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.

Obama's Same Old Climate Game With the Chinese

Is the President Obama's climate change agreement really a game changer?  Well I guess that depends on how you define the current game we are playing with the Chinese and what new game we are  now supposed to play. China has agreed to set a target of reaching a peak in its carbon emissions by 2030; what is going to happen after that is vague and it's also non binding. The US-China climate change deal is terrible On the other hand, The President Obama has offered up for the US pretty much the same plan he committed to after the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit in 2009; to reduce carbon emissions in the US  17% below 2005 levels by 2020, 42% below 2005 levels by 2030 Climate change policy of the United States his new deal with the Chinese the President would cut  US carbon admissions between 26 and 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. So it seems all the President has accomplished, is to give the Chinese (already the top carbon polluter) permission to build dirty coal fired power plants to their hearts content for the next 15 years , while the President continues to play his 2009 carbon emissions reduction plan game, which includes closing down clean coal power plants  ("Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket,") here at home. Obama said energy costs will skyrocket with his cap and trade Sounds like President Obama's same old game to me.

NOAA Caught Fabricating Past Temperatures for Climate Change

FA Hayek  explains the dogma of Obama's political beliefs such as Global Warming 60 years ago. "So he will readily embrace theories which seem to provide a rational justification for the prejudices which he shares with many of his fellows. Thus a pseudoscientific theory becomes part of the official creed which to a greater or lesser degree directs everybody’s action.
"Hayek, F. A. (2010-10-22). The Road to Serfdom: Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition (The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2) . University of Chicago Press - A. Kindle Edition.

There is incredible political pressure that has been put on the proving Climate Change. This reached new levels when it was discovered that NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) had been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The unadjusted and historical temperatures show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming. Once this was brought to light, NOAA changed the temperature data back to the historical accurate numbers.The animated image below shows the changes which Dr. Hansen made to the historical US temperature record after the year 1999. He cooled the 1930s, and warmed the 1980s and 1990s. The year 1998 went from being more than half a degree cooler than 1934, to warmer than 1934.. noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/ 

One of the vehicles used by Man Made Climate Change (MMCC) zelots has been the continued use of lies and fabricated information in an attempt to prove that MMCC exists to a point that there will be long range negative effects. Even the choice of C02 being the main culprit is not based on any empirical evidence, but the simple fact that if MMCC  exists, C02 is the only greehouse gas that man creates in any quantity. There has never been any evidence that C02 traps heat, only constantly stated mis-information presented as Proxy or Observational science that the rest of the scientific community views at not being valid descriptions of the scientific process. Observational Science

When Al Gore first took the helm as chief zealot of MMCC, he would consistently show the C02 heat cycle of the ocean in reverse. It is excepted science that  as the Ocean warms, it releases C02, however Gore would present his MMCG argument showing as C02 levels increased, the ocean warms; something he still does to this day gore-and-bill-nye-fail-at-doing-a-simple-co2-experiment. It has also been completely ignored that none of Al Gores predictions of Catastrophic Climate Changes has come true, and neither has any of the thousands of computer models that were programmed to show climate change accelerated by an increase in C02. Great Global Warming.  And while  C02 levels have been increasing steadily (ie 315ppm in 1958 to 400 ppm today), there has been no global warming in almost 19 years. global-warming-pause-hits-18-years

The issues with these Climate Change computer models was voiced back in the 1970s. In 1975 National Academy of Sciences set up a "U.S. Committee for the Global Atmospheric Research Program" which included many top scientists. Academy reports and other scientific pronouncements... pointed out that predictions of future warming were based mainly on computer models, which were grossly oversimplified and relied on poorly measured numbers. Some scientists held that if the world was currently warming (which they doubted), that was just part of a natural cycle. Or the climate system might fluctuate in a purely random way, regardless of what humanity did. History of Climate Change and the reality is this remains as true today as it was 40 years ago; the main issue being that their are so many variables to Climate Change, that computer models must use significantly oversimplified data , usually pointed in one direction or another to produce and usable result; and  predictions of future warming  based on these computer models have been universally wrong.


There have also been study after study that were released with much fan fare that supposedly proved MMCC, only to be debunked as fraudulent once the methods of the author was discovered; the two major studies that fall into this category are Michael Manns Hockey Stick Graph and the 97% consensus on MMCC. The so called 97% consensus of climate scientists that man made climate change is a danger to the planet, is not only false, it may be a fraud as well. You see the survey of climate scientists was not a survey at all; in fact no scientists were ever contacted. Instead, the  Cook survey was a search engine,  that was so faulty it wrongly showed a 97% consensus. However when the scientific papers were actually reviewed and their authors contacted, it turns out the majority  were neutral on the subject of man made global warming; many also contacted Cook and asked to be removed from the survey. The survey was so faulty that in reality of 3%  respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming', meaning the 97%  is actually the opposite of; the presented consensuses. 97% consensus on Climate Change a fraud

Michael Manns "hockey stick" graph has been discounted for two main reasons. The first was he treated proxy data as if was empirical evidence, and he refused to disclose his data so there is no way it could ever stand up to any scientific scrutiny. " When one talks about proxy data, it means such things as tree rings, ice cores and lake sediments; these and other proxy data is open to interpretation and requires a huge amount of repetitive results to be even be close to being reliable; it was the tree ring scientists (dendrochronologists) that complained about the Manns lack of cross-check tree ring records with other trees in the area to confirm his data. There is also the fact that though tree ring data was taken from hundreds Siberian samples for the hockey stick graph, only one was used; now refereed to as "the most influential tree in the world."  Climategate-reveals-the-most-influential-tree-in-the-world

 "The fact Mann refused to disclose his ‘hockey stick’ graph metadata in the British Columbia Supreme Court, as he is required to do under Canadian civil rules of procedure, constituted a fatal omission to comply, rendering his lawsuit unwinnable. As such, Dr Ball, by default, has substantiated his now famous assertion that Mann belongs "in the state pen, not Penn. State."  In short, Mann failed to show he did not fake his tree ring proxy data for the past 1,000 years, so Ball’s assessment stands as fair comment. Moreover, many hundreds of papers in the field of paleoclimate temperature reconstructions that cite Mann’s work are likewise tainted, heaping more misery on the discredited UN’s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) which has a knack of relying on such sub prime science." michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse

The Democrats Triple down on Man Made Global Warming

March in Santa Cruz appears to be the evangelizing  Man Made Global Warming (MMGW) month. Just in our little town there has been a UCSC Climate Conference and  three letters in the Sentinel; plus in Washington DC a Talkathon planned by Democrats (thank you Barbara Boxer; is it any wonder that the electorate doesn't care about Global Warming, but the Democrats are shoving it down the electorates' throats rather than tackling real problems like unemployment and the national debt, or try and fix our healthcare system that ObamaCare has destroyed) and it's only the 9th!. But the electorate  has  woken up to some facts that cast doubt on this government funded dogma ;there has been no global warming in the last 17 years, which also discredits every computer model offered up by the UN.

You also have the inconvenient untruth of Al Gore's predictions, that by 2013 the polar waters would be free of ice;  nope, the ice still there and actually grew by 60% from the previous year  (I would say that it is a record amount but the Arctic ice has only been documented since 1979, so who knows if it's much of a record or not). When Gore gives his MMGW presentations he continually showed graphs that reversed the known phenomenon that when the oceans are warmed they release C02; instead his graphs shows C02 levels warming the oceans. He used to shrug it off saying is was a typo, but this typo continued to show up and now he will not debate any of his scientific rhetoric.  There is also the fact that the research papers that supported Michael Mann's hockey stick graph (which fueled the recent MMGW doomsday-sayers) seems to have disappeared (lost somewhere in my office says Mann), which is really okay, because his hockey stick graph has been completely discredited (even by Mann himself), even though he still says the science is good.

The MMGW also love to use climate and weather interchangeably, or invent new terms and theories to explain the failure of their computer models, as long as it's in their favor. Hot weather in the 90's proved global warming, cooling weather in the 2000-2014 proves Climate Change. The last glacial period was about 10-12000 years ago, so it's quite evident that the climate has gotten warmer; but the nature of the climate covers 10,000's of years, not hot or cold periods of weather that have occurred or a few hundred years. 2013 had the lowest instance of Atlantic hurricanes sine 1982, 2013 also shattered the record for fewest US tornadoes and forest fire activity plummeted to 1987 levels. There is also the 2013-2014 record cold wave that effected Canada and the Northern US (Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic coast).  Current computers say that MMGW will cause climate change, that will increase the amount of rain in California, which of course is in the middle of a drought (but that didn't stop President Obama from blaming the drought on MMGW). The drought and rain patterns for California are likely the result of repeating weather patterns refereed to as El Niño and El Niña. The current condition, El Niño historically causes higher temperatures and drought conditions, the colder and rainy weather is the result of El Niño. These two weather patterns have repeated and have been observed over time, so scientists can reasonably predict their appearance and effects on the weather.    

One of the most  the often false claim is that there is overwhelming evidence that MMGW exists. The truth is there is no evidence at all that MMGW exists; all there are is observations based on an unknown norm and computer models that churn out inaccurate predictions.The claim that C02 retains heat is the basis for MMGW is the result of the worse of proxy science; if MMGW exists then C02 is the only viable element that could account for it; in other words you first need the predisposition that there is MMGW and then claim it's the result of C02 levels. But even that isn't working out for the zealots. The levels of C02 have been increasing considerably since the beginning of the new millennium, but temperatures  have remained flat; so where is the heat that should be caused by all this C02? Well the zealots now say it's hiding somewhere in the oceans; they don't know exactly where, but they know it's there because the whole belief system of MMGW depends on it. But we are assured that the science of MMGW is settled, which makes MMGW the only settled science known to man.

What's obvious is, the planet be damned, the Democrats and other oppressive regimes have an end game of carbon taxes and control over the actions of all humanity.  Global Warming has simply morphed into a state sponsored religion with cult leaders that demand you, ignore the doubters, pay your carbon taxes or there will be another great flood.

The Myth of Carbon Credits

I continue to believe there are well meaning folks that continue to believe in global warming, believe that fighting Man Made Climate Change, is about cleaning up the poisons and pollution we are putting into the air. If that were so, I would be in the front lines, fighting for clean air and water. But, that is simply not the case. The history of Man Made Climate Change and it's agenda can be partially traced back to the United Nations and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) . In 1995, Ben Santer of the IPCC, deleted from the United Nations Working Group I Report, conclusions from IPCC scientists, which stated that humans were not responsible for climate change. This was followed by the Kyoto Global Climate Convention. In Kyoto, a world wide treaty was signed by world leaders including President Bill Clinton. The treaty was a thing of which conspiracy theory's are born. The basis of the treaty was carbon dioxide causes global warming, that industrial countries were responsible and they should pay for the damage they have done. This payment would be done by industrial countries paying for their carbon footprint, or the amount of carbon dioxide they produce. Although, these countries are mandated to lower their carbon footprint by a certain percentage, there is no need for them to actually do so; all they need do is pay more money. In Kyoto. the money was to go to non-industrial, low carbon producing countries, that would sell their so called carbon credits. In Copenhagen that was changed to the money going to the International Monetary Fund or IMF, that is controlled by the UN. Either way the result would be the same; a world regulatory agency, or world "government" in the words of Al Gore, echoing then French President Chirac at Kyoto. Obviously the treaty is a world wide re-distribution of wealth and would eventually cause industry to come to a grinding halt in industrialized countries. In 1997 the US Senate realized what this treaty was and voted it down 99 to 1.

Two of the nastiest air pollutants is S02 (sulphur dioxide) and N02 (nitrogen dioxide). These are the pollutants that sting your eyes, hurt your lungs, causes acid rain and is turning the oceans to acid as Al Gore likes to say. Other greenhouse gases are methane, carbon monoxide and some commonly referred to as soot. Wouldn't it be nice if Al Gore was trying to clean the atmosphere of known poisons such as these, instead of C02. If Al Gore and the Man Made Climate Change crowd gets it's way the US and other developed industrial countries will pay trillions of dollars on carbon credits, but be free to dump as much of this poison in the air as it wants. And as I've said before, it won't even lower the levels of C02. The framework the Man Made Climate Change advocates are putting into place will accomplish one thing, it will take money from industrialized countries and give it to non-industrialized using carbon credits. As long as the industry can pay the carbon credits and still make a profit, they will continue to do so, without reducing their carbon footprint. Further, if carbon credits become too expensive, were industry really starts cutting back on it's carbon footprint, that will mean less money to those selling the carbon credits. This means there will be no inducement to raise the cost of carbon credits to force any real reduction in C02, which supposedly is the point to carbon credits.

Hopefully, at least one person has read this and realized the Man Made Climate Change will not remove one ounce of pollution from the air, and is designed solely so UN bankers can get their cut of the carbon credits, as money is re-distributed through the planet; all the while, real pollution is being ignored. And who is on the forefront of cashing in on these Carbon Credits? Would it surprise you to learn that Al Gore is expected be the first Carbon Credit billionaire from his investments in carbon credit investments banks in Europe; once the US enters the picture that amount should double. Until that time Sec of State Hillary Clinton has pledged $100 billion a year.

But there is hope. In recent events it appears the CRU, for this first time in history, is starting to release it's raw data. The data they first released was collected from Russia. Turns out the CRU cherrypicked Russian climate data and ignored 75% of the data that conflicted with temperatures not raising. So I guess all the nay sayers about Climate-Gate were right, the emails didn't appear to show that the CRU scientists had actually falsified any figures in an attempt to strengthen the case for CO2-driven global warming, they simply ignored any data that was conflicting. And again, the CRU provides all the Global warming information used by the United Nations.

One more interesting fact about Climate Change. It seems all the scientists who have signed on to the Man Made Climate Change bandwagon, have ruled out the sun as having any affect on Global Warming. I know, I making this up; there is no way a scientist would ignore that huge thermo-nuclear ball in the sky that is responsible for +99.99 of the heat on the planet (there are also volcanoes, but lets not even start to discuss their carbon footprint). It seems they have decided that the sun is a constant and has no effect at all on global warming or cooling for that matter. Well, it seems there are some pesky climatologist that have figured out that when the sun has spots, Global temperatures go up and when the spots go away, Global temperatures go down. This might have something to do with the phenomena that global warming on Mars mirrors the global warming on earth. And even without instances of very generous interpretations of Man Made Climate Change, the sun spot theory corresponds with every known period of global cooling and warming, in which data exists. Hmmm, might be something more climatologists might want to look into.