President Obama declares that climate change science is “irrefutable”. Secretary of State John Kerry accuses climate deniers of being guilty of “malpractice”. Climate “experts” predict economic devastation, massive food shortages, and environmental destruction unless immediate action is taken.
“Immediate action” is defined as the discontinuation of fossil fuel usage, the redistribution of our wealth to leftist political action groups and third-world dictatorships (i.e., UN Agenda 21), and the regulation of cow farts.
Of course, we common citizens cannot refute these claims, since we do not breathe the rarified air of warmist climate scientists. We are so ignorant that we do not realize that bullying and fear-mongering are integral parts of the scientific method.
Most of us are also ignorant of the fact that warmist climate science relies upon manipulated and falsified data to support their hypothesis. This deception is pervasive in the climate change community, from NASA/NOAA to the IPCC.
This is a perversion of the principles of science in order to promote a disreputable political agenda. Climate change is “agenda science”. That is why finding a truly unbiased, non-partisan expert to provide an interpretation of untainted data is so critical.
A Boston-based investment think-tank, Unit Economics, has released a study that not only refutes global warming, but predicts a cooling of the Earth’s climate. They are not the first to recognize this trend, but they are perhaps the most credible.
Ultimately, the ability to recognize trends is not in the realm of pure science, but rather the purview of the data analyst. A prediction such as this is much more reliable than the alarmist predictions of “agenda scientists” in that the livelihood of an investment advisory company relies on the accuracy of its data and the integrity of its analysis.
Keith Schaefer is the publisher of Oil and Gas Investments Bulletin. In the first of a three-part posting, he describes some of the basic data and conclusions of the Unit Economics study:
1. Temps continued to fall from 1953 until the mid-1970s – despite rising CO2 levels. This was during the single most industrializing time on earth—and temperatures fell while CO2 levels rose.
2. Another point: if CO2 emissions cause global warming the layer of the atmosphere 5 to 10 km (3-6 miles) above the earth where CO2 interacts with sunlight should be warming more quickly than the earth’s surface. In fact, temperatures at these levels have been unchanged since accurate balloon measurements became available 50 years ago.
3. There has been a large outcry about the decline of Arctic Ice. While Arctic sea ice extent is just above average levels, Arctic sea ice is near record thickness: the volume of ice in the Arctic last fall was 50% higher than 12 months prior, following a very cold summer in 2013 in which temps climbed above freezing only 45 days compared to an average of 90 days.
I bet you didn’t read about that.
4. There’s a lot of ice at the other end of the globe too. In eight of the last ten years global sea ice extent has bested the 30-year average, aided by an Antarctic sheet that in October hit its highest extent since record keeping started in 1979.
5. The Northern Hemisphere had its second, third, and fourth highest snow extents on modern record in 2010, 2011, and 2013. In the United States 2013 brought the largest year-over-year drop in temperature on record and the winter is on track to be labeled the third coldest in 200 years.
Evidence of this cooling is everywhere – even if politicians and the media try to pretend it isn’t. Of course, the media has short memories. Only 40 years ago, in mid-1974 Time magazine ran a cover story entitled “Another Ice Age?” noting a 12% increase in New Hampshire snow cover in 30 years.
Conclusion: over the last 1,200 years the earth has been through several pretty extreme temperature swings. What gives?
The answer lies with the sun. Cold periods coincide with solar minimums, which generally happen every 150 to 200 years. Warm periods coincide with solar maxima, which happen every 700 years or so.
I cannot positively substantiate that Keith Schaefer and Unit Economics are completely independent and unbiased. We do have ample proof, however, that warmist “agenda scientists” and their liberal political cohorts are misrepresenting the facts.