Apologies, apologies! I've been on sabbatical, working on several other projects during the past months and have been remiss in my column writing. So it's time to put pen to paper and continue where I left off: exposing the greatest fraud in the history of science: the theory (yes, theory ) of man-made global warming, aka "climate change" and "climate disruption." (The charlatans and ignoramuses promoting this alarmist nonsense can't decide what name to give their junk science.)
From this day forward, I will endeavor to regularly inform, enlighten and entertain those readers (both skeptics and self-confessed warmists) who are exposed daily to a constant stream of climate change propaganda peddled by lazy , uninquisitive reporters who willingly serve as advocate-stenographers (Andrew Revkin, are you reading?) for global warming alarmism.
* * *
As I've done in the past, let me mention one very important point: the theory of human-induced global warming is exactly that -- a theory . The scientists promoting it -- the Jim Hansens, Kenneth Trenberths and Phil Joneses of the world -- have never demonstrated conclusively that human CO2 emissions are warming the planet. Even laymen researchers who've done a few hours of homework (and don't rely on PR releases for their data) know that humans produce a whopping 0.28 percent of the so-called greenhouse gases, with anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 accounting for a minuscule 0.117 percent of the total. Using a real-world comparison, 0.117 percent of a football field would equal just over four inches.
The warmists' scientific conclusions are based purely on climate modeling, not experimentation, observation or hard empirical data. Worse, they've turned the scientific method on its head. Instead of constructing a theory and then rigorously testing and re-testing to see if it stands up to scientific examination, they start with a pre-ordained conclusion (i.e., fossil fuel-based CO2 emissions cause the earth to warm) and then manipulate and tune their computer models to churn out data that support it. In short, human-induced global warming is the product of laboratory computer simulations and over-active imaginations; it doesn't exist in the real world.
Another article of faith that deserves a healthy dose of skepticism -- from warmists and lukewarmists alike -- is the so-called greenhouse theory. According to this sacrosanct doctrine, CO2 and other greenhouse gases "trap" infrared readiation, thus acting like a thermal blanket, raising the earth's atmospheric temperature to a cozy 33 degrees centigrade. Lucky humanity: Without this atmospheric greenhouse guardian, we'd spend a small fortune heating our homes while arming ourselves against nuisance polar bears roaming the countryside.
It should be noted that the greenhouse theory is relatively modern in origin and, as astrophysicist Joseph Postma observes
, "is never mentioned in any fundamental work of thermodynamics, physical kinetics or radiation theory." Try as you may, you won't find the terms greenhouse effect or glass-house effect mentioned
in any classical textbooks on experimental or theoretical physics.
According to Postma, the "Greenhouse Effect is indeed a theory; it is not a benign empirical fact, such as the existence of the sun, for example. As a theory it has a scientific development which is open to inspection and review."
But in the minds of the warmists, questioning the theology of greenhouse warming is akin to blasphemy. Better to be caught red-handed showering with a 12-year-old in a Penn State locker room.
As W.R. Pratt points out in his article, "The Science is Settled?": "A scientific hypothesis is not established science
." Yes, the greenhouse hypothesis has been around for 180 years since it was first proposed in the 1820s by Joseph Fourier and later refined by John Tyndall, professor of physics at the Royal Institution of Great Britain in the 1850s. But, according to Pratt, the hypothesis remains unproven despite arguments to the contrary.
As he explains:
"In order to single out certain atmospheric gases and demonize them as the culprits responsible for atmospheric warming, it was necessary to attribute certain characteristics to the so-called ‘Greenhouse Gases’ with regard to radiant heat, which would set them apart from the two most abundant atmospheric gases, Oxygen and Nitrogen."
According to Pratt, Tyndall fallaciously argued that oxygen and nitrogen are “practically transparent to radiant heat,” a hypothesis that serves as the foundation of today’s AGW fraud. He vehemently disagrees with Tyndall's thesis:
"It has been suggested that the ability of oxygen and nitrogen to absorb heat is virtually undetectable under laboratory conditions but it must be remembered that the quantities examined under such conditions would be minute. These two gases alone make up 99% of all the atmosphere, so their overall effect on atmospheric temperature is not to be underestimated.
"Firstly, Oxygen and Nitrogen both have higher specific heat capacities than CO2 [see: Specific heat capacity of Gases ]. Secondly, and above all, Oxygen and Nitrogen, of course, do indeed absorb infrared radiation [see: Infrared absorption bands for OXYGEN
and A close-up of an infrared absorption band for NITROGEN
]. The problem for the hypothesis of the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ and, of course, AGW itself is that the basic premise on which the hypothesis is based is false.”
Is Pratt correct? I don’t know, but his arguments deserve a fair hearing. As skeptics have long argued, science is about debate and the dogged pursuit of facts supported by down-and-dirty research and rigorous experimentation. Science thrives on different points of view, which are openly debated. But it suffers when scientists who should know better argue that the "science is settled" (science is never settled ) while ridiculing and denouncing anyone who expresses opposing viewpoints.
As the Nobel Prize-winnng American physicist Richard P. Feynman
once said , “It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.”
Source Link: examiner.com