The alarmists’ predictions of global warming resulting from increased CO2 in the atmosphere have failed to come true. In scientific terms, that is the end of the story. A theory that is refuted by observation is wrong. But since billions of dollars in government money are flowing into the alarmists’ coffers, they endlessly try to make excuses for their theory’s failure, even as they cover up that failure by retroactively altering temperature records. This is the greatest scandal in the history of science, in my opinion.
At Watts Up With That?, Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon and David Legates pose some questions to the profiteers. But first, this introduction, which succinctly sums up the current state of the climate debate:
A century or so from now, based on current trends, today’s concentration of carbon dioxide in the air will have doubled. How much warming will that cause? The official prediction, 1.5-4.5 degrees Celsius (2.7-8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) per doubling of CO2, is proving a substantial exaggeration.
Professor William Happer of Princeton, one of the world’s foremost physicists, says computer models of climate rely on the assumption that CO2’s direct warming effect is about a factor of two higher than what is actually happening in the real world. This is due to incorrect representations of the microphysical interactions of CO2 molecules with other infrared photons.
As if that were not bad enough, the official story is that feedbacks triggered by direct warming roughly triple the warming, causing not 1 but 3 degrees of warming per CO2 doubling. Here, too, the official story is a significant exaggeration, as demonstrated by Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, perhaps the world’s most knowledgeable climatologist.
The wild exaggerations of both the direct CO2 warming and the supposedly more serious add-on warming are rooted in an untruth: the falsehood that scientists know enough about how clouds form, how thunderstorms work, how air and ocean currents flow, how ice sheets behave, how soot in the air behaves.
In truth, we do not understand climate enough to make even an uneducated guess about how much global warming our adding CO2 to the air will cause.
The questions are all worth considering; for example:
Why, just two years ago, did every surface temperature dataset agree with the satellites that there had been no global warming so far in this century? And why was every surface dataset altered in the two years preceding the Paris climate conference – in a manner calculated to show significant warming – even though the satellite records continue to show little or no warming?