The Climate Is Indeed Changing: Cooling Ahead
Global warming became climate change in response to the inconvenient truth that there has been no warming over the past 17 years. This is called a "pause," with the expectation and anticipation that any day now temperatures will begin climbing again. And when temperatures do rise, it could be called a "pause" in global cooling – or, in other words, another turn in the endless cycle of the Earth warming and cooling.
Pope Francis and President Obama continue to preach the perils of global warming, not concerning themselves with any pause or faulty climate models. One of the world's leading climate change experts disagrees about those perils noting some "mathematical anomalies which effectively 'disprove' global warming."
Dr. David Evans was a climate modeler for the Australian government. He has six degrees in applied mathematics. In analyzing "complex mathematical assumptions widely used to predict climate change," he predicts stable temperatures until 2017, after which the Earth will cool for the next decade, ushering in a mini-ice age by 2030.
Dr. Evans is a true academic. Compare and contrast with our very own climate expert, former vice president Al Gore. At Harvard, Mr. Gore earned a D in a natural sciences course named "Man's Place in Nature." He improved by his senior year, earning a C+ in another natural sciences class. Moving on to Vanderbilt divinity school, Gore flunked 5 classes, including a course in theology and natural science. Yet Mr. Gore is viewed as a visionary, an oracle.
The problem, according to Dr. Evans, lies in the validity of the climate models. He describes two specific problems. The first is "a vastly over estimated impact on our temperature from CO2" – not that it doesn't have an effect, but that it is only 10-20% of what the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts. The second is that "the predictions had no reflection on changes that have actually been recorded."
In other words, the "consensus" climate scientists are saying, to quote Groucho Marx, "Who are you going to believe: me or your own eyes?"
Carbon dioxide, or CO2, is the villainous greenhouse gas causing global warming, according to the EPA. CO2 emission in the U.S. increased by about 7% from 1990 to 2013, predominantly due to an expanding economy and population. Yet a closer look at the trend shows a drop in CO2 emissions after 2007, approaching 1990 levels. And don't forget that CO2 is plant food, necessary for the trees and crops used to house and feed our growing population.
Regardless of how CO2 fluctuates, Dr. Evans believes, "[c]arbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven by factors outside our control." So where is the media coverage? How about an open and honest debate about the causes of climate change – assuming we even know for certain?
Instead, the media is ignoring the story, as it doesn't fit the narrative of man-made global warming. No surprise. "These findings here are unlikely to be popular with the establishment. The political obstacles are massive," notes Dr. Evans.
Not only do the media and global warming zealots refuse to acknowledge conflicting science, but they also want to prosecute those who disagree. Twenty climate scientists urged President Obama to prosecute global warming skeptics and deniers under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) laws. A sitting U.S. senator, Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), also suggests that RICO laws be applied to global warming skeptics. How's that for silencing your critics?
Is Dr. Evans right about the mini-ice age in 2030? Time will tell. What about some of the other global warming predictions involving temperatures, snow, hurricanes, and polar ice that have not come true?
All we do know is that the Earth's climate is constantly changing – always has and always will. Cooling causing ice ages and warming melts the ice. Thus far, the scientific establishment has not demonstrated any ability to predict future climate or any means of controlling it.
Instead of welcoming Dr. Evans' contrary view, the establishment ignores it, pretending it's not real or credible. This is bad science. Good science, on the other hand, requires that any hypothesis be tested against real-world observations, with modification if the predictions don't match reality. Quoting Sergeant Schultz from Hogan's Heroes, "I see nothing, I know nothing" is the stuff of comedy, not science.