Monday, September 8, 2008

Interview on Climate Change with Bob McCarty

Interview on Climate Change And Global Warming with Bob McCarty

Bob McCarty Writes ~ The Ultimate Blogging Machine
In our quest to learn more about how different people see climate change and global warming, we asked St. Louis blogger/writer Bob McCarty if we could interview him for this blog about his views on climate change. He answered with his own feelings and points of view, and it makes for very interesting reading. His blog attracts a lot of media attention: American Thinker, BBC,, Chicago Sun-Times, Fox News Channel, Gateway Pundit, Hot Air, Instapundit, The Mancow Show, The New York Times, USA WEEKEND, World Net Daily and many others. And now, the Northwardho blog.

Here are our questions, followed by Bob's answers. Enjoy. If you have any comments or questions, feel to write to Bob direcetly at his blog or leave your comments below. Thank you, Mr McCarty for a spiritede interview!

-- Danny Bloom in Taiwan

Q1. Do you believe climate change is real and caused by human activities? If not the cause, what do you think the cause might be? Same question re global warming -- is it real or a hoax, in your opinion?

A1: I believe that the campaign being foisted upon citizens of the world under the banner of "global warming" constitutes nothing more than a marketing effort being pushed by the likes of former vice president Al Gore and others in positions of influence both inside and outside of government. Their goal: To create panic among ill-informed people, induce lawmakers to pass legislation helpful to their cause and create a new form of commodity -- the so-called "carbon credits" -- from which they stand to reap tremendous financial gains. I've written about it frequently at my blog at

Does global warming take place? Yes, but it is cyclical in nature. Global cooling takes place as well.

Is mankind responsible for global warming when it takes place? No.

If I had to summarize my feelings about Al Gore's version of global warming in a pithy advertising pitch, I would describe it as globull warming or say that global warming is a myth.

Q2: Did you see Al Gore's documentary AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH and what did you think of it? Was it a fair, truthful, responsible movie, or just the opposite?

A2: I did not watch the entire length of Al Gore's shock-umentary, but I did watch enough of it to realize much of his so-called "scientific data" -- including portions on sea-level changes resulting from melting polar ice caps and the melting of permafrost -- is not rooted in fact. I've written about it extensively at my blog and even began offering INCONVENIENT TRUTH SERUM as something one could "Take three times a day until global warming fears subside."

Q3: On the climate change debate, there are two sides, those who are called denialists and those are called climate activists. What side do you fall on?

A3: The terms you use to describe those on opposing sides of the climate change debate leave something to be desired. I fall on the side of people who believe in science based upon truth rather than Al Gore-fueled "consensus science." Included in that group are many thousands of reputable scientists who are, in fact, "climate change activists." At the same time as they do not believe in human-caused global warming, they do not believe a climate crisis lurks just around the corner.

Q4: Sarah Palin the VP candidate for the GOP, apparently believes in global warming but she does not think it us caused by human activity, just a natural cycle. But she has set up a sub-cabinet group in the AK government office called the Climate Change Group and they do meet to talk about climate change and how it might impact Alaska in the she sees both sides, it seems. What is your reaction to her views on global warming and her setting up of the govt committee to look into it?

A4: If you are accurate in stating that (1) Sarah Palin believes in global warming as part of a natural cycle and (2) she assembled some sort of working group to study climate change, I'd say she's pretty smart. By setting up the group, which I assume is comprised of reputable scientists and others who can make worthwhile contributions to the groups' efforts, Gov. Palin can remain informed about the views of people on both sides of the issue. It doesn't mean she's going to start selling carbon credits or assessing new taxes on Alaskans based on the amount of toxic smoke they generate while burning whale blubber for fuel.

Q5: Have you ever heard of the idea of POLAR CITIES for survivors of global warming to seek refuge in, say in the year 2500 or so, if things get really bad in the south and central regions of Earth? What do you think of this cockamamie idea? useful or completely ridiculous? Will humans need some kind of adaptation strategies to deal with climate change in the future, if things get bad? Or will humans use their high IQs to solve all the problems before they get out of hand, in your POV?

A5: My first encounter with the concept of polar cities came today -- through you. I have not spent a single moment worrying and/or wondering about what might or might not happen in the year 2500. Likewise, I have not worried about means humans might use to "deal with climate change in the future." I do not believe the change will be of enough significance to demand "adaptation strategies." Further, as an evangelical Christian, the only thing I look forward to in the year 2500 is the joy I'll experience living in eternity with Jesus Christ, my Lord.

Q6: Where did you grow up, where do you live now, in the USA, and how do you see the future growth of the US population in terms of climate change and global warming? Will the future just go on and on and things will get better and better, forever and ever, or will the future of America be very different than the USA of today? How do you envision the USA of the year 2500?

A6: I grew up in the Midwest United States, but have spent stints on the East Coast and in Japan. Again, I do not believe there will be any climate change significant enough to impact future growth of the U.S. population. As far as the future of the United States is concerned, I believe that the future of mankind has already been written and will play out exactly as foretold in the Holy Bible. In what exact fashion will that play out and when? I suggest you read the New Testament, paying particular attention to the last book, Revelations, for answers about the end times.

Q7: British scientist James Lovelock, 89, says we have only 20-40 years left before the world become unlivable because of global warming and all hell breaks loose, with billions dying off and only 200,000 "breeding pairs" alive in the Arctic to keep the human species going generation after generation.... what do you think of his wild idea?

A7: I'll stick my neck out and hazard a guess that Mr. Lovelock and I disagree on the future in terms of climate change; therefore, I'll forgo the opportunity to offer a detailed opinion on his "breeding pairs" idea. Instead, I'll just agree that it is a "wild idea."

Q8: Are you an optimist or pessimist when it comes to climate change in the future?

A8: I am an optimist about the future when it comes to climate change, because I believe it will have minimal impact on the future. I am a pessimist, however, when it comes to the fraud (a.k.a., "globull warming") being perpetrated on people around the world by the likes of Al Gore, Heidi Cullen et al. I think it has already been unnecessarily costly (see Dr. Arthur Robinson's article in Human Events) and will continue to be costly as long as the global warming alarmists continue to receive favored-opinion status in the mainstream news media.

Q9: What about geo-engineering FIXES, such as scientists putting things in the air to keep the world cool, you thing a tech fix can solve the problems of climate change?

A9: I say, "If it isn't broke, don't fix it."

Q10: How old are you now, and what it your hope for your children and grandchildren in the future? Can you envision your descendants living in the USA 30 generations down the road, and how do you envision their lives then, in the year 2500?

A10: I'm among the youngest of the post-World War II "Baby Boomers" generation. My hope for my children, my grandchildren and their successors is that they will trust Jesus Christ to guide their futures. I do not, however, suspect that the world as we know it will still be around by 2500. Instead, I hope that the Second Coming of Our Lord will have taken place much sooner than then. On this question, however, I must rely upon the Gospel of Matthew 24:44: So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.


RJ said...

It sounds like Bob has looked at some of the science instead of blindly following the media and politicians. There's absolutely nothing unusual about our climate - it's all happened before. Unless you blame the power stations and cars 20,000 years ago, don't try to blame them now.

Patricia Burns said...

A biblical perspective is worth consideration –

The root cause of the environmental declines we are facing throughout the world is a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. That once one-fourth part of the earth is destroyed (Re.6:7-8) we will move forward to the next Seal events, followed by Trumpet events, followed by Plague events. That the earth is on a downhill slid from which it will not recover. The first four Trumpet events will destroy an additional one-third (Re.8:7-12).

Patricia © Bible Prophecy on the Web
Author of the self-study aid, The Book of Revelation Explained © 1982