This seems to be a sensitive issue for some people as it's become a political issue rather than a scientific one.
I have become fascinated as I have watched this whole thing play out. I looked into the science. Seemed legit. Co2 is a greenhouse gas (ie it traps and radiates heat), that is a fact and something that can be demonstrated in a lab environment. There is also a correlation between CO2 and global temperatures. Not only that, but the computer models appeared to be predicting an increase in global temperatures fairly well for a while.
But then something strange happened....
Observations started deviating from the predictions of the models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, so they quietly began lowering their short and medium term expected temperature rises.
But the alarmism seemed to get more drastic instead of dying down. People were and still are heavily emotionally invested in the idea that man made CO2 emissions are going to destroy the planet, despite the latest observations and peer reviewed literature showing that less alarm is actually warranted.
Not only that, but many powerful people and organisations are now heavily financially invested in carbon markets and other such schemes.
A paper titled 'The Consensus Project was trotted out in 2013 by John Cook et al. in the hope that if the public saw that there was a 'scientific consensus' on man made climate change then they would take it as gospel and insist that their governments take action. I have seen an interview with him where he stated that this was the purpose of his paper. I'm sure many of you have heard of the '97% consensus'. This is where that number came from, but the number is misleading and misused. Please read the paper, or at least the abstract of the paper to see how they arrived at that particular number. President Obama tweeted the 97% number, added that man made emissions were also 'dangerous' (this isn't mentioned in the consensus project), and the world bought it.
Instead of appealing to the data, there is an appeal to authority and consensus. That is not science, that's politics. Even if you do like to appeal to authority, most claim that the IPCC is the authority on man made global warming but do not actually read the literature from the IPCC (which is becoming less alarming with each report). Instead they listen to what politicians say about the IPCC literature. Since when are politicians ever truthful about anything?
I prefer to look at the data and peer reviewed literature, which indicates that the climate is far less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought, and that the atmosphere is far more complex than it was previously understood to be.
What do you think? Am I wrong? Is an apocalypse coming?
I get the feeling some people are so devoted to the solution, that they are failing to see that it is becoming a less urgent problem.
