Sad to say it appears the big news today is the Tom Brady flap.  Apparently, Tom has decided to go with the “Hillary Defense.”  I guess this means that Tom owes a debt to Hillary for providing the new standard for denial.  Announce that you have provided all relative information!  Destroy the hardware containing the evidence!  Defy the “controlling legal authority” to prove otherwise!  Poor Nixon.  If only Hillary had been on his side.  Oh, sure, I know this is really lightweight stuff.  But the networks seem quite committed to keeping this issue alive.  I’m sure it’s not because they don’t want to cover the scandalous state of the union that has resulted from President Obama’s actions.

Actually, as with my earlier post concerning Trump and McCain, I don’t have a dog in this fight.  I think it’s safe to say I was a rabid fan of the Baltimore Colts in my youth.  If fact, I actually became physically sick as a result of some of their losses.  My sister can confirm this.  I used to use the phrase “I’ll never forget.”  Now I use the phrase “Short of dementia or Alzheimer’s, I’ll never forget.”  Specifying that caveat, I recall a Colts game against (I think) Detroit.  I believe Earl Morrall may have been their quarterback at the time.  The Colts were trailing with little time left.  With 24 seconds to go Unitas threw a pass to Lenny Moore for a touchdown to take the lead.  The Colts kicked off and Detroit took control with only a few seconds left.  The Colts’ defensive backs were looking for several quick short passes to the sidelines to stop the clock to work their way down the field.  Detroit sent the tight-end straight down the field.  He was totally uncovered and caught a pass to win the game.  Shortly, I was erupting from both ends.

Then a few years later came Bullet Bob Ersay.  I was fortunate that he did not come when I was a teen.  Had he I probably would have slashed my wrists or jumped off a tall building.  But when Bullet Bob took my Colts to Indianapolis, he took my interest in football and sports in general with him.  He broke me of any interest in following sports.  Today, if I’m surfing the TV channels and come across an Oriole game I often feel an ancient and instinctual need to stop to watch.  After an inning or two I lose all interest.  Occasionally I’ll stop on a golf tournament.  The attraction, though, is more the pastoral scenery than the actual game.

When it comes right down to it, though, I guess I owe a debt to Bullet Bob.  He has freed up for me so much time for other pursuits.  It allowed me much more time for my Church, though age has slowed me down quite a bit in the area of physical activity.  (Helping to build one Church should be enough for anybody.)  I became an avid reader.  I became a flight and airplane buff and from that I became a WW2 buff.  It also led me to read enough to become a (not at all bitter) clinger to my Bible, my Constitution and, yes, my gun rights and a climate denier.

EXPERIMENT – Write down some of the comments made by the NFL this morning about Brady’s destruction of his cell phone.  Replace all occurrences of “Tom Brady” with “Hillary Clinton” and replace all occurrences of “cell phone” with “email server.”  Now wonder why the press has given such different coverage to these two individuals.

In the news…

George Stephanopoulos interviewed Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards Sunday morning about the surreptitiously filmed meetings between members of her staff and an anti-abortion group.  Well, “interview” might be a bit optimistic.  You might be more accurate to describe it as her delivering an interactive speech.  She could hardly express sufficiently just how indignant she was at the deceptive tactics used by the anti-abortion group.  In case you don’t understand exactly what she meant, I will translate for you.  “They tricked my staff into telling the truth.”

She was also quite adamant in pointing out that her staff did not admit to selling baby parts to researchers for money.  At this point George seemed to have been struck by a serious lapse of journalistic curiosity.  Had I been there, despite not being a professional journalist possessing journalistic curiosity, I think I might have asked just how much those researchers “donated” to the “non-profit” Planned Parenthood.

On Meet the Press this morning Commie/Pinko Bernie Sanders brought up the case of Sandra Bland earlier this week.  He said, “Bland was ‘yanked’ from her car and thrown to the ground.”  Maybe I missed something, but I saw the officer’s dash cam images and it appeared to me that after several threats from the officer, she exited the car under her own power and walked around the rear of her car and out of the field of view to the right.  Maybe my vision is less creative that Bernie’s.

Bernie was also very anxious to make his populist point we MUST increase the minimum wage to fifteen dollars per hour.  I must agree with the late Milton Freeman on this point.  WHAT A BUNCH OF CHEAPSKATES! Why not make the minimum wage $100 per hour.  That way we can all be rich.  I mean…you wouldn’t mind paying $50 for a cheeseburger…would you?

President Obama says he has a boat load of money he wants to give to the people of Africa.  Wait for the other shoe to drop.  They can have the money if they’ll just give up their quaint antiquated notion that God says homosexuality is an abomination.


In the sidebar I predict that Iran will build and use a nuclear weapon in five to ten years.  President Obama campaigned saying that a nuclear Iran was not acceptable.  Now he has decided it’s better to manage Iran’s acquisition of a nuke rather than prevent it.  When challenged about this his response is “well, what’s your plan?  War is your only option.”  That is actually a total lie.  Many Iran experts maintain that the sanctions were working and they could have been tightened.  But what about war?  It has been wisely observed that there are things worse than war.  In 1938 Winston Churchill observed that Britain was facing a choice between shame and war.  He predicted she would choose shame and would then get war anyway under worse terms than if she had chosen war in the first place.  He was right.  All serious scholars maintain that had the French and British stood up to Hitler earlier, he would have backed down.  So they chose shame and we got 60 million dead.

So now POTUS has a deal with the Iranians and Congress is going to examine and vote on it.  But the Democrats earlier stacked the deck to make it almost impossible for Congress to kill the agreement.  In addition, we now know that Obama has several side agreements with Iran that he will not submit to Congress – will not even let them know their content.  Of course, if Obama says we can trust that these agreements are just fine, we know it’s okay, right?  If you like your doctor you can keep him.  There is a report that one of those side agreements includes American protection of Iran from military attack.  I guess that means if Israel decides it cannot trust Obama’s solution and attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities, then we will attack the only democracy in the middle east and our long time ally – Israel.  And what about rumors that Saudi Arabia might cooperate with Israel in such an attack?  Will we attack them also?  Oh, well, maybe we’ll just punish both of them economically.  If the Iranians approve.

Okay, let’s assume for argument’s sake that Obama gets what he wants.  The Iranians will suddenly get hundred’s of billions of dollars very shortly and will be able to start pumping oil in great quantities for great profits.  Let me pose a question for you.  Would large amounts of money make it easier to hide a project?  You bet.  If you listen to what’s going on now all sorts of liberal apologists are coming out of the woodwork to justify this agreement.  Their contortion of logic knows, literally, no bounds.  “They don’t really want a bomb.  They just want respect.”  “They can get what they want now without building a bomb.”  “This agreement will delay them for 10 years and by then they will have new, more moderate leadership.”  They’ve also begun already to lay a foundation to blame a future nuclear catastrophe on George Bush.  Yesterday on Charlie Rose, so-called “journalist” Tom Friedman said our current difficulties started with Bush because he took military action “off the table.”  I’d really like to know his logic on this.  By invading Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush pretty much demonstrated that he was willing to use military action – that’s Democrats’ constant complaint.  Friedman also pointed out that Iran had about a hundred centrifuges when Bush took office and 9,000 when he left.  He conveniently forgot to mention that in Obama’s six years Iran now has 19,000.  And everybody knows Obama NEVER had military action on the table.

And the biggest problem with our leaders is this: they think Iran’s leaders are just as insincere as they (our leaders) are.  When Iran’s Imams say death to America or death to Israel our politicians assume they don’t really believe what they are saying.  Our politicians assume that Iran’s leaders are just doing what they do – lie for public consumption.  They are wrong.  The Ayatollah and the Imams are “true believers.”  They believe that the 12th Imam – the Mahdi – is waiting at the bottom of the Jamkaran well in Qom, Iran.  And he is just waiting for the level of chaos and war to reach a certain point.  When it does he will come out of the well and take over the world for Islam.  Think that’s silly?  Doesn’t matter – they believe it very seriously.  And they believe that if they can use a nuke to speed up that event it doesn’t matter what happens.  Even if every person in Iran is turned into a crispy critter – it does not matter – if it will bring the Mahdi out of that well.


Now that I have finally posted the third and final part of my first piece on Global Climate Warming Change, I’d like to make a few points regarding other current events.

* McCain / Trump

I don’t have a dog in this fight.  I’m not particularly fond of either man.  In fact, I have written several very critical emails to the Senator regarding his political actions.  But I think the record should be set straight.  The media has often discussed details of the Senator’s “vacation” at the Hanoi Hilton.

Not long before his visit to the Hilton, on July 29, 1967, McCain sat in his A-4 Skyhawk on aft port section of the flight deck of the USS Forrestal preparing to fly a mission.  On the opposite side a line of F-4 Phantom jets were also preparing for takeoff.  A confluence of short-cutted procedures and faulty devices caused the accidental firing of a Zuni missile from an F-4.  It crossed the deck, passed clean through the full 400 gallon fusilage fuel tank of McCain’s plane and landed in the ocean well beyond.  Its exhaust ignited the fuel as it dumped onto the flight deck.  Within seconds his plane was engulfed in flames which began spreading to the other A-4s lined up along the deck edge.  McCain managed to exit the cockpit and jump from the nose of his plane.  He rolled out of the flames with his flight suit aflame.  He patted out the flames with only minor burns.

As he stood looking at the fire and trying to collect his thoughts a minute and a half after the Zuni fired one of the 1000 pound iron bombs from his plane “cooked off” instantly killing many men and blowing him off his feet and filling his chest and thighs with shrapnel.  Uncertain what to do he headed for the pilot’s ready room when he saw some sailors trying to dump bombs over the side.  There was no easy way to do that.  They had to be picked up and thrown over the edge of the elevator.  McCain joined in helping carry the bombs and putting them over the side.  Later, he went to the sick bay for treatment.  But when he saw the chaos and dreadful injuries he had second thoughts and went, instead, to the ready room.

Is McCain a hero?  Not in the fashion of the cartoon characters played by Schwarzenegger or Stallone, but he is a real, true American hero.  BTW, there were thousands of other heroes on Forrestal that day and many of them died.

You know, though, this provides an interesting sidelight.  Name calling.  The Democrats are up in arms about Trump’s lack of respect for McCain.  I didn’t know they cared so much.  The mainstream media also seems to be extremely interested.  When Al Gore proclaimed that George Bush betrayed his country the Democrats and the media seemed amazingly uninterested.  The same was true when Hillary politely called Gen. Pertraeus a liar.  A few months later she gave him a big hug and a kiss when she deplaned in Iraq as Secretary of State.  And John Kerry.  Kerry disparaged American soldiers in Viet Nam and Iraq without a shred of evidence in either case.  Not a peep from the Dems or the media.

Trump.  Trump would not qualify as one of my favorite people.  He seems to me a conceited loudmouth.  That may be unpleasant, but it’s not illegal.  I’ve never watched any of his shows.  I don’t like the way he announces that people are fired in the commercials for his shows.

But Trump has talked about something that’s very important and that no one else wants to address.  Illegal aliens are a major problem that the President of the United States has purposely done all in his power to make worse.  The obvious goal of the Democrats is to flood the country with illegals, legalize them and convince them that they have the Democratic party to thank for this.  We are fortunate that somebody has the guts to talk about it.  The Dems AND the media have tried to cast this as opposition to immigration.  It is not and that is an outright lie.  So we do need to thank “the Donald” for this.

* An after thought on the Iran deal

I would really appreciate it if some enterprising reporter would ask the President or one of those Democrats supporting the Iran deal the following two questions –

1 – If Iran detonates a nuke that kills a hundred thousand Israelis or a million Americans in the next ten years, will you accept responsibility or will you blame George W. Bush?

2 – What response will you recommend to the sitting President?

* What a dark, dark world liberals live in

Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley was booed at a liberal political conference a few days ago for saying that “all lives matter.”  He has since retreated to the safer and more politically correct “black lives matter.”

* Announcement from the Office of the Mayor, Stephenie Rawlings Blake

“Mayor Rawlings Blake is extremely happy to announce that Baltimore City will begin a week-long celebration of tolerance and diversity.  Teams of youths from the ‘Young Democrats Club’ will search through each city library daily and remove from its shelves all materials that honor or glorify any aspect of the Confederacy.  Each evening the collected materials will be transported to the Inner Harbor where literally dozens of celebrants will burn the offensive materials in a grand ‘Bonfire of Tolerance and Diversity’ which will light up the sky with love, joy and peace.”



Scientists have lots of theories about what causes and controls the variations in temperature that we refer to as glacial maximums and minimums.  The scientific consensus is that the globe has been warming for about 20,000 years as a result of one or more of a bunch of different theoretical causes.  And none of those theories has anything to do with increases in carbon dioxide.  In fact, in the NOAA data for the last several hundred thousand years, CO2 levels have lagged behind increases in temperature.  That is, temperature increases are followed by increases in CO2!  If that isn’t crazy enough the scientific consensus has suddenly determined that as of 50 to 100 years ago all those theories about the last 350,000 years are no longer relevant.  Now there is only one cause of global warming – CO2!  And – strangely – oddly – weirdly – the scientific consensus changed magically at the same time that it became a political issue.  You know all the government spending in the world can’t change the tilt of the earth’s axis or the magnetosphere or the flux of cosmic rays hitting the earth.  But it can spend money on CO2.  Hmmm…


Precession is a phenomenon that is easy to explain to anyone who has seen the operation of a child’s spinning top and difficult to explain to most others.  Basically, the earth’s axis today points very closely toward Polaris (AKA the North Star).  This is not always so.  If you could hang around for 26,000 years and you plotted very carefully the point in the sky that did not seem to move during the night you would see that that point would move around in the sky in a circular path and return to Polaris at the end of the 26,000 years.  Plotting that path would not be easy because it doesn’t always point in the direction of a star visible to the naked eye.  In fact, you might consider that mankind has been “blessed” because during the time of  mankind’s advancement to the point of being able to navigate by the stars, Polaris has been in a position to make it possible.

What does this have to do with ice ages?  Precession causes the tilt of the earth’s axis relative to the sun to vary between 22.5 degrees and 24 degrees over a 40,000-year period.  This has been linked to the cyclical changes we call the ice ages.  Currently, the axis is tilted at 23.5 degrees relative to the sun.  This is probably the most solid of the theories about the ice ages.


Experiments at CERN in Europe have demonstrated that cosmic rays from the sun can affect the formation of clouds in the earth’s atmosphere.  CERN has built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreates the Earth’s atmosphere.  In this stainless steel chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have demonstrated that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds.  More clouds increase global cooling.

Ice ages could be caused by changes in the flux of cosmic rays hitting the Earth according to three physicists.  Jasper Kirkby of CERN, Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg and Richard Muller of the University of California at Berkeley suggest that solar cosmic rays exert their influence through their effect on clouds. Variations in solar output occur in both cycles of which we are aware and cycles totally unknown to us.  This challenges the established insolation theory of glacial cycles.

But cosmic rays do not only come from the sun.  A study of astronomical and geological data reveals that cosmic ray electrons and electromagnetic radiation from an outburst in our own Galactic core, impacted our Solar System near the end of the last glacial maximum. This cosmic ray event spanned a period of several thousand years and climaxed around 14,200 years ago. It was able to substantially affect the Earth’s climate.

The effects on the Sun and on the Earth’s climate were not due to the Galactic cosmic rays themselves, but to the cosmic dust that these cosmic rays transported into the Solar System. Observations have shown that the Solar System is presently immersed in a dense cloud of cosmic dust, material that is normally kept at bay by the outward pressure of the solar wind. But with the arrival of this Galactic cosmic ray volley, the solar wind was overpowered and large quantities of this material were pushed inward. The Sun was enveloped in a cocoon of dust that caused its spectrum to shift toward the infrared. In addition, the dust grains filling the Solar System scattered radiation back to the Earth, producing an “interplanetary hothouse effect” that substantially increased the influx of solar radiation to the Earth and would explain global warming of the other planets.”


Clathrates are a class of compound that consists of a cage of molecules that can trap gases, such as methane, in a solid form. For methane, the most important “cage” is one that is made of water molecules, and so is described sometimes as a hydrate. Some key facts about clathrates make them particularly interesting to climatologists. First, they may make up a significant portion of total fossil carbon reserves, including coal and oil. Current best guesses suggest that maybe 500 to 2000 gigatonnes of carbon may be stored as methane clathrates (5-20% of total estimated reserves). Some estimates are as high as 10,000 gigatonnes.

Clathrates occur mainly on the continental shelf where the water is relatively cold.  The theory holds that they act as an automatic controller that limits the amount of warming during the glacial minimums and limits the amount of cooling during the glacial maximums.  First, methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.   During warm periods when global continental ice has melted and sea levels have risen, the pressure increases on the Clathrates and that decreases the amount of methane gas released into the atmosphere.  This causes the planet to begin to cool.  As the planet cools more and more water is deposited as ice on the land masses and this lowers the sea level.  That, in turn, lowers the pressure on the clathrates.  The lowering pressure increases the amount of methane released to the atmosphere and that eventually reverses the cooling process.


The sun controls the amount of cosmic rays that reach the earth.  However, once those cosmic rays reach earth the cloud making ability of those rays is affected by the earth’s magnetic field.  Known as the magnetosphere, it shields us from these energetic subatomic particles.  Cosmic rays have effects apart from cloud making which are quite negative.  The stronger the earth’s magnetic field, the greater the protection.  The weaker the field, the less the amount of protection that is provided.

Prior to previous geomagnetic reversals, the earth’s magnetic field strength declined to about 15 percent of normal before suddenly reversing. During the reversal, scientists believe that magnetic field strength dropped to zero, thus disabling our protective  shield.  With no shield, huge amounts of cosmic rays would have rained down on our planet, thereby seeding the clouds (just as CERN suggests), leading to vast amounts of precipitation, cooler temperatures, and thence to an ice age.  The earth’s magnetic field strength has declined by about two thirds during the past 2,000 years. Unfortunately, the rate of decline is picking up: Magnetic field strength has declined about five percent in the past 100 years alone.

There are other theories related to the causes of the glacial maximums and minimums, but these are the ones with which I am most familiar.


I came up with the title of the previous post based on a form of humor I’ve heard since I was a kid wherein you take a key word and add a rhyming made up word.  Like “house smouse.”  Or “Congress smongress.”  I don’t know where this came from, but it feels like something that may have originated in vaudeville.  Anyway, I was shocked to read yesterday that some Congressman had already used “Climate Slimate.”  So I came up with a new one on account of … I felt like it.

In my last post I pointed out that the current global temperature for this current interglacial period is still three degrees COOLER than the average peak temperatures of the previous three interglacial periods.  If you look closely at those three previous peaks you’ll see how little variation there has been from the average temperature.  The band 1 peak is within 2/3 of a degree from the average line, the band 2 peak is almost touching the line and the band 3 peak is touching the line. This shows how consistent the peak temperatures of the interglacial periods have been.

The “scientific consensus” is that we are experiencing global warming.  If you glance at the chart below you will see quite plainly that the earth has been in a warming trend for about 20,000 years.  Duh!  Please take note that this is at least 19,932 years before George W. Bush was born.  I recognize, of course, that it is still Bush’s fault.  However, when Algore says that this has been the hottest year on record I must disagree.  According to NOAA’s own records it was warmer many thousands of years during the last interglacial period and hundreds of years during the current one.  The left likes to say that I’m entitled to my own opinions, but not my own facts. Well, these are their facts, not mine and these facts are very “inconvenient for Algore, but then again, he has never been one to let facts get in the way.

Let’s look briefly at the glacial maximums.  These periods, while scientifically important, are not at the core of the global warming discussion.  However, I feel the need to make one important point.  I have seen a number of TV shows that involve great quantities of tears and hand wringing over the fate of reefs.  “Oh, global warming is killing the Great Barrier Reef.”  If you listen to these shows you will end up with the impression that the Great Barrier Reef has been around for billions of years, but will be gone tomorrow.  What a waste.  What a crime against nature.   Bull burpees!  Living coral reefs exist in a certain range of depth below the sea.  When the seas rise the coral at lower depths dies and new ones grow above.  The opposite happens when sea levels decline.  AND SEA LEVELS ARE ALWAYS CHANGING!  During the last glacial max the sea level was about 430 feet lower than today.  That’s why there are atolls in the ocean composed of accumulations of dead coral.  And the interglacials are why there are municipal buildings in Florida made from coral quarried well above the current sea level.

Polar bears.  Aren’t they cute.  Of course, given the tiniest opportunity they will eat you.  You must have seen photos taken by any number of environmentalist gad flies of some poor polar bear clinging to a fragment of ice in a vast expanse of ocean and on the verge of drowning because of that mean ol’ George W. Bush.  When I first looked into this “problem” about ten years ago I researched the polar bears and the “scientific consensus” was that polar bears appeared about 200,000 years ago when a group of Siberian brown bears were surrounded by encroaching ice and adapted by becoming polar bears.  Apparently, they held a big meeting and decided to become polar bears rather than become extinct.  Well, the consensus has changed.  That earlier consensus was based on analysis of fossil records.  Now we have a new consensus based on DNA.  It seems the “adaptation” occurred 400,000+ years ago.  So, you see, the “scientific consensus” can change.  Anyway, during the last interglacial enough ice melted to raise the sea level by more than twenty feet.  And yet, surprise of surprises, we still have polar bears.

One more little point.  Ice.  “The glaciers are melting.”  “The arctic ice is melting.”  “The Antarctic ice is melting.”  Yup.  That’s why it’s called an interglacial period.  According to NOAA data during the last glacial max there were 17 million cubic miles of ice sitting on the North American continent.  That’s enough ice to cover Canada and all 50 states with a layer of ice 2 and a quarter miles thick.  Today, 99.9% of that ice is gone.  One little inconvenient fact – it was gone before the industrial revolution.

Next time I’ll review some of the theories about what may control these warming and cooling cycles.  Theories you’ll never hear on the alphabet networks, the New York Times or the Washington Post.



I’d like to start by bursting a very old bubble.  Scientists and Intellectuals like to portray themselves somehow “above it all.”  They are just people.  Before telling you that anyone who questions man made climate change is ignorant, intellectually dishonest or a hack liar for big business they will first describe themselves as seekers of truth motivated only by the facts – the data.  Horse hockey.  Scientists live in a world of grants, tenure and pressure to “publish or perish.”  The threats to the academic careers of “deniers” have already been well documented.  Imagine the pressure on those who agree with the “party line” of man-made change, but are betrayed by uncooperative (or should I say inconvenient) facts.  We already know of two important “fact enhancements” performed by researchers to get the data to agree with the party line.

This isn’t new.  In an earlier post I mentioned the Pythagoreans and Galileo.  Lest you think that perhaps things are different now I would cite the case of J H Bretz in the early 1900s.  There is a geologic feature in Washington State called the scablands.  It is very unusual.  Bretz studied the scablands for several years and arrived at a remarkable conclusion.  He published his findings and his conclusion that the scablands were formed not by normal geologic processes over eons, but by catastrophic floods of unbelievable proportions.  The “establishment” representing the scientific consensus quickly attacked Bretz.  Brezt had just begun a 40-year battle that would go on until it was finally acknowledged that he, like Galileo, was right.  He humorously suggested at age 96 that he won only because he outlived all of his critics.  Interestingly, there were a few scientists whose own research lead them to agree with Bretz, but were afraid to do it publicly for fear of hurting their academic careers.

Also interesting was an interview of Neil Degrasse Tyson by Charlie Rose.  In it he proposed that the mainstream media was failing the public by giving news coverage to the deniers.  He used the term “equal” coverage, which is a crock.  The media will do a several minute segment on the scientific consensus and finish up with a line or two about the deniers’ position delivered usually with a tone of disdain.

OK, let’s take a look at the chart above.  (The chart has been moved to PART 2)  This is a chart of the global temperature for the last 350,000 years.  Remember now, this is not my data.  This is U.S. gummamint data.  NOAA data to be specific.  Note the four yellow columns.  They are numbered at the top.  These yellow bands mark the peaks of the interglacial (warm) periods.  They may also be called the “glacial minimums.”  Notice that there have been four in the last 350,000 years according to the scientists’ data.  One important fact you need to understand from this chart is that the temperature is always going up or down.  Just look at the chart.  There are trends that go up then down that constitute the three glacial epochs on the chart, but on that trend line there are constant little rises and declines along the way.   There are no horizontal lines on the temperature graph.  Now that doesn’t mean that the temperature for a few hundred years could not remain relatively static.  If you look closely at the magnified detail at the top of the chart between bands 3 and 4, you will see a tiny red dot right above the peak at 10k years ago.  That dot represents a period of 396 years.  Also from that detail you can see that over the last 12,000 years the trend line has flattened out.  There are still rises and declines within the trend and there have been cooling spikes of almost a full degree at about 10,500 and 2,500 years ago.  Let me mention that NOAA in full political correctness mode refrains from using the dating conventions BC and AD and instead uses BP (before present).

Also notice the horizontal line passing near the three upper peaks of the interglacial temperature graph line.  This is the average temperature of the peaks of those last three interglacials.  Of special interest is the peak of the current interglacial.  If you look closely at the line indicating the current global temperature in band 4, you will see that the current temperature is three degrees cooler than the average of the previous three interglacials.  Why is that?  I don’t know.  More importantly, the scientists don’t know.  They talk about man made warming adding a degree to our current temperature, but it would have to climb three degrees just to be average for an interglacial period.

I would ask that you look carefully at the chart.  Look at the similarities of the temperature spikes in bands 1 and 2.  Then look at the similarities of the “soft” spikes in bands 3 and 4.  Look at the myriad of rises and declines across the entire length of the temperature record.  In my next post I’d like to talk about some interesting facts regarding the glacial maximum periods, sea levels, polar bears and some possible causes for these temperature variations.


OK, first things first. Maryland was founded as a Catholic colony. If you’re a Baptist in Maryland, like me, you have a choice of either having only a few friends or having a lot of Catholic friends. This made it all the more confusing when I started to hear about the conflicts in Ireland commonly known as the “Troubles.” I just didn’t get it. Certainly Baptist doctrine has some differences with Catholic doctrine. All this said I think you can see that I shouldn’t be the first choice as a defender of Catholicism. However, it has irritated me for years that liberals today love to criticize the Catholic Church for its censure of Galileo Galilei in 1615 for his proclamation that the earth revolved around the sun and not vice versa.

Looking back at the history of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance it is important to recognize that the closest thing to an international power was the Catholic Church. The Church was, for all practical purposes, the “establishment” of the Renaissance period of history. And, the Church accepted the “scientific consensus” of the day. And what was the “scientific consensus?” It’s today called the geocentric model of the universe. That means that the earth is at the center of the universe and the sun and the stars revolve around it.

The origin of the geocentric model can be found in Pre-Socratic philosophy. Proponents of this cosmology included influential Greeks like Anaximander, Plato and Aristotle. There were several well thought out arguments supporting their endorsement of this cosmological model.

Of course, even then there were dissenters. The earliest were called Pythagoreans. They suggested the geocentric model had weaknesses. A few other dissenters appeared occasionally and were quickly discounted. There are no written records revealing whether or not they were denounced as “hack front men for big business.”

Then in the 2nd century AD the astronomer Claudius Ptolemaeus (Ptolemy) announced the development of a computer model that resolved all of the questions raised by the dissenters. Obviously, electronic computers did not exist in the 2nd century. Ptolemy’s computer model was a paper one not unlike Alan Turing’s “Turing Machine,” but was based on spheres and circles. It was able to accurately account for all of the then observed astronomical data. So accurate, in fact, that its principles still today influence the design of planetariums.

The Church judged the “scientific consensus” to most closely coincide with the Biblical narrative and it thus became Church doctrine. Unfortunately, it was wrong. But any heresy had to be addressed and Galileo’s heresy was taking the position that the earth revolved around the sun. This is known as heliocentricity. Galileo was lucky. The Roman Inquisition sentenced him to house arrest for the last 9 years of his life. It could have been much, much worse. How terrible you may be thinking; to punish him for dissenting. Especially, when you consider that he was right.

What about today? Do we have an “establishment?” Today that description could apply to the United States or the U.N. Is there a “scientific consensus?” There is on a number of issues. The most prominent right now is “Global Climate Warming Change.” Are there dissenters? Yes, but today they’re called deniers. Are they punished? You bet. Their careers in government and academia are threatened and that is well documented. And who is responsible for this? It’s those same liberals who criticize the Church for its treatment of Galileo.

So I consider myself honored to be counted in the company of one of the early deniers – Galileo.

Interestingly, recent news has brought additional irony to this story. It seems the current Pope has decided to once again dip the Church’s toe into the waters of scientific consensus by proclaiming that human caused global warming is a problem and must be addressed. If that were not enough, the Pope has taken actions to exclude “deniers” from the discussion. And who is applauding the Pope’s actions? Those same liberals who love to beat the Church about the head and shoulders for its treatment of the denier Galileo.