My problem with the global warming narrative is (1) that it lacks clarity, (2) that the narrative changes, (3) the sacred texts in the narrative allow themselves to be fudged and corrupted by obviously worthless information, and (4)there is singularly little in the way of real numbers floating around.
(1)
What is meant by global warming? How is it defined? How is it measured? It is cold today, does that mean there is global cooling happening? It was hot three days ago: was THAT global warming? How is this defined. Obviously it is not weather. What is the proper interval of time over which warming is to be defined to be warming? There was a 200 year period between 1000 AD and 1200 AD when temperatures were notably warmer that average. Was THAT global warming? Why not? It has been said it MIGHT have been warmer in the 1000 to 1200 AD interval than it is currently (by a global warming supporter at East Anglia Climatology Centre in England). This undermines Al Gore's claim in his faux documentary, viz the hockey stick graph, that temperatures have NEVER been hotter than they are now.
Is global warming bad? Can't it be bad for some and good for others? I think it has been good for wine growers. When I started to drink wine in 1975 it was not usual to find wine with alcohol over 12% from Europe. Now wines from Bordeaux are commonly over 13% Wines from Alsace in NE France are commonly over 13%. This is because the grapes are achieving higher levels of ripeness due to warmer temperatures.
This ought to be part of the debate, to clarify some of these points. The fact that these things are NOT clarified, in my judgment, indicates this is more to do with political gaming than about science or "save the world" leadership.
(2)
As someone pointed out, the topic has changed from global warming to climate change. This is moving the goal posts, as it were. I imagine this happened because actual warming largely came to a halt in about 2000. There is precious little warming that is being seen over the last 15-20 years. That is tough on folks who want to argue CO2 emissions are creating a greenhouse effect and causing warming. How can warming cease at precisely the point in time when CO2 emissions are at their highest, exponentially increasing? Let's change the definition to something that can't be disputed -- changing climate. But wait?! Climate DOES change! It changed during the Little Ice Age 1225 to 1850; it changed during the Medieval Warming Epoch 1000 AD to 1200 AD. Obviously it changed in the past when we had ice ages. These earlier climate changes were not driven by human behaviour. Maybe, just maybe, our climate change today is NOT being driven by human behaviour? Again, that is not a hypothesis that is fully explored and analysed. In fact, people who try to go down that path are punished and shamed and often suffer for their efforts in their careers.
(3)
Some time back -- about 1992? 2002? -- the UN council on climate released a report in which they included information from an Indian scientist who said that at current rates all the Himalayian glaciers would be melted in 30 years. The problem was the guy said this off-hand on a radio station, it was picked up by a journalist, and it found its way into the UN executive summary unquestioned. The guy was NOT a glacier scientist or a climate scientist. His evidence was based on seeing snow melt during a weekend hike in the Himalayas. Other glacier scientists pointed out the poverty of this report to the UN panel, but they did not see fit to question or remove this anecdotal story. These glacier scientists have said some glaciers in the Himalayas are growing smaller; other glaciers in the Himalayas are growing larger. Even the glaciers that are growing smaller would take about 300 years -- not 30 years -- to disappear at current rates of retreat.
Some people have counterargued that the observed warming is due to the creation of urban concrete heat wells proximate to temperature monitoring stations. Global warming zealots used a study of Chinese temperature data that showed this counterargument to be false. But further investigation found these Chinese temperature data stations were often moved in location -- sometimes 40 kilometres in location -- and this movement was not recorded in the data. In my view that whole study is invalid -- the data is invalid because the provenance and consistency of the instruments was not secure.
We hear that the ice caps are the smallest they have ever been and at this rate the northern polar ice is going to be completely thawed, an unheard of phenomenon. But then we soon hear the northern polar ice is back to an all time record high again. How do you go from the one story to the second story and not lose your faith in the global warming Cassandras?
(4)
Numbers. It is said that you don't have science until you have numbers. Where are the numbers? We are told the oceans may rise 200 feet if all the ice caps melt. Well, what is the probability of that outcome? What are the assumptions needed for that outcome to occur? Is that a 0.01% probability scenario or a 30% probability scenario or a 80% probability scenario?
Just about all the numbers are tied up in computer model simulations. It have heard that the models are never updated with new discoveries that moderate the simulation results. A few years ago I read an article about how the interaction of cloud formation interacted with solar energy had been misappreciated and that adapting the simulation model would result in warming progressing at 1/3 the previous rate. That is good news! It will take 3 times as long for the oceans to rise and all the ice caps to melt. But this news is never reported and the models are not adapted.
For all of these reasons I do not have "faith" in the climate change issue. Undefined, unquantified, unresponsive to negative data and findings. It just smells like a gigantic hoax to me. Color me sceptical. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. We have gone around this rodeo of dire threats before.