CO2 Can’t Cause the Warming Alarmists Claim it Does

Screen-Shot-2017-03-10-at-8.23.06-PM

One of the problems with this climate change issues is that it is so vaguely defined, in very very unscientific terminology. Climate alarmists will claim that man is impacting the climate, and immediately demand taxpayer funding every one of their pet projects that they can tie to climate change. There is no doubt man can impact the climate. When the forests of Manhattan were replaced with skyscrapers, man changed the climate of New York City. When man built tens of thousands of miles of Interstate highways through forests, grasslands, meadows and deserts, he most likely altered the climate. When man cut down the vast forests that once dominated the East and Midwest, and replaced them with corn and wheat fields, man changed the climate. When man damned up rivers, and irrigated deserts, man altered the climate. No one denies that man can and does alter the climate.

No skeptic I know denies the Urban Heat Island Effect. One only needs to look at the temperatures from New York City and compare them to the temperatures at West Point. CO2 is 405ppm at both locations, yet the temperature increase is much more dramatic for New York City. CO2 can’t explain this divergence, roads, and buildings can. Clearly, some warming isn’t due to CO2. There is a full 2 Degree C difference between West Point and New York City, and Westpoint is below the level of 1830 whereas New York City is well above it. Once again, CO2 can’t explain that difference, so CO2 can’t be the cause of 100% of the warming.

WestPoint-NY

The issue isn’t if man can alter the climate, he can. The issue is if CO2 produced by man can cause the warming that alarmists claim that it does. I am skeptical simply because of the physics that support the greenhouse gas effect. The only defined mechanism by which CO2 can cause climate change is through the “thermalization” of long-wave infrared radiation between 13 and 18 microns. CO2 can also result in cooling due to radiation, but the climate alarmists never mention that fact, and this article will focus on the warming aspect.

The problem with the CO2 warming theory is that the relationship between CO2 and concentration is a logarithmic relationship. What that means is that CO2 acts like taking aspirin. The first aspirin relieves 90% of the pain, the second 7%, the third 3%, and the fourth makes you sick and ears ring. Each additional aspirin has a smaller and smaller effect. Most of the impact of CO2 was reached by the time it hit 100 ppm, and the effect rapidly decreased since then. Going from 0 to 100 resulted in 18 w/m^2 downward forcing, going from 100 to 200 resulted in an additional 4 w/m^2, and going from 200 to 300 ppm adds another 2 w/m^2. The point being the slope is rapidly flattening, and even doubling CO2 from 400 ppm to 800 ppm will only result in a minor change in the new downward forcing.

co2_modtrans_img1

Mother nature isn’t stupid. She isn’t going to create a natural doomsday bomb. CO2 has varied from over 7,000 ppm to as low as 180 ppm, and never caused catastrophic warming. The reason is the natural “off switch” in CO2 which is the logarithmic relationship.

h2o-and-temperature-cross

The other problem I have with the CO2 caused warming theory is that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas, absorbing only the 13 to 18 micron long-wave infrared. Water vapor, on the other hand, absorbs those wavelengths and many more and can be as high as 5% of the atmosphere. Basically, H20 makes CO2 irrelevant to the lower troposphere.

mlo_full_record

The real problem the CO2 caused warming theory has, however, is the above chart. CO2 increases at a relatively constant near linear increase. In a linear regression Y=mX+b, where CO2 is the independent variable X and temperature is the dependent variable Y, it is hard to see CO2 do anything but cause temperatures to increase. In reality, the real relationship is Y=Log(X)+b, but once again, you will never hear a climate alarmist mention that. Clearly, from the IPCC model output, the IPCC is modeling a linear relationship, defying/denying the true physics of the CO2 molecule.

UAH_LT_1979_thru_April_2017_v6 (1)

Where CO2 is a linear variable, temperature is curvilinear. In other words, the IPCC model of Y=mX+b simply doesn’t exist. Unless the climate alarmists find a way to “adjust” the satellite data, the failure of the IPCC models will simply increase.

Deconstructing the Satellite Temperatures:

Chart2Globe

CO2 covers the globe in a 405 ppm blanket and increases in a linear fashion, yet temperatures are very non-linear. The above graphic is a 12 month moving average of global, land and ocean temperatures. The 12-month average is significant because it removes the variation that occurs throughout the year due to the seasons. Every data point includes data from each month of the year.  If in fact, CO2 was the only factor driving temperature, the 12-month moving average would be linear, or logarithmically related to CO2. It is neither. The other point to note is that global temperatures and ocean temperatures are very tightly correlated, whereas land temperatures differ substantially. Land temperatures are corrupted by the urban heat island effect, so the difference between land and ocean temperatures can’t be explained by CO2. That alone makes the claim that man made CO2 is responsible for 100% of the warming null and void. That is unless you “deny” that the urban heat island effect exists.

The other observation is that the moving average follows a relatively cyclical pattern. Once again, the seasonal variation has been removed by using a 12-month moving average. CO2 doesn’t increase/decrease in a cyclical manner. Something is causing the temperatures to “cycle” and it isn’t CO2. CO2 could also never cause a rapid decrease in temperatures if is the sole cause of the warming. CO2 never decreases on an annual basis in the above CO2 chart going back to the late 1950s. CO2 only increased, yet the seasonally adjusted temperatures vari greatly.

Another observation is that the oceans are warming. CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18 microns don’t warm water. Evidence that the oceans are warming is evidence of more visible radiation reaching the oceans, not more CO2 in the atmosphere. If you can’t explain how CO2 can warm the oceans, you can’t explain how the atmosphere above the oceans is warming. If I remember correctly, heat rises in our atmosphere, and a warm ocean would warm the atmosphere above it.

The above chart is for global temperatures, and the take home is that CO2 can’t explain the warming of the oceans, the atmosphere above the oceans track the warming oceans, the atmosphere above the oceans is warming at a different rate and cycle than the land measurements, and the extreme variability is due to ocean phenomena like El Ninos and La Nina’s, which have nothing to do with CO2. If CO2 doesn’t cause El Ninos and La Nina’s, how can man be responsible for 100% of the warming? El Ninos and La Ninas existed long before the industrial age.

Chart2nhsh

The oceans are rather uniform emitters of radiation, whereas the land isn’t. As man has turned fields into cities, forests into farmland, rivers into lakes, and dirt into asphalt roads, man has altered the heat absorption of the land. He has no similar impact on the oceans. Therefore, to identify the CO2 “signature” we should focus on the Southern Hemisphere, instead of the corrupted Northern Hemisphere. The above chart does just that, and demonstrates that the Southern Hemisphere has much lower temperature volatility, did not surpass the previous peak set in 1998, and has increased 0.2 Degree C less than the Northern Hemisphere since records began in 1979. Both Hemispheres, however, show that they closely track the changes in the ocean temperatures. Once again, CO2 is 405 ppm, so CO2 can’t be the cause of the temperature differential between the two hemispheres. Clearly, there is warming that is not due to CO2. This observation is also supported by other research as well.

Chart3tropics

Now let’s isolate the impact of the seasons. The tropical/equatorial zone gets an even bathing of sunlight year round, adding a nice consistency to our analysis. CO2 is 405 ppm as it is elsewhere on the globe. From the above chart, it is evident that the tropical zone (black line) is far more volatile than the Globe, Northern, or Southern Hemisphere. The atmosphere temperatures also closely track the ocean temperatures. Most importantly, however, is that there is no real trend. Yes, there are spikes in temperatures due to the ocean events, but those are only temporary. Once the El Nino, La Nina’s and other events are over, the temperatures return to “normal.” Tropical temperatures were the same in 1980 as they were in 2013. 2011 was much cooler than 1984. Current temperatures look to be rapidly headed back to the baseline, and I would expect that it should be reached within a year or two. The point being, CO2 was 335 ppm in 1979, it is now 405 ppm, a full 20%+ increase, yet temperatures in the tropics will likely to be below the level of 1980 by the end of the year, and certainly below the level reached in 1983. The CO2 signature simply can’t be found in the tropics.

Chart1Antarctica

Okay, I think I’ve established that the urban heat island effect and ocean temperatures greatly impact atmospheric temperatures. No reasonable person would disagree with that. I think I’ve also established that CO2 doesn’t/can’t warm the oceans, CO2 doesn’t/can’t cause El Nino’s and La Nina’s, and that CO2 doesn’t/can’t cause the urban heat island effect. If we accept all that, then to isolate the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures we need to find land that isn’t corrupted by the urban heat island effect and far removed from the oceans. Ideally, to really go above and beyond, we would want to find land that emits close to the LWIR wavelengths that CO2 most efficiently absorbs, 13 to 18 microns. And if we want to really prove our point we would choose a location with very dry air so we can remove the corrupting impact of atmospheric H2O.

Fortunately, that place exists and we have data for it. Antarctica is the ideal location to isolate the true impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures. The South Pole is well removed from the oceans, has very very dry air, has 405 ppm CO2, has no urban heat island effect, emits LWIR near the ideal 13 to 18-micron range. Being an even reflective white also helps control for the impact of distorting incoming visible radiation. Antarctica is about as perfect a control for atmospheric CO2 as you can get. What then does this natural control experiment for the impact of atmospheric CO2 tell us? There has been no warming what so ever at the South Pole since records began in 1979. There is absolutely no trend in temperatures. The thick black line in the above chart is the land South Pole reading, and just last year was threatening to fall below the lowest temperature on record, set back in 1979. Land Antarctica temperatures also don’t correlate well with the other temperature charts, proving that something other than CO2 is driving temperature volatility elsewhere on the Globe.

In conclusion, if you break the data down to isolate the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures, there simply isn’t a strong case to be made that CO2 is the cause of the warming. Yes the oceans are warming, yes temperatures have been warming, but that doesn’t mean CO2 is the cause of that warming. If you isolate the impact of CO2 by removing the impact of the oceans, the urban heat island effect, and atmospheric water vapor, the result is that those areas show no warming what so ever. CO2 increased from 335 ppm to 405 ppm in Antarctica, and it had no impact at all, none, nada, zip.

If you were wondering why I used the Satellite data, this email exchange highlights why the ground measurements are simply unreliable.

SH-ocean-data-mostly-made-up

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

Obama Climate Change Speech Earns $3.26 Million for Personal Foundation

Obama-Italy-ANTONIO-CALANNIAP-640x480

Former president Barack Obama’s speech on climate change in Italy raised €3 million ($3.26m) in ticket sales for his personal foundation, according to a report from The Times.
Having travelled to Milan in a private jet, Obama settled into a presidential suite at the Park Hyatt hotel, costing roughly €8,400 a night. Meanwhile, his entourage of security occupied two separate floors across the hotel, while his security detail required a convoy of 14 cars, a helicopter, and 300 extra police.

The event, which attracted 3500 people paying €850 a ticket, raised nearly €3 million, all of which will go to the Obama Foundation dedicated to “renewal and global progress.”

Read More:

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

A fool’s errand: Al Gore’s $15 trillion carbon tax

climate-money

Wasting Other People’s Money:

Al Gore wants to reverse modernity and save the world from itself through an elimination of its fossil-fuel-based energy system. During the final week of April, his newly created Energy Transitions Commission released a document setting forth a fool’s-errand pathway to “decarbonize” the world’s energy system.

But, don’t worry! The all-in estimated cost to re-engineer humanity is only a mere $15 trillion—enough money to give every man, woman, and child in the United States more than $46,000.

Read More:

Please Like, Share, Subscribe and Comment

People’s Climate March; Pure Left-wing Politics Masquerading as Watermelon Environmentalism

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

The Ax Falls at the EPA; PseudoScience No Longer Job Requirement

Youre-Fired

EPA fires members of science advisory board

Originally published by E&E News

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fired members of a scientific advisory board yesterday.

The agency quietly forced out some members of the Board of Scientific Counselors just weeks after leaders told them their tenure would be renewed, said Robert Richardson, an ecological economist at Michigan State University and one of those dismissed.

Read more:

This could be the reason for the housecleaning:

Political science: EPA employees try to sabotage GOP efforts to cut EPA funding?

Does a new study link “pollution” with cancer — or the just junkiest of statistics with opponents of EPA budget cuts?

Read more:

Please life, share, subscribe and comment.

Meet the Man that has Michael Mann Horrified

Capture68

Just what happened to throw Michael Mann into such a hysterical hissy-fit that he would “tweet” out such an idiotic and childish “tweet?” The New York Times hired Bret Stephens to write about the climate. This video highlights why Michael Mann has plenty to be upset about.

Bret is articulate, well informed, calm, cool and collected, and does a phenomenal job presenting the skeptic’s case against gianormous public spending on fighting climate change. So far, it looks like he is doing a fantastic job at the New York Times, so I doubt Michael Mann will be reinstating his subscription anytime soon. Boo Hoo.

Wemple’s a clever fellow. I’m sure he understands Stephens’s point about the dangers of certainty, particularly based on sophisticated mathematical models that have been proven wrong in the past. What I think sailed past Wemple and so “many, many people” was Stephens’s subtler point about the sanctimonious condescension of people who claim to be motivated solely by their passionate care for the planet.

Best statement of the 21st Century:
-Science is a mode of inquiry. Not a belief structure.
Dr Lindzen.

Please like, share subscribe and comment.

Congress Should Investigate the Peer Review and Publication Process

Settled-Science-600-LA

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.

the-preamble-of-the-constitution-of-the-united-states-764

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.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

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.”

Peer-review-1

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.

crop-170422_Michael_Mann_027-1492877508-article-header (1)

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.stacks-image-f26823f-692x534

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.

Strawman_600x242_3-copy

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8.  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.1b1a8-jo_nova_ipcc_consensus_vote

Problems with the Peer Pal-Review:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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. b40bb-haroldhaydenipcc

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.