Climate Science - What is Truth?

Three years ago, Climategate exposed the weakness of climate science presented to the public. One major thesis promoted by many within the "humanity is primarily responsible for climate change" crowd is that there were no major changes in climate until the second half of this century became discredited after the release of those emails. Since Climategate, it became okay to challenge the conventional wisdom that our present climate change is strictly manmade.

For many years, critics of the status quo were merely derided as skeptics or worse, but the reality is that everyone believes in climate change and the only question is what causes climate change now and in the past. We know that we have seen warmer climates and colder climates in the past, even over the past thousand years. That is not even a debatable point, and most scientists, regardless of where they stand today, understand that past climate change was caused by natural events. There are two schools of thought dealing with climate change. The “skeptics” believe that climate change is a natural causing event with humans playing little role. Those who believe in natural causes have the knowledge that past events were caused by natural events. Those who believe in man being the primary reason for present climate change view that six billion people must have an effect on the environment, but the disadvantage is that they have been wrong in the past on climate change theories as they have gone from one extreme to another. In the 1970’s, we were told that we were entering a new Ice Age, but two decades later, it was massive heat waves.

The British Daily news recently reported that the warming trend stopped nearly 16 years ago. For sixteen years before 1997, the climate warmed and this was preceded by declining temperatures for the previous four decades. Sixteen years of climate history is hardly a blip on the radar screen when viewing climate history that stretches hundreds of millions of years, but it shows the difficulty of trying to predict what our climate will be for the next century, much less the next decade. Phil Jones, the director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, admitted he and other believers in humans being the chief culprit, underestimated impact of natural variability including changes in sun output. Professor Judith Curry of Georgia Tech added that it is clear that computer models were and still are deeply flawed.

Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal, interviewed an inside IPCC reviewer, Nic Lewis. Matt Ridley noted that a doubling of Carbon Dioxide will lead to warming half of what IPCC estimated in the past. Mr. Lewis commented to Ridley, "Taking the IPCC scenario that assumes a doubling of CO2, plus the equivalent of another 30% rise from other greenhouse gases by 2100, we are likely to experience a further rise of no more than 1°C."

Nic Lewis and others expose major statistical errors including a 2009 study of Antarctic temperatures and as well as unjustified statistical manipulation in a key 2006. Matt Ridley added that, “Mr. Lewis also found that the IPCC had misreported the results of another study, leading to the IPCC issuing an Erratum in 2011.” This merely reinforces that science is not settled and much of what is presented is flawed! Ridley concluded, “The scientists at the IPCC next year have to choose whether they will admit—contrary to what complex, unverifiable computer models indicate—that the observational evidence now points toward lukewarm temperature change with no net harm. On behalf of all those poor people whose lives are being ruined by high food and energy prices caused by the diversion of corn to biofuel and the subsidizing of renewable energy driven by carboncrats and their crony-capitalist friends, one can only hope the scientists will do so.”

Another bombshell is that in leaked data, the IPCC may be ready to admit that solar activity plays a larger role in climate change and CO2, a lower role. If this is confirmed, this ends the case for humans being the primary reason for climate change and scientists will have to admit that natural events play a significant role in our present climate.

There is much to learn about what causes climate, but the media and many within the scientific community have pushed a theory that is proving to be flawed and in the process, politicized science. The big story not being reported, is we still have only theories why climate change and nature plays a significant role.



Make sure to check out the comments on Facebook.

Mr. Donelson,
I couldn't help but read your blog post regarding climate change. A major premise you use to setup your argument is the release of select email correspondance by hackers in 2009 from the Climate Research Unit. You fail to mention that the documents and emails released were filtered with many having no context. However, a quick search for climategate in Google will lead to the Wikipedia page devoted to the incident. There you will find that after many inquiries no data manipulation or conspiracy was legitimate. Another unfortunate argument you raise regards a recent editorial in the Wall Street Journal by Matt Ridley. However, Mr. Ridley has confused his 'facts' and will not respond to questions by climate experts that want him to further explain how he developed his argument. I would like to bring to your attention to a rebuttal to his piece <>I hope you take the opportunity to find out what actual experts say and conclude. They have spent their lives devoted to research that is somehow taken as opinion. As a scientist, I can assure you there is no opinion in data. 

© 2015 TexasGOPVote  | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy