Global Warming Skeptic on Climate Change: “How do You Control the Weather?”
Last week the third annual Conference on Climate Change took place and you probably didn’t even know that it was happening because it go not media attention. If the issue of man-made global warming is such a hot topic (pun intended) how come the media didn’t find it an essential conference to cover? The answer is simple, it didn’t meet the template. There were skeptics present and as such the media didn’t seem the conference fit to cover.
Among the skeptics was Rep. Dana Rohrabacher who had the following to say:
Al Gore has been wrong all along! This is outrageous! All of this is wrong! The people who have stifled this debate have an agenda that is just frightening!”
Al Gore has made millions off of this scam already and seeing how he owns the company that sells the carbon offsets that other companies will be forced to buy he stands to make millions more. That is Al Gore’s agenda and Rep. Rohrabacher is right, this is frightening.
The president of the Heartland Institute called global warming alarmism “popular delusion” and also said the following:
We are seldom heard in the policy debate. If you open your newspaper, turn on your TV set, you’re likely to see global warming alarmism, and nothing else.
The reason that we are not heard in this debate is because top politicians and global warming alarmists have been telling us that the debate is over. There is no debate because they will not allow debate. Sothe voice of the skeptic has been silenced, as is evident by the non-coverage of this conference. This non-coverage leads people to believe that the debate must truly be over when in fact there has never even been a debate.
Sen. James Inhofe questioned what has happened to the sovereignty of the United States and the statement that I loved most came from Bob Carter of James Cook University who wanted to know how humans can control the weather when the can’t even properly predict it.
How do you control the weather? For us to assume we can somehow control nature and regulate weather patterns, when we cannot even predict them correctly, is patently absurd.
That is the burning question in my mind. Here in New England the meteorologists cannot accurately predict the weather two days from now, often they get the next day’s weather wrong. But the global warming alarmists are predicting what will happen 10, 20, 30, even 100 years from now. How can they possibly know what will happen that far in advance? How can computer models accurately give them that information when computer models are so often wrong in the short term forecasts?
Global Warming skeptics are re-branding themselves as “realists” and I think that is a great term. This is going to be a long, hard battle but it is a battle that we must wage. It is made all the harder by the media who refuses to cover events that showcase the global warming realists.
Maybe we still have a chance to stop the global warming alarmists from implementing their true goal of global socialization if there are enough realists still left in the government, I am not sure there are. Perhaps the realists are greater in numbers than we think and it just seems that we are outnumbered because of the lack of media attention.
Events like this give me hope that there is still a chance to stem the rising tide (another pun fully intended) of global warming alarmism, but we have to remain vigilant. We cannot let this administration pass it’s climate change policy.
America's Watchtower 
Any action that is taken to reduce human produced carbon dioxide to reduce global warming or influence climate is a mistake that puts freedom and prosperity at risk.
The Solar Grand Maximum that went on for about 70 years appears to have ended. The 30 year or so Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) uptrend that combined with the Solar Grand Maximum to produce the late-20th-century temperature run up has started its 30 year downtrend. The PDO downtrend combined with the quiet sun is resulting in continued planet cooling. (The cooling will be slow because of the huge thermal capacitance of the oceans) The sun has not been this quiet this long since 1913. Sunspot changes appear to be a catalyst for cloud changes and therefore have much greater influence than total solar irradiance (TSI).
Since 2000, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased 18.4% of the increase from 1800 to 2000. According to the average of the five reporting agencies, the trend of average global temperatures since 1998 shows no increase and from 2002 through 2008 the trend shows a DECREASE of 1.8°C/century. This separation (there have been many others) corroborates the lack of connection between atmospheric carbon dioxide increase and average global temperature.
Many Climate Scientists are completely unaware of some relevant science and understand other relevant science poorly (it’s not in their curriculum). The missing science proves that added atmospheric carbon dioxide has no significant influence on average global temperature. See the pdfs linked from http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true for the proof, to identify the missing science and to see the cause of the temperature run-up in the late 20th century. It is significant that Climate Scientists use the word ‘feedback’ but apply it completely differently than had been successfully applied for decades by engineers.
As the atmospheric carbon dioxide level continues to increase and the average global temperature doesn’t it is becoming more and more apparent that many climate scientists have made an egregious mistake and a whole lot of people have been misled.
LikeLike
Did Algore paint his roof white, yet? Meanwhile, it is 60 degrees in the middle of June. Climate change? I know I am reapeating myself from a while ago, but humans are just the stewards of the earth. We cannot “control” the weather. Everything that people have that we need, God has provided.
LikeLike
Al Gore, the energy hog, wouldn’t actually practice what he preaches, he just tells us what we should do.
LikeLike