I just read an article by Terrence Jeffries reporting that the Director of National Intelligence, Daniel Coats, just submitted a threat assessment to the Senate Armed Services Committee stating the following about climate change:

Environment and Climate Change

The impacts of the long-term trends toward a warming climate, more air pollution, biodiversity loss, and water scarcity are likely to fuel economic and social discontent—and possibly upheaval—through 2018.

  • The past 115 years have been the warmest period in the history of modern civilization, and the past few years have been the warmest years on record. Extreme weather events in a warmer world have the potential for greater impacts and can compound with other drivers to raise the risk of humanitarian disasters, conflict, water and food shortages, population migration, labor shortfalls, price shocks, and power outages. Research has not identified indicators of tipping points in climate-linked earth systems, suggesting a possibility of abrupt climate change.
  • Worsening air pollution from forest burning, agricultural waste incineration, urbanization, and rapid industrialization—with increasing public awareness—might drive protests against authorities, such as those recently in China, India, and Iran.
  • Accelerating biodiversity and species loss—driven by pollution, warming, unsustainable fishing, and acidifying oceans—will jeopardize vital ecosystems that support critical human systems. Recent estimates suggest that the current extinction rate is 100 to 1,000 times the natural extinction rate.
  • Water scarcity, compounded by gaps in cooperative management agreements for nearly half of the world’s international river basins, and new unilateral dam development are likely to heighten tension between countries.

Director Coats should be fired for publishing such rubbish.  First, the DNI is getting its climate projections from the U.N.’s IPCC, which has been known to not be reliable.  The IPCC routinely rejects accurate data that shows the earth is not warming and continues to present the false narrative of a dangerously warming planet.  NOAA and NASA routinely adjust temperature measurement data to make it show warming.  The earth has warmed about .06º C over a decade.  But that is not an earth shaking increase nor is it outside the range of natural variability, according to a number of experienced meteorologists.  A warming earth is good for the planet.  Animals, generally, do better.  Humans do better, and plant life flourishes.

Catastrophic weather events have not been on the increase, nor are they getting stronger, but just the opposite.  We have seen a decline in hurricanes of cat 3 strength or larger, a decline in severe tornados, a decline in drought, and a decline in forest fires.  Catastrophic weather events may seem worse but it is due to the media coverage rather than the event itself.  None of the events of the recent past has been unprecedented.  Our meteorological and geological history tells us they have happened in the past.  Any warming we have seen has been from natural forces, such as El Ninos, El Ninas, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Solar activity, etc.  The biggest problem that can be on the horizon, it seems, is that we are likely heading into a period of global cooling that could thrust us into a deep freeze within a decade or two.  Cold kills more people than hot weather.  Cold shortens growing seasons for food crops.  Cold taxes our energy grid substantially.

The Little Ice Age officially ended in 1860, a little over a 150 years ago.  Certainly, we have warmed since then, because of an active Sun.  It was to be expected.  We have gone through a number of ice ages and warmed up in between, often warmer than we are now, and with much higher levels of CO2.  That warming did not cause catastrophe but helped the earth to flourish again.

A number of scientists are now warning that the Sun is showing indications that it is going into its cyclic period of low activity.  This means we will be getting colder, perhaps for an extended period of time.  But such events are beyond our control, just as climate changing is beyond our control.  There is no empirical evidence that climate change or global warming is caused by CO2.  CO2 is not the magic control knob that we can use to control the climate or the weather.  Weather and climate are the result of a multitude of natural forces, none of which we can control.  Anyone who says differently is lying.



Warmists are trying to make the case that recent storms are worse than in the past by using the dollar value of the destruction that was caused.   The high dollar amount of the destruction is not an indication of the level of the destructive forces of the storm, but more a reflection of the nature of the property being destroyed.  Because of the scenic value and desirability of beachfront properly, beachfront property has been in high demand.  As a result, property values have gone higher and higher with the areas built up with expensive homes and businesses.  When these beachfront properties are densely populated, it does not take much of a storm to create billions of dollars of destruction.

One article, recently published said that it was now possible to link specific extreme weather events to global warming/climate change because climate models have become better.  The problem with climate models is that they are programmed with the assumptions of the persons doing the “research.”  If it is assumed that human emissions of CO2 is  driving climate change, which, in turn, is driving extreme weather events, then that is what the climate models will show.  The climate models keep getting tweaked until they show what the “researchers” want it to show.

Yes, we have had some strong hurricanes in the recent past.  However, they were not unprecedented.  Those who track such things, tell us that hurricane seasons are getting milder and milder.  There have been more destructive hurricanes in the past, in times before CO2 emissions became an issue.  The hurricane that hit Galveston, Texas in 1900 comes to mind.  It was so strong it broke the measuring instruments, and killed 8000 – 12000 people.

The facts are that polar ice caps are growing, not receding.  The total area destroyed by forest fires is declining, not growing.  Ocean levels are not rising at an unusual rate.  Tornado counts are declining. And the earth has not shown a warming trend for the past 20 years.  This last fact is even now recognized by NASA.  Some scientists are now, again, predicting a little ice age beginning as early as 2030..  Yet, another “scientist” is predicting that a 2 degree centigrade increase in global temperature will cause the earth to become a desert wasteland by 2050.   As many scientists are saying a 2 degree increase in temperature is not likely from CO2 alone and will not be catastrophic.  Plants flourish in warmer temperatures and higher CO2 levels.  Animal life will adapt, as it always has in the past.  Previous interglacial periods got much warmer, and animal life did quite well.  More areas of the earth became habitable, animal life prospered, and there was plenty of food in the food chain.



It has begun.  The global warmists are swarming around Harvey and Irma like sharks in a feeding frenzy attempting to link these storms to global warming, aka climate change.  One article I read said that “denying climate science is literally killing us.”  Another writer called for jailing “climate deniers” because they are guilty of crimes against humanity.  What is missing in all of their hype is evidence.  They do not have a shred of evidence linking the existence, the size, or strength of these storms to CO2 or global warming of any kind.  All they have are assumptions that if it is severe weather and destructive, it must be due to human-caused climate change.  They have bought into the story that CO2 emitted by humans controls everything about weather and climate.  Thinking that we can control weather or climate by simply controlling CO2 is madness.

Lets put this into perspective.  There are hundreds of factors that contribute to weather and ultimately climate, because climate is the average weather for a given area.  Such factors are the rotation of the earth around its axis, the tilt of the axis, the rotation around the sun, solar activity itself, the pull of the moon, vegetation, topography, and many more.  To hear the pundits like Al Gore speak, you would get the impression that CO2 is blanketing the earth like a thick layer of ooze.  But the reality is that CO2 is only four hundredths of one percent of the atmosphere.  To visualize this to get an idea of the relative amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, consider 10,000 tennis balls are on your living room floor.  These 10,000 tennis balls represent the entire atmosphere of the earth.  How many of those balls would represent the amount of CO2?  The answer is four.  CO2 is only 4/10,000 of our atmosphere.  Now lets apply this little bit of information to what the warmists want you to believe.

In theory, the sun’s rays warm the Earth and the Earth’s heat is radiated back to space where it hits molecules of CO2 and is re-radiated back to Earth to warm it some more.  This much is true.  But how much additional warming can be realized when CO2 is only 4/10,000 of the atmosphere?  Very little.  So little as to be insignificant.

The warmists also want you to believe CO2 traps heated air next to the earth, much like air is trapped in a hot car.  There are several problems here.  A car is enclosed with impermeable glass and steel.  Open the windows or remove the top and what happens?  The hot air escapes.  The atmosphere and CO2 will not keep the hot air inside the car.  CO2 is a gas and cannot trap anything.  How much trapping can be done when it is 4/10,000ths of the atmosphere? Again, very little or none.  It would be like trying to trap butterflies using a net made of hula hoops tied together.

Another visual is helpful.  Consider a thermos bottle with its mirrored lining designed to keep liquids warm.  Pour boiling water into the thermos and put the stopper on.  Wait 24 hours and check the liquid.  Will it be hotter than when you put it in the thermos?  No.  It will have cooled considerably.  The reflective surface of the liner did not cause reheating by reflecting the heat back into the liquid.  And, there is more of that reflective surface relative to the thermos than there is CO2 relative to the Earth’s surface.



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.