This is the sixth in our continuing series of articles demonstrating the fallacy of man-made, or “anthropogenic,” global warming (“AGW” for short). The previous article in this series exposed the raison d’être for the Paris Climate Accord: the lucrative business of trading carbon credits. In this article, we examine how the radical departure of the AGW hypothesis from established scientific principles makes it no more than unproven conjecture.
From at least the 17th century, scientific research has advanced through adherence to the scientific method of inquiry. This involves unbiased systematic observation of phenomena, inductive and deductive reasoning to develop a hypothesis, and the testing of the hypotheses and theories by experimentation and measurement. Through this rational process, hypotheses and theories can be confirmed, refined or discarded.
In the context of global warming, the scientific method requires that an investigation of the hypothesis of man-made global warming begin from a position of skepticism — that is, skepticism that meaningful global warming has occurred; skepticism that any observed global warming has actually been caused by man; and if global warming has occurred, skepticism that it is threatening to life on earth.
To investigate the premise of AGW, a climate scientist would set about testing a complex hypothesis containing three conjectures, each of which must be proven to be true:
- global warming has occurred by a statistically significant amount
- global warming has been caused by man’s activities
- to the extent which global warming has occurred, or is reasonably projected to occur in the future, it will adversely affect life on earth
If any one of these three conjectures cannot be proven to be true, then the complex hypothesis must be declared false and discarded.
The concept of an average temperature of the earth’s landmass, atmosphere, or oceans is a figment of the climate scientist’s imagination.
The AGW hypothesis has never been tested using the scientific method; it is fatally flawed in that it treats these three conjectures as established fact even though they have never been proven.
The temperature data cited as evidence that global warming has occurred is scientifically invalid. There have been no scientific investigations to differentiate natural causes of global warming from purported man-made causes. There have been no scientific investigations to determine the extent to which global warming will adversely affect life on earth and whether some amount of global warming might actually be beneficial. It is understandable why the proponents of man-made global warming theory treat these three conjectures as established fact: the AGW hypothesis cannot be tested using generally accepted scientific principles.
The concept of an average temperature of the earth’s landmass, atmosphere, or oceans is a figment of the climate scientist’s imagination. It has no meaning in science and the calculation is as useful as calculating the average zip code in the US to locate the average American city.
I worked in a steel mill in East Chicago, Indiana, in the mid-1970s. The low temperature in East Chicago reached -19 F (without a wind-chill factor) one day in January 1977. I worked in the deserts of Saudi Arabia in the early 1980s. The low temperature in Dhahran is 50 F in January. Based upon these two measurements, the average low temperature of the two locales is 15.5 F! Does that value have any meaning to residents in either place in January? The temperature of the earth’s landmass, oceans and atmosphere is different at every point in time and space.
The method that climate scientists use in an attempt to calculate the average temperature of the earth is illogical, illegitimate and inconsistent with even the most basic mathematical concepts.
Even though analyses using average temperature calculations have no validity in scientific investigations of the earth’s climate, climate scientists who promote the AGW hypothesis continue to use them.
In the next article in our AGW series, we will review the analyses and databases that some climate scientists use to promote the concept of man-made global warming. Rather than taking these scientists’ statements at face value, we will examine the data and form our own conclusions based on the facts. The results may surprise you.
This article is the sixth in a continuing series by Guy K. Mitchell, Jr. Mr. Mitchell is the founder and chairman of Mitchell Industries, a diversified manufacturing company based in Birmingham, Alabama. Mr. Mitchell is writing a book on man-made global warming.
