Pay no attention to global-warming alarmists

With this newspaper arguing that our planet is in peril and that its remedies should be followed, global warming has again arisen as a hot political and pseudo-religious topic. Even professors from the University of Kentucky bear witness to their faith, professors who should know that science has nothing to do with faith or claims of consensus. Objective science is about logic and evidence only.

Albert Einstein understood this when his Theory of Relativity turned the classical physics world upside-down in 1905. He patiently waited decades for experimental confirmation, emphasizing that "one man can prove me wrong." What a contrast with global warming, where proponents offer popularity, authority and peer-review as definitive substitutes for real science.

What do we mean by "global warming?" It is not "climate change," "climate disruption" or whatever truism propagandists invent. We mean the theory that man-made carbon dioxide is catastrophically warming the Earth.

Nobel Laureate in physics Ivar Giaever says that the tiny observed increase of 0.8 degree Centigrade over the 20th century indicates remarkable stability and no cause for alarm.

Meteorologist and staunch Democrat Martin Hertzberg points out that we experimented with carbon reduction schemes in the 1930s. These reduced fossil fuel usage by 20 percent and went by the memorable name Great Depression. Mother Nature had the last laugh as temperatures and CO2 levels continued upward, proving that man is not as important as he thinks.

After World War II, the post-war boom saw an expansion of human CO2 emissions but a decline in the global temperature. After the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1977, when the Pacific Ocean shifted to its warm phase, we finally saw temperatures rise in concert with man-made CO2.

What has especially confused climate alarmists has been the abrupt cessation of warming since 1998, as shown by NASA satellite measurements, the best global temperature measurements we have.

For advocates to prove that increasing carbon dioxide has any effect on temperature, they need to find a unique signature that would be expected only from carbon dioxide and not from ocean or solar cycles.

The notorious climate codes which erroneously forecast rapidly rising temperatures predict such a signature developing in the tropical troposphere. But the "hot spot" is not observed. This says that late 20th-century warming had at most a small greenhouse gas component.

Read rest…