January, 2020, Part 3, Why I Am A Global Warming Doubter and a Believer In Science: Wind Power Blows Environmentally 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 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.

1) Apparently folks in South Australia decided that they wanted to go all in with solar and wind energy. In fact, they got their use of renewable energy up to 50% of their electricity production and usage, helped greatly by subsidized wind and solar energy projects. This effort and accomplishment got them the love and admiration of global warming advocate around the world.

But there are a number of problems with this reality:

• In South Australia the retail cost of electricity per kilowatt is 47.13 cents.
• In the United States, the retail cost is per kilowatt is 15.75 cents.
• In fact, the cost of electricity in South Australia is higher than every other country in the world.
• Thus, the United States, which has significantly annually reduced by tens of millions of tons it’s carbon output pays one third the cost for electricity than a region that has gone hog wild for solar and wind energy.
• Keep in mind that the government heavily subsidized the creation of solar and wind power in South Australia to get to 50%.

So taxpayers down under paid taxes to get solar and wind energy access which has resulted in electricity rates that are higher than anywhere else in the world and three times the cost of our electricity in this country. Not a great financial deal for anyone other than those running the subsidized solar and wind infrastructure and companies.

2) The Convention of States movement is a great effort to get the Federal government under control by leveraging Article V in the Constitution to get the Federal budget under control and impose term limits on career politicians. Politicians have destroyed our freedoms, the country’ financial viability, and continue to tax us into oblivion. 

The Convention of States recently ran an article on some shenanigans that master politician Obama put forth regarding the myth of man made global warming:

• Kevin Dayaratna, speaking at the 13th International Conference on Climate asserted that the real cost of carbon dioxide emissions are often “all over the map” because the data can be “rigged by politicians” to get the results and public impact they want.
• Specifically: “The statistical models used by the Obama administration to set regulatory policy are flawed because they are highly prone to user manipulation, Dayaratna told conferees.”
• As background: when people build statistical models, they build in assumption structures and then calculate results using a certain set of assumptions.
• Notice I said “a set of assumptions,” most good statistical models allow you to vary assumptions which usually results in different forecasts and results.
• The trick to being a good statistical modeler and forecaster is to make sure you have the right set of assumptions that most closely match reality.
• The trick of being a bad statistical modeler and forecaster is to make sure that you have a set of assumptions that result in model calculations that give you the answer you want, not necessarily the answer that is most closely aligned with reality.
• Which is the point that Dayaratna is trying to make: Obama may have had great statistical models but it is likely he used bad assumptions to get the answer he wanted, not the best answer relative to reality.
• He could then tout the results he came up with, “see, this is what the model spit out,” and try to convince people that the answer has to be right because it is what the model calculated and ignore the fact that the assumptions were manipulated to get the result he wanted.
• Back to Obama’s model: his EPA defined the social cost of carbon as the “economic damages per metric ton of carbon dioxide emissions.” 
• Dayaratna played around with the Obama model assumptions to see what might happen and test the sensitivity and reasonableness of the model and different assumption sets.
• His analysis and assumptions found that Obama’s carbon forecasts dropped anywhere from 40% to 200% with non-radical, logical changes to the assumptions.
• In fact, he found assumption sets that said increased carbon had net positive impacts on society.
• His conclusions: “The sheer fact that these models can be manipulated to get any result you want speaks volumes to their uselessness in regulatory policy and the danger of putting them into the hands of policymakers.”

There is an old saying among old statisticians like myself: “torture the data long enough and it will say anything you want.” Which is what Obama and a lot of global warming advocates have done over time: they torture the data, they torture the assumptions, and they turn out great public relations sound bites. 

Remember the inane sound bite that “97% of climate scientists support man made global warming.” Totally bogus number but a number that tortured analyses and bad assumption sets finally created to suit the needs of people like Obama and Al Gore. Or to paraphrase Dayaratna, you would not give a gun to kid so why trust politicians with statistical models that they do not understand?

3) We will finish up this post and this month’s discussion on global warming with an analysis from the Self Reliance website. It took a hard look not at what wind power does for us once in operation but also the back end and front end financial costs and environmental costs of installing and removing wind infrastructure, costs that are not pretty:

• With decades worth of wind infrastructure having been installed in this country, one set of research estimates that the U.S. will have more than 720,000 tons of wind turbine blade material that will have to be taken care of over the next 20 years since the average life of a wind turbine is only about 20 years and there are 60,000 wind turbines already in this country, i.e. this disposal problem is not going to go away anytime soon.
• Wind turbine blades are not small, they are usually about 135 feet long so taking them down and getting rid of them is not a low cost job.
• A typical wind turbine contains 8,000 components of which many are made from steel, cast iron, and concrete.
• Some components are made from rare earth metals, neodymium and dysprosium, which are mined almost exclusively in China. 
• These required components require energy intensive efforts to mine, ship, refine and manufacture wind turbines that only have a 20 year life cycle.
• These “before” efforts have significant negative environmental and cost impacts.
• And the “after” efforts of taking them down also have significant environmental and cost impacts.
• The research paper, “Unsustainable Wind Turbine Blade Disposal Practices in the United States”, Ramirez-Tejeda et al. in 2017 analyzed the nightmare of taking wind turbines down after they had lived their useful life.
• They estimate there will be 43 million tons of blades around the world that will have to be disposed of over the coming decades.
• The obvious question is how and where do you get rid of these 43 million tons of metal and concrete.

So there are big financial and environmental costs getting wind turbines operational and big financial and environmental costs getting rid of them at the end of their life. The more you know about the COMPLETE life cycle of a wind turbine the more you realize that they be a solution that is worse than the problem from an environmental perspective.

The Self Reliance article also documented the massive negative wildlife impact of wind turbines:

• The Audubon Society estimates that wind turbines kill hundreds of thousands of birds a year, with their high end estimate at 328,000.
• Experience shows that eagles are especially in danger of wind turbines.
• Scientists estimate that turbines kill anywhere from 3 to 5 million bats every year.
• In fact, some bat species may face extinction in the very near future because of their migratory patterns and their always fatal encounters with wind turbines.
• Given that bats eat all kinds of other creatures like mosquitoes, making human life better, this is not a good trend.

So what did learn today: wind turbines have some tremendous financial, environmental, and living creature downsides, never trust a politician with a statistical model, and renewable energy is really, really expensive at the retail level.

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:

https://www.amazon.com/Walter-Bruno-Korschek/e/B002KYU08Q/ref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share

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:


http://www.reason.com
http://www.cato.org
http://www.bankruptingamerica.org
http://www.conventionofstates.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w

June, 2017, Part 3, I Am A Global Warming Doubter and A Believer In Science: Believing Bogus Data But Ignoring Reality

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) We have often talked about the myths of “the science is settled” and “97% of climate scientists” claim mankind is causing massive global warming and climate change. Despite the idiocy of these claims, climate change advocates keep throwing them out without knowing how wrong they are.

Thus, as a community service, let’s start off today’s discussion with a review of how stupid that 97% number is. Kay Francis, writing for the IHave The Truth website on May 29, 2017 did a nice review of how the bogus 97% number was arrived at:

• The basis of the 97% was a calculation based on a tiny sample of 77n climate scientists.
• Of all the scientists and climate scientists in the world, this wide misused statistic is based on the opinions of only 77 people.
• This tiny sample is actually a tiny subsample of a survey that was done back in 2009 by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) that was actually only a brief two question online a survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers from the University of Illinois.
• As a side note not mentioned in the article, it is my recollection that one of the researchers was a masters candidate, i.e. she did not even have a masters degree in the field yet never mind being an experienced Phd scientist.
• The 3,146 people responded to the survey and then the data was manipulated and cut and hacked down to only 77 respondents, out of which 75 said that mankind was causing significant global warming and climate change.
• Thus, out of the 10,257 surveys sent out, the conclusion is based on less than .8% of the population mailed and less than 2.6% of the respondents.
• Larry Bell of Forbes sums up the results nicely: “Then of those [3,146 that actually took the survey], only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes.”

Now, do you want to believe 75 people or do you want to believe the 31,000 scientists that have signed on to a resolution since 1998 which stipulates that: “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

As a trained statistician, I kinda freak out when non-statisticians use numbers carelessly like this. We have no idea if the original sample was balanced and representative of the reality of the world and we have no idea if the respondent pool was skewed and whether or not the respondent poll was correctly adjusted, or adjusted at all, to represent the population. But we do know that certain publication criteria was used to get to the tine sample size of 77 and thus, guarantee the answer the researchers wanted.

There is an old statistician saying that goes as follows: “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.” This is a classic example of data torture, you start with 10,000 people, you get responses from 3,000 people, you then put specific and biased restrictions on who you want to count and you then assume that a tiny, tiny subset of respondents, that you artificially created represents the world. Bad research with bad results, all done under the guise of data torture.

2) For almost twenty years, the Earth’s overall temperature stood still. This long, flat trend created a serious problem for global warming advocates whose dire predictions needed the Earth’s temps to continue to rise steadily over the years in order for their theories and views to be valid. 

In desperation, global warming advocates went into overdrive to save their precious theory. They started coming up with hypotheses that all of a sudden the extra heat was being stored deep in the ocean depths or that global warming had simply “paused,” as if it was a marathon runner who stopped to catch his breath. Or more conveniently, they simply ignored the pause in rising temperatures and pretended it did not exist.

But then 2016 came along and it was a very hot year. All of a sudden, global warming advocates were back in full throat and yelling that global warming was back, based on one data point! They were mostly silent when almost twenty years of data points showed a trend of flat temperatures but then burst out when one data point, 2016, experiences hot temperatures.

But as a statistician will tell you, one data point is not a trend. According to an article published in the journal, Science of the Total Environment, in February:

• Despite the findings in 2016 that the temperatures at the South Pole were warmer than usual, sending global warming advocates into a frenzy, this recent study indicates that the Antarctic Peninsula has actually been cooling over the past three decades.
• The study also concluded that there has been a “slow-down of glacier recession, a shift to surface mass gains of the peripheral glacier and a thinning of the active layer of permafrost in northern AP islands.” In other words, it is still  cold down south

One data point does not make a trend, around the world or at the south pole. We already know that the higher than usual temps in 2016 were caused by a massive El Nino weather effect in 2016, an effect that been dissipating and with it, the return to cooler temperatures. One data point does not make a trend, despite what Al Gore types and their resultant hysteria claim.

3) One last point for today. In recent Senate hearings, Senator Bernie Sanders showed his ignorance when it comes to misusing statistics when he claimed that: “97 percent of scientists who have written articles for peer-reviewed journals have concluded that climate change is real, it is caused by human activity, and it is already causing devastating problems in our country and around the world.” 

Of course, he was referring to the stupid, invalid and bogus survey dissected above where 77 people are considered to be 97% of ALL scientists. Still no cure for stupid...or ignorance.

That will do it for today: basing conclusions on bad data and bad research and ignoring real data from the real world. Sounds about right for your typical global warming/climate change advocate, even those sitting in Congress. More to follow.

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:


http://www.reason.com
http://www.cato.org
http://www.bankruptingamerica.org
http://www.conventionofstates.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w

June, 2016, Part 2, Why I Am A Global Warming Doubter and A Believer In Science: Manipulating The Numbers, Persecuting/Prosecuting the Non-Believers and Short Skirts Casue Climate Change

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) The President got back into the global warming hysteria business recently when he urged all Americans to prepare to flee their homes because of likely hurricane devastation caused by climate change. He called on every Americans to put together a disaster plan and set of supplies which is always sound advice, especially people like me that live in Florida. 

So it is not the “what” that I found silly it is the “why,” which Obama defines as “more powerful and devastating” hurricanes that climate change is going to bring to our shores. Perhaps he has not noticed that the U.S. has not been hit by a “devastating” hurricane for more than ten years (127 months and counting). In Florida, we have been in living the state since October, 2005 and have yet to experience being hit by a major hurricane. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is predicting a “near normal” Atlantic hurricane season this year.

His words: “All of us have seen the heartbreak, the damage and, in some case, the loss of life that hurricanes can cause. And as climate continues to change, hurricanes are only going to become more powerful and more devastating.”

Again, I appreciate the common sense warning but could he please, just once, not associate every weather change, every new warm front with man made global warming and climate change. The realities and recent history just make his “devastating” comments look foolish and reduce his credibility on the all important issue of being prepared just in case.

2) We have covered this reality in the past but is it is worth repeating since global warming advocates refuse to listen to reason and basic math. Over and over again people like Obama, Al Gore and other advocates for global warming/climate change throw out the single number of 97%, making the incorrect claim that 97% of all scientists agree that mankind is causing global warming/climate change. The implicit inference is that if you are a man made global warming/climate change doubter you are in a distinct minority against the overwhelming brain power of 97% of all scientists.

But they never explain where that magical, mystical 97% number comes from or what is behind it, how it was calculated, how valid it is, just rote repetition of 97%. We have already discussed this number in detail in a previous post:

http://loathemygovernment.blogspot.com/2015/10/october-2015-part-2-i-am-global-warming.html

That post actually showed that the 97% was derived independently at least three different times (what a remarkable coincidence!), with two of those times the number being derived by masters degree students at two different universities, not even Phd holders.

However, the most widely cited source of the magical 97% number comes from a “study” done by a Mr. John Cook of the University of Queensland. This is the methodology he used to prove that 97% of all scientists support the concept of man made global warming and climate change: 

• Cook published a research paper in 2013 based on his study of 11,994 scientific papers, published between 1991 and 2011, papers that mentioned the search words, “global warming” and “global climate change.”
• Cook found that only 32.6% of the papers he researched actually supported the view of anthropogenic (or man made) global warming.
• Of that 32.6%, 97% said that “recent warming is mostly man-made,” i.e. they supported the position of Gore and Obama.
• And that is how the “97% of all scientists” myth and lie were created, it was 97% of 32.6%, a definite minority opinion of the over 11,000 papers researched.

Still don’t believe me? Here’s the actual, posted statement from the study:

We find that 66.4 percent of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6 percent endorsed AGW, 0.7 percent rejected AGW and 0.3 percent were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1 percent endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

The bottom line is the study’s authors cut and diced the data until they got the answer they wanted and politicians then ran with the answer despite not knowing how flawed it was. If anything, the percentage of scientists in the world, according to the 11,000 scientific papers examined, who support the concept of man made global warming and climate change is a minority, not an overwhelming majority.

3) Yesterday, we discussed the state government effort in California that wants to outlaw and prosecute free speech, the First Amendment, and the ability to have a different opinion than politicians by making it a crime to be a global warming doubter. We made the simple and logical analogy to George Orwell’s novel, 1984, in that the state is trying regulate thought and speech while suppressing anything that is contrary to the official state position, hardly a situation to have in a democracy.

But it appears that the state political class in California are not the only government bureaucrats and politicians that want to bring 1984-like suppression to the global warming debate. Onan Coca, writing for the Eagle Rising website, reported that:

• Apparently, Attorney Generals from several liberal leaning states have  been working with the Federal government, specifically Attorney General Loretta Lynch, to silence those of us that are global warming doubters by criminalizing that kind of thought process, you know, the kind that wants to examine ALL of the available climate data, not just the data and research that supports a pre-conceived notion.
• Fortunately, several democracy minded Senators have risen up to oppose such suppression of free speech.
• Senator Mike Lee took the issue up with Lynch directly with a letter that included the following passage: It has long been obvious that the Democratic Party’s assertion that the science of climate change is “settled” is little more than a cheap public-relations ploy masquerading as a monopoly on scientific knowledge. To give the matter a moment’s thought is to recognize that science – that field of inquiry dedicated to testing new theories, challenging prevailing views of the natural world, and overturning the conventional wisdom of the scientific community – cannot be settled.
• But that apparently had little impact on Lynch since she admitted in front of a Senate committee hearing that her department was having internal discussions to see if it was possible to prosecute organizations and individual citizens for holding opinions about man made climate change that she and others in the government found “objectionable.”

Anyone who loves freedom and liberty should be scared to death of this type of attitude and behavior. It basically says that unelected government bureaucrats can and will unilaterally decide what is illegal and uncalled for as far as free speech and the ability to have a personal opinion. It is the most blatant example of Obama’s 1984ism to date. So sad for our democracy that we are even having this discussion.

4) One last discussion for today’s and this month’s update on being a global warming doubter and a believer in science. In past discussions, we have discussed the harebrained conclusions that some advocates have put forth on what was causing global warming including beavers building dams and arctic squirrels burying nuts. But the latest theory on what is causing global warming/climate change may be the best, i.e. most insane, theory EVER.

According to a recent story on the MRCTV website by Thomas Murray on June 13, 2016:

• A senior Muslim cleric in Isfahan, Iran, Seyyed Youssef Tabatabi-nejad, recently stated in his sermon that that women dressing inappropriately is causing climate change.
• He urged Iran’s undercover morals police to crack down on “improper veiling” to keep Iran’s population as moral as possible and help keep global warming under control.
• In his sermon, the good cleric had that he had gotten photos of women next to the now dry Zayandeh-run River and that their improper dress had caused the river to dry up.

No comment I could put forth would do justice to such ignorance and stupidity. It seems all over the world, if there is a crisis of any kind, blame it on global warming/climate change ….and women’s short skirts, beavers, squirrels, and who knows what else.

There you have for today’s discussion: global warming advocates still cheating by manipulating data, the arrival of Orwell’s “1984” via global warming freedom suppression, and short skirts causing climate havoc. See why it is easy to be a global warming doubter and a believer in science: many of those that are on the other side of the argument are not believers in science. More next month.

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:

http://www.reason.com
http://www.cato.org
http://www.bankruptingamerica.org
http://www.conventionofstates.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w

September, 2014 I Am A Global Warming Doubter and A Believer In Science, Part 2: 97% Is A Bogus Number, Detroit is Not A Global Warming Victim, and More

On a semi-regular basis we have taken an in-depth look at ALL pertinent and relevant global warming/climate change data, statistics, trends, and science under the theme, “I am a global warming doubter and a believer in science.” It was our feeling and position that the people who believed and supported the theory that humanity’s actions was causing global warming and climate change were not being completely honest in their discussion, 

It seemed that they were cherry picking information to prove their point rather than looking at all of the information available to reach a scientifically sound basis. To make matters worse, their attitudes to towards those of us that were believers in science but were skeptical about the whole global warming thesis to be honest with you just ticked us off. People like Al Gore go about bashing folks like our selves, calling them ignorant of science, racists, homophobes, and other derogatory names just because we want to look at the entire picture, just not a slanted, narrow and quite possibly incorrect view of reality.

Past discussions under this theme in this blog can be accessed by entering “I am a global warming doubter” in the search box above. By reviewing those discussions and posts with an open mind, you will find that the science on man made global warming/climate change is far from settled, contrary to the views of global warming advocates. That conclusion is further verified by the latest research and realities that we started discussing yesterday, will continue today, and probably last for a few more days.

1) NOAA is a Federal government weather entity that tracks all kinds of weather and climate related events and trends. Let’s check with their July, 2014 findings and see if there are any dramatic global warming or climate change events going down:

• The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July, 2014 was 73.3°F, or 0.3°F below the 20th century average.
• This latest July temperature finding puts it near the middle of the 120-year period of record. 
• This was the coolest July for the Lower-48 since 2009. 
• The average maximum (daytime) July temperature for the contiguous U.S. was 85.8°F, 0.9°F below the 20th century average, while the average minimum (nighttime) July temperature was 60.8°F, 0.2°F above the 20th century average.
• Below-average temperatures stretched from the Midwest, through the Mississippi River Valley, and into parts of the Southeast, where 13 states had one of their 10 coolest Julys on record. 
• Arkansas and Indiana each had their coolest July on record. 
• The Arkansas average temperature was 75.7°F, 4.6°F below the 20th century average and dipping below the previous record cold July that occurred in 1967. 
• The Indiana average temperature was 69.2°F, 5.3°F below the 20th century average, slightly cooler than the previous record cold July of 2009. 
• Although most corn producing areas in the Midwest have experienced excellent growing conditions during 2014, in northern areas, from North Dakota to Michigan, a cool and wet 2014 growing season might cause corn crops to not reach full maturation before harvest.
• There were more than twice as many record cool temperatures during July (5,508) than record warm temperatures (2,605), with most of the cool temperature records (3,333) being cool daytime temperatures and most of the warm temperature records (1,882) being warm nighttime temperatures.
• Above-average temperatures were observed from the Intermountain West to the Pacific Coast. 
• Six states had one of their 10 warmest Julys on record, but no state was record warm for the month. The above-average temperatures, combined with long-term dryness, created ideal wildfire conditions across the West, where numerous large wildfires charred hundreds of thousands of acres during July.
• Much of Alaska was warmer than average during July, especially along the western Gulf of Alaska coast and the Alaska Peninsula. 
• The July national precipitation total was 2.55 inches, 0.23 inch below the 20th century average, marking the 26th driest July on record.

Some colder temps, some, but fewer warmer temps, outstanding growing conditions in the Midwest, hardly the catastrophic weather and climate predictions global warming people like Al Gore have been predicting incorrectly for years and year. 

2) One of the biggest fallacies going around to support the probably faulty theory that humanity’s actions are causing massive global warming and/or climate change is the statistic that 97% of scientists agree that climate change is real, man made, and dangerous. If this stat is true, than why are we even having a conversation about global warming, let’s fix it right away, there cannot be any doubt.

But that is a big if, even if the President has been spouting it off. A recent report from the Global Warming Policy Foundation explained why this is such a bogus number:

• The original 97% claim first appeared in a research paper by Australian global warming advocate John Cook.
• The paper drew its conclusions having allegedly reviewed 12,000 papers on climate change and claimed that the vast majority of them supported the “consensus” on global warming.
• But Cook defined “consensus as having two and only two components: 1) that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas and 2) human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent.
• There was no quantitative or benchmark criteria used, just an unspecified extent, hardly a scientific approach or analysis. Thus, under Cook’s definition, even if a scientists conceded there was a lless than 1% probability of man made global warming, that scientist would be considered part of the 97% consensus.
• Keep in mind that John Cook’s internet home is a global warming advocate website called Skeptical Science so he has a vested interest in global warming propaganda. 
• Unfortunately for Cook, a security lapse at his site in 2012 led to the uncovering of private email exchanges between Cook and his co-conspirators: “It’s essential that the public understands that there’s a scientific consensus on AGW. So [Skeptical Science activists] Jim Powell, Dana [Nucitelli] and I have been working on something over the last few months that we hope will have a game changing impact on the public perception of consensus. Basically, we hope to establish that not only is there a consensus, there is a strengthening consensus.”
• This is not science, this is public relations and propaganda since the conclusions were drawn and done before any research into whether there was a consensus was conducted.

And that is how bogus science passes for real science in the world of politics and vested interests. For a more detailed rebuttal of Cook’s 97% please visit:

http://youngcons.com/obamas-97-of-scientists-agree-climate-change-is-real-man-made-and-dangerous-lie-just-got-demolished/#ixzz3Crdacxv9

3) Detroit, Michigan recently suffered through some really heavy rainfall, rainfall that overwhelmed the city’s sewer systems with flooding. It did not take long for a local government bureaucrat, Detorit Water Commissioner Jim Nash, to blame the heavy rains on man made global warming/climate change: “The system [Detroit’s sewer system] worked exactly like it was supposed to, but we’re seeing these rain events that used to be unusual but just aren’t anymore. This is going to become more normal and we need to understand that ‘100-year storm’ is an outdated term.”

Oh, wait. A Federal government agency, NOAA, tracks severe rainfall events by frequency. They have not come across any major spikes in rainfall that would back up this commissioner’s views:

Rather than global warming, about a more logical cause of Detroit’s flooding: 

• In 1950, the city had 1.8 million residents. 
• It has fewer than 800,000 today. Detroit built municipal infrastructure to operate on a scale that would support 1.8 million people. 
• That large of an infrastructure costs more than 800,000 residents can possibly pay for to maintain, especially when the unemployment rate is about 20% and a third of the city’s residents live in poverty. 
• City storm drain systems need to be cleaned regularly so that clogs do not develop and back up the sewers.
• And that is what happened in Detroit when the heavy rains came. Detroit can no longer afford to provide adequate schools, police, sanitation, and other services including clean and operable sewer systems. Global warming did not cause the Detroit floods, the collapse of the Detroit municipal government caused the Detroit flooding.

We have to get away from this easy explanation of every weather related disaster, I.e. not everything in nature is caused by man made global warming or climate change. Sometimes it is caused by mankind’s failures and other times it is caused because mother Nature has a sick sense of humor.

That will do it for today’s lessons in global warming doubting, more lessons to follow 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.robertringer.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w