That’s what I would like to know. He is pushing Cap and Trade isn’t he? I don’t see this being much of a Campaign issue, unfortunatly….both guys would mouth platitudes and essentially agree. Too many of the public are convinced Global Warming is real, thanks to an un-ending media assault for the last few years. Public opinion won’t be changed by a few greybeards nobody knows talking at some convention. No politician will risk it either.
The only way public opinion would change before the election is a media blitz like we have never seen. I won’t hold my breath.

This is going to be big–this organization will have a public disagreement. I just want the truth to come out. Read that book by Solomon and it will make your blood boil.

can be viewed here: Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered

Cliffs Notes™ version from Science and Public Policy…

Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –

The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;

CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;

Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;

The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;

The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;

“Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;

Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;

The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;

It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;

Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;

In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

Yep. The debate is settled…

The IPCC is a fraud.

A friend of mine talked to a climatologist some years ago and the professor said climate change was caused by computers! The extrapolation of models based on 50 years of data was beyond any vestige of reasonable expectation.

He said there was a greater possibility of the actual super-computers causing global warming than anything else that might be attributed to mankind.

There’s probably a greater chance of a mini ice age, than the oceans rising 30 feet (or whatever the latest figure is!).

I’m sure there will be more money in the next big scare, if this one doesn’t pan out for big Al.

like me. I’ve been waging my personal war on anthropogenic climate change since it was the coming ice age of the 70s. It’s a shame that this side of the argument has only now reached the “dog bites man” status of news, but at least that means it gets inches now where 5 years ago this “blaspheme” and would have never even made a newsletter. It is heartening to finally see the “heretics” numbering in the 10s of thousands. All that is left is to watch for the “Page 14D” retractions over the next decade–fat chance.

nt

There’s been such a concerted effort to shove this down our throats–partly due to Al Gore’s needing a platform and otherwise due to his hedge fund.

I also believe many of these alarmists have never lived close to the land. I grew up in a home where just about everything we ate was raised on less than an acre of land. You learn so much about the real Mother Nature–the quirks, the unpredictables and you also learn even more about the vast power of God.

Science in my opinion seeks to become our new god–dictating everything from what we eat to what we do with our bodies to controlling the planet. I firmly believe no science will ever trump the real God and I believe that is one of our great conflicts at present.

Solomon does a great job of explaining how various scientific disciplines came up with conclusions then merged them into theory that makes no sense (the hockey stick graph, for instance, that sort of started this whole mess and then was disproved).

rdbwiggnins, thank you for going to the trouble to post that information–it really rounds out everything well and adds a new dimension.

The other problem I have with alarmists is that it is costing the poorest more, not only at home but abroad. And Rod you are so right on about the UN.

best, Kay

Other than than that, great post. Recommended.

with the assessment laid out in the abstract written by Lord Monckton (see Wiggins’ link above). It’s a tough read, but I read the whole thing. My only regret is that it will fall on deaf ears among the people, because they won’t be able to get through it without a major yawnfest.

The equation he tears apart, variable by variable, is contrived at best, and grossly incorrect at worst. That equation is the basis for all the IPCC claims. For instance, I had no idea that the feedback equation was derived from electrical circuits and have no connection with assessing the atmosphere.

And, as I have told everyone that will listen in the past, the term “radiative forcing” is particular to the concept of anthropogenic global warming. I’ve never heard of it, even as a euphamism for some other observable quantity; only as a proportionality factor between global temperature and CO2 level trends. Monckton has it right, it has no valid basis because its basis is unfounded in the observed data, if you use enough of it.

By the way, all statistical trends between two unrelated variables fail, when enough data is obtained. I’m thinking, that’s what happened with [CO2] and Temp, when you go outside the 1970-1990 AD range.

In an unduly respectful way, Monckton has shown that the IPCC has been relying on incorrect mathematics, and, worse still, a piss-poor understanding of atmospheric chemistry dynamics altogether.

He even went to far as to imply that the IPCC deliberatly exaggerated some numbers in an effort to achieve politicial expediency. Say it ain’t so.

While Monckton supports his attack with century-old thermodynamic equations that still hold true today, he does not supply an alterative theory, largely because he indicates that the accuracy isn’t available right now. Maybe, someday soon. Anyway, that’s also not the focus of the abstract. It’s all enough for me for the moment to say (once, again):

So the IPCC is full of crap. Well, no kidding! to those of us that actually studied chemical kinetics, physical chemistry, and the action of light on molecules. (Hansen and Gore ain’t among us, and neither are their politically ambitious friends. And you can especially count out anyone called “climate scientists”. If anything, they’re the people that ducked everything beyond the first year of chemistry. I defy you to go out and find an place that offered an accredited degree in “climate science” more than five years ago. There may be some now, but only because there is a “demand” for them now, rather than all the nasty complications of dealing with someone with a “real science” degree.)

This is what we get when our children don’t attain meaningful math and science skills throughout their education, while we simultaneously rely on politicians who claim authority in science to feed it to us like so much infant formula gone bad.

Thank you Lord M.
Breathe the free air, my friends…

Sam - AGW denier and proud of it.

KC, I have a dear one who agrees with every word you said–he’s in an energy-related industry and he’s told me many times the American public has no idea what it will cost them and how it will impact their lifestyle if alarmists carry the day. He also shared you can’t even hint at disagreement with the models.

Dave, our feral chickie is truly feral. She flew over our fence one day, flew into a tree and stayed there until we coaxed her down with birdseed. That was several years ago. She has paid for her food with the essays and articles I’ve written about her. If you try to touch her she will shred your hand with a Terminator-level beak. You can see her pic at coveringflorida.blogspot.com in the right-hand column. She sleeps in the trees, except every now and then she heads into the pool house (actually it’s my husband’s man club; he claimed it when we moved here). She likes to lay an egg every now and then on his weight bench and she likes to leave him a very messy surprise every now and then as well. The hound dog does not mess with her.

Sam, take a look at Solomon’s book (I don’t benefit in any way by pushing this book; don’t even know the guy)–the experts he interviewed are highly regarded; some of them actually have contributed to IPCC reports and have seen their research contorted to fit the political consensus. I learned a lot just by reading your post.

Also I noticed NASA plans to send a probe to the sun. I’m thinking that may shed light on what really impacts our climate.

I think this will get bounce. The alarmists have highly annoyed key experts in climatology, statistics, geology and other disciplines. Whether MSM picks up on it is another matter (I heard most of them will take a vacation to Iraq and you know how that will dominate those busy little keyboards and sound bites in weeks to come!)

Thanks all–I’ve learned a lot by reading all these posts.

best, Kay

KBDay,

Check out Goldberg’s mea culpa.

the trouble with our conservative friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so

The APS as an org didn’t make the statement, the unit did–re-read this part:

The APS, hanging onto dogma like a seal with a fish, promptly put up a disclaimer stating essentially the organization’s position remains unchanged—“an article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS…This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.” Nice try. The article might not technically be peer reviewed, but there are more than 30 citations from distinguished sources. It took me many attempts to pull up the page at both Daily Tech and APS, a sign both sites were getting tons of traffic.

To me what’s important is that a unit of the org was brave enough to speak out.

I fail to see (if you read the column) how you could misconstrue the information. Response? Comments? Hello?