A high degree of consensus among climate scientists on man-made global warming is needed to force ambitious climate policies as an urgent matter. This is corrupting the scientific debate and freedom, hindering scientific progress in the end, and it was obtained through an absurd methodology.
The “hockey stick” graph was the result of the first comprehensive attempt to show the rise in temperature in the Northern Hemisphere, from the year 1000 to the year 1980. The first part of the graph, which would represent the hokey stick’s shaft, shows the temperature from the year 1000 to the year 1900, and suggest climate was stable during this period. The blade of the hokey stick represents the quick rise of temperature starting with the year 1900. Many people think that the “blade” represents the most important part, as it coincides with the start of fossil fuel use.
For most climate scientists, though, the “shaft” is the most intriguing part, as it does not include events such as the Medieval Warm Period during which the Vikings temporarily occupied Greenland due to its warm temperatures, according to this episode’s guest of Facts Matter, Marcel Crok, a Dutch scientist. He further adds that apparently, the draft was never verified until 2003 when Professor McKitrick and his fellow Canadian engineer, Steve McIntyre, debunked the draft’s statistics.
Cork mentions how before 1850 there were no direct measurements of temperature. Proxies were used for this, such as the tree rings through which one could tell if summer was good or bad. The “hockey stick” draft was based on proxy data gathered from around the Northern Hemisphere, which McIntyre mentioned is not very accurate data for measuring temperature. Instead, regional signals should be taken into consideration. Cork gives the example of glaciers shrinking, and under the melted glaciers tree remains can be found, which can be dated again. He further emphasizes that regional signals seem to be more reliable than making an effort’s temperature for the whole globe.
Until 1850 glaciers were expanding all around the world. Since 1850 we’re experiencing warmer weather called the “modern warmer period.” This coincides with the period when we started using fossil fuels. While today the climate community supports the idea that the warming is caused by the use of fossil fuels and the rise of CO2 levels, it still remains the question of what caused the warming of the Medieval Warm Period, as it seems Greenland had higher temperatures back then than what we’re experiencing today.
The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) claims that the current warming is both unique and unprecedented. After 20 years of research, Cork considers it still debatable, as many indications show how the high Northern Hemisphere area was warmer 8000 years ago. Since then, the temperatures over there have been declining, and not in linear regression, but with ups and downs.
The Paris Agreement is driving all the climate policies going on right now, using as a reference the year 1850. According to many scientists, this was a natural cold starting point, and not the average weather of our current geological epoch, or Holocene. All these issues are not openly discussed, Cork pointed out. He continues by explaining how the CO2 was way higher in the past than it is now, and gives the example of trees evolving in a period when the CO2 concentration was a few thousand PPM, while currently is only 420 PPM, and 280 PPM before the start of the industrial revolution. The Ice Age experienced a concentration of only 180 PPM, which Cork further points out that the lower the level, the more dangerous it is for plants, as they die at a concentration under 150 PPM.
When it comes to human-caused global warming, it is said that there’s a 97% consensus between scientists, but to reach this percentage, an absurd methodology was used, according to Cork. The Cook et al. published in 2013 a synthesis of consensus, for which 12.000 papers on “global climate change” were selected. Based on their abstracts or summaries they categorized each of them on seven levels of endorsement. Level 1 explicitly endorses man-made climate change. Levels 2 and 3 were presentment also as an explicit endorsement of this theory, even though their endorsement is weaker, and presented together with Level 1. Further, it turned out that 8000 out of those 12.000 papers belonged to Level 4 which expresses a position of uncertainty in human activity in global warming, and all of these 8000 papers were discarded, according to Cork. From the 4000 remaining papers it was said that 97% were qualifying on Levels 1, 2, or 3, when in actuality, Cork continues, only 64 papers qualified in their abstracts for Level 1, which makes up less than 1% of the initial 12.000 selected papers. “The paper is a ridiculous exercise but it is being used as the ultimate proof that there is some sort of consensus among climate scientists,” he concludes.
Cork’s concern is how far will these climate policies go. Ideas that might have sounded idiotic 10 years ago are now seriously taken into consideration. He gives the example of a bank in Holland that took into consideration implementing a personal carbon budget for every Dutch citizen, with the possibility of selling personal CO2 credits to other people to earn some money. The big issue right now is the crazy increase in energy price, he continues, which will leave many households in the impossibility of paying their energy bills this winter.
While it wasn’t mentioned directly, the main message of this episode’s conversation felt more like a constant journey of discovering the course of nature. Science is continually developing and discovering new conceptions. Cork’s 20 years of experience put into perspective how we will never be able to understand ecological development, and how to live well and in balance with nature if we chose to stubbornly remain stuck on certain theories.
Watch the trailer:
Click to watch the full video with an EpochTV subscription. ($1 for 2 months trial available ) 97 Percent of Scientists Don't Agree About Humans' Role in 'Climate Change': Truth Behind the Stats | Facts Matter
Marcel Crok is a Dutch science journalist who spent years researching and writing on the topic of global climate change science. In this interview, Crok breaks down several blatant inconsistencies propped up by supporters of climate change initiatives despite the scientific evidence suggesting otherwise.
Crok then reveals the absurd methodology used by the climate science community to reach their “97 percent consensus” figure that is the linchpin to the entire climate change argument.
The conversation shifts to the rising sea levels debate, where Crok suggests that if CO2 were truly the cause of rising sea levels, we would have expected to see a dramatic increase in water levels after 1950 when global CO2 emissions spiked. The science simply doesn’t support this.
Crok concludes the conversation by discussing how faulty climate science is directly impacting his country, as recent evidence suggests as many as 1.2 million households in Holland will not be able to pay their energy bills this winter due to high energy prices that are a direct result of misguided climate policies.