Unfalsifiable Science – Proof Of Climate Change

Reader Jimbo provides us with data sources of why global warming is undeniable. No sense in denying it any longer. AGW warming and its impacts are real. Things caused by global warming:

Warmer Northern Hemisphere winters due to global warming
Colder Northern Hemisphere winters due to global warming

Global warming to slow down the Earth’s rotation
Global warming to speed up the Earth’s rotation

North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty
North Atlantic Ocean has become more salty

Avalanches may increase
Avalanches may decrease

Plants move uphill due to global warming
Plants move downhill due to global warming

Monsoons to become drier in India
Monsoons to become wetter in India

Plankton blooms
Plankton decline

Reindeer thrive
Reindeer decline

Less snow in Great Lakes
More snow in Great Lakes

Gulf stream slows down
Gulf stream shows “small increase in flow

San Francisco more foggy
San Francisco less foggy

Less winter snow for Britain
More winter snow for Britain

Africa to get less rain
Africa to get more rain

Winds speed up [USA]
Winds slow down [USA]

Monsoons to become drier in India
Monsoons to become wetter in India

Bird migrations longer
Bird migrations shorter

36 thoughts on “Unfalsifiable Science – Proof Of Climate Change”

    1. I’m an optimist! Climate fears will vanish and people will look back on it sheepishly, if at all. Common sense eventually trumps all.

  1. The only thing this list does is prove that the main stream media gets things all botched up. Not a position that I would take exception to.

  2. Is Jimbo willing to dig in and be truly skeptical? Is he willing to find out what the published science actually says on each of these issues?

    1. I think he already has, Rob, insofar as questioning an underlying theme (“climate change”) seemingly interpreted as the cause of contradictory effects.

      Remove “climate change” as an underlying assumption, and how many meaningful projections about any of the reported observations could be made?

      Few, if any. It would be difficult to provide projections even based on known natural cycles, such as ENSO, or the PDO.

      If an underlying assumption can be used to provide a seemingly reasonable explanation to observations as well as contradictions to prior observations, it is probably well to discard the underlying assumption. It might be well not to use the assumption to make projections about the future either.

      What would the present world look like without “man-made climate change”? Unless a reasonable description of that can be provided, no one could legitimately claim the presence of it.

      1. No, Brian, he has not. All he has done here is spent a couple of hours googling contradictory reports. Just because you can find something on the web doesn’t mean it’s accurate or that it’s science. It just means it’s on the web.

        Someone who was a true skeptic would read every one of the articles in full, then track down the source of the information to see if it’s been reported accurately. (I do this frequently and find often the source does not support the blog or news article.)

        Then you also have to dig in and read the actual peer-reviewed research on the subject to see what the actual science is on each issue.

        If Jimbo did this he would find that the actual science related to each one of these issues is very consistent.

        Long and short… this is NOT a skeptical article. It’s confirmation bias.

        1. I see you conveniently ignored the first contradiction on the list ie warmer and colder NH winters due to global warming. Here is the science on each one.

          Warmer Northern Hemisphere winters due to global warming
          here and here [same study]

          Colder Northern Hemisphere winters due to global warming

          Global warming to slow down the Earth’s rotation

          Global warming to speed up the Earth’s rotation

          North Atlantic Ocean has become less salty

          North Atlantic Ocean has become more salty

          Avalanches may increase

          Avalanches may decrease

          Plants move uphill due to global warming

          Plants move downhill due to global warming

          I am still working on the others but as you can see it is utter nonsense.

          1. Honycutt,
            Here is some more of the science to back up my links. I’m working on the rest so please enjoy!

            Monsoons to become drier in India

            Monsoons to become wetter in India

            Plankton blooms

            Plankton decline

            Less snow in Great Lakes

            More snow in Great Lakes

            Gulf stream slows down

            Gulf stream shows “small increase in flow“

  3. All this list shows is a complete lack of willingness from you “skeptics” to actually examine any science. All you do is look for some superficial smokescreen arguments that you can latch onto and give yourselves an excuse to scream about how climate scientists are all a bunch of frauds. That seems to be the sole purpose of this blog. The lack of true skepticism is staggering.

    1. Painful as it might be to admit, it is unfortunate that evidence of climate scientist “fraud” is far easier to produce than evidence of climate scientist “meaningful contribution.”

      1. False accusations of fraud are indeed easier to produce than actually examining concrete science. You’ve just proven that “skeptics” are exceptionally lazy.

    2. So Dana, Jimbo provides a list of contradictory claims made by “climate alarmists” and you tout this as evidence that all “sceptics” rely on superficial and “smokescreen” arguments. It looks more like that it is you making the smoke.

      1. No David, Jimbo merely presents a bunch of news stories that are contradictory. You could apply the same tactic to virtually any subject and get the same result.

        1. Please read my most recent comments that are not news stories. Address each one please. *NOTE: behind most of the news stories is a scientific paper. Read and search and ye shall find. ;>)

    3. I am perfectly willing to examine all the science: however when all aspects of weather are being used as justification of climate change caused by human intervention and that it a bad thing for the world it reminds of of the proofs behind religions – some of which are highly suspect. They believe because they do, not because of verifiable facts.

  4. Beautifully put by P Gosselin! And just you wait… all this unfalsifiable science – the proof of catastrophic man-made global warming … it’s all going to be in the next IPCC’s AR5 report.

    The IPCC made its bed many years ago… and has had to sleep in it. It can never remake its bed, and that is why the pseudo science in AR5 is going to be truly of “gold standard” mind-boggling proportions. To do otherwise would represent total disaster for the IPCC… an embarrassing acknowledgement that this whole catastrophic man-made global warming saga has been the greatest con ever perpetrated on the global community.

  5. Arguing at a political level about “climate change”, a phrase which is itself a political construct, is useless. The earth has been warming since the 1800s, but before that there was a 400-500 year little ice age. Before that there was a 400-500 warming period (the Medieval Warming Period), and before that … etc.

    Man is, quite apparently, adding some CO2 to the atmosphere. The amount is small in comparison to the entire carbon cycle. The total average annual increase is quite low (about 2ppmv), but in a few centuries that buildup could become worrisome. (But, in the short term, there is no “crisis” – don’t let the politicians have any more excuses to spend money on a non-crisis!) This does not mean that we should not be considering use of more natural gas and nuclear power, perhaps even solar.)

    The so-called scientists who are proponents of global warming have not been able to provide any actual evidence that the CO2 increase related to industrial activity has anything to do with the current warming cycle. Their actions alone are sufficient for any prudent person to have serious doubts as to their credibility (and there’s no shortage of hard evidence about that.)

    Our current warming has stalled over the past 15 years. There has been no statistically significant warming recently. Even Phil Jones (of CRU infamy) admits that. The arguments over which recent year has been the warmest, 2010, 2005, or 1998 are based on temperature differences of a few hundredths of a degree (NOISE). Even NASA’s Hansen, after making his (usual) declaration that the current year is warmest, admits the small differences make that distinction meaningless. (That somehow didn’t stop him from making a big deal about it however.) Having said that, this warming cycle is well within natural climate variation. Even if it cranks back up again the cycle may be just another natural variation. After all, the MWP lasted a couple of hundred years longer – and there was no industrial activity back then.

    Anyone who takes a little time to get familiar with the (non-political) issues will likely turn into a skeptic. (But, as Lindzen of MIT says, to be a skeptic the issue in question must at least be plausible, and it’s not.)

    I’ve included a reference to a google doc which provides some background on climate, for those who have no real perspective on climate.


    1. It really irritates me when people make scientifically incorrect statements and political arguments, then claim the science is on their side and the other side is politically biased.

  6. they missed one out there
    Australia will be in permanent drought
    Australia will become a permanent Flood Zone

  7. It annoys me that some people ignore the fact that the run up in temperature from 1978 to 1998 all happened when El Nino’s predominated over La Nina’s.

    From 1940 to 1978 the reverse was true and it cooled. No surprise.

    From 1998 to today the proportions were 50-50 and the warming has ceased.

    CO2 didn’t even cause it to warm when it had a fairly level playing field. [Pretty puny GHG!]

    It looks like the temperature since 1880 or so follows the El Nino/La Nina trends. Who needs CO2 ?


    The PDO cycle is the same as the proportions of El Nino/La Ninas. When it is positive it should warm and it does. When it is negative it should cool and it does.



    1. The surface air has warmed 0.8C over the past century. ENSO did not cause that. People who can’t seem to comprehend long-term trends and causation bug me.

  8. Dear Sir,

    I appreciate your Blog very much. I’m a german physicist with a PhD in Physical Chemistry and I don’t believe in AGW.

    Concerning your article “Unfalsifiable Science – Proof Of Climate Change” I want to comment on a few things:

    1: The date function of your blog shows the german date style e.g. “10. Februar 2011″. (I’m going to set up a science-engineering-tips blog myself so I couldn’t help noticing…)

    2. John Brignell addressed a similar topic in is blog (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm): “A complete list of things caused by global warming”. There you can find (as of August 2010):

    Antarctic ice grows (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E0DC1439F933A15756C0A9639C8B63)
    Antarctic ice shrinks (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080113.wicesheet13/BNStory/Nation-al/home)

    Atlantic less salty (http://www.livescience.com/environment/050629_fresh_water.html)
    Atlantic more salty (http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn12528&feedId=online-news_rss20)

    beer better (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060803-warming-beer.html)
    beer worse (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327253.400-climate-change-depresses-beer-drinkers.html)

    coral reefs grow (http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=1407602004)
    coral reefs shrink (http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/campaign_gw_wildlife.shtml)

    desert advance (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/11/22/overstating-health-impacts-of-global-warming)
    desert retreat (http://www.awitness.org/journal/good_global_warming.html)

    dozen deadly diseases (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article4902669.ece)
    dozen deadly diseases – not (http://www.physorg.com/news157809539.html)

    Earth slowing down (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1816860.stm)
    Earth spins faster (http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11555-global-warming-will-make-earth-spin-faster.html)

    Europe simultaneously baking and freezing (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18445)

    extinctions – polar bears (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35233-2004Nov8.html)
    extinctions – not polar bears (http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=143012005)

    farmers benefit (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10512754)
    farmers go under (http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/18102002/n1.shtml)

    fish bigger (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/11/2300949.htm)
    fish downsize (http://www.physorg.com/news119290923.html)
    fish shrinking (http://www.thetimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1036945)

    fog increase in San Francisco (http://www.sfchroniclemarketplace.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/06/DDJT187GK9.DTL)
    fog decrease in San Francisco (http://www.sfchroniclemarketplace.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/07/06/DDJT187GK9.DTL)

    forest decline (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/arctic-climate-impact-assessment.html)
    forest expansion (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/arctic-climate-impact-assessment.html)

    global cooling (http://www.dinosauria.com/jdp/news/freeze.html)

    harvest increase (http://www.sentienttimes.com/01/dec_jan01/global_warming.html)
    harvest shrinkage (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/27/9971)

    hibernation ends too soon (http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1792631,00.html)
    hibernation ends too late (http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=456&sid=825556)

    ice sheet growth (http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20020927213400data_trunc_sys.shtml)
    ice sheet shrinkage (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/02/02/archive/main269304.shtml)

    Maple production advanced (http://www.physorg.com/news125679824.html)
    Maple syrup shortage (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurie-david/global-warming-comes-to-t_b_15775.html)

    Melanoma (http://library.thinkquest.org/J003411/health.htm)
    Melanoma (decline http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4777870a11.html)

    salinity reduction (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-05/uoia-ipt050306.php)
    salinity increase (http://www.brightsurf.com/news/dec_03/NSF_news_121803_b.php)

    snowfall decrease (http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2006/Mar06/snow.htm)
    snowfall increase (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/11/031106052121.htm)

    tree growth slowed (http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/meas_tech/hardwood.htm)
    tree growth faster (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/19/AR2010021905405.html?hpid=artslot)

    trees less colourful (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F4061EFB3C5B0C758DDDA90994DD404482)
    trees more colourful (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/thisweek/story/0,12977,1353258,00.html)

    trees in trouble (http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2007/07/31/news/wyoming/73b546306ae54d9e8725732800801daa.txt)
    trees lush (http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=177)

    winds stronger (http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=58549&CultureCode=en)
    winds weaker (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2268820/posts)

    winters in Britain colder (http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1147220.ece)
    winter in Britain dead (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512896&in_page_id=1770)

    3. According to “http://whois.domaintools.com/notrickszone.com” you registered “NOTRICKSZONE.COM” at “http://www.united-domains.de/”

    and you hosted your site with also with “united-domains AG”. But according to “http://bizinformation.at/www.notrickszone.com” you are

    hosted at “Osna-solution Ug”.
    To make things more complicated I found on “http://www.allaboutsite.com/notrickszone.com” that your registrar is “KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH”.
    which is – according to “http://www.allaboutsite.com/notrickszone.com” – also your hoster.
    But not if I go by “http://www.websiteoutlook.com/www.notrickszone.com”: Here they say “Hosting ISP : Hetzner Online AG”

    I’m looking for a registrar and a hoster, that’s why I’m inerested in:
    a) who is your registrar?
    b) who is your hoster?
    c) are you satisfied with their services?
    d) what package did you order from your hoster?
    e) why didn`t you register and host in an english-speaking country?

    I would be grateful for an answer!

    Keep up the good work,
    best regards,

    Georg Huber

    1. Thanks Georg,
      Maybe this is where Jimbo derived his list. He had left it as a previous comment and I simply posted it because I found it to be an interesting recap.
      On the hosting, etc. I had an entusiastic mate set it up for me. I don’t know so much about all this hosting biz, but I will ask him and contact you.
      I see you have an Australian address. Hope you’re enjyoing the summer. Here today it is snowing again.

      1. Dear Mr. Gosselin,

        thank you very much for your quick reply.

        I didn’t intend to diminish Mr. Jimbo’s work, I just wanted to give due credit to Mr. John Brignell.
        Concerning my questions: It was very kind of you asking your friend for technical details and also very kind of your friend agreeing to send me a mail.

        Oh, and no, I’m not so lucky in life as to be living in Australia. It would be a dream coming true – but I’m just an ordinary citizen of Bavaria, in the Ammersee region, 45 miles north of the Alps.

        And to Mr. Dana’s “supposed”: My degrees are from Ludwig-Maximilians-University in Munich and for my PhD thesis I received a “summa cum laude”. My comment wasn’t meant to be a scientific contribution, I just wanted to give … (see above).
        But there is one indisputable fact: these articles do exist.

        By the way: In my PhD-thesis I did some ab-initio calculations on certain aromatic molecules to derive their hyperpolarizabilities. I also did try to predict their bulk behavior in solution and in their gaseous phase depending on IR-radiation. Even using the then supercomputers of the Bavarian Academy of Sciences it was quite hard to predict bulk behavior of said molecules from their molecular structures and electron density functions. Granted, CO2 is a simple molecule with well known absorption spectra under different conditions but to extrapolate from this spectra to bulk behavior is not that easy or straight forward. You can try that yourself if you want to: start with obtaining the spectral data from HITRAN (contact: Larry Rothman, lrothman@cfa.harvard.edu). Having done so, comes the hard part in finding the correct scenarios of light interacting with different types of molecules (scattering, absorption, re-emission) under differing conditions (temperature, pressure, presence of water droplets and so on). You have primary radiation but going deeper into the atmosphere you get secondary photons of varied frequencies. And the molecules interact with each other via impacts which leads to impact broadening of the spectra. Mr. Ed Caryl discussed the complexity in his article here [http://notrickszone.com/2011/02/11/is-co2-warming-a-mirage/]. I think to quantify all foreseeable interactions you need a Monte-Carlo-Approach like MCNPX [https://mcnpx.lanl.gov/] or GEANT4 [http://geant4.web.cern.ch/geant4/] (yes, I know these programs are predominantly for high-energy particles, but I just mentioned them to show what kind of approach seems realistic to me).

        What makes me shrink away from the “AGW”-scientists is:
        1) their lack of rigorous error checking and applying the rules of error propagation in their calculations.
        2) their insistence on being right and the shrillness of their statements.
        3) the vilification of people who don’t sing according to their tunes.
        4) their suggestions of solutions for a supposed (hey, here’s the word again!) crisis reminding me of socialism and Luddites.
        5) their comradeship with politicians, especially if the research is funded by governments.
        6) the what-if-scenarios of many “secondary” papers (as shown in the article to these comments) fueling the alarmism: “if there is global warming, then we might get more/less wars, rain, .. “. This approach is ok for mathematicians: “suppose A is true, then we have …”. But even mathematicians then still have to prove A.
        7) the climate of being regarded as someone like a holocaust denier (hey, my grandfather was a communist and jailed by the Nazis for hiding Czech POWs, a granduncle of mine was imprisoned at KZ Dachau and an uncle of mine threatened an SS-officer with his own weapon in the presence of a whole SS-company and made them put down their rifles). I for one know that these are different issues, but some “AGW”-scientists don’t. To get my soon-to-be blog started I don’t even dare to show my real opinion on “AGW”, that’s the situation in Germany (again? Maybe there too is a parallel…). That’s why I hold people like Mr. Gosselin in high esteem. It’s no easy going against the main stream.

        But now I want to have a restful evening so I conclude with expressing my thanks to Mr. Gosselin and his friend.
        Thanks again!

        Best regards,
        Georg Huber

        1. Thanks Georg for the kind words,
          Your description of the situation here in Germany is right on. The sceptics have very few resources, and have to fight alarmist organizations and networks that are funded with billions. But guess what? Who do you think is winning? :)
          I look forward to seeing you blog. As I said, I will provide you with the hosting info etc. as soon as I can. I have to say I got a an e-mail today from someone whose name I do not want to disclose. But I can tell you that the warmists in Germany are desperately desperate. And I know that we will punch some serious holes into their armor in the months ahead.

          I am sure that once you start blogging, and outlining why you do not believe in the AGW catastrophism, you will be quickly recognised by the big blogs is USA – such as WUWT and Climate Depot. You are the kind of person we need on baord.
          And don’t give up on your country. Germany is a great place to live. You just have a few rotten green and red apples we need to take out of the barrel. I truly believe that Germany is a big believer in freedom and human dignity.
          P Gosselin

      1. And I expect much better from readers. I see your job is to get the last word in on every comment, no matter how silly.

Comments are closed.