May 19, 2013
Newsletter (November 20, 2009)
Above the Fold
Join us for the release of A Renewed Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Examination of the Theology, Science, and Economics of Global WarmingAs world leaders attempt to craft an international global warming treaty this December and the U.S. Senate debates cap and trade, the world’s poor face the threat of serious harm from radical climate policies. Our panelists will argue that a better reasoned—and more Biblical—approach to environmental stewardship emphasizes human flourishing. Calvin Beisner, the foremost evangelical expert on these issues, led the team that prepared this groundbreaking study of the science, economics, and theology of global warming. He will be joined by climatologist and author Roy Spencer (Rush Limbaugh’s “official climatologist”), who served as an expert reviewer for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), currently leads NASA's Aqua satellite atmospheric sensing research, and will explain why sound science doesn’t support global warming fears; Charles van Eaton, an expert on public policy economics, who will examine the costs and benefits of alternative climate policies, particularly as those policies impact the poor; and Craig Mitchell, an evangelical theologian with science and economics background, who will address the ethical ramifications of climate change policy.
Dr. Roy Spencer
Climatologist and Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama, Huntsville
Dr. Charles van Eaton
Retired Chairman, Economics Department, Hillsdale College; Founder and former Director, Bryan Center for Critical Thought and Practice, Bryan College
Dr. Craig Mitchell
Associate Professor of Systematic Theology, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary
Dr. E. Calvin Beisner
National Spokesman, The Cornwall Alliance For the Stewardship of Creation
Becky Norton Dunlop
Vice President, External Relations, The Heritage Foundation
Thursday, December 3, 2009 at 1:00 p.m.
The Heritage Foundation’s Lehrman Auditorium
RSVP Online at http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ | or call (202) 675-1752
Terms and Conditions of Attendance are posted online at www.heritage.org/Press/Events/terms.cfm.
Mr. President -
Next month, thousands of UN delegates from over 190 nations, members of the press, and eco-activists from around the world will descend upon Copenhagen, Denmark as part of the United Nations Conference on Global Warming. Yet, even before it begins, the UN conference is being called a "disaster." Just this morning, the Telegraph, a UK newspaper, noted, "The worst kept secret in the world is finally out - the climate change summit in Copenhagen is going to be little more than a photo opportunity for world leaders."
Not too long ago, however, the Copenhagen meeting was hailed as the time when an international agreement with binding limits on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases would finally be agreed to. Eco-activists believed a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress would finally push through mandatory cap and trade legislation and that the United States would finally be ready to succumb to the demands of the United Nations.
The reality, of course, is that Copenhagen will be a disaster. The failure comes at a high cost. Despite the millions of dollars spent by Al Gore, the Hollywood Elites, and the United Nations, climate alarmism has failed. . . .
Read the rest.
In this issue
- WEA: Climate Change Not Controversial Among Non-U.S. Evangelicals
- An Alarmist Modeler's History of Climate Change
- Copenhagen: The Deal's Off
- Galileo Silenced Again
- 'Green Jobs Programs Provide Veterans with a New Mission'
- Copenhagen Climate Challenge
- Another Normal Year for U.S. Temperatures?
- The IPCC on Climate Feedbacks
Meet the Critics: Bruce J. West & Hajo Smit
- Overpopulation: The Environmental Problem That Isn't
- Bill Gates vs. the Famine Lobby
Featuredby Michelle A. Vu
Reporter, Christian Post
November 18, 2009
Unlike in the United States, there is little controversy among evangelicals around the world on whether climate change is real, said an evangelical representative at a press briefing on Capitol Hill.
“They know it is real,” said Deborah Fikes, executive advisor of the World Evangelical Alliance–-a global alliance of churches in 128 nations and over 100 international organizations. But in the United States, many evangelicals deny climate change is real because they are “self-absorbed” and “lack [the] spiritual will” to change their lifestyle to help solve a problem that is life threatening, she said.
Fikes was a member of the delegation of evangelical leaders and leading climate scientists that briefed top White House advisors and U.S. Senate offices Tuesday about climate change. The self-described odd partners urged lawmakers to put aside their differences, as they had, and quickly act to address the climate change problem.
Pastor Joel C. Hunter of the Florida megachurch Northland, A Church Distributed, touched on what Fikes said about the “inconvenient truth” of climate change to American evangelicals.
“We are the most unlikely characters” to take action on climate change, said Hunter, who noted his church members are mostly white and wealthy. “We are the most difficult to convince because we have an idea that if there are changes we will be the most likely to be able to insulate our lives."
But despite the challenges, the pastor said his church has taken action to spread awareness and address climate change by: watching movies about the issue, doing an audit of expenditures that could lower the church’s carbon footprint, hosting energy expos, and listing the changes congregants can make in their personal lifestyle.
Commending such efforts, Fikes commented, “We are encouraged that there are rapidly growing numbers of churches in America who understand that they are the key to solving these problems.”
But while some evangelicals are vocal supporters of efforts to stop climate change, others are skeptical and have described global warming as “hype.”
Nearly 100 conservative Christians, many of which were evangelicals, argued last year that there is no hard evidence that climate change is as devastating as mainstream media and society claims. The group–-which included Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, Dr. Barrett Duke of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and radio host Janet Parshall–-said while they agree that humans are responsible to take care of God’s creation, policy changes meant to alleviate climate change could do more damage than good.
“The number of premature deaths, number of diseases, and the harm to the human economy that can be predicted from the policies used to fight the warming” is more destructive than even if all the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)-predicted global warming-caused disasters came true,” argued Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, founder and national spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, at the launch of the “We Get It!” campaign last May.
But the Harvard and Smithsonian scientists at Tuesday’s panel discussion were adamant that climate change is real and mainly caused by human activities.
Nancy Knowlton, who is a marine science expert at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, said a third of all corals in the world are currently in danger of extinction because of the effects of climate change. Knowlton explained that corals are important because about one out of three of all ocean species are somehow associated with corals and they provide coastline protection.
“The decisions we are making today not only affect tomorrow because carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for decades and sometimes centuries; it affects not only ourselves, our children and grandchildren but literally our grandchildren’s grandchildren’s grandchildren," Knowlton said. "So these are incredibly important and long-term decisions that we are making.”
While the delegation spoke strongly on the U.S. government taking bolder action on climate change, it clarified that it does not recommend or take position on policies.
The evangelical-scientist briefing with U.S. lawmakers came weeks before a key U.N. summit on climate change in Copenhagen, Denmark, where the world’s governments will discuss setting limits for greenhouse emissions.
“If we scientists and evangelicals can put aside whatever differences we may have to find solutions to protect the global environment, then surely so can our elected officials, and we would urge them to do so starting now,” said Eric Chivian, the Harvard Medical School scientist who organized the coalition with the Rev. Richard Cizik.
Chivian and Cizik, former vice president for government affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals , formed the alliance in 2007 after discovering their shared concern about the issue. The two quickly assembled evangelical leaders and top scientists to work together to find solutions to the climate change problem. The idea was that scientists would provide the latest facts and information about climate change while evangelical leaders would influence the American people by informing them what scientists have found and calling on them to change their lifestyle.
Tuesday’s evangelical-scientist event was the 22nd briefing of its kind on climate change.
Back to topby Paul K. Driessen
Columnist, Townhall; Senior Fellow, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, and Congress of Racial Equality; Author, Eco-Imperialism.com
November 14, 2009
. . . Gore, Hansen, Stephen Schneider, and Senators Boxer and Kerry could actually engage in a few debates about global warming/catastrophic climate change science and economics.
They might be surprised to learn that climate change has actually brought benefits to mankind and planet Earth, including a greening of the Sahara Desert over the last twenty years, due to increased rainfall and CO2 levels. Even trees and animals are coming back to a region once devastated by Egyptian slaves.
They might be stunned to find that ice core and other data demonstrate that temperatures warmed first during past climate changes, and then atmospheric CO2 levels increased, as warming ocean waters released some of the carbon dioxide that they sequestered during colder periods.
They might be amazed to discover that our ancestors, who were even more dependent on agriculture than we are – and even less technologically advanced – somehow managed to cope with climate change. They adapted! As James Burke, Brian Fagan and other historians have noted, they responded to the Little Ice Age by modifying their houses, heating systems, clothing and farming practices. (Optimists might suppose that our far more advanced technologies will make us even better able to adapt to whatever climate changes nature, or man, might visit upon us in the future.)
Alarmists might be shocked to think the causes of past climate changes were the same natural forces and influences that drive changes in Earth’s complex, chaotic, unpredictable weather and climate today: continental movements and volcanoes, and periodic shifts in water vapor and cloud cover, evaporation and precipitation, ocean currents and jet streams, planetary alignments and the shape of the Earth’s orbit, the tilt and wobble of Earth’s axis, solar energy output, and cosmic rays hitting the planet.
Meanwhile, hard-pressed consumers and taxpayers might finally figure out that the fear-mongering over global warming has little to do with scientific “evidence” to back up the speculation, assumptions and assertions that mankind faces a climate cataclysm. (Models are not evidence.) It has everything to do with money, prestige, careers, power and control over energy use and economic opportunity – and an abiding distaste for hydrocarbons, personal freedom, modern living standards, and real environmental justice. . . .
Read the rest.
Back to topby Daniel James Devine
Writer, World Magazine
December 5, 2009
It was early November, the last day of a United Nations conference in Barcelona. Delegates from 175 countries had gathered to wrangle over carbon dioxide emissions, and Yvo de Boer, a middle-aged man in glasses and a yellow tie, sat down in front of a microphone to summarize the week-long talks. As UN climate secretary, de Boer was saddled with the task of coaching world leaders into a climate change treaty by December: "Governments can deliver a strong deal in Copenhagen," he said in a firm, sharp voice. "Nothing has changed my confidence in that."
De Boer might have been the only confident person in the building. After five days of private meetings that reached little agreement and included a walkout by African delegates, both envoys and environmentalists were skeptical any treaty would be hammered out at a Dec. 7-18 climate change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark. Developments at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit on Nov. 15 cemented such skepticism: President Obama and other world leaders decided they would not seek a legally binding deal at Copenhagen.
For two years the UN has been arranging meetings to piece together a treaty curbing greenhouse-gas emissions. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims greenhouse gases have increased the global average temperature by 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit since 1905. To slow the alleged threat of melting polar ice caps, rising sea levels, and widespread flooding and droughts, the panel says major world powers should cut CO2 emissions 25 percent to 40 percent by 2020. (Some independent studies have disputed the IPCC's assessment.) Further, the UN expects the United States and other affluent nations to help developing nations adopt low-carbon practices and adapt to regional climate problems—at an estimated cost of $150 billion per year by 2020.
That's a tough sell during a widespread recession. The climate change talks have highlighted a rift between rich and poor countries that has complicated such negotiations ever since the Kyoto Protocol was signed by the Clinton administration in 1998. Kyoto, expiring in 2012, was never ratified by the U.S. Senate since it didn't require emerging nations like China—now the world's biggest polluter—to rein in their own emissions. . . .
The UN treaty would allow other nations to hold the United States responsible for its level of emissions. Since the only way to cut CO2 is to reduce the burning of fossil fuels or adopt expensive alternative energy, it would come at a huge economic cost and even drive U.S. industries to less affluent nations, where they could emit freely. In spite of President Obama's support for climate change measures, his administration needs an indication that the Senate would support such an action during a recession and a healthcare debate before it can make international commitments.
The Senate is instead giving indications that it would not. The same day African delegates walked out of the Barcelona meetings, seven Senate Republicans had a boycott of their own in Washington. It was over the Kerry-Boxer "cap-and-trade" bill, which the Environment and Public Works Committee—chaired by bill co-author Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.—was preparing to revise and vote on. Before the markup session began, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the committee's ranking Republican and an outspoken global-warming skeptic, told Boxer his party wouldn't be attending unless she agreed to allow a detailed EPA analysis of the bill's economic impact.
What Boxer agreed to do was pass her bill through committee on 11 Democratic votes, without a single Republican present. (One Democrat voted nay.) It was the first time she'd made such a move—what Inhofe called a "nuclear option" that was "theater in preparation for Copenhagen."
Boxer's tactic might have won admiration from far-left environmentalists, but it was criticized by moderate Republicans in the Senate, whose votes are pivotal if a cap-and-trade bill reaches the floor. . . .
Read the rest.
Copenhagen Climate Change Collapse
by Paul Taylor
Examiner.com, November 15, 2009
Binding Climate Treaty May Slip Far Into 2010
by Alister Doyle
Environment Correspondent, Reuters
November 16, 2009
Back to top
Debateby Willie Soon and David R. Legates
Heartland Institute, November 13, 2009
. . . Just recently, as scientists who specialize in environmental science, climatology, and solar variability, we welcomed the acceptance of our scientific session, Diverse Views from Galileo’s Window: Researching Factors and Processes of Climate Change in the Age of Anthropogenic CO2. The session was to be hosted at the upcoming Fall 2009 Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco.
Our session was to focus on “knowledge that spans an extremely diverse range of expertise” and provides “an integrated assessment of the vast array of disciplines that affect and, in turn, are affected by the Earth’s climate.” Our ultimate goal was to stimulate discussion at this professional meeting, prior to the upcoming UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) fifth assessment report.
We developed this session to honor the great tradition of science and scientific inquiry, as exemplified by Galileo when, 400 years ago this year, he first pointed his telescope at the Earth’s moon and at the moons of Jupiter, analyzed his findings, and subsequently challenged the orthodoxy of a geocentric universe. Our proposed session was accepted by the AGU. . . .
But by late September, several puzzling events left us wondering whether the AGU truly serves science and environmental scientists – or simply reflects, protects and advances the political agendas of those who espouse belief in manmade CO2-induced catastrophic global warming. . . .
. . . after first approving our session and after we had assigned time slots for these new papers at AGU’s request, the Planning Committee revoked its approval and summarily dissolved our session. Now the committee claimed our session was “thematically divergent,” and divided the papers in our original session among six different sessions.
To cover its tracks, the committee created a new session called Diverse Views from Galileo’s Window: Solar Forcing of Climate Change with 15 papers – including the 12 from Dr. Scafetta’s original session that it had cancelled. That reduced the focus of this session to just solar forcing of climate, and eliminated discussions of the impact of anthropogenic CO2 that we had planned for our original session. The remaining papers from our cancelled session were moved to five other sessions, thereby undermining our original intent: comparing solar variability and manmade carbon dioxide as factors in planetary climate change.
In responding to us, the Planning Committee defended its actions by asserting: “none of [the papers in our session] have to do with the Galilean moons of Saturn [sic], which have to do with climate change or solar activity.” That claim reflects either a poor grasp of our purpose or a failure to read our proposal – and leads the question, Why wasn’t this issue raised when they originally decided to accept our session?
Our session proposal had clearly intended to honor Galileo’s observations of Jupiter’s (not Saturn’s) moons, which had led him to challenge the orthodoxy of the geocentric universe. We wanted to highlight how current research into the climatic effects of anthropogenic CO2 is challenging the supposed “scientific consensus” that humans are causing catastrophic climate change.
This arbitrary dissolution of our original session has serious implications for proper scientific enquiry. Our request that the session be reinstated has gone unheeded, despite the fact that the AGU has reinstated at least one cancelled session in the past. We have repeatedly been told that the decisions of the Planning Committee are final, though it has made clearly contradictory decisions regarding our session. . . .
[Willie Soon is a Physicist for the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; Chief Science Adviser, Science & Public Policy Institute; Science Director, Tech Central Station; Senior Scientist, Marshall Institute; Co-Author, Global Warming and Maunder Minimum; David Legates is the Delaware State Climatologist and Director of Delaware Environmental Observing System, University of Delaware; Senior Scientist, Marshall Institute; Fellow, Independent Institute; Scholar, Competitive Enterprise Institute.]
Read the rest.
Back to topby Andrea Buffa
Senior Writer and Policy Associate, Apollo Alliance
November 13, 2009
. . . Veterans Green Jobs runs a 9-week “Home Energy Auditor Training” (HEAT) for veterans, using a rapid, hands-on “military” style of training and a curriculum that was developed in collaboration with community colleges and industry organizations. . . .
“We think veterans are uniquely qualified to lead the environmental restoration here at home,” said Kirsten Maynard of Veterans Green Jobs. “Not only have they seen environmental destruction across the world; they also have technical skills and other kinds of work skills that allow them to do the really tough work that needs to be done - like go into homes and crawl in the attic and the basement. They’ve been trained by the military to do it, and they actually feel comfortable being in that kind of environment.” . . .
Operation Free is a new campaign by national security and veterans organizations to draw attention to the national security threat created by climate change. “The reason why national security organizations are taking this as a serious threat is that not only are we [the United States] dependent on oil, but the conflicts that arise from famines, floods and droughts [caused by climate change] multiply the threat of current conflicts and create instability,” said Alex Cornell du Houx, an Iraq war veteran and participant in Operation Free. . . .
Read the rest.
Back to topOn December 8th and 9th, The Copenhagen Climate Challenge conference will be held at Dansk Forfatterforening (Danish writers Union) Strandgade 6, 1401 København K. The conference's advertisement explains:
The aim is to present to governments and activists a clear scientific challenge to either produce rigorous scientific evidence of their claims or to stop pursuing the current scaremongering and extremely costly policies. This will be done by presenting papers on the various aspect of ‘Climate Change’, such as ocean levels, CO2 and temperature, AGW and disease etc. etc. and in effect saying, “Either to put up or shut up!”Already scheduled to speak are Christopher Monckton, Fred Singer, H. Leighton Steward, Nils-Axel Mörner, and Ian Plimer.
Back to top
Scienceby Patrick J. Michaels
Chief Editor, WorldClimateReport.com; Research Professor, University of Virginia; Senior Fellow, Cato Institute; Visiting Scientist, Marshall Institute; Author, Climate of Extremes, Meltdown, The Satanic Gases, and Sound and Fury
November 9, 2009
. . . Thus far, 2009 is looking like another normal year—further indication that the warm period from 1998-2007 was an anomaly, rather than a step change to a new climate across the U.S. (be sure to check back in two months to see how the final 2009 numbers pan out). . . .
Read the rest.
Back to topby Roy W. Spencer
Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville; Author, DrRoySpencer.com; Author, Climate Confusion
November 1, 2009
Despite the fact that the magnitude of anthropogenic global warming depends mostly upon the strengths of feedbacks in the climate system, there is no known way to actually measure those feedbacks from observational data.
The IPCC has admitted as much on p. 640 of the IPCC AR4 report, at the end of section 8.6, which is entitled “Climate Sensitivity and Feedbacks”:
“A number of diagnostic tests have been proposed…but few of them have been applied to a majority of the models currently in use. Moreover, it is not yet clear which tests are critical for constraining future projections (of warming). Consequently, a set of model metrics that might be used to narrow the range of plausible climate change feedbacks and climate sensitivity has yet to be developed.” . . .This is a rather amazing admission. Of course, since these statements are lost in a sea of favorable (but likely superfluous) comparisons between the models and various aspects of today’s climate system, one gets the impression that the 99% of the IPCC’s statements that are supportive of the climate models far outweighs the 1% that might cast doubt.
But the central importance of feedbacks to projections of future climate makes them by far more important to policy debates than all of the ways in which model behavior might resemble the current climate system. So, why has it been so difficult to measure feedbacks in the climate system? This question is not answered in the IPCC reports because, as far as I can tell, no one has bothered to dig into the reasons. . . .
Only in the case of radiative forcing being either zero or constant in time – situations that never happen in the real world – can feedback be accurately estimated with current methods.
Our continuing analysis of satellite and climate model data has yet to yield a good solution to this problem. Unforced cloud changes in the climate system not only give the illusion of positive feedback, they might also offer a potential explanation for past warming (and cooling). [I believe these to be mostly chaotic in origin, but it also opens the door to more obscure (and controversial) mechanisms such as the modulation of cloud cover by cosmic ray activity.]
But without accurate long-term measurements of global cloud cover changes, we might never know to what extent global warming is simply a manifestation of natural climate variability, or whether cloud feedbacks are positive or negative. And without direct evidence, the IPCC can conveniently point to carbon dioxide change as the culprit. But this explanation seems rather anthropocentric to me, since it is easier for humans to keep track of global carbon dioxide changes than cloud changes.
Also, the IPCC can conveniently (and truthfully) claim that the behavior of their models is broadly “consistent with” the observed behavior of the real climate system. Unfortunately, this is then misinterpreted by the public, politicians, and policymakers as a claim that the amount of warming those models produce (a direct result of feedback) has been tested, which is not true.
As the IPCC has admitted, no one has yet figured out how to perform such a test. And until such a test is devised, the warming estimates produced by the IPCC’s twenty-something climate models are little more than educated guesses. It verges on scientific malpractice that politicians and the media continue to portray the models as accurate in this regard, without any objections from the scientists who should know better.
Read the rest.
Back to top
Economicsby Rusty Pritchard
President, Flourish; Author, Rusty Pritchard's Blog
November 16, 2009
. . . Falling fertility is most obviously a result of the demographic transition–first infant mortality declines due to modern medicine, leading to a short-lived population boom. Then other factors make large families less attractive, and enlightened public policy has reduced birth rates as a side effect. When stable financial systems make it possible to save for old age and even participate in pension programs, when education for girls, rising pay and job opportunities for women make employment possible, when industrialization moves people off farms, it is no longer so attractive to have large families for economic survival, as [an article in The Economist] details.
So the “problem of overpopulation” is taking care of itself. Public policy should focus more directly on the things that make people better off, rather than trying to control their reproductive decisions. Coercive population control is immoral, and other efforts at regulating population are less effective than helping families lead productive, rewarding, and flourishing lives. . . .
Read the rest.
Back to topby Ben Johnson
Writer, FrontPage Magazine
October 30, 2009
. . . Bill Gates took on the Famine Lobby while addressing a forum on the world food supply in Iowa. Speaking at the World Food Prize Symposium in Des Moines, Gates took aim at the chorus of environmental leftists and organic food advocates who believe Africans should starve rather than eat genetically modified (GM) foods. “Some voices are instantly hostile to any emphasis on productivity. They act as if there is no emergency, even though in the poorest, hungriest places on earth, population is growing faster than productivity,” he said. . . .
Gates announced he will issue a $120 million grant to increase food productivity in sub-Saharan Africa through the planting of genetically modified seeds. In Des Moines, Gates cited a Stanford study from 2008 concluding African farmers will lose one-quarter of their productivity within 20 years if they continue to plant the same strains of corn. However, “If the seeds perform well, African farmers can expect to produce two-million more tons of maize in a year of moderate drought.” Radio Iowa reports Gates has “committed more than a billion dollars” in all. . . .
The question remains, will he do so on the issue that seems closest to his heart: the eradication of malaria in sub-Saharan Africa? In a recent speech on the topic Gates admitted, “two tools helped to bring the death rate down: One was killing the mosquitoes with DDT.” Before Rachel Carson’s crusade – based entirely on scientific theories that never panned out – DDT use had nearly eradicated malaria. Now, according to one report, “there are approximately 350 to 500 millions cases of malaria, killing close to one million people” annually. “Every day, malaria takes the lives of 2,000 children in Africa alone.” Yet instead of backing DDT use, Gates has sought to find a vaccine.
If Gates truly wants to put the well-being of Africans above political correctness, DDT is the best place to start.
Read the rest.
Back to top
Meet the CriticsHave 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 DissentTwo notable critics are:
Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims
Bruce J. West, Ph.D.
Bruce West is the chief scientist for the US Army Research Office's mathematical and science directorate in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Having written an article entitled Is Climate Sensitive to Solar Variability? with Nicola Scafetta, West reported: "Our own analysis of the total solar irradiance and the modeling of the Earth's climate response to changes in that irradiance lead us to conclude that the Earth's average surface temperature is directly linked to two distinctly different aspects of the sun's dynamics in marked contrast to the findings in the United Nations report." "While Dr. Scafetta and I disagree with this representation of scientific opinion," he noted, "that opinion is, in the end, irrelevant to the science. Science has never been a matter of consensus building. Science proceeds by what might be characterized as controversy and disagreement which is ultimately resolved by the interplay between experiment and theory and not by committee."
Dutch meteorologist Hajo Smit is a forecaster and a former member of the Dutch IPCC committee who has lectured at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. A former alarmist, Smit thanks Al Gore for making him a skeptic. "[Gore] prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp." "I am troubled by the practices I had seen at work in GCM (global climate models), the whole field seemed highly suspicious to me, . . . Odd arbitrary parameterizations seemed the rule rather than the exception," he said. "The vast amount of new research since my graduation points to clear cut solarclimate coupling and to a very strong natural variability of climate on all historical time scales. Currently I hardly believe anymore that there is any relevant relationship between human CO2-emissions and climate change."
Back to top
Briefly NotedVideo: The Goracle Speaks: Earth's Internal Temperature Millions of Degrees!
British Voters Say Humans Not to Blame for Global Warming
An Inconvenient Rebuttal
Video: Cap & Tax Won't Save the Earth
A Complete List of Things Caused by Global Warming
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.