Polar bears are here to stay
Science &
Research
My Story
Climate Skepticism In Brief Climate Science Primer Videos Many Details
Links Bumper stickers Forum
 

 

 

The following page was my first attempt, written to help me come to terms with evidence as I worked through my doubts and became convinced of the lack of sound evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming. It was a forerunner of the current Skeptics' Climate Science Primer, and may thus be closer psychologically to AGW believers - but it may also hold a science that is naive at times. The blue menu bar above shows the current (preferred) range of my climate science work.

Clinching Pictures - apparently...

             

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) used this graph as part of its key information. The sudden rise of the global mean temperature in the 20th century, causing the "hockey stick" effect after at least ten centuries of falling temperatures, seems undeniable. The effect from 1995 to 2004 is visible worldwide.

 

...however, 1998-2008 shows a very different picture...

This chart spanning ten years from 1998 t9 2008 shows global temperature fluctuations (violet - Hadley Climate Research Unit; blue - troposphere) and steadily increasing carbon dioxide levels (green-CO2). Global warming has if anything dropped over the past ten years despite steadily rising CO2:

Here, there is zero correlation between temperature and CO2:

This seems to challenge the CO2-temperature link of the last 25 years.

"MSU" = Microwave Sounding Unit - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/msu.html
"HadCRUT3v" = Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature, version 3, variance adjusted -
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
Carbon Dioxide levels based on Mauna Loa: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
 
...so how does this fit the IPCC evidence...? The end of the "hockey stick"...
 

As I investigated here, here, here, here, etc I discovered evidence that Michael Mann's famous "hockey stick", key evidence used by IPCC, has been discredited. Then I found more evidence that still seemed to be using it. How tiresome. The chart shows a stable climate for a thousand years followed by a dramatic increase in the 20th century. It appears that the maths used could make a hockey stick out of anything. The raw data and algorithms were hidden from public and scientific scrutiny for almost a decade, an act that should have disqualified his work from serious consideration among scientists. Now the hiding of key data is suspected here as well.

The second picture is the second piece of key evidence used by IPCC. Now if we ignore the red/blue colouring and the arbitrary zero line, we may notice anomalous evidence that doesn't seem to fit the IPCC picture...

...serious global warming started from a low point in 1905 or so, and until 1940 warmed more quickly than in the post-1975 period. What caused that huge earlier quantity of warming? - it was certainly not CO2... And what caused the 1940-1970 cooling? Could there be major unrecognized natural causes here?

To explore this idea, read on below. Or to continue checking evidence, go here and here to investigate evidence challenging AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming)... Quantities of challenging evidence is there to be "mined" in the blogs and in the readers' responses on the pages of Climate Audit and Watts Up with That and ICECAP... Go to RealClimate to hear the "consensus" position... and go here to read the consensus' discussions over the classic skeptics' arguments...

 

H'm, perhaps a changing Sun might be causing the changes... but... Total Solar Irradiance does not match temperature rise in the first graph... yet it does in the second...
        

First graph by John Cook "I created the graph myself from TSI data emailed to me from Sami Solanki (co-author of Usoskin 2005)..."
Second graph from Solar Changes and the ClimateSceptical Science says of it "They use a graph for TSI from a 1997 book by Hoyt Schatten... it contradicts sunspot numbers & satellite measurements..." but Solar Changes has other compelling evidence not mentioned by Sceptical Science...

...This makes one wonder, are there potentially significant solar effects to research further...? even if, at this point, there are only clues that don't quite fit... yet...

...Solar Changes and the Climate shows clear, graphic evidence that INcrease of solar magnetic flux DEcreases the ability of cosmic rays to penetrate the earth's atmosphere; this DEcreases low cloud formation which INcreases warming... over the last 100 years, solar magnetic flux increased 230% ... but it has plateau'd at present... Also, solar cycle no. 24 is retarded and hasn't yet appeared... this last happened 400 years ago, before the Little Ice Age of the 1600's...

Peter Taylor writes in the Introduction to his Climate Science Review: There is significant uncertainty and debate within scientific circles on how much of the changes can be ascribed to natural factors, with some important recent research implicating long-term solar cycles of electro-magnetic activity, and satellite data showing that over the period of warming there has been an increase in short-wave visible light from the sun reaching the earth’s surface. Monitoring data show that this radiation is more than enough to explain current temperatures. These factors are not predicted by the climate models for carbon dioxide...

The standard ‘consensus’ hypothesis is that rising levels of carbon dioxide are trapping outgoing long-wave radiation and thus adding more energy to the earth’s climate system... however, new data shows that solar energy cycles of both visible and UV light, as well as the coupling of the solar and geomagnetic field are also correlated with past climate cycles, and that a very unusual state of solar flux has built up over precisely the same time period as the carbon build-up... Solar magnetic fields have risen by 230% [over the last century] and the latest science, published long after the UN’s intergovernmental panel nailed its colours to the CO2 hypothesis, shows that rise has a potential to influence cloud cover – a far more potent causal factor than greenhouse gases...

There are other significant areas of uncertainty – on cloud cover data, radiation flux levels to the surface, ocean heating, Arctic amplification, and the past and future activity levels of the sun – areas where there is quite definitely a lack of consensus in the scientific community. On several of these key issues, this lack of consensus appears in the technical sections of the IPCC’s Fourth Report in 2007 – and on some issues, such as ocean warming where there is serious recent debate, the issue is not covered because the IPCC did not update its review on this particular field. In contrast, when a single paper appeared in 2007 that challenged the analysis [doubted the effect on climate] of solar magnetic flux, this paper was included and given great weight.

Peter Taylor has worked with governmental advisory bodies as well as with organizations such as Greenpeace. He is a scientist with a track record for picking up early warning signs of global issues needing serious attention. He is aware that the attention given to consensus Climate Science can easily eclipse the far more serious issues of Peak Oil, of building social and personal resilience generally to a future that will be tough otherwise, and of seeing the dangers inherent in our whole present political and economic paradigm of growth. This well-argued work deserves widespread study. Peter Taylor's website is at http://www.ethos-uk.com where you can download his Climate Science Review.

Peter Taylor might sound like one of the "tiny number" of scientists that Al Gore calls the "kooks or crooks" who don't agree with the "consensus". Well, here is a book and here are stories and lists of a great many extremely able scientists at the tops of their profession, who also doubt the "consensus" view of global warming, or even that there is any consensus.

 

Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)-
can it be a case of The Emperor's New Clothes?

The underlying challenges to AGW seem to be too obvious and too simple to believe. If true, they make it embarrassing to all who are AGW experts, researchers, promoters, and activists. "To think we might have let ourselves get carried away" is not a comfortable idea to examine. And if we decide that AGW, Al Gore and IPCC are seriously wrong and bad science, it's easy to scapegoat and blame anyone but ourselves, although the challenging evidence is actually rather ovbious... But at least we are starting to think about our effects on the planet, and despite a bad start, this is important. In future we will need to develop this thinking a great deal, with increasing experience, into a more holistic hard-knowledge-backed intuitive sensitivity.

The challenges appear to be backed up by the evidence. Scrutiny needs intelligence, persistence, openness, and willingness not just to take anyone's word for things (commonsense and courtesy help too!). There is a veritable minefield of conflicting "evidence" - I've found both truth and inaccuracy, fairness and bias, politeness and rudeness, on all sides. As I've gradually reconsidered everything, it has come to seem more and more likely that competent scientific challenges have been blocked from peer reviews they deserve. The Internet can help - and can hinder.

The main challenges are these:

  • The basic key IPCC graph, which shows the temperature rise over the last century, has serious and rather obvious questions hanging over it. These questions are not satisfactorily answered or even addressed by the IPCC. One would think that such obvious queries should be the first to be answered, to help the public take AGW seriously. But I'm still looking for such basic AGW information - not the basic "facts" of AGW but the first level of scientific proof, with answers to the skeptics' challenges at this first level... See here.
  • For ten years, temperatures have failed to rise at all, let alone at predicted high rates. This new factor makes the questions to the main IPCC graph stand out all the more. These questions may have a scientific answer, but where is it in a form that intelligent lay people with little time to spare can grasp? See here again.
  • Computer modelling is highly imprecise. It is only credible for forecasting the future, if ALL past data are accommodated with a clear fit - which is not the case in the IPCC scenario - as IPCC admit. And the models do not even include water vapour which is by far the biggest greenhouse effect, far, far bigger than CO2. Though modellers say that water vapour is influenced by CO2 to amplify its effect, this is not proven. There is data evidence for a far more potent driver of cloud cover - cosmic rays. And though this is doubted by orthodoxy, perhaps the focus on doubting or ignoring cosmic rays is because it really is a big, clear challenge to the whole AGW hypothesis - and hence a threat.
  • IPCC appears to have been set up with a predetermined agenda to show that (a) the climate is warming more and more, and (b) this is principally caused by rising CO2 levels caused by us. Such predetermination is not science but politics, and inhibits research into other possible causes See, for instance, here, Climate Science Review
  • Many anomalous facts exist which strongly suggest that recent global warming cannot be due even principally to CO2. Anomalies exist in paleo-climate records, in recent records, and in several current research works - of particular interest is the suggestion of a link between solar magnetic flux (230% increase last century), cosmic rays, and cloud cover (has been neglected in modelling and in data collection). See here, here, here, here, and here.
  • Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth was calculated to impress people - but, however well-meant, it appears to contain formidable errors, which we have not seen him explain. See here (summary + 63 details), and here (more challenges)
  • There is both good and bad science on all sides, as well as fluctuations in courtesy and scientific openness. When one considers oneself an expert in certain fields, it is all too easy to dismiss work that may have vital evidence, on the ground of secondary faults in one's field of expertise, spotted by one's trained eye. Thus the cosmic-ray issue is literally under a cloud at present - although the palaeo record shows strong evidence of climate effects of cosmic rays.
  • Scientists challenging the consensus find their jobs and funding are threatened. There is anecdotal evidence for this (eg here, 14 Feb 08). This could just be scientists who are bad scientists but have wild ideas, however, if true, it would be likely that most of these scientists would not want to be publicly known for their stance, and all this makes verification difficult. Meanwhile, Al Gore's film and the AGW lobby insist that there is "consensus" among scientists, that "the debate is over", and that we are dealing with "facts" not hypotheses. But look here, here, here, and here, to see that the notion of "consensus" is challenged by a large number of first-rate scientists, many of whom are at the top of their profession.

Here are stiff challenges to AGW. It's possible that they can be answered from the AGW position. But just stop a moment and think... it can be difficult to reconsider one's basic position, because even with the most noble intentions, all-too-easily one looks over one's shoulder at one's colleagues thinking, Who is going to point out just how badly I've made a fool of myself in believing this "long-ago-disproven rubbish" (or even sack me... withhold research funding... etc) ?... Yet this is how Science has progressed... daring to show that things "long ago disproven" are not so disproven after all...

700 scientists who challenge IPCC: The US Senate Committee on the Environment lists 700 scientists who disagree with the anthropomorphic global warming hypothesis. This is not just a list but a very long account with a paragraph on each scientist or event, with hyperlinks. This "Inhofe's 400" has attracted more rude criticism from AGW supporters than most other issues, and initially this criticism convinced me. But after examining the list properly, I think the criticism could have happened precisely because this represents a fair challenge to AGW - and a big threat. Read its detractors (eg Dressler) by all means, but go to source and read it direct for yourself - and note what it says about Dressler.

The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so: This good book is one of many now appearing to challenge Al Gore, the IPCC findings, and the notion that good scientists have reached consensus... "More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet... My series set out to profile those who deny that the science is settled... To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists... I considered stopping after writing six profiles, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. Now, after profiling more than 38 deniers, I do not know when I will stop - the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series. Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists..." See the names here

Falsehoods in Gore's An Inconvenient Truth by Wm Robert Johnstone includes: Misleading links between weather events and climate change; Misrepresentation of data; Exaggerations about sea level rise; Misleading claims about effects of climate change; Reliance on worst-case scenarios; False claims about scientific views on global warming; Misleading claims about the responsibility of the United States; Conceptual errors. Now one may not agree with all but there are a huge number of misrepresentations of data and false claims about scientific views: 75 points altogether are challenged in this well-presented academic essay, which does not appear to serve any predetermined agenda other than concern for truth.

35 Inconvenient Truths by Monckton of Brenchley for Science & Public Policy Institute: SPPI is routinely dismissed rudely by AGW supporters. We don't have to agree with everything on the website to see that this page has a lot of strong evidence that Al Gore was cherrypicking extensively, and was frequently inaccurate in serious ways. SPPI may be supported by oil barons - but that does not rule out the testimony of this page.

The Case for Skepticism on Global Warming by Michael Crichton seems to be pretty fair, and reasonably good science, and actually takes the reader inside the labyrinths of the indigestible IPCC wording and what it actually says and doesn't say. The fact that Crichton wrote Jurassic Park is a bonus: he has an eye for presenting material attractively.

200 Peer-reviewed Articles criticizing AGW This is an interesting, possibly crucial, but very mixed source which I include to show the sifting that's needed, and to show how fatally easy it is to pick holes in one's opponent's argument, whichever side one supports, without ever really engaging properly, without really considering the basics which go back to "what is Truth? what is Science? what really matters here? how can we use courtesy to help each other grow?" etc.

Back to Basics: Reconsider the Data used by IPCC
adapted from Max Manacker at http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329

The Hadley Centre has a published record of "monthly globally averaged land and sea surface temperature" that goes back to 1850. Global temperatures have risen over the period, but a closer look at the record shows that this has been anything but steady.

Actual measurements of atmospheric CO2 concentration only started in 1958. IPCC estimates based on ice core readings go back to pre-industrial times. These show an estimated gradual increase from around 285 ppm in 1850 to 315 ppm in 1958, when actual measurements started. See the IPCC 2007 SPM report. CO2 concentrations have risen steadily over the entire period. The rate of increase has accelerated slightly, particularly following WWII.

 

Period Trend Years Change % total warming
1860-1879 +0.196 20 +0.39 30%
1879-1906 -0.047 27 -0.13 cooling slightly
1906-1940 +0.161 35 +0.56 40%
1940-1976 -0.020 36 -0.07 cooling very slightly
1976-1998 +0.175 22 +0.39 30%
1998-2008 0.000 10 0.00 static or cooling
Trend is linear decadal trend in degreesC/decade  ~  Change is linear change over period in degreesC

There are three warming periods that contributed to the overall warming plus two periods of cooling and the most recent "plateau" showing essentially no change. And it appears that last 25 years of the 20th century provide the only observed link between CO2 and temperature. The immediately preceding period had CO2 increase with cooling. The immediately ensuing period since the end of the 20th century shows slight cooling with high increase in CO2. The late 19th century warming period showed the highest rate of temperature increase of all periods recorded, with essentially no CO2 increase whatsoever. The early 20th century warming period also showed warming, with relatively small increase in CO2.

These observed data show that there does not appear to be a very "robust" link between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature.

IPCC has used the late 20th century warming cycle to demonstrate the anthropogenic cause, stating in its AR4 WG1 report Chapter 9 (p.681): "The simulations also show that it is not possible to reproduce large 20th-century warming without anthropogenic forcing regardless of which solar or volcanic forcing reconstruction is used,... stressing the impact of human activity on the recent warming." In other words, since no other cause can be identified to explain the observed warming other than anthropogenic forcing (from greenhouse gases), this must be the cause by default.

Most damaging for this assumption is the fact that no analysis has been made of the two prior warming periods in order to support this suggestion, despite the fact that these periods together count for 70% of the warming observed over the entire record. Strangely IPCC does not even mention the late 19th century period that showed the highest decadal rate of temperature rise of all periods since their measurements started. Moreover, between 1680 and 1710 temperatures rose more, and more rapidly, than the whole twentieth century saw. Between 1690 and 1700 the mean temperature rose from 8ºC to 9ºC. As regards the warming period of the early 20th century, IPCC states (p.691): "Detection and attribution as well as modelling studies indicate more uncertainty regarding the causes of early 20th-century warming than the recent warming."

There are apparently "unexplained" causes resulting in "uncertainty", but [*] no studies have been made to clear up this uncertainty and attempt to understand how large an impact these "unexplained" causes might have had. Could these same "unexplained" causes have been the principle forcing factor for the late 20th century warming, rather than the assumed "anthropogenic forcing" from greenhouse gases? How can we be sure this is not the case? Only by making these analyses and clearly identifying that there were no major "unexplained" factors in the two earlier warming periods can one make the claim that AGW is the predominant forcing factor for late 20th century warming.

To simply assert that this is so "by default" since no other explanation can be found is no argument at all. Is this the "fatal flaw" in the AGW theory?

[*] No studies... well, no consensus-sanctioned studies ... but there are good scientists who challenge Al Gore and IPCC. Svensmark's work [The Chilling Stars] explains the cooling trend the world experienced from the 1940s to the mid 1970s. This period also saw one of the greatest outputs of GHG in history and man made global warming theorists have a great deal of trouble dismissing it. Peter Taylor, in Climate Science Review includes these words about the mid-20th-century cooling period:

The 1950-1980 cooling period: clouds, aerosols and global dimming
Many commentators have assumed that the dip since 1945, when the carbon dioxide theory would have required continued warming, can be explained by volcanic dust and anthropogenic sulphates – so called, ‘global dimming’. This thesis was based upon inputs to computer models of sulphate pollution and observations of volcanic activity and atmospheric dust loads – but I have yet to trace and review the original papers that were used in support of these model inputs... I can find only passing comments with no references. The thesis is often quoted even in respected peer-reviewed journals, but with no reference to the data that would support the conclusion – perhaps because it was derived from modelling studies and the authors of these papers simply refer to the modelling results.

The requisite data are not readily available in the literature and the process of incorporation into models is not transparent... There is sufficient grounds to doubt that either volcanic dust data or anthropogenic sulphates can account for this major dip, and there is evidence from satellite studies that changes in... cloud patterns are implicated... Furthermore, recently published indices of the ‘dust veil’ from volcanoes provide no supporting evidence... Thus, natural factors are implicated that relate to the transparency of the atmosphere to sunlight

Examining critically the work of such as Lockwood, Solanki, Usoskin, and Svensmark/Friis-Christensen, Taylor goes on to show in detail that there is a strong and continuing correlation with the cosmic ray factor if we look carefully...

 

Back to Basics: data from the past + telling fragments
Here are telling but strictly unverified "anecdotal" evidence I picked up from sceptics' discussion blogs. This is always the way in which alerting evidence appears: very seldom can it leap straight into the heavily-protected peer reviews - and rightly so - but this early evidence is still crucial to hear.

The glaciers have been shortening for 200 years. They started shortening a century before significant amounts of CO2 were produced by human activity. Notice also that the shortening is linear. Hydrocarbon use increased six-fold and the glacier melting rate did not change at all. The glaciers started shortening long before we were using significant amounts of hydrocarbons, and, when we increased our use by six-fold, the shortening rate did not change. Therefore, human hydrocarbon use is evidently not the cause of glacier shortening or the mild natural temperature increase that is causing that shortening. From http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/7009
########################################################################

TNA: What about Gore’s demonstration in his movie, with those very large graphs, that CO2 tracks right along with temperature and is, therefore, the cause of that warming?

Dr. Robinson: In those curves, the temperature goes up before the CO2 and goes down before the CO2. The CO2 lags the temperature. And the reason it does is that the CO2 rise is caused by the temperature rise rather than vice versa. As temperatures rise, carbon dioxide is released from the oceans, just as the carbon dioxide is released from soft drinks when their temperature rises. [Recent ice studies show the temperatures changed about 800 years before the CO2 levels.] Gore shows the curves with poor resolution, so that this cannot be seen by the viewer.
From http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/7009
########################################################################

Ice cores go back a million years or more. However, the vital factor... is the records for measuring ice core lengths and the conclusions drawn on those samples are what is important, and these records are fairly recent. Various ice cores of varying depths have been drilled only since 1956, and the first ice core to reach bedrock was drilled in 1966...

Many respected scientists around the globe claim that until 1985, published CO2 readings were published correctly, but after 1985 certain readings disappeared from publication. That's 23 years of censorship and skewed study. Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, says, "For those scientists who value their scientific reputations, I would advise that they distance themselves from politically motivated claims of a 'scientific consensus' on the causes of global warming." Likewise, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D., chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Poland, said, "Attempts to support the global warming thesis with analyses of the carbon dioxide content in glacial ice samples are based on fudged data and ignorance of the physical processes of glacial ice formation." From http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080503/OPINION/805030360
########################################################################

The Earth’s warming since 1850 totals about 0.7 degrees C. Most of this occurred before 1940. The cause: a long, moderate 1,500-year climate cycle first discovered in the Greenland ice cores in 1983. The cycle abruptly raises our temperature 1 to 3 degrees C above the mean for centuries at a time--as it did during the Roman Warming (200 BC to 600 AD) and Medieval Warming (950 to1300 AD). Between warmings, Earth’s temperatures shift abruptly lower by 1 to 3 degrees C--as they did during the 550 years of the Little Ice Age, which ended in 1850. The ice cores and seabed fossils show 600 of these 1,500-year cycles, extending back at least 1 million years.

The atmosphere is approaching CO2 saturation--after which more CO2 will have no added climate forcing power.
From http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5164
########################################################################

From Dan Pangburn
From the Vostok ice core data, during glacial periods, often a rising temperature trend with a rising carbon dioxide level suddenly changed direction and became a falling temperature trend in spite of the carbon dioxide level being higher than when the temperature was increasing. This could not be if carbon dioxide causes a positive feedback. The Andean-Saharan Ice Age occurred when the carbon dioxide level was over ten times its current level. What is different now that could lead to runaway temperature increase? The determination that non-condensing greenhouse gases have no significant influence on average global temperature is not refuted by any climate history.

The assertion ‘it’s the sun’ appears to be too simplistic. Of course the sun is part of it but several other things affect the temperatures at the measuring sites. These other things may include solar wind, cosmic rays, UV, magnetic strength, relative humidity (propensity to form clouds), ocean turn-over, and possibly other factors. Apparently, no one has sorted all this out yet. Graphs of NOAA and other data (all referenced) are presented here. One observation from these graphs is that the recent (last 130 years or so) average global temperature data has not been unusual...

I have, so far, only determined that CO2 does not cause Global Warming and that there is no such thing as ‘water vapor feedback’. To my knowledge the combination of factors that contribute to climate has still not been sorted out. The reason why increased greenhouse gas level has no influence on average global temperature is proven here
########################################################################

There was never much threat of Greenland becoming ice-free - it did not do that 100,000 years ago when the global average was 2C warmer than this inter-glacial. Peter Taylor, in a note to me
########################################################################

 

 

Back to Basics: Data from the Cosmos, Sun and Earth
Some telling and graphic evidence from Solar Changes and the Climate from ICECAP website

Download the pdf file with this little gem and more... with such clear visual evidence we believe the correlation has to be there somewhere, even if the maths needs refining...

Read about Cosmic Rays and Climate - the story of Svensmark and Friis-Christensen. Read here about The Chilling Stars: the new theory of global warming that refers to the effects of solar magnetic flux and cosmic rays on cloud cover: Svensmark and Friis-Christensen are the scientists who deserve the Nobel Prize, in the opinion of a growing number of people, for both courage and good science. Read here their recent reply to Lockwood's criticisms

Read here about the diminishing solar activity and the possibility of another Maunder minimum and "Little Ice Age"

Read Peter Taylor's Climate Science Review, downloadable from his website here

Read here about the 1500-year-long Unstopabble Global Warming cycle

Look how the solar irradiance, from 1600 to the present, fits the known global temperature patterns

 

Is The "Scientific Consensus" on Global Warming a Myth?
from Amazon Books: The Deniers

Yes, says internationally renowned environmentalist author Lawrence Solomon who highlights the brave scientists--all leaders in their fields-- who dispute the conventional wisdom of climate change alarmists (despite the threat to their careers)

Al Gore and his media allies claim the only scientists who dispute the alarmist view on global warming are corrupt crackpots and "deniers", comparable to neo-Nazis who deny the Holocaust.

These men who expose Gore's claims as absurd hold top positions at the most prestigious scientific institutes in the world. Their work is cited and acclaimed throughout the scientific community... Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook.

Guess he never met these guys:

Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."

Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."

Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."

Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."

Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

And many more, all in Lawrence Solomon's devastating new book, The Deniers

 

from Michigan Pete, comment at Gristmill on 26-04-08: I think we need to stop worrying about the polar bears... A survey of the animals' numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining... In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-sq kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today. "There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears," said Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals."

 

updated 3rd April 2009

 

go to top