Is there truly an overwhelming scientific consensus about an anthropogenic climate change?
No there is no such consensus as thousands of leading scientists debunk the theory. The Working Group #1 of the UN IPCC failed in 1995 with their first major report to find evidence of anthropogenic climate change that could be discerned apart from natural variability.
CO2 is too minute, too variable and not correlated with temperature because it lags not precedes temperature rise. CO2 has no climate effect and is essential to plant life through photosynthesis. We need more CO2 for greening the earth not less.
Science unlike politics and religion is based on doubt and skepticism therefore the very idea of finding consensus in evaluating a new and controversial theory like AGW is a false and antiscientific. Therefore, when alarmists talk consensus this is a tip off they are covering up disputed and shoddy science by the laughable claim “the science is settled. “
Here in Nakamura, we have a highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials rejecting the unscientific bases of the climate crisis claims. But he’s up against it — activists are winning at the moment, and they’re fronted by scared, crying children; an unstoppable combination, one that’s tricky to discredit without looking like a heartless bastard (I’ve tried).
I published an answer to a similar question recently. See - James Matkin's answer to Is there really scientific consensus that man-made climate change is actually happening?
Leading scientists around the world are petitioning governments that there is no climate crisis for them to address. 500 scientists signed this European Climate Declaration as one example. 90 well known Italian scientists added their further petition.
Science is not in the consensus business like politics and religion. Doubt is the engine of science. This means just one brilliant skeptic can undo poor research and conventional wisdom.
Here is an example of a cogent attack that debunks anthropogenic climate change.
ANOTHER CLIMATE SCIENTIST WITH IMPECCABLE CREDENTIALS BREAKS RANKS: “OUR MODELS ARE MICKEY-MOUSE MOCKERIES OF THE REAL WORLD”
kikoukagakushanokokuhaku chikyuuonndannkahamikennshounokasetsu: Confessions of a climate scientist The global warming hypothesis is an unproven hypothesis (Japanese Edition) Kindle Editionby(Author)
ANOTHER CLIMATE SCIENTIST WITH IMPECCABLE CREDENTIALS BREAKS RANKS: “OUR MODELS ARE MICKEY-MOUSE MOCKERIES OF THE REAL WORLD”Dr. Mototaka Nakamura received a Doctorate of Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and for nearly 25 years specialized in abnormal weather and climate change at prestigious institutions that included MIT, Georgia Institute of Technology, NASA, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, JAMSTEC and Duke University.In his book, Dr. Nakamura explains why the data foundation underpinning global warming science is “untrustworthy” and cannot be relied on:“Global mean temperatures before 1980 are based on untrustworthy data,” writes Nakamura. “Before full planet surface observation by satellite began in 1980, only a small part of the Earth had been observed for temperatures with only a certain amount of accuracy and frequency. Across the globe, only North America and Western Europe have trustworthy temperature data dating back to the 19th century.”From 1990 to 2014, Nakamura worked on cloud dynamics and forces mixing atmospheric and ocean flows on medium to planetary scales. His bases were MIT (for a Doctor of Science in meteorology), Georgia Institute of Technology, Goddard Space Flight Center, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Duke and Hawaii Universities and the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology.He’s published 20+ climate papers on fluid dynamics.There is no questioning his credibility or knowledge.Today’s ‘global warming science’ is akin to an upside down pyramid which is built on the work of a few climate modelers. These AGW pioneers claim to have demonstrated human-derived CO2 emissions as the cause of recently rising temperatures and have then simply projected that warming forward. Every climate researcher thereafter has taken the results of these original models as a given, and we’re even at the stage now where merely testing their validity is regarded as heresy.Here in Nakamura, we have a highly qualified and experienced climate modeler with impeccable credentials rejecting the unscientific bases of the climate crisis claims. But he’s up against it — activists are winning at the moment, and they’re fronted by scared, crying children; an unstoppable combination, one that’s tricky to discredit without looking like a heartless bastard (I’ve tried).
Climate scientist Dr. Mototaka Nakamura’s recent book blasts global warming data as “untrustworthy” and “falsified”.DATA FALSIFICATIONWhen arguing against global warming, the hardest thing I find is convincing people of data falsification, namely temperature fudging. If you don’t pick your words carefully, forget some of the facts, or get your tone wrong then it’s very easy to sound like a conspiracy crank (I’ve been there, too).But now we have Nakamura.The good doctor has accused the orthodox scientists of “data falsification” in the form adjusting historical temperature data down to inflate today’s subtle warming trend — something Tony Heller has been proving for years on his website.Nakamura writes: “The global surface mean temperature-change data no longer have any scientific value and are nothing except a propaganda tool to the public.”The climate models are useful tools for academic studies, he admits. However: “The models just become useless pieces of junk or worse (as they can produce gravely misleading output) when they are used for climate forecasting.”Climate forecasting is simply not possible, Nakamura concludes, and the impacts of human-caused CO2 can’t be judged with the knowledge and technology we currently possess.The models grossly simplify the way the climate works.As well as ignoring the sun, they also drastically simplify large and small-scale ocean dynamics, aerosol changes that generate clouds (cloud cover is one of the key factors determining whether we have global warming or global cooling), the drivers of ice-albedo: “Without a reasonably accurate representation, it is impossible to make any meaningful predictions of climate variations and changes in the middle and high latitudes and thus the entire planet,” and water vapor.The climate forecasts also suffer from arbitrary “tunings” of key parameters that are simply not understood.NAKAMURA ON CO2He writes:“The real or realistically-simulated climate system is far more complex than an absurdly simple system simulated by the toys that have been used for climate predictions to date, and will be insurmountably difficult for those naive climate researchers who have zero or very limited understanding of geophysical fluid dynamics. The dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans are absolutely critical facets of the climate system if one hopes to ever make any meaningful prediction of climate variation.”Solar input is modeled as a “never changing quantity,” which is absurd.“It has only been several decades since we acquired an ability to accurately monitor the incoming solar energy. In these several decades only, it has varied by one to two watts per square meter. Is it reasonable to assume that it will not vary any more than that in the next hundred years or longer for forecasting purposes? I would say, No.”Read Mototaka Nakamura’s book for free onSUPERB Demolition Of The ‘97% Consensus’ Myth
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research“The models are convenient fictions
that provide something very useful.”
– Dr David Frame,
Climate modeller, Oxford University***A must watch demolition of the “97% Consensus” myth. Ping this to anyone claiming that there is a scientific consensus on CO₂ as the primary driver of earth’s climate.97 Percent of scientists believe in catastrophic human caused climate change? Of course not! But far too many believe this ridiculous statement that defies basic logic and observation. (Can you think of any highly-political issue where you could get even 65% agreement?) The 97% Myth has succeeded in fooling many people because the phony number is repeated over and over again by those who have a financial and/or ideological stake in the outcome. By the way, what any scientist “believes’ doesn’t matter anyway. Science is what happens during rigorous and repeated experimentation.VISIT Clear Energy Alliance https://clearenergyalliance.com/***
SALIENT reminders about “consensus” from science legend, Michael Crichton :“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
― Michael Crichton“I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”
― Michael Crichton“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
― Michael CrichtonMUST READ CRICHTON :
New lists are published that debunks the notion of any overwhelming scientific consensus and human made global warming.
“THE LIST” — SCIENTISTS WHO PUBLICLY DISAGREE WITH THE CURRENT CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE CHANGEFor those still blindly banging the 97% drum, here’s an in-no-way-comprehensive list of the SCIENTISTS who publicly disagree with the current consensus on climate change.There are currently 85 names on the list, though it is embryonic and dynamic. Suggestions for omissions and/or additions can be added to the comment section below and, if validated, will –eventually– serve to update the list.SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS PRIMARILY CAUSED BY NATURAL PROCESSES— scientists that have called the observed warming attributable to natural causes, i.e. the high solar activity witnessed over the last few decades.
- Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.[81][82]
- Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[83][84][85]
- Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.[86][87][88]
- Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[89][90]
- Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.[91]
- Doug Edmeades, PhD., soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.[92]
- David Dilley, B.S. and M.S. in meteorology, CEO Global Weather Oscillations Inc. [198][199]
- David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.[93][94]
- Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.[95][96]
- William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.[39][97]
- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Theoretical Physicist and Researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.[98]
- Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.[99][100]
- Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[101][102]
- William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.[103][104]
- David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.[105][106]
- Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.[107][108]
- Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, former director of the Australian Environment Foundation.[109][110]
- Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[111][112]
- Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[113][114]
- Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[115][116]
- Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.[117][118]
- Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.[119][120]
- Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.[121][122][123]
- Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.[124][125]
- Nedialko (Ned) T. Nikolov, PhD in Ecological Modelling, physical scientist for the U.S. Forest Service [200]
- Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.[126][127]
- Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.[128][129][130][131]
- Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[132][133]
- Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.[134][135]
- Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.[136][137]
- George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.[138][139]
- Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.[140][141]
SCIENTISTS PUBLICLY QUESTIONING THE ACCURACY OF IPCC CLIMATE MODELS
- Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, former Greenpeace member. [203][204]
- David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22]
- Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23][24]
- Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[25][26]
- Susan Crockford, Zoologist, adjunct professor in Anthropology at the University of Victoria. [27][28][29]
- Judith Curry, professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[30][31][32][33]
- Joseph D’Aleo, past Chairman American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, former Professor of Meteorology, Lyndon State College.[34][35][36][37]
- Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[38][39]
- Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[40]
- Dr. Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D., Industrial Chemistry, University of Tokyo [202]
- Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[41][42]
- Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[39][43][44][45]
- Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[46][47][48][49][50][51][52]
- Sebastian Lüning, geologist, famed for his book The Cold Sun. [201]
- Ross McKitrick, professor of economics and CBE chair in sustainable commerce, University of Guelph.[53][54]
- Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[55][56][57]
- Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[58][59]
- Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[60][61]
- Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[62][63]
- Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[64][65][66][67]
- Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 astronaut, former US senator.[68][69]
- Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[70][71]
- Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[72][73]
- Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[74][75]
- Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[76][77]
- Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[78][79]
- Valentina Zharkova, professor in mathematics at Northumbria University. BSc/MSc in applied mathematics and astronomy, a Ph.D. in astrophysics.
SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING IS UNKNOWN
- Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[142][143]
- Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[144][145]
- Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[146][147]
- Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[148][149]
- John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[150][151][152]
- Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[153][154]
- David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[155][156]
- Stanley B. Goldenberg a meteorologist with NOAA/AOML’s Hurricane Research Division.[157][158]
- Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes.[159][160]
- Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[161][162]
- Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel laureate in chemistry, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method.[163][164][165]
- Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[166][167]
SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING WILL HAVE FEW NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES
- Indur M. Goklany, electrical engineer, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior.[168][169][170]
- Craig D. Idso, geographer, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[171][172]
- Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University.[173][174]
- Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[175][176]
DECEASED SCIENTISTS— who published material indicating their opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming prior to their deaths.
- August H. “Augie” Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming.[177][178]
- Reid Bryson (1920–2008), emeritus professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.[179][180]
- Robert M. Carter (1942–2016), former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University.[181][182]
- Chris de Freitas (1948–2017), associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland.[183][184]
- William M. Gray (1929–2016), professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University.[185][186]
- Yuri Izrael (1930–2014), former chairman, Committee for Hydrometeorology (USSR); former firector, Institute of Global Climate and Ecology (Russian Academy of Science); vice-chairman of IPCC, 2001-2007.[187][188][189]
- Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and leading NASA scientist who, together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg, established the George C. Marshall Institute.[190][191][192]
- Harold (“Hal”) Warren Lewis (1923–2011), emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.[193][194]
- Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.[195][196][197]
- Joanne Simpson (1923-2010), first woman in the United States to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, [201]
SPEAKING OUTA system is in place that makes it incredibly difficult, almost impossible, for scientists to take a public stance against AGW — their funding and opportunities are shutoff, their credibility and character smeared, and their safety sometimes compromised.Example: In 2014, Lennart Bengtsson and his colleagues submitted a paper to Environmental Research Letters which was rejected for publication for what Bengtsson believed to be “activist” reasons.Bengtsson’s paper disputed the uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity to increased greenhouse gas concentrations contained in the IPCC’s Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports.I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.Lennart BengtssonAny person or body that holds a dissenting view or presents contradictory evidence is immediately labelled a denier — the classic ad-hominem attack designed to smear and silence those who don’t comply with the preferred wisdom of the day.If you still believe in the 97% consensus then by all means find the list of 2,748 scientist that have zero doubts regarding the IPCC’s catastrophic conclusions on Climate Change (given I’ve found 85 names effectively refuting the claims, that’s the minimum number required to reach the 97% consensus).Or go write your own list — it shouldn’t be that hard to do, if the scientists are out there.Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.Michael CrichtonAnother name I have yet to add to the list:Earth’s natural & minor warming trend (the modern Grand Solar Maximum) appears to have runs its course. The COLD TIMES are returning, the lower-latitudes are REFREEZING, in line with historically low solar activity, cloud-nucleating Cosmic Rays, and a meridional jet stream flow.Even NASA appear to agree, if you read between the lines, with their forecast for this upcoming solar cycle (25) seeing it as “the weakest of the past 200 years,” with the agency correlating previous solar shutdowns to prolonged periods of global cooling here.
Comments
Post a Comment