Two climate change studies in recent weeks have ignored evidence that greenhouse gas emissions may not be responsible for “warming” because that evidence would reduce the “urgency” for radical policy solutions–such as carbon taxes and other “green” initiatives–environmentalists want to advance.
As Mario Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute noted, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) “published a study by 13 prestigious atmospheric scientists that supposedly provides ‘clear evidence for a discernible human influence on the thermal structure of the atmosphere.’” The United Nations recently released a report that ignored data their scientists collected that found there has been pause in warming over the last 15 years.
“NAS researchers pointedly echo the famous declaration by the United Nation-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, that the ‘balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate,’” Lewis writes, because ”less warming means smaller climate impacts, and less ostensible need for radical changes in the way we live to deal with them.”
But numerous studies have found that the various climate models these scientists have been using are far from accurate:
- John Christy, a distinguished climate scientist and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) found that all 73 computer model runs performed by the IPCC as of June 1, 2013 overshoot the observed warming of the tropical atmosphere during the previous 34 years.
- Even though global carbon dioxide emissions are increasing largely due to India and China, “the temperatures recorded by the NASA-supported Remote Sensing Systems shows no warming in the earth’s middle atmosphere, or troposphere, over the past 16-plus years.”
- German climatologist Hans von Storch has found that IPCC climate models project warming trends as low as actual recorded observations only 2% of the time.
- The monthly journal Nature Climate Change reports that over 20 years (1993-2012), the warming trend computed from 117 climate model simulations (0.3°C per decade) is more than twice the observed trend (0.14°C/decade). Over the most recent 15 years (1998-2012), the computer-simulated trend (0.21°C/decade) is more than four times the observed trend (0.05°C/decade)—a trend that is pretty close to a flat line.
Lewis notes that these are “huge inconsistencies, and they matter because less warming means smaller climate impacts, and less ostensible need for radical changes in the way we live to deal with them.”
Yet, National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations simply “ignore” the numbers that do not allow them to advance their climate change agenda.
For instance, even the if there is a “human influence” on potential global warming, the NAS study found that it is not due t greenhouse gases. NAS found that the “influence of greenhouse gases” on stratospheric temperatures “is not yet clearly identifiable” and, as Lewis notes, “they have not really found the smoking gun of man-made global warming.”
“Those radical forms of social engineering, it turns out, are the real short-term threat of climate change,” he writes. “And the science-policy community that is pushing them is substituting heated rhetoric for real data that doesn’t support their agenda.”
As Breitbart News reported, a group of 50 international scientists released a comprehensive new report on the science of climate change last week that called out bodies like the United Nations for the same reasons, concluding “that evidence now leans against global warming resulting from human-related greenhouse gas emissions.”
That report cited “thousands of peer-reviewed articles the United Nations-sponsored panel on climate change ignored” and also found that “no empirical evidence exists to substantiate the claim” that even a 2°C of warming would present “a threat to planetary ecologies or environments” that would need to be countered by radical policy solutions.
     |
Climate Studies Ignoring Faulty Models, Warming Pauses to Push Radical Agendas
No comments:
Post a Comment