No, I don’t celebrate Earth Day, or as my wife puts it – we have different religious beliefs. We certainly believe that mankind has the stewardship to look after the earth, but we don’t worship the creation more than the Creator. And that is what Earth Day and the overall green movement has become over the years.

I will make the prediction that people at Earth Day rallies will talk about the evils of man-made climate change. And you will probably also read news stories about the need of a carbon tax or cap and trade tax to limit the amount of CO2 mankind emits each year. These are easy predictions because Earth Day celebrants and the green movement have been calling for taxes on CO2 for years, when they aren’t too busy selling carbon indulgences. But CO2 isn’t an evil pollution that needs to be controlled, but it is necessary plant food. You could call CO2 the magic gas that makes plants grow.

The supporters of global warming climate change have been riding high on the wave of popularity and prestige for years, especially since their patron saint, former Vice President Al Gore, got an Oscar for his documentary *snicker* “An Inconvenient Truth.” But the last few years have been pretty rocky for them. More and more scientists and concerned people have been questioning the data underlying the “settled science” of global warming climate change, but with the hacking of the emails and data from East Anglia, there has been a sea change. From their own emails and data, we now know that the science is far from settled. Visit Jo Nova’s site to get an idea of what Climategate has opened up. Here are two of my favorite points:

  • The Climategate emails confirmed that the science itself was suspect. That the doomsayers themselves couldn’t make the data work. That they were debating among themselves some of the same points that the sceptics raised, and were privately acknowledging that they didn’t have answers to the issues that the sceptics raised.
  • The Climategate emails confirmed that the doomsayers were so determined to hide their data from inquiring minds that they were prepared to break the law to hide it – and did break the law – by avoiding Freedom of Information requests.

These are not the actions of scientists seeking the truth. These are the actions of fanatic faithful struggling to suppress the attacks on their faith. The science behind global warming climate change is far from settled. And when the science doesn’t back up the believers, they are left to rely on their faith. I am not a global warming climate change believer, so on this Earth Day, I’ll be putting my faith in God, the Creator of earth, rather than worshipping His handiwork.

I’m not Catholic, so I don’t celebrate Lent or the practice of abstaining from meat on Friday. I’m not Jewish, so I don’t observe kosher laws. I’m not Muslim, so I don’t bow to Mecca five times a day to pray. And I’m not Green, so I don’t bother with Earth Hour or Earth Day. I’m not saying that these religious observances are bad, but since I’m not part of any of these faiths, their practices don’t apply to me.

And yes, being Green, in the capitalized sense of the word, is a religious observance with its own practices like Earth Day and Earth Hour. These high holy days of the Greens celebrate their deity, the earth. And in the case of Earth Hour, it is a celebration of self-denial similar to that of Lent as they turn off their lights for the span of one hour. Why bother with the 40 days of self-denial of Lent when you can feel the glow of self-righteousness with just one hour’s effort? So being Green is not only a religion, it’s a smug religion. How can I believe otherwise when the meaningless effort of turning off the lights for one hour is one of the central tenets of the faith? It is a literal plunging from light into darkness and done in a way that shows off one’s participation to others.

But not everyone who participates in Earth Hour does so out of religious fervor. Some people participate because of peer pressure, while others do so out of an attempt to curry favor with the faithful. They fear the backlash that may occur if they don’t participate visibly.

I’m not Green, so I don’t bother with Earth Hour. My friend calls it “Human Achievement Hour,” and he celebrates by turning on all his lights and basking in the glow of human achievement. That’s the kind of observance I can agree with because I believe in the power of human beings to make their lives better and rise above the limitations of a primitive existence.

Watch the following Earth Hour video, and tell me you don’t see the religious fervor in the faces of the faithful. This is clearly a missionary effort to reach out to the unbelieving.

“Do it for global warming.” And ignore that more and more evidence is coming out that human-caused global warming is bunk.

October 24th is the International Day of Climate Action. You may hear people in the news, the ‘Net or around you talking about how we need to drop from our current CO2 level of about 390 parts per million down to 350 ppm, their magic number for a happy-happy earth. But it seems I have heard that number somewhere before. Anyway, is the site driving this orgy of activism, and the website has some information about their purpose:

What does the number 350 mean?
350 is the most important number in the world–it’s what scientists say is the safe upper limit for carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Two years ago, after leading climatologists observed rapid ice melt in the Arctic and other frightening signs of climate change, they issued a series of studies showing that the planet faced both human and natural disaster if atmospheric concentrations of CO2 remained above 350 parts per million.

Everyone from Al Gore to the U.N.’s top climate scientist has now embraced this goal as necessary for stabilizing the planet and preventing complete disaster. Now the trick is getting our leaders to pay attention and craft policies that will put the world on track to get to 350.

Is 350 scientifically possible?
Right now, mostly because we’ve burned so much fossil fuel, the atmospheric concentration of co2 is 390 ppm—that’s way too high, and it’s why ice is melting, drought is spreading, forests are dying. To bring that number down, the first task is to stop putting more carbon into the atmosphere. That means a very fast transition to sun and wind and other renewable forms of power. If we can stop pouring more carbon into the atmosphere, then forests and oceans will slowly suck some of it out of the air and return us to safe levels.

Is 350 politically possible?
It’s very hard. It means switching off fossil fuel much more quickly than governments and corporations have been planning. Our best chance to speed up that process will come in December in Copenhagen, when the world’s nations meet to agree on a new climate treaty. Right now, theyOctober 23, 2009re not planning to do enough. But we can change that–if we mobilize the world to swift and bold climate action, which is what we’re planning to do on October 24th.

Evil CO2 will melt the ice at the poles, spread drought, kill forests, drown polar bears, flood the coasts, and shave your head while you sleep. But the inconvenient truth is that there have been times when the CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been significantly higher than today. For example, during the Jurassic period CO2 levels were 3.5 to 5 times higher than now. If only Al Gore had presented his PowerPoint slides to the T Rex, they might be still be alive and staring in Jurassic Park IV: The Quest for Global Climate Change Control.

I can’t get all worked up about global warming climate change like the Chicken Littles of Earth is doomed, Doomed, DOOMED! they say, unless Al Gore stops flying around the world like a hummingbird on crack. Hah, just kidding. Al Gore can blow out tons of CO2 gallivanting around the globe for he is the Oscar One. The rest of us have to cut back, as explained in one comment on Etsy:

Small changes in your daily domestic routine can have a huge impact, i.e. lower thermostat temp, turning out lights when leaving a room, hanging laundry to dry, hand washing dishes, and not using a microwave. Simple conservation yields a noticeable difference in the electric & heating bills, too!

While it is true that small changes may have an impact on our own bills, it will have a negligible impact on the CO2 of the world. To have a major impact on CO2, the whole world needs to undergo massive changes. explains their mission: “the solutions to climate change must be equitable, they must be grounded in science, and they must meet the scale of the crisis.”

I can guarantee that the mission statement will fail in all three parts. Any solutions proposed by governments in Copenhagen this year will not be equitable, but will be heavily weighted on the U.S. and Europe. There is science showing that the earth has been cooling, not heating, in the last decade, and the actions proposed will be far more disastrous than allowing global warming climate change to proceed unchecked.

If reducing the CO2 in the atmosphere were truly critical, it could be easily solved with three steps: electricity is turned off, fossil fuels are unused, and everyone lives like the Amish. You better not be living in a large city, because the lack of electricity and fossil fuels will make transporting food from farms much slower than it is now. If the whole earth turned to an Amish lifestyle, we would have a massive die-off. But that’s OK, since a massive reduction in humanity would mean less CO2 being produced.

And that’s the goal for climate change fanatics, right?

Ready for a little Shakespeare? Good! I knew you would be.

In Act IV at the end of Scene III of Shakespeare’s play, The Taming of the Shrew, Petruchio tells Katharina, his recent bride, that they will soon leave for Padua (hooray!)1 and visit her father there. “Let’s see; I think ’tis now some seven o’clock, And well we may come there by dinner-time.” Katharina replies, “I dare assure you, sir, ’tis almost two; And ’twill be supper-time ere you come there.” In indignation at being corrected, Petruchio refuses to go:

“It shall be seven ere I go to horse:
Look, what I speak, or do, or think to do,
You are still crossing it. Sirs, let’t alone:
I will not go to-day; and ere I do,
It shall be what o’clock I say it is.”

To this Hortensio says to the audience, “Why, so this gallant will command the sun.”

In other news, the BBC posted the following news from the G8 summit:

Developed and developing nations have agreed that global temperatures should not rise more than 2C above 1900 levels, a G8 summit declaration says.

That is the level above which, the UN says, the Earth’s climate system would become dangerously unstable.

In other other news, the G8 summit agreed that there should be only five hurricanes this year, the tides should go out only and not back in, and earthquakes are right out.

OK, so I made up the last bit, but the members are as likely to be listened to by the forces of nature in my “other other” news as they are to command the climate and be obeyed. They are laboring under the mistaken idea that CO2 is the driving force behind global warming when the #1 cause of global warming is, of course, the sun.

Why, so these gallants will command the sun.


1 In the 1976 version of The Taming of the Shrew (my favorite production), everyone in the cast cheers each time someone mentions the name of the city of Padua (hooray!).

At 8:30pm today, people panicking over the concept of climate change proposed pulling the plug for an hour. I have a simple response — Screw you, hippies! I’m running my dryer!

Earth Hour, as this is called, is a meaningless bit of feel-goodery with the goal of raising awareness of global warming climate change. In actuality, it will accomplish little. Those who are already in the camp of human-caused climate change will not have their feelings changed. And those of us who don’t buy the propaganda will likewise not have our position changed.

I heard a brief sound bite on the radio that astounded me. Here’s what it was as best I can remember:

“The science is settled. Global warming is real. Humans are causing it, and we can fix it.”

Boy howdy, talk about whoppers! First, the science is far from settled. Science is never settled. Second, the Earth has cooled off after decades of warming up. If you have noticed, the warning cries of evil global warming have morphed into the bête noire of climate change, which is so much more useful. Whether the global temperature goes up or down, they may point to the change and proclaim their prediction of global climate change have come true. Third, if you think that climate change is caused by mankind’s actions, particularly CO2, then check out the following greenhouse gases graphic:

Greenhouse gases

So, 3.4% of 3.62% of 2% of the Earth’s atmosphere is human-caused CO2. Doing the math, that comes up to slightly more than 0.002% of the Earth’s atmosphere is human-caused CO2. Tell me again, how are we responsible for the Earth’s warming up when our CO2 comprises two thousandths of a percent of the atmosphere? That’s a single penny out of fifty dollars. It doesn’t make sense that that 0.002% of greenhouse gases is the cause of global climate change when CO2 levels have been much higher in the past. Humanity isn’t the cause of global warming; the cause is the sun. To believe that mankind is the cause of global warming is to fall prey to a combination of ignorance and hubris.

And fourth, since humanity isn’t the cause of global warming (or global cooling), then there isn’t any need for humanity to fix that which humanity isn’t causing.

But let’s turn off our lights for an hour in a meaningless gesture to ask for a useless fix for a problem we aren’t even causing. Yeah, that’s really important.

Ready for some happy-happy joy-joy news from the media? Food prices are on the rise, and it’s thanks to global climate change. And as is typical with these stories, the poor are affected most. Here are three paragraphs from the article outlining the upswing in prices:

The U.S. is wrestling with the worst food inflation in 17 years, and analysts expect new data due on Wednesday to show it’s getting worse. That’s putting the squeeze on poor families and forcing bakeries, bagel shops and delis to explain price increases to their customers.

U.S. food prices rose 4 percent in 2007, compared with an average 2.5 percent annual rise for the last 15 years, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. And the agency says 2008 could be worse, with a rise of as much as 4.5 percent.

Higher prices for food and energy are again expected to play a leading role in pushing the government’s consumer price index higher for March.

The increase in energy costs is easy to explain. With oil past $100 a barrel, gas and diesel prices also rise, and this translates into increasing food costs. But what’s up with the food price increase?

Still, the higher U.S. prices seem eye-popping after years of low inflation. Eggs cost 25 percent more in February than they did a year ago, according to the USDA. Milk and other dairy products jumped 13 percent, chicken and other poultry nearly 7 percent.

USDA economist Ephraim Leibtag explained the jumps in a recent presentation to the Food Marketing Institute, starting with the factors everyone knows about: sharply higher commodity costs for wheat, corn, soybeans and milk, plus higher energy and transportation costs.

The other reasons are more complex. Rapid economic growth in China and India has increased demand for meat there, and exports of U.S. products, such as corn, have set records as the weak dollar has made them cheaper. That’s lowered the supply of corn available for sale in the U.S., raising prices here. Ethanol production has also diverted corn from dinner tables and into fuel tanks.

Soybean prices have gone up as farmers switched more of their acreage to corn. Drought in Australia has even affected the price of bread, as it led to tighter global wheat supplies.

We have increased demand as the rising population and affluence of nations fuels their desire for better food. After eating too many mystery meat curries or stir-fried rat dishes, I’m not surprised that India and China are clamoring for American meat. But increased demand from overseas isn’t sufficient to push up the prices by itself; we also have diminished grain supplies as arable land for food crops is being diverted to grow fodder for biofuels.

The New York Times recently printed an article about the increase in food costs because of the biofuels push:

The idea of turning farms into fuel plants seemed, for a time, like one of the answers to high global oil prices and supply worries. That strategy seemed to reach a high point last year when Congress mandated a fivefold increase in the use of biofuels.

But now a reaction is building against policies in the United States and Europe to promote ethanol and similar fuels, with political leaders from poor countries contending that these fuels are driving up food prices and starving poor people. Biofuels are fast becoming a new flash point in global diplomacy, putting pressure on Western politicians to reconsider their policies, even as they argue that biofuels are only one factor in the seemingly inexorable rise in food prices.

In some countries, the higher prices are leading to riots, political instability and growing worries about feeding the poorest people. Food riots contributed to the dismissal of Haiti’s prime minister last week, and leaders in some other countries are nervously trying to calm anxious consumers.

Ethanol supporters maintain that any increase caused by biofuels is relatively small and that energy costs and soaring demand for meat in developing countries have had a greater impact. “There’s no question that they are a factor, but they are really a smaller factor than other things that are driving up prices,” said Ron Litterer, an Iowa farmer who is president of the National Corn Growers Association.

He said biofuels were an “easy culprit to blame” because their popularity had grown so rapidly in the last two or three years.

Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, called the recent criticism of ethanol by foreign officials “a big joke.” He questioned why they were not also blaming a drought in Australia that reduced the wheat crop and the growing demand for meat in China and India.

“You make ethanol out of corn,” he said. “I bet if I set a bushel of corn in front of any of those delegates, not one of them would eat it.”

You can also make animal feed, tortillas, polenta, cornbread, and the chips for dipping into a nice fresh salsa I like to make in the summer, so ethanol isn’t the only thing you make out of corn. As for the Senator’s comment about the delegates refusing to eat a bushel of corn placed before them, the majority of corn grown in the U.S. is the field or dent variety, which is not meant to be eaten fresh, but is ground into cornmeal after it is dried. The Senator from Iowa should know that. His comment is both silly and insulting.

We have rising food prices because of increased demand on the existing supply of grains, and a large demand comes from the people clamoring that we turn our corn into ethanol to replace gas. If you have a bushel of corn, you can choose either to turn it into food–tortillas, cornbread, animal feed–or into ethanol. You can’t use the same bushel twice. So increased demand for ethanol translates into less corn available for food consumption, which in turn means more expensive tortillas and corn-fed beef.

And now I get around to the title of my article. Fear of global climate change is prompting the calls for more biofuels, which is increasing the cost of food stocks like corn and anything else that uses corn, so global climate change is the cause of rising food prices.

When I hear the naysayers like former Vice President Al Gore moaning and wringing their hands over the over-hyped crisis of global climate change and how we need to change our lifestyle to save the planet, I didn’t realize that part of their proposed change would adversely punish the poor by jacking up the cost of the very food they need to live.

Frankly, I’d rather eat corn than burn it in my car.

Just in case you have missed some of the news coming out of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, we are all gonna die! Here are some of the news articles about this report:

A world dying, but can we unite to save it?

Humanity is rapidly turning the seas acid through the same pollution that causes global warming, the world’s governments and top scientists agreed yesterday. The process – thought to be the most profound change in the chemistry of the oceans for 20 million years – is expected both to disrupt the entire web of life of the oceans and to make climate change worse.

UN Panel Gives Dire Warming Forecast

Global warming is “unequivocal” and carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere commits the world to an eventual rise in sea levels of up to 4.6 feet, the world’s top climate experts warned Saturday in their most authoritative report to date.

U.N. Report Describes Risks of Inaction on Climate Change

In its final and most powerful report, a United Nations panel of scientists meeting here describes the mounting risks of climate change in language that is both more specific and forceful than its previous assessments, according to scientists here.

U.N. report: Global warming accelerating, suffering, species extinction ahead

The Earth is hurtling toward a warmer climate at a quickening pace, a Nobel-winning U.N. scientific panel said in a landmark report released Saturday, warning of inevitable human suffering and the threat of extinction for some species.

Yep, Earth is going to Hell in a handbasket, and it’s all your fault!

Or not, but it certainly makes for great headlines. And as race-baiting poverty pimp Jesse Jackson could tell you, managing a crisis (rather than solving it) is like minting your own money. Plus, when you are in crisis mode, it’s possible to make statements to stifle the opposing forces. Chest-thumping statements that “the debate is over” serve only to shut up actual debate because this is not settled science. Here’s a good example of this type of rhetoric:

The debate is over: global warming is real and the scientific consensus identifies human-caused greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, as the primary cause.

They take a statement that is factual and provable: “global warming is real,” and mix it with a statement that is pure speculation: “the scientific consensus identifies human-caused greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, as the primary cause.” I’ll ask again — what is the primary cause of global warming? The answer is the sun, but you will get dirty looks and angry responses when you point that out to people. It is undeniable that gases like carbon dioxide and methane certainly help in helping keep the heat from the sun here with us, but they are not the primary greenhouse gases. Water vapor is the greatest in overall amount and effect.

And it is propaganda because, despite all the rhetoric, the theory of anthropogenic climate change is not settled science yet. The first question that needs to be answered is whether the Earth really is warming up or not. “Of course it is warming! Didn’t you see photos of retreating glaciers in Alaska, the vanishing snows on Kilimanjaro, and the starving polar bears?” I’ve heard people put forward these three examples as proof positive of global warming. But they do not prove global warming. They are anecdotes, not data. Data comes in the form of temperature measurements, not stories.

Global Temperatures“But the temperature measurements show that we have been warming up!” Really? The commonly-used graph of global temperature (on the right) put forward as proof of warming shows temperature changes over the last century. From the look of this graph, it does seem that temperatures were going up until the 1940s, dropped to a low in the late ’70s, and have been warming up since then. But I’m not all that impressed by the graph because I know the world was recovering from the Little Ice Age at the beginning of the graph, so it’s not surprising that the initial temperatures are lower there. If we expand our time frame to the past 1,000 years, we would see that the Medieval Climatic Optimum was warmer than it is now. If we look at the last 10,000 years, we will see still warmer spots, and before that was the Pleistocene ice age with Manfred, Diego, Sid, and Scrat. Expanding our time frame out to many millions of years in the past, Earth has undergone much hotter time periods than our own.

“But if we don’t do anything, species will die!” So? If we look at the history of life on Earth, the commonest state for a species is extinct. The estimate is that 90-95% of all species that have ever lived on the planet are currently extinct. That’s why T-Rex doesn’t go rampaging through Los Angeles except in bad movie sequels. I am happy to know that T-Rex is no longer a danger since I doubt my .30-06 would do much damage to it. In any case, it would be tough meat, even though it would probably taste like chicken. “But what about the polar bears?” Yeah, well, what about them? Let’s imagine that the entire Arctic ice sheet melted completely in the summer. It’s not all that hard to imagine since it has happened before in the recent geological past. And oddly enough, the polar bears made it through those times, too. If they were really smart, they would have moved to a condo in Florida with the rest of the retirement crowd.

You’ll continue to hear more and more about how messed up the world is, and how it is all our fault. But before you come to believe this is settled science, you should spend some time listening to what some scientists are saying. I suggest you watch the following videos at the very least. The first is Bob Carter talking about the nature of global warming. He basically says that the world has continually warmed and cooled, and if we look at the averages for the past few million years, it’s more common to be cooler than hotter. It’s not a question of if we will have another ice age, but when.

The second video is David Archibald talking about how the 24th solar cycle will very likely be wimpy, similar to the wimpy cycle from the 1900s.

The third video is by Warren Meyer of and, asking the obvious but rarely-voiced question, “What is normal?” He explains much of the fear-mongering and bad science being put forth by the supporters of the anthropogenic global warming theory. These are many of the topics he has addressed already, but it’s nice to see them in a single video.

Is the debate on climate control over? Not by a long shot, but certain people like to tell us that it is. After watching these videos, you should have a good idea of some questions you can ask supporters of the anthropogenic global warming theory.

OK, so I’ll stop writing about Global Warming for a while. Well, I will until something interesting comes up on the subject. But before I voluntarily silence myself on this subject, there is a fine bit of information I strongly suggest you read. Warren Meyer runs, and he has done a masterful job in discussing from the point of view of a skeptic the idea of man-made global warming, or to use a 21-point Scrabble word, anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

To begin with, you should read his post, “The 60-Second Climate Skeptic,” that nicely condenses the skeptic’s arguments against AGW into a one-page read. Once you have read that blog entry, you can go for the meat of Meyer’s skeptical look at AGW in his paper “A Skeptical Layman’s Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming.” The PDF version can be downloaded separately and clocks in at 82 pages.

After you have read these (and my posts on global warming, of course), you should know how to respond when people start discussing the topic of global warming. Well, that’s assuming you don’t want to be attacked as a heretic.

I have written many articles about global warming and climate change, and with the way the proponents of the anthropogenic climate change theory keep acting, I don’t think I’ll run out of material for a long time to come. The current atmosphere of hysterical climate change sounds more and more like the Spanish Inquisition, with people who disagree being treated like heretics. And the Washington Times has written up a story about a letter written by Michael T. Eckhart, president of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI):

“It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar,” Mr. Eckhart wrote. “If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.”

I can hear the knives of the global warming inquisition being sharpened and placed in a hot fire, ready to be used on the heretics who dare to disagree with their position. Believe in human-based global warming, infidels!

The Washington Times article ends the section about Eckhart and Lewis with the following two paragraphs:

However, this column earlier this week published another letter Mr. Eckhart sent in September to CEI President Fred Smith, saying “my children will have a lesser life because you are being paid by oil companies to spread a false story.”

He said he would give CEI, which advocates “sound science,” 90 days to reverse its “position” on global warming, “or I will take every action I can think of to shut you down,” including filing complaints with the Internal Revenue Service “on the basis that CEI is really a lobbyist for the energy industry.”

Eckhart has faith that global warming is caused by humans, and it is his faith that is driving him to attack the unbelievers so strongly. His faith is inspiring him to take on the role of inquisitor in the fight against the heretic and unbeliever. If Eckhart had the full force of facts and science to back him up, he wouldn’t need to bludgeon people into accepting the truth — it would be self-evident. But since he doesn’t have the full force of facts behind him, he has to discredit and ruin unbelievers with his hatred instead.

If I were Marlo Lewis, I’d have publicly responded to Eckhart’s letter with a very short one of my own:

E pur si muove!

Remember the really nasty hurricane season of 2005? Twenty-eight storms formed that year and 15 made it to full-fledged hurricane status. The images of devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina so terrified the nation that former Vice President Al Gore used the image of a hurricane on the poster and DVD cover of his movie, An Inconvenient Truth. Coming off that year, experts predicted that 2006 would give us 17 storms with nine hurricanes, but the actual results were almost half that at ten storms and five hurricanes. As of this writing, there have been only two named storms for 2007, neither of which became a hurricane. This calm year has led hurricane forecaster WSI Corp. to change its season predictions from 15 named storms and eight hurricanes to 14 named storms and six hurricanes.

The failed forecast for 2006 and the shifting of the forecast in 2007 has led Investor’s Business Daily to ask a very good question of the Global Warming crowd:

If scientists can’t get near-future projections in a limited area right, how can they predict the climate decades from now?

A reasonable response is: They can’t. But the global warming climate of fear did not blow in on the soft breezes of reason, but by the storm winds of emotion.

Professional meteorologists have a difficult time making an accurate forecast two days in the future, let alone accurately predicting the temperature two weeks from now. If they have that much trouble predicting the very near future, how much confidence can we put in the long-range forecasts of global warming proponents?

Short answer: not much at all.