by John O’Sullivan
Skepticism about man-made global warming and doubts about the validity of the ‘science’ of the greenhouse gas ‘theory’ are at all time highs.
The reason? Despite carbon dioxide (CO2) levels rising by 40 percent, global temperatures have flatlined since 1998. None of the IPCC’s climate models forsesaw this. In fact, the greenhouse gas ‘theory,’ the scientific cornerstone of 30 years of climate alarm, unequivocally states that increased carbon dioxide in our atmosphere must cause more warming. But reality is disproving the theory.
The latest IPCC report is now reduced to conceding “natural variability” does play a part. This admission contradicts another cornerstone of their main thesis, that natural causes are of little or no consequence. But as the ‘Slayers‘ of the theory have long shown, it was always flawed because it made many dubious assumptions including the following:
- The earth is flat.
- The earth does not rotate.
- The sun shines all day and all night with equal intensity.
- Energy interchange in the climate is entirely by radiation.
- Conduction, convection and latent heat transfer do not happen.
- Energy flow parameters are constants with no variability.
- Energy flow is “balanced” with input equal to output.
- Air movements, wind, rain, hurricanes are ignored.
- Chaos has been abolished.
- Change in this system is entirely caused by increasing human-induced trace gases in the atmosphere.
- The earth is dead: there are no living organisms, no trees, animals, birds or people.
At this point honest scientists would admit the ‘theory’ seems discredited. Rational minds would admit that a fresh look is needed at the counterclaims of dissenting scientists. Such scientists have found a rallying point at Principia Scientific International (PSI).
For those willing to cast a fresh eye over the science PSI recommends readers start by taking a look at a groundbreaking paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner first published in 2008. The full paper (revised 2009) may be found here.But as a primer we recommend the shorter approved version by Hans Schreuder found here.
To whet your intellectually curious appetite here are the final paragraphs of G&T’s summary:
“Already the natural greenhouse effect is a myth albeit any physical reality. The CO2 -greenhouse effect, however is a “mirage”. The horror visions of a risen sea level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences of fictitious physical mechanisms as they cannot be seen even in the climate model computations. The emergence of hurricanes and tornados cannot be predicted by climate models, because all of these deviations are ruled out.
“The main strategy of modern CO2 -greenhouse gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo- explanations, which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training. A good example are the radiation transport calculations, which are probably not known by many. Another example are the so-called feedback mechanisms, which are introduced to amplify an effect which is not marginal but does not exist at all. Evidently, the defenders of the CO2 -greenhouse thesis refuse to accept any reproducible calculation as an explanation and have resorted to unreproducible ones.
“A theoretical physicist must complain about a lack of transparency here, and he also has to complain about the style of the scientific discussion, where advocators of the greenhouse thesis claim that the discussion is closed, and others are discrediting justified arguments as a discussion of “questions of yesterday and the day before yesterday”. In exact sciences, in particular in theoretical physics, the discussion is never closed and is to be continued ad infinitum, even if there are proofs of theorems available.
“Regardless of the specific field of studies a minimal basic rule should be fulfilled in natural science, though, even if the scientific fields are methodically as far apart as physics and meteorology: At least among experts, the results and conclusions should be understandable or reproducible. And it should be strictly distinguished between a theory and a model on the one hand, and between a model and a scenario on the other hand, as clarified in the philosophy of science.
“That means that if conclusions out of computer simulations are to be more than simple speculations, then in addition to the examination of the numerical stability and the estimation of the effects of the many vague input parameters, at least the simplifications of the physical original equations should be critically exposed.
“The point discussed here was to answer the question, whether the supposed atmospheric effect has a physical basis. This is not the case. In summary, there is no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2 -greenhouse effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics. Thus it is illegitimate to deduce predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics and intergovernmental policy.”
As PSI’s former Chairman and co-founder, Dr Tim Ball summed up this week:
“IPCC science assumes the temperature must increase if CO2 increases.” It hasn’t. As such, “The IPCC process, methods and science are complete failures.”