July, 2014, Why I Am A Global Warmng Doubter and A Believer in Science - Part 4

Today may be the last of four days we have spent going over 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.

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) A Mr. James Taylor wrote a piece for Forbes magazine in January, 2013 that discussed many aspects of the global warming myth along with pointing out the futility of the Untied States and President Obama unilaterally imposing carbon taxes and restrictions on the United States without the rest of the world dong the same:

• He points out scientific data that shows that indeed, global carbon dioxide emissions have risen more than 33% since the year 2000.
• He also correctly points out that U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined during that time and should continue to decline for the foreseeable future.
• He cites the U.S. Energy Information Administration which has reported that just during 2012 alone, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions declined by 8% compared to 2011. In other words, the U.S. is doing exactly what Al Gore and Obama want us to do, reduce our carbon footprint, and we are doing it without and thing close to a carbon tax or government intervention in the market and our wallets.
• Mr. Taylor points out that China emits far more carbon dioxide than any other nation and Chinese emissions are growing rapidly year over year.
• In fact, China alone accounts for 75% of the global increase in carbon dioxide emissions since 2000. 
• His article maintains that if the United States completely eliminated all of its carbon dioxide emissions, the only thing that would accomplish would be to delay by about five years an equal increase in Chinese emissions. 
• And since eliminating all of the U.S. carbon footprint is impossible, the advantage to the rest of the world and the environment would be substantially less than five years.
• Since China has repeatedly and strongly shown it will not agree to any restrictions on its own carbon dioxide emissions. Anything we do do ourselves only would result in a much lower standard of living, a more anemic economy, and have no significant impact on the earth if manmade climate change and global warming somehow turn out to be reality.

Given the realities pointed out in this Forbes article and other examples and data that we have already discussed that showed the U.S. is leading the world in reducing its carbon footprint. But the good we bring to the global warming table is more than offset by the dramatically coal and fossil fuel usage in the rest of the world, which renders our domestic sacrifices moot. Somehow that simple reality is not able to penetrate the dogmatic approach that people like Obama and Gore bring to the table.

The sad part of the whole matter is that if, somehow, manmade global warming and climate change are realities, the chance of Obama saving the world from itself is near zero. His inability to lead both on the domestic front and on the world stage has proven to the rest of the world that he is not to be followed, trusted, or taken seriously. This makes any effort on his part to convince China, Brazil, India, and other developing economies to forsake cheap carbon based energy forms futile.

2) An article from the may 9, 2014 issue of The Week magazine reported on scientific research that was described on the Smithsonian website. Apparently, 40- 50 million years ago, way before the global warming scare tactics of some scientists and people like Al Gore, the average temperature in Antarctica was around 57 degrees Fahrenheit. The temperature of the surrounding Pacific waters was about 72 degrees.

During that time, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air was five times higher than what is today. And those levels were attained before man burned the first piece of coal. Kind of kills that statement form the President that we discussed earlier this week, namely that the ten hottest years ever have occurred in the past twelve years. Probably not true relative to an almost balmy Antarctic temperature levels 40 to 50 million years ago.

The lesson to be learned is that the earth has been going through warming and cooling periods since the first day of its existence, with and without mankind’s presence. To just look at a very small set of data and claim that the world is burning up is not science, that is fear mongering.

3) People like Al Gore want desperately stop the completion of the Keystone pipeline, claiming it will make a substantial contribution to more carbon in the air and thus more global warming and/or climate change. But, as always, this miss out on several realities:

• If the U.S. does not complete the pipeline that would take dirty oil from the Canadian tar sands to American refineries for refining, that oil will go elsewhere to be refined and eventually burned, the U.S. notwithstanding. 
• Thus, would environmentalists prefer that we refine it and use it under our relatively strict environmental laws or prefer it to go to China and elsewhere where we know the environment is usually not a consideration when it comes to cheap energy? That oil is going to be pumped and refined, it is just a question of where those events take place.
• A short article in the May 16, 2014 issue of The Week magazine showed the futility of opposing the pipeline. According to the Washington Post article, if the pipeline were approved, the EPA estimates that the additional carbon emissions from the burning of that oil would be only .286% of the total CO2 domestic emissions. Ten times that much of carbon emissions are released each year by cow burps and cow flatulence.

Thus, the environmental impacts of building the pipeline are minimal or nil while the job creation potential and national security and economic upsides are huge, facts and realities lost on the Obama administration.

4) An article in the May 16, 2014 issue of The Week magazine showed the futility of the U.S. going it alone on taxing carbon usage. The government of Ecuador has decided to allow oil drilling development in the country’s Yasuni National Park. Apparently the park is “one of the most biologically diverse spots in the world.”

In 2007, the president of Ecuador promised to ban drilling in the park if the world would pay his country $3.6 billion not to do so. However, only a mere $13 million was raised towards the $3.6 billion figure, indicating that the rest of the world did not care much to prevent another source of fossil and carbon based fuel from being developed and used.

5) More futility of the U.S. going it alone. An article from the June 13, 2014 issue of The Week magazine pointed out this inconvenient truth for Al Gore types: The EPA has estimated that if the U.S. shut down EVERY coal fired power generation plant in this country, it would reduce the Earth’s temperature by one 20th of a degree in the next hundred years.

Closing less than every plant would have an even smaller, minimal impact. But that is exactly what the Obama administration wants to do. The environmental impact would be minimal but the increase in the country’s electricity prices and the loss in jobs would be dramatic and negative. 

Okay, I thought we might finish up this series today but we will need at least tomorrow to present the latest proof that it is entirely possible to be a global warming doubter and a believer in science.

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