14 reasons why "Anthropogenic Global Warming" is wrong

Michael Hammer is a scientist. Specifically, he's a spectroscopist - an expert in the electromagnetic spectrum and radiation. While he doesn't get much press, he's made important contributions to the Climate Change debate. Ten or fifteen years ago, you heard how Carbon Dioxide will trap the Sun's heat, leading to a run-away greenhouse effect, because Carbon Dioxide was opaque to infrared radiation (heat).

Hammer showed that CO2 is only opaque to IR at a few narrow bands, and the trapped heat just re-radiates to space through the gaps. So much for the run away greenhouse effect.

He's back, with a long and detailed explanation of why he's a skeptic of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming:

I HAVE been asked several times ‘why am I so sceptical of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis’? There are many reasons, some of which I have documented in previous articles at this weblog, but these have relied on sometimes complex calculations which I admit can be difficult to appreciate. So I would like to outline here a few of my reasons based only on simple consistency with the AGW proponents’ own data.

Rather than lots of science and math and stuff, he looks at what the proponents of AGW say. And find a lot to be desired:

5. The claimed “proof” of positive feedback is a model prediction of a hot spot in the tropics at mid troposphere levels. However all the experimental evidence from many, many measurements has failed to find any evidence of such a hot spot. In science, a clear prediction that is falsified experimentally means the underlying hypothesis on which the prediction is based is wrong.

Lots to be desired:

8. If I adopt this 10:1 ratio by looking at the last 100 years worth of data I find 1910-1940 temperatures rising while CO2 was not. 1940 to 1975 temperatures falling while CO2 rising, 1975 to 1998 temperatures rising while CO2 rising and 1998 to 2009 temperatures falling while CO2 rising. Three quarters of the period shows no correlation or negative correlation with CO2 and only one quarter shows positive correlation. I do not understand how one can claim a hypothesis proven when ¾ of the data set disagrees with it. To me it is the clearest proof that the hypothesis is wrong.

And he keeps bringing it:

10. I have looked at the raw temperature record for the USA (USHCN data) and the Bureau of Meteorology data for Victoria, Australia. Both show fluctuations of temperature with time but zero underlying trend for the last century. By contrast, the official IPCC endorsed data shows a strong underlying upwards trend. When I investigate why the difference, I find that the raw data has been adjusted for several supposed factors and every one of these adjustments created a warming trend. This implies that the claimed warming trend is due to the adjustments, not the raw data. In any less controversial scientific issue, such a result would be viewed with the greatest possible scepticism and would be extremely unlikely to be accepted.

There's more. He shoots holes in the science, in the models, and in the use (and abuse) of data. Bring popcorn.

But the science is just the warm up. What really has him torqued is the abuse of science for raw, obvious purposes:

When I listen to the public AGW debate I hear very high profile politicians and prominent public figures calling for people who openly disagree with AGW to be put on trial for treason. I hear many cases of people losing their jobs because of voicing sceptical opinions. I hear prominent global warming advocates refusing to enter into debates or trying to avoid debates by claiming the science is settled, and by claiming we do not have time, we have only weeks to act. I hear AGW advocates resorting to personal attacks against people who disagree rather than addressing the technical issues they raise.

I hear AGW proponents claiming to be the under funded underdogs, fighting to protect the planet against greedy capitalists, yet the reality is their funding is at least 1000 times greater than the sceptics funding. I see many reports of scientists refusing to release their workings, thus preventing review of their methodology, despite the fact that their work was funded by public money.

I see how the established media abandons balance in reporting by strongly favouring proponents of AGW, ignoring or denigrating sceptics and forcing most onto blog sites like this one. I hear some environmental groups and activists publicly claim that its OK and even necessary to exaggerate the threat so as to get the public to engage. I see the courts condoning acts of vandalism and even violence against essential public infrastructure. I see high profile public figures supporting such acts and claiming them to be reasonable and justified.

In short I see our society abandoning some of our most vital democratic freedoms over this hysteria: Free speech, impartial enforcement of the law, balance in reporting, freedom of information. These are freedoms our forebears gave their lives to bequeath to us, they are our most valuable inheritance and we seem to be throwing them away over an unproven hysterical hypothesis.

As with me, it's the corruption that sticks in the craw. Something smells fishy about the whole thing - there's a stench of PR spin that just gets worse with the cries of "the science is settled" and "denier".

A lot of this will be familiar to long time readers, but a lot is new, and specific. If there's only one thing you ever read about the whole Climate Change controversy, this should be it.

Oops, got to go. It's those dang deniers again, back on my lawn. Hey! You! Get the heck outta here!

Hat tip: Don, via email.