Rules for Climate Radicals; Power is What the Enemy Thinks You Have

RFR

Saul Alinsky is a real “Pride of Socialism” or POS. He got his start in “community organizing for social justice” as a young college student when he discovered that honest people are easy to exploit and that fraud pays. This developmentally arrested POS actually created a “free lunch” system that all his equally morally bankrupt followers benefit. Most people would be ashamed of such behavior, Saul Alinsky was so proud of this childish, illegal and morally bankrupt scheme that he was still bragging about it up to the time of his death.

As a penniless student at the University of Chicago, Saul Alinsky hit upon a clever way to eat meals without having to pay for them. Alinsky – viewed by many progressives as the father of the social justice movement – described this technique in an interview given to Playboy magazine just before his death in 1972.

This adolescent immaturity was inspiring to many, an actual “free lunch” was the dream of all aspiring socialists, and the POS had just discovered a way to make the impossible a reality. It was utopia on earth for socialists, a real “free lunch.” This news was so exciting that young Hillary Clinton, attending the non-sexist inclusive all girls school of Wellesley College, invited Saul Alinsky to spread his message of moral depravity to the next generation of POSs. She even wrote her Senior Thesis on his tactics and even attempted to improve upon it. While Saul was an outsider fighting the existing power, a Marx figure, Hillary wanted to capture the power and use it to impose her will on society, a Lenin/Stalin figure.

Hillary Rodham Clinton, to the radical Marxist organizer, Saul Alinsky. The 92-page thesis was titled, “There is only the fight…: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.” …Hillary describes Alinsky as a “neo-Hobbesian who objects to the consensual mystique surrounding political processes; for him, conflict is the route to power.” Alinsky’s central focus, she notes, is that the community organizer must understand that conflict will arise and to redirect it and, as she quoted him in her thesis, be “…Hillary noted that, “Alinsky’s lessons in organizing and mobilizing community action independent of extra-community strings appear to have been lost in the face of the lure of OEO money.” Pointing out that the power of the government took away the work of the “local organizer.” It is here that we see her light bulb illuminate. With this reasoning, the better approach would be to be the government who had the power to force social change.

according-quotes-6

The importance of this “neo-Alinsky” philosophy is that capturing the Government is the tool to affect social change. Facts, reason, numbers, and science aren’t part of that equation, “social justice” is. Socialism isn’t self-sustaining, it is a downward spiral of forever cutting an ever shrinking pie into smaller and smaller pieces. Governments don’t produce wealth, they redistribute it. “From each according to their ability to each according to their needs.” The entire system is designed to break the will of the honest, independent, hardworking ethical citizen, and turn them into needy dependents of the State.  In socialists systems, the needy squeaky wheels get the grease. Being an able bodied hard working person is a curse. In the dystopian book about a socialist utopia “Animal Farm,” the true believing hard working draft horse Boxer eventually gets shipped off to the glue factory as thanks for all his loyalty and support.

Because socialism isn’t self-sustaining, POSs are always looking for a revenue source to loot. They are always looking for their next Boxer to exploit. In the 1980s the Social Justice Warriors or SJWs decided Tobacco was a social evil. As a young man, I always thought that was odd. Tobacco’s harm was self-inflicted, it was a legal product, it had warning labels printed on it, and it had a very important role in American history. Alcohol, on the other hand, often destroyed not only the lives of the user, but also many innocent people as well. In my opinion, it was a much much much more logical target for the SJWs than tobacco, especially when many SJWs were telling Women that they had the right to do what they wanted with their “bodies” (plural)…except smoke.

m6313a1f1What then was the SJW’s solution to the gianormous social ill of Tobacco? Did they ban it like all other harmful and addictive drugs?   Surely, if the evil was so great, the SJW’s would step in and protect the public. Nope, the SJW’s pretty much protected the status quo, but sued and taxed the Tobacco Companies. They turned the Tobacco Companies from being revenue sources for the Republicans into being revenue sources for the Democrats. This is a genius political strategy, it redirected the opposition’s supply chain into their camp, and the Democrats got to claim the moral high ground in this fraud.

The problem is, the Tobacco settlement money is/has run out, and the evidence shows, this was never a health issue, it was and always has been a political issue.

Broken Promises to Our Children

Despite receiving more than $26 billion from the tobacco settlement and tobacco taxes, the states continue to shortchange tobacco prevention and cessation programs that are proven to save lives and money.

sotc_cents_hThe corruption of this program run by the sanctimonious SWJs is so comprehensive, even the Lung Association can’t remain silent.

This misuse of tobacco settlement funds continues to this day. According to the “State of Tobacco Control 2016” report, 40 states and the District of Columbia got a failing grade for spending less than 50 percent of what the CDC recommends should be spent on tobacco prevention programs in its Best Practices. That’s over 80 percent of states that failed the test!…In total, states are spending close to $470 million on tobacco prevention and cessation programs in the 2015-2016 fiscal year. However, this is less than 2 cents of every dollar or close to $26 billion total that states receive from tobacco settlement payments and tobacco taxes each and every year.

Why am I writing about the Tobacco Settlement in a climate change blog you ask? Because CO2 is simply the next Tobacco Settlement. The SJW looters have squandered all the Tobacco Settlement money, and they need to be fed. Tobacco, Utilities, Energy, Soft Drinks/Staples, Drugs, and Healthcare are the ideal industries to loot. They are all recurring revenue sources with what economists call “inelastic demand” meaning that you can tax it and you won’t kill the host because the cost increase is easily passed on to the consumer. For the parasitic socialist system to survive, it must keep the host alive or they both die. Taxation is and always will be the objective of the SJWs, the sanctimonious packaging “social justice” is simply to fool the gullible. Socialism doesn’t survive by doing good for its people, it survives by continually finding new food supplies to feed the angry socialist Alligators.

 

Only when one understands the political strategy detailed above does climate change make any sense. Climate change isn’t about science, it is about politics. In reference to Rule For Radicals #1: Power is What the Enemy Thinks You Have, the power the climate alarmists project is the illusion of a “consensus,” supported by “peer review” and Academic and Scientific Organizations. The power they think they have is that they have fooled everyone that the “science” supports their position, and they have gone to great lengths to manufacture that facade. For the real scientists to win the hearts and minds of the public, they need to expand their approach from arguing the science, to playing politics. If they are going to win in the political area, they must first “Know-thy-Enemy,” and that is what this Rules for Climate Radicals series hopes to accomplish/expose. Real scientists must understand and incorporate the tactics of the SJWs in their efforts, or risk losing the war for climate truth.

Related Articles:

Rules for Climate Radicals; “Accuse the Other Side of That Which You Are Guilty”

The Days of “Trust Me” Science Are Over

Michael Mann Just Jumped the Climate Change Shark

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Should Counter-sue The Climate Loons

This slideshow requires JavaScript.


Believe it to not, the climate loons have actually sued EPA Chief Scott Pruit for “climate science denial.” No that isn’t a joke.

EPA’S PRUITT SUED TO BACK UP CLIMATE CHANGE CLAIMS
Pruitt Should Put Up Evidence Supporting Stance or Cease Climate Denials

Posted on Apr 13, 2017 | Tags: climate, EPA

Washington, DC — A lawsuit filed today seeks the data that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt relied upon in making statements that human activity is not a “primary contributor” to climate change. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) also seeks to determine whether EPA possesses a single study that supports Mr. Pruitt’s stance.

Scott Pruitt should countersue and finally force the climate loons to prove their case is court. Fortunately, I’ve been preparing for this opportunity for years, and already have a pre-packaged prosecution: Climate “Science” on Trial; The Criminal Case Against the Alarmists.

How to Discuss Global Warming with a “Climate Alarmist.” Scientific Talking Points to Win the Debate.

The climate alarmist’s case is built upon pillars of sand and will crumble under scrutiny: Climate “Science” Pillars of Sand; Eroding the Foundation of the Hoax

When you boil it down, climate “science” is nothing more that the most recent leftist social movement: Climate Change is a Political Battle, Not a Scientific One.

At best, climate “science” can be called pseudoscience: Climate “Science” is Pseudo-Science; A Point-by-Point Proof.

If this were a real “science” the evidence presented would be valid models that explain the climate. They simply don’t exist: Climate “Science” on Trial; If Something is Understood, it can be Modeled.

Not only do no accurate models exist, there are no experiments either: Climate “Science” on Trial; Confirmed Mythbusters Busted Practicing Science Sophistry.

The unadjusted and satellite data certainly don’t support the alarmists’ claims:

Ceteris Paribus; Less is More, Use Only Data Sets That Don’t Require “Adjustments.”

Climate “Science” on Trial; Temperature Records Don’t Support NASA GISS

Climate “Science” on Trial; Cherry Picking Locations to Manufacture Warming

Climate “Science” on Trial; How Does Ice Melt In Sub-Zero Temperatures?

They offer no real solutions, and their solutions do more harm than good: Hey, Genius!!! Thick Polar Sea Ice Kills Whales and Polar Bears

With Friends Like Environmentalists, the World Doesn’t Need Enemies

“It’s Official, Global Warming and Higher CO2 Ended the California Drought!!!”

Climate “Science” on Trial; Germany Builds Wind Farms While NATO Burns

Climate “Science” on Trial; Clear-Cutting Forests to Save the Trees

Even if there are costs, they don’t outweigh the benefits: Just How Much Does 1 Degree C Cost?

The Benefits of Higher CO2 Levels; Fewer Hurricanes, Greater Prosperity, Longer Life

The major claims made by the climate alarmists simply aren’t supported by the evidence: Y=mX+b, how does Constant CO2 Cause a Change in Temperature?

Coral Reef Sophistry

American Lung Association Never Mentions CO2 as Harmful to Human Health

Northern Atlantic Storm Shows How Natural Causes Affect Arctic Sea Ice

The main basis for support, peer review and consensus are baseless: Scientists Not Served Here; Real Scientists Need Not Apply

Climate Bullies Gone Wild; Caught on Tape and Print

Climate “Science” on Trial; The Consensus is more Con and NonSense than Science

There is a long history of climate “science” fraud just waiting to be exposed: Climate Science Behaving Badly; 50 Shades of Green & The Torture Timeline

The real fact is that the climate alarmists don’t have anything to support their claims so they rely on political theater, intimidation, and bullying to perpetuate the illusion of validity. It is time we pull the curtain away and expose this hoax in the court of law.

Michael Mann Just Jumped the Climate Change Shark

I Am Woman Hear Me Roar; Michael Mann’s Bullying Backfires

Climate “Science” Gone Mad; The True Face of Envirofascism

Climate “Science” on Trial; Climate McCartyism

Rules for Climate Radicals; “Accuse the Other Side of That Which You Are Guilty”

Please like, share, subscribe and comment…and forward on to Scott Pruitt at the EPA.

 

 

 

Y=mX+b, how does Constant CO2 Cause a Change in Temperature?

Junk science_1In real science, numbers speak, and they talk through what is called a regression. Most people are familiar with the 2nd-grade bean plant experiment where you shine different amounts of light on different bean plants and measure the rate of growth. Y, the dependent variable, is the bean plant height, X, the independent variable, is the amount of sunlight allowed to reach the bean plant, m is the slope or rate of change of the bean plant per unit of light, and b is the constant, which in this case would be the starting height of the plants. This model then defines the change in Y for a change in X. Other than setting the base or “Y-Intercept” the constant b really doesn’t impact the dependent variable at all.

Applying this scientific approach to climate change, temperature is the dependent variable and CO2 is the independent variable over a long time series. The theory goes that over time CO2 increases resulting in an increase in temperature, put another way, temperature is a function of CO2, or T=f(CO2). This model, however, is deeply flawed and demonstrates a disturbing ignorance of science, modeling, and the physics behind the greenhouse gas effect.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

The first and likely most serious flaw is that the T=f(CO2) model is defined as linear. It isn’t. CO2 doesn’t cause warming, CO2 is simply a gas. The absorption of long-wave infrared radiation between 13 and 18 microns by CO2 can cause warming through “thermalization,” as well as cooling by facilitating the transport of energy out of the atmosphere through radiation.  The real model is Temperature is a function of the outgoing energy absorbed and thermalized by CO2. That relationship isn’t linear, it is logarithmic. T isn’t a function of CO2, T is a function of log(CO2), and that dramatically changes the behavior of the model. Small changes don’t mean much in logarithmic models, and in most cases render CO2 not much different than a constant. CO2 is also constant by latitude, longitude, and altitude, so regional differences can’t be explained by CO2. Temperature change in one location with 400 ppm CO2 can’t be caused by CO2 when the lack of temperature change in another location also has 400 ppm.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Application of this principle can be found in recent research done on the Greenland ice sheet. It found that there were dramatic temperature changes during times of stable CO2 levels. The importance of this is that there must be factors not included in the T=f(CO2) model that are missing. You simply can’t explain such variation in the dependent variable with a constant, or even an independent variable whose impact is measured on a logarithmic scale. Also, there is nothing in the T=f(CO2) model that would ever allow for cooling, the only mechanism by which CO2 can impact climate is by trapping and thermalizing radiation. Climate alarmists completely ignore/deny the cooling effect of radiation.

This period, known as the “last deglaciation,” included episodes of abrupt climate change, such as the Bølling warming [~14.7–14.5 ka], when Northern Hemisphere temperatures increased by 4–5°C in just a few decades…Greenland Warmed By 8-15°C Within Decades During Last Glacial CO2 concentrations remained essentially stable and dangerously low (~180 parts per million) throughout the last glacial (roughly 80,000 to 15,000 years ago). And yet despite the lack of CO2 flux, Greenland’s surface temperatures often warmed by about 10.0°C within a matter of decades during this period. This indicates that CO2 variability is not a detectable factor in abrupt climate changes.

That is a second major flaw in the T=f(CO2) model, it simply leaves out many factors that are more important/significant than CO2. T=(CO2) is like doing a model on weight loss and not including caloric intake and exercise.

When I dug further into the issue, I discovered that an Arctic Hurricane was responsible for the sudden loss of ice. I didn’t even know Hurricanes occurred that far north and the media did nothing to inform me of the event.

Please, like, share, subscribe and comment.

Hey, Genius!!! Thick Polar Sea Ice Kills Whales and Polar Bears

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

One thing our loving “Friends of the Earth” don’t seem to understand is that thick sea ice is a death sentence for Whales and other aquatic mammals. By promoting policies intended to thicken the Arctic sea ice, what they are really doing is sentencing countless sea mammals to death. Ironically, it was John D. Rockefeller and his kerosene that saved the whales in the 1800s, and today environmentalists want to reverse his gains.

Almost 25 years ago, the world’s attention was rapt on three gray whales stranded by encroaching sea ice off the coast of Alaska and the effort to free them.

Dave Withrow, a marine mammal biologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), was called in to help with the rescue, which had to contend with frigid temperatures, persistently freezing ice and coordinating a wide range of groups that wanted to help with the effort.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

BTW, no holes in the sea ice, no seals, no seals, no polar bears. Al Gore is no friend of the Polar Bear. Polar bears can’t live on snow and ice, they thrive during periods of low sea ice.

Alaskan Polar Bears Threatened…By Too Much Spring Ice

Five meters of ice– about 16 feet thick – is threatening the survival of polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea region along Alaska’s Arctic coast, according to Dr. Susan J. Crockford, an evolutionary biologist in British Columbia who has studied polar bears for most of her 35-year career.
That’s because the thick ice ridges could prevent ringed seals, the bears’ major prey, from creating breathing holes they need to survive in the frigid waters, Crockford told CNSNews.com.

Capture24

Please like, share, subscribe and comment.

Bill Nye Gets Eaten By the Crocodile

quote-an-appeaser-is-one-who-feeds-a-crocodile-hoping-it-will-eat-him-last-winston-churchill-37143

Self-anointed climate “expert” and mechanical engineer Bill Nye the Pseudo-Science Guy discovered just how fickle his fair weather liberal friends truly are.  It turns out this “March for Science” isn’t a march for science at all, it is yet another left-wing Orwellian political love fest.

Q: How does the march define being political? A: “The march is explicitly a political movement, aimed at holding leaders in politics and science accountable. When institutions of any affiliation skew, ignore, misuse or interfere with science, we have to speak out. Science should inform political decision making. At the same time, political decisions deeply influence the type of science we are able to do and the type of people who are allowed to conduct science and benefit from scientific advancements.”

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Unlike the highly unified, focused, peaceful, inclusive, and organized Tea Parties, left-wing Orwellian political love fests always break down into nonsensical, counterproductive, divisive and exclusionary internal-squabbles, as each unrelated and often oppositional faction fights for attention. Just recently the Women’s March excluded Pro-Life Women. I guess the desire and willingness to kill your girl baby is essential to making you a woman. Ironically, the political left’s anti-Vietnam War rhetoric included calling our soldiers “baby killers.”

Except that I am not invited, despite my unambiguous status as a member of the female sex. That’s because I am pro-life. As the organizers of the march made clear in a statement earlier this week, the Women’s March’s on Washington “platform is pro-choice” and “has been since day one.”

IMG_0731-1

It shouldn’t be any surprise then when the “About Anything BUT Science March” has degenerated into an internal street fight. The first victim to get hit with the Rainbow Colored Nightstick is Bill Nye the gullible Pseudo-Science Guy. Yes, the same Bill Nye that supports imprisoning “climate deniers,” whatever that is. Bill Nye was gullible enough to think that he was actually supported by the left-wing, and not simply being used by them as a Useful Idiot. It turns out Bill Nye fills the wrong quota. Bill Nye is a rich, white presumably heterosexual white guy, and that just doesn’t fit with the “Science” March’s anti-white privilege, pro-diversity, anti-establishment blah blah blah, oh, and pro-pseudo/politicized science platform.shutterstock_396852658

Solely because of his race, the non-discriminatory, all inclusive “About Anything BUT Science Farce  March” Bill Nye The Gullible White Liberal Guy will be asked to take a seat in the back of the Equality/Diversity Marxists Politicization of Science Bus. The organizers have promised to set up separate but equal water fountains, restrooms and food counters for Bill and all his white male friends to use as well. Bill Nye has finally run out of friends and family to feed the crocodile and is being served up as the main dish at the “Science March’s” all you can eat banquet for hungry liberal crocodiles.

The March for Science is having a tough time deciding whether the march should focus on “diversity and inclusion” or health and climate policy.

Nye…was slated to be the March’s chair, and an announcement was made last week. But organizers quickly panicked that having Nye at the forefront of the event meant they might be substantiating the idea that scientists are only old white men.

“I love Bill Nye,” said Stephani Page, a member of the March’s board, who was critical of  what she considered the March’s lack of diversity…”He is a white male, and in that way he does represent the status quo of science, of what it is to be a scientist.”

To round out the March’s public face, then, the people in charge were forced to add two women of color as Nye’s co-chairs, “to put up a picture of science that did not just fit the white male image.”

Instead of reading and promoting pseudo-science, Bill Nye should be studying history. History does not paint a rosy picture for Useful Idiots. Once they have served their purpose, they are the first to be thrown to the crocodiles. Maybe Bill Nye should organize a march against white discrimination? The undeniable evidence is all over the headlines. Where is the EEOC and Loretta Lynch when we need them? Don’t white lives matter?maxresdefault (5)

Please like, share and subscribe.

Heads I Win, Tails You Lose; Hansen Used to Argue Less Greenhouse Gas Would Cause Warming

phd_in_pseudoscience_scientists_248695

Back in 1986 NASA’s climate “expert” James Hansen claimed ozone depletion would result in catastrophic warming. No mention of CO2.

A dramatic loss of ozone over the Antarctica proves the “greenhouse” effect” is real and presages a gradual warming of the earth that threatens floods, drought, human misery in a few decades and — if not checked — eventually extinction of the human species, scientists warned Tuesday… James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said global temperatures should be 2 degrees higher in 20 years. “Which is the warmest the earth has been in the last 100,000 years.”

19860611-ap-421x1024

Thank God Hanson wasn’t working in the Mercury, Saturn or Apollo projects where the real rocket scientists worked. Accuracy is critical for an organization like NASA.  Anyway, this article is wrong is so many ways. James Hansen is arguing that less ozone, a potent greenhouse gas, would result in warming. CO2 absorbs LWIR at 13 to 18 microns, consistent with a black body of -50 to -110 degrees C. Ozone, O3, absorbs at 10 microns, dead center of the atmospheric window, and consistent with earth’s average temperature of around 18 degrees C. Note how CO2 and H20 absorptions overlap in the “cool tail” (above 10 microns) of the black body curve, and CO2 absorption if absent from the “warm tail” (below 10 microns). The peak wavelengths emitted from earth are centered around 10 microns. The blue is the “atmospheric window, transparent to most LWIR except Ozone. Hansen is arguing that by reducing the only greenhouse gas that absorbs the major wavelength emitted by the earth, 10 microns, will result in warming. In other words, both more and less greenhouse gas can cause warming. Heads I win, tails you lose.

The peak wavelengths emitted from earth are centered around 10 microns. The blue is the “atmospheric window, transparent to most LWIR except Ozone. Hansen is arguing that by reducing the only greenhouse gas that absorbs the major wavelength emitted by the earth, 10 microns, will result in warming. In other words, both more and less greenhouse gas can cause warming. Heads I win, tails you lose.bf899-atmospheric_transmission

The other problem is that the ozone holes is over Antarctica. Antarctica hasn’t shown any warming over the past 50+ years.

amundsen

While satellite temperatures show basically no warming since 1986 (current temperatures are below the levels reached in 1987), James Hansen’s “adjusted” temperatures come pretty close to the 2-degree increase if you use degrees F. Pretty good evidence you should never allow the person that makes the prediction also control the data “adjustments.”

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Just a few years earlier the headlines were all about the coming Ice Age. Oddly, CO2 is never really mentioned in the articles of the 1970 and early to mid-1980s.

48066-1

Over the past 20 years, life hasn’t gotten worse, it has gotten much better. Human misery has declined, the globe has greened, and population has exploded.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Lastly, we are nowhere near the highest temperature of the past 100,000 years, we aren’t even at the highest temperature of the Holocene. If you just use unadjusted consistent thermometer data over the past 300 years, there has been little to no warming at all. If you use the satellite data for the areas not corrupted by the urban heat island effect, there is no warming since the inception of the data.

Screen-Shot-2013-07-17-at-9.07.15-PM

How someone can be so consistently wrong and still work at NASA is beyond me, but with research and conclusion like the ones produced by James Hansen, I think it is clear it is time to get NASA back on track and focused on its main mission. It is truly saddening to know that we shut down the Space Shuttle to fund such pseudo-science nonsense. Let’s get back to making American Great Again.

aerion-as-2_new-york_lr.jpg

Please like, share and subscribe.

Ceteris Paribus; Less is More, Use Only Data Sets That Don’t Require “Adjustments.”

Capture23.PNG

CO2 blankets the globe at 400 ppm, so as far as any cross-sectional multivariable model it is considered a constant. In other words, at any one period in time, CO2 can not explain regional differences in temperature. CO2 is 400 ppm at the N. Pole, S. Pole, and the Equator. You can’t explain a variation with a constant, especially one that traps outgoing, not incoming radiation.

CO2, however, does vari over a time series. Each year CO2 increased by about 4 ppm, or about 1%, and vari as much as 11 ppm peak to trough. CO2, therefore, can explain variation over time of temperature. Key is, for all modern data sets, CO2 since the beginning of the industrial age, the period of study, CO2 only increases, it never decreases. If CO2 is the independent variable and temperature is the dependent variable, ceteris paribus, CO2 can only cause temperature to increase. CO2 can not explain drops in temperature. There is no defined mechanism by which CO2, trapping LWIR between 13 and 18 microns, can ever result in cooling. Absorbing radiation can only cause warming according to the AGW theory. In reality, CO2 causes cooling, not by absorbing, but by

Absorbing radiation can only cause warming according to the AGW theory. In reality, CO2 causes cooling, not by absorbing, but by increasing the transmission of radiation into outer-space. Greenhouse gasses impact temperature in two ways. The first and one embraced by the climate alarmists is through the absorption and “thermalization” of the outgoing radiation. Greenhouse gasses get “excited” when they absorb LWIR. No argument there. The “excitement” of the greenhouse gas is only temporary, and the absorbed radiation is rapidly re-radiated. This re-radiation of energy, directed away from the earth, rapidly transfers the energy out of the atmosphere and into outer-space resulting in cooling of the atmosphere. So greenhouse gasses can both warm and cool the atmosphere.  mlo_two_years

Because CO2 blankets the globe, there is really no need to include all areas, in fact, a well-run experiment would seek to remove many/any places that are impacted by factors over than CO2. In science, you want to “control” for as many factors as you can, and attempt to isolate the impact of changing just the independent variable on the dependent variable, i.e ceteris paribus.

Land measurement are all contaminated by many many many factors other than CO2, the best known is the “urban heat island effect.” Climate “scientists” compound this problem far far far more than they have to. CO2 is 400 ppm over the cities and is 400 ppm over the oceans. Oceans almost uniformly cover over 70% of the earth’s surface and inner Antarctica is almost uniformly snow. The oceans and inland Antarctica are ideal “controls” for the impact of CO2 on temperature.

Antarctic shows no warming since the late 1950’s even though CO2 has increased significantly, none. Neither do the oceans. The introductory graphic is a compilation of ocean lower troposphere temperatures. That data can be found here. Prior to the recent El Nino, temperatures were below the level reached in the early 1980s. While there are large variations, there is no significant established trend of warming. NASA/NOAA/CRU “adjusting” surface temperature data gathered in areas where the corruption of the CO2 temperature relationship is guaranteed demonstrates an ignorance of biblical proportions of collecting relevant data and proper modeling or a willful effort to deceive the public. By using known corrupted data sets, it has allowed the “adjustment” of the global climate data to fit the desired outcome.

In reality, a real scientist would want less temperature data, not more data. The climate data collected to study the impact of CO2 on climate should be limited to the areas there the impact of CO2 and temperature can be isolated and doesn’t need “adjustment.” Many real scientists like Dr. Willy Soon spend countless hours trying to “un-adjust” the data sets in an effort to reach the truth. These are noble efforts, but by using surface ground measurements, the data will always be corrupted. Interestingly, if one isolates the ground temperature measurements to just the locations that have long term unadjusted thermometer data, one also finds no warming. Only when the data gets “adjusted” does the warming develop. To fix this problem, the need to “adjust” the data should be eliminated. Only data that isolates the impact of CO2 on temperature should be used, and that data comes from over the oceans and inland Antarctica, and that data shows no warming.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

If President Trump wants to cut government spending, he should start by cutting all funding that is being used to collect corrupted data sets. Why spend money to only complicate the issue, and reward the propagation of psuedo-science? Data collection should be directed at collecting the purest data relevant to the theory. If CO2 drives temperature is the theory, collect data that best helps establish that connection. The data being collected today requires extreme “adjustments” and concentrates a lot of power in the hands of unelected guardians of the key, the keepers of the climate ring. The possibility of corruption is simply too high, and the consequences too great to risk.