I’m not a climate scientist. I have to rely on strangers for my understanding of 99% of what I think I know about what’s going on in the world. Publications I tend to respect are adamant in their opposing views about 2 issues: that the earth is still getting warmer and that it’s due to human-generated CO2. Mother Jones, for instance, has this very impressive spread in their latest issue which says the oceans and the earth as a whole have never been warmer, with the inevitable implication that it’s due to human activity: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/global-oceans-break-all-time-heat-record-world-pace-warmest-year-ever
But it turns out that both questions (warming, CO2 caused) can be seen in a larger perspective that raises important questions about basic assumptions. The MJ article can be both correct and incomplete. According to http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/07/global-warming-pause-extends-to-17-years-11-months/, global warming has been fluctating around a high plateau for almost 18 years, despite global CO2 concentrations rising steadily during that time. This throws a monkey wrench into the IPCC’s theoretical computer models which were already highly suspect in any case, simply because highly non-linear systems like climate are virtually impossible to model accurately over time because of: a) incomplete understanding of positive and negative feedback mechanisms, b) lack of precision of computer representation of real numbers, c) lack of precision and completeness of measurements like temperature, humidity and and atmospheric gases, and d) the inevitable, massive amplification of such inaccuracies in simulations of complex systems over time. Absent a dramatic change in inputs, like a large increase in solar irradiance, digital computer models are nearly worthless in predicting the climate over decades. Quantum computers might offer a solution to roundoff errors in the future but for now we’re stuck with present technology.
Unfortunately one must also consider non-scientific issues when trying to judge the facts. And this is where things get more complicated even than the climate. Money talks, and seemingly objective scientific authorities can be easily manipulated when their lifestyles and income are involved. It’s easy to see how such corruption would work on behalf of the petroleum industry to minimize concerns over global warming, but most people overlook the flip side of the coin: the financial and political interests which stand to gain by implementing the only proposed solutions to rising CO2, which are entirely financial. There’s no doubt that monetizing CO2 production will result in mass impoverishment and starvation around the world due to drastic rises in energy costs and the costs of everything that depends on energy, from food production and transport to home heating. We should be very confident of the scientific reality before we implement such drastic measures, because people will die in large numbers.
Beyond the financial interests which are pushing for carbon markets, there’s another very powerful interest which stands to vastly increase its power via the policing and regulatory infrastructure which would have to be imposed to enforce such a regime. This is where finance gives way to raw power: those who can create real and virtual money out of thin air already effectively own whole nations. It would behoove them to consolidate their subsidiaries into a global fascist regime, and carbon taxes would provide both the rationale and the funding to do so, as well as enforce the depopulation agenda which they have pursued for decades.
Despite claims by the MSM, the question of global warming, much less AGW, is far from settled. At last count 1000 scientists have voiced dissent over the alleged consensus http://cfact.org/pdf/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf. The antarctic ice cap is currently the biggest in recorded history: http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/antarctic-sea-ice-extent-sept-15-2014-another-all-time-record/
Finally there are a couple glaring facts which must be pointed out:
Al Gore’s “hocky stick” graph is a blatant hoax. It purports to show that global temperature follows global carbon dioxide concentration when the reality is the reverse: atmospheric carbon dioxide follows temperature via well known mechanisms: both ocean and land emit CO2 when the temperature rises due to changes in gas solubility in water and enhanced biological activity. It should go without saying that Gore has a large investment in carbon trading http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/11/03/blood-and-gore-making-a-killing-on-anti-carbon-investment-hype/ .
Finally, it turns out that Gore’s rarified social stratum has been banking on using global warming terror to pursue the above global governance objective for some time:
Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, “new enemies must be identified. … In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
— The first Global Revolution, Club of Rome, 1991
No one was talking about global warming in 1991 except this well financed group of evidently malthusian social engineers, who BTW are still mute to this day about the proven dangers of real environmental pollutants like endocrine disruptors and GMO’s. Carbon dioxide is part of the solar-powered biological energy cycle of the earth, an essential input for plant respiration. Increased CO2 increases plant growth, which might be helpful in remediating some of the devastation wrought by the same moneyed interests represented by the club of rome.
The upshot of all this is that I don’t know whether global warming is a concern but I doubt that it’s human caused in any case. Just my 2 bits.