Guest essay by Steve Goreham
Originally published in The Washington Times
On September 23, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is scheduled to release the first portion of its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). AR5 will conclude once again that mankind is causing dangerous climate change. But one week prior on September 17, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) will release its second report, titled Climate Change Reconsidered II (CCR-II). My advance review of CCR-II shows it to be a powerful scientific counter to the theory of man-made global warming.
Today, 193 of 194 national heads of state say they believe humans are causing dangerous climate change. The IPCC of the United Nations has been remarkably successful in convincing the majority of the world that greenhouse gas emissions must be drastically curtailed for humanity to prosper.
The IPCC was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program. Over the last 25 years, the IPCC became the “gold standard” of climate science, quoted by all the governments of the world. IPCC conclusions are the basis for climate policies imposed by national, provincial, state, and local authorities. Cap-and-trade markets, carbon taxes, ethanol and biodiesel fuel mandates, renewable energy mandates, electric car subsidies, the banning of incandescent light bulbs, and many other questionable policies are the result. In 2007, the IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize for work on climate change.
But a counter position was developing. In 2007, the Global Warming Petition Project published a list of more than 31,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 PhDs, who stated, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” At the same time, an effort was underway to provide a credible scientific counter to the alarming assertions of the IPCC.
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change was begun in 2003 by Dr. Fred Singer, emeritus professor of atmospheric physics from the University of Virginia. Dr. Singer and other scientists were concerned that IPCC reports selected evidence that supported the theory of man-made warming and ignored science that showed that natural factors dominated the climate. They formed the NIPCC to offer an independent second opinion on global warming.
Climate Change Reconsidered I (CCR-I) was published in 2009 as the first scientific rebuttal to the findings of the IPCC. Earlier this summer, CCR-I was translated into Chinese and accepted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences as an alternative point-of-view on climate change.
Climate Change Reconsidered II is a 1,200-page report that references more than one thousand peer-reviewed scientific papers, compiled by about 40 scientists from around the world. While the IPCC reports cover the physical science, impacts, and mitigation efforts, CCR-II is strictly focused on the physical science of climate change. Its seven chapters discuss the global climate models, forcings and feedbacks, solar forcing of the climate, and observations on temperature, the icecaps, the water cycle and oceans, and weather.
Among the key findings of CCR-II are:
· Doubling of CO2 from its pre-industrial level would likely cause a warming of only about 1oC, hardly cause for alarm.
· The global surface temperature increase since about 1860 corresponds to a recovery from the Little Ice Age, modulated by natural ocean and atmosphere cycles, without need for additional forcing by greenhouse gases.
· There is nothing unusual about either the magnitude or rate of the late 20th century warming, when compared with previous natural temperature variations.
· The global climate models projected an atmospheric warming of more than 0.3oC over the last 15 years, but instead, flat or cooling temperatures have occurred.
The science presented by the CCR-II report directly challenges the conclusions of the IPCC. Extensive peer-reviewed evidence is presented that climate change is natural and man-made influences are small. Fifteen years of flat temperatures show that the climate models are in error.
Each year the world spends over $250 billion to try to decarbonize industries and national economies, while other serious needs are underfunded. Suppose we take a step back and “reconsider” our commitment to fighting climate change?
The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change is a project supported by three independent nonprofit organizations: Science and Environmental Policy Project, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and The Heartland Institute. Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Very good. The various heads of state cannot keep turning a blind eye to the huge amount of sound science that refutes the need to decarbonize. They’re waking up already, sooner or later they’ll have to admit it – and then band together to shut down the IPCC and stop the incredible and egregious waste of taxpayer dollars.
This will be very helpful for someone like myself. I am not a scientist and any time I’m in a discussion with AGW believers I get so sick of hearing “show me peer reviewed papers, show me peer reviewed papers, if it’s not peer reviewed its a lie…” It’s like a broken record.
I’m looking forward to this report.
It’s the CACA pal-reviewed papers that are the lies.
TonyU~
Not to detract from WUWT, but go here http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/
to find lots of research papers which counter the lies of the AGW crowd.
And that just One of several sites…
the title of the article is,
A Science-Based Rebuttal to Global Warming Alarmism
in it it says,
The global surface temperature increase since about 1860 corresponds to a recovery from the Little Ice Age, modulated by natural ocean and atmosphere cycles, without need for additional forcing by greenhouse gases
And yet, there is no evidence or theory regarding the cause of a ‘recovery’ from the little ice age that is natural and not compounded by anthropogenic emissions associated with the increase in population and agricultural land use changes during the agricultural revolution in the early 1700s (as well as the wide-scale European planting of the American potato-leading to a population explosion).
American and European deforestation was also rampant at this time and the introduction of coal as a common fuel source began in earnest in the late 1800s, these all contributed to changes in methane (primary) and (some) CO2 levels.
http://www.lenntech.com/images/methem.jpg
I also note that the article’s author is an electrical engineer with an MBA degree, hardly the kind of credentials for an essay disclaiming a proven scientific fact that has been known for over 100 years.
Carbon Dioxide and other green house gasses warm the atmosphere and human sourced emissions are causing global warming. This is an undeniable scientific fact.
To adequately address a “little ice age’ that we are supposedly recovering from, the only scientific proof one needs is to show, clearly and without reserve, that this event was not a global phenomenon but rather a localized one in northern Europe.
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/littleiceage.pdf
All one needs to do is look at the actual temperature curves of global temperatures since the little ice age that was created by ACTUAL SCIENTISTS, not paid free-market advocates who care not for the actual science but would rather see free market principles unleash the power of unregulated polluters into the world and destroy the lives of your children and grandchildren – as actual scientists clearly state will happen if we do not effect significant changes in our business as usual.
http://ourchangingclimate.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/shakun_marcott_hadcrut4_a1b_eng.png?w=899&h=713
Warming Alarmism
A.D. Everard says:
September 10, 2013 at 4:14 pm
Very good. The various heads of state cannot keep turning a blind eye to the huge amount of sound science that refutes the need to decarbonize.
____________________
Perhaps you are right. It wasn’t so very long ago that I was glum and nearly without hope as to the future of the free world and all of mankind, but times are changing.
Here’s hoping that the most recent election in Australia will serve as a bellwether for rollbacks of green tyranny, worldwide. Most people do the right thing when they know the truth.
jai mitchell says:
“And yet, there is no evidence or theory…”
Get back to us when you understand the concept of a ‘theory’. Right now, you’re just winging it. A theory makes accurate, repeatedly testable predictions. AGW has never been able to do that.
You also have no understanding of the climate Null Hypothesis. Everything currently observed has happened before — and to a much greater degree. Nothing we observe now is either unprecedented or unusual. That is the starting point of the Null Hypothesis; a corollary of the Scientific Method. Because you have the Scientific Method wrong, your conclusions will necessarily be wrong.
The heartland institute is a conservative/libertarian think tank well known for its position on climate change skepticism and is funded by several other conservative foundations and major corporate players in tobacco, pharmaceutical, and oil and gas. The fact that its report is considered an acceptable alternative by China is hardly heartening given that country’s track record on truth and sunshine in its environmental issues. The IPCC is comprised of thousands of scientists from 195 countries across the world that voluntarily contribute their time to the collection and analysis of climate change data. The two are not equivalent in their outlook, mission, level of expertise, level of participation, objectivity, or any other measure I could think to use as a basis of comparison.
In other news, who has been banning incandescent lightbulbs?
Richard Feynman is rolling in his grave…http://youtu.be/b240PGCMwV0
TonyU – the irony, if one could call it that, is that the CAGW hypothesis remains to be proven. The onus in on those that seek to foist the meme on the rest of us to prove their case.
I find one useful approach is asking a believer what it would take to falsify their faith based acceptance of the institutionalised CAGW meme. Here, one might make a few suggestions. An absence of statistically significant warming for 17+ years and observed cooling since 2008 might be a good start – against the inconvenient background of increasing atmospheric CO2.
Actually, in reality it’s very tiresome because one instinctively realises that it’s not about the science or environment. It is ideology.
Is any of this stuff peer reviewed? Because it would be fantastic if it was.
Deb Rudnick says:
“The IPCC is comprised of thousands of scientists…”
Paid scientists. Bought and paid for. Contrast that with the thirty-thousand plus professionals, all with degrees in the hard sciences [including more than 9,000 PhD’s], who flatly dispute the IPCC’s failed CO2 narrative.
The UN/IPCC was set up specifically to prove that human emissions are the primary cause of runaway global warming. They failed. There is no such verifiable, testable scientific evidence. Conflating what China may or may not be doing doesn’t help your unscientific argument, either.
Finally, if you are unaware that governments are banning incandescent lightbulbs, you have been asleep for the past decade.
Thanks for the link Otter
“The IPCC is comprised of thousands of scientists from 195 countries across the world ”
Most of whom have ties to radical green organizations.
Thanks
JK
Deb Rudnick says:
September 10, 2013 at 4:46 pm
The IPCC isn’t composed of thousands of scientists. Its conclusions & summary for political leaders are written by a cabal of around 50. Many of those it counts as scientists are in fact bureaucrats & a lot of the scientists it lists don’t want to be associated with the scam any more.
Tens of thousands of real scientists recognize IPCC for the anti-scientific hoax it is.
Jai Mitchell apparently has not or can not read. He has continually repeated point after point that has been shown to be false by many posters on this site. He is getting boring.
jai mitchell says:
September 10, 2013 at 4:35 pm
The recovery from the LIA is no different than the recoveries from the Dark Ages Cold Period, other cold periods since the Holocene Climatic Optimum, the 8200 BP event & the Younger Dryas, just as the warm periods in between the cold periods were also natural, as is the current one. The warm periods are recoveries to the trend line from the cold periods that preceded them. They’re all natural cycles (or chaotic variations, if you prefer) around the trend since the HCO, which is markedly down in temperature.
It is incumbent upon CACA charlatans to show that the current recovery is any different from those which preceded it.
Correction; Has become boring.
This quote gave it away as Heartland Institute (HI) propaganda:
“Earlier this summer, CCR-I was translated into Chinese and accepted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences as an alternative point-of-view on climate change.”
before I got to the end where it is implied that HI partly pays for it. In fact, everybody agrees the NIPCC offers ‘an alternative point-of-view on climate change’. Skeptical Science would agree! Is there anybody here still thinking that the HI is trying to do anything else but arguing in favour of those who see no need to diminish global exhaust of CO2 because they profit from the present economic setup?
But it is a cause for celebration. I have argued we need MORE co2 in the atmosphere, not less. I base my arguments not on computer speculations about the future, but on measurements from the past and present. More jungle greening and increased food supply? How can this be?
THE PAST
THE PRESENT
“The global surface temperature increase since about 1860 corresponds to a recovery from the Little Ice Age…”
I keep hearing this – we had it for the umpteenth time from Akasofu. But it explains nothing. It’s in the nature of things that, if you have a period of warming, then before that it was cooler. But if you said, it warmed because it was cooler before (so no need for GHG), people would laugh at you. The fact that you’ve given a name to the cooler period (LIA) doesn’t make it any different.
I should have left out the last abstract as it is pure speculation based on models. 😉
Try again, and this time in English. Who is laughing, it makes complete sense? See coming out of the last glaciation. Who laughs?
Is Tony Abbott the only national leader in the whole world who will say that he does not believe humans are causing dangerous global warming?
Nick:
” The fact that you’ve given a name to the cooler period (LIA) doesn’t make it any different”
It is a useful reminder that a warmer climate is preferred to a colder climate. (nasty things happen due to crop failures)