Why? How could it not? There’s no way the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) could come up with a different answer than it presented. Let’s examine this.

The amount of money invested in “green” technology would have been rendered worthless if their answer was that there is no man-made global warming. In addition, what would happen to the reputation and livelihood of all that have bought into this? Since they are the ones helping drive the train, how could they derail it?

The facts reveal there is plenty of room for doubt, if not outright refutation of this entire debacle. Example: The chart below shows no linkage between CO2 and global temperatures through the ages.

There’s obviously no linkage. That should end it; why would anyone continue on? Yet on they continue.

In recent times, temperatures clearly show the relationship is between the oceans and air, not CO2 and air. The natural warming cycle of the oceans produce a warming of the air until the balance is reached; subsequently, temperatures level off no matter what CO2 is up to.

As the oceans cool, the air will cool – and it has started to the past few years since the Pacific went into its cooler cycle. We have only measured temperatures by satellite since the late 1970s, which was the start of the warming cycle. You can’t run from this chart, or explain it any other way – for if you do, you then argue CO2 is preventing the start of a major downturn that could lead to disastrous cooling. (Note: The solar cycles have some opining that this is on the way regardless, but that’s another story for another time.)

Below is a close-up of temperatures over the last four years since the PDO flipped to cool.

The IPCC claim the missing heat is “hiding” in the ocean. Question: How were you measuring those temperatures 30, 50, 70 or more years ago? Answer: You weren’t – not in the same way you are doing now. So why would you think what you are trying to claim now as evidence has not happened before?

More damming is what Colorado State’s Dr. Bill Gray has explained since the 1970s. His most recent paper predates this “discovery” and details recent events in a perfectly logical and correct fashion.

But the most damming of all is the 3 lines of evidence the EPA used in their endangerment findings, which is being used to destroy a key source of energy to our economic lifeline. Be sure to check it out.

So, confronted with all this, how do you come up with the claim that you’re 95% certain humans are causing … whatever it is they call it now? (I think we’re evolving toward “Carbon Pollution.”) Keep in mind, man-caused global warming and all the other scaremongering titles are meant to cause confusion, which leads to conquering via political agendas.

These are but a few points, and I have discussed many before. The facts are clear for those that will open their eyes. But how can these people that have pushed this then turn around and say, “Oops, sorry, it wasn’t what we thought”? A litany of “The Dog ate my homework” excuses pour forth. When you are right, it’s a reason; when you are wrong, it’s an excuse. But given what is going on, could you expect any other answer?

Citing 97% of scientists – most of them who have never worked in the weather a day in their life where they actually had to produce a product that determined whether they get paid, as we do in the private sector – is deceptive considering over thirty-one thousand degreed scientists, over nine thousand of whom have PHD’s, signed the Oregon Petition rejecting this nonsense. Why don’t we hear about that?

I said this half jokingly, but upon further review I think it’s right: “The IPCC lowered their range of warming after 17 years of no warming, but increased their certainty from 90 to 95%. They simply didn’t take it far enough. Lower the range to no warming, and you can then increase the certainty to 100%.”

I will close with this quote from J Robert Oppenheimer:

> “We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert.”

It’s ironic that a movement that fancies itself as “Progressive” has regressed from those that did more with less, because they searched for truth, not ran from it.

Joe Bastardi is chief forecaster at WeatherBELL Analytics, a meteorological consulting firm.