Hi, LoneShaman, and welcome back!
I have some questions for you based on your post, but first, it's only fair that I reveal my perspective: on the issue of global warming and climate change, I understand that the vast majority (somewhere around 99%) of those qualified to conduct and adjudicate the science have assessed that human beings are contributing to this phenomenon in a significant way, with all of the ramifications that that has, including the possibility of dramatic threats to our quality of life, and to that of our fellow inhabitants of planet Earth. Because I am not qualified to conduct and adjudicate this science, I defer to those who are.
So, basically, I need to know whether the information that you're sharing here has changed or would change the views of the 99% to whose expertise I, as a non-expert, defer. I watched the first video that you posted, but it is very difficult for me as a non-expert to assess. A few questions in this regard then:
- Who is the author of this video/documentary series, which, if any, relevant qualifications does he have, and why should I trust him?
- Can you point me to any other sources which are saying the same thing, and can you especially point me to any other sources which are saying the same thing and are part of "The Climate Science Establishment", so to speak?
- Can you play Devil's Advocate and point me to anybody - especially anybody well-qualified - who rejects the view of this video/documentary-maker?
- Can you point to a significant number (or any at all) of those who would previously have been counted amongst the 99% who have assessed that human beings are contributing significantly to climate change who have changed their minds since the supposed revelations in the data set to which this video/documentary-maker refers?
- If so (and even if not), do you have any evidence that the 99% figure is or would be changed by this supposedly new data?
Cheers.
Thanks Laird,
We have to remember that Science is not a democracy but is about evidence. The history of science has shown that consensus has routinely been wrong. It should be said also that these consensus studies have also been challenged on methodology, perhaps we could look into that further. Anyway what compels a large number is based on a presumption that climate sensitivity is very high. However in all IPCC reports we see that if you double the amount of CO2 the temperature increase should be between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees. The fact is all estimations, if we look at the first reports from 1990 which should still be valid, show that these estimations were wrong, the reality is actually under the lower limits. The projections and models from those who would be included in so called consensus have proven to be false. There is no evidence climate sensitivity is high.
This is still without the inclusion of particle forcing which by their methodology would by default be calculated as being human influence because it has been absent from their models. This is why this data undermines all climate models to date and no papers have been forthcoming showing any human influence using these data sets since they have been released. The climate is incredibly complex and without all the factors, it is of course impossible to model with any accuracy. This is indeed the case.
1.The author of the videos is Ben Davidson, he runs the Observatoryproject.com, Suspicious Observers, SpaceWeather.com, Quakewatch.com, MagneticReversal.org and probably more. In this case he is just reporting, this is not a theory as he says, this has already happened. I have been following his work for some time, he is quite astute.
2. This is an accumulation of over 700 papers spanning a decade, the data sets are here..
https://esgf-node.llnl.gov/projects/cmip6/ and the IPCC will be including it in the 2022 report, it's already accepted.
3. This is really just a report and not the point of view from Ben Davidson. Please do watch the full documentary.
4. I think we'll have to wait and see who changes their minds, but we are starting to see a change from the major universities on these issues. The consensus is not as great as has been promoted, recently 500 scientist petitioned the UN stating there is no climate emergency.
Also it is note worthy the UN secretary general statements, who created the IPCC, condemning the extreme-ism that the IPCC itself created.
5. I don't believe this percentage is a true reflection of the state of the debate. There are many qualified dissenters but I can't give you a percentage.
Long term data shows that Co2 follow temperature changes and not the inverse. We know statistics and data sets have been manipulated and misrepresented, I am no expert when it comes to this, I have seen equally using these methods that what we are experiencing falls easily into natural variability.
The Paper that was retracted has nothing to do with the data sets, it was merely a tid bit of news I added. I think it reflects the change that is happening within academia concerning this subject. That is all.
We should be happy about this, and finally we can get back to shining a light on the very real problems the environment is facing.