We have a comment - 'Devices'

I posted about a recent letter to the Journal of the American Physical Society from Christopher Monckton of Brenchley. Please note that a Letter is not subject to the same peer-review process as a Paper. Not every letter gets published though, there is a review process -- just not as stringent. Anyway, reader 'Devices' replied:

That is a "smackdown"? Its dribble. I really wish there was more scientifically credible people objecting to the global warming crowed and not clowns like Monckton. He does more harm then good with his antics.

One of the things that I like about Monckton is that he backs up his dribble with citations to published Papers -- articles that have been subjected to the scrutiny of peer-review. He is more of a synthesist -- someone who spends way too much time in the library (lucky bastard) and is able to see the "Big Picture" as it were... It seems that other people are seeing the same Big Picture...

Comments on the recent statement by the Climate Committee of the Royal Society of New Zealand.
Dr Vincent Gray

INTRODUCTION

As an Expert Reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for eighteen years, that is to say, from the very beginning. I have submitted thousands of comments to all of the Reports. My comments on the Fourth IPCC Report, all 1,898 of them, are to be found at IPCC (2007) and my opinions of the IPCC are in Gray (2008b)

I am therefore very familiar with the arguments presented by the IPCC, many of which have now been copied by the Royal Society of New Zealand, and the responses to them.

I will first comment on the Introduction to make absolutely clear what the evidence is for climate change and anthropogenic (human-induced) causes.

The climate has always changed and always will. No evidence whatsoever for a human contribution to the climate is given in their following statement.

Their Summary is as follows:

The globe is warming.

This statement is a lie. The globe is currently cooling. According to the CSSP Report (Karl et al 2007), there are currently nine authorities currently involved in providing a dataset of monthly global temperature anomalies. They are:

• NOAA�s National Climate Data Center (NCDC, GHCN-COADS)


• NASA�s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)


• Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (HadCRUT2v)


• NOAA radiosonde network, (RATPAC)


• Hadley Centre Radiosonde Network (HadAT2)


• University of Alabama Lower Troposphere TLT MSU (UAH)


• Remote Sensing Systems Lower Troposphere TLT MSU (RSS)


• National Center for Environmental Protection Reanalysis (NCEP50)


• European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasts Reanalysis (ERA40)

Eight of these authorities agree that the globe is currently cooling. Only GISS disagrees.

Hat tip to A Western Heart for the link to this post at the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. See also this editorial at The Australian:

No smoking hot spot
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?"

What follows is a wonderful read and Dr. Evans closes with this trenchant comment:

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.

Exactly. So -- Devices -- if you are still with us and have not stomped off to your enviro support group for a nice re-assuring hug, why don't you step up to the plate and offer some scientific facts that differ with what is being said...