You hear about new climate science every day. You’re also savvy enough to wonder how much bias goes into that reporting. To give you an idea, here’s a short review of four studies published this year that have received no media attention even though their findings are significant.
The Cause of Arctic Warming
Arctic sea ice is at the forefront of alarmism. They point to an acceleration in melting ice and increasing air temperature in the region as a case for catastrophic global warming. Most importantly, they correlate the acceleration of this melt with increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as the most irrefutable evidence of anthropogenic warming and the danger it presents. A new study performed by the Kyoto University and UC San Diego puts this concept to the test.
The researchers looked at tropical Pacific and North Atlantic water warming trends and found that accelerated sea ice melting happened in the early 20th century. This event happened early enough in the 20th century that greenhouse gases and anthropogenic effects were to minimal to be the primary cause. Instead, the researchers were able to demonstrate that decadal ocean weather trends were the driving force behind the warming and ice melts. The models (actually based on measurable data for a change) are the only to date that can adequately reflect the rate of warming and ice melt that has been observed in both periods. To summarize, these researchers have shown unequivocally that warming oceans, as opposed to increases in greenhouse gases, are causing the arctic warming we are seeing today.
The Real Cause of American Droughts
Another study that hasn’t seen much media attention focused on droughts in the American Southwest over the last century. This research team observed patterns from 1895 to 2010. Once again, this research broke the mold by trying to fit models to observed data, rather than the other way around. This revolutionary idea of using real data to shape the models always leads to the same conclusion: carbon dioxide levels are insufficient to adequately explain observed weather trends. In the case of droughts, they found that air temperature fluctuations were in fact the leading factor, but carbon dioxide wasn’t causing those fluctuations. Instead, solar activity was the only force powerful enough to explain the results they measured. In other words, the completely mundane explanation is that the sun can burn hotter and cooler over long periods of time, and those changes are responsible for periods of drought and wetness.
Rising Sea Levels
Another prominent alarmist argument is that sea levels are rising. If left unchecked, rising oceans will wipe away coastal cities across the globe and push humanity into a post-apocalyptic water world. Everywhere you look, the published numbers show an inexorable climb in global sea levels. Never mind that the amount the sea is rising varies by about 300 percent depending on who you ask. Forget that the most aggressive estimate shows a three-millimeter rise per year (such a rate would take 100 years to cause even minimal flooding along any coastline). Peer review has a different take on the matter.
When sea level measurements were examined, researchers found significant bias in the methodology. One of the primary ways to measure sea levels is with tide gauges. In peer review, it was discovered that 65 percent of tide gauges measured steady or declining sea levels. Less than half reported the rise that is being plastered across mainstream media. Why was there so much bias? Until late in the 20th century, tide gauges were only used in major shipping lanes. This caused the majority of data to be concentrated in the Baltics, northeast America and northwest Europe. When sea levels were averaged using an even distribution across the globe, the trending sea level rise disappeared. Instead, local increases are being touted as a global threat.
Bias in Climate Science
Finally, we have a study in climate science itself, and this is the truth you were expecting. An independent review of published science under the Obama Administration fully explains the narrative you have heard so often. During Obama’s eight years, climate models that showed catastrophic trends received more funding that their conservative counterparts. In fact, any report showing extreme and immediate danger was four times more likely to receive additional funding than anything else, and the amount of funding correlated with the extremity of the findings. Simply put, government money was used to purchase science showing the results they needed to justify policy. It was the exact interaction real scientists have been warning against for decades.
Real science does show some warming trends. It also shows some cooling trends. And everything in between. Climate modelling is one of the most complex issues modern science is trying to tackle, and there is still a lot of room for error. Even considering that, the alarmist models that were funded by tax dollars have been wildly erroneous, and anyone who can’t acknowledge the margin of error in predicting the future for the next 100 years is either willfully ignorant or hopelessly naive.
~ American Liberty Report
