Wednesday, December 21, 2016

December, 2016, Part 2, I Am A Global Warmer 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.

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) Although global temperatures have been more or less table over the past twenty years or so, i.e. global warming stopped two decades ago, many global warming advocates refuse to admit that all of their climate forecast models were wrong. Those models predicted a continuing upward trend in global temps over the past twenty years, no model anticipated a flat trend over that time.

But when 2016 turned out to be a very hot year globally, the advocates were back out in force with their global warming theories even though their track record of predicting such conditions has been dismal, so dismal that they failed to predict that 2016 would be so hot after twenty years of stable temps.

But they usually fail to take into account that there was a very intense El Nino weather pattern in the Pacific Ocean over the past couple of years and history shows us that El Ninos usually result in hotter than average temperatures in the U.S., which is exactly what happened over the past year or so. It likely had nothing to do with global warming, it was a weather situation that scientists have studied for a very long time and know that hot U.S. weather usually comes in tandem with an El Nino.

But rather than take that known scientific piece of information into consideration, global warming advocates knee jerk reacted to one year of higher than normal temperatures, ignoring twenty years of flat temperature trends. More importantly, Damon Morgan, writing for the Conservative Daily Post on November 29, 2016, discussed the fact that recent NASA data is showing that global temps have already cooled, on average, on one Celsius degree as the El Nino weather pattern has dissipated and an El Nina weather pattern takes its place. This is a pretty radical drop in just the past year, something that you would not expect if global warming was putting continual upward pressure on the world’s temperatures.

Now, one could make the case, if the data showed it, that manmade global warming/climate change, made this El Nino one of the strongest ones on record. Valid point, if the data could show that. But so far, I have not seen any global warming advocate make that case scientifically, they usually just react to the data and science that supports their views. NASA data disputes that view.

2) Earlier this month we reviewed research from the University of Michigan Energy Institute that showed that Washington’s forcing Americans to use gasoline diluted with corn and other biofuel ethanol was adding three times as much carbon to the atmosphere as it was saving, the exact opposite of what it was supposed to do. That link can be accessed at:


Up until recently, I had no idea how that situation had come about. But I came across an article by a gentleman named William O’Keefe, on the Value Walk website, which laid it all out and it is not pretty. Mr. O’Keefe is the Chief Operating Officer of the George C. Marshall Institute and he was once the Treasurer/Secretary of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the COO of the American Petroleum Institute so he obviously knows the industry.

According to his article, the whole biofuel/ethanol boondoggle came about as follows:
  • In order to get enough Congressional votes back in 1990 to pass some amendments to the Clean Air Act, Congressman Henry Waxman cut a deal with the corn industry. 
  • In exchange for their support of the amendments he wanted to get enacted, he promised that the Washington political class would force American drivers to use gasoline in their cars that had been diluted with ethanol biofuels, mostly ethanol from corn. 
  • Obviously the corn industry was thrilled to get this forced onto American drivers since it opened up a new market for their products even if it was a market that made no sense. 
  • Thus, the real reason for ethanol and the resultant industry had little to do with global warming, it was purely a tit for tat deal between politicians and a whole industry. 
  • Meanwhile, the oil and auto industries had been working and researching hard to find a way to meet clean air emissions requirements that Washington was likely to impose on them and then take their findings and research and give it to the Federal government to use. 
  • According to O’Keefe: “The two industries briefed Congress on the research and made one primary request: set emission standards to achieve Clean Air Act objectives but give the two industries the freedom to determine how best to achieve them.” 
  • But rather use what may have been a better alternative that was uncovered by their research, their effort was rejected out of hand because Washington politicians had already cut a deal with the corn lobby, a deal that turned out to be a bad deal for the taxpayers, gas consumers, food consumers, and the environment. 
  • The Manhattan Institute published some research in 2015 that concluded just in 2013 the ethanol scam cost consumers $10.6 in one year and about $200 billion since the Congressional ethanol mandate. 
As always, when Washington tries to resolve a problem they make it worse, costing the taxpayer billions of dollars in the process but making sure they take care of their favorite campaign donors and crony business associates.

3) Leon Puissegur, writing for the Freedom Outpost website on December 9, 2016, reviewed some scientific research and findings that Al Gore probably has not read: 
  • Mr. Puissegur starts off with the abstract of a paper done by a scientist named Nasif Nahle: “Scientific studies have shown that atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in past eras reached concentrations that were 20 times higher than the current concentration. Recent investigations have shown that the current change of climate is part of a larger cycle known as climatic lowstand phase which precedes a sequential warming period known as transgression phase. The purpose of this evaluation is to demonstrate that the Earth is actually cooling, in the context of the total geological timescale, and that the current change is equivalent to a serial climate phase known as lowstand.” 
  • He then goes on to describe the extensive research done by Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert, a geologist and data computation expert. 
  • Ewert went through all of NASA’s temperature data series that were taken from 1153 weather stations from around the world, starting with data gathered in 1881. 
  • His analysis of all of the raw data shows that the earth has actually been cooling since 1940 even though NASA’s “adjusted” data shows warming over that same time period. 
  • Which brings up a problem: do you believe the actual, real data or believe detail that has been “massaged” by government officials? Remember the old saying: “If you torture the data long enough it will tell you anything you want.” 
  • Specifically, he found that between 2010 and 2012 the data since 1881 were changed in order to show a substantial warming in the earth’s temps, particularly after 1950, a warming that does not appear in the raw data. 
  • Ewert’s analysis of the raw data showed that the surface temperature of the world from 1940 has fallen dropped by 1.10 degrees C and since 2000 it has dropped by .4223 degrees C. 
  • Regionally, the drop was all over the world with the exception of Australia which went up .6339 degrees C since 2000. 
  • The article accuses scientists at NASA’s GISS agency, James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt, of making the adjustments in order to show a warming trend where there was not one in the raw data. 
  • Their adjustments included the following: reducing the annual mean in the early phase, reducing the high values in the first warming phase, increasing individual values during the second warming phase, suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995, shortening the early decades of the datasets, and with the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened. 
  • I do not know what all those adjustments are but it seems to indicate that Ewert did an extensive analysis of the adjustments that were made. 
  • U.S. meteorologists,Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony, are also cited in the article because they “examined 6,000 NASA weather stations and found a host of irregularities, both with the way they were cited and how the raw data had been adjusted to reflect such influences as the Urban Heat Island effect.” 
Real scientists doing real research and analysis and showing us that Al Gore types are not considering all of the available data and numbers. That is all we have been asking for in this series, an adult conversation that considers all of the data and research, not just the data and research that feeds political objectives and the need for some scientists to continue to fund what may well be a myth.

4) During this past summer many global warming advocates claimed global warming was true because it was a really hot summer (most likely caused by the current El Nino effect.) If that kind of reasoning is valid, using very, very short term weather to justify long term climate changes, than it is fair game to use the recent embarrassment that happened to handful of global warming advocates in Colorado. 

According to the Eagle Rising website, a group called the “Keep It In The Ground,” held a rally outside a U.S. Department of Interior Office in Colorado in an attempt to convince people and the government to keep carbon fuel sources “in the ground” to combat global warming. They carried signs such as “End Fracking,” “Keep It [carbon fuel sources] In The Ground,” and “Stop The Fracking Leases.”

During the day of their protests to combat global warming and the burning of carbon that might create it, the temperatures were ,mostly only in the 20s and there was an offical low that day of -10 degrees F. Karma can be a bitch, can’t it? If warm weather in summer is evidence of long term global warming and climate change, then a cold day in Colorado is evidence of an impending ice age. This is how ridiculous the argument in support of global warming can become.

More tomorrow where we show that it is still perfectly okay 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:

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:

No comments: