Why CAGW Heretics are Better Informed than the Orthodox Climate Change True Believers

Orthodox believers need only profess their belief, and express astonishment that anyone in their right minds would doubt the orthodoxy. It requires very little cognitive ability. There are no risks and substantial benefits to orthodox belief.

Heretics have to be better informed than the orthodox. There are substantial costs associated with heresy, and most heretics will not step out of the mainstream lightly. Most heretics stepped away from the comforting fellowship of true believers out of a strong sense of logic and evidence. In fact, most heretics were compelled to doubt by their own cognitive integrity.

The recent divergence of satellite and ground station temperatures away from CO2 levels, as illustrated by the image above, has happened fairly recently--within the past ten years at most.
The divergence of temperatures away from IPCC projections as illustrated in the image directly above, is even more recent--over the past eight years at most.

An even more recent divergence from expected trends--the recent cessation of warming of upper ocean levels--is only four years old.

These changes are recent trends, and well within the range of short-term climate/weather variability. But they do raise the question: "what evidence is required to falsify IPCC models and projections?" It is a question worth considering, given that a hypothesis such as CAGW can only be science if it is falsifiable.

Returning to recent climate/weather trends, beyond the ENSO and PDO weather patterns, what might be responsible for the downturn in global satellite, ground, and sea temperature readings?

1. The sun heats the earth, repository of most of the CO2 on the planet.

2. Some stored CO2 comes out by a process known as outgassing ( from the soil ) and the champagne effect ( from the oceans ).

3. Sloppy "scientists" see the warming, and the CO2, but overlook the changes in the sun, don't see the fine differences in timing... and proceed to blame the increasing temperature on CO2 and mankind as the culprit in a classic knee-jerk reaction.
__Source__via__Greenwatch

Well, the numbered list above is a summary that follows a longer argument, but it may actually be an accurate summing up of much of the current confusion in climate science, typified by the confused ramblings of James Hansen, Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, et al.

The fact remains, in order to be a heretic--whether in religion, climate orthodoxy, political correctness etc--one must know more about the underlying ideas involved, than must a true believer, who must only profess belief. To a believer, insistence on evidence and consistency is often considered a sign of a lack of faith. In many belief orthodoxies, such lack of faith could easily mean the loss of funding, employment, or even loss of one's life.

Heresy is a risk. Be sure you are ready to take the risk before you take the plunge.