It has taken far too long, but the self-correcting mechanisms of science finally are contradicting the global warming fraud. Despite billions of dollars of grants for those who support the so-called “consensus” (itself, a lie), and the fear of retaliation, scholars interested in the truth are publishing a wave of scientific papers contradicting the orthodoxy.
Best of all: President Trump’s EPA chief has signaled that he sees that questioning of scientific hypotheses (and all scientific knowledge ultimately is a hypothesis, awaiting a possible correction based on new information) is legitimate.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt reignited a long-simmering debate over a method of scientific inquiry that could upset the supposed “consensus” on man-made global warming.
In an interview with Breitbart’s Joel Pollak on Monday, Pruitt said he supported a “red team-blue team” set up to test climate science. Pruitt was inspired by an op-ed by theoretical physicist Steven Koonin, but others have been pushing this idea as well.
The team that will question the orthodoxy is seeing a wave of evidence come its way.
Kenneth Richards writes:
Just in the last few weeks alone, another 20 scientific papers were identified which link solar variations to climate changes, which means 58 papers have already been published in 2017.
Since solar activity does vary, it kind of makes more intuitive sense that this might affect climate more than the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Occam’s Razor favors this explanation. Check out this graph that Richards highlights:
It’s at least as convincing as the phony, uncorrected Hockey Stick that had to “hide the decline.” Sure, it is one study, and it is Finland (very far north), but there are 58 papers this year, already. I am guessing that it might be easier to make the case that the sun has the major influence on climate than to make the case for CO2.
The No Tricks Zone has cataloged 650 skeptic scientific papers already, and as we see, the wave is growing larger.
The huge problem for the Warmists is that “cutting edge research” now works against them.
Read more at American Thinker