Part six in a ten-part series on the unsettled science of climate change from Grassroots Alberta.
Interestingly, climate alarmists maintain quite an effort (including no end of websites) to discredit professional scientists and academics who disagree with their message. This is not the kind of behaviour you would expect to see from anyone who can scientifically and intellectually defend their assertions.
Think about it: If one person asks another about evidence proving the existence of gravity, nobody responds by starting a website to discredit the inquiry, or refers to the inquirer as a “denier.” People everywhere understand gravity and can explain it. They know that it can’t be seen, but that you can observe and measure its effect, thereby proving its existence. Nobody talks about a “gravity consensus.”
Similarly, if asked a question about the distance to the sun, no one would respond by saying: “The consensus is that it’s 93 million miles away.” Nor would anyone explain energy by saying: “The consensus is that E=MC2.” It wouldn’t even occur to anyone to say such things. Nobody calls another person a “denier” if they ask for an explanation of a solar eclipse or the moon’s impact on ocean tides.
It’s only when questions are asked about policies that are ideologically driven and scientifically unsettled that problems arise—policies like global warming.
Myron Ebell, who was appointed by Donald Trump to lead the transition team for the United States Environmental Protection Agency, said: “One of the striking things about the [real] science climate community is that it is actually very small, yet it is amazing how many people [including politicians] speak authoritatively about climate science.”
Ebell says the actual consensus on climate change involves three things: 1) That greenhouse gases exist; 2) That atmospheric concentration of these gases is increasing as a result of human activity; 3) That there will likely be some warming. That’s the consensus. Yet he quickly points out that “people who promote the alarmist agenda claim that the entire consensus goes much further,” when in fact, it doesn’t.
Ebell says the evidence showing the unreliability of the computer climate models is overwhelming. Yet whenever we hear a claim that the climate is in eminent crisis, he says, “it’s based on [these] model predictions.”
Climate scientist Judith Curry, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, says if you look carefully at the 20th century’s climate, you see a definite warming trend up until the 1940s—a period when there was very little human-induced carbon dioxide. Then from the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s, global cooling took over, even though significant quantities of fossil fuel were used during this time. This cooling was so pronounced that it led to predictions in the early ‘70s of a pending ice age.
Today, based on satellite data, we know that global temperatures have remained relatively flat for almost twenty years—since 1998—even though enormous quantities of fossil fuel have been consumed during this time.
In reference to 20th-century climate at a recent US Congressional Hearing, Curry pointed to limitations and weaknesses in the computer models, indicating that climate scientists don’t actually know for sure what caused these seasons of warming and cooling. Nor do they know to what degree various factors might be responsible, including factors that computer climate models don’t adequately or appropriately consider.
About Grassroots Alberta
Grassroots Alberta Citizens Initiative was established to promote the responsible and efficient use of tax dollars and to carry out an educational role with respect to wealth creation and responsible public policy. Grassroots Alberta Citizens Initiative is a project of the Grassroots Alberta Landowners Association. “At the Grassroots” is a feature service of Grassroots Alberta. The author, Kevin Avram, is a director of Grassroots Alberta.