We could use some global warming about now

The new year came in like a lion. The average temperature in the contiguous 48 states was eleven degrees. Over 85 percent of the country was below freezing. Nearly a third was below zero. For much of the U.S. east of the Rocky Mountains, temperatures were about 30 degrees below normal. Omaha, Nebraska hit minus 20, breaking a 130-year-old record. Other records were shattered all across the nation. Now, I understand that weather is not climate, but this whole global warming narrative is becoming more and more ridiculous.

From KING5.com

The U.K.’s Metro newspaper announced with glee that a mini Ice Age could hit by 2030 and “save us from global warming.” Save us from global warming? How many folks would love a little global warming about now? According to Science Daily, the cold kills about 20 times more people than the heat. Think about that for a moment. If we really care about saving lives then these climate change zealots should be praying for global warming. Oh, that’s right. They don’t pray. Well, maybe to a graven image of Al Gore.

It’s funny how the Branch Algorians are nowhere to be found when the temperatures hit single digits. Yes, there are a few die-hards braving the cold and the wind to preach the gospel of Al. The Guardian claimed 2017 was the hottest year on record without an El Niño. Of course, when you dig down you learn they’re using surface temperature data that we now know is not only highly inaccurate due to human error but has been purposely manipulated by NOAA and other so-called scientific institutions.

But authors of a study defend NOAA’s fudging of temperature data. “Stations have moved to different locations over the past 150 years, most more than once,” they write. “They have changed instruments from mercury thermometers to electronic sensors, and have changed the time they take temperature measurements from afternoon to morning. Cities have grown up around stations, and some weather stations are not ideally located. All of these issues introduce inconsistencies into the temperature record.”

Isn’t this exactly what those of us who argue against using surface temperatures have been saying for years? Surface temperatures are too unreliable to be used as a true picture of climate. Yet this study argues that NOAA should not only use them but manipulate them as they see fit. NOAA, like many U.S. agencies, has been infiltrated by global warming zealots. We’re witnessing a scattering of so-called scientists and policymakers from the EPA now that President Trump is demanding hard science rather than hysteria.

The hard science is the satellite temperature data. We’ve been measuring surface and ocean temperature via satellites since 1979. What it shows is virtually no warming since 1979.

KING5-TV in Seattle greeted readers of their webpage with this headline: “Yes, it’s freezing. But climate change is still real.” They seemed to be trying to convince themselves more than their readers. They dragged out a Miami meteorologist who claimed the rest of the world was warmer than usual “with the warmest readings in the poles.” So, I checked the temperature for the poles. Minus 28 Celsius at the North Pole. The average for January is minus 24. At the South Pole, as of this writing, it was minus 29 Celsius. The average for January is minus 31.

The KING5 piece warns that climate is “the average weather conditions that prevail” at any given location. Agreed. Then if satellite data show we haven’t warmed globally in 40 years then the science is settled. Stay warm. 

Phil Valentine is the host of the award-winning, nationally syndicated talk radio show, The Phil Valentine Show.

Climate censors: Not up for debate

The danger of media bias is not in what they tell you. It’s in what they don’t tell you. Those on the left preciously guard their positions by desperately trying to keep the truth at bay.

That was never more clearly demonstrated than during my recent trip to Charlottesville for a screening of our documentary, An Inconsistent Truth, at the University of Virginia. What I told the students there is the same thing I tell students at any university stop we make. Challenge everything. I told them that there are people who will go to any lengths to keep them in the dark on the issue of global warming with ad hominem attacks on people like me or anyone who dares challenge their worldview that humans are destroying the planet.

Right on cue came Thomas Forman II the Monday morning after my weekend visit. Mr. Forman scolded the UVA College Republicans for even inviting me, as if I had soiled the

hallowed grounds with my presence. He then proceeded to call me and anyone who dares disagree with the propaganda that he and others have been spewing “scientifically illiterate.”

Forman didn’t even have the decency to attend the screening, which is typical of people on his side of the issue, especially in academia. I suspect Mr. Forman knows the truth. How could he not? None of what Al Gore predicted in his movie has come true. The earth’s temperatures are not rising. The polar bears are not dying off. Sea levels are not rising. Hurricanes are not getting more vicious and more frequent. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

Most important in this discussion, there most certainly is not a consensus on the issue of global warming or climate change or whatever these hysterics are calling it on any given day.

Unlike Gore’s movie, which is all about Gore, our movie features scientists who study the climate on a daily basis. One of the scientists we interviewed is Dr. Fred Singer. Dr. Singer is not only one of the foremost experts on the issue of climate change, he is an emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, the very university where Mr. Forman works. Surely he knows this. Surely he doesn’t believe that he is more qualified in this field than the man who was a pioneer in weather satellites and a former deputy assistant administrator of policy at the EPA.

Mr. Forman’s display of arrogance is breathtaking. His description of anyone who disagrees with him on climate change as being scientifically illiterate is the kind of scorched-earth policy the proponents of manmade global warming employ when they sense the truth is knocking down their door.

Commentator George Will summed it up best. He said when anyone claims the debate is over you can count on two things. First, the debate is still raging and, second, they are losing.

Mr. Forman and his fellow travelers are most assuredly losing the debate. Carbon dioxide levels have increased substantially over the past 15 years but global temperatures have remained steady. In short, there is no correlation between the two.

The recent snow storms that have pounded much of the country only serve to drive that point home. I’m certainly well aware that weather is not climate. I’m also aware that theory is not science. The scientific method demands proof. The global warming alarmists have no proof so they fall back to climate models. There are 72 major climate models that have been predicting temperature since 1979. All of the climate models - like Mr. Forman - have been dead wrong.

Phil Valentine is the host of the award-winning, nationally syndicated talk radio show, The Phil Valentine Show.

Secret e-mail accounts belie transparency

Richard Windsor over at the Environmental Protection Agency received the agency’s recognition as a “scholar of ethical behavior.”  How ironic to learn that Richard Windsor never existed.  He was the e-mail alias for Lisa Jackson, the former EPA administrator.  A recognition for scholar of ethical behavior?  How ethical is that?

Mr. Windsor seems to be the norm within the Obama administration.  Some of the president’s political appointees, including Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, have been using alias e-mail addresses.  The Associated Press asked for a list of political appointees’ e-mail addresses under the Freedom of Information Act.  The Labor Department wanted to charge them $1 million.  Apparently with this administration freedom of information is not free.

And this was supposed to be the most transparent administration in history?

It’s obvious from the recent scandals exactly what’s going on.  If you can use your alias for your more, how should we say, ‘clandestine’ activities you can shield those activities from the press, even if you turn over all your e-mails under your real name.

The fact that the Labor Department wanted so much money for a simple list arouses suspicion that all is not above board in this administration.

Now with the revelation from Congressman Issa’s committee that there were no “rogue agents” who went after the tea party groups it’s clear to see how alias e-mail accounts could come in handy.  The “rogue agents” argument in the IRS scandal is starting to look like the “anti-Muslim video” argument in the Benghazi scandal.  The question is with all this obvious obfuscation will we ever really know what happened?

The AP has been trying to get a list of e-mail addresses from ten agencies including the Treasury Department, which oversees the IRS.  Treasury has been dragging its feet for about three months.  The Treasury spokesman, by the way, is named Marissa Hopkins Secreto.  Perfect.  Sounds like the name for a Bond girl.

Several agencies have turned over some e-mail addresses but the lists are suspiciously incomplete.  The foot-dragging only compounds the suspicion in light of the IRS scandal where agents are now telling investigators that orders to single out conservative groups came from Washington.  How far up in Washington remains to be seen but we already know that the “two rogue agents” story was another fabrication.  Congressman Issa went so far as to refer to White House spokesman Jay Carney as “a paid liar.”

Having a second e-mail account is nothing unusual, especially for people in the public spotlight.  What’s bizarre is apparently EPA Administrator Jackson corresponded under the Richard Windsor pseudonym as Windsor, in some cases, never revealing her true identity to the people with whom she was corresponding.  What could possibly be the reason for that?

I’m sure the president will deny any knowledge of this, too, much as he has remained detached from the rest of the scandals swirling around him.  But, for how long can his plausible deniability remain plausible?  His senior advisors knew about the IRS investigation but didn’t tell him.  People all in his administration were unleashing the IRS on innocent people just because they didn’t like their politics and he had no idea.  Cabinet officials are apparently conducting official business behind some alias and he had no idea.  And don’t get me started on Benghazi.

If the president had no idea about any of this, in the very best light, it appears he was asleep at the switch.  As is typical with the Democrats, just saying you take responsibility seems to pass for punishment.  That is no longer acceptable nor is it sufficient.