Skeptical Scientists Lambast UN Climate Meeting

[ICantSpellDawg]

Hilarity here

Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference

BALI, Indonesia - An international team of scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore, descended on Bali this week to urge the world to "have the courage to do nothing" in response to UN demands.

Lord Christopher Monckton, a UK climate researcher, had a blunt message for UN climate conference participants on Monday.

"Climate change is a non-problem. The right answer to a non problem is to have the courage to do nothing," Monckton told participants.

"The UN conference is a complete waste of our time and your money and we should no longer pay the slightest attention to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,)" Monckton added. (LINK)

Monckton also noted that the UN has not been overly welcoming to the group of skeptical scientists.

"UN organizers refused my credentials and appeared desperate that I should not come to this conference. They have also made several attempts to interfere with our public meetings," Monckton explained.

"It is a circus here," agreed Australian scientist Dr. David Evans. Evans is making scientific presentations to delegates and journalists at the conference revealing the latest peer-reviewed studies that refute the UN's climate claims.

"This is the most lavish conference I have ever been to, but I am only a scientist and I actually only go to the science conferences," Evans said, noting the luxury of the tropical resort. (Note: An analysis by Bloomberg News on December 6 found: "Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year." - LINK)

Evans, a mathematician who did carbon accounting for the Australian government, recently converted to a skeptical scientist about man-made global warming after reviewing the new scientific studies. (LINK)

"We now have quite a lot of evidence that carbon emissions definitely don't cause global warming. We have the missing [human] signature [in the atmosphere], we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years," Evans said in an interview with the Inhofe EPW Press Blog. Evans authored a November 28 2007 paper "Carbon Emissions Don't Cause Global Warming." (LINK)

Evans touted a new peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists appearing in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society which found "Warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK)

"Most of the people here have jobs that are very well paid and they depend on the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. They are not going to be very receptive to the idea that well actually the science has gone off in a different direction," Evans explained.

[Inhofe EPW Press Blog Note: Several other recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. For most recent sampling see: New Peer-Reviewed Study finds 'Solar changes significantly alter climate' (11-3-07) (LINK) & "New Peer-Reviewed Study Halves the Global Average Surface Temperature Trend 1980 - 2002" (LINK) & New Study finds Medieval Warm Period '0.3C Warmer than 20th Century' (LINK) For a more comprehensive sampling of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007 see "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" LINK ]

‘IPCC is unsound'

UN IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports since its inception going back to 1990, had a clear message to UN participants.

"There is no evidence that carbon dioxide increases are having any affect whatsoever on the climate," Gray, who shares in the Nobel Prize awarded to the UN IPCC, explained. (LINK)

"All the science of the IPCC is unsound. I have come to this conclusion after a very long time. If you examine every single proposition of the IPCC thoroughly, you find that the science somewhere fails," Gray, who wrote the book "The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," said.

"It fails not only from the data, but it fails in the statistics, and the mathematics," he added.

‘Dangerous time for science'

Evans, who believes the UN has heavily politicized science, warned there is going to be a "dangerous time for science" ahead.

"We have a split here. Official science driven by politics, money and power, goes in one direction. Unofficial science, which is more determined by what is actually happening with the [climate] data, has now started to move off in a different direction" away from fears of a man-made climate crisis, Evans explained.

"The two are splitting. This is always a dangerous time for science and a dangerous time for politics. Historically science always wins these battles but there can be a lot of causalities and a lot of time in between," he concluded.

Carbon trading ‘fraud?'

New Zealander Bryan Leland of the International Climate Science Coalition warned participants that all the UN promoted discussions of "carbon trading" should be viewed with suspicion.

"I am an energy engineer and I know something about electricity trading and I know enough about carbon trading and the inaccuracies of carbon trading to know that carbon trading is more about fraud than it is about anything else," Leland said.

"We should probably ask why we have 10,000 people here [in Bali] in a futile attempt to ‘solve' a [climate] problem that probably does not exist," Leland added.

‘Simply not work'

Owen McShane, the head of the International Climate Science Coalition, also worried that a UN promoted global approach to economics would mean financial ruin for many nations.

"I don't think this conference can actually achieve anything because it seems to be saying that we are going to draw up one protocol for every country in the world to follow," McShane said. (LINK)

"Now these countries and these economies are so diverse that trying to presume you can put all of these feet into one shoe will simply not work," McShane explained.

"Having the same set of rules apply to everybody will blow some economies apart totally while others will be unscathed and I wouldn't be surprised if the ones who remain unscathed are the ones who write the rules," he added.

‘Nothing happening at this conference'

Professor Dr. William Alexander, emeritus of the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, warned poor nations and their residents that the UN policies could mean more poverty and thus more death.

"My message is specifically for the poor people of Africa. And there is nothing happening at this conference that can help them one little bit but there is the potential that they could be damaged," Alexander said. (LINK)

"The government and people of Africa will have their attention drawn to reducing climate change instead of reducing poverty," Alexander added.

Related Links:

New UN Children's Book Promotes Global Warming Fears to Kids (11-13-2006)

Scientists Counter AP Article Promoting Computer Model Climate Fears

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Newsweek Editor Calls Mag's Global Warming 'Deniers' Article 'Highly Contrived'

Newsweek's Climate Editorial Screed Violates Basic Standards of Journalism

Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt

EPA to Probe E-mail Threatening to ‘Destroy' Career of Climate Skeptic

Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed)

Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate

Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven "Consensus'

Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics

Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic

Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Manmade Global Warming - Now Says Sun Biggest Factor in Warming

Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say

Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical

MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming 'Silly' - Equates Concerns to ‘Little Kids' Attempting to "Scare Each Other"

Weather Channel TV Host Goes 'Political'- Stars in Global Warming Film Accusing U.S. Government of ‘Criminal Neglect'

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don't Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made Global Warming Hype'

The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics

Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of "Skeptic's Guide To Debunking Global Warming"

# # #

[Don Corleone]

Interesting. So a guy who was tasked with charting the temperature rise for the New Zealand government says the science indicates man-made climate change isn't actually occurring and switches from pro-IPCC to anti-IPCC.

I would love to see the data that the global temperature has not risen for 5 years.

[Fragony]

This english guy invented a model that links the climate to solar activity, magnetic fields with solar flars you get it, he has an 80% succes rate at predicting the weather (so he says). At any rate, did you know that the exhaust fumes of the planes flying over those that care to Bali were 124% if the annual CO2 total of an average african country?

got it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn

[Vladimir]

"This is the most lavish conference I have ever been to, but I am only a scientist and I actually only go to the science conferences," Evans said, noting the luxury of the tropical resort. (Note: An analysis by Bloomberg News on December 6 found: "Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year." - LINK)

It would be nice to see an international push to "grow out of" pollution by bettering technology. Virtual conferencing would have eliminated the above pollution. This reminds me of a UN conference on global hunger where the delegates feasted on lobster and caviar.

[Viking]

we have the IPCC models being wrong and we have the lack of a temperature going up the last 5 years

5 years is nothing in climatic sense. Lets see if these so called scientists come up with a more fitting model.



Ah, furthermore the graphs I've seen seems to conclude what I think I heard; we are currently in a cooling period:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This means we should not expect increase in temperature, but should experience higher temperatures than in the last cold period.

[Kommodus]

Not as much to respond to here as one would think, since the article didn't actually give any evidence that human-caused carbon emissions don't cause climate change. On the other hand,

A. FACT: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, meaning it has a tendency to trap heat inside the atmosphere.

B. FACT: There is a LOT more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there used to be (Here's a link and another with plenty more where that came from).

C. FACT: The recent sharp rise in carbon levels in the atmosphere coincides precisely with when we humans started pumping large amounts of it into the atmosphere.

If people really want to dispute global warming, I'd like to see them produce a climate model that explains why increased levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses don't cause climate change. Until then all their efforts are counterproductive, and they need to step out of the way and let the real scientists work on a way to save the world.

[Fragony]

5 years is nothing in climatic sense. Lets see if these so called scientists come up with a more fitting model.

I live in Amersfoort, the 'Keistad', 'kei' means 'stone', and we have stones, it is exactly here were the previous iceage in europe ended.



Been one in Saudi Aurabia, and there is one on Antartica.

Edit hehe cool site



live 100 meter from there

[Vladimir]

5 years is nothing in climatic sense. Lets see if these so called scientists come up with a more fitting model.



Ah, furthermore the graphs I've seen seems to conclude what I think I heard; we are currently in a cooling period:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

This means we should not expect increase in temperature, but should experience higher temperatures than in the last cold period.

Look at the sharp increase during WW II. Evil NAZIs.

[Ironside]

This english guy invented a model that links the climate to solar activity, magnetic fields with solar flars you get it, he has an 80% succes rate at predicting the weather (so he says). At any rate, did you know that the exhaust fumes of the planes flying over those that care to Bali were 124% if the annual CO2 total of an average african country?

got it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Corbyn

How was the storm? Or do you get it by Christmas?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Not as much to respond to here as one would think, since the article didn't actually give any evidence that human-caused carbon emissions don't cause climate change. On the other hand,

A. FACT: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, meaning it has a tendency to trap heat inside the atmosphere.

B. FACT: There is a LOT more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there used to be (Here's a link and another with plenty more where that came from).

C. FACT: The recent sharp rise in carbon levels in the atmosphere coincides precisely with when we humans started pumping large amounts of it into the atmosphere.

If people really want to dispute global warming, I'd like to see them produce a climate model that explains why increased levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses don't cause climate change. Until then all their efforts are counterproductive, and they need to step out of the way and let the real scientists work on a way to save the world.

Aye, this is the productive way of looking at it.

Inductive reasoning on this subject often only leads leads to obfuscation, pseudo-science, and scientific claims that lack solidity. To nonsense such as 'we have a cold winter, so there is no global warming / there are lots of hurricanes, so there is'. Obfuscation such as 'There have been ice ages before, the climate is constantly changing'.

Deductive reasoning is far more productive:
The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a variable in the earth's climate.
Carbon dioxide is released in the atmosphere by human activity. (i.e. burning fossil fuels)

Hence, all else being equal, human activity has an effect on the earth's climate.

As far as I know, neither premise is in much dispute. So I'd say that from this starting point human induced climatic change ought to be studied. I would like sceptics to show where they see any fault in this simple, chrystal-clear deduction. I don't think sceptics can, which relegates their effort to the level of rearguard skirmishes. And, unfortunately, sometimes also to a much needed watchdog function against some of the more bold claims from climatologist. Alas, climatology has become heavily politicised. What we need is more neutral scientific research into the climatological effects of human activity, and a little less alarmist, activism-driven studies.

[Marshal Murat]

Pope is my New Hero

In Reply:

If people really want to dispute global warming, I'd like to see them produce a climate model that explains why increased levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses don't cause climate change.

Isn't the burden of proof always on the claimant? If someone is killed, and the prosecutor says 'It was a gun' you have to prove that a bullet killed them. If there are no

1. No bullet holes
2. No internal damage
3. No scars

Then are you going to go to the accused and ask 'Prove how you would kill the victim'? No, you go back and change the method of murder. The same here. If you tell me that 'Global Warming' is occurring because of human actions, then PROVE to me that it is happening.

Might I also point out that weather forecasting is a difficult business, and computer models do no constitute Fact

[HoreTore]

Of course, when one guy says something different than what 1 million others are saying, he is, of course, automatically correct.

Or are people perhaps only hearing what they want to hear?

[Vladimir]

Of course, when one guy says something different than what 1 million others are saying, he is, of course, automatically correct.

I understand your sarcasm and you know better than that. There's no reason in your statement.

[Myrddraal]

There is reason there, though it was clouded with sarcasm.

We will probably never reach absolute concensus amongst the scientific community about global warning, so waiting for everyone to agree is a rather pointless excersise.

Since these people know much better the science than I do, I base my oppinion on the majority oppinion of scientists who have looked into the matter. Frankly, the majority is incredibly strong. Why people choose to listen to the minority when they have no expertise themselves is beyond me.

[Marshal Murat]

Because sometimes the minority is correct.

[Big_John]

Because sometimes the minority is correct.

do you always give the minority equal airtime? what about the flat earth society, do you still hold out the possibility that they are correct?

[Marshal Murat]

They have the right to believe that the Earth is flat. The claims they hold, however, have been disproved through rigorous scientific examination and observation.

If I support Intelligent Design as a theory of creation, and 3/4ths of my city believes in Intelligent Design, does majority therefore cancel out the theory of Evolution or Pastafarianism?

If 7/8ths of my city believes that there is a purple dragon, created by the Savior Jesus Christ, in the middle of the municipal park, does that make it correct? No.

1984

Majority rule doesn't mean the majority is correct.

[Papewaio]

Isn't the burden of proof always on the claimant? The same here. If you tell me that 'Global Warming' is occurring because of human actions, then PROVE to me that it is happening.

In this you are the claimant that CO2 does not warm up the atmosphere.
That humans are not releasing CO2.

Disprove those two at your leisure.

[Big_John]

They have the right to believe that the Earth is flat. The claims they hold, however, have been disproved through rigorous scientific examination and observation.

exactly. and this is the approach we should take with global warming. for the vast majority to be so wrong in the interpretation of data would be amazing.

note: with empirical science we are dealing with interpretations of data, not flights of fancy, so ID and flat earth are not actually very good analogies.

[Marshal Murat]

Humans are releasing CO2, it's a given.

CO2 warming up the atmosphere? I can't prove or disprove that, and I doubt that anyone else can prove it. We don't know enough about our environment, the weather systems, chaos theory, etc. to accurately predict the influence of CO2 on the environment.

for the vast majority to be so wrong in the interpretation of data would be amazing.

Which is exactly why it should be proven, down pat, that human interference alone is affecting the environment, and how to deal with it.
Example:
Wolf Reintroduction

To say that we have everything to do with global climate change is not a good position to take unless you can prove it.

[Myrddraal]

Majority rule doesn't mean the majority is correct.

This was not my point. My point was from the point of view of someone who does not know throught their own expertise.

I, as a person who has only a vague idea of the science behind global climate, put my trust in the majority of those who do, and have done the research.

CO2 warming up the atmosphere? I can't prove or disprove that, and I doubt that anyone else can prove it.

So you won't accept something unless it's been proven absolutely? Overwhelming evidence and scientific oppinion is not enough? You prefer to listen to the minority.

EDIT: PS, I like your reference to Chaos theory If you're waiting for everything to be proven by Chaos theory, you might as well give up on proving that a lot of the observed world actually exists, therefore, it does not.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I'm only teasing you I know what you meant

[Big_John]

Humans are releasing CO2, it's a given.

CO2 warming up the atmosphere? I can't prove or disprove that

you've backed into the corner pape has left unpainted.

[Marshal Murat]

I'm sorry if being absolutely correct is a problem Myrdraal

[Papewaio]

CO2 warming up the atmosphere? I can't prove or disprove that, and I doubt that anyone else can prove it. We don't know enough about our environment, the weather systems, chaos theory, etc. to accurately predict the influence of CO2 on the environment.

CO2 works with Infrared like Sunscreen cream does against UV.

Sunscreen cream is transparent in the visual spectrum. You can see your skin beneath a layer of it. However against UV light it is opaque and doesn't let much UV through. The SPF rating you see on each bottle of sunscreen is the scientifically measurable ability of the cream to block UV.

The same process to measure sunscreen can be done on any em spectrum on any substance. So just like sunscreen you can find what CO2 blocks and at what wavelength. In fact this is so easy to do it is a first year lab experiment in Physics. This is basic absorption spectroscopy. In fact the same idea is used in Carbon Sensors... they emit an infrared beam and the absorption is measured telling the user that CO2 is present.

Spectroscopy is used quite a lot. Each element has its own spectoscopic fingerprint. Just by looking at the light emitted from a star we can determine what elements it is composed of.

So CO2 absorbing infrared light is bread and butter scientific fact.

[Xiahou]

So CO2 absorbing infrared light is bread and butter scientific fact.

The fact that CO2 absorbs infrared life doesn't prove what if any overall warming effect it has on the climate. Lots of things absorb infrared light... just like sunscreen.... and butter.

[Big_John]

The fact that CO2 absorbs infrared life doesn't prove what if any overall warming effect it has on the climate. Lots of things absorb infrared light... just like sunscreen.... and butter.

sunscreen and butter aren't atmospheric gasses.

[Xiahou]

sunscreen and butter aren't atmospheric gasses.

I know, but I thought they were acceptable analogies.

If people really want to dispute global warming, I'd like to see them produce a climate model that explains why increased levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses don't cause climate change. Until then all their efforts are counterproductive, and they need to step out of the way and let the real scientists work on a way to save the world.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Try this:
Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.

These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).

The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).

The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”

Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”

Co-author S. Fred Singer said: “The current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle of climate warming and cooling that has been seen in ice cores, deep-sea sediments, stalagmites, etc., and published in hundreds of papers in peer-reviewed journals. The mechanism for producing such cyclical climate changes is still under discussion; but they are most likely caused by variations in the solar wind and associated magnetic fields that affect the flux of cosmic rays incident on the earth’s atmosphere. In turn, such cosmic rays are believed to influence cloudiness and thereby control the amount of sunlight reaching the earth’s surface—and thus the climate.” Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric CO2 has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control CO2 emissions are ineffective and pointless. – but very costly.
link

Really though, you don't need to have an alternative to be able to challenge the findings of a study.

[Papewaio]

The fact that CO2 absorbs infrared life doesn't prove what if any overall warming effect it has on the climate. Lots of things absorb infrared light... just like sunscreen.... and butter.

CO2 in the atmosphere acts just like... a greenhouse. Disprove that greenhouses work by trapping in heat and you then have a factual basis to disprove CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas.

What you might want to debate what are the enviromental heatsinks or the wavelength of incoming vs outgoing light etc.

[Xiahou]

CO2 in the atmosphere acts just like... a greenhouse. Disprove that greenhouses work by trapping in heat and you then have a factual basis to disprove CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas.

No, it works nothing like a greenhouse. Even those that support AGW know that the "greenhouse effect" is a misnomer. Real greenhouses work by preventing convective heat loss, whereas the atmospheric greenhouse effect is claimed to reduce radiative heat loss.

edit:
Wikipedia
Junkscience provides (imo) a better explanation.

Does the Earth's atmosphere primarily behave like an actual greenhouse?

No. The term "greenhouse effect" is unfortunate since it results in a false impression of the activity of so-called "greenhouse gases." An actual greenhouse works as a physical barrier to convection (the transfer of heat by currents in a fluid) while the atmosphere really facilitates convection so the impression of actual greenhouse-like activity in the Earth's atmosphere is incorrect.

[Myrddraal]

Ok Xiahou, but the misunderstand here is obviously about how a real greenhouse works, not how the greenhouse effect works.

You might also want to consider the idea that since CO2 is everywhere in our atmosphere, convective heat loss is impossible, and so the effect is very similar.