By Denis G. Rancourt, PhD
In my recent article “The Climate Religion”,
I argued that “climate change”, the widespread belief that atmospheric
CO2 controls climate and climate events, satisfies the defining criteria
of a state religion. Professor Paul Brown responded to my article in
his article entitled “The Religion of Climate Change Denial”. This is my reply to Professor Brown.
CONTINUE READING HERE.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I note in Paul Brown's article that he makes reference to:
1) the scientific method (linked to an explanation of its 5 steps); and
2) a hypothesis. Supposedly, he is referring to a catastrophic man-made climate change hypothesis when he writes:
"CO2 has increased by nearly 43% in the last 150 years, in parallel with temperature increase – consistent with the hypothesis."
But unless I missed it, the hypothesis is not stated in his article...at least not in a form consistent with the parameters of the 5 step scientific method he linked to at:
http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html
My understanding, Professor Rancourt, is that a hypothesis must be stated in terms that can be specifically measured against real world observations. Is that correct?
In other words, we can't just say something like 'emissions of man-made greenhouse gases into the atmosphere will lead to catastrophic climate change; and claim it to be a hypothesis according to the scientific method because such a statement does not contain elements and/or figures that can be compared to real world measurements.
For it to be a valid hypothesis it would have to include figures and a time span; something like the following: 'At an increase of two parts per million per year of man-made CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, starting at 350 parts per million, the average mean annual temperature will increase at a rate of .3-.4 degrees Celsius per decade.'
Is this a correct understanding, Professor Rancourt?
In your rebuttal article you write:
"Not only are the mean-global-surface-temperature predictions of more than one hundred state-of-the-art general circulation models (GCMs) contradicted by the accepted data..."
I remember seeing a video of Richard Lindzen speaking before a British parliamentary committee and, if I remember correctly, he said that the vast majority of models' temperature predictions clustered around a .3-.4 degrees Celsius decadal increase.
Would Lindzen's reference to models be the same as the "more than one hundred state-of-the-art general circulation models" you refer to? I would think so.
Also: would these models be the same as the ones depicted on the graph at the following link:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-zLZvFvWqy8Y/U8REucSDlfI/AAAAAAAAASg/-f_VHXdfaQY/s1600/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20N-20S-MT-5-yr-means1.png
Thanks for your attention to these queries!
Post a Comment