Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Case against climate change melting away

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 22 March 2009
MORE than 600 self-confessed climate sceptics met in a Times Square hotel in New York this month to challenge what has become a broad scientific and political consensus: that without big changes in energy choices, humans will dangerously heat up the planet.
The three-day International Conference on Climate Change – organised by the Heartland Institute, a nonprofit group seeking deregulation and unfettered markets – brought together political figures, conservative campaigners, scientists, an Apollo astronaut and the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus.

Organisers say the discussions were intended to counter the Obama administration and Democratic lawmakers who have pledged to tackle global warming with legislation requiring cuts in the greenhouse gases that scientists have linked to rising temperatures.

The participants hold a wide range of views on climate science. Some concede that humans probably contribute to global warming, but they argue that the shift in temperatures poses no urgent risk.

Others attribute the warming, along with cooler temperatures in recent years, to solar changes or ocean cycles.

But large corporations such as Exxon Mobil, which in the past financed the Heartland Institute and other groups that challenged the climate consensus, have reduced support. Many such companies no longer dispute that the greenhouse gases produced by burning fossil fuels pose risks.

From 1998 to 2006, Exxon Mobil, for example, contributed more than $600,000 (£414,000) to Heartland, according to annual reports of charitable contributions from the company and company foundations.

Alan Jeffers, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil, said by e-mail that the company had ended support "to several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion about how the world will secure the energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner".

Joseph Bast, the president of the Heartland Institute, said that Exxon and other companies were just shifting their stance to improve their image. The Heartland meeting, he said, was the last bastion of intellectual honesty on the climate issue.

"Major corporations are painting themselves green around global warming," Bast said, adding that the companies have shifted their lobbying and public relations efforts toward trying to shape climate legislation in their favour. He said that contributions overall had continued to rise.

But Kert Davies, a climate campaigner for Greenpeace, said that the experts giving talks were "a shrinking collection of extremists" and that they were "left talking to themselves".

Organisers point to the speaker's roster, which included Klaus and Harrison Schmitt, a geologist, Apollo astronaut and former senator.

A centrepiece of the 2008 meeting was the release of a report, 'Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules The Planet'. The document was expressly designed as a challenge to the reports from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

This year the meeting focused on a more nuanced question: "Global warming: Was it ever a crisis?"

Some, including prominent figures who have been vocal in their criticism in the past, called on their colleagues to synchronise the arguments they are using against plans to curb greenhouse gases.

Richard Lindzen, a professor at MIT and a longtime sceptic of the mainstream consensus that global warming poses a danger, first delivered a biting attack on what he called the "climate alarm movement".

There is no solid scientific evidence to back up the models used by climate scientists who warn of dire consequences if warming continues, he said. But Lindzen also criticised widely publicised assertions by other sceptics that variations in the sun were driving temperature changes in recent decades. To attribute short-term variation in temperatures to a single cause, whether human-generated gases or something else, was erroneous, he said.

Speaking of the sun's slight variability, he said: "Acting as though this is the alternative (to blaming greenhouse gases] is asking for trouble."

S Fred Singer, a physicist often referred to by critics and supporters alike as the dean of climate contrarians, said: "As a physicist, I am concerned that some sceptics, a very few, are ignoring the physical basis.

"There is one who denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which goes against actual data," Singer said, adding that other sceptics wrongly contend that "humans are not responsible for the measured increase in atmospheric CO2."

There were notable absences from the conference this year. Russell Seitz, a physicist from Cambridge, Massachusetts, delivered a speech at last year's meeting. But Seitz, who has lambasted environmental campaigners for distorting climate science, now warns that the sceptics are in danger of doing the same thing.

The most strident advocates on either side of the global warming debate, he said, are "equally oblivious to the data they seek to discount or dramatise".

John Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama who has long publicly questioned projections of dangerous global warming, most recently at a House committee hearing last month, said he had skipped both Heartland conferences to avoid the potential for "guilt by association".

Many participants said that any division or dissent was minor and that the global recession and a series of years with cooler temperatures would help them in combating changes in energy policy in Washington.

"The only place where this alleged climate catastrophe is happening is in the virtual world of computer models, not in the real world," said Marc Morano, a speaker at the meeting and a spokesman on environmental issues for Republican senator James Inhofe.

But several climate scientists who are seeking to curb greenhouse gases strongly criticised the meeting.

Stephen Schneider, a climatologist at Stanford University and an author of many reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said, after reviewing the text of presentations for the Heartland meeting, that they were efforts to "bamboozle the innocent".

Yvo de Boer, head of the UN office running the meetings leading to a new global climate treaty, to be signed in December in Copenhagen, said: "I don't believe that what the sceptics say should provide any excuse to delay further action against global warming."

But he added: "Sceptics are good. It's important to give people the confidence that the issue is being called into question."


Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 21 March 2009 9:38 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: Climate change
 
1

Hmm ...,

22/03/2009 00:58:12
... interesting that this report runs completely contrary to the following:

Posted on U.S. Senate website:

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=10fe77b0-802a-23ad-4df1-fc38ed4f85e3

And that S Fred Singer's alleged comments also run completely contrary to his book, "Unstoppable Global Warming - every 1,400 years" where he contends that the man-made warming argument is a lie!

Has this reporter actually checked out the Press Release that he took the script from?
2

Hmm ...,

22/03/2009 01:00:54
... and the new peer-reviewed paper published in International Journal of Modern Physics
Everyone can purchase the paper at the WSPC website for $ 25.00

G. Gerlich, R. D. Tscheuschner:
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics.
International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (30 January 2009), 275-364
(World Scientific Publishing Co.)

http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/23/2303/S02179792092303.html

But there is a freely available post-print version 4.0 from the preprint server of the Cornell University :

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161v4

Physicist Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, of the Institute of Mathematical Physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig in Germany, and Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner co-authored a July 7, 2007 paper titled "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics." The abstract of the paper reads in part, "(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects; (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet; (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly; (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately; (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical; (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified." Gerlich and Tscheuschner's study concluded, "The horror visions of a risen sea level, melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences of fictitious physical mechanisms, as they cannot be seen even in the climate model computations. The emergence of hurricanes and tornados cannot be predicted by climate models, because all of these deviations are ruled out. The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to be to
3

Hmm ...,

22/03/2009 01:01:59
(cont).

The emergence of hurricanes and tornados cannot be predicted by climate models, because all of these deviations are ruled out. The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to be to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo explanations, which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training."
4

Hmm ...,

22/03/2009 01:03:41
... so who is lying? The physicist or the politician who is on the IPCC panel?

Hint - IPCC is a UN-backed comittee aimed at transferring wealth from the developed countries to the less-developed ones through carbon offset!
5

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 22/03/2009 04:36:19
People are coming to believe that deregulation and unfettered markets equate to racketeering for fun and profit so I'd be sceptical about the Hearland objective.
6

Antonio Sosa,

Florida, USA 22/03/2009 06:45:46
More and more scientists and thinking people all over the world are realizing that man-made global warming is a hoax that threatens our future and the future of our children. The over 700 dissenting international scientists that just met in New York are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=595F6F41-802A-23AD-4BC4-B364B623ADA3

Additionally, 32,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate…" http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

"Progressive" (communist) politicians like Obama seem determined to force us to swallow the man-made global warming scam. We need to defend ourselves from the UN and these politicians, who threaten our future and the future of our children. Based on a lie, they have already wasted billions and plan to increase taxes, limit development, and enslave us.

If not stopped, the global warming scam will enrich the scammers (Gore and Obama’s Wall Street friends), increase the power of the U.N. and communists like Obama, and multiply poverty and servitude for the rest of us.
7

Antonio Sosa,

Florida, USA 22/03/2009 06:53:22
Scientists have been fired for not supporting the global warming hoax. They can get much more funding by supporting the hoax than by not supporting it. In the U.S., scientists ready to support the hoax can have access to the billions that Obama is stealing from our children and grandchildren, much more than they can get from any corporation. You have to be courageous to contradict Gore and Obama. Nevertheless, thousands of scientists have had the courage to tell the truth and are insisting that CO2 will not harm us.
8

John Cameron,

St Andrews 22/03/2009 06:58:03
The present state of play can be summarized thus:
1. Is there an established Theory of Climate? No.
2. Do we understand fully how climate works? No.
3. Is carbon dioxide demonstrated to be a dangerous atmospheric pollutant? No.
4. Can deterministic computer models predict future climate? No.
5. Is there a consensus amongst qualified scientists that dangerous, human-caused climate change is upon us? No.
6. Did late 20th century temperature rise at a dangerous rate, or to a dangerous level? No.
7. Is global temperature currently rising? No.
9

El Franko,

22/03/2009 08:41:30
At last, something on the New York conference! A shame that it is a piece by a New York Times journalist rather than an Edinburgh one, but I suspect, as in many things, the dawn of realisation is in the west. The NYT itself enjoys the Pravda-like style of the BBC, albeit without the licence-taxpayers support, but it is interesting to see one of their writers sticking his neck out further than he has ever done before into the scary world of reporting some actuality rather than totally on the spin du jour. Hope springs eternal!
10

Unimpressed one,

22/03/2009 08:51:11
#10, agreed. But you'll notice that warmist supporters with their contrary views are given a piece in the article, unlike alarmist claims in this same rag which are never followed by the counter view. Typical media bias.
11

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 22/03/2009 09:01:10
An established Theory of anything is likely wrong or at least inadequate. But in peer-reviewed publications change is always resisted. We'll have to see what President Obama does.

It must make sense to burn less coal and oil for a better and cleaner way of life and we have the non-nuclear technology to do this.
12

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 22/03/2009 09:16:19
#2 Hmm ...

G. Gerlich, R. D. Tscheuschner is garbage: how anyone could write such rubbish, let alone get it published is almost beyond comprehension. You are just a victim of this garbage: you don't understand it but it tells you what you want to hear, so you believe it. The points a) to f)that you give are refuted in many places, here, for example:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/03/07/open-thread-11/

by Barton Paul Levenson:

G&T: "(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects,"

Yes, “greenhouse effect” doesn’t really describe how a greenhouse works. Scientists have known that for longer than G&T have been alive.

G&T: "(b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet,"

Take the temperature in representative areas and take the average. They had the figure approximately right as far back as the late 19th century.

G&T: "(c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,"

It’s the difference between the Earth’s mean global annual surface temperature of 288 K and its radiative equilibrium temperature of 255 K (I get 254 K myself). Yes, if Earth didn’t have an atmosphere, its albedo would probably be different and [the equilibrium temperature] would be a little different, but so what? What possible relevance does that have?

G&T: "(d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately,"

The formulas of cavity radiation aren’t generally used at all in atmosphere physics unless one is discussing blackbodies. The Stefan-Boltzmann law:

I = s T^4

is the basic “cavity radiation law.” For a graybody one adds an emissivity term, and for a real body one adds a wavelength or frequency subscript to the emissivity term and accounts for the fraction of radiation output in the range of interest. Usually you can use the Planck law for the blackbody fraction, then m
13

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 22/03/2009 09:17:33
Contd.

Usually you can use the Planck law for the blackbody fraction, then multiply by the appropriate fractional constants.

G&T: "(e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical,"

Very true. The Earth’s atmosphere is in radiative-convective balance, not radiative balance. G&T apparently think climatologists don’t know this.

G&T: "(f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified."

Thermal conductivity and friction are covered in the expressions for surface cooling by sensible heat loss, which is part of what makes up the “convective” part of “radiative-convective equilibrium.” They are only set to zero for theoretical simplifications usually shown to students.
14

sceptic,

livingston 22/03/2009 10:20:30
The global warmers firmly in denial of the falling trend in global mean temperature of the past 11 years. Even the Met Office who have never knowingly forecast an underestimated UK or global temperature(seven over-estimates out of their seven most recent forecasts) now clearly showing a broken "hockey stick". Even "smoothing" the numbers using Slioch's favoured "21-point binomial filter" the evidence is becoming clearer each year.
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
15

Euan,

Edinburgh 22/03/2009 10:43:11
I have always been a 'man-made global warming' sceptic and simply see the entire 'CO2' thing as a way to raise taxes, generate revenue and keep people in their 'green' jobs.

I'm all for making things more efficient, helping people to use less energy and ensure that as much as possible is recycled. But I am totally against people being taxed more and more simply because politicians want to make themselves feel better.

Measures like Edinburgh Council's plans to penalize drivers of bigger-engined cars by charging them more for their parking permits is a classic example of a so-called 'green' policy designed for no other purpose than to raise revenue.

Everyone should have a look at this documentary:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=288952680655100870
16

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 22/03/2009 11:14:18
#15 Sceptic

"the falling trend in global mean temperature of the past 11 years"

As opposed to the rising trend for the last 15, 14, 13, 12, 10 and 9 years, I suppose?

The long term trend in average global temperatures is about +0.016 to +0.018 C/year. The annual variation in that is + or - 0.2C, ie more than ten times the annual increment. That being the case, periods of declining temperatures are inevitable, but, to date, are not statistically significant.

As far as the 21 point binomial filter is concerned: that is the MET Offices preferred method of smoothing, but because the smoothed figures are derived from 21 years of data, later years are only provisional. The smoothed figure for 2008, for example, will come from the years 1998 to 2018, the ten years of which do not yet exist. Further, in a series in which there is a rising trend, the method of calculation employed by the MET Office means that more recent smoothed figures are lower than their likely final values.

17

El Franko,

22/03/2009 11:33:29
#17, Slioch - you should take a print of message #8 and affix it to the side of your computer screen. This kind of shock therapy may what you require to overcome your affliction. Good luck!
18

,

22/03/2009 12:03:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
19

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 22/03/2009 12:47:36
#19 postmark55

"Take carbon dating for instance, nicely and conveniently rounded off to the nearest million years."

Nonsense. Carbon dating is only applicable to dates less than about 60,000 years, since the half life of C14 is about 5700 years, and thus virtually no C14 remains after those ten half lives.

As you say, "let's quit destroying our planet through pollution, deforestation and just plain stupidity and greed". Part of which is the continual denial, lies and stupidity of the AGW deniers. Which side are you on?
20

,

22/03/2009 12:57:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
21

,

22/03/2009 13:10:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
22

,

22/03/2009 13:13:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
23

sceptic,

livingston 22/03/2009 15:09:58
17 Slioch
"The smoothed figure for 2008, for example, will come from the years 1998 to 2018, the ten years of which do not yet exist. Further, in a series in which there is a rising trend, the method of calculation employed by the MET Office means that more recent smoothed figures are lower than their likely final values"

Are you real? How pathetic can you get? When the graph is rising it is proof of global warming, when it is falling that is nothing to do with climate but is down to the manipulation of the numbers.
Typical squirming, when the numbers don't suit the preconceived prejudices, claim that the methods used were perfectly acceptable, until of course they no longer fit the fantasy.
24

Alexander,

Edinburgh 22/03/2009 15:25:10
#17
"Further, in a series in which there is a rising trend, the method of calculation employed by the MET Office means that more recent smoothed figures are lower than their likely final values"
Wow! The figures may be lower than the final values but the Hadley graph is showing not just reduced values but a negative gradient!
25

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 22/03/2009 16:11:13
#24 sceptic asked, "Are you real?"

The answer is "Yes". I'm also numerate, which, it appears, is more than can be said for you.

The smoothed values for recent years are provisional. I've explained why. If you can't understand that, then that's just too bad. Smoothed figures are NOT particularly useful for recent years: they give a rough guide, that is all. And if there is a long-term positive or negative trend in temperatures then the smoothed figures will tend to negate that trend since the calculation does NOT take the trend into account.

If you want to know if the recent dip in the unsmoothed average global temperatures is also real (that is, if they deviate in a statistically significant way from the long-term trend since 1975) then the answer is NO: none of the recent annual average global temperature figures deviates by more than two standard deviations from the long-term trend.

Does the the recent dip in average annual global temperature figures presage a future statistically significant drop? We don't know, and more to the point there is absolutely no way of knowing from an examination of the figures themselves.

Is a future statistically significant drop in annual average temperatures expected by climatologists? NO, though one or two papers disagree, Keenlyside 2008, see:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/abs/nature06921.html

for example, though its methodology has been widely criticised, see, for example:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/global-cooling-wanna-bet/

When will we know if the recent dip IS the start of a statistically significant cooling. See:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/

You might also be interested in:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/09/12/dont-get-fooled-again/
26

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 22/03/2009 18:02:25
Climate disruption is certainly evident. On balance this is more likely to trigger a new ice age. But it's only my opinion.

The big solar (electric?) system and galactic considerations have to be considered too and even Pluto was warming up as it cruised away from the Sun.

We live on a tortured planet and world leaders - supposing that they are in fact human - have alot to answer for it.
27

,

22/03/2009 18:17:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
28

Itchy,

22/03/2009 23:43:37
I do not deny 'climate change' because the earth's climate is not static.

The headline is emotional blackmail and scaremongering from the eco-nazis and eco-commies.
29

Mikko,

Drumnadrochit 23/03/2009 15:39:46
Whatever happened to the term "global warming"? Oh yes, most of us are freezing these days so the "experts" and the "green" tax raising crooks in the government thought us commoners won't buy that "warming" nonsense any longer so they just renamed it "climate change".

What a load of hogwash it all is.
30

SouthernGent,

23/03/2009 16:39:53
Only the arrogance of man can project himself to the forefront of a planet that is 4.5 billion years old. Science is based on what is known, not what is theorized, and we "know" a very small fraction of that 4.5 billion year time frame.

Another game in a life full of games.
31

Slioch,

Scottish Highlands 23/03/2009 19:02:53
#30 Mikko asked, "Whatever happened to the term "global warming"?"

Nothing at all.

Although "global warming" and "climate change" tend to be used interchangeably, strictly, "global warming" refers to the accumulation of additional heat within the atmosphere/oceans/land surface. Whereas "climate change" refers to the climatic effects of this extra heat energy, which include changes in temperature, winds and precipitation patterns.

"AGW (anthropogenic global warming)" emphasises the human cause of global warming.

It is perhaps one of the more bizarre and desperate aspects of the AGW deniers' delusions that they imagine they can find some kind of conspiracy or meaning in the relative rates at which these two terms are used.

BTW: Why have Postmark55's comments been removed? They were not particularly well informed (as far as I remember), but if that were the criteria for removal then these comment threads would constitute pretty thin soup. He gave China as his location: any ideas?
32

truthsleuth,

28/03/2009 23:38:11
Theres one thing that unites all non believers
Their ability to ignore anything that may put their ignorance to the test.
33

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 29/03/2009 12:21:33
33 truthsleuth

Strange term to use: "non believers"

Is it now a matter of faith?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.