Emotion versus Science

09/25/2019 12:05 - Posted by Tom van Leeuwen
There are not more hurricanes than before. There are not more tornadoes than before. There are not more forest fires than before. There are not more heatwaves than before and the heatwaves do not last longer than before. The sea-level rise does not accelerate. We enjoy a slight increase in temperature, but it is not hotter than at other times of the Holocene.

The IPCC models do not work; the warming is much lower than predicted.

As they have understood that all the facts are against them, the UN has changed its strategy. They now play the "emotion" card. Theater time has arrived.

At the UN climate summit in New York, it was not about science, they have not proved the CO2 hypothesis, they have not even touched on the subject. It was all about commitments and promises, appearing to be the most worried, the most committed to the cause.

A couple of blocks away from the UN headquarters, The Heartland Institute had organized a climate change conference. They invited more than twenty politicians, scientists, and journalists to share their views on the climate and to discuss science, including Michael Mann and Alexandria Ocasio Cortéz. The proposal was to discuss the issue with three realistic scientists, experts in astrophysics and climate.
Of the twenty invited guests, not one appeared. Many of them never responded to the invitation, others had some kind of excuse despite receiving the invitation well in advance. They simply do not dare to discuss the science behind their hypothesis with experts because they know they are without arguments and will lose the discussion.

So we have seen a lot of emotion, a lot of theater in New York, but unfortunately, very little science.

Tom van Leeuwen, September 25, 2019


Please donate

Fighting the climate hysteria is time-consuming! If you think I'm on the right track and you want to support my efforts I would be more than happy to receive a small donation that will help me to maintain this site.


The fingerprints of the greenhouse effect

The hypothesis of "man-made climate change" tells us that the increase in the concentration of CO2 enhances the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere and has global warming as a final result.

Since the beginning of the industrialized era around 1850, man emits relatively large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere through the use of fossil fuels. The consequence of these emissions is that during that period, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increased sharply from about 300 parts per million to more than 400 ppm, an increase of almost 40%. The average temperature increased in the same period more or less 1.5 °C with a small variation depending on the data source used.

Why did the warming stop?

The political reports of the IPCC are based on the hypothesis that CO2 is the most important control knob of the Earth's temperature. The problem is that this hypothesis does not correspond at all with the empirical data available to science. Forecasts are made using models that are not capable of 'predicting' the past.

Temperature versus CO2 – the big picture

When discussing “Climate Change” it’s good to have an understanding of how the Earth’s climate has changed in the past. That will give us a reference to decide whether the current changes are normal or not.

Global temperatures have varied a lot over the last 500 million years. Depending on the timescale used, the current temperature is either cold or hot, so when you want to know the “normal temperature” you’ll have to indicate what timescale you’re using.

An estimation of the human influence on the climate

The month of May has come to an end. Another month of economic paralysis and reduced human CO2 emissions. And again, the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere continues to rise to record levels in modern measurements.

It is time to remove the blindfolds and thoroughly analyze the question of the effect of human CO2 emissions on global temperature. I propose to divide the problem into four issues, open for discussion:

Sydney Sea-Level Rise

According to the IPCC CO2-hypothesis, rising CO2-levels leads to warming. That warming supposedly expands sea-water and melts glaciers and polar ice-caps, finally resulting in rising sea-levels. They warn us for catastrophic sea-level rises in the year 2100 and beyond because of this process.

Sydney is strategically located between the Indian, Pacific, and Southern oceans. CO2-levels went up from 300 to 400 parts per million over the past 100 years. What's the impact on Sydney's sea-level?

Democracy? Make your choice!

In recent centuries the power of governments has become stronger and stronger. The governments got involved increasingly deeper into our lives and the citizens, the individuals, have ever less to say about ever more issues.

Climate policy is an excellent example of this interference. The government relies on completely unreliable data, unproven hypotheses, and ideas while the consequences of this interference affect everyone. At present, governments worldwide are about to make cheap and reliable energy sources -that form the basis of our economic prosperity- inaccessible. The results are far-reaching.

Censored and kicked by a Facebook group!

Yesterday I decided to post my Four Interglacials to a Facebook group called "Global Warming Denialism is a Big Oil agenda".

It was an educational experience.

About consensus, "97%", and settled science

There are four misconceptions about science that are commonly used by catastrophic man-made warming advocates. Normally, when you try to start a conversation on the subject, their first reply will be one of these four "arguments".