A new pdf has been published which falsifies the AGW thesis on the basis of fundamental physics.
Many of these same arguments were also contained in Essex and McKittrick's book Taken by Storm. After reading their book, I commented that:
- Essex and McKitrick do an excellent job of outlining the basic science, underlying math and pervasive lack of true understanding that underpins the issue of global warming.Their tone is non-judgemental, unequivocal and principled. They ask fundamental intellectual questions, explain concepts using accessible examples and highlight how good science has been lost. It is a must read for anyone seeking insights about climate change and the broader interplay of politics and science.
I am still waiting for someone to explain specifically, what substantive errors exist and/or which assumptions are either false or incorrect, in the analysis by Essex and McKittrick. I suspect I will have to wait for any substantive response to this latest paper.
Rather, advocates of AGW will variously claim:
- its irrelevant
- the critique has no traction
- its just more denialism
- somehow its all paid for by nefarious oil concerns
- we all know the science is settled
- etc.
The problem is, this type of paper attacks AGW at its very basis: its scientific foundation.
Questions:
- if something is real and self-evident, how can its basic scientific principles be both suspect and presumptive? Should they not be clear, unequivocal and rational?
- what distinguishes science from religion?
Principles are principles because they are truths observed in most situations. In contrast, dogma is the assertive language of power.
