Posted February 13, 2010 | comments 19 Comments


Northern Virginia Daily


Global warming and cooling have been going on since the world began. I will use the Darwinian take on creation, so that I'm not accused of being unscientific (although I will be anyway).

According to scientific data, the Grand Canyon was created by sediments laid down by advancing and retreating ocean coastlines many times, so it's fair to say oceans have risen and fallen before man even existed.

Also, according to data the earth has warmed and cooled at least four times in the past 1.7 million years, as shown by the ice ages. These ice/warming ages were caused by variations in the intensity and timing of heat from the sun. Since the sun still exists and has hot and cool times, it's fair to say climate change is caused by the sun and had happened before man even existed.

Because of climate change about 10,500 years ago the Sahara Desert was lush with vegetation and had plentiful rain before it turned into the inhospitable place we know today. Again, man had nothing to do with it.

Around 535 A.D. Krakatoa, a super volcano, erupted causing a mini-ice age felt around the world. We know it as the Dark Age. The earth managed to clean up the air all by itself, bringing us the Renaissance when the globe warmed up and people could plant and thrive again.

Perhaps man is contributing to the warming of the globe; perhaps man is not. The atmosphere is made up of 20 percent CO2, less than 20 percent ozone, nitrous oxide, methane and other gases. The most prominent greenhouse gases is H20 and it comprises 60 percent of the atmosphere.

One of the major problems with climate research (besides the misrepresentation of "facts" and lack of fair debate) is that scientific models cannot realistically reproduce cloud formation (created by H20), which helps cool the earth. Therefore, an exact prediction of global warming remains very doubtful.

The world has warmed and cooled many times without human help. Isn't it fair to think that if the climate is changing, it's a natural occurrence?

Kim Bishop
728 Crystal Lane
Feb. 5, 2010

Northern Virginia Daily


I agree with Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., who said this at a Feb. 2 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing with Defense Secretary Robert Gates present:

"I don't believe quite frankly that the DOD [Department of Defense] budget should be sacrosanct when it comes to looking at the constraints and the examinations that we ought to be putting on different programs."

The United States will always be a great power. We have a tremendous stock of weapons, knowledge about war and research capability. And more than anything else, we like war. But we have gotten militarily over extended at home and abroad because a lot of people in our imperial city on the Potomac -- indeed throughout our nation -- derive power and/or wealth from endless war.

Well, the money has run out. We can either stop our reckless waste now or when China and Japan terminate our line of credit. Who will dare say that we will be defenseless if our defense budget is reduced by $1? There are a lot of places that said $1 can be better spent.

John R. Cole
121 Winifred St.
Feb. 10, 2010

Northern Virginia Daily


Hold the presses! I was just informed of the Fibrowatt LLC discussions with the state of Virginia and Page County. I have some great news for Del. Todd Gilbert and state taxpayers, but maybe not so great for Fibrowatt LLC.

There is a more economical way to solve the problem with poultry litter while creating a positive impact on the environment. It results in a reduction of commercial fertilizer required for farm lands, increased crop productions, minimal transportation costs, a solution to soil drainage and erosion problems, eliminates odors from the litter and produces a commodity from the waste material that pays for the process.

Unfortunately, hundreds of workers to build multi-million dollar facilities will not be needed. It will provide long-term jobs initially and an increase in job opportunities as the process matures. It also accomplishes the objective of being environmentally green and can successfully dispose of poultry, livestock and pig wastes at a fraction of the cost being presently proposed.

Minimal land is required, no harmful gasses are emitted, there is no ash to dispose of and all the farmers of Page County are going to be happier than the proverbial pigs in sh--.

Has anyone guessed yet? It's called "Earthworm Biotechnology for the Management of Effluents from Intensively Housed Livestock" (Outlook on Agriculture, Volume 18, No. 2, 1989 0030-7270/89 Pergamon Press).

Simply stated: Several species of earthworms are used, including the most commonly known as "red worms" used extensively for back yard composting. A large-scale project using this method exclusively for handling cattle manure and producing a nutrient-rich, marketable compost product that is in compliance with all U.S. EPA land application regulations is presently being done in Avon, N.Y., and was awarded a federal grant to start this immensely successful operation.

This is a revolutionary approach that could rival the initial introduction of solar power and wind power in terms of its benefits to the overall economic and environmental climate of the future.

Jerry Scholder
31 Bedford Drive
Front Royal
Feb. 5, 2010


    Referencing Ms. Bishop's letter of opinion; Earth's geological record provides evidence of the waxing and waning of global climate conditions and the rate of change is well documented. These fluctuations happened over time periods of thousands of years. The best evidence indicates each historic long term fluctuation was caused by one of (or various combinations of) changing atmosphere content, cyclic orbital variations bring the earth closer or farther from the sun, planet axis oscillations affecting solar exposure, volcanic activity, asteroid impact, and solar output. The case for the modern era's observed rate of change in average short term global temperature happening today rests on measured and measurable changes in the content of the atmosphere. What is the cause of this change?

    The cause of atmospheric change over the past 50 to 100 years is best supported by actual observations, records, and measurements over this time period. The best evidence to date indicates global warming trends are caused by the results of human activity, coincidental with the industrial revolution, population growth, deforestation, and burning fossil fuels as primary contributing factors . Removing the effects of these human activities leaves the remaining identified influences static and therefore not a likely cause of the observed global warming trend.

    Where is the best evidence any naturally occurring process is responsible for the observed global temperature increase? Where are the new mega-volcanoes, orbit shifts, Deccan Traps, asteroid impacts, Siberian Traps or major brightening of our sun?

    Bishop's simple argument rests on nothing of measurable substance. A single observation does not establish a trend i.e., it snowed today so how could the world be getting hotter?

    There's no debating with you Min Gent. Even when I use scientific data you infer that I am un-scientific or to quote you have no"measurable substance."

    Your side argues that when it's too hot it's global warming, when it's too cold it's global warming, when there's a hurricane it's global warming, when there's no hurricane it's global warming. I wonder if you could please tell me what isn't global warming.

    When the "consensus" of global warming scientists has been shown to be full of lies and mis-represented data I find little reason to believe anything coming out of the scientific community...and that includes you.

    Nice try, Ms. Bishop. Quite clearly I said your "argument" lacks measurable substance. I will leave it to the dear readers of your posts to determine if "you" lack substance.

    Hi Kim, long time no type? ;)

    Anyway, I don't think that it is an arguable point that the climate on Earth is cyclical. The argument has more to do with our contribution this time around. ONE consensus study was shown to be tampered with, but not in the way that people are being led to believe. Data that didn't fit was hidden or removed. That data didn't contradict much of anything, but it was non-sensical and non-sequitor type data that did more to show that the method they had been using had another variable that had been previously unaware of and called into question the entirety of that particular study (I believe it was the tree-ring data? ).

    Anyway, there are two things that cannot be ignored. One is simple empirical evidence that the overall global temperature is rising. The second is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas...

    We can argue until we're blue in the face whether man is causing/caused the initial warming, but what cannot be argued is that belching millions of cubic tons of CO2 into the atmosphere while simultaneously wiping out forests hasn't caused a rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations....

    Beyond ALL of this is the fact that taking actions to reduce CO2 emissions has countless of other benefits to our country. Alternative energy sources are cheaper in the long run. Alternative energy gives us energy independence from the Middle East, which has held our interests in the balance for FAR too long. AND Alternative energy promotes a cleaner and healthier environment....

    WHY oh WHY are people so focused on debunking Global Warming when this is clearly a path to energy independence and a cleaner world is beyond me. And if we are contributing to global warming? Well hey, we've just found yet, another benefit to moving away from fossil fuels then, haven't we?

    As always, respectfully...


    Hi Irishman!

    How refreshing to have a response that isn't antagonistic. I have no problem moving to cleaner energy, if it is attainable and if it doesn't destroy our economy in the process. I'm one of the few (on this site) who seem to believe that if we let people alone and gave incentives, not directives and not unlimited funding, someone would come up with an energy source that is both cleaner and affordable. All new thing start out expensive, but the price comes down as people begin buying them. The problem with green energy, as it is now...solar and wind...is that it's overwhelmingly expensive. I've looked into solar panels for my home and the cost to re-wire everything makes it a non-starter for my family because we wouldn't recoup the costs in energy savings.

    I believe in conservation and planned developments, and if people wanted to discuss green energy in an honest way, like getting off foreign oil or health reasons or even to keep areas clean that would be fine, but the people in power are not discussing this issue in an honest way. They are trying to scare people into believing that the world is going to drown and crisp up if we don't change and that's just not true. All this week there have been report after report (in the foreign press not the American press) about how the earth has actually been cooling for the past 15 years and that the guy behind the global warming science, himself, says that there is no consensus. There are thousands of scientist who disagree with the mantra of man caused global warming...google "thepetitionproject".

    Forcing companies and people to change their energy consumption without a viable and affordable way right now is not fiscally responsible. I truly hope Obama is sincere about getting a nuclear plant up and running and using more nuclear power, but I'm afraid it's more of his smoke and mirrors. He knows that the environmentalists will fight it, his EPA will probably come up with reasons not to do it, and he closed down our only place to get rid of the waste material. Nuclear power is the best way to go, but as you know it takes around 10 years to get a plant up and going (and that is without law suits.)

    I'm an idealist, but I'm also a pragmatist. While I would love to live in an earthy paradise like Eden, I know that it's not going to happen. My feeling is that if more people would walk the walk instead of just talking the talk then things would get fixed, or at least better.

    God bless you Irishman, I look forward to agreeing to disagree with you more often! ;) (although I think we agree a lot more than we disagree.)

    I would gladly listen to anyone who has a degree from a credited university/college who has direct data to show me what is determined "global warming." Oh, thats right even the scientist have to flub the data to prove global warming exists or doesn't exist. All of banter back and forth and not one person/group/foundation can prove either way.
    We are still in the early stages of learning more about this so lets understand first before we decide on who is right or wrong.

    For those readers seeking direct data, allow me to direct you to a source listing the best scientific papers on every aspect of climate change.


    After browsing this extensive collection of peer reviewed scientific papers you may post questions for review and answers on their forum.

    Min Gent, the very first thing you read on the "Climate Progress" web site is that it's the "progressive perspective on climate science...etc." Why is it I'm called a Tin Foil Hat wearer and partisan when the site you send me to has, from my quick glance no opposing scientific data, only posts on why the climate fascists are right. I have lost all respect for you (not that I had much). I have already read a lot of the drivel on this web site. What about the web site I sent you too...the non partisan one that simply had facts and science behind it. Did you even check it out?

    Progressive scientists are biased and make the facts fit what they want. Peer review means NOTHING when "peers" who disagree never even get the time of day. You have shown your hand and it is the same as all progressives...use whatever means necessary to accomplish your goal of Global Wealth Distribution. Thanks but no thanks. Your science is crap!

    May God Bless you.
    Your friendly neighborhood Queen of the Tin Foil Hats
    ...Mmm...Mmm...Mmm xxxoooxxx

    The Petition Project referenced above by Ms. Bishop is an updated edition of the Oregon Petition, which was created to persuade America to reject the proposed Kyoto agreement. It was not a petition against global warming claims.

    The Oregon Petition, now posing as "The Petition Project", has some major problems:

    First, attached to the Oregon Petition was an article supporting its claims. The article was designed to look just like an article from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a reputable peer-reviewed journal. However, the article was created by three skeptics and was not peer-reviewed at all. The National Academy of Sciences was subject to a lot of inquiries and controversy following the publication of this petition. Eventually, the National Academy of Sciences had to publish a statement saying that it had nothing to do with the article.

    Second, the Oregon Petition could be signed by scientists from any discipline, even if they had no experience studying climate change.

    Third, the scientists may have been misrepresented. The Seattle Times reported they investigated the Oregon Petition and found that some obviously questionable people had signed. Several environmental groups questioned dozens of the names: “Perry S. Mason” (the fictitious lawyer?), “Michael J. Fox” (the actor?), “Robert C. Byrd” (the senator?), “John C. Grisham” (the lawyer-author?), The petition listed “Dr. Geri Halliwell” and “Dr. Halliwell.” Geraldine Halliwell (a.k.a. the Spice Girl), was identified as having a degree in microbiology and living in Boston.

    Given the complexity and urgency of climate change (and its vulnerability to political posturing) scientists engaged in the issue must avoid personal agendas and be intellectually vigilant and above reproach.

    The debate centers around radical remedial action. Those in favor of climate controls encourage sacrificing wealth and freedom to combat warming. For this main reason developed countries are generally against climate controls. They want to preserve their economic advantage and high standard of living at the expense of undeveloped nations who desire raising their standards of living to levels enjoyed in the developed world. It is the classic battle of the 'have's' versus the 'have nots'. Citizens of the "have" countries are loathe to surrender their existing high standards. It then becomes more convenient to disavow the climate is warming.

    This keeps the debate's attention focused on the validity of climate change rather than the more important question of what must be done , if anything, to mitigate the effects.

    But without serious scientific support, it is a non-starter unable to gain worldwide traction.

    Anti-climate control proponents make assertions impervious to evidence, These assertions insist that everything supposedly confirms and nothing, not even the absence of warming, can falsify.

    I love the words you used, Min Gent,...Anti-climate control proponents. True science is not based on how the governments of the world can CONTROL anything. Science is supposed to be based on data and experimentation. Sadly the Pro-climate control proponents ignore the science showing NO MAN MADE global climate change. You have shown the truth behind the "global warming" hoax...control of the people and how they live.

    Perhaps if the scientists worked on science and left politics to politicians your side would have validity, but as it is the whole global warming argument has been proven to be a sham, with data going missing, lies being perpetrated and "scientists" coming forward admitting they ignored data that contradicted human caused global warming, simply to try and control the way people live.

    The site you sent us all to is a biased view, trying to push the progressive agenda. If people want to stop pollution and be conservationists then lets have the debate, but it would be nice if the Pro-climate control proponents would be honest about their agenda, and they have not. And to be honest if ANYONE really believes they can control climate, whether you believe in a creator or evolution, they are too arrogant to even comprehend.

    BTW, when Al Gore, Bono, Hollywood, Obama, etc., give up their creature comforts to "save the planet" then I might actually believe that they are concerned for the planet, but until then I say they are full of hot air...hey maybe if all the liberals in the world that want to save the planet quit breathing the CO2 emissions would go down...I'm just saying. ;)

    Your friendly neighborhood Queen of the Tin Foil Hats ...Mmm...Mmm...Mmm xxooxx

      Your attempt at humor is lacking, Kim. To quote you "maybe if all liberals quit breathing"? Well, considering I never really pay much attention to you and your "remarks" anyway, I wouldn't want to violate your 1st amendment right no matter how crude and spiteful it may be. Aren't you the one that insists on "intelligent debate"? No wonder you don't get it. Maybe that is the whole problem....you just don't get it.

    The writer above named "Old Town Resident" expressed an interest in obtaining global warming information from anyone who has direct data and a degree from an accredited university. The website referral "CLIMATE PROGRESS" satisfies the request. There appears to be hundreds of articles written by people with academic credentials and most have advanced Masters and Doctorate degrees. Many universities and colleges are represented. The topics are extensive and varied. At random, pick any ten articles for review and the interested reader would be well positioned to draw inferences from this vast body of knowledge and research.

    Few, if any, of the published scientific papers support the viewpoints expressed by Bishop whose only defense is the word 'progress' appears in the website name.

    Anti-climate warming wonks and flat earth believers do not bother making a case that could withstand even minimal fact-checking. When confronted, they revert to the well-worn slander attack and misdirection. At this point they obviously believe they can blandly make utterly misleading assertions, saying things that can be easily refuted, and pay no price.

    This can not be allowed to continue. If you make an assertion, be prepared to reveal the sources of your supporting facts capable of withstanding fact-checking scrutiny or risk being exposed as the liar you are.

    Hey Tstar, sorry to hurt your feelings, I was not trying to be crude or spiteful, just silly. Sorry.

    Min Gent, my problem was not with the word "progressive" but the words "progressive perspective" which means they've taken the data and "spun" it to their opinions.

    In the spirit of Min Gent, I would like to point Old Town Resident to the college educated and scientific backed info on heritage 'dot' org and the balanced discussion on global warming by college educated people who use scientific evidence on globalwarming-factorfiction 'dot' com. Also, in opposition to Min Gents opinions thepetitionproject 'dot' org uses science and scientific graphs by college educated scientists to argue their point.

    The only reason there are few scientific papers that support the non human caused global warming in peer review is because the "progressive perspective" does not allow for debate or dissent. There is plenty of room to argue the point of global warming or climate change, but if your "progressive perspective" is allowed then so should the "conservative and scientific perspective" be allowed.

    BTW, I do not believe in a flat earth, I do believe man landed on the moon, I do believe the climate changes, I do believe the earth revolves around the sun. I also believe in various forms of government conspiracy by all sides of the political spectrum, so call me a "tin foil hat wearer", but not a flat Earther. It just shows your childishness when you get the name calling wrong!

    Love ya -- The Queen of the Tin Foil Hats...mmm...mmm...mmm

    Invoking a favorite Tea Party tactic of suppressive conspiracy theories by mysterious unknowns, Bishop makes a false, unsupported statement and says: "The only reason there are few scientific papers that support the non human caused global warming in peer review is because the "progressive perspective" does not allow for debate or dissent." Contradicting Bishops false statement, the website 'CLIMATE PROGRESS' allows readers to post comments and submit research papers for posting to the site.

    Bishop should admit no peer reviewed evidence exists that supports any contradictory hypothesis refuting climate warming today is caused by man-made activities. If it exists, produce it.

    Bishop references the Heritage Foundation. This is a conservative think-tank organization created during the Regan administration and staffed entirely by Republicans. Unbiased, neutral, and balanced information is not on their agenda. Read it for what it is.

    Demonstrating the false assertion by Bishop that debate and dissent are not allowed, "globalwarming-factorfiction 'dot' com." is a good reference source for current topical information. It is similar to Climate Progress, except instead of offering academic papers and research documents for reader review, is offers links to published articles from print media sources. The website also accepts and posts comments from readers, many of whom, like Bishop, attack the global warming hypothesis with opinions not supported by any research.

    "globalwarming-factorfiction 'dot' com" is recommended because of its neutrality by the website owner. Looking through the website, the most amusing reader post came from a person touting his own website 'flat earth - fact or fiction'. See the website page 'About The Author', comment # 316: "Tom George, on June 9th, 2007 at 10:37 am said: Thank you for your work. I have a website where I give both sides of the story for flat earth or round. It is such ‘balanced’ discussion as ours that truly leads mankind forward."

    Copernicus and Galileo are spinning in their graves.

    Leaving the global warming topic for a moment, every forum post by the Tin Foil Hats are proving to be an exercise in a make-believe world dominated by extremist perspectives. These religiously fanatical beliefs posit all the good ideas and good people lie on one side and all the "special interests," barbarians and dangerous ideas lie on the other side.

    There must always be room for the real world's messy ambiguities, discomforting contradictions and unpopular choices. Make-believe thoughts should be abandoned after pre-school ends.

    populartechnology 'dot' net...scan down page until article on 500 Peer reviewed papers supporting skepticism of "man made" global warming.

    Awaiting your reply Min Gent...Is everyone who disagrees with you a religious fanatic and a barbarian? And Tstar where is your spanking of Min Gent for his spiteful remarks?

    Since NVD "forgot" to post my comment to you, I will repeat it. Since it appears that only you and Min Gent are involved in this war of words I will let you handle it because the only offensive comments are being made between the 2 of you.

    I like you Tstar...I may not agree with you very often, although sometimes I do, but you interjected yourself into this discussion saying that, "I wouldn't want to violate your 1st amendment right no matter how crude and spiteful it may be." I was just hoping you would also take others to task when they're doing the same thing, ie. "These religiously fanatical beliefs posit all the good ideas and good people lie on one side and all the "special interests," barbarians and dangerous ideas lie on the other side.", but then maybe you don't consider those words crude or spiteful. As I said even though we disagree I do enjoy your posts. Take care...I guess we've talked this one to death! ;)

    One of the articles appearing on the Bishop referenced website populartechnology was published by researchers at MIT. I repeat for your reading pleasure the abstract from their research paper.

    "Among a fringe community of paranoids, aluminum helmets serve as the protective measure of choice against invasive radio signals. We investigate the efficacy of three aluminum helmet designs on a sample group of four individuals. Using a $250,000 network analyzer, we find that although on average all helmets attenuate invasive radio frequencies in either direction (either emanating from an outside source, or emanating from the cranium of the subject), certain frequencies are in fact greatly amplified. These amplified frequencies coincide with radio bands reserved for government use according to the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). Statistical evidence suggests the use of helmets may in fact enhance the government's invasive abilities. We speculate that the government may in fact have started the helmet craze for this reason."

    Google "tinfoilhatsexposed" and check it out for yourself. See the electronic test gear, graphed results, sample helmets, pictures of the investigative process, conclusions, recommendations, and much more.


Copyright © The Northern Virginia Daily | nvdaily.com | 152 N. Holliday St., Strasburg, Va. 22657 | (800) 296-5137