Almost 500 science papers in 2017 challenge “global-warming consensus”

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The uncertainty of science: A survey of climate papers published in 2017 shows that 485 directly challenged the so-called “consensus” that activists claim exists about global warming.

Author Kenneth Richard found that during the course of the year 2017, at least 485 scientific papers were published that in some way questioned the supposed consensus regarding the perils of human CO2 emissions or the efficacy of climate models to predict the future.

According to Richard’s analysis, the 485 new papers underscore the “significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes,” which in turn suggests that climate science is not nearly as settled as media reports and some policymakers would have people believe.

This really is not a surprise for anyone who spends even a little time reading actual climate research. If you do, you immediately realize that the absurd claims of politicians (mostly Democrats) and activists about the certainty of human-caused global warming are based on their complete ignorance of the science. Some examples:

My point isn’t to say that human-caused global warming isn’t happening. We simply don’t know. The evidence so far is very inconclusive. And for those who advocate this theory, their own models have consistently failed to match the data. Skepticism is called for, which by the way is actually the hallmark of good science.



  • Cotour

    Over the past couple of weeks in the Sanctuary City that is New York City it has been COLD. Near zero with wind blowing and throw in a “Bomb cyclone” snow storm, 40 to 50 mile per hour wind driving snow and ice horizontal from the North East.

    I would interact with those who were hardy enough to venture out and say “I think during global warming we are all going to freeze to death”.

    And the overwhelming universal response?

    “Oh, that was already explain this morning on the news that these kinds of erratic weather events are due to global warming”. like clock work.

    I just smile, I thought it was just a snow storm, we used to call them blizzards. I have seen and have experienced and lived through many of them.

  • wayne

    yeah– what’s with the completely made-up, “bomb-cyclone” garbage? First I’ve ever heard that term, in my entire life. That’s (one-of) the problem(s) with these J-School graduates; dumber than a box of rocks.

  • Diane Wilson

    Some of us were around in the 60s and 70s when it was all “global cooling, the next ice age is already starting, we’re all gonna die!” panic time. Skepticism is part of science, and is especially useful when applied in direct proportion to the hype from alarmists.

  • ken anthony

    Those examples had to be written on April 1st (in the Onion?) As for dumb, this is the purpose of higher education. They simply couldn’t get people to believe this idiocy without constant and consistent ‘education.’

    Idiocracy has arrived.

  • wayne

    I’m old enough to expect ‘weather variations,’ it hasn’t really snowed this much in the Great Lakes region, since the 1960’s. (And I distinctly recall the “impending Ice-Age” that was predicted in the 1970’s.)
    I love the Phony News Media in the NY bubble,– it’s only when they have trouble getting to work, then it’s a “crisis,” (and Trumps fault) as-if they drive their own cars! or shovel their own snow.

    –going totally provincial & tangential for a moment, and/but not to distract from the seriousness of the main Topic;

    “Snowboarding- Born in West Michigan, Christmas day 1965”
    Sherman Poppen and the Brunswick brand “Snurfer”
    (yeah, it’s a board with a cord, and while he didn’t get wealthy-rich, he did send both his daughter’s to college on the royalties. They were $6.95.)

  • Max

    As long as they are able to control the language, they can always re-define and obfuscate the truth which would shine light on the lies in which their livelihood and success is relied on. Firm definitions need to be established so technical exaggerations can’t be used to produce legislation, fees, fines and reduction in freedoms due to the opinions of The high priests of the religion of climatology.

    Because of the lack of warming for 20 years, “Global Warming” was changed to “Climate Change”. Climate change is measured in thousands if not millions of years and no scientist in the world would dispute it. Never in the history of our planet has the climate been static and unchanging. What is “called” climate change can only be referred to as “Weather Change” because it’s measured only in decades.

    Ocean “dead zones” are actually “live zones” because the amount of natural fertilizer (fixated nitrogen created during thunderstorms) makes an over abundance of plankton which feeds the food chain. Commercial fisherman look for these “life zones” because that is where the fish are.

    The declaration of scenarios without any scientific proof that are just flat out impossible… Fabrications from an active imagination without any proof of cause-and-effect. For example; “Ocean Acidification” is impossible. There is not enough carbon in the whole world, or any other substance (with the exception of nitrogen) that could bring the ocean to an acid state.
    Even if you could remove all the calcium from water, and the calcium carbonate from the bottom of the ocean, how would you prevent the sea life that lives in shells from absorbing oxygen and breathing out carbon dioxide in their own life cycle? In fact they produce their own acid to dissolve the shells of the plankton that they live on then excrete the waste product to create their own shells.
    Carbon dioxide does not dissolve their shells anymore then breathing through your mouth dissolves your teeth. Or holding your breath to cause a build up of carbonic acid in your blood will dissolve your bones.

    Carbon dioxide causes Global warming …
    There has never been a causation Shown or any direct link associating carbon dioxide with any warming whatsoever. For every one CO2 molecule, there is 2,500 air molecules that the “one” CO2 must heat. It would take a temperature of 2500° to heat those air molecules just 1° for a short time. This action is impossible for so many reasons that it is ridiculous to even speculate it’s plausibility.
    Unless a supernatural causation can be shown (like proof of God’s intervention) I default to the natural laws that govern our existence to be paramount in the establishment of what is and is not possible.
    (carbon is energy. To control carbon is to control economies and economic output. It’s politics, not science. It is also used through lobbying to control competition for those who wish to maintain a monopoly) (By a unreasonable extension, genocide could be performed and justified under the excuse of preventing people from consuming or exhaling CO2 to “save” the planet)

    I have too much to say which extends to every aspect of the subject. I have gone on and on in prior posts and do not need to rehash it now.
    I am hopeful with the new studies being produced that they are actually following the science, rather than the politics.
    I would be interested to learn if anyone else have Words that are commonly used to control debate that are incorrect or miss used which redirect the public from the truth for a political reason. Yes, cyclone Bomb is a excellent example for renaming a winter blizzard for the obvious political reasons…

  • John L

    Color me skeptical that there are any real skeptics in that community.

    None of the articles say how many papers were written in favor of anthropological climate change. Ten times as many? A hundred? And I would wager that many of the papers concluded that it’s generally inconclusive, but more funding would show the subject matter, can in fact, be shown to support the narrative. Nobody becomes a ‘climate scientist’ because they’re skeptical about anthropological climate change. And I would bet very few, if any, receive any real funding based on a hypothesis against the narrative.

  • Cotour

    Want to see a total political scam being run by someone who is attempting to pander to the Bernie crew in order to become the next president ?

    Absolutely going nowhere but it sounds sooo good to the dopey Left. I would love to see it hit a court somewhere and get to witness the evidence proposed to justify the premise “Global warming caused the Hurricane sandy flooding of NYC”.

    There are still consequences to elections.

  • wayne

    Your State attorney general has already sued Exxon (a few years ago) for the exact same thing.
    What he doesn’t ever do, is investigate the Clinton Crime Foundation. That’s entirely within his realm; NY State has quite extensive laws regarding charity & foundations, if they are ever enforced.

    “The Reason for Almost All Mental Illnesses”
    Prof. Jordan Peterson

  • Edward

    William Briggs, “statistician to the stars,” noted that there were changes in global-climate-warming-change warnings the past few years:
    From this picture we can infer at least three things. First, the debate about global warming was not over in 2000, nor in 2001, nor is it over now.

    Few now remember cold fusion, and only specialists can recall how big parapsychological research was in the Twentieth Century. If it follows the same pattern, the gloomier predictions of global warming will soon be nothing but a bad memory.

  • Cotour

    And like “Cold Fusion” we are all still looking for evidence of that most elusive of elusive materials, “Molten Carpet”.

  • wayne

    Joe Rogan & Jordan Peterson
    “Truth, Chaos, and Kekistan”

  • Cotour

    Good comment, Wayne, lets burn off the dead wood (and the molten carpet) that people think is truth and get down to the real truth.

  • wayne

    Yowza… the Boss is away and you are broaching the melting-carpet thing’?
    You’re living on the Edge ma’ man! (har)
    (take care!)

    “Livin’ on the Edge”

  • Cotour

    Truth is truth, no matter who likes it or does not like or recognize it.

  • Cotour

    Wayne, Jordan Peterson on truth.

    Funny enough we have basically come to the same conclusion about truth and he agrees with me. Don’t be timid, discover and establish your truth, even though there will be consequences.

  • wayne

    hey! You mean, you agree with him. (ha)
    I think you’d highly enjoy his “Maps of Meaning” series. (It’s way more mentalistic than I like, but it’s so darn poetic! Highly recommend.)

    Jordan Peterson –
    “First stop lying, then speak your truth!”

  • Cotour

    If we both have come to the same exact conclusion independent of each other, then who agrees with who? We both agree with each AND the one, which ever one, agrees with the other.

    And PS: I am older than him so the logic would follow that He agrees with ME :)

  • wayne

    Ha! good one!

  • Cotour

    A lesson in truth:

    Which way did the bullet come from?

    A: Right front? or B: Right rear?

    Now tell me what truth is.

  • wayne

    Har. The Boss is offshore and we’re going down rabbit holes. (and I’m helping to incite, but I’ll stop!)

    “From Rorschach Test to Time Clock: The Zapruder Film.”
    Sixth Floor Museum Event, May 2015

    “Author Max Holland traced the tangled history of the most famous yet misunderstood piece of evidence from the assassination of President John F. Kennedy: the 26.6 second long film made by Dallas businessman Abraham Zapruder.”

    Wherein, he puts forth the proposition; the event was already underway & in-progress when Zapruder started filming, and instead of it being a ‘film record, of the complete event,’ it only partially portrays reality.
    Ref: What happens when you shoot a rifle bullet at a human head?; exactly what is portrayed, happens. That’s no mystery, it’s physics.
    (Could I ask you to take the extra step and Title your links going forward? -much appreciated.)

  • Cotour

    Which direction did the bullet come from?

    A: Right front? or B: Right rear?

    Some more fundamental information, you do not need anyone in authority to tell you what is plain to see.

    Wayne: Tell me what truth is.

  • wayne

    “Oswald, from the 6th floor, with a rifle.”

    Slow Motion video of bullet impacts
    (at 1 million fps.)
    Werner Mehl from Kurzzeit

  • Cotour

    If thats your truth, then thats your truth.

    And let no man or woman convince otherwise.

    (No matter what they may point out to you)

  • Cotour: I have said it before: I do not want the discussion here hijacked to talk about long-past JFK assassination conspiracies. Do you really want me to ban you from this site? It sure appears that you are working hard to make me do it.

  • Cotour

    The subject matter is about truth and fraud, the posted old material is just a vehicle related to truth and fraud. The specific subject matter “Climate warming consensus” and fraud is also plainly about truth and is just another vehicle that demonstrates where the line is drawn and how people come to believe what they believe. Which I believe is your over arching point.

    I will write what I believe is good, thoughtful and interesting content sans “offensive” words, challenging whom ever I deem appropriate to challenge, including you.

  • Cotour: the subject matter here was fraud in the climate field. At other times it was fraud at NOAA and NASA in climate research. I could go back and find the other times you tried and sometimes succeeded in hijacking the conversation to discuss JFK’s assassination, but it isn’t worth my time.

    In all cases, JFK’s assassination is very old news. It happened more than a half century ago. No one is alive that was involved. Moreover, it has no relevance to the situation we face today. It distracts from trying to pinpoint and identify the corruption in government that now exists.

    If you insist on discussing that instead of the subject at hand, than you will be free to do so, but you will have to do it elsewhere. I want your comments on the current political situation, but I will not have my website distracted by irrelevant material. You are warned. Decide what you want, the freedom to participate here on the subject matter at hand, or not.

  • Cotour

    Here is a more contemporary example of how lies or non truths become learned and accepted indoctrination, in this case based in the form of a law suit against the government of the United States of America by “The children” of America. Sound familiar?

    Is truth just a function of perception? Sometimes it is. And when someone presents something contrary to the now accepted truth, then what?

  • Steve Earle

    Cotour, don’t get the boot! I enjoy your postings too much. You, Wayne, Edward and several other very smart people are what make this site even more interesting than just Mr Z’s items. I would still check the site from time to time but not nearly as much. I want to hear more examples of SOM and how most of us miss the more subtle examples of that…. :-)

    Maybe Mr. Z could make a sticky thread somewhere here about JFK and other mysteries. I know I have my own theory of what really happened and would love to share it ;-)

    And to stay on track, here is a link to Mike Rowes latest response to a disgruntled viewer of “How the Universe Works”:

    “….But if I said I was skeptical that manmade global warming was going to melt the icecaps, that doesn’t make me a “doubter of science.”…..”

  • Cotour

    Steve Earl, I have said this several times before, you are a wise man :)

  • Steve Earle

    Cotour said:
    “….Steve Earl, I have said this several times before, you are a wise man :)….”

    More of a wise-ass most times (my cop side…) but thank you :-)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *