jump to navigation

Dangerous human-caused warming can neither be demonstrated nor measured September 16, 2008

Posted by honestclimate in Climate Models, Global Cooling.
Tags: , , ,

Dangerous human-caused warming can neither be demonstrated nor measured

By Dr Professor John Nicol

From Canada Free Press, September 10, 2008

There is no evidence, neither empirical nor theoretical, that carbon dioxide emissions from industrial and other human activities can have any effect on global climate. In addition, the claims so often made that there is a consensus among climate scientists that global warming is the result of increased man-made emissions of CO2, has no basis in fact.

The results of accurate measurements of global temperatures continue to be analysed by the international laboratories, now with 30 years experience in this process while a large number of scientists continue to perform high quality research. The results of these activities clearly demonstrate a wide range of errors in the IPCC projections.

Among the more obvious of these errors was the prediction of global warming expected by modelling of climate for the last three years. The actual measurements of global cooling in 2007/2008, flew directly in the face of these IPCC models. It would be difficult to find a more definitive illustration of an experimental error.

However, the claim of a consensus continues to be used in efforts to attract attention away from the lack of verifiable evidence, in a final desperate attempt to support the hypothesis that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is responsible for global warming.

In the past, verifiable and reproducible evidence was required before acknowledgement of a scientific truth. In regard to global warming, this principle has been replaced by a process involving a majority vote.

The fundamental requirement of reproducible evidence, has been lost in the process of promulgating the messages regarding the output from the experimental computer models providing suggestions of global warming for the IPCC reports. No two of these 23 models provide the same values of temperature – the results are not reproducible.

That human-caused global climate change is so small that it cannot yet be differentiated from natural changes, has not been accepted. Rather our governments are being subjected to calls to provide policies based on unsubstantiated assertions of largely non-scientific executives of the IPCC, who ignore the uncertainties expressed in the main scientific reports of the International Panel. Evidence that no changes have been observed in Monsoonal activity, snow in the Himalayas, the rate of glacial retreat and the rise of sea level is conveniently ignored or presented as perceived evidence of “change”. Alarming reports are presented of the many natural processes of glacial cracking, ponding of water in the Arctic Ice and the common and repetitive droughts in the drier continents of Australia, America and Africa while insufficient attention is given to the many benefits of increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, which forms the basis for plant growth through photosynthesis.

In summary, the future global and local climate is as uncertain as it has always been. Multi-decadal warming, cooling trends and abrupt changes, will continue to occur. Appropriate climate related policies are needed that, first, closely monitor change; and, secondly, respond and adapt to deleterious climatic events in the same way that we already approach hazardous natural events such as droughts, storms and earthquakes. Measures include appropriate mitigation of undesirable socio-economic effects and other economic stresses resulting from changes of the world’s climate.

The best scientific advice available at present is to “Follow the Sun”.

Adaptation to climate change will not be aided by imprudent restructuring of the world’s energy economy in pursuit of the mitigation of an alleged “dangerous human-caused warming” that can neither be demonstrated nor measured.

John Nicol, BSc (University of Queensland), PhD (James Cook University);
Chairman, Australia Climate Science Coalition, former Senior Lecturer of
Physics at James Cook University, Townsville, Australia; now residing in
Brisbane, Australia




1. greenfyre - September 17, 2008

A collection of links debunking the Global Cooling myth http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Global-Cooling-Myth

A collection of links debunking the myth the humans are not causing climate change http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Humans+Causing+Climate+Change

A collection of links debunking the Solar and Sunspots are driving climate change myth http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Sunspots-and-Solar-Myth

2. honestclimate - September 17, 2008

Greenfyre, let me just start by saying that I’m not a scientist, but I know how to plot a chart.

So when I personally plotted the UK Met Office temperature anomalies and noticed there has been no global warming, since 1998 and in fact a cooling trend in the last couple of years, I realised that humans can’t be contributing to warming, if any. It proved to me that Natural causes clearly outweigh the human co2 warming effect.

Now the counter argument to this is to look at NASA GISS data, but I find GISS data highly suspicious especially their claim that 2007 tied with1998 as the second warmest year in a century. I found it hard to believe this when 2007 was riddled with record cold news stories across the globe!

3. greenfyre - September 17, 2008

Are you claiming that climate change also stopped in 1973, 1983, and 1990? because if we look at the trend http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif http://www.manchesterismyplanet.com/pictures/global%20temperature%20and%20co2%20levels_400x10000(1).jpg

Every peak is followed by a cooler period. Each peak is hotter than the previous one, and each ‘cool’ period is hotter than the previous cool period.

By focusing on the cool periods and/or only the preceding hottest years one can argue that climate change stopped in 1973, 1983, and 1990 as well as 1998

“their claim that 2007…”

“The greatest warming in 2007 occurred in the Arctic and neighboring high latitude region” http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20080116/ … since it is global climate change what they are reporting is the global average.

“riddled with record cold news stories”

Yes, for the last couple of years (SNIP don’t use that term here) have blogged and reported every lower fluctuation, no matter how obscure or irrelevant. PAris could be melting and all you would find on Milloy’s site is how it was cold in his fridge that afternoon.There were one or two warming stories too, like droughts in the US, melting polar ice, disintegrating Western Antarctica, etc … as above, the global average reports the global average. See also http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

4. honestclimate - September 17, 2008

Greenfyre, I do not deny Climate Change.

The climate changes, it always has and always will.
I believe that Natural causes far outweigh any man-made co2 induced warming, if any….

I really struggle to believe humans are causing global warming when the Hadley Centre reports no warming for 10 years whilst co2 has obviously increased significantly over the last 10 years.

It may have warmed in the Arctic in 2007, but I sure as hell wouldn’t have expected near RECORD cold temperatures elsewhere on the globe if it’s supposed to be warming….


5. greenfyre - September 17, 2008

Notwithstanding Demings unsubstantiated opinions and half truths:

For eg he is perfectly right when he said “in 2007, hundreds of people died, not from global warming, but from cold weather hazards.” However he omits to mention that i) climate change causes weather extremes and that some of that cold is in fact attributable toclimate change, and ii) an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 died from the consequences of climate change. It’s rather relevant, but of course would expose the rest of his piece for the nonsense that it is.

His whole article is cherry picked examples. As he is supposedly a scientist he should be ashamed as he should know that such intellectual dishonesty is nothing short of fraud.

The problem is not the science, but rather your understanding of it. “I believe …” which is faith, religion. I refer you to the science I linked in my first comment. If you can rebut it with credible evidence, then fine. Otherwise you must concede that your belief is nothing more than an act of faith that flies in the face of all the evidence.

6. honestclimate - September 17, 2008

Greenfyre, I always have a chuckle when the AGW crowd try to justify record cold weather as being part of man-made global warming…
So if it gets hot, it’s our fault and if it gets cold it’s our fault too.
I smell a rat!

And the AGW theory has become a religion, in fact, the AGW crowd worship their computer models!

Personally I cannot belive in the AGW religion/cult whilst the globe continues to cool!

7. greenfyre - September 18, 2008

Like I said, the problem is that you do not understand the science. If it is such a chuckle you should have no trouble debunking the ‘Global Cooling Myth’ links I provide http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Global-Cooling-Myth

Let us all know how the science is flawed …

8. greenfyre - September 18, 2008

Posted too quick – it’s very, very simple:

IF we are not in a warming since 1998 then the past decade should have been at least average temperature typical of the last few centuries. Actually they should have been lower due to low sunspot activity, the PDO and ENSO, etc

IF we are in a warming then they would be higher than average despite all of the natural cycles being in a cooling phase:

Global warming greatest in past decade http://www.physorg.com/news139508446.html

Northern Hemisphere Sets 1300 Year Climate Warming Record http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2008/2008-09-02-01.asp

9. honestclimate - September 18, 2008

Al Gore, in his propaganda movie, said that as co2 increases so does temperature. So as the globe continues to cool, more and more people will become skeptical of the man-made global warming theory…

Only time will tell which way the climate temperature trends will go.
After all, mother nature doesn’t care much for computer models!

10. greenfyre - September 19, 2008

Al Gore reported on the science of greenhouse gases. The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.

The science and threat of climate change was already understood in 1958 http://youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg – do you want to claim the then 10yr old Gore was behind that too?

Acknowledging the reality of the science will take you one step closer to integrity. By all means critique it if you can, but stop with the Straw Man fallacies.

11. honestclimate - September 19, 2008

I’m well aware that the man made global warming theory has been around for a long time.

The main crux of the theory is that as human Co2 increases, so does temperature.

The reason I mention the Al Gore movie is that he blamed global warming on anything and everything except for record cold temperatures, which the globe has been experiencing lately.

Need I remind you that he hopped into a crane thingy to demonstrate how the temperature is going to increase???
Remember polar bears drowning etc etc.

I say again, as co2 increases so does temperature and yet the globe continues to cool with record cold temperature set in 2007 and 2008. The UK Met Office reckons 2008 could end up being the coldest year this century.

Please show me where in the IPCC reports it refers to record cold temperatures as being part of global warming.

12. greenfyre - September 20, 2008

“I’m well aware that … ” So why did you ascribe it to Gore?

“record cold temperatures, which …” 8 of the hottest yrs recorded have been in the past decade Global warming greatest in past decade http://www.physorg.com/news139508446.html http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/; so that’s what you call “record cold temperatures?” Pretty typical (SNIP don’t use that term here) ‘science’ ie bears no relationship to reality.

“Need I remind you that” as I posted in the very first comment that 2007 and 2008 have been the 7th and 9th hottest years recorded, so your alleged point is ridiculous?

Here is an explanation of climate change, try reading it http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/kids/cc.html

13. honestclimate - September 20, 2008

“Need I remind you that” as I posted in the very first comment that 2007 and 2008 have been the 7th and 9th hottest years recorded”

So 2007 is only the 7th hottest and 2008 only the 9th hottest.
I would be expecting record hot years as co2 keeps increasing massively…

Maybe you should come back and argue when the globe decides to warm up again, until then your arguments for man-made global warming seem rather silly!

14. Pete Ridley - October 29, 2008

Politicization of CLIMATE CHANGE & CO2
Pete Ridley, Anthropogenic Global Warming Agnostic.


Vested interest groups are abusing the issue of climate change to
further their own causes. Climate scientists cannot predict climate and computer models have significant limitations. Model projections are flawed because the models cannot as yet be validated. The IPCC summaries for policy makers are merely a political interpretation of the IPCC’s scientific reports. These reports do not take into consideration recent research which shows that increasing CO2 content has negligible affect on global climate. The proposed reductions in consumption of fossil fuels will do nothing about controlling climate change but will horrendously impact the economic well-being of many of the world’s most deprived communities.

1. Political Aspects

Numerous political and activist movements have hijacked the greenhouse gas theory in order to promote their own individual causes. Under the umbrella of The Real World Coalition organizations such as Forum for the Future, Friends of the Earth, the International Institute for Environment and Development, the United Nations Association, the Wildlife Trusts, the World Wide Fund for Nature, etc. have endorsed the statement that the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change “.. has confirmed the very strong likelihood that global warming will occur as a result of emission of … carbon dioxide..”. They also state that “Global warming .. derives from … the consumption of fossil fuels. Further economic growth .. can only lead to higher carbon dioxide emissions.” and “The UK’s contribution to global warming comes mainly from its carbon dioxide emissions”.

Nowhere in the IPCC’s latest scientific reports are these statements made. These misleading and unscientific interpretations are used merely as propaganda intended to drive a global environmentalist movement seeking to reduce the use of fossil fuels at the expense of economic growth.

A leading figure in relation to the activities of the Real World Coalition recently stated that “the latest data about climate change is fast exceeding our worst fears”. Many of us do not accept this view due to the lack of convincing scientific evidence for it and the mounting evidence against. Accepting that climate change has been occurring throughout the earth’s long existence, the big question is to what extent is this affected by human activity.

Something never mentioned in the activist and political propaganda is the growing conviction among scientists that human influence on climate is negligible. Nor is the fact that the IPCC arguments rely significantly upon climate projections from computer models that, unless prompted with corrections, contradict reality.

One comment in the debate on Globalism and Regionalism” was that “If nothing else can we not at least use the climate change debate as a way in to the re-assessment of our pollution footprint?”. This could be suggesting that even if significant anthropogenic global warming is a myth, then use it anyway to promote the cause – the end justifies the means. Alas, this is already endemic within many groups to further their chosen causes. In some cases this does relate to causes involving our pollution of the environment, but not always. Politicians (including the UK government) and others are (ab)using the anthropogenic climate change issue to further their own individual vested interests, regardless of whether there is any validity in the arguments for and against this issue.

A media report in 2005 stated that at a meeting of the Environment and Energy Cabinet Committee the Chancellor and the Secretaries of State for Transport and Trade & Industry pressed for the abandonment of an unachievable promise to reduce CO2 emissions by 20 per cent by 2010. At a summit of environment and energy ministers around about the same time the Prime Minister appeared to assert that he preferred to shift away from the target system for tackling climate change in favour of a system of informal mechanisms. This reportedly surprised and dismayed environmentalists, including the government’s chief advisor on environmental issues (Appendix 5.4) who declared it “really worrying that a style of thinking in the US seems to have crept into the UK position here”. He blamed the apparent change on the US President.

Claiming to have conquered the “boom and bust economics of the Conservatives” the UK government has promoted 11 years of unsustainable economic growth based upon relentless and reckless consumer spending of borrowed money, without any regard as to how the money would be repaid. The consequences are upon us.

Present British public opinion about the government’s competence has sunk to almost as low a level of that of the US government. In an attempt to recover some ground, the UK government is now using the alleged anthropogenic global climate change issue and the genuine global economic situation to present its flagging leader as the world’s savior. His latest proposed cuts in CO2 emissions of an impossible 30% by 2020 will be used merely as an excuse to take enormous amounts of British tax payers hard-earned money in order to bolster the seriously depleting Treasury coffers. It will achieve nothing as far as global climate change is concerned. This money would be far better spent dealing sensibly with all of the many genuinely serious (and well understood) environmental pollution and economic deprivation issues around the globe.

It is time that all of those who are advising politicians about climate change and other environmental issues started paying proper attention to both sides of the argument. Let us have a bit more honesty and open-mindedness in these debates instead of mere scare-mongering hype. Few of us expect this from politicians (remember Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction”, deliverable with 10 minutes and the consequences of that) or from other cause advocates, but we ordinary folk need not stoop to that level. To ignore another person’s honest argument is plain arrogance, which often arises from privilege, whether in upbringing, education or wealth (earned or inherited). Let us try to resist insulting those who challenge our views and simply let our arguments stand or fall on their own merits, rather than resorting to ridiculing those who disagree with us.

Propagandists are adept at merging facts and opinions in order to obtain public support for their particular cause. The booklets “Playing Safe: .. ” and “Six degrees:.. ” are prime examples of this. It is very easy for any one of us to merge chosen bits of scientifically identified knowledge with our own opinions in order to present a persuasive argument supporting our preferred point of view. This is precisely what the politically appointed authors of each IPCC Summary for Policy-makers appear to have done.

On the other hand honest scientists use known facts in order to prove the laws that govern our existence. Where the known facts are incomplete, available expert opinion is then introduced in order to develop theories. These theories are then tested against actual outcomes to see if they still apply. If a theory is considered by the experts to be based upon sound (factual) argument, then it is usually accepted if and until proven to be flawed, when the theory is either modified or rejected.

2. Climate & Models

Multiple complex factors affect the global climate, interacting in an extremely complex, almost chaotic manner. Our present scientific understanding, although improving, remains seriously incomplete. The IPCC scientists themselves acknowledge this complexity and have never claimed that they are able to PREDICT the future global climate, even with the help of their General Climate Models. Predictions of weather (albeit limited in accuracy even for just a few days ahead) are made easier through the use of computer models, but this practice makes use of relatively accurate data obtained from current and direct global measurements of relevant parameters. This is far from the case regarding global climate prediction. Accurate weather prediction, difficult as it is, is trivial by comparison.

Any computer model based upon significantly incomplete knowledge of the system it purports to model will generally produce misleading projections. It can be made to produce plausible (but not necessarily accurate) projections by feeding it with appropriate “prompts” based upon assumptions. The validity of these assumptions and the degree to which they affect the projections need to be fully understood. If this is not the case then these projections must always be treated with suspicion and should not be relied upon when making important decisions, economic or otherwise.

Because, as the IPCC admits, climate models “.. continue to have significant limitations” and “The possibility of developing model capability measures … has yet to be established.”, model projections cannot be relied upon. Only when measures of the models’ capabilities have been developed can proper validation of the complete modeling system be undertaken. This requires the application of formal Validation, Verification and Test activities by an independent professional VV&T team. These essential quality assurance procedures have never been applied to general climate models.


Dr. Vincent Gray, IPCC expert reviewer was responsible for having the IPCC admit that climate models had never been properly validated. In response to his comment, the chapter entitled “Climate Models – Validation” in an early draft of the IPCC’s “The Science of Climate Change” had the word “validation” replaced by “evaluation” no less than 50 times.

It is reasonable to expect that before the general climate models used by the IPCC scientists are considered capable of predicting future climates resulting from different levels of CO2, they should be validated against contemporary climate conditions based upon contemporary CO2 levels. On the contrary it has been commented that the basis used in the models for calculating the radiation mechanisms of the atmosphere and the temperature profile gives the mean global surface temperature as an unbearable 77oC, not the pleasant 15oC enjoyed for centuries!

Despite this, supporters of the anthropogenic global warming cause regard climate model computer predictions as indisputable, ignoring all else. Fair consideration is required of the views of the anthropogenic global warming agnostics. Climate science and climate models are nowhere near a developed state that permits valid predictions to be made.

3. Recent Climate Science

In 1998 Dr. Heinz Hug concluded that “It is hardly to be expected that .. CO2 doubling … can cause any significant global warming or even a climate catastrophe”. Significant scientific debate on this paper took place on the INTERNET. During this debate, Dr. Jack Barrett commented that “the rate of warming of the lower atmosphere will be unaffected by an increase in carbon dioxide”.

In 2001, Dr. Hug and Dr. Barrett challenged the IPCC over the manner in which scientists were applying spectroscopy in coming to their conclusions about future climate change. Debate on this challenge includes the comment “If Hug and Barrett are correct, the effects of doubling carbon dioxide in the atmosphere seem to be minimal and are no cause for alarm and the extensive alteration of national economies”.

In 2007 it was reported that Dr. Roy Spencer and co-authors published an article in Geophysical Research Letters QUOTE “.. that seriously undermines the credibility of computer climate models. Every model assumes that tropical-region cirrus cloud cover, which has a net warming effect on surface temperatures, increases with increasing surface temperature– a positive feedback. But six years’ data from three NASA satellites shows .. that the cirrus cloud cover diminishes –.. a negative feedback. .. The models don’t just get the magnitude of the feedback wrong, they get its sign wrong. Rather than magnifying whatever warming takes place, the response of tropical cirrus cloud cover is to reduce it. This both supports the theory .. that cloud response to warming acts similarly to the eye’s iris, opening to let more heat radiate out to space as temperature rises and closing to hold more heat in as temperature falls, and generally supports the understanding that Earth’s climate is self-regulating and therefore not prone to a “tipping point” or a “runaway greenhouse effect” or “catastrophic warming.” .. Says Spencer, “To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by over 75 percent. The big question that no one can answer right now is whether this enhanced cooling mechanism applies to global warming.” UNQUOTE

In 2007 scientists approached the complexity of the climate system from the position that it is chaotic and proposed a whole new theory to explain climate shifts. They used synchronized chaos theory to study the last 100 years of known ocean cycles (Pacific Decadal Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation, El Nino, and North Pacific Oscillation). In their paper they showed that the major climate shifts observed thus far are explained by the periodic synchronization of the patterns of these cycles without any reference to trends in greenhouse gases.

As recently as June 2008 Dr. John Nicol published a detailed scientific analysis of the heating effects of greenhouse gases which supports the arguments of Dr. Hug and Dr Barrett. This paper, addresses the mechanisms of atmospheric heat transfer not only via radiation but also by conduction, which is not mentioned once in the IPCC’s scientific reports. It includes the conclusion that “The above analysis … shows that the actual level of GHGs in the atmosphere…is almost of no consequence in determining the increase in surface temperature from the Greenhouse effect.…In summary, small quantities of radiation from excited Greenhouse gases …. provide direct feed back of heat towards the earth…The proportion of this free radiation…. will be independent of … the concentration of a given Greenhouse gas”.

Recently a challenge was sent to about 14 “climate change” scientists to provide an equally detailed scientific analysis refuting Dr. Nicol’s paper. As yet there has been no response from those scientists.

Anyone who wants a proper understanding of the true status of current knowledge about climate change should read the Fourth Assessment Reports of IPCC Working Group 1 “The Physical Science Basis” NOT the politically orientated SPM’s. Also, because climate research findings more recent than 2005 have not generally been considered in the IPCC reports, more recent work such as that of Dr. Nicol, Dr. Spencer, etc. quoted above should also be taken into consideration. In December 2007 100 prominent scientists, including Dr. Gray, Dr. Nicol and Dr. Spencer, sent a less well-publicized but more recent (and non-political) “summary” to the Secretary General of United Nations. They stated that “The summaries .. cannot .. be represented as a consensus view among experts. In stark contrast .. significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. .. cost/benefit analyses provide no support for .. global measures to .. reduce energy consumption for .. restricting CO2 emissions. …Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems”.

4. Conclusion

Increasingly the skeptical climate scientists are exposing the myths surrounding the climate change issue.

Any reasonable anthropogenic global warming heretic should be prepared to convert to the faith provided that a convincing argument is presented (the same applies to other religions), but where are the convincing arguments. Few will be converted by the merging and blurring of fact and opinion that is adopted by all vested interest groups in their propaganda.

A perfect example of this is Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth”, copied to UK schools at the instigation of the government. In October 2007 a London High Court judge, aware of errors in the film, indicated that the Government’s earlier distribution of the film to English schools had been an unlawful contravention of the 1996 Education Act prohibiting the political indoctrination of children. Mr Justice Burton said the government could still send the film to schools – if accompanied by guidance giving the other side of the argument.

The anthropogenic climate change crusaders may find it difficult to overcome the strong distrust that members of the public have of anything supported and promoted by politicians or other vested interest groups.

Open-minded consideration of arguments presented by both the supporters and challengers of the “Anthropogenic Global Warming” issue along with decades of our own personal experience of climate change easily lead to the conclusion that the contributions by Dr. Hug, Dr. Barratt and Dr. Nicol are more convincing than those of the IPCC. Although there was significant reaction to the contributions by Dr. Barratt and Dr. Hug in 1995 there are on the INTERNET no readily available scientific rejections of the analyses in 2007 and 2008 by Dr. Nicol’s, Dr. Spencer and Dr. Tsonis. It is reasonable to expect that if flaws exist then detailed alternative analyses would have been on record by now showing clearly where and how it is considered that these scientists have erred

Until such time as these recent analyses are proven to be flawed it should be accepted that any increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations caused by humankind’s use of fossil fuels has negligible impact upon the global climate. It follows that current and proposed programs to reduce our emission of CO2 into the atmosphere are unjustified and will impose totally unnecessary and substantial burdens on the world’s taxpayers.

15. Pete Ridley - October 29, 2008

For anyone whose interested, the following reference sources were used in my above note

5.1 References
1) “The Politics of the Real World” The Real World Coalition, Earthscan Publications Ltd.
2) “Globalism & Regionalism” Posted by Jonathon Porritt in his INTERNET blog on August 14, 2008
3) The Independent on Sunday, 6 November 2005
4) “Playing Safe: .. Science and the Environment” by Jonathon Porritt, Thames and Hudson Ltd.
5) “Atmospheric Radiation, Theoretical Basis” 2. ed., Oxford Univ. Press, 1989 by Goody and Young.
6) AR4 WG1 Technical Summary, Cambridge University Press, 2007
7) AR4 “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis”
8) AR4 “Climate Models and Their Evaluation”
9) The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, Newsletter, August 15, 2007
10) “Open Letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations”, December 2007
11) “The Climate Catastrophe – A Spectroscopic Artifact?” 1998, by Dr. Heinz Hug
12) John Daly’s WEB-site at john-daly.com
13) “A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts” by Dr. Anastasios A. Tsonis et al, Atmospheric Sciences Group, University of Wisconsin, in Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L13705).
14) “Climate Change (A Fundamental Analysis of the Greenhouse Effect)” 1/06/2008, by John Nicol, PhD Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia
15) “Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet” by Mark Lynas
16) “Cool It”, by Bjorn Lomborg, an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School
“The Greenhouse Delusion” by Dr. Vincent Gray.

16. Pete Ridley - December 18, 2008

Greenfyre (whoever yu are), you say “Al Gore reported on the science of greenhouse gases”, he did nothing of the sort. He distorted ill-understood science of climate change for his own vested interests. These distortions are well documented and were recognised by a London High Court Judge.

You also claim that “The science and threat of climate change was already understood in 1958”. This is untrue. The science of the ATMOSPHERE was reasonably well (but not fully) understood in the 50’s, however, the atmosphere is only one very complex contributor to the varied climates experienced around the globe. In addition to received solar radiation (a complex subject in itself) there are five major sub-systems involved, the atmosphere (the most unstable and rapidly changing), the oceans (very sluggish in terms of its thermal inertia therefore very important as an atmospheric regulator), the cryosphere (snow and ice cover) and the lithospher (land surface) and biosphere (vegetation cover). Complex physical, chemical and biological processes take place within and between these complx sub-systems.
The true science of climate change is not easy. It is so extremely complicated that even the scientists (respected intellectuals on both sides, despite the arguments) are still learning the basics. GLOBAL climate science is a NEW science, only being seriously researched since around 1950. There is NO consensus, despite the claims of the IPCC. Meanwhile, political, environmentalist and other organizations use the confusion that arises from our ignorance of the causes of climate change to promote their own vested interests.

You proclaim that “Acknowledging the reality of the science will take you one step closer to integrity”. In fact if you were to acknowledge the complexity of climate science and the significant uncertainties within the climate science community then this would take you one step closer to reality.

“By all means critique it if you can, but stop with the” insults and the fallacies of environmentalist dogma. An understandng of climate science requires open-mindedness and honest debate.

Pete Ridley, Human-made Global Warming Agnostic.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: