The global warming self perpetuating money machine

The scientific community uses unverifiable model projections of global warming to gorge itself on taxpayer money.

When discussing global warming it is important to understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.  Wikipedia defines the difference this way:

A scientific hypothesis is a proposed explanation of a phenomenon which still has to be rigorously tested. In contrast, a scientific theory has undergone extensive testing and is generally accepted to be the accurate explanation behind an observation.

The problem with the greenhouse theory which is actually the "enhanced" greenhouse theory is that it has never truly been tested.  The alleged increase of global temperatures over the past century certainly cannot be proven to be "unprecedented" since in the millions of years that the  Earth has actually had a climate, it has only in been in the past couple of centuries that man has had the ability to measure temperatures and far less time than that to measure them globally.

The scientists who promote the global warming "theory" over the past two decades have sought to prove that the increase in temperatures is unprecedented so that they can tie it to man's use of fossil fuels. They have done this most notoriously with the controversial and discredited "hockey stick" graph. Even if it could be proven that Mann's hockey stick graph were an accurate representation of temperatures, which it is not, the graph itself only goes back a thousand years and  only represents the Northern Hemisphere's temperatures. In other words the infamous graph is a millennium short of the reaching the time of Christ, the rise and heyday of the Roman Empire and all the many centuries before and then of course it does leave out half of planet Earth completely.

Unable to prove their theory using the past and knowing that  their shtick of blaming every single variation in the Earth's weather from snow storms to droughts on climate change  is both unscientific and wearing thin to an ever more skeptical public, the climate change cult uses something which can not be proven in order to sell their "theory" climate model projections of the future. It makes sense in an underhanded way, if you can not prove your theory with the past, or with the present you boldly go where no one can prove you wrong, the future.

Not only does the use of climate model "projections" of the future have the advantage of  being unverifiable, they are a gold mine to the scientific community. To show how truly unscientific this method is let's continue with the definition of a hypothesis from Wikipedia:

For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

Can you test the projections of a climate model?  Of course you can, you simply wait to see if the projections come true.  The scientific community overcomes this basic of all scientific principles with the argument that "the projections of the models are so dire that we cannot wait for them to be proven right." This is an activist and not a scientific argument, it is also circular logic at its best. "Our models prove that we cannot wait for our models to be proven correct." How unscientific is this practice? From An Introduction to the Scientific Method:

The scientific method requires that a hypothesis be ruled out or modified if its predictions are clearly and repeatedly incompatible with experimental tests.
Further, no matter how elegant a theory is, its predictions must agree with experimental results if we are to believe that it is a valid description of nature. In physics, as in every experimental science, "experiment is supreme" and experimental verification of hypothetical predictions is absolutely necessary.

The accuracy of earlier model projections and how the climate change cult "tweaks" their models to get the results they want are  matters for another day but let's just say that two decades of model projections tweaked or not are proving to be less than "robust" as the scientists like to say.

Brian Prat, a Professor Sedimentology, Paleontology-Geology at the University of Saskatchewan sums up the little game being played on the world’s taxpayers this way:

"There has grown a whole industry of taxpayer-funded climate modelers whose equations can’t reproduce last week’s weather let alone past climate change at all, but whose crystal balls universally forecast impending disaster (and of course the urgent need for more research money)."

Why is the scientific community so willing to ignore well established scientific standards and principles when it comes to global warming? In part it is that many scientists are activist who seek to promote agendas and not science but as always it is a good idea to "follow the money" and climate modelers are not the only ones feeding from the tax payer fed trough.

If you have a series of "scenarios" based on model projections of future climate which are accepted as being "scientific" those projections themselves become a gravy train for other scientists to use for their own scientific hypothesis game, a game which is paid for by the world's taxpayers. A scientist can take the projections of future warming which cannot be verified and apply for grants to do studies based on those unproven "scenarios."  The practice is so common now that very few in the scientific community even raise an eyebrow less alone raise the alarm at this very unscientific practice.

To review, global warming is "proven" by the computer model projections of future climate which  of course cannot be verified. These unverified findings are then used by other scientists to conduct studies which reach other unverifiable conclusions.  On  some occasions these second studies are used for even more studies to reach even more unverifiable conclusions.  Unverifiable hypothesis (climate model projections)  become the foundation for more and more unverifiable studies and upon mountains of such studies the global warming scam is built and billions upon billions are spent not the least of which are on the studies themselves.

There have been literally thousands upon thousands of such unscientific studies done during the "climate change era."  Here is just a recent example from a news story at NBC News about "possible" future hurricane intensity. One way to quickly identify the lack of scientific seriousness behind a story is the use of the word "could" or "may" as in the opening paragraph of this story.

Wind-whipped mayhem may ratchet up as the global climate adjusts to ever increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, according to a new study.

Then of course the qualifiers which explain exactly how uncertain the findings really are and in this case they actually use the word caveats.

There are caveats, however. Just because the winds associated with the waves will become more intense in a warming world does not necessarily mean that hurricanes will be stronger or more frequent in the future.

Well then why do the study? But the statement why the entire global warming charade has no real scientific integrity, forget the caveats for a moment, is the key phrase here "in a warming world."  Their entire study is based on the premise that there will be a warming world but their warming world is nothing more than a computer game. They can no more "prove" that the future will be warmer than I can prove my Dolphins will win the Super Bowl in 2050. It is a hypothesis, an unverifiable hypothesis at that. This "scientific" study  is based upon an unscientific premise which makes this study unscientific as well.

The scientists based their study on 17 model simulations of Earth's climate with carbon dioxide concentrations about double what they are today, which is the current trajectory for the end of this century if greenhouse gas emissions remain unchecked.

Under this scenario, they found....

Model simulations are not facts and scenarios are not real. The modelers can make the future be anything they want it to be.  Even if they are honest in their programming the science and the variables which go into their calculations are more complex than even the human brain.  For the climate community and their well-funded enablers throughout the scientific world, the models are really all that they have.  Most important of all  though the model projections are the goose that keeps laying the golden egg. The model projections are what the scientific community uses to generate fear and funding to keep their self-perpetuating money machine pumping out cash. This is why the scientific community fails to follow basic scientific principles, to follow them would be to shut off the cash flow.

The Real Green Machine

(Re-posted from my column in The Brenner Brief)

CO2 not the villain in global warming fight

Appalachian Cove Forest|CREDIT: Wiki Commons

Global warming fight pointing fingers at CO2

A recent Reuters article has a headline which illustrates just how insane the global warming fight has become.  Without the least bit of embarrassment or for that matter objective analysis Reuters headline reads “Act fast to curb global warming or extract CO2 from the air-UN.” Extract CO2 from the air?

The entire premise of the “man-made” global warming hypothesis is predicated on a narrative, a narrative which itself is predicated on pseudo-science.  The narrative is that CO2 (carbon dioxide) being a greenhouse gas is warming the atmosphere and man’s burning of fossil fuels is responsible for this increased CO2  and thus global warming. The first point that needs to be understood is that CO2 is not toxic, not pollution and not even that “smokey” substance coming out of smoke stacks or car exhausts you see every time a news agency does a report on “climate change.”  Carbon dioxide is a harmless invisible trace gas that is vital for all life on planet Earth.  Does the term “carbon based life” ring a bell?

Everything on earth is made up of combinations of different elements – all of which can be found on the periodic table. Considering that the periodic table contains 118 elements itseems a pity that organic life tends to feature only five or six of those elements in any vast quantities. The main one being carbon. It would be impossible for life on earth to exist without carbon. Carbon is the main component of sugars, proteins, fats, DNA, muscle tissue, pretty much everything in your body…

Carbon dioxide is after all what we exhale, perhaps the UN ought to recommend periods of mandatory breath holding as a means to “extract” CO2 from the air.  But Co2, what little of it that there is in the air, is absolutely vital to our planet.   As the renowned physicist Freeman Dyson explains:

“The fundamental reason why carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is critically important to biology is that there is so little of it. A field of corn growing in full sunlight in the middle of the day uses up all the carbon dioxide within a meter of the ground in about five minutes.  If the air were not constantly stirred by convection currents and winds, the corn would stop growing.”

The Reuters article gives away this important fact when they explain one of the methods being contemplated to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Theproposal which ironically is listed under the sub-heading of “Riskier Options” in the article is this:

Simpler methods to extract greenhouse gases from the air are to plant trees, which soak up greenhouse gases as they grow.

The truth is that this “simpler method” this “Riskier Option” is actually an ongoing natural process that needs no administration from an international political body, it is called the carbon cycle.  This particular aspect of CO2  extraction  has been a part of Earth’s ecosystem for millions of years.  Even if you buy into the idea that “man-made” carbon dioxide is heating the Earth any place outside of computer model forecasts of a political and financially motivate cadre of activist scientists, Old Ma Nature is fully capable of absorbing our excesses. In fact nature thrives on this particular man-made excess.

Back in 2003 as the global warming scare was beginning to be hyped as a cataclysmic man-made disaster a group of scientists at NASA’s Earth Observatory published an article, entitled “Global Garden Gets Greener” where they reached the following conclusion:

Leaving aside for a moment the deforestation and other land cover change that continue to accompany an ever-growing human population, the last two decades of the twentieth century were a good time to be a plant on planet Earth. In many parts of the global garden, the climate grew warmer, wetter, and sunnier, and despite a few El Nino-related setbacks, plants flourished for the most part.

The study represented a time frame when the Earth actually was warming. The fact that there has been no discernible heating of the Earth’s atmosphere for sixteen years ought to have buried this agenda driven “theory” but given the investment in it by so many powerful institutions and governments it is doubtful it will die an easy death.  The lack of warming however does not mean that mankind has not continued to pour this plant food, CO2, into the atmosphere in ever-increasing quantities.  This disconnect between the climate cult’s projections for warming as opposed to the reality of the world we live in, has caused an ever more frantic effort by the cult to explain away reality.

It has also been a boon for plant life on Earth, though propaganda by the “experts” would lead you to believe the opposite in 2009. Despite  evidence to the contrary and relying only on their cherished computer models the alarmist scientific community declared that the Amazon forest would soon wither and die away due to droughts. This they proclaimed was the direct result of mankind’s insatiable desire to advance through the burning of fossil fuels.  Their Cassandra calls were echoed throughout the media such as this from the UK Guardian :

Global warming will wreck attempts to save the Amazon rain forest, according to a devastating new study which predicts that one-third of its trees will be killed by even modest temperature rises. The research, by some of Britain’s leading experts on climate change, shows that even severe cuts in deforestation and carbon emissions will fail to save the emblematic South American jungle, the destruction of which has become a powerful symbol of human impact on the planet. Up to 85% of the forest could be lost if spiraling greenhouse gas emissions are not brought under control, the experts said. But even under the most optimistic climate change scenarios, the destruction of large parts of the forest is “irreversible”

Irreversible is a pretty definitive claim and one that one would hope that scientists would not use lightly or without definitive proof, but science just isn’t what it used to be and what was irreversible in 2009, well we shall let the facts speak for themselves.

On the home page of Prof. Ranga B. Myneni’s Climate and Vegetation research group in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University is this remarkable map of the planet Earth.

What is remarkable about this map is not the areas that are green, you would expect that, but these areas are where the Earth has become greenerin the past three decades. In other words what you are seeing based on actual satellite observations is the greening of the Earth. But it gets better.Studies show the reasons behind this remarkable greening and this is where the reality of life’s natural processes deviate sharply from the computer model world of the climate cult. The study shows that 50% of this increased greening is the result of “climate constraint” e.g.temperature, water or solar radiation having been relieved, meaning improvements for plant growth.   For example an area of land where plant growth was once limited due to lack of water has, in the past three decades, seen an increase in water and therefore there has been additional “greening”. But the more remarkable finding is that the reason for the remaining increased greening is the direct result of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

CO2, as we were taught in grade school biology far from being a killer is in fact the very breath of life, it is after all what you breathe out, and plants need in order to grow and provide us with oxygen.  Ninety Eight percent of oxygen in the atmosphere is the result of photosynthesis by plants and other organisms; photosynthesis is not possible without carbon dioxide.

This reality could no longer be denied when in 2013 a group of scientists had to back track on their previous predictions  of the Amazon’s demise and admit that they had not factored in the positive effect of  CO2 on the Amazon’s ecosystem and like the gods they believe they are issued a reprieve for the worlds largest rain forest. Evidently nothing is irreversible or actually “settled science”.  From Reuters in 2013:

The Amazon rainforest is less vulnerable to die off because of global warming than widely believed because the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide also acts as an airborne fertilizer, a study showed on Wednesday. The boost to growth from CO2, the main gas from burning fossil fuels blamed for causing climate change, was likely to exceed damaging effects of rising temperatures this century such as drought, it said.

In fact the new study which factors in the positive effects of CO2 shows that the nasty bi-product of the industrial age, CO2, is a net positive to the Amazon rain forest.  The cult in its quest to scare the world into submission to their agenda had chosen to leave the calculations, intentionally or not, out of their revered climate models until the science showing the opposite results became overwhelming. It is entirely possible that climate models were not previously capable of forecasting the positive effects of CO2 on plant life however the fact that CO2 is a plant fertilizer and is a boon to plant life is not some new scientific discovery, it is well-known biological factgoing back to the eighteenth century.  They just chose to ignore that grade school biology in order to advance their doom and gloom “scenarios.”

The simple truth is that far from being the scourge of planet Earth, CO2 is its life milk.  Mankind in our advancement from caves to space has remarkably, some might say divinely, stumbled upon a green machine which we should proudly embrace called the Industrial Revolution. Carbon Dioxide released by our burning of fossil fuels far from being destructive is in fact a blessing to both plants and mankind and that is the reality which is being denied by a scientific community which has lost all perspective in its quest to advance political causes.

The other possibility

But what about another possibility - that the calculations are wrong? 

What if the climate models - which are the very basis for all discussions of what to do about global warming - exaggerate the sensitivity of the climate to rising carbon dioxide?

David Shukman, Science editor BBC

The idea that their theory is wrong is so foreign to believers in catastrophic climate change that they  refer to the obvious provable fact of the models being wrong as just a possibility rather than the reality it is. There is no doubt that the models are wrong, it is not a possibilityy it is a fact.

But so smitten are the true believers that they are having a difficult time coming to grips with what to many is a religious belief. They are trying to come to grips with with a situation that they have viewed as an article of faith. Consider this from the same David Shukman in the same article.

On top of that, the scientists say, pauses in warming were always to be expected. This is new - at least to me.

It is common sense that climate change would not happen in a neat, linear way but instead in fits and starts.

But I've never heard leading researchers mention the possibility before ( emphasis mine)

The reason the BBC editor who we assume is as well informed on climate change science as anyone had never heard of this "pause" scenario before is simply because it has never been a part of the narrative, or the theory.  This is easily provable.

In 2007, half way through the current "pause" in global warming, the IPCC released their most recent assessment report, Here is what they had to say about the short term outlook on global temperatures

For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all greenhouse gases and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. {10.3, 10.7} ... 

... the best estimate for the low scenario (B1) is 1.8°C (likely range is 1.1°C to 2.9°C), and the best estimate for the high scenario (A1FI) is 4.0°C (likely range is 2.4°C to 6.4°C).

So the IPCC boldly claimed that there models, regardless of which CO2 scenario used, projected that temperatures would rise at a 0.2 C pace for the next two decades. In order to put that in perspective the actual per decade increase in global temperatures for the period 1970-1998 was .17 C. This means that the IPCC was projecting an accelerating increase in global temperatures of .03 degrees for the next two decades beyond what it had been the previous two decades. That was their projection. They even went so far as to say that there was already so much CO2  in the climate system that just maintaining it at 2000 levels would still result in a 0.1 C per decade increase.

They knew by 2007 that we had not kept CO2 at 2000 levels. In January of 2000 it was 369.14 by January of 2007 it had reached  382.49. But had we kept it at 2000 levels the IPCC projected that temperatures would still increase by 0.1 C per decade. Under no scenario that was presented in the IPCC AR4 report did they project a pause in warming either in the short or long term.

What  has actually happened, out in the real world? Global temperatures have increased at a per decade rate of 0.04 C between 1998 and 2012 or one fifth of the IPCC projection (-.16 C) and decelerated from previous warming by 0.13 C. So not only has the globe not warmed as the IPCC predicted it would, it has not even kept pace with the previous warming, by a long shot.

Of course all the wizards of smart are coming out now and telling us that this is all to be expected

Prof Rowan Sutton, Director of Climate Research at the University of Reading, said: "Within the field we have taken for granted that there will be variations in the rate of warming, it is totally accepted and is no surprise ...[it] would correct to say that wasn't the message that we communicated more widely and that probably is a failing."

And Professor Stephen Belcher, head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, said observations and models showed that on average there were - or would be - two pauses in warming every century.

Sutton even goes so far as to claim that a pause of 20 years was even projected in some models

Professor Rowan Sutton, of Reading University, said computer simulations or models of possible future climate scenarios often show periods of ten years with no warming trend - some even show pauses of 20-25 years.

In other words he is now claiming that rather than the 0.2 degree per decade warming projected by the IPCC for the next two decades, the climate science community was always aware that there might be no warming whatsoever. Perhaps this is true but did they mention this important little caveat in their report? No they did not.  Do their projections in their "gold standard" assessment report reflect this possibility? They do not.

As David Shukman observed "I've never heard leading researchers mention the possibility before" so he inquired about this lack of communication.

I asked why this had not come up in earlier presentations. No one really had an answer, except to say that this "message" about pauses had not been communicated widely.

So let's review. The climate science community through it's "gold standard" agency, informs the world that not only will global warming continue, it will accelerate. They made this pronouncement in the middle of what we now know was a "pause" in the warming. Prior to and following the release of their "prestigious" AR4 report there is not one word about the potential for a "pause" in the warming but in fact there are countless studies and stories claiming that the warming was worse than they had expected.

“The science is quite decisive,” said Michael Mann, a professor at Penn State University. “There is a very robust consensus about the reality of climate change and the need to confront it quickly.”...

“Carbon dioxide emissions cannot be allowed to continue to rise if humanity intends to limit the risk of unacceptable climate change. The task is urgent and the turning point must come soon,” said Somerville.Officials around the globe aim to avoid warming Earth by more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit compared to preindustrial times. The idea is to avoid a “tipping point” that causes catastrophic and irreversible changes to weather patterns and landscapes. 

Without a significant change in course, global warming could reach 12.6 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, the scientists said Tuesday.

Nowhere in all these studies or countless press releases has there been any indication of a "pause" or future pause. In fact in the midst of the actual pause both the GISS and HadCrut the "KEEPERS" of the temperature records "updated" their data sets which significantly altered the global temperature records upwards. One wonders what the pause would have looked like had these "official records"  not been "updated". Actually you need not wonder, just compare the satellite readings to the GISS, HadCrut measurements.

So what is the other possibility? The other possibility is not a possibility at all -it is a fact. The actual global temperatures, irregardless of the measuring agency, has not been anywhere close to those projected by the IPCC and the climate science "consensus" community. Their model's calculations are wrong yet they continue to not only promote their output as being accurate, but also literally thousands upon thousands of scientific studies in varied fields are undertaken and promoted based on these model projection's false input.

Garbage in, garbage out.

The evidence is clear

The five-year mean global temperature has been flat for the last decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slow down in the growth rate of net climate forcing.

James Hansen

Admittedly I have not been keeping up with the global warming news nearly as closely as I used to, I pretty much have just been keeping up with the headlines and "big" stories.

One of those recent "big" stories has been about various 'alarmist" and alarmist institutions back pedaling from their normal doomsday claims and admitting that there has been a "slow down" in warming, see quote above by the "godfather" of the global warming fraternity as an example.

Then there was the rather detailed article in the Economist a publication that previously had taken the alarmist view of global warming where they admitted, well, the obvious.

"Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth's surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar,"

It is sure nice that the fear mongers have quit denying the truth, but I have a rather simple question which I have not seen asked since this new "revelation" has taken hold of the climate community. It is simply this:

"If temperatures have remained flat over the past decade or more, what about all the stories over the past decade about the negative effects of global warming on well....everything?

I mean wasn't  it just this past fall when climate change/ global warming caused Superstorm Sandy?

Consider this story from the Washington Post. This would be considered  an attempt by the author to have an even handed look at the science regarding global warming and Superstorm Sandy.  But given the "big" story outlined above, it really is just  fiction

Here are a couple of the fair and balanced  points the writer makes:

1) Sandy should not be “blamed” on climate change. Climate change does not cause storms and did not cause Superstorm Sandy. Storms form when certain weather ingredients come together. The historic record shows violent storms, some even more severe than Sandy, have struck the Northeast repeatedly..

2) While climate change did not cause Sandy, it may have been a performance enhancer like a steroid, injecting it with somewhat more energy and power.

3) Sea level rise from manmade climate change increased the water level along the Northeast coast 6 to 8 inches and, as a result, somewhat worsened the coastal flooding from Sandy.

I might be going out on a limb here, but if temperatures have been flat for the past 10-15 years, not only can Superstorm Sandy not be blamed on climate change, there was no climate change to be blamed!

It could not have "enhanced" Sandy and whatever sea level rise they claim, can not be the result of man made climate change/global warming simply because, there has not been any and the scientist and their allies are admitting it.

So the whole premise of the story, written less than six months ago, is false. As is almost every story attributing some occurrence or event to global warming. If there has been no global warming, then all the multitude of dire events blamed on it are either total fabrications of the result of some other cause, like nature. Consider this from the once prestigious National Geographic titled

Effects of Global Warming
Signs Are Everywhere

Well when you attribute everything to something that is not actually happening, then I guess you can find signs everywhere, can't you? They go on an alarmist tangent about all that is happening to our world while temperatures  have been "flat" for over a decade.

The planet is warming, from North Pole to South Pole, and everywhere in between. Globally, the mercury is already up more than 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius), and even more in sensitive polar regions. And the effects of rising temperatures aren’t waiting for some far-flung future. They’re happening right now. Signs are appearing all over, and some of them are surprising. The heat is not only melting glaciers and sea ice, it’s also shifting precipitation patterns and setting animals on the move.

They tell us that some of these things are happening now, among the examples I found interesting was this

Spruce bark beetles have boomed in Alaska thanks to 20 years of warm summers. The insects have chewed up 4 million acres of spruce trees.

Spruce bark beetles may have boomed in Alaska, but it has nothing to do with global warming, Alaska has been cooling over the past 15 years. But you wouldn't expect the National Geographic to have their facts correct now would you? not when the narrative is so much more dramatic.

How many stories have you read in the past decade about something being caused by global warming? Hundreds?  Thousands? You know all those increased diseases,  those endangered species,  those droughts, the excessive flooding, the heavier snowfall, more tornadoes , hurricanes. All  those thousands upon thousands of article written about what global warming was causing, not in the future but now, those articles are to put it mildly.... bogus.

As bogus as the theory itself.

Because you see the corner has now been painted into. If the scientific community has to finally admit that temperatures, despite their best efforts to fudge them, have remained flat, then everything they have attributed to "climate change" can not be true.

Oh there was a superstorm Sandy and perhaps the Arctic sea ice has melted more than it used to and perhaps in some areas of the globe there has been more droughts, or flooding or whatever.  But the scientist are now telling us that it was not the result of global warming. How could it be?

They are now telling us the globe did not warm.

Yet they still teach it to the children, don't they?

The evidence is clear. Rising global temperatures have been accompanied by changes in weather and climate. Many places have seen changes in rainfall, resulting in more floods, droughts, or intense rain, as well as more frequent and severe heat waves. The planet's oceans and glaciers have also experienced some big changes - oceans are warming and becoming more acidic, ice caps are melting, and sea levels are rising. As these and other changes become more pronounced in the coming decades, they will likely present challenges to our society and our environment.

The evidence is clear?

Yes the evidence is clear, the world has been the victims of the greatest hoax, no that isn't right, a hoax is not malicious enough a term for what we have suffered through at the hands of corrupt scientist, politicians and their multitude of allies. With few exceptions we, the people of the world, have been robbed, lied to and brain washed by men and women who put their monetary gain and prestige over the most precious asset in the world, the truth.

Because you see if the temperatures have been flat this past decade plus, it is not like they have not known it, is it? They hyped the theory of what they projected to happen and made wild outlandish claims about events and occurrences which they knew could not be attributed to something that was not happening, global warming.

They fed off our tax dollars, they set themselves up as the protectors of the world, they destroyed those that dissented, and they initiated policies that were not only unnecessary but actually counter productive. They wasted valuable resources, they burned food for fuel and they indoctrinated our children with lies, the list of what these frauds have done could go on for pages.

The evidence is clear, they perpetrated crimes against humanity and they have just confessed.

So Fake It’s Real: Global Warming is Reality TV for the Media Elite

FROM-Town Hall

John Ransom

Here’s my challenge to all the global warming apologists:

Explain to me why the “settled science” of global warming has to manipulate headlines to make information appear scarier and more threatening than the actual data shows.

If global warming is so settled, why do you and your friends take the opportunity to exaggerate, obfuscate and slant every piece of news that comes out to make it seem relevant to today?

You can see an example of this in the headlines below:

“Climate Change Main Contributor to Corn Volatility, Study Says” writes Bloomberg-BusinessWeek.

“Climate Change Has Outsize Effect On Corn Price Volatility,” trumpets Climate Central.

“Warming set to make corn prices pop,” says Agence France Presse.

“Climate Change to Affect Corn Prices, Study Says,” echoes the New York Times.

Nature Climate Change, a journal for the care a feeding of the climate change industry that masquerades as a peer-reviewed science rag, has published a new study that warns that “US corn price volatility to increase sharply in response to global warming projected to occur over the next three decades.”

Projected to occur over the next three decades.

Read entire article

How to Destroy Science: Cast Self-Interest as Public Interest

FROM-American Thinker

By Norman Rogers

Bruce Alberts is the editor of Science magazine, though it's not exactly clear what the 75-year-old Alberts actually does there. The magazine is headquartered in New York, but Alberts is apparently headquartered in San Francisco.

Alberts is obviously a scientist with broad interests -- or, depending on your point of view, a know-it-all who is spread very thin. According to his website, he has managed to collect 16 honorary degrees and currently serves on 25 non-profit boards. Yet this busy man still finds the time to lecture our political leaders. He wants them to stop denying the science of climate change. Apparently, Alberts thinks that the politicians should shut up and listen to brilliant scientists, like himself, who really understand these things.

This is what the wise man said in an editorial in the December 21, 2012 issue of Science:

It is deeply discouraging that in the United States, many political leaders feel comfortable denying the Science of climate change. The acceptability of this stance represents a general failure of science education and communication. It is but one grave example that should spur scientists to focus much more effort on the critical task of ensuring that students, and the general public, understand[.]

According to Alberts, if you are skeptical concerning climate change, you have somehow missed out on an enlightened education. Apparently the hundreds of well-qualified scientists who share that skepticism also missed out.

The science of climate change is highly politicized, with one group of scientists claiming to be the authorities on the subject and another group claiming that the first group is taking liberties with the science. How does Alberts, a biochemist, know that the first group is the only one we should listen to? He knows because he is politically left, and the left embraces the scary climate change/global warming scenario. People on the left are enthusiastic about global warming, green energy, sustainability, and other real or imagined problems that cry out for strong government action. Of course, the cry is audible only to those on the left.

read entire article

Political Non-Science

One can almost prove scientifically that science and politics don't mix.

FROM-American Spectator

By Lars Walker


"Science is better than faith," the scientist told me. "Faith is about opinions and beliefs that have no rational foundation. There's no way to prove one is better than another, so everybody just ends up yelling. And when the argument gets heated enough, they start killing each other.

"In science, on the other hand, we can prove or disprove things. Feelings don't come into it. If a theory doesn't work under laboratory conditions, if the results aren't reproducible, then it falls to the ground and that's the end of it."

"It's a good point," I conceded, "though you must admit it hasn't always worked that way. Lysenko in Russia did peer review by firing squad."

"Which proves my point," said the scientist. "That wasn't science."

"I could argue that killing people for religion isn't faith either."

"Prove it."

Touché.

In the modern world an appeal to science generally trumps appeals to faith or authority, and although I'm a Christian evangelical, I think that's largely a good thing. Science, historically the fruit of a theistic world view that saw the universe as a rational artifact, works. It works wonderfully. It brings genuine results from which we all benefit. It's been misused from time to time, but taken as a whole it's been an overwhelming blessing to mankind.

The problem comes when we try to apply science to areas that aren't subject to the microscope, the telescope, or the mass spectrometer.

Like politics.

69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research

FROM-Rasmussen Report

The debate over global warming has intensified in recent weeks after a new NASA study was interpreted by skeptics to reveal that global warming is not man-made. While a majority of Americans nationwide continue to acknowledge significant disagreement about global warming in the scientific community, most go even further to say some scientists falsify data to support their own beliefs.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults shows that 69% say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40% who say this is Very Likely. Twenty-two percent (22%) don’t think it’s likely some scientists have falsified global warming data, including just six percent (6%) say it’s Not At All Likely. Another 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here .)

The number of adults who say it’s likely scientists have falsified data is up 10 points from December 2009
.
Fifty-seven percent (57%) believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009. One in four (25%) believes scientists agree on global warming. Another 18% aren’t sure.
Republicans and adults not affiliated with either major political party feel stronger than Democrats that some scientists have falsified data to support their global warming theories, but 51% of Democrats also agree.
Men are more likely than women to believe some scientists have put out false information on the issue.

Democrats are more likely to support immediate action on global warming compared to those from other party affiliations.

Read Article here

SCIENTIST TIED TO GLOBAL WARMING BEING INVESTIGATED FOR ‘SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT

FROM-The Blaze

JUNEAU, Alaska (The Blaze/AP) — A federal wildlife biologist whose observation in 2004 of presumably drowned polar bears in the Arctic helped to galvanize the global warming movement has been placed on administrative leave and is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article. Newser has more:

Charles Monnett is being investigated for unspecified “integrity issues” apparently linked to his report that polar bears could face an increased threat of death if they’re forced to swim farther as Arctic ice recedes.

Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into “integrity issues.” But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general’s office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

Read entire article here

‘CLIMATE SCIENTISTS’ RELEASE PROFANE VIDEO BASHING DENIERS

FROM-The Blaze

CSI: Climate Science Investigation

FROM-American Thinker

By Anthony J. Sadar and Albin Sadar

In the ongoing wake of Climategate, hockey-stick statistics, and uncooperative temperature trends, the atmospheric tension surrounding global warming continues to hover in the air. The drama, in fact, calls to mind those real-life murder mysteries on TV. In those investigative report shows, we're presented with the forensics and myriad facts, including interviews with detectives, family members, witnesses -- even face-to-face confrontations with the defendants themselves.

And, many times, when the convicted defendant is interviewed, he will say something like, "From the very beginning, the cops suspected me and never looked anywhere else. Anything they found that pointed to me as the guilty party, they took seriously; anything that pointed to someone else, they dismissed."

When this kind of a statement comes from someone sitting behind bars, the viewer is understandably suspicious. After all, doesn't it make sense that the defendant would say anything to win an appeal or release? This, of course, may be true -- that he'd say anything -- but what if what he says actually is true?

Read Article here

The Ever Growing Hypothesis Scam

Years ago I read something by Roger Pielke Sr which reinforced my skepticism towards the whole alarmist view of global warming. I can not find the exact quote now but it really does not matter since he makes the same basic point often as he did in a recent post regarding a new scientific paper about future cold spells in a warming world. The relevant point he made was this:

Models are hypotheses and need to be tested against real data. However, the climate models have not been shown skill at predicting how the statistics of cold waves change in response to human climate forcings during the 21st century. Indeed, there is no way to perform this test until those decades occur. (emphasis mine)

Models are hypotheses, does the climate science community treat models as hypotheses? Does the climate science community represent modeling output to the general public and policy makers as simply hypotheses? Any objective observer of the scientific debate could not possibly believe that as a practice the scientific community treats or portrays climate modeling as simply hypotheses,

In an interview several years ago Pielke explained:

"The problem is, if they give forecasts 50 years in the future, nobody can validate that right now. From that sense, it's not scientific. When I see peer reviewed papers that talk about 2050 or 2100, for me that's not science, that's just presenting a hypothesis, which is not testable. I don't even read those papers anymore. They need to have something that is testable"

Reading Dr. Pielke's blog over the past few years it is obvious he is reading those papers again and he still finds these types of model derived projections as nothing more than hypothesis.

What should be obvious as Dr Pielke points out is that not only are climate models just hypotheses, the output of the models is not really a scientific verifiable fact unless that output can be tested in the real world. This is not rocket science, this is common sense. The fact that so much supposed science is being conducted based on modelling hypothesis and being presented to the public and policy makers as if it was somehow scientific evidence, is dishonest.

It is also very telling that so few scientist in the field outside of the "realist" community ever point out that without validation the computer projections are not really scientific. How many papers and studies do we see in which some future dire event is based upon a climate model projection which as in the above example can not possibly be verified, they are treated as if they are science but in fact they are nothing more than hypothesis based upon hypothesis. These type of scientific studies are the basis for my CYBER WAG  (Computer generated Wild Ass Guess) posts. Yet the climate science community and the science community in general seem not in the least disturbed by this obvious misrepresentation of actual scientific methods. In fact rather than pointing out this deceptive practice, they seem to promote it.

Here are just a few examples of the technique:

Ken Cole of the U.S. Geological Survey and colleagues used models of future climate

Barry Rock, Professor of Natural Resources at the University of New Hampshire in Durham predicts that, based on two climate models in a New England regional climate assessment study, "Within the next 100 years, Boston could have a climate similar to either Richmond, Virginia, or Atlanta, Georgia." 

Using climate models, they determined that if carbon emissions remain high by 2050, the number of reliable crop growing days would fall below 90 for almost 1 million square kilometers of arid and semi-arid lands in Africa.

COAPS scientist Jianjun Yin, who led the research, analyzed ten climate models from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and calculated a 90 percent likelihood that sea levels along the northeast will exceed global sea levels by the end of the century.

That this modelling hypothesis scam is not only unscientific but also part of a scheme perpetrated by some scientist to promote an agenda was made clear by Danial Botkin in an excellent article Science and Soothsayers.

"Since proving the validity of long-term forecasts is difficult and the ultimate tests would take years, and since many scientists are alarmed at the dire scenarios, my colleagues are beginning to talk about whether it is O.K. to exaggerate and push forecasts that are not currently provable if the only way to get societies to act is to frighten people. I think it is not O.K. It is a short-term view, and even if it works, it will inevitably debase science and scientists." 

Thank you Dr Botkin for your integrity. He is taking the most generous view of the scientist motives and I am sure that some scientist  indeed operate out of some misguided "greater good" motivation. However it is also obvious that many scientist ignore basic scientific principles for financial gain as in increased funding or have a political agenda. Regardless of the motive it is not science as Botkin makes clear;

The question is not really whether the forecasts are scientifically valid, but how much impetus they can provide to influence society.

The reliance on climate modelling while understandable in order to investigate something as complex as the Earth's climate has totally distorted the normal concept or at least the laypersons understanding of normal scientific principles. To be sure that my laypersons view of what scientific principles were, foggy as it may be,  I went to the good people from Wiki World to see if what I thought was true about what science is...is. Here is some of what I found

...To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.^[2] The Oxford English Dictionary says that scientific method is: "a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."^[3]

.... Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable, to predict future results.. ....

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of thereliability of these data to be established.

That is precisely what my unsophisticated laypersons understanding of what science is....is. The fact that climate scientist have so much faith in their untested and as yet unverifiable models is disturbing in itself, the fact that they use these findings to promote various agendas and financial rewards for themselves is unconscionable. For the rest of the scientific community to then leech onto this hypothesis scam to gain funding for their own studies in their own fields of study is beyond disheartening, it is scientific corruption on a grand scale

Update: I meant to mention that if climate modelling output is not simply a hypothesis, what is it? Measurable evidence?

The snowy, floody, hotty totty connection

Red River of the North flood at Fargo, April, 1897.

Remember a couple of years ago when President Obama who seems to be an expert on everything other than the Presidency, connected the North Dakota flooding in the spring of 2009 to "climate change"?

"If you look at the flooding that's going on right now in North Dakota and you say to yourself, 'If you see an increase of two degrees, what does that do, in terms of the situation there?'" Obama told reporters at the White House Monday. "That indicates the degree to which we have to take this seriously."

 Much was made of this at the time and since the past couple of winters have been particularly snowy in most of the northern tier states, the "consensus community" has had to develop a party line to account for conditions not generally associated with global warming. Thus we get endless pseudo-scientific analysis centered around the idea that a warmer atmosphere will hold more moisture hence, more snow. A Master(ful) example

It's not hard at all to get temperatures cold enough for snow in a world experiencing global warming. According to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, the globe warmed 0.74°C (1.3°F) over the past 100 years. There will still be colder than average winters in a world that is experiencing warming, with plenty of opportunities for snow. The more difficult ingredient for producing a record snowstorm is the requirement of near-record levels of moisture. Global warming theory predicts that global precipitation will increase, and that heavy precipitation events--the ones most likely to cause flash flooding--will also increase. This occurs because as the climate warms, evaporation of moisture from the oceans increases, resulting in more water vapor in the air.

 So I was not surprised when I ran across this little article, video of climate change induced flooding available at the link for the article. (emphasis mine)

Snow, Climate Change Adds To Flooding Woes In Fargo & Grand Forks, ND

Houses south of Grand Forks, North Dakota sit flooded as the Red River continues to rise. The national weather services says the river that borders Minnesota and North Dakota reached a preliminary crest at 49.87 feet on Thursday at Grand Forks. The river reaches eight miles wide or more at Oslo, Minnesota, which has become an island as the last roads to Oslo closed.

The National Weather Service says flooding will continue well into May. The area continues to experience wetter than normal winters because climate change is keeping the air warmer, which then contains more moisture.

The Red River crest at Grand Forks is the third highest on record The Coast Guard has a total of 54 people in the region to support the flood response operations. There are two airboats, two rescue helicopters, an aircraft and boat maintenance and support team. An additional 19 personnel comprise the incident management team located at Coast Guard Sector Upper Mississippi, St. Louis, Mo. U.S. Coast Guard photo.

Below: video from Fargo, North Dakota and Valley City, North Dakota as the rivers there were rising earlier this week.

So there you have it, the snowy, floody, hotty totty connection narrative simply put in a very concise and easily digestible form for public consumption.

Being the skeptic that I am, I decided to see exactly how this all meshed together with actual facts. So I went to our friends at NOAA, the keeper of the records for all things climate, (US version). Having a basic idea of where North Dakota is on the map, I chose the regional records (West North Central).

The first thing I wanted to check on was the winter precipitation for the region. Here is what I found.


Winter (Dec-Feb) 1901 - 2000 Average = 1.87 Inches
Winter (Dec-Feb) 1895 - 2011 Trend = -0.02 Inches / Decade

You will notice that since climate is supposed to be measured over long periods of time that the trend line over the past century plus is of decreasing precipitation in winter, not increasing. But then again the past three years have been slightly above that average. To be totally accurate

2011-2.61 inches
2010-1.94 inches
2009-2.26 inches

All above the 20th century average precipitation of 1.87 inches for the region. But again to be accurate the flooding in the upper mid-west, Fargo etc. is the result not only of the winter snow melt but also the March precipitation. I believe it is reasonable to say that the flooding represented by the story above as well as Obama's comments which were made in March of 2009 are the result of winter snowfall combined with March's precipitation. So let's look just at March


March 1901 - 2000 Average = 0.95 Inches
March 1895 - 2011 Trend = 0.00 Inches / Decade 

A sight increase.  March precipitation for the region for the past three years looks like this;

2011-.93 inches
2010-.84 inches
2009-1.24 inces

So two of the last three years have had less than the 20th century average of .95 precipitation in the month of March.

Just for kicks and giggles let's add these up and see how drastic the precipitation has been for the past three years. The 20th century average of winter precipitation added to March precipitation is 2.82 inches. The past three years have been

2011-3.54 (+.72)
2010-2.78 (-.04)
2009-3.50 (+.68)

Well there you have it global warming is flooding Fargo North Dakota. The past three years have averaged 3.27 inches of precipitation for the region, an increase of .45 inches over the 20th century average for the three years.

All that extra heat in the atmosphere is soaking up the moisture and dumping it down on the upper Midwest reeking havoc on man and beast, not to mention the all important corn for ethanol crops.

How much have the winters warmed, well let's look shall we? Back to NOAA


Winter (Dec-Feb) 1901 - 2000 Average = 19.43 degF
Winter (Dec-Feb) 1895 - 2011 Trend = 0.22 degF / Decade

Yes it certainly is getting warmer isn't it....well except for the past three years. Now isn't that interesting?

2011-17.7 deg F (-1.73)
2010-16.5 deg F (-2.93)
2009-19.2 deg F (-.2)

Being the simpleton that I am I would say that below normal temperatures would cause more snow in winter but then again I am not a scientist. After all the last three years have had above average winter precipitation right? And it has been colder than normal right? Therefore the colder weather has resulted in more snow.... right? Not according to climate scientist who can not have it rain....or snow on their parade.

Hey did you notice though, that way back, before the onslaught of automobiles they had snowy weather too? Let's take another three year period and see how that compares to 20th century averages, shall we? How about:

1916-2.56 inches (+.69)
1917-2.42 inches (+.55)
1918-2.83 inches (+.96)

What were the winter temperatures like in those very snowy winters before we heated the atmosphere with all our CO2?

1916-14.8 deg F (-4.63)
1917-12.8 deg F (-6.5)
1918-15.6 deg F (-3.7)

Now isn't that interesting, three below normal cold winters almost a hundred years ago produced three snowy winters in the Upper Midwest and three recent colder than normal winters also produced snowy winters in the same location. And the common factor is.....


Global Warming?
 
Just to be consistent here is the precipitation for March in those three years?

1916-1.03 inches (+.08)
1917- .96  inches (+.03)
1918- .71  inches (-.20)

Interesting enough, in trying to explain the recent snow, one of our Master climate scientist made this observation, "The old adage, 'It's too cold to snow,' has some truth to it," said Masters. "A colder atmosphere holds less moisture, limiting the snowfall that can occur."

Well if that is true then why is it that three of the coldest winters in the twentieth century in this region produced three of the snowiest winters? Not to mention the fact that the three years being discussed here in regards to flooding were all below normal in winter temperatures. Based on this theory of heat = moisture = increased winter snows =flooding why wasn't 1998-1999 the snowiest winter in the twentieth century since 1998 was supposedly the warmest year? But the fact is that the following winter there was below normal snow not only in the upper Midwest but across the entire Northern Hemisphere.

The idea that flooding in Fargo is the result of increased precipitation caused by more moisture in the atmosphere due to global warming is not born out by the historical record.  But what do facts have to do with it when you have a theory to maintain.

Intuitively people know that colder winters are more likely to produce snow than warmer winters, I doubt that but a tiny fraction of the human race that has ever walked the globe would argue with this, yet we are to trust that modern climate science has disproved that which centuries of observation has confirmed to be common sense, remarkable.

Oh by the way did you notice in the above graph that the coldest and warmest winters were thirteen years apart 1979 being the coldest 9.75 deg F and 1992 being the warmest 27.6 deg F.  A difference of 17.85 deg F for winter in just 13 years, now that is warming!  But look what has happened in the past 18 years:


Winter (Dec-Feb) 1901 - 2000 Average = 19.42 degF
Winter (Dec-Feb) 1992 - 2011 Trend = -1.16 degF / Decade ;

If this trend continues we are in real trouble.