“The Science”

OPPS-26 How many times have you heard our illustrious “leaders” (political, media, academia, etc.) appeal to “The Science” to push their ideological pet projects forward. A nauseating amount in my opinion. For Climate Change, “The Science” they rely on is based on the simplistic, unscientific viewpoint that human activity (primarily CO₂ emissions) is responsible for most of the 1.07 °C warming since the pre-industrial era. Why then do their computer model projections not reflect that narrative? The vast majority of their models self-admittedly run too hot (even without using the high emission scenarios that the IPCC has declared have a low likelihood of occurring).

#climatechange #delaythegreen #globalwarming #showusthedata

The following points were laid in my previous post (OPPS-25 – Catastrophic Global Warming Proofs II). The points are still valid and worth repeating.

• There is no scientific proof (i.e.: empirical data) that backs up the CAGW alarmist narrative.
• The IPCC uses a CO₂ Climate Sensitivity that ranges from 1.8 to 5.7 °C. They obviously do not know the value (i.e.: the sensitivity science is not settled).
• The climate models run too hot (based on the modeler’s self acknowledgement and their data).
• The IPCC still uses emission scenarios that have low likelihood of happening and are realistically implausible. Note, even a reasonable emission scenario (ssp2-4.5) runs too hot.
• The IPCC’s “official” temperature projection is an average of all their models. All the models are wrong since they all run too hot. Averaging wrong projections does not produce a correct answer.
• The IPCC knowingly ignores the solar forcings that are built into the newest programming protocol (CMIP6). On a related front, the IPCC is ignoring the current Grand Solar Minimum (GSM) forecasted by many Astro/solar physicists (including NOAA).
• The IPCC also essentially ignores the satellite temperature data (a more accurate temperature measurement/estimate than the estimated surface data). NOAA has recently recalibrated their satellite data (STAR) and now corroborate the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH), and the radiosonde (weather balloon) data.

We are constantly inundated with new scary climate projections. What they will not tell you is that they are using unjustifiably high CO₂ climate sensitivities to get to those “scary” temperatures. They will not tell you that they used low likelihood high emission scenarios (like ssp3-7.0 and/or ssp5-8.5). They will not tell you that they are ignoring the natural (much more dangerous) forcings (AMO, GSM, etc.) that will drop temperatures over the next few decades. And they are not telling us a whole lot more than just those points.

So, the next time someone appeals to “The Science” to justify all their economy killing green initiatives (NetZero, the Green New Deal, ESG, etc.), remember “The Science” they are talking about is based on an idiotological narrative, not the full and proper application of the Scientific Method.

Here are some additional articles/papers/posts that provide further context to this discussion.

Then THEY Came For Me

Interview Links (Audio and Visual)

Climate Short Story (CSS)

CSS-30 – CMIP6 Climate Models

CMIP6 Climate Models

One Page Political Summary (OPPS)

OPPS-25 – Catastrophic Global Warming Proofs II?

Catastrophic Global Warming Proofs II?

One Page Summary (OPS)

OPS-52 – Solar Activity – NOAA Forecast

Solar Activity – NOAA Forecast

OPS-55 – The State of Climate Science

The State of Climate Science

OPS-71 – Catastrophic Global Warming Proofs?

Catastrophic Global Warming Proofs?