Please Note: Blog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors.

Global Warming "Science"; What Investors Need To Know, Don't Just Trust The "Experts"

Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts. Science isn't about joining the herd. Science isn't about confirming someone else's work. Science is about looking at the world, looking at the current explanation, deciding that the world is wrong and you are right, and then going out and proving it. In real science the status quo is the null hypothesis to be rejected, not confirmed. Never in my life have I seen scientists going out to prove the null hypothesis is true...except in the field of climate "science." In real science studies are done to reject the null hypothesis, not confirm it. It is called the "scientific method," something people that blindly accept the man made climate change theory apparently know nothing about.

Like medieval inquisitors, supporters of climate change "science" don't debate the issue, they insult, intimidate, smear and ridicule. Real scientists are by nature skeptical, it is a defining characteristic of science. Somehow in Orwellian fashion being a "skeptic" has become an insult, not a merit is climate "science." Skeptics are called "flat earthers," "deniers," and climate "heritics." Skeptics are to be shunned and ignored, and ironically the ones who don't have science on their side.

Conclusion

Climate change skepticism is rooted more in psychology than ecology, and as a result, skeptics and believers tend to talk past each other. Of course, liberal-egalitarian-communitarian males are no less prone to cognitive biases and group-think than conservative-hierarchical-individualistic ones. However, they have science on their side. Skeptics would do well to recognize that while they busy themselves with fearless attacks on the scientific consensus, the rest of the world is moving on.

Me thinkist thou protest too much:

Facts are climate warmists don't have the science on their side, not even close. The tactics used by the "warmists" are more appropriate for playground bullies and Medieval inquisitors than real scientists. Ridicule isn't a debating tactic used by those who can defend their position on the facts, ridicule is a smoke screen to distract from the fact that they can't debate their topic on a scientist basis. I've studied the "science" behind climate change for years, and what I've learned over those years is that people that believe in man made climate change have never bothered to look into the "science" that supports it. Ask any warmist to explain how CO2 can cause climate change if it isn't through warming, and they can't. Ask any warmist almost anything about the "science" behind climate change and you will almost certainly get the answer "there's a scientific consensus." The claim of scientific "consensus" is almost always the universal answer. What that means is that they haven't looked into the "science" and are simply deferring their decision making to a panel of "experts." The belief in climate change isn't about people expressing their opinion on the science after thoughtful consideration, it is about the blind faith in experts.

Among climate scientists, the consensus is even stronger -- 96-98% agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NASDAQ:IPCC) that anthropogenic climate change is a reality with serious consequences that must be addressed (Bray 2010). In a review of 928 abstracts of papers published in refereed journals in 1993-2003, Oreskes 2004 found 75% explicitly or implicitly agreed with the IPCC, 25% were more methodologically oriented and took no position, while not a single one disagreed.

The above quote does more to disprove the conclusions reached by the consensus climate scientists, than to support them. Climate is infinitely complex, far more complex than the S&P 500, and yet when climate scientists model it they all reach the same conclusion? It would be infinitely more likely that all the Wall Street Brokerages agree on the future direction and level of the stock market than being able to reach a "consensus" on an infinitely more complex climate model. We can't even accurately predict the weather one week in the future, and we are being told to trust in models that forecast decades into the future? The very claim demonstrates a hubris on an epic scale. No multivariable forecast model should ever reach a 95% confidence level. There are no computer crystal balls, the statistical modeling capabilities the climate scientists claim simply don't exist. The belief in this 95% confidence claim simply demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge/understanding behind multivariable statistical modeling.

The problem this "95% consensus" claim creates is that 95% is a scientific term with specific scientific meaning. To "reject the null" you typically do so at the "95% confidence level." Scientific studies that are proven valid "reject the null at the 95% confidence level." What that means is that the data mean falls outside the 95% confidence band, or about 2.0 standard deviations. Once the climate "scientists" used the 95% confidence term, they subjected themselves to scientific scrutiny and presented a testable hypothesis. Fortunately the climate "scientists" based their entire theory upon computer models, and those climate models now have a long enough track record to evaluate them.

(click to enlarge)Click to enlarge

The above graphic demonstrates what would never, I repeat never, happen in an objective science, especially when modeling something with countless variables and infinite complexity. What the above graphic proves isn't scientific evidence of warming, it proves to the 95% confidence level that there is an undeniable group think systemic bias in climate "science." 88 and 86 out of 90 IPCC computer models overstated estimated temperatures, some by as much as 0.8 degrees C. Those kinds of findings and models are what deserves ridicule, not those pointing out the obvious fact that this is junk science on a monumental scale.

I can say this is junk science because I am very familiar with junk science, almost any analyst that has ever taken econometrics is. In order to create a good model you have to run certain tests to ensure your model is a "BLUE" model, best linear unbiased estimator. The other thing you are taught is how to cheat with statistics, and identify flaws and fraud in models and results. Financial analysts are very skilled in these statistical techniques, in fact that is how they could have caught Bernie Maydoff. In a normal science you establish a hypothesis, define a model, identify the variables, collect the data and then test the data. The key is, the hypothesis, model and variables are consistent with a unique and independently reached theory and specified in advance of testing. That isn't done in climate "science," the above graphic proves it. Climate science starts with a conclusion, CO2 causes warming, and then works backwards. It is science in reverse.

Bernie Madoff said his performance was roughly seven and half times better than the stock index he pretended to be benchmarking himself against. If you're seven times better, two things can be true: One, you're a fraud. Or two, you're an alien from outer space and have perfect foreknowledge of the capital markets. Bernie's performance line also went up at a 45-degree angle. In finance, there's no such thing. If you see a 45-degree angle, either you're in the middle of a speculative bubble and it's going to end badly, or fraud is present.

The best example I can give is my own econometrics class. Assume the professor instructed the class to model the S&P 500. Every student would then use their own ideas to independently and objectively develop a unique model of the S&P 500. I think my model was that the S&P 500 was a function of GDP growth rate, interest rates and current earnings yield. I had different weights on them and I think I lagged one of them as well. No one else in the class developed that exact same model, and for good reason, my model was awful. I wasn't going to hand is an awful model so I "cheated." I took a large number of datasets and ran a function called "proc stepwise." The computer then ran countless tests to find the best model for me. It basically was the scientific method in reverse. The computer identified the most significant variables and even assigned weights to them. The problem is, there was no model, there was no theory, all I did was "fit a curve." I could have modeled the S&P 500 on data sets measuring the time to takes to chug a beer, estimates of the number of jelly beans in a jar and height of trees in a forest and the computer would have found me the best model. That is how junk science is performed.

Clearly what has happened with the IPCC climate models is that they all shared ideas and data sets and "fit a curve." That is how you get almost all of them to error in the same direction, and follow almost identical patterns. While I don't have access to the actual models I'd bet all of them greatly overestimate the role of CO2, and left out obvious significant variables. What they have done is manipulate them to make an insignificant variable far more significant than it is. That is how you get models to be so far off. An example would be doing a study on weight-loss. Clearly you would have caloric intake and exercise as the most significant variables, but if you are doing the study to sell exercise shoes, you would include dollars spent on exercise shoes, and "fit a curve" based upon the historical data. You would do everything possible to manipulate the data so the computer picks dollars spent on exercise shoes as the most significant variable.

In the exercise model example you would run the 3 data sets and get a model like weight-loss = 0.48xcaloric intake + 0.48xexercise + 0.04xmoney spent on shoes + error. The problem is 0.04 won't make the case that spending money on exercise shoes will cause you to lose weight. What you would then do is "squeeze the balloon" and drop some of the significant variables and add in some variables less significant than spending money on exercise shoes like the average price of gasoline and number of commercials per hour during prime time. If you play with the numbers and data sets enough you get what is called an "underspecified or misspecified model" that is lacking major significant explanatory variables, but has a much higher coefficient on the variable you want to have the greatest weight. The model is 100% pure garbage, but you can use it to claim that spending money of exercise shoes can "cause" you to lose weight at the 95% confidence level.

The problem is that fraudulent tactic works great on historical data. It is easy to fit a curve to static historical data sets. The problem with that tactic is that once you generate the model and assign coefficients to the variables future data gets inputted that wasn't used to generate the garbage model. Suddenly the tightly fitting model breaks down on an epic scale, and the estimate it predicts is no where near reality. That is exactly what has happened with the climate models. I'm pretty sure if congress ever does an investigation into the IPCC models, they will find CO2 having a relatively large coefficient, and other variables like solar input and water vapor either missing from the models or the data deliberately "massaged" to make CO2 more important. They will also find that the temperature data set is lagged, when in reality CO2 should be lagged. The climate models also reverse the independent and dependent variables of CO2 and temperature. A fatal flaw in any model, not matter how much money you pour into building it. The results will always be garbage. I smoke and then I develop lung cancer, no model showing lung cancer causes smoking will ever pass rigorous scientific scrutiny...unless it is in climate science...at least for now.

That is how you get a consensus of 95% of climate scientists to agree on models that have been rejected at the 95% confidence level. By accepting a theory based upon rejected models, climate science is proving it is an anti-science, where up is down and in is out. You simply don't find such Orwellian absurdities anywhere in fields of math and science except maybe the sociology department of a University. Accepting a rejected theory as its foundation makes a complete mockery of science.

Generally a hypotheses stands up to scrutiny if it falls within a 95% range of confidence. When it falls outside that boundary, it is not viewed as being valid.

The image at the right depicts the problem with the models as it stands. On the horizontal axis is a 20 year period between 2000 and 2020. As you can see, the actual temperature anomalies fall well outside the 95% boundaries the climate models predict. Please see our slideshow for a larger and easier to read version of the graph.

(Image Source)

Here is another source covering the same story.

One last source on this topic. The man behind this graphic is the man who brought down the "hockey stick" chart.

I won't delve into the "hockey stick" chart, but I assure you it is a piece of garbage. It erased the medieval warming period and little ice age, and used amateurish statistical techniques to generate a temperature spike in the last 100 years. Worst of all however is that the "hockey stick" replaced a chart in the original IPCC report that did accurately represent past temperatures.

(click to enlarge)Click to enlarge

Orwellian statistical gimmicks however aren't new to climate "science," and some border upon outright fraud. I can say that only because the leaked "climategate" e-mails allowed skeptics to look behind the curtain and our worst nightmares were confirmed. Climate scientists openly colluded on "objective" research and shamefully discussed ways to manipulate data like "Mike's nature trick" and how to "hide the decline." Worst of all it exposed the half-truth nature that defines climate "science." If you search the climategate emails for "sublimation Lonnie Thompson glaciers" you will find this little nugget of a smoking gun.

I've heard Lonnie Thompson talk about the Kilimanjaro core and he got some local temperatures - that we don't have access to, and there was little warming in them. The same situation applies for Quelccaya in Peru and also some of his Tibet sites. Lonnie thinks they are disappearing because of sublimation, but he can't pin anything down. They are going though.

The Mt Killimanjaro glacier is at 19, 340 ft, 5,000 ft above the freeze line, and it never gets above freezing. Glaciers don't "melt" in sub-zero temperatures. The most influential climate "scientists" are all aware of that, and yet they continue to perpetuate the great lie that Mt Killimanjaro's glacier is a victim of global warming. No honorable field of "science" would allow this lie to persist, and people that choose to overlook such systemic dishonesty are simply being willfully gullible and mislead. Think money doesn't play into this? Send the above linked article to the President of The Ohio State University, home of the Byrd Polar Research Center and past employer of Dr Lonnie Thompson and watch what happens. Nothing. I know, I've done it, at least to the past President. I don't know what the new President would do, but will find out.

The reason climate "scientists" rely on statistical nonsense and bully tactics like ridicule and insults is because the entire foundation of their "science" is garbage and they have to discourage people from looking behind the curtain. This entire "global warming" movement is a government manufactured effort to raise money through carbon related taxes. It is the ideal way to siphon money off "big oil, gas and coal." Voters won't vote for higher taxes, but they will vote to save the earth and polar bears. That is why the entire focus is on a relatively weak trace greenhouse gas called carbon dioxide.

The problem the climate "scientists" have with pinning their entire theory on carbon dioxide is that atmospheric absorption of infrared radiation or IR by greenhouse gases is a logarithmic, not linear relationship. The greenhouse gas effect is like painting a window with black paint. The first coat blocks out a whole lot of light, but every coat afterwards blocks less and less light. Once CO2 reaches 100 parts per million or PPM it pretty much has saturated the atmosphere's absorption of the IR spectrum related to CO2. This following chart demonstrates the atmospheric absorption by CO2 at 100 PPM related to a blackbodies of different temperatures. The pocket of absorption at 15 nm or wave number 667 is the atmospheric absorption by CO2.

I overlapped the identical graph with CO2 at 1,000 PPM and highlighted the difference in absorption in red.

The difference is almost negligible for a 10x increase in atmospheric CO2. Currently atmospheric CO2 is 400 PPM. This following chart demonstrates the impact on atmospheric absorption by a 2.5x increase in the level of atmospheric CO2 to 1,000 PPM. Increasing atmospheric CO2 from 400 PPM to 1,000 PPM increases atmospheric absorption by about 1.76% tops, and that ignores that the widening of the CO2 absorption band expands into the areas absorbed by other green house gases.

(click to enlarge)Click to enlarge

The other problem CO2 has is that it absorbs IR at 15 microns and the earth emits radiation at 10 microns. The earth is about 18 degrees C and 15 microns is consistent with a blackbody temperature of -80 degree C. The vast majority of the earth's radiation simply passes through the "atmospheric window." The only major green house gas that absorbs IR in the "atmospheric window" is ozone, and ironically we have been deliberately trying to increase ozone by banning CFCs. This graphic found in atmospheric physics text books highlights how earth's radiation essentially misses CO2's absorption bands, and what is absorbed by CO2 is consistent with sub-zero temperatures. It is kind of hard to "melt" things when you are trapping heat that is -80 degree C. You are more likely to get freezer burn than melting. This chart also proves global warming has absolutely nothing to do with hotter daytime temperatures. Visible radiation passes right through the greenhouse gases. That is why it reaches the earth and turns our driveways into frying pans. Hotter daytime temperatures is evidence of a hotter sun and cleaner clearer skies, not greenhouse gas caused global warming or climate change.

Other facts people need to consider is that sea level increases by mm's per year, and the rate of sea level increase has not been increasing. Like global temperatures sea levels have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. Right now sea level is increasing at about 3.2 mm/yr which is about the average of the last 100 years.

Climate change is the normal condition for earth, an earth without climate change is unknown for the past 600k years. Al Gore's own chart proves that. His chart also proves temperatures have been much warmer in the last 600k years than they are today, and that the "hockey stick" isn't consistent with ice core records. Just look at the chart Al Gore uses in his movie, it looks like a saw blade. There isn't a single period when climate isn't changing, and current temperatures are well below previous peaks. The good thing for Al Gore is that it appears people attending his events seem to know less about science and interpreting charts than he does. His own chart debunks his own theory and he does this in front of live audiences and no one ever utters a peep. Additionally, his chart also proves CO2 lags temperatures it doesn't lead temperatures. Al Gore confuses his independent and dependent variables, a major statistical flaw in these models.

The CO2 concentration has also been much much much higher in the past, and temperatures never really get above 22 degrees C. The CO2 level has been 7,000 PPM without catastrophic warming, and earth fell into an ice age when CO2 was 4,000 PPM, or 10x the level it is today. Additionally, this chart raises the question, what triggers the warming that brings the earth out of ice age? CO2 doesn't suddenly bubble up from solid ice, CO2 only gets produced once the oceans warm and life begins to grow. Something other than CO2 must cause the warming coming out of ice ages.

The slope or rate of warming has actually been decreasing, and has been flat for the last 15 years. Temperatures increased less in the last 60 years than they did the 60 year prior, yet CO2 is much higher.

One other huge flaw in the "climate change" theory is that temperatures really aren't changing that much. The problem is that ground temperature measurements have all sorts of problems, and are biased upwards. The best measurements we have for temperature other than satellite are the temperature measurements over areas of the globe where there isn't a lot of interference from items on the ground. That is the mid and Southern part of the globe. That is highlighted by this chart showing the various temperature trends based upon latitude. Unlike the Northern Hemisphere, the Low and Southern Latitudes show a mild, gradual increase in temperatures, and they actually look as if the slope is starting to decrease.

Satellite measurements look a lot like the Southern Latitudes, and not at all like the Northern Hemisphere measurements.

(click to enlarge)Click to enlarge

Here is the notorious "Hockey Stick" graph. Continuous thermometer measurement have been taken in some locations since 1659, yet thermometer data wasn't included until 1902.

Think losing Arctic sea ice is new? Think again.

(click to enlarge)Click to enlarge

(click to enlarge)Click to enlarge

(click to enlarge)Click to enlarge

(click to enlarge)Click to enlarge

I could go on and on and on about how flawed the statistics, data, methods, results and conclusions are of the "consensus" scientists, but I think I've made my point. If you want more you can read this instablog post.

Climate science is the manifestation of what President Eisenhower warned society about in his farewell address. He warned of an "intellectual elite" that would abuse their power, and that in a nutshell is what climate "science" is all about. Political activists masquerading as "scientists" have used their respected positions to push a political agenda. Few things in history have a more horrifying record than the politicization of science, and everyone should be concerned when "science" is used to promote political objectives. Policy should reflect the science, science should not reflect the policy.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

In conclusion; many investment theories are based upon global warming and climate change. I write about investment opportunities created by the EPA's RFS2 all the time. Anytime the Federal Government directs almost unlimited resources at an industry there will be profits to be made, in fact the EPA's RFS2 is intended to guarantee profits are to be made in certain industries. That is the whole purpose of the RIN market/mechanism. Investors however shouldn't allow the profit opportunities to blind themselves from the fact that these investment opportunities are complete houses of cards that can disappear after a single election. The "science" that supports the man made climate change theories make a mockery of real science, and eventually the truth will be exposed. Climate change science is a modern day "Piltdown Man," and represents the worst of science and the corrupting influence of political bias. Basing investment decisions upon junk science may not be a sound long-term investment strategy. Lastly, I encourage readers to forward this article to anyone that claims there is a "consensus" in the field of climate "science." I'd appreciate getting some rebuttals to the challenges I've raised other than "there's a consensus." This article is an opportunity for people that truly believe in the "science" supporting the "consensus" conclusions to prove to the world that they understand and can defend the science, and that skeptics like myself are wrong. Please, people that write articles and recommend investments based upon the "science" of global warming, prove me wrong, I triple dog dare you. You owe it to the investment community to prove you know what you are talking about.

Disclaimer: This article is not an investment recommendation or solicitation. Any analysis presented in this article is illustrative in nature, is based on an incomplete set of information and has limitations to its accuracy, and is not meant to be relied upon for investment decisions. Please consult a qualified investment advisor. The information upon which this material is based was obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but has not been independently verified. Therefore, the author cannot guarantee its accuracy. Any opinions or estimates constitute the author's best judgment as of the date of publication, and are subject to change without notice. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. For my full disclaimer and disclosure, click here.

Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it. I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.