Dakota Beacon

I have an Atmospheric and Oceanic Science degree from the Engineering School of the University of Michigan(1981), with an additional 2 years in Actuarial Science and Math at the University of Detroit. I specialize in analyzing and interpreting data, particularly weather data. Since leaving my position as chief meteorologist at WEHT-TV in Evansville Indiana in 1993, I’ve been a successful full time commodities trader. All of my trading is based on how the weather influences energy and agricultural markets. I use my expertise to accurately predict how the weather will effect things like natural gas demand/use and crop yields.

I’ve studied the science of global warming for the past 15 years, writing numerous articles for our local paper as well as interviews with a local tv station. My belief with regards to mans influence has changed during the last few years based on the latest data and information available. Until the last few years, I suspected that our burning of fossil fuels was a major contributor towards the temperature increases our planet had seen. My position then was that global warming and the increase of carbon dioxide actually had many benefits and that we should not take any actions until more data showed with certainty that we were the source of the warming and it was in fact detrimental overall to our planet and it’s creatures. Points numbered 1,2,3,4,5 and 9 below, all relating to the latest climate change science are responsible for my position change away from humans being mostly responsible for global warming.

Is the debate really over with regards to CO2 and global warming as Al Gore claims? The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated that warming is due primarily to industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Our EPA recently classified CO2 as pollution and our House of Representatives voted 219-212 to put an expensive tax on carbon.

Is CO2 bad enough to justify spending trillions of dollars in the future to cut back?

Read these scientific facts and see if you agree:

1. There was in fact global warming in the 1980’s and 1990’s. This is the foundation of the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) theory. Problem is that 1998 is when it peaked (from a strong El Nino, a natural phenomena), even while atmospheric CO2 has continued to climb.

2. Maybe not coincidentally, global cooling the past 2 years has occurred in tandem with sunspots suddenly dropping to the lowest count in a century. The link between this solar cycle and temperatures on earth has been known but not completely understood for many years.. The Maunder Minimum (extreme solar inactivity between 1645-1710) and “Little Ice Age” is one example. During the warming of the 80’s and 90’s the sun was very active. In the last 2 years for instance, we’ve been in an historically long solar minimum with the sun having more months that averaged less than 10 sunspots/month during that time then both solar minimums during the 80’s and 90’s combined.

3. Another natural cycle just recently receiving attention from scientists, the PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) which cools and warms the earth in 20-30 year cycles, has flipped from the warm phase to the cool phase.

4. AGW theory (it is just a theory) base’s it’s forecasts on climate model output. The AGW scare started in the 80’s and 90’s when these models were first built. The equations and data fed into the models have nothing to represent changes in the sun’s output (we can’t predict that element) or other natural, impossible to model influences like the PDO. This means the computer is programmed with the initial faulty assumption that increasing CO2 levels is what causes most of global warming. This over sensitivity to greenhouse gas warming (by at least a factor of 4) in the climate models is responsible for the dire predictions AGW alarmists use. Junk in junk out. We can’t forecast next month’s weather let alone next decade.

5. These same climate models have predicted widespread droughts and crop failures. Instead, food production has continued to increase. The world’s #1 corn and soybean production area, the US Cornbelt has gone the longest time in history without a widespread drought (21 years). 6. During all of earth’s past warm periods (before humans) CO2 went up AFTER it got warmer. This contradicts AGW theory which states that CO2 goes up first.

7. The warmer our planet was in the past, the MORE life it supported. Cooling just a few degrees on the other hand would cause worldwide crop losses and starvation. Another Ice Age would cause unimaginable suffering and death. 8. In the 1970’s, after 30 years of global cooling, scientists and the media had us in a global cooling scare. http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm During that period, CO2 was increasing. Impossible with AGW theory.

9. With the recent global cooling, Arctic ice, which was retreating in some well publicized locations has recovered.

10. CO2 is vital to every living organism on this planet.

11. CO2 is used by plants to grow bigger and faster. The increase of CO2 by 50% the past 100 years has contributed towards record crop yields and world food production. National trend line corn yields for instance, have gone from 120 bushels/acre to 155 bushels/acre in the last 18 years. With bountiful harvests like this, we can feed the world’s growing population. The problem is getting the food to them. Studies have shown that plant growth peaks with CO2 levels that are as much as 4 times that of our current 350 ppm(parts per million).

12. Greenhouses use carbon dioxide enrichment generators. Those that make a living growing plants know the benefits of increasing CO2 levels.This includes: shorter growing periods to maturity, improved crop quality and yield, increased leaf size and thickness as well as an increase in numbers and faster flowering per plant.

13. Catalytic converters, which have cut down on car pollution tremendously, reduce the toxicity of emissions from an internal combustion engine. They convert toxic CO to what was always perceived as non polluting CO2.

14. There are billions of cans/bottles of carbonated (CO2) beverages consumed each year. The beverage may be unhealthy but the CO2 won’t hurt you.

For a scientific debate to be over, it means that all the data has been collected, analyzed and interpreted with the result yielding one, single inescapable conclusion. Clearly, these recent political developments have little to do with legit science. In fact, the door was opened for this outcome when a 2007 Supreme Court 5-4 decision (liberal judges all voting for it) forced the EPA to rule that carbon dioxide is pollution.

This comes even as the science from the other side is becoming more compelling and a groundswell of experts in this field are providing more and more convincing evidence that disproves AGW theory.

We should have aggressive policies to conserve natural resources and develop alternative energy sources as well as preserve natural environments and protect all creatures on this planet. Advocates of Cap and Trade want us to think that’s why we should be for it. This bill is the biggest revenue generating proposal of our time which is why politicians are conveniently ignoring the growing evidence against AGW theory from scientists.

The worst part about spending trillions to reduce CO2 is that :

1. It will have very little effect on our climate.

2. It vilifies a beneficial gas, instead of focusing on the many REAL pollutants in the air, water and soil.

3. The money will come from you and me.

4. We will lose many jobs and businesses which go overseas to avoid this huge tax.

We the people of this great country should not have to settle for the lack of intellectual honesty, biased, partisan approach from our elected officials whose tactics include using blatant fact/truth distortion and brainwashing us to accomplish it.

We have a responsibility to expose and defeat policy’s based on lies and corruption, especially those that would create hardship for millions of Americans. Cap and Trade legislation is an example of this. It has a hidden agenda that would result in the discrimination of many people with most of us paying a high price. Hopefully, it will be stopped in the upcoming Senate vote this Fall.

Mike Maguire,

Meteorologist

Evansville Indiana

(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)