Friday, May 30, 2014

May, 2014 The Unfolding Disaster That Is Obama Care Update, Part 2: State Insurance Exchanges Implode, Another Obama Care Tax To Kill The Economy and More

This is the second post in this month’s series on the continuing disaster that is Obama Care. Yesterday, we learned that the vast majority of Obama Care policy enrollees already had health insurance, that many of them will face sticker shock next April when they realize they have to pay back part or all of their Obama Care subsidies on their tax forms, and that Nancy Pelosi is still not of this reality. Today and the next few days will not be much better from a disaster perspective. 

1) We have covered many, many examples of Americans seeing their lives completely screwed up as a result of Obama Care. Recently, a local television station covered another example out in California. Apparently, a young Marine veteran in California cannot locate a doctor who will accept his Anthem Blue Cross insurance plan, an insurance plan he purchased through Covered California, the state's Obama Care exchange. 

Local TV station KPIX reported that the Marine, named Kyle, claims he was on the phone for two hours with Anthem, trying to find a doctor within a 20-mile radius of his home, with no luck. "Finally a supervisor said, 'Sir, we have to go. we have other people to help. And [they] advised me I need to cancel my plan."

Unbelievable treatment of an American in so many ways. First, Obama Care sold him a plan that was useless. Second, the customer service department of the company that sold him the plan was useless. And third, rather than handle the situation, they told him to cancel his plan and basically lose any money he had already put into the pockets of the insurance company for absolutely nothing.

But for Obama Care, often par for the course. Lousy, or in this case, no insurance coverage, lousy or no access to medical care under the Obama Care policy, and horrible customer support and lack of respect to the customer.

To access the TV report, go to:

2) Politico reported on May 20, 2014 that the state of Nevada would be joining a number of other states in scrapping its Obama Care state health exchange system since it has been such an unmitigated failure. Those in charge decided that the current systems used for the state exchange could not be fixed by November, the start of the next enrollment season and that Nevada residents would have to use the Federal Obama Care exchange until further notice.

Thus, Nevada joins Oregon, Maryland, and Massachusetts as states whose politicians and government bureaucracies could not build and manage a website process for Obama Care. Nevada had awarded the original contract to Xerox at a cost of $73 million. For that $73 million, Nevada was expected to enroll 118,000 people by March 31.

However, severe tech problems with the web based exchange forced state officials in January to slash the projection to 50,000 as the Nevada exchange spit out incorrect subsidy information for enrollees among other problems. As of May 10, just 35,000 state residents had officially enrolled in Nevada online for Obama Care, less than 30% of the original expectations.

Certainly a failure by any measurement or set of expectations.

3) But as we just said, Nevada is not the exception in the Oabma Care world, it is almost becoming the rule. Consider the widespread failures of Obama Care’s state exchanges, as compiled by a recent analysis done by the Heritage Foundation:
  • In the case of three states that have called it quits relative to their own state exchange for Obama Care, Oregon received more than $300 million in Federal taxpayer money, Massachusetts received $179 million, and Maryland received a little more than $171 million. 
  • That’s more than $655 million in Federal taxpayer-provided money for absolutely nothing in return. 
  • Additionally, although it already has admitted failure relative to its exchange site, Massachusetts wants another $120 million to try again.
  • But it gets worse. State managed Obama Care exchanges in Nevada, Hawaii, Vermont and Minnesota are all also failing to deliver what they were supposed to deliver, beginning last October. 
  • In total, Federal taxpayers have spent $834 million in just six states that collectively enrolled 270,000 people. That’s more than whopping $3,000 dollars per enrollee.
  • For those costs, we would have been better to just write a check to each of them for over $3,000 and have them apply it to any insurance coverage they could find on theri own.
  • As we discussed in previous posts, Oregon takes the prize for the worst. Despite spending $305 million dollars, not one person during the 2014 enrollment period was registered successfully online via Oregon’s Obama Care exchange.
  • Hawaii spent almost $25,000 for every enrollee who signed up during the Obama Care enrollment period ontheir state exchange website.
  • And in Colorado, the Obama Care exchange website has not come close to hitting is sign up objective, it’s managers have consistently fought against an audit attempting to track how the exchange used its millions of dollars, and in the ultimate insult, are now proposing the $13 million in user fees be assessed on the health insurance policies of state residents who do NOT get their insurance via Obama Care in order to subsidize those that do get their policies via Obama Care’s processes.
As a result of these many state Obama Care exchanges collapsing into a pile of trash and the disaster of a rollout of the Federal exchange, do we really think that allowing the political class, and their ineffective and inefficient government bureaucracies they operate across the country, are the people you want to entrust your health care to? 

If they cannot build and maintain simple web based programs after spending over three years and probably over a billion dollars to try and do so, maybe they are not the ones to manage the nation’s health care issues. Since they have not been able to fix our failing public schools, win the war on drugs, develop and deploy a strategic energy policy, secure our borders, etc., the probability of them being successful in this area is next to nil.

4) This item is a new one to me so I am not really sure how it works except for the fact it will increase the cost of health insurance for every person and every company, small or large, in the United States. It is called the Health Insurance Tax and a consulting group, Oliver Wyman, has completed an analysis which examines and estimates the effect of the new “HIT” tax on insurance market segments and public programs: 
  • Impact on individual market consumers: Increase premiums over a ten-year period for single coverage by an average $2,150, and for family coverage an average $5,080. 
  • Impact on small employers: Increase premiums over a ten-year period for single coverage by an average $2,760, and for family coverage an average $6,830. 
  • Impact on large employers: Increase premiums over a ten-year period for single coverage by an average $2,610, and for family coverage an average $7,130. 
  • Impact on Medicare Advantage beneficiaries: Increase costs $16 to $20 per member per month in 2014 and will increase to between $32 and $42 by 2023. The average expected increase in the cost of Medicare Advantage coverage over ten years is $3,590. 
  • Impact on Part D beneficiaries: Increase average premiums by $9 in 2014 and by $20 in 2023 for a total increase of $161 over ten years. 
  • Impact on Medicaid managed care beneficiaries: Increase the average costs of Medicaid coverage by about $1,530 per enrollee between 2014 and 2023. 
Thus, a family who gets their insurance via a large employers’ health insurance program could end up paying over $700 a year more under the Obama Care HIT tax. Small businesses, which annually create the vast majority of new jobs in the economy, could see its cost of providing health care insurance to its employees increase up to almost $700 a year also. All these tax hits have to have a severe damping effect on business hiring and the growth of the economy.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that over a ten year period, the HIT tax will take about $100 billion out of the economy and hand it over to the Federal government. This is $100 billion thast cannot be used efficiently by the economy to build economic growth and job opportunity. Given what we just discussed regarding the incompetence of the political class in buidling simple websites, it is doubtful that the Washington politicians will be able to use this $100 billion efficiently or effectively.

But again the bigger issue is the deception and lying of the President when he boldly stated that the average American family will see their annual health insurance costs go down around $2,500 a year. Tough to do when just this single Obama Care tax is likely to increase those same costs upwards of $700 a year. Pathetic leadership from a pathetic Washington.

That will do it for today but we probably need at least one more day to update everyone on the unfolding disaster that is Obama Care.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:

Term Limits Now:

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

May, 2014 The Unfolding Disaster That Is Obama Care Update, Part 1:

Unfortunately, its that time of month again where we need to review the latest fiascos and disasters coming out as a result of Obama Care. Over the past few years, but especially since last August, we have been reviewing what is turning out to be the worst piece of legislation ever to be enacted by Washington. It is a law that is increasing rather than decreasing health care costs across the country, restricting our freedom and liberties, and failing miserably to get more Americans health care insurance.

The biggest failure of all is that the writers and supporters of this legislation never understood the true root causes of our ever escalating health care costs. By never understanding the root causes, their legislative efforts had little chance of actually eliminating the root causes. Instead, we are stuck with a Rube Goldberg like health insurance contraption that has little chance of fulfilling the President’s solemn vow that the average American household would see an annual $2,500 reduction in their health insurance costs.

The dozens of disasters we have previously reviewed can be seen by looking at past month’s posts or searching for the phrase, “the unfolding disaster that is Obama Care” in the search box above. Of particular timeliness is the multiple monthly posts we have had to do since last August. We have proposed our simple, root cause based solution to our nation’s health care problem in previous posts and will not be reviewing them again in this series, that solution can be viewed in past posts. This week we will be blitzing through what is another sad list of failures from this legislation.

1) The Obama administration took a victory lap back in early April when they claimed that about 8 million Americans had signed up for Obama Care, claiming this proved that the law was a success. However, we have also covered the fact that reputable sources have shown that five to six million Americans LOST their current health care coverage as a result of Obama Care. Thus, the net gain due to Obama Care is not eight million but just around two to three million when you take out those Americans who lost insurance coverage.

But that is old news. The new news is the world renowned consulting group McKinsey did an analysis of Obama Care enrollees and found that only 25% of the enrollees had previously been uncovered for health care insurance. Thus, there were not eight million newly insured Americans under the program, only two million newly insured, 25% of eight million. 

Thus, billions and billions of dollars were spent only to get two million uninsured Americans insured, leaving about another 48 million uninsured. At this rate, it will take far more than two decades to get the primary objective of Obama Care fulfilled, hardly a success by any stretch of the imagination.

2) The LA Times recently ran an article that points out how the Obama administration is trying to manipulate the law to keep everything together as just about everything is coming apart. The Times article pointed out that an impending illegal Obama Care bailout is in the works for heath insurance companies across the country.

The Times found and reported on how a little noticed HHS regulation issued May 16 opened the door for the Department of Health and Human Services, and the American taxpayer, to spend billions of taxpayer dollars bailing out health insurance companies through Obama Care's "risk corridor" program. According to the text and intent of the law, the risk corridor programs were supposed to be revenue neutral for the Federal government and the American taxpayer. It was supposed to be funded by the insurance industry itself and the funds would be used to make up profit shortfalls of member companies relative to Obama Care.

But as the results of the Obama Care enrollees profile analyses became clearer, insurance industry lobbyists started doing their thing in Washington relative to the self imposed caps on the risk corridors' funds. Their lobbyist group in Washington, America's Health Insurance Plans, sent a letter to the Obama Care people in the government which demanded that, "risk corridors should be operated without the constraint of budget neutrality." 

In other words, the insurance lobby wanted a guarantee that if Obama Care's losers needed more money out of the risk corridor program than Obama Care's winners were paying in, that U.S. taxpayers would be forced to pay the difference. 

And that is what the HHS people did last week, according to the LA Times, putting the American taxpayer on the hook for another big industry bailout, not unlike the bailouts of General Motors, AIG, mortgage brokers, banks, etc. You cannot say this program was a success if billions of dollars are illegally paid out to some of the biggest companies in the country to cover their loses in a program they freely signed up for themselves.

3) The law was written so that if you are an Obama Care policy holder and your income falls below a certain level, the Federal government, via the American taxpayer, will pay you a subsidy to help pay for your Obama Care premiums. However, according to a recent Washington Post article, the Obama administration never built the necessary software that tie IRS records to the Obama Care subsidies data systems. 

This foul up exists even though the Obama administration had promised Republicans in Congress that it would be up and running in time so that the American taxpayer would not get screwed in paying too much out in subsidies. Thus, according to the Post, there is likely to be a lot of financial shock next year when Obama Care policy holders file their income tax. 

They will find out that as a result of the Obama Care income software having never been built and used, they received too large of a subsidy, requiring them to pay more in taxes next April. The Heritage Foundation recently discussed a study which estimated that up to 38% of Obama Care enrollees will see an incremental tax hit when they file their income tax returns.

How many Obama Care policy holders do we think will cancel their program next year when the find out that they are not entitled to as much financial help as the Obama Care effort promised them? That eight million claimed enrollees might take a mighty big step backwards next April.

4) We have previously reported on how hundreds and hundreds, possibly thousands by now, of companies and other types of organizations have had to cut back hiring, cut employee hours, and cut down the size of their staffs as a result of Obama Care, all of which is killing the chance for decent economic growth in this country.

And the downsizing pain is not over. A Des Moines, Iowa NBC affiliate recently reported that Mercy Medical Center, a hospital in Des Moines, will have to lay off 29 staff people, a cut that is being partly attributed Obama Care, according to Bob Ritz, president of Mercy Medical Center: “As the federal government and state payment systems continue to ratchet down on what they pay us and our costs go up, we have to look for opportunities to create cost efficiencies. And one way you do that is you reduce your management costs. So if we have a department that has a director and a manager and two supervisors for let’s say 75 staff, we may remove one of those positions to what we say are the layers of management.”

Just a another few dozen people who likely lost their careers and futures as a result of this dysfunctional law.

5) We will finish up today with a quote from my favorite politician, Nancy Pelosi. She is not my favorite because of what she does for America but what she does for blog writers everywhere, speaking up on topics where it becomes obvious she lives in different reality vs. most Americans. She is constantly spouting off numbers and results that are not real and not true with little understanding of what she is saying, at least in our world and reality.

Her latest out of this world observation goes as follows: “So what this legislation has done is it will save a trillion dollars over the lifetime of the bill, and it will — it will reduce costs for people. And even if they pay a little more in some cases, they’re getting much better care.”

Couple of problems, Ms. Pelosi:
  1. The Congressional Budget Office now puts the cost of Obama Care over the next ten years at comfortably above $2 TILLION in costs, not a TRILLION dollars in savings.
  2. It will not reduce costs for the majority of Americans. The professional group representing insurance actuaries have already shown that health care premium and deductible costs as a result of Obama Care will go up, and up substantially, in 45 states and decrease or stay the same in only five states
  3. They are not paying a “little more” in some states, they are paying a lot more.
  4. And finally, they are not getting better care. The Obama Care policies they are stuck with has a highly restricted set of doctors and hospitals allowed under the terms of Obama Care policies, so that they are not getting better care, especially when you recall that many of the best hospitals and clinics in the country, e.g. Sloan Kettering in New York, are NOT included in Obama Care policies’ coverage.
It just amazes me that one person so intimately involved in the nation’s political business can be so out of touch with the reality of Americans’ lives and the unintended consequences of her legislative efforts. I still wonder what the color of the sky is in her world.

That will do it for today but rest assured plenty more disasters will be put forth in the course of the next week or so.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:

Term Limits Now:

I Am A Global Warming Doubter and A Believer In Science Update, Part 5: More Global Warming Scientists Turn to the Doubter Side and How 1970 Doomsday Climate Forecasts Failed Miserably

This will be final post in the latest update to our continuing series, “I am a global warming doubter and a believer in science.” In this series we present solid scientific evidence, research, and findings that prove that there are serious counterpoints to the global warming mania and that the “science is not settled” on man made global warming and climate change, despite what Al Gore says.

The first post in this update series can be accessed at:

Let’s finish up with the latest news and research from those that doubt but still believe in science.

1) Mother Jones, a publication that leans left politically, would be expected to be “pro” man made global warming and climate change. In fact, in a recent article, the Mother Jones editors made fun of the state of Oklahoma because the state government officials there recently voted against new science education standards that give credibility and legitimacy to the global warming theories.

Specifically, Mother Jones said: "As much as any state in the U.S., Oklahoma is a victim of climate change. In 2011, notes the newly released U.S. National Climate Assessment, the state suffered from its hottest summer on record ... And the report states as plainly as you can that climate change was involved."

But are we dealing in theory or reality when they make such statements? In a recent article in the American Thinker by Sierra Rayne, this writer appears to deal with real data and realities than the theories espoused by Mother Jones (note: Ms. Rayne is a native Oklahoman):
  • First of all, keep in mind that “climate change” in the 1930s, before the current global warming rage, resulted in the Great Dust Bowl era with little rain and half of the state’s residents moving out of the state to find better lives. 
  • Rayne states: "The Sooner State has a statistically significant increasing -- not decreasing -- trend in annual precipitation since records begin in 1895. That would be the complete opposite of 'drying up.'" 
  • "There are no negative trends in annual precipitation for any of Oklahoma's nine climate sub-regions, either, over the past 120 years. None.”
  • "There are no declining trends in summertime precipitation for the state as a whole, nor in any of its climate sub-regions, since 1895. None.”
  • "You may also be interested to know that there are also no significant trends in Oklahoma's statewide average annual or summertime temperatures since 1895."
  • Rayne’s underlying data and research were collected over the years by the Federal government’s National Weather Service. These government tracking numbers show Oklahoma getting wetter, not drier, over time.
So who do you believe? Mother Jones who based their conclusions on the an organization that appears to need the global warming and climate change debate to continue to perpetuate their existence the Federal government’s own data as collected by Rayne? In a rare case, I choose to believe the cold hard government data rather then the shaky theoretical inferences of global warming advocates.

2) Dr. Lennart Bengtsson is the former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology. He probably is a pretty good scientist/ Apparently, Dr. Bengtsson is a prominent and leading climate modeler and research scientist…but one that has come around to the other side of the argument when it comes to giving an credence to the failed forecasts of global warming advocates over the years:

I think the climate community shall be more critical and spend more time to understand what they are doing instead of presenting endless and often superficial results and to do this with a critical mind. I do not believe that the IPCC machinery is what is best for science in the long term. We are still in a situation where our knowledge is insufficient and climate models are not good enough. What we need is more basic research freely organized and driven by leading scientists without time pressure to deliver and only deliver when they believe the result is good and solid enough. It is not for scientists to determine what society should do. In order for society to make sensible decisions in complex issues it is essential to have input from different areas and from different individuals. The whole concept behind IPCC is basically wrong.

Doubter words from a SCIENTIST who used to be a global warming advocate. Want to bet that Dr. Bengttson never gets invited to an Al Gore event any more?

3) I get a kick out of global warming advocates who lecture us on reducing our personal carbon footprint and then jet all over the world attending global warming conferences and reinforcing their own narrow views. This type of hypocrisy was recently pointed out by a short article on the Heritage Foundation website. Gina McCarthy is the head of the EPA and is on public record in her belief that we all need to drastically reduce our carbon footprint.

Well, maybe not all of us. Seems that Ms. McCarthy maintains two homes, one in Boston and one in the DC area. According to the article, she usually flies home to Boston every weekend. Thus, she is probably spewing out many, many times more of carbon than the typical American by maintaining two homes and burning up a lot of airplane fuel every weekend. If she really walked the talk, she would move to her job in DC and sell the Boston area house, which would also reduce her airline carbon spewing. Hypocrisy of the advocates.

4) The following points fall into a general train of thought, paraphrased from the Hillary Clinton Benghazi scandal, “what difference does it make:”
  • According to research done by the Science And Public Policy Institute (, what difference does it make if the U.S. goes it alone in the global warming battle since, according to their research, if U.S. carbon emissions went to zero overnight, i.e. no driving, no flying, no operating factories or homes unless they ran on only nuclear power, the Earth’s temperatures would warm by only 0.08 degrees Celsius by 2050. Seems like very little pay back for the disruption of every Americans’ life and the collapsing of our economy if the rest of the world does not follow our lead.
  • According to former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, what difference does it make if the U.S. goes it alone since U.S. efforts by themselves would not meaningfully impact global CO2 levels ( 
  • According to Robert Samuelson, writing in the Washington Post, what difference does it make since there is no solution to climate change or global warming since 1) we will need a 40% reduction in in overall carbon emissions to meet the global warming advocates’ expectations and 2) carbon intensive economies like China and India are more focused on expanding their economies and reducing their countries’ poverty levels than melting ice caps, which means that carbon spewing coal uses will actually increase by 50% in the coming decades regardless of what the U.S. does. He concludes that “whatever the U.S., does will make little difference.”
All of which leaves only two options:
  1. President Obama needs to rally the world around his global warming and climate change visions since the whole world needs to get into the act, not just the U.S. For every coal burning plant that Obama shuts down in this country, dozens if not hundreds of new ones will spring up in China, India and elsewhere. Given how weak his foreign policy talents have been and how weak the rest of the world now judges him, his ability to pull this option off is next to impossible.
  2. The second option, as Mr. Samuelson points out is based on, of all things, science: “The only real hope is to find a new technology that produces energy as cheaply as fossil fuels but with no carbon emissions.” 
This is the way to use science for the good and the benefit of mankind rather than to abuse it to limit and restrict mankind. That is why I am a global warming doubter and a believer in science: science has given us such wonderful technology to increase our potential and our freedom. 

We should be focused on that strategic, scientific approach rather than the governmental policy and control approach preached and shouted by the Al Gores of the world, despite the overwhelming evidence that manmade global warming and climate change are becoming myths to be used for societal control than science used for societal improvements.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:

Term Limits Now:

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

I Am A Global Warming Doubter and A Believer In Science Update, Part 4: More Realities Disputing Global Warming, A Political Oops! In Califronia, and a Solution To The Whole Mess

This is our fourth post this month to a regular series themed “I am a global warming doubter and a believer in science.” This theme and premise came about when it became obvious that global warming advocates like Al Gore were 1) ignoring much of the science that was contrary to his global warming beliefs, and 2) his rants, slander, and slurs against those of us that do believe in science but have our doubts about global warming were starting to tick us off. 

Contrary to what Mr. Gore might claim, the science as it relates to global warming, or its rebranded marketing campaign, “climate change,” is not settled. Over the past few years we have exposed and discussed valid and proven scientific research efforts that cast doubt or are in direct contrary positions to what Gore claims to be “settled.” He cannot acknowledge that his position could be scientifically wrong, an easy thing to do when you ignore what you do not want to see.

All of our past posts on scientific rebuttals of global warming can be accessed by typing in “I am a global warming doubter and a believer in science” in the search box above. The first post in this update series can be accessed at:

1) We start today with another list of global warming fallacies. In two previous posts we looked at how wrong the environmentalists and climatologists were in their 1970 Earth Day predictions. We also listed the realities of what the weather and climate have been for the past few decades, realities that were in stark contrast to the wrongful predictions of people like Al Gore.

Today’s list of global warming fails comes from a recent web post on the Heritage Foundation website. The article is written by Mr. Stephen Moore and according to Heritage, the piece originally appeared in the Orange County Register. The article was entitled, “Obama Channels Jimmy Carter on Climate Change” and started with a review of how wrong President Jimmy Carter was back in the late 1970s when he tried to predict environmental change: 

It was 34 years ago that Carter issued his own primal scream, called “The Global 2000 Report,” about the coming mass starvation from food shortages, the planet running out of oil and drinking water, overpopulation and other horrors. It was all bunk and contradicted by the subsequent real-world events, but now Obama is adopting the role of fearmonger in chief.

Mr. Moore points out that President Obama, in his fear mongering, fails to mention that the famous, or infamous, climate change forecast models have all been woefully inaccurate in their projections of climate and warming. How wrong? Consider the following FACTS, not forecast model predictions, as researched and presented in the article:
  • The global warming fiasco we were supposed to have experienced already has never occurred despite China, India, and Mexico and many other nations having created record amounts of carbon and other greenhouse gases which ended up in the atmosphere. 
  • The last 10 years have been cooler on Earth than the 1930s, long before so much carbon was thrown off into the air around the world.
  • The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) says, “There has been little trend in the frequency of the stronger tornadoes over the past 55 years.”
  • NOAA’s U.S. Climate Extremes Index of unusually hot or cold temperatures finds that over the last 10 years, five years have been below the historical mean and five above the mean.
  • While higher than average portions of the country were subjected to extreme drought/moisture in the past few years, the 1930s, 40s and 50s were more extreme in this regard. In fact, over the last 10 years, four years have been below the average and six above the average.
  • Government statistics and academic research show that hurricane activity is actually at historic lows. According to the National Hurricane Center, in 2013, “There were no major hurricanes in the North Atlantic Basin for the first time since 1994. And the number of hurricanes this year was the lowest since 1982.”
  • And there is still more good news: The eastern Pacific Ocean had only one major hurricane in 2013. Only 1968 – which had no major hurricanes in either the Atlantic Basin or eastern Pacific – was more calm in the regard.
  • According to Ryan Maue at Weather Bell Analytics, “We are currently in the longest period since the Civil War Era without a major hurricane strike in the U.S. (i.e., category 3, 4 or 5). The last major hurricane to strike the U.S. was Hurricane Wilma during late October of that record-breaking year of 2005.”
  • Maue also reports that “the global frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low.”
  • Roger Pielke Jr., past chairman of the American Meteorological Society Committee on Weather Forecasting and Analysis, reports that “floods have not increased in the U.S. in frequency or intensity since at least 1950. Flood losses as a percentage of U.S. GDP have dropped by about 75 percent since 1940.“
  • Pielke concludes, “There is no evidence that disasters are getting worse because of climate change. … It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate time scales either in the United States or globally.”
  • One of the best measures of extreme weather events is losses to insurance companies, which protect against catastrophic losses. 
  • Worldwide, weather-related insurance losses have actually decreased by about 25% since 1960.
  • More than 100 years ago, some statisticians looked at the rising level of the Nile River and extrapolated that the entire Middle East would be underwater by now. Has not happened yet.
A lot has not happened that was supposed to happen as predicted and shouted ten to twenty years ago. That is why global warming had to be rebranded as climate change, the old marketing scheme of fear and fake or skewed science was not working with reality. 

The article concludes with this insightful observation that is sure to send Al Gore over the edge: 

Liberals wonder why the nation is filled with so many global warming skeptics. It is because of shoddy research like this that seems designed to scare the American people into surrendering more of their freedoms and reducing their standard of living. Here’s some good news: we don’t have to.

2) Lying by politicians has always been a staple in their marketing arsenal but recent politicians have taken the art and deception of lying to all new heights. President Obama himself landed three lies in the Washington Post’s “Top Ten Lies of 2013,” including the top lie of all, if you like your health insurance policy you can keep it under Obama Care. Thus, whenever a politician speaks we should always be on guard with a liar filter in place.

Which is what was needed recently when Governor Jerry Brown of California spoke in the context of the state’s budgeting process. According to the Governor, he claimed that some scientists are claiming that in the next hundred years, the seas could rise up to four feet higher which would put the main Los Angeles and San Francisco airports under sea water:

If that happens, the Los Angeles airport’s going to be underwater. So is the San Francisco airport. You’re going to have to move all that … That’s billions, if not tens of billions. Luckily, we can take a few years.

Wow, doomsday, dire type stuff. We need to get moving, the governor has to be telling the truth, he’s the governor for Pete’s sake. Let’s start moving those runways today.

Uh, not so fast. Within 24 hours, an official retraction was issued for the LA airport. Seems the governor did not bother to check and find out that the LA airport is located more than one hundred feet above sea level so even if a four foot increase in the seas does occur in a hundred years, it would still be at least 96 feet below the LA Airport.

Which raises an interesting point. Was the governor just being ignorant of facts and reality when he spoke out as an alarmist on the LA Airport and global warming or was he intentionally being deceptive, hoping that no one was smart enough to fact check his claims? Whatever the reality, this is why we must not knee jerk to what politicians like Brown, Gore, Obama, and Carter say, they have been wrong so many times in the past, either intentionally or ignorantly, what they say always has to be checked against science and reality.

3) One of the heart wrenching, and incorrect assertions by global warming advocates has long been the vision of the polar bear species going extinct as it loses its natural habitat at the North Pole which, according to many global warming forecasts, should have melted away by now. Nice marketing but poor forecasting since we have cited any number of sources in previous posts which show that the ice caps at both poles are increasing, not decreasing, leaving the bears safe at least for the foreseeable future.

However, it appears that the bear population is actually in danger, not from global warming but from too much ice at the pole. Currnelty, the ice cap up north is about 16 feet thick and that is threatening the survival of polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea region along Alaska’s Arctic coast, according to Dr. Susan J. Crockford, an evolutionary biologist in British Columbia who has studied polar bears for most of her 35-year career. 

Why? There is a danger that the thick ice could prevent ringed seals, a staple in polar bears diets, from creating breathing holes in the ice that they need to survive. No seals, no food for the bears: “Prompted by reports of the heaviest sea ice conditions on the East Coast ‘in decades’ and news that ice on the Great Lakes is, for mid-April, the worst it’s been since records began, I took a close look at the ice thickness charts for the Arctic,” Crockford noted in her Polar Bear Science blog on April 18th. “Sea ice charts aren’t a guarantee that this heavy spring ice phenomenon is developing in the Beaufort, but they could be a warning…[that doesn’t] bode well" for the Beaufort bears.

Who knew? The bears could well suffer because of too much ice, not the melting of ice that global warming advocates had forecasted.

Look, I do not know what is going on relative to the climate now and in the future but neither does Al Gore. In fact, I think that over several posts we have presented a very credible case that both global warming and climate change hysteria is just that, hysteria, based on the many scientific and reality facts and research we have pointed out.

Previously, we have proposed a common sense solution to the whole mess which was independent of who is right and who is wrong about man made global warming:

But as usual when it comes to politics and people who seek control over others, a common sense approach never has a good chance.

But for those of you that still think man made global warming is a reality, I ask you this: what are you going to do about it? Obama thinks he is doing great by closing down a few U.S. coal burning plants. But the following and latest facts from the U.S. Energy Information Administration easily shows how inane that action would be:
  • From 2009 to 2040, the U.S. is expect to throw off a constant amount of carbon dioxide emissions every year, about 5.4 to 5.6 billion metric tons.
  • However, India is expected to double its carbon dioxide emissions over the same time frame, going from 1.6 billions of metric tons to 3.3 by 2040. 
  • For comparison, the U.S. would have to reduce its emissions by a whopping 30% just to offset the growth in India’s emissions.
  • Even worse, China is expected to also more than double its carbon emissions in the same time frame, going from 7.3 billion metric tons in 2009 to 14.9 billion metric tons by 2040.
  • Thus, even if the U.S. reduced its carbon footprint to zero, the world would still see an annual net gain in global carbon emissions from just India and China of 3.7 billion metric tons by 2040. 
Thus, there are really only two solutions if you think that man made global warming and climate change is a reality and you really want to make a difference. First option: Obama would have to convince the world, specifically China and India, to drastically reduce their carbon footprint. and probably sacrifice economic growth in the process, to get emissions reduced, not increased. The odds of that happening are nil for any number of economic, political and social reasons, plus the fact that Obamas’ status as a world leader is not very strong at all.

Second option: use science and technology to find a way to reduce emissions from coal and other carbon spewing materials. Technology and science have done wonderful things to make life better for humans and the planet, why not focus on science to do the same in this area? 

That is why I am still a believer in science, there is no other solution if man made global warming and climate change are a reality. It’s a shame that people like Al Gore do not see it the same way, i.e. science as an answer rather than a weapon and tool of fear.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:

Term Limits Now:

Monday, May 26, 2014

I Am A Global Warming Doubter and A Believer In Science Update, Part 3: The Temps Stopped Rising, The Ice Caps Are Growing and The Warming Forecasts Stink

This is our third in this series where we examine the belief that someone can be a global warming doubter and also a believer in science. The first post in this month’s series can be accessed at:

At that link you can click on previous posts from past years on this topic of being a global warming doubter.

This series, which stretches back over the past few years, was really driven by the rantings of Al Gore who continually insults believers in science who do not line up behind his global warming crusade. Rather than engaging doubters in a rational conversation that looks at all scientific work on climate, he would rather only cherry pick the research that proves his points and supports his wealthy lifestyle than do the right thing for the right reasons.

Today we will focus on a fabulous article that was recently published on the Independent Journal Review’s website. It was written by Kyle Becker and it is important to our discussion since it is a great summary of various news articles and how noted scientists and researchers have publicly come out against the rantings of Al Gore, based on their expertise, experiences and research.

Before reading his research, consider the thoughtful and sage advice he gives anyone who cares about the environment and science: 

Whether or not one wants to promote the perfectly fine goal of fostering a better environment and leaving a cleaner planet for one’s children, that should not be carried out on the basis of disinformation, hysteria, or hidden political agendas.

1. Humans are NOT to Blame for Global Warming, Says Greenpeace Co-founder… (Daily Mail)

“There is no scientific proof of man-made global warming and a hotter earth would be ‘beneficial for humans and the majority of other species’, according to a founding member of environmental campaign group Greenpeace. The assertion was made by Canadian ecologist Patrick Moore, a member of Greenpeace from 1971 to 1986, to U.S senators on Tuesday.”

2. James Hansen Admits Global Temperature Standstill Is Real (The GWPF)

“According to Hansen et al. the Nasa Giss database has 2012 as the ninth warmest year on record, although statistically indistinguishable from the last 12 years, at least. Noaa says it’s the tenth warmest year. The difference is irrelevant.”

3. ‘Gaia’ Scientist James Lovelock: I Was ‘Alarmist’ About Climate Change (NBC)

“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.

4. Climategate U-turn as Scientist at Centre of Row Admits: There Has Been No Global Warming Since 1995 (Daily Mail)

“Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.”

5. Climate Expert von Storch: Why Is Global Warming Stagnating? (Der Spiegel)

“So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We’re facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened.”

6. Warming Plateau? Climatologists Face Inconvenient Truth (Der Spiegel)

“Data shows global temperatures aren’t rising the way climate scientists have predicted. Now the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change faces a problem: publicize these findings and encourage skeptics — or hush up the figures.”

7. German Public Television Stuns Its Readers, Concedes Medieval Warm Period May Have Been 0.5°C Warmer Than Today! (Wetterthema via No Tricks Zone)

“The ARD piece even goes on to say that the Medieval Warm Period from the years 800 to 1300 was similarly as warm as the ‘last climate normal period of 1961 to 1990, whose mean temperature is used as the reference value.’ The ARD writes further: Using alternative reconstructions that period was even about 0.5°C warmer than today.”

8. Why Has Global Warming Stalled? (BBC)

“There are plenty of possible explanations but none of them adds up to a definitive smoking gun.”

9. Global Warming Pause ‘Central’ to IPCC Climate Report (BBC)

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is meeting in Sweden to thresh out a critical report on global warming. Scientists will underline, with greater certainty than ever, the role of human activities in rising temperatures. But many governments are demanding a clearer explanation of the slowdown in temperature increases since 1998. One participant told BBC News that this pause will be a ‘central piece’ of the summary.”

10. There Has Been No Global Warming Since 1998 (Telegraph)

“The headline of this post really shouldn’t be controversial. It chimes perfectly with what Kevin ‘null hypothesis’ Trenberth wrote in that notorious 2009 Climategate email to Michael Mann: The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

11. Senator Barbara Boxer’s Own Experts Contradict Obama On Global Warming (Forbes)

“I don’t have much patience for people who deny climate change,” Obama added. However, climate scientists including United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lead author Hans von Storch report temperatures have remained essentially flat for the past 10 years, and indeed for the past 15 years.”

12. ‘Global Warming’ is Rubbish says Top Professor (Yorkshire Evening Post)

“He doesn’t believe in ‘global warming’ and says ‘climate change’ is a meaningless term used as a sop by big business to create money. Neil Hudson met Prof Les Woodcock.”

13. Global Warming ‘Hiatus’ Puts Climate Change Scientists on the Spot (LA Times)

“Since just before the start of the 21st century, the Earth’s average global surface temperature has failed to rise despite soaring levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases and years of dire warnings from environmental advocates.”

14. Man-made Global Warming: Even the IPCC Admits the Jig is Up (Telegraph)

“Breaking news from the US – h/t Watts Up With That? – where a leaked draft of the IPCC’s latest report AR5 admits what some of us have suspected for a very long time: that the case for man-made global warming is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in ‘climate change’ than the scientific ‘consensus’ has previously been prepared to concede.”

15. RSS Global Temperature Data: No Global Warming at All for 202 Months (Christopher Monckton at WUWT)

“The least-squares linear-regression trend on the data from the RSS satellites since November 1996 shows there has been no global warming at all for 202 months (16 years 10 months). In a few more months, unless an el NiƱo comes along in January, its favorite month, RSS may be the first dataset to show 17 full years with a zero global warming trend.”

16. ‘Nothing Off-limits’ in Climate Debate (The Australian)

“THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last ’30 to 40 years at least’ to break the long-term global warming trend.”

17. 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong (Dr. Roy Spencer)

“I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH)…”

18. 2013 Atlantic Hurricane Season Ends – No Major Hurricanes For First Time Since 1994 (MyFoxHurricaneBlog)

“The accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) measures the total energy output of all tropical systems during the hurricane season. In 2013 the ACE is just 33% of the 1981 – 2012 average. 2013 is the 6th least active Atlantic season (measured by ACE) since 1950. 2013 has the fewest hurricanes since 1982 and is the first time since 1994 there are no major hurricanes.”

19. 2013 is a Record Low Year for U.S. Tornadoes (WUWT)

“When looking historically at where we are, we find that 2013 has slipped below the historical minimum, setting a new record for the ~60 years in the tornado database.”

20. Accumulated Cyclone Energy (Weather Underground)

“There is no evidence of a systematic increasing or decreasing trend in ACE for the years 1970-2012.”

21. 2013 Will Finish One Of The Ten Coldest Years In US History, With The Largest Drop In Temperature (Real Science)

“Before NASA and NOAA start tampering with the data, 2013 is one of the ten coldest years in the US since 1895, and has had the largest year over year decline on record. NOAA of course won’t talk about this, and will massively tamper with the data before releasing it. The graph (above) is the monthly average of all daily high and low temperatures at all NOAA USHCN stations.”

22. And Now It’s Global Cooling! Return of Arctic Ice Cap as it Grows by 29% in a Year (Daily Mail)

“A chilly Arctic summer has left 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 29 per cent. The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.”

23. Deaths From Hurricanes, Floods, Droughts, and Other Weather Events Are Down 98 Percent Since 1920s (Reason Foundation)

“Extreme weather events were responsible for just .07% of the world’s deaths between 2000 and 2010. The extreme weather categories studied in the Reason Foundation report include droughts, floods, wildfires, storms (hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes, typhoons, etc.) and extreme temperatures, both hot and cold.”

Realities and facts often get in the way of politicians’ plans. Ice caps growing, temperatures stabilizing, warming forecasts being horribly inaccurate, no out of control weather, no rising seas, just about every global warming prediction has NOT come true.

That does not mean we should not be worried. No one knows what the future holds, it is just that people like Al Gore refuse to admit they do not know the future. We have proposed a common sense solution to the whole global warming problem many times in this blog, a solution that covers both sides of the argument. But common sense has never been an attribute of people like Al Gore, Barack Obama, other American politicians or the United Nations bureaucracy. Their agenda is fear and control, the antithesis of common sense.

However, regardless of what they claim, regardless of the slurs they cast, I and many others will continue to be global warming doubters and staunch defenders of science and the scientific method. More posts on this topic will follow this week to continually dispel the myths of global warming or climate change or whatever the latest crisis has been rebranded to.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:

Term Limits Now:

Sunday, May 25, 2014

I Am A Global Warming Doubter And A Believer In Science Update, Part 2: The Ice Age That Never Happened and Global Warming Scientists That Got Off The Band Wagon

Yesterday kicked off our latest updates and discussions under the theme “I am a global warming doubter AND a believer in science.” They were inspired by the rantings and ravings of people like Al Gore who accused everyone who did not blindly except his global warming position of being a science heathen and a non believer in science. He and others have gone so far as accusing those of us who doubt the global warming theory of being racists, homophobes, and just plain ignorant.

However, we have proven over the past discussions that it is quite possible to be a global warming doubter and a true believer in science. In fact, if one reviews our discussions this week and in the past in this blog on the topic, there is probably now more scientific evidence and reality supporting the doubter angle than the Al Gore angle. Contrary to what Mr. Gore and his advocate would claim, the science on global warming is not settled.

The discussion continues today:

1) The Freedomworks website does wonderful work relative to freedom and liberty and the political class’s continual battle to reduce both in Americans’ lives. One theory on global warming is that it may actually be a cover for more power grabbing by politicians in their effort to control our lives.

Thus, it is not surprising that Freedomworks would be interested in exposing any fallacies relative to global warming. They recently ran a great piece by writer Jon Gabriel who compiled some of the dire environmental predictions that led up to the first Earth Day in 1970. Take a step back in time and see what the climate “experts” in 1970 were predicting, based on what Al Gore would call “settled science:”

1. "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." - Harvard biologist George Wald

2. "We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation." - Washington University biologist Barry Commoner

3. "Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction." - New York Times editorial

4. "Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." - Stanford University biologist Paul Ehrlich

5. "Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born... [By 1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s." - Paul Ehrlich

6. "It is already too late to avoid mass starvation," - Denis Hayes, Chief organizer for Earth Day

7. "Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions.... By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine." - North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter

8. "In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution... by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." - Life Magazine

9. "At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it's only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable." - Ecologist Kenneth Watt

10. "Air certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone." - Paul Ehrlich

11. "By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate... that there won't be any more crude oil. You'll drive up to the pump and say, 'Fill 'er up, buddy,' and he'll say, 'I am very sorry, there isn't any.'" - Ecologist Kenneth Watt

12. "[One] theory assumes that the earth's cloud cover will continue to thicken as more dust, fumes, and water vapor are belched into the atmosphere by industrial smokestacks and jet planes. Screened from the sun's heat, the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born." - Newsweek magazine

13. "The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age." - Kenneth Watt

Well, what happened since 1970? We did NOT see mass starvation, we did NOT the dawn of a new Ice Age, we did NOT run out of oil, we did NOT see the end of human civilization. 

Yes, we did take rational steps to protect the environment. We used science and technology to improve air quality and fuel efficiency and farming. But fortunately, we did not react willy-nilly to bold predictions by noted media outlets and scientists to rush into stupid solutions to non-problems. 

We should not do the same thing now relative to global warming and climate change. The time is now for a rational discussion based on ALL science, not the hysteria of global warming advocates who are not better than the incorrect Earth Day predictors from over 40 years ago.

2) While Al Gore types claim that global warming advocates have all of the world’s scientists on their side, a NewsMax article by Matthew Vadum from April 22, 2014 actually discusses the research of some scientists who claim that the gradual warming of the planet over the past 100 or so years has actually been more beneficial than detrimental to mankind.

His basis for this kindly view of global warming comes from the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). Their analysis is basically the exact opposite of the recently released United Nations report on global warming. That report points to imminent danger from global warming and climate change and which selfishly wants the U.N. to gain more reasonability in managing the world’s affairs. However, "Contrary to popular belief, climate change thus far has had positive effects, and the net benefits of warming are likely to be positive for the foreseeable future," according to the report by NCPA senior fellow H. Sterling Burnett.

The gist of the NCPA analysis is that the small increase in the earth’s temperature over the past 100 years has helped increase farming production and helped reduce heating costs, resulting in increasing the world’s economic output by 1.4%. Given how close to poverty much of the world lives, this increase in economic growth is critical to the well being and improved living conditions of billions of people.

Conversely, dropping worldwide temperatures, according to the NCPA, historically reduces farming output and diverts wealth and resources to cooling, reducing economic growth: "Cooling kills, and that is what is to fear. Warming periods throughout history — which the [global warming] alarmists airbrushed out of history — have always been called 'climate optima,' for very good reasons," according to Christopher C. Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the author of two best-selling books on the climate debate. 

While the article acknowledges that levels of carbon dioxide, a principal greenhouse gas, have risen to 380 parts per million, up from 280 parts per million 150 years ago, quoted experts make the case that higher levels of carbon dioxide have made farmers more productive. Increased carbon dioxide levels may help to fertilize plants and also allow plants to use water more efficiently. With the slightly increased temperatures, there is a lower rate of plant killing frosts and longer growing seasons.

The article goes into great detail on how farming output has been increasing as a result of the small amount of global warming in Africa and elsewhere. Those additional details can be accessed at the original article itself: 

For all I know the NCPA can be a front organization for the oil industry. However, at least one news source thought they and their expert referrals were credible scientists and thus, shouldn’t their opinions, research, and findings also be included in the discussion on global warming and climate change? Failure to include such opinions and views could make us look as stupid to future generations as the 1970 Earth Day forecasters look to us today.

3) Consider an April 14, 2014 article written by B. Christopher Lee for the Western Journalism website. Mr. Lee writes about a former global warming advocate and scientist who left Al Gore’s flock to join the doubter side of the argument. James Lovelock is a geophysicist who has spent most of his career on the side of man-made activities are causing global warming.

In a recent BBC interview, he maintained that the United Nations ripped many of its recent climate change allegations right out of a book he wrote nearly ten years ago: “The last [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report is very similar to the statements I made in my book, [“The Revenge of Gaia"]. It’s almost as if they’ve copied it.”

According to the article, Lovelock now disagrees with his own research and no longer subscribes to the Al Gore theories of climate change and global warming: “I’m not funded by some government department or commercial body or anything like that, If I make a mistake, then I can go public with it – and you have to, because it is only by making mistakes that you can move ahead.”

He maintains other scientists are also in agreement with him but risk losing their government and other grants which prevent them from speaking up and telling the world what they and their research really found out. Other quotes from the scientist in the article include:
  • “They all talk, they pass laws, they do things, as if they knew what was happening. I don’t think anybody really knows what’s happening. They just guess.”
  • “Fudging the data in any way [what numerous global warming scientists have been accused of doing] whatsoever is quite literally a sin against the holy ghost of science.”
  • “Science is going down the drain terribly fast. It keeps dividing itself up into expertizes and these expertizes probably don’t know much about the others.”
He went on to estimate that ‘about 80 percent of measurements reported regarding the atmospheric damage “were either faked, or incompletely done.”’

The article also points out another courageous scientist, Dr. Richard Tol, who was a lead author on the latest U.N. climate change report. is also having his own doubts on the effects of mankind on the climate. So much so that Tol has since had his name removed from the U.N.‘s IPCC report, concluding the “idea that climate change poses an existential threat to humankind is laughable.”

More proof that the science is not settled. That will do it for today but more doubter information and research tomorrow.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:

Term Limits Now: