I wrote in Climate Change: Why I no longer believe… that I had investigated and changed my mind on CO2 being a global crisis. Let me repeat that – I started out believing it was a crisis, dug into the background and details, read materials unapproved of by those “in charge”, and changed my mind. Part of that change included reading materials disapproved-of by many in my social circles. (Aside: back in my college years people – including me – were proud to declare I read banned books! Today, many of those same people now want to ban books – and websites and magazines.) To any who would immediately dismiss me, I would counter with a simple question: When presented with broader, more in-depth evidence that – over time – paints a picture contradicting what you “know” is true, what do you do? Which type of person are you?
Let me be clear and repeat: There is no question that the climate does change. That’s very readable from both within humanity’s recorded history, as well as across geologic time (but if it has changed in the past independent of mankind – and it has, and markedly – how can anyone be so cocksure about it being manmade now?). Speaking of humanity’s history, the Warmists are crowing “SEE! SEE!” about the current hurricane season. Certainly, between Harvey, Irma, Jose, and now Maria… and who knows how many more… it’s bad. But to imply that there have never been catastrophic storms before? In reply, try this article: Was The Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635 Caused By Climate Change? There have been catastrophic storms throughout not just modern history, but within all recorded history; further, archaeology into ancient times and even before mankind show massive storms occurred as well. If it is mankind’s CO2 emissions that are the cause of Harvey, Irma, etc., what explains those others that came before we started industrializing – or even existed as the dominant species?
Now before I really dig in, I want you to look at the temperature data recording sites from the year 1900 shown graphically in this article. Here’s one:
Notice something? There are almost none. And this doesn’t even mention the fact that, in 1900 there were few official records kept. For example, Africa, 11.7 million square miles, had about 20 temperature stations in 1900. That’s about 600,000 square miles per temperature station; in comparison the contiguous United States is 3.1 million square miles. If America had that same density of temperature stations, it would mean a grand total of… five. Do you think the “average temperature” of the lower 48 could be accurately captured by five stations? And not only are there literally millions of square miles of just land without such stations for most of human history, there is the entirety of the oceans, where temperatures (and other data) went unrecorded because there were no stations or instruments recording them. Any proxy data, like tree ring data or ice cores or anything else are just that: proxies with significant error bars dwarfing the signal being sought. As an added wrinkle, think about the temperatures of the atmospheric columns above the surface… and the fact there is no historical data there, either.
So if you then look me in the eye and, with a straight face mind you, tell me that with these gaping holes in the historical records an annual signal of .03 C or so can be pulled from the data when – on a daily basis there are temperature shifts that can be 1000 times the signal – then IMHO, speaking as an engineer with two Masters degrees and a graduate certificate in Six Sigma, you cannot remain credible in my eyes.
I was searching for a very specific article on heat losses radiated back to space which, from memory, showed that the models assumed that as the earth heated up temperature losses to space would go down – something contrary to standard radiation heat transfer – but that actual measurements showed what would be expected by theory: heat radiation to space went up as temperatures went up. I didn’t find it, but I did come across this post, Remote Sensing Systems apparently slips in a ‘stealth’ adjustment to warm global temperature data, from 2016. What’s fascinating is the animated chart, which I’ve pulled:
Now, stare at it. What’s happening? On the left, the data don’t change upward while on the right, they do. So several observations to peg out the BS meter:
- If there were systematic adjustments because of a discovered bias in the data, those adjustments would likely be uniform across the X-axis. They’re not, clearly not.
- Remember the signal being discussed: 3 C in a century, means .03 C per year. Things don’t need much “adjustment” to create that (whether intentional or not).
- Where is the accounting for how the adjustment was made, and why it was necessary? If you are an honest researcher, interested in truth, you can explain it – and to a level of detail where someone else is able to replicate it.
And more broadly, two excellent observations from Is the Earth’s Climate History Largely a Fraud? (bolding added):
So the Earth’s temperature “record” has been subjected to endless adjustments and alleged corrections by the very people who are trying to use that record to justify billions of dollars in payments to themselves. In any other context I know of, this is considered corrupt and perhaps felonious.
Observation trumps theory. What is extraordinary about our current situation is that the people who created the self-interested and politically-motivated models also control the temperature record, and they have been changing it to make their models, and their entitlement to billions in government grants, look better.
This is, in my opinion, the greatest scandal in the history of science.
Another adjustment here – hiding the 1940’s temperature spike: WMO : 1940 Warmth “Extraordinary” – Post 1940 Cooling “Real”. And read the imaged letter, discussing reducing temperatures to conceal actual, real rises in temperature during that time. This cannot be considered, by anyone with a scintilla of integrity, to be anything other than conspiracy to commit fraud.
Today’s temperature data may even be mismeasured due to new equipment and thus cannot be directly correlated to prior historical data; data may even be “adjusted” before they get to the official records:
Supposedly the Unadjusted data are ‘as measured’ values, but the NOAA-NCEI advises on its GHNC web page “…it is entirely possible that the source of these data (generally National Meteorological Services) may have made adjustments to these data prior to their inclusion within the GHCNM.”
If the data are even reported that is:
On average, 43% of the 1218 USHCN stations report no monthly temperatures, and are marked with an “E”. i.e. their data is missing. This is up from less than 11% in 1991.
Let’s not forget data that are outright fabricated; take a look at this animated graph, alternating between one image showing “record temperatures” in Africa, yet the other shows that there are vast swaths of land with no temperature recording facilities whatsoever.
And a follow-up image from the same article, with satellite data showing normal temperatures in the very areas where “record temperatures” are being claimed.
In other words, there are no land-based temperature data, the satellite data show normal temperatures, so to create an impression of a crisis they make sh*t up. Even when they have data, “cherry picking” happens; example:
Sorry. If you have data, you do not get to ignore it; if you have a broader scope of time scale, you do not get to cherry-pick the window you want when otherwise it would negate your claim; the data should lead to your conclusion, not the other way around. All that acreage burned before the levels of eeeevil CO2 started rising, yet you claim CO2 is responsible for acres burned? That is data a person with even a scintilla of integrity cannot ignore. The person who drew this chart has an agenda, and truth is not on the list. Another article about fires pre-CO2 rise.
Hammering this home:
You have people feeding off of vast sums of money on the basis of what their models prognosticate; these same people control both the data sets used to validate the models as well as the measurement systems gathering said data, and on top of this restrict access to those models’ innards and that those data sets by others not “of the body”.
In any other field this would be prima facie evidence of a titanic conflict of interest and a strong inference of outright fraud (let alone the actual evidence thereof). Yet the True Believers yawn. Their priesthood is beyond reproach.
And while unrelated to climate, here’s an article, UN Body Edited Inconvenient Data Out Of Its Landmark Pesticide Study, about changing data to meet the desired conclusion, not the other way around (bolding added):
IARC scientists removed “multiple scientists’ conclusions that their studies had found no link between glyphosate and cancer in laboratory animals,” Reuters reported of the changes, noting that animal testing was largely how IARC justified its conclusion.
“In each case, a negative conclusion about glyphosate leading to tumors was either deleted or replaced with a neutral or positive one,” Reuters reported of the 10 major changes made to IARC’s draft document.
This happens so often there’s even a website – and probably more than one – devoted to exposing when papers get retracted. So don’t you dare tell me that research is inviolate and incorruptible. Don’t you dare tell me that people with PhDs are universally-angelic personalities unsullied by monetary or agenda-driven interests, or that governmental bureaucrats are titans of virtue seeking only the best public good. And this applies to every subject and line of inquiry.
THE IMMUTABLE HOLY WRIT OF CO2
(Image: Person who got the atmospheric CO2 level of their birth year tattooed on their arm.)
Speaking of True Believers in the new environmental paganism, consider this article, UN Admits It Can’t Link Global Warming To The Spike In World Hunger, Then Does It Anyway. All bad things come from man’s emissions of CO2, even if it can’t be proven. Believe absent proof: the very definition of a faith. They’re now claiming that the Mexico earthquake is caused by climate change. Seriously.
The Holy Writ is, essentially, that CO2 emissions will be a catastrophe, and nothing changes that final conclusion. For example, consider the news that the models are over-predicting the warming; e.g., Climate change models may not have been accurate after all as study finds most widely overestimated global warming:
A new study in the journal Nature Climate Change looked at 117 climate predictions made in the 1990’s to the actual amount of warming.
Out of 117 predictions, only three were accurate. The other 114 overestimated the amount by which the Earth’s temperature rose.
The predictions were roughly twice the amount of global warming than had actually occurred.
But wait, there’s more (bolding added):
‘This is neither surprising nor particularly troubling to me as a climate scientist,’ Melanie Fitzpatrick, a climate scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, told FoxNews.com. ‘The work of our community is constantly to refine our understanding of the climate system and improve models based on that,’ she says.
- I thought everything was known to within the proverbial gnat’s ass; this indicates it’s not. Hubris, because there’s no indication anyone will step back and question the fundamentals.
- The bolded part, especially, translates to every response from Creationists when I’ve debated them: “We’re clearly not interpreting the Scriptures correctly.” The idea that the fundamental assumption, the Holy Writ of CO2, could itself be wrong is never considered.
Another article showing something completely new and unanticipated, but again – the Holy Writ never wavers. And remember how I said in my first article that it doesn’t matter if it’s warmer, colder, wetter, drier, stormier, or calmer… it’s all considered proof? Here’s a perfect example: Global Warming Could Be Causing Extreme Cold Snaps Or Something. Again, if a theory cannot be falsified, it’s not a theory – at least not a scientific one. Here are more “we’re doomed” predictions; a $1 bet that when these don’t come to pass, the Holy Writ will not waver or be questioned… because it’s a faith, not a science:
In Science, if you make a hypothesis, and it turns out wrong, you must match the conclusion to the data. In “climate science”, if the conclusion is wrong, change the data to match the hypothesis.
Speaking of falsification: The Problem With Climate Change Fanaticism In Two Headlines. Essentially, climate change was causing the unstoppable bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef. Right up to the moment when it was discovered the reef seemed to be starting to recover even as CO2 levels continued to rise. Why, one might almost be tempted to think that there are natural cycles to the thing. But that would violate the Holy Writ… something will be found to explain it away and CO2 will remain the villain. Yet another example where there is no wavering of the conclusion when the actual data contradict the prediction: Lake Superior Drying Up Due to Climate Change! No, Wait… And witness Kermit-the-frog arm waving that the sea levels are rising! Oh, wait… Oops! Sea Levels Dropping Everywhere, According to NASA. Now, is this just a couple of short-time-duration data points? Yes. But it certainly should force thinking people into reconsidering the meme of inexorable sea level rises. And one other thing:
According to Robert Felix at Ice Age Now, the water is actually “being locked up on land as snow and ice.” You don’t say? In fact, Greenland just recorded its largest accumulation of snow and ice ever, surpassing even last year’s growth.
So here is ice and snow both piling up but also melting at a frantic rate. This rises to Orwellian-levels of doublethink. Remember, what we’re seeing here is supposed to be utterly unprecedented. Oh, wait:
Here’s an article about icebergs melting and other radical changes seen in the arctic.
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.
This alarmism is from – drum roll please – 1922. But… but… but how can this be, since this happened before CO2 really started rising? Unless, of course, there are non-mankind-related factors. And another indicator of how earth’s temperature might have external influences, totally ignored of course, because to admit these would mean that the Holy Writ is wrong; Leftist Global Warming Mythology (bolding added):.
The left also ignores explanations for any global warming that do not involve human activity. Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research in Denmark, proposes a new theory for possible global warming and a new discipline, cosmoclimatology. Svensmark shows how cosmic rays have affected the climate on Earth over thousands of years. Perhaps even more persuasive, Svensmark notes that the climate changes of Mars track very closely the climate changes on Earth and that these changes fit closely into his theory that climate change is caused by cosmic rays and other forces of nature operating outside Earth. This does not preclude global warming; rather, it finds that natural forces, cosmic forces, in this case, account for global warming and not human activity.
There is evidence the earth’s temperature changes are not affected to any serious degree by mankind, as outlined in this journal article (bolding added):
[T]the GCMs models used to support the AGWT are very likely flawed. By contrast, the semi-empirical climate models proposed in 2011 and 2013 by Scafetta, which are based on a specific set of natural climatic oscillations believed to be astronomically induced plus a significantly reduced anthropogenic contribution, agree far better with the latest observations.
None of these things – none! – affect the predetermined conclusion that it is mankind’s CO2 emissions that are the driver. As I said, I’ve debated enough Creationists to know the mentality. It brings to mind a great quote by Frantz Fanon:
“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.”
Here’s a very interesting article pointing to over 60 scientists who have put their name to a letter: 60 scientists call for EPA endangerment finding to be reversed. What’s fascinating is that, apparently, there are more scientists who – upon hearing of this – want to get their names added to the signatory list. Go read it.
In an unrelated scientific field, scientists “still don’t know how a gyroscope stays pointed in a fixed direction”. A simple system of a solid body spinning, and “science” doesn’t understand it in toto. But, yup, they’ve got the earth-universe energy dynamic, a system with cycles within cycles within cycles, feedback loops within feedback loops within feedback loops, locked up and determinate to within a fraction of a degree. Uh huh. Right. Meanwhile, I have some prime self-irrigated land in Louisiana I want to sell you.
Every field of human inquiry is ripe for new evidence. For example, human origins – once believed to be in Africa per The Consensus – has a datapoint against that now. Is this conclusive disproof? No. But it does present the idea that nothing is known and proven for certain. People with humility grasp this. Another example: trans-fats – margarines, shortening, etc. – used to be viewed as the healthy alternative to natural animal fats like butter; no longer: Health Canada trans fat ban takes effect next year. I remember my parents switching from butter to margarine because it was “healthier”. Wait, that means altering conclusions once new evidence comes to light. How unlike “climate science”.
And on a lighter note – climate change toothpaste. Seriously. If that doesn’t make you facepalm, I don’t know what will.
It’s about money, as I said in my first essay. An embedded quote from India: Third World Needs Green Freebies to Survive (bolding added):
Addressing the UN General Assembly (UNGA), Swaraj said that it was not just mere coincidence that the world has witnessed hurricanes, earthquakes, rains that inundate storms which terrify.
“Nature sent its warning to the world even before the world’s leadership gathered in New York at the United Nations through Harvey,” she said, adding that once the gathering of world leaders at the UNGA began, an earthquake struck Mexico and a hurricane landed in Dominica.
“We must understand, this requires more serious action than talk. The developed world must listen more carefully than others, because it has more capacities than others.
“It must help the less fortunate through technology transfer and Green Climate Financing – that is the only way to save future generations,” Swaraj said.
Two things jump out.
First, the absurdity that “nature” is sending a warning to the world. Nature just is. This person is pulling a lesson from natural events that just happened to match her authoritarian ideology. And second, oh-how-conveniently, the way to remedy this is to take from richer nations and give to poorer ones. Which, translated into German and then back, comes out as “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.”
Say, what else did I say it was about? Oh, yeah, Socialism. That credo under whose aegis over 100 million people were murdered, and which is working so well in Venezuela that engineers, teachers, and even doctors are turning tricks to survive, and food is so scarce people padlock their fridges… in a country sitting on natural resources aplenty, a great climate for agriculture, and a prime attractions for what could be a thriving tourism industry.
Perhaps no movie scene better captures the desire for power than this one from Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith. One of the things those in power do is make criminals out of those who would oppose them; absent lightning bolts from fingers, Warmists desire legal lightening, to wit and reprising my prior tocsin about desires to file criminal charges against those who deny the faith, Calls to punish skeptics rise with links to climate change, hurricanes. (bolding added):
Brad Johnson, executive director of Climate Hawks Vote, posted last week on Twitter a set of “climate disaster response rules,” the third of which was to “put officials who reject science in jail.”
Climate skeptics have taken note of the alarming trend. “Ever since Hurricane Harvey, the global warming-hurricane hysteria has ratcheted up to levels I haven’t seen since 2006,” said Ms. Curry.
Anthony Watts, who runs the Watts Up With That blog, listed some of the threats to criminalize skeptics under the headline, “Hate on Display — climate activists go bonkers over #Irma and nonexistent climate connection.”
Climate Depot’s Marc Morano said the heightened vitriol aimed at those who dispute the link between climate change and extreme weather events is a sign that the global warming narrative is losing steam with the public and policymakers.
Another example: The Global Warming Thought Police Want Skeptics In ‘Jail‘ (bolding added):
Those who don’t buy into the man-made climate change narrative should be prosecuted as criminals.
“Put officials who reject science in jail,” someone named Brad Johnson who says he’s executive director of something called Climate Hawks Vote tweeted last month.
Remember, these people view themselves as Philosopher-Kings, the uber-elite intellectuals whose superior knowledge entitles them to be in charge. The freedom to debate and disagree, let alone that whole messy rule of The People as enshrined in the Constitution, is so inconvenient. One quote, embedded in the linked article, says it all about the authoritarian lust the Warmists have (bolding added):
A year ago a senior fellow emeritus at Britain’s Policy Studies Institute, Mayer Hillman, author of How We Can Save the Planet, told a reporter, “When the chips are down I think democracy is a less important goal than is the protection of the planet from the death of life, the end of life on it. This [rationing] has got to be imposed on people whether they like it or not.” (Hillman openly advocates resource rationing.)
A revealing slip of the mask, no? And what a disappointment that the climatistas will still have to put up with elections and the people and such. Authoritarianism is so much more fun.
Think I’m exaggerating about the alarmism? Here (bolding added):
The IMF chief’s comments come after research last month suggested there is a 1-in-20 chance that climate change will wipe out humanity by 2100.
US researchers said we’ll likely be wiped out in the next 100 years as a result of ‘low-probability high-impact’ events.
Experts from the University of California said an increase greater than 3°C could lead to ‘catastrophic’ effects, while an increase of more than 5°C will have ‘unknown’ consequences which could lead to the end of life as we know it.
So, never letting a crisis go to waste, they push for dictatorial power; as David Horowitz’s frontpagemag.com header states, “Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out”. Another lusting-for-tyranny quote, embedded from different source in this article confirms this (added emphasis preserved):
At the Paris climate summit in 2015, Professor Grubb said: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.” [Emphasis added.]
With them ruling and subsequently deciding who can live, and breed, and die, of course, after the hoi polloi put their unquestioning faith in the Superior Intellect. Remember, these advocates really do consider themselves, per Krauthammer’s Law, to be “better people”. They want to rule because it is their Divine Right as enlightened beings, and consider it their moral duty to “nudge” the hoi polloi because they really do believe themselves to be better, more intelligent, more noble, more moral, with good intentions… this brings to mind the famous C.S. Lewis quote:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
Since, in their minds, they are these superior beings… if you will, ubermenschen… then it’s not such a large step to move from “nudging” those who won’t do what’s good for them to “herding” and on to “culling”. Harken back to that quote from above – “… the end of life [on earth]”. If you truly believed this, if you truly believed that humanity is the defining threat to the biosphere, what wouldn’t you do to stop it, what actions couldn’t you rationalize? Don’t forget that it was American Progressives who were behind the Eugenics movement that forcibly sterilized undesirables to “improve humanity” – so surely saving all life on earth is orders of magnitude importanter. Marxism of various forms murdered over 100 million civilians in the 20th century in a True Believer pursuit of the “Great Utopia”; one trembles thinking what would they do with absolute power to save the biosphere itself. Suddenly, merely being jailed for being a Denier might not be so bad given the historical precedents…
Simply because I am a CO2 skeptic does not mean I am in favor of belching smokestacks, dumping chemicals in rivers and lakes, and so on. It breaks my heart to see trash alongside the road, or at the shore. I am teaching my children to be sure to throw everything in the trash, not down on the ground. I like blue skies, not the polluted miasma that I’ve seen in pictures of, say, China, so I am in favor of scrubbing technologies and other air-cleaning methods.
I am also in favor of green energy systems as appropriate. Local solar power panels have their uses. I once saw a house with a small windmill – good for them. And some years ago I went to a presentation on methane-using fuel cells, and a case study example was a beer brewery that used their own waste stream to produce the methane that then was processed by fuel cells to produce 100% of the power for their facility… FAN-TAS-TIC! I’m all for energy efficiency. And so on.
I want to preserve this beautiful planet for my children, and theirs, and theirs, to the tenth generation and beyond. We can, and must, do better. But I also understand that there are no perfect solutions, only intelligent choices that are required to continue to live in a technology-based society, and that we must have the freedom to debate those choices openly in the marketplace of ideas and do so based on facts and testable hypotheses, not hyperbole and alarmism. To tell someone to SHUT UP! bespeaks a dearth of intellectual capacity to formulate and support a rational argument, let alone an authoritarian discoloration of your soul.
Given the issues with the Holy Writ of CO2 as mentioned above, which build on and amplify those put forth in my first essay, I am deeply skeptical of the dangers of CO2, but am highly concerned about the mindless zealotry of the new environmental paganism, and what their apocalyptic terror of plant food might turn into should they gain the unlimited power they openly seek.
© 2017, David Hunt PE