Climate Change: Evisceration the Third

climate2bpolitics2bsaving2bthe2bplanet

 

THE IMMUTABLE HOLY WRIT

As I observed in both of my prior essays, Climate Change: Why I No Longer Believe. . . and Revisiting “Climate Change”, no matter what information comes to light that threatens key assumptions, the conclusion that CO2 is the prime driver of everything being seen – whether hotter, colder, wetter, drier, stormier, or calmer – never wavers from its North Star. For example, things are often – even if only implicitly – presented as though, prior to industrialization, nothing ever changed. Yet the Anasazi were driven out of their homes by a 75-year drought. Absent rising CO2 levels, what caused that? After all, it’s not like there’s been any fluctuations in global temperature before industrialization, or even mankind’s emergence onto the planet (oh, wait…):
icecores1-1-1
Let’s not forget that the below has happened without any industrialization and its CO2 emissions (bolding added):

There is general agreement that the Earth has warmed since the Little Ice Age. Temperature proxies may be hard to defend for portraying past temperatures, but there is secondary evidence. The Medieval Warm Period, 1,000 years ago, was probably warmer than now, contrary to Michael Mann and his Hockey Stick graph. They were growing non-hybridized wine grapes in northern England at that time. And the Vikings had three thriving settlements on the southwest coast of Greenland with perhaps three thousand inhabitants as detailed in Icelandic history. They had grazing animals and grew cool-weather crops. That is not possible today. The last Vikings were gone from Greenland by about 1300 A.D. because of the sudden onset of the Little Ice Age. There are clearly natural climate changes that still have not been fully elucidated. The science is not settled.

And what to make of this news about the Antarctic ice and vulcanism (not CO2)? Oops, NASA Finds Mantle Plume Melting Antarctica From Below, not ‘global warming’:

Researchers at NASA have discovered a huge upwelling of hot rock under Marie Byrd Land, which lies between the Ross Ice Shelf and the Ross Sea, is creating vast lakes and rivers under the ice sheet. The presence of a huge mantle plume could explain why the region is so unstable today, and why it collapsed so quickly at the end of the last Ice Age, 11,000 years ago.

Or this prediction of New York City underwater:

NASA’s top climate expert, James Hansen, predicted that by 2018 the Arctic would be ice-free, and Lower Manhattan would be underwater. Democrats call him a “climate prophet.”

Not to mention an ice-free arctic (same article as link, just above):

 

cice_combine_thick_sm_en_20171112

 

Why, it’s so ice-free Russia is building three nuclear-powered icebreakers to clear paths through the northern sea ice that doesn’t exist. Like I said, if it’s warmer, it’s climate change. If it’s colder, or there’s more snow in Alaska, it’s climate change. Remember, warming planets also cause record cold:

These experts just make things up as they go. Did any of them predict this? I don’t believe so, therefore they just change their predictions. The computer models haven’t predicted any climate or weather events with accuracy, so they just adjust the data.

The record cold is caused by global warming in the same way that droughts are caused by too much rain and the record snow in Erie, Pennsylvania is caused by warm weather. The ten-year gap between major storms and the almost twenty-year pause in warming are irrelevant, because the agenda must go on.

Speaking of contradictory predictions, planet earth is facing, simultaneously, desertification as well as floods. How’s this work again?

And a new peer-reviewed paper shows that cosmic rays, as modulated by solar activity, could have far larger effects than first thought. Yet despite this news the Holy Writ never varies, despite news like this:

Speaking to Daily Star Online, climate and weather experts predict one cold spell a week until the end of winter in the UK, warning “you have been cool and it will get colder”.

In the coming years, David Dilley, CEO of Global Weather Oscillations, believes winters will only become “more intense” in the UK due to a combination of “dangerous” climate factors.

His research shows that by 2019, Earth will enter a natural 120-year cooling cycle that happens roughly every 230 years, bucking the warming trend.

Predictions of low solar activity for 33 years between 2020 and 2053 are also predicted to send thermometers plummeting, according to his research.

Interestingly, there are Warmists criticizing this study with their own references. Which is the way it should be. Yet when skeptics do the same to Warmists, the response is the same: SHUT UP. It’s free speech and back-and-forth discussions for me, not for thee. Here’s a person trying to get funding to create a film and – in their own words – “think critically and independently” about climate change:

We applied to more than 45 film festivals worldwide and planned our release in Berlin in February 2017. The people who saw the film during rough viewings were enthusiastic and full of expectations on the impact the film would have on viewers. We sent out over hundreds of press releases, towards the bigger media channels and waited. However, it remained silent, very silent.

After calling journalists for reviews they simply refused. The story – according to them – was too confusing to the public during a time when ‘climate change was under pressure’ and populism was on the rise. They called it their ‘journalistic responsibility’ not to give it any positive attention (?!) Not only the journalists but almost all the bigger film festivals rejected the film as well for the same reason.

 

FRAUD

We are constantly assured that the “science is settled”; we are lectured that those studying climate have PhDs and thus – apparently – have risen above the earthly corruption of mere mortals and thus, as “scientists”, we are to back off and just trust them. Until we learn about fraud like the Great Glitter Scare (link in original):

Nature has just reported that the two Swedish scientists whose publication has been the basis of the microplastics scare have been found guilty of “misconduct in research” in a paper that they published in Science, which has since been retracted.

Note the part about how the data on the laptop was not backed up due to a “technical glitch” (uh huh) and then the laptop was stolen so the original data couldn’t be examined. How… convenient. So when it’s glitter, the – shall we agree suspicious? – lack of data for result reproduction causes the paper to be retracted.  Meanwhile, back on the climate ranch, they’re continually tweaking the data with no consequence (bolding added):

In my report of the Pause in November 2017 at WattsUpWithThat, I predicted that the RSS dataset would swiftly be tampered with to try to eradicate the Pause. Just weeks later, Dr Carl Mears, the keeper of that dataset, who is prone to describe skeptics as “deniers”, announced that there would indeed be a revision, which, when it arrived, airbrushed the Pause away.

What is interesting is that the airbrushing – i.e., the alteration of data ex post facto to suit the Party Line – has continued. The dataset as it stood a few months back swept away the embarrassing zero trend over the 18 years 9 months of the Pause and replaced it with a trend equivalent to 0.77 C°/century.

Every revision to the data seems to amplify the warming trend: If The Data Doesn’t Match The Theory – Change The Data:

 

2017-12-18193530_shadow

 

The 1999 NASA US temperature graph showed the US cooling since the 1930’s, but by 2015, the 1930-1998 cooling was turned into warming.

 

 

nasa-us-1999-2015-1

 

And if you can’t convince the proles with altered data, just make sh*t up (bolding added):

If station data is missing in a particular month, NOAA fabricates data for that month. In 1960, about 10% of the data was fabricated, but now about 42% of the data is fabricated.

 

percentfabricated_shadow

 

When people make up 42% of the data, they can get any shaped curve they want. This sort of fraud appears shocking, but is standard operating procedure for government climate scientists.

Understand that even as the IPCC is claiming 95% certainly in their climate change claims:

The latest climate document claimed that despite more than 16 years of essentially no increase in global temperatures in defiance of UN theories and predictions, politically selected IPCC experts were more certain than ever that humans were to blame for global warming — 95 percent sure, to be precise.

The actual data differ:

 

christy4_shadow

 

An excellent point from NASA’s Rubber Ruler: An Update (bolding added):

How does one validate a climate model using temperature observations, if those “observations” were themselves adjusted using models? Real science means using the scientific method, which means using physical measurements to test a hypothesis.

The simple explanation is that NASA is reversing that method. It apparently uses the global warming hypothesis to adjust physical measurements. That is not science. It is the opposite of science.

And while digging for a particular piece of information about the 97% consensus that I remembered reading recently, I found this article with this great graph:

 

Oreskesstudyre-run

 

But more importantly, this quote (bolding added):

The conclusions of the report are rather shocking, and it deserves close attention. No doubt, the group, which is based in Calgary, will be attacked as an energy industry front, but its examination of the underlying reports on which the alleged consensus is based can be replicated. One wayt (sic) or another, a fraud is being committed – either the debunking is a fraud, or more likely, the consensus claim is fraudulent. Given that trillions of dollars are at stake, this report deserves the closest possible examination.

Remember what I said in my first article on this subject? That the lack of ability to reproduce so much of the Warmist stuff, let alone the cloak-and-dagger concealment of data and methods, was the defining factor in my changing positions? Think about it: both the University of Chicago study and the work by John Cook in Australia claiming the “97% consensus” number cannot be replicated, but this research debunking it can.  Doesn’t that tell you something about what’s reliable vs. what’s not?

 

MONEY MONEY AND MORE MONEY!

Refer back to just above: “Given that trillions of dollars are at stake…” Of course climate researchers want more money and junket trips, e.g., Clean Energy Researchers Recommend More Research Money (bolding added):

The science is settled. If we want to save the world from climate change, we need to give clean energy researchers lots of money and not press too hard for results or ask too many questions about how they intend to spend it – especially the international collaboration component of their proposal, which I suspect will require regular expenses paid mass attendance by researchers at important scientific conferences around the world in places like Paris, Rio, Bonn and Cancun.

Aside: I remember a flier for an injection molding conference when I worked for a plastic molding facility… in the Grand Cayman Islands. In February. Can we spell J-U-N-K-E-T? Plant management said “Nobody’s going”. But that was private industry money; here, it’s just the taxpayers who pay for this. </sarcasm>

And another it’s-about-the-money article (bolding added):

The only thing that can stop it is forking over an ever-increasing sum of your hard-earned dollars to a big inefficient institution like the government. They’ll oversee the ongoing redistribution of US wealth to whomever the UN says deserve it, and provide taxpayer-backed “loans” to connected green-energy corporatists. 

And so the circle is complete. Researchers’ results justify massive taxes and fees and payouts for “green energy” and more research, which then get recycled to campaign coffers (let alone private pockets) to re-elect politicians who continue the advocacy for more taxes and regulations further research, which then justify more green energy subsidies… because we’re talking trillions of dollars… that’s an awfully big carrot for fraud (bolding added):

Sandor estimates that climate trading could be “a $10 trillion dollar market.” It could very well be, if cap-and-trade measures like Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer are signed into law, making energy prices skyrocket, and as companies buy and sell permits to emit those six “greenhouse” gases.

 

POWER POWER AND MORE POWER!

Don’t forget this circle is also used to justify the centralization of power by tyrant-wanna-be Socialists – The Never Ending Climate Hustle (bolding added):

As long as leading, celebrated climatistas talk about it as a reason to smash capitalism without any rebuke from the media, from Democratic politicians, or the climate science community, there is every reason for conservatives to reject the whole racket as a hustle for political power.

They openly admit their desire for utopia-on-Earth (bolding added, link in the original):

Included among these is a new documentary “inspired” by Naomi Klein’s book “This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.” If the title isn’t enough to give away Klein’s motives for attacking the climate “crisis,” then a comment she makes in the trailer — please forgive: watching the entire documentary would be as agonizing as any medieval torture — should.

“So here’s the big question,” says Klein. “What if global warming isn’t only a crisis? What if it’s the best chance we’re ever going to get to build a better world?”

Klein says she “spent six years wandering through the wreckage caused by the carbon in the air and the economic system that put it there.” Clearly, it is her goal to shatter the free-market system. The climate? It’s just a vehicle, a pretext for uprooting the only economic system in history that has brought prosperity and good health.

Klein’s statement is perfectly in line with Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, and in fact is almost an echo. Figueres acknowledged earlier this year that the environmental activists’ goal is not to spare the world an ecological disaster, but to destroy capitalism.

Of course, to do that people must be perfected.  And additionally, to save the planet, the economic pie must shrink:

[I]n order to reach the 10% reduction in emissions output, we have to plunge our economies into a recession 10 times worse than any we’ve ever experienced before. We hope Bows-Larkin doesn’t expect developed nations to eagerly support this idea.

No wonder I see articles praising micro-apartments and micro-houses. We’re being propagandized to accept less. And in general, understand the nature of these people and their Frankfurt School progenitors:

 

 

Pay particular attention to the quote at 11:23:

So just so we know what kind of people we’re dealing with here. Here are people who are fleeing [Nazi Germany] for their lives with their entire families. They come into a country that gives them asylum, puts no restriction on their political activity, doesn’t say a word about what they can say or not say, and the first thing they do when they get here is look around and say “How can we destroy this? How can we bring this down?”

Fans of this philosophy, the one that has killed over 100 million people in the 20th century (not soldiers – civilians), are prime drivers of the climate change agenda. Just don’t think that Socialism has ever resulted in anything other than:

 

socialism 4 panel

 

You really think they are going to sacrifice for the planet? That’s your job, rubes. Because they don’t really believe it: Obamas Planning To Buy Martha’s Vineyard Home: Report.

 

mencken urge to rule

 

IN THE SPIRIT OF EINSTEIN

Do you seriously believe people are going to give up massive research budgets, lavish trips, and the lucrative lecture circuit plus fawning adoration by the media… let alone the carbon offset business profits? Do you really think that politicians and ideologues screaming for more governmental authority and implementation of Socialism are likely to relinquish power voluntarily? So do an Einsteinian thought experiment:

Assume, for a moment, that my skepticism is correct. Assume that CO2 is not a significant factor in the earth’s climate, and that any variations in the earth’s climate are due to natural – i.e., outside humanity’s control – causes. What happens when this becomes widely known?

  • Topical research grants go away, laying waste to entire academic fiefdoms across the world
  • The lucrative lecture circuit dries up
  • The researchers get sued until their noses bleed, as do Al Gore and others, for fraud – and risk imprisonment to boot
  • “Green energy” business subsidies likely disappear
  • The research-green business-campaign coffer-feathered nest taxpayer milking machine gets shut down
  • The media, which has hyped this endlessly, also loses their coin-of-the-realm: their credibility
  • The oh-so-sophisticated people who virtue signaled about their greenness have ostrich-caliber egg on their faces
  • Politicians hopes for more power get dashed
  • Socialist hopes for their utopia-on-earth are likewise dashed

Like the Wizard of Oz, they can never permit people to look behind the curtain.  Instead, the agitprop will get dialed to 11.  And then 12.  And then ever-higher.

But, given the above, shouldn’t thinking people adjust their faith in the Holy Writ of CO2 accordingly?

© 2018, David Hunt PE