• Home
  • Current News
  • Summary of Evidence Exposing the Crumbling Climate ‘Consensus’

Summary of Evidence Exposing the Crumbling Climate ‘Consensus’

Written by James G Matkin

Climate science is supposed to be settled, right? We are told that there is an overwhelming agreement, or consensus, among scientists that most weather and climate changes that have occurred since the mid-20th century have been caused by human activity — our fossil fuel burning and CO2 emissions in particular.

We are told that natural mechanisms that used to dominate are no longer exerting much of any influence on weather or climate anymore. Humans predominantly cause weather and climate changes now.

For example, we are told that extreme weather (hurricanes, droughts, floods, storms) frequencies and intensities have increased since about 1950 primarily due to the dramatic rise in anthropogenic CO2 emissions since then. Humans are now melting glaciers and ice sheets and (Arctic)sea ice at an alarmingly accelerated rate — reminiscent of an impending “death spiral“.

Humans now heat up and acidify the oceans down to depths of thousands of meters by burning fossil fuels. Humans are now in the process of raising sea levels so that they will catastrophically rise by10 feet in the next 50 years.

Because of our CO2 emissions, humans are now endangering the long-term survival of 100s of thousands of animal species  (especially polar bears), and climate models say we will cause a million species extinctions over the next33 years with our CO2 emissions.

The Earth is even spinning slower, or faster, no, slower, well, faster — due to human activities. Again, this is all settled science. Only those who possess the temerity to deny this science (“climate deniers”) would disagree or refuse to believe.

But what if much of what we have been told to believe is not actually true? What if scientists do

Not overwhelmingly agree that humans have dominated (with~110% attribution) weather and climate changes since about 1950, which is what we have been told by the UN IPCC?

What if scientists do not  overwhelmingly agree that natural factors exert effectively no influence on weather and climate changes anymore — now that humans have taken over?

Because in 2016 alone, 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals seriously question just how settled the “consensus” science really is that says anthropogenic or CO2forcing now dominates weather and climate changes, and non-anthropogenic (natural) factors no longer exert much, if any, role.

Instead of supporting the “consensus” science one must believe in (to avoid the “climate denier” label), these 500papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in climate modelling and the predictions of future climate catastrophes associated with anthropogenic forcing.

Furthermore, these scientific papers strongly suggest that natural factors (the Sun, multi-decadal oceanic oscillations [NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO], cloud and aerosol albedo variations, etc.) have both in the past and present exerted a significant or dominant influence on weather and climate changes, which means an anthropogenic signal may be much more difficult to detect in the context of such large natural variability.

Papers questioning (and undermining) the “consensus” view on paleoclimate (Medieval) warmth, ocean acidification, glacier melt and advance, sea level rise, extreme weather events ,past climate forcing mechanisms, climate sensitivity to CO2,etc., are included in this collection.

Because of the enormous volume of new papers available  that support a skeptical position on anthropogenic climate change alarm, the list of 500 scientific papers with links has been divided into 3 sections, each with its own page (Part 1,Part 2, Part 3).

There are 68 graphs included in the volume, most of which are used to demonstrate that “hockey-stick” reconstructions of past temperatures and sea levels relative to today are not supported by available evidence.

Despite its size, this list will hopefully be user-friendly and easy to navigate as a bookmarkable reference volume due toits outline (below) and organized categorization. Each paper has an embedded link under the authors’ name(s).

Finally, there are 132 papers linking solar activity to weather and climate change (in addition to another ~90that link natural oceanic/atmospheric oscillations [ENSO,NAO, etc.], clouds, volcanic activity . . . to climate change). This is of special note because the IPCC has, since its inception, insisted that solar factors play almost no role in modern climate change. Apparently, scientists agree less and less with that “consensus” position.

Read the rest and download the full PDF at www.academia.edu

About the author:

James G Matkin  James G. (Jim) Matkin, Q.C. Internationally known Vancouver lawyer for his work in public policy and conflict resolution. He studied law and economics at Harvard University, as a Frank Knox Fellow awarded LL.M CLASS OF 69.  He is a former British Columbia deputy minister of labor and of intergovernmental relations, past Director Bank of Canada and President of the Business Council , and B.C. Law Society. He taught constitutional law at UBC.  He had a major role in designing B.C.labour laws in 1973, and he drafted the first human rights code of BC, floated the Non Obstante clause compromise that was adopted as Section 33 in the  new Canadian Constitution.  He is credited with “cleaning up” the Vancouver stock exchange VSE with his one-man commission of inquiry. From WIKIPEDIA BIO.
****

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (5)

  • Avatar

    Tom Anderson

    |

    I am happy to count myself among those who endorse the position that the “consensus science” view of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (or climate change for the uncertain) is wrong, deficient as it is in supporting evidence of validity.

    In fact, I am inclined to adopt John von Neumann’s comment, once observing that the matter in question is “worse than wrong.” Not only do we sense the strong possibility of massive, indeed quite unprecedented, deception in it, but a mere glance at “Earth Energy Budgets” promoted by the IPCC and by NASA, cannot help to suggest that all of it is a production of Marvel Comics, lacking only Spider Man and Wonder Woman zipping around within the wham-o landscape.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Monty

      |

      Ahem. Wonder Woman is a DC comic.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Joseph Olson

      |

      “Motive Force for all Climate Change” at ClimateRealist(.)com in May 2009 was my first article of geothermal forcing. “Earth’s Missing Geothermal Flux” at FauxScienceSlayer(.)com adds elemental gas heat to this flux. In July 2014, I met Dr Arthur Viterito at the Heartland ICCC-9 Lukewarmist Love Fest in Las Vegas. His research, posted at PSI expands on this topic.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Zoe Phin

        |

        OK, I read it.
        Douglas-Knox are idiots and they could learn a lesson from my article: The case of two different fluxes.

        Planck’s Law is based on the SMALLEST conductive heat flux possible: ZERO.

        The smaller the conductive heat flux the larger the emission at the cold side.

        I can’t believe scientists can be so incredibly stupid.

        Thanks for reminding me.

        Reply

Leave a comment