Climate "Science"?

There are 7 steps to the scientific method. You start with a question, for instance, why is the sky blue during the day. Step 2 is to investigate to do some background research. Step 3 is to construct a hypotheses. That can be any possible answer. Step 4 is Test with an experiment. Step 5 is analyzing the results of the experiment. Step 6 is making a conclusion and Step 7 is reporting your conclusion. Failure to follow that process results in junk science or more accurately, non-science and nonsense. This is also why to be considered valuable and to be peer reviewed others must be able to duplicate your test. Modeling is NOT science.

Now, the first closed system biosphere was made by the Soviet Union and I knew one of the scientists that worked on it. Biosphere 2 was done in America and was on a much larger scale. It can still be visited in Arizona. I knew someone who worked on it too but he was a builder, not a scientist. Why do I mention this? Well, the way that one would test the theory that CO2 causes climate change would be to build a biosphere and test that theory. In fact, you could test the theory using Biosphere 2. I can assure you 100% that every climate scientist is aware that they could test their theories in this manner and yet, they do not. I wonder why. If it is the greatest threat to all life on earth then one would think they would have conducted experiments that could be duplicated and tested; but, they don't. Why are we asked to believe in any "science" that doesn't follow the scientific method? I have written extensively here and on other sites about quantum physics. Why? Because I find it hilarious. I particularly enjoy the double slit experiment which proves that merely observing a thing changes how the thing acts. What I like even more is quantum entanglement. Both cannot be explained; but, both can be duplicated in the real world.

Now, as a rule when you do an experiment you need a baseline. What is the baseline for our climate? There is none, what there is, is a record of climate change and it swings. We have 800,000 years of data that we have collected from Antarctic ice core samples. The problem is, it is all from one place. We have hundreds of thousands of years of information regarding climate from tree cores from all over the earth. The problem is those only show how land temperature effected trees. Land temperature is effected by many things. In either case the data has some value. All the climate models ignore that data and rely on data collected from thermometers since around 1880. The earth is claimed to be around 7 billion years old (depends on who you ask). I should point out that the thermometers are not equally distributed around the earth. Some get their data from satellites that measure the climate in the air between the ground and up to 20,000 feet in the air.

Now we go to which data do you use in another manner. Do you generalize for the whole earth or compare by different regions? How does one select their data is the question. On any given day it will be the hottest day in the last 120 years and the coldest day in the last 120 years in some place because climate is not universal on this planet. This is one of the problems with modeling rather than testing, what data you select determines the outcome. Most people will never write a scientific paper, I have on more than one occasion. I wrote papers that were accepted by government entities and where the organizations I wrote them for received money. I am NOT a scientist, I worked with scientists and wrote the papers. I questioned the scientists and they reviewed my final reports. I have not been corrected by them; but, have only ever been given support with telling me that I have accurately explained what they have observed and tested. In one case I designed and created the computer model to determine the economic effects of the test results. Anyone who follows my blog knows that I regularly write about science AND include source documents. I am considered an expert in certain fields and have advised multiple governments including on how to scientifically test certain things. I have reviewed scientific reports and corrected the scientists in person and on occasion in public at hearings. You cannot evaluate or draw a valid opinion if you do not review the source information and the methodology.

Do human actions effect the climate? Of course they do, everything effects climate. Does CO2 effect the climate? Of course, everything does. This is why we created biospheres, to test the effect of different variables and determine the extent different things effect the environment. The question is how do different variables effect the outcome. What greenhouse gasses have increased and decreased over the last 120 years? Has methane decreased after we killed off the buffalo and other species? What variables have changed since man showed up, what variables have changed since we started burning oil? What is the baseline?

Here is what you can discover. The climate is not static and never has been. The climate is primarily impacted by distance from the sun, sunspots, planetary cooling (as the core of the planet cools since the big bang) and particulates in the air (volcanoes can change our temperature by blocking sun rays). We can model based on external effects easier than internal effects. When there are many active sunspots we can see the effect on not just earth but also on other planets temperatures.

The UN IPCC has just released a report saying that if we don't start cutting CO2 by 2020 we will all start dying after 2030. More garbage. Did you know that China plans on increasing the number of coal burning plants in their country by doubling it and they signed the Paris Climate Accord? If you believe that CO2 causes negative climate change why would you be okay with that? Why did the IPCC choose 2020? Hmm, oh yeah that is when Trump runs for his second term. Trump has been in office one year and is being blamed for global warming. Huh? Why did the Trans Pacific Partnership not include a requirement that China reduce CO2 emissions and instead prohibited other governments from restricting Chinese goods on environmental reasons? Economics drives politics and science. Wake up and do some research.

Why the rant? Frustration. I feel explaining things is sometimes pointless. Sometimes I feel as though there is too much garbage and assumptions that people accept as fact for me to get beyond without a decade of teaching. The bible says that our traditions make void the work of God. I think our programmed assumptions make void our ability to analyze reality, it is easier to believe the big lie. People want to feel comfortable with their beliefs and don't want to have to work too hard to arrive at them. People want to accept the common beliefs because it is easier. I start with the assumption that everyone is lying to me for advantage. That everyone seeks what is in their interest. My motto is generally, trust nobody and test everything. The more I am told to not question, the more I am convinced I am being lied to. In law school, we were taught that if someone says "clearly" or "obviously" we were probably being lied to.