year because the planet has warmed enough for snow to fall at the coldest place on earth, according to a report in Science (June 24, 2005).

Just one more piece of algore’s “inconvenient truth”:

He insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming. After Katrina last year, the alarmists were predicting even more hideous destruction to come this year. But something funny happened. It’s now nearly November, hurricane season is over, but there were no hurricanes. And you may have noticed that gas prices are down, from highs that were artificially inflated by the global warming - causes - hurricanes scare that led the oil futures traders to bid the price way up.

As for that so-called scientific consensus, one last bit of truth:

On July 24, 2006 the la times featured an op-ed by Naomi Oreskes, a social scientist at UCSD, reporting her review of 928 scientific papers. Oereskes claimed there was 100% consensus that global warming was not caused by natural climate variations. Algore featured her study in his movie. Now we find in a report by the Brit Benny Peiser that Naomi’s review ignored 11,000 studies or more than 90 percent of the papers dealing with global warming. And even in her small sub-sample, only 1% of the climate studies explicitly endorsed the so-called “consensus view” that human activity is driving global warming, 29% implicitly accepted the “consensus” and 3% of the studies actually opposed that view. Clearly 100% was a stretch, Naomi.

I could go on, but it’s just so stupid. However, you can’t keep a zealot down.

Fearing the loss of research funding if this sort of information gets reported by the mainstream media (unlikely), the global warming warriors cranked up the mega-complex climate models (nine of them) and churned out another study looking at the climate extremes that might occur. And this is where the catastrophe comes in.

According to the la times, Oct. 20, 2006: “Much of the world, including the drought-plagued American West, will face more deadly heat waves, intense rainstorms and prolonged dry spells before the end of the century.” In case you’re not scared yet, the report says the “temperature extremes … are likely to have adverse effects on human mortality and morbidity.” Did you know that the American West is draught-plagued? Apparently the West is in the eighth year of its most severe drought since record-keeping began in 1895, but I barely noticed. Grass is green, flowers are growing, cars are clean, pool is overflowing… no scratch that, I got carried away.

But it’s not all bad news. Other changes predicted by the models include a longer growing season and fewer frost days in the Northern U.S. and Europe. They may be able to grow wine grapes again in England, and the French will erect tariffs just like they did in the Medieval Warm Period when Greenland was green. And in Minnesota there will be fewer winter days categorized as “life threatening” – not such a bad thing.

Unfortunately the global warming hysteria has a momentum that has been barely deviated by the truth. TV ads by Bill Clinton and Julia Roberts implore CA voters to pass Prop. 87 that would impose a $4 Billion tax on oil taken from the ground. NY times columnist and flat-worlder Tom Friedman wrote that Arnold and Maria need to come out in favor of 87 so as to guarantee their legacy, and improve the chances of the 25% CO2 reduction.

Never mind that enacting the Kyoto Protocol would likely cost the United States up to $350 billion in 2012. “The average American family of four would pay an extra $2,700 annually for energy and consumer goods, and in US minority communities, the climate treaty would destroy 1.3 million jobs and substantially affect standards of living.” But Arnie’s protocol is only Kyoto/2 for CA (25% cut by 2020 rather than by 2012) so the CA family would only have to cough up $1350 annually, and we’d only lose about 100 thousand jobs. And the effect on temperature will be non-measurable, ie puny. But Hey! It’s a gesture.

I wish I had Senator Inhofe’s faith:

“The American people know when their intelligence is being insulted. They know when they are being used and when they are being duped by the hysterical left.”

But I’m afraid that Neal Bortz has a more realistic take:

“Take heart, global warmistas! There's always next year! People aren't really getting that much smarter, so you'll be able to work your anti-capitalist, global warming agenda again.”


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's a study published by the German Government a couple of days ago:

The average Temp. will increase by 2-3°c (ca. 5 degrees fahrenheit). There will be less percipitation (30 % less) during all seasons by 2100.

There will be more floodings, more forrest fires.
Damages in the last 10 years through heat, drought and storms :16,5 billion euros (20,8 billion US)
Damages by 2050: 20 billion ( 25 bilion US)

7:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's unfortunate that Bill is back tracking yet again. First, global warming's a hoax. Then his friend complains that her tomatoes blossomed twice in one summer, and he acknowledges the facts. Now that the dems are set to take over the house and possibly the senate, he backtracks. Typical ideologue....beliefs first, facts second, and then only facts that conform to beliefs. Scary.

12:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On July 24, 2006 the la times featured an op-ed by Naomi Oreskes, a social scientist at UCSD, reporting her review of 928 scientific papers. Oereskes claimed there was 100% consensus that global warming was not caused by natural climate variations. Algore featured her study in his movie. Now we find in a report by the Brit Benny Peiser that Naomi’s review ignored 11,000 studies or more than 90 percent of the papers dealing with global warming. And even in her small sub-sample, only 1% of the climate studies explicitly endorsed the so-called “consensus view” that human activity is driving global warming, 29% implicitly accepted the “consensus” and 3% of the studies actually opposed that view. Clearly 100% was a stretch, Naomi
Bill, unless you do the actual research, stop quoting stuff from well-known global warming denialists. Benny Peiser is one such denialist. And get this...he's not even a climate researcher! He's an anthropologist. Now just why does that make him an expert in the field of climate science? Doesn't matter I guess. He takes issue with Oreskes claim that there is scientific consensus by conducting his own abstract search, and concludes that there are 34 of those paper rejected the case for antrhopogenic contributions to climate change. Well, if you actually looked at the abstracts, it will become clear to you that Peiser didn’t find any peer reviewed studies except for one that oppose the scientific consensus. What about the one he did find...oh yeah, that was from the ASSOCIATION OF PETROLEUM GEOLOGISTS....that's right, the oil guys. It doesn't matter though, does it? Facts don't matter, only beliefs do in the right wing world. Sad.

1:10 PM  
Blogger Bill Lama said...

Anony 1,
Thank you for the data. It substantiates what I believed. Climate change causes economic loss, but it is minor. Compared to a worldwide GDP exceeding $200 Trillion over the last 10 years, the 20.8 Billion loss is miniscule. And it's offset by the much greater crop yields due to CO2 fertilization.

"The economics is settled." (I'm practicing to be a global warmista)

Anony 2,
You very clearly have no sense of humor. The "tomatoes blossomed twice" post was no backtrack, it was a sidetrack. Looks like it worked on you. The global warming hysteria was, is and always will be a hoax.

Anony 3,
Check out Science magazine and you will find a retraction of the main point---she ignored 11,000 papers on global warming due to a sloppy abstract search. Oereskes is a socialogist as is Peiser. However Peiser is a more careful researcher who found all 12,000 papers and carefully showed that Oereskes misrepresented even the 10% that she looked at.

But, you know what? I couldn't care less what the so called experts say. The data speaks for itself and it is tending more and more away from human caused global warming.

1:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Thanks for putting some reality into the controversy. I think that Slick Willy and Algore have to take some responsibility of causing global warming, because every time they open their mouths and speak, and exhale they are adding hot air and CO2 into the atmosphere and contribute to global warming..


1:45 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry Bill Naomi Oreskes may be a historian of science, but she started her career as a geologist You know, an actual scientist. I looked at Science magazine, and there is no such retraction. Show me where to find the 11000 articles in the ISI database. Oh, that's right, you don't know what that database is. Show me it, and I'll believe you. You're missing the point (or just don't understand the point, which is what I suspect) There may be other papers on global warming, but Dr.Oreskes limited her search with the words "global climate change", so that would automatically restrict the amount of articles. Quit playing games. Learn more before you quote people. This is getting embarassing.

3:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I couldn't care less what the so called experts say." Yep, who cares what the "scientists" say. I'd rather take the word of Exxon Mobil and a 3rd rate anthropologist than the National Academy of Sciences.

6:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nice summary of the real situation. Everything you have written is in agreement with the information I have been able to find. I have always had to check statements which begin with "all real scientists believe."

The 1 degree F rise in the ocean's temperature in the last 100 years
seems to be ignored in the press in favor of rants about the glaciers melting and the oceans rising like in the movie "The Day After Tomorrow."

The world has been warmer in the past (the glaciers in California are from the "Little Ice Age" not from 10,000 years ago. It has also been colder and I remember in the 70's many of the same people were writing about the coming Ice Age.


7:00 PM  
Blogger Bill Lama said...

Anony 3,
Naomi Oereskes is a hack who couldn't make it in a hard science and turned to sociology. She's also bad at that.

Responding to objections by science writer David Appell, on 12/15/04 Oereskes admitted that there was a serious mistake in her Science article. Her study was not based on the keywords "climate change," but on "global climate change," thus missing 11,000 papers.

Seems like you don't mind being embarrassed. Why don't you tell us your qualifications so that we might give your views some weight. Or would you rather be an anony pundit?

And I don't need to show you anything. But pay attention and you may learn something.

7:16 PM  
Blogger Kea said...

You REALLY need to get your facts straight. Climate change is HERE and dramatic. For instance, the reason that large icesheets are currently growing is because of increased precipitation at higher elevations (an effect of climate change), something you would understand much better if you had actually spent any time looking at the actual data.

7:24 PM  
Blogger Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

10 22 06

Well this goes back to some issues of interpretation. Sure climate changes all the time, but are we characterizing this change on a local time scale (on the order of say 10^5 years)? Because on short time scales, there are SERIOUS fluctuations in mean temperature,weather conditions etc in the Earth. But over long periods of time, it appears that the Earth has been going through cycles of hot and cold since its inception.

I realize that anthropogenic activity does have an effect on climate, but my biggest question is how BIG of an effect? In approximating a function to describe climate change in time, do we treat anthropogenic activity as a perturbation? Do we treat it as a very serious disurbance?

I haven't been keeping up with all of the latest research in climatology, so these are questions that may or may not have been answered in other publications.

Personally I think that we are simply in a period of fluctuation, but we have noticed these changes in our lifetimes, which is really less than the blink of an eye over the Earth's lifetime.

My biggest question is how to characterize the long term weather behavior and if it actually has stable patterns over long times, OR if this is impossible to calculate due to chaotic fluctuatios.

8:14 PM  
Blogger Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

10 22 06

This is from the article Naomi Oreskes authored:
"Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen."

What I gather from the paper is that no new research was conducted at all. She did not do a study, but really a literature review. I never really like literature reviews because I feel they absorb the biases of the reviewer. Nevertheless she DOES bring up some facts. One of them is that the gases that we release via fossil fuel consumption etc modifies the concentrations of those chemicals in the atmosphere and affects radiative processes in our environment etc. My husband worked as a consultant and one of his projects was to analyze air quality data, that is concentrations of benzene, betadyeine and other toxic chemicals. And certainly near factories or in areas that were highly populated, the concentrations were higher. ICK!

We know that those chemicals are harmful to not only human life, but life on our planet. However, some recent data that he analyzed revealed that these concentrations of toxins in the atmosphere maxed out prior to 2005 and are now diminishing.

So again, the biggest question is how do we QUANTITATIVELY TREAT the effects of anthropogenic activity?

Some of the studies Oreska cited were rather old. I would like to see some new data analyzed and published, without the Algorian hysteria but with some cold hard facts, equations, modelling effects etc.

If any of you can point me to a rigorous analysis of climate change across Earthly time scales, I am game to listen. After all, we should be as objective as possible.

Stimulating article, Bill:)

8:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you want real information, not opinion pieces by "think tanks" funded by the oil industry, check out

8:30 PM  
Blogger Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

10 22 06

You sure are mean! But thanks for showing her qualifications.

I will point out that social scientists have been rather loth to develop rigorous quantitative models to describe physical processes. At this stage in the game, only social scientists from Canada, parts of the US and Sweden have employed rigorous AND proven mathematical formalism in their analysis plans. Usually, they try to linearize everything.

Let me give you a good example. For years my husband has been a programmer for social scientists at University of CA at San Francisco. He consults and plays with our cluster in our garage lab in his spare time. In any event, he came across some data that was clearly cyclical in time (after detrending). Why the hell did the PI tell him to linearize the data? You CANNOT FIT A SQARE PEG INTO A ROUND HOLE! My husband told the guy that there was a clear periodicity to the data, and that a time series analysis would be better suited to it. However the PI insisted on the wrong analysis plan because that is the way he was doing it for years!

Research in the social sciences has been conducted like this for years. Only within the past few years have a rare few tried to involve rigor in their papers.

So I wouldn't really trust the analysis of any social scientist unless they coulpled themselves to a mathematician or a hard scientist!

8:34 PM  
Blogger Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

10 22 06

THANKS VERY VERY VERY MUCH FOR THE LINK!!!!!!! Now that is what I was looking for. They provide a very rigorous analysis on some literature they have reviewed. Do you know what they said? They said that they think peer review is iffy as well and that it is a necessary but not sufficient condition:)hehehehe

8:38 PM  
Blogger Bill Lama said...

Thanks for your contributions. Another good site is CO2 Science at

If we succumb to the hysteria the world could well spend multiple trillions of dollars on a maybe event that would not be catastrophic, while a small fraction of that money could wipe out malaria in Africa (if only the greens would let us spray DDT) and supply the impoverished world with clean drinking water.

Liberals have the most upside down priorities. It's a crime.

10:20 PM  
Blogger Bill Lama said...

Anony idiots,
Those of you who leave offensive and worthless comments...

It's so easy to delete them...and it gives me great pleasure...

So keep it up... the longer the better.

10:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry Bill, is another front for Exxon Mobil: Here's some food for though:
For some time in 2005, the website was no longer free, because grants and donations to the site had declined dramatically [1]. As of 2006 it is free again, though there is a "premium login".

The Center has links to the fossil fuel industry, both through personnel and funding.

According to Center for Science in the Public Interest, the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change received $10,000 from ExxonMobil in 2001. [2] reports Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change has received $65,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2003. [3]

The Center works with the Greening Earth Society, a front group of the Western Fuels Association.

Both Idso brothers have been on the Western Fuels payroll at one time or another.

The Center produces a weekly online science newsletter called CO2 Science Magazine.

Little biases, but of course, that doesn't matter to the global warming denialists!

9:10 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another question....what is anti-capitalist about taking global warming seriously? Is reducing our dependence on foreign oil "socialist" or "communist"?

9:19 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mahndisa said "I will point out that social scientists have been rather loth to develop rigorous quantitative models to describe physical processes." It's not the job of social scientists to develop models of physical processes. In the case of the Oreskes paper, the point was describe the consensus on global warming science. Consensus is not a physical process. It is a culmination of thousands of scientists attesting to the anthropogenic contribution to global warming.

10:08 AM  
Blogger Bill Lama said...

Last Anony,
There are two primary ways to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

(1)The smart way is to develop our own oil resources by drilling in all the places where we know there is oil. At the same time build nuclear power plants to supply energy for the hydrogen economy that could kick in by 2050 or so. This approach has only good effects on the economy. Liberals oppose this approach.

(2) The green way is to force industries and car makers to meet restrictive consumption standards and spend tax money on energy alternatives like solar, wind and ethanol. The result will be very costly - see my post - and have minimal effect on oil dependency since those alternatives are hopelessly ineffective. Liberals love this approach.

11:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seeing that oil is a finite resource, it would seem to make sense to use renewable sources. And as oil gets more expensive, they would be cost competitive. It seems your objection is primarily ideological, since anything smacking of "renewable" or "environmentally friendly" are by default liberal policy initiatives. Is that really sensible? Just because liberals might have some common sense ideas, you just ignore not based on any facts, other than you hate liberals. As for drilling in ANWR, it will not end America's dependence on Persian Gulf or other oil imports. At peak production in 2026, oil from the Arctic Refuge would only still account for just 8/10 of one percent of world production per year, and only 3 percent of U.S. oil consumption. Even then, gas prices would only be affected by one penny. How is that cost-effective. As for nuclear energy, it may prove to be worthwhile, there's no evidence that it could supply all of our needs. In the age of terrorism, do we really want a nuch of new nuclear plants that terrorists could blow up?

12:04 PM  
Blogger Mahndisa S. Rigmaiden said...

10 23 06

"It's not the job of social scientists to develop models of physical processes. In the case of the Oreskes paper, the point was describe the consensus on global warming science. Consensus is not a physical process. It is a culmination of thousands of scientists attesting to the anthropogenic contribution to global warming."

Anonymous you are missing the point completely. As I said, Oreskes conducted a literature review which basically means she analyzed lots of papers and said that the majority of scientific publications support that climate change is real and that anthropogenic activity is affecting climate. That is common sense.

But I disagree with what you consider the JOB of social scientists. If their job isn't to develop rigorous models for what they are researching, then we get the same old same old bs where the wrong analysis were used etc.

In any event, the article did say that she omitted results due to the keywords used.

I like the site because they are hard scientists, from NASA and other institutions who give rigorous justifications for their statements. That is what needs to happen all the time, and I hope to goodness that more social scientists are willing to do so!

I feel so bad that two VERY important issues have been politisized:

2.Climate science

The former is a MEDICAL procedure and the latter has effect on all of us! Yet all I see is petty bickering from all sides. Wah!

12:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


The question then is, how would you model a prospective, randomized, controlled trial with the goal of ascertaining the consensus on anthropogenic contribution to climate change? As I said, Dr.Oreskes point was not to get into the details of the science, but to look at the literature to see if there any peer reviewed studies that dispute human contribution to climate change. How you would do this otherwise is beyond me. How do you prospectively analyze scientific opinion, and over what time period? And it is not the job of social scientists to study "physical processes". For the most part, they study human behavior. Scientific opinion is not something you can simply study like you would the stars or cells. It's a very inexact science, which is why many "hard" scientists don't believe it or trust it.

3:30 PM  
Blogger Kea said...

...the majority of scientific publications support that climate change is real and that anthropogenic activity is affecting climate...

This is scary. You don't know the data. You act like all greenies are raving liberal nutters. And worst of all, you don't realise how URGENT it is that we do something. ALL OF US.

In Australia we have a serious drought. The biggest greenies are the capitalist farmers. Pretty well all of them. Food prices are already going up. And there are news items with astronomers defending funding for science when food prices are rising. A large fraction of the world's population will soon be facing water shortages etc etc.

7:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bill you always tell the truth about the Dems scare tactics.
Why doesn't the main stream media report it???


3:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree that a 1 degree temp rise is unlikely to anger a stingray. But I once passed through a thermocline at around 75 feet, and mentally said, "10 to 15 degrees drop". When we surfaced, my dive buddy, who was carrying a thermometer, said it was only 3 degrees. So maybe there's more to it than we think.

When you say "the democrats were delirious", I've never considered global warming a political issue - it's a survival of the human race issue. Both parties are represented in the ranks of those who want to do something. The current administration doesn't take it seriously, just like he didn't take his father's warning about invading Iraq seriously. Our loss.

Ok, the eastern Antarctic ice sheet has gotten thicker. The author of the study also said that two adjacent glaciers were rapidly thinning, so it's not a continent-wide effect. When all the current data is considered, we've got a problem.


3:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Brother Bill - You should definitely see about getting your own television show. I'm deadly serious; you would have sky-high ratings. Think about it.

Semper Fidelis,

3:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

For what it's worth, when the Kyoto protocol last came up in the Senate, it was throughly defeated (more than 90 votes against, if I recall correctly). Incidentally Bill Clinton was president, and some guy by the name of Al Gore was VP...


3:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There was a Senate resolution (Byrd-Hagel) which basically denounced the Kyoto protocol because China (the second biggest polluter after the US) was exempted, and other nations could violate the protocol without penalty. Byrd-Hagel passed 95 to 0, so Clinton didn't bother to submit Kyoto to the senate for ratification.

Al Gore did sign it, a symbolic effort which has no practical meaning. With or without penalties, other nations aren't going to do anything if the US isn't going to do anything.

As I said, it's not a political party problem so much as a human race problem.


3:28 PM  
Blogger Free Agency Rules said...

The problem with both Global Warming and Evolution is the Assumptions drawn from the facts.

Facts are truths, but conclusions and assumptions based upon facts may or may not be.

One could easily say that the conclusion drawn from Evolution is that any "transitional" species is just another species that is different, but those who want it to be a transitional species will make a leap of faith that it is not just another species.

The same with Global Warming. The facts are there but those who draw conclusions from the facts can differ greatly.

Is it 3 feet or 20 feet? Well it depends upon the color of your worldview glasses!



5:26 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home