WHY WON’T LIBERALS LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE ON CLIMATE?

Quote of the Week: “The people who are supposed to be the experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence…I hope that a few of them will make the effort to examine the evidence in detail and see how it contradicts the prevailing dogma, but I know that the majority will remain blind. That to me is the central mystery of climate science. It is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that the whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?” – Freeman Dyson

(Source)

Freeman Dyson, the man that holds the same position that Albert Einstein did at Princeton, has taken a look at climate change and observed that the physical observations simply don’t support the conclusions reached by the climate alarmists. We here at CO2isLife have done the exact same thing and reached the exact same conclusion. We believe that anyone that takes an objective look at the data, science, and theories and compare them to the conclusions reached by the climate alarmist, they too would reach the exact same conclusion. The observations don’t support the conclusions and the models don’t reflect reality. Those are simply irrefutable truths. The correlation and R-Squared between CO2 and Global Temperatures are basically non-existent.

We at CO2isLife have been promoting a common sense theory behind global warming that has absolutely nothing to do with CO2. The theory is simple:

  1. The oceans are warming
  2. The oceans control the global climate
  3. What is warming the oceans is also warming the atmosphere above the oceans
  4. CO2 and the LWIR wavelengths that it radiates (13 to 18 microns) don’t warm water
  5. Visible radiation between 0.4 and 0.7 microns do warm water
  6. More visible radiation much reach the oceans to cause warming
  7. That can happen through fewer low clouds, a hotter sun or both

That simple theory explains far more about the recent warming than CO2 and is supported by the data.

The problem with the CO2 caused climate change is that CO2 and temperatures don’t correlate. CO2 is a smooth near-linear variable and temperatures are all over the place and highly variable. Most important however is that temperatures have different characteristics over different time periods. CO2 doesn’t, it just increases in a nearly linear fashion since the start of the industrial era. In other words, temperatures don’t zig when CO2 zags. Temperatures zig a lot, and CO2 doesn’t zag much, and when it does it is mostly in the same direction, up.

As demonstrated above, global temperatures don’t “trend” upward like CO2, they appear to “step.” Looking at the above chart, temperatures appear to “trend” sideways between 1979 and 1997, a 20 year period. The 13-month average is the same in 1997 as it was in 1980. The lowest levels reached in 1993 were lower than the lowest levels recorded in 1979.

Something strange then happens in 1997, an El Niño spiked temperatures, which then started a slight upward “trend.” The 1997 El Niño peak was surpassed by the 2016 El Niño peak, and the bottom reached in 2012 was above the bottom reached in 1999. So for some odd reason, there was no warming between 1979 and 1997 while CO2 increased from 335 to 360 ppm, and then steady warming between 1997 and today. Two very distinct periods, two very distinct temperature variations, and yet CO2 increased during both periods. CO2 can’t be the cause. CO2 can’t cause no change in one period and then change in another period. The physics of the CO2 molecule are constant.

Given that irrefutable evidence, one would discount CO2 and go looking for a variable that has a dramatic change starting in 1997. When you do that, guess what you find? Low level clouds, the clouds that result in cooling, started a dramatic decline in 1997 which continues to this day.

Imagine that, if you stop blocking sunlight from reaching the oceans the oceans will warm, and with it the globe as well. Who woulda thunk it? Clearly not the Einsteins staffing our climate “science” departments. Bottom line, if you aren’t searching for the real answer you will never find it. If clouds, or lack thereof,  are the real cause of the warming, then the funding would get slashed for the climate change departments and research. I doubt these unethical climate alarmists are going to publish research that will put them out of a job. Would you?

I’m pretty sure that if more people would take the time to look into this nonsense there would be a lot more headlines like the following. It appears “Peer Review” has some holes in it. Funny how it took a “climate contrarian” to catch the mistake.

Climate contrarian uncovers scientific error, upends major ocean warming study (Source)

Despite not being a credentialed climate scientist, Mr. Lewis immediately identified a significant error in the paper, substantially altering the conclusions, which the authors now acknowledge.

The good news is that this is a case where the error was caught, and admitted to.

The bad news is that the peer review process, presumably involving credentialed climate scientists, should have caught the error before publication. (Source)

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “WHY WON’T LIBERALS LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE ON CLIMATE?”

  1. For decades, high schools have been pumping out students indoctrinated in environmental do-goodism, but with a very poor background in physics or real science. Many of these students have gone on to college and majored in environmental science and other green disciplines because they see the harm that mankind is doing to various aspects of the environment, and they want to contribute in solving the problems that an increasingly populated world is causing. For the most part, that is a good thing. However…. the trillions of dollars that have been and will be wasted on mitigating CO2 because of a fundamental error in the physics that they refuse to recognize, will seriously damage science itself for decades to come.

    When the colossal error is finally acknowledged – that CO2 has almost no effect on global temperatures – who will ever trust science again? This is not quite Piltdown Man, as that was a hoax from day one, but it’s getting closer and closer the longer climate science ignores the facts staring them in the face. Think of the good that those trillions of dollars could have done to solve real problems in the environment.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Perhaps you should add one more “strong” possibility to your “common-sense theory behind global warming”. The missing facet is atmospheric pressure.
    In simple terms, according the Gay Lussac’s Law, the greater the pressure, the greater the heat (think air conditioner/heat pump). The high atmospheric concentration of CO2 on both Venus and Mars provides and excellent example. The surface of Venus is very hot while the surface of Mars is cold.
    Although there are (likely) other factors, the biggest difference is one of atmospheric pressure with Venus’ being 92 times greater than Earth’s and Mars being much less than the Earth’s.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I think most won’t look at the evidence because many people are convinced that substantial numbers of people in positions of authority would not lie (or ignorantly repeat lies) to them about important matters . . or they are afraid to seriously confront their doubts about the trustworthiness of those who have had authority over them, such as teachers, and famous “news” personalities, government office holders, and scientists, etc.

    It’s not just illiberals I don’t believe . . (yeah, I call them what they seem to me to be, not what they claim they are ; ) but the bulk of humans in general, who are (in essence) afraid to peak behind the curtain, so to speak, and discover that the great and powerful Oz is an illusion, for the most part, generated by people with little to no concern about deceiving the “masses”, whom they regard more or less like talking stock animals, or perhaps little kids in school, that should be told what will keep them in line, so to speak.

    I’ve watched quite a few of those #walkaway video testimonials, and many of them speak of the difficulties they had in being skeptical, at first, of those in positions of authority they had been trusting . . (AND of their eventual sense of freedom and relative wellbeing once they got a good look at the evidence they had been avoiding.)

    Siants (sounds like science 😉 has become a sort of Oracle of Delphi affair, in a world of authorities figures one must trust, because they are authority figures . . and must be trustworthy to have attained that status . . the grown ups wouldn’t let them keep such positions if they were liars and cheats after all . . . (and that’s why they are so adamant about getting rid of that awful Trump fellow . . any day now ; )

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I agree with your post, but I would add that you should not stop at the science evidence. The proponents of current climate catastrophe theories have two important sub-theses, not one. The first is that humans are responsible for catastrophic global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels and other activities. The second is that the policy response to this must be urgent, enormously expensive mitigation measures taken by, or paid for, by the wealthier countries. To believe both theses requires acceptance of a long list of contentions, including the following: that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by humans is the sole cause of climate change; that the modelling carried out by and on behalf of the IPCC accurately projects the climatic and societal effects of future climate changes (all evidence to the contrary); that international agreements reached within the Framework Convention on Climate Change will result in major reductions in global emissions (they haven’t over the past 28 years, but alarmist hope springs eternal); that mitigation measures taken by the OECD countries will be sufficient to reduce global emissions in future (when 63% of 2017 emissions were from non-OECD countries and over 90% of emissions growth is from non-OECD countries), that carbon taxes will be an economically efficient way to reduce emissions (even when added on to an almost endless list of other regulatory, program and subsidy measures intended to do exactly the same thing), that governments and politicians will “recycle” the revenues from carbon taxes back to the citizenry rather than spending the revenues on favoured causes and interest groups, and that the radical emissions reductions proposed (55% from 2010 levels by 2035 according to the most recent IPCC SR15 report) are possible in economic, technological and political terms. Did I miss one?

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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