The five big questions
of climate science
would support
government policy
changes ONLY if
all five answers
were "yes".
Based on what is known
about climate change,
during earth's past,
I believe all five answers
are "no".
Which means there's
no logical reason
to use the five beliefs
to set public policies:
1)
“Is climate change
mostly human caused ?
No one knows, except to state
that humans did NOT cause
any of the warming or cooling
for over 4.5 billion tears
... yet climate alarmists claim
natural causes of climate
change are now just "noise".
2)
Is the human-caused portion
of global warming large enough
to be damaging ?
There is no way
to know what
percentage is
"human caused".
But total warming
since the 1690s,
of roughly
+2 degrees C.,
hurt no one.
3)
Do the climate models
accurately predict
climate change ?
No.
The models predict
2x to 4x the
actual warming,
depending on
when observations
start, and what global
average temperature
compilation is used .
Starting in 1940
and using only
satellite temperature
data from 1979,
creates the
largest errors.
Starting in 1975,
and using only
surface temperature
dar, creates the
smallest errors.
4)
Would the proposed policy
changes substantially
reduce climate change
and resulting damage ?
Climate change
would not slow much,
if any.
"Resulting damage"
is only imaginary
damage -- a climate
fantasyland.
5)
Would the policy changes
do more good than harm
to humanity ?
The costs would be high
to replace inexpensive,
reliable, constant sources
of power ... with expensive,
unreliable, inconsistent
sources of power.
It's hard to believe
doing that would be
the best use of
a lot of money,
when there are
one billion people
with no electricity
on our planet.
Climate models
over-predict warming
because they claim
only a small amount
of direct warming
from a doubling of CO2
levels in the atmosphere.
(about +1 degree C. )
That claim could
be defended
with results of
lab experiments.
But the
climate models,
except for one
Russian model,
then triple the
claimed warming
from CO2 alone.
And suddenly the
climate models claim,
on average, that a
CO2 doubling has
a water vapor
positive feedback,
causing more warming
than CO2 alone --
adding up to a
+3 degree C. warming,
per CO2 doubling,
rather than +1 degree C.
+ 1 degree C. warming
from CO2 is a rough
estimate based on
laboratory science.
The extra +2 degrees C.
warming is science fiction.
The imaginary water vapor
positive feedback process
is responsible for most
(about 2/3) of the warming
the climate models predict.
They sell the laboratory physics
supporting the +1 degree C.
of direct CO2 warming, but then
switch to the full +3 degrees
of warming, with no evidence
actual warming has ever been
higher than +1 degrees
per CO2 doubling.
That means the
UN's IPCC science is:
-- One-third based
on real science and
on real science and
-- Two-thirds science fiction