How weak is the "science" behind the theory that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases are warming the planet?
Res ipsa loquitur.For non-lawyers, that's Latin for "the thing speaks for itself." And here's why.
The latest study "confirming" the global warming theory involves a study of environmental change in the Arctic over the last four centuries. Paleoclimate records from lake sediments, trees, glaciers and marine sediments were studied.
The researchers concluded that "[their] reconstruction of past environmental change in the Arctic suggests that natural variability is large in this region and is working together with human forcing (through increased concentrations of atmospheric trace gases) to drive unprecedented changes in the Arctic environment."
But the linchpin of this conclusion turns out to be the following assumption made in a footnote:
Extrapolation of the 1610 to 1800 relations to the present suggests that increasing atmospheric trace-gas concentrations have been the dominant influence on Arctic temperatures after 1920, but that solar and volcanic forcing also play a role. [Emphasis added]
The "1610 to 1800 relations" includes an attempted correlation between Arctic temperature and solar irradiance. And keep in mind they're talking about a change in Arctic temperature of roughly 1 degree Celcius.
Since it can be assumed no climatologists existed between 1610 to 1800 to record precisely Arctic environmental conditions (i.e., temperature and solar irradiance), their conclusion about a 1 degree Celcius change is based on an extrapolation from a guess of what happened more than 300 years ago.
Res ipsa loquitur!
Material presented on this home page constitutes opinion of the author.
Copyright © 1997 Steven J. Milloy. All rights reserved. Site developed and hosted by WestLake Solutions, Inc.