Slide 3
*******************************************************
In my long experience with the issue of global
warming, I’ve come to realize that the vast majority of
laymen — including policymakers – do not actually
know what the scientific debate is about.
In this testimony, I will try to clarify this.
Some of you may, for example, be surprised to hear that the debate is not
about whether it is warming or not or even about whether man is contributing
some portion of whatever is happening.
I’ll explain this in this testimony.
Unfortunately, some part of the confusion is explicitly due to members
of the scientific community whose role as partisans has dominated
any other role they may be playing.
Slide 4
*************************************************************
Here are two statements that are completely agreed on by the IPCC.
It is crucial to be aware of their implications.
1. A doubling of CO2, by itself, contributes only about 1C to greenhouse warming.
All models project more warming, because, within models, there are positive feedbacks
from water vapor and clouds, and these feedbacks are considered by the IPCC to be
uncertain.
2. If one assumes all warming over the past century is due to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing,
then the derived sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C.
The higher sensitivity of existing models is made consistent with observed warming
by invoking unknown additional negative forcings from aerosols and solar variability
as arbitrary adjustments.
Given the above, the notion that alarming warming is ‘settled science’ should be offensive
to any sentient individual, though to be sure, the above is hardly emphasized by the IPCC.
Could that possibly be because there is no real scientific debate? Sorry, but defending an absurd forgone conclusion is scarcely scientific.
Thanks, Ernest_at_the_Beach!