Systematically refuting climate alarmism

By |2018-03-05T19:56:37+00:00March 5th, 2018|Climate|Comments Off on Systematically refuting climate alarmism

Over the last ten months I have done a series of articles here at CFACT that systematically refute climate change alarmism. Since no single article does the whole job of refutation, I thought it useful to combine and summarize them, as follows. Note that much of this is original research on my part. I am not simply repeating old arguments.

The keystone of my refutation is this article: “No CO2 warming for the last 40 years?” Here my point is that the satellite record is the closest thing that we have to actual measurements of global warming and that record shows no sign of human influence on global temperatures. None whatsoever. What little warming there is looks to be entirely natural.

But a central feature of climate alarmism is from the surface statistical models that claim to show steady and large warming. This is especially true of the steady warming during the period 1978 to 1997, which the satellites do not show. The climate models are tuned to this supposed steady warming and they then project it for the next 100 to 300 years, harming all of humanity in the process.

This leads to my article on “Fake Temperatures.” The point here is that these surface statistics are completely unreliable and not to be believed. More specifically, if the surface has warmed for some reason it is not because of the buildup of atmospheric CO2.

However, past warming is not the real basis for climate alarmism. In fact no one seriously suggests that we go back to the little ice age. The real climate change scare comes directly from computer models that project huge damages to come from human caused global warming. Here is a fine example: “Computers say climate change will be worse than we thought, again (and again).

As I point out in this article — “The glut of modeling in “climate science”” — there is more computer modeling in today’s “climate science” than there is in all of the rest of science taken together. And futuristic modeling is not science because there are no testable hypotheses.

I then point out in “Circular reasoning with climate models” that the basic climate modeling uses circular reasoning. This is because it first assumes that only humans can cause climate change, and then it claims to find that humans are causing climate change.

The basic points are pretty simple. The best observations we have show no CO2 warming and the models only project dangerous CO2 warming because they are programmed to do so.

While CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas it does not follow that increasing it has to cause warming and the evidence says that it has not done so. Why the increasing CO2 has not caused warming in an important scientific question, but CO2-sensitive climate models cannot answer it.

Clearly the climate change research program needs to be refocused and the climate models need to be reconfigured, in order to correctly match observations. That is how science is supposed to work.