Sunday, March 27, 2016

March, 2016, Bonus Post, I Am A Global Warming Doubter and A Believer In Science

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 of 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 historical posts listed on the right side of this page. The first post on global warming doubting for this month can be accessed at:

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:

1) One of the concerns of people that are global warming doubters and believers in science is that some scientists see the whole global warming/climate change issue as a money making, grant getting opportunity. And when this happens, as we have examined in past posts under this theme, the science takes a back seat to getting additional industry and government grants since if global warming was indeed proven to be a myth, there would no longer be any grant money to be found.

According to a March 23, 2016 article by Kevin Mooney, writing for the Heritage Foundation, that may have been the case relative to a George Mason University professor:

  • According to the article, the National Science Foundation (NSF) is “seriously” interested in reviewing how millions and millions of taxpayer dollars were spent after they had been awarded to that George Mason University professor. 
  • The NSF inspector general is possibly going to examine how professor Jagadish Shukla spent all of those millions.
  • This is the same professor who signed a letter with nineteen other other global warming advocates who wanted the President to arrest and prosecute anyone who had a different opinion than them relative to global warming/climate change, you know, rip up the First Amendment rights of innocent Americans.
  • One reason for the the potential abuse of taxpayer funds comes from the article’s assertion that: “The federal government is awash in guidelines governing the conduct of recipients of the billions of dollars in grants doled out by Washington every year. But these regulations are loosely enforced, both by government bureaucrats and by the institutions receiving the money.”
  • An audit by George Mason University seems to imply that the professor misused tens of millions of taxpayer dollars, not millions, tens of millions of dollars, by “double dipping” in Federal and state funds in violation of university guidelines and rules.
  • Professor Shukla is not only a university professor but he also operates the Institute of Global Environment and Society (IGES), a relationship that a Congressional committee has also been investigating.
  • Part of the obscenity of the whole deal is that it is possible that Shulka paid himself and his wife a total of $5.6 million in taxpayer funding in connection with his research, an obscene amount no matter how you cut it, using the IGES as a cover story.
  • Besides being obscene, it probably violated the conditions of the NSA funding which sets limits on the amount of taxpayer money that can be used for salaries.
  • A representative of the the National Center for Public Policy Research stated the obvious in the article: “The longstanding cozy relationship between grant-makers and grantees makes them blind to even the most obvious conflict of interest or incidence of double dipping. And when the government is driving the scientific research to reach a predetermined conclusion, as is the case with climate change, then no one is going to rock the boat…..the system is thoroughly corrupt." 

There you have it from at least one research source. Some, a few, who knows how many are using the global warming story to abort and contort real science to get an answer that they want and that their political benefactors want. Those are the ones abusing science, not global warming doubters who still believe in the purity of science and research.

2) Rick Moran writing for the American Thinker website, described how former Democratic candidate for President, Martin O'Malley, had this great theory, based on nothing, that it was global warming who created the terror group ISIS. Not maybe created it, not maybe created it with other factors involved - like thousands of years of war and animosity between different versions of Islam - or the brutal dictatorship of the Assad family, nope global warming did it all by itself.

Global warming and only global warming created ISIS: "One of the things that preceded the failure of the nation-state of Syria and the rise of ISIS was the effect of climate change and the mega-drought that affected that region, wiped out farmers, drove people to cities, created a humanitarian crisis that created the symptoms — or rather the conditions of extreme poverty — that has now led to the rise of ISIL and this extreme violence.” 

I guess the Middle East has NEVER had a drought before. If it had, ISIS would have formed centuries ago. His statement is based on no research, no scientific findings, just political hogwash. Consider what real scientists have to say about this nonsense: “It is not until you dig pretty deep into the technical scientific literature, that you find out that the anthropogenic climate change impact on drought conditions in the Fertile Crescent is extremely minimal and tenuous—so much so that it is debatable as to whether it is detectable at all,” according to Chip Knappenberger and Patrick Michaels, climate scientists at the libertarian Cato Institute.

It gets so tiring when politicians like O’Malley, Gore, Obama, and others use and abuse science, data, and reality for their own political gains. 

3) Michael Bastasch, writing for the Daily Caller website in early February, described some more real science when it comes to reducing the carbon footprint of the U.S.:

  • The Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE) and Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) recently published their annual energy factbook.
  • Their major finding was that inexpensive natural gas, as a resulting of fracking, has been a major driver in reducing overall U.S. carbon emissions over the recent past: “Unprecedented levels of natural gas supply pushed down power prices, putting the country in a more internationally competitive position while also prompting coal-to-gas switching that slashed US carbon emissions,” the group’s report reads.
  • Furthermore, “U.S. power sector CO2 emissions fell to their lowest annual level since the mid-1990s,” according to the report.
  • The report went on to state that they found while green energy sources and improving energy efficiency performance helps, those efforts were near non-existent relative to what natural gas has done to reduce the nation’s carbon footprint.
  • This latest study is in agreement with a similar study done by the Manhattan Institute done in 2015 which also concluded that fracking caused the lion’s share of carbon emissions reductions since 2008.
  • The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) also conceded that fracking was a primary reason for falling emissions as opposed to green energy policies.
The key point here is that science has created an energy source that is less expensive, less dirty, less carbon heavy, and supports the goal of global warming advocates. Everyone is happy when science is used as it should be like it was in this fracking experience.

That will do it for this quick update to the them, “I am a global warming doubter and a believer in science.”

Science being abused by politicians and those with serious financial stakes in misusing science to prove a preconceived theory, and science being used (fracking) to make life wonderful. When will we have have an adult, mature conversation in this country when ALL of the science is included in the conversation and not just the science that aligns with politicians’ political aims and corruption?

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: