Climate change concensus?
More than 31000 scientists say that man is not responsible
You may know that i remain sceptical about the theories attached to anthropogenic climate change, and that I remain open to be convinced that mankind’s activities have been totally responsible for the alleged global warming crisis. There are many who disagree with the position set out by the IPCC but their views often find difficulties in being aired in the mainstream media.
Today we learn that over 31,ooo scientists do not agree with the IPCC’s findings, and that they fervently disagree with the claims that greenhouse gases are harming the planet’s climate. Indeed they point out the benefits of having such gases in the atmosphere.
The IPCC is composed of representatives largely appointed by governments and is led by government scientists. It does not carry out its own research but relies on peer reviewed and published literature for its reports and assessments of future developments. A report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs, (The Economics of Climate Change, Vol I, HL Paper 120I (July 2005), TSO) added;
In addition, many of the IPCC’s assumptions and much of the analysis are highly questionable, not least because of the probable influence of “political factors”.
Hence the new religious zealotry attached to the subject, and the growth of the new political phenomenon of garnering millions of pounds of taxes in the name of saving the planet, yet where are these taxes spent? There is little evidence that our government or other western democracies are using these revenues to build renewable energy sources, or invest in petrol free motor cars (but they were prepared to invest in thousands of copies of Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth to send to schools). In what seems like a vicious circle revenues taken from us are poured back into the coffers of scientific institutions prepared to “follow the line” and delve deeper into their climatic doomsday prophesies, yet those who wish to investigate the possibility that mankind is not the great planet destroyer will receive nothing from western governments.
There is no consensus yet, and I am a climate change heretic, I’ll be taken out at dawn and shot no doubt.
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
Curly's Corner Shop, the blog! 
I believe we are experiencing catastrophic climatic disasters, and many more to come. There will always be sceptics Curly. It’s important we find sustainable solutions to all this, whether you believe in climate change or not.
Ellee
May 31, 2008 at 11:33 am
Worse. The IPCC’s conclusions — the executive summary — were written before the scientific work was done. And the scientific panels were instructed to make their presentations fit the XSumm.
Elle: You may “believe” whatever you care to. The point is that it is KNOWN that AGW is bunk, is a cruel hoax which will eventuate in the untimely deaths of thousands — perhaps millions.
Ask yourself this (And take the time to learn the answer — I am dead certain you do not know it now): what does “sustainable” mean?
M
Mark Alger
May 31, 2008 at 5:27 pm
You – and apparently the Telegraph – would do well to do a little research into that petition. It’s not only directly in opposition to the overwhelming consensus view subscribed to by every major scientific organization in the world, but it’s rife with phony names (“Dr. Geri Halliwel”, for example.) The list of legitimate signers leans heavily towards economists, with no experts in climatology.
The US National Academy of Sciences had this to say about it: ” “The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.”
For more info, go here – http://www.desmogblog.com/infamous-oregon-global-warming-petition-alive-and-well
For someone characterizing himself as open-minded, that’s pretty flimsy evidence.
Patrick
May 31, 2008 at 5:49 pm
The phony names were inserted deliberately by AGW supporters in attempts to discredit the petition.
It is disingenuous to disparage a petition — an expression of opinions — because it was not subject to peer review. And you are mistaken as to the credentials of the signers. There was no attempt to find specialists in climate science(s), only to highlight those who hold degrees in sciences — for the simple reason that the ridiculousness of the AGW conjecture is obvious to anyone literate in basic science.
Instead of engaging in ad-hominem arguments, how about addressing the question on the merits?
Are you aware of the reviews of the climatological network surface stations and their data — and how poorly both fare?
Are you aware that the models claiming AGW fail to account for water vapor, clouds, or precipitation?
Are you aware that the models failed to predict the past decade of cooling? In short: are you aware that, where the AGW conjecture has been subjected to peer review, it essentially has been falsified, and THAT is why the signatories to the petition have put forth their names?
Didn’t think so.
M
Mark Alger
May 31, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Models of global warming do not “fail to account for water vapor, clouds, or precipitation.” Even basic physics can show the important effect these have on global average temperatures. However, what you must consider is that the amount of water in the atmosphere is essentially constant, or at least moderated on a very short timescale; man does not, and probably cannot, significantly alter the amount of water vapor in the skies. If we added more it would leave as rain in a matter of weeks or months, and if we cause there to be less, more would evaporate from oceans and be transpired by plants. On the other hand the natural sources and sinks of the various greenhouse gases- like biomass in ecosystems, fossil fuel reserves, and soil- operate on a timescale of centuries and millennia. What goes up, stays up.
Moreover, to say that “anyone literate in basic science” is qualified to give professional opinions on questions in fields in which they have done absolutely no work is preposterous. Of course many people who are not climate scientists do work that is relevant to the issue of climate change, and these scientists are welcome to give their opinions. But an economist who claims without having done relevant work or research that he is so qualified should not be counted as a scientific opinion, regardless of what conclusion is reached, because his opinion is not likely to be based on a sober assessment of the data.
By the way, we have by no means experienced any period of global cooling; just look at a graph of global average temperatures year by year. And many models did and do predict regional cooling in certain areas for various reasons. Melting ice and changing ocean currents can easily alter the patterns in which heat flows around the planet. And we all are- or should be- aware that the planet will not heat evenly. Planetary winds channel heat so that the poles will heat faster than the equatorial regions. But at the equator you have much more temperature-sensitive ecosystems, so even small changes will create instability. It will be a while before we in the temperate regions of developed countries can notice the effects of warming without a statistical analysis. What we are likely to see first is a decrease in fresh water availability due to decreased snow in winter (less melting water later), and a decrease in arable land as higher temperature leads to more evaporation, hence desertification in regions with less advanced irrigation and less availability of fresh water. This will mean global food and water shortages, rising prices of basic necessities, and probably a lot of political instability in the regions that are already the least stable and the most likely to be or become homes to terrorism and brutal dictatorships.
Anthony Vicari
June 1, 2008 at 8:05 am