A scientific consensus has emerged among top mainstream climate scientists that “skeptics” or “lukewarmers” were not long ago derided for suggesting — there was a nearly two-decade-long “hiatus” in global warming that climate models failed to accurately predict or replicate.
A new paper, led by climate scientist Benjamin Santer, adds to the ever-expanding volume of “hiatus” literature embracing popular arguments advanced by skeptics, and even uses satellite temperature datasets to show reduced atmospheric warming.
More importantly, the paper discusses the failure of climate models to predict or replicate the “slowdown” in early 21st century global temperatures, which was another oft-derided skeptic observation. –Michael Bastasch and Ryan Maue, Daily Caller, 19 June 2017
Causes Of Differences In Model And Satellite Tropospheric Warming Rates
In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble. We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations. —Benjamin D. Santer et al., Nature Geoscience, 19 June 2017
The ‘Hiatus’ In Global Warming Is The Hottest Topic In Climate Science Right Now, Whether Alarmists Like It Or Not
Few things illustrate the poor state of the communication of climate science better than the reaction to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt’s comments about global temperatures in the past 20 years. It was made in written comments to the Senate following his confirmation hearing. He wrote, “over the past two decades satellite data indicates there has been a leveling off of warming.” Condemnation of these comments was swift. But had reporters looked a little deeper into the data, and talked to more scientists, they would have uncovered a far more fascinating story more in keeping with the way science actually works, as climate scientists attempt to decipher real-world climate data. They would have discovered that Pruitt has a point: The world’s surface has not been warming as expected in the past two decades. –David Whitehouse, Financial Post, 23 June 2017
Brexit Costs: EU Commissioner Proposes EU-Wide Climate Tax
As a result of Brexit and because of many new tasks the EU budget will be missing € 25 billion. EU Budget Commissioner Günther Oettinger, therefore, wants to introduce new revenues for the EU in form of a climate tax. In addition, he wants to take Brexit as an opportunity to remove not only Britain’s EU rebate but similar discounts for other EU member states. —Spiegel Online, 22 June 2017
Reuters Investigation Exposes New Science Scandal
In a Special Report published on June 14, 2017, investigators at Reuters uncovered the shocking fact that an American scientist, Dr. Aaron Blair, the Chairman of the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) Monograph 112 on glyphosate, suppressed critically important science. —Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research, 21 June 2017
They’re looking at so many things at once how can any one person straighten it out? There’s evidence of collusion (climategate).An Inconvenient Truth contains proof of alarmism. Historical records have been tampered with. Climate models consistently fail too high. CO2 concentration continues to rise but temperatures aren’t following. Trump campaigned against anticarbon action and won. The Warmists may cave one at a time but I doubt that there will be a gotcha discovery that puts this scam asunder.
As much as I like and may agree with the findings, I still don’t accept the premise that consensus has any role in science. Consensus is an artifact of POLITICS, not science.
“Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”
– Dr. Michael Crichton