2018-01-11 21:18:49 UTC
A broad survey of climate change literature for 2017 reveals that the
alleged "consensus" behind the dangers of anthropogenic global warming is
not nearly as settled among climate scientists as people imagine.
Author Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at
least 485 scientific papers were published that in some way questioned the
supposed consensus regarding the perils of human CO2 emissions or the
efficacy of climate models to predict the future.
According to Richard's analysis, the 485 new papers underscore the
"significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of
climate and climate changes," which in turn suggests that climate science is
not nearly as settled as media reports and some policymakers would have
Richard broke the skeptical positions into four main categories, with each
of the individual papers expounding at least one of these positions, and
The first position attributes greater weight to the role of natural
mechanisms in changes to the climate system than are acknowledged by climate
alarmists, while giving correspondingly less importance to the influence of
increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes. Over 100 of these papers,
for instance, examine the substantial solar influence on climate and
weather, such as temperature variations and precipitation patterns.
The second position questions the allegedly "unprecedented" nature of modern
climate phenomena such as warming, sea levels, glacier and sea ice retreat,
and hurricane and drought intensities. Thirteen of the papers suggested that
these events fall within the range of natural variability, while 38 found an
absence of significant anthropogenic causality in rising sea levels.
The third position casts doubt upon the efficacy and reliability of computer
climate models for projecting future climate states, suggesting that such
predictions are "little more than speculation" given the enormous
uncertainty and margins of error in a non-linear climate system with nearly
infinite variables. Twenty-eight of the articles in question examined
climate model unreliability, including factual errors and the influence of
biases, while an additional 12 found no net global warming during the
The fourth position questioned the effectiveness of current policies aimed
at curbing emissions and pushing renewable energy, finding them both
ineffective and even harmful to the environment. This position also offered
a more sanguine evaluation of the projected effects of elevated atmospheric
CO2 and a warmer climate, questioning doomsday scenarios and proposing net
benefits to the biosphere such as a greener planet and enhanced crop yields.
In this category, 12 of the papers documented the failures of policies
targeting renewable energy and climate, 8 contended that wind power is
harming the environment and biosphere, 13 argued that elevated CO2 levels
make for a greener planet with higher crop yields, and 5 proposed that
warming is beneficial to both humans and wildlife.
All of these factors, Richard declares, substantially undermine the claims
of climate alarmists that scientific opinion on climate change is "settled
enough" and that "the time for debate has ended."
The articles, in fact, are not written by uninformed "climate deniers," but
by serious scientists who believe that the true nature of scientific inquiry
is not to bow to some proposed "dogma"-especially where significant
ideological, political and economic interests are at play-but to see where
the facts lead on their own