Hot Talk, Cold Science - Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate

by S. Fred Singer (photo: desmogblog.com)

The Global Climate Treaty
According to proponents of the Global Climate Treaty, a consensus within the scientific community supports the view that human-caused global warming is occurring and that it threatens human health and well-being. Nothing could be further from the truth. Far from viewing the existence of global warming as “settled,” most atmospheric scientists and climate specialists hold that the global warming issue should be considered “unfinished business” requiring much further research.

Rather than embark on economically destructive policies to solve a problem that to the best of our knowledge does not exist, Singer urges policymakers to adopt a “no regrets” policy of continued research and unimpeded economic growth. We would then have more scientific knowledge, technology, and economic resources with which to confront climate warming, if we ever discover that it is occurring and poses a real threat. But prematurely mandating severe reductions of greenhouse gas emissions would make us—and developing countries, especially—poorer and less able to cope with any future problems.

No Scientific Consensus of Warming
That there is no scientific consensus of a global-warming threat is indicated by surveys of active scientists

In recent years, research on global climate change has led even more scientists to doubt that global warming is upon us or that it would soon bring Yet these doubts are characteristically downplayed in IPCC reports. These reports gave the false impression that all 2000-plus scientists who contributed to (or had their work cited in) the reports also supported the view that man-made global warming was occurring or posed a credible threat. The IPCC reports even indicated that the scientists who reviewed and commented on earlier drafts endorsed the report—whether their comments on the drafts were positive or negative.

Man-Made Global Warming Not in Evidence
The announced purpose of the Global Climate Treaty is to avoid “dangerous interference with the climate system.” However, this goal is entirely arbitrary because we have no scientific guidance for determining what constitutes a “dangerous interference.” Nor do we have evidence that human activity has had much effect on world climate.

While it is true that global temperatures have risen about 0.5 degree Celsius in the last century, most of this warming occurred before 1940, while most of the human-caused CO2 emissions occurred after 1940. Further, we simply do not know whether climate variability depends on carbon dioxide concentrations. Scientists are only now beginning to study the role of other potential factors in global climate change, such as the interaction between the atmosphere and oceans, variations in solar radiation, and the cooling effects of volcanic emissions and sulfate aerosols.

By and large, General Circulation Models (GCMs) have not yet considered these factors, which may explain why computer models cannot account for observed temperatures. Many models indicate that global warming has arrived and will intensify unless we reduce greenhouse gas emissions like CO2. However, weather satellite and balloon-borne radiosonde data indicate that global temperatures have fallen slightly since 1980. (But neither the weather satellite data nor the discrepancy between them and the GCMs are mentioned in the IPCC Policymakers’ Summary.)

While surface temperatures show slight increases—notably smaller than those predicted by the models—this appears to be due to the urban heat island (UHI) effect, stemming from population increases near weather stations. After correcting for the UHI effect, the years around 1940 emerge as the warmest years of the century in both the U.S. and Europe.

The gap between the satellite observations and existing theory is large enough to cast serious doubt on all computer-model predictions of future warming. Whatever the cause of the gap, we cannot rely on GCM forecasts of future warming. (GCMs are not even consistent with each other; their temperature forecasts vary by some 300 percent.) Until GCMs become validated by actual climate observations, they should not be used as the basis for policy.

Would Global Warming Be a Threat?
Given the incessant talk about the purported catastrophes a global warming might cause—severe storms, coastal flooding, increases in mosquito-carried diseases—it sounds strange to hear about benefits from a global warming. Nevertheless, the scientific literature supports the view that increases in CO2 concentration and global temperatures, were they to materialize, might actually improve human well-being. Some benefits include a CO2-enriched biosphere more conducive to plant growth, longer frost-free growing seasons, greater water efficiency for plants, and more available farmland at higher latitudes.

A reduction in severe storms would be another likely benefit if global warming were to occur. Since a global warming would probably mostly warm the latitudes farther north and south, the temperature gradient between the equator and the poles would fall, thereby reducing the severity of storms. (Contrary to anecdotal reports, theory and observations indicate that severe storms, both tropical and extra-tropical, have not increased in the past 50 years. In fact, North Atlantic hurricanes have noticeably declined in frequency and in intensity.)

Rising sea levels, another alleged consequence of a global warming, may also be a phantom problem. It seems likely that a global warming would lower, rather than raise sea levels, because more evaporation from the oceans would increase precipitation and thereby thicken the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica. This possibility is supported by an observed inverse correlation between the rate of rise of the sea level and tropical sea surface temperature.

Ocean Fertilization and Economic Resilience
If increases in carbon dioxide concentrations do become a problem, a policy of ocean fertilization—to stimulate the growth of phytoplankton and speed up the natural absorption of CO2 into the ocean, as recently documented in field testing—seems more prudent (and cheaper) than energy rationing. Ocean fertilization would also likely bring an important side benefit: vast ocean deserts could be turned into thriving fisheries. Developing countries in particular would benefit from this less expensive policy by investing the saved wealth in strengthening the resilience of their economies, safeguarding against naturally occurring harmful climate events, and improving their health care systems.

About the Author
S. Fred Singer is Research Fellow at The Independent Institute, President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, and a Distinguished Research Fellow, Institute for Space Science and Technology. He was the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. He is the former director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, and former Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation.

Climate Change Controversy Position at the end of 2010

As I See It…………………

PUBLIC OPINION

There seems to be general acceptance of fact that the average temperature of the world is indeed increasing. The hard evidence is there: melting glaciers, shrinking ice cover at the North and South poles.

However, there appears to be an increasing doubt among the public that man-made CO2 is or is likely to be the main cause of this increase in world temperatures and therefore climate change, and that the prediction by scientists that we are heading for a disaster is either untrue or is greatly exaggerated.

A typical example is the following summary of the opinion poll carried out by the BBC in 2009 and repeated in 2010.

Question: Do you think that the Earth’s climate is changing?

2009 / 2010

YES: 85% / 75%

NO: 15% / 25%

NET: YES 60% / 50%

CONCLUSION
There has been a drop of 10% in people believing that climate change is taking place.

Now, in 2010, only half the population believes the climate is changing.

Of the 'was 85% now 75%' who believe the climate is changing:

Question: Which of these three statements is nearest the truth?

1. It is an established scientific fact that the climate change is largely man‐made.“This statement is nearest the truth” 2009 50% 2010 34% DOWN 16% OR
2. Climate change is largely man‐made but this has not yet been conclusively proved. This statement is nearest the truth” 2009 39% 2010 50% UP 11% OR
3. Man‐made climate change is environmentalist propaganda for which there is little or no real evidence. “This statement is nearest the truth” 2009 9% 2010 14% UP 5%
   

CONCLUSION
The changes in the opinions between the two years reveal the public’s growing skepticism of the environmentalists’ case. Now, in 2010, less than half the public believe that it is a proven fact that man-made CO2 is causing climate change.

THE SKEPTICS’ CASE

The arguments of those scientists who oppose the environmentalists’ “man-made CO2 is to blame”, the Skeptics, can be summarized as follows:

• The admitted changes in measured temperatures are part of the natural cycle

• There is no conclusive evidence that climate change is happening

• Even if part of these the changes are human induced, the scale is not sufficiently large to make substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions necessary

• The economic impact of making substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions on the scale suggested by the IPCC is certain to cause hardship; such steps are unjustified and unnecessary.

• The dire predictions of global warming rely on computer models based on unproven assumed values of the large number of variables those models entail.

• Those models don't include the highly relevant variations in the Sun’s output.

• Over the last 100 years atmospheric CO2 has risen by a third, but the average world temperature has risen by only 0.75ºC.

• Historically, the human race has benefited from, not been harmed by, global warm periods

As stated above, public opinion appears to be swinging towards the skeptics’ case and away from the IPPC environmentalists’ case.

THE CANCUN SUMMIT ON CLIMATE CHANGE

In November/December 2010, there was a 12 day Summit Conference in Cancun, Mexico. Nearly 200 countries took part. The aim was to make progress on several issues in the hope of re-instilling faith in the IPCC’s recommendations. The principle objective was for all counties to enter into legal and binding treaties to reduce their CO2 emissions to a specified annual output by the year 2020 so that global warming is kept to less than 2ºC above pre-industrial (1950) levels.

The outcome was a general agreement, but NOT the adoption of legal and binding treaties, to achieve the objective cuts. It has been said that one of the reasons that the results hoped for by the environmentalists was not achieved was the recognition by the delegates of the public’s increasing doubt of the need for drastic measures to be adopted.

CARBON TRADING SCHEMES

Carbon Trading Schemes (sometimes called ‘Cap-and-Trade’) have been operating for several years. The objective of these schemes is to reduce the volume of CO2 released to the atmosphere by commercial companies. In 2007 European Union introduced the largest of such schemes, the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme.

(for details see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EU_carbon_trading_scheme)

Some other countries have or are planning to introduce similar schemes. USA, the largest producer of CO2 has no Federal scheme but several of the States have introduced their own schemes.

Carbon Emissions trading has been steadily increasing in recent years. According to the World Bank’s Carbon Finance Unit, the quantity of carbon dioxide exchanged through projects in 2005 showed a 240% increase relative to 2004 which was itself a 41% increase relative to 2003. In terms of dollars, the World Bank has estimated that the size of the carbon market was $11 billion in 2005, $30 billion in 2006, and $64 billion in 2007.

Climate Exchanges have been established to provide a spot market in allowances, as well as a futures and options market. Currently there are five exchanges trading in carbon allowances: the Chicago Climate Exchange, European Climate Exchange, Nord Pool, PowerNext and the European Energy Exchange. Managing emissions is now one of the fastest-growing segments in financial services in the City of London; in 2007 the market was estimated to be worth about €30 billion. With the creation of a market for mandatory trading of carbon dioxide emissions, the London financial marketplace has established itself as the center of the carbon finance market. The head of environmental markets at Barclays Capital predicts that “Carbon will be the world’s biggest commodity market, and it could become the world’s biggest market overall.”

For an explanation of how the carbon market works see:

http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/4F6F3D35-93BF-4CDD-8C13-7B73FDD57831/0/SUS_carbontradingguide.pdf

CRITICISM.
There is considerable criticism of how the existing schemes work. Carbon trading schemes have tended to reward the heaviest polluters with ‘windfall profits’ when they are granted enough carbon credits to match historic production. Carbon trading encourages business-as-usual as expensive long-term structural changes won’t be made if there is a cheaper source of carbon credits. Cheap “offset” carbon credits are frequently available from the less developed countries, where they may be generated by local polluters at the expense of local communities.

So far I have been unable to find any evidence that these schemes have, in fact, brought about a world-wide reduction in CO2 emission. Some calculations show that there has even been a slight increase. Whether carbon trading schemes are having the desired result or not, certainly a new financial industry, Carbon Trading, has developed and the carbon market’s brokers are enjoying increasingly large incomes.

Government initiatives to eliminate harmful gas emissions sometimes have unintended consequences. Here is an example. In the USA chemical makers are paid as much as $100,000 or more for every ton they destroy of a potent greenhouse gas, HFC-23. The price for destroying it is based on its being 11,700 times more powerful as a climate-warming gas than carbon dioxide. But that gas is a byproduct of an ozone-friendly refrigerant, HCFC-22, which those chemical makers also are paid to produce under the U.N.’s ozone treaty. Environmentalists say there is so much money in getting rid of HFC-23 that the chemical makers are overproducing HCFC-22 in order to have more of the byproduct to destroy!

“The evidence is overwhelming that manufacturers are creating excess HFC-23 simply to destroy it and earn carbon credits,” said Mark Roberts of the Environmental Investigation Agency, a research and advocacy group. “This is the biggest environmental scandal in history and makes an absolute mockery of international efforts to combat climate change.

L.Berney
January 2011

Climate Change: Man-Made or Not?

.

image: reallynatural.com

As I See It……………..

A year or two ago, the majority of the public believed that man-made CO2, caused by the burning of fossil fuels, was raising the Earth’s temperature and, consequently, was changing the Earth’s climate, and that if the man-made CO2 emissions were not drastically reduced, there would be disastrous results. Of late. opinions seem to be changing – now more than half the population no longer believes this to be true.

It is a fact that the temperature and the climate of the Earth have always changed over time. These changes are due to “natural causes”, that is, causes which have nothing to do with mankind’s activity.

It is a fact that over the last 100 years, millions of tons of man-made CO2 have been added to the atmosphere that otherwise would not have been there. With the increasing industrialization in the third world, the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere annually is set to increase, year by year, for the foreseeable future.

Leaving aside such issues as misleading “hockey stick” graphs, Al Gore’s motives, tampering with meteorological data, bribing of scientists, vested interests of both the fossil fuel and the renewables industries, ice core samples and tree rings, flawed computer models, biased interpretation of data, etc, we are, as I see it, left with one question with two possible answers.

The question is, over and above changes in the Earth’s temperature and climate due to natural causes, will this additional man-made CO2 --

• have a significant effect on the temperature and climate of the planet and is very likely to bring about catastrophic results for mankind, and that urgent action needs to be taken? (The Activist’s case)

OR

• have no effect, or only an insignificant effect, on the temperature and climate of the planet? (The Skeptic’s case)

Which case do you believe is right – the Activist’s or the Skeptic’s?

The way you answer the question leads on to other issues.

If you believe the former choice that the threat is real and urgent, then the question is what do you think should be done about it? What actions should be taken to cut down CO2 emissions and how drastic should those actions be? How is the inevitable detrimental effect that cutting CO2 emissions will have on the World’s economy to be handled? With this choice, you accept the risk that the Skeptics were right after all.

If you believe the latter choice, that there will be no, or only an insignificant amount of warming and climate change, then the quite considerable measures that have already been taken by governments to limit CO2 emissions should be dismantled forthwith. With this choice you accept the risk that the Activists were right after all.

My own personal opinion is the latter; that the additional man-made CO2 will have only an insignificant effect on the temperature and climate of the planet. (The Skeptic’s case). I believe that all CO2 emission reduction measures should be dismantled forthwith.

However, for an entirely different, non-CO2, reason, I believe that all countries should be taking urgent steps to secure their energy needs from sources other than fossil fuels.

L.Berney
March 2010

To those who are interested in the subject of Climate Change

.

by L Berney

Science Corrupted - Al Gore Won't Debate

As you will know, there is a substantial body of meteorological scientists who are adamant that, contrary to the opinion of other scientists, the additional carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by mankind's burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil and natural gas) has not and will not materially alter the Earth's climate.

These scientists claim that the arguments used by the "climate change activists" are false, unproven and are fundamentally untrue. They claim that the measures being taken by world leaders to eliminate CO2 emissions will result in serious disruption of the world's economy, completely unnecessarily.

This video of an interview given by Lord Christopher Monckton explains the anti-climate change activists' standpoint. (Lord Monkton is a politician and was at one-time an adviser to the British Government. He is well known for his "anti-climate change activists" views.)
.

Further to "Climate Change - The Skeptics " of 7th December.

As I see it....... by L Berney

As detailed in "Climate Change - The Skeptics " of 7th December, climate change skeptics are convinced that the "Global Warming is Man-Made" proponents are wrong -- indeed they claim the whole concept is a gigantic scam. They say,"Planet Earth has always had warmer periods followed by cooler periods. The reason for periodic 'Global Warming' and 'Global Cooling' and the resulting effect on climate has nothing to do with man-made CO2 -- it has to do ONLY with the varying output of the Sun."

For those who are interested in the debate and want to know more, here is Part 1 of a series of videos explaining the skeptics' convictions clearly and in detail.

The logic, it has to be said, is convincing.

.

Climate Change - The Skeptics

As I See It....... by L. Berney

The United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 takes place in Copenhagen from 7th to 18th December. It will be attended by 192 nations; many heads of governments will be present. The objective is to agree a framework for climate change mitigation beyond 2012.

The majority of scientists say they believe that the planet is getting warmer and this ‘global warming’ is due in the main to human activity, namely the release into the atmosphere of the greenhouse gas, CO2 resulting from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas (the fossil fuels).

These scientists say that, unless robust and immediate mitigating action is taken, the temperature of the planet will rise over the coming decades by 3ºC to 6ºC and that the effects on humanity will be catastrophic.

However, there are a large number of other scientists (the skeptics) who did not, and still do not, agree with that scenario. They challenge the accuracy of the records that purport to show that the planet is getting warmer. They assert that:

• the man-made CO2 that has been added to the atmosphere over the last two centuries has made no significant change in the temperature or the climate.
  
• the Earth’s temperature rise in the 20th Century was only 0.5ºC and that was due to the Earth’s gradual recovery from the ‘mini ice age' of 500 years ago, not to man-made CO2.
• there is no hard evidence to expect , even less to predict with certitude, that the rise in temperature in this 21st Century – if indeed there is a rise at all -- will be substantially greater.
  

They claim that the projections of temperatures and climate changes being used to support the ‘disaster’ scenario are based on faulty and unproven assumptions. They believe that whatever global warming is taking place is the result of natural cyclical causes, not man-made causes. They fear that the actions being implemented by World Leaders to drastically reduce the volume of man-made CO2 will cause great harm to the World’s economy – needlessly.

Some quotes, typical of many others, from papers issued by leading scientist skeptics:

"...The environmentalists consider their ideas and arguments to be an undisputable truth and use sophisticated methods of media manipulation and PR campaigns to exert pressure on policymakers to achieve their goals. Their argumentation is based on the spreading of fear and panic by declaring the future of the world to be under serious threat. In such an atmosphere they continue pushing policymakers to adopt illiberal measures, impose arbitrary limits, regulations, prohibitions, and restrictions on everyday human activities and make people subject to omnipotent bureaucratic decision-making. Man-made climate change has become one of the most dangerous arguments aimed at distorting human efforts and public policies in the whole world..."

"...Some scientists perpetuate the 'global disaster' myth to encourage governments to fund more research into global warming for their own financial benefit. In the papers they publish, data which contradicts their hypotheses is omitted. If it was realized that there was no such danger, that funding would stop..."

"...For those of you old enough to read in the 1970s, there was a lot of hysteria back then about the global temperature dropping and that the planet was entering another ice age. The same ‘if we don't act promptly, in 10 years it will be too late' statements were published, on the covers of reputable papers and magazines by many of the same ‘scientists,' and for many of the same base motives. The only difference between the 1970s and now was that the disaster that was just around the corner was global cooling! How times change, while people don't,.."

This site sets out the skeptic’s position:

http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/745.html

This is the link to a US Senate report of 11 Dec 2008 (231 pages) headed “More than 650 International Scientists dissent over Man-Made Global Warming”:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=37283205-c4eb-4523-b1d3-c6e8faf14e84

This site summarizes a large number of articles opposed to the current policies:

www.climatechangeskeptic.blogspot.com/

A Petition signed by 31,000 skeptical scientists. These scientists are "...convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth."

www.petitionproject.org/


L.Berney
December 2009

Addendum

To illustrate how the Earth's temperature swings higher and lower naturally, long before man-made CO2 was a factor:

“The Romans wrote about growing wine grapes in Britain in the first century, 2,000 years ago. There were about 40 vineyards,” says Avery, “and then it got too cold during the Dark Ages, 500/600 years ago.

"Ancient tax records show the Britons grew their own wine grapes in the 11th century, 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Warming, and then it got too cold during the Little Ice Age of 600 years ago. Wine grapes are among the most accurate and sensitive indicators of temperature and they are telling us about a cycle. They also indicate that today’s warming is not unprecedented.”
.

Climate Change - The Controversy Continues

image from www.watersecretblog.com

As I See It

by L. Berney

On 1st December 2008, more than 9,000 delegates from around the World gathered in Poznań, Poland for two weeks of critical UN-sponsored talks on tackling climate change. About 150 prime ministers and environment ministers attended the discussions, which are part of a process on finding a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is due to end in 2012, and there is now a major international push to have its successor agreed by this time next year.

The basis of the Kyoto Protocol is that the planet is getting warmer and this ‘global warming’ is due in the main to human activity, namely the release into the atmosphere of the greenhouse gas, CO2. The scientists who are behind the Protocol believe that, unless mitigating action is taken, the temperature of the planet will rise over the coming decades by 3ºC to 6ºC and that the effects on humanity will be catastrophic.

However, there are a large number of other scientists (the sceptics) who did not, and still do not, agree with the science behind the Protocol. They challenge the accuracy of the records that purport to show that the planet is getting warmer. They question the assumption that the man-made CO2 that has been added to the atmosphere over the last two centuries has made any significant change in the temperature or the climate. They believe that, if in fact global warming is taking place, there are causes other than man-made CO2 to explain it. They fear that the actions being implemented by World leaders to drastically reduce the volume of man-made CO2 will cause great harm to the World’s economy – needlessly.

This is the link to a US Senate report of 11 Dec 2008 (231 pages) headed “More than 650 International Scientists dissent over Man-Made Global Warming”:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=37283205-c4eb-4523-b1d3-c6e8faf14e84

Wikipedia’s detailed article on “Climate Change Controversy”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_controversy#Causes

This site summarises a large number of articles opposed to Kyoto:
www.climatechangeskeptic.blogspot.com/

A Petition signed by 31,000 sceptical scientists:
www.petitionproject.org/

---

My opinion?

I tend to agree with the sceptics.

Even if the CO2 in the atmosphere were to increase from a miniscule one part in 2,600 as it now, to the level some scientists project, a still miniscule one part in 1,700 at the end of this century, I doubt whether that small increase would cause a dramatic change in the climate.

I think the planet is probably still warming up from its last ice age of 10,000 years ago – at a rate of perhaps 0.5ºC to 1ºC per century. That rate of warming will cause little or no difference to the climate or to humanity.

I think the present policy of restricting the use of power, “carbon trading” and the like, will cause serious and needless decline in the World’s economy.

I believe that, as this century advances, the World will need a great deal more power -- abundant and cheap power -- especially if we are to lift a quarter of the World’s population out of poverty and at the same time provide for a projected population increase of 3 billion extra citizens.

However, I do believe that we should wean ourselves off of burning fossil fuels, NOT for ‘stop-CO2-emissions’ reasons, but for several other valid reasons.

Where, then, should our power come from? In my opinion, first choice, the development of Geothermal Energy – second choice, Nuclear Energy.