The Whistling Coon
Billy Murray with S. H. Dudley (1911)

Digitally remastered by Steve Malinowski ©2007

 
As you may have noticed, by the little caption under the horizontal line below, this page has become a blog, my global warming blog. I shall put the entries in reverse chronological order, with the newer ones nearer the top of this page, and the older ones further down on the page. That way, to get to the latest, you just start at the top of the blog. The first regular blog entry is dated September 29, 2007. The older information I wrote is still retained, underneath the blog area. I always have something else to say, especially since the propaganda has been never-ending. I have to say what I have to say, to keep the propaganda and shenanigans about the environment from fooling people.
start of blog

I often tend to add to blog entries during the same day, so check back on a particular entry of interest, on a subsequent day.

Well, I've just gone one step further, in this cause to reeducate the public, about the greenhouse gas issues. I've initiated the process of obtaining a federal grant, to fund my research and efforts in this project. I'm open to private donations for this ongoing project. You can contact me for details at: Climate@stevenbray.com.

The above blog entry was made on July 10, 2008.

I can't overemphasize the importance of realizing that the global climatic changes are due to very old geologic cycles, which predate the industrial revolution by thousands, even millions of years. As a case in point, I cite the climatic shift of the area that's now the Sahara Desert. Six thousand years ago, it was green and supportive of people and life. That's about four or five thousand years more recent than the climatic shift of the area that's now Death Valley. That area used to be verdant forest, with lakes. Al Gore's pseudo-theory of so-called global warming is based on pseudo-facts. It's an out-and-out farce, and should not be used to pseudo-justify laws which would mandate lifestyle changes.

The above blog entry was made on April 7, 2008.

I ought to mention here that Ohio is in the midst of their most severe Winter storm in ten years. If that's global warming, we must be coming out of an ice age. We are closer to the last ice age than the next one. Really. Remember (for you mathematical types, who know what the period of a function is), the period of the ice age repeat cycle is about 100,000 years.

The above blog entry was made on March 9, 2008.

Today's blog entry is self-explanatory.

The above blog entry was made on February 21, 2008.

If the political tirade towards the end of this paragraph displeases you, then ignore it, if you must. In any case, you owe it to yourself to read the second paragraph. That information you need. I just saw something on tv about the lowering of the water level of one of the Great Lakes. On the show, they claimed that the lowering of the water level to be due to less ice, and hence more evaporation, which they claim is causing the level of the lake to decline. Well, I don't believe their interpretation. First, even if there has been less ice on the lake lately, that wouldn't be capable of causing that drastic a loss of water level. One has to consider how much water has been diverted away from the lake, and how much extra water has been tapped from it, to supply the various communities. I didn't see all of that show, but I didn't hear them say which Great Lake they were talking about. Here's some info about the Great Lakes. They constitute 20% of the fresh surface water of the world. They contain enough water to cover the contiguous 48 states to a depth of 9.5 feet. They have a combined surface area larger than the combined areas of the states of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire. There are a number of weaknesses in the idea that the amount of ice could affect the evaporation rate enough to cause a serious decline in the depth of those lakes. First, the rate of evaporation in the cold season is slower than it is other times of the year. Even if there is a shorter ice period, the rate of evaporation during that time of the year, the cold season, is relatively slow. Their claim of greatly increased evaporation is hardly credible. I have to conclude that they are lying, to further their secret agenda. One has to believe that those trying to use the global warming issue would deliberately cause the water level to lower, for the purpose of blaming global warming. They are not believable. The facts they have been citing are not facts. One must resist their passing laws to pseudo-remedy the situation. They are threatening civil liberties in the U. S. and the whole world. One must be on the constant lookout for their next lie and their next trick. Don't believe them. We must maintain a united effective front of resistance to their shenanigans.

The discussion of the above paragraph wouldn't be complete, without an historical mention of the geological history of the region known as Death Valley, in the California desert. Believe it or not, that region used to be a verdant forrested area, replete with lakes. What a difference, compared to what is there today. Yes, the climate of that particular area did change, and it changed very drastically. I admit that. However, that climate change happened about 10,000 years ago, which was very long before the invention of the internal combustion engine, and very long before the industrial revolution. So, explain that one. Was that climate change man's fault? Definitely not. Even a science idiot can understand that one. You see, even if global warming is real, we must not automatically point the finger of blame at man and technology. The shift of the climate, of that previously forrested area, to the desert climate in Death Valley today, happened entirely independent of the human race and anything people may have been doing thousands of years ago. So, if the Great Lake area is destined to become the next Death Valley, don't be too quick to blame the industrial revolution. Okay? Let's be realistic and accurate, if possible.

The above blog entry was made on September 29, 2007.

Following are my original articles, from before this page became a blog.




This is a new article I've written on global warming on January 30, 2007

Here is a new article I just wrote on global warming. It is based on a message I sent to Prince Charles recently. I could have copied and pasted it here, but I lost my copy of it. I think it turns out to be just as well, in this case maybe. This new version of some of those same ideas is better, I think. I believe I've tweaked my presentation of the matter better this time, and added more supporting facts.
1. The vast majority of CO2 production on earth is natural. Natural CO2 production is 30 times man's production of CO2. That is to say, man's production of CO2 is trivial, compared to nature's production of it.
2. One has to conclude that there is some lying going on, because an average global temperature increase of only 1 degree Fahrenheit can't explain such a noticable, dramatic climatic change as they are describing.
3. Atmospheric moisture is far more significant, in terms of blocking the radiation of heat, than CO2. To the extent that there would be an average global climatic increase in temperature, that would tend to contribute to a corresponding increase in atmospheric moisture. That is because relatively warmer air holds relatively more moisture. The back and forth action between the two could conceivably be an increasing spiral of global temperatures. Not only that, if the sea level is rising, that would increase the percentage of the earth that is covered by water, to some extent. That too could tend to increase atmospheric moisture.
4. I almost hate to keep mentioning it, but the atmospheric blocking of radiant heat would be more significant in the inbound direction, not the outbound direction. That would mean less radiant heat, from the sun, even reaching the airspace we live in. The atmosphere is not capable of holding or trapping heat that never reached it.
One of the strongest arguments I've seen by the doomsday global warming alarmists is the claim that the Antarctic temperature has risen 5 or 6 degrees Celcius. Well, the vast majority of us haven't measured that ourselves. I can say, though, that the only part of the Antarctic continent that is ever above freezing, normally, is the Antarctic peninsula. Only during its Summer does the temperature there sometimes slightly rise above the freezing point; to a max of about 2 degrees Celcius. That's hardly like Death Valley in July. The interior of the Antarctic continent is usually lower than about -70 degrees Fahrenheit. One can hardly imagine even an act of God melting ice there at that temperature. One of the reasons that the interior stays so biting cold is that storm fronts seldom reach far inland there. This gets back to my own theory of atmospheric moisture being the radiant heat blocker, rather than CO2. With no storm over the interior, relatively little atmospheric moisture is there, in the form of clouds. The interior is known to have an extremely dry atmosphere; another case in point, and another point for me. The very little heat there is pretty much free to be radiated away and out into outer space, without much atmospheric moisture to block it from leaving.

Again, I emphasize that the CO2 pseudotheory of global warming is preposterous. I concede that it would be nice if atmospheric levels of CO2 would stay at natural levels, rather than vary to artificially induced levels. We need to guard against alarmism pushing us into futile and overly expensive measures to deal with something that's not even the source of our concern, namely global warming. Of course, along these lines, deforestation is working against the maintenance of naturual levels of CO2. Within reasonable bounds, I support the idea of the conservation of the earth's forests.

I sincerely hope that I'm finally getting through to people on this important topic. I've long known that man needs me to teach him things that he has been tending to miss on his own. I'm here for you, mankind. I don't claim to know everything, but I'd like to. I'm working on it. I've calmed down some since I started writing articles about global warming. That's partly because I've done a good job of convincing myself that I've got a good chance of convincing others of the merit of my own theories on this subject.


Since it's an emergency for the world to receive this message I wrote to Sen. Hillary Clinton, I've copied it from further into this page, and pasted it here, near the top.
Dear Sen. H. R. Clinton,

You wrote me a letter months ago, in response to my having faxed you more than once in the past. You're right. I have had a problem with the local government. But you suggested that I contact you about how to improve the federal government. Well, that's what I'm doing right now. I've got some light to shed on the global warming issue. If you do nothing else today, please be sure to read this; it's important. I put the following near the top of my home page at www.stevenbray.com

Hi, Sen. Clinton. Please beware of global-warming issues being used as scams. To someone who has studied math and science, like myself, the greenhouse gas theory doesn't seem to hold water, so to speak. If there were such a thing as global warming, it had to be due to something other than carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is just a very tiny fraction of the atmosphere. To presume that it is responsible for global warming is preposterous. Even the sun spot theory is more plausible that the greenhouse gas theory. I believe that atmospheric gases are more likely to cause global cooling than global warming. It stands to reason that the net effect of a shielding gas would primarily be to reflect the sun's energy away from the earth, so that it couldn't play a part in the temperature of the earth. Such a shield would bounce the sun's rays back into outer space, and away from the earth. Period. To be mathematically rigorous, one has to consider the whole problem, not just the aspect that seems interesting. The greenhouse gas theory must have been born to mathematical idots, or to absolute frauds, trying to pretend a need to ban personal transportation for the masses. Politicians were always inventing so-called justifications to take away personal liberties. The greenhouse gas pseudotheory is just another case in point. You know, I can right here and now quote something of a disproof of the greenhouse gas theory. Take the theory of why the earth's moon has extremely high temperatures in the illuminated portion. It's because (and don't mistake this fact) the moon doesn't have an atmosphere to protect it from reaching temperatures hot enough to cook flesh. The politicians and political pseudoscientists are obviously prevaricating, in offering a greenhouse gas theory. I believe my contentions are incontrovertible proof that the greenhouse gas theory is a myth made up to pseudojustify god knows what kind of laws as pseudoremedies. If the democrats are really the more honest political party, they ought to limit their theoretical bases to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It's a sad truth, but I believe that democrats are liars too. Please try to increase the truthfulness of the democratic party, Sen. Clinton. The U. S. is counting on you. So far, I do support you for the presidential race of 2008. Please don't disappont me, Sen. Clinton. The U. S. and the world needs the truth, not backroom deals that utilize lies about the evironment or anything else. I'm serious; any so-called scientist who espouses the greenhouse gas theory ought to be taken at face value (that he believes it), and have his credetials as a scientist yanked. Offer me pseudoscience? Okay? Let's get with it, Sen. Clinton. This is a true emergency. I'm the one who ought to be running for president. I've got the saavy to turn the U. S. and the world in the right direction. The U. S. politician tends to be a theoretical idiot, who ought to be taken at face value, and locked in a nut house for believing his own pseudotheories. Can you tell me, are U. S. politicians really insane? I'm telling you, they're acting like it, Sen. Clinton. That greenhouse gas pseudotheory is just one case in point. There are others. I really am sophisticated, although I've never received due credit for it, Sen. Clinton.

Respectfully,
Steve

I sent this second fax on this matter on January 2, 2007:

Dear Senator Hillary R. Clinton:

Here's some clarification of the bogus greenhouse gas issue. Carbon dioxide does not have the physical properties of water. It is water that is acting like a greenhouse gas. However, the real greenhouse gas effect keeps the earth relatively cool, rather than relatively hot. It is the physical properties of water that acts like a greenhouse gas. The physical properties of carbon dioxide are not similar to water at atmospheric temperatures and pressures. The whole idea of carbon dioxide acting like a greenhouse gas is absolutely preposterous. Even if it did, it would be cooling the earth's atmosphere, not warming it. Water molecules aggregate into snow flakes and drops of water, forming atmospheric moisure in its various forms. It is this atmospheric water that acts like a greenhouse gas, not carbon dioxide. And I reiterate, the real greenhouse gas effect cools the earth, not warms it.

Respectfully,
Steven Anthony Malinowski (aka Steve Bray)
www.stevenbray.com
ps: I wrote this clarification a while back (I don't remember what date), but I'm finally making myself fax it to you. I've had it on my home page for weeks.

Here's another fax I wrote and sent to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, on January 6, 2007:

It got cold overnight again. It reached a low of 36.5 degrees Fahrenheit, at 7:00 am this morning, at my place in northern Orange County. This isn't the coldest place in northern Orange County either. This has been a pretty normal cold season this time. It was the last cold season that was unseasonably warm. Last season I didn't see a single instance of it getting down into the 30's. We normally get some overnight lows down in the 30's here, except for unusually warm cold seasons. We've had below freezing low temperatures at times here in the past.

I can relate this to the overall weather thing this season. They are having an unseasonably warm winter in the northeast, but that is not the experience of the rest of the country or the rest of the world entirely. One of the recent winters was severely biting cold in Russia, with some possibly dying of inadequate heating over there, while some here in the U. S. bitched about global warming. Not only are they wrong to blame carbon dioxide, they are wrong to overgeneralize to all places on the globe, which aren't necessarily having a noticable climatic warming. I've yet to find anyone considering the ice-age cycle, which has a period of about 100,000 years. We are definitely in the warming phase of one of the cycles of that ice-age waxing and waning of global temperatures. Unless they understand why the ice-age cycle is happening, how can they think they understand the global warming thing. They have to stand back and take a comprehensive overall view of things as best they can. Pointing a finger at the first, possibly wrong, thing they think of isn't likely to explain the situation.

Here's an interesting thought that just came to mind, and which I haven't had a chance to research yet. It is well known that Orange County was once under the sea. Has anyone ever considered the idea that perhaps during some ice-age cycles, the global warming is so intense, that the sea level is high enough to submerge the area now known as Orange County? Are they sure the submersal of Orange County isn't periodic, and related to the ice-age cycle overall? Could it be that scientists have jumped to the wrong conclusion, in assuming that the submersal of Orange County was a one-time thing, and that it wouldn't revert back to that? Can you imagine the return, by swimming, of sharks and whales to where Disneyland is now? It's possible, one way or another. To put this into better perspective, it is normal for the sea level to be very much lower during an ice age. It is normal for the sea's level to rise a lot upon leaving the ice age. And, this cycle is very long; about 100,000 years. Unless they understand the ice-age cycle, and how it works, how can they sensibly conclude that it's not just the ice-age warming phase that we're in that is solely responsible for any noticable global warming?

Not only that, they'd have to take into consideration what effect a permanent change in the earth's spin would have on global climates. Consider the effect, for instance, an asteroid or meteorite could have on the earth's spin, upon impact with the earth. Global climates were very different, and generally warmer, during the dinosaur period, and before the meteorite or asteroid collided with the earth, which conceivably changed climates on earth by altering the spin of the earth. That collision also is thought to have made most or all of the dinosaurs extinct, by changing things on earth so much. If that collision was able to change global climates permanently, one must consider the possibility of the collision, about a hundred years ago, causing or adding to the rate of global warming, again by altering the spin of the earth. That particular collision caused it to stay daytime, with no nighttime, for weeks, in a large area surrounding that impact.

This is looking like another letter to fax to Sen. H. R. Clinton. I hope she's paying attention to me on this, and consulting with real experts, rather than the political bozos who would try to sell her pseudo-theory of climate change. If my theories about all of this are ever officially accepted, I sure hope I'm the one who gets credit, because I deserve some credit.


 


This web page was split from the home page on September 14, 2007.
This web page was last updated on November 20, 2008.

Contact me about the climate change issues here:
Climate@stevenbray.com

Click to go to the home page, the legal page, or the sitemap.

Since September 14, 2007:
Website Visitor Counter
VOIP Phone Service