In my last Musings, I addressed the claim of government scientists that 2016 was the warmest year on record.  In my writing I said that the fact that it was government scientists making the claim should give us all reason to be skeptical.  It now appears that my skepticism of government claims was well placed.  A former NOAA scientist has now come forward as a “whistle-blower” to state that government scientists altered data to make it show warming  and then rushed a report so that it would be published with strategic timing to support the Paris global warming accord touted by President Obama.  The government scientists then hid or destroyed the altered data so that independent researchers could not confirm the accuracy of the data.

It appears that a number of the Republican “elite” have bought into the climate change hysteria, because it has been reported that these GOP elites have approached President Trump with a proposal for a carbon tax to “confront the problem of climate change.”  One of these elites is reported to have said that he was not certain he accepted the notion that we are on the precipice of doom from climate change but it does not hurt to be proactive in dealing with the problem.  What utter nonsense.  He wants to take more money from Americans to fund a solution to a problem that does not exist.  This is further evidence that the U.N. has been successful in selling the world a ‘bill of goods” based on a science that does not exist.  We keep hearing people like Bernie Sanders tell us to “believe the science” when it is clear that they have not even bothered to read the “science” for themselves.  They are only reacting to what they are told the “science” says.

The reality is that there is no science behind global warming.  All that exists are hypothesis, altered data, and computer models based on the altered data.  That is not science.  The “science” says there should be a hot spot in the upper atmosphere because of heat “trapped” by CO2.  After three decades of searching, scientists have never found the “hot spot”.    Furthermore, a gas cannot trap anything, especially in the upper atmosphere.  In the upper atmosphere the molecules are much further apart because they are dispersed over a wider area.

There is no empirical evidence that CO2 is linked to global warming or any catastrophic climate event in the recent past.  Those of us who are skeptics do not deny that the earth could be warming.  But we attribute the warming to natural events, such as solar activity, the tilt of the earth, the earth’s rotation around the sun, etc.  Walk outside on a sunny day with dark clothing and what do you notice?  You start warming because your clothing is absorbing the solar energy.  What happens when a cloud gets between you and the sun?  You start to cool because the water vapor in the cloud blocks and filters the solar energy.  Water vapor is a “greenhouse gas” as is CO2.  There is more water vapor in the air, even on cloudless days, than CO2, in fact 96% more.  The moral of the story is that the greenhouse gases prevent the planet from over heating, because they filter and block harmful solar radiation..

CO2 is not a pollutant.  It is an essential element for all life on the planet.  Plants require CO2 to live and thrive.  We require plants to live and thrive.  At 400ppm, the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere, plants are almost starved for CO2.  If we reduce CO2 back to 290 ppm, we will be retarding the yields of food plants.  This is not a good idea while the world population is growing.

Back to the “science.”  In science one does not alter the data to fit the hypothesis.  If the data do not fit the hypothesis, the proper thing to do is change the hypothesis.



During the senate confirmation hearings, the Democrat senators seemed more focused on climate change than the real issues the cabinet picks will face.  Some of the questions asked are rather meaningless on their face.  For example, one senator asked a nominee if he believe climate change was real.  The nominee said “yes.”  That answer, in itself discloses nothing.  Certainly climate change is real.  Climate is always changing and has been doing so as long as the planet has existed with a climate.  It is a natural occurrence.  The real issue in the debate is whether humans are causing climate to change by creating more CO2.  The answer to that may seem muddled but the truth is that there is absolutely no empirical evidence that increasing CO2 levels have impacted climate.  None.  Regardless of that fact, the obsession climate change is approaching irrational hysteria.  Much of the public is accepting unfounded statements as truth, from public figures like President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, and Al Gore.  These public figures are fueling the hysteria with predictions of irreversible doom for the planet unless we act immediately.  We are being told we are at a point of no return.  People say they “believe the science.”  The problem is that they are not believing science but rather believing what they are told the science says.  There is no science in which to believe.  Skeptics do not “deny science” because there is no science to deny.  What is denied are the phony claims posing as science.

As evidence of “climate change”, government scientists have just come out heralding 2016 as having set a new record in global warmth, breaking the records of 2014 and 2015.  The fact that it was government scientists should cause anyone to question the accuracy of the claim.  Government scientists are protective of their jobs and will not present “findings” that run counter to the dogma presented by those at the top.  NASA has been known to consistently alter data in order to show warming.  The government scientists at NASA are using measurements taken at ground locations around the world.  What is not mentioned is that these ground locations are often in what is called urban heat islands (UHI), locations that are known to retain a lot of heat because of the near proximity of heat absorbing structures, such as asphalt roads, concrete/brick buildings, etc.  The measurements taken tend to reflect the retained heat from those structures rather than the normal atmospheric heat.  The scientists must then apply what they believe to be the correct “adjustments” to reflect more accurately the atmospheric and ground temperature.  What is also not mentioned by the government scientists is that about 70% of the Earth’s surface is not covered by any ground measuring station.  Temperatures for those areas are merely guesstimated and included in the average used to claim as a “record” year.  Therefore, the government’s numbers lack the precision to be meaningful.  NASA claims 2016 was .07 degrees warmer than 2015.  Climate scientists using satellite data, which are considered more comprehensive and accurate, tell us that this data shows only a .01 degree difference.  That is 1/100th of a degree.  The difference is meaningless because there are so many variables as to say that the level of precision is not adequate to make 1/100th of a degree statistically significant.  Besides, no one can feel the difference.

Satellite measurements are regarded as more comprehensive and more accurate.  Climate scientists, using satellite measurements, say that the global average temperature for 2016, as well as 2014 and 2015 were not records because they fell within the range of the statistical 95% confidence level.  Which means they were not statistically significant in the variation because they fell within the range of normal variability.

What is being passed off as “science” are projections of catastrophic warming by computer models fed with data that have been corrupted by NASA alterations.  The computer programs themselves are programed with a bias toward showing more warming and catastrophe.  The old saying “garbage in garbage out” applies here.   I offer, as evidence, several facts.  First, none of the predictions of catastrophe have occurred.  Al Gore predicted that by 2015 New York would be under water, Las Vegas would be wiped out, gasoline would be $15 a gallon and the price of milk would approach $9 a gallon from global warming.  None of this has occurred.  Secondly, meteorologists often cannot predict accurately the weather one or two days out.  How can we realistically predict the climate 10 years from now?  Nature is too variable and subject to things beyond our control and ability to predict, such as Sun spots and Sun cycles, cloudiness, etc.

Also passing as “science” is the media reporting of climate events that tend to be nothing but hyperbole.  Those that keep records of such things tell us that the number and severity of tornados has decreased in the last decade, as well as the number and severity of hurricanes, floods, forest fires, and drought.  Yet, to hear the media report it, each severe climate event is the most severe ever recorded, and they attribute it to climate change or global warming.  The media go out of their way to portray the event as catastrophic, using such words as “unprecedented”.  One reporter, during a flood, was filmed in a rowboat in the middle of a city street, giving the impression the flooding had great depth.  The fallacy of the report was shown when an unaware citizen was seen walking down the street behind the boat in ankle deep water.  Reporting on catastrophe sells TV ratings and newspapers, so the media will milk each weather event for all of its ratings value with ethical reporting set aside.



32 Reasons for not believing in Anthropogenic Climate Change and the doomsday narrative

1. The mechanism of how CO2 adds warmth to the earth, as explained by the warmists, is not consistent with known science and, in fact, violates known principles of science, such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
2. There is no empirical evidence that links man-made CO2 to climate changes. The only thing the warmists have are computer models that are programmed with the warming bias.
3. The only way NASA and NOAA can get temperature measurements to show global warming is to alter the data. That is not science. It is fraud.
4. In January 2015, NASA admitted that there was no warming trend for 15 years. Then, it altered the data to show a warming trend.
5. The claims of NASA and NOAA that 14 of the warmest years on record occurred after 2000, were based on altered data, not actual measurements.
6. NASA and NOAA once claimed that satellite data were the most accurate but now reject satellite data because it does not reflect the narrative they want to present.
7. After rejecting satellite measurements, NASA and NOAA turned to ground-based measuring stations, which only cover about 30% of the earth and are subject to warming bias due to their location. Many are located in urban areas where heat from vehicular traffic and heat retained by concrete, asphalt and brick influence the measurements.
8. Temperatures of the 70% of the earth not covered by ground-based measuring stations are not actual measurements but numbers inferred (guesstimates).
9. Predictions of dire consequences by 2015 resulting from global warming have not occurred. New York city was not totally flooded, Miami was not wiped out, Las Vegas was not abandoned, the polar ice caps did not disappear, sea levels did not rise 4 feet, gasoline prices did not get to $9 a gallon, and milk prices did not rise to $13 a gallon. Yet, man-made CO2 has not been reduced.
10. Sea ice is not disappearing but growing faster and thicker.
11. Polar ice caps are growing, not receding.
12. Sea levels have been rising slowly for hundreds of years for reasons unknown to scientists. There has been no change in the rate of sea level increases.
13. Ice core studies show that during the interglacial periods, temperature rose first and then CO2 levels rose about 800 years later. That is consistent with the known science that warmer temperatures cause the seas to release CO2 into the atmosphere. From a cause and effect standpoint, one could infer that the warming caused the rise in CO2, not the other way around.
14. Human-caused CO2 is only .00016% of the atmosphere. All CO2, natural and man-made, is only .04% of the atmosphere.
15. The dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor at .95% of the atmosphere (less than 1%). The greenhouse gases act to keep the earth cool by filtering the sun’s radiation. Greenhouse gases do not create more warmth. The presence of water vapor in clouds at night serves to slow cooling after the sun goes down. Greenhouse gases do not “trap” heat of the earth but only slows cooling.
16. Historical records show that extreme weather events have not become more frequent or more severe. It just appears that they have because of the 24hour news cycle we have now and the penchant of the media to hype the event.
17. Many of the extreme weather phenomena have been attributed to El Niño or La Niña, both of which are unrelated to increased CO2.
18. Daily weather forecasts are often as much as 5 degrees off from what actually occurs. If the computers cannot predict with accuracy what the next day’s temperatures will be, how can they predict with accuracy what will happen over the next 50 or 100 years?
19. CO2 is not a pollutant!! It is essential for all life on the planet, and an essential building block for all plant life, on which we depend.
20. Some warming of the earth will be beneficial because growing seasons for food crops will be enhanced.
21. The current atmospheric CO2 level is 385 ppm. Plants thrive at 1000 to 1200 ppm. At 385 ppm in the atmosphere, the CO2 level is close to a starvation level for plants. Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will enhance crop yields.
22. Eliminating all man-made CO2 will have little or no impact on climate change.
23. Climate changes naturally as a result of many natural variables, such as solar activity, the rotation of the earth around the sun, the rotation of the earth around its axis, the tilt of the earth on its axis, and the wobble of the earth, the effect of El Niño and La Niña, and other natural variables.
24. More human suffering and death occurs during cold periods than warm periods.
25. The 97% consensus on global warming, claimed by President Obama, has been proven to be false.
26. Over 31,000 scientists in the U.S. have signed a petition rejecting the claims of anthropogenic climate change.
27. 50% of Nobel Prize winners in science rejected the AGW hypothesis by refusing to sign a statement acknowledging that AGW was true.
28. The U.N. has acknowledged that the earth has not warmed in over 18 years.
29. During the interglacial periods, the earth warmed to levels greater than it is now and with higher levels of CO2 than now, with positive results rather than devastation. This allowed for greater population dispersion as well as greater biological diversity in plant and animal life.

30. NASA used computer models to estimate temperatures for many decades past and then threw out the real measurement.
31. The United Nations has an agenda to use AGW as a tool to destroy capitalism and institute world socialism.
32. To think that man can alter the great forces of nature impacting climate is self-deceiving.



My most recent debate on the facebook posts of “friends of Bernie Sanders” was about global warming.  As in most of the debates where I try to challenge the thinking of Sanders’ followers, I am met with with all manner of name-calling, rather than a serious debate of facts.  Many are so vested in expressing love for Bernie Sanders and his Socialist/Progressive views, that they do not want to hear an opposing viewpoint.

To understand how “global warming” became such a hot-button issue, it is important to understand the political climate behind the issue.  Americans first became aware of the issue when former Vice President, Al Gore, began to preach his warnings of climate failure, and produced a popular movie about the issue.  Al Gore’s vested interest is his business investments.  He created a company to sell “carbon offsets” to those who were concerned about their “carbon footprint” and its impact on the earth.  It is in Al Gore’s vested interest to create as much concern for the climate as possible so that he can make more money selling his “carbon offsets.”  Those who buy the “carbon offsets” feel like they are helping the world be a better place.  They do not really change their carbon footprint but soothe their consciences by giving up their money to Al gore.

Another political player is the United Nations.  The UN wants to be able to tap into the wealth of industrialized nations to distribute to the third world nations.  The UN would also like to see itself become the world governing body.  “Global warming” seems to be the issue that will help the UN come closer to their goals.  In the world summit coming up next year, the UN hopes to get the member countries to sign a pact to reduce carbon emissions by a certain percentage and give the UN power to tax those countries that do not meet the targets.  President Obama has already declared they he intends to sign the agreement, which will be binding on the U.S.  The countries that sign the agreement will be yielding a part of their sovereignty to the UN.

President Obama has also stated that “global warming” is settled science, and claims that a majority of scientists support the science behind “global warming.”  First, science is, by its nature, never settled.  There are always new discoveries, sometimes requiring changes to old ways of thinking.  Secondly, the political climate in which the scientists operate is important.  Much of their research is funded by government grants.  If they do not support the government narrative, they can lose their grant funding and even their jobs.  The result is that the scientists are on the “global warming” band-wagon because it is politically expedient, not because they really believe in “global warming.”

Despite what has been said, “global warming” is not settled science.  There are a number problems with the “science.”  Here are some tidbits of information to be digested:

Richard Tol, professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Institute for Environmental Studies and Department of Spatial Economics, VrijeUniversiteit, Amsterdam, was a member of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and stepped down from his position and asked that his name be removed from any IPCC reports to be published. Tol, reported in May 2014 that this was because of the bias in the reports toward alarmism, and refusal to report the facts as they were. For example, Tol reports that by the time the third of four scheduled reports was ready to be published, the committee had recognized that the earth had not warmed for 17 years, but would not revise the report to reflect those facts. Another reported bias in the IPCC reports is the failure to acknowledge the costs of global emissions targets. The IPCC research studies showed that ambitious emissions targets would be prohibitively expensive, while not accomplishing much for global warming, but they would not report that. Instead, they reported that striving for the ambitious emissions targets would cost little.

The bottom line is that Tol called the people writing the IPCC reports “activists posing as scientists.”

In May, 2014, the Obama administration released its National Climate Assessment (NCA). Cornwall Alliance Senior Fellow Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Principal Research Scientist in Climatology at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and U.S. team lead scientist on NASA’s Aqua satellite remote sensing program, feels, along with many other scientists, that the report is full of factual errors and hype. For example, Dr. Spencer says that the report’s claim that global warming is “unprecedented” and “primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels,” is not supported by the facts. Dr. Spencer states that there is absolutely no way of knowing what is human-caused vs. nature-caused climate change, because there is “no fingerprint of human-caused or naturally caused climate change.” He further states that the claim of global warming as “unprecedented” is contradicted by “published paleoclimate data which suggests most centuries experience substantial warming or cooling.”  Dr. Spencer states that the global warming alarmists are making predictions based on “climate models which have not even been able to hindcast past global temperatures, let alone forecast changes with any level of accuracy.”

NASA’s top climatologist said that the US had been cooling. In an article, published in August 1999, entitled Whither U.S. Climate?, authors James Hansen, RetoRuedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato stated “Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. In the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country.”

Up until the year 2000, the record high temperature for the U.S. was recorded in 1934 and 1998 was recorded as a half degree centigrade less than 1934. But after 2000, NOAA and NASA replaced the recorded data with numbers generated from their computer models that showed 1934 as cooler than 1998, thereby showing a warming trend for the U.S. Keep in mind that Dr. Roy Spencer said that the computer models cannot hindcast past temperature, let alone, forecast future temperatures with any level of accuracy.

Glacial melting is not a new phenomenon. The glacier at Glacier Bay, Alaska was discovered in 1794. The National Park Service reported that by 1879, the glacier had retreated more than 30 miles, and by 1916 had retreated more than 60 miles from “natural warming.” In a recent interview with NBC news, the founder of the Weather Channel stated that the polar ice caps were growing, not receding.

It has been claimed by the Obama Administration, and others, that global warming contributes to more frequent, and intense hurricanes. However, John Christy, University of Alabama climate scientist, states that hurricanes have not become more numerous or intense and that NOAA hurricane records back up that claim.
The bottom line is that the debate over global warming is not settled. In fact, the fact that the chicken little climate “scientists” have quit using the term “global warming”, opting to use “climate change”, instead, shows that the matter is not settled.