Many people treat the subject of “climate change” as real science, which it could be … but generally is not.
Modern “climate science” is mainly politics ...
... and so far very successful politics
... using government bureaucrat scientists and computer “models” as props to scare the general public with a climate change fantasy
... and then leftist politicians falsely claim they are virtuous people who need more government power ONLY because they are trying to save the Earth for our children!
(It’s always good politics to throw in the word: “children” -- even better to add "grandchildren".)
“The urge to save humanity from harmless carbon dioxide is a “progressive” false front for their urge to rule.” from an earlier post on this blog
The exact causes of climate change are unknown.
Therefore it is impossible to construct a correct physics model of the causes of climate change.
Without a correct physics model, a global climate model can not be constructed.
Today, all we have are failed climate model prototypes based on the wrong opinion that CO2 levels control the average temperature.
These Global Circulation Models, or GCMs, have predicted:
-- Triple the actual warming since 1975,
-- Significant warming of Antarctica, which did not happen,
-- Most warming in the colder latitudes, but the southern half of the Southern Hemisphere had little warming,
-- In the tropics there would be a "hot spot" about six miles up in the troposphere, but no such "hot spot" has ever been found with weather satellites or weather balloons, and
-- Relentless warming, year after year, as CO2 increases, but there was cooling from 1940 to 1975, and a flat trend (no warming) from 2003 to 2015.
Thirty years of wrong GCM predictions are strong evidence the primary GCM assumption has been wrong -- CO2 levels do not control the average temperature.
All we have are failed prototype models — not real models of any real climate change process, that could be used for what-if studies, or predictions.
So why do we continue to call them “models”, as if they have value?
Because GCMs are used as props to promote the CO2 is evil fantasy.
The failed prototype models are nothing more than the (wrong) opinions of government bureaucrat scientists, disguised as complex mathematical models, to impress ordinary people.
The global warming fantasy started with some wild guess predictions of a future climate catastrophe, that has been elevated into a world "crisis", or no good reason.
UN bureaucrats used the "coming climate crisis" to promote the UN as a global environmental "government".
The UN formed a group (IPCC) of “scientists" who are global warming believers, and lots of environmental activists, to "prove" the unprovable 'man made CO2 will cause runaway warming' wild guess.
The first IPCC "report" was enough to scare some people.
Somewhat more educated people needed more persuasion -- they got that from government bureaucrat scientists with PhDs, using climate “models” so complex that SuperComputers were needed to run them.
The most educated people on the subject of climate change are the skeptics.
-- We wonder why no one else seems to notice the 30 years of failed predictions from the failed climate models.
-- We noticed many decades since 1940 where there was cooling, or a flat temperature trend, while CO2 levels increased a lot -- contradicting the greenhouse warming theory.
A failed prototype climate model makes wrong predictions.
A real climate model makes right predictions.
No real climate models exist today.
To construct real climate models, we’d have to thoroughly understand what causes climate change first.
And we don’t.
So all we have are failed prototype models (wild guesses) used as political props in the climate change fantasy hoax ... a hoax that makes this free website necessary.
We are living in the best climate for humans in the history of our planet.
Nights are a little warmer than 100 years ago.
That's good news.
There's more CO2 in the air -- CO2 is plant food -- more CO2 is greening our planet, per satellite studies.
So that's good news too.
The only problem with our current climate is too little CO2 in the air -- our food crops prefer two to three times the current level of CO2 for maximum growth.
That's why smart greenhouse owners add CO2 to the air inside their greenhouses.
(A)
Real science tells us CO2 levels are near the lowest ever on our planet -- adding CO2 to the air is beneficial for green plants and the humans and animals who eat them.
Real climate science makes sense
(B)
Politicians tell us CO2 is an evil gas that will cause runaway global warming and eventually end all life on our planet.
Politicized climate "science" is:
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
-- H. L. Mencken
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
-- H. L. Mencken