As I awoke this morning, I discovered that once again the mercury dipped its ruthless little head somewhere south of zero. This has been a brutally cold winter, and indeed, I have never been so grateful for my fossil fuel burning snow blower, so brilliantly designed and built by MTD. Don't blame me for the cold, I'm doing what I can to warm the planet, at least according to the hysterical environazis, who claim that man kind can somehow affect our planets weather. These record breaking cold temperatures you see, are just another couple of data points which prove beyond debate, or even the opportunity for debate, that our planet has a fever, and that the only cure for that fever is to inflict massive economic damage upon ourselves and to force mass misery and indeed starvation upon the good citizens of Earth. To illustrate that point, here is a heartwarming story of our President offering the people of Northern California a $1 Billion slush fund purportedly to ease their suffering of a painful drought, which he claims was caused by, "global climate change." (Notice that, "global warming," has been changed to, "global climate change," in the official lexicon of the political left now. This is necessary due to the inconvenient truth that global temperatures have been falling for nearly 20 years now.) This happened this past Friday.
Those of you who possess adult memories may feel the tinges of previous stories of drought in Northern California. I should like to take you back all the way to the ancient date of 2009. If you'll recall, that was the year that the EPA made the people of California empty their five year supply of drinking water from their reservoirs in order to protect the 3" Delta Smelt. That was the year that California residents sued Barack Obama's EPA and lost in court, at the Appellate level, and were refused by the Supreme Court, to prevent this asinine abuse of EPA authority from having the potential to ruin their lives.
The more astute among you may ask, why would anyone build a reservoir capable of holding a five year supply of water in the first place? could it be due to the fact that the indigenous population there had previous experience with droughts, and knew that in order to be safe, they may need to be prepared for one that could last up to five years? That's the problem with government bureaucracies you see, no matter what the local population has to say about anything, they know better. "Well, in Washington D.C., we never have a drought that lasts longer than a couple of months, so you here in Northern California are just plain crazy for keeping that much water around."
From the Five year old Hotair article linked to above:
That would be the San Joaquin Valley in California, one of the most prolific agricultural areas in the country — or at least it was, until environmentalists turned off the water. Did they need it for people in response to the drought? No, because the water that would normally flow to the SJV is getting directed out to sea instead. Environmentalists have chosen to bankrupt an entire ecosystem of farms in favor of protecting the Delta smelt, a three-inch fish that neither feeds people nor eliminates pests from the water system.
This is yet another example of radical environmentalists inflicting unnecessary damage to farming and property rights. We should worry about the next target of their radical action after San Joaquin Valley and its impact on property rights, but we also have more mundane reasons for paying attention to the farmers in SJV. The lack of produce from this formerly successful agricultural area will hike prices across the nation — and could make us more dependent on agricultural imports:
So, the government, our genius bureaucrats appointed based on their intellectually superior bona fides, by our elected representatives, dumped a two year supply of fresh water into the ocean and shipped another two year supply to Southern California reservoirs. Now everyone is surprised that this whole thing has gone bad. To add injury to insult, the same President Zero who appointed those pricks at the EPA who created this mess is now refusing to sign a bill which would allow for the Norther California reservoirs to retrieve their water from the South. So while he's pimping his Billion Dollar slush fund, one which history has proven time and again would help no one but political cronies and politicians seeking campaign financing, he is preventing the only actual solution from taking place.
"Global Climate Change," is of course being blamed, as that bad actor can not be prosecuted and subsequently placed in jail. You may not have seen much about this story from Friday, at least in terms of the President's live remarks. As it turns out, the people of the San Joaquin valley do remember what caused their woes, and were not happy with the continued efforts to sacrifice their lives for the greater glory of political expediency. The Bamster you see, was not received all that well by people who were just informed that their misery was indeed necessary in order to help the President promote his Marxist agenda.
I've put this quote up before, and since it is so spot on, here it is again.
Patrick Moore, founder of Green Peace, on why he left that organization:
Basically they are using sensation, misinformation, and scare tactics. The environmental movement was basically hijacked by political and social activists who came in and very cleverly learned how to use green rhetoric or green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anti corporatism, anti globalization, anti business, and very little to do with science or ecology, and that's when I left. I realized that the movement I had started was being taken over by politicos basically, and that they were using it for fundraising purposes. Nobody is going to listen to you if you say the world is not coming to an end, but if you say the world is going to end, you get headlines. And so sensationalism, especially when it's combined with misinformation leads to a situation where people send gobs of money to these groups for campaigns that are actually totally misguided.
Science has nothing to do with consensus. When you hear someone tell you that there is a scientific consensus, you should train yourself to hear, I am trying to inflict political change, and am attempting to use the cloak of science in order to appropriate undeserved gravitas to my argument. Science is all about forming an hypothesis that can either be proven or disproven. It is black and white, right and wrong, positive or negative, what works versus what does not. The important point for this discussion is that the opportunity to disprove the hypothesis must also exist. This Global Climate Change Theory is the only scientific endeavor for which there is no identifiable way to either prove or disprove the theory.
We have all seen those silly youtube experiments which purportedly prove global warming, but upon any slight scrutiny, those experiments are picked apart as being poorly constructed, not applicable to the scale of the globe with which they are being compared, rigged, or simply not controlled in any meaningful way. At the end of the day, the only real evidence produced to prove or disprove the hypothesis are past temperature estimations coupled with some sketchy and highly contested computer models and discredited current temperature samples. (Temperature stations have been placed on asphalt heat islands, on building tops next to air conditioning units, and northern stations have had their data inputs excluded entirely. The computer models have been programmed in many cases to exclude 800 year periods, most specifically the period known as the medieval warm period.)
Here's my question, what opportunity to prove the converse has this group of scientists provided to show that they are wrong? That opportunity is crucial in every other field of scientific inquiry. This is true, even when the, "consensus," so to speak feels that that their theory is beyond reproach. Science after all is hugely self critical. True science, as I have stated is not about consensus. What it is about is a singular scientist either proving or disproving, through experimentation and observation of the results, the hypothesis in question. The hypothesis is either right, or it is wrong, and that result can be clearly demonstrated, repeated, and future results predicted. With actual science, it does not matter if 97% or 3% aligns with a certain belief, until such proof is garnered. Until that time, the hypothesis is just that, an unproven statement which needs to be put through the veritable wringer.
With respect to, "Global Climate Change." rising temperatures compared to seasonal norms is proof of the hypothesis. Falling temperatures compared to seasonal norms is proof of the hypothesis. What does that leave? One can only assume that in order to disprove the whole thing, we must see temperatures remain constant on each and every individual day when compared with the previous year. Every February 17th for example must be the same exact temperature as all previous February 17th's, and so on, for every single day of the year, for ever and ever. As ridiculous as this sounds, what is the alternative?
We have broken a record this year, and not many people realize it. Ice cover on the Great Lakes is almost complete. One can literally walk across Lake Erie, if walking 80 miles over a frozen lake is your thing, and hike from Cleveland, Ohio to London, Ontario. I am not saying that our climate is not changing. In fact, I am saying the opposite. Our climate is changing, just like it has for the entire history of our planet. It may even be warming, which by the way would be a good thing. All previous periods of global warming throughout history have been periods of unprecedented expansions in wealth creation. The Medieval Warm period was one such example of that wealth creation. Food is easier to grow when it remains warmer for longer periods of time. Animal populations thrive that previously had harder times surviving. Man kind had nothing to do with any of it, except to reap the benefits.
Our species has survived the changes in climate because evolution has provided us the ability to adapt to it. Unfortunately, these big brains of ours come with moronic egos as well. In every debate about this whole thing I keep hearing about the preponderance of evidence that points to the phenomenon being true, what I have yet to see is any actual evidence to support that claim. Computer models and ad hominen attacks are not evidence. John Kerry today called me a, "Flat Earther,." I would just like to point out that 1490, two full years before Christopher Columbus supposedly proved that the world was round, the first globes were produced and sold. Aristotle had actually estimated the circumference of our Planet two thousand years prior to that. While calling those of us who are skeptical might be a wonderful example of snark, it is as empty and moronic as the theory being posited. That is as accurate an illustration of the political left as I have ever seen.