by John O'Sullivan
September 27, 2013
As the UN's Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) flops with the release of its
Fifth Report global policymakers
are being left in no doubt why.
about man-made global warming and
doubts about the validity of the 'science' of the greenhouse gas
'theory' are at all time highs.
Despite carbon dioxide (CO2)
levels rising by 40 percent, global temperatures have flatlined
since 1998. None of the IPCC's climate models foresaw this.
fact, the greenhouse gas 'theory,' the scientific cornerstone of 30
years of climate alarm, unequivocally states that increased carbon
dioxide in our atmosphere must cause more warming.
But reality is disproving the theory...
latest IPCC report
is now reduced to conceding "natural variability" does play a part. This admission contradicts
another cornerstone of their main thesis, that natural causes are of
little or no consequence.
But as the 'Slayers'
of the theory have long shown, it was always flawed because it made
many dubious assumptions including the following:
The earth is flat.
The earth does not rotate.
The sun shines all day and all
night with equal intensity.
Energy interchange in the
climate is entirely by radiation.
Conduction, convection and
latent heat transfer do not happen.
Energy flow parameters are
constants with no variability.
Energy flow is "balanced" with
input equal to output.
Air movements, wind, rain,
hurricanes are ignored.
Chaos has been abolished.
Change in this system is
entirely caused by increasing human-induced trace gases in
The earth is dead: there are no
living organisms, no trees, animals, birds or people.
At this point honest scientists would
admit the 'theory' seems discredited.
Rational minds would admit that a fresh
look is needed at the counterclaims of dissenting scientists. Such
scientists have found a rallying point at Principia Scientific
For those willing to cast a fresh eye
over the science PSI recommends readers start by taking a look at a
groundbreaking paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner first published in
2008. The full paper (Falsification of The Atmospheric CO2
Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame of Physics - revised 2009) may be
But as a primer we recommend the
approved version by Hans Schreuder.
To whet your intellectually curious
appetite here are the final paragraphs of G&T's summary:
"Already the natural greenhouse
effect is a myth albeit any physical reality.
The CO2-greenhouse effect, however is a "mirage". The horror visions of
a risen sea level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in
North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences of
fictitious physical mechanisms as they cannot be seen even in
the climate model computations.
The emergence of hurricanes and
tornados cannot be predicted by climate models, because all of
these deviations are ruled out.
"The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse
gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more
pseudo-explanations, which are not part of the academic
education or even of the physics training.
A good example are the radiation
transport calculations, which are probably not known by many.
Another example are the so-called feedback mechanisms, which are
introduced to amplify an effect which is not marginal but does
not exist at all.
Evidently, the defenders of the CO2-greenhouse
thesis refuse to accept any reproducible calculation as an
explanation and have resorted to irreproducible ones.
"A theoretical physicist must
complain about a lack of transparency here, and he also has to
complain about the style of the scientific discussion, where
advocators of the greenhouse thesis claim that the discussion is
closed, and others are discrediting justified arguments as a
discussion of 'questions of yesterday and the day before
In exact sciences, in particular in
theoretical physics, the discussion is never closed and is to be
continued ad infinitum, even if there are proofs of theorems
"Regardless of the specific field of
studies a minimal basic rule should be fulfilled in natural
science, though, even if the scientific fields are methodically
as far apart as physics and meteorology: At least among experts,
the results and conclusions should be understandable or
And it should be strictly
distinguished between a theory and a model on the one hand, and
between a model and a scenario on the other hand, as clarified
in the philosophy of science.
"That means that if conclusions out
of computer simulations are to be more than simple speculations,
then in addition to the examination of the numerical stability
and the estimation of the effects of the many vague input
parameters, at least the simplifications of the physical
original equations should be critically exposed.
"The point discussed here was to
answer the question, whether the supposed atmospheric effect has
a physical basis. This is not the case. In summary, there is
no atmospheric greenhouse effect, in particular CO2-greenhouse
effect, in theoretical physics and engineering thermodynamics.
Thus it is illegitimate to deduce
predictions which provide a consulting solution for economics
and intergovernmental policy."
As PSI's former Chairman and co-founder,
Tim Ball summed up this week:
"IPCC science assumes the
temperature must increase if CO2 increases."
"The IPCC process, methods and
science are complete failures."