The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming.
The satellites that measure the world’s temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001
The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
I don’t know enough about global warming or climate change to dispute or confirm any of these claims, but would like to hear the opinion of other forum members on this topic.
It seems to me that there will always be some disagreement on this topic. You have a hugely complicated system that is always changing and only a limited number of inputs to draw conclusions from. Add to that an enormous financial and political interest, and you have a recipe for disaster.
There are a few things that bother me about the article. But I am also not an expert, and I can only speculate at this time.
The author seems to me a bit too certain that carbon emissions don’t cause global warming. There are a lot of papers and evidence to the contrary.
He pins a lot on the “greenhouse signature” that is missing. This I find dubious as well.
Suppose, I asked myself, that the deniers are right and the CO2 thing is a mistake? What will happen if the world takes the CO2 thing seriously, adopting common sense measures to counter anthropogenic warming and there never was any warming in the first place? 1) there will more nonrenewable resources to leave to our progeny; 2) we will breath cleaner air and see the stars again, the way we saw them half a century ago; 3) we could stop paving over the planet, and 4) cut down on the number of billionaires. If we're wrong we could have a party. We could have a party either way.