A science-based rebuttal to the theory of global warming?

Thursday's Editorial   —   Posted on September 19, 2013

image1046(by Steve Gorman, Washington Times) - On September 23, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is scheduled to release the first portion of its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). AR5 will conclude once again that mankind is causing dangerous climate change. But one week prior on September 17, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) will release its second report, titled Climate Change Reconsidered II (CCR-II). My advance review of CCR-II shows it to be a powerful scientific counter to the theory of man-made global warming.

Today, 193 of 194 national heads of state say they believe humans are causing dangerous climate change. The IPCC of the United Nations has been remarkably successful in convincing the majority of the world that greenhouse gas emissions must be drastically curtailed for humanity to prosper.

The IPCC was established in 1988 by the UN’s World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program. Over the last 25 years, the IPCC became the “gold standard” of climate science, quoted by all the governments of the world. IPCC conclusions are the basis for climate policies imposed by national, provincial, state, and local authorities. Cap-and-trade markets, carbon taxes, ethanol and biodiesel fuel mandates, renewable energy mandates, electric car subsidies, the banning of incandescent light bulbs, and many other questionable policies are the result. In 2007, the IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore shared the Nobel Peace Prize for work on climate change.

But a counter position was developing. In 2007, the Global Warming Petition Project published a list of more than 31,000 scientists, including more than 9,000 PhDs, who stated, “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” At the same time, an effort was underway to provide a credible scientific counter to the alarming assertions of the IPCC.

image1047

The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) was begun in 2003 by Dr. Fred Singer, emeritus professor of atmospheric physics from the University of Virginia. Dr. Singer and other scientists were concerned that IPCC reports selected evidence that supported the theory of man-made warming and ignored science that showed that natural factors dominated the climate. They formed the NIPCC to offer an independent second opinion on global warming.

Climate Change Reconsidered I (CCR-I) was published in 2009 as the first scientific rebuttal to the findings of the IPCC. Earlier this summer, CCR-I was translated into Chinese and accepted by the Chinese Academy of Sciences as an alternative point-of-view on climate change.

Climate Change Reconsidered II is a 1,200-page report that references more than one thousand peer-reviewed scientific papers, compiled by about 40 scientists from around the world. While the IPCC reports cover the physical science, impacts, and mitigation efforts, CCR-II is strictly focused on the physical science of climate change. Its seven chapters discuss the global climate models, forcings and feedbacks, solar forcing of the climate, and observations on temperature, the icecaps, the water cycle and oceans, and weather.

Among the key findings of CCR-II are:

  • Doubling of CO2 from its pre-industrial level would likely cause a warming of only about 1oC, hardly cause for alarm.
  • The global surface temperature increase since about 1860 corresponds to a recovery from the Little Ice Age, modulated by natural ocean and atmosphere cycles, without need for additional forcing by greenhouse gases.
  • There is nothing unusual about either the magnitude or rate of the late 20th century warming, when compared with previous natural temperature variations.
  • The global climate models projected an atmospheric warming of more than 0.3oC over the last 15 years, but instead, flat or cooling temperatures have occurred.

The science presented by the CCR-II report directly challenges the conclusions of the IPCC. Extensive peer-reviewed evidence is presented that climate change is natural and man-made influences are small. Fifteen years of flat temperatures show that the climate models are in error.

Each year the world spends over $250 billion to try to decarbonize industries and national economies, while other serious needs are underfunded. Suppose we take a step back and “reconsider” our commitment to fighting climate change?

Steve Goreham is the Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America (CSCA), a non-political association of scientists, engineers, and citizens dedicated to informing Americans about the realities of climate science and energy economics. CSCA is the US affiliate of the International Climate Science Coalition.

Published September 10, 2013 at The Washington Times. Reprinted here September 19, 2013 for educational purposes only. Visit the website at washingtontimes.com.


Questions

1.  a) What organization established the IPCC?
b)  What conclusion has the IPCC made about the theory of global warming?
c)  How does the IPCC’s AR5 report affected U.S. government energy policies?

2.  a) Why was the NIPCC established?
b)  What is the NIPCC’s CCR-I?
c)  How does the Chinese Academy of Sciences view the CCR-I?

3.  a) What does the Global Warming Petition Project’s petition state?
b)  How many American scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition?

4.  In the last paragraph of his commentary, Mr. Gorman asks: “Each year the world spends over $250 billion to try to decarbonize industries and national economies, while other serious needs are underfunded. Suppose we take a step back and ‘reconsider’ our commitment to fighting climate change?”  Do you think the information he provides in this commentary makes the case to do so?  Why or why not?

5.  Why do you think the media does not publicize the fact that a large number of scientists do not believe in the theory of man-made global warming?


Background

  • The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is scheduled to release the first portion of its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). AR5 will conclude once again that mankind is causing dangerous climate change. The IPCC was established in 1988 by two United Nations’ agencies: the World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environmental Program.  It is funded by the United Nations.
  • The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) will release its second report, titled Climate Change Reconsidered II (CCR-II).  CCR-II is a scientific counter to the theory of man-made global warming. The NIPCC was established in 2003 by Dr. Fred Singer, emeritus professor of atmospheric physics from the University of Virginia. The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change is a project supported by three independent nonprofit organizations: Science and Environmental Policy Project, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and The Heartland Institute.
  • Global Warming Petition Project:  Former Vice President Al Gore and other proponents of the theory of global warming believe the U.S. and the rest of the world should ration world energy production based upon fear of human-caused global warming. For more than 10 years these proponents of world energy rationing have consistently argued that, in view of this claimed scientific “consensus,” no further discussion of the science involved in this issue is warranted before legislative action is taken to heavily tax, regulate, and ration hydrocarbon energy.
    The purpose of the Global Warming Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong. The 31,487 American scientists who signed the petition are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth. (from petitionproject.org/frequently_asked_questions.php)