New Study Prompts Scientists To Declare Global Warming Movement 'Unraveling'

Sampling of Scientists Commenting on 'global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate' study published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature on May 1: (See Earlier Blog on Study Here)

“It’s All Unraveling” – Oh dear! The inevitable is happening. The ‘global warming’ trope is unraveling on a daily basis - scientifically, economically, and politically." – May 2, 2008 - UK Professor Emeritus of Biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London. (LINK)

“This whole climate change issue is rapidly disintegrating. From now onwards climate alarmists will be on the retreat. […] All indications are that we are now on the threshold of global cooling associated with the second and less active solar cycle.” – May 2, 2008 - By Professor Dr. Will J.R. Alexander, Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters. (LINK)

“Their entire global warming scare was based on around two decades of warming in the late 20th century so if that is followed by 20 years of stasis and cooling, which one of those two episodes represents the trend? How can we be sure that there is ANY trend?” - Australian John Ray, Ph.D., who publishes the website Greenie Watch said on May 2

“The warmers are getting more and more like those traditional predictors of the end of the world who, when the event fails to happen on the due date, announce an error in their calculations and a new date.” - Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton wrote on his Numbers Watch website on May 1, 2008.

“How many years of declining world temperature would it take now-in the wake of the ten-year non-warming since 1998-to break up Al Gore's "climate change consensus?” -- Environmental Economist and global warming co-author Dennis Avery's 2006 book, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years, wrote on May 1, 2008.

1) Dr. Roger A. Pielke, Jr. Professor in the Environmental Studies Program at the University of Colorado reacted to this study in the journal Nature by declaring: “Climate models are of no practical use.” Pielke, who is not a climate skeptic, said on April 30, “There is in fact nothing that can be observed in the climate system that would be inconsistent with climate model predictions. If global cooling over the next few decades is consistent with model predictions, then so too is pretty much anything and everything under the sun. This means that from a practical standpoint climate models are of no practical use beyond providing some intellectual authority in the promotional battle over global climate policy.” (LINK)

2) Former Harvard University Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl, a string theorist who is currently a professor at Charles University in the Czech Republic said on May 1: “Wow. So the refutation of a prediction of a dangerous warming by the world's top 2,500 scientists ;-) "does not come as a surprise". Note that with no global warming since 1998, the paper predicts 20 years of no warming. Recall that Al Gore has predicted global destruction in less than 8 years from now. […] The whole validation of all existing climate models is (or should be) mostly based on the data from the previous decades or centuries. If an effect that is argued to be as strong as the greenhouse effect has been neglected while it has the power to change 60-70 years of the temperature dynamics, it implies the existence of a critical flaw in the whole picture.” (LINK)

3) UK Astronomer Dr. David Whitehouse, who authored the 2004 book The Sun: A Biography, said on May 1, 2008: “Isn't it curious that over the next decade man-made global warming will be cancelled out by natural cycles. It's nice that Mother Nature (not the journal) is helping us this way but it does beg the question as to whether the man-made effect was all that significant if it can be nullified this way.”

4) Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn, founder of the UK based long-term solar forecast group Weather Action, said on April 30: “It is noteworthy that this 'prediction' in the journal Nature coincides pretty well with various solar-based predictions including the solar-magnetic based prediction we issued from WeatherAction in Jan this year - i.e. cooling till 2013 at least. It seems like the 'Anything But the Sun' faction of UN IPCC works by copying what has already been predicted by a number of solar-based forecasting techniques and then attributing the cause to something earth-based. That way they hope to save the lie that man's irrelevant earth-based efforts could cause climate change. Of course the long term cooling change expected in sea temperatures referred to in this paper in Nature as 'cause' is nothing of the sort it is a consequence of the changes in sun-earth magnetic and particle links. The Nature article is in effect saying that 'Climate Change causes climate change'. Give us a break! Why is there a 22 year cycle in the solar magnetic links and also the same cycle in world temperatures? The reason is that the earth-sun magnetic links drive world temperatures (and this understanding enables successful long-range weather forecasts to be made). The pillars of pseudo-science writing in nature believe their 'sea cycle' is the driver of what happens so they will have to tell us that that the sun's magnetic field is driven by the Earth's oceans. Does anyone buy this? Application of the scientific method to science would be a good idea!”

5) Dr. John Brignell, a UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton wrote on his Numbers Watch website on May 1: “As we were saying only last month, the motto du jour is get your rationalization in first. The latest wheeze among the doomsayers is that hell fire is being postponed. Of course, it would have been more impressive if it had been published before the recent decade of measurements showing no warming at all. As it stands, it is nothing more than a testament to the infinite tunability of computer models. The warmers are getting more and more like those traditional predictors of the end of the world who, when the event fails to happen on the due date, announce an error in their calculations and a new date.” (LINK)

6) Environmental Economist and global warming co-author Dennis Avery's 2006 book, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years, wrote on May 1: “How many years of declining world temperature would it take now-in the wake of the ten-year non-warming since 1998-to break up Al Gore's "climate change consensus"? […] All of this defies the "consensus" that human-emitted carbon dioxide has been responsible for our global warming. But the evidence for man-made warming has never been as strong as its Green advocates maintained. The earth's warming from 1915 to 1940 was just about as strong as the "scary" 1975 to 1998 warming in both scope and duration-and occurred too early to be blamed on human-emitted CO2. The cooling from 1940 to 1975 defied the Greenhouse Theory, occurring during the first big surge of man-made greenhouse emissions. Most recently, the climate has stubbornly refused to warm since 1998, even though human CO2 emissions have continued to rise strongly.” (LINK)

7) Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant, wrote on May 2: “Several teams made climate models and all those models predicted global warming with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. None - not one - of those models predicted that global warming would peak in 1998 then stop for the following decade despite atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration increasing by ~5%. But that is what has happened. Now, one team has amended their model so it shows the cessation of global warming in 1998. Their amended model predicts that global warming will re-start in 2015. Does anybody other than a fool believe them?”

8) Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., presently senior scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder wrote on May 1: “…a useful quote from Kevin Trenberth, of the US National Center for Atmospheric Research: ‘Too many think global warming means monotonic relentless warming everywhere year after year. It does not happen that way.’ This is an amazing error. Global warming does require a more-or-less monotonic increase in warming (in the absence of a major volcanic eruption) as illustrated in all available multi-decadal global model runs. This essentially monotonic report is even emphasized in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers (see Figure SPM.4)! Climate Science published a proposed test of the multi-decadal global model predictions (see A Litmus Test For Global Warming - A Much Overdue Requirement). Clearly, so far, the models are failing to skillfully predict the rate (and even the sign for the most recent years) of global warming. Andy Revkin should follow up his article to document what the models predict in terms of global warming (in Joules) over different time periods, and what do the observations actually show. This would be excellent investigative (much needed) journalism.” (LINK)

9) UK Professor Emeritus of Biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London wrote on May 2, 2008: “It’s All Unraveling” – Oh dear! The inevitable is happening. The ‘global warming’ trope is unraveling on a daily basis - scientifically, economically, and politically. The wheels are coming off the hysterical bandwagon, and it is not going to be a salutary sight watching the politicians and the media junkies jumping cart and trying to throw mud in everyone’s eyes. Pathetic Sophistry - First, climate - as long predicted here - just won’t play ball. We now know that there has been no ‘global warming’ since 1998, a fact unpredicted by the models and despite an above-average rise in ‘greenhouse’ gas emissions. […] It is pathetic sophistry to claim, as some are wont, that ‘natural forces’ are having the temerity to “suppress” ‘global warming’. The fundamental point has ever been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors. The very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins just one politically-selected factor is about as bonkers as it gets. How on Earth have folk been conned into believing such hubris? It is so like The Prophecies by Nostradamus [above] - the vagueness and lack of dating make it easy to quote ‘evidence’ selectively after every major dramatic event, and retrospectively claim them as a ‘hit’! […]‘Global warming’! I believe it is, at last, unraveling, folks. As a Sun reader penned on May 1: “‘Global warming may “stop”, scientists predict.’ Now if that’s true, how can we tax it?” (LINK)

10 ) Professor Dr. Will J.R. Alexander, Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters wrote on May 3, 2008: “From now onwards climate alarmists will be on the retreat. […] Please appreciate the gravity of the following material. If the global climate has ceased warming, this completely undermines the whole climate change issue and confirms our studies. Compare the prediction in Nature that warming will cease from now until 2015 with our prediction model below from my general interest article in press. […] All indications are that we are now on the threshold of global cooling associated with the second and less active solar cycle. Severe drought sequences will almost certainly be one of the consequences. The paper in Nature confirms the global applicability of our studies. More work will have to be done on an examination of concurrent historical global droughts. Suggestions would be welcome. It will be very interesting to see the international responses to the latest developments at the next UNFCCC meeting in Bonn, and the G8 meeting in Japan next month, now that it has become obvious that there is no linkage between the discharge of these gases into the atmosphere and global warming with all its postulated consequences. […] This whole climate change issue is rapidly disintegrating. It is not pleasant to watch as the consequences could be grave. The unjustified switch to biofuels lies at the centre of its collapse. It is also coincident with the looming economic recession. There are other consequences. Food prices are rising.” (LINK)

11) UN IPCC reviewer and chemist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001 wrote on May 3, 2008: “This paper examines the evidence in detail and shows that none of the evidence presented confirms a relationship between emissions of greenhouse gases and any harmful effect on the climate. […] It is impossible to measure the average surface temperature of the earth, yet the IPCC scientists try to claim that it is possible to measure “anomalies” of this unknown quantity. An assessment of all the temperature data available, largely ignored by the IPCC, shows no evidence for overall warming, but the existence of cyclic behavior. Recent warming was last recorded around 1950.An absence of warming for 10 years and a current downturn suggest that the cool part of the cycle is imminent. […] Humans affect climate by changes in urban development and land use, but there is no evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are involved, except in enhancing plant growth. […] No computer climate model has ever satisfactorily predicted any future climate sequence, so none are suitable for forecasting. This is even admitted by the IPCC, so they assess the value of their “projections” entirely from the opinions of those paid to develop them. With such a conflict of interest, these assessments are worthless and should be ignored. There are no plausible scientific arguments currently available which support the view that human greenhouse gas emissions are having a detectable influence on the climate. (LINK)

12) Meteorologist John Coleman, Founder of The Weather Channel and former meteorologist for ABC's Good Morning America wrote an open letter to environmentalists on May 2: “The war against fossil fuels has become a massive scare campaign that is giving children nightmares. Here's what's wrong with that: the science is not valid. There is no Global Warming underway and the science on which the computer projections of weather chaos are based is wrong. Dead wrong. […] The science behind your global warming scare is bad and no anthropogenic global warming is happening. Dissenting scientists have now produced convincing evidence that the cornerstone of your scientific argument, increased atmospheric carbon dioxide forcing a rapid, irreversible rise in temperature, is invalid. All of the various "signs of global warming" you have so widely publicized have been proven wrong. […] Stop screaming, 'The sky is falling.' It is not." (LINK)

13) Prominent Hungarian Physicist Dr. Miklós Zágoni, who reversed view of man-made warming and is now a skeptic, wrote on May 3: "The present-day greenhouse theory is incorrect in the sense that it is incomplete: it does not contain all the real energetic constraints and boundary conditions. As former NASA atmospheric scientist Ferenc Miskolczi has showed in a new analysis, the Earth maintains a balanced greenhouse effect with controlled surface temperature, which cannot be changed solely by changing the atmospheric longwave absorber concentration. It can be changed only if the incoming available energy changes. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission cannot generate global warming, neither in the past, nor in the future. The 1 degree Celsius temperature rise from the mid-1800's is mainly due to natural causes; its origin is somewhere in the ocean's heat exchange and/or in the change of solar constant and the planetary albedo. Further 3-6 degree global warming is physically more than unlikely: it is impossible. The new greenhouse equations of Dr. Miskolczi can be read at the official website of the Quarterly Journal of the HMS, Vol. 111. No.1., 2007 (LINK) To put it in a language that IPCC will understand: Extra CO2 does not result extra 'radiative forcing' in the final account, as the energy constraint rules it back to its equilibrium value. Nature's regulatory instrument is water vapor: more carbon dioxide leads to less moisture in the air, keeping the overall GHG content in accord with the necessary balance conditions. So, contrary to the common wisdom, there is no positive H2O-temperature feedback on global scale: in Earth-type atmospheres uncontrolled runaway warming is not possible. This new theory seems to be only a little step forward in the two-hundred years old greenhouse science, but its consequences are revolutionary: actually it stops the possibility of man-made global warming.”

14) Canadian Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball wrote on May 5, 2008: “It is urgent to understand how world leaders were so misled about CO2, global warming and climate change and to stop them before any more damage is done. […] The climate debate was now a purely political battle. Science was increasingly and rudely pushed aside. The misdirection and machinations within the IPCC were to get worse as we will see. Sadly, the results and their impact are already evident and going to get worse unless they are stopped.” (LINK)

To continue reading report go to: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=a17defa8-802a-23ad-4912-8ab7138a7c3f&Issue_id=#update

“Can Al help us there, too?”

Screw Algore. The problem is that the world pays attention to charlatans like him. They should not be given the time of day. Where are their scientific credentials for us to accept their BS?

What are we going to do now with the rest of the environmental wackos? Allow them to deny us the use of our God-given natural resources?

Good news. This is what happens when the real scientist get involved.

And I’ve noticed a change lately in that many (mostly scientists) are now referring to “climate change” rather than “global warming”.

“Climate Change” is real and very well documented. The climate has been changing, sometimes quite drastically and even rather suddenly, ever since the Earth first had a climate and long before man came on the scene and the climate will continue to change with or without us. There are much more powerful forces at work that affect global climate including plate tectonics, volcanism, ocean currents, sun spot cycles and slight wobbles in the Earth’s tilt and orbits around the sun and there is nothing we can do to change or influence these forces.

But the question is, or should have been all along; is the Earth really warming for a long enough period of time to declare it more than just an anomaly over much longer trends and more reliable models and even “if” the climate is warming, is it really due to man made activity?

Of course the answer is that the activities of man have little or no effect on large scale global climate and only a very nominal effect on local climates – think of the “heat islands” in large cities during the hot summer months where the temperature in the heavily paved over downtown areas vs. the temperature in greener areas like the ‘burbs and rural areas that can vary by a few degrees. That’s truly man made “warming” but only on a small local scale and it has no real impact on the overall environment. Same with massive deforestation in localized areas – it can have a very real affect on local climates and conditions but not necessarily globally and long term as some would have us believe.

Global warming theories and dire predictions and calls for “action” is what happens when small scale statistics and scientific theories absent true rigorous scientific peer review and challenges are high-jacked by people with purely social, moral and political agendas.

These scientists have the weight of logic and reason behind their arguments, but I guarantee you none of these arguments will be printed or aired in any major (or minor) rags and media outlets. The objections of the skeptics to the man-made global warming nonsense have been virtually silenced. None but the official sputterings by the Gores and other eco-nuts are allowed to be shown to the public. Once again Big Media betrays its role as gatekeeper of the major news. Their only rule is that if the facts contrast with leftist bilge, it must be suppressed.

Yeah, this news is wonderful. But the paradigm shift towards “man-made” GW has no chance of changing anytime soon, unless & until someone like the former CEO of The Weather Channel sues Gore’s azz & wins - & exposes him for the total fraud he really is. It’s the only way The “opposition GW party” will get mcuh needed worldwide attention. I do hope the “weather guy” (name escapes) follows through with his “threat.”

The title you created " New Study Prompts Scientists To Declare Global Warming Movement 'Unraveling' ” didn't match the linked source and had to be changed.

This is the second time today someone had had to replace your title with the actual published title.

Please do not alter titles of any published material. Thanks.

dang... and just today Connecticut passed some dingbat law against auto emissions to halt global warming...

It'll probably take 10 years to get the message to the politicians in Connecticut == global warming scare brought to you by Al Gore was a hoax... BUT Al's happy. He made a shitload of dough on the project.

Meanwhile... back at the ranch... Tonto describe as a door knob fell into the Lone Ranger's hand...

'Global Warming Will Stop,' New Peer-Reviewed Study Says

BS!
Unless the statement refers to the endless cycle of earth's warming and cooling, since the earth was created.

The thing is, no one yet can prove what causes these cycles.

Models are the toys of non thinkers, and it's like trying to "predict" the stock market; or the success of college for a three-year-old. There are simply too many variables to "model" to make that possible. And each error or omission is mutiplied by the following ones, until the result is meaningless.

The only claim that may be answerable in the future, is the extent that man has on the changes, if any. Non-significant contribution is hardly a good reason to return to the stone age, and the society of the "noble" but pretty much useless savage.

Models are based on mathematical assumptions. Computational fluid flow dynamics, for example. But I can’t tweak those models to start and stop when I expect unless the model is running off of assumptions, not data.
It is like your budget - the actual cash flow draining down, or your mythical budget where you spend the raise on the assumption it will be there.
Most people think the models are on real accounting, when they are actually based on mythical numbers.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

FReepmail me to get on or off