Correlation Without Causation

Anthropogenic Global Warming: the theory that adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will lead to higher temperatures in the lower atmosphere. This is what the debate is all about. So what if the Met Office’s Dr. Peter Stott is convinced that the world is getting warmer? We already know this. The long-term climate trend since 1850 is upwards. (Even taking into account the manipulation of data.) But what is causing this trend? Dr. Stott admits that something other than greenhouse gas emissions could be a factor, which is a bigger admission than most people realise:

“The cause of the warming was “dominated” by greenhouse gases emitted by human activity, said Stott. “It’s possible there’s some [other] process which can amplify other effects, such as radiation from the sun, [but] the evidence is so clear the chance there’s something we haven’t thought of seems to be getting smaller and smaller,” he said.”

There is actually nothing new or remarkable about this announcement. We have known for well over a decade that the world has been getting warmer. (Somewhere in the range of five to six-tenths of a degree warmer in the last 150 years.) Skeptics do not dispute this fact. The whole point of the debate is whether or not this warming is unprecedented, and whether it will continue.

The recent flat to declining temperatures over the last 13 years cannot be ignored by serious scientists, as Richard S. Courtney, UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change expert reviewer and British-based climate and atmospheric science consultant said on December 16, 2009:

“Global warming has stopped. There has been no statistically significant rise in [mean global temperature or MGT] since 1995 and MGT has fallen since 1998. Nobody can know if the recent halt to global warming is temporary, permanent, or the start of a new warming or cooling phase. But it is certain that anybody who proclaims “global warming is accelerating” is a liar, a fool, or both.”

Climatologists like Dr. Stott have drawn ridiculous and very unscientific conclusions; such as manmade greenhouse gas emissions are the “glaringly obvious explanation” for the recent warming. Ah, yes, just like the vengeful god Jupiter is responsible for thunderstorms! I call it the ‘what else could it be?’ argument. It isn’t really a rational explanation at all. It’s all just correlation without causation. Because we have been putting all these gases into the atmosphere it must be our fault. But where is the evidence for that?

AGW theory posits that temperatures will rise catastrophically due to the evaporation of all greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. We will reach a “tipping point”, after which we will all heat up. But is their scientific evidence of this? No. We just do not know whether temperatures will continue to rise, because the computer modelling is based on dubious assumptions. For example, climatologists believe that the earth’s system is driven by positive feedbacks, but there is now evidence that it is dominated by negative feedbacks. (I’ll explain this in my next post.)

So what do we know for sure? Well, there is an old saying that, if the map doesn’t agree with the ground, the map is wrong. And their map is certainly wrong! In the case of AGW theory, there is the glaringly absent “hot spot” in the upper troposphere, over the tropics, which is crucial to their theory that C02 is the primary driver of global warming.(1) Climatologists won’t tell you this, however.

Climatologists also ignore the recent evidence: such as the effect of ocean cycles; the interaction of cosmic rays with CFCs; terrestrial environments and oceans being able to absorb much more C02 than previously thought; and the growing body of evidence that black carbon (or soot), and not C02, accounts for much of the effect on snow and ice albedos.

I personally think that the world is warming, humans are involved, and that we are aggravating a natural cycle. But it is by no means a “crisis” or a “catastrophe”. And there are other issues, such as questions over the degree of the warming; climatologists exaggerate it, and claim that it is continuous. I have little doubt that it has warmed since at least 1950, but is it a constant and continuous trend? No. It has gone through phases of both warming and cooling throughout the 20th century, and has certainly stopped over the last 13 years.(2) And the dips of the 1940′s and the 1970′s STILL have not been explained by climatologists’ computer models!

It essentially comes down to where you begin your trend line. If you choose the mid 19th century then of course it will look dramatic because you are coming out of the Little Ice Age! Climatologists have either neglected to show people the full context of earth’s climate history, of the Little Ice Age, Medieval Warming and Roman Warming etc., or they have purposefully manipulated data in order to eliminate these periods from the record. Michael Mann did the latter with his notorious “hockey-stick” graph, in order to make the recent warming appear unprecedented.

‘The proof: Global warming is real’

‘Global warming pushes 2010 temperatures to record highs’

‘Global Sea Surface Temperature Update: The Cooling Continues’

(1) ‘The Missing Hotspot,’ 21 July 2008, p.17

‘The Missing Hotspot Proves that the IPCC Climate Theory is Wrong,’ 2 December 2009

‘It’s warmer here so it’s warmer everywhere’

(2) ‘Historic Temperatures Can Be Modeled with a Constant Linear Trend + A 60-Year Cycle’

30 July, 2010

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

%d bloggers like this: