A Growing Volume Of Evidence Undercuts ‘Consensus’ Climate Science

the sky is not falling, we can grow more trees, the sea level is fine, it's just warm enough and cold enough at just the right times, God built this place beyond what he made us capable of destroying
 
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...

https://www.snopes.com/scientific-papers-global-warming-myth/

Snopes says you lie. Everyone with a brain agrees.
 
The analysis of the findings presented by No Tricks Zone is crude, misinformed, and riddled with errors.

The basic thesis presented by No Tricks Zone is that these graphs, which are inferred records of things like temperature and precipitation from specific localities through time, show that the climatological changes happening right now are neither dramatic nor man made. The charts highlight times from the somewhat recent pre-industrial past that were either warmer or more dramatically variable then they are now, or show evidence of change attributed to clear natural causes. As Breitbart puts it:

"What all these papers argue in their different ways is that the alarmist version of global warming — aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) — is a fake artefact.
This is false. We reached out to many of the authors of the studies included on this list via email to see if they agreed with Breitbart and No Tricks Zone’s analysis. While not everyone we reached out to responded, not a single researcher that we spoke to agreed with Breitbart’s assessment, and most were shocked when we told them that their work was presented as evidence for that claim."


Id...
 
Micawber said:
https://www.snopes.com/scientific-papers-global-warming-myth/

Snopes says you lie. Everyone with a brain agrees.
Click to expand...

Snopes is no longer a reliable source, I am surprised that they are still in business.

The original article in No Tricks is entitled 400 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Support a Sceptical Position on Climate Alarm.

Here is what the author Kenneth Richard has to say.

The claim in the Breitbart headline is easily dismissed by those who literally assume these papers are able to “disprove” global warming – which they don’t, of course. The list isn’t meant to do anything close to that. Much of the globe has (fortunately) warmed since the depths of the Little Ice Age. Most of the authors who object wrongly assume that the Breitbart headline is an accurate portrayal of what this list is designed to do…or to be. (AUTHOR: “I do not argue that ‘global warming… is a fake artefact [sic]’.”)

The list is meant to be a compilation of papers that support positions that skeptics of the “consensus” often maintain, which can be mostly whittled down to:

(1) a significant portion of climate changes are natural;

(2) the consequences of burning fossil fuels are likely not dangerous or even climatically/geologically consequential;

(3) the models are not reliable, as uncertainty is enormous in a multi-faceted, non-linear climate system; and

(4) the warming/sea levels/glacier retreat/hurricane and drought intensities…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable.

These positions are not supported by the “consensus”. Quite the opposite according to the “consensus”:

(1) Close to or over 100% (110%) of climate change is anthropogenic, leaving natural attribution at something close to 0%.

(2) Modern warming, glacier and sea ice recession, sea level rise, drought and hurricane intensities…are all occurring at unprecedentedly high and rapid levels, and the effects are globally synchronous…and thus dangerous consequences to the biosphere and human civilizations loom.

(3) The climate models are reliable and accurate, and the scientific understanding of the effects of CO2 concentration changes on climate changes is “settled enough“, which means that “the debate is over“.

(4) The proposed solutions to mitigate the dangerous consequences described in (2) – namely, wind and solar expansion – are safe, effective, and environmentally-friendly.

The papers support the first (1)-(4) positions, and they undermine the second set of (1)-(4) positions. The papers do not do more than that. Expectations that they should do more than support skeptical positions and undermine “consensus” positions to “count” are not valid.
———————————————————————
If we were to look at the papers that Cook et al. (2013) used to concoct the 97% “consensus” paper, for example, we’d find that Cook and his co-horts actually classified papers (and magazine articles) about cooking stoves in Brazil, phone surveys, asthma-related ER visits in Montreal, TV coverage…as “endorsing” the position that most of the global warming occurring since ~1950 has been human-caused.
Click to expand...

http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/23/...sition-on-climate-alarm/#sthash.LlMFU9hv.dpbs

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ct-check-me-on-global-warming-heres-my-reply/
Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Corazón said:
Snopes is no longer a reliable source, I am surprised that they are still in business.

The original article in No Tricks is entitled 400 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Support a Sceptical Position on Climate Alarm.

Here is what the author Kenneth Richard has to say.






http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/23/...sition-on-climate-alarm/#sthash.LlMFU9hv.dpbs


http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...ct-check-me-on-global-warming-heres-my-reply/
Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Could have told you that was coming, "is no longer a reliable source," told me that same about NASA, and what makes even more comical is that he then goes on an employs Brietfart as a source
 
archives said:
Could have told you that was coming, "is no longer a reliable source," told me that same about NASA, and what makes even more comical is that he then goes on an employs Brietfart as a source
Click to expand...

Breitbart is only mentioned as James Delinpole took the No Tricks article and gave it his own spin. I have given you both the original article and the author Kenneth Richard's rebuttal.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
Threedee said:
If I could convince everyone here that I am, it would bolster every argument that I make to the leftists. So, why don't you spread the theory around, and see if it gains traction.
Click to expand...

Yeh you could form a new Trinity with BAC and TTQ, what fun.

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
archives said:
Go to NASA's website on "climate change," they provide the footnotes and data, none of which these two will even recognize any of it since it isn"t within the scope of the study thier pounding
Click to expand...
This is an old article but it coincides with what an old college friend, a PhD Physicist, who worked for NASA once told me about how any studies concerning anything to do with climate had to be massaged to get continued funding. He wouldn't touch climate topics for anything (so he said). It had gotten to be more about politics than science and that was about 20 yrs. ago.
49 former NASA scientists go ballistic over agency's bias over climate change
http://business.financialpost.com/b...llistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change
 
aloysious said:
This is an old article but it coincides with what an old college friend, a PhD Physicist, who worked for NASA once told me about how any studies concerning anything to do with climate had to be massaged to get continued funding. He wouldn't touch climate topics for anything (so he said). It had gotten to be more about politics than science and that was about 20 yrs. ago.
49 former NASA scientists go ballistic over agency's bias over climate change
http://business.financialpost.com/b...llistic-over-agencys-bias-over-climate-change
Click to expand...
I showed him that before and he just dismissed it out of hand. Much of the crap about hottest years comes from the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Science (GISS) run by Gavin Schmidt.

http://joannenova.com.au/2017/09/fo...tells-the-new-nasa-head-to-stop-funding-them/

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
archives said:
The Internet. If you backtrack his sources they nearly all fall on climate deniers websites.

He, and the others, use their basic interest in some field, master the right semantics, and pound some study they've found challenging anyone to attack their explanations. If you provide anything they immediately start with the personal crapola and repeatingly demand you negate that specific research they've copied and pasted

Go to NASA's website on "climate change," they provide the footnotes and data, none of which these two will even recognize any of it since it isn"t within the scope of the study thier pounding

They come on with the same scenario over and over
Click to expand...

Spot on target! The other tactic is to try and change the subject or divert the discussion. Sad really.
 
Getin the ring said:
the sky is not falling, we can grow more trees, the sea level is fine, it's just warm enough and cold enough at just the right times, God built this place beyond what he made us capable of destroying
Click to expand...

And yet things are not as you say, and folk like you just avoid the logical and fact based points you don't like.
 
Taichiliberal said:
And yet things are not as you say, and folk like you just avoid the logical and fact based points you don't like.
Click to expand...
I refer you to post 91, so which of those four RCP scenarios defined by the IPCC do you ascribe to, I am guessing you've never heard of them before?

Sent from my Lenovo K8 Note using Tapatalk
 
Al Gore said the world would be engulfed by now, didn't he?

Look around.

Al Gore said all the oxygen would be gone by now, didn't he?

Take a deep breath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top