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.
49 responses to “Consensus? 500+ Scientific Papers Published In 2018 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm”
Is Sebastian on holidays?
Rick he may have gone tropo or has realised he just can’t match it with Kenneth
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 😉
So it took you nearly 2 years (you began commenting in January, 2017) for you to realize that trying to convince skeptics that they should believe that humans exert fundamental control over the Earth’s weather is not persuasive.
And you did it again … calling the scientific consensus a belief. Has that strategy worked for you over the past years? Do you think this and adding a “just” to major changes of the climate system does somehow invalidate science and approves of the “skeptical viewpoint”?
At least your imagination is working. Have fun in your bubble 😉
At what point did people agreeing with what they believe to be true become science? Consensus, by definition, is a political term, not a scientific one.
consensus (about/on something) She is skilled at achieving consensus on sensitive issues.
There is a growing consensus of opinion on this issue.
an attempt to reach a consensus
There now exists a broad political consensus in favour of economic reform.
consensus politics (= which people in general agree with)
consensus (among somebody) (about/on something) There is a general consensus among teachers about the need for greater security in schools.
consensus (that…) There seems to be a consensus that the plan should be rejected.
Yes. I refuse to call the belief that humans can control the weather and hurricane strength and floods and droughts and glacier melt in Antarctica…by driving trucks and burning biofuels anything other than a belief, or an assumption. Why? Because it’s not supported by observational evidence. See today’s article. Observation, physical measurements, controlled experiments…are science. Speculation about how humans might maybe possibly perhaps could potentially contribute to the strength of a hurricane in 2034…is not science. And so I refuse to call it that…no matter how much you may protest.
What “major changes” to the climate system could you possibly be talking about? Again, see today’s article:
Nothing unusual is occurring today that even comes close to falling outside the range of natural variability. In fact, there is paleoclimate evidence that we live in one of the most climatically quiescent periods of the last millennium today. Enjoy it while it lasts.
As you and every thoughtful person knows, had Einstein and Bohr reached a “consensus” early on, scientific advance would have been slowed. It was the dynamic of the debate that fostered advances being made.
“The debates were gentlemanly. Bohr and Einstein were friends and had great respect for one another.”
And that is how to properly disagree scientifically. Shutting down debate is a recipe for stagnation and failure.
That’s something an internet activist will never understand.
Wherever you find something calling itself “science” that ceases to question it’s fundamental principles, that refuses to debate the what or the how, you know you are looking at a dead or dying branch.
Literally all the evidence we have points to our emissions being the cause.
Yes, and I believe in science. You believe in your weird interpretations of science and even encourage people who clearly write nonsense by replying to them with “other scientists agree with you”.
*sigh* … yeah well, everything is fine compared to 2 billion years (or whatever large number of years you like to choose) ago. The three monkeys come to mind with you guys, but anyway … life is too short for this:
That’s a common trap prepared by those with fringe opinions. They set this up as if both sides are two equal views for a problem. In the case of climate skeptics, like you guys call yourselves, this is not the case. You can not debate facts like you guys try to do. You are essentially claiming that science shouldn’t call a sunny day a sunny day because you believe it is raining. I just hope most of the people are capable to actually look outside and determine for themselves that there can’t be a debate about if it’s raining on a sunny day.
Enjoy your time on Earth and don’t act like you are actually debating science.
The cause of what?! The 1.5 centimeters of total meltwater contribution to sea levels from Greenland and Antarctica combined since 1958? The 0.02 K temperature change in the oceans since 1994? The growth in area for shorelines and beaches all across the globe? The more-of-the-same global temperature change in the last millennium? What, exactly, is “literally all the evidence” pointing to as humans emissions as the cause? What’s unusual or “unnatural” that’s happening today that hasn’t happened before without human emissions?
Reverting back to your disingenuous self, I see. As you know (but you couldn’t help yourself and you needed to concoct a straw man), there has never been a time in which we compared today to 2 billion years ago. That’s why we spend so much time comparing today to the last few thousand years, when temperatures were about 2 to 5 degrees C warmer than today and sea levels were 2-3 meters higher than today while CO2 levels were (supposedly) hovering around 260 ppm — the exact opposite of what would be the case if CO2 concentrations were driving temperatures and sea levels.
Observation, physical measurements, controlled experiments…are science.
Then why do you believe (and cite) those who claim 30,000 species a year are going extinct due to climate change…since that’s not based on observation, physical measurements, or anything other than modeled assumptions? Do you agree that’s not science?
No, what we are actually doing is pointing out that on a global scale wildfires, droughts, floods, hurricanes, extreme weather events…are stable or decreasing in frequency and intensity because that’s what real-world observations say. Real-world observations are on our side.
It’s your side — as evidenced by the behavior of people like Chuck Todd and Dr. Kate Marvel and Dr. Michael Mann — that sees a deadly wildfire in CA or flooding after a hurricane and then pivots to blaming “climate change” (i.e., human CO2 emissions) for it. Without evidence.
You disingenuously claim we’re saying it’s raining when it’s sunny when it’s our side that actually has the observational evidence supporting it, whereas your side relies on belief in human attribution with just about any weather catastrophe…without supporting evidence.
Are hurricane frequencies, wildfires, and extreme weather events increasing in their frequency and intensity across the globe, SebastianH? If you believe they are, provide observational support for this claim. Can you?
The usual so called skeptic reply. Well done!
I never said you did that. Don’t call me disingenuous and then write stuff like this.
And this, Kenneth, is exactly why skeptics and their arguments fail all the time. What kind of logic is this? Would you also claim that because people died thousands of years ago while no guns existed that guns don’t kill people in the present? That’s exactly the same logic!
Do you really think those models come out of thin air and that using models is not science? If that is really the case then I have news for you: everything is based on models of how things work. The only pure science would be mathematics then. Is that what you are trying to get at?
No they aren’t.
Your condition is worse than I thought. You still don’t realize it, do you. There are no “sides”. You guys imagine that your arguments need to be listened to because they carry equal weight as what science actually says is happening, but they are not.
A quick google search for you …
Number of storms increased since the start of the 20th century:
Wildfires in the US did increase (you claimed otherwise):
May I guess your reply? Something along the lines of this not being science papers or based on models? 😉 Anyway, have fun in your imagined feel-good world where climate change is either not happening at all, or not as severe as everyone says and of course not at all caused by human emissions …
The cause of what?! […]
Why dodge the question? What, specifically, have human CO2 emissions caused that “literally all the evidence” points to this cause-effect relationship? If it’s “literally all the evidence” pointing to this cause-effect relationship, why not identify what you’re referring to?
there has never been a time in which we compared today to 2 billion years ago.
Again, we’ve never chosen 2 billion years ago or anything close. Claiming we have at any time chosen that “large number of years” is disingenuous.
No, it’s not even remotely the same logic. Because it has yet to be demonstrated in the real world that CO2 emissions are more than occasionally correlated with temperature changes — unless one wishes to claim that the correlation for the Holocene is that CO2 concentrations go up as temperatures go down, as shown here. Occasional correlation is not the same thing as establishing that one variable is the direct cause of an observed effect. Aphoristically, correlation does not equal causation, which is what your “logic” requires with your ridiculously irrelevant gun analogy. With guns, we can identify cause-effect. With CO2-temperature, all we have are occasional correlation. At no time has it been demonstrated/physically measured that CO2 concentration decreases cause oceans to cool, or that CO2 concentration increases cause oceans to warm. It’s model-based speculation. There is no real-world cause-effect connection. If you think there is, provide the measurements. How much will a water body cool when the CO2 concentration in the air above it decreases by 10 ppm? What’s the measured value? -0.00000000001 K? -0.00001 K?
Your gun analogy has nothing to do with the scientific evidence that shows modern temperatures/ice melt/sea levels/extreme weather events don’t even come close to falling outside the range of that which has occurred naturally, without CO2 perturbation (assuming that the paleoclimate CO2 records are accurate — which is a rather dubious assumption).
What science actually says is happening is that modern climate and weather and ice melt and sea level…changes are not unusual or even remarkable compared to the past hundreds and thousands of years. There are literally hundreds of scientific papers published in the last few years alone that demonstrate this. Your continued denial is notable.
Outstanding! We skeptics sure are convinced by the scientific superiority of The Guardian and Carbonbrief.
Most of the observed climate change in modern times. Not dodging any question, you are just trying to trap your opponent in a circular non-discussion. You do it all the time.
I seriously doubt your reading capabilities … but maybe my English is really that bad. No, I haven’t written that. Not at all. Stop taking everything literally and out of context! My comments are not the papers you cherry pick quotes from.
It is exactly the same logic.
Here we go again. Reconstructed data that is not comparable or relatable in one graph trying to show that there is no correlation when the mechanism of CO2 vs. temperature perfectly allows for instances where CO2 decreases and temperature continues to increase. If skeptics just could make a serious attempt at trying to understand how the mechanisms work …
No, that is what you require with your logic. You demand correlation has to be there for all times otherwise CO2 would not be the variable that changes the climate in modern times.
You think my gun analogy is ridiculous? How about trying to push impossible experiments on opponents that unless they are conducted whatever they say would be false? We measured that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect and increasing CO2 concentration increases the effect. The beauty of science is that you don’t need to believe in this, it nevertheless remains true.
Why should it? It was about your flawed logic.
Nope, that is what you selectively extract from science papers because you believe that this is the case. Confirmation bias is the term.
You do realize that this paragraph could have been written by anyone debating a skeptic as well? Except the word “hundreds” would be replaced with thousands or more?
Replied as predicted, ignoring that those websites don’t refer to fantasy data and mention the relevant science. Just for once let someone else interpret science for you. Maybe go to your local university/college and find out how fantastic your theories of what is going on really are 😉
“It’s a giant waste of time trying to discuss with you folks when your minds are already set”. And yours isn’t??? ROFLMAO!
You just HAD to ask! lol
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.
Maurice Strong: “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
“….population growth rates have been declining globally, largely as a result of expanded basic education and health care. That trend is projected to lead to a stable world population in the middle of the twenty-first century… The current decline in population growth rates must be further promoted through national and international policies that promote economic development, social development, environmental protection, and poverty eradication, particularly the further expansion of basic education, with full and equal access for girls and women, and health care, including reproductive health care, including both family planning and sexual health, consistent with the report of the International Conference on Population and Development.”
“What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?“
1) “Each birth results not only in the emissions attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but also the emissions of all his or her descendants. Hence, the emissions savings from intended or planned births multiply with time.”
2) “No human is genuinely ‘carbon neutral,’ especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation. Therefore, everyone is part of the problem, so everyone must be part of the solution in some way.”
3) “Strong family planning programmes are in the interests of all countries for greenhouse-gas concerns as well as for broader welfare concerns.”
“…even the best democracies agree that when a major war approaches, democracy must be put on hold for the time being. I have a feeling that climate change may be an issue as severe as a war. It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.”
Dave Foreman, Earth First Co-Founder: “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
John P. Holdren:
“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.”
“It may be necessary to put democracy on hold for a while.” – James Lovelock
Germany tried that in the 30’s. As I recall it didn’t end well.
Yes I believe it was called world war II
Thank you for your hard work in making these presentations, they help me a lot!
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!
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.
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
Other scientists agree with you.
Kramm et al., 2017
Another New Paper Dismantles The CO2 Greenhouse Effect ‘Thought Experiment’
Any author who refers to down-welling radiation in a serious discussion needs to learn a lot more about the magnetic and the electric field that all matter exists in. If they did that they would soon realise that any matter at lower radiance (or potential) cannot transfer energy to matter at higher radiance (or potential). It is like arguing a ball having mass will roll up hill against the gravitational field.
There is only one electric field and one magnetic field. All matter within the field affects that field at the speed of light in the medium they exist in. The link page has a reasonably simple explanation of Maxwell’s equations and how they define EMR:
The connectedness of the oceans on Earth are the drivers of climate. Block the Bering Straight and see what happens with ice cover on land in the northern hemisphere. That one small change would plunge all the land surrounding the North Atlantic into an ice age – imagine the impact on the “global average temperature”.
One more reply …
Not one real scientist can agree with those three points Nick Schroeder brought up here. He writes “Bring science, prove me wrong.” … well, my reply would be: back to school with both of you. How can any engineer be this wrong and post principia scientific links to support a point? Either a fake engineer or someone who hasn’t actually done anything with physics (those mentioned in his post) in a long time. But well, probably textbook physics have it wrong and this engineer knows something we all missed 😉
Funny, that’s the same ad hom the troll used to attack a physicist I once quoted. He runs a successful company, despite SebH saying he doesn’t understand “the science.”
SebH has a limited playbook. Surprise, surprise.
Infering that one knows something about the physics involved in radiative heat transfer of the Earth system from running a successful company is a bit far fetched, don’t you think?
Your default play seems to be to shed everything off by calling it an ad hom attack 😉 what exactly do you think your replies (now and in the past) have been?
Anyway, those three points are nonsense. Ask any physics teacher you can find. But of course, the skeptics know it better in their imagined world …
“Infering that one knows something about the physics involved in radiative heat transfer of the Earth system from running a successful company is a bit far fetched, don’t you think?” – SebH
Not when the success of that company involves having an expertise in heat transfer.
It’s a lot more “far fetched” to think an ignorant opinionated internet troll knows anything about the subject, don’t you think? Oh, wait. No. You don’t think, do you?
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.
Joe Bastardi says you are going to get blasted by the cold toward the end of jan and into feb 18
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.
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)
[…] The No Tricks Zone reports: […]
Heartland PDF Against the lies.
H/T – Climate Science blog
“Climate Depot” = BIG OIL..BIG COAL Welfare Queens
Excellent rebuttal, Mark Rothschild. The 500 scientific papers are no match for this brilliant analysis.
Do you have a rebuttal for the thousands of papers on the other side of this debate? Have you actually asked the authors of your 500 papers if they think their papers support a skeptical position? 😉
Sure, I am quite capable of using the available scientific literature to construct a substantive rebuttal to the catastrophist views of those who (like you) believe that humans exert fundamental control over the Earth’s weather patterns.
No. Doing so would be both gratuitous and impractical. There are over 3,000 authors represented here.
Sadly for SebH he’s so obtuse and or dishonest that he’ll never realize just how wrong he is.
As Kary Mullis says, there isn’t a shred of evidence in support of AGW.
He’s not alone, but the warmists dismiss them out of hand, often lying about them to discredit them, a technique anyone who still reads SebH’s nonsense will recognize as playing a key role in his “proofs.”
Mark Twain — ‘Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.’ 🙂
Good advice, tom. Thx.
No, you are not. None of your posts so far have reached that bar. This is purely happening exclusively in your imagination.
You wrote your own name wrong and somehow typed “SebH” instead, realize that if you can.
That’s exactly why I stopped commenting here, you are dragging everyone down. Hope you’ll realize how wrong you are … some day. Until then!
“Do you have a rebuttal for the thousands of papers on the other side of this debate?” – SebH
Name some, and do as Kenneth does, explain what they mean. Show us you “know what science is.” Go ahead. Make our day.
It’s 12 days, and we’re still waiting, chatbot.
You have no problem rapidly responding to anything you think you can B.S. people on. Why here, when you have to produce some of what you say will prove us wrong? You wouldn’t want to miss this golden opportunity. Time’s a wasting.
While we’re waiting here’s a fun analysis of the “97% Consensus.”
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://notrickszone.com/2019/01/03/consensus-500-scientific-papers-published-in-2018-support-a-skept… […]
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2019/01/03/consensus-500-scientific-papers-published-in-2018-support-a-skept… […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] 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: […]