Heat comes in from the sun and escapes out into cold space. If indeed the earth has warmed since whenever; then, ipso facto, we have had radiative forcing. That is, more heat coming in than escaping. An empty truism. The job of science is to fill the void and discover why. There are those on our side (namely, the rational side) who question the integrity of temperature data; often tellingly. Peter Ridd (cancelled by James Cook University for being a non-alarmist about the Great Barrier Reef) recently wrote:
Most long term measurements [by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology] have been modified (homogenised), almost always making past temperatures cooler.
But for all of the statistical jiggery-pokery, the NOAA satellite data shows recent warming. Sure, it is available only since 1979. Still, since then, the latest available data shows that the temperature in the sub-troposphere has trended up by about 0.65⁰C between December 1978 and December 2023. As this data has been compiled by Drs Roy Spencer and John Christie (real scientists) at the University of Alamba in Huntsville), we can safely assume it is trustworthy.
Finish your sentence.
So, of late, we’ve experienced radiative forcing; even if the longer-term picture has been muddied by creative data adjustments. Now should come the scientific fun. Competing theories jostling for acceptance. Data being extracted and shared to test alternative hypotheses against the null hypothesis. Falsification rife because there can be only one truth. Or, at least, only one complete truth, given that the cause of recent warming may be multi-faceted. Sadly, there has been little such scientific fun. Blaming exploitative Western man has proved to be an inviolable hypothesis. Yea, a sacrosanct hypothesis.
Professor Bob Carter (1942-2016) (Climate: The Counter Consensus) often made the point that the “scientists” behind the consensus had inverted the onus of proof. The alternative hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 emissions were the predominant cause of warming was effectively given the status of the null hypothesis, which had to be disproved beyond reasonable doubt. And gradually, as we know, beyond reasonable doubt became beyond any doubt. The science being settled, you understand.
Refreshingly, not all scientists think the science is settled. Those of philosophical disposition might find the very idea of “settled science” a contradiction in terms. As to that, even Greek mathematician Claudius Ptolemy was found wanting, although his geocentric theory of the solar system lasted over a millennium. Aristotle’s theory of gravity was undone, as was even Newton’s. There are too many examples to count of absolute giants of the past whose theories eventually failed the test. Yet, a tenuous theory of the weather designed by mediocrities, which hasn’t come close to accurately predicting global temperatures, is apparently holy writ. Risible, if not for the fact that celebrity and political buy-in is turning the world upside down.
Happily, despite powerful and well-funded forces out to cancel dissenters, maverick scientists keep on stirring the pot. They don’t offer one alternative. True to real science, they offer numbers of competing alternatives. Nobel Prize winner Dr John Clauser recently put forward the hypothesis that reflective cumulus clouds created by water vapour, engendered by modest warming, acted as a thermostat to keep global temperatures down. Clauser was extensively covered in The Pipeline. Examples: here, here, here and here. Not so much in the mainstream media. Good guy, wrong story.
The science is settled, Galileo!
Emeritus professors William Happer (Princeton) and Richard Lindzen (MIT) argue that the effect of CO2 on warming progressively declines.
All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data. The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather.
Emeritus professor Ivan Kennedy (Sydney), part of a Friday coffee group which I attend, has several complementary testable hypotheses on the go. I’ll mention just two in lay terms; in quotes because I have his say-so on the wording. (References here, here and here.)
Emissions of CO2, while warming the atmosphere, also have a thermostatic effect which counters the warming. This thermostatic effect is in two parts. First, absorption of infrared radiation by CO2 tends to heat the air and expand the extent of the atmosphere, thus dissipating warming. Second, an outer layer of the atmosphere containing relatively more CO2 tends to give off more radiant heat into space.
In the modern world, the waste of the products of cultivation are no longer put back into the soil. Thus soil becomes more acidic. This additional acidity in soil and land water increases emissions of CO2 into the air and also results in less absorption of CO2 from the air. This effect on CO2 is likely to be a more potent source of rising atmospheric CO2 than are industrial processes and power generation.
The point is clear. The science isn’t settled. The Western world’s reliable and affordable energy systems are being dismantled on the basis of a tenuous hypothesis devised by second-rate scientists; pushed by know-nothing celebrities and ignorant politicians. Global-warming humbuggery, “the biggest deception in history,” as Tim Ball (1938-2022) called it, is spawning the greatest act of civilizational vandalism in history. But that's just the point, isn't it?