A response to the IPCC

I spoke at this conference in Washington DC yesterday, and presented preliminary findings of my surfacestations.org report which you can see here.

060209_Watts

I was also privileged to hear MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen give a presentation on the state of climate science today, as well as his views on Climate Sensitivity.

You can look at his powerpoint presentation here.

In addition, a significant new report was released, the NIPCC. It is a comprehensive rebuttal to the IPCC report.

Climate Change Reconsidered, the 2009 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), is the report on global warming the United Nations’ climate panel should have written – but didn’t.

image

The 880-page report, released June 2nd, 2009 at an international meeting in Washington DC of scientists and policy experts, rigorously critiques the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which concluded that harmful global warming “very likely” has been due to human activity in the release of greenhouse gases. The science behind that conclusion is soundly refuted in Climate Change Reconsidered, coauthored by Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso.

The full text of the report and related materials can be found here.

You can also watch a Youtube video of the press conference June 2, 2009 in Washington DC to announce the publication of Climate Change Reconsidered: the 2009 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

Here is Joseph Bast, President of Heartland as he introduces it:

Here is the official written press release:

Scientists, Economists
Challenge Global Warming Alarmism

Third international conference
attracts SRO crowd to Washington, DC

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Global warming skeptics, who for a decade have emphasized hard-science evidence to refute doomsday predictions from alarmists, added new ammunition to their arsenal Tuesday at the third International Conference on Climate Change.

060209_Idso
Craig Idso, Ph.D., chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and coauthor of Climate Change Reconsidered, addresses the Third International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, DC on June 2.

More than 250 people crowded into Washington Court hotel meeting rooms to hear a dozen elite scientists refute the claim that global warming is either man-made or would have harmful effects on Earth.

But The Heartland Institute, a 25-year-old think tank that produced the three international climate conferences, also recruited seven elite economists to focus on the devastating personal and broad economic impact of legislation, sponsored by Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and headed for approval in the U.S. House, to put a cap on greenhouse gas emissions. Businesses, commercial structures, farms, and other emitters could purchase and trade the permits to emit carbon dioxide and other gases that exceed the cap.

While the scientists reported on a vast array of peer-reviewed literature that cast doubt on the causes and severity of global warming, the economists produced data that showed the cap-and-trade scheme not only wouldn’t halt the release of greenhouse gases, but would add huge costs to business activity that inevitably would be passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices.

060209_SpencerDouglass
Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. and David Douglass, Ph.D. discuss temperature trends over breakfast at the Third International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, DC on June 2.

Dr. Jeff Kueter, an economist and president of the George C. Marshall Institute, referred to Waxman-Markey as “a dismal down-payment on injuries more intrusive into our lives and economy” than ever seen before.

Kueter cited independent economic studies that showed the diversion of capital to emission permits from the investment in new plant and equipment in the U.S. economy would:

  • reduce employment by 1.1 million jobs a year from 2012 to 2030, and more than double that job-loss in 2035.
  • slash gross domestic product by an average of $491 billion a year from 2012 to 2035, and hit $662 billion in 2035 — a total evaporation of productive output of goods and services worth more than $9.4 trillion.
  • reduce average global temperatures by an insignificant 0.36º Fahrenheit by 2100 and by 0.09º F by 2050.

Similar costs with negligible benefits in Waxman-Markey were cited by other economists and public officials, including Dr. David Tuerck, president of the Beacon Hill Institute and chairman of the economics department at Suffolk University in Boston, and U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla).

U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), a veteran global warming skeptic, urged attendees to call Waxman-Markey a “cap-and-tax plan” that amounts to “unilateral disarmament in the economic sphere” for American businesses and workers.

Another long-time skeptic, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (D-Calif.), provoked sustained applause when he declared that the partisans of Waxman-Markey are “stampeding the public and elected officials in the biggest power grab in the history of human kind.”

Economist Dr. Gabriel Calzada of King Juan Carlos University in Madrid reviewed the dismal performance of cap-and-trade mandates in Spain, where unemployment has reached a daunting 18 percent, carbon emissions are higher today than before cap-and-trade was installed, and fraud and misrepresentation of emission abatement programs are rampant.

Calzada dismissed claims that such policies have created “green jobs” in the Spanish economy and presented data that showed Spanish businesses have spent billions of dollars on carbon credits and abatement programs, resulting in two jobs being lost in the regular economy or never being created for every one job created in the “green economy.”

Energy industry scholar Ben Lieberman of The Heritage Foundation rounded out the economists’ dire projections by showing that by 2035, the added costs stemming from Waxman-Markey would add 58 percent to the price of gasoline at the pump, 90 percent to the typical family of four’s annual cost of electricity, 55 percent to the price of natural gas, and 56 percent to the price of heating oil.

In all, Lieberman said, the tax impact for a family of four would average $4,618 a year through 2035, creating a total additional outlay of more than $110,000 with no added benefit to the family’s quality of life or personal consumption.

Additionally, a parade of climatologists and scientists during the conference challenged the science, causes, and severity of global warming.

060209_Lindzen2Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology delivers a keynote addresses at the Third International Conference on Climate Change in Washington, DC on June 2.

Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT professor of meteorology, reiterated premises underlying global-warming alarmism, such as dangerous increases in carbon dioxide emissions since the Industrial Revolution, rising global mean temperatures, and the slackening of the sex drive in butterflies. Such questions, he said, “are meaningless except in the propaganda war” being waged by a compliant mainstream media and a scientific community that finds it easier “to accept authority than disputing questions that are at issue.”

Dr. Patrick Michaels, a Cato Institute scholar and research professor of environmental studies at the University of Virginia, blamed some of the success of doomsday alarmism on the absence of fact-checking in mainstream media when alarmists go on a sortie.

Citing recent television and print coverage, Michaels noted faulty assertions such as Al Gore’s statement that 49 percent of the United States is in drought conditions; U.S. Sen. Harry Reid’s statement that California wildfires are a manifestation of global warming; several alarmist predictions of a three-foot rise in sea levels; and a decline in agriculture yields.

Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who has closed each of the two previous international climate conferences, once again brought the crowd to its feet in a cheering standing ovation when he concluded his typically witty speech, “… the highly placed conspirators who seek to ride the climate scare to world domination have reckoned without one thing. You. You are here, and you will not let the truth go.

“Thanks to you, it is becoming evident that the rent-seeking promoters of this great boondoggle, through the very scientific ignorance that they had sought to exploit in others, have merely deluded themselves.

“In the end, it will be here, in the United States, that the truth will first emerge. … Not in Europe, for we are no longer free. … It is here, in this great nation founded upon liberty, that the battle for the world’s freedom will be won.”


For more information about the Third International Conference on Climate Change, visit the event’s Web site at http://www.heartland.org/events/WashingtonDC09/index.html or contact Dan Miller, publisher, or Tammy Nash, media relations manager, at 312/377-4000, email dmiller@heartland.org or tnash@heartland.org.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Announcements, Climate_change. Bookmark the permalink.

87 Responses to A response to the IPCC

  1. Gary from Chicagoland says:

    Science is not a matter of opinion it is a question of data. Let the valid data rewrite the theory, but moving power, politics and money away is no simple task. I am not so sure that NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but the other story needs to told to the masses, but at $154 for a paperback copy?

  2. buddyellis says:

    “The 880-page report, released Junes 2nd, 2009 at an international meeting in Washington DC”

    Bit of a typo, FYI

  3. Phillip Bratby says:

    I’ve emailed the BBC to ask if they will be mentioning this important work. I’m not holding my breath.

  4. I see no intro by Joseph Bast. Is my browser verschimmelt?

    REPLY: YouTube is having systemwide problems at the moment – Anthony

  5. rephelan says:

    This may take a while to go through, but I see they cited you on pages 101-2.

  6. Jim Norvell says:

    The report is online and free. What more do you want?

    Jim N

  7. KW says:

    I hope someone will notice this from DC!

  8. deadwood says:

    Waxman-Markey. Remember that in 2010 (unless the poles evaporate, that is).

  9. Nasif Nahle says:

    Gary from Chicagoland (12:39:27) :

    Science is not a matter of opinion it is a question of data. Let the valid data rewrite the theory, but moving power, politics and money away is no simple task. I am not so sure that NIPCC is able to offer an independent “second opinion” of the evidence reviewed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but the other story needs to told to the masses, but at $154 for a paperback copy?

    The report is free. Anyway, 154 US dollars is a fair price considering the NIPCC doesn’t receive funds from the UN.

  10. John Galt says:

    But is it peer-reviewed?

  11. nofreewind says:

    Truly a great conference. I don’t think I have been in the company of so much brain in my life! Very well run with very interesting speakers and many interesting people I met.
    Sadly, I came home and caught the last half hour of Earth 2100 on primetime ABC NEWS TV. It was shocking and revolting. ABC placed this in the Technology category, when it should be in the fantasy category. This is what our young mind of mush are teething on.
    http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Earth2100

  12. RW says:

    You claim that the IPCC “concluded that harmful global warming “very likely” has been due to human activity in the release of greenhouse gases”

    I presume you are referring to this statement, in the “summary for policymakers”:

    “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.”

    I can’t find any similar statements that include the word ‘harmful’ that you’ve attributed to them. Can you say where this came from? Also note the ‘Most of’ which your paraphrasing has omitted.

  13. David Walton says:

    Great blog entry, Anthony! Thanks for all the info. Best wishes.

  14. tallbloke says:

    Fred Singer is great. Well done Heartland for getting this published, and for the pdf you can get by clicking the image of the book cover. ;-)

  15. Nasif Nahle says:

    RW (14:02:52):

    I presume you are referring to this statement, in the “summary for policymakers”:

    “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.”

    Please, RW, don’t blink an eye… You know very well that although those guys wrote “very likely” on paper because they’re not sure what they are talking about, or because they are pretending not to notice the reality, or just because they are playing the dummies, they’re scaring people with the dubious anthropogenic global warming and anthropogenic climate change. They don’t show a little shame when writing that something is “very likely” when they are acting as if what they have said is “very likely” was absolutely a reality. Fortunately, there are many honest scientists who are trying to preserve the good name of science.

  16. George E. Smith says:

    “”” RW (14:02:52) :

    You claim that the IPCC “concluded that harmful global warming “very likely” has been due to human activity in the release of greenhouse gases”

    I presume you are referring to this statement, in the “summary for policymakers”:

    “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.” “””

    Notice RW, that both the increase in global average temperatures, and the increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations, are stated to have been “observed”; yet there is no mention of the observed decreases in the average global temperatures in the early 21st century; which for the observed changes of GHG concentrations has continued to be an increase; even an accelerated one.

    So what is the scientific basis for the opinion that the one is the likely cause of the other; when clearly there has been a change of direction of one, and not the other ?

    George

  17. George E. Smith says:

    “”” John Galt (13:52:10) :

    But is it peer-reviewed? “””

    Yes. Peers not already programmed to be hostile to dissenting views, have already reciewed it.

    Next question ?

  18. bob paglee says:

    Here’s an interesting Opinion Piece from today’s Investors Business Daily. Maybe some wide-circulation financial media outlets are starting to understand, but obviously not where “sun storms” and sun-screens are involved.

    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Apocalypse Sun?

    Posted 06/02/2009 06:24 PM ET

    Climate Change: NASA predicts the lowest sunspot activity since 1928. Is a major solar storm in the offing? While we worry about man-made warming, the sun may soon show us who’s boss.

    It’s the sort of news that makes one’s eyes glaze over. “If our prediction is correct, Solar Cycle 24 will have a peak sunspot number of 90, the lowest of any cycle since 1928 when Solar Cycle 16 peaked at 78,” said Doug Biesecker of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Space Weather Prediction Center.

    Yes, space has weather, in the form of solar radiation that varies with solar activity in the form of sunspots and solar flares. Biesecker heads an NOAA panel that keeps an eye on such things and released this latest report.

    But this dry statistic has more significance for the earth and its climate than all of Al Gore’s gloom and doom about tailpipe emissions and rising sea levels. Whether the warm-mongers like it or not, the sun rules earth’s climate — always has and always will.

    First noticed in the 1800s, solar activity runs in roughly 11-year cycles. Some are as short as nine years or as long as 14. The valleys are usually brief, a couple of years, but sometimes, for reasons not fully understood, they stretch out for decades.

    In the 17th century, a 70-year period of little or no sunspot activity known as the Maunder Minimum spawned what has become known as the Little Ice Age, which extended from roughly the 16th century to the 19th.

    Washington’s famous winter at Valley Forge was part of that natural phenomenon. So was Napoleon’s bitter retreat from Moscow. During the winter of 1779-1780, the Hudson River was solid ice for five weeks. Early settlers going West crossed a frozen Mississippi near present-day St. Louis in 1799.

    Global warming, you may have noticed, seemingly stopped dead in its tracks in 1998. Solar activity is in a valley right now, the deepest of the past century. NOAA reports that in 2008 and 2009, the sun set Space Age records for low sunspot counts, weak solar wind and low solar radiance. The sun has gone more than two years without a significant solar flare.

    “The sun is behaving in an unexpected and very interesting way,” says Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA’s lead representative on the panel. “In our professional careers, we’ve never seen anything like it. Solar minimum has lasted far beyond the date we predicted in 2007.”

    If the sun stays this quiet, is another Little Ice Age possible? NASA says it has detected a tiny uptick in solar radio emissions. This may be a sign of a return to normalcy, something similar to a dormant volcano returning to life.

    “Even a below-average cycle is capable of producing severe space weather,” says Biesecker. “The great geomagnetic storm of 1859, for instance, occurred during a solar cycle of about the same size we’re predicting for 2013.”

    That 1859 event electrified transmission cables, started fires in telegraph offices and produced Northern Lights bright enough to read a newspaper by. A recent report by by the National Academy of Sciences found that if such a storm occurred today, it could cause up to $2 trillion in damages to society’s high-tech infrastructure.

    The National Research Council has estimated that such a storm would play havoc with our power grid, resulting in “large-scale blackouts affecting more than 130 million people (in the U.S.) and (exposing) more than 350 major transformers to the risk of permanent damage.”

    NASA says this solar cycle will peak in 2013. The Mayan calendar identifies Dec. 12, 2012, as the end of the world as we know it. Seems to us we might better spend our money protecting our power grid and high-tech infrastructure against such a possibility rather than worrying about the emission standards for our cars.

    That, and stock up on sunscreen.

    © 2009 Investor’s Business Daily, Inc. All rights reserved.

  19. Leon Brozyna says:

    Getting that 880-page report (for free) was easy – reading it, now that’s another tale. No wonder wannabe journalists go the ‘science for dummies’ route and skim through an executive summary or read someone’s ‘idiot’s guide to science’ press release and then whip up a scare headline or two.

  20. John F. Hultquist says:

    I thought it funny when I read that the Watts report on weather stations was too new to have appeared in a peer reviewed publication. Technically that is true but each of the “How Not To ….” posts and much of the related material in the Heartland publication was thoroughly reviewed on WUWT. The caliber of critique of a serious post on WUWT is outstanding. Well, okay, there can be some other things going on at the same time but these asides do not detract from the presented material getting a good work-over from many bright and well trained folks. Seems to me some of the esteemed peer review publications have stumbled in the last few years — the claim to peer review needs an update to catch up with net-technology.

    BTW, I haven’t finished the entire report but it is now stored on my hard drive and I guess that adds $154 value to my system. Thanks, folks.

  21. Jim G says:

    I’m sure RC will give it a nice “pier”-review.

    Right off the end of it.

  22. Adam from Kansas says:

    Of all the GH gases CO2 is not harmful at least, I look no further than the slightly to significantly oversized leaves in my own backyard.

    This link here on climate outlooks doesn’t have the scent of AGW in North America for the rest of this year (the warm anomalies in the southwest forecast in the model disappear)
    http://www.capecodweather.net/cfs-archive/810-may-15th-climate-forecast-system-outlook

    While it’s all warm anomalies in one area (Alaska and the Yukon) another area is all cold anomalies(Eastern Canada and the normal US (in other words anomalies on both sides of 0 will happen all the time for the near future especially if warming stopped)
    http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp2.html

  23. RW says:

    “the observed decreases in the average global temperatures in the early 21st century”

    George, do you know what ‘statistical significance’ is, and how to calculate it in relation to trends in global temperature?

  24. David Segesta says:

    This is fantastic! In a rational government the NIPCC report should at least spark calls for a legitimate debate between both sides of the issue. But sadly this is no longer about science. That fact was clearly demonstrated when the Democrats refused to allow Christopher Monckton to speak before congress. As Dr. Singer points out it’s all about money and power. Being less diplomatic than Dr Singer, I would say it like this: Our government is run by criminals whose objective is to increase taxes and make profits for companies like Al Gore’s Generation Investments.

  25. Zer0th says:

    I don’t suppose they’re serious, but…

    “The Mayan calendar identifies Dec. 12, 2012, as the end of the world as we know it.”

    It’s December 20th
    0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.13.0.0.0.0 in Mayan long count

    The *actual* end of the Mayan calendar is 13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.0.0.0.0

    Trillions of years hence.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesoamerican_Long_Count_calendar#2012_and_the_Long_Count

  26. kent says:

    We always focus on greenhouse gas’s ability to absorb IR but these gases also have other properties. These other properties turn these greenhouse gases into what I like to call GREEN GASES. Think about what happens to green plants when they have no H2O and no CO2, They turn brown because they are dead. Which property of these gases is more important? The one that helps keep the planet from freezing or the ones that give life to green plants and help feed most of the life forms on this planet.

  27. Dave Wendt says:

    RW (14:02:52)

    I can’t find any similar statements that include the word ‘harmful’ that you’ve attributed to them. Can you say where this came from?

    Are you actually contending that the IPCC has never characterized global warming as “harmful”, if so, I’d like to bid you a hearty welcome, since you are obviously a multidimensional tourist, who just popped in from some alternate universe.

  28. Tom in Texas says:

    Leon, it’s “only” 700 pages of meat. There’s also 140 pages of signers of the Petition Project, plus several appendices of plant responses to CO2.

  29. Tom in Texas says:

    Before “Cap and Tax” is passed, all 880 pages need to be read into the Congressional Record.

  30. Jeremy says:

    [quote] Our government is run by criminals whose objective is to increase taxes and make profits for companies like Al Gore’s Generation Investments.[/quote]

    In which case the US really does look to be in trouble. The US swings from fear of WMD (and the potential for military contractors to make obscene profits) to fear of AGW (and the clean energy GE-type manufacturers with potential to make obscene profits). In others words, both parties exploit their brand of lobbyists, fear-mongers and profiteers, in order to have their hands in taxpayer pockets – one in the left pocket and the other in the right.

    No wonder the US is broke.

  31. Congratulations Anthony!. Did you take your armour and spear with you?
    Too many believers around :-)

  32. M. Simon says:

    Yes! Yes! Yes! Yessssssssssssssssssssss!

    More ammunition.

    Thanks to all.

    I’m going to repost (with some modifications) here something somewhat germane I posted in a relatively dead thread:

    Anyone here have experience organizing political groups? I have none, but would be willing to participate.

    I have been very successful in getting the word out on Polywell Fusion and have had a hand (according to the researchers who would know) in getting it funded.

    Steps:
    1. Set up a Google Alert on terms you would like to respond to
    2. Make up a text file of standard responses including links (you can do this as you go along)
    3. Make sure to always start your response with a comment about the piece posted.

    Have at it.

    It will not get you instant results. It took me about a year to have an effect. Keep grinding away. Enlist others. This blog (or another) could serve as a clearing house i.e. “an argument is getting hot at xxx blog, any one care to provide reenforcements?” “Any one have a good argument for/against zzz ?

    The fact that WUWT provides moderately moderated comments that are timely when the moderators are awake is very helpful.

    Eventually some one will start a blog or a board focused on counter arguments. Topics might include Thermodynamics, Feedback, Data, Peer Review, etc. Such a place should be loosely moderated but membership only to keep out the spammers, rabid crazy warmists, etc.

  33. John F. Hultquist says:

    RW (15:40:28) :

    “the observed decreases in the average global temperatures in the early 21st century”

    George, do you know what ’statistical significance’ is, and how to calculate it in relation to trends in global temperature?

    RW,
    I’m a little rusty on my statistics so I wonder if you will explain your meaning? I assume someone has used some temperature measurements to show or plot a trend. How many measurements are we talking about and how are they distributed? Do we need to do this 30 times or so and take an average? Is it the average of these 30 or so attempts at determining a trend that is being tested? Or are we examining the data for measurement error? I seem to remember some comments by instructors about population mean versus sample mean and so on, and also sample size, and tests of significance when appropriate. I just wonder how all this shakes out with respect to what you and George seem to be arguing about?

  34. Keith Minto says:

    Our Senator Steve Fielding is there at the conference. At least he is independent and fair minded enough to attend. He is moving onto the White House I believe for the AGM story but he is quite open minded about AGM and good for him.
    If you see him give him a good hearing, we need more of his kind in our parliament.

  35. Cathy says:

    Anthony, thanks for all you do to help steer us out of these murky waters.

    REPLY: Thanks for noticing – Anthony

  36. hotlink says:

    Interisting link regarding certain types of clouds and their effect on the environment.
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17234-mysterious-nightshining-clouds-may-peak-this-year.html

  37. nofreewind says:

    I have my name in the BOOK.

    One of the most shocking statistics referred to was the 18% unemployment rate in Spain. The Spanish author made a very nice presentation on the folly of renewable energy.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/03/business/global/03euro.html?ref=world

    Check out the electricity prices in Denmark, Netherlands and Germnay. The big leaders in percentage of wind turbines per capita. Note: the cost doesn’t all show up in electricity prices, because much of it is in behind the back subsidies.
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/elecprih.html

    Wait unless we get the cap and tax bill going. with much of the enormous TAX going to waste. The poor will only get 15% of the money.
    http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/18203
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/31/AR2009053102077.html

  38. Just Want Results... says:

    “”Leon Brozyna (15:10:08) : No wonder wannabe journalists go the ’science for dummies’ route””

    They should be reading it all. It’s their full time job. They don’t have anything else to do during the day. But Americans are lazy, always looking for an easy way out. So America is falling.

  39. Just Want Results... says:

    David Segesta (15:45:59) :

    You missed the biggest of all—GE.

  40. Gary Alperin says:

    Climate Change Reconsidered is wonderful material to ponder and share with my students. I just got done reading the key findings of each chapter and I am excited to get into the details. It seems well written and easy to read. Anthony, once again I find your blog to be most enjoyable and I cite your work often in my teachings. There is a whole new generation of young students to educate, and am I finding the Al Gore is not a favorite with today’s young people. I just graded an essay where my current 100 students had to write the EPA and state their stance and reasons why they believe the upcoming CO2 regulation should or should not become law. Just prior to this assignment, I taught my students the natural climate change theory vs. the Gore/IPCC manmade greenhouse gas theory. Five years ago, every student wrote that Gore/IPCC stance was correct, however starting about three years ago, the tide started shifting. This year, the results had 72% of my students stating that the natural climate theory better explained Earth’s temperature than the Gore/IPCC greenhouse gas theory. What a change in just a few years!

  41. Nasif Nahle says:

    hotlink (19:13:25) :

    Interisting link regarding certain types of clouds and their effect on the environment.
    http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17234-mysterious-nightshining-clouds-may-peak-this-year.html

    It’s just another greenie article. My football team lost the championship, it was the anthropogenic GHE. Heh! :)

  42. M. Simon says:

    Moderator: you need to add a – HSPACE=”x” – to your picture code to put a left border on them. Having text butt up against the pictures looks bad and is hard to read.

  43. M. Simon says:

    That would be picture blocks with text below.

    BTW no need to clutter the thread.

  44. Gilbert says:

    John Galt (13:52:10) :

    But is it peer-reviewed?

    It would appear to have been written by the peers.

  45. Mike Bryant says:

    OT… Arctic ROOS has updated their graphs of Arctic sea ice.

    http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic

    Since about April 20th it appears that the ice area graph has 2009 above the 1979-2007 average until about May 20th. More recently the ice area is below that average but still within 1 standard deviation of average.

  46. philincalifornia says:

    John Galt (13:52:10) :
    But is it peer-reviewed?
    ——————–

    Wasn’t there a hit song called “Everybody wants to rule the world”, by a band called “Peers for Fears”, or something like that …. ??

  47. Mike Bryant says:

    Also NSIDC has 2009 arctic sea ice extent kissing 2007 while Arctic ROOS has at least 500,000 sq. km. between them.

  48. The 880-page report, released June 2nd, 2009
    Has a chapter 5 that greatly misrepresents the current status of long-term solar variations. e.g. extols the obsolete Hoyt-Schatten TSI and Lockwood’s non-existent doubling, and Krivova’s reconstruction based on Lockwood’s ‘finding’ and uncritically accepts the Grand Maximum notions that solar activity has been the largest in centuries or millennia [made doubtfull by recent GRL paper on 10Be from Greenland]. It is, IMHO, a grave mistake to base the ‘attack’ on a dubious solar connection. In my [unpopular] opinion chapter 5 should simply be scrapped altogether.

  49. KlausB says:

    [i]John Galt (13:52:10) :

    But is it peer-reviewed?[/i]

    sorry, my peer is in the pub, down the road, reviewing a view lagers.

  50. deadwood says:

    Tom in Texas (16:25:59) :

    Before “Cap and Tax” is passed, all 880 pages need to be read into the Congressional Record.

    I second the notion and suspect that the report was timed specifically to be used for that purpose.

    But, and this is likely to be a big but, a member of congress will have to get it there.

  51. Aron says:

    [quote] Our government is run by criminals whose objective is to increase taxes and make profits for companies like Al Gore’s Generation Investments.[/quote]

    Welcome to politics. How long did it take you to realise that politicians are jobless people who live on welfare from us and always have to make up new rules to increase the size of their welfare payments for them and their “family”?

  52. rcrejects says:

    Keith Minto: Re your comment re Senator Fielding. It is clear to me, but perhaps not to others, that you are referring to the Australian Federal Parliament.

  53. Robert says:

    Taken from the wikipedia page on the Mayan calendar

    “For the ancient Maya, it was a huge celebration to make it to the end of a whole cycle,” says Sandra Noble, executive director of the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. in Crystal River, Florida. To render December 21, 2012, as a doomsday or moment of cosmic shifting, she says, is “a complete fabrication and a chance for a lot of people to cash in.”

    There are some similarities between AGW and the Mayan long count, both subjects are poorly understood (even less by the MSM) and yes there are people who will sell it as the comming of the end but not before they got their share of the loot.

  54. davidc says:

    I’ve only reached p29 so far but it is impossible for any open minded person who reads the NIPCC report to believe that “the science is settled”. Understanding that lie is Step 1 in seeing it all as a fraud.

  55. Chris Schoneveld says:

    I wonder why Lindzen was not one of the Contributors and Reviewers for the NIPCC report.

  56. DJA says:

    John Galt (13:52:10) :
    But is it peer-reviewed?

    Certainly, LORD Christopher Monckton has reviewed it.

  57. Lindsay H says:

    can we have a post of the key findings for all the chapters as a list in a format that I can email to all the politicians who persist in pushing the IPCC line.

    Great work !!

  58. rbateman says:

    KW (13:33:38) :

    I hope someone will notice this from DC!
    They know. The GOP has not forgotten the slap heard round Congress the day Waxman pulled his stunt on Monckton. For them, it’s very personal.

    Leif Svalgaard (23:17:53) :
    It gets a lot worse than Ch.5, and that movie about 2100 is a good example of how the other side seeks to scare the nation and the world off a cliff.
    There is some merit in making the point of “Hey, wait a minute, the debate is NOT settled, nor is the science”.

  59. M. Simon says:

    Neil Jones (03:26:47) :

    O/T – sort of

    This is beyond a joke

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/5436335/Fat-people-causing-climate-change-says-Sir-Jonathan-Porritt.html

    Evidently he has never heard of the Atkins Diet.

  60. Ron de Haan says:

    Anthony, Thanks for a great effort and a job well done.

  61. Jack Langdon says:

    Anthony, how about a project to insure that a copy is mailed to every senator and congressman? Set it up and I will donate my $$$ to help make it happen.

  62. Sparkey says:

    Jeremy (16:31:04) :
    “The US swings from fear of WMD (and the potential for military contractors to make obscene profits) to fear of AGW…”

    For any Defense Contractor it’s really hard to make “obscene profits” on the 10% margins the US Government allows. However, to lower costs to the US Taxpayer, Congress does allow defense contractors to make whatever deal they can from foreign sales. Sometimes, a contractor will knowingly lose it’s shirt on the US contract with the expectation of making money on foreign sales. I’ve seen it done many times. But even then you are only talking about a 15 to 20% margin, bigger than that is really rare.

    If you want “obscene profits”, don’t go into the Defense Industry, the commercial sector is where the action is. That’s why in the 90’s so many firms sold off their Defense businesses.

  63. John Galt says:

    @ George E. Smith (15:05:51) :

    Well if it’s peer-reviewed, then every other study that came previously must be wrong and must be discarded immediately!

    I think you missed the sarcasm in my question but I hope it comes through here.

  64. Flanagan says:

    Hey, let’s play the bad guy for a while. How many reviewers were there for the NPCC report? How many are truly climatologists? How much peer-reviewed papers are supporting that AGW is a hoax?

    About the Heartland institute, at the basis of this report. You could imagine it is a gathering of scientists or an organization having as a goal to scientifically assess the origin of warming. This is what the Heartland site says:
    “Heartland’s mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems.”
    So: they seem to actually don’t care about what the problem is, for they already know that the solution is free market. Now this is clearly an objective point of view… It clearly means they oppose AGW not because it is scientifically not sound, but because it does not support free market. Wonderful piece of disinformation in my sense.

  65. Nasif Nahle says:

    What a narrow concept some people have on peer reviews and how dogmatic the question about peer review has been. Have you read the list of scientists who signed the petition?

    I’m sure that if a scientist read the new publication and finds something wrong, he or she will make the authors know about that error. For example, Leif Svalgaard has made an observation, and I’m sure other solar physicists will revise Svalgaard’s assertions and, if they find the same errors, I’m sure the authors will make the pertinent corrections in the next edition of the publication.

  66. Nasif Nahle says:

    By the way, as a good example on integrity of the members of the NIPCC, I had been included in the list of signers when I was in Texas. As soon as I moved to Mexico, my name was removed from the list.

  67. Nasif Nahle (10:03:14) :
    Leif Svalgaard has made an observation, and I’m sure other solar physicists will revise Svalgaard’s assertions and, if they find the same errors

    What do you mean: me making errors? :-)

  68. Nasif Nahle says:

    Leif Svalgaard (10:19:38) :

    Nasif Nahle (10:03:14) :
    Leif Svalgaard has made an observation, and I’m sure other solar physicists will revise Svalgaard’s assertions and, if they find the same errors

    What do you mean: me making errors? :-)

    Heh! I dropped off in the last paragraph. :)

  69. John Galt says:

    @ Flanagan (09:31:51) :

    Wow, is that what they call ‘deconstructionism’? They don’t like AGW because it’s not ‘free market’?

    It’s amazing to see how your mind works.

    And tell me, how do you conduct ‘free market science’?

  70. Flanagan says:

    Smokey: the IPCC does not start by giving the solution before they know the problem. It’s simply not a scientific way of doing things. And what would be the political agenda of the UN? Being re-elected?

  71. Nasif Nahle says:

    John Galt (10:45:36) :

    @ Flanagan (09:31:51) :

    Wow, is that what they call ‘deconstructionism’? They don’t like AGW because it’s not ‘free market’?

    You’re out of orbit, John… It’s not a matter of “likes” or “dislikes”, but of scientific assessments. AGW doesn’t pass the test of falseability. Deconstructionism is the same as it is poststructuralism and is based on the proposition that the real world is apparent and is actually a vast social paradigm and that the way to education resides in dismantling in one’s mind this thing that society has constructed.

    For example, AGW idea changes what observation and/or experimentation have established to construct our current knowledge on heat transfer science and thermodynamics. Yet, some AGWers have despised the external “forcings” which drive the Earth’s climate. Those AGWers isolate the terraqueous system from the remainder systems of the solar system and express ideas which coincide with the idea of a thermos-like Earth.

  72. Nasif Nahle says:

    Oops! I forgot to include a link to the article on deconstructionism… Sorry! :)

    http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/LockeDeconstruction.shtml

  73. John Galt says:

    @ Nasif Nahle (11:17:18) :

    I hear you. I remember quite well the scientific method.

    Flanagan (10:55:06) :

    Yes, they did. The IPCC started with the conclusion that AGW is real. Then they set out to prove it. The IPCC wasn’t chartered to find out IF man is changing the climate.

    In the scientific method, you observe, make hypothesis and test (experiment). If the results of the test do not match the expected results, discard the hypothesis and start over.

    The IPCC did not conduct any experiments. They picked existing studies that support their premise and discarded all others.

    Compare this with the police investigating a crime. Imagine they decide you are guilty, before looking at all the evidence. They only look for evidence that proves you are guilty while summarily dismissing anything that shows your innocence. If the police find evidence that you were in the Library with Miss Plum when Colonel Mustard was murdered in the Dinning Room and Mrs. White also saw you there, then the police are supposed to eliminate you as a suspect. But the police have already decided you are guilty so they claim Miss Plum is a tobacco scientist and Mrs. White is in the pay of Big Oil.

    Then they create a computer model to show how you killed Colonel Mustard. They model doesn’t prove anything, it just shows what might have happened if you were guilty.

    That’s how the IPCC works.

  74. David Segesta says:

    Aron (00:43:10) :
    “How long did it take you to realise that politicians are jobless people who live on welfare from us and always have to make up new rules to increase the size of their welfare payments for them and their “family”?”

    I’ve been a Libertarian since 1996, but most of that time I believed government was run by well-meaning but uninformed morons. The TARP bill plus their carbon tax schemes convinced me of their criminal intent.
    Although congressman Waxman’s comments on the ice, tundra etc demonstrates that the term “morons” is still valid as well.

  75. George E. Smith says:

    “”” RW (15:40:28) :

    “the observed decreases in the average global temperatures in the early 21st century”

    George, do you know what ’statistical significance’ is, and how to calculate it in relation to trends in global temperature? “””

    “”” John F. Hultquist (17:33:57) :

    RW (15:40:28) :

    “the observed decreases in the average global temperatures in the early 21st century”

    George, do you know what ’statistical significance’ is, and how to calculate it in relation to trends in global temperature?

    RW,
    I’m a little rusty on my statistics so I wonder if you will explain your meaning? I assume someone has used some temperature measurements to show or plot a trend. How many measurements are we talking about and how are they distributed? Do we need to do this 30 times or so and take an average? Is it the average of these 30 or so attempts at determining a trend that is being tested? Or are we examining the data for measurement error? I seem to remember some comments by instructors about population mean versus sample mean and so on, and also sample size, and tests of significance when appropriate. I just wonder how all this shakes out with respect to what you and George seem to be arguing about? “””

    I’m not quite sure who is arguing, or with whom; nor do I get whatever point RW is trying to make with regard to his question on “statisticsl significance”

    If RW, you are questioning my commnet on: “the observed decreases in the average global temperatures in the early 21st century” ; let me say, those are NOT my observations; but are the work of others.

    I looked quickly throguh my 20 foot stack of papers to try and find either a GISStemp anomaly or lookalike graph going back to ‘the early 20th century’ and sad to say the first paper that came to hand happened to be a Wikipedia dissertation on global warming; specifically :
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming; and their very first graph on the first page, is global mean surface temperature anomaly relative to 1961-1990, which I take a wild guess at is likely some rendition of Hansen’s GISStemp anomaly, although Wiki gives no credit, and I can’t discern, if it is GISStemp, what version or edited release, or update of, it is.

    But it clearly shows “anomaly” falling from 1880, then an up blip around 1900, followed by a continuation of the decline to around 1910, that being reasonably the early part of the 20th century, and the graphed data being in some way “observed” rather than a prediction or even a projection of some supercomputer climate GCM.

    From 1910 we then get a steady climb to a peak around 1940, substantially above the 1880 to 1910 region thereby suggesting that the early part of the 20th century was indeed lower.
    The 1935-1980 era was then relatively flat to slightly donwhill; which as I recall was the period during which the AGW folks were crying about the coming ice age; not unlike the current period post 1995 (exempt 1998) to today.

    Now wiki was not my source that led to that comment; one of the recognized reporting groups was; and no don’t ask which one because I don’t remeber those kind of details; I have enough to just remeber the data; and the source is always recoverable by you Googlers.

    But anyhow RW, that is what that one liner was all about; and now that I have explained that; I have no idea how that relates to your question.

    But as to your question on the statistical significance and how to calculate the same.
    To me it is of no statistical significance; because I already know that the data is not believable, simply because of the blatant violations of the Nyquist Sampling Theorem. The sampling process doesn’t even satisfy Nyquist for the temporal variation; to give an aliassing noise free time average for even a single measuring station; and for the spatial sampling, the violation is by orders of magnitude; so has no global significance.

    So the time to consider “Statistical significance” and Central Limit Theorems, comes after you first gather actual real data, that is not irretrievably corrupted by aliassing noise; about which your statistics can do nothing.

    You can apply your lovely statistical mathematics to a number set as meaningless as your local telephone directory set of numbers; and assign some statistical significance to that; but that does not avoid the fact that those numbers have no real world significance, other than if you dial one of them, a single telephone will ring somewhere.

    And I am not sure I grasp John’s point fully; but it does lead me to comment that such plots, as GISStemp anomaly, and whatever it is that Wiki posted on that site purport to be observed measurment data.
    As such, each plotted point is a separate entity, unrelated in any way to any other plotted point; and the values are all different, because they are supposed to be all different; just like telephone numbers are supposed to be all different.
    And from what little I know about the origins of those numbers or the original raw measurements; they come from a completely chaotic physical system; so one would not ever expect to find any relationship between one number and another.

    In particular at no point in such a graph is it ever possible to predict what the next plotted point will be; or even whether it will be higher or lower than the last plotted point.

    So my view is that the application of statistical mathematics to such a data set, is a futile attempt to create information where ther is none to be found.

    George

    PS and finally, these plots and all like them, are plots of AlGorythmically masticated temperature anomaly “data”. They don’t have anything whatsoever to do with global temperatures; for which we have no practical means of making credible measurments.

  76. Mike T says:

    Leif Svalgaard (23:17:53) :
    The 880-page report, released June 2nd, 2009
    Has a chapter 5 that greatly misrepresents the current status of long-term solar variations……

    Whether one agrees with the rest of Leif’s comments, we should take it as a reminder not to assume that everything in this report is the ‘right ‘ view of the science in question, just because it expresses opinions closer to one’s own than warmists do. We need to have a sceptical approach to all the science, if we are to approach a true understanding.

  77. TonyB says:

    Flanagan (10:55:06) :

    replied

    “Smokey: the IPCC does not start by giving the solution before they know the problem. It’s simply not a scientific way of doing things. And what would be the political agenda of the UN? Being re-elected?”

    Flanagan, the clue to the IPCC’s rationale lies in the the third and fourth letter of their acronym.

    Tonyb

  78. Konrad says:

    I am sure it was written simply to provoke a response, but this little gem gets my vote for Quote Of The Week.

    “The IPCC does not start by giving the solution before they know the problem. It’s simply not a scientific way of doing things. And what would be the political agenda of the UN? Being re-elected?”- Flanagan (10:55:06)

  79. Nasif Nahle says:

    John Galt (12:02:57) :

    @ Nasif Nahle (11:17:18) :

    I hear you. I remember quite well the scientific method.

    Uh! I’m sorry… I took the whole post as if it were yours. Actually, those were words from Flanagan. Sorry again! :)

  80. Flanagan says:

    John Galt: even when looking very carefully at the IPCC ARs, I never see anywhere “knowing that global warming is man-made, blablabla” The role of these reports is to assess the role of man in the recently observed warming. To ASSESS, not to prove.

  81. John Galt says:

    Flanagan (22:44:28) :

    John Galt: even when looking very carefully at the IPCC ARs, I never see anywhere “knowing that global warming is man-made, blablabla” The role of these reports is to assess the role of man in the recently observed warming. To ASSESS, not to prove.

    You’re exactly right. The IPCC was not created to see if AGW is actually happening. They already concluded it’s true without any compelling evidence to back it up.

    Thank you for making my point.

  82. Smokey says:

    Flanagan (10:55:06) :

    …what would be the political agenda of the UN? Being re-elected?

    Flanagan me boy, how about if I give you a clue: the IPCC is composed of 100% political appointees. They have their marching orders, and they produce the response expected by their respective governments — that global warming is gonna getcha.

    In reality, the IPCC’s agenda is to get the UN’s hands deep into the pockets of Western taxpayers. Every action they take and every statement they make supports that agenda. Only those blinded by true belief think the UN is interested in science.

  83. Flanagan (22:44:28) :

    John Galt: even when looking very carefully at the IPCC ARs, I never see anywhere “knowing that global warming is man-made, blablabla” The role of these reports is to assess the role of man in the recently observed warming. To ASSESS, not to prove.

    You’re sort of correct. The IPCC was not chartered to determine how or why the climate changes…Or even if it is currently changing in any sort of anomalous manner. It wasn’t even chartered for scientific purposes.

    It starts from a point of assumed settled science: The climate change of the late 20th century is anomalous and probably caused by the United States…I mean anthropogenic activities…

    Mandate

    The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage.

    What the heck is, “socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change?”

    Sounds like something that Jeffery Sachs might write in his little column in Scientific American.

  84. I think the spam filter may have just grabbed my last post due to an IPCC link.

  85. Roger Knights says:

    “And what would be the political agenda of the UN? Being re-elected?”- Flanagan (10:55:06)”

    Ted Turner gave the UN a $1 billion donation and asked them to set up a center to document the destructive effects of AGW. They did so. Their agenda is to repay their alarmist benefactor, and possibly to induce further donations.

  86. Smokey says:

    Flanagan, this is all that really interests the UN: click

    Money Money Money. Our money, and how the craven UN can get its hands deeper into the pockets of U.S. taxpayers.

    The UN’s proposed “World Tax” [now re-named "Millenium Development Goals"] was proposed to be a .7% tax on GDP. For the U.S. that would mean over $100 billion every year, taken from working taxpayers and paid into the opaque and unaccountable United Nations.

    That world tax has not been implemented. So, what is the UN’s response? The UN has now raised its demand, to a full one percent tax on U.S. GDP annually.

    U.S. GDP is currently about $14 trillion. The UN looks at that money and gets absolutely ravenous with greed. They intensely hate the U.S. and the West — but they crave the West’s money like an unemployed brother in law living in your extra bedroom craves the money you work for. The sooner they are cut off, the better for all of us.

Comments are closed.