admin

The Sky Isn’t Falling [and it never was]

By Thomas Richard
Fareed Zakaria, in the latest issue of Newsweek, wonders how the media, researchers, and scientists got it all so very wrong on the extent of a swine flu pandemic that was to infect ‘millions’ and cause untoward worldwide damage:

Three weeks ago the World Health Organization declared a health emergency, warning countries to “prepare for a pandemic” and said that the only question was the extent of worldwide damage. Senior officials prophesied that millions could be infected by the disease. But as of last week, the WHO had confirmed only 4,800 cases of swine flu, with 61 people having died of it. Obviously, these low numbers are a pleasant surprise, but it does make one wonder, what did we get wrong?

He has his theories on how this issue garnered so much media attention, and posits:

Once we see a problem, we can describe it in great detail, extrapolating all its possible consequences….They [the researchers] described—and the media reported—what would happen if it went unchecked.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because the exact same scenario happened with so-called man-made global warming. With one important difference. A lot of money is being made from the climate change scare. Some have estimated it to be in the trillions. There is no doubt it’s in the billions. A swine flu vaccine is $10 (once created) and even free depending on your health plan. You can’t build a cottage industry around a summer flu. You can build one around something you can’t prove is happening, is still a theory, and can be blamed for every one of mankind’s ills. Zakaria wraps up his take-the-media-to-the-woodshed commentary by reminding readers that history is our greatest teacher when it comes to media scare tactics:

We have learned from history and built some reasonably effective mechanisms to handle crises. Does that mean we shouldn’t panic? Yes, except that it is the sense of urgency that makes people act—even overreact—and ensures that a crisis doesn’t mutate into a disaster.

As the Waxman-Markey climate tax bill heads to the senate and ultimately to Obama, as mileage standards bring us closer to less-safe cars, and green groups use CO2 rulings to further their own agendas, perhaps those same folks in the media who continue spreading unnecessary panic will take a moment and learn from history. Before the non-existent crisis that is global warming leads us further to economic disaster.Source

Global Warming or Global Cooling?

By TPM Blog

Many scientists say we have global warming. They point to some exceptionally hot years and other evidence. Many climatologists are now making the case for global cooling as well. Record low temperatures and record high snowpacks the past 2 years, and decreasing solar activity appear to be their key arguments.

This article will not take sides. After reading this brief article you will have enough knowledge to decide for yourself.

Climate history is fascinating stuff !

Reading this will give you a solid understanding of Earth’s main climate history that is currently known and proven.

With this knowledge you can better analyze the competing claims about cooling and warming and put them in perspective.

Let’s just call this article…

…”The 5 minute Climate Scientist”

As you view the climate history graphs you will notice that climate is never ‘stable’. You will learn that both global warming and global cooling have happened hundreds of times previously.

Earth is always warming or cooling in somewhat predictable cycles, or it is in a brief transition from one cycle to another.

The Ice Core Data –
Prehistoric snowflakes acted as memory cards:

Several projects have been undertaken that involve drilling extremely deep holes into the Arctic and Antarctic Ice. All of the ice started out as snowflakes, falling through the atmosphere. It is not frozen sea water.

As the snow piles up it compresses into ice. The snow has been piling up and turning into ice for over 500,000 years. Gas bubbles and other particles trapped in the ice have allowed scientists to recreate the atmosphere and temperature history going back over 450,000 years. The two main Ice Core projects were the Vostok and EPICA deep ice core surveys. The temperature data is accurate to better than 1/100th of a degree.

Ocean Sediment Cores:

Ocean sediment cores also trap gases and isotopes, allowing Geologists to create an extremely accurate climate history going back millions of years.

Long Ice Ages and Shorter Warm Intervals:

As you view the climate history charts you will see a clear ongoing pattern of long ice ages (glaciations), separated by comparatively brief warm intervals (interglacials).

We are currently living our lives during a warm interglacial, between ice ages, called the Holocene.

The Holocene started with a massive warming event about 12,000 years ago. That was a good thing because the ice was several kilometers thick and it covered Canada, the UK, Northern Europe, and almost half of the USA.

Climate Of The Last 5 Million Years:

See Graph: 5 Million Years of Climate Change

Note: The present is the right side of the graph.
1.The pattern of ongoing warming and cooling is obvious.
2. The overall trend is downward. The ice ages (glaciations) are getting colder.

Climate of the Last 450,000 Years:

See Graph: Vostok-EPICA Ice Core Data

Note: Everything below the dotted line (Zero degrees C) represents glacial Ice Age Conditions. The warm spikes are so consistent it almost looks like a heartbeat monitor.

1. The spikes on the graph are the warm interglacials.
2. The spike on the right side of the graph shows our current Holocene interglacial.
3. The Ice Ages (below zero degrees C) last about 90,000 years on average.
4. The warm interglacials (above Zero degrees C) last from 6,000 to 12,000 years.
5. Our current Holocene Interglacial is the coldest interglacial recorded in the past 450,000 years.
6. 125,000 years ago during the last interglacial (Eemian interglacial) it got much hotter than today’s climate. At that time our early human ancestors were still in the stone age.

Climate Of The Last 12,000 Years:

See graph: Holocene Interglacial Temperature History

1. The climate history shows that Holocene temperatures peaked about 8,000 years ago.

2. The recent temperature rise following the Little Ice Age (1650-1850) is in line with – or less than – the many other global warmings during the Holocene.

3. These interglacials only last 6,000 to 12,000 years.Then Mother Nature will take us into the next ice age glacial which will last about 90,000 years.

Note: The Holocene warming was accompanied by a sea level increase of over 350 feet.
See Graph: Holocene Sea Level Rise

After pondering the ongoing climate cycles the statements “humans cause global cooling” and “humans cause global warming” become questionable at best. How can anybody say such things about warming and cooling cycles that have been ongoing for millions of years, way before humans came along?

Sure, we have trashed out our environment, depleted our oceans, etc., etc., but it is unrealistic to assert that humans can control the climate one way or the other. Some things, like climate change and continental drift, are natural phenomena that are way beyond human control. The belief that “humans can control the climate” is based on both undeserved bravado regarding human capabilities, and complete disregard of the known climate history. Anybody who believes that new taxes will create a stable climate is kidding themselves.

But what about CO2?

see Graph:
600 Million Year CO2 and Temperature History

1. During the late Ordovician Period CO2 levels were 10 times higher than today’s CO2 level, but Earth went into a long Ice Age period.

2. Current CO2 levels are at the low end of the scale when viewed in a historical perspective. CO2 is presently only 0.038% of the atmosphere. Natural water vapor causes 95% of the greenhouse effect.

3. Claims that “today’s CO2 level is the highest ever” are flat out lies, and they indicate the speaker has no knowledge of Earth’s proven climate history.

All life on planet depends on CO2

By Dr. Tim Ball

A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses: it is an idea that possesses the mind. – Robert Bolton

The Possessive Belief

CO2 (CARBON) IS NOT CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING OR CLIMATE CHANGE.
I can’t say it more boldly but it doesn’t seem to matter; the belief persists that CO2 is the cause and therefore a problem. The belief is enhanced by government policies and plans, which spawn businesses to exploit the opportunities they create.

A majority of the mainstream media pushes the belief because of political bias rather than understanding of the science. Evidence continues to show what is wrong with the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), but it is complex and so most don’t understand. The fact they hold definitive positions without understanding is disturbing. However, ignoring the fact that IPCC predictions are always wrong doesn’t require understanding of the science is completely unacceptable and proof of the political bias.

Contradictory Evidence

The 2007 IPCC Report claimed with over 90% certainty that human produced CO2 is almost the sole cause of global warming. But the evidence shows this can’t be true; temperature changes before CO2 in every record of any duration for any time period; CO2 variability does not correlate with temperature at any point in the last 600 million years; atmospheric CO2 levels are currently at the lowest level in that period; in the 20th century most warming occurred before 1940 when human production of CO2 was very small; human production of CO2 increased the most after 1940 but global temperatures declined to 1985; from 2000 global temperatures declined while CO2 levels increased; and any reduction in CO2 threatens plant life, oxygen production and therefore all life on the planet.

Dr Ferenc Miskolczi provided the most recent scientific argument against CO2 as the cause of temperature change. Here is an explanation by Dr Miklos Zagoni.
It illustrates why the scientific arguments that CO2 is not the problem are not making much headway – they’re very complicated. Basically, Miskolczi is saying that the Greenhouse Effect is present but essentially constant over time, therefore temperature variations are due to some other cause. He is extending the idea of saturation, already known about CO2, to all greenhouse gases. I refer to this as the black paint condition. If you want to block light coming through a window a single coat of black paint will stop almost all of it. Second and third coats reduce the light but by decreasing fractions. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is like the first coat of paint – doubling and tripling the amount reduces heat going to space by decreasing fractions. The IPCC got around this problem by incorrectly claiming a positive feedback. This says increased CO2 raises global temperature that increases evaporation of water vapor to the atmosphere. This supposedly enhances the warming due to increased CO2, but the idea is now discredited. Miskkolczi’s argument means any variations in global temperature are almost all due to changes in solar and geothermal energy. Inclusion of geothermal is unusual. This energy from within the earth, especially into the oceans is essentially and as I have long argued, incorrectly ignored.

Failed Predictions

The IPCC claim they do not make predictions but produce what they call scenarios. This is a deception: they are predictions and understood as such by the public. More important IPCC urge politicians to use them as the basis for policy through The Summary for Policymakers (SPM). The scenarios are a range of possible future global temperatures determined from a combination of climate and economic conditions. Ian Castles and David Henderson have roundly criticized them. MIT professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen referred to them as children’s exercises. The 2007 IPCC report says,

For the next two decades a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all GHGs and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about 0.1°C per decade would be expected. (SRES is Special Report on Emissions Scenario)

That simply hasn’t happened. What is happening cannot happen according to the IPCC. Their 2007 Report painted them into a corner. It claimed with over 90% certainty that CO2 was increasing because of human economic activities and was almost the sole cause of temperature increase. Notice the quote says temperature will rise even if greenhouse gases don’t increase. The problem is CO2 has increased yet the temperature has declined. Equally important the recent economic downturn was not anticipated, which is a measure of the failure of the entire IPCC approach. They claim that economic activity is the key to human production of CO2, which causes warming. Over the last 18 months the dramatic increase in gasoline prices and then the serious recession should have caused a measurable drop in CO2 levels. It didn’t! There is no evidence of a decline as the NOAA graph illustrates.

Ignoring the Obvious

At what point does misrepresentation of facts become lies? A general definition of the word lie is “an intentionally false statement”, but this applies to a single statement and the key word is “intentional”. A single misunderstanding or a misstatement can occur, but what if there are a series of misstatements from an individual or group? What happens when many statements are proved incorrect, but they continue to repeat them or fail to acknowledge they were false? There is a long and growing list of statements by promoters of human CO2 induced global warming that have proven incorrect. Yet they continue to push their claim by ignoring the evidence and diverting attention with new specious and spurious claims. Most politicians and mainstream media continue to believe because they don’t understand or don’t want to understand for political reasons. However, even they must understand when the predictions are consistently wrong. Science is simply defined as the ability to predict, so the failure invalidates the science even if you don’t understand the science. People who persist only have a blind belief and as the adage says, there are none so blind as those who will not see. What a terrifying basis for devastating and totally unnecessary energy and economic policies.

Clean Energy's Dirty Little Secret

By Dr Fred Hansen

The political and international divide over green energy politics is growing. Not only are the prospects of over ambitious plans such as Koyoto II getting gloomier in the ongoing financial crisis, it is becoming increasingly clear that the green renewable energy issues could create problems of the same magnitude as our present oil-dependency. As the Atlantic reports in its May issue, the exploding demand for hybrid cars and windmills is likely to create a bottle neck in the supply of a commodity with the exotic name of neodymium. Neodymium is a crucial material for build lightweight permanent magnets “that make the Prius motors zoom” and are needed for the generators of wind mills as well. In fact, the present production of neodymium would have to be doubled in order to make just a few million electric cars. The main pit for neodymium in the US, California’s Mountain Pass, has recently been closed after a series of leaks released hundreds of thousands of gallons of radioactive waste into the environment. The dirty little secret of green cars and windmills is that the neodymium has to be yielded from rare-earth ore, which are regularly contaminated with radioactive thorium. More here

More about the dangers of hybrids and biofuels HERE.

SUN heats EARTH, EARTH heats ATMOSPHERE – not the other way around

By Hans Schreuder

A definitive chapter on the fallacy of man-made global warming/climate change.

After all is said and done, it will be found that carbon dioxide does not and can not affect either the global temperature or climate change. Carbon dioxide has no climate forcing effect and is not a greenhouse gas and neither is water vapour.

The only worthwhile source of warmth for planet earth is our Sun, warming all of the land and all of the seas, which then warm the atmosphere – not the other way around; the atmosphere does not warm the earth.

[…] it is necessary to understand that the underlying drive for control over the use of energy is based on the principles set out in the United Nation’s Agenda 21 [8] as well as two other relevant agendas [9], [10]. When the idea of blaming carbon dioxide came to be understood by those who wished to wield their control over global affairs, the wheels of political manipulation were set in motion via the UNFCCC. All Western governments subscribed to the ideals without understanding the deeper meaning of the hidden agendas and lured by the promise of huge subsidies, taxation and green job creation schemes.

Hans Schreuder
www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com

Download the full article HERE.

Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, May 15th 2009

By The Daily Bayonet

Thursday already, which means it’s time for your round-up, and my meds. This week I invented the iPuritan. Just for you. Also lots of skeptic juice in the links this week, and a spottie in Part Five. Don’t forget to return to Part One after you’ve snuck a peek. Part One: Al Gore & Friends Tennessee is contemplating a statue for Al Gore, and they’re not kidding. Readers with an artistic bent might want to make suggestions for the sculpture here. I think the whole idea would be better if we used technology to capture the real Al Gore in carbonite, of all things.

carbon capture we can believe in

The global warming crowd’s spiritual leader purchased a new home in San Francisco, near the Mission district in hippie central. Unfortunately for Al, some bozo has claimed that the area his shiny new condo is in will be under water because Americans like to have second homes. Or something. Just a thought, but why does Al need another house? It’s not as if he’s got the old one under control yet. Al Gorewell; 1984: The movie. More fun than An Inconvenient Truth, really. The Goreacle is still smarting about those pesky questions about how many millions he stands to make if cap and bend over passes in the US. Don’t make Al angry, you wouldn’t like him if he’s angry. If ‘deniers’, outnumber ‘believers’, then who exactly are the deniers now? Al’s losing, and the hippies are restless. Gross distortions. I’m not talking about the stresses on Al’s wardrobe, but the exaggerations and outright scientific misrepresentations in his Oscar winning slide show. Chu this one over, Gore. Tom Nelson skewers the greens on their own, err, skewer.

Mar ‘08: Gore suggests we already have the technology

“We have to stop this, and the truth is we can,” Gore said. “We have the technology. If we just had one week’s worth of what we spend on the Iraq war we could be well on our way to solving this challenge.”

May ‘09: Secretary Chu says we NEED the technology “Starting today, the Department of Energy is accepting proposals for energy R&D projects that “disrupt the status quo. The Nation needs transformational energy-related technologies to overcome the threats posed by climate change and energy security, arising from its reliance on traditional uses of fossil fuels and the dominant use of oil in transportation.”

Finally, Canada’s ecotool and wannabe Stalinist David Suzuki decides Bush whacking is still relevant. He likes that Obama is talking to Cuba, but then all Commies like other commies getting some recognition. Other than that he has stuff to say about endangered species. I guess Dave missed this news. All I know is that most endangered species are delicious, but avoid spicy sauces. Part Two: AGW Scaremongers
Click HERE to read the rest and see this weeks Global hottie!

Sierra Club Fraud and Hypocrisy

By Paul Chesser, Heartland Institute Correspondent

A friend of a friend who leads a business association in Washington state passed along a note about a recent trip he made to D.C., where after several meetings on the Hill he concluded that “while Congress, particularly the U.S. Senate, may want to slow down and catch its breath with the President’s agenda (on global warming), environmental groups are just getting charged up.” He noted the upcoming EPA public comment hearings on regulating CO2 in Arlington, VA and Seattle, and cited specifically the Sierra Club’s call to action for those hearings. From the appeal posted at Sierra Club’s Web site:

The next step is showing there is a real call for change at upcoming EPA public hearings in Arlington, VA on May 18 and Seattle, WA on May 21. Big Oil and Coal have spent tens of millions of dollars on lobbying efforts in Washington D.C., and we know they will push hard against any regulation from the EPA. We need to turn these hearings into a powerful demonstration that our country’s future will not be set by the coal industry and their allies. Please sign up today!

That the Sierra Club criticizes so-called “Big Oil and Coal’s” spending of millions of dollars, as though it was a David vs. Goliath scenario, is the height of deception. Between the three fiscal tax years of 2005 through 2007 (the years tax returns were available on Guidestar), the Club (a 501(c)(4) nonprofit) and its Foundation (a 501(c)(3) nonprofit) combined spent a total of more than $170 million to promote, educate, litigate and lobby on behalf of its agenda, an enormous percentage of which pushes the alarmism button on global warming and opposes more affordable fossil fuel development and power generation. And Sierra Club’s contribution to the effort is only a fraction of the overall financial muscle behind the alarmists’ effort — don’t forget groups like Environmental Defense, Earthjustice, Natural Resources Defense Council, and others, plus the multi-billion dollar foundations who help fund them. The Washington state business leader adds this in his report:

They have a pretty active strategy and it is working right now. They have jammed the Seattle hearing on May 21 and there is little time for anyone else to testify. Their ultimate goal is to put Congress in a corner so they either embrace and pass President Obama’s agenda or put EPA in a position to enforce it.

Whether or not submitting a comment or testifying to Obama’s EPA about regulating CO2 is worthwhile or not is up to the individual, but it is undoubtedly worthwhile to submit your comments to the dozens of Democrat fence-sitters in Congress who are suffering heartburn (PDF) over the thought of having to vote for cap-and-trade this year.Source

Finally some sanity? Global warming critics appointed to Canadian science boards

By Bill Curry, The Globe and MailOTTAWA — [some] Top Canadian scientists are accusing the Harper government of politicizing science funding and jeopardizing climate research by naming global warming critics to key boards that fund science. The government’s actions are “dreadful,” said Garry Clarke, a leading international glaciologist at the University of British Columbia, and undercut public pledges to tackle climate change. “Their mouths are doing one thing and their hands are doing something different,” Prof. Clarke said. Already alarmed over funding cuts to basic research, scientists say two appointments in particular are worrisome. Mark Mullins, the executive director of the conservative-leaning Fraser Institute — and a former adviser to the Canadian Alliance Party — was recently appointed to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), which funds university research projects that have included studies on climate change.Dr. Mullins is an economist and critic of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations-sanctioned scientific [fraud] body that has authored warnings of floods, famine and extinctions that triggered political efforts around the world to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. More than 200 Canadian scientists have contributed to the IPCC’s work and most of them are employed by the federal government. [many of them disagree with the IPCC]
The 18-member NSERC already includes another Harper government appointee, mathematician Christopher Essex, who wrote a book challenging the “myth of climate change.” On the same day Dr. Mullins was appointed to NSERC, April 23, another skeptic of global warming was appointed to the board of the Canada Foundation for Innovation, which funds large research projects. John Weissenberger is a close friend of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a former chief of staff in the Harper government and a geologist who works for Husky Energy in Alberta. Dr. Weissenberger has written opinion pieces in the media and on his Internet blog expressing his “skepticism about global warming.” That and other comments by the two appointees on the public record were compiled by NDP researchers and verified by The Globe and Mail. Both Dr. Mullins and Dr. Weissenberger told The Globe and Mail they are well-qualified for the positions, and both said they have no intention of using the posts to advocate for reduced funding for climate science. While both NSERC and the Canada Foundation for Innovation fund some climate-change research, climate scientists are particularly concerned that their main source of federal funding — the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences — will have to shut its doors next year unless it receives new funding. Prof. Clarke, who has co-authored IPCC reports, said “I don’t see anything wrong with putting a Fraser Institute person in there. It’s just when there’s a sense that they’re going to stack the deck that it becomes problematic.” University of Victoria climatologist Andrew Weaver, another lead author of past IPCC reports, said politics should be kept at a distance from these boards. He also said it is “very disturbing” that people who dispute global warming are making strategic decisions on scientific research. “What would the public think if we appointed outspoken proponents of the fallacy ‘smoking doesn’t cause cancer’ as members of the boards funding medical and, in particular, cancer research?” he said. Bill Rodgers, a spokesman for Environment Minister Jim Prentice, declined comment on the individuals appointed. But he did say: “Since we took office in 2006, we have made no bones that climate change is one of the greatest challenges the world is facing.” NDP MP Bill Siksay said the appointments highlight the need for the Conservatives to honour their 2006 pledge to have federal appointments reviewed by an independent commission. “This is a requirement in a democratic society to have that kind of oversight,” he said.

–Ed’s note: What’s all the whining about? At least now there will be BALANCE and DEBATE, something the left-wing “scientists” have so far been able to suppress and delay. Opposing viewpoints must be encouraged as much as possible. We give a hat tip to the Harper Government for this latest decision. – ILCD

Eco-warriors are slammed for disrupting businesses

By Hayley Paterson, Doncaster Free press

A COUNCILLOR has blasted eco-warriors after local businesses lost thousands of pounds in trade following a protest against coal-fired power stations. Members of campaign group Coal Caravan cycled into town to register their objections against Doncaster North MP Ed Miliband’s announcement that the Government would press ahead with a new generation of coal-fired power stations.

Initially it was believed a protest would be held in Bentley following the 2007 floods which campaigners said was partly caused by climate change. However, they gathered around Clock Corner and Doncaster Minster.

Eleven firms at the Hutton Business Park, in Bentley, employing around 40 staff closed as police were on patrol to disperse any potential trouble.

Conservative councillor Jonathan Wood, vice chairman of the council’s economy and enterprise overview and scrutiny panel, slammed campaigners for disrupting businesses.

He said: “They must not be on this planet because to come to Doncaster and protest against coal, it just beggars belief.

“I’m all for freedom of speech and people demonstrating but there is nothing wrong with clean coal and providing the town with hundreds of jobs.”

Coal Caravan stopped off in Doncaster as part of a tour from the East Midlands to Northumberland.

Mr Hutton said the businesses were closed because bosses were unsure what to expect.

He added: “We’re not sure how much we might have lost for that day, it could be £10,000.”

During the visit, protestors spoke to Polly Billington, one of Mr Miliband’s advisors, who said she was willing to meet the group to hear their views.

Source

UN IPCC Scientist: 'No convincing scientific arguments to support claim that increases in greenhouse gases are harmful to the climate'

By Marc Morano, Climate Depot

Selected excerpts from UN IPCC scientist’s recent testimony. IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and chemist Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand is an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of “Climate Change 2001. Dr. Gray’s research is featured on page 155 of the 2009 edition of the 255-page “U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims” Below are selected excerpts of his testimony before New Zealand’s Committee for the Emissions Trading Scheme Review May 5, 2009: I am an experienced research chemist, with a PhD from Cambridge 1946, and a long research career in the UK, France, Canada, New Zealand and China. I have over 100 scientific publications, many of them on climate science, which I have studied intensively for the past 18 years. I have been an Expert Reviewer for the IPCC Reports since the beginning in 1990.I submitted 1,898 comments to the last (fourth) Working Group I (Science) Report. I was recently invited to the Beijing Climate Center as a Visiting Scholar and I recently lectured to a Conference in New York. I have reluctantly concluded, after detailed study of the evidence presented by the IPCC, that there are no convincing scientific arguments to support the claim that increases in greenhouse gases are harmful to the climate. […] The IPCC “central/benchmark projections” are based on a combination pf ridiculously oversimplified models and unrealistic futures scenarios. The projections themselves conflict with the current fall in global temperatures, the absence of any warming in New Zealand, and the lack of local evidence of sea level change. […] The presumed dangers of failing to implement the Emissions Trading Scheme appear to be illusory. We have enough problems coping with the current economic crisis without burdening ourselves with additional costs to our manufacturing and farming industries and adopting uneconomic sources of energy. […] Changes in climate can have many causes, some of which are partially understood, but the influence of increases in greenhouse gases are not likely to be important if there is no detectable warming resulting from them. […] In reality the sun only shines in the daytime. The earth absorbs energy by day and emits it by night. It rotates, so that all surfaces have a diurnal and seasonal cycle. There is no energy balance anywhere, and no net energy balance either, as there are warming and cooling cycles of different lengths. Also none of the greenhouse gases are “well-mixed”, so the assumption by models that they are is wrong. […] The first IPCC Working Group I Report “Climate Change”, published in 1990, provided the first set of climate models, from which the Panel made predictions about future global temperature change. It contained a Chapter 4 entitled “Validation of Climate Models”. A similar Chapter appeared in the First Draft of the Second (1995) Report. I sent in a comment pointing out that the Title of this Chapter was inappropriate, since no Climate Model had ever been “validated” in the sense understood by computer engineers. They agreed with me. The same Chapter in the next Draft was entitled “Evaluation of Computer Models”, and they had changed the word “validation” to “evaluation” throughout the Chapter no less than fifty times. Since then, they have never used the word “validation”, and their models now never make “predictions”, but “projections”, dependent only on the prior assumptions.

“Validation” is a term used by computer engineers for the procedure that has to be applied to computer models before they can be considered useful for future prediction. This procedure must involve successful prediction of the range of circumstances for which it is to be used. Unless this is done there is no evidence of how accurate the predictions can be.

Not only has no computer climate model ever been subjected to this process, no IPCC Report has even discussed how it might be done. As a result, computer models cannot make “predictions”, they only provide “projections” which are based on the value of the assumptions made in their preparation. Also there is no evidence as to how accurate they might be. This is one reason why the IPCC never gives opinions on the relative importance of the many models. There is no probability range for the models, and there is no “central” model. They do, however, seem prepared to provide “best estimates” and “likely ranges” .which are no more than guesswork. One early example of such a “best estimate” was decided by “a show of hands” by model providers. Dr. Gray’s research is featured on page 155 of the 2009 edition of the 255-page “U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims”Source