How not to do environmental cost-benefit analysis…

The World Health Organization estimates that a child dies every 30 seconds from malaria, and acknowledges that this is largely preventable by the judicious use of DDT.  Yet, it still concludes that the unknown costs of DDT use outweigh the known benefits.  Hmm..

More…

http://greenhellblog.wordpress.com/2009/05/25/a-dead-child-every-30-sec-vs/

Obama proclaims simpler tax code… “just give us all of it.”

Actually, he didn’t say exactly that, but that would make it a heck of a lot simpler, wouldn’t it.  I admit I got a little tax cut recently.  Unfortunately, the tax cut I got came at the expense of other hard working people (the “wicked rich”), as well as my children and grand children, because the feds did not cut spending concurrently.  In fact, I will probably see the bill in my lifetime, with interest. 

We have yet to learn that there is no such thing as a free lunch.   The government takes our money and spends it where they see fit or simply gives it to others, and tells us we will be better off for it–it will magically multiply.  Unfortunately, the only thing we get is an economy of bubbles, misallocated capital, and redistributed wealth.

We ought to get rid of the income tax altogether.   It is nothing less than forced labor and blatant theft.

A new study on the causes of Arctic warming and melting…

I wrote on this issue in the past.  Now a new study suggests that…

“We will have very little leverage over climate in the next couple of decades if we’re just looking at carbon dioxide,” Shindell said. “If we want to try to stop the Arctic summer sea ice from melting completely over the next few decades, we’re much better off looking at aerosols and ozone.”

The study also implicates soot in the melting of arctic ice.

Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates.

At the same time, black carbon emissions have steadily risen, largely because of increasing emissions from Asia. Black carbon — small, soot-like particles produced by industrial processes and the combustion of diesel and biofuels — absorb incoming solar radiation and have a strong warming influence on the atmosphere…

Since decreasing amounts of sulfates and increasing amounts of black carbon both encourage warming, temperature increases can be especially rapid. The build-up of aerosols also triggers positive feedback cycles that further accelerate warming as snow and ice cover retreat.

Interesting, the melting of the arctic is one of the main arguments for anthropogenic carbon dioxide as warming agent.  But Roger Pielke has been saying all along…

In terms of climate change and variability on the regional and local scale, the IPCC Reports, the CCSP Report on surface and tropospheric temperature trends, and the U.S. National Assessment have overstated the role of the radiative effect of the anthropogenic increase of CO₂relative to the role of the diversity of other human climate forcings on global warming, and more generally, on climate variability and change.

Forecasting Guru Announces: “no scientific basis for forecasting climate” « Watts Up With That?

Is the tide turning?

Forecasting Guru Announces: “no scientific basis for forecasting climate” « Watts Up With That?.

So, the sun plays a minor role in climate, eh?

A recent study has linked changes in the sun’s magnetic field with large scale rainfall patterns (and droughts) in Austrailia, adding (this study suggests different causal linkages) to Svensmark’s ideas.

Meanwhile, the sun is still eerily quiet.

The death of science: “Nature” endorses Obama

The “premiere” scientific journal, Nature, recently endorsed Barack Obama for president.  Science is dead.  No wonder people are skeptical of scientists when they squawk about global warming and other immanent disasters.  They no longer even pretend at objectivity.  They are no longer scientists.  They are politicians.  How can we trust them to be objective at all, especially on issues that bear on political decisions?

Global warming survey: They don’t believe the hype.

According to the recent American Climate Values Survey conducted by EcoAmerica (1,707 respondents):

I can understand this result.  I am a climate change skeptic.  Even if it is occurring and we are causing it, given the evidence that we may have passed, or will soon pass the “tipping point”, and the unlikelihood that any measures now proposed would substantially change anything, it would seem we should be focusing on dealing with the consequences, rather than futile preventative measures. 

Only 18% of Americans expressed strong agreement with a set of questions expressing belief that global warming is real, that it is caused by humans and that it is harmful.

But I am simply not convinced that humans are causing global warming.  Maybe we are, but I have my doubts.  I am not convinced the sun and natural variability are not the real drivers of the observed trends.   How can I remain a skeptic in the face of the “scientific consensus” and the IPCC?  For one thing, science is not a democracy, and never has been.  Scientific “truth” is not determined by a majority vote.  In addition, with the politicization of science that has been brought on by the global warming “crisis”, and the realities of the financial necessities of grant procuration, etc., it is easy to lose faith in the scientific establishment.  Even in the absence of the blatant distortionary forces at work in our present culture, science is never truly objective, as Polanyi has shown.  Rather it is influenced by various internal and external subjective factors.

In a nutshell, despite the evidence for anthropogenic global warming, the present scientific and political climate has caused me to retain an open mind on the issue.   It is not that I am convinced it’s not a problem that we are causing, but it is difficult to take the alarmists seriously when they are trying so hard to convince us.  This is the “hard sell” phenomenon.  Al Gore and the media have so “hyped up” the global warming “crisis” that it is difficult not to look at them as used car salesmen.

In addition, though the climate has warmed in recent decades, I am not convinced that the trend will continue.  The global average temperature has actually been steady or decreasing for ten years now.  Although I understand that long term global warming is not incompatible with short period of cooling, it is hard to ignore record cold temperatures, especially when they just happen to coincide with an abnormally quiet sun.

The Sun Now, from SOHO

 

There was less ice in the Arctic 6000 years ago (and the polar bears are still here).

Yep.  According to a new study in Greenland by the Geological Survey of Norway:

”The climate in the northern regions has never been milder since the last Ice Age than it was about 6000-7000 years ago. We still don’t know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free, but there was more open water in the area north of Greenland than there is today,” says Astrid Lyså, a geologist and researcher at the Geological Survey of Norway (NGU).

They studied ancient beach ridges, which are formed by wave action, as well as old driftwood, shells, and microfossils.

Interesting, anyway.  Amazing that the earth (including polar bears and humans) survived such a catastrophe. 

Arctic sea ice spin

Here is the headline from the alarmists at Sciencedaily.com:

Arctic Sea Ice Hits Second-lowest Recorded Extent, Likely Lowest Volume

Now, couldn’t that have been written this way?

Arctic Sea Ice Extent Increased Over Last Year’s Record Low, But May Be at Lowest Volume.

After all, since last year was the lowest extent on record, what is more remarkable, that this year is the second lowest, or that it is increasing?  Did we expect it to suddenly return to an all time high!  What do these people take us for?  Wait…  I know the answer to that.

The Quiet Sun

The sun is spookily quiet, with solar winds at a 50 year low and an abnormally long period with no sunspots to speak of.  And maybe it’s nothing, just a below average minimum of solar activity.  The IPCC elitists say the sun has very little to do with the climate.  Maybe they are right.

But maybe not.  Maybe the sunspots are not coming back in the foreseeable future.  Maybe we’re in for global cooling like we have never seen before.  Maybe the Farmer’s Almanac is right, and we are in for a cold winter.  Maybe we are in for even more than that.  After all, the Maunder Minimum, an extended low in sunspot activity coincided with the so-called “little ice age” of the late 1600′s.  Of course, there is no reason to believe that we are in such a pattern…  or is there.