During the senate confirmation hearings, the Democrat senators seemed more focused on climate change than the real issues the cabinet picks will face. Some of the questions asked are rather meaningless on their face. For example, one senator asked a nominee if he believe climate change was real. The nominee said “yes.” That answer, in itself discloses nothing. Certainly climate change is real. Climate is always changing and has been doing so as long as the planet has existed with a climate. It is a natural occurrence. The real issue in the debate is whether humans are causing climate to change by creating more CO2. The answer to that may seem muddled but the truth is that there is absolutely no empirical evidence that increasing CO2 levels have impacted climate. None. Regardless of that fact, the obsession climate change is approaching irrational hysteria. Much of the public is accepting unfounded statements as truth, from public figures like President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, and Al Gore. These public figures are fueling the hysteria with predictions of irreversible doom for the planet unless we act immediately. We are being told we are at a point of no return. People say they “believe the science.” The problem is that they are not believing science but rather believing what they are told the science says. There is no science in which to believe. Skeptics do not “deny science” because there is no science to deny. What is denied are the phony claims posing as science.
As evidence of “climate change”, government scientists have just come out heralding 2016 as having set a new record in global warmth, breaking the records of 2014 and 2015. The fact that it was government scientists should cause anyone to question the accuracy of the claim. Government scientists are protective of their jobs and will not present “findings” that run counter to the dogma presented by those at the top. NASA has been known to consistently alter data in order to show warming. The government scientists at NASA are using measurements taken at ground locations around the world. What is not mentioned is that these ground locations are often in what is called urban heat islands (UHI), locations that are known to retain a lot of heat because of the near proximity of heat absorbing structures, such as asphalt roads, concrete/brick buildings, etc. The measurements taken tend to reflect the retained heat from those structures rather than the normal atmospheric heat. The scientists must then apply what they believe to be the correct “adjustments” to reflect more accurately the atmospheric and ground temperature. What is also not mentioned by the government scientists is that about 70% of the Earth’s surface is not covered by any ground measuring station. Temperatures for those areas are merely guesstimated and included in the average used to claim as a “record” year. Therefore, the government’s numbers lack the precision to be meaningful. NASA claims 2016 was .07 degrees warmer than 2015. Climate scientists using satellite data, which are considered more comprehensive and accurate, tell us that this data shows only a .01 degree difference. That is 1/100th of a degree. The difference is meaningless because there are so many variables as to say that the level of precision is not adequate to make 1/100th of a degree statistically significant. Besides, no one can feel the difference.
Satellite measurements are regarded as more comprehensive and more accurate. Climate scientists, using satellite measurements, say that the global average temperature for 2016, as well as 2014 and 2015 were not records because they fell within the range of the statistical 95% confidence level. Which means they were not statistically significant in the variation because they fell within the range of normal variability.
What is being passed off as “science” are projections of catastrophic warming by computer models fed with data that have been corrupted by NASA alterations. The computer programs themselves are programed with a bias toward showing more warming and catastrophe. The old saying “garbage in garbage out” applies here. I offer, as evidence, several facts. First, none of the predictions of catastrophe have occurred. Al Gore predicted that by 2015 New York would be under water, Las Vegas would be wiped out, gasoline would be $15 a gallon and the price of milk would approach $9 a gallon from global warming. None of this has occurred. Secondly, meteorologists often cannot predict accurately the weather one or two days out. How can we realistically predict the climate 10 years from now? Nature is too variable and subject to things beyond our control and ability to predict, such as Sun spots and Sun cycles, cloudiness, etc.
Also passing as “science” is the media reporting of climate events that tend to be nothing but hyperbole. Those that keep records of such things tell us that the number and severity of tornados has decreased in the last decade, as well as the number and severity of hurricanes, floods, forest fires, and drought. Yet, to hear the media report it, each severe climate event is the most severe ever recorded, and they attribute it to climate change or global warming. The media go out of their way to portray the event as catastrophic, using such words as “unprecedented”. One reporter, during a flood, was filmed in a rowboat in the middle of a city street, giving the impression the flooding had great depth. The fallacy of the report was shown when an unaware citizen was seen walking down the street behind the boat in ankle deep water. Reporting on catastrophe sells TV ratings and newspapers, so the media will milk each weather event for all of its ratings value with ethical reporting set aside.