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

January, 2018, Part 1, I Am A Global Warming Doubter and a Believer In Science: Warming Causes Cold And Scientific American Abandons Science Principles

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) Let’s put two facts on the table to start off today’s discussion. First, about a week ago the United States was in a semi-prolonged deep freeze due to a blast of Arctic air that was described as a “bomb cyclone.” There were absurdly low temperatures across much of the united States. Second, whenever something contrary to the global warming advocates occur you can be sure that the premier global warming advocate, Al Gore, is going to show up.

Which was the case after the frigid temperatures finally let up a little bit. Recall that Al Gore once said that there was an excellent chance that the entire North Pole ice cap could melt within five years. He made that statement in 2009. Obviously, he could not have been more wrong in that forecast, much like every single global warming forecaster and prediction has been so wrong since the beginning of time.

In order to protect his reputation, Gore tried to spin, really contort, the frigid temperatures to make himself not look foolish, citing global warming advocate scientist Michael Mann’s view of the bomb cyclone: “It’s bitter cold in parts of the US, but climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann explains that’s exactly what we should expect from the climate crisis.”

Wow! Global warming causes really cold weather, who knew?! Well, in reality, no one knew. Historically, no global warming scientist ever predicted that man made global warming would cause historically cold weather, not even close. Gore predicted the ice caps could be gone by now. Others predicted that coastal cities would be underwater because of global warming. You cannot claim you have credibility in any endeavor when your predictions of the future are all wrong by wide margins.

And as we have always accused Gore and those like him of doing, he cites one source that happens to agree with his spin and contortions while ignoring others in the scientific community might just have a more reasoned, unbiased, and scientific approach to the world, i.e. they use real data:

• Ed Feulner, writing for the Heritage Foundation website on January 10, 2018, actually went to the effort of asking other scientists not named Michael Mann what was going on weather wise.
• Mr. Feulner pointed out the reality that while Gore had predicted that there was an excellent chance the North Pole ice cap would have melted by four years ago, in reality, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, North Pole “ice growth during November 2017 averaged 30,900 square miles a day.” 
• Consider what Kevin Trenberth a scientist at the National Center For Atmospheric Research had to say about this topic: “Winter storms are a manifestation of winter, not climate change. The Arctic is greatly affected by climate change, and it has a feedback effect—but not in winter.”
• Consider what University of Washington scientist Cliff Mass had to say: “The frequency of cold waves have decreased during the past 50 years, not increased. That alone shows that such claims are baseless.”
• Mass went on to point out that people like Gore and Mann are not only always wrong in their climate and global warming predictions but they cause much more harm to basic scientific research and principles: “It is very disappointing that members of my profession are making such obviously bogus claims. It hurts the science, it hurts the credibility of climate scientists, and weakens our ability to be taken seriously by society.”
• And let’s not think that the term “bomb cyclone” is a new term that was invented to describe this frigid weather in the context of climate change. In fact, it was coined over 40 years by Fred Sanders of MIT who studied such storms long before Al Gore and and bunch of others became global warming advocates.
• And according to the article, this latest bomb cyclone is not a one time deal due to global warming/climate change since there are 50 to 60 so-called bomb cyclones every year but most of them occur too far out in the oceans to have any impact on us and they have been going on for a very long time.

Maybe mankind’s actions are screwing up the climate. Maybe Al Gore is right. But when you are wrong, as he and other of his ilk have been so many times, at some point you have to step up and say maybe we need to look at ALL of the science, ALL of the research, ALL of the data and not continue to do what the Al Gores of the world do, looking at only the science, research, and data that support what has been in increasingly shaky premise from the start.

2) One could expect Al Gore not to be too good at science, always ignoring scientific research that does not agree with his viewpoints even though his climate viewpoints and forecasts have ALWAYS been proven wrong. Gore is a politician, he is not a scientist by training so one could make the case he does not understand the scientific method of research and analysis.

But a publication like Scientific American should not fall into that same category as a non-scientist like Al Gore. One would hope that Scientific American would respect the scientific method of research and not fall victim to global warming/climate change hysteria.

Which is not the case since in light of the freedom protests and riots in Iran, Scientific American actually tweeted out that. “Climate change may have helped spark Iran’s protests.” Say what? I thought that high unemployment, high inflation, a repressive government regime, a corrupt ruling class, lack of basic human freedoms, suppression of women’s rights, etc. caused the riots in Iran. How wrong was I [sarcasm]?

Seriously, are you kidding me? Climate change causes people to riot? I would have expected a more reasoned, logical, and scientifically proven connection to be done by an institution like Scientific American. But no, like other wild global warming advocates, anything can be connected to global warming no matter how ridiculous the connection might be.

Fortunately, Twitter responses to this idiocy was swift, reasoned and often hilarious:

• Terry Kern: “LMAO, are you really going there?
• Dick Warlock: “Unabashedly idiotic. This is what our credible scientific reads have come to. Take your cult and get ratioed with it.”
• Casaubon: “This is absolutely ridiculous.”
• Jeremy Martin: “This is not a good example of correlation, much less causation. This argument simply isn't good.”
• Caleb Howe: “lol.”
• Reluctant Exister: “Factcheck: lol”
• brent mohrman: “lol. I stubbed my toe yesterday on my dresser. Pretty sure that was the fault of climate change too, eh?”
• Moinsd: “AHAHAHHA! That's good, you guys are competing with The Onion, right? :-D That's really good.”
• neontaster: “Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.”
• John Doiron: “Yeah, I'm guessing it's more government corruption, oppression, and a bad economy, but you go with that.”
• And finally, Mujahed Kobbe (edited for taste): “Get the f*&# out of here with this sh%$.”

Pretty sad that even a once respected science journal would subjugate itself to the pseudo science of correlating every occurrence in the world to the global warming/climate change mythology. Never in the history of mankind has science been so perverted and so biased in investigating truth, where contrary opinions and research is ignored to fulfill personal and political aims. More to follow in the coming days, proving once again that is perfectly 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:

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