Skip to comments.IPCC Challenged to Recant Global Warming Position
Posted on 04/19/2008 11:56:23 AM PDT by RogerFGay
A group of scientists have challenged the IPCC to admit that there is no evidence that human activity drives climate change. Specifically, they sent a letter this month to the Chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asking those associated with the panel to:
retract support from the current IPCC position and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change.
And they issue this challenge: "If you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the available data please present a graph of it."
The letter is signed by Hans Schreuder (Analytical Chemist), Piers Corbyn (Astrophysicist ), and Dr Don Parkes Svend Hendriksen (1988 Nobel Laureate), and a copy is available at a website operated by the International Climate Science Association. (here)
Evidence presented in the letter goes well beyond putting the hockey stick graph, made famous in Al Gore's movie, in doubt. The hockey stick presented exponentially increasing global temperature in the near future due to uncontrolled increases in CO2 and got its name from the shape of the graph an apparently long stable period with an upward increase in CO2 and temperature during the industrial age. The UN panel claimed that human activity was driving what Mr. Gore explained as a certain end to civilization as we know it, if extreme political and economic measures are not taken.
The scientists assembled a graph based on actual measurements and did not find evidence that CO2 was the main driving force behind temperature. In fact, temperature increases and decreases, showing little interest in CO2 level.
Graph below shows CO2 (green line) continues upwards while temperature (the other two lines) fluctuates, dropping recently; offering compelling evidence against the belief that CO2 drives global temperature.
The letter goes on to provide an urgent reason for renouncing the UN panel report.
IPCC policy is already leading to economic and unintended environmental damage. Specifically the policy of burning food maize as biofuel has contributed to sharp rises in food prices which are causing great hardship in many countries and is also now leading to increased deforestation in Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Togo, Cambodia, Nigeria, Burundi, Sri Lanka, Benin and Uganda for cultivation of crops.
Given the economic devastation that is already happening and which is now widely recognised will continue to flow from this policy, what possible justification can there be for its retention?
The position taken by the scientists is not out of the ordinary from the steady stream of data, analysis and commentary from the scientific community. So too have economists and others challenged the global warming political agenda, which calls for unprecedented levels of taxation and government control based on the scariest projections of bad science. Nonetheless, the IPCC report provides a basis for international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol agreement, which is an international start on the agenda. Both Democratic Party presidential candidates, as well as John McCain have spoken in favor of global warming related reform.
The reporter uses very sloppy language here. What he means to say is that the IPCC's position should not be considered proven by the evidence.
There is of course a great deal of evidence that can be interpreted to support the IPCC's position. The dispute is specifically with regard to how this this large body of evidence should be interpreted, not whether it exists.
There is a great deal of difference between saying there is no evidence, and saying that a position has not been proven.
Lets just say the muslims making oil and the communist chinese make products are the only producers.
Sloppy evidence is much worse than sloppy language.
Like the hockey stick graph.
With the UN’s recents comments concerning the starving masses and misuse of corn this may just be what kills this load of crap.
Boy if this were to happen I wouild love to see someone ask spineless Newt about his newest position on Global warming.
And where is this evidence? It was much warmer during the period of 900 to 1300 CE than today and the temperature has gone lower since 1998 in the present era. The southern ice cap has increased in size and the northern water ice is at normal (who knows what normal is since we have no idea how much ice was there in 1000) but we do know (or that is what the scientist say) that there was NO ice there for millions of years.
The normal cycles of the earth, sun and the universe are NOT being influenced by humans. If humans influence climate change then there has never been a climate change in the history of the earth.
I think the FReeper poster is the reporter.
This would be perfect timing - as all the good ole boys with a strong history in pork barrel politics have signed up with Al’s propaganda campaign.
And all for 9 months a 1 day left, pinhead Bush continues to snore.
Being U.S. president must be the greatest non job in the world. And a huge retirement after that like those U.S CEOs.
I took the wrong career path.
But...but...but...I thought the science was settled.
Right .... the debate is over because Al Gore said so. He’s overcompensating for losing the presidential election ... when he kept saying he’d won but only Dan Rather at CBS believed him.
I think Global Warming legislation is doing it’s job:
Global Warmers say it’s man that is destroying the earth. So getting rid of man will put an end to the problem, right? People can’t live without food, so burn it. Earth saved, everyone happy. :-(
And at the very end, just before we all die, Al Gore will be in charge of the world; just what he’s always dreamed of.
I expect a crazy denial and name calling by the Global Warming Alarmists.
Of course. Everyone who disagrees works for Big Oil and isn’t counted as a real scientist or any kind of objective person. So, they don’t count when the “consensus” on global warming if calculated.
While I agree the warming is over-hyped, the graph that you posted is a little misleading. It is not quite fair to choose to start in 1998, which was the warmest year in at least 50 years...
Fair or not, that’s the graph presented by the scientists in the letter to the ICPP.
I mean — IPCC.
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.