Chemist Kate

Chemist Kate
Is Global Warming great?
The troublesome debate
Your views, please state
Assuredly, I will await
In anticipation and elate
But alas to date
No echo of the pony’s gait
I but sit and wait
Will I burn by carbon hate?
Should I learn to ice skate?
Please send me an update
To these questions I relate
Before it is too late
And the world earns its fate
Of trouble to un-crate
For true and straight
This problem on our plate
Surely does carry weight
Needing answers to checkmate

In a course lecture entitled “Global Temperature,” Dr Kate Biberdorf AKA Kate the Chemist uses a graph created by NOAA  to show global warming. The problem is that it shows the exact opposite. This is sadly typical of the whole Global Warming movement. They use data that is carefully selected and cherry picked to only highlight what they want it to show and not look at all the data. This example of confirmation bias is also seen in the recent Californian fires.
First, let us examine the claim of the entertaining Dr. Biberdorf to whom I saw entertaining us on Stephen Colbert! So I went to her web site and found her YouTube channel. Never one to turn down free educational videos, I started to watch them. Many are standard chemistry you expect from a first year class on the subject. When she reached the lesson on Global Warming I sat up to listen. Obviously, here is an expert and she should be very able to dispel any doubt I may have about the myth of Global Warming. She as a chemistry expert should have this subject nailed down such that even my doubts will be quelled. Sadly, I was so disappointed I wrote this.
The first error is that she uses the so called data from over the last 140 years or so from 1880. This overly used data is simply wrong. The quality of the readings and the location of where the readings have taken place are totally changed. It is one thing to take a reading in a remote location that is far from the micro temperatures of an urban setting. The problem is those remote locations are now right in the heart of urban sprawl. The measurements themselves are made by very different quality of instruments. Thus, making the data itself, very open to question. (But shhh don’t mention that to Global warming cabal they don’t practice science and certainly don’t understand the need for consistent measurements.)
Surely she had other evidence. She did. She had the ice core samples. Great stuff. Wonderful! Even amazing! The ice core samples are always the fall back position for this cabal. The problem is you have one localized source of information. Beware the man with only one book (Homo unius libri) is an old Roman maxim  I would update that to beware the man with only one Ice Core. Where is the ice core from say Italy? Florida? Texas? Or anywhere along the equator? I know there is no ice so there can be no ice core. So we only get them from the far north or far South. It’s like look for your wallet under the street lamp when you dropped it way over there because the light is so much better.
She presented evidence from and created by NOAA, I found it here,  (Graph 2)
The examination of evidence was to look at the right side where temperatures where very high. There, all the proof we need … to confirm our bias not to test this theory. If, as the theory goes, temperature is rising due to man made gases in the atmosphere, notable carbon gases, emissions and such, then surely we may test this thesis? When would be a good time to do so? Well, think of a time when there was much destruction, burning and explosions? Why a world war would have all the usual problems but only on a much larger scale as not only are things being moved and transported but there are so much more uses for carbon, such as weapons, fire bomb whole cities, the usual thing that we can expect in total war. Looking at that same chart in the Second World War, 1939-45 period we can see the temperature is indeed significant higher. There we go, theory tested and proven. The introduction of excess carbon in the air is causing Global warming.
Except, if we test again, since we looked at the Second, why not look at the first. Only we see the opposite. Significantly lower temperatures. What we would have expected to see was higher temperatures, perhaps not as high as seen in the Second World War but still higher than average. We do not see that at all. You cannot have a theory that gives two directly opposite results. Either anthropogenic carbon is causing Global warming or it is not. When looking at the sudden and magnitude difference from peace time to war, you should expect to see similar results. Only we do not see that at all.
Now the counter argument as seen above is that the older data is not as reliable as the modern version. Thus we can remove said data from consideration. But then they would lose the legitimacy in their scare tactics of Global Warming being shown over such an extended period. As well, we must consider that the accuracy of weather was a military necessity so the tracking in the war years would have been continuous and rigorous to ensure the best, most reliable forecasting for battle purposes. So that data should be seen as more reliable then pre and post war years.
The problem with this sort of tunnel vision enables the most foolish of claims. Take this year’s, 2018, California fires. Global Warming was the cry! It must be some mythical thing that no one lays blame upon anyone else; for if all are guilty none can be punished.
Except, by now, you must know better; California may be going through a drought but that is no reason to call on some false gods. The problems are numerous and they are certainly man made but they have nothing to do with Global Warming. Think horses, not zebras. The first problem is the water table. Whereas, California is rapidly draining water from its underground water table to produce agriculture and bottle water for export sales. The fruits and vegetables grown are very water dependent to sell to the colder and thus very lucrative markets in the north covered in winter’s snow and cold. They draw a lot of water from rivers and more from the water table, drying out more and more land as they suck it out for today’s market. As well bottle water companies are suck out billions of liters, a slight exaggeration, when they are only allowed to bottle in the millions. “The State Water Board says that of the 62.6 million gallons of water that Nestle says it extracted from the San Bernardino spring each year on average from 1947 to 2015, the company may only have a right to some 8.5 million gallons.
The other cause of the California fires? “A wild land–urban interface (or WUI) refers to the zone of transition between unoccupied land and human development. Communities that are within 0.5 miles (0.80 km) of the zone may also be included. These lands and communities adjacent to and surrounded by wild lands are at risk of wildfires. Since the 1990s, over 43% of new residential buildings have been constructed in this area. In some areas, the amount of new residences in those areas is 80%. In the past, when these areas burned, no residences were lost, but now residences are present, which end up being destroyed.”
Similar to the flooding in Houston Texas, if you build on a flood plain, expect to be flooded. If you build near a path for forest fires, you have to expect to be burned out. But SHHHHH these are real causes, with real solutions. But nah, it is so much better to point to the mythical deity called Global Warming so that nothing is can be done about the real cause of problems. And what little is done, won’t help the problem and certainly won’t solve it. Education is to educate. Not spread falsehoods and mythology as science.