Climate Change Stupidity: An Overview of the Global Warming Hypothesis (Part Two)

In the last article, which was the first of this series, the very structure of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis was called into question as well as the practice of using climate modeling as experimentation. While these two factors contribute to the overall question regarding the views of AGW advocates, they are not the only cause for skepticism of the global warming hypothesis. The rigorously defended premises that blame humans for altering our climate by increasing carbon emissions and ultimately heating the planet beyond natural variance are now being adjusted by the proponents. Global warming was – and in many circumstances, still is – the rallying cry for environmentalists bent on forcing change of our consumption practices and living standards.

However, there now seems to be a problem with the phrase “global warming” because it appears that there is some concern about the possibility of a cooling trend in the not-so-distant future and because cooler temperature trends are not easily explained by the advocates.

In order to keep the anthropogenic aspect of this hypothesis intact, many advocates of it are now using the phrase, “climate change” to describe the effects of human activity. This new terminology covers all the future short-term weather events and long-term climate variations that will supposedly result from our carbon emissions. Unfortunately for these advocates, there is one important problem with this new way of thinking:

If increased human carbon emissions are contributing to an increase of trapped radiation and this radiation causes the Earth to uncontrollably and dramatically warm, then how could the same hypothesis explain a cooling trend?

The initial hypothesis and the major concerns behind the global warming phenomenon depend on the concept of trapped radiation caused by “greenhouse” gases which are indiscriminately released by human activity. If carbon dioxide is a “greenhouse” gas, then its increasing amount cannot be responsible for decreasing temperatures. Since carbon dioxide is not responsible for cooling the Earth, human contributions of this gas into the atmosphere cannot cause any cooling. Given these facts, how can advocates of the global warming hypothesis claim that our carbon-releasing activities can now cause a general climate shift, whether it is warmer or cooler?

The answer is: They cannot - at least not without any legitimate scientific integrity.

Since there is no evidence of such a carbon-cooling incident and since the argument has now shifted away from “global warming” and toward “climate change,” one can only make a few conclusions about the advocates’ claims.

1. The original global warming hypothesis is simply incorrect and our recent addition of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere did not, does not, and will not cause an inevitable and dramatic increase in temperature.

2. There are other forces at play that override any changes in carbon dioxide caused by human activities, so the atmosphere therefore may be self-correcting and the processes of the Earth are regulated by other factors that we do not yet fully comprehend. This would mean our contribution of carbon dioxide has little to no effect on our climate.

3. We really don’t have a full scientific understanding of our climate and all of the variables (which is true) and the advocates have known that, so the debate and the alarmism was never really about “saving the planet” anyway.

Or…

4. Carbon dioxide can now defy all laws of nature and be both a negative and positive feedback in our climate system at any time of its choosing, especially when it’s convenient for anthropogenic climate change advocates.

Perhaps the truth consists of a combination of all four.

The arguments by the AGW proponents were always about human activities heating the planet – hence the term, “global warming.” Now the advocates claim that by releasing additional carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and causing warming, we are upsetting the balance of nature and this will cause unpredictable weather events, including cooling trends and perhaps even a new ice age. All of a sudden, human contributions can cause any adverse weather or climate shifts and natural processes are virtually insignificant. This is – allegedly – scientifically supported or proven and questioning these claims makes one a “denier,” a dupe, or just plain ignorant or stupid.

It is true that carbon dioxide traps radiation. It is also true that when additional radiation is trapped, temperatures will increase. These are established facts. Therefore, a simple act of logical deduction would indicate that a decrease in temperature cannot be attributed to an increase in human carbon dioxide emissions. The concept of humans causing a colder climate shift by increasing carbon emissions is not at all compatible with the original global warming hypothesis, nor is it compatible with observed characteristics of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Simply stated, science unmistakably refutes such a claim.

Advocates of anthropogenic global warming cannot now adopt the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change without compromising both their integrity and that of the hypotheses altogether.

One does not need to be a professional scientist to understand the fundamental principles of causation and correlation. One does not need to be a statistician to read numbers and graphs. There is no evidence that proves the global warming hypothesis. Most of the “scientific” findings rely on a weak correlation of two factors – temperature and carbon dioxide. Despite this circumstantial “evidence,” there is no definitive proof of causation regarding carbon dioxide’s effect on recent climate trends. That is left entirely to speculation.

We have seen global temperatures rise and fall since our use of fossil fuels has increased steadily over the last 150 years. Over the last five years, temperatures have actually decreased again. If both the global warming hypothesis and the notion of the “greenhouse effect” are indeed correct, then we need to hear some credible scientific explanations for these cooling trends and how they fit into the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. If this hypothesis is indeed true, then why do we see short-term and long-term fluctuations in temperature despite an allegedly consistent rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide? Furthermore, if carbon dioxide was at a stable level for centuries or millennia before the Industrial Revolution, then what caused the variations in temperature and why are all of these causes quickly dismissed today?

There have been recent predictions about our climate in the near future and if these predictions are accurate, we will see another cooling trend within the next couple decades. But this trend will not be caused by a decrease in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Humans will play no role whatsoever and the “climate change” alarmists will undoubtedly find an irrational explanation for this development as well.

However, if this prediction becomes reality, one truth will certainly be realized: Man’s theoretical contribution to the “greenhouse effect” cannot be plausibly blamed for the cooling. In actuality, it could refute the entire collection of anthropogenic global warming or “climate change” alarmism altogether.

Now that we have established a core understanding of the inherent flaws of the hypothesis itself, it is time to explore the “scientific” claims made by the advocates of it. What should be observed in examining these claims is the reality that the AGW hypothesis is already accepted as fact by the “scientists” who are supposed to be conducting themselves in a manner consistent with the principles of science and the scientific method. Unfortunately, those principles – observation, experimentation, and adjusting your hypothesis accordingly – do not seem to resonate with the alarmist advocates.

*Other articles in the Climate Change Stupidity series:

An Overview of the Global Warming Hypothesis (Part One)

An Overview of the Global Warming Hypothesis (Part Two)

Great Ball of Fire

The Earth Also Shines

The Carbon Dioxide Scapegoat

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