CLIMATE ALARMISTS
and their IMAGINARY
FUTURE CLIMATE
versus
CLIMATE REALISTS
and their ACTUAL
PAST CLIMATE
SUMMARY:
How can anyone debate
a future climate that
has not happened yet ?
A future climate
predicted to be
100% bad news.
A future climate,
claimed to be
completely unlike
the 100% good news
global warming
during the past
three hundred years ?
No one can
seriously debate
an imagined
future climate,
so there's no debate,
unless you consider
character attacks
on people who ask
questions, to be
a "debate".
DETAILS:
Climate alarmist
science deniers
do not care about
the past climate
on our planet,
except to lie
about it --
falsely claiming
it was very stable
until 1975.
My property,
located in Bingham
Farms, Michigan,
was under a glacier,
perhaps a mile thick,
20,000 years ago.
There ice had melted
10,000 years ago.
Of course CO2 emissions
did not melt those glaciers,
from 20,000 to 10,000
years ago.
That's not a "stable" climate.
The science deniers
focus on wild guess
predictions of the
future climate.
Climate predictions
that can not be
effectively refuted,
without waiting
50 to 100 years
to prove they
were wrong !
You can point out that
climate alarmist predictions,
since the 1970s, have been
consistently wrong.
But the science deniers don’t care.
Nothing can 'falsify'
any bad news
climate change
claim they make !
The inability to
falsify any claims
means that
climate alarmism
is a secular religion,
not real science.
Some climate alarmists
have science degrees.
So what !
I have a BS
"science degree" too.
That doesn't give me,
or anyone else,
the ability to predict
the future climate !
Consistently wrong
wild guesses of the
future climate,
are NOT real science.
There's no debate possible,
because real climate science
involves the present
and past climate.
And no matter what is
learned about
the past climate,
the climate alarmists
will ignore it, and claim
the future climate
( in their imaginations )
will be VERY different.
You could point out that
the PAST 300+ years of
intermittent global warming
was 100% good news.
Science deniers don't care.
They will still claim
FUTURE global warming
will be 100% bad news.
How do they "know" that ?
BECAUSE THEY SAY SO !
How can anyone debate
an imaginary future climate,
that bears no relationship
to the past actual climate ?
Climate alarmists
are climate science
deniers, and have
no chance of winning
a real scientific debate.
So they 'operate' in a
future climate fantasyland,
while repeatedly
rewriting climate history,
because they get to
write the 'history books',
so they can do anything
they want with their "data".
Strangely, the smarmy
science deniers claim
to be certain about
the future climate,
with very high confidence
-- they picked the number
"95%" ( confidence )
out of a hat
( or from two feet lower ).
It's hard to be certain
about the past climate,
because climate alarmists
keep changing
the past climate
in their 'history books'.
Their "adjustments",
often many decades
after the fact,
almost always create
a steeper global warming
trend, out of thin air,
or perhaps I should say,
"out of hot air" !
Real science can't study
the future climate,
because it has not
happened yet !
The climate alarmists
ignore 4.5 billion years
of natural climate
change on our planet.
For several decades,
they have been
completely ignoring
natural causes
of climate change,
as unimportant "noise".
They ignore the fact
that Canada, Detroit
and Chicago
were covered
with ice glaciers
20,000 years ago.
By 10,000 years ago,
those glaciers had melted,
and the temperature
was a few degrees
warmer than today.
More recently,
a multi-hundred year
cool period, called
the Little Ice Age,
ended in the late 1600s.
The average temperature
in Central England
( few other real time
temperature measurements
are available before 1700 )
had several cold periods,
but they did not correlate
that well with the solar
minimums.
In the late 1600s
a very cold period,
which led to some
famines in Europe,
happened DURING
a low solar energy
period called the
Maunder Minimum,
( minimums are
based on sunspot
counts, as a proxy for
solar energy variations. )
The coldest period
was NOT at the end
of the Maunder Minimum,
which is the timing
you'd expect if
solar energy variations
controlled the average
temperature.
The Maunder Minimum
was one of four
sunspot minimums
during the Little Ice Age.
Then we had 300+ years
of mild, intermittent
global warming.
CO2 emissions
could not have
caused much
of that warming.
There has been no
statistically significant
global warming
since the early 2000s
-- the 2018 global average
temperature was about
the same as in 2002.
There was a temporary burst
of heat in late 2015
and early 2016,
from an unusually large
Pacific Ocean heat release,
called an El Nino.
An El Nino is a cyclical, natural
ocean heat release, completely
unrelated to carbon dioxide.
A linear trend line
from 2002 to 2018
would have a positive
slope, but linear trend lines
are not appropriate
to represent non-linear data,
such as the global
average temperature.
Lets assume the warming
since the late 1600s is still
intermittent, and still
in progress, until a trend
change becomes obvious.
There is no evidence
natural causes
of climate change
have ended.
Climate alarmists
asserting natural
climate change is
no longer important,
with no proof of that,
does not create 'truth'.
All climate changes
in our lifetime
could have had
100% natural causes.
So, how about a debate
over natural causes
of climate change?
That won't happen.
You can’t debate
natural climate change
with climate alarmists !
You could point out
that during the
past 4.5 billion years,
with ONLY natural
climate changes,
there was no evidence
that changing CO2 levels
have ever CAUSED
a temperature change.
In the past 800,000 years,
based on Antarctica ice cores,
temperature changes led to
CO2 level changes that were
hundreds of years LATER.
Meaning that CO2
NEVER CAUSED
the temperature changes
reconstructed from
Antarctica ice core data.
The science deniers will claim
CO2 levels NOW control the
global average temperature.
And their "scientific proof" is:
“BECAUSE WE SAY SO” !
THE ALWAYS WRONG
CLIMATE COMPUTER GAMES:
Wild guess predictions
of the future climate
are not real science.
Especially not when
the wild guesses
have been so wrong,
for so long.
The always wrong
predictions are just
computer game
climate astrology.
The climate models,
on average
( excluding the accurate,
perhaps by accident,
Russian model ),
predict a future
global warming rate
that is QUADRUPLE
the actual warming
rate since 1940
( which was about
+0.6 degrees C,
over the 78 years
from 1940 through 2018,
or +0.77 degrees C. per century ).
1940 is a good start point
because that's when
the ramp up of
man made CO2
from burning fossil fuels,
accelerated, as the
Great Depression
was ending.
Note:
There was a significant
CO2 emissions decline
during the "Great Depression"
( from the beginning of the 1929 Recession,
through the end of the 1937 Recession ),
with no obvious effect on the
global average temperature,
or the rate of sea level rise.
1940 is an appropriate
start point for observations
of the global average temperature
WHILE CO2 was significantly rising.
We may not know what caused
the global warming after 1940
-- those who claim to know
are liars -- but we can always
assume a worst case
-- that CO2 caused
ALL the warming,
far more than the UN's
IPCC claim of "over half".
1975, or 1979, which are
the common start points,
for people who
prefer to ignore the
falling global average
temperature
from 1940 to 1975,
even as CO2 levels
were rising rapidly.
Using 1975 or 1979
as the start point
is data mining,
in my opinion,
because using
those years
ignores decades
of significant
man made CO2
emissions.
There is no logical
reason to do that,
so of course the
climate alarmists do that !