In case you missed the preheader, the Stanford University Energy Forum (as well as other scientists) believes mankind will spend $100,000,000,000,000 (one hundred trillion) to achieve a temperature reduction of .3 degrees (three-tenths of one degree) by the year 2100. Despite this insanity, progressives embrace man-made warming as their chosen means to achieve government control over every aspect of our lives. They can succeed only by scaring enough people to believe warming threatens life on Earth. That’s why debunking man-made warming is the most important issue of our time!

      MLLG’s position, first stated in 2007, is that Earth is in the midst of a secular, solar caused warming trend that began circa 1850 and is a normal part of alternate warming and cooling cycles throughout history. Increases in CO2 from human activity may add a small and inconsequential amount – perhaps 10% – to warming. Moreover, we believe moderate warming (as predicted by the UN-IPCC) would be a net benefit to mankind. Even if warming were a real problem, all of our current solutions are wrongheaded.

     The case against anthropogenic warming is strong. NASA documented warming in 10 other places in our solar system; the probability of this occurring if Earth’s warming is man-made is over 1,000 to 1 (2^10) against. There has been a hiatus in warming for 20 years and every computer model is laughably wrong. No model has been corrected since 1998 because it is impossible. There was warming from 1910-1945, cooling 1946-1975, warming 1976-1998 and nothing since. Try fitting that into a model. About 75% of the warming last century occurred from 1910 to 1945 when CO2 was low.

    Despite compelling evidence to the contrary, many people continue to believe warming is man-made and presents an existential threat; why is this so? Such people ignore numerous and powerful warning signs they are wrong. In addition to the evidence noted in the preceding paragraph, they choose to ignore the refusal of politicians and scientists to debate, an increasing antarctic icecap, failure of oceans to rise as expected, the decrease in extreme weather and serious frauds perpetrated by climate scientists. People misplaced their trust in the media, government-funded science and politicians – just as they did for 100 other junk science scares since 1950.

    Even if humans are responsible for warming, everything we are now doing is wrong. We should use strict cost-benefit analysis, maximize economic growth, prioritize spending programs, fund research for renewables, correctly apply the precautionary principle, stop exporting pollution, encourage debate and keep an open mind to new science. We must be fact based, principled and objective instead of fanatical and emotional. We must stop the utter insanity of spending more than $100 trillion to (perhaps – maybe) reduce temperature by a mere .3 degrees 80 years from now.

     Furthermore, we must vigorously challenge the assumption that warming is bad. It is true warming will cause fatalities, but far more people will be saved from the cold. On a net basis, millions more will live because of warming. In the US and worldwide, people prefer warmer temperatures; they don’t retire from Florida to Minnesota. A warmer planet also is better for agriculture, energy costs and biodiversity.

    Finally, Singapore has much to teach us. The average maximum daily temperature in Singapore is 55 degrees warmer than the global average. Singapore transformed itself from a third world swampy island into an uber-modern, clean, high tech city with per capita GDP of $65,000 (7th in the world). It is ethnically diverse and one of the most peaceful places on earth. If Singapore achieved all this despite being 55 degrees warmer, the rest of the world should easily cope with just a degree or so of warming.

    This concludes our climate change series. If you still believe in man-made warming, you must ignore, inter alia, 1,000 to 1 odds against, the failure of all climate models, no warming since 1998, the climate pattern since 1910 and Singapore. And don’t forget the record population of polar bears. I bet you thought I had forgotten about them!

---

      Assuming (for purposes of this posting only) that MLLG believes human activity is responsible for global warming, this post presents the ten most critical policies and actions (in approximate order of priority) that mankind should take in response.

1. Use cost-benefit analysis. EPA carbon regulations cost $100 billion over five years. The putative benefits are reductions of 1 part per thousand per year in carbon and 2.35 ten-thousandths of one degree per year in temperature. Costs are real, immediate and certain whereas the benefits are microscopic, remote and uncertain. Europe’s diesel regulations cause thousands of deaths each year due to increased soot, but the benefit is only 4 one-thousandths of one degree in 50 years. Current climate policies cost trillions and will make no detectable difference in climate even 100 years in the future.

2. Maximize economic growth. A wealthy planet is better able both to alter and to mitigate the effects of warming. In fact, mitigation may be a much better and less costly strategy to combat warming versus trying to lower temperature. This conserves resources if warming proves to be solar caused or is less problematic than expected.

3. Fund research for renewable energy and conservation. Today, wind, solar, bio-fuels and other renewables are not cost effective. Rather than squander scarce resources as described in number one supra, redirect spending toward research for the future.

4. Prioritize spending. Government spending (US and foreign) must achieve the most good for the most people – again based on cost-benefit analysis. Independent scientists and economists rank many priorities ahead of climate including third world projects for clean water, sanitation and immunization. Hundreds of millions of lives could be saved today versus the possibility of some infinitesimal and uncertain future climate benefit.

5. Don’t export pollution. Measures to reduce CO2 imposed only by rich nations result in the shifting of production to poorer countries without such regulations. This process exports pollution and exacerbates warming. Earth is better off when production takes place in the US versus India or China. The US should abandon unilateral actions that waste money and export warming. Carbon reduction must be global to be effective.

6. Correctly apply the precautionary principle. It is sensible to exercise caution but nonsensical to assert that one can’t be too careful. The worst case scenario should never dictate policy; under that logic, no one would ever get into an automobile. It is a grotesque misapplication of the precautionary principle to bankrupt ourselves today in order to lavish money on a possible but uncertain problem in the distant future.

7. Fund research in an unbiased manner. All public funding should be devoid of politics and not biased in favor of scientists with any particular point of view. Our objective is to get at the truth, not to advance an agenda. The UN-IPCC should be non political with scientists, not politicians, writing all the reports and summaries.

8. Science is never settled. Scientists should continue to study all aspects of climate change including: (1) the linkage between CO2 and temperature as well as any amplification or dampening effects; (2) whether warming is positive or negative for humanity understanding that warming kills far fewer people than cooling; (3) warming throughout the solar system; and (4) climate models that incorporate the past 20 years of data. Finally, because there is so much hullabaloo about scientific consensus, there should be an independent and anonymous poll conducted of climate scientists.

9. Encourage debates. Scientists should publicly debate each other as should politicians in unbiased media environments. That would be very enlightening.

10. Be objective and eschew emotion and fanaticism. Scientists, politicians, media and educators all should be strictly objective and dispassionate. We all seek the truth.

    Not even one of the above 10 policies is now being followed; instead, antithetical policies are in effect. There is no cost-benefit analysis, robust economic growth, prioritization of spending, debate or objectivity and we are exporting pollution.

    It is in the interest of all, believers and deniers alike, dispassionately and objectively to seek the truth, even if it ultimately shatters our current beliefs. Even those who passionately believe in man-made warming must recognize that what we are now doing is not only wrong but incredibly wasteful, counterproductive and dishonest!

      Progressives dogmatically embrace man-made climate change because it is the key to realizing their global agenda. Whether or not climate change is real is irrelevant to them because it is the only issue that can enable them to force their agenda on all of humanity. They need us to believe climate change threatens the existence of life on Earth and only government can prevent it. If people accept that premise, they will cede total power to liberal elites to impose a carbon tax, VAT and Draconian regulations, the end result of which is absolute government control over every aspect of our lives!

    This is so critical, it bears restating. Liberals see man-made climate change as a wedge issue to gain total control, which they can’t achieve via the ballot box. We never will change progressive minds because they don’t give a hoot about climate change; to them it is only a means to an end. Liberals succeed only if they can convince enough others that climate change is real. That is how the battle of our time will be decided.

      Let’s look at the top 5 reasons other people, including many of good will, continue to believe in man-made global warming despite all the evidence to the contrary.

1. Warning signs were ignored. There have been numerous and powerful warning signs warming is not man-made. The refusal of scientists and politicians to debate was a bright red flag; if the science truly was settled, they should have been eager to debate. Warming throughout our solar system yields powerful (1,000 to 1) evidence of solar causation. The 20-year hiatus in warming and the failure of computer models are dispositive. The increasing antarctic icecap, failure of seas to rise as expected and the decrease in extreme weather are compelling evidence. Frauds were promulgated by climate scientists to show more warming. They altered data (infamous hockey stick graph) and recently, NOAA scientists substituted flawed data for correct data.

2. People wanted to believe. They uncritically accepted warming just as they did other junk science: fluoridation, pesticides, Laetrile, overpopulation, acid rain, organic food, ozone holes, Alar, silicon implants, killer bees, GMOs, vaccines, global cooling, Mad Cow, SARS, Avian Flu, Thimerosal, Swine Flu, dioxin, PCBs, BPA, pink slime, fracking and acrylamide to name but a few of the 100 cases of recent junk science.

3. They trusted the media. There is the thinnest reed of truth (a tenuous link between CO2 and temperature) to beguile even people of good will. But believers forgot that the media carry water for progressives; they are the opposite side of the same coin.

4. Science is politicized; never settled. Government funds $3,000 to every $1 funded by others for climate research; you get what you pay for. President Eisenhower said the following: “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by federal allocations and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.” Newton discovered gravity in 1665; it was settled until Einstein 240 years later. People accepted that 97% of climate scientists believe in man-made causation; the real figure is less than 50% and falling rapidly despite the torrent of government money.

5. They misunderstand data. It always is the warmest year somewhere. It is true 2012 was the hottest year in the continental US (1.58% of Earth’s landmass) but 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 all were cooler than 1998 (warmest recent year) by a greater margin than 2012 was warmer than 1998. Most (nearly 75%) of the warming in the 20th century occurred from 1910 to 1945 with low CO2 levels.

    For progressives, man-made warming is a religion replete with sacraments (bio-fuel, windmills) and demons (CO2, coal). It labels apostates deniers and seeks to silence or imprison them. They are impervious to facts or logic. Non-progressives misplace their trust in politicians, the media and government-funded science. They ignore abundant and compelling red flags that they are wrong and fail to use every day horse sense.

---

       Computer models predicting sharply higher temperatures were not only wrong but drastically so. And the models were wrong about much more than temperatures. They predicted antarctic ice would decrease; instead, it has increased and it is ten times larger than the arctic icecap. The predicted rise in sea levels is not materializing and the rate is slowing. Extreme weather has declined as proven by decreased insurance claims. Oh, and those disappearing Pacific islands – some are actually increasing.

      Despite their serious flaws, models have not been updated with results of the past 20 years. Why is this true given the gusher of government money available for such purposes? Moreover, the first scientist to update a model with actual temperatures since 1998 and still show alarming global warming would become an instant climate warrior rock star. Everything else has been improved in the past 20 years; compare your present cell phone to 1997 models the size of a brick and with long antennas.

      Are scientists too dumb or too lazy to update and to correct their computer models? Do they lack the necessary funding? Are they too busy teaching or performing other research? Do they lack either the incentive or the desire? Following are the five main reasons why no computer models have been updated for at least 20 years.

1. It simply cannot be done. As noted in Part I, temperatures increased sharply from 1910 to 1945 then cooled 1946-1975, then warmed moderately 1976-1998 and then paused beginning in 1999. Try fitting those data into a computer model.

2. Models rely on powerful CO2 feedback loops. To show alarming future warming, models assume ultra high levels of CO2 feedback amplification. Research shows such strong feedback may be wrong by up to 10 times. Even if they continued to use 300% amplification, they still could not make models mesh with observed temperature data.

3. Accurate models would show man-made warming is not a problem. Scientists could construct a plausible computer model showing a modest amount of anthropogenic warming; however, that is unsuited to their need to portray a cataclysmic and imminent global crisis as expected and demanded by their government patrons.

4. Funding for future climate and other research would evaporate. In addition to perpetual loss of funding, scientists who updated a model to show little, if any, man-made warming would experience all-out attacks on their work, methods, motives and ad hominem attacks as well. They may even be charged with thought crimes.

5. Scientists disavowing human causation would be savaged. Instead of their current status as moral warriors occupying the high ground fighting an imminent global crisis, they instantly would be regarded as bottom-feeding pariah. They would incur the wrath of those proven wrong, would become persona non grata on campus and would be shunned by their peers. The environmental religion is unforgiving to apostates. Instead of media darlings who do no wrong, they would be tarred as heretical climate deniers.

    I turn to Occam’s Razor (simplest explanation is the most likely one) to revisit the question of why computer models have not been corrected or updated. The simplest answer clearly is that a valid climate model cannot be constructed that explains the temperature record since 1910 including the pause in warming since 1998 and still show the desired results. In this case however, I also am going to turn to Noga’s Razor, which states that when there is only one plausible answer, it is the correct one.

    The absence of updated or corrected computer models for two decades constitutes dispositive and prima facie evidence human activity does not cause climate change.

     Anyone who reads our entire five-part series on man-made climate change may never look at that subject the same way again. Following is a summary of each part.

Part I – Overview and the role of human activity in climate change

     Summary of MLLG position: Earth has been in a secular, solar-caused warming trend since circa 1850; this is a normal part of alternate warming and cooling cycles throughout history. Increases in CO2 resulting from human activity may contribute to warming to a small and inconsequential extent – perhaps 10%. Moreover, the moderate warming predicted by the UN-IPCC is a net benefit to mankind. Present attempts to lower CO2 incur ruinous costs to achieve infinitesimal benefits and are disastrous. Bottom Line: Warming is likely about 90% solar and only about 10% anthropogenic.

1. Warming throughout solar system: NASA has documented warming on our moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Triton, Pluto, Enceladus, Dysmonia and Eris. (Specific temperature data are on our website.) Much of this warming has a similar pattern to Earth’s and there is not a single instance of observed non-warming anywhere in our solar system. The odds are over 1,000 to 1 (2^10) against this occurring in all ten out of ten other places (where data exist) in our solar system if temperatures on Earth were rising due to human activity. This is nearly irrefutable evidence of solar causation.

2. No warming for 20 years: There has been no net global warming at least since 1998 except possibly for the El Nino years of 2015 and 2016. Most (nearly 75%) of the warming in the 20th century occurred from 1910 to 1945 when CO2 was low.

3. Temperature patterns are consistent with solar causation: Weather since at least 1910 fits a secular warming paradigm. Temperatures increase in fits and starts; there are long pauses and even intervals of cooling. Temperatures increased from 1910-1945, cooled from 1946-1975, warmed from 1976-1998 and paused from 1999 to now. These data are consistent with solar causation but inconsistent with CO2 causation and all models.

4. Climate models are wrong: Models have not come even remotely close to predicting temperatures for the past 20 years. They haven’t been updated because it is impossible for them to account for the hiatus in warming since 1998. As shown infra, models rely on 300% amplification of CO2 feedback to achieve the high future temperatures predicted. Such feedback now appears wrong. Also, if warming is solar caused and behaves as shown in number 3 above, then no computer model could ever predict it.

5. CO2 feedback is much less than believed: Climate models assume increases in CO2 are amplified (increased) through feedback by 300%; instead, current research (now being peer reviewed) shows it could be dampened (decreased) by more than 50%. That difference means the effect of CO2 increases on climate change is lower than predicted by all climate models by a factor of up to 10 times. Increases in CO2 still may impact temperatures but by up to 10 times less than that shown in the models. Thus, CO2 can explain only about 10% of climate change, meaning the other 90% is solar. Note: Even if the amplification/dampening effects cited herein ultimately are found to be different, it would not change the fact that temperatures cannot be explained by changes in CO2.

      There is much more to the case against man-made warming, but I’ll close with this vignette. Ever since man trod this earth, climate change was 100% due to nature. Now, the climate consternation folks want us to believe that starting 40 years ago climate change is 100% due to human activity and has nothing to do with nature. Go figure.

---