Every now and then I have the audacity to point out on a public forum that climate change isn't "settled science" and immediately get castigated by the religious zealots who subscribe to the Church of Man-mad Global Warming. I've had numerous debates on this across the spectrum, and have written here some conclusions I've arrived at through my own study of the science, based on my background in applied physics and general science. Rather than bombard my naysayers with multiple links to my criticisms of various tenets of the Faith, I've decided to compile them here for the ease of the casual reader.
I'm not kidding when I call it a Church. I explain why here.
Much of the basis for the Church of Man-made Global Warming is the assumption that there's a scientific consensus, and that the science is settled. This is an outrageous lie that has been promoted by the mainstream media, and has no objective basis in fact in any way. I trace the genesis of this lie and show it to be false here.
I'm an electromagnetic compliance engineer. It's a physics-based discipline with rigorous scientific reporting requirements. It overlaps the realm of atmospheric physics when you start discussing the electromagnetic (IR) absorption behavior of certain gases. I did an overview of the criticism of this here, and later explained in detail why additional CO2 won't have a measurable effect on atmospheric temperatures. In the same article I also discussed the historical correlation of CO2 and temperature and shown that the conclusions are exactly backwards of what the climate scientists assumptions are.
But is my explanation accurate? Unlike a lot of things in climate science, this is one that we can test and draw conclusions. I explain how to set up and conduct such a test here, and a little about how to evaluate the results. It's enough for a student seeking a thesis topic to run with, but it needs some more fleshing out.
I also pointed out with a lot of math how ocean temperature controls atmospheric temperature, but atmospheric temperature has very little ability to warm the ocean.
Unwilling to admit that they have a shifting narrative, Man-made Global Warming apologists insist that their message has been consistent and that any suggestion that they really were worried about a coming ice-age 50 years ago is dismissed. I took a little time to research the many peer reviewed papers from the time to bury someone in a coming ice age hysteria.
As I write this, I realize that I need to put together a discussion of sea levels that discusses things like continental rebound, tectonic movement, subsidence and measurement uncertainty. Things that are never mentioned when evidence is presented to sustain the hysteria that we're going to be underwater soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment