That's right. There are a myriad of scientific essays, networks and individuals pursuing the same science using a variety of methods from climate modeling computers to ice core data and more.

The one thing that stands out is that Cap And Trade is a political and economic scam of vast proportions. I think we can safely assume that opinion.

I've tried to follow the science behind climate change, if there is any climate change and whether the globe is warming or cooling for some time now. It isn't easy if, like myself, you tend to rely on factual data to form opinions. Facts are quite different from opinions and are often hard to locate regardless of the subject matter but especially in regards to climate change.

The evidence has appeared to suggest that the globe is in fact warming and then we come into these winter months and experience this current deep freeze which has broken records going back 50 and 100 years both here and in the UK and elsewhere.

The following essay is presented not as factual evidence of anything, as the author states clearly, but as practical evidence of what might actually be happening, the trends over the past several hundred and several thousand years.

For me it makes no difference really whether the earth is warming or cooling. My personal fight is with those that are using Cap And Trade as the prophylactic for that assumed change. That's a criminal enterprise much like all of their machinations and legislation's and I have an animosity towards white collar politically motivated criminals posing as elected officials that take advantage of humanity. Probably we all do.

So, while Richard K. Moore has no particular affiliation and no particular qualifications let's look at what he wrote recently regarding the subject of climate change. I believe his conclusions are reached with a fair amount of accuracy.

Climate Science: Observations versus Models

by Richard K. Moore

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. – Bertrand Russell, Roads to Freedom, 1918


Science and models


True science begins with observations and measurements. These lead to theories and models, which lead to predictions. The predictions can then be tested by further measurements and observations, which can validate or invalidate the theories and models, or be used to refine them.


This is the paradigm accepted by all scientists. But scientists being people, typically in an academic research community, within a political society, there can be many a slip between cup and lip in the practice of science. There are the problems of getting funding, of peer pressure and career considerations, of dominant political dogmas, etc.


In the case of models there is a special problem that typically arises. That is, researchers tend to become attached to their models, both psychologically and professionally. When new observations contradict the model, there is a tendency for the researchers to distort their model to fit the new data, rather than abandoning their model and looking for a better one. Or they may even ignore the new observations, and simply declare that their model is right, and the observations must be in error.


A classic example of this problem can be found in models of the universe. The Ptolemaic model assumed that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that the universe revolves around that center. Intuitively, this model makes a lot of sense. On the Earth, it feels like we are stationary. And we see the Sun and stars moving across the sky. “Obviously” the universe revolves around the Earth.


However, in order for this model to work in the case of the Moon and the planets, it was necessary to introduce the arbitrary mechanism of epicycles. If the universe really does revolve around the Earth, epicycles must exist, but there is no other reason to believe in epicycles. When Galileo and Copernicus came along, a much cleaner model was presented, that explained all the motions with no need for epicycles. But no longer would the Earth be the center.


In this case it was not so much scientists that were attached to the old model, but the Church, who liked the model because it fit their interpretation of scripture. We’ve all heard the story of the Bishop who refused to look through the telescope, so he could ignore the new observations and hold on to the old model. Galileo was forced to recant, and Copernicus, who wouldn’t recant, was put to death. Thus can political interference hold back the progress of science, and ruin careers.



Climate models and public opinion

In the case of the climate models being used by the IPCC, the assumption is that CO2 is a primary driver of climate. There is an intuitive basis for this assumption, given that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and both CO2 levels and temperature have risen sharply in the past century. In addition, a strong correlation has been observed between temperature and CO2 levels in long-term records revealed by ice-core samples. Furthermore, the burning of fossil fuels is continuing to pollute the atmosphere (and the oceans) with ever-higher levels of CO2. This has led to the hypothesis that temperatures are likely to rise precipitously, endangering life on the planet. All of this was presented very dramatically by Al Gore in his famous documentary.

As with the Ptolemaic model however, there are many problems with the assumption that CO2 drives climate, and with the prediction of dangerous warming. For one thing, the long-term records show that temperature has historically changed first, followed much later by changes in CO2 levels. For another, there have been periods of significant cooling in recent years, even while CO2 levels have continued to rise dramatically. In addition, long term records show that temperatures have been much higher than today in the past – including only a thousand years ago (the Medieval Warm Period) – and no bizarre disasters, such as the extinction of polar bears, or runaway feedback loops, occurred as a result.


As with the Ptolemaic model, there are politically powerful factions that have embraced the theory of dangerous, human-caused global warming for their own purposes. More about their purposes a bit further on. For now, suffice it to say that generous funding has been provided to CRU (East Anglia, Climate Research Unit) scientists who have been more than willing to ‘refine’ the model to deal with the ‘uncomfortable truth’ of the model’s problems – even if it requires such things as “hiding the decline”.


And those political factions, who happen also to be involved with the UN and the IPCC, and who are set to make trillions from cap-and-trade, and who own most of the Western mass media, have seen to it that the media continually hammers home the message that human-caused global warming is a threat to all life on Earth.

All of this has dovetailed with the objectives of the environmental movement, which for very good reasons is concerned about pollution of all kinds, and with society’s over-dependence on non-renewable fossil fuels. With the studies generated by the ‘coalition of willing scientists’, plus the ‘authority’ of the IPCC, plus the ‘objective’ messages of the media, plus the naive enthusiasm of the environmental movement, a ‘perfect storm’ of global public opinion has turned the cause of ‘stopping carbon emissions’ into the equivalent of a religion.

Scientists who persist in exploring the problems of the model are labeled by environmental activists and the media as ‘deniers’; their integrity is called into question, and their studies have difficulty being accepted by refereed climate-science journals. They are treated as heretics of this modern religion, and not given a fair hearing in public discourse.


However problems in the model do not automatically invalidate the model, nor does all of this non-scientific interference – even though these things do justify skepticism regarding the claims of the IPCC, and the CRU models those claims are based on. Let’s make an attempt to investigate the actual science of the matter for ourselves.



Question 1: Is there an alarming global warming problem at all, regardless of what might be causing it?



The historical record: 2,000 BC – 1900 AD

Let's look at the actual long-term temperature measurements over the past 4,000 years – based on ice-core data. I downloaded this data from the official NOAA website (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov), and constructed the following graphs myself. Ice-core data is universally recognized as a very reliable indicator of temperature. According to the NOAA, the error is within 1%. Let's first look at the Northern Hemisphere, as shown by the Greenland ice cores:

We can see that over the past 4,000 years there have a series of temperature peaks, each lower than the previous. Toward the end of the graph, as we emerge from the Little Ice Age, a new peak begins, leading up to 1900. This new peak began long before human-generated CO2 became significant, and is consistent with the pattern of diminishing peaks. In 1900 the temperature was very low compared to temperatures over this period, and 3°C below the maximum for the period. Overall, in the Northern Hemisphere, temperatures have been on a clear downward trend since about 1400 BC, when the maximum occurred.

Next let's look at temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere over the same period, based on the Vostok ice cores:

For the Southern Hemisphere we see a quite different pattern. This difference probably reflects the fact that most of the Earth's land mass is in the Northern Hemisphere, while the Southern Hemisphere is dominated by the oceans, leading to different climate dynamics. Instead of a decline since 1400 BC, we see more-or-less balanced oscillations around an average base line for the whole 4,000-year period. As of 1900, we were a bit above the average for the period.

Although the patterns are quite different, neither shows cause for alarm as of 1900, based on comparison with the temperatures over the period in each hemisphere. 1900 is when the ice-core data ends, and 1900 begins the century in which CO2 levels become a concern.


These 4,000 years, up until 1900, includes most of the history of civilization. During this whole time the polar bears did not go extinct, there was no runaway feedback of methane leakage, the island nations were not submerged, the Greenland glaciers did not melt, agriculture was not wiped out, the gulf stream did not stop flowing, etc. In this whole era, temperatures did not get high enough to cause the kind of disasters predicted by the IPCC/CRU models.

If such disasters are to occur, and if warming is to be the cause, then temperatures will need to get higher than they have been at any time during this era. In the northern hemisphere, that would require a rise of at least 3°C above the 1900 level. Let’s turn our attention now to the temperature record since 1900, and let’s focus on the northern hemisphere.


1909-2010


Unfortunately, it is difficult to find a temperature record for this last century that is as reliable as the ice-core data. Many of the thermometer-based measurement stations are in areas that have become urbanized during this period, which yields temperature readings that are atypically high. Not only that, but meteorologists in both Russia and Australia have claimed that the CRU climatologists are using very selective measurements from their regions, including far too many of those urban stations.

This is the kind of ‘tweaking’ that the phrase “hide the decline” refers to, in the infamous leaked emails from CRU. Those emails may not have revealed any particular ‘smoking gun’ that fatally wounds the models, but the emails do clearly indicate a strong motivation to ‘prove the case’ for dangerous, human-caused global warming. That, plus the ‘perfect storm’ of general support for the theory – among the general scientific community as well as the general public – makes it difficult to trust that published temperature summaries are not, to some extent, exaggerated – particularly with the most recent period, since 1980, where the dramatic hockey stick plays such an important role.

Fortunately, from 1980, there is reliable satellite data for global temperatures. What I am going to do is use surface-temperature summaries for 1900–1980, and refer to the satellite information for 1980–2010. We can append those trends to the Greenland data, to get some idea of what recent warming looks like in the long-term context.

For the surface temperature record, let’s go to NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, where we find this chart:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

I used the topmost chart, the one that shows the largest increases, and noted the rise since 1900 for each decade up to 1980. I appended those values to the Greenland data.

And then a funny thing happened on the way to the satellite data. I found my way to NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where the satellite data is supposed to be available:

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

There is an inviting link there, and I’ve shown the referenced URL below it here:

Get the latest on the Earth's Temperature from Space by clicking on the diagram!!

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html

You might try going to that URL. When I clicked on it, a graph came up for a second, and was quickly replaced by a blank page with the message Not Found. One can only speculate about why the data is no longer available on this well-known site. Given the negative PR from the recently leaked emails, and the urgent need to do damage control – as evidenced by the removal of CRU-head Philip Jones, and the prompt apologia by Monibot – it is quite possible that the data might have been ordered deleted because it is too embarrassing for CRU. By the way, here’s Monibot’s latest apologia for the model:



Britain's cold snap does not prove climate science wrong

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newslog/message/2664

And here’s what the Marshall Center says on the page where the link to the satellite charts no longer works:

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

“Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity.

“In theory, one could argue that the computer models are accurate, and that the real measurements have some problem. However this is not the case. An incredible amount of work has been done to make sure that the satellite data are the best quality possible. Recent claims to the contrary by Hurrell and Trenberth have been shown to be false for a number of reasons, and are laid to rest in the September 25th edition of Nature (page 342). The temperature measurements from space are verified by two direct and independent methods. The first involves actual in-situ measurements of the lower atmosphere made by balloon-borne observations around the world. The second uses intercalibration and comparison among identical experiments on different orbiting platforms. The result is that the satellite temperature measurements are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade (0.03 C) when compared to ground-launched balloons taking measurements of the same region of the atmosphere at the same time.”

Clearly, based on the above statement, one could understand why ‘losing’ the satellite charts might fall under the classification of ‘damage control’, so as to help protect the model, the fear it inspires, and the trillion-dollar profits that are being anticipated from cap-and-trade. In any case, I couldn’t get the data, but the statement above gives us enough information to complete our composite temperature record. I’ll simply put in a slight decline for the period 1980-2010, let’s say 0.05°C.

This is the picture we get by putting all this together:

I am by no means putting this forward as any kind of definitive temperature composite for the Northern Hemisphere. However, it is based on actual measurements, possibly exaggerated upwards by the surface measurements, without making any assumptions about what might or might not be causing these temperature levels, and without making any adjustments to the data. I put it forward as, “A Common Sense Northern Temperature Record, version 1.0”.

The 0.05°C degree drop I put in for the satellite data is barely visible – it’s that tiny, tiny squiggle at the very end, the size and shape of a backwards apostrophe. And I realize that such a squiggle of a trend reversal could very well be just a hiccup.


Nonetheless, it is intriguing to note that if this last peak really is reversing downward now, as the satellite data suggests, that would fit perfectly into the long-term pattern of declining peaks. From that pattern, we would expect a reversal just about now. If you hold a ruler up to the screen, you’ll see that four of the peaks fall in an exact line, and the distance between each of them is very close to exactly 1,000 years. Meanwhile, the record-breaking snowfall and low temperatures being experienced all around the Northern Hemisphere at the moment seem almost to be saying, “Believe it guys, the reversal is real”.

Indeed, the folks who support the CRU models, as we could see in the Monbiot article referenced above, are themselves taking the possible reversal seriously, and are claiming that if a reversal is happening, that would only be further evidence for the dangers of CO2-caused warming! Their argument for CO2 causation, however, depends on the assumption that temperatures have indeed risen to a dangerously high level. If our common-sense temperature record is at all close to the real picture, that assumption is simply dead wrong. We seem to be at very low temperatures by historical standards, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.



The ‘common sense hypothesis’ I draw from this is that climate is continuing with its long term trends, caused by who-knows-what, and the effects of our human activities, as unwise as they may be, are being swamped by bigger, natural forces. This doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to go out and buy an SUV, but it means we can ‘carbon down’ gracefully and sensibly, responding to the real problems of pollution and peak oil, rather than running around like chickens with our heads cut off, trying to rush a radical response to a non-existent and misdiagnosed emergency.



Question 2: Since CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas, and its levels are significantly above what they should be from an historical perspective, why isn’t CO2 influencing temperature trends in any significant way?

In fact a quite plausible answer to this question has been put forward by Roy Spencer, Ph.D., based on some very recent research using satellites. Here are his relevant qualifications:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

Roy W. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama.

He describes his research in a presentation available on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xos49g1sdzo&feature=channel

In the talk he gives a lot of details, which are quite interesting, but one does need to concentrate and listen carefully to keep up with the pace and depth of the presentation. He certainly sounds like someone who knows what he’s talking about. Permit me to summarize the main points of his research:


When greenhouse gases cause surface warming, a response occurs, a ‘feedback response’, in the form of changes in cloud and precipitation patterns. The CRU-related climate models all assume the feedback response is a positive one: any increment of greenhouse warming will be amplified by knock-on effects in the weather system. This assumption then leads to the predictions of ‘runaway global warming’.

Spencer set out to see what the feedback response actually is, by observing what happens in the cloud-precipitation system when surface warming is occurring. What he found, by targeting satellite sensors appropriately, is that the feedback response is negative rather than positive. In particular, he found that the formation of storm-related cirrus clouds is inhibited when surface temperatures are high. Cirrus clouds are themselves a powerful greenhouse gas, and this reduction in cirrus cloud formation compensates for the increase in CO2–caused warming.

Spencer explains the design of his experiment and it made good sense to me. Given the importance of what his findings suggest, it would make a great deal of sense for other scientists to re-do his research, if for no other reason that to prove his conclusions wrong. For if those conclusions are right, the argument for runaway global warming goes out the window.


In his YouTube talk, he mentions a rebuttal to his work that was published, and he says that rebuttal was squashed in a recent Nature article. I didn’t download the article because Nature wanted me to register and pay to get a copy. I hate to encourage that kind of thing, putting a money barrier between people and information that is important to them, and that came from publicly funded research.



Meanwhile on the popular website SourceWatch, we don’t find any notes about rebuttals to his research, but we are told that Spencer writes columns for a free-market website funded by Exxon. They also mention that he spoke at conference organized by the Heartland Institute, that promotes lots of reactionary, free-market principles. They are trying to discredit Spencer’s work on irrelevant grounds, what the Greeks referred to as an ad hominem argument. Sort of like, “If he beats his wife, his science must be faulty”.


And it’s true about ‘beating his wife’ – Spencer does seem to have a pro-industry philosophy that I don’t agree with at all. That might even be part of his motivation for undertaking his recent research, hoping to give ammunition to pro-industry lobbyists. But that doesn’t prove his research is flawed or that his conclusions are invalid. His work should be challenged scientifically, by carrying out independent studies of the feedback process. If the challenges are restricted to irrelevant attacks, that becomes almost an admission that his results, which are threatening to the ‘climate establishment’, cannot be refuted. He does not hide his data or his code.



What is the real agenda of the politically powerful factions who are promoting the global-warming alarmism?


One thing we always need to keep in mind is that the people at the top of the power pyramid in our society have access to the very best scientific information. They control dozens, probably hundreds, of high-level think tanks, able to hire the best minds, and carrying out all kinds of research we don’t hear about. They have access to all the secret military and CIA research, and a great deal of influence over what research is carried out in think tanks, the military, and in universities.

Just because they might be promoting fake science for its propaganda value, that doesn’t mean they believe it themselves. I’m quite sure they know what the real story is with global warming, and I suggest their understanding is similar to the common sense record I presented. The actions they are promoting are completely in line with that suggestion.

Cap-and-trade, for example, won’t reduce carbon emissions. Rather it is a mechanism that allows emissions to continue, while pretending they are declining – by means of a phony market model. You know what a phony market model looks like. It looks like Reagan and Thatcher telling us that lower taxes will lead to higher government revenues due to increased business activity. It looks like globalization, telling us that opening up free markets will “raise all boats” and make us all prosperous. It looks like Wall Street, telling us that mortgage derivatives are a good deal, and we should buy them. It looks like Wall Street telling us the bailouts will restore the economy, and that the recession is over. In short, it’s a con. It’s a fake theory about what the consequences of a policy will be, when the real consequences are known from the beginning.

Cap-and-trade is a very good solution to a problem, but it is a different problem, not a climate problem at all. Cap-and-trade solves the following problem for our politically powerful factions: How can we manage the remaining petroleum supplies in the face of peak oil, and how can we maximize our profits from the remaining reserves?

Think about it. They decide who gets the initial free cap-and-trade credits. They run the exchange market itself, and can manipulate the market, create derivative products, sell futures, etc. etc. They can cause deflation or inflation of carbon credits, just as they can cause deflation or inflation of currencies. They decide which corporations get advance insider tips, so they can maximize their emissions while minimizing their offset costs. They decide who gets loans to buy offsets, and at what interest rate. They decide what fraction of petroleum will go to the global North and the global South. They have 'their man' in the regulation agencies that certify the validity of offset projects. And they make money every which way as they micromanage the allocation of remaining reserves.

And then there’s the carbon taxes. Just as with income taxes, you and I will pay our full share for our daily commute and for heating our homes, while the big corporate CO2 emitters will have all kinds of loopholes, and offshore havens, set up for them. Just as Federal Reserve theory hasn’t left us with a prosperous Main Street, despite its promises, so carbon-trading theory won’t give us a happy transition to a post-carbon world.

Instead of building the energy-efficient transport systems we need, for example, they’ll sell us biofuels and electric cars, while most of society’s overall energy will continue to come from fossil fuels. Our experience of peak oil will be an infrastructure collapse, rather than a sensible post-carbon transition. Just as our recent experience of peak economic-growth was a financial collapse, rather than a sensible transition to a sustainable economic paradigm.

While collapse, suffering, and die-offs of marginal populations will be unpleasant for us, it will give our ‘powerful factions’ a blank canvas on which to construct their new world order, whatever that might be. And we’ll be desperate to go along with any scheme that looks like it might put food back on our tables.

End

Don't forget that it's highly unlikely that die-offs will occur in the United States. We're well insulated from global events be they war, food shortages or disease. Being the developed country that we are and the wealthiest country on the planet by several different measures we are enveloped or encased in an economic cushion that prevents us, even in extreme cases such as the recent economic calamity, from being truly effected in an appreciable or significant manner.

That doesn't mean that it won't hurt, it means it will hurt a lot less than it would were we living in Africa or Southeast Asia.

It appears likely that at least here in the US some form of the Cap And Trade scheme will pass the legislative process. It's due to become the next bubble as far as I can tell. It's a necessary part of the plans of the American elite. They require a vehicle that will allow them to profit on the backs of the American public in an unobtrusive and undetectable manner and Cap And Trade seems to fit that bill. Vote against if it comes to a vote but don't count on it coming to a vote. In the mean time, enjoy the weather. It probably won't be changing much in our collective lifetimes.