Ultra Short Medley of Pithy Tidbits

A collection of ultra short but pithy nuggets from MLLG’s treasury
Ultra Short Medley of Pithy Tidbits
By: George Noga – August 13, 2017
      This summer I am experimenting with different formats. This post presents several ultra short, but blog-worthy, tidbits that have accumulated over the past year.
Dakota Access Pipeline now open Environmental protesters left 250 truckloads of detritus spread over 50 acres. The army cleaned up the toxic sludge before it flowed into Lake Oahe, the same lake protesters said would be polluted by the pipeline. This is not just a one off story; liberal protesters never clean up after themselves.
Who’s your progenitor? In Spain, birth certificates no longer use mother or father; instead they use “progenitor A” and “progenitor B“. Marriage licenses list “spouse 1” and “spouse 2“. Chimps, apes and orangutans have been granted full human rights.
The Chavez Diet is a sure way to lose weight. Just move to Venezuela and eat all the food you can scavenge. Last year 80% of Venezuelans lost at least 20 pounds. If you go, be sure to bring your own toilet paper to this socialist workers’ paradise.
When is climate change global warming? Progressives prefer climate change; but when summer rolls around, they revert to global warming. Canny, these liberals!
Obamacare for dummies To insure the uninsured, Obamacare first must uninsure the insured and then mandate they become reinsured at higher cost. The extra premium they pay is for the original uninsured now to become insured at far below cost.
Liberal Dogma: You can kill the golden goose but continue to get golden eggs.
The difference a day makes Young lovers born a day apart break no law until the day one of them turns 18. For that one day only, sex can be rape. The next day, when both are 18, everything is again legal. Teenagers have been prosecuted for this. Government has rendered the sex offender registry meaningless because of such lunacy.
Latest liberal food paranoia Celiac disease, a serious reaction to gluten, affects 1% of Americans although only 100,000 have been diagnosed. Nonetheless, 110 million progressives avoid gluten – equal to 1,100 for each person diagnosed. To make food gluten-free, many polysyllabic chemicals are substituted. Watch what you wish for.
Circus never closes Barnum & Bailey closed but the Washington circus never ends. Circuses, carnivals and freak shows have not disappeared; they simply moved to Washington and cable news shows. They feature prestidigitation, illusion, fake news, people who talk incessantly without saying anything – even bloody severed heads.
GMOs turn 20 The first GMO was used in 1997. Since then, not one person has gotten even a bellyache. Crop yields are up over 20% while pesticide usage declined nearly 40%. Without GMOs, an additional 100,000 square miles (Ohio and Indiana) would have to be cultivated. Someone please remind me why GMOs are Frankenfood.
Obama living the high life He gets $400,000 for speeches to Wall Street firms and jets all over the world cocooned in luxury and leaving a gargantuan carbon footprint. Pocahontas, a/k/a Elizabeth Warren, said he is out of touch with most Americans. And this coming from someone who received $430,000 to teach one class at Harvard.

Ultimate Climate Change Primer

If you believe global warming is man-made to any significant extent, then
reading this post should forever change the way you look at climate change.
By: George Noga – March 6, 2016

      Our first ever posting in 2007 was about climate change and we have written about it more often than any other topic. This post updates our position based on the latest science buttressed by logic. Earth has been in a secular, solar-caused warming pattern for 150 years; it is a normal part of alternate warming and cooling cycles throughout history. Nevertheless, it is possible, perhaps even likely, that recent increases in atmospheric CO2 have contributed to warming in some small and inconsequential way.

    Evidence warming primarily is nonanthropogenic continues to mount. Recent science (now being peer reviewed) shows CO2 feedback is not amplified 300% as per the computer models but instead is dampened 50% – a decrease in warming due to CO2 of 600%. Following are the top ten things you should know about global warming.

  1. The most compelling proof of solar causation is temperatures throughout our solar system. Since 1970, NASA has documented warming on our moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Triton, Pluto, Titan, Enceladus, Dysnomia and Eris. Much of this warming has a similar pattern to Earth’s. There is not one instance of observed non warming in our solar system. This evidence is so powerful it led me in 2007 to conclude that warming is solar caused and not man-made.
  2. There has been no observed warming (net of El Nino) for at least 18 years; this emphatically devastates the hockey-stick computer models predicting disaster.
  3. Earth’s temperatures fit a secular warming pattern with increases in fits and starts, pauses for long periods and even intervals of cooling as in the 1970s and perhaps again in the 2020s. No CO2 based computer models fit the pattern.
  4. Climate models have not been updated for decades because it is impossible for them to incorporate the actual results of the past 18 years. They have no answers for the simple reason that temperature changes cannot be explained by CO2.
  5. There is scientific agreement that a doubling of CO2 should cause a rise of about 1 degree by 2100. However, there is no agreement CO2 feedback is amplified (increased) by a factor of 3 per the computer models. Instead of a 300% increase, there is a 50% decrease in feedback. This means computer models are wrong by 600% and temperature gain due to CO2 should be only .5 degrees by 2100.
  6. Per the UNIPCC, the warming expected by 2100 is a net benefit to mankind. Moreover, their oft quoted summaries are written by politicians, not scientists.
  7. Science is not settled; it never is settled. Government funding of studies outstrips funding from all other sources by 3,000 to 1; you get what you pay for. If the science is truly settled, why won’t any scientist or politician agree to debate?
  8. Even if the worst scenario were to be believed, the best response is to spend scarce resources to ameliorate the effects of warming if and when it occurs rather than squander trillions today on infinitesimal reductions in temperature.
  9. Humanity’s best strategy is to maximize economic growth to have the most possible resources available in the future. Instead, we are choking economic growth by lavishing money on political feel-good initiatives that have no impact.
  10. The precautionary principle is being grotesquely misapplied. Warmists insist we spend trillions willy-nilly today to perhaps save lives in the future. But squandering trillions now will result in certain death for millions of poor people from lack of funds for clean water, electricity and disease eradication.

   Thus, affluent liberal elitists are condemning tens of millions in the third world to death solely in obeisance to their unscientific, politically motivated climate religion.

   We will continue to address climate change on these pages; this was but a beginning.


The next post addresses the many recent pratfalls of Pope Francis.

Was 2015 The Hottest Year Recorded? Not So Fast!

Climate change acolytes and their yellow dogs in the media are flogging
2015 as the hottest year ever. This is a factual, objective look at the data.
By: George Noga – January 27, 2016

     One objective of the new MLLG blog is to be more attuned to current events. The media frenzy flogging 2015 as the warmest year on record and stoking global warming panic demands a timely response. Following are the facts and nothing but the facts.

Some data (surface readings) do indeed show last year as the warmest, although satellite data do not support that finding. What is not being reported is the temperature rise in 2015 was wholly the result of a powerful El Nino that began in early 2015 and hence influenced temperature for the entire calendar year. Without the El Nino effect, 2015 would have been another hum-drum year with no observed warming.

The warmest prior year on record had been 1998, not uncoincidentally the year of the last powerful El Nino which raised temperature .25 degrees over 1997. However, in 1999 when El Nino transitioned to La Nina, global temperature fell .30 degrees, more than offsetting the 1998 increase. Usually (but not always) the subsequent La Nina cooling is greater than the El Nino warming. Thus, temperatures in 2016 or 2017 will revert to where they were before the 2015 El Nino. Note: It may be 2017 only because the transition to La Nina will not coincide well with the calendar year.

Temperatures since 1998 (and data since the Little Ice Age) match up well with a solar caused, non anthropogenic climate model. There has been a secular warming trend for 150 years which began well before carbon dioxide was a factor. The warming has been moderate and non-linear, often with long periods of little or no change. There even have been intervals of cooling; witness the global cooling panic of the 1970s. With adjustments for El Nino, global temperatures for the most recent 20 year period have been flat and comport extremely well with the secular warming climate paradigm.

     Moreover, the gestalt of climate change fits the secular-solar model whereas computer models based on CO2 all yield wrong results. No computer model to my knowledge ever has been updated. Ponder that for a moment; there have been no changes to the models for 20 years despite highly contradictory real world data.

     There have been no updates to the computer models for one reason only. It is impossible to create a computer model that incorporates the actual results of the past 20 years while simultaneously projecting any significant global warming scenario. It is impossible because climate change is a solar phenomenon unrelated to CO2.

Bien-pensant climate fanatics and their media sycophants tout the temperature in 2015, the recent blizzard-of-the-century and any extreme weather event to support their climate religion. Yet, facts are stubborn things and they unambiguously tell us there has been no warming err, climate change for 20 years – net of El Nino.

Are there any climate religion fanatics out there willing to risk some of their own money on a significant wager that temperatures will not revert to the pre El Nino pattern in 2016 or 2017?  If so, I just may be able to get you some action.


The next post resumes our Guns in America series; look for it in a few days.
MLLG

Letter to Liberals

Defining Liberalism – Part 4

By George Noga – November 22, 2014

Dear Liberal Friends:

Although I find liberal ideas (to the extent such exist) jejune, vapid and repugnant, I always have accorded you personal respect and dignity, a courtesy few of you have reciprocated. This is akin to the Christian concept of condemning the sin while loving the sinner. Most of you have been quick to call me racist, evil and other vile epithets but I do not reciprocate, again defaulting to a Christian concept, turning the other cheek. Although I have many liberal readers, my blog is not aimed at those impervious to truth and logic. This post is an exception and is expressly for you, my liberal friends.

Our personal lives, dreams and hopes are not dissimilar; we all want a brighter future for our children and a healthier planet; we live within our means; we assist those in need; we consider ourselves moral and try to do the right thing. We live-and-let-live, which interestingly is a libertarian principle. We enjoy similar pursuits and generally get along very well together. When politics rears its head however, it seems we are from different planets – make that different galaxies.

“Your credo is sentio ergo sum – I feel therefore I am.”

I view your liberalism as an emotional state in which obvious contradictions, disdain for facts, utopian fantasies, obsessive desires to control and to take from others and antipathy for all who differ – in various degrees and patterns – come to dominate your thinking. It seems that you feel rather than think; hence your credo is Sentio ergo sum, i.e. I feel therefore I am. Notice I say liberalism is an emotional state; I do not, as do many others, term it a mental illness. Churchill described your liberalism poignantly as: “the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy.”

Perhaps your liberalism was caused or exacerbated by fluoridation, EMT, the ozone hole, acid rain, GMOs, Thimerosal, dioxin, PCBs, acrylamide, BPA, pink slime or any combination of these and the 50 other instances of junk science in which you once believed – and perhaps continue to believe – and all of which have been proven false or grossly exaggerated. Did I mention anthropogenic global warming and organic foods? You embrace unreason because your progressive dogma is antithetical to objective reality and you prefer the ersatz comfort of mythology to the real world.

“Your liberalism is a lie.”

You believe the darndest things – many of which are contradictory. It is okay for a very young girl to have an abortion without parental knowledge or consent but not for her to sell lemonade in her front yard. Gender specific abortion is fine because we must kill females in order to protect their rights. Fifty million abortions are good but 1,300 executions are evil. Choice is your gold standard but you believe a woman cannot choose where to school her children, to own a gun and whether or not to buy medical insurance or to join a labor union. You believe more money improves schools, raising the minimum wage helps the poor, voter ID laws suppress minority voting, there is a war on women, government creates jobs,ad infinitum. Such modern day witchcraft inevitably leads to the syllogistic conclusion that your liberalism is a lie.

Most of you live inside a plastic bubble with other bien-pensant libs, in intellectually isolated and segregated enclaves; you live your lives without ever conversing with an evangelical Christian, conservative, libertarian or anyone from fly-over land. You attended government schools with a liberal curriculum using liberal textbooks written by leftist professors and taught by progressive unionist teachers in a milieu of political correctness.You are taught there are no values except that there are no values. There are no winners or losers because no one keeps score and everyone is above average. The media, pop culture and even religion reinforce your liberal mythology. If you ever venture outside your plastic bubble and perchance encounter truth, your first instinct is to deny it; your second is ad hominem attacks.

Your last liberal refuge is compassion and good intentions about which you never tire of regaling me. However, recent scholarship exposes your ersatz compassion as pathological altruism in which your attempts to promote the welfare of others, instead results in harm. The entire point of your falsetto compassion is for you to feel better when another’s suffering provokes unease; but this does not assure the sufferer of relief. Your interest is in accruing compassion points that you and others will admire. If you’re trying to prove your heart is in the right place, it isn’t. You regard your compassion as the central virtue that makes you good as distinguished from mean-spirited folks like me. But to bolster your rush of pious, pompous reaction, you need more victims in exactly the same way an addict needs more drugs.

“If you’re trying to prove your heart is in the right place, it isn’t.”

If you are so anguished about others’ suffering, why are you so disinterested in wasteful, misdirected and ineffective government programs? It is because you care much less about actually helping than you care about caring. Hence, it is more important for you to say or to do something rather than to accomplish something. Once you have written, spoken or even held forth at a social gathering about some government program, your work is done and you can bask in your own pious reaction. You always want a bigger welfare state for self validation rather than for helping others. That’s precisely why your mantra always is to spend more – it is really for your benefit for you to feel better about yourself.

To conclude dear liberal friends, you are all about feeling rather than thinking. You bought uncritically into every bit of junk science in your lifetime. You routinely accept grotesque contradictions as dogma. You believe so much that simply isn’t true, the only possible conclusion is that liberalism is a lie. You live in a plastic bubble where your myths are constantly reinforced. If you ever experience a conflict, you first deny the truth and then default to vicious and ugly ad hominem attacks. Unsurprisingly, studies show liberals hate more than any other group, a fact to which I can attest.

Even your compassion is phony; your tears are crocodile tears. If you really cared about the poor more than pumping up your self image, you would be more interested in the effectiveness (results) of programs intended to assist them rather than forever mindlessly spending more and more of other peoples’ money. By the way, study after study shows you talk a good game but don’t deliver; folks like me donate far more to charity than folks like you. You take great pride in your compassion and pristine intentions which you wear on your sleeve for all to see. Everything you do is to show your heart is in the right place; but if you’re trying to prove your heart is in the right place, ipso facto, it isn’t!  Have a nice day.

Acknowledgment and credit are due for the ideas presented herein dealing with the nature of liberal compassion. The books Never Enough: America’s Limitless Welfare State and The Pity Party both by William Voegeli, as well as his summary in Imprimis, were sources for this posting.

MLLG

The New Age of Unreason

By: George Noga – October 17, 2014
     Fluoridation, pesticide dangers, Laetrile, overpopulation, global cooling, organic food benefits, electromagnetic transmission lines and electromagnetic fields, acid rain, the ozone hole, Alar, silicon breast implants, falling sperm counts, killer bees, GMOs, vaccines and autism, global warming, swordfish overfishing, Mad Cow, SARS, landfill shortage, vaccines causing harm, Avian Flu, Thimerosal, Swine Flu, dioxin, PCBs, BPA, pink slime, manmade climate change, paper consumption harming the environment, cell phones and brain cancer, spousal abuse peaking during the Superbowl, anti-packaging paranoia, harm from saccharine and artificial sweeteners, fracking and the water supply, evils of plastic, acrylamide, ethanol and bioenergy, US infant mortality being worse than in Cuba and the Keystone Pipeline.
“The gestalt is that we are entering into a new age of unreason.”
      The preceding list has at least two things in common. Every item is junk science and has been shown to be either grossly exaggerated or, in nearly all cases, wrong and thoroughly debunked. Second, progressives bought hook, line and sinker into each and every one. What’s even worse is that liberals continue to cling to most of them despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Last year the citizens of Portland, Oregon, caught up in a time warp, voted 60% against adding fluoride to the drinking water. The uncritical acceptance of junk science on such a massive scale is due mainly to  liberal dogma and political correctness. The gestalt is that we are entering into a new age of unreason.
       Space limitations preclude addressing many of these exemplars of junk science; therefore, I will focus on only two of the most widespread, egregious and enduring myths, i.e. manmade global warming and organic foods. Alas, this is my parting shot at these topics – two of my favorite whipping boys over the many years of writing this blog.
Manmade Global Warming

       This remains a religion to its acolytes – all the mounting evidence and logic opposing it notwithstanding. To be clear, I always have acknowledged there has been a solar-caused secular warming trend for about 150 years. I also will aver there is a possibility that mankind, in some small and insignificant way, may be contributing as it is impossible to prove a negative. The evidence against a meaningful role for mankind can be summarized as follows:

  • There has been observed warming by NASA on our moon, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Triton, Pluto, Titan, Dysnomia, Eris, Enceladus and elsewhere in our solar system. There is no instance of observed temperature decrease anywhere in our solar system. Moreover, the measured warming is in lockstep with that on Earth. Clearly, these measurements prove to anyone but a Luddite that warming is a solar phenomenon.
  • There has been no observed warming for at least 17 years and up to 25 years depending on which measure is used. This defies all computer models. Warmists can only dissemble; the best they can come up with is that the warming is hidden deep in the oceans – a proposition which, of course, can neither be proven nor disproven.
  • Virtually all other claims made by warmists have failed to materialize. The shrinking of the Arctic icecap (which they tout) has been far more than offset by the increase in the Antarctic icecap, which is 10 times larger than the Arctic icecap. Recently, the Arctic icecap has begun to increase. There have been no major hurricanes to hit the US since forever and there has been no more extreme weather than in the past.
       Even if, a arguendo, anthropogenic global warming existed, the warmists still are dead wrong about how to deal with it. Firstoff, moderate warming is a net benefit to mankind as has been acknowledged even by the UN-IPCC; if warming helps mankind, where’s the problem? Second, any actions taken by the USA and western world are meaningless without participation from China, India, Russia and Africa; how can you tell 25% of the population in India and China they can’t have electricity? Finally, the best way to deal with warming is to maximize economic growth so that we will have the ability in the future (should it be needed) to mitigate its effects. The warmists are wrong about every aspect of global warming; what they advocate will cause great harm to mankind.
Organic Foods

       Not only are proponents of organic food wrong at every level, their actions, if left unchecked, will wreak havoc on the planet and without any benefits whatsoever to consumers of organic foods; consider:

  • There is absolutely no difference in taste between organically grown food and conventionally grown food. Every independent, scientific taste test has shown people cannot tell the difference. I will put up $10,000 to back the claim that there is no statistically significant difference in a scientifically conducted taste test.
  • Organic foods have no added benefits for vitamins or minerals, i.e. they are not more healthful in any way.
  • Both organic and conventionally grown foods use pesticides; the difference is organic uses so-called natural pesticides in massive quantities and it leaches into the groundwater causing grave environmental harm.
  • Organic requires 40% more land, is more labor intensive, has 20% to 50% lower yields and costs up to 300% more. If adopted on a large scale, it would result is clearing millions of acres and destroying critical habitat.
       Organic is a lie; it is the holy eucharist in the church of progressivism! Organic food tastes the same, is not more healthful, uses pesticides and harms the environment; moreover, it is not sustainable if expanded to a larger scale and it is not local as 25% comes from China. Much organic food is fraudulent and has false organic certificates which are readily attainable. Organic even uses GMOs, the only difference being it won’t use GMOs resulting from gene splicing. Only liberals eat organic foods, a fact well understood by Whole Foods which locates its stores only in progressive enclaves that also have strong anti-vaccine movements and where Obama got 81% of the vote. How do you spell g-u-l-l-i-b-l-e?
The New Age of Unreason – Scientists versus Witch Doctors
       Scientists use logic, experiment, replication and the scientific method; true science is never settled. Scientists deduce conclusions from objective data; they have made breathtaking progress and have created a cornucopia of marvels. Space travel is commonplace; medicine routinely performs miracles; and personal electronics are mind boggling. Technology improves in quantum leaps and every measure of human and environmental well-being is the best it has been in 50-75 years and continues to get better all the time. Thanks to scientists, we inhabit a world of scientific and technical marvels.
Unreason flourishes because progressive dogma is antithetical to objective reality.”
      Despite all the progress noted supra, we are now in a new age of unreason and it promises to get even darker. Unreason flourishes because modern progressive dogma doesn’t square with, and is antithetical to, objective reality. Liberals eschew science in favor of dogma, mythology and vapid political correctness. They are akin to modern day witch doctors; they screech in unison like imps and banshees believing that the more often and louder they repeat their pallid screeds and mantras and attack the real scientists somehow will make them right.
      Like witch doctors, they shriek incantations, bring out leeches, administer arsenic and bleed the patient. For maskirovkaand misdirection, they use euphonic names like class equity, moral equivalence, internationalism, fairness, environmentalism, and disparity of outcome. Many are former communists who have transmogrified into green commies and hijacked the environmental movement. Metastasizing liberalism has spawned and midwifed an endless sea of banalities and inanities interspersed with downright lies. It truly is nothing less than twenty-first century witchcraft!
       In the first paragraph I listed over 40 specific instances where progressives took the side of unreason. For about 25 of these issues (by my reckoning) they continue to believe in thoroughly discredited canards, continue to embrace feel-good fallacies and continue to sin against logic. Science has become politicized and spawned an epidemic of misinformation. It really all comes down to liberal politics trumping science and reason because liberalism is based on myths and lies that are antithetical to objective reality; given this choice, liberals would rather embrace witchcraft than the real world.

Environmentalism’s Siren Song

By: George Noga – Updated February 22, 2014

    Nothing matches the environmental movement for effrontery. Everything about it is fraudulent; yet it has captured the hearts, minds and souls of our children. Try explaining to your kids that every measure of human and environmental well-being is better today than at any time in the past 100 years and continues to improve; they will not believe you. And it just isn’t our kids; too many of us buy into environmental myths.

      Everyone supports reasonable laws for clean air, water and energy, biodiversity, saving rain forests and right on down the line. So what’s the difference between us and those who usurp the mantle of environmentalism? There are three main differences: (1) we are for capitalism, free trade and limited government; (2) our beliefs are based on empiricism and science; and (3) we make rational, economic tradeoffs when human well-being is at stake.

The Environmental Movement is Led by Marxists with Other Agendas

   Like most movements of our era, environmentalism began in response to legitimate concerns. All people of good will supported laws to address the concerns. Then things began to diverge. Moderates left the movement believing their mission accomplished. Extremists took over and pushed for more and costlier laws to eke out smaller and more dubious improvements. Then the Berlin Wall fell; communism collapsed; and the most diehard Marxists found themselves homeless. Patrick Moore, a founding member of Greenpeace, stated it well.

   Following the collapse of world communism . . . many of its members moved into the environmental movement, bringing with them their neo-Marxist, far-left agendas. The environmental movement was hijacked by political activists using green language to cloak agendas more about anti-capitalism and anti-globalization than with science or ecology.”

      Today the environmental movement is run by former Reds and the hard left. They have morphed into Greens for maskirovka but they are like watermelons, i.e. green on the outside and red on the inside. Its acolytes today are limited to big government types, professors, teachers, movie stars, a smattering of unthinking camp followers – and many of our children.

   The ultimate irony is that for a country to improve the environment, it must be wealthy. The only way for nations to become wealthy is via capitalism and free trade. That is why America, Japan and western Europe are able to spend lavishly on the environment. The worst environmental tragedy in human history was the Soviet Union and its satellites. The same leftists who created an environmental Armageddon in the USSR and who advocate a return to its disasterous ideology are the very ones leading the environmental movement in the USA.

Science and Empiricism Versus Failed Political Dogma

     We differ from the extremists in another important respect; our views are based on science and not failed dogma. Following are but a few examples to ponder.

  1. As well documented by economists Julian Simon and Steven Moore in their book It’s getting Better All the Time, the 100 greatest human and environmental trends of the past 100 years are the best they ever have been and continue to improve.
  2. Environmentalists oppose the Keystone Pipeline, US drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico (new wells), ANWR and the Atlantic continental shelf. Yet Cuba, Venezuela and many South American countries, with far worse safety records, drill in the gulf and on the continental shelf. Logically, it would be more eco-friendly for the US to drill.
  3. Extremists push for ever more costly laws to achieve insignificant marginal benefits while ignoring the 800-pound gorillas in the world such as coal mine fires in China and India that create more pollution than all the fuel burned by cars in a year in the USA.
  4. Organic food in scientific taste tests cannot be distinguished from conventionally grown food; it harms the environment as it requires 40% more land for production.
  5. Extremists insist we spend trillions in the years ahead to combat alleged warming and all to lower global temperature by an imperceptible .1 degree Fahrenheit by 2100. The same amount of money could be better spent fighting TB and malaria, ad infinitum.

Conflicts Between the Environment and Human Well-Being

  When inevitable conflicts arise between environmental and human well-being, extremists totally disregard economics and human suffering. There arise situations when harm to the environment is uncertain or minimal while the cost and suffering to humans is astronomical. In such situations, like the snail darter and delta smelt, my calculus favors humans.      

    We are losing our children’s hearts and minds to eco-extremists who seduce them like the Sirens of Greek  mythology. The Sirens were seductresses who lured sailors with enchanting music to shipwreck on the rocky shoals of their island. Today’s environmental Sirens similarly are beguiling our kids with enchanting thoughts but with the same pernicious intent.

Warming Observed Throughout the Solar System

 By: George Noga – December 8, 2013
       Several recent MLLG postings about global warming have referenced temperatures throughout our solar system moving in near lockstep with Earth’s. This has been cited by MLLG as proof that warming is caused by solar phenomena and not man. Some  readers have asked to see the evidence because, if indeed the assertion is true, that appears to provide conclusive evidence that warming is not manmade in any significant part.
      Proof of warming throughout our solar system was the final evidence I needed back in 2007, when I wrote the very first MLLG blog, to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that manmade  global warming was junk science, a very bold assertion indeed way back in 2007. Following are the data and the critics’ reactions. We begin with the moon and work our way outward to Pluto.
  1. Moon: Temperature sensors were placed on the moon by Apollo 15 in 1971; additional probes were deployed by Apollo 17 in 1972 at a different lunar site. They reported rising temperatures year after year for as long as they operated. Moreover, the observed lunar temperatures were comparable to the long term warming trend on Earth. Candor however compels me to report there are SUVs on the moon – detritus from Apollo missions.

  2. Mars: NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions in 2005 showed the south polar icecap receding each year. Recently the Mars Rover mission reported much higher than expected temperatures. NASA scientists say Mars has warmed by the same amount as Earth since the 1970s. Critics blame higher Martian temperatures on dust storms, albedo (reflection coefficient)  and a host of other things. They also point out that the Martian north polar icecap has been increasing. Well – so has Earth’s south polar icecap. Oh yes – there also are some SUVs on Mars – jetsam from various NASA missions.
  3. Jupiter: Jupiter is developing a second red spot which scientists attribute to warming. Some parts of Jupiter now are 6 degrees warmer than before. Data from NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope and the Keck II telescope show Jupiter in the midst of a significant warming trend. Critics blame shifts in internal turbulence – whatever that means.
  4. Saturn: Recently temperatures jumped several degrees based on data from Voyager 2 and the later Cassini probe. Critics say the warming is momentary and due to orbital position.
  5. Neptune and Triton: Voyager 2 observed the atmosphere of Neptune and Triton (a moon of Nepture) in 1989. Recent data from Hubble confirm that Neptune and Triton have warmed considerably since Voyager 2 took readings in 1989; thus at least since 1989 Triton has been warming. More recent Earth-based measurements show the surface temperature has increased up to 5%. Critics haven’t yet responded to this data.
  6. Pluto: In recent decades Pluto has warmed considerably based on studies by scientists from MIT, the University of Hawaii and Cornell – and this is occurring despite the fact Pluto is moving away from the sun. The study was conducted by telescopes based at Mauna Kea, Lick, Lowell and Palomar Observatories. Critics blame Pluto’s orbit.
  7. Elsewhere in the solar system: There are data showing warming on Titan and Enceladus  (both moons of Saturn) and Dysnomia, a moon of dwarf planet Eris. There is not one single measurement anywhere in our solar system showing lower temperatures.
“There has been observed warming on our moon, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Triton, Pluto, Titan, Dysnomia, Eris, Enceladus and elsewhere. There is not one instance of observed temperature decrease anywhere in the solar system.”
      If the preceding data do not convince everyone warming is a solar phenomenon, I don’t believe anything ever can. How can it be possible for any scient person to see these data and continue to believe global warming is anthropogenic to any significant degree? And don’t forget – per the United Nations IPCC – warming is a net benefit to both man and planet.

IPCC: Global Warming Net Benefit to Humanity

By: George Noga – November 15, 2013
       On September 27, 2013 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”) released a 30-page Summary for Policymakers (“SPM”) purporting to cover the full 2,000+ page report which will not be released until January 2014. Earlier this year I plowed through a leaked draft of the 2,000 pages which, to use Churchillian construction, “by its very length defends itself against the risk of being read“.
“Warming has been and is a benefit to mankind and our planet and will continue to be a positive force until the beginning of the 22nd century.”
     The blockbuster consensus in the full IPCC report is that global warming has been a net benefit to humanity, is currently a boon to mankind and will continue to provide net benefits until perhaps early in the next century. The report lists several benefits which include:
  1. In the 20th century warming increased human welfare by over 1% of global economic output. The benefit increases to about 1.5% between now and 2050. After 2080 there remains a better than even chance that warming will remain a net benefit to mankind.

  2. Deaths due to cold weather outstrip ill effects from warm weather – by a factor of 10.

  3. Warming produces better agricultural yields, lowers energy costs, causes fewer droughts, results in more rainfall, enhances forest growth, does not cause extreme weather and even fosters increased biodiversity. Moreover, it primarily benefits the poorest among us.

  4. The greatest benefit to humanity comes not from higher temperatures but from more carbon dioxide which promotes plant growth and food production.
  5. Don’t forget the record number of polar bears who are thriving on the broken ice.

  6. The report also states all the computer models are broken and invalid; there has been no observed warming for nearly 20 years; and future temperature rises will be minimal.

Media Reaction: Ignore Good News; Cherry-pick Bad News

      Given this sanguine news from the IPCC, the same folks who originally created the global warming panic, what have the media reported? Have you seen anywhere  that warming is a veritable blessing for mankind and the overall effect of warming will be positive for many future generations for man and planet? Instead, you see execrable and jejune reporting such as:
  • Scientists are more sure than ever about man’s role in causing warming. This is a canard. The confidence level (totally subjective) increased 5.6% (from 90% to 95%). This is akin to reporting a gaggle of appointed apparatchiks from NRA are now 5% surer than they once were that gun ownership is a benefit based on studies by several gun manufacturers.

  • Regurgitating stories about the shrinking arctic icecap and melting Greenland ice. I have never read anything in the statist sychophant media that the Antarctic icecap – which is 10 times the size of the Arctic icecap – has been expanding and more than offsets the much lesser decrease in the Arctic icecap. More to the point, isn’t warming in Greenland a good thing? That is why Vikings settled Greenland in the first place during earlier warmings.

  • Attempting to explain away the lack of warming by reporting the heat is being trapped deep in the oceans – something that can’t be proven or disproven. This is pure witchcraft.
     The SPM was not prepared by scientists but by partisan, appointed UN bureaucrats who have a strong vested interest in promoting global warming panic. The 30-page SPM contradicts some parts of the full report. That likely explains why the SPM was released in September and the full report not until January – so that it can be reverse engineered to comport with the SPM.
Bottom line: It no longer really matters to what extent, if any, warming is manmade inasmuch as it is a godsend to both man and planet – and this from the same folks who brought about the panic in the first place.

Memo to readers:  Part two (next week) of this posting explains how and why so many people (many of good will) were so wrong for so long about manmade global warming and why even today a great many still choose to cling to superstition, myth, religion and outright falsehoods.

Clinging to the Global Warming Religion

By: George Noga – February 1, 2013

      Why do some people still cling to the man-made global warming myth? As the headline above suggests, it has transmogrified into a religion. As all religions, it is based on faith in things unseen; it has its high priests and dogma. It is replete with its own sacraments (bio-fuel, windmills, ethanol) and demons (coal, oil, CO2). As a religion its core beliefs are unassailable and impervious to all countervailing facts and logic. It is harsh toward apostates, labeling them deniers. However, its high priests and numeraries succumb to all the usual temptations of money, power, politics and arrogance.

     Their co-coreligionists, i.e. the state sycophant media, serve as enablers by their grotesquely distorted reporting. Let’s examine recent reportage (and non reportage) to see how this works.

  • An acolyte of the warmist religion recently emailed me, gleefully citing a media story about the melting of the polar ice cap. That’s true enough insofar as it goes. However, the media never report that the antarctic ice cap has been increasing for many years. And oh by the way, the antarctic ice cap is 10 times larger that its arctic counterpart.
  • Recently the media have been flogging the story about 2012 being the hottest year in the lower 48 states by a full degree Fahrenheit. Again, a true statement. But did the media report 2008 was cooler than 2006 by 2 degrees? Did they report 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 all were cooler than 1998 by a greater margin than 2012 was hotter than 1998? Did they note the continental US is only 1.58% of  earth’s land mass?
  • It is an uncontested fact there has been no warming trend for the past 16 years. So, what does the media do? They glom on to the fact that the decade including 1998 was the warmest on record. Given 1998 was the hottest year, it follows statistically almost automatically the same decade would be the warmest decade. This media misdirection is solely to assuage readers’ anxiety from unwanted facts counter to their religion.
  • What the media ignore can be equally significant. The US Department of Energy reports US CO2 emissions are the lowest in 20 years (by 14%) despite 50 million more people. You didn’t read this in your local paper because these incredible gains result from free market hydraulic fracking and not windmills, solar or government diktats. By the way, have the media reported it has been nearly 2,300 days since a Cat 3 storm hit the USA? So much for climate change and the purported increase in extreme weather events.
  • Arguably the greatest failure of the global warming religion (and its media stooges) is to account for temperature readings from planets and moons in our solar system. NASA has taken readings from several bodies over many years and they closely track changes in Earth’s temperature. Unless there are CO2 belching SUVs on Mars and Triton, this can mean only one thing: temperature changes result from solar activity. When faced with such overwhelming evidence, warmists do what one would expect – they totally ignore it.

       Thus far I have failed to mention the ultimate apostasy, i.e. the amount of warming now projected for the remainder of the century is a net benefit to mankind. I am going to miss the warming religion when its final adherent figuratively closes the door and turns out the lights much as I have come to miss the former Soviet Union. They have much in common. Both were religions based on deeply flawed premises; they became funny (in a pathetic way) as their stars faded. And, they were such inviting targets to write about. But religions never die and there are a few die-hard commies around as there will be a similar number of warmists in a few years.


Note to readers: We have tweaked the format slightly and also added more social media sharing options which now include: email, Twitter, Facebook and Linked-in; The links are at the very top of the posting.

IPCC: Global Warming Vastly Overstated

IPCC Draft Report: Global Warming is Minimal and a Net Benefit to Mankind!

By: George Noga – January 24, 2013

    The (“IPCC”) or United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the very same folks who perpetrated the man-made global warming hoax on the world, is poised to release its Fifth Assessment Report later this year. A draft has leaked; it is posted on the Internet for all to see. I have read much of it and it is pure dynamite.

     Scientists who reviewed the draft, state that data contained therein lead inexorably to the four  observations listed below. Please be forewarned however; as always, the final report will be highly politicized. Its summary and conclusions will contradict data buried in the body of the report. The media and warmists will selectively extract data and quotes solely for scare purposes. Despite this dissembling, the conclusions are:

  1. There has been no warming for the past 16 years.
  2. Computer models used in the past to predict disaster are invalid.
  3. There will be a rise of only 1 degree Celsius between now and 2100.
  4. There will be a net benefit to mankind from this amount of warming.

        It was simple long ago to conclude man did not cause warming in any significant measure. NASA had many years of accurate readings from several planets and moons in our solar system showing their temperature changes tracked closely with earth’s. Ergo, it had to be a solar phenomenon which man could not possibly be causing.

Kyoto and Carbon Dioxide

  The world little noticed, but the Kyoto Protocol on climate change expired at the end of 2012. So, just how successful was it and how did the United States (which did not sign the treaty) fare compared to the self righteous countries that did and castigated the US? Japan promised a 6% CO2 reduction but experienced a 7% increase for a net negative margin of 13%, and this from a nation losing population and in a generation-long economic slump.

  Australia experienced a negative CO2 margin of 56% – bummer! Our neighbor, Canada, a rabid Kyoto supporter, had a margin of negative 30%. The Netherlands had a negative margin of 26%. The European Union as a whole met its target due solely to three factors: (1) economic stagnation; (2) rigging the starting date to coincide with the collapse of communism; and (3) the related closure of grossly inefficient Soviet era power plants and industries. Meanwhile, Uncle Sam had an increase over the past 20 years of only 10% despite economic development and population growth that vastly surpassed most of the world.

Europe Back to the Stone Age; Pineapples in Alaska

   Global warming has attained the status of a religion in Europe. And religions don’t die. Zoroastrianism, which faded away over 1,000 years ago, still has hundreds of thousands of adherents. Europeans believe warming could drive them back to the stone age. They may be right, just not the way they envision it. Their misplaced faith in global warming – not warming itself – could result in much of Europe reverting to a Neolithic lifestyle.

     European Union law mandates an 80% cut in CO2 emissions by 2050. In Britain, many industries face a 140% increase in energy costs by 2020. Planned offshore wind farms will cost Britons $10,000 per person. France and Germany with massive shale resources ban exploration. Germany has half the photovoltaic capacity on the planet even though a top German utility executive compares this to growing pineapples in Alaska. Europe is destroying the foundation of its prosperity because of obeisance to a dead religion – not to mention that it also is going bankrupt from unsustainable debt and social programs. Zoroastrianism may be a better choice.

Climate Religion, Zoroastrianism and Polar Bears

  The climate religion is dead. The IPCC report should be the final nail in its coffin. Yet I suspect many of its acolytes will continue to cling to it much like modern day Zoroastrians. The same pantheon of gods (IPCC) that giveth, now taketh away. There is no significant man made global warming and there never was! To the very limited extent (1 degree Celsius between now and 2100) solar caused warming may exist, it is a boon to the human race.

  Much or all of what adherents to the warmist religion ever believed is wrong about, inter alia, CO2 emissions, ethanol subsidies, rising sea levels, biofuels, melting ice caps, ocean temperatures, hurricanes, green energy, fossil fuels and polar bears whose record numbers continue to proliferate. Please don’t forget the polar bears!