You’ll say just about anything when you’re invested in a lie

I remember when global warming first got going about 30 years ago. I first heard about it during the unusually hot summer of 1988, when I was going through basic training in Great Lakes, Illinois and generating sweat like a fire hydrant.

Global warming was, is, and always has been based entirely on predictions generated by computer models. Even now, nothing they have predicted has come to pass. But global warming hucksters have become so invested in their lie that they can’t turn back now, no matter the evidence, and regardless of reality. It really is a religion to them.

At some point, maybe 10-15 years ago, the “global warming” moniker morphed into “climate change.” You see, the predicted warming never did materialize, and rather than re-think their position, the hucksters simply broadened the moniker so that any type of extreme weather could be blamed on human activity. If it’s hot, it’s because of us, but also if it’s colder. If it floods, that’s due to excessive carbon emissions, but if there are droughts and wildfires, that’s also because of our lifestyles (read: capitalism).

But just within the past few years, I have noticed that we are entering a sort of third phase of the global warming hoax. Granted, they still call it climate change and are predicting overall warming, say, 100 years from now, but lately you’ll hear climate change hucksters claim that’s storms today are getting worse, or some variation on that theme. There is no scientific proof that storms today are getting worse, and there’s no way to prove that such a statement even is true. Seriously, how would you go about empirically proving that storms in 2017 are worse than they were in, say, 1917?

I do a lot of reading. I love history. I love weather. Sometimes those two interests mesh into a novel about an historical weather event. Currently, I am reading a book by John M. Barry about the Mississippi River flood of 1927. (Actually, I’m reading it for the third time.) Aside from learning a great deal about river hydrology, the Mississippi River flood of 1927 is a cataclysm that dwarfs anything we’ve seen during my lifetime, or even my parents’ lifetime. The flood of 1993 was a mere trickle compared to this behemoth.

Granted, this is one event, and climate change hucksters will tell you that you can’t use one event to disprove climate change (right before they attempt to use a single hurricane or wildfire to prove climate change). But don’t be duped into thinking storms in 2017 are worsening. A simple review of past meteorological cataclysms easily refutes this.

Advertisements

Hurricane politics

It has dawned on me that there are progressives who believe hurricanes are purely the result of climate change and are only recent phenomena.

That’s the impression I get as the U.S. mainland has been slammed with back-to-back major hurricanes — the first since Hurricane Katrina 12 years ago. It has been 12 years, and yet progressives will tell you that storms today are worse than ever, and will only get worse unless we “do something” to combat climate change.

For example, Chris Cuomo on CNN back on August 30 offered the following:

Imagine if we could find way to reduce the number of these storms. Imagine if we could figure out why a hundred-year storm seems to happen every other year. We have all these scientists saying climate change is part of the equation.

But storms are not getting worse, and there’s no way to empirically prove that they are. Seriously, if you were tasked with producing research proving that storms today are worse today than some time in the past, then how you would you go about gathering such proof scientifically?

And even if it could be proven that storms today are worse than before, how would we go about making them less so?

You see, the left has largely succeeded in having its political agenda codified as science, so that if you oppose them politically, you are also said to be “anti-science.” You can make the most sagatious, tenable, science-based ratiocination exposing the fallacy of man-made climate change, and you will still be called “anti-science” if you disagree with a liberal.

Like everything else the left accuses its political opponents of, this is projection. The theory of man-made climate change makes for terrible science, unprovable, unfounded, and so fallacious that its proponents must rig the data; alas, it is pure sophistry. So when they accuse “deniers” of being “anti-science,” they are really just describing themselves.

Leftists are so anti-science that they deny the existence of major hurricanes prior to the combustible engine, even though the evidence is obvious and undeniable. Some of them seem to even believe that hurricanes are a recent phenomenon, purely the product of increased carbon dioxide, and that if we curb our carbon footprint then the storms will accordingly go away, or at least lessen in intensity.

If you recall, after Hurricane Katrina in 2005, we were told to get accustomed to storms of that nature, that they would only grow worse and more frequent. We subsequently enjoyed several years of below-average tropical storm activity in the Atlantic, and it would be 12 years until another major hurricane would strike the U.S. — Hurricane Harvey just a couple of weeks ago, in fact.

The left will continue to politicize each hurricane strike and each cataclysmic weather event (including earthquakes and wildfires). They do this even as they lecture us “deniers” that you can’t use a single, anomalous meteorological occurrence as proof against man-made climate change. But they will use a single hurricane as proof that man-made climate change is occurring and that storms are getting worse. (They even had to change “global warming” to “climate change” because the warming they promised never materialized.)

Keep in mind that there is no evidence — even after 30+ years of dire warnings of plenary warming and resulting cataclysms — of man-made climate change becoming manifest. The only “proof” are computer models that forecast warming 10, 20, 50, 100 years from now. And even the most rational scientist will tell you that no one can predict the weather or climate anywhere near that far in advance.

Chemtrails & climate change

It is said that if you go far enough to the right or the left, you'll eventually meet your polar opposite on the dark side of the moon.

So it goes with weather modification.

Leftists have for 30+ years been pushing a hoax called "global warming," later renamed "climate change" when the promised warming failed to materialize. In so doing, they assert that man is doing irreparable damage to the atmosphere and the oceans because of excessive carbon dioxide emissions. In response, it is up to government to "do something" to save the planet.

But the far right has its own conspiracy theorists. They assert that all (or at least many of) the contrails (and other curious cloud formations) we see in the sky are really the result of government aircraft spraying poisonous chemicals into the atmosphere ("chemtrails") and that government is modifying the weather via subversive methods.

The left says man is modifying the atmosphere and it is up to government to stop it. The right says government is modifying the atmosphere and it is up to man to stop it.

Both are wrong. No man or government can appreciably affect the weather or the climate, nor alter the state of the atmosphere or the oceans. The volume of the atmosphere and the oceans is much too vast and we're much too small.

Two contrails and cirrus vertebratus. Only this and nothing more.

An inconvenient comparison (a tale of two tweets)

Al Gore is coming out with another propaganda film pushing the climate change hoax. I didn't see the first Inconvenient film, and I won't be seeing the second, but I can tell you everything in it is a lie. I know this because Al Gore is behind it.

The former vice-president and senator from Tennessee, along with other leftists, have been pushing the global warming/climate change hoax for 30+ years. Not a single prediction they have ever made has come to pass, but they keep pushing and the left-wing lemmings who follow obediently and unquestioningly keep taking the bait.

I am by nature a skeptic, especially when leftists try to sell me on some idea. In my own naïveté, I expect others to be skeptics, too, which is why it befuddles me that the left-wing masses never seem to question their leaders.

It's no secret that Al Gore lives an extravagant lifestyle. He has become incredibly wealthy pushing the climate change hoax. (Always follow the money.) And he's not the only leftist pushing the climate change hoax who also lays down a carbon footprint the size of Texas. Whether it's politicians like Gore, the Obamas, or the Clintons, or various celebrities, you'll never see them reducing their own lifestyle. Oh, they might purchase "carbon credits" or "carbon offsets" in order to parade before the masses and brag about being "carbon neutral," but you'll never see them follow the orders they hand down to rest of us.

Let's say you are an obedient Democrat voter, perhaps even a climate change activist. You do everything you're told to do because you honestly believe human activity is destroying the planet. Let's say you make various nickel-and-dime changes to you lifestyle in order to shave a few millimeters off your carbon footprint. Perhaps you walk or bike to work, or maybe you drive a hybrid or one of those tin can automobiles that you could park inside a phone booth. Or you've cut out red meat, you set your thermostat to 78 degrees in the summer, and you're obsessed with "sustainability."

If that were me, and I were doing everything I could to help "save the planet," I'd seriously question why I was doing what I was doing in light of Al Gore's extravagant living. After all, he doesn't seem to be doing anything to "save the planet," except tell everyone else how to live. Every time he flies to someplace overseas and hops in a motorcade from the airport to wherever he happens to be speaking, he wipes out a lifetime of your nickel-and-dime carbon-reducing efforts. If it were me, I'd conclude that the "crisis" must not be all that serious and then I'd live the way I jolly well pleased.

Waiting for old people to die

The “science guy,” Bill Nye, says old people are going to have to die off before climate science can advance. In other words, old people are harder to dupe into following climate change hucksters over the cliff to socialism. Younger people are more malleable and easier to shape into lemmings. Those darn older folks just won’t fall in line with the climate change hoax.

The irony here is that the science guy tells us what progressives think of human life. Not only do they support abortion with great enthusiasm, but they are also waiting for old people to die so they can advance their socialist agenda. All the while they accuse Republicans of wanting to kill people.

Why do climate change hucksters still have credibility?

Climate news seems to come in bunches. I’ll go for weeks without seeing any, then all of a sudden I get bombarded with it. This is one of those times. So I’ve got three news stories to share and to ridicule.

Climate change hucksters have been telling us for 30 years that we’re close to the point of no return, that we must do something right now or face irreversible consequences. But they’ve been telling us this for the 1980’s. The end is always just around the corner. Why they still have any credibility left after 30 years of false alarms I do not know.

At any rate, at some point, they changed the moniker from “global warming” to “climate change,” because the warming didn’t seem to be materializing, so they widened the umbrella in order that any type of abnormal weather could be attributed to human activity. But as climate change has dropped from most Americans’ radars, the wild predictions of atmospheric Armageddon have become even wilder.

Now, the renowned physicist Stephen Hawking is warning us that Trump pulling the U.S. out of the Paris agreement could result in the Earth becoming like Venus. Thus saith the professor:

We are close to the tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible. Trump’s action could push the Earth over the brink, to become like Venus, with a temperature of two hundred and fifty degrees, and raining sulphuric acid.

(And that’s 250 degrees Centigrade, nor Fahrenheit. When you convert that to Fahrenheit, you realize it’s greater than the temperature at which books burn.)

Folks, this is so outlandish that it doesn’t even warrant discussion. It just proves that there is folly even among the learned.

The second story is a real laugher. We are told that electric cars are the wave of the future. And they probably are, to some extent. I mean, we have to at some point end our reliance on fossil fuels, right? The planet is in peril, after all. France is even expected to ban the combustible engine by the year 2040. But there’s one small problem that the renewable energy/save the planet crowd either doesn’t know or prefers to ignore. Producing one battery for an electric car emits the same amount of carbon dioxide as driving a gasoline engine for 8 years. So why even bother?

Finally a recent study conducted by two scientists and a statistician have found that nearly all the warming that has supposedly occurred over the last few years has been the result of adjustments made to the data (to correct for “biases”), and not actual warming. In other words, the data have been rigged by climate “scientists” — who we are not allowed to question — in order to fit the narrative of a warming planet.

“You would think that when you make adjustments you’d sometimes get warming and sometimes get cooling. That’s almost never happened,” said D’Aleo, who co-authored the study with statistician James Wallace and Cato Institute climate scientist Craig Idso.

Their study found measurements “nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history,” which was “nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern.”

I’ve long been skeptical of our ability to even produce an accurate global average temperature. I know, you take all the weather stations across the Earth, average them, maybe apply a little weighting here and there, and voila! We have the global average temperature. Or do we? I’m not convinced that it’s possible to come up with a single number and declare it as the global average. There are too many factors to consider. Most of the globe is covered by water where weather stations do not exist. And not all weather stations use the same thermometer, meaning that there are all sorts of statistical errors introduced into the dataset from the outset. So this year-to-year tracking of the global average temperature is complete nonsense. But I guess I’m “anti-science” for pointing these things out.

Pulling out of Paris: what it means

Yesterday afternoon, President Trump announced that he was pulling the United States out of the Paris agreement. This is quite possibly the biggest win thus far of the Trump presidency. The climate change hoax means everything to the left, and he just slit their throats (politically, that is). Rush Limbaugh covered this extensively on Wednesday’s show. (He was out yesterday and again today.) This was before we were 100% certain that Trump was going to unshackle us from the Paris agreement, so the Maha Rushie was still somewhat on edge. (I like how he coins the term “climate complex” to describe the money that’s at stake.)

In addition to the ideological component here, folks, there are trillions of dollars. They talk about the military-industrial complex? The climate complex dwarfs it. It is incredible the amount of money here. Algore is just one example of how it can be made, trading carbon credits, pollution credits. Those are just two of a myriad number of… It means it’s also a cash grab. As I said the other day: Washington, D.C. is the wealthiest city in the world.

Every year, $3.5 trillion pours in there, and it’s the most powerful city in the world, and everybody in the world is trying to influence what happens there, and everybody in the world is trying to get as much money out of that town every year as they can. And the people that have the least access to it are the citizens of this country, because they’re the ones paying for it! They’re the ones who are putting the $3.5 trillion in that pot every year!

And everybody else in the world’s trying to get their grubby hands on it, in addition to American leftists and liberals who’d rather try to siphon a portion of it rather than work. (They probably consider it work.) It’s hideous. Trump must actively take us out. The pressure on him has got to be intense. But to me, this is a no-brainer. Mr. President, if you don’t take us out of this, there is no way you can make America great again. America cannot be great in the ways you define it and the ways you have targeted for rebirth and remaking.

And so, President Trump has just ripped another plank from the failed Obama presidency.

Link

Storms are storms

You have probably heard one climate change huckster or another — perhaps even masquerading as a “scientist” — claim that storms today are worse than they used to be. Don’t believe a word of it. There’s no way to prove one way or another how the storms of today stack up against storms in the past.

Let me explain this another way. If someone asked my, “Lefty, I want you to do some research and write a peer-reviewed paper comparing the storms of today with the storms of, say, 100 years ago,” I’d have no idea to go about it. I wouldn’t know where to begin, nor how to make any sort of comparison between the storms of different eras. There’s just no way to go about proving how the storms of today stack up against their predecessors.

So when you hear this claim, know that there’s no way to prove that storms are getting worse (or better, or the same). How do you compare them? What measure do you use? No one — and I mean not a single person, scientist, politician, no one — knows whether or not storms are getting worse. It’s simply another in a long string of scare tactics global warming shysters use to try to get the rest of us to acquiesce to their demands. Take my word for it.

If I had to wager, I’d say that storms in 2017 aren’t any different than the storms from any other era since we’ve been recording weather data. I can’t prove it, of course, but neither can anyone prove otherwise.

Codifying progressivism as Christian — and it ain’t gonna fly

Paul Douglas calls himself a Republican meteorologist, and also a Christian. He has a degree in meteorology from Penn State, which is one of the more prestigious meteorology schools in the nation. So I’m not questioning his scientific acumen. I am questioning his buying into the climate change hoax. Even more egregious is his Christian malpractice, using Jesus Christ to promote the progressive policies that are wrapped up in the climate change hoax. His column “Christian Earth Day lessons: worship by protecting creation” appeared in the Guardian yesterday, and I’m reprinting the entire piece here, with my comments appended.

Christians just celebrated the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I’m a Christian, husband, father, businessman and scientist; a Penn State meteorologist by training. It’s true that all knowledge is relative; science is never “settled” and one never quite reaches solid bedrock. There’s always a new observation, a new discovery, a radical theory, more testing to do. We look at the universe through a pinhole as God gradually reveals himself to us.

So far, so good, except most of the politicians who push the climate change hoax do assert that climate change is “settled science” and that the debate is over. Science has little in common with climate change. It is entirely a political issue. If science actually mattered to progressives, climate change would have been laughed out of existence when it was first proposed more than 30 years ago.

Regardless of how you pray or how you vote, we can all agree that fewer toxic chemicals in our air and water is a good thing. But today, more Americans die prematurely from air pollution than traffic accidents. More than 5 million premature deaths result from dirty air every year, worldwide. Air pollution disproportionately impacts minority and low-income communities across the USA. And statistically, America’s poor are much more likely to live near toxic waste sites. 

Maybe your statistics are accurate and maybe they aren’t. I’ve come to question everything coming from progressives. But air pollution and climate change are two separate issues, unless you buy into the hoakey theory that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Also note the progressive lingo “poor and minorities hardest hit.”

These numbers betray the ugly truth that the poor pay the steepest price for America’s toxic reliance on fossil fuels. This is not the world Jesus teaches us to create. “He will reply, truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me,” Jesus told his disciples in Matthew 24:45. 

The poor pay the steepest price for a lot of things — socialism, for example. At any rate, Jesus Christ wasn’t promoting environmentalism with his admonition; He was promoting the idea of charity, about sharing one’s resources with those in need, that doing for the “least of these” was akin to doing for the greatest of them all.

The Trump administration’s misguided efforts to roll back protections for public health and the environment puts every one of us at risk, especially those with the fewest resources. Increasingly, America the Beautiful is under siege, as the interests of polluting industries take priority over the safety and welfare of our children.

Ah, yes. It’s the obligatory hit on President Trump. Also, note the progressive lingo. “Protection” is the word they use now in place of “government regulation.”

Science is not a substitute for faith; the two are not mutually exclusive. Science has no answer for the miracle of consciousness, the power of love and the promise of eternal life to come. We are here to worship our Creator and enjoy the fruits of his Creation. We are caretakers of a precious gift. We don’t own anything—everything around us is on loan. “My home is in Heaven. I’m just traveling through this world,” Billy Graham preached.

I agree with this, as far as it goes. But to many, if not most leftists, environmentalism is a religion. It is the religion of the progressive movement, complete with a deity (earth), sin (excessive carbon emissions), a savior (government), and a holy writ (any study which suggests future catastrophic warming due to human activity), to name a few of its religious elements.

Science doesn’t have all the answers, but we would be well advised to listen to the 97% of climate scientists who tell us Earth is warming, and the rapid burning of fossil fuels is responsible. Because the symptoms of a warming planet are becoming harder to deny and dismiss.

The 97% claim is a number oft-repeated by climate change hucksters, and I bet they don’t even know where it comes from. It is a complete fabrication. But they’ve repeated it for so long it has become truth to them. The actual number is 33%. The bulk of scientists don’t have an opinion one way or another.

At any rate, the “consensus” which you and other progressives tout is simply more evidence of climate change as a political issue and not scientific. You see, consensus is politics. Science isn’t up for a vote. Science is simply that which is. There was once a “consensus” that the earth was flat.

I just co-authored Caring for Creation: The Evangelical’s Guide to Climate Change and a Healthy Environment with Mitch Hescox, a former coal industry employee and a Methodist Minister. He is now leading the Evangelical Environmental Network, made up of conservatives focused on conserving the very thing that sustains us: a healthy, vibrant planet.

Conservatives pushing the single issue that is most dear to progressives? Folks, everything leftists want is wrapped up in climate change: higher taxes, loss of individual liberty and bigger, more intrusive government. It’s all there. Rush Limbaugh has pointed out that the environmental movement became the new home for displaced communists after the fall of the Soviet Union. The Maha Rushe has also pointed out that the left has succeeded in having its political agenda codified as science, so that if you oppose their politics, you are said to be “anti-science.” I’m going even further and pointing out that progressives are also attempting to have their political agenda codified as Christian, and you are helping them do it!

I’m proud of the many Christians who will march on April 29th in the People’s Climate March. Around the world people of faith will speak with one voice about the dangers of climate change, and the opportunities for good, renewable, clean-energy energy jobs. Environmental justice and economic justice go hand in hand. Clean energy is rapidly outpacing fossil fuels in creating jobs—the solar industry already employs twice as many people as coal.

And this further establishes the climate change hoax as a political issue. People don’t march for science. They do march for political issues. Also, as sooon as you can produce a 747 with solar panels on the wings, you can tout the solar industry as a viable power source. Until then, long live fossil fuels.

We are called to be stewards, tending what’s left of Eden. “Man has been appointed as a steward for the management of God’s property, and ultimately, he will give account for his stewardship” says Luke 16:2.

How are we doing?

You’re doing great — as a progressive who is misusing Jesus Christ and the Christian faith to promote a progressive agenda that is based completely on a lie.

More than 150 million people around the world live within three feet of sea level, so warming, rising seas are quickly becoming more than an inconvenience. Climate change is already making storms, droughts and heat waves more intense, impacting where crops grow and who has access to water. Climate change is emerging as the global human rights struggle of the 21st century.

First, I don’t know if your 150M figure is correct, but let’s say it is. So what? There is zero evidence that the coastlines are being flooded out and displacing the people who live there. Second, there is zero evidence, empirical or anecdotal, that weather extremes are more intense than in the past. How would you even go about trying to prove this? It’s another complete fabrication. Third, you mention crops. Who’s to say that the optimal climate is the one we’re living in now? Who’s to say that some warming wouldn’t contribute to an increase in arable land?

And the greatest human rights struggle is the same as it has always been: the struggle against tyranny and despotism. In the 21st century, communism, socialism, progressivism, militant Islam and Sharia Law are the faces of tyranny and despotism.

A rapidly-changing climate affects the health and welfare of our kids, and their kids. Respect for life must extend to future generations of unborn. Climate change is a global pro-life issue.

The climate is not “rapidly-changing.” The fact is, and you know this because you have a degree from Penn State, the climate has always been changing. It was changing before man invented the combustible engine and started burning fossil fuels. There have been times in the past when it was both warmer than it is now, and also colder. These changes are and have usually been subtle are hardly even perceptible. The same is true now. There isn’t the evidence to support the theory of man-made climate change. The only “evidence” are atmospheric models that presume to show warming years and decades and centuries from now. And even a layman knows you cant predict the weather that far out. Changes in climate have always occurred naturally, and the same is true now.

There’s no time for gloom and doom. We already have solutions that will power sustainable abundance. Dirty fossil fuels will fade as we dial up clean, renewable energy sources. The revolution is here: solar costs have fallen more than 80 percent since 2008, onshore wind is down 40 percent, and grid-scale batteries cost 70 percent less. We can have everything we want and need, with less stress on Earth’s Operating System – less lasting damage to God’s Creation.

The “solution” to this non-problem is what progressives have always wanted: the enactment of their political agenda. Mankind has never fared well under progressivism. Also, you seem to think God’s Creation is made of porcelain. In fact, the earth and the universe as a whole seem to be pretty durable. It is the height of arrogance to assume mankind can destroy (or save) what God has created.

What would Jesus do? We can’t know the mind of God, but based on Christ’s own words, actions and ministry he might have two simple questions. “Did you protect my Father’s home? Did you defend his children?”

What will we tell him?

Is this all Jesus means to you? The Pharisees tried to use Jesus as a political tool back in the day, and progressives are doing the same thing now. Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Savior of mankind. He came to save that which was lost to sin (mankind). The question isn’t “Did you protect my Father’s home?” The question is “Did you invest your faith in Me?”

Also, one of the worst things we can do “for the children” is turn over to them a world governed by progressives and progressive policies. This is why true conservatives and Christians must always resist the lure of progressivism and its sweet-sounding words of nirvana and equality. Progressives are snakes and the climate change hoax is their poison.

Adding “politiscientist” to the lexicon

You’ve heard it said that a consensus of scientists agrees that manmade climate change is real and that we must “do something.” The problem I have with this is twofold. First, science isn’t up for a vote. Science is simply what is. Consensus isn’t science. Consensus is politics. Second, I submit to you that most scientists who prescribe to the idea of manmade climate change are politically motivated to do so, and I am going to begin referring to them as “politiscientists.” What causes them to adhere to the left’s climate change hoax usually involves money. Yes, follow the money. Scientists have to earn a living like the rest of us, and many of them rely on grant money from government and/or academe for their studies and livelihood. Government and academe are two of the “Big Three” perpetrators of the climate change hoax (media being the third). And so government and academe are looking not for honest scientific climate research, but research which produces the desired and predetermined result of manmade climate change. Sometimes, this even involves rigging past observed meteorological data when it doesn’t line up with the desired and predetermined results. Thus, the “scientists” who are involved in propagating the climate change hoax may be actual scientists, but they are politicians first, and shall heretofore be labeled with the moniker “politiscientists.”