A Growing Volume Of Evidence Undercuts ‘Consensus’ Climate Science

C

cancel2 2022

Canceled


Climate-Control-Knob.jpg


During the first 10 months of 2017, 400 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 question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media.

These 400 new papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes. Climate science is not settled. Modern temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather events are neither unusual nor unprecedented. Many regions of the Earth are cooler now than they have been for most of the last 10,000 years.

Natural factors such as the Sun (108 papers), multi-decadal oceanic-atmospheric oscillations such as the NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO (37 papers), decadal-scale cloud cover variations, and internal variability in general have exerted a significant influence on weather and climate changes during both the past and present. Detecting a clear anthropogenic forcing signal amidst the noise of unforced natural variability may therefore be difficult.

Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often costly, ineffective, and perhaps even harmful to the environment. On the other hand, elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).

In 2016 there were 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) challenging “consensus” climate science. This amounts to more than 900 papers in less than 2 years. Below are the two links to the list of 400 papers as well as the guideline for the lists’ categorization.

Skeptic Papers 2017 (1)

Skeptic Papers 2017 (2)

http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/23/...-climate-alarm/#sthash.hsUGHSI4.GfbGVhxQ.dpbs
 
Tillerson, who is widely expected to depart the administration in the coming months, just might have accumulated enough goodwill during his decades at Exxon to withstand the reputational damage inflicted on him by Trump. But he soon may be facing his greatest challenge. In November 2015, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman opened an investigation into Tillerson’s old stomping grounds, ExxonMobil, the fossil-fuel behemoth, and issued it a subpoena under which he demanded that the company provide him 39 years’ worth of internal documents, e-mails, and memos relating to its corporate understanding of climate change. The state attorney general is trying to determine if the company had for years knowingly deceived its shareholders and its regulators, as well as the public, about the impact of climate change, and climate-change regulations, on its financial performance and prospects.
Based on the documents received to date, Schneiderman seems to be of the view that Exxon had far more insight into the damaging effects on the climate of burning fossil fuels than it has ever admitted, and yet decided to continue to search for, refine, and sell billions of barrels of oil nonetheless. If Schneiderman decides to sue ExxonMobil—a decision he has not yet made—the ensuing litigation will likely deal Tillerson a far greater blow than anything he has endured under the thumb of Donald Trump.


https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...w-about/ar-AAu64cQ?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp



dear fucking idiot


its so solid its part of major court cases as a FACT



fuck you very much
 
Last edited:
Corazón said:


Climate-Control-Knob.jpg


During the first 10 months of 2017, 400 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 question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media.

These 400 new papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes. Climate science is not settled. Modern temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather events are neither unusual nor unprecedented. Many regions of the Earth are cooler now than they have been for most of the last 10,000 years.

Natural factors such as the Sun (108 papers), multi-decadal oceanic-atmospheric oscillations such as the NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO (37 papers), decadal-scale cloud cover variations, and internal variability in general have exerted a significant influence on weather and climate changes during both the past and present. Detecting a clear anthropogenic forcing signal amidst the noise of unforced natural variability may therefore be difficult.

Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often costly, ineffective, and perhaps even harmful to the environment. On the other hand, elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).

In 2016 there were 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) challenging “consensus” climate science. This amounts to more than 900 papers in less than 2 years. Below are the two links to the list of 400 papers as well as the guideline for the lists’ categorization.

Skeptic Papers 2017 (1)

Skeptic Papers 2017 (2)

http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/23/...-climate-alarm/#sthash.hsUGHSI4.GfbGVhxQ.dpbs
Click to expand...

And now one from this week refered from a less partisan study

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ate-change-sea-level-rise-20171026-story.html
 
archives said:
And now one from this week refered from a less partisan study

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...ate-change-sea-level-rise-20171026-story.html
Click to expand...
WaPo is less partisan, are you smoking crack? I have posted 400 peer reviewed papers from this year alone and you present a load of partisan crap from WaPo.

So what exactly are Chris Mooney's scientific credentials anyway? Well to be honest, sweet Fanny Adams. He has a BA in English yet he purports to be a science correspondent, how does that work exactly? Can't WaPo afford somebody with actual scientific qualifications? how did this guy get the gig, did he sleep with someone?

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Why are there so many scientific morons on JPP? Apart from Damocles, Tinfoil and Mott, there are very few with any scientific credentials.
 
Corazón said:
WaPo is less partisan, are you smoking crack? I have posted 400 peer reviewed papers from this year alone and you present a load of partisan crap from WaPo.

So what exactly are Chris Mooney's scientific credentials anyway? Well to be honest, sweet Fanny Adams. He has a BA in English yet he purports to be a science correspondent, how does that work exactly? Can't WaPo afford somebody with actual scientific qualifications? how did this guy get the gig, did he sleep with someone?

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Really?

"refered from a less partisan study," the newspaper isn't the study, there are actually three, and none of them are from heavily partisan websites. You would have known that if you read or at least skimmed the article, must be you were in a hurry to shoot the messenger as a deflection
 
Corazón said:


Climate-Control-Knob.jpg


During the first 10 months of 2017, 400 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 question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media.

These 400 new papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes. Climate science is not settled. Modern temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather events are neither unusual nor unprecedented. Many regions of the Earth are cooler now than they have been for most of the last 10,000 years.

Natural factors such as the Sun (108 papers), multi-decadal oceanic-atmospheric oscillations such as the NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO (37 papers), decadal-scale cloud cover variations, and internal variability in general have exerted a significant influence on weather and climate changes during both the past and present. Detecting a clear anthropogenic forcing signal amidst the noise of unforced natural variability may therefore be difficult.

Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often costly, ineffective, and perhaps even harmful to the environment. On the other hand, elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).

In 2016 there were 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) challenging “consensus” climate science. This amounts to more than 900 papers in less than 2 years. Below are the two links to the list of 400 papers as well as the guideline for the lists’ categorization.

Skeptic Papers 2017 (1)

Skeptic Papers 2017 (2)

http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/23/...-climate-alarm/#sthash.hsUGHSI4.GfbGVhxQ.dpbs
Click to expand...

Not science^^^
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top