The Crumbling Consensus
By Paul Homewood
Reposted from NoTricksZone:
Climate science is supposed to be settled, right?
We are told that there is an overwhelming agreement, or consensus, among scientists that most weather and climate changes that have occurred since the mid-20th century have been caused by human activity — our fossil fuel burning and CO2 emissions in particular. We are told that natural mechanisms that used to dominate are no longer exerting much of any influence on weather or climate anymore. Humans predominantly cause weather and climate changes now.
For example, we are told that extreme weather (hurricanes, droughts, floods, storms) frequencies and intensities have increased since about 1950 primarily due to the dramatic rise in anthropogenic CO2 emissions since then. Humans are now melting glaciers and ice sheets and (Arctic) sea ice at an alarmingly accelerated rate — reminiscent of an impending “death spiral“. Humans now heat up and acidify the oceans down to depths of thousands of meters by burning fossil fuels. Humans are now in the process of raising sea levels so that they will catastrophically rise by 10 feet in the next 50 years. Because of our CO2 emissions, humans are now endangering the long-term survival of 100s of thousands of animal species (especially polar bears), and climate models say we will cause a million species extinctions over the next 33 years with our CO2 emissions. The Earth is even spinning slower, or faster, no, slower, well, faster — due to human activities. Again, this is all settled science. Only those who possess the temerity to deny this science (“climate deniers”) would disagree, or refuse to believe.
But what if much of what we have been told to believe is not actually true? What if scientists do not overwhelmingly agree that humans have dominated (with ~110% attribution) weather and climate changes since about 1950, which is what we have been told by the UN IPCC? What if scientists do not overwhelmingly agree that natural factors exert effectively no influence on weather and climate changes anymore — now that humans have taken over?
These are compelling questions. Because in 2016 alone, 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals seriously question just how settled the “consensus” science really is that says anthropogenic or CO2 forcing now dominates weather and climate changes, and non-anthropogenic (natural) factors no longer exert much, if any, role.
Read the full report here.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Wow; what a brilliant reference point.
After almost 30 years (since the famous 1988 Hansen stunt in an artificially heated auditorium) of failed warming predictions, and an 18 year Pause, that should have been the end of the AGW hypothesis, which in a sense it was, as the focus was switched to weather extremes and animal extinctions, the hypothesis could no longer be disproved by any data, converting it from science to religion, where it is today.
Brace yourselves for some sermons from the Evil Lord Harrabin on radio 4 tonight and tomorrow night, the politburo has granted Him some slots in between those dealing with the new fight against the post-truth lies that caused Brexit and Trump.
‘Climate science is supposed to be settled, right?’
Right. The government tells you what you, as a paid scientist, should be thinking. Or else…
To be fair, I think the scientists lead the governments along a path laid out by activist zealots – Strong for example. What government is going to turn down the chance to wield more power over its people, raise taxes and then say it is to save us and doing nothing is not an option? Having set the ball rolling it becomes a matter of course that future ‘research’ will be all about trying to prove this or else no cash for you sunshine.
“The fundamental art of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”. H L Mencken – who’s other numerous quotes are a must read.
Climate Change Skeptics Welcome Open Debate Under Trump Presidency.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/02/climate-change-skeptics-welcome-open-debate-trump-presidency/
Remember two times when science was deemed to be consensus? “The earth is flat and you can sail off the edge?” Christopher Columbus and Ferdinand Magellan pretty much put that one to bed. “The sun revolved around the earth?” Although the Italian astronomer Galileo correctly stated that the “earth revolved around the sun,” the Inquisition “Consensus Police” forced him to recant what he knew to be true (much like the AG’s of several US States would like to recreate by bringing RICO against those of us who disagree with them).
Science has never been about “consensus” but rather about gathered facts and experimentation.
Galileo, brilliant mind but I think Nicolaus Copernicus hit on the idea….. Nico – who knew of Aristarchus ideas and then, later Johannes Keplar pulled it all together – “Heliocentrism” was the word.
Of course, Galileo was not alone, nor the first.
But this was only obvious to an extremely select few who possessed inner sight and could see things via mathematics which other more ordinary people could not see.
The danger with Galileo was his telescope (which he did not invent but perfected and put to scientific use). Even the most illiterate could now look to the heavens and see the Galilean moons orbit Jupiter, not planet Earth. This was potentially a revolution.
Gosselin’s article is well-said, but like most others it fails to point out or discuss the obvious(?). Even if all these “catastrophic” events are “settled science” and our collective fate is “sealed” there is virtually NOTHING that can be done to change or reverse it. Us humans cannot sequester and rebury 50 ppm… more than 100 GIGAtons of CO2 already in the atmosphere… five cubic miles of sublimated “dry ice”. It seems a “compelling” question to ask of those who are running the “climate” mitigation show… to save the polar bears.
I suggest that the science that has been studied the most in our history is the science of the human body and for good reasons. However do we know everything about our bodies and what goes wrong with them? Do we get eternal life from our scientific studies? Can we cure the common cold, cure all cancers, recognise all viruses?
We all know that medical science does not yet have all the answers and yet there is a catalogue of scentific fraud in medical research because of the money available for research. Researchers falsify experimental data to get their product on the market where billions can be made. The medical researchers (scientists) lie about what they know and what they don’t know in order to make money.
Why is it so hard to persuade politicians that the same is true in climate science?
When the IPCC first started its Assessment Reports it freely admitted that there were huge areas of climate related science whose effects on temperature were not understood: water vapour, clouds, the significance of sun spots, cosmic rays, the sun was totally dismissed as a cause of climate change! Yet today these scientists claim to understand everything about the Earth’s climate and can therefore predict it.
They are liars pure and simple and the politicians who are so easily led by the nose are liars or simpletons or both.
Good example to use. Are we allowed to eat butter this week or was it labeled bad again last week? How many times do they change their minds on what we should eat and how much?
The 97% climate consensus does not consist of worsening climate. For instance Doran and Zimmerman 2009 consists of a small group believing (a) the world has warmed and (b) humans have made a significant contribution towards that warming. Yet the implied consensus goes far beyond the trivial beliefs to encompass the catastrophic events. For evaluating events Notrickszone tries to compares theory against the real world. This standard scientific approach will have no impact on the believers in climate alarmism, as it is theory that is used to evaluate the real world. If there is a catastrophic event, then that is real, whereas the normal, or events that go against the theory are just natural variation. This inversion of the scientific method is most clearly seen in the temperature anamoly. Rising temperatures are anthropogenic, where are the hiatus is due to errors in the data (hence the gistemp adjustments) or some natural variation. As I posted a few hours ago, this is most clearly seen in the Lewandowsky and Cook version of consensus. That version Academics are left with a choice. They can agree with consensus and deny reality, or point out reality, as proper scientists would and get vilified. Most just steer well clear.
The many outspoken believers in climate alarmism (movie stars and political wannabes) will ultimately be converted back to CO2 and thus will, themselves, add to their own perceived problem? They just can’t win…they are biodegradable… and they even think that’s a good thing? Alarmist compost!
Kenneth Richard has done a fine job of cataloging these reference points in real science. Well done Kenneth Richard and your helpers !
Without a doubt, ALL bad weather and ALL climate change is human caused, because when you come right down to it, it is the MSM that has driven this wagon, not science. And when you tell a 10 year old that the current 9 inch snow storm is the worst in history, he has no idea that there was a 12 inch storm just 9 years earlier.
Every hurricane is the worst in history. Every tornado is the worst in history. you write that in the leading papers and 50% or more of the readers have no way of refuting that from their own experience. Without the efforts of the MSM, Climate Crisis could not exist because no one would be aware of it.