A French physicist recounts the evidence affirming temperature changes are the cause of changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations throughout the last 423 thousand years of the ice core record, thus invalidating the claims of more than a negligible role for CO2 in affecting climate changes.
In a new study Dr. Pascal Richet re-emphasizes the “most fundamental tenet of science, the principle of non-contradiction” in reviewing the extensive ice core evidence showing CO2 changes lag behind temperature changes by as much as 7,000 years – the “opposite conclusion” of “a driving role [for] CO2 assigned by climate models”.
This fundamental failure of cause-effect experimental evidence “invalidates” claims CO2 is a key climate forcing agent. Therefore, as Dr. Richet urges, “one should then reject the Arrhenian paradigm” because a “cardinal rule in science is to reject a hypothesis that clearly contradicts the experimental findings it is supposed to account for”.
The ice core evidence showing “the fact that temperature decreases do not depend in any noticeable way on CO2 concentration in all [warming and cooling] cycles” consequently “shifts the burden of proof of any CO2 influence on temperature to the proponents” of the CO2-drives-climate paradigm.
“As simply based on fundamental logic and on the concept of cause and effect, an epistemological examination of the geochemical analysis performed on the Vostok ice cores invalidates the marked greenhouse effect on past climate usually assigned to CO2.”
“[T]he greenhouse effect of CO2 on…today’s climate remains to be documented,” and, for CH4, “a causal correlation is actually nonexistent”.
“[S]ignificant contributions of CO2 and CH4 to temperature changes at the Earth’s surface remain unsubstantiated by direct, independent evidence.”
“[C]urrent models suffer from the circular nature of the reasoning” even in their assumed feedback role for CO2, which is similar to reductio ad absurdum argumentation.
14 responses to “New Study: Burden Of Proof Is On AGW Proponents As Ice Cores ‘Invalidate’ CO2-Driven Climate Change”
This chart pretty much debunks the AGW Theory, and Al Gore is promoting it as evidence for AGW.
More Charts that debunk AGW
While this is a good example of refuting a narrative, there is a fatal flaw in the approach.
Only a poet gets this right, today´s scientists have majro problems : See Edgar Poe, Mellonta Tauta – Future things:
Do you know that it is not more than a thousand years ago since the metaphysicians consented to relieve the people of the singular fancy that there existed but two possible roads for the attainment of Truth! Believe it if you can! It appears that long, long ago, in the night of Time, there lived a Turkish philosopher (or Hindoo possibly) called Aries Tottle [Aristotle]. This person introduced, or at all events propagated what was termed the deductive or a priori mode of investigation. He started with what he maintained to be axioms or “self-evident truths,” and thence proceeded “logically” to results. His greatest disciples were one Neuclid [Euclid], and one Cant [Kant].
Well, Aries Tottle flourished supreme until advent of one Hog [Francis Bacon], surnamed the “Ettrick Shepherd,” who preached an entirely different system, which he called the a posteriori or inductive. His plan referred altogether to Sensation. He proceeded by observing, analyzing, and classifying facts-instantiae naturae, as they were affectedly called—into general laws.
Aries Tottle’s mode, in a word, was based on noumena; Hog’s on phenomena. Well, so great was the admiration excited by this latter system that, at its first introduction, Aries Tottle fell into disrepute; but finally he recovered ground and was permitted to divide the realm of Truth with his more modern rival. The savans now maintained the Aristotelian and Baconian roads were the sole possible avenues to knowledge.”
This shows the problem. “But in all ages the great obstacles to advancement in Art have been opposed by the so-called men of science.” .
It would be much better not to use Aristotle, Kant, nor Bacon to take on this massive green agenda – those are their weapons after all!
He will be receiving a courier from l’academie de la france
There have been hot debates at the Académie des Sciences between pro-warming and anti-warming academicians years ago. Since that time, they are very quiet.
[…] löytyi kiinnostava juttu (Linkki). Ranskalainen tutkija Richet on saanut tietoteoreettiseksi tulokseksi, ettei Vostok-aseman […]
“… the demonstration indicates that the greenhouse effect of CO2on 20th century and today’s climate remains to be documented …”.
Which takes us back to the IPCC WGI Second Assessment Report (IPCC, 1996):
“…. The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible …”.
The models based on CO2 being the major factor can be falsified empirically but never validated.
Thanks Kenneth, I wish you’d use stronger language. I prefer the term falsify to invalidate.
“an epistemological examination of the geochemical analyses performed on the Vostok ice cores invalidates the marked greenhouse effect on past climate usually assigned to CO2 and CH4”
– Dr. Pascal Richet, 2021
I’m quoting the author’s word choice. Falsify does have a little more finality to it, and considering ice cores don’t reliably reveal the CO2 record in the first place, it’s difficult to falsify a claim with data that aren’t verifiable themselves.
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]
[…] Fonte: No Tricks Zone […]
[…] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]
But this is old news! It has been widely appreciated for some time that the Vostok ice cores demonstrate that CO2 lags temperature and so therefore temperature must be the cause, rather than effect. The mechanism is also simple – water absorbs more CO2 as it cools and emits CO2 as it warms, just as it does with other gases. The oceans respond fairly quickly to increased temperature by outgassing CO2 in a matter of months, but take much longer to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere when the temperature drops because most molecules of atmospheric CO2 are not close to the water surface. The difference in this lag effect between warming and cooling is a clear signature of oceanic response. Why are the warmists completely indifferent to this evidence? Or is it simply ignorance and stupidity?
“Why are the warmists completely indifferent to this evidence? Or is it simply ignorance and stupidity?”
Any facts which do not conform to the “theory” (sic) must be disposed of…
[…] Zdroj: https://notrickszone.com/2021/05/31/new-study-burden-of-proof-is-on-agw-proponents-as-ice-cores-inva… […]