Questioning the “Science” that the AGW promoters promote.

ball-and-stick model of CO2: carbon dioxide

Image via Wikipedia

It seems that the defence of the AGW scientists and supporters, against criticisms of AGW boils down (there must be a better term), to their belief in “science'”. They keep repeating ad nauseum “we believe in the science”, the “CSIRO cannot be wrong”, the “IPCC cannot be wrong”, “2,500 scientists cannot be wrong”, “there is a consensus”, “the icecaps are melting” and so on.

So the question must be asked, “is the science of the IPCC-based conclusions reliable, unbiassed, exact, beyond question, falsifiable (whatever that means), irrefutable and dependable”?

Then the next question would be, “who is capable and qualified to judge these matters”?

The answer  must be, “not the people who are involved with the IPCC and the related organizations depending on the conclusions being acted upon”! For obvious reasons! Well then, who?

Not the people who have something to gain from proving the AGW scenario and proposed actions incorrect or inappropriate. People such as those involved somehow with the fossil fuel industry, they need to support their livelihoods. On the other hand, Julia is assuring the coal industry that they have a future. There seems to be no lack of interest in new coal/gas industry investments. So why are they suspected of supporting “unscientific” opposition to AGW ?

Mind you, it is not necessary for a scientist or supporter to be necessarily right or wrong because of his/her involvement. It is really a matter of concept that a bias is present, even when it is not.

As I see the situation there are numerous scientists, engineers, physicists who are not associated with any vested interests and who are capable of assessing the planetary climate factors. The majority of the blogging contributors are such people.

The supporters, not so scientifically qualified, but still capable of assessing the commonsense of a scientific argument, are rarely biassed technically. Some may be biassed from the point of view of paying unnecessary taxes, or from the fear of the planet self-destructing or whatever. However, there are obviously a huge number of discerning bloggers and commenters who have the capability to assess the two sides of the debate and can argue very sensibly and logically about the validity of the associated actions.

My point is, there is almost unlimited evidence in existence, presented and supported by qualified, independent and intelligent people, to support the argument that the IPCC “science” is not sufficiently sound to be acceptable as a basis for turning our world into a new version of chaos.

Now, down to the science itself:

The future of our civilization is currently being pinned on the need for CO2 controls. The reason being that the atmospheric level of CO2 is claimed to have a direct influence on the current and future global climate. This is what the situation comes down to.

Either CO2 level influences our average temperature in a meaningful way or it doesn’t. If it does, is it a long term positive effect or the reverse? Before we make earth-shattering decisions and actions, these questions must be resolved. And THEY HAVE NOT BEEN RESOLVED!  No sensible person can refute that there are genuine questions.

Evidence offered that CO2 has a direct and significant effect on “greenhouse” warming of the planet is being rightly and strongly questioned. CO2 effects can only be indirect because of its minor proportion (0.04%), its minor absorption factor of IR energy, (maybe 5%),  and its dependence on H2O as a companion GHG to have any noticeable effect whatever. H2O generation becomes an extremely difficult-to-assess parameter because in the upper atmosphere it acts as a “green house gas” but at lower levels forms clouds which have the opposite effect.

I have yet to be convinced that any scientist can unequivocably model these parameters confidently.  There are too many variables, dependent and independent. Nature is far too complex even for high-powered computations to mimic, and then could only do so if humans were capable of programming all the parameters, parameters that cannot be quantified accurately. Furthermore, there already is some fairly good evidence that the existing models are not viable.

On the basis of these factors, I cannot understand how anyone can be firmly convinced that CO2 levels need to be controlled.  To claim belief in “the science” is, in reality, only to have faith in “the science”, that is not the same thing. There is no certainty, no reason for confidence.  NO scientific basis for drastic action.

About Ken McMurtrie

Retired Electronics Engineer, most recently installing and maintaining medical X-Ray equipment. A mature age "student" of Life and Nature, an advocate of Truth, Justice and Humanity, promoting awareness of the injustices in the world.
This entry was posted in carbon tax, climate change, ENVIRONMENT, Human Behaviour, Human Folly, Nature, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Questioning the “Science” that the AGW promoters promote.

  1. Moth says:

    The greenhouse effect of CO2 is beyond question – a simply test using a thermal camera, an IR emitter and a chamber in which you can change the CO2 concentration can illustrate this to be a fact. Likewise, we know for a fact that the increase in CO2 concentration is the result of our industrial activity as fossil sourced carbon has a different signature due to being isolated for millions of years. Also, the chemistry behind ocean acidification is equally understood. We also know that over the past 30yrs – the bulk of which have been the warmest on record – solar activity hasn’t matched the global temperature anomaly at all.

    These things we know for a fact.

    As for the associated warming, no qualified scientist rejects the one degree warming solely related to a doubling of CO2 concentrations – even the hyped up Lindzen. You’d never know this from the noise in the blogosphere, so how these people are qualified to make strong conclusions (with the relative luxury of avoiding the harsh criticism of peer-review), I don’t think I can agree with you.

    The only part that is open to debate (within the actual research and peer-reviewed process, of course) is that of feed backs. This has been a subject of a vast number of studies. All of this is reported in the IPCC reports, with confidence drawn from where the vast amount of these studies sits. see Knutti and Hegerl (2008) and more recently Roe and Armour (2011). Unfortunately, it seems most likely that the best we can do is predict between 2-4.5 degrees of warming for a doubling of CO2.never seems to
    The IPCC is not authority on the subject, but consists of a series of workshops with various experts in related fields who collect the standing scientific understanding, compile it and report on it. Equally, you could do, as I do, and ignore the reporting of the science and instead refer to the science itself. I’ve yet to see in the respected and rigorously peer-reviewed literature one instance of a paper smashing the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Even in the b-grade journals, where such papers that “sceptics” wave frantically around are published, these studies have been proven lacking. Lindzen has made many mistakes (his own climate predictions don’t mirror reality at all and he has been caught out using the wrong data) and Roy Spencer continues to use simple models that just don’t cut it.

    Remember, it only takes one paper to destroy a theory, but copious studies to build one. You make your career as a scientist by challenging the held ideas – that way improving our overall understanding – and so, from very early on, a budding scientist feels a strong pressure to challenge held consensus to make a name for themselves. That ACC remains and that the bulk of the scientific community support the confidence of it really stand for something.

    The continuous “scepticism” – which regurgitates the same debunked arguments without end and never puts out such arguments for expert cross-examination (ie. in respected peer-review) just looks silly. It’s not on the same playing field as the science and yet pretends to hold as much weight. To put it simply, it really doesn’t put it’s money where it’s mouth is.

    Don’t trust the IPCC, but look seriously at the science and fault it. If you can, then we may have the miraculous overturning of this consensus and a wonderful new age of thought may occur. Otherwise it’s simply political hot-air not backed up with evidence. Believe me, there was countless scientists actually trying to formulate such evidence – it all, so far, has only strengthened the likelihood of ACC.

    If you don’t like the science, I suggest reading Stern’s book; Blueprint for a safer planet. In it, he makes a compelling case for the risk management argument for action on climate mitigation and adaptation. Please, find error in this economic analysis for it means we could channel funds into other areas – you would be regarded a hero of the modern age!

    It’s not about conformity, but admitting defeat to the overwhelming evidence – as I have had to do myself. I don’t want ACC to be a genuine threat to human activity – especially as I’m looking to start a family in the coming years. I want instead to worry about weed management and urban resilience. I want a comfortable easy future for my kids. The evidence just doesn’t support this hope with business-as-usual being the game play. We need something else.

    The scientific community isn’t in an ivory tower. I work with older academics whom I’m sure I could present no evidence to that would change their mind – they know better. That said, they are in the minority and for the most, we’re all fascinated with the natural world. Challenging new ideas are exciting.

    Labeling scientists in such ways as “High Priest” or the such as is represented in the post above does nothing for scientific clarity. It just makes you look silly. If they are wrong, prove it – that’s what science is all about after all! Demonising, rather than challenging academically, is a mugs game. I’m really tired of this silly name-calling nonsense of the public debate over whether or not we like the science or not – for that is what’s really going on here. Challenge the science with evidence or your pings and comments won’t be published on New Anthro (and I am one who really tried to support others and promote their informed ideas).

  2. Hi Moth.
    Initially I would just like to say thanks for your comments.
    So many on other blogs consist of emotional outbursts and, as you yourself pointed out, detract from what needs to be scientific argument, or at least a commonsense logical criticism.

    I hope to address your comments in some detail and depth, so need a bit of time to do so. My very first aim is to concentrate on your “The greenhouse effect of CO2 is beyond question” phrase.
    As a simple statement it is safe but to develop this to the stage of being scared stiff of catastrophic consequences leaves us a miriad of relevant factors. Whilst pondering on that, it would help if you can refer me to a written report of the simple experiment you mentioned involving CO2 and IR forcing. Or any experimental evidence including real-life data. I will try to research this anyway.

    I agree with you on the name-calling issue, very negative and unnecessary. I think I tend to get a little rough on the politicians who are making serious decisions on our future well-being and who really don’t know what they are talking about, but am generally respectful to any one who makes sense. The “High Priest” title was as “authored”, but I chose to publish it so take some responsibility. I take your point and will try to moderate such inflammatory language.

    I will return! Again thanks!

  3. Pingback: AGW – I’m still having doubts! | The GOLDEN RULE

  4. website development delhi says:

    After study a couple of of the weblog posts on your web site now, and I truly like your manner of blogging. I bookmarked it to my bookmark web site checklist and shall be checking again soon. Pls check out my web page as properly and let me know what you think.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: 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 )

Connecting to %s