President Obama is demanding that America adhere to an international climate change treaty because otherwise, bad stuff is going to happen. And he knows this because of science.

The crux of the deal is a promise to reduce carbon emissions by enough to stave off the end of the world, or something like that. At the very least, floods, tornadoes, Armageddon. At best, sweaty underarms.

Close

But there are even scientists — yes, scientists — who believe there is not definitive evidence that human activity is the main driver of climate change, or that drastically altering it can affect climate change.

The inconvenient truth for climate alarmists is that some of their prophecies have so far come to pass. Remember when Al Gore told us in 2009 that all of the ice would be gone from the polar ice caps by 2014? The research he was referring to actually predicted that around 80 percent of it would be gone within six years. But either way, both predictions were wildly incorrect. And the earth hasn’t really warmed very much in the last 15-20 years, despite massive new emissions of carbon.

In 2009, thousands of leaked emails suggested that the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia was falsifying data to support the human-caused warming thesis. A number of scientists have come forward describing the political pressure to “conform” to the “consensus” on climate change.

Climate researcher professor Judith Curry was, in her own words, “tossed out of the tribe” for research that cast significant doubts on a major tenant of the global warming faith. The entire Paris conference that produced the climate deal was rooted in the idea that there is a known relationship between the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the amount by which global temperatures will rise because of that carbon dioxide. But Curry’s research showed that isn’t the case.

If one looks at a graph of the geological temperature record for, say, the past billion odd years or so, one will notice immediately that carbon levels and global temperature have swung wildly from high to low and back again throughout the Earth’s history.

The point is, science isn’t always right, and it’s never exact. There’s often not a consensus, and there may be less of one on global warming that it appears. And before you make massive dislocations in the American economy to fix something, you’d better make sure it’s broke.

So, in honor of the scientific “facts” that brought delegates from across the globe to Paris to produce a climate change treaty, we’ve compiled a list of 10 scientific “facts” that were once accepted truth but that further research and new scientific developments proved beyond a doubt were as truthful as Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi testimony.

[lz_slideshow ids=”83103,83104,83105,83106,83107,83109,83110,83111,83112,83113″ front-image=”83113″]