Is global warming a myth?

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Log Out | Edit Profile | Register
Night Shade Message Boards » General » Is global warming a myth? « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Lawrence A
Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 01:30 am:   

Getting back to the global warming controversy and my dissenting views thereof, that I espoused on the 'Debates II' thread at the "Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction" section, about 6-7 weeks back and admittedly in a vituperative, insulting, arrogant (whilst professing humility) and imperious manner and tone that was both uncalled for and rude. I wince now at the insufferable arrogance of my inexcusable flaming post. My inflammatory tone only detracted from what I wanted to get across.

OK to get back to the debate......[I hope the moderators don't consider this very long post to be too inappropriate for nightshades. It is a response to a heated discussion held here that touched on ecological/environmental matters. I also assume that some posters here, including the writers and editors, may find it of interest]

To reiterate my previous points:

Over seventeen thousand scientists, including over 2600 climatologists, geophysicists, meteorologists, oceanographers, glaciologists, atmospheric physicists, environmental scientists etc whose fields of scientific expertise relate directly to studying the mechanisms underlying climate dynamics; also thousands of biologists, phenologists, physicists, chemists, biochemists who study the effects of climate on biota and natural cycles, signed what is called The Oregon Institute (of Science and Medicine) petition protesting against global warming alarmism. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

The signature of the ex-president of the NAS heads the list of the OISM petition.

It is a petition against global warming hysteria and the punitive and irrational policies of Kyoto. It protests on scientific grounds against the hypothesis of anthropogenic greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions causing appreciable global warming. The petition sets out the case that global warming is a trend determined by natural cycles, and that the case for global warming itself is highly exaggerated, being incompatible with the actual limited scientific data we do have on earth's climate. It also sets out the case that too little is known of the underlying mechansims in determining climatic conditions to be able to predict long-term and even medium-term trends in earth's climate. The point is stressed that GHG emissions are not necessarily harmful, but have numerous benefits. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm#Message54

Yes there is some warming. Or rather certain regions of the earth are warming. Others arguably not. The earth has always been subject to climate change throughout its history (sometimes very drastic and relatively sudden changes). It has been considerably hotter than it is now in the recent natural history of the earth, and tell me do you all think that can be accounted for by man-made fossil fuel burning - thousands and millions of years ago?!! Climate change is certainly caused by natural cycles eg precession, solar cycles (not just the sunspot cycle), and other factors of which we actually know very little. Correlation (atmospheric carbon accumulation) is not causation. There is no evidence of appreciable warming at high atmospheric altitudes (troposphere and stratosphere) which is exactly where one would expect the greenhouse effect to be most pronounced. In fact there is evidence that the earth may be headed for a cooling trend.

The Liepzig Declaration setting out the same objections re global warming, from the other side of the Atlantic.
The list of signatories.

The people who signed the OI petition and the LD include those who actually measure, collate, analyse and interpret the temperature readings and associated measurements from ground stations, weather balloons, satellites and ocean buoys. And then base their tentative conclusions on analysis of all the data (and all the number crunching that entails) they have amassed. And those who read up on their findings because it is their job to do that and apply it to their own specific speciality. Also naturally those who specialise in studying the specific physical dynamics of the earth (and solar system) and the application of these dynamics to climate and climate change.

http://www.sepp.org/glwarm/sciaddheat.html for the true facts about the initiation of the Oregon Institute petition, written by atmospheric physicist Fred Singer.

Here for an article entitled

And I made no mention of the Heidelberg Appeal whose public release co-incided with the '92 Rio Summit. As of today more than 4000 signatories, including over 40 Nobel Prize winners in the sciences have signed it.

The HA states:
"We are, however, worried at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development.

"We contend that a Natural State, sometimes idealized by movements with a tendency to look toward the past, does not exist and has probably never existed since man's first appearance in the biosphere, insofar as humanity has always progressed by increasingly harnessing Nature to its needs and not the reverse. We full subscribe to the objectives of a scientific ecology for a universe whose resources must be taken stock of, monitored and preserved.

"But we herewith demand that this stock-taking, monitoring and preservation be founded on scientific criteria and not on irrational preconceptions."

The signatories of the HA include:

Phillip W. Anderson, Nobel Prize (Physics), Hans Albrecht Bethe, Nobel Prize (Physics), Nicholas Bloembergen, Nobel Prize (Physics), Owen Chamberlain, Professor, Nobel Prize (Physics), Pierre-Gilles de Gennes, Nobel Prize (Physics), Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize (Physics), Donald A. Glaser, Nobel Prize (Physics), Anthony Jewish, Nobel Prize (Physics), Roald Hoffman, Nobel Prize (Chemistry), Robert Huber, Nobel Prize (Chemistry), Jerome Karle, Nobel Prize (Chemistry), Klaus Von Klitzing, Nobel Prize (Physics), Leon Lederman, Nobel Prize (Physics), Richard S. Lindzen, Professor, US National Academy of Sciences, M.I.T., Simon van der Meer, Nobel Prize (Physics), Sir. Nevil F. Mott, Nobel Prize Winner (Physics), Louis Neel, Nobel Prize (Physics), Linus Pauling, Nobel Prize (Chemistry, Peace), Amo A. Penzias, Nobel Prize (Physics), Max Ferdinand Perutz, Nobel Prize (Chemistry), John Charles Polanyi, Nobel Prize (Chemistry), Lord George Porter, Nobel Prize (Chemistry), I. Prigogine, Nobel Prize (Chemistry), Heinrich Rohrer, Nobel Prize (Physics), Abdus Salam, Nobel Prize (Physics), Jonas Salk, Arthur L. Schawlow, Nobel Prize (Physics), Kai Siegbahn, Nobel Prize (Physics), Fred Singer, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charles H. Townes, Nobel Prize (Physics), Robert W. Wilson, Nobel Prize (Physics).

And practically zero media attention attended the HA.

There was also the 1992 Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming

To get back to a few objections to my previous post dismissive of global warming alarmism....

Wow Al I admit this way too long and unwieldy "sentence" of mine is an incoherent grammatical mess, "a schizoid word salad" as you put it. It is incomplete for one - no predicate. And I admit rude and patronising (but let us ignore that).

"Or do all the people here, who think they know the science here because they are scientists who know nothing about climatology, meteorology and related (you know who you are) or because they read and write and edit science fiction and merely repeat what they read in the media written by know-nothing journalists and editors who know as much about meteorology, climatology, atmospheric physics and the earth sciences as a whole as well the rest of you."

So let me complete it, shorten it and clean it up.

"Or do all the people here, who think they know the science here because they are scientists who know nothing about climatology, meteorology and related (you know who you are) or because they read and write and edit science fiction and merely repeat what they read in the media, think you know what you are talking about?"

I wrote all this up pretty quickly, I really have no time and as such grammatical errors were inevitable. Is that the best you can do Al? I also wrote LZ when I meant LD in reference to the Liepzig Declaration, so I guess that discredits the Liepzig Declaration then? And Al let me apologise, I read your piece very very quickly and out of context. My language was inexcusable and I sincerely apologise. I have the right to disagree with you but not to be so inflammatory in the process. My pick-a-fight remarks with you were completely uncalled for and not even warranted in the slightest. Perhaps my contempt for the predictable PC Leftist politics of nightshade posters (to put it politely, and writers included here) and growing frustration and anger at the state of things all round spilt out. Thing is I vented my anger on the wrong thread, in the wrong way. Which would be excusable if I were an adolescent. But I do not have that excuse.

As to being off my trolley. Fine believe what you want. I could care less. Your anger is understandable. But "paranoia"? Um whatever.

Still I asked for it and I got the reply I deserved. My very sincere apologies once again. And I realise that I did not do my dissenting views on global warming any favours by such a silly personal attack and by the condescending tone of my previous post. It only can detract from the points I was trying to make.

And Neal Stanifer I do know irony. Despite what you may think. Somebody citing Occam's razor as a refutation of teleology in science is ironic (I have given the reasons why - Wiliam of Ockham was a religious monk), and it's not good science either. People thinking they are so smart and all hopped up with self-righteousness when they support dubious science and political bullying and economic extortion in the name of environmental science and sound economic policy respectively, whilst ignoring the real problems responsible for our ecological plight, is ironic.

Patrick Samphire is the only one who even bothered with apparent scientific argumentation. But then again he didn't. He only appeared to. I am well aware of The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports. When I was talking about junkscience and politics what do you think I was referring to? The IPCC is nothing but politics, which is why I say that global warming, Kyoto and the hysteria that surrounds the subject is all about politics, not science. I should have mentioned the IPCC as well though, which I did not do.

The hoo-haa over gw is being presented in its most officious and "scientific" front by the UN InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It seems all very impressive, solid and beyond reproach to the uninitiated and the great unwashed, awe-struck by the voluminious so-called evidence of coming catastrophe presented (and who pays serious atttention to the so-called evidence anyhow?), by scientific jargon that can only impress those who understand not a word of it. Assured that the IPCC conclusions are presented by those most qualified to present them and that there is a universal consensus in this regard, who dares ask if the IPCC is a naked emperor? The self-importance of the IPCC and seeming urgency of it all, the FEAR which underlies the entire raison d'etre of the IPCC and Kyoto frightens the rest of us into uncritical and unquestioning dumb-struck submission. "Do what you can, do what you must, we leave it to the experts" comes the cry from the world populace misinformed by the know-nothing-broadcast-what-sells media, the blind leading the blind. The IPCC and global warming - the naked emperor of science. The IPCC - all smoke and mirrors when one actually takes a closer look.

It was the governmental delegates who manufactured many of the Summaries of the IPCC, not the actual scientists participating. Normally scientists prepare their own Summaries. The IPCC Summaries were not formally issued by scientists. This fact on its own should set alarm bells ringing. "This is very much a children's exercise" says Dr Richard Lindzen, one of the most well known climate scientists in the world (an MIT meteorologist) who served as a senior
advisor to the IPCC.

See this link for the a few real facts about the IPCC

The IPCC's sole reliance on ground station records and ocean buoys as a basis for their Summary satements, and ignoring the data from the most modern sophisticated instruments that are the satellites, speaks volumes. This is akin to using a 35 year old beat up chevy to drive a long distance to get to work every day when you have a new merc with all the new gadgetry in the garage. It makes no sense.

The satellites make use of Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) to measure microwave energy, which is cross-callibrated to temperature indices. It is not ideal but the big advantage it has over the surface network is the satellites give a global coverage. And even as far as these measurements go, there have been some errors and several corrections in the statistical methodology of the data collected. Satellites of course through visual cameras and scanning radiometers also provide data on cloud and snow cover, ice mapping, ocean currents, allowing for the analysis of cloud altitudes and types, the calculation of land and surface water temperatures, and the location of ocean surface features including ice floes, packs and bergs which are also tracked. Data on offshore pollution, ocean eddies and the like is collected. Infrared sensors fitted onto the satelllites also provide data on climate.

The data from the satellites is largely consistent with the data from sonde balloons (radiosondes on both rawindsonde balloons and parachutted dropsondes), and they both show negligible levels of atmospheric warming. Yet discrepencies do exist between the data from these 2 most reliable, sophisticated and modern instruments and sensors and the surface network and the data collected from ocean buoys. The ground stations and buoy sensors on average show considerably higher temperatures than the satellite and balloon data. This is well know to those in the climate sciences, an open secret.

For what the satellites are telling us http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/ARTICLES/contrary.asp

From above link:
"..satellite measurements of temperatures in the lower troposphere over the last 21 years... by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's TIROS-N series of weather satellites, the data show only a slight net warming of 0.05 degrees Celsius per decade."

And yet the IPCC decide to rule in favour of the surface network, far more antiquated and unreliable, limited in scope (unlike the global coverage of satellites), and whose measurements are distorted by numerous biases such as urban heat effect aka "asphalt effect" and equipment and procedural faults. Differences in equipment and instruments throughout the world give contradictory measurements. It is recognised that far more corrections are needed to the data collected via the Surface Network than satellites and sonde balloons' data. So the IPCC ruling in favour of data from the ground stations over the extensive ultra-modern and sophisticated satellite and sonde balloon data raises eyebrows and smacks entirely of both wishful thinking and a political agenda. And dubious science.

It should be stressed though that even the surface network's temperature readings are not in line with IPCC and climate model gw alarmism. More on the surface network further down.

I must remark that of late (since the TAR) the IPCC says it will take cognisance of satellite data in its assessment on climate. I must stress that there are biases re satellite data that need to be corrected for, inevitable errors in the vast complex statistical analysis as there are with all other networks including the analysis of data amassed from ocean buoys, balloons and ground stations. There are other problems with satellites and the analysis of their data that those so interested may pursue, but this mail is overlong anyhow, and I do not want to get too sidetracked. However the pros of satellite MSUs outweigh the cons. When it comes to (indirect) temperature readings of the troposphere, this is the cutting-edge instrument in use.

Will the IPCC though say one thing and then in its summary statements keep on repeating the same mantras on anthoropogenic influence on climate change whatever the satellite data do or do not reveal? Because it is politically expedient to do so, and too many reputations are at stake? And which scientific team's analysis of the satellite data? The reputation of the IPCC itself, which has staked its very raison d'etre on anthropogenic determinants of climate change, is at stake remember? I briefly refer to the skeptical view on gw re the satellite data further down this post.

The Surface Network aka ground stations' numerous problems as far as their own data is concerned is elucidated further down this post.

For a comprehensive scientific critique of the IPCC TAR 2000 report go here

From above link:

"Most of the findings in this draft are underpinned by one critical assumption - namely that the `surface record' of global temperature as published by CRU (UK) and GISS (USA) is an accurate representation of the actual temperature history of the earth since 1860. This assumption has been challenged on numerous occasions by various scientists on a variety of grounds, the most compelling of which is the failure of the surface record to match the mutually consistent records from satellites and sonde balloons. In addition, even an examination of individual station records on this website shows that the global and hemispheric statistical aggreggates produced by CRU and GISS bear little relation to individual records from those weather stations which are known to be free of local measurement errors such as urban heating, other environmental distortions, and equipment/procedural faults."


The above is just for openers.

The IPCC also completely downplays, underrates and all but ignores the sun and its effects on global climate change, but cunningly and insidiously imply through a small print change in the TAR, that all "climate change" to use their exact terminology, is man-made.

From the site (once again) giving one of the most extensive critiques of the real facts re IPCC http://www.john-daly.com/tar-2000/tar-2000.htm :

...here is a strange footnote on page 1 of the Summary for Policymakers (SPM), in small print -

' Climate change in IPCC Working Group 1 usage refers to any change in climate over time whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This differs from the usage in the Framework Convention on Climate Change where climate change refers to a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

The IPCC have taken 10 years to get the public and policymakers used to the idea that the phrase `climate change' refers only to possible human-induced changes. Indeed this very definition is incorporated into the `Framework Convention on Climate Change', the international treaty which governs inter-governmental activity on climate research and negotiations.

Here, the IPCC are unilaterally changing that definition to include all changes, including purely natural ones, but doing so only with a small-print footnote, so that the report is then free to use the term `climate change' indiscriminately in such a way that the public and policymakers may unwittingly attribute all climate changes reported in the document to human influence. Redefinition of terms to cloud an issue is a common political practice, but not so common in science.


I alluded to the importance of the sun re climate change in my previous post. The sun and its several cycles of which we know very little is the major factor/parameter in any model on climate. This should be obvious. This is mentioned in brief further down. Yet to the IPCC it doesn't matter, or rather to the IPCC any climate changes attributable to solar cycles can be collated, associated and attributed with climate change supposedly caused by anthropogenic factors. To the IPCC TAR all climate change is effectively anthropogenic climate change, whatever its actual cause. By implying in the hidden small print in the TAR that natural changes to climate can be bunched to all intents and purposes with putative man-made changes, the deceitful political agenda of the IPCC masquerading as climate science is revealed for what it is. [The gw alarmists have tried to worm their way out of this. If you buy into gw without question, doubtless you will swallow their wheedling.]

By association and implication the IPCC reveals a wilful blindness to the facts of solar effects (esp the sunspot cycle) on climate change. Now this is not a minor oversight. It is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to know anything about. It totally destroys any scientific credibility that the IPCC may pretend to have. It makes the whole IPCC meaningless and a mere mouthpiece for pseudoscience. In other words natural cycles influencing climate change are all but ignored, and if not ignored are attributed quite blatantly in the TAR fine-print double-speak to anthropogenic causes.

Also predictably and tellingly the IPCC largely ignore the role of the hydrological cycle re climate which is a far more important parameter than the carbon cycle.

Dr Vincent Gray shows that it is WATER VAPOUR which is the dominant greenhouse gas, keeping our planet from freezing over. It represents arguably 88% of the greenhouse effect.

Gray, a research scientist who has specialised in climate science over more than a decade and an expert reviewer for the IPCC, has written extensively on climate change issues. He has become a noted critic of the IPCC scenarios of global warming.
See this article by him addressing the overlooked importance of water vapour as a GHG http://www.techcentralstation.com/040504C.html

Gray has published a book attacking the IPCC and global warming alarmism, The Greenhouse Delusion.

The IPCC also ignores the far more recent peer-reviewed literature on climatology that drastically reduces to negligible levels the possible impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by humans on climate change.

The computer climate modelling is a big joke. Speculative and built on assumptions that ignore numerous parameters in order to "prove" the self-same assumptions. These computer models simulate real climatic factors like a drawing of a skateboard simulates the workings of a space shuttle. Fact free science is no science at all. We don't even know everything that is entailed in determining climate and especially the degree to which numerous parameters interact. So there would be no way of modelling any of this accurately even if we wanted to. We know too little. Never mind the non-linear nature of climate. Also the earth's climate is not removed from the uh...earth itself, and the earth is not a closed system, so how can you model it as if it is?

The (General Circulation Models) GCM-Ocean models employ constant flux adjustments ie fudge factors in order to correct the modelling to reconcile it with climatic observations.

"The problem is complicated by the inability of coupled [GCM-ocean]
models to produce a realistic representation of the present
climate without help, i.e., without some incorporation of specified
heat and fresh water fluxes." J. E. Hansen, GISS GCM.

"The climate modelers have been 'cheating' for so long, it's almost
become respectable." Richard Kerr, discussing flux adjustments
in climate models in Science, 1997.

"The more you learn [about climate change] the more you understand
that you don't understand very much." Anonymous climate
modeler quoted in Science, May 1997.

"It is clear that we are not yet in a position where we can predict
global warming effects with any real accuracy." John E. Harries,
Chair of Earth Observations, Imperial College, London.

"Because of imperfections in the coupled model which would cause
surface temperatures to drift away from reality, calibrated
seasonal flux adjustments are applied." Hadley Centre GCM Description.

"Sensitivity studies with different vertical resolutions have
demonstrated that typical GCM vertical resolutions inaccurately
compute radiative-flux divergences." Richard C. J. Somerville, Scripps
Institute of Oceanography.

"The parameterizations of critical physical processes vary from model
to model. Among those models for which results are beginning
to converge, the improved agreement is driven by internal evolution of
the models, rather than by any conformity to actual data."
ARM Model Intercomparison Activities.

"The models may be agreeing now simply because they're all tending to
do the same thing wrong. It is not clear to me that we have
clouds right by any stretch of the imagination." Robert Cess, Science,

See here for a climate model reality check

From the above link:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------

'The authors tested the ability of 23 dynamical ocean-atmosphere models to correctly simulate fields of tropical sea surface temperature (SST), surface wind stress, and upper ocean vertically-averaged temperature (VAT) in terms of annual mean, seasonal cycle, and interannual variability characteristics. Of the models tested, 21 were coupled GCMs, of which 13 used no form of flux adjustment.'

'The authors rightly conclude, from their results and the results of Latif et al. (2002), that "the equatorial Pacific is still a major problem area for coupled models." Indeed, they report that "overall, no single model is consistent with observed behavior in the tropical ocean regions," concluding that "understanding and overcoming these shortcomings must be a high priority for the coupled modeling community.'

Davey, M. K., M. Huddleston, K. R. Sperber, P. Braconnot, F. Bryan, D. Chen, R. A. Colman, C. Cooper, U. Cubasch, P. Delecluse, D. DeWitt, L. Fairhead, G. Flato, C. Gordon, T. Hogan, M. Ji, M. Kimoto, A. Kitoh, T. R. Knutson, M. Latif, H. Le Treut, T. Li, S. Manabe, C. R. Mechoso, G. A. Meehl, S. B. Power, E. Roeckner, L. Terray, A. Vintzileos, R. Voss, B. Wang, W. M. Washington, I. Yoshikawa, J. Y. Yu, S. Yukimoto and S. E. Zebiak, 2002: STOIC: a study of coupled model climatology and variability in tropical ocean regions. Climate Dynamics, 18(5): 403-420.

Wang, Z. , D. Wu, D. Chen, H. Wu, X. Song and Z. Zhang, 2002: Critical Time Span and Nonlinear Action Structure Of Climatic Atmosphere and Ocean. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, Vol.19: 741-756.


And here is just a small titbit showing that we have no idea what is going on re the ocean, so how on earth can we model any of it?

"A number of lines of evidence, none complete, suggest that the oceanic general circulation, far from being a heat engine, is almost wholly governed by the forcing of the wind field and secondarily by deep water tides. In detail however, the budget of mechanical energy input into the ocean is poorly constrained. The now inescapable conclusion that over most of the ocean significant "vertical" mixing is confined to topographically complex boundary areas implies a potentially radically different interior circulation than is possible with uniform mixing. Whether ocean circulation models, either simple box or full numerical ones, neither explicitly accounting for the energy input into the system nor providing for spatial variability in the mixing, have any physical relevance under changed climate conditions is at issue."

Carl Wunsch and Raffaele Ferrari
Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, MIT

Yet what evidence does the IPCC come up with supposedly proving the case for global warming hysterics? That's right....climate modelling.

For some serious problems of the computer modelling and the drastic predictions of melting ice-sheets and the slipshod methodology employed in this regard, go to http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/wca/2004/wca_17b.html

A general criticism of the "science" of the IPCC and Kyoto

"There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities" is the mantra the media unquestioningly repeats slavishly from the IPCC. But what stronger evidence? The evidence the IPCC relies most heavily on are their computer models. Which is no evidence at all. Like I said junkscience. The other "stronger evidence" has been refuted for the erroneous science that it is, and this is elucidated above re surface network/satellite data and in further detail below.

Prof Nils-Axel Mörner is an internationally renowned authority on sea levels, and professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm U. He has served as an external reviewer of the IPCC and past-president of the INQUA commission on sea levels, and he has raised objections to IPCC alarmism on sea level rise. His scientific objections have been routinely ignored by the IPCC.

For The International Association of Quaternary Research (INQUA)Comission on 'Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution' go here http://www.pog.su.se/sea/
The actual sea level research (referenced at above link) performed by those who have expertise in this area is highly dismissive of the IPCC predictions on sea level rise.

From above link, 'News and views':


"It is absolutely remarkable how inferior and one-sided this report is. And where are all the real sea level specialists from our Commission and from IGCP? They have had little or nothing to say in this report. If science is treated in this way, it is bound to go wrong."

N.-A. Mörner

"Chapter 11 on "Sea Level Changes" of IPCC's 1999 TAR paper (cf. above) was written by 33 persons; none of which represents actual sea level research. I have now finished a 7 pages review report. It is a most shocking reading; lots of modeler wishes but very little hard facts based on real observational data by true sea level specialists. I allow myself a few quotations.

"It seems that the authors involved in this chapter were chosen not because of their deep knowledge in the subject, but rather because they should say what the climate model had predicted.

"This chapter has a low and unacceptable standard. It should be completely rewritten by a totally new group of authors chosen among the group of true sea level specialists.

"My concluding proposition is: (1) Dismiss the entire group of persons responsible for this chapter, (2) Form a new group based on real sea level specialists (e.g. INQUA), and (3) Let this group work independently of climate modeler".

N.-A. Mörner


For 'The Maldives Sea Level Project' he helped to initiate that showed no increase in sea levels in the past century, go here

For a long article John Daly wrote relating to problems with sea level measurements, go here http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/2000/sea.htm

As far as peer reviewed literature goes Patrick, did it not occur to you that hundreds of climatologists and meteorologists and atmospheric physicists and the like, by the very fact that they signed the LD and OI petition have themselves written peer reviewed studies on world climate and the impact of human GHG emissions in this regard and/or read these papers in the specialist journals? No evidently not. This is precisely why they put their names to the petitions. The OI petition statements were drawn solely from findings in the peer reviewed literature.

The recent peer reviewed scientific papers and studies of John Christy, Roy Spencer et al. on climate temperatures from the satellite data, James Hansen, Mark Jacobson et al. on soot, A. Mörner and others on sea levels all contradict IPCC's political and ideological assessments masquerading as science. As do the findings of Jaworowski, Etheridges, Steele, Langenfelds and others on serious errors and flaws in measurements of carbon levels in ice cores as a reliable indicator of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in the pre-industrial era.

So many others have published papers refuting alarmist predictions of anthropogenic GHG emissions as having significant influence on temperature increase. The published papers of many other scientists on CO2 circulation and concentrations and of course the Sun studies too (esp Karner, Douglass, Blackman, Landscheidt) totally contradict the hypothesis of some scary man-made global warming, cherished over a decade and a half by the IPCC.

The Special Reports on Emission Scenarios of the IPCC states:

Any scenario necessarily includes subjective elements and is open to various interpretations. Preferences for the scenarios presented here vary among users. No judgement is offered in this report as to the preference for any of the scenarios and they are not assigned probabilities of occurrence, neither must they be interpreted as policy recommendations."
The climate scientists also write: "the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible, and climate models are not sufficiently robust to provide an understanding of the potential effects of CO2 on climate, necessary for public discussion".

I suggest everybody read the above again.

And yet this is followed by and the governmental delegate stamp of approval is given on this: "climate models confirm that human activities are changing the Earth's climate".

So all I can say is - How's that? The climate models which have as much bearing on real climatic data as Jan de Bont has to do with film directing and John Grisham has to do with literature, are used to confirm climate change!

A political decision, and a junkscience decision was taken which overrode and blatantly contradicted the scientific statements of the IPCC Special Reports on Emission Scenarios! The selfsame IPCC Patrick puts up a link to, supposedly proving the alarmist global warming scenarios. Go figure.

The political and economic extortionist agenda of developing nations taints the IPCC. This here is a dead giveaway........

[from link http://personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/critics.htm]


Special Report on "Technical Transfer"

This Report goes to the field of international financing and development aid. It contains no new information.

But it is important to notice that its origin derives from the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Here is the key. Article 4 of the UNFCCC requires the 24 most developed countries to pay all of the developing countries' costs associated with climate change. These payments to developing countries include the cost of mitigation, adaptation, damages for any adverse effects from a changed climate, any economic losses due to our own emissions reductions and adaptation, included OPEC's loss of revenue. The 24 countries are to provide, or "transfer" all necessary technologies free of charge. They will also pay developing countries to build the local capacity to manufacture and implement these technologies, and therefore to compete with them in the global marketplace. The time frame for paying all these subsidies to developing countries is unlimited.

The developing countries, which hold the great majority of votes on the COP (the Conference of the Parties), take these financial requirements very seriously.


Politics and extortion, pure and simple.

Also what about this give-away:

In Nature of 6 October 1994, we read on page 467:

'At the Maastricht meeting, representatives of governments,
industry and environmentalist groups were given an opportunity
to comment on a draft of a summary of the group's scientific
conclusions. IPCC officials claim this process is necessary
to ensure that the report's conclusions are widely accepted.
"This is not just a scientific report, but one that has to
make a political impact," says one government official.
"One has to get groups and governments to `buy into' what
is decided, and the only way to do this is to let them have
a seat at the table." '

Issue 2 of the UN Climate Change Bulletin (4th Quarter 1993, published by UNEP's Information Unit on Climate Change at Geneva), which describes the IPCC's working plan through 1995.

'Among others, it says: "... government-level review is essential because it promotes and demonstrates a broad, international acceptance of the technical conclusions ..." Non-governmental organizations are also invited to review drafts. No wonder, Nature recounts that...'the process has itself caused problems with some of the scientists responsible for preparing the working group's report [this is Working Group I, the science group]. "It really upset the lead authors, who felt that policy makers were making changes to the conclusions that were not based on the supporting material," says one participant.'

From link http://www.cei.org/gencon/004,02036.cfm authored by Paul Georgia (italics mine):


Professor of earth sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, Dr. Tim Patterson states re IPCC, "This may be a good tactic for countries seeking to extort billions of dollars, but it is certainly not good science."

Man-made greenhouse gas emissions, however, are only an indirect cause of the forecasted warming. A doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations alone would lead to slight warming of about one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) over the next 100 years. This small amount of warming, according to standard global warming theory, speeds up evaporation, thereby increasing the amount of water vapor (a major greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere. This “positive water vapor feedback” effect is where most of the predicted warming comes from. This assumption has never been tested.

However a very talked about study - Richard S. Lindzen, Ming-Dah Chou, and Arthur Y. Hou, “Does the Earth Have an Adaptive Infrared Iris?, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 82:417-32, March 2001 - contradicts and refutes the above assumption on "positive water vapor feedback". It is a study that anybody in climate science is well aware of.

The authors find a negative water vapor feedback effect that is powerful enough to offset all other positive feedbacks. Using detailed daily observations of cloud cover from satellites in the tropics and comparing them to sea surface temperatures, the researchers found that there is an “iris effect” in which higher temperatures reduce the warming effect of clouds

The authors find a negative water vapor feedback effect that is powerful enough to offset all other positive feedbacks. Using detailed daily observations of cloud cover from satellites in the tropics and comparing them to sea surface temperatures, the researchers found that there is an “iris effect” in which higher temperatures reduce the warming effect of clouds.

In an interview, lead author Dr. Richard S. Lindzen said the climate models used in the IPCC have the cloud physics wrong. “We found that there were terrible errors about clouds in all the models, and that that will make it impossible to predict the climate sensitivity because the sensitivity of the models depends primarily on water vapor and clouds. Moreover, if clouds are wrong, there’s no way you can get water vapor right. They’re both intimately tied to each other.” Lindzen argues that due to this new finding he doesn’t expect “much more than a degree warming and probably a lot less by 2100."

The study is the best empirical confirmation to date of the negative feedback hypothesis proposed by Lindzen early on in the global warming debate. It builds on earlier empirical work by Drs. Roy Spencer of NASA and William Braswell of Nichols Research Corporation. Their 1997 study also cast doubt on the assumption of a positive water vapor feedback effect. They found that the tropical troposphere, the layer of air between 25,000 and 50,000 feet, is much dryer than climate modelers previously thought. Further empirical work will no doubt confirm whether this phenomenon is common throughout the tropics, which act as the Earth’s exhaust vents for escaping heat.


Richard Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT. He is a senior advisor to the IPCC.
Lindzen's home page http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm
For a list of his publications, go

There are putative shortcomings with this model of Lindzen's however, and it has received numerous criticisms from the scientific community, notably Lin et al. This is elucidated further down this post.

More problems for the IPCC scenarios are set out at same link http://www.cei.org/gencon/004,02036.cfm re the negative implications of the new discoveries of the warming effects of black carbon/soot elucidated in the paper of Mark Jacobson's (Mark Z. Jacobson, “Strong radiative heating due to the mixing state of black carbon in atmospheric aerosols,” Nature, 409: 695-72, February 8, 2001.) to IPCC climate models. At a superficial glance, this statement of mine may not seem to make sense. Surely the discovery of greater solar absorptive properties of soot counts in the favour of dire IPCC gw predictions, rather than the other way around? But this is not so, go to link above for details.

For heavy, detailed and scathing scientific criticism of the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC (1st of 4 parts), see link below.

This is very extensive scientific criticism of the IPCC and highly recommended reading to anybody who really wants to know the facts here.

And for a comprehensive list of guest articles at his site

Here for a comprehensive and thorough scientific critique of the IPCC TAR by Bob Foster

And here too on Nature's selling of the status quo re IPCC

Much of the alarmist predictions on global warming in the TAR of the IPCC and elsewhere is drawn from the "hockey stick" graph reported on in the paper of Mann et al published in Nature. See - Mann, Bradley, Hughes: Global-Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries, Nature, No. 392, pp. 779-787, 1998.

This paper supposedly proves alarming increases in mean temperatures over the last two millenia. Thing is the "hockey stick" graph has been shown to be highly flawed, grossly in error and highly misrepresentative of the actual data on climate. The research of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemispheric Average Temperature Series, Energy & Environment, vol.14, number 6, 2003, ISSN 0958-305X) emphatically contradicts the findings of Mann et al.

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html for the McIntyre and McKitrick rebuttal of Mann et al.

For the latest update to their work http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/fallupdate04/update.fall04.html

The censorship of Nature in this regard

The "hockey stick" paper of Mann et al was also cut to shreds by Wallace Broecker, a climatologist at Columbia in his scientific paper (Broecker, W.S., 2001. Was the Medieval Warm Period global? Science, 291, 1497.)
[This is also alluded to at numerous links below]
Go here

Broecker is one of the leading experts on the ocean's thermohaline cycles.

The "hockey stick" graph was also severely criticised in peer reviewed papers by Soon and Baliunas, two Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicists.
Von Storch's paper in Science only added to the whole saga. Hans von Storch is a prof at the Meteorological Institute at the University of Hamburg. A big row ensued (still ongoing), and not a little censorship protecting the status quo in this regard. Details at links below.


Also this article by Richard Muller, a physicist at Berkeley entitled 'Medieval Global Warming - A controversy over 14th century climate shows the peril of letting politics shape the scientific debate.'
It is important to stress that whilst highly critical of the status quo here Muller does think of atmospheric carbon levels as having potentially catastrophic effects on earth's climate, hardly a true global warming skeptic. Yet this should only make even global warming alarmists take note of his criticisms.

For a brief overview see link below

For a very good article on the broken "hockey stick" by Soon and Legates

Here too, an article by David R. Legates, a Director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of Delaware entitled "Ironies Abound in Hockey Stick Debacle"

From above link:


Wouldn’t it be nice if scientists could actually get together and compile evidence of those climatic events from the scientific literature? Tah dah! Guess what? Harvard scientists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas have done just that and published their results in the journal Climate Research, last year.

There were howls of protest by IPCC scientists, including Mann, claiming it to be necessary to change the editorial policies of Climate Research to prevent any future ‘mishaps’ of this kind. Von Storch was appointed Editor-in-Chief. His first, and ultimately only, act was to prepare an apology for Climate Research allowing the Soon and Baliunas review to see the light of day. This was quickly nixed by the journal’s publisher; von Storch resigned in protest.

Here’s the irony, the results von Storch just published in Science effectively agree with what Soon and Baliunas wrote in Climate Research in 2003: the Mann reconstruction severely underestimates past variability. So why did von Storch protest so vociferously when he was Editor-in-Chief? And why doesn’t he reference Soon and Baliunas in his Science article, especially considering that their technique (i.e. comparative literature review) is an example of a method that is essentially free from the type of errors von Storch identified in the work of Mann and others?


The relevant papers of Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics scientists Dr. Willie Soon and Dr. Sallie Baliunas;
Soon, W., and Baliunas, S., 2003. Proxy climate and environmental changes of the past 1000 years. Climate Research, 23, pp. 89-110.

For a brief overview go here (includes mention of the Cook et al paper confirming S&B's findings on the Little Ice Age in their own study) http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/wca/2003/wca_2c.html

The Cook, Krusic and Jones study (abstract) giving independent verification from tree ring data of evidence of a Little Ice Age - Cook, E.R., Krusic, P.J., and Jones, P.D., 2003. Dendroclimatic signals in long tree-ring chronologies from the Himalayas of Nepal. International Journal of Climatology, 23, 707-732.

Soon, W., et al., 2003. Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1,000 years: A Reappraisal. Energy and Environment Vol. 14, Issue 2 & 3, pp. 233-296
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/132.pdf (67 pdf pages)

Also von Storch's paper;
von Storch, H et al., Sept. 30 2004. Re-constructing Past Climate from Noisy Data. Science [Note a subscription to Science or it's online version Science Express is needed to access whole paper]
From a brief newscientist review http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99996470

Note it is important to stress a lot of ad hominem mud slinging attacks have been launched at Soon and Baliunas, claiming them to be in the pay of Exxon and their studies being funded by the American Petroleum Institute (API). Do a search on the web of those espousing global warming alarmism, and that is what you will find. From Greenpeace and most of the media (notably Jeff Nesmith) to journalist Ross Gelbspan, one of the most vocal gw alarmists, accusations of Soon and Baliunas basically publishing bogus papers to serve the interests of the oil companies is the standard rant. And they are lies. The fact is that API funded less than 10% of the research. The Harvard-Smithsonian press release announcing the study of Soon and Baliunas reveal the sources of the funding (90%) coming from federal grants through NASA, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Even if the API funded 100% of their studies, this of itself is of no relevance to the validity or otherwise of the scientific evidence presented in the studies. It is of no bearing to the science itself even if the accusations of oil funding being the sole or majority source of the study were true - which they are not. The majority of their funding and grants (90%) were derived from governmental department sources. As is the case with most all funding to scientists doing research, whatever their field of study.

Obviously it is in Exxon and API's interests that global warming alarmism is exposed for the junkscience that it is. And scientists will take funding from whoever is offering it. Unless you are working for the death merchants aka defence contractors developing new ways to kill people, it is so so difficult to get funding and grants. What matters is this - is the science of Soon and Baliunas valid, do they come up with evidence refuting the hockey stick of Mann or not? Ad hominem and guilt by association arguments by the likes of Gelbspan, Nesmith, Greenpeace and others repeating their disgraceful and baseless accusations are scientifically invalid arguments full stop. Schneider was all afraid of another ice age not too long ago, before he jumped on the global warming bandwagon.

To those execrating Soon and Baliunas, Harvard and Smithsonian are in the pay of oil conglomerates. Such is the paranoid conspiracy drivel of those shrilly hysterical in defense of the gw status quo. I see no scientific evidence refuting their studies, only ad hominem lies. Do you all have any idea how comprehensive the two Soon and Baliunas papers are? See for yourselves. Unsurpassed in thoroughness and painstaking analyses in assessing indicators of recent climatic conditions and climatic change. Their papers have set a benchmark in climatology.

From link http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=223 authored by 'The Cooler Heads Coalition' (italics mine)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -

The researchers analyzed numerous climate indicators including: borehole data; cultural data; glacier advances or retreats; geomorphology; isotopic analyses from lake sediments or ice cores, tree or peat celluloses (carbohydrates), corals, stalagmite or biological fossils; net ice accumulation rates, including dust or chemical counts; lake fossils and sediments; river sediments; melt layers in ice cores; phenological (recurring natural phenomena in relation to climate) and paleontological fossils; pollen; seafloor sediments; luminescent analysis; tree ring growth, including either ring width or maximum late-wood density; and shifting tree line positions plus tree stumps in lakes, marshes and streams... From over 240 peer-reviewed studies, S&B set out a convincing case to support the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, and thus refute the claims of Mann et al on the "hockey stick".


The climate studies of S&B are as professional as the Mann paper is flawed and amateurish.

The piece I posted further up, from the article entitled "Ironies abound in hockey stick debacle" is about how von Storch, in his initial support for Mann, resigned from Climate Research in protest to them publishing the S & B paper despite it passing peer review and von Storch failing to come up with any scientifically valid reasons why the S& B paper was at fault. Von Storch then goes and publishes his paper (Re-constructing Past Climate from Noisy Data. Science) confirming and validating the findings of the S&B paper re greater climate variability/swings and its negative implications in this regard to the Mann hockey stick!! Welcome to science. Guess who looks a little sheepish now? Wonder who regrets resigning from Climate Research now? Von Storch is if anything highly critical of global warming skepticism, which only adds credence to his debunking of the Mann hockey stick.

Note this is all very very recent, von Storch's paper was published just over 2 months ago, and
the fallout is still playing out.
For an interview with von Storch re Mann hockey stick, see link below

Also here http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen2/debunk.html

And another article by David R. Legates, setting out an overview of the problems of the Mann "hockey stick" paper

http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/136.pdf for an extensive overview by Soon and Baliunas entitled "Lessons and Limits of Climate History: Was the 20th Century Climate Unusual?"

Also here for a briefer overview entitled "Was the Climate of the 20th Century Unusual?: A Reprise"

For Sallie Baliunas's home page at the Marshall Institute

Her home page at The International Center for Scientific Research.

Remember she is the deputy director at the Mount Wilson Observatory and astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

For an interview with Baliunas go here

For Willie Soon's home page at the Marshall Institute

For a Q&A with Soon. See in particular what he has to say about the IPCC TAR.

See this link for the comprehenisve testimony (34 pages) of Soon in response to Senator Jefford's follow-up questions to Soon before the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Soon's home page at Harvard's Center for the Environment

The fact that the Marshall Institute is a conservative think-tank is of no bearing to the scientific studies of their affiliates and members. If the Marshall Institute was a Marxist leaning organisation, it would likewise have no bearing on their scientific studies. Scientific papers must be judged on their own merits.

John Christy is a prominent meteorologist and debunker of anthropogenic global warming who has served as a senior advisor to the IPCC. His official webpage http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy.html
For a list of his published papers

From the biographical sketch on his website:


"Dr. John R. Christy is Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville where he began studying global climate issues in 1987. In November 2000 Gov. Don Siegelman appointed him to be Alabama's State Climatologist. In 1989 Dr. Roy W. Spencer (then a NASA/Marshall scientist and now a Principle Research Scientist at UAH) and Christy developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed from satellites beginning in 1979. For this achievement, the Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. In 1996, they were selected to receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society "for developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate." In January 2002 Christy was inducted as a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.

"Dr. Christy has served as a Contributor (1992, 1994 and 1996) and Lead Author (2001) for the U.N. reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in which the satellite temperatures were included as a high-quality data set for studying global climate change. He has or is serving on five National Research Council panels or committees and has performed research funded by NASA, NOAA, DOE, DOT and the State of Alabama and has published many articles including studies appearing in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate and The Journal of Geophysical Research. Dr. Christy has provided testimony to several congressional committees."


For his testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives' Committee on Science in 1996, go here

Let me stress that Christy and Lindzen served as major contributors to the TAR report of the IPCC, and both are outspoken global warming skeptics!

Roy Spencer is likewise a well known skeptic.
The following biographical details are from his website.

"Spencer has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, where he directed research into the development and application of satellite passive microwave remote sensing techniques for measuring global temperature, water vapor, and precipitation. He currently is the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. Dr. Spencer is the recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society's Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work. He is the author of numerous scientific articles that have appeared in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate, Monthly Weather Review, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, Remote Sensing Reviews, Advances in Space Research, and Climatic Change."

An article on the discrepancies between the satellite data analysed by Christy and Spencer and ocean surface temperature records

Fu et al published a paper in Nature supposedly proving atmospheric warming (Q Fu, C.M. Johanson, S.G. Warren, and D.J. Seidel, 2004: Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trends. Nature, 429, 55-58.), and thus supposedly refuting the findings of Spencer and Christy.

This article too which sets out a similar position

Christy and Spencer's response

This article by Spencer criticising Fu's paper as well
Also this thorough article debunking Fu et al, getting to the crux of the matter http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/wca/2004/wca_17apf.html

Spencer's articles and papers

Let me mention that techcentral is attacked by gw alarmists as a lobbying group for the oil industry. Techcentral does not hide the sources of its funding. They include Exxon, GM, McDonalds and others. Techcentral is unashamedly conservative and pro-free market. It is definitely in the interests of Exxon and the like to back Spencer, Christy and like-minded scientists. That doesn't make the science they are defending wrong.

To dismiss the findings of Spencer, Christy and others on the grounds of techcentral's conservatism and support from big business is unscientific. It is merely ad hominem, circumstantial ad hominem, guilt by association and red herring argumentation. None of which has any scientific validity. If one is going to refute Spencer, Christy and others, one must do it with science. Anything else other than scientific evidence is immaterial. The fact that defenders of the global warming status quo are so quick to resort to ad hominem and the like here, rather than genuine scientific argument, actually reveals just how bankrupt the science of the gw staus quo is. Arguments by evasion, detraction and mud-slinging are not scientific arguments.

I know most here will dismiss what I write here as pre-emptive damage control, given the bias of people at nightshades to Leftist rhetoric. I sense this is the biggest stumbling block to people here looking at the case for gw skepticism in an objective and scientific manner. This is something that I can more than understand and sympathise with. However let me stress that politics does not make for good science. I also must add that if one gets into the early little known history re global warming alarmism, it was very much a conservative political agenda. This ironic fact about the early history of gw alarmism and politics can be found here http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm

Importantly Daly shows that gw politics and economic considerations (which is what at bottom the global warming hoax is all about) was not originally a leftist political agenda, although it certainly has become one, but a conservative political agenda relating to a conflict between nuclear and coal
powered electricity in the UK. The Thatcher govt's backing and funding of the global warming lobby has to be appreciated. This is an irony often lost in the debate on global warming. Many prominent
gw alarmists are saying that the only way to halt global warming is to increase our reliance on nuclear power eg James Lovelock.

Daly also makes it clear in above link about the intimidation and corruption inherent to gw alarmism. Funding to scientists is dependant on telling those holding the pursestrings what they want to hear. You have to follow the money trail. Careers and reputations are at stake too. The reputations of editors at science journals who have staked their reputations on gw hugaboo are at stake. Intimidation and cajolement are everpresent. The corruption of science through the politics of funding (not just gw) deserves several encyclopediac volumes on its own.

Robert Balling Jr, Director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State is another prominent skeptic, his home page is here
http://geography.asu.edu/balling/ (admittedly doesn't tell us much)
His books include The Heated Debate and Interactions of Desertification and Climate

Balling Jr's testimony before the the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science in March 1996

As far as sun studies re global climate are concerned:

From link below, a scientific paper - (Douglass, David H., Eric G. Blackman, and Robert S. Knox, 2004. Temperature response of Earth to the Annual Solar Irradiance Cycle. Physics Letters A Vol. 323, No 3-4, pp. 315-322.) - detailing natural negative feedback effects originating in solar radiation offsetting and refuting the anthropogenic hypothesis on earth surface temperature increases.

From above link -
Abstract: We directly determine the sensitivity and time delay of Earth's surface temperature response to annual solar irradiance variations from 60 years of data. A two-layer energy balance model is developed to interpret the results. Explaining both the resulting low sensitivity and time delay of 1-2 months requires negative feedback

From above link -
Karner, O., 2002: On non-stationarity and anti-persistency in global temperature series. Journal of Geophysical Research. 107, D20.

Abstract: Statistical analysis is carried out for satellite-based global daily tropospheric and stratospheric temperature anomaly and solar irradiance data sets. Global average tropospheric temperature anomaly behaves similarly to the solar irradiance anomaly. Their daily increments show antipersistency for scales longer than 2 months. The property points at a cumulative negative feedback in the Earth climate system governing the tropospheric variability during the last 22 years. The result emphasizes a dominating role of the solar irradiance variability in variations of the tropospheric temperature and gives no support to the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

Nobody has been more vocal in asserting the sun as the major parameter determining earth's climate, and dismissing anthropogenic determinants as having any appreciable role to play, and backing it up with evidence, than Dr Theodor Landscheidt (who died this year) of the Schroeter Institute for Research in Cycles of Solar Activity in Nova Scotia. This study of his is a groundbreaking one that caused quite a stir, entitled 'Solar Activity Controls El Niño and La Niña'.
Also this important follow-up

Also this important paper of his entitled 'Solar Activity: A Dominant Factor In Climate Dynamics' with references to 120 papers in the literature.

This paper delivered by Landscheidt at the Proceedings of 1st Solar & Space Weather Euroconference in Tenerife, Spain, entitled 'The Solar Cycle and Terrestrial Climate', in September 2000.
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/SolarWind.html, citing no less than 39 references to the scientific literature.



Near-Earth variations in the solar wind, measured by the geomagnetic aa index since 1868, are closely correlated with global temperature ( r = 0.96; P < 10-7). Geomagnetic activity leads temperature by 4 to 8 years. Allowing for this temperature lag, an outstanding aa peak around 1990 could explain the high global temperature in 1998. After 1990 the geomagnetic aa data show a steep decline comparable to the decrease between 1955 and 1967, followed by falling temperatures from 1961 through 1973 in spite of growing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This points to decreasing global temperature during the next 10 years.


The above has important implications to this study mentioned here - http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/INGLES/co2science.html - Peterson, T.C., Golubev, V.S. and Groisman, P. Ya. 1995. Evaporation losing its strength. Nature 377: 687-688.

From above link:

The authors derived five regional trends of pan evaporation from data obtained from 746 homogeneous reporting stations in the United States - (1) Eastern US, (2) Western US - and 190 such stations in the former Soviet Union - (3) European, (4) Middle Asian, (5) Siberia - for the last half of the 20th century.

....all of the regions exhibited downward trends in pan evaporation over the last half of the 20th century, with four of them (all but the Middle Asian region) registering significance at the 99% level or better.

In the words of the authors, "the downward trend in pan evaporation over most of the United States and former Soviet Union implies that, for large regions of the globe, the terrestrial evaporation component of the hydrological cycle has been decreasing." They also note that this observation "corresponds well with both decreases in maximum summer temperatures over these regions and a decrease in growing-season degree-days over the Siberian and European former Soviet Union." Speculating on the cause of these related trends, the authors suggest "increases in cloud cover, especially low cloud cover," since "pan evaporation has been decreasing and is correlated negatively with cloud cover ... for the five regions.

Clearly, these related decreasing half-century trends in pan evaporation, maximum summer temperatures, and growing-season degree-days are all just the opposite of what would be expected in the climate alarmists' illusionary world of "unprecedented" global warming.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -

For a scathing dismissal of the "playing with the numbers to see what one wants to see" game of the global warming alarmists by Richard Muller, see link below

For problems with surface temperature readings from ground stations go here http://www.john-daly.com/graytemp/surftemp.htm

For several articles and related re the Surface Network

From above link:


The suspicion that the Surface Network was biased in measurments due to among other factors, the "urban heat effect" led to Tom Karl, Director of the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC),to initiate the Historical Climatology Network (HCN) program several years ago. As John Daly writes, "NCDC selected reliable long-term stations, those thought to be free of local biases (neglecting, for example, stations in growing urban areas). When HCN temperature trends are plotted for the last 105 years, there is a very slight warming, but the warmest period of the century occurred in the late 1930s and early 1940s."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----

This can be verified at

John Daly again:
"As Tom Karl suggested in the March, 1989 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, "all global temperature data sets are contaminated by a number of biases of varying magnitudes of which the most serious may be the global-warming bias." These statements, which were Karl's rationale for formulating the HCN, still ring true. My explanation for the difference between U.S. temperatures (which show almost no warming this century) and global data (which show a lot) is that the latter is of considerably lower quality, and much more biased, than the carefully-constructed HCN data set."

For serious flaws in the measurement of carbon dioxide in ice cores, as an indicator of pre-industrial atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, see http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

From above link -
Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski - Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw states:
"The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false. Therefore IPCC projections should not be used for national and global economic planning."

See papers;
Jaworowski, Z. 1996 "Reliability of Ice Core Records for Climatic Projections" in "The Global Warming Debate", (John Emsley, Ed.) European Science and Environment Forum , London, 95-105.
Jaworowski, Z., 1997. "Ice Core Data Show No Carbon Dioxide Increase" 21st Century Science and Technology 10 , (1) 42-52

Here too http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm

Drilling cores from ice deep below the earth's surface (on occasion more than a mile deep) certainly seemed to be a good way in which to obtain information about atmospheric compounds. Atmospheric components are deposited in falling snow which is literally frozen in the ice, and air bubbles in the ice.

Unfortunately, in obtaining ice samples, engineering difficulties are entailed which lead to serious contamination of the ice cores. The drilling fluid around the hole and core include tons of an antifreeze composed of numerous hydrocarbons and other contaminants. In addition various components of the drilling apparatus itself are slightly soluble in this antifreeze solution. When a core is drilled, fracturing is routine and drilling fluid is leaked into the core. Hence any conclusions drawn from ice core samples is of questionable value, esp for a volatile, water soluble gas like CO2. See - (Jaworowski, Z., Segalstad, T. V., and Ono, N. 1992. "Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO 2 story?'' The Science of the Total Environment, 114 , pp. 227-284)

In addition, CO2 is soluble in the water layer on the ice surface and can form inclusion clathrates (complexes in which molecules of one substance are completely enclosed within the crystal structure of another) within the ice under some circumstances. These and other difficulties make reliable carbon dioxide measurements of ice cores highly problematic.

And for additional problems to the status quo in this regard, go to
http://www.john-daly.com/bull120.htm in reference to these papers below:

Etheridges, D.M., L.P. Steele, R.L. Langenfelds, R.J. Francey, J.-M Barnola, V.I. Morgan. 1996. "Natural and anthropogenic changes in atmospheric CO2 over the last 1000 years from air in Antarctic ice and firn" J. Geophys. Res. 101 (D2) 4115-4128

Etheridge, D.M., L.P. Steele, R.L. Langenfelds, R.J. Francey, J.-M. Barnola and V.I. Morgan, 1998. "Historical CO2 records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2 and DSS ice cores." In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn, USA. http://www.cdmc.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome.html

Also this paper - A. Indermühle, T.F. Stocker. F. Joos, H. Fischer, H.J. Smith, M. Wahlen, B. Deck, D. Mastrolanni, J. Tachumi. T. Blunier & B. Stauffer, 1999. "Holocene carbon-cycle dynamics based on CO2 trapped in ice at Taylor Dome, Antarctica." Nature , 398, 121-126.

The details of this paper above are elucidated further down in reference to atmospheric carbon dioxide.

A fairly detailed article written by Zbigniew Jaworowski entitled 'The Ice Age Is Coming! Solar Cylces, Not CO2, Determine Climate', provides a very good overview of the shoddy science underlying gw alarmism, and scathing criticisms of the IPCC as well.

From above link:


Contrary to the global warmers’ computer predictions, the concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the most important among the man-made greenhouse gases, were out of phase with the changes of near-surface air temperature, both recently and in the distant past. This is clearly seen in Antarctic and Greenland ice cores, where high CO2 concentrations in air bubbles preserved in polar ice appear 1,000 to 13,000 years after a change in the isotopic composition of H2O, signalling the warming of the atmosphere. (Z. Jaworowski, T.V. Segalstad, and N. Ono, 1992. “Do Glaciers Tell a True Atmospheric CO2 Story?” The Science of the Total Environment, Vol. 114, pp. 227-284.)

In ancient times, the CO2 concentration in the air has been significantly higher than today, with no dramatic impact on the temperature. In the Eocene period (50 million years ago), this concentration was 6 times larger than now, but the temperature was only 1.5°C higher. In the Cretaceous period (90 million years ago), the CO2 concentration was 7 times higher than today, and in the Carboniferous period (340 million years ago), the CO2 concentration was nearly 12 times higher. (C.J. Yapp, and H. Poths, 1992. “Ancient Atmospheric CO2 Pressures Inferred from Natural Geothites,” Nature, Vol. 355, No. 23 pp. 342-344.) When the CO2 concentration was 18 times higher, 440 million years ago (during the Ordovician period), glaciers existed on the continents of both hemispheres.


So how the hell do you explain all that? Esp this, "the CO2 concentration was 18 times higher, 440 million years ago ...glaciers existed on the continents of both hemispheres" (polar ice and ice ages too!), according to standard models of atmospheric GHG levels and climate upheld religiously by the IPCC and the like? Namely models built on the assumption that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and atmospheric temperatures are directly correlated? Well you bloody well can't.

The levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide given for our geological past are obviously very rough, haphazard, tentative and subject to numerous errors and local biases/distortions etc. (see http://calspace.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml) But it's so far the best we can do.

Also I would like to point out that the atmospheric CO2 concentration increased from roughly 180 ppm to approx 300 ppm in about a hundred years at the end of the last ice age about 10 000 BC. This is used to justify gw alarmism. But this is (mis)using a little truth to justify a big lie. Firstly no one understands quite why the ice age ended as drastically as it did and why it ended when it did. There are confliciting hypotheses. In fact the underlying mechanisms that cause ice ages are still in dispute. There may well be differing reasons for different ice ages. There are a lot of controverises here that are not common knowledge, which tells us we know so little. Also it should be obvious that the increase from roughly 180 ppm to approx 300 ppm in about a hundred years at the end of the last ice age, was not man-made. So fairly rapid fluctuations in atmospheric carbon levels occur naturally, there is no reason to suppose that nature no longer pulls the strings re GHG levels and fluctuations in our atmosphere, and that without man-made intervention, GHG levels would remain level and stable. To put it simply, GHG levels fluctuate naturally, not only at the end of ice ages, and to suppose that the slight increase in carbon accumulation is caused solely by anthropogenic emissions may well be wrong (or partially erroneous), it may have more to do with natural cycles of which we know very little. That is we may well be experiencing a natural upswing in CO2 accumulation, that has very little to do with anthropogenic emissions. Or to put it another way, even if we were still living in caves at the present time, there may well still be an increasing amount of atmospheric CO2. We simply know so very little about nature and her cycles, the carbon cycle is no exception. I am paraphrasing atmospheric physicists here in case anybody thinks I am sucking this from my thumb.

Also here in relation to above piece by Jaworowski, written by Lawrence Hecht, editor-in-chief at 21st Century: Science and Technology magazine.

From above link:


...the Nisqually glacier, up on the 14,410-foot Mount Rainier, near Tacoma, Wash. ... Mount Rainier has 26 glaciers, and is the largest single peak system in the United States.

In 1931 ... Tacoma City Light began careful measurements of the glacier. Since the mid-1800s, the glacier had receded about 1 kilometer. Annual to semi-annual measurements, continued by the U.S. Geological Survey and private contractors for the National Park Service, provide the longest continuous series of glacier measurements in North America.

The details are described in a report by government specialists, which appeared in the September 2000 issue of Washington Geology:

“The greatest thickening during the period of measurement occurred between 1931 and 1945, when the glacier thickened by about 50% near 2,800 meters of altitude. This and subsequent thickenings during the mid-1970s to mid-1980s produced waves that advanced its terminus. Glacier thinning occured during intervening periods. Between 1994 and 1997, the glacier thickened by 17 meters at 2,800-m altitude, indicating probable glacier advance during the first decade of the 21st century.”

That’s the story from Mount Rainier. Retired geologist Sauers, who has been observing conditions in the Cascade Mountains of western Washington for a lifetime, says “I’m preparing for an Ice Age.” Perhaps we all should.


And while we're on the subject, for info on glacial growth go here: http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

Also important to note that methane (CH4) is a far more potent GHG, since it is 20 to 30 times more efficient than carbon dioxide in trapping infrared radiation. [Methane along with coal and diesel burning emissions gets no mention in Kyoto btw.] However oxidation of CH4 in the atmosphere is phenomenally fast, giving a useful life time of only about a decade.


Once again we see natural physical and chemical processes "correcting" for anthropogenic interference in the atmosphere.

Here for an article on the real facts about fluctuating C02 and methane levels in the atmosphere by Vincent Gray http://www.john-daly.com/bull-122.htm

From above link, citing the paper - Atmospheric methane between 1000 A.D. and present: Evidence of anthropogenic emissions and climatic variability. D.M. Etheridge, L.P. Steele, R.J. Francey and R.J. Langenfelds. 1998, Journal of Geophysical Research 103, (D13)m 15,979-15993.


"As with carbon dioxide, the atmospheric methane from 1000 A.D. to 1800 A.D. fluctuated with the global temperature. The fluctuation was about 40 ppb around an average of 695 ppb, with an interpolar difference between 24 and 58ppb. There was a large increase in methane growth rate from 1945 to 1990, peaking at about 17ppb per year in 1981, and falling rapidly after that, and expected to become zero in 2006.with an atmospheric methane concentration of about 1700ppb. They calculate that there was an average total methane source of 250Tg yr-1 from 1000-1800 A.D., reaching near stabilization at about 560Tg yr-1 in the 1980s and 1990s. These results are backed up by measurements on carbon 13 isotopes.

"This paper confirms what I have been saying for some time, that methane emissions, and the resulting atmospheric concentrations, have stabilized, and that IPCC scenarios and future projections which assume large future increases in atmospheric methane concentrations are erroneous.."


From same link above re carbon dioxide in reference to papers;

Holocene carbon-cycle dynamics based on CO2 trapped in ice at Taylor Dome, Antarctica. by A. Indermühle, T.F. Stocker. F. Joos, H. Fischer, H.J. Smith, M. Wahlen, B. Deck, D. Mastrolanni, J. Tachumi. T. Blunier & B. Stauffer. 1999 Nature , 398, 121-126.

Restless carbon Pools. by Phillippe Ciais 1999. Nature , 398 111-112


That the concentration of carbon dioxide in the pre-industrial atmosphere was never in equilibrium, but fluctuated significantly. That changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide in this period were probably caused by changes in the various carbon pools, brought on by changes in global temperature. It is unlikely that the temperature changes were a result of the changes in carbon dioxide concentration. That current carbon cycle models do not explain several features of the past record, notably a very slow growth, or even decline, in carbon dioxide concentration between 1935 and 1945.

The reason why the change in carbon dioxide could not have been responsible for a change in temperature is to be seen in the Law Dome results for the Little Ice Age (c 1550 to 1850 AD) when carbon dioxide concentration fell from 284 to 275ppmv when the temperature fell by an estimated 1°C. According to the latest model calculation of the greenhouse effect, such a fall in carbon dioxide could only account for a fall of less than 0.1°C for the IPCC "Best Estimate" climate sensitivity, from the greenhouse effect alone.


From link http://www.co2science.org/edit/v6_edit/v6n26edit.htm authored by Keith Sherwood and Craig Idso - citing referces to numerous studies - showing that despite the standard mantra of gw alarmists claiming that observations and analysis of carbon in ice cores actually proved that anthropogenic CO2 emissions were responsible for 20th-century global warming, analysis and scientific scrutiny of ice cores gave contrary evidence. Evidence that CO2 increase lags the temperature increase by 400 to 5000 years, depending on the study and depending on periods and eras, is presented in numerous scientific papers.

The most important recent studies in this regard include (cited at link above):

Indermuhle, A., Monnin, E., Stauffer, B. and Stocker, T.F. 2000. Atmospheric CO2 concentration from 60 to 20 kyr BP from the Taylor Dome ice core, Antarctica. Geophysical Research Letters 27: 735-738.

Monnin, E. et al. 2001. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last glacial termination. Nature 291: 112-114.

Mudelsee, M. 2001. The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 583-589.

What this most clearly means is: temperature increases precede rising CO2 levels, not the reverse, as the IPCC and its ilk like to claim.

From link above, the following studies are also cited:

Petit, J.R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D. et al. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436.

Caillon, N., Severinghaus, J.P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J.-M., Kang, J. and Lipenkov, V.Y. 2003. Timing of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science 299: 1728-1731.

Clark, P.U. and Mix, A.C. 2000. Ice sheets by volume. Nature 406: 689-690.

Fischer, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck B. 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712-1714.

Genthon, C., Barnola, J.M., Raynaud, D., Lorius, C., Jouzel, J., Barkov, N.I., Korotkevich, Y.S. and Kotlyakov, V.M. 1987. Vostok ice core: Climatic response to CO2 and orbital forcing changes over the last climatic cycle. Nature 329: 414-418.

Important to note the following, from same link authored by Keith Sherwood and Craig Idso:


This finding, in the words of Caillon et al., "confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation." Nevertheless, they and many others continue to hold to the view that the subsequent increase in atmospheric CO2 -- which is believed to be due to warming-induced CO2 outgassing from the world's oceans -- serves to amplify the warming that is caused by whatever prompts the temperature to rise in the first place. This belief, however, is founded on unproven assumptions about the strength of CO2-induced warming and is applied without any regard for biologically-induced negative climate feedbacks that may occur in response to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Also, there is no way to objectively determine the strength of the proposed amplification from the ice core data.


And in reference to these papers below; from http://www.john-daly.com/bull-122.htm

Nitrogen deposition makes a minor contribution to carbon sequestration in temperate forests. by K. J. Nadelhoffer, B.A. Emmett, P. Gundersen, O.J. KjÆnaas, C.J. Koopmans, P. Schleppi, A. Tiétema and R.F. Wright. 1999. Nature 398 145-148

The Mysterious Missing Sink' D. W. Schindler 1998 Nature, 398 106-107.

Vince Gray again, "The paper by Schindler is essentially a confession that carbon models are currently all at sea, since they do not know where the carbon emissions are going., or what processes control the absorption of that part which does not enter the atmosphere.."

The full testimony of Patrick J. Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences at University of Virginia and Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at Cato Institute, that he delivered to the Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, entitled "Carbon Dioxide: A Satanic Gas?" on October 6th 1999 is available here
It includes references to the scientific literature.

Here is a short article by Michaels on an April 2004 Nature issue relating to two articles therein and their contradictions relating to the predictions on the Greenland ice-sheets, and censorship by Nature for that matter.

For Patrick Michael's book Meltdown go here

Other prominent global warming skeptics include:
Dr. Tim Patterson Professor - Dept of Earth Sciences (Paleoclimatology) Carleton University; Dr. Tim Ball - Environmental Consultant - 32 years climatology Professor University of Winnipeg; Dr. Paul Copper - Professor of Geology, Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University; James O'Brien - Robert 0. Lawton Distinguished Professor of Meteorology and Oceanography and Director, Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies, Florida State University; Dr. Madhav Khandekar - Environmental Consultant, 25 years with Environment Canada in Meteorology; William Kininmonth - Managing Director, Australasian Climate Research; Dr. Ian Clark - Isotope Hydrogeology and Paleoclimatology, Department of Earth Sciences (arctic specialist), University of Ottawa; Dr. Tad Murty - Climate researcher, previously Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), also conducted official DFO climate change/sea level review for the Pacific and Arctic coasts of Canada, and Former Director of the National Tidal Facility of Australia, Current editor - "Natural Hazards"; Dr. Kenneth Green - Director, Centre for Studies in Risk, Regulation, and Environment, The Fraser Institute, Vancouver, B.C.; Dr. Fred Michel - Dept of Earth Sciences (Permafrost specialty) Carleton University, Ottawa; Dr. Chris Essex - Professor of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario, he focuses on underlying physics/math to complex climate systems; Dr. Ian Plimer - Professor and Chair, Department of Geology, The University of Melbourne; Dr. Roger Peilke - Professor and Colorado State Climatologist, Current President of the American Association of State Climatologists; Dr. Gary D. Sharp - Scientific Director, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California; Dr. William M. Gray - Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University; George Taylor - Oregon State Meteorologist, Oregon Climate Service, Oregon State University and the Past President of the Association of State Meteorologists; Dr. Sonja Boehmer - Christiansen Reader, Department of Geography, University of Hull, and editor, Energy & Environment; Peter Dietze - energy and climate consultant, official scientific IPCC TAR Reviewer; Dr. Sherwood Idso - President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change; Dr. Chris de Freitas - Professor, School of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland; Dr. Petr Chylek - Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University; Hans Erren, MSc. - Geophysical consultant, The Hague, he focuses on data processing, climate sensitivity and the history of climate science; Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser - Atmospheric Consultant, previously with the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, CA; Dr. Asmunn Moene - Former head of the National Forecasting Center, Meteorological Institute,Oslo; David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology) - Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and Past Chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa; Dr. Paal Brekke - solar physicist at the European Space Agency, Norway; Dr. Roger Pocklington (deceased 2004) Researcher - Bedford Institute of Oceanography; Dr. Philip Stott - Emeritus Professor of Biogeography, University of London; Dr. Jan Veizer - NSERC/Noranda/ CIAR Industrial Chair in Earth System Isotope and Environmental Geochemistry and Professor at the Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.

The above list is actually a small selection of prominent global warming skeptics.

Patrick Samphire


All you seem to be able to come up with is a few non-peer-reviewed articles and a couple of petitions.

You really wade into the quicksand with that comment Patrick. A bit of homework would have prevented you from screwing up big time here. For the record Patrick the OIP's summaries were drawn solely from the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Maybe if you had done a cursory research of the OI petition before hastily responding to me in your knee-jerk manner you might not have made such a blunder.

You may object that I didn't list any papers at all in my first post or set out what the gw skeptical position is at all. True enough. But my first post on the subject was written hastily and I never intended to set out in outline the case for global warming skepticism. I merely intended to bring the existence of global warming skepticism to the forum participants' notice, nothing more than that. I cannot hold your hand though Patrick. If you had done your own research, you would have uncovered everything I allude to. If you were remotely suspicious of the status quo on gw after I had brought up the OI petition and the LD, you could have done your own research and uncovered all that I mention in this post and a lot more besides.

Patrick Samphire again re IPCC:


When you've done that, you'll know at least a summary of the case for. Address the points made in the reports with hard evidence.

Real scientists wrote these reports. Real scientists looking at real, peer-reviewed research

As I have shown in this post, many of the IPCC's concluding summaries were issued by politicians not real scientists. And many of the real scientists involved in ammassing the raw data from which the IPCC was supposed to draw up its formulations and policy guidelines, including Gray, Patterson, Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, Mörner, Dietze and plenty of others, had their findings (explicitly stated in "The Special Reports on Emission Scenarios") directly contradicted by the IPCC's baseless concluding Summary Statements made by the beauracrats. Not the scientists.

The IPCC's political agenda was justified on the basis of computer climate models built on overly simplistic assumptions (and grossly oversimplified and selective parameters) that have been refuted as having any predictive value. There is no approximation of real climatic conditions and actual climatic complexities by the computer models. The reliance on highly distorted and selective data from the surface network while choosing to wilfully ignore the far more accurate and reliable satellite data destroys what little credibilty the IPCC TAR (and earlier reports) may pretend to have. What about the circular logic of applying invented rising sea levels to accord to the climate models, rather than bothering with the actual facts on sea levels as thoroughly and laboriously amassed by the likes of Murner and colleagues? Whatever happend to empiricism? Never mind the political double-speak on "climate change" [alluded to further up this post] and the economic extortion of the IPCC. The IPCC's handwaving denials here is just that - handwaving denials.

Never mind all the dubious science of the Mann "hockey stick" which served as the basis for much of the IPCC's politicking, and which has effectively been refuted by several papers published in the specialist literature by several research groups independently of one another. The possible (and at the very least plausible) controversial discovery of negative water vapour feedback potentially overrides and offsets the previousy held assumption of solely positive water vapour feedback effects associated with increased levels of atmospheric carbon. The actual temperature data from satellites, balloons and ground stations (when corrected for bias and errors) is not in line with the alarmist predictions of temperature increases of the IPCC and the slavish media. Also the IPCC's assumptions on carbon levels in ice cores from the pre-industrial age as the basis for a measurable indication of anthropogenic atmospheric carbon build up in the industrial era has been contraindicated by the newer evidence.

The IPCC presents no scientific evidence in favour of anthropogenic GHG emissions causing discernible or significant global warming whatsoever by the IPCC's own admission in its Special Emissions report; merely political rhetoric, circular logic, third world governmental extortion and erroneous, outdated, highly selective (let's ignore the sun for one) and grossly misrepresentative (pseudo)science, that has been criticised as such by many of the climate scientists who served in an advisory capacity to the IPCC itself.

A cursory bit of research would have revealed the disturbing truth that many of the scientists who advised the IPCC are global warming skeptics.

So Patrick, real scientists have written peer reviewed research which contradicts alarmist global warming predictions. It is from these peer reviewed papers, studies and reports that the summaries of the OI petition are drawn.

Patrick Samphire:


As to your petitions. The Oregon institute one contains:

"Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists"


The other thousands of scientists just happened to be familiar with the data on climate reported on by those specialising in the relevant sciences, including those who actually collate, analyse and interpret the data from satellites, weather balloons, NOAA buoys and ground stations, and likewise are familiar with the serious shortcomings of the other "proofs" for gw eg climate computer modelling, put forward by the IPCC and their ilk. Many of these thousands of other scientists study the effects of climate and its interraction with biota and natural cycles.

As the OISM petition states:

"Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists ... who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.
"Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

"Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields."

Maybe that's why these other thousands of scientists signed the petition? Precisely because they were cognisant of the data on climate (in other words not unaware of the actual scientific data compiled over the last few decades), unlike all the rest of you and the general public at large.

Doesn't it bother you Patrick that over two and a half thousand scientists who specialise in geophysics, atmospheric physics, meteorology, climatology, oceanography and related pour cold water on global warming?
Apparently not. I guess the opinion of a theoretical physicist who admits to knowing zilch about the climate sciences along with other scientists who admit ignorance on the subject is worth more in this respect? Along with the general public (media and politicians included).

Imagine Patrick if I were to ignore and dismiss entirely what over two thousand particle physicists had to say on the implications of superstring theory. Likewise what if I were to dismiss what these physicists had to say on the merits or otherwise of the Transactional Interpretation of the Quantum Paradox (famously put forward of course by part-time science fiction writer and full-time physicist John Cramer) over the Ontological Interpretation or vice versa? Instead I preferred to get my information in this regard from the general public, the media, politicians, entomologists and marine biologists who couldn't even tell me the difference between a hadron and a lepton!!

Yet Patrick you are guilty of the equivalent re global warming when you write without batting the proverbial eye:


As to your petitions. The Oregon institute one contains:
"Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists"

Patrick with incredible gall seems to think this nothing to be concerned about. The signing of the OISM petition protesting against alarmist predictions of global warming by over two and a half thousand scientists whose very livelihood pertains to studying the mechanisms underlying and determining climate, doesn't count for much in Patrick's eyes. Apparently it is of no worth or cause for the slightest hesitation or considered reassessment of the orthodox thinking on global warming.

Patrick writes "Show me something credible"

The OISM petition is as credible as it gets. But a petition signed by hundreds upon hundreds of meteorologists, climatologists, atmospheric physicists, geophysicists, oceanographers etc who scrutinise and analyse the mechanisms and dynamics underlying the earth's climate and thousands of other scientists who "have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data" is in Patrick's eyes (who knows nothing of climate sciences by his own admission) not credible. Patrick wants to count a liability re the orthodoxy on global warming scenarios as a non-issue, as nothing to be concerned about. Reminds me of the witticism, "you have to have your PhD before you don't get it".

And Patrick Samphire once again:


Lawrence, despite your ridiculous arguments as to what dead people would think of today's science

There is nothing ridiculous about 'em. You either know nothing about the outlook and beliefs of Linneaus, Newton, Boyle and Keppler or you have your head in the sand and ignore completely the fact that scientific materialism is the ruling paradigm in the sciences at the dawn of the 21st century and it is entrenched deeply. And this would have horrified Newton, Linneaus, Boyle and Keppler. It is irrelevent in this respect whether scientific materialism is a correct paradigm or not.

Patrick Samphire:


Hey, I'm a random physicist too, with one of those glossy PhDs that seem to impress you so much

For the record I am hardly impressed by PhDs. Depends on the individual concerned.
Like I said, "You have to have your PhD before you don't get it". I am even less impressed by a political agenda disguised as science that is swallowed so readily by so many, including PhDs. If I were so impressed by PhDs would I have written this in my first post on this very subject?

'.....delightfully amazed at the advances in the sciences and simultaneously horrified by the reductionism, petty-mindedness, handwaving scientism and head in the sand mediocrity that is the norm and actively encouraged by the church of so-called science in all its guises'

Or this, '"This is ....truth we speak", say the high priests of so-called Science (more truly scientism) who have substituted crucifixes and rosaries for their PhDs and white coats, latin catechisms for scientese. You all have no idea. And their tactics, behaviour, lockstep groupthink and bully-boy protection of the status quo...'

And I am most definitely not impressed by PhDs who give an opinion on a scientific controversy they know nothing about. As you write Patrick, "I have no special expertise in the area". Like everybody else you mistake politics and economic extortion for science. I admit I fell for global warming hysteria too not that long go, before I was even remotely aware of the actual facts on climate and all the related controversies that are wilfully hidden and censored from the public and even the scientific community as a whole.

Let me repeat this from my previous post on the subject....
Ask yourselves a question - why the censorship? Why does nobody know about the Oregon Institute Petition, the Liepzig Declaration, what they are all about, the qualifications of the scientists who signed it and the sheer number of them? And why does nobody know what they are saying? Why the censorship? Why are people, including those who follow the sciences avidly, not even remotely aware of this?

One only needs to resort to censorship if one has something to hide. Otherwise why pretend all the above facts and controversies I have merely alluded to in this post are not even there? Look at the censorship in the media re the White House, Iraq, special interests etc. You only need to resort to it (censorship) in order to cover up the truth.

The OI petition and the LD do not of themselves prove that these skeptics are right. That would merely be an argumentum ad verecundium and even argumentum ad numerum, neither are scientifically valid arguments. What they should do though is remind you all that there are thousands of scientists out there, including those who specialise in the relevant scientific fields re global climate, who are objecting to gw alarmism, to Kyoto and IPCC political and economic extortion, which we all have mistaken for environmental protection.

It should serve to remind you all that there is no scientific consensus on global climate. It should also serve to remind you all that those objecting to global warming are not solely theo-con goons (who may back these skeptics but for their own avaricious reasons), nor are they crackpots who believe aliens from Sirius are among us, but the people most knowledgeable about global climate, the scientists whose very livelihood is studying global climate and its underlying physical mechanisms.

Let me stress the following points so I am not misunderstood:

1 There is evidence for warming (is it regional or truly global though?), but it is greatly exaggerated and the actual climate data has no bearing to the alarmist predictions of the global warming scare-mongers.

2 There is obviously increasing (albeit arguably negligible) levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Correlation is not causation however. GHG emissions of themselves do make for warmer temperatures. However this slight increase in GHG emissions is not occurring in a vaccuum. The effects of natural little understood cycles (esp those relating to the sun) and feedback effects that are the fundamental basis of climate and climate change more than dwarf, override and "correct" for any possible anthropogenic influence on climate.

The standard notion is that the GHG effect increases about one degree with every doubling of the concentration (at least wrt carbon dioxide). So if we accept the universally held notion of about 280 ppm in 1850 and a linear trend of about 1,1 ppm a year (maybe a little more) and being at about 380ppm today (or close enough to that value), it will be some 160 odd more years before reaching 560ppm, the double value of 1850. So it would be the year 2170 odd before it could be one degree warmer on average than in 1850. Hardly in line with the scare-mongers. However even this is not true, even if we accept this hypothesis at face value; namely the various natural cycles and feedback effects which we are barely beginning to comprehend more than dwarf and override the effects of anthropogenic emissions. Plus it actually makes zero sense to speak of "mean temperatures" anyhow, but we'll ignore that. If I were to set out the reasons why, I would have to add another 500k to this post.

The general notion/belief among Greenpeace-type global warming hysterics is that greenhouse gas warming is linearly proportional to the aggregate amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Not true though. The bandwith in the EM spectrum at which a greenhouse gas is active is quickly saturated and there is only a very little difference in GHG effect between 200 parts per million (ppm) in the ice age, 280ppm (pre industrial) or 380ppm today (almost) or even 500ppm. There is still an effect for sure, but it levels off at higher concentrations. It's the first 10 -20 ppm that matters the most.

From http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~archer/PS134/LabManual/lab.modtran.html


The reason that the CO2 absorbtion is not linear with concentration is that the absorbtion bands of CO2 get "saturated" at higher concentrations. That is to say, in the center of the absorption peaks, the air at low levels is absorbing all the light that there is, so increasing the CO2 doesn't increase the absorbtion there. What you see in those frequencies is radiation from cold air in the upper part of the atmosphere. When you increase the concentration, you still only see the cold air, meaning that the band doesn't get any deeper with increasing concentration. The band tends to get broader, though, so you do get some more absorbtion with higher CO2.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------

I would also like to reiterate that the only intelligent thing Bush has done in office is not to sign the Kyoto Accord. Yet this is the one thing that the Left unjustly berate him for! And Neal, this is ironic. I refuse to give Bush the benefit of the doubt here and give his right action in this regard to informed scientific opinion. I sense he is simply too obtuse to comprehend the science of the controversy, and would not give it serious attention anyhow (it would interfere with his golfing and prayer meetings). His decision to refuse to ratify Kyoto is probably motivated more by serving the greed of his corporate backers than anything else. And yet he has made the right decision for all the wrong reasons! This is darkly comic.

http://www.john-daly.com is probably one of the very best sites debunking global warming illlogic. Read everything he has to say (there is a lot which will keep anybody interested busy for weeks). Daly died this year.

Daly made errors, which were inevitable given the scope, vastness, complexities and enigmas of the sciences concerned. Everybody else has too. Yet he stood out as a researcher of integrity and scientific rigor in a field beset by intimidation, censorship, fraud, groupthink, subjective validation, tunnel vision, careerism and corruption.

Here for McKitrick http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html

And to this page too of McKitrick's, a list of important links. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/cc.html

For his and Chris Essex's book Taken By Storm debunking the politics and pseudoscience of global warming hysteria go here http://www.takenbystorm.info/

For Steve McIntyre's site http://www.climate2003.com
The above site includes detailed scientific debate and commentary on the latest controversies. Your stats needs to be good to follow this stuff. Continually updated. Highly recommended if you are serious about the science.

On Fred Singer, prominent global warming skeptic http://www.his.com/~sepp/bios/singer/biosfs.html
Interview with him here http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/singer_interview.htm
His home site http://www.sepp.org/

Testimony he has given before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on Climate Change in July 2000 http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSingerTestimony2000.html A must read. Note his changed stance on the putative effects of anthropogenic methane from the early 70s (ironic since he published an influential piece on the potential dangers of anthropogenic methane emissions in Nature in 1971), given the more recent data and discoveries on CH4.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au is a very comprehensive site.

http://www.co2andclimate.org for a lot of comprehensive stuff. Note that it is a mirror site of http://www.greeningearthsociety.org

And here http://www.sitewave.net/news

For the most comprehensive list of links: http://www.junkscience.com/links/gwlinks.htm

A very good site at http://www.skepticism.net/faq/environment/global_warming/index.html

Here too http://www.globalwarming.org/

This is one of the best gw skeptic sites

From above site these recent discussions on the "hockey stick" http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/hockeystickdiscuss.html
For contradictory accounts by scientists on the causes of heightened atmospheric carbon levels

For censorship and cover-up by the Kyoto bully boys at a Moscow seminar
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Khandekar/bad_manners_at_the_moscow_kyoto_meet ing.html

http://www.aapg.org/datasystems/authors/pdfs/04_1211.PDF for a good overview of problems re global warming by Lee Gerhard of the Kansas Geological Survey

Here as well http://www.co2science.org
Start here

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=221 for an overview of IPCC errors by prominent MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen.

Another article by Lindzen here on the true facts about the Kyoto Protocol

Another article that is relevant co-authored by Singer, Michaels and David
Douglass, a physicist at Rochester U.

And to their main page

Russian scientists criticism of Kyoto http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2004/sept_07_04.htm

The gw hysterics of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report has very recently been made available. Subjective validation and the desperate protection and enhancement of the careers and reputations of numerous scientists who have staked their credibility and a psychological investment to boot on a mistaken hypothesis, is all the ACIA report is.

The ACIA report debunks itself. http://www.torontofreepress.com/2004/milloy111204.htm
From above link authored by Steven Milloy:


The report, entitled “Impacts of a Warming Arctic,” pretty much debunks itself on page 23 in the graph labeled, “Observed Arctic Temperature, 1900 to Present.”

The graph shows that Arctic temperatures fluctuate naturally in regular cycles that are roughly 40 years long. The Arctic seems currently to be undergoing a warming phase — similar to one experienced between 1920-1950 — which will likely be followed by a cooling phase — similar to the one experienced between 1950-1990.
The report’s claim that increased manmade emissions of greenhouse gasesare causing Arctic temperatures to rise is debunked by the same graph, which indicates that the near surface Arctic air temperature was higher around 1940 than now, despite all the greenhouse gas emissions since that time.


Attacking Milloy's conservatism (the author of the above article) btw is not a valid scientific argument. Address and refute the scientific facts he makes mention of in his article, if you can, with scientific evidence. Ad hominem attacks should not be mistaken for scientific evidence.

Also this article pertaining to a letter sent to Senator John McCain (about a month back) by 11 prestigious climate scientists offering a scathing critique of the ACIA report. http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=845

Note it is important to mention that of the dissenters on global warming there are as to be expected significant disagreements. Is some of the observed warming merely regional, rather than global? Can other parts of the earth be said to be showing signs of cooling? If there is overall warming, is it part of a long-term trend or not? Or are we heading for another ice-age? How are we to know? How exactly do natural cycles (incl most obviously the sun) effect climate? There is recognition that we know not how all these parameters affecting climate interact. Given the complexities, enigmas and our very limited knowledge of climate and the poorly understood mechanisms of climate dynamics and various feedback effects etc; and the difficulties of temperature and associated measurements, the differences in temperature readings depending on the instrumentation, sensors and network employed, the limited data we do have, problems with statistical methodology etc, extensive disagreements between climate scientists on gw is to be expected. Not only between the two opposing camps, but within these camps as well.

Prominent global warming alarmist sites:

The IPCC TAR site http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/

For criticism of Daly go here, entitled "What's Wrong With Still Waiting For Greenhouse?"

Stephen Schneider's comprehensive site

Journalist Ross Gelbspan's site

David Suzuki's site (the tireless Canadian environmentalist)

Another very comprehensive site with extensive links

The Woods Hole Research Center site

For criticism of Lindzen's "infrared iris" hypothesis:

The critique by Bing Lin and colleagues of NASA's Langley Research Center, claiming evidence from the satellite data in favour of a net positive cloud feedback, and thus contraindicating a natural "corrective" cloud cooling, described by Lindzen's model.

A good overview of the hypothesis of Lindzen's and supposed shortcomings with his negative water vapour/cloud feedback model is given over here
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/, authored by David Herring.

From above link, a succint point:


Currently, both Lindzen and Lin stand by their findings and there is ongoing debate between the two teams. At present, the Iris Hypothesis remains an intriguing hypothesis—neither proven nor disproven. The challenge facing scientists is to more closely examine the assumptions that both teams made about tropical clouds in conducting their research because therein lies the uncertainty.


A response to negative scientific criticisms of the infrared iris hypothesis, by Lindzen and colleagues

The debate is ongoing, and very difficult for the likes of us who are not specialists in atmospheric physics and related to follow. I am sure that especially over the next decade as more data is amassed from the satellites, and more knowledge amassed on cloud physics and the hydrological cycle, perhaps a clearer picture will emerge verifying or refuting the "warmth thermostat" hypothesis.

What the above debate tells us though, is how limited our knowledge of the mechanisms of climate actually are, how little we actually know. Our ignorance here counts if anything against the so-called experts scaring us to death with gw alarmism. Our ignorance here makes a mockery of the notion of "experts" with their climate models forecasting appreciable long-term climate warming trends, when the debate on negative or positive cloud feedback in the tropics on its own reveals an admitted ignorance by our most knowledgeable atmospheric physicists on potentially significant climatic feedback. So how can we model any of this when we are admittedly clueless about one of the most significant parameters in climate, namely hydrological feedback?

Here is a very recent article (dated 1st December 2004) by Lindzen entitled 'Climate Alarm - Where does it come from?'
It includes a scathing attack on the IPCC.

Here is an unintentionally ironic piece (in my mind anyhow) entitled 'State of Misinformation about Climate Science' produced by the Union of Concerned Scientists (concerned with their reputations and egos being shredded?) http://www.ucsusa.org/documents/ssi_climate_junksci.pdf defending the status quo of global warming "science".

I feel they (all the gw alarmists) are ironically guilty of the underhand unscientific tactics they accuse the skeptics of, including misrepresentation. I do not think they properly address and answer the gw skeptics argument at all. They merely misrepresent them and then respond to their own misrepresentation of gw skepticism. You all may beg to differ and think they adequately answer gw skepticism.

Unless one does all the readings on gw skepticism though, it is easy to be swayed by orthodox evasions and misrepresentations and the like. The rest of you may think it is the other way around. All I can advise is to do your own research and make up your own mind. Let me just say this, do not be overly impressed by scientific jargon and inspeak that you do not understand, from both the gw alarmists and skeptics. It is very easy to mislead and impress people in this respect. Do not fall for the argument from authority, both sides can play this game. What exactly are they saying (both camps) in plain language? What is the crux of their argument? Can they back up their argument with empirical science?

For the numerous shenanigans and deceptions of the global warming alarmists (you all may beg to differ) go here, written by mathematician John Brignell:
Follow all the links. Incl this one http://www.sepp.org//keyissue.html

And below for fraudulent alterations of the IPCC report

And for some standard media fraud re gw

Here for a debate on the subject at National Geographic.
Global warming debunking forum over here

Global warming has been and is heatedly debated at these forums - talk.environment, sci.environment, sci.bio.ecology and plenty of others.

If you do the research you will see a lot of ad hominem attacks on Daly, Christy, Lindzen, Singer, Gray, Spencer, Michaels, Soon, Baliunas and the like by gw alarmists. As well as repetition ad nauseum that global warming is caused by man-made emissions because ...... global warming is caused by man-made emissions. Whatever happened to the scientific method, what about evidence?

"In the 21 years since January 1979 when the satellites begun, the climate system has endured two volcanoes, two big El Ninoes, one big La Nina, and a couple of moderate La Ninas and El Ninoes. In other words, we have had a sufficient number of self-cancelling transient events to allow a genuine long-term trend to emerge in both records. In the case of the satellites it is a decadal trend of +0.043°C, while the surface network shows a decadal trend of +0.19°C (Jones et al in 1996 and still about the same today). It's a big difference, recognised by the NRC and Jones et al., so it is very real and not the product of creative graphing."

John Daly

"Activists have learned to dismiss those whose
arguments he cannot counter by attacking their integrity,
thereby warning off not only other researchers, but
warning off other journalists not to cover those stories."

David Murray, Oct. 9, 1997, in
"Media Coverage and Global Warming: Is There a Problem?"

It is commonly assumed by the general public and even inexcusably by scientists themselves that scientific data is objectively amassed, collated, scrutinised and interpreted. The scientific method is assumed to rule supreme and to be applied universally. And so proceeds scientific advances. Nothing could be further from the truth. Scientists are human beings remember and are subject to human bias, error, wishful thinking, manipulation, intimidation and egoism like everybody else. Careers and reputations are at stake. Psychological investments are made in holding dear to scientific hypotheses. Objectivity goes out the window. A cursory read through on the history of science bears this out, as does an even superficial examination of the contemporary world of science where corruption, careerism, sycophantry, egoism, fraud, censorship, subjective validation, tunnel vision, political interference and the like rear their ugly heads at every turn.

See Cognitive Dissonance.
See also Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolution.

If you are not familiar with Kuhn and the subjective validation and ad hoc rationalisations that are near-universal in science in defending and extending often mistaken (or partially erroneous) paradigms, then you will be more likely to be dismissive of global warming skepticism on a priori grounds.

I hope there are people out there who even bother to take an even cursory look at this controversy in an objective manner. I am very very busy and I have no time for any of this, so I hope this isn't wasted. If anybody out there bothers to take a deeper look at all this I mererly ask you not to take anybody's assertions on the controversy (whatever side of the divide they are on) as holy writ on the subject. Make up your own mind. Or even better don't make up your mind at all. That's all I ask. And most importantly note this: using a global warming argument to justify a global warming conclusion is merely circular logic aka global warming logic. It is not a reasoned scientific argument. On the contrary it (circular logic) is the hallmark of pseudoscience.

I would also like to point out that fossil fuel burning is a problem as far as pollution and acid depositions go, but this is another whole topic, with its own controversies and beyond the scope and intent of this post.

Btw the following is not scientific argumentation (and I see it all the time in regard esp to defending the global warming status quo):

Argumentum Ad Baculum; appeal to force. The appeal to force is the invocation of a threat in an argument.

Argumentum Ad Hominem; argument against the man. Ad Hominem involves attacking the proponent of an argument, rather than addressing the inherent strength of the argument itself.

Circumstantial Ad Hominem; the assertion that a claim is false because it is in the interests of the person making the claim to have it accepted as truth. The fallacy sometimes involves an attack on the circumstances of the person making the claim to support the suggestion of the falsity of the proposition.

Argumentum Ad Ignorantium; the appeal to ignorance.

Appeal to belief; the argument that since most people believe a certain proposition it must be true. Of course, it should be noted that in some instances widespread belief can contribute to evidence for a proposition, and that in other instances belief is itself intrinsic in a proposition’s truth.

Appeal to consequences of a belief; the appeal to the consequences of a belief is the fallacious argument that the consequences of accepting a certain proposition is true or false have a bearing in determining the claim's truth. The fallacy can take the following forms:
X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.

X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences.

X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences.

X is false because accepting that X is false has positive consequences.

I wish that X were true, therefore X is true. This is known as Wishful Thinking.

I wish that X were false, therefore X is false. Also Wishful Thinking.

Argumentum ad Antiquitatem; aka Fallacy of traditional wisdom. The argument that since a belief or idea is old, or established, it should carry weight. "That’s the way it’s always been."

I just want to remind people that there is no scientific consensus here and that is the most important thing to remember. That there are controversies here that are hardly common knowledge (revealing a near ubiquitous censorship at work) and that hard questions need to be asked about the gw status quo. For those so interested I suggest doing your own research, although obviously when you get into the hard data, it can be a minefield and one has to tread very warily.

I would also like to point out that the point of this thread, since one cannot convince anybody of anything against his own intention, is merely to make people aware that gw skepticism does exist and it is hundreds upon hundreds of scientists most qualified to evaluate global climate and climate change who are these self-same skeptics. Also the IPCC and Kyoto and other related reports are inseperable from political and economic agendas. It is ingenuous to assume otherwise. I wrote all this up to let people know that there is hardly a consensus on global warming, and that widespread censorship is entailed in convincing people that there is a universal consensus here. I just wanted to point out that things are not necessarily as they seem. I do not intend to argue any of this, since there are others far more qualified and able to argue in favor of gw skepticism than myself (namely the gw skeptics mentioned above and others) and they have obviously not changed the minds of many of those convinced of global warming. So I'm not going to do it either and nor do I care to. Nor do I pretend to understand most of the science involved.

I just want to give this information to people's attention. I consider it imperative to do so.

I would also like to add that any errors in this post are mine alone, and should in no way reflect on the scientists who are gw skeptics.

I would like to reiterate that humanity is in peril. We do appear to be experiencing what we are calling the sixth extinction. Most of our tropical forests are gone or going. This is the biggest land-based ecological catastrophe of all. Overfishing (and destructive unsustainable fishing) and pollution have turned much of our oceans, seas, rivers and lakes into dead zones. We are running out of fresh water. Overpopulation is one of the main factors responsible for this sad state of affairs. It also obviously only reinforces poverty and violence too. Yet even here overpopulation is a symptom of other societal problems. Global warming is the red herring though when it comes to humanity's environmental destructiveness. A non-problem. A naked emperor that everybody mistakes for a richly clothed king. The real problems of our ecological degredation lie elsewhere and focusing on a naked emperor can only add to and reinforce our real woes in this respect.

The real problem to oversimplify greatly, lies with poverty. This plain truth may not be PC, but this makes it no less true for all that. Poverty - although not politically expedient to talk about, is the real big problem as far as our ecological plight is concerned. The elephant in the room that we like to pretend isn't there, as far as ecological degredation is concerned. Instead all the focus is on the mythical unicorn, the non-existent problem of global warming. And yes I do recognise that the wealthy and middle-classes, in rich and poor nations, do contribute in a big way to poverty.

In closing I would like to remind people not to forget something called the scientific method.

Everything I write above is merely the tip of the iceberg (sorry I couldn't resist) as far as this controversy and the respective science is concerned.

PS I must remark (because this is nightshades) that with all due respect, 'serious' speculative fiction writers/editors/critics etc (incl those here) for the most part do write entertaining, informative and thoughtful stories. However when it comes to science (through no fault of their own) they are easily led astray, like most everybody else. Whatever any of the speculative fiction writers may write in the context of global warming may make for fine science fiction, but that is all it is - science fiction, not science.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 06:11 am:   


Let me just say that regardless of the evidence you present above, it's a red herring. We should reduce emissions and our dependence on oil because it's killing us. Pollution increases instances of cancer. It degrades the environment. Etc. It's that simple. It damages our quality of life. You can argue all you want for or against global warming alarmism. The fact is, we're mucking up our Earth with pollution. Whether global warming is a reality or a myth, if it doesn't kill us, this relentless expenditure of finite resources--finite resources that also endanger us--will eventually do the same thing.

As for species decline--let's factor out global warming as created by human industry. It's still mostly a function of human encroachment on habitat, etc.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nobel Prize Committee
Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 07:10 am:   

Congratulations, Lawrence, your 20,000+ word post has landed you the Nobel Prize for obsessive internet nutbag. Please stop by my office to pick up your medal and have maggots sewn into the folds of your anus.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Truth Teller
Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 08:27 am:   

Before anyone here puts much credence to what Lawrence has written, check out this link:


Anyone who starts off their argument with the "OISM petition" should be suspect.

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Truth Teller isn't
Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 12:56 pm:   

Truth Teller,

Yeah, your little link casts such a BIG shadow on Lawrence's post. (chuckle, chuckle). Its a great example of an Ad Hominem argument. Do you have links to web pages that slander the other 2,600 signees?

Either address the facts and issues directly or butt out.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Truth Teller
Posted on Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - 01:43 pm:   

>>Either address the facts and issues directly or butt out.

There would actually have to be facts present in Lawrence's argument to do that.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 - 04:59 am:   

Global warming shouldn't alarm us, this should:



Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 01:08 am:   

I just read an interesting bit in the December BBC Focus magazine concerning global warming: "While the headlines blaze about the Artic ice declining we should take a look at the ice at the other end of the planet. By far, the most of the world's ice is held in Antartica and the evidence there is, by and large, shows that the amount of ice there is growing." It goes on to say that many scientists know this but since 'global warming' is now established political correctness they keep their mouths shut for fear of losing research funding. Also, we've only been measuring the ice for barely twenty years, and then only by area and not by thickness. And 2000 years back there were "no glaciers in the Alps and hardly any in Norway" - obviously the previous ice loss was due to all that Roman central heating...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Bob 'Coon Skin Cap' Urell
Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 06:53 am:   

Me, I'm loadin' up on ammo and pemmican. Come 'n get me ya commie scum!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 08:41 am:   

But Bob, they're too busy buying up soccer teams to come get you.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Clueless Bob
Posted on Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 01:18 pm:   

I...herm. I'm not really hip enough to know what that means, Neal.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 12:50 am:   

A British thing... One of the new Russian industrialists bought Chelsea soccer team.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Wednesday, November 23, 2005 - 08:46 pm:   

Neal, here's three sites that discuss the question of antarctic ice shrinking/growing.
The British Antarctic Survey

Antarctic Cooling from the Cooler Heads Coalition

Antarctic Ice: A global warming snowjob? from the "World Climate Report"
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/27/antarctic-ice-a-global-wa rming-snow-job/,this This site calls itself 'the definitive and unimpeachable source for what Nature now calls the “mainstream skeptic” point of view'

sigh. It's so hard to know. Everyone is paid/financed by someone, and then there are those subliminal annoyances. The Cooler Heads Coalition understands and uses the word 'freedom' and 'private conservation' in ways that make you want to lock up your daughter, if she's mother nature. And Patrick J. Michaels, who wrote that Global Warming Snow Job piece says in this otherwise convincing article, 'what the hey'. What does this phrase say to you all out there? I could be hopelessly prejudiced... Does your judgement ever turn on a hey?

Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Posted on Friday, November 25, 2005 - 07:56 pm:   

Evidence from Antarctic ice core:Greenhouse-gas levels highest for 650,000 years reported in Nature
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Neal Asher
Posted on Thursday, June 01, 2006 - 12:51 am:   

Martian Ice Shrinking Dramatically

According to a September 20 NASA news release, "for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress." Because a Martian year is approximately twice as long as an Earth year, the shrinking of the Martian polar ice cap has been ongoing for at least six Earth years.

The shrinking is substantial. According to Michael Malin, principal investigator for the Mars Orbiter Camera, the polar ice cap is shrinking at "a prodigious rate."

"The images, documenting changes from 1999 to 2005, suggest the climate on Mars is presently warmer, and perhaps getting warmer still, than it was several decades or centuries ago," reported Yahoo News on September 20.

So, is the present warming of Mars due to the massive underground tripod building industry?

Also, pick the bones out of this article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/553664.stm

The Antarctic is still stubbornly showing very little sign of melting and evidence there reveals that at the end of the dinosaur era it was tropical - Earth's temperatures being 6.5 degrees hotter back then. Yet still all this is used to sell the human-caused global warming bullshit. So, were the dinosaurs wiped out because of their propensity for driving around in SUVs?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Jonathan Laden
Posted on Thursday, June 01, 2006 - 07:02 am:   

There are many studies showing the efficacy and health benefits of soy in the diet. (Literally hundreds.)

Yet, there are two fairly prominent studies completed in the past couple years that show soy is bad for you.

So long as we have those two studies to cling onto, all is right with the world! Chow down on the thickest steak possible, rare and dripping e.coli, three maybe four times a day.

By the time there's complete 100% consensus on global warming, Manhattan will (maybe/probably/partially/recently) be under water. Even then, some will disagree (even some people with advanced degrees after their names).

It's time to act to avert what could be very bad times ahead. [Don't take my word for it. Read both sides, then agree with me :-).]
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

John William Thiel
Posted on Thursday, June 01, 2006 - 07:11 am:   

It's got to have gods, men and heroes in it to be a true myth.

Add Your Message Here
Username: Posting Information:
This is a private posting area. Only registered users and moderators may post messages here.
Options: Enable HTML code in message
Automatically activate URLs in message

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | User List | Help/Instructions | Log Out | Edit Profile | Register

| Moderators | Administrators |