Science progresses by testing predictions against real world data obtained from direct observations and rigorous experiments. The stakes in the global-warming debate are much too high to ignore this observational evidence and declare the science settled. Though there are many more scientists who are extremely well qualified and have reached the same conclusions we have, we stress again that science is not a democratic exercise and our conclusions must be based on observational evidence.
The computer-model predictions of alarming global warming have seriously exaggerated the warming by CO2 and have underestimated other causes. Since CO2 is not a pollutant but a substantial benefit to agriculture, and since its warming potential has been greatly exaggerated, it is time for the world to rethink its frenzied pursuit of decarbonization at any cost.
First, your chart is misleading. What calculation process can come up with a point result without any error band for something as difficult to compute as “surface global temperature.”
Second, look at the sun’s Schwab Cycle, which is peaking and near peaking. The Cycle is a far better match to global temperatures than current models, that are designed to support the politics of CO2.
Would like to read more about this. Can you provide us with some links?
I’ll answer that.
This is what the politicians (who want an excuse to levy tax) and climate “change” alarmists DON’T want you to know:
Google for:
Professor Nir SHAVIV, Department of Physics, Hebrew University
and see:
http://www.sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
Regards,
Hamish Blyth.
Thank you. Very interesting. Though we should take note of the modest conclusion: “In particular, not all of the 20th century global warming should be attributed to anthropogenic sources, since increased solar activity explains through this link more than half of the warming.”