Alan Carlin: Second edition of path-breaking research report shows the Orwellian nature of the “March for Science”

Posted: April 24, 2017 by oldbrew in alarmism, Analysis, climate, modelling, opinion, research

Despite Saturday’s so-called “March for Science,” the almost simultaneous release of a Second Edition of a Research Report showing the exact opposite of what some of the marchers claim to be the conclusions of climate science, has brought home the Orwellian reality that the marchers have gotten their claims concerning what the science says exactly backwards, as Alan Carlin explains.

The Climate March website says their forces of “The Resistance” won’t tolerate institutions that try to “skew, ignore, misuse or interfere with science.”

If the marchers really support science, they should be supporting climate skeptics, not the climate alarmists. How Orwellian can you get? The science is clear.

The authors of a pathbreaking August 2016 research report, discussed here, released today a Second Edition of their report. The conclusions disproving the validity of USEPA’s three lines of evidence for their 2009 Endangerment Finding for Greenhouse Gases and the lack of a statistically significant effect of increasing atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) on global and tropical temperatures remain the same.

The analysis, however, is both more elegant and easier to understand. It demonstrates that natural factors involving solar, volcanic and oceanic activity fully explain the Earth’s tropospheric and surface temperatures and that atmospheric CO2 plays no significant role.

Research Report Disproves the Alarmists’ Basic Claim

This report and the earlier edition go far beyond this by disproving the alarmists’ basic claim that increases in atmospheric CO2 result in global warming. The Research Report results can be replicated using the basic data that the authors are willing to provide, most unlike the elaborate global climate models relied on by climate alarmists. Both the First and Second Editions have been extensively peer reviewed by experts in the relevant fields.

Continued here.

On the Existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot” & The Validity of EPA’s CO2
Endangerment Finding – Second Edition
— [pdf]

  1. micketalbot says:

    Take your blindfold off!

  2. Richard111 says:

    All these years and still no ‘science papers’ that explain how a ‘greenhouse gas’ traps heat.
    I’m waiting for reports that the Wien and Boltzmann laws are invalid (among others).
    Also, just how does 99% of the of the non-radiative gases in the atmosphere lose the heat acquired by conduction from the surface? “Warm air rises and cools.” we are told, but never an explanation as to where and how the energy escaped.
    They claim a ‘greenhouse effect’ keeps us warm when the same wrongly accused gases cool the atmosphere and restrain it from escaping directly to space. If this effect did not exist there would be no life on this planet.

  3. oldbrew says:

    Temperature and pressure are related, by the gas laws. Pressure derives from mass, not composition.

    The ratio between the pressure-volume product and the temperature of a system remains constant.

    That’s the basis of The International Standard Atmosphere (ISA)

  4. Richard 111, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is Ok when it has the emissivities of the source and the receiver. However, the law only applies for surfaces in a vacuum. Stefan worked out the original proportionality equation from actual results ( I believe obtained by the French scientists Dulong and Petit.) Boltzmann worked out the constants from Thermodynamic data. Plank’s law is based on work by Boltzmann and only applies to black surfaces in a vacuum (emitting or receiving). The speed of light in a vacuum (c) is one of the constants in the equation. Many later found that gases do absorb and emit radiation. Prof Hoyt Hottel found that in closed systems eg furance or an heat exchanger it was possible to estimate heat transfer between a surface and a gas using a modified S-B equation. For the gas an effective emissivity is calculated using the path length to the bulk gas and the partial pressure of the gas which can absorb heat (eg H2O vapour or CO2) – oxygen, nitrogen, methane and most other gases such as SO2 in combustion are considered as non absorptive gases. In those closed system there is a surface with and area which allows calculation of the quantity and rate of heat transfer.
    It has never been tested if the S-B equation as modified by Hottel is applicable to works in an open system such the earths surface radiating to and through the atmosphere. However, one point is clear gases in the atmosphere can not radiate to the earths surface unless the gases have an higher temperature. I tend to think, backed up by the Nobel prize winning (1955 when the prize meant something) physicist Willis Lamb jnr, that the idea of photons is nonsense. I believe there are electromagnetic waves of particular frequency pattern depending on a source temperature and emissivity which can partly or fully cancel other waves. so a resulting heat only is received in one direction (ie the earth’s surface only receives radiation from the sun).

  5. I should have added that my estimation using Hottel’s equation is that the effective absorptivity of CO2 in the atmosphere is so small the quantity of heat it can absorb at the present concentration , or even double that, is insignificant. That accounts for the findings in the article. It should also be noted that atmospheric temperature (as a result of average surface temperatures) leads the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Some of that has to do with the solubility of CO2 in sea water and some to do with the activity of plant life.

  6. Richard111 says:

    Thanks cementafriend, good stuff.

    My bugbear as a confirmed sceptic is that every CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is a unique particle and can radiate through 360 degrees cubed thus less than half this radiation gets to the surface. How this radiation warms a surface already radiating over the same band beats me. At best it can delay the rate of surface cooling by about 9%.
    I have several times recorded an increase in local air temperature at night when solid cloud moves in after a warm sunny day and mild wind. Again this is thermal delay of surface cooling and the surface heat capacity causing the temperature rise.


    Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2004+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at
    and an earlier accessible blog version at
    Here is the abstract for convenience :
    This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.””

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s