[Editor’s note, actually YESTERDAY was the anniversary. Post scheduled after Milloy’s Tweet]
35 years ago today, NASA space scientist Dr. Roy Spencer had climate exactly correct: “If someone is sure there’s greenhouse warming occurring, that’s more emotional than scientific because the evidence has been questionable.” Over the decades, we’ve gone from “questionable evidence” to just plain hoax.
30 March 1990 syndicated widely by Scripps News Service.
H/T Steve Milloy
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Over the decades, we’ve gone from “questionable evidence” to just plain hoax.”
_______________________________________________________________
Fraud’s a better word for it.
More specifically, a ‘con’.
An IPCC hoax being kept alive by the moneyed elites to scam the world with super-expensive, highly subsidized wind, solar and battery systems to enrich themselves via tax shelters, at the expense of all others
Slowly but surely people are turning against AGW and it’s not because they’re learning the truth about it. It’s because the proposed cures are worse than the disease.
Agreed
Like the solutions to the Covid pandemic.
Nothing like that at all.
…and watermelons pretend to be alarmed because they love the cure.
Photo of newspaper needs a caption with date
30 March 1990 syndicated widely by Scripps News Service.
https://www.newspapers.com/image/775178946/?match=1&terms=paper%20pooh-poohs
Also identification of which newspaper.
Also published at NT
https://archive.is/20130630012917/http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/30/us/satellites-find-no-sign-of-global-warming-in-80-s.html
No idea if the article is from Engelman as the one of the screenshot.
Had to wait until the 1998 El Nino to see any warming in the satellite data.
Same again from 2001 to 2015.
No CO2 warming signal anywhere.
I added the link to the paper to the head post. Paywalled, unfortunately.
There has been a lot of money and human resources wasted, and other costs in 35 years. All of that should have been directed at real problems with Spencer and Christy each getting a 1% commission. They would be as rich as Elon! 🤠
Real science process with skepticism is too slow and uncertain for those who need lots of money for light rail, high speed rail, island resort airport expansion for more tourism, UN redistribution of wealth schemes, and a host of other unrelated financial needs and misdirection plays.
Climate change is worsening homelessness, especially in California where spending of tens of billions of dollars has no effect on it whatsoever.
Seems like a bit of an obvious question….. but what does the evidence suggests in the time that has elapsed since 1988? After all, 1979 – 1988 is only 10 years, if including both start and end years. By comparison, 1988 to 2024 offers over 3 and half decades of trend. I don’t believe even the eminent Dr Spencer would deny the upward trend since 1979 to present. Or course the cause of the upward trend is as ever up for debate 🧐
1980-1997 had basically zero warming. Then there was the 1998 El Nino
From 2001-2015 had no warming.. Then there was the 2016 El Nino
From 2018 to 2023 there was cooling, Then the 2023/24 El Nino.
If you remove the spike+ step change that occurred at those El Nino events, there has been no other warming.
and the most recent science suggests the El Nino heat source comes from the bottom of the south east Pacific ocean, not from any surface or atmospheric cause.
I suspect a mix of solar and geo energy… certainly not human released CO2
https://scitechdaily.com/nasas-swot-satellite-just-revealed-thousands-of-hidden-mountains-beneath-the-ocean/
It’s all averages. Not global.
And, if they never stand behind anything by quoting a variance figure for the probability distribution from which that average springs, how are we to know the range of possibility
“the upward trend” now is a reversal of the previous downward trend from 1930 to 1970. Global cooling was the concern 50 years ago.
We may have averted an ice age. Who knows?
Correlation is not causation.
Climate always changes on all time scales.
“We” didn’t avert anything.
Mother Nature did her thing.
Are you suggesting that human-caused CO2 had an effect which turned a coming Ice Age into a warm period?
Like I said, who knows?
“The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
https://archive.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/index.php?idp=501#:~:text=The%20climate%20system%20is%20a,of%20ensembles%20of%20model%20solutions
It’s hard to believe that human activity has had zero effect on climate.
What Really Turned the Sahara Desert From a Green Oasis Into a Wasteland?https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-really-turned-sahara-desert-green-oasis-wasteland-180962668/
The driver of the AMO index (cloud changes) moved from its negative phase (1962-1995) into it’s warm phase which is what has led to a large amount of warming.
Additional cloud changes, 2014-2016 and 2022, have added additional warming while no evidence exists for any increase in the greenhouse effect per NASA CERES data as documented by Willis E.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/01/22/greenhouse-efficiency-2/
And Joachim Dengler points out that the measured increases in German temperatures correlates exactly with measured increased insolation (which the Germans keep records of).
Wow… a trip down memory lane.
Thank you for your services, Dr. Spencer!
Very nice.
I believe Spencer and Christy are 2 very rigorous climate scientists with the highest integrity. They are truly experts worth listening to.
In March 1990, UAH had about 11 years of data (which they were subsequently to revise). See the green square. Since then temperatures have just gone up an up (purple trend line).
Use those El Nino events.. they are all you have. !
So if ‘data’ is “revised”, is it still ‘data’ or just someone’s numerical constructs?
Satellite temperature data is the outcome of an elaborate calculation.
You mean scientific, rather than ad hoc agenda driven data manipulation of unfit-for-purpose urban surface temperatures. ?
And not fit for purpose, homogenised, ground-based weather stations’ temperature data are not?
So are there recorded inputs “data” that are used as the ingredients, and the “elaborate calculations” the makeover of the recorded data?
(also, are there established standards for these “elaborate calculations” – the recipe – that conclude something, or can they keep adding ingredients to the soup at the whim of the “elaborate calculator”?
(and what if someone was found to be pissing in this soup?)
I think ground based thermometer data are more reliable than satellite.
Nick, even better to use ground (surface) temperature measurements – but “climate scientists” don’t seem to like using the “surface” temperature to measure the “surface temperature”.
If you tell people that you are measuring the “surface temperature”, why not measure the temperature of the surface?
It’s all a giant fraud (or demonstration of ignorance and the madness of crowds, if you prefer).
You can’t even find a consistent and unambiguous description of the mythical GHE, much less any experiment which shows that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter!
“You can’t even find a consistent and unambiguous description of the mythical GHE”
……. or ECS.
But we have to remember that satellite data is also in context w an estimation of surface temperatures. They are not direct measurements but are based on assumptions that can be questioned. They stand in relation to actual surface temperature and weather balloons measurements and extrapolate henceforth their calculations.
It is a construct.
That may be right, or somewhat right. To me it is not ‘hard’ science.
That’s fine by me. I just don’t like the excessive claims it makes.
The more i learn about the climate/ atmosphere the more humble i get.
I’d go a little further – it’s not any sort of “science”. As far as I know, the satellite “data” is quite meaningless, requiring all sorts of assumptions and estimates – guesses if you will.
In any case, with the best will in the world, the atmosphere is in constant chaotic motion, continuously varying in pressure, temperature, density, and composition.
As I said before, if people like Dr Spencer can get others to pay for them to do something quite useless, why not? Better than having to work for a living.
I wouldnt be as harsh in my judgement. It is good that these people do their work and i certainly wouldnt call it useless. I just think it has limited value and should be seen in its proper context. That should in general dampen down any excessive claims by any party, as witnessed by the to and fro on this channel.
I have noticed in the past some irritation by those participating in these fields. That’s understandable but again, a certain level of courtecy and humility should be maintained..
If you want to pay people to do work that I perceive to be quite useless, I certainly wouldn’t stop you.
For example, there is an “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change”. I assume taxpayers at large pay for this organisation to exist. I cannot see any useful outputs from the IPCC at all.
Your opinion may be different of course, and has the same value as mine.
And life goes on.
Even satellite data is used in a construct to estimate lower troposphere temperatures. You can see that as a model and should be taken as such.
As they are in conjunction w both surface and balloon temperature measurements to calculate their estimates there are a series of anomalies which might be calibrated.
Some of the issues are related to the various technological ways of surface temp measurements. In any experiment one should be able to keep the conditions the same and change a variable to see how the system changes.
That is clearly not the case here.
Another thing id like more clarification on is exactly what do we mean by lower tropospheric measurements.
We have the anomalies concerning surface temperature measurements and we have balloons higher up. My main question: by averaging everything out can we reliably assess a long term trend?
I remain skeptical..
Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy define it as:
LT = 1.538*MT – 0.548*TP + 0.10*LS
Corrections for diurnal drift, orbital decay of the satellites etc.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1114772
I see up, down, up, down, up, down, up, down, up, down, up… A couple of the ups are bigger than most of the downs.
From what relative minimum in the late 70s pray tell?
From March 1990, the time of the Spencer article.
This too short a time to make any projections. Your trend obsession is showing.
So it’s OK for this article to trumpet “no trend” over 11 years to 1990, but the trend in the 35 years since is too short?
In fact the trend is 0.170±0.062 C/decade. Quite significant.
“In fact the trend is 0.170±0.062 C/decade. Quite significant.”
Before calling that “quite significant,” a few important caveats need to be considered:
1) Trend estimates are sensitive to time window selection.
2) You did not account for the impact of noise.
3) From a geological perspective, we lack the temporal resolution to assess long term significance.
The CIs take account of time window and noise. The human perspective is more important than the geological.
The further back you go the less significant. There was also a climate in 1900.
This thread is about UAH satellite, starting 1979.
More abuse of significant digits.
A… the Earth’s temp in 1958
B… the Earth’s temp in 1930s
The ”average” temp has gone up about 0.0 degrees in 90 years and about 0.2 degrees or possibly 0.1 degrees since then. Insignificant overall.
Please stop whining and go away.
Look here.
“Since then temperatures have just gone up an up….”
….as Earth recovers from the Little Ice Age.
A while ago I noted in a paper by a concensus climate scientist that the LIA caused global cooling of about one degree C. Therefore, following the end of the LIA one should expect global warming of about one degree C. Just as predicted, we have experienced global warming of about one degree C.
In a nutshell, the modern warming has a beautifully simple and scientifically rigorous explanation: the natural recovery from the LIA. Increased CO2 has probably helped the recovery slightly, while at the same time greening the Earth.
Without the warming shown in Nick’s graph, we would still be in the depths of the Little Ice Age. Now that really would have been a climate crisis!
Chris
“ the LIA caused global cooling of about one degree C”
The LIA didn’t cause cooling. The LIA is the name we give to the cooling that was observed. That is why it is nonsense to say “following the end of the LIA one should expect global warming of about one degree C”
There is no causal linked made. It is just saying that it is warming now because it was cool before.
Besides, the numbers are all wrong.
Nick,
You’re just playing with words. Whether the LIA caused the cooling or the cooling caused the LIA is meaningless – because in reality they’re the same thing.
So, without mentioning the LIA:
Over several centuries there was a general cooling of around one degree. When that cooling came to an end there would be, almost by definition, a warming of around one degree. That’s exactly what we have observed. If there had been no CO2 increase the warming would almost certainly have been very similar.
Chris
“there would be, almost by definition, a warming of around one degree”
What definition is that? It’s like saying that if my business was down $10K last month, then by definition I will be up $10K next month.
But there is little evidence of that cooling by 1°
Yes, it has warmed and the cause can be traced to reductions in clouds. The only real question is what caused that reduction, we know the greenhouse effect has remained constant from two separate data sources (NOAA radiosondes and NASA CERES mission satellites).
The way I understand it, on a very simple level cosmic rays hit the earth constantly. They ionize the atmosphere and influence cloud formation. Cosmic rays are affected by the sun’s magnetic field, which likely follows the known cycles of solar activity. The less solar activity, the more cosmic rays hit the earth and produce more clouds, which reflect the sun’s rays and keep us a little cooler. Perhaps this is part of the answer.
I don’t understand why many of the people who comment on this site feel the need to somehow disprove, or diminish the significance of, the rising temperatures over the past 30, or 150, years. Seen in historical context, the increase is consistent with past warming and later cooling that has been going on for eons. And all to the good! The world is doing much better during the current warm(er) period than it did during the Little Ice Age.
So let Nick post his graph. It looks accurate to me, and he’s free to draw whatever conclusion he likes from it. The rest of us are free to ignore it or, as Willis does, remind him of how much better humankind – and the natural world – has fared while those temperatures were rising
Nick also claims to know the value of the rise to 1 mK.
So it went up half a degree from when the Ice Age was supposed to be returning. A relative snapshot is not a trend, as such, but drawing lines can be fun.
Don’t you mean up and down cyclically! the overall trend is there I grant you that, but the average is only 0.14/dec so not at all scary! The EL Nino’s have lifted the average trend significantly, and they are a product of solar equatorial warming and ENSO current overturning, so no significant AGW has been measured.
And it’s gone up again this month.
I recall a similar article in the Reader’s Digest, from the mid-1990s, talking about the flat MSU trend for ~15 years. From then onward, yes there’s been a stairstep-type increase in global temperatures. If CO2 and CH4 are supposed to be the primary culprits, why did it only kick on after 1995, and why do we have long pauses between the upward spikes? Natural variability was supposed to be overwhelmed by AGW by now.
“Natural variability was supposed to be overwhelmed by AGW by now.”
No, it isn’t. Natural variability continues as it was. AGW adds a trend.
1991-95 TLT was affected by Pinatubo cooling/
Speculative crap.
If you discount the El Nino spike+step events
… there is no trend..
There is no human CO2 warming signal in the whole of the UAH data..
If you think there is, then please show it to us.. without using El Nino spike+step events, which are not caused by CO2.
You cannot discount the El Nino spikes even though they are not of anthropogenic origin. They show that this is the way the ocean cools itself from earlier solar warming. There is still a small amount of insignificant atmospheric warming (caused by ocean cooling)
and nothing to do with back radiation from co2 as Nick still seems to (want to) believe.
The topic is about warming by human caused atmospheric CO2.
So you have to discount the El Nino events.
One always notice the idea that Co2 must be the driver when it warms but when it cools it is some other factor. That is a glaring flaw in their thinking.
It is not consistent.
The “mid-1990s” was exactly when the AMO cycle changed modes. We’ve been in the warm phase ever since. The bad news for alarmists is we are due to end this typically 30-35 year phase soon.
“…No sign of global warming from 1979 through 1988…”
Just 10 years of data. Of course, this was made before numerous corrections in the data.
The current version of UAH shows warming over that period at the rate of 0.12°C / decade, which is definitely not statistically significant, but what do you expect over such short period.
Those El Nino event are the cause of all the warming….
Show us the human CO2 caused warming in the UAH data.
You mean –
“making up some numbers so that they say what I want them to say”
If you want to accuse Dr Spencer of making up the numbers, that’s up to you. But do you allow the possibility he was also making up the numbers back in 1990?
My skepticism about the PROBITY, PROVENANCE & PROSECUTION of climate metrics is agnostic.
Do you still trust Greta’s prognostications about Earth’s climatic behaviors?
Nobody cares. The end.
We know.
Yep, the END alright..
There is no evidence of any warming by human CO2 in the last 45 years… PERIOD.
Ever.
I agree completely with “ever”..
… but all the fuss has been about warming by human released CO2..
… and the only period we have even half-decent and reliable temperature data is the 45 years of UAH data.
No-one has been able to show any CO2 warming in that data.
This is the problem for the alarmed: the entire effort to persuade the world of a coming crisis has failed. The populations of even the committed countries never believed it, and the only remaining countries whose political class believes it are the UK, Canada, Australia. Now that the US Government has dropped out. Maybe Germany, though last I looked it was backing off fast.
The fundamental problem however is not so much belief or disbelief in CAGW, its with the remedies the alarmed have proposed.
Its Alinsky in action, an object lesson being laid out in front of us. Never, as a radical, get yourself associated with a policy, still less with implementing it. You will have failures and issues and horse tradings, and you will turn into doing politics as usual. Your radicalism will run into the sand and vanish.
You can see this happening with climate and energy. Keep on climate and the narrative of doom, you might have a chance. If that is all you do, its a vehicle for radicalization. Start proposing wind and solar and net zero and you are in the sand.
The classic example is the UK. Miliband and May could get away with passing draconian legislation about emission reduction. But when Miliband found himself and his party in charge of moving the country to EVs and heat pumps, while at the same time moving generation to wind and solar, it was all over.
Proclaim that doom is coming, and you can get the Guardian and BBC behind you. Tell everyone their bills are going to fall by £300 a year, and that energy independence is on its way, and that the country and North Sea will be covered with wind turbines generating cheap dispatchable electricity – not to mention 24 x 7 solar power – and you are riding for a fall when it becomes clear none of that is going to happen or is even remotely feasible.
As Miliband and Labour are as we speak.
[In fact, in the Alinsky model, you want the policies you advocate to be impossible, because you need the situation you are complaining about to persist, so you can use it to radicalize, and so you can reproach the ruling elite with not having done what you are advocating and not having solved the problem. The corollary of course is that you must never come to power in the normal way. You goals is power in some kind of coup that cannot lead to your being voted out. If, like Miliband and Starmer, you find yourself in charge of making your ideas work in practice…. well, goodbye! You will fail, its only a matter of when
Probably Miliband and Starmer did not see this, and failed to realize that the problems they cited and the policies they proposed were strictly for show. They have made the classic mistake of eating their own dog food when it was never cooked for eating by any living creature in the first place.]
Using a greenhouse as an analogy for Earth’s radiant energy balance demonstrates a lack of understanding of physics. It is claptrap.
Earth’s radiant energy balance is dominated by the phase changes of water and the highly reflective nature of ice crystals. All the white stuff in this image:
And there are few places in the current era where there is permanent surface ice. So most of the ice visible from space changes from day to day.
Understand ice formation and dissipation in the atmosphere, on the water and on land and you will gain better appreciation of Earth’s energy balance and climate change than any notion of greenhouses.
Each person could look at the natural vegetation near where they live, or if in a city, visit a rural area. Are there Ponderosa Pine trees, Sugar Maples, Evergreen (live) oaks, or maybe Florida Silver Palms? Ask, how long have the plants been there? Where are the boundaries?
If you are not familiar with this process, see ” Wladimir Köppen “, who based his classification on vegetation types.
In this sense, I know of no climate changes.
I have seen zero signs of any changes in “the climate” in my neck of the woods.
Lots of climate variability, which is totally natural.
Still floods, still droughts, still warm periods, still cold periods.
All these are totally NORMAL and have existed for all my life, and all parents lives, and all their parent lives.. back ad inf…
From the article: “Karl said the global warming of about one degree since the 19th century appears to have occurred “in rather abrupt phases” in the 1930’s and the 1970’s.”
Yes, the warming occurred twice in the 20th century, once beginning around the 1910’s and culminating in the 1930’s, and another time beginning in the late 1970’s, and culminating in 1998.
Both warming periods were of the same magnitude, and reached a similar high point.
The earlier warming period took place when CO2 atmospheric concentrations were much less than they were during the 1970’s and beyond, yet the current warming is no warmer than it was in the 1930’s. The logical conclusion is that CO2 has had no visible effect on the Earth’s temperatures since the 1930’s.
The U.S. regional chart of the period shows the pertinent temperature trend lines.
Hansen 1999:
It was discovered that UAH had been underestimating the warming by 0.10 C.decade-1. [Christy et al. 2000]
Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christy were pioneers of the satellite based global average temperature datasets and their work should be applauded, but to say they were “exactly correct” 35 years ago is grossly incorrect.
After adjustments were made (by them) the UAH dataset did, in fact, show a positive warming trend over the period in which they claimed it was near zero.
And, of course, today we know that any statement of the trend over such a short period of time was not statistically significant. So even if the +0.10 C.decade-1 adjustment never happened it still would have been inappropriate to declare that there was no global warming.
The topic is NOT global warming, it is warming due to human CO2.
The only warming in the UAH data has come at El Nino spike+ step events
There are long periods of no warming, or slight cooling, between those events.
That means there is no human CO2 warming effect in the UAH data…
If you think there is, then please show it to us, without relying on NON-CO2 El Nino events to create a trend..
Nobody cares. There is no “gotcha” there. Scream into the gale.
There are about 8 billion humans now, possibly about 7.5 billion more than before the industrial revolution in Britain.
7.5 billion extra people generate a lot of ephemeral heat, one way and another.
“Climate scientists” may think that thermometers do not respond to anthropogenic heat, but just popping a thermometer in your mouth, or placing one near a fire, white hot steel, or even near pretty well anything creating, modifying, or using energy, and the thermometer will probably get hotter.
No need to fantasise about CO2 in the atmosphere, or a GHE for which nobody has a consistent and unambiguous description. Just thermometers responding to man-made heat.
There you go. No problem.
One IMPORTANT phrase is left out above.
35 years and 20 $TRILLION wasted, with a goal of 250 $ TRILLION by 2050…
Sophistry aside, making a molehill into a Vesuvius has guaranteed access to the public purse and achieved the greatest wealth and power transfer in the history of humanity. The purpose was and is clear: to impoverish all into slavery while enriching an exempt elite beyond all imagination.
It has worked, so far.
I see that Tom Karl had a rational view of warming back then. He joined the Hockey Team later on.
comma ….. was referred to as Trofim Karl on here for his climate Lysenkoism, and then retired.
It’s not science, it’s “scientology”
A faith based belief system, based on “the science” of consensus opinion, catchy headlines and sacred cows
This is very dangerous when it comes to areas of science that can be corrupted by financial, ideological and political interests
“Climate” and medical science being the two main ones
Even in other areas like theoretical physics, consensus can lead to bad practice, such as the domination of string theory for the last 30 years, now coming to an end
The community of scholars and honest search for the truth spirit of science is long gone, so it’s far more easily influenced by bad actors than in the past
35 years ago there were still mostly honest and competent scientists. The support for the AGW hypothesis was mostly from a few attention seekers
The latter type, who are generally mediocre scientists, took over universities, Journals and scientific bodies in the meantime and hired or promoted people in their own image
There are still good scientists, but they’re not appreciated because nobody in authority, least of all universities, cares about the truth – it’s about money and selling a “vision”
Visions are things I have in my dreams
Things aren’t looking good, that’s for sure! A quote from a paper published in a “prestigious journal” (whatever that means) –
The academic publishing business generates many billions in profits. Not turnover – profits. As the funders of the scientists pay for publishing fees in this vanity publishing rort, scientists are tempted to publish any old rubbish – publish or perish is the order of the day. Keep the grants coming – who wants to have to work for a living?
If I’m sounding a trifle cynical, so be it. There are more and more people questioning the present system – even academic institutions and academics.
The publishers are one major aspect of the problem
But the root cause of the problem is that the scum has risen to the top, due to various policy mistakes
Universities were turned into pure businesses, massified, converted into kindergartens for 18 to 21 year old in ever growing numbers, incentivised to to focus primarily on their “surpluses” (ie profits) and to hell with everything else, including research and teaching quality
What became important was funding, so those who were good at getting it for the sake of getting it (usually because they were crap at research and needed to hire lots of people to do it for them) rose quickly and became the kingmakers
This soon became the template for an academic, chase money, market yourself and give thr appearance doing exciting research without bothering to do any real research – let your students and postdocs do it while pretending to understand and pretending to be leading it
The top guys will get funding for more or less the same project 10 times over in as many years, despite never achieving any of the initial objectives. It’s a cartel, they control the funding along with their chums in the agencies
This is why Trump and co are taking a sledgehammer to funding, they’ve seen through the bullshit
Publications are not as important as you might think, at least in most areas of science. if you have a big enough group, they will come anyway. They key is funding, if you get that nothing else matters, and nothing else is even remotely as valuable. It’s the PhDs and postdocs that drive the publications, they need them the most
The massive growth of universities and the rise of China soon meant that journals were overwhelmed (mostly with total crap), so publishers themselves underwent a massive expansion and became very greedy, totally giving up on standards, and screwing up the whole peer review process, which is pretty much a roll of the dice now in terms of even getting to the review stage for most people
Eventually, everyone was lying to everyone, lying to secure funding, lying or exaggerating to get published, and even lying to themselves that they were doing a stellar job
This is modern academia, run by people who wouldn’t have survived in the system 40 years ago because they’re not very talented researchers, but they know how to sell themselves and get the most out of others
I always thought there should be a pot of funds for those who are able to make a good quality case AGAINST an established theory or a method.
Since the idea of anybody trying to disprove their own theory has long been abolished this should be considered Top Science Priority.
Giving funds to people to support a ‘consensus’ seems ANTI science to me unless it is used to support a hypothesis that hasnt reached theory status yet.
It seems to me that everything in regards to Co2 and even the overall GHE never reaches the level of theory, possibly because the system won’t allow it. Typical correlation/ causation issues.
Im fine with that..
Decide on the answer, then search for ‘evidence’ to justify the answer. This is the approach of the IPCC.
In science, you formulate a testable hypothesis, then collect evidence in an atttempt to refute it. The more evidence which is gathered which fails to refute a hypothesis, the more likely it is that the hypothesis might be true.
The hypothesis for 2025 should be: ‘In the past 35 years, the IPCC has not acted as a scientific organisation, rather as a quasi-religious one.’