July, 2016, Part 1, I Am A Global Warming Doubter and A Believer In Science: El Nino, A New Theory, and a List Of Global Warming Myths

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) Patrick J, Michaels, writing for the Cato Institute on July 1, 2016, reviewed the latest scientific data as it regards actual air temperatures as actually measured by satellites. His insights are important because a lot of global warming advocates were pointing to the recent hot weather as evidence that global warming was real. Global warming doubters were pointing to historical temperature trends which showed that higher temperatures should be expected since an El Nino weather pattern had formed in the Pacific and that historically, that raises temperatures in the U.S.

The satellites’ recordings include the following highlights:

• Mr. Michaels sets up the science with the following El Nino summary: “For months we have been saying that, once they started dropping, the satellite temperatures—our only truly global measure—were going to go down with a vengeance, which is what usually happens after a strong El Niño event spikes a fever. El Niño is a dramatic slowdown (or even a reversal) in the trade winds that diverge surface water away from the South American coast, “upwelling” much colder subsurface waters. When that stops, global temperatures rocket upwards, but that also builds up more and more cold water to be unleashed when the trade winds resume.”
• The satellite based temperature readings in the lower atmosphere are already showing a dramatic drop in the past four months as the El Nino starts to break up.
• In fact, according to Roy Spencer of University of Alabama-Huntsville, who publishes the satellite data, the drop in temperatures the past in the last two months was the second-largest drop ever.
• It missing being the biggest drop the record by only 0.01⁰C. 
• The existing record was set, wait for it, after the slightly bigger 1997-8 El Niño. 
• In the tropics, where El Niño is the strongest, the drop was the largest in the entire 37-year record of keeping track of temps by satellite.
• Despite the current strong El Nino, the overall change in temps has been basically flat, subject to random error variation, over the past 20 years.

It is so much easier to be a global warming doubter when we have actual, government data to prove our point and so much harder to be a global warming advocate when data destroys pre-conceived notions of what they believe. We will keep an eye on this data over the next six months or so when we expect the fading of El Nino will further reduce overall air temperatures as measured by the satellites.

2) The website, www.ihavethetruth.com, probably does not have the reporting heft or reputation of say the New York Times and the Washington Post. So, it would be easy for global warming advocates to look at this tiny website and pooh pooh anything it says that would contradict what Al Gore told the advocates for global warming. In fact, they would probably ignore the following assertions by this website that was recently published on their site:

• The global “truth” that people like Al Gore and Barack Obama like to spout is that 97% of climate scientists say the science is settled and that humanity is the prime suspect in driving up Earth’s temperatures. However, the article points out, correctly, given that we have already reported on this in previous posts, that this number was passed on a too small of a sample size of only 77 people, that was selectively and biasedly drawn from a much larger sample size who responded to a survey. You cannot base government policy and laws on such a small, skewed sample.
• There are 35 “lies” in Al Gore’s global warming movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.”
• Only 32% of the country is really worried about global warming which is about the same percentage of people that were worried about global cooling back in the 1980s.
• If global warming is so bad and that it will eventually wipe out shore communities, why did Al Gore buy a California beach mansion a number of years ago?
• Al Gore predicted back in 2008 that the entire North Pole could be melted by 2013 but it is still there and has been growing in ice size over the past few years.

The article goes through many more “facts” about global warming. What gives this obscure website credibility is that it sources every assertion it makes which allows the reader to easily go to the link that is the basis for the assertion, links that take you to far more famous websites and research sources. To check out the above, alleged global warming fallacies and others to judge for yourself, click on the following link:

https://ihavethetruth.com/2016/06/23/greatest-hoax-of-the-21st-century-98-scientists-do-not-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/?utm_source=rwn&utm_medium=rwn&utm_campaign=rwn

I think you will be surprised how much information that Al Gore types are not telling you but are suppressing to keep their myths alive.

3) It is no secret that just about every global warming forecast over the past two decades has been a prediction disaster. These models have not come close to even remotely predicting what the Earth’s temperatures would be in the future. 

They are so bad that anyone who thinks that today’s global warming forecast models will do any better has just not been paying attention to the disaster that is climate forecasting. All of which raises a very valid question: if you have had grossly incorrect forecasts since day one, why should we believe your forecasts today will do any better job of predicting the future?

But there is a new scientific study and theory out that explains global warming and global cooling in one grand theory. To me, a non-climate scientist, the new theory seems logical and and helps explain why the Earth’s temperatures have been going up (global warming) and then followed by those temperatures going down (global cooling) over the history of the entire Earth. Rather than me trying to explain the theory, let me quote a description of it from a recent article that was on the Daily Caller website: “Now comes a new study which challenges the role that CO2 plays in our planet’s average temperature. The paper, “Modulation of ice ages via precession and dust-albedo feedbacks” by Ralph Ellis, asserts that carbon dioxide’s main mode of operation on planetary climate has to do with its interaction with terrestrial plant life: as CO2 levels decline after an extended ice-age, plants die off in areas such as the high steppes of Mongolia, causing a big upsurge in dust storms which coat the Northern Hemisphere’s ice fields, lowering their reflectiveness (albedo) resulting in the Earth coming out of an ice-age. After about 5,000 years, the planet, now with high CO2 concentrations, goes back into an ice-age as the Earth’s 23,000-year precession cycle swings the Northern Hemisphere away from the Sun.

Ellis’ paper provides an explanation for what the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) called, “one of the major unsolved questions in climate research” — that is, what caused the large CO2 variations in the past and how they were linked to climate. Of course, one would think that such a large unanswered question might be resolved before creating dozens of climate models that all assume a dominant role for CO2 as a direct agent in making the planet warmer or cooler depending on how much of it is present in the atmosphere.”

Here you have a comprehensive, logical, and testable theory about CO2 and how it affects both global warming AND global cooling. It is so much more viable and robust than just taking a few decades of temperature data and trying to extrapolate it out for several more decades. As a trained, degreed statistician, it is my view that the proposal by Mr. Ellis has likely far more statistical validity than the failed, simplistic historic global warming forecast models. And if he is right, than Al Gore et al are wrong and it becomes more realistic to be a global warming doubter and a believer in science, the type of scientific thinking espoused by Mr. Ellis.

More discussion tomorrow on why it is perfectly rational and sane 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:


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

April, 2016, Part 2, I Am A Global Warming Doubter and A Believer In Science: The Science Is NOT Settled and The Polar Bears Ar Doing Fine

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) The first topic today is an oldie but a goodie. It is an oldie in that it was based on an article from Forbes’ writer James Taylor back in 2013. It is a goodie in that it debunks people like Al Gore, Barack Obama, and others that continually screech that “the science is settled” when it comes to global warming. While it is from three years ago, we have provided more up to date information in other blog posts that verifies that the findings discussed in that article are still true today, i.e. from a science and scientists perspective, the science is NOT settled.

Details and facts of the article include the following:

• According to a survey of scientists conducted by the peer reviewed journal, Organization Studies, only 36% of geoscientists and engineers believe that human beings are creating a global warming emergency.
• A majority of the 1,077 respondents are of the opinion that nature is the primary cause of global warming.
• They are also of the opinion that future global warming will not be a serious problem for mankind.
• The article references two other studies that showed that meteorologists have similar doubts about global warming.

This study has a large enough sample size to draw hard conclusions about science and global warming. The difference between those that claim manmade global warming is real and those that doubt that assertion are in an almost two to one ratio, overwhelmingly in favor of global warming doubters. These are only scientists and engineers included in the survey, omitting politicians that have other agendas to enact and use the global warming myth as a tool for those other agendas.

In other words, the science is not settled as measured by this survey and other realities. 

2) Let’s stay with scientists that know that the science is not settled. Atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen from MIT has grouped people involved in the global warming issue into three categories:

1. Scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, i.e. scientists that believe that mankind’s burning of fossil fuels is creating a dangerous situation.
2. Scientists who are global warming and climate change doubters, i.e. scientists, including Lindzen, that believe there are a whole lot of factors involved in climate and that mankind’s activities are not a significant impact on climate change.
3. Non-scientists such as politicians, journalists, and environmental activists.

Lindzen and his type believe the following realities:

• The climate constantly changes.
• Some degree of warming will occur with the emission of carbon dioxide, but without it there would be no life on Earth.
• Carbon dioxide levels have risen since the 19th century.
• The average global temperature has risen by one degree celsius between 1800 and 2000, but man's carbon emissions have played a role since the 1960's.
• A "confident prediction" about the average global temperature cannot be made.
• Fossil fuel use will not result in armageddon.

Lindzen has very little scientific respect for the third group of non-scientists listed above: "Global warming alarmism provides them, more than any other issue, with the things they most want. For politicians, it's money and power. For environmentalists, it's money for their organizations and confirmation of their near-religious devotion to the idea that man is a destructive force acting upon nature. And for the media, it's ideology, money and headlines. Doomsday scenarios sell."

Additionally, "Unfortunately, group three is winning the argument because they have drowned out the serious debate that should be going on. But while politicians, environmentalists and media types can waste a lot of money and scare a lot of people, they won't be able to bury the truth. The climate will have the final word on that."

Just another scientist that believes it is perfectly logical to be a global warming doubter and a believer in science. Who would you rather believe when it comes to global warming, a has been politician Al Gore or a current MIT scientist?

3) One of the deceptive myths that global warming believers have thrown into everyone’s face is that global warming is killing off the polar bear population. The obvious guilt trip they would want to impose on the rest of us is how can we stand idly by and NOT save the polar bears?

But we have shown that previous posts and scientific studies have shown that the exact opposite is going on. The polar bear population is getting larger, not smaller. Recent reporting by the Daily Caller website cited yet another scientific study to prove that the polar bear population is NOT dying off:

• Researchers from Lakehead University in Canada found no evidence that polar bear populations are threatened by global warming or climate change.
• Publishing their results in the journal “Ecology and Evolution,” the Canadians concluded: "We see reason for concern, but find no reliable evidence to support the contention that polar bears are currently experiencing a climate crisis.”
• After studying 13 polar bear subpopulations, the scientists found that: "Much of the scientific evidence indicating that some polar bear subpopulations are declining due to climate change-mediated sea ice reductions is likely flawed by poor mark-recapture sampling," resulting in the inability to gather accurate “demographic parameters.”

So, in the upside down world of global warming hysteria, the polar bear population is growing while Obama and others of his thinking are making the coal miner population to decrease and become endangered for no reason. 

Today, we learned again that the science is NOT settled, if one would only ask real scientists, and the polar bear population is doing just fine. More evidence tomorrow that it is perfectly rational 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

I Am A Global Warming Doubter And A Believer In Science Upate, Part 1: Fact Checking The Obama Administration, More Scientists Rebuttals, And The Biofuels Sham

Over the past few years or so we have been running a periodic series called, “I am a global warming doubter and a believer in science.” I started the series because I am a true believer in science and scientific principles/processes and the good they can do.

However, I resent being told, or yelled at, by people like Al Gore that I must be a science hating heathen because I do not blindly except his premise that global warming is strictly being caused by mankind and that the science is settled. In his closed mind, I must be an idiot. as are all of the other doubters in the world.

If one reviews our past postings on this subject, it is quite obvious to all but the most closed mind Al Gore supporters that the science is not settled. We have pointed out dozens of studies, research projects, realities, and other proof that the global warming science of Al Gore is not settled. Our “doubter” position has recently been fortified since the global warming mania has been “redefined,” much like a cereal rebranding marketing program, to now be called “climate change.”

Much like falling cereal sales, if you cannot fix the problem, try a redefinition of the problem. The main driver of this rebranding or redefinition is the simple fact that for the past 17 years or so global warming has stopped, contrary to Al Gore and all of the forecast models that global warming advocates tried to scare us with over the years. Their models and their theories have failed, just like the failing cereal, and rather than pull the plug on the theory they are now trying to reposition their egos and their arguments.

You can access our many posts on the “I am a global warming doubter but a believer in science” by entering that phrase in the search box above. Or, you can start with some of these posts directly:

http://loathemygovernment.blogspot.com/2013/11/i-am-global-warming-doubter-and.html

http://loathemygovernment.blogspot.com/2012/02/i-am-global-warming-doubter-and.html

http://loathemygovernment.blogspot.com/2013/11/november-2013-i-am-global-warming_29.html

If you are still convinced that the science on global warming is settled, even after reading such facts as the premier physics facility in the world, the CERN Institute, proving that manmade global warming was a myth, maybe the following current rebuttals to Al Gore can change your mind:

1) The Obama administration recently released a large report on climate change or global warming or whatever, still beating the same drum that we are facing a climatic disaster and the Washington political class needs to take action to avert this disaster. However, the Heritage Foundation recently took a look at the administration claims, and using valid and current scientific data and realities, pretty much debunked the whole report and its premise:

Obama Administration Report Quote: “Precipitation patterns are changing”

Heritage Foundation Reality Rebuttal: Precipitation patterns were never constant. Creating a crisis from the normal allows climate catastrophists to point to every abnormal bit of wet or dry as being “consistent with models” that predict one horrible outcome or another.

Obama Administration Report Quote: “sea level is rising”

Heritage Foundation Reality Rebuttal: Yes sea level is rising, which it has done since the end of the last ice age. But the frequent claims and predictions of accelerating sea-level rise are not borne out in the data. In fact sea-level rise has slowed recently. One main-stream climatologist says this variation “makes the 21st century of sea level rise projections seem like unjustified arm waving.”

Obama Administration Report Quote: “the frequency and intensity of some extreme weather events are increasing”

Heritage Foundation Reality Rebuttal: The latest report on the science from The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and analysis provided by the administration’s own National Climatic Data Center conclude that there isn’t a case for extreme weather increases – no significant trends for floods, droughts, hurricanes or tornadoes.

Obama Administration report Quote: “In Arctic Alaska, the summer sea ice that once protected the coasts has receded”

Heritage Foundation Reality Rebuttal: Global warming is supposedly global. Global sea ice (Arctic and Antarctic) is above average and, for this time of year, it is at its highest level in 30 years, which is the third-highest on record.

Obama Administration Report Quote: “It is notable that as these data records have grown longer and climate models have become more comprehensive, earlier predictions have largely been confirmed.”

Heritage Foundation Reality Rebuttal: The past 15 years have seen the climate model predictions stray farther and farther from actual temperatures (here and here). Last year, prominent climatologist, Hans von Storch, said, “If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models.” Maybe Professor von Storch needs four more years to be sure the models are wrong, but there are no grounds on which the models can be declared “confirmed.” Instead, the predictions are getting worse and worse.

The last claim by the administration is really the most bold faced deception. As we have shown any number of times in previous blog posts on this subject, many, many credible sources have shown that the major global warming models have severely overestimated the impacts of man on the environment and global warming. 

This is easily fact checked to prove that the last point above from the report is pure fallacy. Makes one wonder what other quotes in the report are also fallacies.

2) Although this global warming doubter story is a couple of years old, I just came across it and find nothing wrong with its content and assertions, given the scientists that support it. This story appeared in the Wall Street Journal about two years ago and was written or signed of on by sixteen scientists. 

Their view is the same as ours: there has been no further global warming for many, many years, the global warning models have all been severely deficient in prediction accuracy, and the science is not settled, not close to be settled. If anything, the science is close to be settled for the exact opposite of global warming.

The entire article and associated details can be read at:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html%3Fmod%3DWSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

The main conclusion from these scientists can be summed up from one of their paragraphs within the article:

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

“There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action…” Sounds like a lot is still unsettled according to these scientists.

The writers and scientific signers of this article work at or teach at the Institute for the Study of the Earth, the University of Paris, the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University, the American Physical Society, the National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences, Princeton University, University of Cambridge, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, MIT, Virginia Technical University, the New York Academy of Sciences, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, the Royal Dutch Meteorological Service, and the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva. 

Al Gore fails to mention these types of scientists and global warming doubters, i.e. the science is NOT settled.

3) One of the proposals to combat global warming that was cooked up by the political class and its business cronies was to develop biofuels for use as an energy source, particularly with our cars. The faulty thought process was that if we could displace at least part of the gasoline with biofuels in our gas tanks, less carbon would be released into the atmosphere and thus, less global warming.

It was more a political decision than a valid scientific reason and strategy according to a recent United Nations report where they found some severe “unintended consequences” of biofuels (why do we always seem to find out about “unintended consequences” AFTER the political class gets us way down the road to failure?)”

The new United Nation’s report and analysis comes from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"

• The researchers found that that while biofuels do indeed release smaller amounts of greenhouse gases than gasoline or diesel, "for some biofuels indirect emissions — including from land use change — can lead to GREATER (my emphasis) total emissions than when using petroleum products." 
• Additionally, the negative consequences of including corn ethanol related biofuels in the fuel supply are enormous in other areas of life including serious damage to the world’s food supply. 
• For example, in 2000, more than 90% of the corn grown in the United States went to feed people and livestock, including many people in undeveloped countries, and less than 5% was used to produce ethanol. 
• By 2013, according to mandates from the Federal government and Washington politicians, 40% percent of the U.S. corn crop went to produce ethanol, 45% fed livestock, and just 15% was used for foods and beverages, according to a Forbes magazine investigation. 
• This translates into the U.S. annually using nearly 5 billion bushels of corn to produce more than 13 billion gallons of corn based ethanol biofuel. 
• By taking 5 billion bushels of corn out of the food chain, corn harvesting would lose the ability to feed 500 million people a year compared to what corn crops were doing in 2000.
• 500 million people is equivalent to the entire population of the Western Hemisphere outside the United States, according to Forbes writer James Conca. 
• By 2007, the diverting of the corn crop to biofuel uses caused the global price of corn to double, leading to increases in the price of milk, cheese, eggs, meat, cereals, and corn-based sweeteners, and world grain reserves dwindled to their lowest level in over 30 years. 
• Increased corn prices also impact a wide array of other products, including toothpaste, cosmetics, shampoo, and adhesives. 
• "Additional unintended effects from the increase in ethanol production include the dramatic rise in land rents," as well as an increase in the use of natural gas and fertilizer chemicals, over use of water aquifers, and clear-cutting of forests to plant corn crops, Forbes reported. 
• Other news reports, including Bloomberg, assert that vehicles' fuel systems are being damaged by the use of ethanol. 
• The International Institute for Sustainable Development has estimated that the benefits of carbon displacement by replacing petroleum fuels with biofuels like ethanol are "basically zero."

“Basically zero.” After spending billions and billions of taxpayer dollars to support biofuel usage via subsidies, after causing unnecessary price increases in food and other consumer products, and after causing severe environmental damage from driving up corn production, we end up with “basically zero” net positive impacts on carbon emissions, according to the most recent U.N. analyses and report.

But we are used to getting “basically zero” from the Washington political class in all aspects of our lives, from failing public schools, a lost war on drugs, escalating health care costs, etc. so getting nothing from this one large global warming initiative should not be a surprise. Thus, even if you still buy into the Al Gore global warming hype, what makes anyone think that the current members of the Washington political class can resolve this potential scenario, given their track record in biofuels and every other issue they confront? They are not the solution, their typical “unintended consequences” often make the situation worse.

More “global doubter but believers in science” discussion tomorrow.

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.robertringer.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08j0sYUOb5w