Roy Spencer, PhD, climatologist and former NASA scientist, gives his top ten reasons to be skeptical about climate change alarmism:
1) No Recent Warming. If global warming science is so “settled”, why did global warming stop over 15 years ago (in most temperature datasets), contrary to all “consensus” predictions?
2) Natural or Manmade? If we don’t know how much of the warming in the longer term (say last 50 years) is natural, then how can we know how much is manmade?
3) IPCC Politics and Beliefs. Why does it take a political body (the IPCC) to tell us what scientists “believe”? And when did scientists’ “beliefs” translate into proof? And when was scientific truth determined by a vote…especially when those allowed to vote are from the Global Warming Believers Party?
4) Climate Models Can’t Even Hindcast. How did climate modelers, who already knew the answer, still fail to explain the lack of a significant temperature rise over the last 30+ years? In other words, how to you botch a hindcast?
5) …But We Should Believe Model Forecasts? Why should we believe model predictions of the future, when they can’t even explain the past?
6) Modelers Lie About Their “Physics”. Why do modelers insist their models are based upon established physics, but then hide the fact that the strong warming their models produce is actually based upon very uncertain “fudge factor” tuning?
7) Is Warming Even Bad? Who decided that a small amount of warming is necessarily a bad thing?
8) Is CO2 Bad? How did carbon dioxide, necessary for life on Earth and only 4 parts in 10,000 of our atmosphere, get rebranded as some sort of dangerous gas?
9) Do We Look that Stupid? How do scientists expect to be taken seriously when their “theory” is supported by both floods AND droughts? Too much snow AND too little snow?
10) Selective Pseudo-Explanations. How can scientists claim that the Medieval Warm Period (which lasted hundreds of years), was just a regional fluke…yet claim the single-summer (2003) heat wave in Europe had global significance?
11) (Spinal Tap bonus) Just How Warm is it, Really? Why is it that every subsequent modification/adjustment to the global thermometer data leads to even more warming? What are the chances of that? Either a warmer-still present, or cooling down the past, both of which produce a greater warming trend over time. And none of the adjustments take out a gradual urban heat island (UHI) warming around thermometer sites, which likely exists at virtually all of them — because no one yet knows a good way to do that.
I have a suggestion for Number 12: The climate alarmists are, for the most part, university researchers who are making lots of money from government grants to study climate change. If their theory of climate change were in jeopardy of being seen as the hoax it actually is, their jobs and their source of income would be placed in jeopardy. Many of them, such as Michael Mann, not only make their living off climate change alarmism, they enjoy a high degree of respect, even stardom, from a gullible public and the liberal media, as well as their fellow parasite/crackpots in the scientific community. Who among us could be trusted to be honest if we were given a good income and constant praise for living a lie? It’s not surprising that these people probably believe their own lies.
Compare these people with Charles Darwin who sat on his theory for decades because he was afraid it would be controversial and would upset his wife, and rushed it into a book only when he realized Charles Russell Wallace was on the verge of publishing his own very similar theory of evolution.