Posted on 03/16/2019 8:01:49 AM PDT by centurion316
On March 5, 58 senior military and national security leaders sent a letter to President Trump denouncing his plan to form a National Security Council panel to take a critical look at the science underpinning climate change claims. Their objections to such a Red Team effort were basically that the science is settled.
But if the science is settled, what are they afraid of? Wouldnt a review of the science come to the same conclusion as the supposed consensus of climate scientists?
The letter claimed, Climate change is real, it is happening now, it is driven by humans, and it is accelerating.
While climate change is indeed real, it is not at all obvious how much humans have to do with it. Even the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admits this, saying only that over half of warming since the 1950s is believed to be human-caused. So, driven by humans is an exaggeration, even by the IPCCs rather alarmist standards.
The additional claim that climate change is accelerating can also be challenged. In recent decades, warming actually decelerated, and there is a growing gap between climate model forecasts and measured global temperatures.
In fact, a peer-reviewed paper published last year in the prestigious Journal of Climate found that the observed level of global warming since the late 1800s, including the deep oceans, was consistent with a climate system only half as sensitive as are the climate models guiding U.S. energy and national security policy.
And even that study assumed that all of the warming was human-caused. If recent warming is only half anthropogenic, then the global warming problem is only one-fourth as bad as the public is being told.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Thanks for these quotes, Jayster. Gonna share with my pastor.
Climate alarmists - Do you like my new suit?
/The Emperor's New Suit
/the real truth
'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong Jan 6, 2015
The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the publicand numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.
Understanding the Global Warming Debate February 9, 2012
Let's look at the actual propositions the 97% agreed to in one such study conducted at the University of Illinois. Here they are:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
The 97% answered "risen" and "yes" to these two questions. But depending on how one defines "significant" (is 20% a significant factor?) I could get 97% of a group of science-based skeptics to agree to the same answers.
Did I mention the emperor's new suit?
Their track record down through the ages:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.