Climate Catastrophe: Can We Trust the Narrative?

Climate Catastrophe: Can We Trust the Narrative?

By: Elaine Fields, 2ndVote Contributor

The narrative on catastrophic climate change is based on the testimony of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which predicts catastrophic warming caused by CO2 emissions from mankind’s use of fossil fuels. There are, however, problems with the so-called science.

According to the IPCC, 97% of scientists agree that most of the global warming since 1950 was man-made. That claim doesn’t hold up. 

  • A 2014 study by Legates showed that of 11,944 scientific papers, only 0.5% of the
     abstracts supported the conclusion that human activity was responsible for most of the warming.
  • 31,487 scientists signed a petition stating there is no convincing scientific evidence that human activity is causing catastrophic warming, urging the rejection of global warming agreements among nations, and affirming the beneficial effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Find the petition at www.petitionproject.org.

The IPCC forecasts dangerous warming based on the output from forecasting tools known as General Circulation Models (GCMs) which are flawed and inaccurate, while largely ignoring scientific forecasting methods. For example, 

  • Code for GCMs is written based on the opinions of a small group of scientists. The effect of atmospheric CO2 on the temperature of the planet is built into the models by these scientists based on their assumption that increased CO2 emissions result in increased temperature. 
  • Researchers Green and Armstrong evaluated the IPCC’s use of certain “principles” and “guidelines” for scientific forecasting and found the IPCC followed only 17 of the 89 relevant principles and violated all 19 relevant guidelines. They concluded “IPCC forecasting procedures are invalid and are inconsistent with scientific forecasting knowledge.”
  • In 2013, Professor Chris Turney set off on an expedition to the Antarctic believing the GCMs’ prediction of polar ice melting was true. His ship got stuck in the ice; passengers were removed by helicopter. Another scientist, using forecast methods other than GCMs, had correctly forecast the ice.
  • The period of at least 17 years of no warming starting in ~1998, as CO2 rose steadily, was not what the models predicted. 
  • Nigel Lawson, author of An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming, noting the wide difference between what computer models predict and what actually happens, said the models “are scarcely worth the computer code they are written in.” 
  • Patrick Michaels, professor, researcher, and author, suggests an investigation into how the climate science community can “continue in its remarkable denial that the aggressive global warming paradigm has been shattered, with now 37 consecutive years of documented, systemic model failure.”

Climate scientists have been caught suppressing or deleting data that doesn’t fit the narrative, altering data to make it fit, making pronouncements contrary to the data, calling anyone who contradicts the narrative a client-denier, and requesting scientists to delete incriminating emails that reveal their deception. These actions have been discovered by other scientists and, more famously, by the hack of scientist’s emails in 2009 in a scandal that became known as Climategate.  

  • Contributing author to the 2nd and 3rd IPCC assessment reports, Christopher Landsea, withdrew from the 4th report when his colleagues made an announcement to the media “to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming” and whose “public statements [were] so far outside of current scientific understanding.” Landsea’s open resignation letter can be found on the internet.
  • James Delingpole, contributor to Climate Change: The Facts, wrote “The ‘science’ is out there and has been for some time: Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is a busted flush. But instead of conceding the point to the opposition, an arrogant, dishonest, ruthless climate establishment continues to prop up its outmoded hypothesis by increasingly nefarious means.” 

Cases of scientific failure and unscientific deception are so abundant, it’s hard to choose which examples to share.  I hope you will do some further reading on the subject; I think you will be as astounded as I have been.