IPCC Challenged to Recant Global Warming Position

MensNewsDaily.com ^ | April 19, 2008 | Roger F. Gay

[RogerFGay]

A group of scientists have challenged the IPCC to admit that there is no evidence that human activity drives climate change. Specifically, they sent a letter this month to the Chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change asking those associated with the panel to:

retract support from the current IPCC position 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.

And they issue this challenge: "If you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the available data please present a graph of it."

The letter is signed by Hans Schreuder (Analytical Chemist), Piers Corbyn (Astrophysicist ), and Dr Don Parkes Svend Hendriksen (1988 Nobel Laureate), and a copy is available at a website operated by the International Climate Science Association. (here)

Evidence presented in the letter goes well beyond putting the “hockey stick” graph, made famous in Al Gore's movie, in doubt. The hockey stick presented exponentially increasing global temperature in the near future due to uncontrolled increases in CO2 – and got its name from the shape of the graph – an apparently long stable period with an upward increase in CO2 and temperature during the industrial age. The UN panel claimed that human activity was driving what Mr. Gore explained as a certain end to civilization as we know it, if extreme political and economic measures are not taken.

The scientists assembled a graph based on actual measurements and did not find evidence that CO2 was the main driving force behind temperature. In fact, temperature increases and decreases, showing little interest in CO2 level.

Graph below shows CO2 (green line) continues upwards while temperature (the other two lines) fluctuates, dropping recently; offering compelling evidence against the belief that CO2 drives global temperature.

The letter goes on to provide an urgent reason for renouncing the UN panel report.

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.

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?

The position taken by the scientists is not out of the ordinary from the steady stream of data, analysis and commentary from the scientific community. So too have economists and others challenged the global warming political agenda, which calls for unprecedented levels of taxation and government control based on the scariest projections of bad science. Nonetheless, the IPCC report provides a basis for international agreements such as the “Kyoto Protocol” agreement, which is an international start on the agenda. Both Democratic Party presidential candidates, as well as John McCain have spoken in favor of global warming related reform.

[Shady]

AlGore abd Rather Dan. Two legumes in a pot of brioche.

[Justa]

I'm still waiting for media-based science to debunk the greenhouse effect. The concept is a falsehood. Higher CO2 concentration provides no long term atmospheric insulating properties against convection, water vapor and air flow -the processes by which the atmosphere loses heat. It's a total scam.

[RogerFGay]

Interesting presentation. There does appear to be a coincidental relationship between CO2 and temperature, just as “skeptics” have said. Thanks for adding to the database on hockey stick information.

[Always Right]

There is of course a great deal of evidence that can be interpreted to support the IPCC's position.

There is evidence we had very modest warming in the 20th century. But there is no evidence that links CO2 to the change. The historical data suggests that temperatures drives atmospheric CO2, not the other way around.

[IrishCatholic]

Thank you for the link.
Bookmarked for later printing.

[chipengineer]

>You’ll never know why. You’ll know how it works well enough to use in in a circuit design.

Should I assume that you have a strange definition of why, rather than assume that you think knowing something about quantum mechanics is not useful?

[RightWhale]

Quantum mechanics does not explain why but how. Only God knows why.

[chipengineer]

So why are you complaining about scientists trying to understand ‘how’ CO2 affects temperatures (if it does)?

[RightWhale]

why are you complaining about scientists trying to understand

That is a proper question in form, but materially fallacious. I have not complained about scientists trying to explain nature. I am actually a physicist myself.

[facedown]

Al Gore is starting to remind me of Jim Jones.

Jim Jones was more honest.

[Delacon]

btt

[lepton]

It is not quite fair to choose to start in 1998, which was the warmest year in at least 50 years...

You are correct. It is also inappropriate for the IPCC and many, many, of the global warming studies to start from the mid 50s, where the temperatures are well on their way into a trough. ...not to mention any support whatsoever for Mann's Hockeystick.

[chipengineer]

>...not to mention any support whatsoever for Mann’s Hockeystick.

I agree about Mann (notice I wrote 50 years, not 1000 as Mann claims).

[lepton]

By the way...have you seen what the IPCC did with the Briffa graph? They used it to support the correlation between CO2 and temperatures (via proxy), and then when Briffa updated the proxy beyond the training period...they clipped it (and Rutherford) when it diverged. A reviewer of the IPCC document pointed out that they should at least explain why they did so, and their response consisted of “Rejected - though note ‘divergence’ issue will be discussed, still considered inappropriate to show recent section of Briffa et al. series.” No explanation of WHY...

http://www.climateaudit.org/?m=200712

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

DOOMAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

The Green Zone

Americans for Prosperity: "If You Think Taxes Are High Now, Just Wait Until Congress Tries to ‘Fix’ Global Warming"

Global warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News Site

Latest from Greenie Watch

[Straight Vermonter]

We don't really even know if the temperatures are actually going up or if so by how much. There is so much urban heat island effect distorting the numbers that it is hard to say with say with any accuracy.

Of course temperature measuring equipment like this doesn't help.

How about a hot parking lot as a place to measure temperature?

Lots more

[Straight Vermonter]

There is a relationship but the question is which one drives the other? I think it is becoming increasingly clear that warm temps decrease the ocean’s carrying capacity for CO2 and so there is more CO2 in the atmosphere. The Mauna Loa observatory actually recorded LESS CO2 this year. The thinking is that the strong La Nina has resulted in lower temps and more carrying capacity for the oceans.

[RogerFGay]

Giving non-scientists control over science has always been a devastating formula. In both Russia and China, agricultural science and practice driven by political ideology led to mass starvation, for example. In the US, political ideology pretending to be science led to the destruction of marriage and family - and at the root the elimination of individual rights.

Allowing policy to be created based on false problem definitions and false information about cause and effect just defies common sense. It throws our modern society back into the dark ages with rules and investments based on superstitian. It is truly the way to bring civilization as we know it to an end.

But doing this stuff is not unusual these days. The root of the problem is pork barrelling; and the two parties are not giving up on exponential growth in this corruption. They've been forced to say something about it, and as usual they've defined the problem with much smaller scope than the actual problem, and will likely address only a small part of that - with a way around the solution so that there is no actual reduction in pork barrel spending.

Then of course there are constantly new initiatives, like this global warming thing that will push the practice farther faster. Here is where you will actually find a hockey stick relationship leading to an international crisis that will be very, very difficult to deal with. I predict that we will enter a new dark age because of it. At this point, no one seems to know how to address it - and the masses continue a zombie like imaginary "lesser of two evils" approach to letting the two parties continue to rule in the US.

[RogerFGay]

I mentioned this before. I think the graph is appropriate. You have to consider its context. The IPCC has seen the other data. The letter and its graph show recent data that contradicts the hockey stick hypothesis.

[RogerFGay]

I think knowledge about temperature is sufficient. The level of uncertainty is not high enough to support much continued debate about AGW except among specialists who really want to get down to the nitty gritty. At the level involved in policy decisions - it’s nonsense.