Tag Archives: Global Warming

Who or What Is Really Responsible for the Huge Forest Fires in California? by Bruce Bialosky

An honest quest for answers yields some believable answers. From Bruce Bialosky at theburningplatform.com:

Once again, faced with the failure of the “press” to educate us on an issue, we decided to go out and research the truth about what appears to be the significant increase in huge forest fires.  Once we did the research, we found out major differences in facts from the random barkings in the MSM.

Let us start with this simple aspect.  Forest fires are a normal thing.  Often caused by lightning or other natural causes, they are God’s way of clearing forests.  In those natural forest clearances, the wildlife that exists in them are threatened or their habitat is destroyed.  What has changed is mankind’s intervention in the natural process.  The question is, what other factors may be causing the change in the intensity of recent forest fires?

We also came armed with a thought.  If you believe that global warming is making life more challenging for forest management, then you should support proper forest clearance. Otherwise we will be left with even more intense fires.

For this column, other than reading everything available, we went to two sources: our national Forest Service and the Union of Concerned Scientists to get different perspectives.

Continue reading


Global warming? The latest news tells a different story, by Jack Hellner

Weather stories that don’t conform to the official global warming narrative don’t receive a lot of media attention. From Jack Hellner at americanthinker.com:

Here are some articles and stories that are minimally reported, if at all, because they do not fit the agenda that humans, fossil fuels, and CO2 are causing disastrous global warming and climate change.

From the Detroit News:

April on track to be the coldest in 143 years

No, you’re not crazy. It has been the coldest April in more than 140 years.

A year ago today, on April 19, 2017, it was 78 degrees and sunny, while Thursday’s expected high is 48 degrees, said National Weather Service meteorologist Trent Frey.

As of Thursday, the average temperature for April is 38.3 degrees, slightly warmer than April 1874, the coldest on record at 37.6 degrees.

From the Chicago Tribune:

More spring snow in Chicago, and forecasters call April’s start among coldest in 130 years

The first half of April marks the second-coldest start to the month since 1881, about when the weather service started keeping records, said Mott of the weather service.

From Watts Up With That:

Some Major U.S. cities headed for coldest April in recorded history

Some major U.S. are on track to be part of a record cold April. “Some cities in the east are experiencing temperatures a full 10 to 15 degrees F colder than normal, says meteorologist Jaclyn Whittal. Those cities include Buffalo, Chicago and Detroit. Those in the northern tier of the U.S. either graciously accept winter[.]

From Kilkenny Weather:

A little ice age ended around 1850 so a little warming would be normal after that and that is all we have had, a little warming.

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a cold period that stretched from the 16th to the mid 19th century.

To continue reading: Global warming? The latest news tells a different story

Begging for Global Warming as Global Cooling Becomes Obvious, by Dr. Mark Sircus

It does make it harder to  believe in global warming when it’s snowing in Florida. From Dr. Mark Sircus at lewrockwell.com:

As each day passes the evidence climbs, as predicted by scientists (not politicians and Popes), that a steep drop of temperatures would ensue—first dropping temperatures to where they were in the very cold late 1800s and then going down from there to ice age conditions that will threaten a great part of the northern latitudes over the next 10 years.

We are not ready for any of this mentally or in any other way thanks to people like former president Obama, the Pope, and let’s never forget Al Gore. Some of the most unscrupulous people have been championing the cause of manmade global warming even though the science and actual conditions on the ground have been showing for ten years that there is no such thing as manmade warming.

It has been a big snow job, pure propaganda and now the gig is up as it starts snowing in Florida of all places. Now we have temperatures crashing, almost the entire continental United States frozen over, snow accumulating in record amounts and ice forming in the great lakes at breathtaking speed. It is not just record breaking cold but record breaking snow fall that is showing us just how difficult global cooling will be compared to global warming.

Winter is here but it’s not a regular winter as just about every American can feel if they step outside. Boston tied a 100-year-old record on Tuesday when it marked seven consecutive days of temperatures that did not top 20 degrees Fahrenheit (-6.7 degrees Celsius). New York’s airports have registered new lows and Chicago has enjoyed its coldest New Year’s Day ever.

In Nebraska, temperatures hit 15 below zero (-26 Celsius) before midnight Sunday in Omaha, breaking a record low dating to 1884, which is 134 years ago. The temperature in Indianapolis dropped to -12°F (-24C) on the 2nd, tying the previous record for the date set in 1887.

To continue reading: Begging for Global Warming as Global Cooling Becomes Obvious

NASA’s Rubber Ruler: An Update, by Randall Hoven

As good, objective, scientifically minded people, we’d all like to look at the data on scientific controversies to help us make up our minds. Too bad we can’t do that with global temperature data. From Randall Hoven at americanthinker.com:

The NASA/GISS temperature record is not actually a record of recorded temperatures.  It is simply the most recent version of NASA’s adjustments to older adjustments.  It is not thermometer readings.  It is models all the way down.

In 2012, I wrote an American Thinker article on the status of global warming at the time.  I used the latest available NASA/GISS data to do that analysis, which was the version NASA had on its website on April 30, 2012 (Land-Ocean Temperature Index [LOTI]).

At that time, the data from 1880 through 2011 showed a warming trend of 0.59 degrees Celsius per century.

What is that warming trend using the latest data from NASA’s website (December 30, 2017), using those same exact years (1880-2011)?  The answer is 0.66˚ C.

How did warming accelerate if we are looking at the very same years?

 Apparently, the Earth is getting warmer faster than it was five and a half years ago, but not because of actual recorded thermometer readings in those last five and a half years.  It is getting warmer faster because NASA adjusted the data to show faster warming.
When you go to the NASA website, you can download temperature anomalies “1880-present.”  But those data change every month.  NASA adjusts it.  You cannot find any older versions.  NASA makes available only its most recent version.  And NASA does not explain how it adjusts the data.  You must simply trust it.I still have the data from 2012 only because I downloaded them to a spreadsheet and kept that spreadsheet.

What are the differences between the two sets of data?  See the first figure, which shows all adjustments to data from 1880 through 2011.  NASA made these adjustments after April 2012.

Figure 1.  NASA’s post-2012 adjustments to the 1880-2011 temperature record.

The black line shows the linear regression trend of the adjustments.  To be clear, the trend is of the adjustments to temperatures, not actual temperatures.  It is clear that NASA tends to adjust older temperatures down and recent temperatures up, to accelerate the overall warming trend: from 0.59 to 0.66˚ C per century, just since 2012.

To continue reading: NASA’s Rubber Ruler: An Update

GloBull Warming Hokum On ‘Earth Day’ by Karl Denninger

Karl Denninger takes on the global warmists. From Denninger on a guest post at theburningplatform.com:

Let’s cut the crap, shall we?

This is scientific fact. It is a record of history showing temperatures and CO2 levels.  You will note that there is no correlation between temperature and CO2 level.  In fact, there appears to be an inverse correlation in many (but not all) instances.

I remind you that the basic truth of science when it comes to correlation and causation is as follows:

1. Correlation can never prove causation.  It can only suggest that it might be true.

2. The inverse of correlation, however, strongly indicates that causation is absent if it occurs just once.

Well, it has been inverted when we’re talking about CO2 and temperature — and far more often than once.

In the Precambrian era CO2 concentrations fell quite a bit while temperatures rose.  In the Silurian period, same.  In the Carboniferous period, again.  At the end of the Jurasic period, again temperatures went up while CO2 levels fell.  Finally, at the exit of the Jurasic period CO2 went up while temperature slowly fell; we believe that happened due to a large asteroid impact (which would make sense as to the step function) but the continued fall in temperatures does not correlate with a further rise in CO2 — until the exit of the Paleocene epoch.

There was a correlated rise in the Miocene epoch.  But then we saw changes in temperature — both up and down — with a nearly-constant CO2 concentration.

Is there scientific evidence that CO2 levels cause global temperature change?  No.  The science says otherwise absent specific and detailed means of disproving why that correlation has been so-often not only absent but inverted.

To continue reading: GloBull Warming Hokum On ‘Earth Day’

The Real War on Science, by John Tierney

The left, according to John Tierney in a well-reasoned article, is far more pseudo- and anti- science than the right. From Tierney at city-journal.org:

My liberal friends sometimes ask me why I don’t devote more of my science journalism to the sins of the Right. It’s fine to expose pseudoscience on the left, they say, but why aren’t you an equal-opportunity debunker? Why not write about conservatives’ threat to science?

My friends don’t like my answer: because there isn’t much to write about. Conservatives just don’t have that much impact on science. I know that sounds strange to Democrats who decry Republican creationists and call themselves the “party of science.” But I’ve done my homework. I’ve read the Left’s indictments, including Chris Mooney’s bestseller, The Republican War on Science. I finished it with the same question about this war that I had at the outset: Where are the casualties?

Where are the scientists who lost their jobs or their funding? What vital research has been corrupted or suppressed? What scientific debate has been silenced? Yes, the book reveals that Republican creationists exist, but they don’t affect the biologists or anthropologists studying evolution. Yes, George W. Bush refused federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research, but that hardly put a stop to it (and not much changed after Barack Obama reversed the policy). Mooney rails at scientists and politicians who oppose government policies favored by progressives like himself, but if you’re looking for serious damage to the enterprise of science, he offers only three examples.

All three are in his first chapter, during Mooney’s brief acknowledgment that leftists “here and there” have been guilty of “science abuse.” First, there’s the Left’s opposition to genetically modified foods, which stifled research into what could have been a second Green Revolution to feed Africa. Second, there’s the campaign by animal-rights activists against medical researchers, whose work has already been hampered and would be devastated if the activists succeeded in banning animal experimentation. Third, there’s the resistance in academia to studying the genetic underpinnings of human behavior, which has cut off many social scientists from the recent revolutions in genetics and neuroscience. Each of these abuses is far more significant than anything done by conservatives, and there are plenty of others. The only successful war on science is the one waged by the Left.

To continue reading: The Real War on Science

Some Questions About “Climate Change”…, by Eric Peters

Inconceivably, Eric Peters thinks the powers that be might be lying to us about climate change. From Peters on a guest post at theburningplatform.com:

If the climate really is changing – and we’re the cause of it – then the “wrenching changes” to our lives we’re told are necessary to avert catastrophe might be something we have to accept.chicken-little

Like chemotherapy for cancer.

But what if the diagnosis is wrong?

What if they are lying to us?

Maybe we should get a second opinion – or at least give it a second thought – before we jump on the “climate change” bandwagon.

I personally have a few misgivings based on a few inconvenient truths I’d like to share with you – along with some politically incorrect observations.

First, I will concede that the climate does change. But is this something abnormal? Is man responsible for it changing abnormally?

The fact is atmospheric gas composition and average temperatures have varied wildly over the eons of time the Earth has existed and long before human beings existed. They will vary in the future as well.

Now, the assertion made by the “climate change” crowd (their choice of words is very interesting) is that human activity is causing an unnatural increase in C02 levels and temperatures. But this is an assertion – based on computer models – and cooked data. I’ve looked into it, as opposed to genuflecting before the warbles of non-scientist politicians (this includes, by the way, the non-scientist Bill Nye the “science” guy, who holds no academic degree in any applicable discipline) who have a clear interest in peddling the idea that there is a “crisis” – the sky is falling! – which of course they have the solution to.

For example, the taking of ground temperature readings in paved-over/concrete-covered urban areas (heat sinks) and other such manipulations, which give a distorted (arguably, a deliberately dishonest) impression of average temperatures and whether trends are within normal parameters.

Also, the folding in of greenhouse “emissions” from natural sources such as methane blooms (bubbling up of gasses from the seafloor) with man-made sources such as carbon dioxide coming out of the tailpipes of vehicles.

What about the massive naturally-occurring “emissions” of C02?

The careful putting aside of solar activity as a possible and entirely normal contributory factor (not surprising, given we lack the enforcement ability to impose solar emissions standards on the nuclear furnace that anchors our solar system).

To continue reading: Some Questions About “Climate Change”…