What if we found no evidence for DAGW?

Imagine – no evidence for Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming

What would it mean?

First, visualise the vast edifice global warming has grown to be. It dominates influential spheres: education, religion, commerce, industry, academia, law, government and its organs, international treaties and totalitarian aspirations. A great industry turning over billions annually has grown up to provide its machinery.

The fear of human damage of the climate is everywhere. Thousands of our best minds are paid to direct the new industry of climate change, millions follow it and study it, while many thousands dispute it.

What is climate change? The original is simply the ever-changing climate; no mystery with that, it has always changed and always will. The new, dangerous form, still called climate change, is man-made—caused, it is alleged, by our apparently feeble amounts of carbon dioxide and a few other minor gases.

For the sake of precision, we need a precise, scientific formulation of the indistinct theory often called dangerous anthropogenic global warming, and of course there isn’t one that’s generally accepted. The best I’ve come across is:

Human activity dangerously warms the global mean surface temperature.

The theory is indistinct because, in a curious, fundamental failure of climate science, there’s no paper that defines DAGW and sets out the scientific reasoning behind it—a failure that nobody seems inclined to repair. It’s reasonable to assume that only proponents of the hypothesis might be motivated to go back and tidy it up, so to speak, for it would hardly be a concern to those who see no evidence for it. But the warmsters are without doubt afraid of the lack of evidence—the paper would be torn to shreds.

Should it prove there’s no evidence supporting the theory, what would become of the institutions created to fight climate change? What would happen to the employment of those who depend on it? What of the industries and services sprung up to supply it? What of the scientists and politicians who declared their belief in it or dedicated their careers to it? What of all the changes in our societies done by the fear of warming?

Should it prove there’s no evidence, none of the expenditure devoted to mitigating the effects of warming would be justified. Spending on climate research would surely be wound back considerably.

Surely the scientists, who have provided advice since the beginning, would be reasonably likely to have the evidence. What do they say?

The NZ Climate Science Coalition, of which I’m a member, asked the Royal Society of New Zealand for evidence that human activity dangerously warms the climate. They gave us nothing that was evidence. In April 2018 I asked the Royal Society of London for evidence: they gave nothing resembling evidence. I have asked our Minister for Climate Change, James Shaw, who said that they believe the IPCC and I should read their reports.

Indeed, whatever institutions and individuals either I or the NZ Climate Science Coalition ask for evidence, they each at some point, in some form, confirm a strong belief in the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It’s a common theme in the campaign against global warming. But many of us have read the relevant sections of the IPCC reports, read innumerable papers they cite and studied scientific analyses. None of the Assessment Reports contain evidence of a dangerous human influence on global temperature.

If you think I’m wrong, please, I implore you, contact me in a comment below and describe the evidence. I have asked the IPCC Secretariat to describe it and I’ll let you know what they say.

Visits: 531

27 Thoughts on “What if we found no evidence for DAGW?

  1. Man of Thessaly on 04/05/2019 at 9:35 pm said:

    Can you please expand on what you think is “evidence”? As you describe, a lot of people have provided you with information about anthropogenic climate change, including reasons for concern that it’s dangerous – this is all in the IPCC reports. The world’s governments, scientific institutions, and millions of people consider that to be evidence. But you don’t. Fair enough – your choice. But hypothetically, what WOULD you consider evidence of dangerous anthropogenic climate change? What kind of study or theory would make you admit that evidence does exist? Further, what evidence would you find persuasive?

  2. Brian James on 04/05/2019 at 10:07 pm said:

    I often read that average global temperature increases cause CO2 increases, i.e., CO2 is a lagging indicator of warming and therefore cannot be the cause of warming. If this is so, surely it is the silver bullet that kills off all DAGW hand-wringing, i.e., temperature changes because of solar activity, and that leads to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration. What CO2 man puts into the atmosphere is not only negligible, but also non-contributory in respect of warming. Again, if this is the case, why is it not pushed much more vigorously by the, for want of a better word, skeptic side? Thanks a lot in advance. BJ

    • Richard Treadgold on 04/05/2019 at 11:06 pm said:


      The lag you mention is certainly one of the reasons to disbelieve the UN version of events. I don’t know why it’s not more vigorously pursued.

  3. Richard Treadgold on 04/05/2019 at 11:12 pm said:


    Evidence is more than we commonly think, and what we commonly think to be evidence is actually no help. I’ll have more to say on that shortly. It’s rather problematic to describe what would persuade me before I’ve heard it. If you apply the question to yourself perhaps you’d understand that. But try me.

  4. Man of Thessaly on 04/05/2019 at 11:28 pm said:

    Try you with what? I don’t hold any information or evidence that isn’t in the public domain already. You know what’s available too, but for some reason you don’t think it’s evidence. I’m curious what you think IS evidence. A chain of reasoning that hasn’t been presented yet? A real physical experiment on another planet? I suspect that you’re guilty of intellectual cowardice – scorning everything shown to you, without saying what you want. It might make you feel superior, but to most people it just looks weak. So be brave – have a good hard think and let us know what WOULD convince you.

  5. Richard Treadgold on 04/05/2019 at 11:41 pm said:


    Really? Stop being difficult. There’s nothing in the AR5 or previous reports that shows human emissions cause dangerous global warming, so I’m totally unpersuaded. Over to you.

  6. Man of Thessaly on 04/05/2019 at 11:56 pm said:

    No, you’re chickening out. I am among the people, experts, governments and institutions who find the information and reasoning in the IPCC reports credible and persuasive. I know you don’t, so I’m not going to try and repeat it to you.
    I’m not even interested in why you don’t find it persuasive – I find the analyses you present here shallow, ill-informed and unconvincing, but I don’t try to change your mind. You may have noticed – I usually comment here to ask your sources; get you to check your facts.
    What I am interested in is what sort of information you WOULD find persuasive. If it’s really an information gap, I’m sure someone will try to address it. But I suspect it’s not a real gap. You can’t articulate it, because it doesn’t exist. As I said above, I think you’re just naysaying all the experts so you can feel a little superior.

    • Richard Treadgold on 05/05/2019 at 10:54 am said:


      Actually, I read the IPCC reports and locate relevant papers precisely because I don’t value my own knowledge over that of proper scientists. But I can think and reason as well as the next man, so when I don’t understand I ask questions, point out uncertainties or describe deficiencies.

      You claim to “know” I don’t “find the information and reasoning in the IPCC reports credible and persuasive.” That’s a lot of baloney to take from a few simple questions. There’s a great deal of reliable information in the reports.

      You seem to have overlooked the fact that the lack of proof of DAGW lies in the Assessment Reports—I can’t make that up (but then you know that, or you’d deliver the evidence). Nor does any other scientist tell me what the proof is. From the Royal Society down, they all tell me to read the IPCC reports. AR5 says nothing like, and gives no evidence that could be construed as meaning “mankind’s emissions caused X degrees of warming from 1951 to 2010” or similar. Nor does it describe any feasible mechanism whereby our accumulated airborne emissions significantly heat either the air or the sea.

      If I’m wrong, all you have to do is tell me, and I’d be grateful, for I’d then be right. Simply calling me names quickly loses its gloss. I note how remarkable it is that all those “people, experts, governments”, etc. say, with you, that because I don’t believe it they’re not going to describe the proof and won’t even discuss it. It’s illogical for you to allege that I disbelieve the IPCC when I have simply asked questions about what they say. Why are your responses identical? Could it be that none of you have the proof of this? Why don’t you describe the overwhelming evidence?

  7. Brett Keane on 05/05/2019 at 10:08 am said:

    Mot, we have read and tested the work of ipcc. It does not stand scientific scrutiny and ends up based on models that have already failed. But models cannot be evidence anyway so put up or go, please.

    The works of Maxwell and Wood onward show the falsification of your hypothesis from before it even got going and we have thousands of supporting Papers since.
    The Null hypothesis is that the Ideal Gas Laws and Laws of Thermodynamics disallow downwelling warming by cooler gas molecules of warmer molecules below or the surface, also warmer on average. We also have corroborating empirical evidence from NASA probes etc. showing how all solar system atmospheres above 0.1 bar behave the same regardless of how much CO2 they have.
    Folk who imagine different should get out more. They should read all that Ipcc reports in total and discuss their actual scientific second to fourth level conclusions through from the 1980’s… Forget most of the SPRs they are mere politics, irrelevant or dishonest. Brett Keane

  8. Maggy Wassilieff on 05/05/2019 at 11:05 am said:

    Looks like our surface air temperature measurements are not fit for documenting global warming

    Finally, a National authority acknowledges that site location changes skew results toward long-term warming.

    It’s not as if we haven’t known this for decades!

  9. Richard Treadgold on 05/05/2019 at 12:08 pm said:

    This is a great find. It’s true that the measurement methods are woeful and we’ve long known about it.

    It sounds huge. But I don’t think it’ll deter the warming enthusiasts much since they’re reforming our political system, not so much the weather.

  10. Brett Keane on 05/05/2019 at 12:29 pm said:

    Mot, https://principia-scientific.org/karl-popper-on-the-line-between-science-pseudoscience/

    No troll will get this, but we never give up trying…. Brett

  11. Brett Keane on 05/05/2019 at 1:26 pm said:


    Here it is, the sort of proof we get from trolls. The ridicule count must overwhelm the shaky structure in time. Like it did for communism and all others…… The long March through academia ends in Lemming Land of course. Brett

  12. Man of Thessaly on 05/05/2019 at 8:29 pm said:

    Brett and Richard, let me be clear: I am not interested in providing you with research references, extracts from IPCC reports, or any other evidence. We all know what information is available – many people understand and accept it as evidence of dangerous anthropogenic climate change, but you don’t. I have no problem with that.
    Again, I would like to know what you WOULD consider to be evidence. Unless you can imagine this, your position is based on faith alone.
    The same applies to my position, of course. So to lead the way for you, here’s the sort of evidence that would change my mind about climate change:
    – evidence that all the surface and satellite-based temperature records are wrong, and warming has not occurred (the report above does NOT demonstrate this, despite your chortling)
    – discovery of significant errors in the main computer climate models
    – discovery of another mechanism that caused the observed warming, other than greenhouse gases

    note – I’m not asking you to supply any of this information! please address my main question: what would you consider evidence of dangerous anthropogenic climate change?

  13. Brett Keane on 06/05/2019 at 8:57 am said:

    Mot: CO2 rise has to lead global T rise. It does not. This is incontrovertible but warmista peform Feynmannesque sliding hypothesis actions to save themselves. They fail. Address this and we can move on to the next. Brett

  14. Brett Keane on 06/05/2019 at 9:03 am said:

    Mot: But you fail for a start by not knowing or admitting the IPCC admissions of model failure and other problems. Showing you only hew to the Political not the scientific lines. Not honest. Brett

  15. Simon on 06/05/2019 at 10:05 am said:

    Every country in the world has signed the Paris Agreement based upon summaries of evidence provided by the IPCC and others. This would not have happened if there was any doubt at all among the world’s leaders and policy-makers.

  16. Richard Treadgold on 06/05/2019 at 10:07 am said:


    [I regret I was unable to complete this yesterday.]

    Unless you can imagine this, your position is based on faith alone.

    I cannot see the utility of discussing what I have not encountered, nor can I imagine why you might want to know, other than to again start an argument. You’d make better use of your energies by filling the gaps in my knowledge. My “position” as you call it is based on the absence of evidence, no faith is required. This absence is material and persuasive. In my view, your acceptance of the information “we all know is available” is itself based on faith, since I know it pretty well and there’s no evidence in it.

    The surface temperature databases are not all wrong, but there is evidence that some have errors; that siting problems, for example, lead to spurious warming. I note the following after considering the three factors you claim “would” change your mind:

    1. Significant global warming has not occurred for about the last 20 years. The IPCC mentioned the hiatus was then about 15 years in the AR5 (2013). Many papers discuss this but I haven’t noticed you acknowledge it. This alone represents significant defects in the models.

    2. By “report”, above, I assume you mean the AR5, which does indeed state that human activity might have been responsible for about 0.5°C from 1951 to 2010. I did not say warming has not occurred; I hear no chortling.

    3. Serious errors that you ignore have been reported in the climate models. The AR5 states: 111 of 114 models overstate the observed warming and offers three possibilities as causes: (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect radiative forcing and (c) model response error.

    If you consider my answers supply any information you demanded I not supply, my apologies; without stating a few facts it’s difficult to make a case and impossible to refute your errors.

  17. Richard Treadgold on 06/05/2019 at 10:21 am said:


    Every country in the world has signed the Paris Agreement based upon summaries of evidence provided by the IPCC and others.

    Those summaries were written by those very countries, all members of the INTERGOVERNMENTAL (not the scientific) Panel on Climate Change, and the scientific reports are completed only AFTER the SPM is published. Tell me how many of those deeply knowledgeable politicians and bureaucrats from Senegal, Angola, Lesotho, Rwanda, Togo and the rest of the 193 irreconcilable members of the UN swigging cocktails at the annual conferences actually read the science in the WG1 report before they sign what the UN instructs them to think.

  18. Brett Keane on 06/05/2019 at 2:42 pm said:

    It has been noted by modellers involved that they cannot handle Clouds or Water Vapour uplift. The most powerful atmospheric forces along with concurrent heated gas convection (largely heated by WV condensation and LH release).
    Models are tuned to CO2 increase on assumption it is important. Hence they are drastically WRONG! The Russian models using Solar Cycles are least wrong, but still too far off. Their own people (IPCC) admit it, so READ. Brett

  19. BoyfromTottenham on 06/05/2019 at 6:18 pm said:

    Guys, apparently we will all know in less than 12 years whether the (latest) predictions of global doom due to CAGW are correct. So let’s agree to wait and see? I will be very happy if I am alive in 12 years’ time to check (2031 seems like a long way away when one is already 72 years of age), but it probably won’t cause me any great concern. As for my children and grandchildren – they will be voting for their governments for the next 50 years or so. Good luck to them, if they still live in a democracy that is.

  20. Simon on 06/05/2019 at 8:08 pm said:

    Tell me how many of those deeply knowledgeable politicians and bureaucrats from Senegal, Angola, Lesotho, Rwanda, Togo and the rest of the 193 irreconcilable members of the UN swigging cocktails at the annual conferences actually read the science in the WG1 report before they sign what the UN instructs them to think.
    What an incredibly racist thing to say. All of those countries have operational climate change research programmes. The UN instructs nobody.
    You’d make better use of your energies by filling the gaps in my knowledge.
    Nobody has the time or energy to fill those vast caverns. This is something only you can do yourself.

  21. Richard Treadgold on 06/05/2019 at 8:12 pm said:


    You say racist. When I last checked, the 193 UN members cover quite a few races.

    The UN instructs nobody.

    Ha ha.

    Nobody has the time or energy to fill those vast caverns.

    Good. Bye.

  22. Gwan on 06/05/2019 at 10:22 pm said:

    Simple Simon Here again I see.
    Pushing the party line as usual .
    Do you not get it that this global warming _climate change is a political scam .
    The present world temperature has risen about half a degree Celsius since the satellites were launched in the late 1970s .
    But remember the worlds temperature had dropped from 1946 to 1979 and all the so called experts were warning of the coming ICE AGE.
    The world was warmer than present in the Medieval Warm Period which ended about 800 years ago with the onset of the Little Ice Age.
    There are many inconvenient historical facts and one is that the Vikings farmed in Greenland 800 years ago and farming is still not possible there with this so called warming .
    There is indisputable evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was global and so called climate scientists try to hide these facts.
    I have taken an interest in this for over 50 years and I have seen how older climate records have been tampered with to reduce the recorded temperatures of the 1930s and 40s .
    The present slight warming looks alarming when there is virtually no difference between the warming from the 1880s to 1945 than from 1979 to 2019 .
    We know that Mike Manns Hockey stick is bogus and he also made the MWP vanish when it was part of history and well documented and has since been verified over most of the land areas of the world .
    Simple Simon and man of Thessaly go and do some research and come back with some serious evidence to back up your claims .

  23. how we decrease negative effect of global warming?

  24. Brett Keane on 28/05/2019 at 5:33 pm said:


    Well, ahem…. We have a problem, Mr Mann. Brett Keane

Leave a Reply

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

Post Navigation