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:

http://loathemygovernment.blogspot.com/2014/05/i-am-global-warming-doubter-and.html

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 (http://sppiblog.org/news/updated-paper-at-sppi-puts-lie-to-carbon-taxes), 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 (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/07/08/huge-co2-emissions-disagreement-between-epa-energy-dept-ignored-msm). 
• 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:

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