Today is the final post in our update to a continuing theme in this blog, “I am a global warming doubter and a believer in science.” The justification for this series was the fact that I just got fed up being yelled at and called a whole slew of not nice names by people like Al Gore simply because I choose to look at the entire spectrum of global warming, and its rebranded them of climate change, rather than the rantings and ravings of people like Gore that look only at the science that supports their viewpoint and not at all science, both pro and con.
We could have devoted more than five days to the update, that is how fast and furious rebuttals and new research are coming along to prove that it is entirely possible and rational to be a global warming doubter and a believer in science. We will cover those trends in a future update but it is time to move on. I think we have made our point this week and again today that it is indeed Al Gore who is on the wrong side of science and reality.
Rather than try to have an adult conversation, people like Al Gore have caused us doubters racists, homophobes, science illiterates, etc. We maintain that if you look at ALL of the climate science, you will see the fallacy and emptiness of Gore-like viewpoints and rantings. To do anything else would not be scientific, it would be scientific heresy.
To view the dozens of posts we have done in the past where we quote famous and credible scientists, cite credible and independent reports, and use logic to show that the global warming scare and climate change mania is probably just that, scare tactics and mania, put the following phrase, “I am a global warming doubter” in the search box above to get a complete list of previous related posts. If you are an Al Gore fan, a dare you to read all of the science put forth in these posts before you commence with the name calling again.
Let’s see what new science evidence has come about since our last update to the theme, I am a global warming doubter and a believer in science.”
1) The following research findings were published by the CATO Institute on May 29, 2014 in a piece written by Paul Knappenberger and Patrick Michaels. Another scientific paper has just been published that again finds no correlation between Arctic sea ice loss and extreme cold and wintery conditions across the U.S., something the Obama administration vainly tried to link together last winter during the coldest winter in recent memory in the country.
Colorado State climate researcher Elizabeth Barnes found that natural variability accounted for the polar votex, claiming it was impossible to make the correlation or find any data that linked human-caused global warming and the colder than normal weather. signal even if one were to exist in the vortex data (which there is no proof of). According to the CATO report, shortly after Ms. Barnes‘s findings, a group of prominent climate scientists wrote a letter to a prominent journal stating that drawing the type of connection that the White House was trying to do “was not scientifically advisable.”
In addition, more science and research backed up the conclusion that there was not human affecting behavior relative to the polar vortex. The additional research came from Thomas Ballinger of Kent State University/ His research team found that:
- The magnitude of the 2014 “polar vortex” was really not that unusual from a historical perspective.
- His team, found that relative to vortex behavior across North America since 1948, that the 2014 polar vortex excursion into the country ranked only 6th in southerly extent and 7th in total area. In other words, other polar vortexes had existed in the 66 years, a half dozen of which were worse than the vortex of 2013-2014.
- The researchers claimed that their work “revealed that the spatial features of the January 2014 [polar vortex over the U.S.] were not extreme relative to certain 1948-2013 Januaries.”
- They also could not find a link between human manmade global warming/climate change, the northern ice cap, and the polar vortex, despite the Obama administration’s implying that a link existed.
More lies from this administration or just bad science from this administration? You choose but understand relative to other, credible scientists, the Obama administration is probably wrong again when it comes to asserting the reality of the climate.
2) Judith Curry is a professor and the chairwoman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, certainly someone with scientific credentials and credibility when it comes to the climate. She recently was interviewed in Australia by the website, Quadrant Online, to discuss her contrarian view that mankind is not causing global warming or extensive climate change.
This view has gotten her on the bad side of those that want desperately to make that linkage with Scientific American branding her as “a heretic” who has “turned on her colleagues.” Probably her claim that doing science by consensus is not science has also not endeared her to those that claim global warming and climate change are the direct result of mankind’s activities.
Highlights/quotes of her interview include:
- I am mystified as to why President Obama and John Kerry are making such strong (and indefensible) statements about climate change. Particularly with regards to extreme weather events, their case is very weak. Especially at this time, given that much of the rest of the world is pulling back against commitments to reduce emissions and combat climate change.
- Regarding the hiatus in warming [i.e. the Earth‘s temperature stopped rising about 19 years ago], I would say that this has not been adequately explained to the public, the IPCC certainly gave the issue short shrift.
- The hiatus is serving to highlight the importance of natural climate variability. If the hiatus continues a few more years, climate model results will seriously be called into question.
- Basically, none [evidence that the missing heat from the past 19 years has gone deep into the oceans]. Observations below 2 km in the ocean are exceedingly rare, and it is only since 2005 that we have substantial coverage below 700 metres.
- The result of this simplified framing of a wicked problem is that we lack the kinds of information to more broadly understand climate change and societal vulnerability.
- The first place to start is to abandon the consensus-seeking approach to climate science that has been implemented by the IPCC. Scientists do not need to be consensual to be authoritative. Authority rests in the credibility of the arguments, which must include explicit reflection on uncertainties, ambiguities and areas of ignorance and more openness for dissent. The role of scientists should not be to develop political will to act by hiding or simplifying the uncertainties, either explicitly or implicitly, behind a negotiated consensus.
- One of the unfortunate consequences of the focus on anthropogenic forcing of climate is that solar effects on climate have been largely neglected. I think that solar effects, combined with the large scale ocean-circulation regimes, presage continued stagnation in global temperatures for the next two decades.
- The academic community has a lot invested in the case for anthropogenic climate change – substantial government funding, prestige, and political influence.
- The establishment scientists who support the IPCC consensus do not debate sceptics, for two reasons. They do not wish to lend legitimacy to the sceptics and the sceptical positions. Secondly, the few public debates that have been held did not go well for the establishment scientists – formal, oral debate is not a format for which most scientists have experience.
A rational scientists looking at ALL of the data and research, I.e. using the traditional scientific method of research not the global warming consensus method of scientific research.
3) One of the biggest and probably more effective arguments put forward by global warming advocates is that the polar bears are becoming extinct because of the melting of the northern ice cap. Who could not get excited about saving the cute polar bears?
But apparently this is another global warming reality that is only a myth. New reports have reported that the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) has recently admitted to experienced zoologist and polar bear specialist Susan Crockford that the estimate they gace for the dwindling total number of polar bars in the Arctic was “simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.”
Ms. Crockford is involved has been critical of official polar bear population estimates because of her research findings and her claim that the IUCN failed to include five large subpopulations of polar bears. Because of the uncertainty of the populations in these areas, PBSG did not include them in their official, shrinking population estimate, which may account for the shrinking population estimates.
How is this science when you just ignore data and reality and publish findings that are not true? Unfortunately, the false numbers become the perceived reality and that results in government and other actions that may not be necessary and may indeed be dangerous to all involved.
PBSG has for years said that global polar bear populations were between 20,000 and 25,000, but these estimates are likely much lower than how many polar bears are actually living in the world.
“Based on previous PBSG estimates and other research reports, it appears there are probably at least another 6,000 or so bears living in these regions and perhaps as many as 9,000 (or more) that are not included in any PBSG ‘global population estimate,’” Crockford wrote on her blog.
4) If you really want to look at reality, and real science and real data, may we suggest that you visit the following article from the Independent Journal Review:
This article has compiled 25 graphs, charts, and other images, from credible government and other sources, that prove you are likely right to be a global warming doubter and believer in science. A sample of these charts include the following:
5) And finally, I could go back and review everything we discussed this week. How the earth’s temperature stopped rising 19 years ago, proving just about every climate forecasting model to be wrong. We could review how politicians have used bogus data, made up data to prove their political point or angle with very little reality or science to back it up. We could remind you that anything the U.S. does to change its carbon habits will be futile unless the rest of the world, especially China, and India do the same.
We could do that summary but probably not as well as it was done by Amy Ridenour, writing for the National Center for public Policy Research blog in June, 2014:
Top Ten Reasons Washington Should Not Impose New Global Warming Laws or Regulations
Top ten reasons why Washington should not inflict major new laws or regulations to combat global warming:
1. The world isn't warming. Scientists measuring surface temperatures and atmospheric temperatures using satellites - including scientists who believe in the global warming theory -- say the Earth hasn't warmed since the Clinton Administration.
2. Anti-global warming laws hurt people. All the major legislative and regulatory proposals to combat global warming kill jobs and disproportionately hurt lower income people and minorities.
3. The U.S. already leads the world in CO2 reduction and is a great role model. U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions fell 12.6 percent between 2005 and 2012, thanks to technology and conservation. Worldwide, CO2 emissions increased by 17.7 percent during the same period. Those who want the U.S. to set a good example should wake up and realize: we already are!
4. Global warming climate models don't work. Since 1979, over 96 percent of models predicted more future warming than took place. The models, run backward, also fail to predict past temperatures. Our climate system is extremely complex, and even the world's most knowledgeable scientists don't yet understand it.
5. Claims that 97 percent of scientists endorse the global warming theory are propaganda. To get to 97 percent, activists include every scientist who believes the Earth has warmed even a little, and that humans have paid even a small part, but activists use the 97 percent figure as if it represents only scientists who believe warming is catastrophically dangerous and overwhelmingly human-caused. Since even "skeptic" scientists believe the Earth has warmed somewhat since the 1800s, when the Little Ice Age ended, and almost everyone believes humans have played at least a small role in warming by building cities and using energy, that means skeptic scientists are included in the 97 percent figure, which then is used as "evidence" that skeptic scientists are wrong.
6. The IPCC is a political, not scientific, body. The IPCC is a United Nations agency that scientists have quit in protest after governments re-wrote their work to fit an agenda. One Harvard professor recently said the IPCC's "summary for policymakers" should be called the "summary BY policymakers" because the policymakers actually write it for themselves. One IPCC meeting he attended had two scientists and 45-50 government officials at work on the summary document.
7. Global warming believers change their predictions. As their temperature predictions have not come true, activists have desperately started blaming global warming for hurricanes, tornadoes and even cold weather. But climate has natural variations, hurricanes and tornadoes have not increased, and snow and colder winters don't prove global warming. When Al Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his preaching and movie-making about global warming, he claimed in his acceptance speech that the Arctic would be ice-free by now. It isn't even close.
8. Current sea ice levels prove nothing. While arctic sea ice levels are below average, Antarctic sea ice levels are above average, as are global sea ice levels.
9. Environmental groups give counterproductive advice. While claiming global warming is a crisis, major environmental groups paradoxically oppose the major energy sources that can reduce our CO2 emissions, such as nuclear power, hydropower and fracking, and seek laws to limit them.
10. Politicians are unreliable leaders. After the Clinton-Gore Administration signed the Kyoto global warming treaty, it never presented it to the Senate for ratification. After the Democrat-led House of Representatives passed a "cap-and-trade" bill to fight global warming in 2009, the Senate, led by global warming-believing Democrats, never even voted on it. These politicians claim global warming is a crisis, but they don't act as if they believe it themselves.
Nice summary job, a summary that proves it is entirely possible, rational, and credible to be a global warming doubter and a believer in science. If President Obama did not have such a closed mind on the issue, the country might be able to have an adult, open discussion on the whole issue of climate and reality. However, that is another thing that is doubtful, an open mind from this President.
