[From article]
This article is based on a Heartland Panel talk [Dec7, 2015, at Hotel California, Paris].
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has to provide proof for significant human-caused climate change; yet their climate models have never been validated and are rapidly diverging from actual observations. The real threat to humanity comes not from any (trivial) greenhouse warming but from cooling periods creating food shortages and famines.
Burden of proof
Climate change has been going on for millions of years -- long before humans existed on this planet. Obviously, the causes were all of natural origin and not anthropogenic. There is no reason to think that these natural causes have suddenly stopped. For example, volcanic eruptions, various types of solar influences, and atmosphere-ocean oscillations all continue today. We cannot model these natural climate-forcings precisely and therefore cannot anticipate what they will be in the future.
But let’s call this the “Null hypothesis.” Logically therefore, the burden of proof falls upon alarmists to demonstrate that this null hypothesis is not adequate to account for empirical climate data. In other words, alarmists must provide convincing observational evidence for anthropogenic climate change (ACC). They must do this by detailed comparison of the data with climate models. This is of course extremely difficult and virtually impossible since one cannot specify these natural influences precisely.
[. . .]
Anyway, any warming observed during the past century appears to be trivially small and most likely economically beneficial overall.
I therefore regard the absence of any significant GH warming as settled; note my emphasis on the word “significant.” Policies to limit CO2 emissions are wasting resources that could better be used for genuine societal problems like public health. They are also counter-productive since CO2 promotes plant growth and crop yields, as shown by dozens of agricultural publications.
I am much more concerned by a cooling climate -- as predicted by many climate scientists -- with its adverse effects on ecology and severe consequences for humanity.
[. . .]
At the same time, assuming that our scheme does not work perfectly, we need to prepare for adaptation to a colder climate, with special attention to supply of food and sustainable water and energy.
The outlook for such adaptation appears promising – provided there is adequate preparation. However, the coming cold period will test the survivability of our technological civilization.
I dedicate this essay to the memory of Prof “Bob” Carter, my fellow-panelist, NIPCC co-author, and travel companion in Western and Eastern Europe, China, and all around the USA. "He died with his boots on."
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/climate_change_the_burden_of_proof.html
January 29, 2016
Climate Change: The Burden of Proof
By S. Fred Singer
Burden of proof
Climate change has been going on for millions of years -- long before humans existed on this planet. Obviously, the causes were all of natural origin and not anthropogenic. There is no reason to think that these natural causes have suddenly stopped. For example, volcanic eruptions, various types of solar influences, and atmosphere-ocean oscillations all continue today. We cannot model these natural climate-forcings precisely and therefore cannot anticipate what they will be in the future.
But let’s call this the “Null hypothesis.” Logically therefore, the burden of proof falls upon alarmists to demonstrate that this null hypothesis is not adequate to account for empirical climate data. In other words, alarmists must provide convincing observational evidence for anthropogenic climate change (ACC). They must do this by detailed comparison of the data with climate models. This is of course extremely difficult and virtually impossible since one cannot specify these natural influences precisely.
[. . .]
Anyway, any warming observed during the past century appears to be trivially small and most likely economically beneficial overall.
I therefore regard the absence of any significant GH warming as settled; note my emphasis on the word “significant.” Policies to limit CO2 emissions are wasting resources that could better be used for genuine societal problems like public health. They are also counter-productive since CO2 promotes plant growth and crop yields, as shown by dozens of agricultural publications.
I am much more concerned by a cooling climate -- as predicted by many climate scientists -- with its adverse effects on ecology and severe consequences for humanity.
[. . .]
At the same time, assuming that our scheme does not work perfectly, we need to prepare for adaptation to a colder climate, with special attention to supply of food and sustainable water and energy.
The outlook for such adaptation appears promising – provided there is adequate preparation. However, the coming cold period will test the survivability of our technological civilization.
I dedicate this essay to the memory of Prof “Bob” Carter, my fellow-panelist, NIPCC co-author, and travel companion in Western and Eastern Europe, China, and all around the USA. "He died with his boots on."
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/01/climate_change_the_burden_of_proof.html
January 29, 2016
Climate Change: The Burden of Proof
By S. Fred Singer
No comments:
Post a Comment