Monday, June 22, 2015

June, 2015, Part 2, I Am A Global Warming Doubter and A Believer In Science: Freezing In Greenland, Ignorance In Congress, And More

Every month we have enough material to return to a continuing theme in this blog, namely that “I am a global warming doubter AND a believer in science.” This became of interest because of people like Al Gore who fanatically and verbosely claimed that you had to be an idiot to not believe in manmade global warming. It has been my life belief that anyone that is that loud and that obnoxious is hiding something, that rather than argue facts and reality it is better to beat down and insult anyone who disagrees.

As we have dove into the whole issue of manmade global warming, or its new rebranded title of climate change, we found that Al Gore and people like him were guilty of a number of things:
  • Ignoring science and realities that did not support their opinions and positions.
  • Rather than have an adult conversation about climate, these types of advocates like Gore sank to the level of insulting those who dared look at ALL science by calling them a variety of names including racists, homophobes, terrorists, flat earth believers, and other slanderous names.
  • Continuing to insist that politicians step up their intrusions into our lives with higher taxes, more regulations, and more control on our freedoms and standards of living based on a shaky theory at best.
To see the past posts and the multitude of evidence that we have compiled that showed it is perfectly okay to be a global warming doubter and a believer in science, enter the phrase "global warming doubter” in the search box above or go through the monthly post lists on the right side of this page.

Thus, let’s see the latest facts and science that prove you can be a global warming doubter and a believer in science, regardless of what Al Gore proclaims. The following continues our latest findings on global warming and science that was started yesterday:

1) Steven Goddard, a noted man made climate change skeptic and Real Science blogger, recently reported that while this time in June usually 20% of Greenland’s snow has melted, this year only 2% has melted. Nuuk, Greenland’s capital, is experiencing record cold that is keeping the city still buried in winter snow: "This year the area of melt is less than 2 percent – the latest start to a melt season on record," he writes, noting: "Temperatures have plummeted over the past decade."

Northeast Greenland experienced its coldest May on record since measurements started back in 1949, while the island as a whole is colder than normal, according to data from the Danish Meteorological Institute data. Additionally, "Greenland has gained half a trillion tons of snow and ice since September," Goddard writes. 

Now, some people could now claim that manmade climate change is the reason for the cold in Greenland. But you have to remember that no historical global warming forecast predicted that Greenland would get colder over time. This brings into doubt anything that climate advocates claim is happening since anything they claimed was happening or will happen has not come to past no matter how you twist reality.

2) President Obama recently warned (again) that unless drastic actions were taken soon, namely taxing carbon usage and reducing Americans' freedoms while increasing the the cost of living, we would see more dramatic and devastating storms in the near future. 

But will that really happen? Despite similar warnings from people like Al Gore, the UN, and others over the past two decades, we are currently in the middle of a so-called “hurricane drought.” It has been almost a decade since a major hurricane made landfall in the U.S. even though we should have been experiencing major storms according to global warming theory.

And despite Obama’s claims, the National Hurricane Center is predicting that this year there will be weak chances for major hurricane activity, which if true will extend the hurricane drought for another year. It has been over 3,500 days since Hurricane Wilma hit Florida in 2005, the last landfall of a major hurricane.

Despite this decade long hurricane drought, it is still difficult to convince global warming advocates that maybe they are wrong. “When we looked qualitatively at the nine-year drought, they aren’t inactive seasons,” Timothy Hall with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies said in a recent press statement: “I don’t believe there is a major regime shift that’s protecting the U.S.”

Two conclusions from this statement:
  • His conclusion is based on a “qualitative” perspective, certainly not a scientific based approach to the situation. “Quantitatively” it is almost ten years since there has been a major hurricane landfall.
  • He does not believe that anything has changed, doubting that a “major regime shift” has happened, which means that we have just been lucky not to have been hit by a major hurricane. For ten years.
Just another example where global warming advocates have been dead wrong when trying to predict what their theories and positions will cause. They have always said that man made global warming would screw up weather and make it more vicious, more frequent, and more unpredictable. 

Instead, our weather, as measured by hurricane activity has been less vicious, less frequent, and less unpredictable. That is why global warming doubters are on such solid scientific and reality grounds, everything that the advocates have forecasted has not happened.

3) As readers of this blog know, it is very scary when politicians speak up on topics they know nothing about. It makes one shudder to think that these people, and their far ranging ignorance, are in charge of passing or rejecting the laws of the land.

Such was the situation portrayed in the following link. It is a short video of a recent Congressional hearing where the Congressman asking the global warming/climate change questions has not a clue of what is going on and needs to be set straight by noted climate scientist Judith Curry of Georgia Tech University:

The scary thing about the exchange is that it does not appear the Congressman is any less ignorant or wiser after being schooled by Dr. Curry.

4) Conflict of interest can be an ugly beast in any aspect of life. When it occurs in the middle of the whole global warming/climate control argument, it taints all scientists who work in the area. In early May, a research study was published in the journal Nature Climate Change which supported a key EPA claim about its forthcoming global warming rules aimed at coal-fired power plants. A New York Times’ headline claimed that, “EPA Emissions Plan Will Save Thousands of Lives, Study Finds.” 

The authors claimed, as did many media reports of the study, that there was no conflict of interest in their research relative to the EPA rule making. The researchers claimed that they had “no competing financial interests” in their study. Both universities had issued media releases heralding the study as the “first independent, peer-reviewed paper of its kind.”

One study co-author, Charles Driscoll of Syracuse University, told the Buffalo News, “I’m an academic, not a politician. I don’t have a dog in this fight.” Another co-author, Jonathan Buonocore of Harvard University, claimed that “the EPA, which did not participate in the study or interact with its authors.”

Sounds like good solid, science, looking for truth and reality by independent researchers. And while the science might still be good, consider the reality, and the lies, that the following conflicts of interest taint the research with:
  • According to EPA emails and the EPA’s own website, Driscoll has previously worked as a principal investigator in studies that received over $3.6 million in research grants from EPA.
  • Another co-author Dallas Burtraw, a researcher at the think tank Resources for the Future, has been involved in previous EPA grants totaling almost $2 million. 
  • Harvard co-author Jonathan I. Levy has been involved in over $9.5 million worth of grants.
  • Co-author Joel Schwartz, also of Harvard, had been previously involved in over $31 million worth of grants from EPA.
In total, these “independent researchers” had previously received $45 million in EPA grants. Kind of guts the whole “no competing financial interest” integrity, doesn’t it? When the appearance or actual conflict of interest enters a scientific question, then science almost always sells out to money, or in this case, government grants. This type of behavior casts doubt on all global warming advocates, especially when they make ludicrous claims about the “science being settled.” It is not settled when conflict of interest is rife.

The cooling of Greenland, the dearth of hurricanes, the ignorance of Congress, and the conflict of interest of scientists, see why it is perfectly logical and sane to be a global warming doubter and a believer in science? One more day, tomorrow, where we continue to verify this position.

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:

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:

No comments: