David Paul Blumenshine is not Qualified to Hold Public Office

I was driving through my neighborhood recently when I spotted a political sign for David Paul Blumenshine, who is running for Normal Town Council. The sign had been altered to include a message that read "CAPITOL RIOTS". I wasn't sure at the time how Blumenshine and "CAPITOL RIOTS" were related, but I was determined to find out.

When I got home, I began searching online, and this is what I discovered:

On Tuesday, January 5th, Blumenshine, along with 48 additional local residents, boarded a bus bound for Washington DC. Their destination was a "Stop the Steal" rally hosted by Donald Trump. The rally was being held on Wednesday, January 6th. That date may sound familiar, since that was the date when hundreds of rioting Trump supporters sacked the US Capitol, shortly after attending Donald Trump's "Stop the Steal" rally. 

The "Stop the Steal" bus trip, which was organized by Blumenshine, was sponsored by Cities 92.9, a local radio station that happens to be a bastion of misinformation. I've documented some of that misinformation right here on this blog.

Ladies and gentleman, "Stop the Steal" is based on the big lie that the 2020 election was being stolen from Donald Trump. The reality is that "Stop the Steal" was a ruse to distract from what was really going on, which is that Donald Trump himself was trying to steal the election.  If you doubt that, then consider these basic facts regarding the 2020 presidential election:

1.  The Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), which is part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), released a statement calling the 2020 election the "most secure in American history".

2. William Barr, the US attorney general under Trump, who is a fierce Trump loyalist, told the Associated Press (AP), "we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election".

3. As of this post, at least 63 lawsuits have been filed by the Trump campaign. Nearly all of them were either withdrawn, or thrown out of court due to lack of evidence. Over 80 judges presided over the lawsuits, some of whom were appointed by Donald Trump.

4. The US Supreme Court summarily dismissed lawsuits brought by the Trump campaign. Twice. Three of the nine justices were appointed by Donald Trump.

5. Election officials in each of the 50 states found no evidence of widespread voter fraud or irregularities. Many of those officials are Republicans.

Either all of these people were working together in a vast bi-partisan conspiracy to steal the election from Donald Trump - or - Donald Trump, and a handful of his acolytes, were working together to steal the election for Donald Trump. Only one of those statements can be true.

Not convinced yet? Well, consider for a moment the sheer volume of lies Donald Trump told during his presidency. The Washington Post has documented 30,573 false or misleading claims made by the former president over the last four years. On the first day of his presidency, Donald Trump lied about the crowd size at his inauguration. Trump lied about the contents of the Mueller Report. Trump lied about the seriousness of Covid-19. Trump lied about developing a health care plan that he repeatedly insisted was only two weeks away. Trump even lied about voter fraud in the election he won in 2016. The lies I've listed barely scratch the surface of the flood of lies Donald Trump told over those four years, but they are indicative of the spectrum of Trump's lies. Trump lies about things that are totally inconsequential, and Trump lies about things that end up costing people their lives. Trump has demonstrated that he will lie about anything, and everything.

Why would anyone think Trump would lie about all of those other things, and not lie about voter fraud in the 2020 election? Seriously. 

By choosing to believe Trump's evidence-free claims of voter fraud - after Trump demonstrated during his presidency that he will lie about anything and everything - David Paul Blumenshine is signaling that he is willing to put the claims of a pathological liar over the opinions of experts of all political stripes who have no reason to lie. In fact, for some of those experts, taking the position they did, led to death threats against them and their families. 

Based on these facts, I believe that Blumenshine's trip to Washington DC in early January disqualifies him from holding public office. The reason is very simple: Anyone who believes the 2020 presidential election was stolen, when no evidence exists that it did, and significant evidence exists that it didn't, is incapable of discerning fact from fiction. If Blumenshine is willing to entertain this conspiracy theory, then one can only wonder what other conspiracy theories are living rent free in his head.

But wait, there's more:

After returning from Washington DC on January 7th, Blumenshine spoke with a reporter from WEEK News, where he provided even more evidence of his inability to think or use basic reasoning skills. Blumenshine described what he saw as the riots unfolded:

"Some of these people started scaling scaffolding, and doing things like that and that's when from afar we're like oh okay this isn't going to turn out so our group actually went back to the bus."

Blumenshine then tried to separate people like himself, who were there for the "Stop the steal" message, from those who were there to riot, saying:

"They weren't truly there for the message of the day which is to stop the steal. We condemn it wholeheartedly, no place for political violence."

My question for David Paul Blumenshine is this: On what planet, does millions of people believing their vote was stolen from them, not lead to some of them engaging in political violence? "Stop the Steal" and political violence go hand in hand. One naturally extends into the other, seamlessly. When millions of people have been convinced - falsely I might add - that their votes don't count, and that the opposition party has stolen an election from them, some in the aggrieved group will resort to violence. That is just a fact of life on planet Earth. 

This is what Gabriel Sterling, a Republican, and Georgia's top election official, said on December 1st of 2020, thirty seven days before the capitol riots:

"Mr. president, it looks like you likely lost the state of Georgia. We're investigating, there's always a possibility, I get it. You have the rights to go to the courts. What you don't have the ability to do - and you need to step up and say this - is stop inspiring people to commit potential acts of violence. Someone is going to get hurt, someone is going to get shot, someone is going to get killed, and it's not right. It's not right."

Thirty seven days after Gabriel Sterling said out loud what many of us were already thinking to ourselves, violence broke out at the US Capitol. Five people died that day, and more than a hundred and forty police officers were injured. Sterling was able to predict that violence would occur, because violence is an expected consequence of false claims Trump was making. Violence was simply inevitable. Gabriel Sterling knew that Trump's election fraud claims were combustible, and there's no reason to believe that Donald Trump himself wasn't also aware of the inevitable outcome of his false claims. Reasonable people of all stripes saw it coming.

This is how David Paul Blumenshine responded on January 7th to the claim that Donald Trump is responsible for the violence at the capitol on January 6th:

"Absolutely not, that's ludicrous"

What's ludicrous, is believing that accusations of election fraud from the president of the United States won't lead to political violence. Blumenshine is a fool.

"Stop the Steal" triggered political violence at the capitol, and "Stop the Steal" will continue to trigger additional political violence in the future. Fools like Blumenshine will continue to deflect responsibility from where it belongs. 

The city of Normal needs leadership from people who embrace reality. I urge my fellow citizens to vote for Blumenshine's opponents. We need sanity in local government, not a conspiracy nut who is enthralled by a pathologically lying sociopath.

UPDATE: April 7, 2021 - I have some really good news! The voting residents of Normal rejected David Paul Blumenshine.

Oddly enough, 2,828 voters felt that putting an ignorant fool like Blumenshine in a decision making position was a good idea, but fortunately for the rest of us, those people were in the minority.

Normal voters, I tip my hat to you, well, most of you.

Ian Bayne and Stupid Questions

"The trouble with the world is that stupid people are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt" -Bertrand Russell

Ian Bayne

Remember that Illinois Republican candidate for Congress who compared Christian bigot Phil Robertson to Civil Rights icon Rosa Parks? Of course you do. Who could forget that belly laugh.

Well, guess what? He's still at it. Still at it meaning he's still introducing more than his fair share of stupidity into our world.

After Ian Bayne garnered less than 4% of the vote in the Republican primary for the 11th Congressional District of Illinois, where pandering to the stupid vote inspired his ridiculous Robertson/Parks comparison, he took a job with our own local conservative radio station, Cities 92.9, as the host of The Morning Buzz with Ian Bayne, a 3 hour talk show that airs from 5 to 8 am on weekdays.

What a seamless transition it was from pandering to stupid voters to commanding a microphone at the Cities 92.9 studios. It was as though Cities and Bayne were manufactured together, one for the other. Cities has a long history of peddling stupidity, and who could possibly carry that torch better than the guy who thinks the anti-gay and anti-Civil Rights comments made by Phil Robertson were Rosa Parks level courageous.

In Bayne's defense, there were a lot of white people in the South who were lynched during Phil Robertson's lifetime for simply expressing their Christian views. Not!

So, what sort of stupidity has Ian Bayne been involved with since becoming a part of the Cities 92.9 family?

I'm glad you asked.

I've already blogged about one of Bayne's brilliant bouts with stupidity. This one occurred this past summer when Bayne started a campaign called Flock the Tax Hike, which was promoted as a revolt against unnecessary increases in local taxes, and which blatantly misrepresented the purpose of those tax increases. That campaign fizzled out rather quickly as support stayed confined to a small group of the most credulous listeners of Cities 92.9.

A more recent example of Bayne's stupidity occurred on November 18th, when Bayne sent a Cities 92.9 employee he calls Fistbump over to the ISU campus to question students about their position on global warming.

Why did Bayne pick the 18th?

Well, it was cold outside, and in Bayne's world, cold days aren't possible in central Illinois in mid November when the planet is warming. I kid you not, you just can't make this stuff up.

Most of the students who were questioned in the audio clip seem to accept that global warming is occurring, and most credit science for that acceptance. Bayne's reaction to the pro science responses are met with derision as he wonders aloud if science is the new god on the ISU campus. You see, in Bayne's world, accepting what 97% of the world's climate experts tell us about climate change is bad, because it's akin to faith. Ironically, what never occurs to Bayne, who regularly promotes faith on his radio show, is that this line of attack works against the concept of faith itself, not science. Way to lean into your own punch, moron!

If you thought the pinnacle of that morning's stupidity occurred with the faith comparison, brace yourself for the following exchange between Fistbump and an ISU student:

FISTBUMP: I just wanted to see if you believe in global warming or not.

STUDENT: It's hard not to with the way things are going.

FISTBUMP: You do realize it's 18 degrees out in the middle of November right? Makes it a little bit hard to believe in.

So, according to our friend Fistbump, a local cold temperature makes it hard to believe in global warming. This is what passes for stimulating, informative talk, on Cities 92.9.

Climate Science 101 for the benefit of fistbump and the rest of the Cities staff: The operative word in global warming is the word global.

Had our scientifically illiterate friends at Cities 92.9 bothered to do just a tiny bit of research that morning, prior to putting their ignorance into the form of a question, they would have discovered that the average temperature over the entire Northern Hemisphere on the 18th of November was higher than normal, as was the average temperature for the entire planet, even though approximately 85% of the contiguous United States was experiencing lower than normal temperatures.

An oft repeated phrase on college campuses across the country is that there is no such thing as a stupid question, but on November 18th, that phrase ceased to be true at Illinois State University thanks to Fistbump, Ian Bayne, and Cities 92.9.

Local Conservative Voice and Misinformation about the Global Warming Consensus

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former" - Albert Einstein

If Cities 92.9 practiced truth in advertising, their promos for The Morning Rush with Robert Rees would have to include stupidity and misinformation as two of their primary features, rather than just "news and talk".

Case in point is the consensus view among climate scientists regarding climate change.

Based on extensive reading, I take the position that among climate scientists who are actively engaged in studying the climate and publishing their results in peer reviewed scientific journals, the consensus viewpoint is near unanimous that the earth is warming, and that warming is mostly due to human activities. So about a month ago, I was a bit surprised to hear Robert Rees make the following claim on his morning show:

ROBERT REES: "The left calls Republicans, or basically anybody who believes that global warming - if it exists - is not man-made, then they call them a science denier, even though the science is pretty much split on that issue, and more and more people are coming on the side of, yeah, ok, maybe man isn't creating global warming. Even though more scientists are going that way more and more, and the science is split on it, you're a science denier."

After hearing this comment, I immediately sent the following text message to the show:

The science isn't split. Among published climate scientists, 97% agree that global warming is mostly due to human activities which include the burning of fossil fuels and land-use changes. 97% isn't a split, it's a landslide.

I regularly send text messages to the show, and Robert always reads and responds to them immediately, except in this instance. For this text, the response came about 30 or so minutes later, which was after I had left for work and was no longer listening. I finally caught the response later in the week from the podcast for that particular day:

ROBERT REES: "And you my dear sir are reading very old outdated data. That study came out a long time ago and has been more than once debunked. That study that you're referring to is a study from a University of Illinois professor where he says uh, 97% of climate scientists say that global warming is man-made."

The reason Robert didn't respond immediately was now obvious, he wanted to first look into the matter before responding, which is fine, but his response raises two questions:

1. Does the 97% claim come from a single study, as claimed by Robert?

2. Has this study been thoroughly debunked, as claimed by Robert?

The short answer to both questions is no.

It turns out that Robert is the one using bad data, and as you'll see later in this essay, the bad information appears to be coming from a well known misinformation outlet known as the Heartland Institute.

To address the first claim - that the 97% number comes from a single study - let's take a look at some of the history of scientific attempts to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change:

Oreskes, 2004

In 2004, Naomi Oreskes published a paper in the peer reviewed science journal Science which was titled The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. In the paper, Oreskes explains that a search of the  ISI database for scientific papers published between 1993 and 2003 using the keywords "global climate change" returned 928 scientific papers. The paper itself lists only climate and change as the search keywords, but this was an error at the time the paper went to print and has been corrected after the fact. From the paper:

"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

So, in 2004, the Oreskes study looked back over a decade of climate science, and did not find any significant disagreement with the consensus view point that humans are significantly affecting climate change.

Doran et al., 2009

In 2009, Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the University of Illinois at Chicago published a paper called Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change which describes the results of a survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists asking the following two questions;

1. When compare with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

This is the study that Robert Rees referred to while responding to my text message, and now speaks of regularly on his show. First I'll let the authors describe their study, then I'll present the explanation the Heartland Institute supplied to Robert.

First, regarding the number of responses.

"With 3,146 individuals completing the survey, the participant response rate for the survey was 30.7%. This is a typical response rate for web-based surveys [Cook et al., 2000; Kaplowitz et al., 2004]."

Next, regarding how the respondents were categorized based on areas of research.

"With survey participants asked to select a single category, the most common area of expertise reported were geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), and oceanography (10.5%). General geology , hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology each accounted for 5-7% of the respondents. Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents  indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the last 5 years have been on the subject of climate change. While respondents names are kept private, the authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory."

And finally, the study's conclusions.

"Results show that overall 90% of participants answered "risen" to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2. In general, as the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement with the two primary questions (figure 1). In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered "risen" to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2."

And now, behold the description of the study that Robert Rees read to his listening audience. This is exactly the type of description one would expect from the weapons grade misinformers at the Heartland Institute. I'll address the spin and the falsehoods as they present themselves.

ROBERT REES: "Here's the thing, and this comes from the Heartland Institute, he says a graduate student asked the following questions to 10,000 earth scientists working for universities and government research agencies. So, ten plus thousand earth scientists were asked these questions: 1) When compared with pre-1800 levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant? Question 2) Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? They only received responses from 3,000 individuals which is only 5% of self identified climate scientists. So they sent out the question to 10,000. Only got responses from 3,000."

Notice the attempt at downplaying the number of respondents, even though according to the study, it falls within the range of what is expected for these types of surveys.  

ROBERT REES: "But, to get to the magic 97% in the affirmation of both questions, you know, saying yes to both questions, the study's authors had to whittle down the survey to 79 climate scientists. Those are individuals who published more than 50% of their recent peer reviewed papers on the subject of climate change. So, [laughing] they took out of 10,000 earth scientists who worked for universities and government research agencies, they whittled down their questionnaire down to 79 individuals. That's how you get 97%."

The survey wasn't whittled down to just 79 scientists, as anyone can plainly see by following the link I provided to the actual paper. All respondents are accounted for in the results, but are categorized by level of climate science expertise. The 79 individuals that reflect the 97% number are those who were categorized as both climatologists, and active publishers of climate science. In other words, those with the highest level of expertise. It wouldn't make sense to include earth scientists who don't study climate along with earth scientists who do when considering the consensus view, as those who don't study climate are not considered climate experts. When I want an opinion on a technical subject, I'll take that of an expert over a non-expert every single time.   

ROBERT REES: "In fact, this study that showed the 97%, when you look at the entire study, it shows that out of the people that responded, which was once again only 30% of the individuals who responded, 3,000 out of 10,000 that responded. Out of those 3,000, 66% of those guys who responded, or gals, actually had papers that said man-made global warming was not, or man's involvement was not the cause of global warming. So actually, the science isn't split, you're right, most of them actually say it's not man-made global warming, according to the same study that you're citing."

This is the point where I facepalm so hard that I nearly knock myself from my chair. Nowhere in the study does it say that 66% of the respondents published papers showing that man is not the cause of global warming. I don't know if the Heartland Institute provided Robert with this phony statistic, or if he simply pulled it from his bottom end, but that number makes no sense in light of the fact that 82% of all the respondents agreed that humans are significantly contributing to global warming. With that being the case, how could one explain that 66% also published papers showing that humans are not contributing? It simply defies basic logic. This facepalm is definitely going to leave a mark.

ROBERT REES: "When you whittle it down to 79 particular individuals, yep, 97% of them said it's man-made global warming. I didn't want to talk about that but when I saw the text I was like, oh give me a break. Using way old outdated data, data that was skewed in the first place."

2009 wasn't that long ago, and obviously the only one skewing the numbers is Robert Rees; science denier, and statistics manufacturer extraordinaire.

For more entertainment, and facepalming, here's Robert talking again more recently about this same study:

ROBERT REES: "Oh, the science is settled, really? According to one study the science is settled? 97% of scientists agree? Once again, that study was sent out to thousands and thousands of climate scientists, and they narrowed down the results to like 70. Oh, we don't like all these thousands of people's other answers, we're gonna take these 70 people's answer and finish out the study, and say the science is settled."

This statement completely misrepresents the Doran study. The study was sent out to earth scientists, of which a small percentage were actual climate scientists. Overall, 82% of those who responded agreed that humans are significantly contributing to climate change, and of those respondents who are actively publishing climate scientists, 97% agreed that humans are significantly contributing to climate change. Either way you look at it, even if you ignore the 79 climate scientists in the sample, earth scientists as a whole, according to the study, overwhelmingly agree that humans are significantly contributing to climate change.

So once again, in 2009, we have a study that finds a strong consensus view among earth scientists, and like the Oreskes study, an even stronger consensus among actual climate scientists.

Anderegg et al., 2010

In 2010, a study titled Expert Credibility in Climate Change was published by the National Academy of Sciences, a prestigious organization begun in 1863 by then president Abraham Lincoln. I'll let the abstract speak for itself:

"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that 97-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in their field support the tenets of Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of convinced researchers."

So, despite Robert's claim to the contrary, three studies, and no indication whatsoever of a split in the science. And the Anderegg study actually corroborates the Doran study's 97% number. So much for Robert's claim that the Doran study was debunked.

Cook et al., 2013

Just last year, a consensus study titled Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature was published in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Like the Oreskes study, it looked at published climate research over a period of time. Whereas the Oreskes study looked at a decade of research, the Cook study looked back over two decades (1991-2011). Cook and his team identified 11,944 papers related to "global climate change" or "global warming" over the 20 year period. They then reviewed those papers and categorized them as to whether they endorsed human caused global warming, were neutral, rejected it, or stated that they were uncertain. They also contacted the authors to allow them to rate their own papers, so as to reduce the possibility of falsely attributing an incorrect viewpoint to a paper. What they found was that of those papers that did in fact take a position on the cause of climate change, 97.2% endorsed the view that humans are significantly contributing to climate change.

So again, contrary to the viewpoint expressed by the Heartland Institute via Robert Rees, here is yet another study that corroborates the results of other studies, thus demonstrating a strong consensus view on the part of publishing climate scientists that humans are a major contributor to climate change.

What should be obvious to anyone reading this far, is that Robert's claim that the 97% consensus number is derived from a single study is false. As I've shown throughout this essay, there are multiple studies that have been undertaken in an attempt to quantify the scientific consensus on climate change.

What should also be obvious is that Robert's claim that the Doran study has been debunked is also false. Independent studies that converge upon very similar results, despite using completely different research methods, provide a compelling reason to accept that those studies - each of them - is an accurate reflection of reality.

As a final thought, take a look at how Cities 92.9 chose to describe the segment in which Robert made his false claims about the scientific consensus:

"Studies are showing that scientists don't believe climate change is man-made, and yet that's not what is reported."

That's not what gets reported for a very simple reason; it isn't true. But that doesn't stop Cities 92.9 from reporting it.

The misinformation that comes out of this station on any given broadcast day is absolutely staggering.

Local Conservative Voice Hosts a Merchant of Doubt - Part II

"Time after time, history demonstrates that when people don't want to believe something, they have enormous skills of ignoring it altogether." - Jim Butcher, Dead Beat

I stated in the first post of this series that I had emailed a question to Robert Rees - host of the Morning Rush on Cities 92.9 - in the hopes that Robert would pose my question to Steve Goreham, author of Climatism! Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century's Hottest Topic. Robert did ask my question, and as expected, Goreham either couldn't or wouldn't answer it. Before I reveal the question and Goreham's answer, I'd like to explain the construction of the question itself.

I spent some time reading Goreham's website, trying to get a feel for his position on the issue of global warming. Noticeably absent from his site was any attempt to confront any of the evidence for anthropogenic causes. Basically, it's a website chock full of red herrings, and climate change myths. I even watched an interview Goreham did on Fox News on Oct. 24, 2012, and found him providing much of the same of what he does on his website, like putting emphasis on things that are true, but don't call into question anthropogenic global warming. here's a sampling from that interview:

STUART VARNEY: Have we been had?

STEVE GOREHAM: Absolutely. The world is spending over 250 billion dollars a year to try and decarbonize right now, yet more and more evidence shows that climate change is natural, and man-made influences are very very small.

I couldn't verify Goreham's statement that the world is spending over 250 billion a year on decarbonization, but he is correct that climate change occurs naturally, and man-made influences on climate change are small in comparison to natural processes. But none of those facts calls into question any of the evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Arguing that the climate changes naturally shouldn't be confused with an argument that humans can't influence change, and arguing that our contribution is small shouldn't be confused with an argument that small contributions can't have large consequences. So, in the context of discussing AGW, Goreham's statements are simply red herrings, nothing more.

So in constructing my question, I wanted to put Goreham in a position of having to address some actual evidence, since avoiding it seemed to be his standard operating procedure. For me, this was a test of whether he was even familiar enough with the evidence to be able to address it, which would help to determine whether I was dealing with a skeptic, or a denier. A skeptic being someone who takes into consideration all of the available evidence before drawing conclusions, while a denier starts with a conclusion, and ignores all of the evidence that doesn't advance that conclusion's narrative. Goreham's website contains the signature of a denier.

For my question, I focused on 3 facts, which are as follows:

1. Global Mean Temperature is Rising.

Despite claims to the contrary, the global mean temperature is rising. The evidence for this is extensive, and while there are still those who claim it is not rising, their numbers are dwindling, and the remaining hold outs are ignored even in denier circles.

2. CO2 is Rising in the Atmosphere Due to Human Activities.

We know that CO2 is rising in the atmosphere due to human activities because we know how much CO2 humans produce each year, and we also know the extent of the CO2 that is accumulating in the atmosphere. It turns out that the accumulating amount is about half of what we produce. That means that half of our CO2 is absorbed into the carbon cycle, and the other half offsets a natural balance, thus causing it to increase in the atmosphere. This isn't rocket science. We also know that a natural property of CO2 is heat retention. This isn't rocket science either. More CO2 means more heat retention. QED.

3. Radiation Emitted Into Space at the Same Wavelength as that Given Off by CO2 is Decreasing.

This is something that has been uncovered using satellite measurements. We know enough about CO2 to know the specific wavelength of the heat that it absorbs, and later emits. What has been shown to be happening is that as CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the heat emitted back into space at the same wavelength that is absorbed by CO2 is decreasing. This is direct evidence that the increased heat in the atmosphere is due to the increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Again, not rocket science.

There are many more lines of evidence, but I couldn't possibly squeeze them all into my question, so the ones above were the ones I focused on. With that said, here is the question I emailed to Robert:

Mr. Goreham, you claim there is no empirical evidence for man-made global warming, yet we know empirically that the global mean temperature of the Earth is rising, we also know empirically that CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activities, and we know empirically that decreasing levels of radiation (heat) are being emitted back into space at the same wavelength as that given off by CO2. The climate science community accepts these facts as empirical evidence of man-made global warming, why don't you, and why is your opinion on the matter relevant, as you have no educational background in any of the fields that study climate?

And here is Steve Goreham's answer:

"Yeah, there's a whole bunch of questions there, and of course, we have had some recent warming, and we have uh, some reduced arctic ice and some other ice, but the important thing for people to remember is that uh, melting is evidence of warming, but not what is causing the warming, and that's where everything breaks down. The link between the tiny man-made emissions relative to the rest of the carbon cycle and to say that's causing all these effects like hurricanes, stronger hurricanes and melting ice, that's where everything breaks down."

So, in response to a question loaded with references to empirical links between man-made CO2 and rising temperatures, Goreham simply says warming isn't evidence of what is causing the warming and downplays the significance of CO2 in the carbon cycle. As expected, his answer doesn't even begin to address the question asked, or speak to any of the evidence. Goreham had the opportunity to put the results of his "research" on full display, but he chose instead to go full dodge. I was now officially convinced that Steve Goreham is not a skeptic, he is a denier. He doesn't know what the evidence is, and probably doesn't care, he just knows that peddling doubt pads his pockets. A real charlatan.

I'll address more of the interview with Robert Rees and Steve Goreham soon. I've contacted some experts regarding some of Goreham's statements, and they've confirmed much of what I suspected. Should be lots of fun.

Schooling Steve Goreham

"Refudiate, misunderestimate, wee-wee'd up. English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!" - Sarah Palin responds to criticism for inventing the word "refudiate", by proudly mistaking her illiteracy for literary genius, July 18, 2010.

Last week, I posted comments that were critical of author Steve Goreham and his definition for the term climatism; a term coined by Goreham. In my post, I called Goreham's definition a strawman, and stated that that alone was sufficient reason to dismiss without further comment his first book Climatism! Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century's Hottest Topic. Goreham took issue with my characterization of his definition, so in an attempt to defend it, he stopped by this blog and left a comment. The comment wasn't much of an argument though, as it consisted of 7 quotes that Goreham had extracted from speeches made by various public figures. Presumably, Goreham hoped to demonstrate with those quotes the existence of individuals who fit his definition of climatism, which could only mean that my characterization was wrong.

But that's not how things played out.

Here is Steve's quote in it's entirety, the emphasis included is mine:

Regarding the definition of Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth's climate, see the following quotes from Al Gore, James Hansen, Tim Flannery, Jonathan Overpeck, Joseph Romm, and Evo Morales. They talk about destroying the climate, the Earth, civilization, coastal cities, cultures, and nations from man-made climate change. As you can see, "destroy" is a favorite word of those supporting the theory of catastrophic man-made warming.

"We have arrived at a moment of decision. Our home--Earth--is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, of course, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings." --Al Gore, statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jan. 28, 2009

"We the human species, are confronting a planetary emergency--a threat to the survival of our civilization that is gathering ominous and destructive potential...the earth has a fever. And the fever is rising...indeed, without realizing it, we have begun to wage war on the earth itself." -- Al Gore, Nobel Prize acceptance speech, Dec. 10, 2007

"Burning all the fossil fuels will destroy the planet we know, Creation, the planet of stable climate in which civilization developed." --Dr James Hansen, letter to Barack and Michelle Obama, Dec. 29, 2008

"One problem facing humanity is now so urgent that, unless it is resolved in the next two decades, it will destroy our global civilization: the climate crisis." --Dr Tim Flannery, Now or Never. Why We Must Act to End Climate Change and Create a Sustainable Future, 2009, p.14

"The consequences would be catastrophic. Even with a small sea-level rise, we're going to destroy whole nations and their cultures that have existed for thousands of years." --Dr. Jonathan Overpeck, National Geographic News, Apr. 26, 2004

"Protecting dozens of major coastal cities from future flooding will be challenging enough--rebuilding major coastal cities destroyed by super-hurricanes will be an almost impossible task." --Joseph Romm, Hell and High Water: Global Warming--theSolution and the Politics--and What We Should Do, 2007, p.90

"Capitalism and the thirst for profit without limits of the capitalist system are destroying the planet...Climate change has placed all humankind before a great choice: to continue in the ways of capitalism and death, or to start down the path of harmony with nature and respect for life." --Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal, Nov. 28, 2008

Cheers!

While reading Steve's quotes, two things occurred to me:

First, all of the quotes use variations of the word destroy, but none speak to the destruction of the Earth's climate. Not a single one. Steve obviously sees things that just aren't there.

Second, Steve claims to be a full time researcher; a claim which carries with it all that is implied by those who conduct research, including the assumption that said researcher accounts for the full body of evidence, not just those things that reinforce their preconceived notions. Yet, here he is, thinking that a single quote from one speech on one specific date can be used to establish belief, even when the quote is only peripherally related. And this guy wants to sell books based on his research? Pathetic.

Obviously, Steve had taken his best shot, and he couldn't produce a solitary example of a person expressing a belief that man-made greenhouse gases would destroy the Earth's climate. So I replied to Steve's comment, explaining that his group of quotes had failed to justify his definition, to which he replied with the following:

I recommend that you re-read those quotes again. One of the quotes by Gore was in testimony to the United States Senate. The quote by Dr. James Hansen was in a letter to President Obama. I don't hink either person was kidding. One of the marks of a Climatist is that, when  evidence is presented, they are unable to admit when they are wrong.

Cheers!

I'm not sure which made me laugh more; the fact that Steve considers his quotes to be convincing evidence for his claim, or his newly expanded definition for climatism that includes anyone who disagrees with him, even when he's demonstrably wrong. So I replied again with the following:

Hansen and Gore are not referring to the destruction of the Earth's climate, they are referring to the destruction of the climatic conditions that we as humans are used to, and that are hospitable to us. Those are different things Steve, re-reading the quotes doesn't change that fact. Of course, there is a way to settle this bit of disagreement. If you redefine the term climatism so that it describes the position of real flesh and blood people, I'll have no choice but to quit referring to it as a strawman. Let me know if that is a satisfactory proposal Steve.

No word back from Steve yet regarding my proposal.

Local Conservative Voice Hosts a Merchant of Doubt - Part I

"Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' [linking smoking with disease] that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy."  - Statement contained in a 1969 internal memo of American tobacco company Brown and Williamson.

On December 2nd, I was tipped off by the host of The Morning Rush - a local radio show - that author Steve Goreham would be appearing on the show the following day. The radio station, Cities 92.9, which identifies itself as the "news and talk of Bloomington Normal", is one that I listen to regularly, although I prefer to call it the news and misinformation of Bloomington Normal, primarily because of the misinformation it dishes out during talk segments, particularly when those segments deal with science.

Robert Rees, the host of The Morning Rush, provided me with the tip about the interview during an email exchange we were having about global warming. Robert had made some rather dubious claims on-air a couple weeks prior, and I had contacted him via email to give him the opportunity to clarify his position prior to criticizing those claims online. Like I said, my email to Robert was about claims he had made about global warming, which had nothing to do with Steve Goreham. It was only after Robert suggested that I might be interested in the Steve Goreham interview the following day, that Steve Goreham became a topic in our discussion. Prior to Robert bringing him up, I had never heard of the guy, and had no knowledge of a prior interview with him in the past, or that he had an impending interview with him the following day. These facts are important to remember because of some statements Robert made the following day while interviewing Steve Goreham. I'll address those statements later in this piece, as they provide a glimpse into the psyche of a guy who by all reasonable standards, plays very loosely with facts.

After Robert tipped me off about the interview, I decided to see what I could find out about Steve Goreham on line. Robert had stated that Steve Goreham was the author of a book called Climatism, which sounded vaguely familiar to me. After doing a basic google search, and finding the web page for Climatism, I realized why. I had touched on this book briefly in a prior piece that was critical of Robert's resources. In fact, I had dismissed the book as rubbish based solely on the author's own definition of the term climatism, which he describes as follows:

"The belief that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are destroying Earth's climate."

Why did I dismiss the book because of this description? Because it is a strawman. No one who knows anything about the science behind global warming believes that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are destroying Earth's climate. What they believe is that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth's climate, at a rate unparalleled by historical natural means, a belief by the way that is supported by empirical evidence. Goreham's use of the term destroy, rather than change, shows he's either intellectually dishonest, or ignorant, neither of which entices me, or should entice anyone for that matter, to read his book. Call me odd, but I like my science with a heavy dose of honesty.

And of course, there's more, much more.

Steve Goreham has a M.S. in Electrical Engineering, and a MBA, both of which help in the argument that Steve Goreham is no dummy, but oddly enough, he has no credentials related to climate science. Of course, that doesn't disqualify him from having an opinion on the matter, after all, I don't have any credentials related to climate science either. But I don't publish books on the subject, and travel the countryside giving talks where I'm introduced as a climate expert, as Steve Goreham often is.

Many of Steve Goreham's speaking engagements are hosted by the Heartland Institute, an organization that receives millions from Exxon Mobile and the Koch brothers, both of whom have a financial interest in stalling or stopping regulations related to CO2. To get a feel for the type of organization that the Heartland Institute is, one need look no further than their recent billboard campaign. From the Wikipedia description:

"On May 4, 2012, the institute launched a digital billboard ad campaign in the Chicago area featuring a photo of Ted Kaczynski, (the "Unabomber" whose mail bombs killed three people and injured 23 others), and asking the question, "I still believe in global warming, do you? The institute planned for the campaign to feature murderer Charles Manson, communist leader Fidel Castro and perhaps Osama bin Laden, asking the same question."

There was a silver lining to the billboard campaign however, because of it, Heartland lost a significant number of corporate donors, and with that, significant funding. What they didn't lose was a guy named Steve Goreham, who appeared later that same month to speak at the Heartland Institute's 7th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC7). That alone speaks volumes about Steve Goreham.

So there I sat with the knowledge that Steve Goreham, the author of Climatism, and good friend of the Heartland Institute, was going to be sitting down to an interview the following day with our own local science denier, Robert Rees. I wanted badly to ask Steve Goreham a question, but I knew I'd be at work during the interview, and Robert probably wouldn't take calls anyway, as I'd never heard him take calls during an interview before. So, I sat down, and I composed a question that I wanted to hear Steve answer, and I emailed it to Robert. To my surprise, Robert asked my question. The question and answer are interesting, and I will address those soon enough, but what I want to address now is how Robert presented my question.

As I pointed out in the second paragraph above, I had never heard of Steve Goreham prior to Robert's email, and my question was composed and emailed back that same night, which was the night before the interview. Here's how Robert introduced my question:

Well, let me uh, let me start right off here because you are the, I said you're the director of Climate Science Coalition of America, and I had uh some people email me after the last time I had you on, and I want to kind of go back to some of their, some of their stuff, cause I had some, I don't know I'd call them attacks or whatever. I figured hey, let's go ahead and put it out here so I'm not being totally biased, even though I, I think these are a bunch of crazy whackos, I call them Earth lickers by the way, I think I told you that before, the uh, climate alarmists.

Did you catch that? Robert started the interview by lying to his guest.

He insinuated that my question was the result of a previous interview with Steve Goreham, and that he'd been hanging onto it ever since. He could have told Mr. Goreham that he and I were discussing climate change the night before, that Mr. Goreham's interview the following day came up, and that I had requested that he ask Mr. Goreham a question, after all, that would have been truthful. But he didn't do that, instead he chose to lie. Why lying came easier than telling the truth is anyone's guess, although, it could be that the inhabitants of Planet Robert just don't care much about the truth.

In Part II of this series, I'll post the question I emailed to Robert, along with Steve Goreham's answer. I think you'll find as I did that Steve does a wonderful job in the interview of exposing himself, not as an expert in the science of climate, but as an expert in the art of obfuscation.

Steve Goreham is no dummy, he knows that his craft is very profitable when put into the service of peddling doubt.

Oh look, there goes Steve now.