You may propose an idea, like our CO2 causes dangerous climate change. You may show evidence to support your idea. But the defense only needs to show your idea has one mistake or one incorrect prediction to prove your idea is wrong.<\/p>\n
Some climate\u00a0alarmists\u2019 claim their idea is true because of a \u201cpreponderance of evidence.\u201d This is not the scientific method and it leads to the wrong conclusion.<\/p>\n
The scientific method says we can never prove an\u00a0idea is\u00a0true. We only can prove an idea is\u00a0false. To approach truth, we discard fiction. Since we can never discard all fiction, science is never settled.<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s drop in on another fictitious trial.<\/strong><\/p>\n The prosecution claims human CO2 emissions cause climate change. The prosecution introduces the following evidence:<\/p>\n Looks bad for CO2 but let\u2019s hear from the defense.<\/p>\n The defense requests dismissal of consequential evidence, like sea levels, because consequences do not prove causation. The judge agrees. Consequential evidence dismissed.<\/p>\n The defense calls its witnesses.<\/p>\n Dr. Richard Feynman<\/a>, Nobel Laureate in Physics, explains the scientific method. You get an idea or hypothesis. You use your idea to make a prediction. If your prediction is wrong, your idea is wrong.<\/p>\n Dr. Albert Einstein<\/a> testifies we must compare predictions of climate models to new data. Einstein\u2019s relativity idea predicted our sun\u2019s gravity would bend light from a star by a precise amount. Einstein said of the scientific method, \u201cMany experiments may prove me right but it takes only one to prove me wrong.\u201d<\/p>\n Dr. John Christy<\/a> compares climate model predictions since 1979 with real data. Climate models do not agree among themselves, and the model average predicts global temperature will increase 3 times faster than recorded climate data. This inaccuracy is like missing your deer shot by 3 deer lengths. Both points prove the models are wrong.<\/p>\n So, like Smith, human CO2 is innocent. Climate changes but CO2 does\u00a0not cause the\u00a0climate change. Case closed.<\/p>\n In only 603 words, we proved the alarmists\u2019 climate hypothesis is wrong.<\/strong><\/p>\n Therefore, it is a cult religion. The US\u00a0government and its agencies like the EPA have\u00a0forced the alarmists\u2019 climate cult\u00a0religion on the American public in opposition to the First Amendment to our Constitution.<\/p>\n However, for your entertainment, the defense continues with some atmospheric \u201crocket science.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n The defense calls Dr. Judith Curry<\/a>. She says the real issue<\/a> is \u201cWhat causes climate change? Humans or nature?\u201d<\/p>\n Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi<\/a> explains his peer-reviewed papers that show water vapor and clouds adjust to changes in CO2 to keep Earth\u2019s greenhouse effect constant. His predictions match observations. Therefore, CO2 can\u2019t change the greenhouse effect and can\u2019t cause global warming.<\/p>\n Question: Would Earth be an ice-covered planet if it had no CO2?<\/p>\n Miskolczi: The water phase diagram shows ice sublimation would add enough water vapor to produce today\u2019s greenhouse effect, with or without CO2.<\/p>\n Dr. Murry Salby<\/a> is the author of the 666-page, 2012 textbook \u201cPhysics of the Atmosphere and Climate.\u201d He uses advanced physics and math to analyze CO2 data. Salby proves temperature, not human CO2, causes the change in atmospheric CO2. Salby\u2019s conclusion does not depend on theory. It results from proper data analysis.<\/p>\n Dr. Willie Soon<\/a> is lead author of a 2015 peer-reviewed paper that shows our sun, not CO2, drives climate. He shows plots of temperature, total solar irradiance, and CO2 from 1880 to present. The plots show Earth\u2019s global temperature correlates with total solar irradiance but not with CO2. The lack of correlation of Earth temperature with CO2 proves CO2 does not drive temperature.<\/p>\n Dr. David Evans<\/a>, an expert mathematician, found climate models contain a serious error. Climate models use the old Arrhenius assumption that Earth responds to CO2 change like it responds to change in solar radiation. The Arrhenius assumption is incorrect. Climate responds much differently to changes in CO2 than it does to changes in solar radiation. When Evans corrects for this model error alone, climate model temperature predictions decrease by 80 to 90 percent.<\/p>\n\n