In 2014, Professor Christopher Keating initiated a public challenge to disprove global warming. In his email of 10/01/2016, he wrote to me "The challenge was not to prove global warming isn’t real, the challenge was for people who go around claiming they can show global warming isn’t real to live up to their claims – i.e., put up or shut up."
(1) Scientifically, Professor Keating's challenge is seriously flawed, because in science the burden of evidence is on those who propose a hypothesis. His challenge is like asking others to disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny. The failure to do so would then be his 'evidence' for the existence of the Easter Bunny. That is unscientific nonsense. In contrast, Professor Keating has to provide evidence for his hypothesis of global warming. However, the advocates of global warming have failed for decades to provide the most basic evidence. They have failed to show that the current temperature is statistically higher than observed during the past 10,000 years of the current interglacial. In addition, they have failed to provide valid evidence for their hypothesis that CO2 drives temperature. That chronic lack of evidence maintains the scientific debate about global warming.
(2) Scientifically, it is not good enough to show that the global temperature of about 1.3 °C above normal has been the highest of the last 135 years. The period is too short to draw such conclusions, because the global temperature fluctuates all the time within a range of more than 12.0 °C. Therefore, an increase of 1.3 °C is in itself not unnatural. It has to be shown that the current temperature is statistical significantly higher than the natural temperature during the last 10,000 interglacial years. In contrast, my data suggest that temperatures during that period have been higher and that the current temperature fails to reach statistical significance (p = 0.11, one-tailed).
(3) Scientifically, it is neither good enough to show that CO2 drives temperature within the isolation of a laboratory. The laboratory measurements might be reliable, which means that repeated measurements would provide the same results. However, those results should be also valid, which means that they should apply to reality. The advocates of CO2 driven global warming have failed to show that their 'reliable' laboratory evidence is valid in the real world. In contrast, my data suggest that the natural thermal effect of CO2 during the last 410,000 years has been ten times larger than observed during the industrial period of the last 56 years. Hence, the thermal effect of CO2 is not reliable, because it has changed dramatically over time. In addition, the thermal effect of CO2 is not valid, because the natural thermal effect of CO2 does not apply to reality.
(4) Scientifically, it is not good enough to show a correlation between CO2 and temperature. A correlation analysis is non-causal, because it does not differentiate between cause and effect. Therefore, it cannot support the notion that CO2 drives temperature. The same correlation could also support the notion that temperature drives CO2. Furthermore, the same correlation could also support the notion that a third variable drives both CO2 and temperature. Therefore, I introduced a new statistical test in my book. The results of that test provide tentative support for the notion that annual CO2 concentrations predict next year's temperatures correctly in 82% of the cases.
(5) My data show that at 400 ppm of CO2 the temperature in 2014 should have been 11.5 °C, rather than 1.3 °C. Hence, scientists should question why the temperature is so low, rather than why it is so high. Professor Keating's unilateral hypothesis of artificial global warming cannot account for that thermal gap of 10.2 °C. Consequently, the current focus on the reduction of global warming is likely to provide the right solution for the wrong problem. As shown by Professor Keating' remarks, groupthink and peer pressure of the majority repress a free debate and, therefore, stagnate the progress of climatology. Aristotle, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein showed that science is based on the truth, rather than on a democratic majority. If you want to count votes, then become a politician.
(6) In order to explain the thermal gap, I introduced the bilateral hypothesis of climate change, which synthesizes the thesis of global warming with the antithesis of natural global cooling. In accord with my bilateral hypothesis, global warming is about 11.5 °C, while the natural global cooling is about -8.9 °C. The balance of those two phenomena is the 1.3 °C recorded in 2014. In accord with my bilateral hypothesis, it is unimportant whether the temperature of 1.3 °C in 2014 was significantly high. Even if it had been -1.3 °C and significantly low, the thermal gap would still support the notion that CO2 induces artificial global warming. The bilateral hypothesis explains the unstable weather, rising sea levels, relatively stable global temperature during the last 15 years, increasing and decreasing ice sheets, and snow and ice in unusual places. Hence, the bilateral hypothesis is a better explanation for the symptoms of climate change than the unilateral hypothesis.
The Keating-Schade debate shows that humanity's way of thinking is failing at the highest levels. As a result, we are running out of time. Our only hope is those scientists who do not "put up or shut up".
Dr Auke Schade
FULL KEATING-SCHADE DEBATE
From: Auke Schade Sent: Monday, December 7, 2015 11:42 PM To: DOGW.firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: No Global Warming (unilateral hypothesis)
Hi, I read about Prof Christopher Keating’s 10,000 dollar challenge to disprove global warming. My name is Dr Auke Schade. I don’t want his money, but I will take up his challenge. Where can I enter and find his email address? .... The full Keating-Schade debate.