Is man-made global warming proved?

This graph shows troposphere temperature from satellite data
against IPCC computer model predictions

Global Warming, Colonialism and the ICE

Kyoto

Case Closed?

Green Myths

• "There is a Consensus that man-made Global Warming is Real"
• "Carbon Dioxide Levels are Unprecedented"
• "Polar Ice is Melting due to Global Warming"
• "Mankind is Pouring CO2 into the Atmosphere"
• "Temperatures are now Hotter than since Records Began"
• "Sea Levels are Rising due to Global Warming"
• "Extreme Weather is Caused by Global Warming"
• "Alternative Energy Sources are Viable"
• "Species are Disappearing due to Global Warming"
• "Computer Climate Models are Trustworthy"

-


•  “There is a Consensus that man-made Global Warming is Real”, they say

  Any claim that everybody accepts man-made global warming to be true, from scientists to secretaries, must be handled with care. No doubt, if polled today, more than half the population would believe in mankind's guilt over climate change, due to the constant onslaught of propaganda having an inevitable effect, plus the media's love affair with doomsday scenarios. We should note here that in other surveys, over half the population believe that cavemen and dinosaurs were on Earth at the same time, and that's drivel too.
   
  There are many statements from politicians that 'there is a clear consensus' about man-made global warming, or that 'the science is settled'. Only to the degree that the consensus is against any man-made influence on our climate (and the science backs this up). At a time when there were 20,000 signatories to the Oregon Petition, including 18,000 from qualified scientists, only 2,000 signatures were penned against the counter petition from dissident 'concerned scientists'. The Oregon Petition reads as follows, the second paragraph being particularly relevant to global debate:
   
  

  "We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
   
  There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

  
  Note the point about Kyoto actually harming the environment. That's because an atmosphere with carbon dioxide in it — and present levels are only 0.037% by volume — is better for plants, trees and crops. Feeding the world population won't be as easy with low carbon dioxide levels. Warmer winters, occurring from natural causes, have beneficial effects that are equally rarely mentioned. In the UK alone, a mild winter compared to a severe one saves 20,000 lives. Scaled up over northern Europe, mild winters are evidently a major lifesaver, but this is conveniently ignored too. When environmentalists consider a cost-benefit equation, particularly one involving the automobile in any way, the tendency is for all the costs to be added up, possibly with a dose of unsubtle guestimation and double accounting, and for the benefits to be conveniently forgotten. Once again, in such circumstances the picture that emerges is one-sided and false.
   
  The Leipzig Declaration, in a similar vein to the Oregon Petition, is reproduced here in full so that — like the Oregon Petition — its considered contents, thoughtful and carefully worded, may become more widely known:
   
  

  "As scientists, we — along with our fellow citizens — are intensely interested in the possibility that human activities may affect the global climate; indeed, land clearing and urban growth have been changing local climates for centuries. Historically, climate has always been a factor in human affairs — with warmer periods, such as the medieval 'climate optimum', playing an important role in economic expansion and in the welfare of nations that depend primarily on agriculture. For these reasons we must always remain sensitive to activities that could affect future climate.
   
  Attention has recently been focused on the increasing emission of 'greenhouse' gases into the atmosphere. International discussions by political leaders are currently underway that could constrain energy use and mandate reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Although we understand the motivation to eliminate what are perceived to be the driving forces behind a potential climate change, we believe this approach may be dangerously simplistic. Based on the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the so-called 'scientific consensus' that envisages climate catastrophes and advocates hasty actions.
   
  As the debate unfolds, it has become increasingly clear that — contrary to conventional wisdom — there does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. On the contrary, most scientists now accept the fact that actual observations from earth satellites show no climate warming whatsoever. And to match this fact, the mathematical climate models are becoming more realistic and are forecasting temperature increases that are only 30 percent of what was considered the 'best' value just four years ago.
   
  We consider the Global Climate Treaty concluded in Rio de Janeiro at the 1992 'Earth Summit' to be unrealistic; its goal is stabilisation of atmospheric greenhouse gases, which requires that fuel use be cut by 60-80 percent worldwide! Energy is essential for all economic growth, and fossil fuels provide today's principal global energy source. In a world in which poverty is the greatest social pollutant, any restriction on energy use that inhibits economic growth should be viewed with caution. For this reason, we consider 'carbon taxes' and other drastic control policies — lacking credible support from the underlying science — to be ill-advised, premature, wrought with economic danger, and likely to be counterproductive."

  
  This statement is based on the International Symposium on the Greenhouse Controversy, held in Leipzig, Germany on November 9-10, 1995, under the sponsorship of the Prime Minister of the State of Saxony.
   
  In spite of extensive support for viewpoints opposing man-made global warming, and (as we shall see) masses of scientific data discrediting it, supporters often use statements such as 'the evidence is compelling' followed by 'action is needed now', but the evidence is not compelling so no hasty knee-jerk is required.
   
  It should be clear by this point that there is indeed no consensus whatsoever in favour of man-made climate change, and plenty of reason to stop the disastrous policies being undertaken for reasons that are hard to fathom in terms of science, social or otherwise. Possible hidden motives will be exposed later.
   
  -
  

•  “Carbon Dioxide Levels are Unprecedented”, they say

  We frequently hear that atmospheric carbon dioxide is at unprecedented levels. This is quite untrue. Such statements may have arisen as a result of the misleading impression given by a widely reproduced graph showing only the very recent trend. With a short timescale, running from 1960 to the present day, and an equally suitable scale chosen for the carbon dioxide values, the onlooker can easily gain the impression that carbon dioxide levels have been rising for a considerable time from a very low level, and that since the present day value is by far the highest on view, levels are indeed unprecedented.
   
  
  Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere 1960..2000
   
  The problem here is, of course, that this is selective reporting of carbon dioxide levels. Once the graph is extended to cover proper geological timescales, the present level of carbon dioxide is seen to be extremely low, and the changes seen in the first plot are invisibly small. Carbon dioxide levels up to 18 times higher than those of the present day have existed in the planet's past, with rises and falls occurring entirely naturally. What's more, the planet did not suffer thermal Armageddon at any time, we are still here and the Earth is fine. This plot clearly shows the major ice ages which grip our planet at regular intervals. Ice ages of various magnitudes seem to occur approximately every 100,000 years. On each occasion, descent into a cold and inhospitable climate, followed by emergence into the warmth of the next interglacial period, represent natural phenomena many times the scale of the current claimed warming.
   
  
  Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the last 600 million years
   
  Equally pertinent is the fact that during the last interglacial period (Eemian), carbon dioxide levels were lower than those found in the current (Holocene) period — which is a lowly 0.037% by volume — yet the climate then was warmer.
   
  

  (x-axis shows time running backwards from the present day)

  This is a feature repeated in the Earth's geological record, where Dr Jan Veizer has established that more often than not the patterns of carbon dioxide and temperature oppose each other. Where they are moving together in the same direction, the credibility of climate control strategies based on carbon dioxide emission reductions might be boosted if the carbon dioxide rises trigger the warming. This has proved not to be the case. Working on ice cores from the Concordia Dome site, a location that provides samples with very high time resolution, a team of scientists led by Dr Monnin have established that, where carbon dioxide levels and temperature are both rising, the temperature change always comes first. This peer-reviewed research, published in the respected journal Science, shows that carbon dioxide levels do not cause temperatures to shift upwards, rather, warming (caused by e.g. the Sun) causes carbon dioxide levels to increase.
   
  This is another nail in the coffin of man-made global warming theory. It shows the futility of carbon dioxide emission reduction policies, which ignore the facts and put effect before cause. Clearly the atmosphere is much less sensitive to carbon dioxide levels than climate models would have us believe, since the higher carbon dioxide levels caused by an initial temperature rise fail to lead to any thermal runaway.
   
  Extortionate fuel duty, road tax schemes based on vehicular emissions of carbon dioxide, and the climate change levy on businesses, can now be seen as King Canute strategies doomed to failure, and failure at a great price to economies, our standard of living and quality of life. The pointlessness of carbon taxation is clear, but even if there were any validity to it, prioritising cars for such close attention is also unsupported by the data, as we shall see. Other motives must be at work.
   
  -
  

•  “Polar Ice is Melting due to Global Warming”, they say

  There is nothing unnatural occurring at the poles. Compared to headlines in the newspapers, this might come as a bit of a surprise, since we all saw not too long ago stories about the Larsen B ice shelf calving incident in the Antarctic, and Greenpeace staged a publicity stunt near the Blomstrandbreen glacier on Svalbard in the arctic to try and convince us of the reality of man-made global warming. Polar ice melting is a favourite topic of the scaremongers, and for good reason.
   
  Flawed computer climate models, on which international policy is being based, predict that man-made global warming should have taken off in earnest after about 1950, with impact first and fastest in the polar regions. This is because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not absorb heat in the manner of a blanket, nor does it reflect heat back to the surface like a mirror. Both are misconceptions easily available from diagrams in the media and in school text books.
   
  Carbon dioxide molecules absorb radiant heat at a wavelength of 15 microns. Radiant heat at wavelengths either side of this value will not be absorbed. The Earth's surface, when warmed by the Sun, emits radiant heat across a wide spectrum of wavelengths, with more 15 micron radiation produced where the ground is cold. As a result of this and other factors, the polar regions should be the first to see the effects of higher carbon dioxide levels, and be most affected. Since there is no such trend visible in the data, we must be 'persuaded' that the polar regions are in distress, otherwise we would lose trust in the ability of computer climate models to reflect reality, and start to doubt the environmentalists' propaganda machine.
   
  The Antarctic ice sheet incident produced another example of selective reporting, of not letting the facts get in the way of a good global warming frightener. When the Larsen B ice shelf incident occurred, and a large chunk of ice broke off and set sail, we were told by environmental activists that this was proof of global warming, that temperatures were soaring, that this was a 'wake-up call' and the planet would be doomed unless their demands were met. The truth is that at one locality, representing 2% of the area of Antarctica, the temperature is higher than elsewhere, which is hardly surprising as it is a peninsula protruding into the warmer waters of the southern ocean. For the remaining 98% of Antarctica temperatures are falling, and ice shelf mass is building up at the rate of 27 billion tonnes a year, according to a scientific paper published in Science by Joughin & Tulaczyk.
   
  

  Antarctica Temperature Variation 1966-2000 (C per decade)
  		+0.5
  		+0.25
  		0
  		-0.25
  		-0.5

  
  In any case, an ice shelf is actually a healthy glacier which has advanced and then extended over the sea, growing out onto the water. Floating on the sea, subject to tidal forces, eroded from beneath, and warmed by sunlight above, eventually part of the floating mass must break off in a 'calving' incident. It happens, it's natural, panic over.
   
  In the case of arctic climate, the eco publicity stunt took on a different guise but also involved a glacier. Photographs of the glacier Blomstrandbreen on the island of Svalbard were compared between 1918 and 2002, the difference in appearance being put down to man-made global warming — and so, of course, the 'conclusion' is that we are killing the planet and must stop. Professor Ole Humlum of the Norwegian research centre on Svalbard has a different view. He points out that glaciers there typically experience a rapid advance lasting 5 to 7 years, then retreat slowly for the next 80 to100 years. All entirely in nature's way.
   
  Professor Humlum also wondered why that one particular glacier was the focus of attention when dozens of glaciers were advancing — Friddjovbreen, for example, had advanced more than a mile in the last seven years, one of many to do likewise. Photographs of Svalbard glaciers such as Vonpostbreen and Esmarkbreen taken in the mid- to late 1990s show a very healthy picture. Eco-activists responded that the Professor's views "raised some interesting issues" (!) but that their photos "accurately sum up the situation with glaciers". True but irrelevant — glaciers do advance and retreat, but it has nothing to do with man-made global warming here or anywhere else. Selective reporting and eco-speak weasel words, used in a vain attempt to bring man-made global warming back to life.
   
  Wider studies published in the Journal of Paleolimnology show that large sudden swings in temperature appear to be a consistent feature of the climate in this region, with temperatures rising and falling by as much as 2 degrees C in only a decade. Professor Humlum's records on Svalbard show that the biggest changes took place in the 1920s, well before even the IPCC believe that man-made global warming influences could have been felt. More importantly, records show that since mild warming in the 1950s and 1960s, temperatures have been falling. Remember that the polar regions should see early and rapid warming since these times if man-made global warming theory is correct. They don't, and it isn't.
   
  -
  

•  “Mankind is Pouring CO2 into the Atmosphere”, they say

  The oceans and seas are extremely important in climate terms. The climate involves a lot of non-linear, chaotic processes, with highly significant ocean to atmosphere coupling. It is estimated that the atmosphere contains 750 GtC (gigatonnes of carbon, the 'mass yardstick' for carbon dioxide, and giga means 10 to the power 9); the surface ocean contains even more, 1000 GtC; vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2200 GtC; and the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38000 GtC. Annually, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange around 90 GtC, while vegetation and the atmosphere exchange 60 GtC. Compare this with mankind's annual output from fossil fuel burning (and the production of cement) of 6 GtC per year.
   
  
  Mankind is responsible for only 3.5% of total global carbon cycle CO2 emissions, and cars are responsible for only one-seventh of that 3.5%. This amounts to just 0.5% of total emissions. If every car disappeared from the surface of the Earth overnight, there would be no measurable drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, and absolutely no impact whatsoever on climate change.
   
  In fact there would probably be an increase in carbon dioxide levels, since it is highly unlikely that all of the journeys undertaken by car are totally pointless and would not need to be made by other means, which translates to public transport for all but the shortest of recreational travel. Since public transport would struggle to cope with any major influx of passengers, there would need to be more buses and trains in use. And since Automotive Advisers and Associates of Hilden, Germany, have shown that public transport consumes 60% more energy per person transported than cars, this lower level of energy efficiency would likely give rise to higher levels of carbon dioxide emissions.
   
  Unless all buses and trains become zero emission vehicles. The UK's Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, in a taped interview with motoring journalist Mike Rutherford, estimated that it would be 2017 before the bus pollution problem would be solved, and under present policies this seems highly optimistic.
   
  Accordingly major cities like London, which incidentally has cleaner air now than at any time for over 400 years, should follow Delhi's example to obtain even cleaner air — while London seeks to limit access by car, Delhi has banned diesel engined buses. The UK's National Environment Technology Centre (NETCEN) has shown that a single diesel engined bus emits as much pollution as 128 modern cars, while Japanese scientists have identified one of the most carcinogenic chemicals known to science (3-nitrobenzanthrone) in the exhaust fumes of diesel engined buses when their engines are under load — as they are when pulling away from High Street bus stops in every village, town and city in Britain. Meanwhile the air in the average UK home is 10 times more polluted than city smog, according to Dr Jeff Llewellyn of the Government Buildings Research Establishment, but these issues are of no apparent concern to politicians since there would be difficulties in introducing a tax on air in homes, and polluting buses are in vogue at the moment.
   
  Buildings happen to be the source of twice as much carbon dioxide as transport, which takes us back to where we began — with CO2 emissions. Yet tax on heating fuel in the UK is a modest 5% while tax on mobility fuel (petrol) is a whopping 300%. On environmental grounds, based on carbon dioxide considerations, petrol should surely be taxed at 2.5%. However, since the environment is a mere flag of convenience to excuse high taxes, where it suits politicians to levy high taxes, we cannot expect there to be any logic in this.
   
  The defence occasionally heard is that higher taxes on heating fuel would affect the vulnerable more, but transport costs impact on just about every good and service. And if we are discussing those vulnerable to cold buildings, politicians seem very keen to stop mild winters — if they can — so that's 20000 more cold-related UK deaths each winter if their King Canute act works (thank goodness it can't and won't). This kind of analysis reveals the nonsense of government eco-policies. Which is something that isn't very hard to do when the whole edifice is a sham.
   
  -
  

•  “Temperatures are now Hotter than since Records Began”, they say

  Since computer models working out man-made global warming scenarios invariably arrive at hotter temperatures, we are also subjected to endless spin concerning how this summer or that winter is warmer than anything since records began, or even longer. Fortunately for the scaremongers, formal records didn't begin very long ago, so this particular frightener is easier to justify. But once again the viewpoint we are given is deliberately restricted. If location X has a warm summer or mild winter, we hear about it, but if place Y has a miserable summer and freezing winter, we don't. Once again the partial picture, selective reporting, call it what you may, is the reason why the headlines and temperature records don't match up. For the truth is, the world is not hotting up in the manner predicted by computer models based on greenhouse gas emissions.
   
  Where there are areas of the planet's surface experiencing a warmer climate, the reason is due to one of two things: the urban heat island effect, or the increasing activity of the Sun. These phenomena are totally different to the atmospheric heat build up predicted by man-made global warming theory, of which there is no sign. The urban heat island effect refers to the effect that urbanisation has on a region. Put in some buildings, tarmac and so on, and there will be a slight but measurable upward drift in surface temperature at that location after some time. While this has been happening ever since communities began to settle, it is not a factor limited to issues of human development, since the topography of a location can change through natural evolution and produce a similar result. This is interesting in its own right, but the significance for global warming runs deeper.
   
  
  There are surface stations across the globe where temperature records are maintained (or not) and then fed into computer data bases. These are then number crunched to see if we are hotting up or cooling down. Many of these ground station sites have seen urbanisation very close by, others have had topographical changes due to trees and shrubs growing and providing shelter, and in both cases the temperature is seen to drift up very slightly, but NOT because of global warming. These phenomena are localised, but once shaken and stirred with other measurements from around the globe, the average obtained is supposed to be meaningful when it isn't. The small rise in temperature arising from the urban heat island effect represents what's called a systematic error, which cannot be removed by averaging.
   
  Satellites can take highly accurate and widely representative temperature measurements across the surface of the globe, including inhospitable terrain, and these show no overall warming trend across the hemispheres. Thus we have confirmation, if it was needed, that there are problems with ground station temperature measurements.
   
  
  Comparison of Satellite and Land-based data 1979..90
  Nevertheless there are claims from some quarters, keen to sustain the myth of man-made global warming, that the satellite readings are in error, but this can be discounted as radiosonde balloon data agrees with the satellites, not the groundstations. Even this isn't enough to prevent claims that, due to orbital drift, corrections of a few hundredths of a degree should be made, leading to further claims that the satellite data would then match the groundstation data more closely — which of course is true, but the magnitude is of zero consequence. This is another example of eco-speak weasel words, which strictly cannot be said to be untrue, but nevertheless are misleading or meaningless.
   
  
  Comparison of Satellite and Balloon data 1979..99
  The final assault on reality comes from claims that sulphate aerosol pollution is stopping the impact of carbon dioxide-induced man-made global warming. The evidence doesn't fit this hypothesis either, and it represents something of a cheek too. The northern hemisphere should show any sulphate effect due to the greater concentration of industrial activity on its landmasses, but the southern hemisphere is cooling more than the north. Also if this were so, the move to low sulphur fuels — gas over coal, low sulphur petrol and diesel — should be stopped as this will re-start global warming (allegedly). The cheek is that computer models are currently unable to cope with modelling the atmosphere accurately on all spatial scales, and cannot cope with aerosol effects whether man-made or otherwise.
   
  At locations where developments such as urbanisation have not happened, there is no sign of systematic man-made warming. Astronomical observatories are one example of a type of location where further development in surrounding areas is often prohibited in order to reduce the impact of light pollution and so allow the telescopes to continue doing their work. One such place, Armagh Observatory, has records going back over a 200 year period. Unlike data contaminated by the urban heat island effect, which show a steady rise, the Armagh Observatory temperature records as plotted by Dr Butler show an oscillating trend that gives a very close match with the sunspot cycle of solar activity. This follows, and is consistent with, work of a similar though wider nature performed by scientists Friis-Christensen and Lassen.
   
  
  Solar Activity v Mean Daytime Temperature
  Armagh Observatory 1797 to 1997
  At groundstation temperature recording sites where maintenance is poor, thermal creep can occur when thermometers distort, and this too can give a false alarm. At other sites, readings are intermittent and unreliable, yet data sets from them are still included by some teams working to collate global temperature records. We will return to this when reviewing the output of climate computer models shortly.
   
  Longer-term, the temperature on our planet has been considerably higher than now. There was a period of medieval warming, rarely referred to since it occurred before the advent of factories and the internal combustion engine and so represents an inconvenient example of significant, recent, natural climate change bigger than anything claimed for today. Before then, another period of global warming (also not man-made) occurred in Roman times, and another 6000 years ago. Records also show numerous occasions where the temperature rose by 6 degrees C in 70 years or so, which reminds us that the current claimed warming, only one-tenth as much over twice as long, would be unremarkable if it existed, and nothing to get hot under the collar over.
   
  
  Global Temperatures over the last 1000 years
   
  
  Global Temperatures over the last 10,000 years
   
  
  Global Temperatures over the last 1,000,000 years
  
  Returning to recent times, when the impact of man-made global warming should be felt more keenly, records show no such heat build-up. Decadal temperature trends for both hemispheres show a slight cooling of the southern hemisphere (-0.023 degree / decade), and a slight warming of the northern hemisphere, due to the large El Nino phenomenon of 1998 and the impact of solar activity being felt more due to the much greater land mass in that hemisphere (+0.129 degree / decade). There is no evidence for man-made global warming in current temperature trends, which overall show a minuscule natural warming of 0.053 degree per decade across the globe.
   
  
  Northern Hemisphere Temperatures 1979-2002
   
  
  Southern Hemisphere Temperatures 1979-2002
  
  -
  

•  “Sea Levels are Rising due to Global Warming”, they say

  If you take a large jug half full of water, place several ice cubes in it and mark the surface level, when the ice has melted the water level will have dropped. Clearly, floating ice, by melting, will not cause sea levels to rise, but then as we have seen the Antarctic ice is thickening and the north polar regions are not disappearing either. However there is land ice to contend with so perhaps the sea level scare stories are worthy of more considered attention.
   
  Again, reality spoils the myth and we find that, from Scandinavia to the Med sea levels are actually falling in places. Since the planet moved out of its last ice age, the Earth's crust has continued slowly expanding after being crushed under tens of metres of ice, so sea level falls are neither unusual nor unexpected. Overall, the situation is no better for the global warmers. Just as with all the other indicators, this one cannot support mankind's guilt either. Global sea levels as measured by the Topex Poseidon satellite show a small drop in global sea levels of 0.2 mm per year. However, even with 'adjustments' made to the data for 'projection' purposes giving a maximum rise of 25 cm or 0.25 m per century, this is 28 times smaller than the hysterical prediction of a 7 metre sea level rise by 2100 given prominence in some newspapers, and 3 times less than the IPCC says should be happening right now.
   
  
  Global Sea Levels 1993-1997
  Longer historical records in J. Geophysical Research (1992) show no accelerated sea level rise in the 20th century, as would be expected from the advance of man-made global warming. Since the latter does not exist, the former is not surprising. As ever, very modest natural climate change is all that can be found in the actual data. Man-made global warming exists only in computers.
   
  -
  

•  “Extreme Weather is Caused by Global Warming”, they say

  It can be confusing to follow the weather predictions of global warming disciples, since from time to time we read that mankind's influence will lead to more extreme weather, a catch-all that can mean droughts or floods, snow or baking heat. Strange then that extreme weather is in reality linked to global cooling. Also, perhaps it is fortuitous that whatever the weather forecasters report, it's in keeping with global warming 'predictions'. It's also ironic, since a current computer model doesn't know what a thunderstorm is — the one would not recognise the other. Hurricanes are supposedly increasing in number and intensity, but the data shows that this is not the case.
   
  
  
  At the time of writing, locations from Scotland to Prague have experienced flooding from downpours. Immediately, a crop of global warming theorists emerged to nod sagely. Voice of reason Michael Dukes, a forecasting expert at the PA Weather Centre, dismissed the suggestion that the weather was down to global warming: "Thunder downpours have happened lots and lots of times before," he said. "It's perfectly normal ... I do not think in any way that this is evidence of climate change." Not long before formal weather records began, global cooling caused hardship to such a degree that it led to pogroms against witches, who were blamed for the ensuing problems. During the early phase of the little ice age, the severe storm of 1570 flooded Rotterdam and beyond and in total over 100,000 people lost their lives — reminding us that severe storms are associated with global cooling. Not much has changed today, since certain sections of society remain incapable of accepting extreme weather as part of nature, except that western values are the new witches.
   
  Prolonged wet weather in the UK at the turn of the century prompted some politicians to make media statements about how the floods were caused by global warming. Embarrassed meteorologists were once again quick to denounce the idea, and rightly so. Heavy daily winter rainfall does not correlate with carbon dioxide levels, emissions, or politicians' blood pressure, but it does correlate with the sunspot cycle as the chart here shows.
   
  

  61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94

  
   
  The periodicity is in keeping with the average 11 year duration of the solar cycle, but note that the time of each sunspot cycle varies slightly and isn't always exactly 11 years. During the little ice age which peaked between 1645 and 1715, the River Thames froze over to a depth of several metres and winter frost festivals were held on it. Fortunately, the telescope had been invented and used astronomically by then. Coinciding precisely with the mini ice age, the Sun's activity dropped so much that virtually no sunspots were seen during the entire period, known astronomically as the Maunder Minimum. This provides a major insight into the importance of the Sun's impact on Earth's climate. During periods of high activity, corresponding to higher temperatures on our planet, the sunspot cycle length is shorter. During times of low solar activity, the cycle is longer and Earth's climate cools. Solar activity is a major driving force for natural climate change over short to medium timescales. No politician living or dead will find taxation a successful method of stopping the Sun from shining.
   
  
  
  As can be seen from this chart, there is an excellent correlation between northern hemisphere temperature and the Sun's activity as measured by the length of the solar cycle.
   
  -
  

•  “Alternative Energy Sources are Viable”, they say

  99.93%	0.07%
  Conventional Energy	Alternative Energy
  (The Alternative Energy wind power column is one pixel high. At the same scale, the Conventional Energy column should be 1427 pixels high. It's shown at only one third of that height)

  Not at the moment, and not likely until fusion reactors come on line, but doubtless there will be some trumped up eco-problem there too. 850 wind turbines, known to some as bird mincers, provided just 0.07% of our power in 2000 and again in 2001, according to Government figures (DTI Energy in Brief). And for this, beautiful landscapes are devastated. Basic arithmetic tells us that 99.93% of our energy supply must come from other sources, which environmental activists wish to see removed from the landscape here, and the Third World deprived of, thus ensuring that living standards remain more impoverished than need be, everywhere.
   
  Considering post-Kyoto aims that speak of CO2 emissions reductions of between 60% and 70% in the next 50 years, we are talking about 180 large (offshore?) windfarms, more than 75000 wave power units, and one large tidal plant. These raise serious issues of conservation, and it is unlikely that any more large-scale land-based wind farms would be tolerated as eyesore complaints are already numerous and growing. Solar power is at present drip feeding into the National Grid, but seems most used for small rebates against electricity bills at schools and colleges.
   
  Total human contributions to greenhouse gases, from energy generation and all other sources, can account at most for only 0.28% in any enhanced greenhouse effect however, and climate sensitivity to these gases is lower than the force-feeding of computer models would have us believe. Nevertheless energy producers and petrochemical companies are coming under sustained pressure from eco-campaigners, including pressure on investors. Given the lack of credible evidence for the environmental effects they use to 'justify' their position, their actions amount to a scandal. It's also curious that green groups favour HEP (hydro-electric power), as the large amount of rotting vegetation in the water expanses associated with these installations makes them an excellent source of methane, alongside agricultural animals' intestines. Methane is another 'greenhouse gas'. Did somebody mention inconsistency?
   
  -
  

•  “Species are Disappearing due to Global Warming”, they say

  Many species touted as under threat in a particular location, due so it is claimed to man-made global warming, often represent situations where that species is on the edge of its normal habitat and not commonly found anyway, but this isn't pointed out in the partial stories presented for popular consumption and designed to cause alarm. In other instances there are reasons unconnected with climate change which fail to get a mention. Even where 'localised' climate change is implicated, this does not prove mankind's involvement. To quote one observer: "Why didn't Bengal tigers and mountain gorillas disappear during the Medieval Climate Optimum, or during the even warmer periods of 6000 years ago?" At both of these times, temperatures were significantly higher than today. Extinction happens naturally as one endpoint of evolution, but if we are susceptible to personification and sentimentality then selective reporting of the facts will once again help the propagandists to get their desired result. Perhaps it's just as well that dinosaurs and environmentalists never co-existed.
   
  -
  

•  “Computer Climate Models are Trustworthy”, they say

  Computer climate modelling represents a triumph of programming excellence over inadequate data and patchwork theory. There is an acronym for this situation that tells us the result, namely GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). There's plenty of garbage going into computer models these days, from groundstations that have data contaminated by the urban heat island effect, and from stations where records are so incomplete that those numbers actually present must be regarded as highly uncertain. This does not stop organisations in the UK and USA from including such data and feeding it into IPCC workings.
   
  

  	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999
  Jan	-28.7	-25.2	-26.3	-19.4	-26.3	-24.9	-20.5	-25.7	-27.4	ND
  Feb	-31.1	-27.6	-26	ND	-27.7	-25.9	-25.9	ND	-29.5	ND
  Mar	-21.2	-24.3	ND	ND	-28.3	-24.9	-15.6	ND	-22.9	ND
  Apr	-8.3	-16.8	-15.3	ND	-19.7	-16.7	-18.4	ND	-18.4	ND
  May	-2.6	-3.3	-5.1	-6	-7.9	-4.7	-1.9	ND	-8.7	ND
  Jun	2.1	ND	ND	3	ND	1	3.2	ND	1.3	ND
  Jul	4.1	4.8	6.2	7.9	2.8	3.9	3.4	ND	ND	ND
  Aug	4.9	4.4	3.9	ND	3.5	4.2	3.4	5.6	1.5	ND
  Sep	0.3	1.1	-1.7	ND	-1.1	ND	-0.1	0.2	-0.3	ND
  Oct	-7.3	-4.9	-10.2	-7.8	-12.3	-6.3	-8	-7.4	-5	-11.7
  Nov	-15.1	-12	-16.6	ND	-22.2	-9.3	-11.8	ND	-14.2	ND
  Dec	-26.3	-20.3	-24.6	-27	-27.2	-22.9	-21.1	-29	-21.7	-27.3
  ND = No Data. Records from stations like this in Russia and the former Soviet Union contain data that would be rejected in any other respectable field of scientific enquiry but find their way into databases that feed the IPCC

  
  

  The spike in measured "global temperature" coincides with the shutdown of a significant portion of the world's measuring stations following the collapse of the Soviet Union, many of them cold-weather stations. (Source: Ross McKitrick)

  
  Moreover, at present it just isn't possible to construct a model of the atmosphere that is anywhere near sufficiently realistic for its output to be remotely reliable. The Earth's climate is an enormously complex, dynamic system. Described scientifically it is non-linear, coupled and chaotic. Many climatic processes are still poorly understood. For example, scientific knowledge of the way sunlight at different frequencies interacts with clouds is limited. Something of the order of 5 million different quantities and their interactions need to be followed second by second in a computer model of the climate system. That's assuming the key interactions between them, and their impact on our climate, are known and understood. At present neither are known nor are they fully understood.
   
  To generate a full model of the climate system covering all spatial scales, and then use it to run a 50 year projection into the future, would take more than 10 to the power of 34 years of supercomputer time, according to Dr Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics. This timescale is 10 to the power 24 times longer than the current age of the universe, which itself is about 10 billion years.
   
  

  Calculation in progress, please wait Estimated time remaining: 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years  Cancel

  
  So one can only imagine the short-cuts and approximations, not to mention complete omissions, needed to get a 100 year 'storyline' out in time for an IPCC report deadline. Back we go to Hartwig Volz, geophysicist with the RWE Research Lab in Germany, and his remark that the IPCC's output might be more aptly termed 'fairytales'.
   
  Remember, Harvard climatologist Dr Sallie Baliunas has advised that current computer models of the climate are not reliable as tools for explaining past climate or making projections for future trends. IPCC reports don't speak of predictions and have moved from words like 'projection' to 'storyline' simply because they could be in trouble otherwise. But this doesn't stop the propagandists focusing on one ridiculous storyline out of 245 because it had the fastest warming rate, or generally treating the output of such models as gospel truths — an apt description since it needs faith, not science, to believe in them.
   
  Weather is not the same as climate. Tracking and predicting the progress of a few weather systems is far less challenging than climate modelling. Yet weather forecasters' computers can't get our weekend weather right two days in advance, never mind 100 years in a computer climate model. And why on earth should we believe any politician who effectively tells us "pay me more tax and I'll control the climate"?
   
   
   
  Claims about all these effects of man-made global warming cannot be upheld.
   
   
  

Turncoats

The causes of climate change

• SHORT-MEDIUM TERM
  • 22 year magnetic sunspot cycle, 88 year Gleissberg cycle, and 206 year cycle of solar variability
  
  
• LONGER TERM
  • 26,000 year cycle of the 'wobble' with precession of the equinoxes
  • 40,000 year cycle of the +/- 1.5° change in the Earth's axial tilt
  • 100,000 year cycle in the eccentricity of Earth's elliptical orbit
  • 225,000,000 year cycle (and smaller sub-cycles) due to rotation of the Solar System about the galactic centre which takes the Earth up and down through the galactic plane, interstellar dust and cosmic ray fluxes change as a result
  • Slowing of the Earth's rotation
  
  
• PLUS IMPORTANT SPORADIC EVENTS
  • Volcanic activity, other tectonic activity, nearby supernovae, asteroidal impact, cometary impact
    

16 14		16 45			17 18								18 08								18 98								19 90
Solar Activity 1614-1990

Hidden Motives Now On View

"There were always extreme, irrational and mystical elements within our movement, but they tended to be kept in their place during the early years. Then in the mid-Eighties the ultraleftists and extremists took over. After Greenham Common closed and the Berlin Wall came down these extremists were searching for a new cause and found it in environmentalism. The old agendas of class struggle and anti-corporatism are still there but now they are dressed up in environmental terminology."

(Dr Patrick Moore, co-founder member of Greenpeace, May 2000)

"We have an environmental movement that is run by people who want to fight, not to win."

(Dr Patrick Moore, co-founder member of Greenpeace, May 2000)

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary"

(H.L. Mencken)

"No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

(Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister, Calgary Herald 14 Dec 1998)

"The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need. A socialist world would place an enormous priority on alternative energy sources. This is what ecologically-minded socialists have been exploring for quite some time now."

(Louis Proyect, Columbia University, 27 November 1997)

"The climate modelers have been cheating for so long it's almost become respectable"

(Richard Kerr, discussing adjustments in climate models, Science 1997)

"the summary [for policy-makers, of IPCC Reports] is very much a children's exercise of what might possibly happen, prepared by a peculiar group with no technical competence."

(Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology;
Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences;
Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
and IPCC lead author)

"Efforts to link global change to coral reef degradation have continued without making any significant headway"

(Clive Wilkinson, Coordinator of the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, and ignored by John 'Snorkel' Prescott)

"Isotopic records show that solar activity today is similar to that of the medieval warm period of about 1000 years ago. Much of the decrease in irradiance appears to have been in the UVb range, and hence could have caused a cooling force through a total atmospheric ozone concentration decrease of about 4%. Values at the upper end of estimates for reduced irradiance could be enough to fully explain temperature trends over the last century."

(Climate Change Newsletter, July 1997)

"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."

(Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, commenting on reports that Greenland's glaciers are melting. Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001)

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

(Stephen Schneider, quoted by Dixy Lee Ray in 'Trashing the Planet', 1990)

"Climate treaty supporters tend to become apoplectic at anyone who dares suggest that the threat of global warming is theory, not established fact"

(Wall Street Journal, 03 October 1997)

"Activists have learned to dismiss those whose argument they cannot counter by attacking their integrity, thereby warning off not only other researchers, but warning off other journalists not to cover those stories."

(David Murray, in 'Media Coverage and Global Warming: Is There a Problem?' 1997)

"The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models"

(Chris Folland, UK Meteorological Office)

"The problem we are faced with is that the meteorological establishment and the global warming lobby research bodies which receive large funding are now apparently so corrupted by the largesse they receive that the scientists in them have sold their integrity."

(Piers Corbyn, Weather Action bulletin, December 2000)

"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect"

(Richard Benedict, US Conservation Foundation)

"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing"

(Tim Wirth, former US Senator)

"All this concern with the effects of global warming is another manifestation of being politically correct"

(Lord Young of Graffham, The Times, 28th Nov 2000)

"The trouble with this idea is that planting trees will not lead to the societal changes we want to achieve"

(Kyoto Delegate, 05 December 1997)

"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on."

(Winston Churchill)

"Plans to tax and penalise car use are leading Britain into a former Soviet-style regime"

(Professor Garel Rhys, Head of Automotive Economics at Cardiff Business School, and Parliamentary Adviser on Trade and Industry)

"I now find that many environmental groups have drifted into self-serving cliques with narrow vision and rigid ideology. At the same time that business and government are embracing public participation and inclusiveness, many environmentalists are showing signs of elitism, left-wingism, and downright eco-fascism. The once politically centrist, science-based vision of environmentalism has been largely replaced with extremist rhetoric. Science and logic have been abandoned and the movement is often used to promote other causes such as class struggle and anti-corporatism. The public is left trying to figure out what is reasonable and what is not."

(Dr Patrick Moore, on his Greenspirit website)

"The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans."

Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"

Maurice Strong, Head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro

Why is the Association of British Drivers entering the Global Warming Debate?

What Next?

---

 ABD Home Page     Environment     Contact the ABD   

---