Governor Rauner glaring inexperience

There’s a reason Rauner’s poll numbers are tanking, it’s because he’s a poor governor. Rauner bought the governorship of Illinois as a stepping stone to higher office for 26 million dollars. Rauner pulled the wool over the eyes of the citizens of Illinois. For that 26 million we bought a poor manager  and an even poorer statesman. His a captive of his own zealotry and his inability to compromise.

In office for over 2 years Rauner has nothing in the way of accomplishments. He thought he could bulldoze his “Turnaround agenda” through a Democratic House and Senate. Unfortunately that’s not how the world works-in any state. As governor, you have to work with both chambers of the legislature. That’s how other Republican governors bearing the names Thompson and Edgar did things and reached goals. One strategy he should have employed was the use of his amendatory veto to bring the budget in line with revenue. Rauner vetoed the entire budget and pointed his finger at the Democrats.  Right now we have deficit, court ordered, spending that continues to balloon the deficit and tank the bond rating. Rauner’s inexperience is showing in that he will not compromise which is what has to be done to govern. No, Rauner is not a success by any measure.

His plans to crush unions have nothing to do with a budget, are thinly veiled attack on the working class. It’s also an attack on teachers who for some reason Rauner believes make too much money. It is not the fault of teachers and other public sector employees that the state of Illinois for many years did not pay into their pension funds. Now Rauner  wants to punish those who have worked hard to educate our children. Look no further than Kansas a failed Tea Party state that sacrificed its budget on the altar of tax cuts that has plunged the state into smoking ruin.

Time is up for Chicago, time is up for Illinois?  People are leaving the state? Many Baby Boomers are retiring and moving to states like Colorado, Florida, South Carolina. This has more to do with climate than the state. News flash Diane, without Chicago, Illinois would be Alabama or Mississippi. Chicago Schools are not the worst in the nation, the school system in Mississippi and Louisiana are far worse. Chicago has a significant tax base that feeds Illinois.  It’s the economic engine that attracts anyone to the state of Illinois. There aren’t jobs beyond fast food? Yes there are if you have an education. Forrest Claypool, the board’s chief executive officer, has faulted what he calls an inequitable school-funding system that’s helped push the district to the “financial breaking point.” While Illinois contributes about $2,266 per student to teacher pensions in districts outside of Chicago, the city gets only $31 per student, bond documents show. Chicago’s pension system was only 52 percent funded as of June 30. Schools are funded by property taxes which leave some of the poorest areas in Chicago with little funding.

 

 

Global Warming Lies

A post using my work was co-oped by a blogger  in Bloomington, Illinois, and the science of Global Warming was trashed. The blogger uses conspiracy theories and is aided by those  who  use misplaced skepticism to give an unwarranted veneer of faux scientific thinking to state that Global warming is a “hoax”. These Denialist  don’t know their science. This science is so important that we as country must confront those who want to denial the reality of research into this important science.

Here’s my rebuttal of that post

The earth had been slightly warming from 1850 to 1987. However, according to NASA’s remote sensory satellites the warming has “PAUSED” for the last 19 years. Are humans the driving force behind global warming or just a small contributor with Mother Nature being the root cause and with increased CO2 emissions why the 19 year pause in warming.

1 . No, it hasn’t been cooling since 1998 and global warming DID NOT “pause”. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, that wasn’t the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What’s more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010. 2014 was even warmer. The hot years on their  own, don’t tell us a much about trends — and it’s trends that matter when monitoring Climate Change. Trends only appear by looking at all the data, globally, and taking into account other variables — like the effects of the El Nino ocean current or sunspot activity — not by cheery pick single points.
There’s also a tendency to just to concentrate on  air temperatures when there are other indicators that can give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance — due to their immense size and heat storing capability (called ‘thermal mass’) —are absorbing heat much more steady than the air. Records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there is no sign of it slowing any time soon. More than 90% of global warming goes into warming oceans, while less than 3% goes into increasing the surface air temperature.

“For the past few million years, the earth has existed in a state of relative “Carbon Dioxide Starvation” compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that if levels double or triple those of today will be harmful climatically or otherwise.” It is very possible that higher Co2 levels and mildly higher temperatures would create a thriving planet of plant and animal life.”

2. Humans did NOT live during those times (modern man is around 850,000  years old) when CO2 levels were high, in fact NO animals and plants currently living, lived back then. Denialist and anyone who suggest that Humans and the way of life we currently have would be possible with higher CO2 levels that existed millions of years ago is crazy. Global warming to date has certainly affected species’ ranges and the timing of breeding, their migration. The most well known study to date, by a team from the UK, estimated that 18 and 35% of plants and animal species will be extinct by 2050 due to climate change. Plants can not  photosynthesisize the extra CO2 that Denialist insist is “good” for the planet. Plants  that would somehow use more CO2 would need  extra water that will not be available in drought stricken areas or in area so flooded that agriculture would be impossible.

Human CO2 fossil fuel emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2. The increase in CO2 has some direct effects on the environment. For example, as the oceans absorb CO2 from the atmosphere, it leads to acidification that affects many marine ecosystems. However, the chief impact from rising CO2 is warmer temperatures.

CO2 but also methane – were involved in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. The last ice age is an example of warming when CO2 was add to the mix, the gradual warming started.  A study of ice  cores from the last Ice Age reveals that CO2 was released by melting glaciers and the add fresh water aided the warming.

“CO2 is “natural”

3. With that logic many things are “natural” including cyanide and mercury. Many things that are good for you in excess are bad, even such “good” things as vitamins can be detrimental and harmful. At a certain point CO2 becomes a pollutant. An example of pollutant is sulphur dioxide, a by-product of human industry. High levels of sulphur dioxide cause breathing problems. Too much causes acid rain. Sulphur dioxide has a direct effect on our health and the environment. In fact the amount of Sulphur dioxide in the atmosphere was reduced starting in the 1970’s and 1980’s, negating Denialist claims that nothing can be done about C02 levels. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, is a naturally occurring gas that existed in the atmosphere long before humans. Plants certainly need it to survive. The CO2 greenhouse effect keeps our climate from freezing over. How can CO2 be considered a pollutant? A broader definition of pollutant is a substance that causes instability or imbalance to an ecosystem. Over the past 10,000 years, the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has remained at relatively stable levels. However, human CO2 emissions over the past few centuries have upset this balance.

Consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons that is the Earth’s carbon cycle, it is cumulative  because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. Approximately 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years. A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years.

CO2 but also methane – were involved in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. The last ice age is an example of warming when CO2 levels were dramatically add to the atmosphere.

Beware of advocates who claim that humans are the main cause of global warming. The most popular argument is the myth of the 97% Consensus that all the scientists agree there is global warming and that human beings are the main cause.

4. Anthropogentic Global Warming science is not new, it was first  was first proposed in 1896. The Green House Effect has been well understood for 200 years. By the 1970s, the scientific community were becoming concerned that human activity was changing the climate, but were divided on whether this would cause a net warming or cooling. As scientist learned more about the Earth’s climate, a scientific consensus gradually emerged. By the 1990’s a substantial scientific journals were published using new observations of climatologist in the  field who were in the frontline climate change. Many different lines of inquiry all converged on the IPCC’s 2007 conclusion that it is more than 90% certain that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing most of the observed global warming.

 

Over 30,000 scientists and over 800 from the state of Illinois have signed a petition that man is not the main cause of global warming.    The 97% Consensus is a proven myth and does not stand up to the scientific method.

5. Does not stand up to the scientific method? What is the “scientific method”? The “scientific method” is to form a hypothesis (Earth is warming) then test that hypothesis and publish the results of your test. If other scientists can reproduce the results, that is the “scientific method”. The writer of that statement has no clear idea what the “scientific method”is or how it works.  The 37,000 figure that the writer cites only .1 percent are climatologist who don’t think global warming is not  real. The rest of the scientist on the list can not be verified as even being scientists.  OISM ( Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine) signatories represent a tiny fraction (~0.3%) of all US science graduates.

According to former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer 95 percent of climate models predicting global temperature rises have been wrong when analyzed against surface temperature and satellite temperature data.   AL Gore has predicted rising sea levels of 20 ft by 2100, while the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted a far less 17 inch rise by 2100.   However, Swedish geologist and physicist Dr. Nils-Axel Morner the former chairman of the International Commission on Sea Level Change has called all the talk of rising sea levels a “colossal scare story.”   Dr. Morner has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels for the last 35 years.   Dr. Morner says the sea has not risen in 50 years.  Fossil fuels do not cause rising sea levels, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or snow storms.   Fossil fuels help humans adapt to harsh climate with air conditioning, furnaces, housing and food.  One fossil fuel powered tractor combine can harvest enough grain in one day to feed thousands of people.

6 . Wrong, fossil fuels are causing temperature to rise. Dr. Morner is empirically wrong about his statement that seas are not rising. Rather than being flat since 1970, as Mörner claimed in The Spectator article, mean sea level has risen more than 80mm over that period, according to tide gauges.  In fact, not only is global mean sea level data rising, but the rise is accelerating. Had Mörner published his ’tilted graph’ or ‘spliced photos’ in a research paper it would be cut and dry scientific misconduct.

While global warming can not be ascribed to a single weather event, it IS the cause of many extreme weather events and the rise in temperature. The writer of this ode to fossil fuel is giving a Pollyanna view that many climatologist do not share. Fossil fuels help humans adapt to harsh climate with air condition? Really? For thousands of years man adapted to heat with building materials, not electricity. Enough grain to feed thousands of people? In arid land without water? California is under a severe drought that’s affecting food price.

Roy Spencer’s climate models are wrong. Barry Bickmore’s Climate Asylum explains his errors in great detail: https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/roy-spencer/

Science is real hard data that can be tested and measured and not man made manipulated computer models that have been wrong over 95% of the time.   Real Science welcomes debate and doesn’t try to silence it.

7. No one is “silencing” anyone. Those opposing global warming science have published their data and that data has been found wanting by the scientific community.  If the data had any merit, it would be included in the data that now forms the science of climatology. Here’s a link of a blog about climate by Climatologist it goes in more technical detail with statistics and discussions about what they mean Real Climate

The only way we can assess data that collected by climatologist is to “manipulate” it. Scientist feed collected data and come up with models that have assessed Paleoclimates and run models of what is currently happening with climates plugging in data. All models are first tested in a process called Hindcasting. The models used to predict future global warming can accurately map past climate changes. If they get the past right, there is no reason to think their predictions would be wrong. Here’s a link that takes down Roy Spencer and the Heartland Institute both veteran climate change denialist. Climate Asylum