Ok, so 2/3 of the US has been covered by snow this winter. Very much the same has been seen across Europe, too. But I, like other climate commentators, keep hammering home the point that weather is not climate. Extreme occurrences of wind, rain, snow, warmth or cold that pass in a week, a month within a season do not, in themselves, prove or disprove climate change. However, climatologists do pay heed to what they term decadal trends, or weather events that persist for periods for up to ten years and beyond. It is by applying the decadal trend test that any sceptic can readily disprove the theory of catastrophic man made climate change.

We do this by taking the decadal data and applying the scientific principle of ‘Disprovability’ to the theory of man made global warming (AGW). For AGW to be a credible scientific theory it must show either (a) that a phenomenon always follows one or more rules, or, (b) it proposes a mechanism for a phenomenon that is reflected in one or more rules that are always followed, or (c) it specifies attributes of a phenomenon that are defined by one or more rules that are always followed.

The disprovability comes into play once the rules of the proposed theory are constructed (i.e. the theory of man made climate change states that increases in human-caused carbon emissions cause catastrophic global warming). Thus if there is no observable catastrophic climate change despite the fact CO2 levels are claimed to have risen 30%, then the theory is busted). A fair test has to be applied so that we can determine whether the theory is true for a particular trial. This means that we need a reliable trial period through which we can gather data to plug into the rule to see whether the rule works or not.

It is simply a principle of logic that the “always” part is disproved by a single exception but not proved by any number of verifications. You can have a theory that does not follow these principles, but if it can’t be tested it’s not a scientific theory by definition (i.e. alarmists cannot be allowed to claim that global warming causes global calling – a ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ logical fallacy as per the Aristotelian method). Fortunately, for all sceptics we don’t need to conduct any further trials to bust the global warming theory under the definition of testability – the theory need only to have in principle an observable condition that would disprove it (e.g. a decadal climatic trend).

Below we illustrate the value of decadal trends in assisting climate scientists to better understand the forces at work in the Earth’s climate. (acknowledgement: )

Decadal Trends
Here we can see what the decadal trends are showing for those data sets collected by MSU channel TLT, MSU/AMSU channel TMT, MSU/AMSU channel TTS, and MSU/AMSU channel TLS. Trend maps are computed over the time period for each channel that contains complete years of valid data. Globally averaged trends computed over latitudes from 82.5S to 82.5N (70S to 82.5N for channel TLT) are shown in the table below, and include data through November, 2009:
Start Time Stop Time # Years Global Trend
Channel TLT 1979 2009-11 30+ 0.153 K/decade
Channel TMT 1979 2009-11 30+ 0.089 K/decade
Channel TTS 1987 2009-11 22+ -0.023 K/decade
Channel TLS 1979 2009-11 30+ -0.325 K/decade
See the monthly, global time series of brightness temperature anomalies for each channel, as well as linear fits to the time series (Figure 7). Anomalies are computed by subtracting the mean monthly value (averaged from 1979 through 1998 for each channel) from the average brightness temperature for each month. What we see is no evidence whatsoever for significant warming, let alone catastrophic runaway warming attributable to man made emissions.

Our knowledge is thereby guided or constrained in the right direction by eliminating all the directions that don’t stand up to a test of their criteria against measured reality. Short-term weather events being misleading, have been taken into account within the context of their hemispheric and decadal position. Thus, it is a fair and logical conclusion to deduce from the observed climatic data that the Earth has shown hemispheric variability but based on the decadal trend, we may determine there is no link between climate and man made co2 emissions. But above all what it busted absolutely, is that no catastrophic climate change has been caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide.

Should this be of any surprise to the core of climate scientists who provided their reports to the UN’s IPCC? No, because not one scientist cited by the IPCC can prove any ‘catastrophic’ climate change so that the word never appears in any of the science reports. The word only shows up in the bluff and bluster of policy makers and self-serving politicians. The British media, once so much in love with the environmental lobbyists of the left, are now starting to wake up to the facts. In one headline the Daily Express headline shouts out about climate ‘FRAUD.’
In the article, climate author and expert, Professor Plimer of Adelaide and Melbourne Universities, said there was a huge momentum behind the climate-change lobby. Suggesting that many scientists are in it for the money, he said: “The climate comrades are trying to keep the gravy train going. Governments are also keen on putting their hands as deep as possible into our pockets.
“The average person has been talked down to. He has been treated like a fool. Yet the average person has common sense.”

John O’Sullivan is a legal advocate and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain.


Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s