Tuesday, 30 June 2009

The Suspicious Science Behind Man-Made Global Warming

James Anderson:

I’d like to take a look at the evidence for global warming resulting from increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere: The argument is that more infrared radiation released by the Earth is captured given the higher concentration of CO2 in the air, thereby warming the planet. However, if you’re looking for scientifically rigorous experiments linking CO2 to increased temperatures, I have bad news for you: It doesnt exist.

[…]

Can any model accurately capture the complexities of the Earth’s atmosphere? There are certainly many sophisticated ones out there. Happily, most of them use actual physical experiments to verify their underlying assumptions. However, until the “Flux Capacitor” from Back to the Future gets built, any climate model will need decades to verify its assumptions using real data.

Climate simply refers to one day of weather after another. Global-warming true believers, let me ask you the following question: Do you view weather forecast projections for 2 weeks from today with the same certainty that you do a computer model that purports to predict the weather 100 years from now? If not, why not? After all, they’re both based on computer models.

If your neighbor told you he were getting a tent for his daughter’s wedding reception 2 weeks from now, and you told him not to bother, because a computer model predicted sunny weather, do you think he’d take you seriously?

[…]

Here’s some science that no one with a vested political or financial interest in climate change would want you to know: The warmest year since 1934 was 1998, at the height of the strongest El Nino on record. The gold standard for CO2 measurement is taken at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. In 1998, the observatory recorded 366 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere; it steadily rose to 386 ppm in 2008. In the meantime, the earth has cooled.

[…]

The observed temperature data don’t match what the model predicts. In physics (my field), we’d look at both the experiment and the data to see whether there was something wrong with the experiment’s design, or whether the data were right and the theory wrong. Either way, we’d step back and reevaluate everything.

What we certainly wouldn’t do is cram 300 pages of amendments through Congress at 3:00 a.m. and force a vote the next day.

posted on June 30, 2009 8:36 PM




Copyright © 2002-2013 | XHTML 1.0 | CSS | Powered by Movable Type 4.2-en