Why Trump Is Right About Global Warming [UPDATED]

There are many things a President can do.  Controlling the weather is not one of them.  Yet Lesley Stahl chose to begin her 60 Minutes interview with Donald Trump by badgering him about global warming and hurricanes!  Sure, there are geopolitical and domestic crises to deal with, and sure, half the country is currently waging a civil war, and sure, top Democrat leaders are calling for violence on a daily basis, but why don't you do something to make it nicer outside, Mr. President? 

Instead of kowtowing to political correctness, this President did what he always does and laid a truth bomb on the clueless Ms. Stahl:   

Lesley Stahl: Do you still think that climate change is a hoax? 

President Donald Trump: I think something's happening. Something's changing and it'll change back again. I don't think it's a hoax, I think there's probably a difference. But I don't know that it's manmade. I will say this. I don't wanna give trillions and trillions of dollars. I don't wanna lose millions and millions of jobs. I don't wanna be put at a disadvantage. 

Lesley Stahl: I wish you could go to Greenland, watch these huge chunks of ice just falling into the ocean, raising the sea levels. 

President Donald Trump: And you don't know whether or not that would have happened with or without man. You don't know.

Indeed she doesn't.  And the truth is, all evidence points to climate and weather as being natural phenomena, with man being a global non-factor.

Here's some scientific proof for those open to skepticism on the issue of manmade climate change:

• The Earth is 4.5 billion years old.  (That's billion, with a b.)  

• The best known record of Earth's climate goes back about 800,000 years, and was determined by two sets of ice cores at Vostok and Dome C.  (Here's a data summary for those interested.  And here's some raw data.)

• What the data show is a remarkable cycle of cooling and warming at least every 100,000 years.  Like clockwork. 

• If that trend has been consistent for 4.5 billion years, there have been at least 45,000 such cycles on Earth.  

• That's 45,000 cycles of global cooling followed by...global warming!  

• Not a single one of those cycles was caused by man.

• The ice core data also show that CO2 changes lag temperature changes by 1200 + or - 700 years.  In other words, CO2 doesn't drive climate, climate drives CO2!  This is the opposite of what the warmists have been telling you. (Here's an analysis of the lag for those interested.)       

How many people like Ms. Stahl, who are convinced that Hurricane Michael and Greenland's melting glaciers are caused by man, even know there have already been at least 45,000 natural global warmings in Earth's history?  And how many people know that the historical record shows the opposite of what the warmists have been telling you about CO2?
     

[UPDATE] For a full guide to Global Warming (aka Climate Change) read,  "Fact Check: The Truth About Global Warming"
___________________________________________________

[UPDATE]  Also, here is a brilliant debunking of the entire premise and theory of manmade CO2 climate change that aired on the BBC:

https://rumble.com/v2pnyc6-the-great-global-warming-swindle-full-documentary-hd.html

Could Orlando have been prevented?

Remember the Global War on Terror?  In the wake of 9/11 it kept us safe from domestic attacks by jihadist islam, and did so right up until the election of Barack Obama.  Obama won the presidency and declared that he had no interest in conducting a Global War on Terror, he was withdrawing resources from it, he was closing GITMO, he was ceasing combat operations targeting jihadi islam, and he was focusing his efforts on other things:      

From Jerome Hudson at Breitbart:

Below are 23 times Obama or his administration officials claimed climate change a greater threat than radical Islamic terrorism.

In a January 15, 2008 presidential campaign speech on Iraq and Afghanistan, Barack Obama said the “immediate danger” of oil-backed terrorism “is eclipsed only by the long-term threat from climate change, which will lead to devastating weather patterns, terrible storms, drought, and famine. That means people competing for food and water in the next fifty years in the very places that have known horrific violence in the last fifty: Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Most disastrously, that could mean destructive storms on our shores, and the disappearance of our coastline.”

On January 26, 2009, Obama delivered remarks at the White House on the “dangers” of climate change:

These urgent dangers to our national and economic security are compounded by the long-term threat of climate change, which, if left unchecked, could result in violent conflict, terrible storms, shrinking coastlines, and irreversible catastrophe.

In May 2010, the Obama White House released it’s national security strategy, which said, “At home and abroad, we are taking concerted action to confront the dangers posed by climate change and to strengthen our energy security.” The document declared climate change “an urgent and growing threat to our national security.”

On September 6, 2012, during his Democratic National Convention speech, Obama said, “Yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet, because climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They are a threat to our children’s future.

On January 23, 2013, in an address before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Secretary of State John Kerry declared climate change among the top threats facing the United States.

February 16, 2014, Secretary of State John Kerry addressed students in Indonesia and said that global warming is now “perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.”

In a June 2014 interview, Obama said:

When you start seeing how these shifts can displace people—entire countries can be finding themselves unable to feed themselves and the potential incidence of conflict that arises out of that—that gets your attention. There’s a reason why the quadrennial defense review—which the secretary of defense and the Joints Chiefs of Staff work on—identified climate change as one of our most significant national security problems. It’s not just the actual disasters that might arise, it is the accumulating stresses that are placed on a lot of different countries and the possibility of war, conflict, refugees, displacement that arise from a changing climate.

During a September 2014 meeting with foreign ministers, Secretary of State John Kerry called Climate change a threat as urgent as ISIS.

On September 24 2014, the Obama USDA launched its Global Alliance for Climate Smart Agriculture. In a memo posted by Secretary of State John Kerry, among other Obama administration officials, read,“From India to the United States, climate change poses drastic risks to every facet of our lives.”

On October 29, 2014, in an address to the Washington Ideas Forum, Obama’s Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said:

From my perspective, within the portfolio that I have responsibility for–security of this country–climate change presents security issues for us. There’s a security dynamic to that. As the oceans increase, it will affect our bases. It will affect islands. It will affect security across the world. Just from my narrow perspective, what I have responsibility for, that’s happening now.

During his 2015 State of the Union address, Obama said, “No challenge  poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.”

In a February 2015 address to college students in Iowa, Vice President Joe Biden said“Global warming is the greatest threat to your generation of anything at all, across the board.”

On February 09, 2015, in an interview with Vox, Obama said he “absolutely” believes that the media “sometimes overstates the level of alarm people should have about terrorism” as opposed to “climate change.”

On February 10, 2015, when asked to confirm if this means Obama believes “the threat of climate change is greater than the threat of terrorism,” Earnest responded, “The point the president is making is that there are many more people on an annual basis who have to confront the impact, the direct impact on their lives, of climate change, or on the spread of a disease, than on terrorism.”

During his April 18, 2015 weekly address on climate change, Obama said, “Wednesday is Earth Day, a day to appreciate and protect this precious planet we call home. And today, there’s no greater threat to our planet than climate change.”

In May 2015, the White House released a 1,300-page National Climate Assessment that declared climate change among the world’s foremost threats.

May 20, 2015 President Obama said in his keynote address to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy graduates: “Climate change, and especially rising seas, is a threat to our homeland security, our economic infrastructure, the safety and health of the American people.”

On July 13 2015, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy and Obama’s U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican Kenneth F. Hackett wrote in a joint blog post on the EPA website, praising Pope Francis for dedicating his second encyclical to urging swift action on global warming.

McCarthy and Hackett wrote:

As public servants working in both domestic policy and diplomacy, we understand the urgent need for global action. Climate impacts like extreme droughts, floods, fires, heat waves, and storms threaten people in every country—and those who have the least suffer the most. No matter your beliefs or political views, we are all compelled to act on climate change to protect our health, our planet, and our fellow human beings.

An Obama Defense Department report released on July 29, 2015 says climate change puts U.S. security at risk and threatens the global order:

The report reinforces the fact that global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for U.S. national security interests over the foreseeable future because it will aggravate existing problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions that threaten domestic stability in a number of countries.

The report finds that climate change is a security risk because it degrades living conditions, human security, and the ability of governments to meet the basic needs of their populations. Communities and states that are already fragile and have limited resources are significantly more vulnerable to disruption and far less likely to respond effectively and be resilient to new challenges.

In his August 28, 2015 weekly address, Obama said “This is all real. This is happening to our fellow Americans right now,” he said. “Think about that. If another country threatened to wipe out an American town, we’d do everything in our power to protect ourselves. Climate change poses the same threat, right now.”

In a September address at the United Nations Climate Summit Obama said, “For all the immediate challenges that we gather to address this week–terrorism, instability, inequality, disease – there’s one issue that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other, and that is the urgent and growing threat of a changing climate.”

During a September 28 address at the United Nations, President Obama said that ““We can roll back the pollution that we put in our skies,” adding that “No country can escape the ravages of climate change.”

So yes, Orlando could have been prevented.  It's just a matter of priorities.  

Ted Cruz is Awesome! VI

Just watch the whole thing... (This is number six in a series.  Search for "Ted Cruz" on this site for the others...)



I would also note that our planet has been warming and glaciers melting since the last ice age 15,000 years ago.  Our sun varies in output according to certain vague and unknown timed cycles.  About 99% of the energy absorbed by our biosphere comes from the sun.   Our solar system circumnavigates our galaxy once every 250 million years.  We know very little about the climatic effects of any of this.  Period.  The science is largely unknown at this time.  Run from anyone who tells you otherwise.

Obama's news from the 1700s - The Glaciers are Melting!

Barack Obama is in Alaska and has discovered that the glaciers are melting.  Moreover, he wants you to believe it can be stopped if only you give the federal government vast new powers to tax and regulate you. This is a con.  It's not that glaciers aren't melting, but that it has been happening for a really long time and precedes the industrialization blamed by today's warmists.   

As a kid I remember learning about "the ice age".  As an adult I have come to learn there were probably tens of thousands of ice ages in geologic history spanning billions of years.  (UPDATE:  If scientists are right, earth is 4.5 billion years old.  We now know from ice cores at Vostok and Dome C that there is a major ice age every 100,000 years.  That means there may have been more than 45,000 massive global warmings in earth's history!)  Countless times the earth cooled, and countless times glaciers melted.  

Looking at the tiny speck of recorded history and trying to blame this all on manmade CO2 levels is like looking at a single cell from an elephant and trying to tell what it's great grandfather had for lunch!

Here, in it's entirety, is the piece by Jeff Dunetz who blogs at "The Lid", which spurred this post:  

Obama's Lying About The Alaskan Glaciers They've Been Melting For Three Centuries

Once again this president is lying to promote his global re-distribution of income policy also known as climate change.  Yesterday he visited the glaciers in Alaska (having been there...they are beautiful!).  He claimed that global warming was melting the glaciers---he is lying.  They've been melting since before the American Revolution. (Undiepundit update: they've been melting for over 10,000 years since the last temperature minimum.)  The good news is that the Arctic ice caps are growing:

- President Barack Obama walked down a winding wooded path, past a small brown post marked "1926" and a glacial stream trickling over gravel that eons of ice have scraped off mountain peaks.

He reached another post reading "1951", a marker for the edge of Alaska's Exit Glacier that year, and gazed up toward where the rock-rutted ice mass has since receded, a quarter mile away.

"This is as good a signpost of what we're dealing with on climate change as just about anything," Obama told reporters near the base of the glacier.

Glacial melting is nothing new, they have been receding before this country had a president.  Lets go back in history...take a look at this news article from 1952 which says the glaciers in Alaska had already lost half their size:

OK I hear you--1952 isn't early enough, how about 1923?

You want it even earlier, take a look at the map of Glacier Bay Alaska.  It shows where the glaciers are today vs. where they were up to at various points back to just before the American Revolution.  Unless Gen. Washington let the revolutionary army in SUVs there was no problem with greenhouse gasses back then.  In fact if you look at the map most of the melting took place before the 20th century.  Does Barack Obama really believe Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and melted the glaciers?

Note: the source of the three pictures above is Steven Goddard's Real ScienceBlog

Lets take a look at what's been happening since Obama was elected.  Check that, let's take a look at what's been happening since Bill Clinton was president. To be honest NOTHING.

That's right, the satellite monthly global mean surface temperature  shows no global warming for 18 years 7 months since January 1997 the last time Hillary Clinton was trolling around the White House. Note that yes there was warming before Jan. 97, and thanks to the El Nino there may be warming in the near future (at least until the La Niña starts or the lack of sunspot activity throws us into a mini ice age as some scientists are predicting).

Those claims of the hottest temperatures on record are "sort of"  true also. Firstly they are talking warmest by a hundredth of a degree. Secondly it uses land based temperature readings rather than satellite data. Climate scientists actually preferred the satellite data as being more accurate until it started disproving their global warming hypothesis.  (Undiepundit update: It's been much warmer, even in Earth's recent history.  Vikings farmed Greenland up until 500 years ago, which would not be possible today.  And when they first went to Iceland 1100 years ago, there were no glaciers on that island that is now largely covered by ice!) 

I hate to upset the president but the truth is the ice caps are growing. A July 2015 article in the U.K. Telegraph called "How Arctic ice has made fools of all those poor warmists" reported:

In recent years there has been more polar ice in the world than at any time since satellite records began in 1979. In the very year they had forecast that the Arctic would be “ice free”, its thickness increased by a third. Polar bear numbers are rising, not falling. Temperatures in Greenland have shown no increase for decades.

When the Telegraph talks about more polar ice since 1979, it is really talking about both poles combined as the Antarctic ice cap has been growing more substantially over that period.

The Arctic Ice had a period of melting but as reported in Nature Geoscience:

However, we observe 33% and 25% more ice in autumn 2013 and 2014, respectively, relative to the 2010–2012 seasonal mean, which offset earlier losses. This increase was caused by the retention of thick sea ice northwest of Greenland during 2013 which, in turn, was associated with a 5% drop in the number of days on which melting occurred—conditions more typical of the late 1990s. In contrast, springtime Arctic sea ice volume has remained stable. 

In other words if the ice cap could talk it would say, "Baby I'm Back!"   It seems as if the Ice Cap size ebbs and flows for natural reasons and has nothing to do with CO2 in the air. That's why as the carbon in the atmosphere as been growing in the last century we've seen the ice grow, recede, and grow again.

In fact the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is at its highest level in almost13,000 years. Approximately 12,750 years ago before big cars and coal plants CO2 levels were higher than today. And during some past ice ages levels were up to 20x today's levels--ice ages, that's a lot of polar ice that didn't melt.

Obama talked about severe storms yesterday...another lie. No Increase In Hurricanes: A study published in the July 2012 in the journal of the American Meteorological Society concluded unequivocally there is no trend of stronger or more frequent storms, asserting:

We have identified considerable inter-annual variability in the frequency of global hurricane landfalls, but within the resolution of the available data, our evidence does not support the presence of significant long-period global or individual basin linear trends for minor, major, or total hurricanes within the period(s) covered by the available quality data.

Perhaps it's because he thinks news doesn't travel well from Alaska, but Barack Obama is lying about glacier shrinkage, about the ice caps, and about an increase in storms during his first trip to Alaska.

Mobs are always right. Right?

The unedited version of this is making the rounds on social media today,  because as everyone knows, mobs are always right!  

Happy Earth Day!

First off, let me say I'm an environmentalist.  I have seen pristine coral reefs ruined by careless humans.  I've choked on the air in places like Salt Lake City and Los Angeles.  I've seen unmentionable things washing up on beaches, and surfed through things I'd rather forget.  I was in the water treatment business, and invented a cheaper way for industries to treat their own wastewater.  Currently, I'm working on an after-market automobile exhaust filter.  I even once dabbled in selling retail carbon credits!

That said, I'm a global warming agnostic.  Allow me to explain:  Unless I've done the "science" myself, as in the above examples, all I have to go by is secondhand science.  To rely on that, I need to be convinced that what I'm reading is in fact science.  So far, what I've seen on the subject of global warming does not amount to science, but is rather  consensus.

Here's what author Michael Crichton (Jurassic Park, Andromeda Strain, etc) had to say about the difference between science and consensus:        

I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

We've seen this movie before.  The exact same thing happened in the medical field with heart disease and diet.  Just like the global warming debate today, there was a time during the heart disease debate when the problem was believed to be so serious that there wasn't sufficient time to do real science.  Instead, we were given a consensus opinion and  told that the science was settled.  It turned out that was a disaster.

We were told, for instance, that fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol were causing heart disease.  The science was settled they said.  The federal government began issuing reports and official recommendations in 1977 based on this consensus opinion.  They have stuck to their guns on this all the way to today.  Only one problem; the science on fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol disagrees with the consensus.  (If you’re interested in reading about this, a good place to start is Gary Taubes' “Good Calories, Bad Calories”)

Is the consensus also wrong about man-made global warming?  Time will tell.  All I know is the global warming consensus advocates are behaving exactly like the diet consensus advocates, and that speaks volumes.