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.
Image Source: Robertson and Chilingar, 2017
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:
A(1) Close to or over 100% (110%) of the warming since 1950 has been caused by increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, leaving natural attribution at something close to 0%.
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.
Read rest at No Tricks Zone
It is amusing to read all the posts written by uninformed people who have not bothered to read much about the facts of the current climate debate. I highly recommend the following book to anyone who wants to get past the propaganda.
Climate Change: The Facts 2017 by Jennifer Marohasy, Paperback …
https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/climate-change-jennifer-marohasy/1126986478
1. Cached
Aug 19, 2017 – Climate Change: The Facts 2017 contains 22 essays by internationally-renowned experts and commentators, including Dr Bjorn Lomborg, Dr Matt Ridley, Professor Peter Ridd, Dr Willie Soon, Dr Ian Plimer, Dr Roy Spencer, and literary giant Clive James. The volume is edited by Dr Jennifer Marohasy, ..
They recently made some dumb movie DOWNSIZING its all about shinking people down to tiny size to lessen the enviromental impatch and its the usial Climate Change Alarmists propeganda film
How many times do we have to defend man-induced climate change? The climate change deniers not only cherrypick data and promote conspiracies, they endanger this planet and contribute to the extinction of the human species.
It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity.
According to a review published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology. The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results.
Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming.
“Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” Hayhoe wrote in a Facebook post.
Please read the following article for a summary of these climate denial conspiracies:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5
We could have had a serious discussion, if the alarmists and politicians had stayed out of it.
Political urgency encouraged lying.
“…they endanger this planet and contribute to the extinction of the human race ” is an excellent example.
The only issue that will save climate science is the recognition that carbon dioxide does not “trap” heat and that there is no “greenhouse effect” making earth warmer than it should be.
http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Role_of_CO2-EaE.pdf (peer reviewed and published)
and
http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Role_of_GHE-EaE.pdf (peer reviewed and published)
There is a peculiarly hostile and dismissive nature of the response by supporters of the ‘consensus’ to those who question all this, a group that includes many eminent scientists and other experts.
Ultimately their groupthink must always end up in someway colliding uncomfortably with the reality their blinkered vision has overlooked.
Get the facts, make the right decision.
Of course we have these nutcases who think if their toast it burnt or TV gose blank its becuase of Global Warming/Climate Change but remember they used to think the earth not the sun was the center of the universe becuase llok what did with Galileo