|
There are a number of easily spotted problems
with this piece:
1 – Its headline suggests that the purpose
of the IPCC meeting in Spain was to recommend policy.
In fact, the IPCC states
“… IPCC is neutral with respect to policy and its assessment
reports are not policy prescriptive." They violate
this rule often, for example in the presentation
by IPCC Chairman Dr. R. K. Pachauri where the general
policy of reducing GHG emissions is prescribed instead
of merely adapting to whatever climate change occurs (or
engaging in geo-engineering activities such as Sun shades,
etc.). It is not the IPCC’s job to “word climate change
policy” – that will be done at the CoP13
meeting in Bali, Indonesia in December.
2 – It is stated in the piece: "John
Stone, vice-chair of one of the three IPCC groups, [said]
"The science is getting stronger and stronger and
stronger, that the imperative for governments to act is
getting stronger and stronger and stronger.""
NRSP Allied Scientist Dr.
David Wojick responds, “Stone has it exactly backwards.
The science supporting the theory of human induced climate
change is getting weaker by the year. This is because
we are discovering new forms of natural variability in
climate at every turn. Ironically, many of these discoveries
are initially reported as evidence of human induced global
warming, then on further study they turn out to be natural
- changes in ocean circulation, for example. Stone's backward
view of science is doubtless taken from the media, not
the [scientific] journals. Stone is not even part of the
IPCC science group [Working Group I that looks into
the causes of climate change; Dr. Stone is part of WG
II, which looks at the impacts of climate change].”
NRSP Allied Scientist Professor
Wibjörn Karlén comments: “As long
as IPCC and others, including scientists, official and
journalists are looking at the so-called GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
presented by IPCC as a true view of climate, I can understand
them. As soon as one has studied temperature data from
NASA or the Nordic database NORDKLIM, both available on
the net, it becomes clear that the global temperature
in fact has varied after the 1940s but has not increased.
Considering this fact, the IPCC view is incorrect; the
views are becoming weaker with each study of the real
climate.”
Click here
to read a detailed rebuttal of Dr. Stone’s comment written
by NRSP Allied Scientist, U.K.-based Dr.
Richard Courtney.
Contrary to Dr. Stone’s implications, science does not
dictate policy. Policy choice is a political decision.
For him to say that science is dictating what policy ought
to be shows that he is mixing the science with his own
political views.
3 – From the piece: "Stone
says the conclusions the [IPCC] delegates are trying to
sum up are very clear. Climate change is unequivocal.
Temperature changes are very likely due to human influence,
we are seeing the impacts already, they will get greater,
and we have the tools to act. "The scientific question
about is this real or not has been settled. And it is
legitimately a threat. It's a threat to our civilizations,
our humanity, our ecosystems and the like, and only a
fool walks away from a threat.""
Poverty is a far greater threat to civilization than
climate change. For Stone to say that small fluctuations
in temperature is a threat to civilization smacks of political
advocacy. There is nothing in the AR4 scientific report
that would support such a claim.
NRSP Chair Dr. Tim Ball explains: “Stone's comment includes,
without his knowledge or understanding, the two fallacies
that buttress the current argument about climate and general
perception of the environment. 1. The first fallacy is
the incorrect underlying philosophy that permeates our
view of the world; the concept of uniformitarianism that
assumes change is gradual over long periods of time. 2.
There never was any doubt about climate change being real,
equivocally or unequivocally. The problem is very few
have any idea that it changes all the time and, more importantly,
how much and how quickly it changes. Stone's comment is
at the base of what emerges from these fallacies, namely
the current practice of claiming that what is natural
is unnatural. He pronounces that climate change is real
as if it is something new and by implication due to humans,
when it has always occurred and the current changes are
well with natural variability.”
Click here
to read the comments of Dr. Courtney.
The piece Wording
climate change policy no easy task links to a
general CBC Web page article Global
warming explained, in which there are also some
significant errors:
1 – From the piece: "Eleven
of the highest average global annual temperatures recorded
since 1861 have come in the past 12 years."
Few countries have reliable records prior to the last
few decades. Only the U.S. and Europe have continuous
records back to the mid-1800s. Canada's official climate
data only starts in 1948. Since the mid-1970s the world
has lost two-thirds of its climate monitoring stations,
half of them disappearing in the early 1990s. There simply
isn't the data to support these claims at the global level.
Since 1979 there has been data from weather satellites,
but it shows relatively little warming, less than the
IPCC has claimed should be underway.
Click here
to read Dr. Courtney’s remarks.
Click here
to read the comments of NRSP Chair Dr. Tim Ball.
2 – From the piece: "Over thousands
of years, changes in atmospheric conditions, such as gas
concentrations, and singular events - volcanic eruptions,
for instance - have caused climate change. Most of those
changes have taken hundreds or thousands of years to play
out. But climatologists now agree that the world appears
to be in a sustained, relatively rapid period of warming."
This is meaninglessly vague. As for whether the Earth
is in an unusually warm era, that was the aim of the MBH
98 hockey stick graph, which has been discredited.
The U.S National Academy of Sciences panel said there
simply isn't the data to say how today's climate compares
with that from before 1600.
NRSP Allied Scientist Professor
Wibjörn Karlén responds to the CBC quotation
above: “Considering only the last 30 years, this statement
may be more or less correct. Considering any longer period
of time, it is wrong. The world was approximately as warm
as now during the 1920s - 1940s, there is no distinct
trend in records going back to the late 1700s, it was
warmer around 1100 AD, etc. Greenland ice cores (NORDGRIP)
indicate a distinctly warmer climate about 6000 BP and
so do numerous other palaeorecords. The climate is not
becoming warmer, it is just fluctuating.”
Click here
to read Dr. Courtney’s remarks.
3 – From the piece: “Scientists
also suggest global warming will increase the severity
– though not the number – of extreme weather events such
as El Nino and hurricanes.”
NRSP Allied Scientist Dr.
Madhav Khandekar has written extensively on this topic
– click here
for a sample of his work.
NRSP Allied Scientist Dr. Richard Courtney asserts, “I
would not dispute that some scientists may make such suggestions
when seeking research funds, but there is no evidence
that global warming will increase the incidence of such
events. Indeed, there is evidence that global warming
would reduce them.”
4 - From the piece: “Scientists
tend to point to the Arctic and the Antarctic climates
as the signs of things to come. Climate change in those
areas could rise as high as six degrees in the winter
months, according to some projections from the IPCC.”
Climatologists "agree" on these predictions?
The only recent survey of climatologists reveals considerable
disagreement: http://dvsun3.gkss.de/BERICHTE/GKSS_Berichte_2007/GKSS_2007_11.pdf.
See page 5 where is written, "Respondents perceived
no change [between 1996 and 2003] in the ability of models
to accurately verify the climatic conditions for which
they are calibrated and in neither year suggested this
ability to be very high. When asked generally about the
models’ skill to predict the future the responses indicate
that in general scientists do not have much faith in this
ability."
Click here
to read Dr. Courtney’s remarks.
Click here
to read the comments of NRSP Chair Dr. Tim Ball.
back to NRSP News
|
