A bit of a mouthful but the whole article makes excellent reading.

Here is the kernel of the piece which really makes you understand how unscientific the global warming alarmists methods are;

Consider the following tests:

(i) Over the last 16 years, global average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has displayed no statistically significant warming; over the same period, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 10%.

Large increases in carbon dioxide have therefore not only failed to produce dangerous warming, but failed to produce any warming at all. Hypothesis fails.

(ii) During the 20th century, a global warming of between 0.4 deg 

C and 0.7 deg C occurred, at a maximum rate, in the early decades of the century, of about 1.7 deg C/century. In comparison, our best regional climate records show that over the last 10,000 years natural climate cycling has resulted in temperature highs up to at least 1.0 deg C warmer than today, at rates of warming up to 2.5 deg C/century.

In other words, both the rate and magnitude of 20th century warming falls well within the envelope of natural climate change. Hypothesis fails, twice.

(iii) If global temperature is controlled primarily by atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, then changes in carbon dioxide should precede parallel changes in temperature.

In fact, the opposite relationship applies at all time scales. Temperature change precedes carbon dioxide change by about 5 months during the annual seasonal cycle, and by about 700-1000 years during ice age climatic cycling. Hypothesis fails.

(iv) The IPCC’s computer general circulation models, which factor in the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, project that global warming should be occurring at a rate of +2.0 deg C/century.

In fact, no warming at all has occurred in either the atmosphere or the ocean for more than the last decade. The models are clearly faulty, and allocate too great a warming effect for the extra carbon dioxide (technically, they are said to overestimate the climate sensitivity). Hypothesis fails.

(v) The same computer models predict that a fingerprint of greenhouse-gas-induced warming will be the creation of an atmospheric hot spot at heights of 8-10 km in equatorial regions, and enhanced warming also near both poles.

Given that we already know that the models are faulty, it shouldn’t surprise us to discover that direct measurements by both weather balloon radiosondes and satellite sensors show the absence of surface warming in Antarctica, and a complete absence of the predicted low latitude atmospheric hot spot. Hypothesis fails, twice.

One of the 20th century’s greatest physicists, Richard Feynman, observed about science that:

“In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation, to see if it works.

It’s that simple statement that is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.”

None of the five tests above supports or agrees with the predictions implicit in the greenhouse hypothesis as stated above. Richard Feynman is correct to advise us that therefore the hypothesis is invalid, and that many times over.

It is important to remain vigilant in the world of scepticism – but we can still have a little fun. I love this article written by Mike Bastasch in “The Daily Caller” – “Top 5 ‘Snow Free and ‘Ice Free’ predictions”. This is not climate change – this is just cold weather. In the antipodes they are having record heat, that is ‘hot weather’. It happens. You would think the prophets of doom would get tired of being wrong.

I have just published a book entitled “To Kill an Error”. It is my attempt to popularise the sceptic view of Global warming. I have written it as a novel – a thriller (I like to think). There are any number of books around (I have read quite a few) that state a case for the sceptic point of view. They appeal to people like me with a knowledge of the subject. What I felt was missing was something that might appeal to the agnostic. In the factual books the subject matter can be very dry, I have wrapped the message up in a murder mystery that I hope stands alone but in addition gets across some of the darker side of the rush for Green Energy.

The title of the book is taken from a quote by Charles Darwin – “To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes even better than, the establishing of a new truth or fact.”