You knew that as 2016 closed out we would be met with another "hottest year ever" claim. That, of course, prompted another round of alarmists warning that we're running out of time to save Planet Earth. And, once again,
the real facts tell a different story.

The average temperature in 2016 was only .01 degrees Celsius warmer than it was in 2015. That is well within the .1 degree margin of error. While 2015 was .17 degrees Celsius above 2014, a warmer 2015 and 2016 was undoubtedly due to the fact that they were
both El Niño years. When you go back to the end of 2014, another year claimed to be "the warmest ever," you'll find the difference was only .02 Celsius from the year before, which is well within the .1% margin of error.
Of course, you can't just stick a thermometer in the Earth and take its temperature. Adjustments are constantly being made to how these temperature records are calculated. It's
been argued that the "adjustments" have been politically inspired to make today's temperatures look warmer while those decades earlier to look much cooler than they were. I wouldn't rule that out. Unfortunately we've allowed science to become so politicized, including with respect to global warming.. Any scientist who dares to question the orthodoxy, i.e. that dangerous man-made global warming is dooming the planet, is ridiculed professionally and doesn't receive government grants for studies that might dare challenge this orthodoxy.
This week, EPA nominee Oklahoma Senator Scott Pruitt, a long-time critic of former President Obama's climate change policy, testified that he believed climate change was real and that man has been a contributor to that change. Some environmentalists were shocked. They shouldn't be. The climate on good old Planet Earth has been changing for 4.5 billion years so we shouldn't assume that it suddenly stopped changing under our watch. As far as man having an effect on climate, you only have to see the difference in temperature between warmer cities and the cooler rural areas surrounding those cities to know that the activity of man affects temperature readings. The debate should have always been about how much of an effect and the negatives and positives that come with living in a warmer climate. Increased CO2 levels, for example,
have been tied to larger crop yields and greater drough resistance of those crops. Warmer temperatures also means a longer growing season in certain places.
The bottom line is the scientists have no way of measuring the impact man-made activity has on the climate, no way of separating it out from what could very well be a natural increase in temperatures due to endless climate change. It has always been a guess, nothing more than that. Alarmists have also too long gotten away with the starting assumption that today's climate is the ideal and that a warmer climate, and higher CO2 levels, is a bad thing. That assumption should be questioned. Man has historically done better when the climate has been warmer, including warmer than today.
Now that there is new leadership in Washington, I hope we can can finally have a truly honest debate about global warming, its ties to man, the positives and negatives associated with living in a warmer climate, and a cost-benefit examination of any proposed steps to combat global warming. Maybe something good can come out of the Trump administration, after all.