While I am not denying that pollution, deforestation, waste products and poison are destroying our environment and our lives, I still am not convinced that Global Warming in the sense of “wide spread climate change due to pollution” is true.

100 years of data is not a large enough model to predict study or even contemplate climate change of a whole planet. We simply do not have a wide enough sample of data to confirm this. Which one of reasons that laws governing fortunetelling cover weather forcasts (which is a nice catalyst for getting fortunetelling laws overturned but still).

The sky isn’t falling. Terrorists and totalarian regimes(W) are easily intimidated by a few good guns in every home with good training behind every person in that household. It’s good to be prepared regardless of where you live. There is no reason not to go out at night.

And it’s fucking cold outside. While extra moisture in the air from the ice caps melting could be translated into extra snow it does not explain every other snow storm on the planet in the last 100 years. What about 25 years ago? What about 200 years ago? Do you see were I’m going with this?

UN is hardly the bastion of anything but an ideal they do not live up to. They have little or no authority and have let the US walk all over them for their entire existence. (Find just one treaty that the US signed with everyone else, just one. That should be easy…now find two).

I do not see ice cores as good evidence. Shifts in snow and ice occur more rapidly than earth and rock. They do not keep in layers well. I am unconvinced that a core of ice is as accurate as a core of earth and rock. Ice moves, up down side to side, parts collapse and mix in a few centuries that earth and rock can take a millennia to do.

I am not saying we shouldn’t clean up our act, stop creating coal plants (Texas anyone?), stop dumping waste or spreading waste, and send the oil companies packing (I’m in favor of jettison them to the sun, after the Prius crap I’m ready to require all kind of new laws for those bozos). Hell, I say bring on the fescue the plant in Florida seems to be doing very well.

What really gets me is the use of natural. Some how we got this stupid idea in our heads that humans aren’t natural beings. When a dog shits on a carpet is pretty natural. Our shit isn’t anymore holy even if we shoot into a sanitized bath.

My favorite part of the report is the part about the unnatural methane levels. If we have that many animals on a planet (that includes us) those methane levels are just as natural as they always have been. Less would be unnatural.

The argument that humans cause all of this and therefore it is unnatural is a fallacy (aka bs). What hubris we have to assume that our products are so godly that they are not part of the natural world! It is our nature to create, to say what we do with our creativity is unnatural is to put on the same level as gods or higher if you consider gods natural beings.

The report says “Very High Confidence”, this is defined as 9 out of 10 chance of being correct. They remove the blame from aerosols (they have a cooling effect and we have cut emissions) but put it on c02, methane, nitrous oxide, (top), Tropospheric ozone changes due to emissions of ozone-forming chemicals (nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons) and finally changes in solar irradiance since 1750.

That’s not just humans.

Further more they admit their data is limited despite ice cap meltage. They then go on to say they only have temperature data for 150 years.

The top reason they cite for the rising water levels is Thermal expansion. That’s matter expanding when heated. They do not state the source of the heat, which means they are not taking into account the increased volcanic activity along fire ridge. Can you say Tsunami?

Ice cap meltage is only rated as Very Likely, that is defined as a 5 in 10 chance of being correct.

When they finally start getting into actual weather they contradict themselves. We have more droughts, but more rain, it’s been hotter but it’s been colder, there are lots of tornadoes but less storms. Finally they state that there is no clear trend in cyclone storm patterns (this includes all tropical storms and tornadoes). They do not give any locations for any of the observations. I measure cold days by when I take out the quilts. For the past two years I have not put away the winter quilts until July. Frost has been visible on my flowers into June for the past two years. However they state that we have less visible frost and hotter nights. My question is where? Not in Colorado. Where did the measure frost? On the ground? On the cars? On grass? On cement? Did they take into account composition?

And you wonder why I’m not convinced.

The conclusion that humans are causing global warming only rates a More Likely than Not (can you say less than 50% likely) but they predict it will get higher (maybe, only two rate a Virtually Certain rating and that hotter days and hotter nights).

Right after that tidbit they state: In all scenarios, the projected global average sea level at 2100 is higher than in the reference period {10.6}. The effect of changes in regional weather systems on sea level extremes has not been assessed.

They haven’t even taken in all data. Another quote:

Some aspects of climate have not been observed to change. {3.2, 3.8, 4.4, 5.3}
• A decrease in diurnal temperature range (DTR) was reported in the TAR, but the data available then extended only from 1950 to 1993. Updated observations reveal that DTR has not changed from 1979 to 2004 as both day- and night-time temperature have risen at about the same rate. The trends are highly variable from one region to another. {3.2}
• Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show inter-annual variability and localized changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region. {3.2, 4.4}

Funny that.

After this they state that they have increased the opinion that man is responsible for climate change from likely to very likely because of using 150 years of data rather than 50 years of data.

Yeah right.

Significant anthropogenic warming over the last 50 years still only rates a likely.

Another quote:

It is very unlikely that climate changes of at least the seven centuries prior to 1950 were due to variability generated within the climate system alone. A significant fraction of the reconstructed Northern Hemisphere interdecadal temperature variability over those centuries is very likely attributable to volcanic eruptions and changes in solar irradiance, and it is likely that anthropogenic forcing contributed to the early 20th century warming evident in these records.

Makes me go hrm.

The report continues to predict that sea levels will rise, and so will temperatures. .02 degrees at our current rate and .01 if all green house gases are kept in check (that means at a same levels or lower). This rates a Very Likely.

Still not convinced.

So to sum up my not so humble opinion: pollution bad for people, we must clean it up, but I still have heavy doubts on how it relates to climate change.

Live well and green, keep supplies and take gun training. It’s not that hard, really. Unless you’re a felon…then you’re screwed on that last part.