First of all, no one denies climate change. We deny the faux consensus that science knows what causes it and how to stop it. And I actually love science- real science that is. It really gets on my nerves when someone gets an incredulous look on their face and says in a whispery voice, “You don’t believe in climate change?” Then, “But, science…”
Honestly, after that all I hear is, “Wah, wah, wah…” like Charlie Brown because what follows is nothing but a regurgitation of the alarmist propaganda that the mainstream media feeds everyone like little birds with our mouths open.
Here’s the thing: Of course I believe in climate change! And so does everyone else with any sense. The climate has been changing since the earth was created and I can’t think of one person that I’ve ever met that didn’t agree with that.
What we “deny” is that science, a) knows for sure what causes climate change (rising CO2 levels) b) has any reliable model to predict with any degree of certainty what the climate will be at any future date c) that rising CO2 levels caused by humans are the primary culprit of climate change d) that there is anything at all humanity could do to prevent a change in climate, or e) that there is “97%” consensus among climatologists regarding a, b, c, or d!
Working backwards let’s first talk about the claim that “97% of scientists agree that climate change is real, man made, and dangerous” so famously tweeted by our very own former President Obama. Obama was referring to a paper put out by a scientist named Cook back in 2013 in which he makes the assertion that man is responsible for “most” of post-1950 warming (“most” meaning greater than 50% of). However, Cook nowhere mentions whether or not this is “dangerous”, so Obama did a little ad-libbing there.
How did Cook come up with this percentage? He examined 11,944 climate papers and divided them up according to whether or not they explicitly stated that man was indeed the main cause of global warming since 1950. Cook flagged 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, however when re-examined by others, only 41 of the 64 papers Cook flagged actually supported that consensus. Cook shockingly excluded 8,000 of the 11,944 papers in the sample because they didn’t express an opinion either way! He had created two extra categories of papers: one called “explicit endorsement without quantification” and the other “implicit endorsement”. Basically, he claimed papers that did not endorse his claim, actually did endorse his claim even though they didn’t say so outright. In light of these findings, the scientific “consensus” of Cook’s sample is actually .3%. That’s a 3, with a point in front of it folks. Three tenths of one percent is a far cry from 97%. You can read more about this in the article, Cooks’ ‘97% Consensus Disproven By A New Peer Reviewed Paper Showing Major Math Errors.
Here is a quote from one of the many misrepresented scientists in Cook’s study, Dr. Richard Tol, “Cook surveyed 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
As the late scientist and author Michael Crichton once said, “If it’s science, it isn’t consensus; if it’s consensus, it isn’t science.”
But, but, but, every new year is the “hottest year evah”, and melting glaciers, and tornadoes and hurricanes!!! About that…
How exactly do we compare the average temperature over a year and then compare to historical averages anyway? I’m so glad you asked. Climatologist and Statistician William Briggs explains that to come up with this statistic, climatologists gather measurements from bouys at sea, thousands of thermometers at various locations, balloons, etc and then “sort of” take their average and declare that number the official temperature of the earth for that year. Why does he use the term “sort of” when referring to the average obtained? Because, Briggs says, the places and methods used to measure temperature vary from year to year. Other problems with these measurements include the fact that thermometers used in 1914 are completely different from the ones we use now. 100 years ago, there were no where near the number of locations where temperature was recorded as there are now. Some thermometers once in remote wooded locations have had cities spring up around them. Thermometers break, they are serviced, bouys corrode, etc. Basically, there isn’t a whole lot of “exactness” in this method of measurement. To read more on this topic in this article, The Hottest Yeah Evah! Really?
All of these variables and we are assigning monumental meaning to temperature differences of thousanths of a degree in magnitude. Not logical.
As a matter of fact, a big media controversy was ignited when a high level whistleblower with an impeccable reputation- data science, climate, and satellite consultant John J. Bates- broke the news that “America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.”
Bates reveals that instead of using temperature readings from “good buoys”, the scientists used temperature readings from water taken in by ships. This is problematic because the ships themselves are sources of heat, leading to results skewed toward a hotter bias. The scientists also ignored lower temperature readings provided by satellites. More info on this story in the article, NOAA Whistleblower Claims Data Were ‘Adjusted’ to Make Global Warming Seem Worse.
And this is not the first time data has been found to have been manipulated. Back in 2009, prior to a UN climate summit, thousands of emails between climate scientists suggesting that they had manipulated and hidden data were leaked.
But, higher CO2 levels are melting glaciers!!
The fact is glaciers have been melting since long before the Industrial Revolution began to add CO2 to the atmosphere. For example, Glacier Bay was first surveyed in 1794. However, by 1879, when renowned naturalist John Muir visited, the ice had retreated more than 30 miles. You can read about his fact in this article, History and Geography of Glacier Bay Park. Clearly, some other factors are at play, but you won’t hear this in the mainstream.
But, there are so many more storms and hurricanes now due to global warming!!
There is no evidence at all to back up this claim. In 1954 there were actually three hurricanes twice the strength of Hurricane Sandy that hit the east coast in one year. This article for CNS News touts, NOAA: US Completes Record Breaking 11 Straight Years Without A Major Hurricane Strike. However, even as they are pointing out a record breaking hurricane drought, the end of the article cautions against the expectancy of the worst hurricanes ever due to rising CO2 levels. Go figure. Currently we are at a 60 year low in terms of tornado activity.
On top of all this, did you know that the global temperature has in fact NOT risen since 1998? The latest graph I could find shows the data up to October of 2015…
Of course, this is hotly refuted by many sources that claim this global warming “hiatus” as they call it (which is hilarious because it implies that they are sure this “hiatus” will end- which they have no way of knowing) is based on erroneous data. This claim is ridiculous in and of itself considering the above examples of scientifically “cooked” data (no pun intended).
So, is their any evidence that suggests something other than CO2 could be the primary driver behind climate change? Now that you mention it- yes.
Willie Soon has been researching the relationship between solar radiation and the Earth’s climate at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics for 22 years. He notes that the study of this particular correlation is nothing new. In fact, it dates back 5000 years. Chinese astronomers kept detailed records of sun spots and found that more sun spots resulted in warmer weather. Data gathered from locations in the US, the Arctic, and all the way to China show a very strong direct correlation between temperature and incoming solar radiation. Close correlations for temperature change as it relates to atmospheric CO2 concentration, however, are non-existent.
There is even direct evidence to show that direct changes in solar activity influence the “conveyor belt” circulation of the Atlantic Ocean currents. These solar fluctuations have been seen to cause variations in the surface temperature of the tropical Atlantic 5-20 years after the fact. To learn more about the solar link to temperature change you can check out this article from Quadrant online: Changing Sun- Changing Climate.
How reliable are those climate models anyway? First of all, these models that “predict” future climate are based on the assumption that indeed man made rising CO2 levels are the cause for temperature change. (This is called the AGW theory.) We’ve already seen that that assumption cannot be made based on the current evidence that we have. So what is the likelihood that all of these catastrophic predictions that are crammed down our throats will actually occur? I know statistics is super boring, but bear with me here while we dispel some of this “forecasted doom”.
William Briggs, a meteorology trained statistician explains, “A scientist writes a paper which states a horror is likely but not certain to occur IF AGW is true and IF a string of other conditions are met. The announcement is falsely taken as direct proof the horror will certainly occur. But the chance that the horror and AGW are both true and the string of conditions are true is necessarily less.” He then illustrates this point with an exaggerated example: “it is 60% likely bee stings will increase if AGW is true. But there is only (say) 10% chance that AGW is true. Therefore, there is only 60% x 10% = 6% chance we will see increased bee stings in the presence of AGW.”
Basically: Even if man made increases in CO2 are the primary cause of climate change (which we don’t have compelling evidence of), the odds of it resulting in the horrific climatic catastrophes predicted and shoved down our collective throat are somewhat small. And certainly, every single catastrophic storm event that occurs cannot be attributed to rising CO2 levels- especially when said catastrophes occurred at similar rates in the past prior to rising CO2 levels. Come on people!
This may leave you wondering why in the world scientists would care to orchestrate such a deception. Well, you have to remember that scientists get lots money from the government in the form of grants to finance their very expensive research. Not only that, going against the accepted scientific flow, has demonstratively led to career suicide for a number of brilliant dissenting minds. Conversely, corroborating the government’s CO2/climate change narrative can put a scientist on the map these days.
For a couple of examples of this you can check out: Georgia Tech Climatologist Judith Curry Resigns Over ‘Craziness in the Field of Climate Science‘, or My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic.
So, why then, would the government insist on terrifying us all with an impending climate apocalypse based on shoddy science?
Money, of course. Coincidentally, (or not) an individual’s CO2 use can actually be taxed. It is taxed and has been for quite some time in some foreign countries. (Without any appreciable environmental effect I might add.) Generally, this comes in the form of taxing our energy.
However, researchers in the UK have suggested imposing a carbon tax on proteins and dairy in an effort to reduce the demand for those carbon emitting animals. They found that the price of beef would have to increase by 40% and dairy by 20%. Surely I’m not the only one seeing the obvious issues with this lunacy. You can read more about that in this article, UK Researchers: Tax Food to Reduce Climate Change.
Moving on…Besides being a large source of tax revenue for the government, people are flat out getting rich over climate change alarmism.
Al Gore, for example, had a net worth of $700,000 in 2000. Claiming that we’d all be living on house boats by now (though incorrect) had increased his net worth to a whopping $172.5 million by 2015. The green energy investing billionaire Elon Musk, rakes in billions in federal green energy subsidies while managing to not invest in any actual “green” thing that would help the environment. The Feds did however bust him for duping $1.4 mil from taxpayers with a green energy scheme.
You can check out the big bucks environmental groups, universities, and scientific organizations rake in just for promoting the man made climate change narrative in this article by the statistician I quoted earlier- William Briggs, There’s Big Money in Global Warming Alarmism.
But don’t fret. You don’t have to be a government, scientist, university, environmental group, or scientific organization to profit from climate change! This article from CNN Money will tell you How to Profit From Global Warming.
Disclaimer: Before someone gets riled up that I’m insinuating we shouldn’t be looking for potentially “cleaner” more “environmentally friendly” energy options- I haven’t said that at all. As a matter of fact, I think that would be awesome. However, as of yet no one has come up with anything at all that would be able support the energy needs of the planet in a cost effective way. Until then, we must deal in reality because whether we like it or not that’s where we all live.