There was an error in this gadget

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

More (on) Global Warming

Glenn Knight and I are having a disagreement in the comments thread of my last post on so-called global warming (I'm embarrassed to see it's also my most recent post, period - I need to get back in the blogging saddle).

Glenn makes two statements that need addressing:

1. "(That) the evidence shows that there has been such a constant connection between man-made CO2 and global temperature change is not, I think, in much doubt."

2. "But there is no evidence whatever that anyone concocted data, suppressed data, or deliberately distorted data."

I'll deal with the second point first. I accused AGW proponents of "faking" data. I was referring specifically to the temperature "record" that purportedly shows that for the last one thousand years the earth's temperature has consistently risen in direct correlation to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Let me concede immediately that I am unable to prove this accusation for reasons that any lawyer or moderately intelligent student of philosophy would find obvious. It is an editorial opinion (like calling a politician a "liar" when he reneges on a campaign promise). I believe it to be true but I could not show that the scientists at East Anglia University, with malign intent, purposely produced temperature data they knew to be "fake". However I stand behind my declaration for the following reasons. They are scientists and as such know they are to adhere to particular standards in their scientific work. The evidence is now overwhelming that they did not adhere to such standards, that they knew they were not adhering to such standards, and that they knew that they should adhere to such standards. Their emails further seem to show that they knew their failure to adhere to such standards would rightly call their work into question and they did knowingly work to prevent others from discovering the shoddiness of their work. It is not proof of fraud to a legal or philosophical certainty but it sure meets the definition of "faked" for editorial purposes.

This takes me to Glenn's first point: "that there has been such a constant connection between man-made CO2 and global temperature change". Uh, no. The scandal of global warming hysteria is that no such connection has in fact been scientifically shown. The temperature data that accurately indicates such a connection does not exist. The data set that purports to show such a connection has apparently been gathered in such a way as to be unreproducible and is therefore, by any reasonable scientific standards, unreliable. Nothing is, or can be, "proved" by unreliable data. No statistical "connection" is, or can be, shown if it is based on values whose provenance is untraceable to any legitimate source. Something is not a science if it is not based on scientific work carried out according to scientific practices. No such rigorous work seems to have been carried out in the question of the thousand-year temperature record upon which AGW belief is based. Therefore any conclusion about possible serious or even catastrophic effects of increased CO2 is not science.

1 comment:

Max Weismann said...

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant or a greenhouse gas. It is a wholesome, naturally occurring, colorless and odorless gas. In fact, if carbon dioxide suddenly disappeared, at least 99% of the species on earth, including man, would die. Without carbon dioxide, there would be no photosynthesis of green plants, and without photosynthesis, we would have no oxygen to breathe and no food to eat.

Chemists tell us that carbon dioxide molecules retain heat a bit longer than does the nitrogen and oxygen molecules in the air. Chemists also tell us that if you combine gasses of different temperature, convection currents will equalize the temperature of the gas molecules. As the air cools during the night, the temperature of the nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide molecules equalize. Therefore, the amount of heat released from the atmosphere into outer space during a twenty four hour cycle would be the same for nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide. Affect on global warming — zero.

Where does carbon dioxide gas in the air come from? 1) Oxidation of living and dead plant and animal life, 2) Volcanoes, and 3) Forest fires. The amount of carbon dioxide coming from industry is immaterial in comparison to these three sources.

Is the earth warming? Yes, the earth is recovering from the "Little Ice Age." We have enjoyed two centuries of intermittent recovery from the bitter cold which the American Founding Fathers suffered through. However, the warming earth has not yet reached the temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period or the Roman Warm Period. Northern Europe enjoyed bumper crops during the Medieval Warm Period, the population tripled and European civilization revived. Europe had suffering a Dark Age during a time of cooling but civilization revived late in the subsequent warming phase. When a new cycle of global cooling began in the fourteenth century, the mild, relatively stable weather of Europe during the Medieval Warm Period gave way to fierce storms, flooding and famine.