For decades, scientists have published papers knocking pieces off the IPCC climate narrative. By now there are thousands of contrary papers, and the irony is that many of them pay homage to the distorted IPCC climate narrative before knocking a hole in it.
But the IPCC refuse to acknowledge the contrary views and, to add to that science disaster, they refuse to provide evidence for dangerous man-made global warming.
NOTE: I usually call it global warming because I don’t like to call it climate change. because, while climate change is natural, we are so conditioned to feel guilty about it that it has acquired a strange double meaning. It’s good to tether our thinking to warming because that is still the only mechanism by which we exert any influence on the weather. We don’t directly lay our hands on sea levels to raise them, winds to blow stronger, lakes to dry, seasons to change or clouds to lose their rain. Just warming, that’s all we can do (according to the UN myth).
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres
Calling it global warming ties our attention to the precise human behaviour alleged to be at fault — not the indistinct (is it natural or is it not?) “change of climate” — and clearly names our sin.
The UN are now so certain that their climate narrative embedded in society won’t be uprooted, they don’t care if we challenge the basis of their climate policy.
The story of human guilt is now so deeply unquestionable that the United Nations Secretary-General, António Guterres, could issue a public apology tomorrow and recant, declaring there’s no human influence on climate, and the public would laugh merrily and refuse to believe it.
Views: 11
https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-what-the-world-was-like-the-last-time-carbon-dioxide-levels-were-at-400ppm-141784
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/climate/global-warming-temperature-range.html
Sorry, CD, but that piece at the Conversation is a poor description of the world. I see that James Shulmeister is a geomorphologist. He studies how natural processes shape the land, so I’d expect that he, of all people, would be admirably suited to describing the world as promised by the headline. But he makes only a desultory effort to do so.
He seems to think that a single minor gas determines the surface temperature and doesn’t look beyond it. Yet water vapour is 25 times greater in abundance than CO2, while 3 times more effective than CO2 in absorbing solar radiation and 14 times more effective in absorbing long-wave IR re-radiating from earth. We’re a water planet and he doesn’t seem to know!
These are extraordinary statements. apart from the first, which is obvious even in kindergartens. The good Prof Shulmeister studies the last glacial maximum, so there’s no excuse for him to give the impression that the current melting [sic] of the WAIS might be significantly evident in only 80 years, when the oceans are still rising slowly after several thousand years at about 1.5 mm/yr. If the whole of the WAIS melted, it would take several thousand years. But the temperature has to rise first, or maybe China will start using the place to test nuclear weapons.