“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
IN order to avoid important free and open debate, on a system so chaotic as our climate, CAGW alarmists instinctively claim that the “science is settled” based on a purported “97% consensus” of all scientists.
ANY person or body that holds a dissenting view or presents contradictory evidence is immediately labelled a climate ‘denier’ – likened to those who claim the holocaust never occurred. A classic ad-hominem attack designed to smear and silence those who refuse to comply with the preferred wisdom of the day.
BOGUS 97% surveys have been concocted over the years claiming a scientific ‘consensus’ exists. However, consensus doesn’t decide science, facts do.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
Pierre L. Gosselin’s masterful resource NoTricksZone has unearthed 97 new papers in 2018 alone that further discredit the bogus “97% consensus” meme…
In just the first 8 weeks of 2018, 97 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media sources.
These 97 new papers affirm the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes, emphasizing that climate science is not settled.
More specifically, the papers in this compilation support these four main skeptical positions — categorized here as N(1) – N(4) — which question climate alarm.
N(1) Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined.
N(2) The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/hurricane and drought intensities…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.
N(3) The computer climate models are not reliable or consistently accurate, and projections of future climate states are little more than speculation as the uncertainty and error ranges are enormous in a non-linear climate system.
N(4) Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment, whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).
In sharp contrast to the above, the corresponding “consensus” positions that these papers do not support are:
RealClimate.org: “The best estimate of the warming due to anthropogenic forcings (ANT) is the orange bar (noting the 1𝛔 uncertainties). Reading off the graph, it is 0.7±0.2ºC (5-95%) with the observed warming 0.65±0.06 (5-95%). The attribution then follows as having a mean of ~110%, with a 5-95% range of 80–130%. This easily justifies the IPCC claims of having a mean near 100%, and a very low likelihood of the attribution being less than 50% (p < 0.0001!).”
A(2) Modern warming, glacier and sea ice recession, sea level rise, drought and hurricane intensities…are all occurring at unprecedentedly high and rapid rates, and the effects are globally synchronous (not just regional)…and thus dangerous consequences to the global biosphere and human civilizations loom in the near future as a consequence of anthropogenic influences.
A(3) The climate models are reliable and accurate, and the scientific understanding of the effects of both natural forcing factors (solar activity, clouds, water vapor, etc.) and CO2 concentration changes on climate is “settled enough“, which means that “the time for debate has ended“.
A(4) The proposed solutions to mitigate the dangerous consequences described in N(4) – namely, wind and solar expansion – are safe, effective, and environmentally-friendly.
To reiterate, the 97 papers compiled in 2018 thus far support the N(1)-N(4) positions, and they undermine or at least do not support the “consensus” A(1)-A(4) positions. The papers do not do more than that. Expectations that these papers should do more than support skeptical positions and undermine “consensus” positions to “count” are deemed unreasonable in this context.
Below are the two links to the list of 97 papers amassed as of 26 February, 2018, as well as the guideline for the lists’ categorization. Also included are 24 sample papers included on the list, about 1/4th of the total.
Warming Since Mid/Late 20th Century? (17) A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions (9) Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise (3) Sea Levels 1-3 Meters Higher 4,000-7,000 Years Ago (4) A Model-Defying Cryosphere, Polar Ice (7)
Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors and the Pause (6) Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (2) Elevated CO2 Greens Planet, Produces Higher Crop Yields (2) Warming Beneficial, Does Not Harm Humans, Wildlife (2) No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes (2) No Increasing Trends In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity (1) Miscellaneous (5)
WITHOUT a shadow of a doubt, the greatest scientific hoax ever perpetrated against mankind is that human’s modern life (including your sandwich) is causing catastrophic “climate change” or “global warming” or “climate disruption” or “climate breakdown”, depending on the day and the activist concerned.
THE back-pedalling by climate ‘scientists’ continues as it becomes ever more obvious that their alarming projections have been deliberately exaggerated to push an agenda far removed from reality.
THE refined estimate of ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity – the amount of warming that would occur if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled) is even more significant considering that recent emissions of CO2 have been much greater than originally assumed, according to scientists.
Earth’s climate may be less sensitive to man-made emissions than previously feared, a study has found. It raises hopes that the worst predictions about global warming can be avoided.
It suggests that the target set in the Paris Agreement on climate change of limiting the average temperature increase to well below 2C is more achievable than some scientists have claimed.
Apocalyptic predictions that the world could warm by up to 6C by 2100 with devastating consequences for humanity and nature are effectively ruled out by the findings.
However, the study makes clear that steep reductions in emissions will still be needed to avoid dangerous climate change. It also concludes that the aspirational target in the 2015 Paris Agreement of limiting warming to 1.5C is less likely to be achieved.
The study, published in the journal Nature, refines previous estimates of how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide by considering the historical variability in global temperature.
It focuses on the key measure, known as equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which is used by climate scientists to make predictions. ECS is the amount of warming that would occur if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled.
The concentration has already increased by about 50 per cent since pre-industrial times, from 270 parts per million (ppm) to 403ppm.
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a scientific body which advises governments, gives a range for ECS of 1.5–4.5 degrees C. The new study narrows this range to 2.2–3.4C.
Peter Cox, professor of climate system dynamics at the University of Exeter and lead author of the paper, said his team had “squeezed both ends” of the range presented by the IPCC.
“We can rule out very low climate sensitivities that might imply you don’t need to do very much at all but also very high climate sensitivities that would be very difficult to adapt to.
“That’s useful because it gives policymakers and people an idea of what they have got to deal with and they can make decisions on that basis.”
Mr Cox said his study showed there was less need to worry about apocalyptic visions of the future, such as those presented in the 2007 award-winning science book Six Degrees – Our Future on a Hotter Planet, which had an image on the cover of a tidal wave breaking over Big Ben.
“The very high warming rates are looking less likely so that’s good news,” he said.
“Unless we do something bizarrely stupid, we are not looking at catastrophic climate change.
“But I wouldn’t want people to think we don’t need to act. It means that action is worthwhile. We can still stabilise the system if we choose to do so.
“We are definitely up against it but we aren’t in a position where we are talking about such large climate changes that we are just messing around on the decks of the Titanic. We know better now, I hope, from our work what we have got to do.”
He said his study showed the 2C target set in Paris was “still just about achievable” but limiting warming to 1.5C in the long term could only be achieved by “overshooting” and then somehow reducing the temperature using futuristic technology, such as artificial trees which suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Piers Forster, director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate at the University of Leeds, said the study “confirms that we will see significantly more warming and impacts this century if we don’t increase our ambition to reduce CO2 emissions; but the possibility of 6 degrees or more warming with associated devastating impacts can perhaps begin to be ruled out”.
EXCELLENT article written by a ‘Vegan Democrat’ and former CAGW believer, highlighting the reasons why many remain sceptical of the “settled science” of climate change…
By David Siegel Entrepreneur, investor, blockchain expert, start-up coach, CEO of the Pillar project and 20|30.io
What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?
If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.
More than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is). I haven’t owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I’m a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in helping preserve our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible. Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it.
Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. I’ll start by making ten short statements that should challenge your assumptions and then back them up with an essay.
There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.
No one has demonstrated any unnatural damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people, who eat them. Reefs are more threatened by sunscreen than by CO2.
Highly recommended ~ 38 minute read with an abundance of supporting data, evidence and peer-reviewed “science”….
This nine-thousand-word essay represents over 400 hours of research boiled down into a half-hour reading experience, with links to 250+ carefully chosen documents and videos. I’m building the argument from the bottom up, so take your time and see if it makes sense. Along the way, I’ll list five “smoking guns” that I think make the argument for decarbonization unsupportable. Before we dive in, I want to talk about …
RECORD cold in America has brought temperatures as low as minus 44C in North Dakota, frozen sharks in Massachusetts and iguanas falling from trees in Florida. Al Gore blames global warming, citing one scientist to the effect that this is “exactly what we should expect from the climate crisis”. Others beg to differ: Kevin Trenberth, of America’s National Centre for Atmospheric Research, insists that “winter storms are a manifestation of winter, not climate change”.
Forty-five years ago a run of cold winters caused a “global cooling” scare. “A global deterioration of the climate, by order of magnitude larger than any hitherto experienced by civilised mankind, is a very real possibility and indeed may be due very soon,” read a letter to President Nixon in 1972 from two scientists reporting the views of 42 “top” colleagues. “The cooling has natural causes and falls within the rank of the processes which caused the last ice age.” The administration replied that it was “seized of the matter”.
In the years that followed, newspapers, magazines and television documentaries spoke of the coming ice age. The CIA reported a “growing consensus among leading climatologists that the world is undergoing a cooling trend”.
This alarm about global cooling is largely been forgotten, but it has not entirely gone away. Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University has suggested that a quiescent sun presages another Little Ice Age like that of 1300-1850. I’m not persuaded. Yet the argument that the world is slowly slipping back into a proper ice age after 10,000 years of balmy warmth is in essence true. Most interglacial periods, or times without large ice sheets, last about that long, and ice cores from Greenland show that each of the past three millennia was cooler than the one before.
However, those ice cores, and others from Antarctica, can now put our minds to rest. They reveal that interglacials start abruptly with sudden and rapid warming but end gradually with many thousands of years of slow and erratic cooling. They have also begun to clarify the cause. It is a story that reminds us how vulnerable our civilisation is. If we aspire to keep the show on the road for another 10,000 years, we will have to understand ice ages.
The oldest explanation for the coming and going of ice was based on carbon dioxide. In 1895 the Swede Svante Arrhenius, one of the scientists who first championed the greenhouse theory, suggested that the ice retreated because carbon dioxide levels rose, and advanced because they fell. If this were true, then industrial emissions could head off the next ice age. There is indeed a correlation in the ice cores between temperature and carbon dioxide, but inconveniently it is the wrong way round: carbon dioxide follows rather than leads temperature downward when the ice returns.
A Serbian named Milutin Milankovich, writing in 1941, argued that ice ages and interglacials were instead caused by changes in the orbit of the Earth around the sun. These changes, known as eccentricity, obliquity and precession, sometimes combined to increase the relative warmth of northern hemisphere summers, melting ice caps in North America and Eurasia and spreading warmth worldwide.
Planes wait at the gates outside terminal five at New York’s John F. Kennedy International Airport in the heavy snow.
IN 1976 Nicholas Shackleton, a Cambridge physicist, and his colleagues published evidence from deep-sea cores of cycles in the warming and cooling of the Earth over the past half million years which fitted Milankovich’s orbital wobbles. Precession, which decides whether the Earth is closer to the sun in July or in January, is on a 23,000-year cycle; obliquity, which decides how tilted the axis of the Earth is and therefore how warm the summer is, is on a 41,000-year cycle; and eccentricity, which decides how rounded or elongated the Earth’s orbit is and therefore how close to the sun the planet gets, is on a 100,000-year cycle. When these combine to make a “great summer” in the north, the ice caps shrink.
Game, set and match to Milankovich? Not quite. The Antarctic ice cores, going back 800,000 years, then revealed that there were some great summers when the Milankovich wobbles should have produced an interglacial warming, but did not. To explain these “missing interglacials”, a recent paper in Geoscience Frontiers by Ralph Ellis and Michael Palmer argues we need carbon dioxide back on the stage, not as a greenhouse gas but as plant food.
The argument goes like this. Colder oceans evaporate less moisture and rainfall decreases. At the depth of the last ice age, Africa suffered long mega-droughts; only small pockets of rainforest remained. Crucially, the longer an ice age lasts, the more carbon dioxide is dissolved in the cold oceans. When the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere drops below 200 parts per million (0.02 per cent), plants struggle to grow at all, especially at high altitudes. Deserts expand. Dust storms grow more frequent and larger. In the Antarctic ice cores, dust increased markedly whenever carbon dioxide levels went below 200 ppm. The dust would have begun to accumulate on the ice caps, especially those of Eurasia and North America, which were close to deserts. Next time a Milankovich great summer came along, and the ice caps began to melt, the ice would have grown dirtier and dirtier, years of deposited dust coming together as the ice shrank. The darker ice would have absorbed more heat from the sun and a runaway process of collapsing ice caps would have begun.
All of human civilisation happened in an interglacial period, with a relatively stable climate, plentiful rainfall and high enough levels of carbon dioxide to allow the vigorous growth of plants. Agriculture was probably impossible before then, and without its hugely expanded energy supply, none of the subsequent flowering of human culture would have happened.
That interglacial will end. Today the northern summer sunshine is again slightly weaker than the southern. In a few tens of thousands of years, our descendants will probably be struggling with volatile weather, dust storms and air that cannot support many crops. But that is a very long way off, and by then technology should be more advanced, unless we prevent it developing. The key will be energy. With plentiful and cheap energy our successors could thrive even in a future ice age, growing crops, watering deserts, maintaining rainforests and even melting ice caps.
“A bit of reflection shows it was the climate science community itself — in collaboration with Arctic researchers and the media — who by the year 2000 (below left) set the polar bear up as an icon for catastrophic global warming. They made the polar bear a proxy for AGW.”
YET ANOTHER failed prediction from the catastrophic climate change cabal!
“This has left many folks unhappy about the toppling of this important global warming icon but ironically, consensus polar bear experts and climate scientists (and their supporters) were the ones who set up the polar bear as a proxy for AGW in the first place.”
Polar bear experts who falsely predicted that roughly 17,300 polar bearswould be dead by now (given sea ice conditions since 2007) have realized their failure has not only kicked their own credibility to the curb, it has taken with it the reputations of their climate change colleagues. This has left many folks unhappy about the toppling of this important global warming icon but ironically, consensus polar bear experts and climate scientists (and their supporters) were the ones who set up the polar bear as a proxy for AGW in the first place.
I published my professional criticisms on the failed predictions of the polar bear conservation community in a professional online scientific preprint journal, which has now been downloaded almost 2,000 times (Crockford 2017; Crockford and Geist 2017).
My paper demonstrates that the polar bear/seaice decline hypothesis, particularly the one developed by Steven Amstrup, is a failure. I’m not…
“People under 25 are the strongest supporters of renewable energy, though they worry more about job security. I suspect this is because a lot of them don’t pay energy bills.
“Despite the job losses, the factory closures and the painful cost of living price hikes, I suspect South Australians will continue to believe the green lies, they will keep chasing their impossible dream of a renewable future for a long time to come.”
AS long as Left-wing/socialist governments can borrow and use other peoples’ money for ideological “green” symbolism, the economic rot of unreliables – wind and solar power – fed by a collective climate change madness, will continue unchallenged, despite what the majority of people want over the eco-elites and the >25 year-old social justice warriors.
South Australians, the world’s renewable crash test dummies, have just overwhelmingly rated affordability and reliability of supply as more important than tackling climate change in an online survey – but they still want their green energy revolution.
Your Say survey finds South Australians rank power bills, supply over tackling climate change
Paul Starick, Sunday Mail (SA)
December 9, 2017 5:30pm
SOUTH Australians are abandoning support for tackling climate change by cutting carbon emissions in favour of demanding affordable and reliable electricity supply and developing a renewable energy industry.
In agenda-setting results on a cornerstone issue for the March state election, more than 3500 respondents overwhelmingly ranked affordability and reliability as the most important components of electricity supply in the Sunday Mail Your Say, SA survey.
Forging a renewable energy industry was also popular among respondents, demonstrating support for solar, wind and batteries.