Espiner on Energy

August 15th, 2008 at 1:30 pm by David Farrar

Colin Espiner blogs on National’s policy:

I don’t know whether the party takes any notice of blogs or media commentary, but they have certainly concurred with advice dished out by many of us in the commentariat: forget about the secret tapes, roll out the policy, and release background papers – not just a one-page summary.

It was good to see the fuller papers. Blogs are well read in National (in fact in all of Parliament) but I would hesitate before going from a correlation to a causative effect. The fact Labour in the House tried to make the non-release of the background papers sound sinister was probably a big influence. Why make it easy for your opponents to run their secret agenda line.

Likewise, Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen yesterday accused John Key of “gambling your children’s future” on gas and coal in spite of an abundance of renewable energy and said National stood for “no action on climate change, no hope and no vision”.

Strong stuff. But does the rhetoric match the reality? You’d think from this level of hyperbole that the Nats had announced plans to build a large nuclear power plant on the North Shore (not a bad idea, some might say) or that Gerry “sexy coal” Brownlee had vowed to overturn the ban on coal fires in Christchurch homes.

Governments will always attack policies from the Opposition (inless they are going to adopt them themselves) but the hyperbole on this one was over the top.

It’s true National has pledged to overturn the ten-year ban on the building of new thermal power stations and promised to take a more “realistic” approach to calculating the future growth in the nation’s energy requirements.

It’s difficult to see how this equates to embracing a lump of coal or a petajoule of gas, however, particularly since Labour’s so-called moratorium was rapidly developing a distinctly “Clayton’s” feel to it. The ban, in practice, was always more hot air than reality, since the Government slipped so many caveats into it (only applies to baseload, above a certain megawattage, can be overruled in the interests of the nation’s energy security or in a crisis) that it was largely meaningless.

Key called it “damaging political symbolism” yesterday – I’d call it ineffectual political grandstanding. Industry sources have been saying Labour would have been forced to abandon the ban if it won the election anyway, given the current pressure on the national grid.

Indeed. You just have to look at the history of the last decade to know it was unrealistic to go into a total ban.

Greenpeace won’t like it, but I think National has got the mix about right. As we continue to shiver through the nastiest winter in many a year, I reckon the vast majority of people would far rather the lights stayed on and heaters warm than risk the country blowing a fuse because renewable energy sources let us down.

And God forbid if there is not enough power to keep computers connected to the Internet 🙂

It’s all very well talking the talk, as Key said yesterday – it’s another thing walking it. And while Labour’s fine ambitions are all well and good, the reality is that nothing the Government has yet done has made a blind bit of difference to our emissions levels or is likely to in the near future. In fact the only thing that has reduced our emissions profile recently has been the soaring price of petrol and diesel.

There is an irony in Labour attacking National for being pro-thermal, too, because the Nats are also promising to streamline the consents process under the RMA to get more renewable projects such as wind and hydro through the planning stages more quickly.

This is what puzzles me with the status quo. The Government has made it difficult for almost any power plant to get consented quickly. These things should not take five years.

I’m not trying to sound anti-green technology here. I’d like a clean, green environment as much as the next person. But I do believe the Government is on the wrong side of public opinion with its stance on energy and climate change. I think the public care about security of supply far more than they do about pollution. The simple fact is the cold, damp homes are going to kill people than climate change for many years to come.

And think about the lessons to be learnt from biofuels.

Having said that, National’s energy policy is conservative and lacking in new ideas. There’s nothing about energy efficiency, for example, or suggestions about how we are going to meet the estimated 2% a year increase in demand for electricity. What it has delivered is a short-term, pragmatic policy lacking in vision. But unlike Labour, it is probably a policy in step with current public opinion.

A damn with faint praise at the end.

40 Responses to “Espiner on Energy”

  1. virtualmark (1,602 comments) says:

    Haven’t had a chance to read the fuller policy papers yet (although I will this weekend) but Colin Espiners final comments seem fair.

    An energy policy that doesn’t address energy efficiency seems very unbalanced. An energy policy that promotes gas-fired power stations seems fair enough … but what is National’s view on the availability of gas? Problematic to build a gas-fired power station with a 30-year life when you’ve only got 12 years of gas. Genesis Energy’s e3p plant only got built because the Government stepped in to underwrite the fuel risk. An energy policy that allows for coal-fired plants (with caveats) seems sensible … except the big coal reserves are in Southland while the demand growth is mainly north of Taupo and the current North-South link is old, overloaded and would be very expensive to upgrade.

    These are the sort of issues that you’d think an energy policy would have to address, so I’ll be interested to see the detail.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. insider (935 comments) says:

    It wasn’t so mmuch an energy policy as an electricity policy. WHich is a significant limitation on it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Mr Dennis (348 comments) says:

    It is designed purely to attempt to placate both the environmentalists on one side and industry on the other. It is aimed squarely at gaining votes, rather than doing what is best for the country.

    It removes the ban on thermal to placate industry, yet guarantees an Emissions Trading Scheme (which would be far more damaging to industry) will be set up within 9 months, to placate the environmentalists.

    A sensible policy would first include an investigation into whether we should be reducing carbon emissions in the first place. The only party promising this is the Family party – even Act is blindly believing climate change now. Such an investigation could easily be conducted within the 9 months National will take to set up their scheme, so wouldn’t delay it if such a scheme was deemed necessary. And if the scheme was deemed unnecessary, we could forget about it and save a lot of money and bureaucracy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. virtualmark (1,602 comments) says:

    insider. good point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. stephen (4,011 comments) says:

    “cold, damp homes ”

    Lucky they’re doing something about that wiv all them insulation subsidies an’ that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. virtualmark (1,602 comments) says:

    Mr Dennis. I’ve tried to keep up with the climate change debate and I can’t decide whether it’s all bunkum or whether there’s a genuine problem there. It seems an incredibly challenging scientific problem to reach a landing on, and I really doubt any NZ investigation could (a) reach a firm conclusion and (b) do it within 6 months.

    But, for better or worse, the groundswell of public and political opinion around the world is that there is a problem, and I think it’d be dangerous of us to try and swim against that particular tide at the moment. We’ve signed the Kyoto Protocol and we’ve committed ourselves to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. So for better or worse we’re going to have things like Emissions Trading Schemes, whether they’re necessary or not.

    For us to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol and abandon any initiatives around global warming would harm us, as a country, far more than pressing on with the herd.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. stephen (4,011 comments) says:

    even Act is blindly believing climate change now.

    I reeeally doubt that, if you look at their rather detailed background paper on their policies. They’re just being pragmatic, and their carbon tax would probably be so low as to be ineffective…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Mr Dennis (348 comments) says:

    There are very well-qualified scientists coming out and saying the IPCC is wrong. This is not something to take lightly. Science is not decided on ‘the groundswell of public and political opinion’ but on the evidence.

    With regards to emissions trading, even Greenpeace has said the emissions trading scheme currently proposed would do nothing for the environment. This is Greenpeace, saying it will do NOTHING. At the same time it will cost the country a horrendous amount of money, much of which will be sent off-shore to countries like Russia.

    A National ETS would be expected to cost a bit less (be better for industry), and do even less than nothing for the environment. It would be even more pointless.

    We need to know first whether humans are causing global warming. Then, if we are, we need to know if we can actually prevent it by reducing emissions or if we should be learning how to cope with it. The Family Party is supporting the call by a number of scientists for a Royal Commission of Enquiry into Global Warming to answer these questions, so we can then design effective policy that is scientifically sound and actually helps the environment.

    Just because a few other Western countries are throwing themselves blindly into this doesn’t mean we have to as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Mr Dennis (348 comments) says:

    I was going by their complete acceptance of it on their 20-point plan, where can I find the background paper on it? Thanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. PhilBest (4,967 comments) says:

    “Key called it “damaging political symbolism” yesterday……”

    Ah, GOOD, another sign that someone in the Nats has been studying Horowitz. “Damaging political symbolism” is one of the prime tactics of the Left.

    And Mr Dennis, let’s try not to turn this into another Global Warming debate thread. I’ve given up wasting time trying to convert people. Time will tell. The reality out there only continues to go more and more exactly as the “climate change is natural” scientists have predicted, and less and less how the “we’re to blame” “scientists” have predicted it.

    I strongly suspect that certain politicians on the Right have resigned themselves to not fighting the hysteria, in the knowledge that the wheels will fall off the bandwagon anyway, and all that will matter then, is that they need to look sensible in modifying their policy approach in the light of the “new” consensus or whatever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. PaulL (6,054 comments) says:

    Mr Dennis: I agree with PhilBest on not making another global warming thread….but if you’re going to make claims: please provide the names of 5 “very well-qualified scientists” who are:

    1. Actually involved in the field (that is to say, not biologists or some such)
    2. Saying there is no warming, OR
    3. Saying there is warming, but it isn’t human caused

    I’m genuinely interested – I’m like VirtualMark that I think it is very complex and we’re probably at a point where we need an insurance policy, even if just for international PR purposes (as a small trading nation). But if you can point to real people with real qualifications who can explain that it isn’t happening, then I’d like to see that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. stephen (4,011 comments) says:

    Mr Dennis, it’s there

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Owen McShane (1,193 comments) says:

    Basil Walker of Christchurch has filed an Injunction to prevent the Labour MPs passing the “Emission Trading Scheme” into Law.
    As well as being a retired property developer, Basil Walker was a chemical engineer with the industrial research division of the DSIR.
    The mainstream media have largely ignored this rather remarkable legal action, presumably because it goes against the notion of the “scientific consensus”. The Christchurch Press has issued a short report which concludes “It will not work.”

    It will be interesting to see how the news media report the story in the event that Walker does succeed in injuncting “All New Zealand Labour Party Elected Members of Parliament”, given that most of their readers will not be aware that the injunction has even been filed.

    The Court has issued a notice of a date of hearing set for Monday, 22nd September, “For Mention Only”. This presumably gives time for a mediated settlement if possible.

    The question is whether this prevents Labour passing the Bill while this matter is before the Courts. The 22nd September leaves little time.
    I have a copy of the injunction if anyone wants to read it in full. I am rather hoping it will be up on some web page shortly (David Farrar maybe) so we can just link to that, because attachments causes many problems for some readers.

    I said the ETS had a life of about six months. WHo knows? It may prove to be less than that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Owen McShane (1,193 comments) says:

    RE: Natural Gas.
    New Zealand is sitting on a virtual ocean of natural gas according to the Institute for Geological and Nuclear sciences. But I understand that while the Government has been out such “cold water” signals on thermal generation no one wanted to take on the costs and risks of exploration.
    So the National policies should solve the problem of supply by making exploration worth while.
    RE: Broadband
    People tend to forget that moving from dial up to broadband dramatically increases power consumption and that computers are big consumers. I forget the exact calculation but computers tend very low entropy power and so it takes about 200 watts of energy “in the furnace” to get a watt of energy into the microprocessor in the heart of the computer. So when we are all properly wired energy electricity use will increase although petrol use should go down.
    RE: Efficiency.
    Generally increased efficiency increases consumption. The first Eniac computers consumed huge amounts of power. Current computers are much more energy efficient but that is why there were only 6 Eniacs and there are now hundreds of millions of computers using far more power than the Eniacs.
    RE: Solar heating etc.
    I have always put solar heaters into the houses I design and build for marketing reasons. People tend to have an energy budget which means there response is “Gee, that’s good, the power I save I can use to heat a spa pool!”
    That is why energy efficiency and conservation schemes don’t deliver. Insulating homes does not save as much as you might think. People just shed their pullovers and enjoy more comfort.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Mr Dennis (348 comments) says:

    I agree PhilBest that it shouldn’t be another global warming thread. The problem is however that you can’t simply point out that policy needs to be based more firmly on science without addressing the inevitable issue that arises of “scientific consensus”. Which then becomes a debate.

    My concern is, if you are right and it all blows over eventually, how much money will we have wasted in the meantime?

    In the interests of not having another debate thread, I’ll just direct you here for a few examples:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. virtualmark (1,602 comments) says:

    Mr Dennis … my view is that more work is needed on climate change research before we can be sure one way or the other as to whether it’s (a) happening and (b) within man’s ability to control it.

    But I’d suggest that if New Zealand was to walk away from our obligations under the Kyoto Protocol the resulting negative publicity … due to the “groundswell of public and political opinion” in our trading partners … would harm our prospects as a trading nation. So I think the political reality is that we’re stuck with meeting those obligations.

    Owen … re natural gas … yes it’s an interesting possibility. Our current fields aren’t sufficient to give electricity generators confidence in building new gas fired stations (hence the Govt having to effectively underwrite e3p for Genesis). There’s lots of conjecture that more is out there, but the oil majors aren’t called the oil majors for nothing (and not the gas majors). They’re interested in prospecting for oil and condensate, but the prospect of hitting a big gas field with little oil doesn’t excite them terribly.

    Finding a mega gas field is okay, because it’d be big enough to justify building liquification plants etc. Finding a small gas field is okay, because it can be sold into the existing gas market. But finding something the size between say Pohokura and Maui is a bit of a problem – large enough to move the price on the local market, small enough that you can’t meaningfully export it.

    And then there’s the problem of finding gas off the South Island, where there’s no gas reticulation network and not enough local population or industry to use a lot of it.

    I’ve had a few people in the oil majors tell me that prospecting off NZ has become a low priority for them for these reasons.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Owen McShane (1,193 comments) says:

    Just for the record. “Great Global Warming Swindle” passed by UK Regulator.
    Go to:

    This week, the British communications regulator, Ofcom, published a long report dealing with 265 complaints about perceived inaccuracy and unfairness in Swindle.

    Despite crowing from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the ABC and others, Ofcom does not vindicate Swindle’s attackers. In fact, while it declared itself unable to adjudicate on the finer points of climate science, it found the program did not mislead audiences “so as to cause harm or offence”.

    Further, Ofcom defended the right of Channel 4 and the much-vilified producer Martin Durkin to “continue to explore controversial subject matter. While such programs can polarise opinion, they are essential to our understanding of the world around us and are amongst the most important content that broadcasters produce.” Amen.

    Ofcom also noted: “Although the complainants disagreed with the points made by the contributors in the programme, they did not suggest that the overall statements about climate models were factually inaccurate.”

    It identified one factual error – a mislabelled axis of a temperature graph – which the program had already changed in later versions and which Ofcom described as “not of such significance as to have been materially misleading so as to cause harm and offence”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Mr Dennis (348 comments) says:

    Thanks Stephen, that is really interesting reading. He has done a very good analysis of the uncertainties surrounding the global warming issue and how it relates to policy, which seems to contradict the complete acceptance of it in the 20-point plan.
    BTW I have no idea why someone would have given you negative karma for posting that link. Fixed!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. PhilBest (4,967 comments) says:

    PaulL (1938) Add karma Subtract karma –1 Says:
    August 15th, 2008 at 4:06 pm

    “Mr Dennis: I agree with PhilBest on not making another global warming thread….but if you’re going to make claims: please provide the names of 5 “very well-qualified scientists” who are:

    1. Actually involved in the field (that is to say, not biologists or some such)
    2. Saying there is no warming, OR
    3. Saying there is warming, but it isn’t human caused”

    PaulL, only FIVE? If you’re genuinely interested, you will find HUNDREDS. Even many of the IPCC “2,500” “Expert Reviewers” are sceptics whose input has been ignored by the IPCC.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. PhilBest (4,967 comments) says:

    I posted this “reading list” on another thread not long ago. Google them for yourself.

    Edward J. Wegman et al: “Ad Hoc Committee Report (To the US Senate Committee on Energy and Commerce and the US Senate Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations) on the Hockey Stick Global Climate Reconstruction” (THIS IS SHOCKING READING – it details the machinations of a “cabal” of scientists working for the IPCC and quoting, reinforcing, and “peer-reviewing” each others work, and excluding others from the favoured circle).

    Tim Ball: GLOBAL WARMING SERIES (Excellent – best of their type yet)
    Part 1: Environmental Extremism
    Part 2: Historical and philosophical context of the climate change debate.
    Part 3: How the world was misled about global warming and now climate change
    Part 4: How UN structures were designed to prove human CO2 was causing global warming
    Part 5: Wreaking Havoc on Global Economies
    Part 6: The Hockey Stick scam that heightened global warming hysteria
    Part 7: The Unholy Alliance that manufactured Global Warming
    Part 8: UN’s IPCC preying on people’s ignorance
    Part 9: Carbon Taxes: Hand over your money! “We are saving you from yourself”
    Part 10: Environmentalists Seize Green Moral High Ground Ignoring Science
    Part 11: Maurice Strong Politics 101 (This series actually covers the little-known highly politicised process by which the IPCC was set up and “stacked” from the outset)

    Vincent Gray: “Spinning the Climate”

    S. Fred Singer et al: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” (A broad statement of the science that has been ignored by the IPCC, signed by around 400 scientists)

    John McLean: “Peer Review? What Peer Review?” (Analyses IPCC Reviewer comments and what proportion of them are ignored by the IPCC)

    Jack Welch: “NIWA Scientists have become propagandists”

    Brian Sussman: “James Hansen: Abusing the Public Trust”

    Laurence Solomon: “The Deniers” (This is a book, probably the best “who’s who” on global warming contrarians so far)

    Ray Evans: “The Chilling Costs of Climate Catastrophism”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. PhilBest (4,967 comments) says:

    And the “Oregon Petition” gets longer by the day……….

    31,000 scientists. Is that a “consensus” or what?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. insider (935 comments) says:


    prospectivity is what drives exploration. In the south there is the prospect of a mega field. Not Qatar sized but many times Maui. That will be used for LNG if there – They won’t care if there is no local market

    As for gas power stations, there are ongoing upward revisions of gas volumes, enough to encourage genesis to plan a new plant at Rodney with a life of 20-30 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. PaulL (6,054 comments) says:

    Sorry Phil and Mr Dennis. This is the problem. I feel intuitively that there is something fishy in the global warming work, but whilst I can attack the methodology in instances, and the presumptions in others, the fact remains that the world has recently warmed and the only theory that stands up to even rudimentary analysis is CO2 emissions that are human caused.

    Your list of scientists are simply not scientists that work in the field and that actively claim that humans aren’t causing it. There are plenty of reputable people saying “it isn’t certain”, but that just leads me to where I am already at. We aren’t certain but balance of probabilities etc – it makes sense to have an insurance policy. Science like this is never proven, so “we aren’t sure” doesn’t help me. In order to make a convincing argument that CO2 isn’t the problem, we need to have some other plausible cause – ideally equally plausible, but plausible at all would be a good start. And that plausible theory kind of needs to be coming from people with some standing – not Bellamy, who is a famous scientist, sure, but in this area his expertise isn’t really any greater than mine. If we’re doing a call to authority, they need to be real authorities.

    Like I say, I’d love to have these examples, I could then continue to be a sceptic. But I don’t think the examples exist – the scientists you are pointing to are either not really experts, or not really saying that it isn’t happening (they’re instead pointing to one or two flaws, whilst still saying that the overall conclusion is probably correct).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. PhilBest (4,967 comments) says:

    PaulL, I can’t see why there is such a disconnect between what you are saying and what I am saying. Are you actually acquainted with much of the stuff I refer to above? Have you actually looked at the credentials of the people involved? The author Lawrence Solomon claims that he was shocked, when he started researching his book, to find that it is the people with the BEST credentials who are the marginalised sceptics. Can you read, or do I have to do a whole lot of cut-and-pasting of biogs?

    It is not that they are saying that increased CO2 cannot be a cause of some warming. It is just that the “human emitted CO2” “signature” is indiscernible amidst the cycles that are caused by solar activity and other natural causes. Those observed cycles do in fact fit established theories of warming and cooling very well. Have you never read about these? Probably the “Nature, not human activity, rules the climate”, Singer et al, is the accessible work on this point.

    Please do take the time to read some of the stuff I mention above. Surely you don’t regard the IPCC’s “hockey stick” graph as having any credibility still? If the IPCC are so right, why do they have to resort to such devious chicanery in their processes of peer-review and scientific journal publication? Why do they ignore the input of people who did have the credentials to be appointed as their own expert reviewers?

    If you regard “involvement in the right research circles” as the be-all-and-and-all, that is exactly part of the problem. A self-reinforcing cabal has formed under the auspices of the UN. And who gets all the research money?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. PaulL (6,054 comments) says:

    Phil, the hockey stick was removed from all the reports some time ago, but doesn’t really impact the broad brush.

    All I’m asking for is 5 names of people who are reputable in the field, that you believe dispute the existence of human caused climate change (to use the vernacular), and I’ll happily go look at those people to see if they have points that I think are convincing. I’ve stopped looking at the stuff, because what I too often find are either people who really have no relevant credentials (although they may have great credentials in their own field), or people who come out with clearly stupid claims, like “1998 was the warmest year on record, all the years since have been cooler, global warming is disproved” – which is basically just stupid.

    If that is the level of the claims, I’m not interested. If they have some other argument, I’m very interested in seeing it. Like I say, I have little time for the whole “runaway global warming” theory. If the world’s climate were so finely balanced that, once we get a tiny bit warmer, we move into some positive feedback scenario where it warms disastrously, I believe it would have happened by now. Unstable systems don’t find equilibrium. It seems intuitive to me that we must have some form of feedback that keeps the climate at about what it is now, so there must be some mechanisms that result in the climate converging on our current temperatures even with quite different environmental factors in play. There are some factors that look like they work that way – cloud formation amongst them. But even with all that, it is undeniable that the climate record shows warming that is unprecedented in its speed. I’ll agree that it has been warmer in the past, but warming has never happened this fast before.

    In short, whilst I am a sceptic, when I look around at the arguments that my fellow sceptics have, they’re pretty piss poor. I realise that some people having poor arguments doesn’t mean that all the arguments are poor, or that the conclusion is wrong, but I’ve been looking for a few years, and it seems to me that if there were some strong arguments I might have seen them by now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Falafulu Fisi (2,151 comments) says:

    Dennis said…
    rather than doing what is best for the country.

    Yes, that is exactly what National is doing. What’s best for the country is the guarantee of our power supply. Note, the word guarantee and that is the name of the game here. We would rather have a power-station being built and not turned it on than in needy of one (when the lake level is far too low to guarantee the supply) only to look around there is none available because to start building a new one, it takes some years to complete.

    If there is such an Emission Trading Scheme implemented, I think that it is best to link it to the weather/climate as some form of Weather Derivatives.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Falafulu Fisi (2,151 comments) says:

    Now , Investment bank UBS is launching the first Global Warming Index for weather trading. I would like to see those IPCC proponents put their money and their models into weather derivative tradings and see if they can beat that market on a regular basis. If the IPCC models make some climate scientists become millionaire, then Falafulu will convert to become a warmist. If however, the state-of-the-art algorithmic trading where its algorithms are in no way connected to the IPCC models can outperform the IPCC, then I will remain being a skeptic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. stephen (4,011 comments) says:

    PaulL, the hockey stick is still there – p.467 of the paleoclimate section of the most recent report.

    Mr Dennis, it’s not very good because Douglas or ACT researchers somehow came to the conclusion that the world hasn’t warmed since 1998, which is one of the oldest ‘denier’/’whatever you want to call them’ trick in the book, and probably the crudest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. stephen (4,011 comments) says:

    Thanks for the karma though old chap, must’ve been a Nat who’s scared of losing votes to Roger!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. PhilBest (4,967 comments) says:

    Now it’s coming down to dispute whether or not the world has got warmer in the last 10 years, or not, stephen? Surely there can’t be two answers to that question? The people who are saying it hasn’t are “deniers”? Eh?????? Who is saying it HAS? I didn’t think anyone wasn’t admitting that it hasn’t. The arguments from the AGW alarm crowd is all along the lines that, yes, there will be some natural variability up and down, but the longer term trend is all up, it will start going up again soon, we still need to act now, yada, yada, yada.

    Thanks for pointing out to PaulL that the hockey stick graph has made it back into the IPCC report. But do you honestly believe that it, or the IPCC, still has any credibility?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. PhilBest (4,967 comments) says:

    For PaulL:


    “Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

    The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

    Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics “appear to be expanding rather than shrinking.” Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has “co-opted” the green movement. (LINK)

    This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate.

    Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.

    “Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation – LINK ]

    Scientists from Around the World Dissent

    This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, Argentina, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK)

    Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.”

    This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen” skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.” (LINK) & (LINK)

    The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.

    Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

    The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.”

    A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming – Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – (LINK) – In addition, an August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. (LINK) ]

    This report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling…..”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. PhilBest (4,967 comments) says:

    Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists:

    Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. “First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth’s climatic history. There’s nothing special about the recent rise!”

    Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.” “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,” Sorochtin wrote. (Note: Name also sometimes translated to spell Sorokhtin)

    Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. “There’s no need to be worried. It’s very interesting to study [climate change], but there’s no need to be worried,” Uriate wrote.

    Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number – entirely without merit,” Tennekes wrote. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached.”

    Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo – Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. “The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming,” Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007.

    France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming – Myth or Reality? – The Erring Ways of Climatology. “Day after day, the same mantra – that ‘the Earth is warming up’ – is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac­ceptance. … Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God … fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!”

    Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”

    Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. “The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases,” Winterhalter said.

    Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. “I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,” Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: “The earth will not die.”

    Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”

    Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,” Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007.

    India: One of India’s leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.”

    USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: “Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.”

    Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming.”

    New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of “Climate Change 2001: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain’t so.”

    South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: “The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.”

    Poland: Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, professor emeritus of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw and a former chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and currently a representative of the Republic of Poland in UNSCEAR: “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming-with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy-is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.”

    Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: “There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation.”

    Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.”

    China: Chinese Scientists Say CO2 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated’ – Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan’s and Sun Xian’s 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: “Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated.” Their study asserted that “it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change.”

    Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: “The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate.”

    Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: “CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore’s movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.”

    Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. “Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.”

    USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth’s surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. PhilBest (4,967 comments) says:

    The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that “solar changes significantly alter climate.” (LINK) A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 – 2002. (LINK) Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period “0.3C warmer than 20th century” (LINK)

    A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that “warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence.” (LINK) – Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found “Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes.” (LINK ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. – See “New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears” (LINK )

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. PhilBest (4,967 comments) says:

    Research physicist John W. Brosnahan develops remote-sensing instruments for atmospheric science for such clients as NOAA and NASA and has published numerous peer-reviewed research, as well as developed imaging Doppler interferometry for sensing winds, waves, and structure in the atmosphere. “Of course I believe in global warming, and in global cooling — all part of the natural climate changes that the Earth has experienced for billions of years, caused primarily by the cyclical variations in solar output,” Brosnahan wrote to EPW on December 10, 2007. “I have not seen any sort of definitive, scientific link to man-made carbon dioxide as the root cause of the current global warming, only incomplete computer models that suggest that this might be the case,” Brosnahan explained. “Even though these computer climate models do not properly handle a number of important factors, including the role of precipitation as a temperature regulator, they are being (mis-)used to force a political agenda upon the U.S. While there are any number of reasons to reduce carbon dioxide generation, to base any major fiscal policy on the role of carbon dioxide in climate change would be inappropriate and imprudent at best and potentially disastrous economic folly at the worst,” he concluded.

    Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada and former director of Australia’s National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I started with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other side in the early 1990s when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”

    French climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at University of Jean Moulin and former director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment (CNRS) in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming – Myth or Reality? – The Erring Ways of Climatology. “Hardly a week goes by without some new scoop … filling our screens and the pages of our newspapers,” Leroux wrote in his book. The media promotes the view that “global warming caused by the greenhouse effect is our fault, just like everything else, and the message/slogan/misinformation becomes even more simplistic, ever cruder! It could not be simpler: if the rain falls or draught strikes; if the wind blows a gale or there is none at all; whether it’s heat or hard frost; it’s all because of the greenhouse effect, and we are to blame. An easy argument, but stupid!” he explained. “The Fourth Report of the IPCC might just as well decree the suppression of all climatology textbooks, and replace them in our schools with press communiqués. … Day after day, the same mantra – that ‘the Earth is warming up’ – is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac­ceptance. … Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God … fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!” he wrote. “The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the paleoclimatic scale, … solar activity, …; volcanism …; and far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, the extent of its influence being unknown. These factors are working together all the time, and it seems difficult to unravel the relative importance of their respective influences upon climatic evolution. Equally, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropogenic factor, which is, clearly, the least credible among all those previously mentioned,” he added. (LINK)

    Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human-caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor, etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ but with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation,” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. “I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,” he added. “One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people,” de Freitas concluded. De Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”

    Atmospheric scientist Dr. Gerhard Kramm of the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska Fairbanks expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The IPCC would never be awarded by the Nobel Prize in Physics because most of the statements of the IPCC can be assessed as physical misunderstanding and physical misinterpretations,” Kramm wrote in a letter to the Associated Press on October 21, 2007. “There is no scientific certainty, even though the Associated Press distributes this message always every day,” Kramm wrote in his letter, criticizing the news outlet. “The change in the radiative forcing components since the beginning of the industrial era is so small (2 W/m^2, according to the IPCC 2007) that we have no pyrgeometers (radiometers to measure the infrared radiometer emitted by the earth and the atmosphere) which are able to provide any empirical evidence of such a small change because their degrees of accuracy are too less,” he wrote. “By far, most of [the IPCC] members can be considered, indeed, as members of a Church of Global Warming. They are not qualified enough to understand the physics behind the greenhouse effect and to prove the accuracy of global climate models (see, for instance, the poor publication record of Dr. [RK] Pachauri, the current Chairman of the IPCC). However, in science it would be highly awkward to vote which results are correct and which are wrong,” he added. “A decrease of the anthropogenic CO2 emission to the values below of those of 1990 would not decrease the atmospheric CO2 concentration. This concentration would increase further, however the increase would be lowering. As illustrated in Slide 38, it might be that the atmospheric CO2 concentration tends to an equilibrium concentration of somewhat higher than 500 ppmv. Here, equilibrium means that the increase of natural and anthropogenic CO2 emission is equaled by the uptake of CO2 by vegetation and ocean,” he concluded. (LINK) & (LINK)

    UN IPCC reviewer, global warming author, and economist Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, a lecturer at the Netherlands Defense Academy, started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, “I started as an anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics.” “After that, I changed my mind,” Labohm explained. Labohm co-authored the 2004 book Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma with Eindhoven University of Technology emeritus professor of chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “‘Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.'”

    Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa converted from believer in CO2’s driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not where activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. “When I go to a scientific meeting, there’s lots of opinion out there, there’s lots of discussion [about climate change]. I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warming of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. “But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it’s like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn’t — come out to a scientific meeting sometime,” Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. “I think the proof in the pudding, based on what [media and governments] are saying, [is] we’re about three quarters of the way [to disaster] with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere,” he said. “The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it’s not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles.” (LINK)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. PhilBest (4,967 comments) says:

    A group of German scientists of “several scientific disciplines” formed a new group in 2007 to declare themselves climate change skeptics. The group of scientists issued a proclamation on September 15, 2007 titled “The Climate Manifest of Heiligenroth.” The group, which included prominent scientist Ernst-George Beck who authored a groundbreaking February 2007 paper, entitled “180 Years of Atmospheric CO2 Analysis by Chemical Methods,” (LINK) publicly issued six basic points of skepticism about man-made global warming. They stated that their “motivation was to initiate processes against daily campaigns of media and politics concerning climate.” Their six points are: 1) “There is not proven influence on climate by man made emission of CO2; 2) Scenarios on future climate change derived from computer models are speculative and contradicted by climate history; 3) There has been climate change in all times of Earth history with alternating cold and warm phases; 4) The trace gas CO2 dos not pollute the atmosphere, CO2 is an essential resource for plant growth and therefore a precondition for life on Earth; 5) We are committing ourselves to an effective preservation of our environment and support arrangements to prevent unnecessary stress on eco systems; and 6) We strongly warn against taking action using imminent climate catastrophe as a vehicle which will not be beneficial for our environment and will cause economic damage.” The declaration was signed by the following scientists: Biologist Ernst-Georg Beck; Engineer and energy expert Paul Bossert; Biologist Branford Helgo; Hydro biologist Edgar Gardeners; Agricultural scientist Dr. Rainer Six; Engineer Heinze Thieme. Physics Professor Hubert Becker; Rikard Bergsten Master of Science in Physics and Computer Engineering; Professor of physics Dr. Ludecke Horst-Joachim; Peter Martin, Professor of Engineering; Engineer Martin Bock; Chemical and environmental engineer Donald Clauson; Physicist Dr. Theo Eichten; Biochemist Flick Hendrikje; Agricultural scientist Dr. Glatzle Albrecht; Chemist Dr. Hauck Guenther; Professor of environmental and climate physics Dr. Detlef Hebert; Astrophysicist Dr Peter Heller; Chemist Dr. Albert Krause; Forestry scientist Dr. Christoph Leinb: Chemist Dr. Hans Penner; Mathematician Dr. Paul Matthews; Chemist Dr. Wuntke Knut; Meteorologist Klaus-pulse Eckart. Others who signed the declaration included: Dr. Herbert Backhaus; Dieter Ber; Gunter Ederer; Ferdinand Furst zu Hohenlohe-Bartenstein; Dieter Kramer; Uwe Tempel; Brigitte Bossert; Nikolaus Lentz; Werner Vermess Eisenkopf; Wilfried Heck; Heinz Hofman; Rainer Hoffman; and Werner Eisenkopf. (LINK)

    Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, who has been involved with the International Atomic Energy Agency and co-authored the book Environmental Isotopes in Hydrogeology, which won the Choice Magazine “Outstanding Textbook” award in 1998, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of CO2. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe,” Clark said in a 2005 documentary Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You’re Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change. “However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,” Clark explained. “Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol,” he added.

    Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. “I simply accepted the [global warming] theory as given,” Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario,” Veizer wrote. “It was the results of my work on past records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations. Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to realization of the assumptions and uncertainties involved,” Veizer explained. “The past record strongly favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver,” he added. Veizer acknowledged the Earth has been warming and he believes in the scientific value of climate modeling. “The major point where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is my belief that it underestimates the role of natural variability by proclaiming CO2 to be the only reasonable source of additional energy in the planetary balance. Such additional energy is needed to drive the climate. The point is that most of the temperature, in both nature and models, arises from the greenhouse of water vapor (model language ‘positive water vapor feedback’),” Veizer wrote. “Thus to get more temperature, more water vapor is needed. This is achieved by speeding up the water cycle by inputting more energy into the system,” he continued. “Note that it is not CO2 that is in the models but its presumed energy equivalent (model language ‘prescribed CO2′). Yet, the models (and climate) would generate a more or less similar outcome regardless where this additional energy is coming from. This is why the solar/cosmic connection is so strongly opposed, because it can influence the global energy budget which, in turn, diminishes the need for an energy input from the CO2 greenhouse,” he wrote.

    Ecologist Dr. Patrick Moore, a Greenpeace founding member who left the environmental organization because he believed it had become too radical, rejected climate alarmism and lamented the efforts to silence climate skeptics. “It appears to be the policy of the [UK] Royal Society to stifle dissent and silence anyone who may have doubts about the connection between global warming and human activity. That kind or repression seems more suited to the Inquisition than to a modern, respected scientific body,” Moore, the chief scientist for Greenspirit, wrote in a September 21, 2006 letter to the Royal Society accusing it of attempting to silence skeptics. “I am sure the Royal Society is aware of the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. It is clear the contention that human-induced CO2 emissions and rising CO2 levels in the global atmosphere are the cause of the present global warming trend is a hypothesis that has not yet been elevated to the level of a proven theory. Causation has not been demonstrated in any conclusive way,” Moore wrote. (LINK)

    Meteorologist Grant Dade of Texas TV’s KLTV, a member of both the American Meteorological Society and the National Weather Association, dismissed man-made climate fears in 2007. “I think it is about time we see the other side of the Global Warming debate come out,” Dade said on November 8, 2007. “Is the Earth warming? Yes, I think it is. But is man causing that? No. It’s a simple climate cycle our climate goes through over thousands of years.” Dade critiqued the media for hyping climate fears while ignoring inconvenient facts. “Did you hear about the Arctic ice melting? But you didn’t hear in Antarctica last winter was the most ice ever recorded,” Dade said. “You don’t hear that,” he added. (LINK) & Click to watch video: (LINK)

    Meteorologist Chuck F. Wiese, the president of the Portland Oregon based Weatherwise, Inc., lambasted “fancy computer models that can be manipulated” and “are absolutely incorrect and fraudulent.” Wiese called computer model predictions of climate doom a “bunch of baloney.” “The physics of this is in support of anyone who is a skeptic. As I have said, CO2 is of secondary importance; anything that we did to reduce CO2 emissions is going to make no change in my opinion that you could really measure in the climate response at all, because other things are going on that just overpower the small contribution you get from CO2, it does not make a dog’s bit of difference,” Wiese said in a January 18, 2007 radio interview. (LINK)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. PhilBest (4,967 comments) says:

    Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming. The press release about the study read, “CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. This is the conclusion of a comprehensive scientific study done by the Royal Meteorological Institute, which will be published this summer. The study does not state that CO2 plays no role in warming the earth.” “But it can never play the decisive role that is currently attributed to it,” Luc Debontridder said according to the August 2007 release. “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore’s movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it,” Debontridder explained. “Every change in weather conditions is blamed on CO2. But the warm winters of the last few years (in Belgium) are simply due to the ‘North-Atlantic Oscillation’. And this has absolutely nothing to do with CO2,” he added. (LINK)

    Australian climate data analyst John McLean authored a September 2007 study which found the UN IPCC peer-review process is “an illusion.” A September 2007 analysis of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientific review process entitled “Peer Review? What Peer Review?” revealed very few scientists are actively involved in the UN’s peer-review process. According to McLean’s analysis, “The IPCC would have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the report. Analyses of reviewer comments show a very different and disturbing story.” The paper continued, “In [the IPCC’s] Chapter 9, the key science chapter, the IPCC concludes that ‘it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.’ The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.” The analysis concluded, “The IPCC reports appear to be largely based on a consensus of scientific papers, but those papers are the product of research for which the funding is strongly influenced by previous IPCC reports. This makes the claim of a human influence self-perpetuating and for a corruption of the normal scientific process.” (LINK) [12-24-2007 – Clarified description of McLean]

    Canadian climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball, formerly of the University of Winnipeg, who earned his PhD from the University of London, called fears of man-made global warming “the greatest deception in the history of science” in a February 5, 2007 op-ed in Canada Free Press. “Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This, in fact, is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification,” Ball wrote. “The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on,” Ball explained. “As [MIT’s Richard] Lindzen said many years ago, ‘the consensus was reached before the research had even begun.’ Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a skeptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted,” Ball concluded. Ball also explained that one of the reasons climate models are failing is because they overestimate the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Ball described how CO2’s warming impact diminishes. “Even if CO2 concentration doubles or triples, the effect on temperature would be minimal. The relationship between temperature and CO2 is like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very little more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black paint,” Ball explained in a June 6, 2007 article in Canada Free Press. (LINK)

    Climate data analyst Stephen McIntyre of, one of the individuals responsible for debunking the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph, exposed a NASA temperature data error in 2007 which led to 1934 — not the previously hyped 1998 — being declared the hottest in U.S. history since records began. Revised NASA temperature data now reveals four of the top ten hottest years in the U.S. were in the 1930’s while only three of the hottest years occurred in the last decade. [Note: 80% of man-made CO2 emissions occurred after 1940. (LINK) ] “NASA has yet to own up fully to its historic error in misinterpreting US surface temperatures to conform to the Global Warming hypothesis, as discovered by Stephen McIntyre at,” reported an August 17, 2007 article in American Thinker. (LINK) McIntyre has also harshly critiqued the UN IPCC process. “So the purpose of the three-month delay between the publication of the (IPCC) Summary for Policy-Makers and the release of the actual WG1 (Working Group 1 report) is to enable them to make any ‘necessary’ adjustments to the technical report to match the policy summary. Unbelievable. Can you imagine what securities commissions would say if business promoters issued a big promotion and then the promoters made the ‘necessary’ adjustments to the qualifying reports and financial statements so that they matched the promotion. Words fail me,” McIntyre explained January 2007. (LINK)

    A Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Rejected Man-Made Global Warming Fears in 2007 – Claimed 95% of TV Meteorologists Skeptical. “You tell me you’re going to predict climate change based on 100 years of data for a rock that’s 6 billion years old?” Meteorologist Mark Johnson said. Johnson dismissed the 2007 UN IPCC summary for policymakers, “Consensus does not mean fact. … Don’t drink the Kool-Aid.” Meteorologist Mark Nolan said, “I’m not sure which is more arrogant – to say we caused [global warming] or that we can fix it.” Johnson and Nolan were joined on the panel by fellow Ohio meteorologists Dan Webster, Dick Goddard, and John Loufman in dismissing fears of global warming, according to Crain’s Cleveland publication on February 13, 2007. “Mr. Webster observed that in his dealings with meteorologists nationwide, ‘about 95%’ share his skepticism about global warming,” the paper reported. Goddard noted that scientists have flip-flopped on climate issues before. “I have a file an inch thick from 30 years ago that says the planet was cooling,” Goddard explained. Webster jokingly referenced former Vice President Gore. “Where’s Al Gore now? You can bet he’s not in New York, where they’ve got nearly 12 feet of snow right now,” Webster joked to the crowd of several hundred.

    Atmospheric scientist Dr. William R. Cotton of the Department of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University, an internationally respected expert in the aerosol effects on weather and climate, called claims that man-made global warming was causing any recent abnormal weather an “abuse of limited scientific knowledge.” Cotton, who has been extensively cited in the peer reviewed literature, rejected global warming alarmism on October 17, 2006 in Climate Science. “Climate variability has been with Earth for eons. Greenhouse warming is only one factor affecting climate change. There are many other factors some associated with human activity, many not, and not all processes associated with climate variability have been quantitatively identified,” Cotton said. “Therefore I am skeptical about claims of forecasts of what the climate will be like in say, 5, 10 years or more. I also view claims that a few years of abnormal weather (like intense hurricane landfalls, severe storms and floods, and droughts) to be caused by human activity as abuse of limited scientific knowledge.” (LINK)

    Bernie Rayno, Senior Meteorologist with AccuWeather, said in February 2007, “Our climate has been changing since the dawn of time. There is not enough evidence to link global warming to greenhouse gases.” “We as humans thought we were causing a cooling cycle,” Rayno said, referring to the fears of a coming ice age in the 1970s. “It’s interesting to watch the media flip back and forth on this,” he added.

    IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling, slammed the UN IPCC process. “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process,” Khandekar wrote in a May 28, 2007 letter to the editor of Canada’s The Hill Times. “…Adherents of the IPCC science like to insist that the debate over climate change science is over and it is now time for action. I urge [those IPCC supporters] to browse through recent issues of major international journals in climate and related science. Hardly a week goes by without a significant paper being published questioning the science,” Khandekar added. “The science of climate change is continuously evolving. The IPCC and its authors have closed their minds and eyes to this evolving science which points to solar variability as the prime driver of earth’s climate and not the human-added greenhouse gases,” he concluded. (LINK) Khandekar also further critiqued the UN’s IPCC process in a February 13, 2007 interview in the Winnipeg Sun. “I think the IPCC science is a bit too simplistic,” he explained. “IPCC scientists did not thoroughly analyze why the Earth’s surface temperature — land and ocean combined — has increased only modestly in the past 30 years,” Khandekar said. “We have not fully explored why the climate changes from one state to another. It is too premature to say,” he concluded. (LINK) Khandekar also wrote an August 6, 2007 commentary explaining that the Southern Hemisphere is cooling. “In the Southern Hemisphere, the land-area mean temperature has slowly but surely declined in the last few years. The city of Buenos Aires in Argentina received several centimeters of snowfall in early July, and the last time it snowed in Buenos Aires was in 1918! Most of Australia experienced one of its coldest months of June this year. Several other locations in the Southern Hemisphere have experienced lower temperatures in the last few years. Further, the sea surface temperatures over world oceans are slowly declining since mid-1998, according to a recent world-wide analysis of ocean surface temperatures,” Dr. Khandekar explained. (LINK)

    Award winning Chief Meteorologist James Spann of Alabama ABC TV affiliate declared that he does “not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype.” “I have been in operational meteorology since 1978, and I know dozens and dozens of broadcast meteorologists all over the country,” Spann, who holds the highest level of certification from the American Meteorological Society, wrote in a January 18, 2007 blog post. “I do not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype. I know there must be a few out there, but I can’t find them,” Spann added. “Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up. This is big money, make no mistake about it. Always follow the money trail and it tells a story… Nothing wrong with making money at all, but when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab,” Spann said. “[The climate] will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe,” he noted.

    Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of Space Research for the Pulkovo Observatory in Russia, pointed to global warming on Mars and the melting ice cap on the red planet as more evidence that the sun was a key driver of climate change. “Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians,” Abdussamatov said in an interview on January 26, 2007 with Canada’s National Post. “These parallel global warmings — observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth — can only be a straight-line consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance,” Abdussamatov explained. “It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth’s oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations,” Abdussamatov added. A predicted decline in solar irradiance is going to lead to global cooling by 2015 and “will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60,” according to Abdussamatov. Abdussamatov was also featured in a February 28, 2007 article in National Geographic titled “Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says,” where he reiterated his scientific findings that “man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance.”

    Climatologist Brian Fuchs of the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln said in February 2007 that it was “up in the air” how long the current warming trend would continue. Fuchs also replied “probably not” when asked if human emissions are solely to blame for global warming. (LINK)

    Meteorologist Robert Cohen, a member of the American Meteorological Society who also has a Masters in physical oceanography, called the UN IPCC process “scientific socialism” on March 5, 2007 and declared that the “idea of a consensus in the meteorological community is false.” “Research has also shown that slight changes in energy from the sun can significantly affect the earth, particularly in terms of clouds, which are a weak link in the global warming models. The level and amount of cloud can determine whether temperatures will warm as the cloud layer limits heat dissipation to space or whether temperatures will cool as the sun’s incoming energy is reflected back to space before reaching the Earth’s surface,” he wrote. “I do not agree with all of the IPCC conclusions and know through peer discussions that the idea of a consensus in the meteorological community is false,” Cohen said. He added: “Is it worth destroying our economy and lifestyle based on an unproven theory which does not correlate with historical observations?” (LINK) “Much of the ‘proof’ of agw (anthropogenic global warming) is based on models that can not recreate the historical record. There is a wealth of observations that disprove these models, but that is ignored in the media,” he wrote on August 13, 2007.

    Former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr., presently senior scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, chastised the news media for promoting the idea that the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers is written by the scientists. “The media is in error when it states that, ‘The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -made up of thousands of scientists from around the world – reported earlier this month they are more certain than ever that humans are heating earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels…,'” Pielke, Sr. wrote on March 9, 2007. “Are there really ‘thousands of scientists’ who wrote this report? Hardly. The IPCC is actually led and written by just a few dozen scientists,” Pielke Sr. added. (LINK) Pielke, Sr. believes land use changes play a key role in impacting temperatures and believes the IPCC fails to recognize this factor. “In terms of climate change and variability on the regional and local scale, the IPCC Reports, the CCSP Report on surface and tropospheric temperature trends, and the U.S. National Assessment have overstated the role of the radiative effect of the anthropogenic increase of CO2 relative to the role of the diversity of other human climate forcing on global warming, and more generally, on climate variability and change,” Pielke, Sr.’s blog states on the “Main Conclusions” page. (LINK) In a May 10, 2007 blog post, Pielke wrote that the UN was “disingenuous” with many of their claims. “Since about 2002 there has been NO statistically significant global average warming in the lower and middle troposphere and since about 1995 there has been NO statistically significant cooling in the stratosphere. The IPCC SPM conclusion that ‘warming of the climate system is unequivocal’ is wrong as it ignores the lack of such warming in recent years by these other metrics of climate system heat changes,” Pielke explained. “Perhaps global warming will begin again. However, the neglect to include the recent lack of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling (both of which are predicted to continue quasi-linearly for the coming decades by the multi-decadal global climate models, except for major volcanic eruptions) results in a seriously biased report by the IPCC. It has been disappointing that the media so far has chosen to parrot the statements in the IPCC SPMs rather than do investigative reporting on these issues,” he concluded. (LINK)

    Meteorologist Bill Steffen of Grand Rapids, Michigan noted that CO2 is not the only factor to consider in climate change. “There are at least several causes of recent ‘global warming’. Carbon Dioxide (CO2) gets most of the attention, but there are other factors. A minor effect is the lack of a substantial volcano in recent years. The last volcano to pump a lot of dirt into the upper atmosphere was Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991,” Steffen wrote in a January 28, 2007 blog post. (LINK)

    he New Zealand Climate Science Coalition released seven “pillars of wisdom” to counter the UN IPCC climate report. As detailed in the Dominion Post on April 5, 2007, the coalition of prominent scientific skeptics includes: Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer for the IPCC and most recently a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Centre; Dr Gerrit van der Lingen, a geologist and paleoclimatologist and former director of Geoscience Research and Investigations New Zealand; Professor Augie Auer (deceased June 2007) of Auckland, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming, and previously MetService chief meteorologist; Professor Bob Carter, a New Zealand-trained geologist with extensive research experience in palaeoclimatology, now at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Warwick Hughes, a New Zealand earth scientist living in Pert; and Roger Dewhurst, of Katikati, a consulting environmental geologist and hydrogeologist.

    The seven “pillars of wisdom” are:

    1. Over the past few thousand years, the climate in many parts of the world has been warmer and cooler than it is now. Civilizations and cultures flourished in the warmer periods.

    2. A major driver of climate change is variability in solar effects, such as sunspot cycles, the sun’s magnetic field and solar particles.

    These may account in great part for climate change during the past century. Evidence suggests warming involving increased carbon dioxide exerts only a minor influence.

    3. Since 1998, global temperature has not increased. Projection of solar cycles suggests that cooling could set in and continue to about 2030.

    4. Most recent climate and weather events are not unusual; they occur regularly.

    For example, in the 1930s the Arctic experienced higher temperatures and had less ice than now.

    5. Stories of impending climate disaster are based almost entirely on global climate models.

    Not one of these models has shown that it can reliably predict future climate.

    6. The Kyoto Protocol, if fully implemented, would make no measurable difference to world temperatures.

    The trillions of dollars that it will cost would be far better spent on solving known problems such as the provision of clean water, reducing air pollution, and fighting malaria and Aids.

    7. Climate is constantly changing and the future will include coolings, warmings, floods, droughts, and storms.

    The best policy is to make sure we have in place disaster response plans that can deal with weather extremes and can react adaptively to longer-term climate cooling and warming trends. (LINK)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. PhilBest (4,967 comments) says:

    Chief Meteorologist Craig James, of a Michigan NBC TV affiliate, questions the computer model predictions of climate doom. James, who was elected a fellow of the American Meteorological Society for outstanding contribution to the atmospheric sciences, wrote in a February 14, 2007 blog post, “It seems to make sense, CO2 is a greenhouse gas and if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the temperature should increase. Unfortunately, it is not that simple. If CO2 was the only thing that changed and there were no other what are called ‘forcings’ and ‘feedbacks’, then maybe it would be simple.” “It seems to me there is plenty of room for skepticism about the scenarios painted by the models based on purely scientific grounds. Anyone who takes the time and effort to study the issue would not make the incredible statement that skeptics are on a par with ‘Holocaust Deniers’ as Ellen Goodman did in a Boston Globe article a couple of weeks ago,” James wrote. According to James, computer models do not include volcanoes, which cool the atmosphere, and “the models do not properly account for the role clouds may play in a warmer world. We don’t clearly understand whether they produce a positive or negative feedback (additional warming or cooling).” (LINK) James probed the heart of the argument for man-made global warming when he asked in a June 4, 2007 blog, “Is it good science to never once mention the problems with the General Circulation Models (GCMs)?” “The rationale seems to be that the models produce the kind of warming we see only when you include an increasing amount of CO2 into the atmosphere. The warming cannot be reproduced by natural processes alone in the models. That’s because the models do not handle those natural processes correctly. They either don’t include or are woefully inadequate in their handling of major climate forcings such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, El Nino, La Nina, water vapor, cloud feedbacks, etc. This is one case where getting the answer you are looking for in the models occurs for the wrong reason. There may have to be a snowstorm in Miami before it is no longer politically incorrect to say such a thing in public. Actually, the snowstorm would probably be blamed on global warming too,” he explained. (LINK) James also wrote a blog post detailing how the IPCC downplays cold weather is a bigger killer than hot weather. James’s April 4, 2007 blog was titled “Heat and Cold Related Deaths.” “This paper from WebMD states: ‘Cold-related deaths are far more numerous than heat-related deaths in the United States, Europe, and almost all countries outside the tropics,” James wrote. (LINK) James summed up his view in a May 28, 2007 blog: “The more I study this subject and become increasingly aware of the failings of the computer models, the more I think you can trust the Old Farmer’s Almanac on what next year’s winter will be like more than you can trust the climate models.” (LINK)

    State of Florida Climatologist Dr. Jim O’Brien, professor emeritus of Florida State University, and who serves as the director of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping climate fears. “The best measurements of sea level rise are from satellite instrument called altimeters. Currently they measure 14 inches in 100 years. Everyone agrees that there is no acceleration. Even the UN IPCC quotes this,” O’Brien wrote to EPW on September 23 about an AP article predicting dire sea level rise. “If you increase the rate of rise by four times, it will take 146 years to rise to five feet. Sea level rise is the ‘scare tactic’ for these guys,” O’Brien added. (LINK)

    IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of “Climate Change 2001, declared, “The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” in an April 10, 2007 article. Gray is also a member of The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. “All [UN IPCC does] is make ‘projections’ and ‘estimates’. No climate model has ever been properly tested, which is what ‘validation’ means, and their ‘projections’ are nothing more than the opinions of ‘experts’ with a conflict of interest, because they are paid to produce the models. There is no actual scientific evidence for all these ‘projections’ and ‘estimates’. It should be obvious that they are ridiculous,” Gray noted. “Global temperatures have not been rising for eight years. New Zealand temperatures in the last 50 years have gone down with volcanoes and up with El Niños but have no signs of ‘warming’. Christchurch has not warmed since 1917. The sea level in Auckland has been much the same since 1960,” Gray added. (LINK) In a July 3, 2007 blog post, Gray further explained, “I have written many pages of comments on the various IPCC Reports and most of them have been ignored.” “The very few comments made by most of the reviewers suggest that there may be very few actual people who ever read the report itself all the way through except those who write it,” he added. “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain’t so,” he concluded. (LINK) In a May 28, 2007 letter to Canada’s The Hill Times, Gray noted how political the IPCC process has become. “[No one can] deny that the ‘Summary for Policymakers’ is approved line-by-line by the government representatives because the press has recently mentioned that particular conclusions have involved clashes between the Russians, Chinese and Americans. The ‘drafting authors’ job is to write down what they are told to do,” Gray wrote. “…The ‘lead authors’ of the report are all chosen (and usually financed) by government representatives, so they can be relied upon to produce results which the governments like. They do not want another fiasco like the one in the 1995 report when they had to alter the ‘final draft’ to comply with the ‘Summary for Policymakers.’ They have a set of instructions for ‘lead authors’ which ensures that they toe the line. This year’s report is more extreme than before and there is continuous publicity for its extravagant claims. The ‘lead authors’ are certainly behind this, but an increasing proportion of all the other scientists involved with the report are becoming irritated by the propaganda. It is interesting that this year we have had a succession of ‘Summaries for Policymakers’ without a single copy of any of the reports upon which they are supposed to be based,” he concluded.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. PhilBest (4,967 comments) says:

    OK, OK you get the idea. I’m only halfway through the report, and I’ve left out all the Geologists and Engineers and Biologists and Economists and Physicists and Mathematicians and so on, all of whom still have valid points to make.

    Do you want me to start following the LINKS in the report and pasting the scientific papers they quote?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Owen McShane (1,193 comments) says:

    Basil Walker’s injunction to prevent the Labour MPs voting for the ETS is not available on the web page of the Climate Science Coalition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Owen McShane (1,193 comments) says:

    The Basil Walker injunction is now up on the Climate Science Coalition web page.
    The notice is there along with the full affadavit.
    I provided the link in an earlier message but it has obviously gone down the spam drain or somewhere.
    So just search under New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
    I am surprised this is not being widely reported because it will immediately establish a current relationship between the Court and Parliament.
    The first question is “Can Parliament proceed to vote on the ETS while the Court is considering the injunction or is Parliament truly supreme?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote