Skip to main content

Site Key Topics Guide

Elements of Peace Obstacles to Peace
Human Psychology and Peace The Nature of Reality
The Climate Change Scam The Science of Global Warming

Global Warming: The Science is Simple

In a previous post on,I used the example of a chappie called Fred to show you why the absence of an atmospheric hotspot is, all by itself, a complete disproof of the hypothesis of dangerous anthropogenic global warming (AGW). For those who came in late, the entire basis for the AGW claim is that certain unverified, and now falsified, computer models predict a lot of warming over the coming 100 years. It is shocking, but true, that there is no actual evidence whatsoever for this idea; it is computer models alone, and those models are basically no more than coded guesswork. And what do these models predict?

They predict that the world is heated by the appearance of a 'hotspot' in the atmosphere above the equator.

Predicted atmospheric temperature changes from a model,showing hotspot in atmosphere above the tropicsModel predicts air above the tropics heats up. from the NIPCC Report p. 107
But the reality is that this hotspot has failed to develop:

Temperature data from the real world shows a completely different pattern of temperature changeReal world trend develops no hotspot. from the NIPCC Report p. 106
This is fatal, absolutely fatal; no other evidence is needed to be completely certain that the models on which the world is preparing at Copenhagen to destroy the economies of the west are wrong. The entire global warming panic is so very easily exposed for what it is—but so few people have an understanding of science that the ones with money or power to make from the fiasco are easily making fools of politicians, lovers of the environment, and, sadly, other scientists, by the millions.

Now before you point out that this isn't the fault of any of those people, science education being in the deplorable state it has been for some decades, let my stress that I used the word "understanding", not "knowledge". I don't think much actual scientific knowledge is needed here, but it does need some affinity with the ideals and methods of science. And it is probably fair to say that the essence of the scientific method was understood by people with no access to any of the snazzy apparatus or computers of whatnot of modern times. Some say Francis Bacon invented it. Some even claim it was Thales of Miletus, who lived around 600B.C. So any reasonably intelligent modern person with a decent brain plus the internet, plus literacy, plus what to the ancients would be seen as an undeniably good life—that is, enough leisure to sit and think once in a while—should be able to take in the basics of the scientific method. And that, plus the courage to disagree with establishment opinion when it is as undeniably wrong as it is at present, is all that is needed to see and understand that we are the victims of the biggest and most dangerous mass delusion in all history.

The important ideas of science are not difficult, and you don't need to study stuff like Popper's philosophy of science or anything of that ilk. All you need is ideas as simple as this: things don't happen by magic. So, if someone makes a claim—for example, that increased CO2 is dangerously heating the atmosphere—then they should be able to propose a mechanism by which this is supposed to be happening, and we should be able to test the proposal to see if it agrees with reality. Anyone who says "It's all too complicated for li'l ol' you—leave it to us experts" is hoodwinking you.

So with that thought in mind, here's Fred in bed once again, showing why this whole question is really so very simple.


Share this