One doesn’t have to be a PHD to understand the flaws of climate change science as presently constituted. If humans are primarily responsible for climate change along with C02, then how does that theory act in the real world? Unfortunately for climate alarmists, the theory has not acted in real life as in their models.
Take the past 117 years, where we saw warming between 1910 to 1940 even though CO2 levels were lower than today. We saw a cooling between 1940 thru mid-1970’s, leading many scientists to forecast an ice age before a warming period from mid-1970’s to late 1990’s occurred. A vast majority of studies show we are witnessing a hiatus despite the rising CO2.
Nor is this all, how do alarmists explain the medieval warming period despite C02 levels stayed steady? We could go back millions of years to see where we have seen similar climate even with CO2 levels anywhere to 5 to 20 fold the present levels. So the real world shows that climate goes up and down despite C02 levels. If we see lower and stable C02 and still a medieval warming period or the present hiatus in spite of rising CO2, then logic will tell us that CO2 is not the only factor or even the major factor. This doesn’t mean CO2 isn’t a factor or that human activity doesn’t play a role. Even many Skeptics don’t discount human activity. Where Skeptics have it right is that factors outside the control of humans play a role in climate change. Both, now and in the past.
The second aspect is that C02 is a building bloc of life. It is needed for plant life. The process of Photosynthesis is the exchange of Oxygen and CO2 between humans and plant life. So, the idea that C02 is a pollutant is nonsensical. To treat C02 levels as a pollutant is not just bad science but, it results in bad policy.
There are scientists who believe the increase of C02 levels is actually good for the planet. They believe it has led to a greening planet. Much of the increase in agriculture may be due to increased CO2 levels. However, this seems to represent a minority viewpoint. But, any basic knowledge of science could actually support the probability of this theory.
There is disturbing news that during the Obama era, data may have been manipulated. As former Department of Energy Under Secretary Steve Koonin noted:
“What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong.”
This manipulation of climate change science is designed to influence policy. One study which supposedly “debunks” the present hiatus may be one example of this manipulation. As one whistle blower accused the scientists involved in the study ignoring safeguards to ensure accuracy of the data. The study was rushed through to support Obama’s policy of climate change and the Paris agreement. (There are many studies, before and after, which support the hiatus.)
When government scientists and officials manipulate data to obtain specific public policy, they put the credibility of science at risk. The alarmist’s past manipulation of data compromised the data on climate change. And, the alarmists attack of their fellow skeptic scientists have not only failed to advance the understanding of climate change past and present, but it has set back the science.
There is one lesson on climate change science, what we don’t know far exceeds what we do know. And, what is missing from many climate alarmists is a reasonable doubt and modesty. Much of what we know today, we will discard as being wrong in the foreseeable future.