Physicist Dr. Ed Berry rips UN IPCC’s ‘climate fiction’ – Explains ‘why the IPCC is wron

[rangerrebew]

IPCC
Physicist Dr. Ed Berry rips UN IPCC’s ‘climate fiction’ – Explains ‘why the IPCC is wrong’
15 hours ago
 

Reposted from Climate Depot

By: Admin – Climate Depot December 24, 2021 9:33 AM

Special to Climate Depot

Climate science prevails over politics

This is my reply to an opinion letter by Monica Tranel, Montana Democrat candidate for Congress, in Montana’s Daily Inter Lake. This is my attempt to make the argument as simple as possible in 570 words for public reading.

This letter does not criticize Monica Tranel, but focuses on her letter of Dec 19, 2021, about climate change. The journal Science of Climate Change published my landmark paper on this subject on December 14, 2021.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/12/25/physicist-dr-ed-berry-rips-un-ipccs-climate-fiction-explains-why-the-ipcc-is-wrong/
Mrs. Tranel’s letter makes the following invalid assumptions.

[Fishrrman]

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

- Michael Chrichton

[Kamaji]

More from the original article:

First, her letter assumes the definition of “climate change” is that human emissions cause it. However, “climate change” means that climate simply changes whatever the cause.

Second, her letter incorrectly assumes events prove their cause, writing “the impact of climate change is hitting hard… We already see its effects in Montana.” My book Climate Miracle shows why this assumption is invalid even in legal trials.

Third, her letter assumes we should believe the COP26 attendees who say, “the climate crisis will never be averted without international agreements and concerted action.”

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines climate change science. But the IPCC bases its conclusions on one big invalid assumption, namely, that natural CO2 stayed constant since 1750 and human CO2 caused all the CO2 increase. All climate laws, regulations, treaties, and taxes are based on this invalid assumption.

My paper uses IPCC’s own data to prove this assumption is false and shows natural CO2, not human CO2, dominates the CO2 increase. Other scientists have checked my calculations and proved them correct.

[Kamaji]

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

- Michael Chrichton

Exactly.  Once upon a time, it was the scientific consensus that continents did not drift, and that phrenology was a valid way of detecting criminals before they committed crimes.