A letter to the editor which appeared in the Norman, OK Transcript on Tuesday, February 17th, reprinted here with permission of the author, Dr. David Deming:
I write in rebuttal to the Feb. 12 letter by Nancy Smart advising us to “listen” to climate scientists. According to Ms. Smart, climate science is “settled.” Instead of thinking for ourselves, she recommends we obsequiously follow the dictates of “our most respected and highest level scientific agencies.”
Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Science is not a dogmatic body of doctrine. It is an open system of knowledge that establishes probable truths that are subject to continual revision. The entire history of science is one of established theories being overthrown. Astronomers once believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. Naturalists maintained that species were immutable. Geologists thought continental drift was physically impossible. Physicians attempted to cure people by blood-letting. Are we to suppose that the process of history has stopped?
Ms. Smart claims that 2014 was the warmest year on record. But there is no such thing as a measured temperature for the entire Earth. Estimates of climate change are not data, but interpretations produced by manipulating data of dubious quality. Anthony Watts’ survey of meteorological stations in the US has shown that more than 90 percent of temperature sensors may have systematic errors larger than 1 degree Celsius. Watts and his colleagues have found thermometers sitting in asphalt parking lots next to air conditioner vents blowing out hot air. To verify their claim of the “hottest year on record,” climate researchers must reconstruct the temperature record of the entire planet since the year 1880. Pray tell. If our current system of temperature measurement in the United States is unreliable, how can you expect us to believe that you can accurately estimate what the temperature of the South Pacific Ocean was in the year 1890?
We are told that there is an increase in the “number and frequency” of “extreme weather events.” Ms. Smart is long on vague generalities but short on specifics. If the weather is deteriorating so badly, its strange that she can’t list even one of these alleged weather events. In fact, weather is not climate and the climate is not changing. Global hurricane and cyclone activity is near a forty-three-year low. There has been no increase in tornadoes in the US. Neither droughts nor wildfires have increased. The poles are not melting. There has been no significant change in the global extent of sea ice since satellite monitoring began in 1979.
Scientific hypotheses are not proved; they are corroborated or falsified. But global warming is the hypothesis that can never be falsified. Several years ago, we were told that global warming meant the end of snow in winter. Then the east coast of the US suffered devastating blizzards in 2010 (“Snowmageddon“). A few days later the party line was retroactively modified with the preposterous claim that global warming would produce less snow but more blizzards. Hot weather, cold weather, it makes no difference. Every weather event is portrayed as being consistent with global warming. That’s because global warming is not a scientific hypothesis, but a dogmatic ideology. It resembles nothing so much as Bible-based creation science.
Ms. Smart proposes a “solution” to global warming entailing something she describes as a “carbon fee and dividend program.” She claims this is a “market-based approach” that will “help the economy and create jobs.” Nonsense. If it were “market-based” it would not have to be imposed coercively through government. Spending, labeled “investment,” in failed “green energy” programs and companies over the last few years has been an utter debacle. Over $500. million was lost on Solyndra alone. The reason these programs don’t work is that you can’t change the laws of physics and chemistry through wishful thinking and political action. Reality imposes constraints even on people who are detached from it.
Neither is the “solution” a solution. You don’t have to be a climate scientist to understand arithmetic. The per capita annual carbon generated in the US from using fossil fuels is about 4.4 tons. Norman’s population is 120,000. So if carbon emissions for the entire city went to zero, we would prevent 528,000 tons of carbon from entering the atmosphere each year. That sounds like an impressive number, but its only 0.000528 gigatons (GT). The Earth’s atmosphere contains 720 GT of carbon. The oceans contain 38,400 GT. Every year, the atmosphere and oceans exchange about 90 GT of carbon. Nothing the city of Norman does is going to measurably change the composition of Earth’s atmosphere, and any claim to the contrary is utterly irrational.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and the Earth’s climate is not changing. So please, give it a rest. We’re tired of the array of tendentious claims and the endless litany of hysterical doom-mongering.
David Deming
Norman, Oklahoma
email: ddeming@ou.edu
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dr David Deming,
Your article is spot on. Thanks for letting Anthony post it
I find your accomplishments impressive as indicated below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Deming#Global_warming_and_climate_change
cnxtim,
As a matter of fact, the explosions do sound different. So do the gunshots. So do the mortar explosions, and the shrapnel whizzing through the air sounds different.
Were you in Viet Nam? I don’t think so.
He/she/it/cnxtim hadn’t even been thought of around that time, not even a glimmer in an eye. The total lack of knowledge of that period in history is a dead giveaway. We might laugh, but I had a discussion with a, early 30-ish type the other day on the golf course … he’d never heard of the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy, etc., knew nothing about Cuba and the missile crisis. I kid you not!!
Cuban Missile Crisis: Sherman Kent had decided there was no way the Soviets would dare put missiles in Cuba and it became agency orthodoxy. Dr. Albert Wheelon identified the inbound missiles through photo analysis. Kent shot Wheelon down, but when the missiles actually appeared and Kent was dragged in front of a Congressional Committee to explain, he admitted he had been swayed by the consensus, apologized, and gave full credit to Wheelon for getting it right.
That’s called integrity.
I have seen some episodes of MASH?
That would explain it, Santa Baby.
But I was there [Tuy Hoa, ’67 – ’68], and I know cnxtim is wrong.
Santa Baby,
Well …. Netflix did just recently release the first five seasons.
dbstealey,
I sincerely thank you for your service.
MASH was Korea.
No war is ever a good thing. But to not fight and win one forced upon you is often not worth the consequences.
Delusional is now a political party.
(D)elusional
¡+ Muchos punctos!
I wasn’t there, but I suspect outgoing sounds different than incoming.
I was there, and yes, they do sound different. Both made it harder to sleep, though.
“Ms. Smart proposes a ‘solution’ to global warming entailing something she describes as a ‘carbon fee and dividend program.’”
Aha! All is revealed: A variant of “Tax and Dividend”. Same source, same idea (Turnover Tax), different name.
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/post/3866
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/post/3867
When I was a young Lt in the US Air Force on training nights with my GLCM flight, I spent many nights on Salisbury Plain MTA. Very cool was listening to the British 155mm artillery practice. BOOM!!…. followed by the impac many seconds later after the rounds traveled overhead. (yes, overhead). Like lightning… counting the seconds to estimate distances.
With our nuclear missile launchers, and alerts at RAF Greenham Common, we practiced, trained, drilled, and sat alert with nuclear tipped missiles during the Cold War to prevent a hot war that never happened… through strength… resolve. We succeeded under Presidents Reagan and GW Bush. Prez (dumbass) dObama is likely, like most Democrat US presidents,will lead us to the next conflict though incompetence and their stupidity.
I recall sitting in a traffic jam on the A34 as you pull in to Newbury in the 80’s one night when those nukes were delivered to RAF Greenham Common (On C4 Galaxy transports?). The whole base was lit up under flood lights. GCHQ is not too far away and would have been a target. But don’t forget Maggie Thatcher, the UK PM at the time, she too was instrumental in breaking down tenssions during that time with Reagan.
Lady Thatcher was a hero and a patriot. If not recognized as such in her native and beloved UK, certainly so here in the USA. God bless her.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about games for girls and boys.
Regards
“climate ‘is not changing’.”
I think this is what he means:
Possibly, but I think he means not changing in a catastrophic way.
Climate is a wide band of parameters, temperature being only one of many metrics. At all times, these parameters wander between the upper and lower level of their bands.
As far as I am aware since the industrial rvolution, no country has changed (or is about to change) its Koppen (or such like) classification.
Seriously, stop the doom mongering. You know what real doom would be? The end of the current interglacial period. Imagine unstoppable glaciation creeping down into the continental US or Europe or anywhere populated…
At least polar bears and penguins will be able to live side-by-side 😉
I think the polar bears would see the penguins as a nutritious snack.
Well, side-by-inside.
(Except from “The Polar Bear and the Climate Alarmist”
“O Penguins,” said the Polar Bear,
“You’ve had a pleasant run!
Shall we be trotting home again?’
But answer came there none–
And this was scarcely odd, because
They’d eaten every one.
Facebook: CitizensClimateLobby Norman, OK
Nancy Smart’s commentary (see below) brought out the chief Norman denier, David Deming – see Wed., 2-18, Transcript. Only Inhofe is more well known in OK. Her commentary must have hit a real sore spot. This is a Great opportunity to start a short LTE series of responses in the Transcript. Get your pencils out CCL folks, and pick some fallacy to correct.
Listening to climate scientists…
(scroll down)
Feb 12: Check out this op-ed from our Norman member, Nancy Smart!
Great work, Nancy!
Listening to climate scientists…
Feb 3: Our member, Ola Fincke, has an op-ed in the Tulsa World!…
https://www.facebook.com/CitizensClimateLobby.norman.ok
i’ve heard members of the group on radio, outlining their tactics; do a search “Citizens Climate Lobby”, click “news” & u’ll find pages & pages of results, in the regional press, in particular.
CAGW groups are organised and zealous.
For the temps and the co2 cause in times past it must have been those people in Atlantis, the sea level rise got them.
@Michael Moon: “CO2 is plant food.” How’s that? The real messaging problem is with the misdirection and misleading claims and images. CO2-related pieces almost always depict high opacity emissions of smoke or even steam, as but one example. These are not honest people.
The only other quibble with Dr. Deming’s letter has to do with this: “It resembles nothing so much as Bible-based creation science.” It less resembles the story of “Genesis” and any resulting “science” than the natural “science” employed in past times which often involved as the solution the ritual killing of youngsters, usually girls, or some other penance enforced on hapless subjects by their rulers and shamans.
The ice extent over the Great Lakes in total this year is at 82.3 percent, rivaling last year’s coverage and nearing the all-time record of 94.7 percent.
Uh Oh! Major Uh Oh.
Secretary General Korean-Japanese Half-Breed Moonbeam at UN and “Pikachu” the ‘Director’ Writer of Sex Slut Pennie Novels at IPCC will NOT like this link! It is a Given.
Cliff Mass just did a nice job countering the dooms day hype around Francis 2012 wavy jet stream, as well as papers blaming global warming for California’s drought.
http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-origin-of-this-winters-weather.html
Please see the polar vortex over North America. This is the real climate.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#2015/02/22/0000Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-106.64,45.44,454
Sharing this one. Succinctly put.
Ah that is really weak:
“The entire history of science is one of established theories being overthrown. Astronomers once believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. Naturalists maintained that species were immutable. Geologists thought continental drift was physically impossible. Physicians attempted to cure people by blood-letting. Are we to suppose that the process of history has stopped?”
For starters: All these wisdoms are actuaclly from a pre-scientific era and as such nobody would give any weight to them from a scientific perspective anyway.
And if we look at them one by one:
No my good Doctor, the earth revolves around the sun and that will never change again, no matter how hard you’ll try. Do you understand that?
Also, species will not somehow found to be immutable again, no matter what – do you understand why?
And then, continents will never stop to drift again (in scientific theory) – do you understand why? We actually measure the speed with which continents drift today. it is not even a scientific fact only, it is an objective fact.
Same goes for blood letting… this is all strawman-style weak sauce.
And science rarely completely overthrows something fundamentally, because what is considered scientific fact at any given time and that is well supported and not merely hypothised on has nothing in common with the above examples; there may be slight alterations to theory around the edges, but it is not like that the earth does not spin after all, as has been ridiculed in the news these days, as claim by some insane Saudi cleric… or some such thing.
Don’t worry, gravity will never be found to be angels tuggling stuff to the ground, in line with those examples from the bronze ages you gave… that we know.
Einstein improved on Newton, he didn’t throw him under the bus. When we fly to the moon or send satellites in to space, we use Newton, not Einstein. In that sense science is generally correct. Where it gets changed substantially, it wasn’t thought to be “settled” in the first place.
For example, Michelson-Morley proved there was no such thing as the aether – that was thought to be there for 2000 years – but that was not the result of scientific findings – just like your examples – that was simply believed – and on the first occasion it could be tested, the aether went out the window. It is not like 2000 years of scientific research had been debunked on the occasion. On the subject, there was no science, and no research.
Einstein has been proven to be correct in every single experiment for a hundred years now with very high accuracy… don’t expect to read in the news tomorrow that it was all BS somehow – then you don’t understand how science works… You won’t see experiments coming that will show all those other experiments to be wrong. You might see a greater explanation that is to Einstein what Einstein is to Newton, but what you will NEVER see is what your strawman examples suggest is the course of science… which it is not, because those weren’t even scientific examples.
And so it is with science in general.
the post of an ideologue…do you deny the scientific contribution of archimedes? of euclid?
If you couldn’t follow design’s argument, at least have the decency to read it again before you totally misrepresent and miscomprehend his point.
Here is another example of a scientific consensus gone wrong: the cause of ulcers..once thought to be the result of stress, now known to be the result of bacterial infection (heliobactor pylori). Of course this scientific consensus existed thirty years or so ago…thats too ancient for you?
Consider the recent release of studies that show that saturated fats and cholesterol aren’t harmful to one’s health, after forty years of relentless misinformation, which caused the rates of type two diabetes to skyrocket in the western world.
One could attack you post all day with counterexamples, but if you can’t accept that brilliant guys like Ptolomy, and Euclid and Archimedes were also incorrect sometimes, maybe look to prerelativistc physicists…do you deny that those guys were scientists, and were also wrong?
Yours is the post of an imbecile.
Matt,
Do not confuse the evangelists of climate change with scientists such as Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Einstein etc.
In the field of climatology we have allowed science based on meticulous observation and experiment to be replaced by one based on modelling and press release. Science relies on validation. There is very little regarding the dire predictions of climatology which can be verified.
Predicting climate catastrophe has become a billion dollar bandwagon. If someone declares ‘no problem’ then all that funding will dry up.
Until recently it was believed that ulcers were caused by stress and diet and millions of people were routinely prescribed drugs to limit stomach acid. When Warren and Marshall suggested the real cause was bacterial infection they were pilloried by the medical profession and especially pharmaceutical companies. Now we know they were right – they were eventually awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2005.
Try to distinguish between that which has been established and that which is still speculation.
Actually Warren and Marshall’s hypothesis was quite rapidly accepted, they were receiving major awards within 10 years of the research:
Marshall received the Warren Alpert Prize in 1994; the Australian Medical Association Award and the Albert Lasker Award for Clinical Medical Research in 1995; the Gairdner Foundation International Award in 1996; the Paul Ehrlich and Ludwig Darmstaedter Prize in 1997; the Dr A.H. Heineken Prize for Medicine, the Florey Medal, and the Buchanan Medal of the Royal Society in 1998; the Benjamin Franklin Medal for Life Sciences in 1999; the Keio Medical Science Prize in 2002; and the Australian Centenary Medal in 2003.[14]
Three years after their publication of their findings a therapy for treating duodenal ulcers was developed by another research group. In 1994 the NIH published an opinion stating most recurrent duodenal and gastric ulcers were caused by H. pylori, and recommended antibiotics be included in the treatment regimen. Their first paper was published in The Lancet which I wouldn’t describe as being pilloried! The editors were initially skeptical about the paper but contacted an expert on campylobacter who confirmed their findings and the paper was published. Within 10 years of the initial publication they had completely overturned the prevailing paradigm within 10 years. Of course the drug companies that had developed big selling drugs like Tagamet weren’t too happy.
Opposition to continental drift was orthodoxy until c. 1960 or later. This was the pre-scientific era?
Matt:
You draw a logically illegitimate conclusion from an argument in which the polysemic term “science” changes meaning in the midst of this argument. Thus, you are guilty of muddying the waters through an application of the equivocation fallacy.
“Science Change”. “Climate Change”.
Someone up thread commented about scientist not using the same word to mean two different things. That happens later. A twist on the ol’ bait and switch.
Why? Why do people continue to pump out doom-laden lies?
I am old enough to recall exactly the same scare in the 1970s, though at that time it was a prospective Ice Age that worried us.
Looking at the graphs, I see that the world is assessed to have become hotter during the 1980s and 1990s, but then started to cool again in the 2010s. Which is why the 2000s were the hottest decade. And this is obviously cyclical.
We should be preparing now for the inevitable coming Ice Age scare which will happen in the 2050s. You heard it here first…!
Erm, I think my garden’s leaf production has gone up over 43 years – am I deluding myself?
And again. I note that the UK Met Office ‘Climate’ section has a piece about the expected consequences of a 4 degree rise/century. Alarming, of course. As a taxpayer, I object.
Brilliant!
CAGW alarmists will NEVER cease trying to scare the masses with concocted dangers of CO2, because if they only used: empirical evidence, physics, reason, the Scientific Method and logic, the CAGW hypothesis would already be in the trash bin of failed ideas.
None of CAGW alarmists’ doom and gloom projections are even CLOSE to reflecting reality, so they’re left with making silly “worse than we thought” propaganda predictions to keep the nightmare alive.
If any scientist or well informed individual show contradicting evidence to CAGW dogma, they’re merely called “deniers” or “flat-earthers” and are reminded that the mythical “97%” consensus of scientists and all scientific institutions disagree with them. Skeptical scientists often have their careers ruined to warn others not to rock the leaky boat….or else…
That’s why CAGW’s demise will most likely come from scientists outside climatology. The allure of $billions in climate research grants overwhelms and creates bias to keep the grant gravy chain chugging along…
I still think that when the CAGW hypothesis does crash and burn, it will happen rather quickly.
The only problem with your post is that NONE of the world’s Institutions of Science support your ‘hypothesis’, and ALL of the Scientific Institutions support AGW. That includes the National Academies, Scientific Professional Associations, major universities, NASA and NOAA. NO exceptions.
Also there’s no such term as ‘CAGW’ among scientists – the term is used only by bloggers and journalists.
That why the “no -AGW” thesis –maybe we could all it ‘NAGW’— has already crashed and burned in the world of science.
There is no evidence whatsoever in support of the hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming. If you imagine that there is, please present it. Thanks.
So far increased CO2 has been a great boon to most life on the planet, including humans.
Statements by Big Science don´t count unless they include evidence, which they don´t, but just assertions based upon models already shown fatally flawed, at best. Big Science also opposed the hypotheses that the earth orbits the sun, that phlogiston causes combustion, that species are immutable, that miasmas or humors cause disease, that continents don´t move, that giant floods don´t create landscapes & that acid causes ulcers, while also maintaining that eugenics means people should be sterilized or executed.
Warren says, “Also there’s no such term as ‘CAGW’ among scientists”
Well warren, with out the C in AGW the debate is academic, and we can stop wasting billions on this nonsense. I am glad you are a luke warmer and see no catastrophic affects of increasing CO2.
Unfortunately there are dozens of quotes available from so called scientists, like Hansen and many many others, predicting doom. I hope to see you arguing against their already failed predictions since you reject the “C” in CAGW.
Hell Warren, BTW, the W and the G are also MIA.
@milodonharlani.
You say “There is no evidence whatsoever in support of the hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming. If you imagine that there is, please present it. Thanks.
You are absolutely correct. There is no scientific evidence in support of CAGW — since ‘Catastrophic’ is not a scientific term and not used by Scientists. However, ALL the evidence supports AGW, which is why all those aforementioned Institutions of Science conclude it.
@David A.
You say: “Warren says, “Also there’s no such term as ‘CAGW’ among scientists”
Well warren, with out the C in AGW the debate is academic, and we can stop wasting billions on this nonsense. I am glad you are a luke warmer and see no catastrophic affects of increasing CO2.
Unfortunately there are dozens of quotes available from so called scientists, like Hansen and many many others, predicting doom. I hope to see you arguing against their already failed predictions since you reject the “C” in CAGW. Hell Warren, BTW, the W and the G are also MIA.”
Sorry, there is no ‘debate’ among scientists about ‘AGW, as that is the conclusion of ALL the world’s institutions of Science, including Hansen.
‘CAGW’ is an invention of those that don’t like the findings of ALL Science, and seek ways to justify their rejection of it.
If it´s not catastrophic, then no worries. So far more CO2 has been a good thing.
But there is also no evidence of man-made global warming. It is hypothesized from the GHE of CO2, but so far no evidence confirms that it has actually happened. Maybe the cooling effects of other human activities cancels it out. Maybe nature is so promptly self-regulating that in the actual atmosphere any GHE from the increase in a trace gas is readily cancelled out or swamped.
Since the null hypothesis that nothing unusual is happening cannot be rejected, there is no persuasive evidence of man-made global warming. But even if there were, so far increased CO2 has, as noted, been beneficial. Nor is there reason to suppose it ever will produce catastrophic effects.
warrenb wrote, “ALL of the Scientific Institutions support AGW. That includes the National Academies, Scientific Professional Associations, major universities, NASA and NOAA. NO exceptions.”
You really think so, warrenb? “NO exceptions?” What about the Geological Society of Australia (GSA)?
Well, if by “support AGW” you mean, to quote Peter Doran, “When compared with pre-1800’s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen?” then, sure, very few scientists would disagree with the fact that it is warmer now than it was during the Little Ice Age.
But so what? That’s a pretty meaningless “consensus,” in the context of the climate debate. That fact does not help make a case for the sorts of public policy measures which climate activists advocate.
If you ask a more meaningful question, such as whether, in the succinct words of President Obama, “Climate change is real, man-made and dangerous?” the “consensus” disappears.
The June 2013 newsletter (TAG 167) of the Geological Society of Australia (GSA) illustrates the ongoing lively debate in the scientific community about anthropogenic climate change. In 2009, the GSA’s Executive Committee issued a statement in support of global warming alarmism, but they subsequently withdrew it due to intense criticism from the Society’s members. On p. 9 of the June 2013 newsletter you’ll read that in 2010 an independent poll of GSA members found that 53% disagreed with the Executive Committee’s 2009 statement. So, in 2012, the Executive Committee tried again. They drafted a new, more balanced position statement (from TAG 165 pp. 6-7), more accurately reflecting the Members’ beliefs. But the Society’s members were so divided
on the subject, and the debate was so rancorous, that they finally gave up on trying to reach a consensus. That’s why the GSA takes no position on climate change.
@warrenlb, who says:
…NONE of the world’s Institutions of Science…
As usual, warrenlb posts his ‘appeal to authority’ fallacy in place of evidence.
So, warrenlb, let’s see you post verifiable, testable evidence of AGW. Forget CAGW, even though if it were not for that scare, there wouldn’t be any grant money available.
Now, let’s see you produce testable, empirical scientific evidence showing that AGW exists.
If you can produce such evidence, you will be the first, and you win the debate.
But if you cannot produce evidence showing that AGW exists, you lose the debate.
Simples.
See, organizations are easily corrupted by money and fame. That’s what has happened. They could assert that the moon is made of green cheese, and we could demand evidence. But they wouldn’t have any more evidence for that than they have for AGW.
See your problem? Anyone can “say anything”. But in science, we need evidence. Otherwise, it is just a conjecture.
Conjectures have their place. But they don’t win debates. Testable evidence wins debates. But you have no evidence, warrenlb. None at all. Why not?
Really, you’ve got nothin’.
warrenlb:
There is a huge difference between CAGW and AGW and it is imperative that a distinction be made between the two.
Science has known CO2 is a GHG that will cause some warming at higher concentrations since 1824, when Dr. Fourier discovered this property of CO2… That’s never been up for debate…
The logarithmic forcing effect of CO2 per doubling is 5.35*ln(560ppm/280ppm)=3.7 watts/M^2. Running this tiny amount of forcing through the Stefan-Boltzmann contant, gives a gross potential global warming effect of around 1.2C, which is without any positive or negative feedback effects, and which can be called “AGW”. 1.2C of “AGW” global warming is absolutely nothing to worry about, and would actually be a net benefit.
The CAGW hypothesis postulates the existence of a “positive runaway feedback loop” involving water vapor, which assumes a tripling or quadrupling of the 1.2C of gross “AGW”, which is where the IPCC got its “best guess” ECS estimate of 3.0C~4.5C.
There is absolutely no evidence that CAGW’s “runaway positive feedback loop” exists… Conversely, there is growing evidence that a NEGATIVE feedback exists, caused by increased cloud cover leading to increased albedo and less warming; perhaps AGW’s NET ECS will be as closer to 0.5C by 2100 (Lindzen & Choi et al).
BTW, hypotheses cannot be corroborated nor falsified by vote…. This can only be done by comparing hypothetical projections to reality. CAGW projections vs. reality are now off by 2 standard deviations, which is not good news for CAGW. If current trends continue, in 5~7 years, the discrepancies could exceed 3 standard deviations, which should be sufficient to falsify the CAGW hypothesis.
All right on, except that Fourier didn´t ID CO2 as a greenhouse gas. He spoke of the warming effect of air in general.
[Snip. Labeling people as “deniers” gets your comment deleted. ~mod.]
“Can we stop the doom mongering?”
No.
The planet has been warming a bit since the 1870s when the Little Ice Age ended. It has been an uneven warming with some cooling mixed in with the overall warming trend. That fact plus the fact that those in charge of the government funded temperature data sets are not honest or scientific will bring even more “warming”.
Even on the skeptic side we have sites where one may not question that CO2 warms the planet. My limited training on how the atmosphere works came in the early 70’s so I don’t buy the CO2 fallacy at all. The sun heats the earth on the day side in the lower latitudes and the atmosphere (and the ocean of course) serves to move that heat toward the higher latitudes as well as holding heat during the night. It is the mass of the atmosphere plus gravity that cause convection and conduction to do that work in the atmosphere. (the ocean’s currents appear to be even less well understood at this time)
Climate “science” will make no progress towards understanding how our planet’s climate works until we ditch the utterly stupid theory of Jim Hansen. (was he ever right about anything?)
On top of all that, we do not really know what the average temperature of the planet is now, has been in the past, or even what it should be. We quibble over hundredths of a degree when we don’t have the data to do that at all.
There is no science in today’s Climate “Science”.
~Mark
Earth has been warming since the depths of the LIA during the Maunder Minimum, c. AD 1690, but it is still in the long-term cooling trend since the height of the Minoan Warm Period, c. 2000 BC, or even earlier Holocene Optimum.
Dr Dave 10.02pm 18th Feb.
Evolution not proven? Put “London underground mosquito” into Google and then decide.
Not the best example of observed speciation, but an intriguing suggestion for study in other issues of evolutionary theory.