@lemon lover: I guess you have trouble understanding what my take on climate change is.

FOR THE RECORD:

1) I do not doubt climate change. 2) I do not doubt that humans may impact climate.

In case you are a little slow, I repeat:

1) I do not doubt climate change. 2) I do not doubt that humans may impact climate.

I am sure that nearly 100% of scientists believe climate change is real, occurring now and has been happening for billion years. I agree with them.

I do not doubt humans might affect climate. The issue is how much climate change is due to humans. The Holocene Climate Optimum, a period of warming 9,000 to 5,000 years ago, with mean temperatures above 16 degrees C, had no human component at all.

Currently, climate warming is on a hiatus, now 18 years long, where temperatures have been stable.

Humans are said to generate CO2 which is a greenhouse gas. The major source of CO2 is the oceans. As oceans warm, more CO2 is released in to the atmosphere. As we are still at the end of the last major ice age, the oceans are still warming. CO2 comprises about 0.04% of the atmosphere.

You can find graphs that show a correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2. If the graphs are good quality and both plots are superimposed, the correlation is evident. However, oddly, temperature rise LEADS CO2 rise. This would be inconsistent with the theory that CO2 rise causes temperature rise and would seem to challenge the notion that human generated CO2 is causing warming.

The cosmic ray theory is gaining ground as the CLOUD experiments at the CERN particle accelerator indicate a relationship between cosmic rays and cloud generation. There are graphs which show an inverse correlation between cosmic ray intensity/flux and temperature. Periods of high cosmic ray activity result in an increase in cloud cover which results in lower temperatures.

Other factors affecting climate are the earth’s magnetic field, plate tectonics, volcanoes and El Nino/La Nina.

Those are some of the scientific factors. There are no doubt more.

Climate data has been fed into extremely complex computer models. These models have consistently resulted in predictions of warming, rapid warming and run away warming. Skeptics feel the models faulty. Perhaps they are as not all time series data is accurate or consistent. Historical temperature data, for example, is created using tree ring extrapolations not measured temperatures.

If you have built computerized models for predictive purposes then you know that sensitivity factors are assigned to reflect someone’s estimate what will happen. Therein lies the problem. I have built relatively simple, but still complex for the time and computer power, financial models using forecasts of commodity prices, price/volume relationships, inflation rate forecasts, exchange rate forecasts to forecast revenue streams out 20 years. I have had both magnificent successes and magnificent failures.

In short, I am also a skeptic of computer climate modeling. Or, rather, I am skeptical of the ability the scientists, the data, the assumptions, and the coding. As a ‘professional’ forecaster I refer to forecasts as ‘guesses’ or SWAG.

No climate model predicted the 18 year hiatus in temperature rise. If you google 'climategate' you can fine where actual temperature data was massaged to remove recent temperature declines.

I am not a scientist. I barely understand what they are talking about when it comes to climate change, but, I do understand time series analysis, forecasting methods, curve fitting and regression computations. I am, as our friend Michael puts it, a professional at 'lying with numbers.'

I see scientists creating hypotheses, challenging and being challenged and always seeking truth. Science is never settled. The AGW theory is that, a theory. There is just too much going on in the science to label those who are yet to buy in 'deniers' and ridicule them.

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment. 1970.

Michael: I am curious, as you professionally navigated you career through the trifecta of institutional cesspools, commercial, military, and academia, and found them wracked with massive, persistent and multiple types fraud, widespread plagiarism and saddled with lying, criminal subordinates, just how did you remain a paragon, uncorrupted, untainted, with your head held high? And, how did you manage to do it year after year, position after position, with success and advancement in multiple disciplines?

@Michael What do you mean by "data is banded"?

@Alien the number of scientists who claim climate change doesn't exist is about zero.

The number of scientists who claim humans have NO effect on climate change isn't much higher.

Government sponsored schemes like carbon "cap and trade" which are supposed to lower emissions are supported by the big oil companies. Why?

Alternatives to fossil fuels, wind and solar, are unreliable, inefficient and cost multiples of fossil fuels per energy unit to produce. Only heavy government subsidies bring in investors with higher consumer costs. Why?

The average Joe or Zhou has little real information or choice and must live with what ever governments and energy suppliers want to do. No matter how expensive these non market solutions are the people pay and pay. Why?

The carbon footprint of electric cars is much larger, from manufacture to operation than fossil fueled cars. The batteries pose extreme pollution risks when they are made and after they are replaced. Tesla is going to make batteries in China. Why?

The folks with money and power are creating financial systems and faux markets which add huge costs to consumers but create little value. The California state government turned the electric generation business on its head with result being shortages and higher costs. California also has a form of carbon cap and trade with the cost of a gallon of gas about $2 per gallon higher? Who gets that money?

The U.S. is now a net energy exporter which lowers U.S. domestic costs but the climate change alarmists want to reduce production and drive up costs. Why? Trump wants to increase the federal gas tax. Why?

@Alien, you are the one who sees corporate greed and the rich, like Al Gore sticking it to the rest of us. Yet the global warming crowd, oil companies, corporations, governments and Al Gore want to use dodgy computer models, NOT science, to drive up costs and make more money. Get off your lazy ass, open your eyes and THINK. The Capitalists like climate change.