You Don’t Need A Science Degree To Know That Global Warming ‘Science’ Is Fake
If you follow the subject of global warming alarm, you will have read many times that there is a “consensus” of “97% of climate scientists” on — well, on something.
I’ve actually never been able to find a precise statement of the proposition on which the 97% supposedly agree.
But suppose you can find the statement. And suppose that it consists of some kind of definitive assertion that there has been significant atmospheric warming over the past century, and that most to all of such warming has been caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.
Is this real science or fake science? How do you tell?
It seems that the most common approach of most people to this question is to trust the “scientists.” After all, science is complicated. You are not a scientist, so how are you ever going to understand this?
And even if you are a scientist in some other field, and you have both the talent and the interest to delve into the details of how this conclusion was reached, you don’t have the time.
You are told that 97% of “climate scientists” agree. Really, what choice do you have other than to trust the people who have done the work, and who call themselves the scientists and the experts on this subject?
This approach apparently seems reasonable to a lot of people, including many, many seemingly intelligent people.
But not to me.
The approach does not seem reasonable to me because the scientific method provides a very simple check for testing whether scientific claims are valid, and you don’t need to be a scientist to apply this check. (Another way of looking at it is that the people who apply this check are actually the real scientists, because they are the ones using the scientific method; and the people who call themselves “scientists” and work in “scientific” fields of endeavor and publish in scientific journals and wear scientist outfits, but don’t apply the actual scientific method, are not really scientists. But at this point in time the label “scientist” has been so captured by those who apply it to themselves whether or not they follow the scientific method that I think it is hopeless to get it back.)
Here is the very simple check. When confronted with a claim that a scientific proposition has been definitively proven, ask the question: What was the null hypothesis and on what basis has it been rejected?
Consider first a simple example, the question of whether aspirin cures headaches. Make that our scientific proposition: aspirin cures headaches. How would this proposition be established?
You yourself have taken aspirin many times, and your headache always went away. Doesn’t that prove that the aspirin worked? Absolutely not.
The fact that you took aspirin 100 times and the headache went away 100 times proves nothing. Why? Because there is a null hypothesis that must first be rejected.
Here the null hypothesis is that headaches will go away just as quickly on their own. How do you reject that? The standard method is to take some substantial number of people with headaches, say 2,000, and give half of them the aspirin and the other half a placebo.
Two hours later, of 1,000 who took the aspirin, 950 feel better and only 50 still have the headache; and of 1,000 who took the placebo, 500 still have the headache. Now you have very, very good proof that aspirin cured the headaches.
The point to focus on is that the most important evidence — the only evidence that really proves causation — is the evidence that requires rejection of the null hypothesis.
Over to climate science. Here you are subject to a constant barrage of information designed to convince you of the definitive relationship between human carbon emissions and global warming.
The world temperature graph is shooting up in hockey stick formation! Arctic sea ice is disappearing! The rate of sea-level rise is accelerating! Hurricanes are intensifying! June was the warmest month EVER! And on and on and on.
All of this is alleged to be “consistent” with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming.
But, what is the null hypothesis, and on what basis has it been rejected? Here the null hypothesis is that some other factor, or combination of factors, rather than human carbon emissions, was the dominant cause of the observed warming.
Once you pose the null hypothesis, you immediately realize that all of the scary climate information with which you are constantly barraged does not even meaningfully address the relevant question.
All of that information is just the analog of your 100 headaches that went away after you took aspirin. How do you know that those headaches wouldn’t have gone away without the aspirin?
You don’t know unless someone presents data that are sufficient to reject the null hypothesis. Proof of causation can only come from disproof of the null hypothesis or hypotheses, that is, disproof of other proposed alternative causes.
This precept is fundamental to the scientific method, and therefore fully applies to “climate science” to the extent that that field wishes to be real science versus fake science.
Now, start applying this simple check to every piece you read about climate science. Start looking for the null hypothesis and how it was supposedly rejected.
In mainstream climate literature — and I’m including here both the highbrow media like the New York Times and also the so-called “peer-reviewed” scientific journals like Nature and Science — you won’t find that.
It seems that people calling themselves “climate scientists” today have convinced themselves that their field is such “settled science” that they no longer need to bother with tacky questions like worrying about the null hypothesis.
The centrality of focusing on the null hypothesis is the reason that studies like those covered in my last post (“Things Keep Getting Worse For The Fake ‘Science’ Of Human-Caused Global Warming,” July 12) are so important.
Is there some other factor that could plausibly be causing global warming that more closely correlates with observed temperatures? How about clouds? Or ocean circulations (El Niño/La Niña)? Or volcanic activity?
When climate scientists start addressing the alternative hypotheses seriously, then it will be real science. In the meantime, it’s fake science.
A final word about my favorite subject: the ongoing systematic alteration of the world’s surface temperature (ground thermometer-based) records.
Readers here are undoubtedly familiar with my (now) 23-part series, The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time.The alteration of the surface temperature records only relates to making the surface temperature record correlate more closely with the increase in atmospheric CO2.
As noted in the Wallace, et al. May 2018 paper, without the alterations, the correlation between atmospheric CO2 and the surface temperature record is low.
In other words, without faking the data, they can’t even show consistency between atmospheric CO2 and temperature increase. And that’s before even getting to dealing with the problem of the null hypotheses.
Read more at Manhattan Contrarian
Trackback from your site.
Matt
| #
I knew this CO2 deal was a hoax the moment I heard it and I don’t have a science degree but the problem that people create falsities now 2 cause fear and motivate people to spend money on things that are totally redundant
Reply
Matt
| #
Hi Matt, I ain.t no non scientist either. (treble negative ping pong)
I have though checked out video lectures and interviews by such august people as Freeman Dyson, Dr Will Happer, Dr Patrick Moore, Dr. Tim Ball and others. These men have all stood on the shoulders of giants and progressed scientific knowledge. Jerry the sagacious Krause told me that saying.
To watch Freeman Dyson’s lecture on “living through four revolutions” is one of life’s rare privileges.
I had no idea what to believe on climate but as you can see the cream rises to the top.
There are many brilliant scientists whose ability to communicate without ambiguity and decency is a failing. Hence my triple negative satire.
Have a nice day
Matt Holl
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Matt,
“Jerry the sagacious Krause told me that saying.
To watch Freeman Dyson’s lecture on “living through four revolutions” is one of life’s rare privileges.” I have to assume I am the Jerry Krause to whom you are referring. But if I am you must refer readers to where I have ever suggested what you claim I said. For I know I never said any such thing and therefore, if I am the Jerry Krause to whom you refer, that you are a liar.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Matt Holl
| #
Hi Jerry Krause
Poor English on my part and the inappropriate reference to you should have read that I have encountered many sagacious references in your writing.
I unreservedly apologise if you feel maligned.
Of course, if one acknowledges their errors and mistakes there is no need for untruths.
Keep writing.
Matt
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Matt,
Thanks for the clarification and apology.
Have a good day, Jerry
jerry krause
| #
Hi Matt,
I had not read where you started.
I do have a comment about such august people as Freeman Dyson, Dr Will Happer, Dr Patrick Moore, Dr. Tim Ball and others. I have not read one of them referring to actual data that has been measured near, at, and below the earth surface. Relative the high temperature and relative humidity occurring in the lower Midwest of USA, I just scanned the SCAN (soil climate analysis network) for July for different years and found that the solar radiation measured is quite, significantly, variable. For in ‘understanding’ the temperatures of this region requires the explanation for this variability. And the variation from year to year is not subtle.
If I say ‘I think’ it is code for ‘I don’t know’. Usually I can I know the observed data but in the case I just scanned. I am not sure. But the air temperature and soil temperatures do vary with the solar so I am pretty sure the solar measurements are valid. Rambling, but this is what I do.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Matt,
I know that Herb Rose are names that I did not read until recently. How recently, I do not know. So I call attention to (https://principia-scientific.com/dr-jerry-l-krause-how-stupid-am-i/). I had submitted the essay with the title, How Stupid I Am, and the editor added to it. I began this essay with my first encounter with the GHE of carbon dioxide.
And recently I returned to dew (https://principia-scientific.com/what-determines-the-minimum-possible-daily-air-temperature/). But no one has yet made a comment. And I just a comment or two before and made a comment about the high relative humidity and temperatures being experienced by people in the Midwest of USA now and predicted to continue for more days.
What I did not directly refer to was that the soil of this area is saturated with from abnormally great precipitation winter, spring, and now summer. So the solar radiation reaching the earth’s surface during the daytime does not have to be at normal peak levels because the minimum temperature of the daily temperature oscillation is so high because the atmosphere’s dew point temperature is so high, And I did not take notes as I scanned the SCAN soil temperatures to know if they are only normal or even below normal to the evaporation of water vapor is cooling, as I believe you and others frequently comment.
Just some observations which you and anyone else could check out by studying the SCAN data.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
There is a deeper hoax at hand. And everybody in academia is in on it. So it isn’t really a hoax as much as it is just widespread stupidity. It’s sheep following sheep.
H2O is the source of all temperature regulation on this planet.
H2O is egregiously misunderstood by science:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfNuWJDJvRw
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Rod Martin Jr
| #
James, H2O is certainly one of the biggest elements controlling the planet’s temperature, from the dampening of temperature fluctuations near large bodies of water, to evaporative cooling and cloud shading, it is by no means the only factor.
Temperature is also regulated by ocean currents, which is related indirectly to H2O, but we also have volcanic effects, wind pattern effects, and solar wind effects on cosmic ray flux which affect cloud nucleation rates.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Rod,
What is the fuel of the natural heat engine which drives (causes) ocean currents and the winds, which I consider cause the ocean currents? Do you accept that much of vertical convection is the result of localized ‘thunderstorms’ of relatively brief duration? And do you accept this vertical convention (thunderstorms) is the mechanism which puts the atmosphere in motion?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
The atmosphere is moving east faster than the surface of the Earth. This was demonstrated when the radioactive clouds from atmospheric nuclear bomb tests moved east orbiting the Earth and by the fact that weather patterns move east.
Winds and currents distribute energy from the sun. Winds do not cause the major currents. They are too inconsistent in direction and strength to produce the constant flow of a current. Winds can produce surface water flow but not the deep flow of the major. currents.
The equatorial currents are produced by the rotation of the Earth and the inertia of water. If you put a ball on round tray rotating on a record player the ball’s inertia will cause to move to the outer edges. It will move in the same direction as the spinning tray but at a slower speed making it appear to be moving in the opposite direction from the perspective of the center of the disk.
The Earth rotates east at 1000mph on the equator (slower as you move away from the equator). The water at the equator also moves east but at a slower speed giving the appearance of moving west. These currents are receiving more energy from the sun than if they were stationary and carrying that heat west. The Atlantic current strikes the coast of Brazil and is directed north creating the Gulf Stream.
In the Pacific the equatorial current strikes the dam created by the islands of the Philippines and Indonesia.which causes the water to build up. The water eventually flows east on either side of the current (where the surface is moving slower) creating El Nino and taking heat east.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You wrote: “The atmosphere is moving east faster than the surface of the Earth.”
Herb, you should not generalize like this. If you study atmosphere sounding data I believe you will find that the general prevailing winds at certain latitudes and altitudes are easterly. Hence the atmosphere is moving west faster than the surface of the Earth. And I know from data observed at Salem OR that above 60km this morning and most other soundings that atmospheric winds are from east to west.
My memory is not good so I checked it out on Google and found: “The trade winds are the prevailing pattern of surface winds from the east toward the west (easterly) found in the tropics, within the lower portion of the Earth’s atmosphere, in the lower part of the troposphere near the Earth’s equator.”
So from the generalization of your first sentence, I cannot take anything that follows seriously. For the rapid local variations of the atmosphere’s circulations near the earth’s surface, at most
locations, prohibit generalization (averaging). This is because, I have read, there are about 10,000 localized and short lived thunderstorms occurring at any one time along the earth’s surface.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Wind and atmosphere are not the same. Wind is the distribution of energy in the atmosphere. The entire atmosphere (not restricted to troposphere) is moving east faster than surface of the Earth.
You cannot say the Columbia river is flowing east because of isolated westerly flow from eddies or the temporary reversal of flow from high tide.
The entire surface of the Earth (including water) is moving east. The apparent westerly movement of the water in the Atlantic Equatorial current is the result of its slower easterly velocity.
Since you didn’t read what I wrote in the first sentence it is pointless for you to read the rest. The proper perspective for the movement of objects on the Earth is the center of the Earth not the surface. Geo stable satellites are not really stationary but are moving east at the same rate as the surface of the Earth.
Have a good day,
Herb
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You just wrote: “The atmosphere is moving east faster than the surface of the Earth.” Now, you wrote: “Wind and atmosphere are not the same. Wind is the distribution of energy in the atmosphere.”
Wind is the motion of the atmosphere relative to the earth’s surface. If there no motion of the atmosphere (measured at about 10m, altitude), the atmosphere is considered to be calm.
Which condition (calm atmosphere) suggests there is no horizontal atmospheric pressure gradient locally present.
Louis Elzevir, the publisher of Dialogues Concerning Two New Sciences, wrote in the publisher’s preface to the reader (as translated by Crew and de Salvio) that a common saying of the earlier time was: “intuitive knowledge keeps pace with accurate definition.” It seems you do not make great effort to accurately define the systems you attempt to describe.
You wrote: “”Wind and atmosphere are not the same.” To my knowledge I never wrote that they were the same.
Please do better or I will cease responding to your comments as I have done in the case of James McGinn. However, sometimes to make a point for other readers, I do respond as I am doing now.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Rod,
I was drawing attention to the fact that H2O is a negative feedback while the other things you mention are not or are not necessarily negative feedbacks. And mostly I wanted to draw attention to the fact that there are huge mysteries that I have traced back to a QM error by Linus Pauling. This video sets the stage for beginning to understand the intricacies of H2O that up until now have been so greatly misunderstood.
Academia’s abject failure to understand H2O is, in my opinion, ultimately what underlies much of the hysteria about the atmosphere.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Vortices are the Pressure Relief Valves of the Atmosphere
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17125
Reply
Squidly
| #
“.. other things you mention are not or are not necessarily negative feedbacks”
Then what are they? .. They cannot be “positive” feedbacks, that would be a violation of physical law. That would be the creation of energy. Can’t do that in this universe.
Reply
Amelia
| #
Yes, more learning about the electric universe will shed light on the matter. Earth conditions intricately linked with the vortices and the sun’s magnetic field. And now – the shift of the Pole towards Siberia, fast since 1990’s, and always precedes a cooling period.
Reply
Brett Janssen
| #
The correlation between gas and temperature is when earth is hot it produces higher ratios of methane, when warm it produces higher ratios of co2, when cool it produces higher ratios of o2. This has to do with the processes happening at different temperatures. The amount of gas produced in each heat range is highly variable and dependent upon many conditions. This makes it impossible to accurately predict a future temperature by backwards calculating a historical temperature and gas level.
Reply
Shane Gresinger
| #
The temperature swings today are a normal part of the climate cycle, so it’s up to alarmists to disprove it’s not, because they have shown they know nothing about CO2 and climate change history.
The only difference today is the urban heat island effects and deforestation which we do have many studies that shows this will add 2 degrees celcius to global temperatures by 2050.
What alarmist will not do is explain how these past warming periods took place with low CO2 values, which were much lower then today.
In the last 11000 years climate has fluctuated greatly as we have had Atlantis 1&2, Sahara, Egyptian, Sumenian, Minoan1&2 , Roman and Medieval Warm periods periods where hotter than today.
The temperature has been 2 to 5 degree hotter than today while at the same corresponding time period sea levels have been 2 to 12 meters higher than today levels indicating thermal expansion of water due excessive heat.
So it would be good to see scientific community put these time periods togther to confirm these warming per such as the Medieval Warm Period Map which is a form consensus on that particular warming period.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1akI_yGSUlO_qEvrmrIYv9kHknq4&ll=-3.81666561775622e-14%2C-116.64931299999989&z=1
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Shane,
“The temperature swings today are a normal part of the climate cycle.” I totally agree. But what about the normal seasonal temperature swings and the most important (my opinion) the normal daily temperature oscillations?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Brett Janssen
| #
To expound on my previous post, you can see this in a anaerobic digester. When it is running hot 120 to 140f it produces its highest ratio of methane. Slightly cooler more co2, at 85 to 100f more methane again but nor as much as a 120 to 140f. Below 85f very little methane almost all co2. Cooler yet and little digestion at all. Same as decomposition on earth. Colder yet and the amount of o2 intaking co2 expelling life decreases, and co2 intaking o2 expelling life becomes dominant. This is the correct correlation between gas and temperature in the ice record, and explains the co2 lag of temperature. Earth has to warm for decomposition to restart and o2 intaking co2 expelling life to repopulate (the 600 year lag).
Reply
Laurence Crossen
| #
Joseph Postma blocked me from replying on his climate of sophistry blog so I would like to share my critique of his claims as I just gave it in my Amazon review of his book. Please bear in mind that I am a AGW skeptic that considers it to be thoroughly pseudo-scientific, and I would like to believe his case:
Joseph Postma has certainly NOT found a major flaw in AGW climate modeling.
He claims to show that the total watts of energy hitting the earth’s surface are twice what the AGW proponents say they are.
His reasoning runs as follows. The formula for the area of a sphere is 4 pi r^2, so that of a hemisphere is 2 pi r2. Since that is twice the area of a circle of the same diameter, the energy from the Sun must be spread over twice the area, reducing it to half its energy from about 1368 Watts per square meter to 684. So far both sides of the debate agree.
Then he says the AGW models unjustifiably divide that in half averaging it over the whole sphere of the Earth in any one second. Postma claims that one should not average the temperature over the whole Earth. Since watts and joules are units of energy related in that they measure the energy in seconds of time we are dealing with one second in either model. That gives the AGW models a solar input of negative 18 degrees centigrade. He claims his model gives twice that because he only looks at one hemisphere. Since -18C = 255 Kelvin, his would give 510K= 237C.
So if you focus on the sunny half of the Earth it’s 237C. Over the whole Earth it is -18C. Thus, there is no real difference in temperature of the Earth between the AGW models and Postma’s, contrary to his claims.
Now, the significance of this is that the AGW modelers infer the effect of CO2 from the difference between -18C and the actual average temperature of the Earth of about 15C, giving a 33C AGW effect. If you listen to Postma, this is actually none at all. However, he is illegitimately comparing solar input for half the Earth with the average temperature for the whole Earth.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
You clearly didn’t understand Postma’s argument and none of your calculations describe what he believes.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2019/07/08/how-to-calculate-the-average-projection-factor-onto-a-hemisphere/
Now look at this:
https://thumbs.gfycat.com/ShockedReliableIndigobunting-max-1mb.gif
The input area is 5. The outout area is 46. So according to your cult, the result should be a slightly purplish blue, and yet its all RED. There is no dilution by 5/46th.
Reply
Laurence Crossen
| #
Francis Menton: It’s good to know you are doing work similar to Tony Heller on his YouTube videos. NASA does fraudulently alter temperature data.
Reply