Some ten years ago I posted, in the Chronicle of Higher Education, a short note debunking the global warming theory. The points, as I remember them, were:
1. Nobody ever measured the average temperature of the Earth.
2. It surely would seem ridiculous to every scientist to talk about the increase of 0.6 degrees in 100 years, because fluctuations of temperature and the local differences make the 0.6 degrees indistinguishable from the noise.
3. The apocalyptic predictions of the effect of the increase in CO2 are ridiculous because in the Earth past there was time when life was thriving in giant forests and the concentration of CO2 was certainly much greater.
The finding of global warming is claimed to be a result of computer calculations. It certainly looks to me as feeding to the computer such data which had to result in the convenient, not too big, not too little, 0.6 degrees increase.
Global warming theory is using a wrong statistics for a proof. The increase in temperature within the last 100 years, whether it is true or false, is nothing but an anecdotal evidence. There is no comparison with other 100-year periods; of course, there are no such data, but without such data the 0.6 degrees is just a meaningless figure. Moreover, we know that in the Middle Ages there was what is called the Little Ice Age. Obviously, even much greater than 0.6 degrees changes in temperatures can occur without any human activity involved.
Apparently, understanding that the 0.6 degrees increase over the last 100 years tells us absolutely nothing about the future 100 years, the “warmists” went further. They found the mechanism of global warming in the man made increase of the CO2 concentration in the air. The 0.6 degrees increase in temperature now stays in the background, and the CO2 theory serves as a basis for apocalyptic predictions. Nice and very scientific, isn’t it? Except that apocalyptic predictions based on CO2 have nothing to do with science (see # 3 above). Yet, we should not simply ignore the possibility that the temperatures (and humidity) in the age of giant forests were very likely higher!!
Canada TV is showing scientist David Suzuki explaining global warming to little kids. He tells them how to understand the warming: “Climate change, says he, means: we are in trouble”. He is not using the words “global warming” but using a new modification of the formula – the “climate change”, which he wants to be understood as warming. The little kids are deceived, they are told: have a fear of the catastrophe in your guts, trust the government and pay enormous taxes. Suzuki is using fear mongering and the total inability of the public to understand science.