Is it reasonable to be a global warming skeptic?

[iggypkrebsbach]

Part 4. The Case Against CO2

We have to admit CO2 did look guilty. It is a greenhouse gas which, all things being held constant, should cause some warming. And it is not insignificant that brazillions of gigatons of carbon, which have been stored in the earth as fossil fuels for hundreds of millions of years have been released suddenly into the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution. This is the “Great Geophysical Experiment” launched by mankind.

That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not controversial. See Spencer Weart’s book, The Discovery of Global Warming. The great champion of the carbon dioxide theory of climate change was Guy Callendar, a British scientist. Keeling started measuring atmospheric levels at Mauna Loa in the 50’s. His Keeling curve shows a steadily increasing linear trend. Other scientists who helped sound the alarm about CO2 were Roger Revelle and Gilbert Plass.

After the 1970’s cooling scare the world began to warm up. In the 1980’s NASA scientist James Hansen gave dramatic testimony before Congress predicting catastrophic warming was in the pipeline unless something was done. The IPCC was formed.

The first IPCC report was appropriately cautious. However, all subsequent reports, issued every 6-7 years, are increasingly certain in its conclusion that human CO2 emissions are causing dangerous global warming. The 2013 report calls for drastic and sustained cuts in CO2 emissions.

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

The IPCC is the world’s leading expert on climate. It doesn’t do its own original research; rather, it undertakes a massive literature review and attempts to summarize the latest research. John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor said this about the IPCC’ conclusions: “They are based on an immense edifice of painstaking studies published in the world’s leading peer-reviewed scientific journals. They have been vetted and documented in excruciating detail by the largest, longest, costliest, most international, most interdisciplinary, and most thorough formal review of a scientific topic ever conducted.”

And it has been at it since 1988.

So what does the IPCC conclude? See the Summary for Policymakes from its most recent report (5th) here: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf Also see its very professional promotional video for its 5th Assessment Report here:

Here is the summary of the summary, cast in terms our elements of the case:

1. The earth is warming unusually. We know this because:

• The earth has been warming since the 19th century. We know this from the surface temperature and other records.
• Changes in the cryosphere, oceans, and other real world phenomena confirm this warming.
• This present warming is unprecedented or unusual in 2,000 years. We know this from paleoclimate studies which reliably record ancient temperatures.

1. Rising atmospheric CO2 is the main cause of this warming. We know this because:

• CO2 is the dominant greenhouse gas.
• CO2 and temperature are highly correlated.
• Other explanations have been decisively rule out.
• Computer models cannot explain the late 20th century warming without CO2.

1. Human CO2 emissions are the main cause of the rise in CO2. We know this because:

• Present atmospheric CO2 levels are unprecedented in 800,000 years.
• CO2 levels have risen 40% since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Until then CO2 levels were low and stable.
• Isotopic studies show the burning of fossil fuels is the main cause of rising CO2.

1. The warming cause by human CO2 emissions will be dangerous or catastrophic. We know this because:

• Computer models predict dangerous warming ahead if we continue to burn fossil fuels.
• These models are credible witnesses because the incorporate every component of the earth’s system and all relevant processes of future climate.

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

Part 5. The Myth of the 97% Consensus

The first hurdle we had to get over in our bid to reopen the case against CO2 is the claim that there is an overwhelming consensus of CO2’s guilt which puts the whole issue beyond debate. Not surprisingly, consensus studies have become a cottage industry in the climate science, starting with the work of Oreskes. The premiere consensus study was done by Cook et al in 2013, which surveyed journal articles relating to climate change and global warming. It concluded that 97% of the articles which took a stand on the issue endorsed the proposition that human activities are causing most of the global warming. However, the Cook et al study has been massively and decisively debunked. See Part 5 of CO2 on Trial for the details.

However, while consensus studies like Cook exaggerate the level of consensus on global warming, a majority of climate scientists probably do endorse the GW hypothesis. That is the view of the climate science establishment led by the IPCC.

But the proper response to that fact is “So what?”. Science is not about consensus but observation and hypothesis testing.

We will not be deterred by claims of an overwhelming consensus.

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

Parts 6 and 7. Discrediting the IPCC

The IPCC is generally acknowledged to be the world’s leading expert on climate change. Recall John Holdren’s paean to the organization. But its reputation is undeserved.

First, it is essentially a political, not a scientific, entity. It is made of governments and the scientists are not in control.

Second, it is inherently biased against CO2. It serves a treaty dedicated to finding CO2 guilty.

Third, it has acted in accordance with this bias in ways too numerous to count. Take, for example, the case of Eigil Friis-Christianson, an early proponent of the importance of the sun/cosmic rays explanation for climate change. He was shut out by the IPCC. Only supporters of the CO2 theory need apply.

Fourth, its ranks are filled with environmental activists. Think of the howling that would ensue if a former employee of Exxon-Mobil was appointed chairman of the IPCC. Why then Rajendra Pachauri and his successor Figueres (sp?)?

Fifth, its expertise is not as advertised. Pachauri boasted that the IPCC uses only the best and brightest. Why then have so many graduate students served as lead authors? Why are so many acknowledged experts excluded or driven out?

Sixth, its vaunted review process is not very scientific. What scientific organization gives politicians the last say over what goes into its reports and summaries? What scientific organization lets it lead authors judge the merits of his own work or that of his critics? What organization gives the Hockey Stick special prominence with no due diligence?

Seventh, the Hockey Stick

Eighth, Climategate

I could keep going.

The long and short: Anything the IPCC says—even “The sun is shining today”—can be doubted with impunity. The prosecution’s star witness has been utterly and totally discredited.

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

Part 8. Discrediting the Climate Models.

The IPCC and everyone else in the climate establishment rely heavily on the predictions of climate models. The IPCC, especially, claims that the climate models can predict the future, given different CO2 emission scenarios. Models not only are used to validate claims that CO2 is a major driver of climate change, they also are essential to their claim that human CO2 emissions will be dangerous. So we are going after them.

But climate models are inherently unable to predict future climate. Witness the inability of weather models to predict even 2 weeks down the road. See chaos theory. See Hendrick Tennekes. See also admissions from the IPCC itself and IPCC insiders such as Kevin Trenberth.

Climate models are heuristic (teaching) tools only --no matter what the IPCC says!. See admissions by IPCC champion Naomi Oreskes and Trenberth, one of the “advisory high priests of the IPCC”.

Ensemble forecasts are bunk.

Uncertainty is built into the models because they inevitably use parameterizations or guesses as to how complex processes work. Also, we shouldn’t forget that bias is built into the models since the vast, vast majority of modelers aim to further the IPCC agenda. Witness the fact that 95% of the models run hot. See the work of Roy Spencer.

The models use fudge factors, are plagued by chaos theory, and don’t begin to incorporate all relevant physical causes of climate changes, and therefore cannot begin to predict the future. Here is the nail in the coffin of climate model credibility: 95% got it wrong as to the warming since 1979. They are miserable failures.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

However, while consensus studies like Cook exaggerate the level of consensus on global warming, a majority of climate scientists probably do endorse the GW hypothesis. That is the view of the climate science establishment led by the IPCC.

But the proper response to that fact is “So what?”. Science is not about consensus but observation and hypothesis testing.

What you say is true - for those with the capability to do hypothesis testing. That rules out most people because the real hypotheses in global warming theory are highly technical and not accessible to those who have not studied the subject intensively. So for all of those who cannot adequately evaluate hypotheses, the consensus of those who can matters.

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

What you say is true - for those with the capability to do hypothesis testing. That rules out most people because the real hypotheses in global warming theory are highly technical and not accessible to those who have not studied the subject intensively. So for all of those who cannot adequately evaluate hypotheses, the consensus of those who can matters.

Mornin LBN,

The Consensus Climaticus Scientificum [forgive my pigeon Latin] may be the only criterion of truth for Joe Sixpack, but the question is whether he–or anyone else, for that matter-- is justified in relying only on that. Joe may be excused if he lacks the wherewithal to form a more educated opinion. However, his fellow lay folk in general are not so excused for they should know theses things: 1) empirical observation trumps the dominant viewpoint in a scientific field every time; 2) the history of science shows a reigning theory can be totally wrong; and 3) scientists are fallible human beings. Therefore, lay folk should be prepared to question any given scientific consensus. Sure, one can always accept something provisionally, and we all do this inevitably on so many issues. However, there are circumstances which justify rejecting the presumption in favor an idea just because there is scientific consensus behind it. With regard to climate science, such circumstances abound.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

What you say is true - for those with the capability to do hypothesis testing. That rules out most people because the real hypotheses in global warming theory are highly technical and not accessible to those who have not studied the subject intensively. So for all of those who cannot adequately evaluate hypotheses, the consensus of those who can matters.

Mornin LBN,

The Consensus Climaticus Scientificum [forgive my pigeon Latin] may be the only criterion of truth for Joe Sixpack…

The inability to adequately evaluate climate science is not limited to Joe, but also to lawyers, doctors, politicians (yes, even Al Gore!), and even those scientists whose field is far removed from climate science. And yes, it includes me too.

, but the question is whether he–or anyone else, for that matter-- is justified in relying only on that. Joe may be excused if he lacks the wherewithal to form a more educated opinion. However, his fellow lay folk in general are not so excused for they should know theses things: 1) empirical observation trumps the dominant viewpoint in a scientific field every time; 2) the history of science shows a reigning theory can be totally wrong;

Can be wrong, but usually isn’t.

and 3) scientists are fallible human beings. Therefore, lay folk should be prepared to question any given scientific consensus. Sure, one can always accept something provisionally, and we all do this inevitably on so many issues. However, there are circumstances which justify rejecting the presumption in favor an idea just because there is scientific consensus behind it. With regard to climate science, such circumstances abound.

So, give one that we can debate here.

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

Parts 9 and 10. The Scientific Case for Acquittal

False predictions are death to a theory. Roy Spencer compared the predictions of 90 climate models to observed temperatures (one satellite set and one surface temp set). 95% of the models got it wrong and ran hotter than measured temps. The models also failed to predict the almost 20 year pause. Case closed (or should be).

But let’s work through the case element by element.

1. The earth is not getting unusually warm. Judgments about present temps being unprecedented in 2000 years cannot be sustained. First, the modern surface temperature record has been so corrupted by its various custodians that it cannot be trusted. Second, temperature reconstructions offered by the paleoclimate community are not credible. Recall the Hockey Stick scandal. Sure the paleo folks have produced more hockey sticks but McIntyre debunked them too. They keep making the same mistakes. We will admit however, that the earth has been warming since the Little Ice Age.
2. Rising CO2 is not the main cause of this warming. CO2 is not the dominant greenhouse gas. CO2 levels do not correlate well with temperature over all time scales. The IPCC exaggerates the importance of CO2 by very questionable assumptions. First, the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is not hundreds of years. Most studies show it is 7-12 years. Second, the IPCC ignores the fact that the warming potential of CO2 is logarhithmic, not linear (less and less effect the more CO2 is added). Third, the IPCC assumes, without proof, that the overall feedbacks in the climate system are positive.
3. Human CO2 emissions are not the main cause of rising CO2. Isotopic evidence is not conclusive. The earth’s CO2 budget is not well understood and has large error bars. Murry Salby shows that recent jump in world-wide CO2 emissions did not affect the trend in atmospheric levels one iota.
4. Human CO2 emissions will not cause dangerous global warming. Predictions of dangerous warming given different emission scenarios are largely based on the climate models, and they have been massively and decisively discredited.

We don’t need to address the policy elements of the case. The global warming hypothesis has been destroyed, each and every element.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

First, the modern surface temperature record has been so corrupted by its various custodians that it cannot be trusted.

False.

Second, temperature reconstructions offered by the paleoclimate community are not credible.

They don’t have to be. The theory is well enough supported by modern instrumental readings.

1. Rising CO2 is not the main cause of this warming. CO2 is not the dominant greenhouse gas. CO2 levels do not correlate well with temperature over all time scales.

That CO2 has not been the driver of warming in the past is irrelevant and does not prove that CO2 is not the driver today. Of course it has not been the driver in the past because there has never been a period in the past when huge quantities of CO2 were suddenly released because of causes unrelated to climate, like there is today.

The IPCC exaggerates the importance of CO2 by very questionable assumptions. First, the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is not hundreds of years. Most studies show it is 7-12 years.

I found one paper released this year with the title “Is CO2 residence time in the atmosphere exaggerated?”. (Lüning and Vahrenholt) and another paper released this year by Hermann Harde that says the average residence time is 4 years. I don’t think these two recent papers constitute “Most studies…”

Second, the IPCC ignores the fact that the warming potential of CO2 is logarhithmic, not linear (less and less effect the more CO2 is added).

Depending on where you are on that logarithmic curve, it can look quite linear as an approximation. There is no indication that we are anywhere near the saturation point where more CO2 has essentially no effect. That would be like Venus.

Third, the IPCC assumes, without proof, that the overall feedbacks in the climate system are positive.

The subject of the exact degree of feedbacks is hotly debated, even within the IPCC. But it would be unfair to say there is no evidence of any feedback potential.

1. Human CO2 emissions are not the main cause of rising CO2. Isotopic evidence is not conclusive.

On what basis do you discount isotopic evidence? But even without that evidence, there is undeniably a marked correlation between modern CO2 levels and industrial discharges.

The earth’s CO2 budget is not well understood and has large error bars. Murry Salby shows that recent jump in world-wide CO2 emissions did not affect the trend in atmospheric levels one iota.

Rather Salby claims this. What do you think of this critique of his theory?

1. Human CO2 emissions will not cause dangerous global warming. Predictions of dangerous warming given different emission scenarios are largely based on the climate models, and they have been massively and decisively discredited.

False.

We don’t need to address the policy elements of the case.

True. In any case, I do not support all the policy efforts that have arisen.

 

[eddietoo]

first, we should all be able to agree that the earth’s climate has never been stable in the sense of remaining the same over decades, centuries, etc.

second, the fact that, if the climate scientists are correct, the earth’s climate is becoming warmer may be a result of natural forces. that is what is in dispute, not that the earth’s climate is changing. i have read that we are in between ice ages. could be, right? if so, a warming climate is to be expected.

third, in general, human life thrives better in gentler climates. food is easier to produce. harsh winters make life more difficult. if the earth’s climate is warming, that should mean that the temperate zones are growing. this would be a good thing i think. certainly, a general warming of the earth’s surfaces would have consequences different from the cooler earth surface of the past. some of these consequences would probably be good and some would probably be negative and have to be countered and dealt with through technology and logistical decisions.

fourth, the science of climatology is not sophisticated enough to know whether or not the earth’s climate has mechanisms that cause it to self-correct, i.e. prevent it from becoming either too cold or too hot for human life.

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

Hi LBN,

I sed: First, the modern surface temperature record has been so corrupted by its various custodians that it cannot be trusted.

False.

I shall elaborate.

Why we can’t trust the surface temperature record.

Who are the principal surface temperature keepers? James Hansen and NASA. Tom Karl at NOAA. Phil Jones at UEA. These are all hardcore partisans within the climate science establishment. Extremely biased.

It is not reproducible. Who can document the all changes and adjustments made to these datasets? The insuperable problems which vexed Harry of harryreadme file fame afflicts all these datasets.

What the heck happened to the Dirty 30’s? Here in NoDak we had a real drought this year. Small grains were toast. But if you want to know what real drought looks like you have to talk to my 94 year old mother who lived during that awful time. Long and short: the warming we have experience in the late 20th century through the present ain’t nuttin in comparison. But yet Hansen et al systematically and unidirectionally adjusted the 30’s to make them cooler than the present. Do you really think 1998 was hotter than 1936?

The red badge of fraud. See Tony Heller. Evaluating The Integrity Of Official Climate Records - YouTube [around 24:40]Adjustments of NOAA data are perfectly correlated with rise of CO2. Perfect example of confirmation bias.

Doubts about the quality of temp measurements. The temp records are reputed to be the world’s best. But see the work of Anthony Watts and his surfacetemperatures project. See study by McKittrick and Patrick. Remember the infamous Wang Jones study very credibly accused of fraud.

ran outa gas.

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

So, to sum up, 1) The temp record custodians are biased partisans. 2) Lack of transparency and reproducibility. 3) Evidence tampering. 4) Contamination of the data. 5) Historical evidence contradicts the adjusted temp records.

Let’s don’t forget Phil Jones telling Warwick Hughes: “You can’t have my data because all you want to do is find something wrong with it!”

Also: D’Aleo and Watts: “Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any ‘global warming’ in the twentieth century [Carter p. 60]

 

[Theo520]

Thought this interview was interesting in how parties use AGW to manipulate. I didn’t realize that Thatcher pushed this angle to fight coal miners.

Grégoire Canlorbe: Climate activism is thought of as Marxism’s Trojan horse, a way for its followers to proceed with their face masked, in the never-ending holy war that Marxism claims will be necessary to establish communist totalitarianism. Yet it was actually Margaret Thatcher, the muse of conservative libertarianism, who kick-started the IPCC. How do you make sense of this?

István Markó: More precisely, Margaret Thatcher, although a trained chemist and therefore aware of the mendacious character of such an allegation about carbon dioxide (CO2), was the first proponent to use the excuse of climate implications posed by CO2 to achieve her political ends. At the time, that is, in the mid-1980s, Thatcher was waging war with the almighty coal union. In those days, the UK coal unions were remunerating themselves with public monies and by lobbying via the Labour Party had managed to pass an enormous number of laws and subsidies to keep an industry afloat that was no longer profitable on its own.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/28/information-interview-with-istvan-marko/

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Hi LBN,

I sed: First, the modern surface temperature record has been so corrupted by its various custodians that it cannot be trusted.

LeafByNiggle:

False.

I shall elaborate.

Why we can’t trust the surface temperature record.

Who are the principal surface temperature keepers? James Hansen and NASA. Tom Karl at NOAA. Phil Jones at UEA. These are all hardcore partisans within the climate science establishment. Extremely biased.

This charge is harder and harder to make the more conspirators you hypothesize. If there were only one who had total control of the data, I could believe the charge. But that is not the case. There are just too many people involved. The algorithms for adjusting the data are all public. You have to do better than “everyone involved is biased in the same direction.”

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

Hi LBN,

The fact that the leaders of the three leading agencies which produce the most important surface temp sets (NASA, NOAA, and the British Met) are/have been biased partisans in the climate debate is not unimportant. It is probative regarding how much we should trust their testimony. And when you point out their bias and also their bias in action, then one is entitled to reject their testimony and that of their agencies. Whether or not the three are conspiring is not important (although I am sure they are also guilty of this).

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Hi LBN,

The fact that the leaders of the three leading agencies which produce the most important surface temp sets (NASA, NOAA, and the British Met) are/have been biased partisans in the climate debate is not unimportant. It is probative regarding how much we should trust their testimony.

But we aren’t trusting their testimony. We are trusting the word of the whole scientific community involved in the gathering of this data. It is unreasonable to assume that one man at the top of NASA can exercise such dictatorial power over the world-wide network of researchers involved in this effort. He just doesn’t have that kind of power, no matter what his political bias might be.

Whether or not the three are conspiring is not important (although I am sure they are also guilty of this).

Ah, but it is important. Because the more conspirators your theory requires, the harder it is to believe.

 

[iggypkrebsbach]

But we aren’t trusting their testimony. We are trusting the word of the whole scientific community involved in the gathering of this data. It is unreasonable to assume that one man at the top of NASA can exercise such dictatorial power over the world-wide network of researchers involved in this effort. He just doesn’t have that kind of power, no matter what his political bias might be.

Hi LBN,

And so, your theory goes, even if there were biased and dishonest people at the top of these agencies responsible for fashioning the surface temperature record, the larger community would call them on any shenanigans. There is a presumption of trust that we have to place in the “whole scientific community” that can’t be overcome by pointing out the bias of a few individuals.

But we have a lot more at our disposal than the bias of a few individuals. And the track record of “the whole scientific community” in policing its own in this controversy hasn’t been good.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

But we aren’t trusting their testimony. We are trusting the word of the whole scientific community involved in the gathering of this data. It is unreasonable to assume that one man at the top of NASA can exercise such dictatorial power over the world-wide network of researchers involved in this effort. He just doesn’t have that kind of power, no matter what his political bias might be.

Hi LBN,

And so, your theory goes, even if there were biased and dishonest people at the top of these agencies responsible for fashioning the surface temperature record, the larger community would call them on any shenanigans. There is a presumption of trust that we have to place in the “whole scientific community” that can’t be overcome by pointing out the bias of a few individuals.

Exactly so. When in history do you recall a proven conspiracy that involved the complicity of so many individuals? Beyond a few conspirators, it just becomes impractical to pull it off, no matter how determined the prime movers are. You just can’t convince that many people to join your conspiracy and keep quiet about it.

But we have a lot more at our disposal than the bias of a few individuals.

Do you mean you have independent confirmation of the bias of a vast number of individual scientists? I guess only politically motivated lefties go in for science in the first place, eh?

And the track record of “the whole scientific community” in policing its own in this controversy hasn’t been good.

I challenge that statement. It seems throughout the history of science, scientists are always trying to prove each other wrong, much more than they try to “go along” with what previous scientists have concluded.

 

[MonteRCMS]

Nevertheless, just for starters, review the lawsuit between Michael Mann and Mark Steyn.

The volume of lies and fabrications by the “warmers” is huge and they can no longer successfully deny their fakery.

Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann - Climate Change Dispatch

“A Disgrace to the Profession” Paperback – September 1, 2015

The Vertigo at the Top of the Stick :: SteynOnline

https://www.amazon.com/Disgrace-Profession-Mark-Steyn-ebook/dp/B013TZFRGE

Book Details-used--PLA-_-v01&product=COM9780986398308USED

Climate Change: The Facts Paperback – April 21, 2015

https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Change-Facts-J-Abbot/dp/0986398306