The Unsettled Science of Climate Change

Climate change and global warming alarmists tell us that man-caused global warming is a real and settled science.  They also tell us that to deny it is tantamount to not believing in science at all.  Thus, when a scientist tells us something, we should embrace it as fact.

My problem, is that all too often, scientific studies contradict each other; leaving the person reading them with a severe headache.  Perfect examples of this were two recent stories, just a month apart from each other, regarding greenhouse gas emissions.

The first appeared online at EcoWatch.com on November 9th of this year titled: "Carbon Levels Rising at ‘Frightening Speed’ as Greenhouse Gases and Global Temperature Hit Record High".

Slightly less than a month later, the U.K. Independent published an online article with this title: "Climate change: Global carbon dioxide emissions stall for second year in a row".

So, who to believe? Both headlines are based on "true" scientific studies and supposed measurements.  If "the" science is settled, why two divergent results?  It is no wonder that sane people find climate change alarmism extremely difficult to take seriously.  Which story will be in your Global Warming/Climate Change Internet bookmark?  My guess is that you are a "believer" and on the political left, the first story is the most believable as noted by this graphic from Pew Research:

Click on Image to Enlarge

Tell me that climate change alarmism isn't more politics and less science!

References:

Climate Change Denial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

Carbon Levels Rising at ‘Frightening Speed’ as Greenhouse Gases and Global Temperature Hit Record High: http://ecowatch.com/2015/11/09/carbon-hit-record-high/

Climate change: Global carbon dioxide emissions stall for second year in a row: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-global-carbon-dioxide-emissions-stall-for-second-year-in-a-row-a6763776.html

Ideological divide over global warming as wide as ever: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/16/ideological-divide-over-global-warming-as-wide-as-ever/

pb

52 Reasons Why CO2 Is Not Responsible For Global Warming

Currently, there has been an 18-year pause in global warming and the climate scientists have been scrambling to explain it.  After all, this hiatus completely shoots down the CO2 theory since, in those 18 years, atmospheric CO2 has continued to rise at a rate of of about 2% a year. 

As of this writing, there are now 52 published scientific theories that explain the pause.  Fifty-Two!  And, each one of those 52 theories says that their particular theory, alone, is responsible.

Unwittingly, those 52 different explanations are simply saying that CO2 is not primarily responsible for global warming; as we have been led to believe.  Just think about it.  If each of those theories can single-handedly stop global warming; then, one can assume that each of those theories can single-handedly cause warming to start again.

All this proves is that climate change/global warming is not settled science as much as silly science. Surely, all 52 reasons can't all be right at the same time!

References:

Global Warming ‘Pause’ Extends to 17 Years 11 Months: http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/09/07/global-warming-pause-extends-to-17-years-11-months/

Excuse #52 for ‘the pause’ in global warming – natural climate variability as secular trends: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/11/excuse-52-for-the-pause-in-global-warming-natural-climate-variability-as-secular-trends/

On Climate Change, Would You Trust People Who Have Been 95% Wrong?

According to climate change/global warming alarmists, climate science is settled science.  End of discussion.

Of course, if you are a denier of that fact, well, you're as stupid as those who once thought the earth was flat. But, in my opinion, settled science means that given any set of pertinent data, the results would always be predictable; assuming some reasonable and acceptable margin of error.

 The problem here, lies in the fact that climate change "science" has been wildly wrong in its dire predictions over the years. Wrong when it comes to how fast sea levels are rising; or, how quickly the world's ice was receding; and, especially wrong when it comes to predicting the rise in the world's temperatures.  In fact, when it comes to predicting the world's temperatures, there have been 76 predictions, from 38 separate super-computers and 95% of those predictions (36 of 38) were wildly wrong.   

This begs a simple question.  Would you seek financial advice from someone that was wrong 95% of the time? Or, a doctor whose diagnoses were 95% incorrect?  I hardly think so.  Yet, somehow we're supposed to believe in the crap being spewed out by the United Nation's Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change and from the likes of Al Gore and Barack Obama!
 
For further reading and source of the above chart: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html