Seeing the Forest Through the Trees; Political Ideology and Federal Grants are Blinding Climate “Scientists” From Seeking the Truth


The IPCC claims that the oceans are by far the largest heat sink in the climate system. The IPCC claims that the oceans are warming. Data proves the oceans drive atmospheric temperatures, not vice verse.  The problem is, the IPCC can’t explain how CO2 warms the oceans. If the IPCC can’t explain how CO2 is warming the oceans, it can’t explain how/why the atmosphere is warming.

No sooner did I complete the article with the previous quote than “Watts Up With That” published an article about dams causing climate change.

Claim: Dams are major driver of global environmental change

The article also supports another recent article highlighting how claiming “concensus” and “certainties” in excess of 90% is absurd if you can’t claim you understand all the factors that go into the climate model.

By the IPCC’s own admission, the vast majority of significant climate factors are categorized as having a “Very Low” level of scientific understanding (see graphic at the top of this article). Claiming a “consensus” and “certainty” upward of 90% is simply inconsistent with having a “Very Low” understanding of the majority of the factors in your model. Climate “scientists” may claim that all they want, but any real scientists knows the claims are pure hogwash.

To demonstrate how corrupted and misguided the field of Climate “Science” truly is, one only needs to read the dam article with an objective and open mind.

The Article States:

There are currently in excess of 70,000 large dams worldwide. With the continuing construction of new dams, more than 90 per cent of the world’s rivers will be fragmented by at least one dam within the next 15 years.

lab-seven-temperature-patterns-6-638 (1)

The temperature variation over a lake or ocean is infinitely less variable than temperatures above the land. Water is the great moderator of the climate. The difference between peak daytime and low nighttime temperatures taken over the center of Lake Erie is much smaller than the diurnal temperature variation over an asphalt road in Death Valley. Everyone has had the experience getting in a car and sitting on a hot black vinyl seat in the middle of Summer wearing shorts and then getting in that same car at midnight when the date is over. The temperature variation is extreme. During the day you can literally get 2nd-degree burns, and at night you have to put on a blanket so stop the shivering. That never happens with major water reservoirs. You can go swimming during the day and skinny dipping at night, and you won’t  notice the difference.

The IPCC themselves leaves no doubt that the oceans are the dominant factor driving the climate, as do temperature measurements when aligned with El Ninos and La Ninas.

Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence), with only about 1% stored in the atmosphere. On a global scale, the ocean warming is largest near the surface, and the upper 75 m warmed by 0.11 [0.09 to 0.13] °C per decade over the period 1971 to 2010. It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0−700 m) warmed from 1971 to 2010, and it likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971. {1.1.2, Figure 1.2}

So, given the facts that water is by far the greatest contributor to altering and moderating the climate. What would any logical, unbiased and ethical scientist do when faced with the fact that dams turn countless square miles of highly temperature volatile deserts, forests, prairies and even asphalt roads and concrete cities into highly temperature stable man-made lakes? You would think that alone would justify funding a research project to study the impact of water on the climate?

That, however, is what happens in a perfect world where climate “science” is a real science and honest and objective intellectual curiosity is the only motivating factor. This is climate “science,” so the fact that countless small, narrow, shallow fast moving rivers covering relatively little area were turned into large, deep, static lakes is irrelevant. When the Hoover Dam was built, turning the Colorado River and 250 square miles of desert into Lake Mead, climate “scientists” somehow find a way to tie the carbon cycle into the climate change that it caused. Here is the write up regarding the research:

 The study’s researchers used a novel method to determine what happens to organic carbon traveling down rivers and were able to capture the impact of more than 70 per cent of the world’s man-made reservoirs by volume. Their model links known physical parameters such as water flow and reservoir size with processes that determine the fate of organic carbon in impounded rivers…“We’re essentially increasing the number of artificial lakes every time we build a dam,” said Taylor Maavara, lead author and a PhD student at Waterloo. “This changes the flow of water and the materials it carries, including nutrients and carbon.”

Really? Changes in the carbon in rivers vs lakes is the important factor when building a dam and measuring its impact on climate change? The claim is so absurd it is laughable, and highlights just how corrupt and wasteful Federal spending on climate research truly is. Yes, I know that particular study was paid for by the Canadians, but the same thing happens in the US.

This obsession with carbon is so ridiculous that we should simply make copies of the conclusions reached in all previous Government funded research stating that CO2 is the main cause of whatever is being studied. There really in no need to fund further research, because, in this “settled” science, the conclusion will always be that CO2 is the cause. Gravity is “settled” science. We don’t have “gravity” departments continually proving gravity exists, running countless studies that all reach the same conclusion. That is a waste of money. So is funding climate “science.” No matter what the observation being studied, carbon will always be the cause. If that is the case that the conclusion is pre-determined, why go through the farce of performing the supporting research? It is simply a waste of time, effort, and money?


If climate “science” is truly settled, it is time for congress to stop wasting money paying for research that has predetermined conclusions. All the existing government funded research points to carbon, so why keep funding research that is guaranteed to support that conclusion? Anyway, climate “science” is based upon an endless string of unfalsifiable hypothesis, where CO2 can cause warming AND, cooling, more hurricanes AND fewer hurricanes, more droughts AND fewer droughts, etc etc etc. It is futile to debate real science with a climate “scientist.” They will always be right because they follow a new “progressive science” where the scientific method is nothing more than an inconvenient annoyance promoted by a minority of scientists. These heretic scientists are “deniers” that bitterly cling to their conservative scientific practices. This new “progressive science” determines the truth based on the amount of Federal funding it can generate, not by the validity of the conclusions reached. Climate “scientists” are paid to prove man-made CO2 is the dominant cause of climate change. They aren’t paid to study how the climate really works.

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s