Again: Their own figures contradict global Warmists
I have on a few occasions mentioned that global warming was demonstrably wrong from the outset. The theory was that after WWII there was a big expansion of industry worldwide that pumped lots of CO2 into the atmosphere and that the earth warmed as a result of that. But what actually happened would almost be enough to convince one that God opposes Warmists. Let me go over that again before I go on to a new hole in the theory.
Yes. On theory, more CO2 should produce more warming. Yes. There was a great rise in CO2 output in the postwar era. But, No. Global temperatures did not rise. There was a "long hiatus" between 1945 and 1975. That is a pretty exact refutation of global warming theory. Warmists mutter about "special factors" giving that theory-destroying result but what special factors could exactly match and cancel out 30 years of warming? It is a non-explanation.
Warmists also say "There are always gaps". But that is fatal too. ANY gap disproves the theory. When a CO2 molecule arrives in the atmosphere it is just an inert little puff of gas with no capacity to "decide" what it can do. It just does what it does and does it immediately. So if it causes warming it must do that at once -- not after some "gap" in time. So there is no escape. The long hiatus is a conclusive disproof of global warming.
I have said all that before but I have repeated it because I think it can not be repeated enough. It is basic science but usually passes unmentioned.
So let me go on to another absurdity in Warmism. It is broadly agreed that the amount of global warming was 8 tenths of one degree Celsius over the 20th century. So did all that warming take place after 1945? Far from it. Because of the long hiatus, most of the 0.8C warming happened BEFORE 1945.
But the warming before 1945 was supposed to be natural. So NATURAL warming exceeded the warming attributed to anthropogenic emissions of CO2. So why is the warming after 1945 man-made when natural factors did an even bigger job of producing warming? If the warming before 1945 was natural, how can we be sure that the warming after 1945 was not natural too? If the warming after 1945 was greater than the warming before 1945, the Warmists could have had some case -- but the post-1945 warming was in fact LESS than the prior warming.
Even if the warming before and after 1945 was split 50/50, you would still need evidence to show that the post-1945 warming was anything but a continuation of a natural trend.
The graph at the head of this blog is drawn with rather thick lines but you can still easily see the 1945 - 1975 hiatus and the fact that there was at least as much warming before 1945 as there was afterwards.
Global warming theory flies in the face of reality. If it were a scientific theory and not a money-grabbing racket, it would have been abandoned long ago