Chicken Little vs the IPCC

Now that the Democrat’s have been dethroned, scientists galore are coming out of the woodwork in favor of the truth:

“It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

“Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.”

I hold two science degrees, and a third in business administration. I graduated summa cum laude from both graduate degrees, with a 3.94 our of 4.0 in one, and a 4.0 out of 4.0 in the other. I completed both degrees, along with two full concentrations, one in technology management, the other in project management, in just 2.67 years. I began my collegiate studies in Aerospace Engineering back in 1981.

Since 1986, I have been either a moderator or an administrator on at least one message forum (The Bible BBS, Blacksburg, VA).

I spent 20 years, from 1989 through 2009, flying B-52s and C-130s for the Air Force.

Major non-flying positions included as an instructor and the Asst Director of Academics at a well-known school at Nellis AFB. We taught 60+ Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine, and Coalition students ranging from E-2 through O-6 how to integrate joint firepower on the battlefield everysix weeks.

Between 2003 and 2005, I redesigned the Airlift Request process for the entire Korean Theater of Operations, a task that I was repeatedly told was “impossible, unless you have ten years.” I accomplished it in six months, and was duly recognized for the benefit it conferred to U.S. Forces Korea.

Since 1995, I have been a member of at least one physics, astronomy, or science forum (Bad Astronomy, Universe Today, Physics Forum, Science Forums).

Since 1998, I have been studying the IPCC reports, First through Fifth assessments (1990, 1995, 2001, 2007, and 2014). Although I was “on board” with global warming from the early 1990s through 1998, while examining the IPCC’s detailed documents during the fall of 1998, I began to notice a number of discrepancies, both when compared with external data as well as internal inconsistencies. I came to a logical conclusion that whoever was behind these reports was working primarily off of rhetoric and dogma while cherry-picking their “logical” discourse to match their ideologies, rather than actually following the scientific method. Years later, I learned that John Coleman, co-founder of The Weather Channel, had arrived at the same conclusion. Excerpt:

“Through self study and correspondence courses at Penn State (all while he was working on television full-time) Coleman eventually obtained Professional membership status in the American Meteorological Society and was named AMS Broadcast Meteorologist of the Year in 1982. After ten years of attending AMS National Meetings and studying the papers published in the organization’s journal, Coleman claimed the AMS was driven by political, not scientific, agendas and dropped out the AMS.”

I conclude that what was fomenting in the AMS between 1982 and 1992 lead to the self-seeking establishment of the IPCC, along with the peddling of non-scientific global warming/climate change “doom and gloom” in exchange for some $200 BILLION in government funding over the last couple of decades…

…even if many of them were unaware of the various cognitive biases that lead to their heading down the wrong path.

A Final Word on Global Warming

I don’t know if we’ll ever put the global warming/climate change/extreme blah blah argument to rest. Unfortunately, far too many people are arguing on the side of funding rather than the side of science.
The graphic below, however, reveals something rather startling. It is a composite of two different graphs.  Please click on it to see a full-sized version.
global war,omgThe first graph in the upper left shows the AGT (average global temperature) between the present and 2.4 mya (million years ago). As you can see, prior to about 30 mya, Earth was far warmer than it is today. In fact, normal temperatures remained above 70 deg F, while ice age temperatures dipped to around 50 deg F.
Given the age, however, the data was not very fine-grained, meaning that ice-age temperatures could easily have dipped down to what they have been over the last 0.5 mya (500 thousand years), ranging between 20 deg F and roughly 35 deg F.
The graph in the upper left is roughly a thousand times greater scale than the other two graphs. The red lines from the bottom graph show just how much smaller the more recent 450 thousand years in the other two graphs than the long-term, 2.4 billion year graph in the upper left.
Now here’s the interesting part: The graph on the right is properly positioned with respect to temperature. Notice the 50 deg F point on both graphs match. Thus, when the 2.4 by graph says “Ice Age” at its right, and given the glacial and interglacial temperatures on the 450,000 year graph to the right, here’s what it means:
Earth is STILL in the middle of its last ice age, some 40 deg F COLDER than the periods between ice ages.
Furthermore, current interglacial temperatures are a good 9 deg F colder than they usually are, meaning another 9 deg F increase would be entirely normal given the glacial and interglacial periods over the last half a million years, during which time both Earth and mankind has survived just fine.
By comparison, the IPCC’s “worst case” analysis and conclusion that global temperatures might exceed 6 deg F by the year 2100 is entirely within the range of “normal temperature variation,” clearly evidenced by the AGT over the last half-million years. With respect to Earth’s “normal” temperature over the last 1 billion years, however, what little global warming we might have experienced is but a tiny drop in the bucket as to 40 deg F warming trend good, old Mother Earth will toss our way if she decides to thaw us out back to Earth REAL normal temperature.
Naturally, since all climatologists already know (or should know) this information, it royally begs the question as to why they keep whining about the few puny degrees that mankind “might” add to the planet’s temperature over the next couple hundred years. Is it money? Billions of dollars in government funding can certainly provide a huge incentive for telling whoppers to the American taxpayers who fund the vast majority of those grants. Perhaps it’s a pseudo-religious belief that they’re doing something “good” for mankind, and the belief is so strong as to blind them to the truth.
Regardless, the truth remains, as clearly evidenced by Earth’s climate history:
A. As compared to Earth’s pattern of temperatures throughout it’s determinable history, we’re currently in the middle of an ice age, albeit in a relatively minor interglacial peak.
B. Temperatures could easily drop 10 deg F at any time, plunging the Earth into the deeper portion of an ice age such as the ones that carved Yosemite with deep glaciars.
C. Temperatures could also easily rise 40 or more deg F at any time, turning Greenland, Siberia, and the Yukon into the next series of tropical jungles, while turning the Congo and Amazon River basin into the next Sahara.
D. All of these possibilities are normal and natural, completely void of any human input. They have happened here on Earth multiple times in the past, completely without any input or causative factors by mankind.

E. No matter what mankind does, it won’t stop the normal, natural, and inevitable swings in Earth’s temperature. Mankind’s attempts to stop these swings is a reflection of arrogance at best, but at worst, a widespread attempt to extort (if not outright steal) vast sums of money from the hard-working people of this world.

In summary, I would like to divert your attention to this article from Investor’s Business Daily:

New Phrase for the Day: Global Warming Derangement Syndrome – When the Media and other Non-Experts claim those who don’t agree with their misconceptions — particularly politicians — are “deranged.”
“It’s the media and alarmists’ distance from reality that has moved. How else to explain how the alarmists, with a supportive media, could rip Trump for backing out of a deal they said was insufficient to start with?”
“The alarmists’ screeching is incessant, their lectures grating and without restraint, their hypocrisy as fetid as the wrong side of a sewage treatment plant. And of course their fanaticism is so rigid they cannot acknowledge anything that challenges their narrative.”
True.  True.

Freedom of Speech and of the Press

This article raises a very good question:  “Does the First Amendment protect global warming deniers?”
The answer is, unequivocally and resoundingly “YES.”
No federal, state, county, or local entity, nor any law enforcement or public business may restrict people’s expression concerning the pros freedom of speechand/or cons of various viewpoints on global warming, climate change, denying, etc. We live in the United States of America, which holds both the freedom of speech and the press in the highest regard. This is NOT Nazi Germany, which repressed the vast majority of free speech and severely punished violators.
Our First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
First, once they are properly ratified, all amendments are fully a part of the Constitution: “The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses rightsshall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution.” (Article V).
Second, although 1A specifically limits Congress from passing any such law, the Supreme Court has repeatedly expanded that through the “the supreme Law of the Land” clause (Article VI) to mean the United States Constitution supersedes all federal, state, county, and local (municipality) law. Thus, no action by any executive, legislative, judicial branch, or by law enforcement or member of the public can legal violate any provision of the Constitution, including “the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
Third, countless case law refers to “freedom of speech” as applying to oral utterances, regardless of source, whereas “the press” refers to the written Franklin_the_printer-by-Charles-B-Mills - Young Benjamin at his brother's Printing Pressword, regardless of form (print, offset type, electronic, billboard, etc.). Thus, my blog, as was Benjamin Franklin’s backyard printing press, is every bit as much “the press” as is the New York times. Although Nancy Pelosi would like you to believe otherwise, well, what can I say? She’s the last person I would ever consult on matters Constitutional.
Fourth, countless case law willfully ignores the content of free speech when determining whether or not it’s “allowable” under Constitutional law. Thus, t-shirts supporting the murderous revolutionary Che Guevara, are every bit as protected when worn by a teenager cruising the mall as is a t-shirt sporting a happy face.
Fifth, the U.S. Supreme Court has continuously upheld very strict scrutiny for the exceedingly few restrictions on freedom of speech. Specifically, the only exceptions involve the following:
1. Content: Cannot be based upon content, i.e. any restrictions must remain content-neutral, even if the content is highly objectionable. This is the reason the Westboro Baptists can continue to protest military funerals despite the fact that 99% of society finds their behavior utterly reprehensible. Thus, no municipality can allow public protests supporting one side of an issue while denying those who are protesting the opposite side of the issue.
2. Time, place, and manner. Municipalities can place limited restrictions on time, place, and manner. For example, driving at 3 am (time) through neighborhoods (place) while blaring one’s point of view over loudspeakers We Will Not Be Silences(manner) violate all three. Such restrictions, however, must remain content-neutral. Thus, you cannot ban one group of protesters under any particular combination of time/place/manner while allowing another. The courts have also observed “similitude,” such that one time/place/manner is considered for all practical purposes as being substantially equivalent to another even details differ. Thus, a municipality cannot ban protests in one neighborhood while allowing them in another.
3. Prior restraint: “If the government tries to restrain speech before it is spoken, as opposed to punishing it afterwards, it must be able to show that punishment after the fact is not a sufficient remedy, and show that allowing the speech would “surely result in direct, immediate, and irreparable damage to our Nation and its people” (New York Times Co. v. United States). U.S. courts have not permitted most prior restraints since the case of Near v. Minnesota in 1931.
Bottom Line: Any and all claims related to “global warming” and “climate change” must stand on their own merits. The freedom to question the validity of ANY public opinion or policy directly relates to the ability of the people of our nation helping to keep our nation free by limiting the power and authority of all entities, most notably various institutions, including local, county, state, and federal governments, from infringing on our freedom of speech and of the press.
freedom of speech - Charles Bradlaugh

Weather Disasters Caused by Bad Decisions, not Global Warming or Climate Change

Dr. Jeff Masters, co-founder of Weather Underground, wrote a very interesting article entitled, “Earth’s 29 Billion-Dollar Weather Disasters of 2015: 4th Most on Record” today.

What I found most interesting about is the the fact he failed to mention the root cause of the disasters.

Here are the disaster basics:

  1. The count was very confusing.  After reading the article several times, he’s not saying the losses total $29 Billion.  He’s saying there were 29 weather disasters in 2015 whose individual costs for each disaster exceeded $1 billion.
  2. By comparison, there were 24 weather disasters, on average, whose individual costs exceeded $1 billion.
  3. The U.S. had eleven of the billion-dollar weather disasters.  China came in second with a count of six.
  4. I see no mention that the costs were adjusted for inflation.  Ergo, the most recent “records” might not be records at all.
  5. The values include drought, earthquakes and fires.  For example, Indonesia suffered from drought and fires.  Romania suffered from drought.  South Africa suffered from drought.  Ethiopia?  Drought.  Malawi suffered from rain-induced flooding; Vanuatu from a Category 5 tropical cyclone (hurricane); Chile from flooding; Dominica from flooding; Botswana from flooding.

Weather is NOT the root cause of these problems.  We’ve always had weather.  It is both natural and normal.  The root cause of these problems is man, but NOT in the way the Global Warming a.k.a. Climate Change screamers would like you to believe.  We have ALWAYS had weather on this planet, and it has often been more severe than it’s been lately.  It’s been both significantly hotter as well as significantly colder than it is today.  It’s been both significantly more violent as well as significantly more sedate than it is today.  During the more sedate periods, species differentiate and variety flourishes.  During more violent periods of rapid change, only the hardiest species survive while the rest die off.  This, too, is both normal and natural.  In fact, it’s the very basis of evolution.  Scientists fret about Earth being on the brink of a sixth mass extinction without realizing this would be our sixth mass extinction, not our first.  The others occurred 439 mya, 364 mya, 251 mya, 199 mya, and 65 mya.

Their claim that it’s “mostly due to human actions,” however, is utterly preposterous.

In fact, the first such event, the Ordovician-Silurian extinction that occurred 439 million years ago (mya) was caused by “a drop in sea levels as glaciers formed followed by rising sea levels as glaciers melted” (Source).  During the event, Earth lost 25% of marine families and 60% of marine genera.  Tragic?  No!  It was both normal and natural.  Mankind wouldn’t start appearing until another 436 my later.

The second such event, the Late Deonian extinction, occurred approximately 364 mya, with suspected global cooling and glaciation of Gondwana (a former mass continent, long since subducted) causing the extinction of of many warm water marine species.

The third such event, the Permian-Triassic extinction, occurred 251 mya.  Although no direct evidence has been found, scientists believe it was the result of a comet or asteroid impact that killed 95% of all species.  Again, mankind was till 248 my down the road.

The fourth such event, the End Triassic extinction, between 199 and 214 mya, resulted from massive lava floods caused by the breakup of Pangea and the opening of the Atlantic Ocean.  As this occurred over 15 my, a relatively small number of marine families, genera, and vertebrates occurred.  Mankind was still 196 my distant.

The fifth such event, the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction, occurred 65 mya as either the result or aggravation of several mile-wide asteroid impacts, including the Chicxulub crater in Yucatan.  Other scientists say it was the result of gradual climate change.  Regardless, 16% of marine families, 47% of marine genera, and 18% of vertebrate families died, including the dinosaurs.

The point is that each and every one of these events occurred entirely due to NORMAL and NATURAL change and entirely without mankind in the picture.

So what have we learned?  We’ve learned that climate change is both normal and natural.  We’ve also learned that the root cause of the dollar damage involves bad choices made by man in terms of location, building design, and forestry management, and NOT because of the normal and natural weather patterns and climate here on Earth.

Let’s take a closer look at Indonesia:

The primary cause of Indonesia’s drought and fires was two-fold.  There’s been an increase in deforestation combined with managed forestry.  Historically, this leads to the suppression of many small natural fire events that weed out smaller growth thereby keeping the fuel for major fires to a minimum.  This type of “managed care” lead to the massive fires that raged through Yellowstone National Park in 1988.

As for disasters related to flooding, “never build on a flood plain.”  My father gave me that advice as I was seeking to buy my first house in 1994, but I first heard it from my grandfather in 1967, as my father was looking to buy his own first home.  Before buying my house, I went to the county’s land surveyor office and immediately crossed off three homes on my list because they were built on a flood plain.  We moved into one of the homes on my list that wasn’t on any flood plain, including the 500-year flood plain.  Just nine months later, the area experienced record rainfalls.  Basically, it rained nearly 24/7 for an entire month, flooding out all three of the homes I had crossed off my list.  In my home, however, we were high and dry.

Here’s another good piece of advice, dating back well over two thousand years:

“Everyone therefore who hears these words of mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man, who built his house on a rock. The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it didn’t fall, for it was founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of mine, and doesn’t do them will be like a foolish man, who built his house on the sand. The rain came down, the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat on that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.” – Matthew 7:24-27

The parable involves putting our trust in Jesus Christ, but relates to the common knowledge that building on rock is wise while building on sand is foolish.  The parable also mentions the rains, winds (hurricanes/cyclones), and flooding, the principle causes of most of the weather-related disasters in Dr. Jeff Master’s article.

The idea proposed by the GW/CC enthusiasts, that we somehow change the weather, is preposterous, insanely absurd.  In fact, even if we spent 100% of the damages on mitigating the effects weather change caused by mankind’s activities, it would have — at best — a 0.3% effect.

In order words, spend a million dollars and achieve a return of just three thousand dollars.  No matter how much one spent, you would only ever achieve a 0.3% (.003 factor) return on your investment.

That, ladies and gentlemen, would be the supreme height of arrogant, ignorant stupidity, a complete and utter waste of taxpayer dollars, not to mention the productivity of mankind in general.  Billions would die trying to pay for this insane scheme, yet that’s exactly what scientists would like you to believe is the best course of action, when in fact, it is the most absurd course of action on the planet with only one outcome that’s good for only one class of people, and that’s the trillions of dollars that would be spent lining the pockets of climate scientists.

Naturally, this brings us to my last word to the wise:  Follow the money.  In this case, it leads to the now-clear motive behind much of their finger-waggling.

So, instead of embarking on the ridiculously stupid, not to mention futile attempt to modify normal and natural climate change, let us instead do three things:

  1.  Never build on a flood plain.  If you do, have the common decency to build on pilings designed to withstand whatever a once in a 500 year flood will throw at you, and ensure the building is strong enough to withstand the winds and the rains.
  2. If you build out of primitive materials, consider using the environmentally-friendly hanok style of Korea, along with it’s sub-floor heating system known as ondol.  These homes are very sturdy, and have weathered the typhoon-ridden countries of N. and S. Korea for hundreds of years.  The round mound is another weather-proof design commonly found among peasant villages throughout N. and S. Korea.  Like geodesic domes, these designs can easily withstand very high cyclonic winds while providing good shelter against the cold and cooling against the summer heat.
  3. Stop putting out forest fires!  They are absolutely essential to controlling the undergrowth which, if left to grow in the absence of a major fire, produces enough fuel for catastrophic forest fires of the kind that burned in Indonesia.  At the very least, conduct regular, controlled burns to mimic what would occur in nature if left alone.  In a similar vein, stop deforesting large swaths of land by setting forest fires, the little known fact Dr. Jeff Masters failed to mention in his article.

Bottom line:  Mother Nature is not “steady-state.”  It never has been, and no matter how much we try, it never will be.  Instead, our Earth and its inhabitants have evolved to take care of life as we know it, even in the face of massive change.  Change is normal.  Change is natural.  What is neither normal nor natural is man coming along, being stupid by building on flood plains using stupid architecture incapable of standing up to seasonal hurricane winds while interrupting natural burn-out of undergrowth then whining about it all over mass media like blithering idiots.

Global Warming is NOT a Threat to Mankind Itself

Clearly, this article reveals a few things:

1. It’s foolish to continue to ascribe anthropogenic global warming as the cause of something that’s happened five times over the last half billion years. “The first two of these — the end of the Ordovician, about 444 million years ago, and the end of the Devonian, about 359 million years ago — occurred at times when diversity appeared to have reached a plateau. Diversity simply bounced back to previous levels after they struck.”

Corollary: Biodiversity itself is not a naturally-occurring “steady state” phenomenon. It changes — dramatically. The key, however, is that it always bounces back. Thus, changes in biodiversity are not in themselves cause for alarm.

2. Clearly, the causes of these events were never a few degrees change in temperature, ergo, global warming is no contender for any mass extinction event: “The physical events causing mass extinctions, whether asteroids, mass volcanism or other physical factors, are so disruptive and have such global consequences that even the most widespread and numerous species can be wiped out.”

3. While never immune to changes in biodiversity, mankind has reached the stage where even simple technology such as the horse-drawn plow and water-powered grain and textile mills have made tremendous advances in our ability to overcome adversity. Given modern technology — the ability to build viable, year-round, self-heated, nutrient and food-producing aquaponics pods in everyone’s backyard, community parks, fields, and nearly everywhere — has rendered the point of a cataclysmic drop in biodiversity resulting in mankind’s extinction largely mute. While there remain Earth-wide events that could result in mankind’s demise, the odds of that are fantastically lower today than they were even 100 years ago.

New Information Puts Modern “Blip” Into Climate Change Perspective

“Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures warmed roughly 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see page 3 of the IPCC’s Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers – PDF).”

HOWEVER, according to NASA, “The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research.” This connection may still be poo-pooed by the IPCC, but after rigorous statistically analysis, it’s withstood the test of scrutiny and has entered mainstream science. Adds NASA: “Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 (38 kb JPEG image). Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the “Little Ice Age” when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past.”

Source:  NASA’s Solar Science Website on The Sunspot Cycle

Getting back to the IPCC’s arbitrary selection of 1880 as a starting point… The temperature in 1880 was significantly lower than mean over the last 2000 years. For example, it was a good 0.5 deg C (0.9 deg F) warmer throughout the several hundred year long Medieval Warm Period than it was in 1880. Thus, to be objective, selecting the mean over the last 2,000 years, we find the temperature rise in recent years isn’t nearly 1.53 deg F, but rather, closer to 1 deg F, well within normal variation. Furthermore, in the last 15 years, the temperature has not adhered to the IPCC predictions, instead rising just 0.2 deg F.

When you expand the time window out to, say, 50,000 years, we find that recent changes are miniscule compared to recent times. We find temperatures were 1.5 deg C warmer than they are today during the Medieval Warming period approximately 1,000 years ago; 2.5 deg C warmer than they are today during the Roman Warming period approximately 2,200 years ago; and 3.25 deg C warmer than they are today during the Minoan Warming period approximately 3,350 years ago. Temperatures were as also hot as they were during the Minoan Warming period back around 7,000 years ago as well as 7,800 years ago. We’ve also had mini-ice ages, around 8,300 years ago, 4,700 years ago, and 1,200 years ago.

These facts match an earlier release by NASA scientists entitled, Anthropogenic Global Warming Science Assessment Report.

So – What does all this mean? How does the modern rise stack up against the much larger swings throughout the last 10,000 years?

Answer:  It’s nothing but a blip.  At least twelve rises over the last 10,000 years have been several times greater than the modern rise.  See for yourselves:

Greenland Ice Core Data
While you’re looking at it, however, please GROW A BRAIN.

NASA Scientists Say CO2 Not the Cause of Temperature Cycles of the last 700,000 years

I recently came across a report made by a group of retired NASA Scientists.  They pooled their outstanding credentials, education, and experience, reexamined the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) argument in great detail, including fielding speakers from both sides of the argument, and determined the evidence suggests CO2 fluctuations over the last 700 thousands years have had nothing to do with the temperature swings.  Although there are many aspects of climate science they wished to examine, “the most pressing question facing our public policy decision-makers:

“To what extent can human-related releases of CO2 into the atmosphere cause earth surface temperature increases that would have harmful effects?””

Here’s a copy of their report:

Anthropogenic Global Warming Science Assessment Report – TRCS

They achieved some very interesting findings:

1.  Although only a few % of the CO2 presently in the atmosphere is human-caused, the ~39% increase in atmospheric CO2 (from ~280 to ~390 ppm) over the past century correlates to the estimated amount of fossil fuel burned over this period.

2.  The CO2 exchanges between the planet’s reservoirs (atmosphere, oceans, soils, and plants) greatly exceeds the CO2 added by humans.  This raises a credible doubt that despite the correlation between human CO2 production and atmospheric levels, our CO2 production may not be causing the change.

3.  “Those scientists who attribute most of the global temperature rise of the last century to atmospheric CO2 increases, discount the possibility that most of the observed warming could be due to natural climate cycles.”

4.  The threat of net harmful total global warming, if any, is not immediate and thus does not require swift corrective action.

5.  The US Government Is over-reacting to concerns about anthropogenic global warming.

“It is noteworthy that we are about 4,000 years past the peak insolation of this current Milankovitch cycle, and are thus into an overall cooling phase leading to the next glaciation. It is obvious from such data as the Greenland GISP2 proxy temperature data plotted above that the path toward cooler global temperature is not smooth, but rather is punctuated by abrupt episodes of warming lasting a few centuries, such as the Roman Warming Period (RWP) around 0 AD and the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) lasting from about AD 950 to 1250.”

Further observations in the report note the significantly lower temperatures over the last 16 years since 1998 than were predicted by any of the models, the significant effect of non-carbon-based AGW forcings, particularly black carbon, an economically viable target of mitigation, the strongly muted effect of CO2 on temperature, a surprising and strong transport method for water vapor in troposphere humidification, empirical evidence that any sort of carbon-based AGW catastrophe is unsupported, and much more.

In the end, they made the following conclusions:

“Regardless of what future global temperatures will do, changes should be gradual enough to allow sufficient time for adaptation to these changes. Therefore, there is no need to address these concerns in hasty, knee jerk public policy changes without a more complete understanding of root causes of the small temperature changes we have experienced over the last 10,000 years that had nothing to do with CO2 levels in the atmosphere. We have time to improve climate models, get them validated, and only then use them in critical decision-making.”

“Our main objective of determining to what extent CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere can cause detrimental global warming has led us to an objective conclusion that this issue is not settled science.

This chart plots various model outputs of global temp anomaly with observations. The observations of the last few years clearly are deviating downward from the projections.
This chart plots various model outputs of global temp anomaly with observations. The observations of the last few years clearly are deviating downward from the projections.

Unfortunately, the scientific progress on this issue has been corrupted by political and special interest influences that determine where our research dollars get spent. Political influences in government sponsored research have focused climate change research on CO2 rather than a broader range of factors that need better definition.”

“From a historical perspective, temperature variations we have experienced since the dawn of the Industrial Age are well within the earth’s temperature fluctuations of the last 10,000 years, as well as the more recent 2000 years since the Roman Warm Period.  The earth’s global average temperature has varied by as much as +/- 2 OC of the 10,000 year average while CO2 levels in our atmosphere were relatively constant during the same 10,000 year period. The earth’s surface temperature has remained within +/- 1 OC of this 10,000 year average since CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have started to rise during the Industrial Age.”

They also made the following recommendations:

1.  Take the time required to improve our knowledge of the critical facts driving temperature prediction uncertainty before attempting to make critical high-economic-impact public policy decisions of doubtful effectiveness based on projections of unvalidated computer simulations.

2.  There is no impending climate disaster that requires immediate corrective action. In the face of model prediction uncertainty, that is the primary source of alarm, we should continue to be anchored to the stable climate data of the last 10,000 years and assess recent temperature trends against the backdrop of these very stable temperatures.

3.  We encourage more government sponsored climate change research to remove critical areas of prediction uncertainty. However, we recommend a broader study of all important climate variables and less concentration on CO2 effects in studies using only predictions of unvalidated models. Until models can be improved beyond their present state of effectiveness, and validated with empirical data covering the vast array of variables in physical, chemical and biological processes that they attempt to simulate over time, numerous studies with unvalidated computer simulations have questionable scientific benefits. Eco-engineering solutions for cooling and warming the planet should be studied as well as methods and cost estimates to adapt to a changing climate that we currently do not understand with sufficient precision to try to control.