August, 2017, Part 3, 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 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) I used to work for a manager in a corporation who had a great saying: “nothing is more devastating to an opinion than the right number.” Every body has an opinion, but only opinions based on real numbers have any chance at being accurate. Such is the case when you look at the numbers on two graphs on the NASA website page dedicated to climate:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

As we discussed a few days ago, one of the lynch pins that must happen for global warming advocates to be right is that the seas and oceans around the world need to rise dramatically as the ice caps melt and the water in those seas and oceans gets ever higher. If that rise in the water levels is not dramatic than the entire globaL warming hysteria starts to look just like that, hysteria.

Such is the case with the two graphs from NASA on the website cited above and the what their numbers convey:

• The first graph charts the rise in sea levels from 1993 to the present.
• And at first blush, it appears that global warming advocates might be right, the sea levels have increased at a pretty steady pace over the past 24 years.
• But look closely at the graph and you will notice two things.
• First, you will see that while the levels are up, they are up only about 86 mm which, if I did the math right, is only about 3.4 inches, hardly enough to flood out New York City as was claimed might happen in a global warming piece decades ago.
• Also note that for the last couple of years there has been no increase in the sea levels. While a couple of years is not enough to say the trend has stopped or started to reverse, it is something to follow going forward.
• The second graph does the same tracking of sea levels but starts way back in 1870 until about 1993, the point where the first graph started.
• If global warming is a recent phenomenon because there are so many more people using so much more fossil based fuels than for most of the time period of 1870 to 1993, then that chart of sea levels should have been flat at least until the 1970s, when global warming theory took hold.
• But it is not flat, the sea levels have been rising at a steady rate for about 147 years, according to NASA, and were rising long before global warming should have been happening.

Now, one could make the case that sea levels have been rising since 1870 but man made global warming made them rise faster in the past 24 years vs. the previous 120 years or so. That is a valid logical point.

But let’s not try to claim that the entire 86 mm rise since 1993 is solely because of mankind’s use of carbon fuel sources, something Al Gore would likely try to do. Some, most, or all of that rise could be just a trend of nature that began back in 1870 and what has seen sea levels rise ever since.

2) The beauty of predicting the future is that often no one is still alive to see if your predictions came true. Unfortunately, that was not the case for climate change/global warming scientist James Hansen back in 1988, according to V. Saxena, writing for the Conservative Tribune website on July 17, 2017:

• When interviewed by Salon magazine back then in 1988, Hansen claimed that within a few decades that New York City’s West Side Highway would “be under water.”
• That windows in the city would have to be taped in order to resist the high winds of global warming.
• Bird populations would have changed and trees would have changed because of global warming.
• Crime rates would soar because of the high temperatures.

Bad prediction, Mr. Hansen, 30 years later the West Side Highway is still high and dry, bird and tree populations have not changed, and no one sees a need to tape their windows. Another global warming prediction that is completely wrong on all counts.

Unfortunately for Hansen, he outlived his predictions and is still alive to see how grossly wrong his predictions went. But I give him credit because he is still plugging away with a new set of global warming predictions. 

In a recent paper he published he now warns that if the U.S. continues to use fossil fuels, the world’s sea levels would increase “several meters” within the next 50 to 150 years. He was wrong when he said in 1988 that NYC would be flooded by this time so now he makes sure he and most of the rest of us will be dead before if we see if he is wrong a second time. 

How does that old saying go: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” Too bad we will not be around to see if he is so wrong again, wise move on his part.

3) Looks like Mr. Hansen is not the only person coming out with new predictions despite having been so wrong with his predictions in the past. According to an article by Sarah Taylor, writing for the The Blaze on July 25, 2017, Al Gore is back with a whole new set of scary predictions that will happen because of global warming/climate change:

• Gore claims that global warming, something that stopped almost 20 years ago, will result in the “potential for tens of millions of refugees”entering the United States: “The Max Planck Institute and others are now saying that some significant regions of the Middle East and North Africa may become uninhabitable because of the rise in both the temperature and humidity. And that will increase the flows of refugees. Africa by mid-century will have more people than either China or India, and by the end of the century more people than India and China combined.”He went on to claim that 20 million people are on the verge of famine around the world.
• This despite the fact that global warming has made the world greener and food production more efficient and productive.
• He is once again trying to equate his stand and position on global warming on the highest moral and spiritual causes, much like he has done in the past when he called those of us that have doubts about global warming as being ignorant, racist, and homophobic.
• Now he claims the following moral high ground: “The climate movement is right now in the tradition of all the great moral causes that have improved the circumstances of humanity throughout our history. The abolition of slavery. Women’s suffrage and women’s rights.”

By inference, those that disagree with him would have also been against slavery, women’s suffrage, and women’s rights. Which of course is total garbage. Gore’s predictions have been wrong, Hansen’s predictions have been wrong, every global warming advocate’s predictions have been wrong. Trying to cover up your incompetence by shaming others is the lowest form of discussion and debate. Pathetic.

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

I Am A Global Warming Doubter and A Believer In Science Update, Part 5: More Global Warming Scientists Turn to the Doubter Side and How 1970 Doomsday Climate Forecasts Failed Miserably

This will be final post in the latest update to our continuing series, “I am a global warming doubter and a believer in science.” In this series we present solid scientific evidence, research, and findings that prove that there are serious counterpoints to the global warming mania and that the “science is not settled” on man made global warming and climate change, despite what Al Gore says.

The first post in this update series can be accessed at:

http://loathemygovernment.blogspot.com/2014/05/i-am-global-warming-doubter-and.html

Let’s finish up with the latest news and research from those that doubt but still believe in science.

1) Mother Jones, a publication that leans left politically, would be expected to be “pro” man made global warming and climate change. In fact, in a recent article, the Mother Jones editors made fun of the state of Oklahoma because the state government officials there recently voted against new science education standards that give credibility and legitimacy to the global warming theories.

Specifically, Mother Jones said: "As much as any state in the U.S., Oklahoma is a victim of climate change. In 2011, notes the newly released U.S. National Climate Assessment, the state suffered from its hottest summer on record ... And the report states as plainly as you can that climate change was involved."

But are we dealing in theory or reality when they make such statements? In a recent article in the American Thinker by Sierra Rayne, this writer appears to deal with real data and realities than the theories espoused by Mother Jones (note: Ms. Rayne is a native Oklahoman):

• First of all, keep in mind that “climate change” in the 1930s, before the current global warming rage, resulted in the Great Dust Bowl era with little rain and half of the state’s residents moving out of the state to find better lives. 
• Rayne states: "The Sooner State has a statistically significant increasing -- not decreasing -- trend in annual precipitation since records begin in 1895. That would be the complete opposite of 'drying up.'" 
• "There are no negative trends in annual precipitation for any of Oklahoma's nine climate sub-regions, either, over the past 120 years. None.”
• "There are no declining trends in summertime precipitation for the state as a whole, nor in any of its climate sub-regions, since 1895. None.”
• "You may also be interested to know that there are also no significant trends in Oklahoma's statewide average annual or summertime temperatures since 1895."
• Rayne’s underlying data and research were collected over the years by the Federal government’s National Weather Service. These government tracking numbers show Oklahoma getting wetter, not drier, over time.

So who do you believe? Mother Jones who based their conclusions on the an organization that appears to need the global warming and climate change debate to continue to perpetuate their existence the Federal government’s own data as collected by Rayne? In a rare case, I choose to believe the cold hard government data rather then the shaky theoretical inferences of global warming advocates.

2) Dr. Lennart Bengtsson is the former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology. He probably is a pretty good scientist/ Apparently, Dr. Bengtsson is a prominent and leading climate modeler and research scientist…but one that has come around to the other side of the argument when it comes to giving an credence to the failed forecasts of global warming advocates over the years:

I think the climate community shall be more critical and spend more time to understand what they are doing instead of presenting endless and often superficial results and to do this with a critical mind. I do not believe that the IPCC machinery is what is best for science in the long term. We are still in a situation where our knowledge is insufficient and climate models are not good enough. What we need is more basic research freely organized and driven by leading scientists without time pressure to deliver and only deliver when they believe the result is good and solid enough. It is not for scientists to determine what society should do. In order for society to make sensible decisions in complex issues it is essential to have input from different areas and from different individuals. The whole concept behind IPCC is basically wrong.

Doubter words from a SCIENTIST who used to be a global warming advocate. Want to bet that Dr. Bengttson never gets invited to an Al Gore event any more?

3) I get a kick out of global warming advocates who lecture us on reducing our personal carbon footprint and then jet all over the world attending global warming conferences and reinforcing their own narrow views. This type of hypocrisy was recently pointed out by a short article on the Heritage Foundation website. Gina McCarthy is the head of the EPA and is on public record in her belief that we all need to drastically reduce our carbon footprint.

Well, maybe not all of us. Seems that Ms. McCarthy maintains two homes, one in Boston and one in the DC area. According to the article, she usually flies home to Boston every weekend. Thus, she is probably spewing out many, many times more of carbon than the typical American by maintaining two homes and burning up a lot of airplane fuel every weekend. If she really walked the talk, she would move to her job in DC and sell the Boston area house, which would also reduce her airline carbon spewing. Hypocrisy of the advocates.

4) The following points fall into a general train of thought, paraphrased from the Hillary Clinton Benghazi scandal, “what difference does it make:”

• According to research done by the Science And Public Policy Institute (http://sppiblog.org/news/updated-paper-at-sppi-puts-lie-to-carbon-taxes), what difference does it make if the U.S. goes it alone in the global warming battle since, according to their research, if U.S. carbon emissions went to zero overnight, i.e. no driving, no flying, no operating factories or homes unless they ran on only nuclear power, the Earth’s temperatures would warm by only 0.08 degrees Celsius by 2050. Seems like very little pay back for the disruption of every Americans’ life and the collapsing of our economy if the rest of the world does not follow our lead.
• According to former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, what difference does it make if the U.S. goes it alone since U.S. efforts by themselves would not meaningfully impact global CO2 levels (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/07/08/huge-co2-emissions-disagreement-between-epa-energy-dept-ignored-msm). 
• According to Robert Samuelson, writing in the Washington Post, what difference does it make since there is no solution to climate change or global warming since 1) we will need a 40% reduction in in overall carbon emissions to meet the global warming advocates’ expectations and 2) carbon intensive economies like China and India are more focused on expanding their economies and reducing their countries’ poverty levels than melting ice caps, which means that carbon spewing coal uses will actually increase by 50% in the coming decades regardless of what the U.S. does. He concludes that “whatever the U.S., does will make little difference.”

All of which leaves only two options:

1. President Obama needs to rally the world around his global warming and climate change visions since the whole world needs to get into the act, not just the U.S. For every coal burning plant that Obama shuts down in this country, dozens if not hundreds of new ones will spring up in China, India and elsewhere. Given how weak his foreign policy talents have been and how weak the rest of the world now judges him, his ability to pull this option off is next to impossible.
2. The second option, as Mr. Samuelson points out is based on, of all things, science: “The only real hope is to find a new technology that produces energy as cheaply as fossil fuels but with no carbon emissions.” 

This is the way to use science for the good and the benefit of mankind rather than to abuse it to limit and restrict mankind. That is why I am a global warming doubter and a believer in science: science has given us such wonderful technology to increase our potential and our freedom. 

We should be focused on that strategic, scientific approach rather than the governmental policy and control approach preached and shouted by the Al Gores of the world, despite the overwhelming evidence that manmade global warming and climate change are becoming myths to be used for societal control than science used for societal improvements.

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