Yesterday, the Electrical Appliances Concerned Consumer Council (CHECC) submitted a revised version of its opening summary to the EPA’s Hazard Detection of CO2 and Other Greenhouse Gases challenge. Summary can be found here. The odd reason for the “corrected” filing was that employees at DC Circuit rejected our initial application on the grounds that we had used too many acronyms. They have a rule that encourages you not to use too many acronyms, but this rule gives no clue as to how much is too much. When you use the term “greenhouse gas” thirty times, should you shorten it to “GHG” or write it down all the time? You only find out when they return the summary and ask you to correct it. Anyway, with any luck, the linked version is now the final version.
As you go through the summary, you will see that we are directly and openly challenging the pseudoscience of man-made global warming catastrophes from GHGs. (There are no rules about using too many acronyms here at MC.). In this we join our amicus CO2 Alliance, whose abstract was filed on October 21and discussed here in this post on October 22. Both the Coalition and CHECC follow the basic rule of the scientific method to consider whether any observational data is inconsistent and thus invalidates the hypothesis proposed by the proponents. Both the Coalition and CHECC found such data. Both abstracts then quote physicist Richard Feynman’s famous quote, “If it doesn’t agree with the experiment, it’s wrong.” There’s nothing very complicated about that.
But the data the two summaries focus on is different. I’ll get to that in a moment. But first, I’d like to mention how impressed I am by the striking similarity between this situation and Galileo’s situation in the early 1600s. When I was in high school (for me it was more than 50 years ago), they teach the story of Galileo as a lesson in how stupid and stupid people in the past were, unwilling to look at the obvious evidence to see the truth; while today we are much more enlightened, because we follow the scientific method. But I don’t think they really taught us the details of the Galileo case. Now I’ve been looking for them. Two places you can find versions of the story are history.com and Wikipedia.
The issue in the Galileo story is whether the solar system is geocentric or heliocentric. Galileo corresponded with Copernicus, and became aware of the new heliocentric hypothesis. Galileo also worked on step-by-step improvements to the newly invented telescope, allowing him to see aspects of the planets that were previously unobservable. There are two in particular that do not conform to (and are therefore invalidated) the geocentric version of the solar system: the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter, both of which can be seen with telescopes. new. Both can be explained by the heliocentric hypothesis.
But the heliocentric version contradicts the teachings of the Church, which adopted the heliocentric version of its creed. Scholars of the time refused to look into telescopes because they thought they must be tools of the devil. Here is a famous quote from Galileo in a letter to Kepler:
What do you have to say about the main philosophers of this academy, who are full of the stubbornness of a recalcitrant and do not want to look at the planets, moons or telescopes, though I have freely and intentionally give them a chance. a thousand times? Indeed, just as asp stops his ears, so do these philosophers close their eyes to the light of truth.
Galileo was tried before the Roman Inquisition, and was eventually found guilty and placed under house arrest from 1633 until the end of his life. It is clear that the Inquisition did not follow the scientific method.
As discussed previously in the October 22 post, the CO2 Coalition summary focuses on the IPCC CMIP models – which are relied upon by the EPA for Hazard Detection – as hypotheses supporting the prediction of current climate change. catastrophic warming. The Union then presented the famous 2017 John Christy chart showing 102 simulations from IPCC CMIP models from 32 different institutions and showing that observed temperatures since 1979 from ten data series Reliable temperatures have increased less than predicted by the models in all cases, and by significant and increasing amounts. The Alliance concludes that the IPCC . models “Fails to pass the basic test of the scientific method and should therefore not be used.”
The CHECC abstract takes a different approach to invalidating the hypothesis adopted by the EPA, but leads to the same result. CHECC looks at three areas where the EPA’s “science,” as described in the separate writing on the basis for Hazard Detection, is not supported or contradicted by real-world evidence. Those three areas are:
- EPA uses several official “surface temperature” records, comes from government agencies NOAA and NASA, like its temperature history. CHECC shows that EPA has no data for these sequences for most of the world prior to 2000, including data for the entire Southern Hemisphere oceans (about 40% of the earth’s surface right there) . To fill the gap, it simply generates the data using a computer algorithm to produce a record that matches its desired outcome.
- The EPA states that warming in its (faulty) temperature record can only be explained by human influence. But CHECC shows that a structural analysis of the reliable temperature series from satellites and balloons, after removing influences from only a few listed natural factors (ocean currents, volcanoes, and solar variation), leaving no statistically significant warming to account for due to anthropogenic effects.
- The EPA claims their hypothesis is supported by a particular warming pattern in the tropical troposphere, known as a “hot spot”. CHECC shows that tropical “hotspots” do not exist in real world data.
Here are some notable quotes from the CHECC summary:
For the period 1900-2000, essentially no reliable temperature data were collected monthly for the vast oceans of the Southern Hemisphere. Thus, for this time period, there are essentially no data for 40% of the Earth’s surface. . . . No valid global mean surface temperature record can be constructed with such large distances in temporal and spatial coverage. Thus, the lack of data for the Southern Hemisphere alone severely affected the validity of the surface temperature profile. From CHECC abbreviated p. 12-13.
The analysis clearly demonstrates that once solar, volcanic and oceanic activities, i.e. natural influences on temperature data, are taken into account, the data will not tend to heat up. any up. These findings invalidate both the Hotspot theory and the climate models on which the EPA relies for allocations, and thus invalidate the Entire Hazard Detection. Brief CHECC, p. 16.
The Technical Support Documentation clearly states “[t]he observed that warming could only be reproduced with models containing both natural and man-made fortresses. “ID. P. 49. (Emphasis added). In fact, the exact opposite is true –only anthropogenic zero-emissions models fit the observations. The models clearly fail to meet the clearly stated criteria for their use in attribution. Brief CHECC p. 27.
And finally, this concluding line on science from page 28:
In summary, no attribution claims can exist (1) proof that the global mean surface temperature record is entirely fabricated (2) the total invalidity of the Hotspot theory by means of observations (in this case, by appropriate mathematical analysis of the most reliable, relevant tropical temperature data), and (3) the failure of climate models to respond clearly stated criteria for their use in attribution.
Well, it’s just a bunch of unpaid amateurs against the entire scientific establishment, driven into dissent by several hundred billion dollars in annual federal spending. It is not surprising that they close their eyes and shout “LALALALALALA” when presented with clear evidence that invalidates official orthodoxy. They had all joined the strange pagan climate cult.
And how about DC circuits? Has anything changed since the Roman Inquisition? That remains to be seen.
To read the full article, go here.
Related
