PAGE 1… (back to TOC)
80. There is a scientific
consensus that AGW, or GHG pollution (greenhouse gas) is causing most of the
warming in the last 50 years… and the study of 928 articles (10% sampling of
all) Peer-reviewed scientific articles support it.
"Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global
warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled."
Gore makes a statement that many many people have bought into, like just the fact he says it - it must be true. He even makes a joke about those that believed the world was flat – but only an “insignificant fraction of scientists” disagreed with that “settled” science. I was a science fanatic in High School many years ago, I know that doesn’t qualify me to be an authority, but I did spend a third of my High School time in upper level science at the science cluster school, Douglass H.S. I was one of about 20 kids throughout the entire southern half of Oklahoma City that were chosen to be in Science Seminar my senior year, which meant that I could work 3 hours every day on any project I wanted to with 6 of the top science teachers in the city overseeing my work. I know something about science. And before I start quoting all of the scientists that actually got their PhD’s in it, I want to say this. Science isn’t about consensus. Science is about experimentation, observation and verification to prove something is NOT true. A respectable scientist isn’t going to find only things that agree with him and then propose their theory is now proved; they work totally to disprove their theory. But what do I know??
Michael
Crichton, M.D. Harvard Medical School, Senior Fellow Salk Institute for
Biological Studies, Professor Cambridge University & MIT… also the
author of Andromeda Strain, E.T.,
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of
consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard
consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be
stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the
first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the
matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees
on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus.
Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only
one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has
results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.
The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with
the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus,
it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
http://www.s8int.com/crichton.html
That being said, Gore states that there is a ‘consensus’ of scientists around the world that human-caused global warming (AGW) is a fact. He says there are multitudes of the world's top scientists voicing concern through the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, there have been four reports so far. He went on and talked about a study of a sample of 928 articles on global warming, none of which were found to express doubt. That’s pretty ominous and I had to replay this over and over. It sounds like it’s a pretty solid statement and there is no doubt whatsoever. Except…
The “multitudes of scientists”
turn out to be 52 that actually signed the IPCC report. There were quite a few scientists that were
asked to review a chapter of the report, but most of the reviews were
ignored. In fact, many of the IPCC
reviewers declined to sign the report because it didn’t reflect the actual work
that was done…
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, PhD Meterology, Research Scientist Environment
Canada Environmental Consultant (extreme weather
events), 25 years with Environment Canada in Meteorology, Unionville , Ontario,
IPCC Expert Reviewer
Brant Boucher, in his letter
"Scientific consensus" (The Hill Times, Aug. 6, 2007), seems
to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC documents represents
"scientific consensus." Nothing could be further than the truth!
As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have
pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my
letters (The Hill Times, May 28, 2007). I have also pointed out in my
letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the
hypothesis of GHG-induced warming of the earth's surface and suggesting a
stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation
patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed. http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/cover_index.php?display=story&full_path=/2007/august/13/letter4/&c=1
John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia, also member of the IPCC review team ended his press release with these conclusions…
Three conclusions follow. First,
the IPCC is merely presenting what it regards as a consensus among published
scientific papers – in effect, a giant review article rather than original
research.
Secondly, in order to produce a paper on some aspect of climatology a
researcher needs funding. In the current environment that funding is very
obviously directed towards studies which assert that the human influence on
climate is substantial. It should be no surprise, therefore, that the number of
papers adhering to what has become a “party line” can be presented – rightly or
wrongly – as a “consensus”.
Thirdly, the dominance of research presupposing a human influence also means
that the IPCC editing teams are likely to consist of people predisposed to view
the situation in that light.
In these circumstances any review which casts doubt about assertions based on
or related to a human influence on climate will be just what many reviewers
found it to be – frustrating and futile. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/McLean_IPCC_press_release_9-10-07.pdf
There is scant evidence of any support for the IPCC's contention that anthropogenic emissions of
carbon dioxide have caused warming. The IPCC reports appear to be largely based on a consensus of scientific papers, but those papers are the product of research for which the funding is strongly influenced by previous IPCC reports. This makes the claim of a human influence self-perpetuating and a corruption of the normal scientific process. http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC_review_updated_analysis.pdf
Dr. Christopher Landsea, PhD Colorado State University, Research Meteorologist, Hurricane Research Division, Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory of the NOAA, one of the scientists to refuse to sign or be part of the IPCC final report ends his resignation letter to the IPCC with this…
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4. http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/01/18/2500-less-1-2/
Dr.
Richard S. Lindzen, PhD Harvard University,
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and
Planetary Sciences at MIT in a testimony to the EPW Committee in 2002…
None of the above should be
surprising. The IPCC was created
to support the negotiations concerning CO2 emission reductions. Although the
press frequently refers to the hundreds and even thousands of participants as
the world’s leading climate scientists, such a claim is misleading on several
grounds. First, climate science, itself, has traditionally been a scientific
backwater. There is little question that the best science students
traditionally went into physics, math and, more recently, computer science.
Thus, speaking of ‘thousands’ of the world’s leading climate scientists is not
especially meaningful. Even within climate science, most of the top researchers
(at least in the
efforts in climate research. For most of these participants, involvement with the IPCC gains them prestige beyond what would normally be available, and these, not surprisingly, are likely to be particularly supportive of the IPCC. Finally, judging from the Citation Index, the leaders of the IPCC process like Sir John Houghton, Dr. Robert Watson, and Prof. Bert Bolin have never been major contributors to basic climate research. They are, however, enthusiasts for the negotiating process without which there would be no IPCC, which is to say that the IPCC represents an interest in its own right. Of course, this hardly distinguishes the IPCC from other organizations. http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:rDsk2aYLzPUJ:www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/Testimony/Senate2001.pdf+richard+Lindzen+ipcc&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
The IPCC guidelines themselves instruct scientists to be consistent with the summary which is written BEFORE the Working Group’s technical reports are finalized. The summary isn’t written by the independent scientists, but by UN appointed advisors. Then the scientists are to write a report so that the data agrees with the summary. That’s backwards science – coming up with the conclusion, then backing it up with observations. So – check out the instructions given to the scientists who are to write the group reports…
"Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter" http://www.ipcc.ch/about/app-a.pdf
Lubos Motl, PhD Rutgers, Assistant Professor Quantum Physics Harvard from his blog about the above IPCC guidelines…
No kidding. Steve has correctly predicted that it would make my jaws drop. ;-) Those 2500 people first determine what the "big" conclusions should be and then they will spend 3 months by "adjusting" the technical report so that it is consistent with the summary for policymakers and with the overview chapter. We are probably expected to believe that it is physically impossible that anyone among these 2500 people has a chance to find any inaccuracy in the overview in 3 months.
These people are openly declaring that they are going to commit scientific misconduct that will be paid for by the United Nations. If they find an error in the summary, they won't fix it. Instead, they will "adjust" the technical report so that it looks consistent. Very nice. Is it legal according to the existing laws? I don't know. But I am sure that the people behind this outrageous plan are something that I won't write here. ;-)
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/ipcc-ar4.html
“Climate experts” is the operative term here. Why? Because
what Gore’s “majority of scientists” think is immaterial when only a very small
fraction of them actually work in the climate field. Even among that fraction,
many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for
example, who study everything from insects to polar
bears to poison ivy. “While many are highly skilled researchers, they
generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate
change,” explains former
Gore said that part of the problem of telling the story of climate change is journalism’s determination to give equal time to people who have opposing viewpoints. http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21637195/
AND… the very study that Gore talked about involving 928 scientific “peer-reviewed articles” was written by Naomi Oreskes. In her summary of the study, she writes this…
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Dr.
Richard S. Lindzen, PhD Harvard University,
Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and
Planetary Sciences at MIT …
More recently,
a study in the journal Science by the social scientist Nancy Oreskes claimed that a search of the ISI Web of Knowledge
Database for the years 1993 to 2003 under the key words "global climate
change" produced 928 articles, all of whose abstracts supported what she
referred to as the consensus view. A British social scientist, Benny Peiser, checked her procedure and found that only 913 of
the 928 articles had abstracts at all, and that only 13 of the remaining 913
explicitly endorsed the so-called consensus view. Several actually opposed it.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
Speaking of Benny Peiser, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moore’s University in a 2005 paper to the Canadian National Post…
The decision to publish Oreskes' claim of general agreement (just days before an important UN conference on global warming, COP-10) was apparently made while the editors of Science were sitting on a paper that showed quite clearly the opposite. It would appear that the editors of Science knowingly misled the public and the world's media. In my view, such unethical behaviour constitutes a grave contravention, if not a corruption of scientific procedure. This form of unacceptable misconduct is much worse than the editors' refusal to publish the numerous letters and rebuttals regarding Oreskes' flawed study.
The stifling of dissent and the curtailing of scientific skepticism is bringing climate research into disrepute. Science is supposed to work by critical evaluation, open-mindedness and self-correction. There is a fear among climate alarmists that the very existence of scientific skepticism and doubts about their gloomy predictions will be used by politicians to delay action. But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it's all over for science.
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/NationalPost.htm
Dr
Klaus-Martin Schulte, MD FRCS King’s College Hospital - published a study
in response to Oreskes study when he found some irratic data. This
is a quote from his response to an article that was critical of his study…
“In my own research, I carefully
confined my analysis to what the learned papers under review actually said, and
took no prior position on whether or not there was, or ought to be, a
consensus. In all drafts of my paper, I quoted several papers verbatim, though
I note that Oreskes did not do this in her 2004
essay. She assumes that the authors of many papers which do not reject the
consensus can be counted as accepting it. The authors may or may not accept the
consensus, and I have been made aware of research by Von Storch
et al., who had invited scientists in climate and related fields to express
their opinions as to the “consensus”, and had found that many disagreed with
it: however, the statement is in effect now conceding that a substantial
proportion of the scientific papers themselves, as published and as reviewed by
Oreskes, do not provide any direct internal evidence
whatsoever that their authors accept the consensus as she chose to define it.
Therefore Oreskes’ original conclusion that 75% of
the papers which she reviewed either explicitly or implicitly accepted that
“consensus” seems to me, with respect, to be little better than guesswork inspired
by wishful thinking on the basis of a previously-unstated now-declared
preconception that the “basic issue” is “settled”.” http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_reprint_series/open_letter_in_response_to_namoi_oreskes_criticisms.html
How’s this for
consensus?... A survey taken way back in 2002 a group called the National Registry of Environmental Professionals,
an organization of over 12,000 (that’s TWELVE THOUSAND!) environmental
PhDs and professionals that have made their career being concerned for our
environment mostly working in agencies such as the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of Energy found that…
59 percent respond that current climactic activity exceeding norms calibrated by over 100 years of weather data collection can be, in large part, attributed to human activity.
71 percent of environmental professionals, however, do consider the recent increase in hurricane activity in the Atlantic through 2005 and the Pacific through 2006, to be part of a larger natural cycle and not, for the most part, attributable to human activity. http://www.nrep.org/globsurv.htm
OK, so out of the 12,000 enviro pros that already are concerned about our environment, only 59 percent believe that the temp rise is attributed ‘in large part’ to AGW? That means, in reverse, that 41 percent of them believe that the temp rise is not due to human activity, or only in ‘small part’... AND that almost 75% believe the rise in hurricane activity is not related to AGW at all.
Then there’s also these organizations that have outright denied that AGW is a problem which deserves the attention that Gore is pushing everyone into…
85 scientists and climate experts who signed the 1995 Leipzeg Declaration http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/leipzig.html
4,000 scientists and leaders from around the world,
including 70 Nobel Prize winners, who signed the
19,000 scientists and leaders involved in climate study who signed a petition issued by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Recently, Scientist met in Bali
The current UN focus on
"fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN
Development Programme's Human Development Report, is
distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate
changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for
such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens
adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change
from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of
resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.
Ian D. Clark, PhD,
Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology,
Dept. of Earth Sciences,
Richard S. Courtney,
PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer,
Willem de Lange, PhD,
Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand
David Deming, PhD (Geophysics),
Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences,
Freeman J. Dyson,
PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies,
Don J. Easterbrook,
PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology,
Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering
and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University,
Australia
Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist
and climate specialist, Sittard, The
Netherlands
Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion,
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The
Christopher Essex,
PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in
Theoretical Physics,
David Evans, PhD,
mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of
'Science Speak,'
William Evans, PhD,
editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University
of Notre Dame
Stewart Franks, PhD,
Professor, Hydroclimatologist,
R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i
Institute of Geophysics and Planetology,
Lee C. Gerhard, PhD,
Senior Scientist Emeritus,
Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical
Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig,
Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr.,
Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo,
INTTAS,
Fred Goldberg, PhD,
Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering,
Vincent Gray, PhD,
expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique
of 'Climate Change 2001,
William M. Gray,
Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science,
Howard Hayden, PhD,
Emeritus Professor of Physics,
Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor,
AIG News, and consulting geologist,
Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide
and Global Change,
Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon
Dioxide and Global
Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty
and Prosperity; founder and director of the
Zbigniew
Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific
Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection,
Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD,
computer modelling - virology, NSW,
Wibjorn
Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical
Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Olavi
Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of
Atmospheric Physics,
Joel M. Kauffman,
PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in
David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General
of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research,
Madhav
Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist,
Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member,
Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007
William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of
Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer
Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health
Engineering,
Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion,
Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology,
Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive
board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands
Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands
The Rt. Hon. Lord
Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central
Europe Trust; former
Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant,
David R. Legates,
PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research,
Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology,
Bryan Leyland,
International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer,
William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist,
Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology,
Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology
A.J. Tom van Loon,
PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz
University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the
European Association of Science Editors
Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science,
Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of
Missouri-Columbia
Richard Mackey, PhD,
Statistician,
Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für
John Maunder, PhD,
Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World
Meteorological Organization (89-97),
Alister
McFarquhar, PhD, international economy,
Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics,
John McLean, PhD,
climate data analyst, computer scientist,
Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate
Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New
Zealand
Fred Michel, PhD,
Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth
Sciences,
Frank Milne, PhD,
Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University
Asmunn
Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre,
Meteorological Institute,
Alan Moran, PhD,
Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation
Nils-Axel
Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics,
Lubos
Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist,
John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics,
David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the
Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group,
James J. O'Brien,
PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography,
Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow,
Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor
and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies,
University of Tasmania, Australia
R. Timothy Patterson,
PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology),
Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and
Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota
Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology,
Brian Pratt, PhD,
Professor of Geology, Sedimentology,
Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and
Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands
Institute for Isotope Geosciences
Alex Robson, PhD,
Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts,
Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland
Air Force
R.G. Roper, PhD,
Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences,
Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics,
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest
microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric
Consultants, B.C.
Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the
Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental
Geology,
Gary D. Sharp, PhD,
Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study,
S. Fred Singer, PhD,
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences,
L. Graham Smith, PhD,
Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography,
Roy W. Spencer, PhD,
climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The
University of Alabama, Huntsville
Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of
Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and
Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden
Hendrik
Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands
Meteorological Institute
Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Brian G Valentine,
PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct
Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College
Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC
Gerrit
J. van der Lingen, PhD,
geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change
consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations,
Len Walker, PhD,
Power
Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences,
Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management,
Production Management and Logistics,
Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired),
Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology,
David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy
consultant, Virginia
Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology,
A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of
Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics,
University of Bologna, Italy
Then there’s the 10,000 member World Federation of Scientists that post 15 groups and 56 subgroups of global emergencies. One of the groups is Climatology, and one of it’s 8 divisions is..
Possible human influences on climate
and on atmospheric composition and chemistry (e.g. increased greenhouse gases
and tropospheric ozone). http://www.federationofscientists.org/PMPanels/Climate/ClimatePMP.asp
IF
THE “SCIENCE IS SETTLED”, then explain to me why there’s only one of 56 global
emergencies which begin with “POSSIBLE” and not certain? Science is NEVER settled,
and the “multitude of scientists” (looks to be somewhere around 25,089 or so)
are NOT in agreement with Gore. In fact,
the consensus seems to be that we need to spend our time helping people in the
poorer areas of the world adapt to the global warming difficulties rather than
inflate pocketbooks of the ones that stand to be rich beyond their wildest
imaginations. This is where all the
money should be spent… not buying carbon offsets which wind up filtering through
Gore’s own company and lining his pockets.
But, you don’t want to hear from me – let’s move on!
The
next BIG item I had made 7 comments about, but they all deal with the same
infamous “hockey-stick graph” and the associated core samples that Gore used to
highlight his whole message.
15. Core samples
17. 1000 years of CO2
graph rise –
18. 650,000 years of
CO2 graph “never gone above 300ppm”
19. Relationship of
CO2 to temperature… CO2 is a bad thing?
20. “Nice day vs.
mile of ice overhead”
21. Today’s CO2
levels higher than the last 350k years
22. “No controversy”
about having 50 years to deal with GW
74. Separating truth
from fiction
75. Warnings are
accurate, based on sound science
You know, this is nearly elementary education for me. I learned these facts way back in Junior
High, I think. CO2 is not poison to
us. It’s the fizz in your Coke
Zero!! Its food for all plants… forests
would die without CO2. One of the hair brained-things that has come out because
of all this CO2 hype is trying to reclassifying CO2 as an “air contaminant” by
Dr. Marlo Lewis, Jr. is the Vice President for Policy and Coalitions of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an organization that promotes free market principles.
DEP believes that regulating CO2 is in the best interest of human health, welfare, and the environment (p. 5). I respectfully disagree. A carbon cap-and-trade program would make energy scarcer and less affordable, adversely affecting economic output, job creation, and household income. Because wealthier is healthier and richer is safer, cap-and-trade has a high potential to harm public health and welfare. The environmental benefits of a regional trading program, if any, would be so miniscule as to be undetectable.
The proposed rule is a conceptual muddle. Logically, DEP cannot classify CO2 as an air contaminant unless it is prepared to apply the same designation to water vapor in the atmosphere as a main greenhouse gas. Presumably, DEP has no intention to cap steam from nuclear power plants, or evaporation from public green spaces, but it should be aware of the regulatory folly that its argument implicitly demands.
More importantly, the proposed rule lacks a credible scientific rationale. There is no solid evidence that CO2 emissions are causing, or are likely to cause, dangerous interference with the global climate system. On the contrary, the balance of evidence suggests that CO2 emissions are greening the planet, enhancing biodiversity and global food availability. http://www.globalwarming.org/node/834
THIS IS IMPORTANT!!!… out of every 100,000 molecules in our atmosphere, only 35 are CO2. Check this out… 78,000 are Nitrogen (78%) and 12,000 are Oxygen (21%). Oh, and 4,000 (4%) molecules are water, good old H2O.
Water vapor is one of the most important elements of the climate system. A greenhouse gas, like carbon dioxide, it represents around 80 percent of total greenhouse gas mass in the atmosphere and 90 percent of greenhouse gas volume. Water vapor and clouds account for 66 to 85 percent of the greenhouse effect, compared to a range of 9 to 26 percent for CO2. http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/dept/0108_watervapor.htm
While Gore says…”we have vastly increased the amount of carbon dioxide--the most important of the so-called greenhouse gases”, Dr. Roy Spencer, PhD Meteorology from University of Wisconsin, Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, University of Alabama Huntsville's Earth System Science Center seems to ‘slightly’ disagree with both statements. He is the recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society's Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work.
The role of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere's greenhouse effect is relatively small, due to the fact that CO2 is a 'trace gas' -- only 38 out of every 100,000 molecules of air are carbon dioxide. It takes a full five years of human greenhouse gas emissions to add 1 molecule of CO2 to every 100,000 molecules of air. http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, PhD Geology UCLA, Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year…
There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this geologic time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.” Patterson asked the committee, “On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming? http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
It might be good at this point to take a break and watch the Demand Debate on YOUTUBE… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU
John R. Christy, PhD in Atmospheric Sciences from University of Illinois, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville member of the IPCC team and co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize with Gore…
It is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over the next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to accurately predict that system's behavior over the next five days.
Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished us in those we-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, "Begin all of your scientific pronouncements with 'At our present level of ignorance, we think we know . . .'"
I haven't seen that type of climate humility lately. Rather I see jump-to-conclusions advocates and, unfortunately, some scientists who see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming apocalypse. Explaining each successive phenomenon as a result of human action gives them comfort and an easy answer.
Others of us scratch our heads and
try to understand the real causes behind what we see. We discount the
possibility that everything is caused by human actions, because everything
we've seen the climate do has happened before. Sea levels rise and fall
continually. The Arctic ice cap has shrunk before. One millennium there are
hippos swimming in the Thames, and a geological blink later there is an ice
bridge linking Asia and
Gore uses several studies to relate the advance of CO2 over past history. One of them involved ice core samples taken by Lonnie Thompson. It turns out that the ice-core samples themselves have a bit of a problem…
Zbigniew
Jaworowski MD PhD DSc, is a Professor Emeritus of the Central
Laboratory for Radiological Protection,
For the past 40 years I was involved in glacier studies, using snow and ice as a matrix for reconstruction of history of man-made pollution of the global atmosphere. A part of these studies was related to the climatic issues. Ice core records of CO2 have been widely used as a proof that, due to man's activity the current atmospheric level of CO2 is about 25% higher than in the pre-industrial period. These records became the basic input parameters in the models of the global carbon cycle and a cornerstone of the man-made climatic warming hypothesis. These records do not represent the atmospheric reality, as I will try to demonstrate in my statement.
The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false. Therefore IPCC projections should not be used for national and global economic planning. The climatically inefficient and economically disastrous Kyoto Protocol, based on IPCC projections, was correctly defined by President George W. Bush as "fatally flawed". This criticism was recently followed by the President of Russia Vladimir V. Putin. I hope that their rational views might save the world from enormous damage that could be induced by implementing recommendations based on distorted science. http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm
Now about the hockey stick graph…
Ross McKitrick, PhD Economics University of British Columbia, Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph where he specializes in environmental economics.
In appreciating the promotional aspect of this graph, observe not only the number of times it appears, but its size and colourful prominence every time it is shown. This can best be seen by comparing its presentation with that of another equally-important climate data series, the global average of tropospheric temperatures as developed by Christie and Spencer using weather satellites. The two data series have been of central importance in debates over climate science in recent years and both convey information with potentially pivotal implications. Yet the graph of satellite-measured tropospheric data was omitted altogether from the Summary for Policymakers. It does appear in the Technical Summary, but only in a relatively small panel (TS Figure 4a) in black-and-white, overlaid with surface data and weather balloon data in such a way that it is hard to see where the MSU series actually starts. And it is immediately followed by a full-colour hockey stick occupying over half the next (facing) page. On the following page I reproduce the page sequence from the IPCC Technical Summary. The contrast is obvious. Like a magician misdirecting the audience’s attention, the IPCC drew attention towards the hockey stick. They may argue in hindsight that they had good reason for this strategic emphasis, but they cannot deny that there was deliberate editorial sleight-of-hand, and readers may in hindsight feel a justifiable sense of having been tricked.
http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf
A simple illustration of the changing of data to adapt to the summary is this. This is IPCC’s very own world temperature graph presented in 1995 that clearly shows the MWP (Medieval Warming Period) and the LIA (Little Ice Age), both of which have been known and accepted in the history of world temperature.
World Climate History IPCC 1995
http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/
SO compare the two charts above, both from the IPCC. What has happened to the MWP and the LIA??? They’re gone… totally. Looking at the second, who could argue that we are in BIG trouble and WE are the cause of it? Well, even the doctored chart has a problem. Look at the line that says “Man’s Impact Begins”, then look at when the upturn started. Michael Mann developed a procedure to correlate data from many different studies (multiproxy) into one set of data. The graph of this data is what we call the hockey-stick graph. Because the data was manipulated in order to show a trend of rising CO2 and Temp in the last 100 years, that is the result. However, there is quite a bit of backlash on the Mann method, and other scientific studies have been done to show the problem.
Figure 8 shows two versions of the hockey stick chart.
The dashed line is the MBH98 version. The solid line applies the corrections to
methodology and data discussed in this paper. (More detailed step-by-step diagrams
are provided in our 2005 Energy and Environment paper). The Mann multiproxy data, when correctly handled, shows the 20th
century climate to be unexceptional compared to earlier centuries. This
result is fully in line with the borehole evidence. (As an aside, it also turns
out to be in line with other studies that are sometimes trotted out in support
of the hockey stick, but which, on close inspection, actually imply a MWP as
well.) http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf
David
Deming, PhD Geophysics University of Utah, associate professor of Arts and
Sciences at the
It is not surprising that some scientists today find evidence to support global warming. True believers always find confirming evidence. In the late 18th century, a school of geologists known as Neptunists became convinced that all of the rocks of the Earth's crust had been precipitated from water. British geologist Robert Jameson characterized the supporting evidence for Neptunism as "incontrovertible." The Neptunists were completely wrong, but able to explain away any evidence that appeared to contradict their theory. A skeptic pointed out that not all rocks had their genesis in the ocean because he had observed molten lava from a volcano cool and solidify into rock. Unperturbed, the Neptunists calmly explained that the heat of the volcano had merely melted a rock that had been originally generated in water.
Around 1996, I became aware of how corrupt and ideologically driven current climate research can be. A major researcher working in the area of climate change confided in me that the factual record needed to be altered so that people would become alarmed over global warming. He said, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."
The Medieval Warm Period was a
time of unusually warm weather that began around 1000 AD and persisted until a
cold period known as the "Little Ice Age" took hold in the 14th and
15th centuries. The warmer climate of the Medieval Warm Period was accompanied
by a remarkable flowering of prosperity, knowledge, and art in
Dr. Willie Soon, PhD Aerospace Engineering USC, physicist at the Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics speaking to this issue in an appearance before the Senate…
But within the limits and lessons learned from our research papers, we can offer three conclusions:
First, local and regional, rather than "global", changes are the most relevant and practical measure of climate change and impact. This is because truly global averages rarely are available from the distant past, before modern satellite measurements, and because such averages can hide the significant changes that can occur over large parts of the Earth.
Second, on a location by location basis, there was a widespread Medieval Warm Period between approximately 800 and 1300 A.D. This Medieval Warm Period was followed by a widespread colder period, called the Little Ice Age that lasted from approximately 1300 to 1900 A.D.
Third, there is no convincing evidence from each of the individual climate proxies to suggest that higher temperatures occurred in the 20th century than in the Medieval Warm Period. Nor is there any convincing evidence to suggest that either the rate of increase or the duration of warming during the 20th century were greater than in the Medieval Warm Period. http://epw.senate.gov/108th/Soon_072903.htm
Here we find two studies of CO2 records found in tree-rings used by the IPCC. Michael Mann was the lead writer of the IPCC report, and he used his own algorithm (specially derived formulas) to determine what measurements would be used for the infamous graph. Both studies are scientific observations with equal value, but the Mann algorithm pretty well dismisses the second.
Two tree ring chronologies from the MBH98 data set.
Top:
Ross McKitrick, PhD Economics University of British Columbia, Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph where he specializes in environmental economics. Concludes his paper with these remarks…
The IPCC carries an enormous trust. Governments around the world rely on its reports to the active exclusion of all other information sources. The combination of massive influence with a lack of independent oversight, internal and external conflicts of interest and refusal to take critics seriously is unacceptable. The prominence given to the hockey stick without any serious review indicates either that the IPCC has a much weaker review process than they have claimed, or that the Panel is systematically biased, or both. Either way it represents a breach of the trust placed in it. Now is the time for serious thought about how to correct the imbalance in the IPCC. http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf
Here is a site with more info and senate report on UN IPCC corruption with quotes from some of these above scientists and quite a few more
I have found out quite a bit about the correlation between CO2 and temperature. Let me bring you up to speed on the basics. First of all, we need to understand that there is much more CO2 in our oceans than in our atmosphere.
A report from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
"Total human CO2 emissions primarily from use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement are currently about 5.5 GT C per year (Giga tons of carbon per year). A recent update says 8.5 GT.
To put these figures in perspective, it is estimated that the atmosphere contains 750 GT C; the surface ocean contains 1,000 GT C; vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,200 GT C; and the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 GT C. Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 GT C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 60 GT C; marine biota and the surface ocean, 50 GT C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 100 GT C." http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Then one of the biggest bits of ‘slight-of-tongue’ in the Gore graph is how he kids about not seeing how the two graphs ‘fit’ together much like the two continents example. They DO fit, and there IS a correlation! The problem is that the CO2 in our atmosphere rises when it gets warm, it doesn’t get warm when the CO2 rises. Why is that? Well, like how CO2 leaves an open can of Diet Coke, it leaves the ocean as it warms. The ocean also absorbs CO2 when it is cooler. The question isn’t co2 in our atmosphere; it’s CO2 in our oceans. CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around.
A recent study from the
The analysis of air bubbles from ice cores has yielded a precise record of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, but the timing of changes in these gases with respect to temperature is not accurately known because of uncertainty in the gas age–ice age difference. We have measured the isotopic composition of argon in air bubbles in the Vostok core during Termination III (_240,000 years before the present). This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change, although the mechanism remains unclear. The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 _ 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation. http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf
Oh, and remember the ice core man, Lonnie Thompson that Gore talked about finding the CO2 records in ice? Well, it’s interesting but very expected that Gore doesn’t talk about his other findings that backup the MWP and LIA that were mysteriously missing from the hockey-stick graph…
With those first samples, Thompson
managed to build a 1,500-year record of tropical precipitation, revealing past
El Niños as well as dry periods (6), including
evidence that that the Southern Hemisphere was cooled by the "Little Ice
Age" that occurred between A.D. 1500 and 1800 (7). Over the
next 20 years, Thompson and his team, many from the original expedition,
followed up with dozens of other expeditions, traversing the globe to collect
ice samples to build an older, more thorough record. Return trips to the
Peruvian and Bolivian Andes yielded samples that went back over 20,000 years to
the last Ice Age (8,
9),
revealing that the Amazon basin was much cooler and drier in the ancient past
and highlighting that the tropics were just as susceptible to climate shifts as
temperate regions are. Ice from the top of Mount Kilimanjaro indicated that a
heavy drought affected that region 
4,000
years ago (10),
coinciding with the Biblical account of a great Egyptian famine. Cores taken
from the remote
Even knowing that the data on the graph is misleading or even totally fictitious, the graph still has problems! Here’s a funny YouTube about some of the major problems with the graph as presented by Gore
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_21b7mdJz2M&feature=related funny video
Here’s another YouTube with some of the above scientist speaking so you can see who they are! Dr. Tim Ball, Fred Singer, Ian Clark University of Ottawa, Richard Lindzen MIT, David Legates Delaware Univeristy, Mario Lewis, John Christy University of Alabama, Chris Horner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRaeEIN5Sh8&feature=related
On to next page… (back
to TOC)