MORE SCIENTISTS WANT TO TEST THOSE WARMING CLAIMS !!!

Michael Asten, a retired professor of geophysics (below right), wants "an adversarial 'red team-blue team' approach" to test warming science.  

My own studies of historical and ancient temperature records point towards a major component of natural cycles of global temperature variations on timescales of 64 years, hundreds of years and thousands of years. When such cycles over decades and centuries are considered, the magnitude of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (or Lomborg’s) projected temperature rise to 2100 is probably reduced by a factor between two and four. 

Nicola Scafetta at the University of Naples has been prolific in analysing global temperature data and identifying dominant frequencies that can be related to natural frequencies of the solar system, of which a 60-65 year cycle is a dominant contributor to change over the past century. 

That same cycle was identified by Svetlana Jevrejeva of Britain’s National Oceanography Centre in sea-level tidal records going back to 1700. A similar cycle plus a longer one of about 200-250 years has been identified in 250 years of climate records in Germany and 11,000 years of Antarctic ice-core records by German and Chinese scientists led by Horst Ludecke (below left) of the University of Applied Sciences at Saarbrucken in Germany. 

And when we recognise that the 64-year cycle and the 200-year cycle were close to their maximums around 2010 we have a partial explanation for the global temperature increases of the past century, and for the slowdown of the past couple of decades. Rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere do contribute to temperature increases, but Scafetta, for example, calculates it to be only half of that observed. This scenario, founded on observational evidence of quantitative climate change, predicts that future anthropogenic warming will be at most half today’s IPCC estimates and will be offset in part by the onset of cooling associated with the 64-year and 200-year cycles. 

With the clean energy target espoused in the Finkel review calculated to cost Australia $5 billion over 33 years it is truly extraordinary that the nation does not have an independent source of information for evaluating differing scenarios, economic and scientific. 

John Christy of the University of Alabama and Judith Curry, former chair of the department of atmospheric sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology, ... have argued that the huge national commitments based on climate science call for an adversarial “red team-blue team” approach to test the claims and counterclaims of mainstream and sceptical scientists. Scott Pruitt, US Environmental Protection Authority Administrator in the Trump administration, endorses the idea...

Professor Peter Ridd has long argued for the same approach - a kind of scientific audit committee.

But this sane idea runs into religion. Too many journalists and politicians think it is

a moral sin to even question the claims of warming alarmists.

These are the people who ask that idiotically meaningless question: "Don't you believe in global warming?" Just like people asked Galileo: "Don't you believe in God?"

The Way I See It......to actually pose the question “Do you believe in climate change?” and you define yourself as a moron. You might just as well go around asking “Do you believe in trees?”

Answer it in the affirmative, and you then define the questioner as a near-genius in comparison with the respondent.

It is under this very broad umbrella of stupidity that all the other climate change/global warming stupidities sprout and flourish, like vegetation absorbing pure life-creating carbon dioxide.

It’s getting hotter; it’s getting (globally warmed) colder; the heat is hiding in the oceans; no it’s not: we ‘miscalculated’ the temperature, it’s still in the atmosphere; we’re getting more ‘severe weather events’ and that’s proved by much fewer global cyclones and hurricanes.

On and on you can and ‘they’ surely will go, defying and indeed denying not just the most basic facts but basic reality itself; describing the most important element for all life on earth as not just a but the “pollutant.”