Thursday, December 31, 2009

Nature Admits: There is No Real Evidence of Anthropogenic Global Warming

Most would already know that there is not one paper, not one testable hypothesis, not one piece of hard scientific proof to verify the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming case despite billions of dollars being invested in the research to date. All we have are computer models which of course tell us exactly what they are asked to tell us.

Alan Cheetham, an engineer with extensive scientific training and who has published several papers on data modelling, has written an article on Climate Science Warming that examines this in some detail together with the evidence. Specifically he looks at a 3 December 2009 Nature editorial attempting to defend the AGW hypothesis. It seems that catestrophic global warming scientists "test" assertions by "running their models". This is an amazing admission from a Nature. Assertions are tested by running untested models. The models do not even simulate the 1930-1940's warming let alone the decline in average global temperature anomolies since the beginning of this century. As the models do not simulate historical climate it is beyond comprehension that they are used for what are coyly called future "projections". To quote a snippet from Alan:

The Nature editorial states: “Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause. That case is supported by multiple, robust lines of evidence, including several that are completely independent of the climate reconstructions debated in the e-mails.” It then mentions the usual symptoms: “glacier retreat, thinning and areal reduction of Arctic sea ice, reductions in permafrost and accelerated loss of mass from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets … the global sea level is rising … spring is arriving earlier each year.”

So where are the “robust lines of evidence” for causation?

“Denialists often maintain that these changes are just a symptom of natural climate variability. But when climate modellers test this assertion by running their simulations with greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide held fixed, the results bear little resemblance to the observed warming. The strong implication is that increased greenhouse-gas emissions have played an important part in recent warming, meaning that curbing the world's voracious appetite for carbon is essential”.

That’s it – running model simulations. That’s all there is. No real evidence. The models don’t work without CO2. Just curb your appetite. If there was actual empirical evidence of CO2 causation they would have mentioned it.

It is essential that this article be read in full from Global Warming Science.

Models can aid in our understanding of systems but it is absurd to "test" an assertion by running an untested simulation or model that is clearly deficient. The models cannot be used as predictive devices nor as a means for testing assertions.

No comments:

Post a Comment