The United Nations’
Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change
( IPCC )
was created to find
the HUMAN impact
on the global climate.
That means they ignore
the 4.5 billion years
of NATURAL climate change.
Ignoring past NATURAL
climate change is
proof that the IPCC is a
political organization, not
a scientific organization.
They start with the
conclusion that humans
are causing climate change,
and NATURAL climate change
is just meaningless "noise"
in the temperature data !
That's a "closed mind
organization", starting
with a conclusion, and
then cherry picking
evidence, sometimes
manipulating data with
arbitrary "adjustments"
to "prove" their conclusion.
Debates are avoided with
false claims of 97% consensus,
ridicule and character attacks.
which are typical symptoms
junk science.
Climate is an
interdisciplinary
subject, including
astronomy, biology,
botany, cosmology,
geochemistry, geology,
history, oceanography,
paleontology, physics,
scientific forecasting.
and statistics.
Very few scientists
are knowledgable of
more than one or two
of these disciplines.
Biologists may be
familiar with the impact
of rising levels of CO2
on photosynthesis,
plant growth, and
carbon sequestration
by plants and aquatic
creatures.
Physicists may be
familiar with the
transfer of energy
at the top of the
atmosphere, and how
the effects of CO2
change logarithmically
as its concentration rises.
Geologists may know
of huge fluctuations
in global temperatures
and carbon dioxide
levels in the air,
often moving in
different directions.
Scientists make assertions,
and predictions of the future,
claiming high degrees
of “confidence”.
"Confidence" has a precise
meaning in science, but not
as used by the IPCC, where
it is meaningless.
For more than
three decades,
climate modelers
have "confidently"
predicted we'd have
triple the global
warming that actually
happened ( which was
harmless ).
Modelers and their
climate models,
have proved that
they can't predict
the future climate,
so why do people
continue taking their
predictions seriously ?
We should not !
If the future climate
can't be predicted,
then why should we
assume the mild,
intermittent, harmless
global warming that
we've had in the past,
will accelerate to triple
the past warming rate ?
We should not !