Most people know that climate science is composed of many disciplines and the underlying assumption most scientists who study climate accept as true is CO2 drives all climate change. 1 The problem is, if CO2 is does not drive climate change, or not to the extent currently thought, climate predictions will not be accurate. 2a, 2b At the same time, these same scientists are trying to understand climate, they are trying to integrate many separate sciences needed to understand climate. Integrating natural history, atmospheric and physical sciences, biological sciences, mathematics, earth sciences, statistics and computational analysis is a complex undertaking not easily hurried. Theories have to be tested and verified which take time. What most do not know is that many of the theories, real time measurements and tools used to understand climate are not even 50 years old. 3 What most people do not know is many of the underlying assumptions many climate theories are based on have not been vetted. 4 What is worse than a shameful lack of verification of climate change assumptions and theories is climatologists taking the position that only humanity is causing climate change. Natural history has been made moot by human kind. Earth’s current interglacial warming period which began around 12,000 years ago is irrelevant. It is of no consequence that temperature and sea rise have not reached levels of previous interglacial warming periods. For example, the previous interglacial period lasted 14000 years. Before it ended, the temperature was 5 degrees C warmer and the oceans 8 meters higher than today. The current glacial period and interglacial periods known as the Quaternary glaciation is not an issue. Human kind producing CO2 is the only issue. `That during the current interglacial period the oceans having risen approximately 120 meters (394 feet) and may still be rising during this cycle is of no consequence. 5 Climate change theories make predictions using data that are taken from samples of the past that may or may not be accurate. Temperatures estimates from the past use proxy data. There is no way to actually measure temperature in the past directly. It is important to note that the accuracy of the data and the assumptions used to determine past temperature are based on theories, not proven! The simple fact is that there is no way to verify what the actual temperatures were. Even the assumptions that the sample proxy data accurately reflects the earth’s actual temperature during the time periods studied are just guesses based on theories and assumptions. Again, there is absolutely no way to verify that any proxy data used, accurately mirrors global temperature for a given time period. Statements about CO2 levels in the past are, also, based on proxy data too! 6 The causes of these cool downs and warm ups are not well understood. There are many theories floating around. How long the current warm up will last is not known, or how warm the temperature will be when at its’ peak. This last point is important, so let’s repeat it. There is no way to know how much warmer it will get during the current interglacial warm up. It is not even known if the Quaternary glaciation period is going to continue or if it has ended. 7 Climate researchers do not know how warm the current interglacial warmup will become or when it will end. 8 Any value attributed to man-made causes of global warming is only a guess. The causes of ice ages and warm ups are not understood, so this current warm up could be typical or atypical. It is all guessing. There is no consensus on just how much the sun and the earth’s other dynamic systems influence temperature. Cloud cover, volcanic processes influence temperature, and are constantly changing. Even the Earths’ magnetic field, which controls how much cosmic radiation hits the earth’s atmosphere. Cosmic radiation is theorized to be a factor in cloud formation. Volcanic eruptions, cloud coverage, underwater lava flows, changes in solar output cannot be predicted with any accuracy necessary to give any meaning to computer simulations predicting the impact of one variable – CO2. If we don’t know just how warm this warm-up will be, or how changes in cloud formation, solar activity and vulcanism will change and impact temperature, then how can anyone tell us how much warmer human beings are going to make the earth? There are multiple variables effecting earth’s surface temperature, yet, we are told that only one variable is a factor. This is not science. This is a belief!
According to the IPCC and signatories of the Paris Climate Accord a 2C increase in temperature will be catastrophic! 9a 9b An event that must be stopped at all costs. But, there is no way of knowing if this current interglacial period will reach 5C as it has in previous warm-ups. Are you beginning to understand the stupidity of these people! Animals, vegetation, fish, coral reefs that survived the last interglacial warm up that was 5C warmer will not survive a 2C warmup. They warn you that you must stop the 2C warmup at all costs to save humanity, but they cannot tell you if a 5C increase brought by this current interglacial period is going to happen. If you heard this type of silliness from your teenager, you would tear their room apart looking for the drugs.
Why the effort to convince the public to accept computer simulations as proof? Because, accepting a model as proof, removes the Scientific. Method from the discussion. No proof means no verification by other researchers which takes time to gather the data. A university or scientist eager to publish and secure tenure will find little in the way of glory or funding available verifying someone else’s theory. No proof means no verification by other. Computer models are the heart of climate research and bypass the scientific method. 10 The Scientific Method takes times to do the to gather the data, publish the theory and wait for other scientist to confirm, reject or offer alternative hypothesis. A university or scientist eager to secure funding and increase alumni donations, publish and secure tenure find little in the way of glory or funding following the Scientific Method. The prestige of having the label science is sought , not the work. Public Relations can be used to keep up the illusion. There is no testable theory to prove global warming if the Scientific Method cannot be used. It is the Scientific Method that purged us of charlatans and soothsayers and opened the door to “reason” over “belief” , but it also requires work and time. As there was no testable theory to disprove Ptolemy’s theory of the planets. The ancients were conned by experts who , as today, relied on that con to secure power and wealth. Al Gore has become fabulously wealthy, professors pushing catastrophic warming have secured much funding, politicians have usurped more and more power in the name of stopping global warming. The con was maintained by using an analog computer – the Antikythera. And, just as now, when the model failed, the mechanism could be adjusted to account for the discrepancy in observations and predictions. As we all know today, the analog computer model used to prove Ptolemy’s theory was wrong! What caused its’ downfall? The scientific method came along which required verifiable theory that accurately predicted the motion of the planets. Today, modern day charlatans and their supporting institutions want to take mankind back to the days of old where science did not rule. Snake oil salesman do not do well in the light of science. They do flourish pushing models which can continually be tweaked to continue the con. As in Ptolemy’s time, denial of reality is a must. The all-powerful model must be believed! Empires and civilizations have collapsed from droughts that last decades around the world, but now a long-term drought is proof of man-made global warming. Temperatures are rising and it has to be man-made global warming. The oceans are rising because of man-made global warming. As if they haven’t been rising for thousands of years. Now, that the sham is beginning to wear thin, the new pronouncement of proof that the earth is warming because of man, is the rate of change of this or that variable is unprecedented! Really? Is it not amazing, when a new slant is needed to continue the narrative that the very tools that are not necessarily that accurate or reflective of global climate in the past are once again used to prop up failing models.
March – April 2018 Snow Cover North America.
What if all those global warming experts and institutions who have abandoned science, the universities, governments around the world, the UN, the computer modelers, NOAH, Al Gore, Europe, and all the scientists with their expensive grants pushing global warming got it wrong! What if, it is changes in the sun, the Earth’s changing magnetic field, fluctuations in cosmic radiation, changes in cloud coverage and volcanism that brings about ice ages and warm-ups, and humanity’s production of CO2 is not driving climate change? 11 climate change? 12 What if the earth enters a serious cool down and, people die not from the consequences of warming but cooling? How does one respond toa massive blunder that is up there with “the Earth is the center of the universe and flat”, Lysenkoism, or worse, Mao’s Great Leap Forward that results in the deaths of millions How to deal with all those smug elitists, the over bearing bureaucrats, journalists and news anchors who pushed an error, while mocking dissenters with all the enthusiasm of the priests who in past inquisitions persecuted non-believers to enforce the faith? What happens if food production decreases and people starve from a global cool down? Ice Ages bring not only cooling and reduced growing seasons, but great droughts that reduce food production too. 13 If people suffer greatly from a sudden and sever cool down, do they not have a right to seek justice, bring down the governments and politicians who pushed warming? Should they legally take revenge on the bureaucrats, scientific experts, billionaires, media elites, and people like Al Gore and Elon Musk who became rich pushing global warming? What will be the fate of judges who now condone acts of violence and destruction in the name of global warming?