Journalists claim they represent the science of global warming, and those of us who disagree are opposing the scientific evidence. Here's the truth of the matter:

Humans do not have the slightest ability to evaluate the thousands of complex, interacting factors which influence climate in a significant enough manner to make predictions. So global warming propagandists looked to the past and said an increase in temperature occurred, and humans were the cause. That's not science.

In fact, it's more like fraud. Satellite measurements were not showing a significant temperature increase over recent decades, so propagandists took their information from thermometers.

Under the most ideal conditions, thermometers cannot provide a clue of whether the average global temperature has increased by the claimed 0.6°C. Air temperatures are extremely heterogeneous, because air is an insulating material. This means air temperatures vary several degrees within a short distance of any thermometer. Does the thermometer represent the real temperature in it's vicinity? What sort of "science" determined that it does?

Instead of the most ideal conditions, the thermometers are a hodgepodge of neglect and abuse, located for convenience in changing environments, in contempt for specifications, with no regard for representative sampling, almost nonexistent in "developing countries" and totally nonexistent on the 70% of the earth's surface that makes up oceans. Thermometer Fraud

In other words, using thermometers for climate change creates an ideal set of conditions for contriving but has no possibility of producing anything resembling science. Of course, all of the deficiencies needed to be corrected. So the data was juggled—omitting and compensating—until a number was produced.

Omitting and compensating is not science. No matter how right someone thinks they are, they cannot produce science inside their head. The purpose of science is to objectivize reality, so the crap in peoples' heads can be eliminated from the result. Juggling numbers is not science.

After the desired number of 0.6°C temperature increase over the past 150 years (since the industrial revolution) was produced, there was a problem with satellite measurements, which showed little to no increase. So the satellite data was adjusted to fit the supposed thermometer measurements. Adjusting data is a large part of the activity in the claimed science of global warming. Satellite sensors supposedly drift, so aligning their results upon other data is supposedly a correction. The charlatans of the thirteenth century never had it so good.

That's it folks. That's the science of global warming. The rest is propaganda. At most, the fakes could have extended the temperature graph and said that an increase of 0.6°C every 150 years would result in increase of another 0.4°C over then next century. Instead, they turned the graph upward and said it is expected to increase up to 6°C.

Try to find a science in the prediction of the temperature increase. There's none to be found. A two bit calculation said temperature change would occur at 5 kilometers of height in the atmosphere. So the model was adjusted to show a temperature increase at that height. No temperature increase at that height was found. But such glitches are simply rationalized away.

There cannot be a science to the modeling process, because humans cannot measure or evaluate most of the influences over climate including the oceans. Most of what oceans do cannot be included in climate models, because relevant measurements were nonexistent until 2003, when 3,000 buoys were distributed around the oceans for making measurements. The data is meager and just now being collected. So the primary influence over climate—the oceans—is not significantly included in the modeling.

The fakes have their own logic which skips over the difficult questions. After they supposedly determined through contrived thermometer recordings that the temperature increased by 0.6C since the industrial revolution 150 years ago, they extended the logic of predicting the future by adding tweaking influences which create their own quasi-science.

Their primary tweaking influence is what they call positive feedback. That means multiplying the CO2 effect by some factor mostly due to the effects of water vapor. Critics show evidence that nature does not multiply the effect but mitigates it, which is called negative forcing or feedback.

Richard Lindzen points out that the primary evidence for negative forcing is that long wave infrared radiation increases as temperature increases. This means that the earth emits increased amounts of energy as a method of diminishing temperature increases.

Models produced by the fakes do not show increased radiation resulting from increased temperature. There are several errors in the logic of the fakes. First, they use an inappropriate equation, the Stephan-Boltzmann constant, to determine how much radiation is given off. That equation is designed for two dimensional surfaces such as solids and is inappropriate for the three dimensional, radiative surface of the atmosphere. This gives them a mindset for their models, where radiation stays constant, while the atmosphere heats up.

Also pointed out by Lindzen is the highly variable nature of climate and atmospheric temperature. They are so variable that the miniscule effects being analyzed by the fakes disappear in natural variations. This means that the starting point of supposedly determining that humans caused a temperature increase over the past 150 years is not valid. The modeling and assumptions by the fakes start with the hinge point of human-caused temperature increase which is phony. Whatever temperature increase occurred was caused by nature, not humans.

Greenhouse gasses including carbon dioxide have been a major part of the atmosphere from the beginning. The planet evolved with CO2 in the air and oceans, and life evolved depending upon it. There was five times as much CO2 in the air during the dinosaur years, and up to twenty times as much before that. Water vapor is even more of a greenhouse gas, with 33 times as much in the atmosphere as CO2.

Carbon dioxide has been labeled a pollutant by the Supreme Court and the Environmental Protection Agency. Humans produce more water vapor than CO2. It comes out all exhaust pipes and smoke stacks. And it is more of a greenhouse gas than CO2. There is more logic in calling water vapor a pollutant than CO2. To deal with them differently shows the total fraud of the subject.