Not Sweating Climate Science

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

                                                                     -Upton Sinclair


I am not a scientist. I am certainly not paid to understand or not understand anything with regard to climate science.

That sets me apart from almost all of the climate scientists on the planet.

I also consider myself a practical thinker who makes decision by looking at facts. I have also learned that it is always important to look beyond the "facts".  How are the facts packaged and what is the motivation of the messenger. Most of the time motivation is a direct result of the money involved.

In fiscal 2103 the U.S. government spent $22.5 billion on climate change based on this report in PowerLine.  Since 1993 the federal government has spent $193 billion!

If there is that much money in play for academics, researchers and climatologists into proving global warming, how much effort is going into looking at data that might be contradictory to that conclusion?

Even worse, how strong is the motivation for some of those individuals (who depend on that government money for their salaries) to manipulate the data to support global warming.

Over the years, I have listened to the claims about human created global warming. Without even spending a lot of time on the science, these claims never seemed to make sense to me.  The planet is known to have warmed and cooled over the years.  Even if the data shows it is warming, how do we know it is caused by man when you look at past history?  We know there was an ice age.  We also know the ice melted.  How did it ice up? How did the ice melt?

I often look at Steven Goodard's blog, Real Science, to get some interesting perspectives on climate science that you are not going to see in the mainstream media.

For example, did you realize that the frequency of hot days (those with temps exceeding 90F degrees) in the Midwest is less than half of what they were 100 years ago?

Here is a chart from Real Science showing the percent of hot days for all U.S. Historical Climatology Network (HCN) stations in the Midwest.

Source: Real Science
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/28/hot-days-in-the-midwest-occur-half-as-often-as-they-did-100-years-ago/

Does that look like warming to you?

So how does the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) keep coming up with reports that the planet is warming?

For example, compare the HCN data as shown in this chart by Goddard where the NOAA comes to a completely different conclusion after it makes "adjustments" to the data.

Source: Real Science
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/

Goddard argues that this is due to the fact that "almost half of all U.S. temperature data is now fake." Missing data from former rural reporting stations that no longer exist have been replaced with urban data. It is hardly comparing apples to apples. Consider the temperature in an urban environment filled with asphalt and skyscrapers to a meadow by a babbling brook down on the farm. Which is going to be warmer?

The extent to which the temperature data has been "adjusted" is rather astounding. Note especially the adjustments made to the data in the last 10 years.

Source: Real Science
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/07/27/mind-blowing-temperature-fraud-at-noaa/

Again, I am not a climatologist or meterologist. However, it looks to me like all of this is a long way from settled science.

When you consider history you also quickly realize that God dwarfs anything that man can do. For example, the year 1816 was considered "The Year Without a Summer" after Mount Tambora erupted and the ash seemed to veil the sky across large swaths of earth.  Crops failed around the world and famine followed.  Riots and political unrest were not far behind.  People tend to get really angry when they are hungry. How much did the average global temperature fall that year? - only about 1 degree!

That story has always made me much more concerned about global cooling than warming. A rise in temperatures is actually beneficial for food production. It can extend the growing season further north. Cooler temperatures do the exact opposite.  Given a choice there is little doubt where I come down.

That's why I am not sweating all of this climate science even if it is getting warmer.

I like to eat and there are a lot of people to feed on this earth.

Give me warm rather than cool any day.

And no one paid me a cent to come to that conclusion.