The Whatcom Excavator |
|
WE found a new series on YouTube: Nanny of the Month. This episode is about a government ban on bikini baristas. Keeping with our local-content policy, this is a tale about something that happened here in Washington State, in Shelton. And it might fit right here in Banningham, WA. This has become such a Banana Republic. Are bikini baristas sexist? Maybe a bit. But so then, are beaches, Sports Illustrated, Victoria's Secret, fashion models, Hollywood... Why, Mommy? Why not let the free market sift the chaff from wheat? We're all consenting adults living in a free country -- or we would be if only the busybody nannies would let us grow up and make our own decisions, and take responsibility for our own lives. And maybe have a little fun once in a while.
1 Comment
Angry sign, recently seen.
Futurewise has been power-tripping the light fantastic, over the moon, since it won its rural element "water" case against Whatcom County at the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) on June 7. Maybe you've seen or heard the hyperbole that's been flooding the press and radio airwaves about it. Depite all the early whoop, on Tuesday night former county planning director and current Bellingham city county planning employee David Stalheim spat flames and venom at council in person, threatening to "play hardball" ("...it's going to be long and it's going to be expensive," and, "You dig holes, and you dig 'em deeper"). Dog-gonnit, this county had better knuckle under and restrict growth more that it does already, or else. Bullies do things like that. By all accounts, the evidence given to the Growth Management Hearings Board in the latest water diatribe was cherry picked to make it appear that the county has done "absolutely nothing" in the last ten years to protect water, allowed pollution, and failed-failed-failed to protect fish (check out the decision's voluminous footnotes). And it seems that the all-appointee GMHB ate-up the mountain of vague reports and odd accounts of "science" presented by Futurewise's attorney and WWU prof, prior planning commissioner Jean Melious. Check out the Stalheim-Melious blog "Get Whatcom Planning." It's regularly loaded with bitter complaints, dramatic interpretations of law, and rather pathetic and phobic-sounding posts about germs and "poop" in an unfair world. Melious pleaded to the GMHB that dire neglect and "lack of water" have created a crisis that requires strict "measures" despite the reality that this is, and will very likely remain, a rain capital on the Pacific Ocean. (Uh, step outside but better take your umbrella.) With this "ruling" - Melious and Stalheim and their very tight band of city supporters fiercely intend to have their way in many respects: reductions of land use to 20% or lower, even stricter restrictions of "impervious surfaces," more plantings, etc. and so forth. There was even talk between Melious and the board about a "moratorium" on permits if need be, which is something citizens cringe to hear. The Lake Whatcom moratorium has lived on and on - well over 10 years. Denying folks the use of water and land - the property they've dreamed to use, paid taxes on, and will continue to pay taxes on - was discussed glibly as a practical necessity for what? To retain "rural character." Would all these regulatory impositions and losses be compensated? Forget that. Color that precious rural character increasingly desperate and frustrated as the rural community itself is run not by residents but by regulation. Mind you, Futurewise isn't the only party looking to win big in this legal battle that has waged on for years. The grossly ballooned conservation industry and tribes stand to do very well cashing in on restrictions and resources they've cobbled-up to the tune of "How dry I am". It's sad to think that few everyday folk can afford the outrageous cost of environmental "restoration" that never quite meets elusive and ever changing goals. Elaborate retrofitting for stormwater and other "solutions" can run into the tens of thousands, and some have little practical value most particularly in sparsely settled rural areas. (Remember, all this is supposedly saving rural areas - the "rural element" of the comprehensive plan.) Other "solutions" waiting in the wings are crippling (like buying credits from the newly-created Lummi Wetland and Habitat Mitigation Bank, at $200,000 per credit or share), or from the Washington Water Bank which has been sniffing the environs. Some very cozy crony relationships have developed, including well paid-partnerships that - let's face it - have become routine patronage. Planning-buddy outfits like Farm Friends and ReSources are constantly on the dole - along with sole source relationship vendors like Dumas, Blake, and Peterson. Facilitators can work deals from agencies simultaneously for "outreach" while fishing and nudging grants along that rely on this crisis scenario. (Facilitators coordinated the recent "certainty" symposium at considerable cost). The deepest price of all this is paid by the public in personal disappointment if permits are denied to those who can't afford expensive testing and other requirements. The ability to put a thrifty trailer or modest home on a rural lot is slipping out of reach. It skews rural life, which used to be practical. It may be no big deal for the rich. But even those who can afford kneel-and-deal permits may be forced to encumber their deeds forever to trusts or to forfeit extra buffers and open space, just to build or to get water. It's unsettling to think that rural property owners should be commandeered to agree to unspecified future demands to merely use their land, or to access water in this wet place. But that's what "measures" mean to Futurewise and friends. The planning bureaucrats have paved an impervious trail that led to this point. How did Stalheim put it when he challenged council? Something like, "We've built a case". Yes, he did - they did. Finding a place for a home has become very tough for the young, the struggling, for retirees, and others who can barely get by in this county. Those with only lint in their pockets have avoided the high-tax, high-rent cities to live in rural areas. That demographic - that reality - is well known. Now, thanks to the strong-arm tactics of Futurewise and the growing mitigation industry, rural living will become even more unaffordable for the neediest. Given this ugly trend, WE thought we'd share this excerpt from a Tom DeWeese, American Policy Center piece. It's depressing; sorry about that. But it hits close to home, here on the heels of yet another Futurewise-GMHB decision: Excerpt from So the "coal port" story hit the national news on MSNBC tv, May 31st. The video's been 'talk of the town in some circles. Check it out for yourself: (sorry, there's always an ad) Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy Once you've had a chuckle or two at the bungled mispronunciation of the word "Whatcom," you may agree that this nationally broadcast featurette put a very interesting spin on the tough up-down permitting decision that lies ahead for County Council. WE were irritated that these reporters implied, throughout, that this decision is mighty big for a parochial, podunk local legislature (a county council). The tone was very "Oh my" and "Tsk-tsk." So, MSNBC - "What about local decision-making seems so odd?" WE realize some elitists don't grasp the concept of representative government, but this was a mighty crass put-down. In response, WE'd ask, "Who do they think would make a better job of it? People who don't live here?" (It sure sounded like this pair felt that outsiders would know best.) Then, the newsies shifted gears to say that that big money is headed here ("coal money" and millions, no less) - supposedly to fill local election coffers and (we presume) sway judgment. Now, that was downright insulting. Whatcom County is too small for dirty 19th century Tammany Hall tactics. Nobody would get away with it, even if they wanted to (WE hope). Watching this led us to wonder, "Who would drum up such a sleazy story?" It's hard to believe that GPT supporters would put that spin on it, though opponents might benefit from such insinuations. Another thing about this story seemed creepy. After the talking heads more or less suggested that our council is small potatoes and vulnerable to bribes, they went on to chatter that Governor Inslee has taken a position. One of the last lines was, "Even though we know what his view is, he can't step in." WE generally focus on local, and don't follow the man. So we dredged a bit and discovered that Inslee and his followers have created a substantial "greenest governor" legend for the guy. Is it possible that his legend involves thinly veiled wink-and-a-nod prejudice for certain endeavors, before the facts are in? WE hope that ain't so. Read this story about the recent joint Washington/Oregon letter that was transmitted from Olympia to the White House (see the actual letter). If it's true that the governor’s taken this thinly-veiled anti terminal position, what expectation of impartiality and honest handling could proponents expect at the hands of his state agencies? There's a long way to go on the GPT issue. WE expect the process to move forward in a way that's objective, fair, and impartial. But with press like this flame-bait - plus Inslee's political nudging in D.C. - can it be? For the record, WE do trust this council to do the right thing - meaning, to be scrupulously thorough and fair. 'Hope they don't blow principle for politics. The local Whatcom Tea Party got its start in 2009 as the "Bellingham Tea Party," then it grew and expanded county-wide. It's just updated its website with a new look and format. Their web address, if you want to check this out, is still whatcomteaparty.org. This update is news? Well, in a way, yes. What's newsworthy is seeing that liberty continues to ring modern despite efforts to diminish and quash the movement. Perhaps you missed the recent hearings in D.C. about the IRS asking "are you now of have you ever been" questions of patriotic groups. That was followed by the irritating news that the NSA has been mining masses of domestic phone and bank metadata. Closer to home, many have been chaffed by this county's being a testing ground for some of the most oppressive regulations in the state - often framed as "more than necessary" and voluntary. Universal, left or right Despite the growing bureaucracy's heavy handed policies into ag and woody rural areas, the joyful rural body politic of self-reliance and individualism lives on. Four years since the campaign began, tens of thousands of "We The People" signs stand fresh, with more popping up every day. Hope for justice and reason springs eternal. As for the website update, WE were pleased to see that the following short feature remains on the tea party's home page: What Part of “Infringe” Don’t They Understand? WE concur. Rights are so fundamental to our being they can't be taken, but they're vulnerable to battery and denial. The big question that bureaucrats pursue is, "What rights can be bent to achieve the greater good?" As it's an election year, ask candidates questions about crossing the line if you can. They may just blink at you, but ask. The tea party's site is a good place to bone up on the basics; check it out. It's relevant. WE don't know if the Herald will share this message, so here you go. (Do check out that list if you can. Look at the major hits on services to the elderly, medical services, architecture and engineering, computer businesses, publishing, finance, accounting ... leaving few unscathed all the way down to teensie businesses. All this to feed rivers of grant money, hand over fist, into preferred programs.) From State Rep. Jason Overstreet 42nd District, June 5, 2013 Dear Friends and Neighbors, Today is the 24th day of the 30-day special session. Budget negotiators have been meeting behind closed doors, but the only floor action to take place, in fact the only time the full House of Representatives has been in Olympia since the governor called the special session, was last Thursday. The only bill we took action on was House Bill 2064, a bill that would provide another tax revenue stream. The bill would reinstate the estate tax, or death tax, on married couples’ assets. The reason this issue has come up is in response to another Washington State Supreme Court ruling. The bill passed 51-40, essentially along party lines with all Republicans and one Democrat voting against it. The measure contains a retroactivity clause requiring 65 families, who have deceased family members, to pay about $138 million in taxes to the state Department of Revenue. I strongly believe the bill is unconstitutional based on Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution and Article 1, Section 23 of the Washington State Constitution, both of which prohibit ex post facto lawmaking. This piece of legislation reinstates the death tax and reaches beyond the grave to penalize the deceased person’s family, and adds insult to injury by engaging in the unconstitutional practice of retroactivity. You may remember during the regular legislative session I introduced House Bill 1099, which would repeal this tax. That is the best solution for this issue. A farmer may be property rich, but cash poor – this tax hits these folks hard. It’s not a tax on the rich, it is a tax on deceased person’s family and remaining estate. Repealing the estate tax could also result in more family businesses growing in size, more jobs, and more tax revenues, instead of pushing businesses to close to comply with the estate tax law. I also find it ironic that we were called back for one vote and two hours of deliberation in caucus and floor time at taxpayer expense, and the only bill we pass is one that taxes people so the state can have more of their money instead of allowing them to pass it along to their families. The Seattle Times editorial has it right. Read Don’t just ‘fix’ the state estate tax, repeal it. The Senate has a different version of the bill – Senate Bill 5939 – which contains the same retroactivity clause, but would make long-term reductions in the estate tax. The Washington State Wire article, Death and Taxes Create First Drama of Special Session – Senate Goes Eyeball-to-Eyeball With House Over Estate Tax, provides an overview of the issue. Taxing Main Street businesses This tax increase hits more than just the doctors, lawyers and accountants the majority party in the House would like you to believe. The list is very extensive and targets child day care services, employment services, grantmaking and giving services, home health care services, nursing care facilities, performing arts companies, radio and television broadcasting, real estate activities, trade schools and countless self-employed people. Skagit River Bridge I also wanted to give you the latest update on the Skagit River Bridge collapse given the importance of this major transportation artery in our region. Currently, the timeline to have a temporary bridge in place is slated for mid-June and a permanent span in place by mid-September. Below are some links with information that are being updated as things progress.
Sincerely, Jason Overstreet WE have been following announcements and articles about the upcoming “free” symposium being offered in Bellingham on May 30-31 called “Water Supply: Searching for Certainty in Uncertain Times.” WE have good reason to believe that the information being presented will be insidiously stacked for a pre-determined outcome. If you attend, it’s certain you’ll be “educated” that:
Look at the list of presenters, and you’ll see that big money interests behind this symposium have everything to gain. The symposium is about land control as much as water resources (this land is your land, this land is their land). The program will pitch an elaborate system of autocratic control through trusts, a "natural resources marketplace," and a water management board that in all likelihood would never be directly accountable to anyone, just as notorious and remote as the WTA and PUD #1. What would stop it? Is the water situation so dire that nannycrat control of Whatcom County is necessary? News flash! The Pacific Ocean isn’t going to go dry and it’s highly unlikely that the North Wind will ever stop blowing rain our way. So, while Whatcom County will always be one of the wetter counties in the entire state and nation, numerous well-known rent-seekers stand to make a fortune if citizens can be convinced that they should check their freedom at the door. [Musical note/quote: Bob Dylan, "You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows," and "The pump don't work cause the vandals took the handle." Subterranean Homesick Blues.] (Lest you think we're going dry, here's some verified climate data - precipitation and snowpack: Click the images to see detailed information about actual data showing current trends.) Given that - will the public be offered anything but envirodoom and restrictive agency policy? No. The presenters control the data and the narrative. This symposium is set to nudge the public in one direction only. If you revisit the recent "WRIA Watch" post, you'll notice that WIT folks are among the chief organizers and presenters of this symposium. Whatcom Planning & Development and Public Works departments (and their cohorts at the City of Bellingham) have been directly involved, along with WWU/WSU based WWIN. Now, WWIN stands for the Whatcom Watersheds Information Network which claims to be a community group, but it's obviously run by bureaucrats. And the contractor hired to put this together is directly affiliated with the Puget Sound Partnership, who tirelessly promotes its "Action Agenda". Farm Friends (a grant-dependent lobby more than a real farm group) is involved, along with Futurewise's Jean Melious and the tribes. These special interests have their DNA all over this “free” informational extravaganza. The truth is, this event is being put on at considerable public expense to push official programs. And none of the agencies behind this -- not one -- has an interest in protecting private citizens' water rights as they've existed historically. The thing is, we citizens aren't organized, and our interest in this topic is diffuse -- we're all busy working at our livelihoods. For the organizers, promoting the planning, "conservation" and "restoration" trade is their livelihood. Across the board, the “education” looks stacked. The only thing "certain" is that big dollar interests and career bureaucrats will have steady jobs far into the future policing citizens' water use, no matter how much pain and expense it inflicts on little guys like ranchers, small ag, small dairies and horsemen, tree farmers, and all the other people with private wells who can't afford to fight "the bigs" where it comes to retaining their rights. WE wonder, "Who approved the grand plans that these people are presenting?" Look through the two day play-by-play script. Most of the presenters are staffers and middle-management types, lawyers, and a truckload of tribal employees. Some have extremely thin credentials to present the topics slated. Events like this are professionally orchestrated by promoters, and loaded with shills -- with a few token “outliers” invited to make the event look fair. But the "fork in the road" outcome on Day 2 is designed for a crescendo of applause, and the illusion of community support and consensus. (While there are methods to keep heavily programmed meetings on the up-and-up, they require encyclopedic knowledge of the material plus intensive training. Amateurs confronting the ersatz authority of blue-ribbon panels often find themselves lambs to the slaughter.) If you don’t want to be manipulated, you may be better off elsewhere. The bureaucratic overtake of water resources and land management can proceed only if the public goes along willingly. “Low information voters” are all-too willing to support the idea that others' rights are arbitrary. This event aims to manipulate with slick presentations, while impressive looking "experts" spout unfamiliar material and cite law cases. A big gobsmacked crowd is essential to make the junta look good. Maybe you're going. If you are, listen closely to the rhetoric and try to find out what triggered this odd conglomerate to make the pitch they're promoting. Don't doubt for a minute that it doesn't intend to limit citizens' direct control of their property and resources. But some people have decided not to go. Sentiments heard about town include:
Those could make some dandy signs. WE honestly don't know if anyone will protest this event, but it sounds like a very good idea.
Given that so many moves are underway to control land use here (by Futurewise and paid Puget Sound Partnership apologists, local planning and public works staffers, and state agencies) to restrict if not completely deny the use of privately held property, WE thought it was important to share this story. It explains a few fundamentals that must not be forgotten. Heaven forbid the court of appeals' opinion in this case should stand. PLF has begun action; they're taking the issue the Washington State Supreme Court: Yes, the Due Process Clause covers property owners. Pacific Legal Foundation, by Daniel Himebaugh April 3, 2013 We recently filed another brief asking a court to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects property owners. I say another brief because the question of what constitutes protected “property” for due process claims continues to come up in various cases that PLF attorneys are litigating. The latest case on this important issue is Manna Funding, LLC v. Kittitas County. The Due Process Clause says that no state shall deprive any person of property without due process of law. Naturally, you first need to know whether a person had “property” before you can determine if the government unlawfully deprived her of it. This is where courts sometimes trip up. In Manna, the Washington Court of Appeals held that Manna Funding—the owner of a tract of land—could not sue for damages when Kittitas County arbitrarily denied Manna’s request for a rezone, because Manna did not demonstrate that it had a constitutionally protected property interest at stake in the rezoning process. You might think that demonstrating a property interest in Manna’s case would be easy. It is well-established that landowners enjoy a variety of legally protected property rights, including the right to use their property. As the Washington Supreme Court put it, “The basic rule in land use law is still that, absent more, an individual should be able to utilize his own land as he sees fit.” Furthermore, property owners who seek permission from the government to develop their property retain the “right to be free of arbitrary or irrational zoning actions,” according to the U.S. Supreme Court. This applies to Manna, so what happened to Manna’s property rights in the state court of appeals? Instead of acknowledging that Manna has a property interest deriving from its ownership of land, the Washington Court of Appeals looked to whether Manna had an “entitlement” to have its property rezoned. The court found that there is no right to a rezone and therefore no property interest, but that misses the point. A property owner who needs special permission to use her property is not seeking a government entitlement (like social security or welfare) that may or may not constitute a property “right.” A property owner already has constitutionally protected property rights. Obtaining a land use permit is merely the process that the owner must follow in order to exercise those rights. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said it well in River Park v. City of Highland Park: Zoning restrictions are not the measure of an owner’s property interest; they just create a set of rules restricting the exercise of preexisting property rights. This does not mean that the government violates the Constitution every time it denies a land use permit. However, it does mean that the Due Process Clause applies whenever a property owner seeks permission to use her property in a particular way, because the owner has a property interest in her land and enjoys the right to be free of arbitrary government decisions related to her permit application. Related posts:
There's an irritating attitude about rights that Whatcom County government has exhibited for some time: "What's not permitted isn't permitted." Really? How far does that go? When do zoning regulations, recommended stormwater "practices," mitigation requirements, and other prohibitions amount to uncompensated "takings" of not only property but personal rights?
The heart of this issue is addressed at the WE page, Diminishing Property Rights. The timeless principles discussed are not partisan or ideological. The matter of fairness related to "yours, mine, and ours" is universal. Rights and justice are the keystones of healthy and vibrant civilization. As you probably know, the IRS recently apologized for targeting organizations with names including “patriot” and “tea party” for tax audits and tax-exempt application delays prior to the 2012 election. In response to that, on Tuesday, May 21 during the noon hour, the Whatcom Tea Party held a rally at the corner of Cornwall and West Magnolia. Lining all four corners of the intersection, protesters held signs that said, "IRS Apology Not Accepted", "End IRS Corruption", "Stop IRS Political Discrimination", "Enemies Lists Are So 1970's", "Now, Just Taxes. Next, Just Health Care", "We Warned You About Things Like This", "We the People..." and more. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the kind of government corruption that the IRS is guilty of, really is what the tea parties have been warning us about. At the same time the IRS story was breaking, President Obama was telling Ohio State University graduates, Unfortunately, you've grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that's at the root of all our problems. Some of these same voices also do their best to gum up the works. They'll warn that tyranny always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Should we really, Mr. President? Should we really? Glen Kessler at The Washington Post politics blog suggests we have reason to be concerned: A bushel of Pinocchios for IRS’s Lois Lerner If the current scandalabra that we're seeing in Washington D.C., doesn't give us pause to question authority, and to be wary of tyranny, then what the hell does?
Update: Offer Expired!The comment period has closed. Let's hope the BNR at the DNR do the right thing, and listen to the voices of citizens about the importance of this state-managed property. The Lake Whatcom Reconveyance will remove 8,800+ acres of land from timber harvest rotation that the Department of Natural Resources has used to support schools, county government, the port, other taxing entities and the Whatcom County timber industry. The Growth Management Hearings Board has been asked by a citizen named Jack Petree to determine whether the Whatcom County Council violated the Growth Management Act in requesting this reconveyance. (Read more at News About The Reconveyance Challenge...) Zoning is a part of the issue.
But the heart of Petree's concern is that active forestry as a resource should be protected just like agriculture is supposed to be protected under the GMA (growth management act). And, the DNR has a duty to keep forest resources productive. You still have a last-minute chance to write to the Board of Natural Resources in Olympia to ask the board to hold off on their decision in early June about the Lake Whatcom Reconveyance until the Hearings Board has had a chance to make a decision. The cutoff date is Friday, May 17 for any letters, emails or calls to the BNR. WE encourage readers who want to see active forestry continue to send an email right now. The Board of Natural Resources should wait for the Hearings Board to consider case 13-2-0016. While the Whatcom Land Trust has always claimed that to have no financial motivation or interest in the outcome of this case, it's filed to intervene and be a party in the Hearings Board case. Surprised? WE aren't. NEWS: Now foresters have become involved. This blog just reported that "Tom Westergreen, Richard Whitmore, and the A.L.R.T. corporation (a timber harvesting firm) have lawyered up and challenged the reconveyance. The Hearings Board has consolidated the Petree challenge and the new challenge so, a new timeline is established." This is not a "right wing - left wing" issue. Active recreation supporters have questioned this too. See this extremely good letter that was posted at the Whatcom Watchdog. It's important that this resource protection issue should be sorted before the state BNR makes its decision. Ask them to wait. Here is the contact information: Board of Natural Resources 1111 Washington St. SE PO Box 47001 Olympia, WA 98504-7001 bnr@dnr.wa.gov 360-902-1103 Fax: 360-902-1775 Today is your last chance to contact the DNR with your concerns! Those of you who have been following the saga of Dr. Easterbrook on these pages might be interested in where this has gone since the last time WE spoke. Dr. Donald Easterbrook was interviewed along with Gordon Fulks with Kim Greenhouse on May 6, 2013 for a podcast (audio) called Data, Dogma and Discovery. Dr. E. says: I always end each of my talks with a thought that comes from Patricia Wentworth who was an author in 1949. So this is a quote of hers, and not originally mine. And the quote is that, "Dogma is an impediment to the free exercise of thought. It paralyzes the intelligence. Conclusions based upon preconceived ideas are valueless. It is only the open mind that really thinks.” WWU faculty continue attack on Easterbrook posted at Icecap After a vicious character assassination attack on Dr. Don Easterbrook by the Geology Dept at Western Washington University (WWU) following his testimony at a Washington State Senate hearing, the attack continues this week from other WWU faculty (May 8 article at the Herald). In the latest attack, John Hardy, a retired professor of Huxley Environmental College at WWU characterizes the Easterbroook data as “selective half-truths chosen to support a pre-conceived idea, i.e. that humans are not having significant effects on the Earth's climate.” Hardy states: “yes it is true that there have been multiple periods of warning over the past 10,000 to 15,000 years (since the last ice age). And, yes, at times it was warmer than the present. Yes, this happened before the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuel. What the author fails to explain (but surely knows) is that these warming periods are largely the natural result of the Milankovich Cycle, i.e. changes in the orbital configuration and distance between the Earth and sun that determines how much solar energy and consequent heat the Earth receives.” Two things are apparent in this statement: (1) Harding doesn’t understand the basis for Milankovitch cycles—they involve much more than the distance between the Earth and sun, and (2) he didn’t look at Easterbrook’s data (see below). Milankovitch cycles are very, very slow, taking tens of thousands of years and could not possibly be responsible for the sudden, abrupt climate shifts of 20-30 years shown in Easterbrook’s data. Figure 1 shows two periods of 20-30 year global warming this century, separated by a 30 year cool period. The first warming period (1915-1945) occurring before CO2 emissions began to soar after 1945 so it cannot have been caused by rising CO2. From 1945 to 1977, while CO2 emissions were soaring, the climate cooled, just the opposite of what should have happened if CO2 causes global warming. Thus, CO2 has little or no effect on climate. Figure 2 shows 20 periods of global warming, each averaging 27 years, in the past 5 centuries. All of these occurred prior to significant increase in CO2 so could not possibly have been caused by CO2. Nor could they have been caused by Milankovitch cycles, which take many thousands of years. Thus, Harding’s conclusion is demonstrably false. Harding states: “Past global temperature variations are also related to natural variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Global temperature rose five degrees Celsius 56 million years ago in response to a massive injection of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere from volcanic activity.” Temperatures were indeed warmer 56 million years ago, but there has never been any evidence to support the idea that they were due to increased CO2 from volcanic activity. Volcanic eruptions typically cause global cooling, not warming, and last only a few years. The Eocene warm period lasted for tens of millions of years so could not be due volcanic eruptions. Harding states: “Today, burning of fossil fuel is releasing greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at 10 times that rate. Indeed, it is the speed of today's human-caused temperature increase that is more troubling than the absolute magnitude, because adjusting to rapid climate change will be difficult. For example, the natural warming since the last ice age 18,000 years ago to about 1850 (the beginning of the industrial revolution) was about 5 degrees Fahrenheit or less than 0.0003 degrees per year. The average global temperature increase from 1850 until now has been almost 2 degrees Fahrenheit, or 0.0122 degrees per year - a rate 41 times faster than the pre-industrial warming.” This statement is truly astonishing! Harding apparently (1) did not look at the Easterbrook data (see Fig. 3 below) and (2) apparently knows nothing about temperatures since the last Ice Age. From 18,000 to about 10,000 years ago, temperatures warmed and cooled as much as 20 °F in a single century. Virtually all of the warming from the last Ice Age to recent times occurred abruptly in a very short period of time about 10,000 years ago at rates of tens of degrees per century. It didn’t rise slowly over 18,000 years and to calculate an average over that whole period would not even be considered by any real scientist! Thus, Hardy’s conclusion that temperatures over that time period rose “less than 0.0003 degrees per year” is totally absurd. And to conclude that warming since 1850 has occurred at “a rate 41 times faster than the pre-industrial warming” is so ridiculous (just look at Fig. 3) that it is hard to imagine any real scientist reaching such a conclusion Harding states that temperature records for Bellingham show that average February temperatures rose 5 °F from the 1920s to the 1990s. This number is highly suspect since the 1930s were warmer than the past decade and the temperature change is therefore much smaller. Harding states: “Dr. Easterbook correctly notes that carbon dioxide makes up only a small percentage of our atmosphere. This does not mean it is irrelevant, in fact it shows just how powerful a greenhouse gas it is.” CO2 makes up only 0.039% of the atmosphere, has increased only 0.008% during the most recent period of warming, and accounts for only 3.5% of the greenhouse gas effect. To conclude that this proves “just how powerful a greenhouse gas it is” can only be arrived at by first assuming CO2 is the cause of warming. Since we know that CO2 cannot cause more than about 0.1 degree of warming, that assumption is not plausible and his conclusion is meaningless. Harding states that CO2 “has increased by 37 percent since the beginning of the industrial revolution.” But that is meaningless--if you double nothing, you still have nothing! But even more important, water vapor accounts for about 95% of the greenhouse effect and in order to make their climate models work, computer modelers include a large water vapor factor based on the assumption that water vapor increases in lock step with rising CO2. Harding claims that water vapor “is now increasing due to increased ocean evaporation from the warming itself.” But is this really true? Figure 4 (below) shows atmospheric water vapor since 1948 at various level of the atmosphere and water vapor is not only not increasing, it is actually declining, thus making all of the model predictions worthless. Harding states that "The probability that the level of coherence between.CO2 concentration and temperature is due to chance alone is about 2 out of 1 million." In other words, he claims that there is good correlation between temperature and CO2 and that the odds of that being coincidence is only 2 out of 1 million. But is there really a good correlation between CO2 and temperature? Figure 5 shows that there is no correlation at all between CO2 and temperature! One wonders how any person calling himself a scientist could construe otherwise! What we can conclude about all of this is that this could have been a real discussion of climate issues, but Harding’s article contains no data and all of his unsupported assertions are contradicted by Easterbrook’s data. (See more stories at Icecap) ... so, the battle continues. Unfortunately, it seems the real battle is between truth (data and discovery) v. dogma. Will the truth out? Over time, it must.
Bonus: A scholarly reader - a physics professor emeritus in Massachusetts - just submitted this link to an article by Will Happer and Harrison Schmidt. The prof noted, "I have the highest respect for Happer. In the '90's he was fired from his science post by none other than Al Gore because he (Happer) insisted on better measurements of CO2 than those taken at airports." |
WE Dredge!
Posting Rules:
This forum is moderated. Please make an effort to substantiate claims that support opinion. Gratuitous profanity and ad-hominem attacks will not be accepted. You can create a "nickname" if you'd like, and you don't have to reveal your e-mail address. Feel free to share information and your honest thoughts. Categories
All
Archives
January 2022
Automatic Updates Do you want to be notified when new content is added to this newsfeed? Most browsers allow you to subscribe to our Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feed. Click on the RSS link below, and follow the instructions. |