I don’t know, or not, whether human activity is causing “global warming”. I believe it’s not. And that puts me in a majority. In fact, it’s a completely one sided argument. Not what you believe – everyone has their own beliefs – but what you know.
This so-called consensus (it’s not) of scientists that humans are causing the planet to heat up is mere conjecture. None of the scientists backing this cause have a shred of proof that their hypothesis (that’s what it should be called) is true. By the same token, none of the scientists (yes, there are many) who disagree with the hypothesis have a shred of proof that it’s false.
Yesterday I went out for the morning with my sons and two of their friends and their bikes. A great time was had on a blustery but predominantly sunny day. Even better, not a single drop of rain nor a wet road was observed. What does this have to do with climate change? Well, the weather forecast for the morning had “showers” as the predominant feature and no mention of the sun (implying a pretty solid overcast). Our best and brightest, with a lot of practice, still cannot tell me what the weather will be tomorrow. Oh, they can usually tell me what weather is coming, but as often as not, they are completely inaccurate on the ‘when’.
Now take this headine and leader from a BBC News article:
Four degrees of warming ‘likely’
In a dramatic acceleration of forecasts for global warming, UK scientists say the global average temperature could rise by 4C (7.2F) as early as 2060.
Let’s look at the uncertainties in this.
Four degrees of warming ‘likely‘
In a dramatic acceleration of forecasts for global warming, UK scientists say the global average temperature could rise by 4C (7.2F) as early as 2060.
This time I have highlighted the uncertainties in orange. What’s left in black suggests a temperature rise of 4C by 2060. But look at all that qualification with uncertainties!
“Dramatic acceleration” does indeed sound dramatic. What it really tells us is they think they got it horribly wrong previously. So they aren’t to be trusted in any case!
“Forecasts” are just that. My favourite definition for ‘forecast’ is “calculate: judge to be probable”. Essentially, it means predict. To make an educated guess.
“Global warming” is their entire hypothesis which they are trying to prove. A more objective view would not use that term. They’ve got the answer and they’re still looking for the question to fit it.
“UK scientists” is a subset of the ‘educated’. It’s nothing like a consensus. And let’s not forget that people such as Einstein were not educated.
“Global average” is about as broad a brush as you can use on this topic. What if, for example, the equatorial region’s temperatures increased by 8C by 2060? That would suggest that non-equatorial regions would have no change in temperature at all! (This is based on a rudimentary and probably plain wrong assumption that ‘equatorial’ and ‘non-equatorial’ regions are of similar size – but it serves to illustrate my point.)
“Could”. Well, they’re not going to commit to anything, now, are they? Remember they got it horribly wrong last time.
“As early as” 2060. They also say in the article that the base prediction is actually for 2070 but they’re just not sure about it so they’re putting in 2060 as a ‘just in case’. So they’re working with approximately a 16% margin of error. That’s pretty loose in scientific terms.
This proclamation, like all those before it and all to follow, is an hypothesis. My favourite definition for ‘hypothesis’ is: “a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena”.
I have one final point to make. Money.
Look at what the world’s governments are doing with this ‘news’ of the impending doom of the planet at our hands. Are they making planet-warming activities illegal? Or are they just trying to tax them? Once you’ve answered that question, ask yourself this one:
Could there be another reason for the ‘global warming’ hype?