June, 2019, Part 2, I Am A Global Warming Doubter and A Believer In Science: More Failed Predictions and Ocasio-Cortez Is A "Twit"

On a periodic basis, we revisit a continuing theme in this blog, “I am a global warming doubter AND a believer in science.” Several years ago we started investigating the viability of this position for a number of reasons:

• It did not appear that global warming advocates were looking at all of the available global warming science, realities, and trends, just those select pieces of information that supported their position.
• There seemed to be a growing sense of doubt among scientists about whether or not global warming was actually a real thing.
• We were getting tired of Al Gore and others of his ilk who constantly were calling those that were undecided about global warming a whole litany of slurs including racists, homophobes, and other insulting terms.

After researching and writing about dozens of global warming information sources, we have proven over and over that it is perfectly logical to be a global warming doubter and a believer in science:

• Realities show that global warming actually stopped about 18 years ago, causing global warming advocates to rebrand their position as “climate change” since “global warming” was no longer an emerging reality.
• Turns out the major global warming forecast models all turned out to be grossly inaccurate in predicting future climate and warming trends, throwing into doubt whether any man made global warming or climate change was actually happening.
• Major and reputable scientists and science organizations (e.g. the renowned CERN Institute) were either originally determining that man made global warming and climate control never existed or changing their position to become doubters of what they may have original believed about global warming.
• Important and prominent scientists around the world were caught manipulating climate data to verify their false claims and forecast models or were outed for at least contemplating changing real world data to match their ill performing analyses and forecasting models.

Previous exposes’ of global warming and climate change theories by using real world numbers, scientific experiments, and the simple act of observing can be accessed in this blog by typing “I am a global warming doubter” in the search box above. At that point, you will be provided many previous posts from this blog including dozens and dozens of information sources that more and more point to a repudiation of Al Gore and others, man made global warming, and man made climate change. The latest proof that you can be a global warming doubter and a believer in sciences is discussed below:

1) In our last post we reviewed some of the blatantly wrong climate predictions that have come around since the original Earth Day back in 1970. We often review past climate change/global warming predictions, all of which were so, so wrong. A recent article article on the Godfather Politics website by Warner Todd Huston reminds us about five “expert” climate predictions that went oh so wrong:

• We were told on Earth Day in 1970 that exploding populations around the world would strain the Earth’s ability to feed everyone and result in a global famine by the year 2000. But in reality, those going hungry around the world has actually been declining over time and the predicted global famine never materialized.
• Another 1970 prediction was that American city dwellers would have to go around wearing gas masks as the climate would be so poisoned by pollution. Oops, never happened.
• Back in the late 1990s the Associated Press reported: “A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” Never happened.
• By now, the polar ice caps should have melted according to global warming advocates like Al Gore. According to the article, between 2012 and 2016 Arctic ice mass has grown from about 2.2 million square miles to 3.3 million square miles.
• As far back as the late 1950s we were seeing predictions that the climate was about to experience a coming ice age, a prediction that persisted until the early 1970s when some climate scientists did an amazing turnaround, going from predicting a coming ice age to a prediction a deadly global warming trend, a diametrically opposed view from just a few years prior.

The article correctly sums up what we should take away from this total failure of some scientists to accurately predict the future, be it overpopulation, famine, or the climate: “If there’s a lesson to be learned from all of these predictions, it’s not that scientists are always wrong or that we shouldn’t be good stewards of the environment. Instead, we should treat extreme predictions with skepticism, especially if they mean upending our way of life.”

2) Marc Moran, writing for the Heritage Foundation on March 19, 2019, reviewed a fascinating piece of research that may explain why global warming advocates and their forecasts were so wrong.
Climate scientist John Christy explains: “The occurrence of both record highs [temperatures] and record lows is declining. Record-low events are simply declining more rapidly than record highs. The drop in record lows is associated with development around the weather stations, which causes low temperatures to increase more than highs for a variety of reasons.”

He points out that what might really be happening is that the weather stations across the country that have recorded temperatures for decades may not be in the same environment that existed over time. For example, assume that a weather station out in the woods has been used for many, many decades, recording temperatures and creating a historical baseline. But over time, on average, that weather station has recorded higher and higher temperatures, which on the surface would imply that the Earth is getting warmer.But let’s assume that a new highway was built that went right by the weather station. Not surprisingly, the temperature in that immediate area would be higher as hot cars and trucks going by and heat absorbing concrete road structures would make the air around that weather station artificially warmer, not because the climate is getting warmer but because the conditions around the weather station changed. Christy calls this: “urbanization and natural variability.” He has done this analysis based on 682 weather stations around the country with at least 105 years of records.

Climate scientist Roger Pielke also says that something is going on that resulted in manmade changes to the environment around the stations, not necessarily changes in the climate: “Without assessing the role of increased urbanization and other land-use changes … changes in atmospheric aerosols overhead, microclimate around observing site, changes in heights of observations, and concurrent trends in surface air humidity, it is not robust to attribute any changes in extreme temperatures to just human-added atmospheric CO2.”

The article also debunks some other global warming myths:

• A 2013 paper published in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology found that extreme heat waves in the U.S. have decreased since the 1930s, not increased as global warming advocate would have us believe.
• Princeton physicist Will Harper has analyzed and debunked the often printed media stories that claim some place just had the “hottest year EVER,”, pointing out that some of these claims are a result of a tenth of a degree or less, not statistically significant.

Some other reasons why it is perfectly okay to be a global warming doubter and a believer in science as more and more predictions turn out to be worthless.

3) Global warming advocates have not only made some grossly wrong predictions but have made some really absurd conclusions. One of our favorite myths was an assertion by some global warming “experts” that beavers building dams, something that they have probably done for thousands of years, was causing global warming. Never mind that we have already reported that China and India by themselves are planning on bringing over 2,000 coal burning power plants on line in the near future, it is the building of beaver dams that had this expert all upset.

Not to be outdone by this climate change link to animals, Newsweek, once a great piece of journalistic effort which has been shrunk down to non-significance over time, recently tried to match the beaver dam theory. According to another Godfathers Politics website story by Mr, Huston, Newsweek recently published a story that predicted more people would be hunted down by man eating tigers as a result of global warming: “According to the official Newsweek Twitter feed, “Man-eating tigers could hunt down more humans due to climate change | Opinion””

Seriously, global warming, which stopped two decades ago, is going to eventually result in man eating tigers going after humans on a more frequent basis. I thought the beaver story was far fetched.

4) And finally for this month, let’s consider a recent interview that one of the co-founders of Greenpeace gave as it related to climate. Keep in mind that I would think that the co-founder of Greenpeace has a better handle on science and the climate than a freshman Congresswoman from NYC has, a Congresswoman who up until recently was a bartender with no extensive scientific background, if any at all:

• Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, says that while climate change is real, it has been going on for eons, it is “not made by people, and is a perfectly natural phenomenon.”
• In other words there is no dangerous climate change, global warming crisis going on, a crisis that was caused by humanity.
• He also had unkind words for Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is pushing the insanely stupid New Green Deal idea and who has also made the totally wrong and stupid prediction that the world was going to end in ten years unless we adopted her insanely expensive and non-workable New Green Deal idea.
• He actually spoke out and called Ocasio-Cortez’s plan what it is really is: "It’s a silly plan. That’s why I suggested she was a pompous little twit. Twit meaning silly in the British lexicon and pompous meaning arrogant.” 
• He went on to rip the former bartender who has a bachelor’s degree in business: “She really rubbed me the wrong way when she said she is the boss, because she can make up a proposal that’s completely ridiculous. There is no climate crisis.There is weather and climate all around the world, and in fact, carbon dioxide is the main building block of all life.” 
• He went onto rip other global warming advocates: “Earth has survived Ice Ages, massive asteroid impacts and extinctions, continents colliding & volcanoes building massive mountain ranges. And CO2, the food for all life, is a ‘threat to the planet.’ Not likely.”

So who are going to believe: the co-founder of Greenpeace who I assume has a deep love for the health of the Earth and who has devoted a lot of his life to such an ideal or a freshmam Congresswoman from Queens, NYC, who has no climate or science formal training, who has only bachelor's degree in business, and who has made a fool of herself so many times over so many topics, many of which we have covered in this blog. Again, given this discussion, it is perfectly sane to be a global warming doubter and a believer in science, not some hackneyed politicians in D.C.

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

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Insanity, Part 4: Getting Slammed By Greenpeace Founder, Calling America Garbage, and More

Over the past few months, New York City Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has established herself as a human gaffe machine. Her inability to do simple math, her outlandish ideas based on an alternative reality, her economic ignorance, and lack of common sense has resulted in an almost daily stream of idiocy, inane comments, and ridiculous ideas that have no basis in reality.

As a result, most of our recent political class insanity posts have almost always had an Ocasio-Cortez piece of insanity. Thus, we have decided to separately track her craziness and idiotic takes on economics, business, government, and whatever else on a regular basis under its own set of posts. She deserves to have a separate effort that captures all of the ridiculousness she espouses.

The original format we were going to use was to start with a set of her original inane ideas and just continue to build on that initial list as time goes by. But after just three summaries of her idiocy and stupid ideas it has become obvious that we cannot continually add to the existing set of ineptness, that list would get too large too quickly.

Thus, each new Ocasio-Cortez post will have only the latest gaffes out of her mouth. To review her previous idiocies just enter her last name in the search box above. The latest post can be accessed at:

https://loathemygovernment.blogspot.com/2019/02/9-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-insanity.html

Let’s get started:

1) Ocasio-Cortez has a bachelor’s degree in economics. She is a former bartender. She has not advanced degree, she has no climate science experience or education, and she has never done any known research on climate.

And yet she has confidently and stupidly proclaimed to the world that the world will end in about dozen years unless we immediately tackle the likely myth of manmade climate change. And she wants us to follow her most inane New Green Deal plan to deal with the myth. 

So who should we believe, this novice adult or a former leader of Greenpeace, a long standing environmental advocate organization:

• Greenpeace co-founder, Patrick Moore, recently proclaimed that following Ocasio-Cortez and her New Green Deal plan woulds result in the demise of the human civilization.
• Specifically: “It would be basically the end of civilization if 85 percent of the world’s and and also 85 percent of the U.S.’s energy in the form of coal, oil, and natural gas were phased out over the next few years, like 10 years.”
• Furthermore: “Basically, they are opposed to approximately 98.5 percent of all the electricity that we are all using and nearly 100 percent of all the vehicle and transportation and ships and planes that we are using,” Moore stated.
• “So when I tweeted the other day and had a huge response — over 3 million impressions on Twitter — when I said ‘You don’t have a plan to feed 8 billion people without fossil fuels or get the food into the cities where it’s needed.’ That requires large trucks, and there’s not going to be electric trucks anytime soon hauling 40 tons of food into the supermarkets, where the people in the cities probably thinks it originates in the supermarket,” he explained.
• “That will spread out as a rot from the center of metropolises all across the country and half the population will die in a very short period of time.” 
• He went on to correctly and logically point out that if her plan was implemented, there would not be any trees left on the planet since wood would become the only viable energy source.

So who are you going to believe, a leading, experienced environmental friend of the Earth or a former bartender from NYC? Seems like a no brainer.

2) For a person who is quite young with very little worldly experience, besides living in a alternative reality, she really should keep her mouth shut most of the time before she says something, insults someone, or makes a fool of herself. 

Speaking a recent gathering of liberals, she proclaimed that the current state of America is “garbage” and that Ronald Reagan “pitted” white working class Americans against non-whites to “screw over all working class Americans.”

Specifically: “One perfect example, I think a perfect example, of how special interests and the powerful have pitted white working-class Americans against brown and black working-class Americans in order to just screw over all working-class Americans, is Reaganism in the ’80s when he started talking about welfare queens.”

Then she blurted out this thought which I can still not figure out what it means from a logic and historical perspective: “So you think about this image of welfare queens and what he was really trying to talk about was … this, like, really resentful vision of essentially black women who were doing nothing that were ‘sucks’ on our country.”

Not content to have one nonsensical statement she followed it up with this nonsensical statement: “And it’s this whole tragedy-of-the-commons type of thinking where it’s, like, because these one, this one specific group of people, that you are already kind of subconsciously primed to resent, you give them a different reason that’s not explicit racism but still rooted in a racist caricature. It gives people a logical reason, a ‘logical’ reason to say, ‘oh yeah, no, toss out the whole social safety net.'”

So let’s do a little analysis of her remarks:

• America is “garbage” but millions and millions of non-Americans want to come here and live, certainly not a sign of a garbage society.
• Americans donated over $400 billion to charities last year out of their hard earned earnings to help others who are less fortunate in their communities, certainly not a sign of a garbage society.
• The Federal government takes American tax money and sends it overseas as foreign aid to help those in other countries, certainly not a sign of a garbage society.
• Americans probably spend millions of hours a year volunteering in their communities to help others, being it building houses via Habitat For Humanity, working in food banks, etc, certainly not a sign of a garbage society.
• The American economic system has raised the quality of life of its citizens to the highest level in the history of humanity, it currently has resulted in historically low unemployment rates in minority communities it has generated substantial economic and wage gains over the past two years, and it has resulted in incredible technology advancements such as Google, Facebook, smartphones, medical advancements, etc.
• The Reagan comments she tries to spin, unsuccessfully into racism remarks, happened in the 1970s, not the 1980s, so just from a timeline perspective she is again wrong.
• Reagan was not trying to get rid of welfare and support of needy Americans, he was trying to clean up welfare abuse ands save the taxpayers money, certainly not a racist thing to do.
• It is tough to take anyone seriously and view them as a mature adult when they have to often interject the word “like” into their comments, “ talk about was … this, like, really resentful vision", “where it’s, like, because these," etc.

My gosh, she certainly put did herself with this speech and conversation. Dates are wrong, topics are wrong, her conclusions are wrong, and the concept that America is garbage is unbelievably wrong. But all of this is par for the course with her.

3) Let’s finish her insanity off today with some further comments she recently made with us annotating the parts of her vocabulary which show how immature and shallow her ideas are: 

• “I think the thing that is really hard for people to sometimes see is that when we are on this path of a slow erosion and a slow, slow, slow, just, LIKE, move away from what we’ve always been, we’ll be a hundred miles, you’ll, you know you won’t even realize that you’ve drifted a hundred miles.”
• “So, when someone’s talking about our core, it’s, LIKE, ‘oh this is radical.’ But this isn’t radical, this is what we’ve always been."
• “And this idea of, LIKE, 10 percent better from garbage, is, shouldn’t be what we settle for. It’s LIKE this, LIKE, it feels LIKE ‘moderate’ is not a stance, it’s just an attitude toward life of, LIKE, hmmm.”

I’m sorry, even if what she said contained even an inkling of common sense, which it does not, I cannot take someone seriously who talks LIKE a 14 year old valley girl.

More Ocasio-Cortez gaffes, insanity, and idiotic ideas 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

March, 2017, I Am A Global Warming Doubter and A Believer In Science: Americans Are Not Worried, Solar Cells Are Bad, 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 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) Rather than listen to what people like Gore think about global warming and what it means to them, what do ordinary Americans think about global warming? Let’s look at some of the latest opinion polls on this very topic, as summarized by www.constitution.com website on March 25, 2017 based on a recent article from the Daily Caller News Foundation:

• A new poll by the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication organization found that while most Americans adults think human activities may be warming the earth about half of those polled do not feel it will negatively impact their lives.
• 50% of American adults believe that global warming will not harm them at all or only a little while only 40% think it will them moderately or a lot.
• Only 49% of those polled think “most scientists think global warming is happening” and 28% think there’s “a lot of disagreement” among scientists.
• Thus, there are great divisions among Americans on whether or not global warming is a threat to them personally and there is not a consensus among Americans on where scientists land on the whole concept/myth of global warming, unlike what people like Al Gore would tell you that there is an overwhelming consensus and that you are an idiot if you do not see the dire threat of global warming.
• A 2016 YouGov poll found that only 9.2% of Americans rank global warming as their biggest concern in life.
• A 2015 Fox News poll found that only 3% of American voters listed climate change as the most important issue facing the country.
• Also in 2015, Gallup polling found that Americans concerned about global warming feel to the same level of concern as in 1989.
• Another Yale poll from 2016 found that only 17% of Americans were “extremely concerned” about global warming enough to want the government to take immediate action while 28% were simply concerned but did not see global warming as an urgent issue, meaning more than 50% of Americans had no concerns at all about global warming.
• A University of Chicago poll found that 61% of Americans would NOT support any government program or tax to stop global warming if it cost them more than $10 a month.

So, as you see, there is not a lot of support for a full bore fight against the myth/concept of global warming/climate change, Americans have far more important issues and priorities in their lives than what people like Al Gore have to say and rant about.

2) Andrew Pollet, writing for the Daily Caller website on March 1, 2017, had some very interesting statistics and analyses for those out there that think solar energy is the clean energy wave of the future relative to the environment:

• New Federal government data shows that a potent greenhouse gas, Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) emissions, a key chemical agent used in the production of photovoltaic cells used for solar panels, has increased dramatically over the past years.
• Its annual emissions have gone up 1,057% in the past 25 years in this country whereas U.S. carbon dioxide annual emissions are up only 5% over that time period.
• Emissions of NF3 are also up significantly in Asia where a lot of solar cells are manufactured.
• NF3 emissions are 17,200 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over a 100 year time period.
• Dr. Michael Prather, an earth science professor at the University of California in Irvine says: “By itself, NF3 is not going to create a climate problem. But everything adds up. Everybody should be paying attention to the pieces that all add up.”

We go over this to show that when discussing global warming and solutions, if any are actually needed, that ALL of the available data should be looked at to see a complete impact on what energy sources do what to the total environment over time. Blindly saying that we should go solar on everything may actually be causing more problems than it solves or resulting in far less benefit than someone like Al Gore might hype.

Also continue to remember that before we start throwing more and more restrictions and regulations on energy and the economy in this country that America’s annual carbon dioxide emission rate is down over 12% since 2005 and down by 2.6% in 2015 alone. We are doing a pretty good job of getting global warming gases under control without overwhelming restrictive political and governmental actions, a fact that ego driven people like Gore and most politicians would prefer that you not know about.

3) An old statistician adage goes as follows: “If you torture the data long enough it will confess to anything.” Which leads us to a statistical atrocity that we have discussed before in this blog but is worth going over again, given how much the data was tortured to get people like Al Gore the answer they wanted.

I was reminded of this misuse of data by a recent article from the “I Have The Truth” website, written by Scott Osborn on February 8, 2017. Remember how we have previously discussed the falsehood that Al Gore, Barack Obama, and other global warming advocates were always throwing around, namely that 97% of climate scientists believe that mankind is causing massive global warming. How did that overwhelming number come about:

• Well, first of all it is based on the opinions of only 77 “climate scientists” of which 75 said that mankind is causing massive global warming, hardly a representative sample of scientists.
• And it is not based on a massive scientific study, it was based on a brief two minute, two question online survey that was conducted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in 2009 by two researchers at the University of Illinois.
• But the survey was not sent to 77 climate scientists, it was sent to over 10,000 scientists of which only 3,000 surveys were returned.
• The 3,000 returns were then whittled down to 77 scientists that had had peer reviewed climate articles accepted for publication, or as Larry Bell of Forbes wrote: “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 “97% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.”

If you torture the data long enough it will confess to anything. 

What about the 7,000 non-respondents who decided that filling out a two question survey from someone they did not know was worth their time, were the results adjusted for that bias? 

What about the 3,000 people who actually responded to the survey who might be great scientists, in either climate studies or other related fields, who might have a different view but did into fit the final and arbitrary screening process that eliminated all but 77 of the over 3,000, was that bias taken into account? The study and the conclusions and the data butchering render this broad and widely misused statement a sham.

And if I remember correctly, one of the researchers was a masters candidate, not a Phd candidate or a holder of a Phd in a climate related field, at the University of Illinois. She had not even attained her master's degree which brings into some doubt her credibility conducting and analyzing the results of a survey like this. This is what the analysis looks like and how it was tortured down to get the answer the researchers wanted:

Contrast this study’s conclusion, done by a person who does not even a masters degree in a climate related field with the recent comments of one of the founders of GreenPeace, Dr. Patrick Moore who actually has a Phd in the field of ecology: “I am skeptical humans are the main cause of climate change and that it will be catastrophic in the near future. There is no scientific proof of this hypothesis, yet we are told “the debate is over” and “the science is settled.””

You pick the “expert” you think is right. I go with the Phd holder. 

That will do it for today’s review of the theme, “I am a global warming doubter and a believer in science.” Americans have bigger and better issues to worry about, if you ask them, than the potential for global warming, solar power is not nearly as clean and friendly relative to global warming as the global warming advocates would have us believe, and torturing the data is a no no, especially when the torture is so obvious to get the skewed result you want. 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

January, 2016, Part 5, I am A Global Warming Doubter and A Believer In Science: The Science Is Not Settled, Just Ask These Scientists

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 man made 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 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:

Over the years we have identified the work and research of dozens of scientists and researchers who have proven it is sane and rational to be a global warming doubter and a believer in science. We found that the “science is not settled” and that observations, facts, realities, and other scientific research showed that there is doubt along many dimensions regarding global warming and its rebranded version, climate change.

A number of times we pointed out that some of the biggest advocates of global warming, e.g. Al Gore, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Bill Nye, and others, were not climate scientists or researchers. In many cases, they were not even scientists, they were often politicians with little or no science in their background.

In this context, we recently came across a Wikipedia page which researched and listed out dozens of scientists and researchers that were global warming doubters. For some of them, we have already discussed their work in this blog including Judith Curry of Georgia Tech. For most of them, I have no idea if their work and research is legitimate. But they include people from the following legitimate institutions:

• New York University
• MIT
• Harvard
• Greenpeace
• Duke University
• University of California, San Diego

Also included in the list are scientists from many other domestic and international universities. It includes scientists from many different fields including astrophysics, physics, chemistry, biology, botany, meteorology, climatology, geography, paleoclimatology, oceanography, and other fields. Thus, this list is balanced across many universities, scientific disciplines, and international borders.

Don’t their views merit a place at the table to discuss their global warming doubts? Would Al Gore call these professionals racists, homophobes, and other slurs like he has called global warming doubters in the past? Would Barack Obama dare call these scientists “flat earth believers” like he previously called global warming doubters? I doubt it. 

The entire Wikipedia article can be accessed at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

This article placed the following reasonable criteria down as on how someone ended up on this list:

1. A scientist had to have at least peer-reviewed article published in any field.
2. A scientist must have made a formal statement in any number of ways stating they had global warming doubts.
3. Anyone on the list must have their own Wikipedia presence.

Thus, as you read the following list of global warming doubters, ask yourself if they have more credibility or less credibility than Al Gore when it comes to climate matters and science.

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections: These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges predicted for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

• Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.
• Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.
• Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.
• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.
• Tom Quirk, corporate director of biotech companies and former board member of the Institute of Public Affairs, an Australian conservative think-tank.
• Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.
• Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 Astronaut, former U.S. Senator.
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.
• Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.
• Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.
• Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).

Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes: These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
• Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
• Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
• Chris de Freitas, associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy,University of Rochester
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University[80][81]
• William M. Gray, professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor,Princeton University
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
• Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.
• Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego
• Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University
• Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo
• Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
• Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
• Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center
• George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa

Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown:
These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man made or natural.

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
• Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).
• Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.
• Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.
• John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.
• Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.
• Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes
• Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
• Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.

Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences: These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

• Indur M. Goklany, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior
• Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
• Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University
• Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.

Dead scientists: This section includes deceased scientists who would otherwise be listed in the prior sections.

• August H. "Augie" Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService Meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming
• Reid Bryson (1920–2008), Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, said in a 2007 magazine interview that he believed global warming was primarily caused by natural processes:
• Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University
• Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist and cosmologist. He was a leading NASA scientist. Jastrow acknowledged the Earth was experiencing a warming trend, but claimed that the cause was likely to be natural variation.
• Harold ("Hal") Warren Lewis (1923-2011), Emeritus Professor of Physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara. In 2010, after 67 years of membership, Lewis resigned from the American Physical Society, writing in a letter about the "corruption" from "the money flood" of government grants.
• Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist and former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.

So maybe the science is not settled, as global advocates like to say. Maybe it is not 97% of all scientists who agree that man made global warming is real and substantial, as global warming advocates like to say. Maybe these dozens of scientists are not racists, homophobes, etc., as global warming advocates like to say. Maybe, we finally need a comprehensive, adult conversation with ALL scientists, not just Al Gore scientists.

More tomorrow as to why it is 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:

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