"IPCC CLimate Change-We need Truth, not Conjecture!

A scientist, Roy Spenser, recently caused me to take the 100,000 ft look at Climate Change.  The world's science projects regarding Climate Change, to be balanced and effective, need to examine both sides of the global issue and the study title should be 'global warming and cooling'.  Spaceship Earth has many faintly understood processes it uses to balance its life sustaining capability; 'global warming and cooling' is among them.  Human development, according to "Big History-H2 Finale on 29 December 2013 notes that climate divides the world into civilizations appropriate to their resources.  Plate tectonics, a component of the Climate Change phenomenon aligns the European development process in east-to-west while the America's are aligned north-to-south. 

Those and other factors are not included in ' the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Climate Change models", producing a complete analysis using all our technological capability on understanding the totality of  'global warming and cooling' process comprised of gasses, oceans, water vapor, precipitation, clouds, sun's radiation and currents, both in the atmosphere and subsurface - water and land.  Further, for all of our collective knowledge, today's computers are incapable of assessing the discrete elements in a model format that go into  'global warming and cooling' processes.  And Governments, scientists who are government funded, and politicians are only promoting 'Climate Change' that serves their purposes of control, income from commissioned science studies and political fear-mongering that sustains re-election to political office.

This Government, Scientific and Political wisdom has, and is, limiting itself and subsequently citizen understanding to the output of only one organization, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that purportedly holistically  studies 'Climate Change".  Realistically, to my dismay, IPCC only studies the warming side of Climate Change, ginning up doom and gloom scenarios to justify its existence, perpetuate itself, condition citizens to irresponsible fear reactions instead of providing balanced, relevant and substantive information based on scientific tools permitting citizens to determine truth for themselves.   

Checking the IPCC website for current reports, in one example, say - 534 SREX REPORT - we find data that is fundamentally a 2007 Baseline with interspersed updates which may or may not be relevant.  A Mark Twain quip defines its content  - "There is something fascinating about science.  One gets such a wholesale return of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact"  Such may be said for IPCC Climate Change non-science nonsense.

For the sake of this conversation, I borrowed the reports definition - "Climate Change: A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use." 

To the above definition, science is not based on statistical tests as a balanced 'global warming and cooling' science understanding.  Citizens and the subject matter deserves real scientific assessment.  Considering real scientific assessment, the science IPCC used was, in November 2009 through the release of hundreds of e-mails from the U.K.s Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglica, discovered to contain guidance for the destruction or hiding of temperature data, manipulation of data to hide observed decreases in world temperatures, and methods to block publication of anyone skeptical of its 'Global Warming data'.  How is that sort of obfuscation helpful?

Instead of IPCC  'Climate Change' conjecture, we should be using funds from Governments to examine both sides of Weather components, the predominant process by which the planet is heated and cooled. Studies must include satellite surveillance methodology as well as examining local-to-distant area relationships to understand the global interplay between oceans, wind, water vapor, precipitation, greenhouse gasses, planet rotation, sun involvement, etc.   The last thing we need is IPCC reports funded by Government tax-payer money whose mandate excludes a balanced aspect assessment of the global heating and cooling process.

Instead, we get reports prepared by IPCC science minions, well paid for their allegiance, that functionally relies heavily on stochastic methods if one reads the 564 pages along with references, errata, and a stunning participant list. Many of the preparers are stakeholders in the outcome such that bias in a fundamental problem standing in the way of accurate information and reputable science.   At the center of the models and the scientific reports, the very stochastic methodology utilized to sustain IPCC Climate Change is functionally probability theory, a basis in randomness, or unpredictability.  For simplicity purposes, the data extrapolation is best visualized as the 'Stanislaw Ulam 'Monte Carlo method' (popularized from his uncle's gambling activities) which is primarily the use of randomness accompanied by a repetitive process nature analogous to activities conducted at a casino, hardly constituting a basis for hard science if IPCC data is to be considered science at all. 

In addition to extrapolation from stochastic methodology, absent IPCC's supposed science is data from satellite surveillance.  Were satellite data to be used, IPCC's conclusions would fall under a cloud of suspicion as the current surveillance data does not support IPCC's 'Climate Change' version of truth. "Over the past 15 years air temperatures at the Earth's surface have been flat while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar," Economist Magazine noted, March 30, 2013 by which "global warming has existed essentially only in computer models", i.e. Stochastic methodology  "According to satellite measurements, temperatures in the lower atmosphere in March were just 0.5 degrees Celsius (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than they had been in 1979, when James Hansen of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies first raised alarm."   How interesting that the Economist Magazine is concerned; does that suggest the bias is economically driven, not scientifically driven as IPCC science minions, UN collaborators and politicians suggest?

Then there is James Hansen's' alarm that engendered IPCC creation.  Alarm! Not hard science but alarmist information mainstreaming in IPCC text which, fundamentally, contains much arm-waving but little hard science. Forbes Magazine, Sept 2012:  "Are we humans causing the warming by our carbon emissions? Actually, most of the “greenhouse effect” is due to water vapor, which makes one wonder why the EPA hasn’t designated H2O a harmful pollutant that they must regulate."   The offending gas-carbon dioxide- levels of James Hansen's alarm really indicate "that the current concentration is approximately 380 parts per million (ppm) meaning that for every million molecules of air, 380 of them are CO2. That is - for every 100,000 molecules of air, 38 are CO2, perhaps more understandable.  When we reach a doubling of the pre-industrial CO2 concentration, we will have enhanced the Earth' natural greenhouse effect by 1%"; not very much in the cosmic view of things.

Fundamentally, the above data provided by Geiger, Sussman and others, suggests to me comprehensive study is required rather than "complete buy-in" to IPCC, a discredited UN agency who changed "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" to save face upon the disclosure of its University of East Anglica science-bending scheming. IPCC is fundamentally 'Chicken Little of the North', trying to convince citizens that the earth is warming, the ice is melting, seas are rising, polar bears are dying - and the fault is ours.  Unbalanced science does not make them the authoritative source, particularly given that numerous  participants are actual stakeholders in the outcome - hardly unbiased and definitely greedy when "Cap and Trade", the transfer of wealth, is their major solution. 

A lesser sales pitch from IPCC is 'sustainability'.  We focus on 'sustainability' promoted by environmentalists as if ignorant of "Big History-H2 Finale on 29 Dec 2013 noting extinction reshuffles the deck to allow replacement species to emerge." .  Sustainability and its partner, conservation, have brought us the hybrid car yet its primary benefit is from a smaller engine.   From the viewpoint of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) savings, it produces only a 15% reduction because cars are not the single source and it is electric energy dependent on the standard grid.  There are two entire continents releasing themselves from serfdom and into the industrial world, adding significant amounts to the CO2 levels with little concern.  And the Western World is lapping up their products while IPCC ignores the complicity and duplicity involved. 

Is removal of blinders ever discussed?  Are mechanisms that would gain us relief from rising CO2, the best friend food plants and forests have ever had for those concerned with food shortage and reforestation, ever pursued?  It appears to me we arbitrarily and capriciously ignore the possibilities for some false promise.

Would we consider nuclear power, far more secure a power source in current designs that the few previous failures.  Nuclear power, managed by the US Navy effectively and efficiently since 1958.  The solutions to management of nuclear waste far more easily solved if political hacks and naysayers would stop fomenting issues and get down to solving recycling, like we are all supposed to solve via recycling.  

Would we consider Hydrogen Fuel Cell methodologies to reduce CO2 and provide energy?  The US Navy again has been splitting H2O into oxygen and hydrogen for years with no appreciable damage; the process exists but it demands power to accomplish.  Hydrogen fuel cells could produce their own energy as some point to make the process self-sustaining.  The down side to Hydrogen Fuel Cells is the low exploding point of Hydrogen and requirement to be maintained under high pressure.  Yet we have learned to utilize propane in our BBQ, vehicles and cooking functions with little or no damage

Would we ever use our resources wisely to pursue a process known as "Coal Sequestration" and apply our human creativity to ensure its safety and functionality?  Coal, a resource, available in quantities that would sustain for thousands of years and provides currently nearly 50% of energy is made our enemy. The 'sequestration' process safely re-directs toxic components underground, into mines and tunnels no longer used, so that pollution is no more.  Over time, absorption mitigates the bad side of coal utilization.  Leakage may or may not be a problem, but it is within our control capability.

Free markets, not carbon credits, do more to ensure sustainability than any Government imposed process.  Depletion drives cost up and engenders alternatives development within a free market system.   Just as overfishing has stimulated fish farms and just as species perceived to be extinct are instantly replaced by a species totally unknown the next moment, there are answers. CFL light bulbs are not the answer either, just a means to fund a specific enterprise.  Human creativity is the advancing mechanism when based on real science and solidly grounded information.  It has been the mechanism that moved humans forward since the dawn of time.

"Follow the money" should be the way we understand "IPCC Climate Change" as greed, corruption and self absorption is their primary driver, not the definition and development of issues and honest, proactive solutions based on true understanding.  The only solutions provided provide economic largess to a few at the expense of many.  Even the suggested sustainability improvements Europe to meet Kyoto Protocols are showing as unachievable.  Thinking, reasoning, mindful citizens need truth, not shadow science!