Thursday, December 30, 2010

'The Great Global Warming Swindle' swindle

This is old news, unfortunately it appears AGWHoaxers are steadfastly ignoring the accumulating evidence and now that Republicans have taken over the House they are redoubling their attacks on climate science.

Therefore, I think it is timely to share an excellent resource for examining point by point the many claims made by Martin Durkin's film, 'The Great Global Warming Swindle.'

The Great Global Warming Swindle” is itself a Fraud and a Swindle
by Bill Butler

“The Great Global Warming Swindle” (DVD/video/movie) is a pseudo-documentary in which British television producer Martin Durkin has fraudulently misrepresented both the data involved and scientists who have researched global climate. Movie director Durkin has willfully misrepresented the facts about global warming just to advocate his own agenda. The program was originally aired on England’s “Channel 4” (The “Supermarket Tabloid” of the airwaves). In the past, “Channel 4” has had to broadcast a prime-time apology for broadcasting another of Martin Durkin’s “sleazebag” pseudo-documentaries.

“The Great Global Warming Swindle” is aimed at and appeals to the “Don’t bother me with the facts - I’ve already made up my mind” audience. There may be future media presentations by those who wish to promote ignorant political viewpoints instead of presenting factual knowledge.

The one cardinal rule in science is that you do not misrepresent the data. But this is what the producer of this pseudo-documentary has done to try to promote his own opinions.
Durangobill's website offers an excellent starting point for folks wanting to discuss the great global warming swindle movie.

Friday, December 24, 2010

A peek at Political Advocacy Science: Singer, Christy, Douglass

"There you go again," I was told regarding my "Comparison of Tropical Temperature Trends with Model Predictions... examined." Of course I was accused of: "Bashing those you disagree with even though you do not have the scientific qualifications to do so. That's the kind of thing a zealot does."
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

So here is a small sampling. Tell me if it doesn't seem like "science being politicized?":

Thursday, December 23, 2010

Comparison of Tropical Temperature Trends with Model Predictions... examined

A peek at Political Advocacy Science: Singer, Christy, Douglass

I've participating in a discussion forum over at the Center For Inquiry. Recently I joined Skeptic Society Forum at their Environmental Wars board. They have some dedicated "sceptics" and a couple AGWHoaxers, it’s made for an interesting discussion.
I present evidence and links, and they remind me I'm no scientist so have no right to share, or advocate, this information ~ thus they have the right to ignore the evidence of the real scientists I present them with.
A most classic “AGW sceptic” tactic: Kill the messenger. Ignore the message.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
In response to a request for an example of bona fide science studies disputing the "consensus of global warming":
: Perhaps you've seen this paper (just one example of many I could cite):
Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, B.D. Pearson, and S.F. Singer. 2007. A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions. International Journal of Climatology, DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651.

Monday, December 20, 2010

Investigate the IPCC at’s - IPCC AR4 Guide

What looks to be an powerful new tool in the struggle to bring real science to the public has just hit cyberspace. IPCC at’s - IPCC AR4 Guide

A searchable database to the Fourth Assessment Report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

A clear, easily searchable database to the Fourth Assessment Report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and its hundreds of reports. You can do searches under contents, authors, or journals. The presentation of the pages is beautifully simple. The type is a clear crisp Ariel (or close) so it's readable, even with them fading eyes. I played around for a while and all the cascading links worked fine. NO unnecessary bells’n whistles that only serve to distract and delay download time…. meaning when you click a link it comes up fast - very very nice touch.

It’s brand new and its creator Miloslav Nic warns:

Monday, December 13, 2010

Deutsche Bank ~ Climate Change: Addressing the Major Skeptic Arguments

Well for skeptics who refuse to listen to those “untrustworthy” scientists, 
how about listening to one of the biggest banks on the planet?
I came across this incredible document that I just can’t resist sharing.  I’ve included the outline to give a taste of the breathe of this report.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

On September 8, 2010,
Deutsche Bank Climate Change Advisors (DBCCA) and the Columbia Climate Center (CCC) published a report responding to the major claims of climate change skeptics. The report, entitled “Climate Change: Addressing the Major Skeptic Arguments” aims to examine the many claims and counter-claims surrounding the current climate change debate. The report presents responses to the most prominent arguments of climate change skeptics, including claims that Earth is not warming; that any warming is not human-induced; and that warming is not harmful and does not require mitigation.
 pdf at

Saturday, October 9, 2010

Why Liberals Should Vote This Election... 342 word version

May I suggest a simple distinction between voters?

One group believes in a God of their own image: sitting on a throne; possessing familiar human passions... a lord who is directly involved in, even controlling, their lives.

The other contains a much larger spectrum: from people who firmly believe in a God, but one who’s beyond our ability to grasp, all the way to atheists, with countless variations in between.

This distinction has profound implications considering the unopposed groundswell of scared people who have been convinced they’re God’s personal agents.

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Why Liberals Should Vote This Election {806 words}

The following is my essay, "Why bother to vote?" after Gail an editor at the Four Corners Free Press touched it up while trimming 50 words {all for the better} for publication in their October 2010 issue.
After another couple changes by myself this incarnation weights in at 806 words:

Why Liberals Should Vote This Election
 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

May I suggest a simple, left v. right distinction between people... voters?

The one group believes in a God of their own image: sitting on a throne; possessing those familiar human lordly passions of jealousy, judgment, vengeance, occasionally love... a lord who is directly involved in, even controlling, our lives.

The other group, contains a much larger spectrum. Beginning with people who firmly believe in God and her/his presence, but, who also appreciate God is beyond our human ability to grasp. As for knowing God’s mind... or plan, forget about it! Can a toddler hope to understand Einstein?

From there the spectrum of perspectives follows the whole gamut of wonder and curiosity about our creation and god...

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

“Folks, its about to become very dangerous to be a climate scientist”

“..or for that matter, any kind of scientist.”
That’s what one of the world’s most well known climate scientists recently
told friends.
This article in Politico is the case in point.
In the event the House of representatives shifts to republicans, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, a foe of progress, reason and science, will become chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
He has vowed to obstruct the pursuit of truth about climate change, and intimidate those foolish enough to ask questions and seek answers about the real world.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Close Encounters of the Absurd Kind - Ben Santer 2/24/10

This is an excellent talk given by Ben Santer and no matter how often I listen to it, the guy makes sense, he speaks clearly and yes I find him believable.

Tragically most Americans, particularly your Republican/Libertarian types, would rather listen to theatrics from the likes of Lord Christopher Monckton and an actor Topher (50 to 1 Project) with their transparent political entertainment that doles out soothing bromides and the promise that nothing needs to change.

For a taste of the scientific understanding behind the considered educated opinion of experts who are actively working in the field of climatology, check out these videos which are followed by an interesting commentary by Dr. Santer.

Added 8/4/2013
The following is pilfered from
You can find it at:
Filed under:
• Climate Science
• skeptics
— 24 February 2010

Guest commentary from Ben Santer

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Part 2 of a series discussing the recent Guardian articles.

A recent story by Fred Pearce in the February 9th online edition of the Guardian (“Victory for openness as IPCC climate scientist opens up lab doors”) covers some of the more publicized aspects of the last 14 years of my scientific career. I am glad that Mr. Pearce’s account illuminates some of the non-scientific difficulties I have faced. However, his account also repeats unfounded allegations that I engaged in dubious professional conduct. In a number of instances, Mr Pearce provides links to these allegations, but does not provide a balanced account of the rebuttals to them. Nor does he give links to locations where these rebuttals can be found. I am taking this opportunity to correct Mr. Pearce’s omissions, to reply to the key allegations, and to supply links to more detailed responses.

Another concern relates to Mr. Pearce’s discussion of the “openness” issue mentioned in the title and sub-title of his story. A naïve reader of Mr. Pearce’s article might infer from the sub-title (“Ben Santer had a change of heart about data transparency…”) that my scientific research was not conducted in an open and transparent manner until I experienced “a change of heart”.

This inference would be completely incorrect.

Has Monckton finally arrived at his Waterloo?

A group of scientists has put together a detailed study of Mr. Lord Monckton’s Congressional testimony, unlike LM’s many lectures and blogs, LM was under oath while giving false testimony to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

Hopefully, we can finally see the court trial that the good Lord keeps threatening.

With him as defendant !
{hope springs eternal}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Visit - Professor Scott Mandia website: Global Warming: Man or Myth?
Monckton Testimony at US Congress: Ignorance or Perjury?

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

{#11c} Lord Monckton, Mr. Ferguson, SPPI, v. Dr. Rajendra Pachauri (IPCC) - anatomy of a character assassination

Previously, I wrote about the anatomy of Ben Santer’s character assassination. In this next example, we have the added element of “tactical set up.” But, first a look at a couple quotes regarding Dr. Pachauri’s qualifications:

10/14/9 MFMI 46:05
“And now here is the truth.”
“Do you know that the guy who runs the science panel of the UN’s climate panel, is he a climatologist? Nope. Is he a physicist? Nope. Is he mathematician? Nope. He is a railroad engineer. So we have removed his railroad lines from this graph and we’ve added His Lordship’s much grander purple lines and we’ll see they all run in parallel.”

SPPI Blog, Monckton’s Pachauri Letter

“Though you are chairman of the IPCC, whose principal task is to evaluate and present
climatological results, you are a railroad engineer by origin and may be unaware that the technique is a statistical abuse. Therefore, we will now show, using the same technique on the same data but selecting different endpoints, that it is possible to generate opposite results, demonstrating the technique to be defective. . .”

Unfortunately, once again Lord Monckton what you’re saying is not the truth. Pachauri is no more a “railroad engineer” than you are a member of the House of Lords! I dare you to look at his accomplishments:

Sunday, September 19, 2010

{#11b} Lord Monckton, Mr. Ferguson, SPPI, v. Dr. Ben Santer - anatomy of a character assassination

Lord Monckton, and SPPI's Mr. Ferguson,

In this email I want to look at how some lies never die. In particular, today's reincarnation of the Wall Street Journal's travesty, with it's relentless, substance lacking, attacks on Dr. Benjamin Santer.

From SPPI’s Blogwatch: “Science ad rem, not politics ad hominem”
“However, a single scientist – Ben Santer – was asked by the IPCC substantially to alter the scientists’ final draft. He did so, crossing out five references to the absence of any evidence of a human influence on climate, and substituting the directly opposite conclusion.... the contrarian opinion of a single scientist who was willing to write what the IPCC’s bureaucrats wanted.”

10/14/9 MFMI 43:00
“Now we come on to a lie we find in the 1995 report. And this is one of the most extraordinary lies of the lot. Time and again, the scientists in that report said “We can not find any anthropogenic, or human signal, in the climate record. We are having no effect on temperature so far as we can see.” They said it five times very clearly, here’s one sample of it, here’s another. And now watch this, here is what the bureaucrats did. They rewrote the final draft, yet again, after it had been cleared and signed off by the scientists, to say the exact opposite: The body of evidence now points to a discernible human influence upon climate. And, that has been the official line ever since.”

Lord Monckton you often repeat this meme. To do so you ignore reams of contrary evidence. Why should we take your word for it?

Beyond that, why must you paint climate scientists like foreign enemies? In my last email I documented how these charges against Professor Ben Santer were shown to be gross falsehoods. Yet, here we are nearly fifteen years later and the same knowingly false charges are still being advertised. What a stellar example of the Monckton brand of “fidelity to the truth.”

Friday, September 17, 2010

{#11a} SPPI, Monckton, Seitz, WSJ - anatomy of a character assassination

Seitz’s Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996, Op-Ed

Ben Santer’s censored reply ~ Wall Street Journal letter to Ed, June 25, 1996

IPCC’s censored reply ~ Wall Street Journal letter to Ed, June 25, 1996

{in red}
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Lord Monckton, Mr Ferguson, SPPI, (and Dr. Seitz),
This letter cuts to the heart of your AGWHoax storyline, its fabrication and propagation. To fully appreciate this story, we need to review some history first and look at someone who can be considered your intellectual mentor, one Dr. Seitz.

In particular, his June 12, 1996 Op-Ed piece in the Wall Street Journal: “A Major Deception on Global Warming.” Even the title is audacious in its open hostility.

The following WSJ letter can be found at.

"A Major Deception on Global Warming"
Op-Ed by Frederick Seitz
Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996

Monday, September 13, 2010

Guest blog: How science works: or why climate change is not a religion

The following comes from Watching The Denier blog, out of Australia.

It does a nice job of addressing the charge of AGW science being a religion.
I'll admit I would have preferred a different example of hard science accommodating new data, still Watching the Deniers does get the point across - that claiming science is a religion, reflects a deep unfamiliarity with what science is or how it works.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
“Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from.” – Wikipedia

Is climate science a religion?

Saturday, September 11, 2010

{#10} SPPI and Lord Monckton, The Data Creates the AGW Consensus

I got a little ahead of myself in sending out this email in that I didn't do my usual detailed double check of Monckton's MFMI presentation quotes. None of my errors altered Monckton's substance, but in the interest of accuracy I have gone through this post and corrected my few errors in my Monckton quotes. . . my apologies Peter M.


In my last email {#9} I claimed that increased snow fall in Greenland is tied to AGW and does nothing to support Lord Monckton’s thesis that manmade global warming is a hoax. So, I thought this tenth email should review some of the evidence leading to the AGW consensus.

After spending sometime researching I realized there is no way I can improve upon the work done by John Cook over at They clearly lay out the arguments and point the way to verifying studies and data. In this email I will shamelessly reproduce search results including links.

Here is John Cook’s introduction to his site:
Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge and improve their understanding.

Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticize any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet uncritically embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming.

So this website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?
Also, Lord Monckton, despite your shrill and colorful objections to the contrary Professor John Abraham's presentation "Abraham v. Monckton" does do an excellent job of exposing many misleading scientific claims in your 10/14/9 MFMI talk.

Friday, September 10, 2010

Why Bother To Vote?

I've submitted the following essay to the Four Corners Free Press,
but they allow me to retain the rights.
And, I welcome anyone to borrow as they see fit.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

May I suggest a simple, left v. right distinction between people... voters.

The one group believes in a God of their own image; sitting on a throne; possessing those familiar human lordly passions of jealousy, judgment, vengeance, occasionally love... a lord who is directly involved in, even controlling, our lives.

The other group, contains a much larger spectrum. Beginning with people who firmly believe in God and her/his presence, but, who also appreciate God is beyond our human ability to grasp. As for knowing God’s mind... or plan, forget about it! Can a toddler hope to understand Einstein?

From there the spectrum of perspectives follows the whole gamut of wonder and curiosity about our creation and god... all the way to folks who are revolted by any notion of a god, heaven or hell. At the furthest end of this spectrum of humanity are folks who genuinely believe there’s only emptiness beyond this moment and find peace in that.

This is a politically important, if under appreciated, distinction with profound implications. Today, America is in the midst of a revolutionary struggle, driven by a seemingly unopposed ground swell of scared and passionate “believing” people. Where folks actually see themselves as God’s personal agents, convinced it’s their duty to conquer our government and then remake it in their heavenly inspired image.

When listening to what comes over the air waves, Tea Partiers along with more and more Republicans are shunning rational dialogue. They seem to resent science, its rules of discussion and its observation/fact based findings by twisting and tweaking, misrepresenting and ignoring all that doesn’t fit into their dogma driven messages. Tactics fine tuned within the Global Warming “debate” and broadcast over right wing media outlets everywhere.

I bring this up because we have an election coming up where it is sounding like most liberal leaning voters just can’t get too excited and are tired of dealing with all those creepy politicians anyways, so to heck with it, we’ll sit this one out. Just can’t work up the energy to get out and vote... You know who you are.

But, don’t you realize, it’s no good pretending those angry faith-based Tea Parties aren’t for real and big and dangerous? That old song keeps echoing in my mind: “America where are you now, don’t you care about your sons and daughters? Don’t you know, we need you now?”

Who’s going to defend our government, if you won’t? Who’s going to speak up for science, rational evaluation of information and willingness to learn new lessons? Who’s going to demand that our twenty-first century problems receive twenty-first century realism, instead of scapegoating?

For example, lets play imagine for a moment... go back ten years. There was that one day when, if only a few more liberal thinking people had gotten motivated enough to vote. We’d have had President Gore. Along with the excellent argument that the whole Iraq “war of choice” spawned horrors, costs and damage to our Nation, and the world would never have happened - heck, 9/11 probably wouldn’t have happened!

Why? Because Gore would have been listening to his national terrorist experts. Thus, the entire intelligence bureaucracy would have been paying attention. Thus, those incoming intelligence signals would have percolated, with the warnings they gave off being heeded and tracked down.

Instead, USA had a faith-based administration preoccupied with old grudges and no interest in anyone else’s opinion. This Republican Administration ignored our nation’s qualified terrorist experts. Why? Because, Bush et al. had God on their side. See what that’s gotten us. A war that has only succeeded, over the endless years, to elevate the true enemy’s abilities to unimagined levels, plus introduce privatized corporate warriors into our US military. All this at a horrific cost in blood, materials, money, world authority plus goodwill, and homeland civility.

Even had the 9/11 atrocity happen. Gore would have focused on getting the real perpetrators, Bin Laden, his band and material supporters, not easy, for sure. But, with all USA’s energy focused on that goal - rather than a diversion - plus that worldwide goodwill USA possessed at the time, there could have been no other outcome. Imagine the lesson USA could have taught the power-politics world.

Back to today, most Republicans remain incapable of even admitting they, we, did anything wrong, let alone that we actually have serious real world lessons to learn. Instead, acting as though this is how life was supposed to have played out. Becoming defensive at any critique and hardening in their dogmatic: my way...“God’s” way, or no way, attitude.

OK, there’s no going back, but surely we, enlightened folk, should heed this hard lesson. We need to challenge handing over our government to folks who despise it. We can go ahead and scoff that Democrats suck in a hundred and one ways, but they’re all we got! On this one out of 730 days, the only day when your opinion actually matters, please be pragmatic - motivate and VOTE.

Please do your part and help in this struggle of rationality over dogma driven, emotion fueled politics of faith over reason. And, bring a few family and friends along with you.

Sunday, September 5, 2010

{#9} SPPI & Monckton’s claim regarding Greenland's Cryosphere being OK - examined

In this, my ninth email, we’ll examine SPPI and Monckton's claim: “I find it hard to discern anything to worry about in Greenland’s ice.”

From SPPI's blog essay "Science ad rem, not politics ad Hominem":
“Professor Cliff Ollier, whom I have also consulted, says that the vast bulk of the Greenland ice is in a bowl surrounded by mountains and that, therefore, changes in ice-mass balance are influenced very little indeed by short-run changes in Arctic temperature.”

Lord Monckton, if you are going to use the “bowl” analogy, why not include the many cracks running along the rim of that bowl; with long glacial tongues draining through them? To educate, shouldn’t the discussion include the dynamics of coastal glaciers and ice-shelves and how they act as buttresses up against the downward thrust of the flowing ice coming out of Greenland’s highland glacier filled bowl?

Saturday, September 4, 2010

{#8} SPPI & Monckton’s claims regarding David’s: “The Down To Earth Guide to Global Warming” - Examined

MFMI 54:15
(#79) “And they are lying to children as well. They lie even to children....”
MFMI 54:25
“What she (Laurie David) did was to switch the captions on the graphs for temperature and CO2 going back 650,000 years so that she could show that it was CO2 that had changed first and temperature that had followed.”

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

{#7b}Appendix to {email #7} Church et al. 2006, highlights

I received an email this morning, short and sweet, but worth sharing:

Church, J.A., N.J. White and J.R. Hunter. 2006. Sea level rise at tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean islands. Global and Planetary Change, 53, 155-168, doi:10.1016/j.glopacha.2006.04.001.
( the definitive rebuttal of Mörner.

Keep up the good work!
I did include Church et al. 2006 in my previous email to SPPI - but, this email has inspired me to share some of its content:

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

{#7} SPPI - Lord Monckton's "Nils Axel Mörner" claims examined

Dear Mr. Ferguson, and Lord Monckton,
It would be nice to keep this civil. Simply, because you may not like me, or what I’m writing, doesn’t mean I can’t ask you, Robert Ferguson... Science Public Policy Institute, and SPPI’s brain trust: Lord Monckton, some pointed, and public, questions.

I shall continue my little examination of the way you folks present science to a public in need of real and complete information, learning, understanding and appreciation for the global situation humanity is in. In this email {#7} I shall review statements made on SPPI’s website and in the MFMI talk by Lord Chris Monckton regarding Nils Axel Mörner PhD and his claims.

Quoting the 10/14/9 MFMI talk -
MFMI 27:35
LM: “Nickolas who has written 520 papers on the subject.” Then, there is Monckton’s often repeated sentiment: “Professor Niklas Mörner, the world’s foremost expert on sea level.”

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

{#6} Examining Lord Monckton's Rhetoric

This is the sixth email in my series examining Lord Monckton's 10/14/9 presentation to the MFMI in Minnesota. The talk can be found here.

Lord Christopher Monckton,
Early in your 10/14/9 Minnesota Free Market Institute presentation you make the following promises to your audience:

“But, one point I do want to make, is that you must not believe a word I say.
... I am not gonna to tell you what the truth about the climate is.
I am simply going to tell you a series of facts from the science and the data and the peer reviewed literature...
“And that is what we are going to do tonight, there won’t be rhetoric, there will just be boring fact after fascinating fact.”

~ ~ ~
In this sixth segment of our correspondence and my examination of your 10/14/9 MFMI presentation, allow us to examine how well your actual words live up to your promise. Early in your presentation you did give us your word that you would present the latest science facts sans “rhetoric.”

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

{#5} Lord Monckton about your claims regarding AIT and the UK Trial

{This is the fifth in my emails to Lord Monckton, examining his 10/14/9 MFMI presentation}

Lord Monckton,
You seem to be avoiding me, but my examination into your claims will continue - as will my attempt to engage you in a frank discussion on the matter of the voracity of your many claims regarding your promulgation of the notion that AGW is a hoax. Today, I ask about your often repeated implications that a UK Judge found AGW to be a hoax.

Sunday, August 22, 2010

{#4} Questioning the veracity of Lord Monckton’s attributions

{This is the fourth email to Lord Monckton examining his 10/14/9 MFMI presentation}
Considering that Lord Monckton’s PowerPoint presentation offered the best venue for clear citations or reference to the many quotes the Lord tosses out. I thought it would be interesting to look at the side notes with his slides and see if LM offered any information that would help in tracking down the veracity of his various quotations.

From his 10/14/9 PowerPoint presentation:

Saturday, August 21, 2010

{#3} Citizenschallenge v Monckton

my 2nd email to Lord Monckton 8/16/10
Lord Monckton’s 2nd reply to me 8/17/10
my response (3rd email) to Lord Monckton 8/20/10
Dear Mr. Miesler, - Answers are in the body of your email below. Since you have chosen to be impolite, these are the last answers you will receive. All further emails from this address will be auto-deleted before I see them. - Monckton of Brenchley

Lord Monckton, please don’t run and hide. You claim yourself ready to debate.
Therefore, please allow us to take part in a frank discussion.
Sincerely, Peter Miesler August 20, 2010

(ps. I sent my email by way of a new email address, so Lord Monckton did see it, whether he's willing to reply remains to be seen.)

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

“What is Science Without Religion?”

my CFI Forum post
Lord Monckton replied to my letter by sharing a 3070 word essay he’d written a while back: “What is Science Without Religion?” Unfortunately, it side stepped rather than answered my questions. The essay drifts, in that it’s about religion and science, but he manages to fit in all sorts of political rants (DDT, HIV, dishonesty of money grubbing, and serial cowardice of scientists, etc.). I’ve tried pruning the essay to its salient points and it still weights in at 850 words. I have only cut, otherwise I haven’t changed a word.

It would be very cool if some of you deeper thinkers could skim through this list and please comment on whatever talking points catch your attention - be sure to include paragraph #.

Why am I pushing this?: I believe this sort of misleading Pied Piper song should stop being left standing without objection - which is happening too much and is a main reason serious science understanding is in such dismal shape. Please help.


Dear Mr. M, - Thank you for your enquiry. The following essay, “What is Science Without Religion” which appears on SPPI’s blog (, should answer your questions. Lord Monckton

{#2} Replying to Lord Monckton's 8-16-10 email

Lord Monckton,
Thank you for your reply of 8/16/10.
However, the essay you shared, “What is Science Without Religion,” side stepped my actual questions. First and foremost, (regarding 5:20; 9:45; 10:45), calling up the Bible in the manner you do demands a fidelity to the notion of a Biblical six day creation that occurred 6,000 years ago. Appealing to the one literal notion of the Bible and ignoring the other seems like a cynical showman stunt - dishonest to all.

Therefore, I have condensed my previous email to better focus on those questions.

As for your essay, I’ve read it a couple times now and in the spirit of better digestion I have decided to share it (a condensed 850 word version... 3,070 words is a bit excessive.) with a discussion group I participate in, CFI Forum. I’m curious to see if it gets any response. I invite you to drop in and see what folks are saying, heck join in on the conversation if you want.


But, back to the 8-15-10 letter I sent you. Here is a more concise version of my questions:

Thursday, August 12, 2010

{#1} Lord Monckton, are you a Creationist? ... an open letter

Lord Monckton,
I’ve been reviewing your Minnesota Free Market Institute presentation. One of many disturbing aspects of your performance are the following statements. But, first to borrow from your 466 questions to Professor Abraham: Could you, Christopher Monckton, confirm that the following quotes accurately encapsulate your recorded comments?

5:20: “... we all love the planet that the good Lord has given us. And he’s given us the stewardship of it, Genesis 1:22, very clear what our obligations are as stewards of the planet. We are to look after all that is in it, and over it and under it and swimming in the sea. We are not therefore to exercise that stewardship given to us by our creator in an irresponsible fashion. Therefore it is important that we do not waste money, effort, time, or resources on non-problems such as global warming. As I shall show you that it is.”

Tuesday, August 10, 2010


This is a first step to a larger project exploring Lord Monckton's presentation to the Minnesota Free Market Institute, given September 14, 2009. The PowerPoint is available at:
This is intended as a guide for viewing along with Lord Monckton's illuminating PowerPoint slides.

The presentation can be viewed on YouTube:

Categories :

32..... Gratuitous Political Theater
41..... Gratuitous Misdirection
20..... Mudslinging: malicious, abusive, insulting, and untruths
36..... Scientific Shenanigans
19..... Big Issue Claims
17..... Graphs worth Closer Examination
05..... Looking at the Math
02..... Philosophical Considerations presented with a cynical twist
02..... Informative Slides
174 slides

please read on...

Who Is Lord Christopher Monckton?

Dear Durango Telegraph Editor,
There’s an exciting brouhaha going on within the Global Warming blogosphere these days. Every bit as heated and implication laden as ClimateGate was a half year ago. Not surprisingly, big media isn’t covering this story. Just as they seem to be ignoring the exposure of the fabricated charges and nonexistent sins scientists supposedly perpetrated in “ClimateGate.”

This saga concerns the lowly academician who dared question the darling of the “Man Made Global Warming Is A Hoax” community.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

HELP alert the media to denialist activity


Turn the Tables on Monckton
Written by Professor Scott Mandia

Christopher Monckton and other deniers get far more press coverage than they deserve. Journalistic false balance has caused the public to be confused on climate change – the greatest threat to humanity this century. Worse, these deniers have used mainstream media to attack climate science and the scientists who pursue the truth. Let us now turn the tables.

Monckton has been exposed by Dr. John Abraham and instead of hiding his tail and whimpering away, Monckton has gone on the offensive by attacking Dr. Abraham and asking his followers to essentially “email bomb” Dr. Abraham’s university president. We need to alert the media to this story.

I have assembled a list of media contacts in the hopes that my readers will follow my lead and send letters asking for an investigation of Monckton and his attack on Abraham.

NOAA: "2009 State of the Climate" report

Here is more definitive proof that Anthropogenic Global Warming is indeed warming up our planet.

NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48 Countries
Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years

July 28, 2010

The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.

Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. The relative movement of each of these indicators proves consistent with a warming world. Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere.

Monday, June 28, 2010

Skeptical - a vital resource

I had a couple paragraphs of introduction written for the Skeptical website, but John Cook, creator of the site, says it best for himself:

Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge and improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticize any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming.

So this website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?

After that, worth adding is that this is one of the most accessible and clean cut information loaded websites around. For the layperson who wants to seriously investigate the AGW issue, this treasure trove of Q/A belongs at the very top of your list. Politics is kept out of the discussion, it is all about the science and understanding - including all the citations and links needed to allow anyone to dig much deeper.

Also, they have been covering the Abraham v Monckton story from the gitgo.

Watching The Deniers at

I want to introduce another worthy website
Watching the Deniers: holding sceptics to account

Watching The Deniers is a blog put together by an Aussie who like many others has watched the climate debate in the popular press with growing dismay.

Mike considers himself a skeptic: "I believe any claim about the world we live in requires evidence. In my mind, the methodology of “science” is the best way to determine facts about the world we live in”."

On his site he lists six aspects of denial. (Adopted from Sean B. Carroll’s book “The Making of the fittest”.)
I’ll be using this framework to “tag” or categorize the type of arguments used by the denial movement in all future posts. In this I’ll be taking a leaf from the wonderful work that John Cook has done at Skeptical Science.

I hope this framework helps people understands the flawed logic behind many of the arguments used by the denial movement.

1. Doubt the science –
2. Question the motives and integrity of scientists –
3. Magnify disagreements among scientists and cite gadflies –
4. Exaggerate potential harm –
5. Appeal to personal freedom –
6. Acceptance repudiates key philosophy –
Beyond that, I want to bring attention to his posts regarding "Abraham v. Monckton," and various other critiques of Lord Christopher Monckton's dog and pony show,
"The Cautionary Tale of Lord Monckton: from Rising Star to Smoldering Deep Impact Crater"

I'm also proud that Mike has decided to print one of my Abraham v. Monckton essays as a guest blog.

More reviews on Lord Monckton's "science"

Anti-Climate Change Extremism in Utah
A Local Front in a Global Battle

The Monckton Files: Solar Variation
Recently, Prof. John Abraham criticized Lord Christopher Monckton for citing scads of scientific papers to back up his opinions about climate change, but when Abraham actually looked into those papers, it often turned out they didn’t support Monckton’s conclusions, or they even contradicted those conclusions.  

Given his rap sheet (including numerous infractions mentioned on this blog), I thought it would be fun to start examining Lord Monckton’s recent testimony before a committee of the U.S. Congress.  What if I were to scan through the document, randomly pick one of Monckton’s claims that I don’t know much about, and start investigating the literature he cites?  Would I find that he makes reasonable points, or that he has continued his nearly unblemished record of propagating scientific-sounding nonsense?  

Tim Lambert has already shown that Monckton’s testimony was flamboyantly incompetent about three issues (solar brightening, ocean acidification, and Snowball Earth), so I picked another topic that has to do with variations in the radiation output of the Sun.

read on at


Monckton's testimony to Congress
May 9, 2010 by Tim Lambert

The most damning thing about Christopher Monckton's testimony to the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming on global warming science (video here), is the fact that the Republicans could not or would not get a single scientist to testify.

His main argument is based on the same confusion that I dealt with in my debate with him -- the idea that Pinker (2005) which found an increase in short wave radiation at the surface, actually found an increase in radiative forcing. Rachel Pinker herself explained the difference:

The CO2 "radiative forcing" value that Mr. Christopher Monckton is quoting refers to the impact on the Earth's Radiative balance as described above. The numbers that we quote in our paper represent the change in surface SW due to changes in the atmosphere (clouds, water vapor, aerosols). These two numbers cannot be compared at their face value.

But Monckton ignored this correction from Pinker in his testimony:

read on at

A Question of Intellectual Integrity

The following has been printed in the Durango Telegraph letters section.

This winter I encountered yet another vocal global warming “skeptic” who approached me wanting to correct “my illusions” about Anthropogenic Global Warming. Yet, when I called him on his (rehashed and repeatedly proven false) arguments - rather than sending me further information and explaining the flaws in my counter explanations... he turned indignant, saying I was too beneath him for further discussion, then slammed the door in my face so to speak.

What does that say about intellectual integrity? Or about one’s personal desire to explore and learn from new information?

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

#1 Index for "Abraham v Monckton"

You can find the presentation at:

I have posted this index separately to allow it and my "Unauthorized Notes" to be opened side by side, thus making navigation through PhD. Abraham's 126 slide presentation easier.

Slide #1-2......Introduction
Slide #3........Who is Professor John Abraham
Slide #4-5......Who is Lord Christopher Monckton
Slide #6........CM:“Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.”
Slide #7-9......JA looks at evidence for the authenticity of that quote
Slide #10-14....Sea level rise? ~ examined
Slide #15-18....Polar bears threatened? ~ examined
Slide #19-22....Sea ice extent in the Beaufort Sea?
Slide #23-26....Polar bears threatened? ~ examined
Slide #27-38....Medieval Warm Period (MWP) ~ examined
Slide #39-40....CM’s “2500 IPCC scientists lied” claim ~ examined
Slide #41.......Do climate claims really rest on just 4 IPCC reports?
Slide #41-44....Sampling 19 from 100s of "Climate Sensitivity" studies
Slide #45.......Science Policy’s graphs ~ examined
Slide #46.......NASA data: Global Land Ocean Temperature Index
Slide #47.......CM slide #32: “IPCC head is a railroad engineer”
Slide #48.......CM slide #37: “NOAA - it ain’t cooling - lie” ~ examined
Slide #49.......CM slide #38: “lie nailed” claims all data was shifted”
Slide #50.......JA: “Are the predictions wrong? or is it CM’s graphs?"
Slide #51.......NOAA’s “Temperature Anomalies” graph
Slide #52-53....Comparing graphs
Slide #54.......CM slide #43: “The consensus lie: AGW = catastrophe"
Slide #55-58....Examining that claim
Slide #59-61....CM claims “No sea level rise in the Maldives”
Slide #62-66....CM claims "Temperature always leads CO2"
Slide #67-69....CM claims “Ocean acidification is rubbish”
Slide #70.......CM slide #56: Arctic Sea-Ice steady for a decade
Slide #71-75....Examines the question is melting ice related to AGW
Slide #76.......CM says Greenland Ice Sheet OK citing Johannessen
Slide #77-79....Examining Johannessen work and exchanged emails
Slide #80.......Reviews four studies regarding Ice Mass Changes
Slide #81.......CM claims “Himalayan glaciers are not losing ice mass”
Slide #82-84....Reviews 3 studies regarding Himalayan glacier melt
Slide #85-86....CM’s claim that “CO2 is only a trace gas” ~ examined
Slide #87.......CM slide #72 “The oceans are cooling”
Slide #88.......Regarding ARGO an institution or an instrument?
Slide #89-92....CM slide #73 Sea Level has not risen for 4 years?
Slide #93.......CM slide #67 “Grand Minimum to Grand Maximum"
Slide #94-108...Solar forcing examined & review of 12 studies
Slide #109-115..Willie Soon and examining funding patterns
Slide #116-124..JA considers the “Sins of Attribution”
Slide #125......JA asks: “So who can we trust?" ~ ten sources
Slide #126......JA asks: "How is an audience able to discriminate?"

For a complete list of links to studies and publication
used in "Abraham v Monckton" visit:

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

#2 A Citizen’s Unauthorized Notes................. Science on Trial

An exploration of the recent presentation:
“A Scientist Replies to Christopher Monckton”
Abraham v. Monckton

Professor Abraham's presentation can be found at:

Planet Climate also has a complete list of links to studies and publications used in Abraham v. Monckton

Thursday, June 10, 2010

“A Scientist Replies to Christopher Monckton: Abraham v. Monckton.”

Professor Abraham's presentation can be found at:

Over the past couple years I have been carrying on a virtual conversation with various scientifically informed folks who are vocal “skeptics” regarding man-made global warming (AGW). This past winter that conversation flared with a spat of emails offering up ClimateGate tidbits along with a lot of overblown, even slanderous, charges toward the scientists whose personal emails had been stolen from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit. Having read the full texts of the emails being singled out, I was able to carry on a spirited defense of the scientists integrity.

Sunday, March 7, 2010

Climate Change & Contrarians

The following has been printed in the March 2010 issue of the
Four Corners Free Press

For this blog I've included links to various worthwhile information sources, please do explore those links.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Snow Doesn't Mean No Global Warming

What a tough winter. Every time I look at the news there’s another extreme weather event happening. Vicious arctic cold fronts playing crack-the-whip across portions of the northern latitudes, then massive East Coast snow storms. Now I have contrarian friends laughing at me saying: “See there, the Earth is cooling. Your talk about Anthropogenic Global Warming is a hoax.”

What contrarians refuse to appreciate is that our planet is huge and temperatures do vary. Consider for a moment, our climate as the global heat engine which redistributes energy, heat and moisture. Temperature and barometric differences provide the throttle behind this weather machine. Inject extremes into the system - as society has been doing - and it will react in kind, it makes no difference to the engine.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ NO - Village at Wolf Creek ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A New Website ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A website dedicated to the notion that Colorado Congressman Salazar should take a proactive roll in convincing Mr. B.J. “Red” McCombs to reconsider his speculative Village at Wolf Creek, Alberta Park development plans. In favor of returning that biologically productive gem back to its protected fold within the Rio Grande National Forest.

Also, dedicated to the appreciation that We The People have a very short moment of opportunity where a resounding public outcry just may help save Alberta Park unmolested for the benefit of all future down stream generations.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The “ No - Village at Wolf Creek.blogspot ” is a collection of essays and important information links.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Please link to that site for updated information on the newly reheated struggle to save Alberta Park, in the heartland of the Rio Grande National Forest.

March 3rd, 2010

Friday, February 26, 2010

Letter to the Durango Herald ~ NO Village at Wolf Creek development !

{Thank you for the image of Alberta Park}

Dear Editor,
Wednesday February 17 Congressman Salazar held an informative VWC panel discussion with representatives from government, business, environmental groups including Mr. McCombs and Mr. Jones the developer.

Mr. McCombs the ever optimistic salesman spoke of a first class luxury resort and all the jobs it would bring the local economy.

Questioning the Soundness of "Red's" Plan

The following is a letter to the Durango Telegraph sharing further thoughts on why the dreams of developing Alberta Park at Wolf Creek Pass or its immediate surroundings should be canceled.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

February 17 Congressman Salazar held an informative VWC panel discussion with representatives from government, business, environmental groups, Mr. McCombs and Mr. Jones the developer. The Congressman’s goal was to get all the stakeholders together and find a path toward consensus so that the Village at Wolf Creek project could finally move forward.

VWC at 10'000 feet & altitude sickness

One of the VWC's ignored issues is the medical situation.
This parcel is higher than any other US overnight resort. At 10,000’ our lungs absorb a third the oxygen as at sea level. This alone creates a raft of potential medical, marketing, even ethical, perhaps legal liability questions since medical experts advise against lowlanders spending nights at that extreme altitude.

links to informative sites:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Altitude Illness

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Peter H. Hackett, David R. Shlim


The stresses of the high-altitude environment include cold, low humidity, increased ultraviolet (UV) radiation, and decreased air pressure, all of which can cause problems for travelers. The greatest concern, however, is hypoxia. At 10,000 ft (3,000 m), for example, the inspired PO2 is only 69% of sea-level value. The degree of hypoxic stress depends upon altitude, rate of ascent, and duration of exposure. Sleeping at high altitude produces the greatest hypoxia; day trips to high altitude with return to low altitude are much less stressful on the body.


The human body adjusts very well to moderate hypoxia, but requires time to do so (Box 2-3). The process of acute acclimatization to high altitude takes 3–5 days; therefore, acclimatizing for a few days at 8,000–9,000 ft before proceeding to higher altitude is ideal. Acclimatization prevents altitude illness, improves sleep, and increases comfort and well-being, although exercise performance will always be reduced compared with low altitude. Increase in ventilation is the most important factor in acute acclimatization; therefore, respiratory depressants must be avoided. Increased red-cell production does not play a role in acute acclimatization.

Risk for Travelers

Inadequate acclimatization may lead to altitude illness in any traveler going to 8,000 ft (2,500 m) or higher. Susceptibility and resistance to altitude illness are genetic traits, and no screening tests are available to predict risk. Risk is not affected by training or physical fitness. Children are equally susceptible as adults; persons >50 years of age have slightly lower risk. How a traveler has responded to high altitude previously is the most reliable guide for future trips but is not infallible. However, given certain baseline susceptibility, risk is greatly influenced by rate of ascent and exertion.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

International Society for Mountain Medicine

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Institute For Altitude Medicine in Telluride

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

High Altitude Medicine Guide

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Outdoor Action Guide to
 High Altitude: Acclimatization and Illnesses

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Merck online Manuel

Luxury Resorts going Bust

A project like "Red" McCombs' Village at Wolf Creek would be a gamble in the best of times. Considering, today's business climate with it's spare future outlook, this Village at Wolf Creek seems like the height of folly.

There is good reason for pessimism and caution!
Below is a list of troubled resorts, each name is linked to a news source:

Hudson Valley Resort & Spa, New York

East West Resort Development, Lake Tahoe, NV

Anguilla Resort, Caribbean

Los Abrigados Resort & Spa - Diamond Resorts, Sedona, AZ

Daufuskie Island Resort & Breathe Spa, South Carolina

Dellis Cay development, Caribbean

Tierra Del Sol Resort, Florida

Rivers Inlet Resort, British Columbia

Point Breeze Hotel, Nantucket Island

Tamarack Resort, Valley County, Idaho

Hunt Resort, Fitzroy Island, Great Barrier Reef

Trump Entertainment Resorts Inc, all over

Yellowstone Club, Montana

La Manga Club, southern Spain

Rancho Manana, Cave Creek, AZ

The Whiteface Lodge, Lake Placid, NY

Transmontagne, Alps, Switzerland

Extended Stay Hotels, USA

W Hotel , San Diago, CA

Dubai's Istithmar World & 42nd Street at Broadway, NY, NY

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Distressed CRE Assets Jump 15% at Nation's Banks
The amount of distressed commercial real estate assets on the books of the nation's banks and thrifts approached $60 billion as of year-end 2009. That is up from $52 billion just three months earlier, a 15% increase. The $59.9 billion includes loans...

Saturday, February 20, 2010

Village at Wolf Creek ~ A Who's Who of Who to Contact

The developer himself:
Mr. Clint Jones

12117 Bee Cave Road, Suite 240
Austin, Texas 78738


Mineral County Commissioners

Jim Adelman, Chuck Fairchild, Karl Kolisch

Rio Grande County Commissioners

Doug Davie, Robert Hagedorn, Dennis Murphy

Archuleta County Commissioner – District 1

John Ranson
Archuleta County Commissioner – District 2

Clifford Lucero
Archuleta County Commissioner – District 3

Robert Moomaw

Town of Pagosa Springs

Ross Aragon, Mayor

Darrel Cotton, Council Member
Stan Holt, Council Member
Jerry Jackson, Council Member
Shari Pierce, Council Member

Don Volger, Council Member

Mark Weiler, Council Member

U.S. Representative John Salazar

326 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515


Aide to Congressman Salazar:
John Whitney

U.S. Senator Mark Udall

Hart Office Building 
Suite SH-317

Washington, D.C. 20510

Aide to Senator Udall:

Wanda Cason

U.S. Senator Michael Bennet

702 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Aide to Senator Bennet:

Charlotte Bobicki

Congressman Salazar question the VWC proposal

The VWC & Alberta Park Dilemma
Open letter to
Congressman Salazar’s VWC Discussion Panel on future approaches to the proposed development of the Alberta Park area.
Adam State College 2-17-10
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

{Thank you for the image of Alberta Park}

Honorable Congressman Salazar and panel members,
I respectfully submit the following list of issues & questions deserving to be addressed.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

It must be noted this parcel of land was originally set aside, within the protective fold of the Rio Grande National Forest, for the benefit of all Americans by Theodore Roosevelt in 1911. Then, on February 20, 1986, in a back room of the US Department of Agriculture, a Washington DC insider countermanded the Rio Grande National Forest’s land exchange process which had rejected Mr. McCombs’ lopsided land swap proposal.

> In essence this parcel was victim to an illegitimate hostile take over.
The People do have the right to hope for its return to the American land trust.

~ ~ ~
Beyond that, there’s the actual biological productivity of that land to consider.
Alberta Park is a “keystone parcel” within an integral carpet of land that is the Wolf Creek watershed, source waters to the interstate, international Rio Grande River.

~ ~ ~
Wildlife corridors and living space for a large variety of animals.
The pristine fens area is biologically productive on a grand scale.
The area is a massive water filter, purifier and reservoir.
Simply leaving it as it stands has multiple economic benefits.
> This aspect gets downplayed yet deserves to reign center stage.

~ ~ ~
Plow a development into the middle of it and that sweet water will turn into reused gray water and the wildlife sanctuary, fens, watershed will suffer cascading losses.
> Given current global trends, clean water resources are among our most precious commodities... isn’t protecting this unique resource an imperative concern ?

~ ~ ~
Why complicate local life with the legal Water Rights court battles that will ensue any actual diversion of massive amounts of water shares into that speculative village?

~ ~ ~
Question the project’s realism:

Considering current financial world realities - where will the people come from for this luxury get-away at 10,000'? Or put another way...
How does one justify such 1990s developer dreams in the face of the obviously leaner, meaner 2010s we are heading into?

Wishing the good old days back doesn’t justify gambling away this world class
pristine irreplaceable watershed resource for a questionable, nay, doomed pipedream.

~ ~ ~
The public health challenge:
In particular the health risks associated with lowlanders sleeping at 10,000’ elevation.
Who will deal with the Altitude Sickness of varying degrees that will become chronic health incidents for residents at that altitude?
Will prospective buyers be forewarned of the health risk?
How many actual buyers would, in the end, opt for healthier accommodations at lower elevations?
After all, at 10,000’ our lungs absorb a third less oxygen than near sea level.

~ ~ ~
Who will be responsible for developing and financing an Emergence Medical System and medical clinic?
Will the VWC medical clinic include a High Altitude Health Research Station, considering the pioneering 10,000’ elevation of these overnight accommodations?

~ ~ ~
Then, there’s Police protection to consider, plan, finance, develop.
Who will be responsible for that?

~ ~ ~
Then, there’s Fire protection to consider, plan, finance, develop.
Who will be responsible for that?

~ ~ ~
Then, there’s snow clearing and street maintenance to consider, plan, finance, develop. (see Larry Calloway's article "VWC, Salesmanship Trumps Meteorology" )
Who will be responsible for that?

~ ~ ~
How much thought has gone into developing the sewage treatment plant for this high altitude environment that experiences freezing temperatures eight months of the year?
(Plus intense solar radiation... plus microbial efficiency is temperature dependent.) VWC will present unique water treatment engineering challenges and include inevitable breakdowns and high operating costs. Who’s paying for it?

~ ~ ~
The list goes on, electrical distribution, LP gas, phones, IT . . .
Who will be financially responsible for ensuring all this necessary infrastructure?

~ ~ ~
A business venture is about high return on an investment.
To think the above can be accomplished within the budget of a speculative VWC for-profit business plan seems fantastical.
The VWC as presented is impossible without massive outside support... and that will turn out to be governmental support... tax payer support. But, our governments are already stretched to bursting with obligations, why are we considering creating yet more? And for what? A destructive white elephant in the making.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Honorable Congressman Salazar,
American’s have a right, if not duty, to attempt wrestling McCombs’ Albert Park speculative development parcel (although I would call it a priceless biological gem), back into the protective fold of the Rio Grande National Forest, America’s land trust.
Congressman Salazar will you do your part?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mr. McCombs & family, Why not return it?
“The B.J. Red McCombs Sweet Water Biological Preserve”
~ dedicated to all down stream children yet to be born ~