Recently, a number of efforts to silence dissent to Anthropocentric Global Warming polices have been undertaken by members of Congress and the Department of Justice.  There are proposals to sue any person or corporation that says the global warming is not occurring because “97 per cent of scientists agree” that global warming is a major problem and will result in sea rise and more severe storms.  It should be noted that all scientists (except 2, namely Copernicus and Galileo) also agreed that the earth was the center of the universe in the 1500s.  The theory that Man is controlling the weather through carbon dioxide is being propped up with data reanalyses, unverified models and politicians.  Many of the politicians are starting to sound like the Freedom of speech only belongs to those that agree with them.  And the politicians say that they know best.

I have often felt that the large amount of money that has been spent on climate models in the past decade have failed to result in any useful model that can improve the forecast for the next season or the next year.  Then you have a better change of estimating the effects in 75 years when all the model developers have long since died.

During the Democratic  debate last night, both candidates said we need laws to prevent climate change.  They seem to think that the government can write laws that will alter keep the climate. the same as today.   They assume that carbon (in reality, carbon dioxide) is altering the temperature of the planet.  They propose laws to restrict carbon from being burned in power plants.  However none of the current climate models are accurate enough to predict how much the earth cooled as a result of the laws.  It will just be a guess.

When I was studying ozone concentrations in  Connecticut, I proposed a law that the government eliminate all temperatures above 90 degrees in Connecticut.   Then all the high ozone days would be eliminated in the state.  At least, if this could have been enforced, the results would be obvious.