Is the science of Man-made Global Warming really “Settled” ?

In spite of all the continuous and continuing propaganda in the main stream media, in the highest political and academic circles, the science of Man-made Global warming is far from “settled” and the more Al Gore and his Green colleagues make that assertion, the more thinking people will doubt the science.

Several groups from the scientific community have made their positions very clear and many academics in various fields particularly climatology, paleo-climatology and geology are strenuously expressing opposing views.

Mostly those in opposition are mature members in their fields, emeritus professors[1], etcetera.  They are therefore immune to the funding blackmail that has continued to be meted out throughout academic communities worldwide.

It takes a considerable amount of courage for an academic to expose himself as a “DENIER”, because a position has now arrived where it is almost impossible to get government sourced grant funding in any climate related or other associated fields unless the topic is in some way supportive of Man-made Global Warming.

There has recently been released a survey taken in 2008, (well before Climategate), amongst active climate scientists that even in those earlier days show considerable uncertainty about the theoretical basis of their field.[2]

Some quotes to give reasons to believe that the case for Man-made Global Warming is not “settled” are listed here:

Professor Richard Lindzen a world leading atmospheric physicist and climate scientist from MIT said in 2007:

“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate the roll-back of the industrial age”.

and in his congressional evidence in November 2010

“Perhaps we should stop accepting the term, ‘skeptic.’ Skepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition.  Current global warming alarm hardly represents a plausible proposition.  Twenty years of repetition and escalation of claims does not make it more plausible.  Quite the contrary, the failure to improve the case over 20 years makes the case even less plausible as does the evidence from Climategate and other instances of overt cheating.”

Professor Ian Plimer a world renowned Australian geologist is trenchant in saying that man-made global warming is:

“a load of hot air underpinned by fraud” and “if you have to argue your science by using fraud, your science is not valid”.


“A growing number of scientists are recognizing that climate, environmental and economic modeling of an inherently unpredictable future is futile and illogical.  Long-distance predictions have a monumental rate of failure and those predictions made using computer modeling are no different.  In fact, the dire predictions by climate groups have damaged science.  Such predictions probably tell us more about the group behavior of the climate modeling community than about global warming.”

“There is a pretty dismal history of experts making predictions about the end of the planet and other such frightening catastrophes.  Most predictions, including those of the climate zealots, have religious overtones.  Pessimistic predictions attract interest and there is always a crowd ready to listen to dire apocalyptic predictions.”

Extracts from Professor Judith Curry’s response to criticism of her having published in The Scientific American [3] that having been a “high priestess of global warming” she now considers she has been “duped into supporting the IPCC”:

“My thinking and evolution on this issue since 11/19/09 deserves further clarification.  When I first started reading the CRU emails, my reaction was a visceral one.  While my colleagues seemed focused on protecting the reputations of the scientists involved and assuring people that the “science hadn’t changed,” I immediately realized that this could bring down the IPCC.

 I became concerned about the integrity of our entire field: both the actual integrity and its public perception.  When I saw how the IPCC was responding and began investigating the broader allegations against the IPCC, I became critical of the IPCC and tried to make suggestions for improving the IPCC.  As glaring errors were uncovered (especially the Himalayan glaciers) and the IPCC failed to respond, I started to question whether it was possible to salvage the IPCC and whether it should be salvaged.  In the meantime, the establishment institutions in the U.S.  and elsewhere were mostly silent on the topic.

In Autumn 2005, I had decided that the responsible thing to do in making public statements on the subject of global warming was to adopt the position of the IPCC.  My decision was based on two reasons:

1) the subject was very complex and I had personally investigated a relatively small subset of the topic;

2) I bought into the meme of “don’t trust what one scientists says, trust what thousands of IPCC scientists say.” 

 A big part of my visceral reaction to events unfolding after 11/19 was concern that I had been duped into supporting the IPCC, and substituting their judgment for my own in my public statements on the subject.  So that is the “dupe” part of all this, perhaps not what Lemonick [4] had in mind.

If, how, and why I had been duped by the IPCC became an issue of overwhelming personal and professional concern.  I decided that there were two things that I could do:

1) speak out publicly and try to restore integrity to climate science by increasing transparency and engaging with skeptics; and

 2) dig deeply into the broader aspects of the science and the IPCC’s arguments and try to assess the uncertainty. 

The Royal Society Workshop on Handling Uncertainty in Science last March motivated me to take on #2 in a serious way.  I spent all summer working on a paper entitled “Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster,” which was submitted to a journal in August.  I have no idea what the eventual fate of this paper will be, but it has seeded the uncertainty series on Climate Etc.  and its fate seems almost irrelevant at this point.

Monster creation

There are some parallels between the “McIntyre monster” and the “Curry monster.” The monster status derives from our challenges to the IPCC science and the issue of uncertainty.  While the McIntyre monster is far more prominent in the public debate, the Curry monster seems far more irksome to community insiders.  The CRU emails provide ample evidence of the McIntyre monster, and in the wake of the CRU emails I saw a discussion at RealClimate about the unbridled power of Steve McIntyre.  Evidence of the Curry monster is provided by this statement in Lemonick’s article:

 “What scientists worry is that such exposure means Curry has the power to do damage to a consensus on climate change that has been building for the past 20 years.” 

This sense of McIntyre and myself as having “power” seems absurd to me (and probably to Steve), but it seems real to some people.

Well, who created these “monsters?”  Big oil and the right-wing ideologues?  Wrong.  It was the media, climate activists, and the RealClimate wing of the blogosphere (note, the relative importance of each is different for McIntyre versus myself).  I wonder if the climate activists will ever learn, or if they will follow the pied piper of the merchants of doubt meme into oblivion.

A note to my critics in the climate science community

Let me preface my statement by saying that at this point, I am pretty much immune to criticisms from my peers regarding my behavior and public outreach on this topic (I respond to any and all criticisms of my arguments that are specifically addressed to me.)  If you think that I am a big part of the cause of the problems you are facing, I suggest that you think about this more carefully.  I am doing my best to return some sanity to this situation and restore science to a higher position than the dogma of consensus.  You may not like it, and my actions may turn out to be ineffective, futile, or counterproductive in the short or long run, by whatever standards this whole episode ends up getting judged.  But this is my carefully considered choice on what it means to be a scientist and to behave with personal and professional integrity.

Let me ask you this.  So how are things going for you lately?  A year ago, the climate establishment was on top of the world, masters of the universe.  Now we have a situation where there have been major challenges to the reputations of a number of a number of scientists, the IPCC, professional societies, and other institutions of science.  The spillover has been a loss of public trust in climate science and some have argued, even more broadly in science.  The IPCC and the UNFCCC are regarded by many as impediments to sane and politically viable energy policies.  The enviro advocacy groups are abandoning the climate change issue for more promising narratives.  In the U.S., the prospect of the Republicans winning the House of Representatives raises the specter of hearings on the integrity of climate science and reductions in federal funding for climate research.

What happened?  Did the skeptics and the oil companies and the libertarian think tanks win?  No, you lost. 

All in the name of supporting policies that I don’t think many of you fully understand.  What I want is for the climate science community to shift gears and get back to doing science, and return to an environment where debate over the science is the spice of academic life.  And because of the high relevance of our field, we need to figure out how to provide the best possible scientific information and assessment of uncertainties.  This means abandoning this religious adherence to consensus dogma.”

Vaclav Klaus:  former president of the European Union and survivor of the Russian / Communist occupation of his country.

“There are plenty of arguments suggesting that the real threat for human society is not global warming itself.  The real threat comes when politicians start manipulating the climate and all of us.

It is necessary to keep stressing several basic facts and arguments that are well-known, but unfortunately largely ignored.

First:  the statistically well-documented increase in global temperature has been until now very small and not bigger than the temperature fluctuations in the last centuries and millennia.  Throughout the whole 20th century, with all the problematic data collection and adjustments – it was only 0.74 °C.  I am surprised again and again that – because of the power of the environmentalist propaganda – people suppose it was much more.

Second:  it is undisputed that there has been no statistically significant net global warming in the last twelve to fourteen years.  I know that this is not a proof of the impossibility of long-term climate changes but it is a relevant piece of information which should not be ignored or downplayed.  New data and new theories are emerging every day and some of them suggest the probability of future cooling, not warming.

Third:  the scientific dispute about the causes of the undergoing climate changes is not over, it continues.  Despite contrary assertions, there is no scientific consensus about it.  What is more and more evident is that CO2 is losing the position of the main culprit and that its potential impact has already been more or less “consumed.” Simple, mono-causal theory of functional relationship between CO2 and temperature is evidently untenable.  There is absolutely no linearity between CO2 emissions and temperature.

Fourth:  the idea of a static, unchanging climate is, no doubt, foreign to the history of the Earth.  The climate has always been changing and will always be. 

I am convinced that the impact of the small climate changes we have experienced (and may experience in the foreseeable future) upon human beings and all kinds of their activities is – because of their size – practically negligible.  In its model simulations, the IPCC suggests that – because of higher temperatures – the world GDP in the year 2100 will be 2.9% lower than without any warming.  I repeat, only 2.9% if we do nothing and let the warming – predicted by the IPCC – continue.  The same models suggest that the GDP per capita in the developed countries will be eight times higher than now and in the developing countries about five times higher than that of the developed world today.

These figures are not mine, these are the figures of the leading exponents of the global warming doctrine.  The question must be therefore raised: should we drastically limit CO2 emissions today by 20, 30, 50, or 80% and, thereby, abandon our way of life for the sake of such a small effect considering that the future generations will be far better off than we are today? My answer is that 2.9% of the future GDP is a minor loss.  A loss generated by a completely useless fight against global warming, planned by the contemporary global warming alarmists, would be far greater. 

Politicians, their bureaucrats as well as many well-meaning individuals who accept the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change probably hope that – by doing so – they are displaying intelligence, virtue and altruism.  Some of them even believe they are saving the Earth.  We should tell them that they are merely passive players in the hands of lobbyists, of producers of green technologies, of agro-business firms producing ethanol, of trading firms dealing in carbon emission rights, etc., who hope to make billions at our costs.  There is no altruism there.  It is a political and business cold-hearted calculation”. 

Before concluding, I have to repeat my question: “What is endangered?” My answer is: “our freedom, and our prosperity.”

Burt Rutan a world renowned engineer responsible for many practical advances in aeronautics has said the following [8] [9]:

“Why I studied AGW:

My lifetime work from childhood to the present has been focused on aircraft/spacecraft design and development, with flight-testing being my career specialty.  Thus, I have always been challenged to determine the accuracy and meaning of a large amount of disparate data and have often been required to apply those interpretations to development of a product that absolutely must be safe and robust.”

“Four years ago I noticed something troubling about the challenges facing the global warming alarmists.  I started my research on anthropogenic (i.e.  man-caused) global warming (AGW) because, I found to my surprise, that to claim a catastrophic AGW theory as a “proof”, the climate scientists thought they only needed to show that human emissions MIGHT cause a fractional-degree global decadal temperature rise, for an earth that generally varies 20 to 40 deg F every 24 hours and varies as much as 80 to 100 deg F every year – This seemed to be a Herculean task indeed.”

“Another thing troubled me – those scientists that claimed that warming is human-caused and catastrophic, tended to be the ones who sought out the media to proclaim their views (an unusual behaviour for scientists immersed in the proper scientific procedure).  The larger group of scientists that did not agree tended to be mute.  This, of course gave the media and some politicians an impression that there was scientific “consensus”, even though it did not exist.”

Does not pass sanity check:

“Also, an engineer knows it is wrong to arbitrarily select a single theory (for example, human emissions of greenhouse gas (GHG) effects) as a ‘proof cause’ of warming.  This is especially true when that single-proposed cause is a small effect among the many other possible causes.  Pointing to sharp increases of measured temperature and then claiming global warming is due to the miniscule human additions to the planet’s atmospheric GHG, while ignoring the fact that cooling periods are also observed while emissions increase, does not pass a sanity check.”

“I found that no conclusion on human greenhouse gas (GHG)-blame could be made if one honestly considers the other causes.  This is supported by the observation that the climate likely has always had at least today’s temperature swings, in the absence of any significant human activity.  Also, the GHG warming effect is primarily driven by water vapour, not by CO2, and the human emissions’ portion of atmospheric CO2 is tiny.”

Human-caused GHG seemed, to my engineering mind, impossible:

“The climate scientist’s problem of proving his human-caused GHG crisis theory seemed, to my engineering mind, impossible.  This is what attracted me to study the raw data and to see if there was fraud in its summary presentations, since the slightest changes in the data, such as a bit of cherry picking tree rings or even an ‘innocent’ selection of a truncated temperature data set, is all that would be needed to alarm the naive non-scientific audience.  My conclusion is that, if the analysis by climate scientists had been required to pass a typical engineering preliminary design review, the crisis theory would have never been passed on to the non-technical audience.”

“The entire process of scientific study of the earth’s climate data, combined with the computer models developed to predict future climate, is extremely susceptible to abuse – even minor data ‘adjustments’ or data cherry picking, can completely change the conclusions.”

David Bellamy, someone who has a great concern for wildlife wrote this in the London Times in 2007 [10]:

“Am I worried about man-made global warming? The answer is “no” and “yes”. 

No, because the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction has come up against an “inconvenient truth”.  Its research shows that since 1998 the average temperature of the planet has not risen, even though the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to increase. 

Yes, because the self-proclaimed consensus among scientists has detached itself from the questioning rigours of hard science and become a political cause. 

Those of us who dare to question the dogma of the global-warming doomsters who claim that C not only stands for carbon but also for climate catastrophe are vilified as heretics or worse as deniers. 

I am happy to be branded a heretic because throughout history heretics have stood up against dogma based on the bigotry of vested interests.  But I don’t like being smeared as a denier because deniers don’t believe in facts. 

The truth is that there are no facts that link the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide with imminent catastrophic global warming.

Instead of facts, the advocates of man-made climate change trade in future scenarios based on complex and often unreliable computer models. 

Name-calling may be acceptable in politics but it should have no place in science; indeed, what is happening smacks of McCarthyism, witch-hunts and all. 

Scientific understanding, however, is advanced by robust, reasoned argument based on well-researched data.  So I turn to simple sets of data that are already in the public domain. 

The last peak global temperatures were in 1998 and 1934 and the troughs of low temperature were around 1910 and 1970.  The second dip caused pop science and the media to cry wolf about an impending, devastating Ice Age.  Our end was nigh!

Then, when temperatures took an upward swing in the 1980s, the scaremongers changed their tune.  Global warming was the new imminent catastrophe. 

But the computer model – called “hockey stick” – that predicted the catastrophe of a frying planet proved to be so bent that it “disappeared” from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s armoury of argument in 2007.  It was bent because the historical data it used to predict the future dated from only the 1850s, when the world was emerging from the Little Ice Age.  Little wonder that temperatures showed an upward trend. 

In the Sixties I used to discuss climate change with my undergraduates at Durham University.  I would point to the plethora of published scientific evidence that showed the cyclical nature of change – and how, for instance, the latest of a string of ice ages had affected the climate, sea levels and tree lines around the world.  Thank goodness the latest crop of glaciers and ice sheets began to wane in earnest about 12,000 years ago; this gave Britain a window of opportunity to lead the industrial revolution. 

The Romans grew grapes in York and during the worldwide medieval warm period – when civilizations blossomed across the world – Nordic settlers farmed lowland Greenland (hence its name) and then got wiped out by the Little Ice Age that lasted roughly from the 16th century until about 1850. 

Let’s turn to Al Gore’s doom-laden Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.  First, what is the point of scaring the families of the world with tales that polar bears are heading for extinction?  Last year Mitchell Taylor, of the US National Biological Service, stated that “of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number.  They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.”

Why create alarm about a potential increase in the spread of malaria thanks to rising temperatures when this mosquito-borne disease was a major killer of people in Britain and northern Russia throughout the Little Ice Age?

Despite the $50 billion spent on greenwashing propaganda, the sceptics and their inconvenient questions are beginning to make their presence felt. 

A recent survey of Klaus-Martin Schulte, of Kings College Hospital, of all papers on the subject of climate change that were published between 2004 and February of 2007 found that only 7 per cent explicitly endorsed a “so-called consensus” position that man-made carbon dioxide is causing catastrophic global warming.  What is more, James Lovelock, the author and green guru, has changed his mind: he recently stated that neither Earth nor the human race is doomed…”

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara resignation letter to the American Physical Society:

“When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).  Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that.  The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. 

As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists.  We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time.  We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach.  I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere.  In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides.  What greater tribute could there be?

How different it is now.  The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs.  For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave.  It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.  Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare.  (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion.  I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it.  For example:

      1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses.  In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose.  No more.  Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
      2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it.  One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one.  In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety.  (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original.  The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe.  It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is.  This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
      3. In the interim the Climategate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity.  Effect on the APS position: none.  None at all.  This is not science; other forces are at work.
      4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list.  We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.
      5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses.  (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot.  (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
      6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.

APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims.  Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives.  This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it.  Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue.  I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago.  There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club.  Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst.  When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise.  As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.  Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation.  APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends..”

Bjorn Lomborg writes on “Climategate”:

“What the stolen emails revealed was a group of the world’s most influential climatologists arguing, brainstorming, and plotting together to enforce what amounts to a party line on climate change.  Data that didn’t support their assumptions about global warming were fudged.  Experts who disagreed with their conclusions were denigrated as “idiots” and “garbage.”  Peer-reviewed journals that dared to publish contrarian articles were threatened with boycotts.  Dissent was stifled, facts were suppressed, scrutiny was blocked, and the free flow of information was choked off.

Predictably, the text of the more than 3,000 purloined emails have been seized on by sceptics of man-made climate change as “proof” that global warming is nothing more than a hoax cooked up by a bunch of pointy-headed intellectuals.  And this is the real tragedy of “Climategate.” Global warming is not a hoax, but at a time when opinion polls reveal rising public scepticism about climate change, this unsavoury glimpse of scientists trying to cook the data could be just the excuse too many people are waiting for to tune it all out.

What seems to have motivated the scientists involved in Climategate was the arrogant belief that that the way to save the world was to conceal or misrepresent ambiguous and contradictory findings about global warming that might “confuse” the public.  But substituting spin for scientific rigor is a terrible strategy.”

Bjorn Lomborg has had an interesting exchange of views in the Investors Business Daily

“Why Can’t We Innovate Our Way To A Carbon-Free Energy Future?  [11]

Global warming may not be the apocalyptic problem that climate Cassandras like Al Gore claim, but it is real and we need to do something about it.  The question is what.

For 20 years now, Gore and his acolytes have been campaigning single-mindedly for what has become known as the Kyoto approach to global warming — the idea that the only real way to solve the problem is for governments to either force or bribe their citizens to drastically reduce their use of carbon-emitting fuels.

This effort, which has dominated mainstream thinking about climate policy for most of the last decade, has led to …  well, actually very little.  Despite grandiose pledges such as the 2008 promise by the Group of Eight industrialized nations to work to cut global carbon emissions in half by 2050, no meaningful international climate agreement has ever been reached and greenhouse-gas levels in the atmosphere are higher than they’ve ever been.

Why so little progress? It’s simple.  The Kyoto approach proposes a “solution” that is more expensive than the problem it’s meant to solve — which is to say that it’s no solution at all.

In a 2009 paper for the Copenhagen Consensus Center, climate economist Richard Tol determined that to cut carbon emissions enough to keep average global temperatures from rising any higher than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels — another goal endorsed by both Gore and the G8 industrialized nations — we would have to slap a huge tax on carbon-emitting fuels.

When I say huge I mean something on the order of $4,000 per ton of carbon dioxide — or $35 per gallon of gasoline — by the end of the century.  The impact of a tax of this magnitude would be devastating.  According to the leading economic energy models, it could reduce world GDP by a staggering 12.9% in 2100 — the equivalent of $40 trillion a year.

Now, making climate predictions is an inexact science, but the best estimates are that if we don’t do anything about global warming, by 2100 it will be doing roughly $3 trillion a year in damage to the world.  In other words, under the Kyoto approach, we’d be spending $40 trillion a year to prevent $3 trillion a year in environmental damage.

Clearly, this doesn’t make sense.  But neither does it make sense to allow climate change to continue unchecked.  The question is whether we can find a cure that isn’t worse than the disease.  I think we can.  Consider why the Kyoto approach would be so expensive.  It’s that it would require us to drastically reduce our use of carbon-emitting fuels like coal and oil.  If we had affordable alternative energy sources ready to pick up the slack, this might not be a problem.  But right now at least, we don’t.

The fact is that coal, oil and the like are significantly cheaper and more efficient than any of the current green alternatives.  This is why, despite all the talk about solar, wind and other green energy sources, fossil fuels still account for the vast majority of the world’s energy diet.

Fortunately, there is a smarter way than carbon cuts to deal with global warming.  What if, instead of crippling economic growth by trying to make carbon-emitting fuels too expensive to use, we devoted ourselves to making green energy cheaper?

Right now, solar panels are so expensive — about 10 times as much as fossil fuels in terms of cost per unit of energy output — that only well-heeled, well-meaning (and, usually, well-subsidized) Westerners can afford to install them.

But think where we’d be if we could improve the efficiency of solar cells by a factor of 10 — in other words, if we could make them cheaper than fossil fuels.  We wouldn’t have to force (or subsidize) anyone to stop burning coal and oil.  Everyone, including the Chinese and the Indians, would shift to the cheaper and cleaner alternatives.

This is why I have long urged policymakers to significantly increase the amount of money we invest in green energy R&D.  As the Breakthrough Institute, a progressive think tank, has pointed out, we didn’t promote the invention of computers by taxing slide rules or restricting the supply of typewriters.  We did it by investing massively in R&D.

In research published by the Copenhagen Consensus Center, Isabel Galiana and Chris Green of McGill University found that devoting just 0.2% of global gross domestic product — roughly $100 billion a year — to green energy R&D would produce the kind of game-changing breakthroughs needed to fuel a carbon-free future.

Not only would this be a much less expensive fix than trying to cut carbon emissions, it would also reduce global warming far more quickly.  So let’s forget about subsidizing inefficient technologies or making fossil fuels too expensive to use.  Instead, let’s fund the basic research that will make green energy too cheap and easy to resist.

Lomborg is author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and “Cool It,” head of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and adjunct professor at Copenhagen Business School. “Cool It,” a feature-length documentary about him and his work, opens in theatres throughout North America on Nov. 12.

WILLIE SOON, ROBERT CARTER AND DAVID LEGATES  Disputing The Skeptical Environmentalist   [12]

This is a response to “Why Can’t We Innovate Our Way To A Carbon-Free Energy Future?”, a “Perspective” by Bjorn Lomborg that ran in this space a week ago.

Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” and “Cool It,” is right about the need to focus on critical health and economic priorities.  But he is wrong about human carbon dioxide emissions causing what is now being called “global climate disruption.”

By demonizing the gas of life, in league with Al Gore and Bill Gates, Lomborg commits several serious scientific errors.  As independent scientists, with broad training in mathematics, physics, chemistry, geology and geography, we know CO2 is not a pollutant, and the notion of “carbon-free” or “zero-carbon” energy is inherently harmful and anti-scientific.

If nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, helium or any other nontoxic gas is pumped into a chamber containing air and a growing plant, the response is barely measurable.  By contrast, if more CO2 is added, the plant and its root system benefit enormously, displaying enhanced growth and more efficient use of available water and nutrients.

Far from having detrimental effects, carbon dioxide has decidedly beneficial impacts on plants, aquatic and terrestrial alike, and a new study connects enhanced plant productivity to greater bird species diversity in China.  How, therefore, can anyone conclude that human carbon dioxide is a pollutant that must be eradicated?

These facts erect a formidable barrier for “zero-carbon” advocates.  By insisting that no human CO2 should be emitted, they are promoting continued suboptimal growth of food plant species in the face of impending global food shortages — and poorer functioning and less diversity in the global ecosystem.

Zero-carbon activists respond to these facts by asserting that human CO2 emissions cause “dangerous global warming.” They are wrong about this, too.

If rising atmospheric CO2 levels drive global temperatures upward, as they insist, why is Earth not suffering from the dangerous “fever” that Al Gore predicted? Instead, after mild warming at the end of the twentieth century, global temperatures have levelled off for the past decade, amid steadily rising carbon dioxide levels.

Lomborg’s claim that we need to “cure” so-called “unchecked climate change” is thus fallacious and contradicted by reality.  Reducing human CO2 emissions will likely have no measurable cooling effect on planetary temperatures.

His insistence that we prioritize expenditures is spot-on when applied to genuine environmental and societal problems.  However, it is irrelevant when the problems are mythical — or devised to advance ideological agendas.  Moreover, even if human impacts on the global climate can actually be measured at some future date, humans currently lack the scientific and engineering understanding and capability to deliberately “manage” Earth’s constantly changing climate for the better.

Most certain of all, atmospheric carbon dioxide is not the “climate control knob” that anti-hydrocarbon alarmists assert, and it is irresponsible for Lomborg to claim his socio-political agenda will provide a low-cost solution for the global warming “problem.”

The scientific reality is that even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been unable to demonstrate a cause-and-effect scientific connection between rising human CO2 emissions and dangerous warming.  To support global limits on CO2 emissions, in the absence of real-world data showing clear cause and effect, is scientific and policy incompetence on the highest order.

Imagine a drug company seeking FDA approval for a new drug, based on an analysis that says simply: “Our supercomputers say the drug is safe and effective.  We have no clinical data to support this, but can think of no reason actual results would contradict what our computers predict.  Moreover, failure to license the drug will be disastrous for patients suffering from the targeted disease.” Failing to demand actual dose-and-response studies, before licensing the drug, would be gross negligence on FDA’s part.

Between 2007 and 2009, U.S.  carbon dioxide emissions dropped approximately 10%, to their lowest level since 1995, largely because of reduced energy consumption during the recession.  Similar CO2 emission reductions occurred in Britain, Germany, France and Japan.

Have their climates gotten better or less dangerous? Are they now a better place, for having a lower intensity carbon energy diet? Have global temperatures been statistically unchanged since 1995 because, or in spite of, Chinese and Indian carbon dioxide emissions increasing far more than the aforementioned countries reduced theirs?

These are practical, not rhetorical questions.  As far as we can see, the only direct effect of decreasing CO2 levels via expensive renewable energy programs has been to cost more American and European jobs than would otherwise have been the case during the global economic recession.

The central issue is not whether rising CO2 levels will cause a warmer planet.  The fundamental concern is whether globally warmer temperatures are factually worse (or better) for human societies — and more (or less) damaging to the environment — than colder temperatures (like those experienced during the ice ages and Little Ice Age).

Bjorn Lomborg, Al Gore and Bill Gates need to consider the likelihood that, driven by changes in solar activity and ocean circulation, Earth will cool significantly over coming decades.  Damaging the global economy with ineffectual carbon dioxide controls, in a futile quest to “stop global warming,” looks stupid now.

Viewed later, with hindsight, it will be judged outrageously irresponsible.

      • Soon studies sun-climate connections at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
      • Carter is an emeritus fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs and chief science advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition.
      • Legates is a hydroclimatologist at the University of Delaware and serves as the state climatologist of Delaware.”

Klaus P.  Heiss, Princeton University, NASA, the US Atomic Energy Commission, and the Office of Naval Research, received the NASA Public Service award for unique contributions to the US Space Program, and member of the International Astronautics Academy.

“The 20th Century increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continuously.  Man-made CO2 grew exponentially; however, global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1975, during the time span as the global industrial production almost exploded.  Then [temperatures] rose strongly to 1990 and they have since stagnated, with the exception of El-Nino 1998 – at roughly the same level, although CO2 emissions are still rising,”

“Carbon dioxide is not responsible for the warming of the global climate over the last 150 years.  But what then? For more than 90 percent are changes in the Earth-Sun relationship to the climate fluctuations.  One is the sun’s activities themselves, such as the recently discovered 22-year-cycles and sunspots,”

“Looking at the climate history of our planet, it is clear to see – and quite reassuring with regard to the possible consequences of global warming as predicted by the IPCC — that we are now (more precisely, in the last two to three million years ago) in a very cold climate period.  Any warming would give us only the best long-term climate of the last 560 million years back.  Most professional economic studies indicate that warmer times are generally better.”

Dr Leonard F Khilyuk and Professor George V Chilingar (Geologists) University of Southern California. Chilingar has published 61 books and hundreds of articles and he serves as president of the U.S.  branch of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences.  17 of his books have been translated into Russian.  In recognition of these contributions, the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences has honoured him as a Knight of Arts and Sciences.  From their scientific investigation paper published in ‘Environmental Geology’:

“They repeatedly quantify the effects through the range of processes that alter global temperature and conclude “The scope and extent of these processes are 4–5 orders of magnitude greater than the corresponding anthropogenic impacts on the Earth’s climate (such as heating and emission of the greenhouse gases).”

“the global warming observed during the latest 150 years is just a short episode in the geologic history.  The current global warming is most likely a combined effect of increased solar and tectonic activities and cannot be attributed to the increased anthropogenic impact on the atmosphere.  Humans may be responsible for less than 0.01°C (of approximately 0.56°C (1°F) total average atmospheric heating during the last century).”

“Any attempts to mitigate undesirable climatic changes using restrictive regulations are condemned to failure, because the global natural forces are at least 4–5 orders of magnitude greater than available human controls.”

David Henderson formerly head of the OECD economics and statistics department has stated as follows with regard to “Climategate”[13]:

“The main headings of unprofessional conduct within the process, identified and documented before the recent revelations, are:

Over-reliance on in-group peer review procedures that do not serve as a guarantee of quality and do not ensure due disclosure

Serious and continuing failures of disclosure and archiving in relation to peer-reviewed studies.

Resistance to disclosure of basic information that reputable journals insist on as a precondition for acceptance.  (In the CRU emails, participants discuss a range of arguments, pretexts and devices that could be used to fend off disclosure, including the deletion of emails containing material that had been sought under FOI requests, requests made only because authors had not followed accepted scholarly procedures).

Basic errors in the handling of data, through failure to consult or involve trained statisticians.

Failure to take due account of relevant published work documenting these lapses, while disregarding IPCC criteria for inclusion in the review process.

Failure to take due note of comments from dissenting critics who took part in the AR4’s preparation.

Resisting the disclosure of professional exchanges within the AR4 drafting process, despite the formal instruction of member governments that the IPCC’s proceedings should be “open and transparent”.

Failure by the IPCC and its directing circle to acknowledge and remedy these deficiencies.

In the light of IPCC misrepresentation of melting Himalayan glaciers, one could add to the list reliance on worthless (non-peer-reviewed) sources.  But mere insistence on peer review would leave in place the other basic flaws.

Comprehensive exposure of these flaws has come from a number of independent commentators.  Particular mention should be made of Canadian authors Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick: separately and in joint publications, going back to 2003, they have made an outstanding contribution to public debate.  Together with a perceptive British critic, David Holland, they are the subject of unfavourable references in the CRU emails.  But their work and that of other critics has been disregarded by governments and commentators in academic journals and the media alike.

The glaring defects in the expert advisory process have gone un-acknowledged and un-remedied by what I call the environmental policy milieu.  This high-level failure and the defects themselves have resulted from chronic and pervasive bias.  Right from the start, members of the milieu, and of the IPCC’s directing circle, have been characterised by what has been well termed “pre-commitment to the urgency of the climate cause”.  Although the IPCC in particular is now under fire, this is too restricted a focus.

It is true that the panel’s work forms the leading element in the official expert advisory process.  But the basic problem of unwarranted trust goes further: it extends to the chronically biased treatment of climate change issues by responsible departments and agencies that the panel reports to, and in nationally based organisations that they finance (such as the CRU).

It is not just the environmental policy milieu that is to blame for the mishandling by governments of climate change issues.  As a former Treasury official and international civil servant, I have been surprised by the failure of economic departments in OECD member countries to audit the evidence bearing on climate change issues, their uncritical acceptance of the results of a process of inquiry so obviously biased and flawed, and their lack of attention to the criticisms of that process voiced by independent outsiders — criticisms they ought to have been making themselves. 

A similar lack of resource has characterised the research department of the IMF and the economics department of the OECD.  There has been a conspicuous failure of due diligence.

The chief moral to be drawn is simple.  In an area of policy where so much is at stake, and so much remains uncertain and unsettled, policies should be evolutionary and adaptive, rather than presumptive as they are now; and their evolution should be linked to a process of inquiry and review that is more thorough, balanced, open and objective.”


Christopher Booker summarised the situation in February 2010 as follows [14]:


p style=”padding-left:80px;”>“Since 1988, when the greatest scare the world has seen got under way, hundreds of billions 
of pounds have been poured into academic research projects designed not to test the CO2 warming thesis but to take it as a given fact, and to use computer models to make its impacts seem as scary as possible. 

The new global “carbon trading” market, already worth $126 billion a year, could soon be worth trillions.  Governments, including our own, are calling for hundreds of billions more to be chucked into absurd “carbon-saving” energy schemes, with the cost to be met by all of us in soaring taxes and energy bills.

With all this mighty army of gullible politicians, dutiful officials, busy carbon traders, eager “renewables” developers and compliant, funding-hungry academics standing to benefit from the greatest perversion of the principles of true science the world has ever seen, who are we to protest that their emperor has no clothes? (How apt that that fairy tale should have been written in Copenhagen.) Let all that fluffy white “global warming” continue to fall from the skies, while people shiver in homes that, increasingly, they will find they can no longer afford to heat.  We have called into being a true Frankenstein’s monster.  It will take a mighty long time to cut it down to size.”


The Overall conclusions of an Independent Summary for Policymakers (ISPM) for the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report prepared in 2007, coordinated by Ross McKitrick, Ph.D [15]. The following concluding statement is not in the Fourth Assessment Report, but was agreed upon by the ISPM writers based on their review of the current evidence.

“The Earth’s climate is an extremely complex system and we must not understate the difficulties involved in analyzing it.  Despite the many data limitations and uncertainties, knowledge of the climate system continues to advance based on improved and expanding data sets and improved understanding of meteorological and oceanographic mechanisms.

The climate in most places has undergone minor changes over the past 200 years, and the land-based surface temperature record of the past 100 years exhibits warming trends in many places.  Measurement problems, including uneven sampling, missing data and local land-use changes, make interpretation of these trends difficult.  Other, more stable data sets, such as satellite, radiosonde and ocean temperatures yield smaller warming trends.  The actual climate change in many locations has been relatively small and within the range of known natural variability.  There is no compelling evidence that dangerous or unprecedented changes are underway.

The available data over the past century can be interpreted within the framework of a variety of hypotheses as to cause and mechanisms for the measured changes.  The hypothesis that greenhouse gas emissions have produced or are capable of producing a significant warming of the Earth’s climate since the start of the industrial era is credible, and merits continued attention.  However, the hypothesis cannot be proven by formal theoretical arguments, and the available data allow the hypothesis to be credibly disputed.

Arguments for the hypothesis rely on computer simulations, which can never be decisive as supporting evidence.  The computer models in use are not, by necessity, direct calculations of all basic physics but rely upon empirical approximations for many of the smaller scale processes of the oceans and atmosphere.  They are tuned to produce a credible simulation of current global climate statistics, but this does not guarantee reliability in future climate regimes.  And there are enough degrees of freedom in tuneable models that simulations cannot serve as supporting evidence for any one tuning scheme, such as that associated with a strong effect from greenhouse gases.

There is no evidence provided by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report that the uncertainty can be formally resolved from first principles, statistical hypothesis testing or modelling exercises.  Consequently, there will remain an unavoidable element of uncertainty as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate change, and indeed whether or not such change is a good or bad thing.”


Patrick Moore is a co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace and chair and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. in Vancouver. I believe:

– We should be growing more trees and using more wood, not cutting fewer trees and using less wood as Greenpeace and its allies contend. Wood is the most important renewable material and energy resource.

– Those countries that have reserves of potential hydroelectric energy should build the dams required to deliver that energy. There is nothing wrong with creating more lakes in this world.

– Nuclear energy is essential for our future energy supply, especially if we wish to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. It has proven to be clean safe, reliable, and cost-effective.

– Geothermal heat pumps, which too few people know about, are far more important and cost-effective than either solar panels or wind mills as a source of renewable energy. They should be required in all new buildings unless there is a good reason to use some other technology for heating, cooling, and making hot water.

– The most effective way to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels is to encourage the development of technologies that require less or no fossil fuels to operate. Electric cars, heat pumps, nuclear and hydroelectric energy, and biofuels are the answer, not cumbersome regulatory systems that stifle economic activity.

– Genetic science, including genetic engineering, will improve nutrition and end malnutrition, improve crop yields, reduce the environmental impact of farming, and make people and the environment healthier.

– Many activist campaigns designed to make us fear useful chemicals are based on misinformation and unwarranted fear.

– Aquaculture, including salmon and shrimp farming, will be one of our most important future sources of healthy food. It will also take pressure off depleted wild fish stocks and will employ millions of people productively.

– There is no cause for alarm about climate change. The climate is always changing. Some of the proposed “solutions” would be far worse than any imaginable consequence of global warming, which will likely be mostly positive. Cooling is what we should fear.

– Poverty is the worst environmental problem. Wealth and urbanization will stabilize the human population. Agriculture should be mechanized throughout the developing world. Disease and malnutrition can be largely eliminated by the application of modern technology. Health care, sanitation, literacy and electrification should be provided to everyone.

– No whale or dolphin should be killed or captured anywhere, ever. This is one of my few religious beliefs. They are the only species on earth whose brains are larger than ours and it is impossible to kill or capture them humanely.

Michael Crichton Science writer summed up the syndrome of environmentalism as being “One of the most powerful religions in the Western world” [16]:

“Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western world is environmentalism.  Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists.  Why do I say it’s a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs.  If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs.  There’s an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there’s a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for all of us.  We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability.  Sustainability is salvation in the church of environment.  Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.

Increasingly it seems facts aren’t necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief.”

Bizarre, is it not, in an age when we live longer, healthier, less polluted lives than former generations, “we the people” have become wracked with angst, perpetually ill at ease, obsessed with personal welfare and health and one way or another doomed ever to be in fear of the weather gods?  Even though alleged ‘climate experts’ cannot tell us with confidence what the weather will be next week, they can confidently predict what it will be like in 50 years time – based on computer guesswork.


Recommendations of the Professor E Wegman report to Congress in 2006 investigating Dr Mann’s “Hockey stick”: [17]

Recommendation 1.  Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review.  It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.

Recommendation 2.  We believe that federally funded research agencies should develop a more comprehensive and concise policy on disclosure.  All of us writing this report have been federally funded.  Our experience with funding agencies has been that they do not in general articulate clear guidelines to the investigators as to what must be disclosed.  Federally funded work including code should be made available to other researchers upon reasonable request, especially if the intellectual property has no commercial value.  Some consideration should be granted to data collectors to have exclusive use of their data for one or two years, prior to publication.  But data collected under federal support should be made publicly available.

Recommendation 3.  With clinical trials for drugs and devices to be approved for human use by the FDA, review and consultation with statisticians is expected.  Indeed, it is standard practice to include statisticians in the application-for-approval process.  We judge this to be a good policy when public health and also when substantial amounts of monies are involved, for example, when there are major policy decisions to be made based on statistical assessments.  In such cases, evaluation by statisticians should be standard practice.  This evaluation phase should be a mandatory part of all grant applications and funded accordingly.

Recommendation 4.  Emphasis should be placed on the Federal funding of research related to fundamental understanding of the mechanisms of climate change.  Funding should focus on interdisciplinary teams and avoid narrowly focused discipline research.


The British High Court identified, in a lengthy hearing calling a wide range of witnesses under, oath eleven inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ [18].

      • “In order for the film to be shown, the Government have been forced to amend their Guidance Notes to Teachers to make clear that:
      • The Film is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument.
      • If teachers present the Film without making this plain they may be in breach of section 406 of the Education Act 1996 and guilty of political indoctrination.
      • Eleven inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of school children.
      • Al Gore’s response to these findings was that “the ruling was in favour of screening the film in schools”.
      • Specifically the judgment states that the inaccuracies in the film are as follows:
      • The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
      • The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
      • The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
      • The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.
      • The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
      • The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
      • The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
      • The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
      • The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
      • The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration. 
      • The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

The film has been critically reviewed and many further scientific errors exposed [19].

Rather than opening up the discussion to critical scientific method the “Believers” get more hysterical and shrill in their suggested catastrophes, opposition and ad hominem attacks on individuals.  That alone would seem to be reasonable evidence that the “Believers” really know their position is not sound.

The list of objectors to the IPCC view grows daily [20].

The list of erroneous claims and political misrepresentations in the 2007 IPCC report, often included directly from green propaganda sources such as Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund, is growing and includes:

      • Himalayan Glaciers will not disappear by 2035
      • massive storms are not increasing in frequency and insured looses are not escalating
      • sea levels are not increasing dramatically
      • the Amazon rain forest is only decreasing because of man’s logging intervention
      • surface temperature records have been systematically adjusted upwards in the present or downwards in the past to emphasise Global Warming
      • the “Hockey Stick” has been proven to be a fraud, etcetera, etcetera.

That outcome has been assisted by the wide publication of correspondence, data and computer code from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit group of Global Warming Alarmists, in November 2009.  It is now clear that the Unit acted illegally in ignoring Freedom of Information requests and that Michael Mann, the originator of the “Hockey Stick” is being investigated for fraudulent use of government grant funding in the USA.

Selected Highlights of the Updated 2010 Report [21] featuring over 1000 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

“We’re not scientifically there yet.  Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem.  Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.”

UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S.  Magnesium.

“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!”

NASA Scientist Dr.  Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist.  Weinstein, is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation.  You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations.  Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.”

Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr.  Robert B.  Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

“In essence, the jig is up.  The whole thing is a fraud.  And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data”

Dr.  Christopher J.  Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.

“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently.  We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.”

 Russian Scientist Dr.  Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.”

 Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”

“I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr.  Gore”

Chemistry Professor Dr.  Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, during her presentation titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic’s View.”

“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today,” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention.  If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed…Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.”

Swedish Climatologist Dr.  Hans Jelbring,

“Those who call themselves ‘Green planet advocates’ should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere…Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content…Al Gore’s personal behaviour supports a green planet – his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener.  Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.”

Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named “100 most influential people in the world, 2004″ by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him “the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer.”

“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity.  Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is.  In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.”

 Atmospheric Physicist Dr.  John Reid, who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.

“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.”

 Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.

“There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall.  These cycles are related to solar activity…In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated.  What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.”

 Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences

“Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.”

Hebrew University Professor Dr.  Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.”

“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded.  There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.”

South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.

A Selection of Brief Comments on Global Warming from a courageous few of the UN-IPCC Participants in the alleged 2,500 scientist consensus.

It is right and in the public interest to expose the truth as told by those nominated and participating in the UN-IPCC, both sceptics and believers.

As George Orwell once wrote:

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

  1. Russia – Dr Yury Izrael, past UN IPCC Vice President, director of Global Climate and Ecology Institute, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

“There is no proven link between human activity and global warming.”

  1. Dr. Oliver W. Frauenfield (Climate Scientist), Contributing Author to the UN IPCC Working Group 1 Fourth Assessment Report, with the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences Division of Cryospheric and Polar Processes at the University of Colorado.

“Without question, much more progress is necessary regarding our current understanding of climate and our abilities to model it.”

“Only after we identify these factors and determine how they affect one another, can we begin to produce accurate models. And only then should we rely on those models to shape policy. Until that time, climate variability will remain controversial and uncertain.”

  1. Dr Patrick Michaels (Climatologist and Ecologist) UN IPCC Expert Reviewer and University of Virginia professor of environmental sciences. Former Virginia State Climatologist.

“It would be nice if my colleagues would actually level with politicians about various ‘solutions’ for climate change. The Kyoto Protocol, if fulfilled by every signatory, would reduce global warming by 0.07 degrees Celsius per half-century.”

  1. USA – Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University:

“In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth’s surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.”

  1. South Africa – Dr. Philip Lloyd, UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author, Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer, and author of more than 150 refereed publications.

“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil. I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.”

  1. Norway – Dr Tom Segalstad (Geologist & Geochemist) UN-PCC Expert Reviewer , a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC:

“It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”

  1. Japan – Dr Kiminori Itoh (Environmental Physical Chemist) Yokohama National University UN-IPCC expert reviewer

“Man-made warming is the worst scientific scandal in history.”

“When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”

  1. USA – Dr Richard Lindzen (Atmospheric Scientist) Professor at MIT UN-IPCC Lead Author

“The consensus was reached before the research had even begun.”

“It’s not 2,500 people offering their consensus, I participated in that. Each person who is an author writes one or two pages in conjunction with someone else…but ultimately, it is written by representatives of governments, of environmental organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists, and industrial organizations, each seeking their own benefit.”

“Current climate models would have predicted a substantially greater increase in the past temperature than has been observed in the past 150 years, perhaps +3 deg C compared to the +0.6 deg C we have witnessed.” (testimony to the House of Lords Select Committee 2005)

  1. Netherlands – Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm (Economist), UN IPCC expert reviewer, global warming author, and economist, a lecturer at the Netherlands Defense Academy, started out as a man-made global warming believer but later switched his view after conducting climate research.

“I started as an anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics…..After that, I changed my mind.”

“Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.”

  1. USA – Dr John Christy – Professor and Director of the Earth System Science Centre at the University of Alabama, Huntsville (also Alabama State Climatologist) UN IPCC Lead Author writes:

“Public discussion about ‘carbon policy’ or ‘reducing greenhouse gases’ centres around the need to reduce human emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet even educated persons mostly have no comprehension that the overwhelmingly dominant greenhouse gas is water vapour.”

“I don’t see a catastrophe developing from our emissions into the air of what should be correctly identified as ‘plant food.'”

“Scepticism, a hallmark of science, is frowned upon. (I suspect the IPCC bureaucracy cringes whenever I’m identified as an IPCC Lead Author}. The tendency to succumb to group-think and the herd-instinct (now formally called the “informational cascade”) is perhaps as tempting among scientists as any group because we, by definition, must be the “ones who know” (from the Latin sciere, to know).”

  1. Canada – Dr Ross McKitrick (Environmental Economist), Professor, Department of Economics, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, UN-IPCC Expert Reviewer

“The data come from thermometers around the world, but between the thermometer readings and the final, famous, warming ramp, a lot of statistical modelling aims at removing [past] known sources of exaggeration in the warming trend.” Dr. McKitrick argues that the United Nations agency promoting the global temperature graph made “false claims about the quality of its data [which] account for about half the surface warming measured over land since 1980.”

  1. UK – Dr Richard Courtney (Climate and Atmospheric Scientist) UN IPCC Expert Reviewer

“The case for anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW) is getting weaker and weaker, not ‘stronger and stronger’ as many have claimed.”

“To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (man-made global warming) has been discovered. Recent global climate behaviour is not consistent with AGW model predictions.”

“….Scares of hypothetical ‘tipping points,’ run-away sea level rise, massively increased storms, floods, pestilence and drought are simply that, unjustified and unjustifiable scares.”

  1. New Zealand – Dr Vincent Gray (Physical Chemist) UN IPCC Expert Reviewer. He has been involved in every report of the IPCC. He is the author of over 100 scientific papers:

“The whole process is a swindle, in large part because the IPCC has a blinkered mandate that excludes natural causes of global warming. The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense.”

There is no actual scientific evidence for all these ‘projections’ and ‘estimates’. It should be obvious that they are ridiculous.”

  1. Argentina – Dr Rosa Compagnucci (Atmospheric Scientist), Author in two UN IPCC reports, professor in the Department of Atmosphere Sciences at the University of Buenos Aires, and El Niño expert.

“There was a global warming in medieval times, during the years between 800 and 1300. And that made Greenland, now covered with ice, christened with a name that refers to land green: ‘Greenland.”

  1. Australia – Dr. Aynsley Kellow, UN IPCC Contributing Author, referee for the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, former professor at the Australian School of Environmental Studies at Griffith University.

“They [IPCC] really do emphasize the bad news. They’re looking for bad news in all of this.”

“The IPCC is assuming rates of economic growth that dwarf the nineteenth-century success of the USA, the twentieth century in Japan and so on. The USA experienced, I think, a nine fold increase in GDP per capita; these are making assumptions about 30-fold increases. So you can question their credibility. But if you do that, you’re questioning the emissions scenarios that are driving the climate models.”

“I’m not holding my breath for this criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: There is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.”

“The scientists are in there but it is, after all, called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The scientists are there at the nomination of governments.”

  1. USA – Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, UN IPCC expert reviewer, past director and State Geologist with the Kansas Geological Society and a senior scientist emeritus of the University of Kansas.

“I never fully accepted or denied the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) concept until the furore started after [NASA’s James] Hansen’s wild claims in the late 1980’s. I went to the scientific literature to study the basis of the claim, starting at first principles. My studies then led me to believe that the claims were false, they did not correlate with recorded human history.”

“Depending on the period in earth’s history that is chosen, the climate will either be warming or cooling. Choosing whether earth is warming or cooling is simply a matter of picking end points.”

  1. Canada – Dr Madhav Khandekar UN IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modelling:

“As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters:”

“… an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of GHG-induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed. Since mid-1998, the earth’s mean temperature as a whole has not increased at all, despite billions of tonnes of human added CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere.”

“To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”

  1. USA – Dr. John T. Everett, UN IPCC lead author and reviewer, led work on five impact analyses for the IPCC including Fisheries, Polar Regions, Oceans and Coastal Zones. a former National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) senior manager, project manager for the UN Atlas of the Oceans, received an award while at NOAA for “accomplishments in assessing the impacts of climate change on global oceans and fisheries”

“It is time for a reality check: warming is not a big deal and is not a bad thing, The oceans and coastal zones have been far warmer and colder than is projected in the present scenarios of climate change.”

“I would much rather have the present warm climate, and even further warming, than the next ice age that will bring temperatures much colder than even today. The NOAA Paleoclimate Program shows us that when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, the earth was much warmer, the CO2 levels were 2 to 4 times higher, and coral reefs were much more expansive. The earth was so productive then that we are still using the oil, coal, and gas it generated.”

“For most life in the oceans, warming means faster growth, reduced energy requirements to stay warm, lower winter mortalities, and wider ranges of distribution,” he explained. “No one knows whether the Earth is going to keep warming, or since reaching a peak in 1998, we are at the start of a cooling cycle that will last several decades or more.”

  1. USA – Dr Chris Landsea – World Hurricane & Storm Expert NOAA’s National Hurricane Center who served on the UN IPCC as both an author and a reviewer (resigned) and has published numerous peer-reviewed research papers

“I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized.”

“I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

“The 1926-1935 period was worse for hurricanes than the past 10 years, and 1900-1905 was almost as bad.” There is no long-term up-trend in damages, after you adjust for societal changes.

It starts to give us a little bit of a clue about what the global warming impact on hurricanes may be. From that record, it suggests that there is no trend that can be linked to ocean temperature trends and global warming.

  1. Germany – Dr. Richard Tol, Author in three UN IPCC Working Groups, director of the Centre for Marine and Atmospheric Science, prominent economist with Hamburg University in Germany. Tol’s work was cited by the alarmist Stern Report 63 times. NOT A DECLARED SCEPTIC – to my knowledge.

He dismissed UN IPCC alarmism as “preposterous.”

“There is no risk of damage [from global warming] that would force us to act injudiciously.”

“We’ve got enough time to look for the economically most effective options, rather than dash into actionism, which then becomes very expensive.”

“Warming temperatures will mean that in 2050 there will be about 40,000 fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-related illnesses like the flu.”

  1. Holland – Hajo Smit MSc (Environmental Science) Meteorologist, former member of the Dutch IPPC Committee, reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic:

“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again, and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp.

The vast amount of new research since my graduation points to clear cut solar climate coupling and to a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2-emissions and climate change.”

  1. France – Dr. Paul Reiter, UN IPCC participant, malaria expert, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, professor of entomology and tropical disease with the Pasteur Institute in Paris.

The concept of consensus on global warming is a “sham.”

“That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed, It’s not true.”

“For years, the public has been fed a lusty diet of climate doom and gloom, cooked and served by alarmists who use the language of science to push their agenda. Now, every politician of every stripe must embrace the ‘climate consensus’ or be branded a callous skeptic.”

“We have done the studies and challenged the alarmists – but they continue to ignore the facts, and perpetuate the lies.”

Together with Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze another IPCC nominate expert reviewer, Reiter wrote: “When the public comes to understand that there is no ‘consensus’ among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.”

  1. USA – Dr. Robert E. Davis (Climatologist), UN IPCC contributor, Professor at University of Virginia, and past president of the Association of American Geographers.

“We keep hearing about historically warm years, warm decades, or warm centuries, uncharacteristically long or severe droughts, etc., for which mankind’s striving for a high quality of life is to blame…. But in reality, in most cases, we have a tragically short record of good observations.”

“Be wary of global warming psychics warning us of unprecedented climate shifts – in most cases, they are only unprecedented because of the short life span of most scientists.”

  1. USA – Dr. Robert Balling (Climatologist) of Arizona State University, served on the IPCC, and as climate consultant to the UN Environment Program, the World Climate Program, the World Meteorological Organization, and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Balling’s research over the years has explored sun activity, pollution from volcanoes, the urban-heat-island effect and errors in past temperature models as possible causes of rising temperatures. Noting the pressure he feels as a skeptical scientist, Balling explained:

“In my lifetime, this global-warming issue might fade away,”

“Somehow I’ve been branded this horrible person who belongs in the depths of hell. There’s just no tolerance right now.”

  1. USA Dr. Indur M Goklany, represented the U.S. at the IPCC and in negotiations leading to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

“Once one gets past the opaque verbiage of the SPM [IPCC summary for policymakers], it is clear that most of the negative impacts listed in the SPM are overstated, while the positive impacts are understated.”

Criticizing IPCC methodologies, he said, “Under such a methodology the mortality and morbidity rates from water related diseases in the U.S., for example, would be the same in 2000 as in 1900. But in fact, these rates have declined by 99% or more during the 20th century for disease such as typhoid, paratyphoid, dysentery, malaria, etc.”

  1. Germany – Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, UN IPCC expert reviewer, scientific climate and carbon modeler, Bavaria.

Together with French scientists, Dr. Paul Reiter (mentioned above), Dietze wrote a letter stating:

“When the public comes to understand that there is no ‘consensus’ among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.”

  1. USA Dr. Steven M. Japar, (Atmospheric Chemist) who contributed to the UN-IPCC Second and Third Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions, challenged the IPCC’s climate claims. Japar told the minority staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 7, 2009:

“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate the global climate models and projections made with them!”

  1. New Zealand – Dr Willem de Lange is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Waikato, specialising in coastal oceanography and a UN IPCC expert reviewer and chapter co-author wrote on 23 May 2009:

“I am a climate realist because the available evidence indicates that climate change is predominantly, if not entirely, natural. It occurs mostly in response to variations in solar heating of the oceans, and the consequences this has for the rest of the Earth’s climate system. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis [of] runaway catastrophic climate change due to human activities.”

“I was an invited reviewer for a chapter dealing with the economic impact of sea level rise on small island nations. In keeping with IPCC procedures, the chapter was written and reviewed in isolation from the rest of the report, and I had no input into the process after my review of the chapter draft. I was not asked if I supported the view expressed in my name, and my understanding at the time was that no evidence of a discernable human influence on global climate existed.”

  1. USA – Roger Sedjo (Economist), contributed to the IPCC’s latest report, a senior research fellow at the US research organisation Resources for the Future stated:

“The IPCC is, unfortunately, a highly political organisation with most of the secretariat bordering on climate advocacy.

“It needs to develop a more balanced and indeed scientifically sceptical behaviour pattern. The organisation tend to select the most negative studies ignoring more positive alternatives.”

  1. Dr Benjamin Santer, author of the 2007 IPCC report chapter on the detection of greenhouse warming – NOT A SCEPTIC of AGW to my knowledge.

“It’s unfortunate that many people read the media hype before they read the (IPCC report) chapter “on the detection of greenhouse warming.” I think the caveats are there. We say quite clearly that few scientists would say that the attribution issue [man-made

  1. Dr. Jim Renwick, of the New Zealand National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), a top UN IPCC scientist and NOT a sceptic of AGW to my knowledge admitted:

“Climate models do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are not reliable.” He said ,”The NIWA achieves only 50 per cent accuracy in its climate forecasts, and that this is as good as any other forecaster around the world.”

  1. Dr Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and UN-IPCC insider. NOT a sceptic of AGW to my knowledge

“The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography.

Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

      • amongst other information, some 700 peer-reviewed and published papers questioning the hypothesis of man-made global warming are listed here: [5] [6]
      • of the 2,500 academics named by the IPCC as being supporting referees (not always with their agreement), a large number have been bold enough to jeopardise their livelihoods and to register their dissent. It now turns out that instead of the much vaunted 2,500 scientific referees for the IPCC the active scientific group providing input to the IPCC amounts to about 50 mutually supportive individuals.

to date ~31,500+ American scientists have signed the following petition, they include  9,000+ holding PhDs in the several climate and climate related topics [7]:

Screenshot 2021-08-16 at 10.08.04.png

Some Conclusions

Especially since the disclosures of Climategate, ever greater doubt now exists on the accuracy and scientific methods used to justify and support the whole the IPCC edifice and for the claims being made about the catastrophic effects of Man-made Global Warming.

Whatever the Man-made Global Warming Believers may say, there is no scientific consensus that Catastrophic Man-made Global Warming is real.  It is entirely unacceptable for the current establishment to simply state that the consensus exists and expects that alone to be accepted as gospel truth and as the foundation of its vastly damaging policies.

The Man-made Global Warming hypothesis has become a religion[22] [23] [24] for the Green movements rather than the search for scientific truth.  The eco-religion seems to pander to an extreme view wishing to reduce the developed world to a pre-industrial existence.  This would be the inevitable consequences of reducing CO2 emissions by the massive percentages anticipated by them and as being attempted to be set as targets by a large but diminishing number of Western.  For example, the damaging and extremely costly policies now enshrined by the last New Labour government but with very little opposition dissent in the UK Climate Change Bill [25].

However the additional secondary agendas seem to be:

  • a concerted effort to institute some sort of global government to control the use of CO2 emitting fossil fuels.
  • the creation of a massive tradable and lucrative market in “Carbon Credits”, an idea originating from ENRON (good for bankers) and since pursued aggressively by Deutche Bank [26]
  • the ability of the governments to raise taxes with some sort of feel-good factor, (saving the planet).
  • a massive transfer of resources to underdeveloped countries.

With the huge financial damage that the Man-made Global Warming Believers are proposing to inflict, the world, especially the Western World, deserves very detailed and close examination of the basis on which it is being undertaken.  No commercial organisation would ever be permitted to make such an investment on the basis of such questionable evidence and what has become religious dogma.

So what is really needed is a comprehensive, independent and exhaustive examination of the whole of the Man-made Global Warming assertion, in other words truly exhaustive and open-minded DUE DILIGENCE.

Some of the main questions that need to be addressed have been have been noted and commented upon above.

It is already clear that at least 44% of the world’s CO2 emitters are rejecting any participation in emissions reduction and that it is likely that the USA will also refuse participation under the influence of a Republican Congress.  What remains then in will be the European Union at 13% of world emissions and the Rest of the World at 23%, these are in the main underdeveloped or developing nations who are expecting to benefit financially from the Man-made Global warming assertion. That outcome would leave the European Union and a few others isolated in their continuing adherence to the Man-made Global Warming assertion.  Thus putting themselves at massive disadvantage in comparison with other world economies.

So it is to be hoped that in due course reason will prevail in the light of the restoration of real scientific method and growing burden of real world evidence.

As global temperatures have remained steady or have even cooled in the last 10 – 15 years, it seems that the world should fear the real and detrimental effects global cooling rather than setting policy by being hysterical about non-existent warming.

For example the “Warmist” projections made by the UK Metrological Office in 2009 and 2010, left the UK local and transport authorities unprepared and unable to cope with the significant Winter cold spells and in the process lead to many additional deaths.  It is now clear that the UK Metrological Office privately considered that the beginning of the Winter 2010 would be exceptionally cold but instead published a forecast in October 2010 that the winter was expected to be milder than usual.  This action is now assumed to have been intended to avoid spreading “bad news” before the Cancun December 2010 conference.  So, it appears that the Metrological Office and for that matter the UK Government commitment to the Global Warming assertion appear to have been thought more important than their obligations to the populace of their own country.

But much worse than that, the malign effects on national policy achieved by the Green movements over recent decades is resulting in the dereliction of duty by governments in not securing future energy supply for their citizens.

Energy Security is probably a more important Government obligation to its citizens than even its military strength.

But as a direct result of insisting on and subsidising the country’s dependence on essentially unreliable, small-scale renewable energy sources, such as wind power [27], those governments that have bought into the Green Religion, (such as New Labour and now sadly the Coalition in the UK), have left and are leaving their countries totally unprepared for their energy future.

They have thus recklessly damaged their future international competitiveness: or to put it rather more simply the lights in the UK may well go out in 2015 or before.

This is the triumph of the Green movements in the UK, and it is frighteningly clear to see in the above graph from the Economist.  This diagram is also displayed on a UK government website [28].

Screenshot 2021-08-16 at 10.37.41.png

Indeed, if CO2 emissions are a real problem, (and it is a very big “if”), Green objections to Nuclear Energy will bear a very heavy responsibility for the damage they have done to the future of Mankind on our planet.  Without the malign influence of the “well-meaning” green movements, something might have been done to ameliorate the planet’s position as far as its CO2 emissions were concerned.  France, where 85% of electricity generation is nuclear, has achieved the smallest carbon footprint/head of any developed country and the lowest electricity prices in Europe.

There may be some chinks in the Green armour.  Some maturing but still prominent Green activists, (including Mark Lynas, Patrick Moore, the founder of Greenpeace [29], and Stewart Brand the originator of the Whole Earth Catalogue), much to the distress and anger of their army of eco-religious supporters, have recently admitted that their movement definitely got it wrong [30] about:

  • Nuclear power
  • DDT and other pesticides
  • GM crops.

However some of (not Patrick Moore) these dissenters still consider man-made CO2 to be a catastrophic threat.  Maybe the more rational wing of the Green movement will row back from Catastrophic Man-made Global W Warming assertion as well.  It will take some time.