In an earlier article entitled, "Science or Religion," I offered the view that belief in the theory of the climate changing for the worst has become so adamant and vicious as to be almost religious in nature. They even have a term, 'climate deniers,' as a designation for anybody who dares question the data behind their claims.

My own issue with the ten commandments of climate change is that they appear to based on the output of computer models rather than real world research and fact-finding. This morning the Commentator reveals that, "Despite a 20 percent increase in atmospheric CO2, and model predictions to the contrary, sea ice in the Antarctic has expanded for decades. Such observations are in direct opposition to the model-based predictions of the IPCC. This should give pause for thought about climate alarmism in general." In the context of the colder places on earth, there was an ad campaign some time ago in support of the climate change theory and it depicted a polar bear at sea, (because he had no ice to plod around on anymore), and the implication was that this mighty beast was literally drowning because we are spewing CO2 at his habitat. 

Another paper refuting this came from anthropologists who had studied polar bears on the ice for years. They reported seeing single bears swimming up to sixty miles in a single stretch, (well I did say they were mighty beasts). So a lone polar bear drowning is probably due to natural causes like old age or illness. 

But computer models of how the future will look are a dangerous premise for basing world policy. The core laws of computing haven't changed and it is still true that if you feed bullshit in one end of your PC/Mainframe today, it will still spit bullshit out the other end tomorrow. In each research project the computer researcher must decide in advance the 'parameters' to feed in before running the program. A parameter is a numerical or other measurable factor forming one of a set that defines a system or sets the conditions of its operation or a quantity whose value is selected for the particular circumstances and in relation to which other variable quantities may be expressed. The one who selects the 'values' is the person who determines what the machine will output. Change a value up or down and you get a different answer. And you can run a computer model as often as you like until it gives you the answer you want. Inflate one number, deflate another and Bob's your uncle. And because the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), will not submit their climate models for independent scrutiny, we cannot verify how they got the answers they claim to have gotten. They will not say what values they are using. That makes me, for one suspicious.

This is phrased better by this morning's article where they say, "For those who utilize and trust in the scientific method, forming policy (especially multi-trillion dollar policies!) on the basis of what could or might happen in the future seems imprudent." They point out that, "Given the fact that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased by 20 percent over the past four decades, evidence of sea ice decline should be evident in the observational data if such model predictions are correct." But the opposite has been happening over the last forty years. Observers on the ice and those looking at historical satellite photos are seeing the ice cap grow year on year while the IPCC computers are telling the public that the ice is shrinking. News items on TV regularly show ice cliffs falling into the sea but what they don't add is that this happens every summer down there. Come autumn though the ice builds up again as the surrounding sea begins to freeze and when full winter hits, this intensifies. By winter's end then the area of ice is larger than the previous year. 

The reason for this as they explain is that, "Thanks to a recent paper in the Journal of Climate by Josefino Comiso and colleagues, we now know what’s driving the increase in sea-ice down there. It’s — wait for it — cooling temperatures over the ocean surrounding Antarctica." So the ice sheet is growing thanks to the oceans around it getting colder and yet the computer models from the IPCC predicted a multi-model average decrease of between 16 and 67 percent in the summer and 8 to 30 percent in the winter in the ice by the end of the century. One crowd are measuring in real time on the ground for many years while the other lot are warm and safe in their offices running computer models of what is not happening. 

Where does that leave the rest of us though? The crowd with the bigger budget are frantically concealing their data and values and assuring us all that we are doomed if we don't give them even more money. The other crowd are looking at the real world facts dispassionately and concluding that it is not true. Who are the real scientists here and who are the religious faithful?