Al Gore’s timing is pathetic. He is out promoting his wild-eyed, unscientific thoughts on Global Warming as more and more evidence mounts that the man-made Global Warming canard is an incomplete and inaccurate picture. Now we have clear evidence that it is normal for Earth to cylcle between much broader ranges of temperatures than we have seen in modern times, and the Earth has been much warmer than it is today:

DNA of trees, plants and insects including butterflies and spiders from beneath the southern Greenland glacier was estimated to date to 450,000 to 900,000 years ago, according to the remnants retrieved from this long-vanished boreal forest.

That contrasts sharply with the prevailing view that a lush forest of this kind could only have existed in Greenland as recently as 2.4 million years ago, according to a summary of the study, which is published Thursday in the journal Science.

The samples suggest the temperature probably reached 10 degrees C (50 degrees Fahrenheit) in the summer and -17 C (1 F) in the winter.

They also indicated that during the last period between ice ages, 116,000-130,000 years ago, when temperatures were on average 5 C (9 F) higher than now, the glaciers on Greenland did not completely melt away.

This is science – the data shows what it shows and you learn to explain ALL of it without bias towards one type of data or another. You do not go by ‘consensus’ you go by laws of nature. If the world’s scientists one day decided gravity did not exist, it would still be here. Our reality is not open to debate – just denial or understanding. The fact is this world we are on goes through a wide range of temperatures as a natural part of its cycle and we, humans, have been able to adapt and survive for 100’s of thousands of years. In fact, we are the most adaptable animals this planet has ever produced (and we are a PRODUCT of this world, not necessarily an exploiter of it).

We are still exploring the world’s climates. And if you listen to the ‘scientists’ they will tell you that we do not have the knowledge or models to predict climate changes and their drivers:

CLOUDY.” As a metaphor, that is not a bad description of the science of climate forecasting. The general trends are clear, but the details are obscure. As it happens, however, the description is not merely metaphorical—for of all the elements that make up the climate, and have to be accounted for in models of it, it is clouds that are the most obscure.

…

The link Dr Knight is examining, between clouds and what researchers call climate sensitivity (the degree to which a particular input is likely to change the climate), has been apparent for nearly 20 years. But because clouds take different forms at different scales—from microscopic water droplets to weather fronts that span hundreds of kilometres—they are devilishly hard to describe in models that work by manipulating “virtual” chunks of the atmosphere that are 100km (62 miles) across and 100km high.

Only recently have such international undertakings as the Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) and the Cloud System Study of the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment begun a systematic comparison of the effects of clouds on dozens of the most important climate models, allowing researchers to start to unravel more precisely the role that clouds play in climate change. In a recent paper in Climate Dynamics, Mark Webb of Britain’s Hadley Centre for Climate Change and his colleagues reported that clouds account for 66% of the differences between members of one important group of models and for 85% of them in another group.

In other words, they have a lot of work to do to tune their models and deal with clouds and the water cycle. Remember H2O is repsonsible for something like 90% of the green house effect while CO2 is down around 3% (not looking up the actual numbers right now – sorry!). So if you want to understand and effect climate CO2 emissions is not the way to go.

And if you want a scientist’s view on the IIPC and their global warming predictions, the top scientist says they cannot make any predictions at this time – their models are not good enough yet:

In fact, since the last report it is also often stated that the science is settled or done and now is the time for action.

In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios. There are a number of assumptions that go into these emissions scenarios. They are intended to cover a range of possible self consistent “story lines” that then provide decision makers with information about which paths might be more desirable. But they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.

These are ‘what if’ scenarios. They are fiction. Science fiction, but fiction. They take real world elements and put plausible story lines around them by tweaking parameters. They are as factual as the Da Vinci vode. A prediction is what we do when we launch a rocket and predict (with some guidance adjustments) where it will hit the Martian surface. In that instance we use proven laws of physics and engineering to guide are robots to the place we want them to explore. That is not the same level of ‘science’ as in the Global Warming debate. Not even close. And the good scientist from IIPC, Kevin E. Trenberth, is clear on how far off the results of the models are because they are not initiated to reality.

None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models. There is neither an El Niño sequence nor any Pacific Decadal Oscillation that replicates the recent past; yet these are critical modes of variability that affect Pacific rim countries and beyond. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, that may depend on the thermohaline circulation and thus ocean currents in the Atlantic, is not set up to match today’s state, but it is a critical component of the Atlantic hurricanes and it undoubtedly affects forecasts for the next decade from Brazil to Europe. Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors. I postulate that regional climate change is impossible to deal with properly unless the models are initialized.

If you don’t start with reality you don’t end with it. I applaud Dr. Trenberth for his honesty and standing up and communicating to everyone that Global Warming, as presented by the scientifically handicapped Al Gore and News Media, is not a scientific fact but simply some science fiction to show what is possible. When someone says the science is settled run down the major climate drivers listed above and remind that person that NONE of these major features, incuding clouds, is accurately represented in the dire predictions from the Global Warming Industrial Complex.