#19 Disproving Anthropogenic Global Warming
A Reference Library
Capsule: #19 Disproving Anthropogenic Global Warming is more than just about discarding a theory (which is the easy part). It is about illustrating how science has been hijacked by an ideology based on paranoia. We’ll define honest and sound science, and then compare that definition with climate science. (Hint: It’s an ugly comparison.)
1990 & 2012 = Same Global Annual Median Temperature
What does it mean?
Focus: Flux adjustment: The climate scientist’s equivalent to a magician’s abracadbra.
Details: #19 Disproving Anthropogenic Global Warming reveals that anthropogenic global warming theory is nothing more than a replay of Piltdown Man (more below). Imagine if in 1990 your stock broker had had you purchase stock in Global Warming Inc., promising huge returns by 2012. You’d be rich beyond your wildest dreams! But it is now 2012 and Global Warming Inc. is worth exactly the same amount that you paid for it in 1990 – you didn’t make one thin dime! When your broker now comes to you and insists that you stick with Global Warming Inc., because he is sure that it is bound to rise through the stratosphere, wouldn’t you be more likely to tell him to go fly a kite?
Excerpts: ~There is probably not a single subject that so epitomizes contemporary liberalism as the topic of global warming. This, American neighbor, is because the issue of global warming encompasses everything noble about liberalism (their supposed intentions), and the method liberals use to determine the issues they support (their emotions), and everything that is wrong with liberalism (their erroneous results). They have set themselves up as white knights, at the same time advocating and implementing big government solutions to ‘save the planet’, while fighting back evil conservatives (“deniers”) who want to impose disaster on the world because of their selfishness and greed. After all, global warming is an attack on utopia. If it is not stopped utopia cannot be achieved, and what better way to achieve utopia than by saving the world. This is truly a global chaos strategy – and delusional paranoia on a grand scale. This is the cult of envirotheists.
Are you familiar with the scientific scandal known as Piltdown Man, American neighbor? It is the story of one of the most famous frauds in the history of science. A human skull was cleverly matched with the lower jawbone of an orangutan and presented to the world as the missing link in the evolution from ape to man. From the Wikipedia article:
~As early as 1915, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the jaw was from an ape. Similarly, American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller concluded Piltdown’s jaw came from a fossil ape. In 1923, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth. Weidenreich, being an anatomist, had easily exposed the hoax for what it was. However, it took thirty years for the scientific community to concede that Weidenreich was correct.~~
Preface: The Nuclear Counterarguments Essay Series is written for both contemporary American liberals and contemporary American conservatives – for the liberal (or progressive) as an exit counseling process with the purpose of removing the inherent paranoia that prevents them from seeing that in their core belief they are, in fact not a liberal, and for the conservative as a strategy for dealing with liberal acquaintances. (FYI, I am a Canadian – the implications of this are explained in the Introduction and #1 Deprogramming Liberalism with Nuclear Counterarguments.)
[All citations are active number/letter codes. Code links beginning with an * indicate that the linked page has additional information for the topic at hand. Links without an * are cited for evidence of existence and reference only, as in a quotation or number or case in point. Citations validate my points so that you can trust my claims, and will often provide you with invaluable supplemental information.]
Written in first-person narrative to liberals,
but also for conservatives.
• Mini critical thinking exercise
You probably think the global warming debate – sorry, climate change debate – is about saving the world, American neighbor. You probably think it is also about science. Neither belief could be further from the truth. Global warming Climate change is about the same issue as the liberal class warfare between rich and poor – the battle of collectivism versus individual liberty. Global warming Climate change is just another tool to bring about a collectivist utopia. But there is a zeal to liberal environmentalism that goes beyond ideology and into cultism. Anthropogenic global warming theory is actually an offshoot of envirotheism – the worship of the environment. Envirotheists, or etheists for short, are adherents of Armageddon environmental cults. Tell me, American neighbor, would you consider a constant fear of imagined apocalypses as a healthy human condition? And here is another question: How much has the net global temperature risen since 1990?ab
• I am a global warming agnostic
There is probably not a single subject that so epitomizes contemporary liberalism as the topic of global warming. This, American neighbor, is because the issue of global warming encompasses everything noble about liberalism (their supposed intentions), and the method liberals use to determine the issues they support (their emotions), and everything that is wrong with liberalism (their erroneous results). They have set themselves up as white knights, at the same time advocating and implementing big government solutions to ‘save the planet’, while fighting back evil conservatives (“deniers”) who want to impose disaster on the world because of their selfishness and greed. After all, global warming is an attack on utopia. If it is not stopped utopia cannot be achieved, and what better way to achieve utopia than by saving the world. This is truly a global chaos strategy – and delusional paranoia on a grand scale. This is the cult of envirotheists.
Strictly speaking, I did not begin writing these next two essays as an anthropogenic global warming skeptic by the standard definition, although I do not believe in anthropogenic global warming. I am more of an anthropogenic global warming agnostic – meaning I believe we cannot possibly know what combination of factors affect the global climate for any specific period of time.
I am not going to bother showing you graphs (well, maybe a few temperature graphs), or bother throwing dozens of numbers at you, or quoting scientific reports (OK – maybe a few of those as well). I am not scientifically endowed enough to discuss the scientific issues involved in global warming, and let’s face it, you are unlikely to be either (and as you will see, no one is). So what have we got left? Well, how about a little common sense?
Since the earth has warmed before mankind’s supposed influence, it is reasonable to conclude that it can and will warm again. [*6xuq6m2] It can also be concluded that it can and will warm again in spite of man’s activities, and it could be warming now in spite of man’s activities, if it is indeed still warming, or even has been warming. So the question then becomes: Can the recent slight warming period (if we assume there has been one) be overwhelmingly attributed to man’s direct creation of so-called greenhouse gases, or is it more likely the result of a combination of other natural influences? To answer this question one must examine all possible contributing factors and quantify their respective influences. Without doing so, one would leave any hope of an accurate conclusion an impossibility, so first we must list all possible influences on the climate and determine their contributions to global warming.ac
300-word pages of text = 44
Reference citation links = 30
Recommended-reading links = 18
Profound insights = 22
Cover photo: Cover photo: U.S. Department of Energy photograph XX-38 The Seminole
Cover background: SQUIDFINGERS [4rol8]
Copyright 2012 Jim Autio License Note: Although free, this essay remains the copyrighted property of the author, and may not be reproduced, copied or distributed for commercial or non-commercial purposes. For fair use only.
• A few questions on global warming computer modeling
Let’s say the sun’s magnetic field is at a low fluctuation, but sunspots and solar flares are at a peak, American neighbor. So would the solar winds be allowing more or less cosmic rays to reach the earth’s atmosphere, thus causing more or less global cloud cover (and would that be high cloud or low cloud?) and either pushing the temperature up or down? I always forget that one. And what about the fluctuation in the earth’s magnetic field and how it affects the upper atmosphere? Please take that into account also. We can’t forget about the location of the earth during its erratic orbits around the sun based on the gravity of the other planets as they overlap their gravitic influences on each other and the earth. Could you run a quick calculation and put these variables through your climate computer model and tell me whether the globe is warming or cooling, American neighbor? Thanks, let me know when you’re done.
Then we can add humidity variations, the percentage of water vapor in the atmosphere as a variable, cloud cover location and altitude variability, and jet stream fluctuations. Then throw in the amount of phytoplankton concentration in the oceans affecting sunlight absorption and reflection rates and its variability throughout the seasons, and don’t forget to account for the variability of ocean salinity levels, and acidity levels and their affects on ocean temperature (and phytoplankton production). Then there are fluctuating ocean absorption and emission rates of carbon dioxide. Please also take into account sub-oceanic volcanic activity, ocean layer inversions, and ocean current fluctuations, and what the hell, don’t forget to include ocean floor methane releases (one of the worst supposed greenhouse gases). Hopefully this isn’t too much of a bother for you, American neighbor.
So, has the effect of the last magnetic pole shift worn off yet? What about the Chandler wobble? Also include the supposed greenhouse gas contributions of wildfires, coal seam fires and volcanoes. Don’t forget the particulate releases by those same wildfires, coal seam fires and volcanoes. Do the particulate releases offset or compound the gas emissions? I can’t remember. And does that change with the altitude of the particulates, their specific color, or there settling to the ground, or partial settling to the ground or ocean or the arctic ice for that matter? In regard to forests please allow for the albedo effect, deforestation, and wood sequestration in construction. Then there is land based methane releases, and bog and forest decomposition, and nitrous oxide producing microbes and earthworms (the nasty little buggers produce the second worst of the supposed greenhouse gases – worse than carbon dioxide). Now let’s add jet contrails and vapor trails and their affect on the upper atmosphere, and fertilizer and pollution influence on phytoplankton concentrations and ocean acidity levels. Don’t forget animal emissions. Just throw all of those into the pot as well, will you, American neighbor? Oh, and of course there are the industrial gases and particulates. Might as well throw them in too.ad
• A list of possible influences on the global climate
Perhaps if we were to list all of these possible variables you might better grasp the overwhelming magnitude of the exercise in understanding all of the possibilities involved. The percentage contribution to warming and/or cooling of the climate would have to be determined for each possibility, and then the modification factors pertaining to influences on each other would have to be calculated, then all would have to be measured, amalgamated, verified, and on and on. So let me know when you have taken all of the following into account for your computer model, American neighbor.
• % contribution of sunspot and sun flare activity that may affect the sun’s intensity output and directly affect oceanic and atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of suns magnetic field on cosmic rays affecting cloud cover and directly affecting oceanic and atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of solar wind speed fluctuations affecting the North Atlantic Oscillation and the Arctic Oscillation?
• % contribution of the earth’s erratic orbit around the sun varying based on the gravity of the other planets as they overlap their gravitic influences on the earth directly affecting oceanic and atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of potential change in the tilt of the world’s axis directly affecting oceanic and atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of tilt and rotation of sun and moon?
• % contribution of solar proton events?
• % contribution of solar system dust clouds?
• % contribution of lunar-tide cycle?
• % contribution of water vapor content in the atmosphere directly affecting oceanic and atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of warming versus cooling cloud cover concentration redistribution directly affecting oceanic and atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of Ozone concentration fluctuation over the poles affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of organic aerosols, sulphates, nitrates, volatiles, oxides in radiative forcing directly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of pine tree vapors in the creation of clouds?
• % contribution of growth of aerosols due to exposure to sunlight?
• % contribution of localized ozone and pollution effects directly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of the iris effect directly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of iron dust scattered over oceans causing phytoplankton blooms?
• % contribution of cloud density altitude fluctuations?
• % contribution of adiabatic cooling at the poles?
• % contribution of atmospheric density fluctuation?
• % contribution of precipitation washing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere?
• % contribution of ocean sequestration of carbon dioxide
• % contribution of millions of sub-oceanic volcanic activities directly affecting oceanic CO2 levels and oceanic temperatures and indirectly atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of radiative core heat fluctuation directly affecting oceanic temperatures and indirectly atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of phytoplankton concentration fluctuations directly affecting oceanic temperatures and indirectly atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of ocean salinity directly affecting oceanic temperatures and indirectly atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of ocean acidity directly affecting oceanic temperatures and indirectly atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of cyclical major ocean currents directly affecting oceanic temperatures and indirectly atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of ocean layer inversions directly affecting oceanic temperatures and indirectly atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of ocean floor methane releases indirectly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of ocean absorption rate fluctuations of carbon dioxide directly affecting oceanic temperatures and indirectly atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of ocean emission rate fluctuations of carbon dioxide directly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of the albedo effect of sea ice fluctuations directly affecting oceanic temperatures and indirectly atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation directly affecting oceanic temperatures and indirectly atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation directly affecting oceanic temperatures and indirectly atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of El Niño directly affecting oceanic temperatures and indirectly atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of La Nina directly affecting oceanic temperatures and indirectly atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of tropical Atlantic Ocean jets directly affecting oceanic temperatures and indirectly atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of deep ocean as hot and cold sinks and how they capture and release energy?
• % contribution of earthquakes releasing ocean floor methane into the atmosphere?
• % contribution of internal lee waves affecting oceanic temperatures and indirectly atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of the meridional overturning circulation affecting oceanic temperatures and indirectly atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of the Papua New Guinea hot spot affecting oceanic temperatures and indirectly atmospheric temperatures?
Natural terrestrial influences:
• % contribution of magnetic pole shift and reversal affecting oceanic and atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of wildfire emitted gases indirectly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of wild-fire emitted particulates directly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of the albedo effect on forests indirectly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of disease on the albedo effect of forests indirectly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of inland waterway emissions indirectly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of bog decomposition indirectly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of forest decomposition indirectly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of major drought or wet season anomalies affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of soil moisture content affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of increase of worldwide plant material sequestration indirectly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of natural caused coal seam fire emitted gases indirectly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of natural caused coal seam fire emitted particulates directly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of land based volcano emitted gases indirectly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of land based volcano emitted particulates directly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of sub-glacial volcano induced ice melting on Antarctica and Greenland directly affecting oceanic temperatures and indirectly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of land based methane release indirectly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of land based methane/ozone conversion release indirectly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of nitrous oxide producing microbes and worms indirectly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of jet contrails and vapor trails directly affecting oceanic and atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of fertilizer influence on phytoplankton concentration fluctuations directly affecting oceanic temperatures and indirectly atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of pollution influence on ocean acidity directly affecting oceanic temperatures and indirectly atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of man’s prevention of wild-fire emitted gases indirectly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of man’s prevention of wild-fire emitted particulates directly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of deforestation on albedo effect of forests indirectly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of the sequestering affect of man’s construction using wood products and use of paper products from forests indirectly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of human caused coal seam fire emitted gases indirectly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of human caused coal seam fire emitted particulates directly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of animal farming indirectly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of methane produced from the breakdown of biodegradable products indirectly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of industrial released gases indirectly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of industrial released particulates indirectly affecting atmospheric temperatures?
• % contribution of chlorofluorocarbon’s influence on the ozone layer over the poles?
• % contribution of recycling of wastewater producing nitrous oxide?
• % contribution of dihydrous monoxide influence on land, oceans and atmosphere? [*28jm2zx]
So how is your climate computer model doing with all of these variables, American neighbor? Ah shucks! What does that little window on your computer screen mean that says “FATAL ERROR”? Did your climate modeling program just crap out? (Maybe if we take out the influence of dihydrous monoxide…)ae
• Can all possible influences on the climate be accounted for?
But seriously, American neighbor, all of the above variables may affect the climate to one degree or another (live with the pun). Do you honestly believe that there are climate modeling programs (known as General Circulation Models) that could handle even a fraction of these variables? Do you honestly think that we have even half the answers to the many questions about each and every one of these multitude of variables? I have listed over seventy possible influences on the global climate, most of which we have little or no understanding of their individual influences or, equally important, their reactions with each other (called feedback), and you are going to sit there and tell me with a straight face that some scientists have this all figured out?!? Only an ideologue with an incredible resistance to cognitive dissonance could.
Please be aware, American neighbor, that not all of these possible influences necessarily contribute only to global warming. Many, especially the extraterrestrial, oceanic and particulate influences, may actually contribute to cooling the planet, so they may have a negative influence, and many may contribute to both warming and cooling depending on where they are in their cycles and/or fluctuations or other factors like location or season, etc.
We have over seventy possible influences on the temperature of the planet that we know of so far, so let’s apply a little common sense to this list. Have you ever seen a comprehensive list like this of all possible influences on the climate? I know I have not, and I have been searching out items to add to my list for many years. Do we even know if the list is complete? No. Every time I thought I had surely found every influence there could possibly be, up would pop another one. No, we do not know if this list is complete, so right off the top whatever conclusion one might achieve about global warming one must include at least a little doubt just for this reason alone.af
• Can all possible influences be incorporated in a computer model?
Have all of these items been thoroughly investigated and quantified for their particular influence on the climate? No, absolutely not. Many, if not most have had no in depth scientific study in regard to their relation to the climate. Even less is known about how each influence might affect other interactive influences. If one item affects the climate in one way, how can we know that it does not affect another item that induces the opposite influence on the climate, thus negating some or all of the influence of the first. Or maybe one influence invigorates another influence so that its feedback is magnified beyond its normal parameters. There is just no way to conclusively understand these various overlapping and interactive influences.
Can a computer climate model be created that can account for each of these potential influences on the climate? Obviously, if many have had no climate related study the answer is conclusively no, and if their individual influences on each other cannot be fully understood then the answer is even more emphatically no.
Let’s look at some examples. It turns out that termites are one of the largest biomasses on the planet and particularly efficient at turning wood fiber into methane, one of the most potent supposed greenhouse gases, which breaks down into carbon dioxide and ozone. It is estimated that termites may contribute up to an extra 15% to annual global methane release. It is also estimated that termites produce ten times as much carbon dioxide each year than derived from man burning fossil fuels. The point is that scientists are not sure. It is also postulated that only a handful of volcanoes over the last 130 years may have released more supposed greenhouse gases than all anthropogenic sources combined during this period. If this is true, man’s contribution is necessarily insignificant. Again the point is we just don’t know. It is also known that spontaneous methane releases from the ocean floors happen frequently, but there is absolutely no way to measure the amounts released and calculate their effect on the climate. Again – we just do not know. Water vapor (dihydrous monoxide) is the most influential greenhouse gas in the form of clouds, but is one of the least understood in regard to the feedback systems. [*dhyvg7] The examples go on and on. The contributions of many of the items listed above can only be guesstimated at best, and for some the guesstimate would be like pulling a number out of a hat. Is this science? Absolutely not. To expect science to be able to quantify many of these potential influences is expecting magical answers.
Even if all of the listed items could be scientifically understood would that guarantee that climate change could be understood? No. Just because each item might be understood individually (and remember, many are not), there is no chance of being able to assemble a computer model that could accurately amalgamate all of the overlapping, interactive magnifying and subtracting feedbacks into a reliable conclusion. Here is a rule of science that is often ignored in regard to global warming: The confidence in a conclusion is directly proportional to the comprehensive reliability of the information examined. Take another look at the above list and ponder that one, American neighbor.ag
• Global warming is not a scientific issue
Here, let me be frank about this, American neighbor. Global warming is not a scientific issue. Yes, you read that correctly. The global warming issue is not something science can currently answer. Today’s state of science on literally dozens of related possible influences is incomplete, unreliable and in many cases nonexistent. The claim that the science is settled is just plain and utter, silly nonsense (more later). It is a blind conclusion by etheists in search of a justification, but the only justification is emotional, political and cultic, not scientific. To further this presumptive conclusion, as far back as 1991 it was determined that computer climate models would be the key to the message of envirotheism’s global warming doomsday cult. Etheist scientists would be the cult’s prophets:
~ “The data don’t matter. […] Besides, we’re not basing our recommendations [for immediate reductions in CO2 emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”~ – Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, August 13, 1991 [2vlvn7u]
But notice that “the data don’t matter”. Remember our little rule from above: The confidence in a conclusion is directly proportional to the comprehensive reliability of the information [data] examined. If the data is incomplete (and it is woefully incomplete), how can we have confidence in the models’ conclusions? We can’t. Again, American neighbor, the current issue of global warming is definitely and emphatically NOT science.ah
• The procedure of honest & sound science
The procedure of honest and sound science is really quite simple, American neighbor. Science is about gathering evidence and then eliminating possibilities so that one ends up with a plausible scenario that explains one’s observations. And if that cannot be accomplished, then a definitive conclusion is impossible. Do you honestly believe that every possible scenario (we are talking about numbers ending in many, many zeros) has been eliminated from the above list, American neighbor? No, I didn’t think so. Global warming science is more about a theory used to filter the facts than about the facts supporting the theory. So let me tell you how dishonest science is performed (filtering the facts). First, scenarios that cannot be accounted for are ignored. Second, complications that cannot be accounted for are camouflaged. Third, the remaining data is manipulated to produce the desired results. Next, the manipulated processes that produce the desired results are hidden or refused public release. Critics of this process are denounced as “deniers”. Finally, someone makes a movie embellishing the manipulated results and wins a Nobel Prize. Sound familiar? This is how dishonest science operates. Oh – and one more thing – then their computer servers are hacked and the truth is exposed – twice.ai
• The inadequacies of computer climate models
In line with the above reasoning former NASA scientist of the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Dr. John S. Theon, has stated:
~ “Climate models are useless. […] My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit.”~ [aulo3w]
So as Dr. Theon has asserted and I have illustrated, computer climate modeling programs cannot possibly account for the many, many variables necessary to produce a reliable result. So how are these current modeling programs constructed? Dr. Theon explains:
~ “Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”~ [aulo3w]
Dr. Theon has just confirmed our little rule about science from above: The confidence in a conclusion is directly proportional to the comprehensive reliability of the information examined. Dr. Roy Spencer, another former NASA scientist and current Team Leader the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite agrees with Dr. Theon:
~ “Once their climate models can behave in the same way as the satellite observations suggest the real climate system behaves on a year to year basis, then we can revisit how much global warming those models predict for the future. Until that happens, I consider the IPCC climate model forecasts of strong global warming in the coming decades to be completely unreliable for basing policy decisions on.”~ [dhyvg7]
In fact UN IPCC scientists have actually admitted that their data is inadequate and their programming is sub par: [ndy68e]
~ “As a software engineer, I know that climate model software doesn’t meet the best standards available. We’ve made quite a lot of progress, but we’ve still quite a ways to go.”~ – Gary Strand, software engineer, National Center for Atmospheric Research, IPCC, comment section at Climate Audit website, July 4, 2009 [27oyep7]
~ “The problem with climate prediction and projections going out to 2030 and 2050 is that we don’t anticipate that they can be tested in the way you can test a weather forecast. It takes about 20 years to evaluate because there is so much unforced variability in the system which we can’t predict — the chaotic component of the climate system — which is not predictable beyond two weeks, even theoretically. That is something that we can’t really get a handle on.” – Gavin Schmidt, climatologist and computer modeler, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), June 29, 2009 [nk94v7]
~ “Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well.” – Dr. Jim Renwick, New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), lead author on Working Group I of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report, June 7, 2007 [2gg67u]
~ “In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent “story lines” that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable. But they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.”~ – Dr. Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, lead author of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC Scientific Assessment of Climate Change, June 4, 2007 [2bhcx4] He has also stated: “None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate.”
~ “No climate model has ever been properly tested, which is what ‘validation’ means, and their ‘projections’ are nothing more than the opinions of ‘experts’ with a conflict of interest, because they are paid to produce the models. There is no actual scientific evidence for all these ‘projections’ and ‘estimates’. … The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense.”~ – Dr Vincent Gray, Ph.D. in physical chemistry, 18 year IPCC “Expert Reviewer”, April 10, 2007 [3ay5bw3]
~ “We conducted an audit of the procedures described in the IPCC report and found that they clearly violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting (Green and Armstrong 2008). (No justification was provided for any of these violations.) For important forecasts, we can see no reason why any principle should be violated.”~ Dr J. Scott Armstrong, International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, International Symposium on Forecasting, author of Long-range Forecasting (1978, 1985), the Principles of Forecasting Handbook, and over 70 papers on forecasting, January 28, 2009 [dbpxlu]
~ “I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry, and the biology of fields and farms and forests.”~ Freeman Dyson, theoretical physicist and mathematician [2j96zx]
Imagine that you are a climate computer modeler, American neighbor. You are competing for funds with a dozen other modelers. Their models all produce results projecting near apocalypse. Yours does not. Yours projects rosy scenarios for as far as your model can see. Next year there is only enough funding for a dozen modeling positions. One of you must be let go. Who do you think will end up standing in the rain as a weather reporter?aj
• The steps necessary to accurately project the climate’s future
Think about this, American neighbor. (Remember, we are talking possibly millions of steps here.) • Every one of the above listed possible influences would have to be thoroughly examined, theorized, data-complied, tested, concluded, peer reviewed and replicated just to understand each possible influence on its own. • Then each potential influence would have to be compared to every other influence that might modify it or that it might modify, and again be thoroughly examined, theorized, data-complied, tested, concluded, peer reviewed and replicated for each comparison. • Then small groups would have to be thoroughly examined, theorized, data-complied, tested, concluded, peer reviewed and replicated. Then large groups would have to be thoroughly examined, theorized, data-complied, tested, concluded, peer reviewed and replicated. • Then all of these scientific studies would have to be summarized into a cohesive model that can account for all possible and likely permutations, and once again be thoroughly examined, theorized, data-complied, tested, concluded, peer reviewed and replicated. The magnitude of these exercises is beyond overwhelming, and many of these variables cannot be tested in any way. Did you get that, American neighbor? It is impossible to even test many of these variables. When viewed from this perspective it is laughable to think that any computer model could account for all of this data and all variables within that data, even if the data were available. The obvious conclusion is that we simply cannot confidently project the future of climate change with current computer models.ak
• All 65 IPCC computer climate models are proved failures
As you will see in a minute, American neighbor, as of 2012 there has been no net global warming for the last 22 years. Exactly how many computer models and how many runs with various data inputs were completed that may have been able to project the leveled global temperature from 1990 to the present is probably impossible to know. I have found references to 25 models [m5flfe], 9 models, and “dozens of GCM simulations”. [29a4tvr] But the fact remains that out of the 25 computer models and “dozens of GCM simulations” used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change there were no projections of the leveling trend of the global temperatures since 1990 that were presented publicly as conclusions. Update: Now in late 2013 a German study has claimed that the IPCC has used 65 computer climate models – all failures. [npo9ugp]al
• There was no net global warming from 1990 to 2012
~The science is clear: global warming is happening faster than ever and humans are responsible.~
Really? I am rewriting this section in November 2013. I just lifted this quote the other day. Only global warming zealots would still insist that global warming “is happening faster than ever” today. Anyone can look at virtually any global temperature graph and instantly observe that there has been no global warming since at least the El Niño event of 1998. 350.org goes on to state:
~350 is the number that leading scientists say is the safe upper limit of carbon dioxide–measured in “Parts Per Million” in our atmosphere.~
Looking at the adjacent graph of atmospheric carbon dioxide content it can be seen that the threshold of 350 PPM was broken in 1990. Since then that number had risen to almost 400 PPM by 2012. So has the global temperature followed suit? We’ll look at eleven atmospheric data sets. The GIS TEMP LOTI is a NASA combined land and ocean temperature data set. HADCRUT3 and HADCRUT4 are the UK Met Office combined ocean and land temperature data sets. RSS MSU and UAH NSSTC are satellite data sets of the lower troposphere. CRUTEM3 and CRUTEM4 are land and ocean measurement temperature data sets. RSS MUSULT and UAH NSSTC LT are satellite data set of land measurements. The NCDC is a land and ocean data set. (All eleven graphs are presented above the carbon dioxide graph.)
The IPCC has determined (no one knows how, I suspect a number pulled out a hat – Phil Jones says that it was “plucked out of thin air”) that the global temperature must be limited to two degrees, or Armageddon will result. This is usually projected as likely to happen by the end of the 21st century unless drastic measures are implemented. So lets project the amount of warming a century out from the breaking of 350 PPM in 1990 to see how threatened we are.
I daytrade stocks. Instead of using line graphs, which introduce a lot of noise, traders prefer to use what are called bar or candlestick charts. They display the price of a stock in repetitive blocks of ranges based on set time periods instead of as squiggle lines, making them much easier to visually analyze. Because the earth oscillates on a yearly basis through cyclical seasons (as seen in the adjacent carbon dioxide graph) the median value between the yearly high and low range becomes more readily indicative of the trend by filtering out the micro-noise within each annual cycle.
If you examine the previous 11 temperature graphs on this page you will notice that I have blocked the ranges of the years 1990 and 2012 and connected them with a line from the median point of each. I then calculated the projected rate of temperature movement for the next century for each. If we then average those numbers we get a projection of 0.24 degrees rise in global temperature per century. The IPCC in their First Assessment Report in 1990 projected a rise of over 10 times this amount of 3 degrees per century! [pbu9m8b] This means that the supposed Armageddon of a 2 degree rise is over 800 years away based on what 350.org ridiculously describes as, “global warming is happening faster than ever”. So basically, since 1990 there has been NO global warming trend. Since 1990 the global temperature has gone down, it has gone up, and it has gone down again. Call it what you want; fluctuation, churn, consolidation, whatever, but just don’t call it a global warming trend. The median temperature in 2012 is essentially right back where it was in 1990 – two years before the Kyoto Protocol was signed. The average rise of the 11 data sets in global temperature is 0.05 degrees from 1990 to 2012 – there has been NO net global warming. That is five one-hundredths of a degree – it is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. That micro-level of measurement precision is not even reliably possible on a global scale, American neighbor.
Compare the ranges of 1990 and 2012 in the graphs – see how the blocks overwhelmingly over lap each other. If there was real warming you would expect that there would be a gap between the high of 1990 and the low of 2012, but they completely overlap each other in every graph. Take another look at the carbon dioxide graph. There is no correlation between it and any of the temperature data sets. They are completely mismatched. The gap between the high of 1990 and the low of 2012 is HUGE! Carbon dioxide has constantly risen. The global temperature has not. 350.org claims:
~350 PPM–it’s the number humanity needs to get back to as soon as possible to avoid runaway climate change.~
We are now at 400 PPM – up 14% from 1990. Based on an estimated global average temperature of 14 degrees, 0.05 degrees is a rise (if you can call it that) of a measly 0.4%. That is a 35:1 ratio, carbon dioxide content rise to temperature rise. At this rate, for the planet to increase by 2 degrees as correlated with the rise of carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere from 1990, it would take an increase of carbon dioxide to over 2,000 PPM! After 22 years it is therefore self-evident that there is NO additional greenhouse gas effect. [*7rt25rb] Atmospheric carbon dioxide saturation has reached its maximum IR forcing effect (if IR forcing even exists – it is highly debatable, as you will see). As far as we know the atmospheric content of carbon dioxide has never risen faster in any other 22 year time range than from 1990 to 2012. If there was ever going to be evidence of the correlation that is demanded by the greenhouse gas effect theory, it would have been in this 22 year period. Again, there is no correlation – there is NO additional greenhouse gas effect. If there was, the temperature data sets would have correlated with the carbon dioxide graph with catastrophic rises. They don’t. It is not even close. There has been NO net global warming from 1990 to 2012 which proves that there is NO additional greenhouse gas effect.am
• The five predominant atmospheric temperature data sets
Here is a separate combination graph of five atmospheric temperature data sets (I added the black boxes to outline temperature ranges and time periods):
You can see that the temperature ranges for 1990 and 2012 are virtually identical. Only five years since 1990 extend higher more than a few hundredths of a degree beyond that range. In other words, there has been no net warming since 1990. In fact, the temperature ranges for 1981 and 1983 also virtually fall within the temperature range of 2012.
The UN IPCC’s First Assessment Report was also released in 1990. It recklessly predicted in the Policymakers’ summary:
~Working Group I has also predicted the increase in global mean temperatures to be about 1°C above the present value by 2025~
With the above noted 11 data sets we measured an average 0.05 degree rise from 1990 to 2012. Projected to 2025 makes for a 0.08 degree rise. This is less than 1/10th of the IPCC prediction of 1 full degree. What global warming?an
• Global sea ice extent was the same in 2013 as in 1990
Still not convinced? This next graph illustrates that there was the same amount of global sea ice (a claimed correlative indicator of global temperature by envirotheists) on September 15, 2013 as there was on September 15, 1990. [l3nez54] So I have to ask again: What global warming?
Using envirotheist numbers, if the U.S. were to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 50% by 2050 this would result in a global temperature reduction of 0.07 degrees by 2100. [lyuoh9q] Now look at the above graph and see what 0.07 degrees looks like. The temperature ranges for 1990 and 2012 were 0.6 degrees. 0.07 degrees is a blip. 0.07 degrees is probably less than the margin of error. In realistic terms, on a global scale it is immeasurable. We’ve already asked: What global warming? The next question is about reducing carbon dioxide emissions: Why destroy the American economy for no benefit, even if the globe is warming? What is the point?ap
• Can you see global warming in these graphs?
Here are some more interesting graphs from the last link. Please tell me where you see any evidence of recent global warming, American neighbor:
Here is a graph actually showing a decreasing trend in global drought since 1982 (oops):
Here is a graph of the amount of wildfires in the U.S. since 1960 (oops again):
Envirotheists have been telling us for years that global warming is causing “extreme weather events”. Nothing looks abnormal in the above seven graphs, American neighbor. What “extreme weather events”?aq
• The temperature data sets have been ‘adjusted’
In fact, global temperature measurement and interpretation of the resulting data is imprecise, to say the least. Huge gaps in historic data records and geographic areas are often filled-in with what are basically guesses – called interpolation. Temporal stability of historic data is also a serious problem. This is when an old data set that was previously considered mature is adjusted with supposedly new data or modifying information. However, the justifications for these adjustments are seldom released publicly – and surprise! – always decrease more historic temperatures and increase recent temperatures. (How convenient.) Here are literally dozens of examples: [*25pwth9]ar
• Daytrading, ‘charts’ & unreasonable risk
As I mentioned above, I daytrade stocks, American neighbor. Graphs such as these (known to traders as charts) are a foundational tool for many daytraders (and other types of traders). Basically a chart can show a stock as doing one of three things in a given time-frame; go long (trend up), go short (trend down), or consolidate (move sideways). What all of these temperature data sets show is that for the past 22 years (I am writing this at the end of 2012) the global temperature has been consolidating – fluctuating up and down in annual intervals, but ending up neither trending up nor down from one end of the chart to the other. If you had bought stock in Global Warming Inc. at the median temperature in 1990, by 2012 (again, based on the median temperature) it would not have gained one penny in value.
Traders often use what are known as technical indicators to help interpret stock charts and hopefully make profitable trades. I am familiar with literally dozens of technical indicators (here is a list of some [24z2ra6]). I can tell you from experience that none that I know of could be applied to those temperature graphs and tell you which way they are trending. In other words, if those temperature graphs were actually intraday stock charts, no daytrader would trade them, because it is impossible to tell in which direction they may break out (begin a new trend). They could begin to trend up or down. They could break out this year, or they may consolidate for another five, ten or even more years. There is no way to tell with a consolidation such as this. Here is the crux of it: No daytrader would risk even a hundred bucks trying to make money off of charts like these, but etheists want to bet the whole world’s economy on their ‘perfect indicator’ – carbon dioxide. Except that their ‘perfect indicator’ hasn’t worked for the past 22 years. Of course, like any good scam artist, they have convinced most of the world that their ‘perfect indicator’ will start working again real soon – just trust them.
That is what is known to a trader as unacceptable risk (if not crazy!). It is not strategic trading, which is when one uses an edge (strategy) to place the odds in your favor. When the odds are not in the favor of your edge it is best to just stay out of the market. When the maket consolidates, your indicator shouldn’t be telling you that it is trending. When your edge ceases to work for long periods of time, it is time to drop that indicator. To trade a consolidating market like this is, quite simply, gambling, and little different than flipping a coin and hoping for the best. In fact in the 1970s liberals claimed that a consolidation period from 1937 to 1974 was going to trend down (remember the global cooling scare?). It went up for a little over a decade. Good thing there wasn’t enough time to bet the whole global economy at the time, as they wish to now. Notice that the Time magazine article quoted in the second link, from 1974 it agrees with the time period of the charts from the first link: [*7sk7f3q, *9w4mnpm]
Profitable daytrading is very difficult. It is estimated that 95% of traders ultimately lose money, American neighbor. Much of that 95% failure rate can be attributed to gambling instead of strategic trading. Do you honestly think etheists with their failed computer models could be profitable daytraders, American neighbor? Neither do I.as
• Global temperature has been consolidating for 59 of the last 75 years
Look at those numbers, American neighbor. The global temperature has been consolidating for 59 of the last 75 years. That is 79%. The globe has experienced net warming for only 21% of that time. In fact, this conclusively illustrates that there currently is no additional predominant greenhouse effect, otherwise it would be virtually 100% of the time. This also decisively illustrates the inadequacy of these climate computer models. Climate alarm modelers are now trying to excuse their failures by insisting that the recent leveling of temperatures falls within the margin of error of some models (imagine your stock broker using this excuse for your account not earning even one penny from 1990 to 2012). A closer look reveals that in order to do this, the margin of error must be expanded to the extent that almost anything could happen and still fall within the error margins. [*35vjj6e] This is just more fudging to cover for their failures, American neighbor.
Another excuse etheists use is that the last decade has been the hottest ever recorded. Clever. Except that this is like your stock broker claiming that your portfolio hit higher highs in the last ten years than in any other ten years before it, while, in fact, your portfolio isn’t worth any more now than it was in 1990. Hottest decade ever recorded sounds ominous, but it just a sleight of hand – there has been no global warming since 1990, only fluctuation that allows them to disingenuously make this claim.
In fact, climate computer models are almost on a par with practical jokes or magic tricks. They use fudge factors called flux adjustments to doctor any results not consistent with their goals. They are nothing more than expanded weather forecasting programs (and we all know how accurate they are – not). [*29a4tvr] How would you like to bet your future on a ten day weather forecast, American neighbor? I wouldn’t either. Now, how about betting our whole civilization on a 100 year projection based on the same technology? Uh-huh…
The Met (meteorological) Office Hadley Centre, considered near the top of the global warming research pyramid, assuredly answers the question, “Are computer models reliable?” with this (perhaps you should put your coffee cup down before reading this, American neighbor):
~Yes. Computer models are an essential tool in understanding how the climate will respond to changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, and other external effects, such as solar output and volcanoes.~ [8lhrmjn]
The past 22 year period has been the first real test for these computer models, and they have all failed miserably, American neighbor. [*25kfhoe] Out of (
25) 65 computer models they could not make one accurate near-term projection expecting the leveled global temperature since 1990. Apparently that isn’t enough to get the Met Office to have any doubts in their computer models, but as Dr. Theon states: “Not one model predicted the cooling we’ve had since 1998.” (Or the net leveling since 1990.) [2etknbu]
Even the etheists behind the IPCC computer climate models are beginning to recognize the futility of their projections. At the September, 2009 UN World Climate Conference one of the lead IPCC authors and climate modelers admitted the utter failure of the IPCC’s climate projections, and affirmed that there had not been any global warming since 1998 and may not be any further warming for “one or even two decades”. [*35ttglq] So in just 22 years, we have gone from a projected meteoric rise in global temperature for the next one hundred years to a cooling trend of up to 39 years in length. I guess the Kyoto Protocol worked a lot better than anyone thought. [/sarcasm]at
• 44 climate models compared to satellite measurements
Here is a chart composed of “44 of the Latest Climate Models” created by renown climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer [btvldqc]
Notice the consistently increasing divergence since 1995 of the average model projection (black line) from actual satellite measurements (red and blue dotted lines). Notice that all 44 climate models projected higher results than when compared to actual measured temperatures for 2004, 2008, 2011 and 2012. And, of course, notice that there has only been less than 0.1 degree per decade warming since 1979, not the over 0.25 projected by the model average. At a rounded off 0.1 degrees per decade, that would make for an insignificant increase from 1979 to 2100 of 1.2 degrees compared to an average IPCC projection of over 3.0 degrees. [cv7psy7] (Not that any climate projections are of any real value.)au
• 75 models compared to measurements of the ‘fingerprint’ ‘hotspot’
This next graph is similar to the previous one, but with a few alterations. 73 computer climate models are used in comparison to the same two satellite measurements plus four weather balloon data sets, with all of the data linearized. [mdctjyx] Notice all but three models project over twice the warming that has actually occurred.
This next graph is the same as the above graph using 5-year moving averages instead of being linearized. Unfortunately, the data plot lines seem to have been erroneously shifted two increments to the left on the scale. Keeping that in mind, notice that all six temperature data sets show that the temperatures in 1980 (the first circle and square pair) are virtually identical with the temperatures in 2012 (the second last circle and square pair). These measurements are of the mid level troposphere in the tropics where global warming was supposed to develop the famous “hot spot” that was the focus of 1990s global warming projections. After 32 years from 1980 to 2012 there had been no net warming of this so-called “fingerprint” of the global climate. What “hot spot”? (This chart is confirmed here: [maxb6ap])
Here’s another interesting temperature graph. Etheists are constantly warning that the melting of the Antarctic ice cap is in the process of flooding the world with rising oceans due to global warming. Except that as Real Science [chx8xfb, mpjo6u2] illustrates, there has been no recorded warming at the south pole since satellite records began in 1979. What ice cap melting?
Etheists are crying out over Arctic sea ice receding intermittently in a few recent years. If it is a result of global warming shouldn’t Antarctic sea ice be receding also? Oops…
So let’s go back to our honest and sound procedure for science. We agreed that, “Science is about gathering evidence and then eliminating possibilities so that one ends up with a plausible scenario that explains one’s observations. If that cannot be accomplished, then a definitive conclusion is impossible.” Something to add here is that in order to confidently project into the future one must be able to have a good handle on all of the variables involved or at least be able to test one’s projections for accuracy. Global warming theory meets neither of these requirements, so it is not surprising that their projections so utterly failed. Here is what we know:
1. We know that the earth has warmed and cooled in the past before any possible manmade influence – check!
2. We can extrapolate that it is possible that the earth can warm or cool again without any influence from mankind – check!
3. We have determined that there are seventy-plus known possible influences on the climate – check!
4. We have determined that many of those seventy-plus possible influences cannot possibly be quantified using today’s limited scientific capabilities – check!
5. We can therefore conclude that no current climate computer models could ever accurately project the future other than through pure luck – check!
6. We have witnessed that the IPCC’s (
25) 65 computer models were not lucky – check!
7. We have eliminated Nobel Prizes as useful in determining the cause of any possible climate change – double check!
There is no evidence that we know of that mankind influences the climate at all. Anthropogenic global warming theory has completely failed to prove its case – what they said was impossible with a predominant greenhouse effect (a ceasing of the warming) is actually happening. Here is what is truly impossible, American neighbor: At this stage of the world’s limited scientific capabilities, and given whatever the known normal parameters are for the seventy-plus known possible influences on the climate, it is simply impossible to determine exactly which ones are predominantly affecting the climate at any given period of time. Period! Full stop! End of argument!ax
• My response to the skeptics
You may be wondering how I might respond to some so-called skeptics’ assertions that the sun explains climate change, American neighbor. My answer to them is the same. I don’t think we can know that for sure, given the limitation of known normal parameters. Indeed, there seems to be no one understanding of just which sun conditions produce more warmth for the earth and which conditions don’t. [*9odgjm2]
I am consistent with how I determine my beliefs. I have examined the two lines that the global warming ehteists have put forth as being equal in length. I have measured them and found with my own two eyes that they are not equal in length – they are a self-evident fraud. It is not because I have sided with the so-called skeptics that I do not believe in anthropogenic global warming theory. It is because the evidence (actually a lack thereof) persuades me that there is no way to justify anthropogenic global warming theory. We just don’t know what specifically influences the climate in what way at this point in time. Critical analysis has led me to this agnostic viewpoint. What leads you to yours, American neighbor? Faith in envirotheist scientists with glorified weather forecasting programs that failed to project the leveled global temperature of the last 22 years?ay
• Global warming was never about global warming
But it is not actually about global warming. What I mean is, that it does not actually matter to radical left etheists whether anthropogenic global warming is real or not. It only matters if the world can be made to believe it is real. See for your self, American neighbor:
~ “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”~ – Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations
~ “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”~ – Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports
~ “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”~ – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation
~ “Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed.”~ – Pentti Linkola, deep ecologist
~ “Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds. …what he [Zwiers] has done comes to a different conclusion than Caspar and Gene! I reckon this can be saved by careful wording.”~ – Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at UEA
~ “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”~ – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
~ “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”~ U.S. State Department Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick
~ “The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”~ – Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
~ “Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”~ – John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
~ “The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”~ – Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
~ “The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.”~ – Jonathan Overpeck, coordinating lead IPCC report author
~ “The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.”~ – Dr David Frame, climate modeler, OxfordUniversity
~ “The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority an alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now.”~ – Louis Proyect, Columbia University
~ “Free Enterprise really means rich people get richer. They have the freedom to exploit and psychologically rape their fellow human beings in the process … Capitalism is destroying the earth.”~ – Helen Caldicott, Union of Concerned Scientists
~ “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”~ – Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev
~ “I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”~ – Al Gore, climate change guru
~ “The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level.”~ – Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech
~ “We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion — guilt-free at last!”~ – Stewart Brand, Whole Earth Catalogue
~ “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”~ – President Jacques Chirac of France
~ “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”~ – Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
~ “The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”~ – emeritus professor Daniel Botkin
~ “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis…”~ – David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member
~ “I am not convinced that the ‘truth’ is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships.”~ – Tom Crowley (worked on the hockey stick)
~ “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land.”~ – David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
~ “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”~ – Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
~ “What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”~ – Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)
~ “But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. … One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.”~ – Ottmar Edenhofer, Co-chair of working group III Mitigation of Climate Change (IPCC)
Envirotheism goes way beyond saving the earth from a little warm air. Read through both of the lists in these links and see for yourself the truly insane goals of radical left etheists who are driving the global warming movement, American neighbor: [*4mc6qa4, *4gcm6vp, bkaxhhx]az
• The single most important presumption was wrong
One last thing about the global warming computer models. It has now been measured that the single most important presumption in every etheist computer model was wrong – carbon dioxide traps much less heat in the atmosphere than was presumed. Read this link and then throw all of those etheist computer models into the intellectual trash bin, American neighbor: [*3j3px3o]
Of course global warming etheists will object that there are hundreds of peer reviewed studies that affirm anthropogenic global warming theory. The problem with this argument is that once you get past the CRU and GISS studies virtually everything else is then conducive on the hockey stick graphs and computer models being honest and accurate. The hockey stick graphs are the foundation of supposed past cooling and then supposed abrupt warming in the twentieth century, and the computer models are the foundation for supposed future warming. Without these the whole global warming house of cards comes tumbling down. With the hockey stick graphs (more later) and computer models proven to be frauds, things like melting Arctic ice and the odd category five hurricane do not suddenly make the graphs and models correct. They only illustrate that other things are going on. How many more global warming frauds do you think are still lying in the weeds? Wait for the next essay – there are dozens and dozens!ba
• But shouldn’t we act – just in case?
But, American neighbor, you are probably still nagged by the argument that if despite all of the above, anthropogenic global warming still might be accurate – shouldn’t we act just in case? I found the best postulation of this argument in a short video: [*2d979a or *23265my] As you can see, etheist Greg Craven figures he’s got a seemingly foolproof argument in favor of action against global warming using this very question, American neighbor. He says he’s putting his “argument out there – to see if I’m delusional.” While I don’t exactly think he is delusional (although after reading a speech he gave to an American Geophysical Union meeting, I am reconsidering), I can conclusively illustrate that his logic doesn’t add up. Just the question itself illustrates the absurdity of liberal thinking, as you will see.
If you can’t view the video at the time of you are reading this, Craven’s argument is this (he uses a small table to explain his argument):
There are two plans of action. We fight a possible anthropogenic global warming (Column A) or we don’t (Column B), and there are two possible outcomes of anthropogenic global warming: false (Row 1) or true (Row 2). This brings about four possible conclusions. The first (Column A Row 1) is that we fight anthropogenic global warming which causes a worldwide economic depression, but because anthropogenic global warming turned out to be false there would be no climate disaster. The second scenario (Column B Row 1) would be doing nothing and nothing coming of anthropogenic global warming – a win-win scenario. The third (Column B Row 2) is not fighting, but uh-oh, global warming happens and a climate disaster is the result. The fourth possible scenario (Column A Row 2) is fighting anthropogenic global warming now and it actually happens. Craven concludes that the smartest conclusion is to fight anthropogenic global warming, because if we don’t and it is true then we end up with a global catastrophe. So he says we should pick Column A, to fight, and if global warming happens we benefit from the fight.
Craven’s conclusion is flawed because it does not follow his premise which assumes for Column A, Row 1 that so many resources would be needed to fight global warming that it would cause a global economic depression (this is not the flaw, but is accurate given that the world is not so far from an economic depression even right now without the draconian economic measures proposed by global warming etheists). If a global depression is the assumed result for Column A, Row 1 then it must be assumed for Column A, Row 2 as well. The flaw is the conclusion that global warming could be successfully curtailed when the first assumption is that such a debilitating amount of resources must be devoted to fighting global warming that it would result in a global depression. This is a fatal contradiction in logic. The global depression would be the end of the fight against global warming. An energy and production efficient worldwide economy necessary to fight global warming could not possibly result from a depressed worldwide economy. People would still need energy and production, so the cheapest, most carbon intensive sources would be expanded while expensive and less efficient green energy sources and production practices would be abandoned. Column A Row 2 cannot possibly end with a smiley face, but only with the same destruction as Column B, Row 2. At best Craven’s scenario would only slightly delay the inevitable for a while, but it would also end with an accelerated rate of carbon emissions once the depression was entered, so nothing would be gained in the end by attempting to curtail global warming.
So naturally Column B, is the most logical choice. If Column B, Row 1 is the result we are home free. If Column B, Row 2 is the result the survivors will have a much better chance to adapt to an inevitably devastated world if anthropogenic global warming theory is accurate, because at least they will be doing it from a closer proximity to previous economic prosperity and scientific advancement. Think about it this way. Instead of fruitlessly wasting resources attempting to stop a possible global warming which would inevitably fail when the global economy failed, the logical solution is to instead spend economic resources as needed in reaction to climate change, whether the temperature rises or falls or remains relatively constant. This by far provides the best scenario for civilization surviving an extreme climate change event.
There is one last thing that Craven fails to consider that is completely devastating to his smiley-face-what-if scenario – the inevitable liberal unintended consequences. Throughout history cold times have proven to be significantly deadlier to mankind, the animal kingdom, the botanical world and the aquatic environment than warm periods. [*cwna5jz] Here is where the absurdity of liberal thinking falls flat on its face: What if while we are purposely attempting to cool the planet, it quite naturally turns into a global cooling cycle, as it has many times before? We would end up making the fatal mistake of hastening our own demise by creating an unnecessary global economic depression while at the same time encouraging a global ice age. [2ad8sau] Oops…
Craven asks and answers on his website: “What if I’m wrong? I could live with that … could you?” Really? A deliberate global economic depression along with a new ice age? The last one covered half of North America with ice a mile thick. He could live with that? No guilt, no shame? He must be a liberal – and yup, delusional.
• Deprogramming lessons
Apocalypses like global warming are typical of liberalism (more next essay), and are drilled into the conscious of society with a relentless propaganda war: Contemporary liberalism is a type of societal conditioning. The fear of the apocalypse is a glaring symptom of liberal paranoia: Compulsive paranoia is the foundation of contemporary liberalism. The global warming envirotheism movement is based on an improvable noble lie, so of course, liberals have glommed onto it to promote their utopian objectives based on the liberal principle: Contemporary liberals embrace the strategy of the noble lie. And on: For its own good a resistant society must have utopian ideals forced upon it. The noble lie is seen as justifiable based on this principle: Contemporary liberals employ chaos as a political strategy to destabilize society so that liberal solutions can appear more palatable. Of course skeptics are viewed as deliberately opposing saving of the world from certain destruction and are derogatorily denounced as “deniers” based on this principle: A contemporary conservative’s evil motives justify their destruction by any means necessary. Somehow liberal irrationality must be justified: For contemporary liberals superficial rationalization is always the first and final element in their ideological line of thought.
The fact that global warming theory cannot be falsified and its projections cannot be tested or confirmed puts it in the unenviable position of being “not even wrong”. At least if it was just wrong it would meet some valid criteria worth debating, but global warming theory based on flimsy computer models meets no valid scientific criteria whatsoever. Therefore it is “not even wrong”. [*236hyt] That is hardly surprising, since we discovered in #6 Tyranny Versus Liberty that anthropogenic global warming theory was actually popularized by etheist Nazi Günther Schwab, while the global envirotheist movement itself is an offshoot of Hitler’s Nazism (one of the biggest propaganda machines in history). It is then not at all surprising to see the same delusions and tactics in one transferred to the other.
In a practical sense, there are no experts on the climate as a whole. That would be like claiming that so and so is an expert on the universe or the ocean. No one could ever be expert enough on all of the many various fields of research on the universe or the ocean to be considered an expert on the universe or ocean as a whole. Likewise, there are just too many aspects to the climate for any one person to become an expert of the whole. At most scientists can specialize on certain aspects of the climate (as they do in researching the universe or the ocean). This doesn’t make them an expert of the climate as a whole. So when you hear that there is a scientific consensus on global warming, my question is: What does that prove? None of these scientists can possibly be experts on global warming as a whole, because no one could ever be an expert on all 80 possible influences on global temperature. Even if there is a consensus (there isn’t, as you will see), the consensus would mean nothing other than a bunch of non-experts on global warming as a whole agree on an uninformed opinion (uninformed, because there is so much still unknown about the 80 possible influences – much more unknown than is known). I am as expert as any of them on global warming as a whole, and being an agnostic about it, a whole lot more open-minded. What about you, American neighbor?
It’s like this whole essay came out of my “And you thought Sarah Palin was stupid…” file, American neighbor. Hopefully you have seen the absurdity in anthropogenic global warming theory. Hopefully you have awakened to the lack of any genuine science relating to climate projections. Only a liberal would believe (by playing stupid) in climate computer models that have failed at every attempt. It is time for you to decide to adhere only to real science, American neighbor, not the pseudo-science of global warming etheists. Here is an excellent explanation of the limitations (uselessness) of climate computer models, pretty much in layman’s terms: [*6vdbsur]bc
• Deprogramming exercise
Are you familiar with the scientific scandal known as Piltdown Man, American neighbor? It is the story of one of the most famous frauds in the history of science. A human skull was cleverly matched with the lower jawbone of an orangutan and presented to the world as the missing link in the evolution from ape to man. From the Wikipedia article:
~As early as 1915, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the jaw was from an ape. Similarly, American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller concluded Piltdown’s jaw came from a fossil ape. In 1923, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth. Weidenreich, being an anatomist, had easily exposed the hoax for what it was. However, it took thirty years for the scientific community to concede that Weidenreich was correct.~ [gqazo]
Although our deprogramming exercise has relevance for this essay, it really is more preparatory for the next essay. Please go read this link, American neighbor. It will open your eyes as to how climate related science is twisted by political hacks to say what they want. This is a critique by an 18 year IPCC veteran “Expert Reviewer” of an official climate committee statement. Read and be amazed… [*5s99t2]bd
• Humor, sort-of
Here we go with another bit of humor from the “And you thought Sarah Palin was stupid…” file:
This end of essay humor is a very serious quote from a very serious article criticizing Barack Obama for failing to advance the global warming agenda prior to the 2009 “UN Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen”. [*y8lz36j] The article is 1382 words in length and does not contain one single example of intended hyperbole or exaggeration. And then there is this:
~ “If the rest of the world were to follow the US example in their approach to fossil fuels, the oceans would not only heat up, but would probably soon begin to boil.”~
Check this out for yourself, American neighbor. This guy was dead serious, and just to make sure the reader knows that the author is dead serious the webpage displays a collection of ten photos of Greenland with the incredible caption “Greenland’s Vanishing Ice Sheet”. Really, American neighbor, who can take these people seriously? [finger draws little circles beside head]
Oh drat! Maybe I spoke too soon. Al Gore may have a reason for boiling oceans. Asked about geothermal energy on the Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien, Gore said, “…two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, ’cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot …” [ycasjqc] First, the idea that the interior of the earth is over one million degrees is beyond laughable. The surface of the sun is only about 6,000 degrees for heavens sake! Liberals actually think Al Gore knows what he is talking about?!? [GROAN!] Second, in relatively few places is the crust “hot” within two kilometers of the surface. Mines around the world quite regularly reach two kilometers in depth, with only a slight warming. Third, the “crust of the earth” is not hot. We live on the crust of the earth. The crust of the earth is the cold part of the earth. [Sheesh!]
Update: We have our own Al Gore up here in Canada – David Suzuki. If anything Suzuki is even more pompous than Gore, I’m guessing since he was a scientist of sorts at one time (not climate change). Today I’m also guessing that Al Gore is pretty happy. He has been usurped as the loudest mouth about global warming with the least knowledge about it. In what seems to be a sort of town hall event in Australia on September 23, 2013, Suzuki displayed that he had no idea that the global temperature as measured by the most predominant data sets used by the global warming ethiest community have showed no actual global warming for the last 17 years (the questioner’s number – we know its 22+). When the questioner, Australian Senator Bill Koutallianos named some of the most prominent data sets – UAH; RSS, HadCruT, GISS – Suzuki didn’t know what he was talking about!
I’m sort of torn between two responses: 1. SLEDGE HAMMER TO THE CHEST STAGGERING!!! or 2. What else is new? Yawn… Choose your own.
But it continued. Suzuki seemed to be also completely clueless that all IPCC computer climate models had failed over the last 25 years. He then audaciously doubled down on a statement that he made a few years ago that politicians that ignore the supposed science supporting anthropogenic global warming theory should be put in jail for what he called “intergenerational crimes”. (OK – I’m now sort-of leaning toward reaction number 1.) Definitely watch all six videos to see a full exposure of this arrogant ignoramus – Ezra Levant of the Sun News Network makes them very entertaining: [*lfayjd9, *q9pub5e, *q2ow2oa, *q3ap3un, *nwrgtyo, *pq4tu99]