Chris Martz posted a great summary on X
Here is the full post.
I'm picky about terminology, so let me explain. . .
I strongly urge people to stop calling man-made global warming a “hoax” or a “hoax.” It's not. There is indeed sound basic scientific basis.
As Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. Roy Spencer point out, while consensus of scientific opinion is irrelevant, there is general agreement in the scientific literature about three things:
➊ Since 1850, global mean surface temperature (GMST) has increased by approximately 1.2°C. It has been warm for more than 250 years. 📈
🔗https://metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut5/
➋ Since 1850, burning coal, oil and natural gas for energy has increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels by approximately 51%. While this is not the only sign of human origin, it is a fairly reliable indicator. 🏭
🔗https://gml.noaa.gov/education/isotopes/stable.html
➌ The Earth's average surface temperature is a function of energy gain and energy loss. Given that the radiation spectrum of carbon dioxide lies in the infrared (IR) band of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum, adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere should, other things being equal, reduce the cooling rate of IR emissions into space. In fact, it causes a cooling trend in the stratosphere and a warming trend in the troposphere. This has actually been observed. 🌈
Beyond this, there was no agreement on:
➊ What is the extent of anthropogenic warming? The claim that virtually all warming is man-made is based entirely on model studies. The IPCC's “best estimate” of the contribution of greenhouse gases (GHGs) to changes in GMST since 1850 is +1.5°C ± 44%, and the “best estimate” of aerosol forcing is -0.5°C ± 100%. This doesn't sound like “established science” to me.
🔗https://ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter03.pdf (pages 439-441)
➋ Exact Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) – a measure of how much warming a doubling of CO2 concentrations would cause once a new local equilibrium is achieved – and the amount of remaining warming in the 21st century. 🌡️
➌Is warming dangerous to humans and life on Earth as a whole? Is this a net benefit or a net disadvantage? No matter what the experts say, this is not a solved problem. Findings in the literature are mixed. It does not explicitly support their view that warming is catastrophic or even bad. 🤷♂️
➍ What are the best measures for adaptation and/or mitigation? How should energy policy respond? Will we change the partition code? Do we build seawalls to combat slow sea level rise? What is the cost-benefit analysis of decarbonization efforts?
Therefore, there is actually a sound scientific basis behind the global warming theory. The basics are easy to understand; details determine success or failure, and science is far from settled. ❌
The case has not yet been concluded. That book is still pending. 📖
However, the push for “net-zero” CO2 emissions by 2050 is indeed a sham.
A legitimate scientific question has become a captive of Malthusian religion, held captive by power-hungry elected officials and unelected bureaucrats alike. Climate policy is an anti-capitalist, anti-human movement. These are the people who push for One World Governance, telling you what you can and cannot eat, what appliances you can and cannot buy, where you can or cannot travel, and want to force us into a cashless cap and trade system of carbon credits . Policies are hoaxes, not fundamental scientific theories.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1858615282086146262
Relevant
