Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,057 Year: 5,314/9,624 Month: 339/323 Week: 183/160 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!
Junior Member
Posts: 18
From: Irvine CA 92606
Joined: 03-10-2024

Message 939 of 971 (917235)
03-27-2024 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 938 by AZPaul3
01-27-2024 8:37 PM

Re: More Doom And Gloom
Marc9000 wrote: I can agree with you there, 2.5 degrees in 250 years, NOTHING since 1997. I'm not alone in deciding there is no problem.
Amen, brother.
It would be IMPOSSIBLE for thousands of scientists to write books, publish papers and videos all of which provide abundant evidence contrary to the cult of liars and "scientists" who have been exaggeratingly called "97%" if the AGW were actual. Clearly it is not.
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. - Daniel J Boorstin, historian, professor, attorney, and writer; 12th librarian of the U.S. Congress
Why Scientists Disagree
About Global Warming
The NIPCC Report
on Scientific Consensus
Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, S. Fred Singer
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change
(110 Pages Book)
Key Findings
Key findings of this book include the following:
No Consensus
# The most important fact about climate science, often overlooked, is that
scientists disagree about the environmental impacts of the combustion
of fossil fuels on the global climate.
# The articles and surveys most commonly cited as showing support for
a “scientific consensus” in favor of the catastrophic man-made global
warming hypothesis are without exception methodologically flawed
and often deliberately misleading.
# There is no survey or study showing “consensus” on the most important
scientific issues in the climate change debate.
# Extensive survey data show deep disagreement among scientists on
scientific issues that must be resolved before the man-made global
warming hypothesis can be validated. Many prominent experts and
probably most working scientists disagree with the claims made by the
United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Why Scientists Disagree
# Climate is an interdisciplinary subject requiring insights from many
fields of study. Very few scholars have mastery of more than one or
two of these disciplines.
# Fundamental uncertainties arise from insufficient observational
evidence, disagreements over how to interpret data, and how to set the
parameters of models.
# IPCC, created to find and disseminate research finding a human impact
on global climate, is not a credible source. It is agenda-driven, a
political rather than scientific body, and some allege it is corrupt.
# Climate scientists, like all humans, can be biased. Origins of bias
include careerism, grant-seeking, political views, and confirmation bias.
Scientific Method vs. Political Science
# The hypothesis implicit in all IPCC writings, though rarely explicitly
stated, is that dangerous global warming is resulting, or will result, from
human-related greenhouse gas emissions.
# The null hypothesis is that currently observed changes in global climate
indices and the physical environment, as well as current changes in
animal and plant characteristics, are the result of natural variability.
# In contradiction of the scientific method, IPCC assumes its implicit
hypothesis is correct and that its only duty is to collect evidence and
make plausible arguments in the hypothesis’s favor.
Flawed Projections
# IPCC and virtually all the governments of the world depend on global
climate models (GCMs) to forecast the effects of human-related
greenhouse gas emissions on the climate.
# GCMs systematically over-estimate the sensitivity of climate to carbon
dioxide (CO2), many known forcings and feedbacks are poorly
modeled, and modelers exclude forcings and feedbacks that run counter
to their mission to find a human influence on climate.
# NIPCC estimates a doubling of CO 2 from pre-industrial levels (from
280 to 560 ppm) would likely produce a temperature forcing of 3.7
Wm-2 in the lower atmosphere, for about ~1°C of prima facie warming.
# Four specific forecasts made by GCMs have been falsified by
real-world data from a wide variety of sources. In particular, there has
been no global warming for some 18 years.
False Postulates
# Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century
surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability.
# The late twentieth century warm peak was of no greater magnitude than
previous peaks caused entirely by natural forcings and feedbacks.
# Historically, increases in atmospheric CO2 followed increases in
temperature, they did not precede them. Therefore, CO2 levels could not
have forced temperatures to rise.
# Solar forcings are not too small to explain twentieth century warming.
In fact, their effect could be equal to or greater than the effect of CO2
in the atmosphere.
# A warming of 2°C or more during the twenty-first century would
probably not be harmful, on balance, because many areas of the world
would benefit from or adjust to climate change.
Unreliable Circumstantial Evidence
# Melting of Arctic sea ice and polar icecaps is not occurring at
“unnatural” rates and does not constitute evidence of a human impact
on the climate.
# Best available data show sea-level rise is not accelerating. Local and
regional sea levels continue to exhibit typical natural variability – in
some places rising and in others falling.
# The link between warming and drought is weak, and by some measures
drought decreased over the twentieth century. Changes in the
hydrosphere of this type are regionally highly variable and show a
closer correlation with multidecadal climate rhythmicity than they do
with global temperature.
# No convincing relationship has been established between warming over
the past 100 years and increases in extreme weather events.
Meteorological science suggests just the opposite: A warmer world will
see milder weather patterns.
# No evidence exists that current changes in Arctic permafrost are other
than natural or are likely to cause a climate catastrophe by releasing
methane into the atmosphere.
Policy Implications
# Rather than rely exclusively on IPCC for scientific advice,
policymakers should seek out advice from independent, nongovernment
organizations and scientists who are free of financial and political
conflicts of interest.
# Individual nations should take charge of setting their own climate
policies based upon the hazards that apply to their particular geography,
geology, weather, and culture.
# Rather than invest scarce world resources in a quixotic campaign based
on politicized and unreliable science, world leaders would do well to
turn their attention to the real problems their people and their planet face.
Nov 27, 2023
John Clauser, is a theoretical and experimental physicist who cheerfully calls himself a “climate change denialist.” A graduate of Cal Tech and Columbia University, in 2022 he received the Nobel Prize in Physics.
Over 1800 Scientists Have Signed the Declaration There is No Climate Emergency

This message is a reply to:
 Message 938 by AZPaul3, posted 01-27-2024 8:37 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 943 by Admin, posted 03-28-2024 10:31 AM ChemEngineer has not replied
 Message 944 by Taq, posted 03-28-2024 10:43 AM ChemEngineer has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024