Global warming alarmism is not science

In 1957 Roger Revelle, (Al Gore’s professor in what may have been Gore’s only science class) one of the early founding scientists at University of California San Diego, The Scripps Oceanographic Institute and the Mauna Loa Observatory along with Hans Suess authored an article (1) which associated human gas emissions with warming and suggested greenhouse gases could cause “global warming” over time. In 1988 NASA’s James Hansen et al authored an article introducing a theoretical “CO2 forcing parameter” and forecasting temperature increases three standard deviations above normal would be seen the 1990’s.(2) The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel Program on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that CO2 is causing rapid warming based on the CO2 forcing parameter.(3) The U.S. EPA has issued a Final Endangerment Finding that CO2 is dangerous, referencing the IPCC, and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that EPA is required by law (i.e. The Clean Air Act) to regulate if they find endangerment.

In most sciences, sets of data are analyzed using standard statistical methods including “predictive power,” “sensitivity,” “significance,” “confidence” and “credibility;” each of the foregoing words is an established statistical tool used by scientists, not rhetorical hype.

Associations between and among data sets are analyzed using standard statistical tests for correlations and cross correlations. A correlation between two variables is not proof of a causal relationship, however if there is in fact a causal relationship between the two variables, then there must be strong positive correlation. A negative, or inverse, correlation is strong evidence against a cause/effect linkage. Cause must occur prior to effects.

Empirical falsification is a premise of logic underlying all science. If a theorized data association is falsifiable by empirical (i.e. real-world) evidence, then the proposed hypothesis is false until the theorists produce a credible explanation for this evidence. For the global warming theory to be true, AGW proponents must produce credible evidence to support their theory and they must have credible explanations for all evidence that would falsify their theory. Proponents have already spent tens of billions of dollars in their unsuccessful effort to produce credible evidence of AGW. (4)

The cause must occur before the effect. Global warming proponents claim that, due to a theorized CO2 forcing parameter, increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere causes significant warming, but they have produced no empirical evidence. On the other hand, standard statistical methods applied to data from ice core samples from two locations in Antarctica (Vostok and Dome C (5,6)) clearly show CO2 trends are more strongly correlated with temperature trends that occurred in the past, that is, prior to the CO2 trend. In other words, warming trends occur before CO2 increasing trends. If CO2 is the cause of warming as AGW proponents claim, then increasing CO2 trends must be strongly correlated with warming trends occurring AFTER the CO2 trend; however, this is not the case. Therefore, AGW theory is empirically falsified.

In 2001 Manfred Mudelsee pointed to this fundamental problem in the global warming hypothesis in his peer reviewed journal article regarding measurements in the Vostok, Antarctica ice core samples. The preface to his article states, “Over the full 420 ka (420 thousand years) of the Vostok record CO2 variations lag behind atmospheric temperature changes in the Southern Hemisphere by 1.3 ka +/- 1.0 ka (1,300 years plus or minus 1,000 years.)”(5) All of the claims that the data or science supports man made warming are based on inaccurate, incomplete and misleading analysis.

Another falsification of AGW: AGW theory proposes that a trend of increasing CO2 concentration forces an increasing trend in temperature through complicated multi-parameter feedback mechanisms. For this to be true, then CO2 concentration cannot be increasing while temperature is decreasing. Also, CO2 cannot be decreasing while temperature is increasing. In other words, CO2 cannot force both warming and cooling. However, both of these negative correlations occur repeatedly in the natural history record, as shown in the graph immediately below. Therefore, again, AGW theory is empirically falsified.

Proponents point to complicated theoretical climate models with many areas of uncertainty to justify their theory. But their climate models are hypothetical and they perform poorly; they do not meet statistical tests for scientific credibility.(6)

“Climate analysis which emphasizes AGW, assumes that when seasonal variability is integrated across the Earth’s surface and over a year, it averages out and thus can be ignored. This leads to the use of anomaly analysis, where monthly data is compared to independent long term monthly averages so that seasonal variability is removed from the results. The rationalization for doing this is that the expected trends are a tiny fraction of the monthly variability and they would be impossible to discern otherwise. See the section titled ‘Anomalies and Absolute Temperatures’ in (8) for James Hansen’s somewhat obtuse explanation. The side effect of this approach is that crucial behaviors of the climate system are obscured, leading to explanations for climate change that are consistent with the original flawed assumption and not the actual behavior. This is at the root of why so many are so mislead about what causes climate change.”(7)

AGW proponents find themselves in trouble…caught in scientific fraud… and their careers are dependent on continuing government and NGO grant money to study their failed AGW theory. Real-world evidence, just two examples among many are shown here, clearly falsifies AGW theory using only competently applied standard statistical techniques and without the use of theoretical modeling.

The diagram below shows the HadCRUT3 monthly global surface temperature estimate and the monthly atmospheric CO2 content according to the Mauna Loa [CO2] Observatory, on the Big Island of Hawaii. The Mauna Loa data series begins in March 1958. The dotted grey line indicates the approximate linear temperature trend, and the boxes in the lower part of the diagram indicate the relation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature, negative or positive. The annotation “IPCC” indicate the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988. Last month shown: September 2009. Last diagram update: 6 November 2009. Note that the data are from sources frequently used and cited by IPCC, the EPA and AGW proponents, not “skeptic” references. HadCRUT is the UK government’s climate research unit.  As shown by the dotted grey line, the temperature trend declines during the 1950s into the 1970’s, meanwhile the red line (CO2 trend) increases.  Around 2000,  the temperature trend again declines while CO2 trend is increasing.  These are examples of real world data falsifying the theory of human-caused global warming.


(1) Revelle, R. and Suess, H. E. (1957) Tellus 9, 18-27.
(2) Hansen, J., I. Fung, A. Lacis, D. Rind, S. Lebedeff, R. Ruedy, G. Russell, and P. Stone(1988), Global Climate Changes as Forecast by Goddard Institute for Space Studies Three-Dimensional Model, J. Geophys. Res., 93(D8), 9341–9364.
Forster, P., V. Ramaswamy, P. Artaxo, T. Berntsen, R. Betts, D.W. Fahey, J. Haywood, J. Lean, D.C. Lowe, G. Myhre, J. Nganga, R. Prinn, G. Raga, M. Schulz and R. Van Dorland, 2007: Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange [Solomon, S., D.
Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Hegerl, G.C., F. W. Zwiers, P. Braconnot, N.P. Gillett, Y. Luo, J.A. Marengo Orsini, N. Nicholls, J.E. Penner and P.A. Stott, 2007: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L.Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY,USA.
(4) CLIMATE MONEY, The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far – trillions to come Joanne Nova, Science & Public Policy Institute.
(5) Mudelsee, M. 2001 The phase relations among atmospheric CO2
content, temperature & global ice volume over the past 420 ka. Quaternary Science Reviews 20, 583-589.

(6) KOUTSOYIANNIS, A. EFSTRATIADIS, N. MAMASSIS & A. CHRISTOFIDES “On the credibility of climate predictions” Hydrological Sciences–Journal–des Sciences Hydrologiques, 53 (2008).

(7) George White

(8) GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) Surface Temperature Analysis, Anomalies and Absolute Temperatures.

About budbromley

Life sciences executive, retired
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s