Right On: Liberals’ global warming fetish

Composite includes melting earth by Thomas Vogel / Getty Images, St. George News

OPINION – Is the globe warming?

Yes, it has warmed erratically approximately 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since the Little Ice Age ended about 1850.

Is manmade carbon dioxide the cause?

Man-made carbon dioxide certainly contributes. Questionable temperature data revisions and obvious climate model errors create uncertainty about how much warming is a natural recovery from the Little Ice Age and how much is man-made. I discuss this below.

Should we be doing something just in case?

Yes. We should develop alternative energy sources, including nuclear power, hoping to make them competitive with carbon fuels. (Of the leading alternatives, only nuclear power can provide energy on a calm night.) But attempting to rid the country of carbon fuels without viable, acceptable alternatives is economic suicide.

Public understanding of global warming has been distorted by two longstanding myths, repeated endlessly by liberals and the mainstream media.

Myth: The science is settled.

  • Fact: A distinguished panel of experts involved in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and National Climate Assessment process unanimously stated that climate change science is “not settled.”

Myth: Ninety-seven percent of scientists believe global warming is caused by humans.

  • Fact: This erroneous media claim has been thoroughly debunked. Ninety-seven percent agree humans contribute.

Why do global warming alarmists and liberal politicians keep these myths alive?

Simple: They want to remake the economy to fit their ideals.

In Rahm Emanuel’s classic words, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste …. It’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”

One thing Democrats “could not do before” was trample opponents’ First Amendment rights.

Obama’s Attorney General Loretta Lynch testified that she looked into prosecuting so-called climate change deniers and referred it to the FBI. A Democratic senator piled on as did the usual suspects: The New York Times, the state of California, 17 Democratic state attorneys general and 20 professors.

Threatening to prosecute opponents seems to be the Democrats’ way to “settle the science.” Which party has the fascists?

After global warming was first brought to public attention in 1989, climate scientists were lifted from academic obscurity and showered with government research grants.

A wise science professor explained a fundamental rule of scientific research: you find the results you’re paid to find or you find a new job. Awash in research funds, climate scientists unsurprisingly began to produce studies confirming what their liberal benefactors wanted to hear.

But a serious problem arose: a warming hiatus. Within measurement error, worldwide temperatures did not rise from 1998 through 2014. Yet man-made carbon dioxide emissions increased 25 percent during these 16 years.

No climate model can explain the warming hiatus, not one of 108 different models.

So what’s a climate scientist to do to keep the funding rolling?

The answer was pragmatic and controversial: When the model doesn’t fit the data, change the data.

In June 2015 (a suspiciously convenient time five months before the Paris Climate Conference), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists wrote, “Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data … do not support the notion of a global warming hiatus.”

To make the data fit the model, they adjusted ship and buoy-based temperature readings upward, put more weight on certain ocean buoy arrays and raised some land-based temperatures. But even this heroic attempt left the data lower than all but three of the 108 different climate models.

How could NOAA collect data for 16 years without discovering a need for these revisions? Could it be that government scientists did their best to discredit the warming hiatus just in time to send Obama’s team to the Paris conference?

Like many others, I smell a rat.

Revising observed data long after the fact is a very controversial topic with passionate advocates on both sides. But this revision’s scope, timing and the fact the revised data still lay below almost all model predictions should give the rest of us reason enough to be uncertain about climate forecasts.

Fortunately, man-made global warming theory provides another way to test its validity. This check on the theory can’t be hidden by NOAA data revisions.

Climate scientists predict that global warming will cause severe weather events to increase both in number and intensity. Compare predictions with observations to date:

Warren Buffett, a liberal who owns an insurance company, confirms that severe weather claims have dropped significantly including a significant reduction in tornado damage.

All this will be a surprise to most Americans because liberal mainstream media continue reporting “fake news,” hyping every storm and polar bear picture as confirming man-made global warming.

Continuing controversies rage about both climate data and model accuracy. Severe weather forecasts have failed to materialize. Is this a good time to launch an expensive remake of the economy?

Continuing to tweet the myths about his global warming fetish, Obama announced his Clean Power Plan to environmentalist applause. He touted his plan despite the fact that the EPA’s preferred climate model, MAGICC (Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change), predicts that by 2100, his plan will reduce global temperatures by only 0.035 F! Both Obama and the EPA failed to acknowledge this embarrassing fact in their press releases.

If the Supreme Court hadn’t issued a stay, Obama’s plan would effectively kill coal mining and hamstring the oil and gas industry while dramatically raising consumer energy costs, all without climate benefits.

I could only laugh at a green power advocate’s recent claim that Obama’s plan would actually lower societal costs. His arguments use logic similar to the claims that Obamacare would lower health care costs. We all know how that turned out.

Adding insult to injury, Obama signed us up for the Paris climate accord. Per the accord, two of the world’s biggest carbon dioxide emitters get off the hook. China, the world’s largest carbon dioxide emitter, promises to begin reducing carbon emissions 13 years from now (don’t hold your breath). India announced it will triple its coal-fired electricity capacity by 2030.

Obama’s proposed unilateral carbon reductions are like unilaterally disarming to promote world peace.

I predict that global warming will remain on front pages until liberals find a new crisis to exploit. Meanwhile temperature observations will continue well below alarmist forecasts of impending doom.

Howard Sierer is an opinion columnist for St. George News. The opinions stated in this article are his own and may not be representative of St. George News.

Email: [email protected]

Twitter: @STGnews

Copyright St. George News, SaintGeorgeUtah.com LLC, 2017, all rights reserved.


Free News Delivery by Email

Would you like to have the day's news stories delivered right to your inbox every evening? Enter your email below to start!


  • Craig March 9, 2017 at 7:59 am

    This is the mainstream New Democrats. They believe they are morally and intellectually superior to the rest of us and have a duty to force the rest of us to comply.

    It’s called fascism. Prosecute those who deny global warming. Riot is your candidate isn’t doing well. Riot if you disagree with the college guest speaker. Force morality to the lowest common denominator.

    Claim it’s constitutional to force citizens to purchase a product and fine them if they refuse. Get the Supreme Court to lie, claiming this is constitutional by calling the fine a tax. Blindly follow the leader and pass this bill without anyone knowing what’s in it. Support the leader lying to the citizens about the product.

    Today, John Kennedy would be right of center in the Republican Party.

    The New Democrats have justified abandoning the Constitution for the greater good. Both parties, for many decades, have served only themselves, enhancing personal wealth and power.

    The fraud of climate change is simply a nice example of many others showing us how fascism works.

  • beacon March 9, 2017 at 8:21 am

    The chairman of the “distinguished panel of experts” mentioned in this op-ed is Lamar Smith who represents the 21st Congressional District of Texas. Were he not from a state that depends heavily on fossil-fuel energy he might bring more value to this discussion. Also, he’s on a committee that apparently oversees NASA, but in fact, NASA doesn’t hold the same opinions as Mr. Smith. From NASA’s own website: “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.” And again from NASA’s website: “97 percent of climate scientists are convinced, based upon the evidence, that human-caused global warming is happening.” (https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/)

  • Cuberantcamper March 9, 2017 at 8:51 am

    Mr. Sierer does not understand the earth’s carbon cycle. Profits are more important than the earth’s well being to those that deny science. The idea that the earth is round and is not the center of the universe received the same reaction.

  • Pheo March 9, 2017 at 8:58 am

    Your distinguished panel of experts includes four people, three of which are well-known climate change deniers invited onto the panel by Representative Lamar Smith, who believes that scientists form an evil cabal trying to destroy the world. (You’d like him.)

    The article refuting the idea of global warming consensus does no such thing. It just talks about how people’s beliefs regarding climate change don’t necessarily translate into political action.

    You live in a world with amazing advances in technology and science. This world has given you the luxury of trying to trash the scientific process that got us here. All scientists I know make it their life’s work to know what is true, no matter where the truth takes them. They want contrary views to be aired. The flip side of this is that any assertion made against the consensus will be subject to scrutiny that science demands. Any scientist that could convincingly provide an alternate explanation for global warming would make a huge name for himself.

    Seriously, I enjoy St George News, but your opinion articles are a stain on our discourse.

  • John March 9, 2017 at 9:32 am

    There are so many ways to disagree with this, but I’ll comment on only one point — Mr. Sierer is completely mis-informed about how science works. Researchers score no points by confirming what we know; that’s a career dead end. Science is highly competitive and the route to recognition, advancement, and yes — grant money, is by discovering something new and advancing our understanding of the world. If you’re not learning new things you’re a failure and will be recognized as such and go nowhere. Mr. Sierer’s common misconception of scientists’ motives, which I hear repeatedly from people who don’t understand, makes it easier for global warming deniers to dismiss what we are actually learning about nature.

  • Utahguns March 9, 2017 at 9:58 am

    I want to shake your hand for writing this excellent article.

  • comments March 9, 2017 at 10:08 am

    Globalized warmage. If u wanna stop it we need to outlaw farting. Because methane.

    • .... March 10, 2017 at 5:14 pm

      And another one of Bobs stupid comments

  • theone March 9, 2017 at 10:24 am

    Got your head in the sand Howard. There is plenty of science in that confirms climate change is occurring, and humans are contributing. Notice the word contributing, yeah that’s the one scientists have always used. You posited faulty stats on weather, and science has shunned those as fear mongering BS to keep coal viable in the lining of rich pockets that benefit from coal. Wind, solar, thermal etc, are all very real alternative energy sources. These are all being used in other nations with much success, some as high as 40 to 50 % over fossil fuels. I recommend you do some actual research instead of plagiarizing FOX news and the likes.

  • comments March 9, 2017 at 2:43 pm

    Even if global warming is a hoax, even a lot of you hard-right wing nuts can’t deny that air pollution from carbon fuels isn’t a problem. Go right on up to the salt lake valley and suck some of that air into your lungs, or better yet go visit Beijing. The use of carbon fuels may or may not be heating up the earth, but it def has it’s tradeoffs. There may come a day when wing nuts have to stop using a 10 ton dodge diesel as a family hauler. Sooner the better.

    • .... March 10, 2017 at 5:16 pm

      Why don’t you go to Beijing..stay there !

  • comments March 9, 2017 at 2:52 pm

    I wonder if Howard Sierer is old enough to be living off socialism from my tax dollars like Mesaman does–every single day of his life. One of these days you baby boomer welfare queens will be cut off, because my generation will get tired of welfaring and paying for all of u. We’ll see if the whining about “socialisms” continues after your generous socialist retirement packages have been cut off. Retirement packages so cushy and excessive that they’ve been discontinued for any newer retirees in nearly every single employment sector. One of these days the money well will run dry for you welfare queens. Muh socialisms!

    • ladybugavenger March 10, 2017 at 7:22 pm

      Nooooooo, I want to be a socialist welfare queen! Give me my social security! If I’m not dead before retirement age, that would help out a lot to accomplish my mission.

  • dodgers March 10, 2017 at 5:27 am

    Good write-up Howard. It seems the only thing we all agree on is that the climate has been changing, as it has been for millions of years. And a majority opinion, no matter the subject or position, does not translate to “science.” It’s either science or it’s not, and it’s not. And what the heck is “settled” science, and how does it differ from science? As for protecting the earth, it’s safe—don’t worry; it will do just fine and exist long after the human race.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.