Disproof of Global Warming Hype Published

MensNewsDaily.com ^ | July 18, 2008 | Roger F. Gay

[RogerFGay]

A mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” has been published in a major, peer-reviewed journal; Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 46,000-strong American Physical Society.

Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.

The article, entitled Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered (page 6) demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 °F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F. Lord Monckton concludes –

“… Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no ‘climate crisis’ at all. … The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.”

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chair (2004) of the New England Section of the American Physical Society (APS), has been studying climate-change science for four years. He said:

“I was impressed by an hour-long academic lecture which criticized claims about ‘global warming’ and explained the implications of the physics of radiative transfer for climate change. I was pleased that the audience responded to the informative presentation with a prolonged, standing ovation. That is what happened when, at the invitation of the President of our University, Christopher Monckton lectured here in Hartford this spring. I am delighted that Physics and Society, an APS journal, has published his detailed paper refining and reporting his important and revealing results.

“To me the value of this paper lies in its dispassionate but ruthlessly clear exposition – or, rather, exposé – of the IPCC’s method of evaluating climate sensitivity. The detailed arguments in this paper, and, indeed, in a large number of other scientific papers, point up extensive errors, including numerous projection errors of climate models, as well as misleading statements by the IPCC. Consequently, there are no rational grounds for believing either the IPCC or any other claims of dangerous anthropogenic ‘global warming’.”

Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –

• The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
• CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
• Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
• The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
• The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
• “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
• Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
• The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
• It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
• Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
• In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

[Slapshot68]

So the alarmists padded the model? Shocking.

[NavVet]

Pay no attention to the man behind the green curtain.

[ladtx]

It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;

Hmph - They can't predict whether I need to take an umbrella to tonight's ballgame or not.

[GOP Poet]

No worries he will be taken away for reprogramming soon. /sarc

[E. Pluribus Unum]

FTFA:

This article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions.

WTF?

[KSCITYBOY]

BUMP

[READINABLUESTATE]

Ping

[green iguana]

You’re a bit disingenuous Mr. Gay. Somehow you left off the bright red disclaimer at the beginning of the article:

This article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.

Also interesting that the brief article immediately preceding this one is a peer reviewed bit of typical global-warming, hand-wringing clap trap.

[Signalman]

Algore is the PT Barnum of the 21st century.

[TomServo]

So there was no global warming hype?

[capt. norm]

They will go down kicking and screaming....can't expect them to admit any mistakes.

They have too much at stake in keeping AGW alive.

Censorship of all ant-AGW discussion in Wikipedia, a total media suppression/blackout on negative info about AGW. Pravda would be so proud of what they are doing.

[sauropod]

Thx for the pointer. Valuable article.

[Matchett-PI]

“So the alarmists padded the model? Shocking.” ~ Slapshot68

Allow Kerry Emanuel of MIT to explain how the deception began:

“.. “The evolution of the scientific debate about anthropogenic [man-caused] climate change illustrates both the value of skepticism and the pitfalls of partisanship. .. Scientists are most effective when they provide sound, impartial advice, but their reputation for impartiality is severely compromised by the shocking lack of political diversity among American academics, who suffer from the kind of group-think that develops in cloistered cultures.

“Until this profound and well documented intellectual homogeneity changes, scientists will be suspected of constituting a leftist think tank.”

“On the left, an argument emerged urging fellow scientists to deliberately exaggerate their findings so as to galvanize an apathetic public...”

“Conservatives have usually been strong supporters of nuclear power. .. Had it not been for green opposition, the United States today might derive most of its electricity from nuclear power, as does France; thus the environmentalists must accept a large measure of responsibility for today’s most critical environmental problem.” ~ Kerry Emanuel - MIT http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html

*

From what I can determine, the Rev. Houghton is one of the scientists (mentioned by Kerry Emanuel above) who was involved in _ deliberately _ misleading people. He admits it:

The Reverend Sir John Houghton, former head of the UK Meteorological Office, Publisher of Al Gore’s book on GW and Former Co-Chair of the IPCC said:

“Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.”

He then proceeds to do just that:

” .. human induced global warming is a weapon of mass destruction at least as dangerous as chemical, nuclear or biological weapons that kills more people than terrorism.” ~ John Houghton Monday July 28, 2003 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93466,00.html

*
James Hansen of NASA is another:

Hansen has long employed stagecraft http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MDk2YjVlYTYzZjZkNTRhZWU2NGNkNzcwYTMzMmFlNGQ=
for political gain. On June 23, 1988, he delivered his testimony in an unusually toasty hearing room. Why was it so warm? As then-Sen. Tim Wirth (D., Colo.), told ABC’s Frontline: “We went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room . . . it was really hot.” June 27, 2008, 7:00 a.m. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjQ2YTllODZiOTA0N2E2MTIzODQwNjUzMjQwYjI2MDI=

*

More first-hand admissions:

“We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” ~ Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory) (in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

*
[Therefore] “I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.” ~ Sincerely, Chris Landsea

Expert leaves IPCC 17 January, 2005, Resignation letter
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html

*
“The climate modelers have been cheating for so long it’s almost become respectable” (Richard Kerr, discussing adjustments in climate models, Science 1997)

*
Personally, I think that these men (along with others like Al Gore), bear a large responsibility for the suffering and nightmares they have inflicted on adults and children around the world.

Here is merely the latest fallout, among the many examples I’ve read about, from such reckless behavior:

Climate Change Delusion Driving Boy to Kill Himself http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23992448-5007146,00.html

Hopefully more mature, cooler heads will prevail so that this madness may end.

[GoldwaterChick]

Thanks for this article.

Bump for later.

[kingu]

The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions.

Does this mean the executive board voted to disagree with the conclusions in June, or that they're anticipating the meeting of the council in November will disagree, or it has previously stated a contrary opinion that does not agree with this article?

A startling statement you found, and shocking that they'd include such a piece. The editor made a sweeping statement that can not be in any way supported by actual events. Since the Council won't even meet for 4 more months, how can they disagree with a paper that was recently submitted?

[Matchett-PI]

"..Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions. .."

IMMATERIAL. See my post #14.

[RogerFGay]

Well, we can now spot a real "denier" a mile away. The posted article summarizes information from a peer-reviewed article. There's even a link in it to the peer-reviewed scientific article. The article states the name of the peer-reviewed journal that the article appears in. The same information has also been presented at a conference, and received a standing ovation from attending scientists.

Al Gore's claim that his version of climate "science" was favored by scientific consensus has always - always been a bogus claim. The only consensus was that it had gotten warmer during the 20th century. There never was much support in the scientific community for the IPCC's stuff either; which btw, does not represent scientific consensus. The IPCC has and always has been a political committee.

[RogerFGay]

WTF indeed! What are you talking about?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

WTF indeed! What are you talking about?

If this article is not peer-reviewed, it is completely worthless for the purposes of rebutting AGW fanatics.

Peer-review is the first thing they look for. Scientific "consensus," don't you know?

Get this article peer-reviewed, and then you'll have something.

Until then, you've got squat.