Why I Don't believe in Global Warming and You Shouldn't Either
by Mark LawrenceWhat is global warming? It's the "theory" that as man uses fossil fuels we release carbon dioxide into the air; the carbon dioxide keeps the earth from radiating as much heat into space; and that leads to global warming. How did we get to this "theory?" In the 1990s scientists noticed that Earth was warming. When they tried to correlate the temperature with other things like sun spots, the best correlation they found was with carbon dioxide (CO2). Notice the nice looking fit in the chart below:
At this point they had what we call a hypothesis. Their next job is to make a prediction: if CO2 continues to rise, then global temperature will rise too. If the prediction comes true, then we consider elevating the hypothesis to a theory. How'd that work out? CO2 continued to rise unchecked as more and more people burned more and more fossil fuels, going up more than 10% from 2000 to 2014 as more and more people started driving cars, flying around in airplanes, using electricity, burning oil. It's easy to see that there has been no pause in generating increased CO2 in the atmosphere:
And how about the Earth's temperature? Did it go up as predicted, indeed as the hyphthesis requires? No. Not even close. The scientists made models predicting how this increase in CO2 would lead to increased temperatures. We're being told repeatedly that 2014 was the hottest year on record. But 2014 just barely brought us back into the ±2 standard deviation model prediction range. There has been essentially no global warming at all since 1997, even though CO2 has continue to rise unabated. This indicates there's a roughly 2.5% chance that the climate models are right and a 97.5% change that the models are garbage. The prediction of higher temperatures failed. Badly. The hypothesis failed to predict. It's not a theory. It's now just a bad guess.
As of December 2014, the earth's actual temperature is far below the NASA model based on actual CO2 emissions and is tracking NASA's model for freezing C02 emissions at 2000 levels - actually a little below, and even more below if you prefer the data from the jokers at HadCRUT.
Perhaps I'm cheating and just using a particularly poor set of models? Former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies "have failed miserably." Spencer compared 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data. 95% of the models "have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH)."
What about the oceans? Are they warming? Here's the official EPA ocean surface temperature chart. Surface temperatures haven't changed in the last 17 years.
Recently we've been told the heat is still building up, but it's being absorbed by the oceans and not visible in surface or atmospheric temperatures. Climate scientists claim that Pacific trade winds have caused the planet to stop warming. Stronger winds in the last two decades may have forced warmer water deeper while bringing cooler water to the surface. The NOAA has released a graph seemingly showing an exponential rise in ocean temperatures. The Y axis is labeled in Joules, a unit of energy, not temperature. Why Joules? When I convert the Y axis to degrees centigrade, the ocean temperature has risen by 0.036°c. I don't believe you can measure sea water in situ to that accuracy, and I don't believe you can lift sea water to the surface and maintain the temperature to that accuracy. That's why the Y axis is presented in Joules. 'Cause if it were degrees centigrade, we would all laugh.
So atmospheric CO2 is up by 10% in the last 15 years, but air temperatures, ground temperatures, ocean surface temperatures and deep ocean temperatures are basically all unchanged. No model can account for this. Why this failure of the models? And why after all these abject failures do we continue to cling to them? As you see, the climate models suck. Seriously suck. -2 standard deviation suck. 95%+ suck. If Boeing's models sucked like that you would never get on an airplane. If the Fed's models sucked like that they would wind up doing something insanely stupid like buying $5 trillion of US bonds and no one would benefit but Wall Street bankers. My answer to why we cling to this disproven and disgraced guess: follow the money.
And what if the data is wrong and the models are right? What if Climate Change is, against all logic and measurement and odds, due to man made emissions? What happens if we don't actually cut our emissions in half and decimate our economy and lifestyle as the Climate Scientists demand? Well, here's another of their fine computer models of who gets hurt most by global warming:
Presuming the models mean anything at all, who gets hurt most by global warming? The very people who continue to breed irresponsibly and have six kids per "family." The very people who are most polluting their air and water, who are cutting down jungles and rain forests, who are dumping 8 million metric tons of plastic into the ocean every year and over-fishing them to near extinction levels. We're supposed to go back to a 1950s lifestyle so that Africa, India, SE Asia and Brazil can continue to be the real problem? Forget it.