Short summary of the climate change "debate"

There is 
general agreement 

on three claims:

(1) 

Surface temperatures 

increased since 1880

by about +1 degree C.,

and have been rising

for 20,000 years.

Proudly representing skeptics

since 1997 ( I became a skeptic

in one day after I began reading
climate science articles 
and studies ):

I say:

The measurement 
margin of error is

at least +/- 1.0 degrees C., 
far larger than the claimed

+/- 0.1 degrees C. 

Reasons: 

A majority of our planet 

has no thermometers.

so the temperatures there

must be wild guessed

by government bureaucrats,

to compile a global average
temperature.

There were also few 

Southern Hemisphere

measurements before 1940.

Most thermometers 

used since 1880

had a margin of error
of at least 

+/- 0.5 degrees C.,

so the global average

can't have a smaller

margin of error.

(2)

Humans burning fossil fuels 

are adding carbon dioxide

to the atmosphere.

Representing skeptics, I say:

There is no disagreement.

The  CO2 measurements

have been accurate since 1959 --

but measurements before 1959 

are based 'reconstructions'
from ice core studies, 

whose accuracy is unknown.

(3)

Carbon dioxide 

and other greenhouse gases 

have a warming effect 

on the planet.

Representing skeptics, I say:

That's a reasonable assumption

based on simple laboratory 

infrared spectroscopy

experiments ... but the total

amount of warming is unknown.

We can make a worst case
estimate of CO2 warming
only by assuming
100% of the warming

since 1940 was caused 
only by CO2,

 (the UN's IPCC only claims "over half", not 100%)

and from that 
worst case estimate
the only possible conclusion
is that CO2 warming 
must be harmless.

Greenhouse gas "warming" 

should mainly consist of

less cooling at night, 

which has happened,

and should be largest
in cold, dry areas, such as 
the Arctic and Antarctica,

( warming has happened in the Arctic,

but not since the 1960s in Antarctica ).

The big disagreements:

(A)

What percentage of warming 

has natural causes ?

(Note: 100% natural causes in the

4.5 billion years before 1750

(B)

How much will our planet warm 

in the future ? 
(the future is unknown).

(C)

Whether warming is beneficial, 

from more CO2 in the air

'greening' the planet, 

or dangerous ?

( assuming future warming 
is faster than past warming ).

(D)

Whether we should celebrate

the acceleration of plant growth

from more CO2 in the air,

or try to slow global warming ?

Earth's climate is a 

complex, nonlinear ,

dynamic system, 

with no simple 

cause and effect.  

But government funding,
which supports most of
the scientists, forces them

to focus almost entirely

on human-caused 

climate change,
not natural climate change. 

To what extent are man-made 

CO2 emissions contributing 

to climate change?

The correct answer,
that you'll rarely hear, is: 

"No one knows".

The most recent IPCC 

assessment report 

says man made warming

is ‘extremely likely’ 

to be ‘more than half.’
of the warming since 1950 

‘More than half’ 

is not precise.

And 'extremely likely'

is just an opinion

-- a feeling based on 
a popular 'vote'

of IPCC scientists

and activists, not
on science !

Attempts to stifle 

scientific debates,

and policy debates,

are very common, 

and are an attribute 

of junk science,

not real science.

Public attacks 

on all scientists

who do not support 

the ‘consensus’

are very common, 

and are an attribute

of junk science, 

not real science.

Real science 
REQUIRES

disagreement, 
skepticism,

and open debate, 

not a consensus "vote",

followed by 
the stifling of debate,
using ridicule and
character attacks !


Richard Greene,
since 1953 !
Retired since 2004 and 
living in Bingham Farms, 
Michigan, since 1987.
BS in 1975, from State University of New York
MBA in 1977, from New York University
TBW since 1977 (Trained By Wife)