Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sceptics denounce climate science 'lie'
BBC News ^ | 25 February, 2002 | Alex Kirby

Posted on 02/24/2002 11:14:42 PM PST by My Identity

A group of scientists in the US and the UK says the accepted wisdom on climate change remains unproved.

They say rising greenhouse gas emissions may not be the main factor in global warming.

They argue that temperature rise projections this century are "unknown and unknowable".

They claim it is "a media myth" to suppose that only a few scientists share their scepticism.

The scientists, a group convened by the American George C. Marshall Institute, first published their report in the US.

'Political conclusions'

It has been republished in the UK by the European Science and Environment Forum (Esef), entitled Climate Science and Policy: Making the Connection.

Traffic in snow   PA
Climate is "unpredictable"
Esef says it is "the result of an extensive review by a distinguished group of scientists and public policy experts of the science behind recent findings of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)".

The US group included a former CIA director and defence secretary, James Schlesinger, and Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The report says the IPCC's conclusions "have become politicised and fail to convey the underlying uncertainties that are important in policy considerations."

Its detailed criticisms of the IPCC include:

The authors conclude: "The IPCC simulation of surface temperature appears to be little more than a fortuitous bit of curve-fitting rather than any genuine demonstration of human influence on global climate."

Accused of lying

Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography in the University of London, is a prominent British climate sceptic.

Wind turbines   BBC
"No need" for green energy
He said: "The authors challenge the key contradiction at the heart of the Kyoto Protocol, the global climate agreement - that climate is one of the most complex systems known, yet that we can manage it by trying to control a small set of factors, namely greenhouse gas emissions. Scientifically, this is not mere uncertainty: it is a lie."

Professor Stott told BBC News Online: "The problem with a chaotic coupled non-linear system as complex as climate is that you can no more predict successfully the outcome of doing something as of not doing something. Kyoto will not halt climate change. Full stop."

Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, used to work at the State Department and helped to shape US climate policy.

Heavyweight backing

She told BBC News Online: "This report dismisses the findings of the IPCC as alarmist, yet they are widely accepted as representative of the current state of scientific knowledge.

"A panel of the US's own National Academy of Sciences (which included Richard Lindzen) expressed general agreement with the IPCC's finding that warming is occurring, and that it is at least partly caused by humans.

"Uncertainty cuts both ways. Some of the IPCC's scenarios have been criticized as unduly pessimistic, others as unduly optimistic.

"What is important is that they reflect a balance of reasonable futures, and that the scientific findings should be based on the peer-reviewed literature. The IPCC has been able to accomplish exactly that.

"And Kyoto was only intended to be a first step in a long journey."


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: geopolitics; globalwarminghoax; landgrab; nwo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last
To: My Identity
Yet another group of scientists.

This herd of cats says what?

21 posted on 02/25/2002 9:07:45 AM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
The report says the IPCC's conclusions "have become politicised and fail to convey the underlying uncertainties that are important in policy considerations."

They are saying that the cry about Global Warming is a Hoax!

22 posted on 02/25/2002 9:18:33 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
What? This is stunning news for a Monday morning. Politics is falling for a Hoax. Or is political science a hoax? Or is the group of scientists [herd of cats] actually a band of political scientists?
23 posted on 02/25/2002 9:26:23 AM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
LOL!!!

And what about the Kyoooto treaty?

24 posted on 02/25/2002 9:33:17 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: My Identity
bump! -- good find
25 posted on 02/25/2002 12:30:16 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: My Identity
When do we hear about this in US media?
26 posted on 02/25/2002 3:28:21 PM PST by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
When do we hear about this in US media?

As soon as there is global cooling in he\\.
27 posted on 02/25/2002 3:44:08 PM PST by My Identity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: demkicker
First, Bush...

Tell ya what -- I'm betting this one thing has the most lasting effect anything else he did.

28 posted on 02/25/2002 3:49:33 PM PST by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: My Identity
Love it. If the Earth has had ice ages, and has had warming trends in the past long before man supposedly existed, how can science 'know' that humans are having an impact at all? Maybe a warming trend is an unstoppable natural process. (According to science, the Earth has gone through heating and cooling trends in the past. Dinosaurs et all...)

Nice to see that some have kept their objectivity. Now wish they'd explain how a CFC (which is heavier than the surrounding air..) can possibly reach the ozone layer.....

29 posted on 02/25/2002 4:43:24 PM PST by Darksheare
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darksheare
I've said it before and consistently:
Minor tweaks in assumptions produce wild swings in results over the long run.
These models are LOADED with weak assumptions and bad data.
As any computer modeler can tell you, it's trivial
to get a model to produce the results you want.
The researchers' conclusion: we need more money.
These climate models are a waste of time and tax money.

MI
30 posted on 02/25/2002 5:16:17 PM PST by My Identity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson