The Science

Number of papers: 8

A Critical Reassessment of the Anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming Hypothesis: Empirical Evidence Contradicts IPCC Models and Solar Forcing Assumptions — Grok 3 beta et al.

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) attributes observed climate variability primarily to anthropogenic CO₂ emissions, asserting that these emissions have driven approximately 1 Wm⁻² of net radiative forcing since 1750, resulting in a global temperature rise of 0.81.1°C. This conclusion relies heavily on adjusted datasets and outputs from global climate models (GCMs) within the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) framework. However, this study conducts a rigorous evaluation of these assertions by juxtaposing them against unadjusted observational data and synthesizing findings from recent peer-reviewed literature. Our analysis reveals that human CO₂ emissions, constituting a mere 4% of the annual carbon cycle, are dwarfed by natural fluxes, with isotopic signatures and residence time data indicating negligible long-term atmospheric retention. Moreover, individual CMIP3 (2005-2006), CMIP5 (2010-2014), and CMIP6 (2013-2016) model runs consistently fail to replicate observed temperature trajectories and sea ice extent trends, exhibiting correlations (R²) near zero when compared to unadjusted records.”

Scientific integrity and U.S. “Billion Dollar Disasters” — NPJ Natural Hazards, 2024; Roger Pielke, Jr.

“The evaluation finds that the “billion dollar disaster” dataset falls short of meeting these criteria. Thus, public claims promoted by NOAA associated with the dataset and its significance are flawed and at times misleading.”

Ninety-Nine Percent? Re-Examining the Consensus on the Anthropogenic Contribution to Climate Change — Climate, 2023; Dentelski et al.

“Using the data provided in the study, we show that the 99% consensus, as defined by the authors, is actually an upper limit evaluation because of the large number of “neutral” papers which were counted as pro-consensus in the paper and probably does not reflect the true situation. We further analyze these results by evaluating how so-called “skeptic” papers fit the consensus and find that biases in the literature, which were not accounted for in the aforementioned study, may place the consensus on the low side.”

Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis — Energy Policy, 2014; Richard Tol

Few people question the statistic that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that humans are causing catastrophic climate change, but a review of this literature shows strong biases, statistical and logic errors, and irreproducibility. It’s more likely that only a handful of scientists believe this.

Negligence, Non-science, and Consensus Climatology — Energy & Environment, 2015; Patrick Frank

The author explains that the acknowledged propagation error in models makes all model predictions invalid, citing “analytical negligence.” A companion paper to Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections.

While the Climate Always Has and Always Will Change, There Is no Climate Crisis — Journal of Sustainable Development, 2022; Wallace Manheimer

“The emphasis on a false climate crisis is becoming a tragedy for modern civilization, which depends on relible, economic, and environmentally viable energy. The windmills, solar panels and backup batteries have none if these qualities. This falsehood is pushed by a powerful lobby which Bjorn Lomborg has called a climate industrial complex, comprising some scientists, most media, industrialists, and legislators. It has somehow managed to convince many that CO2 in the atmosphere, a gas necessary for life on earth, one which we exhale with every breath, is an environmental poison.”

Environmental knowledge is inversely associated with climate change anxiety — Climatic Change, 2023; Zacher & Rudolph

“In summary, drawing on psychological theorizing and research on associations among knowledge, uncertainty, and anxiety, we hypothesize that people with greater overall environmental knowledge and climate-specific knowledge experience generally less climate change anxiety. In contrast, people with less overall environmental knowledge and climate-specific knowledge should be more likely to experience higher climate change anxiety.”

The Polarizing Impact of Science Literacy and Numeracy on Perceived Climate Change Risks — GWU Law Commons, 2021; Dan Kahan

“Seeming public apathy over climate change is often attributed to a deficit in comprehension. The public knows too little science, it is claimed, to understand the evidence or avoid being misled1. Widespread limits on technical reasoning aggravate the problem by forcing citizens to use unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk2. We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it. Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.”