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.
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) A lot of global warming advocates are claiming that 2015 was the hottest year on record, based on recent NASA reports and thus, global warming must be a reality after all. But not so fast. Much like global warming advocates like to truck out their favorite scientists, let’s truck a global warming doubter from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), certainly more than an ordinary university.
Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT recently told the science blog Climate Depot that a small one year jump in temperatures, assuming that it actually happened given the government’s penchant for “adjusting” original data, is no reason to jump to such definitive conclusions: “Frankly, I feel it is proof of dishonesty to argue about things like small fluctuations in temperature or the sign of a trend. Why lend credibility to this dishonesty?... All that matters is that for almost 40 years, model projections have almost all exceeded observations. Even if all the observed warming were due to greenhouse emissions, it would still point to low sensitivity.”
What global warming advocates seem to forget when hyping higher temps in a single year is that during that same year a strong El Nino had set up in the Pacific Ocean which likely temporarily raised temperatures, as previous El Ninos have done. Once this El Nino dissipates, the earth’s temperatures are likely to revert back to the lower temps that have been the trend for the past twenty years.
Lindzen and other scientists also point out that the increase in temps in 2015 was not really large and measurement error could also have been a factor in the slightly higher readings, not a true upward spike in the actual temps. As an example of measurement error, satellite data from the University of Alabama in Huntsville said 2015 was the third or fourth warmest ever and Remote Sensing Systems ranked 2015 as the fourth warmest year ever.
So whose scientist do you believe? The guy from MIT or Al Gore? Oh, that’s right, Al Gore is not a scientist. Again, all we are asking for is an adult conversation that includes ALL relative data, ALL relative climate models, ALL relative scientists to come to a reasonable, mature, and comprehensive conclusion.
2) David Kreutzer, recently writing for the Heritage Foundation, also discussed the NASA data that global warming advocates claim prove global warming is real. But Mr. Kreutzer also points out that the El Nino weather pattern might have caused the temperatures in 2015 to be higher than expected but also points out that NASA’s own satellite data supposedly shows that 2015 was not as warm as 2010 or 1998.
Which also means that years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002,...were also cooler than 1998, seventeen years ago and after many tons of carbon dumped in the atmosphere. So where is the upward trend in global warming if most of the past seventeen years were cooler than 1998, assuming that Mr. Kreutzer is correctly interpreting NASA’s own satellite data?
3) It seems that global warming advocates often use members of the animal world to prove that global warming exists. And these animal references are always ridiculous. Consider a short description from a previous post we did when a global warming advocate actually claimed that squirrels were heavy contributors to global warming:
“The latest culprits in global warming appear to be...wait for it... squirrels. The theory, presented at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union, is that when squirrels dig up the earth in the Arctic permafrost, they release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that has been captured and stored in the ground: “We know wildlife impacts vegetation, and we know vegetation impacts thaw and soil carbon,” said Dr. Sue Natali of Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts, according to BBC News . “It certainly has a bigger impact than we’ve considered and it’s something we will be considering more and more going into the future.”
In another post we reviewed how other global warming scientists blamed beavers and their dam building for contributing to global warming despite the reality that beavers have been digging dams for centuries. And what would global warming advocates want to do with beavers, kill them all to prevent them from contributing to global warming? Lunacy.
But the biggest heart tug of using animals to prove global warming is the now disproved claim that global warming was wiping out the polar bear population. The Federalist Papers website recently cited a Daily Caller article that discussed the polar bear demise fallacy:
- In the midst of the global warming frenzy, the polar bear population has actually grown over the past 40 years.
- Author Zac Unger originally intended to write an article on how global warming was wiping out the polar bear population but found out that they were not getting wiped out.
- Unger apparently told NPR in an interview that: “There are far more polar bears alive today than there were 40 years ago.”
- He went on to claim that: “There are about 25,000 polar bears alive today worldwide. In 1973, there was a global hunting ban. So once hunting was dramatically reduced, the population exploded.”
- According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, there are an estimated 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears worldwide, living in Canada, Greenland, the northern Russian coast, islands of the Norwegian coast, and the northwest Alaskan coast.
4) At the recent Paris conference on the climate, Obama made the following apology to the world: “I’ve come here personally, as the leader of the world’s largest economy and the second-largest emitter, to say that the United States of America not only recognizes our role in creating this problem; we embrace our responsibility to do something about it.”
A few problems here. First of all, Obama assumes there is a problem, a position that this blog and the many discussions we have had about global warming and climate change have refuted over the years. Second, his guilt ridden words ignore the reality that the U.S. has dramatically reduced the carbon footprint and annual carbon emissions of this country relative to the rest of the world. If anything, the U.S. has done more on an absolute basis and relative basis than any other country in the world.
And even if you do not buy these two points, consider the words of Obama’s own Secretary of State, John Kerry, that were spoken at the same Paris conference: “The fact is that even if every single American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our greenhouse gas emissions, guess what? That still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world. If all of the industrial nations went down to zero emissions, remember what I just said, all of the industrial nations went down to zero emissions it wouldn’t be enough. Not when more than 65 percent of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.”
So what is the story guys? Are we going to “embrace our responsibility to do something about it” [Obama] or going “down to zero emissions it wouldn’t be enough”[Kerry]? Seems like the two of you folks are not on the same page. You cannot do something about it on one hand and nothing would be enough on the other hand. Abraham Lincoln once said: "No man has a good enough memory to be a successful liar." Sounds like a description of the Obama administration when the President says one thing and his Secretary of State says the opposite, someone is lying.
So what did we learn today:
- Kerry and Obama obviously do not have their global warming shtick together.
- The polar bear population is alive and well.
- Maybe 2015 was not the warmest year after all.
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
One Pinocchio - Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods.
Two Pinocchios - Significant omissions and/or exaggerations. Some factual error may be involved but not necessarily. A politician can create a false, misleading impression by playing with words and using legalistic language that means little to ordinary people.
Three Pinocchios - Significant factual error and/or obvious contradictions.
Four Pinocchios - Whoppers.
