Showing posts with label Attribution of recent climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Attribution of recent climate change. Show all posts

Friday, August 25, 2017

New Climate Study Throws Wrench In Global Warming Debate: "Our New Technical Paper... Will Likely Be Ignored"

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,


It’s not surprising that so many people believe the idea that global warming is being caused almost entirely by human activity, given the fact that most scientists seem to believe the same thing. But scientists should probably ask themselves why there is still such a large cohort of “deniers” as they like to call them, who are adamant that anthropogenic climate change is a scam.



The reason why is that the scientific community has been caught many times tampering with climate data and making outlandish claims. The celebrities and politicians who promote this cause have also been caught on many occasions, living in palatial mansions, flying across the world in private jets, and generally just living lives of excess that produce so much more carbon that the average person. Given these facts, how could anyone take the global warming arguments seriously?


What also doesn’t help their cause, is when reputable scientists question climate change dogma. Recently, two Australian scientists published a paper that explains why the shifts in global temperature that we see today, are likely entirely natural.





Jennifer Marohasy, a scientist with a rather long list of impressive credentials, which includes the founding of The Climate Modeling Laboratory, opens her startling climate report with a dose of reality.



“Our new technical paper … will likely be ignored,” she writes at The Spectator Australia.



She goes on to explain why, “Because after applying the latest big data technique to six 2,000 year-long proxy-temperature series we cannot confirm that recent warming is anything but natural – what might have occurred anyway, even if there was no industrial revolution.”



At the crux of their argument, is the fact that global temperatures were actually warmer during the middle ages, which used to be considered common knowledge for years, and is often denied by many climate change proponents today. These researchers confirmed that the world was indeed warmer before the industrial revolution. And that of course suggests that human activity doesn’t have nearly as much of an impact on the climate as most environmentalists claim.





Typical of most such temperature series, it zigzags up and down while showing two rising trends: the first peaks about 1200 AD and corresponds with a period known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), while the second peaks in 1980 and then shows decline...



There are, however, multiple lines of evidence indicating it was about a degree warmer across Europe during the MWP – corresponding with the 1200 AD rise in our Northern Hemisphere composite. In fact, there are oodles of published technical papers based on proxy records that provide a relatively warm temperature profile for this period.



Bottom line, don’t ever let anyone tell you that the climate change debate is over, and that the science on the matter is settled. Don’t let them fool you into thinking that there’s a strict consensus among scientists regarding global warming (and even if there was a 100% consensus, just because a lot of people believe something doesn’t mean it’s true).


The people promoting the theory of man-made global warming have been caught lying too many times for us to blindly follow them.

Thursday, March 9, 2017

Trump EPA Chief Says Carbon Dioxide Not "Primary Contributor To Global Warming"

In an interview surely to get the blood of America"s hyper-sensitive environmentalists boiling, which we sincerely hope doesn"t result in any adverse harm to global temperatures, Trump"s new head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, appeared on CNBC to say that, among other things, the verdict is still out on man-made global warming.  Per CNBC:





"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there"s tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it"s a primary contributor to the global warming that we see ," he told CNBC"s "Squawk Box."



"But we don"t know that yet. ... We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis."





Of course, Democrats and environmentalists vehemently opposed Pruitt"s nomination to lead the EPA due to his past efforts to push back on the so-called "Paris Accord" as well as other rules he viewed as over-regulation under Obama.





Pruitt also called the Paris Agreement, an international accord aimed at mitigating the impacts of climate change, "a bad deal." He said it puts the United States on a different playing field than developing countries like China and India.



"I happen to think the Paris accord, the Paris treaty, or the Paris Agreement, if you will, should have been treated as a treaty, should have gone through senate confirmation. That"s a concern," he said.



The Paris Agreement was negotiated by the State Department, and future adherence to U.S. commitments made under Obama will be guided by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson.



Of course, with "radical" ideas like the one below forming the foundation of his EPA leadership platform, we can understand the enviros" concerns...this kind of rational thought simply will not stand at the EPA.