From Breitbart Big Government
CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON, WILLIE SOON & DAVID R. LEGATES: ‘The national science academies and the UN’s climate panel have profitably contrived what the late Stephen Schneider called “scary scenarios” on the basis of inadequate knowledge.Etatiste politicians and bureaucrats have gone along with them.’
Professor William Happer of Princeton, one of the world’s foremost physicists, says computer models of climate rely on the assumption of the CO2’s direct warming effect that is about a factor two higher, owing to incorrect representation of the microphysical interactions of CO2 molecules with other infrared photons.
As if that were not bad enough, the official story is that feedbacks triggered by direct warming roughly triple it, causing not 1 but 3 degrees’ warming per CO2 doubling. Here, too, the official story is a significant exaggeration, as Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, the world’s most knowledgeable climatologist, has demonstrated.
The wild exaggerations of both the direct CO2 warming and the supposedly more serious knock-on warming are rooted in an untruth: the falsehood that scientists know enough about how clouds form, how thunderstorms work, how air and ocean currents flow, how ice sheets behave, how soot in the air behaves.
In truth, we do not understand climate enough to make even an uneducated guess about how much global warming our adding CO2 to the air will cause. Other things being equal, we will cause some warming, but – on measurements to date – not much.
The national science academies and the UN’s climate panel have profitably contrived what the late Stephen Schneider called “scary scenarios” on the basis of inadequate knowledge. Etatiste politicians and bureaucrats have gone along with them.
The authors propose 10 question with the answers for the Profiteers of Doom HERE. Here are the question for our local warmer and supporting blogger and commenters at Sierra Foothills Report:
1: Where has the warming that the surface thermometer datasets now say has occurred in the past 18 years come from?
2: Why, two years ago, did every surface temperature dataset agree with the satellites that there had been no global warming this millennium, and why, though the two satellites continue to show little or no warming, was every surface dataset altered in the two years preceding the Paris climate conference in a manner calculated to show significant warming?
3: Why do all the datasets, surface as well as satellite, show a lot less warming than predicted?
4: Why is the gap between official over-prediction and observed reality getting wider?
5: Why is the gap between warming rates measured by satellite and surface datasets widening?
6: Why should anyone invest trillions on the basis of official predictions in 1990 and in 2001 that differ so greatly?
7: Why has the observed rate of warming, on all datasets, been tumbling for decades notwithstanding predictions that it would at least remain stable?
8: So, where is the missing tropical upper-air hot-spot?
9: Why, if CO2-driven warming ought to warm the surface ocean first, is the ocean warming from below? And why has the ocean been warming throughout the 11 full years of the ARGO dataset at a rate equivalent to only 1 degree every 430 years?
10: Given that the authors of the largest ever survey of peer-reviewed opinion in learned papers marked only 64 of 11,944 papers, or 0.5%, as stating they agreed with the official “consensus” proposition that recent warming was mostly manmade, on what rational, evidence-based, scientific ground is it daily asserted that “97% of scientists” believe recent global warming is not only manmade but dangerous?
Since the President and the EPA does not have any answers for these question maybe some of our local lefty warmers have some answers.