From Breitbart and No Tricks Zone:
A broad survey of climate change literature for 2017 reveals that the alleged “consensus” behind the dangers of anthropogenic global warming is not nearly as settled among climate scientists as people imagine.
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.
Richard broke the skeptical positions into four main categories, with each of the individual papers expounding at least one of these positions, and sometimes more.
…
N(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.
N(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, as clearly shown in the first 150 graphs (from 2017) on this list.
N(3) The computer climate models are not reliable or consistently accurate, and projections of future climate states are little more than speculation as the uncertainty and error ranges are enormous in a non-linear climate system.
N(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).
Below are the two links to the list of 485 papers as well as the guideline for the lists’ categorization.
Part 1. Natural Mechanisms Of Weather, Climate Change
- Solar Influence On Climate (121)
- ENSO, NAO, AMO, PDO Climate Influence (44)
- Modern Climate In Phase With Natural Variability (13)
- Cloud/Aerosol Climate Influence (9)
- Volcanic/Tectonic Climate Influence (6)
- The CO2 Greenhouse Effect – Climate Driver? (14)
Part 2. Unsettled Science, Failed Climate Modeling
- Climate Model Unreliability/Biases/Errors and the Pause (28)
- Failing Renewable Energy, Climate Policies (12)
- Wind Power Harming The Environment, Biosphere (8)
- Elevated CO2 Greens Planet, Produces Higher Crop Yields (13)
- Warming Beneficial, Does Not Harm Humans, Wildlife (5)
- Warming, Acidification Not Harming Oceanic Biosphere (17)
- Decreases In Extreme, Unstable Weather With Warming (3)
- Urban Heat Island: Raising Surface Temperatures Artificially (5)
- No Increasing Trends In Intense Hurricanes (4)
- No Increasing Trends In Drought/Flood Frequency, Severity (3)
- Natural CO2, Methane Sources Out-Emit Human Source (4)
- Increasing Snow Cover Since The 1950s (2)
- Miscellaneous (7)
Part 3. Natural Climate Change Observation, Reconstruction
- Lack Of Anthropogenic/CO2 Signal In Sea Level Rise (38)
- No Net Warming During 20th (21st) Century (12)
- A Warmer Past: Non-Hockey Stick Reconstructions (60)
- Abrupt, Degrees-Per-Decade Natural Global Warming (7)
- A Model-Defying Cryosphere, Polar Ice (32)
- Antarctic Ice Melting In High Geothermal Heat Flux Areas (4)
- Recent Cooling In The North Atlantic, Southern Ocean (10)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
PLEASE REMEMBER that we are in a super-overeducated world now, and that in this world, there is a ‘strong hunt for meaningful thesis topics’ to wax eloquent on. I’ve recalled this before elsewhere, but one of my nieces was in the PhD program of Environmental Studies up on Anchorage. (I know, not exactly the leading leading-edge Science university in the nation, but still… husband there, taking PhD, instead of having kids.)
Her topic was on the effects of AGW on the seasonal harvest of Sitka spruce in boreal Alaska. Basically her conclusion was, since AGW is real, and since it has tangible effects, then I expect to prove that it increases logging muddiness, which increases soil loss, decreases harvest-window and increases jobsite accident rates. Well, the increased muddiness didn’t turn up statistically, and “The Industry” had worked out better muddy-hillside logging techniques anyway. The soil loss was being mitigated by better forest husbandry practices and partial-hill logging. The on-site accident rates were higher, but only in toto, as more logging was being done. Naturally, somehow it all got twisted into a big scary AGW narrative. And the Swan’s Song of needing additional grant-funding to continue the vital research.
Sadly but predictably, she’s now a fast rising junior muck-a-muck (how could one pass that pun by?) in the State of Alaska Forestry Department. Given a brand new Ford four wheel drive and everything. She spends most of her time in-office pouring over findings, writing papers, getting grants, and sitting on policy-making meetings.
Is this a bad thing?
No, but we really ought to demand more EFFICIENCY for tax-money spent.
Her job position, should it go away, would be forgotten in 88 seconds.
Just saying.
“So what! There are 453 papers. There are another 8,500 papers in the opposite direction, milled out of used cloth. Citing each other in a giant daisy-chain of self-referencing. To get grants. To get top jobs. To do essentially inscrutable bûllsnot.”
GoatGuy
Anecdote appreciated, Goat Guy (by me, if not by your niece!). My experience of academia – a very, very long time ago – is that even in the seventies your story could find parallels. Nothing new, just a order of magnitude more damaging because of the larger numbers involved. Unfortunately, outsiders, and even the few insiders that don’t play the game, have little influence. It’s a closed shop.
“It’s a closed shop.”
It’s a cult.
Another interesting point is that the amount of papers published each year that are sceptical of the ‘official’ view is increasing:
2017 (630 papers) pt.1: http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2017-2/#sthash.FP1jvkbc.dpbs
pt.2: http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2017-1/#sthash.SsoBODJu.dpbs
2016 (502 papers): http://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016/#sthash.6YRC4Uon.dpbs
2015 (272 papers): http://notrickszone.com/250-skeptic-papers-from-2015/#sthash.7Wr7373g.dpbs
2014 (236 papers): http://notrickszone.com/248-skeptical-papers-from-2014/#sthash.67nXWlYW.dpbs
Magog:
That is really nice to know. Thanks.
Just a few of the authors who have reponded to the way their paper was characterised:
Tyler Jones, Research Associate, University of Colorado
The West Antarctica temperature plot that was pulled from my 2017 paper is very low resolution, and does not resolve the most recent few 100 yrs. We know from other studies that West Antarctica is currently warming faster than almost any other place on Earth. Furthermore, my paper has nothing to do with global warming or human activities. In fact, I only focus on time periods well before the Industrial Revolution. It is clear that global warming is caused predominantly by human activity.
Belinda Dechnik, The University of Sydney
My data does discuss sea surface temperature in the Great Barrier Reef being slightly warmer than present during the mid-Holocene in response to natural climate variability. However, I in no way deny that the current climate is warming, and that anthropogenic effects are proving very detrimental, particularly to reef systems. This article has misunderstood my findings and in no way supports my view on climate change. I am very disturbed indeed that these people have used my article in such a way to try and discredit the serious effects of man-made climate change.
Nathan Steiger, Postdoctoral Fellow, Columbia University
The blog post maliciously tampered with figures from my paper, removing lines from the figures. My paper is just not relevant to the arguments about global warming.
R. Scott Anderson, Professor, Northern Arizona University
Although the curve shown in the Breitbart article supports our research, the specific curve cited is not our work, but comes instead from nearby tree-ring research done by Greg Wiles and his co-workers (2014). This is clearly stated in the figure caption in our article, which could have been seen if the article had been actually read. My conclusion from this is that Breitbart was not careful in its compilation, and for me this calls into question their methods for collecting data on other articles. Our conclusions are much more complex, and suggest that post-Little Ice Age warming has occurred, and has affected forests at higher elevations to a greater extent than at lower elevations.
Yair Rosenthal, Professor, Rutgers University
The data were taken out of context. In fact a previous article (Rosenthal et al., 20013) made the argument that the current warming, as measured by the increase in Ocean Heat Content (OHC), is a reversal of the long-term cooling trend in the preceding centuries and the rate of heat gain is substantially higher than recorded in the past. If anything, these data support global warming as manifested by the recent increase in OHC.
Normunds Stivrins, Associate Professor, University of Helsinki
Our article (Stivrins et al., 2017, The Holocene) focuses on other subjects than human-induced impacts (climate change). It’s sad that the blogger did not understand what this study is about, but rather took a sentence without context. Our point was that geological aspects can protect glacial ice in the ground but it starts to melt when air temperature increases—in this case when temperature started to increase above today’s temperatures. Note that this is a specific case study where exceptional environmental conditions prevail 8,400-7,400 years ago in western Latvia.
Many more rebuttals to be found here (credit Nick Stokes)….
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/breitbart-misrepresents-research-58-scientific-papers-falsely-claim-disprove-human-caused-global-warming-james-delingpole/#authors-reply
tonyb,
I’ll ask you the same question as I asked Nick.
Do you think that the Cook survey is a better representation of the consensus?
Simple question. Yes or No?
tonyb,
That’s only 26 out of 485 or 5% which may. When you come up with another 470 more then you might match Cook’s 97%. Good luck.
Most alarmists I’ve debated in the past think all you need to do is refute just a few skeptic papers and hand wave the rest. Then say, “You can’t refute all the thousands of AGW papers”.
Is that you tonyb?
“That’s only 26 out of 485 or 5% which may”
No, it’s now 29, and out of the 58 that were listed back in June. 50%. And it’s not as if the other 50% took a contrary view. They didn’t make a statement at all. Maybe they were busy.
The question remains, who actually is disputing the consensus? What did they say, and what does the consensus say that is contradicted?
@Nick
“The question remains, who actually is disputing the consensus? What did they say, and what does the consensus say that is contradicted?”
Who: Edward Lorenz
What did he say: “we cannot say at present, on the basis of observation alone, that a greenhouse gas induced global warming as set in”
What does the consensus say that is contradicted: You, Nick, tell us. The consensus is just, to me, weasel word to not tell what the belief is, so it cannot be contradicted, as a proper belief it is. A theory could be contradicted by some fact, this cannot. It is “not even wrong”.
What the consensus guys replied: “blah blah blah I don’t hear you [with hands on the ears and closed eyes]”. Says it all on the value of the “consensus”, for whatever this means.
The questions should be
1) “what the consensus is about?”
If it is that there is some warming since the cold days of the 70s, well, this includes pretty much all “Dniers”
If it is that man contributed to climate change (through building cities —UHI effect– and dams, draining swamp, turning forest into agricultural land or vice versa, burning fuel, etc.), ditto
If it is that, without man, global temperature would had stayed stable or cooling, nobody ever dared to pretend that, IFAIK, so it surely NOT supported by 97% of warmunists
2) “what fact would it take for the consensus guys to acknowledge they are wrong? ”
Proper scientists would make prediction, set firm goalposts between what would happen/not happen depending on whether their theory is correct or not, and check.
On the other hand, CAGW Believers don’t even bother to respect their own prediction, like “there will be a tropical hot spot”, “the theory still hold if non warming occurs on a 15-years long period”, “snow will be a thing of the past”, “North pole will be ice free”, etc.
And of course you won’t reply, again
“On the other hand, CAGW Believers don’t even bother to respect their own prediction, like “there will be a tropical hot spot”, “the theory still hold if non warming occurs on a 15-years long period”, “snow will be a thing of the past”, “North pole will be ice free”, etc.
And of course you won’t reply, again”
But I will.
Ah, the old tried ‘n’ tested again.
The “tropical hotspot” would be there whatever the reason for GW. It is the enhanced LH release from tropical convection which must increase with surface warming.
And it has been found …..
https://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-scientists-elusive-tropospheric-hot.html
– obviously with difficulty as radiosonde data is not of research quality (far from it to the levels of tenths of a degree needed ) and satellite temp measurements are contaminated by stratospheric cooling (which is a known and observed result for GHG warming of the troposphere)
Your two other quotes where uttered by idiots and in the case of David Viner “spun”. The “snow” being of snow in England, which is rare in most winters. Contrary to what you may believe it’s not been snowing all over the country. I have had a half inch only here for part of one week. And what time-scale did Viner alude to? 17 years? I don’t think so, and anyway it is not the IPCC talking.
The “ice” comment is again just an idiot mouthing off (Wadhams?) but actually the decline in Arctic ice extent is well ahead of IPCC projections.
Oh and CAGW is a “Contrarian” invented term.
The IPCC says 1.5 to 4.5C per x2 CO2.
1.5 is not “C”.
4.5 is
not both.
So you agree it’ll be closer to 4.5C?
@Toneb
Your link is interesting…
Just wonder what you would think of your banker if he told you that he “deduced from the data what natural bank account variations look like, then found anomalies in the data that looked more like sudden one-off shifts from these variations and removed them,” so he concludes that you actually owes him money, despite your account being positive… Because this is just exactly what those guys did!
They didn’t actually found the hot spot as it was predicted, that is, an actually higher temperature than before. They just lowered the expected temperature by subtracting some “natural variation” they don’t know nothing about, they cannot explain and don’t even care to, and was not predicted by the theory…
The best you could say is “they found the hot spot by inventing some overlapping unexplainium the theory didn’t predicted”, that is, they just disproved the theory just the same.
Well, thank you, but we already knew. Apparently you didn’t, so you learned something.
Happy you admit so called “climate scientists” include a noticeable enough bunch of idiots. I just find it too bad that believers with the appropriate stature to be heard don’t care to say to media relaying these crap “oh men, come on, these are just idiots, unworthy of “scientist” label, you shouldn’t listen to them, they hurt the science with their overstretched prediction that have no ground in the consensus theory, and you do, too, by relaying it”.
Bottom line: you indeed tried to reply, which is worthwhile. But you failed. No wonder, the task was just impossible, as this is broken from the start.
“Who: Edward Lorenz
What did he say: “we cannot say at present, on the basis of observation alone, that a greenhouse gas induced global warming as set in”’
And when is “at present”? 1990. There have been a lot of observations since.
@Nick
cite a paper stating something like “Lorenz was right in 1990, but he is no longer is thanks to new observations”, or admit you are wrong, or shut up until you do either if you have any respect for yourself and others.
And, for god sake, just read the paper, and figure out why you would change a single word of it in 2018 (do that for yourself, no need to share it with us, please)
“Lorenz was right in 1990, but he is no longer is”
Not an issue. Lorenz said “We cannot say at present”. That doesn’t become untrue with later observation. You just need to find a more up-to-date source.
“I would be pretty quick to dεny that I was a hεretic as well.”
This is the line that Delingpole took in response to the June survey of authors – he has been the main publicist of these lists. After telling us
“That’s how I became one of the world’s most notorious and widely-read climate skeptics: not because I have a science degree – which I don’t – but because I am able to explain this dogs breakfast of a shambles of a conspiracy to defraud the taxpayer in language that normal people can understand.”
the stable genius explained:
The problem is that a headline reading
“Now 400 fearful dishonest dim scientists in 2017 say ‘Global Warming’ is a Myth'”
doesn’t sound so convincing.
Nick, I am a 72 year old engineer that has been a student of science for most of my life. Watching nuclear physics make up imaginary particles to make their imaginary models work. Then the cosmologists making up imaginary dark matter and dark energy to make their models work. Then along comes the warmanistas spruiking the evils of CO2 to make their models work using untrue science. I have a laugh a minute watching people like you, it is like phlogiston all over again.
Wayne:
That is exactly what I would expect an engineer to say.
I trained in both disciplines.
Science uncovers things
Engineering uses things.
That you cannot conceive the former is QED
Pity you are neither scientist or engineer, hey Toneb.
You don’t comprehend, and can’t do anything with it.
The fact that you think Cook’s mindless propaganda survey is in any way representative of reality, shows just how far down the drainhole your mind has been flushed .
tonyb says, “I trained in both disciplines.”
That usually means you started but either lost interest or flunked out.
““Now 400 fearful dishonest dim scientists in 2017 say ‘Global Warming’ is a Myth’”
doesn’t sound so convincing.”
Fair point Nick.
And how many claims and predictions has your side made that turned out to be false?
“Do you think that the Cook survey is a better representation of the consensus?
Simple question. Yes or No?”
Yes.
And BTW: I am Toneb.
tonyb is a different poster (climatereason).
Sorry, but if the likes of Notrickszone (an oxymoron) in falsely representing papers in order to manufacture doubt, doesn’t seem to you to be dishonest then … well.
And could you please point out where Cook went to such ends.
They are not equivalent.
Toneb,
The biggest oxymoron is SkepticalScence.
Here’s where Cook “falsely classifies scientists”,
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
and then there all of these that refute Cook’s phony and “dishonest” consensus,
https://www.bing.com/search?q=Cook%2097%25%20consensus%20refuted&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=cook%2097%25%20consensus%20refuted&sc=0-26&sk=&cvid=7C04FB46AB214FA79214FAF4FC8DF7DE
“Toneb, in times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
Forrest:
So you justify put NTZ’s lies and deceit on the basis of the other side doing it?
(a question)
If you do, I would suggest that that one is wilful and the other just the “shit” that happens in life.
The authors rebuttals are interesting, let’s read them, will you?
Tyler Jones, Research Associate, University of Colorado
“my paper is proof that global warming can natural occur, but i forbid anyone to conclude the logical thing and stick to the dogma”
Belinda Dechnik, The University of Sydney
“my paper is proof that current global warming is still lower that previous natural occured one, but i forbid anyone to conclude the logical thing and I stick to the dogma”
Nathan Steiger, Postdoctoral Fellow, Columbia University
“my article about Time-Averaged Pseudoproxies for Climate Reconstruction and GCM have nothing to do with the global warming debate, trust me”
etc.
Boring. I stopped there. Seriously, you call THAT rebuttals ?
Reply to Toneb
You provided a link to a half baked so called study which is not worth the paper its written on ..
This so called study is a mishmash trying and failing to become the great hotspotters of 2015.
‘This topic was covered by Anthony Watts on WUWT on the 22nd of September 2016 .Readers of this blog should check it out for themselves .
The hot spot has not been found
Just like a Ponzi scheme, I knew this fake AGW story perpetrated by Al Gore and his blind zealots would fall like a houise of cards. Truth always wins.
“Truth always wins.”
Eventually.
Whoops, got my numbers wrong, still in holiday mode. My mistake, disregard my previous comment.
Given the difficulty in getting skeptical papers published, and money to do the work needed, this number is enormous.
This is the part of this silly debate that never gets mentioned. If the POTUS and his team were to direct 50% of all climate research funding to studies on ocean currents, clouds, synoptic climatology, solar aspects of climate etc., I’ll guarantee you that 50% of the papers published in the next few years will emphasize the role of natural variability in climate change. You get what you pay for- simple!
The “97% of scientists” claim orginally came from President Obama who, either was fed the line or made it up.
100% of scientists were never asked, therefore anyone swallowing that lie is either easily swayed or is lying themselves when they repeat it.
Cook et al could (if accuracy meant anything to them) have taken measures to correct Obama’s “error” and assured the eagerly listening world that it was only 97% of climate “scientists”, and, somehow only after sifting through 12,000 abstracts of papers, of which 60% made no mention of AGW.
But then again, accuracy and honesty don’t seem to have been high priorities in the AGW Consensus Project.
A history of 97% –
http://use-due-diligence-on-climate.org/home/climate-change/the-97-con-sensus/
You get what you pay for. During the Obama years Government agencies budgets were increased dramatically and the dogma of the threat of Global Warming was codified and any dissent was met with hostility, ridicule demotion or termination. Today science is encouraged and the political corruption has simply had funding decreased dramatically or ended completely. With the spigot of funds for ‘Global Warming’ being shut off the scientific community realizes that zealotry in support of the politically created warming theory is no longer profitable and hopefully this will lead to an emphasis on real science rather than political science.
What utter garbage the “485” papers claim is.
…
Here’s a perfect example cited on the “notricky_sticky_zoney” site: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41748-017-0020-z
….
A SINGLE geographic location cannot refute global seal level rise.
…
Total garbage.
…
It’s a shame WUWT has stooped this low.
A single geographic location, CAN, however, cast valid doubt on the blanket claim of global sea level rise. After all, if one geographic location shows none, then there might be other locations showing none, and the locations that are dominating the determination might have OTHER causes NOT being properly considered.
what the heck ???
Of course a single location CAN refute global seal level rise, just like a single black swan CAN refute “all swan are white” proposition.
The condition for that are just the same (that the swan is really black, not painted, or in a room with no light; that the location is not a place where the land rise as much as the sea, etc.)
“Of course a single location CAN refute global seal level rise, just like a single black swan CAN refute “all swan are white” proposition.”
No it can’t.
It has to be representative.
Like (as an example) maybe the much touted on here, UHI effect.
So obs from the centre of an expanding city would be enough to get you to accept AGW?
Exactly.
oh. So a black swan don’t refute “all swan are white” proposition, the black swan has to be representative to do so?
I say LOL
And, for your information, I accept AGW. Cities are ~1% of land, 0.3% of whole Earth surface, and ~3K warmer, so they account for ~0.009 K (let’s round to +0.01 K) totally,anthropological GW.
And they also account for ~50% population, so as far as humans are concerned (ponderated by the population), the AGW is ~1.5K. Still far from enough. I still need more than minimal cloth, heating in my house, etc.
If you were able to read , you would see it is NOT one single location.
Go back and try your LIES again.
Why do you stoop so LOW. !!
“the west Indian Ocean” is a single location.
“A SINGLE geographic location cannot refute global seal level rise.”
Admit it – you’d love to have that much evidence that the MWP wasn’t global.
I would bet the overall publication numbers for climate science are also dropping in the gloomy atmosphere of the “fall” of this meme.The icons of the “cause” have retreated from the scientific literature considerably and have fallen back on toothless op-ed retorts and smears of sceptics.
Fickle Hollywood has moved on to casting couch issues and Al Gore seems a broken man with his empty theaters and no clicks on his Anticlimactic Dreareality Project. What does he do in his unhappy state? He’s joins forces halfheartedly with another has been, one trick pony carnival barker to explain how global warming froze Houston Tx , littered Massachusetts beaches with frozen sharks and Louisiana shoreline with Gulf turtles suffering from hypothermia.
Sceptics are even less an enemy now than the unrelenting practical joker Mother Nature who must enjoy the convolutions and convulsions she puts these global warming clingons through to pound their square pegs into frozen round holes. She seems almost unkind in her seeking out and destroying hubris wherever she finds it. I feel I should be feeling sorry for these grim vanquished sad sacks but no tears yet.
I too would question the proposition, START to crumble
I have seen articles elsewhere claiming over 700 papers that are NOT in agreement with the so called, now totally discredited, “97% consensus”. The fact that this sort of blog post is recurring says a lot.
I am embarrassed for anybody quoting this lame statistic anymore — NASA, take a hint.
“De heffalumpis semper dubitandum est.”
Winnie Ille Pu
After publication of “Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein”, he answered “why 100 ? if Iwere wrong, then one author would have been enough”.
The one author than refutes the 97% consensus exist, and the one paper needed is from 1991
http://eaps4.mit.edu/research/Lorenz/Chaos_spontaneous_greenhouse_1991.pdf
(see also: https://judithcurry.com/2013/10/13/words-of-wisdom-from-ed-lorenz/ )
There is no scientific point in counting up the number of so called “scientists” that (still) endorse the still-born idea of CAGW (actually NOT scientists, for this very reason), nor in counting those who don’t.
you mean out of 10,200 something surveys returned, 95 of those surveys saying ‘Yes’ isn’t a 97% consensus?
Shocking
to no one who knows anything resembling actual math. or new math. or whatever it was they were trying to foist in the last few years.
If that’s settled science I want to know what disputed science is!
I started looking through the list of the papers and their summaries. The vast majority of the papers don’t fundamentally challenge the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. The compiler of this list interpreted their conclusions to say that they challenge the consensus, but the authors don’t say that in their abstracts. I bet if you emailed the authors as Cook et al (2013) did and asked them if they believe their papers challenge the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, the vast majority would say “no”. For example, I didn’t see a single paper in the list about the influence of solar irradiance on the climate that fundamentally challenges the IPCC AR5 (2013) estimate that solar irradiance has only caused 0.05 W/m2 of radiative forcing between 1750 and 2011. Whether the estimate is 0.05 or 0.3 W/m2, that doesn’t really challenge the scientific consensus, when the total forcing is 2.83 W/m2 and 2.3 W/m2 of that is anthropogenic. It is easy to fool people who don’t know anything about the science that this list of papers is significant, but it isn’t once you start looking into the details of the papers.
Not a Climatologist, but interested in the discussion and learning. From what I’ve read, water vapor makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases. The remaining greenhouse gas is comprised of CO2 (3.7%) and other greenhouse gases (1.3%). The human contribution to the CO2 level amounts to 0.28%. What percentage of the water vapor is attributable to humans. Is it possible that the water vapor being generated by combustion is the real culprit and not our CO2 production? The ice core samples used by NOAA to estimate past CO2 levels are reliant on accumulation of ice. During the 800K years that are covered by the samples, was ice actually accumulating during the inter-glacial warm periods, such that realistic CO2 samples/estimates could be obtained? Or was the ice melting or not forming and therefore no ice record exists for the peak temperature time periods?