Global warming: Science or dogma?

Written by Michael Nadler

The Science & Environmental Policy Project is an outstanding resource for those unwilling to bury their heads in the sand and blindly accept the notion that human-caused catastrophic global warming is settled science and must be the highest priority in allocating the world’s limited economic resources.

Its April 1, 2017 issue of “The Week That Was” leads with the point that “government-funded Climate Studies have largely turned from empirical science to dogma – a belief system unsubstantiated by physical evidence.”  Each week’s TWTW is chock full of commentary and links describing the latest science and other developments that challenge the climate change orthodoxy.  This issue highlights the written testimony of John Christy, distinguished professor of atmospheric science, Alabama’s state climatologist, and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, at the March 29 hearing titled “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method,” held by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Professor Christy’s summary of his written testimony, supported by evidence in the full statement, gives rise to serious questions about those who think the subject of catastrophic global warming is no longer open to further scientific inquiry and debate.

“Science” is not a set of facts but a process or method that sets out a way for us to discover information and which attempts to determine the level of confidence we might have in that information. In the method, a “claim” or “hypothesis” is stated such that rigorous tests might be employed to test the claim to determine its credibility. If the claim fails a test, the claim is rejected or modified then tested again. When the “scientific method” is applied to the output from climate models of the IPCC AR5, specifically the bulk atmospheric temperature trends since 1979 (a key variable with a strong and obvious theoretical response to increasing GHGs in this period), I demonstrate that the consensus of the models fails the test to match the real-world observations by a significant margin[.] …

The IPCC inadvertently provided information that supports this conclusion by (a) showing that the tropical trends of climate models with extra greenhouse gases failed to match actual trends and (b) showing that climate models without extra greenhouse gases agreed with actual trends. A report of which I was a co-author demonstrates that a statistical model that uses only natural influences on the climate also explains the variations and trends since 1979 without the need of extra greenhouse gases[.] …

One way to aid Congress in understanding more of the climate issue than what is produced by biased “official” panels of the climate establishment is to organize and fund credible “Red Teams” that look at issues such as natural variability, the failure of climate models and the huge benefits to society from affordable energy, carbon-based and otherwise. I would expect such a team would offer to Congress some very different conclusions regarding the human impacts on climate.

You can read Christy’s full written statement along with those of alarmist Michael Mann and two scientists who have challenged the climate change orthodoxy, Judith Curry and Roger Pielke, Jr.

Read more:

Comments (2)

  • Avatar

    Joseph A Olson


    “The best way control the opposition is to lead it ourselves” ~ Lenin

    And so the Alarmist/Luke charade continues forever….

  • Avatar



    I was studying the ACS Climate Change tool kit sections on the single and multilayer theories (what I refer to as the thermal ping-pong ball) of upwelling/downwelling/”back” radiation and after seeing a similar discussion on an MIT online course (specifically says no transmission) have some observations.

    These models make no reference to conduction, convection or latent heat processes which leads me to conclude that these models include no molecules, aka a “non-participating media,” aka vacuum. This is a primary conditional for proper application of the S-B BB ideal, i.e. ε = 1.0, equation.

    When energy strikes an object or surface there are three possible results: reflection or ρ, absorption or α, transmission or τ and ρ + α + τ = 1.0.

    The layered models use only α which according to Kirchhoff is equal to ε. What that really means is that max emissivity can equal but not exceed the energy absorbed. Nothing says emissivity can’t be less that the energy absorbed. If α leaves as conduction/convection/latent than ε will be much less than 1.0.

    These grey bodied layered models then exist in a vacuum and are 100% non-reflective, i.e. opaque, surfaces, i.e. just like the atmosphere. NOT!
    So the real atmosphere has real molecules meaning a “participatory” media and is 99.96% transparent i.e. non-opaque.

    Because of the heat flow participating molecules only 63 W/m^2 of the 160 W/m^2 that made it to the surface leave the surface as LWIR.
    63 W/m^2 and 15 C / 288 K surface gives a net effective ε of about 0.16 when the participating media is considered. (BTW “surface” is NOT the ground, but 1.5 m ABOVE the ground per WMO & IPCC AR5 glossary.)

    So the K-T diagram is thermodynamic rubbish, earth as a ball in a bucket of hot mush is physical rubbish, the Δ 33 C w/ atmosphere is obvious rubbish, the layered models are unrelated to reality rubbish.

    The atmosphere is not in thermodynamic equilibrium and as a consequence neither Stephan Boltzmann nor Kirchhoff can be a used the ways the GHE theory applies them.

    What support does the GHE theory have left besides rabid minions?

    I see no reason why GHE theory gets a free pass on the scientific method.—We-don-t-need-no-stinkin-greenhouse-Warning-science-ahead-

Comments are closed