By Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc., EIRScience in March 2007

The four basic statements in the “Summary for Policymakers” in the IPCC 2007 report are: 1. Carbon dioxide, the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas, increased markedly as a result of human activities, and its atmospheric concentration of 379 ppmv (parts per million, by volume) in 2005 by far exceeded the natural range of 180 to 300 ppmv over the last 650,000 years. 2. Since 1750, human activities warmed the climate.  3. The warmth of the last half-century is unusual, is the highest in at least the past 1,300 years, and is “very likely” caused by increases in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations; 4. Predictions are made that anthropogenic warming will continue for centuries, and between 2090 and 2099 the global average surface temperature will increase 1.1°C to 6.4°C. Various scare stories of global catastrophes are prophesied to occur if man-made emissions are not curbed by drastic political decisions. The obvious beneficial effects of warming for man and all the biosphere are downplayed. Except for CO2, all these points are garlanded with qualifications such as “likely,” “very likely,” “extremely likely,” “with very high confidence,” and “unequivocal.” In fact, to the contrary, all these points are incorrect.

The first “Summary for Policymakers” statement on the man-made increase of CO2, is a cornerstone of the IPCC report, and of the global warming edifice. This statement is a manipulation and a half-truth. It is true that CO2 is “the most important anthropogenic [trace] greenhouse gas,” but a much more important greenhouse factor is the water naturally present in the atmosphere, which contributes some 95% to the total greenhouse effect. This basic fact is not mentioned at all in the “Summary for Policymakers.” Also not mentioned is the fact that 97% of the total annual emission of CO2 into the atmosphere comes from natural emissions of the land and sea; human beings add a mere 3%. This man-made 3% of CO2 emissions is responsible for a tiny fraction of the total greenhouse effect, probably close to 0.12%. Propositions of changing, or rather destroying, the global energy system because of this tiny human contribution, in face of the large short-term and long-term natural fluctuations of atmospheric CO2, are utterly irresponsible. See full paper here.

Note: it was this paper and Beck’s paper in Energy and the Environment this year that led to the story posted a few weeks ago written by Tim Ball and Tom Harris of NRSP and published in the Canadian Free Press. Both Jaworowski and Beck’s papers are filed in our climate library.  We have in recent weeks showed how the oceans play a role in cyclical climate changes. We will over the weeks ahead challenge some of the other premises of the AGW movement and IPCC report such as the integrity of the station data bases used, and the downgrading of the sun as a factor in climate change. Carbon dioxide changes were not something I had thought to question. After reading Drs. Jaworowski’s and Beck’s papers and Tom Segalstad’s paper and powerpoint also filed in our library, now I am not so sure that that other critical underpinning of the whole theory is not itself on shaky grounds.