The Crux

The Greens’ belief that Man is causing catastrophic global warming assumes that there is a dominant cause and effect relationship between CO₂ and global temperatures.  The Green scientists have provided a “theory” that supports this assumption.

This is the crux, or essence, of the global warming issue and it is examined on this page.

THE LOGIC

These scientists tell us that carbon dioxide has a dominant effect on global temperatures, more so than any of the other thirty or more factors that also influence global temperatures.  Even though Man only contributes a small amount of carbon dioxide to the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it is this dominance that allows them to state that Man’s effect will be catastrophic. 

This idea encourages them to say that the two variables – global temperatures and atmospheric carbon dioxide – move in ‘lockstep’.  In the late 1980s, they further stated that while CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere continued to rise, global warming would also continue to rise, and we would no longer see the expected natural multi-decade cooling periods.

Unfortunately, none of this is true. 

 By Christmas Eve 2012, the last Green organization out of the six advising the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on global temperatures, admitted that global warming had stopped, while CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere had continued to rise.  The only disagreement between the six organizations was the length of this ‘hiatus’ in global warming.

Furthermore, with only a little investigation, it could be shown that the two variables had never moved in lockstep – during short, medium or long time frames. 

 In the past, concentrations had been 5, 10 and 15 times higher than today and global temperatures had not followed these very large movements.   In one glacial period, lasting 120,000 years, CO₂ concentrations had been 20 times more than today yet global temperatures were very cold. This undermines the claim that CO₂ has a dominant heating ability.

Just as importantly, if the prediction that for each 40ppm rise in CO₂ concentrations there would be a 4^oC rise was correct, then the global temperatures in the past would have been;

• 2,000ppm (5 times) temperature would be 175^oC
• 4,000ppm (10 times) temperature would be 375^oC
• 6,000ppm (15 times) temperature would be 575^oC

This would have been catastrophic, with all the rivers, lakes, and oceans boiled dry for billions of years.

The graph below shows temperature (blue line) and CO₂ concentrations (purple line) fluctuations over millions of years. The Green scientists foolishly claim that these two variables are tightly correlated and move in lockstep. A quick look at these lines show they are not correlated, let alone tightly correlated – i.e. “moving in lockstep”. The purple line (CO₂) does not closely follow the blue line (global temperatures), and half the time moves in the opposite direction.

• 

Reading 2.1 will show you the lack of correlation between the two variables recently.  It will also show the deception used by the Green movement in now conflating natural warming and man made catastrophic warming.

Because this hiatus in warming falsified the Green scientists’ theory and also showed the lack of logic in their claims, the Green’s Public Relations organisation had to react. 

The Climate Action Group (CAG) gave the following directive to approximately 300 Green organisations around the World.  “We have to assume that our scientists are wrong.  So, you are to point to any weather events of any kind (i.e. normal weather) and claim they are catastrophic and are caused by Man.”

Before you can fully understand this deception, you need to understand what is “normal climate”.  Reading 2.2 outlines what is normal climate.  You should read and understand this so you can fully appreciate the deception of treating normal climate as the new man-made catastrophic global warming

Correlation and Causation.

Reading 2.3 will discuss Correlation and Causation and show you how these can be misused to deceive us.  The lessons to be learnt here are;

• Correlation does not mean there is a causation link between the variables – more work is needed.
• In contrast, if there is no correlation there cannot be a cause and effect relationship

CONCLUSION

Because there is no correlation between global temperatures and CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere, there cannot be a dominant cause and effect relationship between the two variables.  Sceptical scientists have been ignored as they have repeatedly stated;

“Without correlation there cannot be causation.“

Consequently, Man’s small contribution to the total CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere cannot cause Man Made Catastrophic Global Warming.

THE SCIENCE

What is science?  Early in the 20^th century, Karl Popper helped to clarify and define ‘science’ so it would not be confused with anything that was not science.

For a statement, hypothesis or theory to be considered scientific it had to be expressed in a testable way.  Then any scientist could objectively test the statement or theory.  Generally, this was testing a prediction that was based on the theory.

If it passed the test, the theory was strengthened but never proved “right”.  In contrast, if it failed the test the theory was ‘falsified’ and needed to be discarded.  Scientific theories live or die on the accuracy of the predictions that are based on the theory.  It only takes one prediction to fail to falsify a theory.

For example, the statement that “all swans are white” is a testable scientific statement.  This theory was strengthened when nobody could find swans of any other colour.  When the Dutch explorer Willem de Vlamingh discovered black swans in Australia in 1697, the theory was falsified.

It should be noted that it only took one scientist and one black swan to falsify this theory – science does not progress through consensus.

Popper saw falsability as the logical part and the cornerstone of his scientific epistemology, which sets the limits of scientific inquiry. He proposed that statements and theories that are not falsifiable are unscientific. Declaring an un-falsifiable theory would then be pseudoscience.

The Green scientists have made dozens of predictions based on their ’theory’ of catastrophic Man-made global warming.  Most of these predictions have failed with 5-15 fold errors.  The theory has been comprehensively falsified.

CONCLUSION

Because the Greens’ theory has been falsified in multiple ways there is no longer any scientific support for their modified theory about catastrophic Man-made global warming.

Reading 2.4 lists many of the failed predictions, any one of which would have falsified the theory. The list starts with failed predictions made by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) about temperature and sea level rises.  Then other predictions made by individual scientists based on the Green’s theory are listed.

Remember, it only takes one prediction failure to falsify the theory.

WHY HAVE CLIMATE SCIENTISTS FAILED US?

“And can I remind everybody that the IPCC that we keep talking about, very honestly admits that we know very little about 80% of the factors behind climate change. Well let’s use an engineering [example]; I don’t think I’d want to cross Brooklyn Bridge if it were built by an engineer who only understood 20% of the forces on that bridge.” 

UK Professor Emeritus of Biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London, on March 14, 2007 during a live debate with other scientists in New York City.

The question in the title is answered in Reading 2.5.

In a ‘nutshell’, through no fault of the scientists themselves, the lack of knowledge has caused the failure.  Also, the average citizen’s expectation that all science is well established cannot be met – the science about our climate is in “nappies”.

Unlike nearly every other field of science, climate science is severely handicapped and, consequently, the progress in gaining knowledge will be very slow. This leads some to believe that “Climate Science” should be renamed “We Don’t Know Science”.

WHY ARE THE CLIMATE MODELS FAILING?

In our irrational World today, many have strange ideas about computing.  “If the computer says so, it must be right”.  It doesn’t take long before such people believe that computers have a mind of their own and Man can lose control of them.  On the night of the 31^st December 1999, many people decided to spend the night in a bomb shelter believing there was a very good chance that the Y2K bug would start World War 3.

Many forget that humans design and provide the input to the computers before getting their output.  Climate models are no different and their description as “deterministic” models should remind us that the output is ‘determined’ by the scientific formulae within the computer and any other human input.  If the design and input are perfect, then you will get the perfect output.  Conversely, if you put rubbish in you will get rubbish out.

The science being used in the climate models is the very best that climate scientists have but, unfortunately, because the science is so young, it is inadequate.  So, it should not be surprising that the model predictions have 5-15 fold errors.

What is unacceptable is all the follow up science, that might be solid science, using these poor predictions as a starting point in their work.  Corrupt predictions produces corrupt results for this type of science.

For example, in 2005, the CSIRO released a paper about the effects of global warming on bush fires in Australia.  It incorrectly started with a model prediction that there would be a two degree rise in global temperatures by the year 2020.  This was a courageous assumption. The planet has not seen a two degree rise in fifteen years for hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions of years.

This was a bold prediction that was to undermine all their science, as there was no temperature rise in the 2005-2020 time period. Consequently all the conclusions in the paper were wrong – a complete waste of CSIRO’s time and effort.

This did not stop Green supporters telling us that this was solid science that should have been heeded before the 2020 bushfires.  Instead of being “heeded” it should have been discarded as “junk” science based on a false premise.

Consequently, rather than believing these predictions are right because “they come from a computer”, we should look at reality – see the large errors – and dismiss the model predictions as junk science. We should not be spending a dollar on such predictions.  However, in our increasingly irrational World we are spending trillions of taxpayers’ dollars ^[1] all based on these junk predictions.

WHERE TO GO FROM HERE

If Western societies were largely rational societies, then the above would be enough to convince all that the present conversation on Man-made catastrophic global warming has no logical or scientific basis and the issue would die.

Because there is a growing irrationality within our societies, the fallacies involved in this issue have been believed by most for the past forty years.

Showing their irrationality, most will point to three issues that they incorrectly claim “proves global warming is real”. These are discussed in the first page of ‘The Swamp’.

Note 1. In the Kyoto period from 1995-2010, European countries spent 15 trillion dollars of taxpayers’ money
achieving very little positive results.