Article 73

The Transformation Of Belief In Anthropogenic Global Warming To Knowledge Of Its Existence Or Non-Existence In Reality. 

Given that our knowledge of the sequence and timescales of the temperate and glacial stages of the Quaternary Period in which we now exist and which started 2.5 Ma) as cited in the closing Article 72 of the third section of this website; given that we are now in a cooling stage which will end this current temperate stage in about 5000 years; and given that we shall then enter another glacial stage, rather than another temperate stage, it seems that if we are now experiencing a period anthropogenic warming period we should welcome it as a means of delaying the onset of yet another glacial stage. However, as we approach the anti-global warming Cop 26 meeting in Glasgow, our newspapers are replete with articles which claim to show that the costs of preventing anthropogenic global warming are, quite simply, unaffordable; that the countries which emit the greatest amounts of carbon dioxide are unlikely to agree to agree to limit their emissions to the extent deemed necessary to prevent this belief-only anthropogenic global warming; and that the UK government is likely to be seriously embarrassed by hosting this meeting.

To avoid, this embarrassment, I propose that the UK government uses this meeting to openly admit that at this point in time anthropogenic global warming is only a belief; that the costs are problematical and require the knowledge of need before they are incurred; and that consequently before they are incurred, attempts should be made to convert this belief to positive or negative knowledge by the method advocated by this website; that if this is not yet possible, then it should at least be recognised that thus far this increased temperatures are merely correlated with increased emissions of carbon dioxide rather than than these parameters having been related as cause and effect, as is required by actual science; and that correlation in the absence of demonstrable cause/effect denotes non-science or pseudoscience; and that before incurring and/or imposing the costs of compliance with mere belief, governments should incur the costs of the cause/effect experimentation necessary to validate or refute the current belief in anthropogenic global warming. I would be willing to assist in ensuring that all such research proposals were properly adjudicated as to their ability to validate or refute the current belief in anthropogenic global warming.

By way of illustration, I recall listening to lecture by an FRS i in which he attributed his results on the decrease in plankton numbers in the western approaches to the English Channel, to the increase in marine pollution. While, he was circulating through his audience in the subsequent coffee break, I told him his results were merely a correlation in that he had failed to demonstrate a cause/effect relationship between his chosen parameters; and that he could equally well have shown the same correlation with the then increasing issuance of television licences. He made no response, other than to resume is circulation within the coffee group members. 17/8/21.

© Against Belief-Consensus Ltd 2022
Website Design: C2 Group