Monthly Archives: February 2010

IPCC Must Go!. Part 2-Global Temperature Manipulation

There are many examples of manipulation of temperature data.   In this posting,  I will give you a number of recent examples.   Lets begin by discussing the scientists and their organizations that have been manipulating the data.

Fabulists—scientists who are willing to alter data to serve their cause.

The predicate of AWG is unprecedented global warming; meaning the recent warming is greater than the historic rate of natural warming since the last glacial period.  This “observed” deviation from natural warming is assigned to increased carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. CO2 is chosen because they say there is no change in any other forcing agent, QED it must be CO2.   The observations come principally from land-based temperature monitoring stations around the world.  The data from these stations are collected, and massaged into a value that shows how much the global temperature has changed from some arbitrary standard.  The amount of the change is called an anomaly.   (The infamous Hockey Stick temperature graph was a work of the group of people that supply the anomalies.)

It has long been know that the temperature anomalies put together by the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in England, and by the two United States suppliers, Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and National Climate Data Center (NCDC) have been massaged to the point that they could be considered unrecognizable.  But their allies in the mainstream media never showed the public these analyses.  Fortunately, the skeptics have gained some traction and the word is getting out.

In the following,  there is a reference to the  Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE).  We all know that as population increases, the immediate area experiences higher temperatures from the higher level of activities and the effect of many heat-absorbing objects in the city.   A point of fact is that more than half the population of the world lives in cities that cover about 3% of the land surface.   Thus most of the rest of the 97% does not experience the heat caused by large populations.  And when you consider that only 30% of the Earth surface is land, the rest being water, the 3% is about 1% of the total global area.  How much weight do you think you should you give it when matching it with the rest of the temperature data.

Dr. Long’s has a posting that allows you to  see how NCDC manages this relationship. Lets look at his  recent analysis:


by Edward R. Long, Ph.D

Long introduces the topic by saying:

“The Goddard Institute for Space science (GISS), the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), and centers processing satellite data, such as the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH), have published temperature and rate of temperature change for the Contiguous United States, or ‘Lower 48’.  (I know some of you are wondering what happened to the rest of the 57 states.)

oC oF
Contiguous 48, GISS (Ref 1) 0.55 0.95
Contiguous 48, NCDC (Ref 2) 0.69 1.25

Both GISS and NCDC have been criticized for their station selections and the protocols they use for adjusting raw data, (Ref 3 – 5). GISS, over a 10-year period has modified their data by progressively lowering temperature values for far-back dates and raising those in the more recent past (Ref 3). These changes have caused their 2000 reporting of a 0.35 oC/century in 2000 to increase to 0.44 oC/century in 2009, a 26-percent increase. NCDC’s protocols for adjusting raw data for missing dates, use of urban locations, relocations, etc. has led to an increase in the rate of temperature change for the Contiguous U. S., for the period from 1940 to 2007, from a 0.1 oC/century for the raw data to a 0.6 oC/century, for the adjusted data (Ref 4). {emphasis added by Cbdakota} Whether or not these changes are intentional, or the consequence of a questionable protocol, has been and continues to be, discussed. This paper does not intend to add to the speculation of which but rather to determine the rate of change for the Contiguous U.S. from the two NCDC data sets, raw and adjusted, from meteorological stations, based on a rural and an urban stations locations, and comment on the result.”

In Long’s posting on the AmericanThinkerBlog  he said the following about his methodology and results:

“We selected two sets of meteorological stations (48 each, with one station per each of the lower 48 states) from the NCDC master list. The stations in one set were at rural locations — a rural set. The stations in the other set were at urban locations — an urban set. The NCDC latitude and longitude station coordinates were used to “fly over” the locations on a computer, using a GPS map application to confirm the rural and urban characteristics. For each of the 96 stations, the NCDC’s raw and adjusted temperature data were entered into a spreadsheet application and studied. The “raw” data are the annual average temperatures of the measured data. The “adjusted” data are the annual average temperatures the NCDC derived from the raw data by making a set of “corrective” assumptions for time of day, type of instrument, etc. and guessing the temperature at stations for missing data based on temperatures of other stations at the same latitude and/or region. For a more in-depth understanding of the NCDC protocols for converting raw data to adjusted data, click here. A summary of the findings is in the following table.  The values in the table show that the NCDC’s rate of increase of temperature, 0.69oC/century, is based on an over-selection of stations with urban locations.

Station Set oC/Century, 11-Year Average Based on the Use of
Raw Data Adjusted Data
Rural (48) 0.11 0.58
Urban (48) 0.72 0.72
Rural + Urban (96) 0.47 0.65

The values in the table highlight four important considerations:

1) The rate of increase for rural locations, based on as-measured (raw) values, is small (if not, in effect, zero) at 0.11 oC/century.

2) There is definitely a UHIE in that the urban raw data has a rate of increase of 0.72oC/century. This tells us that man has caused warming in urban locations. This finding should not surprise anyone. On the other hand, because the rural value is 15% of the urban value, the UHIE has not caused warming in the rural locations, and it certainly has not caused a global sense of warming other than the aspect that the urban location values when averaged with the rural values produce an average increase which is larger than that of the rural alone.

3) The rural + urban value for the adjusted data, 0.65oC/century, is still less than the 0.69oC/century published by the NCDC. Thus, likely, there are more urban than rural sites used by the NCDC.

4) And this is the “Temperaturegate” aspect: The NCDC’s massaging — they call it “adjusting” — has resulted in an increase in the rural values, from a raw value of 0.11oC/century to an adjusted value of 0.58oC/century, and no change in the urban values. That is, the NCDC’s treatment has forced the rural value to look more like that of the urban. This is the exact opposite of any rational consideration, given the growth of the sizes of and activities within urban locations, unless deception is the goal.”

So Dr Long shows us that the vast 99 % of the global is adjusted upward to more nearly match the UHIE in the 1%.   So when you read that the globe is experiencing an unprecedented rise in global temperature,  can you believe it?

Dr Long’s full posting can be read here.

Lets look at other examples of manipulation:



TOO HOT TO HANDLE.   This posting can be seen here.










Climategate 2.0 The NASA  Files.  See here







The IPCC Must Go-Part 1

It is satisfying to see the leaders of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory discussing what should be done about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the wake of the scandals surrounding that organization.   Unfortunately, all they think is needed is a slight tweak here and another there.

What is it that they do not understand? The IPCC is irreparably broken. The IPCC report conclusions are based on science produced by fabulist masquerading as scientists and false prophets using their unproven computer forecasts. The foregoing are the people in charge of the IPCC input and output from the IPCC and should never be trusted again.

Next, the United Nations (UN) has demonstrated it isn’t an organization that can be trusted to provide impartial, honest leadership.   For example, following the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait,  the Oil for Food program was designed to  allow Iraq to sell just enough oil to provide for the medical and food needs of its citizens.    The UN people in charge of the program siphoned off vast amounts of money for themselves and further allowed the moneys Iraq did receive to be used to line the pocket of Saddam Hussein.   We are now becoming aware of how misreporting of data in the 2007 IPCC climate report AR4 has been used to scam some funds.  The gold mine awaits these grifters, if they can control the use of carbon fuels and the sales of carbon credits.

Many national governments are using the global warming “threat” as a way to grab power.  The result of the cap and trade programs is really to tax and regulate.  This is the goal of every socialist society.  Others are using it to extract money from the developed nations.  On the surface most of these nations are asking for aid from the developed nations in the name of helping their people but history has shown that these despots usually keep the money  for themselves.  Neither of these groups necessarily believes the theory of man-made global warming, but they do like what the theory will allow them to do.  When asked about the details of the theory after the House passed their version of cap and trade last year,  Henry Waxman, Chairman of the Committee sponsoring the bill said he did not know anything about it but he said that did not matter to him.

The national governments are the enablers.  The last time I looked, the US alone had funded global warming studies to the tune of $5 billion.

So the IPCC must go.   It must be completely exposed for the hoax it has perpetuated.   Only then can the study of global climate be restarted having the appropriate protocols and controls so that  conclusions  based on the science, can be accepted with confidence.

In the next posting, we will show how the global temperature data has been manipulated to the point where it should not be accepted as proof of anything except blatant misrepresentation of facts.


Weakness of AGW Theory: Part 5- Is it a Cult?

The ClimateGate Blog has a test to help you make up your mind if AGW is a cult.(OK,  so you are probably only wondering if it is cult or a religion.  Take the test, anyway.  Its fun .)

“Is belief in Anthropogenic Global Warming a cult? Apply this 100 point Cult Test and you tell us. Read each one, adding one point for each statement that rings as true. Total up the score and tell us, on a scale of 0 to 100, what you come up with. Well, it really should be a score between 1 to 100, as there can be no person alive, even if a member of the cult, that could not agree with point #1.
Cult leader Al Gore, is so “always right” that his devotees don’t even question the fact that he will debate no one. Ever. Anywhere. They laugh at this absurd notion, for He is The One. Others are unworthy to even stand in his presence.”

Here are the first 10..

1. The Guru is always right. “The Guru, his church, and his teachings are always right, and above criticism, and beyond reproach.”

2. You are always wrong. “Cult members are also told that they are in no way qualified to judge the Guru or his church. Should you disagree with the leader or his cult about anything, see Cult Rule Number One. Having negative emotions about the cult or its leader is a “defect” that needs to be fixed.”

3. No Exit. “There is simply no proper or honorable way to leave the cult. Period. To leave is to fail, to die, to be defeated by evil. To leave is to invite divine retribution.”

4. No Graduates. “No one ever learns as much as the Guru knows; no one ever rises to the level of the Guru’s wisdom, so no one ever finishes his or her training, and nobody ever graduates.”

5. Cult-speak. “The cult has its own language. The cult invents new terminology or euphemisms for many things. The cult may also redefine many common words to mean something quite different. Cult-speak is also called “bombastic redefinition of the familiar”, or “loading the language”.”

6. Group-think, Suppression of Dissent, and Enforced Conformity in Thinking “The cult has standard answers for almost everything, and members are expected to parrot those answers. Willfulness or independence or skeptical thinking is seen as bad. Members accept the leader’s reality as their own.”

7. Irrationality. “The beliefs of the cult are irrational, illogical, or superstitious, and fly in the face of evidence to the contrary.”

8. Suspension of disbelief. “The cult member is supposed to take on a childish naïveté, and simply believe whatever he is told, no matter how unlikely, unrealistic, irrational, illogical, or outrageous it may be. And he does.”

9. Denigration of competing sects, cults, religions, groups, or organizations. “This is commonplace, and hardly needs any explanation.”

10. Personal attacks on critics. “Anyone who criticizes the Guru, the cult or its dogma is attacked on a personal level.”

To read the all of the 100 point cult test,  click here


January Global Temp Highest in 32 Year Satellite Record

The January global temperature had an anomaly of +0.72C, which is the warmest January in the 32 years of satellite temperature measurements.

Dr Spenser thinks this is probably a function of sea surface temperature and he says:

I’m sure part of the reason is warm El Nino conditions in the Pacific. Less certain is my guess that when the Northern Hemisphere continents are unusually cold in winter, then ocean surface temperatures, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, should be unusually warm. But this is just speculation on my part, based on the idea that cold continental air masses can intensify when they get land-locked, with less flow of maritime air masses over the continents, and less flow of cold air masses over the ocean. Maybe the Arctic Oscillation is an index of this, as a few of you have suggested, but I really don’t know.

Also, remember that there are always quasi-monthly oscillations in the amount of heat flux from the ocean to the atmosphere, primarily in the tropics, which is why a monthly up-tick in tropospheric temperatures is usually followed by a down-tick the next month, and vice-versa.

So, it could be that all factors simply conspired to give an unusually warm spike in January…only time will tell.

So keep tuned.  To see Spencer’s full post  click here.


“Acid Seas-Back to Basic”

The AGWs talk a lot about acidification of the oceans.    Their cohorts have produced several documentaries purporting to explain to lay people what is happening as a result of increased atmospheric CO2. Produced just ahead of the failed Copenhagen meeting in December 2009, these documentaries were designed to get media attention to scare the citizens of the world.

But in fact the oceans are still alkaline and will likely remain so.

A posting in SPII “Acid Seas- Back to Basic” demonstrates what is really happening and how the IPCC and others have been misleading us.

Below is the Summary for Policy Makers for the SPII report.  As most of you understand pH, the first three points may be unneeded, but hang in there.    The rest does a good job of summarizing the issue.  A worrying part is that NGO seem to be getting a place at the table for the writing of the next IPCC report, AR5.   Hopefully the IPCC will be abolished or at least will find that they are under too much scrutiny to use NGO non peer reviewed papers like they did in the IPCC AR4.


by Dennis Ambler | January 26, 2010


1. Emotional claims are being made that the oceans are turning to acid. Acidic and basic are two extremes that describe a chemical property. The pH scale measures how acidic or basic a substance is and ranges from 0 to 14. A pH of 7 (e.g. water) is neutral. A pH less than 7 is acidic. A pH greater than 7 is basic.

2. The pH scale is logarithmic and as a result, each whole pH value below 7 is ten times more acidic than the next higher value. For example, pH 4 is ten times more acidic than pH 5 and 100 times (10 times 10) more acidic than pH 6.

3. The same holds true for pH values above 7, each of which is ten times more alkaline (another way to say basic) than the next lower whole value. For example, pH 10 is ten times more alkaline than pH 9 and 100 times (10 times 10) more alkaline than pH 8.

4. IPCC WGI state that the mean pH of surface waters ranges between 7.9 and 8.3 in the open ocean, so the ocean remains alkaline. It is dishonest to present to a lay audience that any perceived reduction in alkalinity means the oceans are turning to acid.

5. The claim that “ocean acidity” has increased by 30% since before the industrial revolution was calculated from the estimated uptake of anthropogenic carbon between 1750 and 1994, which shows a decrease in alkalinity of 0.1 pH unit, well within the range quoted by IPCC.

6. One of the authors of a prominent paper used by IPCC, sits on specialist panels on other bodies, such as the Royal Society, that come to the same conclusions. This is then presented in a manner to imply a consensus view from an apparently independent separate body.

7. A separate critique of that paper suggests it relates to an extrapolation of 18 years of data to 2100 and even 2300.

8. At least one University is equating seawater with vinegar in an on-line presentation for schools. Vinegar, (acetic acid), has a pH of 2.5, almost a million times more acidic in terms of hydrogen ion activity than seawater. This is deliberate disinformation to young people.

9. There are many contrary peer reviewed papers challenging the claims about the impact of CO2 on the oceans. One survey highlights some one hundred and fifty such papers, most of them showing that we cannot possibly acidify the oceans. The IPCC claims to present the physical science basis for IPCC claims but confines itself to a very narrow range of research and ignores the contrary papers.

10. Authors of papers supporting the IPCC position are already involved in IPCC AR5 and in one case their host University also provides the Technical Support Unit for WGII.

11. NGO involvement in further scientific research into Ocean “acidification”, as they choose to call it, is clearly described on the web site of the UK Natural Environment Research Council, NERC, a grant awarding body.

12. NGO organisations cannot be held to have an independent scientific stance, they implicitly have an agenda. The use of non-peer-reviewed papers from NGO’s in IPCC AR4, is currently the subject of major criticism relating to false claims of glacier melting, Amazon forest degradation and Extreme Weather cost impacts. It appears that they will be welcome again in AR5.

To read the compete posting  click here.


Hitler on Climate Change

In case you have missed it,  the You Tube “Hitler on Climate Change” is pretty funny.  Click here to watch.


Weakness of the AGW Theory-Part 4. Atmospheric IR Absorption is Self Regulating

According to Dr Ferenc  Miskolczi, increases in CO2 levels have not increased the global average IR (longwaves) absorbing power of the atmosphere.

He adds:

Our atmosphere, with its infinite degree of freedom, is able to maintain its global average infrared absorption at an optimal level. In technical terms, this “greenhouse constant” is the total infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere, and its theoretical value is 1.87. Despite the 30 per cent increase of CO2 in the last 61 years, this value has not changed. The atmosphere is not increasing its absorption power as was predicted by the IPCC.

In theoretical radiative transfer, the absorbing power of infrared active gases are measured by the total infrared optical depth (TIOD). This dimensionless quantity is the negative natural logarithm of the ratio of the absorbed surface upward radiation by the atmosphere to the total emitted surface upward radiation.

With relatively simply computations, we show that in the last 61 years, despite the 30 percent increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, the cumulative greenhouse effect of all atmospheric greenhouse gases has not been changed – that is, the atmospheric TIOD is constant.

According to the most plausible explanation of the above fact, the equilibrium atmospheric H2O content is constrained with the theoretical optimal TIOD.

To read the complete posting , click here.

For other postings on AGW Theory weakness click here.


CRU’s Jones says Global Warming Science NOT Settled

BBC put questions to Dr Phil Jones, former head of the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU) about his views regarding global warming and Climategate.   The questions and his responses can be read in detail by clicking here.

Al Gore should probably wrap his head in duct tape before reading the following Jones’ response:

Q – –When scientists say “the debate on climate change is over”, what exactly do they mean – and what don’t they mean?

A–It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

So,  Jones says neither he nor the vast majority of climate scientist think the climate change debate is over.   I just heard a boom.  Somebody did not tape his head  to prevent it from exploding.

For those who believe that CO2 is driving global warming,  Jones offers this:

Q–Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

A–Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

Here are the trends and significances for each period:

Period Length Trend

(Degrees C per decade)

1860-1880 21 0.163 Yes
1910-1940 31 0.15 Yes
1975-1998 24 0.166 Yes
1975-2009 35 0.161 Yes

Jones added the period 1975-2009 to the first three periods from the BBC questionnaire.  He says that the periods are not statistically different from each other (which could probably be deduced without a statistical analysis).  It would seem to put into question any significant effect of  the increase in anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere after WWII .

And he does respond to the hockey stick temperature chart that eliminated the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from history with this equivocation:

Q–There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

A–There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.

Ok,  Jones seems certain that there was a MWP in the Northern hemisphere.  But he doesn’t know if there was one in the Southern Hemisphere at the same time.   If the evidence was that the Northern Hemisphere temperatures were high  and  there was no data contradictory evidence,  why was the MWP removed from the hockey stick chart?

He still seems to be in some degree of hot water over his actions around  the Freedom of Information Act .

Q–Why did you ask a colleague to delete all e-mails relating to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC?

A–This was an e-mail sent out of frustration at one FOI request that was asking for the e-mail correspondence between the lead authors on chapter six of the Working Group One Report of the IPCC. This is one of the issues that the Independent Review will look at.

Oh my,  he just got mad and we need to forgive him.  I believe he did his best to deny anyone, by any means  access to his data.  See all the Climategate emails to learn how hard he fought any release.

Dr Jones says he never tried to subvert the process of peer review, but again, reading the Climategate email it surely looks like he and the members of his cabal did.

There are other postings on this topic that you might want to look into.  If so click here and here.


Is Ethanol Fuel Causing Starvation?

Is the corn used to produce ethanol motor fuel causing a massive increase in undernourished people in the  world?   A posting in the Energy Tribune suggests that using corn to produce ethanol is doing just that.  Their posting is based upon an Earth Policy Institute study which states that the grain consumed for the production of ethanol in 2009  was enough to feed 330 million people for one year at average world consumption.

I am always made a little uneasy by Organizations that can come up with numbers of starving people or homeless people or people without insurance.  Often they are advocates of something just as World Wildlife Fund is, among other things, a creator of lots of  global warming “facts”. There is a comment that follows the posting in the Energy Tribune that makes some pretty good sense too, about why you might want to question the total numbers of people that could have used the corn for food.

However,  the concept that the supported price of ethanol fuel can outbid food uses for the available corn seems very logical; thus it seems likely to have some effect on the amount of corn that was not available for food use. I expect the various interest groups will begin to battle this out and we will learn more in time. Some excerpts from the Energy Tribune blog follows:

The US, says the think tank:

is far and away the world’s leading grain exporter, exporting more than Argentina, Australia, Canada, and Russia combined. In a globalized food economy, increased demand for food to fuel American vehicles puts additional pressure on world food supplies.

From an agricultural vantage point, the automotive hunger for crop-based fuels is insatiable. The Earth Policy Institute has noted that even if the entire US grain crop were converted to ethanol (leaving no domestic crop to make bread, rice, pasta, or feed the animals from which we get meat, milk, and eggs), it would satisfy at most 18 percent of US automotive fuel needs.

When the growing demand for corn for ethanol helped to push world grain prices to record highs between late 2006 and 2008, people in low-income grain-importing countries were hit the hardest. The unprecedented spike in food prices drove up the number of hungry people in the world to over 1 billion for the first time in 2009. Though the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression has recently brought food prices down from their peak, they still remain well above their long-term average levels.

The full posting, including graphs can be read by clicking here.  Be sure to read the interesting comment (probably  by an etoh fuel advocate) at the end of the posting.


Boss and Galileo Discuss Cap and Trade

The Boss called in his science advisor, Galileo.  The Boss says “Galileo, I am being asked to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) atmospheric emissions resulting from the use of fossil fuels.   Should I do it; put in a plan to cutback fossil fuel use?  I know I can trust you because you, like your namesake think rationally not just go along with the crowd.”

Galileo responds “You have to decide based on (a) what we know or (b) what climate computers forecast the world will be like in 50 to 100 years if you don’t do something now.”

The Boss says “What’s the difference between what we know now and the computer forecasts?”

“Well Boss”  Galileo replied “you know that those who want you to cut back fossil fuel use say that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere will result in an unacceptable increase in global temperature, flooding resulting from ice melt, droughts in some parts of the world and excessive rains in others.  Plus famine, war, pestilence and death”

“How do they know these things will happen?” asked the Boss.

“It’s the computers, Boss.”

“OK, then tell me what you meant about what we know now.”

Galileo said “Well despite a continuing increase in atmospheric CO2, the global temperatures have not risen in over ten years and the ocean temperatures have declined since 2003 when the Argo Buoy system was put into service.  The Argo buoys are the only credible ocean temperature measurements.   Sea level rise has been steady for hundreds of years and in fact there has been a slight decrease in the rate of rise recently. Further more, the most recent studies have decoupled CO2 rise and violent weather.  Much of the 4 Horses of the Apocalypse talk is based on un-peer reviewed papers by  organizations like World Wildlife Fund that are advocates of the man-made global warming theory.”

Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse

“But surely the computers must have forecast this as I have heard of these  projections for 20 years,  even before I became Boss”

“ Boss, these climate computers are not skillful.”

“Skillful, what does that mean?”

“That is a way of saying they are unable to make accurate forecasts.  This is because the globe’s climate is so complex and the computer programmers and the scientist that provide technical data do not fully understanding its complexity.  So they backcast and add constants (fudge factors, speaking technically) to model the past.  But this is only of limited success when trying to predict the climate in the future.  It is my understanding they mostly fiddle with the output until it gives the desired outcome that matches their predisposition.”

“My, my  that doesn’t seem ligit.”

“Well Boss,  you can see why they do this.  The people are unlikely to agree to draconian laws that kill their economies.  But if you tell them that the computer says that in 50 to 100 years from now things will be pretty bad here on Earth if they don’t.  Even though these computers are woeful at making accurate predictions, the advocates of man-made global warming pretend they are believable else the whole man-made global warming industry would collapse.”

“So Galileo tell me what you think we should do.”

“First I want you to know that I believe the globe is warming and has been since the last Ice Age.  But the warming by and large is due to natural forces  and does not seem to present any danger of getting out of hand.  Right now, for example, the total global ice is increasing, ocean temperatures are on the decline,.  I don’t believe we know enough to potentially destroy our economy by restricting the use of fossil fuels.”

“Well said, but maybe the climate computers will be able to predict the future.”

“I have some thoughts on that , Boss.  Perhaps more powerful computers and increased knowledge of how the climate works will someday yield accurate forecasts.  But how can we know when that happens?   I believe climate forecasts must be accurate for 20 or more years into the future. I would have all the best computer programmers and climate scientists set up from 1 to 5 computers, let them make projections for climate in 20 years hence.  If any of them are found to make accurate projections after 20 years, then lets use that program to make decisions. It is likely that continuing development of this science will produce new candidates for this test.  Every 5 years new entries should be put into this program and we can wait for that computer program’s projection demonstration after 20 years.  With out demonstrated performance accuracy,  we never should  allow computer climate forecasts set policy.”

“In the meantime, we can work on improved  energy technologies.  We will  encourage this effort, but  we should not force unproven, unreliable and costly technologies on the public.”

“Thanks Galileo.”