Carlos Santiago Cárdenas Peña

POSITION

These scientific papers affirm the position that there are significant limitations and
uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes…emphasizing
that climate science is not settled.

More specifically, the papers in this compilation support these four main skeptical positions
— categorized here as N(1) – N(4) — which question the climate alarm popularized in
today’s headlines.

N(1) Natural mechanisms play well more than a negligible role (as claimed by the IPCC) in
the net changes in the climate system, which includes temperature variations, precipitation
patterns, weather events, etc., and the influence of increased CO2 concentrations on
climatic changes are less pronounced than currently imagined.

N(2) The warming/sea levels/glacier and sea ice retreat/precipitation extremes…

experienced during the modern era are neither unprecedented or remarkable, nor do they
fall outside the range of natural variability.

N(3) The computer climate models are neither reliable or consistently accurate; the
uncertainty and error ranges are irreducible; and projections of future climate states (i.e., an
intensification of the hydrological cycle) are not supported by observations and/or are little
more than speculation.

N(4) Current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for

renewables, are often ineffective and even harmful to the environment, whereas elevated
CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener
planet and enhanced crop yields, lower mortality with warming).

But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows
down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good
theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to
the theory.

So, a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just
give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide
too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds based on the evidence,
and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, but they also start
relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one
scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others
through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited
with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is
widely accepted - and relied upon.
Carlos Santiago Cárdenas Peña

References:

Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism

examined. https://skepticalscience.com/graphics/Expertise_vs_Consensus_med.jpg

Scientific consensus versus expertise in climate science. (s. f.). Skeptical

Science. https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=244