Mike Rowse A voice from New Mexico


Quick Hits

Sometimes you wonder what people in charge of organizations are thinking. The NCAA is probably one of those organizations that gets second-guessed more often than almost to the federal government. That’s how bad it is when the NCAA makes decisions. This week the University of Texas will travel to the University of Southern California for a football game. It is the first time the two teams have met since the 2006 national championship game which was won by Texas. However in the USC media guide for this weekend’s football game, the Trojans say their all-time record against the Longhorns is 4-0. Now everyone knows that USC lost that national championship game. So how can USC claim to be undefeated against Texas? In subsequent years the NCAA determined that USC had violated NCAA rules and ordered USC remove references to all games played in the 2005-6 season. So technically that game, that some call the greatest game ever, was never played according to the NCAA. I just don’t understand why all reference should be removed, why not just put an asterisk next to those games in the media guide with an explanation that the winds were vacated and do not count because of NCAA sanctions? But what do I know?

You just cannot make this stuff up. Jennifer Lawrence was being interviewed I suppose regarding something she’s doing with relief efforts in Florida. Whatever the reason for the interview, the subject of hurricane Irma did arise. She said America is being punished by Mother Nature for electing Donald Trump president. How stupid do you have to be? So if Mother Nature is truly punishing America for doing something “she” did not like, then what did Cuba do? What did all of those other islands in the Caribbean do wrong? And if Mother Nature has the ability to punish us for actions we take them where has she been while China puts more pollution into the atmosphere and all other countries combined?

CNN was interviewing the United States Senator, at least I think it was CNN I just caught the last part of the interview on the radio. But this Sen. was discussing how Irma not only changed its predicted path but also weekend by the time it hit the mainland United States. He said, “Mother Nature has a mind of her own.” Really? I thought we were the ones that control the climate? If it’s this fictional lady then why is she allowing all of this so-called climate change to occur? Maybe because she wants it to. Or maybe all of the predictions about where and how strong the hurricane would be are just more proof that we really don’t know anything about the weather and the climate. At least not enough to be able to accurately predict what is going to happen or to be able to actually influence what will happen.

People can talk all they want, but if you want to know what they really believe, their actions speak louder than their words. Just as someone what is more important, cancer research or a bag of potato chips. I would bet everyone that answers honestly will say cancer research. But annually we spend between six and $7 billion a year on potato chips and only $4.9 billion a year on cancer research. No wonder we are a fat ass country.

I was listening to a program in which a nutritionist, who was also a medical doctor, was discussing certain things. One of the topics had to do with vitamins and how supplements, whether in pill or liquid form, don’t really do anything for the body. Getting the vitamins you need is always better done by ingesting foods that have those vitamins naturally. He began talking about vitamin D and how we make it by absorbing UVB rays from the sun. But he pointed out that too much vitamin D can be bad for you and that is why the body tans when exposed to the sun. As the skin becomes darker, due to the increase in melatonin in the skin, in great part to block further absorption of UVB rays and the creation of vitamin D. Maybe we should be listening to our bodies much more than we do. Doctors say we have seen an increased occurrence of vitamin E toxicity over the last 20 to 25 years as people have become more likely to take supplements and to avoid being out in the sun.

I was watching a program on the Science Channel that was discussing Venus. The general consensus among many planetary scientists is that Venus is Earth’s twin. Venus is just much older than our planet. These scientists say that we will, someday, being just like Venus. In case you graduated from public school in the last 30 years, Venus is a hot volcanic mess. Now the scientists say that we will eventually be just like Venus because of the natural progression in the life of our planet. This is also due to the deterioration of our orbit around the sun and that in 1 billion years we will be in the position that Venus is in now. Maybe it will happen soon or maybe not but it certainly will not be happening in our lifetimes. But of course some people believe that we are changing the climate for the worse and maybe will be a hot volcanic mess in the next 20 years, kind of like Courtney love’s breakdown.


It sounds plausible…


one of the things that many people do to convince others of their opinion or their position on an issue is use big words, often incorrectly, but stringing them together will impress the low information voter and convince that person that the or writer is correct. There is also a modicum of logic, I use that term loosely, that also helped to convince the general public of the stance that the person is taking. So it goes with California and their attempts to curb man caused global warming.

Back in September Governor Moonbeam, known officially as Jerry Brown, signed a law that regulates methane created by dairy cattle and other livestock. According to the global warming alarmist crowd, 14.5% of "human induced greenhouse gas emissions", from beef and dairy production operations. If you think that might be an accurate statement, understand that first of all Pauline are not human and second of all the source for that factoid is the United Nations. No California has been on the forefront of trying to reduce carbon emissions and producing renewable energy. So to control methane produced by cattle, which the immature side of me says I have to tell you those are cow farts, is the next "logical" step. The goal is to reduce methane emissions from Terry's and livestock operations to 40% below 2013 levels in the next 14 years.

Ryan McCarthy is a science advisor for the California air resources Board and is one of the key authors of the regulations and laws that will accomplish this goal. He of course believes that what they are doing in California will be a model for the rest of the world. While he does agree that this will drive up costs for dairy farmers especially, he believes the benefits far outweigh the potential disastrous side effects. Paul Sousa, Dir. of environmental services for Western United Dairymen, believes this is a very foolish position for the state of California to take and that the cost of complying with the regulations will cause dairy farmers to leave the state.

Sousa says that many farmers have already started to move to states where not only these at regulations don't exist but it's unlikely they will be implemented in the foreseeable future. Some of the things that the California air resources Board are asking farmers to do is change the diet of their cattle. With dairy farmers especially this could not only change the quality of the product, but could also reduce the output from each milk giving cow further straining the ability of farmers to make a living.

The New Hope Dairy, owned by Arlen Van Groningen, a third-generation farmer has been one of the first dairy farmers to comply with the new regulations. One of the things California has done is set aside $50 million to help dairy farmers purchase methane digesters which will store methane gas produced by the cattle and the manure they create and use that gas to create electricity. Sounds really nice doesn't it? Reducing enteric commissions, again one of those fancy phrases, by converting it into energy. Here's the little problem, a single methane digester costs $4 million. Van Groningen Has partnered with California Biogas to create electricity for the Sacramento municipal utility District. Arlen admits that there is no way he could afford to buy the digester himself. But there are 1500 dairies currently operating in the state of California; at a cost of $4 million apiece that would mean the state needs to shell out almost $6 billion. Or the farmers have to bear that cost themselves which is economically unfeasible. The return on the sale of methane gas does not offset the cost for decades.

Even those farmers who want to comply and do their heart admit there is no way this can work from an economic standpoint. It's much easier to purchase property elsewhere and move all of your cattle and equipment than it is to buy everything you need to comply with California's laws. So California continues to take steps to run businesses out of their state and too often to other countries rather than other states. Thus taking not only jobs, but uprooting families, and decreasing tax revenue for those of you that worry about that type of thing.

As we have said there are number of scientific studies that prove bovine methane emissions are negligible in creating global warming or climate change or whatever phrase they're going to use this year. The amount of human induced greenhouse gases is negligible compared to what the earth itself produces through volcanoes for example. But below information voter certainly wants to leave the world a better place and if this sounds like it's possible they'll go along with it.


More lies about ‘Climate Change’ from the left


over the years we have documented on these pages the myths about climate change being caused by man. In fact we've shown time and again the science behind our Earth's climate that not only shows global warming is not occurring, (thus the change in nomenclature from global warming to climate change), but that there is hard data showing that the claimant is not doing what the alarmists said it would do. We've also shown you the data that says not all scientists agree with the conclusions of the climate change alarmists.

Yet another study has found that all of the handwringing, crying, and alarmism regarding Antarctica is once again false. Scientists have been reviewing data from satellites and other data gathering devices and comparing those readings with data documented and obtained by Ernest Shackleton, the famous Antarctic Explorer who failed in his attempt to map the continent because of not only the harsh weather conditions but the amount of ice at our South Pole. Researchers have determined that the amount of ice located on the seventh continent is essentially no different than it was in 1917. In fact it's not only Shackleton's expedition that several other expeditions that documented as well is it was possible at the time the amount of sea ice they encountered on their expeditions.

This is combined with satellite data that shows the depth of the ice at the South Pole has increased over the last two decades at least rather than decrease as many global alarmists would have you believe. They also indicate that the temperature is steady and cooling slightly, as is the temperature around the world, as opposed to what the CRU said earlier this month about the temperature at the South Pole being the highest in recorded history. It's not even close.

But as we have told you before and you know inherently, the global warming/climate change alarmists making a lot of money off of being chicken little. If they were to be honest with you about all the data, the inaccuracy of their predictions, and the fact that man could not change the climate if we really tried they would lose that income. I also believe that they are afraid of losing credibility by admitting they were wrong, but a good scientist never lets their ego get in the way of the truth. A good scientist will admit they were wrong when the data proves it. But then again, these people are not real scientists, they are moneymaking machines.


Technology is catching up…

wind turbine fire

One of the problems with so-called renewable energies like solar or wind generated electricity, is that the supply of electricity is inconsistent. There are multiple other problems but we've seen this play out almost every time that renewable energy has been used to generate electricity on a large scale. Of course the push for renewable sources of electricity is driven by the belief that man is creating climate change, primarily through our generation of CO2. Despite the fact that we have taken great steps to limit the amount of CO2 that man puts into the atmosphere and that even if we were producing CO2 as best as we could, the amount we produced would be minuscule as compared to what is created naturally from things like volcanoes.

Scientists at Oak Ridge national laboratory have come up with a way to turn CO2 into ethanol. And not only is it efficient, but ethanol is already used as fuel. The report on their findings really addresses the benefits of the technology in terms of averting climate change. But there are some other more important benefits.

Right now producing ethanol from plant-based material like corn is inefficient. It takes more energy to create the ethanol then the ethanol creates when it is used as a fuel. Plus the production of ethanol is subsidized by the federal government which skews not only the production costs upward but the price upward as well: not to mention that it makes those plant-based materials like corn or expensive for people who want to use it as a food. So a new method that is low-cost and efficient that can produce a significant amount of ethanol would be a good thing. It would bring the price of ethanol down and also cause more of the plant-based material produced ethanol to be taken out of production and returned to the food market.

Of the technology used to turn CO2 into ethanol is fairly simple and uses copper and carbon combine into nanospikes, which are then put on a silicone surface and using small amounts of electricity turns the CO2 into ethanol. Very importantly, this process works at room temperature so does not need to be supercooled. The conversion process could also be used as temporary energy storage during a lull in renewable energy generation smoothing out fluctuations in renewable energy grid.

So now we have taken a step forward in the technology that could help us to create more renewable energy at lower prices. That's a good thing isn't it? The authors of the report did not mention what kind of money they spent in trying to find this solution but did say that they found it on the first try. It is expected that this would be a much more complicated process. I'm sure the money we gave them will be spent some other way rather than returning it to us but that's another story for another day. But simply as we push forward with research the technology will eventually catch up with our goals. We cannot artificially force people into using renewable energies that are inefficient and expensive. But as things like this happen we will get closer to the goal that almost everyone wants, clean pollution free, renewable sources of energy that are widely available.


Dang it, facts get in the way again!


Earlier this week Senator Barbara Boxer verbally attacked Father Robert Sirico, a Catholic priest and member of the conservative Action Institute. His crime in her eyes was that he disagreed with the Pope about man caused global warming. Bill Nye said he would be in favor of jailing anyone who disagreed with the 'scientific consensus' regarding climate change. (Doesn't that go against scientific methods?)

But now even NASA has to admit their claims about climate change are not being born out by the facts. Once again, NASA's data shows that Antarctica is not only not shrinking, but it's growing. Even worse for them, the increasing size of Antarctica is reducing sea levels by .23 mm a year.

This comes on top of reports that the Earth's temperature is not even increasing but it's actually cooling. What is a governmental agency, who's mission has been changed to combating global warming supposed to do? Maybe they'll focus full time on educating us on the contribution of Islam to the space program.

The IPCC recently put out another report that said the ice mass in Antarctica is slowly melting and causing increasing ocean levels that will kill the human race by not only reducing land masses around the world, due to higher sea levels, but also contribute to the mental health issues that cause global terrorism.

Makes you wonder what scientific data the IPCC is using to support their claims? Oh, that's right, they've made up data before to support their claims and get more grant money. Facts, schmacts.


This is why people believe global warming alarmists…


There is a new report about climate change, formerly known as global warming, that is designed to scare the bejeezus out of ignorant people. Of course that then leads to more political 'action' and money being thrown at the pseudo-scientists studying man caused climate change.

To make the story short, certain scientists are claiming that a huge sheet of ice in the Antarctic could break off and or melt by the year 2100. Of course the ocean levels will rise by anywhere from 1' to 12' causing all kinds of havoc, death, disease, and... you know the deal. The ice sheet is the size of Mexico and is apparently much more sensitive to very small changes in temperature as well as pollution than these climate alarmists thought previously.

This story is of course being played out across all of the normal liberal media outlets as if it's gospel and certain to happen. In one fish wrap, online, the comments section was varied as far as those who believed and didn't believe what the authors were saying. One response in particular caught my attention because is encompassed many of the arguments the gullible public latches on to and whines about.

As climate models have been getting more accurate, they have been consistently forecasting that the effects of climate change will be worse and happen more quickly than previously thought.

Even if a few studies go against this trend, the overall scenario is getting grimmer. What many people do not understand is that climate change is dynamic - complex feedback systems mean that the effects of climate change such as rising sea levels, droughts, stronger hurricanes, heat waves (and cold waves), greater extremes of weather, etc. will continue long after we decrease the amount of carbon we are putting into the atmosphere . At some point, humans lose all control over the process and the resulting changes will be too large for "mitigation" to have much of an effect. It is no comfort that before we reach that point wars over food and drinkable water will create global disorder. We have less than 10 years to do something about this.

First of all, the 'few studies' are somewhere in the range of 650+ peer reviewed and published studies over the last 2-2 1/2 years. That clearly says the science of man caused global warming is far from being settled. In fact you can make a very strong and convincing argument that the alarmists are dead wrong. The author of the comment says we have less than 10 years to act; isn't that what we heard from these people in the 70's when it was global cooling? Then when Al Gore and his movie stars latched on to global warming, it was 10-15 years before the coast lines were under water. Well, here we are and the coastlines are still there.

But I also want to point out that the commenter said that at "some point, humans lose all control over the process..." Really? When have we had any control over climate change? We put so much less carbon and pollution into the atmosphere than we did 30 years ago or especially 125 years ago when everyone was burning coal, coal oil, kerosene, wood, and whale oil for light, heat, and manufacturing. It didn't change the climate one bit. We can't change the climate; we can change pollution but that's a different argument: sometimes I think a lot of lay people equate pollution with climate change.

We cannot mitigate the changes the Earth is going through because we don't, for example, put more than .01% of all the so called greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Volcanoes put thousands of times more carbon dioxide into the air than we do. We as a species have never had control over the climate or the weather. If we did, don't you think some liberal snake oil salesman would have been selling the idea to drought stricken Californians? In a heart beat.

Simply, this report is just designed to create more panic and keep the money flowing. Too many people, for the alarmists' liking, are waking up to the idea that all of this global warming/climate change crap is just that, crap. They are seeing what's going on in our world and know that the Earth is not warming; it's all just part of the natural cycle that has been going on for millennia.


So it’s really about saving the planet?


OK Al and all of you so called scientists, activists, and Earth loving tree huggers. You believe that all of the programs, regulations, speeches, and calls for action are really about saving the Earth from man caused climate change. Then why don't you use scientific principles and quit manipulating the data. If it really was about saving the Earth, don't you think you'd want to correctly identify the problem and implement feasible, effective solutions? Don't you think you'd want all countries to adhere to the same requirements? You would think so.

But the climate change racket is not about really saving the Earth, it's about creating fear and making money. The Climate Policy Initiative recently released a study that shows just how much money is involved in the whole climate change 'industry'. Last year alone, $391 billion was spent by governments and private sector entities on "low carbon and climate resilient growth" programs. Governments alone, mostly in Western Europe and the U.S. spent over $148 billion backing green energy research.

It's not going to get any less expensive either; the group says it will take at least $13.5 trillion for some countries, like China, to cut their carbon dioxide emissions to 'required' levels in order to save our planet. The CPI says there is more money in climate change than there ever has been and it's only going to grow. Another $16.5 trillion is needed to meet the United Nation's goal of limiting future warming to 2 degrees celsius by 2100.

So you see, it's simple to understand why the global warming alarmists don't want to have any sort of accuracy in the data; don't want to acknowledge that they might be wrong. Remember they told us in the 80's that we'd all be under water if we didn't change our habits and get rid of fossil fuel by 1990; then in the 90s, they told us the corn belt would be a desert if we didn't get rid of coal and cars and air conditioners. I don't see too many sweaty folks driving horses and buggies, or a sand dune in Iowa.

It's an undeniable truth of life, if you want to know what's really going on, follow the money. It's hard to give up your slice of the pie when it's counted in the trillions.


Good thing he’s 91, because his career is over

Global warming scientist

Freeman Dyson is a 91 year old theoretical physicist. He's been around long enough that he worked with Einstein at Princeton; he's also won multiple international awards for his work and been published dozens of times on a wide variety of topics. He understands science and more importantly the scientific process. It's also important to point out that he is a self described loyal Democrat and loves Obama.

Dyson doesn't love the scientists, some loosely described as such, who are advancing an "agenda driven" perspective on global warming. Dyson wrote the forward for an article that will appear in The Register questioning concerns about atmospheric CO2 levels. "That is to me the central mystery of climate science. It is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?" He laments that fact that Obama took the wrong side on this issue and the Republicans on actually right about the so called climate change argument.

Part of the issue, according to Dyson and the authors of the article, is that the scientific models that have been used to predict climate outcomes have been wrong and they've been wrong pretty much from the beginning. Dyson laments the lack of a scientific eye towards what is obviously going on as opposed to driving an agenda for political and monetary gain. "What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what's observed and what's predicted have become much stronger. It's clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn't so clear 10 years ago. The observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable." He's pointing out that as we've gotten more accurate information, from things like satellites and other recording devices, our information has become more accurate and it doesn't support the predictions made by the global warming alarmists.

Dyson tries to explain the lack of adherence to scientific processes. He suggests there is a confusion, especially amongst the average person, between pollution, something that is definitely man made and solvable, and climate change, a feature of nature and mostly beyond the control of humanity. Then he gets to the crux of the problem; there are too many people who make their money by scaring the public. In fact he points out that not only have the models used to scare us and change political policies been dead wrong but some of the changes have been beneficial to the Earth and to mankind.

It's a good thing he's 91 and can retire because he's taken a core issue of the left and told them it's a myth. His career is now over; not because he's wrong but he's dared to speak out against Glorious Leader and the liberal wing of the Democrat party, disagreeing with them about the most important issue facing us today. I'm sure he'll be abducted by aliens and will never be heard from again.


It’s about the power, not what is right


It's almost one of the undeniable truths of life; when it comes to politicians, bureaucrats, or anyone else with some level of control or authority, often their actions are designed to keep them in control, give themselves more power, or generally make your lives fit the mold of what they envision is right.

Global warming alarmist have been doing so for decades and once again they've been caught manipulating data in order to prove their hypothesis. We've known for a long time that we are in the midst of a 15 year global cooling or as some called it, a pause in global warming. That verbiage is designed to continue instilling fear in the general population. Think about how it's perceived: hear 'global cooling trend' and don't you relax a little bit? But if you hear someone say,"pause in global warming", now you're thinking we aren't out of the woods yet.

'New' climate data from NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990's by adjusting temperature data and inflating temperatures in more recent years. Now certainly we would want more accurate data and as technology improves or the number of data collection points increases, we should get more accurate data. Being a bit of skeptic, I'd want to know why there was an adjustment of pre-cooling trend data and an increase in temperature averages for the last 15+ years. What happened?

To get the data to fit the narrative, NOAA scientists decided that certain data collection points were more "reliable" because of their greater accuracy. So the really smart manipulators decided to adjust upwards the temperature readings obtained from ocean buoy arrays and ship based temperature reading devices. Why those are considered more accurate data collection devices, I didn't see. But just to be sure, they also adjusted upward land based temperatures as well. Amazing that none of the adjustments were downward. Aren't there a lot of places that claimed to have experienced the coldest winters in a hundred years over the last couple of seasons?

Of course the result was to double the previous global warming temperatures and bring them back in line with their hypothesis. Now the data for the years 2000-2014 essentially matches the trends established from 1950-1999. I'll bet those scientists at NOAA are relaxing now that they have a reason to scare everyone into giving them more money and more control over your activities. Not to mention that they have now out manipulated the Climate Research Unit. USA! USA! USA!


It snowed yesterday, damn global warming


April 26th; isn't it supposed to be April showers bringing May flowers? I didn't know the adage meant 'snow showers'. It was funny that a couple of responses to my FB post about snow in April and blaming global warming brought out some people who wondered if I believed in global warming. So we need to revisit some facts I guess.

First, if there is global warming, it is not caused by man. We've shown, that is scientists have shown, that one volcano continually erupting in the Hawaiian Islands emits more of the 'greenhouse' gases in a day or two than all of the autos in the U.S. emit in one year. How can we have a significant causal effect upon the temperature of the atmosphere if we don't equal one volcano's output, not to mention all of them?

We do not really know if the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere is out of whack or not. We only have about 100 years of actual data that we can analyze and the validity or accuracy of that data is iffy at best. We don't know how accurate those temps are because humans didn't have very accurate measuring devices; we didn't have them all over the world and records are incomplete. Not to mention that the Earth is a lot older than 100 years and that time frame is not statistically valid.

Let's not forget that the CRU and other experts claimed in the 1980's that if we didn't change our ways significantly that California, Texas, New York and all the coastal areas would be under water by now. The heartland would be a vast dust bowl and we'd all be starving; and we wouldn't have seen snow in the North American continent for at least a decade. The computer models they used were based upon assumptions that were created by the alarmists.

We were told last month was the hottest March on record since 1880. U.S. government scientists said 2014 would be the hottest year on record. NOAA claimed that their temperature data showed surface temps gathered from the Global Historical Climate Network proved the Earth was warming. Yet other data gathering systems, such as the Remote Sensing Systems and the University of Alabama's system, which collect temps from satellites and don't have the placement bias of the GHCN, differed. The two satellite systems show that the atmosphere's temperature has been steady at worst and slightly cooling at best, for over a decade.

Let's not forget that the data from the GHCN is 'adjusted' by the government scientists, who make money off of fear mongering. For example, the temperature chart for the Puerto Casado collection point as adjusted by NOAA researchers shows a steady increase in the Earth's temperature. Analysis of the data by independent researchers shows that NOAA has continually adjusted older temperatures down and recent temperatures upward. Their reasoning for this is something akin to collection bias but that doesn't make sense since they claim to have accurate collection mechanisms in place now.

Independent researchers using the raw data from the 3000 collection stations monitored by the GHCN shows that the temperature readings are actually decreasing. At the Puerto Casado collection station the temps have been on a clear downward trend, going from a high of 26.25 degrees C in about 1960 to 24.5 degrees C in 2011. Let's not forget all the emails from the 'scientists' at the CRU showing their panic at the data trends and the need to adjust the raw data to conform with the models.

In short the picture is one of a steady climate not one that is deteriorating; and it's one of manipulated data by those who stand to gain financially from crying "wolf".