Search The Site
Additional Material to Download

Lord Monckton, Congress May 2010 Download Here

Pachauri and the IPCC, No Fossil Fool Report 4-25-10 Download Here

Avoiding Carbon Myopia 4-6-10 Download Here

Carbon Myopia Talk Slides 4-14-10 Download Here

NASA Data More Flawed 3-30-10 Download Here

Climategate: Caught Green-Handed Download Here

Climategate Disclosures – IP Report Download Here

Global Warming: Australian Viewpoint Download Here

Scientific America's Climate Lies Download Here

Is the U.S. Temperature Record Reliable? Download Here

Louisiana Climate Change Download Here

United States Economic Impact from the Lieberman-Warner Proposed Legislation to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions Download Here

Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming Download Here

Climate Audit:  Methods Abandoned by EPA, IPCC Download Here

No smoking hot spot

David Evans | July 18, 2008

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None.

There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.

Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.

So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.

In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.

If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?

The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.

What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.

The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.

Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

Three top scientists have once again contradicted the claim that a "consensus" exists about man-made global warming with research that indicates CO2 emissions actually cool the atmosphere, in addition to another peer-reviewed paper that documents how the IPCC overstated CO2's effect on temperature by as much as 2000 per cent.
Professor George Chilingar and Leonid Khilyuk of the University of Southern California, and Oleg Sorokhtin of the Institute of Oceanology of the Russian Academy of Sciences have released a study that they claim completely contradicts the link between CO2 and global temperature increases.
"The writers investigated the effect of CO2 emission on the temperature of atmosphere. Computations based on the adiabatic theory of greenhouse effect show that increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere results in cooling rather than warming of the Earth’s atmosphere," states the preamble to the paper.
The full study, which appears in the Energy Sources journal, is sure to cause ire amongst climate cult adherants.
No global warming has been observed for the past 10 years as temperatures have gradually declined and studies indicate that there will be no further warming for the next 10 years.
In a related development, the peer-reviewed Physics and Society journal has published evidence proving that the UN IPCC's 2007 climate summary "overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%."
According to the paper, "Computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007."
The paper also outlines evidence to confirm that Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed, a factor attributed to the Sun having been more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.

The paper concludes, "CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100."

Proved: There is No Climate Crisis      

Written by Robert Ferguson   
Tuesday, 15 July 2008

WASHINGTON (7-15-08) - Mathematical proof that there is no “climate crisis” appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports.

Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN’s climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is “climate sensitivity” (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2’s effect on temperature in the IPCC’s latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.

Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered [] demonstrates that later this century a doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 °F predicted by the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F. Lord Monckton concludes –

“… Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no ‘climate crisis’ at all. … The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.”
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chair (2004) of the New England Section of the American Physical Society (APS), has been studying climate-change science for four years. He said:
“I was impressed by an hour-long academic lecture which criticized claims about ‘global warming’ and explained the implications of the physics of radiative transfer for climate change. I was pleased that the audience responded to the informative presentation with a prolonged, standing ovation. That is what happened when, at the invitation of the President of our University, Christopher Monckton lectured here in Hartford this spring. I am delighted that Physics and Society, an APS journal, has published his detailed paper refining and reporting his important and revealing results.‘

“To me the value of this paper lies in its dispassionate but ruthlessly clear exposition – or, rather, exposé – of the IPCC’s method of evaluating climate sensitivity. The detailed arguments in this paper, and, indeed, in a large number of other scientific papers, point up extensive errors, including numerous projection errors of climate models, as well as misleading statements by the IPCC. Consequently, there are no rational grounds for believing either the IPCC or any other claims of dangerous anthropogenic ‘global warming’.”

Lord Monckton’s paper reveals that –
•    The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
•    CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
•    Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
•    The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
•    The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
•    “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
•    Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
•    The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
•    It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
•    Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
•    In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.
Click Here For Full PDF Version
No Global Warming Since 1998 As Planet Cools Off
UN scientists admit that natural weather occurrences more powerful than CO2 emissions

Prison Planet

Paul Joseph Watson

Friday, April 4, 2008
Top UN scientists have been forced to admit that natural weather occurrences are having a far greater effect on climate change than CO2 emissions as a continued cooling trend means there has been no global warming since 1998.

But despite overwhelming signs of global cooling - China's coldest winter for 100 years and record snow levels across Northeast America - allied with temperature records showing a decline - global warming advocates still cling to the notion that the world is cooling because of global warming!

"Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said," reports the BBC.

"The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer."

"This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory."

The report admits that La Nina and its counterpart, El Nino, are "two great natural Pacific currents whose effects are so huge they resonate round the world."

Wait a minute.

According to man-made global warming advocates, CO2 emissions are the main driver of climate change and natural weather patterns caused by sun activity and other native contributors play second fiddle.

But here we have UN climate scientists admitting that natural climate change contributors have eclipsed the effect of CO2 emissions for the past 10 years, even as carbon belchers like China and India have increased CO2 output at record levels!

Global temperatures have remained reasonably flat since a decline in 1998 and cooling trends are now being observed despite the fact that carbon dioxide levels have increased in the atmosphere (see graph below).
Indeed, the latest evidence from climatological surveys shows that the earth's upper oceans and the troposphere, the primary indicators of climate change, have not been warming for the last four years.
On the whole, the world is getting colder (see above), which is why "global warming" suddenly became "climate change" when temperature levels since 2003 started to prove the alarmists wrong.

Carbon emissions have never driven climate change because as ice core samples clearly show, carbon dioxide is a consequence of temperature increase and not a cause of it, sometimes lagging behind by as much as 800 years.
Following the accelerated industrialization period of 1940-1970, when carbon emissions reached a crescendo, global temperatures plummeted, prompting an international fearmongering campaign about the deadly consequences of global cooling.

So-called experts were lavished with media platforms to tell us that all animal life in the sea would be extinct by 1979 and England would be underwater by the year 2000, amidst a myriad of other outlandish proclamations.

As the graph above shows, an expected downturn in global temperatures over the next 15 years will force climate change alarmists to become even more feverish.

Al Gore's army are going to have to get more creative and blame any weather event whatsoever, be it hurricanes, tsunamis, or floods that have battered the planet for eons, and yes even global cooling, on their favorite justification to tax, regulate and control every aspect of our life - global warming.

Global warming could stop NATURALLY for ten years,' say scientists

Last updated at 08:40 01 May 2008

Global warming will be "put on hold" over the next decade because of natural climate variations, scientists claim.

A study of sea temperature changes predicts a lull as traditional climate cycles cancel out the heating effect of greenhouse gases from pollution.

The findings suggest the official models used to predict short-term global warming patterns are too crude.

Reprieve: The melting ice caps could stabalise over the next decade

But scientists say rising carbon dioxide levels caused by man will send temperatures up again after the natural trends peak and will continue to rise in following decades.

UN experts have said global temperatures are expected to increase by 0.3c over the next decade.

But the study by Dr Noel Keenlyside, of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Germany, predicts the temperature of the North Atlantic around Europe and North America may cool slightly.

Temperatures in the North Atlantic are influenced by a giant 'conveyor belt' of warm water from the south called the meridional overturning circulation.

This weakens and grows stronger every 80 years or so. When the circulation is strong, temperatures are warmer.

A new model of this pattern suggests it will weaken over the next ten years leading to cooler temperatures.

Writing in the journal Nature today, the scientists said: "Our results suggest global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade."

Dr Richard Wood of the Met Office Hadley Centre, said: 'Such a cooling could temporarily offset the longerterm warming from increasing levels of greenhouse gases.

"That emphasises the need to consider climate variability and climate change together when making predictions over timescales of decades."

The Met Office believes 2008 will be slightly cooler than last year. But the last ten years remain the warmest decade in recent human history.