Climate Change: Lines of Evidence

[visitor]

For those interested in a view of what the science has to say, the US National Academy of Science has released a series of videos that you can watch here nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/videos-multimedia/climate-change-lines-of-evidence-videos/ or all at once via this link

[marchesarosa]

Ah, yes, the NAS, that well known vanity publishing organisation with a membership that conspires to make sure climate alarmists get in and the sceptics are blackballed.

The NAS has no monopoly of truth, any more than the Royal Society has.

Remember the Royal Society's motto? "Nullius in Verba", roughly translated as, "Take no-one's word for it". Sound advice. The only evidence that counts is that which is replicable by other scientists and which provides reliable predictions of the future. If Climate science does that we should take account of its pronouncements PROVISIONALLY. If not remain deeply SCEPTICAL.

Precisely understanding the natural variability of chosen climatic indicators is key! Otherwise you get into unattributed variables fallacies. As an "-ologist" with a PhD to prove it, Visitor will be able to explain these for you.

[ncsonde]

For those genuinely interested in what the science has to say, I'll happily link to all those scientific discoveries and thoroughly peer-reviewed and corroborated papers that this truly atrocious film has left out. These directly and definitively disprove most of this film's glib assertions, and explain why the conclusions it reaches are now known to be wrong. Why, for example, global warming has stopped for the past 15 years, despite the apparently cast-iron logical prediction outlined in this film. Why the temperature record does not show a correlation with CO2 content, except in a reverse sense - it rises after temp rises, not the other way around, which this film implies. Why it is now proven that solar forcing has been for decades underestimated by several factors, and accounts for about 85% of the recorded rise in temp since the industrial revolution. Why the purported positive feedback mechanisms asserted at the end of this film do not occur, but are actually now proven to be negative feedbacks - increased water vapour acts to cool the earth, not warm it. How natural cycles in extraterrestial space correlate with more than 95% precision to observed and proxy temperature records, going back hundreds of thousands of years, but most importantly the past century - including the rapid rise (which is not, as this film wrongly states, unusual) since 1975.

It's what this film leaves out that makes it very far from "science", but complete propagandistic rubbish.

[ncsonde]

It's also full of factual inaccuracies and manipulative misrepresentation of the data. For example, anyone can verify for themselves the real sunspot record data at the NOAA site - or for an easily digestible representation, it's the top diagram, the red line, in this fascinating paper by Nicola Scafetta, (who must by now, in terms of his discoveries, be reckoned to be the most significant climate scientist in the world):





Anyone can thus see at a glance that the assertions made in this film about the sunspot record, and how it does not account for most of the warming since 1975, are blatant lies (no other word for it.)