Delingpole: Now 400 Scientific Papers in 2017 Say ‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth

[jimnyc]

I'm sure all will be debunked by the time the nightly news comes on. :)

---

Delingpole: Now 400 Scientific Papers in 2017 Say ‘Global Warming’ Is a Myth

When I reported earlier this year on the 58 scientific papers published in 2017 that say global warming is a myth the greenies’ heads exploded.

Since then, that figure has risen to 400 scientific papers.

Can you imagine the misery and consternation and horror this is going to cause in the corrupt, rancid, rent-seeking world of the Climate Industrial Complex?

I can. It will look something like this.

Just to be clear, so the greenies can’t bleat about being misrepresented, here is what these various papers say:


Modern temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather events are neither unusual nor unprecedented. Many regions of the Earth are cooler now than they have been for most of the last 10,000 years.

Natural factors such as the Sun (106 papers), multi-decadal oceanic-atmospheric oscillations such as the NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO (37 papers), decadal-scale cloud cover variations, and internal variability in general have exerted a significant influence on weather and climate changes during both the past and present. Detecting a clear anthropogenic forcing signal amidst the noise of unforced natural variability may therefore be difficult.

And current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often costly, ineffective, and perhaps even harmful to the environment. On the other hand, elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).

Rest - http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/24/delingpole-now-400-scientific-papers-in-2017-say-global-warming-is-a-myth/

[pete311]

I assume Delingpole screwed up the same as last time
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-misrepresents-research-58-scientific-papers-falsely-claim-disprove-human-caused-global-warming-james-delingpole/

[jimnyc]

I assume Delingpole screwed up the same as last time
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-misrepresents-research-58-scientific-papers-falsely-claim-disprove-human-caused-global-warming-james-delingpole/

Nothing surprising, this is even linked to in the story, to his old story, and so on and so....

I won't pay much attention necessarily to the presenter as much as the evidence that may be presented. I'm NO scientist, FAR from it. :) But I can read and do research. And like it states at the end - casting doubt. To me, that's what I continually read out there, is exactly what I see.

I'll admit I'm not going hunting and going to read in their entirety the 400 papers. Did you, or are you going to? But this, along with similar but much smaller in volume, over many many years, leads me to easily cast doubt. Just as I'm sure you easily believe there's no doubt. Except, the difference is, as you have pointed out much lately, is that I'm just correct.

--
Here – courtesy of Kenneth Richard, who has waded through them all – are some examples of what they say.

It’s the sun, stupid! (106 papers stress solar influence on climate)

Li et al., 2017

It has been widely suggested from both climate modeling and observation data that solar activity plays a key role in driving late Holocene climatic fluctuations by triggering global temperature variability and atmospheric dynamical circulation

Yndestad and Solheim, 2017

Periods with few sunspots are associated with low solar activity and cold climate periods. Periods with many sunspots are associated with high solar activity and warm climate periods.

Tejedor et al., 2017

The main driver of the large-scale character of the warm and cold episodes may be changes in the solar activity

Belohpetsky et al., 2017

It is well known that most short term global temperature variability is due to the well-defined ENSO natural oscillation

Park et al., 2017

According to our results, the central Mexican climate has been predominantly controlled by the combined influence of the 20-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the 70-year Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

Lim et al., 2017

Our study demonstrated that floodfrequency and climate changes at centennial-to-millennial time scales in South Korea have been coupled mainly with ENSO activity

Modern climate in phase with natural variability

Conroy et al., 2017

20th century precipitation variability in southern Tibet falls within the range of natural variability in the last 4100 yr, and does not show a clear trend of increasing precipitation as projected by models

Verdon-Kidd et al., 2017

Overall, the inter-annual and inter-decadal variability of rainfall and runoff observed in the modern record (Coefficient of Variation (CV) of 22% for rainfall, 42% for runoff) is similar to the variability experienced over the last 500 years (CV of 21% for rainfall and 36% for runoff).

Volcano/Tectonic Influence on Climate

Viterito, 2017

This yields a coefficient of determination of .662, indicating that HGFA [high geothermal flux area] seismicity accounts for roughly two-thirds of the variation in global temperatures since 1979.

Huhtemaa and Helama, 2017

[M]ore than half of the agricultural crises in the study region can be associated with cooling caused by volcanism.

Greenhouse Effect Not the Main Driver of Climate

Blaauw, 2017

This paper demonstrates that globalwarming can be explained without recourse to the greenhouse theory

Munshi, 2017

…No evidence is found that changes in atmospheric CO2 are related to fossil fuel emissions at an annual time scale.

Reinhart, 2017

Our results permit to conclude that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas and cannot be accepted as the main driver of climate change

Climate Models are Unreliable/The Pause is Real

Blackall, 2017

The science publication Nature Climate Change this year published a study demonstrating Earth this century warmed substantially less than computer-generated climate models predict. Unfortunately for public knowledge, such findings don’t appear in the news.

Rosenblum and Eisenman, 2017

Observations indicate that the Arctic sea ice cover is rapidly retreating while the Antarctic sea ice cover is steadily expanding. State-of-the-art climate models, by contrast, typically simulate a moderate decrease in both the Arctic and Antarctic sea ice covers.

Ahlström et al., 2017

We conclude that climate bias-induced uncertainties must be decreased to make accurate coupled atmosphere-carbon cycle projections.

Zhou and Wang, 2017

Despite the ongoing increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases, the global mean surface temperature (GMST) has remained rather steady and has even decreased in the central and eastern Pacific since 1998. This cooling trend is referred to as the global “warming hiatus”

Renewable Energy/Climate Policies are Failing

Janković and Shultz, 2017

[A] preindustrial climate may remain a policy goal, but it is unachievable in reality

Heard et al., 2017

While many modelled scenarios have been published claiming to show that a 100% renewable electricity system is achievable, there is no empirical or historical evidence that demonstrates that such systems are in fact feasible.

Emery et al., 2017

The total social costs of ethanol blends are higher than that of gasoline, due in part to higher life-cycle emissions of non-GHG pollutants and higher health and mortality costs per unit.

Qiao et al., 2017

BEVs [Battery Electric Vehicles] are designed to obtain more environmental benefits, but the energy consumption and GHG emissions of BEV production are much larger than those of ICEV [Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles] production in China.

Wind Power Harming the Environment

Frick et al., 2017

Our resultssuggest that wind energy development may pose a substantial threat to migratory bats in North America.

Liu and Barlow, 2017

The research indicates that there will be 43 million tonnes of blade waste worldwide by 2050 with China possessing 40% of the waste, Europe 25%, the United States 16% and the rest of the world 19%.

Vasilakis et al., 2017

Numerous wind farms are planned in a region hosting the only cinereous vulture population in south-eastern Europe […]

[…] Even under the most optimistic scenario whereby authorized proposals will not collectively exceed the national target for wind harnessing in the study area (960 MW), cumulative collision mortality would still be high (17% of current population) and likely lead to population extinction.

In 2016 there were 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) challenging “consensus” climate science.

Together with these 400 new papers, that makes 900 science papers in the last two years casting doubt on global warming.

[pete311]

Problem is you can't just take the research tag line conclusion as gold. After all I found hundreds of studies on anti-gravity on google scholar. How many of those you think are worthwhile? At least we've moved on from climate change is a hoax to climate change is happening, but not due to mankind. I can at least be comforted by that progress.

[jimnyc]

Problem is you can't just take the research tag line conclusion as gold. After all I found hundreds of studies on anti-gravity on google scholar. How many of those you think are worthwhile? At least we've moved on from climate change is a hoax to climate change is happening, but not due to mankind. I can at least be comforted by that progress.

Agreed, but it's not just the tag lines. While I'm not a scientist, I have read a ton about global warming over the years, the trends and all that crap. I've read studies from both sides, even if I didn't understand all of it. And I've read professional opinions of these studies, about both sides. My personal point of view from all of this is that while man ain't the greatest thing since sliced bread for the air we breath, I don't think man is what is causing these massive shifts and will cause the end of the world. In addition, I think there's more than enough doubt as I stated.

OR!

Instead of man made global warming crap.... anyone ever think of this before - maybe it's WOMEN who are causing this?

Hmmmmmmmm......

[pete311]

Agreed, but it's not just the tag lines. While I'm not a scientist, I have read a ton about global warming over the years, the trends and all that crap. I've read studies from both sides, even if I didn't understand all of it. And I've read professional opinions of these studies, about both sides. My personal point of view from all of this is that while man ain't the greatest thing since sliced bread for the air we breath, I don't think man is what is causing these massive shifts and will cause the end of the world. In addition, I think there's more than enough doubt as I stated.

OR!

Instead of man made global warming crap.... anyone ever think of this before - maybe it's WOMEN who are causing this?

Hmmmmmmmm......

Sounds to me like a more reasonable stance than in other talks we've had. btw, it's not women, but the gays that are causing GW!

[jimnyc]

Sounds to me like a more reasonable stance than in other talks we've had. btw, it's not women, but the gays that are causing GW!

No, the gays were a small portion of being in the middle and furthering of the swirl of the societal decay around the porcelain. :(

I look at a lot of it like a court of law, to an extent. And if there is reasonable doubt, then there is doubt, and should be looked at further. But bejeeeeeeeebus, let's not spend trillions on something that there is no solid proof of, and endless arguments about, and endless "debunking" of one another's studies. If it were true, the reports would be more clear, getting clearer, and the consensus would build, and it would be harder and harder to debunk, if at all. But that's not what we see here.

[darin]

At least we've moved on from climate change is a hoax to climate change is happening, but not due to mankind. I can at least be comforted by that progress.

Negative. It's never been "climate change is a hoax" - it's always been the religion of man-made/caused/expedited climate change is a lie. Its destructive and oppressive and built to increase monetary wealth of the elites.

:)

And by the way - you aren't debunking or arguing against any data that conflicts with your world view - world climate view? - you are simply attacking the source.

[pete311]

Negative. It's never been "climate change is a hoax" - it's always been the religion of man-made/caused/expedited climate change is a lie. Its destructive and oppressive and built to increase monetary wealth of the elites.

:)

And by the way - you aren't debunking or arguing against any data that conflicts with your world view - world climate view? - you are simply attacking the source.

I'm not a climatologist and neither are any of you. If you want to hold on to your view by citing reportedly dubious studies then also do a search for how many research papers on anti gravity and flat earth there are. You will always find someone who will support your view whether it is correct or not.

[darin]

I'm not a climatologist and neither are any of you. If you want to hold on to your view by citing reportedly dubious studies then also do a search for how many research papers on anti gravity and flat earth there are. You will always find someone who will support your view whether it is correct or not.

preponderance of the evidence. Plus. I don't believe in magic or mysticism.

And then, there are people who are just wrong - like...the flat earth folks. They dont cite evidence.

The man-made-global warming folks provide little to no evidence either. They have as much credibility as flat-earthers.

[pete311]

The man-made-global warming folks provide little to no evidence either. They have as much credibility as flat-earthers.

How do you come to this conclusion?