Washington Post sums up why voters don’t believe White House about global warming.

May 9, 2014

Five reasons from the Washington Post about why people are rejecting the administrations blathering on global warming.  They pretty well sum up the non-technical reason for rejection.

  1. Overreach
  2. Hypocrisy
  3. The global warming cause fits too nicely with the president’s left-wing political agenda.
  4. A lack of faith in foreign cooperation.
  5. This administration lacks credibility.

See the details here.



  1. 1.overreach:
    when including the warming taking place in the artic combining satellite and ground stations, the ground stations alone have underestimated the warming.


    HADCRUT4 hybrid

    Trend: 0.138 ±0.161 °C/decade (2σ)

    2. Hypocrisy:

    The Al Gore cry doesn’t hunt anymore. Global warming is going on no matter what Al says.

    3. The global warming cause fits too nicely with the president’s left-wing political agenda.

    There are conservatives who are championing action on global warming. Climate change is becoming a PRO LIFE ISSUE.


    4. A lack of faith in foreign cooperation.

    China is moving ahead on cap and trade.


    5. This administration lacks credibility.

    Bob Ingliss vs James Taylor climate debate to a mostly conservative crowd. Ingliss was for action

    Ingliss won with 80% of the audience voting for his view. Devastating.

    James Taylor’s views have a 20% credibility with conservatives.

    • Jeffrey Green,

      Thank you for the comment.

      1. Your reply to “overreach” points out warming in the Arctic, which presumably results in diminishing Arctic sea ice. However, it ignores the increasing Antarctic sea ice, which has continuously been above average for about two years now.

      It also ignores the NOAA prediction of above average sea ice for the Arctic this summer…

      2. You dismiss the charge of hypocrisy by simply cutting Al Gore loose. Well, that is a step in the right direction. But there is a very long list of hypocrites from the left when it comes to preaching about CO2 emission reductions.

      3. The President’s left wing agenda…

      You provided a link to an interview with Richard Cizik as evidence that the global warming cause is actually strongly supported by the right. I had never heard of Richard Cizik before. It did not take long to find that he is not a good representative for main stream conservative positions. Really, it is quite a stretch to argue that the global warming cause is strongly supported on the right. By the way, do you usually defer to religious leaders on all topics?

      4. China is no leader when it comes to CO2 reduction. They are rapidly increasing their CO2 emissions. As I wrote earlier…


      5. You are critical of the charge that “the administration lacks credibility.” This lack of credibility spans many topics. To support your position you proffer a video that has nothing to do with the administration.

      Best Regards,

      • 1. overreach: This is based on Cowtan and Way


        They use a kriging technique to combine satellite temperature data with land based temperature data.

        The fastest warming area on the earth is the artic. There has been a problem in the past of trying to include what is happening in the artic.

        I was responding to the meme “there has been no warming in {blank} years.

        If you choose, you can read the paper here. It is free access.


        There has clearly been warming as measured in the ocean temperatures.


        Total heat content is increasing all during the 2000’s. The atmosphere only represents 2.5% of the warming.

      • Jeffrey Green,

        Thank you for the additional comment.


        The article which this post refers to says…

        1. Overreach. The White House doesn’t just want it both ways, it wants it every way. Increasingly, when there is a topical weather event, be it a warm typhoon in the Pacific or a cold snap in the United States, we hear it is caused by global warming. But non-events, such as fewer tropical storms becoming hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico or the frustrating, inconvenient truth that there hasn’t been any warming in the past 15 years, are dismissed as meaningless because we are told you must evaluate climate change over the long term. On Tuesday, President Obama even took time to meet with local and national weather reporters as a way of emphasizing the effects of global warming on today’s weather. The left is inconsistent in its selection of what factors and events “prove” that manmade global warming is real.

        That is, ignoring contradicting evidence. You seem to be doing the same thing in your response – you have simply highlighted what you find to be evidence for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (in your case, rising temperatures in the Arctic). But you have not addressed contradictory evidence like that presented in the article that this post refers to or are available from many other sources.

        For the record, I have not done the same when it comes to rising temperatures in the Arctic. See…

        Best regards,

  2. [inconvenient truth that there hasn’t been any warming in the past 15 years,]

    I am attempting to point out to you that the past 15 years have been warming. It is a common mistake people make hoping that global warming is not true.

    My Premise is ” Global warming is true”

    Global temperature increase in the last 15 years with improved temperature data that includes the 15% of the earth not covered in the past decades. This would be Antarctica, the Arctic, and Africa.


    Cowtan and Way have published a paper showing a complete coverage of the earth. Complete coverage of the earth could of just as well been cooling. But is a stronger warming than the regular Hadcrut data set. The Kriging technique shows a stronger warming trend in the last 15 years.


    1999 to 2014
    Trend: 0.098 ±0.139 °C/decade (2σ)
    Trend: 0.066 ±0.129 °C/decade (2σ)
    Trend: 0.073 ±0.130 °C/decade (2σ)
    hadcrut4 hybrid
    Trend: 0.138 ±0.161 °C/decade (2σ)

    The point is that the hadcrut4 hybrid is showing based on complete coverage of the earth that it has nearly twice the warming rate of the other 3 data sets.

    Best land only
    Trend: 0.174 ±0.318 °C/decade (2σ)

    noaa land only
    Trend: 0.139 ±0.224 °C/decade (2σ)

    Land is showing a stronger warming trend in partial coverage of earth than the other partial coverage temperature data sets.

    I am establishing a warming trend in the last 15 years and yet the Washington Post article says it hasn’t warmed.

    Based on personal politics, is that reason enough to say everything is just a sham? Data speaks for itself. However contradictory the evidence appears to the average person, the earth is clearly warming.

    Sea ice in the Antarctic winter is inconsequential. It disperses during summer and melts and does not really increase albedo.

    The arctic sea ice although varying from year to year have a clear 30 year downward trend.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: