President Elect Trump – Why Climate Change Is No Longer A Political Issue Outside The US

****************************** Update **************************************

Due to the concerns of the author of the article highlighted in this post, I removed the actual article while keeping all of the comments intact, which are not protected by copyright laws in any way. I also provided a link to the blog page so you can read the current state of the article and it’s comments, for how long it lasts. Trump Hysteria Article

I also corrected a few grammatical errors, enjoy.


Trump and the Hysteria of Climate Change

The PDF file above is a copy of an article that was posted on The article itself is nothing new, it is simply is a complete rehash of the hysteria of global warming that has been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked by several reputable sources. The article is also the typical knee-jerk reaction of leftist liberals unable to cope with the election of President-Elect Donald Trump. The comments section is where the action is. The PDF is actually spliced as I had to, because the author was actively deleting comments as this exchange progressed. I think that I was able to retrieve most if not al of the pertinent deleted comments.

I simply refute the basic notion that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is not, nor has ever been, proven scientifically. The author and several others make vain arguments against mine, but in the end no one was able to give either the proper correlation calculations thus proving the difference between natural causes of AGW from those causes that may, or may not be caused by human activity. Nor could they explain why CO2 lags behind global temperatures proving that CO2 cannot be the cause of Global temperatures here on Earth. Effects can not occur before causes, which is a basic physical law in our universe. These are just two of the basic cruxes as to why they cannot legitimately make the claim that AGW is caused by human activity.

I will agree that I was a little dogged in my pursuit but the arguments went exactly as I expected. Attack the messenger, avoid the argument at all costs, and then to finally censor the arguments and replace with false allegations. No one would give any explanations as to why they wouldn’t or couldn’t respond with anything but false circular arguments or assuring me that they would address the issue in a future article while burring my comments in a subterfuge of non pertinent and nonsensical comments. During my pursuit the author simply started deleting my comments that put him in a poor light, while making me out to be some degenerate bogeyman without being able to defend myself, he would simply delete those as well.

I warned him that he was acting very predictably and that his belief in AGW had more to do with his politics than anything scientific. His blood was, unfortunately, boiling too vigorously to act with reason.

Liberalism 101:

  1. Shoot the messenger, avoid, at all costs, the content of the argument.
  2. Censor, and or punish, both the argument as well as the arguer.

Enjoy, it may be entertaining or enraging, depending on which side of the AGW debate you fall, which is also pretty much the same thing as to which side of the political fence you favor.

*************** Update 12-06-2016 *********

The author has followed up with a ridiculously long winded article trying to refute my arguments,


Here is my comment to him:

“Wow! I knew it would be a painfully long winded article but, again, zzzzzzzz. The first thing that I notice is that you regularly reference the IPCC as a source for your data. I thought that it was common knowledge that most, if not all, of their data has been proven highly biased and thoroughly compromised. Ever hear of Climate-Gate? You know what they say; Garbage in, Garbage out.

Secondly, your assertion that you can predict the future with any level of absolute certainty is so ridiculous that it is laughable. There is no way that any model can accurately predict all possible outcomes of the real data, which does not exist prior to it happening. For instance we may be struck by a rogue asteroid five years from now, now where would the accuracy of today’s model be then? Zero.

So then, how much wealth would have been lost implementing punitive measures against fossil fuels based on that model? Many, many TRILLIONS of dollars. Wealth that could have been applied to offsetting the mass destruction that would follow that asteroid strike. You can’t predict, with any absolute certainty, the future of anything, let alone the Earth’s climate. If you are so good at predicting the future then, please, could you tell me what next weeks lotto numbers will be? Again, I assert that those that do make predictions of the future are simply, at best, dubious liars and/or shameless charlatans.

For the third point, I notice that you don’t provide the supporting data for many of your graphs. As such, by simple inspection, I can see that there are numerous points on your graph where the temperature vs. CO2 levels are presented such that the CO2 lags behind the temperatures. Often there are significant CO2 rises without temperature rises.

For example look at your “Years Before Present” graph of the Milankovitch’s curve. If you draw a vertical line centered on the point where the last temperature rise occurs you will plainly see that the Sun’s energy rose prior to the temperature graph. More importantly you can also plainly see that the CO2 plot rises AFTER the temperature rises.

This clearly shows the causality chain, the Sun caused the temperature increase, which in turn caused the CO2 levels to rise. In other words CO2 does NOT cause temperature fluctuations in our Earth’s atmosphere as Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmists insist. Effects do not precede causes in our physical universe. CO2 fluctuations are an effect of temperature fluctuations, which in turn, are an effect of the fluctuations of the Sun’s output.

I’ve been doing this for twenty-five years now and you have brought nothing new to the discussion here, nothing but the same old tired and fallacious Sophistry. This is the exact kind of sloppiness that can be found everywhere in global warming alarmists arguments. Your arguments are certainly no exception. Again, I nominate you for the Sophist of the Year award.”

********** Update 02-08-2016 ****************************

Yet another of my replies after again, after being accused of trolling 🙂

There is a lot of information and a lot of disinformation available to you. You cherry pick the data that supports your view, data that has been widely proven to have been thoroughly corrupted. Then you immediately disregard the numerous studies that discredits your view. I would not call that honest in any way, whatever antonym I choose does not change these simple facts. I’m sorry for you if it offends you.

Like I said in the first exchange in your previous post, the only way to move forward is to throw out all of the studies and start over completely from scratch under the careful scrutiny of both sides of the argument. unfortunately the UN and IPCC refuse to allow any arguments from any skeptics anymore so, by default, they can no longer be considered to be properly applying the Scientific Method anymore.

Here is a link to over 30,000 scientists against human caused global warming who signed such a petition, 97% consensus? I think not:
I’m sure that you can easily find numerous propaganda sources attempting to discredit this initiative, cherry pick away.

Here is another interesting paper from Burt Rutan, a very respectable scientist and engineer, the first person to put a civilian man into space, he won the X-Prize for it. He also designed the first aircraft to fly around the world nonstop without refueling.

The AGW science simply is not settled

************** 12-10-2016 *************************

Now he locked me out from commenting, every time his argument goes south he can’t take it. What a coward! Tis is my comment to someone who was arguing that only climate experts are qualified to comment on climate change.

“Your argument sounds very seductive, although it falls under the category of an appeal to authority philosophical logical fallacy. This is especially true when many so called “scientific climate experts”, working in numerous institutions, have been caught red-handed hyperbolizing and even outright lying about climate change, both to its data, to its causes, as well as to its effects. Remember the best models available to Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth authors have all been proven wrong. We were supposed to currently have an ice free arctic by their best faulty model predictions.

According to your logic, the only qualified people to discuss the flat Earth, would have been flat earthers. As Burt Rutan pointed out, in a link in one of my replies above, scientists are often times very wrong without any substantial consequences. When engineers are wrong people often die.

I agree with you that the same type of cross checking and verifications between many disciplines would be necessary as well as rigorous testing and verifications would be necessary if we were to ever actually produce a believable, provable, duplicatable model. This is currently not being accomplished in climate science, there are a lot of leaps of faith occurring in climate science today. In fact Many of the so-called leading agencies, cited by most AGW alarmists, are closed shops. They are not accepting any studies or arguments from anywhere but from themselves. Not at all very scientific, they are certainly not practicing any good engineering methods.”

Now that wasn’t bad enough to censor was it?