Is “the Science” Settled?
The answer to that question is simple. No, there is no such entity as “the science” and science is NEVER settled, despite the All CO2, All the Time alarmist community’s insistence that the “science is settled”. You do not have to look any further than the IPCC’s own scientific reports to confirm that “the science” is NOT settled.
#climatechange #delaythegreen #globalwarming #showusthedata
- The IPCC uses a CO2 Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) range of 1.8 to 5.7 °C in their models, all of which, self-admittedly run too hot. That is not “settled science”.
- The IPCC’s ‘best estimate’ focuses on just one of 40+ Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) reconstructions. That is not “settled science”, that is cherry-picking.
- The IPCC only acknowledges TSI and ignores the many other solar forcings, some of which are included in their CMIP6 computer protocols. That is not “settled science”, that is intentional omissions.
- The IPCC ignores the CO2 cooling parameters laid out by NASA. That is not “settled science”.
- The IPCC ignores subaqueous volcanic and seismic activity. That is not “settled science”.
- The IPCC knows that extreme weather events are not becoming more intense or frequent, but they do not have the courage to call out those that continue to spread that disinformation (more accurately, lies). That is not “settled science”, that is a reflection on the IPCC’s lack of integrity (scientific or otherwise).
We can start with the IPCC’s position on CO2’s Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS, the temperature rise based on a doubling of CO2 concentrations). Until CO2’s ECS is established, CO2’s warming capacity is unknown and unfit for policy purposes. Based on a variety of factors, CO2’s ECS is likely somewhere in the 1.0 °C range. The rationale for that level is laid out in my OPS-80 – CO2 Affects Temperature but Does CO2 Drive Climate post. Is 1.0 °C the definitive value of CO2 ECS? No, CO2 ECS is NOT “settled science”. So, where does the IPCC sit on the CO2 ECS spectrum? They use a range of 1.8 to 5.7 °C (based on their unsubstantiated positive water vapor feedback mechanism) in their computer model projections of lower tropospheric temperatures. All those projections are self acknowledged to run too hot. Those projections and the associated discussion can be found in my CSS-30 – CMIP6 Climate Models post. If the models all run too hot, the CO2 ECS must be less than 1.8 °C. Regardless of CO2’s definitive ECS value, the IPCC’s CO2 ECS is nowhere near “settled science”.
The alarmist community hangs their hat on anthropogenic forcing (primarily greenhouse gases, with a CO2 focus), but they cannot provide a definitive CO2 ECS. The climate skeptic view of ‘climate change’ recognizes that natural forcings also play important roles in our changing climate. You do not need to look any further into the past than the Holocene climate (the last 12,500 years) to prove that statement. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations were virtually flat for 98.6% of those 12,500 years, yet the climate (temperature, glacial position, sea level, etc.) fluctuated on the same order of magnitude that we have experienced since 1850 and fluctuated often. The natural forcings (primarily solar (directly and indirectly)) responsible for the pre-1850 climate fluctuations, were still active post-1850 and will still be active in the future (just not in the IPCC climate models). The indirect forcings include but are not limited to ocean and atmospheric circulations/cycles, multiple periodicity solar cycles, Cosmic Ray Flux (CRF), High Energy Particles (HEP), magnetic field strength, solar wind strength, solar flares and Coronal Mass Ejections (CME), homogenization (i.e.: data manipulation) and cloud albedo/sunshine hour fluctuations.
How settled is the IPCC science when it comes to solar activity and other natural forcings? The IPCC has arbitrarily chosen to minimize the natural forcings included in their evaluations. They have chosen to focus on just one of the 40+ TSI reconstructions that are available. They totally ignore the many solar related forcings (CRF, HEP, etc. listed above) that act on our planet over and above TSI alone. They have also not included ocean cycles in their model ‘best estimate’ forcings. They also totally ignore the two cooling parameters that CO2 produces as its atmospheric concentrations rise (leaf cover and co-aerosol production). They (the IPCC) choose to focus on one minor trace atmospheric gas (CO2), a very simplistic, unscientific, and dangerous position. A trace atmospheric gas that appears to reduce the magnitude and frequency of extreme weather events based on the empirical data and the IPCC’s evaluation, contradicting the alarmist narrative. Why does the IPCC minimize/ignore the natural forcings? I would suggest the answer is as simple as the natural forcings do not fit the alarmist narrative and their need for control, money and power.
Volcanism and seismic activity (like solar activity) are only partially recognized. The cooling associated with large land based volcanic eruptions has been included in their ‘best estimate’ models, but subaqueous eruptions like the 2021 Hunga-Tonga-Hunga eruption have forced a re-evaluation of overall volcanic impacts. Increased seismic activity along the mid-Atlantic Ridge and ocean subduction zones has been correlated with ocean and atmospheric temperature changes. The massive geothermal hotspots under West Antarctica and Greenland likely have more to do with their increased but insignificant melting rates. Ultimately, the more realistic driver of our climate is the gravitational and electromagnetic interactions that play out within (and sometimes beyond) our solar system. Those interactions effectively drive the many solar forcings/cycles, that justify statements like “The sun is the main driver of climate change. Not you. Not CO2”.
How do they justify minimizing/ignoring the obvious natural forcings? They will argue that there is no mechanism. Not true, since Henrik Svensmark et al have provided a mechanism that directly affects the climate. The Cosmic Ray Flux (moderated by solar activity) affects the particle nucleation required for cloud formation (affecting global albedo and our climate). Is that entire process understood? No, but gravity still existed prior to Newton getting hit on the head with an apple. And how is that different than the IPCC’s unsubstantiated positive water vapor feedback hypothesis? The IPCC proposes that CO2 warming leads to more water evaporation which leads to more warming, which leads to more warming, and so on. The general concept is fine, but the details have not been proven. Once the water vapor enters the atmosphere, what happens to it? Does the water stay as vapor, does the water condense as cloud and/or precipitation? Remember, the IPCC uses a CO2 ECS range of 1.8 to 5.7 °C in their models, which are self-acknowledged to run too hot. How is that ‘settled science’?
Ignoring the natural forcings is a travesty. You cannot understand the anthropogenic forcings without understanding the natural forcings. And, unfortunately, ideology has molded the scientific process in favor of the rather simplistic, unscientific, anthropogenic viewpoint for decades. Censorship, funding restrictions, debate refusal, ad hominin attacks, political power, etc. have all been used to restrict climate realists/skeptics access to academic, media, and political platforms. The empirical data is very complicated but also very clear. CO2 is not the primary climate driver. CO2 is a minor component that has potentially had a significant effect (but very likely less than 50%) over the last 176 years. And CO2’s warming capacity is approaching saturation and may have already reached its limits once its cooling parameters are factored in. CO2’s ECS is not “settled science” and will not be until the natural forcings have been investigated properly. If the IPCC were a scientific organization (they are not, the ‘I’ in IPCC stands for Intergovernmental), they would support, wholeheartedly (intrinsically and financially) the scientific investigation into the natural forcings.
Work done by climate scientists like Happer, Lindzen, Connolly, Soon, etc. have shown that CO2 is not the primary climate driver. And IPCC statements that modelers have self-acknowledged that the models run too hot and along with the official retirement of the implausibly high end RCP8.5 and RCP7.0 emission scenarios have seriously cast the supposed Climate Emergency/Crisis into doubt. A recent paper retraction (Kotz et al 2024, “The Economic Commitment of Climate Change”) has not helped the alarmist communities’ integrity.
Even unpaid work done by individuals like me should provide some fuel for further thought and full scientific investigation. As an example, my review of Paul Burgess’s work has shown that the existing solar and ocean empirical data can be used to produce far better history matches than the alarmist communities’ anthropogenic focus. The specifics still need more study. Will that study (in meaningful volume) materialize before the current ideological ‘green’ policies bankrupt our societies? Time will tell, but that will not happen until the voting public wakes up to the unnecessary, unscientific, dangerous ideologies that are still being forced upon us by unelected, unaccountable, totalitarian global entities (i.e.: the UN/WEF (and their political, academia, and media minions), etc.).
Unfortunately, we, humanity, have wasted and will continue wasting trillions of taxpayer’s dollars on the ideological pursuit of CO2 reduction at the expense of other real problems and our children’s future. Realization has been coming, but not fast enough.
For more perspective and more detailed analysis, you can also check out some of the following posts which are back up for the points discussed in this post.
Shifting Plates, Shifting Poles, Shifting Paradigms – Arthur Viterito
IPCC Chapter 12: Climate Change Information for Regional Impact and for Risk Assessment
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-12
UN’s Melissa Fleming flagrant claim that “We own the science”
Anthony Fauci’s egotistical statement that “They’re really criticizing science because I represent science”
https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/status/1465003501541597191/video/1
50 Years of Failed Doomsday, Eco-pocalyptic Predictions; the So-called ‘experts’ Are 0-50 – American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
IPCC Working Group 1 (WG1) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) Annex III Extended Data
https://zenodo.org/records/5705391
“Burgess Oceanic-Solar-CO2 Index Follow-Up” | Tom Nelson Pod #375
Explaining Every Temperature Change from 1983 to 2025 – Burgess paper
https://substack.com/home/post/p-182701114
Solar Forcing of ENSO on Century Timescales – Wilcox et al 2023
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GL105201
ENSO Index Variations and Links with Solar and Volcanic Activity – Zharkova et al 2024
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/ns2024164_18303679.pdf
Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase – Lindzen, Happer, van Wijngaarden 2024
https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.07392
Challenges in the Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Surface Temperature Trends Since 1850 – Connolly Soon et al 2023 (CSS-51)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/acf18e
The Economic Commitment of Climate Change – Kotz et al (Published in Nature April 2024, retracted in December 2025)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07219-0.pdf
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07219-0 (Retraction Page)
Climate Short Story (CSS)
CSS-20 – Homogenization – Solar Activity Style
CSS-30 – CMIP6 Climate Models
CSS-31 – Volcanic Activity
CSS-51 – Soon-Connolly – Solar Forcings
CSS-52 – Extreme Weather Events
CSS-64 – IPCC – Chapter 12 – Extreme Weather
CSS-69 – CO2’s Cooling Parameters
CSS-71 – IPCC’s Model/Theory Shortcomings
CSS-71 – IPCC’s Model/Theory Shortcomings – Revisited
CSS-74 – Climate Tipping Points
CSS-75 – Solar Forcing Discussion
CSS-77 – The 1998 Step Change in Temperatures
CSS-78 – Weakening Electromagnetic Field
CSS-79 – A Common Sense Look at ‘Climate Change’
CSS-82 – A Better, More Realistic Climate Model
https://climatechangeandmusic.com/building-a-better-more-realistic-climate-model
One Page Summary (OPS)
OPS-80 – CO2 Affects Temperature but Does CO2 Drive Climate?
