By Dr. Michael S. Coffman Ph. D.
March 8, 2008
The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change held in New York City March 2-4 was attended by an impressive list of over 500 people. The conference was organized by the Heartland Institute of Chicago and co-sponsored by dozens of organizations. Also participating were over leading 100 scientists in the climate scientific debate. These scientists made it abundantly clear with hard scientific evidence that greenhouse gases are not the main drivers of global warming. In other words, human activities do not cause warming and economy-destroying laws are not needed.
Dr. Fred Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist, and founder and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, provided very convincing evidence that CO2 is not playing a significant role in planetary warming. Citing a paper he co-authored in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology, Dr. Singer informed the audience that the physics of CO2-driven global warming require that the mid-troposphere warm faster than the surface by 2-3oC. Consequently, all global warming models have this relationship built into them (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Greenhouse-model-predicted temperature trends versus latitude and altitude. Note the increased temperature trends in the tropical mid-troposphere, in agreement also with the IPCC result [IPCC-AR4 2007.
Figure 2. By contrast, actual radiosonde observed temperature trends versus latitude and altitude. Note the absence of increased temperature trends in the tropical mid-troposphere.
However, real-world temperature measurements do not show this predicted warming – at all! (Figure 2) This stunning evidence carries far reaching ramifications. Although it totally discredits CO2 driven warming, at least as it is presently theorized, global warming alarmists and the highly politicized UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) refuse to even consider it. When cornered on the subject, they have said that evidence does support their theory. In doing so, the alarmists admit they are politically motivated, and will do or say anything to protect their agenda at the complete sacrifice of true science.
This and far more hard evidence is presented in a new document released at the meeting called “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate.” The document, released at the conference as a “Summary for Policymakers,” provides overwhelming scientific evidence that man is not responsible for global warming. Yet, it is written in a way that can be understood by the average person. The document was written by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a group of 23 leading scientists on climate change from 15 nations, and represents the best summary of current research on the subject. You can download it here.
There were a variety of theories presented during the conference on what did cause global warming – all of them involving various aspects of an increasingly active sun and ocean temperature oscillations like El Niño vs. La Niña. Most scientists agreed the actual warming probably involves many, if not all these mechanisms. Tragically, however, very little research money is spent refining these theories.
In spite of the very reasoned and convincing evidence presented by the scientists at the convention, the mainline press denigrated and demeaned their presentations. Andy Revkin of the New York Times focused on minor disagreements between the scientists, rather than the strong scientific evidence that CO2 does not play a significant role in warming. To the overwhelming evidence, Revkin merely said that the scientists were trying “hard to prove that they had unraveled the established science showing that humans are warming the world in potentially disruptive ways.” Rather than critiquing the science presented, Revkin attacked the sponsor saying that the Heartland Institute is “a Chicago group whose antiregulatory philosophy has long been embraced by, and financially supported by, various industries and conservative donors.” He failed to mention that Heartland receives less than 7 percent of its budget from these “various industries.” Nor, did he say that conservative institutions working on climate change are outspent by at least 7 to 1 by environmental groups that blame CO2 and advocate draconian regulations.
The Washington Post was only slightly better. Juliet Eilperin lamented that “the meeting represented a sort of global warming doppelganger conference, where everything was reversed” – a polite way of saying that the scientists opposed everything that everybody knows is true. She emphasized that the NIPCC was only written by 23 authors, some of them not scientists, while the UN’s IPCC “enlisted several hundred scientists from a 100 nations.” She fails to mention that many of the “hundred scientists” allegedly endorsing the IPCC’s report actually attended the New York conference and called the IPCC report a scam. Ironically, AP’s Seth Borenstein, a strong proponent of man-caused global warming, acknowledged in an April 9, 2007 article that only 52 scientists actually wrote the UN’s highly political IPCC report, guided by a host of “diplomats.” While Borenstein called the non-scientists diplomats, most people would call them bureaucrats.
Actually, the so-called consensus of hundreds of scientists on the IPCC report is much worse than that. An analysis released in September 2007 on the IPCC scientific review process by Australian climate data analyst John McLean, revealed that the UN IPCC peer-review process is "an illusion." Only a few of the “hundreds” are actually involved in the UN’s peer-review process. Says McLean, “The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section.”
Putting this into perspective, at most 52 scientists wrote the IPPC’s report, of which only 4 or 5 endorsed its highly politicized findings. Yet, the IPCC repeatedly gives the impression that hundreds, if not thousands of scientists endorse their conclusions. This is completely false. While many other scientists do endorse it, it is certainly not a consensus. Compared to this, every one of the 23 NIPCC’s scientists and economists who authored the report released at the conference endorsed it. Likewise, most, if not all, the 100 scientists at the conference endorsed the NIPCC’s conclusions.
No one should be surprised that the mainstream press got it completely wrong – again. After all, if they wrote that the polar bear, which is being considered for listing as an endangered species, is experiencing record high populations and is in fact not in danger from global warming, the reporters would suffer the scorn of their environmentalist friends and the possible wrath of their editors. If they wrote that maybe, just maybe all these scientists at the March Climate Change meeting in New York were right, it would shatter the use of global warming as a justification for global governance, as former French President, Jacque Chirac proclaimed to the world in 2000 during the Framework Convention on Climate Change’s COP 6 meeting. “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance…to organise our collective sovereignty over this planet.”
There was an undercurrent during the conference about the sun that was hinted at during many of the talks. The sun should have entered Solar Cycle 24 in 2007, when it becomes much more active, but is so far dead quiet. This hasn’t been seen since the 17th and 18th centuries during what is called the little ice age. The temperature dropped several degrees during that time and was accompanied by crop losses, famine and pestilence. Thankfully, no one expects it to get that bad, but we could be entering another cooling cycle, like what occurred between 1945 and 1975. Both the southern and northern hemisphere’s have had the coldest winter in decades, and in some regions this winter has broken all records.
Although it is far too early to say with any certainty what will happen, the prospect terrifies the global warming alarmists. They have long known that it could happen and is probably behind why the alarmists have changed the name from man-caused global warming to man-caused climate change for the past several years. That way, no matter what happens, the alarmists can try to convince the world that man is still at the root of the problem and we must turn to global governance to save the world. Hopefully, the world will see through the scam.