February 22, 2012

‘Group of 16′ and Other Scientist ‘Heretics’: It’s All Globaloney

Filed under: Economy,Environment,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 9:23 am

CO2realityVxIPCC2012Globaloney supporters are in the midst of a really rough run. Dissenters are sticking to their guns, and reinforcing their positions. Meanwhile, in a situation reminiscent of the old Soviet Union and its defectors, disenchanted true believers are leaving the fold; those who remain are having hard time handling it.

After sixteen scientist skeptics published a dissent in the Wall Street Journal, 37 globalarmists pushed back. The sixteen have now re-pushed — hard — again in the WSJ (bolds are mine throughout this post):

Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming
The authors of the Jan. 27 Wall Street Journal op-ed, ‘No Need to Panic about Global Warming,’ respond to their critics.

… an important gauge of scientific expertise is the ability to make successful predictions. When predictions fail, we say the theory is “falsified” and we should look for the reasons for the failure. Shown in the nearby graph is the measured annual temperature of the earth since 1989, just before the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also shown are the projections of the likely increase of temperature, as published in the Summaries of each of the four IPCC reports, the first in the year 1990 and the last in the year 2007.

These projections were based on IPCC computer models of how increased atmospheric CO2 should warm the earth. Some of the models predict higher or lower rates of warming, but the projections shown in the graph and their extensions into the distant future are the basis of most studies of environmental effects and mitigation policy options. Year-to-year fluctuations and discrepancies are unimportant; longer-term trends are significant.

From the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth’s temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.

The Trenberth letter tells us that “computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean.” The ARGO system of diving buoys is providing increasingly reliable data on the temperature of the upper layers of the ocean, where much of any heat from global warming must reside. But much like the surface temperature shown in the graph, the heat content of the upper layers of the world’s oceans is not increasing nearly as fast as IPCC models predict, perhaps not increasing at all. Why should we now believe exaggerating IPCC models that tell us of “missing heat” hiding in the one place where it cannot yet be reliably measured—the deep ocean?

Given this dubious track record of prediction, it is entirely reasonable to ask for a second opinion. We have offered ours. With apologies for any immodesty, we all have enjoyed distinguished careers in climate science or in key science and engineering disciplines (such as physics, aeronautics, geology, biology, forecasting) on which climate science is based.

Trenberth et al. tell us that the managements of major national academies of science have said that “the science is clear, the world is heating up and humans are primarily responsible.” Apparently every generation of humanity needs to relearn that Mother Nature tells us what the science is, not authoritarian academy bureaucrats or computer models.

One reason to be on guard, as we explained in our original op-ed, is that motives other than objective science are at work in much of the scientific establishment.

… The fact is that there are very powerful influences on the earth’s climate that have nothing to do with human-generated CO2. The graph strongly suggests that the IPCC has greatly underestimated the natural sources of warming (and cooling) and has greatly exaggerated the warming from CO2.

… The computer-model predictions of alarming global warming have seriously exaggerated the warming by CO2 and have underestimated other causes. Since CO2 is not a pollutant but a substantial benefit to agriculture, and since its warming potential has been greatly exaggerated, it is time for the world to rethink its frenzied pursuit of decarbonization at any cost.

“CO2 is not a pollutant”? Quick, tell the justices on the Supreme Court that before they issue a stupid decision which ultimately gives the EPA virtually tryannical powers over almost every aspect of daily life. Oh, wait …

Read the whole thing, especially as I completely skipped the scientists’ chronicling of the globalarmists’ campaign of intimidation and the American Physical Society’s heavy-handed attempts to shove globaloney down its members’ throats.

Speaking of which, a prominent German scientist has jumped off the globaloney train, and those who are still on board are not happy:

Germany’s envirowhackos have gone incendiary, as a former apostle of the climate change religion, Fritz Vahrenholt, has coauthored a new, best-selling book that casts doubts on the shoddy science of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The mean greenies in Germany are so hot at Vahrenholt that they probably ought to charge themselves a carbon tax, or buy on offsetting credit, or just kick back and relax with a cold drink on a furry polar bear rug in front of a big log fire.

“The left wing German online TAZ here has a weekend article called Climate Skeptics Are Like Viruses,” writes the website No Trick Zone, “which looks at the controversy swirling about Vahrenholt’s …new skeptic book Die kalte Sonne [The Cold Sun.]” The Taz site includes cute pictures of blood thirsty, meat eating, Coca Cola drinking polar bear cannibals, to emphasize the point: Vahrenholt, bad, polar bears, good. The left uses polar bears as their Little Orphan Annie of global warming. The sun’s out everyday.

The two hypotheses put forward in the book by Vahrenholt and his coauthor Sebastian Lüning are that 1) The UN has purposefully slanted the science to reach a pro-global warming position and; 2) solar activity plays a much more important part in geological warming and cooling than scientists are willing to admit.

“Today, I want new scientific findings to be included in the climate debate,” Vahrenholt told an interviewer from the German Spiegel Online. “It would then become clear that the simple equation that CO2 and other man-made greenhouse gases are almost exclusively responsible for climate change is unsustainable. It hasn’t gotten any warmer on this planet in almost 14 years, despite continued increases in CO2 emissions. Established climate science has to come up with an answer to that.”

It has become increasingly clear that it can’t.


1 Comment

  1. [...] the forecasts are indeed inflated is shown in a graphic at the op-ed (also here, for future reference) showing how wrong forecasts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [...]

    Pingback by BizzyBlog — February 22, 2012 @ 2:50 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.