Science is Never Settled

Science is Never Settled … and computer game predictions of the future climate are not science    

               (AGT = average global temperature)

Could I convince you Earth is facing a climate catastrophe without lying ?

Perhaps I could if I withheld a lot of important facts, such as: I'd have to use surface measurements only, and pretend weather balloons and weather satellites didn't exist, since they contradict surface measurements, but do agree with each other. I couldn't tell you surface averages have only been calculated during a warming trend, because you'd realize that's like calculating stock market averages only during a bull market, and then claiming stock prices always go up! I couldn't tell you surface measurements are inaccurate, "adjusted" so often they may contradict the raw data, assuming anyone has the raw data anymore, and are not even close to being global. I couldn't tell you starting point 1800's-era thermometers consistently read low when tested against modern instruments. I couldn't tell you the margins of error are so large I couldn't be sure there was any warming prior to 1940. I couldn't tell you land-based thermometers measure economic growth (new buildings, roads, parking lots, etc. built in their vicinity), called the urban heat island effect, which could account for most of the warming they have measured.

.

I couldn't tell you we've only been able to calculate AGTs since 1979 when weather satellites were first launched, and I certainly couldn't tell you they tell us the temperature peaked in 1998.  I couldn't tell you the global warming they measured from 1979 to 1998 was not what anyone would assume by the word "global" -- the average hides the fact there was no warming in the Southern Hemisphere, and most warming measured was in the northern half of the Northern Hemisphere, mainly during winter nights ... where it was welcomed by the few people who live there!

.

I wouldn't tell you every US state, except one, had its record hottest year before the year 2000 -- and almost all of the 48 contiguous US states had their warmest years in the 1920s, 1930s, or in 1998. And I wouldn't mention the US just had the second coldest winter in 35 years, with ice covering nearly 90% of the Great Lakes on February 12 and 13 – the most ice cover in four decades!

.

I could tell you Arctic ice was melting … but I couldn't tell you it's been melting for 14,000 years since the end of the last ice age, and melting of that floating ice and snow will not raise the sea level, just as melting ice cubes will not raise the water level in a glass. And I couldn't tell you why it was melting faster in recent decades -- the most likely reason is dark soot on the ice and snow absorbing more solar energy than clean surfaces would. The soot is from burning coal and wood in the Northern Hemisphere. Soot is dangerous to humans, however, especially people living in China, so it's a real environmental problem. CO2 is not.

.

Antarctica holds 91 percent of the world's glacial ice. Melting of the Antarctic Ice Cap was what Al Gore had in mind when he hysterically warned, "… if half of Antarctica melted or broke up and slipped into the sea, sea levels worldwide would increase by between 18 and 20 feet." (Al Gore, 2006: "An Inconvenient Truth"). I couldn't correct Al Gore and tell you the main Antarctic ice sheet has been cooling since 1957, and ice accumulation is increasing, not decreasing.

.

I could tell you the West Antarctic Peninsula has had melting and breaking off of pieces of shelf ice. I'd show you videos of that as propaganda … but I couldn't tell you that peninsula is only 2% of the entire Antarctic ice sheet, and the melting is from geothermal heat from an undersea volcano, not global warming. I couldn't tell you the ice is getting thicker on the other 98% of Antarctica. And I couldn't tell you the average sea level rise is not accelerating -- over the past 5,000 years the average rise was +7 inches per century -- the twentieth century rise was about +6 inches.

.

I couldn't tell you the global sea area covered by ice today remains similar in area to the start of satellite observations in 1979. I couldn't tell you in 2014 the sea ice around Antarctica set a new record for the month of May -- 12.965 million square kilometers, way up from the 10.208 low point in May 1986 -- the prior record was 12.722 in May 2010 -- based on satellite data collected since 1979.  Since 1979 I could tell you there was sea ice shrinkage in the Arctic Ocean, but I couldn't tell you it was offset by sea ice growth around Antarctica that just set a new record. And I couldn't mention that once again reality contradicted the climate models, whose wild guesses were less polar sea ice in both hemispheres.

.

Could I convince you CO2 is responsible for the warming ?

No, there is no scientific proof any greenhouse gas is responsible, but even if greenhouse gasses were responsible, there's no proof CO2 is responsible because of significant changes to other greenhouse gasses too. Even if the greenhouse theory was correct, the UN's IPCC fails to explain why CO2, which is only 0.038% of the atmosphere, and less than 5% of that tiny amount is manmade, is allegedly so important, while water vapor, which varies from 1% to 3% of the atmosphere, and the methane percentage, which has doubled in the past 150 years, but stopped rising in 1998, are not important greenhouse gases. These are among many questions the IPCC simply ignores.

.

There is proof none of the warming is caused by greenhouse gases, according to the Greenhouse Gas Signature: Climate models predict increased warming with altitude over the tropics, peaking at about 10 km altitude, where warming should be roughly triple the surface warming. I couldn't tell you reality contradicts the climate models once again -- actual temperature data from weather balloons show a slight cooling with altitude in the tropical zone … and of course I must continue pretending weather balloons don't exist! (Data source: US Climate Change Science Program April 2006 update of the National Academy of Science's January 2000 report, "Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change,")
.

Could I convince you manmade CO2 is responsible for warming ?

No, there's no way to differentiate between natural CO2 and manmade CO2, so blaming the entire change of CO2 levels on humans is just an assumption. 

.

Could I convince you a climate catastrophe is ahead ?

No, not unless you are very gullible and believe humans can predict the future, such as predicting the climate many decades in the future … when climate predictions for next month are inaccurate.

.

Could I sum up the case for manmade CO2-caused global warming in one sentence ?

Yes.

During Earth's 4.5 billion years of existence, there was one short period, from 1979 to 1998, when both manmade CO2 emissions and AGT happened to rise at the same time (of course I couldn't tell you that's not proof one variable caused the other one to rise). (Note: 1979 to 1998 is based on global data from satellites. If inaccurate, non-global surface measurements are used prior to 1979 when weather satellites were first launched, the era of global warming would be from 1976 to 1998 -- 22 years, rather than 19 years).

.

A summary of some of the subjects I must ignore if I tried to convince you a manmade CO2-caused global warming catastrophe is coming:

- Ignore all weather satellite and weather balloon temperature data, 'starting point' 1800’s thermometer inaccuracy (they read low vs. modern thermometers), most US land weather stations are improperly sited by US standards – even worse in other nations, abandonment of most USSR (cold nation) temperature stations that had been in the average, which instantly raised the average temperature, haphazard sea temperature measurements with changing methodologies, 150 years of CO2 data from 1812 until 1961 (90,000 measurements), 80% of CO2 raw infrared data from Mauna Loa deleted to get a "better curve" since 1959, 4.5 billion years of climate history prior to the late 1800's, melting glaciers and rising sea level in the 14,000 years before the 20th century, correlation between solar energy variations and average temperature in past 400 years, greenhouse gas warming “signature” not seen in weather balloon temperature data, stolen "ClimateGate" eMails where "scientists" act like smarmy politicians (dishonest), and I’d certainly have to ignore the obvious fact that humans consistently fail to predict the future, whether the future climate, or future anything else!

.

Could I explain why leftists have a war on CO2 ?

Yes, leftists have made their goals clear for 100 years (politicians), and 50 years (environmentalists), respectively. They have learned from many centuries of history that political and religious leaders often scare people into following their orders by using predictions of a coming catastrophe, hard times, or punishment by God, unless their directions are followed. Persuading people to fear CO2 helps leftists meet their long-term goals: Greatly expanding government power, attacking private corporations through taxes on their energy use and more regulations, and micromanaging people's lives. As they gain power, leftists try to shut down the free speech of others through Saul Alinsky-style ridicule and character attacks, such as "climate denier", and much worse. They refuse to debate their absurd claim that computers can predict the future climate, and they are 95% sure a climate catastrophe is coming ! 

.

In the 1960s climate scientist Roger Revelle (Al Gore's hero) discovered government grants would flow his way if he predicted a coming climate catastrophe, and never expressed any doubt about it. Revelle's work was the foundation for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC). … And before you believe Al Gore's ridiculous scary climate predictions, consider the fact that he took only two science courses in college, getting a D in Natural Sciences 6 (Man's Place in Nature), and a C+ in Natural Sciences 118, as reported by the Washington Post in 2000.

.

For 50 years the "greens" have predicted one environmental catastrophe after another to get attention, funding, and tell everyone else how to live. They previously predicted catastrophes from fluoride, DDT, topsoil loss, AIDS, peak oil, ozone holes, SARS, mad cow disease, acid rain, ocean acidification, and even silicone breast implants. Every prediction has been wrong. Their success in getting DDT banned by the EPA, a ban which spread to the rest of the world (now reversed), cost millions of lives from the resulting surge of malaria deaths spread by insects harmless DDT would have killed. There were never any apologies or admissions of error from the environmentalists.

.

For today's environmentalists (aka The Climate Cult), making people fear CO2 has been a huge propaganda effort, because the only facts they have in their favor are a mere 19 years of global warming from 1979 to 1998, when manmade CO2 and AGT happened to move in the same direction -- which is not proof that one caused the other to rise, of course.

.

The Climate Cult is a subset of the leftist big government ideology -- instead of just hating capitalism, corporations, economic growth and prosperity, they also hate non-electric automobiles, coal, oil, nuclear energy, natural gas (fracking), and even hydropower. Their long term goal is to force people to use mass transit, move from suburbs into cities, and reduce their ability to profit from materials taken out of the Earth. They want people to feel guilty about their prosperity and give away their wealth.

.

Inexpensive sources of energy are the foundation of economic growth. Oil, gas and coal production on private land has been a major source of US economic growth since the last recession. The war on CO2 is illustrated by the government-engineered decline of fossil fuel (oil, gas and coal) production on government property (30% of US land area -- 61% including offshore area) which was down -21% from fiscal year 2003 to 2013 -- ¾ of the total decline was under President Obama, including a -7% decline just from 2012 to 2013 … while production on private property boomed. (data source: Energy Information Administration). Obama: For the years from 2009 to 2013, oil and natural gas production on federal lands declined by -6%, and -28%, respectively, while production exploded +61% and +33% on state and private land. (data source: Congressional Research Service report).

.

The federal government leases less than 2.2% of federal offshore areas and under 6% of federal onshore land for oil and natural gas production. President Obama’s Bureau of Land Management is setting records for the fewest leases per year (President Clinton sold over twice the number of leases per year -- and double the offshore acres … and he was at only half the level under President Reagan, when economic growth and job creation boomed. After five years of an anti-business administration, economic growth has averaged only +1.6% per year -- half the historical average including recessions! I call that bad news, but eliminating economic growth is something "environmentalists" have wanted for half a century, so they should be happy now … or at least less angry than they always seem to be!

.

The UN's IPCC is a political organization where a small group of people, fewer than 50, who are not all scientists, write the first draft Summary for Policymakers with little regard for what was written in the backup documents. Then politicians around the world are allowed to rewrite the draft Summary with no knowledge of the backup documents! Scientists who wrote the backup material are not allowed to make revisions when the Summary misrepresents their work. The IPCC's mandate is to prove manmade CO2 is going to cause a climate catastrophe. Since this alleged catastrophe is always far in the future, there is no way to prove it will happen. The IPCC's mandate is not to study the past or present climate without bias. That's why they won't publicize useful climate facts you ought to know, such as: The highest AGT ever measured was in 1998. There has been no global warming since 1998. There has been no warming in the Southern Hemisphere since at least 1979. Oceans have been cooling since 2000. The 74 years since 1940 are the era of rising manmade CO2 in the air, but only a brief period from the late 1970's to 1998 had a rising temperature.

.

Mainstream media outlets don't care about 'boring' climate history facts -- the fantasy world of hysterical predictions of a coming climate change catastrophe is much more 'exciting'. The leftists who make these predictions don't even care if they are correct (their computer game temperature predictions have been far above actual temperatures for decades) -- all they want to do is scare people into allowing their government to declare war on CO2, which is an indirect war on capitalism -- a war leftists have wanted to win for over 100 years, long before global warming became their 'crisis of the century'.

.

"If not for this economic and political damage, one might consider the present concern about climate change nothing more than just another environmental fad, like the Alar apple scare or the global cooling fears of the 1970s. … We can only trust that reason will prevail in the face of an onslaught of propaganda like Al Gore's movie and despite the incessant misinformation generated by the media. … During much of the last century the climate was cooling while CO2 levels were rising. … Human activities are not influencing the global climate in a perceptible way." S. Fred Singer, PhD (PhD in physics from Princeton University, and the founding Director of the US National Weather Satellite Service)

.

Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was blamed on global warming like every unusual weather event. But New Orleans had unusual weather before, on April 15, 1927 when 15 inches of rain fell in 18 hours – of course there was lots of flooding then but no one blamed global warming. Levees were built to withstand a category 3 hurricane … and Katrina was a category 3 when it hit land, but was too strong for the levees, and the city flooded again. You probably didn't know there had been plans to build a hurricane barrier and raise and strengthen the levees in 1977, and again in 1996, but both times environmental extremists halted construction by filing National Environmental Policy Act lawsuits. Extreme flooding in 2005 was most likely caused by environmentalists blocking progress. Did your favorite media source inform you of all this in 2005, or did they prefer to use the crisis as an opportunity to bash George W. Bush?

.

 THE  ALLEGED  "97%  CONSENSUS"  IS  A  LIE

The claim that 97% of scientists agree a climate change catastrophe is coming is a complete fabrication far from the truth (see the May 26, 2014 Wall Street Journal editorial page). One frequently cited source for "consensus", not that consensus has anything to do with science, is Australian blogger John Cook, who claimed to have reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Published in Environmental Research Letters in 2013, Cook claimed 97% of the abstracts say human activity is responsible for some warming. No one can prove that claim, but it seems reasonable to guess humans have had some effect on climate, either making it colder, or warmer. Smarmy leftists imply the 97% means humans are causing most or all of the warming and use the 97% to claim anyone who doesn't agree is irrational.

.

Here's the truth: … "Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work. … Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous." Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer, PhD, in the May 26, 2014 Wall Street Journal (Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the US Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite)

.

My own analysis of the Cook data is slightly different from Bast and Spencer: If I wrote an abstract for this article, Cook's interpretation would have even placed me in the 97% because I believe the evidence shows manmade soot on the Arctic ice and snow is responsible for a lot of the unusual local warming satellites measured there in the past few decades. The popular interpretation of what "97%" means should not include me! 

.

Only 36% of geoscientists and engineers believe humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed ORGANIZATION STUDIES -- a large majority of the 1,077 respondents believed that nature is the primary cause of recent warming and/or future warming will not be a very serious problem.

.

The 97% consensus lie still being parroted by President "you can keep your plan" Obama. The claim that the polar bear population has been declining is a complete fabrication too -- scientists recently admitted polar bear numbers were wild guesses! The large amount of lying, ignoring contrary real data, fabricating and "adjusting" data to match preexisting beliefs (especially surface temperature data), using computer simulations when real data are available, and the vicious character attacks on 'non-believers', make something very obvious: Climate catastrophe believers are cult members -- they exhibit the typical cult behaviors of refusing to share their data with skeptical scientists, refusing to debate their beliefs, and character attacking everyone who questions their beliefs.  

.

"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations (ice ages). The Ordovician-Silurian (450 to 420 million years ago) and Jurassic-Cretaceous (151 to 132 million years ago) glaciations occurred when the atmospheric CO2 content was more than 4,000 ppmv and about 2,000 parts per million by volume (ppmv) respectively. The Carboniferous-Permian glaciation (360 to 260 million years ago) had a CO2 content of about 400ppmv, at least 15 ppmv higher than the present figure. If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse (warming) when CO2 was more than 4,000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2. This has never been explained by those who argue that human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere will produce global warming."       Ian Plimer

    (from page 165 of his book: Heaven and Earth )
Plimer was a two-time winner of Australia's highest scientific honor, the Eureka Prize, and a professor in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide.

.

Understanding climate change requires knowledge of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, paleontology, paleoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history. Wild guess computer game predictions of the future climate do not increase the understanding of climate change. Real scientists base conclusions on evidence, not computer games. Computer game predictions merely restate the opinions of the modelers, and their opinions are not science. Computer models are not real data. Computer models are not real evidence. Computer models are not proof of anything. The demonization of CO2, based on the false claim that computer games can predict the future climate, is the biggest scam in the history of our planet.

.

"Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early twenty-first century's developed world went into a hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age. "     Richard S. Lindzen, PhD  

MIT Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, member of the National Academy of Sciences, and former lead author, UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

.

Anyone who uses the phrase "scientific consensus", or "the science is settled", or "I believe in global warming", demonstrates he knows next to nothing about science. Science is not settled by opinion surveys, or a show of hands, or personal beliefs of what will happen in the future -- in fact, science is never settled. Even if there really was a consensus, having a consensus is meaningless in science -- throughout history scientific advances have usually come from a minority of scientists who challenged the consensus. The minority was sometimes just one scientist, such as Galileo or Einstein. Scientists were once sure the energy coming from the sun was constant, but since 1979 accurate satellite measurements have proven it is not. The 'scientific consensus' on the "solar constant" was just as wrong as a much earlier scientific consensus that the sun rotated around the Earth.

.

Earth is always warming or cooling. The mandate of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is not to measure the climate -- the mandate is only to convince people the warming from 1976 to 1998 was caused by humans, is the first warming in 4.5 billion years which did not have natural causes, and will lead to a climate catastrophe. The mandate means the IPCC simply ignores all data contrary to their climate catastrophe fantasy. That's why the IPCC ignores 90,000 CO2 measurements from 1812 to 1961 by the chemical Pettenkofer method which show many years with higher CO2 levels than today:

.

"The measurement of CO2 in the atmosphere is fraught with difficulty. There is a 180-year record of atmospheric CO2 measurement by the same method. It has been measured with an accuracy of 1-3% from 1812 until 1961 by a chemical method. Between 1812 and 1961 there have been more than 90,000 measurements of atmospheric CO2 by the Pettenkofer method. These showed peaks in atmospheric CO2 in 1825, 1857 and 1942.  In 1942, the atmospheric CO2 content (400 ppmv) was higher than now. A plot of the CO2 measured by these methods shows that for much of the 19th Century, and from 1935 to 1950, the atmospheric CO2 was higher than at present and varied considerably. (from page 416) …   The IPCC chose to ignore the 90,000 precise CO2 measurements compiled despite the fact that there is an overlap in time between the Pettenkofer method and the infra-red method measurements at Mauna Loa.  If a large body of validated historical data is to be ignored, then a well-reasoned argument needs to be given. There was no explanation. Just silence."          

Ian Plimer  (page 419 of his book: Heaven and Earth)

.

In the past, based on many climate proxy studies such as ice cores, there were mild warming / cooling cycles between ice ages. The warming or cooling typically lasted hundreds of years, and then reversed. Climate proxy studies consistently show the climate was unusually cool from 1300 to 1850, called the Little Ice Age. A reversal to a natural warming trend was due, and probably started in 1850. Assuming cycles found in climate history repeat, we have three possibilities: Mild warming, mild cooling, or an ice age, with Michigan under a mile or two of ice. If you had a choice, which would you prefer? I'd prefer warming. 

.

There are many peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not support, and/or contradict the UN's IPCC climate scaremongering. The IPCC and other leftists do not want you to read any of them. You might find out the large increase of manmade CO2 in the air began after 1940. That means rising manmade CO2 can't be the explanation for warming claimed prior to 1940, which is almost half the warming claimed since the late 1800s. The IPCC has no explanation for pre-1940 warming … and the rising manmade CO2 after 1940 was accompanied by surface cooling from 1941 to 1976, not warming. By 1976 some scientists were predicting a coming ice age catastrophe. Within a decade they had changed their minds. They began predicting a coming global warming catastrophe. Ignore them. Computer game predictions of the future climate are not science -- they are nonsense.

.

"The climate-studies people who work with models always tend to overestimate their models. They come to believe models are real and forget they are only models."  Freeman Dyson, physicist (from "The Civil Heretic", by Nicholas Dawidoff, March 25, 2009 New York Times magazine)

.

CO2 levels have never correlated with the average temperature: During the fastest rise of manmade CO2 in history, from 1941 to 1976, the average surface temperature went down, not up. During the large rise of manmade CO2 after 1998, the AGT has been going down, not up, according to accurate, global, weather satellite measurements. Manmade CO2 in the atmosphere is claimed to increase every year, but there is no correlation with the average temperature:

.

1860 to 1875 = average temperature up for 15 years

1875 to 1890 = down for 15 years
1890 to 1903 = up for 13 years
1903 to 1918 = down for 15 years
1918 to 1941 = up for 23 years
1941 to 1976 = down for 35 years
1976 to 1998 = AGT up for 22 years
1998 to date = AGT down for 15 years so far

  (Note: 1860 to 1978 are rough non-global averages of a significantly changing number of surface thermometers located in environments that change over time -- 1979 and after are real global averages, measured accurately in the consistent environment of the troposphere, using weather satellites).

.

CO2’s greenhouse effect diminishes rapidly after the first 100 to 200ppmv in the air, so any greenhouse effect beyond the current 400ppmv should be small, and most likely would be overwhelmed by other known and unknown natural causes of climate change. Think of 100 parts per million by volume of CO2 in the atmosphere as one shade over a window. 200ppmv CO2 would be like adding a second shade over the first shade. The current CO2 level of near 400ppmv is like having four shades over a window. Adding a “fifth shade” (500ppmv CO2) is not going to block much more light than four shades already do – this simple analogy explains why no one should fear more CO2 in the air. 

.

Only one relationship between CO2 and temperature has ever been discovered: Over the past one million years, temperature peaks have been FOLLOWED by CO2 peaks 500 to 1,000 year later, as natural warming, probably from changes in solar energy reaching Earth, caused oceans to gradually release dissolved CO2, based on detailed studies of Vostok, Antarctica ice cores.

.

Earth's climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. For a majority of the 4.5 billion years there was more CO2 in the air than today. CO2 levels today are not far from the lowest level in thousands of millions of years. Earth has had several ice ages with more CO2 in the air than today. In fact, more CO2 in the air is good news, not bad news, because CO2 is an airborne fertilizer for green plants. Any effect of CO2 on temperature is so small there's no correlation between the two variables.

.

The following claims have no scientific proof: Humans have caused global warming. Global warming has, or will be, harmful to humans. More CO2 in the air has, or will be, harmful to humans. Rising CO2 levels cause global warming (CO2 levels and average temperatures were not correlated throughout Earth's history). … And the theoretical greenhouse heating effect of rising CO2 levels has been grossly exaggerated by the IPCC.

.

The "greens" never bother mentioning everything that has ever happened on Earth has been accompanied by climate change. The 'coming climate catastrophe' is a meaningless computer game prediction invented by leftist "scientists" to get government grants, and used by leftist politicians as a "crisis" to seize more power and (hopefully) tax corporations for their energy use.

.

Leftists have cleverly 'created' an imaginary, invisible 'crisis', that has not harmed a single person, by falsely claiming a harmless, mild, natural warming cycle since 1850, which followed 550 years of mild cooling, is different from every prior warming in history … and the IPCC is 95% sure of it (their wild guess percentage grows every year -- in a few years I project they will be 105% sure!) because they have computers that can see way into the future, and computers couldn't possibly be wrong!

.

“Today, we finally have the ice cores, ancient tree rings, and stalagmite analyses to document the 1,500-year climate cycle. We have the satellite readings on the sun’s variability. We’ve documented the atmospheric heat vent over “warm pool” of the Pacific. If we objectively list the strengths and weaknesses of the two concepts on the same page, the Greenhouse Theory looks woefully weak. The 1,500-year climate cycle looks much more convincing.”  S. Fred Singer, PhD in physics from Princeton University and Dennis T. Avery from page 229 of their book: “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years”

.

Many  Earth  Cycles  Affect  Climate:

      100,000-year elliptical orbit cycle

        41,000-year axial tilt cycle

        23,000-year precession (wobble) cycle

          1,500-year solar-driven climate cycle

.

Repeated mild warming /cooling cycles are natural between Earth's ice ages. The 1,500-year (+/-500 years) Dansgaard-Oeschger global climate cycle has existed on Earth for up to one million years, in times when atmospheric CO2 was high, and low. This 1,500-year climate cycle was discovered by scientists Willi Dansgaard and Hans Oeschger using Greenland ice cores, and by scientist Claude Lorius working independently with Antarctic ice cores. The three men shared the 1996 Tyler Prize (environmental Nobel Prize).

.

The claim the most recent warming, from 1976 to 1998, was caused by manmade CO2, unlike every one of the 600 prior warmings in the past one million years measured using ice cores, is a claim that requires proof. There is no proof.

Earth's recent climate history based on climate proxy studies:

                        600 to 200 BC    =  Cold period
                   200BC to 600 AD    = “Roman Warming”
                       600 to 900          =   Cold period
                       900 to 1300        =  “Medieval Warming”
                     1300 to 1850        =  “Little Ice Age”
… and 1850 to date is called the "Modern Warming" (measured roughly with surface thermometers from about 1860 to 1978, and accurately with weather satellites since 1979). The Modern warming has been the most prosperous 163-year period so far on Earth.

.

Based on all the real evidence available, manmade CO2 is a minor factor in global warming -- its effect may be too small to measure. It actually makes sense to want more CO2 in the air, not less: The optimum CO2 level for green plant growth is in the 1,000 to 3,000 ppmv range. CO2 enrichment to double or triple the outdoor level is often used inside greenhouses to accelerate plant growth (compared with the current outdoor level of just under 400 ppmv). CO2 enrichment is also used in salt water fish tanks to accelerate plant and coral growth.

.

There's lots of proof a higher level of CO2 accelerates green plant growth and simultaneously reduces green plant water requirements too. Green plants are used for food, so faster plant growth with less irrigation water would be wonderful news for humans who are malnourished or starving (of course the 'greens' could not care less about starvation in poor nations).

.

"Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now. There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. Extremely likely is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines extremely likely as a 95-100% probability. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been invented as a construct within the IPCC report to express expert judgment, as determined by the IPCC contributors. These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods." ... "The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming."

                          Patrick Moore, PhD

Statement before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight  --  February 25, 2014

.

"Twentieth century temperature changes show a strong correlation with the Sun's changing energy output."             Sallie Baliunas, PhD

            PhD in astrophysics from Harvard University
.

.

From the ECONOMIST magazine's October 5, 2013 editorial on the latest work of fiction from the IPCC -- here's the entire first paragraph: "In 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body of scientists, said the glaciers of the Himalayas could melt by 2035. This was complete fiction. It also said global surface temperatures would go on rising by about 0.2 degrees C. a decade for the next 20 years. They have been more or less flat since 1998. The IPCC has now issued its sextennial check-up on the health of the global climate. Why would anyone believe what they say?" Later in the editorial they wrote: "The decade-and-a-half to 2013 was unusual because it also saw a big rise in carbon-dioxide emissions, which, all things being equal, should have pushed up temperatures everywhere, and didn't."

.

INACCURATE   SURFACE   MEASUREMENTS

The distribution of surface thermometers over land and ocean is uneven -- large areas of the Earth have few or no measurements. Surface measurements are non-global and much less accurate than weather satellites -- they should be ignored -- and they certainly must be ignored after 1978 because weather satellites and their real AFT's have been available since 1979. There is no proof any statistical average of local surface temperatures, measured with weather stations whose count, locations, and instruments have changed radically over time, is a meaningful and useful statistic. Thermometers from the 1800s -- the starting point for "global warming" -- tend to read low when compared with modern instruments. The total number of surface measurements in the average has changed a lot, peaking in the 1960s. After the USSR collapsed in the late 1980s, the number of weather stations in use fell by about half in just four years -- the sharp reduction of weather stations located in relatively cold areas made surface measurements significantly warmer than when all the USSR stations were still in use -- "warming" that had nothing to do with CO2.

.

Land-based weather stations also have changes in equipment over time, and may have been moved to different locations multiple times too. The environment around a land station usually changes over time -- more cement and more asphalt in the vicinity of a weather station is typical -- the result of economic growth … cement and asphalt cause higher local temperatures not measured at the rare weather stations that have been surrounded only by grass and trees decade after decade. Land stations measure the economic growth around them, not average temperature!

.

Oceans are 70% of Earth's surface, yet ocean temperatures were measured haphazardly for many decades by sailors on merchant ships throwing buckets over the side, and sticking thermometers in those buckets. First wood buckets were used. Then canvas buckets. Later the temperature of incoming engine cooling water was measured -- the third different measurement methodology in one century. Ocean temperature measurement locations are at random in established shipping lanes, which are mainly in the Northern Hemisphere. As a result, almost all the world's oceans are unmeasured, especially in the Southern Hemisphere where 80% of the surface area is ocean, but there's far less shipping there than in the Northern Hemisphere.

.

AGT measured by satellites is not a single measurement of something that exists. It is a complex statistical average of many indirect measurements of temperature in the troposphere. The measurements are confirmed by weather balloon measurements. The environment satellites are in does not change -- there's no economic growth in the troposphere. The troposphere is not the surface of the Earth, but if greenhouse gases were really the cause of the minor warming from the late 1970s to 1998, the warming in the troposphere should have been significantly greater than the warming on the surface. In fact, warming measured accurately in the troposphere was much less than warming measured haphazardly on the surface. You've just read my explanation of why surface measurements are worthless -- the Climate Cult loves them, and usually ignores weather satellites. Once in a while they criticize satellite data. But they never debate or criticize their beloved surface measurements!

.

" … there is a considerable contingent of scientists and scholars, largely schooled in the earth and astronomical sciences, who believe climate is largely influenced by natural forces and cycles. They were not organized into an official body until 2007 when the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) was formed in Vienna. Led by atmospheric scientist Dr. Fred Singer, the NIPCC published Climate Change Reconsidered, a comprehensive scientific critique of the IPCC's findings, in 2009. This report was signed by more than 31,000 American scientists and concluded there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate." " (from page 344) … "Over the years the media have largely ignored the scientists and organizations that remain skeptical of human-caused global warming and climate change. The public has been inundated with alarmist headlines about catastrophic climate change and many governments have bought into the belief there is a global emergency that must be addressed quickly and decisively." (from page 345)   Patrick Moore, PhD (from his 2013 book: "Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist")

.

Slightly edited quotes from the summary of NIPCC findings:

"Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is a mild greenhouse gas that exerts a diminishing warming effect as its concentration increases.  Doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial level, in the absence of other forcings and feedbacks, would likely cause a warming of ~0.3 to 1.1 (degrees) C, almost 50% of which must already have occurred. A few tenths of a degree of additional warming, should it occur, would not represent a climate crisis.  Model outputs published in successive IPCC reports since 1990 project a doubling of CO2 could cause warming of up to 6 (degrees) C by 2100. Instead, global warming ceased around the end of the twentieth century and was followed (since 1997) by 16 years of stable temperature.  The overall warming since about 1860 corresponds to a recovery from the Little Ice Age modulated by natural multi-decadal cycles driven by ocean-atmosphere oscillations, or by solar variations at the de Vries (~208 year) and Gleissberg (~80 year) and shorter periodicities.  Earth has not warmed significantly for the past 16 years despite an 8% increase in atmospheric CO2, which represents 34% of all extra CO2 added to the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution. No close correlation exists between temperature variation over the past 150 years and human-related CO2 emissions. The parallelism of temperature and CO2 increase between about 1980 and 2000 AD could be due to chance and does not necessarily indicate causation." Source: Summary for Policymakers, page 6 of 25 -- "Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science" (Chicago: The Heartland Institute, 2013).

.

"Results obtained under 3,586 separate sets of experimental conditions conducted on 549 plant species reveal nearly all plants experience increases in dry weight or biomass in response to atmospheric CO2 enrichment (henceforth referred to as rising CO2). Additional results obtained under 2,094 separate experimental conditions conducted on 472 plant species reveal nearly all plants experience increases in their rates of photosynthesis in response to rising CO2." ...  "Warmer temperatures lead to a decrease in temperature-related mortality, including deaths associated with cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, and strokes. The evidence of this benefit comes from research conducted in every major country of the world."  Source: Executive Summary, pages 20 & 24 of 1,078: "Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts" (Heartland Institute, 2014).

.

WHY  DO  PEOPLE  JOIN  THE  CLIMATE  CHANGE  CULT ?

Many people seek meaning for their lives and something to believe in. Some find meaning in traditional religions. The Climate Change Cult is a relatively new secular religion. It has a "pope": Al Gore. It has a "bible": The UN's IPCC Climate Report. It even has a "hell" (allegedly here on Earth if that pesky satanic gas CO2 is not controlled). Climate Cult members have behaviors common of members of traditional fundamentalist religions: The belief that now is the most important time in history -- humanity is facing the worst crisis ever -- we must all make great sacrifices -- apocalyptic catastrophes are predicted unless we change our ways -- and heretics are attacked with words, threats or physical violence.

.

Climate Change Cult members have a sense of moral superiority. They (falsely) claim they are trying to save the Earth. Like other fundamentalists, they fear doubt, skepticism and uncertainty, and there is a complete rejection of science. But isn't climate change based on science?  Not at all. The Climate Change Cult trusts only computer games and their wild guess predictions of the future climate. That's not science. Real science is done in the field observing nature, collecting samples and data, making measurements, and in laboratories doing experiments -- all to validate or disprove hypotheses … and the result may debunk consensus beliefs. Real science is never settled. Real science is not predicting the future.

.

Real science is not done in an air-conditioned office with computer models that merely restate the existing beliefs of the climate modelers who programmed them (beliefs are not science). The modelers claim to be scientists but what they do is not science: they play computer games. In Fiscal Year 2013, the US government spent $22.2 billion on global warming/climate change -- all that money buys a lot of scary climate catastrophe predictions … and many boasts: "the science is settled". If the science was really settled, why spend any more money making climate predictions?

.

Climate scientists are rewarded with billions of dollars of bribes (government grants) which are a huge financial incentive to predict a catastrophe that needs further study (and the predicted catastrophe will not happen during their lifespan, so the prediction can’t be proved wrong while they are still alive). Global warming hysteria is a big business, but after decades of spending, there's still no climate model that makes reliable forecasts for even the first ten years of a 100-year forecast. A private company with those poor results would be bankrupt.

.

THE  POLITICS  OF  SCARING  PEOPLE:

Earth has been cooling for 15 years since 1998, yet the climate cult is more hysterical than ever! They know they can never be proven wrong if the catastrophe they predict is always off in the future. Believers won't talk about real AGT data from weather satellites -- their game is wild guess computer game 100-year predictions of the future climate -- predictions that have all grossly overestimated the actual warming since 1979, and have all been completely wrong since warming stopped in 1998.

.

The US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) issued its third National Climate Assessment on May 4, 2014. The expensive 841-page report has beautiful pictures and color graphs. It's a silly collection of imagined future climate catastrophes and disasters for various sections of the country. I didn't look at it because I remember their first report in 2000, initiated by VP Al Gore, who previously invented the internet. In 2000 they selected the two climate models that predicted the largest temperature rise for the same increase of CO2, which were then used to predict the climate change impact on 18 regions of the United States. The two models gave opposite results for about half of the 18 regions -- one model predicted North Dakota would turn into a swamp, for one example, while the other model predicted it would turn into a desert. Comedy, not science!

.

" How many examples of failed predictions, discredited assumptions, evidence of incorrect data, and evidence of malpractice, are required before the idea of human-induced climate change loses credibility?"       Ian Plimer (from page 492 of his excellent book: Heaven and Earth)

.

CLIMATEGATE   2009   &   2011:

Computer hackers released 1,000 climate scientist e-mails in 2009, and 5,300 e-mails in 2011, from the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit. They showed dissenting articles have been blocked from publication, or even from IPCC review. Freedom of Information Requests for raw data have been stonewalled. Scientists who are climate change catastrophe believers present scary scenarios and dramatic predictions, stated with great certainty when they are in public to get media attention … but the stolen e-mails show the same scientists have many doubts and disagreements when debating among themselves in private! The case for certainty about climate change has been grossly overstated in public

.

A brief lesson on Earth's climate history from a real scientist:
"Today we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5 C. This compares with a low of about 12 C. during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of 22 C. during the Greenhouse Ages, which occurred over longer time periods prior to the most recent Ice Age. During the Greenhouse Ages, there was no ice on either pole and all the land was tropical and sub-tropical, from pole to pole. As recently as 5 million years ago the Canadian Arctic Islands were completely forested. Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on Earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species."

                    Patrick Moore, Ph.D,
Statement before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight  --  February 25, 2014

The prediction of a coming climate change catastrophe is a scam used by leftists to promote their century-old anti-capitalism, anti-economic growth, anti-prosperity agenda. Leftist politicians joined the climate change cult because they want new taxes on corporate CO2 emissions, or energy use, to gain more power over corporations, and raise tax revenues in a way that won't affect individual paychecks. Demonizing CO2 will help government officials convince the voters they ought to support new taxes on corporate energy use, or corporate CO2 emissions, to “save the Earth". What the leftists in government really want is new tax revenues desperately needed to fund their beloved senior citizen “entitlements” as baby boomers retire. When politicians are involved, truth is not important.

.

Over 30,000 scientists, with over 9,000 having PhD’s, signed an online petition to publicly declare their disagreement over claims that humans are causing global warming … making the signers unlikely to receive government grants for studies relating to the climate:     Source:   http://www.petitionproject.org/

“… developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.”   Ottmar Edenhofer  (Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Technical University of Berlin, co-chair of Working group III of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Deputy Director and Chief Economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, and Fellow of the Academy of Sciences in Hamburg, Germany)

.

“It would be wrong to conclude from the IPCC report and similar reports that the science is settled.” Lennart Bengtsson (Swedish climatologist, meteorologist and former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg -- from the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, translated by Philipp Mueller)

.

A recent Pew Research Center poll shows 17% of Americans say Earth is not warming, 17% say there's not enough evidence to determine if Earth is warming, and another 18% say the world has warmed due to “natural patterns”, not human activity. That’s a 53% majority opposing the rigid, hysterical, Climate Cult position (humans are causing unprecedented warming that will lead to a climate catastrophe some time in the future). When you ask Climate Cult members for proof of how they can predict the climate 100 years into the future, the answer always a version of: 'because we say so, and we couldn't be wrong'.