Sunday, March 8, 2009

AB 32 and Sea Level Rise

[This is taken verbatim from my comment on Anthony Watts' blog,, on March 8, 2009, What WILL They Think of Next.  I waxed a bit lyrical on this one.  This is in response to a commenter jrshipley, an avowed AGW proponent, and fairly snide and nasty writer.  The moderators on WUWT find it necessary to {snip} quite regularly on his writings.  This indicates bad language, or insults to the person, usually. -- Roger]


Me, at 10:05:59:   Label me a skeptic, then, and a serious denier where the IPCC and other so-called “scientists” have blatantly lied, distorted, manipulated, and/or hidden their data and methods from scrutiny.

I do wish Dr. Richard Feynman were still alive, just to hear what he would say about the IPCC and all the “science” surrounding it.

Many of us, even those having no PhD after our names, are quite capable through education and experience of reading and understanding what is served up. Our good and trusty servants physics, math, thermodynamics, chemistry, and statistics do not let us down. I also rely heavily on economics. I wish more people would.

A good skeptic, in my opinion, listens to the “science” but verifies with his/her own eyes. As President Reagan said in a different context, Trust but Verify.

So, we are told the debate is over, the science is settled. Is that a skeptic, or denier issue? Well, if the science is settled, why did NASA send a (failed) satellite up to measure CO2? There are many, many, other such examples of knowing that the science is not “settled.”

Or, another good one, does settled science have multiple models, none of which agree with the other? The GCMs are manifold. Are there truly as many models, with different results, for predicting the speed of a falling object acted upon solely by gravity? When the GCM’s can agree, and get their predictions as accurate as a gravity equation, THEN will I agree that the science is settled.

Ya’ll have a ways to go.

If the IPCC (the “scientists”) are correct, why have so few of their gloom-and-doom predictions come to pass? Is that a skeptic or denier issue? (refer to predicting velocity of a falling object acted upon by gravity, above) Smokey regularly posts links to IPCC global temperature predictions, yet none of the (at least three!) measurements of global temperature match the IPCC.

The “scientists” tell us the seas are rising. Not off of California, they are not. The government’s own satellite data shows this. Further, why is the sea level data not on the public website after December 31, 2008? The trend was downward; could it be that the trend is continuing downward, and that is just too embarrassing for the AGW crowd?

Hurricanes are supposed to be growing greater and more frequent, per the “scientists.” They are not. Should a thinking person accept that as a skeptic, or a denier?

The ice at the poles is predicted to melt away and cause great rises in sea level, islands inundated, and huge population relocations. From above, we know the seas are not rising, so the ice is not melting. Which islands are underwater, and how many million people are dislocated?

Oceans are cooler, not hotter. Air temperatures in Europe, and North America are colder, and snows are greater.

All of these things exist even while CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere. But, no major volcano erupted recently to cool things down.

Just how many lies, and flat-out wrong predictions, are we supposed to accept from the “scientists,” before a rational person says this is a bunch of crap?

We have our own eyes, and our own ears, and with the internet, we can find stories such as the party ship and the icebreaker (!) caught, stuck, in ice in the St. Lawrence — weeks before the ice usually closes in. Sure, that is an anecdotal piece of evidence, but it has photos, and eye-witness accounts, and official statements. As an attorney, I can assure you that is very strong evidence.

This is not a game anymore. This is deadly serious business. California, where I live and work, has already passed strong legislation to adversely impact all aspects of our once-great economy; this is known as AB 32. I predict it will be known in history as the Bill that Killed California.

President Obama, with a complicit Congress and Senate, has promised to sign into law a similar bill in 2009. Watch for the Dow Jones index to take another swan dive when that one becomes law. Dow 2000, anyone?

The social and political consequences of millions of retirees with zero funds on which to live, because Global Warming legislation cratered the economy, are things the politicians should be contemplating.

So, I deny what is obviously and demonstrably false. And, because of the falsehoods and obvious manipulations that we have seen repeatedly thus far, I am highly skeptical of anything else spouting forth from the so-called “scientists,” especially the IPCC.

Long rant, ya’ll. I’ll go have my soothing herbal tea now, and contemplate the snow storm in the Seattle area.


In March.


[Mike Bryant wrote next, a very nice compliment]:

Mike Bryant 

Wow, Roger, I enjoyed the detailed and passionate response. It sounds like a summation for the jury, devastating. I’m voting guilty.


[I answered Mike back, thusly:   ]

Mike Bryant (11:30:45) :

“Wow, Roger, I enjoyed the detailed and passionate response. It sounds like a summation for the jury, devastating. I’m voting guilty.


Thank you, sir. You may take your seat in the jury box. [grin]


[jrshipley responded with a nasty-gram, complete with {snip}, thusly:   ]


Roger, you say that sea levels are not rising off of California. The IPCC report I referenced makes clear that there are regional differences in changing sea levels and thoroughly discusses the physical basis for these differences. Even the post on this very blog that I referenced made clear that sea levels are in fact rising, but you deny [snip] this?

Finally, thank you for indicating who the real fearmongers are in this debate, namely people such as yourself who claim that we cannot stop changing the climate and also rebuild our economy after the Bush collapse. So pessimistic. I believe that America is up to these challenges, if only we can overcome the natering (sic) nabobs of negativity and get to work.


[I decline to engage in the name-calling, "fearmonger,"  "natering (sic) nabobs of negativity."  I prefer to let facts and logic do the heavy lifting.  After all, I firmly believe that he who resorts to name-calling concedes the debate.  He has run completely out of ammunition in the form of facts and logic.   So, I responded thusly:       ]


Yes, I say the sea levels are not rising. For evidence, have a look at the U. Colorado site’s “wizard,” and gaze at all the blue/purple area on their world map. Then, click the cursor in the blue next to San Francisco, and observe the little graph that shows up. My graph of their data shows 5 mm decrease since 1993. If the seas are rising at what is it they say? 3 mm or 4 mm per year? Then over 15 years that graph should trend UP by 45 to 60 mm (that’s about 2 inches).

Over the past 5 years, 2004-2008, the decreasing trend is much more pronounced, at 50 mm in 5 years. This is clear and convincing evidence that IPCC has something very, very, wrong in their sea level claims.

For anyone who wants to verify or duplicate these results, this is from latitude 38 North, Longitude 236 in their nomenclature. Don’t believe me, go run these numbers for yourself.

Then, compare the small amount of red area on the map, with all the blue and purple. After that, please tell me again that the global sea level is rising.

I do not have to make claims that the economy is in a shambles, and the Global Warming (AB 32-style) laws will make it worse. Just watch the economic indicators, they speak far louder than I ever could or will.

Start with unemployment figures. Then the stock market indices around the world, not just the Dow Jones. Tokyo, Hong Kong, and London are also down. Then look at the consumption of basic energy, in particular oil and natural gas. Note that OPEC has cut production in attempts to prop up the price of oil above $40 per barrel.

Examine the leading economic indicators. Note that the financial markets are in chaos, still, after having billions upon billions pumped into them. Note how many banks failed in the trailing 12 to 18 months.

Then, tell me again how the measures to save-the-world-from-frying-and-drowning are going to put people to work, and kick the economy in the gas. Tell me how higher electricity prices are going to boost the economy. Tell me how higher gasoline and diesel prices, due to bio-fuels, are going to boost the economy. Tell me how it will only cost the consumer $300 more per car to purchase a new car that achieves 49 miles per gallon, as California’s Air Resources Board stated in the AB 32 regulations.

[Parenthetical note:  bio-fuels are mandated in California to comprise 10 percent of gasoline and diesel, as for example ethanol or soy oil for diesel.  The cost of gasoline and diesel increase with these as additives.]

Then, make a convincing argument that the millions upon millions of people who cannot afford new cars, but must buy a used car, will have more money in THEIR pockets from buying more expensive gasoline for 5 years or so, before they have the chance to buy one of those 49-mpg used cars.

Before the AGW proponents shut down every coal-fired power plant in the U.S. and Europe (Poland will NOT be happy about that), please give us all a good plan for replacing that power. You might want to read what I wrote earlier on another WUWT thread about what happens when nuclear power provides more than about 30 percent of the total power in a national grid. [in hindsight, it was on this same thread, a few hours earlier.  I will put that one on energyguy's musings, also.  It is a classic.]

As you seem likely never to be dissuaded from your AGW views, how about you just keep watch, as I will, for the ice to melt, and the beaches to disappear. We have lots of beaches in California, and you can bet there will be plenty of news coverage when they go under.

I will give you one to watch near Los Angeles, California. In Playa del Rey, for example, just south of the breakwater at Marina del Rey, there are dozens of expensive homes right on the beach, approximately 300 feet from the water. At high tide, the homes are only about a foot or so above sea level. Large waves at high tide sometimes swirl the water to within 100 feet of the homes. Keep an eye on those. (For those interested, from Google Maps the latitude/longitude is 33.956105;-118.449526)  [this beach is one where I sometimes go to jog, or sail by when we take out the boat.  The beach patrol constructs a sand dune each winter in front of the homes in question, as that is when the winter storms bring the big waves that would otherwise send water into the homes.  The sand dune is usually down by March.   But, we do have the occasional big waves at high tide at other seasons of the year, so that is when the water swirls to within a few feet of the front doors.]  

I look forward to your, or any other AGW proponent’s, responses on these issues.


Roger E. Sowell, Esq.  Link to legal website is here.

No comments: