Climate Change

In the previous commentary, A Failure of Belief, I asserted that neither science nor authority should require belief, but that both should require proof. I also asserted that both science and authority had demonstrated that they did not deserve to be believed regarding the two “crises” at issue, COVID19 and climate change. Since a basis for belief does not exist in either case, acceptance can only be based on proof; that is, on data which obviate the need for belief. Regrettably, the available data does not reach the level of proof regarding either of the “crises”.

In the case of COVID19, the primary data would consist of number of cases of the disease and number of deaths resulting from the disease. However, a high (though unknown) percentage of those who contract the disease remain asymptomatic and thus are likely not to be included in the number of cases unless they have tested positive. These individuals are not likely to have been tested because they have perceived no reason to be tested. Therefore, the data regarding the number of cases in the population are questionable and unreliable. This data reliability issue is compounded by numerous instances of false or misleading reporting of test results, such as the case in Florida in which positive test results were reported as 90+% when the actual results were 9+%.

COVID19 death data are also unreliable because of the varying criteria used by jurisdictions to classify a death as being from COVID19. For example, some jurisdictions report any death of an individual who tested positive for COVID19 as a COVID19 death, even in cases in which the actual cause of death was a traffic accident or a shooting or some pre-existing health condition. This situation renders the death data almost useless, though it has been used by the media regardless.

In the case of climate change, the primary data would consist of temperature measurements and sea level measurements. The temperature data are “adjusted”, reducing their provenance to estimates; and, there are differences in the “adjusted” temperature measurements among the sources of the original data. The sea level data are measured by two fundamentally different methods and the resulting measurements differ by a factor of two. Therefore, neither set of measurements rises to the level of proof of a particular situation.

Consensed climate science focuses on anthropogenic CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” as the cause of climate change, but there is no data which proves that anthropogenic “greenhouse” gases are the cause, or even a cause, of climate change; or, data which proves that the natural variation which caused climate change in the past has ceased to function.

Some in authority claim that climate change has caused increased hurricane frequency and severity, increased tornado frequency and intensity, more frequent and more intense precipitation and droughts, etc. However, these claims are counterfactual based on observational data. There exists no proof that climate change has had any measurable impact on severe weather frequency or intensity.

The combination of a Failure of Belief and a Failure of Proof result in confusion and uncertainty, both of which appear justified.

By: Clear Energy Alliance

The previous commentaries on coincidence and causation regarding temperature anomalies and sea level referred to two interactive composite graphs (here and here). These graphs each combine paleoclimatic estimates of historical conditions with “adjusted” data from the instrumental records. The graphs present both the paleoclimatic reconstructions and the “adjusted” instrumental data to two decimal place precision. This level of precision is unrealistic for the “adjusted” instrumental data and completely unreasonable for the paleoclimatic reconstructions.

The currently reported global average near-surface temperature anomalies are calculated from datasets which have been “adjusted” to reduce perceived inaccuracies in the original data; and, in some cases, have had temperature estimates “infilled” where real instrumental data do not exist. Most of the instrumental data is measured to one decimal place and the adjustments are made in that one decimal place. Therefore, the number in the first decimal place in the original data is an estimate in the “adjusted” temperature record and any number in the second decimal place is the result of an averaging calculation. The Law of Large Numbers legitimizes such calculations in the errors in the numbers are random, an unreasonable assumption regarding “adjusted” temperatures.

The datasets are not truly global since there are no instrumented sites in many locations. This is particularly true regarding sea surface temperatures, where the instrumentation is far less extensive than on land. The sea surface temperature measurements still include measurements taken by ships, using a variety of measurement protocols, though these are largely being replaced by data from purpose-designed buoys.

The currently reported sea level anomalies are calculated both from a limited number of coastal tide gauges and from satellites. The tide gauge data are confounded by changes in elevation of the measuring instruments due to isostatic rebound and land subsidence. The satellites currently measure changes in sea level approximately twice the values measured by the tide gauges. With this large, unresolved difference in instrumented measurements, it is not realistic to report sea level during the instrumental period to two decimal place precision, since the difference exists to the left of the decimal point.

Composite graphs such as those linked above join the paleoclimatic portion of the curve to the instrumental portion of the curve at a point, indicating a smooth transition from one to the other. Such graphs do not continue to show the values which the paleoclimatic analysis would have produced had it been continued beyond the beginning of the instrumental record, so it is not possible to compare the results of the two methods. One example of the problems this issue can cause is what Professor Phillip Jones of the University of East Anglia described as “Mike’s Nature Trick”, referring to Professor Michael Mann’s decision to transition from the paleoclimatic portion of his “hockey stick” graph to “adjusted” instrumental data at the point at which the paleoclimatic temperatures began to decline while the instrumental temperatures were increasing. The difference in the direction of temperature change between the two diverse sources from that point calls into question the validity of the analysis.

From: America Out Loud

By: Dr. Jay Lehr & Tom Harris

Date: September 15, 2020

‘Stopping Climate Change’ is a Laughing Matter

"We hear it all the time from politicians, the press and activists: ‘we must stop climate change!’

Of all the nonsensical statements emanating from the left, this one has to be the most idiotic. The only sensible response from rational people is laughter. They might as well be chanting, ‘stop continental drift,’ for all the good it will do. As Carleton University Earth Sciences Professor Tim Patterson pointed out, “Climate is and always has been variable. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually.” From that perspective, President Donald Trump is the exact opposite of a climate change denier—he says that climate changes naturally all the time." ...

‘Stopping Climate Change’ is a Laughing Matter

• Coincidence: the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection, Merriam-Webster
• Causation: the act or agency which produces an effect, Merriam-Webster
• Contributory: of, relating to, or forming a contribution: playing a part in bringing about an end or result, Merriam-Webster

Sea Level

The linked graph is a paleoclimatic reconstruction of global sea level over approximately the past 800,000 years. The sea level roughly approximates a sine wave with a maximum amplitude variation of approximately 146 meters. The peak sea level positive anomaly is approximately 12.9 meters approximately 400 million years ago, while the peak negative anomaly is -133 meters approximately 20,000 years ago, both relative to a zero anomaly approximately 4,000 years ago. Clicking on the right-hand icon in the upper left corner of the page overlays the temperature anomaly on the graph.

Clicking on the left-hand icon in the upper left-hand corner of the page shifts the time scale to the most recent 1,020 years and also changes the units of measure on the “Y” axis from meters to centimeters. On this timescale, the peak sea level anomaly is +21.36 centimeters (0.214 meters), approximately 1/60th of the peak anomaly in the historical record. The increased intensity of the graph lines after 1890 is indicative of the start of “global” instrumental measurement. Clicking the right-hand icon in the upper left corner of the page overlays the temperature anomaly on the graph. The year 1000 at the left of the graph is early in the Medieval Warm Period. The period from 1350 to 1850 spans the Little Ice Age. The balance of the graph displays the Modern Warm Period through June 2020.

It is clear on both timescales that sea level follows temperature changes. The temperature and sea level changes prior to approximately 1950 are considered to represent natural variation. The rapid, short-term changes in both temperature and sea level in the instrumental record are also considered to represent natural variation. The positive and negative fluctuations in the anomalies have numerous, differing contributory causes. The causes are not well understood and their relative contributions to the positive and negative anomaly changes cannot be determined, even during the period of the instrumental temperature and sea level records.

The graph of the past 1020 years shows that the global temperature anomaly has been increasing, with significant fluctuations, since before the beginning of the instrumental records, approximately 70 years prior to 1950, when anthropogenic CO2 emissions are believed to have become significant. Therefore, during that 70-year period, it is extremely unlikely that anthropogenic CO2 emissions were the cause, or even a contributory cause, of the increasing temperature anomaly. The global sea level anomaly did not begin to increase until the beginning of the instrumental record and appears to lag the increasing temperature anomaly by approximately 80 years.

Since 1950, the temperature and sea level anomalies and atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been increasing. There is no scientific reason to believe that the forces which caused increasing temperature and sea level anomalies over the period from 1880-1950 ceased to function after 1950. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the temperature and sea level anomaly increases from 1950-2020 were caused by increasing atmospheric CO2. Physics suggests that increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations should increase global temperatures and global sea levels, so it is also highly unlikely that the post-1950 temperature anomaly increase is a mere coincidence. Rather, increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations are most likely a contributing factor to the temperature and sea level anomaly increases, though the relative magnitude of the CO2 effect cannot be measured.

From: America Out Loud

By: Dr. Jay Lehr & Tom Harris

Date: September 9, 2020

The Democrats’ Climate Platform Belongs In Neverland

"The Democratic Party has abandoned rational thought about climate change. Rather than focus on preparing for the real problems of a continually changing climate, they concentrate instead on the politically correct but scientifically impossible goal of ‘stopping climate change.’ They seem to have flown away to Neverland.

Peter Pan author J. M. Barrie tells us that Neverlands are found in the minds of children. There, with the assistance of fairy dust, Peter Pan can fly and teaches children to ignore their common sense and soar as well. Peter claims greatness, is able to feel danger when it is near and can even imagine things into existence. There is almost nothing the hero of Neverland cannot do, provided he stays childlike.

When it comes to climate change and energy, the Democrats are essentially the same. Reality for them is now more determined by what Al Gore and equally imaginative climate activists say than what real science and observational evidence actually show. That we are as yet unable to meaningfully forecast climate decades in advance, let alone control it, doesn’t matter to the Dems. They simply ignored the fact that every climate prediction the U.N. has made has turned out to be wrong. Humankind has a global thermostat, they imagine." ...

The Democrats’ Climate Platform Belongs In Neverland

• Coincidence: the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection, Merriam-Webster
• Causation: the act or agency which produces an effect, Merriam-Webster
• Contributory: of, relating to, or forming a contribution: playing a part in bringing about an end or result, Merriam-Webster

Temperature

The linked graph is a paleoclimatic reconstruction of global temperature anomalies over approximately the past 800,000 years. The temperature history approximates a sine wave, with a maximum amplitude variation of approximately 8.8°C. Interestingly, the magnitude of the negative anomalies over time are approximately twice the magnitude of the positive anomalies. The peak positive anomaly approximately 123,000 years ago is 2.68°C, approximately 1.75°C warmer than the June 2020 anomaly.

Clicking the icon in the upper left-hand corner of the graph reduces the timescale to the past 1020 years. In this time period, the maximum negative anomaly is 1.16°C and the maximum positive anomaly is 1.36°C. The increase in the density of the graph lines beginning in 1880 indicates the start of the “global” instrumental temperature record. The year 1000 at the left of the graph is early in the Medieval Warm Period. The period from 1350 to 1850 spans the Little Ice Age. The balance of the graph displays the Modern Warm Period through June 2020.

The positive and negative fluctuations in the anomalies have numerous, differing contributory causes. The causes are not well understood and their relative contributions to the positive and negative anomaly changes cannot be determined, even during the period of the instrumental temperature record. The IPCC suggests 95% confidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the majority contributing cause of the positive anomaly changes over the period since 1950, which is generally recognized as the period in which anthropogenic CO2 emissions began to become significant. However, numerous climate alarmists insist anthropogenic CO2 emissions are the sole cause of the anomaly increase. Neither group has data to prove its assertions.

The graph of the past 1020 years shows that the global temperature anomaly has been increasing, with significant fluctuations, since before the beginning of the instrumental temperature record, approximately 70 years prior to 1950, when anthropogenic CO2 emissions are believed to have become significant. Therefore, during that 70-year period, it is extremely unlikely that anthropogenic CO2 emissions were the cause, or even a contributory cause, of the increasing temperature anomaly.

Since 1950, the temperature anomaly and atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been increasing. There is no scientific reason to believe that the forces which caused increasing temperature anomalies over the period from 1880-1950 ceased to function after 1950. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the temperature anomaly increase from 1950-2020 was caused by increasing atmospheric CO2. Physics suggests that increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations should increase global temperatures, so it is also highly unlikely that the post-1950 temperature anomaly increase is a mere coincidence. Rather, increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations are most likely a contributing factor to the temperature anomaly increase, though the relative magnitude of the CO2 effect cannot be measured.

From: The Global Warming Policy Foundation

By: Martin Livermore

Date: September, 2020

Greenhouse Gas Emissions - The Global Picture

Summary

The current round of international action on climate change mitigation is achieving little. Under pressure from a powerful environmental lobby, politicians pay lip service to the need for drastic decarbonisation of developed-world economies and commit to increasingly unrealistic targets. Meanwhile, global emissions continue to rise. Even with the major economic disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, it is estimated that global emissions of carbon dioxide in 2020 will be only 5.5% lower than the previous year.

Leaving aside any consideration of the actual effectiveness of decarbonisation – if it could be achieved – it behoves the scientific and political establishment to revise their analysis of what can be done and how to achieve it, and focus efforts on developing realistic and affordable solutions. Fossil
fuels will inevitably be replaced by other sources of energy, but only when credible, economic alternatives are available.

Whatever efforts European states make to reduce emissions, the outcome could simply be to cripple their economies, while China, India and the rest of the less-developed world continues to fuel growth with coal and oil. These countries will never follow the lead of the EU or others until the solutions provided are economic.

Despite this, politicians are reluctant to criticise activists such as Extinction Rebellion, despite their naïve demands for rapid and complete decarbonisation in single countries, which ignore the bigger picture.

In these circumstances, it is far better to focus resources on developing energy generation and storage technologies (plus, potentially, carbon capture technologies) that industry and domestic consumers would choose without compulsion or subsidies. The industrialised world would still be taking a lead, but in a much more rational way.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions - The Global Picture

The US House of Representatives Select Committee on the Climate Crisis has released Solving the Climate Crisis, The Congressional Action Plan for a Clean Energy Economy and a Healthy, Resilient, and Just America, a majority staff report prepared by the majority committee staff. The Committee is composed exclusively of Democrat US representatives. The Committee refers to the document as a “Congressional Action Plan”, though it has not been adopted by the full House of Representatives, nor is there any corresponding plan which has been developed by a select committee in the US Senate and adopted by the full US Senate.

The Executive Summary of the action plan states that: “With the devastating health and economic consequences of climate change growing at home and abroad, the United States must act urgently, guided by science, and in concert with the international community to provide a livable climate for today’s youth and future generations.” Beyond this reference to the international community, the action plan is exclusively focused on actions limited to the US and discusses no requirements for parallel actions on the part of the rest of the nations of the globe.

The action plan bears a striking resemblance to “A Green Stimulus to Rebuild Our Economy”. , which builds upon both the Green New Deal developed by the Green Party in the US and the Blue New Deal developed by the New Economics Foundation in the UK. These proposals are discussed here and here. None of these documents acknowledge that the United States is not capable of “solving the climate crisis” in the absence of equally Draconian actions on the part of all the other nations of the globe, even assuming that such global concerted actions would be capable of “solving the climate crisis”.

The need for development of the action plan is based on the assertion, without any evidence, that: “the devastating health and economic consequences of climate change (are) growing at home and abroad”. These consequences are not identified, except by reference to the following summary comments from the US Fourth National Climate Assessment.

“High temperature extremes and heavy precipitation events are increasing. Glaciers and snow cover are shrinking, and sea ice is retreating. Seas are warming, rising, and becoming more acidic, and marine species are moving to new locations toward cooler waters. Flooding is becoming more frequent along the U.S. coastline. Growing seasons are lengthening, and wildfires are increasing. These and many other changes are clear signs of a warming world.”

The deception summarized in the paragraph above has been documented by Tony Heller in a series of YouTube videos, of which this is the most damning. The contributors to the Assessment “cherry-picked” the start dates in their graphical presentations to present the data beginning with the lowest point in the data for each issue they addressed, rather than showing all of the data from the beginning of the data record.

Climate change is not causing extreme weather, as suggested in the Fourth National climate Assessment, as discussed here. Arguably, the effects of the mild global warming to date and the increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been a net benefit to society globally and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.

The “climate crisis” is a construct of unverified and unrepresentative climate models, which are a wholly inadequate basis for global or national policy development.

From: Climate Etc.

By: Ross McKitrick

Date: August 13, 2020

New confirmation that climate models overstate atmospheric warming

"Two new peer-reviewed papers from independent teams confirm that climate models overstate atmospheric warming and the problem has gotten worse over time, not better.

The papers are Mitchell et al. (2020) “The vertical profile of recent tropical temperature trends: Persistent model biases in the context of internal variability” Environmental Research Letters, and McKitrick and Christy (2020) “Pervasive warming bias in CMIP6 tropospheric layers” Earth and Space Science. John and I didn’t know about the Mitchell team’s work until after their paper came out, and they likewise didn’t know about ours.

Mitchell et al. look at the surface, troposphere and stratosphere over the tropics (20N to 20S). John and I look at the tropical and global lower- and mid- troposphere. Both papers test large samples of the latest generation (“Coupled Model Intercomparison Project version 6” or CMIP6) climate models, i.e. the ones being used for the next IPCC report, and compare model outputs to post-1979 observations. John and I were able to examine 38 models while Mitchell et al. looked at 48 models. The sheer number makes one wonder why so many are needed, if the science is settled. Both papers looked at “hindcasts,” which are reconstructions of recent historical temperatures in response to observed greenhouse gas emissions and other changes (e.g. aerosols and solar forcing). Across the two papers it emerges that the models overshoot historical warming from the near-surface through the upper troposphere, in the tropics and globally." ...

New confirmation that climate models overstate atmospheric warming

A recent study raised issues regarding climate alarmism and climate skepticism and disinformation. The following statement from the study is the subject of this commentary.

"... the amount of literature examining climate change alarmism is negligible compared to that examining climate change skepticism ..." Suggesting it is significantly less prevalent.

Climate alarmism is the primary product of government funded climate change research. Therefore, climate alarmism is far more prevalent than climate skepticism. However, because it is reported as the results of government funded research in the US and globally, it is not typically reported or perceived as being alarmism.

Any research project which evaluates potential future climate scenarios based on Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 (RCP 8.5) is alarmist, as RCP 8.5 is built on totally unrealistic atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Its use results in projections of extreme temperature increases, increased and worsened droughts and flooding, increased extreme tropical cyclones, increased frequency and intensity of tornadoes, dramatically rising sea levels, island and coastal submersion, species extinction, massive refugee movements and increased mortality.

Research funding agencies and the researchers they fund do not view their efforts as alarmism, but merely as advancing the science. They certainly do not discuss their results as alarmist, though they are intended to alarm the public and stimulate climate action. However, the research funding agencies and the researchers they fund do classify any research which does not agree with their work and anyone who questions their work as skeptical or denialist.

The agencies which prepare the National Climate Assessment do not view presenting  graphs with truncated timeframes as alarmist, though the reason for the truncation is to begin the graph at the point in the historical record which emphasizes or maximizes the apparent change in the reported phenomenon, which is then attributed to increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Several examples of this truncation are explained by Tony Heller here. The agencies which prepare the National Climate Assessment were quick to label Heller’s analysis as skepticism. Clearly, in this case, Heller’s skepticism is amply justified.

The scientists who review climate research for inclusion in the IPCC Assessment Reports do not consider their actions in excluding skeptical research from the reports as alarmist, though their intent is to exclude research which suggests less reason for climate alarm. The narrative regarding the need for alarm regarding climate has been established and will be defended from new research results which do not support the narrative.

The scientists who “adjust” global near-surface temperature records to make it appear that the globe is warming more rapidly than it is do not consider their “adjustments” alarmist. They are just protecting the established narrative.

The politicians who warn of impending doom and the need for precipitous action to avoid it apparently do not view their activities as alarmism either, though they are quick to attack those skeptical scientists who accuse them of alarmism.

The suggestion that climate alarmism is less prevalent than climate skepticism appears to ignore the long list of alarmist predictions which have failed to occur, as listed here. The Arctic is not yet ice-free. Snow has not disappeared from the face of the earth. Tropical cyclones have not become more frequent of more destructive. The Pacific islands have not been submerged nor have coastal cities. California and Texas are not in perpetual drought. Massive climate-driven migration has not occurred.

Interestingly, climate alarmists appear not to be particularly alarmed by the rapid increase in coal use in China, India and throughout the Pacific Rim, though skeptics frequently bring it to their attention.

By: Clear Energy Alliance

Climate science is extremely complex because the climate is extremely complex and not completely understood. Scientific papers which report the results of climate research can be very difficult to read and understand because of the complexity of the subject matter. Research scientists typically prepare abstracts of their reports to assist those interested in the science to determine the specific subject matter of the research, the fundamental research process and the general conclusions of the research. These abstracts can also be difficult to read and understand.

It has become common for the agencies or universities for which the climate research has been conducted to produce press releases announcing the completion of the research and providing a layman’s summary of the research results and an assessment of their significance to understanding of the climate. These press releases frequently also serve as marketing tools to assist the agencies or universities in obtaining additional research contracts. Therefore, they frequently exaggerate the accomplishments of the research team and their significance.

This situation persists and is magnified in the UN IPCC process, in which teams of scientists review new climate research papers and select those to be included in the working group reports. The working groups then prepare reports which are, in effect, abstracts of all of the research reports selected for review and inclusion in the working groups final report. These working group reports are then condensed and simplified to prepare a Summary for Policymakers intended to assist policymakers to decide which policies they should adopt in response to the science as summarized.

The climate science research process is corrupted in at least three fundamental ways. The most fundamental corruption is the selection of the specific research to be conducted by the organizations (typically government) funding the research and the selection of the research teams to conduct the research. The second corruption occurs in the selection of research results to be included in the working group reports. The final corruption occurs in the translation of the research results into policy guidelines, which is heavily influenced by politics. There has been at least one case in which the Summary for Policymakers did not accurately summarize the product of the working groups.

The IPCC also prepares press releases regarding the contents of the Summary for Policymakers. These press releases focus on what the policymakers want to communicate to the public in layman’s terms. The “If it bleeds, it leads” media then selectively report the most glaring highlights of the press releases, which are then echoed and amplified by climate alarmists in an effort to spur the public to demand climate action.

The scientific reserve and uncertainty expressed in the original research reports are progressively downplayed or neglected in this process, resulting in media reporting of current and potential future conditions with totally unjustified certainty. This process ultimately leads to proclamations regarding “the end of snow”, an “ice-free Arctic”, Fireball Earth, massive climate change refugee issues, disappearing islands and submerged coastlines, among others.

Uncertain science thus leads to the deception of certain apocalypse, without any evidence.

From: American Enterprise Institute

By: Benjamin Zycher

Date: July 2020

The Climate Left Attacks Nobel Laureate William D. Nordhaus

"Key Points

• William D. Nordhaus, having received the 2018 Nobel Prize in economics largely in
recognition of his integrated assessment model of the science and economics of climate
policies, now is under attack from the environmental left, almost certainly because that
model does not support the policy preferences of the climate alarmists.

• The alarmists’ assertions about prospective climate phenomena are driven by climate
models that have predicted the past and present poorly, under a set of assumptions that
are deeply dubious. Those assertions are inconsistent with the evidence, and the alarmists’
policy prescriptions have been based in part on the application of low (or zero) discount
rates, on the grounds that such discount rates are appropriate as a tool with which to
incorporate the interests of future generations. That premise is incorrect.

• The proponents of the climate “crisis” attack on fossil fuels are driven by an imperative
almost entirely ideological. That rather than any reliance on “science” explains why a
dedicated scholar like Nordhaus finds himself under attack." ...

The Climate Left Attacks Nobel Laureate William D. Nordhaus

“One of the problems we face in the United States is that unfortunately, there is a combination of an anti-science bias that people are — for reasons that sometimes are, you know, inconceivable and not understandable — they just don’t believe science and they don’t believe authority,” Fauci told the Learning Curve podcast, which is produced by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)., Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

Dr. Fauci’s comments were made in the context of the recent COVID19 pandemic and were critical of American’s responses to the recommendations of scientists and government officials in response to the pandemic. However, belief in science becomes difficult when the issue is: “What does the science say today?”. Belief in authority becomes difficult when the issue is: “What is the official position today?”.

Multiple scientific positions, from multiple sources, regarding epidemiology, transmission, symptomatology, treatment, mortality, etc. caused many to wonder what, if anything, was the science to “believe” as opposed to the latest informed opinion. Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the science was the wildly varying estimates of infection and mortality rates.

Multiple conflicting positions by those supposedly in authority were equally confusing and raised similar questions about what to “believe”. Some actions by those in authority, such as consigning active COVID19 cases to nursing homes and extended care facilities resulted in numerous additional deaths among sensitive populations.

Science and authority have not performed with distinction during the pandemic. Therefore, rather than being critical of this “failure of belief”, I believe the “failure of belief” is a reasonable and rational response to the performance of science and authority. The response is not “anti-science” or “anti-authority” as much as it is uncertainty about what is scientific and what is authoritative.

While Dr. Fauci’s criticism was focused on the pandemic response, its implications are far more broadly applicable.

“The science is settled” is the clarion cry of the consensed climate science community. However, there remain numerous valid questions regarding what the science is. Global average near-surface and tropospheric temperatures are rising, but it is not currently possible to determine the portion of this warming which is natural recovery from the Little Ice Age, other natural factors and anthropogenic influences. Global average sea levels are rising, as the have been for more than 150 years, but there is no measurable influence of increased global average temperatures on the rate of rise; and, there remain questions regarding the actual rate of rise. The future influence of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations remains uncertain. The climate models produce widely varying projections, depending on the choice of model, climate sensitivity, forcings and feedbacks. Belief in the science is difficult because it is not clear what the science is.

Authority also presents no clear, concise, consistent position regarding future actions necessary to avoid a climate catastrophe. Some in positions of authority state that we have somewhere between 6 months and 12 years to mend our evil ways and save the planet. Belief in authority is difficult because it is not clear what is authoritative. Certainly not all the positions espoused by those in authority can be accurate since they are inconsistent.

Skepticism is an essential characteristic of the pursuit of science. Skepticism is also an inherent quality of humanity. Neither science nor authority is a religion, so neither should require belief, and both should require proof.