Warming to the Truth on Climate Change

December 2nd, 2009 by Mike Maguire Print This Article Print This Article ·

The hoax of man made global warming is being exposed. Recent evidence of the doctoring of data by top climate scientists with political agendas to make it show warming that wasn’t there and hide recent cooling is just the tip of the iceberg, one that is not melting as alarmists have been proclaiming. Let’s review a few related facts.

Temperatures have always fluctuated naturally on this planet. Looking back over the past 100 years, the earth warmed from 1900 to around 1940. There was global cooling after that until the late 1970′s. It warmed again in the 1980′s and 1990′s, with that warmth peaking in 1998. There has been no warming since then even as CO2 has increased during the entire period. Eleven straight years of increasing CO2 and we’re still cooler than 1998!

As of the 2009 growing season, the US has now gone a record 21 straight years without a widespread drought in the Cornbelt. Soybean yields this year are easily a record. Corn yields were just shy of a record because it was actually too COOL in the Upper Midwest, not allowing much of the crop to reach full maturity. Climate models from man made global warming alarmists have consistently predicted increasing droughts along with yield reducing excessive heat. As a meteorologist that understands these models and appreciates our challenge to get the weather forecast right for next week, it has always amazed me that the public has been so easily bamboozled into believing the exaggerated 50 year cataclysmic climate forecasts. Would you keep believing the same weather man if he was wrong 11 forecasts in a row, then tried to sell you on his “long range” forecasts? Predicting climate is not just about tweeking model equations that relate to radiative forcing by greenhouse gases.

The problem is that the source of these errant forecasts and flawed interpretations are biased scientists, working with leaders of groups with the same thing in mind. Their goal is to have a significant influence on governmental policy, specifically as it relates to regulating carbon dioxide. A key element to success has been manipulated data and propaganda. Global warming has been twisted into a powerful issue that has attracted millions of loyal followers who believe the “debate is over” as Al Gore stated. Realizing that the warming had stopped after 1998, they even changed the name to “Climate Change.” The current scandal, “Climategate,” as it’s now being called is just evidence of what some of us scientists have known for awhile. We have been witnessing an unprecedented, coordinated campaign to prove the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and blame greenhouse gases using creative, whatever works, strategies. The urgency to pass expensive legislation has more to do with shoving it through while many still have the illusion that it’s worth the hefty cost because the planet is still warming. Ironically, Cap and Trade in full force and doing what they claim it will to the earths temperature would make a difference of only a tenth of 1 degree over the next 50 years. The natural cooling since 1998 is far greater than that.

2009 was also a quiet hurricane season, the 3rd in the last 4 years to under perform. This after very active 2004, 2005 and 2008 seasons. More evidence of the natural variability. Atlantic basin activity is not determined by global temperatures, but from a natural 25-year cycle. We have around a decade left in the active phase of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) which is associated with a strong thermohaline circulation, driven by Atlantic Ocean salinity variations.

The sunspot count continues to be at the lowest level in a century. Looking back in the past, there appears to be a strong link between an inactive sun and a cooler earth. The sun is the source of incoming heat on this planet. It has cycles that we haven’t been around long enough to study and understand clearly. We do know with certainty that all of the many temperature fluctuations in the past were caused by natural cycles or events. These natural cycles will continue to happen with or without human beings. That’s why temperatures have gone up and down the past 100 years even while man made CO2 has gone up EVERY year.

The biggest legitimate link involving CO2 is with plants. We know that increasing CO2 increases plant growth and crop yields. CO2 is essential to all life forms on earth. Treating it as pollution is about as absurd as believing we can predict our climate 50 years from now. We also know that the warmer our planet has been in the past, the more life it supported. The most devastating blows to creatures on earth — from temperatures — came from cold.

Powerful evidence of life doing better because of increased CO2 and warmth comes from digital satellite observations that were processed, refined and compared to changes of satellite-based maps of vegetation collected by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s series of AVHRR (Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer) sensors. The digital satellite observations were processed into maps by NASA’s Global Inventory Modeling and Mapping Studies project.

The time frame for this comprehensive study is significant. It studied the years of greatest warming this century. The scientists concluded: “Between 1982 and 1999, 25 percent of the Earth’s vegetated area experienced increasing plant productivity.” They assumed that “increasing CO2 caused plants to grow better” but “carbon dioxide fertilization couldn’t be solely responsible for the change; climate change must be playing a role as well.” Part of this was from more sunshine in the tropics and part of the increased plant productivity was from warmer temperatures in the high northern latitudes.  At what point will the theorists pay attention to the empirical data?

I believe in reducing all forms of real pollution, recycling, conserving and developing energy sources to replace fossil fuels. I also believe strongly in telling the truth. The truth is that CO2 is not pollution and that man did not cause much of the global warming that occurred in the last one hundred years. Don’t believe the cleverly constructed presentations using distorted data from agenda driven groups. They consider their hidden interests to be more important than the truth. They often use well-intentioned credible people to help perpetrate the scam. Don’t believe them. We need to hold our policy makers accountable for their decisions, basing them on truth and the best interest of our country and planet. Don’t believe me either. Educate yourself on the subject, verify that everything stated here is the truth… then believe it!

Mike Maguire has an Atmospheric and Oceanic Science degree from the Engineering School of the University of Michigan. He was chief meteorologist at WEHT-TV in Evansville Indiana from 1982-1993 and earned the "Seal of Approval" for broadcast television from both the American Meteorological Society and the National Weather Association. In 1985, Mike flew into Hurricane Gloria as part of a team of National Hurricane Center meteorologists.

Since 1993, Mike has worked as a full-time commodities trader, making decisions based on how the weather influences energy and agricultural markets. He spends much of his time with volunteer organizations helping young adults. For the past 15 years, he has taught religious education at his parish. He has 3 children and 2 grandchildren, and lives in Evansville, Indiana.

Mike Maguire is a frequent contributor to his local paper, The Evansville Courier and Press, on climate-related issues.




  • elkabrikir

    Please don’t give me the cold shoulder now!

    I’m just getting warmed up to the subject.

    Well, I’ll keep my super-sized bikini around just in case Uncle Al is right!

    Of course, I still have my parka available, nylon fur and all, available from the “new ice age” scare of the ’70s.

    All kidding aside, please cozy up to the linked article to understand how brief periods of warming and cooling alternate globally over the ages…Middle Ages in this case. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1349084/posts

  • DWC

    For years I’ve both laughed and gasped at the media/scientific treatment of this issue. From the get-go, the language has been purposely perverted …. in not distinguishing the “man-made” element to any true/natural warming going on — allowing the sinister reflection of all warming being man’s fault. Even bigger, is the utter concern over all science being “highjacked” by agenda-isers.

  • noelfitz

    I read:

    “The problem is that the source of these errant forecasts and flawed interpretations are biased scientists, working with leaders of groups with the same thing in mind. Their goal is to have a significant influence on governmental policy…”

    Generalized attacks on scientist, or on religious leaders or any other group of people, are not really constructive.

    Scientists, like politicians, lawyers and priests, are human and some are not as ethical as others. Calling the integrity of scientists, in general, into question, and linking them with sinister political motives, are not helpful.

    Some scientists are presumably in good faith and are concerned about global warming.

  • goral

    I read:
    “I believe in reducing all forms of real pollution, recycling, conserving and developing energy sources to replace fossil fuels. I also believe strongly in telling the truth.”

    Of course, everybody has a right to their beliefs. How about if I believe in junk science and I’m really sincere about it, don’t I have the right to act on my beliefs???

    Come-awn folks a little consideration here.

    My daughter is a senior science major at a top-tier polytech. When I confronted her with the scam of two centuries she looked at me unmoved. Then she responded – Dad, so it’s not exactly right but if they (I presumed, scientists) didn’t say anything or didn’t blow the problem out of proportion, then nothing would be done.

    Hmm… my science genius, she is teaching me to look at science differently, she with the support of her science dept. are teaching me to expand my definition of science. I presume her dept. is taking that compassionate science stance; otherwise she would not be in disagreement with me.

    Shifting science, sensitive science….. this could be better than just plain science.I have to let this stew a little bit. Regardless of my view, everyone needs to be a little more loving and tolerant of scientists who honestly believe they’re doing the right thing. Yes, billions have been bilked and bamboozled. People gave grants to those they presumed were real scientists. People, like me have been doing flips and cartwheels, trying to shirk my carbon footprint. So we’ve been had, but in a nice and well meaning way.

    Is that wrong? Who’s to say?!

  • goral

    Actually, elkabrikir, you need both.
    Out of respect for the environment, when you put on a super-size bikini
    you should also put on the parka.

    Male dominated junk science says that when the regular doesn’t fit,
    you must quit.

  • patti

    I am not understanding the appeal for sympathy for scientists that dishonestly misled the public. Yes we all make mistakes, but what has been uncovered is that top scientists deliberately deceived when reality did not fit with what they had predicted. Ignoring papers and opinions, trying to control the process so that only their viewpoint was put forth and stifling anything to the contrary…this is serious dishonesty and has nothing to do with science.

    We should not be sympathetic to scientists who lack integrity and try to control public opinion through means not related to practicing science. Pray for them yes, but not excuse what they did.

  • Mary Kochan

    Patti, you are allowing Noel to confuse you. He is a very sweet guy but he is all about sympathy and coherence is not his strong suit. If there was story about an ax murderer who killed 10 people in New Jersey, Noel would be in the combox to ask why we were so meanly impugning the reputation of all the residents of New Jersey, why we were unfairly targeting ax manufacturers for opprobrium, and why we were showing such disregard for the wonderful contributions loggers make to the common good.

    You just have to get used to this.

  • jchartwpb

    So what is the hidden agenda of the climate scientist? Isn’t the fruit of their alarm a greener world, a better enviornment, fewer gas hogs, etc. Are these scientist backed by alternative fuel industries, is that it? It looks like one main point of this article is that we can be misled by our leaders.
    Sounds familiar, a little like the previous administrations investments in war machines and fossil fuels. So what’s new. I would rather follow the misleading scientist on this issue. It’s results seem safer than hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq and over 4,000 of our best young solders killed not to mention injured. We were misled into Iraq by people bending the truth.
    We will likely be misled in the future, I think we can count on that. If we can’t figure it out because it is not our field of expertise that is undstandable. At least we can look for indicators of the long term results and move in the directions toward, life and the kingdom of God.

  • elkabrikir

    First, not all scientists have the same end goals/agenda.

    Last year I listened to an interview with an eminent scientist, who is also “green” (I can’t remember his name, for I was driving.) He said there are several categories of scientists.

    1.) Research Scientists who study issues with the goal of learning. They don’t interpret data or issue policy statements. They simply present the data and let others draw conclusions. I would call these “pure” scientists.

    2.) Policy Scientists who interpret data and draw conclusions. Within this batch one may find some rotten eggs. They can be manipulated by money and power.

    As long as the public knows and recognizes the difference, we can draw our own conclusions about their “scientifically prumulgated” “truths”.

    Data doesn’t lie or mislead. “Just the facts, Ma’am” means just that to research scientists. When “Policy Puppets” garble the facts, close the curtain on them.

    It is disingenuousand immature to confuse the issues by bringing up Iraq, jchartwpb . You sound like Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary…….maybe you are….You sound like one of my kids who when confronted with a misdeed always pronounces a sibling’s name first. For example. “Michael, you didn’t empty your dishwasher.” reply, “Well, Johnny didn’t sweep the floor…..” My response, “Tell me something about yourself.” End of discussion: Dishwasher emptied and floor swept.

    BTW, the scientist who I listened to, couldn’t negate the implications of the data regarding Climate Change. He refused to defend Algore on his junk science or on his money grubbing conclusions. Essentially, he concluded what we all believe in this forum. As Christians we have a stewardship duty to Earth.

    Well, Carbon Footprint #7 had his tonsils and adenoid out this morning………better mother him….