Consensus? 500+ Scientific Papers Published In 2018 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

In 2018,  over 500 scientific papers were published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media sources.

More than 500 scientific papers published in 2018 affirm the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes, emphasizing that climate science is not settled.

More specifically, the papers in this compilation support these four main skeptical positions — categorized here as N(1) – N(4) — which question the climate alarm popularized in today’s headlines.

N(1) Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined.

Solar Influence On Climate (103)
ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO Climate Influence (22)
Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability (8)
Cloud/Aerosol Climate Influence (4)
Volcanic/Tectonic Climate Influence (3)

N(2) The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/hurricane and drought intensities…experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.

No Net Warming Since Mid/Late 20th Century (36)
A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions (76)
Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise (16)
Sea Levels Multiple Meters Higher 4,000-7,000 Years Ago (18)
Nothing Unusual Occurring With Glaciers, Polar Ice (33)
Polar Bear (and other) Populations Not Decreasing (10)
Warming, Acidification Not Harming Oceanic Biosphere (10)
Coral Bleaching A Natural, Non-Anthropogenic Phenomenon (2)
No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes/Storms (8)
No Increasing Trend In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity (7)
Global Fire Frequency Declining As CO2 Rises (2)
CO2 Changes Lag Temperature Changes By 1000+ Years (3)

N(3) The computer climate models are neither reliable or consistently accurate, the uncertainty and error ranges are irreducible, and projections of future climate states (i.e., an intensification of the hydrological cycle) are not supported by observations and/or are little more than speculation.

Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors (27)
No AGW Changes To Hydrological Cycle Detectable (6)
The CO2 Greenhouse Effect – Climate Driver? (12)

N(4) Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment, whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields, lower mortality with warming).

Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (17)
Wind Power Harming The Environment, Biosphere (19)
Elevated CO2: Greens Planet, Higher Crop Yields (20)
Global Warming Saves Lives. Cold Kills. (9)
Global Losses/Deaths From Weather Disasters Declining (2)

In sharp contrast to the above, the corresponding “consensus” positions that these papers do not support are:

A(1) Close to or over 100% (110%) of the warming since 1950 has been caused by increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, leaving natural attribution at something close to 0%.

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!).”

A(2) Modern warming, glacier and sea ice recession, sea level rise, drought and hurricane intensities…are all occurring at unprecedentedly high and rapid rates, and the effects are globally synchronous (not just regional)…and thus dangerous consequences to the global biosphere and human civilizations loom in the near future as a consequence of anthropogenic influences.

A(3) The climate models are reliable and accurate, and the scientific understanding of the effects of both natural forcing factors (solar activity, clouds, water vapor, etc.) and CO2 concentration changes on climate is “settled enough”, which means that “the time for debate has ended”.

A(4) The proposed solutions to mitigate the dangerous consequences described in N(4) – namely, wind and solar expansion – are safe, effective, and environmentally-friendly.

To reiterate, the 500+ papers compiled in 2018 support the N(1)-N(4) positions, and they undermine or at least do not support the “consensus”A(1)-A(4) positions.  These papers do not do more than that.   In other words, it is not accurate to claim these papers prove that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) positions are invalid, or that AGW claims have now been debunked”.

There were just over 500 papers published in 2016.  Skeptic Papers 2016

There were just under 500 papers published in 2017.  Skeptic Papers 2017

Between 2016 and 2018 there were about 1,500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published that support a skeptical position on climate alarm.

Below are the three links to the list of scientific papers for 2018 as well as an outline to their categorization.

Skeptic Papers 2018 (1)

Skeptic Papers 2018 (2)

Skeptic Papers 2018 (3)

1. Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction (189)

No Net Warming Since Mid/Late 20th Century (36)
A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions (76)
Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise (16)
Sea Levels Multiple Meters Higher 4,000-7,000 Years Ago (18)
Nothing Unusual Occurring With Glaciers, Polar Ice (33)
Mass Extinction Events Caused By Glaciation, Sea Level Fall (3)
Antarctic Ice Melting In High Geothermal Heat Flux Areas (2)
Abrupt, Degrees-Per-Decade Natural Global Warming (5)

2. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change (152)

Solar Influence On Climate (103)
ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO Climate Influence (22)
Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability (8)
Cloud/Aerosol Climate Influence (4)
Volcanic/Tectonic Climate Influence (3)
The CO2 Greenhouse Effect – Climate Driver? (12)

3. Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling (161)

Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors (27)
Urban Heat Island: Raising Surface Temperatures Artificially (5)
Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (17)
Wind Power Harming The Environment, Biosphere (19)
Elevated CO2: Greens Planet, Higher Crop Yields (20)
Polar Bear (and other) Populations Not Decreasing (10)
Global Warming Saves Lives. Cold Kills. (9)
Warming, Acidification Not Harming Oceanic Biosphere (10)
Coral Bleaching Is A Natural, Non-Anthropogenic Phenomenon (2)
No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes/Storms (8)
No Increasing Trend In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity (7)
Natural CO2 Emissions A Net Source, Not A Net Sink (5)
Global Fire Frequency Declining As CO2 Rises (2)
CO2 Changes Lag Temperature Changes By 1000+ Years (3)
Global Losses/Deaths From Weather Disasters Declining (2)
No AGW Changes To Hydrological Cycle Detectable (6)
Peak Oil As Myth (3)
Miscellaneous (16)

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

49 responses to “Consensus? 500+ Scientific Papers Published In 2018 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm”

  1. RickWill

    Is Sebastian on holidays?

    1. Don from OZ

      Rick he may have gone tropo or has realised he just can’t match it with Kenneth

    2. SebastianH

      I continue to read the nonsense that gets published here, I just don’t comment or reply anymore. It’s a giant waste of time trying to discuss with you folks when your minds are already set. Enjoy the cherries you like to pick, wonder why the real world behaves differently than what you guys propose time and again and just be happy that you have zero influence in the scientific community (unless you find that one flaw of AGW that really shows the rest of us that there is no GHE, warming isn’t bad, it’s not human caused or whatever else you come up regularly).

      Why be happy? Because if you live another few decades you will undoubtedly look back on this period of time and ask yourselves how you could ever have such weird opinions about how stuff works. Well, at least I hope some of you are capable of recognizing their mistakes and change their minds in time.

      So long, have a happy new year and enjoy cheerleading your “skeptical” heroes 😉

      1. Dennis M Rodzik

        “It’s a giant waste of time trying to discuss with you folks when your minds are already set”. And yours isn’t??? ROFLMAO!

    3. Yonason

      @Rick Will

      You just HAD to ask! lol

  2. Sylvia

    The UN will be furious! Maurice Strong was a “member” of the UN and they ran with his stupid idea of Agenda 21. This evil idea includes global warming and reduction of population across the world. He died in 2012 (I think)but this idea is glad the snowflakes are refusing to have children because the planet will “die” completely in agreement with the needed reduction so as to return millions of acres to wildlife and confiscate our homes etc.

  3. sunsettommy

    Thank you for your hard work in making these presentations, they help me a lot!

  4. Robert Folkerts

    It is interesting isn’t it!

    God said he created the Earth to be inhabited. He told humans, who he created in his image, to multiply and fill the earth, and have dominion over the animals and the fish etc.

    The interesting thing is how these quotes from Strong et al are diametrically opposed to the word of God. I guess there should not be too much of a surprise in that.

    What I find fascinating is, God had provided us with oil/coal etc, the burning of which produces some extra co2, which in turn results in increases in plant growth producing more food for the currently increasing human population. Seems to me to be more than a coincidence.

    How fortunate for us, there is everything to be found in the earth to make all we can think of. Much of which has greatly improved living conditions, and without which people could not live as we do. Think transporting of food for one.
    When Musk goes to Mars, let’s see if he can exist “sustainably” there, or will everything needed to support life there have to come from Earth?

    This is truly one unique and magnificent planet!

  5. Nick Schroeder

    As a degreed and registered mechanical engineer, I have a professional, legal and financial obligation to get it right.

    1) 33 C warmer with atmosphere is rubbish. By reflecting 30% of the ISR the atmosphere cools the earth, i.e. it’s hotter without an atmosphere not colder. https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6473732020483743744

    2) The 333 W/m^2 GHG energy loop is thermodynamic nonsense. Not because of the 2nd law regarding entropy, but because it appears out of nowhere violating the 1st law of energy conservation.

    3) The surface upwelling 396 W/m^2 LWIR as a BB that powers the GHE is not possible. Because of the non-radiative heat transfer processes radiation’s share, 63/160 = 39.4%, presents an effective emissivity of 63/396 = 0.16 and demonstrated by experiment.
    https://principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/

    1 + 2 + 3 = no GHE & no CO2 warming & no man caused climate change.

    Bring science, prove me wrong.

    Nick Schroeder, BSME CU ’78, CO PE 22774

    https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6466699347852611584

  6. phil salmon

    Valuable, thanks!

    For me the most important are the paleo climate papers that show recent climate change to be well within normal variation.

    The CAGW story takes root in minds that are sterile of knowledge of – or even interest/curiosity in, past climate and climate change. The CAGW narrative likewise continues to be sterile of any acknowledgment of past climate change, making an assumption of infantile naïveté (even if not explicitly stated) that climate has been static at all times before the industrial revolution.

    Thus focusing attention on paleo climate and past natural climate change will sow seeds of doubt in the CAGW fairy tale and maybe encourage some beneficial curiosity into the natural world, how it works and how long it has been around.

  7. Stephen Richards

    Joe Bastardi says you are going to get blasted by the cold toward the end of jan and into feb 18

  8. Wiliam Haas

    Climate change has been taking place for eons. Current climate change is so slow that it takes networks of very sophisticated sensors decades to even detect it. We must not mix up true climate change with weather cycles that are part of the current climate. Considering the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude that the climate change we have been experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero.

    The AGW conjecture seems plausible at first but a more detailed scientific investigation uncovers that the AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and cannot be defended. For example, the AGW conjecture depends upon the existence of radiant greenhouse effect in the Earth’s atmosphere provided for trace gases with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere or anywhere else in the solar system The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well.

  9. scott allen

    By its founding charter/law the IPCC can ONLY investigate “HUMAN-INDUCED” climate change.

    “The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation”

    I had a professor of criminal law during a lecture on “malicious prosecution” make the statement “if you job depends on you finding cow patties in a pasture , you will find them even if its a pasture full of sheep” (paraphrasing)

  10. 2018 : One Of The Least Extreme Climate Years On Record – Lexington Libertarian

    […] The No Tricks Zone reports: […]

  11. Yonason
  12. Mark Rothschild

    “Climate Depot” = BIG OIL..BIG COAL Welfare Queens

    1. Russell

      Mark Rothschild & Kenneth Richard, using the big oil card is ignorant, the rivers of gold flow only in one direction, so why regurgitate this propaganda?

      IPCC scientists heading University departments receiving grants from Exxon Mobil, $110 million to Stanford Uni, BP $500 million to UC Berkeley. The WWF, Sierra Club and Greenpeace have each receive more money from Big Oil than all skeptics combined. International banks have also been very generous to the alarmist cause, Bank of America $50 billion, Citi-Bank $150 billion, World Bank $200 Billion, Spanish bank BBVA €100 billion. 2015 IMF/World Bank Group Spring Meetings brought together voices from all areas of the economy – government, investment, business and civil society – to discuss how to mobilise the trillions of dollars needed globally to address climate change. Putting a price on carbon and phasing out fossil fuel subsidies are two ways governments can free up and increase public funds. Other sessions looked at the roles development banks and central banks can play in encouraging greater investment in low-carbon growth. The UN, World Bank claimed they need “$89 Trillion” to fix the climate. Then there’s ClimateWorks Foundation, thirteen unelected, unaccountable billionaire foundations have been funding NGOs hundreds of millions of dollars a year to agitate for renewables and global cap and trade policies. Then there’s the trillions stolen from taxpayers across western countries. Look into the GEF, government robs taxpayers and hands it over to this mob so they can save planet earth from the evil CO2.The list goes on and on and on.

      Fraud In The National Climate Assessment by Tony Heller is essential viewing for any alarmist interested in the facts. The following is part 1 of 3 with more to follow
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j46mnIcz330&t=3s

  13. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #342 | Watts Up With That?
  14. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #342 - Sciencetells
  15. U.S. Media Bans Scientific Dissent – Claim Wildfires, Floods, Droughts, Hurricanes Are Human-Controlled

    […] small sample.  Hundreds of other affirming scientific papers have not been included.  After all, over 1,500 peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published since 2016 that support a skeptical position on climate […]

  16. KONSENSUS? - 500 SKEPTISKA ARTIKLAR 2018 - Stockholmsinitiativet - Klimatupplysningen

    […] Kenneth Richard på NoTricksZone har sammanställt över 500 publicerade vetenskapliga artiklar som på olika sätt undergräver de klimatföreställningar som för närvarande ligger till grund för vår (och EUs) klimatpolitik. Han delar upp dessa tveksamma föreställningar i fyra kategorier: […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close