Global Warming Trend over last 16 Years Greatly Underestimated, according to New Method

[CRH]

5. Hi NickB79, exactly the point I was trying to make, ...

On some things there is indeed scientific consensus, the acceptance of anthropogenic activity as a cause in the global heating.

However on other issues, some areas where we were led to believe the issue was settled science with consensus, it has been proved as otherwise. A perfect example is the 2*C level is safe meme. It was presented as a consensus of the scientific community, when in reality it was a level determined by policy makers. This was not an accidental diversion from the truth, it was intentionally sold to MSM as scientific consensus.

Much the same as the DOE pretends the science supports the levels of methane being released into the atmosphere from the oil and gas industry. But what we are finding out is those figures are being fudged and the Nat Gas bridge fuel might well be an illusion. So is there scientific consensus nat gas is better for the atmosphere or not? Obviously some scientists believe so but is it a consensus or a political illusion pretending progress?

Now we are finding the past warming figures at the Met are possibly widely off the mark when a new and validated method of calculation is used. Intentional or not, these figures have allowed the illusion of a pause in the warming to exist in the minds of many, when in fact the validity of that concept is in question now. The consensus of the scientists involved in the old calculations, and the basis for published data, appears to be wrong.

Another example is the IPCC claiming consensus supports the lineal interpretation of climate sensitivity, when geologic records suggest exponential potentials when feed backs enter into the heating of the earth system. Which is correct? More evidence daily suggests the Charney method to be underestimating, perhaps by as much or more than the suggested 2.5 times that the Met Office has undervalued heating for the past 16 years.

I am not a scientist, but it seems much of the science is anything but settled, and consensus of much of it needs to be taken with a healthy grain of salt.

Hope this explains my confusion, of what is presented as settled science or validated data, only to later find if there was consensus, then everyone was wrong.