Ph.D. Physicist: Climate Change Claims ‘Flimsy’, ’Abuses Of Science’

Ph.D. physicist Ralph B. Alexander has authored a new book: Science Under Attack: The Age of Unreason.

What Follows Is A Taste Of What Readers Can Expect From The Book. Ideal Present For The Upcoming Christmas Season.

Evidence Lacking for Major Human Role in Climate Change
By Ralph B. Alexander, Ph.D.

Conventional scientific wisdom holds that global warming and consequent changes in the climate are primarily our own doing. But what few people realize is that the actual scientific evidence for a substantial human contribution to climate change is flimsy.

It requires highly questionable computer climate models to make the connection between global warming and human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2).

No Proof Warming Is Human-Caused

The multiple lines of evidence which do exist are simply evidence that the world is warming, not proof that the warming comes predominantly from human activity.

The supposed proof relies entirely on computer models that attempt to simulate the Earth’s highly complex climate and include greenhouse gases as well as aerosols from both volcanic and man-made sources – but almost totally ignore natural variability.

Models Way Off The Mark

So it shouldn’t be surprising that the models have a dismal track record in predicting the future. Most spectacularly, the models failed to predict the recent pause or hiatus in global warming from the late 1990s to about 2014.

During this period, the warming rate dropped to only a third to a half of the rate measured from the early 1970s to 1998, while at the same time CO2 kept spewing into the atmosphere.

Out of 32 climate models, only a lone Russian model came anywhere close to the actual observations.

cmip5 models vs observations

Not only did the models overestimate the warming rate by two or three times, they wrongly predict a hot spot in the upper atmosphere that isn’t there, and are unable to accurately reproduce sea level rise.

Yet it’s these same failed models that underpin the whole case for catastrophic consequences of man-made climate change, a case embodied in the 2015 Paris Agreement.

The international agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions – which 195 nations, together with many of the world’s scientific societies and national academies, have signed on to – is based not on empirical evidence, but on artificial computer models.

Only the models link climate change to human activity. The empirical evidence does not.

Correlation Is Not Causation

Proponents of human-caused global warming, including a majority of climate scientists, insist that the boost to global temperatures of about 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since 1850 comes almost exclusively from the steady increase in the atmospheric CO2 level.

They argue that elevated CO2 must be the cause of nearly all the warming because the sole major change in climate “forcing” over this period has been from CO2 produced by human activities – mainly the burning of fossil fuels as well as deforestation.

But correlation is not causation, as is well known from statistics or the public health field of epidemiology.

So believers in the narrative of catastrophic anthropogenic (man-made) climate change fall back on computer models to shore up their argument.

With the climate change narrative trumpeted by political entities such as the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and amplified by compliant media worldwide, predictions of computer climate models have acquired the status of quasi-religious edicts.

Warmists On The Wrong Side Of Science

Indeed, anyone disputing the conventional wisdom is labeled a “denier” by advocates of climate change orthodoxy, who claim that global warming skeptics are just as anti-science as those who believe vaccines cause autism.

The much-ballyhooed war on science typically lumps climate change skeptics together with creationists, anti-vaccinationists, and anti-GMO activists. But the climate warmists are the ones on the wrong side of science.

“Fear, Hyperbole, Heavy-Handed Tactics”

Like their counterparts in the debate over the safety of GMOs, warmists employ fear, hyperbole and heavy-handed political tactics in an attempt to shut down debate.

Yet skepticism about the human influence on global warming persists, and may even be growing among the general public.

In 2018, a Gallup poll in the U.S. found that 36{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of Americans don’t believe that global warming is caused by human activity, while a UK survey showed that a staggering 64{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the British public feel the same way.

And the percentage of climate scientists who endorse the mainstream view of a strong human influence is nowhere near the widely believed 97{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}, although it’s probably above 50{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117}.

Most scientists who are skeptics like me accept that global warming is real, but not that it’s entirely man-made or that it’s dangerous.

The observations alone aren’t evidence for a major human role. Such lack of regard for the importance of empirical evidence and misguided faith in the power of deficient computer climate models are abuses of science.

========================================
Ralph B. Alexander grew up in Perth, Western Australia, and received his Ph.D. in physics from the University of Oxford 

Read more at No Tricks Zone

Trackback from your site.

Comments (8)

  • Avatar

    Nick Schroeder,BSME, PE

    |

    I’ll plow this plowed ground and beat this dead horse yet some more. Maybe somebody will step up and ‘splain scientifically how/why I’ve got it wrong – or not.

    Radiative Green House Effect theory (TFK_bams09):

    1) 288 K – 255 K = 33 C warmer with atmosphere, RGHE’s only reason to even exist – rubbish. (simple observation & Nikolov & Kramm)
    But how, exactly is that supposed to work?

    2) There is a 333 W/m^2 up/down/”back” energy loop consisting of the 0.04% GHG’s that traps/re-emits per QED simultaneously warming BOTH the atmosphere and the surface. – Good trick, too bad it’s not real, thermodynamic nonsense.
    And where does this magical GHG energy loop first get that energy?

    3) From the 16 C/289 K/396 W/m^2 S-B 1.0 ε ideal theoretical BB radiation upwelling from the surface. – which due to the non-radiative heat transfer participation of the atmospheric molecules is simply not possible.

    No BB upwelling & no GHG energy loop & no 33 C warmer means no RGHE theory & no CO2 warming & no man caused climate change.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    James McGinn

    |

    Nick Schroeder,BSME, PE:
    I’ll plow this plowed ground and beat this dead horse yet some more. Maybe somebody will step up and ‘splain scientifically how/why I’ve got it wrong – or not.

    JMcG:
    Since you asked so artfully I will answer your question. But I can’t promise that you will like it. If it is any consolation, I don’t like this answer either:

    Climatology has certain traditions that it adopted from its parent discipline, meteorology. One of those traditions is that their theoretical aspects are based on conversation and not empiricism. Or, I guess we could say, the connection to empiricism is suggestive and not literal.

    In empirical sciences the experimental evidence comes first and the narrative follows. In conversational sciences the narrative comes first and its significance is interpreted by “experts.” No empiricism necessarily follows. And any empiricism that is externally applied is summarily dismissed if it disagrees with the “expert” opinion.

    In short, with conversational sciences like meteorology and climatology, truth is determined by consensus and authority.

    The public is naïve, gullible, and generally unaware that climatological conclusions, like global warming, are based on conversation and not empiricism.

    Exposing climatology as empirically inept won’t solve the problem since the conversational tradition is rooted in meteorology and not climatology.

    IOW, don’t waste your time trying to reform climatology. It won’t/can’t reform until meteorology is reformed. And they have a very strong lobby, with roots deep in in established pseudoscience.

    The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
    https://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329

    James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Alan Thorpe

      |

      An interesting interpretation but should science be divided in this way? Isn’t science about rational thinking and empirical observations, with either coming first.

      The idea of experts interpreting the meaning rather suggests that climatology is a like a religion. In the past we needed priests to interpret the bible, now climatologists masquerading as scientists interpret their pseudoscience; both are based on creating fear.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        James McGinn

        |

        AT: An interesting interpretation but should science be divided in this way?

        JMcG: I don’t think it should be divided this way, if that is what you are asking.

        AT: Isn’t science about rational thinking and empirical observations, with either coming first.

        JMcG: I suppose that is more true for some disciplines than others. Obviously for climatology and meteorology’s storm theory that is not the case.

        AT: The idea of experts interpreting the meaning rather suggests that climatology is a like a religion.

        JMcG: Right. But notice how you failed to include meteorology. This is the problem. You make the conceptual error of assuming climatology should maintain higher standards than have traditionally been applicable to meteorology.

        AT: In the past we needed priests to interpret the bible, now climatologists masquerading as scientists interpret their pseudoscience; both are based on creating fear.

        JMcG: I’m opposed to all pseudoscience, not just pseudoscience that creates fear.

        The conversational tradition–a tradition that climatology adopted from meteorology–is the problem. This website (PSI) caters to people (like yourself, I presume) who are politically conservative. Conservatives like things that are traditional. So you turn a blind eye to the source of the problem, meteorology, because meteorology is a traditional science. So, those of you that only want to reform climatology without first reforming meteorology are the problem.

        James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Gergo Tolnai

    |

    I just wonder if plastic oceans , dissapiering species, dying soil, declining insects…. Are also not man made…. Yes I guess the Indians of America’s Tipi life style started off the whole inballance around 18th century….
    Of course nothing to do with cars , industry and lost morality…..

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Nick Schroeder,BSME, PE

    |

    One would think that should one wrongly critique the oh-so-sacred RGHE theory one’s in-box would overflow with angry, animated and detailed scientific rebuttals.

    So, what shall one assume from the thundering silence?

    1) (Tsurf – Ttoa) = R * ISR * (1-albedo)

    This ubiquitous heat transfer equation totally describes Tsurf, the earth’s surface temperature. Ttoa, top of atmosphere (molecules cease at 32 km) is a function of altitude. R’s is also a function of altitude, i.e. thickness. Note that GHG’s are not included since their 0.04% contribution to R is negligible.

    For instance, at the equator where the atmosphere is thicker R increases as does Tsurf. Note also at the equator where ISR is high and albedo low Tsurf increases. It’s hot at the equator.

    At the poles where the atmosphere is thin R is low, ISR is low (tilted axis) and albedo high (ice, snow, clouds), Tsurf will be very low.

    At points in between simply insert appropriate values for R, ISR, albedo and Ttoa, turn crank and voila T surf.

    Interesting albedo site: http://www.climatedata.info/forcing/albedo/

    Q=U A dT – the climate’s easy button.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    jerry krause

    |

    Hi PSI Readers.

    I agree that science is under attack but Alexander’s book might not be one a real scientist should innocently give to anyone without the question: By Whom?

    For in page 6 with the headline: ‘Where Science Came From’, Alexander wrote: “It’s the ancient Greeks who first pursued natural knowledge as an end in itself and are regarded as laying the foundation of both abstract science and the scientific method.”

    I doubt if Galileo would agree for it was Galileo who demonstrated for us how wrong Aristotle and his fellow philosophers were about certain most fundamental ideas of the natural world in which we live. It was Galileo who demonstrated for us that observation (actual experimentation) was the sole foundation of the science he (Galileo) introduced to the scientists who have followed. But commonly overlooked is that it was not only Galileo. For Tycho Brahe, who made quite precise naked-eye astronomical observations and Johannes Kepler, who mathematically analyzed Brahe’s data and discovered three mathematical scientific laws which described certain motions of the planets as they orbited the Sun, were contemporaries of Galileo. And to this time there have been no observations which refute even one of Kepler’s three laws.

    But Galileo made a mistake and this taught the scientists who followed another lesson. His mistake was that he would not accept the validity of Kepler’s scientific laws because Galileo reasoned (argued) that the orbital paths had to be circular instead of elliptical because of his religious belief. Hence, we learned that reason and argument have no place in science unless it can be tested by observation (experiment). Einstein summarized this: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

    There is a war on science and it is being conducted by philosophers whom Galileo knocked off of their intellectual soap-boxes.

    Have a good day, Jerry

    Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via