The shock was even evident in his immediately equating my position with ‘flat-earthers’. And after a little discussion with a few others it was also clear that he thought that ‘Climate Change’ was somehow something different from Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). The truth is that those pushing the agenda of AGW had made use of some clever semantics in renaming it Climate Change to try to hide that truth that it has already failed the test of time and consequence.
He was also
quick to raise the classic, but fallacious, 97% consensus argument.
So I
tried to help with a brief overview of the evidence as documented below and I
thought others might find this list of resources of some value.
Firstly,
regarding the supposed 97% consensus:
Dr
Richard Lindzen, an MIT atmospheric physicist and one of the world's leading
climatologists presents a very simple summary on this issue with this Prager
Uni video:
And this
article, ‘Propaganda’: Top MIT climate scientist trashes ‘97% consensus’
claim’ from Lindzen is also very good: https://www.cfact.org/2016/02/17/propaganda-top-mit-climate-scientist-trashes-97-consensus-claim/
But
further “… a paper by five leading climatologists
published in the journal Science and Education found only 41 out of the 11,944
published climate studies examined in Cook’s study explicitly stated mankind
has caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is
0.3 percent.
“It is astonishing that any journal could have
published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own
analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” said Dr. David Legates,
a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study’s lead author.” - See paper here https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
This
video gives another enlightening perspective on the 97% as well: https://www.prageru.com/video/do-97-of-climate-scientists-really-agree/
And NASA
are now facing a formal complaint regarding the use of this falsified 97%
claim: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/07/13/cei-files-formal-complaint-regarding-nasas-claim-of-97-climate-scientist-agreement-on-global-warming/
And some local news on the 97%
https://dailycaller.com/2014/05/16/where-did-97-percent-global-warming-consensus-figure-come-from/
And some local news on the 97%
https://dailycaller.com/2014/05/16/where-did-97-percent-global-warming-consensus-figure-come-from/
Christopher
Booker’s article on Group Think also raises some concerns about the whole
problem of supposed consensus: https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/02/Groupthink.pdf
Secondly, Science does
not work by consensus!
This is a serious fallacy
– it may suit the MSM who, are for the most part, are the puppets of the
political Left (Socialists and Fascists) who think they can bludgeon the public
into believing with such claims, but it is simply not how any branch of Science
works.
Consensus is not a valid scientific method.
The
Physical Sciences primarily use some form of hypothesis
testing involving the need to be able to show repeatability under the same
conditions. The ‘historical’ sciences for the most part use a different
approach, primarily abductive reasoning[1], which also does not
involve consensus.
Almost a decade ago I come across this great article by Jay Richards on the problems of ‘consensus’ - https://www.discovery.org/a/14351/
And here are a few more which support this reality: https://www.discovery.org/a/13961/ ; https://www.discovery.org/v/stephen-meyer-on-the-hugh-hewitt-show-discussing-the-myth-of-scientific-consensus/; https://www.discovery.org/a/25361/
Almost a decade ago I come across this great article by Jay Richards on the problems of ‘consensus’ - https://www.discovery.org/a/14351/
And here are a few more which support this reality: https://www.discovery.org/a/13961/ ; https://www.discovery.org/v/stephen-meyer-on-the-hugh-hewitt-show-discussing-the-myth-of-scientific-consensus/; https://www.discovery.org/a/25361/
Many
years ago Michael Crichton also discussed this problem in one of his books.
Here is the excerpt: http://www.michaelcrichton.com/why-politicized-science-is-dangerous/
Some Evidence:
Two
scientists who were part of the famous (really infamous) United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
refute it as well:
Dr.
Patrick Michaels, Director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato
Institute, and contributing author of the IPCC Climate Change paper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA5sGtj7QKQ
And Dr.
Nils-Axel Mörner, the retired Head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics at
Stockholm University, a leading expert on sea-level who also served on the UN
IPCC told The New American that in fact, it is more likely that sea-levels will
decline, not rise.
Another
top scientist and Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever gave a great speech at the Nobel
Laureates meeting 1st July 2015 refuting AGW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCy_UOjEir0&t=831s
And
here’s an interesting and important take from Bjorn Lomborg – one of the very
first scientists to present on AGW and someone who still believes it is a
reality: https://www.prageru.com/video/climate-change-whats-so-alarming/
Astro-Physicist
Piers Corbyn is most likely the best weather forecaster on the planet – he
specialises in 3-6 & even 12 month forecasts, and he does not factor any
human causes into his forecasts at all – his main website weatheraction.com
is perhaps one of the worst designed web pages you will find, but his
information is really second to none!
Two of
his best presentations are here http://bit.ly/2wyolpj
and http://bit.ly/2iIoMXN
More evidence from Dr Rex Fleming:
https://notrickszone.com/2018/04/05/ex-noaa-climate-scientist-no-role-of-co2-in-any-signi%ef%ac%81cant-change-of-the-earths-climate/
Listen to a podcast where he discusses this here: https://youtu.be/Gz9v2vKSyN8
More evidence from Dr Rex Fleming:
https://notrickszone.com/2018/04/05/ex-noaa-climate-scientist-no-role-of-co2-in-any-signi%ef%ac%81cant-change-of-the-earths-climate/
Listen to a podcast where he discusses this here: https://youtu.be/Gz9v2vKSyN8
Some books
to check out:
Thomas
Kuhn's seminal work on Scientific Revolutions showed that this was a real
problem with how scientists allowed their prejudices and ‘confirmation bias’ to
affect them. It’s at least worth checking out a summary on it.
Then in
1982 a great book 'Betrayers of the Truth' by William Broad and Nicholas Wade further highlighted the problems in the way scientific
research was funded, etc. - https://www.amazon.com/Betrayers-Truth-William-Broad/dp/0671495496/
And 2017
saw a new classic, 'Fake Science' (by Austin Ruse) which has a chapter on AGW: https://www.amazon.com/Fake-Science-Exposing-Skewed-Statistics-ebook/dp/B01NAYSSMD/
In terms
of books just on AGW/Climate Change – these are among of the best:
https://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Climate-Change-Guides-ebook/dp/B074TTRCQD/
Great video exposing the fraudulent alerting of historical climate data:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ag3D0rjGuc
Update 21st July 2019:
While after much research over a decade ago, I thought the evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming was very weak, and that it was really just a political stunt, I was not prepared for the possibility that we might instead be entering a serious period of global cooling from as early as 2020.
The latest evidence from NASA though suggests that this might indeed be the case.
This is the NASA article that provides a brief overview of their evidence, without any comment on the really important implications:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/solar-activity-forecast-for-next-decade-favorable-for-exploration
And this article details the real implications of this evidence, which are far from comforting, if correct:
https://electroverse.net/nasa-predicts-next-solar-cycle-will-be-lowest-in-200-years-dalton-minimum-levels-the-implications/
And for some more background Professor Valentina Zharkova's research is very interesting.
"... Zharkova was one of only two scientists to correctly predict solar cycle 24 would be weaker than cycle 23 — in fact, only 2 out of 150 models predicted this.
Zharkova’s models have run at a 97% accuracy and now suggest a Super Grand Solar Minimum is on the cards beginning 2020."
https://youtu.be/M_yqIj38UmY
If you find the Professor's research somewhat plausible at the very least, may I suggest, as she does, that setting up you own greenhouse in the next year or two might be a good idea.
Great video exposing the fraudulent alerting of historical climate data:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ag3D0rjGuc
Update 21st July 2019:
While after much research over a decade ago, I thought the evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming was very weak, and that it was really just a political stunt, I was not prepared for the possibility that we might instead be entering a serious period of global cooling from as early as 2020.
The latest evidence from NASA though suggests that this might indeed be the case.
This is the NASA article that provides a brief overview of their evidence, without any comment on the really important implications:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/solar-activity-forecast-for-next-decade-favorable-for-exploration
And this article details the real implications of this evidence, which are far from comforting, if correct:
https://electroverse.net/nasa-predicts-next-solar-cycle-will-be-lowest-in-200-years-dalton-minimum-levels-the-implications/
And for some more background Professor Valentina Zharkova's research is very interesting.
"... Zharkova was one of only two scientists to correctly predict solar cycle 24 would be weaker than cycle 23 — in fact, only 2 out of 150 models predicted this.
Zharkova’s models have run at a 97% accuracy and now suggest a Super Grand Solar Minimum is on the cards beginning 2020."
https://youtu.be/M_yqIj38UmY
If you find the Professor's research somewhat plausible at the very least, may I suggest, as she does, that setting up you own greenhouse in the next year or two might be a good idea.
More:
Steven F. Hayward is not only worth listening to, he is funny as well!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZlICdawHRA&feature=share
Steven F. Hayward is not only worth listening to, he is funny as well!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZlICdawHRA&feature=share
This article is worth a serious read:
"... the most amazing abandonment of critical thinking in the history of science...
... Climate modelers are evidently not trained in the scientific method. They are not trained to be scientists. They are not scientists.
They are apparently not trained to evaluate the physical or predictive reliability of their own models. They do not manifest the attention to physical reasoning demanded by good scientific practice. In my prior experience they are actively hostile to any demonstration of that diagnosis.
... Climate modelers are evidently not trained in the scientific method. They are not trained to be scientists. They are not scientists.
They are apparently not trained to evaluate the physical or predictive reliability of their own models. They do not manifest the attention to physical reasoning demanded by good scientific practice. In my prior experience they are actively hostile to any demonstration of that diagnosis.
... In their hands, climate modeling has become a kind of subjectivist
narrative, in the manner of the critical theory pseudo-scholarship that
has so disfigured the academic Humanities and Sociology Departments, and
that has actively promoted so much social strife.
... In my prior experience, climate modelers:
· did not know to distinguish between accuracy and precision.
· did not understand that, for example, a ±15 C temperature uncertainty is not a physical temperature.
· did not realize that deriving a ±15 C uncertainty to condition a projected temperature does *not* mean the model itself is oscillating rapidly between icehouse and greenhouse climate predictions (an actual reviewer objection).
· confronted standard error propagation as a foreign concept.
· did not understand the significance or impact of a calibration experiment.
· did not understand the concept of instrumental or model resolution or that it has empirical limits
· did not understand physical error analysis at all.
· did not realize that ‘±n’ is not ‘+n.’
... The whole AGW claim is built upon climate models that do not model the climate, upon climatologically useless air temperature measurements, and upon proxy paleo-temperature reconstructions that are not known to reconstruct temperature.
... Climate alarmism is artful pseudo-science all the way down; made to look like science, but which is not.
Pseudo-science not called out by any of the science organizations whose sole reason for existence is the integrity of science...
- https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/07/pr opagation-of-error-and-the-reliability-of-global-air-temperature-projections-mark-ii/
... In my prior experience, climate modelers:
· did not know to distinguish between accuracy and precision.
· did not understand that, for example, a ±15 C temperature uncertainty is not a physical temperature.
· did not realize that deriving a ±15 C uncertainty to condition a projected temperature does *not* mean the model itself is oscillating rapidly between icehouse and greenhouse climate predictions (an actual reviewer objection).
· confronted standard error propagation as a foreign concept.
· did not understand the significance or impact of a calibration experiment.
· did not understand the concept of instrumental or model resolution or that it has empirical limits
· did not understand physical error analysis at all.
· did not realize that ‘±n’ is not ‘+n.’
... The whole AGW claim is built upon climate models that do not model the climate, upon climatologically useless air temperature measurements, and upon proxy paleo-temperature reconstructions that are not known to reconstruct temperature.
... Climate alarmism is artful pseudo-science all the way down; made to look like science, but which is not.
Pseudo-science not called out by any of the science organizations whose sole reason for existence is the integrity of science...
- https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/07/pr opagation-of-error-and-the-reliability-of-global-air-temperature-projections-mark-ii/
Hello guys,this is useful information for me.i love this blog.It’s not easy to get such quality information online nowadays. I look forward to staying here for a long time.
ReplyDeletePlease see the update.
DeleteThanks!
ReplyDelete