Long List of Scientists Question IPCC Global Warming Report

Here is a group of scientists who are claiming that the IPCC report was written by only a small group of people and not representative of the scientific community. I thought that I would emphasize one particular comment: "there has been no net global warming since 1998."

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

- Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

- The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

- Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

Here is the problem with the global warming debate. Before you want the government to do more to stop carbon dioxide emissions you must answer "yes" to all these questions:

1) Is there global warming?
Answer: "there has been no net global warming since 1998."
2) Is mankind responsible for a significant and noticeable portion of the increase in temperature?
Answer: Mankind is responsible for just a tiny fraction of greenhouse gases and there are other causes beyond that (e.g., the Sun). The letter notes: "significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."
3) Would an increase in temperature be "bad"?
Answer: No. Higher temperatures will increase the amount of land that we can use to grow food, it will improve people's health, and increase biological diversity.
4) Are all the taxes that we already have too small to internalize whatever externalizes might exist? Note that we already have high gasoline and other taxes and it is possible that even if you answer yes to all the first three questions, we have too high a level of taxes and should actually cut them.

To me this is the bottom line: "It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation."

Labels: ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi John,

I think we have something very interesting going on here.

A single, much publicised issue is taking priority over any other environmental or economic concern (real or imaginary).

The usual culprits are meeting together: the UN, Politicians keen for a photo op, and a bunch of tarts calling themselves scientists, but who are more interested in headlines and "glory" than in any serious science.

Naturally the media will report it.

My own science (geology) has gone through a major paradigm change and the development of a unifying theory ("plate tectonics") within my life time.

The time scale for the paradigm change was about two to three years (1968 to 1971). Some diehards were not willing to revise their work until much later, and conversely there was a rash of papers tying everything to "Plate tectonics", seemingly putting those two words in the title ensured publication, regardless of content.

Getting back to climate change, I'm immediatly struck by the simillarities to a conference (I think it was Rome in about 1972) where the delegates mis understood the mining terms; "Resource" and "Reserve".

The result was that 25 years "reserves" (there is no point in proving any further ahead as the NPV is too small for it to be worthwhile), was interpreted as the world only containing enough for 25 years more...

Command economies (as most were at that time) therefore desperately explored for Tin, Copper etc, resulting in massive over production about 10-15 years later and a mining crash, made all the more severe by the collapse of "The Tin Council" and release of its tin stock pile onto the metal markets.

It will be interesting to look back 10 years from now


12/17/2007 1:41 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home