Be informed and get loud America on America Out Loud Talk Radio. Truth, inspiration, and hope... American Exceptionalism lives in the hearts and minds of great patriots.

October 25, 2021

October 25, 2021

Your Source for Free Speech,
Talk Radio, Podcasts, and News.

Q: Why don’t we hear more about the Sun and its impact on Climate Change?

by | Feb 4, 2020 |

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A: Because the government can’t CONTROL and TAX THE SUN.
The left-leaning British Broadcasting Corporation admitted last week that the emissions scenario used in “more than 2,000 research papers” about our climate future was “misleading“ (headline later changed to “exceedingly unlikely”). According to Chico, California-based meteorologist Anthony Watts, author of Watts Up With That?, “the world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change,” this is the most significant blow to the climate alarmist movement since Climategate in 2009. Dr. Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, writes: 

BBC News this week rang down the curtain on the climate science fraternity’s long running malpractice of projecting climate change impacts using a worst-case emissions scenario as if it were a business-as-usual scenario.”

But no sophisticated understanding of emissions scenarios and climate science is required to realize the obvious flaws in the climate scare. Consider the following.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises only .04% (.0004) of our atmosphere. There is only 1/10,000 more CO2 in the atmosphere now than there was 260 years ago.
The effect of an increase from 3 molecules of CO2 per 10,000 molecules to 4 molecules out of 10,000, that took over two and one-half centuries to increase just 1 molecule, is at best minute, and, most likely, essentially nothing.
The pro-global warming hypothesis is not just that warming is bad (which it is not), but that CO2 from fossil fuels caused most of the past century’s warming and will cause the world to warm to a dangerous extent in the near future. While the premise should seem absurd to any rational person, it is still important to present strong evidence that man’s increasing use of fossil fuels, and thus increasing CO2, doesn’t significantly affect temperature, for the global warming alarmist argument to fail. Fortunately, there is not just one line of evidence, but many.
Have temperatures increased at the same pace as CO2 (correlation)? If two things move together, it doesn’t mean that one caused the other. Correlation doesn’t prove causation. But if the two phenomena under investigation don’t move in unison, it surely means one thing didn’t cause the other.
The fact that average temperatures did not rise much (other than during two naturally caused El Nino events) over the past two decades, during which about 1/3 of all human CO2 has been emitted, indicates that CO2 has no significant effect on real world temperatures. Thus, temperature is most likely not very sensitive to CO2, and the global warming argument fails. 
For the past 100 years, CO2 in the atmosphere has steadily but slowly increased (in no year did CO2 levels drop from the prior year), yet in some years, temperatures dropped. This is another example of low correlation, and so again, the global warming argument fails.
From about 1910 to the 1940’s, when there was relatively little man-made CO2 from fossil fuels, Earth’s temperatures increased. In fact, about 40% of the 20th century warming took place prior to man’s significant addition of CO2. 

After 1940, when there was an economic and industrial boom, and man added lots of CO2 from fossil fuels, temperatures decreased for about 40 years. Thus, again the man-caused global warming argument fails.
When there was a worldwide recession, around 1975, when manmade CO2 started to decrease, the records show a slight increase in temperatures. Again, the global warming argument fails.
As shown in the below graph, in the distant past, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been more than ten times what they are today. During those times, there has been both ice ages and warm periods. 

There have been times in history when CO2 levels were high and temperatures very low. And times in which CO2 levels were very low and temperatures very high. This negative correlation indicates that global warming argument fails again and the hypothesis of CO2 causing much real-world temperature change is almost certainly wrong. The above graph shows that, contrary to the opinions of climate activists, temperature and CO2 levels are not correlated over long periods of time.
While these examples may not convince everyone that the alarmist position is wrong, they should eliminate any thoughts that the alarmists have solid ground to stand on. Indeed, when there actually is correlation between temperature and CO2 in the atmosphere, it is a negative one: temperature increase comes first, before an increase in CO2. This makes sense because warming oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere just as a warm carbonated beverage loses its fizz.
If CO2 rise does not affect temperature, then what does?
The Sun is the most obvious answer, but, amazingly, it is mostly ignored in mathematical climate change models. We have learned that, contrary to popular opinion, the Sun is always changing. Many leading solar physicists suggest that variations in the output of the Sun account for most of the slight warming and changes in temperatures since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1880. There is also a strong correlation between sunspot activity and Earth’s temperature.

Temperature on other planets that revolve our Sun have changed in sync with Earth’s temperature changes. Clearly, this is a result of changes in solar output.
Why don’t we hear more about the Sun and its impact on climate change?
Because the government can’t control and tax the Sun.

There is also evidence that increasing ocean seismic activity, causing geothermal heating of the ocean floor is more strongly correlated with recent global temperature rise than CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. In fact, volcanos affect the Earth’s temperature far more than humans do since there are currently around 200 active volcanos. It is also believed that there are underwater volcanos that we have yet to detect. 
Changes in Earth’s orbit and tilt have been theorized, with a good deal of strong evidence, to also have a large effect on long-term temperature trends. Changes in cloud cover and ocean currents match global temperature changes as well.
The oceans act as a huge temperature regulator, making basically impossible the idea of a runaway, fast-paced dangerous atmospheric temperature rise as portrayed by alarmist politicians and the media. 
A basic principle of earth science is that natural feedbacks in the climate system balance out any sudden changes almost always bringing the system back into equilibrium. In fact, negative feedbacks have kept the Earth’s atmosphere relatively stable for the last 500 million years. Water vapor, evaporation, clouds, thunderstorms, gravity, and ocean circulation are mostly absent in the climate models but are the great balancers. This is why we don’t have run-away rapid changes suggested by those who trumpet that life as we know it will end in 12 years unless we stop using fossil fuels
There are hundreds of influencers thought to determine the Earth’s temperature. If we knew them all and the role they played, no computer in existence including IBM’s Watson, which is reputed to being able to process 500 gigabytes, equal to a million books, per second, could come up with an answer inside of a decade. To name but a few would include: 

  • water vapor, 
  • rainfall, 
  • soil moisture, 
  • evaporation, 
  • snowfall reflection, 
  • surface reflection ability, 
  • cloud reflection ability, 
  • ocean heat exchange, 
  • winds, solar flares, 
  • the Sun’s magnetic field, 
  • solar sun spots, 
  • interstellar dust, 
  • solar cycles, 
  • geomagnetic storms from the Sun, 
  • cosmic rays, 
  • magnetic field shifts, 
  • oscillations in Earth’s orbit, 
  • tilt of the Earth,  
  • gravity effect of the Moon, 
  • ocean currents, ocean circulation, 
  • ocean salinity, 
  • upwelling of the oceans, 
  • amount of cloud cover, 
  • type of clouds, 
  • tropical thunderstorms that move huge amount of heat from the oceans, up to the atmosphere, and release the heat out to space, 
  • El Nino verses La Nina, 
  • forest fires decreasing & increasing, 
  • volcanoes erupting,  
  • bacteria, animal, and plant respiration, 
  • natural decay of organic matter, and wood burning, 
  • increasing and decreasing, aerosols. 

The point is there are hundreds of variables that affect temperatures. The climate models that inform the alarmist argument use very few of them and, even for those, just guess at their influence.
For people who have studied climate change for over 40 years, like the senior author of this article, Dr. Jay Lehr⏤it is frustrating to know that the evidence against mankind having any role in it, is overwhelming. Yet the public and the opposition believe otherwise.
Perhaps you dear reader will help explain it to those in your sphere of influence. For significant though last week’s admission of the inappropriate use of unrealistic emissions scenarios was, it really pales in comparison to the common-sense flaws in the man-caused dangerous global warming argument.

Avatar

Dr. Jay Lehr is a Senior Policy Analyst with the International Climate Science Coalition and former Science Director of The Heartland Institute. He is an internationally renowned scientist, author, and speaker who has testified before Congress on dozens of occasions on environmental issues and consulted with nearly every agency of the national government and many foreign countries. After graduating from Princeton University at the age of 20 with a degree in Geological Engineering, he received the nation’s first Ph.D. in Groundwater Hydrology from the University of Arizona. He later became executive director of the National Association of Groundwater Scientists and Engineers.

Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition, and a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute. He has 40 years experience as a mechanical engineer/project manager, science and technology communications professional, technical trainer, and S&T advisor to a former Opposition Senior Environment Critic in Canada’s Parliament.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
38 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Harris
1 year ago

Get ready for “Dave James” to quickly show up and attempt to debunk our piece. Here is some interesting background on him (if indeed, he is really one person):
Russell Cook posted:
“But in just the last year, the comment count from “Dave James” more than doubled, to an average approaching 6 comments per day, EVERY day.”
So, one naturally wonders: is there a single person named “Dave James” who must be spending most of his life posting comments to oppose me (as many of his comments show considerable research), or is there a team of researchers and posters who post under the name “Dave James?”
Some other info Mr. Cook supplied:
“The guy is insulted when I call him a comment stalker, but he routinely returns within hours and proves he is one. Write another of your articles at practically any online outlet anywhere around the world, and he predictably shows up to offer his strange guilt-by-association narratives about you within hours of the article’s publication. ”
Mr. Cook continues in another post:
“rummage through the collection of articles here at AmericaOutLoud authored by “Dr. Jay Lehr & Tom Harris” and count up the number of times when “Dave James” has NOT come in to criticize Lehr & Harris. Like I said in my comment 3 days back, “Dave James” is an online comment stalker, with no life other than that activity. Click on his Disqus comment account link that he provided in his Jan 22 comment and take the time to go back through his four year commenting history, and it becomes abundantly obvious who he stalks. Find his Facebook account with the url string “/profile.php?id=100009262716514” after the main url address which has the 3 penguins avatar illustration, and you’ll see ol’ Dave uses FB entirely for the purpose of commenting at Harris’ articles where a Facebook login is required to enable commenting. At least Harris has Facebook Friends to correspond with. I have plenty myself, just added a new one who’s a prominent staffer at a research center. How many FB Friends does “Dave James” have? Zip. Zero. Nada. But his account sure does prove my point about him.”
It is hard to argue with Mr. Cook’s points and so I simply conclude by posting the following:
This Disqus profile – https://disqus.com/by/disqus_JzQ88MTX2I/following/ – shows that since March 31, 2016, Mr. James has made 4,291 comments. Here is a sample of some of his many, many posts apparently trying to discredit my writings in online article comment sections: https://www.google.ca/search?site=&source=hp&q=%22Tom+Harris%22+%22Dave+James%22&gws_rd=cr&ei=nyGDWefuDavcjwSb-oK4DA . I already explained to Mr. James that many of his points are either wrong or misleading . I will not waste any more time explaining this to him, unless other people bring up the same or similar questions.

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Tom Harris
1 year ago

Tom Harris’ repetition of Russel Cook’s petty personal attacks don’t hurt me but reflect badly on both Mr. Cook and Mr. Harris. It also shows Mr. Harris poor judgement and lack of originality.
Tom Harris asserts he has “already explained to Mr. James that many of his points are either wrong or misleading . I will not waste any more time explaining this to him, unless other people bring up the same or similar questions.” Stating my points are either wrong or misleading before they have been written defies logic. Mr. Harris and Dr. Jay Lehr have so little confidence in their own arguments that Mr. Harris has to preemptively refuse to discuss his own opinion piece.

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Tom Harris
1 year ago

Mr. Tom Harris attributes comments that he wrote to Russell Cook. Mr. Tom Harris wrote, “So, one naturally wonders: is there a single person named “Dave James” who must be spending most of his life posting comments to oppose me (as many of his comments show considerable research), or is there a team of researchers and posters who post under the name “Dave James?” Curious to hear what people think.” (Source Comments Section of “Getting Ahead of Earth Day’s 50th Anniversary” By Dr. Jay Lehr & Tom Harris, Jan 21, 2020 America Outloud)
Mr. Harris asked others to speculate if I am more than one person not Mr. Cook.

Russell Cook
Russell Cook
Reply to  Tom Harris
1 year ago

@Tom Harris: Well, look who finally showed up here after we’ve been talking about him behind his back for a few days. I lost a bet with myself that he’d choose not to comment here in order to look less like a comment stalker who feels compelled to otherwise criticize you practically everywhere your online pieces are published. He seems to still hold bizarre comprehension problems about how you’ve already knocked down his predictable guilt-by-association slurs against you and that he might show up some day in the future to offer something entirely different after all these years. His typos and grammar errors here and elsewhere lately are another point of amusement, and it’s fun to see how he’s now totally sidestepped what I’ve pointed out about his comment posting frequency uptick over the last year, and oddly made nothing more than a truism comment elsewhere here about how you were speculating that it might be more than one person commenting under his name. That’s not actually a point of dispute of which of us offered that speculation. How weird of him to veer off in that tangent. He provides some entertainment value, I guess. The claim that I’ve ‘switched roles’ is one he couldn’t prove if his reputation — such as it is — depended on it. I’m not the one who pre-emptively wrote a comment about his predicted arrival, you did, and I replied to it since you had emailed me about it. Otherwise I’d never had known to come in here. Question is, how does “Dave James” know about this article and comment section if he wasn’t out on the lookout for it, stalker-style?

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Russell Cook
1 year ago

Mr. Tom Harris and Mr. Russell Cook share a mistaken belief that politely critizing the content of Mr. Harris’ and Dr. Jay Lehr’s opinion piece is a slur and stalking. The whole reason America Out Loud provides a comment section to provide and platform for open and honest debate about the op-eds.
America Outloud is a public website. Everyone with an internet connection has access to Dr. Lehr’s and Mr. Harris’ op-eds. Russell Cook asserts is no way to know their op-eds existed “if he wasn’t out on the lookout for it, stalker-style.” Mr. Cook’s name-calling makes no sense. Both Mr. Harris and the Heartland Institute promote his op-eds in America Out Loud.
Russell Cook asserts there is no proof that he has changed roles from “get in and fight back” in comment sections to preemptively launching personal attacks. Mr. Cook is mistaken. These posts have time stamps. Mr. Cook refers to “”Dave” and his assorted fellow stalkers” on February 7, 2020 at 1:55 am prior to my first post on February 7, 2020 at 8:37 pm.
Pointing out Mr. Harris falsely attributes his own speculation to Mr. Cook is telling. Writing false quotes impacts a person’s credibility. Mr. Harris’ irrational speculation and his invitation to others to comment on it is very odd. “…is there a team of researchers and posters who post under the name “Dave James?” Curious to hear what people think.”
Mr. Cook writes about “bizarre comprehension problems” and then asserts Mr. Harris has already knocked down my “predictable guilt-by-association slurs” against Mr. Harris. However, I criticized Mr. Harris for: 1) repeating Mr. Cook’s insults and name-calling, 2) preemptively refusing to discuss his own opinion piece and 3) falsely attributing his own words to Mr. Cook, none of which is either a slur or guilt-by-association.

Russell Cook
Russell Cook
Reply to  Tom Harris
1 year ago

@Tom: Piling on: In one way, there’s entertainment value in watching how commenter “Dave James” attempts to spin what he does into an innocent single-time ‘criticism of the content of Mr. Harris’ and Dr. Jay Lehr’s opinion piece.’ Let’s frame it this way: if a person showed up one time for the appearance of a Hollywood starlet and criticized her interpretations of a particular acting style while also saying her agenda was actually the promotion of a certain clothing industry’s public character style, people would say the critic is entitled to that kind of opinion. If the critic showed up at a few more of the starlet’s public appearances, well, ok. But when the critic shows up at pretty much all of the starlet’s appearances over the next four years, nobody is going to say the guy is simply too critical of the starlet, they are going to label him as a STALKER of the starlet.
Yep, there are probably thousands of public websites like America Out Loud which contain material about just the global warming issue, just as there would be multitudes of public venues where countless numbers of starlets are approachable by members of the public. But when one specific critic shows up at such places like clockwork, so much so that people who know about this pattern speculate that he won’t miss one where they talk about him BEFORE he shows up, what kind of label would you expect to be applied to that critic, and would it be out of line to wonder how this critic finds these specific public appearances?
Luv the unsupportable speculation by “Dave James” that the ‘role’ he alleges for me has changed because of a single comment REPLY of mine among the 2300+ others I’ve made over the last eight years on the global warming issue, which was not the initial comment to appear in this comment section. As I’ve said before elsewhere in jousts with “Dave James”, he couldn’t prove the other ‘role’ he alleges for me ever existed if his reputation depended on it, no matter how often he cites a particular interview of me where neither Harris nor I never described my comment activities as some kind of sinisterly-assigned “role.” My basic self-assigned role is to detail how the ‘liars-for-hire’ accusation falls apart, as is abundantly seen in my 70+ online articles and 250+ blog posts. My occasional sidebar hobby interest in this issue going back to 2008 has been to ask AGW proponents how they prove the assertions they make. Simply curiosity, no more. When Tom Harris became aware of how adept I was at goading hapless AGW commenters into spewing indefensible positions, he asked me to apply that to his assortment of comment stalkers, knowing how much of a slave to temptation I was for watching the too-predictable reactions of AGW commenters. I just hope that from my example of illustrating how inept and desperate AGW believers become on supporting the hopeless knee-jerk defense responses they blurt out, more people will see how vulnerable that mob is to probing questions.
What role, self-imposed or mandated by someone else, does “Dave James” have in this issue? Without the ability of friends and foes alike to know who he is outside of his “Dave ‘I-won’t-confirm-if-that’s-my-first-&-last-name’ James” commenter ID, who knows what his involvement is? But start at the beginning of his Disqus comment account back in 2016 and at the beginning of his Facebook account, count up the number of times he writes the name “Harris” in either place, and there is no doubt what his role is: find where Harris’ pieces appear and write online comments insinuating association with a think tank that’s widely vilified as a corrupt shill of industry interests while trashing Harris’ opinions.
Finally, who is the person having unmistakable comprehension problems on determining what either I or Tom Harris said regarding comment irrefutable quantity vs speculation about multi-users of a single comment account? Clearly, it is “Dave James”, to the level of bizarre incoherence. Folks should see his latest stalking of my comments in the Disqus system illustrating his concept comprehension shortcomings. When I say it strays into comical territory, I’m not kidding.

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Russell Cook
1 year ago

Mr. Tom Harris and Mr. Russell Cook attack me because they have no rational response to my criticisms of Dr. Lehr’s and Mr. Harris’ opinion piece.
Russell Cook compares Dr. Lehr and Mr. Harris to a “a Hollywood starlet” and my criticism of the false and misleading opinion piece to criticism of a starlet’s “acting style.” But science is not like acting. Acting is subjective. Science is about evidence. Mr. Harris’ and Dr. Lehr’s assertions in the opinion piece are not supported by the scientific evidence.
Tom Harris said one of Mr. Cook’s roles is “get in and fight back” in comment sections with people who disagree with their worldview regarding climate during an interview for Mr. Harris’ podcast. (Source “Exploratory Journeys with Tom Harris” Episode – 17, Nov 27, 2019: Tom interviews Russell Cook) Mr. Cook changed his role from “fighting back” to preemptively launching personal attacks against me in this comment section as the date stamps show.
A false comparison and denying a statement made in Mr. Harris podcast is less than convincing.

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Russell Cook
1 year ago

Russell Cook writes that I “…write online comments insinuating association with a think tank that’s widely vilified as a corrupt shill of industry interests…” but this is another straw-man argument by Mr. Cook.
I’ve never written the Heartland Institute think-tank was “vile” or a “corrupt shill of industry interests.” Mr. Tom Harris’ and Dr. Jay Lehr’s association with Heartland Institute think-tank is a fact. (Source by-line for Dr. Jay Lehr and Mr. Tom Harris in this opinion piece)

Russell Cook
Russell Cook
1 year ago

Thanks for the mention here. Wish I could remember the occasion years back when you first told me you had online comment stalker critics following the publications of your online writings around the internet. I’d never even considered that such an individual would exist, and the idea of becoming one would never cross my mind. It would look just plain creepy, and the pattern would be hard, if not impossible to hide if I was to keep at it long enough before others noticed.
A couple of entertainment points here: first, regarding your quote of my remark about “Dave James”‘ comments-per-day TOTAL figure that can be easily calculated from his Disqus comment system account, I thought it was funny within your Jan 21st piece’s comment section where I noted his daily average, he subsequently reworded your identical quoting of me there to say “Mr. Harris asserts I write six comments a day opposing him but a quick review of my Disqus profile (which he links to) shows his assertion is false.” “Dave”‘s middle names should be “false premise.” From mid January last year up to today, he’s put out a bit over 2300 comments. From mid January last year to today is a round figure of 390 days. 2300 divided by 390 equals 5.897 …. or upwards of a 6-comments-per-day average. The math is indisputable. True, the briefest of glimpses into his Disqus comment account on the day he put out that comically misdirected false premise assertion shows he had three or four comments for the day. A look into his account late this evening of comments designated as “hours ago” shows he’s put out 20 comments within the last 24 hours. He seems not to comprehend how an average is calculated over a usable length of time reveals an observable pattern. More bizarre is how oblivious he is about so much of his commenting history (up until recently when he branched out a bit more) being directed straight at you.
The second entertainment point is his stalker status. I’ve mentioned before that I occasionally look into his account to see what sort of comments he’s putting out, but it’s not an everyday thing for me since I have other priorities to take care of. He admitted one time, if I remember correctly, that he monitors your Facebook account in order to see your announcement posts on where your latest articles appear – how else would he know about them otherwise? That would have to be a daily activity on his part, perhaps several times a day, which would explain how he is able to regularly be among the first, if not THE first, commenter to appear at your pieces comment sections. Maybe his lack of appearing here is either due to your pre-emptive comment strike, or he missed your Facebook announcement post of this article.
Where else might he be stalking? Well, if you drop just the last name of your article co-author here, “Lehr,” into a page search window at “Dave”‘s comment account, and count through just one week’s worth of posts, he writes Lehr’s name 47 times in all his posts at CFACT articles, where two of those articles were authored by Lehr. But “Dave” didn’t limit himself to that. I posted a comment reply at a PBS NewsHour broadcast transcript segment comment section a few days ago that had nothing to do with the climate issue, but I put in my own small zinger about the NewsHour’s biased global warming reporting as a reply to another commenter who was dismayed about their incomplete reporting of the Iowa Caucuses situation. Who showed up there within hours of my comment? “Dave James,” replying directly to me. How would he know my comment was there? My own comment average since 2012 is less than 1 comment per day, and I sometimes go for weeks between comments. He can’t simply be occasionally looking into my Disqus account occasionally to catch where I’m commenting and reply in that short of a time interval, he must be keeping an eye on my account every day, perhaps several times a day. The identical thing happened at a PBS NewsHour comment of mine 17 days earlier. “Dave” arrived within hours to directly reply to me. It’s a pattern I’ve seen quite a bit over the last few years.
The guy valiantly tries to steer my accurate labeling of him away by implying I stalk him, which is both preposterous and baffling. You’ve invited me into your comment sections on various occasions because you’ve long known about my success in pointing out your critics’ errant assertions and accusations, which dates back years before “Dave James” first showed up. It would be interesting if someone had the time to go through my 2359 total Disqus comments to date and see just how small the number is that qualify as out-of-the-blue direct comments to “Dave James.” More telling would be how few opportunities “Dave” has missed for placing a direct comment about you in your total number of articles, op-eds, and letters-to-the-editor pieces. I think it would be a worthwhile investigative story to pursue, considering how it encompasses your other comment stalkers. I have nothing to hide regarding my involvement in this overall online commenting situation, but I wonder if “Dave” and his assorted fellow stalkers do.

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Russell Cook
1 year ago

Russell Cook writes that I have implied he stalks me. (“The guy valiantly tries to steer my accurate labeling of him away by implying I stalk him, which is both preposterous and baffling.”) This is a straw-man argument. Unlike Mr. Cook, I don’t use insults and name-calling because they are irrational and unpersuasive. I find polite and well-documented arguments far more compelling.
In the past, I’ve written that Mr. Cook is a blogger and a fellow Heartland associate of Mr. Harris. (Source archived bio of Russell Cook on the Heartland website) One of Mr. Cook’s roles is “get in and fight back” in comment sections with people who take issue with false and misleading op-eds by Heartland associates. (Source “Exploratory Journeys with Tom Harris” Episode – 17, Nov 27, 2019: Tom interviews Russell Cook)
Mr. Cook’s role has changed from “get in and fight back” in comment sections to preemptively launching personal attacks against me because I am too critical of Mr. Harris’ opinion pieces.

Dave James
Dave James
1 year ago

Mr. Tom Harris’ and Dr. Jay Lehr’s assertion that the Sun is responsible for the current global warming is not supported by the scientific evidence. “The Sun provides the primary source of energy driving Earth’s climate system, but its variations have played very little role in the climate changes observed in recent decades. Direct satellite measurements since the late 1970s show no net increase in the Sun’s output, while at the same time global surface temperatures have increased.” (Source “Climate Change: Evidence & Causes” An overview from the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences)
Dr. Lehr’s and Mr. Harris’ feel the the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is so tiny it can’t have a major impact. They state, “The effect of an increase from 3 molecules of CO2 per 10,000 molecules to 4 molecules out of 10,000, that took over two and one-half centuries to increase just 1 molecule, is at best minute, and, most likely, essentially nothing.” However, Mr. Harris and Dr. Lehr accept the scientific evidence that a tiny amount of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere is key to all life on Earth.
The physical properties of CO2 are well understood. The effect of greenhouse gases on the temperature of Earth is well understood. The scientific evidence of human-caused climate change is clear and convincing. (Source 4th National Climate Assessment (NCA4), Volume I) In fact Chapter 2: Physical Drivers of Climate Change, Volume I, NCA4 goes into the depth on the natural and anthropogenic drivers of climate change including evidence from hundreds of papers published in respect scientific journals which can be read by clicking on the citations.
Finally, Mr. Harris and Dr. Lehr assert that, “For people who have studied climate change for over 40 years, like the senior author of this article, Dr. Jay Lehr⏤it is frustrating to know that the evidence against mankind having any role in it, is overwhelming. ” But, Dr. Jay Lehr has never studied climate science or related fields. His doctorate is in Groundwater Hydrology. (Source Jay Lehr’s by-line) Dr. Lehr has conducted no research in climate science or related fields and Dr. Lehr has never published any papers concerning climate science or related fields. (Source bio of Jay Lehr, Heartland Institute website)

Bob Webster
Bob Webster
Reply to  Dave James
1 year ago

I am struck by the fact that, it isn’t that you don’t know anything about this subject, rather, it’s that so much of what you know simply isn’t true.
There is a strong link between solar activity and climate change. That has been clearly demonstrated on several fronts. Sunspot count is a good indicator of solar activity. A strong solar grand maximum coincided with warming from 1980-2000. Solar activity is linked to cloud formation that has an important link to climate change. The claim there was no increase in the Sun’s activity since the late 1970s belies the solar activity link with sunspot activity.
You recite the minimal amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and even include the “fossil fuel” contribution is minuscule; yet you never actually deal with the fact that an insignificant change in atmospheric CO2 cannot possibly impact global climate, preferring to make an entirely unrelated statement about the gas of life being rare in the atmosphere. So what was the point?
Are you unaware that there is no correlation between changing atmospheric CO2 and changing climate in any timeframe of consequence during the past half billion years? Real climate science doesn’t change over time. Are you unaware that recent concentrations of atmospheric CO2 have been dangerously low and are atypical for the past half billion years during which the average atmospheric CO2 concentration has been more than 2100 ppm? Are you unaware that most plants on Earth today evolved when Earth’s atmospheric concentration was greater than 800-1200 ppm? Are you unaware that Earth is in the most recent of only seven ice eras (averaging 50 million years each) and it is also in an ice epoch that began 2.4 million years ago? Do you realize that year-round polar ice only exists during long-period ice ages/interglacial cycles of ice epochs? Are you unaware that long-period ice age/interglacial cycles have existed only during the past 1 million years of the current ice epoch within an ice era? Do you not know that humans have never experienced Earth’s typical climate (global average about 72.5 deg. F vs about 59 deg F today)?
Are you unaware that the atmospheric absorption spectra for CO2 are small and few (compared with water vapors wide coverage)? Are you aware that only one of CO2’s absorption spectra overlap Earth’s outbound radiant IR and that portion of the IR is significantly shared with water vapor? Are you aware that claims that methane (CH4) is a potent “greenhouse gas” are absurd because methane is reactive to only two very small spectra of the IR on the fringe of outbound IR from Earth, both of which are dominated by water vapor’s absorption of IR?
The effect of greenhouse gases on changing climate are theoretical, and the claims based on that theory are contradicted by the evidence from geologic reconstructions, ice core analyses, and contemporary measurements since the late 19th century. There is a difference between the greenhouse effect and a theory that claims greenhouse gases are a potent climate change force. They are not.
One needs only examine the evidence and apply The Scientific Method’s demand that every theory must agree with observation (records of the key measures, CO2 concentration and global average surface temperatures).
When theory is contradicted by evidence, the theory is invalid.

BlueStar
BlueStar
1 year ago

Why does Jay Lehr lie about having studied climate change for over 40 years? https://www.desmogblog.com/jay-h-lehr

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  BlueStar
1 year ago

Dr. Jay Lehr and Mr. Tom Harris have an agenda but it is not science. Mr. Harris’ and Dr. Lehr’s opinion pieces show they are pro-coal activists:
“Trump right to try to end the WAR ON COAL” Jay Lehr & Tom Harris, Apr 16, 2019, America Out Loud,
“Time to end the war on coal” Jay Lehr & Tom Harris, May 14, 2019, Citizens Journal,
“Clean coal for the future” Tom Harris, Feb 9, 2018, Idaho Press,
“Coal key to national security strategy” Tom Harris, Jan 13, 2018, The Spectrum,
“Climate scare must be debunked for coal to recover” Tom Harris, Jan 2, 2018, Superior Telegram,
“Harris: Coal has many uses” Tom Harris, Sep 3, 2018, Casper Star Tribune

Russell Cook
Russell Cook
Reply to  BlueStar
1 year ago

@ Commenter BlueStar: False arguments and insults are less convincing than polite and well-reasoned posts.
That isn’t me saying that, it’s a copy ‘n paste out of the 4350+ comments in the Disqus dot com account of “Dave James.” As a point of amusement, you might rummage through his comment collection there to see how many variants of that statement he has, and how often they are repeated among all his comments over the years, along with how many other repetitions there are of particular statements such as “Tom Harris has an agenda but it is not science.” One begins to wonder if “Dave James” actually composes a large portion of his comments from scratch, or if he has some kind of clever time-saving way of stitching together a comment reply to critics composed of copies ‘n pastes of pre-written statements.
Meanwhile, to illustrate absurdity with absurdity: Commenter “BlueStar”, how do you find the time to comment here when you spend so much time covering up your domestic violence problems? That, in case it isn’t obvious, is a false premise question on my part. If I myself was to ask why Al Gore feels compelled to lie about having studied climate change for over 40 years, it would be technically accurate because Gore has no climate science expertise, and he’s never published a climate science paper in a peer-reviewed science journal on the topic. But everyone would see my question to Gore is ludicrous. Gore has obviously studied the issue in depth since the early 1980s.
One more thing: might want to choose a source for your accusations less unbiased than Desmog. That place, if you aren’t aware of it, was co-founded by Jim Hoggan, who admitted in a 2014 video presentation that he both knew nothing about climate science, but was nevertheless prompted to create Desmog in order to expose skeptic climate scientists as liars, and based this spur-of-the-moment decision on the writings of Ross Gelbspan, who also had no climate science expertise and has never provided the public with evidence proving skeptic climate scientists are paid by fossil fuel industry executives to spread disinformation. No need to trust me on this, it is exactly what you’d discover for yourself if you undertook an objective, unbiased look into the origins of the ‘crooked skeptics’ accusation.

BlueStar
BlueStar
Reply to  Russell Cook
1 year ago

Russell Cook, since you don’t like desmogblog, provide any bio of Jay Lehr which includes his studies in climate change!!! Jay Lehr says he studied climate change for over 40 years but his biography says he studied ground water and with no mention of climate. https://web.archive.org/web/20080808133636/http://www.wileywater.com/Editor.htm Why does Jay Lehr lie about studying climate?
Russell Cook suggests Al Gore studied climate change for 40 years. There is not such thing in Gore’s bio. Gore’s education was in government and journalism. https://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/16/president.2000/gore.biography/ Gore was a Senator, Vice-President and a businessmen.

Russell Cook
Russell Cook
Reply to  BlueStar
1 year ago

@ Commenter “BlueStar”: Dude, you probably didn’t understand the subtlety of my comparison. Your gripe is over a point of semantics. Could article author Tom Harris have phrased his sentence differently? E.g.”… people who have examined the climate change issue for over 40 years, like the senior author of this article, Dr. Jay Lehr …” / “… people familiar with climate change ….” / “… people who’ve questioned climate change ….” Yes, he could have done so. But your effort here looks like an act of desperation designed to impugn the integrity of Dr Lehr.
Let’s look at a opposite example, to understand the difference between a semantics situation and one of egregiously false and unmistakable labeling which actually appears to be designed to deceive the public: Al Gore’s 2006 movie companion book describes a person, Ross Gelbspan (who supposedly discovered a sinister leaked industry memo proving the corruption of skeptic climate scientists), as a Pulitzer-winning reporter. Fenton Communications labeled Gelbspan as a Pulitzer winner in their press release for his 1997 “The Heat is On” book The book jacket sleeve’s inside front flap for that book calls him a Pulitzer winner. The outside book jacket cover for Gelbspan’s 2004 “Boiling Point” says he is a Pulitzer winner, half of the accolade in capital letters. Gelbspan’s own bio page that he apparently distributed in 1997 at a reinsurance industry seminar said he won a Pulitzer. And, not only was Gelbspan Desmog’s star blogger when it first started, he also declared in an interview years later that he had helped to found Desmog. But go to the authority on this award matter, the Pulitzer organization’s own website, drop Gelbspan’s name into their database search window, and you instantly discover Gelbspan never won a Pulitzer. Tell us, what obvious question now arises out of that result? It’s one you yourself can ask, and nobody would be able to say this example merely results from a sentence that could be restated in other ways.

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Russell Cook
1 year ago

Russell Cook dismisses Dr. Jay Lehr’s false statement about “studying climate change for over 40 years” as a gripe about semantics. He writes calling out Dr. Lehr false his statement is “an act of desperation designed to impugn the integrity of Dr Lehr.” Mr. Cook mistakes polite and rational debate for false and egregious name-calling and vice-versa.
Mr. Cook attempts to deflect criticism away from Dr. Lehr for his false claim by accusing someone else of the falsifying their resume. That is not a sound argument.

BlueStar
BlueStar
Reply to  Russell Cook
1 year ago

Russell Cook, I get your point about Tom Harris being the author of this article. Who would refer to himself in the third person in a article he wrote? Your point raises more questions that it answers.
Why is Tom Harris lying about Jay Lehr studying climate change for over 40 years? Why does Harris lie about Jay Lehr being senior author of this article?

Russell Cook
Russell Cook
Reply to  BlueStar
1 year ago

@ Commenter “BlueStar”: Oh. I see it now. Was wondering why you were initially linking to a Desmog profile in your first Feb 8 comment here that didn’t contain anything about Dr Lehr saying he’d studied climate change for 40 years. They just added that there. Pointless circular reference now, though, isn’t it? Don’t know if this means you have any sway with the Desmog people, but I would’ve placed that whole bit in the “Key Deeds” section. I think most folks interpret “deeds” to be the same as “actions,” thus you’d summarize more of the assortment of actions he’s taken, and move the most notable quotes from the actions into the “Key Quotes” section. Speaking of that – man! – Desmog’s first undated blob of “New York City Council” testimony quotes serves what purpose?? Well, what can anyone expect if they relegate those profile pages to hapless interns, which I assume they do. I felt sorry for whoever assembled my Desmog profile, I’m sure the person hated assembling it and hoped their supervisor wouldn’t say something like, “is that all you got on this guy?”
My bad, I meant to write “co-authors Harris & Lehr” in my Feb 11 comment. Force of habit, since Harris had been the sole author of many articles over the years that I’ve run across. Co-authors refer to themselves in the third person in their articles, it would cause confusion if they said “I” because readers would wonder which author is referring to himself. Or it would look weird, e.g. “For people who have followed climate change for over 40 years like I, Dr. Jay Lehr ….” Surprising that you didn’t think that out, but you might be quite young and not understand such things.
Meanwhile, if the assertion ever goes out that Dr Lehr is falsely overstating his climate science education expertise, and the only “evidence” there is for that is this AmericaOutLoud piece, the odds are that the people in Desmog Legal will look at it and erase the whole section. When a solitary reference like this hinges on the word “studied” and otherwise crashes and burns if the word is changed to “followed,” that’s too flimsy to pin all your hopes on this accusation staying afloat. Problematic that this is to make an accusation about false resumé enhancement stick against Dr Lehr, Desmog’s archived page link for this piece here also includes the comment section here, where I note how their former star blogger and co-creator has apparently committed a far more egregious form of resumé falsification that’s widely seen across the span of more than a decade, as opposed to just one line in a relatively obscure article. If I was the hapless intern at Desmog in charge of Dr Lehr’s and Tom Harris’ profiles (I see this thing is duplicated there, too), at a minimum I’d rework that archive capture to delete the comment section.
Hit Dr Lehr with this accusation, and he’d say “I’ve followed the issue for 40 years, idiot, just like Gore has!” Hit Desmog with Gelbspan’s false Pulitzer accolades and his years of lame spin attempts to bury that fatal problem, along with ancillary questions about his role in the formation of Desmog, and all of Desmog could possibly crash and burn, wiping out James Hoggan’s entire legacy. It’s not really something I’d think they’d want any attention drawn to, because of the way so many of their own supporters would see how damaging that is to the organization. This would be stuff handed on a silver platter to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and all of Desmog’s critics.

BlueStar
BlueStar
Reply to  Russell Cook
1 year ago

Russell Cook, saying other people also lie about their resumes doesn’t excuses Harris & Lehr. You say the only evidence Lehr overstates his climate science education is in this article. That’s why I asked why is Jay Lehr lying about studying climate change for over 40 years? You replied my question was a insult. So asked you to provide any Jay Lehr bio in which he studies in climate change. You provided none because none exist. https://www.ncba.org/CMDocs/BeefUSA/Meetings/Summer%20Conference/Lehr's%20bio%202011.pdf

Russell Cook
Russell Cook
Reply to  BlueStar
1 year ago

@ Commenter “BlueStar”: Interesting. You seem to be displaying the same style of concept comprehension difficulties that the “Dave James” commenter has long had a history of being plagued with. Clearly, I didn’t say the ‘evidence of Dr Lehr overstating his experience is here’, I said — verbatim — “if the assertion ever goes out that Dr Lehr is falsely overstating his climate science education expertise, and the only “evidence” there is for that is this AmericaOutLoud piece, the odds are that the people in Desmog Legal will look at it and erase the whole section.” I didn’t bother to provide any other bio for Dr Lehr because I believe your own accusation precariously hinges entirely on a semantics interpretation of a single word.
I don’t know how you can miss what I clearly said, or why you’d twist it, deliberately or ignorantly, into a false premise statement. If your statement is weak via the simple substitution of one word, and there’s no evidence anywhere else that Dr Lehr has made a false statement about his expertise, then the “evidence” YOU point to here is beyond dicey, something the Desmog people would be hesitant to say themselves is evidence of resumé falsification. Is it really necessary for me to hand-walk you through your faulty reasoning? Unfortunate that you take my above reply to be an insult, but I’m sincere when I say you haven’t reasoned this situation out, perhaps because you are too young. If I may advise it, I wouldn’t get into the habit of mimicking the bit about insults that “Dave James” routinely uses, it doesn’t actually work well for him, either. Sorta clever to score a debate point against critics on a superficial level, maybe, but most folks see right through that tactic as little more than a sidestep maneuver away from arguments that fall flat on their face.

BlueStar
BlueStar
Reply to  BlueStar
1 year ago

Harris & Lehr wrote, “For people who have studied climate change for over 40 years, like the senior author of this article, Dr. Jay Lehr…” in this article. You say if Lehr had not used the word “studied” or if Lehr had simply substituted one word, he would not have overstated his climate science education expertise. Your hypothetical assumptions don’t excuse the false statement written by Harris & Lehr.

Russell Cook
Russell Cook
Reply to  BlueStar
1 year ago

@ Commenter “BlueStar”: Dude, the only one anywhere claiming Dr Lehr overstated his qualifications is Y-O-U. I say he did not if the implication was that he’s examined / looked over / been familiar with / the climate issue for 40 years. Again, don’t fall into the pitfalls that the “Dave James” commenter does of utilizing false premise statements to make a case. Astute folks see right through that every time. Since you seem to know a decent amount about Dr Lehr, the larger question is, how long have you studied the climate issue to know more about it overall? Is your response that you’ve never studied it, if we are to use your line of reasoning on semantics?

BlueStar
BlueStar
Reply to  BlueStar
1 year ago

You say I know a decent amount about Lehr. I know Harris & Lehr’s statement that Lehr studied climate change for over 40 years does not match his resume. https://prfamerica.org/biography/Biography-Lehr-Jay.htmlphd
You say my studies are a bigger question than Lehr’s studies. It’s obvious why Lehr’s education impacts the veracity of his claim to have studied climate change for over 40 years, but why are my studies important?

Russell Cook
Russell Cook
Reply to  BlueStar
1 year ago

@ Commenter “BlueStar”: Man, that just sailed right over your head, didn’t it? Again, read your own Feb 17 comment, but replace your word “studied / studies” with the words “examined / examinations.” You are painting yourself into an indefensible corner on an effort to make a mountian out of the molehill of the word “studied.” It’s a free country, say what you wish, but this really isn’t working out well for you.
One other question, while I have your attention: is it a pure coincidence that you bopped in here on Feb 8 pointing to Desmog profile page that subsequently referred to this America Out Loud piece, or do you have some kind of influence with Desmog which prompted that addition that you’d like to share with the reading audience here? It’s basically a yes or no question.

BlueStar
BlueStar
Reply to  BlueStar
1 year ago

Harris & Lehr chose the word “studied”. I didn’t. Harris and Lehr painted themselves in a corner with a statement that contradicts Lehr’s bio.
You did not answer my question. It’s obvious why Lehr’s education impacts the veracity of his claim to have studied climate change for over 40 years, but why are my studies important?
Your compound question can’t be answered by “yes or no”. Yes, I wrote comment with a link to desmogblog profile of Lehr. No, I have no influence with desmogblog or their profile of Lehr.
Since you didn’t like desmogblog, I asked you to provide any bio of Jay Lehr which includes his studies in climate change. You provided nada. I linked to three Lehr biographies. Nothing supports Harris and Lehr’s statement that Lehr studied climate change for over 40 years.
ps Corrected link: https://prfamerica.org/biography/Biography-Lehr-Jay.html

Russell Cook
Russell Cook
Reply to  BlueStar
1 year ago

@ Commenter “BlueStar”: Dude, I answered your question in a subtle manner that’s twice now sailed over your head. One more time for good measure: I’ve studied the climate issue in quite some depth since 2008; you’ve studied the climate issue for as long as you have (maybe from just a few months from the looks of it); clearly, Al Gore has studied the issue since before 1988 and has spoken at length on the topic. Write a bio line to that effect, and AGWers across the board will say, “you’re telling me something I already know.” Your assertion that Dr Lehr has deceived the public so is paper thin as to be laughable, and you seem to lack the comprehension skills to see that.
Next questions: good to know you admit linking to a Desmog profile page BEFORE the stuff here appeared there and that you have NO influence over their material content. So how do you suppose that stuff ended up there after two years of inactivity in his profile, barely 3 days after your out-of-the-blue appearance here crowing about it. Pure coincidence? Care to speculate on other reasons? Why was your first choice of so-called evidence to disprove a single vague word here Desmog, instead of so many other available bio page choices that Dr Lehr himself would have written?

BlueStar
BlueStar
Reply to  BlueStar
1 year ago

Your comparison of Jay Lehr to Al Gore does not answer my question. It’s obvious why Lehr’s education impacts the veracity of his claim to have studied climate change for over 40 years, but why are MY studies important?
Why has Al Gore never said he study climate change for over 40 years? Because it would be a lie. His bio shows he has never studied climate.
Lehr’s biographies describe his studies in detail. None of his education is in climate change. Harris and Lehr painted themselves in a corner.
Your statements about the desmogblog’s profile of Lehr are irrelevant since none of Lehr’s biographies support Harris and Lehr’s statement that Lehr studied climate change for over 40 years.

Russell Cook
Russell Cook
Reply to  BlueStar
1 year ago

@ Commenter “BlueStar”: Al Gore has never said he studied climate science, period? You’re sure of that? How is it, then, that he spoke so well of his college professor climate scientist Dr Roger Revelle in his 1992 “Earth in the Balance” book? If you’ve studied the climate issue for as little as you appear to have done, you would be oblivious to that, wouldn’t you? But ok, let’s try another example if all of this is still sailing over your head: I assume you will stipulate that the journalist/activist Bill McKibben is not a climate scientist and by default would have never studied climate science, similar to your insinuation about Dr Lehr. But here we have it, verbatim from his “The Bill McKibben Reader” book: “Always an omnivorous consumer of journalism, I’d begun reading the occasional reference to something called the ‘greenhouse effect.’ The more I studied what little science was available, the harder I was hit by the realization that this world I had suddenly woken up to was just as suddenly in mortal danger.”
By your definition, the great Bill McKibben is a liar. Be sure to alert Desmog about this, would you?

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  BlueStar
1 year ago

Your comparisons of Lehr to Bill McKibben doesn’t answer my question: It’s obvious why Lehr’s education impacts the veracity of his claim to have studied climate change for over 40 years, but why are MY studies important?
The McKibben’s quote acknowledges his lack of education and lack of expertise regarding climate. “I studied what little science was available”. Dr. Lehr claims to have studied climate science of over 40 years even though his studies in his biography includes nothing about climate.
Mr. Cook implies that Gore studied climate science because spoke well of a former professor, Dr. Roger Revelle a professor of population studies and the Director of Harvard Center for Population Studies. Mr. Cook implication is wrong because Gore never claimed to study climate science and one undergraduate course on population policy is not studying climate science.

Russell Cook
Russell Cook
Reply to  BlueStar
1 year ago

@”Dave James”: From your second paragraph in your February 23, 2020 at 4:50 pm comment, are you saying Bill McKibben is telling the world about his specific college classes he took that were studies of climate science, or are you saying he examined what he could publicly find about the issue at the time? The latter is essentially what Dr Lehr has done, but for a longer period of time. You can’t have it both ways, pal.
Regarding your lame effort to place Dr Revelle’s expertise out-of-context in your 3rd paragraph, his PhD was in oceanography, and his overall legacy on the global warming issue is not in dispute by anybody … except maybe you. It’s why Gore revered him as much as he did, and why Dr Revelle’s change of mind about the solidity of AGW science conclusions was such a big blow to Gore later. If this isn’t something you have the least acquaintance with, it’s because your studies of the issue are probably only a few years wide and a quarter inch deep.
Speaking of that, though, you’ve just now introduced a massive new problem, apparently an unforced error on your part. Your first paragraph – with the exception of a 3 word difference – appears to be a plagiarized lift straight out of commenter “BlueStar”‘s first paragraph from his February 20, 2020 at 5:02 pm comment, including the capitalization of the word “MY” in yours and his comments. It’s as though you two are now interchangeable. Are you both the same person posting under two user names? It’s a yes or no question.

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Russell Cook
1 year ago

Russell Cook writes DesmogBlog was created “….in order to expose skeptic climate scientists as liars…” but Dr. Jay Lehr is not now nor has he ever been a climate scientist and DesmogBlog’s bio of Dr. Lehr doesn’t call him a liar.
In fact each, most of the bio are direct quotes from Dr. Lehr with every quote and assertion supported with the documentation.

Dave James
Dave James
1 year ago

BlueStar’s refutation of Russell Cook’s excuse is compelling. Mr. Cook writes, “I’ve studied the climate issue in quite some depth since 2008” but in a speech to the Heartland Institute’s ICCC9 conference on Jul 8, 2014, Mr. Harris begins his presentation by stating, “I have nothing to do with science.”
“First, I basically can’t believe I’m here. Heartland must be really dragging the bottom if they are getting speakers literally off the street to speak and that’s essentially me. I’m not a…, I have nothing to do with science. I’m not a professional speaker. I’ve literally never done this before in my entire life…”(Source VIDEOS – RUSSELL COOK – ICCC9 JULY 8, 2014, Heartland Institute website)
Like Dr. Jay Lehr, Mr. Cook falsely inflates his resume.

Russell Cook
Russell Cook
Reply to  Dave James
1 year ago

The hallmark of people who’ve painted themselves into indefensible corners is how they feel compelled to use the tactic of taking statements out of context in order to save face and shift the focus off their failures.
Quoting my Feb 19 comment here verbatim, in which I hammered home for the third time the manner in which commenter “BlueStar”‘s worthless accusation against Dr Lehr hinges on a point of really dicey semantics:
“I’ve studied the climate issue in quite some depth since 2008; you’ve studied the climate issue for as long as you have (maybe from just a few months from the looks of it); clearly, Al Gore has studied the issue since before 1988 and has spoken at length on the topic.”
Friend, you once again demonstrate the depth of your concept comprehension problems. All I can do is try to help you understand the folly of the knee-jerk holes you dig for yourself. One day, you’ll thank me for freeing you from the shackles of an ideology which only prompts you to embarrass yourself via intellectually dishonest arguments.

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Russell Cook
1 year ago

Russell Cook writes, “I’ve studied the climate issue in quite some depth since 2008…” However, on his blog he wrote, “I am neither a scientist nor a trained journalist…Starting back in October 2009, I have conducted research on an essentially full-time basis into the accusation that skeptic climate scientists are paid by industry to lie… I started to research that accusation, and still am researching it.” (Source “Who is Russell Cook?” from his gelbspanfiles blog)
Researching an accusation is not the same thing as studying the science.
Mr. Cook is a man of contradictions. He says he has “nothing to do with science” in 2014 but in 2020 he claims to have studied the “climate issue” since 2008.

Russell Cook
Russell Cook
Reply to  Dave James
1 year ago

You think the only thing I’ve looked at is the ‘crooked skeptics’ part of the climate issue, friend? Think again. Once again, your concept comprehension shortcomings are exposed. “I have nothing to do with the science” means I’m not a climate scientist, not that I haven’t read science material in depth from both sides of the issue. You’ve studied the climate issue at least from the time you first began stalking Tom Harris back in 2016, but who knows what your history of expertise is since you’ve never disclosed that or even whether “Dave James” is your actual first & last name. Meanwhile, instead of further embarrassing yourself with sidesteps, have a look at my “February 21, 2020 at 3:56 pm” reply to commenter “BlueStar” here. By your definition and his/hers, Bill McKibben is an authority on the issue we all should ignore because he hasn’t actually studied the science either.
The only one with the fatal contradiction problem here is you. Among your Disqus comment system pile, you’ve said funding is irrelevant, but years back in one of your stalkings of Tom Harris’ material, you responded to his bit about the Heartland NIPCC publication as “He who pays the piper calls the tune,” and you’ve NEVER explained your way out of that hole. Feel free to try weaseling your way out of that one, but you only look worse every time you sidestep it.

Dave James
Dave James
Reply to  Russell Cook
1 year ago

Russell Cook inflates his credentials, falls back on insults and attempts to change the subject because he has no rational argument.

Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is for educational, general information, and entertainment purposes only and is never intended to constitute medical or legal advice or to replace the personalized care of a primary care practitioner or legal expert.

While we endeavor to keep this information up to date and correct, the information provided by America Out Loud, its website(s), and any properties (including its radio shows and podcasts) makes no representations, or warranties of any kind, expressed, or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to its website(s) or the information, products, services or related graphics and images contained on the website(s) for any purpose.

The opinions expressed on the website(s), and the opinions expressed on the radio shows and podcasts, are the opinions of the show hosts and do not necessarily represent the opinions, beliefs, or policies of anyone or any entity we may endorse. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

At no time, nor in any event, will we be liable for any loss, or damage, including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss of data or profits arising out of, in an association of, or connection with the use of this website.

Through this website, users can link to other websites that may be listed. Those websites are not under the control of America Out Loud or its brands. We have no control over the nature, content, or availability of those sites. America Out Loud has no control over what the sites do with the information they collect. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation, nor does it endorse the views expressed with or by them.

Every effort is made to keep the website up and running smoothly. However, America Out Loud takes no responsibility for, nor are we, and will not be liable for being temporarily unavailable due to technical difficulties beyond our control. America Out Loud does not sell, trade, nor market email addresses or other personal data.

Use the code ‘OUTLOUD’ and receive your 20% discount on your first order.

Never Let A Crisis Go To Waste

Never Let A Crisis Go To Waste

As a crisis develops, Democrats will use the propaganda resources of the mass media to promote their victimization and blame “White Privilege” as the reason for the supposed inefficiencies and injustices that keep them always subservient to their welfare status. CRT is another attack on a functioning America. Democrats offer false hope to the underclass…

Repeated US Intelligence Failures Spell Disaster

Repeated US Intelligence Failures Spell Disaster

At the moment, a ‘woke’ American military is not even capable of protecting the US borders let alone confronting a determined enemy. The USA is a naked target at the moment, and it will be innocent civilians who will pay the ultimate price for the gross betrayal by all its leaders to protect them from evil, starting with Joe Biden, the Traitor in Chief…

Let’s Identify and Quash the Apostles of Slavery and Injustice for All

Let’s Identify and Quash the Apostles of Slavery and Injustice for All

They supplant the virtuous Pledge of Allegiance that demands “liberty and justice for all.” Shall we helplessly sit back and allow these missionaries of evil to have their way? Some say yes. Others aren’t so sure. But a growing number of people are deciding they’ve had enough. For many months now, the plain truth has been evident: America is under attack!

A Woke Military Threatens US Readiness

A Woke Military Threatens US Readiness

Under woke military leadership, the US has fallen so far behind China and Russia that our best experts have no idea how the Chinese could accomplish this nuclear missile flight and strike. Milley and Austin and the Marxist Democrats (both the puppets such as Biden and the puppet masters such as Soros organizations) already have blood on their hands from Afghanistan.  

True Parent Patriots Act Against Racist, Anti-America Agenda

True Parent Patriots Act Against Racist, Anti-America Agenda

Parents have responsibly refused to stand idly by as arrogant academic ideologues teach their kids to judge one another by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character; malign their country as systemically and irredeemably evil rather than celebrate America’s virtues; and witness their tax money wasted on failed schools, failed curricula, and failed outcomes…

Breaking the Grip of Medical Tyranny

Breaking the Grip of Medical Tyranny

Patients and family members should demand “shared decision making” and enforce a patient bill of rights that ensures all parties agree on the treatment course. America has been rocked by the court cases that families have brought to bare getting court orders to force doctors and hospitals to administer proper care…

The Soviet State, American Style!

The Soviet State, American Style!

With mandates’ success, political orders for social control will continue to grow. We are experiencing tyranny by dictatorship. Biden’s administration is a crime syndicate specializing in bribery and extortion. Demanding the entire population be injected by unproven but already demonstrably dangerous vaccines, is revealing to us the very essence of the Soviet state, American style. If they get away with it, the mandated vaccinations will be just the beginning…

The Truth Behind the Soviet-Era Supply Chain Crisis

The Truth Behind the Soviet-Era Supply Chain Crisis

The latest bottleneck in the supply chain is the hundreds of container ships waiting to be unloaded in West Coast ports like Los Angeles and San Diego. The mainstream media tell us the cause is a shortage of truck drivers. Now we find out that there ARE enough drivers (for the Ports, at least). The real cause is the State of California imposing an…

The Covid Gene Therapy Shot and Its Approval or Not

The Covid Gene Therapy Shot and Its Approval or Not

As if the stench wasn’t enough, until this fake Pfizer approval, pushed through with the complicity of a fake president, elected by fake votes, and pushed by the fake media, until today the fastest approval for a vaccine ever took five years – which was for Ebola, that kills ~50% of its victims. By contrast, we have around just six months of safety data for the Covid shot until approval, and the survival rate is 99.997 if you are under 21 and not far below that even up to age 70…

America’s Decline is a Choice

America’s Decline is a Choice

Many in America think that America needs to be brought down to size. Barack Obama once said, “My legacy will be an America brought down to the level of the rest of the world,” and though Obama was not able to realize this ambition, the Biden Administration is moving full speed ahead with plans to weaken the United States militarily and economically, destroying the wealth of the American people in the process…

Header

Your Source for Free Speech, Talk Radio, Podcasts, and News.

Here we take on the challenges of our generation so that we can preserve future generations.

Help Support Our Mission

iHeartRadio

The APPS are free; the mission is priceless!

Free APP

Podcast Networks

Apple Podcasts
Google Podcasts
Spotify
Pandora
Tunein
iHeart
Stitcher

Subscribe and Listen on Your Favorite APP

Our Columnists and Show Hosts

COVID Solution Summit

Apple Podcasts

Evacuating Americans & fully-vetted Afghan's at Risk - Help Us!

Apple Podcasts

Empowering and mentoring conservative trailblazers from Generation Z to win!

Apple Podcasts

Turning Point Action is Recruiting Precinct Chairs - Become a Grassroots Warrior Today!

Apple Podcasts

URGENT - KEEP NINE
Please join us to protect the Supreme Court:
Sign the Petition!

Apple Podcasts

The LATINO USA EXIT from the Democrat Party, click for details...

Apple Podcasts

Fighting corporate censorship and ensuring voter integrity...

Apple Podcasts

Support wounded and fallen police officers. The Wounded Blue.

Wounded Blue
Share via
Copy link
Powered by Social Snap