It is part of a political movement with a hidden agenda.
  a. And that hidden agenda is global wealth redistribution.
  b. The mechanism of redistribution is so-called “Cap & Trade (in carbon credits.)
  c. What was missing was justification sufficient to goad lawmakers into passing so-called “Cap & Trade” legislation.

So the uber-left invented a fictional global warming, complete with fictionalized data and deliberately-biased climate models that predicted an imminent catastrophically warming earth, melting polar ice caps, sea-level rises of several hundred feet, drowning coastlines, super-duper hurricanes (typhoons in the Pacific Ocean), tremendous tornados, heretofore unseen weather extremes, and the final heartbreaker – starving and drowning polar bears.


None of the above predicted catastrophes, actually occurred.
Not even one event. – no drastically rising temperatures, no melting ice caps (Ok, they melt around the edges in their summer season, but they refreeze in their winter season,) no rising seas, no drowning sea coasts, and no starving, drowning polar bears – not a one.


Global Warming advocates were caught red-handed faking results
culling data, inventing data, and deliberately biasing their climate models to predict a fictional catastrophe.


So-called “Climate Change” is just a name change for the thoroughly discredited “Global Warming” movement,
 with the same people involved – and the same agenda, just a little more cleverly disguised.


“Climate Change,” is an emotionally-biased tag deliberately chosen for its appeal to the “ignorant masses”
and subtly, subconsciously nudge them to the false conclusion the a catastrophic end is near, if not immediately imminent. 
Real science does not engage in such emotionally-determined conclusions, nor does it have pre-determined conclusions.


“Global Warming” advocates try to silence critics with emotionally-loaded tags.
Skeptics and dissenting views are not given equal press.  Advocates of “Global Warming” call their critics “Climate Change deniers.” 
Real science and real scientists know that skepticism, dissenting opinion, and alternate explanations are an integral part of the scientific method, necessary to ferret out error (unintended or deliberate.)


Weather is chaotic, in the mathematical sense. 
Weather events do not repeat precisely in regular, repeatable, predictable cycles. 
A one-hundred year event is not one that repeats every one-hundred years.  Rather it is one that occurs irregularly ten times in a thousand-year period, which may occur in back-to-back years. 
Very small changes in input factors can and do make enormous changes in outcome.  While atmospheric temperature may oscillate irregularly about a mean, the mean also irregularly oscillates.  This makes prediction, forward or backward in time, extremely problematical.


Overly simplistic model. 
The Global Warmist climate model has two major statistical over-simplifications – assuming a linear annual mean temperature (collapsing what is reality an irregular oscillating function into a single number,) thereby failing to take into account that the mean temperature fluctuates irregularly in daily, seasonally, and annual patterns.  And that considerable variance from these means is normal.


The variations in mean annual temperatures are statistically not significant. 
The variations in temperature actually measured are not statistically significant.  
(“Statistical significance” is the probability that an effect is not due to just random chance alone.)
The Global Warmist have not presented any data or calculations on statistical significance, nor its confidence level (probability of error.)

10 The time interval of measurement employed by Global Warming advocates is insufficient to produce a reliable trend. 
Global Warmest cherry-picked the time range which accentuates their desired bias.  Real scientists do not cherry-pick their data or intervals.
11 The “look-back” in time to reconstruct temperature “measurement,” is imprecise, calculated indirectly from other physical measurements and unreliable for use in a contemporary climate models.
More tersely put, the further back (or forward) in time that weather is estimated or predicted, the ever-less reliable is the accuracy.
12 Oceanic heat reservoirs are not properly represented, if represented at all, in Global Warmist climate models. 
Water has a tremendous heat absorption capability.  The large lakes and oceans of the world still have immense heat absorbing capacity. 
We do not have sufficient information to model the heating and cooling effects of the irregular cycles of ocean currents on atmospheric temperature.
13 Plant biomass absorbs carbon dioxide emissions. 
The absorbtion of atmospheric carbon dioxide is not presently modeled in the Global Warmist climate models. 
Some studies suggest when carbon dioxide levels rises a little, plant biomass correspondently increases – a lot. 
 In any event, in the real world, increases in carbon dioxide levels have not been accompanied by corresponding temperature increases.
14 There is insufficient gauging on the earth to adequately measure an average global temperature.  
Moreover, the gauging that does exist is overly concentrated in areas of human habitation, and under-represented in sparsely populated areas, and not represented at all in uninhabited land areas and oceans.
15 Simultaneous measurement not performed.  
Heat energy on the earth moves around.  It moves into and out of the oceans at a slower pace than it moves around in the atmosphere, where it can move very rapidly.  
Simply recording temperature variations and averaging them ignores the fact the same heat energy is being measured multiple times – greatly distorting the true average temperature of the earth.  One solution is to record all gauges simultaneously – with a matter of seconds.  Such a simultaneous procedure is not currently being performed by so-called “climate scientists.”

Also see
The Global Warming Myth

The Cap & Trade Rip Off

©2014 Simon Revere Mouer III, PhD, PE, all rights reserved