While I am not a climate scientist, my degrees in Physics do qualify me as an informed critic. Scientific rigor applies in all fields of science. Climate science was a respected field of science until about 20 years ago when it began to depart from scientific rigor.
Our home planet may appear small and fragile from space, but humanity has adapted to a continuously changing climate for the last million years. And, we will continue to adapt in the future.
My objective is not to argue the scientific case against human caused global warming, anthropogenic warming, AGW, climate change, climate disruption, or whatever phrase the global warming alarmists are currently using to promote their claim of humans controlling the temperature of the Earth. These are all code words for governmental control of energy consumption and, consequently, our standard of living.
My case is for common sense.
The temperature of our planet has been changing up and down for 4.8 billion years. Empirical data, collected over centuries, established a provisional “theory” of climate change. Scientists have long known that the sun, the oceans and variations in the earth's orbit are the principal drivers of our changing climate. While we may not fully understand all of the mechanisms or interactions involved, after hundreds of years it became the accepted “theory” of climate change.
Scientists have always questioned accepted theories, including those that evolved over centuries. For a new hypothesis to modify or replace an accepted theory, it must be supported by appropriate data.
In the 1980s, a small group of individuals became concerned about the earth’s temperature and what it might do in the future. I hesitate to call the group “scientists,” because they have abandoned the scientific principles by which their “guess” about future temperature increases and its cause could achieve scientific acceptance—or rejection.
Only a couple of years earlier, some of those same alarmists were arguing that the imminent threat was global cooling that would eventually trigger an ice age.
These global warming alarmists focused on the small temperature increase since the industrial revolution and hypothesized that the tiny amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) humans were generating was controlling the temperature of our planet. They have also managed to sell the media and the public on something they invented called “consensus science.” The media has bought into human caused global warming.
Those of us skeptical of the alarmist claims, are characterized as “climate deniers” or “fake experts,” or “against climate change,” when everyone knows the climate is always changing. Instead of alarmists presenting data to prove their hypothesis, they challenge skeptics to disprove that hypothesis.
While scientists are best qualified to deal with the scientific/academic aspects, we all have to deal with the financial consequences of any actions taken based on “bad” science. Today’s war on global warming is a fight to avoid the economic destruction of our society and the lowering of our standard of living.
The temperature of our planet has been changing for 4.8 billion years. The temperature and CO2 records for the past 600 million years show that both temperature and CO2 levels are currently near their historical minimums.
The last time temperature and CO2 levels were simultaneously at such low levels is about 300 million years ago. About 500 million years ago, the CO2 level was approximately 15 times higher than it is today.
Even in the past 2,000 years, there have been many occasions when the temperature was higher than it is today.
Red line on the right is the phony “Hockey stick” forecast pushed by the Alarmists.
The alarmists have been hammering at us for 30 years. The public really doesn't know what to believe about humans causing global warming, but most of the media are now "true believers."
Politicians, in the absence of knowledge and understanding about climate science, have put themselves out on a limb, from which they find it difficult to retreat.
Global warming alarmists have hypothesized that:
· warmer temperatures are a threat to humanity;
· carbon dioxide levels are abnormally high and higher levels will be bad for humanity;
· warmer temperatures will be worse for the world; and
· humans are capable of overriding natural forces to control the earth’s temperature.
Their new hypothesis—that human caused CO2 is responsible for global temperature increases—was a real challenge to the accepted “theory” of climate change. For a new hypothesis to be accepted by the scientific community it must be confirmed by considerable evidence and it must survive all attempts to disprove it. The hypothesis that human generated carbon dioxide is a principal driver of the earth’s temperature has not satisfied either of these criteria.
Too many people today are unable to distinguish between science and non-science or between a hypothesis and a theory. The alarmists’ hypothesis gained immediate traction with environmentalists and the “green movement,” with the media and, eventually, with many politicians. Now, in the absence of supporting data, alarmists are appealing to the public, where politics, media and money play important roles.
The controversy on human caused global warming should not be resolved in the court of public opinion, or the political arena. It should be resolved in the court of scientific inquiry consistent with the empirical data.
Alarmists refer to a correlation between temperature and CO2 levels. Looking at empirical data going back 130 years, it is obvious there is a closer correlation between solar activity and temperature than there is between CO2 and temperature.
correlation is academic because “correlation is not
causation.” If it was, note how the world temperature has
increased since the industrial revolution, while the
number of pirates has decreased. Why aren’t alarmists
telling us we can reduce the earth’s temperature by
increasing the pirate industry?
This correlation is academic because “correlation is not causation.” If it was, note how the world temperature has increased since the industrial revolution, while the number of pirates has decreased. Why aren’t alarmists telling us we can reduce the earth’s temperature by increasing the pirate industry?
Those who want to explore causation should note that
temperature changes have preceded CO2 level
changes by 500-800 years. And that observation is much
more consistent with physical laws and the existing theory
of climate change.
Those who want to explore causation should note that temperature changes have preceded CO2 level changes by 500-800 years. And that observation is much more consistent with physical laws and the existing theory of climate change.
The only thing alarmists are able to cite in support of their simplistic hypothesis are the mathematical models which they developed to prove that human caused CO2 is a dominant factor in controlling the earth’s temperature. Unfortunately, their climate models have never successfully predicted anything. Models are based on assumptions (opinions), and if the bases for the assumptions are wrong, the results can never accurately predict future behavior. Climate science realists should be emphasizing that models are not data.
Climate change realists focus on the empirical data and the scientific process, neither of which support the hypothesis that alarmists have dreamed up. That is why they resort to alarmism, “consensus science,” politics and money. And they have convinced most of the media that humans causing global warming is an accepted scientific theory.
In the absence of proof they appeal to the public’s fear with, “What if CO2 is responsible for the temperature and we do nothing?” They are counting on your guilt complex to scare the world into throwing away hundreds of billions of dollars in a fruitless effort to control the temperature.
After years of searching, I have not found one piece of empirical evidence that man-made CO2 has a significant impact on our global climate. That is understandable when you consider that man-made CO2 represents only 0.001% of the atmosphere.
With history, facts and scientific theory all on the side of climate science realists, why is climate change such a controversial issue today? Because the global warming war is being fought on four fronts:
Public perception front
· Political front.
Today, skeptics/realists need to focus their attention on the public’s understanding of the issues. The real battle today, and where skeptics appear to be losing, is on the media front. The media plays the most influential role in the public’s perception and, to some degree, with the politicians.
He who controls the vocabulary controls the argument. The alarmists have seized the semantic high ground, a tactic that has helped move the subject away from the scientific arena and into the political and economic arenas. The media, the public, and most politicians have little scientific literacy (with some rare exceptions) and they show very little interest in gaining it. That does not prevent the media from playing a major role in this fight.
Journalists are in a position to influence a great many readers, and many of them are aggressively pushing human caused global warming. The challenge, at this stage, in this war, is to engage the alarmists on the media front, and bring the media and the public back to reality.
Alarmists refuse to accept that today’s weather is within the realm of natural climate variability and they are loath to admit how little control man has over nature. That is why global warming is sometimes referred to as a religion with the alarmists. To take global warming on faith, you have to reject the observable scientific reality and what we have learned about climate change over several centuries, and embrace the unproven hypothesis of humans being responsible for global temperature changes.
True believers in human caused global warming cannot be reasoned out of their position, because it wasn’t reason that got them there in the first place. It was emotion and politics.
The media and the public should not just buy what others are telling them. Nuclear physicist, Leo Szilard, once said: “if one knows only what one is told, one does not know enough to be able to arrive at a well-balanced decision.” My recommendation is:
· First and foremost, the media should look at the data themselves.
· Make it clear that the argument is not about climate change; it is about the cause of climate change.
· When writing and speaking, realists should consistently refer to the alarmists’ claims as “human-caused global warming” and not as anthropogenic warming, AGW, climate change, or climate disruption.
· It should be made plain that alarmists are pushing a hypothesis—a guess based on their observations. It has not met the criteria for a theory!
At this stage in the war on human-caused global warming, the battle for public perception may be more critical than the scientific fight, and this battle should not be beneath the dignity of climate science realists, especially when they are dealing with the media.
We should all look at the empirical data before forming our own opinion; don’t just buy the opinions of others—and that includes me. Empirical data is NOT just another opinion.
If you can read a historical graph or chart, you have most of the tools to examine the empirical data and form your own opinion on the issue of humans controlling the temperature of the Earth.
Having followed my own advice, I reviewed the empirical data and found not one piece of evidence that support the alarmists’ hypothesis. (The UN IPCC is not a good place to look for objective data.) My conclusions are:
1. Based on historical data, there is no reason to be concerned about today’s temperature or temperature trend.
2. Human produced CO2 plays a miniscule role in global temperature when compared to the natural factors, Including the CO2 produced by nature.
3. Higher temperatures and higher CO2 levels will save more lives than lower levels will.
4. It is a fantasy to think that we humans can have a significant influence on global temperatures.
Now, interested observers must come up with their own answers.