The ‘Consensus’ on Climate Change

“There is no single piece of evidence that proves that a given amount of CO2 increase should cause a large increase in temperature,” said Nir Shaviv, a professor at the Racah Institute of Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

This idea directly undercuts the narrative that there is a “scientific consensus” that human activity is the primary driver of planetary climate change.

Shaviv, whose research interests include the effects of the sun on climate, is one of a large body of scientists who question the dominant narrative on climate change. What makes this group of people unique is that despite being credentialed and frequently published in peer-reviewed journals, they are ignored by the mainstream when it comes to discussions on climate change—relegated to the dark peripherals of academia, despite having data to support their positions.

In the United States, it is precisely this collection of data that leads many—often political conservatives—to question the notion that man-made climate change is “settled science.” This viewpoint is not always looked upon favorably.

People who question the mainstream narrative of man-made climate change frequently draw the ire of climate change acolytes and are often labeled as “deniers,” despite the fact that objective analysis shows that the debate over the degree to which human activity affects climate change is hardly settled.

In highly publicized papers, mainstream news stories, and official government reports, you rarely hear views suggesting there might be other factors that could explain rising temperatures. One such report is the U.S. National Climate Assessment, the fourth edition of which was recently released.

When asked about the 2018 climate assessment, President Donald Trump openly stated the position of many climate skeptics, saying, “As to whether or not it’s man-made and whether or not the effects that you’re talking about are there, I don’t see it.” Trump and his supporters have faced sustained backlash for his response.

Yet, despite the public haranguing conservatives and libertarians receive from liberals for questioning the degree to which mankind affects climate change, they are reasonable in questioning the findings of the report.

And here are just some of the many reasons why people on the right simply can’t get on board the man-made climate change train.

1. Some Studies Show CO2 Doesn’t Affect Temperature at All

A key underpinning of man-made climate change is that human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels, increases levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which has the effect of raising the temperature of the planet to concerning levels.

Al Gore, former U.S. vice president and featured in the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” said in the movie that throughout history, rises in carbon dioxide were correlated with rises in temperature. What he failed to mention is that ice core samples show that the rise in temperature actually preceded the rise in CO2 levels.

In an interview for the film “Climate Hustle,” Robert Giegengack, a geologist and former chair for the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, acknowledged this fact, stating that CO2 doesn’t cause rises in temperature, but “temperature drives CO2.”

2. The Claim that 97 Percent of Scientists Agree on Climate Change Proved to Be a Lie

The 97 percent consensus claim began with a man named John Cook, who released a report after claiming to have examined roughly 12,000 papers on the subject. He said 97 percent endorsed “human-caused global warming,” but only 41 of the papers actually supported it.

While others have attempted to manufacture studies showing similar results, Richard Tol, professor of the Economics of Climate Change at Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, said, “This 97 percent is essentially pulled from thin air, it is not based on any credible research whatsoever.”

3. Predictions (Like Polar Ice Caps Melting) Never Seem to Pan Out

A common prediction we used to hear from climate doomsdayers is that the polar ice caps would melt. In 2007, the BBC reported on a prediction that sea ice around the North Pole would melt completely in the summers by the year 2013. Lo and behold, in 2014 the polar ice caps were actually thicker and covered a record number of square miles, due to increases in ice.

Forbes reported, “The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims—that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.”

4. Warming Hasn’t Occurred in Roughly 2 Decades

Researchers have provided evidence showing that global atmospheric temperatures really haven’t risen in about 20 years. In fact, the pause in warming was in large part why the name changed from “global warming” to “climate change.” Multiple research papers have stated that we are now in a global cooling period. And Peter Ferrara, after attending the Heartland Institute’s 2012 International Climate Change Conference, wrote in an article for Forbes, “Global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.”

This data is in sharp contrast to reports from government agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which frequently says we are in the “hottest year on record.” But serious questions have been raised about the agency manipulating data and artificially raising temperatures.

In 2015, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology confirmed that the NOAA had “retroactively altered historical climate change data and resulted in the elimination of a well-known climate phenomenon known as the ‘climate change hiatus.’”

Forbes reported that “U.S. temperatures were significantly warmer during the 1930s than they are today,” and that the “NOAA is only able to claim that we are experiencing the hottest temperatures on record by doctoring the raw temperature data.”


The case for man-made climate change is hardly closed. The climate debate is so open for question that entire books are still being written that debunk the official story.

Reports like the U.S. climate estimate do little more than provoke an emotional response from the reader. These publications rarely, if ever, provide new or even compelling information in support of the mainstream climate narrative. They doggedly reinforce an already pervasive narrative at the expense of any competing information, no matter how credible.

The 2018 climate report suggests that events like the California wildfires are caused or exacerbated by the effects of climate change, while it ignores key issues, like the ones raised above. It fails to resolve charges that California’s lack of sound forest management practices was the largest contributor to those wildfires. And, it rushes—without evidence—to blame human beings who breathe out CO2 simply as a consequence of being alive.

We have a myriad of reasons to be skeptical of climate alarmists. Many people realize this, which is why a 2016 Pew survey found that just 39 percent of Americans “have ‘a lot’ of trust in information from climate scientists.” News organizations like CNN call clearly biased climate reports “near universally accepted science.” But, the facade of consensus is created by methodically excluding data and opinions that run counter to the established narrative.

For those who still blindly believe the climate change doomsday prophets, rather than lambaste those who point out questions about skewed data, they should be asking themselves why it is that so much actual science is left out of documents like the climate assessment.

It’s almost as if there’s a separate agenda at work.

Leave a Reply