NAS Consensus

"Every national academy of science in the world, including our own, agrees that climate change is due to increased fossil fuel use." ~ Michael Mann

If true, this was not a wise thing for the august bodies to do for if it should turn out that their considerations were in error the resulting damage to their reputations will be embarrassing. It is best that they allow their members to address the issue as expert witnesses and that the organization remain neutral. That way they can avoid becoming the butt of jokes.

Mr Mann could be accused of using the false argument ad populum to persuade his listeners rather than presenting irrefutable scientific evidence that the proposition is true. But these institutions do have some credibility of standing on the issue. However, the thoughts of the credentialed gentlemen below are worth considering and serve to remind us that it is the business of truth to relentlessly ask questions and check the answers against the final arbiter, that is, reality.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts -- Bertrand Russell

"In science, refuting an accepted belief is celebrated as an advance in knowledge; in religion it is condemned as heresy". (Bob Parks, Physics, U of Maryland).

"The authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."  ~Galileo

Were the esteemed members of these academies polled for their views or did the board of governors take it upon themselves to issue a statement supporting the position? The latter would appear to be the case.

If the members were polled, what was the percentage response to the question: Do you agree that climate change is due to increased fossil fuel use? What was the extent of the agreement?

If the members were not polled under what authority did the board issue the statement? The Royal Society in Britain has as policy that they are “never to give their opinion as a Body upon any subject either of Nature or Art that comes before them” . Too bad they didn't stick to that policy when it came to CAGW. Several members of the American Physical Society resigned because they did not agree with the official position taken by the APS on climate change. Fifty former NASA employees including several astronauts have objected to that organization's unsupportable statements concerning man made climate change (CAGW).

There are others who have objected to the proposition about man-made global warming. Over at Popular Technology.net you can find lists of papers critical of CAGW. At Friends of Science you can find a list of books that are critical of CAGW. Also at FoS you can find a list of peer-reviewed papers which counteracts the work of Naomi Oreskes who produced an internet search of the ISI Web of Science database that concluded a majority of papers supported the consensus view that "humans were having at least some effect on global climate change". There are many more now that do not offer such support. You can check here for scientists who do not support the CAGW scenario. You will have to page down about a third of the way to find the 'consensus' topic. And here is an article that mentions some organizations that take a skeptical stance on man-made climate change. Almost missed this one.

Mann's statement immediately turns on my skeptical radar as it arouses my suspicion that the case is weak if it must be prefaced with an attempt to shut down criticism. It suggests that there is an agenda that the speaker wants to move on to without having to pass critical inspection.

It is good that we have scientists that are not afraid to stand up and say that the emperor has no clothes if they observe his state of undress.

'The closer science looks at the real world processes involved in climate regulation the more absurd the IPCC's computer driven fairy tale appears. Instead of blithely modeling climate based on hunches and suppositions, climate scientists would be better off abandoning their ivory towers and actually measuring what happens in the real world.' -- Doug L Hoffman

So, in the matter of climate change due to increased fossil fuel use let us see what CO2 is doing to the real world.

A theory postulates how the world works and then scientists check if reality behaves as the theory suggests it should. If reality is found to contradict the theory then the theory must be modified or abandoned.  Even though there are more we will only look at three or four instances where CAGW predictions are compromised by reality.

 The gold standard of predictions for CAGW is that as CO2 builds up in the atmosphere temperatures will dangerously increase and cause drought, water shortages, famine and rising sea levels due to melting ice sheets at the poles. Reality check: temperatures are at their highest levels since 1850 but they have stopped increasing even as the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has accelerated. This is a disconnect between theory and reality. It should not be happening if the theory is true. Temperatures in the lower 48 States in the US have been decreasing for 15 years. World temperatures have been on the decline since 2002. World's oldest temperature record shows a 10 year decrease.

As CO2 builds up in the atmosphere instances of extreme weather are supposed to increase. Let us look at hurricanes which certainly can be considered examples of extreme weather. Instances of severe hurricanes have been on the decrease.

Ocean temperatures are supposed to be increasing as global warming proceeds. Since the Argo buoys (3300 of them) have been deployed in the world's oceans in 2003 they have detected a sight cooling.

Tide guages do not detect an accelerating rise in sea level which is a mainstay prediction of IPCC climate models.

"The debate on global warming is over." - Al Gore, 2006

Think again, Al. The globe is not warming. We have been implementing unnecessary green policies at great cost for no good scientific reason. CAGW is a myth and Bertrand Russell's observation is vindicated again.

"The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.”