Climate Change Does Too Exist!, Rebuttal

This article is a prime example of how global warming/climate change can exist in one's mind and not in reality. The one key thing to remember is there wouldn't be a debate at all if GW/CC were a reality. The evidence would be so undeniable that everyone would agree due to it coming from concrete proof. However, this isn't the case with GW/CC as the debate has been going on for decades.

As I said, most meteorologists do not agree with the scheme of GW/CC primarily because of their overall knowledge of the mechanics of the atmosphere. More than likely, this is why the United Nations climate based organizations who promote this rubbish do not employ many true meteorologists and the ones they do employ have an extremist environmentalist background in their resume.

Getting down to the truth of the matter, the author states that many more tornadoes have occurred in the US more recently than in decades of the past.

Of course, more tornadoes have been observed in recent years, due to population increases as I said. However, since Doppler radar came into use on a wide scale in the 1980s we have observed more tornadoes than ever before, simply due to advanced technology in being able to detect them. Now tornadoes can be observe don Doppler radar that in years past would not have been detected at all.

Next, we need to address the Polar ice melt. First of all, using anything Michael Mann has to say can be discarded as gibberish from the start. This man is well educated in various genres but has no formal education in meteorology. He is an expert in computer models and all the manipulation that goes along with it. Since the "hockey stick" lie was exposed, no one should believe a word this man says. His track record is filled with lies and manipulation of data. Mann also proves the point that just because someone is well educated in one genre doesn't make them an expert in another.

Yes, the polar ice is melting. Its summer, it always decreases during summer. Again, we have manipulated satellite imagery designed to show a desired outcome.

A prime example of climate cycles is at the following link

https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/concentration-maps/sic0701

Here, Arctic ice is observed over the course of years. What it does show is expansion and retraction of ice in cycles. Nothing more or less and it shows no massive melt off.

I refer to my article, "My Predictions for 2012" for explanation of any unusually high ice melt being due to this year's unusually high solar activity, not GW/CC.

Yes, most of the central areas of the US, including Kansas and Iowa receive about 15 inches of precipitation annually on the low scale to around 35 on the high end. To say the natural vegetation in areas receiving less than 20 inches of precipitation annually is scrub brush country would be a true fact.

It is all in how the precipitation falls in an area also. An area receiving 12inches of rainfall annually, in the form of steady rain lasting for hours when it does rain along with usual high humidity levels yearly will be green most of the time. Such is the case in a place like San Diego, California. Yet, an area that receives the same amount of rainfall, but in the form of thunderstorms during a short season will have desert vegetation, as is the case in a place like No gales, Arizona.

As I have said many times, GW/CC is based on conjecture and doesn't add up when confronted with actual weather and climate records and truthful geophysical evidence.