Peter Ward explains it more clearly and succinctly than I can.
Greenhouse gases simply do not absorb enough heat to warm Earth
ok, so let's look at this article in detail...
First, we get a note that consensus cannot be equated to scientific proof. Then a discussion of LED lights, which doesnt really tell us much. Then a curious and rather confused discussion about heat vs light and radiation in general. Then there is a note that "
carbon dioxide absorbs less than 16 percent of all the frequencies making up the heat radiated by Earth". Finally, we get this assertion: "T
here simply is not enough heat involved in any of these proposed processes to have any significant effect on global warming. Greenhouse-warming theory “just ain’t so.".
Consensus is not Proof In a sense this is of course true .. scientific proof is based on the basic tenets of science: evidence, reproducibility, verification, theory, and testable hypotheses.
Popularity doesn't enter into this. But consensus
does form part of
reproducibility (that is, performing the same experiments and getting similar results) and
verification (that is, performing
new experiments that test the predictions of the theory in new ways). For example, Newtons law of gravity underwent many, many tests over many many years by scientists the world over. And the more varied and accurate those tests the greater the
confidence in the veracity of the theory becomes.
But, again, consensus isnt about popularity. After nearly 200 years, the orbit of Mercury was observed to differ very slightly from that predicted by Newtons theory. Was that hushed up? Did the "cabal" of evil scientists suppress this? No, of course not. The issue was published, discussed and debated, and various suggestions made to account for the discrepancy (such as an undiscovered planet tugging on Mercury). Then along comes General Relativity, which provided a more accurate description of gravity and correctly predicted the actual orbit of Mercury (among other things).
This is how science works. It works that way for gravity, and evolution, and climate change. It even works for cold fusion, where the
lack of reproducibility (it was tried, many times) led to a consensus that the whole idea was invalid (there never was a clear underlying theory).
CO2 Absorbs Only 16 Percent of Heat Radiated by Earth Let's assume this number is correct. What does that prove? Nowhere in the article does it state
what percentage of radiation CO2 needs to be absorbed to cause global warming (even if it were that simple). There is then the curious phrase "
this limited number of frequencies absorbed by carbon dioxide does not constitute heat". This is meaningless.
All electromagnetic radiation contains energy, what we call radiative "heat" is purely related to the human senses. It just so happens we cannot see infra-red but our skin can feel its warming effects, so historically we have given it a special name. In fact, ultra-violet and other high-frequency radiation contains much
more energy than infra-red. In this sense, UV and visible light are both "hotter" than infra-red.
There is Not Enough Heat Involved...Greenhouse-warming theory “just ain’t so.". This conclusion is plucked out if thin air. Apart from the meaningless 16% CO2 number quoted,
no quantitative analysis is provided
anywhere in the article to justify this conclusion. We are just given some odd ramblings about LED lights and confused assertions about "heat", and then this conclusion appears out of nowhere.
I see nothing at all in this article that casts any doubt whatsoever on global warming. Sure, it is strong on
opinions, but if you are going to begin an article by saying consensus/popularity is
not proof, and then provide
absolutely no proof of your own assertions, then you are on pretty thin ice.
