Below is a link to about 1000 peer reviewed science papers which are skeptical about human-cause global warming. This is my response regarding the following absurd and mendacious statements in The Atlantic (Ref link below):
“While scientists continue to explore the consequences of climate change, there is essentially no debate among scientists about global warming’s “connection to the actions of mankind.”
“Nor has there been a debate for years. Since at least 1995, the balance of evidence in climate science has indicated that human-caused greenhouse-gas emissions are behind the planet’s warming. Agreement on this question has only strengthened since. By 2012, an international panel of leading researchers in the field said there was at least a 95 percent chance that human activity has caused global warming since 1950.”
The Atlantic is publishing a lie. In fact, there is plenty of debate and there are plenty of skeptics.
“…Kenneth Richard published his list of 500 climate catastrophe skeptic papers appearing in scientific journals in 2016 alone. It is the latest addition to the 282 papers published in 2015, and the 248 papers published in 2014, bringing the total number of peer-reviewed papers published over the past three years to more than 1000.”…
Harvard astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon thinks the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has strayed way off track. “I’m not surprised by the large number or empirical evidence that rejects the CO2 dangerous global warming alarmism,” wrote Soon in an e-mail. “This sort of literature review ought to put the sort of biased, if not anti-science, reports by the UN IPCC to shame.”
Dr. Soon added: “It is high time for the wider public to not only bear witness to the unbalance and corruption of our science institutions, but also to demand answers on why there has been such a disregard for truth and fact.”
Mike Hulme said, “I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric. It seems that it is we, the professional climate scientists, who are now the [catastrophe] skeptics. How the wheel turns. Why is it not just campaigners, but politicians and scientists too, who are openly confusing the language of fear, terror and disaster with the observable physical reality of climate change, actively ignoring the careful hedging which surrounds science’s predictions? To state that climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which DO NOT emerge from empirical or theoretical science.” (emphasis added by Bud.)
(Mike Hulme, director of UK’s Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research, told the BBC in November, 2006. The Tyndall Center advocates human-caused climate change.)
But this quote from the UN’s Own “Agenda 21” says: “Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision-making at every level.”
And Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, and a large CO2 producer says: “Humankind has suddenly entered into a brand new relationship with our planet. Unless we quickly and profoundly change the course of our civilization, we face an immediate and grave danger of destroying the worldwide ecological system that sustains life as we know it.”
Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office says: “The data don’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models.”
It seems to me that there is plenty of debate about almost everything related to human-caused climate change/global warming. So why did The Atlantic publish that? It is beyond a biased opinion; The Atlantic is publishing a lie.
In fact, there is plenty of debate. In a previous post I provided an attachment in which Professor Lindzen clearly explained the few areas upon which scientists agree. Climate science is an enormously complex field. We do not yet know what we do not know.
The climate models, upon which proponents of human-caused global warming are basing their geo and human engineering recommendations, have not produced accurate forecasts. Their models don’t work. Their recommendations are based on models not data. Chris Folland of UK Meteorological Office says: “The data don’t matter.” The models are not verified by data. And, they want to shut down debate.
What could go wrong? Plenty. One model from Russia is producing far more accurate forecasts of world temperatures, though it has only been run a few times. The model is forecasting global cooling as a result of periodic changes in the sun. And man’s influence is so small it is not measurable and thus irrelevant. It’s got nothing to do with man, which is the opposite of what The Atlantic published.
Shiver me timbers. Proponents of human-caused climate change have obscured an important topic about ocean currents with “a cascade of value-laden assumptions which DO NOT emerge from empirical or theoretical science.” (emphasis added by Bud.)
Paper with article by Professor Richard Lindzen: http://co2coalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/The-Climate-Surprise-CO2C.pdf