Why We are Man-made Climate Change Denialists

Written by Nima Mahdjour on January 20, 2020. Posted in Current News

Here’s a small sample of peer reviewed science journals that conclude that man made CO2 is not a significant source of global climate changes, but rather the sun or other natural factors:

From “Is Global Warming Mainly Due to Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions?” (Is Global Warming Mainly Due to Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Emissions?)

“With the temperature and CO2 emissions data from the U.S., we find little evidence in support of the notion that recent global warming is mainly due to CO2 emissions.”

From “Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact” (Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact)

“Because of this lack of tangible evidence it is time to acknowledge that the atmospheric greenhouse effect and especially its climatic impact are based on meritless conjectures.”

From “FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS” (FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS)

“The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics, such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature, it is taken for granted that such a mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation.”

From “Recent Changes in the Climate: Natural or Forced by Human Activity” (Natural or Forced by Human Activity)

“new dating techniques and numerous new studies have now added information that can bring about a reevaluation of the opinion that it is only human activity that can explain recent climatic changes.”

From “On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?” (On global forces of nature driving the Earth’s climate. Are humans involved?)

“The writers show that the human-induced climatic changes are negligible.”

From “Statistical Analysis Does not Support a Human Influence on Climate” (Statistical Analysis Does not Support a Human Influence on Climate – S. Fred Singer, 2002)

“Wigley et al. [1998] have suggested a novel statistical approach for detecting an anthropogenic influence on climate. Their claim is based on the difference they find between the autocorrelation of the (observed) temperature record and that of an unforced climate model (i.e., one in which greenhouse-gas levels do not rise). We examine their analysis in greater detail and find that their conclusion is not valid.”

From “Is the additional greenhouse effect already evident in the current climate?” (Is the additional greenhouse effect already evident in the current climate?)

“The currently observed near-surface warming over nearly the entire globe is already considered by a large fraction of our society to be result of this additional greenhouse effect. Complete justification of this assumption is, however, not yet possible, because there are still too many unknowns in our knowledge of participating processes and in our modeling capabilities.”

From “The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation‐based approaches” (The continuing search for an anthropogenic climate change signal: Limitations of correlation‐based approaches)

“the results of many studies employing these statistics may be erroneous and, in fact, show little evidence of a human fingerprint in the observed records.”

From “Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming” (Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming)

“greenhouse gas forcing, aerosols,solar irradiance and global temperature are not polynomially cointegrated, and the perceived relationship between thesevariables is a spurious regression phenomenon.”

From “Winter monsoons became stronger during geomagnetic reversal” (Yusuke Ueno, Masayuki Hyodo, Tianshui Yang, Shigehiro Katoh.)

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it,” comments Professor Hyodo. “This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era.”

From “NO EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE FOR THE SIGNIFICANTANTHROPOGENIC CLIMATE CHANGE” (J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI)

“In this paper we will prove that GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 fail to calculate the influences of the low cloud cover changes on the global temperature. That is why those models give a very small natural temperature change leaving a very large change for the contribution of the green house gases in the observed temperature. This is the reason why IPCC has to use a very large sensitivity to compensate a too small natural component. Further they have to leave out the strong negative feedback due to the clouds in order to magnify the sensitivity. In addition, this paper proves that the changes in the low cloud cover fraction practically control the global temperature.”

From “The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity”, Nicholas Lewis and Judith Curry (2018)

“Using a 1869–1882 base period and a 2007−2016 final period, which are well-matched for volcanic activity and influence from internal variability, medians are derived for ECS of 1.50 K (5−95%: 1.05−2.45 K) and for TCR of 1.20 K (5−95%: 0.9−1.7 K). These estimates both have much lower upper bounds than those from a predecessor study using AR5 data ending in 2011.”

From “Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century” (2015) by Willie Soon, Ronan Connolly, Michael Connolly (Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century):

“solar variability has been the dominant influence on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since at least 1881. We discuss the significance of this apparent correlation, and its implications for previous studies which have instead suggested that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide has been the dominant influence.”

From “Multidecadal tendencies in ENSO and global temperatures related to nultidecadal oscillations” (2010) by Joseph D’Aleo and Dr. Don Easterbrook (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/multidecadal_tendencies.pdf):

“If the climate continues its cooling and the sun behaves in a manner not witnessed since 1800, we can be sure that climate changes are dominated by the sun and that atmospheric CO2 has a very small role in climate changes. If the same climatic patterns, cyclic warming and cooling, that occurred over the past 500 years continue, we can expect several decades of moderate to severe global cooling.”

From “Solar forcing on the ice winter severity index in the western Baltic region” by M.C. Leal-Silva, V.M. Velasco Herrera (Solar forcing on the ice winter severity index in the western Baltic region):

“the ice winter severity index in the Baltic Sea is modulated by solar activity and solar motion in several frequency bands during the last 500 years.”

From “Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?” (Scientific Consensus on Climate Change? – Klaus-Martin Schulte, 2008)

“In the present review, 31 papers (6% of the sample) explicitly or implicitly reject the consensus. Though Oreskes said that 75% of the papers in her former sample endorsed the consensus, fewer than half now endorse it. Only 7% do so explicitly. Only one paper refers to “catastrophic” climate change, but without offering evidence. There appears to be little evidence in the learned journals to justify the climate-change alarm that now harms patients.”

From “Learning and Teaching Climate Science: The Perils of Consensus Knowledge Using Agnotology”

“all sides must be covered in highly debatable and important topics such as climate change, because authoritarian science never will have all the answers to such complex problems.”

From “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis” (Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis)

“A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change (Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates about climate policy, does not stand.”

From “The Letter Science Magazine Rejected” (The Letter Science Magazine Rejected – Benny Peiser, 2005)

“The article suggested that for the first time, empirical evidence was presented that appeared to show a unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming. Between 3 December 2004 and 4 January 2005 I conducted a similar analysis. The results of my findings contradicted Oreskes and essentially falsified her study.”

From “The Radiation Budget of the West African Sahel and Its Controls: A Perspective from Observations and Global Climate Models” by Mark A. Miller, Virendra P. Ghate, and Robert K. Zahn (The Radiation Budget of the West African Sahel and Its Controls: A Perspective from Observations and Global Climate Models):

“These quantities were analyzed in two GCMs and compensating errors in the SW and LW clear-sky, cross-atmosphere radiative flux divergence were found to conspire to produce somewhat reasonable predictions of the net clear-sky divergence. Both GCMs underestimated the surface LW and SW CRF and predicted near-zero SW CRE when the measured values were substantially larger (~70 W m−2 maximum).”

From “Orbital forcing of tree-ring data” by Jan Esper, David C. Frank, Mauri Timonen, Eduardo Zorita, Rob J. S. Wilson, Jürg Luterbacher, Steffen Holzkämper, Nils Fischer, Sebastian Wagner, Daniel Nievergelt, Anne Verstege & Ulf Büntgen (Orbital forcing of tree-ring data):

“large-scale near-surface air-temperature reconstructions relying on tree-ring data may underestimate pre-instrumental temperatures including warmth during Medieval and Roman times.”

From “Marine climatic seasonality during medieval times (10th to 12th centuries) based on isotopic records in Viking Age shells from Orkney, Scotland” by Donna Surge, James H. Barrett (Marine climatic seasonality during medieval times (10th to 12th centuries) based on isotopic records in Viking Age shells from Orkney, Scotland):

“resulting in the conclusion that the early MCA was warmer than the late 20th century by ~ 1 °C.”

From “Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization” by E. Steirou, and D. Koutsoyiannis (Investigation of methods for hydroclimatic data homogenization):

“The above results cast some doubts in the use of homogenization procedures and tend to indicate that the global temperature increase during the last century is between 0.4°C and 0.7°C, where these two values are the estimates derived from raw and adjusted data, respectively.”

From “Multi-archive summer temperature reconstruction for the European Alps, AD 1053–1996” by Mathias Trachsela et al (Multi-archive summer temperature reconstruction for the European Alps, AD 1053–1996):

“Highest pre-industrial summer temperatures of the 12th century were 0.3 °C warmer than the 20th century.”

From “Solar influences on atmospheric circulation” by K. Georgieva et al (Solar influences on atmospheric circulation):

“Solar activity is a result of the action of solar dynamo transforming solar poloidal field into toroidal field and back. The poloidal and toroidal fields are the two faces of solar magnetism, so they are not independent, but we demonstrate that their long-term variations are not identical, and the periods in which solar activity agents affecting the Earth are predominantly related to solar toroidal or poloidal fields are the periods in which the North Atlantic Oscillation is negatively or positively correlated with solar activity, respectively.”

From “The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24” by Jan-Erik Solheim, Kjell Stordahl, Ole Humlum (The long sunspot cycle 23 predicts a significant temperature decrease in cycle 24):

“For 3 North Atlantic stations we get 63–72% solar contribution.”

The Oregon Petition which 31,487 American scientists have signed, including 9,029 with PhDs, stating that “there is no convincing evidence that human release of (…) greenhouse gases is causing or will cause (…) catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere.” (Global Warming Petition Project)

Another 1,350+ peer reviewed research papers supporting the skeptic’s view:

And another 100+:

Here are also some quotes from the IPCC themselves that climate doomsday cultists ignore when they push their unscientific, fundamentalist dogma (from Ross McKitrick: Apocalyptic rhetoric about extreme weather keeps ramping up. But experts say there’s no emergency):

‘Flooding: “In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.” (p. 214)

To which they added, in their 2012 report (https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX-Chap3_FINAL-1.pdf) on the subject, “In the United States and Canada during the 20th century and in the early 21st century, there is no compelling evidence for climate-driven changes in the magnitude or frequency of floods.” (p. 176)

Droughts: “In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century, owing to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice.” (p. 215)

The report goes on to point out that there is a decreasing trend in droughts in central North America.

Precipitation: “In summary, confidence in precipitation change averaged over global land areas is low for the years prior to 1950 and medium afterwards because of insufficient data, particularly in the earlier part of the record. Available globally incomplete records show mixed and non-significant long-term trends in reported global mean changes. Further, when virtually all the land area is filled in using a reconstruction method, the resulting time series shows less change in land-based precipitation since 1900.” (p. 202 )

Extreme precipitation: “(It) is likely that since 1951 there have been statistically significant increases in the number of heavy precipitation events (e.g., above the 95th percentile) in more regions than there have been statistically significant decreases, but there are strong regional and subregional variations in the trends. In particular, many regions present statistically non-significant or negative trends, and, where seasonal changes have been assessed, there are also variations between seasons.” (pp. 213-14)

Additionally, Environment Canada continues to maintain (Canada’s Minister of Environment and Climate Change comments on lack of evidence of changes in precipitation extremes) that “the observational record has not yet shown evidence of consistent changes in short-duration precipitation extremes across (Canada).”

Here is what the IPCC said (https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX-Chap3_FINAL-1.pdf) about tornado trends in its 2012 report: “There is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems.” (p. 151). They went on to say they don’t know if there is a connection with greenhouse gases because some changes could increase conditions conducive to tornado formation and others could decrease them.

And there’s more. Read the presentation (Thread by @RogerPielkeJr: “Last night I gave my first public lecture on extreme weather since being “investigated” by Rep. Raul Grijalva in 2015. In the lecture I tell […]”) by Roger Pielke Jr. that started this whole episode. Hurricane intensity and landfalls, hurricane-related flooding and tropical cyclones all fail to exhibit significant trends. Weather-related damages are growing because population and wealth are growing, but it hasn’t been attributed to climate change.

The IPCC does say that as temperatures have gone up in many places, maximum temperatures have gone up, though less than minimum temperatures. So there’s that. But in Environment Canada’s recent report on Canada’s Changing Climate (https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/energy/Climate-change/pdf/CCCR_FULLREPORT-EN-FINAL.pdf), most of what they say about heatwaves concerns model predictions of the future. Regarding observed trends, they conclude: “For North America and Central America, there is medium confidence that more regions have experienced increases in heatwaves and warm spells than have experienced decreases.” (p. 34) That’s about it.

Apocalyptic rhetoric about extreme weather continues to ramp up as politicians try to menace Canadians into backing their climate policies. Clip out this column, keep it close at hand, and quote from the experts when the occasion arises. Just be prepared to be dismissed as a science denier.’

Read more at www.quora.com

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027. 

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

Trackback from your site.