Articles NewsFlow Gold & Silver Prices Market Briefing

Recevez notre Marketbriefing

In the same category
Now Let’s Get Rid Of The Income Tax Nathan Lewis The Current Account Deficit Nathan Lewis The Current Account Deficit #2: Savings and Investment Nathan Lewis The Current Account Deficit #3: Complete Nonsense Nathan Lewis

overtheedge
Member since May 2012
680 commentaries - 6 followers

6 followers

has posted a comment on the article :

Global Warming Chickenlittleism

- Richard Mills - Ahead of the Herd

Though I lack a bunch of letters after my name, I enjoy studying most all of the sciences.

I learned that several years ago research was done on gas diffusion in polar ice. Turns out that atmospheric gasses diffuse through ice quite nicely. Couple this with Graham's Law in chemistry and any spikes in atmospheric CO2 that should be frozen in ice have long ago diffused leaving far lower levels to be detected. Think of it as a lovely lady wearing perfume entering the room. Soon the perfume molecules permeate the entire room rather than stay on the lady's skin.

I learned that cold water holds far more atmospheric gases in solution than warm water. As an example with CO2, take 2 cans of your favorite carbonated drink, put on on the kitchen counter and the other in the refrigerator. Leave both overnight. Next day, take the cold one out of the fridge and open it. Open the one that was on the counter. Compare the out-gassing results.

I learned that volcanoes predominantly out-gas CO2, H2O and SO2. And just where were the CO2 readings for the so-called hockey-stick taken? On top of Mauna Loa, an active volcano. Perhaps a few of you might recall the NASA screw-up over SO2 readings in the high southern hemisphere that NASA originally attributed to coal-fired power plants in the northern hemisphere. Turned out later that it came from Mt. Erebus in Antarctica.

I know we are coming out of the last ice age. I know that most consider the end of the ice age as the point where temperatures begin to rise. This directly infers global warming. I know we had a Little Ice Age between roughly 1150CE and 1850CE. Does anyone recall the story of Washington and his troops crossing the ice-choked Delaware River? Maybe folks walking across the Thames River in merry old England. How about the story of Hans Brinker and the Silver Skates from Holland? The Vikings bailing out of Greenland? Not so green now.

I know that we are not yet in the middle of an interglacial period. The poles are still ice covered. Remnants of continental glaciers still exist in sub-polar regions such as Alaska, Greenland, Baffin Island and others.

I know that the environmental community violates a basic tenant of science by reporting to the general public before undergoing critical peer review. I further know that the same so-called scientists vet one another. If you are one of them, you are qualified. If you aren't then no matter what your true qualifications are, you are unqualified. And as justifiably presented in the article, science has no need of consensus and can't afford the luxury.

That being said and if the planet is warming, then coastal cities are threatened by sea level changes. Infrastructure will be lost and people displaced. Just deal with it.
Snow pack in the mid-latitudes will melt earlier requiring better water management practices through the summer and fall. This earlier loss of snow-pack will be somewhat off-set by more frequent rains.

I know that successful organisms survive and thrive by rapidly adapting to an ever changing environment (Darwin pointed this out). The nature of nature is change. The complete fool's concept of preservation requires going head to head with the "Law of Entropy." The Law of Entropy is NOT a talking point or a suggestion, it is the LAW. Sooner or later, the equation must be balanced. Unfortunately, there is always over-shoot. The more we mess with entropy, the greater the over-shoot. Kinda falls into that Law of Unintended Consequences thingy.

But like I said, no fancy letters after my name. And unlike the IPCC members, I never cost the taxpayers anything for my observations.
This brings us to the crux of the matter. You can observe evidence. All models face the same problem: GIGO garbage in- garbage out. The model represents the researcher's belief system aka bias. Now couple that bias with the demand for future funding based upon desired results. There is NO greater threat to scientific inquiry than a belief system based upon the need for continued funding by ignorant taxpayers and their elected representation. Ignorant never elects wise, but rather just more successful versions of the themselves.

Good article.

Commented 3959 days ago

Send

Beginning of the headline :The nature of the recently released report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is extremely alarmist. The report warns, with a 95% certainty, that global warming is man-made and that the resulting climate change will lead to: Rising temperatures, drought and increasing desertification Warming of the oceans and rising sea levels Shortages of food Loss of ice sheets & shrinking of glaciers Increasing intensity and size of storms There’s no doubt our climate is changing,... Read More

Reply to this comment

You must be logged in to comment an article

8000 characters max.

	RSS feed		24hGold Mobile
	Gold Data Center		Gold & Silver Converter
	Gold coins on eBay		Silver coins on eBay
	Technical Analysis		Fundamental Analysis