*http://tinyurl.com/hn33sr2 <http://tinyurl.com/hn33sr2>*



November 30, 2016

*Trump and the Climate Change Clown Show*

By Brian C. Joondeph
<http://www.americanthinker.com/author/brian_c_joondeph/>

Climate change is back in the news as President-Elect Donald Trump
threatens to roll back much of the Obama climate agenda.  The Obama
administration added 229 major regulations at an additional annual cost of
$108 billion, many of which involve energy policy.  The "Clean Power Plan"
is one such regulatory behemoth, jacking up the cost of energy under the
guise of saving the planet from global warming.

Of course, the left believes that Trump will mandate dirty air and water,
encouraging pollution on a mass scale.  After all, Republicans prefer
living in a toxic waste dump world, exposing themselves and their families
to pesticides, carcinogens, smog, and all other forms of environmental
filth.  Or so we are told.

As the debate heats up ahead of Trump assuming office, now is a good time
to take another look at the doomsday predictions of global warming and the
upcoming extinction of life on Planet Earth.  That's just hyperbole,
right?  Actually, it's not.  A climate change scientist from the University
of Arizona predicts
<http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/86778981/climate-change-specialist-predicts-human-extinction-in-10-years>
human extinction in ten years.

Polar ice caps are a good barometer of global temperatures.  If the ice
caps are melting, the planet is likely warming.  Environmental soothsayer
Al Gore recognized this and made a bold prediction in 2008.  He told
<http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/12/seven-years-ago-today-al-gore-predicted-north-pole-would-be-ice-free-in-five-years/>
a German audience that the northern polar ice cap would disappear in five
years.

How did his prediction turn out?  Not well.  Al's prognostication was on
par with recent media predictions of a Hillary Clinton landslide electoral
victory.

Polar ice caps are measured via satellite, a process beginning in 1979.
Recent NASA satellite data
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/#3b6bbf9732da>
shows no recession of the polar ice caps since 1979.  In fact, since 2012,
the total extent of polar ice is above post-1979 average.  The ice caps are
growing, not shrinking.  In the words of Al Gore, this is "an inconvenient
truth."

It's all much like thawing a frozen Thanksgiving turkey.  If you leave it
in the garage for a day to thaw, and it's still frozen solid, it's safe to
assume that the garage temperature is below freezing.

There is nothing wrong with making predictions.  This is part of the scientific
method <http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html>.
This requires four steps to make an accurate representation of natural
phenomenon.

First, observe the phenomenon – in this case, what Al Gore and others
believed to be warming of the planet.  Second, formulate a hypothesis to
explain the warming.  One possibility is human endeavors.  Another is solar
activity.  Third, use the hypothesis to make future predictions, such as
melting polar ice caps.  Fourth, test the predictions based on experiments
or observations.

Did the ice caps actually melt?  Obviously not – meaning back to the
drawing board for Al Gore and his disciples.

What went wrong: the observations or the hypothesis?  Or both?

Perhaps the original observation of global warming is flawed.  Many other
scientists observe
<http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783> global cooling
instead, especially over the past 30 years.  Accurate temperature
recordings are a recent technology, especially compared to the timespan of
human activity on the planet and the lifespan of Earth itself.

There may be dips and rises in a longer-term temperature trend line, much
like the drive from Denver to the Eisenhower Tunnel in the Rocky
Mountains.  Despite a nearly 6,000-foot climb, there are short downhill
stretches along the road.  Observing only the downhill section of Floyd
Hill, for example, one would incorrectly assume it's downhill from Denver
to the top of the continental divide, overlooking the longer overall uphill
journey.  In climate change parlance, this would be labeled as a "hiatus
<http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414>
."

Aside from the observations, warming versus cooling, what is the hypothesis
as to what is causing the change?  Some blame human activity and the
burning of fossil fuels.  Others attribute temperature changes on Earth to
the Sun, our solar system furnace, a million times larger than Earth.  Just
as a home furnace turns on and off at the direction of a thermostat, the
Sun has its own cosmic thermostat, well beyond our comprehension or control.

Turn down the Sun's thermostat, meaning reduced solar activity, and the
solar system cools down.  European researchers predict
<http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/616937/GLOBAL-COOLING-Decade-long-ice-age-predicted-as-sun-hibernates>
a "mini ice age" from 2030 to 2040 based on decreased solar activity.  They
liken it to the Maunder Minimum in the 1600s, which saw the River Thames in
London completely frozen.

So is the planet warming or cooling?  That the polar ice caps are not
melting suggests that the Earth is not warming.  Is it cooling?  Perhaps,
as some scientists recently noted based on temperature measurements.

What about the predictions?  Al Gore's hot air is based on politics and
carbon credit sales.  His predictions carry as much weight as those
<https://dailyplanet.climate-kic.org/7-a-list-celebrities-who-use-star-power-for-climate-action/>
of Leo DiCaprio and Emma Watson.

Even the scientists got it wrong.  The International Climate Change
Conference made a ten-year prediction
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/2/#3f42c6101d53>
in 2000 for rising global temperatures that was off by well over a degree
in 2010, with an increasing gap between actual and predicted temperatures
beyond 2010.  If they can't forecast ten years into the future, how can
they predict 50 or 100 years from now?

The science is far from settled.  Observations need to be refined and
standardized so apples are being compared to apples.  Hypotheses must be
reworked and tested to determine if they truly predict anything.  And
politics should have no place in the debate, as political agendas trump the
scientific method.

Speaking of Trump, he told
<http://www.politico.com/blogs/donald-trump-administration/2016/11/trump-sees-some-connectivity-between-humans-climate-change-231751>
the N.Y. Times that he is keeping an "open mind" when it comes to climate
issues.  Good approach.  Until the science is settled, only an open mind
will be receptive to new or contradictory information.

In the meantime, Trump wants to roll back costly and economically harmful
regulations from the Obama administration.  Unlike future temperatures, the
effects of these regulations are well known in terms of energy prices,
jobs, and American industry competitiveness.

Chasing windmills at the expense of jobs and commerce is no way to make
America great again.

*Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS, is a Denver-based physician and writer.
Follow him on Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/BrianJoondeph>  and Twitter
<https://twitter.com/retinaldoctor>.*




------------------------------
[image: Avast logo] <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>



__._,_.___
------------------------------
Posted by: "Beowulf" <beow...@westerndefense.net>
------------------------------


Visit Your Group
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMTdsMDlsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0ODA1MjM0Mzg->

   - New Members
   
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/members/all;_ylc=X3oDMTJndDM2NnJwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2bWJycwRzdGltZQMxNDgwNTIzNDM4>
   1

[image: Yahoo! Groups]
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcTkyZHRmBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQ4MDUyMzQzOQ-->
• Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> •
Unsubscribe <grendelreport-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
• Terms of Use <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/>

__,_._,___

-- 
-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to politicalforum+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to