Climate scientist blows the lid off the ‘manufactured consensus’

[Crick]

Why Scientists Disagree

About Global Warming

The NIPCC Report

on Scientific Consensus

Craig D. Idso, Robert M. Carter, S. Fred Singer

NIPCC

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change

(110 Pages)

xix​

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.

xix

​

xx
# 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.

xxi​

KEY FINDINGS

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.

​

xxii WHY SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

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.

Oddly, nothing in this linked article has changed

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

Oddly, nothing in this linked article has changed

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Neither has our planet's unique configuration for colder temperatures.

 

[jc456]

Neither has our planet's unique configuration for colder temperatures.

Crock still doesn’t understand the concept of poles

 

[Crick]

Crock still doesn’t understand the concept of poles

No one here has presented any evidence beyond Judith Curry's completely unsupported opinion that the consensus among climate scientists accepting the IPCC conclusions is any less robust than that seen in Wikipedia's article "Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ding]

No one here has presented any evidence beyond Judith Curry's completely unsupported opinion that the consensus among climate scientists accepting the IPCC conclusions is any less robust than that seen in Wikipedia's article "Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You mean the scientists who won't discuss the bizarre, unsupported, magnification of the GHG effect of CO2? Those scientists?

 

[ding]

Crock still doesn’t understand the concept of poles

Apparently none of the so-called experts do because they sure do ignore the empirical climate evidence from the geologic record in favor of flawed computer models.

 

[jc456]

No one here has presented any evidence beyond Judith Curry's completely unsupported opinion that the consensus among climate scientists accepting the IPCC conclusions is any less robust than that seen in Wikipedia's article "Scientific Consensus on Climate Change"

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I’ve posted This to you at least four times including now.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You mean the scientists who won't discuss

That’s the overarching concern here. Science being held hostage by corrupt government and affiliated opportunists.

 

[jc456]

That’s the overarching concern here. Science being held hostage by corrupt government and affiliated opportunists.

Exactly

 

[Crick]

That’s the overarching concern here. Science being held hostage by corrupt government and affiliated opportunists.

What evidence do you have of ANY of that?

 

[Crick]

I’ve posted This to you at least four times including now.

And I have linked you to the Wikipedia consensus article a dozen times. Mine involves published surveys, polls and studies. Your involves a fucking YouTube video made by a no-name who presents ZERO evidence to support his opinions.

I don't take science from videos. YOU watch that whole thing, take notes and post the notes.

 

[jc456]

And I have linked you to the Wikipedia consensus article a dozen times. Mine involves published surveys, polls and studies. Your involves a fucking YouTube video made by a no-name who presents ZERO evidence to support his opinions.

I don't take science from videos. YOU watch that whole thing, take notes and post the notes.

Yep, and my video explains the problem with your nonsense Wikipedia

 

[jc456]

What evidence do you have of ANY of that?

All peer review papers funded by government funds

 

[Crick]

All peer review papers funded by government funds

Links?

 

[jc456]

Links?

Links to what?

IPCC is totally funded by government.

Procedures — IPCC

www.ipcc.ch

“ from its parent organizations WMO and UNEP, and voluntary contributions from its member governments and the UNFCCC”

 

[ding]

IPCC is totally funded by government.

And they're here to help