Another IPCC Scientist Speaks Out Against Global Warming Hype, Fish Wrapper Will Ignore

As most people who don't read just the Daily Dead Fish Wrapper know, more and more scientists - credentialed scientists who really know what they're talking about - have been coming forward to speak out against the global warming hype. The most recent scientist is to speak out is John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, and a member of the IPCC. He states his opinion in the Wall Street Journal today that not only is it not a proven fact that global warming is human caused, but he is refusing his "share" of the Nobel prize because it is based on a misunderstanding of science.

I've had a lot of fun recently with my tiny (and unofficial) slice of
the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC). But, though I was one of thousands of IPCC
participants, I don't think I will add "0.0001 Nobel Laureate" to my
resume.

The other half of the prize was awarded to former Vice President Al
Gore, whose carbon footprint would stomp my neighborhood flat. But
that's another story.Large icebergs in the Weddell Sea, Antarctica.
Winter sea ice around the continent set a record maximum last month.

What?!? Al Gore a hypocrite? Never!

Both halves of the award honor promoting the message that Earth's
temperature is rising due to human-based emissions of greenhouse gases.
The Nobel committee praises Mr. Gore and the IPCC for alerting us to a
potential catastrophe and for spurring us to a carbonless economy.

I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I
say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking
gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we
see.
Rather, I see a reliance on climate models (useful but never
"proof") and the coincidence that changes in carbon dioxide and global
temperatures have loose similarity over time.

There are some of us who remain so humbled by the task of measuring and
understanding the extraordinarily complex climate system that we are
skeptical of our ability to know what it is doing and why. As we build
climate data sets from scratch and look into the guts of the climate
system, however, we don't find the alarmist theory matching
observations. (The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
satellite data we analyze at the University of Alabama in Huntsville
does show modest warming -- around 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit per century,
if current warming trends of 0.25 degrees per decade continue.)


It is my turn to cringe when I hear overstated-confidence from those
who describe the projected evolution of global weather patterns over
the next 100 years, especially when I consider how difficult it is to
accurately predict that system's behavior over the next five days.

Mother Nature simply operates at a level of complexity that is, at this
point, beyond the mastery of mere mortals (such as scientists) and the
tools available to us. As my high-school physics teacher admonished us
in those we-shall-conquer-the-world-with-a-slide-rule days, "Begin all
of your scientific pronouncements with 'At our present level of
ignorance, we think we know . . .'"


I haven't seen that type of climate humility lately. Rather I see
jump-to-conclusions advocates and, unfortunately, some scientists who
see in every weather anomaly the specter of a global-warming
apocalypse. Explaining each successive phenomenon as a result of human
action gives them comfort and an easy answer.

 

But according to Al, the debate is over, isn't it?

 

Others of us scratch our heads and try to understand the real causes behind what we see. We discount the possibility that everything
is caused by human actions, because everything we've seen the climate
do has happened before. Sea levels rise and fall continually. The
Arctic ice cap has shrunk before. One millennium there are hippos
swimming in the Thames, and a geological blink later there is an ice
bridge linking Asia and North America.

One of the challenges in studying global climate is keeping a global
perspective, especially when much of the research focuses on data
gathered from spots around the globe. Often observations from one
region get more attention than equally valid data from another.

The recent CNN report "Planet in Peril," for instance, spent
considerable time discussing shrinking Arctic sea ice cover. CNN did not
note that winter sea ice around Antarctica last month set a record
maximum (yes, maximum) for coverage since aerial measurements started.

Then there is the challenge of translating global trends to local
climate. For instance, hasn't global warming led to the five-year
drought and fires in the U.S. Southwest?

Not necessarily.

There has been a drought, but it would be a stretch to link this
drought to carbon dioxide
. If you look at the 1,000-year climate record
for the western U.S. you will see not five-year but 50-year-long
droughts. The 12th and 13th centuries were particularly dry. The
inconvenient truth is that the last century has been fairly benign in
the American West. A return to the region's long-term "normal" climate
would present huge challenges for urban planners.

So how much of a dent would the draconian policies that the liberals want to impose make?

Without a doubt, atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing due primarily
to carbon-based energy production (with its undisputed benefits to
humanity) and many people ardently believe we must "do something" about
its alleged consequence, global warming. This might seem like a
legitimate concern given the potential disasters that are announced
almost daily, so I've looked at a couple of ways in which humans might
reduce CO2 emissions and their impact on temperatures.

California and some Northeastern states have decided to force their
residents to buy cars that average 43 miles-per-gallon within the next
decade. Even if you applied this law to the entire world,
the net effect would reduce projected warming by about 0.05 degrees
Fahrenheit by 2100, an amount so minuscule as to be undetectable.
Global temperatures vary more than that from day to day.

Suppose you are very serious about making a dent in carbon emissions
and could replace about 10% of the world's energy sources with
non-CO2-emitting nuclear power by 2020 -- roughly equivalent to halving
U.S. emissions. Based on IPCC-like projections, the required 1,000 new
nuclear power plants would slow the warming by about 0.2 ?176 degrees
Fahrenheit per century. It's a dent.

 

He concludes with something the liberal hypesters don't like to hear.

But what is the economic and human price, and what is it worth given the scientific uncertainty?

My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this
simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short. The
uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed
against disasters at our doorsteps today. Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen
Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading
economists (including three Nobelists), calculated that spending on
health issues such as micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water
purification has benefits 50 to 200 times those of attempting to
marginally limit "global warming."

Given the scientific uncertainty and our relative impotence regarding
climate change, the moral imperative here seems clear to me.

Now, what's the chance you would see something like this in the Dead Fish Wrapper? I'd say close to nil.

 

Scientist Blames Global Warming on Earth

This is wonderful news. Now I can go back to trashing the planet.

User login