Big Frick Dot Com

I hate when the doctor puts on the glove.

Any guy over the age of about 30 with a prostate knows exactly what’s coming next. Hold your breath, grab the backside of the examination table and hope that it’s over quickly. It’s never over quick enough and at least I have never even gotten a dinner out of the deal.

It’s one of those things you just endure. I get the same feeling of dreaded anticipation every time I read another story about the immanent destruction of the planet due to manmade global warming. And boy, the news wires are jammed to hilt with one story after another of how we are all going to hell in a handbasket due to melting ice flows and rising sea levels.

With each new report more dire then the previous one and every conceivable attempt made to tie global warming to some natural disaster it has become apparent that thar’s gold in them thar carbon footprints.

Penn State University just published a report that the entire continent of Antarctica is warming at the same rate as the rest of the planet, disagreeing with all previous reports that showed otherwise. This report was dutifully covered by the journal Nature in its January 21st issue.

The key to this study is that it was funded by the National Science Foundation, a foundation that just received over $3 billion in new funding in the presidents non-stimulus spending package.

The study which was set up to prove exactly what it proved is not based on any new information or scientific data. The study simply used the existing data, which in some cases is only for the last 25 years, and redid the math so that the calculations showed warming rather than cooling. It than made assumptions on the data collected and extrapolated it out to say that it covered 50 years, which is actually twice as long as some of the data covered.

Headlines claimed that sea levels are rising faster than ever, reporting on a story from the National Center for Space Studies in France. My first thought is why does France have a National Center for Space Studies and why the hell are they studying sea levels. But regardless of my skepticism, the study claims that sea levels are rising twice as fast as was originally thought. It is only later that it is explained that the study is comparing data from only the last 15 years and comparing it to data from the 50 years prior. Once again it ignores the rules of long term data collection and also uses two completely different measuring systems and then extrapolates the data to come out this way.

The Carnegie Institute of Science, which also operates on government grants and focused corporate contributions, reported that carbon emissions have been growing by 3.5% since 2000 versus the 0.9% reported in the 1990’s. The study places the blame for this 400% increase squarely in the use of coal. It goes on to claim that because of these increased emissions no part of the world has experienced any reduction in temperature since the year 2000. The report once again uses extrapolated data to come up with a mathematical formula that proves this point. The only problem with the conclusion of the math is that it does not coincide with the actual temperature readings of thermometers.

All of these studies have one thing in common. They were all funded by either government grants or by industries that stand to benefit greatly by the results. It’s like the recent conversion of oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens who is now investing heavily in alternative energy. He claims that his research shows oil will be back over $150 per barrel from its current $35 per barrel within two years. He uses that as a reason to invest in alternative energy. My question is, if he truly believes that, why wouldn’t he invest in oil again and make a freaking killing? The answer is simple. There is more money to be made by the sham that is global warming than by the reality and uncertainty of commodity prices and option trading.

Ireland’s Environmental Minister recently put a ban on the television broadcast of the British government’s advertisements claiming global warming calling them “insidious propaganda”.

Czech President Vaclav Klaus said that “Environmentalism and global warming alarmism is challenging our very freedom” he went on to say that he didn’t see any statistical data that proved any of the claims of global warming, in fact the data showed otherwise. “I’m very sorry that some people like Al Gore are not ready to listen to the competing theories. I do listen to them.”

The global warming industry has a firm grip on the media and allows no room for dissention. Any report or data that even remotely disproves some if the mathematical profiles created to support the warming claims are banished and held in complete contempt without any chance for rebuttal.

The scientific community knows how to get its bread buttered and they will be damned if they let a few facts put them on a diet.

That’s why at the 175th annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science held in Chicago recently many of the topics were directly related to global warming and the research dollars involved.

Bud Ward from Yale University and Pallab Ghosh of the BBC discussed the increased need for scientific expertise in the growing newsroom coverage of global warming in a variety of areas including political coverage, economic coverage and even entertainment angles.

Stephen Schneider, a climatologist from Stanford University, urged scientists to be less equivocal in conversations with reporters to avoid any appearance that there is not a complete scientific consensus on the issue of global warming, regardless of the report data.

After Jeremy Jackson from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography discussed how eating tuna is immoral, Mark Serezze from the University of Colorado discussed the accelerating degree to which the polar ice caps are melting. Obviously Mr. Serezze spoke before the recent report showing that the data showing the acceleration has been proven false due to a recently discovered drifting in the satellite aiming used to collect the data, although I doubt it would have changed his dire warnings of global destruction and the need for additional funding for research.

A seminar was given on how global warming is causing us to become fat by forcing us to eat more soft food. This increases not only body fat but also amino acid production causing oddly shaped skulls. It was only later that it was revealed the study was done on Burmese pythons.

But probably the best science was saved for the ever expanding lore of Charles Darwin who was celebrating his 200th birthday.

Darwin’s research was unbelievably expanded as a means of justification for scientists that touted Darwinism in their studies on diet, agriculture, feminism, morality and Natural Security where evolutionary biology was used as a means of increased national security.

But my favorite scientific report came from Daniel Blumstein of UCLA who talked about how we as a nation can improve our national security through the study of marmots. “You can’t stay in your burrow all the time” he said.

When it comes to this absurd display of cash for results science and the fact that the cash is coming out of my pocket, my burrow sounds like the place I want to be. And if I come out and see my shadow it means another 10 years of global warming.

I have the data to back that up.