Skeptics are speaking out more and more as the earth cools. They are questioning the role of carbon dioxide, pointing out the many failures of the climate models, discussing the underestimated role of the sun and oceans in climate change.
See a partial list of the new scientists speaking out in just the last month compiled by Marc Morano here. They join the list of well over 500 scientists who have spoken out since 2007 here, the 31,000 scientists (9,000 PhDs) who signed the Petition Project statement and 1,100 who signed the Manhattan Declaration.
There is a growing consensus that climate change is real but natural.
By Rupert Wyndham
John McLean is the authority on the IPCC, but I believe the following to be correct. In some ways, the most outrageously mendacious claim of all, and for the following reasons:
There aren’t 2500 climate scientists in the world - truly dedicated specialists about 100, per Prof. Siunichi Akasofu. Many of those named disagree with the Reports themselves but, above all, with the SPMs which flow from them. Since the reports of WGs 2 & 3 necessarily flow from the work of WG1, it is essential that this should be robust. It is anything but, as we have seen. SPMs, what 99% of people read - if anything at all, are not written by scientists anyway but by civil servants, inter alia, obsessed by political correctness; mustn’t gainsay 3rd world contributions, etc. Scientifically, they frequently clash with underlying WG reports. Protests are simply ignored - well documented, by the way. The UN for the first time in 2007 released to the web the comments of reviewers who assessed the drafts of the WG1 report of AR4, together with IPCC editors’ responses. 308 reviewers commented on WG1, but only 32 commented on more than three chapters. Only five commented on all 11 chapters. Only half commented on more than one chapter.
It gets worse. The critical chapter is No. 9, in which the near certainty of GW increases being due to human activity is asserted. Only 62 reviewers commented. Of these, 55 had self-evident potential vested interests. Thus, precisely seven could reasonably be seen as impartial. Two rejected the findings of the report altogether, four turned out to have less transparent potential conflicts of interest, and the last made only a single comment on the entire report. Thirty four reviewers’ comments/suggestions were rejected with no reason being given. Enough said!
Dr. Roy Spencer
October 8, 2008 Research Update #1: Our Feedback Diagnosis paper to appear in J. Climate, Nov. 1 issue.
October 8, 2008 Research Update #2: Recent satellite data invalidates IPCC climate models.
October 8, 2008: A Brief Comment on “Spencer’s Folly”
For anyone who has stumbled across a rather condescending critique of our latest research on feedback by someone who calls himself “Tamino”, I can only say that Tamino could have saved himself a lot of trouble if he would have noticed that all of my feedback work addresses TIME-VARYING radiative forcing (as occurs during natural climate variability), not CONSTANT radiative forcing (as is approximately the case with global warming). Tamino’s analytical solution does not exist in the time-varying case, and so his holier-than-thou critique is irrelevant to what I have presented.
See Roy’s Nature’s Thermostat site here.
By Tom Nelson Blog
Romm Excerpt: (In the interests of full disclosure: I consulted with Kleiner several years ago on a clean-tech investment; Doerr wrote a jacket quote for my book “The Hype about Hydrogen”; I own shares in two clean-tech start ups; and I expect to consult with VCs in the future. That is one reason I don’t typically talk about individual companies.)
Tom Nelson comment: But if we’re supposed to completely ignore any climate realist who’s ever received a dime from any company that’s ever received a dime from fossil fuels, why does climate alarmist Romm get a free pass?
[Note: An August 2007 Senate report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. - Also, Romm’s climate views are laughable. See: Ex-Clinton Official Ties Minneapolis Bridge Collapse to Global Warming]
ALERT TO DEVASTATING FALL CONDITIONS
See also this amusing spoof on climate and weather alarmism on youtube thanks to Onion.
By Tom Nelson
My house is lit by compact fluorescent light bulbs. Let me just tell you, though: Suppose I drove an SUV and lit my house with the worst kind of light—I could still be an environmentalist. Al Gore flies around in a jet plane—absolutely fine with me. The important thing is not getting Al Gore out of his jet plane; the important thing is solving the world’s problem. What we really need are policies around the world that address the problem, not feel-good measures. If [Al Gore] reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion—which he does, but he’s very effective at it—then let him fly any plane he wants. Author and physicist Richard A. Muller chats with Grist here.
By Dr. Fred Singer, TWTW Editorial October 3
Sarah Palin is the only major candidate who has expressed doubts about manmade global warming - and she is right. This attack in the CS Monitor does not understand the interpretation of a temperature trend. The common way to define a temperature trend is to equate it to the slope of a straight line that provides the ‘best fit’ for values of temperatures (usually yearly averages) plotted against time. The implicit assumption is that the trend does not vary with time. But we know that’s not true; climate is always changing - warming or cooling. The ‘trend’ therefore depends on the choice of the time interval - the beginning year and the ending year. (Think of the fluctuations of the stock market.) And the choice is often quite arbitrary. So, for example, we have seen an overall warming trend since 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age [Akasofu 2008], and a cooling since 1998.
A different problem has to do with the quality of the data. It is generally agreed that atmospheric temperature data are more reliable than surface data. But ‘global’ data from weather balloons go back only 50 years - and the truly global data from satellites only 30 years. The latter show a warming trend from 1979 to present. But one can also interpret the data as showing essentially zero trend from 1979 to 1997, followed by a sudden ‘jump’ and another zero or even cooling trend since 1998 [NIPCC 2008, Fig. 13]. The point is that the observations do not correspond to what greenhouse models would predict.
So Sarah Palin is right. The temperature record shows a mixture of natural and human causes, with the latter quite a bit smaller. There is absolutely no reason to believe that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) will be of any consequence - even by 2100. And, of course, impacts of any AGW will be unimportant too.
By Chris Horner on Planet Gore
In February, the geniuses at Mensa will host keynote speaker James Hansen, among others, to frighten them with scary stories. How can bright people believe, like the UN Secretary General, that computer model scenarios of the future are more frightening than Hollywood movies? Because they’re real? Well, apparently because they also accept observed, um, truths like “It is now firmly established that Earth’s global surface temperature is increasing and that human emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the primary cause of that global warming.”
See larger image here
See larger image of Hansen model forecasts versus actual temperatures here
Back to my point about this nerdy “second life” and avatar business going too far, when things that only happen in computer models are the new reality. Something about this is just odd. Methinks I smell another membership group being hijacked by a few activist members, a la the American Meteorological Society and all of those others now invoked as proof of a consensus, though their members never were asked to vote on whether they agreed to lend the group’s name to the cause. So going along with the crowd to be cool and - who knows, pocket some of the billions - is also the smart thing to do.
See story here.
By Robert M. May, Reply by Freeman Dyson
Dyson scolds the Royal Society - the British Commonwealth’s leading academy of science, founded in 1660 and, among other things, the initiator of peer-reviewed publications - for its “dogmatic tone” on issues of climate change.Dyson’s annoyance at the Royal Society and others derives from his worry that “in the history of science it has often turned out that the majority was wrong and refused to listen to a minority that later turned out to be right.” This is a valid worry. But its application varies as one advances on the scientific journey of investigating any particular topic.
A particularly clear and topical example of this process is to be found in the recent debates about the extent to which human activities are causing global warming, as distinct from warming deriving from natural causes. Even three decades ago there were very significant uncertainties associated with our quest for understanding. With computational power doubling every eighteen months, things have greatly advanced since then, and the basic facts are now unambiguous. Hence the recognition by the G8+3 science academies that we are well past the point where we should doubt the serious consequences of climate change.”
Robert M. May, Former President of the Royal Society (2000–2005), Chief Scientific Adviser to the British Government (1995–2000), Oxford, England
Read this back and forth on this and on CO2 residence time here.