I’ve read the article but didn’t continue on to read the articles it references. For me, the article is unconvincing.
I could, however, be convinced fairly easily. All an author has to do is to show me that the scientific method has been employed in determining that AGW is unquestionably real. Someone ought to be able to do that, right? But they haven’t. Steps 3, 4 and 5 of the scientific method are:
3) Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what’s been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
4) Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
5) Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
Have predictions been made based upon AGW theory? Absolutely. They were widely publicized. The ones that have had enough time to conclude were all failures.
o In 2005, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) said that by 2010, 50 million refugees would have to flee low lying coastal regions. But by 2010, not only were there no climate refugees, the populations of the named areas were drastically increasing. The Bahamas, for instance, had a population increase from 300,000 to 350,000 in that five year period. China’s six fastest growing cities were ALL in Areas the U.N. had targeted. Epic failure for the theory.
o The U.N. predicted in 2007 that the world’s glaciers would be gone by 2035. Rather than wait to see that it obviously wouldn’t happen, the U.N. recanted the prediction. Epic failure for the theory.
o In 2003, the Pentagon issued a paper predicting that within ten years, calamitous changes would take place: California flooded with inland seas, parts of the Netherlands “unlivable,” polar ice all but gone in the summers, and surging temperatures. Mass increases in hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural disasters were supposed to be wreaking havoc across the globe, too. “Britain will be ‘Siberian’ in less than 20 years.” All of that would supposedly spark resource wars and all sorts of other horrors. But none of it actually happened. Epic failure for the theory.
o In 2007, 2008 and 2009, Al Gore stated that the Arctic would be “ice-free” in the summer by around 2013 because of alleged “man-made global warming.” In fact, in September 2013 when Arctic’s ice levels were at their lowest for the year, the coverage exceeded 2007 levels by an area the size of California. Epic failure for the theory.
o It’s been a worse story in the Antarctic – where sea ice grew dramatically instead of melting. Epic failure for the theory.
o Meteorologist Anthony Watts published an article in 2013 in which he stated ” “It seems like every major CAGW [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming] prediction has failed in 2013.” Epic failure for the theory.
I could go on and on. Polar bears aren’t extinct. Nor are they wandering around in New York. Wildfires and droughts aren’t dramatically more common. NYC is not underwater. Nor are any other coastal cities *except* for those that are actually sinking… and the New York Times keeps publishing nonsensical articles claiming that this is due to rising oceans. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. The scientific method does not support AGW theory.
Far from supporting it, predictions show that AGW theory is incorrect. That’s not to say that the climate isn’t getting warmer. Maybe it is. But if so, scientists need to go back to the drawing board to come up with a theory from which verifiable predictions can be made. If they don’t do that, what they’re touting isn’t science; it’s religion.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by
Decomposed.