LJWorld.com

A common theme in science fiction involves a highly advanced society in which people no longer understand the basis of science and technology. In such societies science is often just a series of beliefs that are to be accepted without question like in a religion.

The Star Trek episode "Spock's Brain" dealt with a society in which the people had little understanding of anything, even though the women lived in a climate controlled environment underground with sophisticated technology that required Mr. Spock's brain to operate. Installing Spock's brain had required one of the women to put on a machine that temporarily provided her with the knowledge to accomplish the task. After completing the task she forgot everything.

"For the World Is Hollow..." was another such episode with a priestess in charge of the knowledge taking orders from a machine viewed as a god.

Is our society moving in that direction? Is science on our planet becoming just another religion possibly a primitive religion based on a wizard's magic?

Some people who call themselves scientists claim that slight changes in the minor atmospheric gas carbon dioxide (CO2) can affect the temperature of the entire atmosphere.even though CO2 comprises less than 400 parts per million (0.04%) of the atmosphere. That sounds more like magic rather science. That's not the tail wagging the dog. That's a few hairs on the tail wagging the dog. The earth's land and water is the dog and the atmosphere is it's tail.

If the claim by the priests of global warming that what they are doing is accepted practice by modern science, then science has become nothing more than a form of religion. It is based on acceptance of beliefs by faith rather than rigorous examination of physical reality through experimentation and observation.

Real science used to be based on verification through experimentation and observation. Global Warming "science" is based on acceptance of long disproved 19th Century beliefs.

French polymath Jean Baptiste Fourier first suggested that greenhouses were heated by trapping infrared radiation (IR) in the early 19th Century. He then suggested that the atmosphere was heated by gas molecules such as carbon dioxide and water vapor absorbing IR. http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/fourier_1827/fourier_1827.html#text http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Physicist R.W. Wood tested this hypothesis in 1909 with an experiment involving identical greenhouses and demonstrated that the greenhouse that trapped IR was the same temperature as one that didn't trap IR. The experiment disproved Fourier's theory.
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html

Global warming believers rely on consensus which is a political concept not a scientific one. Real scientists rely on facts and will abandon a theory when evidence contradicts the theory. During the 19th Century the consensus among physicists was that atoms were the smallest particles of matter and could not be further divided. They abandoned that consensus when Sir J.J. Thomson demonstrated the existence of the electron and suggested the existence of two other charged particles he called "protons" and "neutrons".
http://www.visionlearning.com/library/module_viewer.php?mid=50

A more recent consensus involved a belief that the human brain stopped developing new cells. Research over the last few decades has demonstrated that the human brain continues to produce new brain cells through it's life.

Real science is mathematically rigorous. Global Warming "science" is mathematically ridiculous. The only evidence for what they call global warming is something called an average global temperature.

“It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth,” according to thermodynamics expert Professor Bjarne Andresen, of the Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen. “A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, etc. which make up the climate.” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm http://www.fys.ku.dk/%7Eandresen/BAhome/welcome.html

In real science, including the social sciences, averages went out with slide rules. Averages cover up too much information. For example, the numbers "0" and "100" have the same average as the numbers "20" and "80" but if those temperatures represent temperature ranges for different areas, those areas would have different climates. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slide_rule

Real scientists qualify their claims, particularly predictions, because they realize there is still much they don't know. The soothsayers of Global Warming claim there can be no doubts about their explanation and imply they have the gift of prophecy. They claim they can predict what climate will be decades in the future even though they cannot always get tomorrow's weather forecast correct.

Real scientists look for better evidence when people question their theories. The priests of Global Warming treat those who disagree as heretics and call them names like "contrarian" and "denier".

Real scientists are concerned about potential data errors and examine alternate explanations for results. The priests of Global Warming ignore the issue entirely.

They claim global warming has occurred even though they only claim a change in temperature during the 20th Century of about 0.7 C which is a only a 0.25% change. Such a change could easily result from data errors. Accuracy within 0.25% may be possible under controlled laboratory conditions, but is impossible in the diverse locations chosen for temperature measurement.

Investigative weather journalist Anthony Watts has studied the sites used for temperature measurement in the U.S. and discovered equipment next to heat sources such as pavement and air conditioner heat exhausts. http://wattsupwiththat.com/

Steve McIntyre has reported on the tendency of the HO-83 Hygro-Thermometers used during the 90's at some U.S. stations to produce artificially high readings under some circumstances. http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1954

The claim that the priests of global warming are scientists raises doubts about the credibility of science because it implies that all physical sciences are based on beliefs rather than thorough study of physical phenomena. If the recent harsh winters in various parts of the world continue all science will be discredited not just the pseudo science associated with global warming.

Real scientists need to borrow a phrase from Mr. Spock and tell the wizards of global warming to go play with their beads and rattles.

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.

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.

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.