• Imagine a lie so large that it becomes accepted by the majority of the public as being true – especially when its self-serving proponents are credentialed men of stature.
• Imagine a lie so complex that its core truth can never be discovered in a period less than one thousand years, and perhaps not even then.
• Imagine a lie so profitable that billions of dollars can be taken from taxpayers without a credible shred of evidence, or evidence that actually is contrary to its central premise.
• Imagine a lie that is told over and over by the mainstream media in order to fill countless pages and thousands of hours of airtime and to secure access to those credentialed men of stature who are also regarded as newsmakers.
• And, imagine a lie where contradictory evidence is offered as proof of the lie.

The lie is not that there exists a physical phenomena called global warming/global cooling/climate change, but that this physical phenomena is greatly influenced by man’s actions and that public policies are required to “save the planet” from disastrous and immediate consequences of global climate change.

And the people who benefit from this lie are: the governments who can enlarge the scope of their powers and access more of their citizen’s income and wealth; the poorer nations who see wealth redistribution as a means to grow their particular portion of the world, the international institutions that see a method of increasing their power and developing a perpetual income divorced from the contributions of their member states; foundations and think tanks that are subsidized by governments and individuals; the educational institutions who increase facilities and faculty researching the issue; and the special interests which sell their goods and services to those worried about the impact of this planetary disaster.

The fact is that, since the dawn of time, physical forces beyond man’s comprehension and ability to influence have shaped our solar system, our planet, and our environmental ecosphere. The planet has experienced ice ages, warm-ups, higher concentrations of carbon dioxide and lower concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. All before modern man discovered industrialization.

Common sense would tell you that the essential science behind global climate change is the physical phenomenon of energy transfer; with the largest variable being the source of that energy being the Sun. With energy values being greatly affected by the Sun’s solar output, our planetary position with respect to the Sun, cosmic rays which influence cloud formations that represent the greatest of the greenhouse gases, our planet’s rotational dynamics which gives rise to movement of global air masses and our deep oceans (which act as an energy sink) and currents which affect much of the global weather phenomena such as the El Nino/La Nina cycles.

Science tells us that global climate changes is a chaotic system, systems that, by definition, cannot be adequately modeled at this point in time. Consider all of the time and energy that has gone into attempting to model the chaotic system that is the stock market, which some believe is the collective expression of the sentiment of investors, changing from moment-to-moment based on known and unknown external forces.

So why should the public accept the output of deeply flawed models with highly-manipulated data as scientific fact – rock solid enough to drive public policies which result in the enlargement of government fiefdoms and the reduction in the personal freedoms of its citizens? Of course, common sense would dictate the answer: you cannot trust public policies that are not grounded in supportable, provable facts. Reminding people that a consensus of people with demonstrable self-interests in the outcome cannot be regarded as a scientific fact; nor as prudent basis for making public policy positions. 

Unfortunately, as proven by the last election, the majority of people are too wrapped up in their own lives and the need to deal with earning a living to devote the time, money and effort needed to study political issues in depth. Also unfortunately is that the mainstream media has appears to abandon their ethics in “speaking truth to power” in order to capitalize on a beneficial relationship with a political ideology and administration that supports their own personal interests.

For those who want a simple explanation of global warming and the rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide, consider this …

1. Global climate change appears to be somewhat cyclical – although we do not know the exact frequency, amplitude or mean value of the phenomena.
2. Upon emerging from a little Ice Age, one would expect the Planet to warm up and then cool down as it reverts to its chaotic mean value.
3. Observations show that the warming lags the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide by 600 to 1,000 years depending upon the datasets used.
4. Because the atmospheric carbon dioxide lags the warming, it cannot be causal. In fact, there is an ecological case to be made for higher carbon dioxide concentrations which increases plant life, increases oxygen levels and dilutes pollutants.
5. The phenomena of increasing carbon dioxide can be explained by elementary physics. As temperatures rise, the dissolved carbon dioxide contained in the oceans outgasses to the atmosphere, in the same way an recently uncapped cold beer gives off dissolved carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as it warms.
6. According to the conclusions from the last 2007 IPCC (The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change),  most of the 0.8 degree warming observed in the past century is due the increase in carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels and other human activities.
7. We are speaking about a temperature change of only a few degrees – masking any attempt by man to alter the climate cycle in the variability of natural climate cycles. We would not know the results of any experiment for at least 600 to 1000 years – when those who spent our money and denied us our freedoms are long dead. And probably the climate would have substantially changed on its own.

An example of a climate charlatan who has earned hundreds of millions of dollars for his private company …

Listen carefully as he cites a researcher’s prediction that “some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during some of the summer months, could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.” Something that has failed to happen – and now calls for extending the forecast period. 

While Al Gore sounds sincere and credible when presenting his PowerPoint slides, it should be remembered that he is not stating facts, but is reporting an observation which many others contest. In this case appearances can be greatly deceiving to those who do not want to research the subject on their own or spend any time looking at the “global picture.” Reputable and well-credentialed scientists have done excellent work in specific locations, but whether or not their findings can be extrapolated to planetary applications is in doubt.

Many scientists cherry-pick data by restricting time-ranges and locations in order to support their own working hypotheses. Therefore, one must be extremely careful about projecting the results of examining twenty trees in Russia to the entire planet. Or looking at temperatures in very small time segments measured in decades.

I think one of the most astounding graphs I have ever seen is the overlay of present-day conditions over the projections of various models. While the models truly overstate the case for global warming, the part that I found fascinating was that the error bars (the probabilities associated with likely error) of the observations greatly exceeded the values presented by the models. Thus indicating, at least to me, that the measurements were worthless when it came to supporting public policies.

This is not a chart from a “questionable” source, but from the IPCC AR-5 Draft.

Estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature (in °C) since 1990 compared with the range of projections from the previous IPCC assessments. Values are aligned to match the average observed value at 1990. Observed global annual temperature change, relative to 1961–1990, is shown as black squares (NASA (updated from Hansen et al., 2010; data available at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/); NOAA (updated from Smith et al., 2008; data available at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.html#grid); and the UK Hadley Centre (Morice et al., 2012; data available at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/) reanalyses). Whiskers indicate the 90% uncertainty range of the Morice et al. (2012) dataset from measurement and sampling, bias and coverage (see Appendix for methods). The coloured shading shows the projected range of global annual mean near surface temperature change from 1990 to 2015 for models used in FAR (Scenario D and business-as-usual), SAR (IS92c/1.5 and IS92e/4.5), TAR (full range of TAR Figure 9.13(b) based on the GFDL_R15_a and DOE PCM parameter settings), and AR4 (A1B and A1T). The 90% uncertainty estimate due to observational uncertainty and internal variability based on the HadCRUT4 temperature data for 1951-1980 is depicted by the grey shading. Moreover, the publication years of the assessment reports and the scenario design are shown. <Source>

Bottom line …

Models purport to tell the future by programming that seeks to take historical data inputted to the system and to project the likelihood that the data will be reflective of the future. Basically, some models attempt to discover a formula that appears to “fit” the observed data – and then simply projects it into the future. Others use equations of underlying physical phenomena and then try to compute data which matches observed values.

Unfortunately, a sufficient time has gone by where we can see that many models are not good representatives of the phenomena modeled and that their projected data – when measured against actual data – is wildly inaccurate. In most cases, the Global Circulation Models fail to correctly account for water vapor (the largest greenhouse gas) and aerosols and their computed results are questionable.

It is your life that is at stake. Whether or not you are going to let the government impose draconian public policies to make you a slave to the political process – disarming you to prevent dissent – and the loss of your freedoms is the real question.

-- steve

Related articles

Explaining the natural bias in global warming studies

Global Warming: Why a Homeowner's Association Needs to Maintain Its Trees?

Plants and soils could exacerbate climate change as global climate warms

Eugene Robinson on Climate Change: Intellectually Dishonest or Just Drinking the Kool-aid?

Global warming

Quicker Fix For Climate Change

Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: 'Blaming Sandy on Global Warming or 'Climate Change' is shockingly ignorant or shockingly deceptive'

A U.S. Carbon Tax Wouldn't Slow Down Global Climate Change

Souring seas condemn coral reefs

Global Warming: Did Michael Hockey Puck Mann claim to have received the Nobel Peace Prize?