Sunday, March 23, 2014


(references added at end on o3/24/2013)
The highly promoted mantra that a 97% "consensus of scientists" proves global warming is a critical issue and, even more importantly, is man-made is improperly arrived at and, hence, is invalid. Scientific conclusions and  laws are arrived at not by consensus but from indisputable data and information arrived at by proper use of the "Scientific Method" and statistics. Both were ignored in coming to the "97% consensus" conclusion. It is all but inarguable that politicians co-opted science and "scientists" and both politicized and commercialized the issue called "global warming." With much criticism of the lack of data to prove "global warming, more emphasis now is on "climate change." How was the "97% consensus of scientists derived?" Mr. Roland (Keith) Sadler gives the following explanation.

There were many skeptics from the beginning but their voices were quieted and they were disparaged and discredited. Still are! 
In 1998, Dr. Arthur Robinson, Director of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, posted his first "Global Warming skeptic" petition.
Today, his list includes nearly 32,000 Americans who are skeptics of man-made global warming. All have science qualifications.  More than 9,000 hold PhDs in the sciences. Almost 32,000 thousand skeptics is twelve times as many scientists as the 2,500 scientific reviewers claimed by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to form a "scientific consensus."

This piece of propaganda comes from a 2009 American Geophysical Union  survey. It’s also referred to as the Doran Survey or Zimmerman Thesis

"Theory crushed"...Mr. Sadler            But the mantra goes on...JAM

A major issue with a preponderance of "scientific reports" and public focus on global warming, other critical problems are going unresolved. In many years of technical Research and Development I always operated from the tenet that " bad data are worse than no data." Bad data and improper information beg and assure bad decisions. It is a fact!

Roland (Keith) Sadler
Graduate of Christopher Newport University-BS Business Management
25 years of experience in Medical /Science industry
Experience & familiarity  with study designs/formats (experimental design)
Interest in the Global Warming/Climate Change Theory and Anthropogenic effect of such.

Debunking the 97% 'consensus' on global warming | Climate ...
Feb 4, 2014 - The main pillar of the warmist argument is the contention that a "consensus" exists among scientists that global warming is caused by man and ...

About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there ...
Watts Up With That?
Jul 18, 2012 - So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly ...

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not! - Forbes
Jul 17, 2012 - Consensus momentum regarding action on climate change? ... It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) ...... Now, for a survey of what climate scientists (at least 97% of them anyway)


Tuesday, March 18, 2014


There are only two primary drivers of average global temperature change. They very accurately explain the reported up and down measurements since before 1900 with R2>0.9 (correlation coefficient = 0.95) and provide credible estimates back to the low temperatures of the Little Ice Age (1610).

CO2 change is NOT one of the drivers.

The drivers are given at

Dan Pangburn, ME and member of ASME, posted the information above as a comment to my blogpost on March 12, 2014 rebutting a very flawed published article. It was not my intent initially to engage in the arguments for global warming, rather I simply found it desirable, even necessary, to clarify misinformation for the public. However, I am more than a skeptic. Mr. Pangburn's excellent scholarly information in the link above is so compelling as to dictate that I go further to inform people as much as possible the purpose of my blog. 

In addition, another piece was published in response to the op-ed I rebutted informing as to how the "97% consensus claim" was gotten that is also compelling.  I will post this piece with commentary later. The work of both of these writers is compelling to read -- revealing the fallacies of the mantra.


Wednesday, March 12, 2014



This post breaks down an incredibly flawed op-ed that appeared in The Virginia Gazette, a unit of the Daily Press, a Tribune paper, that tried to discredit three very credible earlier op-eds that challenged the methodology of "scientists" at the fore of global warming claims. The author is billed as a retired NASA Scientist who, it would seem, has no experience in the "science" of so-called global warming (or any science ). With years of reading and writing I have never seen such a flawed article. This is my rebuttal that ran today in The Virginia Gazette. Note: Both Mr. Kauffman's and Mr. Brown's articles are posted on this blog on February 7 and 9 under "Climate Change, Questioning The Mantra."

Recently, Steve Kauffman and Michael J. Brown published scholarly work in defining “The Scientific Method” as the bedrock principle for technological research and development. They focused on the violation of the method by global warming “scientists.” Then Dr. Howard Browne wrote an equally scholarly report on the application of the “Method” in medicine. These people gave outstanding insight, into the necessity for properly using the “Method” to establish a conclusive technical data base and for practical use in solving critical real-time problems.

On March 8, a gentleman, billed as a “NASA scientist, retired” attempted to discredit their work asking “when is this travesty of science going to stop?” He only discredited himself. Let's break down the his arguments. First, he asked West Virginians “how wonderful is the coal industry.....” I'm a West Virginian. The answer to his question lies in a majority of West Virginians, long-solidly Democratic, voting against Barack Obama after he assured them that he'd “bankrupt coal-fired power plants“ – hence the coal industry. They voted for their survival – to support families expecting problems to be solved as they have been, since WV's birth in 1863.

Then the gentleman incorrectly characterizes cap and trade policy as a “cave-in to the business lobby.” He ignores that carbon offset trading was a vehicle by which the upfront “leaders” of global warming (Al Gore et al) made millions of dollars until the vehicle collapsed from a heavy dose of reality.

Then he discredited  fracking to produce natural gas, again showing no understanding of facts. I'd suggest he go to where the “Marcellus field” is being fracked, especially Pennsylvania, and get facts directly from the thousands working the “fields.” He might also learn how natural gas positively changes the dynamics of the energy industry. But, appreciation of that requires an understanding that the economy of the USA is energy based, as is the world's.

The gentleman then goes off the rails of reality showing no understanding of business in discussing the proposed Keystone pipeline. He says, “when oil reaches Texas and is oil company will own it.” They would sell it, not to “Americans for $99 per barrel but to foreign companies for $120 per barrel.” What!? True, crude will be refined, some as oil, some gasoline and some into primary chemicals as well as chemical intermediates. Some will be used here and some will be exported, increasing our export revenue thus reducing our current account imbalance. Positive! And, with Canadian tar sands oil, not our reserves!

He then avers that Montana oil wells produce little oil and are “burning gas in tall towers, because gas is worth less than oil.” Fantasy! Ignorance. Montana is part of the Bakken fields that now produce 10% of America's oil creating thousands of jobs. Minor amounts of natural gas (methane) have been “flared” since the very first oil well – environmentally positive in that methane has a greater greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide produced in flaring.

 He really goes astray in suggesting that his blood CO2 level is “elevated” from atmospheric CO2. Serum CO2 is metabolic -- produced in the body. The lungs' alveoli remove the CO2 to be exhaled as they process oxygen into the blood. His assertion is beyond pathetic and, at first reading, was thought to be a joke. The gentleman might want to see good pulmonologist.

What we have here is the result of politicians co-opting science and “scientists” – as well as ignorance. Politicians corrupt the scientific process and convert it into a commercial one. They are aided and abetted by “scientists,”  some who are  ignorant and others self-serving. This is the true travesty. The title "scientist" does not convey credibility to the incredible. Neither does an inch-high headline that headed the op-ed. 
Another travesty (tragedy really) is that while all effort goes into support of a flawed analysis, using not the "Scientific Method" but flawed computer models, critical problems go unresolved. Too many people just don't care and accept the mantra. Sad commentary on us!

Saturday, March 1, 2014


HOW OBAMACARE KILLS  by Dr. Robert Warren. PhD

Gone are the heady days associated with passing the Obamacare legislation. What now exists is a malfunctioning regulatory machine that belongs in the bureaucratic equivalent of an auto repair shop. If the website doesn’t work, fix it. If the thousands of regulations don’t work, fix them. If the insurance exchanges need a major overhaul, fix them. But where are living, breathing people in all of this?

Joe is in his late thirties. He has an aggressive cancer that will end his life in a few months. As a last shot at life he petitioned for and received approval for a stem cell replacement – and then his insurance was canceled. He is having difficulty getting a new insurance company, and even if he does, he will have to go through another lengthy appeal process that will rapidly reduce or even eliminate his survival chances. In desperation, he called a well known radio talk show host for help.

Susan is in her forties and has an unusual cancer. There are very few hospitals in the country that treat her life threatening condition. Her husband moved her near to such a facility to give her the best chance to survive - and then they lost their insurance and possibly access to the hospital and doctors treating her. Fear and sadness was evident on her face during the television interview.

Mark is in his fifties and will die without cancer treatment. He, too, had his insurance canceled. Because the cost of Obamacare was in the tens of thousands of dollars per year, he decided not to purchase any Obamacare plan. He stated on the radio that he would rather die the slow, painful death of cancer than disrupt his kids chances for a better future. There was resignation in his voice.

Joe, Susan and Mark, not their real names, are flesh and blood middle class working folk. They are confronted with a regime that would rather tinker with contraceptives and set up rationing practices.

Obama, Reid and Pelosi spoke about how compassionate and less costly Obamacare would be. They said that if you liked your doctor, healthcare facility and insurance, you could keep them. Unfortunately, with some exceptions for favored parties like unions, you can’t keep them.

The Obamacare distortions and outright lies are killing people right now, and there are many more people like Joe, Susan, and Mark who will suffer the ultimate fate because they were forced into the federal healthcare machine which was created, not for healthcare improvement, but for political control and income redistribution. This is the real and ugly face of socialism in America. 

Dr. Warren posts often on this blog and his impressive credentials are noted in previous posts.