LJWorld.com

I have previously questioned the claim of global warming in part because I doubt that the 0.25% change in temperature claimed by global warming believers is meaningful because the potential margin of error in data collection is greater than 0.25%.

Changes in equipment between 1900 and 2000 could explain such a small change. Even American weather stations have at times used unreliable equipment such as the HO-83 Hygro-Thermometers. Anthony Watts has previously reported that sites used for temperature measurement in the U.S. locate equipment next to heat sources such as pavement and air conditioner heat exhausts. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1954 http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Today's sites are often located in areas with different thermal characteristics than would have been found at sites used in 1900. Many sites are at airports which of course did not exist in 1900. Today's cities generate much more heat than cities did in 1900 including the heated gases coming out of motor vehicle exhausts.

Anthony Watts has discovered a new source of errors in reported temperatures in areas where temperatures fall below 0 C. In locations at airports temperatures are often manually transferred for reporting purposes. Watts has found that at times the person transferring the temperature has left off the minus sign resulting in negative temperatures being reported as positive temperatures, a mistake that would obviously produce a higher average temperature. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/17/giss-metar-dial-m-for-missing-minus-signs-its-worse-than-we-thought/#more-18590

Transferring data manually also creates the potential for other clerical errors. Numbers could be transposed with 21 becoming 12 and vice versa. A "1" might be read as a "7" or a "3" as an "8".

Mathematical calculations can only be as accurate as the least accurate data. The potential errors that could result from clerical errors could easily exceed the 0.25% change in temperature between 1900 and 2000.

It is becoming increasingly clear that in western society the inmates are running the asylum. The idiot elite that holds power in most western nations have demonstrated their insanity by accepting the outright lie that the essential atmospheric gas carbon dioxide is a undesirable pollutant that needs to be regulated.

The scam begun by the crooked Enron corporation in the 1990's falsely claims that very slight increases in CO2 would substantially raise air temperatures. Enron, and its successors, hoped to profit from trading carbon credits like it had profited from trading credits in sulfur dioxide, a byproduct of coal combustion. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/05/29/lawrence-solomon-enron-s-other-secret.aspx

The scientific fact is air temperatures would rise substantially if atmospheric CO2 were to decline to a point insufficient to support plant life. Areas of bare ground are significantly hotter than comparably located plant covered ground because bare ground converts the solar radiation to heat.

CO2 is essential to functioning of the biosphere. Plants store solar radiation by converting atmospheric CO2 to complex carbon molecules instead of converting it to heat. The energy is stored in the form of the electron bonds that hold the molecules together. Plants also reflect solar radiation back into space, further reducing solar heating. http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1625289-CO2-Is-Essential-to-Biosphere

Those who talk about global warming have failed to provide any evidence of significant temperature change. They claim (depending on the source) only about a 0.5 - 0.7 C increase in temperature which is only a 0.23% change [Note: per cent changes are calculated using the Kelvin scale because of the arbitrary zero point of the Celsius scale - the only thing you can have less than nothing of is money.]

Such a small change could easily be the result of changes in equipment or the characteristics of measuring sites.

The claim about CO2 causing warming by trapping IR ignores the fact that physicist R. W. Wood demonstrated in a 1909 experiment that trapping IR did not heat greenhouses as many in the 19th Century had believed and thus the process could not heat the atmosphere either. http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1181679-Earths-Energy-System

Those who talk of magical greenhouse gases have no understanding of the complexity of earth's energy system. http://www.writing.com/main/view_item/item_id/1181679-Earths-Energy-System

Earth gets virtually all of its heat from the sun and changes in heating are most likely caused by variations in solar output than human activity. If human activity is affecting temperature the most likely mechanism would be the heat generated by human activity or changes in the thermal characteristics of the landscape.

Except in tropical areas the human body is hotter than the air most of the time. Human activities such as cooking and operation of mechanical devices generates additional heat. Pavement produces more heat than plant covered areas.

Any Western leaders who think they can benefit from the adverse economic consequences of restrictions on CO2 emissions should be taken to the Happy Home by those nice young men in their clean white coats.

Western leaders who think an economic calamity can benefit them are living in the wrong century. Any economic collapse in the West would speed up the process of shifting the economic center of gravity from the West to Asia. China is already benefitting from the West's economic mistakes and is moving toward controlling the American economy by buying American assets and becoming the creditor for its government.

Those pushing the global warming fraud may be more careful about communicating by email now that a large number of their emails have been exposed on the web. The emails provide further evidence that many scientists are little more than con artists.

Science's dirty secret is that scientists are the original con artists. The con artist tradition began with those called "medicine man" , "shaman", etc. These individuals possessed such knowledge as the various plants that could be used to treat human ailments and, in some societies, the movement of the stars. The shaman often convinced the village that he knew much more than he did.

Europeans who possessed knowledge of the physical world started calling themselves "scientists" centuries ago. Some of them conned wealthy nobles into financially supporting them by falsely claiming the knowledge of how to turn lead and other base metals into gold through a process they called "alchemy".

The more popular science based cons today involve medical cure alls and some variation of the perpetual motion machine - a device that operates using little or no energy. The biggest science based con today in terms of financial gain and impact on society is the global warming scam pushed by the Enron Corporation in the 1990's. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/05/29/lawrence-solomon-enron-s-other-secret.aspx

A hacker recently obtained over 60 megabytes of emails and other documents indicating that many supporters of the claim that humans CO2 controls climate have doubts about the claim. The emails involve communications between Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, and various other scientists who support the claim that humans can raise air temperatures by increasing the amount of the magical atmospheric gas carbon dioxide (CO2).

As John Delingpole on the London Telegraph site puts it: "The Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)" http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

Andrew Bolt of the Herald Sun suggests "the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organized resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will “peer review” be used to shout down skeptics." http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/

Marc Sheppard points out the hypocrisy of Jones, et.al. criticizing the funding of their opponents. Of the two documents that mention funding for global warming claims it's "the second document (potential-funding.doc) that tells the more compelling tale. In addition to four government sources of potential CRU funding, it lists an equal number of “energy agencies” they might put the bite on. Three -- the Carbon Trust, the Northern Energy Initiative and the Energy Saving Trust -- are UK-based consultancy and funding specialists promoting “new energy” technologies with the goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The fourth -- Renewables North West -- is an American company promoting the expansion of solar, wind and geothermal energy in the Pacific Northwest."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/cru_files_betray_climate_alarm.html

Former Enron official Jeff Shields has been associated with Renewables North West. The Enron Corporation was a primary source of funding for those claiming global warming in the 90's.

Bishop Hill has an index of many of the emails for those interested in further reading. http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html

The so-called clunkers people are being paid to trade for newer more fuel efficient vehicles are more fuel efficient than many older vehicles including my old '76 Ford station wagon. Instead of scrapping these vehicles, government should be encouraging dealers to offer them at bargain prices for those who own older vehicles to trade up to.

Expensive vehicles move down the income ladder after initially being purchased by those with the higher incomes. The process gradually updates the vehicles owned by everyone. If some middle aged vehicles are prematurely pulled out of this process, the result will be more older vehicles will have to stay on the streets instead of being replaced. Older vehicles tend to be less fuel efficient not only because of less efficient designs, but because wear reduces their efficiency.

Sales of used vehicles are an important source of jobs for those who sell them and a source of sales tax money for state and local governments. Fewer middle aged vehicles mean fewer jobs and less revenue for government.

Building and scraping cars requires a significant amount of energy and resources. Scrapping vehicles prematurely wastes both. Parts that cannot be recycled may end up in landfills.

Former NBC anchorman Tom Brokaw has been reduced to doing infomercials. I don't know if it's because he has some psychological need to be on tv or he lost his money to Bernie Madoff. Perhaps he expects to profit from trading carbon credits.

Most of us have watched at least portions of infomercials. They often use a similar format. A shill pretending to be a real interviewer asks the questions the seller wants to answer.

Usually the seller has a manufactured product, some medical treatment, a book or perhaps some get rich quick scheme. The format can also be used for political candidates or ideas.

Infomercials differ from presentations by journalists because journalists feel a duty to talk to those with alternate views and consider arguments against whatever ideas the interviewee is attempting to "sell". Real journalists are willing to ask interviewees potentially embarrassing questions.

Brokaw's program "Global Warming: The New Challenge With Tom Brokaw" attempts to sell the carbon credit program begun by the Enron corporation in the 90's. The program repeats the line that Enron's Ken Lay pushed: Minor increases in carbon dioxide supposedly will produce catastrophic global warming.

Enron had done very well selling sulfur dioxide credits and Lay realized a bigger profit could be made if the company could get a program for carbon credits. First the company had to get government to enact a program. Lay discovered that he could easily get the support of the Clinton administration. Clinton even allowed Lay to suggest a framework for the Kyoto Treaty that would financially benefit the company. Enron provided financial support for various purported environmental groups for its carbon trading program. These facts have been known since 2002 so Brokaw should have been aware of them before he did the program. Even the Washington Post reported on the issue.

Brokaw neglects to mention that Dr. Michael Oppenheimer whom he "interviews" got his Ph. D in chemical physics rather than climatology. The fact that Oppenheimer had an association with a political body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, doesn't necessarily mean he has any expertise on climate.

Oppenheimer was the manager [rather than a researcher] of the Climate and Air Program for the Environmental Defense Fund which has been openly supportive of Enron's carbon trading proposal. The EDF failed to criticize an Enron pipeline in Brazil that was environmentally damaging and supported an Enron wind power proposal in California.

Brokaw should have asked if it was only a coincidence that Oppenheimer left EDF for Princeton in the year after Enron imploded or if he had been paid by Enron while at EDF. Did the fall of Enron mean the EDF could no longer afford Oppenheimer's salary at EDF of $197,022? Did Oppenheimer receive more or less from Princeton when he started there?

In 2003 the Washington Post reported that money had compromised the Nature Conservancy which was an early recipient of Enron money. Had something similar happened at EDF?

Brokaw began by repeating the standard lie that there is a "consensus" about human caused global warming. Actually, no consensus exists. Those on both sides can present lists of scientists taking one side or another, however, there is no real consensus about specifics. There is no agreement about whether any warming has occurred or on whether carbon dioxide can affect temperatures. Some scientists say CO2 can have no impact on temperature. Others argue that any impact would be extremely small.

Many astrophysicists argue that fluctuations in the sun's output causes fluctuations in earth's temperature. Some believe that the sun goes through centuries long cycles and the sun may be about to enter a period when its output will decline as occurred a few centuries ago.

Supporters of warming provide no evidence of significant global temperature change. Their figures indicate only a 0.7 C or 1.25 F temperature (about 0.24%) change during the century. Such a change could easily be the result of changes in equipment or its placement. Equipment a century ago might not have been that accurate.

If Brokaw had checked he would have discovered that mathematicians have argued that the whole idea of an average global temperature is an impossibility.

Investigative weather journalist Anthony Watts has operated a blog for some time that exposes problems with the sites for temperature measurement that could lead to inflated temperatures.

In his opening Brokaw talked about global warming "hurting our wallets" and neglected to mention the high cost to consumers of carbon trading. The money that would be made by carbon traders would come from consumers.

Brokaw repeats many of the lies made by global warming scammers. For example, he talks about "tropical diseases" becoming a problem in temperate regions. The fact is that malaria was a major problem in North America, including Canada, during the Revolutionary War period even though that period was much cooler than today. Malaria was part of the cost of slavery. African slaves brought the parasite with them from Africa and passed it along to their owners.

Brokaw like many global warming alarmists uses "global warming" to cover up ways humans actually may harm the environment. For example, he blames the declining amount of snow on Mt. Kilamanjaro on global warming instead of the gradual elimination of the rain forest that provides moisture that falls as snow on the mountain.

Salt water encroachment on the Everglades in Florida is more due to human diversion of water that had flowed through the Everglades. Salt water is moving in because too little water is flowing out rather than because of any change in sea levels.

Brokaw neglects to mentions human actions in Florida that have led to more instances of freezing weather. The draining of wetlands in northern Florida have allowed freezing weather to move farther south into Florida's citrus regions.

Brokaw blames global warming for increased damage from hurricanes when the real cause is excessive development in areas with a virtually 100% chance of being hit by a hurricane over the long run.

Brokaw demonstrates the real reason for the program with a segment that suggests that even if increasing the amount of CO2 doesn't raise temperatures it might increase the growth rate of ragweed. He neglects to mention that increasing atmospheric CO2 might allow greater growth by plants that can be used for fuel and that food crops need large amounts of carbon that they get from CO2. For example, each molecule of sugar, sucrose, contains twelve carbon atoms.

Tom Brokaw was once one of the leading television journalists. His decision to serve as a shill on this infomercial destroyed whatever credibility he once had as a journalist.

Remember Enron, the corrupt firm whose failure should have disproved the myth "too big to fail", but didn't? At the time it was the seventh largest corporation. It's bankruptcy was the largest in history until Lehman Brothers failed. Incidentally, Lehman Brothers was also involved in carbon trading.

Enron owed part of its early success to emissions trading. Basically emissions trading was established as a way for some companies to profit from pollution while allowing some companies to continue to produce the chemicals that can cause acid rain.

Lawrence Solomon, executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute, is reporting that Enron played a major role in pushing the global warming scam, including establishing the Kyoto Protocals. http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/05/29/lawrence-solomon-enron-s-other-secret.aspx

Enron had already profited from trading sulfur dioxide credits and saw the potential for even greater profits from trading what would become known as "carbon credits".

The article is the first in a series of articles about those who seek to profit from what Weather Channel founder John Coleman calls "the greatest scam in history."

Solomon states, " The climate-change industry — the scientists, lawyers, consultants, lobbyists and, most importantly, the multinationals that work behind the scenes to cash in on the riches at stake — has emerged as the world’s largest industry. Virtually every resident in the developed world feels the bite of this industry..." which increases the costs of various goods and services.

Enron was an early player beginning early in the administration of Bill Clinton to push for a carbon dioxide trading system. Enron also sought support from environmental groups. "Between 1994 and 1996, the Enron Foundation donated $1-million to the Nature Conservancy and its Climate Change Project, a leading force for global warming reform, while [Chairman Kenneth] Lay and other individuals associated with Enron donated $1.5-million to environmental groups seeking international controls on carbon dioxide."

According to Solomon, "Political contributions and Enron-funded analyses flowed freely, all geared to demonstrating a looming global catastrophe if carbon dioxide emissions weren’t curbed. An Enron-funded study that dismissed the notion that calamity could come of global warming, meanwhile, was quietly buried."

Enron advised the Clinton administration what to do at the Kyoto Japan Conference in 1997.

To improve its chances for success Enron hired former Environmental Protection Agency regulator John Palmisano to become the company's lead lobbyist as senior director for Environmental Policy and Compliance. Palismano wrote a memo describing the historic corporate achievement that was Kyoto.

“If implemented this agreement will do more to promote Enron’s business than will almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring of the energy and natural-gas industries in Europe and the United States,” Polisano began. “The potential to add incremental gas sales, and additional demand for renewable technology is enormous.”

The memo, entitled “Implications of the Climate Change Agreement in Kyoto & What Transpired,” summarized the achievements that Enron had accomplished. “I do not think it is possible to overestimate the importance of this year in shaping every aspect of this agreement,” he wrote. He cited three issues of specific importance to Enron in the climate-change debate: the rules governing emissions trading, the rules governing transfers of emission reduction rights between countries, and the rules governing a gargantuan clean energy fund.

Polisano’s memo expressed satisfaction bordering on amazement at Enron’s successes. The rules governing transfers of emission rights “is exactly what I have been lobbying for and it seems like we won. The clean development fund will be a mechanism for funding renewable projects. Again we won .... The endorsement of emissions trading was another victory for us.”

“Enron now has excellent credentials with many ‘green’ interests including Greenpeace, WWF [World Wildlife Fund], NRDC [Natural Resources Defense Council], German Watch, the U.S. Climate Action Network, the European Climate Action Network, Ozone Action, WRI [World Resources Institute] and Worldwatch. This position should be increasingly cultivated and capitalized on (monetized),” Polisano explained.

Those who believe in Global Warming like to claim that they are opposed by corporate interests in the form of the energy companies. They neglect to mention that the battle isn't against corporations, it is between different groups of corporations. The energy companies are attempting to continue providing energy to consumers. Companies on the other side are merely attempting to create a financial opportunity for themselves as financial parasites who provide nothing to anyone and get rich in return.

Democrats often criticize Republicans for being too close to business. Democrats are just as close to business. They simply favor different businesses.

As William O'Keefe, chief executive officer of the Marshall Institute, puts it: "The American people have had enough of convoluted, indecipherable financial schemes and the opportunists who exploit them. The public is understandably angry about Wall Street's exploitation of Main Street, and yet our political leaders are setting the stage for another complex trading market, ripe for corruption. The future Enrons and Bernie Madoffs of the world would like nothing better than to see the U.S. impose a new market for carbon emission trading."

In the U.S. nearly "9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited" according to a recently published study by KPAY-AM investigative weather journalist Anthony Watts. http://climatesci.org/2009/05/04/is-the-us-surface-temperature-record-reliable-by-anthony-watts/

Watts and over 650 volunteers have been conducting an extensive examination of U.S.. weather stations to determine if they produce reliable temperatures and posting the results of the examinations on his blog Watts Up With That. http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/weather_stations/

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) requires that temperature measuring equipment be at least 30 meters (100 feet) from any artificial source of artificial heating source such as the heat exhaust of an air conditioner or reflecting / radiating sources such as pavement. According to Watts, 89% of the sites failed to meet that standard.

They "found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat." 68 stations were "located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas."

They also noticed that changes in the technology of temperature stations could have caused them to report a false warming trend.

Watts says, "we found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher."

Supporters of the claim about global warming indicate that temperatures rose on about 0.7 C or 1.2 F which is only about a 0.24% increase.

Watts concludes, "The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. The errors in the record exceed by a wide margin the purported rise in temperature of 0.7º C (about 1.2º F) during the twentieth century. Consequently, this record should not be cited as evidence of any trend in temperature that may have occurred across the U.S. during the past century. Since the U.S. record is thought to be 'the best in the world,' it follows that the global database is likely similarly compromised and unreliable."

The United States isn't the only nation with questionable sites. Italy also has problems. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/28/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-86-when-in-rome-dont-do-as-the-romans-do/

During the 90's the U.S. was using thermometers that tended to produce artifically high temperatures.

Dr. Benjamin Herman, http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/personalpages/herman.html Director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics at the University of Arizona asks on Climate Science http://climatesci.org/ if anyone has corrected the inaccurate temperature readings produced by the HO-83 Hygro-Thermometers that were used at some stations in the U.S. and may still in use in other parts of the world. The problem with the thermometers has been known for years according to an post by Steve McIntyre that lists numerous studies mentioning the tendency of the thermometers to record higher than actual temperatures under some circumstances. Temperatures could by as much as 2 or3 F above the actual temperature. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1954

As I have mentioned in previous posts there are various problems with the accuracy of the temperature data that supposedly indicates global warming. If thermometers used in the 1990's in the United States can produce inaccurate data how can anyone rely on equipment in less technologically advanced areas of the world. If modern equipment is inaccurate, the same is likely to be the case for equipment used 50-100 years ago. The old temperatures a century ago might have really been warmer and colder than the record indicates.

Contrary to a popular myth Al Gore and his followers are among the biggest enemies of the environment. Contrary to their lies carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant. CO2 is essential to biological life.

The CO2 cycle is the basis of carbon based biological life. Plants are carbon structures and CO2 provides the carbon they need. Carbon is the second most common element in the human body. Humans and other animals get their energy from the complex carbon compounds plants produce. For example, each molecule of table sugar contains 12 carbon atoms.

Plants are the original solar energy collectors. Plants store solar energy as the chemical bonds of carbon molecules. The ability of plants to grow depends upon the available sunlight and the amount of CO2 in the air.

The global warming crowd claims that the atmosphere has too much CO2, but fast growing young plants benefit from higher concentrations . Some greenhouses use twice the concentration of CO2 to encourage faster, sturdier growth, in young plants.

Plants use CO2 to produce food for animals which return part of the CO2 to the atmosphere for plants to reuse. Unfortunately, humans don't return all plant carbon to the environment. Humans use plant carbon for building materials, clothing and long lasting paper products such as books. Humans also put carbon containing food materials along with other carbon materials into landfills where it is unavailable for plants.

If it weren't for the combustion of carbon containing fossil fuels we might already be facing a shortage of atmospheric CO2 that could significantly reduce food production.

Production of biofuels depends upon ample supplies of CO2. The most productive biofuel plants would benefit from higher concentrations of CO2 because more carbon would be available for conversion to fuel.

CO2 provides the best way to return carbon to the environment for plants to reuse. Animals exhale CO2 as their bodies use carbon molecules for energy. The wind moves it from where it is produced to where plants are growing.

The CO2 molecule is one of the simplest carbon molecules and is easy for plants to take apart for construction of complex molecules. The cell is a microscopic factory. Its genes are programmed to process CO2 into other molecules. Taking carbon from the air is more efficient for plants because the carbon is available where it is needed.

Contrary to the lies of Gore and others, increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will not increase temperatures. Niels Bohr disproved the claim that the atmosphere was heated by absorbing infrared radiation (IR) with research that indicated the process of absorbing specific wavelengths of light changed the energy state of the electrons in gas molecules instead of increasing their temperature. Physicist R. W. Wood demonstrated in a 1909 experiment that trapping IR did not heat greenhouses as many in the 19th Century had believed and thus the process could not heat the atmosphere either.

It would be easier to make a case that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would reduce temperatures. Plants use CO2 to store solar energy in the form of chemical fonds of carbon molecules rather than converting it into heat. Plant covered areas do not become as hot as nearby areas that lack plant cover. Bare ground converts solar radiation to heat.

Increasing the availability of CO2 means that plants can store more solar energy than is possible with current levels of CO2. Storing more solar energy would reduce the amount of solar energy converted to heat.

A rare late March blizzzard has buried much of central and western Kansas. Coldwater, Kansas, along the Oklahoma border received over two feet of snow. Preston received what might be a new record for 24 hours with 30 inches.

I had 18 inches of the stuff on my sidewalk. I went ahead and shoveled a shovel width path through it even though the neighbors on either side didn't. Opening the pavement to the sun speeds the melting process because the sun hits the pavement which then heats up and transfers the heat to the area still under the snow.

South central Kansas gets heavy snows once every decade or two, but normally they come during the winter instead of early spring. Hutchinson was just inside the line separating the freezing rain and sleet from the snow which meant the air had a lot of moisture and thus produced a lot of snow.

For more on the Kansas blizzard including pictures see Wichita, Eagle.
KSN KWCH KAKE

The blizzard is another in a string of winter weather events that have happened over the last two years. The list includes unusual snow in Argentina, Brazil and even Tehran, Iran, and Baghdad. Iraq. Record earlier than normal snows have occurred in Idaho and New Orleans. Juneau, Alaska, set a new record for snow in January.

Vietnam and Saudi Arabia had freezing weather in early 2008. Some Alberta, Canada, cities have set new records for the month of March including a new Edmonton Airport record of -41.5 C which smashed the previous March low of -29.4 C set in 1975.

Cooler than normal weather isn't confined to the periods just before and after winter. We had cooler than normal weather here in Kansas last August with highs only in the 70's and 80's after the first week of the month. Chicago, Illinois, and Anchorage, Alaska, also had cooler than normal weather in August.

This cold weather events don't indicate another ice age approaching, but they do conflict with claims about global warming. Such events would not be happening if the earth was actually getting warmer and warmer.

The warm weather seasons would be getting longer and the cold weather seasons would be getting shorter if the earth was actually getting warmer instead of cycling between warm periods and cool periods.

Weather has sometimes been compared to a war between warm air and cold air. Sometimes the warm air is ahead and sometimes the cold air is ahead.

Some years warm air moves across the U.S. and Canadian border keeping the area warmer and preventing the cold air from moving south. This last winter cold air regularly "invaded" the U;S; sometimes sending freezing air all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.

Are you one of the victims of the "greatest scam in history"? I'm not referring to the scam conducted by Bernie Mad[e]off. I'm referring to what veteran meteorologist John Coleman calls the "greatest scam in history".

The victims of Mad[e]off's scam are typical of scam victims. They allowed their greed to override their common sense. They failed to consider the advice of the police that if some opportunity sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

Victims of the global warming scam have done nothing to make themselves victims, particularly those who are unemployed through no actions they have taken.

Those who could have been employed constructing clean coal powered electric plants are unemployed because the perpetrators of the global warming scam have stopped construction of those plants. The need to supply equipment for such plants and goods and services to construction workers would have created more jobs.

According to the perpetrators of the global warming scam, there is supposed to be a total consensus that what they call "global warming" is a major threat to earth's future. Coleman is one of many meteorlogists who disagree with some or all of their claims. S. Fred Singer is another who questions such claims. The two of them together have over 100 years of experience studying weather. Coleman founded the Weather Channel. Singer was the first head of the National Weather Satellite Service.

The claim that the minor atmospheric gas carbon dioxide (CO2) can determine atmospheric temperature sounds so absurd that it is hard to understand how anyone with a logical scientific mind could believe it. Supposedly CO2 which comprises less than 400 parts per million of the atmosphere can cause higher temperatures by absorbing and reemitting low energy infrared radiation (IR) from earth's surface. They make this claim in spite of the fact that physicist R.W. Wood proved a century ago that trapping IR couldn't even cause heating in an enclosed greenhouse much less the atmosphere.

The equation they use to predict catastrophic warming contains a major flaw that NASA covered up until Ferenc Miskolczi left NASA and blew the whistle on them. The equation Arthur Milne developed in 1922 contains a serious flaw. Milne mistakenly solved the differential equation involved by assuming an infinitely thick atmosphere. NASA is a major player in the global warming scam . Some of its employees may have acted illegally.

Those who believe in global warming claim that a 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.5 degree Celsius) increase in what they call a global average temperature during the 20th Century indicates global warming. The fact is that even if the number they use had any mathematical value it would amount to only a 0.16 % change which would more likely be due to changes or deficiencies in equipment or changes in the area surrounding the equipment.

Much of that equipment is in areas where maintenance is likely to be unavailable, but even the equipment in developed countries may be unreliable. There are documented problems with equipment and locations used to measure temperatures in the U.S.

Believers in global warming act more like religious fanatics than scientists. For them consensus is more important than facts. They call those who question their beliefs names like "contrarians" or "deniers" much like those who believed the earth was the center of the universe called Galileo and Copernicus "heretics'.

Those who question global warming have something else in common with Galileo and Copernicus. Galileo and Copernicus challenged the belief that the human inhabited earth must be the center of the universe the sun. Their persecutors believed the sun must revolve around the earth because the consensus view considered humans so important.

Those who claim humans are causing global warming believe humans are so powerful they can magically control earth's climate by manipulating a very minor atmospheric gas. They ignore the fact that earth's heat comes from the sun.

The so-called "deniers" believe that changes in the sun's output determine whether earth warms or cools. Some astrophysicists, who study the sun, believe that thousands of years of observation of the sun indicate the sun is about to enter a part of its cycle in which it will produce less heat as was the case in the 18th Century when Gen. George Washington's troops spent an extremely cold winter at Valley Forge.

The corrupt United Nations and other political organizations are pushing the scam. This is the same U.N. that was behind the oil for food scandals and scandals in UNESCO and UNICEF. The same U.N. that approved the U.S. invasion of Iraq to look for Weapons of Mass Destruction. There was more evidence for WMD in Iraq than there is for global warming caused by CO2.

Some financial interests, including the bankrupt Lehman Brothers, have been pushing the scam as means of increasing the value of a financial instrument they call "carbon credits". These carbon credits potentially allow financial parasites to cut themselves in for a portion of the revenue of various companies. Carbon credits inflate the cost of goods and services and may force companies to lay off people who would otherwise not lose their jobs.

Supporters of the global warming scam claim they want to protect the environment, but they call CO2 a polutant even though it is essential to biological life. Plants need CO2 to produce the food we eat.

The scammers by emphasizing a non-threat to the environment divert attention from ways humans actually affect the environment such as the production of black soot in China's dirty coal electrical plants. Black soot mixing with snow in the Arctic converts sunlight into heat that melts the snow. Without the soot the snow would reflect the sunlight back into space.

I plan to elaborate on some of these points in future posts.