By Dr. Tim Ball, Canada Free Press

Every prediction or projections, as the IPCC evasively call them, have been wrong. Most people have no idea what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) actually studies. They believe their reports are complete reports of climate change. This misconception is mostly because the IPCC arranged it and does little to correct it.  In fact, they only look at that portion of climate change caused by humans. Here’s how they limit their study.

“The definition of climate change the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines climate change as: ‘a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods’. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes.”

The problem is you cannot determine the human portion of climate change if you don’t know how much it changes naturally - and we don’t. The IPCC assumes humans cause most of the changes that are occurring and set out to prove that is true.

Everything they’ve done is contrary to normal scientific practices yet is presented to the public as solid science. The IPCC has done nothing to publicly or formally disavow claims that the science is settled. It is not settled because it never began, or worse, was deliberately diverted.

Explosion of knowledge over the last 200 years forced traditional disciplines to split into increasingly small areas. Academia became more detached from the real world and moved from the broad divisions of natural sciences and humanities in the 19th century through the addition of social sciences in the early 20th century into narrowly defined departments. Within these specialized areas the focus narrowed even more until information was vast, but understanding became further removed from reality. The dictum in academia and society became that to generalize is the mark of foolishness, to specialize the mark of genius.

By the 1970s problems developed as the new approach no longer worked - it didn’t fit society. Academia responded with the growth of inter-disciplinary departments for everything from child development studies to environmental studies. Systems analysis evolved to help interrelate segments of complexities.

Climatology is a generalist discipline in this age of specialization. Climate is the average of the weather by region or over time and weather is the product of a multitude of factors and one of the most complex systems in nature. The weather you experience standing outside includes everything from cosmic radiation in deep space to geothermal heat entering the ocean and almost everything in between. Figure 1 is a systems diagram of a fraction of the complexity.

Enlarged here.
Figure 1; Systems diagram of weather complexities. Source: After Briggs, Smithson and Ball.

IPCC claims that human addition to CO2, which is one small part of the “Atmospheric composition,” is 90 percent responsible for all climate change since 1950. It is totally implausible.

Standard scientific methodology proposes hypotheses based on assumptions. IPCC proposed that human produced CO2 is causing global warming, known as Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Basic assumptions are that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that delays heat escaping to space; an increase in CO2 causes a temperature increase; and CO2 will increase because of human activities. Normally scientists perform as skeptics by testing the hypothesis. They were quickly marginalized and as Richard Lindzen said the consensus was reached before research even began.

Beyond that, the scientific method requires you try to prove a theory wrong. Karl Popper explains, “One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.” The IPCC consistently work to prove the theory, but as Popper notes, “It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory ‘ if we look for confirmations.” The IPCC and supporters of their charade spend their time finding confirmations. They even falsified evidence such as the story about melting Himalayan glaciers.

Every prediction or projections, as the IPCC evasively call them, have been wrong

Two major changes have occurred since 1988 when the IPCC was formed. First, a few but increasing number of scientists have performed their role of falsifying the hypothesis with considerable success. Second, the IPCC work fails the real measure of science, the ability to predict. Every prediction or projections, as they evasively call them, have been wrong.

CO2 provides all the evidence needed to show what is wrong with IPCC science. Normal science challenges the assumptions, but the IPCC worked to prove it was causing global warming and latterly climate change. CO2 is listed as a greenhouse gas, but it is less than 4 percent of the total and the human portion is a fraction of that. One bizarre claim is that the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 is from human sources. This assumes, falsely, that the amount from natural sources is constant.

Enlarged here.

The table shows estimates of CO2 emissions and uptakes in the atmosphere. Notice the “Anthropogenic emissions (2010)” figure of 9.5 Gigatons of carbon per annum (GT C p.a.). This is calculated by the IPCC from data provided by individual nations. It’s questionable data because there is no way of knowing amounts of wood and other fuels burnt. It’s also a gross figure that is not offset by vegetation grown by humans.  Regardless, notice the amount is less than the error of the estimate of two of the natural emissions, “Oceans” and “Ground” and close to a third, “humans and animals”.

The most damaging evidence against CO2 is the assumption that an atmospheric increase causes a temperature increase. The assumption is wrong. In every record of any length for any period of history temperature increase precedes CO2 increase.

Failure of the major assumption requires a complete reassessment of the hypothesis. IPCC computer models still assume a CO2 increase will cause a temperature increase so it is not surprising their projections are incorrect. They compound the problem by leaving out many major natural creators of weather and therefore causes of climate change including astronomical, solar, and atmospheric changes. The latter includes failure to deal with water in all its forms, especially clouds.

The IPCC approach is the antithesis of science. They have predetermined a cause and set about proving it by narrowly defining climate change, limited selection of variables, manipulation of data, and working to prove rather than falsify the hypothesis. It is unquestionably the biggest scam in history because it has been deliberate.

Read more here.

By Steve Goreham

Undaunted by Climategate disclosures and the failure to pursue climate legislation in the Senate, the climate movement is stepping up the attack. At an August 10 virtual town hall held by Repower America, former Vice President Al Gore stated, “We are not defeated. We are redoubling our efforts ...We need to solve the climate crisis.” Thousands of supporters listened to the call. Inspired by Mr. Gore, they intend to “roll up their sleeves” and “turn their attention to the future.” Unfortunately, the climate movement is long on enthusiasm and ideology, but short on science and economic sense.

Climatism, the theory that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth’s climate, is increasingly in doubt. It appears that the world jumped to conclusions in 1992 at the Rio de Janiero Earth Summit, when 41 nations signed a treaty pledging to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For the last eighteen years, political leaders have been arguing about how much to reduce such emissions. But more and more science shows our climate to be dominated by natural cycles of Earth, driven by solar activity. Man-made carbon dioxide emissions play only an insignificant role in global warming.

On September 3, the BlueGreen Alliance completed a 17-state, 30-city bus tour, urging Senate action on comprehensive climate legislation. The BlueGreen Alliance was formed in 2006 by the Sierra Club and the United Steelworkers as a national partnership to work for “expanding the number and quality of jobs in the clean energy economy.” Eight U.S. trade unions, comprising 8.5 million workers, have joined the Alliance and bought into the myth that Cap and Trade legislation will create a green jobs economy. Steel is an energy-intensive industry that would be harmed by legislation to restrict carbon emissions. It’s a mystery why any steel worker would support Cap and Trade.

Economist Milton Friedman, as an advisor to a developing nation, reportedly visited a construction site and asked why laborers were using shovels instead of earth-moving equipment. When told that tractors would eliminate jobs, he said, “Why not give them spoons?” Real economic growth is achieved only by improving the productivity of the work force, not by artificial creation of jobs.

According to analysis from the Institute of Energy Research and the U.K. House of Lords, wind turbines and solar fields are less reliable and two to four times as expensive as traditional hydrocarbon fuels for producing electricity. An even greater deficiency is that wind and solar energy are intermittently generated. In 2009, the 33,000 U.S. wind turbine towers on average delivered only 23% of their rated power. Would you buy a car that starts only one-quarter of the time? Yet government subsidies and mandates are forcing substitution of these green “solutions.” These policies are reducing the productivity of our energy industry, thereby hindering U.S. economic growth and resulting in net job losses. Expensive energy creates jobs only in the energy sector while resulting in greater job losses in the rest of the economy.

Sunday, October 10 will be a big day for the climate movement. The grassroots group 350.org is planning international demonstrations against man-made climate change. Tens of thousands of starry-eyed young people will take to the streets around the globe. Not one in ten will know that water vapor, not carbon dioxide, is Earth’s primary greenhouse gas, but they’ll be shouting for change just the same. These demonstrations are timed to call attention to the Cancun Climate Summit beginning at the end of November.

The United Nations 16th Conference of the Parties on Climate Change will convene in Cancun, Mexico on November 29. A year after the failed negotiations in Copenhagen, 193 nations and thousands of delegates will meet again to try to find a way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and save the environment. Yet such a meeting is ironic on a massive scale.

As pointed out by geologist Leighton Steward, carbon dioxide is green! Carbon dioxide is plant food. Hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies document that increased atmospheric CO2 causes plants and trees to grow faster and larger, increase their root systems, and improve their resistance to drought. Coincidentally, carbon dioxide emissions from our industries have probably done more for greening the Earth than every tree ever planted by a well-meaning environmentalist. Yet, it’s damn the science and economics, full speed ahead. Read post here.

Steve Goreham is Executive Director for the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of Climatism! Science, Common Sense, and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic

By Paul Chesser

According to the Washington Post Doug McKelway, a reporter for the city’s ABC affiliate WJLA, has been fired after he was suspended last month over a confrontation with his boss. The conflict arose because of a McKelway report about a demonstration by environmental groups, who protested during the BP/Gulf disaster over oil industry campaign contributions to members of Congress. Here is the report he delivered on July 20 from Capitol Hill:

As you see, McKelway was tasked with reporting on a miniscule protest. If it had been pro-life activists or some other conservative cause, he would have been given another assignment. So he made it newsworthy by introducing relevant information such as:

How few demonstrators there were, which in order to be worth reporting, would require the speculation he delivered about “where the movement is headed right now”

Identifying the protestors as representatives of “far left” environmental groups such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, which they are. Apparently it is only proper to identify ideology when the groups are “right-wing” or on the “far right”

President Obama’s $77,051 in campaign contributions from BP, leading McKelway to raise the possibility that the environoiacs’ are engaging in a “risky strategy” by accusing Congress members of taking “dirty oil money”

That (publicly) unpopular climate/energy legislation passed by the House faced such a tough road in the Senate that Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to even use the term “cap-and-trade”

That Democrats, as reflected by polls everywhere, face huge losses in Congress in November, which would seem to pertain to whether or not the Senate takes up a vote on cap-and-trade

That the last thing Dems, faced with dim electoral prospects, want to do is pass legislation that “imposes huge escalations in your electricity bill,” which would seem to fit a presidential candidate’s assertion not too long ago that cap-and-trade would make electricity rates “necessarily skyrocket”

WJLA news director Bill Lord cited “insubordination” and “misconduct” in McKelway’s firing. Maybe that was the case, if McKelway’s response crossed the line, but the fact is he was called into the boss’s office for the type of reporting the formerly mainstream media does all the time. See post here.