Yes, The Climate Changes

Michael Foley writes at Quora (Excerpts in italics with my bolds and added images.)

Q:  Why do most scientists believe that the climate is changing? 

A:  Because it is. But most scientists do not believe
human activity is the cause of the change.

The 97% of scientists belief fraud, which has been proven to be a fraud over and over again, was based on a review of the scientific literature on climate. Over 10,000 papers were reviewed and of those only about 2,000 mentioned climate change of those 1,900 were eliminated for various reasons (some of those reasons were bias based) resulting in 100 papers. Of those 100 papers 97 concluded that man’s activity may have a roll in climate change. They ranged from very likely to maybe, which is what came to be reported as the 97% figure.

There is no argument that the climate is changing,
it always has and will always continue to change.

From ice cores and ocean sediment cores it has been established that the earth has regular and generally predictable 2 major climate cycles. They are classified as a Greenhouse cycle (defined as a period where there are NO PERMANENT ice sheet anywhere on earth) and Ice Ages ( defined as periods where there are permanent ice sheets in at least 1 Hemisphere).

Each of these major cycles has several sub cycles. Ice ages have 2 major sub cycles called Interglacial and Glaciation. 73% of earth’s existence has been during a a Greenhouse period. The remaining 27% has been in at least 5 ice ages. We are currently in an Ice age. To be more exact we are living in an Interglacial phase of the current Ice age which has been going on for around 11,500 years. The 2 subcycles also have additional subcycles which last on average of 500 years. The two last such mini cycles are known by the names the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period.

The little ice age ended in the late 1800’s with 1880 being the generally used end date. Interesting enough climate alarmists almost exclusively use this date as the start date for any chart or graph they use in support of their theory. It is also important to realize that man made global warming (by burning fossil fuels and thereby contributing to atmospheric CO2) is a theory and has such remains an unproven theory.

Despite the claim of some who say the science is settled and that there is a scientific consensus.

Both of these claims should raise red flags for anyone who has even an elementary school level of science education. For starters, science is NEVER settled, our scientific understanding and knowledge is constantly changing and theories that have been accepted for decades, centuries and millennia are proven false or modified almost daily. For example,  the Big Bang theory is no longer a credible theory of how the universe started. But is still generally accepted in the general public. Secondly, science is not about a consensus period. Science is a search for the true. Either a theory is true or it is false. In order for a theory to reach a level of scientific acceptance requires the use of the scientific method, which involves testing the theory and retesting, them releasing all the information and data gathered in the testing to allow it to be reviewed by others and allowing others to try and duplicate the original experiment.

If just one of these efforts fails to confirm the results of the original finding theory is not validated. Therefore a consensus believing something is the case is irrelevant.

A consensus used to believe that the earth was flat, that the earth was the center of the universe, that the sun orbited around the earth and each of these beliefs were strongly defended. When you look at the efforts of the climate alarmist research and testing of their theory you find that not one of their efforts has resulted in a conclusion that the theory is correct. Not only that but those experiments that have claimed to support the theory have never released their data sets or methodologies for review.

The first graph appeared in the IPCC 1990 First Assessment Report (FAR) credited to H.H.Lamb, first director of CRU-UEA. The second graph was featured in 2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) the famous hockey stick credited to M. Mann.

The most famous of these is Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph that purported to show a relatively stable climate prior to the mid 1900’s. This graph became the poster child for the UN’s IPCC 1st climate assessment report. Man refused to release the data sets he used or let others review his methods or computer programs that came up with the hockey stick. However, Mann’s hockey stick graph eventually was proven to be a fraud. The IPCC quietly dropped it from their 3rd assessment. Each IPCC assessment has adjusted the predicted climate change downward to where the latest report has a predicted climate change resulting from human activity to be 2 to 3 degrees C over the next 100 years.

The original MBH graph compared to a corrected version produced by MacIntyre and McKitrick after undoing Mann’s errors.

However, even that amount remains nothing more than a computer model prediction which has not been proven.

Why so many people are so willing to accept a theory without any evidence and are so willing to accept the demanded changes to how we live with no evidence is a truly remarkable thing. Climate alarmist will point to every weather event as proof of man’s destruction of the planet. Even when the science has proven time and again that the supposed weather events are in fact well within the natural cycle of events. All of these claims and efforts are efforts to bring within the human experience (life time) evidence of climate change and the man made use of fossil fuels has the cause.

Even though NONE of the predictions made over the last 50 years has come to fruition. NOT ONE OF THEM. How can a group promoting and claim and being wrong every single time still be consider credible, is simply incredible. Some, maybe most are sincere in their belief but instead of using the evidence that is available they are simply Lemmings. Others, the politicians and those with an economic stake in turning the economy upside down are acting out of basic greed. Greed for power and money.

Climate changes occur on geologic timeframes,
which are measured in thousands and millions of years, not in human life times.

See also Rise and Fall of the Modern Warming Spike

World of Climate Change Infographics



  1. roberta4949 · August 12

    I dont know why people just accept what they are told by the mainstream scientists o the tv or in articles in magezines like scientific, or national geographic, or even people magezine, or newspapers without question has me scratching my head, whaaaaaatt!! why do people continue to believe we are in a pandemic when everything is normal, they act like people are dying like flies everywhere, like in the movies but reality has not shown this to be true, dont know why people keep believing the news media, what I am hearing and what I am seeing are not jiving, especially when I found out they have never proven a virus hijacks your dna to replicate, it would be impossible for anything to use your dna to replicate (except maybe a fake virus made up of little computer nanos who force their way into the cells dna and uses it or more likly changes it). it is not biologically possible. that is like saying a bacteria will hijack your dna to reproduce when we know they reproduce asexually.


  2. terryoldberg · August 12

    Correction: In the sentence “However, even that amount remains nothing more than a computer model prediction which has not been proven,” the term “prediction” should be changed to “projection.” A “prediction” differs from a “projection” in the respect that a “prediction” is to the conditional outcome of a “concrete” event of the future for Earth’s climate system while a “projection” is to the conditional outcome of an “abstract” event of the future for Earth’s climate system. Hypothetically, “predictions” would support regulation of Earth’s climate system but the “projections” that are actually made by today’s climate models fail to do so.


    • Ron Clutz · August 12

      terry, you are technically correct, but statements to the public describe future estimates as predictions, and people take them that way. It’s only when there is a legal disclaimer that the notion of projections is revealed.


  3. Angusmac · August 13

    Ron, at the risk of being pedantic, I would suggest that AGW is a hypothesis . It does not have sufficient proof to be elevated to a theory.


    • Ron Clutz · August 13

      Angusmac, you are correct in a technical scientific sense. And yet, despite lack of proof, public opinion has been manipulated to rank it as believable as gravity. What do you call that? A pseudo-scientific theory? Superstition?


  4. oldbrew · August 13

    Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
    Climate has many variables over many timescales. Pretending a few trace gases are all that matter is never going to work.


  5. Ivan · August 13

    “very likely to maybe”


    • Ron Clutz · August 13

      Indeed Ivan, it’s a very soft consensus. The first claim of 97% came from a survey sample of 77 climate scientists who said “Yes” to 2 statements: “It has warmed since 1850.”; “Human activity has contributed to the warming.” That survey questionnaire was deliberately not sent to those known to be skeptical: scientists not employed by government or universities; astronomers; solar scientists; physicists; meteorologists.

      Talking Climate


  6. JB · August 13

    In my science instruction I was taught that theory is the graduation of an hypothesis that has met the muster of multiple independent tests. Most of the references here to theory deserve the classification of unqualified speculation, and don’t make it into the category of hypothesis. We used to call it a working hypothesis, an idea that tended to explain the data, but yet to obtain confirmation of testing. I put the burden of misuse of these words upon the news sector, some of it deliberate, a lot just plain ignorance. The fulcrum of this shift in conceptualization began with the Club of Rome’s 1968 report blaming humanity for global warming, water shortages and drought and similar inventions by non scientific aficionados, spearheaded by the Rockefellers. Today, many prominent scientists still associate degrees with the Kelvin scale, and “lines of force” with magnetic fields. (There are no lines in a field. Just gradients.) People tend to believe hearsay, especially when they feel their knowledge is less reliable than some vociferous “authority.” Add to that the typical human laziness to ferret out the facts, and it has interwoven itself into academia as well as the public’s general understanding.
    It seems to me that the notion of “science is never settled” is also an error, at least a gross misdirection. It is a confusion if not a confounding of scientific methodology and its processes to declare such statements. As was mentioned, some theories lay to rest as technologies built on them proceed unabated. At length some technical snag or impediment may arise which forces a reevaluation and eventual restatement of a theory. It might be better to say that scientific methodology and the theories it produces is quantized.


  7. HiFast · August 17

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s