Report: 485 Scientific Papers Published in 2017 Undermine Supposed ‘Consensus’ on Climate Change

By Thomas D Williams, PhD, BREITBART

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 people believe.

Richard broke the skeptical positions into four main categories, with each of the individual papers expounding at least one of these positions, and sometimes more.

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 20th/21st century.

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.

January 10, 2018 | 13 Comments »

Leave a Reply

13 Comments / 13 Comments

  1. @ Sebastien Zorn:

    The only Mann I knew of was Thomas Mann…and a little girl I grew up with in Dublin whose family name was Mann. Otherwise I had no interest in mann, only women…

  2. @ Felix Quigley:

    My understanding is that Man has nothing to do with the climate cycles. They would arrive regardless. Man has really proliferated since civilisation has arrived in the form of ethics, Once, a defective or unwanted child would be killed or, like the Greeks, exposed to the elements. Before that, when man came down from the trees, it was truly only the survival of the fittest, The fleetest runners, the strongest fighters, the best hearing, the best sighted, and without doubt, the most intelligent.

    Since advances in civilisation and later, medicine,kept inferior or defective people alive who married and had progeny, passing on many defects, the human race has deteriorated, but increased to enormous numbers, and in truth, causing all kinds of damage to the environment.

    Counteracting this, natural or organised reforestation has been a great, but unappreciated boon to humanity. In ancient times, lightning caused fires, burning until there was no more forest or a rain storm occurred. It is said that there are more trees today than there were 10,000 years ago, Also volcanic activity, a HUGE cause of noxious gases has nearly ceased. Oceans supply a good percentage of our breathable atmosphere.

    A United Nations report a few years ago said that forests are cut down for fields to grow feed for cattle, which cause a far greater greenhouse effect than humans.

    I’m babbling a bit, and I’m sure you know all this much better than I, so ..apologies..

  3. Felix, I believe that it is the Philosophy of Science itself which prevails, to the extent that it has been scientifically proven beyond doubt, that the earth goes through a now documented pattern of heating up and cooling down. There are large cycles with many sub-cycles within them.

    This is not a science that I subscribe to because it leaves out the role of man.

    For example if it is a proper scientific METHOD it applies to all phenomena and this is just another problem to address.

    Since man emerged he has been affecting the environment. He cannot help but do so because he exists.

    Homo Erectus changed his environment obviously so.

    So the thing is that man has the ability to change the physical world.

    So man can change the atmosphere. That has to be the basis. The discussion then has to centre on the details of this. Man is certainly changing the atmosphere. But by how much? How precisely?

    It is a simple method…but surprising how little it is followed.

    As regards posting you and Sebastien carry on please…people do not post because they realize they have nothing to say as simple as that. Moment of truth for them and very welcome it is too!

  4. @ Felix Quigley:

    Felix, I believe that it is the Philosophy of Science itself which prevails, to the extent that it has been scientifically proven beyond doubt, that the earth goes through a now documented pattern of heating up and cooling down. There are large cycles with many sub-cycles within them. I was reading in a journal a couple of weeks ago that contrary to the belief that many have that the earth is heating up, it is actually in one of it’s down cycles and getting cooler. This is not the first time I’ve read this in the past couple of years. When there were massively active volcanos it must have been scorching hot.

    I’m worried about Al Gore….. his whole world will shatter about him. As for linking an obscure comment in a New Testament book of purely apocalyptic guesswork…not for me.

    You know Sebastien, Michael and myself should tone down a bit and not take over nearly all the comments as we have been doing. I’ve been uncomfortable about it for some time. Unfortunately, I am presented with such open invitations to get a little cerebral exercise that it’s hard not to jump in. I must ignore these enticements from now on….if I can.

    There are many first-class posters whom I really like to read, that have dropped off lately, and I think it’s because we’ve been hogging the airwaves, using it almost like personal secretarial memos.

  5. If the shoe fits, wear it:

    Rev. 16
    [8] And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire.
    [9] And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.

    Climate has been changing, back and forth, since the creation of the universe — change far worse than anything happening nowadays. The rock my house is built on, for instance, used to be under an ocean, but is now some 400 feet above sea level.

    Who made my property rise out of the sea? Somebody’s carbon footprint? Automobile emissions? Cow farts? Insurance companies and courts, as far as I know, still call natural disasters “acts of God”. Now, I suppose, we have “matured” to the point that we no longer give God the glory; but take all the credit for ourselves.

    According to Revelation, the “global warming” incident is to be caused by the sun. “Oh, how absurd and benighted those Bible-thumpers are!” say the scoffers; “They think the earth is heated by the sun!”

    Let those “climate alarm” numbskulls boast all they want. God will have the last laugh, as usual, at their expense.