Climate science: observations vs. models

[Greg Burnham]

Sorry, here I have to respectfully disagree completely. In fact, those who 'buy into' the 'global warming is a conspiracy' myth are covertly being manipulated by the very villains behind much of the anthropogenic global warming - the oil, chemical, power and heavy industry generally, steel, auto, coal, and MIC industries - and those who supply/earn big money to/from them [i.e. the Oligarchy]. Beware!

Global climate change is cyclic - BUT what we now see is not from any natural cycle - but from human activity - on this all but a handful of government or oil, chemical, coal, et al. beholden scientists agree. If you look behind 95+% of the scientists who says it is only a natural climatic cycle, you will find their funding comes from the sources I mention above. Sadly, I find many on the correct side of many other real deep political issues have been deceived in this matter - much to the delight of the Oligarchy and Propaganda Ministry....I'm sure they hope if they can just start a crack in the analytical logic here, they can also derail the progress with Dallas to 911 - and all in between. The techniques being used are the same as that used by the asbestos industry and the tobacco industry to say their products were not harmful. The body of scientific evidence in the literature is about 90% showing anthropogenic climate change at an ever increasing rate now; about 10% saying 'nay' - and most of that 10% have the financial backing of the very people who stand to profit from such a viewpoint.....

....for those I named above, it is a matter of life or death to promote the false 'science' rather than the reality.

....for the Planet, it is a matter of life or death that we follow the real facts and end our self-destructive ways.... It is the living things on this Planet v. the Oligarchy, their financial world, their industries, and the insane and unsustainable system we humans have built. It is a hard and sad truth.....but I'll stake my life and the life of the human civilization, and all living things on that truth/science/logic.

There are millions of citations and references I could cite. I'd suggest looking at the posts I've made on this Forum on Derrick Jensen - for a plan out of this mess; and a film called 'The Story of Stuff' - for the simple version of what is broken and desperately needs 'fixing'. Perhaps the fact that a very visible pol [Al Gore] was involved, it is easier for some to see the conspiracy in a reversed image.

Peter,

Let me pose the same question to you that the esteemed Gary Severson always managed to avoid facing over the years, namely this: Do you really believe that human beings are now, or have ever been in the past, capable of PREDICTING the future behavior of a random, non-linear, complex system? Have you ever heard of Chaos Theory, which is a serious mathematical science? If not, I suggest you become so familiar. My objection to your position is not to say that I know (anymore than you do) the future behavior of this random, complex, chaotic, non-linear system called climate. I do not. However, NEITHER do you--nor does any scientist, mystic, priest, alchemist, magician, charlatan or down right crook!

By definition a chaotic system is UNPREDICTABLE. Any who claim to be able to divine the future climate are misinformed, delusional, or "other" (even if it's an honest, but wrong, belief). Until this one, single "problem" can be explained to satisfaction, MMGW is a non-starter. Is it possible? I do not claim to know that answer. However, PREDICTING it accurately is impossible. It is playing God. It is self-important bullshit without substance. It is similar to religion. Some Christians believe God will condemn any non-Christian come judgment day. Some Muslims believe God (Allah) will reward them for jihad against non-Muslims. Both sides believe they can PREDICT what God will do, yet the respective views of each are very divergent and both can't be right. Those who claim to be able to PREDICT certain things are simply WRONG--not necessarily IN their prediction, but FOR MAKING the prediction in the first place! If they happen to be correct, it will not be because they were "right" but because they were lucky. Luck is NOT science.