The UN’s hypothesis references a set of climate models. Each such model outputs a mathematical function which maps the time to the global average temperature. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calls such a function a “projection.”

A projection may be compared to the associated instrument readings. However, such a comparison does not render a projection or any subset of the elements of this projection true or false. Something is missing in a projection that is needed for determination of whether the associated model is a valid or invalid one.

The missing ingredient is the set of predictions that are made by the model. A prediction is a proposition which states the projected outcome of a statistical event. In such an event, a prediction is made, a specified period of time elapses and the outcome occurs. If the real outcome differs from the predicted one and the real outcome is observed, the associated model is falsified. That none of the IPCC’s models issue predictions (as the IPCC itself states in its 2007 report) signifies that none of these models are falsifiable. Thus, according to Popper, none of these models are scientific models.

As a basis for policy making, a model that is “scientific” under Popper’s definition of the term, has the merit of providing information about its own reliability. A non-scientific model has the demerit of providing none of this information.

In its “endangerment” finding of today (Dec. 7, 2009), the Obama administration reveals that the reliability of the models underlying the case for regulation is of no interest to it. Though it may lead to the loss of hundreds of trillions of dollars to the citizens of the U.S., this apparently is of no interest to Obama and his cabinet.

http://i37.tinypic.com/14t0abr.jpg

The climate models have been falsified, yet many such as Vic above are ready to destroy the economy based on a dis-proven theories. Already children are dying of malnutrition in poor areas due to the biofuels projects raising the cost of food. One only needs to look at the sad recent history of Zimbabwe to see how bad government policy can destroy a people.

The worst evidence of all is how the Obama administration has stopped work on the nuclear waste site so that we cannot develop nuclear power that emits zero CO2. This shows that the current administration has no real concern about CO2, but is using it as an excuse to take over the economy.

I have tested the AGW hypothis against the data that has been used to promote it and found it wanting in several critical areas. First, the changes in SST and and CO2 are closely correlated and is a natural process related to the differences in partial pressures in different regions of the ocean that function as sources and sinks. When this factor is included along with changing rates of anthropogenic emissions in a regression, the anthropogenics are not statistically significant. Second, the global uniformity of background levels of CO2 strongly suggests that the half-life of CO2 as a gas in the atmosphere is a matter of days rather than many years. The “smoking gun” of CO2-13 depletion based on burning fossil fuel is a toy compared to natural emmisions of organic sources in the oceans. Third, and most important, although CO2 levels have increased significantly in the last 50 years along with an increase in atmospheric moisture, only moisture has had a statistically significant affect on outbound longwave radiation. Yes, the globe is presently in a warming phase of a long term natural cycle that is not AGW. Read my presentation and draw your own conclusions. http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf.

Fred