Skeptics claim that climate studies may not agree on AGW consensus or climate doom.
The climate crises is now basically a Chinese problem, as my article here explains: https://medium.com/@gary_bernstein/climate-crises-is-real-and-china-pollutes-more-greenhouse-gases-than-the-us-and-eu-combined-1-72f7efeea03
Below are some skeptic points. In short, these are misguided, as you’ll find in the link above.
Climate crises and AGW is questioned using a subset of these 900 articles from the last 2 years alone (*11).
Climate change is a $1.5 Trillion per year industry, they say. It’s Big-Climate (*12). Here’s a follow the money video: https://youtu.be/wuKJSwkCHwE
Now, recent warming did appear to take place, as we left the mini ice age of the last few hundred years. If there is AGW, however, skeptics say there is no way to know exactly how much, or what the effects will be (including good effects). The climate is a complex nonlinear system that models constantly fail to predict accurately.
We do know the proposed “fixes” like Paris Accords would do very little (admitted) to fix anything, and would have multi trillion dollar price tags that would likely cause economic devastation perhaps worse than any evidenced problem.
The goal posts have moved from cooling, to warming, to extreme weather, to crises. “Extreme weather” is a good cover. It’s normal that somewhere in the world there is a crises, to be misued by politicians. “Never let a good crises go to waste” — Rahm Emmanuel.
Why is "scientific consensus" pushed so heavily that even president Obama and many others use it to bash opponents as extremists?
Skeptics point out, among other things:
- Consensus is more for politics, not science. One paper can take down one million previous papers if it scientifically disproves them with any real world data or errors found.
- Scientifically, the case for AGW is falsified, or at best, shaky and ill-defined. See rest of this article (*9, *8, *1, etc).
- Weaker still, is the case for ill-defined climate crises. See rest of this article.
- Meanwhile, the cost of “fixing” said crises, are astronomical, typically involve large socialist government expansion programs (see Green New Deal, and the rest of this article), and therefore could destroy economies and disrupt civilizations on a potentially deadly massive scale.
- 100 million people killed by socialist aspiring authoritarian government expansions from USSR, China CPC (Great Leap Forward), N Korea, Venezuela, etc etc.
And yet, we hear that 97% (TM) of “climatologists” agree about AGW, now “climate crises”. Let’s have a look at that important claim. It appears that that FBI and DOJ aren’t the only politicized government agencies.
NASA continues to push the 97% narrative (*0) with papers that rely on the debunked John Cook paper, where only 0.3% of papers actually agreed on the specific claim of AGW (*1), in actual numbers seen. Trying to generalize from those numbers may be subject to selection bias. In fact, Cook’s attempt to de-debunk this was rejected by peer reviewed journals (*1b). Be weary of anything you read on e.g. the “skepticalscience” site as it’s run by John Cook — who isn’t a climatologist any more than Bill Nye the TV guy, who holds a BS in Mechanical Engineering.
The climate apocalypse lies keep growing, and repeating; it started from 97% believe in AGW, to 97% believe this is dangerous, to, e.g., climate will kill is if we don’t change course within 12 years. We’ve heard these fearful tales since before the 1970 Earth Day, when professors claimed we’d be doomed within 15 years. Yet here we are 50 years later.
Below is a link to 485 papers in 2017 alone, some of them questioning AGW/consensus/crises. (*2).
What’s the motive of this climate doom story? Is it a gobalist plot (*8) - a fear mongering tactic to try to hurry up and rashly pass legislation that funnels nearly $100 trillion, as in the estimate for the Paris Climate Accords over 100 years (*3)? The Green New Deal (GND) would spend sums much faster. Just the “climate” related aspects would $18 trillion over 10 years, and the entire package over $6T/year, which is more than the entire federal budget (*4). Even the extreme GND would only cut carbon emissions by 0.1 degrees, by 2100, according to an AEI study (*4.1). Vastly expanded govt programs would be required to implement such useless unbalanced agreements, that would especially target and harm the USA economy (*5). Btw, the USA carbon footprint fell faster than EU, without entering that agreement (*6) and has been decreasing faster since 2005 (*7).
My article listing other controversial topics: https://link.medium.com/IudfoqHe6V
(*0) NASA and universities rely heavily on this 97% AGW consensus lie. Consensus isn’t even part of the scientific methed. https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/17/do-scientists-agree-on-climate-change
(*1a) Paper debunks the 97% claim. The real consensus on AGW was 0.3%, by papers own methods: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9
(*1a1) Cook attempt to rebut is rejected by peer reviewed journal: http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/4/C400/2013/esdd-4-C400-2013.pdf
(*1b) Overview of the 97% debunking: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/
(*1c) My other article discusses this further: https://link.medium.com/kEYyvEEe6V
(*2) 485 papers in 2017, in opposition https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/10/the-97-climate-consensusstarts-to-crumble-with-485-new-papers-in-2017-that-question-it/
(4.1*) AEI study for GND finds it would at most reduce temperatures by 0.17 degrees, which it says it insignificant: https://www.dailywire.com/news/46421/study-green-new-deal-would-have-no-effect-climate-emily-zanotti
(*5) Raw deal for USA: https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/25486-sticker-shock-cost-of-un-climate-pact-100-trillion
(*7) USA carbon footprint per capital decreasing faster than EU since 2005, despite the Washington Post “fact checking”: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/
(*8) big govt plot quotes https://www.quora.com/Is-anthropogenic-global-warming-a-falsifiable-theory/answer/Allen-Rogers-3?ch=10&share=12b3cac7&srid=tDXQ
(*11) 900 articles (400 in 2016, and 485 in 2017), undermining AGW and climate crises: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/25/so-far-this-year-400-scientific-papers-debunk-climate-change-alarm/