{"id":362219,"date":"2025-01-15T15:39:44","date_gmt":"2025-01-15T14:39:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=362219"},"modified":"2025-01-15T15:39:47","modified_gmt":"2025-01-15T14:39:47","slug":"good-reasons-to-distrust-climatists","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=362219","title":{"rendered":"Good Reasons to Distrust\u00a0Climatists"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Science Matters<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By\u00a0Ron Clutz<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

The most recent case of climatists\u2019 bad behavior is the retraction of a peer-reviewed paper analyzing the properties of CO2 as an IR active gas, concluding that additional levels of atmospheric CO2 will have negligible effect on temperatures.  From the Daily Sceptic:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Another important paper taking issue with the \u2018settled\u2019 climate narrative has been cancelled<\/strong> following a report in the Daily Sceptic and subsequent reposts that went viral across social media. The paper discussed the atmospheric \u2018saturation\u2019 of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and argued that higher levels will not cause temperatures to rise. The work was led by the widely-published Polish scientist Dr. Jan Kubicki<\/strong> and appeared on Elsevier\u2019s ScienceDirect website in December 2023. The paper has been widely discussed on social media since April 2024 when the Daily Sceptic reported on the findings. Interest is growing in the saturation hypothesis not least because it provides a coherent explanation for why life and the biosphere grew and often thrived for 600 million<\/strong> years<\/strong> despite much higher atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases. Alas for control freaks, it also destroys the science backing for the Net Zero fantasy.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Below are some comments responding to a Quora question, text in italics with my bolds and added images:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

What are some reasons why some people do not believe in climate change or global warming<\/strong> despite scientific evidence? Is there any additional information that could help us understand their perspective?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Answer from Mike Jonas,  M.A. in Mathematics, Oxford University, UK, <\/strong><\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Good scientists do not lie and cheat to protect their science<\/strong>, they are happy to discuss their evidence and their findings, and they always understand that everything needs to be replicable and verifiable.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

When Climategate<\/strong> erupted on the scene, and the climate scientists behind the man-made global warming narrative<\/strong> were found to have lied and cheated<\/strong>, all honest scientists thought that would be the end of it. Instead, what happened was that those climate scientists closed ranks<\/strong> and carried on, supported by a massive amount of government (ie, the public\u2019s) money. One of the first things they did was to deflect Climategate by saying the emails i<\/strong>nvolved had been hacked<\/strong> so should be ignored, but some of the people involved confirmed that all of the emails really were genuine.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

It has been about 15 years since Climategate<\/strong>, and study after study has shown<\/strong> virtually all of the components of the man-made global warming narrative to be incorrect<\/strong>, even that none of the computer models<\/strong> used by the IPCC are fit for purpose,<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

And yet they maintained their closed ranks,
and the government money kept pouring in.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Did you know that the IPCC does not do any research (please do check that, on their web page About \u2013 IPCC they state \u201cThe IPCC does not conduct its own research\u201d<\/strong>). It is, as its name says, an inter-governmental organisation, and it is run by and for governments<\/strong>. They say lots of persuasive sciency things, but the simple fact is that they cherry-pick and corrupt the science to achieve their ends.<\/strong> Regrettably, almost all the scientific societies are on the gravy train too.<\/strong> This is part of what the highly respected physicist Professor Hal Lewis said in his resignation letter<\/strong> to the American Physical Society (APS):<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally)\u00a0trillions of dollars driving it,<\/strong>\u00a0that has\u00a0corrupted so many scientists and<\/strong> has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and\u00a0most successful pseudoscientific fraud<\/strong>\u00a0I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to\u00a0read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

I don\u2019t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge?
It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you want to find out more about this \u201cgreatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud\u201d, the website Watts Up With That? is a good place to start (the fraudsters absolutely hate it), and it links to many other good websites. It has the full text of Hal Lewis\u2019 resignation letter at:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hal Lewis: My Resignation From The American Physical Society \u2013 an important moment in science history<\/strong><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Answer from Susannah Moyer<\/strong><\/em><\/h4>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s curious that climate science is the rare scientific field where<\/strong> dissenting scientists, those with contrarian views, are unwelcome and even ostracized.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are some well known climate scientists that have doubts<\/strong> about the role of CO2 and man made global warming as it pertains to global temperature. They have raised the issue that computer generated prediction models have been inaccurate<\/strong> in predicting temperature patterns because the modeling requires assumptions that have not been shown to be accurate.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here is a contrarian<\/strong> view from climate scientists who have published climate research results in Nature,<\/strong> which is no small feat:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

McNider and Christy are professors of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and fellows of the American Meteorological Society. Mr. Christy was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

It is\u00a0not<\/strong>\u00a0a\u00a0known<\/strong>\u00a0fact by\u00a0how much the Earth\u2019s atmosphere will warm<\/strong>\u00a0in response to this added carbon dioxide. The warming\u00a0numbers<\/strong>\u00a0most commonly advanced are created by climate computer models built almost entirely\u00a0by scientists who believe in catastrophic global warming.<\/strong>\u00a0The rate of warming forecast by these models depends on\u00a0many assumptions and engineering<\/strong>\u00a0to replicate a complex world in tractable terms, such as how water vapor and clouds will react to the direct heat added by carbon dioxide or the rate of heat uptake, or absorption, by the oceans.<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

We might forgive these modelers<\/strong> if their forecasts<\/strong> had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong.<\/strong> From the beginning of climate modeling in the 1980s, these forecasts have, on average, always overstated the degree to which the Earth is warming compared with what we see in the real climate.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

For instance, in 1994 we published an article in the journal Nature showing that the actual global temperature trend was \u201cone-quarter of the magnitude of climate model results.\u201d As the nearby graph shows, the disparity between the predicted temperature increases and real-world evidence has only grown in the past 20 years.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cConsensus\u201d science that ignores reality can have tragic consequences if cures are ignored or promising research is abandoned. The climate-change consensus<\/strong> is not endangering lives, but the way it imperils economic growth and warps government policy making<\/strong> has made the future considerably bleaker. The recent Obama administration announcement that it would not provide aid for fossil-fuel energy in developing countries, thereby consigning millions of people to energy poverty, is all too reminiscent of the Sick and Health Board denying fresh fruit to dying British sailors.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Another questioner, Dr. Koonin was undersecretary for science in the Energy Department during President Barack Obama\u2019s first term and is currently director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. His previous positions include professor of theoretical physics and provost at Caltech, as well as chief scientist of BP, where his work focused on renewable and low-carbon energy technologies.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But\u2014here\u2019s the catch\u2014those questions<\/strong> are the hardest ones to answer. They challenge<\/strong>, in a fundamental way, what science can tell us about future climates.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Firstly<\/strong>, even though\u00a0human influences<\/strong>\u00a0could have serious consequences for the climate, they are\u00a0physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole<\/strong>. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere\u2019s natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%.\u00a0Since the climate system is highly variable on its own<\/strong>, that smallness sets a\u00a0very high bar for confidently projecting<\/strong>\u00a0the consequences of human influences.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

A\u00a0second challenge<\/strong>\u00a0to \u201cknowing\u201d future climate is\u00a0today\u2019s poor understanding of the oceans.<\/strong>\u00a0The oceans, which change over decades and centuries, hold most of the climate\u2019s heat and strongly influence the atmosphere. Unfortunately, precise, comprehensive observations of the oceans are available only for the past few decades; the\u00a0reliable record is still far too short to adequately understand how the oceans will change and how that will affect climate.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

A third fundamental challenge<\/strong> arises from feedbacks that can dramatically amplify or mute<\/strong> the climate\u2019s response to human and natural influences. One important feedback, which is thought to approximately double the direct heating effect of carbon dioxide, involves water vapor, clouds and temperature.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Climate Science Is Not Settled<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another group questioning what some consider \u201csettled science\u201d:<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n