--
 

April 20, 2014

Key Documents

 
 
 
 

Get the Newsletter

Newsletter Archives

 
 
 

Newsletter (June 19, 2009)

In this issue


Featured
  1. Have Changes in Ocean Heat Falsified the Global Warming Hypothesis?
  2. Monckton's Congressional Testimony with Follow-Up Q&A
  3. Beisner's Congressional Testimony with Follow-Up Q&A
Debate
  1. Leading Questions: Climate Change Polls and Evangelicals
  2. Global Warming Commission's Defeat, a Major Victory
  3. Filmmaker vs. Hysterics
Science
  1. Video: Is Our Climate Changing? Are We to Blame?
  2. Video: Miskolczi Study: Runaway Greenhouse Warming Impossible
Economics
  1. Congress, Carbon, and the Poor: Why Wealthier is Healthier
  2. Cutting CO2 Emissions While Still Using Coal
Meet the Critics: Zbigniew Jaworowski & Robert C. Balling, Jr.

Briefly Noted

Featured

1. Have Changes in Ocean Heat Falsified the Global Warming Hypothesis?

by William DiPuccio
Former Weather Forecaster, U.S. Navy; Former Meteorological & Radiosonde Technician, National Weather Service
Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News, May 5, 2009

A blogger at Global Warming: A Worn-Out Hoax provides a simple and concise summary of DiPuccio's excellent study:
[There has been a] “robust failure on the part of the GISS model to project warming.” The upper 2.6 meters of ocean has heat capacity equal to the entire atmosphere above it! If we analyze temperatures to 750 meters, we are accounting for 80% of Earths entire (surface) heat, based on the thermal mass of ocean. Since 2003 we have quite accurate records of ocean temperatures, thanks to the Argo buoy observations. The temperature of Earth, by this accurate observation, is not going up, as predicted by the AGW models. In fact, it is going down rather sharply.



“Earth is losing slightly more energy than it (has) absorbed” from 2003 to 2008. All the while carbon dioxide is increasing! “Arm waving and ad hoc explanations (such as large margins of error) are not sufficient.”


Thermal mass of Earth concentrated in ocean
Read the original study by DiPuccio: Have Changes in Ocean Heat Falsified the Global Warming Hypothesis?

Back to top

2. Monckton's Congressional Testimony with Follow-Up Q&A

Lord Monckton's Testimony
by Lord Christopher Monckton
Viscount of Brenchley; Chief Policy Adviser, Science & Public Policy Institute
Delivered to The Energy & Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives, March 25, 2009

. . . The right response to the non-problem of “global warming” is to have the courage to do nothing. There has been global cooling for seven years -


7 years’ global cooling at 3.5 F°/century


. . . The UN’s climate panel has exaggerated carbon dioxide’s effect on temperature sevenfold, verified by satellite observation that the diminution over time in outgoing long-wave radiation is one-seventh of that which the UN’s computer games were told to predict . . .

. . . Carbon dioxide is accumulating in the air at less than half the rate the UN had imagined . . .

. . . If doing nothing is inexpedient, adaptation to warmer or cooler weather – when and if necessary – is many times more cost-effective than attempted mitigation –


Don’t mitigate: adapt (if needed)


. . . We have been adapting to natural variations in climate throughout the history of humankind. Adaptation is a practical, affordable natural response to natural climate change. . . .

Read the rest.

Monckton's Follow-Up: 'On the Central Question of Climate Sensitivity'
by Lord Christopher Monckton
Viscount of Brenchley; Chief Policy Adviser, Science & Public Policy Institute
Written to Congressmen Joe Barton and Fred Upton, May 17, 2009

[Editor's note: Despite the complicated nature of the science, Lord Monckton translates it into surprisingly simple terms and provides an eye-opening read for his audience.--ECB]

Following my recent testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House, you kindly directed a question to me via the Committee Clerks –
Is there any dispute that, as you say, “How much warming will a given proportionate increase of CO2 concentration cause?” is the central question of the climate debate?

a) If so, what is it?
b) If not, why hasn’t the scientific community participating in the IPCC caught the matter?
The answer to your principal question is that there is no dispute at all about whether the question “How much warming will a given proportionate increase of CO2 concentration cause?” is the central question of the climate debate. The “climate sensitivity” question, as it is called, is indeed the central question, on which all else depends. If climate sensitivity is high, as the IPCC maintains it is, then much “global warming” can be expected, whereupon the questions that fall to be answered are how much damage (if any) the warming predicted by the IPCC may cause, and whether or to what extent it lies within our power to mitigate or adapt to the predicted warming and any consequent damage, and whether the costs of mitigation might outweigh the costs of the damage the warming may cause, and whether or to what extent it would be cheaper to adapt to any “global warming” that might occur, as and if necessary.

The IPCC’s answer to the climate sensitivity question keeps changing, and in a downward direction. Its 1995 report provided a central estimate that a doubling of CO2 concentration – i.e. a proportionate increase of 2.0, which is taken as the standard metric for evaluating climate sensitivity – would cause 3.8 K (6.8 F°) of atmospheric warming. The IPCC’s 2001 assessment report revised that estimate downward to 3.5 K (6.3 F°). The IPCC’s 2007 report cut the central estimate again, this time to 3.26 K (5.9 F°). . .

. . . James Hansen, the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has recently suggested that the value of the “final-climate-sensitivity parameter” . . . is λ ≈ 0.75, rather than the substantially higher central estimate λ ≈ 0.97 implicit in the IPCC’s 2007 climate assessment. Dr. Hansen’s revised value for λ would require a further reduction in the central estimate of climate sensitivity to 2.6 K (4.6 F°). The only stated value for λ in IPCC (2001) was λ ≈ 0.5, implying a further reduction in the climate sensitivity estimate to 1.73 K (3.1 F°) of “global warming” at equilibrium in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration. . . .

. . . Making appropriate adjustments for these apparent exaggerations by the IPCC, I calculate that true climate sensitivity may well be as little as 1.1 K at CO2 doubling.

Furthermore, one must make allowance for the fact that atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising at only half the rate predicted by the IPCC, even though CO2 emissions are rising at the higher end of the IPCC’s expectations.


CO2 concentration is rising, but well below IPCC predictions


This discrepancy between prediction and observed reality is in fact larger than it appears, because the IPCC predicts that CO2 concentration will increase exponentially, while in fact it is increasing only linearly . . .

. . . On its own, the failure of CO2 concentration to increase at even half the predicted rate requires all of the IPCC’s projections for anthropogenic “global warming” over the 21st century to be halved. . . .

. . . As I mentioned in my previous letter to the Committee, there is considerable empirical verification of this theoretically-evaluated result, which has considerable backing in the literature. For instance, direct satellite measurements show that outgoing long-wave radiation has not diminished anything like as fast as the IPCC’s climate-sensitivity estimates would require: in fact, as shown in numerous papers, it has diminished at one-seventh to onetenth of the rate required by the IPCC’s climate-sensitivity predictions, implying that climate sensitivity is one seventh to one tenth of the IPCC’s value.

Further empirical verification is to be found in the now well-established failure of the world’s oceans to warm as predicted by the models on which the IPCC relies. . . .

. . . As mentioned in my earlier letter to the Committee, yet a third empirical verification is available . . . According to Professor Richard Lindzen, the repeatedly-observed absence of the higher warming rate in the upper troposphere requires that the IPCC’s climate sensitivity calculations be divided by at least 3 . . .

. . . A fourth empirical verification appears in the self-evident failure of the global mean surface temperature record to show any anthropogenic signal whatsoever at any point.


No anthropogenic signal in the global temperature record


The three magenta lines on the global-temperature graph are strictly parallel, showing that there has been no discernible anthropogenic influence on surface temperature, notwithstanding continuing increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

. . .

Read the rest.

Back to top

3. Beisner's Congressional Testimony with Follow-Up Q&A

Dr. Beisner's Testimony
by E. Calvin Beisner
National Spokesman, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
Delivered to The Energy & Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives, March 25, 2009

. . . I am convinced that policies meant to reduce alleged carbon dioxide-induced global warming will be destructive, devising mischief by decree. The best, most recent empirical scientific discoveries have shown that even the mid-range scenarios of the IPCC exaggerate the warming effect of increased CO2 by at least seven times; atmospheric CO2 concentration is rising at a fraction of the rate forecast by the IPCC; and Earth has been cooling for the last seven years at a rate of 3.5EF per century.

These findings, opposite the expectations of the IPCC, are consistent with the Biblical world view. The naturalist, atheistic world view sees Earth and all its ecosystems as the result of chance processes and therefore inherently unstable and fragile, vulnerable to enormous harm from tiny causes. The Biblical world view sees Earth and its ecosystems as the effect of a wise God’s creation and providential preservation and therefore robust, resilient, and self-regulating–like the product of any good engineer who ensures that the systems he designs have positive and negative feedback mechanisms to balance each other and prevent small perturbations from setting off a catastrophic cascade of reactions. . . .

. . . Both this Biblical world view and high-quality empirical scientific findings convince me that the fear of catastrophic manmade global warming is mistaken. And it is tragically mistaken because it has become the basis of policy proposals that threaten enormous harm to the world’s economies in general and especially to the world’s poor. For that reason, no action to mitigate warming by reducing CO2 emissions is certainly better than any. . . .

. . . What concerns me most at present, however, is not the impact of climate policy on the economy generally, but its impact on America’s and the world’s poor. Any policy that forces us to switch from lower-cost fuels to higher-cost fuels–no matter which ones they are, and no matter what their real or alleged effect on global temperature might be–is a policy to harm the poor. If we subsidize production of grain ethanol (which full life-cycle analysis shows releases about as much CO2 into the atmosphere per unit of energy delivered as do oil and coal), we not only must support the subsidy by taxation but also diminish the supply of grain for food, contributing, as we did in late 2007 through 2008 through subsidies to corn ethanol production, to higher food prices and resulting hunger and starvation. If we tax CO2 emissions, whether directly or via cap-and-trade, we raise the price of energy and so the prices of all things made and transported by energy–which is essentially everything. . . .

Read the rest.

Beisner's Follow-Up: Ethics of Mitigation and Adaptation
by E. Calvin Beisner
National Spokesman, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
Written to Congressman Henry Waxman, May 6, 2009
. . . We heard from other panelists that justice dictates the United States do something for the harm caused by its CO2 emissions. What did the U.S. produce with these emissions, and did that bring any benefit to the world, and the world’s poor? . . .
. . . In my judgment, no persuasive case can be made that the U.S. and other advanced nations have imposed harm on others by emitting CO2 into the atmosphere, and indeed a more credible case can be made in the opposite direction, namely, that CO2 emissions from the use of energy have benefitted the world, and will continue to benefit it, both directly through the goods and services produced through the use of the energy and indirectly through the plant growth enhancement (including increased agricultural crop yields) driven by increased atmospheric CO2–the latter benefiting not only the human community but also all the rest of life on Earth, since all animal life depends on plant life, and since increased crop yields diminish the amount of land that must be cultivated to feed the human population, leaving more land available for natural species. . . .
. . . If we are concerned that there will be catastrophic man-made global warming, is a cap-and-trade scheme the best way to deal with the problem? . . .
. . . a cap-and-trade scheme not only has proved a dismal failure in Europe but also endangers future generations both by raising the price of energy and so depressing economic production and growth but also by putting all our eggs in one basket. On the former score, cap-and-trade (and with it all other means of mandatory reductions in CO2 emissions) will raise the price of energy, thus raising the overall cost of living, depressing economic production, and slowing economic development, harming people in both the present and the future. On the latter score, efforts to control future temperature by any means of CO2 emission reduction (cap-and-trade or otherwise) will only be of benefit (however slight) if indeed it turns out that temperature response to rising CO2 emissions is large (i.e., on the order of 3EC or higher in response to doubled CO2), whereas recent studies like those by Roy Spencer and Stephen Schwartz give very strong evidence that it is small (on the order of 0.5EC). The likelihood that other, natural cycles (solar/cosmic rays, ocean current cycles, etc.) are leading into significant global cooling and will overwhelm any warming from CO2 makes it important that we be prepared to adapt equally to the warmer and the cooler temperatures that are both bound to come. Money spent solely on efforts to cool the planet cannot equally protect us from global cooling. Adaptation, therefore, is preferable . . .
. . . We hear a lot about the cost of “inaction.” What is the most cost-effective action when it comes to addressing the risk of climate change?
The most cost-effective action to address climate change is to refrain from attempting to mitigate (control, diminish) it, the costs of which action will greatly exceed the benefits, and instead to pursue economic development partly through abundant and affordable energy to enable us to adapt to whatever climate change is ahead.
. . . Should we pursue both mitigation and adaptation, as the United Nations and others argue? If not, why not?
We should not pursue both mitigation and adaptation, because any attempt at mitigation is going to be a dead loss to us–its costs far outweighing its benefits–and will therefore diminish the resources available to us not only for a myriad of other tasks but also, and ironically, to adapt to the natural warming and cooling that will most certainly occur in the future, just as they have in the past. The current cool solar cycle, in which we have now gone some 600 days without a sunspot, may very well usher in a period of significant cooling, which (because, e.g., cold snaps cause mortality rates 10 times higher than heat waves, and shortened growing cycles reduce agricultural production and so make food more expensive, and storminess increases during colder periods because of increased temperature differential between poles and equator) is much more dangerous than warming. Money wasted on trying (ineffectively) to reduce warming will be unavailable to adapt to cooling, and the result will be greater human suffering.

Read the rest.

Back to top

Debate

4. Leading Questions: Climate Change Polls and Evangelicals

by E. Calvin Beisner
National Spokesman, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
crosswalk.com, May 11, 2009

Over the last year multiple polls have shown very few evangelicals share fears of manmade global warming. In fact, they are the least likely of all Americans to support global warming legislation.

So, what do you do when you're desperate to get lawmakers to believe they'll have evangelicals' support if they back massive, expensive legislation to fight global warming?

If the latest development is any indication, you fake it. You try to create the illusion of massive evangelical support even when it's not there. . . .

. . . Now, in desperation, some evangelicals are banding with long-time Left-wing advocates for yet another attempt to foist an illusion on politicians and the public. Ball and Hunter have teamed up with the Left-wing group Faith in Public Life (FIPL) and Oxfam America to advertise results of their own poll.

To design the poll, FIPL and Oxfam hired Public Religion Research, headed by long-time liberals Robert P. Jones, who got his start with People for the American Way, and Daniel Cox, formerly of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. And to showcase the news, as Dan Gilgoff of US News reports, FIPL and Oxfam have linked with American Values Network, a "new faith-based advocacy group founded by Hillary Clinton's former religious outreach director" Burns Strider.

Not surprisingly, granted its sponsors and designers, the new poll purports to find that 61% of Americans believe "dealing with climate change will create new jobs and help avoid more serious economic problems in the future." Some 69%, "with similar numbers of . . . evangelicals agree that climate change is making it harder for the world's poorest people to support their families by causing increased drought and crop failure." And 50% of white evangelicals believe "the federal government should be doing more on the issue of climate change."

Why the striking contrast with all the other polls? It's not clear, since to date FIPL has declined to provide more than a few, selective results for religious groups. But Public Religion Research now admits that its survey finds that only 40% of white evangelicals feel there is solid evidence that the earth is warming because of human activity--an important figure omitted from press releases, which highlighted people’s desire for action.

Last, did the wording of some questions prejudice responses? It’s hard to say, but the survey's topline is intriguing. Several key questions used prejudicial language, offered respondents more options to support climate action than to oppose it, and explicitly discouraged neutral answers. Even more subtly, questions asking whether respondents supported policies and whether government should do more attached no price tags and didn't ask respondents to rank priorities, although polling experts know that as soon as price tags and priority ranking come into play, apparent support dwindles.

Bottom line: the FIPL/Oxfam poll is suspect. But that won't stop its sponsors from launching an expensive campaign, spearheaded by American Values Network, touting it--with e-mails to 5.3 million evangelicals and Roman Catholics in eight key states, and a radio ad read by Hunter.

This is just the latest effort to create an illusion.

Read the rest.

Back to top

5. Global Warming Commission's Defeat, a Major Victory

by David J. Sanders
Columnist, Arkansas News
Arkansas News, April 19, 2009

. . . Legislative success for lawmakers, individuals, industry, associations, or interest groups most often is determined by the legislation to which the governor affixes his signature. Failure most often is determined by the things not signed into law, usually because they didn’t make it through one of the steps in the process.

Whether something becomes law isn’t the only measure of success, however. Though much harder to quantify, sometimes success or failure can be looked at in terms of how well an individual or a group advances a cause or a conversation. Another measurement, which often goes unheralded, is the demonstrated ability to stop bad legislation from becoming law. That is today’s focus.

Halting the Governor’s Commission on Global Warming’s agenda, which, in turn, prevented the group from implementing most its 54 policy recommendations into law, was a major accomplishment of the 2009 session. . . .

Read the rest.

Back to top

6. Filmmaker vs. Hysterics

by John Fund
Columnist, The Wall Street Journal & The American Spectator
The Wall Street Journal, April 17, 2009

Irish documentary filmmakers Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney have stirred up trouble before by debunking smug liberal hypocrisy. Their latest film, "Not Evil, Just Wrong" takes on the hysteria over global warming and warns that rushing to judgment in combating climate change would threaten the world's poor.

The film reminds us that environmentalists have been wrong in the past, as when they convinced the world to ban the pesticide DDT, costing the lives of countless malaria victims. The ban was finally reversed by the World Health Organization only after decades of debate. The two Irish filmmakers argue that if Al Gore's advice to radically reduce carbon emissions is followed, it would condemn to poverty two billion people in the world who have yet to turn on their first light switch. . . .

Read the rest.

Read more and view the trailer at the documentary's official site.

Back to top

Science

7. Video: Is Our Climate Changing? Are We to Blame?

by David R. Legates
State Climatologist, Delaware; Director, Delaware Environmental Observing System, University of Deleware; Senior Scientist, Marshall Institute
The Heartland Institute, March 30, 2008

View the presentation: Part 1 & Part 2

Back to top

8. Video: Miskolczi Study: Runaway Greenhouse Warming Impossible

by Miklos Zagoni
Reviewer, Fourth Assessment Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Physicist & Science Historian, Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest
April 27, 2009
The new Miskolczi Law shows the Greenhouse Effect cannot increase the earth's temperature any further. . . . If no one falsifies this Law, the theory that Greenhouse gases can cause runaway global warming is dead. No one has published a paper to refute Miskolczi's Law in the two years since publication.
View the presentation.

Miskolczi's Original Paper

Enlightening reviews here & here

Back to top

Economics

9. Congress, Carbon, and the Poor: Why Wealthier is Healthier

by James Tonkowich
Retired President, Institute on Religion & Democracy
Institute on Religion & Democracy, April 23, 2009

Even in a prosperous village in 1800 most people just eked by. The environmental niceties I enjoy looking out my window and the fresh air wafting in are luxury goods, the result of our wealth. And we enjoy that wealth in large measure because we have access to inexpensive, reliable energy.

Think about the two ends of the spectrum. Wherever people have abundant, inexpensive energy—most of Europe and North America—there is prosperity, which leads to a clean environment. But in places where the only available energy is from burning biomass fuels—wood or dried dung for the most part—there is subsistence farming, grinding poverty, disease, and environmental degradation.

Bjørn Lomborg in his book Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming writes that in India, “For many… women, searching for fire wood costs three hours each day, as they sometimes walk more than six miles per day. It also causes excess deforestation.” Wealthier is healthier for people and for the environment.

The WeGetIt! Declaration is a simple statement of environmental stewardship from a faithful biblical point of view: “God said it. We get it. They need it. Let’s do it.” I am proud to have been one of the original signers particularly because of the common sense care for the poor indicated by the words, “They need it.” The declaration states:
With billions suffering in poverty, environmental policies must not further oppress the world’s poor by denying them basic needs. Instead, we must help people fulfill their God-given potential as producers and stewards. . . .
Read the rest.

Back to top

10. Cutting CO2 Emissions While Still Using Coal

by E. Calvin Beisner
National Spokesman, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
Special to the Cornwall Alliance, May 15, 2009

Switching to other fuels isn't the only way to reduce CO2 emissions. The New York Times reported May 11 that China's adoption of high-tech coal-fired generating plants increases their efficiency in extracting energy from coal by 18% to 39%, allowing them to generate that much more electricity from the same amount of coal without raising CO2 emissions.

With alternative fuel technologies still having a tough time competing with fossil fuels on price, such technologies may be a more promising way of addressing fears of global warming--whether the fears are justified or not.

Back to top


Meet the Critics


Have you ever been at a loss for words when challenged by the alarmist's claim of scientific "consensus," or that dissenting scientists are unqualified? Not only does consensus prove nothing, but the very idea of "consensus" among scientists on catastrophic manmade climate change is simply unfounded. A 2008 Senate Environment and Public Works Minority Report documents dissension around the world:

More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent
Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Two notable critics are:

Zbigniew Jaworowski, Ph.D.

Currently senior scientific advisor to Warsaw's Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, physicist Zbigniew Jaworowski has aided numerous government climate research projects, led ten polar and glacier expeditions involving extensive ice-core study, and published hundreds of scientific papers. "The hypothesis, in vogue in the 1970s, stating that emissions of industrial dust will soon induce the new Ice Age, seems now to be a conceited anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the science of that time. The same fate awaits the present," Jawarowski stated. A few of Jaworowski's important pieces are CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time, Sun Warms and Cools the Earth, and The Global Warming Folly.

Robert C. Balling, Jr., Ph.D.

Robert Balling, Jr., director of Arizona State University's climatology laboratory, has served as a climate consultant to, among other organizations, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations Environment Program, and the World Meteorological Organization. Balling says that "the Earth was probably warmer in the past than our records indicate and, therefore, the change in temperature that we now observe is not as great as it appears." In addition to his many scientific papers, such as The Increase in Global Temperature: What it Does and Does Not Tell Us, Balling has authored three books books on climate change, including The Heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions Versus Climate Reality and The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming.

Back to top

Briefly Noted

How Many IPCC (and Other) Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research?

The Cloud Mystery

Benny Peiser's Response to Giddens and Liddle

Weatherman Knows of No Alarmist Meteorologists

Airborne Bacteria Discredit Climate Modeling Dogma

Climate Change and the Earth's Magnetic Poles, a Possible Connection

Starfish Defy Climate Change Gloom


E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., National Spokesman
Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, http://www.cornwallalliance.org/
Information in this newsletter is for scholarly and educational use only and may not be copied or reproduced for any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright holders.
    logo