Sunday, March 15, 2009

The Real Climate Change Experts

Nobody listens to the real climate change experts

"Thus the name of the game last week, as we see from a sample of quotations, was to win headlines by claiming that everything is far worse than previously supposed. Sea level rises by 2100 could be "much greater than the 59cm predicted by the last IPCC report". Global warming could kill off 85 per cent of the Amazon rainforest, "much more than previously predicted". The ice caps in Greenland and Antarctica are melting "much faster than predicted". The number of people dying from heat could be "twice as many as previously predicted".

None of the government-funded scientists making these claims were particularly distinguished, but they succeeded in their object, as the media cheerfully recycled all this wild scaremongering without bothering to check the scientific facts.

What a striking contrast this was to the second conference, which I attended with 700 others in New York, organised by the Heartland Institute under the title Global Warming: Was It Ever Really A Crisis?. In Britain this received no coverage at all, apart from a sneering mention by the Guardian, although it was addressed by dozens of expert scientists, not a few of world rank, who for professional standing put those in Copenhagen in the shade.

Led off with stirring speeches from the Czech President Vaclav Klaus, the acting head of the European Union, and Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, perhaps the most distinguished climatologist in the world, the message of this gathering was that the scare over global warming has been deliberately stoked up for political reasons and has long since parted company with proper scientific evidence.

Nothing has more acutely demonstrated this than the reliance of the IPCC on computer models to predict what is going to happen to global temperatures over the next 100 years. On these predictions, that temperatures are likely to rise by up to 5.3C, all their other predictions and recommendations depend, yet nearly 10 years into the 21st century it is already painfully clear that the computer forecasts are going hopelessly astray. Far from rising with CO2, as the models are programmed to predict they should, the satellite-measured temperature curve has flattened out and then dropped. If the present trend were to continue, the world in 2100 would not in fact be hotter but 1.1C cooler than the 1979-1998 average.

Yet it is on this fundamental inability of the computer models to predict what has already happened that all else hangs. For two days in New York we heard distinguished experts, such as Professor Syun-Ichi Akasofu, former director of the International Arctic Research Center, Dr Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute, authoritatively (and often wittily) tear apart one piece of the scare orthodoxy after another.

Sea levels are not shooting up but only continuing their modest 3mm a year rise over the past 200 years. The vast Antarctic ice-sheet is not melting, except in one tiny corner, the Antarctic Peninsula. Tropical hurricane activity, far from increasing, is at its lowest level for 30 years. The best correlation for temperature fluctuations is not CO2 but the magnetic activity of the sun. (For an admirable summary of proceedings by the Australian paleoclimatologist Professor Bob Carter, Google "Heartland" and "Quadrant").

Yet the terrifying thing, as President Klaus observed in his magisterial opening address, is that there is no dialogue on these issues. When recently at the World Economic Forum in Davos, he found the minds of his fellow world leaders firmly shut to anything but the fantasies of the scaremongers. As I said in my own modest contribution to the conference, there seems little doubt that global warming is leading the world towards an unprecedented catastrophe. But it is not the Technicolor apocalypse promised by the likes of Al Gore. The real disaster hanging over us lies in all those astronomically costly measures proposed by politicians, to meet a crisis which in reality never existed."


More here: Global warming's no longer happening. So why are eco types moaning about record highs while ignoring record lows?

4 Comments:

Blogger Balbulican said...

"it was addressed by dozens of expert scientists, not a few of world rank, who for professional standing put those in Copenhagen in the shade."

Well, there's an interestin hypothesis. And, as it happens, a testable one.

Tell you what, Louise.

a) You select the top five scientists at your conference and I'll select the top five at Copenhagen.

b) You define the criteria by which you've decided one set of scientists puts the other in the shade. I have no idea what those would be, but I do know criteria both university selection committees use in hires, and what journals use in assessing academic contributions.

c) We'll compare.

You made the observations. Please proceed.

(Good grief. WV: dionrug)

March 17, 2009 5:17 pm  
Blogger Louise said...

Balb seems to be admitting that there is no consensus. It's now come down to "my dad can beat up your dad" contest out by the swing set.

March 18, 2009 5:59 am  
Blogger Balbulican said...

Heh. I'm afraid you started the "my dad/your dad" dynamic: please see the quote that I'm inviting you to explain.

So please explain how you assess the "professional standing" of a scientist, and we'll compare.

Over to you.

March 18, 2009 12:38 pm  
Blogger Balbulican said...

Actually, the title of your thread implies that you're stacking up the "Experts" at the conference against other "experts".

So. Please proceed. I'm very interested in the standards you use to establish "expertise", and look forward to applying them to both rosters.

March 19, 2009 6:24 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home