This article is inspired by an excellent piece from It asks whether or not the climate change industry will move the goal posts again on what constitutes the right global temperature change. Now, the battle turns on a difference of 0.5C, 1.5C v 2.0C, over whether or not we are “destroying” the planet and need to impose regulatory constraints.

From the article:

“Accordingly, the actual data have created a massive problem for the climate industry: They suggest strongly that the 2°C “safety” limit will be achieved without any climate change/GHG policies at all.”

Consider the first point first. Not one of the predictive models has come even close to being right about future climate change. This does stop the climate change grifters from coming up with yet another alarmist prediction. They need fools to thrive, and there are still plenty around.

This is a case of the climate change grifters needing to find ways to fit the data to their expectations rather than respect what the temperature satellites, weather balloons, ocean diving robots and other information sources are telling them. Worse than that is the politics used to build artificial constructs based on supposedly achieving certain levels of temperature change.

The climate change grifters know they are losing the battle. One solution is to change the rules by changing acceptable temperature thresholds. Eventually, they will be proven wrong again. When enough people wake up and realize the phony game they are playing. Next, if you are losing, censor your critics. Google took a step in that direction by demonetizing the website of John R. Christy and Roy Spencer, who are THE experts on satellite data. Google has claimed the satellite data they are reporting out is misleading.

The 6th IPCC Assessment cited in the Realclearenergy article reviews some of the data the y consider relevant to their notions of climate change. The data has slosh and the analysis is sloppy. Instead of talking about carbon, they have to talk about greenhouse gases (GHG). Variations are so big, they have to drag in aerosols. That is laughable because early models ignored aerosols which account for the vast majority of heat trapping.

So, what is the take home lesson here? The system of climate change analysis is intellectually bankrupt despite astonishing levels of funding and investment. They grifters can only keep citing the same questionable beliefs while the skeptics keep firing back with data and analysis that shows how weak their assertions are. For example, while they are busy claiming some kind of global average distribution of carbon dioxide, real time analysis of carbon dioxide distribution around the planet tells a different story. There is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during the day than during the night. There is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere during the winter than during the summer. There is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the northern hemisphere during the winter, while more carbon dioxide is absorbed in the southern hemisphere and vice versa. So, the reality is a fluid and dynamic changing of carbon dioxide concentrations. Meantime, the recent once in a thousand year volcanic explosion in the Kingdom of Tonga added substantial, yet to be determined, amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

So, reality keeps intruding on these fragile and specious computer models that only serve the financial interests of the climate change grifters. Their ability to deceive such a large number of people remains remarkable. Can this go on forever? No. The continui


Recent Posts

See All