President Joe Biden identified "climate change" as one of his top priorities when he took office. In February, he had the country rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement to prove its commitment to tackling the climate crisis. In March, he also introduced a massive $2 trillion plan to generate jobs, rebuild the nation's infrastructure, position the United States to out-compete China and mitigate the so-called climate crisis.
But computer model simulations used by the administration have produced average warming rates that are more than double what experts have observed over the last four decades.
That's according to Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Hunstville. Spencer has served as a senior scientist for climate studies at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville.
Writing in his personal blog, he warned that "just about every climate claim" made by politicians and some vocal climate scientists has either been an exaggeration or a lie.
Such a controversial claim would render him a "climate denier" to his detractors. Nonetheless, the fact remains that actual climate observations in recent decades are in disagreement with "official" climate models being promoted for the purposes of implementing "expensive, economically damaging and poverty worsening energy policies."
Real climate observations disagree with climate models
Spencer has long been working on a project that shows real global ocean temperatures since the late 1800s. Data from that project showed that, since 1979, global warming has been occurring much more slowly than average climate models say it should have.
Take global ocean temperatures, for example. Ocean temperatures provide the best gauge of how fast extra energy is accumulating in the climate system.
In fact, two of the top-cited ocean temperature datasets have global warming trends near the bottom of the range of climate model simulations.
Deep ocean temperatures are another factor that climate alarmists have obscured. Spencer said the energy imbalance associated with deep-ocean warming in recent years is only about one part in 300 of the natural energy flows in the climate system. This is a very tiny energy imbalance.
That could mean that what is known as "global warming" could be largely natural. And humans would not even know it because of how insignificant that warming is. Furthermore, climate models paint a picture of global warming due to increasing carbon dioxide levels. But those models assume there is no other source of warming.
Logically, more carbon dioxide means some global warming. But Spencer pointed out that the amount of warming makes all the difference as to whether or not world leaders adopt global energy policies.
Seldom is the public ever informed of glaring discrepancies between basic science and what politicians and pop-scientists tell them, wrote Spencer. But these discrepancies matter greatly because they reveal that the climate crisis isn't real. There is simply no climate emergency.
Moreover, seldom are the benefits of a somewhat warmer climate system mentioned. Pop-scientists do not mention the benefits of more carbon dioxide, which is required for life to exist, in the atmosphere, too.
Spencer isn't the only real climate scientist who doesn't subscribe to climate change propaganda. Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the founders of Germany's modern environmental movement and a climate expert, said in a recent interview that the climate catastrophe expected to peak in the next 12 years is "not taking place."
On the contrary, humans have roughly three generations' time to pursue renewable energy sources. He pointed out that warmth and moisture have always been considered beneficial for mankind. It was the cold that humans had to look out for. Plus, atmospheric conditions now taking place are the result of natural phenomena that humans have no power to influence.
For instance, the sun has only now demonstrated such great activity. The planet was also three degrees warmer when civilization began. There was no tipping point then and there will be no tipping point in the near future. (Related: ‘Climate change’ activist movement nothing more than rebranded 1970’s myth.)
Go to FakeScience.news to learn more about climate change and other pseudoscientific phenomena.
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.
