Link: https://fakta360.no/2024/07/1-hvorfor-er-du-overbevist-om-at-co2hypotesen-er-feil/
Please see the link above for the source text.
Why are you convinced that the CO2 hypothesis is wrong?
Erik Bye
July 8, 2024
Dr. philos (PhD) Erik Bye writes a lot and often. In the article En hel verden lar seg lure trill rundt! he has collected and summarized all the articles he has had here on Fakta360, which has become a full 25 pieces in number including the summary. Fakta360 therefore asked him if he could answer these two questions:
1. Why are you convinced that the CO2 hypothesis is wrong?
2. You write often and a lot. What drives you to such an effort on the writing front?
His answer was so comprehensive that it resulted in two new articles. The answer to the second question will be in a separate article later. In this first article, he answers question one and writes:
No documentation
As a researcher, I am trained to work with hypotheses that can be falsified (verified, tested) and theories that are scientifically documented. Neither is the case with the CO 2 claim. There is not a single peer-reviewed article in a reputable scientific journal that documents human-caused climate change as a result of fossil CO 2 emissions .
No falsification
The CO 2 claim lacks observational data related to the claims of a catastrophic development on the planet, if we do not stay below both 2 degrees and 1.5 degrees ˚C in 2030, 2050 or in 2100. Therefore, the CO 2 claim cannot be called a hypothesis, since it cannot be falsified.
The temperature before CO 2
The three researchers Ole Humlum, Kjell Stordahl and Jan-Erik Solheim have demonstrated that temperature changes before CO2 levels (2013). Then CO2 cannot be the cause of temperature changes. Cause must come before result or consequence.
Arrhenius is falsified
The heat theory of Svante Arrhenius was rejected in 2009. Thus, the entire basis for warming due to CO 2 is gone.
The climate cannot be modeled
The atmosphere is a stochastic (random), non-linear system that cannot be modeled or predicted (predetermined, predicted). This has been stated by the IPCC in its third main report, AR3 (FAR). Then no one can comment on a future climate.
Climate goals are political inventions
The climate targets, i.e. the 2-degree and 1.5-degree targets, are political proposals that have no scientific basis. The 2-degree target was proposed during the COP15 meeting in Copenhagen in 2009, pushed through by politicians at the time. Thus, these values are completely without any scientific justification. The climate targets are actually a political bluff!
Doesn't nature affect the climate?
It has become increasingly clear that the IPCC's knowledge of the climate system and its natural variables is very deficient, and in some cases completely absent. Among the natural factors that influence our climate, there are large knowledge gaps related to: the sun, the ocean, clouds, water vapor, above- and below-sea volcanoes, geothermal heat, the Earth's
rotation, the external magnetic field, the tilt of the Earth's axis and the phases of the moon. The IPCC has attempted to calculate the effect of natural forcings. This resulted in an overall value so close to zero that they set the influence of nature equal to zero in their climate calculations. If we only consider the influence of the sun, clouds and the ocean on the climate, it is obvious that the IPCC is fundamentally wrong in this conclusion. Not least, the sun has a recognized influence on the climate, probably the strongest natural variable.
There are three further points that make me have no faith in the IPCC's message:
1. Total mengde CO2 i beregningene
The entire concept of the IPCC is based on man-made climate change as a result of emissions of fossil CO 2 . Despite this, the IPCC uses the total proportion of CO 2 in the atmosphere as a basis in its model calculations. It has been shown by a Norwegian researcher, Tom V. Segalstad (1992) that there is only 4% fossil CO 2 in the atmosphere. Then it is completely wrong to use the total amount of CO 2 as a basis in the calculations. They themselves claim that then they get everything right, but the meaning of this statement is of course highly unscientific and actually startling. One has to ask: what is it that they are being fully explained? They have never given any answer to this.
2. Climate sensitivity
The Arrhenius theory of warming was based on the assumption that a doubling of CO2 levels would lead to a certain temperature increase. This increase was determined by the climate sensitivity (Cf). This Cf value was calculated to be anywhere from 6˚C around 1990 to close to zero around 2020. No one has been able to observe this magnitude, and there is considerable disagreement among IPCC-believing climate scientists about its magnitude. In a thorough study by Clark (2009), the value was calculated to lie on either side of zero, with considerable uncertainty. This suggests that the value, with some uncertainty, can be estimated to be zero. Proving the existence of a variable with the value zero, i.e. no detectable effect, thus becomes a scientific theoretical question. I have concluded that climate sensitivity does not exist as a physical quantity. Operating with an
active variable with zero effect is in itself more of a philosophical question than a real scientific question.
3. El Nino
El Niño is part of the ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) weather phenomenon that moves westward along the equator. It consists of upheavals of warm and cold water, and is represented by the warm part, El Niño, and the cold part, La Nina. El Niño warms the atmosphere, La Nina brings it all back to the starting point. There has long been uncertainty about whether El Niño has a permanent effect on the atmosphere. The ongoing, steady global warming we are seeing now has made it difficult to decide whether it has a permanent effect. However, observations from NOAA in the period 1880 to 1930 show constant temperatures. This suggests that El Niño does not have a permanent effect on either temperature or climate.
The El Niño phenomenon has been widely used to substantiate so-called extreme temperature increases in several places on our continent. When the permanent effect can be rejected, this weakens confidence in the message from the IPCC and the corps of climate scientists they have. This helps to weaken professional trust in the UN climate panel.
Recent documentation
In addition to these scientific points, various reports have also been published in recent years, which clearly weaken the reputation of the IPCC:
● The NIPCC reports
● The annual reports from GWPF, by Ole Humlum, from 2021 , 2022 , 2023
● The CLINTEL report , with 1940 signatures.
● The report of the 46 top climate scientists who stop collaborating with the IPCC
● Nobel Prize winner in Physics for 2023, Prof. John Clauser, who strongly criticizes the IPCC.
● The null hypothesis for CO2
● Climate The Movie