Anyone Claiming Climate “Consensus” Is A Liar: Over 440 Scientific Papers Published Go Against The Left

This is a point that I have made many times in the past. Many on the Left have claimed there to be a “consensus” regarding the state of the climate and the “danger” of climate change. However, there are a couple of problems with that argument straight out of the gate.
 
First of all, even assuming they were right and the overwhelming majority of scientists agreed that climate change is real and that it’s an existential threat to humanity and the planet itself, that doesn’t mean a darn thing. Why? Because science ISN’T A DEMOCRACY. Consensus doesn’t equal scientific fact. We know this because for a very long time, people believed the Earth to be the center of the universe and that the Sun, the moon and the other stars, planets, etc. all revolved around it. This was the theory of Geocentricity. But eventually, it was discovered that the Earth revolved around the Sun, as did the other planets in the solar system.
 
It doesn’t matter if the vast majority of people delude themselves and say that the sky is red. It doesn’t matter if scientists come out with “scientific data” that supposedly “proves” that the sky is red. Consensus doesn’t mean that something is fact.
 
Secondly and lastly, there is no actual consensus surrounding this topic anyway because the Left can’t pay off or intimidate every single scientist on the planet to parrot their talking points.
 
According to an article on No Trick Zone, “in 2019, more than 440 scientific papers were published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob… or that otherwise serve to question the efficacy of climate models or the related ‘consensus’ positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media sources.”
 
One of the papers No Trick Zone points to, which is about sea surface temperature over the past 2,300 years, reads as follows:
 
“The core-top SST (Sea Surface Temperature) value from MD07-3093 is 12.5°C… within the alkenone-SST calibration error of the modern-day mean annual SST (12.1°C) at the core site… The slight overestimation may be due to a small bias of the alkenone SST toward the spring and summer blooming season. Over the past 2,300 yr, SST values range between 14.3 and 12.2°C… and hence most of the record is warmer than today.”
 
In other words, the sea surface temperature in the Pacific was recorded to be WARMER in millennia past than it is today. So any warming that occurs from here on out is within normal parameters for the planet and not cause for panic.
 
This is why context is so important. If (when) the sea surface temperature increases, Leftists can claim a fictitious “victory” and claim “see, we told you! We were right all along about the warming sea temperatures!” While technically right, they ignore the fact that we are within the range of warming and cooling for the sea surface temperature (at least in the Pacific) and that any warming that occurs is perfectly normal. Just because the sea is warmer in some parts of the planet, or even if the planet in general is warmer today than decades ago, that doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing.
 
And if anything, the fact that we are within the normal range for the past 2,300 years goes to show how little impact CO2, at least anthropogenic CO2 (man-generated, in other words), has on the planet’s environment altogether. This is why this paper goes against the Left’s insane war against CO2. The chemical component is not the demon that the Left makes it out to be. In fact, without it, life on this planet wouldn’t be possible. We simply cannot, as a species, destroy our planet with CO2.
 
But let’s move on to some other examples of scientific papers going against the narrative established by the Left.
 
“The Medieval Climate Anomaly in Antarctica” reads the title of one of these papers.
 
“Until recently, the Antarctic Peninsula and West Antarctica were among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth. Between the 1950s and 1990s temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula increased by more than 0.3°C/decade, with even higher warming rates reported for Byrd Station in West Antarctica. Since the late 1990s, however, this warming has essentially stalled. Rapid cooling of nearly 0.5°C per decade occurred on the Antarctic Peninsula. This already impacted the cryosphere in parts of the Antarctic Peninsula, including slow-down of glacier recession, surface mass gains of the peripheral glaciers and a thinning of the active layer of permafrost in the northern Antarctic Peninsula islands. At the same time, temperatures in West Antarctica over the past two decades appear to have plateaued or slightly cooled… In contrast, East Antarctica has not experienced any significant temperature change since the 1950s and some areas appear to have even cooled during the most recent decades.”
 
“Cooling and an increase in snowfall in East Antarctica seems to have led to a gain in ice sheet mass and thickening of ice rises over the past 15 years… Natural climate factors such as multidecadal ocean cycles still dominate over anthropogenic climate drivers, such as CO2.”
 
I’ve said this many times in the past, but it bears repeating: everything the Left has predicted regarding climate change (not to mention other things) has not come to fruition. They said that ice sheets were thinning, ice bergs were melting, that polar bears would die off and that many parts of the planet would be underwater in as little as a few years or decades. All of it a lie and, as tends to be the case, the opposite has shown to be true, at least in many parts.
 
What that last paper lets us remember is that the planet is big enough for something to happen climate-wise in one place and something else happen elsewhere. The paper noted warming from the 1950s to the 1990s in West Antarctica, with cooling from that point to today, but East Antarctica has shown no noticeable change in temperature in that same time span. West Antarctica was experiencing some level of ice thinning, but East Antarctica has only seen thickening of ice. West Antarctica saw some recession of ice glaciers while East Antarctica saw more of them.
 
This point I'm trying to convey is that, just because it’s particularly hot or cold in one place, that doesn’t signify man-made climate change in the least. Some time ago, lunatic AOC tweeted that it was particularly hot one day in Washington D.C., despite it being winter and tried to tie that to climate change. That argument is ridiculous for more reasons than the one I have been explaining so far. Just because it was particularly hot one day in D.C. during winter that doesn’t mean climate change is to blame or that it’s a sign of the end-times.
 
It’s been fairly cold down here in Alabama and I see no sign of “man-made climate change” threatening our lives.
 
Regardless, returning to the papers, as far as No Trick Zone themselves go, they pointed out that the papers (they showed more than the ones I talked about, because I don’t want this article to be exceedingly long) “support these four main skeptical positions… which question the climate alarm popularized by today’s headlines”:
 
Position #1: “Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined.”
 
Position #2: “The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/hurricane and drought intensities… experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they fall outside the range of natural variability.”
 
Position #3: “The computer climate models are neither reliable or consistently accurate, the uncertainty and error ranges are irreducible, and projections of future climate states (i.e., an intensification of the hydrological cycle) are not supported by observations and/or are little more than speculation.”
 
Position #4: “Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment, whereas elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e. a greener planet and enhanced crop yields, lower mortality with warming).”
 
In short, climate science is not utterly dominated by science fiction and “scientists” who seek to either personally profit or advance an agenda (or both) that does not align with scientific truth whatsoever. There is no “consensus” regarding the fallacy of the climate cult’s talking points and deceptions. Anyone claiming otherwise is an utter liar or someone who stands to gain from advocating the unscientific position of climate change (often both).
 
I’ve said this plenty of times before, but the Left truly is filled with liars.
 
Proverbs 13:5
“The righteous hates falsehood, but the wicked brings shame and disgrace.”