Global Warming Update: so maybe we're not going to die?

For anyone who listened to our show last Sunday (July 13th), you know that I did a brief monologue on global warming and detailed the differences between the RSS MSU temperature system and data; and the GISS/NOAA system and its data. Until recently, the readings between the two (or three, depending on whether you actually consider the NOAA numbers separate) have been pretty similar.

The GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) is a branch of NASA that is involved primarily with tracking climate data. The NOAA (National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration) has, among its other duties, to warn of weather hazards to boaters and news agencies. It should be no surprise that the NOAA also tracks global historical weather data. The sensors these two groups use to gather their temperature data have been a topic of concern lately because they've started to differ substantially from another trusted source - the RSS MSU system.

MSU stands for Microwave Sounding Units and it works by measuring microwaves emitted from the Earth and extrapoling very accurate readings from any part of the Earth (and at any altitude) that it can see at that moment. An ever-growing number of scientists are now proclaiming this to be the most accurate system of all.

Why? Because it's not subject to local influences which could alter the data, that's why. Reports (largely overlooked) have circulated for years that the GISS and NOAA sensor data was being altered by poor implementation. It seems that when the system was put into place in the 60's the original specs set up by the designers called for the sensors to be put into metal boxes coated with a special whitewash that would reflect heat from the sun. In 1978 though, the rules were changed (presumably to save money) to allow the boxes to be painted with white latex paint. Obviously, the paint doesn't reflect the sun's heat nearly as well.

Enter Anthony Watts, a young meteorologist who read about the change and wanted to find out if it mattered. He located where the nearest sensor was and drove out to see it for himself and to his shock, he discovered that the sensor box was at the top of a lightpole in the middle of a parking lot... something that would surely throw the data off. He then watched as the afternoon sun set and the light came on. Since the sensor was directly above it, he concluded (correctly) that the equipment could not possibly be relaying reliable numbers.

To make a long story short, he recruited dozens of people and set up a website at surfacestations.org which he uses to gather measurements on these sensors to determine whether they are being influenced by outside heat sources. As of now, he and his team have surveyed just under half of the stations in the US and a brief rundown of his results is as follows:
* 18% of the stations had a heat source within 30 meters (1 to 2 degrees C variation)
* 56% of the stations had a heat source within 10 meters (2 to 5 degrees C variation)
* 13% of the stations had a heat source within 2 meters (5 to 10 degrees C variation)
* In all, 87% of the stations had a heat source too close for reliability.

I myself would probably have never heard of Anthony Watts & co. if it were not for new information coming to light revealing that the MSU numbers for 2007 differed from those of the GISS/NOAA data set. While the latter ranked 2007 as being tied with 1998 as the 2nd warmest year in the past decade, the MSU numbers ranked it as only 9th. It was this disparity that caused climatologists around the world to take a second look.

Here's the yearly temperature average rankings:

	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004	2005	2006	2007
RSS MSU:	1st	--	--	7th	3rd	4th	6th	2nd	5th	9th
GISS/NOAA:	2nd	--	--	7th	3rd	4th	6th	1st	5th	2nd(tied)

The real story here however should be that the Earth is actually cooling (or at least plateaued) when you look at the graph for the past 10 years. Skeptics will naturally declare that 10 years is an unreasonable sample size and that not too much should be read into that. Keep in mind though, that we're told the Earth is warming based on a sample size not much greater; 23 years by the scientific community's reckoning.

But is a little over decades of warming even a trend? The story of the 20th century tells us that this has happened before and it will happen again. From 1918 to 1940 we had a warming trend about like the one we've seen recently, and from 1940 to roughly 1965 it cooled. A plateau of cool stability then carried us through the mid-70's until we began the latest upward temperature trend.

Check back soon - I'll have a part 2 on global warming ready in a week or so.

- Scott

Is This Exxon Mobile's Fault Too?

Oil prices have come down over the past three days. Oil is still over $130 a barrel, but it is down about $14 since the close on Monday. That's a heck of a slide. The way I figure it, even if oil comes back about $5 over the next 3-5 business days, gasoline prices should be dropping in about 4 -8 days.

Ok, is that as confusing to read as it was to write? Let me bullet this for you:

Monday: 1 barrel of oil about $145
Thursday: 1 barrel of oil about $130
1 gallon of gasoline about $4

My guess is that if oil stays under $140 for the next week, on Friday of next week (or Monday of the week after), gas prices should come down a few pennies.

Now here is my question. Is the DROP in gas prices going to be blamed on Exxon Mobil also, or is Exxon only at fault when the price goes UP? Actually, I am going to put up a poll right above the pod casts. Let's see what you think.

Oh, and let me throw up a prediction... I haven't had a prediction in a while, and I haven't been correct on a prediction since the Republican Primary. But this has been on my mind for a while and I just want to share my feeling with you.

Something (oil related) is going to be attacked by terrorists (surprise surprise) in the Middle East and magically oil prices are going to $175 a barrel. This should happen before Israel attacks Iran at the end of this year. If I am wrong and Israel attacks first, we will see $175 a barrel by March of next year. Be prepared for $5-6 a gallon by summer next year.

Blast from the past

Considering this is an election year, I thought you might like to remember why we typically vote for Republicans:

Ronald Reagan 1984 election

A friend of mine in Conway, NH. reminded me of this site. I forgot about all the good (and old) stuff on retrojunk.com this is where I found the Reagan commercial.

If you comment there, just let them know I sent you!!

Enjoy,
Myke

Primary Language

Why is it so important to most of us to have a primary language? I thought long and hard about how I was going to write this post. I was going to raise hypothetical’s, approach the topic from the points made on the air, and also tried starting fresh with this topic. None of this worked for me. The reason I ended up writing this post about a “private” conversation is because during our last radio show, I was asked about this topic off the air. There was a “fly on the wall” who thought it would be a good idea to jump in while my co-host and I were discussing the next topic on “Live.”

Her argument was simply that the government should not change the constitution to make the people do anything. Specifically, she referenced having a primary language. She phrased her argument to say that the founding fathers intended the constitution to be a bit more open for the people, not to dictate to the citizens. For this reason, we should not amend the constitution to make English the primary language. She further stated that we, as American, are superior to other governments, and because we are better, we don’t need to have legislation to state our primary language. Her next key point was that if I get my ballot in English, then why am I complaining.

No, I did not unload on her with both barrels. I was actually quite polite about this, allowed her to state her case, and plainly answered her retorts with as few words as I could. To be honest, she didn’t really interest me, just annoyed me. I think she was more interested in finding an argument than a discussion.

As to her three main points, I agree with her first and second point. There is no reason for a constitutional amendment that states we must speak English here in the United States. Personally, I think that would be wrong. Etiquette should be the guiding light as to the language you speak while you are here in the United States. If you are in a room of people who speak only German and you turn to a friend and start talking in English, your being rude. Thus, socially acceptable behaviors should be the guiding factor here. Either you’re a rude jerk, or you’re a polite “socialite” who has chosen to speak with respect. No law should dictate manners. She and I seem to agree here, though she seemed to think she was arguing this point with me.

In my opinion, the founding fathers were not looking to dictate to the people of the United States. Honestly I think the founding fathers wanted a document to use as the skeleton for laws and guidelines to be build on. The idea that English is the primary language is not skeletal in nature; it is more of a supporting clause to our culture. By having everything done at the federal, state and local levels in one common language, you remove the cumbersome task of translation, and the mistakes of interpretation. For example, if a Senator from Washington State sets forth a bill in Mandarin, and a Senate office in Maine translates it to Spanish, then it is voted on in English, there is much room for error. Just ask a person in Iran about the English version of the Qur’an. See if they think the translation to English is pure enough to be used in their Mosque.

Now here is where she and I separate. I think the United States is a great country. I enjoy the fact that my ancestors came here to root their families. I am also pleased that the FIRST GENERATION of my family learned English and assimilated. Then again, immigrants of the early 1900’s came to America to be American, not to make America the country they left (as some people from specific cultures are trying to do). But I digress. We are not superior to anyone. There are things that we may be better at, and there are things that we enjoy about our country. But this doesn’t make us superior to anyone. Who makes the best electronics? Who makes the best car? Each of us has our own opinion in these matters, and one line of thinking is not superior to the other. So how can we, Americans, be superior to another culture?

To be honest, there are parts of other cultures that i feel are BETTER than ours! Go to Germany, speak English and you will be treated like a tourist. Now LIVE in Germany, speak English and try to survive… Not so easy. Fair enough, German is the language, and you must know German to BECOME a German. I also like Mexico’s immigration laws. If you steal into their country, they kill you. I think this is fair, don’t you? (Yes I am being facetious) But seriously, if you going to wage your argument on the premise that we are superior, maybe you should start thinking about Nazi Germany, or Stalin.

Superiority doesn’t even come into question here. This is all about consistency and efficiency. Do I care if you speak another language? Yes and no. Yes, because it shows me that you have a useful skill. No, because it doesn’t really matter to me unless I need a translator or tutor. Things should be consistent within the government. My president should not be addressing the country in any language other than English. If you want to hear the Presidents words in another language, then you should have it translated like they do on the Spanish channels. Congress should never address any proposal that is in any language other than English. You will NOT try to pass a law in MY NAME that I can not understand. Further, no ruling should be made in the name of the people in a language that can not be understood by its citizens.

One last thing; I want to reiterate something I said to the “fly on the wall” that started this baseless argument:

It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL to pass a law, ruling, policy, or raise an issue in a language that the citizens can not understand. You must be proficient with English to be a citizen. THAT is why English should be the primary language.

Barack’s insane, oh my God!

Let’s start with an intelligent quote:

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American … There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag … We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and the is a loyalty to the American people.”

Theodore Roosevelt 1907

Now we delve into the stupidity spoken 101 years after:

“…you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish.
You should be thinking about how can your child become bilingual.”

 Barack Obama 2008 (video to follow)

Did Barack have an ice cream headache when he gave that speech in Powder Springs, GA.? I should be thinking about how my children can “become” bilingual? First off, don’t tell ME how to raise my kids. I have a sixteen year old honors student, a very bright eleven year old, and a precocious seven years old. Excuse me, Mr. Obama, but last I checked, we speak English here in the United States. If my child would like to take Spanish, that’s their choice.

Barack has slid, yet again, back into his comfort zone… The far left (even MSNBC admits Obama is SOLIDLY in the top 20 three years in a row). On July 8^th, he stated that he does not understand why people are calling for “English only” in the United States. Well Mr. Obama, we have something in common. IF people were calling for “English only,” I would not understand the sentiment either. Yet I believe you were talking about people like me. People who want the United States Government to operate in English. People who want to continue the requirement for citizenship that states you must learn English.

Well Barack, don’t forget where you are. This is the UNITED States of America, and, as much as you might hate to hear it, "applicants for naturalization must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language." (Quoted from US Citizenship and Immigration Services website) Deal with it. We like it this way, and we want it to stay this way. Keep in mind, the key word was UNITED. People like me want legislation to define the official language as English simply to ensure that things remain united and uniform. I don’t care what language you speak in your own home. If “Xhosa” is your cup of tea, please, by all means.

Voting has become cumbersome with the various “language” ballots (Thank you for the example California), and it would be perfectly legal and justified to offer ballots in ONLY English. Remember the requirements for citizenship; must speak, read, and write English! Only citizens of the United States may vote in national elections and primaries. Now, Mr. Obama and friends, please tell me why I should allow ballots to be passed out in other languages? Do you NOT understand the difference between assisting and enabling?

Fact: ONLY US citizens may vote in the Presidential election.(thank you PA and TX)

Fact: To become a citizen you must speak English.

My last words on this:
As a private citizen, the Government should NEVER mandate that I must write or speak in ANY other language.

And one last opinion:
It is rude to speak another language in front of others if it is not the common language of the land. This is to those French people who sit on the stoop and talk “nineteen to the dozen” in French. (Yes I am French.)

I am going to ensure that you all can read and hear what raised my temperature. I don’t want anyone to second guess the words coming out of Barack’s mouth here, so not only did I put up a video, but the words have been written under the video. Please read along as you listen to this 1 minute clip from his speech.

"I ah I I don’t understand when, people are going around worrying about, we need to have English only.
They they wanna pass a law, we want just, ah, we want English only.
Now I agree that, immigrants should learn English.
I agree with that. But, but understand this.
Instead of worrying about whether, ah immigrants can learn English they’ll learn English you need to make sure, your child can speak Spanish.
You should be, thinking about how can, your child become bilingual.
We should have every child, speaking more than one language.
Yo its embarrassing, its embarrassing when when ah, eu when Europeans come over here.
They all speak English they speak French they speak German, and then we go over to Europe, an an ah wah ah all we’s can say is, merci beaucoup ... Right?"

Ok, if you haven’t found humor in Barack’s words say the title of this post with the same accent and "swing" that you say Barack’s full name with.