Obama Justice Department Considers Persecution of Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming Doubters

I am more than a doubter on the matter of catastrophic man-made global warming.  I say the hypothesis is based on faulty physics and as such it is wrong.  There is certainly no empirical evidence it is right and the claim of a scientific consensus is wrong.  Even the committed insiders funded to make the gigantic climate computer models produce widely divergent results, hardly indicative of a settled science and a scientific consensus.  The hypothesis has so much politically and financially invested in it that NOAA and NASA GISS are constantly fudging the surface temperature data to try to keep its failure from being completely obvious.

Now Loretta Lynch, the U. S. Attorney General of the Obama Department of Justice has referred "evidence" to the FBI that some persons have conspired to deny the truth of this alarmist hypothesis.  This blog is certainly replete with evidence that I oppose this failed hypothesis.  The Justice Department wants the FBI to determine if these persons should be persecuted, err ...prosecuted for their efforts to spread doubt about whether man's use of fossil fuels will cause a disaster.  This seems a reversal of the usual process.  Usually the FBI gathers evidence and then consults the Justice Department about whether to pursue a prosecution.  Or at least that is what is supposedly happening in the Hillary Clinton e-mail theft and national security exposure scandal.

It is most strange that many on the left believe or pretend to believe that all of the opposition to the catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis is due to manipulations by fossil fuel industry powers.  It could not be more obvious that many scientists are opposed to this alarmist hypothesis because scientific observation does not support it.  Some, as is the case for me, also oppose it because the physics that is claimed to cause the warming effect of so-called greenhouse gases is wrong.  Neither I nor many other opposition scientists are being funded in any way by the fossil fuel industry to be in opposition to the hypothesis.  In my case, my arguments are made explicit and can be judged on their own merits.

This is not the case for the arguments of the catastrophic man-made global warmers.  You can hardly ever pin them down on what the physics of their argument actually is.  When you do pin them down, the argument can be shown to be wrong.  So why do they persist in making these wrong and flimsy "scientific" arguments?  It is because they are well-funded by a biased government to do so.  The conspiracy is not nearly so much by fossil fuel companies as it is by big government.  The motive is a huge enhancement of government power through the intensive controls of our energy use.

Note the rapid inroads of this Obama administration in wresting control of our medical care, our finances, and our energy use.  This is a huge transfer of power from our private sector of free choice to the government sector of mandates and dictates.  It is an historic movement from cooperative endeavors among individuals to coerced, involuntary collectivism, with many collective groups favored over others.  It is a massive theft from producers by those who only exercise the political power to use brutal force to take what they want.

In fact, it has become quite the tragicomedy to watch the alarmists bemoan the fact that they ever claimed that greenhouse gases warmed the Earth by 33K and that more of any greenhouse gas would warm it more.  Now they do not wish to be pinned to a warming effect.  No, any climate change now is said to support their argument, even though only a fool is not aware of the fact that the weather is always changing and even short-term climate has always undergone changes.  The measure of their desperation to shut up those who do not agree with their call that the sky is falling, is now a threat of persecution by the law.  Specifically, we are to be persecuted under the anti-racketeering law, RICO.  Such persecutions have long been advocated by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat, of Rhode Island.  A letter recently emerged from a group of government-funded scientists at George Mason University also calling for persecutions by the law.  Of course, some anti-fossil fuel use alarmist advocates have even called for the death penalty for those who disagree with them.

The individual rights protections of the First Amendment for Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press do not apply to those who disagree with a pet project of the Progressive Elitist left.  It apparently says so, right there in the Bill of Rights.  It says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, unless the exercise of those freedoms thwarts the desire of the Progressive Elitist agenda to exercise greater control over the lives of the People."  This is the way First Amendment "privileges" are now taught in the government-controlled education system.  The products of that system believe in this version of the First Amendment with a near total consensus, as evidenced by campus speech codes.  As we are now told over and over, Progressive Elitist consensus determines reality.  The foundational idea of the scientific method that reality is independent of the imaginings of the human mind, is no longer operational in much of our society.  It is evil to oppose the Progressive Elitist agenda and evil must be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law!

The Progressive Elitist likes to claim that they protect individual rights in the bedroom.  Not so much actually, but they are really determined to undermine the individual right to think.  You see thinking is not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights or the Amendments to the Constitution generally.  Yes, any rational person would recognize that the right to think for yourself is protected in the Ninth Amendment, but the government long ago decided that it did not want to recognize any of the individual rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.  Protected individual rights always limit the power of government and that is not desired by those drawn to the power of government.  It is particularly not desired by those who deny individuality and embrace collectivism.  They belittle the individual, the seat of thought, and praise the grouping of people into cliques as though they are all high school children with vague, fashionable, superficial allegiances and little ability to generate their own ideas.

So those of us who do think for ourselves and who dare to speak and write about our ideas, must be shunned and shamed, fined and imprisoned -- to the fullest extent of the law!

Absurd Claims for Catatrosphic Man-Made Global Warming Never Stop

Absurd claims of catastrophic man-made global warming continue at a mad pace in preparation for the "climate change" conference to be held in Paris later this year.  At that conference, developed nations are supposed to place themselves under energy restrictions so severe that income inequality will be reduced around the world by virtue of decreasing the future standard of living in the developed countries.  In addition, the developed countries are supposed to deliver large sums of cash to underdeveloped and largely poorly governed and corrupt nations to "aid them in adapting to the harm of catastrophic man-made global warming."  The planned economic transformation is massive and will be catastrophic.  Obama claimed catastrophic man-made global warming is mankind's greatest problem, rampant beheadings by Islamists being the small stuff we ought not to sweat.

The U.S. government, the United Nations, and many other developed nations around the world have poured hundreds of billions of dollars into rigged "research" of the causes of catastrophic man-made global warming.  Government funding agencies and the universities dependent upon their research funding have been vicious in destroying or damaging the careers of such research scientists as have had the scientific principles to oppose the agenda mandating that funded research will not shed doubt on the politically essential agenda for catastrophic man-made global warming.  Yet, if any skeptic of this hypothesis receives a piddling amount of money from U.S. industry, from an oil company, or from a limited government think tank that in turn receives a piddling amount of money from an oil company, this is enough to completely discount all of the scientific arguments made by the scientist.

An example of this is a foolish article by a Jay Michaelson called Armageddon for Climate Change Deniers.  He plays the further old game of mocking those who believe the U.S. government has an agenda to acquire more power over the daily lives of Americans and their use of energy and all that implies for economic controls.  He makes the claim that 13,926 of 13,950 peer reviewed papers from 1991 to 9 Nov 2012 agreed with catastrophic man-made global warming.  The "study" [found on an infamously foolish blog] in question actually only counted very strong and explicit claims of falsity of that hypothesis and did not count those cases in which the authors allowed that some doubt was reasonable.  Given the tight controls on who is allowed research money to write journal articles capable of being published in the peer-reviewed journals, with additional journal editorial and peer reviewer (with funding) controls on the orthodoxy, the fact that few authors who want to publish will explicitly say that catastrophic man-made global warming is false, is not surprising.  Scientists who think it is false commonly wait until they have retired before they come out as doubters.  It is amazing how many have done so.

Given my explanations on this blog and by many other scientists elsewhere as to how bad the science theory of CO2-induced catastrophic man-made global warming is, the obvious failure of the highly touted climate models to predict the temperature rise, the heavy-handed alterations of the actually measured surface temperature data record, the recent 18-year constancy of the satellite lower atmosphere temperature record, and the many claims by politicians that bad science explaining the theory should not be allowed to get in the way of the political agenda, there should be many, many scientists who do doubt the hypothesis of man-made global warming.  There are.  Yes, few of them are actively funded by the government for the purposes of climate research.  But many of them are good physicists, chemists, meteorologists, geologists, or engineers.  Over the years because of the great attention the catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis has been given as the greatest of all problems facing mankind, many scientists have looked into this hypothesis and evaluated it.  The skepticism is huge.  Very large fractions of the membership of many, many scientific organizations are skeptics.  We scientists are not all fools.  And no, very few of us are receiving any funding from oil companies to support our skepticism.

I am more than a skeptic.  I say the hypothesis is very wrong.  The physics of the hypothesis is horribly wrong.  The empirical evidence has proven the hypothesis wrong.  It is not just that the effect of CO2 on warming is not catastrophic.  It is not even significant.

I have received piddling amounts of funding for my laboratory over the last 19 years from oil companies.  The amount of funding I have received from alternative or so-called green energy companies to solve problems of wind power generation, solar power, or biomass use has been significantly greater than the funding from oil companies.  Many of the oil companies are big and can do most of their own materials problem-solving or have long-established relationships with older laboratories. Oil companies are not clustered near Maryland, though my clients come from across the country.  I am happy to help oil companies and alternative energy companies alike with solving their materials problems.  I strongly prefer that they all operate in a rich and robust private sector with no government meddling, however.

So, advocates such as Michaelson will dismiss all I say because I have received a smidgeon of income from oil companies.  How convenient that they need not address the scientific analyses that I have published on this blog.  How convenient that they dismiss all I say because I am not funded by the government to perform climate research.  How convenient that they can dismiss me because I am not a climate scientist, but merely a physicist who studies materials properties using a range of radiations.

You alarmists are having a bit of trouble convincing Americans and many others around the world that man-made global warming is mankind's greatest problem.  I take comfort in the fact that I have convinced some people to be such skeptics.  I am doing my bit to promulgate what I believe to be the truth.  I am doing my part to uphold the scientific method of free inquiry, careful observation, the use of known scientific principles to understand phenomena, and the idea that an hypothesis has to stand up to empirical testing.  I will not destroy the credibility of science so that politicians can acquire more power and I will not have them buy me off with research grants.