Evidence-Based Global Warming a Big No-Show
Panels of experts meet to review the evidence concerning the relationship between climate change and humanity’s continuing release of CO2 into the atmosphere. Coming into the meeting the opinion of these experts is that this single activity, that is engaged in more in the modern world than anywhere else, causes global warming (AGW). At the end of the meeting the opinions of the experts don’t change. Why? This should be a top concern for all scientists.
There is no direct evidence for these panels of experts to consider that links us moderns’ release of CO2 to an increase in global warming. Looking to previous periods of climate change – “Changes in average weather conditions that persist over multiple decades or longer” (see, GlobalChange.gov) – we see nothing happening in the last half of the 20th century that did not also happen, as Walter E. Williams says, “throughout all 4.54 billion years of Earth’s existence.”
When evaluating climate research, should the process begin with or ultimately come down to what research we wish to believe? How much time must we study the studies, to determine which are worth studying? Is our inclusion and exclusion criteria nothing more that discounting studies we know won’t tell us what we want to hear? Even if we have the inclination, do we have enough information about the facts to determine the level of certainty in the estimate of an effect that is being studied? Does a presumed honesty of researchers really assure us of the strength of their conclusions or their abilities to recognize and take account of confounding factors?
There are many confounding factors and without an ability to account for them, a lapse in global warming of 17 to 26 long years (depending on how it’s measured) blows AGW theory. The long pause is evidence of a failure to demonstrate an association between global warming and rising atmospheric CO2 levels. The longer the hiatus the more casual the association between global warming and CO2, the less plausible is AGW theory, the more likely it is global warming is caused by other factors –e.g., solar activity or perhaps, aliens.
Do we want government employees to make decisions about the future on our behalf based on a plausible belief that global warming is caused by aliens? Is it likely that aliens cause global warming? I’m skeptical. Because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, AGW theory appears at first blush to be a more logical explanation than, aliens. Even so, it certainly is no longer conceivable that CO2 is the only cause of global warming. Given the evidence it’s likely that CO2 is not even a major cause: perhaps a minor player. It certainly is more plausible than aliens that CO2 plays some role but as the cause of global warming, CO2 is far less plausible an explanation than are changes in solar activity and other natural causes such as changes in the Earth’s albedo.
The implications of this paper strike me as profound. Planetary albedo is a fundamental element of the Earth’s climate. This paper [link] implies the presence of a stabilizing feedback between atmosphere/ocean circulations, clouds and radiation. Climate models do not capture this stabilizing feedback. ~Judith Curry
It comes as no surprise that the climate models underlying AGW theory are all wrong. “Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true” (I
First there is a warming, then there is no warming, then there is
First there is a warming, then there is no warming, then there is
First there is a warming… (Adapted from Donovan’s, “There Is A Mountain”)
Can we, however, expect the global warming machine to see anything but CO2 and aliens? Is it rational for us to hope for the dawn of reason to open the eyes of those who see humanity and its CO2 as the enemy? The albedo of the Earth is not a Left versus right issue; and, nothing about the science of climate change should be (a Left versus right issue). And yet, unabashed skepticism of scientific skepticism comes so easily to Left-thinking people. Cause and effect?
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability to be much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude. Conversely, highly skilled individuals tend to underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others. (wiki)
As a society, how many more mistakes can we afford to make? Take the element of fear surrounding modernity’s release of CO2 into the atmosphere out of the equation and programs like government-subsidized electric cars appear for what they are: an expensive dalliance with Marxist-type solutions to solve non-problems. Compare government solutions to allowing market-based solutions like clean diesel technology to more efficiently allocate scarce resources to maximize net present wealth (see –e.g., David Stockman on, …tesla, bonfire of the money printer…). Promoters of the miracle of Tesla cars, like Morgan Stanley, are yet again fueling up the funny-money propaganda machine and far beyond anything we saw leading up to the market corrections that were caused by the dot-com bubble bust in the ’90s and 2007-9’s credit crunch and housing crash.
We cannot continue to remain indifferent when the EPA pushes job-killing regulations based on “secret science” (see, Boer Deng, Slate, The Secrets of the “Secret Science” Bill). California passed job-killing environmental regulations based on the findings of a researcher whose qualifications amounted to, “a fraudulent degree, purchased from ‘Thornhill University,’ a shady, long-distance diploma mill” (See, David French, Here’s One Way to Reach Scientific Consensus).
“Bjorn Lomborg has gone so far as to compare the close ties among regulatory agencies, private equity firms, and many corporations as akin to what President Eisenhower once warned against…,” says Michael E. Zimmerman (download, …An Integral Approach to Climate Change). “Lomborg is not alone in arguing that the ‘climate-industrial complex’ has in effect co-opted the climate change debate, with the aim of representing the only possible solution as one that happens to be compatible with the interests of the organizations who stand to benefit from costly and still-speculative schemes to reduce carbon emissions.”
Consensus is all-too-often created through censorship, suppression, greed, and opportunism. ~David French, Ibid.