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
As always the main-scream liberal leftists news media will ignore this likewise will the various eco-wackos from the various eco-freak groups(Greenpeace,NRDC,Sierra Club,Etc)as well as the green nutcases like Leonardo DiCaprio,Luarie David,Al Gore,David Suzuki Etc as well as liberal rags like TIME,ROLLINGSTONE,NYT’sATLANTA JOURNAL/CONSTITUION,BOSTON GLOBE,L.A. TIMES and the average everyday granola bar munchers tree huggers gaia worshipers
So you’re ok with mass murder if the species. Got it.
“mass murder if the species” ? Who are your leading suspects? China? India? The United Nations? Those three are OK with increasing CO2 emissions until 2030!!! IF CO2 is the weapon used in the mass murder of the species, take it away from them, don’t celebrate their signature on the Paris Accord. If you don’t see the hypocrisy, you are the idiot, not spurwing.
The latest data show that China already peaked coal use 10 years before expected and that it’s carbon emissions will start downward around 2020-2022. That is well before the earlier goal of 2030. China is turning into a climate hero.
What the? Of which specie do you speak? The unicorns or the My-Little-Ponys?
Traditionally, the left has professed suspicion toward the corrupting effects of money. However, now they have controlled the multi-billion dollar purse strings of global-warming-turned-climate-change research funding for decades and they see no conflicts of public interest, and no potential for corruption whatsoever.
During that period two key trends have emerged:
First, either by design, or by default, rich government research funding has become predicated on the delivery of confirmatory (predetermined) outcomes, creating profound outcome bias. Researchers with potential to contradict man-made climate change narratives need not apply, and likely will be threatened and shunned at activist teaching institutions…
Secondly, nearly all the proposed “solutions” to these dubiously derived MMGW doomsday scenarios involve massive POLITICAL reforms that leftist politicians have been unable to enact openly over the same period of time.
Is all this just a coincidence? Do anti-scientific claims of “consensus” trump all? …or is it just possible that we have been had?
I am a scientist, so I read the original science. Although I have not read all of the articles in the “No Trick Zone” database, I have read quite a few. Most seem to fall into one of two categories. Articles in high quality peer reviewed journals are mischaracterized as “skeptic” papers. The conclusions promoted by the “no trick zone” are not the conclusions of the authors. Other articles are in “predatory” not peer reviewed journals that are not cited (very low impact factors) and are regarded as “fake journals” by serious scientists. These are the articles that are really “skeptic”. As someone who reviews grants and occasionally participates in grant panels, I can say that grants are given to researchers who make strong tests, without preconceived outcomes. Research always contains surprises. How boring would it be for a scientist who already knew the results before collecting the data? In fact, the research that has the strongest chance of rejecting an hypothesis also provides the strongest support if the hypothesis is upheld.
Now that real scientists no longer have to worry about green shirt intimidation they will
be free to follow the scientific method again .
The grossly inaccurate climate models (settled science crap ) should have stopped the exaggerated global warming fraud in it’s tracks but unfortunately the scent of $trillions of tax payers dollars was just too enticing to give up .
The wheels are coming off it now and the grant dependant con artists running
uneconomic companies are going to free fall . Shorting them is just too easy .
Climate science has advanced, but the main conclusions found during the Carter and Reagan years continued to be supported during the Bush, Clinton and Obama presidencies. Evidence was already overwhelming that greenhouse gases are warming the planet back in the late 1970s when I was studying for my science Ph.D.
Do you really think that science flips in one direct and then the other when a new president is elected? That’s really silly. Scientists are concerned about how their research will hold up over the decades. I am nearing the end of my career of as a scientist that spanned 10 presidential terms. I really focused on the experiments, data and analysis and never considered who was the president or which party had a majority.
Your a Idiot. No what i realy would like to see happen is some eco-wacko chased up a tree by a bear or getting bit by a angry skua or dive bombed by irate blackbirds or get their living hell scared out of them a pack of wolves