Why the war on ‘fossil fuels’ is insane and will do immense harm
The 100-year atmospheric accumulation of CO2 from ‘fossil fuel’ use is a small fraction of the IPCC’s crazed estimate that lacks scientific foundation.
Regardless of contribution ‘fossil fuels’ (more correctly, hydrocarbons) make to global atmospheric CO2, the source of growing atmospheric CO2 is completely irrelevant because atmospheric CO2 has no discernible impact on changing climate.
In Earth’s 3.5 billion year geologic history of carbon-based life (all plants and animals), atmospheric CO2 has been more than 16 times higher than today. One of Earth’s coldest climate episodes occurred between 430 and 460 million years ago.
Beginning when atmospheric CO2 was roughly 4000 ppm (about ten times the current level), over the next 15 million years a s temperatures plunged 10 ̊C (18 ̊F), atmospheric CO2 grew to 4500 ppm!
Then, contrary to IPCC theory, over the following 15 million years, climate warmed by 10 ̊C (18 ̊F) as atmospheric CO2 was falling by 1500 ppm to 3000 ppm. Analysis of 25 million-year increments of the geologic record reveal the correlation coefficient between atmospheric CO2 change and global temperature change is a minuscule 0.10, meaning the two variables are highly uncorrelated.
No correlation means no causation is possible.
Second, the 800,000-year Antarctic ice core record reveals that, on average, climate changed 800 years before atmospheric CO2 changed, not the other way around.
When climate cooled, Earth’s oceans absorbed relatively more atmospheric CO2 from the atmosphere; when climate warmed, Earth’s oceans emitted relatively more atmospheric CO2 to the atmosphere.
A perfectly normal process that explains the similarity between rising and falling atmospheric CO2 and global temperature and why temperature changed before atmospheric CO2.
Third, contemporary records since the late 19th century are consistent with the geologic records in that the changes to atmospheric CO2 and global average surface temperature are more frequently at odds with IPCC theory than consistent with it!
Correlation analysis confirms that the contemporary records show the correlation coefficient to be in the range 0.08 to 0.13, meaning the two variables are unequivocally uncorrelated.
No correlation means no causation is possible.
The lack of correlation invalidates any theory that claims causation exists (e.g., “atmospheric CO2 is a strong climate change force ”). Every claim that has invalid theory as its foundation is therefore also invalid.
All the rest is noise.
Net zero, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW), and ‘decarbonization’, are costly noise because, based on an invalid premise, they, too, are invalid.
Pursuit of any of these false-claim-based reactions is mindless folly that will have no impact on global climate. Q.E.D.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Carbon bigfoot
| #
Saw this on NSPE Daily Designs our National Society daily Newsletter. Like all infiltrated orgs nothing is vetted.
Fits their Narrative:
https://phys.org/news/2023-10-young-workers-fossil-fuel-jobsand.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=rasa_io&utm_campaign=newsletter
This is a UK problem due to Green Washing. You Blokes have your work cut out for you.
We are not much better in the USA.
Reply
nils-ola Holtze
| #
According to the scientific method, a hypothesis must be falsifiable, otherwise its not in the realm of science. IPCC tells us that climate is a coupled nonlinear chaotic system and can as such not be predicted. Instead, they do multiple projections of a future possible climate to get an average signal. Since they don’t know everything, they must make parameterizations or assumptions aka guesses. In a chaotic system, to get a reliable answer you must get everything exactly right at the start. If not, the result could be totally of by magnitudes. The Butterfly Effect. Nonlinear means to them that the temperature can go up, down or stay the same, its only proof that they are right, right?
This is pseudoscience at so many levels.
But nowadays many confuses correlation with causation, not least “scientists”.
Reply