Refuting Climate Alarmism By Brian Simpson

Climate change alarmism is being used by globalist organisations as the UN and World Economic Forum, who exert enormous control and influence over national governments, to bring in their technocratic agenda. We have seen how radical this is, with European moves to cull out farms, as in the Netherlands and Ireland, to transition rapidly to renewable energy, which is far from “sustainable” and other policies like the ending of meat eating, at least for us ordinary people. Farming and traditional culture in the West will be devastated by this. But, the elites say, such is the price to save the planet from runaway climate change. Thus, much depends upon debunking the pseudo-science behind climate alarmism. This is yet another clear illustration of the need to deal with science, or the elites will use it to deal with us. Today, science and technology are olitical weapons.

But, as argued by aa groups od scientist in their paper, “Does a Global Temperature Exist?” there are fundamental flaws in the vey basic climate change alarmist narrative.

The key premise is that there has been since  the beginning of the industrial, era a rise in the  global average temperature. But this concept is a statistical construct, such like an average age of a population, and does not exist in reality. As such, the very basis of the climate change alarmist position is flawed and does not get off the ground.

https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/globtemp.jnet.pdf

“Does a Global Temperature Exist? Christopher Essex Department of Applied Mathematics University of Western Ontario Ross McKitrick Department of Economics University of Guelph Bjarne Andresen Niels Bohr Institute University of Copenhagen J. Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics (in press, June 2006)

Abstract Physical, mathematical and observational grounds are employed to show that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the issue of global warming. While it is always possible to construct statistics for any given set of local temperature data, an infinite range of such statistics is mathematically permissible if physical principles provide no explicit basis for choosing among them. Distinct and equally valid statistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere. A given temperature field can be interpreted as both “warming” and “cooling” simultaneously, making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically ill-posed.

It is widely held that the atmosphere and oceans have been warming over the past half century. The basis of this view is that there is an upward trend in the graph of a statistic called the “global temperature” ([1], [2]). It arises from projecting a sampling of the fluctuating temperature field of the Earth onto a single number (e.g. [3], [4]) at discrete monthly or annual intervals. Proponents claim that this statistic represents a measurement of the annual global temperature to an accuracy of ±0.05 ◦C (see [5]). Moreover, they presume that small changes in it, up or down, have direct and unequivocal physical meaning. While that statistic is nothing more than an average over temperatures, it is regarded as the temperature, as if an average over temperatures is actually a temperature itself, and as if the out-of-equilibrium climate system has only one temperature. But an average of temperature data sampled from a non-equilibrium field is not a temperature. Moreover, it hardly needs stating that the Earth does not have just one temperature. It is not in global thermodynamic equilibrium — neither within itself nor with its surroundings. It is not even approximately so for the climatological questions asked of the temperature field. Even when viewed from space at such a distance that the Earth appears as a point source, the radiation from it deviates from a black body distribution and so has no one temperature [6]. There is also no unique “temperature at the top of the atmosphere”. The temperature field of the Earth as a whole is not thermodynamically representable by a single temperature. The global temperature statistic is also described as the average, as if there is only one kind of average. Of course there is an infinity of mathematically legitimate options. Indeed over one hundred different averages over temperatures have been used in meteorology and climate studies [7] with more appearing regularly. For the case of temperature, or any other thermodynamic intensity, there is no physical basis for choosing any one of these from the infinite domain of distinct mathematical options. The international standards organization ISO tried to choose one but failed [8]. The problem is not a mere absence of a convention for selecting one from among many mathematically different but physically-equivalent measures for a single underlying property. The problem is that there is no single underlying property, because there is no global temperature. But this does not stop averages from being made. There is no experimental or theoretical way to falsify any particular choice of averaging rule, if averages are (falsely) proclaimed to be temperatures. Proclaiming them to be temperatures leads to a paradox, as any two ad hoc choices applied to a particular outof-equilibrium field can have mutually contradictory behaviors: the system can seem to be both warming and cooling simultaneously. Paradoxically, whether the system is “warming” or “cooling” becomes a property of the choice of average — a choice which is independent of the system. The resolution of this paradox is not through adoption of a convention. It is resolved by recognizing that it is an abuse of terminology to use the terms “warming” and “cooling” to denote upward or downward trends in averages of temperature data in such circumstances. Statistics might go up or down, but the system itself cannot be said to be warming or cooling.”