NOAA Radiosonde Data Shows No Warming For 58 Years

Those proposing anthropogenic global warming do not use the rigors of the scientific method to test their claim. They propose a theory and expect all to accept their opinion on face value. Their "belief," if you will. They want to prevent any competing idea from reaching the light of day.

To that, there is an apropos quote from Carl Sagan;

The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge. And there is no place for it in the endeavor of science.
-- Carl Sagan, Cosmos.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is their religion and it is being used to further their politics.

Personally, I hope they're right.

No, really.

If they're right, then it means that Man IS causing global warming. And, if so, Man could stop the process.

But, they have not provided the smallest proof. As such, I am forced to conclude that it is Nature and that Man is ineffective against it. So, we better learn to adapt, if this is a long term problem.

I Can Feel It

Senator Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), who was recently appointed to the Senate Energy Committee, can "feel" global warming;

"Climate change is very real," she confessed as she embraced cap and trade's
massive tax increase on Michigan industry - at the same time claiming, against
all the evidence, that it would not lead to an increase in manufacturing costs
or energy prices. "Global warming creates volatility. I feel it when I'm flying.
The storms are more volatile. We are paying the price in more hurricanes and
tornadoes."

"We are paying the price in more hurricanes and tornadoes."

Let's check on hurricane and tornado activity, shall we?

Let's...

On tornadoes;

Tepid tornado season disappoints some

By Melanie S. Welte
The Associated Press
Monday, Aug 03, 2009 - 10:03:45 am CDT

DES MOINES -- This has been an unusually mild year in Tornado Alley,
which is good news, of course, for the people who live here, but a little
frustrating to scientists who planned to chase twisters as part of a $10 million
research project.

“You’re out there to do the experiment and you’re geared up every day and
ready. And when there isn’t anything happening, that is frustrating,” said Don
Burgess, a scientist at the University of Oklahoma. But he was quick to add that
he is pleased the relative quiet has meant fewer injuries and less damage.

Nationwide, there were 826 tornadoes this year through June 30, compared
with an average of 934 for the same period during the previous three years,
according to the National Severe Storms Laboratory in Norman, Okla.

"[A]n unusually mild year[.]"

11.6% [i]fewer[/i] tornadoes than the previous three years.

So much for "[i]more[/i]" tornadoes. Now, let's look at hurricanes;

Experts predict quieter Atlantic hurricane season

AFPAugust 5, 2009, 6:00 am

MIAMI (AFP) - Weather experts on Wednesday reduced the number of projected
hurricanes in the north Atlantic this season to four, two of them major
hurricanes with winds above 178 kilometers (111 miles) per hour.

After one of the calmest starts to the hurricane season in a decade, the
experts from Colorado State University said the development of an El Nino effect
in the Pacific had caused them to scale back their projections for the
Atlantic.

"[O]ne of the calmest starts to the hurricane season in a decade[.]"

So much for "more" hurricanes.

I wonder what it is that Stabenow is feeling?

Given Obama's recent decision to correct misinformation, maybe he will correct Stabenow's claim.

Nah, doubt it...

A Meteorologist says...

Ya know, one of those guys whose job is the weather;

CNN Meteorologist: Manmade Global Warming Theory 'Arrogant'

Network's second meteorologist to challenge notion man can alter climate.

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
12/18/2008 11:02:44 PM

Unprecedented snow in Las Vegas has some scratching their heads – how can there be global warming with this unusual cold and snowy weather?

CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers had never bought into the notion that man can alter the climate and the Vegas snowstorm didn’t impact his opinion. Myers, an American Meteorological Society certified meteorologist, explained on CNN’s Dec. 18 “Lou Dobbs Tonight” that the whole idea is arrogant and mankind was in danger of dying from other natural events more so than global warming.

I guess this guy didn't get the memo from the "consensus."

I do have one problem with the article, though...

Dr. Jay Lehr, an expert on environmental policy, told “Lou Dobbs Tonight” viewers you can detect subtle patterns over recorded history, but that dates back to the 13th Century.

“If we go back really, in recorded human history, in the 13th Century, we were robably 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than we are now and it was a very prosperous ime for mankind,” Lehr said. “If go back to the Revolutionary War 300 years ago, it as very, very cold. We’ve been warming out of that cold spell from the Revolutionary War period and now we’re back into a cooling cycle.”

Lehr suggested the earth is presently entering a cooling cycle – a result of nature, not man.

It strikes me that, "We’ve been warming out of that cold spell from the Revolutionary War period and now we’re back into a cooling cycle." is outright saying that the earth is entering a cooling cycle, not just suggesting it.

Some may condemn Chad Meyers as not being an expert, of not having any experience in meteorology. I would remind them that he is an American Meteorological Society certified meteorologist. I think he qualifies as an expert and has experience.

We May Want Global Warming

According to this article in Milenio, the IPCC used only mathematics and did not include the Sun in their scenarios.

Auguring brief era of ice in 2010

Researchers from the UNAM considers erroneous reports on global climate change

An expert from the National Autonomous University of Mexico predicted that in about ten years the Earth will enter a "little ice age" which will last from 60 to 80 years and may be caused by the decrease in solar activity.

Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the UNAM, as argued earlier during a conference that teaches at the Centre for Applied Sciences and Technological Development.

...

Velasco Herrera [Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the UNAM] described as erroneous predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), pursuant to which the planet is experiencing a gradual increase in temperature, the so-called global warming.

The models and forecasts of the IPCC "is incorrect because only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity," said the specialist also in image processing and signs and prevention of natural disasters.

If Herrera is correct, then the IPCC is woefully incompetent to make any sort of predictive claims at all. To ignore the Sun's contribution to the temperature of the Earth is sheer ignorance.

It may be that we need to INCREASE our carbon footprints, rather than reduce them.

If You Don't Believe...

...the Powers will bring you down.

The founder of the National Hurricane Center, William Gray, is a harsh critic of climate change and receives support from Colorado State University.

A year ago, CSU told him they were going to cease supporting him.

However, since then, CSU has changed its position a mite. They say they'll continue to support his hurricane forecasts, as long as they remain co-authored by a former student of Gray's, Phil Klotzbach. But, if Klotzbach leaves CSU, either the forecasts will be produced at his new location or they will end.

CSU says that Gray's global warming criticisms have nothing to do with this. That it's because they only have a one-man media staff.

Well, OK. Their poor media guy is overworked and can't handle the load of Gray's work. I can see that.

So, how does requiring Gray's forecasts to remain co-authored with Klotzbach change the media guy's workload?

The sole media staffer had a workload 'X' when Gray's forecasts were co-authored with Klotzbach and CSU regretfully had to terminate supporting Gray because of it - according to CSU.

So, under the new and improved plan, under which CSU will continue their support, the sole media staffer will still have a workload 'X', but only as long as Gray's forecasts are co-authored with Klotzbach.

Like, what's the diference on the media guy's workload? How has it changed? That was the reason CSU was going to drop support and their new plan doesn't alter it at all. The only change is that Gray is no longer the main guy in the forecasting; Klotzbach is. Gray's future forecasts are linked to Klotzbach. In fact, if Klotzbach leaves, Gray's status is irrelevant; the forecasts either go with Klotzbach or they come to an end.

Still, no change in the media guy's workload.

Now, I don't know about others, but if I have a staffer who can't handle a certain workload and I want to alleviate his woes, I'll hire him a helper. Keeping his workload the same won't cut it.

So, maybe Prof. Gray has a point in his complaint against CSU. It would also be interesting to learn of Dr. Klotzbach's views on global warming.

When Government Gets Involved In Business

Things start to fall apart.

From the article;

One factor being blamed for the price hikes is the use of government subsidies to promote the use of corn for ethanol production. An estimated 30% of America’s corn crop now goes to fuel, not food.

Well, maybe if government didn't subsidize the idea, then it would succeed or fail on its own merits in the marketplace. But, can't have that, can we? Gotta have that gubmint in there telling us what to do, what to sell, where to sell it ... running our lives.

"It takes around 400 pounds of corn to make 25 gallons of ethanol," [Benjamin] Senauer, also an applied economics professor at Minnesota, said. "It’s not going to be a very good diet but that’s roughly enough to keep an adult person alive for a year."

Regardless of whether I agree with Senauer's political position, I hate the sort of foolish, emotionalist arguments as he makes here.

Yeah, 400 pounds of corn might keep someone alive for a year, but, at the end of that year, the adult who's only had corn will be in serious shape from vitamin deficiencies.

That adult is going to need more than just 400 pounds of corn to keep himself going.

The most obvious impact the food crisis has had in America, aside from higher prices, is the imposition of rationing at some warehouse stores to deal with a spike in demand for large quantities of rice, oil, and flour. The CEO of Costco Wholesale Corp., James Sinegal, is blaming press hype for the buying limits, which were first reported Monday in The New York Sun.

I agree with Sinegal. I, too, think that the food "crisis" in the US is due to media's incessant need for a shocking headline and to get the scoop.

There were banks before the Depression that were in no danger of defaulting, but, because of word of mouth, a run would develop on a perfectly healthy bank, destroying it.

Now, with the Internet and media operations competing for an ever smaller piece of the pie, a run on anything can happen within minutes.

Speaking in Kansas City, Mo., yesterday, the federal agriculture secretary, Edward Schafer, blamed emotion for the spurt of rice buying at warehouse stores. "We don’t see any evidence of the lack of availability of rice. There are no supply issues," he told reporters, according to Reuters.

Emotion and fear has caused a spike in demand - I wish I'd bought rice futures - fueled in a major part by media's need for attention. I read yesterday that Philipinos in the US were scarfing up rice at stores like Sam's, WalMart and CostCo and shipping it to their families in the Philipines. There really can't be too much of a crisis in the US, if these people feel secure enough in their own needs to ship the rice overseas.

And, what I believe are irresponsible articles like this from the Wall Street Journal do nothing but throw gas on the fire.

About That Consensus

This site shatters that fallacy of anthropogenic global warming.

Not that it takes an anti-AGW stance, but that it seems - after a cursory glance - to fairly present both sides.

And, the fact that there are two sides to the issue- one of which staunchly in opposition - disproves any claims to consensus.

And, in a way, the mere fact that there is such a large following that goes against the AGW grain would lend credence to their argument; that more research is needed. That the answer has not been found. That even the cause of global warming is still in question.

At any rate, for the lay person, or the undecided, this site looks like a good read.

Oh, That Wacky Climate!

Back in January of 2007, the BBC reported that 2007 would be the world's warmest year on record.

But, the facts are;

• 2007 was just as warm as every year back to 2001.
• Even though CO2 is up 4% since 1998, global temps have remained flat.

Yet, the UN is still going to lead the lemmings' Charge of the Light Brigade over the cliff of anthropogenic global warming.

AlGore asserts that "The debate in the scientific community is over."

Thing is, it's not. More than 100 scientists wrote a letter to the UN to say that climate change - up or down - is a natural event. Historical data from the Paleozoic to today shows that, if anything, the historically normal temperature for the Earth is a lot warmer than it is now.

Little sidebar here - as I search about the Internet to try to find out what the Earth's CURRENT average temperature is, I find it very difficult to locate the information. Three separate articles on Wiki show plenty of temperature change data, but they never show the baseline; the change from what temperature. That's interesting. It's like saying that when Bob's income raises 100%, he's become a rich man. But, no one says that Bob's original income was $2.50/hour.

Ah! Here we go, a site with current temp data. Looks like it's around 15-degrees C. OK, then, back to our story.

As I was saying, historical data from the Paleozoic to today shows that, if anything, the historically normal temperature for the Earth is a lot warmer than it is now. There are periodic dips, but the baseline seems to be 22-degrees C; 7-degrees C greater than today.

The IPCC - who says "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" - a false statement since it is hardly "unequivocal" - has the temperature rising from 1.1 to 6.4-degrees C during the 21st Century - Hey guys! Way to get a focus on that prediction! Only a 5.3 degree spread, nah, no appreciable variance there.

Looking at the history of global temperatures, the variances have been sharp valleys from 22 to 12-degrees C and back up again. But, the length of time in the valleys have been far shorter than the intervening peaks.

We have been in one of the minimas of the data, on our way to a maxima. And, to follow the trends, we are headed to a higher temperature than the IPCC's most dire prediction.

And, the amazing thing?

Each of the global warming events - one in the Silurian, Permian, and Cretaceous - had no Humans around to cause them. In fact, the warming in the Permian went even higher than 22-degrees C; it went to 23-degrees C.

The historical data shows that the climate we have today is not the norm. The Earth has experienced approximately 67.08 million years at today's temps or below. That's only about 10% of what we have records for.

So, for 90% of the Earth's recorded history of average temperatures, we have had temps FAR higher than today or what is predicted by AGW adherents.

Today's temps are not normal. Historically, they are unusually well below normal. Our global warming is the Earth returning to normal.

Ignorance Like This...

Is the strongest reason why I have my doubts about anthropogenic global warming;

=========================
UN Panel Gives Dire Warming Forecast

Nov 17, 11:11 PM (ET)
By ARTHUR MAX

VALENCIA, Spain (AP) - Global warming is "unequivocal" and carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere commits the world to an eventual rise in sea levels of up to 4.6 feet, the world's top climate experts warned Saturday in their most authoritative report to date.

...

He [U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon] said he witnessed the devastation of climate change in disappearing glaciers of Antarctica, the deforested Amazon and under the ozone hole in Chile.
=========================

Clue for Mr. Ki-moon - Amazon deforestation is NOT due to global warming, but to human expansion; farmland, grazeland and homes.

Statements like this from world leaders tells me that they haven't an inkling of the science behind the issue and since this Valencia report is from the "world's top climate experts," Ki-moon's words are based upon what they have told him. Some "top scientists."

Oh, and about "unequivocal?"

That's only if they ignore the scientists who question them.

Such a wonderful science these "top climate experts" practice! If someone doesn't agree, simply ignore them.

Gotta have faith, baby, gotta have faith.

This is a religion, not science.

And, as long as faith is clothed in a veneer of psuedo-science, I - and many others - will oppose this AGW religion.

Oh, The Devastation!

Sound the alarm!

Fear! Fire! Foes!

Global warming is our top concern!

Why?

You DARE need ask?

=============================
A world dying, but can we unite to save it?

Pollution in the seas is now speeding global warming, says a devastating new climate report. 'IoS' Environment Editor Geoffrey Lean reports from Valencia
...
Europe

Winter sports suffer as less snow falls in the Alps and other mountains
=============================

Europe might not be able to ski!

Global Warming Indicator Bites The Dust

If this indicator is a non-issue, what about others? This is why the anti-AGW crowd want more RESEARCH rather than blind faith.

Faith is for religion, not science.

==============================
NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face

November 13, 2007

PASADENA, Calif. – A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming.

...

"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said Morison [James Morison of the University of Washington's Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory, Seattle].
==============================

Global Warming Report

[Insert frantic ticker-tape sound FX here]

Just in from our Dubai newsdesk...

=================================
Brad and Angelina buy Dubai island: report

Nov 14 03:41 AM US/Eastern

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have bought a man-made island in the shape of Ethiopia that is part of an ambitious luxury development off the coast of Dubai, a newspaper reported Wednesday.

The Hollywood couple intend to use the reclaimed piece of land to showcase environmental issues and encourage people to live a greener life, the Emirates Today newspaper said.
=================================

So, I thought global warming was going to raise sea levels and submerge low-lying areas?

Yet, these two enviro-whacks are buying an island to "showcase environmental issues and encourage people to live a greener life."

Whadda they gonna do when it sinks?

I mean, if the Goreacle is correct...

Science Or Faith?

Doubt is the foundation of scientific thought.

Yet, doubt is tossed out the window when global warming is the issue.

We are expected to accept the content of An Inconvenient Truth upon faith alone. Those who doubt this piece of work, who question its scientific content, are ridiculed and demeaned.

There are those who would be the first to ridicule those with a religious faith as fools, who take this movie and the unproven "science" within without demanding the slightest proof. They condemn faith on the one hand and embrace it on the other.

There are those who ridicule others as lemmings for adhering to a policy of which they disagree, but blindly follow the leaders of anthropogenic global warming into the unknown.

Those who follow An Inconvenient Truth and AGW demand that science be followed by ignoring its basic tenet.

They are espousing a religion, a faith, not science.

How To Lose A Majority

In one easy step...

=============================
Plan Uses Taxes to Fight Climate Change

By H. JOSEF HEBERT
The Associated Press
Wednesday, September 26, 2007; 7:34 PM

WASHINGTON -- Dealing with global warming will be painful, says one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress. To back up his claim he is proposing a recipe many people won't like -- a 50-cent gasoline tax, a carbon tax and scaling back tax breaks for some home owners.

"I'm trying to have everybody understand that this is going to cost and that it's going to have a measure of pain that you're not going to like," Rep. John Dingell, who is marking his 52nd year in Congress, said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press.
=============================

Voters don't tend to vote for those who do what they don't like. Republicans found that out in 2006 and the dems don't seem to have been paying attention.

Not Dingell, anyway.

More Of That Fluff Science

And, from the magazine, Science, that rag!

===========================
Oldest DNA ever recovered shows warmer planet: report

Jul 5 03:14 PM US/Eastern

Scientists who probed two kilometers (1.2 miles) through a Greenland glacier to recover the oldest plant DNA on record said Thursday the planet was far warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago than is generally believed.

DNA of trees, plants and insects including butterflies and spiders from beneath the southern Greenland glacier was estimated to date to 450,000 to 900,000 years ago, according to the remnants retrieved from this long-vanished boreal forest.

That contrasts sharply with the prevailing view that a lush forest of this kind could only have existed in Greenland as recently as 2.4 million years ago, according to a summary of the study, which is published Thursday in the journal Science.
===========================

If the planet was "far warmer hundreds of thousands of years ago than is generally believed," where did that heat come from?

After all, the present heat levels are assigned to human-induced greenhouse gasses. Obviously - well, it should be obvious, anyway - this was not the case hundreds of thousands of years ago, a time when it was WARMER.

But, I guess Science is another Big Oil sponsored rag, right?

And, then there's this;

===========================
They also indicated that during the last period between ice ages, 116,000-130,000 years ago, when temperatures were on average 5 C (9 F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away.
===========================

Well, whaddya know...

Even though it was HOTTER, Greenland's glaciers didn't melt away entirely.

And, since then, they actually grew back.

Imagine that.

Wait A Minute...

So, now, Global Warming is going to cool us?

===========================
Revolution, flashmobs, and brain chips. A grim vision of the future

Richard Norton-Taylor
Monday April 9, 2007
The Guardian

...

Climate change

There is "compelling evidence" to indicate that climate change is occurring and that the atmosphere will continue to warm at an unprecedented rate throughout the 21st century. It could lead to a reduction in north Atlantic salinity by increasing the freshwater runoff from the Arctic. This could affect the natural circulation of the north Atlantic by diminishing the warming effect of ocean currents on western Europe. "The drop in temperature might exceed that of the miniature ice age of the 17th and 18th centuries."
===========================

So, which computer model are we to believe? The one that says global warming is gonna heat us up and make deserts out of Palm Springs?

Or, the one that says we'll have an ice age?

Sheesh...

I will cede that there is ONE aspect of global warming that Man has control over - the panicky jitters. Ya know, the ones that sell ad-space...

Yeah, He Was Muzzled, Alright

========================
Climate scientist sees cover-up

By Eric Pfeiffer
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 20,
2007

A NASA scientist who said the Bush administration muzzled him because of his belief in global warming yesterday acknowledged to Congress that he'd done more than 1,400 on-the-job interviews in recent years.

James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who argues global warming could be catastrophic, said NASA staffers denied his request to do a National Public Radio interview because they didn't want his message to get out.
...
Mr. Hansen yesterday said the Bush administration threatened him and his office over his stance on global warming.

"It was an oral threat made to a public affairs person in New York and relayed to me," said Mr. Hansen, who is listed as a senior adviser to Mr. Gore and consulted on Mr. Gore's global warming film, "An Inconvenient Truth."
...
Mr. Deutsch, who was 23 at the time, said Mr. Hansen was prohibited from doing the interview because of his prior refusal to notify NASA officials when he was granting interviews, not for political reasons.

Citing what he called his "constitutional right" to give interviews, Mr. Hansen admitted violating NASA's press policy but defended his actions.
...
Mr. Hansen refused to denounce earlier comments he made referring to the White House as a "propaganda office," and saying, "It seems more like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union than the United States."
========================

Let's see - Hansen says he was denied an NPR interview [1 out of 1,400 others, a whopping 0.07%], yet we discover that the denial was due to his violating NASA policy, a violation he admits.

Yeah, that is so "Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union."

Supposedly, he received some horrendous threat.

Given orally
To someone else
Somewhere else and
Relayed to him

So, it was a "threat" that he heard from someone else that was said by some third party.

Yeah. What a threat...

So, this guy was "muzzled" for one interview out of 1,400 because he violated policy and he heard he was threatened by some guy who heard it from someone else.

Gee, sounds like anthropogenic global warming science at its best...

Consensus Might Be The Problem

Because it is being used as a club to beat down - or up - dissenting views;

========================
Scientists
threatened for 'climate denial'

By Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:24am GMT 11/03/2007

Scientists who questioned
mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have
been shunned by the scientific community.

They say the debate on global
warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists
and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true
environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Timothy Ball, a former
climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five
deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was
affecting climate change.

One of the emails warned that, if he continued
to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

"Western
governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they
feel threatened," said the professor.

"I can tolerate being called a
sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling
us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It
has got really nasty and personal."

Last week, Professor Ball appeared
in The Great Global Warming Swindle, a Channel 4 documentary in which several
scientists claimed the theory of man-made global warming had become a
"religion", forcing alternative explanations to be ignored.

Richard
Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of
Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed:
"Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their
work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they
fly in the face of the science."

Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University,
agreed. He said: "The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change.
It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start
micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do."
Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are
trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein
could not have got funding under the present system."
========================

Death threats?
Loss of funding?
Derision?
Insults?

Is this the cost of "consensus?"

"Consensus" is feeding us BS because many scientists would have their bread and butter snatched away if they dare dissent - or, they might even be killed. What sort of "consensus" is that and how is it a good thing?

About Fluff Science

Seems NASA has an opinion on global warming models.

Current models "must be improved more than tenfold in accuracy[.]"

Sure, let's jack with the US economy based upon the data from models with a less than 10% accuracy...

Oh, wait, it's NASA. Sheesh, what do they know?

A Turncoat In The Ranks!

Braving the potential consequences, Dr. Claude Allegre, one of France's leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, a former promoter and supporter of Anthropogenic Global Warming, has had a change of heart and mind.

From the article;

[T]he many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming.

Failed dismally.

The religion of Anthropogenic Global Warming is slowly being exposed for the facade that it is.

Unfortunately, the fanatic believers have their own Inquisitions to ridicule, denigrate and oppress any view that opposes their credo. Many follow this creed not out of any scientific foundation, but out of sheer faith. They believe that Man causes Global Warming, therefore it is so.

Despite scientific evidence to the contrary.

Faith is wonderful when it comes to exploring the Beginning of All Things or to provide insight as to why we are here, but it is a poor substitute for science when trying to explain the scientific.

Faith has no place in scientific inquiry. Yet, the anthropogenic global warmers have replaced science with faith in order to justify and rationalize their oppressive "answers" to a warming climate.