Where's the Real Climate Science?

The world over, people who question global warming and climate change are called deniers of science.  So, I guess if I question why such a scarce gas, carbon dioxide, which only makes up less than four-one hundredths of a percent of our atmosphere is so impacting that any increases in it would produce unbridled global warming, then you can call me a denier.  Or, you can call me a denier if I find it illogical that, since 1998, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have continued to rise and, yet, world temperatures have remained flat when averaged. Then, too, I must be a denier when I find it hard to trust a United Nations panel on climate change when in fact 95% of their 72 supercomputer world temperature predictions since 1988 have been wrong; and, are continuing to be wrong because they all fail to recognize the current hiatus in global warming and have no scientific reason as to why it is happening.

My problem is that billions of dollars are being paid to scientists to prove that carbon dioxide is driving global warming and nothing is being paid to dispute it.  This lopsided  kind of scientific research and analysis is probably why temperature predictions have been so wrong.  Sort of scientific wishful thinking. So, it was interesting to me to find a study that may have, inadvertently, disproved the theory that man-made carbon dioxide was the evil it is being purported to be.  

Recently, a climate team at Princeton University published the results of their research whereby they, unrealistically, subjected their supercomputer temperature modeling to an input of zero CO2 emissions.  And, by zero, they mean no humans, animals, forest fires, or volcanoes producing any carbon dioxide at all. What they found was that, in just 20 years, 40% of the existing atmospheric CO2 was naturally reduced by the earth's absorption processes.  However, it took 1000 years before another 40% of the original CO2 was further diminished.  What was not expected was the fact that temperatures, after falling in the first century, resumed rising; even as carbon dioxide levels were continuing to fall.  But, what was more disconcerting is the fact that the rise in temperatures continued past 400 years.

Being faithful zealots to global warming theory, the scientists at Princeton then concluded that the earth is even more sensitive to CO2 than was previously thought.  Therefore, current CO2 reduction targets need to be increased.

Really? I think there are other conclusions that could have been reached. Either these climate gurus at Princeton have a perfectly screwed up computer model or their research merely proves that CO2 has nothing to do with global warming.  Even if their modeling is correct, at the very least, it shows that it is completely futile in trying to control CO2.  Just think about it. If you can't stop global warming with a 100% reduction in emissions, then why are we, as a global community, tinkering around, at a cost of billions of dollars, trying to simply slow the rate at which carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere?

The bottom line is that, even when climate science produces unexpected or illogical results, the alarmists still claim its settled science. Real science produces predictable results. Right now, in real life, global warming has taken a hiatus despite continually rising carbon levels.  Yet, the alarmists believe we should act even faster and harder to save the planet.  In this Princeton study, temperatures rise despite a complete suspension of CO2.  Yet, their conclusion is that we aren't doing enough.  Apparently zero is not enough.

References:

Princeton University News: Even if emissions stop, carbon dioxide could warm Earth for centuries: https://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S38/51/51I69/index.xml?section=topstories

On Climate Change, Why Would You Trust People Who Have Been 95% Wrong?: http://cuttingthroughthefog.blogspot.com/2014/01/on-climate-change-would-you-trust.html

pb