Yes, I’m aware that a hypothesis can only be disproved by testing, but if enough predictions of the theory are borne out in experiments or real-world observations, and none fail, the theory becomes more accepted as being correct. you say “In order to reach a conclusion about a hypothesis, one must study the evidence.” Not quite: In order to reach a conclusion about a hypothesis, one must Test the hypothesis. If 1000 tests pass, and only one fails, the hypothesis is busted, or at least needs to be revised. The Only testing of AGW that can be done is in the laboratory of the real world, and the only test that can be carried out is predictions of the future, then waiting to see whether the reality matches the prediction. As you should be aware, the warming since 1998 has been zero, or so close to zero that it is not statistically significant. None of the IPCC Models predicted that before it happened. that is a failure of the hypothesis: scientific method, QED.

You are also mistaken in your belief that increasing CO2 emissions will NOT increase vegetative mass. You obviously didn’t bother reading the research summary at

“ CO2 fertilisation correlated with an 11 per cent increase in foliage cover from 1982–2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa” means CO2 increases allow plants to survive with less water in arid areas. You are correct that plants also require trace minerals, but while it is correct, it is also irrelevant. CO2 increases have caused deserts to shrink visibly over the last 25 years. That is a good thing, not a calamity.

Climate scientists have since attempted to explain the upside-down hockey stick reduction in warming (now known as the Warming Hiatus) not as a case of diminishing returns on CO2 increases (which fits the data) but by insisting on fitting a straight line trend starting in 1975 or earlier to give an average upwards trend, so they can claim the warming hiatus doesn’t exist. That lame excuse should have resulted in their being ridiculed by real scientists, but few have pointed their dishonesty out.

Freeman Dyson doesn’t believe they are being consciously dishonest: He thinks they are suffering from cognitive dissonance: “ I consider myself an unprejudiced person and to me these facts are obvious. But the same facts are not obvious to the majority of scientists and politicians who consider carbon dioxide to be evil and dangerous. The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence. Those of my scientific colleagues who believe the prevailing dogma about carbon dioxide will not find Goklany’s evidence convincing. I hope that a few of them will make the effort to examine the evidence in detail and see how it contradicts the prevailing dogma, but I know that the majority will remain blind. That is to me the central mystery of climate science. It is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?… the public perception of carbon dioxide has been dominated by the computer climate-model experts. The tribal group-thinking of that group of experts was amplified and reinforced by a supportive political bureaucracy. Indur Goklany has assembled a massive collection of evidence to demonstrate two facts. First, the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide are dominant over the climatic effects and are overwhelmingly beneficial. Second, the climatic effects observed in the real world are much less damaging than the effects predicted by the climate models, and have also been frequently beneficial. I am hoping that the scientists and politicians who have been blindly demonizing carbon dioxide for 37 years will one day open their eyes and look at the evidence. Goklany and I do not claim to be infallible. Like the climate-model experts, we have also evolved recently from the culture of the cave-children. Like them, we have inherited our own set of prejudices and blindnesses. Truth emerges when different groups of explorers listen to each other’s stories and correct each other’s mistakes.”

He sounds eminently sane and reasonable to me, far more so than the ranting proponents of catastrophic Global Warming! He also agrees with my research and reasoning on the topic, which might fit your theory that “you chose him only because he gives you the answer that you want to hear,” but I don’t think so. I’ve read the IPCC report summaries and invite you to read the much shorter document by Indur Goklany, or at least the foreword by freeman Dyson, with an open mind, if that is possible.

I work in IT, Community volunteer interested in Politics, support Capitalism as the best economic system for lifting people out of poverty, Skeptical scientist.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store