Watts Up With That:
This report positively concludes that an alleged near unanimous scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), that “the science is settled”, is overstated. The report finds a robust, critical scientific discourse in climate related research, yet it highlights that a “consensus-building” approach to science might represent a politicised and unscientific belief in science – a belief in tension with the ethos of “normal science”. The report calls for a continuing questioning, critical, and undogmatic public debate over man-made global warming, and a clearer separation between science and policy. –Consensus and Controversy, SINTEF April 2013
By insisting on scientific consensus and the “elimination of doubt”, seeking to declare the science of AGW settled once and for all, and imbuing this putative settlement with highly normative and pejorative allegations (to question is “irresponsible, reckless and immoral”), the consensus approach clings to being (solely) “science-based”, but its position is at the same time implicitly in direct opposition to the ethos of “normal science”. It is not supported, justified or endorsed by science in its canonical expression, where science, based on thinkers such as Kant, Popper, Merton and Polanyi is seen to be constituted on continued discussion, open criticism, antidogmatism, (self)critical mindset, methodological doubt, and the organization of scepticism. –Consensus and Controversy, SINTEF April 2013
The authors of this paper recently presented their views on climate science at the Royal Academy of Belgium. No French or Belgian newspaper was willing to publish their assessment. Questioning the impact of mankind on climate change is evidently still a taboo in the French-speaking world. –István E. Markó, Alain Préat, Henri Masson and Samuel Furfari, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 14 April 2013
Since 1997, global temperatures have failed to rise. As a result, climate predictions and climate science are facing a crisis of credibility. We don’t know whether or not global warming will become a global problem this century. It is certain, however, that Britain’s unilateral climate policy is undermining the UK’s economy and is threatening its competitiveness. Benny Peiser, Cambridge Enterprise & Technology Club, 25 April 2013
The crazy religion of the AGW fanatics are simply declaring ant opposition to their false beliefs is wrong.
Who you gonna believe? The AGW cultists or the lying data that shows there is no global warming going on?
Real science isn’t political, but is based on facts. Rigged computer models designed to “prove” preconceived AGW cultism is not science. That is why the cultists had to change from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’, because there is no warming going on. That is why Mann had to lie about his data to produce his bogus hockey stick graph.
Truth will out…eventually.
Science doesn’t go by “consensus” anyway. Consider…. at one time the consensus was that the universe was made of 4 elements… Earth,Air,Fire and Water. Earth was at the center of it all. The planets and stars were embedded in “crystal spheres”. Dropped objects fell at different rates depending on their weight. Stones did not fall from the sky (meteorites). Things burned because you let the phlogiston out… There was no need to wash up before surgery. Life formed spontaneously when something rotted. The continents did not drift…. I’m sure there are many more examples.
Actually, the warmists want to blame everything on humans. Unfortunately, the Earth has been warming and cooling long before there were humans. The warmist seem to want to ignore that!
Here is another article showing a climate scientist debunking the insane AGW nonsense:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/04/the_snows_of_rainier.html
The term “Climate interference” might be more correct than “climate change.”
The research that is used to refute the connection between “climate change” and atmospheric CO2 concentrations offers as proof the climate history of the earth. Solar cycles are correlated to observed cyclical climate variations. The correlations between the two give considerable statistical confidence to the assertion that there is a causal relationship between them. That said, there is no logical reason to assert that solar cycles are the ONLY factor influencing climate. Patterns of solar activity have only been studied with precision for the past century or so, and the degree of sophistication employed has roughly doubled every decade. Extrapolating backward, one rather quickly reaches a point of information extinction, so that there is no empirical basis for predicting the onset, duration or extremity of “ice-ages.”
What science CAN demonstrate conclusively, today, is that there are a variety of different and unrelated processes at work, each of which exerts an influence upon atmospheric temperature. Volcanic activity (which is neither consistent over time nor demonstrably cyclical) introduces into the atmosphere such enormous amounts of ash that the effective albedo (reflectance) of the Earth’s atmosphere is increased for a period of years. When the reflectance of energy increases, correspondingly less is absorbed, and the surface of the Earth cools. Cooling cycles attributable to volcanism do not replace solar cycles, but rather they “interfere” with them. If the solar cycle is in a cooling phase, the two influences complement each other, exaggerating the effect. If the solar cycle is in a heating phase, the two influences oppose each other, minimizing the effect.
Another climatic influence (or interference) that science can demonstrate is the effect of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. It is first helpful to understand how CO2 is related to atmospheric temperature. Most molecules reflect or absorb and then re-emit radiation without altering the wavelength of the incident light. Other molecules, like CO2 and also the ones you may have seen to fluoresce under “black light,” are different in that they change the wavelength of incident light before re-emitting it. One color becomes another. In the case of CO2, visible light (short wavelength) is re-emitted as infrared radiation (long wavelength). Longer wavelengths bounce around in the atmosphere a whole lot longer than shorter ones (it’s why sunsets are red and not blue) and tend to increase the heat there-in. A common meteorology lab demonstration features what amounts to a “terrarium” containing a controlled atmosphere that is set under a light source that approximates the radiation signature of the sun. The light is turned on, and the temperature of the system is allowed to reach equilibrium. The temperature and the CO2 concentration are recorded and the concentration of CO2 is then increased. This process is continued until enough data has been obtained to demonstrate the relationship between equilibrium temperature and CO2 concentration FOR THAT SYSTEM. These demonstrations always show a directly proportional relationship between CO2 concentration and equilibrium temperature.
It is reasonable to question the applicability of the CO2 demonstration’s results to the Earth’s climate. To successfully challenge the hypothesis that they are applicable, one must show that CO2 does NOT have a similar effect in the Earth’s atmosphere (or in any other atmosphere, such as the terrarium’s) and this has not proved possible. Alternatively, one would have to present examples of planetary atmospheres high in CO2 but without elevated temperature. In fact, the planet Venus’ temperature should, based upon its proximity to the Sun, have a temperature around 300 degrees F. The actual temperature of Venus is in the 700’s, a fact widely explained by the unusually high concentration of CO2 in its atmosphere.
This heating from CO2 is the so-called “greenhouse effect” (so called because greenhouses trap warm air inside by the artificial placement of barriers that allow visible light to enter but do not allow infrared light (heat) to escape.) The effect is real and has been confirmed thoroughly. What is not known – and what is still open to considerable debate – is how influential this effect is on Earth’s climate when compared to other known factors. That CO2 does influence atmospheric temperature has been demonstrated conclusively, as has the effect of solar cycles. What has not been proven is that one or the other is the more influential. What is certain is that when multiple influences act in the same direction, the effect produced is correspondingly multiplied. Climate variability will increase as a result of our influence upon it.
Without doubt, solar cycles are beyond Man’s influence, and the same may be said for volcanic activity. Man DOES have the ability to modify his output of carbon dioxide, but throughout his history he has shown limited concern for his natural environment. Moneyed and political interests have out-muscled environmentalists, and there continues to be little interest in protecting what we currently have, much less in reversing the damage already incurred. Yet proof that CO2 control would be either climate-effective or cost-effective will not be had. We will reap what we AND Nature sow.
Please note: This discussion presents a bit of the pertinent science of the climate change discussion. Matters of moral or ethical responsibility are neither discussed nor implied. Ditto population control, energy policy, corporate campaign contributions and gay marriage.