This will be the first of a series of articles dealing with global warming, or the newly adopted terminology concerning the more ambiguous issue of “climate change.” Since scientists are refusing to practice science, journalists refuse to report objectively, and the general public refuses to address their ignorance on the matter, it’s important to explain some simple observations and to provide scientific rebuttals to the claims of the alarmist global warming proponents in terms that the average person can understand. Unlike the advocates of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming (AGW), I will not tell anyone what to think, I will simply present some additional, or perhaps previously unknown or not-thought-of information on the subject and allow everyone to think and decide – or not decide – on their own. All that is required is an objective mind and the ability to comprehend remedial scientific principles.

So with that being understood, let’s explore this new cult phenomenon that has half the civilized world in a frenzy.

The original hypothesis that was being pushed by the proponents of anthropogenic global warming relies on a belief that human-released carbon dioxide emissions contribute to an increase of trapped radiation from the Sun. This increase in absorbed radiation will dramatically add to the “greenhouse effect” and in turn, will inevitably and uncontrollably raise the Earth’s temperatures. At some point, because of the ever increasing temperatures, the Earth will reach a “tipping point” where the condition cannot be reversed and the warming will continue until the planet is forever destroyed beyond habitable conditions.

On the surface of this hypothesis, it would seem like a plausible scenario. However, it is based on a very loose and speculative scientific foundation. Without getting into the specifics of the arguments, we must first look at why the very construct of the hypothesis is flawed. Here’s a short list of problems with the initial supposition:

1. In order to formulate this hypothesis, scientists would have to assume that all climate variables have been identified and all of them are very well understood.

2. Most of the variables that are involved in our climate have only been studied with a certain degree of understanding and with the consistency and accuracy of modern technology only within the last few decades. Some of them have only been studied in this way within the last several years and some are just now beginning to be examined. However, this hypothesis is based on the identical beliefs of over a century ago. Despite the amount of information now at hand, the hypothesis has not been adjusted.

3. One would then have to assume to know how all other variables – in which scientists must have a sound understanding – interact with each other and that these processes are very well understood.

4. Following this progression, it would then have to be assumed that all other variables have little to no effect on climate processes compared to the effects of carbon dioxide. Making this assumption would not be prudent for scientists considering the current lack of information for many of the processes involved in our climate systems.

5. By only examining one correlation and attributing our climate changes to that correlation, one would have to ignore all others, including, but not limited to such correlations in which temperature coincides with solar variations. This type of decision is made despite the fact that the Sun is the source of nearly all of our energy.

6. The hypothesis jumps from assuming carbon dioxide increases temperatures to assuming that this increase will inevitably destroy the planet, despite the fact that both carbon dioxide and temperatures had risen to much higher levels in the past without a “runaway” effect.

These are just some of the assumptions or conclusions one would have to arrive at before this hypothesis is even developed. After creating this premise, one would need to conduct experiments to prove the arguments. This procedure has never happened. Climate modeling is not experimentation and they too are flawed for several reasons. The following highlights just a few examples:

1. All variables, which we do not fully know and understand, are entered into the computer models by humans – the same ones who errantly formulated the original arguments and who generally overestimate or underestimate certain effects as a result. The formulas that are input are flawed because of a lack of knowledge and data.

2. Because of the uncertainty of the variables, models have trouble simulating factors such as clouds and precipitation and their effects on weather.

3. Many of the models cannot accurately recreate past climates even with all of the known information. In the latest assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), all of the future predictions that are based on models have a margin of error over 200%. A simple probability equation can demonstrate just how inaccurate the best models can be:

Let’s pretend that climatologists understand all of the climate variables with a 95% certainty. This is extremely high for a science that, for all practical matters, is still in its infancy. But for the sake of argument, and giving them the benefit of the doubt, we will assume they know much more than they really do. If climatologists only had ten variables to factor into their models (which may be off by at least 50 to 100), the equation would be 95% (or .95) multiplied by itself ten times. This gives you an answer of 0.5987, or about 60%.

So, after only ten variables with an accuracy of each at 95%, climatologists could only claim a maximum certainty of 60%. After only twenty variables, the maximum certainty drops below 36%. Without significant human manipulation of these models, they would be utterly worthless.

4. Even if the models were to become more accurate on climate processes, they are based on the assumption that our current habits or technology will not change over the next 50 to 100 years – which, throughout the course of human history, has never been the case, especially in recent centuries.

With all of this in mind, the advocates of the global warming hypothesis have continued pushing their agenda and labeling anyone who questions the scientific nature of this process as “deniers” or mouthpieces for “Big Energy.” Some have even called for criminal prosecution of skeptics. Instead of following tried and true scientific methods such as observation and experimentation, and producing conclusive evidence of their claims, the proponents in the science community rely on speculation and computer modeling. This is hardly worthy of being categorized as “science” and ought to be challenged by anyone and everyone who has respect for the profession and has a desire for genuine knowledge regarding climatology.

While this type of advocacy by the supporters of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis may garner favor within legislative bodies, it erodes the credibility of individual scientists and tarnishes the image of science itself in the eyes of the educated and informed public.

*Other articles in the Climate Change Stupidity series:

An Overview of the Global Warming Hypothesis (Part Two)

Great Ball of Fire

The Earth Also Shines

The Carbon Dioxide Scapegoat

Water in the Atmosphere

**For more articles by this author, click here.