Seattle, WA, USA – Nov 27, 2011 [& expanded Nov 28-29]
It’s been about 5 years ago since I began to wonder if the United Nation’s (UN) intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not as scientific as it portrayed itself to be, but rather an agenda-driven biased organization promoted for primarily PR purposes. I’m not going to speculate about their possible motives if that’s the case (at least not here and now), I just want to point out some of my reasons for questioning their conclusions. It isn’t the most organized overview, but it’s just the basics, a start, to communicate my views on this topic. My only two other posts about climate change were this, and this, so far.
Since my opinion has puzzled environmental activists I used to campaign with (mostly for ancient forest preservation), and even lead to outspoken verbal hostility towards me from a couple, I intend to give a clarifying overview here of what actually lead me to that opinion in the first place.
- Some issues that lead me doubt the IPCC’s scientific integrity…
It basically started, back then, when I was looking through the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (AR3, from 2001), and found it puzzling how they downplayed the Sun-Earth Climate link as practically negligible. I know a lot of caring people don’t actually go through the trouble of reading these sorts of documents, let alone the actual peer-reviewed scientific papers referenced in them. Most folks seem to find it believable when mainstream media declare (because they’re told so by other “authorities”) that “most scientists agree”, that “the scientific community” came to a “consensus”, or that “the debate [about what causes global warming] is over”. You don’t actually have to dig very deep to know that that is simply not true.
I’ve come to be under the impression that this so-called “consensus” was de facto MANUFACTURED. It’s true that many thousands of scientists contributed to the IPCC’s reports, but the vast majority simply documented climate change’s effects on nature, and established beyond any doubt that the climate is changing. Only some really dumb oil lobbyists denied that the climate has changed. There’s never been a climate on this planet that didn’t change, so that’s simply a given of this planet’s dynamic: climate changes. Always has, always will. To deny climate change is just dumb denying that fact. But to question what the changes can be attributed to, that is NOT denial whatsoever, that’s scrutinizing theory, something that should be encouraged rather than ridiculed.
What the IPCC managed to do, though, was convince the vast majority of the world that this recent warming can be attributed to greenhouse gas emissions. Three things (at least) have ruined their chance to win this public opinion battle: Cosmoclimatology’s confirmation by CERN’s CLOUD experiment (see further), a better understanding of natural ongoing multidecadal ocean cycles (which greatly reduces what warming’s left to not be natural; see links later), as well as the damning emails known as Cimategate, which expose an actual conspiracy of IPCC-aligned scientists and media outlets to suppress their academic opponents (also, see further below). All things combined, the picture of how the IPCC operates is not pretty. “Man-made global warming” (aka ‘AGW’, or Anthropogenic Global Warming) comes out as hyped. It is likely to be remembered as one of the worst cases of the corruption of science by politics. Here’s how I woke up:
I looked forward to the AR4 (2007), to see how they had incorporated the various findings from this emerging field of solar research. Solar scinece has always been an interest of mine. As a young teenager, I used my small astronomy telescope to project the sun, to see its sunspots, observing their movement over the days. I have been following developments in solar science off and on for over 20 years, and knew that already back in 1997, researchers Henrik Svensmark and Eigil-Friis-Christensen had written ‘Variation of Cosmic Ray Flux and Global Cloud Coverage – a Missing Link in Solar-Climate Relationships’ in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics [see here].
The reason I found this so fascinating is because of the interesting correlation between a period completely devoid of sunspots (the 70-year long ‘Maunder Minimum’ (1645 to 1715)), and some of the coldest years in the frigid period known as ‘The Little Ice Age’ (approximately 1550 to 1850), which has long made many researchers trying to find out a causation mechanism for this.
! –> The most exciting part of this search for the truth (the truth of what actually causes climate change throughout the ages, without which it’s impossible to even know if something abnormal is even happening right now!), was the emergence of Svensmark’s ‘cosmoclimatology‘ theory. Many years in the making since 1996, with experimental evidence pointing to a strong likelihood is was a significant factor, the theory finally broke through to the mainstream in 2007 [if they had cared...] with the publication of the very accessible (highly recommended) article: !–> ‘Cosmoclimatology – a new theory emerges‘ <–! in Astronomy & Geophysics Volume 48, Issue 1, pages 1.18–1.24, February 2007. READ IT!
The gist of the findings is that galactic cosmic rays play a role in the formation of clouds at lower altitude. More cosmic rays, more clouds. Except in polar regions, clouds have a clearly significant cooling effect. More clouds, it gets cooler. The magnetic field activity of the sun, for which sunspots are an indicator, shields cosmic rays. If the sun gets more active, less cosmic rays reach the earth… less clouds form… it gets warmer. That the basics.
Before cosmoclimatology, many studies looked only at solar irradiance (sun’s brightness) or other slight changes in the sun’s energy output, and that is not disputed anywhere I know: solar irradiance variance alone can’t explain recent warming, nor periods of cooling in the past. The IPCC, of course, makes that very clear, too. But cosmic ray variance might…
What the IPCC failed to do, several times in a row now (a bit suspect, I’d say…), is to give equal weight to Svensmark’s ‘cosmoclimatology‘ theory, which very well might explain the climate changes as well, likely much better than the computer models that were built around CO2-levels only. That IPCC model, by the way, doesn’t even have a changing cloud cover (!)… but they won’t tell you that in their ‘the end is nigh’ press releases, ’cause it would make ‘m look pathetic. It’s obvious to me they never tried to make a model to resemble how climate actually works, but always started out from the conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions were the main driver. They built their model around those assumptions and found it matched reality good enough to convince the rest of the world of its merits.
But the problem for those who built their models around CO2 as the main driver is that you can’t have changes caused mainly by man-made factors AND changes caused mainly by natural factors, too. When cosmoclimatology (see HERE), combined with multi-decadal ocean cycle knowledge (see HERE (article) and HERE (pdf)) is incorporated, it’s more than a bit likely that the IPCC’s fear-mongering trace-gas-based model, and likely the reputation of those who spent their lives promoting it as gospel, would all end up in the garbage. That’s not “climate change denial”, that’s ‘computer model questioning’.
This green crusade (which, by the way, I used to be very much a part of. I was even a member of the WWF, Greenpeace, and active with the far more radical and militant Earth First! movement, to name a few) has very good caring intentions, but when it comes to climate change, in my opinion it derailed, because many (including many scientists) failed to grasp the complexity and vast uncertainties of the science involved. I’m actually concerned it will damage much of the ecology movement in general, when the backfiring kicks in.
Yes, CO2 and NH4 levels have skyrocketed as a result of oil, gas and coal burning during the 20th century (a sadly ongoing disaster of pollution and habitat destruction), but interestingly, during the 20th Century, the Sun’s coronal magnetic field (which affects Earth’s shielding from cosmic rays) also more than doubled [see for instance HERE], thereby reducing the average influx of cosmic rays. The resulting reduction in cloudiness, especially of low-altitude clouds, may be a significant factor in the global warming Earth has undergone during the last century. Scientists who suppress this knowledge are deluding the big picture, thus misleading. Decisions based on such crap that arose from their agenda-driven research can’t be trusted. Decisions based on lies are never without dangers.
The ongoing scientific debate is not being communicated to the masses, so far. So far, it has be drowned in a deluge of IPCC-aligned reports. Much of the media is now on board with the warmista hysteria. How often do you see ‘unusual weather’ reported with a reference to greenhouse gas emissions? All the time. [Example] How often do they mention that the sun was unusually active during much of the 20th century? Rarely ever. Actually, ”The Sun is More Active Now than Over the Last 8000 Years“, was reported in 2004 by Sami Solanki, then Managing Director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany. That publication also noted “Whether this effect could have provided a significant contribution to the global warming of the Earth during the last century is an open question.”
-> Also check out Sami Solanki’s THE SUN AND THE EARTH’S CLIMATE webpage, which has that solar activity reconstruction for the last 1,000 years, shown above. The site hasn’t been updated in years and does not incorporate the most recent findings, though.
!–> To learn more about where the research is at, check with the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish Space Research Institute. Further below I’ll return to the latest findings (by CERN’s CLOUD experiment).
-> A somewhat funny side-fact is that global warming has also been observed on Neptune’s moon Triton, on Jupiter, on Pluto, and on Mars. What could these planets possibly have in common? Hm… The sun? Oh, no, that would make me sound like “a climate change denier”, right? Probably aliens with SUVs… [See also HERE]
But all this while, the UN’s IPCC mentioned solar-earth research was being done, but ignored the findings almost entirely! Al Gore conveniently ignored it too. Most politicians never even heard about it. It sucked to be aware of all this, cause because of that, what I found in the IPCC AR4 appeared pretty blatantly biased in favor of theories that put industrial greenhouse gas emissions as the primary driver of climate change.
The IPCC did acknowledge that, “Cloud feedbacks are the primary source of inter-model differences in equilibrium climate sensitivity, with low clouds being the largest contributor”, though, but the discovered ‘cosmoclimatology’ mechanism, namely that cosmic rays may influence the Earth’s climate through the formation of low-lying clouds… -how convenient- not even mentioned in their 2007 overview of relative climate forcings:
Bottom line: I’m allergic to being manipulated, for whatever purpose, even if it’s done with “the best of intentions”, EVEN if I were to agree with the overarching motivation, and EVEN if I were to agree with the conclusions. So a-digging I went and it changed forever how I think about the subject.
- The “consensus” was manufactered…
Now here’s an interesting fact, and it may suggest a reason why this is the case: Those contributing to the IPCC report were picked by the UN for this very purpose: the entire organization is by invitation only. Well-credentialed scientists who hold vastly different scientific views weren’t included in the inner club. Pretty easy to declare “scientific consensus” when you rig it that way…
I wanted to know, for starters, if there was any truth to this “most scientists agree” that “>50% warming is 90% certain to be human-caused.”
For background, that Fourth Assessment Report (Climate Change 2007) was released in four principal sections:
- Contribution of Working Group I (WGI): Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
- Contribution of Working Group II (WGII): Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
- Contribution of Working Group III (WGIII): Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change.
- Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III: The Synthesis Report (SYR).
I looked at ‘The Physical Science Basis’ , as it alleged to assess “the current scientific knowledge of the natural and human drivers of climate change, observed changes in climate, the ability of science to attribute changes to different causes, and projections for future climate change”. Apparently only the “current scientific knowledge” they felt like including… Over 6,000 scientists? No, actually, that’s the whole document. That key section was produced by a mere 152 lead authors, 26 review editors, and 498 contributing authors, then reviewed by over 625 expert reviewers. Before being approved, the summary was reviewed line-by-line by representatives from 113 governments. On the issue of global warming and its causes, they concluded:
- “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” [no argument there, no-brainer for the period 1978-2004, imo]
- “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” [highly debatable, possibly even utter nonsense, imo]
What is this ‘>90%’? In their own words: ”Very likely and likely mean “the assessed likelihood, using expert judgment” are over 90% and over 66%, respectively.” What they didn’t add to their press releases, hidden in the bulky document, is that this is nothing but the confidence the lead authors ascribe to their own work!!!
So, down to 152. And then when it actually comes to the section about attributing the warming to mainly CO2… a couple dozen scientists. A couple dozen ‘experts’ love their own work… Come on! Seriously? Of course they do. It’s their own work. That’s where the >90% confidence came from. That actually blew my mind. [You know, I'm actually 90% confident that most (>50%) of MY ART is actually quite good. Would you call that science??? Maybe I should invite some friends (including 'expert art critics', and see if we can declare a consensus in the art community...] Sure, through a lengthy process the whole thing gets endorsed by various “scientific bodies”, but that whole process is often largely symbolic and political. A majority of scientists believing one theory over an other is no guarantee that the majority-endorsed-theory is best. Science isn’t democracy. All you need is ONE scientists who makes a good objection. Fact is, there’s hundreds if not thousands (some examples further below).
An important thing to remember in scientific discourse is that no theory can ever be proven right, but it MAY be proven wrong. Claiming this CAN’T (as in ‘ever’) be done, is actually anti-science. [Yes, I do accuse Al Gore and cohorts of being anti-science. They're simply not being honest in declaring the debate being over].
Personally, I think AGW, the theory that ‘most’ late 20th century warming was man-made, will be proven false fairly soon. Increased CO2 may be a factor, but it’s unlikely to be a major one. If we’re lucky, the next natural cooling cycle doesn’t plunge us into another little ice age, or worse. And none of this should stop us from shifting to better energy sources and tackling pollution.
- Most recent findings very well might already have doomed AGW’s “>50%”…
!!–> The CLOUD experiment at CERN confirms the cosmoclimatology theory.
!!! –> This year (2011) the mechanism described by Svensmark has been CONFIRMED in high-tech laboratory experiments at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN). The experiment, named CLOUD, used a cloud chamber to study the possible link between galactic cosmic rays and cloud formation. Based at the Proton Synchrotron at CERN, is was the first time a high-energy physics accelerator was used to study atmospheric and climate science. The results are in and greatly modify our understanding of clouds and climate. See also this article in the scientific magazine NATURE: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html
Nigel Calders, of the AGW-skeptic Global Warming Policy Foundation wrote an excellent overview article, expanded on with additional links by blogger Anthony Watts of the popular climate skeptic science blog ‘Watts Up With That?’ (WUWT), when the results came in last August:
So that’s a couple reasons already.
- Another reason for my skepticism came much later: Climategate 1.0 and 2.0. I’ve read a bunch of the emails and I find them very damaging to the reputations of the involved parties.
The apparent questionable manner in which the inner circle of IPCC-aligned climatologists act in unscientific ways, as brought to light in the infamous damning Climategate emails (round 1 in 2009; round 2 just last week – confirm what many skeptics have been saying all along. See also article in (UK) The Telegraph: Uh oh, global warming loons: here comes Climategate II!, by James Delingpole). These emails between key IPCCplayers expose over and over how top scientists, who were very deeply involved with the AR4′s W1, and still involved with AR5, engage in obvious obstruction and collusion to prevent any dissenting science from being published, and blatantly admit they’re not about finding the truth, but about promoting ‘a cause‘. Search ‘m yourself @ the SOURCE: http://foia2011.org/
To copy directly from the WUWT overview [WUWT - November 22, 2011 & Updates]:
‘Early this morning, history repeated itself. FOIA.org has produced an enormous zip file of 5,000 additional emails similar to those released two years ago in November 2009 and coined Climategate. There are almost 1/4 million additional emails locked behind a password, which the organization does not plan on releasing at this time.
The original link was dropped off in the Hurricane Kenneth thread at about 4 AM Eastern. It is still there.
Some initial snippets floating around the blogosphere:
<3115> Mann: By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that
reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.
<3940> Mann: They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a bit.
<0810> Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause
<2440> Jones: I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process
<2094> Briffa: UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC task.”
[Lots of extra links and examples !-->... continue reading at WUWT.]
[I must add though that I DO NOT agree with a good chunk of WUWT, especially when it comes to conventional politics. Some of its scientific postings are awesome, others I've found dismal. As with anything, use caution, think for yourself.]
Also –> Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. wrote a little piece highlighting an ‘E-Mail Communication Between Phil Jones and Ben Santer Indicating Inappropriate Behavior By The US National Research Council‘. It indicates that the NRC was in collusion with Phil Jones to suppress issues that Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. brought up as lead author on the CCSP chapter 6, a major resource used for the 2007 IPCC report.
- Additionally, over-zealous ‘Stop Climate Change’ PR is failing miserably for me.
Sadly, before I knew it… questioning itself became heresy, even compared to holocaust ‘denial’. A very well crafted PR campaign, which included Al Gore’s even worse unscientific movie An Inconvenient Truth, even comically resulted in the Nobel Peace Price being shared between the IPCC and Al Gore. Try questioning it now… Even I have been called a ‘fascist’, a ‘denier’, and accused of ‘probably being paid by big oil’. (Sure wish their first check would have arrived by now…).
–> For a small Wikipedia list of well-credentialed scientists opposing the UN’s “scientific assessment of global warming”, see HERE. One example:
“[T]he method of study adopted by the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) is fundamentally flawed, resulting in a baseless conclusion: Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Contrary to this statement …, there is so far no definitive evidence that ‘most’ of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. … [The IPCC] should have recognized that the range of observed natural changes should not be ignored, and thus their conclusion should be very tentative. The term ‘most’ in their conclusion is baseless.” - Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Founding Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Based on my experience, those who strongly believe in AGW rarely ever did much research on the alternative theories out there. They just know talking lines from eco-websites where anything that could threaten their dogma is conveniently left out, or spun ‘for the cause’. I’ve come to see CO2-alarmists as more like a cult, so convinced of being right, it wouldn’t even matter if it were to get colder again. (Just wait a decade… it might not even be that funny…) For the die-hard alarmists, even cooling is proof of global warming. They flip-flop whenever it suits them. Less snow? Global warming! [see HERE] More snow? Global warming! [see HERE]. Surrre… I find it simply pathetic that they can’t hold a press conference to admit their computer models are useless and that no one should take ‘m seriously anymore.
Unfortunately, it seems that the people I’d like to reach are the least likely to even want to listen, so this blogpost is unlikely to make a dent into that cult’s membership.
“Nobel, Nobel, the oceans swell,
Polar bears search for new places to dwell.” -- from a hilarious damning climategate-2.0 email, quoted here in The Telegraph.
- And finally: I’m far from alone. Aside from the experts already mentioned above, AGW is being questioned by very prominent scientists all over the world. Here’s a couple examples :
1) Dr. Roy Spencer (of NASA fame): http://www.drroyspencer.com/about/ His opinion? ”global warming is mostly natural”, “the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.”
2) Dr. Harold W. Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics, former department chairman at UC Santa Barbara. His opinion? ”Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscience fraud in my long life.” He just recently resigned from the American Physical Society over the issue. Here’s his resignation letter: http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1670-hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society.html
3) Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, atmospheric physicist, Professor of Meteorology at MIT. He was a lead author of Chapter 7, ‘Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks,’ of the IPCC AR3. His opinion? ”Even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false.”
4) Dr. Ian D. Clark, Professor Isotope Hydrogeology and Paleoclimatology, Dept of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa, Canada: ”That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapour response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation – which has a cooling effect. … We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change.”
5) The following is a published statement; with its partial list of signatures.
Statement: “Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise’ … Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future”.
- Mr David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
- (Dr) Christopher Essex, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario
- (Dr) Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, former Director of Australia’s National Tidal Facility and Professor of Earth Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently Adjunct Professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
- (Dr) Freeman J. Dyson, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
- Mr William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review
- Mr George Taylor, Department of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State Climatologist; past President, American Association of State Climatologists
- (Dr) Hendrik Tennekes, former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
- (Dr) Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand.
- (Dr) Nils-Axel Mörner, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
- (Dr) Al Pekarek, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Department, St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota
- (Dr) Marcel Leroux, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former Director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
- (Dr) Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, Reader, Department of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment
- (Dr) Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), and an economist who has focused on climate change
- (Dr) Lee C. Gerhard, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas, past Director and State Geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
- (Dr) Asmunn Moene, past Head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
- (Dr) August H. Auer, past Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming; previously Chief Meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand
- (Dr) Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001,’ Wellington, N.Z.
- (Dr) William J.R. Alexander, Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
- (Dr) S. Fred Singer, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia; former Director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
- (Dr) Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
- Mr Douglas Hoyt, Senior Scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
- (Dr) Boris Winterhalter, Senior Marine Researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former Professor in Marine Geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
- (Dr) Wibjörn Karlén, Emeritus Professor, Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
- (Dr) Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California; atmospheric consultant
- (Dr) Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, UK
- ETC. (among others, see SOURCE.)
- [Added Jan 27, 2012: Another example of very prominent scientists becoming more vocal against the misplaced alarmism, see this Wall Street Journal Opinion piece: No Need to Panic About Global Warming - There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy. ]
MY CONCLUSION: In a nutshell: there’s cosmoclimatology as an important theory for explaining much of recent warming and cooling; the team of scientists who were involved most with the IPCC CO2-attribution are clearly not acting with scientific integrity from what I have read in the Climategate emails (1.0 and 2.0); and there are many well-credentialed scientists who strongly disagree with the so-called “consensus”, who’ve made arguments I find impossible to ignore. It really isn’t unreasonable to QUESTION Anthropogenic Global Warming, or that so-called “Consensus.”
Keep questioning everything!
— — —
For closing, I’d like to echo Prof. Nir J. Shaviv’s, member of the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, whose views I most agree with. Recently he made an excellent overview of his own reasons for skepticism (much better than mine here, I think):
!–> There is nothing new under the Sun” an article about 20th century global warming – my point of view. <–! Highly recommended
“… I believe that humans should take full responsibility over their activity and the damage they inflict on the environment. However, I claim that global warming is not a real issue. The are many pressing problems which do deserve our immediate attention, which because of global warming are neglected. Many people with good intentions are acting out of emotion and gut feeling, not out of reason, and as a result, they waste precious resources without doing any substantial good.
And now for the really last point. Don’t believe a word I write. If you are a genuine scientist, or wish to think like one, you should base your beliefs on facts you see and scrutinize for yourself. On the same token, do not blindly believe the climate alarmists. In particular, be ready to ask deep questions. Does the evidence you are shown prove the points that are being made? Is the evidence reliable? Sometimes you’ll be amazed from the answers you find. …” [my emphasis]
I couldn’t have said it better.