IPCC Challenged to Recant Global Warming Position

MensNewsDaily.com ^ | April 19, 2008 | Roger F. Gay

[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.

[Dutch Boy]

Al Gore is starting to remind me of Jim Jones.

[chipengineer]

There is some very good discussion of recent temperature data and projections here that is still skeptical, but less misleading:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/real-climate-tries-to-spin-pielke-a-curious-lesson-2/

[RightWhale]

A committee on Climate Change could hardly deny climate change. They could disband without comment or with comment but they could not remain as a funding center.

[Sgt_Schultze]

bookmarking

[RogerFGay]

The question isn’t whether climate changes. It’s about why.

[RightWhale]

I took the wrong career path.

What would you do with, say, $20 million a year after CEO retirement? It's either way too much or not enough for comfort. Count your blessings.

[RightWhale]

The question is possibly a why question, although a scientist would be looking for a how and how much. A why question would be political, and this is the proper domain of climate change—politics and power.

[SuziQ]

Climate ping!

[devere]

“There is of course a great deal of evidence that can be interpreted to support the IPCC’s position.”

OK, you supply the graph illustrating all that evidence. Otherwise, please recant.

[RogerFGay]

I've seen that. I didn't take it upon myself in this article to critique the letter in the way that you suggest. As you know, there's always another way, another wording, another .... well, I've been writing for a long time; there's no way to be perfect in everyone's eyes and typically no way to write anything that even the author thinks is perfect ... there's always another option to consider.

Now that I can talk openly, I actually don't think the letter is flawed. Perhaps we can assume that the people receiving the data have seen all the other representations, and are quite familiar with them. The letter comments on recent observations and provides a graph of them - demonstrating that predictions about what is supposed to happen, according to IPCC models, is not actually happening.

So, it appears to be right on target.

[RogerFGay]

No. Scientists look for why all the time. Why questions are not automatically political. In fact, making them so automatically invites explanations that benefit political positions - not a way to reach the truth.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[RightWhale]

Scientists look for why all the time.

Unfortunately some do and shouldn't. Why implies purpose, purpose belongs to humanistic sciences such as psychology and politics, history. Scientists look to describe. If they seek cause they should not be in the field of mathematical sciences.

[RogerFGay]

OK. So you have a degree in humanities. And you’re better qualified to figure out why climate changes? How so?

[RightWhale]

Leaping. I actually have a degree in a natural science.

[RogerFGay]

Why do you think that people with humanities degrees are better qualified than scientists to figure out why climate changes?

[RightWhale]

Still leaping. Climate change is a political thing. It doesn’t matter if the climate is changing or not. Tax revenue and various other fees are at stake.

[chipengineer]

>Why implies purpose, purpose belongs to humanistic sciences such as psychology and politics, history. Scientists look to describe. If they seek cause they should not be in the field of mathematical sciences.

Are you saying that trying to understand why, for example, a semiconductor has specific properties, is not proper science? If so, I disagree.

[RightWhale]

why, for example, a semiconductor has specific properties

You'll never know why. You'll know how it works well enough to use in in a circuit design.

[TiberiusClaudius]

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.

For a better description of the Hockey Stick, see What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About?

McIntyre and McKitrick have more recent stuff added to the debate, but that's still a pretty good place to start reading about it. More recent stuff at Climate Audit