A spate of new research and books claim we shouldn't yet make any efforts to try to stop "climate change:"New book: The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so
New book:
400+ prominent scientists dispute man-made global warming.
In a new book, Lies and Traps in Global Warming Affairs, Top Japanese ICPP(!) scientist now asserts that the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "consensus" is a "fraud."
New studies indicate that the globe may be cooling, certainly not warming quickly.
In light of all these new data, before spending the unprecedented amounts of money and forcing the immense human sacrifices being contemplated, I believe that scientists should present to academic community, the mainstream media and general public the bases and models on which they've developed the core assertions in the climate change consensus:
1. The globe is warming and that warming is likely to accelerate.
2. The net negative impacts of that warming are likely large enough as to justify a massive effort to try to stop it.
3. The projected climate change is substantially man-made, as opposed to natural variation such as sunspot changes, as increasing numbers of climate scientists now believe.
4. That the realistically feasible effort to try to slow climate change would yield sufficient benefit to justify the mammoth effort that most ICPP scientists and political leaders insist will be required.
You've heard the phrase "follow the money." Follow it here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009730
It's a WSJ article about Al Gore, the grand poobah of green, and Generation Investment Management, the company he founded and chairs. GIM invests in "green" companies.
Then, as he lives a very lavish lifestyle, he tells the rest of us to cut back. "Do as I say, not as I do." Those "green" companies profit more, and he profits more, and his lifestyle grows ever more lavish.
To Mr. Gore, that's what it means to "go green." To me, that's a damn good reason to be skeptical, and you have more and more scientists backing the skeptical.
This is interesting...
ReplyDeleteFederation of American Scientists, Public Interest Report
http://www.fas.org/faspir/pir0496.html
DR. LINDZEN: Of the two ways by which the public is convinced of the sound foundations of the warming hypothesis, one is the simplistic picture that the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] always presents, in which the sun heats the earth and the earth must emit radiation to cool. If you have greenhouse gases that inhibit this then, of course, you warm further. The simplistic picture encourages people to feel they understand the process. It is, of course, as usual, incorrect, or at least seriously incomplete, and by itself, suggests little warming. The second way is more mystical. Climatologists use large (and small) computer models to predict significant warming.
The question for many of us is why should you believe the models? If you didn't change the temperature profile, if you didn't have water vapor change and if you kept everything constant, the usual thing in the simplistic picture, or some variant of it, w ould say is that doubling CO2 would give you a temperature change somewhere on the order of one-half degree.
The fact that models produce more than that is a result of what is called feedbacks. I'm using the word feedbacks for things that actually contribute to the sensitivity of the atmospheric response. And here you have lapse rate, water vapor, clouds, snow albedo. Don't worry so much about the details of these. But you have to understand that unless these each amplified what was just due to CO2, you wouldn't get these two to four degree estimates.
---Richard Lindzen, MIT
A scientist emailed me this comment privately but allowed me to post it, so here it is:
ReplyDeleteI want the models themselves to be documented by their creators and
put in the public domain so they can be checked by all sorts of
technical people (statisticians, other climatologists, amateurs on the Internet
etc. etc.).
Also, an Academy of Science team which is completely independent
from the modelers should be empanelled to check the models.
If the Global Warming true-believers --as you, Marty, Advocate, just have to "present to the mainstream media and general public the bases on which they've developed the core assertions in the climate change consensus"
they can get away with murder--they'll just pull out their PR machine again. We've had the PR. I want the models.
Marty,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate you airing this generally reviled view. You display great courage. If there were more media people like you, science, not politics, would inform us.
Perhaps you're paving the way for others to speak out.
Dr. Michael R. Edelstein
www.ThreeMinuteTherapy.com