Alarmism over global warming has been based on faulty (erroneously assumed) feedback loops between CO2 concentrations and rises in atmospheric temperatures. So it says this morning in several places. The entirety of global warming ideology is generated by computer models, where the assumptions are fed in by ideologically driven scientists The Global Warming Policy Forums reports:
The world has warmed more slowly than had been predicted by computer models, which were “on the hot side” and overstated the impact of emissions on average temperature, research has found. Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London and one of the study’s authors, admitted that his previous prediction had been wrong. He stated during the climate summit in Paris in December 2015: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.” Speaking to The Times, he said: “When the facts change, I change my mind, as Keynes said. —Ben Webster, The Times, 19 September 2017
The importance of this confession was that it was made by a leading warmist, not be a skeptic.
Toldja. Only it is not that the facts have changed. The facts have always been the same; the ideological interpretation of the facts through computer models (garbage in, garbage out) has changed. What was Established Truth is now Fake News. Could we please unburn the heretics? Can we restore wrecked careers?
Ptolemaic cosmology, phlogiston, the aether, materialism à la Boltzmann, the missing planet between Mars and Jupiter, cholesterol and heart disease: the list of erroneous theories deeply believed in their day is as old as science and will not cease to grow. The struggles to get to the truth when science is politicized will never cease, unfortunately.
Don’t worry though. The catastrophists have a new one up their sleeve: CO2 increases are causing a lessening of plant nutrients.
The data we have, which look at how plants would respond to the kind of CO2 concentrations we may see in our lifetimes, show these important minerals drop by 8 percent, on average. The same conditions have been shown to drive down the protein content of C3 crops, in some cases significantly, with wheat and rice dropping 6 percent and 8 percent, respectively.
So if we get 15% more rice overall, hypothetically, and its nutrient value has dropped by 6%, could someone please do the arithmetic for me? I get 1.08 more food value, on that assumption (which has about as much validity as the CO2 feedback loops that were postulated by the alarmists).
In any case, as Einstein observed, theory determines what is observed. If the theory is that global warming is exclusively or predominantly man-caused, then global warming will be observed and its relationship to human activity will be assumed. The trick for a real scientist would be to show that all causes of global warming, other than humans, were insignificant. Nowhere has this been tried. Nor will it be.