In my book, I strongly advocate for the concept of adhering to the scientific method of inquiry and the first principles of science, ab initio, as a discipline in the conduct of scientific research.
The scientific method has been the foundation of legitimate scientific research for over 400 years and has served to advance man’s understanding of the natural world. [emphasis, links added]
To conduct scientific research in any other manner is at best erroneous and at worst duplicitous.
The goal of scientific research should be to pursue the truth, not confirm a personal or institutional bias, as much of climate science research does today.
The scientific method requires that its practitioners follow a discipline for conducting research:
- Careful observation of a scientific phenomenon, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation — i.e., the observer presupposes a desired outcome due to bias.
- Construction of a hypothesis or set of hypotheses that clearly and accurately state a supposition or proposed explanation made based on limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
- Develop a framework for an experiment or other investigation to verify or falsify the hypothesis.
- Measure the results of the experiment or investigation. Implicit in the validity of the scientific method to conduct research is the ability of the researcher (and others) to objectively confirm or refute (falsify) the hypothesis by replicating the results of the experiment.
- Refine or eliminate the hypothesis. The results of the experiment or investigation may cause one to refine the hypothesis to include (or eliminate) factors that do or do not appear to have a causative effect on the phenomena observed.
- The hypothesis should be eliminated (discarded) if the results of the experiment disprove (falsify) the hypothesis.
If the scientific method were to be rigorously employed in an unbiased manner in the conduct of climate research regarding the man-made global warming claim, it would be expected that a climate scientist who believed that man may have caused global warming that would adversely affect life on Earth in the future would construct the following hypothesis.
“Man has caused global warming, which will result in future climate conditions that will adversely affect life on Earth.”
However, the hypothesis above actually contains three conjectures that must be developed into a complex hypothesis:
- “Global warming has occurred — that is, the temperature of the world’s relevant atmosphere, oceans, and land mass has increased during the period under investigation by a statistically significant amount.”
- “Man’s activities are responsible for the global warming that has occurred.”
- “The extent to which global warming has occurred, or is reasonably projected to occur in the future, will adversely affect life on Earth.“
If any of the conjectures in the complex hypothesis above are found to be invalid, the complex hypothesis is rendered null. If so, the investigator must either modify the hypothesis or discard it.
If an unbiased climate scientist were to take the necessary steps to test the complex hypothesis above, it should be undertaken sequentially.
He would first begin an investigation to determine if the temperature of the world’s relevant atmosphere, oceans, and landmass has increased during the period under investigation by a statistically significant amount.
In 1979, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began to launch a series of satellites to circumnavigate the globe, using microwave-sounding units (MSU) to measure the temperature of various layers of the lower troposphere.
The MSU readings are analyzed using spectrographic analysis and mathematically converted to a temperature record. The temperature readings are then used to calculate what is known as a temperature anomaly.
The temperature anomaly for a period (day, month, or year) is calculated by averaging the high and low temperatures for the period and then comparing that average to the average of the same period in a prior time frame.
For example, if the average temperature for the troposphere in a given month is measured to be -50°C, and the average temperature for the same month the prior year was measured to be -50.5°C, the temperature anomaly would be +0.5 °C — it warmed by 0.5°C.
In the case of the UAH temperature record, the monthly averages are compared to a base period, which is the average of the prior thirty-year temperature anomalies.
The data are then analyzed by scientists at the University of Alabama-Huntsville to prepare a graph of the results.
It should be noted from the UAH graph that for the period 1979–1998, there was a constant cooling of the lower troposphere of around 0.3°C per year.
From 1999 to 2009, an overall cooling trend can be observed. Finally, from 2020 to the present, there has been an overall cooling trend of around 0.3°C.
All of these cooling periods occurred during a time in which the concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s lower troposphere increased from about 335 ppm to 420 ppm (25%).
This fact falsifies the man-made global warming hypothesis, rendering it null and void.
In the field of scientific investigation, if the data invalidate a hypothesis, the hypothesis is falsified. Here, the data prove the global warming hypothesis wrong.
These data have been in the public domain since the U.N. formed the IPCC in 1990. The question is, “Why do IPCC scientists continue to promote a failed hypothesis?” The legal definition of fraud is intent to deceive.
Guy K. Mitchell, Jr. is the author of a book titled Global Warming: The Great Deception — The Triumph of Dollars and Politics Over Science and Why You Should Care. It placed #3 on the Wall Street Journal’s Top Ten Best Selling Booklist in April 2023. www.globalwarmingdeception.com
Read more at American Thinker
Back in the 1970’s it was Global Cooling Time and Newsweek were giving it top coverage in their leftists rags back then
This was the worst climate article I read today, at American Thinker this morning. Also the worst climate article I read this week. — I read 15 climate and energy articles each day.
I give the author credit for making sense until the bizarre false conclusion
He looks at the UAH chart which shows an obvious uptrend since 1979, and then data mines a few sections that do not add to the uptrend. Then he jumps to A FALSE CONCLUSION about CO2. He acts as if CO2 is the ONLY climate change variable, so the global average temperature must ALWAYS be in an uptrend — he fails to realize a few years of a flat trend do NOT refute the IPCC, as the author falsely believes. There are many manmade and natural causes of climate change. While rising CO2 ALWAYS causes global warming, the actual change of the average temperature is the NET result of ALL local, regional and global causes of climate change. CO2 is not the climate change control k n o b — that was already known by 1975, when rising CO2 from 1940 to 1975 did NOT cause global warming. The author does not appear to know that.
Two observations:
You show a chart that doesn’t include 2023. Why?
You pick out two cooling trends, from 1999-2009 and 2020-2022. But the hypothesis is about warming over a long period of time. The only relevant range of dates to test the hypothesis is 1979-2022. The scientific method demands using all available data, does it not?
Whether it be climate trends, crime, or some other parameter it is standard practice to leave the current year out because it isn’t over yet.
The earth has been naturally warming since the end of the mini ice age. The author’s graph shows an over all warming trend. For shorter periods of time due to natural fluctuations there will be what appears to warming and cooling trends. I agree that the author’s mentioning the trends of 1999-2009 and 2020-2022 has no value.
The IPCC started out looking for proof that man-made warming exists. Somehow, the United Nations concludes that the Earth is now boiling. They cannot be taken seriously.
I first became aware of the global warming hypothesis when evil socialist genius Maurice Strong took control of Ontario Hydro. Since that time I have not sensed “catastrophic” warming. If I had not heard of global warming, I wouldn’t suspect it exists, and I spend as much of my time outdoors as possible. Boiling? What’s boiling and where?