Why there is no empirical evidence of man-made global warming

earth_spaceThere is no empirical evidence of man-made global warming whatsoever. There has never been and there never will be. Yes, there is a theory and plenty of scientists have an ‘opinion’ on the matter. But opinion is not science. A great number of apparatchiks also ‘believe’ that that the globe is getting hotter and hotter and indeed only today I read in the BBC Science section that we are near to reaching that famous tipping point. But belief is not science either.

Of course, the globe warms every day and cools every night. The weather likewise changes every day and the seasons are rotating all the time. The temperature is different in different places all over the globe – watch the Meteo on EuroNews or watch CNN or the BBC. They all show magnificently the different and ever-changing temperatures throughout the world. That is empirical. Those temperatures are taken by thermometers at some five feet above the ground.

So when I say there is no such entity as a world temperature I am taken to task and shown magnificent graphs. But the world does not have one temperature, but an ever-changing flux of different temperatures at different levels. These graphs are based on an ‘average’ of temperatures taken at five feet above the ground based on ‘anomalies’. Do you want to know what an anomaly is? It is what it says ‚Äì it is an anomaly. It is skullduggery. It is a means massaging world temperatures so that the common man is scared rigid into believing the end of the world is nigh and the ice caps will disappear forever.

So there is a cobbled sort of average, but there is no one global temperature since as CNN and all the other channels tell us there are numerous and ever-changing temperatures at surface levels. And this does not take into account the warm air rising up and cooling as it rises through the Troposphere, the Stratosphere, the Mesosphere and finally the Thermosphere. There is flux and if there is flux, there is not and cannot be a global temperature – that would be a contradiction in terms. It is all phony – not science at all. Just jiggery-pokery.

It is not impossible that sea ice will melt and ocean levels may rise – that would be a matter of great Nature. But the fact is that it has not happened. Yes, I understand there has been a sea level rise – about the thickness of a sheet of a quarto paper. But if it did rise up it would not be because of man and least of all because of Carbon Dioxide. The warmists have it as an article of faith that the Sun is constant. How can they say such a thing and call themselves scientists? Even a simpleton knows that there are solar flares and solar storms and sunspots as big as planet Earth. How long are these scientists going to get away with it? I will tell you – as long as they are funded.

There are gigantic forces at work and they are Cosmic. Yes, there are cosmic forces, of which the two nearest to us are the Moon and the Sun. Actually, we already know a fair bit about these forces, about the effect of the Moon on the tides and how the surface of the Earth is actually lifted. When you realize also that the Sun is some 3,600 times larger than the Earth, radiating away with a temperature estimated at 6,500ºC at its corona and then you compare that with the propaganda of the warmists about a trace gas then you realize there is one great con Рthe biggest hoax that has ever been committed against all of mankind.

What really warms the air? Рfor surely, the air does get warm. That is experiential. As David Attenborough stood in the middle of the Sahara he commented that the temperature of the sand was some 70ºC and the air immediately above was 40ºC. Hello! Is there some connection? Yes, there is indeed. There are just three means of transferring heat – conduction, convection, and radiation. One does not have to be a famous physicist to know and to observe these laws of physics. So the hot sands of the Sahara heated the air above by conduction. Could it have been by radiation? Answer No. Since oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to radiation, we know that the answer must be conduction.

Nor does one need to be a professor to know that it is impossible to trap heat, which is what the warmists base much of their theory upon ‚Äì the greenhouses effect. Of course, once cannot trap heat since heat is defined as the transfer of kinetic energy between one system and another. You cannot trap a ‘transfer’ ‚Äì just try it.

The whole warmist theory is based on infrared radiation. According to this theory the radiation from the Sun passes through the 99 percent of the atmosphere composed of Nitrogen and Oxygen, as they are transparent to radiation. As radiation encounters mass, heat is produced. The sands got hot. But how did the air get hot, as Attenborough remarked? The only feasible answer is conduction, touching. The idea that radiation from the Earth warms the atmosphere is not feasible, since we know that it could only warm at most 1 percent or 0.04 percent in the case of carbon dioxide. The idea that these molecules then warm the rest of the atmosphere is risible.

Can we check this for ourselves? Easily. I have a grandson of three years old. In his cottage is a black wood-burning stove. When it is not burning a child can touch that stove. When it is burning it will radiate into the room. However, should one touch that stove there will be an immediate and indeed painful transfer. That is conduction.

The air is heated by conduction. As Hans Schreuder writes in one essay in my book, Sun heats Earth and Earth heats Atmosphere – in that order. The warmists maintain that a low-grade infrared from the Earth warms the carbon dioxide in the air. They base this on experiments that show that greenhouse gases absorb infrared and emit every which way. They are correct. But the totality of all greenhouse gases is but 1 percent of the atmosphere and as for carbon dioxide, it is but 0.04 percent. So these gases may indeed get warmed and may indeed emit their warmth, but they are so puny that their net effect is negligible. Besides which they do not add that all molecules without exception absorb infrared!

It is very easy to observe that a black cloud of frozen water vapor passing between the Sun and us on a hot day immediately produces cooling. Furthermore, as heat is carried away upwards toward outer space by convection, carbon dioxide has a special role in radiating away what is still left, above absolute zero. So we can see that the contention of Hans Schreuder in his essay in my book ‘Climate for the Layman’ that greenhouse gases cool the Earth is correct. This is precisely contrary to the supposed greenhouse effect.

So I repeat there is no such entity as man-made global warming, or anthropogenic global warming or AGW for short. It is a scam – a money making scam. It is a complete hoax. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant but is essential as a food for green plants. The real pollutants contained in smoke and exhausts are the particulate matters. That is what science has needed to concentrate on.

So we can see that the warming of the atmosphere is caused primarily by conduction, not by radiation, which is a small bit part player. Hot air rises and as it rises it cools, by convection. And as it goes on rising until it attempts to reach absolute zero, we can conclude likewise that the atmosphere does not and cannot heat the Earth, but the surfaces of the Earth heat the atmosphere.

There is an illusion that the atmosphere keeps us humans warm since on a hot day the warm air inhibits heat loss and on a cold day accelerates heat loss. In the UK we are much subject to winds. If the winds blow from the North the temperature falls, while if huge columns of air are blown our way from the Sahara we will get mild warm air even in winter.

The winds also affect the ocean currents, which push south and north from the equator. So the Arctic, which is water based, periodically melts and freezes – that is nothing new. The warmists make much of the melt but barely mention the freeze. Why should they? It is the warming that makes their bread and butter.

The climate is always changing. Granted, the warmists say, but it has never changed so fast. When I hear this I am tempted to say something blasphemous. When the Mediterranean rushed through the Bosphorus and tumbled into the lake formed by the Danube and submerged all those towns and settlements, was that not fast? In fact, those warmists show an ignorance of ancient history – they forget the earth-shaking events that caused the death of the dinosaurs and the mammoths. The idea that change is taking place faster today is both fanciful and unsubstantiated.

Finally, I see that one of my critics states bluntly that the greenhouse effect is real. That is simply an opinion. Don’t tell me that it is the hottest year ever, since that proposition is more than suspect. Where is the evidence? To state that the greenhouse effect is real is simply unscientific. More than that it is utterly absurd. It presupposes that there is a rigid structure in the sky, which prevents the escape of warm gases. Only charlatans and fools could believe such a thing.

Comments (4)

  • Avatar



    It gets even more dodgy. The ‘anomalies’ are differences from a 30-year average, referred to as the ‘norm’.. 1930-1960, then 1960-1990, which is the current ‘norm’. If you took 1940-1970, or 1950-1980 as the ‘norm’, you’d get different figures. How anyone falls for this beats me.

  • Avatar

    John West


    A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

    A lot of what Mr. Bright-Paul is saying is true but often not in the way he thinks. The GHE for example does indeed not heat the Earth, technically it slows the cooling. It is hardly absurd and predisposes no such thing as a rigid structure in the sky.

    Energy from the Sun warms the surface which in turn warms the atmosphere primarily through convection as is said, however, the surface also loses energy (cools) via radiant heat loss in the form of IR. Some of this IR is absorbed by GHG’s that excites various vibration nodes of GHG molecules which does not directly increase the temperature of the gas because the temperature of a gas is a measure of kinetic energy only, not vibrational energy. This vibrational energy may be emitted as IR or it may be transmitted through collisions to other molecules in the air possibly increasing temperature. The direction of IR emitted from such a molecule is essential random, therefore, some of that IR will invariably be directed toward the Earth. That “downwelling” IR reduces the net radiant transfer of energy from the Earth. For illustration purposes, let’ say the ground is at a temperature that radiates at 600 W/m^2 but the downwelling radiation is 300 W/m^2, therefore the net radiant energy loss of the ground would be 300 W/m^2 instead of 600 W/m^2 therefore slowing the cooling of the ground even though the ground still transfers more heat to the atmosphere through conduction the radiant heat loss is not insignificant.


    Also, it is correct that one cannot technically trap heat being heat is a transfer of energy, but one can indeed trap energy. Plants convert sunlight into sugar thereby “trapping” it; storing sunlight as chemical energy. GHG’s absorb IR (light) into vibrational energy thereby “trapping” the energy; storing IR in vibrational energy. So, even though Mr. Bright-Paul is technically correct it hardly undermines the GHE phenomena being real, substantially evidenced, measurable, and much more than just opinion.

    An evidenced based and scientifically sound “skeptical” position:
    1) That global warming caused by increased atmospheric CO2 is a relatively small effect that represents little if any real threat to civilization, global ecology, or me personally.

    2) That mitigation of global warming through mandated global emission limitations is untenable.

    3) That the “issue” is being presented and examined from the wrong perspective; the problem is world hunger, the solution is increasing atmospheric CO2, the side effect is global warming, deal with the side effects at the local and regional level not by taking away the “cure” for world hunger.

    4) I support “no regrets” efforts to mitigate effects of and adapt to climate change at the local and regional level as well as funding research efforts focused on realistic next generation power generation.

    1.1) Doubling atmospheric CO2 increases the average GHE (greenhouse effect) by approximately 3.7 W/m^2. The average GHE is about 333 W/m^2 and varies from less than 100 to over 400 W/m^2. This small increase (~1%) is only capable of producing a very small warming effect (~1°C @ a stretch).
    1.2) There’s no credible evidence that feedbacks will amplify CO2 induced warming, in fact real evidence (such as the climate’s reaction to Mt. Pinatubo eruption, daily, seasonal, NH vs. SH temperature response to changes in heat input, paleoclimate sensitivity, etc.) suggests the opposite, a dampening effect.
    1.3) The ocean is a massive dynamic heat sink capable of absorbing huge quantities of energy with little (as in barely measurable) change to its characteristics.
    1.4) There are various negative feedbacks limiting warming such as cloud formation that tends to cool the surface when temperature thresholds are reached under particular conditions. The temperature record compared to the climate model projections indicate these negative feedbacks amply negate the effect of EGHE.

    2.1) Considering the nature of the effects of GW are not globally homogenous due to polar amplification, geological differences, whether patterns, climate, etc.; even if all the worst case scenario’s in the scientific alarm-o-sphere were absolutely true there would still be (as with any change) winners and losers. Siberia and Canada, for example, with their cold climates and steep coasts may be better off in a warmer world. How are the losers going to convince the winners to not emit CO2 into the atmosphere when it benefits them to do so?
    2.2) From an ecology perspective the same is true: the alarmists claim polar bears are in trouble and tropical diseases are on the rise; so tropical diseases win. From a purely objective scientific view they shouldn’t be making the moral judgement that polar bears are good and tropical diseases are bad. That’s just an extreme example of course, I’m sure seals wouldn’t mind a few less polar bears around but we never hear about them benefiting from less polar bears due to global warming; especially since polar bears are well equipped to survive warm periods or they wouldn’t have made it through the last interglacial that was significantly warmer than now. So what happens if the seal proponents that don’t particular care for the seal’s main predator figure out that seals are better off in a warmer world, they still promote and sacrifice for keeping the planet at this arbitrarily chosen 2 degrees above pre-industrial?
    2.3) Game Theory, Prisoner’s Dilemma. The benefit to a country for gaming the system would be too tempting for some to ignore. Just like VW, some will invariably cheat thereby undermining the effort of the “honest players”. The various trading schemes around the world are already replete with scams and cheats; do you really think individuals, corporations, and countries are going to magically become universally altruistic and everyone will cooperate and sing kumbaya for the next few centuries?
    2.4) “The stone age didn’t end for lack of stones.” Similarly, the fossil fuel age will not end due to running out of fossil fuels. Eventually something cheaper and more convenient will be developed and replace fossil fuels whether this be thorium reactors, fusion, gravimetric generators (eh, eh), or something we haven’t even thought of yet is anybody’s guess at this point, but as sure as agriculture replaced hunting and gathering something will replace fossil fuels.
    2.5) “Forbidden fruit.” The surest way to make sure people will want something bad enough to break the law to get it is to forbid it.
    2.6) “Burning a hole in my pocket.” All that wealth just under the surface and we’re just going to “leave it in the ground”; yea, right.

    3.1) Since I was a wee lad the numero uno problem in the world was hunger. Anecdotally, it was a somewhat jokingly unspoken obligatory requirement for every Miss USA/Universe contestant to work in solving world hunger into at least one response during the Q&A period. Until the GW scaremongering took over everyone knew the problem that humanity should solve was world hunger.
    3.2) Increasing atmospheric CO2 increases primary production in many parts of the world. We’ve seen world hunger decrease as atmospheric CO2 increase as yields around the world increase in lock step with CO2 fertilization.
    3.3) While some places on earth will be harder hit than others by global warming, on average the likely impact will be some inconvenience. Surely, we can take some inconvenience in order to feed the world and support those areas that have to deal with more than an inconvenience to aid them in effects mitigation and adaptation locally and regionally.

    4.1) Climate changes. Seas rise and fall. Storms happen. These are facts of life in an enhanced GHE warming world, a fossil fuel aerosol induced cooling world, or pretty much any future world us and our decedents will live in.
    4.2) For any particular place on earth the risks due to weather events or other climate impacts are pretty well known and understood (you don’t get hurricanes in Siberia for example). These risks can be mitigated through responsible planning and resource allocation.
    4.3) Too often already global warming has been used as an excuse for politicians to avoid taking responsibility for their own incompetence and inaction.

    • Avatar



      I’m willing to consider your argument, but I’m disturbed of your willing to give credence to the unproven and unfoundedly assumed presumption that CO2, CH4, and any other gasses that the extremist left hates are upon their dictum alone the mythical GREENHOUSE GASSES as they define them to be.

      I ask you not to buy into their argument without the proof that they have never had.
      They have always had conjecture, lies and hysteria and even a low percentage of consensus ( as if that means anything ).
      But they have NEVER had proof of their mythical GREENHOUSE EFFECT ( as defined by the extremist left ).

    • Avatar

      anthony bright-paul


      No, radiation from the Sun collides with the mass of Earth to produce heat. The atmosphere is warmed primarily by contact, that is Conduction. Convection does not warm. Convection carries heat aloft and cools. So, John West, a little knowledge and a lot of knowledge without discrimination, is a dangerous thing.

Comments are closed