The Scientific Fraud of Substituting the Term "Climate Change" for "Global Warming"

The Scientific Fraud of Substituting the Term "Climate Change" for "Global Warming" People Covering This Story Missed Something that it was Not Just the Substitution of One Name for an Other but of One Discredited Climate Model for an Other Lex Loeb Contributor Network . Maybe you have noticed? Even after the climategate exposure that data was being cherry picked to create the infamous noted hockey stick graph showing proof of contemporary global warming that with modifications the same people are telling you that carbon in the atmosphere is worthy of the grandest hysteria in world history fueled by immediate electronic communications worldwide. What a lot of people did not notice was that quietly one scientific model was being substituted for another. The media noise was that global warming was suddenly more of the issue of "climate change". Al Gore constructed the theme of his movie on the subject as one of the earth being completely out of balance due to a small but perceptible change in lingering atmospheric carbon due to the burning of carbon based fuels like gasoline ,coal and diesel. Scientists taking up the cause modeled extrapolations based on various assumptions in an artificial laboratory since it is rather impossible to use the actual atmosphere as an experiment. To do this they made a variety of assumptions and then calibrated various forms of data they collected and in some cases completely fabricated in order to show a trend line that had an ominous if not alarming metric progression that could be illustrated in graph and chart forms. A lot of people were convinced by these illustration. Most impressed were people who had the least understanding of the underlying assumptions involved. The original theory was full of hot air because it's original underlying assumptions were completely speculative numbers. The assumptions used also left out a variety of possible moderating variable in nature that could or would operate as feed back mechanisms. An example of what was absolutely missing from the original model was an explanation of why about 1000-1100 years ago Greenland had this great warming where the Vikings were able to colonize and farm coastal areas that are still not available with the present day circumstances where a meltdown of some of Greenland's Glaciers seems to be in progress. It is not at all clear from the data that sea levels were any higher necessarily than today for the great Viking Greenland meltdown period. Just the fact that the global warming model thesis did not contain any carbon based explanation of why there was a Greenland melt down in about 900 ad when there was no fossil fuel modern industrial economy anywhere on earth, and very little burning of coal , oil, natural gas, it seemed like something was desperately wrong with the theory. That has not changed yet with the introduction of the new climate change model because a month ago, the National Geographic Magazine featured an article on Greenland melting down today acknowledging the earlier melt down around 1000 years ago but provided no explanation of how carbon levels in the atmosphere could have anything to do with both events or possible earlier events as Greenland might have also experienced a glacial melt down a thousand years earlier around the year 100 ad. Once again too many holes existed in the climate change theory that replaced the global warming one because carbon in the atmosphere remained the same bad element it was in the prior thesis. Frequently one might turn on a television or read a weather report in the paper only to learn that it was the worst this or that since 1888 or 1931. We are supposed to see all of this as record breaking according to the pro cap and trade lobby but for some reason the range of extremes of weather are not much different than the past records. The need for a catalyst to give the public reason to throw caution to the wind and support the cap and trade remaking of our civilization is finding few good reasons for any public support. Reported rise in sea level is , if any too gradual to be certain of. No one know that if glaciers and sea ice melts if that may not translate to more precipitation at ice safe polar locations ? Cabondixide might be thought to be this giant constituent of the atmosphere but the reality is that it is a relative trace molecular gas in the atmosphere and not even a major constituent. It is possible to raise the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere 500% and it is still nothing like the mass of oxygen or nitrogen in the atmosphere. The gas is only. 0.038 percent of all gas volume in the atmosphere, yes a fraction of one percent! Plants that require carbon dioxide are practically gasping for breath. It is true that we mammals might find breathing more than 1 percent of carbon dioxide more than a little uncomfortable. Too much carbon dioxide is "toxic" for animals to breath. There is no evidence that co2 is even doubling from the 0.038 percent level. Carbon dioxide is a heavy molecular gas and tend to lie low in the still cool atmosphere. It may be that much of it gets reabsorbed in any existing quantity near the north and south poles by the ocean which it comes into contact with condensing close to the surface of the water? The polar regions tend to have the phenomenon of greater biomass in the waters. That attribute is most often ascribed to upwelling of nutrients by water convection currents. Added carbon dioxide being absorbed from the atmosphere because of the cooler temperatures causing the co2 to settle closer to the ocean surface may also add to the fertility of the water in those regions? That could be yet another feed back lost in the both the global warming model and the climate change model that has replaced it? Al Gore gets up on television and tries to rationalize the fact that the original model proved to be absurd by telling viewers that just because it it cooler or hotter in your zone of the weather does not mean that it says anything to do with the over riding thesis . Al Gore essentially admits that weather is more unpredictable than he would like it to be and he wants you to forget his dire extrapolation warning about how everything was going to change in a negative way. Then we all get to experience the real weather. Here in the Northwest , Portland, Oregon we have not seen much of our "normal" late spring weather. The temperatures seem to be lower than they have been most past years we can remember. The news weather stations on television tell the public that this is the first year for over 100 years where it was as wet and cool as it is this year. So it has happened before before carbon dioxide was supposed to have gotten out of control! Maybe the east coast has been warmer than usual for the same period of time this year at the same time we in the Northwest have been abnormally cool. Fortunately, the "crazy" weather there has happened before if not worse so it too is in the range of moderation to the norm. Where are all the unprecedented predictions of Al Gore and his pirate brigade of climate scientists being realized? Only in their scientific models and computer extrapolations. So far the earth is well suited to remain in balance. After Katrina rolled though destroying much of New Orleans, we heard dire predictions that subsequent years would have even worse hurricanes and hurricane hitting much more norther cities. The opposite seems to have come true. That presumably was part of the old discredited global warming thesis. We now have climate change modeling that allows the scientists pushing the concept to fudge into nonexistent data that still has carbon dioxide listed as pollutant public enemy number one in the popular news and media reports. People taking the time, wasting their time watching Al Gore's movie should be laughing at the assumptions made. A few years have passed and evidence supporting it is less than it was to begin with! Now we have not just one failed model but two going on three. We are not sure what Al Gore and friends have in mind as their third revision of the thesis. It probably won't be global cooling yet. My guess is we will move from Global warming on to climate change on to Climate aberration from the norm and then on to climate trending from the norm since the climate shows little evidence of changing at least not due to the causes the climate change experts are telling us to expect. The question is how and why such a failure in prediction and in such absurd extrapolation form completely arbitrary assumptions can be this sustainable? There are plenty of scientists out there who can plainly see that the science is questionable if not total fraud. Science should not be getting dumber just so someone can publish papers telling us that the earth is warming then trashing that theory and substituting one about climate change modeling based on no measured facts or history of facts. They might as well be prediction the weather and giving us all a weather forecast for the next 1000 years? It was not just the name of the theory that changed when global warming became climate change in the mainstream media. it is inexcusable that the mainstream media should be so arrogant to accept as fact a theory with so little substance in the first place then only to to assist at replacing it with a new name that hides the fact that modeling has completely changed but still does not account of earlier trends 100s , 1000s of years ago when there was no modern industrial atmospheric carbon to blame. Now the media outlets who all gave us the do or die theories of global warming have still not warmed to the idea that the theory may be unviable. It is like a giant face saving event going on. No one will admit they were wrong because, well on something this important , they simply cant be wrong. The problem is for all the lack of evidence supporting either scenario that that lack of evidence is key to believers having faith in it. The public may not understand that climategate scientists were cherry picking data by taking temperature readings in urban areas known to be warmer than surrounding rural areas because of lack of vegetation that absorbs a lot of the excess energy. Geological history tells us that sea levels have been as much as 500 ft above present levels and at least 400 below present levels. One can go back in the geological record as far as one wants to go . Over the past 2 billion years there was even more variation in climate transformations than just going back 25 million years. In the past 100,000 years ice age conditions have come and gone in several cycles you can find the charts by searching online. The record is patchy at best because there has been tectonic plate movements including subsidence and lift. Where continents now stand there were once sea beds and where some sea beds exist there were once continents. At times both polar regions north and south appear in the data to have been both melted at the same time and at other times both regions were frozen with continental land masses under them instead of just one today. with two continental land masses like Antarctica there is likely to be lower sea levels around the world just because ice is not subject to having water below it that can moderate temperatures more than cold dry land. The variation in sea level over just the last 20,000 years is more spectacular than anything the global warming fear mongers are saying we are threatened by. If the ice age came back, even the mini ice age of the middle ages or the warming period of around 900 ad sea levels would rise or fall accordingly because of the climate and would also effect the world climate. No automobiles or coal burning power plants to give us that transformation. Once you explore the geological record that we know about we see major changes in climate that have absolutely nothing to do with man kind and as for carbon retention we have mountain ranges like the Alps and Himalayas that are composed of rocks that are extremely carbon rich. That carbon is much more if it were somehow released into the atmosphere than the oil ,coal and natural gas that is causing a very slight increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels at the moment. To go back in time to when the sediments that make up limestone and marble were laid down in these mountain ranges on the sea bottom flats as sediments, one could make the assumption that the air on earth was not breathable by most land animals of today. Maybe insects can breath higher levels of carbon dioxide but mammals cannot. Maybe reptiles can safely breath significantly higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that would kill us humans? Plants would love it and most would thrive. In fact it is ocean plant life mostly that filtered out the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere laying down the fossil limestone sediments and captured most of the excess carbon dioxide that we find in the calcium carbonate molecules that make up a lot of that rock stratification and mass. The mass of limestone sediments at the surface of the earth is enormous. If it were all reduced to atmospheric carbon and other byproducts the earth would be unlivable for mammals and most other animals. Some scientists actually believe that maybe the earth does need more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to promote better world wide plant growth. It maybe that plants are now choking on oxygen and elemental nitrogen gas in the atmosphere because of levels of carbon dioxide that are getting too low for them. We do know that in prehistoric periods that vegetation was much more dense and luxurious than it is today. We assume temperatures were higher but there is no way to know that the reason why was because maybe the earth had over 10% of its gas composition as carbon dioxide at that time compared to a tiny fraction of that now. It is certainly not the only variable. Thinking properly about cause and effect we cannot know if carbon dioxide makes the earth hotter or if the earth becoming warmer generated the excess carbon dioxide. It is a theory either way especially since we have no idea about what came before those conditions. Everything is conjecture looking back into distant time. The recent ice age just around 10 or 11 thousand years ago did leave plenty of evidence but none of carbon dioxide being rarer in the atmosphere being the cause. The desire of environmentalists is to intentionally build a model of geological history that makes it seem that the earth's climate, chemical composition, atmosphere, oceans , everything is out of balance. With the actual scientific geological history data we do have there are just so many variations of climate and climate change that to decide what is normal and what is out of balance is absurd! We don't know the point of origin. We could say that everything was in perfect harmony when Adam And Eve lived on an earthly garden of Eden. It was climate controlled then until the serpent came slithering up the tree of knowledge the was no need for humans to have any clothing nor any shelter for that mater. That is a mythological state of primal origins where everything is in perfect balance. The geological record unlike, the biblical story of Adam and Eve, has no point of origin . No point of normality where from which everything else can be judged to be out of balance. If you believe in God then everything is naturally in balance as it is or god just has readjusted the balance because that is the new balance. It is not at all scientific to define climate as 'normal' as the recorded human experience is about constant climate change. We know that that our human ancestors lived along side wholly mammoths we have found evidence of human tools like arrows along with the prehistoric bones. You can go to the La Brae tar pits in Los Angles and see the bones of humans and sabertooth tigers together at the same level in the excavations. You also see the plant life was different in that part of california than it is now which tells you that the climate was different. Was it the normal climate in balance or is the climate we have now in balance about the same time that these animals died in the tar pits the elevation over sea level was higher there! Why? because the sea levels were lower. Humans were living at the coast back then and now those remains are underwater. Divers in California have found lots of evidence of humans living below sea level there and elsewhere around the world. Lower sea levels could certainly mean more of a climate transformation than just some space carbon dioxide gas mixed into the atmosphere. Lower sea levels could even have meant that atmospheric pressure was different. Less ocean surface and more continental land surface can instantly mean less water evaporating into the atmosphere just because of less exposed water surface area. There is a feed back mechanism in everything that transforms in the climate where it becomes impossible to decide what is the and what is the effect because the effect may very well be the cause or it might even be much more complicated just because there are mysterious variable we can't be sure of, don't know, can't know, can only guess. Once we start guessing then we are back to global warming theory which is a unifying theory of knowing the impossible. It is not at all clear what normal is. Not when we know that the Sahara desert was once brilliant green and savanna grassland and yes within human historical memory! That normal is not any more. You can go to satellite maps of the Sahara and see that rivers and lakes left traces of their locations in the topography at the surface. They are not at all difficult to see. You can go to the dead sea in Jordan and see that the water level in the sea was at one time possibly higher than present day sea levels when now the dead sea is the lowest point on dry earth below sea level and getting lower as the dead sea continues to evaporate. Before the age of the automobile we had actually witnessed areas of the world becoming desert. The record is preserved because the remains of trees and other plant life that used to be in non desert areas is preserved and can easily be dated because it is just 100 or 200 or 300 years old. Climate change is nothing new to human experience and there is nothing that necessarily makes it due to technological change or human excessive use of the resources of the planet. That is all fiction and ignorance of not just the longer geological record but the historic record. Start reviewing climate data from recorded history and then go back in time to the ice age and the evidence left from that climate change and go back even further and you can write off the whole idea of global warming and now climate change as a really stupid baseless anti-scientific theory. There are just too many variables. There is also evidence that carbon dioxide might even accelerate plant and algie growth in the oceans which only consumes it faster. Is that out of balance or setting the nature of the earth out of balance? How could you possibly know? You can try to guess but you cannot know. The superceding reason for not possibly being able to know is that we know that the radiation coming from the sun that bathes the earth's sufrace and atmosphere in warmth as the primary source of heat is variable. Once you factor in that variation into your global warming super computer models well then trace carbon dioxide gas augementation in the atmosphere is a negliable factor. The joke is on you if you are taking the global warming theology seriously or have feelings of anxst or fear because of it. It is pure ignorance on your part that you allowed yourself to be fooled. Let's say that the ice core data really does show that carbon in the atmophere is 100% coorelated to climate on earth getting warmer. Sounds really really great. The greatest scientific discovery of all time. Yeah right! Why do I say that? Because it might just be that warmer periods of climate happen to have more wildfires and forest fires raging and the carbon content in the atmosphere has to go up in warmer periods. It also might be true that carbon gases get heavier in colder periods layer closer to the ground where they get absorbed by wave action in ocean more easily. The curious thing about global warming theology is that it does require faith. Faith is not how facts in science are established. The scientists promoting global warming theology have gone way out of their way to poplularize their science fiction on the verge of making it propaganda on a world wide basis. Al Gore wins the nobel peace prize not any scientist...at least not yet and maybe never as the predictions are not very well supporting the hypothesis of warming which is why they morphed the concept into climate change now. The climate change won't last very long either once people discover that the historic and prehisotric normal is not definable. How can something be out of balance when the balance just keeps readjusting with nature being able to cope and readjust with it? Pretty soon everyone will realize the whole theory is a joke except for the true believers. Yes there are still people on earth who will tell you that the earth is flat. Which of course it is. Being round is just an illusion and of course the pictures from space are fabricated just like the moon landing was and of course alternative energy that does not work and ultiamtely wastes real energy is better for the planet than justing using energy wisely that actually works. The stupider we want to be better our peace love and understanding will be. Yeah right. .