Martin Durkin or Al Gore?


 
The Wag TV documentary ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’ (TGGWS) is under predictable attack by the high priests of the man-made global warming religion, who continue to remain silent on the deep flaws and misrepresentations in Al Gore's movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ and equally flaws in the processes and reports of the IPCC which are presented so as to allow the public to mislead itself into believing that these Reports are the unanimous views of 2500 scientists. In fact the reports (SPM) that make media headlines are produced by between 20 and 50 people, while scientific disagreement lies hidden in the Chapters of the main IPCC Assessment reports, alongside political interference.
 
Yet we face the bizarre situation in the UK that a political documentary is about to be sent to schools as though it were scientific fact, while there are calls for TGGWS to be censored under a spurious and invalid corruption of the principle of freedom of speech. The information needed to see the absurdity of this situation goes beyond media soundbites.
 
The main thrust of TGGWS is that the enhanced greenhouse effect isn't behaving as the climate models suggest that it should, climate change is being used as a vehicle for an anti-human, anti-capitalist, anti-mobility agenda by groups masquerading as 'green,' and others are making a living by perpetuating the global warming industry, whilst bandwagon politicians seek to raise 'green' taxes, control enterprise and mobility via energy policy, and exert control over lifestyles.
 
We examine some of the critical issues below, indicating the major uncertainties in the IPCC monopoly of counsel and in particular the Al Gore movie popularisation.
 
 
Top
Medieval Warm Period / Little Ice Age / Modern Warm Period
There has been a great deal of argument over how warm the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), which lasted from around 800 to 1200 AD, was compared to the present, and whether it was global or restricted to the northern hemisphere:
CO2science.org 
 
Certainly, then as now, there were regional differences, but nevertheless there is a great deal of evidence from both cultural recordings and reconstructed (proxy) temperature data that suggests it was globally warmer than present. Significantly, scientists that suggest modern times are warmer than the MWP refuse to disclose or archive the data for examination by other scientists. The MWP was followed by a period of significant cooling, centred around 1300 to 1850 AD, known as the Little Ice Age (LIA). Again, there were regional differences, but the cooling signal can be found in proxy data from around the world, including Australia†, which contradicts claims by the man-made global warming industry that it was basically a phenomenon of the northern hemisphere. The coldest period of the LIA, which was around 1645 to 1715 AD, coincided with a solar activity minimum characterised by a total lack of sunspots (the Maunder Minimum) when the Thames froze several metres deep during winter. The Central England Temperature series begins in 1659, during the coldest phase of the LIA, so it comes as no surprise that the climate has warmed, or that we often hear the term 'warmest on record.' The temporal length of that record is woefully inadequate, and its starting point material.
Israeli Physicist, Dr Nir Shaviv was featured in TGGWS:
"Solar activity today is as high as it was a 1000 years ago, and so are the temperatures (for example, 1000 years ago, Vikings could map the northern shores of Greenland while today it they are still frozen). The infamous 'hockey stick' of temperatures over the past 1000 years could not be recovered in any independent analysis (e.g., read this or that). After an interview on local prime time TV, I received quite a few responses. One of them was from a history researcher who studies fashion over the ages. She said that it is quite clear from the fashion point of view that Europe was experiencing a warm period in the middle of the middle ages (e.g., monk's dress code including sandals). Climate change has been happening for ages, long before Al Gore came."
Five centuries of climate change in Australia: the view from underground
 
Top
Global Cooling from the 1940s to 1970
A fall in global temperatures from the 1940s to the mid 1970s, despite rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, fuelled speculation that the world was about to enter a new ice age. Subsequently, sunlight reflected by air pollution, was touted as an explanation. However, Nir Shaviv has a different view, and published an alternative explanation for climate change involving the cosmic ray flux / low cloud cover / 11-year solar cycle-climate connection:
"Solar activity has been increasing over the 20th century. Thus, we expect warming from the reduced flux of cosmic rays. Moreover, since the cosmic ray flux actually had a small increase between the 1940's and 1970's (as can be seen in the ion chamber data), this mechanism also naturally explains the global temperature decrease which took place during the same period. Using historic variations in climate and the cosmic ray flux, one can actually quantify empirically the relation between cosmic ray flux variations and global temperature change, and estimate the solar contribution to the 20th century warming. This contribution comes out to be 0.5±0.2 C out of the observed 0.6±0.2 C global warming.”
Nir Shaviv, 2005

There are two reasons why the temperature should rise from the 1970s. First, there is a decrease in the average cosmic ray flux*. If we look at the average of each cycle there is an increase in the average cosmic ray flux until about the cycle of 1970, and then a decrease in the following two cycles. The last cycle was not as strong, so the average CRF increased. This can explain why the temperature stopped warming from around 2000.
 
Second, one has to realize that the temperature response of Earth's climate is a 'low pass filter' due to the high heat capacity of the Oceans. This implies that:

 
Top
Surface / Lower Atmosphere (Troposphere) Trends and Climate Models
A new paper from the University of Alabama research group provides more support for the claim made in Wag TV's C4 documentary 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' that the planet's surface warming is greater than the warming in the lower atmosphere (troposphere), which contradicts climate model predictions for enhanced greenhouse warming. Previous unfounded criticisms of the Christy et al data have centred round an error correction of 0.035C, which ignored the fact that this was within the quoted margin of error in the original paper, of 0.05C. This lack of tropospheric amplification — along with errors in polar amplification, sea level change, ocean heat content and the temperature trend — shows how inadequate climate modelling is and how unsuitable it is compared to objective data as a basis for making policy.
Tropospheric temperature change since 1979 from tropical radiosonde and satellite measurements
 
Prof Roger Pielke Sr's Resignation from the CCSP Committee "Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere — Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences"
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 01:14:59 +0000
Dear Dr. Mahoney — with copies to Richard Moss and the CCSP Committee
(emphases added)
I am resigning effective immediately from the CCSP Committee "Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere-Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences". For the reasons briefly summarized in my blog, I have given up seeking to promote a balanced presentation of the issue of assessing recent spatial and temporal surface and tropospheric temperature trends. The NY Times article today was the last straw. This entire exercise has been very disappointing, and, unfortunately is a direct result of having the same people write the assessment report as have completed the studies.
Pielke Sr continues:
"The broad conclusion is that the multi-decadal global climate models are unable to accurately simulate the linear trends of surface and tropospheric temperatures for the 1979-1999 time period on the regional and tropical zonally-averaged spatial scale. Their ability to skilfully simulate the global averages surface and tropospheric temperature trend on this time scale is, at best, inconclusive. This has major implications for the impacts community. Studies such as the U.S. National Assessment and Chapters and the IPCC which use regional results from the multi-decadal climate models are constructed on models which have been falsified in their ability to accurately simulate even the linear trend of the tropical zonally averaged surface and tropospheric temperature trends over the last several decades. Since almost all impact studies require regional and smaller scale resolution, the current generation of multi-decadal global climate prediction models is inappropriate to use for impact prediction for the coming decades."

A correction to the Lyman et al paper "Recent cooling of the upper ocean" is now available: The correction eliminates the cooling reported in the 2006 paper, but contrary to climate model predictions and to the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the warming of the 1990s and the very early 2000s has not continued.
 
Top
Carbon Dioxide / Temperature / Ice Cores / Oceans
Carbon dioxide is a weak greenhouse gas present in very low concentrations in the atmosphere, an essential trace compound essential to life on this planet. In the past, levels have been up to 18 times the current value entirely naturally. At one point, levels were about 10 times higher as the Earth headed into an ice age. Carbon dioxide emissions do not have the same progressive effect, they do not operate as a blanket getting thicker as popular commentary would suggest. There is a law of diminishing greenhouse returns according to the Beer Lambert Law. The enhanced greenhouse effect is not warming the troposphere as climate models say it should. Computer modelling is inadequate, leading to projections that are newsworthy but unreliable, they are called 'storylines' not predictions and for good reason, though there are suggestions from the scientific community that they would be better termed 'fairytales'. These inconvenient facts are not pointed out by politicians.
 
All of the recent scientific research papers studying major temperature shifts (e.g. Monnin et al, Caillon et al) show that the temperature change always occurs first, and carbon dioxide changes follow with a time lag typically 800 years, as correctly pointed out in TGGWS. In these transitions, carbon dioxide levels are an effect, not a cause, of climate change. The graphs seen in Al Gore's movie, where the temperature and carbon dioxide levels change in apparent synchrony, are misleading in that the actual order of events (temperature first, carbon dioxide second), derived from high resolution studies, is not pointed out.
 
Nir Shaviv:
"The famous CO₂ temperature correlation seen over the past 600,000 years (as shown in Al Gore's inconvenient truth for example), is simply the result of the equilibrium relation between dissolved CO₂ and atmospheric CO₂, an equilibrium which depends on the temperature.All that this graph is showing is this equilibrium, nothing more, nothing less. Of course, CO₂ may have a feedback effect on the temperature, so part of the rise is due to the CO₂. But there is no way of knowing how much from just this graph. It is clear that not all of it given that the CO₂ appears to lag the temperature and not vice versa. As for the CO₂ feedbacks , it is clear that if those were large, a large temperature variation would ensue. In fact, one can estimate the climate sensitivity required to make this feedback diverge and give a runaway effect.
 
Temperature variations of 4 degrees give rise to CO₂ variations of about 80 ppm, or typically to a changed forcing of ln(80/240)/ln(2)*4 W/m² ≈ 2 W/m². If climate sensitivity is larger than 2 deg/(W/m²), or 8 degrees for CO₂ doubling, then Earth's climate would have been totally unstable due to CO₂ feedback. We would have ended up as either Venus or a cold Earth. Luckily, the sensitivity is more like a 1 to 1.5 deg increase for CO₂ doubling. This implies that CO₂ has at most a ≈20% amplification eff ect."

Top
11-Year Solar Cycle Length Correlated with Temperature
The length of the 11-year solar cycle varies between about 8.5 and 12.5. A long cycle is correlated with cooling; a short cycle with warming. Friis-Christensen has been ineffectively criticised for the published graph (1997), featured in TGGWS, which correlated the length of the 11-year solar cycle with temperature. However, the graph is corroborated by a publication a year earlier, based on the change in mean air temperature at Armagh Observatory since 1796 and simultaneous changes in the length of the 11-year sunspot cycle (Butler and Johnston, 1996). Similar results have been published by Lassen. The reciprocal of the length of the solar cycle is a general indicator of solar eruptivity and magnetic activity — instead of plotting the reciprocal, charts often show the length decreasing upwards rather than increasing.
* Page 16 of 4AR SPM lists a table of climate forcings in which solar irradiance (or insolation) is mentioned, but solar eruptivity is omitted. This is a phenomenon linked to the moderation of cosmic ray flux via the solar wind, which impacts on cloud formation and hence on climate. It has a very low level of scientific understanding within the IPCC, a fact confirmed by the explanatory footnote in the SPM regarding omitted forcings. The recent work of Svensmark in studying details of the known the cosmic ray flux link to climate, a flux intimately related to solar eruptivity, is about to overturn the present inadequate carbon dioxide dominated and politicised paradigm of man-made climate change.
 
Top
The Gulf Stream — Al Gore claimed that the Gulf Stream could stop
Assuming Prof Carl Wunsch didn't dupe himself into writing, we have this compelling view:
"Sir — Your News story 'Gulf Stream probed for early warnings of system failure' (Nature 427, 769 (2004)) discusses what the climate in the south of England would be like "without the Gulf Stream." Sadly, this phrase has been seen far too often, usually in newspapers concerned with the unlikely possibility of a new ice age in Britain triggered by the loss of the Gulf Stream.
 
European readers should be reassured that the Gulf Stream's existence is a consequence of the large-scale wind system over the North Atlantic Ocean, and of the nature of fluid motion on a rotating planet. The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth's rotation, or both.
 
Real questions exist about conceivable changes in the ocean circulation and its climate consequences. However, such discussions are not helped by hyperbole and alarmism. The occurrence of a climate state without the Gulf Stream anytime soon — within tens of millions of years — has a probability of little more than zero."
 
Carl Wunsch
Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Nature 428, 601, April 8, 2004

 
Science Mag [Subscription required] — False Alarm: Atlantic Conveyor Belt Hasn't Slowed Down After All
Kerr, R. A., 2006, Science, 314, 1064, doi: 10.1126/science.314.5802.1064a.
 
Top
Hurricane Intensity is due to Natural Cycles
Climate alarmists who were disappointed by a quiet 2006 hurricane season have suffered another blow which will also be felt by the Oscar Committee as a result of the latest hurricane research. A new paper by Gabe Vecchi and Brian Soden has been published. Hurricane expert Dr Chris Landsea, who resigned from the IPCC in 2005 in protest against a politicised IPCC which, as Landsea pointed out, operates on pre-conceived agendas using unsound science, explains the significance of this paper in a guest post on Prometheus:
"My reading of the paper by Vecchi and Soden is that this is a very important contribution to the understanding of how global warming is affecting hurricane activity. The study thoroughly examines how the wind-shear and other parameters that can alter the number and intensity of hurricanes because of man-made global warming. What they found — surprisingly — is that in the Atlantic that the wind shear should increase significantly over a large portion of where hurricanes occur — making it more difficult for hurricanes to form and grow. This was identified in all of the 18 global climate models they examined. One implication to me is that this further provides evidence that the busy period we've seen in the Atlantic hurricanes since 1995 is due to natural cycles, rather than man-made causes. We've seen a big reduction in wind shear in the last thirteen hurricane seasons, which is OPPOSITE to the signal that Vecchi and Soden have linked to manmade global warming changes."
Increased tropical Atlantic wind shear in model projections of global warming paper
by Vecchi G. A., B. J. Soden (2007), Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L08702, doi:10.1029/ 2006GL028905.

Prometheus again: Chris Landsea on New Hurricane Science
 
The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) summary consensus statement on tropical cyclones and climate change. [pdf]
 
Top
Malaria
Malaria expert, Paul Reiter, who resigned from the IPCC over the alarmist claims about Malaria and global warming, has poured scorn on Gore's Malaria claims:
Present global temperatures are in a warming phase that began 200 to 300 years ago. Some climate models suggest that human activities may have exacerbated this phase by raising the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Discussions of the potential effects of the weather include predictions that malaria will emerge from the tropics and become established in Europe and North America. The complex ecology and transmission dynamics of the disease, as well as accounts of its early history, refute such predictions. Until the second half of the 20th century, malaria was endemic and widespread in many temperate regions, with major epidemics as far north as the Arctic Circle. From 1564 to the 1730s-the coldest period of the Little Ice Age-malaria was an im portant cause of illness and death in several parts of England. Transmission began to decline only in the 19th century, when the present warming trend was well under way. The history of the disease in England underscores the role of factors other than temperature in malaria transmission.
From Shakespeare to Defoe: Malaria in England in the Little Ice Age
Paul Reiter, CDC, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2000.

There is more scorn and warnings of the dangers of disinformation from Reiter (who appeared in TGGWS), January 2007:
"I am a specialist in diseases transmitted by mosquitoes. So let's talk malaria. For 12 years, my colleagues and I have protested against the unsubstantiated claims that climate change is causing the disease to spread. We have failed miserably.
 
I wondered how many had taken anti-malaria tablets because they had seen Al Gore's film, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, which claims that Nairobi was established in a healthy place ‘above the mosquito line’ but is now infested with mosquitoes — naturally, because of global warming.
 
Gore's claim is deceitful on four counts. Nairobi was dangerously infested when it was founded; it was founded for a railway, not for health reasons; it is now fairly clear of malaria; and it has not become warmer.
 
We have to hope that the new ‘Malaria No More’ campaign is based on sound science, unlike the UN's catastrophic current ‘Roll Back Malaria’ scheme, which has presided over a marked increase in victims since 1998.
 
Pseudoscience will damage your health and your wealth just as surely as malaria."
International Herald Tribune — Dangers of disinformation

 
Top
2003 European Summer Heat Wave
Gore claimed that 35,000 people died as a result of the 2003 European summer heat wave, due to man-made global warming. Equally pertinent but not mentioned by Gore is that there are around 100,000 excess winter deaths in Europe each year, and 25,000 to 45,000 in the UK. Contrast this with the estimated 2000 UK deaths during the 2003 heat wave. Recent peer reviewed science casts doubt on the claim that heat waves are man-made:

Top
IPCC Peer Review and Reporting
IPCC Reports are presented as one-voice signals from a body of scientists, with all disagreement and dissent buried. Resignation, and the threat of legal action — as revealed in TGGWS — are not mentioned in the Reports to inform readers of the true nature of the document they are scrutinising.
The issue of peer review is pertinent to IPCC emissions, there has been more than one concern raised about the abuse of peer review. IPCC Reviewer Professor Kellow writes:
"I was a referee for Chapter 19 in the Report on 'Key Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment', and made in essence the criticism...that the whole exercise fails to take account of the increases in wealth that give rise to the emissions that drive the climate models, that drive the impact models.
 
It is nonsensical to suggest that vulnerabilities will be as they would be if the projected climates impacted upon present developing countries. The Report persists in this nonsense in the face of at least this reviewer drawing it to their attention, so the persistence is quite wilful.
 
It is, of course, such a fundamental criticism that it virtually renders the whole report invalid, so it was not likely to be well-received. I also added that the chapter exaggerated the hazards of climate change and almost totally ignored any benefits. I put it that the First Order Draft read as if (in a warmer, and therefore wetter, world) no rain would fall in any form that would be in any way useful to anyone: there would be only floods and droughts.
 
The Second Order Draft included some language to the effect that this was because the Committee had decided that it should be so, to which I responded that they should not then represent their analysis as a risk assessment, since any sensible risk assessment must include benefits as well as costs. I'm not holding my breath for this criticism to be taken on board either, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a Chapter ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.
 
But then I'll be counted as one of the 2,500 experts who agree with this nonsense!"

The UK House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs has made other criticisms of the structure, workings, pronouncements, and reports of the IPCC. Clearly, substantial reform of the UN IPCC is overdue.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12i.pdf [pdf]
 
NOAA scientist and hurricane expert Dr Chris Landsea also resigned from the IPCC, in dismay at the 'pre-conceived agendas' and 'unsound science' inherent in its operations:
http://hallolinden-db.de/baseportal?htx=/hallolinden-db.de/Klima/Klima&cmd=list&range=0,100&Datum==*&cmd=all&Id=334
 
This is the text of the open letter from Dr Landsea, with emphases added to highlight key elements:
"Dear colleagues,
 
After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
 
With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes , and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author — Dr. Kevin Trenberth — to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate.
 
Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4's Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic "Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity" along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.
 
I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.
 
Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).
 
It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth's role as the IPCC's Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.
 
My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC. Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author; I was told that that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth's unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.
 
It is certainly true that "individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights", as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR. This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can "tell" scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC. It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation — though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements — would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.
 
I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.
 
Sincerely, Chris Landsea."

 
A most suitable point at which to close. The referenced information presented here is rarely featured in press reporting, but when viewed as a whole it amounts to a demolition of the claims of certainty and catastrophe from climate alarmists, reveals Al Gore's documentary as a quackumentary, and re-inforces calls for a complete re-think of the political response — which is currently a uniform and futile strategy based on taxes and yet more taxes. Adaptation to natural and inevitable climate change is currently mostly absent from political thinking, and this must change.
 
 

Top  ABD Home Page     Environment     Contact the ABD