The science is NOT settled

One of the stupidest things that Warmist intone, often with a look of disdain as they lecture you, about the perils of global warming is “The science is settled”.

As soon as they utter this statement their look of disdain turns to the look of superiority. The statements are made of course by the ignorant or the illiterate, who don’t know that in science very few things are proven, let alone settled.

And so when we look at those statements with what is scientifically emerging from the control-freaks and propagandists intent on controlling and manipulating society to their own ends through the?alleged?impending peril of “gobal warming”, we can see that the science is far from settled.

A group of top NASA boffins says that current climate models predicting global warming are far too gloomy, and have failed to properly account for an important cooling factor which will come into play as CO2 levels rise.

According to Lahouari Bounoua of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, and other scientists from NASA and the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), existing models fail to accurately include the effects of rising CO2 levels on green plants. As green plants breathe in CO2 in the process of photosynthesis ? they also release oxygen, the only reason that there is any in the air for us to breathe ? more carbon dioxide has important effects on them.

Oh so the science isn’t settled. NASA scientists, no less, have found the models are crap and incorrect.

In particular, green plants can be expected to grow as they find it easier to harvest carbon from the air around them using energy from the sun: thus introducing a negative feedback into the warming/carbon process. Most current climate models don’t account for this at all, according to Bounoua. Some do, but they fail to accurately simulate the effects ? they don’t allow for the fact that plants in a high-CO2 atmosphere will “down-regulate” and so use water more efficiently.

Isn’t nature wonderful and so self regulating. It certainly shows up the farce of having a”market” try to control something like carbon, when nature adjusts itself so beautifully.

The NASA and NOAA boffins used their more accurate science to model a world where CO2levels have doubled to 780 parts per million (ppm) compared to today’s 390-odd. They say that world would actually warm up by just 1.64?C overall, and the vegetation-cooling effect would be stronger over land to boot ? thus temperatures on land would would be a further 0.3?C cooler compared to the present sims.

International diplomatic efforts under UN auspices are currently devoted to keeping global warming limited to 2?C or less, which under current climate models calls for holding CO2 to 450 ppm ? or less in many analyses ? a target widely regarded as unachievable. Doubled carbon levels are normally viewed in the current state of enviro play as a scenario that would lead to catastrophe; that is, to warming well beyond 2?C.

It now appears, however, that the previous/current state of climate science may simply have been wrong and that there’s really no need to get in an immediate flap. If Bounoua and her colleagues are right, and CO2 levels keep on rising the way they have been lately (about 2 ppm each year), we can go a couple of centuries without any dangerous warming. There are lots of other factors in play, of course, but nonetheless the new analysis is very reassuring.

Oh whoopsy…the “settled science” was wrong. Way wrong. Way, way wrong. One day soon the likes of Bomber Bradbury?and?other useful idiots will?have?to apologise.

“As we learn more about how these systems react, we can learn more about how the climate will change,” says Bounoua’s colleague Forrest Hall, in a NASA statement accompanying the team’s scholarly paper. “Each year we get better and better. It’s important to get these things right.”

Yes it is important to get these things right. Warmists need to get one thing right and stop saying that the?science?is settled, because NASA has just shown us that it isn’t.