Scientists demonstrate more fallacies of ‘manmade global warming’

earth cloud spaceIt seems that every few weeks we hear or see some scientific data that seriously challenges the politically correct notion that the activities of man, burning fossil fuels for energy, are irreversibly and catastrophically damaging the Earth’s atmosphere and causing global temperatures to rise to dangerous levels.

There are two competing ideas about the last two decades of global temperatures: One says temperatures have plateaued for the last 18 years, but the other that says the rising temperature trend has continued through that period.

According to a CNS News story Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama/Huntsville, argues that there has been no global warming for at least the last 18 years, and bases that position on actual raw temperature data he and fellow University of Alabama/Huntsville professor and NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer collected from 14 instruments aboard various weather satellites.

However, in a story in The Washington Post, a group of scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) say that based upon their analysis of new surface temperature data and corrections to old data that NOAA knew were imperfect, there has been no break in global warming.

Some questions arise from these diametrically opposed opinions.

• Which of the two methods of measuring global temperature — surface temperatures, used by the NOAA team, or satellite observations, used by Drs. Christy and Spencer — is the most accurate? Or is some combination of the two, or some other method, more accurate?

• If trained scientists do not, can not or will not agree on what the truth is about whether temperatures are rising or not, how can the rest of us understand climate changes?

• Since the outcome of its analysis confirmed NOAA’s previously held idea about global temperatures increasing, and in light of previous manipulation of data by some well-known scientists, should we be concerned about NOAA “correcting” data it “knew were imperfect?”

Just last month The Daily Caller reported on a paper stating that the global temperature change observed over the last hundred years or so is well within the natural variability of the last 8,000 years.

What this means is that even if the global temperature has risen as the global warming faction says, it shouldn’t be a cause for concern, since global temperatures have been in the current range before, and long before man started doing the things the global warming gang thinks are responsible for the increase.

The paper was written by Dr. Philip Lloyd, a South Africa-based physicist and climate researcher, who examined ice core-based temperature data going back eight millennia. Dr. Lloyd is a former lead author on the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC), the body that is perhaps the most honored authority for climate opinion, and an organization that supports manmade global warming.

The work of Dr. Lloyd, Dr. Christy and Dr. Spencer is out of the mainstream of climate opinion, a mainstream that is shrinking, as more of its members question the “settled science” of rising global temperatures due to the burning of fossil fuels, and recognize the failure of dozens of flawed climate models that predict warming that many scientists argue hasn’t occurred. More and more, this line of thinking appears more political than scientific.

One danger of politically influenced science is that some ideologically motivated government agency will use it as an excuse to impose draconian measures to achieve political goals, some of which are unachievable, and others that are dangerous to our economic system and well-being. Enter the Environmental Protection Agency, arguably the most harmful of the abundant federal bureaucracies that increasingly control our every word, thought and deed.

In its headlong effort to crush the economies of coal mining states and destroy businesses that rely in whole or in part on coal, the EPA has overdriven its headlights with a scheme that depends upon faking science.

The EPA attempted to impose a rule that mandates the use of so-called carbon capture and storage, where CO2 from burning coal would be injected underground instead of being released into the air. The agency was quite content to put this rule into effect, despite knowing that the method does not work.

“We submitted comments for the record explaining that EPA had made a mockery of the interagency review process, ignoring the government’s own experts in order to push an ideological agenda,” the Energy and Environment Legal Institute’s Chris Horner said. Mr. Horner’s organization has forced the EPA to back down on imposing the rule, but a report by Inside EPA says that the White House may force the EPA to go to court and defend a process that it had to admit doesn’t work and is thereby legally indefensible.

Here is a multiple-choice question: Why would a federal agency attempt to impose a process on coal burning facilities that it knows doesn’t work?

A. It believes it has unlimited power

B. It cares little about the repercussions of its actions

C. Its employees serve ideological and political masters instead of the American people

D. All of the above

The EPA is upside-down.


Comments (8)

  • Avatar



    The EPA is a harmful political pollutant .

    It answers to it’s internal ideologue at the expense of American interests by systematically buying favor through like minded EPA grant seekers and green activist pimps .

    The mandate of the EPA needs a re -boot . They don’t run American affairs
    no matter what their puffed up egos suggest .

    When the Democrats sit around and wonder what happened to cause the loss of “safe “states the EPA actions
    will be plain to see .

  • Avatar

    Ned Ford


    I really can’t tell what this article is about. But it completely misrepresents the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. CPP doesn’t require CCS, although it allows it to placate the folks in the coal industry who still insist that they can make it work.

    The CPP requires carbon reduction from a 2012 baseline. The EPA identifies four building blocks for compliance, none of which are explicitly CCS. They are increased efficiency of existing generation, use of lower emission generation, which could include CCS, but which most people assume is refering to natural gas, use of end-use efficiency and use of clean renewables.

    The goal is based on complicated factors, but is a little less than 30% reduction by 2030, from the electric sector. It is about exactly what we would get if we increase existing efficiency programs 50%, and existing renewables efforts 50%.

    The irony of this article is that it completely misses the fact that by doing that much efficiency and renewables we lower the cost of electric service in the U.S. and modernize our energy infrastructure.

    Even if global warming was not the most serious threat to our stability it will make more economic sense to follow this path than any other.

    • Avatar



      “The CPP requires carbon reduction from a 2012 baseline”

      Any person, organization or government body who/which talks about “carbon reduction”, (i.e. which actually refers to the reduction of a particulate) when they are really discussing carbon dioxide (an odorless, invisible, and harmless gas) is highly suspect. Either they haven’t a clue about the subject which they believe they are discussing or they are intentionally trying to mislead the naive.
      Either way, such a discussion is not in our best interests unless we are interested in increasing taxation, redistributing wealth from those who earn the money to those who don’t, or wish to handsomely reward the shysters behind this entire scheme.

  • Avatar



    obama thinks he’s g-d
    epa ditto
    irs ditto

    ditto also
    the democrat party
    the un
    global whatever alarmists

    they are not g-d

    so-called intellectuals who know how to rule your life better than you

    totalitarianists who believe they have the right to impose their will on all of humanity as if any of humanity that disagrees has no right of existence

    i’m not making an argument in re deity

    i am saying they have no right to arrogate unto themselves the prerogatives of deity

    and they are
    every moment

    try to tell anyone
    that obama
    doesn’t think he’s


    cowardly follow along
    go to your execution

    stand for your rights
    or surrender

    if successful the first
    are called heroes
    and the last fools

    those who surrender probably didn’t
    deserve life

    the bullies will
    always win as long as

    there enough cowards

  • Avatar



    Dale Good point .
    The interchangeable use of “carbon ” and CO2 can only be because they don’t no the difference or it is purposely used to try and fool the people that have no idea .
    Either way they are lying to sell their agenda .

  • Avatar



    I am not a scientist and admit not being well read on the subject of “Global Warming “. I believe that qualifies me to be more objective than those who are because I have no agenda to push.
    I have survived well by the use of common sense and that has brought me to a question that I have not heard asked or answered. With the one hundred and fifty years of emissions of industrialized man not coming any where near that of a single large volcanic eruption, what is the real reason some people choose to believe this blue marble flying through space in a big circle for billions of years is suddenly going to be unable to take care of itself?

  • Avatar



    Current CO2 levels have not been this high for millions of years and 40% of it can me traced directly to man. According to the USGS, the combined emissions of the 13 active volcanoes (average daily eruptions) accounts for less than 1% of the additional CO2.

  • Avatar

    Ned Ford


    Hi Tom,

    Since you admit to not being well-read on climate science, perhaps you would want to do something about the error you have made – confusing CO2 with SO2. Volcanoes produce massive amounts of SO2, although the quantities are extremely variable. They produce some CO2, but not enough to affect the global balance.

    Human use of fossil fuels is responsible for the rise in atmospheric CO2. The volume of carbon in the fuel is comparable with the volume of CO2 that is the increase in the atmosphere, once about half of it is removed from the atmosphere by movement into the ocean.

    This big blue marble will not be phased by climate change. But if we do not act hastily, this big blue marble may choose to diminish our numbers substantially. If you choose to personify the planet. I choose to think that the most serious concern is rising ocean acidity. I don’t personify the planet, myself, but I do understand that most of the algae, plankton and coral in the ocean form their bodies by manipulating the acidity of sea water to precipitate carbonate out of the water. With very small numerical changes, we are throwing these creatures outside of the range of pH which they have evolved to cope with.

    You would have to do a lot of reading to find this. I know because I have done a lot of reading on the subject.

    Since I’m writing, here’s a real irony: The economics of efficiency and renewables is about to render the Clean Power Plan irrelevant. Prices are falling so fast for wind and solar power that even the advocates can’t keep up with it. We’re going to have to have some regulatory oversight for petroleum and non-electric fuel natural gas unless other technologies evolve quickly, but the electric sector is more likely than not to be carbon free by 2030.

    Scoff if you like, but pay attention to the growth of renewables over the next four years. If it hits 3.5% of total generation by 2020 I’m going to be right.

Comments are closed