November, 2018, I Am A Global Warming Doubter and A Believer In Science

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 man made global warming, or its new rebranded title of climate change, we found that Al Gore and people like him were guilty of a number of things:

• Ignoring science and realities that did not support their opinions and positions.
• Rather than have an adult conversation about climate, these types of advocates like Gore sank to the level of insulting those who dared look at ALL science by calling them a variety of names including racists, homophobes, terrorists, flat earth believers, and other slanderous names.
• Continuing to insist that politicians step up their intrusions into our lives with higher taxes, more regulations, and more control on our freedoms and standards of living based on a shaky theory at best.

To see the past posts and the multitude of evidence that we have compiled that showed it is perfectly okay to be a global warming doubter and a believer in science, enter the phrase "global warming doubter” in the search box above or go through the monthly historical post listed on the right side of this page.

Thus, let’s see the latest facts and science that prove you can be a global warming doubter and a believer in science, regardless of what Al Gore proclaim.

1) A recent research paper that was published in the scientific journal, Nature, proclaimed that the oceans were warming much faster than expected due to global warming and/or climate change. If true, this would have serious ramifications around the world, especially with countries with long coastlines along the oceans. The mainstream media went nuts with the news, proclaiming catastrophe in in its headlines covering the research, especially since the well respected magazine Nature had published the peer reviewed article.

One problem though, the research was wrong due to a math error:

• The study claimed that ocean temperatures had risen 60% faster than previously believed.
• But mathematician and well known climate change skeptic Nicholas Lewis found some math errors that proved this was not the case: “The findings of the . . . paper were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media. Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results.”
• Research author Ralph Keeling, a climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography who co-authored the paper, said he and his partner, Laure Resplandy of Princeton, agreed that their math error was indeed true: “When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there. We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly.”
• Keely went on say in total honesty: “We really muffed the error margins.”

Error corrected, good thing. But three troubling thoughts come to mind:

• It does not appear that the mainstream media corrected their original stories once the error was found and admitted to. Which, if given what we have discussed over the past week or so, lack of journalism honesty and ethics, means that the mainstream media has contributed to muddying the waters when it comes to the science of climate to suit their preconceived and biased intentions and aims.
• Second, we will these two scientists the benefit of doubt on the error in their calculations. However, given the proven history of global warming advocates and scientists intentionally faking data and results to align with their preconceived notions, this type of relatively simple screw up does the raise the specter of bad and corrupt science for political and personal fame and glory.
• And finally, and related to the previous point, this was a peer reviewed article. Why did none of those peers find the error? Were they just sloppy also or did they want the wrong findings to stand and fit their biased and skewed view of climate? 

Shady dealings potentially all around.

2) Although global warming basically stopped increasing two decades ago, there was global warming prior to the last two decades. And while global warming advocates always claim that ANY global warming is really bad, we have often discussed the reality that global warming may actually make it better for humanity, not worse.

Consider a February 13, 2018 article from the Constitution website that discussed this topic from both perspectives:

• Former EPA head, Scott Pruitt, earlier this year posed the hypothesis that global warming might actually be good for humanity.
• Penn State global warming advocate Michael Mann accused Pruitt of being in “stages of denial” and American Meteorology Society’s Paul Higgins also checked in to berate Pruitt. 
• But Mann and Higgins represent only one side of the argument.
• Consider Robert Murphy, an economist with the free market Institute for Energy Research who has done a lot of research regarding climate-economic models: “It’s always problematic to try to add benefits and harms together since people are different, but in terms of standard economic modeling, Administrator Pruitt’s comments are not as unreasonable as some of his critics are claiming. There are plenty of obvious benefits to certain regions from warmer temperatures, such as better harvests and fewer elderly deaths in the winter.” 
• Murphy has concluded that, “It shows that the actual economic research on the human impacts of climate change are not as catastrophic as the alarmists would have you believe.”
• Another study by environmental economist Richard Tol forecasted that impacts of global warming would be a net benefit to humanity, at least in the shorter term horizon.
• Even longer term impacts, if global warming would start rising again, would not be all that bad: “ After 1.5 degrees [increase in warming], Tol found warming has “a limited impact on the economy and human welfare in the twenty-first century,” but the costs would be “substantially greater in poorer, hotter, and lower-lying countries.””
• Specifically, Tol has stated: “There are of course positive aspects to climate change. The eastern US has just been through a brutal winter. Climate change will bring lower heating costs in winter, and cut cold-related death and disease. Plants grow faster and tolerate drought better if there is more carbon dioxide in the air.”
• Historical satellite data likely shows that the Earth has greened up over the past several decades, possibly because of higher levels of carbon dioxide in the air from fossil fuel burning.
• Since carbon dioxide is an essential plant food, more carbon dioxide may suggest more plant food which may mean more plant growth.
• In fact, scientist Craig Idso of the CO2 Coalition has documented a load of studies and research that show the improved growth rates with higher levels of CO2 in the air: “And beyond this very real benefit to human health from increasing temperatures, the extra CO2 has helped to increase crop yields so as to improve food security.”
• Of course, the United Nations’ effort on climate change, the IPCC, disagrees with all of these positive research findings on higher levels of carbon dioxide in the air.
• But the IPCC also ignores the reality that crop yields have increased so much during the global warming hysteria that, “The world produces so much food now the World Peace Foundation declared the “elimination of calamitous famines.” Population has grown, but the death toll from famines has shrunk considerably in the last 50 years.”

So who is right, the global warming skeptics or the doubters? Tough to say but in my opinion there is far more science showing that global warming, which stopped two decades ago, has been more beneficial to humanity than hurtful. And given the reality that the forecasts of doom of global warming advocates over the past forty years or so have always been wrong, I believe the reality as pointed out by Dr. Tol: “The climate change we have witnessed over the last half century has been a net positive for humans.” 

And that is why I am a global warming skeptic 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:


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