Climate “Expert” Bill Maher Demonstrates Failed Liberal Approach to Climate Change

In the above video liberal climate “expert” Bill Maher provides an example as to what average liberals rely on for their climate change education. Average liberals don’t take the time to actually learn the science, they rely upon scientific “experts” like Bill Nye, Al Gore, Michael Mann, late night comedians like Bill Maher, and Oscar the Grouch. Liberals tend to outsource their thinking to “experts,” and rely on others to tell them what to think. That is why the “consensus” and “polling” is such an effective tactic for liberals.

In the Bill Maher video, he makes unsubstantiated and nonsensical alarmist claims of  “Ocean Life Faces Mass Extinction,” but his most often repeated source of “evidence” is the claim that “out of 10,858 peer-reviewed articles only 2 rejected the claim of man-made climate change.” He repeated the claim so many times I stopped counting.

If that is the best argument Bill Maher and the liberals can muster, it isn’t much of an argument at all. Here are more details on the appeal to authority and “consensus” as a way to determine the scientific truth.

While Bill Maher and other liberal organizations and media outlets may discuss “consensus” and the proper Ad Hominem attack to use in climate discussions, they will never address the real science supporting TRILLIONS of dollars of public spending projects.

Things you won’t hear discussed on Bill Maher’s show:

Even though the oceans and water cover 70%+ of the globe and whose energy content dominate the climate system, most of the climate data covering that area is “made up.

The results of the IPCC climate models and the reasons they fail so epically.

How CO2 can warm the oceans, the greatest influence of climate change.

The benefits society has received for spending TRILLIONs of public dollars on fighting climate change, and not building schools, hospitals, roads, and bridges.

Better uses for spending TRILLIONS of public dollars than building wind and solar farms.

How temperature data controlled for CO2 shows no global warming.

The failed economics of the “green economy.”

Why someone that is writing an Anti-Trump Book should be considered as credible and chosen as your main source of evidence?

The list can go on and on and on to no end.

Until liberals start talking seriously about the real science backing climate change all their claims of “championing science” should be considered nothing more than left-wing politics as usual.

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

Busted!!! Bill Maher Referenced Climate “Scientist” James Lawrence Powell Removes Anti-Trump Book From His Website

stacks-image-ebae879-750x1200.jpg

In a previous post I mentioned that the climate “scientist” James Lawrence Powell climate “expert” Bill Maher referenced as his only supporting evidence of man-made climate change was writing an anti-Trump book. Here is the exact quote:

It is almost unfathomable to believe that a survey performed through a simple search of journal articles performed by a “researcher” with an Anti-Trump book in the works can be justification for spending TRILLIONS of US taxpayer’s dollars.

The book can still be found at this link, but the James Lawrence Powell’s website where I found that link has removed it. It appears James Lawrence Powell didn’t do a good job hiding his tracks. Here is a graphic of the current page just in case any future “edits” occur. All references to the Anti-Trump book have been removed. Imagine that?

Capture71

Please like, share, comment and subscribe.

Climate Debate Should Focus on Public Policy and Priorities, Not Science

its-the-economy-stupid

The current and proposed spending of public dollars on fighting climate change is astronomical.

The Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with such regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year — about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.456 trillion Washington is currently spending. The Competitive Enterprise Institute believes the annual cost is closer to $1.8 trillion when an estimated $55.4 billion regulatory administration and policing budget is included. CEI further observes that those regulation costs exceed 2008 corporate pretax profits of $1.436 trillion; tower over estimated individual income taxes of $936 billion by 87%; and reveal a federal government whose share of the entire economy reaches 35.5% when combined with federal 2010 spending outlays.

The winning approach isn’t whether or not the science is valid, let’s assume it is. The winning approach is arguing what we want to do about it. Conservatives need to argue the dinner table issues, the issues that matter to most Americans. In this video Ann Coulter demonstrates how to address the attacks from the left. She is facing charges of “hate speech,” and she turns the table and claims she isn’t engaging in “hate speech,” she is trying to have a “public policy debate.” That is the winning strategy.

Later in the same show, Nancy Pelosi shows how to argue against building “The Wall.” She simply argues that the $10 billion needed to build “The Wall,” would be BETTER spent on other programs that would provide a greater benefit to the American people. The American people happen to be the ones paying for it, and they are the ones that vote, so obviously to win the debate, they have to be convinced. Arguing science isn’t very convincing, arguing building hospitals, schools and roads is.

Take it from ultra-Conservative Ann Coulter and ultra-Liberal Nancy Pelosi, argue the public policy if you plan to win in the political arena. Science is nice, but the vote is what counts.

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

The Politicization of Everything; The Dangers of the Path the Left has Charted for America

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

Ad Hominem Attacks Qualify as “Science” to the Political Left

11efc3cba6cbb942fd6b2883a719b84ad5534ed6 (3)

In any real science, if you resort to Ad Hominem attacks, you’ve lost. With climate “science” however, Ad Hominem attacks form the basis of its support. Unfortunate for the political left; boycotts, protests, phony models, “adjusted data,” and Ad Hominem attacks won’t change the reality of the catastrophic failures of the IPCC, the AGW theory, and Government Funded Climate Research.

If the political left deserves the title of “Champion of Science,” they would be spending their time addressing the data and the application of the scientific method to climate science, not debating political tactics to persuade the general public to support astronomically expensive public spending programs that offer no material/measurable benefits. All the spending on fighting climate change, measured in trillions of direct and indirect PUBLIC dollars, has had no measurable impact on the trend in atmospheric CO2 or atmospheric temperatures. Schools, hospitals, roads, and bridges go unbuilt and repaired so self-serving government climate “scientists” can keep the taxpayer funded climate gravy train rolling.

The ultra-Liberal New Republic offers a great example of how the voice of the “Champions of Science” discuss this scientific issue. Here is the laughable introductory paragraph of his highly scientifically literate magazine. Do they discuss the catastrophic problems with the IPCC climate models? The fact that 70%+ of the globe is defined by “made up” data?  The dangers of politicizing science? No, the New Republic has a highly “sophisticated” discussion about what name liberals should call those that disagree with them.  The New Republic dares to ask the question every American is dying to know, “Should We Call Climate-Change Deniers “Dismissives” Instead?” Wow, that is a really science based question that needs to be answered.  To add “credibility” to this article and prove their progressive bona fides by being “inclusive” they find an “evangelical Christian” scientist to make the case. No, that isn’t a joke, the “tolerant,” “inclusive,” “unifying,” and sanctimonious New Republic actually finds it important to identify the religion of the science being quoted.

NPR’s Rachel Martin had a fascinating interview on Tuesday with Katharine Hayhoe, a renowned climate scientist and evangelical Christian, in which they discussed the toxic nature of the world “climate denier”—a word that environmental reporters, including me, use all the time to describe people who don’t accept the scientific consensus that climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous. Hayhoe argued that calling people deniers is “a good way to end the conversation,” and that it’s actually more accurate to use the word “climate dismissive.”

great-minds-discuss-ideas-average-minds-discuss-events-small-minds-discuss-people-quote-4

The scientifically literate New Republic even sourced a presumed “scientific” survey from Ivy League Yale University’s  highly unbiased and disinterested Yale Program on Climate Change Communication which I presume is located in the Math, Science, Physics or Engineering departments, not the communications, journalism or political science departments. Certainly, the New Republic would want to focus on the science, not the politics of this issue being the voice of the “Champions of Science.” Right? Wow, I for one am thankful the New Republic is leading the charge to get to the truth about man-made global warming (insert vomiting emoji).

4bc6bfeebd3c352b4c07634fb65bbf572ec90895

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

TRILLIONS of PUBLIC Dollars Spent on Conclusions Reached Based Upon “Made Up Data.”

SH-ocean-data-mostly-made-up

According to the IPCC, the oceans are by far the most “dominant” influence on global climate energy balance. No other influence even comes close.

Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with only about 1% stored in the atmosphere. On a global scale, the ocean warming is largest near the surface, and the upper 75 m warmed by 0.11 [0.09 to 0.13] °C per decade over the period 1971 to 2010. It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010, and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971. {1.1.2, Figure 1.2}

70%+ of the earth is covered in water. Ocean cycles like El Nino and La Nina define the variability is atmospheric temperatures, and are completely unrelated to CO2. With such a “dominant” role controlling/influencing the earth’s climate, one would think that the “expert scientists” would have impeccable data regarding the oceans/70%+ of the earth’s surface. Most importantly, the 70%+ covered by the oceans is uncorrupted by the urban heat island effect and other corrupting factors that plaque the ground measurements, so it is ideal data to use in climate models.

It turns out that the “expert scientists” literally “make up” the data (see introductory graphic). Taxpayers are literally being asked to spend trillions of dollars based upon models that use “made up” data. Unfortunately, that isn’t a joke. The total cost including direct, indirect and opportunity costs is simply staggering.

The Small Business Administration estimates that compliance with such regulations costs the U.S. economy more than $1.75 trillion per year — about 12%-14% of GDP, and half of the $3.456 trillion Washington is currently spending. The Competitive Enterprise Institute believes the annual cost is closer to $1.8 trillion when an estimated $55.4 billion regulatory administration and policing budget is included. CEI further observes that those regulation costs exceed 2008 corporate pretax profits of $1.436 trillion; tower over estimated individual income taxes of $936 billion by 87%; and reveal a federal government whose share of the entire economy reaches 35.5% when combined with federal 2010 spending outlays.

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

Green Economics: Hire People To Push Busses

green-jobs-998x697The above scene meets every requirement of a robust green energy program. Employing Americans as bus pushers would mean jobs. These jobs would be “labor intensive,” so we could “create” plenty of them. Bus pushing, need it be said, would also benefit the environment. Getting rid of buses would go a long way in helping avert a global catastrophe. And since these jobs are largely untethered from any market forces, “we” can pay workers great salaries by relying on government subsidies. So, win, win, and win.

Read More: Solar Energy Jobs are Economic Potemkin Villages

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.