By David Holland, Energy and Environment

The climatic “hockey stick” hypothesis has systemic problems. I review how the IPCC came to adopt the “hockey stick” as scientific evidence of human
interference with the climate. I report also on independent peer reviewed studies of the “hockey stick” that were instigated by the US House of Representatives in 2006, and which comprehensively invalidated it. The “divergence” problem and the selective and unreliable nature of tree ring reconstructions are discussed, as is the unsatisfactory review process of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that ignored the invalidation of the “hockey stick”. The error found recently in the
GISS temperature series is also noted. It is concluded that the IPCC has neither the structure nor the necessary independence and supervision of its processes to be acceptable as the monopoly authority on climate science. Suggestions are made as to how the IPCC could improve its procedures towards producing reports and recommendations that are more scientifically sound. Read more here.

DemandDebate.com, November 8, 2007

Many claim that there is a consensus among scientists that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide (CO2), are harming global climate. To test the nature of this consensus, we surveyed the U.S. contributors to, and reviewers of the most recent scientific assessment by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Survey questions were sent to 345 U.S. contributors and reviewers of the IPCC’s “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Basis.” Respondents were asked to check the box that best represents their view. Fifty-four responses were included in the final results.

The survey results indicate that when asked routine questions about the climatic role of manmade CO2, the IPCC scientists surveyed responded for the most part with the Pavlovian manmade-CO2-is-bad view seemingly demanded of them by the IPCC. But when you ask questions that are off the usual script, the supposed consensus seems to readily fall apart.  See full story and survey results here.

Icecap Note: The response most interesting to me was to the question “Which best describes the reason(s) for climate change?” to which 63% responded that human activity drives climate change, but natural variability is also important. 15% felt natural variability was either primarily or mostly responsible for climate change and 20% felt human factors were the primary drivers.  Also forty-four percent didn’t think that the current global climate was unprecedentedly warm.

By Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post Staff Writer

All of the leading Democratic contenders for the presidency are committed to a set of cuts in greenhouse gas emissions that would change the way Americans light their homes, fuel their automobiles and do their jobs, costing billions of dollars in the short term but potentially, the candidates say, saving even more in the decades to follow.

Former senator John Edwards (N.C.), who from the outset has made global warming one of the three pillars of his campaign, explains his ambitious plan to Democratic primary voters in terms of sacrifice. The strong medicine Edwards and his fellow candidates are selling—an 80 percent cut in greenhouse gases from 1990s levels by 2050—tracks with a plan espoused by scientists. But it is a plan that will require a wholesale transformation of the nation’s economy and society.

Read more here.