Remember Those “97 Per Cent of Scientists Agree” on Global Warming??

Or is it Global Cooling? Or is it Peak Oil? A coming famine?

Lord Monckton, always entertaining, lays to rest that hoary prevarication about the “consensus” among scientists. He has the source for that lie, which begins at ~minute 21.00 if you’re in a hurry.

The whole thing is entertaining, but the primary reason for this posting is to have a place to hang the source of such balderdash as was promoted in previous comment sections:

Thanks to RonaldB for his link in the comments on my previous posting about climate shenanigans. His link is a somewhat longer video on the subject, but Ivar Giaever, the 1973 Nobel Prizewinner for Physics, is equally entertaining.

Why is it that the deniers are wittier? Not a sin Al Gore will ever commit. But whatever; that Norwegian speaker is worth your time, too. The graphs (e.g., the one which illustrates where thermometers are placed globally. This was a few years ago, but I doubt poor countries have caught up yet) are illuminating.

In a side note, we have some climate here. Last weekend we got fourteen inches of snow. This weekend it is fast disappearing under an onslaught of warmish (52 degrees F) rain. The B and I are going down to watch the river flood over its banks. Hey, in the boondocks, you take your entertainment where you can find it. Things are melting so fast they’re sending up great wraiths of fog on the remaining snowpack.

36 thoughts on “Remember Those “97 Per Cent of Scientists Agree” on Global Warming??

  1. Please read this article: “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature” by John Cook et al, Environmental Research Letters 8 (2013) 024024, http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024. Among abstracts (of peer-reviewed papers, that were climate related; 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics ‘global climate change’ or ‘global warming’) expressing a position on AGW (anthropogenic global warming), 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the study, the authors (of the study) invited authors to rate their own papers. Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.

    Why did this happen? I think there is only on reasonable explanation: The scientists, who endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming in their papers, believe that this position is thoroughly proved.

    I have read Hans Joachim Schellnhuber’s book “Selbstverbrennung”. On page 542 he writes: “Der wissenschaftliche Konsens zur Klimafrage existiert jedoch, und er zeigt eindeutig in Richtung massiver Erwärmung.” – “The scientific consensus on the climate question exists, and it points unambiguously towards massive warming.”
    I believe that Prof. Schellnhuber knows his field.

    On page 91 he writes: “Die sichergestellten Negative jedes individuellen Fingers (Daumen, Zeigefinger etc.) sind jeweils unvollständig und deshalb nicht ganz eindeutig. Aber zusammengenommen überführen sie den Klimatäter mit an Sicherheit grenzender Wahrscheinlichkeit.” – “The seized negatives of each individual finger (thumb, index finger etc.) are incomplete and therefore not completely unambiguous. But together they convict the climate culprit [he means mankind] with a probability that borders on certainty .”

    • No, I won’t read that piece you’re promoting. That figure was debunked in the two videos I posted.

      AGW is a religion with unprovable hypotheses. Those hypotheses are built on the sand of computer models. That’s computer models, not reality. This religion began in academia, where most of the unreality being pushed on others begins. Scientists who don’t depend on academe for their support are free to draw more realistic conclusions based on the history of climate as far as it is understood. And they do just that.

      IOW, a chaotic, stochastic process like climate cannot ever be predicted – at least not until we know far more than we do today. And it certainly can’t be blamed on human beings. Oh, wait: the dinosaurs caused that ice age, didn’t they?

      I’ll bet you didn’t watch the videos. Lord Monckton dove to the bottom of the pile from that 97% – cooked up by two unis whose meta-analysis was biased to begin with. IIRC, there were less than a hundred papers which lined up with the biases you use.

      I’ll believe in climate change when meteorologists can correctly forecast a fortnight’s weather. But they can’t because that’s the nature of weather and of climate: too many variables for real predictability. However, there are trillions to be made by the hucksters selling this stuff while they widen their own carbon footprint.

      Thank God for President Trump refusing to sign on to that Alice-in-Wonderland Climate Treaty. China isn’t doing it, either. Nor is India. And you won’t get much of South America.

      Whadda scam.

      • Dymphna-

        All physics, and engineering based on it, is derived from “models”. They are the way we describe the physical world, and long ago replaced acts of gods to describe physical events among people trying to understand the physical world.

        I notice you did not respond to my challenge below, which I shall repeat

        But perhaps some denier here can explain to me how you can add energy to the system and not, over time, increase the temperature of that system. I submit you cannot do it.
        And adding energy is exactly what you are doing if you increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere while decreasing the earth’s albedo by cutting down forests. Of course, this assumes other inputs, primarily solar radiation, are constant …

        I suggest you are out of your element when discussing scientific matters, and should be more circumspect about describing the best models the human mind has come up with to describe global warming as “a scam”.

        Finally, predicting tomorrow’s weather involves very different factors than predicting the effects of long term processes such as increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases. Your connecting the two is a false equivalence.

        • Actually, the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, coupled with the decrease in the burning of wood, has caused massive growth of new forests in North America and Europe. There is significantly more plant biomass on the surface of the planet than there was 75 years ago, and the albedo of the Earth’s surface is correspondingly lower.

        • I suggest you are out of your element when discussing scientific matters, and should be more circumspect about describing the best models the human mind has come up with to describe global warming as “a scam”.

          Ridicule is an easy way to silence people. You’re better than that…

          What none of the Warmists talk about are the economic consequences for the many people who would be impacted by these beliefs, especially and foremost the poorest among us. They would not be able to afford the price rise in electricity to stay warm in the winter or cool in the summer heat.

          The US law that requires all electric companies to meet a “renewables” goal of 15% has seen our costs here increase appreciably. Not a problem for the wealthy, but the poor must then turn to wood heat in the winter and that causes more trees to be cut down, and more carbon to escape into the atmosphere, and increases the likelihood of house fires appreciably. These rules – mandated by the administrative state – increase mortality in the here and now just for an unprovable theory.

          In turn, if those in warm climates cannot cool their homes, the susceptible elderly poor die off. In California, away from the moderate climate of the coast where live the wealthy, many poor immigrants flock to WalMart to escape the heat.

          But in Britain, they have northern European winters and no respite.

          https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240716/24-000-died-cold-homes-winter-Fears-grow-figure-higher-year-spiralling-bills.html

          I am, and will remain, a warmist atheist. The models are insufficient to prove the point they attempt to make and if they are taken as gospel, the economics of global warming theories means we will even more rapidly descend back to a feudal society. But without the wood to keep the villeins warm.

        • “All physics, and engineering based on it, is derived from “models”.”

          That’s a good one. It’s reasoning by analogy:
          Einstein’s general theory of gravitation is a model.
          The climate change prediction is a model.
          Einstein’s model has proven to the true.
          Ergo, the climate change model is true.

          In point of fact, real models are pictures of reality which are used to make predictions. The predictions are testing, corroborating the model, not proving the model, or altering the model.

          An example of this is the ether model of space, resulting in the prediction that light would travel at a different rate in different directions. The Michaelson-Morley experiment showed that prediction to be completely incorrect, leading to a search for a new model of space and light.

          So, the question about climate modeling is, what are the corroborations and just as important, what are the hypotheses by which a model can be disproven? As Giaver shows in the video whose link I referenced, there were at the time 32 model classes, and two of them predicted a flat temperature while 30 of them predicted a steep temperature curve. What was the difference? It was the time frame used to derive the parameters for each model class. In other words, the models themselves are subject to shifting sands, so to speak, and cannot be said to reflect much.

          “But perhaps some denier here can explain to me how you can add energy to the system and not, over time, increase the temperature of that system. I submit you cannot do it.”

          Another good one. When we talk about greenhouse gasses, we are talking about molecules that change the spectrum of light radiation, so that less energy is radiated back into space after they absorb it than would otherwise be the case.

          Again, from Giaver’s talk, water vapor is a far more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Also, the oceans hold a thousand times more heat (energy) than the atmosphere. Also, in the past few years, the measured temperature (a problematic concept in itself) continued to go up, while the increase in CO2 significantly lowered.

          Also, the cloud cover is extremely important in the amount of energy absorbed, rather than radiated back into space.

          As the Baron pointed out, and as Giaver pointed out, the forest mass on Earth is increasing rather than decreasing, not surprising since CO2 is a plant food: increases in CO2 increase the health and mass of plant life, including trees, plankton and agricultural crops.

          So, the conclusion seems to be that the increase in CO2 may or may not play any part in any warming which may or may not be occurring. The invaluable Giaever points out that while the ice in the North Pole is decreasing, the ice at the South Pole is increasing. Also, while the coasts of Greenland have periods of melting ice, the interior ice is increasing.

          Now, against all the fuzzy discussion of CO2, warming, and potential disasters which depend on the parameters used in the models, we have the deadly reality that the Climate Change treaties are looking to create huge, expensive, unaccountable, unsupervised bureaucracies who will be working full time to put all nations and commerce under their control. It will be bound or constrained by no constitution, no courts and no electorate. It will be pressing full time to become an unanswerable dictatorship just like the EU.

          I’ll go with Giaever’s solution. Leave things alone, and let communities deal with whatever problems arise by keeping the fruits of their productivity, rather than shipping it off on massive, fuzzy, open-ended projects like Obama’s subsidized solar energy company, Solyndra.

          Another Giaever link:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dk60CUkf3Kw

          • I really enjoyed the video and in fact, subscribed to Brian London. I may or may not agree with his political views, but he seems a person you can talk logically to, which is a big plus.

            I’m just concerned that if he keeps making videos while driving, he might throw off the traffic model through an unexpected accident…his own.

            My ever-strengthening opinion is that the whole thrust of the climate-modeling panic is to bring about the creation of another huge, expensive, intrusive, and dangerous bureaucracy. It’s another branch of the Deep State amoeba.

          • My ever-strengthening opinion is that the whole thrust of the climate-modeling panic is to bring about the creation of another huge, expensive, intrusive, and dangerous bureaucracy. It’s another branch of the Deep State amoeba.

            Economist Donald Luskin used to have a website called, “The Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid”. It was informative and entertaining – e.g., on Saturdays, he had a regular feature on Dumb Blondes…and regular spots re the on-going conspiracy.

        • I believe you. There will always be pushback against unpopular views. I’m used to it. Haven’t made many friends by my un-p.c. views on immigration or on the harm of global Islamic aggression. This is just another example of our on-going dissent.

          https://www.climatedepot.com/

          As long as “consensus” is being shoved down our throats, no matter what the subject, we’ll respond.

          • Cook et al’s number (97.1% of all abstracts expressing a position on AGW (anthropogenic global warming) endorsed the position that humans are causing global warming) has not been disproved.

            Please read this small article: “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” by Naomi Oreskes, Science. 306 (5702): 1686. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/306/5702/1686.full.pdf

            I don’t understand why climate change denial is unpopular. Why is the advice to do nothing unpopular?

          • You wrote: “As long as “consensus” is being shoved down our throats, no matter what the subject, we’ll respond.”

            Baron Bodissey wrote this about adherents of the Green party in Germany: “Listening to these people speak, it’s quite clear that “climate” is very much a postmodern religion. They speak with at least as much self-righteous zeal as the most fervent evangelical preacher.

            And it’s not just that they’re true believers, but also that they’re earnestly convinced that they know best for everyone; that they must force everybody else to do or not do certain things.” See here: https://gatesofvienna.net/2018/12/the-green-antifa-synergy/

            Naomi Oreskes writes this: “In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities … are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents … that absorb or scatter radiant energy. … [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations” [p. 21 in (4)].

            IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members’ expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, “Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions”, begins: “Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise” [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: “The IPCC’s conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue” [p. 3 in (5)]. Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).”

            As long as you are denouncing people who believe in science as adherents of a new religion, I’ll respond.

          • Please do. Meanwhile, back in reality, where the IPCC’s claims would not long survive, the dogmas of scientism continue on and so does the pushback:

            Scientism and Secularism: Learning to Respond to a Dangerous Ideology

            https://amzn.to/2SiLPpW

            The hubris behind AGW is stunning.

    • I read a report regarding atmospheric pollution. The report shows data of last 10 years and the main factor in atmospheric pollution is volcanic and other natural activity, pollution connected with human activity represent 8-10 % of the total emissions. Volcanic activity is increasing. If human pollution is reduced to zero, the effect is unimportant because the increasing natural pollution represent over 90% of total atmospheric pollution. So, actually, it is not us killing earth, it is earth killing us.

  2. Am I the only one to notice that Lord Monckton did admit that the Earth is warming, albeit at a slower rate than many had predicted (and not for the 17 years prior to this talk)?

    You are dealing with a very complex system (the planet Earth) and nature has many confounding influences that make prediction a very risky proposition. But perhaps some denier here can explain to me how you can add energy to the system and not, over time, increase the temperature of that system. I submit you cannot do it. And adding energy is exactly what you are doing if you increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere while decreasing the earth’s albedo by cutting down forests. Of course, this assumes other inputs, primarily solar radiation, are constant, and while that is not 100% true, it is a factor beyond our control (although perhaps we could filter solar radiation).

    Our industrial, petroleum/combustion based economy is a serious threat to the future, and it really doesn’t matter if the warming effect takes longer than scientists in the field now predict.

    Despite the speaker’s reassuring statement that the earth had not warmed in the previous 17 years, NASA and NOAA note that the five warmest years on record (since 1880?) have occurred since 2010. Only fools would ignore the consequences of global warming, of which anthropogenic activity is almost certainly a major component.

    Ref. 1: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2671/long-term-warming-trend-continued-in-2017-nasa-noaa/

    • “…Of course, this assumes other inputs, primarily solar radiation, are constant, and while that is not 100% true, it is a factor beyond our control…”
      Already as far back as the 1970’s scientist concluded we are heading for a new solar minimum significantly reducing the heat earth is receiving from the sun. Because our planet is continuing radiating heat into the universe the atmosphere will cool down and not warm up.
      This solar minimum is now (almost) upon us.

    • There are natural phenomena producing more important changes than human activity do. Until 20th century, the humanity produced almost no effect on atmospheric changes…yet, in 1000 years (between year 1000 ac and 1600 ac), there was a mini ice age and coming back in temperature values. So…whatever changes happen, our influence is very-very-very low. Earth has own cycles and it is not affected or corrected by humans.

      • “Until 20th century, the humanity produced almost no effect on atmospheric changes…yet, in 1000 years (between year 1000 ac and 1600 ac), there was a mini ice age and coming back in temperature values. So…whatever changes happen, our influence is very-very-very low. ”

        Your conclusion in no way follows from its antecedents.

        Yes, there are natural fluctuations in temperature. That does not mean human activity isn’t a primary driver in current warming trends.

    • As the coldest Thanksgiving in 150 years just hit the Northeast with “Siberian” temperatures, a month ago November 2018, you shouldn’t be positing these allegations.

      [I question your logic] because the amount of energy set free on planet earth is miniscule and has no material effect on the universe. Even global warming promotors do not resort to this argument. What they claim is that the CO2 discharged floats around in high altitude, trapping the sun rays within the atmosphere and creating a warming effect like in a hothouse or in your garden glass house on a sunny winter day.

      The trouble with your argument is that there has been no increase in temperature for long stretches of time. Where they did occur they came in very tiny fractions, totaling all-in combined less than half a percent over a century. But in fact during recent decades, just as huge volumes of carbon dioxide were produced, the temperature actually minimally cooled. Overall, temperature was stable.
      We don’t need to hypothesize. We know that in the last 100 years, temperatures increased by 0.45 degree centigrade. Less than one half of one degree, over 100 years. You cannot even measure that 100 year difference on an analogue thermometer… That works out for a nothing per year. Anybody who tells you he can personally really feel the change is a brainwashed lunatic.

      If anything, carbon dioxide over the decades is a natural feedstock that supports further greening of the planet. This can be observed from satellite images. And thus the CO2 actually got trapped in new plants, and there is no harm, but real environmental improvements instead.

      Nobody can honestly monitor temperature changes for the last hundred years. Meteorological balloons and satellite measurements only exists a couple of decades back, thus historic measures of the ocean or troposphere do not exist for that long.

      Traditional manual measurements and weather stations do exist for over a century. But rural locations have been overrun by encroaching cities, and temperatures around houses and paved roads are bound to be higher, even though global climate is unchanged.

      Government agency have been dishonest. The US NOAA deleted low observations as being ‘outliers’ , and did not remove stations that were close to generators or air conditioner exhausts established nearby.

      Why did Obama’s NOAA manipulate figures, falsify records and delete observations? Why did researchers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia conspire to defraud? Because huge interests are involved, budgets must be secured and the public is gullible.

      Why should rich nations transfer wealth to corrupt developing regimes to fund Climate Pacts? Because leftist activists believe in materialistic determinism; they deny the capacity of intelligence to create value and transcend physical limitations. Because they believe economic success is a zero sum game, where rich do not generate wealth but they only exploit the poor. Because they believe man is inherently evil, and you should rob the rich. And because, as any Marxist knows, all animals are created equal, but some are more equal. Because deep in their hearts, social activists prosecuting for solutions in totalitarian fashion, are dreaming they will succeed to become the Nomenklatura in the New World.

  3. The introduction suggests skipping ahead to about time-mark 21:00 to get the source of the “97% of scientists agree …” lie, but this video has no time-marks. And if you click on “YouTube” in the lower right to view the video on YouTube, the video there ends at about 21:00, with no revelation there of the source.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/19/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus-on-global-warming/
    is a list of debunking articles, including

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

    Vocabulary note from the abstract of the latter article:
    Agnotology is the study of how ignorance arises via circulation of misinformation calculated to mislead.

  4. ‘Record’ is only 150 years old, and it’s limited by the distribution of weather stations to record temperature and the frequency with which recordings were taken. In the USA, which has consistently had the highest concentration of weather stations (even in the early years of records, when, for example South America had none, there were hardly any in all of Asia and Africa’s could be counted on the fingers), the 1930s were hot, really hot (Grapes-of-Wrath hot, if you like), but more recent studies seem to smooth them out. It’s been a lot hotter before, and also a lot colder. Right at the moment we are in the Quaternary Ice Age. More particularly, we are in the Holocene Interglacial. If we warm things up a bit too much, we might just manage to stave off the next glaciation by a few years. Or we may not manage to do much at all against geological, solar and even galactic forces. Sure, we need to be as clean as possible in the way in which we live, both in terms of the waste we generate and what we pump into the air, but we should also be careful that the alternatives to present means of power generation are reliable, cost effective, and don’t actually cause more environmental harm than they propose to save.

  5. IIRC the Vostok ice cores show quite easily that increases of CO2 FOLLOWED increases in overall temperature increases. CO2 does not appear to be a contributor to temp. increase, at least in the early stages.

  6. News Flash: here is the latest missive on the “chamber of horrors” exhibit by climate-change bureaucrats:
    https://www.foxnews.com/science/mountain-of-evidence-confirms-climate-change-is-really-really-bad-for-human-health-and-well-being

    And if you want to see a systematic, though circular, exposition of the climate-change proponents arguments: https://www.livescience.com/19466-climate-change-myths-busted.html

    Carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant
    Myth: Rick Santorum, GOP presidential nominee, summed up this argument in the news when he said: “The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is,” he told the Associated Press.

    Science: While it is true that plants photosynthesize, and therefore take up carbon dioxide as a way of forming energy with the help of the sun and water, this gas is both a direct pollutant (think acidification of oceans) and more importantly is linked to the greenhouse effect. When heat energy gets released from Earth’s surface, some of that radiation is trapped by greenhouse gases like CO2; the effect is what makes our planet comfy temperature-wise, but too much and you get global warming.

    So, CO2 is really a pollutant. We know that it feeds plants and increases agricultural production and lush forests, but it causes acidification (which is apparently not a huge issue, as there has been no discussion of it in decades), and increases the greenhouse effect, which is the topic under discussion. So, the logic is, we assume the greenhouse effect is real and catastrophic, so any mitigating factor is bad because it adds to the greenhouse effect.

    I have a task for the computer modelers. They get copious government funding for highly-questionable computer models of the future climate. How about a few models of the efficiency of government bureaucracies, particular mega-government bureaucracies like the EU regulatory apparatus? The solution proposed to the very vague predictions of catastrophic climate change is a huge government bureaucracy, so it makes sense to ask for some modeling of the efficiency of mega-government, mega-bureaucracies.

  7. Please read this article: “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” by Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman. Eos 90 (3) 22-23, https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2009EO030002

    They asked 10257 Earth scientists and received 3146 answers. The first two questions (of up to nine questions) read:
    1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
    2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

    They write: “Results show that overall, 90% of participants answered “risen” to question 1 and 82% answered yes to question 2.”

    They write: “In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.”

    They conclude: “It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”

    Now you have to apply the binomial distribution: If 90% or less of those scientists who consider climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change answer the second question with yes, then the probability that 75 or more of 79 individuals of that group answer the second question with yes is not more than 9.35%.

    Please go to this site which provides a calculator for the binomial distribution:
    http://www.ingobartling.de/mathe/klasse12/html/stochastik/binomial/binomialvert.html
    Please go to “Binomial-Verteilung” and insert:
    “Gesamtanzahl der Ziehungen n = 79”
    “Trefferwahrscheinlichkeit p = 0.1”
    “Anzahl an Treffer X <= 4"
    Then click on "Wahrscheinlichkeit berechnen" and you will read
    "F(n,p,k) = 0.0935 = 9.35%"

    Therefore we can reject the hypothesis that 90% or less of those scientists who consider climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change answer the second question with yes at a significance of 9.35%. That makes a consensus of at least 90%.

    • I admit there is a certain disconnect in the writings of climate change skeptics.

      On the one hand, they say the 97% agreement by scientists on climate change is a doctored number.
      On the other hand, they say that consensus is not science; only proof and hypothesis is science.

      I myself come down on the side of the second argument. It’s not too interesting to me what the “consensus” is. It’s more interesting on the logic of the position and the rigorous testing of the hypothesis.

      “Do you think?”
      This is the central question of both responses.

      Even if a majority reply “yes” it does not imply there is no debate. In fact, if there is no debate, there is no science. This is the reason:
      Every experiment or study has to have a hypothesis, and every hypothesis has to be falsifiable. By that, I mean, you have to make the best case for the most likely hypothesis different from yours, and look for findings that support one hypothesis and are inconsistent with the other. A study that does not engage in this “debate” is not very convincing.

      A more convincing question would be, “Do you know of valid studies confirming that global temperature has risen since since 1800, and inconsistent with the hypothesis that the temperature change is part of a natural cycle?”

      Or, “Do you know of valid studies confirming that human activity has a significant effect on climate changes, and inconsistent with the hypothesis that changes in climate would have occurred without the CO2 put into the atmosphere by human activity?”

      As I mentioned above, I’m also interested in any studies concerning the predictability and likely effects of installing massive, powerful, unaccountable bureaucracies with the mandate to develop rules independent of legislative bodies.

  8. I find it interesting that the earth appears to have begun to really warm up about the same time as we began to populate the earth with thermometers.

  9. “Meanwhile, back in reality, where the IPCC’s claims would not long survive, the dogmas of scientism continue on and so does the pushback”

    Back in reality, eight of the nine warmest years in Germany since 1881 have been in the 21st century (according to Deutscher Wetterdienst, https://www.wetter.de/cms/klimawandel-2018-war-das-waermste-jahr-seit-beginn-deutscher-wetterbeobachtungen-4268741.html). 2018 is with 10.4 degrees Celsius the warmest year since oberservations began in Germany in 1881. This is 2.2 degrees Celsius more than the mean value of the years 1961-1990.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.