Challenging the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

Consensus does not necessarily guarantee sound science

Guest post by Forrest M. Mims III

Consensus is often cited in support of scientific paradigms, including anthropogenic climate change. Australian physicist Tom Quirk has neatly dissected the consensus argument for the human role in climate change in an article in Quadrant Online entitled “Of climate science and stomach bugs.” This curiously entitled piece begins with the story of how Australians Barry Marshall and Robin Warren revolutionized the treatment of stomach ulcers in 1982 when they discovered that peptic ulcers are mainly caused by a bacterium.

While their claim was stubbornly rejected by drug companies and surgeons who profited handsomely from treating ulcer patients, in the end truth prevailed over dogma and Marshall and Warren received the 2005 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine.

Quirk’s article then compares the conflicts of interest, money and pseudoscience of the stomach bugs story with the ongoing debate over climate change. His account reinforces the sometimes neglected but essential role of skepticism in all of science and is well worth reading.



newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Quadrant and others under attack at “The Conversation” – with the usual savoir-faire and grace (not!)

A very interesting analogy, it was the money to be made that gagged the science and stopped the truth coming out.
Here is West Wales the con men are selling renewables, the spivs, absentee landlords and other antisocial elements are beggaring their neighbours jumping on the green money bandwagon putting turbines up next to equine businesses and in front of otherwise rural peaceful gardens. The money is speaking and local people are cottoning on that the green movement is no longer about saving the planet


I remember that… The science finally won out, what a route, that discovery took…
100 million times the kooks in the climate game, all vying for the game of the century.

Mike M

I think Piltdown Man is another good parallel to the man made global warming hoax. It was a hoax from the beginning, it had a very strong consensus at first and it took 40 years to get everyone to accept that they had been fooled. If not for a minority of anthropologist skeptics who first questioned it – it might have survived as fact to this day.

IT is about to get a lot worse, here is the new claim on our money, $700 billion a year for climate change…

Nick Kermode

“”A great deal of money and prestige was riding on ulcers by 1982, when West Australians Barry Marshall and Robin Warren proved that the Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) bacterium caused most peptic ulcers, neatly reversing decades of medical doctrine. Even worse for the revenue streams of drug companies and medicos, the bacteria could be eliminated by the use of antibiotics.
No ulcers meant no ongoing business, so it should come as no surprise that, in medical circles, all hell broke loose. Drug companies would not countenance the idea that Marshall and Warren’s findings were valid. Revenue was under threat, as were share prices and the egos of those who had driven the drugs’ remarkably successful marketing campaigns. Doctors were slow to change their habits, so surgeons continued to put their patients under the knife, all the while insisting that Marshall and Warren were peddling nonsense.””
A great deal of money and prestige was riding on coal and oil when many scientists proved burning fossil fuels caused most of the global warming, neatly reversing decades of oil and coal companies doctrine. Even worse for the revenue streams of oil, coal and gas companies and their billionaire executives, the burning of fossil fuels could be eliminated ( well greatly reduced! ) by the use of renewable energy.
No burning fossil fuel meant no ongoing business, so it should come as no surprise that, in fossil fuel circles, all hell broke loose. Oil and coal companies would not countenance the idea that climate scientists findings were valid. Revenue was under threat, as were share prices and the egos of those who had driven oil and coals remarkably successful marketing campaigns. Governments were slow to change their mind, so oil and coal executives continued to put the planet under the knife, all the while insisting that climate scientists were peddling nonsense.
There fixed it for Mr Quirk.
Nice analogy, except of course that it is the coal and oil multinationals that are the pharma companies and renewable energy is Marshall and Warren. Also ” billions of dollars in taxpayer-backed loans and grants to renewable energy corporations” here in Australia is around $500 million, or twenty times less than the handouts, subsidies, tax breaks and ‘friendly’ loans the mining industry receives.

john robertson

Gradually better written descriptions of the fraud of two centuries will be released to the eyes of an angry public.
We have most of the information now, its just a case of it coming together in a coherent form.
Partly the problem is the subject is too rich.

Ben D.

Nick Kermode says:….”when many scientists proved burning fossil fuels caused most of the global warming, neatly reversing decades of oil and coal companies doctrine.”
Where’s the proof?

Nick Kermode:
At January 21, 2013 at 4:51 pm you wrongly assert

A great deal of money and prestige was riding on coal and oil when many scientists proved burning fossil fuels caused most of the global warming, neatly reversing decades of oil and coal companies doctrine. Even worse for the revenue streams of oil, coal and gas companies and their billionaire executives, the burning of fossil fuels could be eliminated ( well greatly reduced! ) by the use of renewable energy.

NO! Every one of your assertions is wrong.
Oil companies have financed the global warming scare from the start; e.g. CRU was established using funding from oil companies.
No scientist has “proved burning fossil fuels caused most of the global warming”. Indeed, decades of research conducted world-wide at a cost of $billions each year has failed to find any evidence for discernible man-made global warming; none, zilch, nada.
The “doctrine” of coal and oil companies is their function of generating dividends for their share-holders and this cannot change.
There is no foreseeable possibility of any significant displacement of fossil fuels “by the use of renewable energy”. Large scale use of windfarms increases the need for conventional power stations as back-up.
Strewth! Where did you get your silly notions?


Nick Kermode clearly doesn’t know anything about the oil industry. All the majors have gone along with the CO2 hypothesis because they were well positioned in gas, which would benefit. Initially they had little dabbles in renewables but saw pretty early that those markets would be small for decades and that hydrocarbons have a long future. Their track record over the past hundred years means their forecasts should be taken more seriously than anyone else’s.

Rational Db8

re: richardscourtney says: January 21, 2013 at 5:22 pm responded to Nick Kermode, saying NO! Every one of your assertions is wrong.
Too true Richard!! (and well said too).

Sam the First

The history of medicine is full of stories like this. It’s not always the money which stops them from re-thinking: it’s just as much the investment of their egos in the wrong hypothesis which stops them from admitting their error, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. In most cases of the sort in medical history, it’s been one maverick who has managed to stop the juggernaut of rampant medical egos.
I don’t know if any of you have been following the tale of Dr Simon Wessley and his extreme and highly contentious disservice to research into Myalgic Encephomylitis. His approach to this disease, which is basically to state that sufferers are imagining it – in the face of all current research and evidence, and the experience of sufferers many of whom have died – has led to angry campaigns by ME sufferers attempting to refute his approach. This is urgent since Wessley has the ear of the Department of Health and more importantly, the DHSS who are removing support from sufferers of working age via ATOS decisions. The Countess of Mar has raised the subject in Parliament.
From here, parallels can be drawn with the situation regarding ‘climate skeptics’.and so called ‘climate scientists’. Dr Wessley is so averse to criticism of any sort that he resorts to accusing ME sufferers of all kinds of evil, including waging a hate war on him, stalking him, and threatening him; yet he’s been unable to substantiate any of these accusations. Meanwhile, not only has he just been knighted – he has also been named the first winner of the contentious Maddox “Standing up for Science” Prize, ostensibly for bravely defending ‘science’ in though under attack; although there is not one shred of evidence to underpin any of his views on ME. Most of us involved in promoting research believe these to be based on nothing more than his own opinion of sufferers as, to paraphrase his own words, ‘lazy sods’.
The only surprise in all this is that Phil Jones or some other Climate ‘Scientist’ didn’t win the inaugural Maddox prize, for the brave defence of their own equally evidence-free ‘science’. Maybe next year boys! A certain award of the Nobel Prize comes to mind, as a parallel.
The misapplication of what scanty research funding has been provided due this man’s pig-headed ideas is a national scandal. Yet he is honoured with a ‘science prize’ and a knighthood! You can follow the gist of the saga via these links:
There are now 380 comments which are well worth reading to get the full story from those on the ground, if you can hack through them… They quote chapter and verse on exactly what Dr Wessley has said in the past, on this vexing topic. it’s not pretty and it’s certainly not science.
Reasons why this is such a perverse award:
Dr Michael Shepherd who helps to run and advise the association (and its excellent FB page) is himself both a medial doctor and an ME sufferer. Yes given that Wessley and his acolytes have cornered the diagnosis cirteria for ME, he too struggles to be heard.


The scheme Nick Kermode claims that subsidies are small for renewables and large for “fossil fuels” is exposed here:
Very naughty Nick……

Bill Marsh

My wife was a long time sufferer from peptic ulcers in the 1980’s. It took us 5 years to find a Doctor willing to treat her for the bacteria (and we had to pay him out of our pockets, the insurance company refused to pay. The insurance companies and almost every doctor we went to told us that ‘it won’t work’. She took the treatment and her ulcers disappeared in a matter of months and she has never had a recurrence.
There is, of course, a better example of ‘consensus science’ at its best. Dr Eugene Parker proposed, in the 1950’s, that space was not ‘an empty void’, but was, in fact, filled with what is now referred to colloquially as, “solar wind”. Parker was ridiculed, harassed, and insulted by the ‘scientists’ supporting the ‘consensus’ of the time. He was proved right and the ‘consensus’ collapsed, just as the ‘consensus’ (such as it is) regarding ‘Global Warming, Climate Disruption, Climate Pollution (my personal favorite), etc is being proved wrong.
“Consensus science’ is the worst form of science and any scientist who cites ‘consensus’ as a point supporting his hypothesis is a poor scientist at best.

Greg House

Climate-science consensus: Find a captive audience, feed them a well crafted survey, and crow when 97% of the attendees agree with some part of it. Replication not necessary.
Of course, for their side to maintain that 97% (a 32.3:1 ratio), they must never put out another survey to ANY group.
Any survey with results less than 97% would be seen as a loss; as would any survey that matches the 97% (no gain).
Any survey that reaches 100% would fail if only one respondent spoke up, so that’s out.
So the success of their consensus is based on a number range that is greater than (but not equal to) 97, and less than (but not equal to) 100.
Maybe a “reverse” consensus should be put out – for every name that questions CAGW, insist that they find 33 names that don’t question it.
A quick example: when we saw forty-nine signers to a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden (, they should have immediately been able to come up with 1,617 names (with associations and degrees) to counter that. And for every NEW name, find 33 NEW opponents.
They insist on names, associations and degrees. Maybe we should too…


I bet scientific consensus will beat web blogger self-proclaimed expert 9,999,999 times out of 1,000,000. But good luck!

And I’ll bet the truth will eventually prevail, despite your protestations to the contrary – Anthony


The last Coaches Poll before the College Football National Championship Game revealed there was an overwhelming consensus of college football coaches responding that Notre Dame was the best college team in the nation. The results showed that 95% of the “experts” (56 of 59) agreed. Of course, when the real world results were available it became obvious that the Poll should probably have asked the University of Alabama players what they thought. Not even close.

Ed MacAulay

James said; “I bet scientific consensus will beat web blogger self-proclaimed expert 9,999,999 times out of 1,000,000. But good luck!”
Ah must be a climate scientist, his math is out by a factor of 10.

Tony Hansen

…9,999,999 times out of 1,000,000.
Is that climate science math?


Consensus science has been around a long time. Ask Galileo and Copernicus. It’s only been in the past 20 years or so that Galileo has been un-excommunicated for his sin of speaking against the consensus. Ultimately the truth does prevail, but sometimes the damage cannot be undone.

Well, James, if Anthony was nothing more than a web blogger and no one else with real expertise in the subject of climate science agreed with him, I’d say your numbers were probably right. But Watts is a bit more than just a blogger, and there are plenty of real scientists both within and outside of the climate community who support much of what he says, so I’m going to take a wild guess and say your numbers are just a load of bullocks.

James Fosser

Correct me if I am wrong, but do surgeons have to have scientific qualifications apart from having served an apprenticeship as a butcher,and being able to do and undo the most intricate of sailors knots on wet cotton in a matchbox just by the cunning use of big and adjacent toe of the left foot ?


[snip. We do not tolerate labeling others as “denialists” here. — mod.]

Luther Wu

I must say hello to the great Mr. Forrest Mims III.
Seeing your name atop this page put a big smile on my face, as your bylines in P.E. and elsewhere, always have.


Nick says
“No burning fossil fuel meant no ongoing business, so it should come as no surprise that, in fossil fuel circles, all hell broke loose. Oil and coal companies would not countenance the idea that climate scientists findings were valid. Revenue was under threat, as were share prices and the egos of those who had driven oil and coals remarkably successful marketing campaigns. Governments were slow to change their mind, so oil and coal executives continued to put the planet under the knife, all the while insisting that climate scientists were peddling nonsense.”
Nick, I got news for you. Those who produce fossil fuels are not as stupid as Washington and those naive enough who have been fooled by the Washington crowd into believing renewable fuels will replace their product near term. They are energy companies that hire the best scientists and engineers, pay them accordingly, and know the viability of renwable fuels as well as other options. They have research and engineering departments and are continuously studying means to make a profit selling energy. They are not afraid of renewable fuels, but probably fear stupid regulations and decisions out of Washington that could destroy the US industry and economy.Keep in mind though that most of the US major oil companies already earn circa 50% of their income overseas because of poor access to US Federal Lands and are competing with overseas operations, and they can always relocate to a more favorable economic “climate” as are the “rich” folks from California.

A memorable and succinct article by Tom Quirk who has nailed all the usual suspects. Consensus science is not Science. Science is inquiry and scepticism and rigorous verification. Any one who thinks that Consensus is proof is barking up the wrong Gum Tree.

John West

If you have to resort to claiming consensus then you have a weak argument.


Let’s not forget the old pseudo-science of eugenics, the study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding. Its supporters included Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Winston Churchill. It was approved by Supreme Court justices Oliver Wendell Holmes and Louis Brandeis, who ruled in its favor. The famous names who supported it included Alexander Graham Bell, inventor of the telephone; activist Margaret Sanger; botanist Luther Burbank; Leland Stanford, founder of Stanford University; the novelist H. G. Wells; the playwright George Bernard Shaw; and hundreds of others. Nobel Prize winners gave support. Research was backed by the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. The Cold Springs Harbor Institute was built to carry out this research, but important work was also done at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Johns Hopkins. Legislation to address the crisis was passed in states from New York to California. Sounds like a consensus to me. Many women were sterilized because the courts found them to be mentally unstable.

Rational Db8

Continental drift is another example. If I recall correctly, it took decades before the theory was accepted – long after there was plenty of evidence for it. Same with “germs” or bacteria vs. “vapors” or “evil spirits.”

It’s all in Kuhn and Pearcey, really.


[snip. We do not tolerate labeling others as “denialists” here. — mod.]
Tsk tsk. Res ipsa loquitur. Okay, try again:
from Derek Lowe (on Marshall and Warren): “Crazy ideas won’t necessarily get you tossed out of the club. Crazy ideas with nothing to back them up will. But just come back with the evidence, and they won’t be crazy any more. Show me the religion that takes its heretics and makes them bishops, won’t you?”
So, everyone here, publish your ideas that contradict global warming and you too can get a Nobel. And be a bishop, too!!


Indeed, shattering the consensus is the mark of all big breakthroughs in science.
Of course, most science is of the more pedestrian variety, incrementally improving on what we already know (or think we know). It is often good and worthwhile work.
For those who are unfamiliar with the story re stomach ulcers and h.pylori, one of the researchers had to deliberately ingest the bacterium and thereby give himself ulcers, and then take a course of antibiotics, before he was believed. The resistance to challengers of ‘consensus’ beliefs is huge. Rightly so, because there are a lot of quacks and nutters out there. But leaving aside internet memes about ‘magic’ foods and supplements and the like, it is always worth keeping an eye on outliers who are otherwise credible and honest, like these guys.

John Haigh

James says:
January 21, 2013 at 6:11 pm
I bet scientific consensus will beat web blogger self-proclaimed expert 9,999,999 times out of 1,000,000.

You guys are being far too tough on James’ math. He’s only out by a single order of magnitude. That’s quite close for for many who accept consensus CAGW theory.
I have had a passionate AGW activist tell me. “I understand that the greenhouse argument has to do with methane which might escalate in leakage with gas popularity. ” By how many orders of magnitude would that be out? Five? Ten? Of course if methane becomes “popular” more will leak. But by what % would such leakage affect global CH4 levels? It has to be very close to negligible.

Climate Ace

Nate Silver demonstrated conclusively once again in the last US elections that good forecasts based on reasonable use of relevant variables and scads of data trumps the pundit guesstimaters every time.
Lots of folk, and lots of pundits, had persuaded that Romney would win.
He lost by around 5 million votes. (I think… I may have that figure wrong. by 3 million votes? Anyway, it was lots of votes.)
One of the reasons I like WUWT is that I am able to post contrarian views to the Skeptics’ Consensus that AGW is a load of over-ripe rubbish.
Of course, to dissent on WUWT, to be skeptical of the Skeptics, almost invariably elicits a gut vicious reaction from some posters. This reaction is very often coupled with a desire to shut me up and run me out of WUWT-town amidst a shower of personal abuse.
Despite this minority of posters, most, and I do mean most, are OK with having reasonable discussions.


The DR of Congo has found a green renewable alternative to the big old fossil. I’m sure it would catch on with Bamma voters and green activists.


Nick Kermode says:
January 21, 2013 at 4:51 pm
richardscourtney says:
January 21, 2013 at 5:22 pm
Well, maybe Big Oil et al. really are the evil geniuses people like Nick believe. After all, they’ve actually conned guys like him into fighting their battles for them!
Here’s a clue for you Nick: Oil companies make out like bandits when oil is A) scarce or B) plentiful? If you’re having trouble with the question, google 1970’s oil embargo and 1980’s oil glut.

Eric H.

The ulcer solution was too simple and flew in the face of accepted practice and policy. Many people cannot get their head around simple solutions.
“Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex… It takes a touch of genius – and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.” Attributed to Einstein
Many commenters want to throw greed around as a root cause but I disagree. The majority of people do not have bad intentions, this includes the individuals that control big pharma, big energy, and big health care. Although many people, even very intelligent people, cannot think outside of their box. Surgeons want a surgical solution, drug makers want a breakthrough new drug solution, and psychiatrists want a mental fix.
What? A solution that treats ulcers with off the shelf antibiotics? That’s like saying the (enter natural process) causes climate change…

Climate Ace

Barry Marshall and Robin Warren are two Aussies who have saved countless people from terrible suffering.
They are Aussie scientific heroes, IMHO.


I came across 2 interesting consensus stories these days as well.
1) The standard model of particle physics was wrong for the longest time in describing neutrinos (in that it was assumed they have no mass); and an astronomer had lost his telescope time/job over claiming that distant galaxies could be connected through filaments contrary to general wisdom, but which turned out to be correct.

Brian Johnson UK

Eric H
“Many people cannot get their head around simple solutions.”
Occam’s Razor has been around for centuries. Al Gore and President Obama should use it before they make complete fools of themselves and a shambles of your economy. Same applies to David Cameron and his cronies in the UK

Eric H.

As an American expat in the UK, I hope so as well. William of Occam is my hero.


From the causes of most stomach ulcers to the ‘impossible’ quasicrystals – both proponents won a Nobel Prize no less. Yet consensus was strongly against them. Consensus is anti-science?
“Ridiculed crystal work wins Nobel for Israeli”
“2011 Nobel Prize in Chemistry: ‘Quasicrystals’ Once Thought Impossible Have Changed Understanding of Solid Matter”

David Cage

As long as research is driven by grants consensus is meaningless. Those at the top award grants or otherwise and how many of you have worked for bosses who say I prefer to promote those who say my work is rubbish and I have got it all wrong?
I know of at least on group of ex climate scientist computer modellers who left because they could not get funding and what is worse had to sign away any rights to publicly promote any of the work they did or anything based on it if they wanted a reasonable severance package.

Rhys Jaggar

Go focus on Davos.
That’s where the battle in future will be.


The consensus of scientists is created by the weight of the evidence.
Because all the hundreds of peer reviewed research papers published each month support the AGW theory, the weight of evidence is all on one side of the scales, scientists respond by reflecting that evidential preponderance by exhibiting a consensus. The consensus among scientists is an indirect proxy measure of the strength of the evidence.
I am afraid the Comparison with the peptic ulcer story is rather misleading.
The established medical and drug businesses did have a financial interest in rejecting the bacterial cause of peptic ulcers, but the devil is in the details. It may help to remember that only a small fraction of the people with H. Pylori bacterium get ulcers, for most carriers it is a harmless commensal. A significant minority of peptic ulcer cases do not have the bacterium present. A significant percentage of patients treated to eliminate the bacterium do not get remission from peptic ulcers.
Another poster has suggested the Piltdown man as a hoax similar to AGW. But the Piltdown hoax was identified at the start by the dental experts who examined the finds and pronounced it to be an ape jaw and a human skull. It was only a small cadre of British biologists that continued to accept the skullfor reasons of national prestige. It was not given much credence outside that group. Tere was never a consensus in the scientific community that Piltdown was a credible pre-human fossil.
However the continuing finds of real hominid fossils did create a consensus that humans evolved from pre-human ancestors and that consensus, like the consensus on climate change, is a good indication of the width, depth and strength of the evidence.

Berényi Péter

James says:
January 21, 2013 at 6:11 pm
I bet scientific consensus will beat web blogger self-proclaimed expert 9,999,999 times out of 1,000,000. But good luck!

Wonderful. Your estimate of chances comes out like this:
– probability of “scientific consensus” is right: p=9.999999
– probability of “web blogger self-proclaimed expert” is right: q=-8.999999
It must be that way, because sum of probabilities of complementary events should come out as 1 (that is, p+q=1 in this case). Now, assuming negative probabilities or ones greater than 1 is a pretty unorthodox approach, but your bet, your responsibility.
In a fair bet the expected value of winning should be equal for the two parties involved. So, let’s assume the bet is about you pay a sum of money Y if the “web blogger self-proclaimed expert” turns out to get it right and get paid X if it is the other way around, that is if the “scientific consensus” prevails. The equation pX=qY should obviously hold, which means X=-0.899999989999999Y (X~-0.9Y).
In other words in the first case you agree to pay $10, in the second one it is also you who pay the bet, $9 this time (a negative sum won is a loss after all). Fair enough.
Heh, unorthodox probabilities come with a price tag attached, don’t they?


I have to admit, “Nick Kermode”‘s comment was HILARIOUS… funniest part of it was that he/she seems to think it had any meaning, and/or some sort of point was scored. Truly, the fact is that the “eeeevil” oil companies are always benefiting no matter how it plays out. The irrational hatred toward them is really quite amusing. (little secret – YOU TOO can buy shares in oil companies… and make money!)
Climate Ace says:

This reaction is very often coupled with a desire to shut me up and run me out of WUWT-town amidst a shower of personal abuse.

Actually. most of us want guys like you to hang around… you’re entertaining in your breathtaking certainty and lack of knowledge. Often, discussions with you guys will be read by noobs to the site, who then learn (even though you won’t).
Please try to avoid projection… I realize that all Breathless Believer sites want skeptical views to be shut down and hidden, but that’s because it doesn’t really take much to debunk most AGW alarms.

Stephen Richards

A significant minority of peptic ulcer cases do not have the bacterium present
When I was lying in hospital last year with an ulcer the surgeon told me the figure was ….. 97% of all ulcers are due to bacteria. 3% is only a significant figure to climate scientists.

Allen B. Eltor

Greenhouse gas theory has been falsified in so many directions it’s not funny.
Fifty years’ rise in CO2 brought it up by a third, overall. Not a single replicable record of earth frequency infrared light in the atmosphere rising along with it.
Fifty years’ rise in CO2 without temperature correlations.
Thirty years of computerzed assemblies to flex the mirrors of earth-based telescopes and not one single word by the design, maintenance, operations people associated with these about the extra infrared light in the atmosphere, leading to more motion of it.
Heat on gas is motion. Period.
The mirror flexing assemblies are designed * * * precisely for removing magnified detection of motion of air due to earth frequency infrared spectra* * * – there’s no such thing as “Greenhouse Gas isn’t falsifiable.” It’s a giant heater in the sky. Period.
If widespread experiment hasn’t shown a giant heater in the sky growing warmer in step by step progression with the presence of CO2 and Water then it is falsified.
When 50 years of mankind’s most disciplined and exacting minds having their fingers on the nuclear button while having their ships’ atmospheres go from that at sea level, in open hatch & fan on conditions,
to 4,000 ppm CO2
and not one single nuclear, electrical, thermodynamic, electronic, mechanical, engineer write a single paper
about how the heat handling capacity of air changed as the CO2 rose to 4,000 ppm
that’s falsification.
When 50 years of mankinds’ most advanced electronic space & internet age instrumentation arrays, detect not a single correlation between ever rising CO2 and overall water vapor,
that’s falsification.
When 14 years’ search for infrared downwelling in night skies shows
LESS infrared downwelling than before, that’s falsification.
Long-Term Trends in Downwelling Spectral Infrared Radiance over the U.S. Southern Great Plains
P. Jonathan Gero Space Science and Engineering Center,
University of Wisconsin Madison,
Madison, Wisconsin
David D. Turner
**NOAA/National Severe Storms Laboratory,
Norman, Oklahoma,
and Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences,
University of Wisconsin Madison,
Madison, Wisconsin**
A trend analysis was applied to a 14-yr time series of downwelling spectral infrared radiance observations from the Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI) located at the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program (ARM) site in the U.S. Southern Great Plains.
The highly accurate calibration of the AERI instrument, performed every 10 min, ensures that any statistically significant trend in the observed data over this time can be attributed to changes in the atmospheric properties and composition, and not to changes in the sensitivity or responsivity of the instrument.
The measured infrared spectra, numbering more than 800 000, were classified as clear-sky, thin cloud, and thick cloud scenes using a neural network method.
* * *
The AERI data record demonstrates that the downwelling infrared radiance is decreasing over this 14-yr period in the winter, summer, and autumn seasons but it is increasing in the spring; these trends are statistically significant and are primarily due to long-term change in the cloudiness above the site.
* * *
Received: November 16, 2010; Accepted: March 23, 2011″
That’s called ‘FALSIFIED when several different fields, each measuring an unmistakable and exceptionally easily measured entity: heat, in form of light,
check what the people who thought Mannian Statistics is real,
and they’re found WRONG.
And not just WRONG
but able to be proven wrong on ANY scale
from a BOTTLE with some more CO2 in it
to a submarine
to a university greenhouse
to the entire earth, as measured with ground based optical, ground based infrared,
and space based infrared,
Also balloon drifted instruments auto-transmitting data show no heating of the upper part, of the lower troposphere. They didn’t show warming and government employees tried to claim they were all broken: what’s their excuse since the allegedly broken ones were fixed? We can check for a tropospheric hot spot with them again. It’s not there. We know that because of the next thing:
then there are the myriad aircraft, military, private, and commercial, whose thermal sensors are good enough for trusting human life too, criss-crossing the skies at every hour the past 50 years:
not one field of instrumentation anywhere
CHECKING claims of Greenhouse Gas Theory atmospheric dynamics,
finds evidence it’s true.
Certainly they’ve proven the atmosphere’s not warmer by any mechanism remotely connectable with anything having to do with the infrared-resonant gases.
That’s called falsified when that happens, and Greenhouse Gas Theory’s been falsified, because all the above happened.