Chris Martz posted an excellent overview over at X
Here is the full post.
I’m picky with terminology, so let me explain. . .
I strongly urge people to stop calling anthropogenic global warming a “hoax” or a “scam.” It is not. There is indeed a valid basic scientific basis.
While scientific consensus is irrelevant, as Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. Roy Spencer point out, there is general agreement in the scientific literature on three things:
➊ Global mean surface temperature (GMST) has increased by about 1.2°C since 1850. Warming since 1980 is about the same magnitude and rate as the early 20th century warming from 1910 to 1945. In general, it has been warm to >250 years. 📈
🔗https://metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut5/
➋ Burning coal, oil and natural gas for energy has increased atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) levels by ~51% since 1850. We know this because of isotopic fingerprints when the C13/C12 ratio decreases. Although this does not indicate an anthropogenic origin, it is a solid indicator. 🏭
🔗https://gml.noaa.gov/education/isotopes/stable.html
➌ Earth’s average surface temperature is a function of energy gain and energy loss. Since there is a spectrum of radiation in CO₂ in the infrared (IR) band of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum, all else constant, adding more to the atmosphere should reduce the rate of cooling by IR emissions into space. As a result, this causes a cooling tendency in the stratosphere and a warming tendency in the troposphere. This has in fact been observed. 🌈
In addition, there is no agreement on:
➊ How much warming is man-made? The claim that almost all warming is anthropogenic is based on modeling studies. The IPCC’s “best estimate” greenhouse gas (GHG) contribution to GMST change since 1850 is +1.5°C ± 44%, and its “best estimate” for aerosol forcing is -0.5°C ± 100 %. That doesn’t sound like “settled science” to me.
🔗https://ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter03.pdf (pp. 439-441)
➋ The exact equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) — a measure of the amount of warming that would result from a doubling of CO₂ concentrations when a new local equilibrium is reached — and the amount of warming that remains in the pipeline for the 21st century. 🌡️
➌ Is warming harmful to humans and life on Earth as a whole? Is it a net benefit or a net drawback? This is not a problem, regardless of what the experts say. His opinion on literary works is mixed. It does not unequivocally support the notion that warming is catastrophic or even bad. 🤷 ♂️
➍ What are the best measures for adaptation and/or mitigation? How should energy policy be addressed? Do we change the zoning code? Do we build sea walls to combat sea level rise? What is the cost-benefit analysis of decarbonization efforts?
So, there is actually a valid scientific basis behind the global warming theory. Basic enough to understand; the devil is in the details and the science is far from established. ❌
Case not closed. The book remained wide open on the table. 📖
However, the real scam is the push for “Net Zero” CO₂ emissions by 2050.
Legitimate scientific issues have been made prisoners of Malthusian religion by elected officials and unelected bureaucrats. Climate policy is an anti-capitalist, anti-human movement. These people are pushing for a one-world government where you are told what you can and can’t eat, what appliances you can and can’t buy, where you can or can’t travel and want to force us to adopt a carbon credit cap and trade system with cashless society. The policy is a scam, not a basic scientific theory.
https://twitter.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1858615282086146262
Related
