NOTE: This op-ed is apparently too hot for some editors to handle. Late last week it was accepted and posted on politix.topix.com only to be abruptly removed some two hours later. After several hours of attempting to determine why it was removed, I was informed the topix.com editor had permanently taken it down because of a strong negative reaction to it and because of “conflicting views from the scientific community” over factual assertions in the piece.
Fortunately, some media outlets recognize a vigorous scientific debate persists over humanity’s influence on climate and those outlets refuse outside efforts to silence viewpoints that run counter to prevailing climate alarmism. My original piece follows below.- Craig Idso
Guest essay by Dr. Craig D. Idso
The release of a United Nations (UN) climate change report last week energized various politicians and environmental activists, who issued a new round of calls to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the most fiery language in this regard came from Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), who called upon Congress to “wake up and do everything in its power to reduce dangerous carbon pollution,” while Secretary of State John Kerry expressed similar sentiments in a State Department release, claiming that “unless we act dramatically and quickly, science tells us our climate and our way of life are literally in jeopardy.”
Really? Is Earth’s climate so fragile that both it and our way of life are in jeopardy because of rising carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions?
In a word, no! The human impact on global climate is small; and any warming that may occur as a result of anthropogenic CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions is likely to have little effect on either Earth’s climate or biosphere, according to the recently-released contrasting report Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts, which was produced by the independent Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
This alternative assessment reviews literally thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not support and often contradict the findings of the UN report. Whether the subject is the effects of warming and rising CO2 on plants, animals, or humans, the UN report invariably highlights the studies and models that paint global warming in the darkest possible hue, ignoring or downplaying those that don’t.
To borrow a telling phrase from their report, the UN sees nothing but “death, injury, and disrupted livelihoods” everywhere it looks—as do Senator Boxer, Secretary Kerry, and others. Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts demonstrates that life on Earth is not suffering from rising temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels. Citing reams of real-world data, it offers solid scientific evidence that most plants actually flourish when exposed to both higher temperatures and greater CO2 concentrations. In fact, it demonstrates that the planet’s terrestrial biosphere is undergoing a great greening, which is causing deserts to shrink and forests to expand, thereby enlarging and enhancing habitat for wildlife. And much the same story can be told of global warming and atmospheric CO2 enrichment’s impacts on terrestrial animals, aquatic life, and human health.
Why are these research findings and this positive perspective missing from the UN climate reports? Although the UN claims to be unbiased and to have based its assessments on the best available science, such is obviously not the case. And it is most fortunate, therefore, that the NIPCC report provides tangible evidence that the CO2-induced global warming and ocean acidification debate remains unsettled on multiple levels; for there are literally thousands of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not support a catastrophic, or even problematic, view of atmospheric CO2 enrichment.
Unfortunately, climate alarmism has become the modus operandi of the UN assessment reports. This fact is sad, indeed, because in compiling these reports, the UN either was purposely blind to views that ran counter to the materials they utilized, or its authors did not invest the amount of time, energy, and resources needed to fully investigate an issue that has profound significance for all life on Earth. And as a result, the UN has seriously exaggerated many dire conclusions, distorted relevant facts, and omitted or ignored key scientific findings. Yet in spite of these failings, various politicians, governments, and institutions continue to rally around the UN climate reports and to utilize their contentions as justification to legislate reductions in CO2 emissions, such as epitomized by the remarks of Senator Boxer and Secretary Kerry.
Citing only studies that promote climate catastrophism as a basis for such regulation, while ignoring studies that suggest just the opposite, is simply wrong. Citizens of every nation deserve much better scientific scrutiny of this issue by their governments; and they should demand greater accountability from their elected officials as they attempt to provide it.
There it is, that’s my op-ed. It’s what some people apparently do not want you to read. While the over 3,000 peer-reviewed scientific references cited in Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts are likely more than sufficient to establish scientific fact in a court of law, they are not sufficient to engage the real climate deniers in any debate. The rise in atmospheric CO2 is not having, nor will it have, a dangerous influence on the climate and biosphere. But don’t take my word for it, download and read the report for yourself (available at www.nipccreport.org). Compare it with the UN report. You be the judge!
Dr. Craig D. Idso is the lead editor and scientist for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
The Liberal support for Climate Alarmism, and the villification of CO2, is rooted in money — tax money.
The Liberals are always on the hunt for new ways to extract money from businesses and industry for their causes. Carbon taxes were (and are) the promise of a Fountain of Endless Cash for social engineering schemes. This dream of endless new cash is now dying, and the Liberals are fighting to save it, while hiding behind the poor science from the IPCC now being foisted upon a mostly naive public.
Thankfully today we have the internet. In the mid-90’s there was an awakening on the Left that the freedom of information flow had the negative side, that the traditional press and media outlets would no longer be the sole source and control of information to shape public opinion. So unless the Obama administration turns over the internet root domain structure to the UN dictators and despots, blog sites like Anthony’s here will continue to inform and provide freedom of information, while the Left can only vent hatred, and be exposed for what they seek — control of thought.
Mosher says, How did those clowns deduce from no evidence that there would be little effect.
============================================
Steven, next time put a question mark behind a question. It indicates that you are sincere in wanting to know. I have seen you admonish many for not doing their homework. Do your homework, read the report.
There is immense evidence that the plus 100 ppm CO2 increase has had NONE of the disastrous affects shouted constantly by the alarmist. There is immense evidence that the additional CO2 is primarily beneficial and there is immense evidence that those benefits will continue to increase with increased CO2, while the unmanifested fears of the alarmist, due to increasing CO2, logarithmically decrease as more CO2 is added.
Steven Mosher says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:48 am “”the clowns who wrote the NIPCC…”” “”How did those clowns deduce from no evidence….””
Mr Mosher almost managed to ask a valid question, the answer to which would have interested me greatly. Then he blots his copybook by referring to the qualified scientists who wrote the report as clowns. This is where the alarmist brigade always manage to shoot themselves in the foot. The average person does not differentiate between Santer and Lindzen, Mann and Curry, Spencer and Hansen etc, they just see scientists. That one group spends it’s time trying to discredit the other is obvious and people wonder why they do not just show us that the world is not getting greener, why they do not just show us the 50 million climate refugees, why they do not show us the storms that are stronger than have ever been seen before; why they don’t show us the droughts that are longer and dryer than ever before; why they do not show us that snow is a thing of the past etc. Surely that would be so much simpler than calling people with better qualifications than yourself, clowns?
climate is much more robust than models
Reblogged at http://futurehistoric.wordpress.com/2014/04/20/dueling-climate-reports/
The censorship of opposing views in climate science is pathetic, illiberal and undemocratic.
Steven Mosher says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:48 am
How did those clowns deduce from no evidence that there would be little effect
Resorting to name calling weakens your argument considerably Steven.
Also as there have been no correct predictions from your ‘warmist’ camp you should perhaps look to your own capabilities before querying those who disagree as they have ample evidence of your failures.
“””””….RMB says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:30 am
The good Dr doesn’t appreciate just how right he actually is. The fact is that you cannot heat water through its surface. If you doubt me try heating water through the surface using a heat gun. The heat is completely rejected. Energy only enters the ocean via the sun’s rays not via the heat of the atmosphere. The reason is surface tension. …..”””””
This is the kind of “skeptic” post, that that leads to MS dismissal of climate skeptics.
Your assertion that you can’t heat the water with a heat gun, is something that is testable by anyone. And I recommend that everyone try it, using your wife’s hair dryer, or a real industrial heat gun, if you have one.
I have an excellent industrial heat gun, and I plan to do the experiment myself, since I never have done it.
The claim, is almost certainly true, which is why folks should see for themselves.
The problem RMB, is that it has nothing to do with surface tension.
Water, is highly transparent, to the bulk of the solar spectrum radiation, but it is very absorptive in the near infra red, were heat guns work.
I’m guessing that my heat gun can get up to 200 deg C air temperature, but the heater itself gets hotter than that. If it got to 970 deg. C, the radiation peak would be at 3.0 microns, which happens to be where water absorbs most strongly, with alpha being between 8,000, and 10,000 cm^-1
So 63% isabsorbed in about 1-1.25 microns . 5-7 microns of water will absorb 99% of the 3 micrin IR.. Even at lower temperatures, 50 microns will do it, and that will cause evaporation from the surface
Sorry to be a bit late in reply. I got involved in this thing when I read an e-mail by Trenberth lamenting the fact that heat was “missing”. I googled “missing heat” and sure enough all sorts of heat was missing in the climate science world. When I was at school about 58 years ago I was taught about surface tension and I was shown that the surface tension that covers the ocean whilst not strong is strong enough to support the weight of a paper clip. I noticed that no mention was ever made about surface tension was ever made when talking about climate. Nobody ever said “we ignore it because” it just wasn’t mentioned.
I decided that I had never seen heat applied to the surface of water and I got curious. I fired a heat gun at the surface of water in a bucket expecting steam to rise almost immediately. A heat gun operates at about 450degsC as far as I know. To my surprise the water seemed to remain unmoved. After 5mins I tested the water and found that it was stone cold. Now I’ve had explanations offered to me about the water evaporating so rapidly that the surface remains cool but the trouble is that would mean my kitchen should be full of steam which it isn’t.
Idecided to kill the surface tension by floating a metal dish on the surface and I found that by directing the heat through the metal dish the water would heat as expected. If I’m correct and I’m pretty sure I am then no physical heat passes through the surface of water from the atmosphere. Apart from anything else this means that the ocean cannot be boiled away.
The implications of what I am saying are enormous, far too many to go into right now but I’d like to get you interested.
Remember that surface tension will support the weight of a paper clip and physical heat has no weight.
What is happening right now tends to bear me out. It would explain the “missing” heat and it explains the “pause” because no extra heat is absorbed by the ocean in addition toradiated energy so there is no back up when the sun goes quiet. rgds RMB
And can anyone here on either side of the CAGW debate please explain to me, by what physical process(es) CO2 generated at ground level by the burning of fossil fuels makes its way to the upper atmosphere to become a greenhouse gas?
The only “clown” here is Steven Mosher, with his disingenuous attack on the real science offered by Dr. Idso. Steven, why don’t you just shut up and go away somewhere? Go find a place that provides you with no energy nor any of the other benefits of carbon-based civilization, and stay there.
Steven Mosher says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:48 am
How did those clowns deduce from no evidence that there would be little effect
====
Same way you guys did it….only backwards and in heels
I just gave myself an idea – we skeptics are defenders of carbon-based civilization!
george e smith;
I have an excellent industrial heat gun, and I plan to do the experiment myself, since I never have done it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Turn the [fan] in the heat gun off, as the air flow promotes more cooling via evaporation that the heating element provides in the first place. And it blows the evaporated air away from the bucket instead of leaving it in contact with the water surface as would happen in a real ocean surface. Well, a real ocean surface unperturbed by wind I suppose. So make sure your experiment includes a surface perturbed by combinations of wind (including white caps, foam, and flotsam), rainfall, and debris ranging from algae to dust to dead leaves and insects, and is big enough that the air from the heat gun doesn’t blow the primary effects outside the radius of your [experiment]. You’ll also want to refer to Leonard Weinstein’s comment upthread.
Pointing a a heat gun at a pail of water is just a good way to completely fool yourself.
cnxtim says:
April 20, 2014 at 10:36 am
And can anyone here on either side of the CAGW debate please explain to me, by what physical process(es) CO2 generated at ground level by the burning of fossil fuels makes its way to the upper atmosphere to become a greenhouse gas?
______________________
There are a number of issues with your question. CO2 does obviously get into the upper atmosphere, from whatever source, through normal atmospheric mixing. CO2 also acts as a greenhouse gas at whatever altitude it is found in the atmosphere.
“So 63% isabsorbed in about 1-1.25 microns . 5-7 microns of water will absorb 99% of the 3 micrin IR.. Even at lower temperatures, 50 microns will do it, and that will cause evaporation from the surface”
And with the forced convection provided by the fan I’d expect to see net cooling rather than any warming.
I seem to recall someone posting an attempt at a controlled experiment of this sort over on Tallbloke’s Talkshop a year or two ago. Experiment was a strong infra-red source and a separate source of ventilation. With both being varied in a controlled fashion.
“Konrad” if memory serves correctly. Don’t think the write up ever got properly finished though.
I don’t think there is any chance of water getting heated by IR in anything but perfectly still, windless conditions. Odd no one has actually tested this properly in the last 30 years, with billions that have gone into climate “research”.
There was also an interesting paper on the pseudo liquid crystal properties of the water surface and how this varies with the presence of certain organic oils coming from some varieties of sea weed.
Seems even the most basic science isn’t that settled at all.
Steven Mosher,
Make up your mind. You have shown time and time again that the people promoting the AGW apocalypse are fibbing and deceptive.
Yet you reject people offering counter opinions.
That fence sitting is going to give you one heck of wedgie.
OK AR so gg occurs at all levels of the atmosphere, not as illustrated in every CAGW illustration promoted by the IPCC?
Steven Mosher says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:48 am
…
————-
Steven’s only saying what he often says one way or another, which is that skeptics should apply (where applicable) the same standards and criticisms to reports with conclusions we like as we do to reports with conclusions we do not like. As usual, it’s hard to argue with his point.
Among the news outlets that do not tolerate deviation from the party line are the San Francisco Chronicle and PBS News Hour. The other night, in reporting on global warming politics the latter organization presented its audience with two experts, each of whom presented the Democratic party line. Cancellation of one’s subscription to the Chronicle and contributions to public broadcasting stations would be appropriate responses.
confused from birth by the misnomer ‘earth’
and afraid it might get hotter, he fails to note: it’s watery.
with his radiation physics on a phase transition planet, he’s
at the grand finale of the bonfire of Teh Vanities.
so exotic models writhe and spin like sugar plums with his attack
what would don quixote think of all these windmills tilting back?
Mannic oppresive. Heh. A new favorite.
Google shows one result. An original, from an original.
99.9% sure George Will coined an old favorite of mine, “inconvenient fact”. The burn became the source and motivation for Mr Gore’s movie title, I believe. How would I verify the first use of a phrase, etc?
Thanks.
It’s a real shame that some of the best topics here get little to no real disscission in the replies because most of the replies have to deal with Mosher saying something stupid.
“Have you tried to heat water through the surface.”
No, and I don’t plan to. A more interesting question (and interesting answer) is why nuclear powered submarines don’t worry about being detected by the heat they emit.
Mark Bofill says:
April 20, 2014 at 10:59 am
Steven Mosher says:
April 20, 2014 at 8:48 a
Steven’s only saying what he often says one way or another, which is that skeptics should apply (where applicable) the same standards and criticisms to reports with conclusions we like as we do to reports with conclusions we do not like. As usual, it’s hard to argue with his point
==========================================
Mark that lacks logic. He said nothing of the sort. He immaturely asked a thoughtless question, which, by the way is well answered in the report. In addition it was hypocritical. Mosher often critiques those who do not do the hard work, examine the reports, do the math themselves. Here he failed to do that, as the question is well and repeatedly answered in the scientific literature.
Thanks Kim. The consistency over the decades where the creators admit the Climate models are not designed to predict future behavior or reflect reality is underappreciated. The UN still likes the Bariloche model from the 70s the best as it openly proclaimed it redistributive purpose. Milbrath is graphic that the models are a means to shift the Dominant Social Paradigm–a purpose so important he made it a Proper Noun.
There was an Oxford-Martin Commission report from last October in UK that is also just as graphic as it can be. There’s not a time when anyone plans to announce that the transformations have commenced. Education and land use planning and Big Data are the ways in and all this is in high gear.
To the planners at the IPCC and UN the models are just a tool to increase their ability to regulate human systems. People, their minds, and total personalities all count as systems to be manipulated. Any plausible excuse will do and this one has taken years to really show the intentional deceit.
worst ice in decades,
ttps://ca.news.yahoo.com/coast-guard-warns-bad-ice-atlantic-canada-ships-173704122.html