Blogs

Scientist: Carbon Dioxide Doesn't Cause Global Warming

Three Great Legacies of Climategate

http://www.cornwallalliance.org/2014/12/03/three-great-legacies-of-clima...

By 

It’s been five years now since Climategate broke, and three years since Climategate II broke. The disclosures of thousands of emails, computer programs, and other documents from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia revealed scandalous scientific misconduct of monumental proportions—enough that it has crippled the credibility of an entire field of science (paleoclimatology) and seriously tarnished the reputations of the inner cadre of researchers in it.

Climategate I crippled treaty negotiations at United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP) 15 in Copenhagen, which I attended. Climategate II crippled them again at COP-17 in Durban. With COP-20 now underway in Lima, Peru, intending to lay the groundwork for a binding global agreement at COP-21 next year in Paris to reduce global warming by curbing carbon dioxide emissions, it seems appropriate to review the three great legacies of Climategate.

I’ve read hundreds of articles on Climategate and almost all of the first batch and hundreds of the second batch of the emails, including an exceptionally helpful collection and analysis of the first batch by physicist John Costella. Like many others, I’ve been stunned at the heights of mendacity, hubris, bullying, collusion, and contempt for the law, for truth and fairness, for fellow scientists, and for fellow human beings the documents revealed. In reading through the emails, one feels the need every once in a while to take a bath.

 

How Many Of World's Poor Will Climate Alarmists Let Die?

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/010515-733224-restricting-fossil-fuel-prematurely-kill-poor.htm?p=full

By H. STERLING BURNETT

 Posted 01/05/2015 06:12 PM ET

'How many people do you want to kill or let die?" That's how I'm going to respond from now on to anyone who argues we should end or sharply restrict fossil fuel use to prevent global warming.

Arguing the science has no effect on global warming alarmists. They are immune to facts and stick to models and fallacious arguments from biased, unscientific authorities.

Climate models say temperatures should climb right along with the rise in CO2 emissions, yet emissions rose from the 1940s through the 1970s, when scientists were warning of a coming ice age. And for the past two decades, CO2 emissions have continued to rise while temperatures have been in a holding pattern for the past 18 years.

Models say we should see more intense hurricanes, yet for nearly a decade the U.S. has experienced below-average hurricanes making landfall, and they have been no more powerful than previously experienced.

Sea-level rise has slowed, polar bear numbers have increased, the Antarctic ice sheet has set new records for expansion month after month and even the Arctic is back to average ice levels for the decade.

None of these trends is consistent with models' predictions, yet alarmists ignore the facts because controlling human lives is their underlying goal, and their failed models are the only thing that enables them to claim disaster is in the offing if humans don't change their ways.

10 reasons for being cautious about global warming

Global warming: 10 reasons to be sceptical

By Bryan Leyland and Professor Bob Carter

We are constantly told that man-made carbon dioxide has caused global warming that, in a few years, will bring doom and disaster. These predictions are largely based on the output of computer models, rather than observation of what is happening in the real world. My father always told me: “believe nothing of what you hear and half of what you see”. It was good advice. One should always be sceptical and, in science, nothing is more important.

 

Here are 10 reasons why the public should be cautious of the hypothesis that man-made carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming.

 

1.      The five internationally accepted temperature records – three surface and two satellite – show that the world has not experienced any significant warning over the last 18 years. At the same time atmospheric carbon dioxide increased by 10%.

111 of the IPCCs 114 climate model runs failed to predict this lack of warming. In most branches of science, when the theoretical predictions do not line up with the observations, the hypothesis is abandoned. In climate science, the observations are discounted or ignored.

We can now be confident that man-made carbon dioxide does not cause dangerous global warming and that the predictions of computer models of the climate are worthless.

 

The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever

By Christopher Booker

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516...

New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming.

When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

Climate Change Scientists Are Unqualified for Their Positions

 

In an effort to dupe more people into believing the climate change lie, the White House recently sent out invitations to people, encouraging them to contact the President's science adviser John Holdren with questions about climate change. What came as no surprise to me is the fact that Holdren has absolutely no background in weather or climate but is instead a staunch environmentalist whose primary concern since the 1970's has been curbing the world's population to protect the environment.

Like his climate change comrades at the UN, Holdren simply is not qualified to answer anyone's questions regarding weather and climate.

Christiana Figueres, who presides over all climate change organizations at the UN, is totally unqualified for this position, as well. Figueres has absolutely no background in weather, climate, or any form of atmospheric physics education. Instead, she holds a degree in economics.

 

 

Why my own Royal Society is wrong on climate change: A devastating critique of world's leading scientific organisation

  • The Royal Society's motto is 'Nullius in verba' or don't take another's word
  • It is the world's first scientific organisation in the world
  • Prof Michael Kelly fears that on climate change, it is ignoring the science 
  • He accuses the organisation of becoming dogmatic about climate change 

By Professor Michael Kelly For The Mail On Sunday

Published: 18:37 EST, 14 March 2015 | Updated: 19:14 EST, 14 March 2015

Five years ago, I was one of 43 Fellows of the Royal Society – the first and arguably still the most prestigious scientific organisation in the world – who wrote to our then-president about its approach to climate change. We warned that the Society was in danger of violating its founding principle, summed up in its famous motto ‘Nullius in verba’ – or ‘Don’t take another’s word for it; check it out for yourself’.

The reason for our warning was a Society document which stated breezily: ‘If you don’t believe in climate change you are using one of the following [eight] misleading arguments.’

The implication was clear: the Society seemed to be saying there was no longer room for meaningful debate about the claim that the world is warming dangerously because of human activity, because the science behind this was ‘settled’.

 

We hoped we would persuade the Society to rethink this position. That document was revised so that the uncertainty involved in trying to model the climate was admitted. But since then the Society has become more, not less dogmatic – despite the fact that since we sent that letter, it has become evident that there is even more uncertainty than previously thought. Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have continued to rise, but since 1998 there has been no statistically significant rise in global temperatures at all.

This flies in the face of the confident predictions made by nearly all the climate computer models that the temperature would continue to rise as it did from 1975 to 1998. More than 60 different explanations have been proposed to explain why this ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ has happened, and their sheer number is the clearest evidence that the system that climate scientists are seeking to model is irreducibly complex. Human-sourced carbon dioxide is at best one of many factors in causing climate change, and humility in front of this complexity is the appropriate stance.

 

Yet the Society continues to produce a stream of reports which reveal little sign of this. The latest example is the pre-Christmas booklet A Short Guide To Climate Science. Last year also saw the joint publication with the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) of Climate Change: Evidence And Causes, and a report called Resilience. Through these documents, the Society has lent its name to claims – such as trends towards increasing extreme weather and climate casualties – that simply do not match real-world facts.

Both the joint report with the NAS and the Short Guide answer 20 questions on temperatures, sea-level rises and ocean acidification. But a report today by the academic council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which includes several Society Fellows and other eminent scientists, states the Society has ‘left out’ parts of the science, so the answers to many of the questions ought to be different.

I have personal experience of this selectivity. Last year, at the request of the president, I produced a paper that urged the Society’s council to distance itself from the levels of certainty being expressed about future warming.

I said it ought at least to have a ‘plan B’ if the pause should last much longer, so calling the models into still more serious question. I got a polite brush-off.

The great 20th Century physicist, Richard Feynman, wrote in his autobiography: ‘Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can – if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong – to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it.’ This the Royal Society has failed to do.

The reason for this lack of nuance seems to be that policymakers say they want ‘scientific certainty’. As an engineer, I find that amazing: we remain legally liable for what we say professionally, so will always qualify our statements. But the misleading lack of qualification in the statements made by the Royal Society and others is creating policy nonsense.

The Climate Change Act requires the UK to cut its CO2 emissions by 80 per cent from 1990 levels by 2050 – at mind-boggling cost. Generating electricity from windmills has contributed to electricity prices increasing by twice the level of inflation over the last decade, with further huge rises to fund renewable energy to come. Aluminium production is highly sensitive to energy prices, and most of the UK smelters have closed down – helping us reduce UK emissions, but also exporting jobs.

No one describes the consequence: we now import that aluminium from China, leading to CO2 emissions from shipping it here. Worse, most electricity in China is produced by coal, not gas, as in the UK. We are exacerbating the original global problem of global CO2 emissions, yet also pointing fingers at the Chinese. We really are leading the world in climate change hypocrisy.

The project to ‘solve the climate change problem’ is a modern version of the biblical Tower of Babel. We do not know how much the project will cost, when it will have been completed, nor what success will look like.

During my time as a government departmental Chief Scientific Adviser, I was always aware that politicians made the final decision on any issue on the balance of all the evidence. For this reason, civil servants are trained to draw their attention to all the upsides and downsides of taking a particular course of action.

Those who fail to provide balance are not giving advice, but lobbying. It is with the deepest regret that I must now state that this is the role which has been adopted by the Royal Society. And when scientists abandon neutral inquiry for lobbying, they jeopardise their purpose and integrity.

PROFESSOR MICHAEL KELLY IS THE PRINCE PHILIP PROFESSOR OF TECHNOLOGY AT CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY AND FELLOW OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY

Emissions Targets foreshadow a Depression

Climate Boffins Target Depression

Another Issue of "Carbon Sense” prepared by Viv Forbes and Supporters of The Carbon Sense Coalition.
Please pass on. We rely on our supporters to spread the word.

www.carbon-sense.com
25 March 2014

To view a print friendly pdf of this newsletter with all images see:
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/engineering-depression.pdf

Engineering the Emissions Target Depression.

The Climate Change Authority wants Australians to cut their production of carbon dioxide to 19% below 2000 levels by the year 2020.

The climate boffins should employ a demographer before they set such unrealistic goals.

The population of Australia in 2000 was about 19 million and it is now 23 million. By 2020 it will probably be over 25 million.

If Australia’s production of carbon dioxide was merely frozen at the 2000 level, that would require a 24% reduction per head of population by 2020.

If we add to that a real reduction in total emissions of 19% by 2020, emissions per capita would need to fall by 39% in just 6 years.

Even more unbelievable, China (supported by the UN/IPCC) thinks that developed countries “need to cut emissions by 40% from their 1990 levels by 2020”. This would require Australia’s per capita emissions to fall by 60% to just 40% of their 1990 levels. All achieved within the next six years.

Benefits of Global Warming Greatly Exceed Costs, New Study Says

Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) to Issue Its Critique
of the United Nations’ IPCC Working Groups II and III Reports at National Press Club on April 9

What: Breakfast press conference with authors and reviewers of Climate Change Reconsidered IIBiological Impacts, and Climate Change Reconsidered II: Human Welfare, Energy, and Policies

When: Wednesday, April 9, 8:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.

Where: National Press Club, Bloomberg Room, 529 14th Street NW, Washington, DC

Who: Joseph Bast, president, The Heartland Institute; Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia; Dr. Craig D. Idso, founder, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and others to be announced.

An international panel of climate scientists and economists will release a massive new report April 9 that finds the benefits of global warming “greatly exceed any plausible estimate of its costs.” The new report, the second and third volumes of Climate Change Reconsidered II, were produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and published by The Heartland Institute.

The new report summarizes scholarly research published as recently as January 2014 on the impacts, costs, and benefits of climate change. Hefty chapters summarize thousands of peer-reviewed studies of the impact of rising levels of carbon dioxide – a greenhouse gas produced during the burning of fossil fuels – on plants and soils, agriculture, forests, wildlife, ocean life, and humankind.

Syndicate content