February, 2018, Part 2, I Am A Global Warming Doubter and a Believer In Science: Stupid In Washington State and Censoring Those that Disagree

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) Despite the fact that global warming by any measure stopped about twenty years ago, global warming advocates refuse to give up. Despite the fact that every global warming forecast model over the years, from a wide variety of entities, were so wrong in predicting the earth's temperatures, global warming advocates refuse to give up. Given that wildfires, hurricanes, droughts, and other natural phenomena show no distressful climate changes, global warming advocates refuse to give up.

A perfect example of this refusal to believe science, data, and realities, is the current set of politicians in the state of Washington, led by its governor, Jay Inslee. The governor is pushing state global warming legislation that would in theory counteract manmade global warming and climate change, a problem that is becoming more and more of a myth everyday. The legislation would impose a carbon tax on carbon based fuels in the state.

But a February 1, 2018 article by Benjamin Zycher, writing for the National Review, showed that this inane plan is, “A Washington State Carbon Tax: All Pain, No Gain Washington Governor Jay Inslee:”

• Even with very optimistic assumptions, the Governor’s plan would reduce the state’s greenhouse emissions enough to drop the overall temperature of the Earth by 2/1000 of a degree.
• Thus, Washington state taxpayers would be more heavily taxed for a potential, best case impact on the Earth’s temperature of, again, 2/1000 of a degree.
• Oh, and by the way, this reduction is not accomplished in a year, or two years, or a dozen years, it would not be accomplished until the year 2100, 82 years from now, 82 years in which Washington state taxpayers would be paying more in taxes for virtually no positive impact.
• These estimates come from the EPA’s climate model, using very favorable assumptions, certainly not an entity famous for being a global warming doubter.
• The article goes on to point out that two other famous efforts efforts to reduce carbon emissions, Obama’s strategies on climate control, which would have reduced the Earth’s temps by a whopping 25/1000 of a degree, and the Paris climate agreement that would have reduce the Earth’s temps by only 17/100 of a degree, according to the EPA models.
• This assumes that numbers this small can be accurately read within in statistical variation, i.e. the noise of the measurement process might make any accurate reading that is so small impossible.
• And replacing current fuel sources with so-called renewable fuel sources is not nearly as “clean” and Earth friendly as people like Inslee would claim if you look at the whole renewable energy provisioning process: there is heavy metal pollution from mining and the production of wind turbines and solar panels, there are negative impacts in nature on bird populations and land use, etc.
• And the article correctly pointed out, as we have often in this blog, that despite the increase in greenhouse emissions over the past century, the impact on sea levels, polar ice caps, tornado activity, hurricane frequency and intensity, wildfires, droughts, and flooding has been consistent with long term trends over the centuries and the models that forecasted dire environmental impacts because of global warming have all proven to be wrong.

But these realities continue to elude the minds of politicians like Inslee. He wants to subject his constituents to higher taxes, upheavals in their lifestyles, and less freedom in their lives for what might be, under the most optimistic assumption set possible, an eight decade gain of 2/1000 of a degree benefit. Insanity.

Maybe Mr. Zycher, the author of the article sums up this political insanity best: “Climate change caused by GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions might prove to be a serious problem. It might prove to be a minor problem, and it might prove to be beneficial on net. We simply do not know, and the argument that very large costs ought to be imposed by climate policies upon the economy — that is, upon actual people — with trivial or unmeasurable benefits is deeply problematic. More research, more technological advance, and adaptation over time are likely to prove far wiser.”

But as we all know, associating the term “wiser” with any American politician is usually a fool’s bet.

2) Despite massive doses of reality (e.g. there have NOT been massive increases in the intensity and frequency of tornadoes, droughts, hurricanes, wildfires despite what global warming advocates claimed would happen) and massive failures of global warming forecasts to ever be correct, manmade global warming/climate change advocates still refuse to believe the reality in front of their faces and computer models.

Thus, rather than having open minds and admitting that maybe, just maybe they were wrong, they often go on the attack and try to suppress the freedom of speech rights of others and the sources of other statistical and scientific evidence that refute what they have spent their lives and careers on falsely defending. 

Such was the case when they threatened and demanded that the American Museum of Natural reject funding and donations from people that dare not blindly believe what they believe. They would rather censor the opinions of others than engage in an adult conversation that considers all of the available climate data and research, as the following letter illustrates:

“The American Museum of Natural History in New York (AMNH) is a treasured and influential institution. Museums must be protected as sites that build understanding, help the public make meaning, and serve the common good. We are concerned that the vital role of science education institutions will be eroded by a loss of public trust if museums are associated with individuals and organizations known for rejecting climate science, opposing environmental regulation and clean energy initiatives, and blocking efforts to reduce pollutants and greenhouse gases.

Rebekah Mercer and the Mercer Family Foundation, political kingmakers and the financiers behind Breitbart News, are major funders of climate science denial projects such as the Heartland Institute, where they have donated nearly $6 million since 2008. The Mercer Family Foundation is also a top donor to the C02 Coalition and the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, institutions that assert that an increase in C02 emissions from fossil fuels will be a great benefit to plant and animal life on Earth. The renewed attention to Mercer Family Foundation chair Rebekah Mercer, who sits on the AMNH Board of Trustees (since 2013), spurs us to reissue a statement that scientists first co-signed in 2015:

“When some of the biggest contributors to climate change and funders of misinformation on climate science sponsor exhibitions in museums of science and natural history, they undermine public confidence in the validity of the institutions responsible for transmitting scientific knowledge.”

Since that original letter, we have seen welcome changes as many museums updated their policies related to fossil fuel financial interests; the American Museum of Natural History increased its focus on climate change concerns and global sustainability in its investments and business plans. But given the prior AMNH funding and board membership associated with Exxon Corporation and David Koch, the prominence of Rebekah Mercer and the Mercer Family Foundation as current AMNH donors and on the Board of Trustees can prompt skepticism and hunts for signs of corruption, no matter the quality of the museum priorities and exhibits overall.

Last week thousands of people shared a Twitter comment by environmental economist Jonah Busch, PhD, who pointed out misleading information on climate science in an Exxon-funded exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History. To its credit, the AMNH’s response was swift: it committed to updating the outdated information to reflect the best available science. But the initial online public anger showed that trust in the museum is undermined by the museum’s association with climate science opponents.

The most important asset any museum has is its credibility. This can be damaged by ties to donors and board members who are publicly known for investing in climate science obfuscation and opposing environmental solutions.

We ask the American Museum of Natural History, and all public science museums, to end ties to anti-science propagandists and funders of climate science misinformation, and to have Rebekah Mercer leave the American Museum of Natural History Board of Trustees.”

Typical global warming advocate strategy: if challenged on a statistical and scientific level, look to just shut up the opposition rather than continue to look for the scientific truth, as practiced by non-scientists like Al Gore and Barack Obama. To these people, the truth is secondary to not being proven wrong.

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