Climate Change Rejected Worldwide

After years of exploding taxes, energy costs and regulations, voters have had enough.
Climate Change Rejected Worldwide
By: George Noga – January 27, 2019

        All over the planet people are soundly rejecting climate change alarmism. Media coverage of recent reports by the UNIPCC, the US National Climate Assessment and of the conference in Katowice, Poland is inaccurate crisis-babble. Too lazy and doltish to understand climate science, the media have turned climate change into a good versus evil morality play. We will get to all that; but first, a statement of MLLG’s position.

MLLG Belief About Climate Change

        Climate change is a meaningless tautology because climate always is changing; it is used deceitfully to transform every weather event into a cause celebre. Secular (solar) global warming is real; our planet has been warming for 170 years, although there has been a pause during the past 20 years. This is a normal part of planetary warming/cooling cycles throughout history. The contribution, if any, by mankind is inconsequential and there is powerful evidence against anthropological causation.

        A modest amount of warming, such as we now are experiencing, is a net benefit to humanity. It is wrong to spend humongous amounts of money today for uncertain and infinitesimal reductions in temperature in the distant future. The best strategy is to maximize the global economy so that we will be in the strongest possible position to ameliorate any adverse effects, should warming become a problem in the future.

Voters Reject Climate Change Taxes and Costs

     Voters everywhere are rejecting spending and taxes to reduce CO2. The most dramatic was in France, where the yellow vest movement stopped increases in gas and heating fuel. In liberal Quebec, the Labor Party was routed in provincial elections due to a proposed carbon tax. In Ontario, with power bills up 75%, voters elected candidates opposed to all alternative energy subsidies. In Saskatchewan and Alberta, Trudeau’s carbon plan is opposed across the entire political spectrum.

       Voters in Germany rejected Merkel’s energy policies which savaged the middle class. Carbon pricing efforts were defeated in Australia. In the United States, voters rank climate change dead last out of 20 issues of concern. Voters in liberal Washingtonstate and Arizona rejected ballot initiatives to tax carbon. After years of exploding taxes, costs and regulations, voters have had enough. They place their own well-being ahead of some distant, hazy and unproven threat foisted on them by their elites.

UNIPCC – US Climate Assessment – Poland Conference

       The UNIPCC issued a report in October and the US National Climate Assessment followed in November. Both were nothing burgers, but the media responded with scary headlines. New York Times headlines screeched: Emissions Surge, Hastening Perils Faced By Planet and Climate Accord Remains Alive as Crisis Builds. Al Gore shrieked that “civilization would descend into another dark age“. Other headlines used terms such as catastrophehuman extinctionlosing Earth and game over. Really?

       The reality bears no resemblance to the headlines. One worst case scenario showed annual GDP growth lower by five one-hundredths of one percent. The New York Timeshysterically reported the new data reduce GDP 10% by 2090, i.e. a growth rate of 1.86% instead of 2.00%. In a worst-worst case scenario, GDP would be 4% more in 2090 without human effects. In reality, both reports contained nothing new.

     The conference in Poland to implement the Paris Agreement was marred by the knowledge that whatever they decided was irrelevant. Macron’s defeat by the yellow vests means the end of carbon pricing. Despite the media’s ignorant crisis-babble, people everywhere now place their well-being ahead of climate alarmism.

Post Script: Since I first wrote this post, the yellow vest protests have spread to: Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada (12 cities), Croatia, Egypt, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Netherlands, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Taiwan and Tunisia. Whew!

Next is our provocative series: The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

Man-Made Global Warming (1988-2017) R.I.P.

Man-made global warming, a/k/a climate change, was a political construct from its  inception in 1988. It now has run its five-stage course and is dying a political death. 
Man-Made Global Warming (1988-2017) R.I.P.
By: George Noga – July 22, 2018
       Progressivism feeds man’s neurotic fear of social catastrophe while providing a path for moral redemption. It’s no different for global warming. This explains the fervor with which climate change was embraced – mostly in far left precincts. It now joins the pantheon of junk science in the dustbin of history. Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement was merely the end of a trend that was evident for some time.

      We will not recount the myriad reasons climate change has descended into the netherworld of liberal canards and environmental scare politics. We have been there, done that. There still is plenty of sound and fury emanating from warmists, but people tuned it out and quit listening some time ago. Most governments, if judged by their actions rather than their words, also are backing away from global warming paranoia.

        A five-stage life cycle for political movements was identified by political scientist Anthony Downs in 1972. Following is the life cycle for man-made global warming.

Stage 1 Public problem identified: Man-made warming was born on June 23, 1988 when NASA scientist, James Hansen, testified before Congress that he was 99% certain burning fossil fuels created a greenhouse effect that alters global climate and will affect life on Earth for centuries to come. Note: Hansen has been proven wrong.

Stage 2 Politicians and media embrace the issue: This is the messianic stage where activists jump in with a rush of dopamine, making it a spiritual, metaphysical and even an existential issue. They predict the end of the world unless we do what they want to save mankind from the over-hyped peril. This stage began immediately after Hansen’s testimony and peaked in 2006 with publication of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.

Stage 3 Pivot due to skepticism about costs, benefits and underlying facts: This stage, overlapping slightly with stage 2, began with the Kyoto Protocol taking effect in 2005. A gradual and spreading realization began to dawn on the public that the costs weren’t worth the putative and uncertain benefits. Many began to doubt the facts underlying man-made warming and noted the failure of warmists’ dire predictions to be realized.

Stage 4 Public interest wanes: As stage 3 morphs into stage 4, public interest wanes both in terms of public concern and intensity; this stage goes from circa 2012 to 2017. In recent years the public consistently has rated climate change dead last out of 20 issues of concern. Only 1 in 4 or 5 Americans now rate climate change a priority.

Stage 5 Post-problem stage is prolonged limbo: Man-made global warming died on June 1, 2017 when Trump withdrew the US from the Paris Agreement. The issue is effectively dead although there may be spasmodic recurrences of interest. Climate change’s death throes will be agonizing because it had such a maniacial following. We have reached the tipping point on climate change – just not the one warmists expected.

      Our first posting was about global warming and we have blogged about it more than any topic. We will miss global warming, much as we miss the former USSR, because it provided a soft, inviting and comedic target. Fear not; we will revisit climate change from time to time during its death throes. It was fun while it lasted; wasn’t it?

        As Eric Hoffer said: “Every cause begins as a movement, becomes a business and eventually degenerates into a racket.” Global warming has been a racket for quite some time with Al Gore and other rent-seeking environmentalists loading up at the trough. From the git-go, climate change was purely a political issue and whatever lives by politics, also dies by politics. Global warming (1988-2017) – rest in peace.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Our next post revisits the the US debt crisis.

Collection of Micro and Ultra-Short Posts

Government could pay every SunRail passenger $30 to take Uber and that would cost less than the subsidy for operating SunRail!
Collection of Micro and Ultra-Short Posts
By: George Noga – July 8, 2018

Micro Posts: Look upon the Obama presidency as a vaccination that inoculated the body politic with a low dose of socialism which may protect us from later contracting a more virulent form of the disease; don’t snicker; it worked in 2016. . . . . . . Kim Jong Il  reportedly shot 38 under par, including 11 holes-in-one, the first (and only) time he played golf; this is all you need to know about the NoKos. . . . . . . Nuclearization of Iran and North Korea, once considered by all as unacceptable, became irreversible under Obama/Clinton/Kerry – then along came Jones – err, Trump. . . . . To justify his belief in climate change, Obama said carbon dioxide emissions exacerbated his daughter Malia’s asthma; oops, it’s sulfur dioxide (not CO2) that is linked to asthma.

From the WWII Caen Memorial: “Instead of peace, the end of the war saw the creation of two competing economic systems. One was the United States which adopted a messianic form of capitalism emphasizing consumption above equality resulting in an intensely materialistic society. The greater wealth created by its acquisitive capitalistic system was devoted to support a hedonistic life style. The other system, championed by the USSR, was based on common ownership of resources. Although this system proved less efficient, it led toward a much more equal distribution of the wealth in its society.” 


Americans buried at nearby Normandy did not fight for messianic capitalism; but the Caen Memorial is right in one way: communism more equally distributed its poverty. And all those people fleeing communism probably could have used a little hedonism.

Climate Claptrap: A recent US government scientific report is hokum. It reports sea levels increasing at a higher rate while failing to note this has occurred often in the past 100 years. It reports heat waves are more common but doesn’t acknowledge the peak was during the 1930s dust bowl years and they are no more common now than 120 years ago. It claims hurricanes have increased in power, ignoring a NOAA finding of no detectable human impact on hurricanes. Remind me; who are the science deniers?

Capitalism and government: If your kids love government and hate capitalism, this may cure them. Capitalism brings us: Uber, Waze, Venmo, Google, Spotify, Kindle, iPhones, Netflix, Amazon, Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, Android, Apple, Disney, FedEx, UPS, Airbnb, internet, Lyft, laptops, notebooks, tablets, 4K-HDTV, Nintendo, iMac, Roku, Amazon Echo, Xbox, and Google assistant. Government brings us: IRS, USPS, DMV, airport security, public schools, Medicaid, taxis, $700 toilet seats, waste, fraud, abuse, Amtrak, student debt and (horrors) SunRail (see below).

All Aboard: SunRail is the second biggest con job in Florida history after the lottery. Every scient person (except teachers, who fell en masse for the lottery) knew exactly what would happen. Ridership is 30% below its worst case estimate and is decreasing! SunRail costs $35 million to operate and fares bring in only $1.9 million. Government could pay every SunRail passenger $30 to take Uber and it would save money. And Uber picks you up and drops you off 24/7 anywhere, any time  – without timetables.

Despite abject failure, SunRail is adding 17 miles and plans more extensions. SunRail makes even Amtrak, which charges $9.50 for an inedible hamburger that costs $16 to make, look good. Amtrak loses $1 billion/year on food for which it has a monopoly.

Trains are deeply embedded in progressive DNA. When liberals hear the word train, they become catatonic and involuntarily begin to chant their mantra: “all aboard – all aboard – all aboard“. This is in part due to their aversion to cars and fossil fuels but trains have a more primal attraction for progressives, i.e. their desire for collectivism and disdain for individualism. Cars freely go whenever and wherever, making the driver the master of his fate. Trains go on a timetable devised by government experts, who know better than individuals what choices are best for them. All aboard!

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
More Montana Moments is next as we explore Montana’s Canadian Connection

The Climate Industrial Complex

Climate change is not about warming, carbon or even renewables; at root, it is a ruse to confuse and to beguile people into enacting the radical green agenda.
The Climate Industrial Complex
By: George Noga – April 22, 2018
          Few Americans know what you are about to read. I became aware of parts of this saga only during the past year despite writing about climate change for 10 years. It is an incredible but 100% true story. Buckle your seat belts and hang on for a wild ride.

        Once upon a time, an existential climate crisis threatened Earth. Scientists were certain they had found the cause and that it was man-made. Alarmed environmentalists and credulous politicians quickly fell into line. International conferences produced a United Nations convention, followed later by a protocol. Lakes, rivers and forests were dying and a war on coal was declared. Public alarm was intense; in Germany, hysteria reached fever pitch. The media sensationally asserted that the planet was dying.

       The National Academy of Sciences and the EPA said the evidence of its cause was “overwhelming”. The president created a blue ribbon scientific working group to study the problem and signed international agreements. When the next president expressed skepticism, 3,000 scientists protested. Cap and trade legislation was in Congress.

       Then came a huge surprise! The blue ribbon scientific working group found that the science was all wrong. The true cause of the problem was identified, the problem fixed and the planet saved. The EPA never admitted it was wrong; they suppressed the evidence and used dirty tricks to discredit the scientist who proved them wrong. EPA still clings to the discredited story and still spends money on the disproven cause.

       To end your suspense, the above story is about acid rain, which was but one part of a long train of junk climate science beginning with the nuclear winter panic in the 1950-60s. Then came acid rain in the 1970s, followed by global cooling and the ice age. Next came global warming which morphed into today’s climate change paranoia.

         All these episodes share a common playbook. An existential threat to the planet is conjured; scientists are certain they know the cause; international organizations jump on the bandwagon; the media sensationalize with apocalyptic hype; the public panics; politicians demand more money and power; and anyone skeptical is branded a heretic. They have one other significant thing in common: they have been proven wrong about everything. My study of global warming leads to two unshakable conclusions.

    Man’s role is somewhere between non-existent and inconsequential. A peer reviewed study (Fyfe, Gillett, Zwiers) of 15-year rolling average temperatures shows Earth returning to its long-term secular warming pattern of .7 degrees Celsius per century; i.e. the warming is not man-made. The evidence against human causation is strong and includes warming throughout the solar system, no warming for 20 years, failure of all climate models, most warming occurring before 1945 and much more.

       There is something much bigger going on. Climate change is misdirection having little to do with CO2, warming or renewables. It is maskirovka by radical leftists and environmentalists and their fellow travelers in science, media and politics to beguile and to scare people into enacting their agenda. They have used the same playbook for everything from nuclear winter to climate change. In his book Green Tyranny Darwall (see source note) labels all these groups the climate industrial complex.

       This Earth Day take a moment to ponder nuclear winter, acid rain, global cooling and the coming ice age. The same people and organizations in media, science and politics, i.e. the climate industrial complex, were certain about all these crises and they were dead wrong every time. They are just as wrong now about man-made warming!

Source Note: Some of the data used in this post were taken from “Green Tyranny” by Rupert Darwall. If you are interested in this issue, I wholeheartedly recommend you read this book.

Beginning next week MLLG pivots to China and the Trump tariffs

Startling Climate Change Perspective

Ominous pronouncements from science, government and media about climate change 
Startling Climate Change Perspective
By: George Noga – April 1, 2018

       The following excerpts from respected sources in science, government and media just might change your outlook about climate change and global warming.

        Newsweek: “There are ominous signs earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically; these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production. The evidence has begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard pressed to keep up. . . If the climate change is as profound as the pessimists fear, the resulting famine could be catastrophic. . . . The longer we delay, the more difficult it will be to cope with climate change once the results become grim reality.”

       New York Times: “Some experts believe mankind is on the threshold of a new pattern of adverse global climate change for which it is ill prepared. . . this climate change poses a threat to the people of the world.”  Time Magazine: “The scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are confidently predicting the current weather will continue.” New York Times: “The US and Russia are exploring why Arctic climate and sea ice is changing so rapidly and so ominously.

       Science Digest: “World’s climatologists are agreed we must prepare for the next climate epoch.” Professor Hubert Lamb: “We are on a definite course for the next two centuries. There may be a few fluctuations but these are more than offset by the general trend.” New York Times: “An international team of specialists has concluded there is no end in sight to the trend of the past 30 years.” CIA: “Climate leaders agree climate change has caused major economic problems throughout the world.

       Professor James Hays: “A trend has already begun. . . and it should continue for the next 20,000 years.” National Center for Atmospheric Research: “There are strong signs that recent climate disasters were not random deviations from the usual weather, but instead signal the emergence of a new normal for world climate.”  Reuters: “The threat of climate change must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for all of mankind.” Harper’s Magazine: “Rising ocean waters may flood most of our port cities within the foreseeable future.

       I could fill many more pages with the same stuff. How certain and how dire their warnings – comparing climate change to nuclear war, predicting massive starvation and severe climate for the next 20,000 years. Their predictions for 20,000 years did not survive even 20 years; all the quotes in this post are about global cooling and the coming ice age! Today, science, government and media are equally certain and apocalyptic about the opposite of what they were certain about a few decades ago.

     There constantly are new revelations about contrary science, shoddy research, concocted data, fraudulent peer review, plugged computer models, compliant scientific journals, refusals to debate, quashing of dissent and warming throughout the solar system. These often involve the same people who were so wrong about global cooling.

       But wait; it gets worse. The UN IPCC predicted that by 2010 there would be 50 million climate refugees and even published a map showing where they would be as a result of rising sea levels. That was 8 years ago; today there are exactly zero climate refugees, no rise in sea level, no food shortages and even the ozone hole has filled in.

       I apologize if you were momentarily fooled, but it is April 1st. We will have more to say about climate and the environment as we approach Earth Day. Stay tuned.

Our next post is about business ethics and social responsibility.

MLLG College Commencement Address

Instead of a diploma, graduates should receive an apology and a tuition refund. 
MLLG College Commencement Address
By: George Noga – June 11, 2017
     Graduates: upon your graduation today from this elite college, you will receive congratulations and a diploma. Instead, you should demand an apology from the college along with a refund of most of your tuition. You have been swindled, deceived, bilked, scammed, hoodwinked and defrauded in almost every way imaginable.
      During your seven years here, you never were taught by a professor; most of your graduate-student instructors sat in the same class last semester that they now teach. Most of you graduated with honors; making them meaningless and reminiscent of Lake Wobegon where everyone is above average. Many of your degrees are useless; some even are harmful. If your degree is in any hyphenated subject or in one that ends in studies, consider it worthless; the same applies to degrees in Zombies in Popular Media and Queer Musicology. Most of you didn’t need a college degree in the first place.
    No instructor or guest speaker has ever challenged you with ideas contrary to progressive shibboleths. You have experienced diversity in every conceivable way except the one that matters, i.e. diversity of thought. You have been indoctrinated in pro-government, anti-capitalist, anti-business and politically correct orthodoxy. You have been propagandized and terrorized about the environment and climate change.
      You have been coddled by trigger warnings, safe rooms and even the avoidance of microaggressions. You have been cloistered in a cocoon of enforced conformity. Males have had their constitutional rights stripped away and live on the razor’s edge, one ersatz accusation away from perdition. There is not now and never was a campus rape crisis; the real world has no speech codes; and all America is a free speech zone.
      Your college has a humongous endowment and doesn’t even need to charge tuition. Nevertheless, it has colluded with government, and against you and your parents, to raise the cost of tuition. Government decided everyone needed a college degree, so they lowered standards causing a student glut and a bubble in higher education.
     Government then made student loans easily available and your college raised its tuition to capture the subsidies. Tuition has risen 400% faster than inflation. Middle income taxpayers, who foot the bills, are subsidizing your elite education and are the ones you stiff when you inevitably default on your loans. You show your ingratitude by flagrantly flaunting your disrespect of their values, religion and patriotism.
    You are victims of intergenerational theft and inherit $600,000 as your share of future unfunded government liabilities. You also inherit a dysfunctional world with multiple existential threats and an imminent debt crisis, all due to following the discredited progressive dogma you were taught at this college. You are a lost generation and will be truly lucky if your life is better than your parents’.
      Following this ceremony, go straight to the nearest unemployment office, as this elite college did not equip you to add value to the economy. Those of you finding a job will soon learn that it is not about you – it is all about the customer. Your second stop should be at a law firm to sue this college for fraud and a tuition refund. Finally, you must begin to unlearn all the crapola you were taught at this college.
       If you feel entitled to a break following graduation, spend some time in Venezuela or Cuba to experience some real socialistic comradeship – but remember to bring your own food, medicine and toilet paper. Use your time (while standing in lines) in these workers’ paradises to decide if you are a frail, delicate, fragile snowflake who must be sheltered in a safe room with a teddy bear or someone ready to face the real world.
      Finally, as alums, you will be solicited by this college for donations to add to its already obscenely large endowment. Instead, send them a copy of your student loan repayment schedule and once again demand a refund of your tuition payments.

Next up is a  special MLLG posting on June 14th – Flag Day

Climate Change Part V – Putting It All Together

Stanford University researchers estimate we will spend at least 100 trillion dollars to reduce temperature three-tenths of one degree by the end of this century.
Climate Change Part V – Putting It All Together
By: George Noga – April 9, 2017
      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!

The 105th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic is the subject of our next post

Climate Change Part IV – If Humans Cause Warming 

We are spending trillions to achieve an uncertain, infinitesimal benefit in the distant future. What actions should we take today if warming is man-made? 
Climate Change Part IV – If Humans Cause Warming
By: George Noga – April 2, 2017
      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!

The next post on April 9th is the final in our climate change series

Climate Change Part III – Why People Believe

There is no shortage of reasons people cling to their belief in man-made warming.  
Climate Change Part III – Why People Believe
By: George Noga – March 26, 2017
      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.

In Part IV of this series on April 2nd, I become a climate change believer 

Climate Change Part II – Computer Models

No computer models of climate change have been updated to incorporate the actual temperature record of the past twenty years. Why is this true?
Climate Change Part II – Computer Models
By: George Noga – March 19, 2017
       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.
Research note: I have invested considerable time researching this post. There are many climate models and some may have been updated, at least in part. It is possible there may exist climate models which include data for the past 20 years. What I do believe is that there are no updated computer models showing the same sharply rising temperatures as the original models. If such models existed, they would be widely touted by media and climate warriors.

Our next post March 26th is Part III of our climate change series