Global Warming Problems

LIVE FROM EARTH
HOT AIR

BY LISA RICHARDS
July 12, 2007

On Saturday July 7, 2007, or as every idiot on earth so excitedly titled the day, 7,7,07, because 777 apparently gives everyone nonexistent good luck, Global Warming King Al Gore held concerts simultaneously around the world to save the earth from jet airplanes, SUV’s, motor boats—especially yachts, and everything else on earth that uses fossil fuel used in abundance by Hollywood and liberal politicians like Bobby Kennedy Jr. who condemned everyone using what he consumes more than everyone else; disposable diapers—it’s better to soak that stuff in your kitchen sink than bury it under dirt where that stuff belongs; hairspray—John Edwards is the biggest consumer of the product next to San Francisco drag queens; everything made out of plastic and paper—that includes toilet paper, so do as Sheryl Crow and use your hands; water—if Teri Schiavo could do without it, so can you; everything that uses plants, trees, dirt, sand, rocks, and air; you have no right to eat or breath just because you’re human and can’t survive without the above mentioned. Find another way to exist. God did not give mankind this earth for mankind to use it; God was simply creating art without a purpose.

“Live Earth” was a 24 hour Global Warming music fest to raise “Green” awareness while decrying the use of all the above. In other words, no one should use anything unless it’s naturally derived from the earth no one is allowed to touch without permission from Al Gore. It is written in Matthew 27:19 that the note Pontius Pilot received was in actuality, not from Mrs. Pilot, but Al Gore. Jesus’ crucifixion was not decided by him, God, rather, it was decided by Al Gore, god of Global Warming Jesus was responsible for starting with all those healings and dead raisings.

If the two paragraphs above make no sense, that’s because liberals invented Global Warming Science, which does not exist, and liberals insist humans should live naturally off the earth liberals don’t want humans to have contact with in any, way, shape, or form for fear humans might some how disrupt the natural order of the earth God created and humans have don’t have the power to destroy.

If we humans could destroy the earth, the Romans, Vandals, Gaul’s and Barbarians would have done it when they were busy destroying ancient humanity.

In one asinine concert, fake Chimpanzee cries were heard when loon of the jungle Jane Goodall appeared on stage. It would have been environmentally cruel to use the real animal’s insane Jane lives with to make noise, so Gore used computer technology from the internet he invented, made in factories, which use fuel to power the machines that build the computers made out of plastic that is made in Chinese factories, the country helping India pollute the world by using tremendous amounts of fossil fuel energy.

Of course Jane, good environmentalist that she is, did not fly in a plane to her Live Earth destination; no, she used her flying monkeys.

The fake animal cries depict how Global Warmest’s believe humans ought to live—like a bunch of poor, starving jungle freaks. You see, if environmentalist had their way, human beings, would not even be allowed to eat fruits and veggies because that’s considered depleting the land of vegetation that has more right to exist than humans. Animals are exempt from the ban.

Al Gore spoke to the world via video—think George Orwell—demanding everyone follow his Seven-point Plan to save the world. Gore demanded the people of earth demand every leader start giving the world renewable energy sources to use because renewable energy will save the forests.

Of course Al Gore flies on private jets and drives in limousines powered by gasoline, something Al Gore owns millions of dollars of stock in. And Al Gore, like all environmentalists, is against clearing brush and hazardous, oil-filled pine needles from the world’s forests. He and his followers however, have no problem with the fact the world’s forests are going up in a blaze every summer, burning millions of acres to destruction every year.

Gore told crowds of idiots around the world who believe the world is coming to an end because of hairspray; “Put all of this energy in your heart and help solve the climate crisis.” Now why didn’t St. John think of that? Revelation is really about Aqua Net.

During the concerts, Global Warmest’s discussed light bulbs. How lovely. What is it with environmental retards and light bulbs? As if an energy saving light bulb will save the world from some imaginary glacial explosion. It’s more important to liberals that people use a low-energy light bulb than fight terrorist trying to annihilate humanity.

By the way, how are light bulbs made, by hand or out of hemp? No, they are made in factories powered by fuel running machines powered by fuel and high amounts of electricity creating electric powered bulbs that screw into a power source.

The hokes of hemp also declared something no one has ever known. It is very important when not using lights or any electrical device in the home, unplug all outlets. Gee, but I like to leave everything plugged in when I head out to the Hampton’s every summer. I want to burn the house to the ground. That’s what eco terrorists do to new homes under construction.

In London, Madonna was very earth-conscious. The stadium’s non-essential lights were left off and Madonna sang in the dark with only camera flash lighting making the millionaire, who owns everything you’re not allowed to use, visible to the brainwashed masses. Madonna demanded the crowd “start a revolution” against people who drive gasoline powered cars like Madonna; fly in jets powered by gasoline like Madonna—hers are private jets of course; and use electrical appliances, TV, etc. Madonna’s amps were powered solely by the sun. No electricity or gas was involved. After all, she is the Madonna; she has supernatural power from her son Al Gore.

And Cinderella chose to walk to the ball rather than turn a pumpkin, which could feed African children, into a poor, abused horse used by people.

At one concert, actress and narcissist Cameron Diaz told the world everyone should take showers together. The only people who will agree with the blonde ding bat are drunken college frat boys and lesbians. Normal humans with brains prefer privacy.

Live Earth was as phony as the liberal rock stars and Hollywood nuts making grand appearances, telling the world not to do everything liberals do and refuse to cease doing. Live Earth used plenty of fuel liberals don’t want anyone to know about so Al Gore could con the world into believing the world is melting.

What I want to know is, where’s the climate crisis? If the earth is getting warmer, why haven’t trees started growing on top of the Rocky Mountains? Why are mountain tree lines around the world at the same level they were thousands of years ago? If the earth is getting warmer, why is it so freaking cold on Everest and Hood? If the earth is warming, why is Mount Kilimanjaro actually growing colder? The mountain is below the Equator.

If the earth is warming, why do penguins still huddle in masses on Antarctica to keep warm during the blinding blizzards?

If the icebergs are melting, as Bobby Kennedy whined, why is the water on Lake Michigan no longer up to the shore line highway in Chicago? That lake is glacier fed, Chicago should have water flooding the streets, but the water is now far below the highway and away from the city with a large beach line proving the glaciers aren’t converging on Illinois.

If the earth is getting warmer, why can’t I plant tropical plants in my New England yard; why can’t I plant Hawaiian Hibiscus trees; why do I have to dig up my Gladiolus every October; why do Crocuses, Daffodil’s and Tulips, all plants whose bulbs depend on freezing winters, grow in abundance in New England and the Mid West; why is it freezing cold every January and February in New England; why does the Mid West get clobbered by daily snow storms every winter; why do the people of Michigan and Alaska complain that is starts snowing every September’s end and doesn’t get warm until the end of May?

Here’s a question; why did Erik the Red name Greenland, Greenland? Because it was so green, lush, and mildly temperate, it was perfect for farming; proving the earth constantly changes despite people.

So why is it okay for John Edwards to use hairspray; why is it satisfactory in the eyes of liberals for Gore to own stock in oil, but the rest of us can’t; why do liberals consider it acceptable for the Kennedy’s to fly on private jets, but conservatives get hell for flying commercial Jet Blue; why is it okay for Gore, Edwards, Madonna, Kennedy, and everyone else who appeared at Live Earth, to live in mega mansions, but it’s a crime for the rest of us to live in a house; and why do environmentalist drive SUV’s and other luxury cars, yet the rest of us are chastised for driving the same cars.

And why did the people who appeared at Gore’s concerts demand everyone on earth boycott car and oil corporations, and all companies who hire conservatives? Bobby Kennedy condemned every corporation with big money, oil and conservative employers and employees as traitors.

Apparently, rich people are evil because they can afford to hire people who need jobs. How many reading this work for poor people? How many corporations and small businesses are owned and operated by the poor? Give me a break; even hookers go to the rich guy.

Condemning wealth as traitorous makes Bobby the biggest traitor since he buys from those companies he denounced, and Bobby is one of the hated rich he abhors.

If Bobby Kennedy Jr. hates money and the trappings it provides; give it all away to the poor; if Bobby Kennedy Jr. insists we get our electricity from wind-powered wind mills, why won’t he allow those environmental friendly contraptions near the Kennedy Compound? Because he doesn’t want the ugly things, he insists be built in other’s backyards, where he can see them.

I would like to know why Al Gore and his self-loving me-athonists spent 24 hours blaming America for world pollution when the U.S. is the leader in clean-up, emissions, and preservation. I notice liberals never blame China and India whose factories have no regulations and cause the highest pollution percentage on earth. China and India are to blame for other country’s greenhouse gases. Liberals never raise an eyebrow to Mexico City, which has a choking, yellow haze floating in the city from lack of emissions causing high cancer rates in the people. But these are third world nations liberals love and don’t care how the country’s treat their people or the environment; it’s more important to blame America for everything.

Hollywood is the largest contributor to pollution in the United States. Production studies use so much fuel, Hollywood is contaminating the U.S. But that’s okay. Celebrities all pay special “donation” fees for their pollution contribution. Environmental organizations demand Hollywood libs write big checks to pay off their pollution debt. Apparently, liberal’s use of everything they condemn has created imaginary “carbon footprints” in the atmosphere. All celebrity liars need do is, buy their way out of toxic waste distribution through environmental kick-backs.

The whole “inconvenient truth is, liberals want to control the world, because liberals are socialists who love Karl Marx and the idea of no one ever having more than anyone else—unless the person is a liberal.

Global Warming is Social Darwinism; survival of the fittest, or, of liberals only. Oh, Islam is safe as long as liberals exist; liberals love terrorist who want to kill off humanity; it’s one way to save the earth from people.

Copyright Lisa Richards 2007
http://www.lisa-richards.com 2007

Can't find much about her. Catherine French is the name. I can't find anything about her after 2004 at the lab (doesn't mean she isn't still there), and she seemed to be in some sort of technology development position, not climate research. Hers is certainly not the opinion of anyone I know who does any sort of research at the lab relevant to climate. While it may be true that few scientists know how to handle regressions well, there are a lot of top scientists studying this problem. I would be more impressed if a statistician of some clout were to actually point to errors rather than someone with no real statistical background saying "a lot of (less qualified) people have made mistakes".

She then seems to try to give an alternative explanation for what is observed. That argument is scientifically poor. It is true that there is evidence that methane hydrate releases have caused significant climate change on a very short time scale. The fact that we can detect that in the geologic record means we would easily be able to tell if that was the explanation for what is happening now. It's not. If it could be, she would have said so.

In fact, the points raised (plus a few additional facts) make clear that we definitely need to do something. Methane releases have drastically changed the climate. A lot of methane is trapped in frozen permafrost. It is being released as the permafrost melts. If enough is released we have big problems. Seems like we should try to make sure they aren't released, doesn't it?

Her argument seems to be that:

1) some scientists make mistakes in statistics, or can design models to get desired results

However, she does not point out a single statistical mistake in a peer-reviewed article, much less show that a significant fraction have any sort of errors that materially affect results. Even if this had been a relevant point when she first began posting this around the internet (The earliest draft of this I find is from 2004), the Intergovernmental panel on climate change recently gave a report which involved on the order of 2000 (I believe - can't find a reference at the moment) scientists, many of whom were definitely better statisticians than Ms French. She has not updated her concerns to reflect any of the work done by them. I have not seen a single statistician of any note question the techniques of the IPCC.

2) Temperature measurements may be flawed (thermometers not properly calibrated, or kept in places that are warmed because cities grow around them)

There is the potential that a small error could be introduced in some temperature measurements. However, there is no question that nature itself has means of measuring temperature. Ice melts above 32 F. That's well-calibrated. The fact is that glaciers are retreating, sea ice levels are reducing, ice caps on Greenland are melting faster than they are replenished (and it's accelerating), and permafrost is melting (more on that later). Even if there were some bias in the actual numbers being measured, there can be no serious debate over whether the temperatures are increasing. This also shows that you can't argue that it's just bad statistics. Warming is happening. Her only hope is to convince us that it's something else.

3) Alternate explanations of global warming exist - namely methane releases which have caused catastrophic climate change in the past.

The fact is, scientists are well-aware of this problem. They are actually worried about the potential threat here, and so people are trying to measure it. Given that we know it's happened historically, it obviously leaves a strong enough signature that it can be measured in the geologic record. So we'd obviously be able to measure it now.

In fact this is a huge danger and argues against what she is trying to claim. One of the places methane is trapped is in permafrost. As it melts, methane is released - this is why people are monitoring methane levels. This means a little bit of global warming tends to accelerate global warming (luckily there are some other effects that work in the opposite direction) - if we get enough global warming this process will be greatly accelerated (and may - or hopefully may not exceed the stabilizing effects). As noted by Ms French the methane has the potential to drastically alter our environment on a very short time scale. In fact the fastest major climate shifts have occured on the order of a decade. This means that in that time scale land which is currently farmed could become unfarmable, while land which is not farmed would hopefully take its place - would we be able to shift our farming fast enough? We should note that warmer atmosphere means larger storms, and so more flooding and those places which would now be able to grow crops would be subject to erratic weather, leading to more crop failures.

4) Maybe the sun is putting out more power than it used to.

She gives lots of web pages promoting the existence and effects of methane, but doesn't give a single reference for this? I haven't seen anyone give a convincing argument that the sun's output could account for our heating. Even if the sun caused it, we know that the current climate is one we survive well in. We don't know that is true about whatever is coming. Surely we should do our best to keep the climate as is.

5) It is not wise to make policy based on ideas that aren't agreed by scientists.

The alternate argument is that the vast majority of scientists are convinced - only a fringe with often dubious qualifications argue against it. Given the claim Ms French made that there has been catastrophic climate change due to methane release and that it is clear that a small amount of climate change could lead to a large release of methane, should we really take the argument that as long as there is a small fringe of scientists who disagree with climate change research we shouldn't worry about it? After all, if they are wrong, it's just "massive extinction" (her words) that we have to worry about.

Also take a look at http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/GlobalWarming/