“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)
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 …
Unprecedented findings strengthen connections between winter storms and tropical waters
HANOVER, N.H. – December 19, 2017 – Snowfall on a major summit in North America’s highest mountain range has more than doubled since the beginning of the Industrial Age, according to a study from Dartmouth College, the University of Maine, and the University of New Hampshire.
The research not only finds a dramatic increase in snowfall, it further explains connections in the global climate system by attributing the record accumulation to warmer waters thousands of miles away in the tropical Pacific and Indian Oceans.
The research demonstrates that modern snowfall in the iconic Alaska Range is unprecedented for at least the past 1200 years and far exceeds normal variability.
“We were shocked when we first saw how much snowfall has increased,” said Erich Osterberg, an assistant…
Experts tell us that New York City and London will be underwater in the next 50 years | Daily Mail
SEA LEVEL RISE alarmism is just one in a long line of propaganda metrics used by the climate crisis industry to promote the narrative that your CO2 emissions are causing unprecedented climate change.
OF course none of the carefully orchestrated fear-mongering is based on observed reality, rather, worst-case-scenario climate models that are designed to scare you and policy makers into belief.
THE veracity of global climate models were recently put under the microscope by a group of ‘warmist’ climate scientists who published a bombshell paper that admitted the estimates of global warming used for years to torture the world’s conscience and justify massive spending on non-carbon energy sources were, er, wrong.
AUSTRALIAN scientists have published a new paper in the journal Earth Systems and Environment thathighlights the “loud divergence between sea level reality” and “the climate models [that] predict an accelerated sea-level rise driven by the anthropogenic CO2 emission“.
THE key finding from the paper is that long-term observations from tide gauges reveal a “recent lack of any detectable acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise“.The modern rate of sea level rise acceleration – 0.002 mm/year² – is so negligible it falls well below the threshold of measurement accuracy.
The lack of a detectable global-scale sea level rise acceleration recorded in tide gauge measurements isn’t a novel finding. In recent years, dozens of other scientists have bravely come forward to challenge “consensus” modeling that implicates anthropogenic CO2 emissions as the preeminent cause of ice sheet melt and sea level rise.
Perhaps at some point “consensus”-based climate science will jettison its focus on models and projections of perilous future climate states directly caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions and instead embrace the observational evidence that may undermine the alarm.
Until then, we will likely need to continue learning about how many millimeters we humans raise sea levels for each kilometer we drive in our fossil-fuel-powered vehicles. Because that’s how “consensus” climate science works.
SERIOUS questions need to be asked as to how predictive models that do not observe reality can be used so un-objectively to torture the world’s conscience and justify massive spending on unreliable-energy sources, and fund a now vast industry of research grants, environment lobby firms and advisory businesses of all types.
OVERHEATED climate models also provide the basis for billions of dollars in trading climate credits, many thousands of well-paid government jobs in climate bureaucracies, and, of course, the trillion dollar green energy industry.
ALL this using *other-peoples’-hard-earned-money*.
MOST mainstream media outlets will not report something that dramatically deflates their narrative. So it goes without saying that when NASA confirmed that ocean levels have actually paused, even falling for the past few years, the media couldn’t be more than silent…
This is interesting. It appears that a “pause” has developed in global sea levels. For two years, since July 2015, there has been no sustained increase in global sea level, in fact, it appears to have actually fallen a bit. This graph, provided by NASA’s Global Climate Change website, tells the story:
A zoom of the area of interest, two years prior to the most recent data point.
Sea level rise is caused primarily by two factors related to global warming: the added water from melting ice sheets and glaciers and the expansion of sea water as it warms. The first graph tracks the change in sea level since 1993 as observed by satellites.
Hmmm, I think they left something out of that description.
What I found most interesting on the UC sea level page was this graph, showing the correlation of El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and global sea level. [Readers] may recall that in 2015, there was a massive spike of an El Niño event:
The correlation between ENSO and sea level seems strong.
Note this image from a NASA Visualization Video, which shows water piling up in the Western Pacific over the past 22 years. Wind pattern shifts are a signature of ENSO events, and they push water westward where it piles up.
Here is another projection of the same data, showing that water has been piling up in the Western Pacific:
I wonder what the rate of sea level rise would look like is we masked out El Nino events? I’m guessing it would be far, far, less than what is being claimed as “global”.
DEEP within human nature there are certain types of people who yearn for catastrophe, they yearn to have significance in their lives believing that theirs is the time when the chickens are coming home to roost and everything is going to go tits up.
THE biggest selling environmental books in history, predict the mass destruction of the planet. Rachel Carson’s 1962 international bestseller “Silent Spring” predicted mass cancer from plant pesticides and DDT. Paul Ehrlich’s “The Population Bomb” 1968, argued on malthusian lines that population explosion would mean mass starvation around the world. People buy this stuff. They lap it up and books like this sell in droves, in a way that more reasonable books that say “hang on, lets look at the facts”, don’t.
THIS short YouTube video via our friends @Carbongate needs no introduction, and is a must watch..
1970’s Global Cooling (Climate Change) Eco-scare related :
Three surveys conducted in Britain, China, and the United States, have shown citizens in those countries – when the situation is raised with them – say that they are concerned that the world-renowned reef is under severe threat. And many would reconsider visiting as a result…
An estimated 175,000 fewer tourists could visit Australia if the bleaching persists and worse if the [claimed] damage becomes permanent.
The polls, which surveyed the attitudes and awareness of 1000 people in each market, found potential visitors were concerned over the state of the reef, which in turn could feed into them deciding to visit other Australian attractions or to go to places other than Australia entirely.
The finding suggests the tourism businesses and related local economies adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef, could suffer the loss of 10,000 jobs and that the Australian economy could lose as much as $1 billion per year in overseas income.
The reef supports an estimated 70,000 jobs in the tourism and related sectors and accounts for a significant proportion of Australia’s tourist income.
BACK in May, the UK’s Telegraph printed more hysterical Reef alarmism, as evidenced by hysterical climate ‘scientists’ :
Great Barrier Reef is damaged beyond repair and can no longer be saved, say scientists | The Telegraph UK
SEPTEMBER 2017 – Mother Nature trashes the alarmist GBR climate “science” :
A full survey of the reef released yesterday by the authority and the Australian Institute of Marine Science said 75 per cent of the reef would escape unscathed.
Dr Reichelt said the vast bulk of bleaching damage was confined to the far northern section off Cape York, which had the best prospect of recovery due to the lack of onshore development and high water quality.
THE doom sayers really should apologise. But, of course, none will come forth, as the worst any Reef or climate change alarmist can ever be accused of for dangerous and costly scaremongering is an excess of “Save the planet” virtue.
TO tell preposterous untruths in this ‘good’ cause is not just forgivable but a sign of superior morality. The bigger the whopper the more you must really care. This is the sad, costly, destructive and repetitive story of ‘Climate Crisis Inc.’