March, 2016, Part 2, 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 disagreesAs 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 historical post listed 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, in our last post for this month under the theme that “I am a global warming doubter and a believer in science”:1) The Cato Institute and author Patrick J. Michaels recently did a nice job of reviewing some of the myths and realities of climate over the past hundred years or so, showing that global warming is a natural occurring cyclical process, that alternates with global cooling:

• Between 1920 and World War II,global temperatures rose three quarters of a degree Fahrenheit even though there was far less carbon spewing economic activity going on.
• Temps then cooled down, despite more carbon burning going on, and then temps warmed up again from the mid-1970s to the late 1990s by about the same amount as what happened in the early 1900s.
• Most scientists, if not politicians, have concluded that temps reached their current level in the late 1990s and have stayed constant since then.
• Some global warming advocates claim that temps started climbing again, based on one year’s worth of 2015 data, when temps jumped up.
• But this jump in temps could have happened because the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stopped using satellite-senses sea surface temperatures, a measurement process that had been going on since the mid-1970s, and replaced this generally accepted measurement process with taking temperatures from the “cooling-water-intake tubes of ocean going vessels.”
• Really? Cooling water intake tubes of ocean going vessels? Mr. Michaels claims that scientific literature is in agreement that this new process results in large measurement errors since a ship’s structure conducts heat, is affected by the sun’s rays, and the intake tubes of different ships measure temps at different ocean levels.
• Thus, one year’s worth of data from a new measurement process is hardly conclusive when it comes to global warming proof.
• But there is another factor in the higher 2015 temps since in 2015 a massive El Nino weather set up in the Pacific Ocean.
• Historically, El Nino periods always raise temps worldwide because of how it affects Pacific Ocean currents. 
• For example, as a result of the 1998 El Nino, global average surface temperature jumped up slightly less than a quarter of a degree while in 2015 the global average temps jumped up a bit more than a quarter of a degree, thus no big deal.
• In 1999, the year after that 1998 El Nino, global temps dropped almost three tenths of a degree, wiping out the jump in temps in 1998, a reaction that is likely to happen once the 2015 El Nino dissipates.

The article goes on to show how another temperature measurement process also debunks some global warming theories:“Instead of relying on debatable surface-temperature information, consider instead readings in the free atmosphere (technically, the lower troposphere) taken by two independent sensors: satellite sounders and weather balloons. As has been shown repeatedly by University of Alabama climate scientist John Christy, since late 1978 (when the satellite record begins), the rate of warming in the satellite-sensed data is barely a third of what it was supposed to have been, according to the large family of global climate models now in existence. Balloon data, averaged over the four extant data sets, shows the same.”One last global warming doubter set of data: Analyses from the biggest reinsurer insurance company, Munich Re, and University of Colorado professor Roger Pielke, Jr. proved that weather-related losses have not grown at all over the past 25 years. In fact, if anything, weather-related losses have trended downward in a non-statistically significant speed. 2015 recorded the second lowest weather related loss of Global World Productivity the entire time it was measured.A lot of real data from real scientists again showing how rational it is to be a global warming doubter and a believer in science.2) One last piece of science and reality in the global warming debate for today and this month. Yesterday, we discussed the reality that if Obama’s so-called Clean Power Plan goes into effect it will have a minimal impact on the environment, according to his own EPA analysis and forecast, but will have a devastating impact on the U.S. economy and jobs. This conclusion was recently reinforced by an article on the U.S. Chamber Of Commerce website in an article written by Sean Hackbarth, “Setting Things Straight: EPA’s Carbon Regulations Will Not Save People Money.” Details of his article include the following:

• EPA head Gina McCarthy claims the EPA’s Clean Power Plan will save the country and Americans billions of dollars a year.
• Which on the surface, from a basic economics perspective, is a ridiculous claim to make since the plan will likely shut down many coal powered power plants and immediately reduce the amount of electricity available throughout the country.
• Economic theory tells us that if you reduce the supply of anything but allow demand to grow, prices HAVE to go up, no possibility of anything else happening.
• Which is exactly what is going to happen according to research and analysis done by NERA Economic Consulting.
• NERA Economic Consulting found that 40 states could see an average retail electricty price increase of 10% or more.
• Their state by state analysis found that two states, North Dakota and Utah, could see an obscene increase in electricity rates of over 40%.
• The following chart highlights the economic devastation across the most heavily impacted states:

So, if electricity is going to go up by double digit figures for just about every American, Ms. McCarthy, where is America going to save billions of dollars? Simple economic theory and NERA analysis shows that either you are not being truthful with America or you simply do not understand reality. Double digit increases in electricity prices for a global warming theory that grows weaker and weaker every day.

That will do it for this month’s discussion on how to be a global warming doubter and a believer in science. Today we learned about how weather patterns have short term effects on temperatures and that short term effects on temperatures do not mean the end of the world is near or that global warming is real. And we learned that somehow Obama's Clean Air Plan was going to save us billions of dollars while simultaneously raising the cost of our electricity by over 40% in some states. Insanity.