Post-Paris Climate Change Essay

False, misleading and unproven claims are the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for the alleged coming global warming catastrophe.

This is a coming catastrophe we've been warned about for over 30 years so far ... that will never come. 

And that coming catastrophe is global cooling.

Wait, I meant the hole in the ozone layer.

No, correction -- acid rain.

Oh wait, I completely forgot the current catastrophe is global warming ... caused by "carbon pollution" ... which is invisible, so on TV they scare people by showing smokestacks belching water vapor, which looks like white smoke.

Carbon pollution is a fictional propaganda term -- carbon dioxide (CO2) is actually harmless airborne plant food, not pollution. 

CO2 is a false boogeyman invented by left-wing politicians who know how to use a "crisis" to gain political power.

There is no science behind the claim of future runaway warming.

There is little science behind the claim that a doubling of CO2 will cause one degree C. of warming -- which even if true, adds up to a mere one degree C. of global warming in about 200 years, assuming CO2 levels increase 2 ppm per year, and the hypothesis is correct.

Please realize that a scientist, or many scientists, or even 90% of scientists, making a claim ... IS  NOT  SCIENCE  WITHOUT  PROOF  THE  CLAIM  IS  CORRECT.

Studies of Earth's climate history reveal no runaway warming, even though CO2 levels were higher than today most of the time.

Rough real-time measurements of temperatures in the 20th century reveal:  

     Average temperature changes in the first half of the 20th century, with a small amount of man made CO2 emissions ... were very similar to temperature changes in the second half of the 20th century, with a large amount man made CO2 emissions:

No one claims man made CO2 controlled the climate in the first half of the 20th century -- that was natural climate change.

The claim that man made CO2 controlled the climate in the second half of the 20th century is unproven speculation, because those decades look like the decades with natural climate change.

Just compare the charts above!

There is no evidence that anything unusual happened from CO2 in the second half of the 20th century ... and the average temperature has barely changed so far in the 21st century.

The small amount of climate change in the past 150 years 
has been all good news:

(1) We've had  mild warming at night, and 

(2) We've had greening of our planet from more CO2 in the air.

Only a fool, or a person with ulterior motives, would not want more nighttime warming and more greening of our planet in the next 150 years!

There is no climate catastrophe in progress.

Our climate has been getting better for humans (mild warming), animals (mild warming), and the plants they eat (more CO2), for at least 500 years.

But let's not let reality get in the way of the climate change alarmism 'religion'.

Climate reality is boring.

Climate alarmism is exciting!

The US is out of the voluntary Paris Agreement -- which was mainly a "green slush fund" intended to be financed mainly by the US.

Even if you believe in the very hard to believe "CO2 causes runaway warming theory", the Paris Agreement was a nothing burger -- it would have had a tiny effect on the future average temperature -- smaller than the margins of error of average global temperature measurements.

Environmentalists said all that several years ago -- severely criticizing the Agreement -- but now they demonstrate hysterical fake outrage, implying the Paris Agreement is the best agreement in the history of the world!

You'd think I'd be happy about exiting 'Paris', but I'm not happy.

I'm not happy because no one in the media -- even on Fox News -- was brave enough to question "climate science" (wild guesses of the climate 100 years in the future, almost certain to be wrong, are actually climate astrology, not real science).  

I'm unhappy because President Trump and his EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt were my last hope for people in authority to challenge "climate science", and they decided not to.

They know questioning "climate science" leads to vicious ridicule and character attacks from liberals -- and they already get enough vicious ridicule and character attacks on other issues.

Of course ridicule is how liberals "debate" all subjects if you disagree with them.

Liberals in the US now seem to have morphed into fascists trying to control how everyone thinks, and stifling debate, sometimes with public violence!

I write "climate science" in parentheses because predictions of runaway global warming from CO2 are not supported by any science. 

Absolutely none.

Runaway global warming is a wild guess prediction made by scientists on government payrolls.

These "scientists" arbitrarily tripled the CO2 greenhouse warming suggested by laboratory experiments in an effort to please the politicians who hired them, and ensure lifetime employment for themselves.

So it's no surprise their climate models have consistently predicted triple the warming that has actually happened.

No one knows what CO2 does to the climate because average temperature changes in the "man made CO2 era" after 1940 look the same as average temperature changes before the man made CO2 era.

There was nothing usual for anyone to blame on CO2.

Government bureaucrat scientists have to "believe" in a coming global warming catastrophe to get, and keep, their jobs. 

And our government gets the "science" alarmism that it pays for.

Of course the alleged "cure" for runaway global warming (and all prior environmental boogeymen now forgotten) is a more powerful government, with more energy regulations, and more taxes on energy!

This is pure politics, not science.

Half the mild warming claimed since 1880 is from arbitrary "adjustments" to the historical temperature data ... and that's just from the NASA - GISS "adjustments" made AFTER the year 2000.

"Adjustments" made in the years between 2000 and 2017 by government bureaucrat scientists doubled the total global warming (from 1880 to 2000) that they had been claiming back in the year 2000. 

In addition, there are no surface temperature measurements for a majority of the surface of our planet, so government bureaucrat scientists make up numbers for those areas.  

You won't read about this in the mainstream media because liberals there want you to know as little about climate science as possible -- without knowledge it's very difficult to ask intelligent questions. 

Most liberals have almost no knowledge of climate science, other than memorizing a few misleading or false talking points they are taught to parrot, starting as early as elementary school.

My wife recently talked to a high IQ liberal friend, with an engineering degree from what was the top US engineering school at the time, and pointed out that his Michigan property was under a mile of ice 20,000 years ago, and that ice had melted long before people started burning fossil fuels!

He didn't know what to say.

There are some people like me who don't trust the US government, and especially don't trust predictions of the future (about the climate or anything else) from anyone, because predictions are rarely right.

So when my government says a climate catastrophe is coming in the future unless everyone does as they say, I know it's nothing more than a clever strategy to control people.

The climate change boogeyman strategy is similar to how religious leaders control people (for example, telling them to follow the Ten Commandments, or their soul will be sent to hell).

I see a global warming cult based on faith, that seems similar to a religion based on faith, although people in those two groups rarely see the similarity, or notice their leaders use fear to control them.

I refuse to be influenced by claims of an imaginary coming climate catastrophe because it is obvious the climate is wonderful in 2017, and has been getting better for the entire six decades of my life! 

My wife and I have lived in the same home in Bingham Farms, Michigan since 1987, and in an apartment four miles away, from 1980 to 1987.

That many decades living in the same area makes it easy to observe climate change.

The winters are slightly warmer here now, than in in the late 1970s when I moved to Michigan from New York and early 1980s ... although I have to mention that our winter of 2013 / 2014 had record snowfall for the Detroit metropolitan area, and it was unusually cold in early 2014.

Average global temperatures have barely changed since 1998, and there was a flat trend from the early 2000s to 2015 -- something you'll never hear from the mainstream media. 

The flat trend was interrupted by a natural cyclical climate event called an El Nino in 2015 / 2016, but that flat trend may continue in the future -- no one knows. 

It was a strong El Nino in 2015 / 2016, very similar to the strong El Nino in 1998 (El Nino's are sharp natural temperature spikes when the Pacific Ocean temporarily releases heat).

The peak temperature of the strong 2015 / 2016 El Nino year was claimed to be only 0.1 degrees C. warmer than the peak of the strong 1998 El Nino year, 17 years earlier ... a small enough difference that it is within the claimed measurement margin of error !

Real science has nothing to do with what a small subset of biased scientists on government payrolls are paid to believe and say. 

Especially when their beliefs are contradicted by the gross inaccuracy of their average temperature predictions for the past 30 years.

They consistently predict three times the actual warming measured.

They also predict constant warming, and couldn't explain the flat temperature trend between the early 2000s and 2015.

 I gave up counting after 50 different reasons were proposed by various people to explain the flat trend (aka "the pause").

The bureaucrat scientists were embarrassed by skeptics mocking that flat temperature rend.

So NOAA "scientists" in 2015 arbitrarily "adjusted" past ocean temperatures to create a slight rise from the early 2000's to 2015, and then announced that the pause was merely a measurement error (but even after the "adjustment" it still looks like a flat trend on a chart).

A coming global warming catastrophe emerged in public about 30 years ago.

There is now a tendency to blame all unusual weather events on global warming. 

No one has the time and energy to refute the huge number of bogus claims.

As Donald Trump once said, but seems afraid to say now, the prediction of runaway global warming is a hoax -- he should have added that the hoax is that human can not predict the climate one year in the future, never mind 100 years in the future!

A "green industry" developed, based on that hoax, and kept alive with large government subsidies -- that means the climate change hoax morphed into a climate change scam (where some people make lot of money from the hoax).

There has been a huge increase in government funding for "climate science" in the past few decades, and the scientists hired must agree with the premise of a coming climate catastrophe. 

Governments have a near-monopoly on "climate science" funding.

Merely questioning the belief that rising CO2 will cause runaway warming would be a suicidal career move for a young scientist paid by a government, or in academia. 

Small amounts of global warming are treated as a disaster in progress by the mass media, and extrapolated 100 years into the future!

But small amounts of global warming do not predict anything.

Small amounts of warming are actually good news: 

-- Wealthy people in northern US states and Canada often retire to Sun Belt states, or buy a condo there for the winter -- they like "warming".

-- CO2 is pumped into greenhouses to accelerate plant growth. 

Very little of Earth's surface was measured in the 1800s and early 1900s -- and almost none of the Southern Hemisphere had temperature measurements.

-- Even today in 2017 surface temperature measurements miss over half the Earth's surface (as divided into grids).

-- To calculate a global average, all grids with no measurements have to be filled in (called infilling) with guesses.

-- The people who make the guesses for empty grids were hired by the government only because they believe in coming runaway global warming caused by burning fossil fuels.

-- These bureaucrats repeatedly predict  more arming ... and they are in a position where they determine the "actuals" -- that's a conflict of interest.

The government bureaucrat "scientists" must want their long-term global warming predictions to look good -- so they want to see more and more global warming -- and that pro-warming bias must bias their grid infilling guesses to some extent.

Even worse than the empty grid infilling, the bureaucrat scientists make arbitrary "adjustments" to their already suspicious mix of real data and infilled guesses.

Back in the year 2000, the warming for 1880 to 2000 was reported as only +0.5 degrees C.

Cumulative "adjustments" made after the year 2000 'doubled' the global warming for 1880 to 2000, to +1.0 degrees C. (NASA - GISS data).

Doubling the warming with "adjustments" smells like cooking the books to me ... and cooking the books is a good phrase for the runaway global warming hoax! 

The completely bogus "97% of scientists agree" claim is meant to tell non-experts that they have no need to understand any "climate science". 

Read more about the 97% lie here:
http://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/2017/05/the-97-consensus-lie.html

Simply agreeing with the 97% claim is alleged to show that you support "science".

Unfortunately, there is no science behind the wild guess predictions of runaway global warming.

(1) 

Most scientists agree that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased in the past 150 years.

- I agree too.

(2) 

Most scientists agree the Earth has warmed a little in the past 150 years.

- I generally agree -- although measurements are too rough, with all the infilling and "adjustments", to be certain. 

(3) Most scientists agree humans have some effect on the temperature.

-- I agree, except no one knows what that effect is.

Since temperature changes in the first half of the 20th century are said to be natural changes -- and even the global warmunists agree about that -- there is no basis for claiming very similar temperature changes in the second half of the 20th century were NOT natural changes.

Temperature anomalies are deviations, usually versus a thirty year average.

The government focus on temperature anomalies allows the use of  temperature charts that cover a tiny vertical range of only one degree C. ... making very tiny 0.1 degree C. temperature changes look huge. 

Ocean surface temperatures are hard to measure, yet account for 70% of the global average temperature.

Data collection since the 1800s used four very different measurement techniques (buckets and thermometers in ship lanes, ship engine cooling water intakes after WW1, satellite measurements of ocean skin temperature, and buoy data).

Each methodology will have different errors, assuming anyone even knows the margins of error, because I have never seen them discussed by government bureaucrats in 20 years of reading about climate change.

Measurement margins of error are not a subject discussed honestly in "climate science". 

Quite a few arbitrary adjustments must be made to get climate computer models to agree with actuals (past temperature measurements). 

Measured warming is only one third of what the climate models keep predicting.

But don't you dare report those facts to a liberal -- you will be ridiculed as a "science denier".

Michael Mann’s infamous ‘hockey stick chart' used tree ring data from bristle cone pines to estimate Northern Hemisphere temperatures going back many hundreds of years. 

Not a good temperature proxy to begin with.

He wanted to show lots of global warming in the 20th century, but the bristle cone data showed cooling!

So Mann cut off the tree data before they started showing global cooling, and spliced actual surface records (thermometers), that showed global warming, to the remaining tree ring data (that showed a flat trend).

Mann hid the fact that his chart combined climate proxy data and real time measurements -- the tree ring data he chose NOT to show would have contradicted the real time measurements he DID show.

The UN's IPCC (global warming propaganda organization) and Al Gore highly publicized the Mann Chart -- but now the IPCC doesn't even mention it -- Al Gore probably does, but he's always been the Bozo the Clown of climate "science".

Stolen "ClimateGate" emails showed that government bureaucrat scientists:

-- Exaggerated alarm, 

-- Hid their uncertainty, 

-- Suppressed opposing views, 

-- Intimidated science journal editors to reject skeptical views submitted for publication, and 

-- Manipulated temperature data (sometimes referred to as "Mann’s trick").

Every weather forecaster knows extreme weather occurs someplace almost every day. 

Attributing these naturally occurring events to man made climate change is dishonest, but is often done. 

There is no uptrend in any extreme weather event (tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, floods, etc.) -- some are actually in a downtrend.

Globally averaged sea level is very difficult to measure.

Sea level seems to have been rising at the rate of about six inches a century for thousands of years. 

Unfortunately, the land level also changes -- plate tectonics land level changes are INCLUDED in "sea level" measurements from tide gages. 

In 1979 satellites were first used to measure actual sea level, and results were slightly higher than tide gage estimates.

The small difference from changing the sea level measurement methodology was used to falsely claim "accelerating sea level rise".

Satellites have been observing arctic and Antarctic sea ice since 1979. 

There has been a downtrend is summer ice in the arctic -- always mentioned in the mainstream media ... but the uptrend of summer ice in the Antarctic is never mentioned.

Less than 40 years of arctic data is a short interval -- but that doesn't stop climate alarmists from extrapolating that short period 100 years into the future!

Satellites can confuse ice topped with melt water with ice free regions, understating the amount of sea ice (overstating melting). 

In addition, changing winds play an important role in blowing ice out of the arctic sea, where it melts.

And ocean current changes also affect melting.

Summer sea ice coverage changes can not be entirely blamed on average temperature changes. 

And of course melting sea ice in the arctic does not contribute to sea level rise, so really does not matter! 

Susan Crockford, a polar bear evolution specialist, says there's no evidence arctic summer sea ice changes had any adverse impact on polar bear populations, given that polar bears can swim for over a hundred miles.

Since the acid rain scare, environmentalists know the public responds with alarm to anything with the word ‘acid’ in it. 

The ocean is basic, rather than acidic (its ph is always higher than 7, and there is no possibility of increasing levels of atmospheric CO2 bringing the ph down to 7, which would be neutral, much less below a ph of 7, which would be acidic).

CO2 is essential for life on our planet.

Levels as high as 5,000 ppm are considered safe on our submarines and on the space station.

The atmospheric level today is about 400 ppm, and the historical range is believed to be from about 200 ppm (about 20,000 years ago during peak glaciation) to a least 4,000 ppm, and possibly as high as 10,000 parts per million (or ppm).

Climate change involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. 

Doubling current CO2 levels, which might take 200 years, would have a 2% effect.

A very complex multi-factor system can not be controlled by a 2% change in a single variable.

There is no evidence in 4.5 billion years of climate history that CO2 ever controlled the climate!

There is much evidence from ice core studies that natural climate variations CAUSE CO2 level variations, with a multi-hundred year lag.

False, misleading and unproven claims are the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for the coming global warming catastrophe cult. 

And that's why this climate blog exists.