However, I resent being told, or yelled at, by people like Al Gore that I must be a science hating heathen because I do not blindly except his premise that global warming is strictly being caused by mankind and that the science is settled. In his closed mind, I must be an idiot. as are all of the other doubters in the world.
If one reviews our past postings on this subject, it is quite obvious to all but the most closed mind Al Gore supporters that the science is not settled. We have pointed out dozens of studies, research projects, realities, and other proof that the global warming science of Al Gore is not settled. Our “doubter” position has recently been fortified since the global warming mania has been “redefined,” much like a cereal rebranding marketing program, to now be called “climate change.”
Much like falling cereal sales, if you cannot fix the problem, try a redefinition of the problem. The main driver of this rebranding or redefinition is the simple fact that for the past 17 years or so global warming has stopped, contrary to Al Gore and all of the forecast models that global warming advocates tried to scare us with over the years. Their models and their theories have failed, just like the failing cereal, and rather than pull the plug on the theory they are now trying to reposition their egos and their arguments.
You can access our many posts on the “I am a global warming doubter but a believer in science” by entering that phrase in the search box above. Or, you can start with some of these posts directly:
If you are still convinced that the science on global warming is settled, even after reading such facts as the premier physics facility in the world, the CERN Institute, proving that manmade global warming was a myth, maybe the following current rebuttals to Al Gore can change your mind:
1) The Obama administration recently released a large report on climate change or global warming or whatever, still beating the same drum that we are facing a climatic disaster and the Washington political class needs to take action to avert this disaster. However, the Heritage Foundation recently took a look at the administration claims, and using valid and current scientific data and realities, pretty much debunked the whole report and its premise:
Obama Administration Report Quote: “Precipitation patterns are changing”
Heritage Foundation Reality Rebuttal: Precipitation patterns were never constant. Creating a crisis from the normal allows climate catastrophists to point to every abnormal bit of wet or dry as being “consistent with models” that predict one horrible outcome or another.
Obama Administration Report Quote: “sea level is rising”
Heritage Foundation Reality Rebuttal: Yes sea level is rising, which it has done since the end of the last ice age. But the frequent claims and predictions of accelerating sea-level rise are not borne out in the data. In fact sea-level rise has slowed recently. One main-stream climatologist says this variation “makes the 21st century of sea level rise projections seem like unjustified arm waving.”
Obama Administration Report Quote: “the frequency and intensity of some extreme weather events are increasing”
Heritage Foundation Reality Rebuttal: The latest report on the science from The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and analysis provided by the administration’s own National Climatic Data Center conclude that there isn’t a case for extreme weather increases – no significant trends for floods, droughts, hurricanes or tornadoes.
Obama Administration report Quote: “In Arctic Alaska, the summer sea ice that once protected the coasts has receded”
Heritage Foundation Reality Rebuttal: Global warming is supposedly global. Global sea ice (Arctic and Antarctic) is above average and, for this time of year, it is at its highest level in 30 years, which is the third-highest on record.
Obama Administration Report Quote: “It is notable that as these data records have grown longer and climate models have become more comprehensive, earlier predictions have largely been confirmed.”
Heritage Foundation Reality Rebuttal: The past 15 years have seen the climate model predictions stray farther and farther from actual temperatures (here and here). Last year, prominent climatologist, Hans von Storch, said, “If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models.” Maybe Professor von Storch needs four more years to be sure the models are wrong, but there are no grounds on which the models can be declared “confirmed.” Instead, the predictions are getting worse and worse.
The last claim by the administration is really the most bold faced deception. As we have shown any number of times in previous blog posts on this subject, many, many credible sources have shown that the major global warming models have severely overestimated the impacts of man on the environment and global warming.
This is easily fact checked to prove that the last point above from the report is pure fallacy. Makes one wonder what other quotes in the report are also fallacies.
2) Although this global warming doubter story is a couple of years old, I just came across it and find nothing wrong with its content and assertions, given the scientists that support it. This story appeared in the Wall Street Journal about two years ago and was written or signed of on by sixteen scientists.
Their view is the same as ours: there has been no further global warming for many, many years, the global warning models have all been severely deficient in prediction accuracy, and the science is not settled, not close to be settled. If anything, the science is close to be settled for the exact opposite of global warming.
The entire article and associated details can be read at:
The main conclusion from these scientists can be summed up from one of their paragraphs within the article:
Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.
“There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action…” Sounds like a lot is still unsettled according to these scientists.
The writers and scientific signers of this article work at or teach at the Institute for the Study of the Earth, the University of Paris, the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University, the American Physical Society, the National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences, Princeton University, University of Cambridge, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, MIT, Virginia Technical University, the New York Academy of Sciences, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, the Royal Dutch Meteorological Service, and the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
Al Gore fails to mention these types of scientists and global warming doubters, i.e. the science is NOT settled.
3) One of the proposals to combat global warming that was cooked up by the political class and its business cronies was to develop biofuels for use as an energy source, particularly with our cars. The faulty thought process was that if we could displace at least part of the gasoline with biofuels in our gas tanks, less carbon would be released into the atmosphere and thus, less global warming.
It was more a political decision than a valid scientific reason and strategy according to a recent United Nations report where they found some severe “unintended consequences” of biofuels (why do we always seem to find out about “unintended consequences” AFTER the political class gets us way down the road to failure?)”
The new United Nation’s report and analysis comes from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"
- The researchers found that that while biofuels do indeed release smaller amounts of greenhouse gases than gasoline or diesel, "for some biofuels indirect emissions — including from land use change — can lead to GREATER (my emphasis) total emissions than when using petroleum products."
- Additionally, the negative consequences of including corn ethanol related biofuels in the fuel supply are enormous in other areas of life including serious damage to the world’s food supply.
- For example, in 2000, more than 90% of the corn grown in the United States went to feed people and livestock, including many people in undeveloped countries, and less than 5% was used to produce ethanol.
- By 2013, according to mandates from the Federal government and Washington politicians, 40% percent of the U.S. corn crop went to produce ethanol, 45% fed livestock, and just 15% was used for foods and beverages, according to a Forbes magazine investigation.
- This translates into the U.S. annually using nearly 5 billion bushels of corn to produce more than 13 billion gallons of corn based ethanol biofuel.
- By taking 5 billion bushels of corn out of the food chain, corn harvesting would lose the ability to feed 500 million people a year compared to what corn crops were doing in 2000.
- 500 million people is equivalent to the entire population of the Western Hemisphere outside the United States, according to Forbes writer James Conca.
- By 2007, the diverting of the corn crop to biofuel uses caused the global price of corn to double, leading to increases in the price of milk, cheese, eggs, meat, cereals, and corn-based sweeteners, and world grain reserves dwindled to their lowest level in over 30 years.
- Increased corn prices also impact a wide array of other products, including toothpaste, cosmetics, shampoo, and adhesives.
- "Additional unintended effects from the increase in ethanol production include the dramatic rise in land rents," as well as an increase in the use of natural gas and fertilizer chemicals, over use of water aquifers, and clear-cutting of forests to plant corn crops, Forbes reported.
- Other news reports, including Bloomberg, assert that vehicles' fuel systems are being damaged by the use of ethanol.
- The International Institute for Sustainable Development has estimated that the benefits of carbon displacement by replacing petroleum fuels with biofuels like ethanol are "basically zero."
“Basically zero.” After spending billions and billions of taxpayer dollars to support biofuel usage via subsidies, after causing unnecessary price increases in food and other consumer products, and after causing severe environmental damage from driving up corn production, we end up with “basically zero” net positive impacts on carbon emissions, according to the most recent U.N. analyses and report.
But we are used to getting “basically zero” from the Washington political class in all aspects of our lives, from failing public schools, a lost war on drugs, escalating health care costs, etc. so getting nothing from this one large global warming initiative should not be a surprise. Thus, even if you still buy into the Al Gore global warming hype, what makes anyone think that the current members of the Washington political class can resolve this potential scenario, given their track record in biofuels and every other issue they confront? They are not the solution, their typical “unintended consequences” often make the situation worse.
More “global doubter but believers in science” discussion 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:
www.loathemygovernment.com
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: http://www.howmuchworsecoulditget.com
http://www.reason.com
http://www.cato.org
http://www.robertringer.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w
No comments:
Post a Comment