Media bias on 'climate change' avoids discussion of alternative causes

William O'Keefe:
...
When the international panel issued its first assessment report in the 1990s, it dismissed the role of solar influence. Since then, it has gradually accepted some solar influence and no one has satisfactorily challenged the work of Henrik Swensmark who has demonstrated the relationship between solar activity, cosmic rays and cloud formation which influences global temperatures.

The Times Dispatch also asserts that skeptics “pick quarrels at the margin,” referencing a recent critique in The Wall Street Journal that is hardly at the margin. It goes to the heart of how data are treated in climate analyses. The argument points out that the claim of accelerating sea level rise is inconsistent with the referenced document in that recent rates are “statistically indistinguishable from peak rates earlier in the 20th century.”

That is not quarreling at the margin. Nor does it prove periods of extreme heat and hurricane intensity are not outside of the historical record. When underlying data are distorted, there is every reason to challenge the overall report.

The climate establishment is heavily invested in CO2 being the primary driver of climate change and therefore devotes very little time and effort seriously exploring alternative explanations, which could be a combination of factors.

The international panel clearly acknowledges that the state of knowledge about clouds, aerosols, solar, land use and oceans is not high. It also is generally acknowledged that our understanding of natural variability and climate sensitivity is still evolving. These uncertainties surely should weaken the certitude with which advocates claim that human activities are the dominant cause of climate change.

Instead of attacking skeptics, the media should ask for a compelling explanation of why advocates assert narratives that are not consistent with objective observational data and why the role of identified uncertainties is discounted. They don’t ask why advocates dismiss global satellite temperature measurements that do not show any significant warming in almost two decades and why they accept model results that consistently overstate the extent of actual warming.
...
The models are a significant problem for the proponents of CO2 as the cause of "climate change."  The models are basically projections of future results.  When the results do not match the projections it is always because the underlying assumptions were not valid.  But they can't explain which of their assumptions was the invalid one.  I suspect they are overstating the effect of increased CO2 on temperatures.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Bin Laden's concern about Zarqawi's remains