1

Climate Change and Real Science By Dean L. Gano; August 2020

One of the hottest topics in politics today is man-caused climate change. Within the political debate surrounding this subject is the narrative about “Real Science,” and what it is or is not. To better understand this and get politics out of the way, let’s take a look at what defines science and politics.

Real Science vs. Politics The word ‘science’ means knowledge in Latin and is a systematic process of understanding the world through testable explanations. Understanding how our world works means understanding the causal relationships that make things happen. And that means asking what, when, where, and why! In politics, which means “affairs of the community,” it is mostly about telling stories about people, places and things and asking what, when, and where, but not so much about asking why. If ‘why’ is asked, the usual strategy is to follow a linear path that believes A caused B, B caused C, C caused D, and somewhere at the end of this linear chain of causes there is a magical cause that started everything, i.e., the “Root Cause.” And once you find the ‘root cause of a problem, you can apply a solution and solve the problem. Since this analysis is usually provided by a group of like-minded individuals telling stories to each other and categorizing their reasons, a strong consensus is created and the “Truth” is born. Once this truth has been defined, it is the purpose of the body politic to spread their truth so everyone in the community can find value in it. If someone disagrees with this “Truth,” they are ridiculed or ostracized from the group because there can be no descent. This is where name-calling, identity politics, and cancel culture come into play and it’s known as Groupthink. Groupthink 1 is a psychological condition that occurs in any group of people in which the desire for harmony or conformity is more important than discussing other ideas and often results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Science, on the other hand, is the pursuit of knowledge by asking why until we reach our point of ignorance and even then recognizing that our truth is only conditional and forever up for adjustment and change. Science understands the principles of causation, 2 and knows that when you reach your point of ignorance and can’t find the next cause, you know for sure that there are at least two more of them for each branch of your causal set. So, as you can see, the notion of consensus or groupthink found in politics, is the antithesis of science. A wiseman once said, “the more we know, the more we know we don’t know.” So, contrary to the body politic which is focused on a compromised Truth, science is defined by humility and knowing there is no such thing as the “Truth,” only cause and effect and the unknown. In short, the purpose of science is to prove conventional wisdom wrong. Unfortunately, our scientific communities have been polluted with government grant money and meddling politicians and are no longer practicing science. The

2

government/politicians give the scientist money to study anything, with or without any obvious purpose other than the pursuit of science. This is called “pure science” and is performed in hopes that some new and exciting discovery will be made. Nothing wrong with that, because it is seeking knowledge and to do otherwise is not science but the definition of arrogance and stasis. Unfortunately, scientists need money to expand human knowledge and that can cause problems, the biggest of which is the common belief among scientists that consensus on the given subject is the goal. The thinking being that, if enough of us really smart people agree on something by performing all kinds of different experiments to prove it (using lots of government money) it must be right and a huge Groupthink is created. This is exacerbated by the fact that one of the criteria for giving grant money is to see how many articles have been published 3 on that particular subject. If an idea is new or challenges conventional wisdom the scientist is less likely to be awarded the grant money and must go elsewhere or lose their job. Additionally, politicians have hijacked the scientific community to influence the actions, beliefs, or behavior of voters as a way of gaining power. They seek to convince the majority of voters of their righteousness to show what great problem-solvers they are. If there isn’t a problem, they create one, like man-caused climate change. The voters, who have never been taught the principles of causation and the need for evidenced-based causal relationships, simply listen for the best narrative and swallow it. In both these activities, government and political influence, the incentive to challenge conventional wisdom is removed and the purpose of science is now focused on consensus – the total opposite of pure science, which as we learned above, is to question everything and everyone. So, in the spirit of ‘Real Science,’ let’s take a closer look at this so-called ‘man-caused climate change.’

Man-Caused Climate Change One of the best examples of this modern-day groupthink can be found in the notion of man-caused climate change. It was originally created as a scam narrative by the nuclear power industry in the early 1970’s as a way to discredit the fossil fuel power plants and thus create a friendlier public perception of nuclear power. 4 It did not have much of an impact on the public at that time because they were more focused on the Viet Nam War, the Cold War with Russia, and Civil Rights. In 1989, the Cold War ended and the Civil Rights issue was old news, so the politicians needed another crisis to pander to. The “Environmental Movement,” which started in the 1960’s was gaining strength, and the politicians decided that it would be a good horse to ride. So, they resurrected this phony narrative, and in 2006, Al Gore of the liberal Democrat Party, produced a documentary film titled “Inconvenient Truth” (mostly untruths), about the “horrors” of “man-caused climate change.”

3

The liberal news media and government funded institutions eventually grabbed the banner and spread the lie that ‘most scientists believe climate change is caused by the actions of mankind alone - specifically the addition of carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning fossil fuels.’ As with any subject, before we can honestly discuss it, we need to understand what it is, so to help us better understand what this so-called global warming really is, you might want to read Global Warming 101, 5 written by a former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer. At the core of this non-problem is the notion that the earth is heating up because there is more heat coming into the atmosphere than is leaving and this is caused by the increase in man-caused CO2 which kind of insulates the earth. In reality it is much more complicated than that because there are many different natural systems all interacting with one another. In this article, Dr. Spencer states: “Obviously, knowing the strength of feedbacks in the climate system is critical.... in my work I show that feedbacks previously estimated from satellite observations of natural climate variability have potentially large errors. A confusion between forcing and feedback (loosely speaking, cause and effect) when observing cloud behavior has led to the illusion of a sensitive climate system, when in fact our best satellite observations (when carefully and properly interpreted) suggest an IN-sensitive climate system.” He concludes that: “Finally, if the climate system is insensitive, this means that the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming over the last 100 years — some natural mechanism must be involved.” The Global-warming scenario uses the euphemism of a Greenhouse effect caused by human pollution, but just how much of this nasty carbon dioxide is being put into the air. First of all, were it not for the natural greenhouse effect of our atmosphere, we would all die, but of all the atmospheric gases, CO2 makes up only 0.04 percent, and the anthropomorphic (man-caused) CO2 makes up only 3.4 percent of that figure, or one one thousandth of a percent (0.001%) of the entire earth’s atmosphere. As another point of reference, it is interesting to note that the total amount of CO2 injected into the world’s atmosphere each year by the one billion automobiles on the planet is equal to the same amount of CO2 caused by the striking of one match in your closed living room, 20 feet by 20 feet by 10 feet high in that same year. Try it at your house and see if you notice the effects a year later. The Official Report Now that we have a basic understanding of this problem, let’s see what the climate scientists have to say. The 477 page U. S. Global Change Research Program’s Climate Science Report ©2017, known as the Climate Science Special Report (CSSR2017) 6 concludes: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century,

4

there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.” Notice they say “observational evidence,” not evidenced-based causal relationships. And notice that this conclusion is one of default. It is like they said: ‘Oh, we looked at the weather around the world and couldn’t find any causes for the slight increase (1.2 degrees Celsius) in global temperatures in the last 100 years, so we just figured it must be caused by stupid humans.’ Unfortunately, that is not how science works; yet this is the official report from the “experts,” that the fake news and politicians use to create their lies. Instead of printing the actual statement from the government scientists so we can make up our own minds as to what it says, the fake news media and politicians create a phony narrative that says something entirely different, like ‘mankind is in great peril from burning too many fossil fuels,’ or ‘the seas are going to rise and flood all the major cities in the world,’ or as President Obama irresponsibly tweeted in 2013: “97 per cent of climate experts believe global warming is real, man-made and dangerous.” More on that lie later, but this so-called crisis has been a political football since it began in 1995, when the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 7 had it’s summary report changed by political operatives after the climate scientists had gone home. During their meeting that year they concluded as they had five years earlier that there was not enough evidence to support the notion of man-caused climate change. But, after the conference was over, someone changed the executive summary to say that they had indeed determined that climate change was caused by mankind’s activities. Once again in their third report they concluded that climate changes can be explained by natural variability, and once again the political operatives changed it to support their non-science orthodoxy. And the politics continue today even though global temperatures have been flat for the past 22 years. OK, since the official report does not say conclusively that the end of the world is near, what else does it say and why all the big hubbub? Where is the science behind these claims? You can listen to your trusted fake news outlet, or come along with me and explore the science. As we saw in the discussion about ‘real science,’ science involves the creation of testable hypotheses, based on evidenced-based causal relationships. So, if this was real science, you would think that the CSSR would provide a graph specifically showing carbon emissions vs. temperature over time, or provide evidence-based causal relationships explaining the science. Instead, they show two graphs: One graph showing the estimated amount of carbon emissions from 1900 to 2016 followed by the projected carbon emission using three different guesses. The other graph shows the corresponding global temperatures for the same time frame. Problem is, there is no correlation of historical data and if they had put these two graphs on top of each other, you could easily see it. In fact, the estimated carbon emissions from 1900 to about 1950 doesn’t change much, but from 1950 to about 1975, it increases four or five times the 1900 levels. Problem is, during that same period, the

5

temperature is basically flat, with no significant increase and an actual decrease during the 1970’s ‘mini ice age.’ See Figure 1 below, and notice that just as the carbon emissions begin to increase significantly, the temperature goes down and cycles in the same cool zone for the next 25 years or so.

Figure 1: Carbon Emissions vs. Temperature 5 Could other causes be at play here? When I presented this anomaly to a prominent climate scientist, he explained that there was a negative feedback system from the burning of coal during the 1970’s mini ice age. It seems that when you burn coal, one of the gases it produces is Sulfur dioxide, which when mixed in the atmosphere turns into sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and it reflects significant sunlight, thus cooling the planet. This gas and other gases like it, called halocarbons were responsible for the major depletion of our Ozone layer during that time. In 1987, the Montreal Accord was signed and by then most nations had cut back on such emissions by installing large scrubbers on their coal-fired power plants to remove these gases and the temperature began to rise again. Or, at least that is the official narrative, but given that the global climate system is extremely complicated, it could have been something else. But at least now we know that if it gets too hot, we can just remove the scrubbers from all our coal plants and the planet will cool back down. Seriously, the point is, our climate system is extremely complicated and only undisciplined scientists caught up in politics and groupthink, not true scientists would admit otherwise. And this begs the question of why would they not follow the scientific method? There are many reasons and we will discuss them below. The Climate Models Since we have many good scientists who are very skeptical of these climate change predictions 8, 9, 10, 11, let’s try to look closely at the models and see how they actually work.

6

The CSSR2017 5 provides a simplified model of global climate as shown in Figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Simplified Climate Model from CSSR2017 The first thing you will notice is that instead of providing a cause and effect diagram that clearly defines the relationships of the various causes of our climate system it presents a block diagram to show some known components with arrows used to depict some undefined relationship between them. This is common practice in our business and scientific communities because they have never been taught the structure of reality. 12 The few climate scientists I have personally spoken to, have great difficulty understanding the principles of causation discussed earlier. They don’t know that every effect must have at least two causes, and each of those two causes must have at least two causes, etc., so instead of using a causal diagram that follows this principle, they use block diagrams and tell stories. Block diagrams are worthless ploys used by the storyteller to convey what they think they know! The blocks represent a category, and the occasional action cause, the lines represent some kind of relationship that are defined by a story. No causes, no evidence, no reality, no science!

7

As we learned earlier, science requires a causal analysis showing the evidenced-based causal relationships of all the causes. Given our current understanding of climate, let’s see what a causal analysis might look like: See Figures 3.1 – 3.4 below to get an idea of how complicated it is. If our climate scientists would complete this chart, it would explode into hundreds of causal relationships.

Effect Caused By

Water Vapor Changes: See Fig. 3.2

Clouds Reflecting Heat

Greenhouse Gases Absorb Heat

Vegetation Absorbs CO2

Sun Heats Atmosphere

Sun Heats Earths Water

Ice Reflects Light from Sun

Ice Reflects Heat from Sun

Global Temperature Change Greenhouse Gases Reflect Heat From Sun

Clouds Absorb Heat From Sun

More Plants Consume More CO2

Deserts Reflect Light

Deserts Reflect Heat

Planet Earth Exists

Vegetation Exists

Oceans Exist

Deserts Exist

Ice/Snow Exists

Figure 3.1: Climate Change Causal Relationships

Effect Causes Causes

Oceans Temp. Changes

Atmospheric Temp. Changes: See Fig. 3.3

Clouds Atmospheric Pressure Changes

Water Vapor Changes Atmosphere Exists

Oceans Exist

Many Other Variables Many more causes

Figure 3.2: Climate Change Causal Relationships

Effect Causes

Global Temperature Changes

Water Vapor Changes

8

Clouds Reflect Heat

Atmospheric Temp. Changes Greenhouse Gases Absorb Heat From Sun

Clouds Exists

Planet Exist

Greenhouse Gases Exist: See Figure 3.4

Figure 3.3: Climate Change Causal Relationships

Effect Causes

Many Natural Land Processes

Many Natural Ocean Processes

Greenhouse Gases Exist Many Man Caused Gases Generated

Land Exists

Oceans Exist

Man Exists

Figure 3.4: Climate Change Causal Relationships As you can see from this simple example where I only show you the continuation of just one causal relationship from the preceding set, imagine if we did this for all 18 initial causes of Global Temperature Change. And given the huge causal representation of climate change this would represent; do you really think these scientists are capable of predicting future climate? The complexity is mind boggling! Given this reality, notice how the Official Model in Figure 2 is totally inadequate at representing the reality of the causal relationships involved in our global climate system. Dr. Spencer’s favorite cause is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, 13 which has to do with clouds in the Pacific Ocean, and oh-by-the-way, for which there is no accepted model, so they use fudge-factors to estimate the causal relationships. There are about 32 different climate models in the world run by various government agencies and only one of them has accurately predicted the weather for the last two decades. According to John Christy and his colleagues at the University of Alabama, only the Russian model, gets things right. So why not use the model that is working? Perhaps because it has less global warming in it than all the other U.N. models and thus does not support their fake narrative? 4, 14

97% of Climate Scientists Agree – Well, Not Really But wait a minute; we are told that 97% of all climate scientists support the notion of man-caused global warming. This is a common mantra of this group and if you don’t believe it, you will be categorized as a climate change DENIER or some other derogatory term attacking your intelligence because you don’t know what “real science” is.

9

So, where does this claim come from? The most cited source for this claim is a fellow named John Cook, who is a strong promoter of man-caused climate change. He cooked up the number by reviewing a bunch of technical papers on climate change. During his review he made a note as to whether the papers supported “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Problem is, only 1.6 percent of the papers he reviewed explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming. In order to get the 97 percent number, Cook created two categories; “implicit endorsement without quantification” for papers that say there is global warming, but do not quantify how much of it is man-caused, and “implicit endorsement” for those papers that imply there is some global warming. So, the claim is fabricated, just like man-caused climate change. When some of the people who’s papers Cook reviewed found out about this distortion, they protested with comments like this one from Dr. Richard Tol, who said: “Cook’s survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. Five of the 10 were rated incorrectly. Four of five were rated as endorse rather than neutral.” After Cook published this dribble, the fake news outlets, which never verify their facts, began spreading it to sell their version of the “news.” Remember, the fake news outlets need to sell their stories to make money, so by creating a scary story that affects all of us, it becomes the biggest story of the century. And whether in cahoots or not, the politicians who need a problem to solve, jumped on the fake-news 15 bandwagon. In reality, when this story first broke in 2012, the American Meteorological Society (AMS) surveyed its 7,000 members, receiving 1,862 responses. Of those, only 52% said they think global warming over the 20th century has happened and is mostly man-made. So, the correct number is 13.8%, but as previously stated, consensus is not science, it’s politics and as usual, some politicians and fake-news outlets have created a totally fake problem to make themselves look important to the community. But what is so sick about this story is that normal rational people fail to see the ineffective thinking of this logic and that causes other problems. For example, there is a group of women in the United Kingdom that are so desperately afraid of climate change that they have formed a protest group titled “Birthstrike,” meaning they are going on strike and will not have children until we address this horrible man-caused climate disaster. Remember, the essence of science is to prove conventional wisdom wrong. And that is exactly what 23 respected scientists did and published their work in a book titled: Climate Change: The Facts, © 2015. In this book, they discuss the many errors the government-run weather models have and why they do not produce reliable results (except for the Russian Model). They also discuss the ties between the liberal politicians and the so-called scientists who help prop up this nonsense; or is that non-science? This great book of scientific facts was followed by another book titled: Climate Change: The Facts, © 2017 6 by many of the same scientists, expanding on what they learned about this hoax.

10

Furthermore, paleoclimatoligists like William F. Ruddiman have created graphs estimating the earth’s temperature and carbon dioxide levels for the last 600 million years, and there is not only no correlation between the two, the graphs show that in some periods high temperatures occurred when the CO2 is low and visa-versa. And carbon dioxide levels have varied from less than 100 parts per million (ppm) to over 4,000 ppm, all without the help of mankind. No Causal Relationships I have a personal and direct connection to the weather models. Several years ago, I gave a presentation about the cause and effect principles discussed earlier to a group of people at an American Society of Quality meeting. One of the attendees was a mathematician who worked for Battelle Northwest Labs, a national science center. He informed me that he worked on one of the US Government weather models studying global climate change. Such that I could get a better understanding of this phenomenon, I asked if their model followed the principles of causation. His answer was no, ‘we use an observational understanding of the climate.’ Of course, I immediately knew what they are doing was clearly not science. In the book Climate Change: The Facts, one of the authors, Patrick J. Michaels states: “A peculiar phenomenon in modern climate studies is that cause and effect are not easy to parse, and in some instances they are not even explored.” In fact, as you read the latest Global Science Report 3, Chapter 4, which discusses aspects of the models, it uses the term “storyline” to describe the basis of their various models. As we have already learned, stories are not causal and they do not reflect reality. Instead their purpose is to convert you to the dogma being presented by the so-called expert. Further evidence of the lack of causal analysis is found in Appendix C of the CSSR2017 which states: “Hannart et al.29 have discussed how causal theory can also be applied to attribution studies in order to distinguish between necessary and sufficient causation. Hannart et al.33 further propose methodologies to use data assimilation systems, which are now used operationally to update short-term numerical weather prediction models, for detection and attribution. They envision how such systems could be used in the future to implement near-real time systematic causal attribution of weather and climate-related events.” So, in their own words, presented in the Official Report, the government climate scientists tell us that their models are not causal! They wish they were, but they are not! The CSSR is a horribly written document that blathers on and on about many scientific reports and expresses doubt about many aspects of the models, making it seem like they are real questioning scientists. Instead of specifically telling the reader how their many models work and how they compare to reality, thus verifying the validity of their theories, they obfuscate! Here is a classic example from Chapter 4 of CSSR2017: “Confidence in the usefulness of the future projections generated by global climate models is based on multiple factors. These include the fundamental nature of the physical processes they represent, such as radiative transfer or geophysical fluid

11

dynamics, which can be tested directly against measurements or theoretical calculations to demonstrate that model approximations are valid (e.g., IPCC 199019). They also include the vast body of literature dedicated to evaluating and assessing model abilities to simulate observed features of the earth system, including large-scale modes of natural variability, and to reproduce their net response to external forcing that captures the interaction of many processes which produce observable climate system feedbacks (e.g., Flato et al. 201364). There is no better framework for integrating our knowledge of the physical processes in a complex coupled system like Earth’s climate.” Check out that last sentence: There is no better way than to compare our theories with other theories from other like-minded people in “the vast body of literature” that we created. Really?? What about comparing your models with reality or defining their evidence-based causal relationships? If the models are working so well, why don’t you just show us how close they are to predicting the increase in temperature for the past 20 plus years? And of course, the answer is: they don’t because the model’s predictions are consistently wrong and they have to obfuscate with nonsensical statements like this one! And the non-science continues. Throughout the CSSR, they make summary statements and then provide a confidence rating in parenthesis like this: (very high confidence) or (medium confidence) or some level of confidence. The problem with this obfuscation is that it is not a scientific calculation, as you would expect from a real scientist. If these levels of confidence were scientific in nature, they would use the term “confidence level” (cl) or “confidence interval” (ci) and would have a percentage value associated with them that measures the mathematical probability that a certain assertion is true. For example, it could be the probability that a particular climate model accurately predicts the change in global temperature within 0.05 °F, 95% of the time. Instead of using the scientific/mathematical process of “confidence level,” they just vote on what the group thinks their confidence in a given statement is. You can’t make this stuff up; guessing and voting - Groupthink at its best, but not science! The CSSR does not address any of these inconsistencies, or why the Russian model is the only one that works, and is sorely lacking any details of how their climate models are constructed. Science requires that if you have a theory, which this is, the causal data must support the theory and if it doesn’t 8, 9, 10, 11, then the theory is wrong! It’s Called Weather! In at least the past 400,000 years, ice core studies show a warming period occurred about every 100 to 125 thousand years (See Figure 4 below) and in all those periods, where there were no man-caused gases, earth’s temperature was higher than it is today. Interestingly, a probable cause for humans even existing today is because there was a warming cycle about 100,000 years ago that allowed Homo sapiens to thrive and spread out from Africa to all parts of the planet. Without that warming you would not be here, but rather eating fried grasshoppers on the Serengeti.

12

Figure 4: Climate History from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica; J.R. Petit 16 The earth rotates around the sun on an elliptical orbit and the angle of the earth’s axis also changes in time. When the earth is closest to the sun and the axis is leaning in a way that increases exposure of the Arctic region, the planet heats up. We are currently moving away from the sun, so that is not a cause of any increasing temperature and may reflect why there has been very little increase in temperature for the last 22 years. See Figure 5 below that shows the measured global temperature for the past 40 years, from 1979 to 2019. The measurements are taken from 15 NOAA satellites and show a slight temperature increase of about 0.4 ºC since the last mini ice age of the 1970’s. Also, the U. S. Climate Reference Network,17 which utilizes a very sophisticated climate-observing network on a national scale, has found there has been no warming in the U.S. since 2005.

13

Figure 5: Mean Global Temperature

The estimated carbon dioxide increased following these warming periods shown in Figure 4, but only 10 to 20 parts per million more than what we had in 1900. Today the carbon dioxide is 125 parts per million more than in 1900 and as you can see in Figure 4, the temperature increase today is a little less than it was in these previous warming trends. Again, no correlation between CO2 and global temperature. Climate Change is NOT Caused by CO2 In fact, there are 35 scientific studies 18 that show there is no consistent correlation or direct causal relationship between the two parameters. Nowhere in the government climate change reports 19 is there a clear equation showing a causal relationship. Climate records show that when the earth’s temperature increases, it typically causes increases in CO2 hundreds to thousands of years later. Exactly the opposite relationship of what the fake news/politicians spew. For details see: “Why CO2 is Not the Control Knob of Global Temperature.” 20 If we look at the basic physics of climate, 21 it is just a heat balance equation. For the earth to heat up, more heat has to come in than goes out and there are many factors effecting that balance. One of those factors is clouds, and according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, water vapor is responsible for 80 – 90% of the greenhouse effect. But cloud cover changes dramatically ever year, and an increase in cloud cover of just 10% would be enough to cancel out the supposed

14

global warming effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. And, as we saw in the causal analysis above, clouds are only one of many natural systems that affect our climate, so why focus on CO2? Mankind is NOT doomed! As sea levels began to rise following the last ice age about 20,000 years ago, low level villages around the world were inundated with water levels rising over 350 feet until they somewhat stabilized to where they are today about 8,000 years ago. But, sea level has continued to rise. We know that in the past 120 years it has been raising at a rate of about 1/8 of an inch/year. 6 We also know that the Antarctica ice sheet has been melting for at least the past 2000 years. 6 It is nothing new and it is not man caused. There is nothing new about forest fires either. For thousands of years, many grasslands were replaced by forests, and then the forest burned down and were replaced again by grasses and small bushes and new forests. It is a natural process that has been going on for millennia. But what is new is that stupid humans build flammable structures in the middle of them and then blame man-caused climate change for their losses. Many cultures and civilizations collapsed or expanded because of significant variations in weather and other natural events like volcanoes and forest fires. However, one thing is certain, the warmer the weather, the better for humans; cold, not so good 10, 11. Also, because of the warmer temperatures, the growing cycle for plants has increased around the world. More CO2 means plants grow bigger and better. NASA reports there is 5% more green leaf area today than there was in the year 2000 - an increase in area about the size of the entire Amazon rainforests. If you must obsess over changing weather, consider that during a 30-year cold spell around 1620 – 1650, China had very low temperatures and 43% of the population, 70 million people, died. The point is, our climate has always changed dramatically and it has always had a major impact on humans and even if the warming is man-caused, so what? We will adapt as we always have. As you can see from all this evidence, man-caused climate change is a hoax, and most people, including politicians and some scientist do not understand the principles of causation, let alone the fact that they are all part of a huge misguided narrative driven by a huge groupthink propagated by fake news and some politicians. But why? We’ll explore that in a minute. A note of caution here: I am not saying that the climate is not changing, because it is, and has been for millions of years. And mankind may be a contributor in some way, but unless you can provide me with clear causal relationships showing me how much mankind is changing it, and that your models actually work, I am going to be very skeptical – especially because of the political nature of this subject. It was started as, and has always been a political football, as documented in the book “A Disgrace To The Profession”, ©

15

2015 by Mark Steyn. For sure, the weather is going to change, and I am glad it is warming and not cooling, because that is better for the planet and we will survive 10. Furthermore, this doesn’t mean we should not move to renewable energy sources or be kinder to our environment and stop destroying our oceans. Quite the contrary! At some point in time, fossil fuels are going to run out and we need to harness the free energy that can be found in the ocean waves, as well as the sun, and wind. Nuclear power is horribly underused and could easily replace many fossil fuel fired power plants if the government would get out of the way and promote it like they did in France, where over 70% of their electricity is from nuclear power plants. It is safe and there is an endless supply of fuel. And oh by the way, if the politicians were smart, they would drop this phony man-caused climate change scenario and focus on the next big disaster that’s coming down the path; the shifting of the magnetic poles. 22 In case you didn’t know, the earth’s magnetic poles are about to flip, north to south and south to north, and according to our “trusted” government scientists, that will cause major problems to our electrical grid and communication systems. The Groupthink Deepens The nagging question remains; why does this misguided thinking continue to dominate our media and politics? The conditional causes of this misguided notion is that people believe scientists because they are not political, or at least so they claim, and the politicians, with the help of fake news outlets, take the narrative away from a few bad scientists and use the fallacy to scare people. And, by scaring people, they can then be the elite savior and provide a brilliant solution. And by implementing that solution, they gain power over their ignorant followers. And oh by the way, the politicians then give the scientists more grant money to study it and keep it in the news 4. The scientists, who think they are conducting science and are not part of a huge groupthink, continue down their non-causal path making sure they have a paycheck next month. The ignorant liberal news media, which is incapable of logical thought, doesn’t actually investigate the claim, but runs with it and blows it up even more by making statements like ‘there are more severe hurricanes today than in the past’ – a total lie that contradicts the Global Science Report 2 which specifically states: “Some storm types such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and winter storms are also exhibiting changes that have been linked to climate change, although the current state of the science does not yet permit detailed understanding.” Remember, a correlation, or “link” in this case, does not a cause make! And what about reality? Why doesn’t the Global Science Report 6 or the fake news media provide evidence to back up their statements? Or take the time to look at other reports like Judith Curry’s Special Report on Hurricanes and Climate Change; June, 2019. 23 Because it is a lie and the reality doesn’t fit their narrative. Figures 6 and 7

16

provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 24 shows a historic perspective for hurricanes and tornadoes in the U.S.

Figure 6: Number of Recorded Storms in the U.S. Since 1850

17

Figure 7: Tornadoes, 1954 through 2014

Figure 8: Number of Hurricanes Affecting the United States Does that really look like global warming is a major problem? Notice I used the term “Global Warming,” not “Climate Change.” When all this groupthink started, it was known

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Nu

mb

er o

f H

urr

ican

es A

ffec

tin

g U

nit

ed

St

ate

s

Decade

United States Hurricanes: "All 1,2,3,4,5"(with Linear and 50-Year Moving Average Trend Lines)

18

as “Global Warming,” but in 2002, politicians (not scientists) decided to change the name to “Climate Change” because there was little evidence of warming and by making it a broader term, they could make it more mysterious and thus control the narrative better. For those who continue to promote this silly notion, the term Climate Change allows them to create a narrative every time there is a significant weather anomaly. And you can be assured that Figures 5, 6, 7, & 8, will never be part of that narrative.

Forest Fires in the West are Caused by Climate Change

Never passing up a change to spread fear, some politicians have claimed the wild fires in Washington, Oregon, and California are caused by abnormally dry conditions which is caused by man-caused climate change. So once again, let’s see if weather data from NOAA provides any evidence to support this claim. Since California has been hit the hardest, let’s look at some of their historical weather data.

Figure 9: Abnormally Hot Days in California

19

Figure 10: Observed Annual Precipitation in California

Figure 11: California Drought Severity Index

20

As you can see from actual weather data, weather changes, but there is no trend showing an increase in dry conditions. Rather, if you dig into the problem a little deeper you find once again that politically motivated government policy is at the core of this problem. Groupthink can be found at the core of most groups and the scientists and political parties are no exception. The whole notion of politics is based on the ability to be the most popular person in a group, and people do this by being the best storytellers, not by presenting an evidenced-based causal analysis of a given problem. As each narrative is developed, it grows in acceptance using groupthink as a catalyst to create ‘common sense’ – all of which is normal, but a totally ineffective way of thinking. In trying to understand how people get caught in this trap, I tried to put myself in the shoes of a climate scientist - to empathize. I first asked a climate scientist who believes in and promotes this nonsense if he thought there was any groupthink going on and he said: “oh yes!” So, let’s see how this silly notion might become such a big deal. To start with, I would be given the challenge of building a model that can predict climate change. So, I study all the known causal factors and determine it is an impossible task, (just like the climate scientist did in the first United Nations IPCC Report of 1990) but the government has given me money to study it and that is what I must do. You have to do what you have to do, and even though I have never been taught the fundamental principles of causation, I am a trained scientist so I will use what I do know and find some correlations between the weather and the laws of physics. To keep my job, and satisfy the group and the leader of the group, I look at one of the causal factors and create a model using my understanding of the laws of physics. My model doesn’t seem to match reality very well and I write a report to that effect and re-double my efforts to better understand the physics. (just like the climate scientist did in the second United Nations IPCC Report of 1995) After a while, I get a better understanding of this one “causal factor” and my model kind of works and I am getting validation from other scientists who are also trying to find something. So, I write another paper that says climate change is man-made and it goes viral (just like one rouge climate scientist did in the second United Nations IPCC Report of 1995). Wow, now I am really smart and celebrated and have a great job that allows me to explore my curiosity and learn even more. It’s really fun being a scientist and everyone in my group thinks I am a good one, so I keep on working. Pretty soon other scientists in my group are writing papers just like mine, so now I know I am right. And the next time the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change meets, even more scientists have become part of the group and they issue more and more reports saying climate change is man caused. Because ‘the need to be needed’ is one of the strongest of all human needs, the scientists get sucked into the groupthink vortex and don’t even know it. Unless they are disciplined enough to totally follow the scientific method and the fundamental principles of causation they begin to believe in their own righteousness, which is validated by their peers, the fake news, politicians and much of the general public who are all incapable of

21

effective thinking, 25 but very good at groupthink. So sad, but the facts are: the climate models are self admittedly not causal and thus fail the causal reality check, and they do not accurately predict future climate, so they are dishonest and fail the scientific method. Is that being responsible?

Bottom Line While these revelations should cause us great concern, more importantly, it should cause every person on the planet to stop trusting politicians, scientific journals, and government scientists because they have clearly lost all credibility and the only defense we have is to be diligent in questioning everything and find solutions that we have control of. To do otherwise is to be just another sheep in the herd. For two great videos that summarize what you have learned here, go to Climate Science and the Myths of Renewable Energy 26 by Steve Goreham and a presentation by Dr. Don Easterbrook who; Exposes the Climate Change Hoax. 27

1 Groupthink; Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink 2 What you need to know about problem solving; Dean L. Gano. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7ItSa7B-

5s&feature=youtu.be 3 The Corruption of Science?; Pallab Ghosh, 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8490481.stm 4 Mark Levin Interview with Dr. Patrick Michaels, 2018; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lar42tnkF44 5 Global Warming 101; Roy Spencer. http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/ 6 Climate Science Special Report (CSSR2017);

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ACSSR2017.pdf&page=15 7 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ 8 Abbot, J + 20 others, Climate Change: The Facts, © 2017. https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Change-Facts-

Jennifer-Marohasy/dp/0909536031 9 A Fatal Flaw in Global Warming Science by Dr. Ed Barry; https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-

hypothesis/why-human-co2-does-not-change-climate-slide-show/ 10 Climate Change Reconsidered II, by Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change;

http://climatechangereconsidered.org/climate-change-reconsidered-ii-fossil-fuels/ 11 Forbes; IPCC In A Stew: They Cooked Their Latest Science Books, © 2013

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/10/13/ipcc-in-a-stew-how-they-cooked-their-latest-climate-

books/#514d34a72edd 12 RealityCharting; Dean Gano, 2011. https://www.amazon.com/RealityCharting-Effective-Problem-Solving-

Strategies-Personal/dp/1883677130 13 Pacific Decadal Oscillation, Dr. Roy Spencer. http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-

a-natural-response/ 14 Are Climate Models Overpredicting Climate Change? CATO Institute, © Jan. 31, 2019;

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/are-climate-models-overpredicting-global-warming 15 '97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong;

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#6b574c633f9f 16 Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica; J. R. Petit, et. al.

http://geoweb.princeton.edu/people/bender/lab/downloads/Petit_et_al_1999_copy.pdf 17 U. S. Climate Reference Network; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/ 18 CO2 Temperature Correlations; http://www.co2science.org/subject/c/co2climatehistory.php 19 Climate Science Special Report; U S Global Change Research Program, 2017.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/downloads/CSSR2017_FullReport.pdf 20 Why CO2 is Not the Control Knob of Global Climate Change; Institute for the Human Environment.

http://www.human-environment.org/climate/co2primer/co2primer.php

22

21 Doubling CO2 and Basic Physics; Clive Best, 2010. http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=1169 22 Earth’s Magnetic North Pole Is Shifting Dramatically From A Powerful Tug Of War; Eric Mack, May 7, 2020.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2020/05/07/earths-magnetic-north-pole-is-shifting-dramatically-from-a-

powerful-tug-of-war/#735efec81ffe 23 Hurricanes and Climate Change by Judith Currey; June 2019. https://345f4919-32bf-4395-bc40-

6489e53b0225.filesusr.com/ugd/867d28_32f52bbef6d24cbfb018540b6b8d60bd.pdf 24 Historical Records and Trends; https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/extreme-events/us-tornado-

climatology/trends 25 Effective Thinking; William Taddit, 2019. https://www.williamtaddit.com 26 Climate Science and the Myths of Renewable Energy by FOS Steve Goreham 27 Dr. Don Easterbrook Exposes the Climate Change Hoax; 2020.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?view=detail&mid=2974EEB79984DEBE3DF32974EEB79984DEBE3DF3&q

=don+easterbrook+climate&shtp=GetUrl&shid=1cbc02be-7c11-4edc-a8b4-

4e9f42c092b2&shtk=RHIgRG9uIEVhc3RlcmJyb29rIEV4cG9zZXMgdGhlIENsaW1hdGUgQ2hhbmdlIEhvYXg%3

D&shdk=RHIgRG9uIEVhc3RlcmJyb29rIEV4cG9zZXMgdGhlIENsaW1hdGUgQ2hhbmdlIEhvYXg%3D&shhk=Q

XRWymtjFb8a1Gi6178UT6%2F2%2FwFv4d%2FHwrdWyTIxd2k%3D&form=VDSHOT&shth=OSH.whKGL9C

ZYxvtwIQYj0pv7Q