Posted on 04/17/2008 6:01:57 AM PDT by twntaipan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2002545/posts
Nobel Prize-Winning Peacekeeper Asks UN to Admit Climate Change Errors
Photo of Noel Sheppard.
By Noel Sheppard | April 14, 2008 - 17:14 ET
When Global Warmingest-in-Chief Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize last year, the media’s prideful gushing was so obvious it was almost sick-making.
Now, six months later, a fellow Nobel Peace Prize recipient is part of a group asking the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures.”
Since it is a metaphysical certitude media will ignore this Prize winner, the following is a complete reprint of a letter sent to the IPCC on Monday (with permission):
14 April 2008
Dear Dr. Pachauri and others associated with IPCC
We are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position – that man’s CO2 is a driver of global warming and climate change – to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current IPCC position [as in footnote 1] and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change.
If you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the available data please present a graph of it.
We draw your attention to three observational refutations of the IPCC position (and note there are more). Ice-core data from the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) shows that temperatures have fallen since around 4,000 years ago (the Bronze Age Climate Optimum) while CO2 levels have risen, yet this graphical data was not included in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (Fig. SPM1 Feb07) which graphed the CO2 rise.
More recent data shows that in the opposite sense to IPCC predictions world temperatures have not risen and indeed have fallen over the past 10 years while CO2 levels have risen dramatically.
The up-dated temperature measurements have been released by the NASA’s Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) [1] as well as by the UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (Temperature v. 3, variance adjusted - Hadley CRUT3v) [2]. In parallel, readings of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been released by the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii [3]. They have been combined in graphical form by Joe D’Aleo [4], and are shown below.
These latest temperature readings represent averages of records obtained from standardized meteorological stations from around the planet, located in both urban as well as rural settings. They are augmented by satellite data, now generally accepted as ultimately authoritative, since they have a global footprint and are not easily vulnerable to manipulation nor observer error. What is also clear from the graphs is that average global temperatures have been in stasis for almost a decade, and may now even be falling.
A third important observation is that contrary to the CO2 driver theory, temperatures in the upper troposphere (where most jets fly) have fallen over the past two decades. [Footnote 2]
IPCC policy is already leading to economic and unintended environmental damage. Specifically the policy of burning food - maize as biofuel - has contributed to sharp rises in food prices which are causing great hardship in many countries and is also now leading to increased deforestation in Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Togo, Cambodia, Nigeria, Burundi, Sri Lanka, Benin and Uganda for cultivation of crops [5].
Given the economic devastation that is already happening and which is now widely recognised will continue to flow from this policy, what possible justification can there be for its retention?
We ask you and all those whose names are associated with IPCC policy to accept the scientific observations and renounce current IPCC policy.
Yours sincerely,
Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist, mMensa, hans@tech-know.eu
Piers Corbyn, Astrophysicist UK, Dir. WeatherAction.com, piers@weatheraction.com
Dr Don Parkes, Prof. Em. Human Ecology, Australia, dnp@networksmm.com.au
Svend Hendriksen, Nobel Peace Prize 1988 (shared), Greenland, hendriksen@greennet.gl
If I am reading the charts correctly, most of the temperature rise in this century occurred before 1945, which is before the dramatic rise in CO2 levels.
Notice that the GW believers usually show charts starting around 1940, which seems to be cherry-picking the time period to fit their theory.
And our side, the GW skeptics, pick 1998-2008, which omits most of the 1990s, to show a decade of falling temperatures.
Read later.
"As a prelude to a new book, Nigel Calder (who was the editor of New Scientist for four years in the 1960s) has written an op-ed for the Times (UK) basically recapitulating the hype over the Svensmark cosmic ray/climate experiments we reported on a couple of month ago (see Taking Cosmic Rays for a spin). At the time we pointed out that while the experiments were potentially of interest, they are a long way from actually demonstrating an influence of cosmic rays on the real world climate, and in no way justify the hyperbole that Svensmark and colleagues put into their press releases and more 'popular' pieces. Even if the evidence for solar forcing were legitimate, any bizarre calculus that takes evidence for solar forcing of climate as evidence against greenhouse gases for current climate change is simply wrong. Whether cosmic rays are correlated with climate or not, they have been regularly measured by the neutron monitor at Climax Station (Colorado) since 1953 and show no long term trend. No trend = no explanation for current changes."
(Summary: correlation is not causation!)
Hardly. McCain is an opportunist, not a True Believer.
It is astounding how many seemingly rational people can't see clearly the end result of the AGW crowd. I still state that I don't believe man has ANY measurable affect on long-term climate. I will state that if the world embraces the "solutions" of the AGW and the likes of the evil frauds at realClimate, then hundreds of millions of innocent humans will die as a result. The blood will be on the hands of Gore and EVERY single human that believes this evil lie.
If you truly cared for the children of the world, you would be working against the totalitarian measures the AGW crowd is pushing at every turn. What is more astounding is that anyone would think that carbon trading and other foolish mesures will "solve" affect climate -- how utterly ridiculous.
True, but he will gladly go along with the evil AGW crowd and bring about socialist misery worldwide.
In any event, he is carrying the ball (legislatively speaking) for the Cult. When I close my eyes, I can still see him waving his big red “Stop Global Warming” sign after he won New Hampshire.
Exactly, daddy, exactly.
They post manly, chestbeating challenges to their detractors, knowing also that if the challenges are met with facts, they'll just change the subject, move the goalposts and in general do a Lucy Van Pelt on the whole discussion.
And then set up shop on top of the wall at the bottom of the page again, to taunt you a second time...
That's ridiculous.
I still state that I don't believe man has ANY measurable affect on long-term climate.
Define the time-scale you are referring to when you say "long-term".
I will state that if the world embraces the "solutions" of the AGW and the likes of the evil frauds at realClimate, then hundreds of millions of innocent humans will die as a result.
There are three steps that need to be done.
1. Establish that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. IMO, with respect to anthropogenic climate change/global warming, this has been adequately established.
2. Establish the ranges of severity of the problem, and the ranges of potential solutions to address the problem. This is still being done.
3. Undertake the solutions that will most substantially reduce the most severe outcomes with the minimum alteration of societal progress.
And read this:
My question: Imagine a similar situation is happening today. You are in charge of civil preparedness for a moderately-sized city and its economy. The scientists are constantly informing you about the state of the mountain. They cannot tell you, however, if it will erupt catastrophically. Mountains have been known to calm down without a catastrophic eruption (happened very recently in Indonesia). Knowing the economic ramifications of a full-scale evacuation, at what point do you decide -- what data and information informs your decision -- on whether to order a full-scale evacuation, or to keep watching?
>>Is their data after 1985?<<
And your chart does not into account any data before 1945, when, according to charts I have seen, most of the warming occurred.
>>(Colorado) since 1953<<
Again, ignoring any evidence before 1945.
>>(Summary: correlation is not causation!)<<
Do you practice what you preach? Show me a chart that correlates greenhouse gases with warming over more than 60 years. Taking a 60 year period and assuming that its patterns are going to apply to processes occurring over millions of years is good science in whose opinion?
Keep posting all your little graphs, though! I know I'm really swayed by them...
**grin**
Tabletop, you’re back...
Remember:
Its Cli mate Change not Glo o bal War r r r ming,
Oh its Cli mate Change not Glo o bal War r r r ming.
(sung to the tine of “Its Istanbul not Constantinople.”)
Has Wiki caught up yet? I’m sure they will soon.
LOL! "Some guy on the Net" has the opinion that ACC/GW has been "established" as "a problem".
The actual problem being addressed by the Anthropogenic Climate Change/Global Warming people is that Taxation Without Rebellion (TWR) has been maximized. So, in order to continue milking the taxpayers without getting shot, the bureacrats and their scientific allies have come up with:
1. Make most of the younger set completely stupid about any factual disputations about "the threat to Gaia" through the use of the government skewls. (Mission accomplished!)
2. Completely obfuscate the issue by posting "authoritative" graphs all over the Net that don't prove a thing.
3. Hope that the Grand Maximum doesn't break too soon.
4. Get control of places like Wikipedia where they can control most of the information flow.
5. Fight a vigorous rear-guard action on places like Free Republic where they can't edit their enemies out of the discussion (yet...).
It includes data back to the 1880s (the smaller inset chart).
Show me a chart that correlates greenhouse gases with warming over more than 60 years.
If correlation is not causation, why would correlation or lack of correlation of global temperature with greenhouse gas emissions over the past 60 years be informative? The trend in global temperatures is consistent with the radiative forcing effects of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases, and this trend cannot be explained by natural forcings alone.
You sure you’re not confirming his point? Your solution to the volcano is total evacuation; he suggests that Gore and his ilk’s solution is evacuation by expiration - the end result is the same.
Just because we may have broken it doesn’t mean we can fix it.
If you aren't really interested in the science, then ignore the graphs and ignore me, and I promise you I won't mind at all.
I know because I'm a scientist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.