Why Obama’s big global warming push?

Woe to the land that’s governed by a child.

– Shakespeare, Richard III

I have been wrestling for some kind of explanation why the President of the United States, Barack Obama, would continue to talk about climate change and urge the global transition from fossil fuels to wind, solar and bio-energy. I have concluded that he thinks everyone, not just Americans, are idiots.

These two topics are clearly near and dear to his heart.

My friend, Paul Driessen, is a policy analyst for the Committee driessenfor a Constructive Tomorrow, a free market think tank. Among the pundit class he’s ranked very high by his colleagues. Here’s what he has to say about climate change:

“Earth climate always has changed, is always changing, and always will change—but not from fossil-fuel use. Solar fluctuations, deep ocean circulation patterns, and other powerful natural forces have driven climate change and weather events throughout Earth’s history and will continue to do so.”

“President Obama’s hubris is breathtaking. He now thinks an army of regulators can control our planet’s temperature and climate by tweaking emissions of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide, a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere.”

“America’s communities do not need to be protected from climate change. They need to be protected from the excesses of authoritarian presidents and bureaucrats.”

Driessen and I look at and listen to Obama and wonder if others too see and hear someone uttering some of the most absurd claims about the climate. Then we worry that this someone is the President of the United States with the power to turn his ignorance into national policy.

At this point we have suffered his initial failure to respond to the recession he inherited from the 2008 financial crisis. More than six years later the economy has barely moved toward a normal rate of growth. Then we were gifted with ObamaCare and the disruption of what was widely regarded as the best health system in the world. And, for good measure, he imposed Common Core on an already weakened educational system. It is being repealed and opposed in many states. For good measure, his foreign policy, if he has one, is widely regarded as a total failure.

How is it a former “community organizer” possesses a seemingly vast understanding of meteorology? Did they also teach that at the Harvard Law School? “Climate change,” said Obama, addressing a graduating class of the Coast Guard Academy, “constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and make no mistake; it will impact how our military defends our country.”

“Our military and our combatant commanders,” the President told the Academy graduates, “our services—including the Coast Guard—will need to factor climate change into plans and operations, because you need to be ready.” For what? For a rainstorm? For snow? Wind?

This is the same President who sees no threat to our national security from Iran whose leaders shout “Death to America” every day when they aren’t also shouting “Death to Israel.” He has zealously been pursuing a deal that would enable Iran, the leading supporter of terrorism, to have nuclear weapons. Meanwhile Islamic State (ISIS) is taking over more territory in northern Iraq and into Syria. Obama might as well be dropping bags of marshmallows on them.

He blamed climate change in the form of “severe droughts” for the rise of Islamism in the Middle East and Africa. Someone needs to tell Obama that there have always been severe droughts somewhere on the planet, and floods, and forest fires, and blizzards, and hurricanes. Even so, in the last eighteen years, there have actually been LESS of these natural events, along with the flatlining of the planet’s overall or average temperature—there has been no warming!

Not content to blame climate change for the rise of terrorism, the White House issued a report that was described as “a doomsday scenario of health, security, economic and political issues.” The thing about climate is that it measured in centuries, not years. As for the weather, while records are maintained, it is usually reported as today’s news with a forecast of the coming week.

So you shouldn’t be surprised that the report blamed “asthma attacks” on climate change!

Suffice to say there isn’t a glimmer of hard evidence to support anything the President is saying these days about climate change.

And this is the same President that wants the U.S. and the rest of the world to give up the use of fossil fuels—coal, oil and natural gas—to “stop climate change.”

IF Obama’s big climate change push is just a way to distract Americans from the real problems we have encountered thanks to his failure to address them, then it is purely cynical and political.

IF Obama really believes this stuff, America deserves better.

Categories

About the Author: Alan Caruba

Alan Caruba

Alan Caruba, a CFACT adjunct policy analyst, writes a daily blog at factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com.

  • Brin Jenkins

    Its not just your President, all western Governments seem to be signed up to it whilst admitting they do not understand the science. Hardly a good argument from these leaders! Who is pulling their strings?

  • Ian5

    Except that Paul Driessen and his pal Alan Caruba have no relevant qualifications whatsoever. Their views are driven by ideology not science. Why should we listen to them?

    • Brin Jenkins

      As you have been unable to explain exactly why you are a believer why are your views more relevant then theirs?

      They explain how and why they perceive matters, they have the courage to run a public blog but all you do is snipe and carp on about your superior faith. What is it with you, science or religion?

      • Ian5

        You’ve avoided the question or just missed the point. If you had a medical condition, would you go to a lobbyist and a public relations person for information? And why do you consider running a blog as a courageous activity?

        • Brin Jenkins

          You have missed the point in this article, and again launch an attack on the people rather than the argument. The article is a question on why a non understanding President should believe the warming theory that you hold so dear?

          You are also unable to explain why you believe it to be true, and refuse to debate why, or offer your own understanding. I addressed this point but you seem to think only those suitably qualified should have asked the original question. By suitably qualified, do you mean one such as yourself?

          • Ian5

            Huh, who is attacking who here? When
            Caruba makes outrageous and outageous claims like “there isn’t a glimmer of hard evidence to support climate
            change” his extreme views need to be challenged. Don’t
            listen to me or the President, go do some homework and open your eyes and
            ears, Once again, if you had a medical condition, would you go to a lobbyist
            and a public relations person for information?

            • Brin Jenkins

              Still no explanation of why you think as you do, only that I should go and get educated. Well I have an Hnd in Physics and reject the flawed carbon concepts as a bigoted nonsense. Folk who say they know are unable to explain what they believe, when one is unable to explain one probably has limited understanding.

              The Sun controls our climate, this is where all of the energy comes from. We may not create or destroy energy, When the Sun fails all of this energy will be radiated back into space.

              • Ian5

                You are living in a fantasy world. On what do you base statements like “…flawed carbon concepts”? Your own research? fairy tales? denier blogs like Heartland? Tell us your source. If its bigoted nonsense, does that make scientists at NASA, NOAA and virtually every major american, british and international scientific academy bigots? Explain yourself and answer my previous question: If you had a medical condition, would you go to a lobbyist and a public relations person for information?

                • Brin Jenkins

                  Just explain what you understand.

                  • Ian5

                    You are just being lazy and evasive. You need only refer back to previous comments where I and many others have explained the basic mechanism. CO2 is a GHG. Thermal radiation from the planet”s surface is absorbed by CO2 and other GHGS and re-radiated; some of which is re-radiated back to the planet’s surface and lower atmosphere. This elevates the average surface and ocean temp above what it would be without the GHGs. It’s a basic scientific concept that is taught at the grade 7 level. Now tell us what you don’t understand about it.

                    • DaveB

                      Ian5…..Have you personally measured the “facts” that you so blithely point out? Do you have a degree in Atmospheric Science? I am supposing that the answers would be no. You have undoubtedly parroted others in your cabal. If what you say about the seventh grade is true, then the education system has made tremendous steps backward since I got my degree. I recommend that all posters on this site ignore anything Ian5 posts. He is obviously a shill for all liberal/progressive/socialists including our president.

                    • Ian5

                      Do you understand anything about the scientific method? No of course you don’t. You can’t accept the scientific evidence and the essential policy responses to AGW because it threatens your world view. Your science is based one of ideology and laziness. Do your homework. Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and atmospheric science agrees that climate change is rapid and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions.

                    • Grbrts

                      There are atmospheric studies that show the type of greenhouse trapping of heat that you describe should be seen in the various altitude temperature measurements. Where they would expect to see higher temperatures due to ‘heat trapping’ don’t exist. They can’t explain it.

                    • Ian5

                      What studies, who are “they”.

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      Close to the summit of Etna we see lush greenery, the CO2 levels are higher as Etna is always bubbling away and Sicily is well known for its fertility. I visited a few weeks ago and saw for myself, the Northern rim was snow covered whilst folk were swimming in the sea on the same day, and Italians are not frost bite swimmers. Give it up Ian, common sense outweighs political bias. The Emperor is indeed naked.

                    • DaveB

                      Brin, you and others have put up brilliant arguments, but I fear Ian is completely locked in to his slavish devotion to the hoax.

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      Thank you Dave, its appreciated. I have tried to be polite, truthful and accurate. Not always easy in some circumstances.

                    • Ian5

                      If you actually read any of my comments, most of them throw out questions,,,questions that Brin can’t or won’t answer. Tell me something: If AGW is a hoax, why does virtually every single American and international scientific academy accept it? Why do they and internationally respected organizations like NOAA and NASA all firmly reject the misinformation and nonsense promoted by people like Caruba? Please explain why. It’s a simple question.

                    • DaveB

                      Ian, I have read all of your comments. Your slavish devotion is more than mindless. You have not offered up one shred of real proof to substantiate your claims. You quote news media reports. The news media lie to us every day. Your comment includes references to scientific academies, etc. Your assertion that virtually all of them accept global warming as truth is yours alone. You have not offered any concrete verifiable proof of your position. You are a charlatan who has been spoon fed by information sources that are all highly suspect. Your positions are obviously fed by a superiority complex that is common to all liberal/progressive/socialists. Therefore, I reject everything you post as biased.

                    • Ian5

                      Calm down Dave. I haven’t quoted any media except for Caruba the author of this misleading article. My assertion that virtually all major scientific organizations have strong statements acknowledging that AGW is a serious issue isn’t something I or the media made up. Do a little homework. NASA’s Global Climate Change site is a good place to start: http://climate.nasa.gov/. NOAA’s climate research site is another source: http://www.climate.gov/
                      These are science and research organizations not media organizations.

                    • DaveB

                      Ian, I have been calm the whole time. Your references are of media reports of releases by organizations. Did you personally research this or are you just parroting the media reports? As for research, I am not going to take a suggestion from a liberal/progressive/socialist. I have already seen enough information to convince me that the whole Global warming thing is a scam.

                    • Ian5

                      Dave, you asked for a list of scientific organizations. Theses are easily found and verified, but I’m happy to spoon feed you just this once:

                      American Association for the Advancement of Science:
                      “The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.” (2006)

                      American Chemical Society:
                      “Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem.” (2004)

                      American Geophysical Union:
                      “Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.” (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)

                      American Medical Association:
                      “Our AMA … supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant.” (2013)6

                      American Meteorological Society:
                      “It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide.” (2012)

                      American Physical Society:
                      “The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.” (2007)

                      The Geological Society of America:
                      “The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s.” (2006; revised 2010)

                      International academies: Joint statement:
                      “Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels,
                      retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001).” (2005, 11 international science academies)

                      U.S. National Academy of Sciences:
                      “The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.” (2005)

                      U.S. Global Change Research Program:
                      “The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human ‘fingerprints’ also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice.” (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)

                      Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
                      “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.”

                      “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely* due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” (*IPCC defines ‘very likely’ as greater than 90 percent probability of occurrence).

                      Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
                      “Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.” (2009)

                      List of worldwide scientific organizations:
                      http://opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

                    • DaveB

                      Ian

                      Instead of using reference sources sent by you, I prefer a source that I trust as well as my training as a weather forecaster. Here is a link for you. http://www.tpnn.com/2014/03/17/weather-channel-founder-explains-the-history-of-the-global-warming-hoax/

                    • Ian5

                      Dave, if you are indeed a weather forecaster, you should be spending time on the American Meteorological Society’s site
                      (https://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html) and the National Weather Association’s site
                      (http://www.nwas.org/links/climate.php)
                      not a Tea Party news site.

                      Look up the AMS policy statement on climate change: “Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level”

                    • Ian5

                      >> Your positions are obviously fed by a superiority complex that is common to all liberal/progressive/socialists.

                      I see, because we disagree, you have to resort to name calling and political stereotyping. Evidence to back up your position against AGW would be more helpful.

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      Thanks Dave, I will no longer respond to him again unless he retracts his playground insults. Those unable to debate without politeness, and having no explanation themselves do science a disservice.

                    • Ian5

                      I’m all for common sense. Perhaps you could explain how the above gibberish relates to the science of climate change.

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      Just constant observation as I go around Ian, I’m not sure where your head is. It may be in your Lefty guide to warming bullet points, or firmly stuck into your horses arse. You have only quoted others mantras and not engaged in any science. You are not worth the talking time and I will not talk to folk who resort to constant insults.

                    • Ian5

                      You might look in the mirror. And if you are insulted that I reject your silly conclusions (eg, from 40,000 feet…that lush greenery on the slopes of Mt Etna is a function of CO2 from the volcano) so be it. Where do you make this stuff up?

                    • Richard Klabechek

                      “Earth climate always has changed, is always changing, and always will change—but not from fossil-fuel use. Solar fluctuations, deep ocean circulation patterns, and other powerful natural forces have driven climate change and weather events throughout Earth’s history and will continue to do so.” –
                      See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2015/05/27/why-obamas-big-global-warming-push/#sthash.ESfutwk9.dpuf

                      http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/when-will-climate-scientists-say-they-were-wrong?utm_content=bufferd4179&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvH8fiM3ZGo

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      Thanks Richard, your support was well put. Theories may be known to be incorrect but still be a useful tool in explanations ie. in electron flow with valves and semi conductors, but in Climate Change this has been badly abused.

                    • Ian5

                      Badly abused in what way?

                    • Richard Klabechek

                      Let’s all take a moment to review the liberal handbook of the global warming scam facts. First on the agenda: Science! Science is, according to liberals, the ‘fact-base’ for global warming, telling us that global warming is both man made and going to kill us all. Yes. We are all going to die, because of global warming. Uh-huh:

                      Question this in any way and you are anti-science, because no one can possibly question the data culled from the science.

                      There is one problem with this, of course, and that is that the data culled from science only has value if we can actually trust it was compiled and presented to us honestly. We already know from the East Anglia e-mail controversy that some climate scientists have a motive to jack up these numbers to make global warming look more serious than it really is. What we don’t always know is how they employ clever tricks to do that.

                      But we do now, at least in one case. Thanks to the excellent work of the Heartland Institute’s H. Sterling Burnett, we know that at least three countries – Australia, Paraguay and Switzerland – appear to have altered some of their meteorological data to exaggerate the rate at which their temperatures are rising.

                      Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2015/05/global-warming-scam-continues-unabated/

                      Never forget, folks, what this is all about. It’s about government control. The left never considers the possibility that, if man-made global warming is real, the answer might lie in the innovative work of the private sector to give us cleaner technologies. No. The answer always lies with government. We must tax carbon. We must impose new regulations on manufacturing. We must enforce this through international bodies.

                      And we must do it now! We’re running out of time!

                      Hurry, now, and buy your Prius, and take your recycled bags to the store. Only you can do these things to help stop the EVIL of global warming. Only you can prevent the world from turning into a pitiful wasteland. Forget your pitiful logic, we have pipe dreams! Come join the cult of liberal, and follow Comrade Obama to the happiest days of your life!

                      H/T: CainTV

                    • Richard Klabechek

                      Some reality:
                      “But, if you’re a younger scientist, you know that, if you cross Mann and the other climate mullahs, there goes tenure, there goes funding, there goes your career: you’ll be cut off like Briffa’s tree rings. I’ve been stunned to learn of the very real fear of retribution that pervades the climate world. That’s why I’m playing this one differently from the Maclean’s case: Dr Mann will be on the witness stand under oath, and the lies that went unchallenged in the Big Climate echo chamber will not prove so easy to get away with. I didn’t seek this battle with this disreputable man. But, when it’s over, I hope that those who work in this field will once again be free to go where the science leads”.
                      http://www.climatedepot.com/20

                    • Richard Klabechek

                      We can put the Green/LaCour fabrication up on the shelf with “Hands up, don’t shoot,” “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” “What difference does it make?” and whatever they’re calling “global warming” this year.

                      Sadly, we also shouldn’t be surprised the MSM that baked up this piping-hot serving of crow now refuse to eat it.

                      Exposure of the Green/LaCour fraud made hardly a ripple compared to the tsunami the release caused back in December. Left-leaning commentators have already cued up the “taking liberties with the facts doesn’t undo the Greater Truth” narrative. Green himself told one reporter: “Maybe the thing to convey … would be something to the effect that just because the data don’t exist to demonstrate the effectiveness of this method of changing minds doesn’t mean the hypothesis is false.”

                      Actually, “Dr.” Green, the only relevant “thing to convey” is that yet another liberal invented yet another lie to push yet another leftist ideal.

                      Scientists faked data to advance politics; and the media not only failed to spot the fraud, they gleefully advanced it. In that pipeline, there’s no room for the truth. Consequently, there’s no room for us. When academics and journalists all willingly kneel before politicians, we the people lose big.

                      Think I’m overstating the case? Perhaps. But the same day Green and LaCour were forced to retract a study published with all the hype of a campaign kickoff, President Obama told the graduating class of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy that “denying” or “refusing to deal with” so-called “climate change” constitutes a “dereliction of duty.”

                      http://personalliberty.com/faking-it-2/

                      “Professing themselves wise, they became fools.”

                    • Richard Klabechek

                      Perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that this President, whose lackluster foreign policy has come under much criticism, would seek to deflect that criticism by casting the public’s eye on a new villain – even one of his own creation. But choosing to go after climate scientists and others who simply disagree with Al Gore’s alarmism seems to be just a bit of a stretch … even for him.

                      Leave alone the fact that there’s been no increase in hurricanes, tornados, wildfires or other extreme weather events (not to mention no increase in global temperatures in over 18 years), the evidence that a warmer world leads to more conflict is not supported by either factual or historical evidence.

                      As CFACT’s Marc Morano has chronicled regarding this issue at ClimateDepot.com:

                      War-related casualties have fallen over the last half-century, even as temperatures have slightly risen.

                      Since the dawn of civilization, warmer eras have meant fewer wars.

                      Peer-reviewed studies show the primary causes of civil war are political, not environmental.

                      A chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report of the UN’s own IPCC published last year notes that “collectively the research does not conclude that there is a strong positive relationship between warming and armed conflicts.”

                      To be sure, the world is still awaiting its first climate refugee resulting from a conflict generated by alleged man-made global warming. This despite shrill warnings of impending doom going back years, one issued by the UN itself which said there would be 50 million such refugees by 2010. Of course, we saw none.

                      So it appears the President is not looking at the facts, but simply shilling for his friends in the Green movement.

                      Demonizing your political opponents does not make America stronger. It may be shrewd politically, but it’s doubtful to do much in the way of improving national security.

                      Let’s hope this effort to put climate skeptics in the camp of national security threats backfires.

                      It doesn’t deserve to be given any serious attention.

                      For nature and people too,

                    • Richard Klabechek

                      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/12/22-very-inconvenient-climate-truths/

                      OK just for fun I will repeat three of the logical arguments (I have three more logical arguments but what is the point.) which supports the assertion that the primary cause of warming of warming in the last 30 years is not the due to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

                      When a hypothesis/model fails the next step is to relook at the hypothesis/model to see which assumptions in the modeling/hypothesis are incorrect. The CO2 mechanism has either saturated and/or is counter acted by increased movement of latent heat and increased cloud cover in the tropics.

                      Critical analysis is different than ‘skepticism’ or being a ‘denier’ or being contrary. Critical analysis looks at what a theory predicts and then compares the observations to what is observed.

                      The observations do not support the assertion that the increase in atmospheric CO2 was the principal reason for the increase in planetary temperature.

                      1) Latitudinal temperature anomaly paradox (Strike 1). The latitudinal temperature anomaly paradox is the fact that the latitudinal pattern of warming in the last 50 years does match the pattern of warming that would occur if the recent increase in planetary temperature was caused by the CO2 mechanism.
                      The amount of CO2 gas warming observed is theoretically logarithmically proportional to the increase in atmospheric CO2 times the amount of long wave radiation that it emitted to space prior to the increase. As gases are evenly distributed in the atmosphere (ignoring very heavy or very light gases which biases the altitudinal distribution in the atmosphere), the potential for warming due to CO2 should be the same at all latitudes. The amount of warming is also proportional to amount of long waver radiation that is emitted to space prior to the increase in atmospheric CO2. Now we know that as the earth is a sphere the tropical region of the planet receives the most amount of short wave radiation and hence also emits the most amount long wave radiation. The tropical region of the planet should have hence warmed the most due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. There is in fact almost no warming in the tropical region of the planet. This observational fact supports the assertion that majority of the warming in the last 50 years was not caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2.

                      2) The 18 year pause without warming (Strike 2). As atmospheric CO2 is increasing with time, the delta T (increase in planetary temperature due to the increase in CO2) should also be increasing with time. As we now that there has been a period of 18 years with no surface warming when atmospheric CO2 was increasing for each and every year we know that the majority of the warming in the last 50 years was not due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 and the IPCC general circulation model calculated warming due to CO2 is orders of magnitude too high.

                      3) The tropical tropospheric 8km no hot spot Paradox (Strike 3 and the CAWG is disproved). The IPCC’s general circulation models predict that most amount of warming on the planet should occur in the tropics at 8k above the earth’s surface. The long wave radiation from warming at 8 km then warms the earth’s surface by of course radiation. At the earth’s surface there are more CO2 molecules and there is more water vapor. The amount of CO2 warming decreases as the number of molecules increases and as the frequencies that water absorbs long wave radiation overlaps with the CO2 absorption frequencies, the most amount of warming on the earth due to the increase in CO2 theoretically occurs in the tropics at 8km above the surface of the planet where there is less water and less CO2 molecules and the most amount of long wave radiation emitted to space prior to the increase in atmospheric CO2. (The CO2 mechanism at the surface of the planet is saturated.) Does everyone understand the above? No, why not? Help me out.

                      The signature of CO2 warming, the tropical tropospheric hot spot at 8km is not observed which is consistent with the observational fact that there has been almost no tropical region warming. The following peer reviewed paper provides the strike 1 and strike 2 observational data and specifically states the observations support the assertion that majority of the warming in the last 30 years was not due to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

                      P.S. The fact that there has been almost no tropical tropospheric warming also rules out an increase in TSI (total solar radiation) as the cause of the warming, in addition to the fact that TSI has not significantly increased. If TSI did increase the tropics will warm more than the poles of the planet.

                    • Richard Klabechek

                      It takes just ONE significant error in the data, methodology or modelling of a theory to debunk it. “Proof” does NOT consist of constant hype. Constant hype is only proof of something being propaganda. The glaringly obvious failure of the the predictions (100% failure) should be enough to well and truly bust the myth. Manufactured “consensus” is not proof either.

                      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/12/22-very-inconvenient-climate-truths/

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      This consensus is the basis of my disapproval. Should we all join we would be supporting a theory that has problems no body is ably to explain! I feel denial is the warmist’s characteristic rather than those who question.

                    • Richard Klabechek
                    • Richard Klabechek

                      The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’

                      What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming?

                      By

                      JOSEPH BAST And

                      ROY SPENCERMay 26, 2014 7:13 p.m. ET

                      815 COMMENTS

                      Last week Secretary of State John Kerry warned graduating students at Boston College of the “crippling consequences” of climate change. “Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists,” he added, “tell us this is urgent.”

                      Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, “Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities.”

                      Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.

                      One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.

                      Ms. Oreskes’s definition of consensus covered “man-made” but left out “dangerous”—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy,Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren’t substantiated in the papers.

                      ENLARGE

                      GETTY IMAGES/IMAGEZOO

                      Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in “Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union” by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed “97 percent of climate scientists agree” that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.

                      The survey’s questions don’t reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer “yes” to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.

                      The “97 percent” figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

                      In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findingswere published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming.” There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.

                      In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.

                      Mr. Cook’s work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found “only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse” the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

                      Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.

                      Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.

                      Finally, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that “human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems.” Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing “anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing.”

                      Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

                      We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

                      Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute. Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA’s Aqua satellite.

                    • Ian5

                      Joe Bast, tobacco industry lobbyist. Not sure I’d assign any credibility to his opinions.

                    • Richard Klabechek

                      it should say average, not normal. We don’t know what normal is, only the average since we have started measuring temperatures. We don’t know how that compares to the past couple billion years. The Climate has had many fluctuations and it is fluctuating now, some people call it CLIMATE CHANGE.

                      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/06/global-temperature-down-in-april-just-7100ths-of-a-degree-above-normal/

                    • Ian5

                      But its a matter of time scale. The current rate of climate change can’t be explained by natural variation alone.
                      http://climate.nasa.gov/

                    • Richard Klabechek
                    • Richard Klabechek
                    • Richard Klabechek

                      Be a Proud and Scientific Denier

                      Obama’s Global Warming Crisis it a complete fabrication to diminish the use of Fossil Fuels and the USA Economy plus get control of Energy and redistribute our wealth to the UN & rest of the world with ridiculous Carbon Credits — And fortunately most of America knows it!

                      I’m ticked off that our immense Sun and its billions of years of Solar Warming and Solar Cooling Cycles driving our Earth’s climate and climate changes are now being ignored by this administration to blame Man, Fossil Fuels and Trace Amounts of Greenhouse Gases which are 95% Water Vapor and only a Trace 0.04% CO2 in the atmosphere; Only 0.002% CO2 – Two-Thousandth’s of a percent is caused by Man’s industrial & fossil fuel emissions!

                      They are wasting $22B/year on grants and subsidies to scientists with a sworn allegiance to the failed Global Warming Hypothesis and $39B/year on “Green Subsidies” all for the wrong reasons.

                      The overdue Modern Maximum solar cycle appears to have ended in 1998 with no further peak warming (a small uptick in 2014) for 18-years and we are now entering the downward solar cycle headed quickly to a new dangerously cold Minimum expected to exceed 200 year or even 400 year records (e.g., Dalton or Maunder level cold Minimums) for the next 20-30 years.

                      Just look at the last few winters in the Northern Hemisphere, watch out Obama, Kerry and Gore will be preaching that man-made CO2 (0.002%) is causing the Global Warming to be Global Cooling.

                      Don’t believe it! The Sun has a weak magnetic field now (indicated by low sunspot counts) at the same time our Earth also has a weak magnetic field just like before the many solar Maximum-Minimum temperature transitions, especially the Dalton Minimum (1790-1820) and the very cold Maunder Minimum ( 1645-1715).

                      Finally, in the 4.8 Billion years of many millions solar cycles none have ever been run-away warming and many had much higher & lower levels of CO2 concentrations. CO2 is essential to all life on earth — All Plants require & absorb it and produce Oxygen (O2) that all humans and animals breath and every breath you exhale is about 4% CO2.

                      Don’t let these Progressive Liars intimidate you — Be a Proud and Scientific “Denier”. Valid science is never “Settled” and some much more is being learned about our highly variable and dynamic Star, the Sun, and its many-faceted Energy Transfer System that permits and sustains all life, climate, orbit, atmosphere, etc. Trace Greenhouse Gases have only a local regional influence on climate with Our Sun as still the Primary Driver, not Man, Fossil Fuels, and Trace CO2. Man cannot control the climate, so don’t waste our money on it, just prepare and adapt to the climate as always done before.

                    • Ian5

                      You’ve simply cut and pasted a comment from another blog. No original thought or evidence here.

                    • Richard Klabechek
                    • Richard Klabechek
                    • Ian5

                      nice CG effects

                    • Richard Klabechek

                      Man-made climate change certainly is real. There’s no doubt it’s real. The question is: how much and whether it’s good or bad? Those are quite separate questions. I would say it’s, on the whole, good. Also, it’s not as large an effect as most people imagine.

                      http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/

                    • Ian5

                      OK now you say it is real but lean on your deniers list (Ball, Morano, Burnett, etc) who say it isn’t. You cant have it both ways.

                    • Richard Klabechek

                      Don’t Censor Climate Speech!

                      Freedom of thought and expression are fundamental rights.

                      Yet those who advocate the theory of catastrophic man-made global
                      warming are seeking to censor the opinions of scientists and experts
                      with whom they disagree.

                      They are attacking the reputations and careers of scientists and
                      using fear and intimidation to block meaningful dialogue about the
                      climate and prevent the public from seeing scientific data and
                      alternative explanations that contradict their claims.

                      They are seeking to exclude any facts from classrooms that would
                      permit students to think and evaluate claims about global warming for
                      themselves.

                      They are seeking to censor the opinions of opposing scientists and
                      experts from media coverage on television networks and in newspapers.

                      Sound science requires vigorous debate and consideration of all
                      data or it deteriorates into dogma.

                      We therefore call upon government officials, research
                      institutions, the media, and educators to reject politically
                      motivated attempts to silence debate on climate change and limit
                      free speech.

                    • Richard Klabechek

                      It’s OK to use fossil fuels and emit CO2. Our climate is pleasant and productive, and getting better. This is normal because earth is in an interglacial period. Increased carbon dioxide emissions are the result of warming, not the cause.

                      Only 3% of all carbon dioxide emissions arise from human activities. 97% are from natural sources. The ultimate reservoir of CO2 is limestone (CaCO3) and other carbonate rocks. CO2 is sequestered as carbonates for tens of millions of years. Attempts to limit human fossil fuels use will ruin America’s energy infrastructure, and not affect warming.

                      The cost of controlling CO2 is not worth any conceivable benefit. The International Energy Agency estimated the cost of worldwide “decarbonization” at $44 trillion. The entire cumulative savings of mankind is estimated at $150 trillion. The United States, the EU and the UN are proposing to spend nearly 30% of mankind’s wealth on a foolish boondoggle, with no clear benefits.

                      The existence and causes of global warming are undetermined. There is no definitive proof that global warming is occurring; or that it is caused by human use of fossil fuels. The proxy data (tree rings and polar ice cores) used by scientists has been shown to be faulty. All of the climate models that predicted dramatic warming have been wrong.

                      Why should rational people believe climate activists? Climate action proponents just don’t seem trustworthy. Thoughtful people can discern the truth about climate change, even if they are not scientists. For example, if proponents of a policy use deceptive arguments in promoting that policy, that policy, and its “scientific” basis are suspect. Also see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new

                      Arguments for regulating CO2 emissions are suspect. The peer review process has been distorted, in large part to present fossil fuels use as a threat. See “The Liberal War on Transparency” by Christopher C Horner; ISBN 978-1-4516-9488-8 and “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science” by Dr. Tim Ball; ISBN 978-0-9888777-4-0.

                      http://www.cfact.org/2015/03/08/silencing-skeptics-financing-alarmists/?utm_source=CFACT+Updates&utm_campaign=941128bf5c-E_Fact_Report3_8_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_a28eaedb56-941128bf5c-270063337

                    • Ian5

                      Horner and Ball…no climate change science credentials there. Ball consistently misrepresents hi qualifications. Hasn’t published any peer-reviewed science in decades. Still awaiting some evidence.

                    • Ian5

                      You haven’ even read the IEA report have you? What the report actually says is that the 44 trillion of additional investment needed to decarbonise the energy system in line with the 2DS by 2050 is more than offset by over USD 115 trillion in fuel savings – resulting in net savings of USD 71 trillion.

                    • Richard Klabechek

                      The entire theory of global warming rests on computer temperature models.

                      Sadly for the warming campaign (but happily for the rest of us), the temperature of the Earth consistently measures cooler than the models project.

                      What’s a warmist to do?

                      The scientific method demands that when observed data does not fit your hypothesis, the hypothesis must change. That’s the time to question your assumptions and open your investigation to alternative explanations.

                      There’s another way to go, but it’s not science. You can alter the data to fit your hypothesis.

                      If scientists had allowed that in the past the sun would be still orbiting a flat Earth — at least on paper.

                      Why are warming campaigners ignoring the best available satellite temperature data in favor of less reliable data from weather stations, balloons and buoys?

                      There’s an increasing body of evidence which suggests climate researchers are “adjusting” terrestrial temperature data to cool the past and warm the present. Marc Morano has constant updates at CFACT’s Climate Depot. This past weekend Matt Drudge picked up Marc’s reporting at the Drudge Report and hundreds of thousands of readers are following the story.

                      Paul Homewood recently posted a fascinating pair of graphs. They show the temperature recorded at a station in Paraguay both before and after the “adjustment bureau” went to work on it. Take a look:

                      The first graph, which is the actual raw data, shows a clear downward trend in temperature — a trend which is totally reversed to show warming after being “adjusted.”
                      This does not appear to be an isolated example. It appears to be the tip of the (not melting) iceberg. It certainly makes recent reports that 2014 was the hottest year ever by a whopping two hundredths of a degree even more laughable.

                      There’s a place for adjusting scientific data to compensate for factors which can throw it off and make it more accurate. However, you’d expect these adjustments to come out about even. That’s not what appears to be happening when it comes to climate. The adjustments appear to go all in one direction, consistently cooling the past and warming the present.

                      When something smells this fishy, it’s time to take closer look.

                    • Ian5

                      Marc Morano, Matt Drudge, Paul Homewood…no scientific credentials there. What else have you got>

                    • John Simpson

                      What the rest of us have is a brain and common sense. Follow the money. There are no credible meterology people on your side and they are the people dealing with weather as it changes to and fro. Global warming failed as a concept and climate change is close behind. It is about political power and lining the pockets of those who stand to benefit, and not much else. If you are really concerned about CO2 emissions, start a campaign to have everyone on earth plant a tree. I’ll plant 2 because you probably won’t bother.

                    • Ian5

                      Yes, reforestation is an excellent policy response to climate change but won’t be enough on its own. You suggest that there are no credible meteorology people that recognize AGW as a serious problem. Tell us how you came to that conclusion. Are all the scientists at NOAA, NASA and virtually every American and international scientific academy part of some global conspiracy? Please tell us you sources.

                    • John Simpson

                      No, I am talking about people who actually predict weather and weather patterns. Joe Bastardi for one and the former head of the US Meterologic Bureau (or something like that, his name escapes me). AGW, if the GW stands for global warming, is passe now that the temps haven’t actually changed. That is why they changed it to “climate change” which is a constant process.The scales are tipping against CC and will continue to do so. We should not fear CO2 as it is the lifeblood of the plant world. Without it, you die.

                    • Ian5

                      Bastardi is a weather forecaster not a climate scientist. His views are misleading and unconventional at best. The American Meteorological Society does not share his views. Their policy statement:

                      “Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Observations show increases in globally averaged air and ocean temperatures, as well as widespread melting of snow and ice and rising globally averaged sea level. Climate is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate. It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. The most important of these over the long term is CO2, whose concentration in the atmosphere is rising principally as a result of fossil-fuel combustion and deforestation.”

                    • John Simpson

                      Bastardi is a meterologist. Keep trying. No one I know is denying that the climate is changing. It has been changing since the beginning of time. It is the cause that is up for debate, and no one has that answer. No one. It is just theory. There has been so much embellishment, failed predictions and theories that the hypothses must be re-evaluated. Credibility is sinking fast.

                    • Ian5

                      Well actually Bastardi refers to himself as a forecaster on his own website.

                      I dont think you really understand the significant of the word theory. Evolution is also a theory. Scientific American has a good article that I suggest you read:
                      http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-theory-7-misused-science-words/

                    • Edward Hastings

                      Scientific American has in many ways been as bastardized as has National Geographic.Why not quote some of your idols at Huffingandpuffington Post or MSNBC.They REALLY know what’s going on!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                    • Ian5

                      Bastardized in what way? And while your at tell us about your idols. You’re afraid to confront the science and facts about climate change because it doesn’t fit with your narrow ideology. Go do some homework and then come and tell us something useful.

                    • nonsheepoele

                      Harold (“Hal”) Warren Lewis (born October 1, 1923, in New York City;[1] died May 26, 2011[2]) was an Emeritus Professor of Physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB). In 2010, after 67 years of membership, Lewis resigned from the American Physical Society, writing in a letter about the “corruption” from “the money flood” of government grants.[3] This man had nothing to gain by telling the truth.

                    • Ian5

                      This is just a copy paste of Craig Rucker’s unsubstantiated and misleading gibberish:
                      http://www.cfact.org/2015/02/11/temperature-tampering/

                    • Dano2

                      The entire theory of global warming rests on computer temperature models.

                      Hoot!

                      Good comedy! I LOLzed!

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Richard Klabechek
                    • Dano2

                      Thank you for agreeing with me.

                      Best,

                      D

                    • Richard Klabechek

                      If we truly care about the poor (and we do), we need to educate people to the tragedy a UN climate treaty would be for developing nations.

                      Poor countries need freedom, energy, prosperity and the rule of law just as much as wealthy nations do. That message needs to get out.

                    • Ian5

                      First step is to acknowledge the science of climate change, then consider appropriate policy responses to address the problem.

                    • Richard Klabechek

                      Canadian space scientists Joseph E. Postma and Nahle rigorously applied the science from the groundbreaking book, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.’ Applying the ‘Slayer’ science they elucidated the key flaw in GHE equations – a “trick” in the calculations that on the surface may appear a workable shortcut, but to trained thermodynamics experts, proved to be a fatal error.

                      The over simplification was to model earth as if it were a flat disk rather than a sphere. Thereby reliance is dubiously placed on a plane-parallel model whereby the ground and atmosphere are treated as “planes” that are “parallel” to each other (i.e. a flat earth model). The incoming solar flux number is thereby crassly fudged by dividing by a factor of “4” (this is the numeral “4” you see in so many GHE diagrams) so as to average the Solar energy over the entire globe. Taking the average seems ok to non-experts, but to those in the “hard” sciences it was the critical error that made the numbers meaninglessness in complex thermodynamics terms.

                      Technically what climate science had done wrong was they equated the energy flux density of the incoming power, to that of the outgoing power (not a requirement of the Law of Conservation of Energy (LCE)).

                      http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/almost-as-many-greenhouse-gas-theories-as-clueless-climate-scientists.html

                      A Better Model: Allow Day And Night On A Rotating Planet

                      Astrophysicist, Joe Postma – in his momentous paper ‘The Absence of a Measurable Greenhouse Effect’ – goes on to prove that by treating Earth as a sphere so that night and day exist we can suddenly explain with standard physics how daytime gives us the +30 degrees C worth of “added” GHE temperature; on average over half of the Earth (reaching a theoretical maximum of up to +121 degrees C under the solar-noon if it was not for the cooling power of the atmosphere).

                      To sum up then, the government fed world of third rate climate science spawned 63 self-contradictory and idiosyncratic two-dimensional models that are (excuse the pun) roundly debunked by “hard” scientists. Climate science made a monumental error by addressing Earth as a (non-existent) flat, cold twilight planet, the way Hansen preferred. But when our planet is more correctly treated as a three-dimensional spherical mode – with the entire incoming solar energy impacting just one hemisphere alone – the climate numbers add up without the contrivance of any ‘greenhouse gas’ effect.

                      Therefore, there is no risk whatsoever posed to our climate by human emissions of CO2 because the “theory” those claims are made upon is shown to be junk science.

                    • Ian5

                      Slaying the Sky Dragon is rubbish, written to intentionally mislead. Its not peer reviewed science, its a fairy tale. Tim Ball is a joke. Still waiting for some real evidence.

                    • Richard Klabechek

                      Here is the data I use with these folk and they never really understand what it is saying. Natural variation . . .

                      https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/sets/72157645113383959/

                      The data doesn’t support their beautiful theory. Their theory is wrong.

                    • Ian5

                      data without interpretation is pretty meaningless. You clearly don’t understand the scientific method.

                    • DaveB

                      Ian
                      The answer to your first question is very simple. I was questioning your direct knowledge of Atmospheric Physics. Obviously you know very little about it and are regurgitating “facts” that you have read. I have studied Meteorology, Atmospheric Physics, weather observing and forecasting, and climatology for 1,040 class hours. Do YOU have anything close to that? I doubt it! Almost all of the man made global warming information comes from people and institutions that are directly funded by government grants. You have been duped!

                    • Ian5

                      Who really cares what your beliefs are, or what mine are for that matter. It’s what the collective body of scientific evidence concludes. And the conclusion is that the science is clear. The evidence for human caused climate change is unequivocal. Do your homework.

                      What’s your issue with government funded research? Does not government have a broad responsibility to protect the environment and health of its citizens? Do you have the same problem with government funded medical research? Much of what you and society have benefited from? Or perhaps you’d prefer to be informed by research funded by the tobacco industry for example? You just don’t like the potential policy implications from a narrow ideological point of view, so can’t accept the scientific consensus.

                    • DaveB

                      Ian, it is obvious that you are totally invested in man made global warming despite the fact that it is phony science. Any further dialog between us would be pointless. What passes as a mind in your case has already been polluted. Your disdain for those who have more knowledge than you do is further evidence of the total indoctrination that you have allowed to happen.

                    • Ian5

                      A weak response that avoids the questions. Let’s say I’m indoctrinated with “phony science” as you propose. Does that mean that nasa, noaa and every major American and international academy of science are also indoctrinated? Indoctrinated to the point that all their science is phony? How could this be? Is it a conspiracy then?

                    • Brin Jenkins

                      Hardly dramatic, and CO2 an essential gas has been higher in the past! Its around 400 parts per million and the increase cannot have the effects stated. Co2 is a plant food, this increases the greenery and as you now converts CO2 to Oxygen. A stabilising negative feedback, positive feedback is unstable. As CO2 is released by heating, it may not also be the cause. You are reversing a cause with its effect. Now please explain how the thermal radiation is unequal in its effect by allowing more in than can escape? It acts both ways and continues 24/7, not just when the Sun shines. The moment a cloud obscures the Sun it feels colder, less radiation reaches the earth and the earth heats less instantly. The Planke Effect I believe its called only applies when the temperature is cherry red, a not when its less as we have on Earth. Refraction occurs on a graduated level as the Suns radiation passes into our graduated atmosphere, it slows down bending and increasing the frequency a little. This will be reversed as it is re-radiated back into space. All energy comes from the Sun, nowhere else.

                    • Ian5

                      I can’t help you. Pick up a basic textbook like Fundamentals of Physical Geography and then you might be able to contribute.

                    • DrRocknRoll

                      You are ignorant of the history of C02 density and climate on this planet. C02 has never driven the climate, records clearly show this and we are at historic lows for C02 density in our atmosphere today by a wide, wide margin. http://notrickszone.com/2013/05/17/atmospheric-co2-concentrations-at-400-ppm-are-still-dangerously-low-for-life-on-earth/#sthash.LuoG98UF.dpbs

                    • Ian5

                      Ok just for fun let’s accept notrickszone.com’s rubbish and flawed logic. Why then is it completely at odds with the conclusions of scientific organizations like nasa, noaa? Who are we to believe: notrickszone or nasa and noaa. Please tell us why.

          • canuckpuck

            When there are no discernible facts to back up your argument, the liberal left revert to attack mode calling non believers knuckle draggers and the like…Pretty lame.

        • ninetyninepct

          I would likely go to a person or organization that had access to as much information as humanly possible that could easily be verified. I don’t have to go to the best heart surgeon in the world, but the Mayo Clinic would do just fine, unlike Gore and Screwzuki, who cherry pick other peoples theories and bullshit manipulated statistics, spewing them as absolute truth.
          Climate changes, that’s what it does. Suck it up Princess. We have to use our intelligence, knowledge and technology to adapt to the moods of the earth. Too much pollution? Yup, but don’t destroy human civilization in the process. Islam and Muslims are doing a fine job as it is. Try getting some help to adapt to climate change from the local mosque. It will NEVER happen. Get daesh to give you a hand. Alley achbar.

          • Ian5

            The Mayo Clinic would be a good choice – reputable organization with highly qualified medical staff which is exactly my point. You wouldn’t go to drug lobbyist or a PR person that spouts ideology with no supporting research or evidence. Thanks for supporting my point.

            What’s your basis for suggesting that policy responses to climate change are going to destroy the earth? And how is Islam relevant to the science of climate change? Fear-based arguments are generally not fact-based arguments.

    • Scottar

      So what makes you an expert on Climate Change. Why should we listen to you over people like Driessen or Caruba whose posts I have cross referanced and checked out over the crap you butt spew?

      • Ian5

        Never said I was an expert, only that Caruba and Driessen are definitely not. They are a PR and lobbyist and their jobs are to intentionally mislead and misinform. You say you’ve cross referenced and checked out their posts. Cross referenced and checked out against what? Please tell us.

        • Scottar

          Answered on First Post above. But I should have faster internet tomorrow that will allow me to respond much more quickly.

    • Scottar

      This is like saying media is not qualifies to coment on Congress as they aren’t Congress degreed or automag writters are unqualified to comment on autos as they aren’t mechanics. Past your climate echo chamber warmista response, here are some of the alternative sources based on the undeniable real science of empirical data that commenters like Caruba and Driessen draw upon.

      Like In Real Estate- location location, location, with climate it’s- sources, sources, sources.

      http://blog.heartland.org/2013/07/exposing-the-global-warming-fraud/

      Exposing the Global Warming Fraud

      http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf

      United States Senate

      Environment and Public Works Committee

      Minority Report Critical Thinking on Climate Change

      http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-man-made-global-warming-claims/5403284

      More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

      Challenge UN IPCC :Panel

      The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

      U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.

      They have a list of them!

      http://www.newsmax.com/LarryBell/climate-warming-moore/2014/03/17/id/559929/

      More Scientists Debunking Climate Change Myths

      By Dr. Larry Bell, Newsmax

      http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2015/03/20/why-i-am-climate-change-skeptic

      Mar 21, 2015

      Why I am a Climate Change Skeptic

      by Patrick Moore

      http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/

      New Paper Finds Strong Evidence the Sun Has Controlled Climate Over the Past 11,000 Years, Not CO2

      Other facts:

      IPCC lead author. Dr. Philip Lloyd, a South Africa-based physicist and climate researcher, examined ice core-based temperature data going back 8,000 years to gain perspective on the magnitude of global temperature changes over the 20th Century. He observes: “Global temperature change observed over the last hundred years or so is well within the natural variability of the last 8,000 years, according to his new peer reviewed paper.” What Dr. Lloyd found was that the standard deviation of the temperature over the last 8,000 years was about 0.98 degrees Celsius higher than the 0.85 degrees climate scientists say the world has warmed over the last century.”

      So it’s how you define climate change and who is talking about it. The Warmistas could gain credibility if they could explain the Younger Dryas, the Flandarian Transgression, or the Dalton Minimum. All of these events occurred in the last 400,000 years and are recorded in Greenland and Antarctica ice core proxies.

      http://www.leif.org/research/SSN-ApJ-2015.jpg

      The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) lasted for 100,000 years where most of the northern and southern hemispheres were covered in thousands of feet of ice, ocean levels were 400 feet lower than today. Then 21,000 years ago these huge masses began to suddenly melt, then refreeze, then melt, then refreeze. The final freeze, the Younger Dryas,

      began approximately 13,000 years ago. The final violent thaw began 11,000 years ago. Coincidently 90% of all large North American mammals disappeared at this time.

      http://www.c3headlines.com/climate-history/

      http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html

      And I have so many more references. You just won’t get past the warmista propaganda while passing on the pseudo science koolaide that has been shown to be seriously tainted time and again. All the predictions made by the IPCC and the like have failed to materialize. Your just stupid about the science to make such silly claims that skeptical journalists are not qualified to make observations about climate change or are lobbyists for Big Oil. If so then the POTUS has no claim to make his bone headed statements about climate change and skeptics, about it being human driven, totally unqualified.

      And I could get into the physics of why CO2 is not the GHG forcing factor that pesudo scientists claim it is. But then you would have to understand physics. Again, what are your sources warmista?

  • canuckpuck

    Obama is the devil in disguise.

  • Mervyn

    So very very sad to hear of the passing away of Mr Caruba. He will be greatly missed.

  • ArchEcoTech

    Isn’t this a tool used to advance a “One” world government? Look at the numbers that are involved in this issue, gives one great pause thinking so many have bought this, hook, line, and sinker. Good God people wake up!