Christopher Richey Post 4 on

Christopher Richey12 hours ago

I make three very clear and specific points:

1. The simulations were guesswork based on assumptions.

2. They don’t really know what is going to happen.

3. What they DO know is that the models are wrong and there is no actual warming.

These quotes below, directly from the IPCC report 2013/2014 verify my position. Phrases like ‘presupposed’ ‘my instincts tell me’ ‘need to make adjustments’ ‘failed to predict’ ‘very little doubt’ (followed by) ‘doubts will grow stronger’ ‘If global warming continues to STAGNATE’ (and my favorite) ‘a great number of highly subjective assumptions’

“The only unfortunate thing is that our simulations failed to predict this effect.”

“There is very little doubt about it. But if global warming continues to stagnate, doubts will obviously grow stronger.”

“That’s what my instinct tells me, since I don’t know exactly how emission levels will develop. Other climate researchers might have a different instinct. Our models certainly include a great number of highly subjective assumptions.”

Not only does this discredit much of the climate ‘research,’ but, it also undermines the integrity of many of the scientists themselves:

And my favorite:

Look at the chart.

Global Ocean Heat and Salt Content – Slide #9

Notice anything?

1 .The ‘consensus’ doesn’t talk about the degree of uncertainty. When taken into account, they could all be flat out wrong about all of this.

2. THEIR OWN DATA DOESN’T AGREE! Is it .35*C to 1.5 *C or is it .28*C to .38C???

The ‘uncertainty’ is a measure of ‘”We don’t know.” Look at the top of the ‘uncertainty’ adjustments. In the last 50 years, it appears that, from their own data sets, that the temperature could actually have been COOLER and is just now on an upward trend. Of course, 1960 could hardly be called the low-point in industrial pollution but we could just as well have been in a cooling cycle since then. Their own numbers reveal the degree of uncertainty involved.

They don’t know.

The science is not settled. NOAA cannot go back in time and measure anything. So, they ‘homogenize,’ ‘normalize’ and ‘politicize’ their data. After all, they ARE run by the government.

This type of ‘science’ is not science. Drawing conclusions based on incomplete data is theory. The Scientific Method is that the overall process involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions to determine whether the original conjecture was correct. No one has PROVEN anything.

So, what’s the problem then? It’s not a problem as long as no one acts on the research as if it is settled. But, that is exactly what they are doing. It has been turned into a revenue machine. Trillions of dollars are being (or trying to be) to be spent on an unproven theory. It’s the same sales pitch used with the political urgency of the Affordable Care Act. “You have to pass it to find out what’s in it!”

There are some other theories that make solid use of the actual data:

Consider this:

CO2 fluctuates.

“In his overdue-glaciation ‘hypothesis’ Ruddiman states that an incipient glacial would probably have begun several thousand years ago, but the arrival of that scheduled glacial was forestalled by the activities of early farmers.”

Ruddiman, William F. (2003). “The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era Began Thousands of Years Ago”. Climatic Change 61 (3): 261–293. doi:10.1023/B:CLIM.0000004577.17928.fa

Galactic Positioning

“CO2 does not drive temperature. Game over for global warming.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s