They say their evidence hits “gold standard” but offer NO evidence
by Ed Berry, Ph.D., Physics
Environmental Correspondent Alister Dyle penned the news pseudoscience article entitled, “Evidence for man-made global warming hits ‘gold standard’: scientists.”
The article claims,
Evidence for man-made global warming has reached a “gold standard” level of certainty.
Well, where is the evidence? Evidence means cause and effect evidence. They don’t give any evidence to support their claim.
Are there any scientists on the climate alarmist side who understand how science works? I don’t think so. If they understood science, they would not be climate alarmists.
Rising temperatures, even if true, are not evidence that human CO2 caused the rise. The public does not get this. (How many kids paying off their college loans learned how science works?)
The article reports,
Ben Santer, lead author of Monday’s study at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, said he hoped the findings would win over skeptics and spur action.
Not a chance in hell. The skeptic scientists understand science and don’t fall for false logic.
Ben and his buddies use the following false logic:
- If human CO2 causes climate change, then bad stuff will happen.
- Bad stuff happens. Therefore, human CO2 cause climate change.
If you believe that, then you also believe this parallel in logic:
- If Bill Gates owned Fort Knox, then Bill Gates is rich.
- Bill Gates is rich. Therefore, Bill Gates owned Fort Knox.
It is called the logical error of affirming the consequent. Look it up.
To convince any rational person that human CO2 is causing global warming, Ben and his buddies must show evidence to confirm these cause-effect hypotheses:
- Human CO2 emissions caused the rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1750.
- Increased atmospheric CO2 caused the claimed climate change.
- Climate change causes bad stuff to happen.
But they never talk about the first two necessary hypotheses. They just harp that bad stuff happens and hope you won’t notice their logical deficiency.
Ben and his buddies use the same irrational logic the Aztecs used to cut out beating hearts and roll decapitated heads down temple steps, thinking their sacrifices would bring rain for their crops. They continued their sacrifices until it rained. Then, they concluded their sacrifices caused the rain.
While it is not possible in science to prove a hypothesis is true, it is possible to prove a hypothesis is false. We do that by proving a theory’s prediction is false.
In contrast to the unsupported opinions of Ben and his buddies, simple physics proves the following:
- Carbon-14 data and some simple physics prove Ben’s model of climate change is invalid. The physics model proves human emissions add only 18 ppm and nature adds 392 ppm. Nature caused 95% of the rise in atmospheric CO2. Therefore, human CO2 is insignificant to the level of atmospheric CO2 and insignificant to climate change. Checkmate.
- Data show that changes in temperature come before changes in CO2. Therefore, temperature change is the cause, rather than the result, of changes in CO2. Checkmate.
- Data show that human life is better when the earth is warmer.
Ben and his buddies ignore the facts that prove their ideas are false. They do not understand science itself. They have NO evidence that human CO2 causes any significant global warming.
Furthermore, Jamal Munshi published his statistical calculations that show the correlation between annual CO2 emissions and annual increase in atmospheric CO2 is ZERO! Where there is no correlation, there can be no cause and effect. Checkmate.
The article claims,
Mainstream scientists say the burning of fossil fuels is causing more floods, droughts, heat waves and rising sea levels.”
They have no scientific evidence to support their claim and they ignore scientific evidence that proves they are wrong. So much for “mainstream” scientists. They don’t follow the rules of science.
The article claims,
Sixty-two percent of Americans polled in 2018 believed that climate change has a human cause, up from 47 percent in 2013, according to the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.
If this poll is true, it only proves Americans as a group are getting dumber. God save America.
FWIW, here is the question I always ask the AGW gang. I have yet to have even one answer (except for an avalanche of ad hominems). And, BTW, I hold a PhD in Atmospheric Fluid Dynamics from McGill.
Before we commit to spending billions upon billions of dollars to solve this problem, how about we define it scientifically? You know, in a way that can be measured.
Real scientists check out the value of their theories and hypotheses by using data. So let’s try that here.
What, exactly, is being *measured*? And how accurate are those measurements, both now and over time? And how do you know what the contribution of human activity is to whatever you are measuring?
I’ll make it even easier for you. Since AGW believers frequently bring up surface temperature, let’s look at it. After all, it’s about the simplest thing involved, isn’t it?
So show me a map of the earth’s surface temperature, and a companion map of the margin of error.
Then do the same thing in (say) 1950.
If you prefer another atmospheric parameter than surface temperature, suggest it and provide reasons for your choice, and then answer the same questions.
Finally, tell me what part of the differences is due to human activity, how you know, and how accurately you know it.
Bet you can’t.
Helen
I decided to just ask people for their definition of “climate” and “climate change”. Most folks haven’t got that far or are fixated on the changes they hear about being all due to us, implying that climate is static in the absence of humans. So as useful and appropriate as your suggestions to scientifically define your hypothesis and then use valid data to test it are I find most folks haven’t defined the common terms. I don’t think this deficiency is considered a problem by Gavin and his crowd.
Hi Helen,
Your most important sentence above is: “And how do you know what the contribution of human activity is to whatever you are measuring?”
It does not matter how much climate changes because events do not prove their cause.
That is why I focus on checking their proposed cause, e.g., human CO2 emissions. The core IPCC theory is that human CO2 causes all the CO2 increase above 280 ppm.
My 2021 paper uses IPCC’s own data to prove this core IPCC theory is wrong.
https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-co2-temp/the-impact-of-human-co2-on-atmospheric-co2/
as to your need to show “Global warming causes bad stuff to happen.” I Argue that they ALSO need to show that such bad stuff DID NOT happen before man’s CO2.
I like to ask these climate clowns to show actual evidence that man’s CO2 is causing serious global warming.
The danger of such circular reasoning, as mentioned here by dr.Berry, was also stated in the interesting PhD thesis of Alexander Bakker. ( 2015 , http://dare.ubvu.vu.nl/handle/1871/52184)
His research was performed at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI). He stated:
‘During my almost eight year employment, I have been regularly confronted with large model biases. I have assessed all kind of different variables. Virtually in all cases, the model bias appeared larger than the projected climate change, even for mean daily temperature.’
and
‘… the IPCC has embraced the principle of multiple ’lines of evidence’ that together might build up to a strong case. Yet, the different lines, notably the GCM based evidence, can often not be proven independent and the danger of circular reasoning is lurking.’
Hi De Rick,
Thank you for the link to Bakker’s thesis.
The IPCC’s argument claiming “multiple lines of evidence” fails when we prove IPCC’s theory is wrong because one proof that a theory is wrong outvotes all the evidence that the theory is true.
My 2021 paper shows all IPCC’s supporting “evidence” is based upon its theory (or assumption) that human CO2 has caused all the CO2 increase. But all these IPCC arguments fail when we remove that assumption.
So, IPCC’s scientists have used IPCC’s assumption to conclude that IPCC’s assumption is true, in one of the most blatant scientific use or circular reasoning.
I’m still waiting for the government subsidized GW alarmists to tell us what the perfect temperature for this planet should be. Then I would like an explanation on how the global temperatures were recorded accurately back in 1910 and prior…………Would a tree ring accurately record a temperature of 34 degrees or 37 degrees back in say, 1874? And how did they measure the temperatures in other parts of the planet such as the North Pole, the center of Antarctica, the middle of the Sahara Desert, the middle of Death Valley, and the middle of the Amazon Jungle?
They can’t and until they do, they are just government funded charlatans covering their asses in order to keep those government grants coming in………….
This following factual revelation made me beyond certain that CO₂ basically has nothing to do with the earth’s climate, plus the fact that as the oceans warm they release CO₂. The lag, as shown by ice cores, is up to 800 years AFTER the warming before the CO₂ levels increase by much. The other main fact is this; the sun makes up 99.8%. Carbon dioxide makes up a paltry .04% of the total atmosphere of the earth. To stupidly believe that that small amount could possibly cause the earth’s climate to do anything is verging on insanity and for this unproven hypotheses to be used to keep humanity from utilizing carbon fuels that have lifted humans from being animals who could hardly feed themselves and had limited and slow ways to travel to be where humanity is now. These fools need to be proven to be what they are, prevaricating charlatans, and let humanity reap the rewards that the use of fossil fuels brings.
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
http://www.assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/0938018124.txt
The other main fact is this; the sun makes up 99.8% of the total mass of the solar system. I did not finish this important fact that means that the ignorant anthropogenic climate change fanatics have no idea at all what they are ranting on about when they try to blame the trace gas, CO₂, for the earth’s, in their strange view of things, incinerating.
Your 3rd point, that human life is better when the earth is warmer, is false as it stands, since you don’t provide a limit on how much warmer. I suspect you add it in as a joke to see who notices that you toss in a completely facetious “proof”.
I have no argument with the rest. People are getting dumber. The internet and social media have only filled up their minds with lots more varied nonsense. Getting them in significant numbers to learn how to separate out the nonsense is probably not possible.
I fail to understand how anyone would not believe that a warm earth is preferable to a cold earth. Keep in mind that 85% of all life forms on planet earth are located either in the tropics or in the temperate zones. Only a small hand full of species of plants and animals are located in the polar areas.
“The richest environments for prospecting new species are thought to be coral reefs, seafloor mud and moist tropical soils. But smaller life forms are not well known anywhere. Some unknown species are living in our own backyards — literally.”
Dear Don,
Technically, you got me because I did not state an upper limit to good temperature. I admit that somewhere much closer to the sun than we are, the temperature is too hot for human life.
However, I am talking about the earth. The global temperature for the last 10,000 years has been better for human life than the 90,000-year ice age that proceeded our warm period. Many reports show that the warmer periods of the last 10,000 years have been better for human life that the cooler periods. Even today, there are not too many people rushing to live in Antarctica.
Our present temperature is not the hottest in the last 10,000 years and there is no evidence that it would be bad if the temperature warmed to the maximum of the last 10,000 years.
Again I’m being too technical, but if the average temperature reaches the warmest it has been in the last 10,000 years, one consequence will be the incursion of the oceans into areas currently inhabited by millions, possible approaching billions, of people. This would be very bad indeed, given the migrations, economic distress, war, and suffering that would result in all regions, irrespective of proximity to the sea. But I admit that I’m being too technical given that if it is a natural occurrence, humanity will just have to adapt, with vast suffering or not, and if it isn’t, the doomsayers are pretty much saying it’s too late to prevent it anyway. Thank you, as always, for your thoughtful replies.
The Global Warming Hoax and the Fake Science Behind Climate Change:
https://cowgernation.com/2017/09/20/the-global-warming-hoax-and-the-fake-science-behind-climate-change/
Americans are getting dumber, no doubt. since IQs keep falling, but the constant drumbeat of the media will make only the most astute hold their ground in the face of the fake news and the constant brainwashing.
Agreed. I believe IQs fall in direct proportion to the increase in immigrants. They’re the ones who vote for the socialist democrats. And House members are the ones who make dumbing down mandatory!