Environment, Featured

Global Warming Orthodoxy Is Not ‘Settled Science’, But Extremism That Enables Error

An explosive newly-published scientific report on global average surface temperature data has found that a great deal of the scientific discussion about climate change is preceding from a false premise.

The report found that raw data gathered on global temperatures has been consistently adjusted after the fact, creating an impression of significant warming when, in fact, all of the temperature increases come from the data adjustments, not from the data itself.

While the notion that some “adjustments” to historical data might need to be made is not challenged, logically it would be expected that such historical temperature data adjustments would sometimes raise these temperatures, and sometimes lower them. This situation would mean that the impact of such adjustments on the temperature trend line slope is uncertain. However, each new version of [global average surface temperature] has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history.

This report is being shouted down by alarmists who insist that any challenges to climate change orthodoxy fly in the face of “settled” science. Such arguments ignore the manner in which science is actually settled.

Gravity is settled, man-made global warming is not

Consider the law of gravity. You want settled science? That’s settled science. 

Why is gravity settled science? Because the mechanics and properties of gravity are verifiable and replicable, and they have been proven by years of study and direct experience. If you want to drop a bowling ball off the top of the Empire State Building, a scientist can calculate precisely how long the ball will take before it hits the ground.

Other factors may come into play – wind resistance, say, or some foreign object interrupting the ball’s fall – but the effect of gravity on the ball’s trajectory isn’t really open to debate, and the velocity can be reliably determined with a great degree of accuracy.

That is how science is settled. Not by fiat; not by some bullying, fallacious argument from authority. It is settled by a consistent series of observed results.

By that standard, those who use names to belittle critics of anthropogenic climate change theory fail miserably. Calling people “deniers” and censoring anyone who dares to question global warming orthodoxy is indicative of a subject that people are trying to “settle” by means other than science.

There are no “gravity deniers” because gravity is impossible to deny, and anyone could confront a deluded soul unwilling to accept Newtonian physics with empirical evidence that they’re wrong. Let’s review some examples of climate observations in action:

There has been no global warming for roughly twenty years

The infamous “pause” in global warming was giving grief to a number of alarmists until El Niño hit in 2014, driving up global temperatures for reasons that had nothing to do with carbon emissions. But since the El Niño ended last year, global temperatures have plummeted, which means the trend line for the past twenty years has been flat.

No one predicted that there would be no global warming from 1997 until 2017

Those who predicting a warming of the earth’s temperatures were wrong by roughly 300%. These are the people who supposedly account for the “settled” nature of scientific debate: Those who were flat out wrong.

The advocates of global warming relied upon demonstrably flawed climate models which didn’t accurately reflect the past.

There is no unanimity among scientists on some of the most critical tenets of climate change alarmism

You may have heard that 97 percent of scientists think that humans are the dominant factor in climate change. But that’s simply not true. It’s based on an analysis by a non-climate scientist named John Cook who found that, while 97 percent acknowledge some human impact, less than 50 percent of those papers maintain that humanity is the primary driver of said warming. 

It’s not a consensus, and even the statement made is misleading. “Less than 50 percent” implies something in the 40 to 45 percent range. How much less than 50 percent?

Try 65 papers out of the 12,000 reviewed. Yes, it is, indeed, settled mathematics that 0.5 percent is less than 50 percent – two orders of magnitude less than 50 percent!

None of the proposals on the table would lower global temperatures

The Paris Accord, the so-called “cap and trade” proposal, a direct carbon tax or ”climate reparations” for poor countries have all have been put forward as purported solutions for the perceived crisis of global warming.

Although each is different in its approach, they all have in common that not one of them would actually reduce global temperatures. Even the proponents of these misguided policies have publicly conceded that they would do nothing to the climate.They are completely ineffectual international gestures against climate change.

Issues around observing the climate are a call for science, not alarmism. And science must be based upon empirical facts and accurate predictions, not flawed models.

(Photo of a 16-foot high sculpture of a polar bear and cub, afloat on a small iceberg, passes in front of the Houses of Parliament on the River Thames in January 2009, by Oli Scarff/Getty Images.)


Leave a Comment