A Growing Volume Of Evidence
Undercuts ‘Consensus’ Science
Update: For a detailed response to the YouTube video criticizing our list, see:
Deconstruction Of The Critical YouTube Response To Our 400+ ‘Skeptical’ Papers Compilation
During 2017, 485 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media.
These 485 new papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes. Climate science is not settled.
Modern temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather events are neither unusual nor unprecedented. Many regions of the Earth are cooler now than they have been for most of the last 10,000 years.
Natural factors such as the Sun (121 papers), multi-decadal oceanic-atmospheric oscillations such as the NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO (44 papers), decadal-scale cloud cover variations, and internal variability in general have exerted a significant influence on weather and climate changes during both the past and present. Detecting a clear anthropogenic forcing signal amidst the noise of unforced natural variability may therefore be difficult.
And current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often costly, ineffective, and perhaps even harmful to the environment. On the other hand, elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).
In 2016 there were 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) challenging “consensus” climate science. This amounts to more than 900 papers in less than 2 years.
Below are the two links to the list of 400 485 papers as well as the guideline for the lists’ categorization.
Skeptic Papers 2017 (1)
Skeptic Papers 2017 (2)
(Parts 1 and 2 are on the same page).
Kenneth I believe you are under-selling the papers’ worth when you say —
“During the first 10 months of 2017, 400 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…”
The majority of these papers highlight the failures, falsehoods, inaccuracies, and scientific nonsense that is fundamental underpinnings of the whole global warming scare. In the main they show that the UN-IPCC position is untenable, and gives good scientific reasons (as if any where needed) why it should be completely abandoned.
Environmentalists care nothing about controlling the weather, they want to control the population. They will eliminate poverty by eliminating the impoverished. The very things that have doubled our lifespans in just a few generations are the things under attack.
Well said Craig. I note more third world counties are suffering food shortages. When the coming cold really sets in it will be catastrophic.
Problem is the not so impoverished countries will turn to arms which could escalate rapidly into a world war.
Apart from divisive politics, much of the problems with food in the third world is food waste before it get to market, usually because of inadequate transportation/communication systems, and poor storage facilities.
These are easily fixable when compared to the mad politics that often operates in some countries where food shortages and starvation occurs.
Seb? Seb!
Here, here …
There, there!
Where, where?
Nowhere, as usual.
[…] Just to be clear, so the greenies can’t bleat about being misrepresented, here is what these various papers say: […]
[…] Just to be clear, so the greenies can’t bleat about being misrepresented, here is what these various papers say: […]
[…] Just to be clear, so the greenies can’t bleat about being misrepresented, here is what these various papers say: […]
[…] Just to be clear, so the greenies can’t bleat about being misrepresented, here is what these various papers say: […]
[…] Just to be clear, so the greenies can’t bleat about being misrepresented, here is what these various papers say: […]
[…] Just to be clear, so the greenies can’t bleat about being misrepresented, here is what these various papers say: […]
So many of these papers are not concluding anything you wish them to say. Your strawman is not impressive in the least.
OK, Stig, no more schnapps for you.
STRAWMAN – “a weak or imaginary argument or opponent that is set up to be easily defeated”
Well Stig, you should be able to make your case easily then.
Stig, the days of making statements like that are now effectively over. No longer will the world be led b those that do not read the science. One now must READ the papers and have a clue about what is discussed within them. Humpty is falling down…..read all about it.
[…] Just to be clear, so the greenies can’t bleat about being misrepresented, here is what these various papers say: […]
Lots of unstable control freaks are going to need a lot of counseling over dealing with their cognitive dissonance:)
[…] And current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often costly, ineffective, and perhaps even harmful to the environment. On the other hand, elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields). (Source: No Trick Zone) […]
[…] Read rest at No Tricks Zone […]
[…] checked out 400 scientific papers (really?) and concluded that challenge the scientific "consensus" that climate change (no longer […]
The one absolutely essential point the warmists are not able to provide is an independantly peer reviewed paper showing a link of CO2 causing global temperature increases or climatic problems. They can not because it does not.
@Michael Davison
Just like that tropical hot spot nothing has appeared, just assertions, conjecture, and some imaginative guesswork.
But watch out, maybe “the seas will boil” Hansen still has some conjuring tricks to amuse his fawning crowd with.
🙂
[…] Just to be clear, so the greenies can’t bleat about being misrepresented, here is what these various papers say: […]
Kenneth Richard,
Nick Stokes and Really Skeptical, are attacking your post content at Watts Up With That?
“So far this year, 400 scientific papers debunk climate change alarm
Anthony Watts / 6 hours ago October 25, 2017
400 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm
by Kenneth Richard, No Tricks Zone
During the first 10 months of 2017, 400 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media.
These 400 new papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes. Climate science is not settled.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/25/so-far-this-year-400-scientific-papers-debunk-climate-change-alarm/
Suggest you take a look there.
The list is meant to be a compilation of papers that support positions that skeptics of the “consensus” often maintain, which can be mostly whittled down to:
(1) a significant portion of climate changes are natural;
(2) the consequences of burning fossil fuels are likely not dangerous or even climatically/geologically consequential;
(3) the models are not reliable, as uncertainty is enormous in a multi-faceted, non-linear climate system; and
(4) the warming/sea levels/glacier retreat/hurricane and drought intensities…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable.
These positions are not supported by the “consensus”. Quite the opposite. According to the “consensus” (as gleaned from consistently reading websites like SkepticalScience and RealClimate):
(1) Close to or over 100% (110%) of climate change is anthropogenic, leaving natural attribution at something close to 0%.
(2) Modern warming, glacier and sea ice recession, sea level rise, drought and hurricane intensities…are all occurring at unprecedentedly high and rapid levels, and the effects are globally synchronous…and thus dangerous consequences to the biosphere and human civilizations loom.
(3) The climate models are reliable and accurate, and the scientific understanding of the effects of CO2 concentration changes on climate changes is “settled enough“, which means that “the debate is over“.
(4) The proposed solutions to mitigate the dangerous consequences described in (2) – namely, wind and solar expansion – are safe, effective, and environmentally-friendly.
The papers support the first (1)-(4) positions, and they undermine the second set of (1)-(4) positions. The papers do not do more than that. Expectations that they should do more than support skeptical positions and undermine “consensus” positions to “count” as a tally for skepticism (whatever that might mean) are disingenuous.
———————————————————————
If we were to look at the papers that Cook et al. (2013) used to concoct the 97% “consensus” paper, for example, we’d find that Cook and his co-horts actually classified papers (and magazine articles) about cooking stoves in Brazil, phone surveys, asthma-related ER visits in Montreal, TV coverage…as “endorsing” the position that most of the global warming occurring since ~1950 has been human-caused. Really.
http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97
The Cook et al. (2013) 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change.
A “critique” of this list has been posted at the blog “snopes” – whose author claims to be an unbiased, neutral “fact checker”.
It is rather ironic that blogger Alex Kasprak has purposely misrepresented what the Reynolds et al. (2017) graph shows that he claims was misrepresented.
https://us-east-1.tchyn.io/snopes-production/uploads/2017/10/reynolds-fig11-1.png?w=528
In the graph and subset he provided (above link), the red line represents the SST anomaly, which would show a trend if there was one, for the North Atlantic. In other words, the red line is not detrended. The black line is, yes, but considering the black line shows no obvious diversion from the non-de-trended red line, and both show no obvious warming trajectory since the 1800s, it is hardly a misrepresentation to show the black and red lines together…which is why this graph was included on the list that shows no obvious long-term warming trend.
Kasprak’s critique, on the other hand, is itself a misrepresentation, as he tries to claim that (1) the entire graph, and not just the black line, is detrended, and (2) he claims that the subsequent graph of the North Atlantic that does show a warming trend…
https://us-east-1.tchyn.io/snopes-production/uploads/2017/10/reynolds-with-trend.png?w=563
…is what actually appeared in the paper. That graph Kasprak produced showing a long-term warming in the North Atlantic did not appear in the paper, however, meaning the “fact checker” has just misrepresented Reynolds et al. (2017) by claiming a graph that did not appear in the paper actually did appear in the paper.
Kasprak also falsely claims that the Reynolds et al. (2017) graph was reported at NTZ as evidence that global temperatures have been flat. Nowhere has it been reported here that graphs of the North Atlantic region are evidence of global-scale change. Alex has concocted a false argument.
Furthermore, graphs of the North Atlantic that also show no obvious long-term warming trend are abundant in the literature. It would appear that the graph Kasprak located is an exception, and yet he presented that graph as if it portrayed the “real” data showing a long-term warming. Here are just a few of the many reconstructions of North Atlantic SSTs (and OHC) that do not support Kasprak’s claim/misrepresentation.
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Holocene-Cooling-North-Atlantic-SSTs-Mark-16.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Holocene-Cooling-North-Atlantic-SSTs-Kim-2017.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Holocene-Cooling-North-Atlantic-SST-Bird-2011.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Holocene-Cooling-North-Atlantic-OHC-Duchez-16.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Holocene-Cooling-Irminger-Sea-North-Atlantic-de-Jong-16.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/North-Atlantic-Cooling-OHC-Piecuch-2017.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Holocene-Cooling-North-Atlantic-Western-Subtropical-Saenger-11.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Holocene-Cooling-North-Atlantic-SSTs-Chafik-16.jpg
–
In my view, it is unfortunate that the author of a conservative website (which I personally neither frequent or side with – quite the opposite) has chosen to entitle his article the way he did. Global warming is not a myth. Much of the globe has indeed warmed since the depths of the Little Ice Age (1450-1900). Some regions more than others. And many regions warmed during the first half of the 20th century, but then cooled and haven’t reached that level of warmth since.
It would be my assumption that James Delingpole chose the words “Global Warming Is A Myth” – and then claimed that 400 papers supported this statement – so as to attract wide attention. (If so, this effort appears to have been successful.) I would also assume that JD knows that the introductory narrative for the article on NTZ explicitly does not state that these 400 papers “prove” that global warming is a myth.
Instead of re-stating what these papers are intended to do here, I would ask for those interested to read the first 5 paragraphs of the article’s description.
Kasprak’s claim that “NTZ” has employed straw man arguments in compiling these papers is, itself, a series of straw man arguments. One would think that “fact checkers” should not be concocting false narratives.
Nowhere was it stated in the NTZ article that “no other drivers of climate whatsoever” are a required characteristic of AGW. Kasprak has simply made up this charge. On the other hand, it is true that Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate has claimed that the “consensus” IPCC position is that ~100% of the warming since 1951 is human caused:
–
RealClimate.org: “The best estimate of the warming due to anthropogenic forcings (ANT) is the orange bar (noting the 1𝛔 uncertainties). Reading off the graph, it is 0.7±0.2ºC (5-95%) with the observed warming 0.65±0.06 (5-95%). The attribution then follows as having a mean of ~110%, with a 5-95% range of 80–130%. This easily justifies the IPCC claims of having a mean near 100%, and a very low likelihood of the attribution being less than 50% (p < 0.0001!)."
—
Nowhere has it been stated that AGW “requires every location on earth to respond to climate variables in the same way.” This straw man argument borders on the ridiculous. Again, he’s just making this charge up.
No, it’s not entirely model-based. The warming evidence itself, as well as sea level rise and glacier melt, are to a significant degree rooted in observation. But models do play a prominent role in the evidence-gathering process. So the claim that NTZ has stated AGW evidence is entirely model-based is a made up charge.
Ken,
The main element of this post that I would alter would be to simply denote the warmist talking points as (W.1), (W.2), (W.3), and (W.4), and the skeptical position as (S.1), (S.2), (S.3), and (S.4). This makes it clear below when you refer to the two sets. With those as your criteria, it is clear that the two sets of talking points are not necessarily opposed to one another one-to-one, but that the warmist position also includes so-called solutions that have been shown by the papers to be faulty as far as renewables are concerned.
@ sunsettommy 26. October 2017 at 12:52 AM
While I sometimes still refer to material posted at WUWT, I try to do so judiciously, and only if I can’t find it elsewhere. They have “issues,” IMO. I’ll leave it at that.
Meanwhile, I’ll trundle on over to that link you provided, and maybe comment on it later, if I have anything to add to Kenneth’s thorough treatment of the matter.
OK, I see. It wasn’t WUWT that was critical. The ones you are referring to were in the peanut gallery (comments section). I just read a couple of their comments, and (yawn) nothing more than the usual SebH-style assaults, …nothing substantive. Maybe further down, but I have better things to do with my time.
There is no scientific consensus regarding the AGW conjecture. Scientists never registered and voted on the issue. Even if there were it would be meaningless because science is not a democracy, The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated through a voting process.
It does not matter how many papers are for or against the AGW conjecture. It is more a matter of what is in the papers that really matters.
The AGW conjecture depends upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by heat trapping gases with LWIR absorption bands. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. There is no raadiant greenhouse effect that keeps a greenhouse warm. It is entirely a convective greenhouse effect. So too on Earth. The warming effect of the atmosphere is caused by a convective greenhouse provided for by the heat capacity of the atmosphere, the depth of the troposphere and gravity. As derived from first principals, the Earth’s convective greenhouse keeps the surface of the Earth 33 degrees C warmer than if there were no convective greenhouse effect. 33 degrees C is the amount derived from first princpals and 33 degrees C is heat has been measured. Additional warming caused by a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed. The rediant greenhouse effect has not been observed anywhere in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction, hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction. The AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and cannot be defended.
Exactly right William, thank you. See my post further down.
[…] for his blog, NoTricksZone, Brown University biology professor Kenneth R. Miller explained that the papers both question the […]
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2017/10/23/400-scientific-papers-published-in-2017-support-a-skeptical-posit… […]
[…] for his blog, NoTricksZone, Brown University biology professor Kenneth R. Miller explained that the papers both question the […]
[…] for his blog, NoTricksZone, Brown University biology professor Kenneth R. Miller explained that the papers both question the […]
[…] for his blog, NoTricksZone, Brown University biology professor Kenneth R. Miller explained that the papers both question the […]
If you need more direct evidence of the non-role of atmospheric carbon dioxide in driving climate change, just look at the data:
http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Role_of_CO2-EaE.pdf and then read this paper: http://tech-know-group.com/papers/Role_of_GHE-EaE.pdf
If yet more info is needed to totally destroy climate alarm, read these two essays:
http://tech-know-group.com/essays/SURFRAD_Data_Falsifies_GHE.pdf and http://tech-know-group.com/essays/Carbon_pollution.pdf
Hans, you may enjoy reading this, if you aren’t already aware of his material.
https://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2017/10/thermal-radiation-basics-and-their.html
[…] Modern temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather events are neither unusual nor unprecedented.&n… […]
[…] in scholarly journals (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) challenging “consensus” climate science 400 Scientific Papers Published In 2017 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm skeptical. Which is what science ought to […]
[…] And I also applied it when I came upon an article by Kenneth Richard at a website I’ve come to know and trust called No Tricks Zone. […]
[…] And I also applied it when I came upon an article by Kenneth Richard at a website I’ve come to know and trust called No Tricks Zone. […]
[…] And I also applied it when I came upon an article by Kenneth Richard at a website I’ve come to know and trust called No Tricks Zone. […]
[…] for his blog, NoTricksZone, Brown University biology professor Kenneth R. Miller explained that the papers both question the […]
[…] Modern temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather events are neither unusual nor unprecedented. … […]
[…] And I also applied it when I came upon an article by Kenneth Richard at a website I’ve come to know and trust called No Tricks Zone. […]
Therefore to keep the 97% concensus there must have been 12,933 papers in 2017 saying that Global Warming is real without a doubt…
AND…
1. Humans are the primary cause, and…
2. It’s going to be catastrophic.
mustn’t lower the bar for them.
Only religions are without a doubt.
@Delingpole 26. October 2017 at 7:06 PM
“…if the cat or dog need medical attention I tend to take them to the vet’s rather than attempt surgery on them myself.” – Delingple
Now where’s the fun in that?!
Go there. Break the rules! If you’re lucky, and a neighbor reports you, you might get to find out how the UK correctional system works, from the inside. Or at least discover the joys of community service – perhaps assigned to assist on a PETA picket line, or lab invasion. Think of it. You could really be missing out here.
From that ridiculous website:
That must read “what he thinks supported his argument and ignoring everything else that those authors write”. Those lists are easily picked apart when you invest the time to actually read and understand those papers.
SebH never fails to fail to construct a valid argument. His “proof” that the article he doesn’t like is wrong, is that it is, according to him, from a “ridiculous website.” Never mind that one of his favorite sources is the “skeptical science” website, the writers of which are the source of the utterly debunked 97% consensus.
http://climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/
Nope, not proof needed. SebH said it, so it must be so. /s/
And if that’s not enough “proof” that the website he doesn’t like is “ridiculous,” he highlights a few of his own random ramblings and then accuses the author of not investing “the time to actually read and understand those papers.”
Wherever did he learn to argue so powerfully?! /s/
You will, however, look in vain for any indication that SebH has read or understood those papers himself, since he brings not an iota of proof from any of them that they were misunderstood.
As usual, SebH mocks others based on his personal biases, with not a shred of evidence to support himself. Fact free assertion is the basis of all his nonsensical blathering, as we can see by this example from the recent past.
https://notrickszone.com/2017/09/25/another-new-paper-dismantles-the-co2-greenhouse-effect-thought-experiment/comment-page-1/#comment-1231250
Will he go away in shame? Will he try to improve? Or will he just remain the same old annoying pest we’ve grown so accustomed to? Though I hope for one of the first two, my money is on the latter.
[…] for his blog, NoTricksZone, Brown University biology professor Kenneth R. Miller explained that the papers both question the […]
[…] Just to be clear, so the greenies can’t bleat about being misrepresented, here is what these various papers say: […]
[…] Simply to be clear, so the greenies can’t bleat about being misrepresented, here’s what these varied papers say: […]
[…] Just to be clear, so the greenies can’t bleat about being misrepresented, here is what these various papers say: […]
[…] Merely to be clear, so the greenies can’t bleat about being misrepresented, right here’s what these different papers say: […]
What is this “Delingpole” Trackback Spam? Someone is posting the same article on many domains to achieve what? The illusion of omnipresence? 😉
[…] response to outspoken Brown College biology professor Kenneth R. Miller, the papers present proof that local weather change “consensus” touted by left-wing […]
[…] NoTricksZone: Brown University biology professor Kenneth R. Miller explained that the papers both question the climate change “consensus” touted by left-wing politicians and mainstream media — and also make it clear “that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes.” […]
[…] for his blog, NoTricksZone, Brown University biology professor Kenneth R. Miller explained that the papers both question the […]
[…] for his blog, NoTricksZone, Brown University biology professor Kenneth R. Miller explained that the papers both question the […]
It is my understanding that the PRIMARY FACTORS influencing earth’s climate are the following:
1. Insolation (heating from the sun)
2. Ocean currents
3. Volcanism
The contribution of man-produced CO2, if any, pales in comparison to these three. Climate change is a FACT. It has been going on since the formation of our planet. Man-made global warming is a HOAX perpetrated by globalists seeking to reap monetary rewards and change our governments from nationalist to globalist. The globalists should all be sent to the gulag!
1. Insolation (heating from the sun) (and modulated by decadal-scale cloud cover variations)
Good luck thinking your going to control the climate of the entire planet.
[…] for his blog, NoTricksZone, Brown University biology professor Kenneth R. Miller explained that the papers both question the […]
[…] did the exact same thing again this week, only this time it was 400 papers. Basically, he reheated another blogger’s compendium of all scientific papers from 2017 that in any way complicate the idea that greenhouse gases cause […]