Posts Made By: Dave Snope

Retired EPA environmental research scientist Fred Haynie has spent four years since he retired studying CO2's relationship to climate. He concludes:


>The observed rise in background levels of carbon dioxide is globally uniform and
is primarily the result of rising temperatures of the arctic ocean sink and not from
increases in anthropogenic emissions.

* Anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide have not caused
a rise in background levels of carbon dioxide. A green house
effect of carbon dioxide is not causing global warming. Thus,
carbon dioxide is not a pollutant!

* Lowering emissions of carbon dioxide will have no effect on
natural climate changes including our present global warming.
Attempting to control emissions of CO2 will waste energy when
we need to be using it more efficiently!

http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf

A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the University of Pennsylvania's Institute for Law and Economics has concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming proponents fail to stand up to scrutiny.

The cross-examination, carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, found that “on virtually every major issue in climate change science, the [reports of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other summarizing work by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even disagreements."

Professor Johnson, who expressed surprise that the case for global warming was so weak, systematically examined the claims made in IPCC publications and other similar work by leading climate establishment scientists and compared them with what is found in the peer-edited climate science literature. He found that the climate establishment does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it "seems overall to comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favor of a predetermined policy preference."

The 79-page document, which effectively eviscerates the case for man-made global warming, can be found here.

Read more: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/06/06/legal-verdict-manmade-global-warming-science-doesn%E2%80%99t-withstand-scrutiny/#ixzz0qOxP1mc9

they did a cartoon about the popular viewpoint on the issues perplexing AGW proponents:



I wish they had added the antarctic icepack getting thicker due to .... AGW.

Oh, and THINNER too!

The fact that only a handful of scientists at the IPCC has been called a consensus is nothing new, if you've been paying attention over the last decade. Many of the 2500 have disagreed with the IPCC reports, others have asked to have their names removed from the reports ... but to the IPCC this is a consensus.

The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was "only a few dozen experts," he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

"Claims such as '2,500 of the world's leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate' are disingenuous," the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered "the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism."

Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia – the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK's most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC's co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on 'Climate scenario development' for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.

Hulme's depiction of IPCC's exaggeration of the number of scientists who backed its claim about man-made climate change can be found on pages 10 and 11 of his paper, found here.

Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/#ixzz0qsSslPYe

Earlier this year in an interview with the Financial Times, IPCC Chairmen Rajendra Pachauri explained who the AGW skeptics are, in the process showing why he and the IPCC are the paragons of scientific ethics (and should be trusted to provide us with The Consensus).

They are people who deny the link between smoking and cancer; they are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder - I hope that they apply it to their faces every day - and people who say that the only way to deal with HIV/AIDS is to screen the population on a regular basis and isolate those who are infected.

FT.com / UK - Interview transcript: Rajendra Pachauri

Here are a few salient points published by Stanley Trimble, a professor of geography at the University of California at Los Angeles

Climategate is, in my view, the greatest science scandal in my lifetime. Beyond any scientific implications are the implications of the behavior of the East Anglia scientists and their correspondents-suppressing information, denigrating those who don't agree with them, trying to deny others access to scientific journals, questioning motives, and conniving to disfellow skeptical colleagues. These are the earmarks of zealotry.

...

Climategate leaves no doubt that at least some zealots connive to exclude skeptical environmental science from refereed scientific journals. Then, the ploy is to invoke democracy ("The overwhelming majority of papers in peer-reviewed journals support..."). Where would this have left Darwin or Einstein?

...climate warmers can do some dastardly things to the scientific process and to scientific colleagues. But the most despicable thing they do is to call skeptics "deniers." What they are doing, of course, is trying to connect environmental skeptics with Holocaust deniers. If their science is so solid, why must they stoop to such measures? And why hasn't the rest of the climate warming establishment condemned this and other vilification tactics?




http://springerlink.com/content/p3128wk8x6041101/fulltext.pdf

A few excerpts from his IAC testimony this week

IAC 15 June 2010

Montreal

John R. Christy

Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science
Director, Earth System Science Center
Alabama State Climatologist
University of Alabama in Huntsville
IPCC Lead Author: 2001 TAR
Contributor: 1992 Supplement
Contributor: 1994 Radiative Forcing of Climate Change
Key Contributor: 1995 SAR
Contributing Author: 2007 AR4, WG I and II
NASA Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement
American Meteorological Society Special Award for satellite observations
Fellow, American Meteorological Society

Indeed, I urge you in the strongest terms to engage Stephen McIntyre in your
deliberations at a high level as he has accurately documented specific
failures in the IPCC process, some of which I can attest to, as I was there.

I had come to the conclusion that
the IPCC establishment demonstrated a disturbing homogeneity-of-thought
regarding the hypothesized but unproven role that greenhouse gases might
impose on the climate system. My short talk (Appendix B) and poster
(Appendix C) at that meeting last year dealt with three science issues and
offered a recommendation. The three issues were (1) the surface
temperature record is flawed in many ways, but is flawed in particular as a
metric to detect greenhouse-imposed warming, (2) direct tests of the socalled
fingerprint of climate model temperature changes versus observations
indicated significant differences, failing simple hypothesis tests, and (3) the
critical value of climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases was overstated
because it had not been properly calculated. All of these were supported by
peer-reviewed publications which even now continue to appear.

In my view, the IPCC process had drifted away from allowing authors to
serve as Brokers of climate science, in which various views are given
attention, to becoming Gatekeepers of climate science in which one view is
elevated and promoted. The IPCC Assessment had become a "consensus of
those who agreed with the consensus." Since "consensus" is a political
notion, not a scientific notion, a goal of "consensus" in any forum is at its
heart a political goal.

My recommendation last year was to include a chapter written by
credentialed climate scientists who would provide evidence concerning these
heretofore minimized issues, in particular the low sensitivity of the climate
system. My assumption at that time was that the IPCC writing process
would be the same, i.e. that the Lead Authors of this chapter, as the others,
would be given the sacred right of being their own final reviewers to let a
new voice be heard. No one at the meeting thought this was a useful
suggestion, I believe, because it would allow the expression of reasonable
alternatives to claims too entrenched in the message of looming climate
disasters promoted with IPCC indulgence.

Since last March, much has happened to expose some of the scientists who
dominated the IPCC, whom I call the establishment, as less than transparent,
subject to bias, and who suppress alternative views while using the IPCC’s
perception as a near-sacred document to promote their own opinions. This
establishment dominates not only the IPCC but also the review process of
the peer-reviewed literature, making it extremely difficult for alternative
evidence to even be published now. This happens when your type of science
is rather murky to begin with.

But as one mostly outside the "consensus", I can not agree, and I am far, far from being alone in that disagreement. I say this as a working-stiff climate scientist who builds datasets from scratch to create understanding and test assertions about the climate system. The process followed in the Fourth Assessment, in my view, simply did not provide to the world the true ambiguities, uncertainties and contentions of our fledgling science.




http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/christyjr_iac_100615.pdf

And hilarity ensues. This is probably why Al Gore has never submitted to an interview by anyone with moderate to skeptical views.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/06/20/how_to_expose_a_warmist_andrew_bolt_interviews_australias_al_gore_106015.html

Bad news, folks. Might as well start partying like it's 2109.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/frank-fenner-sees-no-hope-for-humans/story-e6frgcjx-1225880091722

FRANK Fenner doesn't engage in the skirmishes of the climate wars. To him, the evidence of global warming is in. Our fate is sealed.

"We're going to become extinct," the eminent scientist says. "Whatever we do now is too late."

Fenner is an authority on extinction. The emeritus professor in microbiology at the Australian National University played a leading role in sending one species into oblivion: the variola virus that causes smallpox.

And his work on the myxoma virus suppressed wild rabbit populations on farming land in southeastern Australia in the early 1950s.
...
"The Aborigines showed that without science and the production of carbon dioxide and global warming, they could survive for 40,000 or 50,000 years. But the world can't. The human species is likely to go the same way as many of the species that we've seen disappear.

"Homo sapiens will become extinct, perhaps within 100 years," he says. "A lot of other animals will, too. It's an irreversible situation. I think it's too late. I try not to express that because people are trying to do something, but they keep putting it off.

Similar to other recent papers that show CO2 is a shield rather than an insulator. Materials physicist Charles Anderson PhD, calculates the cooling effect of CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases to be 100 times greater than the heating effect.

Now we will compare the greenhouse gas cooling effect upon the incoming solar radiation of 0.45fkq to the re-warming of the surface due to 0.005gfq times the total solar radiant energy. Breaking down the parts:

* 0.005 is much less than 0.45, in fact it is 0.011 times as large.
* f appears in both factors, so the comparative effect is cancellation.
* The factor q appears in both the cooling and the warming quantities, so it cancels.
* k is somewhat more than 0.5, while g is the surface absorptivity for the entire solar spectrum and is likely to be near 0.7, or quite comparable.
* So let us say g and k are an approximate trade-off.
* Thus the net cooling effect of greenhouse gases is very greatly dominant because the re-heating effect is approximately 0.01 times the cooling effect.

In sum, using a simple calculation we can approximate the effect of greenhouse gases on the surface temperature of the Earth. It turns out that the cooling effect due to keeping incoming solar IR radiation away from the surface is about 100 times the re-heating effect proclaimed by greenhouse gas alarmists. Now, if the effect were very large in either case, this might be cause for concern. We would likely be better off heating our planet than cooling it. But, then we are heating with land use changes and the release of energy from fossil fuels, so the generation of cooling CO2 may simply be compensating for these other small effects. Much more important to this issue than CO2 and methane is water vapor in any case. So, most of this cooling effect is due to water vapor and only a small part is due to CO2 and methane.