Data vs. data


There they go again, slandering us by calling us “deniers” or claiming we are ignoring the facts. We have never denied that climate change has happened in the past or could be happening now. All we are doing is pointing out the numerous facts that do not support the conclusion that the slight warming or the increase in CO2 between 1980 and now is causing any danger or prove CO2 is the driver.

U.S. government data indicates that we have been experiencing no increase in major weather events, floods, droughts or wildfires. Nor any increase in deaths attributed to extreme weather. On the plus side the slight warming and increased CO2 has contributed to hardier plants and higher crop yields according to the USDA. Where is the danger?

Claiming that predictive models include “The effects of water vapor, solar variability and every other warming and cooling effect” does not make it so. These models do not include solar variability, oceanic decadal cycles nor the natural tropical cloud climate thermostat. If they had, we would have seen that solar variability and the Atlantic multi-decadal oceanic cycle explain most of the recent warming. The several dozen temperature prediction computer models, all of which use CO2 levels as a major driver, when run with real data starting in 1980, grossly exaggerate global temperatures and sea level rise relative to those actually measured today.

These are the facts.

So the questions are: Why are we being misled? Who benefits by having government attempt to control climate?



1 comment on this story | Please log in to comment by clicking here
Please log in or register to add your comment
Tom Camfield

The main question really is: "Who benefits by allowing massive pollution to continue?

Friday, April 26