An Honest Climate Debate

Turning point in global warming’s war September 11, 2009

Turning point in global warming’s war

By Thomas Fuller
SF Environmental Policy Examiner, September 10, 2009

The past ten years have seen the first round of the scientific debate about global warming. It has been accompanied by a parallel, but not equal, debate on the same issue in politics, popular media, law and engineering.

In 1988 the ‘first salvo’ (not the first mention, obviously) was fired at a Congressional hearing, when Dr. James Hansen testified that human emissions of CO2, a greenhouse gas, were leading to dangerously high concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, and that this would lead to global warming.

The past 10 years has been a fairly normal scientific debate where elements of the theory and its practical evolution in our environment have been charted, discussed and debated. We now have the equivalent of the opening arguments from either side done and dusted, and it’s time for Round 2. But because of the parallel debates and the partisan nature of politics today, it’s devilishly hard to score Round 1. Both sides are claiming victory, and both sides are premature.

The worried warmists point to evidence that the earth has warmed in tandem with our growing emissions of CO2, and that many elements of our planet’s climate have responded as predicted by the theory of global warming–for example, that the Arctic would warm first and quickest. Skeptics respond by noting that temperatures have stalled for a decade despite copious emissions of CO2, and many elements of global warming theory have not materialised as expected–such as the signature warm spot 10 km high in the tropical troposphere.

Read the rest here

Global science or global panic? September 8, 2009

Global science or global panic?

by Des Moore
Quadrant Online, September 7, 2009

Global Warming – The Case for an Independent Inquiry

In June Climate Change Minister Penny Wong effectively acknowledged the existence of a scientific view rejecting the thesis that a dangerous increase in temperatures will occur unless government action is taken to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, particularly CO2. This is the first time a government minister with environmental responsibilities has done so formally (as distinct from dismissing such views out of hand). Minister Wong did this by agreeing to respond to three questions posed by Senator Fielding on the interpretations of temperature movements since 1998 and of temperature levels in the past, and on the reliability of models used to project temperature levels.

Following a discussion with the Senator (who was advised by four scientists with considerable relevant expertise in climatology) at which a background paper by two of her scientific advisers was circulated, Wong sent Fielding a written reply to those questions. The four scientists advising Senator Fielding subsequently (on 11 August) published a “Due Diligence” critique of both the background paper and Wong’s written reply. This critique raises serious questions about the credibility of the analysis and provides justification for the Government to establish a public inquiry (it is remarkable that there has been none) into whether there is a sound scientific basis for introducing an emissions reduction policy. Recognising that there has been a polarising of views in the scientific community, Fielding’s four advisers argued that:

proper due diligence … can only be achieved where competent scientific witnesses are cross-examined under oath and under strict rules of evidence.

I have been arguing for about two years for some kind of independent inquiry into the scientific basis of IPCC reports and, notwithstanding arguments by IPCC believers that their case has been strengthening over time, it now seems difficult to deny that various recent developments have weakened their case very significantly. My assessment is not based primarily on scientific analysis but on many years in Treasury and outside of analysing proposals for government intervention to solve perceived “crises”. Much analysis of the present proposal requires little more than common sense. Listed below are substantive questions, in staccato form, to which satisfactory answers justifying intervention to reduce emissions of CO2 have not been provided.

Relevant is that claims of the existence of a scientific consensus as reflected in IPCC reports fail to recognise that the IPCC itself undertakes no scientific research. Its key public document (“Summary for Policy Makers”) has been drafted by government appointed officials often drawn from environmental departments or agencies. While these officials draw on submissions by scientists, they are able to select analyses with which they are sympathetic. There is thus a sense in which the claimed consensus simply reflects the views of those sympathetic to the belief in dangerous threats of rising temperatures.

Moreover, consensus claims are much more difficult to sustain than they were a couple of years ago as more and more qualified scientists publicly reject or question the thesis in IPCC reports. The latest of many such groups comprises the more than 60 German scientists, including some who had made submissions to the IPCC, who on 26 July sent a letter to Chancellor Merkel asking for the convening of an impartial panel to review the latest climate science developments, stating that “humans have had no measurable role on global warming through CO2 emissions in temperature”, and accusing the IPCC of completely ignoring facts of which it had to have been aware. Well over 30,000 scientists from a range of countries have made similar public statements.

Read the rest here

“Climate Control” or “Be Prepared”: Which Shall We Choose? September 7, 2009

“Climate Control” or “Be Prepared”: Which Shall We Choose?

The Carbon Sense Coalition
September 6, 2009

There are two ways to cope with climate change – you can try to control the climate and thus change the future, or you can be prepared to adapt to or cope with whatever the future brings. The choice is “Climate Control” or “Be Prepared”.

“Climate Control” has a number of problems.

Firstly, there is no evidence that man’s activities do indeed control global temperature – all we have are unproven theories and computer model forecasts. Therefore whatever we do may have no effect on climate…

Read the full document [PDF, 46KB] including the press release “Politicians are Creating an Un-Natural Disaster”.

VALIDITY OF CLIMATE CHANGE FORECASTING FOR PUBLIC POLICY DECISION MAKING September 5, 2009

VALIDITY OF CLIMATE CHANGE FORECASTING FOR PUBLIC POLICY DECISION MAKING

Via NZ Climate Science
September 3, 2009

“Using the IPCC warming rate for our demonstration, we projected the rate successively over a period analogous to that envisaged in their scenario of exponential CO2 growth—the years 1851 to 1975. The errors from the projections were more than seven times greater than the errors from the benchmark method. Relative errors were larger for longer forecast horizons.” – Kesten C Green, Scott Armstrong and Willie Soon in paper to be published in International Journal of Forecasting.

LINK to download pdf