Monday, 10 November 2014

How to scientifically falsify the man made global warming hypothesis

In answer to this question, one which science has so far failed to produce, here was my take on it.

AGW is based on shifting sands. The great majority, maybe 90%, is simply guesswork, and within a complex non-linear system, and worse still on a timescale beyond our lfetimes to discover.

Imagine an investment or building project where the results or returns were dependent on the market (ie not fixed) and simply offered a variable rate interest which may mature when you're 90 or 160 and the rate could be between 1 and 6%, with the likeliest results in the middle.

Then 20 years later the actual market had fallen so low that the figure was just about to fall below the minimum point for cashing out at any moment in time.

Back to the science, the IPCC have set the very wide goalposts but narrowed down the bullseye at 2C for a doubling of CO2. That rose from 260ppm in 1850 to 400 or so in 2014, and the average rise when divided among decades is 0.05C. However you slice it, like Dana Nuccitelli, who falsely only used the last few decades where CO2 had risen more and extrapolated from that, despite it stopping rising anyway, when you put the slices back in the cake it has responded with a 0.8C rise after a 50% increase of CO2, much like the bare lab figure plus a little rise mainly natural.

Bringing it back to a 2C rise after 520ppm, only requiring an increase in water vapour plus minor additions from changes in albedo, the water vapour has decreased, directly observed by NASA. It cannot increase as the conditions required are simply not happening. That means the only condition able to make AGW into what the IPCC consider a problem (unlike the people living in Greenland and elsewhere during the last warm periods) requires maybe 700-1000ppm, by which time our technology will have changed so much (maybe a century or two ahead) the chances of not finding an alternative to fossil fuel will be almost zero, so the problem will have been solved by science over time, rather than order.

Hansens's 3 metres plus of sea level rise, all coming logarithmically in the late 21st century with no supporting science (and we won't be here to know it). Using logic this is the extreme end representing all others which are only a watered down version of the same total arrogant nonsense assuming psychotherapists (on top of a law degree in my case) know fuck all so they can spin us around as much as they like while cheerleaders like you strike us down as worthless.

Known issues:

Massive adjustments and gaps in land temperature records.

Models unable to cope with aerosol, cloud and water vapour.

Water vapour (the almost exclusive cause of positive feedback) reducing while the voices increase in loudness.

Nearly all global warming being set in the distant future.

The trend required for >2C being way sharper than any existing one.

Fake claims made about climate refugees and rising sea levels when the amount is barely higher than the 20th century which caused no problems.

The entire creation is almost totally based on trust, and extending lab equations and experiments via a massive computer game into unobserved and mainly future reality. Just look closely and you will inevitably see it as well.

Analysing it further, science must be observable and repeatable. Most climate measurements are estimated within known points, and vary so much it can be hard to compare like with like, so unlike engineering and medical measurements their quality is maybe 10-20% of the standard. That is not a good basis. Of course a serious rise in temperature can be measured from the few taken (land stations are reduced so much since changing to satellites most are filled in almost randomly to complete the gaps) while CO2 measurement is variable but more direct than most to assess. The main way they get away with it is stretching the timescale further and further, much like the Greek debt, so making it harder and harder to disprove as they keep just asking for a few decades more. The trend is a 0.05C a decade rise on CO2, that can't change as the water vapour isn't rising to add any more. It's been disproved.


  1. Do you have a reference for the statement "the water vapour has decreased, directly observed by NASA"? If it has, surely the scare is over.

    1. Sure have, I'm just about to write an illustrated post demonstrating the whole lot. Pretty much ends their entire construction