The Global Warming Scam
October 2008
This paper examines the evidence in detail and shows that none of the evidence presented confirms a relationship between emissions of greenhouse gases and any harmful effect on the climate.
QUOTE: Although weather cannot be predicted more than a week or so ahead, the claim is made that "climate" can be predicted 100 years ahead.
QUOTE: Methane is mostly recycled plant material, unrelated to fossil fuels, yet it is used to penalise farmers for animal recycling, when the larger emissions from wetlands are exempt.
QUOTE: No resulting model has ever been tested for its ability to predict the future. This is even admitted as the model outputs are mere "projections". Since the projections are far into the future, nobody living is able to check their validity.
QUOTE: Since no model has been validated, they are "evaluated" based on "simulations", which are mere correlations, often obtained by adjusting the many poorly characterized parameters to give a "fudged fit".
QUOTE: Future "projections", which combine the untested models and exaggerated "scenarios" are graded for their "likelihood" from the unsupported opinion of those paid to produce the models. A spurious "probability" attached to these opinions is without mathematical or scientific justification
The Global Warming Scam has been perpetrated in order to support the Environmentalist belief that the earth is being harmed by the emission of greenhouse gases from the combustion of fossil fuels.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up to provide evidence for this belief.
They have published four major Reports which are widely considered to have proved it to be true. This paper examines the evidence in detail and shows that none of the evidence presented confirms a relationship between emissions of greenhouse gases and any harmful effect on the climate. It is the result of 18 years of scrutiny and comment on IPCC Reports and of a study of the scientific literature associated with it.
In order to establish a relationship between human emissions of greenhouse gases and any influence on the climate, it is necessary to solve three problems
- To determine the average temperature of the earth and show that it is increasing
- To measure the concentrations of greenhouse gases everywhere in the atmosphere
- To reliably predict changes in future climate
None of these problems has been solved
It is impossible to measure the average surface temperature of the earth, yet the IPCC scientists try to claim that it is possible to measure "anomalies" of this unknown quantity.
An assessment of all the temperature data available, largely ignored by the IPCC, shows no evidence for overall warming, but the existence of cyclic behaviour. Recent warming was last recorded around 1950. An absence of warming for 10 years and a current downturn suggest that the cool part of the cycle is imminent.
The chief greenhouse gas, water vapour, is irregularly distributed, with most of it over the tropics and very little over the poles. Yet the IPCC tries to pretend it is uniformly distributed, so that its "anomalies" can be treated as "feedback" to the global temperature models.
Carbon dioxide is only measured in extremely restricted circumstances in order to pretend that it is "well-mixed".
No general measurements are reported and 90,000 early measurements which show great variability have been suppressed.
Methane is mostly recycled plant material, unrelated to fossil fuels, yet it is used to penalise farmers for animal recycling, when the larger emissions from wetlands are exempt.
Although weather cannot be predicted more than a week or so ahead, the claim is made that "climate" can be predicted 100 years ahead. The claim is based on the development of computer models based on the "flat earth" theory of the climate which assumes it is possible to model the climate from "balanced" average energy quantities
This assumption is absurd since all the quantities have skewed distributions with no acceptable average. No resulting model has ever been tested for its ability to predict the future. This is even admitted as the model outputs are mere "projections". Since the projections are far into the future, nobody living is able to check their validity.
Since no model has been validated, they are "evaluated" based on "simulations", which are mere correlations, often obtained by adjusting the many poorly characterized parameters to give a "fudged fit".
Several such attempts fail to agree with observations.
Future "projections", which combine the untested models and exaggerated "scenarios" are graded for their "likelihood" from the unsupported opinion of those paid to produce the models. A spurious "probability" attached to these opinions is without mathematical or scientific justification
Humans affect climate by changes in urban development and land use, but there is no evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are involved, except in enhancing plant growth.
http://www.climatescience.org.nz/images/PDFs/GlobalScam3a.pdf --
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"Every year they recalibrate their computer model and put in the observed temperature. So, as they go along, the curve that trails behind is perfect. It's like predicting the morning's weather at six-o'clock in the evening.." Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus Geology, Western Washington University