Consensus Reality Check

Russ Steele

In the comments section of this post Steven Frisch wrote:

The truth is the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, and scientific organizations agree that the climate is changing, that it is at least substantively human caused, and that it is a serious threat. You guys can crwo (sic) all you want about whether or not the word ‘consensus’ is a scientific term, but that does not change the facts.

Here are some facts from P. Gosselin writing at the No Tricks Zone. Max Planck Institute Director Admits “Physical Causes Unclear…Models Inconsistent With Observations”!

More cracks like never before are appearing in Germany’s climate alarmism.

Global temperatures remaining flat over 15 years, defying model projections.

Not long ago global warming science was considered settled here. So much so that climate protection has long since been institutionalized.

Now it’s all starting to look like a very expensive mistake. The threat of a spectacular crumble is becoming real.

Michael Odenwald of warmist news magazine FOCUS has written a status report on global warming science: “Global Warming: “A Matter of Standpoint”.(In German, see English quotes below)

As the title suggests, the dispute depends on how one looks at the data, and so the science is becoming more unsettled than ever. German media is beginning to report on the growing number of contradictions.

David Whitehouse: Time to recognize the temperature stagnation As Odendahl describes, the big dispute raging today is whether global warming is continuing, or if it has stalled. According to HadCRUT4, global temperature has remained constant from 1997 to 2011.

FOCUS writes:

However, [David] Whitehouse explains further, the IPCC had predicted a temperature increase of of 0.2°C per decade because of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect. But this warming has not occurred. ‘We are now at a point where temperature stagnation is dominating the climate development. One cannot ignore that, even if is not 30 years,’ Whitehouse believes. ‘It is now time for the IPCC and the scientific community to recognize the temperature stagnation as reality.“

FOCUS author Odendahl then adds:

With this, it is becoming very clear that the scientific debate over the greenhouse effect is not yet over.

Steven can read the rest of the report HERE, but it clear that the climate models cited by all the “consensus scientists” have failed to model reality.  Someday real soon now those  “consensus scientists” will have to wake up to reality.  For the past 15 years the planet has not warmed and in some regions has started to cool.  What will Steven do then, when his religious beliefs in AGW are destroyed by reality?


About Russ Steele
Freelance writer and climate change blogger. Russ spent twenty years in the Air Force as a navigator specializing in electronics warfare and digital systems. After his service he was employed for sixteen years as concept developer for TRW, an aerospace and automotive company, and then was CEO of a non-profit Internet provider for 18 months. Russ's articles have appeared in Comstock's Business, Capitol Journal, Trailer Life, Monitoring Times, and Idaho Magazine.

17 Responses to Consensus Reality Check

  1. stevefrisch says:

    First, I don’t give a darn about the word consensus, as I said previously. I do care that you are playing semantic games to obfuscate the issue. You post one comment in German (do you read German?), and two with broken links…to your own analysis.

    I suggest people might be more interested in the opinion of the US Global Change Research Program who said:

    “Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.”

    Or the 32 national science academies that have come to the same conclusion, including Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

    Or the following organizations that have come to the same conclusion:

    InterAcademy Council
    European Academy of Sciences and Arts
    International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
    Network of African Science Academies
    Royal Society of New Zealand
    Royal Society of the United Kingdom
    Polish Academy of Sciences
    National Research Council (US)
    American Quaternary Association
    International Union for Quaternary Research
    American Association for the Advancement of Science
    American Chemical Society
    American Institute of Physics
    American Physical Society
    European Physical Society
    American Geophysical Union
    American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America
    European Federation of Geologists
    European Geosciences Union
    Geological Society of America
    International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
    American Meteorological Society
    Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
    Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
    Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
    Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
    World Meteorological Organization
    American Institute for Biological Sciences
    American Association of Microbiology
    Society of American Foresters
    American Academy of Pediatrics
    American College of Preventative Medicine
    American Medical Association
    American Public Health Association

    I could name hundreds more (perhaps thousands more) and we are not even getting into individual scientists or scientific studies.

    You claim to be a man of science…you cannot deny that the overwhelming majority of professional and scientific organizations that have some nexus with climate science agree.

    Sure there are some outliers, and future research may find out that all of these thousands of people and organizations were wrong. But if we really claim to be a society that is advanced through the study and application of science, we cannot sit back and do nothing when the overwhelming majority is saying its a serious problem.

    And if one wants to get technical, the definition of consensus, whether a scientific term or not, is “the majority…the judgement arrived at by most of those concerned…the general agreement.” Consensus does not mean unanimity, as your side is probe to claim and out on people not looking at a dictionary.

    You want to challenge the majority of opinion, get your academic, peer reviewed, science out there and do battle, instead of adopting a calculated strategy of confusing people with semantic nonsense. Compete in the arena of science instead of propaganda.

    In short, man up.

    • ggoodknight says:

      Frisch’s argument is pure bandwagon fallacy, argumentum ad populum or argumentum ad numerum.

      None of those national academies actually polled their members before issuing position papers supporting the IPCC. Consensus is politics, not science, and national academies are there to help their governments channel the funding of scientific research. With over $80 billion spent to date for climate related research, they had a powerful incentive to salute the IPCC flag when it was run up the flagpole leading up to the release of AR4.

      The basic premise of CO2 emissions driving, due to strong positive feedbacks (that themselves are theorized but not found in the 500+ million year record of the Phanerozoic) a runaway catastrophic warming has been essentially falsified. The celebrated general circulation models, none of which agree with each other, have not made any predictions that have been borne out with the passage of time. And of the dire predictions made by activist government scientist James Hansen in the ’80’s, showing soaring temps with no carbon restrictions, high temps with modest restrictions and a leveling off with major restrictions has shown the world is cooler now than he was predicting were there to be no further CO2 emissions.

      Climate change is now last on the list of environmental worries of Americans. A few more years failing to show any of the forecast warming will probably help remove it from the list entirely, only to be used by late night comedians needing an easy punch line. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it’s likely that a doubling of CO2 would not increase temps much more than the ~1C predicted by simple thermodynamics, and may well be less.

      Wise up, Frisch. The sky is not burning.

  2. D. King says:

    “Someday real soon now those ”consensus scientists” will have to wake up to reality.”

    So true Russ.

    Steve, I don’t understand why you continue to ask us to prepare for something that is NOT going to happen. See here a graph of temperature vs. CO2 concentrations over time, that are 10 times higher than that of today. Where is the catastrophe? The planet didn’t burn and the oceans did NOT turn acidic.

    Perhaps it’s time for you to stop parroting agenda driven B.S..

    Marie Curie:

    “Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood.”

    • stevefrisch says:

      When you post a link, could you please make sure it goes to an actual source, instead of an un-sourced graph. Besides, have you even considered what it would mean to live under climatic conditions similar to the Jurassic period?

  3. Michael Anderson says:

    Meanwhile in Nevada City, Governor Moonbeam makes a surprise appearance–I’m surprised there’s nothing here about the Bill McKibben talk at the Miner’s Foundry last night:
    I wasn’t there but I sure did here about it from various acolytes.

    I came over here to read some abject-yet-grounded criticism of the event and I’m pretty disappointed. Russ, will you have a post about this meeting? Will there be something here tomorrow? I look forward to it.

    • Russ says:


      I was planning to go, but was overcome by events and did not make the venue. I too am interested to hear the reaction of our local warmer crowd. Even our primary warmer blogger does not have anything on her blog.

  4. ggoodknight says:

    There is no way I’d pay $20 to hear McKibben repeat the same old gibberish.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: