Climate Change Models Faulty Due to "Confirmation Bias"

In a blog, a Man Made Climate Change zealot bemoaned the fact that,  "It's so sad that science isn't allowed to say "proven" after being 99% certain for 34 years without achieving the climate action needed to SAVE THE PLANET." editorial-march-1-2015-

Previously I wrote: The argument has never been about whether man is affecting the atmosphere; of course he has. For hundreds of years it has been observed that smoke from coal fires have raised the temperatures in London, by creating a warming blanket in the atmosphere. The question is what is the extent of Man Made Climate Change (MMCC)? Most of the 97% consensus studies didn't even contact the scientists and were based on very faulty criteria. We already know that predictions of MMCC by zealots like Al Gore were incredibly overstated; and most the climate computer models are not that less fantastic. The truth is no one knows. The only way to calculate the extent that man is affecting Climate Change is by the very computer studies that have been churning out faulty information for the past 10 years or so. What we do know is carbon credits are a scam designed solely to raise taxes and rationalize global governance. While “People tend to use scientific knowledge to reinforce beliefs that have already been shaped by their world view,” Governments have also used science to justify oppression and tyranny. And so it goes..

This was my response to the zealot..

It isn't science's job to save the planet or make the world believe anything. Science is also not a democratic process were the majority rules; it should be noted that the most spectacular scientific discoveries were believed by a small minority before they became generally accepted. Further, Man Made Climate Change (MMCC) has shown itself to be a political movement verging on religious dogma, which is often defined as "confirmation bias". "A good theory or hypothesis also must be falsifiable, which means that it must be stated in a way that makes it possible to reject it. In other words, we have to be able to prove a theory or hypothesis wrong. Theories and hypotheses need to be falsifiable because all researchers can succumb to the confirmation bias. Researchers who display confirmation bias look for and accept evidence that supports what they want to believe and ignore or reject evidence that refutes their beliefs".

Further as I said before, while climate change is accepted science, as is MMCC to a lesser degree, there is absolutely no consensus on to what degree man is affecting the climate. As a matter of fact, the corner stone of MMCC, the raising levels of man created C02 causing global warming, has been called into question. For 18 years there has been no substantial global warming, even though C02 levels have continued to rise. It seems all the climate change computer models were based on the relationship between rising C02 levels and the raising global temperatures of the 1990's and the models have simply not been able explain the pause in global warming while C02 is still on the rise. But rather than question their global warming dogma, they have created other unsubstantiated theories to explain it without putting their theories into question (like the disproved theory that planet heat was hiding deep in the ocean; yes, ignoring physics by saying hot water sank below colder water). Another obvious example of confirmation bias. It isn't the point that science is not allowed to say "proven"; the point is that saying anything is proven is not science (in other words to wish science could declare a theory proven is wishing for the end to science); it's usually a political entity looking for a rationalization for oppression and tyranny.

C02 Is Not Pollution

The recent Climate-Gate scandal has not totally discredited science, but it does show that science and political expediency do not mix. One of my favorite definitions of science, is “the ongoing attempt to disprove a theory”; the science of Man Made Climate Change departed this from this almost from the beginning. Forget for a moment that the data for Made Made Climate Change has been corrupted to the point that the CRU says it will take 3 years to re-calculate it's findings. Lets look at Man Made Climate Change purely from a prospective of what would actually would be done by the United Nations and Al Gore if the world signed on to a carbon reduction, cap and trade treaty. The Kyoto and Copenhagen conferences presented a plan that the industrial developed world, primarily the United States and China would accept an arbitrary cap on their carbon emissions and would need to buy carbon credits for any carbon admissions over that amount. In other words, as long as the carbon credits cost less than their profit margins, these industrialized countries will simply pay to increase their carbon footprint; this is why it has been referred as “pay to pollute”. These carbon credits will come from non- industrialized countries, where the industrialized countries will trade carbon credits (much they way stocks are traded). In the Kyoto accords, the countries rich in carbon credits would have sold them directly to the countries in need of the credits. However, in Copenhagen, the UN inserted a middleman, the IMF (International Monetary Fund) to control the credits. When the carbon credit rich countries were informed of this, they revolted and the Copenhagen Accord collapsed.

So what does all this mean? First, it means that the science of Man Made Climate Change is being used purely for a re-distribution of wealth between the developed and non-developed industrial countries of the world. The made up value of the world wide carbon credits has been estimated at 23 trillion dollars. Those prone to make the most money are the investment bankers that will broker the carbon credits. Al Gore has invested heavily in these banks and it has been projected that he will become the first billionaire as the result of world wide carbon trading. If science eventually shows that atmospheric levels of C02 does not trap heat, and/or that man's contribution to the C02 levels does not cause Global Warming, then the United Nations and many countries in the world would lose their share of the $23 trillion pot. Since it is science that is being used to justify this re-distribution, there is a huge conflict of interest for scientist are only being given grants to prove the existence of Man Made Climate Change and, according to the CRU hacked emails, any scientists that are questioning Man Made Climate Change are being blocked form peer review and there has been such far reaching attempts to discredit them, that CRU scientists have discussed pressuring colleges to invalidate their credentials.

I am an optimistic person. History tells me that in the long run, science will win out. As I said in a past letter, “When science is used for political purposes, it can only be as corrupted as politicians”; it is the poison of government. It would seem that science is best when it is in conflict with the status quo. But take science out of it's element and it can be used to justify tyranny and fascism. F.A. Haytek described this process in his 1944 book, The Road to Serfdom. Once science has to serve, not the truth, but the interests of a class, a community, or a state, the sole task of the argument and discussion is to vindicate and to spread still further the beliefs by which the whole life of the community is directed. When science becomes political the result is Geocentric(s), Eugenics, and now Man Made Climate Change. Science is a process and at it's best is man's only real attempt at being objective. As long as scientist admit there is no scientific fact, and that all scientific theories will eventually be dis-proven, science will continue to search for understanding, regardless of where it leads.