The Numbers Behind The Conclusions

Investor’s Business Daily posted an editorial today about the mathematics and science between the claims of global warming. The title of the editorial is, “The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare.”

The editorial points out:

NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) has made repeated “adjustments” to its data, for the presumed scientific reason of making the data sets more accurate.

Nothing wrong with that. Except, all their changes point to one thing — lowering previously measured temperatures to show cooler weather in the past, and raising more recent temperatures to show warming in the recent present.

This creates a data illusion of ever-rising temperatures to match the increase in CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere since the mid-1800s, which global warming advocates say is a cause-and-effect relationship. The more CO2, the more warming.

The editorial includes some examples of how NOAA has altered temperatures to conform to their theory:

This winter, for instance, as measured by temperature in city after city  and by snow-storm severity, has been one of the coldest on record in the Northeast.

But after the NOAA’s wizards finished with the data, it was merely about average.

Climate analyst Paul Homewood notes for instance that in New York state, measured temperatures this year were 2.7 degrees or more colder than in 1943. Not to NOAA. Its data show temperatures this year as 0.9 degrees cooler than the actual data in 1943.

…By the way, a similar result occurred after the brutally cold 2013-2014 winter in New York. It was simply adjusted away. Do this year after year, and with the goal of radically altering the temperature record to fit the global warming narrative, and you have what amounts to climate fraud.

“Clearly NOAA’s highly homogenized and adjusted version of the Central Lakes temperature record bears no resemblance at all the the actual station data,” writes Homewood. “And if this one division is so badly in error, what confidence can there be that the rest of the U.S. is any better?”

That’s the big question. And for those who think that government officials don’t have political, cultural or other agendas, that’s naivete of the highest sort. They do.

Since the official government mantra for all of the bureaucracies at least since the Clinton era is that CO2 production is an evil that inevitably leads to runaway global warming, those who toil in the bureaucracies’ statistical sweat shops know that their careers and future funding depend on having the politically correct answers — not the scientifically correct ones.

Who would have thought that research into climate science has reached the point where it is simply about money.

We Have Been Doing Things Right For A While

The world is not going to end tomorrow because of fossil fuels. Man’s use of fossil fuels has not been proven to be the source of climate change. Climate change has happened since climate began. All of these statements are very logical and true, but somehow those pursuing ‘green energy’ work very hard to periodically convince all of us that if we use fossil fuel, we are all going to die next week (while flying around in their private jets). Green energy is in theory a great idea, but I can’t help thinking that the search for a totally green source of energy is somehow related to the search for the perpetual motion machine. It’s a great idea, but it defies the law of physics. At any rate, we are doing better at keeping the environment clean today than we were in the early 1900’s despite much greater energy usage.

WattsUpWithThat posted an article today about some observations from scientists at the Field Museum in Chicago.

The article includes the following picture:

The article explains:

Horned Larks are cute little songbirds with white bellies and yellow chins–at least, now they are. A hundred years ago, at the height of urban smoke pollution in the US, their pale feathers were stained dark gray by the soot in the atmosphere. A new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows that the discoloration of birds in museum collections can be used to trace the amount of black carbon in the air over time and the effects of environmental policy upon pollution.

“The soot on these birds’ feathers allowed us to trace the amount of black carbon in the air over time, and we found that the air at the turn of the century was even more polluted than scientists previously thought,” says Shane DuBay, a graduate student at The Field Museum and the University of Chicago and one of the authors of the study. He and co-author Carl Fuldner, also a graduate student at UChicago, analyzed over a thousand birds collected over the last 135 years to determine and quantify the effects of soot in the air over cities in the Rust Belt.

…Birds were also ideal candidates for the study because they molt and grow a new set of feathers every year, meaning that the soot on them had only been accumulating for the past year when they were collected. And there was an apparent trend: old birds were dirtier, and new birds were cleaner.

The article concludes:

DuBay notes that in addition to the environmental implications of the project, their work also shows the importance of museum collections like those they used from The Field Museum in Chicago, the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, and the University of Michigan Museum of Zoology in Ann Arbor. “I hope this study exposes collections as a valuable resource to address present day environmental concerns,” says DuBay. “This paper shows the ways that natural history collections can be used, underlining the value in collections and in continuing to build collections, to help us improve our understanding of human impacts on the natural world.”

Fossil fuel is now abundantly available in America. We can use our scientific talents to make it as clean as possible. Like it or not, it is the basis of our economy.

An Unexpected Answer

Hot Air posted a very interesting article today on climate change. There is a theory from the University of Wisconsin that was included in the journal Nature.

The article quotes a press release from the University of Wisconsin:

Using evidence from alternating layers of limestone and shale laid down over millions of years in a shallow North American seaway at the time dinosaurs held sway on Earth, the team led by UW–Madison Professor of Geoscience Stephen Meyers and Northwestern University Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences Brad Sageman discovered the 87 million-year-old signature of a “resonance transition” between Mars and Earth. A resonance transition is the consequence of the “butterfly effect” in chaos theory. It plays on the idea that small changes in the initial conditions of a nonlinear system can have large effects over time.

In the context of the solar system, the phenomenon occurs when two orbiting bodies periodically tug at one another, as occurs when a planet in its track around the sun passes in relative proximity to another planet in its own orbit. These small but regular ticks in a planet’s orbit can exert big changes on the location and orientation of a planet on its axis relative to the sun and, accordingly, change the amount of solar radiation a planet receives over a given area. Where and how much solar radiation a planet gets is a key driver of climate.

The article includes the following:

There is no doubt that the climate has gone through various changes over the centuries. We need to have a serious apolitical discussion about climate change to see if we have the power to influence or prevent it (or if we want to prevent it). This new information should be part of the discussion. This also might explain the period of global warming during the Middle Ages which was obviously not caused by carbon emissions.

Green Energy Isn’t Really Cutting Carbon Emissions

Yesterday The Daily Caller posted a story about the impact of green energy policies on carbon emissions in various states.

The article reports:

There’s no link between the pro-green energy policies of states and falling carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, but there is a statistically significant link between falling CO2 and natural gas electricity, according to statistical analysis conducted by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

Statistical analysis and regressions run by TheDCNF found no statistically significant link existed between the amount a state’s CO2 emissions fell since 2005 and the number of policies supporting green energy implemented by the state. The analysis showed there is an 81 percent chance there’s no link between CO2 emissions and the number of pro-green energy policies, meaning a link between the two likely doesn’t exist. The very small correlation between CO2 emissions and policies was going in the opposite direction from environmentalist claims.

Think about this a minute. According to data from British Petroleum, America ranks fifth in the world for the largest natural gas reserves. We now have a link between lower CO2 emissions and the use of natural gas. We can easily convert our electric plants to natural gas. This would be a big step toward making America energy independent and providing jobs for Americans instead of sending money overseas.

Please follow the link to the article in The Daily Caller to look at the charts which illustrate that the states with fewer green energy policies were the ones that were more successful in cutting CO2 emissions.

The article notes:

The DCNF’s (Daily Caller News Foundation) analysis found states like New Hampshire, Maryland, Maine, Georgia, Nevada and Alaska cut higher percentages of CO2 since 2005 than any others. These states had a combined average of 39 pro-green energy policies. The national average of all states was 51 pro-green energy policies. This suggests the more pro-green energy policies a state has, the less likely it was to reduce CO2 emissions.

This is another example of how excessive government involvement and interference in the free market makes a problem worse instead of solving it. There is a quote, generally attributed to Milton Friedman, that applies to this situation–“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.” I truly believe that.

When Facts Get In The Way

Top Right News posted a story today about the wonderfully warm weather we are having this Christmas. I never thought weather would get political, but that’s where we are now.

The article includes the following quote:

Science advocate Bill Nye explained on Tuesday that many parts of the United States were expected to see record temperatures over the Christmas holiday because of weather patterns associated with climate change.

But Nye chastised meteorologists for refusing to utter the words “climate change” to their viewers. “We have a situation where no one in regular television will say the phrase ‘climate change,’” Nye declared, calling out MSNBC meteorologists by name. “Nobody will mention this phrase. But the world’s getting warmer!”

Facts are inconvenient things. The article also includes the following quote from Real Science:

Christmas Eve 1955 was much warmer. Three fourths of the country was over 60 degrees, and Ashland Kansas,  Geary Oklahoma and Encinal Texas were all over 90 degrees. Fort Lauderdale was 85 degrees. All of the stations below were over 60 degrees on Christmas Eve, 1955.

Last winter, the East Coast had record cold. That was ignored because it was “less than 1% of the Earth.”  But this week, the Eastern US defines the global climate.

In Irving Berlin’s 1954 musical “White Christmas” – the story line was 70 degrees in Vermont on Christmas eve and no snow. That was why they were “Dreaming of a White Christmas”

The article at Top Right News notes that in 1955 the greenhouse gases were 80 percent lower than in 2015. So what caused the warm temperatures then?

Facts are inconvenient things.

I Can’t Believe He Said That

I watched some of the Democratic Party presidential debate last night. I will confess that I did not last very long. I did, however, hang around long enough to hear the following statement as reported in The Daily Caller:

Sen. Bernie Sanders stood by his claim that while he wants to rid the world of ISIS, climate change remains the “greatest threat to national security.”

Sanders said this to CBS debate moderator John Dickerson who had just asked the candidates their thoughts on the recent terror attacks in Paris.

“Do you still believe that?” Dickerson asked.

“Absolutely. In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism and if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you’re going to see countries all over the world,” Sanders said.

Admittedly,  limited resources can cause international conflicts. However, if the free market system is allowed to function freely, innovation can overcome shortages. For instance, Iceland has a rather limited growing season. As you drive through the country, you see greenhouses everywhere. The greenhouses are heated by the geothermal energy that is so abundant in Iceland. That is an example of overcoming a climate-related problem. Since many scientists now believe that global cooling is more likely than global warming, this may be valuable information in the future. America does not have vast amounts of geothermal energy, but given a free market without interference, I suspect we could find a way to feed people despite global cooling.

At any rate, climate change is inevitable. It has been a part of the history of the earth since there was a history of the earth. As some of the scandals in the climate data have come to light, it has been revealed that the earth suffered a period of global warming during the Middle Ages. Carbon emissions were not an issue during that time, but people in Greenland were farming.

At any rate, climate change is not an immediate threat, and there is some real question as to how much we could impact it if it were. I strongly suggest that we focus on ISIS. They are a proven danger that demands an answer.

This Global Warming Thing Is Just Not Working

The Nation posted an article today about some scientific information that is causing some problems for those who believe in global warming.

The article reports:


So what is a “solar minimum”?

Our sun doesn’t maintain a constant intensity. Instead, it cycles in spans of approximately 11 years. When it’s at its maximum, it has the highest number of sunspots on its surface in that particular cycle. When it’s at its minimum, it has almost none. When there are more sunspots, the sun is brighter. When there are fewer, the sun radiates less heat toward Earth.

But that’s not the only cooling effect of a solar minimum. A dim sun doesn’t deflect cosmic rays away from Earth as efficiently as a bright sun. So, when these rays enter our atmosphere, they seed clouds, which in turn cool our planet even more and increase precipitation in the form of rain, snow and hail.

This does not sound like fun. Global cooling has a negative impact on agriculture, it increases the need for fossil fuels (to keep people warm), and it generally makes life uncomfortable in many areas of the earth.

The article further reports:

The last time we became concerned about cooler temperatures – possibly dangerously cooler – was in the 1970s. Global temperatures have declined since the 1940s, as measured by Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The PDO Index is a recurring pattern of ocean-atmosphere climate variability centred over the Pacific Ocean. Determined by deep currents, it is said to shift between warm and cool modes. Some scientists worried that it might stay cool and drag down the Atlantic Decadal Oscillation with it, spurring a new Ice Age. The fear was exacerbated by the fact that Earth has been in the current inter-glacial period for 10,000 years (depending on how the starting point is gauged).

If Earth were to enter the next Ice Age too quickly, glaciers could advance much further south, rainforests could turn into savannah, and sea levels could drop dramatically, causing havoc.

The BBC, all three major American TV networks, Time magazine and the New York Times all ran feature stories highlighting the scare. Fortunately, by 1978 the PDO Index shifted back to warm and the fear abated.

Climate science vs the sceptics

By the 1990s the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had formed the “97 per cent consensus”. The consensus was that Earth was warming more than it should, not just due to natural causes but also human activity. This was termed Anthropogenic Global Warming. The culprit was identified as carbon dioxide generated from the burning of fossil fuels.

I wonder if burning more fossil fuels would prevent global cooling. The bottom line here is simple–we don’t know everything we think we know. My solution is simple–do all you can to keep pollution levels low, and live your life in the best way possible. Don’t allow government officials selling panic to take more of your freedoms. There is nothing wrong with conserving energy, but we don’t have to be slaves of the government in doing it. Americans live in a free country, and it is up to us to keep it free. As I said, live with a reasonable carbon footprint, but don’t go into panic mode. When was the last time you saw someone screaming “the sky is falling–it’s global warming” give up their private jet, their limousine, or buy a small, energy efficient house? When that happens, I will pay attention.

Why Science Should Never Be Considered “Settled”

Yesterday Giz Magazine posted an article about Greenland‘s ice sheet. In recent years, conventional wisdom has been that Greenland’s ice sheet is getting darker due to soot from fossil fuel and/or forest first, possibly resulting in accelerated melting of the ice. Recently, Dartmouth College has come up with a new theory.

The article reports:

Now, however, researchers from Dartmouth College believe that the ice may still still be relatively clean, and that its darkness in the photos could just be due to faulty sensors on the satellites.

Ordinarily, untainted ice sheets reflect much of the sunlight that hits them back up into the sky, limiting how much solar heat is absorbed by the ice. With the Greenland ice sheet, the concern has been that dark carbon particles in the ice are allowing it to absorb more heat, speeding up the process at which the ice will ultimately melt away for good.

Led by Prof. Chris Polashenski, Dartmouth scientists analyzed dozens of snow samples taken from the ice sheet between 2012 and 2014, and compared them to samples taken over the prior 60 years. They reportedly found no significant difference in the amount of black carbon particles or mineral dust in the samples. Additionally, they ruled out algae as the culprit.

The researches have suggested that the degradation of sensors in NASA’s MODIS(Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) satellites could be making the ice look darker in the photos.

The bottom line here is very simple–we don’t control the climate. I believe that as the inhabitants of planet earth we have a responsibility to keep the planet as clean as possible. I also believe that we need to do that in a way that does not hamper our economic growth. Statistically, the countries doing the least polluting are the countries with free market economies and relatively free societies. No company operating in a free market environment wants to kill off its customers. We don’t need to give a world government control of the world’s economy in the name of controlling global warming–individual free countries are quite capable of managing both pollution and their economies.


Lies Scientists Tell In Order To Get Grant Money

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article about the lies being told by scientists pushing the Global Warming agenda. I am not a scientific type, so I don’t understand exactly how this works, but even in my nonscientific state, I can understand that inventing numbers in reporting temperatures will change the results. The source of the article at Power Line is an article at, probably the best climate site on the internet.

The article reports:

This article at Watts Up With That? adds incrementally to that picture. John Goetz analyzes the U.S. temperature data that finds its way into “official” tabulations. This is particularly important because, while the U.S. represents only 6.6% of the total land area of Earth, we account for close to half of the data relied on by the Global Historical Climatology Network. This is a big topic, and you should study the Goetz article in its entirety if you have time. I am still digesting it.

But a few highlights are obvious. First, Goetz finds that approximately 92% (or even more, depending on how you calculate it) of US surface temperature data consists of estimated or altered values. Very little raw data finds its way into the warmists’ climate models–which, of course, is the way they want it. Second, the adjustments that are made to the U.S. data consistently skew the numbers as we have described many times before–they try to make the present look warmer, compared with the past.

It’s all about the money.

The article at Power Line reports:

Why do the alarmists, lavishly funded by the world’s governments, persistently alter the data before they feed it into their computer programs? Because the raw data won’t get them where they are trying to go, to keep the money flowing. This is what you see if you just plot the temperatures that were recorded on thermometers here in the U.S. No warming:


It’s bad enough that politicians routinely lie to the public, but it really bothers me when scientists do it.

Satellite Data Versus Manipulated Data

On Friday The Daily Caller posted a story about global warming. It seems that the satellite temperature data tells a different story than the one we are hearing.

The article reports:

Since September 1994, University of Alabama in Huntsville’s satellite temperature data has shown no statistically significant global warming trend. For over 20 years there’s been no warming trend apparent in the satellite records and will soon be entering into year 22 with no warming trend apparent in satellite data — which examines the lowest few miles of the Earth’s atmosphere.

The article also includes the graph below:

SatelliteBasedTemperatureThe thing to consider here is how government grant money works. If you declare a crisis, it is easier to get a federal grant to study the crisis. Therefore, federal agencies and other entities looking for grant money have a vested interest in declaring a crisis–whether there actually is one or not.

The article explains that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently altered its temperature data in order to show that a hiatus in global warming is not really happening.

The article further reports:

“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,’” wrote NOAA scientists in their study.

The study was highly criticized for inflating the temperature record since the late 1990s to show vastly more global warming than was shown in older data. The warming “hiatus” was eliminated and the warming trend over the period was more than doubled.

“There’s been so much criticism of NOAA’s alteration of the sea surface temperature that we are really just going to have to use the University of East Anglia data,” Pat Michaels, a climate scientist with the libertarian Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“I don’t think that’s going to stand the test of time,” Michaels said of NOAA’s recent adjustments.

Get out the popcorn and stay tuned.


Don’t Let Science Get In The Way Of Your Agenda

The Church and science have been at odds in the past, but I really thought that times had changed. Well, I guess they haven’t. This article is based on two sources, one is an article posted at the Daily Caller today and the other was posted at the U.K. Independent today.

The article at the Daily Caller states that the data from the climate stations in the United States reveals that we have been in a ten-year cooling period. (There are people in the midwest and New England who would most definitely agree with that statement). NOAA has adjusted those numbers to make it appear that there has been no cooling period.

The article at the Daily Caller reports:

NOAA’s latest temperature update did not include USCRN (U.S. Surface Climate Observing Reference Networks) data. One reason for this may be that the USCRN stations only have about a decade of data on them, which could be considered too short of a time period to use them in their analysis.

It should also be noted that USCRN only covers the U.S., including Hawaii and Alaska, but the rest of the world lacks these high quality weather stations that don’t require temperatures to go through ex post facto adjustments by NOAA.

Skeptics, however, argue that USCRN data could deflate future arguments of rapid warming made by NOAA and others.

“So, since this state of the art network requires no adjustment, we can most surely trust the data presented by it. Right?” Watts (Anthony Watts, a veteran meteorologist and publisher of the science blog Watts Up With That) asked.

“While we seldom if ever see the USCRN mentioned in NOAA’s monthly and annual ‘State of the Climate’ reports to the U.S. public, buried in the depths of the [National Climatic Data Center] website, one can get access to the data and have it plotted,” Watts added. “We now have 10 years, a decade, of good data from this network and we are able to plot it.”

The bottom line here is that if you don’t manipulate the data, the areas of earth where we can get accurate temperature measurements have been cooling for the past ten years.

The article at the U.K. Independent dealt with the content of an upcoming Papal speech detailing the dire threat of climate change. I am truly surprised that the Pope has waded into the middle of this discussion.

The article at the U.K. Independent states:

Pope Francis is also extremely concerned about the prospect of mass migration of animals, plants and humans as global warming means they cannot function in their traditional habitat.

He calls for a new global political authority tasked with tackling the reduction of pollution and the development of poor countries and regions.

Although he accepts that there may be some natural causes of global warming, the pope lays most of the blame for climate change squarely at the feet of mankind.

“Humanity is called to take note of the need for changes in lifestyle and changes in methods of production and consumption to combat this warming or at least the human causes that produce and accentuate it,” he wrote.

The pope is very critical of anybody who stands in the way of tackling the problem of global warming – whether they are merely indifferent or actively sceptical.

“The attitudes that stand in the way of a solution, even among believers, range from negation of the problem, to indifference, to convenient resignation or blind faith in technical solutions,” he wrote.

It is unfortunate that the Pope has chosen to further the myth of man-made global warming. The Bible commands man to be stewards of the environment–it requires that man be responsible in using the earth’s resources. There is nothing about man being able to influence climate. The push to end global warming is nothing more than a push toward one-world control of world finances and resources combined with an attempt to blackmail those countries that are prosperous.

If the Pope truly wants to combat global poverty (as countries become more prosperous, they generally become more environmentally conscious) and help fight world poverty, he needs to come out in favor of private property rights. There are two things that economically successful countries have in common–one is equality under the law and the other is private property rights (see rightwinggranny). The problem is not greed or materialism–it’s government control of what should be free markets. A free-market economy benefits the rich and the poor. That would be a Papal doctrine I could support. Unfortunately, those people who like to be in control are generally against giving away that much freedom.

Why I Am Not Overly Concerned About Global Warming

Newsbusters posted a story today reminding us of some predictions made on “Good Morning America” in 2008. Looked at in hindsight, the predictions are almost funny. At the time, I am sure there were people who took them seriously and were totally stressed out by the information.

This is the partial transcript of the news segment from 2008:

CHRIS CUOMO: Now, we will have a dramatic preview for you of an unprecedented ABC News event called “Earth 2100.” We’re asking you to help create a story that is yet to unfold: What our world will look like in 100 years if we don’t save our troubled planet. Your reports will actually help form the backbone of a two-hour special airing this fall. ABC’s Bob Woodruff will be the host. He joins us now. Pleasure, Bob.

 BOB WOODRUFF: You too, Chris. You know, this show is a countdown through the next century and shows what scientists say might very well happen if we do not change our current path. As part of the show, today, we are launching an interactive web game which puts participants in the future and asks them to report back about what it is like to live in this future world. The first stop is the year 2015.

CUOMO: I think we’re familiar with some of these issues, but, boy, 2015? That’s seven years from now. Could it really be that bad? 


WOODRUFF: It’s very soon, you know. But all you have to do is look at the world today right today. You know, you’ve got gas prices going up. You got food prices going up. You’ve got extreme weather. The scientists have studied this for decades. They say if you connect the dots, you can actually see that we’re approaching maybe even a perfect storm. Or you have got shrinking resources, population growth. Climate change. So, the idea now is to look at it, wake up about it and then try to do something to fix it. 

The news segment also included predictions that New York City would be underwater by 2015 and there would be wildfires everywhere. You get the idea.

The bottom line here is simple–we really don’t have the ability to predict the weather seven years in advance or the ability to understand if man actually has the ability to impact the weather. My favorite website (which I have mentioned before) for accurate, scientific information on climate is In the early days of this blog, that site was the source of my information about surface stations–the monitors that measure temperature for the climate scientists. I will admit that I lost a bit of respect for some climate scientists when I saw where some of these monitors were placed–on a small private airport apron where people warmed up their private planes, next to the air conditioning exhaust from an apartment building, in the middle of an asphalt parking lot, etc. There really is a lot more going on with so-called climate science than meets the eye.






The Biggest Science Scandal Ever

The U.K. Telegraph posted an article yesterday calling the adjusting of global temperature records to support the theory of global warming ‘the biggest science scandal ever.’

The article reports:

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I (Christopher Booker) wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.



What ever happened to the Scientific Method?

We need to look at the reasons behind supporting the science of global warming. The poorer nations of the world (generally the ones run by tyrants who do not have equal rights for all people under their laws or property rights) have charged that the richer nations of the world have caused global warming and therefore should pay the poorer nations for the damage they have done. There is no reason to believe that any of the money paid would be used to alleviate poverty in the poorer nations, but their dictators could build more palaces. Global warming is a shakedown. It is an attempt to take money away from nations that have prospered and worked hard and give it to poor nations. I don’t object to helping poor nations, but we need to make sure any help we give goes to the people who need it–not to build more palaces for the leaders of those nations.

There is nothing wrong with moving toward ‘green’ energy. That will happen naturally when the science develops to make that move practical. Right now carbon-based energy is needed as a back-up for almost all forms of green energy because sun and wind are not constant or consistent. Until we find a way to store energy from green sources in order the keep the energy flowing at a constant rate, we will still need carbon-based fuel.

If you are interested in reading more about the science (or lack of) in global warming, I suggest two articles–one on surface stations, and one showing the actual facts about global warming in America. When you look at where some of the surface stations used to monitor temperatures were placed, you begin to wonder at the intentions of the scientists involved.



There Seems To Be Some Disagreement About This

When the world stopped getting warmer, global warming became climate change. Those saying that man was causing climate change did not seem to understand that the climate routinely changed before man invented the wheel. Scientists have found evidence of agriculture under the ice of Greenland. Under current conditions, that is unthinkable.

John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line today about the latest climate numbers on 2014.

This graph was part of the article:

This chart shows Northern Hemisphere temperature changes over the last 10,000 years, based on ice core data. Dr. Ball explains: “The red line, added to the original diagram, imposes the approximate 20th century temperatures (right side) against those of the last 10,000 years.”


The article also contains a chart illustrating how the temperature numbers are ‘adjusted’ to make sure they achieve the desired results.

The article concludes:

So next time one of your liberal friends tells you that 2014 was the hottest year on record, and therefore we must turn what is left of our economy over to the Obama administration, you can tell him that actually, 2014 was one of the 3% coldest years of the last 10,000.

The real name for what some scientists are calling climate change is weather.

About That Global Warming Thing

A picture is worth 1,000 words. This picture is from the U.K. Telegraph. They posted it on Saturday.

In my opinion, the best website for honest information on global warming, climate change, etc. is It is scientific, but generally things are explained in a way that those of us who are not scientifically minded can understand them.

Climate change has happened on the earth since the earth began. Man is not in control of the earth’s climate. There is a very strong possibility that TIME Magazine was right when it reported in the 1980’s that we were entering another Ice Age. The only thing we can be sure of is that over time, the earth’s climate changes. We have not yet put together successful scientific models to tell us when and how the climate is changing. We simply do not know as much as some people like to think we know.


A Picture Of The Climate Change Fraud

John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line today explaining why global warming is a hoax.

Included in the article is the following chart:

The panic over global warming is a thinly disguised attempt to take money away from free nations where people have earned it and give the money to nations that recognize neither freedom or personal property rights. It is the latest form of socialism to be trendy on planet earth.

The article at Power Line concludes:

As discussed in the Climategate emails, this (chart) is how Mann and his fellow alarmists “hi[d] the decline” in Briffa’s data. It is hard to imagine a worse case of scientific fraud, but the history of alarmist “climate science” is rife with this kind of misconduct. In my opinion, the systematic alteration of data by government agencies to make the past look cooler is just as bad. This is what happens when governments offer billions of dollars to scientists, but only if they come up with ever more alarming predictions of what will happen if we don’t give the political class more money and power.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Co-Founder Of Greenpeace Has Forgotten The Talking Points

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted a story about a Senate Committee hearing on Tuesday. Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore was testifying.

The article reports:


“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” according to Moore’s prepared testimony. “Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.”



I, for one, have always been in favor of slight global warming. It is encouraging to me to know that I can now use hairspray, air conditioning, and my blow dryer without endangering the planet. However, on a serious note, it is the responsibility of all of us to do what we can within reason to keep our planet clean.

Enhanced by Zemanta

I Might Be A Member Of The Flat Earth Society

I might be a member of the flat earth society. I don”t believe the earth is flat, but I don’t believe that global warming is caused by man either. So Secretary of State John Kerry compares me to a member of the flat earth society. Well, let’s see how John Kerry’s data on man-made global warming stacks up with reality.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article today about what the scientific models have predicted about global warming and what has actually happened.

This is the chart:


As you can see, the truth has simply not kept up with the scientific predictions.

The Wall Street Journal posted an article yesterday that stated:

“Consensus” science that ignores reality can have tragic consequences if cures are ignored or promising research is abandoned. The climate-change consensus is not endangering lives, but the way it imperils economic growth and warps government policy making has made the future considerably bleaker. The recent Obama administration announcement that it would not provide aid for fossil-fuel energy in developing countries, thereby consigning millions of people to energy poverty, is all too reminiscent of the Sick and Health Board denying fresh fruit to dying British sailors.

Before we take actions that negatively impact the economy of the entire world, we really do need to make sure that the science we are using to justify the actions is valid.

Enhanced by Zemanta