Research needed when politics corrupt science


I caught up on my saved U-B’s after enjoying two weeks in the beautiful Florida Keys watching fishes (scuba diving), munching on conch fritters and sunning on lovely beaches. (I mention that only to give testimony that the Keys are still above water — not covered by rising seas as predicted by Al Gore, et al.)

I was there in December 1989 and the barrier reef sea life is still prolific as ever (like those Arctic polar bears) despite hysterical warnings that my SUV and burning fossil fuels cause catastrophic sea rise, acidic oceans, bleaching corals (and melting icecaps).

Richard McFarland (in his June 17 letter to the editor) and Monette Hoffmeister (on June 20) criticized my letter about atmospheric physicist Richard Lindzen. Of course, and as usual, my detractors never offer actual scientific evidence that human CO2 emissions cause problematic climate change so instead, the old ad hominem approach is applied to me or one of my many sources like Professor Lindzen. Or they simply refer to “the majority of the science community consensus” regarding anthropogenic global warming.

The problem here is that scientific evidence (about this or any other issue) isn’t decided by head count. Or by rote.

Hoffmeister might be right that, I “lack the specialized (formal) education necessary to evaluate the research on climate change.” However, I’ve been studying this on my own dime for a dozen years. Those asserting beyond doubt that human CO2 emissions are dangerously warming this planet are wrong.

McFarland wrote, “ ... I worry about those readers who want to believe everything they read without doing their own ‘due diligence’ regarding fact checking.”

Quoting Wikipedia is “due diligence?” Now, that’s something to worry about. Wikipedia can be a useful tool but the info is far from solid and can be input and/or edited by anyone with a biased agenda.

Sure, some scientists disagree with Lindzen. Especially when his findings refute theirs. Study possible motives for that disagreement. McFarland mentioned Christopher Bretherton’s criticism of Lindzen but not a certain $390 million tax-funded grant enjoyed by a group with which he is associated (check The cloudiness of Chris Bretherton’s ‘intellectual honesty).

When money and politics corrupt science much study and research is needed to seek out the truth. That’s what I do.

“Due diligence” isn’t checking Wikipedia. I’ve written many letters pointing to the science refuting anthropogenic global warming/climate change and so far that science has not been challenged with any credible evidence. By anyone.

Steve Singleton

Walla Walla



downhillracer says...

Direct from the Tea Party Command Center. Mr. Singleton, there is an enourmous amount of academic research that you may refer to as "credible evidence" contradicting your stated position. I suggest you cease cherry-picking your factoids - the important thing to remember: Science doesn't care what your opinion is. Ever.

Posted 28 June 2013, 11:20 a.m. Suggest removal

stvsngltn says...

I'm not a member of the Tea Party (WW Tea Party Patriots) but do support their stated core values of (1) Fiscal Responsibility, (2) Limited Government and (3) Free market Economy. That said, it's a pity that you are bigoted against them. They're made up of mostly pretty nice people. As for your "credible evidence" ... that just isn't true. The only "evidence" being used by "warmists" are faulty computer programs.

Posted 1 July 2013, 9:28 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

Well, the so-called scientific article fatherof5 keeps trotting out seems to care a great deal about our opinions, and is frustrated as all get-out that we don't all bow down to theirs. Apparently, until we do, they can't spend the trillions of dollars they want to on their own and their friends' "research" and their sponsors' "green" projects.

Posted 6 July 2013, 1:49 p.m. Suggest removal

namvet60 says...

Happy to see your back Steve - safe and sound. Hope you had a great trip!

Posted 28 June 2013, 1:35 p.m. Suggest removal

paco1234 says...

I drink to that! Mr. Singleton deserved a good vacation! I just disagree with him in almost everything... that's all!

Posted 30 June 2013, 5:25 p.m. Suggest removal

stvsngltn says...

You might be very surprised to learn we probably don't disagree with "almost everything", Paco. Not caring much for labels, I'm an Independent with a little mix of Libertarian, fiscal conservativism and social liberalism, (classical liberal as in Thomas Paine, Jefferson, etc.) with personal freedom being the most important (why I'm pro-choice). I thought the letter by the gay gentleman was excellent (so we agree there), and I am a humanitarian who has lived among most if not all ethnic groups around the world and very much enjoyed and respected their peoples and cultures, making friends everywhere I worked and lived.

Posted 1 July 2013, 9:37 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

Steve, good try, but it's a wasted effort. If you're not 110% behind the liberal orthodoxy - every part of it - then to a devout liberal you're pure evil aka a "teabagger."

Posted 6 July 2013, 1:53 p.m. Suggest removal

stvsngltn says...

Thanks, Namvet! Yes, it was a wonderful trip. My dive gear has been out of the water far too long (had to take a refresher course to be allowed to hit the reef). Love the Keys.

Posted 1 July 2013, 9:38 a.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

Honestly Steve, give it a rest. You have discussed this topic ad-nauseum, and for the most part, with the exception of a few tea baggers, nobody agrees with you. The data supporting climate change are overwhelming among scientists worldwide.

Posted 28 June 2013, 1:41 p.m. Suggest removal

stvsngltn says...

No, I won't give it a rest until such time as people like you wise up and realize that we are being scammed by those who are making money off of this non-problem. If my continuing to point out the reality of this issue makes you nauseous, VinoTinto .... just sip your vino and don't read my letters. Sounds like a solution to me.

Posted 1 July 2013, 9:41 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

According to the article fatherof5 keeps citing, 59% of the American public DO agree with Steve. Who knew there were so many tea baggers out there?

Posted 6 July 2013, 1:57 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

Yale did their [due diligence][1]. They read 12,000 climate change peer-reviewed articles (the only ones that matter) and concluded that 97% of those that took a position were on the side of man-made contributions to global warming. With all due respect to Mr. Lindzen, that's clear enough for me. Let's check back in 10 years and see where things are at.


Posted 28 June 2013, 7:37 p.m. Suggest removal

paco1234 says...

As predicted, not to long from now, Key Largo is going to be Key "Corto", as in "short".

Posted 30 June 2013, 5:20 p.m. Suggest removal

stvsngltn says...

You have thrown that 97% study out before and yes, it's all over the Internet. I believe it's irrelevant insofar as determining the truth. One reason for that, as someone wrote "Concensus only has meaning if there is no pressure to conform in either direction. In the climate debate this is extremely far from being true." I believe you've scoffed at the Oregon "Petition Project" and it's 31,000+ signatures so it just comes down to "my scientists outnumber your scientists" ... when the actual proof of global warming is never shown. And won't be (in my opinion). 400 ppm now and has been climbing since the industrial revolution ... but yet temps have been going up and down while actually preceding the rises of natural CO2 over the ages. That's a strong indication that CO2 is NOT raising the planet's temperature. Solar fluctuations and variations in the earth's "wobbling" revolutions around it are what bring us ice ages and withdrawals from ice ages (like today) plus some other factors not including CO2 emissions.

Posted 1 July 2013, 10:08 a.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

This isn't the only study indicating a large scientific consensus, just the most recent. The thing about peer-reviewed studies is that the scientific methodology gets reviewed by other scientists as a check against error and bias. Even if, as you seem to suggest, virtually all of the world's scientists have been corrupted by government money, those reviewing their studies don't have anything to gain by falsifying the conclusions of their review. 97% is a very large number of scientists to be in cahoots in a scam along with all of the peers reviewing their research. Seems like a pretty far-fetched theory to me.

As for the "Petition Project," I think you are smarter than someone who would tout it for evidence. It is a joke. It is debunked (ironically) by the Skeptic Society here:

This link also enumerates the problems with the "Petition Project":

Posted 5 July 2013, 9:56 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

First, Yale did not do its due diligence. It cited, without analysis, a study done by a psychology professor from Univ. of Western Australia and some volunteers, done as a "citizen science" project. Yale merely compared the Cook study's purported findings with the level of belief in AGW in the general population, a comparison that is meaningless as 'evidence' of AGW.

Second, consider the source: The Cook paper was self-published, i.e., Cook et al PAID to have it "published" in Environmental Research Letters.

Third, the methodology of the Cook paper is flawed beyond belief.

A. Start with voluteers, all of them acknowledged believers in AGW, and political motivation for the study.

B. Select articles but arbitrarily exclude books and papers submitted in academic proceedings.

C. Make the selection based on faulty search terms (I can explain this further if you like).

D. Have two volunteers rate each article on both what category of research it is and whether belief in AGW is expressed - and end up with disagreement between the raters 27% of the time on category and 33% of the time on expression of belief - and then have them "talk it over" to resolve their disagreement, which still fails a third of the time. This is a HUGE flaw and indicates a level of subjectivity that makes reading tea leaves seem more scientifically valid. Replicability of results is critical to any kind of scientific study.

E. Include multiple articles by a single author and count each article rather than each scientist as a point of agreement.

F. Make no effort to consider whether the article being rated is actually ABOUT the science of climate change, or simply identifies it as a motivator for a study about something else. If a scientist wrote an article that started out: "I want to study the economic implications of switching from coal to nuclear power as a means of combatting anthropogenic global warming," it would count as a vote for the validity of AGW, even though the science was economics, which has nothing to say about whether AGW exists, and the scientist had offered no basis for his belief, and for that matter his/her expression of belief in AGW was totally irrelevant to the nature or purpose of his/her study. Likewise, the Cook study itself would score as a scientific article "supporting the concensus" even though it too has nothing to do with the science of AGW. This also is a HUGE flaw. What difference does it make how many scientists believe in AGW, if they aren't studying the science of AGW but something else?

G. Ignore the significance of 67% of articles that discuss AGW without expressing an opinion about it, either explicitly or even implicitly. Pretend that just doesn't matter.

Posted 6 July 2013, 1:35 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

There is a lot to respond to here, but I will limit it to this. Of the 4,000 articles that dealt with the causation of climate change and were thus rated, the authors were ALSO asked to rate their research as to whether or not it supported AGW. 2,000 responded (a huge sample) and 97% confirmed their support of AGW, thus matching the conclusions of those who were rating the articles. In math, we call this doing a proof: arriving at the same answer through a different methodology. Here's the link to an article explaining all of this:

Posted 7 July 2013, 10:35 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

Saying that 4,000 articles "dealt with the causation" is a stretch. The only thing that can be said for sure is that 67% of the abstracts of 4,000 articles explicitly or implicitly expressed an opinion clearly enough that two biased volunteer raters could agree it did.

The articles were written by a total (IIRC) of about 19,000 authors, only about 8,400 of whom were invited to self-rate, and only about 1,100 of whom responded under a 6% response rate.

I'll look at your link, although I don't actually need help to read the Cook study; it's pretty simple (not to mention simplistic). But just the title of your link tells me it is probably worthless: The Cook study did not review all climate research or even a representative sample of climate research, but only that climate research that specifically used the word "global", and regardless of whether the research was about the PHYSICAL science of climate change CAUSATION - the only kind that can prove or disprove AGW - or about the impact, mitigation, politics, sociology, economics, or psychology of global climate change.

As I pointed out, even the Cook study itself, although clearly social science and not physical science, would have qualified for inclusion as "climate research" based on its mention of the phrase "global warming" and its implicit acceptance of AGW. And if you've read it, I assume you would agree that, as research, it offers no proof of the theory of AGW whatsoever; at best it offers weak evidence of the popularity of the theory, not its validity.

Posted 7 July 2013, 11:29 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

Typo: It was 29,000 authors, not 19,000. Which makes the responding authors less than 4%.

Posted 7 July 2013, 12:38 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

According to the article I linked above, 2,000 of the 4,000 papers were rated by the authors: "It did not stop at analysing the abstracts, but went further, asking each author to rate their entire paper using the same criteria. Over 2,000 papers were rated, and among those that discussed the cause of recent warming, 97 percent supported the argument that much of it is caused by humans."

That's 50% of the relevant articles that where AGW was confirmed by at least one of the authors.

What is your source of information so I can see it for myself?

Posted 8 July 2013, 6:27 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

My source is the Cook study itself. I prefer to rely on original sources, where possible, rather than other people's interpretations of what those sources said.

Yes, it is true that 2,142 papers were rated by the authors, but that amounted only to 1,189 authors, presumably because multiple works by the same author(s) were included in the abstracts reviewed. So out of 29,083 authors, 8,547 authors were invited to self-rate, and 1,189 responded, or 4.1% of all authors self-rated their work.

And, again, you do not know that the articles "discussed the cause of recent warming." An article was counted as agreeing if it even IMPLICITLY agreed with AGW, with or without discussion, and it need not have been an agreement based on any scientific findings reported in the article itself. Only about 17% of the articles reviewed even were ABOUT the methods of measuring climate change; the vast majority were about its potential impacts and its mitigation.

In the law, when you testify to something that someone else told you, it's inadmissible hearsay, and when you testify to something without having any personal knowledge basis for your testimony, it's inadmissible for lacking a foundation. There's absolutely nothing to say that 100% of the articles reporting agreement are based on any science that the authors actually did themselves, or evaluated by scientific standards themselves.

You can read the Cook study itself at

Posted 8 July 2013, 1:56 p.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

You should change your name to Steve Single-Minded because you obviously can't think about anything else.

And, for the record, Steve, I don't drink I just like the way 'VinoTinto' sounds. I thought I'd let you know since you obviously make a lot of assumptions.

Posted 1 July 2013, 4:11 p.m. Suggest removal

namvet60 says...

Wow - another pot calling the kettle black! Maybe you should trying growing up?

Posted 1 July 2013, 4:48 p.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

So what you're saying is that there is something wrong with being black? Is that why it's bad for the pot to call the kettle black?

Posted 3 July 2013, 9:19 a.m. Suggest removal

paco1234 says...

Is "black" implies an insult from the pot to the kettle? Please, help me understand this! What is its origin?

Posted 3 July 2013, 10:39 a.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

It's an idiomatic expression meaning that the accuser is guilty of the same act, comment, action or violation of that of the accussee.

I think I'd feel more comfortable if the pot were calling the kettle stainless steel and not black.

Posted 3 July 2013, 10:53 a.m. Suggest removal

paco1234 says...

Now, that's an educated explanation! Thanks, VinoTinto...although at times it might seem more appropriate for the kettle to call the pot saneless!

Given the painfull, tragic history of slavery in this country of ours, one can only hope that the idiomatic expression at hand does not originate from such history.

Posted 3 July 2013, 11:18 a.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

There was a time when both pots and kettles were used over wood fires, leaving lots of black soot on them. Pots typically hung over fires longer, hence got dirtier. So a pot calling a kettle black meant a pot, the dirtier of the two, calling a kettle, the cleaner of the two, dirty - an irony. Along the lines of, "Don't complain about the mote in my eye, until you get the beam out of yours."

Not every mention of white or black, light or dark, etc. is about race.

Posted 6 July 2013, 1:44 p.m. Suggest removal

namvet60 says...

Thank you PearlY - I totally missed this earlier - with the ignorance of the two panderers above they would turn any color to opaque.

Posted 9 July 2013, 10:18 a.m. Suggest removal

stvsngltn says...

Oh, I think about a lot of things ... it's just that few things are as important to our economy as debunking the global warming scam. VinoTinto sounds fine ... yes, my mistake assuming it had something to do with our prolific Walla Walla grapes (of which I prefer the cab, usually). Funny how most online commentors shy away from revealing their actual names, isn't it? I've always wondered about that. Perhaps it's easier to insult people that way. Suppose?

Posted 1 July 2013, 8:29 p.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...

Aren't you the Pious one?

Posted 3 July 2013, 9:27 a.m. Suggest removal

stvsngltn says...

I've been called a LOT of things (probably with good reason), Vino, but Pious? Never. (I usually answer to Infidel .... Heh!)

Posted 6 July 2013, 5:14 p.m. Suggest removal

VinoTinto says...


Posted 8 July 2013, 3:27 p.m. Suggest removal

Igor says...

Outstanding letter and follow-ups! I've been reading that 97% of scientists agree, etc, for years. Like Mr. Singleton, throwing out stats like this without more does very little to convince me of anything. How many of these so-called peer reviewed papers make the catastrophic claims made by the likes of Gore and the other GW hucksters? And how many only claim that anthropogenic CO2 necessarily must be contributing to the so-called "warming" to some degree, however insignificant?

The old 97% argument doesn't convince me of anything. When I was a kid suffering from allergies my doctor recommended that I smoke menthol cigarettes. This was one recognized, legitimate treatment at the time. And, of course, we all learned, from watching the boob tube, that 9 out of 10 doctors prefer Viceroy. Sometimes the consensus of concerned scientists if simply wrong.

The truth is that world temperature has remained flat for the past 15 years. Today I heard all the usual suspects blaming our current high temp in the Valley on global warming. Many summers ago, when I was working in wheat harvest, the temperature would exceed 110 degrees.

Every book and article I've read on the subject convinces me that GW and/or climate change are just one big load of political rubbish with very little credible empirical evidence to support them. But if I were socialist that is hell bent on growing government then I’d probably be a true believer too.

Posted 1 July 2013, 10:14 p.m. Suggest removal

namvet60 says...

Igor - your a youngin - the cigarette of choice back when was Lucky Strike - you were very careful when lighting up so that you didn't draw down to strong or you would be spitting ashes. Just a little reminiscing although quitting 25 years ago. :)

Posted 2 July 2013, 6:13 a.m. Suggest removal

Igor says...


I assume from your handle that you are a Vietnam vet too. However, if you served over there in 1960 then I definitely am a youngin by comparison since I didn’t make it over until 1969. Just after the Tet Offensive of 69. Glad I missed it.

I blame the Army for many of my nasty habits, including smoking, viz., “smoke ‘em if yah got ‘em.” If one didn’t have the habit when he enlisted or was drafted most managed to develop it before ETSing. But, like you, I quit over 20 years ago. Smartest thing I ever did. Here, I think, the science truly is settled, i.e., smoking is bad for your health. Ain’t no doubt.

On the global warming thing, I would admit that the planet has gotten a bit warmer over the last 100 years but nothing I’ve seen so far convinces me that there’s anything that can be done about it or that the slight raise in temp is harmful. Certainly the predictions of Al Gore and the other alarmists were way off base. Hopefully even the true believers can admit this. However, if they can’t or won’t and would like to hedge their bets I understand that there’s some prime beach front property for sale up near Tollgate.

Posted 2 July 2013, 4:22 p.m. Suggest removal

namvet60 says...

All I can say is that the tour was life's eye opening experience and will not be lost in my memory. I actually wished that some of these parents that think they hard to handle children would benefit by having them enlist and realize life with authority and respect.

I was reading an Ariz paper and as an example for the lost 19 hotshots they had an on site lookout and a meteorologist that was monitoring the weather so that this type of incident wouldn't happen. Needless to say that they are still investigating the incident but the lookout warned the firefighters to evacuate but they are trying to figure out what happened to the meteorologist. The weather in that type of situation is changing constantly and trying to anticipate the weather on a computer is ridiculous. Modern technology is just fine with the exception that it does not enhance your common sense and it does not prevent a person from stepping out side and see what the weather is really doing.

One other little note - I think that the Al Gore cult and these environmentalist that try to save birds nests and flying species from extinction should be put on the fire line when these fires break out. When we had logging in place and the forests were kept clean and we had lumber the fires were kept to a minimum. Now with the forest floors encrusted with leaves and limbs a small lightning strike will burn acres before it is brought under control.

Understandably if you were to post a sign at Tollgate you would probably get quite a few inquiries. :)

Posted 3 July 2013, 9:33 a.m. Suggest removal

Igor says...

You’re certainly right about the benefits that most young people can derive from military service. I’m a staunch believer in universal service and wish that we could go back to the draft system. The Army is the best thing that ever happened to me but in all honesty I probably would not have enlisted were it not for the draft.

Mandatory service instills patriotism and maturity in young adults and also helps to reinforce social equality and break down class divisions. If we could bring back the draft we would be less polarized politically and less inclined to engage in senseless wars. Professional armies have historically been a mark of moral decline.

That said, military service is not for everyone. Those with conscientious objections to violence could benefit from alternative service in much the same way those serving in the military benefit. Every citizen has the obligation to give something back to his country and to my way of thinking universal service is the best way to ensure the fulfillment of that obligation.

Posted 3 July 2013, 4:43 p.m. Suggest removal

namvet60 says...

Well said - I agree!

Posted 3 July 2013, 4:51 p.m. Suggest removal

stvsngltn says...

Hey, I might have you both beat on the age thing -- I was a Marine NOIC of a small detachment in Danang, South Vietnam in .... 1963! And yes, I started smoking cancer sticks (Pall Malls) at Camp Lejeune in 1960 (young fool that I was in that regard). If only John Wayne hadn't smoked them in Sands of Iwo Jima!) Stopped cold turkey on Nov. 28, 1984 and when I didn't restart during several artillery shells landing around my Beirut apartment in Aug. 1985, I figured I was pretty much over that nasty habit. Heh heh. On the warming you mention, Igor ... as many of us know, that was part of the withdrawal from the Little Ice Age ... which seems to have leveled off (no warming in last 15-20 years) despite all the CO2 coming out of my SUV's tailpipe and lungs. :D

Posted 3 July 2013, 10:26 a.m. Suggest removal

namvet60 says...

Steve - I think we're close - I was in on one of initial set-up ops at the first of 1961 and spent 2 years across the pond. I was also going to mention to Igor I did switch to Pall Mall Reds but the worst smoke ever was the local roll your own with a brown type of cigar wrap with there tobacco. The first puff you had better be sitting down. :)

Posted 3 July 2013, 3:34 p.m. Suggest removal

blue_streak says...

Igor, if you aren't sure why the "slight raise in temp" is a problem, perhaps you could spend 5 -10 minutes reviewing the [climate change page][1] at the Washington State Dept of Ecology website.

> Washington State is particularly
> vulnerable to a warming climate —
> especially our snow-fed water supplies
> that provide our drinking water,
> irrigation for agriculture — and
> nearly three-fourths of the electrical
> power we produce. Close to 40
> communities — including some of the
> state’s largest population centers
> along our 2,300 miles of shoreline are
> threatened by rising sea levels. Ocean
> acidification, which is created when
> carbon dioxide reacts with seawater
> and reduces the water’s pH, threatens
> our abundant shellfish


Posted 4 July 2013, 8:44 a.m. Suggest removal

blue_streak says...

I'm not sure what would qualify as "evidence" in your mind, since it seems pretty evident that you are starting with your religious belief in Free Market Economy and choosing your science to match those beliefs.

Here's a summary of the observational evidence collected in the [2009 NOAA Climate report][1].

> Seven indicators are rising: air
> temperature over land, sea-surface
> temperature, air temperature over
> oceans, sea level, ocean heat,
> humidity and tropospheric temperature
> in the “active-weather” layer of the
> atmosphere closest to the Earth’s
> surface. Three indicators are
> declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers
> and spring snow cover in the Northern
> hemisphere. Jane Lubchenco sums it up
> well:

> "For the first time, and in a single
> compelling comparison, the analysis
> brings together multiple observational
> records from the top of the atmosphere
> to the depths of the ocean. The
> records come from many institutions
> worldwide. They use data collected
> from diverse sources, including
> satellites, weather balloons, weather
> stations, ships, buoys and field
> surveys. These independently produced
> lines of evidence all point to the
> same conclusion: our planet is
> warming."

Why do you think this evidence should just be ignored?


Posted 3 July 2013, 4:57 p.m. Suggest removal

Igor says...

New Guy,

Love you man . . in spite of yourself. The problem with you and your enviro-nazi pals is that you’re all so invested in a totally debunked theory that you just can’t admit the truth. Most of your assertions are false:

1. Rising air temperature. Wrong! Air temperatures have been flat the past 15 years despite the fact that we’ve dumped more CO2 into the atmosphere during the same period than ever before. The Economist, June 20, 2913.

2. Rising sea level. Wrong! Though sea levels have risen over the last 150 years, the rate of acceleration has not increased after the large human hydrocarbon use. Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, v. 12, pp. 79-90, 2007.

3. Rising ocean heat. Wrong! A global array of 3,500 buoys the world around that measure ocean temp show that there has been no change in heat content of the oceans for the past 8 years.

4. Rising Humidity. Wrong! All of GW theories are based on rising levels of water vapor. Since 1983 there has been no increase.

5. Declining Arctic Sea Ice. Yes, but what about the Antarctic ice cap, which recently reached a 30 year maximum? The Antarctic ice cap, which contains 90 percent of the earth’s ice, continues to expand.

6. Glaciers. Yes, some are receding but some aren’t and there’s no proof that any of this is due to CO2 emissions.

New Guy, do you really expect me to believe anything that the Washington State Department of Ecology website says after the Mark Albright scandal? I’ve dealt with DOE before and they’re all a bunch of socialist environmental zealots that are in league with the Sierra Club and all the other nutty huckster greenie organizations that support themselves by bilking the Obama Zombies out of their lunch money. Sorry, but DOE has absolutely no credibility in my book.

If you really want to come out of the darkness and into the light then I recommend that you read this:

Your pal,


Posted 5 July 2013, 10:07 p.m. Suggest removal

downhillracer says...

Cherry-picked nonsense including non-working links, non-academic sources, a collection of selected works suggesting we look to non-validated science from handfuls of paid shills for the Koch brothers.. nice job of cut-and-paste, but you've convinced no one. Go right ahead and keep your head firmly planted in the sand. PS, the instant you attempt to rationalize your argument by suggesting a correlation to nazi-ism, interspersed by your pointed references to the WaDoE.. your argument takes an epic #fail. As if you presented any credibility in "your book" to begin with.

Posted 6 July 2013, 9:44 a.m. Suggest removal

Igor says...

What's your assessment of Dr. Easterbrook?

Posted 7 July 2013, 5:48 p.m. Suggest removal

blue_streak says...

Igor, I don't normally engage with people who think that calling someone an "enviro-nazi" is a logical argument.

But I'd be curious to know if you could provide a working link or page reference to the 3,500-buoy story you cite. The DoD Energy Strategy Plan that I found didn't seem to mention it.

Also I'd be curious if Dr Easterbrook ever provides any source information for the "pure data" he mentions, compared to the manipulated data alleged created by NOAA and NASA?

And, no the "Olympia Report" from the Freedom Foundation is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Posted 15 July 2013, 2:35 p.m. Suggest removal

stvsngltn says...

Igor saved me a lot of words here, New guy (thanks, Igor) but like him I have a lot of issues with your (NOAA's?) seven indicators. There is no factual evidence that air and sea temps are rising or that seas are rising ... but the more important issue whether or not those things are true is what is causing it (if true)? NO repeat NO evidence exists that atmospheric CO2 is driving it, much less man-caused emissions (anthropogenic) of CO2. ALL of the "evidence" of man's involvement in climate change come from computer models ... which are being shown to be very faulty. Garbage in, Garbage out syndrome at work. You (or anyone) should not trust NOAA reporting on the issue of AGW. It has been shown to be flawed.

Posted 6 July 2013, 5:24 p.m. Suggest removal

Igor says...

Well stated! According to Dr. Easterbrook, C02 accounts for only 3.6% of the "greenhouse effect." But it appears that nothing is going to stop our government from pouring billions down a rat hole in an attempt to combat a nonexistent phenomenon.

Posted 6 July 2013, 7:17 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

You mean trillions, not billions.

Posted 7 July 2013, 3:08 a.m. Suggest removal

Igor says...

Hope not, but you're probably right. We are truly living in a world gone insane.

Posted 7 July 2013, 5:43 p.m. Suggest removal

stvsngltn says...

Spot on, Igor. And not only that, but as you know I'm sure, of that total 3.6% of the "greenhouse effect" (which includes naturally produced CO2), human emissions only comprise roughly 0.117% by some measurements! Hardly significant enough to drive temperature, much less climate. This is a fact ignored by the "warmists". On that last point ("billions down a rat hole") ... yes, which reminds me of Obama's recently-announced plan to block Keystone and further attack coal. Hmm. Think I'll write another letter about that today and send it in (so stand by for more "ad nauseum" comments from VinoT).

Posted 7 July 2013, 9:23 a.m. Suggest removal

Igor says...

Here's a link to a letter written in response the attack on Easterbrook by the WWU geology department. Denning, the author, labels climate change a political ideology. I think he misses the boat here. Rather it has all the earmarks of a religion, i.e., a system of beliefs that have to be taken on faith since there's nothing concrete to substantial the validity of the theory.

Posted 10 July 2013, 6:32 p.m. Suggest removal

efj541 says...

A belief in a free market economy is a religious belief????? Who knew?

Posted 19 July 2013, 9:39 p.m. Suggest removal

Igor says...

I guess the only thing that annoys me more than Obama’s decision to nix Keystone and his attack on the coal industry is the renewable energy scam, primarily because it affects all of us right here at home. Why should ratepayers be forced to subsidize GE, Duke Power and Florida Power to build all the inefficient, bird chopping wind turbines when we have the cheapest power in the nation thanks to the hydroelectric dams on the Snake and the Columbia? I just don’t get it. Speaking of wind turbines, here’s a story that should trouble renewable energy proponents the world around. Hope none are bird watchers. And speaking of the daily mail, here’s a good article on GW that a friend sent me. It pretty much mirrors Dr. Easterbrook’s findings.

Posted 7 July 2013, 4:27 p.m. Suggest removal

namvet60 says...

Great point - I read the dailymail article and a report out of the LATimes states that multiples of Golden Eagles are killed just in the San Fran wind farm from wind turbines. Another article out of Portland stated that approx 600,000 birds are killed annually from wind turbines. I just guess that this problem is the same as global warming - if you get enough government funding anything is believable and written in stone? :)

Posted 8 July 2013, 9:10 a.m. Suggest removal

jubilado says...

Before Mr. Singleton left on vacation to the Florida Keys (which are still above water as he points out- heh, heh) he moved a million miles in his climate change position by stating at one point that "the science isn't settled." This of course means that just maybe the other guys are right. Since his return he has harkened back to his usual and customary position of omniscience and infallibility. " I’ve written many letters pointing to the science refuting anthropogenic global warming/climate change and so far that science has not been challenged with any credible evidence. By anyone. "
I suggest that Singleton takes next vacation in the Maldives or one of the Pacific Islands that won't be habitable in the forseeable future and ask the people living there what they think. Apparently Singleton has missed the fact that excess CO2 has made the oceans 30% more acidic since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Posted 16 July 2013, 6:09 p.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment