• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

Climate Change Causation And The Scientific Method

by Francis Menton
January 04, 2021, 8:21 AM
in News and Opinion
A A
6
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

roman empireLet’s have yet another go at trying to apply the scientific method to the subject of causation of climate change. This is just basic logic, and not that complicated. We can do it.

As simple and basic as this is, you will shortly see that the agglomeration of all of the world’s leading “climate scientists” can’t figure it out. They are completely lost and befuddled. Check me and see if I’m wrong.

The proposition we are addressing is the one for which you see a constant drumbeat of advocacy. It runs something like, “the climate is changing, and we are the cause.” OK, nobody denies that the climate is changing; but how about the “we are the cause” part? What is the proof?

Let’s apply the scientific method. We start with the basic maxim that “correlation does not prove causation.” Instead, causation is established by disproof of all relevant alternative (“null”) hypotheses.

Everybody knows how this works from drug testing. We can’t prove that drug A cures disease X by administering drug A a thousand times and observing that disease X almost always goes away.

Disease X might have gone away for other reasons, or on its own. Even if we administer drug A a million times, and disease X almost always goes away, we have only proved correlation, not causation.

To prove causation, we must disprove the null hypothesis by testing drug A against a placebo. The placebo represents the null hypothesis that something else (call it “natural factors”) is curing disease X.

When drug A is significantly more effective at curing disease X than the placebo, then we have disproved the null hypothesis and established, at least provisionally, the effectiveness of drug A.

Back to climate change. The hypothesis is “humans are causing significant climate change.” An appropriate null hypothesis would be “observed climate change can be fully explained by some combination of natural factors.” How might you test this?

The most obvious test would be to ask, in Earth’s recent history, has it been warmer than the present — the present having been the subject of significant human greenhouse gas emissions?

If periods in the recent past prior to human emissions have been warmer than the present, then quite obviously some combination of “natural factors” is sufficient to bring about temperatures as warm or warmer than we are experiencing.

And it doesn’t matter whether or not we know what the alternative “natural factors” might be, any more than, in the failed drug trial, it matters whether or not we know why the placebo beat the experimental drug.

In the failed drug trial, it could have been the human immune system, or it could have been gut bacteria, or it could have been the weather, or anything else. The fact is that, whatever they might have been, the “natural factors” outperformed the experimental drug.

For the test of the climate hypothesis, consider a December 28 blog post from retired physicist Ralph Alexander titled: “New Evidence That Ancient Climate Was Warmer Than Today’s.”

Alexander summarizes the results of two recent studies:

  • A June 2020 piece from Nature titled “Persistent warm Mediterranean surface waters during the Roman period,” by a group of Italian and Spanish authors led by G. Margaritelli.

  • A November 2020 piece from New Scientist titled “Climate change has revealed a huge haul of ancient arrows in Norway,” by C. Baraniuk.

The Margaritelli et al piece analyzes proxy data from “fossilized amoeba skeletons found in seabed sediments” to reconstruct Mediterranean Sea temperatures over the past 2000 years.

“The ratio of magnesium to calcium in the skeletons is a measure of the seawater temperature at the time the sediment was deposited; a timeline can be established by radiocarbon dating.”

Conclusion:

With the exception of the Aegean data, the results all show distinct warming during the Roman period from 0 CE to 500 CE, when temperatures were about 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than the average for Sicily and western Mediterranean regions in later centuries, and much higher than present-day Sicilian temperatures.

The Baraniuk study, from Norway, analyzes large new finds of ancient artifacts, including arrows, arrowheads, and clothing, that have been revealed by recent retreats of glaciers in that country.

But of course, the existence of the artifacts in these areas implies that the areas were not covered in ice at the time the artifacts were deposited:

That the artifacts come from several different periods separated by hundreds or thousands of years implies that the ice and snow in the region must have expanded and receded several times over the past 6,000 years. During the Holocene Thermal Maximum, which occurred from approximately 10,000 to 6,000 years ago and preceded the period of the stunning Norwegian discoveries, global temperatures were higher yet. In upper latitudes, where the most reliable proxies are found, it was an estimated 2-3 degrees Celsius (3.6-5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than at present.

Whether 2,000 years ago (the Roman Warm Period) or 6,000 years ago (the Holocene Thermal Maximum), these periods clearly long preceded any significant human greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.

Obviously, then, some combination of “natural factors,” whatever they may be, is sufficient to cause terrestrial temperatures to increase to levels as high or higher than we are experiencing today, in the era of human use of fossil fuels.

I should mention that the two papers discussed by Alexander are just the latest of many dozens of studies giving evidence for the proposition that times in the recent geologic past — either the Medieval Warm period, or the Roman Warm Period, or the Holocene Thermal Maximum — were warmer than today.

One collection of many papers, mostly focusing on the Medieval Warm Period, can be found at Craig Idso’s CO2 Science website.

You would think that the mainstream climate “science” would be focused like a laser beam on trying to deal with these early periods that were warmer than today. But instead, these guys have almost entirely taken a different approach.

They call their approach “detection and attribution.” Of many examples of the art, here is a major paper from 2018, sponsored by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, with the title “Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes.”

The authors are a who’s who of the official climate establishment, including the likes of Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Gerald North, Gabriele Hegerl, and Ben Santer.

Instead of evaluating whether available data refute either their main hypothesis (human causes) or the null hypothesis (natural factors), these guys adopt a different approach which I would describe as “we can’t think of anything else other than human greenhouse gas emissions that could be causing this, so therefore human emissions it is.”

They create so-called models of what they think natural factors might cause in the way of warming and then test those against the data. Since when does that prove anything?

The article is very long and riddled with nearly impenetrable jargon that makes it nearly impossible to get a good quote, but here are a couple of the best:

Attribution studies have applied multi-signal techniques to address whether or not the magnitude of the observed response to a particular forcing agent is consistent with the modeled response and separable from the influence of other forcing agents. The inclusion of time-dependent signals has helped to distinguish between natural and anthropogenic forcing agents. As more response patterns are included, the problem of degeneracy (different combinations of patterns yielding near-identical fits to the observations) inevitably arises. Nevertheless, even with the responses to all the major forcing factors included in the analysis, a distinct greenhouse gas signal remains detectable. Overall, the magnitude of the model-simulated temperature response to greenhouse gases is found to be consistent with the observed greenhouse response on the scales considered.

And here’s another:

To detect the response to anthropogenic or natural climate forcing in observations, we require estimates of the expected space-time pattern of the response. The influences of natural and anthropogenic forcing on the observed climate can be separated only if the spatial and temporal variation of each component is known. These patterns cannot be determined from the observed instrumental record because variations due to different external forcings are superimposed on each other and on internal climate variations. Hence climate models are usually used to estimate the contribution from each factor.

Apparently, this kind of mumbo jumbo is good enough to fool pretty much all of academia, and almost all journalists, not to mention gaggles of billionaires. But how about the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period? Don’t those refute the whole thing?

Read more at Manhattan Contrarian

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…
Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Skype
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky

Join our list

Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.

We respect your privacy and take protecting it seriously

Related Posts

Energy

How Wind And Solar Sent Energy Prices Sky-High in ‘Green’ Countries

May 8, 2025
Money & Finance

Bernie Sanders Defends Private Jet Use, Says ‘He’s Too Important’ To Fly Coach

May 8, 2025
Energy

Green Energy Suicide: The West Pays The Price For Its Net-Zero Delusions

May 8, 2025

Comments 6

  1. Gumnut says:
    4 years ago

    So, actual data from weather station recordings are less useful than computer modelling…

  2. Graham McDonald says:
    4 years ago

    … (different combinations of patterns yielding near-identical fits to the observations)…

    So, what do they have – eight – ten or more variables? Jigger around with numerical values for the variables till they get a ‘near match’ with recent weather, — OK – climate if you will. Another group of researchers also come up with a ‘near match’ – using different numeric values. They can’t both be ‘right’. Then project into the future – different results from different models. There’s how many different computer models – ten? Then run each multiple times. Take an ‘average’ or a ‘mean’ and then say, this is what’s really going to happen?

    Different CPU’s ’round’ numeric calculations in different manners. So, even running the same code and the same inputs on a different computer will probably come up with a – here’s that word again – different result.

    Computer models, Bah-Humbug…..

  3. Geoff Lane says:
    4 years ago

    I suspect that we can directly disprove anthropogenic global warming from CO2. My attempt (calculations are available from my dropbox, link at end of comment) assumes that every bit of warming above the planet’s ‘blackbody’ temperature is caused by CO2 and that NOAA and IPCC are correct that CO2 forms 415 ppm of the atmosphere and 4.5% of that is anthropogenic and calculates the maximum warming from anthropogenic CO2 as 0.25°C. Since no factor can be responsible for more than ‘all the warming’, this establishes an absolute maximum and the actual value is likely to be at least one order of magnitude less.
    My calculations are available at: https://www.dropbox.com/s/m74v8tmkpndz8cv/Maximum%20Extent%20of%20ACO2%20Warming.pdf?dl=0

  4. julian says:
    4 years ago

    A similar null test exists in the legal system. The term “Proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt” is a confusing term but it means something like “Circumstances and evidence consistent with guilt and with no credible alternative explanation.” A credible alternative explanation is reasonable doubt.

  5. Steve Bunten says:
    4 years ago

    And that is why these so-called scientists refuse to look at the past, even as recently as the 1930’s and ’40’s or back to the end of the 19th century. And why Mann erased the Medieval Warming from his bogus “Hockey Stick” graph. Can’t let the cat out of the bag that it’s been warmer in the past. As Tony Heller has so aptly shown in his Newtube (previously Youtube but they are censoring his videos) videos NASA and NOAA and others cherry pick starting dates for temperature graphs or how many acres of forests burned to make it look like things are worse now than a century ago.

  6. Spurwing Plover says:
    4 years ago

    This is the truth we will never see on CNN or read in the NYT’s Time Magazine or any of the talking heads

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • german wind farmHow Wind And Solar Sent Energy Prices Sky-High in ‘Green’ Countries
    May 8, 2025
    Adding more green energy makes power more expensive, not cheaper—due to unreliable output, required fossil fuel backup, and taxpayer subsidies. […]
  • bernie sanders fox newsBernie Sanders Defends Private Jet Use, Says ‘He’s Too Important’ To Fly Coach
    May 8, 2025
    Bernie Sanders and AOC are facing criticism for using private jets while promoting their climate-focused “Fighting Oligarchy” tour. […]
  • blackout stationGreen Energy Suicide: The West Pays The Price For Its Net-Zero Delusions
    May 8, 2025
    Green energy policies clash with reality as Europe and the U.S. face blackouts, soaring costs, and a collapsing power grid. […]
  • wright trump exec orderDOE Scraps $4.5M Website And Logo Project Meant To Showcase Green Agenda
    May 8, 2025
    The DOE canceled a $4.5 million contract the Biden admin awarded for a new agency website and logo that highlighted the green energy transition. […]
  • desantis bill signing‘Dead On Arrival’: DeSantis Signs Law Banning Geoengineering And Weather Modification In Florida
    May 7, 2025
    DeSantis has signed legislation shutting down geoengineering and weather modification projects in Florida amid rising voter concerns. […]
  • columbia protestersNo Worthwhile Research Was Lost In The Columbia Funding Cuts
    May 7, 2025
    Columbia University laid off 180 people after Trump ended grants for leftist equity and global warming research. […]
  • tree ringsHow Activists And Flawed Data Created The Illusion Of A Climate Apocalypse
    May 7, 2025
    Activist-made climate graphic misuses smoothed proxy data to exaggerate modern warming, with IPCC silence fueling ongoing alarmism and misinformation. […]
  • polar bear clappingTwo New Studies Reveal Shocking Polar Ice Gains, Upend Climate Narrative
    May 7, 2025
    Two new studies reveal unexpected polar ice trends, challenging climate assumptions and highlighting the need for pragmatic energy policy. […]
  • offshore wind farmBlue States Sue After Trump Halts ‘Green’ Projects, Seek To Revive Biden’s Wind Subsidies
    May 7, 2025
    Trump halts offshore wind leases, triggering lawsuits from 17 blue states trying to rescue Biden-era green-energy graft from the chopping block. […]
  • chris wright‘Absolute Silliness’: DOE Delays Biden-Era Fossil Fuel Ban In Federal Buildings
    May 6, 2025
    The DOE is postponing a Biden-era rule that would limit fossil fuel use in federal buildings, aligning with Trump's energy priorities. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email either instantly or daily. Check your Junk folder for any verification emails upon subscribing.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books We Like

very convenient warming

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

Share via
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Climate Change Dispatch