Do you believe in global warming?

Not one of my kids, nor my wife, has ever asked me the following question: "Do you believe in global warming?"  My son is 16 now, and I don't think he would ever ask me this question because he's a smart kid and can see the answer for himself.  But, hypothetically speaking, let's assume for the sake of this post that he did ask me this question.

Son:  "Dad, do you believe in global warming?"

Dad:  "That's a misleading question."

Son:  "What do you mean?"

Dad:  "Let me rephrase your question for you.  Dad, do you believe in man made global warming?"

Son: "Okay!  Do you believe in man made global warming?"

Dad:  "Facts matter. Here are the facts: If you look to the satellite data in the last 18 years, there's been zero recorded warming."

Son: "So, you're saying global warming isn't real!"

Dad:  "I'm saying the data and facts don't support it."

Son:  "What do you mean?"

Dad:  "Look, there is always going to be global warming and cooling. Nothing is statistic. That's not the argument. The argument is whether or not modern civilization, such as is experienced in most Western Nations like the United States and Europe, is responsible for it.  Is America responsible for climate change? That is the absurdity of it.

Son: (listening intently)

Dad:  "Think of it this way. The climate is so complex that it is beyond the mortal mind to understand it. Just like our minds cannot fathom creation beyond the Big Bang Theory, the human mind cannot explain climate. We can study it, we can research it, we can release whatever we think we've learned, but we can't conclusively say anything factual about the weather, let alone the climate."

Son: "But the media says there is a consensus that global warming is real.  They say it's a consensus among scientists."  

Dad:  "Where there's a consensus there's no science.  Science is not up to a vote. If science were up to a vote, it would be very easy for Obama to buy the favor of scientists with grants, which he is doing by the way. Science cannot be bought.  Science cannot be voted on.  

Son:  "But, Dad, they teach this in school as thought it were a fact."

Dad:  "And when you doubt them they probably look at you and say, 'Jordan, you're not saying that global warming isn't real?'  

Son:  "That's exactly what happens." 

Dad:  "This just goes to show how much smarter you are than they are.  They have been hoodwinked.  It depresses me, but it's true.  It amazes me how many smart, educated people have fallen for the global warming hoax.  

Son: "So you think it's a hoax?"

Dad:  "I think there are people so indebted to the idea that mankind is causing global warming, they have so much invested into it, that they can't get out of it.  During the 1970s they were so concerned about global cooling they wanted to melt the polar caps.  Aren't you glad they didn't succeed."

Son: "Uh huh."

Dad:  "Then the temperatures started to rise, and during the 1990s they changed to global warming.  Then in 1998 global temperatures stopped going up.  Son, there hasn't been an increase in global temperatures since, I think, 1998.  So now they call it climate change.  They just don't give up.  You want to know why they don't give up?

Son: "Why?"

Dad:  "Because global cooling, or warming, or climate change, or whatever they choose to call it tomorrow, is nothing more than an excuse for them to push forth their high regulation and high tax agenda.  That's all it is."

Son: (Smiling)  "I'm impressed." 

Liberalism caused drought in California

So her'es Carlie Fiorina again. You probably think she's my favorite republican candidate for president by now, and she's not.  It's too early to pick favorites.  But she is one smart lady.  Back in April she commented on the drought in California. She said;

"California is a classic case of liberals being willing to sacrifice other people’s lives and livelihoods at the altar of their ideology. It’s a tragedy. ... That’s the tragedy of California, because of liberal environmentalists’ insistence -- despite the fact that California has suffered from droughts for millennia, liberal environmentalists have prevented the building of a single new reservoir or a single new water conveyance system over decades during a period in which California’s population has doubled. There is a man-made lack of water in California -- and Washington manages the water for the farmers."

Interesting.   Liberal fail to prevent global warming and cause a drought in California in the process.  So now Governor Moonbeam comes along and places mandatory restrictions on water usage.

Further reading:

• Washington Times: Carly Fiorina Blames Liberal Environmentalists for Calif. Water Crisis
• Red State: Obama's Objective: Nationalize California's Government-Made Water Disaster -- Seton Motley

Challenge the theory: 'Think for yourself'

I remember my grandma telling me to think for myself.  That was, like, 30 years ago or maybe even longer ago.  But when you're a kid and your grandma tells you things like that, you really don't understand the true meaning of what she's saying until many years later -- unless you're a genius kid, which I was not.

So you have a consensus that global warming is a fact, and then you have all these people believing global warming is a fact.  Then everybody follows the consensus because that's the path of least resistance, or the path of least destruction. Because everybody else supports a theory, if you oppose it then tension arises.  You are called things like a 'cook' or a 'denier.'

So it's easier just to go with the flow and believe in global warming.

Recently I asked one of my liberal friends during a midnight chat, "Do you believe in global warming?"

He said, "Yes I do."

I said, "Then why has there been no increase in global temperatures in 18 years?"

He said, confidently, "Because the heat is now under the ocean."  He was referring to a study released in the summer of 2014 that showed that the heat has been being sucked into the Atlantic Ocean, and is hiding about a mile down.

Here we are just two guys trying to pass the time; we were walking that fine line of politics, and neither of us wanted to tick off the other (we were both chickens, you might say). So we left this conversation hanging and moved on to something else.

But here is when I started to think about what my grandma said.  I started thinking that with all the information thrown at us about global warming and how it is a fact, it would be so easy to believe it all if I didn't think for myself.

In other words, if you go with the consensus, if you take the path of least resistance, you don't have to think for yourself: all you have to do is believe everything that is said.

If there weren't people who thought for themselves and did their own research, we would probably still be living under the British Monarch, and about 90% of us would be poor.

If people around 1950 didn't start thinking for themselves and begin to challenge the medical consensus that asthma was all in the asthmatic's head, physicians would still be treating asthma as a psychological disease rather than an actual disease.

If you do not think for yourself, then you just become another sheep in the herd. If all you want to do in life is be popular, if all you want to do is be liked, then you might be fine being a sheep.  But if you want to truly make the world better, you best 'think for yourself."

Further Reading:

• The global warming debate: let the children decide
• Atlantic Ocean hiding global warming?
• We must continue to resist becoming sheep
• Theories are just theories

Think for yourself, and you won't fall prey to propaganda

I specifically remember this wise old lady saying to me, "Think for yourself!" While she did not expound, in retrospect I'd imagine this was her way of encouraging me not to fall prey to propaganda.

It used to be that the goal of American schools was to teach critical thinking. They would provide for you piece of evidence A and piece of evidence B and let you decide.  This was their way of teaching you how to think for yourself, and therefore survive in the real world.

Today, however, the goal of American schools is to push forth the progressive agenda. So instead of providing evidence, they teach propaganda. For example, instead of teaching showing the evidence and letting the students decide whether or not they believe mankind is responsible for climate change, they just teach that we are the cause of climate change.

It gets to the point that some people are so unable to think for themselves that they read articles like Allister Doyle's article at "Reuters" called "Global Cooling: Antarctic Sea Ice Coverage Continues To Break Records," and they panic.  It's to the point that you almost have to feel sorry for these people.

The article notes:

Six glaciers, eaten away from below by a warming of sea waters around the frozen continent, were flowing fast into the Amundsen Sea, according to the report based partly on satellite radar measurements from 1992 to 2011. Evidence shows 'a large sector of the West Antarctic ice sheet has gone into a state of irreversible retreat', said lead author Eric Rignot of the University of California, Irvine, and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. 

Of course, then you read articles like Michael Bastasch's article in "The Daily Caller" called "West Arctic Ice Coverage Continues to Break Records," and you wonder why people are still so doom and gloom about the environment.

Bastasch's article begins:

Someone let Al Gore know the South Pole isn't melting. Antarctic sea ice coverage reached record levels for April, hitting 3.5 million square miles -- the largest on record. It was a cold summer down in Antarctica, with sea ice coverage growing about 43,500 square miles a day, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC)." 

Not much is said about the Reuters story, probably because progressives control most of the media.  So you have young people, people who have been influenced by progressive thinkers their whole lives, writing on their blogs about how the world is coming to an end.  They are literally panicking.  And then you have guys like Doyle writing for Reuters saying, "Calm down, the world is not coming to an end."  But you don't hear anything about this beyond the conservative media.

Just to let people know, the four foot rise in sea levels over the next 100 years is only a guess; it's an estimate; it's a hypothesis; it's a theory.  It in no way means the world is coming to an end, and it in no way means there is truth to the global cooling/ global warming/ climate change theory.

A friend of mine asked why it is that people would want you to believe in global cooling/ global warming/ climate change when so much evidence shows it is not true.

The answer is: because they have so much invested into it.

So instead of accepting their theory is not true, instead of saying "mankind is not destroying the planet, they just change the name of their theory.  It was called global cooling in the 1970s, global warming in the 1990s, and climate change in the 2000s.

Progressives are known for changing names as people catch on to fallacies. For instance, once socialism developed a bad name in the 1930s, so they called themselves progressives.  Progressives developed a bad name in the 1950s, so they called themselves liberals.  Now people are catching on that liberalism is the same as socialism, so they are again calling themselves progressives.

Could you imagine what would happen to Al Gore if he said, "I'm sorry folks. I was wrong about global warming all these years?"  His career would be over. His credibility would be lost forever, or so he would think. I actually think it would improve his credibility, as it would show he's willing to change his opinion as new facts are learned.

But there continue to be many politicians and corporations who make a ton of money off people believing in global warming.  This fallacy also gives progressives an excuse to increase regulations and raise taxes.

Now, I have all the respect in the world for people who choose to believe in all this stuff about climate change, so long as they make their decision based on a review of the facts and not through propaganda.

So, in order to prevent that from happening, parents must encourage their kids to think for themselves, considering most teachers and journalists have already fallen for the propaganda and are repeating it to our kids.  We must use words such as, "Think for yourself!"

Further reading or viewing:

• Watch: Opinion Duel: Climate change
• French Foreign minister says we have only 500 days left to save the climate

Obama trying to use UN to force liberal agenda on world

As a former journalist who has kept up his skills in the blogosphere, I have for you a perfect example of journalism bias. It comes from Coral Davenport at the New York Times in her article "Obama Pursuing Climate Accord in Leiu of Treaty."

First she states the facts:

The Obama administration is working to forge a sweeping international climate change agreement to compel nations to cut their planet-warming fossil fuel emissions, but without ratification from Congress.

In preparation for this agreement, to be signed at a United Nations summit meeting in 2015 in Paris, the negotiators are meeting with diplomats from other countries to broker a deal to commit some of the world’s largest economies to enact laws to reduce their carbon pollution. But under the Constitution, a president may enter into a legally binding treaty only if it is approved by a two-thirds majority of the Senate.

To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal that would “name and shame” countries into cutting their emissions. The deal is likely to face strong objections from Republicans on Capitol Hill and from poor countries around the world, but negotiators say it may be the only realistic path.

The ultimate goal here is to punish countries who do not conform to the law, if it is passed, or to shame them into complying.  In other words, either you conform to the progressive agenda or you will be shamed and ridiculed until you do.

But then she goes on to blame republicans as the reason Obama is forced into such action.  She said:

Lawmakers in both parties on Capitol Hill say there is no chance that the currently gridlocked Senate will ratify a climate change treaty in the near future, especially in a political environment where many Republican lawmakers remain skeptical of the established science of human-caused global warming.

For 30 years people have been claiming that mankind is causing global warming, and yet there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1998.  Because global warming has been disproved by said facts, they have changed the name of their theory to "climate change."  It appears they have too much invested in the myth to just give up on it now.

There is politics behind the myth, because if democrats can convince the world that humans are causing "global cooling" or "global warming" or "climate change," then perhaps they can use this "fear" to push forth their political agenda, which mainly results in more regulations and taxes that take away personal liberties and make nations poorer.

It appears that the only force against Obama's charge to force nations to accept global warming are republicans and poor countries.  However, once progressives like Obama get their way, all countries will be poor, as the only way to create equality, the progressive goal, is to redistribute wealth, thus eliminating the upper class.

It appears republicans and poor countries are the only folks who know the facts in this case, or at least care to heed the facts.  Coral Davenport is yet another journalist who fails to study history, learn the facts, nor report the truth.  She is yet another journalist who fails to comply with rule #1 of journalism: "report the truth, keep your opinion out of your writing."

Atlantic Ocean hiding global warming?

For many years now a few scientists have been trying to convince people that humanity is causing too much carbon dioxide (CO2) to be released into the atmosphere, and that this is causing global warming.  The problem with this theory is that the global temperatures have not increased since 1998.

It's gotten to the point that global warming activists had to come up with an excuse to explain the heat that didn't happen.  They are now claiming the ocean ate it; that it is hiding 700 feet below the surface.

This past week scientists released a study that explains where all the global warming has gone.  They say that it has been being sucked into the Atlantic Ocean, and is hiding about a mile down.  It's a natural occurring event that goes in cycles, and explains why the atmosphere is not warming.

The problem with this is it doesn't make sense, because warm air and warm water rise.  If you go down a mile under the ocean it will be cold.  If you want to feel warm water, you will go to the surface, where the water is warmed by the sun.  

Instead of spending their time and money trying to prove global warming, maybe it's time these scientists accept the notion that mankind is not causing it.  

Humans do not cause hurricanes

It's been a long time since a hurricane has struck down in Florida, 3,151 days to be precise, but when one does you can rest assured it will be falsely accused as the result of man-made climate change.  

During that stretch there has also been no major one striking on U.S. soil. Yet Roger Pielke Jr, in a column in  U.S.A. Today, "Hurricane luck will run out" says Americans had better not let down their guard, yet not because of climate change: because their luck will run out.  

He said the last hurricane drought came in the period between 1900 and 1913, where there was a two year drought once during that time.  He said there was an eight year span when Florida was hit by no hurricanes prior to 2005 when a category 3 hurricane named Wilma struck.  Since then there have been no category three hurricanes.

That does not mean there hasn't been hurricanes, because there have, and there have been some that have caused quite a significant amount of damage, such as in 2012 when Hurricane Sandy caused $50 billion in damage when it hit the northeast coast.  Yet that storm was not a category three storm, and, as Pielke said, you cannot link hurricane damage with hurricane strength.

And while climate activists claimed blamed the last string of hurricanes strikes on American soil on climate change, there is little evidence to support this.  Pielke said:

We can say with some certainty that there is little evidence to suggest that U.S. hurricanes have become more common or stronger. The recent report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change agrees: "No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin."

 He also noted the there is a current trend in diminished strength of hurricanes that mimics a trend in the early years of the 20th century.  He said:

In fact, from 1900 through 2013, the United States experienced a decrease in hurricane landfalls of more than 20%, and the strength of each year's landfalling storms has also decreased by more than 20%.

He warns that hurricane strength and numbers can be inexplicable and erratic, a he says that with certainty our luck will run out soon.  For this reason, people must not have short memories and be prepared.

However, when one does strike, while some structures may be built strong enough to support the water and winds, many won't.  So we should not be surprised by the high amount of damage caused.

We should not be surprised by the dollar amounts even due to smaller hurricanes, and we should not blame them on climate change.

It's good to talk politics with your kids

I remember debating with myself once what I should tell my children about the political world.  I actually decided once I shouldn't say anything, and let them figure it out for themselves.  The problem with this is: if I don't tell them the truth, where will they get it?

You see, that is the question that plagues all conservative parents:  If I don't teach my kids the truth, where will they get it?  If they get nothing but progressive or liberal propaganda, how would they be able to make an informed decision?

Take environmentalism as a good example.  The media/schools basically just go with the latest fad and go with it.  Back in the 1970s when liberals thought the planet was cooling, they wanted to melt the polar caps.  Yet then they were proven wrong and started calling it global warming.

During the 1990 and 2000s you had political leaders, such as Al Gore, telling people the world was going to burn up if we didn't act now. By acting, he wanted to create regulations to stop people from creating carbon dioxide (CO2).  But there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1996 or 1997, and so they changed the name to climate change.

Now all you hear about on TV, on the Disney channel, on CNN, on MSNBC, is how we are causing climate change.  So, if kids are so inundated with all this global cooling/global warming/ climate change stuff, how in the world are they ever going to make an informed decision.

They aren't.  There is not way a kid can make an informed decision when those who educate are telling them that a "theory" is a "fact."  Yes, indeed, a theory, be definition, is an educated guess.  It's what the scientific community goes with until they learn better.  It does in no way mean it is a fact.

My point is, kids ought to be taught both sides of the story, not just the global cooling/ global warming/ climate change side.  They ought to be taught the conservative argument that the earth's temperature increases and decreases in cycles.

Actually, the name "climate change" was stolen from conservatives just as liberal" was stolen from conservatives.  Did you know that the traditional definition of liberal was minimal government and a focus on personal liberties.  So, they basically forced classical liberals to change their name to conservative or libertarian.

Now they stole our idea; that the climate changes.  Only they twist the idea of "climate change" to make it appear as though it's caused by man.  The original idea is that the climate always changes, or goes through cycles no matter what man does.  

Look at it this way.  There were periods of global warming and cooling that altered the face of the planet many times over. In fact, there was a period of global change that occurred around 10,000 B.C. that forced humans to live around the three great rivers in that area: the Nile, Tigris, and Euphrates.  This migration resulted in the world's first civilizations in Mesopotamia and Egypt.

So, global change has always existed, and there is nothing that man can do to cause it, and nothing man can do to change it.  It just is.  It just does.  That is something, I bet, that few kids learn in school or from reading the news.

They are no longer shown both sides of an argument and allowed to decide for themselves.  They are no longer taught how to think for themselves.  They are now just shown propaganda in the hopes that they conform.

Surely I'd die happily knowing all my children agree with me politically. However, if they think otherwise, I'd still be happy knowing they made that decision with all the facts on the table.

The global warming debate: let the children decide

Right here on the cover of Newsweek magazine
opponents of the global warming theory
are made out to be bumbling idiots
for not becoming sheep.

Global warming does exists, and if we do not change our way of living we are going to send the planet to Armageddon. Global warming does not exist, and if we don't stop taxing and regulating American industries because of the hoax of global warming, we are going to destroy our economy.  This, in essence, is the modern global warming debate, raging since the early 1990s. 

So, who is right?

I watched a news program in March of 2008 on ABC news about this one scientist who had gone public with his notion that global warming was a hoax. I don't remember the name of the show, the host, nor the guest, although it really doesn't matter for the sake of our discussion here.  What happened was that, instead of the host of that program allowing this scientist to show his evidence that global warming is a hoax, he basically made an effort to discredit him, making him look like a bumbling idiot.

I was actually watching this show with a friend, and while the show was progressing, my friend kept waving his hand through the air saying things like, "See? See?  Global warming is real!"

I said, "That was a terrible report. That scientists barely had a chance to make his point."

My friend said, "Why's that? Because it proved you wrong."

The next morning I awoke and found my son, then nine-years-old, standing in the kitchen.  We heard a huge gust of wind, and both looked out the window to see a fresh blanket of snow.  I said, "Wow, it's not supposed to be doing this in March."

He said, "Yeah, especially with global warming."

Now, at nine, I don't know if he thinks about global warming, although I have a raging suspicion that it is taught, not as the theory that it is, but as a fact.  Chances are that most of his teachers tell him that people are destroying the planet.  I could be wrong, but by the things he brings home, by what I read, that's what I suspect.

I am willing to bet the other side of the argument does not see the light of day in schools. In fact, I bet the global warming debate is not even brought up in schools, meaning the global warming theory is simply a given fact in school not even worth debating.  

Yet I think that's wrong.  I think it's wrong to use a theory as a fact; a given.  I think it is wrong to thing that a theory is a fact, when it fact it is just a theory, an educated guess.  

Like I said, I do not have a problem with my children being taught about global warming.  I have a problem with them being told it's a fact.  I have a problem with it not being taught along with other theories that are equally credible, and that are supported by 50 percent of scientists and 50 percent of Americans.  

That said, if I were a 4th grade teacher, this is how I would teach about global warming.  Ready, here goes.  

"Today, guys, we are going to talk about global temperatures. Basically, there are two theories, and I'm going to leave it up to you what theory you want to believe in. What I'm going to do is give you the facts, and you can decide for yourself what you think.

"About 50% of scientists believe in global warming. The basis of the global warming theory is that we humans are causing the planet to warm up. By our use of fossil fuels, we are causing CO2 to build up in the atmosphere, and this is causing a greenhouse effect, where the planet keeps getting hotter and hotter. Since about 1970, the global temperature has increased by about one degree.

The people who believe in global warming, that we are causing it, want to regulate businesses and, tax them, and make laws that force them to stop doing things that they think are causing global warming, like driving gas guzzling cars, emitting pollution from factories, etc.

"Any questions?" 

After a discussion, I would continue the discussion:

"Okay, now I'm going to give you the facts provided by the scientists who do not believe in global warming. In fact, these scientists do believe in global warming, there is scientific evidence that the earth has increased by one degree since about 1970, although this temperature had not risen since about 1997.  

"However, according to scientific data, there is also evidence that from 1900 to about 1940 there was a period of global warming. This was a time when there was very little use of fossil fuels. Then, from 1940 to 1970, there was a period of global cooling.

"In fact, this global cooling became so bad in the 1970s that some scientists actually proposed melting the polar ice caps. They were never allowed to do that, but it was a proposition that was seriously discussed in Washington. Could you imagine what would have happened if they did melt the polar caps?  What repercussions would that have resulted in?

Here we might have another discussion, and then I would continue.

"What these people contend is that the global warming believers, the people who believe that man is causing the planet to warm, are only using data from 1970 on. The truth is, if you use data from 1900 on, there is evidence to support a cyclical trend of global warming and cooling. What do you think of that? 

"Thus, while the weather is warming now, it will at some point start to cool again. Likewise, to add one more fact, global temperatures cooled in January, 2008,  in all five locations where global temperatures are measured.

Economists who believe in global warming is a hoax think taxing and regulating businesses based on fear is only going to cause economic trouble.  Instead, they postulate reform to benefit the planet through public education and incentives for businesses to conform to better practices that are more planet friendly.   

"Now, based on the facts I just presented, let's have a discussion."

Just before class ended, I would remind my students of the following.

It is important to know there will always be people who put money before taking care of the planet. There will also be people who will support the global warming theory as though it were a religion even when presented with facts.  That is just a given.

Still, and most important, is that most people, regardless of whether or not they believe in the global warming theory, still love the planet Earth and want to do their part to maintain a good environment.  It is always important to work together to be environmentally responsible, no matter what theory you believe in.  

So, that said, what theory do you believe in?  Why? Let's have a discussion. 

Of course, now we would have a discussion. Then, later in the day, or perhaps the next day, I would tell my students that while I don't care which theory they decide to support, it is still important to work together to be environmentally responsible.

I also believe it is okay for a teacher to tell students their opinions, it's just not okay for teachers to use schools as training grounds for recruiting.  That, in my opinion, is what evil dictator nations do.  I think it is wrong.

I would say something like this: 

Now that we are done with our discussion, and before the bell rings, here's my opinion.  Please do not let my opinion influence you.  I believe that no matter what theory you decide to support, that there is global warming right now. There is also evidence that man has caused some effect on this global warming, but to what extend the facts we presently have access to do not show

The question is, will there be a period of global cooling in the future? Or, will temperatures of the earth steadily increase until our planet is destroyed?  

Regardless how you answer those questions, there is not reason to make decisions today out of fear and anger.  We need to make environmentally sound decisions in an environmentally friendly way.  We need to be happy and enjoy today, while considering the future. 

Plus, and most important, no matter what you decide to believe in, you must respect the opinions of those who disagree with you.   

Rinngggggg!!!!!

I might think about it, but I would not say:

You are not an idiot if you do not believe in global warming.  You are not an idiot for not being a sheep and following the crowd. To say such things is a maneuver to stifle creativity.  If we do that, then we will prevent further investigations that present newer facts and newer, better, theories from developing. 

We must never try to indoctrinate children to support idealistic theories, nor should we keep them ignorant on such matters.  Instead, we must teach our kids, or encourage our kids, to think, to investigate evidence, and decide on their own. Creative thinking and open mindedness are what made our nation the best nation in the history of the world.

So, when it comes to the global warming debate, we must teach our children how to think, not what to think.  Instead of forming sound conclusions at such an early time in the debate, we must encourage environmental responsibility over dogmatic idealistic solutions. the defense.

No evidence to support global warming theory

John Hinderaker, Power Line, wrote a good post about global warming. Do you know what climate alarmism is based on? Climate change/global warming alarmism, do you know what it is based on? It's based on one thing: Climate models. It is not based on empirical evidence. It "is not based on empirical observation." It is not based on real data.

The entire theory of global warming -- and I am not exaggerating -- is rooted in computer models predicting the future 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 100 years down the road.

And that is it. And the computer models are put together by biased scientists who have a financial interest in producing an outcome that their donors want.

A computer model is only as good as the data that's put into it. The whole global warming movement "is entirely predicated on computer models that are manipulated to generate predictions of significant global warming as a result of increased concentrations of CO2."

There is no scientific evidence backing it up. It is all a supposition that they use the computer models to back up. Then they go and get a picture of a polar bear on a small, little piece of ice. They present this fraudulent picture as evidence of ice melting at the North Pole, and when that ice melts that polar bear is gonna die! And a little kids in public schools are gonna believe that because a little kid doesn't know a polar bear can swim 60 miles.

A little kid doesn't know that that piece of ice is where the polar bear goes to take a vacation. The polar bear is there vegging. The polar bears seek out these little ice floes just to take a break. And theysee a fish, bam! They jump off, go get it, and come back. And it's true there are more polar bears today than in the last 10, 15 years. There's no truth to any of this alarmism. The models that are put together obey the input of the people that create the model.

By the way, he left uses economic models the same way. The Congressional Budget Office will use economic models to project what something is going to do in the future tax-wise. The only thing they have to go on is the data Congress gives them. It's all a hoax. But the thing that gets me is, there is no empirical data past or present that's utilized in these predictions of global warming. The models do not accurately predict the past.

The hockey stick thing that the guy at Penn State came up with to show what the Medieval Warming period was? It's totally made up, as the e-mails from the University of East Anglia fortunately illustrate. The models do not account for many features of the present climate. Again, this concept may be a little bit hard for kids to understand. But it's all also rooted in the belief that whatever was going on 15 years ago is the normal for planet Earth.

And they just made that up! They just decided that the average high and low, whatever the climate circumstances were 15 years, was "normal." So anything that happens from 15 years ago is bad because we're not holding at normal, and ideally we would hold at normal or reduce. But the earth is always changing; it's never constant. The whole thing is such a bogus hoax.

In fact, there is so little evidence of global warming that even the global warming proponents have changed the name of their argument to "global change." This is a sign, to me, that the proponents are so deeply invested in this, that there is so much profit being made both politically and financially from it, that instead of admitting they are wrong, they changed the name.

I don't mean to offend anyone, I'm just saying.

Further reading:

• Seven recent papers that disprove global warming
• New evidence to disprove global warming
• 10 things that don't disprove global warming
• Global warming: 10 facts and 10 myths
• Man made global warming disproved

It's okay to dump CO2 into atmosphere, but only if you are a celebrity

Members of the Environmental Protection Agency decided to make a week out of Earth Day by jetting around the nation championing for global warming education. They are championing on the mantra provided by the U.N. that even a slight rise in global temperatures will end mankind.

So the EPA sends chief on earth day tour on call to action on earth day week.  It's a week long 5 city tour to NY, Boston, Cleveland, Atlanta, and Memphis that will dump tons of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Basically, do as I say not as I do  They are mocked by some, but not many.  Most people don't realize the hypocracy. The Daily Show had this guy on.  Basically, since this EPA chief is raising awareness, no one bats an eye at the fact he is also dumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in order to tell you not to pump CO2 into the atmosphere.

Al Gore is another one who does this.  He champions for us not to pump CO2 into the atmosphere, while jetting around, dumping CO2 all over the atmosphere.  He also has several homes, each of which dump CO2 into the atmosphere.

They dump CO2 into the atmosphere while telling us not to do it.  So it's okay for them to do it, but we can't do it.  Hypocracy?   I guess they say it's okay so long as they are raising awareness.

Imagine this.  Imagine a police officer pulled you over for speeding.  "Sorry officer, yes, of course I knew I was speeding.  I'm raising speed limit awareness."

Yeah!  Sorry! It won't work for you the way it does for the progressive elitist world.

The global warming debate

According to recent studies, only 44 percent of say there is “solid evidence” that global warming is mostly due to human activity.  What doesn't help the argument is that there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1996.  Still, that does not mean we should completely disregard the theory.

Actually, I think many of the most adamant champions of the global warming theory forget is that it is, after all, just a theory; an educated guess.  I don't have a problem with schools teaching global warming, the problem I have is that they teach it as though it were a fact, and not the theory it is.  They teach that there is global warming, and that we humans are the cause.  

Those in favor of the theory say that increased CO2 emissions by man are leading to global temperatures. They say:

1. Combustion of fossil fuels in cars, factories, and electricity production
2. The gas responsible for global warming is carbon dioxide, or CO2
3. Overpopulation causes global warming because people exhale CO2
4. Methane from landfills and agriculture causes it
5. Nitrous Oxide from fertilizers causes it
6. Gases used for refrigeration and industrial processes causes it
7. Loss of forests that store CO2 is also a contributing cause

There are those who are so in love with this theory that they believe that people who don't believe in, or who downplay, the global warming theory should be tried for treason, according to New York Times Columnist Paul Krugman in 2009.  Yes, there are those who want to go that far.  

At the very least, they want to create more regulations to force people and industries into complying with the global warming theory.  

To this, those in opposition to the theory would say: "All this based on a theory?  You want to risk destroying the economy based on a theory?"  To be honest, such opponents do make a good case.  

For instance, many corporations say that complying with such regulations costs so much that it comes at the expense of expansion and job creation, and this hurts the economy.  

For instance, there are those who say they won't even consider opening a new business because the cost of complying with regulations would offset the benefits of opening one.  This, they say, has resulted in fewer jobs.  

Supporters of the theory would say back:  "So what?  The loss to the economy is to the benefit of the planet."  

Opponents of the theory will say that global warming theorists only use data from 1970 on, and that if you use data from 1900 onward you will see that there is a good argument that can be made to support a cyclical trend of global warming and global cooling, regardless of how much CO2 is emitted by man.  

Well, who is right?  Well, it depends on whether you are an idealist or a realist.  If you are an idealist, your theory is your ideal, and you will do whatever is in your power to defend it.  If you are a realist you will stay open minded, consider the facts, and make a wise decision.  

It also depends on what your priorities are.  Do you put the planet before people, or do you put people before the planet.  To me, I believe it is best to trust people to be environmentally responsible, and err on the side of man.