Page 2 of 9

.Take the.Climate Science Challenge

Thank you for taking the Climate Science Challenge. I will do my best to make it worth your time.

Premise: But what about before the 1990 benchmark? Maybe the 25 years (inclusive) from 1990 to 2014 is just a pause in global warming.

1931-1979 Global Temperatures

By again examining our multiple datasets, from 1931 to 1979 no global warming is revealed (the RSS and UAH are satellite datasets that only began in 1979, so they cannot be included in this graph). No pronounced benchmark is apparent or has been identified by the adherent-establishment, so no range lines are offered, but it is still obvious that the entire period presents a consolidation in relation to the zero anomaly line (median-bound – where the spectrum repeatedly returns to a median line). This means that over the 84 years inclusive from 1931 to 2014 only one period of 11 years (1979-1990) produced a slight increase in the global temperature. Carbon dioxide went up from 280 PPM to 400 PPM, but for only 13% of that time was there any rise in the global temperature. 11 of the last 84 years. 13%. Two consolidation periods comprised 73 of the last 84 years – 87%. In fact, the appropriate view is that the trend for the last 84 years has been consolidation, with an 11 year “pause” of slight warming thrown in the middle.

1990-2014 Global Temperatures

Riddle: What anthropogenic global warming?

Conundrum: At the most basic level, the global warming controversy is solely about the relationship between global temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide content. Every other concern is peripheral and conducive on this relationship. The empirical evidence of 9 and 13 temperature datasets suggests that there is no direct relationship between the two, or if there is, it is that a rising CO2 PPM produces a consolidating global temperature, with an odd 13% blip thrown in. This is the real consensus of climate change – a dataset consensus of global temperature consolidation.

Conclusion:  According to publicly available global temperature datasets produced by the adherent-establishment there is no anthropogenic global warming (their own datasets contradict their own claims).

Punch Line: The much publicized supposed 97% consensus of global warming scientists is directly contradicted by the actual 100% consensus of global temperature datasets – using their benchmark year, and their datasets.

~ “The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.”~ (Thomas H. Huxley)

Question: What hard evidence have you seen that convinces you to believe in anthropogenic global warming? I ask this because what you have just witnessed in the last two pages completely falsifies any other so-called evidence that you could ever find. Go ahead and Google for hard evidence of the anthropogenic global warming theory (try “proof global warming” or “evidence climate change”). I have. There is nothing that over-rules these 9 and 13 aggregate graphs of global temperatures. Any so-called “hockey stick” graphs using proxies (alternative methods) that supposedly show a spike in global temperatures during the past century are totally falsified by these actual global temperature measurements that do not show a spike in temperatures.

~ “In science, refuting an accepted belief is celebrated as an advance in knowledge; in religion it is condemned as heresy.”~ (Bob Parks, Physics, U of Maryland) So, have I advanced knowledge, or committed heresy?

Please continue…

[Go to the beginning of the Climate Science Challenge]