Guest essay by Michel de Rougemont
Heretic? You’re welcome!
Hysteric? Please cool down!
We hear that global warming is highly dependent on the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, this gas that is required to sustain life on Earth and that is also emitted when burning flammable stuff, such as wood, coal, mineral and organic oils, or methane.
If you are told “this depends on that”, you are invited to examine available data observed over time to draw a representation of this on the y-axis vs. that on the x-axis.
So, in all logic, you should be interested in a representation of the temperature evolution in dependence of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Yes, you should, but, looking hard into the latest IPCC Report (the fifth of Working Group I, to be precise), no diagram of that sort can be found among its 1535 pages.
So, asks the judge: what is the evidence that the victim was attacked by the suspect? And the expert is not able, or willing, to provide any evidence. Is he actually an expert, or an incompetent prosecutor?
Among the available observed climate data are the so-called temperature anomalies (Ta), summarized as global monthly means, and the atmospheric CO2 concentrations ([CO2]) over the same time span. But time line diagrams show us only that, since the beginning of the industrial era, the global mean temperature went up by 0.8 to 1 °C, and [CO2] increased from 280 ppm to 405 ppm.
So, what? The suspect was there while the victim developed fever, is it enough evidence of culpability? As for any circumstantial fact, the answer must obviously be no. Presence is required, but is not sufficient to prove anything.
The next question is then: how fast was warming going on when [CO2] was low, and when it is now high? If a correlation can be shown, then a stronger case against the alleged culprit could be opened.
Using a simple spreadsheet to calculate these changes, and smoothing them over a 7-year filter[1] so that a cloud of data points can be seen as a trend line, the following diagram is obtained:
Zero on the y-axis means that neither warming nor cooling takes place.
At high [CO2] some cooling was observed, at lower [CO2] high warming rates were observed.
Honestly, no statistically valid correlation tying warming rate to [CO2] can be derived from it.
Sorry, no statistical significance, no hint of a proof!
Why do the IPCC experts avoid looking at such simple relationship? I can only guess, and my guess is that they are either blinded by their greenhouse assumption, thus faithfully ignoring any other indices, or they deliberately hide what would prevent them to obtain a capital punishment sentence. In any case they behave away from any scientific honesty.
Mainstream yes, but a highly polluted stream.
This is all the available observational data; any other relationships are conjectures, however plausible they might be, no evidence. Therefore, all possible heretical interpretations must be made, for example that one: from all possible known and unknown causes of the observed global warming, the anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions may have, or not, a contributing role. No scepticism, no advocacy, no unsustainable allegation, plain factual view.
I have only one questions to ask to all mainstream climate-experts, and their gullible followers in the public, the media, and in the political world:
What observational evidence can you provide to sustain the allegation that temperature is “very likely” and mostly driven by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions?
Notes:
Originally published here: http://blog.mr-int.ch/?p=4150&lang=en
Contrary to almost all mainstream climate scientists whose sustained professional life depends on an on-going climate alarmism, including peer reviewers, I have no conflict of interest in relation with this subject.
My sources are all publicly available data series.
I can provide my spreadsheets to anyone who asks politely via the contact page of this blog.
[1] Why seven years?
Because it’s uneven, large enough but not too long, and it is already documented in a famous book.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You could not be more wrong, dangerous warming or dangerous climate change means similar to catastrophe.
“Criteria for Dangerous Warming. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(www.unfccc.int)hastheobjective ‘‘to achieve stabilization of GHG concentrations’’ at a level preventing ‘‘dangerous anthropogenic interference’’ (DAI) with climate, but climate change constituting DAI is undefined. We suggest that global temperature is a useful metric to assess proximity to DAI, because, with knowledge of the Earth’s history, global temperature can be related to principal dangers that the Earth faces. We propose that two fociin defining DAI should be sea level and extinction of species, because of their potential tragic consequences and practical irreversibility on human time scales. In considering these topics, we find it useful to contrast two distinct scenarios abbreviated as ‘‘business-as-usual’’ (BAU) and the ‘‘alternative scenario’’ (AS).”
“Estimating Dangerous Climate Change Modern vs. Paleo Temperatures. Modern SST measurements (5, 6) are compared with proxy paleoclimate temperature (28) in the WEP(OceanDrillingProgramHole806B,0°19N,159°22E;site circledinFig.3A)inFig.4A.Modern data are from ships and buoys for1870–1981(6) and later from satellites”
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288.full.pdf
Hansen defines sea level as the main catastrophe in dangerous climate change and has been observed to rise no more than 3mm a year. At this rate If it continued only 30cm in a century and hardly anybody will even notice it.
The mean sea level rise globally is >4mm/y; at industrialisation <1. SLR is accelerating.
The dynamics of the ice sheets is unpredictable but all evidence suggests West Antarctica is breaking up. That is the opinion of expert glaciologists. Expect SLR is metres. Greenland is also losing massive amount of ice.
The past shows the sea level can rise very quickly – several metres in a century.
You can dismiss the opinions of experts and express your own. That is called freedom; permitted in a democracy.
S. Hawker, you are a left wing climate scaremonger parrot
and have no idea what real climate data are telling us,
nor do you care about data.
All you need is conclusions,
starting with a scary prediction of the future climate !
And then you try shut down debate
by claiming ‘scientists say the science is settled’,
so they must be right, and you must be wrong!
(so why do we need any scientists studying the climate
if the science is settled?)
Climate parrot S. Hawker: CO2 is evil, CO2 is evil, squawk squawk
Hawker: Every leftists says so, every leftist says so, squawk squawk
Hawker: A climate catastrophe is starting, a climate catastrophe is starting, squawk squawk
Hawker: three million scientists say so, three million scientists say so, squawk, squawk
Hawker: Scientists are never wrong, scientists are never wrong, squawk, squawk
Sea level rise is not accelerating.
http://notrickszone.com/2017/06/05/sea-levels-are-stable-to-falling-at-about-half-of-the-worlds-tide-gauges/#sthash.P2n6HHvO.dpbs
Greenland is not losing a massive amount of ice.
http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
Arctic daily mean temperatures are almost identical to the 1958 to 2002 average:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Sea ice extent set a modern record in 2014 around Antarctica
( setting records 74 years into the ‘man made CO2 age’, since 1940?? )
An underseas volcano did melt some ice on the Antarctica Peninsula
but that is only 2% of the continent — the ice is thickening on the other 98% of Antarctica.
But why report any climate reality?
There will always be scientists predicting unusual and scary events in the future to get attention and study grants from gullible people like you, Hawker.
Long ago scientist Roger Revelle taught them how to make scary predictions to get attention and study grants.
I’m not sure who started changing historical data to match prior predictions
but cooking the books has certainly happened:
Record heat is claimed for surface areas of Earth with no measurements:
Anyone who believes in “climate change” may not realize those are leftist propaganda words for
man made CO2 causing runaway global warming that will eventually end all life on Earth.
S. Hawker — please read the above sentence — that is what you believe in
and I doubt if you knew that, because you are a climate parrot and only care about
repeating what the leftist borg are told to believe, and repeat.
Investigating the climate data, and seeing if it is accurate, or has been repeatedly “revised”
by people with a political agenda, is for people like us who think,
… and are skeptical of scary predictions of the climate in 100 years
… made by people who can’t predict the climate next year …
… and that would leave you out.
My climate website for non-scientists would teach you something
about common sense in the analysis of scary climate predictions,
but I’m afraid you think you already know everything
there is to know about climate science.
How self-deluded is that?
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
There are no observed sea level rise globally greater than 3mm per year.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL036010/full
SLR is not accelerating despite models predicting them to do so.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL024826/full
West Antarctica is not breaking up it is still stable, but there has only been speculation that it may break up with no scientific evidence it actually will. Yes, there has been large calving’s in the recent past, but these have been caused by increased glacier mass. West Antarctica is also well below zero degrees centigrade even in Summer.
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/antarctica/west-antarctic-ice-sheet/
Greenland is not losing massive amounts of ice relative to it’s size.
http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/
There is no evidence that either West Antarctica or Greenland ice cap in the future will lose most of there mass. The only possible chance that sea level rise would increase by metres. History does show sea level can greatly change, but these have been shown to not occur during inter glaciers.
Don’t angry with me, “get even” with the Royal Society, National Academy of Sciences, American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Physical Society, American Chemical Society etc etc etc …
Not one scientific institution or society on the planet agrees with your interpretation of the evidence.
Must be tough watching the temperatures go up and the ice go down. No? You haven’t noticed?
Sad.
You must get bad internet connections under your bridge, Stephanie. There has been no warming for nearly 20 years.
I have not noticed global temperature go up at all in this century, except for totally natural El Nino spikes. I noticed temperatures plummet during the rapid CO2 rise from 1945 to 1977. There has been no warming at all at the South Pole, which is precisely where it should have occurred, according to CACA “theory”.
I have noticed ice mass balance increase on both Greenland and especially Antarctica in this century as well. The East Antarctic Ice Sheet, repository of most of Earth’s fresh water, is growing.
Statements by scientific societies aren’t made by their membership, but by staff interested in keeping the funding spigots flowing. They aren’t scientific statements but political documents.
PS: Dedicated satellite Arctic sea ice surveillance began in the highest ice year of the past century, 1979. Prior satellite observations found it as low as now, and it was even lower during the balmy 1930s, warmer than now.
There was generally no warming until the recent strong El Nino over the past 20 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/to:2015.6/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/to:2015.6/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2015.6/trend/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2015.6/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/to:2015.6/trend
Hadcrut3gl was revised to hadcrut4gl because of this fact so changed to try and show warming.
The graph below shows the changes made in the NH and were blatantly done to show this. There were far too perfect to be only down to errors with deliberate decreases to warmer periods in the past, increases for reducing the well known global cooling period and increases for recent years.
http://i772.photobucket.com/albums/yy8/SciMattG/NHTemps_Difference_v_HADCRUT43_zps8xxzywdx.png
Good-oh. All you’ve got to do now is persuade the global community of scientists and the world governments that your interpretation of the evidence is correct. So far only the fossil fuel billionaires and their lackeys in the Republican Party agree with you. Until then you fool no one except the pig-ignorant oaf in the Mad House.
Almost without exception publishing climate scientists agree Earth is retaining more energy and we need to reduce GHG emissions. Perhaps 30,000 working climate scientists.
Who do the Republicans wheel out against? Waffling Curry and religious blokes Spencer and Christy.
There are not 30,000 “working climate scientists”. “Climate scientist” is a misnomer for trough-feeding math and computer majors. The best real climatologists recognize the sc@m for what it is.
The IPCC summary is perpetrated by 52 bureaucrats.
The 97% consensus is based upon 79 cherry-picked “actively publishing climate scientists”, ie those whose livelihoods depend upon the c@onspiracy, out of a survey sent to over 10,000 scientists. More than 3000 responded, obviously with much lower “yes” rates to the two questions asked. Of those 79 so chosen, 77 agreed that earth had warmed since AD 1850 and of those 75 thought that humanity contributed “significantly” to that warming. The critical third question, ie whether this warming was good or bad, was not asked. Nor was “significant” defined. Does that mean 2% of the warming, 20%, 50% or 90%?
No surprise that you refuse to address the actual evidence, yet still commit the logical fallacy of appealing to authority.
Speaking of 30,000, however:
http://www.petitionproject.org/
“The critical third question, ie whether this warming was good or bad, was not asked.” The reason it was not asked is because science does not answer that type of question. You would know that if you knew what science was all about.
I remember the Petition Project. Approved names on the list included fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H, the movie Star Wars, Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as “I. C. Ewe”.
..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
Luis,
Why do you persist in this delusion, when other scientists and I have taken so much trouble to explain reality to you.
Science most certainly does draw conclusions about what is good or bad. No one would worry about global warming if it were a good thing, as should be obvious.
You have been shown over and over and over again scientific papers and books decrying the catastrophic dangers and threats caused by global warming. It’s a commonplace for academics to publish papers decrying the risks to this or that good thing posed by climate change. It’s the easiest way to get published.
Arrhenius and Callendar considered man-made global warming to be a good thing. Were they not scientists?
No please learn about science and quit making such absurd utterances out of total ignorance.
Besides those who thus tried to sabotage it, the list also includes many giants of American science, to include Freeman Dyson.
Gabro, Good and bad are the domain of Philosophy, namely in the subject of Ethics. Science NEVER concludes what is good or bad. For example, in chemistry, 2H2 + 02 ==> 2H20 right? Does chemistry tell you if this reaction is good or bad? Is 6.02 x 10**23 “good” or “bad” Are neutrons good or bad? Please show me where science makes these kinds of judgements.
Gabro, there is no way to verify the signatories of the petition. Dyson’s signature could be phony.
Gabro, you need to learn how to differentiate the opinions of Arrhenius and Callendar, from the work they did.
Luis,
It is not phony.
Actual interview doesn’t start until about three minutes. Note his use of the phrase “good or bad”.
29,999 more verification to go Gabro.
Luis,
Do you seriously suppose that after all this time, anyone whose name is on the list but didn’t sign it would not have found out that fact and asked to be removed?
Dyson’s opinion is not science.
Luis,
The scientific method includes drawing conclusions in order to make hypotheses.
Callendar considered his AGW hypothesis falsified by the frigid winters of the early 1960s.
Their conclusion that AGW would be beneficial was based on their science as much as was their opinion that it existed.
Gabro, since you are the “expert” tell us, is 2H2 + O2 ==> 2H2O good or bad?
Scientists look for new antibacterial agents because they consider MRSA to be a bad thing.
Gabro, can you tell me how many names on that list are real? They already found a bunch of fakes, there’s no way to tell how many more are fake.
Luis Anastasia July 3, 2017 at 6:14 pm
Surely you must realize what an idiotic analogy that is.
Scientists don’t usually form value judgments about chemical reactions, although there certainly are some which are bad and others good.
However many, if not most, scientists go into science in order to do good things. It is good for people to be able to leave the earth (probably). It is good to find new ways to kill pathogens.
Please listen to Dyson’s interview, in which at the very outset he speaks of good or bad.
Again, why would anyone worry about alleged AGW if it were a good thing? Consensus CACA “research” is couched in apocalyptic terms. So, by your standard, CACA is not scientific. I’d agree with you, but for different reasons.
Luis Anastasia July 3, 2017 at 6:17 pm
If the names of real people on the list are fake, then there would have been lawsuits.
Have there been any instances of real peoples’ names on the list falsely? There have been phony names planted by CACA terrorists, but how many real scientists have sued to have their names removed?
Burden of proof is on you.
Gabro, scientists do not need to look for new antibacterial agents that work against MRSA, plenty exist. You used the incorrect word. Scientists are looking for new antibiotic agents. Secondly, you are confusing the motivation of a scientist with the results he or she produces.
…
Since you know all about MRSA, can you find a paper that unequivocally concludes MRSA is “bad?”
“If the names of real people on the list are fake, then there would have been lawsuits.” Too funny. How do you know Jeff Smith from California is real? How many Jeff Smiths live in California? How do you know Jeff checked to see if he was listed? http://www.whitepages.com/name/Jeff-Smith/CA (344 results.)
…
Without a means of verification, the petition is meaningless.
“…..chemical reactions, although there certainly are some which are bad and others good.” What is the specific criteria a chemist uses to determine which reactions are good and which ones are bad? Is this criteria generalized across all chemists, or is it unique to each individual chemist?
Luis,
I specifically mentioned scientists, as well as people in general. Please cite a single instance of a real scientist, or even just “people”, whose names were placed on the list against their will. As I said, the burden of proof is on you.
MRSA is caused by a bacterium, gram-positive and round-shaped, to be precise. My statement applies equally well to antibiotics. What on earth could possibly be your point?
As for its being called “bad” in the literature, you have to be joking, right? If it were good, would so much effort have gone into finding new antibacterial agents to use against it?
Do you enjoy making a laughing stock of yourself?
Luis Anastasia July 3, 2017 at 6:40 pm
Luis,
As a general rule, those reactions intended to kill people are generally considered bad. In the case of the inventor of chemical warfare, Frtiz Haber, other scientists were so horrified by his work that he became a pariah and his wife committed suicide.
Once organophosphate nerve agents were made to kill even more people, they were eventually banned, so bad did scientists and their political masters regard them.
Gabro says: “As a general rule, those reactions intended to kill people are generally considered bad.”
..
According to you, then the reactions involving phenobarbital and midazolam are “bad” because they are used to kill people in lethal injection protocols…. You’d better contact the ASA and tell them: https://www.asahq.org/
Doesn’t have to be “against their will” for example: Geri Halliwell
Luis,
Those are biological reactions.
I wonder if you have even a BS in a scientific field. It’s pretty clear that you haven’t taken a philosophy of science class, however elementary.
Here is a basic course in the History and Philosophy of Science program at my alma mater:
http://exploredegrees.stanford.edu/schoolofhumanitiesandsciences/hps/#courseinventory
HPS 60. Introduction to Philosophy of Science. 5 Units.
The nature of scientific knowledge: evidence and confirmation; scientific explanation; models and theories; objectivity; science, society, and values.
Please note the last word.
RE MRSA: What on earth could possibly be your point?
…
Simple Gabro, there is not a single scientific paper published anywhere that says MRSA is “bad” and there is no scientific paper anywhere that says MRSA is “good.” Science does not make value judgements.
OK, since your “Philosophy of Science” last word is “values” ….is 2H2 + O2 ==> 2H20 good or bad? You claim science can determine values, so is the reaction good or bad?
Science is all about objectivity. Can you scientifically demonstrate “good?” How about you point to “good?”
…
You see Gabro, “good” and “bad” do not exists externally without the human mind. Atoms and molecules would exist without humans, but if there were no humans, there would be no “good” or “bad”
…
I learned in my Philosophy classes, that the study of Ethics is where “good” and “bad” are defined. They noted that good and bad are SUBJECTIVE which is the direct opposite of “objective.”
Gabro, if “good” and “bad” are within the domain of science, how do measure them? What units do you use in measurement? Gold stars? Atta-boys? How do you compare one “good” against another? Is 5 atta-boys greater than 10 gold stars?
Luis,
When you so blatantly and laughably shift the goalposts, it’s a sign that even you know you’ve lost.
I never stated that there were value judgments in a chemical reaction, but that science is based upon such judgments.
I suggest you put yourself through a course in the history and philosophy of science, if you persist in not wanting to be formally educated therein.
Please start at the very beginning of modern science. Here for instance are the first two paragraphs of the preface to Copernicus’ book “On the Revolutions”, dedicated to Pope Paul III:
“I can readily imagine, Holy Father, that as soon as some people hear that in this volume, which I have written about the revolutions of the spheres of the universe, I ascribe certain motions to the terrestrial globe, they will shout that I must be immediately repudiated together with this belief. For I am not so enamored of my own opinions that I disregard what others may think of them. I am aware that a philosopher’s ideas are not subject to the judgement of ordinary persons, because it is his endeavor to seek the truth in all things, to the extent permitted to human reason by God. Yet I hold that completely erroneous views should be shunned. Those who know that the consensus of many centuries has sanctioned the conception that the earth remains at rest in the middle of the heaven as its center would, I reflected, regard it as an insane pronouncement if I made the opposite assertion that the earth moves. Therefore I debated with myself for a long time whether to publish the volume which I wrote to prove the earth’s motion or rather to follow the example of the Pythagoreans and certain others, who used to transmit philosophy’s secrets only to kinsmen and friends, not in writing but by word of mouth, as is shown by Lysis’ letter to Hipparchus. And they did so, it seems to me, not, as some suppose, because they were in some way jealous about their teachings, which would be spread around; on the contrary, they wanted the very beautiful thoughts attained by great men of deep devotion not to be ridiculed by those who are reluctant to exert themselves vigorously in any literary pursuit unless it is lucrative; or if they are stimulated to the nonacquisitive study of philosophy by the exhortation and example of others, yet because of their dullness of mind they play the same part among philosophers as drones among bees. When I weighed these considerations, the scorn which I had reason to fear on account of the novelty and unconventionality of my opinion almost induced me to abandon completely the work which I had undertaken.
“But while I hesitated for a long time and even resisted, my friends drew me back. Foremost among them was the cardinal of Capua, Nicholas Schönberg, renowned in every field of learning. Next to him was a man who loves me dearly, Tiedemann Giese, bishop of Chelmno, a close student of sacred letters as well as of all good literature. For he repeatedly encouraged me and, sometimes adding reproaches, urgently requested me to publish this volume and finally permit it to appear after being buried among my papers and lying concealed not merely until the ninth year but by now the fourth period of nine years. The same conduct was recommended to me by not a few other very eminent scholars. They exhorted me no longer to refuse, on account of the fear which I felt, to make my work available for the general use of students of astronomy. The crazier my doctrine of the earth’s motion now appeared to most people, the argument ran, so much the more admiration and thanks would it gain after they saw the publication of my writings dispel the fog of absurdity by most luminous proofs. Influenced therefore by these persuasive men and by this hope, in the end I allowed my friends to bring out an edition of the volume, as they had long besought me to do.”
Against consensus. For truth, regardless of the consequences. The scientific way, from the moment of its rebirth.
Luis Anastasia July 3, 2017 at 7:33 pm
In science, good and bad are not subjective. They are defined operationally, based upon the goals of science.
That you have sunk to raising straw men shows that you’ve lost.
Please post an operational definition of “good”
What are the units of measure in your “operational definition of good?”
Luis Anastasia July 3, 2017 at 7:48 pm
Value judgments aren’t measured in units. You persist in being apparently willfully obtuse.
They aren’t measured. They are a priori. I would urge you to delve more deeply into philosophy. I recommend Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason”, for starters.
That is not an “operational definition”
…
http://www.intropsych.com/ch01_psychology_and_science/operational_definitions_not_always_good.html
…
Note: “To study it, one must measure it somehow. ”
…
Again, what units do you use to measure?
If you can’t measure it, it’s not objective.
Luis,
Apparently you missed my answer.
The operational definition of “good” in science is whatever improves human life and explains nature.
I see that you’ve given up on d@nying that “catastrophe” is unscientific, as of course you would have to have done, in light of the numerous scientific papers and books I showed you which use that term.
Indeed, in my own field, geology, it’s the name of a major school of thought:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophism
Luis Anastasia July 3, 2017 at 8:00 pm
That is not true. It’s also irrelevant.
Objective means it can be counted or described. It doesn’t necessarily have to be measured.
But it’s beside the point. Just another goal post movement and straw man.
1) you didn’t show me “papers” you showed me a lot of news articles. Better luck next time with “catastrophy”
..
2) The operational definition of “good” in science is whatever improves human life and explains nature. That is not an “operational” definition. It does not involve a measure. You don’t even know what an “operational definition” is. I suggest you follow the link I provided.
..
3) In science you have things like length, mass, time which are MEASURABLE Then you get to derived things like density (length**3 by mass), etc. How do you measure human life improvement? How do you measure an explanation? Sorry, those definitions are not “operational” Please try again.
” in light of the numerous scientific papers and books ”
.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/28/no-evidence-is-a-useful-scientific-finding/comment-page-1/#comment-2539545
.
New Yorker, DailyMall, Huffingtion Post, Independent, http://www.cosmicscientist.com (blog?), http://www.climateemergencyinstitute.com (another blog)…..
..
You still haven’t shown any papers with the term in the title or the abstract. Try going to where they publish actual science.
We present a lot more scientists than those whom you so disparage.
Apparently you’re unaware that lots of socialists also oppose the CACA consensus. Most skeptics can’t be billionaires, since Gallup found that only 49% of Americans in 2007-08 believed that global warming resulted from human activities.
Dunno how comparable the surveys were, but Yale found that figure to have risen to 53% this year, which result appears dubious.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/28/us/sutter-climate-opinion-maps/index.html
In any case, global warming is of very little concern to Americans, as it ought to be.
“Beauty is truth, truth beauty,”–that is all Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-beauty-truth-and-truth/
“Good” in science is what promotes human welfare and reveals the mysteries of nature.
Which you would already know had you studied the philosophy of science.
Where can one find comments made after July 3 ?