Time to Cancel IPCC and Withdraw Nobel Prizes From Them and Gore

By Dr. Tim Ball

Al Gore is the only Nobel Prize winner, whose work was ruled politically biased and containing nine major scientific errors by a court (UK) a week before it was awarded. The Nobel Committee should have known. They could argue they’d already made their decision. Problem is there was considerable evidence about the errors easily available long before. Clearly they didn’t do their homework, so their decision was purely political. The Prize should be revoked. Gore shared his prize with the members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He used their research, but went further. He misused it to achieve the falsehoods that permeate his movie An Inconvenient Truth. Now we know through the files obtained from the Climatic Research Unit in East Anglia (Climategate), that all the information put in the global arena was falsified, manipulated and deliberately made wrong. Silence of those involved in climategate about Gore’s misuse of their false data tells several stories. They couldn’t point out the error and risk exposure. Like everything they did the end justified the means. Gore was useful. He distracted the mainstream media and kept the global warming pot boiling while they had access to power behind the scenes through the IPCC. He was the buffoon who distracted the audience from the real villains. Again the Nobel committee didn’t do their homework and made a political decision. This Prize should also be revoked.

Nothing Nobel: Time To Terminate The IPCC.

The IPCC Nobel Prize was questionable in the first place. There are serious questions about giving a Nobel Prize to government employees. Why didn’t the prize money go back to the taxpayer who funded the work? How did they divide the money? Did the CRU gang receive more because they controlled most of the process? Regardless, all the money should come back, just like Olympic Gold medals are withdrawn from members of a team if one member has cheated. IPCC members were eager to be on board the ship and should have known about the corruption. Several prominent members with integrity resigned including Richard Lindzen and Chris Landsea; they should receive the Prize taken from those who participated. If outsiders like myself could see the problems then there is no excuse for those inside. The IPCC has completely lost all credibility and should be terminated immediately. The current Chairman R.K.Pachauri received the Nobel Prize on behalf of the IPCC. As Chair he is also a recipient. As a railway engineer he went off the tracks in his apparent craving for power. He is also cc’d on many of the emails obtained by climategate so he clearly knew what was going on. That is completely unacceptable.

Politics Makes a Mockery of Reward

The Nobel Committee have made a mockery of what constitutes Peace and the entire concept of the Peace Prize. That award, though noble, should also be terminated because it will always be political and politics ultimately taints everything it touches. We need to blow it up with some of that material used to provide the funding in the first place because at least Alfred Nobel had a conscience about his actions. As Lord Acton said power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Those in power will now use it to whitewash and absolve those responsible. We know this already because the University of East Anglia spokesperson Professor Trevor Davies, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Research Enterprise and Engagement has already made a biased comment. He said, “It is worth reiterating that our conclusions correlate well to those of other scientists based on the separate data sets held by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.” This incorrect comment shows how little he knows about climate science and the degree of corruption. It’s a comment apparently provided by the CRU gang. These people who have perpetrated the greatest scandal in history, because it is global in its impact, will silently glide away under the cloak of political power. Source

Climate Science: Funding Hypocrisy

By Dr. Tim Ball, Climatologist

Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing” Edmund Burke

I experienced two apparently disparate events recently. Both speak to the magnificent hypocrisy Burke identifies. They also illustrate Burke is wrong when he said it costs nothing. We’re all paying and will continue to pay for hypocrisies in climate science and research funding.

The first event involved a stay in an upscale hotel. I’ve learned to ignore moral lectures in the bathroom – reuse the towels and save the planet – because I know the real beneficiary is hotel profit. Now it’s gone further. This time there was a “green” card I could hang on my door to stop the room being serviced at all. I didn’t use it because of the profit issue, but it would also put hotel support staff jobs in jeopardy. I have no problem with profit, free enterprise and capitalism; however, the hypocrisy of corporations exploiting the environment and people’s guilt purely for profit is obscene.

Guess Who is Funding Them Now.

The second event was participation on a radio program about a report by researchers at Simon Fraser University (SFU) predicting increased disasters from severe weather because of global warming.

One of the authors was a former Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) at Environment Canada but this wasn’t in the press release. He also chaired the meeting at Villach in 1985 that led to the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. Now a retired bureaucrat he fosters claims of an increase in catastrophic events identified by IPCC Working Groups II and III. Like them the paper accepted without question claims of Working Group I (the Science Report) that human CO2 is causing warming. Both ignore the fact their theory would result in less severe weather. It claims polar air will warm more than tropical air, which would reduce temperature contrast, thus reducing the potential for severe weather. But science and facts have nothing to do with the hypocritical scientific, political and economic exploitation of climate.

Sarcastically one can argue the SFU paper had credibility because the major sponsor was not an oil company. Instead, support came from the government of British Columbia and the corporate insurance giant Zurich. The latter’s web page notes; Our Climate Initiative takes a market-based approach to addressing the risks that we and our customers face from climate change.

Hypocritically funding from these sources somehow does not influence or bias like money from other corporations or agencies. I’ve made this point on several occasions by answering the question, “Who is funding you?” with “Greenpeace”. There’s always a stunned silence apparently confirming this as an acceptable source. It isn’t true as I explain, but neither is the charge I am paid by the oil companies. If insurance companies need to know what impacts climate change will have, isn’t the same true for energy and other companies?

Increased Profit is Not a Solution For Climate Change

Insurance company involvement in climate research is not new. Swiss Re one of the largest insurance companies in the world has long sponsored climate research as their web page proclaims, “As a leading global reinsurer we actively research, model and reinsure natural catastrophe risks from floods through winter-storms to hurricanes. We have therefore followed the development of climate change for over 20 years and participated in, or sponsored, 100’s (sic) of events and projects ranging from research and awareness building to product development and managing our own carbon footprint.”

They were a founding sponsor of Climate Week NYC this year attended by those great climate experts former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon.

Their presence and the error-filled address by President Obama reflect the concern that the public is not buying their climate story and Copenhagen will fail. Swiss Re’s comment that “Climate Week NY°C is an important step for us on the “Road to Copenhagen” where policy makers will make important decisions on reducing global greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation funding including the use of risk- transfer mechanisms” takes lobbying to a new level.

Swiss Re increased activity in climate research after hurricane Andrew.

A major misdirection was created when increased cost for hurricane insurance claims was incorrectly used to say hurricane frequency had increased. Zurich and Swiss Re both promote the false science of the IPCC without questioning its validity because it benefits them. Is it good business? Yes. Is it moral, scientifically accurate and good for society? No. It is pure, unadulterated, hypocritical, exploitation. Would they sponsor research that showed climate variations were quite normal and risk levels were not elevated? Of course not, any more than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change entertains climate skeptics.

Most IPCC members are bureaucrats chosen by their governments and whose jobs depend on adhering to the political line. The others are researchers also funded by governments.

The Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment Canada apparently was involved in who would represent Canada on the IPCC. Wikipedia lists him as a Canadian climatologist. He is not. His degrees are in physics and oceanography.

He is also listed as chair of the board of trustees of the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS), which is “Canada’s main funding body for university-based research on climate, atmospheric and related ocean work.”

This means almost total government control, as they are the main source of climate research, a pattern repeated in most countries. The graph shows the increase in US government funding and illustrates the problem as the total now exceeds $70 billion a year.

Image Attachment
Graph from WUWT

Climate Money, a study by Joanne Nova found, “that the federal Government has a near-monopsony on climate science funding. This distorts the science towards self-serving alarmism.” (Monopsony – a market situation in which there is only one buyer).

Combine this with funding from corporations also exploiting the climate change issue and balanced science has no chance.

Another measure of hypocrisy occurs because environmental groups, such as the David Suzuki Foundation (DSF), promote the false climate change story, while receiving funds from oil and other energy companies as well as government funding and/or tax benefits. Apparently money from regular energy companies does not sully their hands, as it does those who disagree with them. A member of the DSF and chairman of the Board for years was James Hoggan whose public relations firm includes several alternative energy companies as clients. Hypocritically money from alternative energy companies who benefit from reductions in CO2 is not directing and influencing.

There is Money in Hypocrisy

Apparently if you promote a solution then any vested interest is acceptable even if the problem doesn’t exist or is based on false information. But how is charging more for insurance promoting a solution? How is exaggerating risk using false and bad science creating solutions? Hypocrisy abounds with those providing and those receiving the funding. They protect their vested interest by perpetuating false information and blocking any attempt to determine the truth. They have assured that in the kingdom of the blind the blind man is king. As Frederick W. Robertson said, “There are three things in the world that deserve no mercy, hypocrisy, fraud, and tyranny.” We have all three in abundance in climate science. Hypocrisy in claiming some funding is untainted and supporting research that increases profit; fraud by using false information – a practice that would bring criminal charges in most other areas of business; and tyranny by bullying and suppressing those who seek balance and all the facts. But the ultimate hypocrisy is that the practitioners of all three claim to be our saviors. Save us from them.

“Dr. Tim Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, Friends of Science and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.”

Dr. Ball can be reached at: Letters@canadafreepress.com


Temperatures are normal, it’s the Politics that are Wrong

By Dr. Tim Ball, Climatologist

There is no more common error than to assume that, because prolonged and
accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result
to some fact of nature is absolutely certain.
– A.N.Whitehead.

In a massive irony President Obama spoke of global warming at the G8 on July 8, the same day his political hometown of Chicago recorded the coldest July 8 in 118 years.

Global temperatures are declining but politicians keep speaking of warming. After sea level rise the biggest alarmism and misinformation is about global temperatures. Unlike sea level threats temperature data is more easily understood and difficult to ignore, but that doesn’t stop extremists or politicians with a narrow political agenda.

A few events are easily dismissed as weather, but a pattern indicates a climate trend. Reports of record cold began in the Southern Hemisphere 20 years ago but became global over the last 10 years. This contradicts predictions of warming and indicates the claimed cause of human produced CO2 is wrong.

Official predictions are Consistently Wrong and Getting Worse

Temperatures declined between 1940 and 1980. From the mid-1980s to 1998 temperatures rose and the cause was identified as human addition of CO2. But the biggest temperature rise in the 20th century was prior to 1940 when human production of CO2 was minimal. Then temperatures declined when human CO2 production was increased most after 1940. The claimed mechanism did not match the data. They claimed it was addition of sulfates that caused the cooling. The problem is sulfate levels continued to rise after warming resumed in the 1980s.
Every Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) temperature prediction has been wrong. Why? For accurate predictions the temperature data is not adequate, you must know the physical causes. Clearly the IPCC understanding is wrong.


Cap and Trade; a Solution to a Non-existent Problem with Devastating Consequences

By Dr. Tim Ball, CFP

D.H. Lawrence said, ”Never trust the teller. Trust the tale.” But what happens if the tale is wrong? What happens if the teller knows or should know the tale is wrong? The key word is trust. A relationship must have trust. A society can only exist with trust. Political leaders can only succeed with trust. Trust cannot exist when an unnecessary end is reached by false means, which is happening with the US climate and energy policies.

An energy policy built on the lie that human CO2 is causing global warming is likely to fail. It is a bigger lie when CO2 is incorrectly called carbon. The policy is guaranteed to fail when proposed energy alternatives cannot fulfill needs and will cause economic slowdown, decreased competitiveness and further economic decay.

On June 26, the US House of Representatives passed a Bill titled the American Clean Energy and Security Act by a scant 219 to 212 votes. The title is misleading. It appeals to patriotism, which Samuel Johnson said is the last refuge of a scoundrel. “Clean Energy” really means without producing CO2, which incorrectly assumes it is a pollutant. Security means eliminating imported energy, but the nation is less secure with a weakened economy guaranteed under provisions of the Bill. It is more commonly, but equally incorrectly, called the Carbon Cap and Trade Bill. Carbon is not CO2 but this is only one of the deceptions. Hopefully, enough Senators will understand and reject the Bill when they vote in the fall.

President Obama frantically pushed his energy policy as resistance developed. He wrapped it in promises of green jobs; profits from industry creating renewable clean energy; a stop to “bubble or bust” economic cycles; and all at no cost to the taxpayers because “polluters” pay the bill.

His June 23 press conference had the following statement. ”This legislation will spark a clean energy transformation that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and confront the carbon pollution that threatens our planet.”

The first two goals are possibly commendable but only necessary because of the last goal. How do you confront “carbon pollution”? What is it? At best it’s confusion about the science and at worst deliberately wrong. They’re the President’s words and his responsibility. He is aware of the impact of his words choosing them carefully when responding to questions. “Carbon pollution” is a result of politicizing climate. CO2 became carbon when “carbon credits” emerged from the Kyoto Accord. Its use expanded when evidence showed CO2 was not causing, nor ever caused, warming or climate change. It is incorrect.

A scientific definition of carbon is: the chemical element of atomic number 6, a nonmetal that has two main forms (diamond and graphite) and that also occurs in impure form in charcoal, soot, and coal.

The objective is to link CO2 with coal because it is seen as the devil itself. Witness Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) advocate James Hansen’s involvement with Greenpeace protesters on trial in the UK for damaging a coal burning plant.

Recently he was arrested protesting a coal processing plant in Southern West Virginia.

A scientific definition of carbon dioxide (CO2) is; a colorless, odorless gas produced by burning carbon and organic compounds and by respiration. So basically carbon is a solid and CO2 is a gas. They claim CO2 can slow heat escape from the atmosphere and an increase from human activity causes warming. It has not happened at any time and is not happening now. Carbon occurs as particles of soot in the atmosphere causing cooling by blocking sunlight. I expect them to blame soot for failure of their warming predictions.

On June 23 Obama said, ”This energy bill will create a set of incentives that will spur the development of new sources of energy, including wind, solar, and geothermal power”. These currently produce only 3.9 percent of US energy.

Wind and solar have severe limitations because they require 100 percent back up from conventional sources. They cannot replace a sufficient portion of current energy needs to supply even a dramatically reduced demand.

Obama’s said, “At a time of great fiscal challenges, this legislation is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air we breathe.” This is false. He incorrectly substitutes carbon for CO2 and it is not a pollutant for air or water; it occurs naturally in both. It’s true industries producing CO2 will initially pay through Cap and Trade but they will pass the costs to the consumer. A critical question is who pays when all the “polluters” are out of business?

Coal currently produces 46.8 percent of US energy. Obama identified it as his main target during the campaign. “What I’ve said is that we would put a cap-and-trade system in place that is more—that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anybody else’s out there, so if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can, it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” If they go out of business as Obama expects, the economy will collapse as industries dependent on the energy disappear. Ironically alternative energies will also suffer because the 100 percent backup they require will not be available.

Obama said, ”The nation that leads in the creation of a clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the 21st century’s global economy. That’s what this legislation seeks to achieve. It’s a bill that will open the door to a better future for this nation and that’s why I urge members of Congress to come together and pass it.” A recent study of this “green jobs strategy” shows it doesn’t work. Paul Bachman, Director of Research at the Beacon Hill Institute, one of the report’s authors wrote, “Contrary to the claims made in these studies, we found that the green job initiatives reviewed in each actually causes greater harm than good to the American economy and will cause growth to slow.”

Others have tried clean energy and green jobs without success, especially in Europe. Philippe Herzog, a French economist and founder of Confrontations Europe said, “We have not found a balance yet between the definition of European objectives [on climate change] and the implications for jobs.” The UK have already found out it doesn’t work. A study by Capgemini, a global energy consultancy firm claims that, “electricity generation has fallen to its lowest level in ten years. The shortage has been caused by the increase in the level of demand for energy combined with a growing tendency to build wind turbines, at the expense of other, more reliable, electricity sources”.

Spain was touted as the model because it led all countries in money and commitment to electricity from renewable energy. Spanish economics professor Gabriel Calzada calculates that, ”each new job entails the loss of 2.2 other jobs that are either lost or not created in other industries because of the political allocation –sub-optimum in terms of economic efficiency –of capital.”

A report from Britain about attempts to replace traditional energy with renewables notes, “Britain is already struggling to meet its ambitious target of supplying 10% of electricity needs from renewables by 2010 and 15% by 2015. Today’s figure is about 2%.” Once you realize the renewable strategy is not working how quickly can you recover?

The big question is whether the UK can act fast enough to tackle the looming crisis. Even if the government’s nuclear plans remain intact, it could be at least 10 years before the first new nuclear station is ready. A typical coal or gas-fired project could take between three and five years to construct.

Recovery potential is worse in the US because regulations extend construction time for nuclear plants and environmentalists will do everything to block coal plants. Meanwhile economies of these countries suffer even though they didn’t do anything as drastic as Obama proposes. Recovery can’t possibly occur within Obama’s first term, which may make it his last.

Will the Obama policy work any better? NO, because it is based on the same lie other countries used that CO2 is a problem and made worse by using deception of inaccurate scientific terminology. He then guarantees failure with policies that have already failed. So D. H. Lawrence was wrong in Obama’s case. You can’t trust the teller or the tale. There is no question Obama is clever but as Goethe said, “A clever man commits no minor blunders.” His climate and energy policies are blunders of devastating proportions.

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

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.

C02 Global Warming's IPCC-created Hobglobin

By Dr. Tim Ball, Canada Free Press

Over 50 years ago H.L.Mencken said, “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Nothing is more imaginary than the claim that CO2 is causing global warming and the proposal designed to lead us to safety is unnecessary and will create real problems. Imagine basing a major global policy on the output of a grossly simplistic computer model of a very complex system. Worse, the model considers only one miniscule variable known to have no effect while it ignores the major variables. In any area of science, social science or politics the insanity would be soundly rejected. However, that is what the entire world is planning to do with global energy policy to counteract the non-existent problem of global warming. It is non-existent because the world has cooled since 2000 as CO2 increased and temperatures correlate with changes in the sun. Many climate experts expect the cooling to continue at least until 2030. Why? What is their evidence it is the sun?The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) is responsible for providing the hobgoblin of global warming. They claim CO2 is almost the sole cause of warming while effectively ignoring the sun. Their claim that the sun is of little consequence is unbelievable and only a measure of their deception and lousy science. They only looked at one part of solar influence on weather and climate and didn’t do that accurately. Instead they used it to support their claim the temperature changes are not caused by the sun and therefore must be due to CO2. They only considered irradiance (heat and light) and concluded, incorrectly, it was of little consequence. They assume, because the variation is approximately 0.1% over approximately a 30-year period, it is of little consequence. The number certainly seems small when expressed as a percentage of 100. However, it is estimated that only a 6% variation is sufficient to explain all known temperature variation in the history of the Earth. So 0.1% is significant in relation to 6%. To put this in context consider how much the temperature drops between night and day or even for the brief period of a total eclipse. As solar and climate scientist Willie Soon said, “We have known for 80 years that even small changes in solar radiation have a strong effect on Earth’s temperature and climate.” The IPCC do not include changes in sun/earth relationships collectively called the Milankovitch effect, a major cause of temperature change. They ignore the high correlation between sunspots and global temperature which has a warmer Earth with many sunspots and colder with fewer. They claimed, legitimately, you must not assume cause and effect. However, they made the illegitimate claim there was no mechanism and the research was not produced in time to meet their deadline for inclusion. Both claims are wrong. A proposed mechanism first appeared in Science in 1991 when Christensen and Lassen published “Length of the Solar Cycle: An indicator of solar activity closely associated with Climate.” Since then several articles appeared elaborating on the mechanism, most before the IPCC deadline. Why did they ignore it? Likely because it showed the sun explained temperature changes. Typical of the pattern of their manipulations they did break the deadline rule when it suited their argument. Here is how what is known as the Cosmic Theory works. Cosmic radiation (CR) streams to earth but passes through the Sun’s magnetic field to get here. The amount reaching the earth varies as the strength of that magnetic field varies. Variation in sunspot numbers is visible evidence of changes in the Sun’s magnetic field. The CR reaches the Earth’s atmosphere where electrons are set free and in the lower atmosphere act as condensation nuclei. For water vapor (gas) to become a liquid the air must cool below the dew point temperature but there must also be nuclei around which it can form. The nuclei are microscopic and the water droplets formed are also very small. It takes about 1 million of them to form a medium sized raindrop. Because they’re so small and light they remain in the air but are collectively visible as clouds. We have known for some time of a disparity between the amount of cloud that forms and the available nuclei. CR acting as nuclei explains the discrepancy. The amount of low cloud cover varies as the amount of CR reaching the lower atmosphere varies as this diagram shows.

Clouds: blue line. Cosmic radiation: red line.
Clouds: blue line. Cosmic radiation: red line. Source; Extension oforiginal plot from Marsh and Svensmark, 2000.

Low cloud cover blocks sunlight reaching the Earth thus creating cooling. No cloud cover and more sun heats the Earth’s surface creating warming. The cloud acts like a screen covering the windows in a greenhouse to block sunlight. Sunspot numbers reached a peak in the 1990s and have declined since. We are currently in Cycle 23 and entering Cycle 24. We know that the longer time between 11-year cycles the lower the number of sunspots in the next cycle. It’s now almost a century since the last similar low numbers. (see 1900 in the diagram). Just several more days without sunspots will give us a delay similar to that of the Dalton Minimum from 1800 to 1820. This was a very cold period that profoundly influenced the work of Charles Dickens (b. 1812) because of frequent and prolonged snow in London during his childhood and crop failures that created the social conditions he wrote about so eloquently. It won’t take a much longer delay for conditions to equal those of the Maunder minimum of sunspot numbers from 1645 to 1715, which coincided with the Little Ice Age.

Past and projected sunspot numbers
Past and projected sunspot numbers. Source: Badalyan, Obridko and Sykora.

We’re already experiencing the cooler weather and the pattern is expected to continue at least until 2020 even if Cycle 24 shows up now. As it cools politicians continue to prepare for warming – the wrong hobgoblin designed by the IPCC.