... including over 2,200
page views in April 2019,
double the prior average,
hopefully in response
to me trying to double
the number of articles
I used to post
every week.
That was almost like
having a job, except
I enjoy refuting the
coming climate
change catastrophe
fairy tales.
fairy tales.
Now that it's May, and
I'll be concentrating on
writing my May - June
ECONOMIC LOGIC
newsletter, for paying
subscribers, to be
published around May 15,
the new content here
will drop back to normal.
I will "recycle" and revise
some older articles in the
first half of May, but will
republish them
with the caveat:
with the caveat:
"Recycled Article".
The strangest thing, about
what seems to be a climate
change "religion",
is the lack of real science.
is the lack of real science.
I have a BS degree, but no
college degree is needed,
or even a high school diploma:
"Climate Change"
consists almost entirely
of scary predictions,
of a bad news
FUTURE climate,
that never shows up,
in spite of predictions
that started in 1957,
and ramped up rapidly
since the late 1980's.
The only real science
is closed system
laboratory experiments
-- infrared spectoscopy,
using artificially dried
air ( not found in nature )
to determine the effect
CO2 has on infrared energy.
The effect of the primary
greenhouse gas -- water
vapor -- has to be eliminated,
because it overlaps the
greenhouse effect of CO2.
From those dry air lab
experiments, results are
extrapolated ( assumed )
to happen in our atmosphere,
which actually has
varying amounts
of water vapor,
from 1% to 4%.
varying amounts
of water vapor,
from 1% to 4%.
I have no problem with the
assumption that CO2 could
cause some global warming.
I have a big problem with
evidence-free declarations
that CO2 'controls the global
average temperature',
and is usually blamed
for all global warming.
for all global warming.
There is no science to prove
that CO2 causes even enough
warming to measure.
That's just an assumption !
The global warming measured
after 1940, when CO2 emissions
became important, has been
quite mild -- about +0.6 degrees
C., over 78 years, using global
UAH weather satellite
measurements after 1979.
measurements after 1979.
Note that surface temperature
measurements are far from
being global, so they require
lots of "estimates" ( wild guesses )
to fill in numbers needed to compile
a global average, for areas where
there are no thermometers.
Weather satellites need little
"data infilling" guesses.
Weather satellites need little
"data infilling" guesses.
+0.6 degrees C. in 78 years
is equivalent to +0.77 degrees C.
of global warming in 100 years =
ho hum, that's totally harmless !
In addition, the global warming
after 1940 was intermittent,
even as the growth of atmospheric
CO2 since 1940 affected every
decade ... while the the post-1940
warming was almost entirely
from 1975 to early 2003.
And the warming has not been even
across the globe, even though CO2
levels are similar everywhere.
Actual warming
has been mainly
has been mainly
in places, at at times,
when warming
when warming
was desirable,
mainly:
mainly:
- Colder higher latitudes,
- During the six coldest months of the year,
- At night
You may wonder why you ONLY
hear about a global average
temperature -- a temperature
that no actually one lives in ?
The obvious answer is that the
coming climate change crisis
fairy tales would be less scary
if details of actual past global
warming were given to the public,
by an honest mainstream media,
rather than only a global average.
The "mainstream media "mainly
consist of people who spent
2.5 years accusing Trump
of colluding with Russians,
with absolutely no evidence.
That lack of evidence
has been pointed out
on my politics blog
since 2016 !
But those horrible people
still accuse Trump of collusion,
even after a nine-month FBI
counterintelligence investigation,
two Congressional investigations,
and then the almost two-year Mueller
team investigation, all found no
evidence of collusion.
And they never mention that
"collusion" is not even a crime !
I've been reading about
climate science since
1997, when I worked
in product development
for a major auto manufacturer.
I was curious if our products
were harming the environment.
I was leasing a company car
at the time, with a gas guzzling
V8 engine.
It took only an hour of reading
for me to discover the "coming
crisis" was nothing more than
wild guess predictions of the
future climate, disguised as
complex computer models.
I'm not a person who cares
about predictions -- they are
too often wrong.
And computer models only
predict what the programmers
tell them to predict.
I soon found out many people
with science degrees were
predicting a "coming crisis".
Right away, I saw a conflict
of interest -- people predicting
a "crisis" were almost
all on government payrolls,
or getting government grants.
Where making wrong predictions
didn't seem to be a problem.
But those bureaucrats
with science degrees
would have
lifetime job security,
if most people in the US
could be convinced that
a climate crisis was coming,
and scientists were needed
to study climate change.
No crisis would have to
show up -- the fear of a crisis
long after they were dead,
was good enough
for their job security.
was good enough
for their job security.
My original goal
in 1997
was to read
a few climate articles,
and maybe
one science study,
every week
( one a day since 2014,
when I started this blog ).
I wrote only two articles
on climate science from
1997 through 2014 --
both in my economics
and finance newsletter,
ECONOMIC LOGIC,
another hobby, since 1977.
One long article in 2007,
and another in 2014.
I started this blog
to update the 2014
article, for newsletter
subscribers only.
But based on page views,
they were mainly interested
in my economics blog,
which I launched in 2008,
not climate science.
In 2015, or 2016, I started
making some comments
to online climate science
articles ( I had been reading,
online articles since 1997,
without commenting ).
without commenting ).
I'd avoided adding comments,
because some online
commenters like to bash
anyone they don't agree with.
In recent years, I began
leaving some comments,
and some of them
ended with the URL
ended with the URL
to my climate science blog,
The page view counts
started increasing.
I don't care how many people
view the blog -- I get no money
or fame, but I hope to get more
people thinking about why
leftists use obvious junk science,
to scare people about a future
climate, that they have NO ability
to predict.
I think the answer is obvious:
-- This is not about the climate.
-- This is not about real science.
-- This is about leftists getting
a lot more political power
over the private sector,
through more control
of their energy use.
-- This is the new way to "sell" socialism
( Marxism, if you consider the Green New Deal ),
As a libertarian since 1973,
I favor less government and
more freedom ( one reason
I did not like Obama at all,
and am not happy with Trump ).
For example:
Under both presidents,
carbon dioxide, the staff
of life, is considered a
pollutant by the EPA
-- that junk science
is what inspires me
to continue this blog,
even though I've been
retired for 14 years,
and don't have to do
any "work".
Refuting leftist climate
change scaremongering
is not work to me.
It's my duty as an American
who loves this country !
It's my duty as an American
who loves this country !
Richard Greene***,
since 1953
Audiophile,
since 1965
Libertarian,
since 1973
BS,
State University of New York,
at Albany, 1975
MBA,
Stern School of Business,
at New York University, 1977
Editor of an
economics
and finance
newsletter,
since 1977
( named "ECONOMIC
LOGIC" since 1981 )
Married to
wonderful wife,
since 1983
Living in
Bingham Farms,
Michigan,
since 1987
Retired, lazy bum,
since January 2005
Editor of the
Economic Logic Blog,
since 2008
Editor of this
Honest Global
Warming Chart Blog,
since 2014
Editor of the
Election Circus
politics blog,
since 2016
Disappointed
that global warming
appears to have
skipped Michigan !
Does not speak French.
Favorite philosophers:
- Lawrence "Yogi" Berra
- Groucho Marx
*** Richard Greene is actually
my online moniker
-- my real name is:
my online moniker
-- my real name is:
Englebert P. Lipshitz
And the author of many
really bad jokes.