“The model architecture was wrong,” he says. “Carbon dioxide causes only minor warming. The climate is largely driven by factors outside our control.”
There is another problem with the original climate model, which has been around since 1896.
While climate scientists have been predicting since the 1990s that changes in temperature would follow changes in carbon dioxide, the records over the past half million years show that not to be the case.
So, the new improved climate model shows CO2 is not the culprit in recent global warming. But what is?
Dr Evans has a theory: solar activity. What he calls “albedo modulation”, the waxing and waning of reflected radiation from the Sun, is the likely cause of global warming.
He predicts global temperatures, which have plateaued, will begin to cool significantly, beginning between 2017 and 2021. The cooling will be about 0.3C in the 2020s. Some scientists have even forecast a mini ice age in the 2030s.So the sun is what's been driving global heating and cooling all along?! You don't say! Next thing you know, scientists will be telling us that the moon affects the tide!
At any rate, it's nice to know that someone has taken time to analyze the sun's role in global temperature fluctuation, something I suggested two years ago. In fact, it's rather astonishing that climate "scientists" haven't put much effort into doing this very thing given that the daily cycle of climate change corresponds almost perfectly to solar visibility, and the annual cycle of climate change corresponds strongly to the rate of solar exposure. As such, it seems like it would be obvious to assume that if the sun is the biggest driver of climate temperature fluctuation on a micro- and mezzo-cycle, then it's probably the main driver of temperature on a macro-cycle as well.
Also, climatology isn't really a proper science given that its theories aren't generally subjected to testing and falsification. For instance, it seems like it would be possible to hypothesize a correlation between CO2 emissions and global temperature increase. If, say, 1,000,000 tons of CO2 emissions led to a 1-degree Celsius increase in global temperature year over year, this could be tested by generating 1,000,000 tons of CO2 emissions and observing the subsequent trends. This is never done, of course, and for good reason: a one degree difference in measured temperature could simply be measurement error. Nonetheless, the complete absence of anything approaching empirical testing in climatology means that the discipline bears considerably more resemblance to the statistical analysis common in marketing research that the hard science of chemistry. And keep in mind that statistical analysis isn't even as rigorous as mathematics.
Anyhow, given that climatology isn't rigorous to be math or science, and given that the current consensus of climatologists has been demonstrated to woefully incompetent at even statistical analysis, I think it safe to double down on my prior assertion that people who worry about climate change are really just people who like to worry. Climatology thus exists provides them with complex jargonistic rationalizations for their feelings of crisis (read: guilt) and compels them to action to save the world (read: evangelize). In short, climatology isn't science, it's priest craft for earth-worshiping pagans.