Commander Ryan Zinke is a better scientist than Professor Steve Running

by Dr. Ed Berry

RyanZ2According to the Huffington Post, the July debate between Montana’s US House candidates showed a distinct separation of views on climate change, which lead to different views on energy policy.

Republican Ryan Zinke questions man’s role in climate change. He said,

“The evidence strongly suggests that humans have had an influence on higher CO2. However, the evidence is equally as strong that there are other factors, such as rising ocean temperatures that have a greater influence.”

So the Huffington Post asked University of Montana Professor Steve Running, a forest ecophysiologist, his opinion on Zinke’s positions. Running said,

SteveRunningRyan Zinke’s characterization doesn’t square with the facts at all.”

“We can say quite confidentially that 90 to 95 percent of this carbon trend is human induced. A tiny fraction is natural variability. It’s the additions that humans are making, to what was close to a balanced system before.”

So who’s right?

This is now atmospheric physics textbook stuff. Ryan Zinke is right and Steve Running is wrong.

Dr. Murry Salby has written a definitive new textbook, “The Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate” that Steve Running should not only read but also use in his university climate change course.

Salby’s research dismantles the UN IPCC’s claims about climate change, and consequently the Democrat’s green energy platform. To borrow an IPCC term, Murry Salby’s conclusions are “unequivocal”.

Murry Salby’s research shows the following:

  1. Global sea surface temperatures controls atmospheric CO2, like the accelerator pedal controls the speed of your car. Temperature is the cause and CO2 is the effect, not vice-versa as the IPCC (and Steve Running) claim.
  2. CO2’s effect on global temperature is negligible.
  3. Human CO2 emissions play a minor part in CO2 increase, contrary to Running’s statement above.

Here is a video of Murry Salby’s lecture to German physicists:

[youtube id=”2ROw_cDKwc0″]

The scientific method requires we test hypotheses by checking their predictions against new data. The key to science is “If your prediction is wrong, your hypothesis is wrong.”

The UN IPCC climate models contain the IPCC climate change hypotheses. But all climate models way over-predict future temperatures as proven in the last 17 years. Therefore, the UN IPCC Climate hypotheses are wrong. Case closed.

Steve Running, however, continues to claim, falsely,

  1. Human CO2 emissions are the primary cause of CO2 increase.
  2. CO2 is the primary cause of temperature increase.
  3. He has a Nobel Peace Prize.

Ryan Zinke, who has a B.S degree in geology and Master’s degrees in Business Finance and Global Leadership, is a better scientist than Running for three reasons:

  1. Zinke follows the scientific method and Running does not.
  2. Running claims climate science is “settled”. Zinke says science is never settled.
  3. Apparently, Ryan Zinke has read Murry Salby’s textbook and Running has not.

Democrat John Lewis thinks CO2’s effects on climate are evident in droughts and wildfires. Lewis is hallucinating because there is no such evidence. Droughts are caused by normal climate changes and wildfires are enhanced by forest mismanagement. We don’t want a Congressman who believes the global warming fairy tale and makes his political decisions accordingly.

10 thoughts on “Commander Ryan Zinke is a better scientist than Professor Steve Running”

  1. John D. Swallow

    The scientific method requires we test hypotheses by checking their predictions against new data. The key to science is “If your prediction is wrong, your hypothesis is wrong.”

    I have a challenge for, Professor Steve Running, since you say you have studied this issue of anthropogenic global warming extensively. You need to provide us with the experiment that shows that CO2 does what some maintain as far as being the driver of the earth's climate. I do not need to be reminded of Tyndall's 1859 lab experiments that do not prove that humanity's CO2 emissions are warming the planet. In the real world, other factors can influence and outweigh those lab findings and that is why these experiment must deal with the real world and not computer models that do not have the ability to factor in all of the variables that effect the earth's climate. If they can not provide a verifiable experiment regarding the present amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and how it effects the climate and creates their anthropogenic global warming, then believing that it does so is akin to believing that Santa Clause is real and you need to be good to get something left under the tree.

    It is a fact that real scientist devise experiments to either prove or disprove their hypotheses and welcome people to try to disprove them so that they can move on. They sure do not say that the science is settled and the argument is over because there are REAL scientist out there doing REAL scientific work that are not blinded by some agenda that they support so that they can get more "research" money or money to fund a boondoggle renewable energy scheme that will never work.

    Albert Einstein addressed the theory of quantum entanglement. In Dec. of 2011 this experiment was carried out:
    Quantum Entanglement Links 2 Diamonds.  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=

    Speaking of Albert Einstein, he had an answer for those continually trying to claim that there is a consensus for their flawed, unproven hypothesis regarding anthropogenic global warming, climate change or what ever the charlatans now call it: “Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of the truth” Albert Einstein.
    "The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin." — Thomas H. Huxley [Gore, & I assume you, say that the debate is over, how ludicrous]

    Here are some other experiment that HAVE been conducted.
    Einstein was right, neutrino researchers admit. http://phys.org/news/2012-06-einstein-neutrino.ht

    Jasper Kirkby photographed inside the CLOUD chamber. http://cdsweb.cern.ch/journal/CERNBulletin/2009/4

    Henrik Svensmark, being a scientist, devised experiments of his own to test his theory and that demonstrates how science works. It is not about a group of self serving charlatans proclaiming that “the debate is over” when they have no experiment that shows that CO2 drives the earth's climate or even provide the mathematical derivation of CO2 forcing.

    “Svensmark: Evidence continues to build that the Sun drives climate, not CO2″. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxstzCXSMH0&fe

    "New Data Boosts Case for Higgs Boson Find. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324
    How close are we to finding dark matter? http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-24987

    It seems to me that if the experiments above could be devised and carried out, that one showing how carbon dioxide can cause the earth's climate to act as some seem to want people to believe it does should have been carried out long ago. If you believe that this trace gas, CO2, drives the climate, then you are no different than a member of a faith based cult and yours believes a boogie man in the sky will ruin their lives with NO proof, at all.

    I post this for your buddies on here to look into & I'm sure you think that they prove your point about CO2:
    A science experiment to get you all fired up. http://www.bbc.co/..er.shtml 

    Putting the science of global warming to the test http://news.bbc.c…8356.stm/ 
    I ask you, Professor Steve Running, that if you can't prove and back up what you said: “We can say quite confidentially that 90 to 95 percent of this carbon trend is human induced. A tiny fraction is natural variability. It’s the additions that humans are making, to what was close to a balanced system before.” then quit saying it.

    I have begun to post this when I have comments with these kinds of naive, uninformed people and, guess what, so far I have not been directed to any links of experiments that show what I ask for regarding CO2.

  2. John D. Swallow

    "Lewis puts his emphasis on non-traditional energy sources including wind, hydro and solar power and plant-based fuels such as diesel derived from the crop camelina, which is a member of the mustard family."

    Here is some information on the “Green” Military that one sees if they watch Fox News and their little piece about the camellia plant to be grown in California. How much of this can the nation afford when the military’s budgets have already been cut?
    Biofuels Industry at Crossroads as Military Waits for Lower Prices (UPDATED) 
    June 2012 
    “Military leaders like to say that their aircraft, ships and personnel can’t tell the difference between petroleum and biofuel. But their budgets can.
    Proponents say that the biofuels industry is at a crucial juncture and needs the right mix of policy, action and financial support to cross the bridge to commercialization. But if any leg of that support goes weak, the military may have to wait even longer for green fuel to reach competitive prices.
    To be sure, the costs have been coming down. The Navy is paying $12 million for 450,000 gallons of biofuel to power a carrier strike group off the coast of Hawaii this year. That $26.6-per-gallon purchase is nowhere near the $2.50 the service pays for each gallon of petroleum. (It has been stated that it would be about $16 per gallon if it were mixed with standard jet fuel.) But it can be considered a good deal when compared to what the Navy paid biofuels supplier Solazyme Inc. under a previous contract.
    The service in 2009 spent $8.5 million for 20,000 gallons of algae-based fuel. That works out to $425 per gallon. In the fall of that year, the Defense Logistics Agency paid Montana’s Sustainable Oils $2.7 million for 40,000 gallons of fuel from the camellia plant. That’s about $67.50 per gallon.”

  3. @2 Dear Bodhe Mom, Ryan Zinke is neither a neocon nor a RINO. I think I know him far better than you do. Please provide solid evidence for your claims if you wish to make them. Just starting rumors (or moronically parroting Chuck Baldwin) only helps John Lewis and you will not like how John Lewis votes.

    This election is very serious as is the election of Daines to the US Senate. Montana may be the swing state that determines whether or not Obama gets a free ride to destroy us in his last 2 years. In my opinion, anyone who does not support Steve Daines and Ryan Zinke is an enemy of our freedom and a friend of Muslim Obama.

  4. Zinke has already said in the past that he's a moderate and most people agree that he's another John McCain. Wake up Ed and smell the roses. Zinke is too busy waffling on the issues. Zinke says people shouldn't own .50 cals but now that he's running for congress his views keep changing to suit his audience, like endorsing .50 cals. Zinke will destroy this country and can't be trusted. How do you like your waffles.

  5. @4 Dear Jan,

    It’s clear you are a Democrat and you support John Lewis, Harry Reid, Muslim Obama, the four liberal Supreme Court justices appointed by Democrat Presidents, Obama’s wars, Obamacare, Obama’s EPA war on America’s property rights and energy resources, etc, etc.

    Since you prefer John Lewis over Ryan Zinke, then like all Democrats, you want to make America a second-rate country subservient to China and Russia and the extreme environmentalists. Like all liberals, you support the UN Conferences to control the world’s carbon dioxide emissions, because encoded in them was wording Obama was frothing to sign that would have put America under UN control, ending America’s sovereignty.

    You have a right to your opinion but you should be honest and admit you are an anti-American liberal.

    But conservative readers will notice that Jan has not provided one shred of evidence for her claims that Zinke is “another John McCain” or “will destroy this country” or “can’t be trusted”. That’s because her three main claims are untrue. They are sound bites regurgitated by liberals to promote Libertarian votes to help elect Democrats.

    Jan plays the liberal game of finding one irrelevant issue to criticize Ryan Zinke, namely his former opposition to personal ownership of .50 caliber guns. Jan uses this irrelevant issue to encourage conservatives to vote for John Lewis, who will join the Democrats effort to take away all our guns.

    Nice try, Jan, but your liberal tactic won’t work on real conservatives. Every sensible person realizes we must have some limit on the size and power of personal weapons, or we would allow everyone to own surface-to-air missiles capable of taking out aircraft at 33,000 feet.

    The fact is Montanan’s have very good choices for personal firearms. NEMO’s AR-15′s are good examples. But these may not be good enough for Jan who wants bullets that will go through and exit everything she shoots at.

    While Jan would prefer a Democrat in Congress who will support Obama’s plan to take away all our guns, real conservatives know Zinke has always been a strong supporter of our Second Amendment.

    Jan likely voted Libertarian in 2012 and thereby helped install Obamacare supporter, liberal judge supporter Jon Tester to Congress for another six years and liberal Democrat Steve Bullock as Montana’s governor.

    While moderate on some social issues, Ryan Zinke is conservative on economic, energy, defense, and Constitutional issues. And if you look carefully, Zinke’s “moderate” position on social issues, he wants government to stay out of your home, your property, and your bedroom. Jan, however, may want government to dictate what you do in your home, property, and bedroom. So claiming someone is a social moderate is a two-edged sword.

    The difference between Ryan Zinke and John Lewis is like night and day.

    Ryan Zinke does not fall for the global warming scam like virtually every Democrat does, and John McCain fell for hook, line, and sinker.

    Zinke has college degrees in science and business. He is a Navy Commander. He has experience with real world problems. He understands America’s foreign problems, its energy problems and its economic problems. He is smart. He listens to people. He will serve Montana’s conservatives very well.

  6. On @5. OK, I admit I got a little wound up responding to @4. But we need to counter attack the irrational claims that cost Montana Republicans in 2012 a US Senate seat, a Governorship, and several statewide positions, and that now threaten to do the same thing in 2014.

    Here's my perspective. At Caltech, all my fellow students were very smart people. No matter their personal beliefs, they worked together to accomplish group objectives and thereby pulled off some very neat stunts. Same for all my graduate work in physics. Professionally, I have been fortunate to work with many intelligent people who work together to accomplish group goals.

    By contrast, I am amazed at the irrationality of Montana's Libertarian-minded voters, as they follow the lead of their equally irrational (or devious) leaders, Pastor Chuck Baldwin and Oath Keeper Stewart Rhodes, to vote Libertarian to help elect Democrats.

    They may think negative attacks are smart. They are not smart. Knowing how to accomplish your own goals is smart.

    The Libertarian-minded voters are so consumed in negative attacks on Republican candidates, they do not see the bigger political picture, the truth, and how to really help America.

    Let's hope they wake up before November 2014.

  7. The November House race is between Ryan Zinke and John Lewis. That is it. I am voting for Ryan. I will not vote for any Democrat this November, plain and simple.

  8. @9, Jan is a Democrat because she would rather elect Lewis than Zinke to US Congress. Read "The real Ryan Zinke" and compare Zinke with Lewis. The difference is day versus night. Only a Democrat would prefer Lewis over Zinke.

    I will vote for Republican Ryan Zinke.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.