The science around global warming is far from “settled”, despite claims to the contrary from the legacy media, climate change institutions such as the IPCC, and many scientists working in academia. It’s not as black and white as, “you either believe or you don’t”. It's more nuanced than that.
For example, some scientists question the accuracy of the IPCC climate projections. Others argue that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes. Alternatively, there are those that believe the cause is unknown, or that it’s not possible to separate natural processes from anthropogenic ones with any degree of significance. And other scientist believe in anthropogenic warming but argue it’ll have few negative effects.
There are more than a few papers dating up to around the 1990s which are skeptical in one way or another, regarding the anthropogenic origin of global warming and climate change. Soon after skeptics papers largely disappear from peer reviewed literature, and the anthropogenic origin of global warming paradigm becomes entrenched in dogma. Those scientist not willing to accept the paradigm loose their jobs or fall in to line; a phenomena known as
herding. Others retire.
Ever wondered why Professor David Bellamy suddenly disappeared from our TV screens. He was a
skeptic that refused to tow the line. I find his views strangely prophetic. The consequences of the theory of anthropogenic global warming have unprecedented power to influence policy and therefore our entire lives, and most importantly our freedoms and liberty.
I find this particularly startling since models used to predict changes in climate, are not without limitations and depend on the operator to determine which variables are relevant. Each choice will present a different outcome; not necessarily
GIGO, but I’m sure that’s a factor.
Consequently,
confirmation bias and subsequent
circular reasoning, and scientific activism
reinforcing established dogma, will always be a concern for me.
The paper I posted above is by Jamal Munshi, PhD, a credentialed scientist and Professor Emeritus at Sonoma State University, part of the California State university system. For those who don’t know, you don’t become an Emeritus professor without being an esteemed member of an academic community or institution. He also argues that there is no evidence to suggest global warming is a consequence of anthropogenic emissions,
see separate post above.
Anyway, more recently there have been peer reviewed papers arguing that climate models are not yet sophisticated enough to accurately predict the outcome of global warming, nor sophisticated enough to determine its exact cause. I’ve posted two very recent examples, 2023 and 2024, below.
Part of the conclusion to the above paper.
“But before taking action to address global warming and reduce the planet's average temperature, one must make sure that anthropogenic influences contribute greatly to global warming so that these measures do not rock the pendulum of climate change toward a new ice age.”
And
The Detection and Attribution of Northern Hemisphere Land Surface Warming (1850–2018) in Terms of Human and Natural Factors: Challenges of Inadequate Data
Part of the abstract.
“…the scientific community is not yet in a position to confidently establish whether the warming since 1850 is mostly human-caused, mostly natural, or some combination.”
I started out wholeheartedly believing in the anthropogenic origin of global warming, I completed my masters in Environmental Management during the Rio Earth Summit, which was a hot topic of research, and began my PhD soon afterward. But the more I read the more it didn’t make sense to me.
I’ve now joined a growing number of skeptics, which includes at least two very recent Nobel laureates, John Clauser and William Nordhaus. I now believe that it’s become more of a political agenda than an environmental one.
