Alan Carlin’s response to Patrice Ayme.

Learning from Dogs is very grateful for having Alan and Patrice argue this very important issue through the medium of this Blog.  Because if there is one thing that has the power to overturn our way of life over the last 50 years, it is climate warming (as a result of man’s activities).

On the 26th October there was a Post published that contained Patrice’s reply to an earlier article containing Alan Carlin’s hypothesis.  Learning from Dogs invited Alan to reply to Patrice and this is his contribution.

With one exception the recent comments by Patrice Ayme are typical of what climate alarmists/warmists so often say when presented with serious climate science by skeptics.  They presumably do this in order to try to distract attention from their inability or unwillingness to respond to the scientific issues raised by skeptics or a desire to hide the weakness of their science.  They appeal to alleged authority; they attack the opposition, often personally–anything to avoid discussion of the science.

In this case, the only exception is Ayme’s weird contention that there should not be a tropospheric hotspot in the tropics IF the UN GHG hypothesis should be correct.  This is weird because there is actually rare agreement between most informed alarmists/warmists and skeptics that such a hot spot should be present IF the UN hypothesis is correct.  So his contention that it is an “absurdity” puts him at odds with his much favored UN reports and with his views on the science of warming.  For further information see Evans here (which is a link from the link I originally gave–but perhaps Ayme did not bother to read it before responding??)

As Evans points out this alleged hotspot predicted by the UN climate hypothesis is actually crucial to the UN hypothesis “because the same water vapor feedback that produces the hotspot in IPCC climate theory also doubles or triples the temperature increases predicted by the IPCC climate models.  If the IPCC climate modellers just turn down the water vapor feedback in their models enough so their theoretical signatures match the observed warming patterns, then the predicted temperature increases due to projected carbon emissions are greatly reduced and are no longer of much concern.”  So Ayme apparently did not realize that his statement that there should be no hotspot means that he believes that one of the crucial features of the UN climate hypothesis is wrong and hence that his views of the science are wrong.

I note that except for his weird statement on the hotspot, he makes no serious attempt to respond to or analyze my four fundamental scientific tests of the UN GHG hypothesis.

For a different view as to the objectivity (or lack thereof) of the IPCC see here.

Most of the remainder of Ayme’s comments are best ignored as attempts to distract readers from the fundamental (and telling) scientific tests discussed in my post.

Alan Carlin

By Paul Handover