NASA makes hundreds of changes to their global average temperature "data" every month. They call that "settled science". I call it unsettling junk science.
In 2017, physicist Dr. Steve Koonin, President Obama’s Undersecretary for Science in the U.S. Department of Energy, urged convening red-team blue-team debates for climate science in his article A ‘Red Team’ Exercise Would Strengthen Climate Science -- “The national-security community pioneered the “Red Team” methodology to test assumptions and analyses, identify risks, and reduce—or at least understand—uncertainties. The process is now considered a best practice in high-consequence situations”.
A good idea -- real science -- but meanwhile there is no public climate science debate. The mass media publishes all wild guess claims of a coming climate crisis and they have done so for 50 years. These claims started in the late 1950, with oceanographer Roger Revelle, but at the time there had been global cooling since 1940, so the media would not accept a global warming crisis prediction.
Since then smarmy government science bureaucrats have been gradually "adjusting" away the 1940 to 1975 global cooling with CO2 levels rising. The cooling was once claimed to be -0.3 to -0.5 degrees C. Now it has been "adjusted to no cooling at all, to -0.1 degree C. cooling. How can the bureaucrats do that? They own the "data", the media won't report the "adjustments" and far to many Americans, mainly leftists, trust the government ... and work there!
Science is a process that is never settled. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and concentrations have increased. The climate is changing. It has been warming for 20,000 years. There have been cool and warm centuries. We've had intermittent global warming since the 1690s. And we've significant warming since 1975, except for the period from 2003 to mid-2015. Only the 1975 to 2020 warming is blamed on man made CO2, without any scientific proof, I must add. It is merely assumed, although it is reasonable to assume some of the warming is related to CO2, no one knows if that's 1 percent, 50 percent, or 99 percent. What abut the warming before 1975? Never mind that, you climate denier.
The lack of strong positive correlation between the global average temperature and the atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1930, is proof that complex climate dynamics are not driven solely by CO2. Many questions remain. The climate sensitivuty to CO2 is unknown, but the climate alarmists stick with a wild guess from the 1970s ... in spite of evidence that the lowest part of their range is too high.
Scientists still debate whether climate has a higher or lower sensitivity to rising CO2. Rising CO2 and warmth benefits photosynthesizing plants, as shown in almost all of the thousands of scientific studies, hundreds which have been summarized here. Including today.
Scientists have made surprisingly little progress learning about the precise causes of climate change in the past 100 years. The Pacific Ocean Decadal Oscillation, a major driver of natural climate change, was only characterized in 1997, even though it accounts for 100 years of changing climate along the coasts of the north eastern Pacific.
Consider the chart below showing an area whose climate is strongly affected by an Atlantic Ocean Decadal Oscillation, or AMO:
Landscape changes generate temperature changes near weather stations. Urban heat islands and deforestation alters regional climates. Such landscape may explain why 38% of U.S. weather stations have cooling trends, and the best tree ring science suggests U.S. temperatures haven’t exceeded the warm spike of the 1930s and 1940s.
Unable to model a 1940s warming spike in raw global average temperature data, climate "scientist" Tom Wigley, emailed colleagues suggesting “It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip”. The “40s warm blip” was removed from many global temperature data sets. That was found in hacked Climate Gate e-mails.
Climate "scientist" Michael Mann co-authored a 2016 paper titled Science and the Public: Debate, Denial, and Skepticism, saying: “science is debate” and “public debate and skepticism are essential to a functioning democracy.” But Mann then opposed red team/blue team climate science debates as a “disinformation campaign aimed at confusing the public and policymakers”.
Michael Mann and his colleagues denigrate skeptics as “deniers”, who can’t get published in peer-reviewed journals. Mann, of course, works to suppress skeptical publications.
Two Harvard astrophysicists, Dr Soon and Dr Baliunas, published a peer-reviewed paper synthesizing 240 scientific papers and suggested recent temperatures are similar to the Medieval Warm Period. With his hypotheses threatened by such research, Mann bellowed: “the peer-review process at Climate Research [the journal] has been hijacked by a few skeptics.”
Mann e-mailed colleagues, “I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” They also discussed how to get rid of any editors tolerant of skeptical arguments to prevent skeptical publications. Also from the ClimateGate hacked e-mails.
Government bureaucrats climate alarmist "scientists" argue that they don’t debate skeptics because “debate actually gives alternative views credibility”. That's leftism, not real science. Real sciences REQUIRES skepticism and heated debates!