Being a constitutionally-limited, smaller more effective government supporting, individual freedom loving, supply-side fiscal conservative, I’m not a big fan of promoting or encouraging government involvement. I can recite Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution in my sleep, and that in part is where all this climate change nonsense comes from. The Enumerated Powers of the Federal Government gives the Federal Government the power to involve themselves in the arts and sciences.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
A liberal interpretation would argue that “to promote” means direct funding using taxpayer funding, whereas a conservative interpretation would argue that it says what it means and that the way the Federal Government can “promote” the arts and sciences is through providing patent and copyright protection. I, of course, would argue for the conservative interpretation, but there is one other complicating clause.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
“Provide” for the “general welfare” is a bit vague, and provides a lot of wiggle room for the fans of big government, even though the liberal interpretation completely defeats the entire purpose of haveing “enumerated powers” in the first place. Why include in the Article intended to limit the power of the Federal Government, a wiggle room clause that can be interpreted to give it unlimited power? Any funding can be justified as “promoting the general welfare,” even wasteful climate change research funding.
To make matters worse, the “promote the general welfare” clause is also included in the Preamble to the US Constitution. For the sake of this article, I’m going to accept that the Federal Government has a legitimate role in funding wasteful climate change research. Given that the proposed “solutions” to climate change would require spending TRILLIONS WITH A T of US Taxpayer dollars, I would argue that if the Federal Government is going to spend US Taxpayer dollars on public policy supported by that spending, as President Eisenhower warned America, they sure a hell have an obligation, responsibility and duty to provide oversight into every aspect involved in the formulation of the conclusions reached to defend spending public money on fighting climate change.
When you boil this climate change issue down it centers around a cabal of the usual left-wing, rent seeking suspects that feed off the government teet. You have the government funded universities, the left-wing politicians who vote for the climate change pork, the crony-capitalists that receive the government grants, loans and waivers, the government scientific grants going to highly government income dependent researchers, the gullible press that simply believes in this climate change nonsense and other left-wing causes, the NGOs that raise donations by offering sermons in the form of newsletters offering salvation through environmental policies that will save the earth, and of course the sanctimonious, gullible, scientifically illiterate and narcissistic climate change voter that is so desperate to feed their self-absorbed ego that they truly believe they can save the world by killing free-market capitalism and the energy industry that supports it. Oh, and I almost forgot, the UN’s IPCC, where the I stands for INTERGOVERNMENTAL. Every piece of this climate change puzzle feeds off government pork. That alone provided plenty of evidence for the objective observer like myself to be skeptical. To quote Upton Sinclair, “it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
If climate “science” was a real science, the numbers would speak for themselves. The problem is, the numbers do more to reject the CO2 caused catastrophic global warming theory (CAGW), than to support it. The models used to support the IPCC’s climate change agenda simply fail on an epic scale. As do the laughable experiments concocted to support the case for CAGW. Unlike most real sciences, climate “science” doesn’t rely on the scientific method, experimentation, and data analysis. Climate “science” rejects the foundations of modern science, and replaces them with “consensus,” “peer review,” “computer models,” and “science by authority.” Apparently in this new age of science, if a group of “experts” determine that gravity doesn’t exist, it simply doesn’t exist. Case closed. The conclusion was “peer reviewed” and published in a “scientific” journal on the internet, and if it is on the internet it has to be true. Right? Oh, and there is a computer “model” to “prove” it is valid.
Narcissistic megalomaniacs with political backing have replaced good ole fashion scientific research. Instead of discussing the results of the climate models and inconvenient truths like “the pause,” they argue “consensus.” They aren’t alone in their battle, they have the full support of the liberal media and educational establishment. In this video clip Bill Maher repeats the “consensus” claim that “out of 10,858 peer-reviewed articles only 2 rejected the claim of man-made climate change,” so often I quit counting. Peer-reviewed based “consensus” is literally the only thing holding up this house of cards. Remove a credible claim for a peer-reviewed based “consensus” from the equation and the entire facade comes crashing down.
The study Bill Maher referenced does a good job outlining the peer-reviewed based “consensus” argument. The methodology used to create the above graphic is outlined here.
I found that 5 of 24,210 articles rejected anthropogenic global warming [AGW], a rate of 1 in 4,842 or 0.02%…To classify an article as a rejection, I looked for a clear statement that AGW is false or that some other process better explains the rise in global temperature.
Basically, this entire peer-reviewed based “consensus” is a strawman argument.
Strawman #1: Skeptics “deny” climate change. No one, not even the most skeptical skeptic denies the climate is changing. Al Gore’s own chart demonstrates that the earth’s climate goes through cycles of extreme climate variations called glacial and interglacial periods.
Strawman #2: Skeptics “deny” man can cause climate change. No one, not even the most skeptical skeptic denies man can cause the climate to change. Tear down a forest and build a concrete and asphalt city and you have changed the climate. The urban heat island effect is a well know and accepted scientific principle that no serious scientists deny.
Strawman #3: Skeptics “deny” the greenhouse gas effect. No one, not even the most skeptical skeptic denies the greenhouse gas effect. The physics behind the greenhouse gas effect are pretty well documented.
Strawman #4: Skeptics “deny” CO2 is a greenhouse gas effect and its ability to cause global warming. No one, not even the most skeptical skeptic denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and can cause some warming.
No one denies the climate is changing, no one denies CO2 is a greenhouse gas and contributes to some warming, and no one denies man can cause the local climate to change. There is agreement on all those points. The main point of disagreement is on how much of the warming is due to man-made CO2 vs. other natural causes. As Dr. Singer puts it best, “evidence of warming is not evidence man is the cause of that warming.”
Problems with the Consensus:
- Apply the scientific method to any ice core data set you want and you will find a) the Minoan, Roman, Medieval Warming periods, and the Little Ice Age, all dramatic climate changes that preceded the industrial revolution b) the null hypothesis that temperature variation over the past 150 and 50 years is of natural causes will not be rejected. There simply isn’t anything statistically significant about the recent temperature variation when compared to the entire Holocene. It is hard to believe a true scientific consensus can be reached without the scientific method supporting the conclusion. “Science” that isn’t supported by the scientific method simply isn’t science. At best it is an opinion.
- “If something is understood, it can be modeled.” The IPCC models fail miserably. If in fact, the data supports the “consensus” and the theory, the “consensus” scientists should be able to prove their positions with highly accurate models. They can’t, not even close. The results of the IPCC models do more to disprove the AGW theory than to support it. It is hard to believe you can have a true scientific “consensus” when the theory behind the “consensus” can’t be modeled with any accuracy.
- The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is through absorbing and “thermalizing” long wave infrared radiation between the wavelengths of 13 and 18 microns. The relationship between CO2 absorption and atmospheric concentration is a logarithmic relationship. Industrial era changes in CO2 from 300 to 400 ppm mean relatively little to the energy balance, and its impact per ppm decreases as concentration increases. It is hard to imagine a legitimate scientific consensus being based upon a logarithmic relationship whose impact diminishes with an increase in concentration.
- CO2 has basically a linear pattern of increase, yet temperatures are anything but linear, in fact, current satellite temperatures are below the levels reached in 1987. If areas are selected that isolate the impact of CO2 for having no urban heat island effect, the oceans and Antarctica, temperatures are below the level of 1980. For CO2 to be the main driver of global temperatures, there would need to be a linear relationship between CO2 and temperatures where the formula Y=mX+b would have a very high R-Squared value. That doesn’t exist, in fact, the R-Squared for that relationship is almost non-existent. It is hard to believe a valid scientific consensus is based upon a relationship with a very very very low R-Squared.
- Ground measurements are taken in what are called a “Stevenson Screen” that holds the thermometer 1.25 meters above the surface of the earth. According to MODTRAN, the USAF’s program for defining the greenhouse gas effect, doubling the level of CO2 in the lower 0.1 km of the atmosphere has NO MEASURABLE IMPACT ON ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURES. In other words, ground measurements are measuring something other than the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures. It is hard to imagine a true scientific consensus being based upon a conclusion that a climate calculator refutes. Science normally follows the data to reach a conclusion, real science doesn’t reject the answers given my a calculator.
- By taking a 12 month moving average of global temperatures one can remove the seasonality influence on global temperatures. What is left is the non-seasonal “trend” in temperatures. CO2 has a linear trend, yet the 12 month moving average in temperatures, the temperature “trend,” is anything but linear. The non-linear “trend” in temperatures proves something other than CO2 is affecting the temperature variation. If CO2 was truly the most significant and only factor impacting global temperatures, the 12 month moving average in temperatures would be linearly related to CO2. It isn’t, not even close. No reliable scientific consensus would claim a linear independent variable and a non-linear independent variable was evidence of a well-defined relationship.
- There is no defined mechanism by which temperatures can decrease if CO2 is the sole cause of atmospheric warming. CO2’s only defined mechanism to affect the climate is through the trapping and thermalization of long-wave infrared radiation. CO2 can only warm the atmosphere, yet temperatures show sharp spikes and drops, completely inconsistent and unrelated with concentration and effect of CO2. No credible scientific consensus would support a theory that only allows for temperature increases, while the actual temperature measurements show just the opposite.
- The climate isn’t like gravity. Gravity can be defined with a simple metric of 9.8m/sec^2. No matter how many times you test gravity, objects will always fall at 9.8m/sec^2 in a vacuum at sea level. It is very easy to test and replicate those tests and you will always get 9.8m/sec^2. Gravity is defined by natural laws. Gravity deserves a scientific consensus. No data, observation or experiment known to man refuted the law of gravity. Things that truly deserve a scientific consensus are given the title “laws.” The climate is an infinitely complex system, with an infinite number of influencing factors. AGW and CAGW barely pass the requirements to be called a valid hypothesis, maybe a theory, but nothing near the certainty required to be considered a consensus justifying “law.” If AGW was a valid law there would be countless experiments demonstrating it, but there aren’t. What experiments do exists are laughable demonstrations of violating every sound scientific principle known to man.
Problems with the
- The Climategate emails exposed serious corruption, unethical behavior, collusion, discrimination, bias, and unprofessional behavior. The Guardian is a champion of the political left, and even they had some sharp words for the peer-review process. That article alone justifies a Congressional investigation.
- Most shocking to me, however, was to discover that the major scientific journals don’t require reproducibility and application of the scientific method to be published. None of the climate research published was required to be reproducible and based upon the application of the scientific method. Much of the necessary data to even attempt to reproduce the findings isn’t made available to other reserachers or has been “lost” or accidentally/conveniently “destroyed.” At a bare minimum Congress should demand public archiving of supporting data, reproduction by an independent impartial party, and application of the scientific method to the data. The American taxpayer is being asked to spend TRILLIONs with a T on fighting climate change, the least they should expect is that the “science” supporting those public policies meets the bare minimum standards to be considered scientific research.
- It is highly unlikely that any real scientist included in the “consensus” was aware that the research they were basing their conclusion upon may not be reproducible and/or did not pass the rigorous standards of the scientific method to be published. Simply put, articles that were selected for publication weren’t required to meet the bare minimum requirements to be considered sound science. The “consensus” is based on research whose validity is completely unknown, and the researcher made no attempt to determine the scientific validity of the conclusions. Simply doing a search and reading an abstract doesn’t prove anything other than the researcher is lazy and doesn’t do solid scientific research. It is almost unfathomable to believe that a survey performed through a simple search of journal articles performed by a “researcher” with an Anti-Trump book in the works can be justification for spending TRILLIONS of US taxpayer’s dollars.
- The data used in much of the “peer-reviewed” research is heavily “adjusted” data, that comes from only a few government run organizations. Resent whistleblowers have raised concerns regarding how the data was “adjusted” for political purposes.
- Claims like “out of 10,858 peer-reviewed articles only 2 rejected the claim of man-made climate change” are more applicable to Cuban and Russian elections than real science. It simply isn’t plausible that something as complex, dynamic and mysterious as the global climate can legitimately reach a consensus on a single variable being the cause out of an infinite number of factors. If CO2 were truly deserving of a scientific consensus the IPCC models wouldn’t fail so miserably, it is that simple. The very fact that the IPCC models don’t support the “consensus,” demand a congressional investigation, because something is clearly very very very wrong with the “peer-review” process if a consensus can be reached without having valid models to support it.
Please like, share, subscribe and comment.