Larry Bell discusses in a Forbes column some of the problems underlying climate alarmists’ key arguments.
The banner claim of this 2013 Summary for Policymakers (AR5) release is that “Human influence is extremely likely to be dominant cause of observed warming since the middle of the last century.”
This “extremely likely” was ratcheted up from “very likely” they claimed in their previous 2007 report. At the same time, the IPCC actually admitted that its 2007 report estimate of greenhouse gas influence had been significantly exaggerated. One can only wonder how they have become more confident that at least more than half of the temperature rise since the mid-20th century has been caused by greenhouse gas emissions, when at the same time they are less certain about climate sensitivity to CO2.
Making life even more difficult for that climate cartel is having to explain why the global climate has flat-lined over at least the past 16 years despite increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations, something they euphemistically refer to as a “pause”.
Political bureaucrats from different countries reportedly split between those who demanded that the temperature standstill be tackled head-on, versus those such as Germany, Hungary, who wanted it totally ignored. Some, including the U.S. favoring disclosure, argued that skeptics would have a field day if mention of this chilling realty was omitted altogether.
One lead author, Jochem Marotzke, told reporters that the issue surfaced late in their review process, and that there was a tendency for each of the 14 teams to think that others were addressing it. Others admitted they had no plausible explanation to offer. Working group co-chair Thomas Stocker said: “I’m afraid to say there is not a lot of published literature that allows us to delve deeper into the required depth of this emerging scientific question.” He cited a lack of adequate measurements of ocean heating, especially in the deep ocean as a scientific hindrance.
Follow the link above to read even more facts that stand in the way of climate alarmists’ arguments. Perhaps it’s a good time to revisit comments MIT’s Richard Lindzen offered during a 2007 interview with Carolina Journal Radio.