First it was called the coming “ice age.” Then it became “global warming.” When the scam was exposed, the climate religionists called it “climate change.” Having failed to convince anyone but the climate religionists, the name has again been changed to “climate disruption.”
In October 2013, the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that it is “95% certain that humans are causing climate change.”
The CorbettReport.com analyzed the “95%” claim. The IPCC used a “likelihood scale” that assigns percentages to various phrases, ranging from “exceptionally unlikely” to “virtually certain.” It smacks of a “guesstimate” of sorts or worse. As Charles Krauthammer wrote, “If climate science is settled, why do its predictors keep changing?”
When it comes to deciding that climate change is manmade, science goes out the window. “According to the IPCC: ’The approaches used in detection and attribution research […] cannot fully account for all certainties, and thus ultimately expert judgment is required to give a calibrated assessment of whether a specific cause is responsible for a given climate change.’”
As James Corbett concluded, “the ‘95% probability that is making all the headlines is nothing more than an arbitrary number decided on in closed door meetings between the report authors.” In other words, it is questionable political opinion presented as scientific fact by neo-progressive climate religionists.
In 2012, 50 NASA scientists and experts, with more than a 1,000 years of combined professional experience, sent a letter to the NASA Administrator, stating that the Goddard Institute for Space Studies’ and NASA’s claims that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated in light of thousands of years of empirical data.
The letter further stated that hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists further decried NASA’s foolhardy statements under the Obama administration. Obviously, the science is not settled, as claimed by Obama and his climate religion disciples.
The “Global Warming Petition Project” has 31,487 scientists that have signed a petition to reject the global warming, stating “There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant life and animal environments of the earth.”
Unfortunately, very little research has been funded on whether global warming is manmade or a function of a natural mechanism of warming. All the so-called climate modeling has been shown to be nothing more than “garbage in-garbage out,” with too many of the so-called models purposely designed to support a global warming agenda.
Let’s ask this question: what do we not know about weather? Man has been recording temperatures since approximately 1850 but this 164-year period is but a blip on earth’s timeline.
So what were the temperatures before man started recording. We really don’t know. We can infer and estimate temperatures from tree rings and ice cores (pseudo paleo-climatology), for example, but it’s still a guesstimate or proxy, not hard evidence. What we do know is that abnormal weather is normal. And, generally, warmer weather has been better for man than cooler weather.
Climate religionists claim “climate disruption” is caused by increased amounts of manmade carbon dioxide. They claim this so-called increase in carbon dioxide is responsible for tornadoes. Unfortunately, tornadoes require severe thunderstorms in conjunction with the right wind shear conditions caught between two weather fronts of contrasting temperatures. The year-to-year variability can be large. Carbon dioxide, at .04% (or 400 parts per million) of the earth’s atmosphere doesn’t seem to be involved.
Atlantic hurricanes can be traced to easterly waves traveling westward off of sub-Sahara Africa, which provide a favorable environment for tropical depressions. Changes in rainfall over Africa can alter hurricane activity coming our way across the Atlantic. Again, variability, year-to-year, can be huge, but carbon dioxide doesn’t seem to be involved.
To demonstrate the intellectual vacuousness of climate religionists, Time Magazine published in 1974, a supposed expose´of the coming ice age. Then, in 2006, it published an expose´ of global warming (with droughts, floods, storms) using the same so-called evidence of an impending ice age in its 1974 article. Besides exposing media bias in favor of climate religionist theories, the articles demonstrated what man really does not know.
In his second book on climate change, The Great Global Warming Blunder, Dr. Roy Spencer concluded that, “Our most accurate global satellite data, collected from 2000 through 2008, show that the Pacific Decadel Oscillation does indeed cause a change in the earth’ energy balance. Over the nine year satellite period of record, the radiative imbalance varied over a range of at least 2.5 watts per square meter . . . this simple model analysis shows that it is sufficient to explain most of the temperature variability experienced during the twentieth century – up to 75 percent of the long term temperature trend. This supports my original claim that a mere 1 percent change in naturally occurring processes can cause global warming or cooling.”
El Niño, La Niña the Pacific Decadal Oscillation are but a few of the normal types of climate unpredictability in our climate system. We have recognized these types to the extent we have named them, so they have some regularity.
What if weather is not affected by carbon dioxide but by something else? Rational scientists are looking at clouds. For example, what if so-called global warming is a function of cause and effect. Cause would be clouds causing a temperature change, while effect would be temperatures causing a cloud change.
Now, what we do know is that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia have been totally discredited for fabricating data and scientific results. Anthropogenic (man-caused) climate change has not been objectively proven and the fabricated data of East Anglican climate religionists has been exposed as lies.
In September 2013, the IPCC, between the second and final draft of its fifth climate assessment report, quietly downgraded the warming it expected in the 30 years following 1995, inadvertently admitting what skeptical scientists have been saying: global warming stopped before the beginning of this century.
What we do know is that over the last 15 years air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been stable and some scientists believe we are entering a natural cooling cycle. It’s called weather.