Thoughts on economics and liberty

What is the proof for the greenhouse gas theory?

This is a placeholder post and will be updated when I find time.

This theory was created well before later advances in physics. Its laboratory proof is virtually non-existent.


Here’s the scamster Bill Nye’s “proof”

Here’s proof that his “experiment” is a pile of nonsense:

Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment

Someone sent me these papers to review:

DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00626
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00373

DOI: 10.1088/0143-0807/35/2/025016

These papers do nothing whatsoever to prove the greenhouse effect.

Basically: “it is impossible to run a controlled experiment on Earth’s climate (there is no control planet), the only way to “test” the CAGW hypothesis is through models.”  [Source]

This is not a scientific hypothesis:

More CO2 will cause some warming.

It is arm waving.

This is a scientific hypothesis:

A doubling of atmospheric CO2 will cause the lower troposphere to warm by ___ °C.

Thirty-plus years of failed climate models never been able to fill in the blank.



Power Hour: Dr. Denis Rancourt on the True Physics of CO2


Nullifying the climate null hypothesis – Judith Curry∗

Her key point

Hypotheses about complex problems such as climate change are either implicitly or explicitly built upon a collection of subhypotheses that are related to each other in the context of a syllogistic paradigm or other type of logical analysis. The challenges of testing a complex hypothesis involving a causal chain was addressed by Curry et al.6 in the context of testing the hypothesis that greenhouse warming is causing an increase in global hurricane intensity. The central hypothesis was broken down into three subhypotheses that were each necessary for the central hypothesis to be true, and further comprised a causal chain. A null hypothesis was formulated for each of the subhypotheses, and evidence was presented for both the null and subhypotheses. The conclusion was that the evidence did not support the rejection of any of the subhypothesis, and hence did not support rejection of the central hypothesis


rather than trying to reject either of these hypotheses (regardless of which
is the null), there should be a debate regarding the relative significance of anthropogenic warming relative to forced and unforced natural climate variability


The Shattered Greenhouse: How Simple Physics Demolishes the “Greenhouse Effect”.
Timothy Casey

Alternative view to greenhouse effect – that atmospheric density causes heat (Nikolov-Zeller effect)

This has been confirmed. See this.


Sanjeev Sabhlok

View more posts from this author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *