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.

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

Global Warming and the Tornado.

The tragedy of the recent tornado activity in Oklahoma City is driving the dogma of Man Made Global Warming into the media and blogs again. Regardless of the changing of the name to Climate Change, these theories still rely on the un-proven belief that 1)C02 traps heat 2)the more C02 in the atmosphere, the higher the temperature. Below is a typical letter and my response. From the Santa Cruz Sentential May 21, 2013.


A review of 12,000 papers on climate change, in the May 15 issue of "Environmental Research Letters" found that 97 percent of scientists attribute climate change to human activities. Although we're unlikely to reverse climate change, we can mitigate its effects by reducing our driving, energy use, and meat consumption. Yes, meat consumption. A 2006 U.N. report estimated that meat consumption accounts for 18 percent of man-made greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, is generated by burning forests to create animal pastures and by combustion of fossil fuels to confine, feed, transport, and slaughter animals. The much more damaging methane and nitrous oxide are discharged from digestive tracts of cattle and from animal waste cesspools, respectively. Each of us has the power to reduce the devastating effects of climate change every time we eat. Our local supermarket offers a rich variety of soy-based lunch meats, hotdogs, veggie burgers and soy and nut-based dairy products, as well as an ample selection of vegetables, fruits, grains, and nuts. Product lists, easy recipes, and transition tips are at www.livevegan.org.

Preston Daniels, Santa Cruz

My response:

First, even if you accept that "97 percent of scientists attribute climate change to human activities". 1) science by consensus is not science 2) the vast majority of the scientist contacted are not climatologist. Further C02 is at it's highest level in 100,000s of years, yet there has been no global warming in 15 years and even counting the recent tragedy in Oklahoma City (Oklahoma City lies in the lower half of tornado alley), tornado activity is at a 60 year low. Man Made Global Warming (MMGW) climate scientists are at a conundrum to explain this lack of warming and the fact that all their computer models have been wrong (regardless of what John Kerry says); the end result is new made up theories like the warm weather is hiding in the ocean (I'm not making this up). MMGW is simply a government tax scheme to control the means of world production.

 
Further I sent the following letter;

Preston Daniels' letter on Tues, May 21 touts a 97% consensus amongst scientific papers regarding global warming caused by humans (AGW) . This study was done by a AGW  zealot by the name of John Cook. This study has not only been scientifically discredited, but had become the post child for the manipulation of information.  One of the primary criticisms is most of the studies Cook claimed to support AGW, were actually neutral on the subject (8,000) or rejected it entirely (the 97% was based on a ranking system, not the actual number of studies). One researcher that critiqued the study said ,  "Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in.  This study done by John Cook and others..., found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it".

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.

Al Gore and His Anecdotal Science

Okay, let's stop for a moment and look at what Man Made Global Warming is not. Man Made Global Warming is not about stopping the polluting of the earth. If you're like me, you are in favor of reducing pollution. But the proponents of Man Made Global Warming do not care about pollution as we know it, they are concerned that CO2, a colorless, tasteless and harmless gas, somehow raises temperatures when it's percentage increases in the atmosphere. Now Al Gore is famous for saying that increased CO2 results in increased temperatures is a scientific fact; well, not really. It's actually the opposite; science has long known that an increase in temperature results in an increase of C02, not the other way around. This is very important because there are two ways to prove scientific validity. The first is basic Newtonian physics; reduce a theory to it's basic components and try and reproduce your findings. In other words, create an experiment that proves your theory. The fact that increased heat results in increased levels of C02 can be proven by a very simple experiment. The C02 comes from the oceans heating up. As an example, all you need to do is put ocean water in a sealed tank and heat it up; with in a very short time the CO2 levels will increase.

So, if Al Gore is correct, you should be able to prove the opposite, right? Well no, there has never been an experiment that has shown that C02 traps heat. To say that C02 traps heat because Heat increase C02 is called reverse logic and is the worse form of science. It would be the same as saying because heat melts ice, then melting ice must cause heat. To try and prove his reverse logic, Al Gores uses a second and much harder to prove scientific method, called proxy. Proxy science requires you to first prove a phenomena exists and then try and prove what causes it. In other words, rather than observing a phenomena, you simply reason it exists; then you try and reason why it exists. The main problem with proxy science is, it's very difficult to know what other forces play a part in the phenomena your are dealing with. In the first part of this equation, Al Gore and the scientists paid by the United Nations and the Carbon Credit traders for their analysis, have spent most of their time trying proving that Global Warming exists. Since Global Warming is not immediately observable, the scientist have to develop some method to show it does. This is primarily done through temperature probes (thermometers) placed all over the planet and monitoring Arctic and Antarctic ice flows; and while they say their data proves Global warming is occurring, the recent hacked-emails from the CRU say, it is a "travesty" they can't prove Global Warming. Then, without the distraction of proving the planet's temperature is actually raising, he determines the C02 emitted into the atmosphere by man, to the exclusion of the massive amounts of C02 that is naturally produced, all the other gases in the atmosphere and all natural phenomena (including the sun), is sufficient to cause Man Made Global Warming . Then Al Gore ignores that there is no science that proves C02 does anything other that feed trees; states that C02 traps heat, but refuses to discuss the basis of this reverse logic with anyone; the proxy science becomes anecdotal dogma.

So when you hear Al Gore mis-state science, do what I do and yell out, "Liar!" When Al Gore states that 40% of the Arctic Ice has melted, yell out "Liar"; the 25% of the ice that melted in 2007, has returned this year. And, when Al Gore says all the Polar Bears are dying, yell out, "Liar"; their population has stayed steady at about 20,000- 25,000 for the last 20 years and is believed to be an increase from 1950 population of 5,000. Oh, and by the way, Polar Bears are excellent swimmers and the male has a nasty habit of eating it's young unless stopped by the mother. When science is used for political purposes, it can only become as corrupted as politicians, lets hope Man Made Global Warming goes they way of the conventional wisdom that earth was the center of the universe.

This is in response to Michael Stobbe comment on my Global Warming article published in your paper Dec 20. First I want to compliment Mr Stobbe for responding in such a respectful way, although we may not agree (hard to tell, but I'll get to that in a moment) it is the intelligent exchange of ideas that is missing from the Man Made Climate Change discussion. What Mr Stobbe misunderstood was I was not trying to make a case for increased C02 levels coming primarily from the Ocean; actually I don't believe that at all. What I was saying is it doesn't matter were the C02 is coming from, because, beyond questionable anecdotal science, there is no evidence that C02 traps heat. My little experiments were simply (very simply) designed to demonstrate the difference between experimental and anecdotal science; and the anecdotal science of Man Made Climate Change is horribly flawed. I again state my argument. We know that heat causes atmospheric C02 levels to rise. The entire Man Made Climate Change argument rest on the fallacy that C02 traps heat and causes temperatures to rise. To use one to prove the other is like saying because heat melts ice, then melting ice causes heat. If you believe that than I've got some carbon credits for sale.