Failure:Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis

by on Jan. 30, 2013, under Climate change, Politics

In his 2013 inaugural address, President Obama told Americans that the United States “will respond to the threat of climate change” and will take the lead for other countries to follow suit. Since the climate is always changing, it is possible that our way of life could be threatened by unpleasant changes such as a new glacial epoch. The President was, however, referring to the hypothesis that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing major, dangerous climate changes. If he follows this false assumption, then any resultant policy will be ineffective and could, itself, be dangerous.

Dr. Robert Carter, a specialist in paleo-environmental and paleo-climatic topics and author of the book, “Climate: the Counter Consensus,” shows how this hypothesis of dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) fails. Below are some excerpts from a long post titled “Global Warming: Anthropogenic or Not?” See full post here.

Many different lines of evidence can be used to test the Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis (DAGW). Here are five pieces of evidence, all of which are based upon real world empirical data.

1. Over the last 16 years, global average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has displayed no statistically significant warming; over the same period, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 10%.

Large increases in carbon dioxide have therefore not only failed to produce dangerous warming, but failed to produce any warming at all. Hypothesis fails.

2. During the 20th century, a global warming of between 0.4̊C and 0.7̊C occurred, at a maximum rate, in the early decades of the century, of about 1.7̊C/century. In comparison, our best regional climate records show that over the last 10,000 years natural climate cycling has resulted in temperature highs up to at least 1̊C warmer than today, at rates of warming up to 2.5̊C/century.

In other words, both the rate and magnitude of 20th century warming falls well within the envelope of natural climate change. Hypothesis fails, twice.

3. If global temperature is controlled primarily by atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, then changes in carbon dioxide should precede parallel changes in temperature.

In fact, the opposite relationship applies at all time scales. Temperature change precedes carbon dioxide change by about 5 months during the annual seasonal cycle, and by about 700-1000 years during ice age climatic cycling. Hypothesis fails.

4. The IPCC’s computer general circulation models, which factor in the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, project that global warming should be occurring at a rate of +2.0̊C/century.

In fact, no warming at all has occurred in either the atmosphere or the ocean for more than the last decade. The models are clearly faulty, and allocate too great a warming effect for the extra carbon dioxide (technically, they are said to overestimate the climate sensitivity). Hypothesis fails.

5. The same computer models predict that a fingerprint of greenhouse-gas-induced warming will be the creation of an atmospheric hot spot at heights of 8-10 km in equatorial regions, and enhanced warming also near both poles.

Given that we already know that the models are faulty, it shouldn’t surprise us to discover that direct measurements by both weather balloon radiosondes and satellite sensors show the absence of surface warming in Antarctica, and a complete absence of the predicted low latitude atmospheric hot spot. Hypothesis fails, twice.

The null hypothesis – because it is the simplest consistent with the known facts – is that global climate changes are presumed to be natural, unless and until specific evidence is forthcoming for human causation.

So far, no evidence has been presented to disprove the null hypothesis.

The Heritage Foundation has some suggestions on how the U.S. can “take the lead” in climate policy, see here:

Undertake independent efforts to more accurately determine the severity of climate change and verify U.N. claims. The lack of warming in recent years is raising fundamental questions about the underlying assumptions of climate-change predictions. Undertaking actions with grave implications for the U.S. economy without greater confidence is irresponsible.

Work with a smaller group of nations through informal arrangements such as the Major Economies Forum to undertake appropriate steps that are cost effective, verifiable, and effectual.

Call for a moratorium on U.N. climate change conferences that emphasize financial transfers and
reinforce the flawed, ineffective Kyoto methodology of differentiated responsibilities.

Prohibit the EPA and other agencies from regulating greenhouse gas emissions and prohibiting the EPA and other agencies from using any funds to promulgate or enforce any regulation intended to mitigate global warming unless it is expressly authorized to do so by Congress.


UPDATE: This update is in response to comments below.

The comments are very instructive to the objective reader. They show how proponents of AGW divert attention from the main issue with ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, appeals to a mythical consensus, and a Mr. Wolf even wonders how dare someone give me a platform to express an opinion. This shows that their passion is religious rather than scientific. It also shows they lack physical evidence to support their credulous belief in AGW.

Hidden in all the sound and fury, we see that not one of them presents physical evidence to show that human carbon dioxide emissions are the major cause of climate change or even a significant cause of climate change. Not one of them has presented evidence to refute the null hypothesis, i.e., that the climate variations are natural.

The facts show that the DAGW hypothesis fails the test when it comes to observational data.

  • DrRaeMD

    Small Problem: Dr. Carter is heavily biased by his funding from the Science and Public Policy Institue (a web blog which heavily references Chris Monkton, a goofy politician and not a scientist, to “guide its science”), the NZ Climate Science Coalition (which receives funding from the Heartland Institute, and has been shown to ‘cook’ data as it suits them), the Institute of Public Affairs (which, such as in 2004, has been shown to be easily bought by corporate interests such as their main funders, mining, forestry, tobacco, Monsanto…), and the International Climate Science Coalition (Heartland funding again, and Exxon). Not a reputable source.
    I won’t even bother going into the fallacies quoted above, it’s the same old same old…

    • Jonathan_Duhamel

      DrRaeMD’s comment is a typical ad hominem attack, used by those who cannot refute the arguments with facts.

      • Kyle Sager

        Very well: Let’s stick to the facts as to peer-review and widely-respected scientists. First, a question: Can you name a single nationally or internationally respected scientific academy that explicitly denies global warming? (I’ll advise before you look: You can not). On the opposing side: Shall we start with the National Academy of Sciences and step 1 by 1 through a roster of more than 3 dozen nationally and internationally respected academies that expressly endorse the IPCC in writing? Or…how about the American Meteorological Society? Here is what they say in writing about man-induced climate change: And then there are the global 50 top-ranked earth science institutions. Start with Harvard, Cambridge, Princeton, Oxford, Chicago, Berkeley. Let’s canvass each and every climate scientist at those institutions one-by-one together for the prevailing scientific view. Hint: You will loose…by a massive margin. At this point, I’m prone to skepticism on the “16-year” claim. Oh, wait! The Met Office, the original source of data for that argument, roundly rebuked the misinterpretation of the data months ago (when that goofy blog first broke forth in a British tabloid). Now, Returning to DrRaeMD’s original observation, suddenly the financial motivations of any non-peer-reviewed are completely fair game, especially since the 16-year argument is a resort to the standbye tactic that climate change deniers have perfected over two decades, the Gish Gallop, drawing non-scientists into debates about scientific data when they themselves have not earned the qualifications to prove they can fairly assess the data. The truth is, the entire 16-year argument is also symptomatic of another grievous manipulation: Cherry-picking starting and ending data. But now that we have had more than 3 decades of a building crescendo supporting AGW by the best of best scientists globally, there is very much an excellent place for the opposing camp! Right here ==>

        • Mark Schaffer

          You DO know that absolutely nothing can break through Jonathan’s cognitive dissonance right? Or his inability to recognize he is destroying his credibility with bad sources of propaganda.

          • Kyle Sager

            Nice! (above and below) Where is the “like” button. So for all us scientific laypeople: Basically in a field that spins on peer review and eventual wide-spread acceptance of your ideas and explanations: Carter has failed gloriously at achieving either. He has not gotten widely-respected analyses published and he has not achieved wide-spread recognition…but he has to earn a living and so…My real point is, Carter should be taking all arguments to the scientific community in productive dialogue, not to antagonistic sites like WUWT – a site driven to the edge of identity crisis by escalation of commitment; and Jonathan does not have the scientific chops to debate the factors thoroughly, but he goes out of his way here to trash the prevailing views of our best scientists!

  • Mark Schaffer

    Why no reputable scientist would use Carter:

  • Jonathan_Duhamel


    First you are confusing the incidence of warming with the cause of warming. Second you appeal to authority without presenting any facts to refute the evidence.

    The AMS board is in sharp disagreement with AMS members. Although AMS says there is evidence for DAGW, they, too, fail to present any empirical evidence.

    • Kyle Sager

      More Gish Gallop: You cavalierly dismiss 80% of the observations above, the prevailing views, and focus on AMS, the least important observation. As for empirical evidence: by your standards, tobacco does not cause cancer. The truth is, you have not earned the credentials to suggest what is sufficient empirical evidence and what is not. You have spent neither the years earning the doctorate nor a lifetime collecting and scouring the data 16 hours a day on frozen tundras.

      What makes your questioning of findings of groups like the National Academy of Sciences so offensive: AGW is the only scientific finding (other than perhaps the development of the atom bomb leveraging Einstein’s theories) that scientists have suggested places global populations at serious risk, not just human life. In view of the overwhelming gravitation of the best scientists to support AGW over a protracted time-frame of 3 decades, intentionally dissuading the public of the prevailing view is at this point highly irresponsible.

      Go get a PhD, then convince the rest of science community you’re right (as has been done for centuries), then at that point trash the prevailing opinion of the best scientists all you want. Until that point, anyone who listens to you is foolish. You are free to do whatever you want, but your approach is impulsive, dangerous, and filled with hubris. You basically suggest that all of our best climate scientists globally are crappy at what they do and that you are smarter than they.

    • ozonator

      Because you have let things get so bad, impossibly correct AGW predictions can be found in the comments section with my name of “‘Language Intelligence’ The Audiobook: Listen To ‘Lessons On Persuasion From Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln And Lady Gaga’ … By Joe Romm on Jan 12, 2013 at 2:26 pm” (

  • Jack Wolf

    It’a a shame that those in denial (like the author) are given a platform.

    • Kyle Sager

      Agreed: They should at least be required to get a climate PhD and then earn even the tiniest level of respect of the scientific community before they open their mouths. Until that broader scientific opinion shifts we must assume serious risk; and people who willfully chisel away at public understanding place our children’s ability to produce food, to conduct sufficient agriculture to feed 7 billion+, at risk.

    • Fraser007

      its called a democracy. Get your own blogsite and lay out your case. Most of the readers here dont have a Phd in science…. Inform us. Write a blog and tell why Global Warming exists.

      • ozonator

        It is called a correct prediction of only a free lunch.

  • Jonathan_Duhamel

    These comments are very instructive to the objective reader. They show how proponents of AGW divert attention from the main issue with ad hominem attacks, appeals to authority, appeals to a mythical consensus, and Mr. Wolf even wonders how dare someone give me a platform to express an opinion. This shows that their passion is religious rather than scientific.

    Hidden in all the sound and fury, we see that not one of them presents physical evidence to show that human carbon dioxide emissions are the major cause of climate change or even a significant cause of climate change. Not one of them has presented evidence to refute the null hypothesis. The facts show that the DAGW hypothesis fails.

    So, I will let them blather along among themselves if they are so inclined.

    • Kyle Sager

      Objective readers will listen to neither you nor I; and will take care to direct all of their attention toward our best science institutions to take their cues. There they will discover that the risks are quite severe and justify the emotions expressed here. Fury? Absolutely: You risk my daughters’ generation’s ability to produce food. You work very hard to steal attention from the people that matter. Your attitude is destructive in nature. Attempting to reduce the meaning of that abomination to a clever latin phrases does not make it the least bit less truthful.

  • Richard Pauli

    Pay no attention to that continent of Australia.

  • Leslie Graham

    What complete and utter bunk from start to finish.
    It;s just shocking that this kind of absolute tripe still somehow finds a way into ‘print’.
    Every single line of this absurd gish-gallop has been falsified a thousand time already.
    I won’t waste my breath or bandwidth doing so again.
    Shame on the author and shame on the fools who swallow this denialist drivel.

  • rhjames

    Rather than all the Motherhood Statements, I’d like to see some reference to dispute any one of Prof. Carter’s statements. Richard, you might like to ignore Australia, but keep in mind that it’s the same size as the mainland USA (excluding Alaska). If you ignore Australia, you can ignore USA and most other countries.

  • Jonny Kingham

    All 5 of these ‘pieces of evidence’ have been debunked time and time again by credible scientists. If you are so sure that Dr. Carter should be taken seriously then could you also reference some peer-reviewed papers which support his claims. I doubt you could because around 99% of such papers published since 1991 have supported the AGW theory. As well as this 98% of Climate scientists (Doran, 2009) agree that emissions of CO2 by humans is a significant factor in the warming (Which is happening whether or not you choose to ignore the long term trend). And btw, sometimes ad homimem attacks are necessary when someone has vested interests which may help shape his argument.

  • Philip Haddad

    Carbon dioxide is NOT the cause of global warming. Combustion of fossil fuels supplies 80% of our energy and it is the heat released by this combustion, as well as that from nuclear energy that is causing the slight rise in temperature that we see and the alarming rate of glacial melting. Its really very simple. For example in 2008 our energy consumption was 16 terrawatts, equivalent to 50x10E16 btus a year (also equivalent to 500 Mount Saint Hellen’s eruptions. Our atmosphere has a mass of 1166X10E16 pounds and a specific heat of 0.24 btu/#-*F.This had the potential to raise the temperature by 0.17*F. Actual rise was 1/4th that due to cooling by photosynthesis and glacial melting,(750billion tons) .The climate is changing. We don’t need more studies. We need to recognize that HEAT is the problem, build no more fossil or nuclear plants and replace existing ones as fast as possible. This will take too long but we have no alternative other than reducing our energy consumption. There is no point in my discrediting the CO2 myth at this point but it is not difficult to do so. Also don’t believe everything that some respected “scientists” publish. They already have too much at stake to admit that they believe such a simple explanation as HEAT being the cause and will not even acknowledge having received correspondence from me.

Brophy Thursday 31 January 2013 - 9:27 pm | | Global Warming

No comments

(optional field)
(optional field)
Remember personal info?
Small print: All html tags except <b> and <i> will be removed from your comment. You can make links by just typing the url or mail-address.