Previous statements to the effect that a 15 year pause might mean that the climate models are wrong has now been extended out to 20 years.4
The World Bank and the US Research Council released reports that talk about the gloom and doom of the world being four degrees warmer, but not one word of how probable such a scenario is.5 The report is further troubled, in my mind, by some questionable assumptions:
If Greenland once again becomes green, that would be a net plus for livable land, not necessarily a bad thing.
While sea levels rising might be troublesome, efforts to predict the sea level is even more questionable than global warming is.
While drought is unquestionably bad, how can we be sure that the record breaking droughts we just experienced are related to global warming? Even if they are, can we be sure that an additional 4 degrees would not cross some tipping point and increase humidity - and rain fall? A more humid, and a wetter, earth is speculated for the eons when dinosaurs lived after all.
Any link between war and weather is unquestionably highly speculative. Correlation can mean causation, but people are in general far too quick to assume causation.
Coral reefs are something I personally treasure. They are most threatened by tourism though. Even with no change to the CO level in the water, they are on the road to extinction - because people will not control themselves. A “save the reefs” movement predicated on global warming initiatives will be far from sufficient to save our reefs, nor is their (significant) benefits sufficient to out weight the reduction in livelihood for the many that environmentalists would impose.
We know so little about the overall effects of carbon dioxide, and about the ecosystems we are working with in dealing with climate change, that we have totally misunderstood the immediate effects of increased carbon dioxide on forests.6 While Mr. John Runions tries to put a positive spin on this, what we really have is a noticable prediction about a scientific theory being falsified. That would be okay, if we were doing real science. We would then adjust our theories. Instead, we are dealing with dogmatic science, so we have to explain away the results.
Along similar lines, Professor Fred Singer, a former director of the US
Weather Satellite Service, is quoted saying that “The greenhouse warming from
increased gas emissions is, as far as we can tell, insignificant. It’s
unlikely to be appreciable even a century from now, and we can easily adapt to
it.”7
Every time I turn around, there are doubts about the science and data behind global warming claims.8
Drudge linked to an article9 from the blog “Real Science” asserting that the period 1920 to 2015 shows a cooling trend rather than a warming trend. This site (Real Science) is however essentially a personal site of someone whose credentials I do not know, and who has a very long track record of arguing with the mainstream. However, the Telegraph says that at very least we have a lack of warming over the last 19 years.10
The amount of ice in Antartica may be increasing instead of decreasing.1112
Global Cooling is raising its head again,13 or if it is not global cooling, then it is just random bad luck14 that we have record amounts of rain and record low temperatures.
