The Most Expensive and Useless Scientific Scam in Human History

I have been interested in whether climate alarmism reflects valid science for almost a decade, and have long held that it does not (see here and here). In the last few years the literature has blossomed with more and more damning studies from a climate alarmist viewpoint. Last week I outlined the nature of the costs being incurred to meet the desires of climate alarmists to reduce human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide. It is by now very evident that reductions in emissions of CO2 have had no significant effect on temperatures, and that assumptions made by the IPCC in related issues fail tests based on the scientific method.

Recent events have shown that ordinary citizens dislike paying the enormous costs of climate “mitigation,” which actually mitigates nothing. There is good reason for this because it delivers no benefits to anyone except a small elite that makes a profit from it or governments that hope to increase their tax revenue for a “good purpose” (reducing global warming) that the public might be misled into accepting.

Rather, CO2 levels are determined by temperatures, not human emissions. This result has been verified both theoretically and experimentally. Higher temperatures result in higher levels of CO2. This appears to be largely a result of a well known physical law, Henry’s Law. In this case, the Law says that as temperatures rise water can absorb less carbon dioxide. As a result it migrates to the atmosphere. Since 71 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by water, Henry’s Law is of great importance to understanding climate. No expenditure on climate “mitigation” will change this natural Law.

So in summary, the basic question is whether:
1. Mathematically rigorous structural econometric studies show that increased carbon dioxide has had no significant effect on temperatures or that changes in temperatures determine the level of carbon dioxide as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims?
2. Numerous IPCC assumptions are invalid by showing that their inferences are not consistent with observations?
3. Other empirical studies show that temperatures determine CO2 concentrations, not the opposite.

1. The most direct way to determine whether CO2 changes determine temperatures or temperatures changes determine CO2 changes is to explicitly test for this using mathematically rigorous structural econometric studies. By testing both formulations, such studies have shown that temperatures determine CO2. This study invalidates this IPCC basic hypothesis and shows that any attempts to reduce human CO2 emissions have not affected temperatures.

2. Numerous IPCC assumptions have been shown to be invalid by showing that their inferences are not valid; even one such assumption means that the relevant IPCC hypotheses do not satisfy the scientific method, and must be discarded according to the scientific method.

3. A third approach is to directly compare CO2 empirical measurements of emissions with temperatures and determine how the two sets of data compare with each other. These studies also support the hypothesis that CO2 levels are determined by temperatures (see here and here)

More general scientific reviews of climate alarmist “science,” such as those found here, reach some of the same conclusions, but often with more equivocations. But it is increasingly clear that attempts to use the opposite hypothesis that CO2 levels determine temperatures are scientifically invalid.

The simple conclusion is that attempts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions serve no useful purpose other than to enrich those who claim to be doing that over those that do not. A particularly bad example is the offshore wind proposal approved for construction in the ocean off Norfolk, Virginia. I am told that it is to be built without competitive bidding even though the costs are to be borne by most if not all Virginia electricity ratepayers. Perhaps this is one reason why some Virginia politicians are interested in the project??

By now there is ample documentation concerning all of this. But the Climate-industrial Complex pays no attention and calls anyone who expresses doubts concerning all those who advocate such views climate “deniers” that they allege are in the pay of companies supplying fossil fuels. Little time is spent examining the arguments made by climate skeptics, particularly those reported in blog posts such as this.

The simple truth is that the scientific evidence against climate alarmism is overwhelming. Application of the scientific method and econometric analysis to the evidence shows that the climate alarmists have no valid scientific basis for their obsession. But that has not stopped them. The underlying but overwhelming problem is how to bring such flagrant violations of the good science to an early end and prevent further such scams in the future. Climate alarmism shows what can happen when the good science is overwhelmed by junk science and an infinite public relations budget. No other scientific scam even comes close it terms of uselessness, cost, or audaciousness. One estimate is that in recent years the world has spent roughly US$1.5 trillion each year on the basis of this bad science. Most of this has been wasted since there are lower cost ways to obtain more useful energy from fossil fuels, and substitution of wind and solar do not bring about lower temperatures (which would probably be bad objective anyway). It is very tragic that such huge sums have been wasted when there are so many other important needs that could have been met with such a vast expenditure. Just as concerning is that climate alarmists have shown the vulnerability of the good science to attempts to sell junk science to the public. Is this what the future holds?

It is simply not possible to lower temperatures by reducing CO2 emissions. It does not matter how much is spent or how much propaganda is used. But let us assume for a moment that it were possible. CO2 is a minor constituent of the atmosphere in terms of volume; but its absence would end plant life on Earth and thus life on Earth. So it is not a pollutant; it is an essential building block of life itself. Trying to reduce it by reducing human-caused emissions is not possible and is the wrong goal even if we could. Within reason, we need more CO2 in the atmosphere, not less.

via Carlin Economics and Science

January 5, 2019 at 06:35AM

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: