Comments on: Will The Democrats Shoot Us All In The Head With Cap & Trade? Hey, Why Not! [Updated] http://www.okieonthelam.com/2009/06/26/will-the-democrats-shoot-us-all-in-the-head-with-cap-trade-hey-why-not/ "One of Oklahoma's best gifts to SoCal" -- Tapscott's Copy Desk Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:01:31 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Glenn Speck http://www.okieonthelam.com/2009/06/26/will-the-democrats-shoot-us-all-in-the-head-with-cap-trade-hey-why-not/comment-page-1/#comment-7999 Glenn Speck Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:59:08 +0000 http://www.okieonthelam.com/?p=2604#comment-7999 Here's what my British friend Richard Courtney has to say about AGW: The AGW-hypothesis asserts that increased greenhouse gases (GHG's) – notably carbon dioxide – in the atmosphere will cause the globe to warm (global warming: GW) and that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing the carbon dioxide in the air with resulting anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW). I think a clear distinction needs to be made between (a) the science of AGW, and (b) the perception of AGW - and the use of AGW - by non-scientists. There’s no evidence for man-made global warming; none, not any of any kind. The existence of global warming is not evidence of anthropogenic global warming because warming of the Earth doesn't prove human’s warmed it. At issue is whether humans are or are not affecting changes to the Earth’s temperature that have always happened naturally. But empirical evidence says the hypothesis is wrong. 1. The anthropogenic emissions and global temperature do not correlate. 2. Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration follows change to global temperature at all time scales. 3. Recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose to 1998, and has fallen since. That’s 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming. Global temperature is now similar to that of 1990. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940. It has increased by 8% since 1990. 4. Rise in global temperature has not been induced by anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. Over 80% of the emissions have been since 1940 and the emissions have been increasing at a compound rate. But since 1940 there have been 40 years of cooling with only 28 years of warming. There’s been no significant warming since 1995, and global temperature has fallen since the high it had 10 years ago. 5. The pattern of atmospheric warming predicted by the AGW hypothesis is absent. The hypothesis predicts most warming of the air at altitude in the tropics. Measurements from weather balloons and from satellites both show cooling at altitude in the tropics. So, the normal rules of science say the AGW-hypothesis is completely refuted. Nothing the hypothesis predicts is observed, and the opposite of some of its predictions are observed. But some people promote the hypothesis. They've several reasons (personal financial gain, protection of their career histories and futures, political opportunism, and…). But support of science cannot be one such motive because science denies the hypothesis. Here’s what my British friend Richard Courtney has to say about AGW:

The AGW-hypothesis asserts that increased greenhouse gases (GHG’s) – notably carbon dioxide – in the atmosphere will cause the globe to warm (global warming: GW) and that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing the carbon dioxide in the air with resulting anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW).

I think a clear distinction needs to be made between
(a) the science of AGW, and
(b) the perception of AGW – and the use of AGW – by non-scientists.

There’s no evidence for man-made global warming; none, not any of any kind.

The existence of global warming is not evidence of anthropogenic global warming because warming of the Earth doesn’t prove human’s warmed it. At issue is whether humans are or are not affecting changes to the Earth’s temperature that have always happened naturally.

But empirical evidence says the hypothesis is wrong.

1. The anthropogenic emissions and global temperature do not correlate.

2. Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration follows change to global temperature at all time scales.

3. Recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.
Global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose to 1998, and has fallen since. That’s 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming. Global temperature is now similar to that of 1990. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940. It has increased by 8% since 1990.

4. Rise in global temperature has not been induced by anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide.
Over 80% of the emissions have been since 1940 and the emissions have been increasing at a compound rate. But since 1940 there have been 40 years of cooling with only 28 years of warming. There’s been no significant warming since 1995, and global temperature has fallen since the high it had 10 years ago.

5. The pattern of atmospheric warming predicted by the AGW hypothesis is absent.
The hypothesis predicts most warming of the air at altitude in the tropics. Measurements from weather balloons and from satellites both show cooling at altitude in the tropics.

So, the normal rules of science say the AGW-hypothesis is completely refuted.
Nothing the hypothesis predicts is observed, and the opposite of some of its predictions are observed.

But some people promote the hypothesis. They’ve several reasons (personal financial gain, protection of their career histories and futures, political opportunism, and…). But support of science cannot be one such motive because science denies the hypothesis.

]]>