Confirmed: Global Warming is a Hoax
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.
This might just be the best part:
“… 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.
(Emphasis mine)
Read the whole thing here, you can even get the PDF. (Hat Tip: Right Wing News)
A few points to note in the interest of full disclosure:
The Science and Public Policy Institute, which published the news release you link to, is hardly an independent scientific organization. It is widely believed they are one of the many “climate science” organizations backed by ExxonMobile, which while not a crime, does raise some obvious concerns if true. What is known is that their chief science adviser is Willie Soon, a “scientist” who has received funding from the American Petroleum Intitute. All that’s beside the point, because the SPPI didn’t publish the paper. The July 2008 issue of Physics and Society (published by the American Physical Society), which the SPPI press release links to, presents two opposing articles: one in support of the IPCC conclusions and one attempting to debunk those conclusions (Monckton’s piece). It’s worth while skimming the rest of the contents of the Physics and Society issue, particularly the editor’s introduction and the “pro” article entitled “A Tutorial on the Basic Physics of Climate Change”.
Regarding Monckton, it didn’t take much internet research to discover that besides being a global warming skeptic (not a crime either), he once held that AIDS patients should be quarantined with blood tests conducted every month (his rebuttal that “AIDS was new at the time” is laughable). None of this is surprising, given that Monckton was trained as a journalist and as far as I could find out, has no credible scientific credentials. The fact that the APS published his paper makes me wonder if they are hemorrhaging readership like many American newspapers, prompting them to manufacture controversy where there isn’t any.
A note about Monckton’s paper: I don’t pretend to be an expert on climate science, but having taken a Paleoclimatology course at USF, I do know some fundamentals. Just glancing at Monckton’s paper I can see that he makes clever use of statistics. I’m not pulling that out of my rear either. I also took a quantitative methods course and one thing I learned is that anyone fluent with statistical software can draw ANY conclusion he or she wants with any dataset. This is what Monckton did and it is why he is so controversial: not because he doubts global warming, but because his methods are so fundamentally skewed. And this is after a cursory glance at his graphs and formulas. The difference between Monckton’s paper and the IPCC conclusions are not the data, it’s the methods each used to reach their conclusions. I also couldn’t find the tidbit in Monkcton’s paper about it being proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible. Regardless, who is trying to predict climate on such a minuscule scale anyway?
Finally, the use of the word “proved” in the title of the SPPI press release is also very revealing. The goal of science is not to prove anything. You won’t hear any trained climate scientist say that they are out to prove human-induced global warming. Even Al Gore doesn’t say this. Rather, the goal of scientific research is to build on previous studies and add to the body of knowledge, that at present suggests humans are greatly influencing the natural climactic variations of the planet in an adverse way. This idea is only controversial in the world of politics and misinformation.
We agree on one thing… statistics can be used to say pretty much whatever you want. The saying (in the South at least) is something like “Figures Lie and Liars Figure”… or something like that.
Does Exxon Mobile have anything to gain from trying to skew studies? Maybe… but so does Al Gore, the UN and a slew of other organizations out there who are trying to generate wealth, redistribute wealth, or gain power through climate enforcement, energy credits, whatever.
The point is, contrary to what most of the leftists on television or Al Gore would have you believe… there is no consensus. Does the earth warm? Sure. Does it cool? Yup, does that too. I believe its cyclical and natural… and I think that fact that other planets in our solar system have also warmed without the presence of evil SUVs backs up that theory.
Should we try to stop polluting? Yeah. But I’m not going to give up my country’s sovereignty, my freedom, or my SUV because someone else tells me its the way to the promised land.
[...] I linked to the results of a study by Lord Monckton of Brenchley which concluded the the genuinely accepted proof of Global Warming in [...]