jump to navigation

Leaked emails confirm climate change questions December 11, 2011

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , ,
trackback

Leaked emails confirm climate change questions

ABC Newcastle
December 05, 2011

A Newcastle University professor, whose research questions the science behind climate change says he feels vindicated by recent leaked emails from an international expert on the subject.

Stewart Franks says there is no evidence that carbon dioxide drives global warming and he blames the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for scaring people about a future climate catastrophe.

For the past decade Professor Franks has focussed his research on natural variability in climate as being the driver of extreme droughts and rain events, rather that CO2 emissions.

He says the emails from Kevin Trenberth from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, show fundamental flaws in their methodology, but the public is being kept in the dark.

Professor Franks says he believes the emails support his own argument that natural variability is responsible for warming.

“Now I’ve been criticised for talking about these modes that we’ve barely beginning to understand as somehow being some kind of a denier of climate change or a pure contrarian,” he said.

“But it is really heartening to see that these scientists actually acknowledge and in fact one scientist went as far as to say ‘What if all the warming we actually see is just natural multi-decadal variability?’

“He then said, ‘They’ll probably kill us’

Read the rest here

About these ads

Comments»

1. Oliver K. Manuel - December 11, 2011

This new document on Global Climate Change is far more credible than the reports by the UN’s IPCC.

http://cfact.org/pdf/ClimateDepot_A-Z_ClimateRealityCheck.pdf

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

2. Steve Case - December 11, 2011

Over the last 160 years, CO2 has gone up 39% (280 to 390 ppm) and world average temperature has gone up .7 or .8 °C. Works out to a climate sensitivity of about 1.5°C for every doubling IF it’s all due to CO2. Common sense says it’s not.

Of course the latest argument is that natural variation actually caused cooling but it was masked by CO2. We didn’t see that claim a year a go though. Makes one wonder if they aren’t making it all up as they go along.

3. George - December 16, 2011

I’m not convinced a judicial review would be wise in this case (referring to the article at the link). Judges don’t have a history of grasping things on their scientific and technical merits. This is especially true for any judges that might stand for election to the bench. They tend to be vulnerable to PR campaigns in the media.

What is needed is a review by both science and engineering types who have not staked their professional reputations on the IPCC results and have no interest in the policy implementations that have been recommended. So anyone coming from an institution or firm who has played a consulting role in policy implementation would be disqualified from participating.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31 other followers

%d bloggers like this: