In an americanthinker.com article, S Fred Singer, an Atmospheric and Space Physicist, and a very reputed climate scientist, challenges the Global Warming/Climate Change fraudsters to prove their hypothesis, instead of asking others to disprove it:
“The burden of proof for Anthropogenic Climate Change falls on alarmists. Climate Change (CC) has been ongoing for millions of years – long before humans existed on this planet.
Obviously, the causes were all of natural origin, and not anthropogenic.
There is no reason to believe that these natural causes have suddenly stopped; for example, volcanic eruptions, various types of solar influences, and (internal) atmosphere-ocean oscillations all continue today. (Note that these natural factors cannot be modeled precisely.)
Let’s call this the “Null Hypothesis.” Logically therefore, the burden of proof is on alarmists to demonstrate that the Null Hypothesis is not adequate to account for empirical climate data; alarmists must provide convincing observational evidence for Anthropogenic CC (ACC)
– by detailed comparison of empirical data with GH models.
I am not aware of such proofs, only of anecdotal info – although I admit that ACC is plausible; after all, CO2 is a GH gas, and its level has been rising, mainly because of burning of fossil fuels.
However, ACC appears to be much smaller than predicted by GH models; there is even believed to be a period of no warming [“hiatus”] during the past 19 years – in spite of rapidly rising atmospheric CO2 levels .
There seems to be no generally accepted explanation for this discrepancy. Yet as the gap grows, the five IPCC reports insist there is no gap – with ever greater claimed certainty; rising from 50% to 99%.
Even necessary conditions for empirical data (like temperature rise vs altitude and latitude; cloud cover; precipitation) are difficult to establish; any major disagreement with models disproves ACC.
IPCC’s GH models are not validated – and not policy-relevant
In other words, GH models have not been, and may never be validated; hence are not policy-relevant. They are scenario-generation machines that rest on assumptions and incomplete science — not on actual observations .
Anyway, warming appears to be trivially small, and most likely economically beneficial overall — as established through careful studies by leading economists.
I therefore regard the absence of any significant GH warming as settled, and policies to limit CO2 emissions as wasting resources needed for genuine societal problems — and even as counter-productive, since CO2 promotes plant growth and raises crop yields ”(from the article)
To read the full article, click here.