Why Skeptics are Losing the Climate Change Battle

Written by Anthony Bright-Paul

I am a climate skeptic. Many skeptics know that and have even contributed to my book Climate for the Layman. But we are losing the argument and for one simple reason. loser We keep, – or at least some of us – keep up the illusion that there is such a thing as a Global Temperature. There is no such entity and never has been. Furthermore there is no such thing as an average Global Temperature either.

Peace be to Dr. Christy of the University of Alabama, for whom I have the greatest respect. He assures me that there is an average Global Temperature arrived at by inference from remote sensing from satellites. This is done by counting the number of joules, which as you all know I trust, are units of energy.

But may I humbly beg to differ. It is manifestly impossible to put in all the data in order to arrive at an average. It is clear that an average such as NASA provides based upon some 3,486 weather stations situated at 5ft above the ground is just nonsense. Why? Because in the whole of this sacred Planet of ours to determine the temperature based upon such a sparse amount is truly ridiculous. Moreover of the 3,486 stations 3,269 are situated in the relatively warm areas of Europe, America, and Africa. How many stations are there in the vast continent of Antarctica? Merely 8. Read that again – merely 8.

This is not an average at all. In no way is it scientific. In no way does it make clear that had the temperature been taken at 10ft above the ground the readings would have been different. The fact is these are atmospheric temperatures that are measuring the tiniest possible part of the atmosphere. The atmosphere that we live in has a thickness of some 66 miles or 100 kilometres not just 5 ft. So in no way is this a truly atmospheric temperature.

Within one column of air rising up 66 miles to outer space there is a huge range of temperatures. So it would make more sense to average a column. But who can average a column over the poles equally with a column over the tropics? And who can do it systematically on a grid system taking into account night and day?

The trouble is that nothing is static and yet both skeptics and warmists behave as if it were so. Any average that was taken right now would already be wrong the minute thereafter. We are hurtling through space, we are winding round the Milk Way, we are being bombarded by cosmic rays and by Solar winds and Solar storms, yet we have allowed the warmists to dominate the argument and propose that man is warming the globe by emitting too much carbon dioxide.

That argument alone is ridiculous and the skeptics know that. But they have built themselves a hole by going along with the warmist idea that there is a Global Temperature, which can be manipulated down by man, even to 2 degrees Celsius. Such an idea is also absurd, but dear skeptics, we have given it credence by acknowledging that there is some sort of mysterious Global Temperature or even an average Global Temperature. There are no such entities.

The whole of the warmist argument collapses once we declare roundly that there is no Global Temperature and neither is there such an entity as an average Global Temperature either. There is such a mass of data constantly on the move that it is impossible to infer an average. What is even more absurd is that the warmists claim that 2015 was the warmest ever and the skeptics reply that it was only the third warmest. Game, set and match to the warmists.

And as to remote sensing by satellites the data obtained may be of some scientific interest, but can counting units of energy likewise tell us the temperature of the planet? Well, the answer is no, for the very simple reason that there is not one temperature, but a huge mass of ever changing temperatures. Radiation may be energy but it is not heat, is it? Not till it encounters mass. Besides which what is being counted?  We need to be yet more skeptical.

The vast majority of employed scientists apparently support the warmist view, namely that man is warming the Planet, that that warming is dangerous, and that the warming is causing climates to change. Yet it is no surprise that the vast majority of scientists who contest these claims are retired, no longer dependent upon funding from the state. The warmist arguments are riddled with holes and can easily be shot to pieces, but only if the skeptics are truly skeptical!

Comments (6)

  • Avatar

    Carl Brehmer

    |

    “But we are losing the argument and for one simple reason. We keep, – or at least some of us – keep up the illusion that there is such a thing as a Global Temperature.”

    This is itself and ineffectual argument because it doesn’t address the fundamental premise being put forth by the IPCC, which is the notion that increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are causing “catastrophic climate change.” (In case you hadn’t noticed they stopped calling it “global warming” sometime ago because even their own numbers—there own “global temperature”—doesn’t support their thesis.)

    Basically all your saying is that we can’t know whether or not carbon dioxide is causing “catastrophic climate change”, because the metric being used—a “global temperature”—is flawed. According to your argument there may very well be a “greenhouse gas” mediated “greenhouse effect”; there is just no way for us to know and just saying that there is no such thing as a “global temperature” is not empirical evidence that the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is false.

    Beyond being ineffectual, such a single-argument approach against the notion that increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are causing “catastrophic climate change” also bypasses the reality that the U.N.’s “climate change agenda” is not scientific in the first place. Rather it is the offspring of the marriage between an ultra-left wing political ideology and a religious belief system known a pantheism. Political ideologs and religious zealots are notorious for being immune to rational arguments that threaten their insular belief systems.

    Please don’t blame those whom you call “skeptics” for the pigheaded stubbornness of political ideologs and religious zealots, because they aren’t listening to anyone who disagrees with them; they are not even listening to you. For all practical purposes they are having a “tent meeting” and we are not invited.

    Carl

  • Avatar

    Rosco

    |

    “It is manifestly impossible to put in all the data in order to arrive at an average. ”

    Rubbish !

    Any data set has all of the mathematical properties including stastics and is amenable to any sort of stastical analysis including mean , mode and hypothesis testing.

    To deny that any data set can be subject to this analysis is gibberish.

    The only thing at issue is whether the “gloabl” temperature data set is representative and “global”.

    I do not believe it is but to deny that a mathematical analysis arriving at some sort of average cannot be performed is ludicrous.

    Obviously it can be done and is done all the time.

    Does it mean what they claim ? I do not believe so.

  • Avatar

    Derek Alker

    |

    I have to wonder would it be more correct to say there is a GMT but we can not measure it?

    GMT, or rather trying to explain what we think GMT is, and why it is what it is, is a useful concept / approach, that is being misused / misreported, and it is almost never remembered or even realised that it can not be measured with any reasonable degree of accuracy or certainty.

    GMT and Black body are two examples of “theory” (ie useful concept) being misapplied in, and confused with actual thermodynamic reality. Until we realise they HAVE to be kept separate then the debacle, some currently call “climate science” will inevitably continue…
    I suppose most would agree GMT is about, or roughly 15 degrees Celsius, and THAT leads to a heck of a confirmation bias throughout current climatology, because as this article so correctly points out, GMT can not be measured with any reasonable degree of accuracy or certainty. BUT, many seem to think they do measure GMT accurately, and that therefore confirms they are right, when what they actually only partially (at best) measure does NOT mean ANYTHING of the kind AT ALL….

    • Avatar

      Greg House

      |

      This is hopeless Derek. I tried a few times, but it did not trigger anything but more incompetent articles by Anthony on “global temperature”.

      This is why skeptics are losing the climate change battle: because the vast majority of the active ones are incompetent and stupid.

      • Avatar

        Jim McGinn

        |

        Humans have a deep instinctual need to believe in future catastrophe. Since such is no longer supplied by religion it is now supplied by science. That is why the only people that get any attention in all of this are those that are really good at fulfilling this instinct or really bad at disputing it.

  • Avatar

    Jim McGinn

    |

    It is manifestly impossible to put in all the data in order to arrive at an average.

    nothing is static and yet both skeptics and warmists behave as if it were so.

    Global Temperature, which can be manipulated down by man, even to 2 degrees Celsius. Such an idea is also absurd, but dear skeptics, we have given it credence by acknowledging that there is some sort of mysterious Global Temperature or even an average Global Temperature.

    For the very reasons you indicate most of the disputes of global warming that I have seen coming from professional climatologists, Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, etc. are inept. It shows that climatology’s shortcomings are indemic and deeply rooted in history. Keep in mind we are talking about people that believe steam exists in earth’s atmosphere and this steam is what powers storms and jetstreams.

Comments are closed