Shunned by Sanctitudinous Science Peter Smith
When coffeeing with a group of conservative friends as I do on Fridays, one of our number, Professor Emeritus Ivan Kennedy, said something to the effect that there were no scientific alternative theories to the IPCC’s explanation of global warming except for his.
I was taken aback. Surely, even within my limited knowledge, William Happer (Princeton) and Richard Lindzen (MIT) hypothesise that the effect of CO2 on warming progressively declines. Nobel Prize winner Dr John Clauser hypothesises that reflective cumulus clouds created by water vapour, engendered by modest warming, act as a thermostat to keep global temperatures down. You can read about it here if you wish. So what is going on?
Let me start by dismissing the canard that global warming is an invention. Sure, maybe the so-called ‘homogenisation’ of past land and sea temperature data has artificially steepened the warming record since the 1940s. But, for all that, the NOAA satellite data since the end of 1979 shows that the temperature in the sub-troposphere has trended up by about 0.7⁰C between December 1979 and December 2024. As this data has been compiled by Roy Spencer and John Christie (sceptical scientists) at the University of Alamba in Huntsville, we can safely assume it is trustworthy.
So the climate has warmed. Now should come the scientific fun. Competing theories jostling to best explain the data. No such fun. Blaming exploitative Western man has proved to be a sacrosanct hypothesis.
Sacrosanctity and science don’t mix. Many past theories propounded by scientific giants have eventually failed the test: Ptolemy’s geocentric theory of the solar system; Aristotle’s theory of gravity, even Newton’s. Yet a tenuous theory of the climate concocted by relative mediocrities, which hasn’t come close to accurately predicting global temperatures, is holy writ. Risible, except that political and celebrity buy-in is undoing progress wherever it results in the replacement of reliable with unreliable energy. Think of Australia as a quintessential case study.
Happily, despite powerful and well-funded forces out to cancel dissenters, maverick scientists keep on stirring the pot. Which brings me back to Prof. Kennedy and his collaborators. Their hypothesis can be found here. In lay terms it goes like this:
The increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere since the 1960s has been caused by warming not the reverse. Other things equal, emissions by mankind of CO2 are all absorbed by the land (hence the greening) and by the oceans. Thus, on this account, there is no material net increase of CO2 in the atmosphere from fossil fuel emissions. Ergo, such emissions cannot be the cause of warming. It is true that warming has occurred, and that atmospheric CO2 has risen. The underlying chain of events is as follows.
Warming, perhaps through solar activity, promotes the precipitation of calcium carbonate (limestone) in surface sea water, absorbing CO2 from the atmosphere in the process. In turn, the absorbed CO2, magnified by calcium carbonate precipitation, acidifies surface sea water. The acidification then results in the emission of CO2 into the atmosphere in autumn and winter. This emission of CO2 is greater than the absorption, precisely because of the continuing acidification in the warming water. In the end we see increased atmospheric CO2 and warming. It is easy to draw the wrong conclusion. Indeed, the IPCC has done so.
I see the point about Kennedy’s hypothesis being singularly different from other alternative hypotheses. Lindzen’s and Happer’s hypothesis, and Clauser’s, embrace the foundational proposition of the received theory, albeit in muted form. Namely, that man-made CO2 is adding to atmospheric CO2, thereby having a greenhouse effect. Kennedy’s hypothesis does not embrace that proposition.
Whether Kennedy is right (or Lindzen and Happer or Clauser) is by the way. Alternative hypotheses are in the skeptical scientific tradition of searching for theories which better explain the facts than does the received theory. That is particularly important in this case. The received theory is upending life as we know it, while being shielded from rival theories by money, politics and pseudo-religiosity.
Comments are closed.
