Claim 11. There is a consensus among climate scientists on the causes and dire consequences of global warming.
Truth: According to the climate change advocates, there is a consensus among climate scientists, the science is settled and the debate is over. But is that true? Not according to over 30,000 scientists who have signed a petition disputing their conclusions.(1.) However, neither the “consensus” nor the petition has any meaning in science. Consensus applies only to opinion, not truth. Truth is never decided by a popular vote. It only takes one scientist with new (or ignored) facts to disprove the currently popular theory aka COWDUNG.(2.) Remember that before Copernicus’ new theory and Galileo’s new facts the consensus was that the sun, and indeed the universe, revolved around the earth. The real scientific question should be, “What does the data say?” not how many experts believe or assume something is true. In the 1970s some of the same people who made the global warming computer models were predicting a coming ice age because of a short-term cooling trend and computer models that assumed a continuation of the trend.
(1.) See Petition Project at http://www.petitionproject.org/
(2.) COWDUNG stands for the “conventional wisdom of the dominant group.”
“In short, under the new authoritarian science based on consensus, science doesn’t matter much anymore. If one scientist’s 1,000-year chart showing rising global temperatures is based on bad data, it doesn’t matter because we still otherwise have a consensus. If a polar bear expert says polar bears appear to be thriving, thus disproving a popular climate theory, the expert and his numbers are dismissed as being outside the consensus. If studies show solar fluctuations rather than carbon emissions may be causing climate change, these are damned as relics of the old scientific method. If ice caps are not all melting, with some even getting larger, the evidence is ridiculed and condemned. We have a consensus, and this contradictory science is just noise from the skeptical fringe.”
——Terence Corcoran, in “Climate consensus and the end of science,” Financial Post, June 12, 2006.
THE TRUTH ABOUT ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING
Climate change predictions are based almost totally on projections of computer models that assume that all factors of climate are known and their complex, often chaotic, interactions are really understood. It also assumes the current trend will continue. A projection is not a true prediction unless the computer model is 100 percent empirically correct and agrees with reality in every way. For a computer model to have any credence, every single factor must be thoroughly understood, the data on which it is based must be complete and beyond question, the correct mathematical formulas must be used, and unpredictable or chaotic behavior must be eliminated or managed. Computer models are only as good as the data used and the way it is analyzed. The rule is GIGO – garbage in, garbage out. There are many climate models used by the IPCC (United Nations International Panel on Climate Change), none of which agree on the degree of change although all project change based on the manmade CO2 theory. The projections of the models differ from each other by up to 400 percent for the year 2100. However, these models failed to predict the El Nino in 1997-1998, the dearth of hurricanes striking North America in recent years or the current stagnation of global temperatures.
There has not been any global warming in the last 18+ years, which has the climate scientists baffled and worried that governments will fail to act in the ways that they have advocated. The models predict continued warming but the data show otherwise. Advocates refer to this as a hiatus, not a need to correct the models. Some have tried to say there is no pause in warming, but the data of even the staunchest advocates show there is. See the chart below for comparison of models vs. reality according to Hadley Climate Research Unit (HadCRU), University of East Anglia, UK, a leader in the warmist camp.
The models all assume that the future is predictable based on current data trends. Is that true? The truth is that we don’t even know if we CAN predict climate in the future. The “predictions” are really projections based on previous data and a set way of analyzing it under the assumption that past trends will continue unchanged into the future in the same way that short-term weather predictions are done. When applied to the past, these models fail to postdict (predict into the past) what actually happened in the twentieth century when reliable data was available, much less the more distant past. The Medieval Warm Period certainly did not predict the Little Ice Age a few centuries later, nor did the Little Ice Age predict the continuing warming since that time.
Excerpted from Chapter 15 of Perverted Truth Exposed, How Progressive Philosophy has Corrupted Science by T. Kay Kiser. Available online through WND.com, Amazon, Barnes & Noble online, Books A Million online in print or e-book as Kindle or B&N Nook.
Science is distorted by progressive philosophy 