And to be perfectly honest, we were tired of Al Gore, Barack Obama and other global warming advocates yelling at global warming doubters like myself, calling us racists, homophobes, flat earth believers, etc. In order to have a mature, adult conversation about global warming, we felt it was necessary to treat those with a different opinion with respect not derision and that to get to an adult solution, all of the science should be included in the debate.
Over the years, however, we have put together a very strong case that man made global warming and its rebranded marketing theme, climate change, were indeed mostly a false position, a travesty of science. Those who believed in global warming ignored or failed to consider scientific findings and research that was contrary to their views.
They were found to have suppressed or changed raw data and findings that did not support their global warming positions. In short, they were the ones that had shortchanged the scientific method, not the doubters.
To review our past reviews of the global warming fallacy, type in the phrase, “I am a global warming doubter” in the search box above. Over the next few days we will continue to look at the latest climate data and realities and again prove that being a global warming doubter is a position that is strongly supported by science and not Al Gore hysterics.
1) One trait that makes global warming and climate change advocates look so foolish and weakens their credibility is their tendency to associate some very stupid factors with global warming. For example, last month we reviewed the ridiculous assertion that Halloween candy was contributing to global warming.
Apparently, palm oil is used in some types of Halloween candy and by celebrating Halloween we are reducing the number of palm trees in the world which is contributing to global warming. The advocates of this position did not mention that the new coal burning plants that China and India are opening up on an almost weekly basis might be having a tad more impact on the Earth’s temperatures than Halloween candy.
We recently came across an equally inane assertion, namely that increase methane production caused by beaver created dams was causing climate change. Really, beaver dams? According to a recent article in the International Business Times:
- The theory is that methane that’s generated at the bottom of standing water ponds created by beaver dams ends up being released into the atmosphere and creating unwanted climate changes.
- The scientists making this tie-in to global warming and climate change even estimated that beaver created ponds are adding an 800 million kg of methane to the atmosphere every year.
- I am not a scientists but if we divide the 800 million kg estimate by 365 days a year, then beaver ponds by themselves are adding an astounding five million pounds of methane to the atmosphere every day. Sounds a little impossible to a non-scientist like me.
- According to the article, over the past hundred years there has been a conservation effort to save and enlarge the beaver population in the wild and this successful conservation effort is now contributing to global warming and climate change.
- Researchers at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada estimated methane released from these beaver ponds is now 200 times higher than it was a century ago.
- If global warming is indeed a major problem, shouldn’t we be more worried about what we discussed above, the hundreds and hundreds of coal burning power plants that have been built and are now being built or planned in countries like India and China? Aren’t they far more lethal than….beaver dams?
- And if beaver ponds and dams have been growing over the past hundred years, why has global warming stopped about 18 years ago? Either beavers and their dams are not big factors in global warming, since the global warming trend has stopped long ago, or the growth in beaver dams and ponds stopped about 18 years ago, a highly doubtful situation.
2) Julia A. Seymour, writing for the website www.mrc.org, on December 10, 2014 reviewed recent scientific data and analyses that concluded that “natural cycles” were blamed for the current California drought and that climate change was not the culprit in the drought.
This conclusion was reached by a team of Federal government scientists who studied California’s multi-year drought. The researchers determined “natural cycles” and “sea surface temperatures” were “main drivers” of the California water shortage and drought: "It's important to note that California's drought, while extreme, is not an uncommon occurrence for the state. In fact, multi-year droughts appear regularly in the state's climate record, and it's a safe bet that a similar event will happen again. Thus, preparedness is key," said Richard Seager, the lead author and professor with Columbia University's Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory.
The research was enough for the global warming advocate New York Times to report on the findings (but buried deeply inside the paper on page A23 in its December 9, edition): “Scientists who have analyzed California’s extreme drought have concluded that it is a result of natural climate variability over the past three years and that climate change caused by humans has played little role.”
Government meteorologist Marty Hoerling was also quoted in another Times article, saying the California drought “resembles the droughts that afflicted the state in 1976 and 1977,” a period before man made global warming and climate change became a popular theory.
Who is right? These government scientists and other scientists whose scientific work has cast considerable doubt on global warming and climate change theories or the handpicked scientists who Al Gore advocates for, some of whom were critical of this California study? I cannot choose a side since I am not a climate scientists.
However, I am smart to know that there is enough science on the side of global warming doubters to merit an adult conversation about the whole issue, a conversation that will never happen as long as Al Gore types choose to berate those that disagree with him and who ignore science that does not fit their preconceived opinions.
3) We will finish today’s discussion on global warming doubters by reviewing some recent material that was published on Cato’s website on December 8, 2014. In their “Friday Funny” feature, they took a look at some historical climate and global warming predictions that Tom Scott had put up on the “Watts Up With That” blog.
As you read them, keep in mind that when these predictions were espoused, they were taken as seriously in their day as Al Gore wants us to accept his predictions today. Given how wrong these historical predictions turned out, it makes one stop and wonder if Al Gore-type predictions are just as wild and just as likely to prove to be terribly wrong:
- “By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” -Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September, 1971. At last look, 43 years later, England’s coast line as about where it was back in 1971 and most of the current inhabitants are not hungry.
- “Some predictions for the next decade (1990’s) are not difficult to make… Americans may see the ’80s migration to the Sun Belt reverse as a global warming trend rekindles interest in cooler climates.” -Dallas Morning News December 5, 1989. The Sun Belt migration has continued unabated since 1989, with the Sun Belt states seeing steady population growth and picking up dozens of Congressional delegates to the detriment of northern states.
“Giant sand dunes may turn Plains to desert – Huge sand dunes extending east from Colorado’s Front Range may be on the verge of breaking through the thin topsoil, transforming America’s rolling High Plains into a desert, new research suggests. The giant sand dunes discovered in NASA satellite photos are expected to re- emerge over the next 20 to 50 years, depending on how fast average temperatures rise from the suspected “greenhouse effect,” scientists believe.” Denver Post, April 18, 1990. Twenty four years later, right smack in the middle of the 20 to 25 years predicted time frame, there are no giant sand dunes, the plains are anything close to being a desert, based on the polar vortex from last winter, and temperatures stopped rising about 18 years ago.
Strike one, strike two, strike three, three serious predictions that came nowhere close to being true. If global warming theories and forecasts were so wrong decades ago, why should we believe non-scientists like Al Gore, Barack Obama, and others when it comes to the equally wild climate predictions of today?
Especially when government and non-government scientists continue to prove every month that man made global warming and climate change may be as much as a mirage as these three predictions turned out to be. More global warming doubting material 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.bankruptingamerica.org
http://www.conventionofstates.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w
No comments:
Post a Comment