In just the first 6 months of 2018, 254 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 serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media sources.
These 254 new papers 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 climate alarm.
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.
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.
N(3) The computer climate models are neither reliable or consistently accurate, and projections of future climate states are little more than speculation as the uncertainty and error ranges are enormous in a non-linear climate system.
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).
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 254 papers compiled in 2018 thus far support the N(1)-N(4) positions, and they undermine or at least do not support the “consensus” A(1)-A(4) positions. The papers do not do more than that. Expectations that these papers should do more than support skeptical positions and undermine “consensus” positions to “count” are deemed unreasonable in this context.
Below are the three links to the list of 2018 papers amassed as of the 28th of June, 2018, as well as the guideline for the lists’ categorization.
19 responses to “What Scientific ‘Consensus’? 254 New 2018 Papers Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarmism”
I once forded across a fast flowing river where the bottom was sand. As I got close to the middle the water flow started to erode the sand under my feet and I realised I could move forward quickly into the dark water (peaty) water – or back – but it was impossible to stay where I was.
I think alarmists must now be feeling the same panic.
The next AR report is coming correct? How many of these will be referenced in that report?
As I recall with AR5, it ignored the “hiatus” but that became a huge topic just after it’s release. I felt that was done to avoid reporting on it within AR5.
Now that the new homogenization processes have removed the hiatus, it is a dead topic and will not be in AR6.
The process to create science is a curious one.
Hi Reasonable Skeptic.
Actually the AR5 does mention the hiatus but hides mention of it away in the text of the report where no one will see it.
Check out this quote from chapter 11.
The assessment here provides only a likely range for GMST.(Global Mean Surface Tenperature)
Possible reasons why the real world might depart from this range include:…..(blah blah blah blah blah blah) …the possibility that model sensitivity to anthropogenic forcing may differ from that of the real world (see point
(at this point there is Figure 11.25)
“The reduced rate of warming ….is related to evidence that ‘some CMIP5 models have a… larger response to other anthropogenic forcings ….. than the real world (medium confidence).”
Hard as it is to believe, they are admitting there is a difference between the sensitivity of the models and the sensitivity of the real world.
Unfortunately all these scientifically sound climate papers will not matter to the closed minds of the climate-cult fanatics. It is not possible to have a reasoned debate with religious zealots.
Neither will the pig-thick and/or cynical Governments. They have expended too much political capital and received too many backhanders from the renewable scamsters to back down.
Never have so many been conned by so few for so much.
[…] Fonte: No Tricks Zone […]
not reliable or consistently accurate
be changed to
neither reliable nor cons……
thank you for your continuing great work.
Best regards, John RT
Thank you. With not, the “consistently accurate” could be affirmative. With neither, both are not.
Thanks again for an interesting and informative post.
Is SebastianH not well? I cannot imagine him in Russia supporting the German team although with their results he might have been. No! they did win one which Seb never did.
Perhaps he has finally caught up with Jack Eddy’s paper in 1975 about solar variation in the last thousand years. Again No! most believers in the climate change boogeyman haven’t caught up yet with Archimedes as they worry about (floating) Arctic ice melting and raising the sea level.
There never has been a “scientific consensus” regarding the AGW conjecture. Scientists have never registered and voted on the validity of the AGW conjecture. Such a “scientific consensus” would be meaningless anyway because science is not a democracy. The laws of science are not some sort of legislation. Scientific theories are not validated by a voting process. The idea of consensus is a political idea and not a scientific idea.
Based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, one can conclude that the climate change we have been experiencing 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 plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. It is all a matter of science.
[…] K. Richard, June 28, 2018 in […]
Question: How many papers supporting the « IPCC alarmist view » have been published in the same timeframe ?
It’s not important from a scientific perspective, but could be interesting from a mediatic one.
[…] Read rest at No Tricks Zone […]
In the 1st half of last century many old people’s death certificates said old age or consumption towards the end of the century deaths attributable to many different cancers increased dramatically but the majority of these increases were due to detection abilities that previously did not exists NOT increased occurrences.
I find A2 so vague as to be laughable what is the time span of “Modern” and ” all occurring at unprecedentedly high and rapid rates” compared to when.
Just like my example at the early part of the last century storms etc in many parts of the world never made the headlines/record, the locals just cleared up and got on with life.
Jack, you say “towards the end of the century deaths attributable to many different cancers increased dramatically but the majority of these increases were due to detection abilities that previously did not exists NOT increased occurrences.”
I guess you’ve never heard of Simian Virus 40, a contaminant in polio vaccinations administered from 1955-1964. That it’s a carcinogen in animals has been acknowledged by NIH. It has since been found in certain human tumors– by 17 labs.
Of course, not everyone who received the polio vaccination will actually get cancer; it depends on the immune system, etc. With advancing age, more people get it– probably either due to immune compromise, or due to the very slow growth of certain types of cancer, like mesothelioma.
The worst of it is that there’s some indication there’s colostral transmission–i.e., from generation to generation. And also by intercourse. You see, even if one doesn’t get cancer, the virus continues in the body.
Anyway, this is the reason for the increase in cancer, rather than mere better detection.
So what is it all about?
UNFCCC redefined the basic guidelines for the UN’s climate science body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The guidelines now restrict “climate change” to include only variations due to human activity. Specifically, Article 1 of the UNFCCC treaty states:
The definition predetermines the outcome of the IPCC’s work. In particular, since the IPCC is required to support the Framework Convention, it had to change its mandate from its original purpose of studying all causes of climate change to the UNFCCC’s political definition of manmade climate change.
So the IPCC’s mandate was changed to assessing
The presumption is that humans can and do affect the climate grossly, however compared to nature, we are a piffling, small, inconsequential little animal barely scrapping the surface of the way climate changes.
Our biggest effect on climate is our changing of water courses, in water use and distribution, and our changes to land use. It’s not our putting a trivial amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2018/06/28/what-scientific-consensus-254-new-2018-papers-support-a-skeptical… […]
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2018/06/28/what-scientific-consensus-254-new-2018-papers-support-a-skeptical… […]
Exactly the opposite of what the activists are telling us.
Here’s something new (to me, anyway) that Richard Lindzen has to say.
(ok, a lot of the same stuff, but if the warmists keep repeating their nonsense, we have to keep repeating why they are wrong.)