“I have become a Denier, Skeptic… Heretic. No Question.


Current Government Environmental dogma:

  • The Earth is warming   
  • Increase in Carbon Dioxide is the only cause that matters.  
  • Carbon Dioxide increase is caused by human activity.

Conclusion of the dogma:

  1. Warming is happening, warming will continue to happen, warming will increase (INTO THE FUTURE) based on Human Behavior only.
  2. Human policy in Washington State will be dictated on this conclusion and we must comply with all policies to save the earth from Carbon and only Carbon “overheating” IN THE FUTURE.
  3. Washington State MUST lead in Carbon Only reduction by spending its tax dollars, potential jobs and give up its inexpensive power to get this done.

Professor Emeritus Don Easterbrook of WWU testified March 26th, 2013 in front of the Washington State Senate’s Energy Environment & Telecommunications Committee.  The Link to the testimony is here.

I wanted to write this article in connection with the local WWU article in the Easter Sunday Herald. 

Sadly, I was sorely disappointed in what the 12 learned men and women had to add to my education on the subject.  Besides poking at their former distinguished colleague they seemed to want to close down conversation on an issue that needs good scientists explaining the science to us ratepayers, taxpayers and job-seekers.  Nonetheless here is the link to the WWU’s professor’s opinions on Professor Easterbrook.

So I went elsewhere.

There is some science that criticizes Dr. Easterbrook AND seems to infer that “consensus predicted increases in average temperatures” in the last decade have NOT occurred as much as predicted and that other factors have worked together to reduce the predicted temperatures. The following is from the Skeptical Science web site.

Highlights of the Article:

The accepted predictions: “Over the first decade or two of the 21st Century, the IPCC projected close to 0.2°C         surface warming per decade.” “On the other hand, Easterbrook’s two temperature projections showed a 0.2°C and     0.5°C cooling over this period”.

The actual temperature ranges proved to be between both predictions: The average of the… IPCC TAR…”         global surface temperature data sets shows a 0.08°C warming from 2000 through 2011”.

Confusion from global warming proponents on why their warming predictions did not occur:

The “skeptics” article implies that global warming has been “cooled” by other factors…

“There are several reasons for this reduced warming figure:  for example, aerosol emissions have risen, there has         been a preponderance of La Niña events at the end of this time-frame, there has been increased heat storage in the         deep oceans, and there was also an extended solar minimum.”


If any policymakers are making decisions on what are generally accepted IPCC TAR results… these results turned     out to be only 40% correct (IPCC 0.2 C Prediction to .08 C actual) over a decade for projecting future                     temperatures.

How much can our society afford if these predictions continue only to be 40% correct for decades to come?  And         what resources will we have wasted “fighting carbon” if the predictions are closer to Dr. Easterbrook’s in the next     decade?

Click Here for the Article Quoted Above

In an Article from the Economist:

A quote from a “Carbon” dogmatist includes the statement: “it is the burning of coal that reduces global                     temperatures”.

The quote:

“Hansen argues that the impact of human carbon dioxide emissions has been masked by the sharp increase in coal     use, primarily in China and India.

Increased particulate and nitrogen pollution has worked in the opposite direction of rising carbon dioxide levels in     the atmosphere.”

 Click Here for other opinions in the Economist article.

So I am a skeptic… without much science to back them… the Carbon dogmatists attribute the abject failure of their temperature models to Coal Burning, OR  aerosol emissions have risen, OR a preponderance of La Niña events, OR increased heat storage in the deep oceans,OR an extended solar minimum,  OR small volcanoes,  and so on.

Did the addition of 100 Billion tons of Carbon Dioxide to the atmosphere cause substantially higher than average global warming over the last decade.  No.  Scientist are scrambling to justify something that observation says did not occur.  And there is no science yet on a true measure on how much each of the mentioned factors affected the ultimate missed prediction of temperature increase.

There seems to be no ”end game” to this science…

No one seems to know what rate of warming or how much warming before we get to a point where global warming is “dangerous” to earth’s and human-kinds future.

No one seems to know how much action we need and what costs will “fix” the earth and stop “dangerous” global warming (as opposed to normal global warming).

For example this article and video from the Weekly Standard states that Germany spent  $110 Billion in subsidies alone to delay global warming for 37 Hours. By their estimates it would take $33 Trillion in subsidies to prevent half of the carbon that is said to have been added in the last 10 years.  Remember this is in subsidies, not in job cost, rates paid or new taxes or other economic factors.

We need to think about these policies as we go forward and we need to have the scientific community as open as possible to changes in observation and theory from all of their community all of the time to make certain we are making government decisions based on reality not necessarily on the oxymoron “Settled Science”.