Man Made Climate Change Arguments Don’t Survive Scrutiny

Man Made Climate Change Arguments Don’t Survive Scrutiny

Proponents of man-made climate change are being challenged more and more by scientists who don’t buy into the climate catastrophe scare. The arguments used to dismiss the challengers range from calling the non-believers names such as president Obama’s “flat earthers” and his use of the term “denier” which is meant to equate non-believers with holocaust deniers, very un-presidential. Al Gore is the champion of the name calling using terms such as racists, homophobes, alcoholics and smokers among others to describe those who dare dispute what he preaches, after all he was Vice-President. That means he’s smart right? Another attempt to marginalize the challengers is to site the various branches of government and scientific organizations that have issued proclamations about their belief in man made global warming. If they’re big and have lots of money they must be right, right?

Large institutions such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) the National Science Foundation (NSF) the National Academy of Science (NAS) the American Physical Society (APS) the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) along with many other government and academic institutions and societies have all issued statements touting their commitment to the man made global warming theory.

All of these organizations have stated that man made global warming is real and is caused by burning fossil fuels. Based on their unanimity we are therefore supposed to believe they are correct. By quoting the statements from these well known organizations we are supposed to  believe that because they are large and well funded they are therefore exempt from making mistakes. Of course this is not true. As an example, in 2006 NASA predicted sunspot cycle 24, the current cycle we’re in now, would be the strongest in 300 years. The reality is that it will be the weakest in 100 years. They could not have been more wrong. Computer models from the 1990s predicted that global average surface temperature would continue to increase after the year 2000. They were wrong. There has been no measured temperature increase since 1998. Actually I believe that large institutions are more likely to be wrong more often than individuals. Large institutions have giant budgets that must be fed making them vulnerable to political agendas. They have enormous institutional inertia that makes it very hard for them to change direction. Individuals can change direction on a dime if new evidence indicates the old way of thinking was wrong.

The truth is that we really don’t know what the thousands of people who make up large government agencies, organizations and institutions think of global warming. The department heads of government agencies and the boards of directors of academic institutions and societies may claim that their respective organizations support the man made global warming theory. The problem is that they never asked the people who actually make up these various entities what they think. For all I know 85% of all NASA employees may not believe in man made global warming, but nobody knows because nobody asked them. Just as President Obama does not speak for me and at least 57 million other Americans, the department heads and leaders of government agencies and other large institutions don’t necessarily speak for their membership.

The bottom line is that using declarative statements from large organizations, that have a vested interest in maintaining their massive funding from the federal government to study “the problem”, have no real meaning. Until someone actually polls the members of these entities we will never know just what the rank and file members actually believe about man made global warming. It is the thousands of working members of these organizations that define who these entities really are, not the presidents, CEO’s or department heads.

Another argument made by climate change alarmists is that we don’t hear anything in the media from the “deniers”. The reason for this is that news organizations such as NBC, CBS, ABC and CNN have no tolerance for any opinion that is not their own, much like president Obama, whom they overwhelmingly support. I worked in the television news business for twenty five years as a meteorologist, mostly for NBC stations. What I found was that many people who work in TV are utopian liberals. They see government as the supreme repository of good that can, with a few billion dollars here and there, solve our problems.

What I also found was what John Stossel found when working at ABC. If you challenge the network orthodoxy you risk alienation or termination. In Stossel’s new book “No They Can’t” he describes the limited range of thinking that exists in many news organizations across the nation. Once, when Stossel suggested that politicians love of socialism kept India poor, Peter Jennings said his bias was “an embarrassment” to ABC and demanded that he be fired. Because Stossel did not agree with the networks view of the world, Jennings would turn the other way when the two would meet in a hallway. The reason you don’t see climate change challenged on these networks is because they have made up their minds as to what is true and no amount of real truth will change that. I did a couple of interviews on MSNBC in New York a few years ago. One day I was contacted by a producer to see about coming down to New York for another interview. When I mentioned that global temperature had not increased since 1998 I never heard from them again.

I was in Montreal this past summer attending a climate change program at an Eco Park while on vacation. The program consisted of questions about climate change. It was a game show format. The room was divided into two groups. We all had buzzer buttons that we could push if we thought we had the correct answer to each climate change question. The side that got the most “correct” answers got the most points and won. As the game progressed I noticed many of the “correct” answers were wrong. I began to challenge the host, a young lady of about 25 years old. She put up with me saying things like “debate on this is good”. However a man in his 30s on the other side began to challenge me. I had said that global average surface temperature had not increased since 1998, He said temperature is continuing to rise. I said to him that even the United Nations IPCC has admitted that there has been a pause in the warming. He said temperature is rising. I asked for his data source. He had none. He was a firm believer that warming was continuing, probably due to viewing news programs and reading stories in newspapers.

Scrutiny of man made climate change arguments reveal why they are failing. Nature is showing us that carbon dioxide concentrations are not ruling global temperature. Since 1998 twenty eight percent of all carbon dioxide emissions released into the atmosphere since 1850 have occurred yet there has been no warming. World wide hurricanes are not increasing in number or strength. There has been no category 3 or higher hurricane strike in the United States since 2005. This year, in the United States, we are on our way to having the fewest number of tornadoes since modern record keeping began. Sea level is rising at the same rate is has for the last 100 years with no acceleration. Polar Bear populations are at record highs. Computer model temperature predictions are much too warm and the difference between them and measured temperature is increasing each year. Arctic sea ice loss at the end of the summer has leveled off. Man made climate change arguments are failing because they are wrong.

Add Comment

By posting your comment, you agree to abide by our Posting rules


Comments (4)

  • Richard Moseley September 2, 2013 at 11:39 pm

    Firstly I’d like say that I’m astonished and pleased this article hasn’t yet been pulverised by man-made global denial about 4.5 billion years of naturally occurring climate change. I’d like to add the fact that the Antarctic ice pack has been above 100% of its 30 year average strength every day for the last 17 months (NOAA satellite data), with the 1.1 million sq km (msk) of missing ice in the Arctic being off-set by an extra 0.8 msk in Antarctica. This leaves us with ‘only’ 32.8 out the expected 33.1 msk of polar ice which is also known as 20% of the entire planetary landmass above sea level, most of which is an average of 3km deep. So it begs the question, just how much ice do the critics want?

  • Lisa Belise September 5, 2013 at 2:53 pm


    The article mentions specifically “global average surface temperatures”, not atmospheric etc. If I use “HadCrut4 Global Mean” and input the years (1998 and 2013) the trend is actually NEGATIVE. The trend line would start on the 1998 side at approx 0.54 and end in 2013 at approx 0.28 which would be a DECLINE in temperature of 0.26.

  • Tom Burch September 11, 2013 at 7:15 am

    It seems to me that with all of the aid given to them by a very sympathetic world press, the Global Warming advocates have had every possible opportunity to make their case that their claimed global warming is due to manmade factors. But after years of coverage by a largely uncritical, unquestioning news media, these GW advocates have lost the public opinion batlle rather badly. Old “Joe Sixpack”, the guys (and gals) held in such low regard by those sitting atop powerful organizations, have largely rejected the doomsday claims they have been barraged with for years. If those GW advocates actually took the time to get to know any of those Joe Sixpacks who keep this nation running, they would know that once Joe Sixpack suspects he (or she) havs been the subject of an orchestrated con job, it is virtually impossible to con them again. In my opinion, Joe Sixpack has spent too many hours shoveling heavy snowfalls off his front steps, walkways and driveays to not question the “world is ending” scenarios so often spun by GW advocates and promoted by the press.


© 2013 Energy Tribune

Scroll to top