What if What We Know About Climate Change is Wrong?

What if What We Know About Climate Change is Wrong?

Guess what!  Since 2016, there have been nearly 90 studies showing what common sense dictates, that there is nothing unusual, nothing unprecedented or remarkable about today’s climate when seen in the context of historical records.  One study observed, “1970-2000 was colder than the last stages of the Little Ice Age.”  Let that sink in, that the last third of the 20th century matched the temperature coming out of the Little Ice Age some two centuries previous.

During the latter stages of the medieval warming period, graps harvesting occurred between 100 to 500 Kilometers North of where grapes are being harvested in Great Britain today.  This shows that today’s temperatures may not be unusual.  There are numerous studies showing that grapes were harvested north of where they are presently harvested.  Some researchers conclude between 900 to 1300, temperatures were as high, if not higher, than today despite CO2 being lower than today.

The key element is that now we will have a real debate on climate change.  It will review, not just human contributions, but natural events that have affected climates for millions of years.

MIT Scholar Richard Lindzen issued a letter signed by 300 fellow scientists to Donald Trump saying it is time for United States to leave the UN intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  He summarizes his case:

“We note that:

  • The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) no longer claims a greater likelihood of significant as opposed to negligible future warming.
  • It has long been acknowledged by the IPCC that climate change prior to the 1960’s could not have been due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.  Yet, pre-1960 instrumentally observed temperatures show many warming episodes, similar to the one since 1960, for example, from 1915 to 1950, and from 1850 to 1890.  None of these could have been caused by an increase in atmospheric CO2.
  • Model projections of warming during recent decades have greatly exceeded what has been observed.
  • The modelling community has openly acknowledged that the ability of existing models to simulate past climates is due to numerous arbitrary tuning adjustments.
  • Observations show no statistically valid trends in flooding or drought, and no meaningful acceleration whatsoever of pre-existing long term sea level rise (about 6 inches per century) worldwide.
  • Current carbon dioxide levels, around 400 parts per million are still very small compared to the averages over geological history, when thousands of parts per million prevailed, and when life flourished on land and in the oceans.

“Calls to limit carbon dioxide emissions are even less persuasive today than 25 years ago.  Future research should focus on dispassionate, high-quality climate science, not on efforts to prop up an increasingly frayed narrative of “carbon pollution.”  Until scientific research is unfettered from the constraints of the policy-driven UNFCCC, the research community will fail in its obligation to the public that pays the bills.”

This letter is a summary of what the debate is all about.  What we don’t know about climate change exceeds what we think we know and we are being asked to base economic policy on questionable science.

Share This Post

One Response to "What if What We Know About Climate Change is Wrong?"

  1. If one doesn’t’ struggle and embrace both sides of a story, global anti-global warming, then we are idiots, maybe millennials, and certainly useful toadies, flatterers, bootlickers and sycophants.

    “Shock Survey: Australia’s Great Barrier Reef Doing Just Fine”

    This is not what ABC News said last year (2016).

    “Great Barrier Reef: Only 7 per cent not bleached, survey finds.”

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-20/great-barrier-reef-bleaching/7340342

    Australia’s Great Barrier Reef is not being killed off because of “global warming” or any other allegedly man-made non-problem, the people who know the area best have confirmed. According to local newspaper [paywalled].

    Teams of divers in a joint two-week expedition sponsored by Mike Ball Dive and Spirit of Freedom surveyed 28 sites on 24 outer shelf reefs along a 300km section of the hardest-hit part of the reef from Bathurst Head to Raine Island.

    Spirit of Freedom owner Chris Eade said reports of 93 per cent bleaching on the 2300 km long Great Barrier Reef had made global headlines and damaged the reputation of the $5 billion reef tourism industry. “Scientists had written off that entire northern section as a complete white-out,’’ Mr Eade said. “We expected the worst. But it is tremendous condition, most of it is pristine, the rest is in full recovery. “It shows the resilience of the reef.’’ Mike Ball Dive Expeditions operations manager Craig Stephen, who conducted a similar survey on the remote reefs 20 years ago, said there had been almost no change in two decades despite the latest coral bleaching event.

    “The discrepancy is phenomenal. It is so wrong. Everywhere we have been we have found healthy reefs.

    ……..

    But if we’re talking vested interests, what about all the marine biologists and environmental activists whose funding is dependent on promoting catastrophism and junk-scientific environmental scares like “ocean acidification”?

    According to one scaremongering report earlier this year only 7 percent of the reef remains undamaged by “coral bleaching” – one of the dire consequences, we’re repeatedly informed by experts, of global warming.

    However, this was based on a survey by a local environmental activist, Professor Terry Hughes whose National Coral Bleaching Task Force is naturally somewhat dependent on proving there is a major problem. As Jo Nova reports, its findings were considered so suspect that the chairman of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, Russell Reichelt refused to endorse them in a planned joint statement. This is how Graham Lloyd reported it in the Australian [paywalled].

    Dr Reichelt said maps accompanying the research had been misleading, exaggerating the ¬impact. “I don’t know whether it was a deliberate sleight of hand or lack of geographic knowledge but it certainly suits the purpose of the people who sent it out,” he said.

    “We’ve seen headlines stating that 93 per cent of the reef is prac¬tic¬ally dead,” he said. The problem is that “Great Barrier Reef is doing just fine” stories don’t grab headlines in quite the way “Great Barrier Reef is doomed and it’s all our fault” stories do. It is, after all, one of the Seven Great Natural Wonders of the World – and therefore quite a big deal. This is why, along with polar bears and melting ice caps, it is so often seized on by climate campaigners to promote their scare narrative.”

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/08/25/shock-study-australias-great-barrier-reef-just-fine/

    The “lie” is halfway around the world before the “truth” gets its boots on. Is this an example?

    Reply

Post Comment