Wednesday, October 5, 2016

The CO2 God Controls Environmental Disasters, Not

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.

1 comment:

Tony Kondaks said...

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 least not in a form consistent with the parameters of the 5 step scientific method he linked to at:

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:

Thanks for your attention to these queries!