I was searching for something else, and I came across this piece I wrote back in 2007...
...And perhaps unsurprisingly, not much has changed today, except that now catastrophists are saying EVERYTHING is proof of climate change, which can apparently do anything whatsoever, including mutually exclusive and contradictory things, because "science".
It's absolutely unfalsifiable.
I decide to republish it here, to point out, that while the science against the catastrophists has only accumulated and strengthened; their stridency and grasping demands have only increased.
I say again, the concept of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, except in the case of localized micro-climates, holds absolutely no scientific water.
Honest scientists will tell you the same thing if pressed (and if their funding doesn’t depend on it), but the agenda politics of todays science (admittedly on both sides of the political spectrum, but generally on different subjects), prevents real, honest, science from occurring anymore; or from being reported if and when it is (the record of suppressing science which disproves catastrophic anthropogenic climate change is long and shameless at this point).
The mere language used by catastrophists against those who seek to use actual science rather than sociopolitical ideological faith, calling us "deniers" in an attempt to paint an equivalence with holocaust deniers, should make it clear that their concern is not truth.
The honest numbers are simple.
Global temperatures have risen an average of less than 1 degree centigrade since measurements started being taken ("adjusted measurements", which have been conclusively proven to be inaccurate and possibly deliberately manipulated say it may be as much as 1.8 degrees, but that is the absolute maximum).
There is no “sudden and precipitous increase”. There is no hockey stick. It was a lie, and even many of the climate change people have admitted it. The ice caps aren’t melting, in fact in most areas they are thickening slightly. The sea level isn’t rising any more than it would have naturally.
Oh and in case you didn't know... Polar bears are excellent swimmers.
More damning to the catastrophists faith; even by their own admission, there has been NO rise (and there may in fact have been a slight decline) in global average temperatures, SINCE 1996.
Since temperature recordings have begun, volcanic eruptions have put more carbon into the atmosphere, and caused more temperature change, than all of human industry and activity since the beginning of the human race; but it wasn’t by increasing temperatures with carbon, it was by decreasing them with dust in the air... much of which was in fact carbon particulates.
The world has been far colder than today at times when there was far more carbon in the atmosphere; even without more dust. The world has been far warmer than today with far less carbon in the air, even WITH more dust.
The amount of anthropogenic carbon dioxide and carbon particulates in the atmosphere are FAR less than one half of one percent of total carbon dioxide, and far less than one half of one percent of total carbon particulates (the vast majority of CO2 is released by soil, rotting vegetation, oceanic microorganisms, and seafloor offgassing. The vast majority of particulates, are released by forest fires, and volcanic activity ). Considering how small a percentage of our atmospheric carbon and carbon compounds (between 0.03 and 0.06 percent. Not between 3% and 6%, 3 one hundredths of a percent), that amount is completely insignificant to global climate change.
This is not to say they don't effect local microclimates, they certainly do. But in those local microclimates, these concentrations are literally hundreds to thousands of times higher.
These levels of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere are not a temperature driver, or a climate forcing.
In fact, historical records show that overall CO2 levels (which, remember, human inputs make up only a tiny fraction of) TRAIL global climate change by anywhere from a few hundred years, to a few thousand.
All currently existing GLOBAL climate change can be fully and scientifically explained by natural endothermic cycles (atmospheric oceanic interaction combined with volcanic and other geothermal activity, and large particulate emissions such as forest fires, plus natural greenhouse component and other climate forcing component emissions), and the fluctuation in output of the sun (because earth is an exothermic system). The suns output has varied greatly over the course of human history (and of course long before), and periods of warming and cooling have tracked right along with that output.
Models using average sunspot activity as an indicator of solar thermal forcing, have proven to be accurate within a few percentage points at predicting historical temperatures.
Some models (those used by catastrophists) predict that there may be FUTURE global climate change based on a theory that human generated carbon inputs, even though they are far lower than historical levels which did NOT cause these things to happen, will somehow cause the entire climate system to change the way it has always functioned.
These models are ridiculous on their face. The way you test a model is to run if forwards and backwards without adjustment, and see if it can accurately predict what actually happened in the past, using the data from further back in the past; then verifying against actual future results over time.
None of the models that predict significant global climate change due to human carbon inputs, come anywhere close to predicting the historical record.
They always consistently overestimate warming by SEVERAL HUNDRED PERCENT, as in estimating 4 to 8 times the actual warming.
And NONE of them came anywhere close to predicting the variability of the historical record, always showing a consistent warming trend over time, even for CENTURIES that had a significant cooling trend.
The models were not made to predict the actual climate... they were specifically made to predict massive warming, no matter the input. And that's what they do, as non-catastrophists have proven, running data which any rational model should predict steady or cooling temperatures through the models... and they STILL predicted significant warming.
I leave it up to you to decide whether the models were just designed badly, or whether the distortion was intentional. Either way, these models cannot be trusted, and decisions should certainly not be made based on them.
The climate IS changing, and has since the moment the earth formed a climate. As near as we can tell (through ice core samples and the like) there has never been a period of more than 200 years without at least a 1 degree change in global average temperatures.
The climate will continue to change on its own; and no normal human activity will change global climate significantly one way or the other… unless it’s something that actually would kill us all (which would by definition not be normal... Incredibly massive particulate pollution over a high percentage of the earths surface - including the oceans - would do it. It would initially trigger warming from trapped thermal radiation, followed by extremely rapid cooling from blocking out the sun, and then a sudden ice age; and likely kill all crops and food animals in the process, along with at least 80% of humanity in the first two years, if not more, and ultimately followed by mass global extinction).
That isn’t to say we shouldn’t attempt to develop better sources of energy, we should. We aren’t going to “run out” of oil... ever in fact; a basic understanding of economics would show that. But, hydrocarbon fuels are eventually going to get more and more expensive as time goes on, and hydrocarbon fueled combustion engines are relatively inefficient, and do contribute significantly to micro climate pollution.
In many ways, doing things greener IS in fact better. Saving energy is generally a very good thing. Not polluting is generally a good thing. When it isn’t, is when it destroys economies, prevents job growth, reduces food production, increases food prices, and all the other ways that forced greenism (I won’t even call it environmentalism, because it isn’t doing the environment much good), causes pain, suffering, misery, and general reductions in peoples health, quality of life, standard of living, and basic liberties.
“Climate change” isn’t about the environment... It’s about giving financial and political control to anti-western, anti-capitalists.... Or just the cynical opportunists who would use peoples good intentions and fears to increase their own power.
It’s about punishing those rich capitalist nations and people, for not being poor socialists... Or just for "not doing things the RIGHT way".... whatever that particular person or group happens to think the "right" way is.
It isn’t science, it’s a pseudo-scientific sociopolitical ideological movement, and near religion. The adherents don’t need any proof, because they have faith; and any who challenge that faith must be burned as heretics in their new inquisition.