Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
My position on the AGW hypothesis
Hello readers.

I have for a long time followed diverse skeptical commentary on various subjects,pertaining,to the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis.

In recent months.I detect a growing schism among skeptics.Mainly over the question of backradiation and the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

I have been one of the lucky skeptics who have seen the comments made by both skeptical groups.Some of the discussions are privileged and private.Some are found in some of the skeptical blogs.

One group say there is a "greenhouse effect" the other group say there is none.

For a long time now.I have not fully embraced the entire "greenhouse effect" explanation.True I did allow for some effect to be possible.But at a diminishing rate,via the logarithmic effect.

Now I am officially backing away from the premise that there is a "greenhouse effect".Large or little,it does not matter.I think the case for it is erratic,confusing and sometimes flat out absurd.

I think it is a question that you readers should be considering carefully, before you really think it is real.

Surely you must wonder why the few testable claims,based on the AGW hypothesis fails so badly?

The rate of ocean heat content increase.
The rate of atmospheric warming.
The existence of the Tropospheric "hot spot".
The rate of sea level rise.
The increasing rate of severe storms.
The positive feedback

They are also supposed to accelerate upward over time.

They are not even close on these markers,that is suppose to boost the credibility of the AGW hypothesis paradigm.There is no acceleration upward of any trends,And some of the other claims are not happening at all.

The hypothesis has failed utterly.

Simply based on just those 6 common tests.There are no credible reasons why we should even think CO2 is a driver of the planets climate system.

All these failed tests were based on the MODELED backradiation concept,via the MODELED "greenhouse effect" paradigm.That increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere would drive up the warming trend.A trend that has never showed up since the mid 1800's.

The warming trend has been stable for over 150 years now.

Maybe it is time for you to consider the possibility that there is no atmospheric "greenhouse effect" in existence?
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.

–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)