Berry: 'Humans caused only 3 percent of the CO2 increase since 1958. Nature caused 97 percent. Even if we stopped all human CO2 emissions, we would have no effect on climate. Natural CO2 emissions and absorptions are each 40 times human emissions, and the small difference determines whether CO2 rises or falls. Nature easily compensates for human emissions. Claims that human CO2 emissions have “tipped” some “natural balance” is a doctrine of eco-religion but has no basis in physics. AIRS satellite data show warmer oceans, not humans, produce most CO2 emissions, and America’s vegetation absorbs more CO2 than its humans emit.'
Berry has a Ph.D. in atmospheric physics and is a former National Science Foundation program manager for weather modification.
This paper is vacated, as a scientific product, given that it included psychology papers, and also given that it twice lied about its method (claiming not to count social science papers, and claiming to use independent raters), and the professed cheating by the raters. It was essentially voided by its invalid method of using partisan and unqualified political activists to subjectively rate climate science abstracts on the issue on which their activism centers -- a stunning and unprecedented method. I'm awaiting word on retraction from the journal, but I think we already know that this paper is vacated. It doesn't represent knowledge of the consensus.
Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook takes apart new draft UN report: "What is really astonishing, is how the discredited IPCC can continue to put out such nonsense totally contrary to real evidence and still pretend to be scientists."
The IPCC’s AR5 attribution statement: 'It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.'
The reasoning process used by the IPCC in assessing confidence in its attribution statement is described by this statement from the AR4: “The approaches used in detection and attribution research described above cannot fully account for all uncertainties, and thus ultimately expert judgement is required to give a calibrated assessment of whether a specific cause is responsible for a given climate change.'
Curry: 'The attribution statement itself is at best imprecise and at worst ambiguous: what does “most” mean – 51% or 99%? Whether it is 51% or 99% would seem to make a rather big difference regarding the policy response.'
'The IPCC’s attribution statement does not seem logically consistent with the uncertainty in climate sensitivity.'
'I am arguing that climate models are not fit for the purpose of detection and attribution of climate change on decadal to multidecadal timescales.'
Examples of past incorrect 'consensus': Copernicus, Galileo and the Sun
Ernst Chladni and meteorites
Barry Marshall and stomach ulcers.
Wegener and continental drift.
Cholera and John Snow
Semmelweis, hand-washing and puerperal fever