This 10/1/2017 final draft expands the original post,
and this time the writing is more better.
The average temperature of our planet has been rising since peak glaciation about 20,000 years ago .
Sea level has already risen over 400 feet.
Man made CO2 was not responsible for at least 99.8% of the 400 foot sea level rise.
The safest prediction of the future average temperature would be: "The mild warming of the past 150 years will continue -- don't be alarmed."
But there's no money to be made from a 'more of the same' boring prediction.
To earn real money from government salaries and/or government study grants, you'd need to claim a climate catastrophe is coming!
After you get the job, or grant, you might be involved with complex computer "models" used to make global average temperature predictions.
The truth is there are no real climate models.
There are only computer games that have been making wrong global temperature predictions for three decades !
The predictions are far from reality -- triple the mild warming that actually happened in the past, as measured with weather satellites.
They are called "Global Circulation Models" because "computer games that make wrong predictions" would never be taken seriously.
I don't take them seriously, even when they are called GCMs!
Real models make right predictions -- computer games make wrong predictions, not even close to reality.
The bureaucrat scientists who design and play the computer games, unfortunately, have another very important job.
They compile the global average temperature actuals.
That's a conflict of interest -- the same people who predict runaway warming will be biased to make the temperature actuals show warming that matches their predictions !
And 'cooking the books' is easy to do.
Temperature 'actuals' include many wild guesses
(infilling missing data with wild guesses, for more than half the surface of our planet, where there are no thermometers!)
(infilling missing data with wild guesses, for more than half the surface of our planet, where there are no thermometers!)
They (NASA-GISS and NOAA in the US) also repeatedly "adjust" historical data to show more warming -- "adjustments" that outside-of-the-government scientists do not believe were justified.
For a moment I’ll act like a fool and trust the surface temperature measurements, including their absolutely ridiculous +/- 0.1 degrees C. claimed margin of error (claimed for very gullible people, I suppose, when +/- 1 degree C. is my conservative estimate of the margin of error).
The first data problem is no real time thermometer measurements for 99.999% of the past 4.5 billion years.
There are only geological proxies, such as ice cores, that provide rough estimates of changes in temperature at one location.
Real-time thermometer measurements are claimed to start around 1880 ... but very few Southern Hemisphere measurements were included before 1940.
The average temperature of our planet’s surface is a statistical compilation -- no one actually lives in the "average climate".
The average global temperature, after a lot of questionable infilling and "adjustments" made by bureaucrats who want to see more warming,
has remained in a 1 degree C. range for 137 years!
has remained in a 1 degree C. range for 137 years!
I repeat:
The average global temperature has remained in a 1 degree C. range for 137 years ... with a conservative margin of error of +/- 1 degree C.
That’s not a climate problem — it’s a blessing!
That tight average temperature range includes a flat temperature trend from 2003 to 2015, based on weather satellite data, in spite of rising CO2.
Weather satellite data are confirmed by weather balloon data -- both say there has been almost no warming since the early 2000s.
Climate proxies tend to show show little or no warming since 1980, somewhat confirming weather satellite and weather balloon data.
In contrast, surface "measurements" are not confirmed by any other measurement methodology, and have suspiciously been diverging from satellite data (showing more warming) since 2000.
In contrast, surface "measurements" are not confirmed by any other measurement methodology, and have suspiciously been diverging from satellite data (showing more warming) since 2000.
There is more CO2 in the air than in 1880, but that's good news.
Because more CO2 in the air accelerates green plant growth (doubling or tripling the current CO2 level of 400ppm would be even better for plant growth).
Nights are slightly warmer than in 1880, and the Arctic has significantly warmed since 1975 ... but the Antarctic has not.
The greenhouse gas theory says BOTH poles should warm more than anywhere else on Earth.
The fact that both poles did NOT warm is evidence that the Arctic warming was caused by something other than man made greenhouse gasses.
The Arctic had been warming from 1975 to 2012 ... but cooling since 2012 (a fact that the mainstream media either doesn't mention, or actually lies about).
The floating Arctic ice does not raise sea level when it melts = no problem at all.
So, is there ANY real climate problem that justifies spending trillions of dollars on "climate change", including heavily subsidizing the alternative energy industry?
No.
Governments are wasting taxpayers' money on haphazard surface temperature measurements and alternative energy industry subsidies and loans.
Those haphazard surface measurements serve only one purpose -- propaganda -- scaring people with a coming runaway global warming fantasy, allegedly caused by harmless CO2 -- a climate catastrophe that will never come.
Why scare people?
Because scared people are easy to control -- religious and political leaders have known that for centuries!
The false demonization of CO2 is what I call "Save the Earth Socialism" -- the latest way to "sell" socialism -- but the Earth does not need saving, and no nation needs socialism.
The money wasted on "climate change science” should have been used to help very poor people on our planet who currently live without electricity!
What do one billion people without electricity really need?
The poorest people on our planet need fossil fuels to burn for heat and electricity -- the same fuels that liberals hate !