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

May, 2016, Part 1, I Am A Global Warming Doubter and A Believer In Science: Another Busted Forecast, Mere Thoughts Cause Global Warming, and The Science Is NOT Settled

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) Courtney Kirchoff, writing for the Louder with Crowder website on September, 2015, reminded us how insanely wrong climate forecasters have been over the years. Back in 2007, a global warming advocate and scientist predicted that by 2013, in just six short years, the ice caps would have completely melted, as published in a 2007 BBC article: “Their latest modeling studies indicate northern polar waters could be ice-free in summers within just 5-6 years (2013).”

The advocate, Professor Wieslaw Maslowski, actually admitted at an American Geophysical Union meeting that the 2007 prediction had “underestimated the processes now driving ice loss.” Well, yeah, let’s state the obvious, since the poles are still frozen with ice and snow and have not disappeared as predicted. But that did not stop him from doubling down on his global warming expertise when in 2013 he predicted that his adjusted predictions would now accurately predict that the ice caps would be gone by the summer of 2016. Like this year. 

Unless I have missed something in the news, I think the good professor also got this latest forecast wrong. Nowhere did I read that the ice caps are close to becoming nothing but melted ice and that the polar bears have all drowned and the coastlines around the world have been flooded out. 

Which is why people like me become global warming doubters: how many times have we been told that we are on the brink of global warming catastrophes and nothing happens? After the hundredth time or so you stop paying attention to the gloom and doom predictions and continue to yearn for an adult discussion on the climate using ALL of the available science and data, not just the science and data that backs up one side or the other.

2) Sometimes global warming advocates go bonkers trying to blame anything remotely possible on global warming, We have previously covered hysteria from global warming advocates that claimed digging squirrels up in the tundra were causing global warming...even though those squirrels have been digging up there for centuries. Another scientist claimed that beavers building dams were causing global warming...even though beavers have been building dams for centuries. These are just two of the insane reasons that advocates claim are causing global warming.

But a new theory might be the most insane of all. Ashley Rae Goldenberg, writing for the MRCTV website on May 11, 2016, told us that an MIT conference was going to explore the question: "Is Islamophobia Accelerating Global Warming?” Yes, now the mere thought of something can cause global warming.

This is not a joke. A recent MIT event hosted by the university’s Ecology and Justice Forum in Global Studies and Languages, run by University of Melbourne professor Ghassan Hage, examined, “the relation between Islamophobia as the dominant form of racism today and the ecological crisis.”

Here is the flyer for the event:



I have a college education and an advanced degree but I still could not understand the synopsis of the talk that is highlighted on the bottom of the flyer: “[The talk] looks at the three common ways in which the two phenomena are seen to be linked: as an entanglement of two crises, metaphorically related with one being a source of imagery for the other and both originating in colonial forms of capitalist accumulation. The talk proposes a fourth way of linking the two: an argument that they are both emanating from a similar mode of being, or enmeshment, in the world, what is referred to as ‘generalised domestication.’”Huh? Are you kidding me? Thoughts now cause global warming to accelerate? You cannot make this stuff up.3) A favorite tactic of global warming advocates is to claim that “the science is settled,” with the implication being if you disagree with their views you are a scientific imbecile. Of course, we have shown hundreds of times over the years that scientists, researchers, realities, and other facts that prove the science is not settled and that if anything, the reality of manmade global warming is becoming more of a myth every day.The Inquistr website recently ran a story in which noted scientists put forth their opinions on why the science is not settled:- Dr. Leslie Woodcock is an emeritus professor of Chemical Engineering and Anayltical Science at the University of Manchester in England. He also a former NASA scientist and has a long list of other scholarly credentials. Here is his take on man made global warming and climate change: “The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences. The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causes ‘global warming’ — in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent. There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years. Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything in science, it’s not significant…”“Even the term ‘global warming’ does not mean anything unless you give it a time scale. The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years, if there are extremes, it’s nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it’s not permanent and it’s not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense.”- Dr. James Lovelock was considered almost a founding member of the man made global warming theory back in the day. Despite his once revered position in the global warming movement, he now describes the movement as becoming like “a religion, and religions don’t worry too much about facts” and that “It’s just as silly to be a denier as it is to be a believer. You can’t be certain.”Lovelock has also publicly stated: “… In fact, receding Arctic ice rebounded between 2012 and 2013, growing by 29 percent into an unbroken patch more than half the size of Europe and within 5 percent of what it was 30 years ago, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Last month near the South Pole, a Russian ship carrying scientists and tourists traveled to the bottom of the Earth so passengers might document global warming and shrinking ice caps. But the ship got stuck on ice that was thicker than at any time since records started being kept in 1978.”- Dr. Patrick Moore is a Greenpeace co-founder who has also publicly expressed the opinion that: “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years… no actual proof, as it is understood in science, actually exists.”The science is not settled, at least according to these three distinguished scientists and experts...along with the dozens of others we have previously discussed in this blog.That will do it for today. More proof that the science is not settled as it relates to man made global warming, more lunacy from advocates on possible causes of mythical global warming, and another huge miss on predicting the impacts of global warming. More tomorrow.

March, 2015, Part 2, I Am A Global Warming Doubter and A Believer In Science: Attacking Those Scientists That Dare To Disagree

For the past few years we have run a semi-regular series under the theme, “I am a global warming doubter and a believer in science.” The underlying drivers of this theme were twofold. First, I had gotten tired of people like Al Gore ranting at the top of their lungs that if someone did not believe what they believed then you were an idiotic, a denier, a racists, a homophobe, and a non-believer in science. Second, I wanted to take a look at ALL of the global warming science out in the world, suspecting that Gore et al were using only science and research that supported their apparently skewed view of the world.

What have found over the years in dozens of posts and dozens of scientific research, studies, facts, and realities is that if anything, there are more evidence to dispute the Al Gore point of view than there is supporting it. To view those past discussions and findings, just enter “global warming doubter” or believer in science” in the search box above. The fact that people like Al Gore had to rebrand the whole “global warming” theme to “man made climate change” tells you that their original thinking is starting to collapse and they needed to jump to another point of view.

Yesterday and today we will prove again that it is possible to be a global warming doubter AND a believer in science.

1)Al Gore likes to talk about how just about every scientist in the world supports the man made global warming theory originally and the rebranded effort, climate change. We have shown many times that lots and lots of reputable scientists do not hold those views. One of those in opposition is a gentleman named Patrick Moore, Ph.D.

Moore was an early and important member of the ecological activist group Greenpeace. Greenpeace co-founder Bob Hunter wrote of Moore, as reported by Wikipedia: “Moore was quickly accepted into the inner circle on the basis of his scientific background, his reputation [as an environmental activist], and his ability to inject practical, no-nonsense insights into the discussions.” 

Moore has been active in environmentalism for more than four decades, he currently serves as chair of Allow Golden Rice, and he received the 2014 Speaks Truth to Power Award at the Ninth International Conference on Climate Change, July 8, in Las Vegas.

Listen to what Dr. Moore, a scientist, has to say about global warming and the forces that need it to continue:

**********************
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.”

My skepticism begins with the believers’ certainty they can predict the global climate with a computer model. The entire basis for the doomsday climate change scenario is the hypothesis increased atmospheric carbon dioxide due to fossil fuel emissions will heat the Earth to unlivable temperatures.

In fact, the Earth has been warming very gradually for 300 years, since the Little Ice Age ended, long before heavy use of fossil fuels. Prior to the Little Ice Age, during the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings colonized Greenland and Newfoundland, when it was warmer there than today. And during Roman times, it was warmer, long before fossil fuels revolutionized civilization.

The idea it would be catastrophic if carbon dioxide were to increase and average global temperature were to rise a few degrees is preposterous.

Recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) announced for the umpteenth time we are doomed unless we reduce carbon-dioxide emissions to zero. Effectively this means either reducing the population to zero, or going back 10,000 years before humans began clearing forests for agriculture. This proposed cure is far worse than adapting to a warmer world, if it actually comes about.

IPCC Conflict of Interest

By its constitution, the IPCC has a hopeless conflict of interest. Its mandate is to consider only the human causes of global warming, not the many natural causes changing the climate for billions of years. We don’t understand the natural causes of climate change any more than we know if humans are part of the cause at present. If the IPCC did not find humans were the cause of warming, or if it found warming would be more positive than negative, there would be no need for the IPCC under its present mandate. To survive, it must find on the side of the apocalypse. [my emphasis]

The IPCC should either have its mandate expanded to include all causes of climate change, or it should be dismantled.

Political Powerhouse

Climate change has become a powerful political force for many reasons. First, it is universal; we are told everything on Earth is threatened. Second, it invokes the two most powerful human motivators: fear and guilt. We fear driving our car will kill our grandchildren, and we feel guilty for doing it.

Third, there is a powerful convergence of interests among key elites that support the climate “narrative.” Environmentalists spread fear and raise donations; politicians appear to be saving the Earth from doom; the media has a field day with sensation and conflict; science institutions raise billions in grants, create whole new departments, and stoke a feeding frenzy of scary scenarios; business wants to look green, and get huge public subsidies for projects that would otherwise be economic losers, such as wind farms and solar arrays. Fourth, the Left sees climate change as a perfect means to redistribute wealth from industrial countries to the developing world and the UN bureaucracy.

********************

Now, who should we believe? Ex-politician and lawyer Al Gore or Ph.D. holder Patrick Moore who is a trained scientist who has actively support environmental efforts for over forty years? Looks like at least one famous scientist is a global warming doubter also.

2) But to be a scientist and a global warming doubter like Mr. Moore can have some serious career implications. Consider the plight and long fight back for UCLA professor James Enstrom. Dr. Enstrom’s research exposed climate change fraud, got his research funding cut, was eventually fired, sued the school, and eventually won an out of court legal settlement.

Details of his battle include the following facts:

• He had worked at the university for 34 years so he was obviously not a fly by night, weak researcher and professor.
• After he analyzed data and findings of a shoddy piece of work used to support California diesel regulations, exposing the weak credentials of the person who did the analysis, the professor was fired.
• He was fired even though he exposed fraudulent behavior in the analyses on which the board relied, including that of the lead author of a 2008 report. 
• His actions also led Hien Tran, primary analyst and author of the research, to admit he purchased a magna cum laude Ph.D. for $1,000 from a “diploma mill associated with a fugitive pedophile,” according to CalWatchdog.
• After a two and a half year battle, the school relented and settled the case, reinstating the professor, paying him $140,000, giving him full access to UCLA resources again, and rescinding his termination.

Good for him, he had the guts and fortitude to battle for science based on reality even though it was contrary to what global warming and climate change types want to believe. But that is the tactic that people like Al Gore like to take: dare to disagree with them and they attack and make it personal rather than sitting down, having an adult conversation, and discussing science and the facts, preferring the hysteria and mud slinging approach.

3) Let’s stay at the university level and consider the case of a Harvard University physicist who dared to show that computer forecast models used by the United Nations almost always overstate the impacts of global warming and why that was happening.

Details include:

• The Harvard professor is named Dr. Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon who is a solar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
• He was the co-author of a peer reviewed and approved research paper which explains the “widening discrepancy between prediction and observation” in climate change and global warming forecasting models.
• This is not a newly known fact since we have shown many times the discrepancy between what global warming forecasters predicted and the failure of those models to predict the eventual reality:

• Dr. Soon found that: "The impact of anthropogenic global warming over the next century... may be no more than one-third to one-half of IPCC's current projections."
• Lord Christoher Monckton, a co-author of the paper also concluded: “The billion-dollar climate models that have so profitably predicted Thermageddon are hopelessly wrong. We said the models were wrong because they were using a rogue equation borrowed from electronic circuitry and bolted on to the climate, where it does not fit. That equation, and that alone, leads the modelers erroneously to triple the small and harmless 1 Cº global warming we should expect from a doubling of CO2 in the air. Our irreducibly simple climate model does not replace more complex models, but it does expose major errors and exaggeration in those models, such as the over-emphasis on positive or amplifying temperature feedbacks. Take away the erroneous assumption that strongly net-positive feedback triples the rate of man made global warming and the imagined climate crisis vanishes.”

(Science Bulletin)Sounds like good solid research by solid scientists that come down on the right side of reality as time has shown: original global warming forecast models were grossly wrong, which we know from the eventual real data, and this study provides a reasoned and plausible explanation of why they were wrong. But now the hysteria gets started. Apparently, one of the financial contributors to the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory is ExxonMobil a company that obviously has a stake in any global warming/climate change government sanctions. Thus, rather than discuss the finding of the research based on its scientific merits, the Al Gore types are getting all revved up to discredit the research simply because an oil company made a general donation to the organization with no strings attached. They are getting crazy even though Smithsonian advance and external affairs officer Amanda Preston, signed an affidavit on April 2, 2009 stating that no “goods and/or services [were] provided to ExxonMobil in return for this contribution.”

So let's review:

- The research disputes the view of Al Gore types and global warming with what appears to be solid research by multiple scientists working together.

   - The funding organization, the Smithsonian, has avowed that no benefit was given or corners cut to benefit ExxonMobil.
   - Rather than discussing the research and its merits and whether it is right or wrong, global warming advocates immediately go into attack mode to attack the person, not the findings.
    - Thus, those doing the attacking are doing the exact same thing they accuse global warming deniers of doing, ignoring scientific research and findings, so hypocritical. When in doubt attack credibility not credentials and merit, so pitiful. 

A few further points to be made:A) In 2014, Dr. Soon won the Courage of Defense of Science Award at the Tenth International Conference on Climate Change for challenging “computer modelers and advocates who consistently underestimate solar influences on cloud formation, ocean currents, and wind that cause climate to change.”B) Dr. Soon defended the integrity of his work as follows: “[the attacks on him are] a shameless attempt to silence my scientific research and writings, and to make an example out of me as a warning to any other researcher who may dare question in the slightest their fervently held orthodoxy of anthropogenic global warming….Let me be clear. I have never been motivated by financial gain to write any scientific paper, nor have I ever hidden grants or any other alleged conflict of interest. I have been a solar and stellar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics for a quarter of a century, during which time I have published numerous peer-reviewed, scholarly articles.The fact that my research has been supported in part by donations to the Smithsonian Institution from many sources, including some energy producers, has long been a matter of public record. In submitting my academic writings, I have always complied with what I understood to be disclosure practices in my field generally, consistent with the level of disclosure made by many of my Smithsonian colleagues.If the standards for disclosure are to change, then let them change evenly. If a journal that has peer-reviewed and published my work concludes that additional disclosures are appropriate, I am happy to comply. I would ask only that other authors - on all sides of the debate - are also required to make similar disclosures.And I call on the media outlets that have so quickly repeated my attackers’ accusations to similarly look into the motivations of and disclosures that may or may not have been made by their preferred, IPCC-linked scientists.”If a global warming scientist had been similarly attacked for receiving money from Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, or Al Gore himself, those doing the attacking would be branded as scientifically ignorant. When the shoe is on the other foot, the personal attacks are viewed as justified for a potential, unproven connection to the oil industry without looking at the merits of the research.That will do it for this update of being a global warming doubter and a believer in science. It is sad that scientists like the ones we discussed today are criticized and attacked professionally and verbally for doing what they do best: science. The fact that their findings and results do not line up with someone's political agenda should scare all of us who believe in science since no political stunts or agenda should overrule the quest for scientific knowledge and reality.

www.loathemygovernment.com

.