Thursday, January 11, 2018

485 Scientific Papers Refute "Consensus" On Climate Change Message

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

During 2017, 485 scientific papers were published that cast a skeptical view on the so-called "consensus" on climate alarm.

Why has the mainstream media avoided reporting on these papers?

Because their "consensus" science is becoming a crumbling consensus.

Be informed.

Kenneth Richards says 485 scientific papers were published in 2017 that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate's fundamental control knob...or otherwise question the efficacy of climate models or the related "consensus" positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media.

Who is Kenneth Richards?

Kenneth Richards holds a PhD in Public Policy from the Wharton School and a JD from the University of Pennsylvania Law School. He holds an MSCE in Urban and Regional Planning, a BSCE in Environmental Engineering from Northwestern University, and a BA in Botany and Chemistry from Duke University. He is an associate professor of environmental and energy policy and law at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs and adjunct professor of law at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law.

According to Richard's analysis, the 485 new papers underscore the "significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes" which in turn suggests that climate science is not nearly as settled as media reports and some policymakers would have people believe.

Richard's paper is lengthy, but he has broken it into 4 main categories, with each of the individual papers expounding at least one of these positions, and sometimes more.

If you want to be informed on this subject, I strongly recommend you spend time reading Richard's report titled, "Crumbling Consensus."

Category 1 attributes greater weight to the role of natural mechanisms in changes to the climate system than we have acknowledged by climate alarmists while giving correspondingly less importance to the influence of CO2 concentrations on climate change.

Category 2 questions the allegedly "unprecedented" nature of modern climate phenomena such as warming, sea levels, glacier and sea ice retreat, and hurricane and drought intensities. When you review these papers, you will note that 13 of the studies suggest that these events fall within the range of variability, while 38 found an absence of significant anthropogenic causality in rising sea levels.

Category 3 casts a doubt upon the efficacy and reliability of computer models for projecting future climate states, suggesting that such predictions are "little more than speculation" given the enormous uncertainty and margins of error in a non-linear climate system with nearly infinite variables. Twenty-eight of these articles in question examined climate model unreliability, including factual errors and the influence of biases, while an additional 12 found no net global warming during the 20th/21st century.

Category 4 questions the effectiveness of current policies aimed at curbing emissions and pushing renewable energy, finding them both ineffective and even harmful to the environment. This position also offered a more "sanguine evaluation" of the projected effects of elevated atmospheric CO2 and a warmer climate, questioning doomsday scenarios and proposing net benefits to the biosphere such as a greener planet and enhanced crop yields.

In this category, 12 of the papers documented the failures of policies targeting renewable energy and climate, 8 contended that wind power is harming the environment and biosphere, 13 argued that elevated CO2 levels make for a greener planet with higher crop yields, and 5 proposed that warming is beneficial to both humans and wildlife.

For some, there is too much information here. For others, not enough. I strongly encourage you to review it.

Richard says all these factors substantially undermine the claims of climate alarmists that scientific opinion on climate change is "settled enough" and that "the time for debate has ended."

He also says, "All these articles are, in fact, not written by 'climate deniers,' but by serious scientists who believe that the true nature of scientific inquiry is not to bow to proposed 'dogma'---especially where significant ideological, political and economic interests are at play---but to see where the facts lead on their own."

The ideological, political and economic interests are indeed at play.

There is an ideological part of the global warming madness that carries a religious tone, particularly for those who believe in and in some cases worship "Mother Earth" as a living organism.

Some politicians share those beliefs, most politicians are well aware of that voter group.

And then there's the money. Follow the money, as they say.

The United Nations has set up a scheme whereby under the guise of "climate change" they are attempting to carry out perhaps the biggest transfer of wealth in the history of the world by giving billions of dollars to despots who run poverty stricken third world countries to "assist them in reducing their carbon footprint."

Most of the time that money ends up in Swiss bank accounts owned by the despot or his family. And nearly all the time the USA is providing most of the money.

Al Gore has made hundreds of millions of dollars off his global warming/climate change gospel and false prophecies. But he's not the only one.

Another component is the billions of dollars of grant money that has been awarded for study of climate change. Unfortunately, those who control the "peer review process" carefully exclude all scientific work that does not support their predetermined ideology and predetermined outcome.

It is written that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them, then gave man dominion over it---therefore charging him with responsible stewardship.

The Creator never intended that the Earth be worshiped, nor did He intend it to become a pawn in the hands of the spiritually uninformed or rebellious opportunists.

If scientific research would be willing to honestly follow their research, rather than bend it to support a predetermined outcome, not only could mankind be a better steward, but the world would be a better place.

Be Informed. Be Discerning. Be Vigilant. Be Prayerful. Be Bold.