The Assertion …

Those who believe in anthropogenic (man-made) global warning are putting forth the assertion that there exists a simple, positive correlation between atmospheric carbon, chiefly in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2) and the global mean temperature of planet Earth.

And by extension …

And by extension, if we can control atmospheric carbon dioxide, we can exert a positive control over the global mean temperature.

Supported by computer models …

This assertion is seemingly supported primarily by computer models which embody some, but not all of the energy transfer mechanisms thought to occur in our dynamic planetary processes.

The “output” …

The mere fact that we can produce an “output” which appears to correlate with the global mean temperature may no more significant than watching computer programs (cellular automata) with a limited number of simple rules produce pictures which appear to be two-dimensional representations of natural structures (shells, leafs, etc.) – but in reality do very little to add understanding of the natural and physical process which appears to produce this representation of a physical phenomenon. A picture of a tree is hardly a scientific description upon which to base public policy.

This ludicrous interpretation is analogous to those who have identified apparent, and possibly coincidental, patterns in stock prices, but still fail to predict the market, let alone manipulated the underlying factors which would lead to a predictable outcome.

Enter the politicians and their special interest kingmakers …

Therefore, we find politicians trying to mold human behavior in order to achieve global results – which is, in actuality, based only on the pretense of knowledge. Using data derived piecemeal from faulty historical records and climate proxies and integrated over the spheroid we call planet Earth.

Which leads the rational thinker to the conclusion that the emperor truly has no clothes and is merely exhibiting the pretense of knowledge rather than the actual knowledge itself.

If one is to base public policy on science, the basic requirements of good science demands that the phenomenon be both observable and measurable. And yet we cannot separate our man-made efforts from the background of nature’s climate variability without the consideration of time frames long beyond our lifespan.

Which is not a problem for politicians as their preferential time frames are often given in terms of election cycles . Time spans of sufficient length to see them out of office and not politically, morally or financially accountable for their actions.

The burden of their public policies fall mainly on you and me – never on those who are insulated from their decisions by wealth, power, privilege or position.

That the outputs of computer models, which are manipulated by politically-motivated activists is naively accepted as “science” by the politicians and an uncritical media – is to posit the proposition that global warming is a mad-made political scam of historical and monumental proportions.

The fact that the underlying subject matter originates with the United Nations and coincides with their desires for strictly controlled population growth, a one-world government and an ultimate goal to become the final arbiter of political, financial and social policies only adds to my suspicion that any public policy that can be used to control nature’s awesome and still mostly-understood forces is bound to be bogus.

That is not to say that there are not reputable scientists studying the issues related to global climatology and planetary dynamics, but that their work is being misunderstood and misrepresented by those who are pursuing their own self-interest agendas leading to political power and personal profit.

Might I remind you that no real scientific consensus currently exists other than that posited by politicians and those scientists (often administrators) whose career and continued funding is dependent upon governmental or quasi-governmental (NGOs) institutions. And they do not know, with any degree of certitude, whether or not our global temperature is regressing to some unknown mean or remains in some pattern of unknown periodicity and amplitude. 

Therefore, I was somewhat dismayed with Al Gore’s recent appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee which was characterized to the public as “testimony” although it was not delivered under oath and was not vetted by any "testimony” by reputable scientists of opposing viewpoint. The very same Al Gore whose off-shore investment company raises serious “conflict of interest” issues and some of whose past assertions relating to the impact of global climate change have now been proven to be either false or misleading.

And while there appear to be other cyclical physical phenomena which also correlate to a greater or lesser degree with the historic data, these explanations are ignored or even given short shrift as they do not lead to the conclusion that man can alter the course of nature through public policy any more than a king can command the heavens to stand still.

I honestly believe that the science is so unsettled as to preclude the necessity of public policies to alter that which may very well be unalterable. The simple fact that all agree that the historical record demonstrates that the rise in carbon dioxide lags the rise in the global mean temperature tends to rule out carbon dioxide as the cause of global climate change. However, it does not rule out that the rise of CO2 is associated with the warming of the oceans; giving rise to increasing carbon dioxide levels much in the same way a warm soda releases CO2 into the atmosphere. Based on the scenario of warming oceans, one might want to consider that our planet's path around the sun is the primary causal factor and that the moderation of CO2 will result in little or no effect on the real world’s global mean temperature. 

It is also my opinion that good public policy should mandate a reduction in ground, water and atmospheric pollution – rather than giving out indulgences (credits paid for by the public) to continue polluting based on the growth of a forest somewhere else on the planet. The entire cost, of course, to be borne by the taxpayers who will be required to finance this madness. All to the financial benefit of those who want to engage in the type of Wall Street financial manipulation that has brought us to the present financial crisis.

And that those who want to control energy production as a means to control population growth and human behavior would find a more receptive world if they embraced nuclear energy as being sustainable, cost effective and relatively non-polluting over energy sources which must be heavily subsidized to be even moderately successful.

I am but One Citizen Speaking and I invite you to prove me wrong with more than just links to individual scientific papers and limitless speculation about the nature and meaning of temperature rise.

-- steve

P.S.

I would like to credit Nobel Laureate Friedrich August von Hayek and his 1974 Prize Lecture in Computational Economics titled “The Pretense of Knowledge” for  the inspiration required for this essay.

I am reminded of a quote from Sir Isaac Newton, discoverer of the Law of Gravity. He said, “If I have seen farther, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.” Each succeeding generation stands on the shoulders of those who have gone before them. Hopefully unburdened by today’s modern politicians who produce nothing by self-serving public policy to provide some advantage to the special interests that support their political campaigns.