I can give you comments of 62 scientists who say it's bunk. In fact, I think I will -
Gore Gored
A Science-based response to Al Gore’s
Global Warming Commentary in London’s
Sunday Telegraph
19 November 2006
By
Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
CSPP Reprint series
The Center for Science and Public Policy
Washington, D.C.
Robert Ferguson, Exc. Dir.
202-454-5249
http://www.scienceandpolicy.org
bferguson@ff.org
November, 2006
2
Gentle reader,
In this commentary on Al Gore’s Sunday Telegraph article of 19
November 2006 responding to my articles of 5 and 12
November on climate change, Gore’s full text is full-out in
Roman face [italics]. Comments are indented in bold face.
Readers may check the elementary calculations with a
scientific calculator. The calculations use the simple formulae
provided by the UN as derivations from the complex
atmosphere-ocean general-circulation computer models upon
which it heavily relies in the absence of hard, climatic data.
References to scientific papers in support of the commentary
are listed at the end.
Monckton of Brenchley
monckton@mail.com
19 November 2006
3
Concluding Findings
ALL TEN of the propositions listed below must be proven
true if the climate-change “consensus” is to be regarded as
true. We conclude as follows:
A Note on References used herein
Mr. Gore says one should rely upon evidence from the scientific
journals, not from Viscounts. And not, one might add, from
films. Nearly all references are from the scientific journals. The
references to the UN’s assessment reports are among the few
from sources other than the learned journals. In particular, Mr.
Gore has recommended reliance upon Science, upon Nature and
upon Geophysical Research Letters. Many of the references
listed here are from those three journals.
Proposition Conclusion
1. That the debate is over and all credible climate scientists are agreed. Demonstrably false
2. That temperature has risen above millennial variability and is exceptional. Very unlikely
3. That changes in solar irradiance are an insignificant forcing mechanism. Demonstrably false
4. That the last century’s increases in temperature are correctly measured. Unlikely
5. That greenhouse-gas increase is the main forcing agent of temperature. Not proven
6. That temperature will rise far enough to do more harm than good. Very unlikely
7. That continuing greenhouse-gas emissions will be very harmful to life. Unlikely
8. That proposed carbon-emission limits would make a definite difference. Very unlikely
9. That the environmental benefits of remediation will be cost-effective. Very unlikely
10. That taking precautions, just in case, would be the responsible course. Demonstrably false
4
Gore: (italics throughout)
FORMER colleague of mine in the US Senate, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
once said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to
their own facts.” I was reminded of this upon reading the Viscount Monckton of
Brenchley’s two submissions to the Sunday Telegraph.
Monckton: (bold, indented throughout)
That global warming is likely to cause harm rather than good is an opinion, to which Gore is
entitled. That there is no scientific consensus as to the rightness of that opinion is a fact, to
which all are entitled. I have received some 500 emails in response to my two articles, a large
response given that readers who wanted to contact me had to find my email address via the
Telegraph website. In addition, the posting of the article on the website received 127,000 hits
– a near record - before the link crashed. Of the emails, about one-third were from scientists
in climate physics and related fields, including tenured professors, solar physicists, forestry
specialists, government environmental scientists, and even a particle-physicist from CERN
reporting its upcoming research to test the theories of Svensmark et al. (2006) about cosmic
rays and cloud formation, suggesting a considerably larger role for the Sun in warming than
the UN allows. About 95% of the 500 emails I received, and very nearly all the emails from
scientists, were strongly supportive of the conclusions which I had reached: namely, that
global warming is probably harmless, and that, if not, even if we in the UK stopped using
energy altogether the effect on future temperature would be negligible.
To begin with, there is a reason why new scientific research is peer-reviewed and then
published in journals such as Science, Nature, and the Geophysical Research Letters,
rather than the broadsheets. The process is designed to ensure that trained scientists
review the framing of the questions that are asked, the research and methodologies used
to pursue the answers offered, and even, in some cases, to monitor the funding of the
laboratories – all in order to ensure that errors and biases are detected and corrected
before reaching the public.
There were some 90 references to learned papers in the scientific journals in the document
supporting my article on the science of climate change that was posted on the Telegraph’s
website. This commentary, too, is supported by a substantial list of some 60 references to
learned papers in journals including the three mentioned by Gore. The many journal
references (hundreds more could have been cited) demonstrate that there is no scientific
consensus that the effect of increased greenhouse-gas concentrations on the climate will be as
serious as the UN’s reports suggest. But I shall also take some references from the UN’s
assessment reports, with apologies that they are more political and less scientific than the
papers in the journals. The Summaries for Policymakers at the head of each of the UN’s
reports are written not by scientists at all but by the political representatives of
governments. There is repeated evidence of substantial and significant departures from the
science in these political Summaries. In every instance, the discrepancies move in the
direction of overstating and exaggerating the supposed problem even more than the
scientific sections.
A
5
That level of scrutiny is typically not applied to newspaper columns of course, but since
the stakes are so high in the debate over the climate crisis I would like to review here just
a few of the misleading claims in Viscount Monckton’s submissions to illustrate my belief
that readers of The Telegraph should rely upon more reliable and authoritative sources
than the Viscount for information on the latest climate science.
That level of scrutiny is typically not applied to books or films, of course, but since the stakes
are so high in the debate over the climate “crisis” I should like to review here just a few of
the misleading claims in Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth, to illustrate my belief that
cinema-goers should rely upon more reliable and authoritative sources than Gore for
information on the latest climate science. Here is Senator James Inhofe’s list of some of
Gore’s scientific errors:
· Gore promoted the now-debunked “hockey stick” temperature chart for the past 1,000
years in an attempt to prove man’s overwhelming impact on the climate, and attempted
to debunk the significance of the mediaeval warm period and little ice age (for discussion
and references, see below).
· Gore insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that
most sciences believe does not exist (for discussion and references, see below).
· Gore asserted that today’s Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring
that temperatures in the 1930’s were as warm or warmer (NCDC, 2006);
· Gore said the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that is only true
of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice (see my first article).
· Gore hyped unfounded fears that Greenland’s ice is in danger of disappearing (for
discussion and references, see below).
· Gore erroneously claimed that ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to global
warming, though satellite measurements show no temperature change at the summit,
and the peer-reviewed scientific literature suggests that desiccation of the atmosphere in
the region caused by post-colonial deforestation is the cause of the glacial recession (see
my first article).
· Gore made assertions of massive future sea level rise that is way out side of any
supposed scientific “consensus” and is not supported in even the most alarmist literature
(for discussion and references, see below).
· Gore incorrectly implied that a Peruvian glacier's retreat is due to global warming,
while ignoring the fact that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other
glaciers in South America are advancing (see Polissar et al., 2005, for an interesting
discussion of glaciers in the tropical Andes).
· Gore blamed global warming for water loss in Africa's Lake Chad, though NASA
scientists had concluded that local water-use and grazing patterns are probably to blame
(Foley and Coe, 2001).
· Gore inaccurately said polar bears are drowning in significant numbers due to melting
ice when in fact 11 of the 13 main groups in Canada are thriving, and there is evidence
that the only groups that are not thriving are in a region of the Arctic that has cooled
(Taylor, 2006).
6
· Gore did not tell viewers that the 48 scientists whom he quoted as having accused
President Bush of distorting science were part of a political advocacy group set up to
support the Democrat Presidential candidate, John Kerry, in 2004.
Gore is now an adviser to the UK Government on climate change.
First, Monckton claims that Dr. James Hansen of NASA said that the temperature would
rise by 0.3C and that the sea level would rise by several feet. But Hansen did not say that
at all, and the claim that he did is extremely misleading. In fact, Dr. Hansen presented
three scenarios to the U.S. Senate (high, medium, and low). He explained that the middle
scenario was “most plausible” and, as it turned out, the middle scenario was almost
exactly right.
Hansen’s three scenarios, presented to Congress during the very hot summer of 1988,
projected global mean temperature increases of 0.3C, 0.25C and 0.45C respectively in the 12
years to 2000: an average of 0.33C. But 0.06C was the actual increase (NCDC, 2006). I fairly
said 0.3C and 0.1C.
As to sea levels, I corrected this point in my second article. Mean sea level is difficult to
measure. It probably rose by less than 1 inch between 1988 and 2000; the rate of increase – 1
inch every 15 years – has not risen for a century; and there is little reason to suppose that the
rate of increase should accelerate. Morner (2004), who has spent a lifetime in the study of
sea levels, provides an “official evaluation of the sea-level changes that are to be expected in
the near future.” He finds that “sea level records are now dominated by the irregular
redistribution of water masses over the globe ... primarily driven by variations in ocean
current intensity and in the atmospheric circulation system and maybe even in some
deformation of the gravitational potential surface.”
Morner says: “The mean eustatic rise in sea level for the period 1850-1930 was in the order
of 1.0-1.1 mm/year,” but that “after 1930-40, this rise seems to have stopped (Pirazzoli et al.,
1989; Morner, 1973, 2000).” This stasis, in his words, “lasted, at least, up to the mid-
60s.” Thereafter, “the record can be divided into three parts: (1) 1993-1996 with a clear
trend of stability, (2) 1997-1998 with a high-amplitude rise and fall recording the ENSO
event of these years and (3) 1998-2000 with an irregular record of no clear tendency.” Most
important of all, in his words, “There is a total absence of any recent ‘acceleration in sea
level rise’ as often claimed by IPCC and related groups.”
He concludes: “When we consider past records, recorded variability, causational processes
involved and the last century’s data, our best estimate of possible future sea-level changes is
+10 +/- 10cm in a century, or, maybe, even +5 +/- 15cm.” See also Morner (1995); INQUA
(2000).
Van der Veen (2002) intended “to evaluate the applicability of accumulation and ablation
models on which predicted ice-sheet contributions to global sea level are based, and to assess
the level of uncertainty in these predictions arising from uncertain model parameters.” He
concluded that “the validity of the parameterizations used by glaciological modeling studies
to estimate changes in surface accumulation and ablation under changing climate conditions
has not been convincingly demonstrated.”
Munk (2003) says: “Surveys of glaciers, ice sheets, and other continental water storage can
place only very broad limits of -1 to +1 mm/year on sea level rise from freshwater export.” It
is not known how the cryosphere will respond to global warming.
7
Braithwaite and Raper (2002) analyze mountain glaciers and ice caps, excluding the
Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. They begin by saying: “The temperature sensitivity of
sea level rise depends upon the global distribution of glacier areas, the temperature
sensitivity of glacier mass balance in each region, the expected change of climate in each
region, and changes in glacier geometry resulting from climate change.” They end by
reporting that “None of these are particularly well known at present,” and they conclude
that “glacier areas, altitudes, shape characteristics and mass balance sensitivity are still not
known for many glacierized regions and ways must be found to fill gaps.”
Monckton goes on to level a serious accusation at all the scientists involved in the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claiming that they have "repealed a
fundamental physical law" and as a result have misled the people of the world by
exaggerating the sensitivity of the Earth’s climate to extra carbon dioxide. If this were
true, the entire global scientific community would owe Monckton a deep debt of gratitude
for cleverly discovering a gross and elementary mistake that had somehow escaped the
attention of all the leading experts in the field.
Here and elsewhere, I shall not respond to ad hominem remarks, but shall comment only ad
rem. As will be shown below, the shortfall between the observed 20th-century temperature
increase of 0.45 to 0.6C and the 20th-century increase of 1.6 to 3.75C that would have been
expected from the projections made by the models upon which the UN relies is unwarranted
either in the laws of physics or in the 20th-century global mean surface air temperature
record. This shortfall between reality and the UN’s projections is well established in the
scientific literature (see, for instance, Hansen, 2006), though until my article was published it
was not known to the public. There is certainly no scientific consensus on the reason for the
very substantial discrepancy. Some, such as the Hadley Centre (IPCC 2001, quoted by
Lindzen, 2006) blame pollutant aerosols for reflecting some of the Sun’s radiance back to
space. Others (such as Barnett, 2005, or Levitus, 2005), say the oceans are acting as a heatsink.
If there is in fact no good reason for the discrepancy between reality and projection,
and if – as I am by no means alone in thinking - the UN’s models are simply over-projecting
the likely temperature effects of elevated greenhouse gas concentrations, then the UN’s
projections of future temperature increases may be around three times greater than they
should be.
But again, this charge is also completely wrong, and it appears in this case to spring
from the Viscount’s failure to understand that these complex, carefully constructed
supercomputer climate models not only have built into them the physical law he thinks he
has discovered is missing, but also many others that he doesn’t mention, including the
fundamentally important responses of water vapor, ice and clouds that act to increase the
effects of extra carbon dioxide.
The laws of physics say the increase in temperature is 0.3C for every additional watt per
square metre of temperature. The UN says 0.5C (IPCC 2001). Several physicists have
confirmed my result, which readers may like to check for themselves using a scientific
calculator. The necessary equation is –
T = [E / (ε.Ï)]1/4 – 273.15 (Stefan-Boltzmann equation).
Earth/troposphere emissivity ε is about 0.614. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, Ï, is 5.67 x
10-8. Using these values, calculate T for successive values E0 = 236wm-2 (Houghton, 2002) and
E = 237wm-2. Since T0 = 13.79C and T = 14.09C, for a forcing of 1wm-2, the change in
temperature is T – T0 = 0.3C, as stated in my article, and not the 0.5C implicit in the UN’s
1996 report (IPCC, 1996) and stated in the 2001 report (IPCC, 2001).
8
Both in my article and in the supporting discussion document and calculations, I explicitly
mentioned climate feedbacks from water vapour and ice-melt. I did not mention climate
feedbacks from clouds because, as the UN itself says, even the direction of the change in
radiative forcing and hence in temperature caused by clouds is not known (IPCC 2001). I
explained that the UN’s reason for using a figure nearly twice what the laws of physics
mandate for the increase in temperature for each watt of additional forcing was to
incorporate an allowance for climate feedbacks.
However, I demonstrated that, if one assumed that the UN’s positive climate feedbacks were
matched by negative feedbacks, the observed climate response over the 98 years 1900-1998
was identical to the climate sensitivity projected by use of the UN’s greenhouse-gas forcing
equation. In short, there is no direct observational evidence in the 20th-century global mean
surface air temperature record that any allowance at all should be made for climate
feedbacks in response to temperature increases arising from elevated greenhouse-gas
concentrations in the atmosphere. As will be seen, the implications for forward projections
of temperature increase are substantial.
Moreover, direct observations from the 20th century, from the last ice age and from the
atmosphere’s response to volcanic eruptions, all give estimates of the earth’s sensitivity
to extra CO2 that are exactly in line with model results (around a 3 degrees Celsius
warming for a doubling of the CO2 concentration).
The UN’s projection for the radiative forcing effect of CO2 is calculable from the following
equation:
dECO2 = z ln(C / C0) wm-2
(IPCC 2001).
For simplicity, we shall amend this equation to allow for all greenhouse gases, and for
climate feedbacks. Note that all other forcings in the UN’s table (IPCC, 2001), such as those
from black carbon, the Sun, reflective aerosols etc., are shown as minor, little-understood
and broadly self-cancelling. Thus -
dE = f g z ln(C / C0) wm-2 where -
dE is the change in radiance at the tropopause (IPCC 2001, ch.6), for all g.h.g. forcings and
feedbacks;
f is the UN’s “climate feedback factor” of 1.7 (implicit in IPCC 2001); raised to 2.7
(Houghton, 2006);
g is the UN’s “all-greenhouse-forcings” factor of 1.664, falling by 2100 to 1.25 (IPCC
2001);
z is the carbon-dioxide forcing coefficient of 6.3 (IPCC 1996); reduced to 5.35 (IPCC
2001).
C is the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1998, i.e. 365ppmv (Keeling & Whorf,
2004);
C0 is the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1900; i.e. 292ppmv (IPCC 2001).
Therefore the UN’s current best estimate of the additional radiant energy in the atmosphere
resulting from all radiative forcings caused by elevated concentrations of CO2 and all other
9
greenhouse gases, and fully taking account of all climate feedbacks resulting from the
forcings, may be calculated –
2.7 x 1.664 x 5.35 ln(365 / 292) = 5.36 wm-2
The UN gives observed centennial temperature change as 0.6C, equivalent to 1.98wm-2. So
projected figure of 5.36wm-2 derived from the UN’s model results using the UN’s own
formula and coefficients projects a sensitivity to extra CO2 that is not exactly or even
approximately in line with observation, but is in fact 2.7 times greater than what was
actually observed.
Interestingly, without the UN’s “climate feedback factor” there would be no over-projection
in the 20th-century calculation. Then the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 (assuming
the UN’s suggested fall in the all-forcings factor from 1.664 in 1998 to 1.25 by 2100) would
be:
1.0 x 1.250 x 5.35 ln(2) = 4.64 wm-2,
equivalent to 1.4C. This less than half the 3C mentioned by Gore as the “consensus” value.
However, if the UN’s current “climate feedback factor” of 2.7 is included, then the climate
sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is not the 3C mentioned by Gore but 3.75C. The UN’s new
projected climate sensitivity approaches three times the value which is correct both in
physical law and by reference to the observed increase in temperature over the 20th century.
Direct observations from the last ice age
Direct observations from the last ice age were not possible. We were not here. Temperatures
and CO2 concentrations have been indirectly deduced from samples of air from former ages
locked in the ice of Greenland or Antarctica. The results do not provide a basis for reliable
estimates of the earth’s sensitivity to extra CO2: they show that increases in CO2 do not
precede increases in temperature – they follow it.
Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration
profiles from Vostok ice core samples covering 420,000 years, concluding that during
glaciation “the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and
"the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination.”
Using sections of ice core records from the last three inter-glacial transitions, Fischer et al.
(1999) decided that “the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to
temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial
transitions.”
On the basis of atmospheric carbon dioxide data obtained from Antarctic Taylor Dome ice
core samples, and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al.
(2000) looked at the relationship between these two variables over the period 60,000-20,000
years ago. A statistical test on the data showed that movement in the air’s CO2 content
lagged behind shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second
statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years.
Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from high time resolution
samples at the Antarctic Concordia Dome site, for the period 22,000-9,000 ago, covering the
last glacial-to-interglacial transition, Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2
increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years.
10
In yet another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-cores, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that
variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged behind variations in air temperature by
1,300 to 5,000 years.
In a study using different methodology, Yokoyama et al. (2000) analyzed sediments in the
tectonically stable Bonaparte Gulf of Australia to determine the timing of the initial melting
phase of the last great ice age.
Commenting on the results of that study, Clark and Mix (2000) note that the rapid rise in
sea level caused by the melting of land-based ice that began approximately 19,000 years ago
preceded the post-glacial rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 3,000 years.
Caillon et al. (2003) focused on an isotope of argon (40Ar) that can be taken as a climate
proxy, thus providing constraints about the relative timing of CO2 shifts and climate change.
Air bubbles in the Vostok ice core over the period that comprises Glacial Termination III -
which occurred 240,000 years ago - were studied. They found that “the CO2 increase lagged
behind Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years.”
We conclude that there is plentiful evidence in the scientific literature that increases in
atmospheric CO2 have followed increases in temperature in former ages and cannot have
been the cause of those increases. In this respect, ice-core studies can tell us no more than
that there may be a small climate feedback from increased atmospheric CO2 in response to
temperature.
Direct observations of the atmosphere’s response to volcanic eruptions
The most recent major volcanic eruption to have been observed directly was that of Mount
Pinatubo, in the Philippines, in June 1991. Sassen (1992) reported that cirrus clouds were
produced during the eruption, Lindzen et al. (2001) proposed that cirrus clouds might
provide a possible negative feedback that might partially counteract the positive feedbacks
assumed in the UN’s climate feedback factor.
Douglass and Knox (2005) considered this negative climate feedback in some detail: “We
determined the volcano climate sensitivity and response time for the Mount Pinatubo
eruption, using observational measurements of the temperature anomalies of the lower
troposphere, measurements of the long wave outgoing radiation, and the aerosol optical
density.” They reported “a short atmospheric response time, of the order of several months,
leaving no volcano effect in the pipeline, and a negative feedback to its forcing.”
They also note that the short intrinsic climate response time they derived (6.8 ± 1.5 months)
“confirms suggestions of Lindzen and Giannitsis (1998, 2002) that a low sensitivity and small
lifetime are more appropriate” than the "long response times and positive feedback"
assumed in the UN’s models. They conclude that “Hansen et al.'s hope that the dramatic
Pinatubo climate event would provide an ‘acid test’ of climate models has been fulfilled,
although with an unexpected result.”
Conclusion
We conclude, on the basis of a study of the UN’s own reports and of the academic literature
in the peer-reviewed scientific journals, that the UN may have failed to take negative climate
feedbacks sufficiently into account, there is no consensus among climate scientists on any of
the three classes of evidence for the UN’s estimate of climate sensitivity cited by Gore, and
that in all three classes – 20th-century observation, palaeoclimatological reconstruction and
studies of volcanic eruption – there is recent, frequent and compelling evidence in the
11
scientific literature that raises serious questions about the validity of the “consensus”
position.
And, despite Viscount Monckton’s recycled claims about the so-called “hockey stick”
graph (an old and worn-out hobby horse of the pollution lobby in the U.S.), this faux
controversy has long since been thoroughly debunked. The global warming deniers in
the U.S. were so enthusiastic about this particular canard that our National Academy of
Sciences eventually put together a formal panel, comprised of a broad range of scientists
including some of the most skeptical, which vindicated the main findings embodied in the
“hockey stick” and definitely rejected the claims Monckton is now recycling for British
readers.
No. In fact the committee of the National Research Council, (North et al., 2006), which
answers to the National Academies of Sciences and of Engineering, while confident that
today’s temperatures are warmer than at any time in the past 400 years, was “less
confident” about the UN “hockey-stick” graph’s abolition of the mediaeval warm period,
because of a lack of data before 1600 AD. The committee’s report criticized the methodology
of the authors of the “hockey-stick”, The committee notes explicitly, on pages 91 and 111,
that the method used in compiling the UN’s “hockey-stick” temperature graph has no
validation skill significantly different from zero. Methods without a validation skill are
usually considered useless.
Similar grounds for concern were listed in a report by three independent statisticians for the
US House of Representatives (Wegman et al., 2005), who found that the calculations behind
the “hockey-stick” graph were “obscure and incomplete”. Criticisms of the hockey-stick
summarized in my article came from papers in the learned journals: e.g. McIntyre and
McKitrick (2005). Wegman et al. (2005) found these criticisms “valid and compelling”. It
found that the scientists who had compiled the graph had not used statistical techniques
properly, and found no evidence that they had “had significant interactions with mainstream
statisticians”. It found that the scientists’ “sharing of research material, data and results was
haphazardly and grudgingly done.” It found that the peer review process, by which other
scientists are supposed to verify learned papers before publication, “was not necessarily
independent”. Finally, it found that the “hockey-stick” scientists’ “assessments that the
decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest
year of the millennium cannot be supported by their analysis”. It recommended that Statefunded
scientific research should be more carefully and independently peer-reviewed in
future, not only by the learned journals but also by the UN’s climate change panel. It
recommended that authors of the UN’s scientific assessments should not be the same as the
authors of the learned papers on which the UN relies; that State-funded scientists should
make their data and calculations openly and promptly available; and that statistical results
by scientists who were not statisticians should be peer-reviewed by statisticians.
The NAS stated that the late 20th century warming in the Northern Hemisphere was
unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years and probably for much longer than
that. They also noted that the finding has “subsequently been supported by an array of
evidence.”
No. In fact, North et al. (2006) said this: “Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based
reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, although the available proxy
evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than
during any other 25-year period since 900. Very little confidence can be placed in
statements about average global surface temperatures prior to A.D. 900 because the proxy
data for that time frame are sparse.” These quotations, taken from an executive summary
12
signed by all members of the committee that prepared the report, bear no relation to what
Gore says they said.
As to the “array of evidence” supporting the “hockey-stick” graph’s conclusion that there
was no mediaeval warm period – a conclusion which could not be properly drawn from the
methodology used to produce the graph itself – Wegman et al. (2005) said: “In our further
exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found
that at least 43 authors have direct ties to [the graph’s lead author] by virtue of coauthored
papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of
paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as
independent as they might appear on the surface.”
So, no matter how many charts or graphs the Viscount might want to create, the basic
facts remain the same. What the models have shown, unequivocally, is that carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases mainly released from industrial activities are
warming the planet.
My first article said: “There are more greenhouse gases in the air than there were, so the
world should warm a bit, but that’s as far as the ‘consensus’ goes.” There is no consensus at
all on how much warming there will be, or about whether or when it will be dangerous.
Models are of theoretical interest, but they are not definitive. Until recently they contained
“flux adjustments” – or fudge-factors – many times larger than the very small changes in
tropospheric radiant energy that are at issue.
Computer models are not capable of showing anything “unequivocally”: they are suitable
only for making projections, which may or may not prove reliable. The models upon which
the UN so heavily relied failed to predict either the timing or the magnitude of the El Nino
Southern Oscillation event in 1998. More recently they have failed to predict the sharp
cooling of the climate-relevant surface layer of the ocean that has occurred in the past two
years (Lyman, 2006).
Sixty Canadian scientists expert in climate and related fields, writing to the Canadian Prime
Minister earlier this year (Canada, 2006) said: “Observational evidence does not support
today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the
future.”
Dr. Vincent Gray, a research scientist and a reviewer working on the UN’s 2001 report
(IPCC, 2001) has noted, “The effects of aerosols, and their uncertainties, are such as to
nullify completely the reliability of any of the climate models.”
Freeman Dyson, an eminent physicist, said this in a talk to the American Physical Society
(Dyson, 1999): “The bad news is that the climate models on which so much effort is
expended is unreliable. The models are unreliable because they still use fudge-factors rather
than physics to represent processes occurring on scales smaller than the grid-size. … The
models fail to predict the marine stratus clouds that often cover large areas of ocean. The
climate models do not take into account the anomalous absorption of radiation revealed by
the Atmospheric Radiation Measurements. This is not a small error. If the ARM are correct,
the error in the atmospheric absorption of sunlight calculated by the climate models is about
28 watts per square metre, averaged over the whole Earth, day and night, summer and
winter. The entire effect of doubling the present abundance of carbon dioxide is calculated to
be about four watts per square metre. So the error in the models is much larger than the
global warming effect that the models are supposed to predict. Until the ARM were done,
the error was not detected, because it was compensated by fudge-factors that forced the
models to agree with the existing climate. Other equally large errors may still be hiding in
the models, concealed by other fudge-factors. Until the fudge-factors are eliminated and the
13
computer programs are solidly based on local observations and on the laws of physics, we
have no good reason to believe the predictions of the models. … They are not yet adequate
tools for predicting climate. … We must continue to warn the politicians and the public,
‘Don’t believe the numbers just because they come out of a supercomputer.’”
Eugene Parker, a leading solar physicist, has said: “The inescapable conclusion is that we
will have to know a lot more about the Sun and the terrestrial atmosphere before we can
understand the nature of the contemporary changes in climate. … In our present state of
ignorance it is not possible to assess the importance of individual factors. The biggest
mistake that we could make would be to think that we know the answers when we do not”
(Parker, 1999).
Scientists have also carefully examined the real world evidence (temperature change as
measured by air balloons, ground and satellite measurements, proxies like ice cores and
tree rings, for example) and have found that the models do indeed match the
observations.
Until last year, the observations did not even match each other. NASA (2005) said the trend
in satellite measurements of the lower troposphere (from the surface to about 5 miles up)
was just 0.08C per decade since 1979, but the trend in surface temperature measured on the
ground (NCDC, 2006) is twice that, 0.16C per decade in the same period. NASA (2005)
commented: “These differences are the basis for discussions over whether our knowledge of
how the atmosphere works might be in error, since the warming aloft in the troposphere
should be at least as strong as that observed at the surface.” More recently, however, NASA
has found that its satellite sensors had been pointing in the wrong direction. Satellite
tropospheric temperature trends now accord with those at the surface. Balloon temperatures
were also out of alignment with both surface and satellite temperatures for many years.
Recently, however, a correction has been made to the handling of the data and they now
conform.
Furthermore, the fact of warming does not tell us its cause. Though carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases are likely to be a contributing factor, they are not likely to be the
only factor, and may not even be the main one. Even if greenhouse gases are the sole factor,
there is no consensus about the UN’s projected warming trend for the future. Besides, as we
have shown, the models do not match the observed change in temperature, the discrepancy
is large, and there is no consensus either about the reason for the discrepancy or about
whether the discrepancy is real.
It is important to understand that there is not just one single strand of evidence leading
us to believe that global warming is occurring, but rather that all of the peer-reviewed
evidence, from scientists around the world, points in the same direction.
Mr. Gore says that all of the peer-reviewed evidence points in the same direction. A very
large proportion of it points in the opposite direction, as the papers listed here make plain.
For instance, Soon and Baliunas (2003) listed some 240 scientific papers in which a period of
at least 50 years of anomalous drought, rainfall or temperature were indicated at some time
during the mediaeval warm period. The authors of the “hockey-stick” graph angrily
dismissed Soon and Baliunas (2003) as irrelevant, but – whatever the paper’s faults – it
demonstrates that the “consensus” repeatedly claimed by the UN and its supporters is far
from real.
To be sure, not all of the finest workings of the climate system are yet fully understood to
the finest grain. However, all of the basics are absolutely clear. Global warming is real,
14
human activities are causing the problem, many of the solutions are available to us now,
it is not too late to avoid the worst, and all we need to get started solving the crisis is the
political will to act.
“Global Warming Is Real”, says Gore. Sixty leading climatologists and scientists in related
fields wrote to the Canadian Prime Minister (Canada, 2006): “Climate Change Is Real” is a
meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate change
catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global
climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes, and the human impact still remains
impossible to distinguish from the natural ‘noise’.”
For the third time Gore recites the already-agreed fact of warming. However, there is no
consensus on whether or to what degree human activities are causing “the problem”, or even
whether there is a problem. Global cooling, widely predicted in the 1970s, would have been
much more dangerous than warming. The unusual hot weather in mainland Europe killed
3,000 elderly Frenchmen a couple of years ago. Like so many other events, it was blamed on
global warming but was not caused by manmade climate change. It arose from natural
climate variability. The most recent cold snap in the UK killed 25,000 people.
This is what prompted the national academies of science in the 11 most influential
nations on the planet to come together to jointly call on every nation to “acknowledge
that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing.” They added that the “scientific
understanding of climate changes is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking
prompt action.”
The “scientific understanding” is so crude that the central question – by how much can the
temperature be expected to rise as a result of a given additional amount of greenhouse gas in
the atmosphere – has not been definitively established either empirically or theoretically. It
has been established by laboratory experiment that increased CO2 concentrations can cause
additional scattering of outgoing longwave radiation at the tropopause, but not at or near
the surface, and only at the fringes of one of the three principal absorption bands of CO2. It
has been established that the stratosphere is cooling, suggesting that less outgoing radiation
is emerging from the tropopause. But it is insufficiently clear whether or to what extent the
temperature increase since 1900 is attributable to anthropogenic as opposed to natural
factors, and it is not even clear by how much the temperature rose between 1900 and 1998
(NCDC US global mean temperature anomaly 0.3C, AccuWeather from land-based stations
0.45C, NCDC global mean 0.53C; UN 0.6C).
Scientists will continue to pose questions and answer them in the peer-reviewed literature
-- and I urge the public and policymakers in the U.K. to rely upon the best advice from
your premiere institutions ranging from the outstanding British Antarctic Survey, to the
Royal Society, the Met Office and the Hadley and Tyndall Centres for the decisions that
must be made.
The Royal Society no longer has an independent mind on climate change. With other
national scientific bodies, it has declared its deference to the UN, which continues to use the
defective and discredited “hockey-stick” graph in its current publications, and has not yet
apologized for it. My first article referred to the Hadley centre’s division of its temperature
projections by three to make them conform to 20th-century observation (IPCC, 2001, cited in
Lindzen, 2006). We shall quote the Tyndall Centre later.
15
In a second line of argument, Viscount Monckton also is concerned about the findings of
the Stern report. But let’s explore its conclusions: The report suggests that it will cost
more to allow global warming to continue unabated than it will to begin to take
thoughtful actions now. In other words, the impact on living standards could be quite
small, if rational, thoughtful policies were put into place and if government were to work
with industry to exploit the economic opportunities than if we allow global warming to
run amok.
The 2.1% discount rate used by Stern (2006), though not explicitly stated in his report, is less
than half the absolute minimum which a commercial organization would use when deciding
to invest. Also, Stern’s calculations have not followed the rule of economics that, when
deciding not only whether but also when to invest, there should be no investment until the net
present value is shown to be double the outlay (ref). Stern also assumes far more rapid
climate change even than the UN. By all these means, he exaggerates the economic rewards
of acting now and the costs of waiting. Correcting for these and other factors, the case for
substantial, immediate investment vanishes. In any event, since the fast-developing
economies such as China, India, Indonesia and Brazil excluded themselves from the scope of
the Nairobi post-Kyoto agreement, just as they excluded themselves from Kyoto itself, no
action which we take in the UK would make any noticeable difference to global temperature.
Even if the UK were to close down completely, and were to cease altogether to use energy,
operate industries or drive cars, the reduction in global temperature by 2035 would amount
to 0.006C. This negligible temperature saving would be more than outweighed by just a few
years’ further economic growth in the Kyoto-exempted, Nairobi-excused China, which
already has 30,000 coal mines, opens a new coal-mine every week and will continue to open a
new coal-fired power station every five days until 2012. If global warming is a problem, the
West, even acting collectively, can do nothing without the co-operation of China, India,
Indonesia, Brazil and other fast-emerging, fast-polluting economies.
That is why it is important for the UN and its followers, such as Gore, not to try to maintain
that bad science like the “hockey-stick” has been “vindicated” when the very document he
quotes as having “vindicated” it had in effect condemned it as useless. China and the other
awakening tigers will not be convinced of the need for action to curb carbon emissions unless
and until the UN produces science that is not only properly peer-reviewed (unlike the
“hockey-stick”) but also both transparent and honest.
Some of the policies detailed in the report include: increasing global public energy
research and development funding, dramatically reducing waste through energy
efficiency measures, expanding and linking emissions trading systems and carbon
markets, multiplying programs to reduce deforestation of natural areas such as
Amazonia, and continuing to set aggressive domestic and global targets to reduce the
pollution that causes global warming. None of these policy measures should cause
alarm.
Reversal of 20th-century deforestation, which I recommended in my second article, would get
us a quarter of the way towards CO2 stabilization. All the other measures mentioned by
Gore would make practically no difference.
The EU emissions trading system trades more emissions rights than are currently emitted,
contributes nothing to reducing CO2 emissions, and actually encourages the increases which
are happening across Europe.
16
The UK climate change levy taxes all forms of energy production equally, regardless of
whether or how much they emit CO2, and hence has everything to do with increasing
revenue and nothing to do with preventing climate change.
Global targets cannot be set without China and other mega-polluters. Aside from
deforestation, therefore, all Stern’s proposed policy measures – none of which is properly or
clearly costed - are mere extravagant gestures that, like the existing measures in place in the
UK and Europe, would cost much and achieve nothing.
In fact, not only are they rational, but also they have substantial co-benefits which
include increased air quality, improved access to energy among the rural poor in
developed countries, further independence from foreign sources of energy in volatile and
unstable regions of the world, and, of course, the obvious opportunities in the new
markets developing for low carbon technologies.
Air quality is a good aim, but in the UK we already have some of the cleanest air among
industrialized countries. The quickest improvement we could make in air quality would be
to go nuclear, like the French (who have little more than half the UK’s carbon footprint as a
result), and to close down coal-fired power stations, which the EPA in the US has estimated
cause some 37,000 premature deaths a year.
More energy for the rural poor is a good aim, but energy in the UK is supplied by a national
grid to all parts, urban or rural. Independence from foreign energy sources is good, but, for
almost all countries (including the UK), impossible.
“Low-carbon technologies” are a good aim (if CO2 is really a problem), but unless they
involve nuclear power they won’t produce enough energy to replace fossil-fuelled power
stations. Gore lists several attractive-sounding wishes, few of which – even if realizable
affordably or at all – would make a significant contribution to cutting CO2 emissions.
And with regards to some of the financial implications suggested by the Stern report, one
need only look to the insurance industry for validation of the potential costs of global
warming. On Wednesday, the reinsurance giant Munich Re reported, “driven by climate
change, weather related disasters could cost as much as a trillion dollars in a single year
by 2040.”
Whenever a corporation makes a public pronouncement on policy, it speaks in the hope of
gaining a commercial advantage. Insurance companies are aware that if enough panic about
climate change can be engendered they can hike their premiums, tell their customers that
this is a responsible and prudent precaution, and get rich on the proceeds in the near-certain
knowledge that they won’t have to pay out. As we shall show later, the spread of human
populations and settlements into the path of pre-existing climatic patterns has caused – and
will continue to cause – many times more expense to the insurance industry than climate
change.
The Stern report will not be the last economic analysis of the issue, but it certainly
provides an important contribution to the literature and sheds light on some of the major
concerns that policymakers must address.
For the reasons enumerated above, many serious economists regard Stern (2006) as
valueless. To take one example, Stern contains a lengthy chapter on how to arrive at the
appropriate discount rate for carrying out the central investment appraisal: yet the rate he
17
chose (but somehow failed to state) is fully described in a single page in the UK Treasury’s
“Green Book”. The chosen rate is no more than half the 4% real risk-free interest rate,
which would normally be the absolute minimum discount rate for a commercial project. The
Labour Government has been using the 2% rate for some years so as artificially to justify
the recent rapid expansion of the UK State sector.
The Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, who sadly died last week at the age of
94, calculated that the State consumes at least twice as many resources in doing any given
thing as the private sector. Stern (2006) does not advocate transferring most of the State’s
activities – hospitals, schools and council houses, say – to the private sector, notwithstanding
the substantial environmental benefits that would follow from the consequent and large
reduction in inefficiency and waste.
Sir Winston Churchill said, “One ought never to turn one’s back on a threatened danger
and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it
promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.”
First one must assess whether there is a danger. At present there is merely a scare, which
is not the same thing. Sir Winston Churchill also said: “It is a mistake to try to look too far
ahead. The chain of destiny can only be grasped one link at a time.” Climate, in the
formal, mathematical sense, is a chaotic object. It is the proven characteristic of
mathematically-chaotic objects that neither the magnitude nor the timing of their phasetransitions
(in environmentalese, “tipping points”) can be predicted (IPCC, 2001; Lorenz,
1963). There is simply too little information to allow us to look as far ahead as 100 years
and say with any degree of confidence how little or how much the world will warm.
As Lorenz (1963) put it in his landmark paper: “When our results concerning the
instability of non-periodic flow are applied to the atmosphere, which is ostensibly nonperiodic,
they indicate that prediction of the sufficiently distant future is impossible by any
method, unless the present conditions are known exactly. In view of the inevitable
inaccuracy and incompleteness of weather observations, precise, very-long-range weather
forecasting would seem to be non-existent.”
We learned this lesson again the hard way in the U.S. when we were warned that the
levees were about to break in New Orleans because of Hurricane Katrina and those
warnings were ignored. Later, a bipartisan group of members of Congress, chaired by
Representative Tom Davis, a Republican from Virginia, said in an official report: “The
White House failed to act on the massive amounts of information at its disposal.” This
bipartisan group added that a “blinding lack of situational awareness and disjointed
decision-making needlessly compounded and prolonged Katrina’s horror.”
For many years the Democrat Mayors of New Orleans and the Democrat-controlled city
administration and state legislature had failed and failed again to make the necessary
investment in strengthening the levees, based on the massive amount of information which
had been put before them time and time again by the city engineers. New Orleans,
administered by the Democrats, was a disaster waiting to happen.
There is extensive scientific literature on the lack of connection between hurricanes and
climate change. A review article on hurricanes and climate change (Pielke et al., 2005), found
that “globally there has been no increase in tropical cyclone frequency over at least the past
several decades.” Papers by Lander and Guard (1998), Elsner and Kocher (2000) and
Webster et al. (2005) are cited.
18
Furthermore, Pielke et al. point out, research on possible future changes in hurricane
frequency due to global warming has produced studies that “give such contradictory results
as to suggest that the state of understanding of tropical cyclogenesis provides too poor a
foundation to base any projections about the future.”
With respect to hurricane intensity, Emanual (2005) had found “a very substantial upward
trend in power dissipation [i.e., the sum over the life-time of the storm of the maximum wind
speed cubed] in the North Atlantic and western North Pacific.” However, Pielke et al. (2005)
found that “other studies that have addressed tropical cyclone intensity variations (Landsea
et al., 1999; Chan and Liu, 2004) show no significant secular trends during the decades of
reliable records.”
Also, although early theoretical work by Emanuel (1987) “suggested an increase of about
10% in wind speed for a 2C increase in tropical sea surface temperature,” more recent work
by Knutson and Tuleya (2004) points to only a 5% increase in hurricane windspeeds by
2080. Michaels et al. (2005) conclude that even this projection may be twice as great as it
should be.
People are now living in more exposed coastal locations and tornado alleys than hitherto. By
2050, for example, Pielke et al. (2000) report that “for every additional dollar in damage that
the IPCC expects to result from the effects of global warming on tropical cyclones, we should
expect between $22 and $60 of increase in damage due to population growth and wealth.”
Pielke et al. (2005) conclude that “The primary factors that govern the magnitude and
patterns of future damages and causalities are how society develops and prepares for storms
rather than any presently conceivable future changes in the frequency and intensity of the
storms.”
By contrast, the U.K. has, for years, stood as a world leader on global warming. When I
served as Vice President, I had the good fortune to work with both Tory and Labour
leaders in negotiating the Kyoto Protocol. In the 1980’s, when I was a Senator, I had the
privilege of working with Prime Minister Thatcher as she led the world in helping to
solve the threat to the stratospheric ozone layer.
Senator James Inhofe (Republican, Oklahoma) has told the Senate that even if all signatories
were to comply with Kyoto in full (most won’t) world temperature in 2100 would be onetwenty-
fifth of a degree Celsius lower than it would be if Kyoto had never happened. We
should not fool ourselves that feel-good, gesture politics such as the irrelevant Kyoto
Protocol will make any difference to the reality of the problem – if there is a problem. The
US Senate – during the administration of Bill Clinton and Al Gore – rightly voted
unanimously, 97-0, to reject Kyoto or any suchlike treaty that did not bear down upon
carbon emissions from all the nations of the world, including fast-developing countries like
China.
We shall certainly not be able to demand that the awakening tigers of the Third World
should deny themselves the economic growth whose benefits we already enjoy unless and
until the UN admits and apologizes for mistakes like the “hockey-stick” temperature graph,
ceases to use them in its current publications, and desists from peddling the flagrant and
baseless exaggerations which my articles have quantified and exposed.
Sixty Canadian scientists (Canada, 2006) wrote to tell their Prime Minister: “If, back in the
mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not
exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”
19
And today, although there are differences between the platforms, both of the U.K.’s
largest parties have issued strong statements about the need for action -- and your nation
has largely avoided the partisan bickering and downright denial that has stymied action
in the United States. This bipartisan comity is essential to rise to the challenges presented
by such a complex problem as the climate crisis.
Almost all recent decisions supported by both major parties – such as the decision in 1990
that the UK should join the European exchange-rate mechanism – have proven expensively
disastrous. However, the profound economic collapse which followed the decision to join the
ERM caused a fall in UK emissions of CO2 for four years, unexpectedly helping the UK to
come closer to meeting its Kyoto emissions target than most EU countries. Of the preexpansion
15 EU members bound by Kyoto, 13 are expected not to meet their targets.
On the evidence to date, the decision of the Conservative party to abandon its constitutional
duty of opposition to the costly but futile gestures proposed by the Government in mitigation
of supposed anthropogenic climate change may well prove as expensive as its catastrophic
decision in Government to attempt to repeal the laws of arithmetic by bringing the UK into
the ERM, but less likely to reduce CO2 emissions.
As your Parliament moves forward to debate legislation this session, it is essential that
you imagine this not solely as a scientific discussion or even a political dialogue, but as a
moral moment where we decide who we are as human beings, and what obligation to the
future we feel is appropriate for us to accept as part of our responsibility in this
generation. At stake is nothing less than the survival of human civilization and the
habitability of the earth for our species.
We have the opportunity here to avoid needlessly bickering with one another on the
editorial pages, and instead join together to experience what very few generations in
history have had the privilege of knowing---a generational mission, a compelling moral
purpose, a shared and unifying cause, and an opportunity to work together to choose a
future for which our children will thank us instead of cursing our failure to protect them
against a clear and present danger with equally clear and devastating future
consequences. By rising to meet this historic planetary emergency, we have the
opportunity to become not the selfish and self-destructive generation, but the next
Greatest Generation.
Numberwatch (2006) gives a long and well-referenced list of the wars, plagues, diseases,
deaths and extinctions which have been blamed on “global warming” in a similarly
apocalyptic fashion to Gore.
Sir John Houghton, who produced the IPCC's first three reports in 1990, 1995 and 2001, has
written (Houghton, 1994) : "Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.”
One of the UK’s leading “consensus” scientists (Hulme, 2006) has this to say about
exaggerated rhetoric of the sort which Gore uses here:
“Over the last few years a new environmental phenomenon has been constructed … - the
phenomenon of ‘catastrophic’ climate change. It seems that mere ‘climate change’ was not
going to be bad enough, and so now it must be ‘catastrophic’ to be worthy of attention. The
increasing use of this pejorative term - and its bedfellow qualifiers ‘chaotic’, ‘irreversible’,
‘rapid’ - has altered the public discourse around climate change.
20
“This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as ‘climate change is worse than we
thought’, that we are approaching ‘irreversible tipping in the Earth's climate’, and that we
are ‘at the point of no return’. I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change
campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied
their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric. It seems that it is we, the
professional climate scientists, who are now the (catastrophe) sceptics. How the wheel
turns!”
References
BARNETT, T.P., D.W. Pierce, K.M. AchutaRao et al. 2005. Penetration of human-induced warming into
the world’s oceans. Science 309: 284-287.
BRAITHWAITE, R.J. and Raper, S.C.B. 2002. Glaciers and their contribution to sea level
change. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 27: 1445-1454.
CAILLON, N., Severinghaus, J.P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J.-M., Kang, J. and Lipenkov, V.Y. 2003. Timing
of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science 299: 1728-1731.
CANADA. 2006. Letter from 60 scientists to the Canadian Prime Minister. 6 April. Text and signatories
below, or at http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-
4db87559d605
CHAN, J.C.L. and Liu, S.L. 2004. Global warming and western North Pacific typhoon activity from an
observational perspective. Journal of Climate 17: 4590-4602.
CLARK, P.U. and Mix, A.C. 2000. Ice sheets by volume. Nature 406: 689-690.
DOUGLASS, D.H. and Knox, R.S. 2005. Climate forcing by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo.
Geophysical Research Letters 32: 10.1029/2004GL022119.
DYSON, Freeman J. 1999. The Science and Politics of Climate Change. Address to the Centennial
Meeting of the American Physical Society, Atlanta, Georgia, 25 March.
ELSNER, J.B. and Kocher, B. 2000. Global tropical cyclone activity: A link to the North Atlantic
Oscillation. Geophysical Research Letters 27: 129-132.
EMANUEL, K. 1987. The dependence of hurricane intensity on climate. Nature 326: 483-485.
EMANUEL, K. 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 436:
686-688.
FISCHER, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck, B. 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric
CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712-1714.
21
FOLEY, Jonathan A., and Coe, Michael T. 2001. Decline of Lake Chad. Journal of Physical Research
(Biogeosciences): http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/04/0426_lakechadshrinks.html (reported
in National Geographic News).
HANSEN, J., Lacis, A., Ruedy, R. and Sato, M. 1992. Potential climate impact of Mount Pinatubo
eruption. Geophysical Research Letters 19: 215-218.
HANSEN, J., Nazarenko, L., Ruedy, R., Sato, M., Willis, J, Del Genio, A., Koch, D., Lacis, A., Lo, K.,
Menon, S., Novakov, T., Perlwitz, J., Russell, G., Schmidt, G., and Tausnev, N. 2006. Earth’s energy
imbalance: confirmation and implications. Science 308: 1431-1434.
HOUGHTON, Sir John. 1994. Global Warming: The Complete Briefing. Cambridge University Press,
London.
HOUGHTON, Sir John. 2002. Overview of the climate change issue. Presentation to “Forum 2002” at St.
Anne’s College, Oxford. www.jri.org.uk/resource/climatechangeoverview.htm.
HOUGHTON, Sir John. 2006. Replies to questions from Lord Monckton, Royal Society, London, 27
October.
HULME, M. 2006. Chaotic world of climate truth. BBC News Viewpoint, 4 November 2006. Available
from the Internet at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6115644.stm.
INDERMUHLE, A., Monnin, E., Stauffer, B. and Stocker, T.F. 2000. Atmospheric CO2 concentration
from 60 to 20 kyr BP from the Taylor Dome ice core, Antarctica. Geophysical Research Letters 27: 735-
738.
INQUA. 2000. Sea Level Changes, News and Views, The Maldives Project. Homepage of the commission
on sea level changes and coastal evolution, http://www.pog.su.se/sea.
IPCC. 1996. The Science of Climate Change: Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment
Report of the IPCC (eds. J. T. Houghton et al.), Cambridge University Press, London, 1996.
IPCC. 2001. Climate Change, The Scientific Basis, Cambridge University Press, London, 2001.
KEELING, C.D., and Whorf, T.P. 2004. Trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa, Hawaii.
Carbon Dioxide Research Group, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla,
California 92093-0444, U.S.A.
KNUTSON, T.R. and Tuleya, R.E. 2004. Impact of CO2-induced warming on simulated hurricane
intensity and precipitation: Sensitivity to the choice of climate model and convective parameterization.
Journal of Climate 17: 3477-3495.
LANDER, M.A. and Guard, C.P. 1998. A look at global tropical cyclone activity during 1995:
Contrasting high Atlantic activity with low activity in other basins. Monthly Weather Review 126: 1163-
1173.
LANDSEA, C.W., Pielke Jr., R.A., Mestas-Nunez, A.M. and Knaff, J.A. 1999. Atlantic basin hurricanes:
Indices of climatic changes. Climatic Change 42: 89-129.
LEVITUS, S.J., Antonov, J, and Boyer, T. 2005. Warming of the world ocean 1955 – 2003. Geophysical
Research Letters 32: L02604, doi:10.1029/2004GL021592
22
LINDZEN, R.S. and Giannitsis, C. 1998. On the climatic implications of volcanic cooling. Journal of
Geophysical Research 103: 5929-5941.
LINDZEN, R.S., Chou, M.-D. and Hou, A.Y. 2001. Does the earth have an adaptive infrared
iris? Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 82: 417-432.
LINDZEN, R.S. and Giannitsis, C. 2002. Reconciling observations of global temperature change.
Geophysical Research Letters 29: 10.1029/2001GL014074.
LINDZEN, R. 2006. Article on climate change. Sunday Telegraph, London, 30 October.
LORENZ, Edward N. 1963. Deterministic nonperiodic flow. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 20:
130-141.
LYMAN, John M., Willis, J.K., and Johnson, G.C. 2006. Recent cooling of the upper ocean. Geophysical
Research Letters, 33: L18604, doi:10.1029/2006GL027033.
MANN, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K. 1998. Global-Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate
Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries. Nature 392: 779-787.
MANN, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K. 1999. Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past
Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations. Geophysical Research Letters 26: 759-762.
MANN, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K. 2004. Corrigendum. Nature, 1 July 2004, p. 105.
McINTYRE, Stephen and McKitrick, Ross. 2005. Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious
significance. Geophysical Research Letters, 32: L03710, doi: 10.1029/2004GL021750.
MICHAELS, P.J., Knappenberger, P.C. and Landsea, C.W. 2005. Comments on "Impacts of CO2-induced
warming on simulated hurricane intensity and precipitation”: Sensitivity to the choice of climate model
and convective scheme. Journal of Climate.
MOBERG, A., Sonechkin, D.M., Holmgren, K., Datsenko, N.M., Karlen, W., Lauritzen, S.E. 2005.
Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low and high-resolution proxy
data. Nature 433: 613-617.
MONNIN, E., Indermühle, A., Dällenbach, A., Flückiger, J, Stauffer, B., Stocker, T.F., Raynaud, D. and
Barnola, J.-M. 2001. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last glacial termination. Science 291:
112-114.
MORNER, N.-A. 1973. Eustatic changes during the last 300 years. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,
Palaeoecology 9: 153-181.
MORNER, N.-A. 1995. Recorded sea level variability in the Holocene and expected future changes. In:
Eisma, D. (Ed.), Climate Change: Impact on Coastal Habitation, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 17-28.
MORNER, N.-A. 2000. Sea level changes along Western Europe. In: Integrated Coastal Zone
Management, 2nd ed., IPC Publishing, London and Hong Kong, 33-37.
MORNER, N.-A. 2004. Estimating future sea level changes from past records. Global and Planetary
Change 40: 49-54.
23
MUDELSEE, M. 2001. The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice
volume over the past 420 ka. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 583-589.
MUNK, W. 2003. Ocean freshening, sea level rising. Science 300: 2041-2043.
NASA. 2006. Satellite-measured global mean stratospheric and lower-tropospheric air temperatures.
Updated monthly at http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html.
NCDC. 2006. Global annual land and ocean mean temperature anomalies. Data available for download
from the Internet at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-
2000mean.dat.
NORTH, Gerald R., Biondi, F., Bloomfield, P., Christy, J.R., Cuffey, K, Dickinson, R.E., Druffel, E.R.M.,
Nychka, D., Otto-Bliesner, B., Roberts, N., Turekian, K.K., and Wallace, J.M. 2006. Surface temperature
reconstructions for the last 2,000 years. National Research Council of the National Academies of Science
and Engineering, Division on Earth and Life Studies, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate,
Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years. National Academies Press,
Washington.
NUMBERWATCH. 2006. Referenced list of events blamed on global warming. Available for download
from the Internet at http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
PARKER, E.N. 1999. Climate change. Nature 399: 416.
PETIT, J.R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Barkov, N.I., Barnola, J.-M., Basile, I., Bender, M., Chappellaz, J.,
Davis, M., Delaygue, G., Delmotte, M., Kotlyakov, V.M., Legrand, M., Lipenkov, V.Y., Lorius, C., Pepin,
L., Ritz, C., Saltzman, E., and Stievenard, M. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000
years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436.
PIELKE Jr., R.A., Landsea, C., Mayfield, M., Laver, J. and Pasch, R. 2005. Hurricanes and global
warming. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 86: 1571-1575.
PIELKE Jr., R.A. and Pielke Sr., R.A. 1997. Hurricanes: Their Nature and Impacts on Society. John
Wiley and Sons.
PIELKE Jr., R.A., Pielke, Sr., R.A., Klein, R. and Sarewitz, D. 2000. Turning the big knob: Energy policy
as a means to reduce weather impacts. Energy and Environment 11: 255-276.
PIRAZZOLI, P.A., Grant, D.R. and Woodworth, P. 1989. Trends of relative sea-level changes: past,
present, future. Quaternary International 2: 63-71.
POLISSAR, P.J., Abbott, M.B., Wolfe, A.P., Bezada, M., Rull, V., and Bradley, R.S. 2006. Solar
modulation of Little Ice Age climate in the tropical Andes. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 10.1073/pnas.0603118103.
SASSEN, K. 1992. Evidence for liquid-phase cirrus cloud formation from volcanic aerosols: Climate
indications. Science 257: 516-519.
SOON, W. and Baliunas, S. 2003. Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years.
Climate Research 23: 80-110.
STERN, Sir Nicholas. 2006. Report of the Review on the Economics of Climate Change. HM Treasury,
London.
24
SVENSMARK, H., Pedersen, J, et al. 2006. Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle
nucleation under atmospheric conditions, Proceedings of the Royal Society A. London, October 2006:
www.spacecenter.dk
TAYLOR, Dr. Mitchell. 2006. Last stand of our wild polar bears. Government of Nunavut, Igloolik,
Nunavat, Canada, May 1.
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Taylor/last_stand_of_our_wild_polar_bears.html.
van der VEEN, C.J. 2002. Polar ice sheets and global sea level: how well can we predict the
future? Global and Planetary Change 32: 165-194.
WEBSTER, P.J., Holland, G.J., Curry, J.A. and Chang, H.-R. 2005. Changes in tropical cyclone number,
duration and intensity in a warming environment. Science 309: 1844-1846.
WEGMAN, Edward J., Scott, D.W., and Said, Yasmin H. 2005. Ad Hoc Committee Report to the
Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and to the Chairman of the House
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on the “Hockey-Stick” global climate reconstruction. US
House of Representatives. Available for download from the Internet at
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
YOKOYAMA, Y., Lambeck, K., Deckker, P.D., Johnston, P. and Fifield, L.K. 2000. Timing of the Last
Glacial Maximum from observed sea-level minima. Nature 406: 713-716.
60 climate scientists’ letter to the Canadian Prime
Minister
6 April 2006
* Sixty eminent scientists in climate and related fields disagree strongly with the “consensus” which Gore
and other supporters of the UN say is unanimous. This is the text of the strongly-worded letter which they
wrote to the Canadian Prime Minister on 6 April 2006.
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRIME MINISTER STEPHEN HARPER
cc. Hon. Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment; Hon. Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources
“Dear Prime Minister, - As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to
propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific
foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your
recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same
suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal,
independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars
earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of
recent developments in climate science.
25
“Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust
model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting
Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the
climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or
other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant.
Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most
prudent and responsible course of action.
“While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for
sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change
is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be
many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant
advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern
about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate,
Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.
“We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the
loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased
consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climatescience
community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate
scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will
be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the
economy.
“‘Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a
climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate
changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish
from this natural ‘noise.’ The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water
pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to ‘stopping climate change’ would be irrational. We need
to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens
adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.
“We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole
story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming
alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science
continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with
predetermined political agendas. We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand
willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.”
Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences,
University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of
Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently
adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University,
Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth
Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of
Climate Research and Natural Hazards
26
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury,
Ont.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics
and geology
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), FRMS, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO
Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in
Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member,
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London,
Ont.
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate
change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University,
Halifax
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World
Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta
Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ontario.
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants,
Surrey, B.C.
Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary.
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ontario.
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and
Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past
president, American Association of State Climatologists
27
Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of
Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville,
Australia
Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre,
Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization
Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience
Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University,
Stockholm, Sweden
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of
Alabama, Huntsville
Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State
University, St. Cloud, Minn.
Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of
Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert
reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for
Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy &
Environment
Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands
Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist,
Kansas Geological Survey
Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief
meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand
28
Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of
'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.
Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut
Dr. Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores
University, U.K.
Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.
Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University
of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural
Disasters, 1994-2000
Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director,
U.S. Weather Satellite Service
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht
University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal
Netherlands Geological & Mining Society
Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering,
The Ohio State University
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in
Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official
IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former
professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology,
Stockholm University, Sweden
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.
Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.
Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past
board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public
health
Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
29
Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14
February 1952) is a former British journalist.
The eldest son of the 2nd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Monckton was educated at
Harrow School, Churchill College, Cambridge and University College, Cardiff. He joined
the Yorkshire Post in 1974 and then worked as a press officer at the Conservative Central
Office from 1977–79. In 1979, he became the editor of the Catholic newspaper The
Universe, and the managing editor of The Sunday Telegraph's Magazine in 1981.
In 1983 he returned to the Conservative offices again, this time as Margaret Thatcher's
policy adviser. Three years later, he became assistant editor of the newly-formed
newspaper, Today. His final job in journalism was as a consulting editor of the Evening
Standard from 1987–92.
Monckton was a director of his own, namesake consultancy company, Christopher
Monckton Ltd., between 1987 and 2006, when he retired through ill health. He is also a
member of the Worshipful Company of Broderers, an Officer of the Order of St. John of
Jerusalem and a Knight of Honour and Devotion of the Sovereign Military Order of
Malta. Upon the death of his father in 2006, Monckton inherited his title.
Gore Gored
A Science-based response to Al Gore’s
Global Warming Commentary in London’s
Sunday Telegraph
19 November 2006
By
Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
CSPP Reprint series
The Center for Science and Public Policy
Washington, D.C.
Robert Ferguson, Exc. Dir.
202-454-5249
http://www.scienceandpolicy.org
bferguson@ff.org
November, 2006
2
Gentle reader,
In this commentary on Al Gore’s Sunday Telegraph article of 19
November 2006 responding to my articles of 5 and 12
November on climate change, Gore’s full text is full-out in
Roman face [italics]. Comments are indented in bold face.
Readers may check the elementary calculations with a
scientific calculator. The calculations use the simple formulae
provided by the UN as derivations from the complex
atmosphere-ocean general-circulation computer models upon
which it heavily relies in the absence of hard, climatic data.
References to scientific papers in support of the commentary
are listed at the end.
Monckton of Brenchley
monckton@mail.com
19 November 2006
3
Concluding Findings
ALL TEN of the propositions listed below must be proven
true if the climate-change “consensus” is to be regarded as
true. We conclude as follows:
A Note on References used herein
Mr. Gore says one should rely upon evidence from the scientific
journals, not from Viscounts. And not, one might add, from
films. Nearly all references are from the scientific journals. The
references to the UN’s assessment reports are among the few
from sources other than the learned journals. In particular, Mr.
Gore has recommended reliance upon Science, upon Nature and
upon Geophysical Research Letters. Many of the references
listed here are from those three journals.
Proposition Conclusion
1. That the debate is over and all credible climate scientists are agreed. Demonstrably false
2. That temperature has risen above millennial variability and is exceptional. Very unlikely
3. That changes in solar irradiance are an insignificant forcing mechanism. Demonstrably false
4. That the last century’s increases in temperature are correctly measured. Unlikely
5. That greenhouse-gas increase is the main forcing agent of temperature. Not proven
6. That temperature will rise far enough to do more harm than good. Very unlikely
7. That continuing greenhouse-gas emissions will be very harmful to life. Unlikely
8. That proposed carbon-emission limits would make a definite difference. Very unlikely
9. That the environmental benefits of remediation will be cost-effective. Very unlikely
10. That taking precautions, just in case, would be the responsible course. Demonstrably false
4
Gore: (italics throughout)
FORMER colleague of mine in the US Senate, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
once said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to
their own facts.” I was reminded of this upon reading the Viscount Monckton of
Brenchley’s two submissions to the Sunday Telegraph.
Monckton: (bold, indented throughout)
That global warming is likely to cause harm rather than good is an opinion, to which Gore is
entitled. That there is no scientific consensus as to the rightness of that opinion is a fact, to
which all are entitled. I have received some 500 emails in response to my two articles, a large
response given that readers who wanted to contact me had to find my email address via the
Telegraph website. In addition, the posting of the article on the website received 127,000 hits
– a near record - before the link crashed. Of the emails, about one-third were from scientists
in climate physics and related fields, including tenured professors, solar physicists, forestry
specialists, government environmental scientists, and even a particle-physicist from CERN
reporting its upcoming research to test the theories of Svensmark et al. (2006) about cosmic
rays and cloud formation, suggesting a considerably larger role for the Sun in warming than
the UN allows. About 95% of the 500 emails I received, and very nearly all the emails from
scientists, were strongly supportive of the conclusions which I had reached: namely, that
global warming is probably harmless, and that, if not, even if we in the UK stopped using
energy altogether the effect on future temperature would be negligible.
To begin with, there is a reason why new scientific research is peer-reviewed and then
published in journals such as Science, Nature, and the Geophysical Research Letters,
rather than the broadsheets. The process is designed to ensure that trained scientists
review the framing of the questions that are asked, the research and methodologies used
to pursue the answers offered, and even, in some cases, to monitor the funding of the
laboratories – all in order to ensure that errors and biases are detected and corrected
before reaching the public.
There were some 90 references to learned papers in the scientific journals in the document
supporting my article on the science of climate change that was posted on the Telegraph’s
website. This commentary, too, is supported by a substantial list of some 60 references to
learned papers in journals including the three mentioned by Gore. The many journal
references (hundreds more could have been cited) demonstrate that there is no scientific
consensus that the effect of increased greenhouse-gas concentrations on the climate will be as
serious as the UN’s reports suggest. But I shall also take some references from the UN’s
assessment reports, with apologies that they are more political and less scientific than the
papers in the journals. The Summaries for Policymakers at the head of each of the UN’s
reports are written not by scientists at all but by the political representatives of
governments. There is repeated evidence of substantial and significant departures from the
science in these political Summaries. In every instance, the discrepancies move in the
direction of overstating and exaggerating the supposed problem even more than the
scientific sections.
A
5
That level of scrutiny is typically not applied to newspaper columns of course, but since
the stakes are so high in the debate over the climate crisis I would like to review here just
a few of the misleading claims in Viscount Monckton’s submissions to illustrate my belief
that readers of The Telegraph should rely upon more reliable and authoritative sources
than the Viscount for information on the latest climate science.
That level of scrutiny is typically not applied to books or films, of course, but since the stakes
are so high in the debate over the climate “crisis” I should like to review here just a few of
the misleading claims in Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth, to illustrate my belief that
cinema-goers should rely upon more reliable and authoritative sources than Gore for
information on the latest climate science. Here is Senator James Inhofe’s list of some of
Gore’s scientific errors:
· Gore promoted the now-debunked “hockey stick” temperature chart for the past 1,000
years in an attempt to prove man’s overwhelming impact on the climate, and attempted
to debunk the significance of the mediaeval warm period and little ice age (for discussion
and references, see below).
· Gore insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that
most sciences believe does not exist (for discussion and references, see below).
· Gore asserted that today’s Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring
that temperatures in the 1930’s were as warm or warmer (NCDC, 2006);
· Gore said the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that is only true
of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice (see my first article).
· Gore hyped unfounded fears that Greenland’s ice is in danger of disappearing (for
discussion and references, see below).
· Gore erroneously claimed that ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to global
warming, though satellite measurements show no temperature change at the summit,
and the peer-reviewed scientific literature suggests that desiccation of the atmosphere in
the region caused by post-colonial deforestation is the cause of the glacial recession (see
my first article).
· Gore made assertions of massive future sea level rise that is way out side of any
supposed scientific “consensus” and is not supported in even the most alarmist literature
(for discussion and references, see below).
· Gore incorrectly implied that a Peruvian glacier's retreat is due to global warming,
while ignoring the fact that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other
glaciers in South America are advancing (see Polissar et al., 2005, for an interesting
discussion of glaciers in the tropical Andes).
· Gore blamed global warming for water loss in Africa's Lake Chad, though NASA
scientists had concluded that local water-use and grazing patterns are probably to blame
(Foley and Coe, 2001).
· Gore inaccurately said polar bears are drowning in significant numbers due to melting
ice when in fact 11 of the 13 main groups in Canada are thriving, and there is evidence
that the only groups that are not thriving are in a region of the Arctic that has cooled
(Taylor, 2006).
6
· Gore did not tell viewers that the 48 scientists whom he quoted as having accused
President Bush of distorting science were part of a political advocacy group set up to
support the Democrat Presidential candidate, John Kerry, in 2004.
Gore is now an adviser to the UK Government on climate change.
First, Monckton claims that Dr. James Hansen of NASA said that the temperature would
rise by 0.3C and that the sea level would rise by several feet. But Hansen did not say that
at all, and the claim that he did is extremely misleading. In fact, Dr. Hansen presented
three scenarios to the U.S. Senate (high, medium, and low). He explained that the middle
scenario was “most plausible” and, as it turned out, the middle scenario was almost
exactly right.
Hansen’s three scenarios, presented to Congress during the very hot summer of 1988,
projected global mean temperature increases of 0.3C, 0.25C and 0.45C respectively in the 12
years to 2000: an average of 0.33C. But 0.06C was the actual increase (NCDC, 2006). I fairly
said 0.3C and 0.1C.
As to sea levels, I corrected this point in my second article. Mean sea level is difficult to
measure. It probably rose by less than 1 inch between 1988 and 2000; the rate of increase – 1
inch every 15 years – has not risen for a century; and there is little reason to suppose that the
rate of increase should accelerate. Morner (2004), who has spent a lifetime in the study of
sea levels, provides an “official evaluation of the sea-level changes that are to be expected in
the near future.” He finds that “sea level records are now dominated by the irregular
redistribution of water masses over the globe ... primarily driven by variations in ocean
current intensity and in the atmospheric circulation system and maybe even in some
deformation of the gravitational potential surface.”
Morner says: “The mean eustatic rise in sea level for the period 1850-1930 was in the order
of 1.0-1.1 mm/year,” but that “after 1930-40, this rise seems to have stopped (Pirazzoli et al.,
1989; Morner, 1973, 2000).” This stasis, in his words, “lasted, at least, up to the mid-
60s.” Thereafter, “the record can be divided into three parts: (1) 1993-1996 with a clear
trend of stability, (2) 1997-1998 with a high-amplitude rise and fall recording the ENSO
event of these years and (3) 1998-2000 with an irregular record of no clear tendency.” Most
important of all, in his words, “There is a total absence of any recent ‘acceleration in sea
level rise’ as often claimed by IPCC and related groups.”
He concludes: “When we consider past records, recorded variability, causational processes
involved and the last century’s data, our best estimate of possible future sea-level changes is
+10 +/- 10cm in a century, or, maybe, even +5 +/- 15cm.” See also Morner (1995); INQUA
(2000).
Van der Veen (2002) intended “to evaluate the applicability of accumulation and ablation
models on which predicted ice-sheet contributions to global sea level are based, and to assess
the level of uncertainty in these predictions arising from uncertain model parameters.” He
concluded that “the validity of the parameterizations used by glaciological modeling studies
to estimate changes in surface accumulation and ablation under changing climate conditions
has not been convincingly demonstrated.”
Munk (2003) says: “Surveys of glaciers, ice sheets, and other continental water storage can
place only very broad limits of -1 to +1 mm/year on sea level rise from freshwater export.” It
is not known how the cryosphere will respond to global warming.
7
Braithwaite and Raper (2002) analyze mountain glaciers and ice caps, excluding the
Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. They begin by saying: “The temperature sensitivity of
sea level rise depends upon the global distribution of glacier areas, the temperature
sensitivity of glacier mass balance in each region, the expected change of climate in each
region, and changes in glacier geometry resulting from climate change.” They end by
reporting that “None of these are particularly well known at present,” and they conclude
that “glacier areas, altitudes, shape characteristics and mass balance sensitivity are still not
known for many glacierized regions and ways must be found to fill gaps.”
Monckton goes on to level a serious accusation at all the scientists involved in the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claiming that they have "repealed a
fundamental physical law" and as a result have misled the people of the world by
exaggerating the sensitivity of the Earth’s climate to extra carbon dioxide. If this were
true, the entire global scientific community would owe Monckton a deep debt of gratitude
for cleverly discovering a gross and elementary mistake that had somehow escaped the
attention of all the leading experts in the field.
Here and elsewhere, I shall not respond to ad hominem remarks, but shall comment only ad
rem. As will be shown below, the shortfall between the observed 20th-century temperature
increase of 0.45 to 0.6C and the 20th-century increase of 1.6 to 3.75C that would have been
expected from the projections made by the models upon which the UN relies is unwarranted
either in the laws of physics or in the 20th-century global mean surface air temperature
record. This shortfall between reality and the UN’s projections is well established in the
scientific literature (see, for instance, Hansen, 2006), though until my article was published it
was not known to the public. There is certainly no scientific consensus on the reason for the
very substantial discrepancy. Some, such as the Hadley Centre (IPCC 2001, quoted by
Lindzen, 2006) blame pollutant aerosols for reflecting some of the Sun’s radiance back to
space. Others (such as Barnett, 2005, or Levitus, 2005), say the oceans are acting as a heatsink.
If there is in fact no good reason for the discrepancy between reality and projection,
and if – as I am by no means alone in thinking - the UN’s models are simply over-projecting
the likely temperature effects of elevated greenhouse gas concentrations, then the UN’s
projections of future temperature increases may be around three times greater than they
should be.
But again, this charge is also completely wrong, and it appears in this case to spring
from the Viscount’s failure to understand that these complex, carefully constructed
supercomputer climate models not only have built into them the physical law he thinks he
has discovered is missing, but also many others that he doesn’t mention, including the
fundamentally important responses of water vapor, ice and clouds that act to increase the
effects of extra carbon dioxide.
The laws of physics say the increase in temperature is 0.3C for every additional watt per
square metre of temperature. The UN says 0.5C (IPCC 2001). Several physicists have
confirmed my result, which readers may like to check for themselves using a scientific
calculator. The necessary equation is –
T = [E / (ε.Ï)]1/4 – 273.15 (Stefan-Boltzmann equation).
Earth/troposphere emissivity ε is about 0.614. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, Ï, is 5.67 x
10-8. Using these values, calculate T for successive values E0 = 236wm-2 (Houghton, 2002) and
E = 237wm-2. Since T0 = 13.79C and T = 14.09C, for a forcing of 1wm-2, the change in
temperature is T – T0 = 0.3C, as stated in my article, and not the 0.5C implicit in the UN’s
1996 report (IPCC, 1996) and stated in the 2001 report (IPCC, 2001).
8
Both in my article and in the supporting discussion document and calculations, I explicitly
mentioned climate feedbacks from water vapour and ice-melt. I did not mention climate
feedbacks from clouds because, as the UN itself says, even the direction of the change in
radiative forcing and hence in temperature caused by clouds is not known (IPCC 2001). I
explained that the UN’s reason for using a figure nearly twice what the laws of physics
mandate for the increase in temperature for each watt of additional forcing was to
incorporate an allowance for climate feedbacks.
However, I demonstrated that, if one assumed that the UN’s positive climate feedbacks were
matched by negative feedbacks, the observed climate response over the 98 years 1900-1998
was identical to the climate sensitivity projected by use of the UN’s greenhouse-gas forcing
equation. In short, there is no direct observational evidence in the 20th-century global mean
surface air temperature record that any allowance at all should be made for climate
feedbacks in response to temperature increases arising from elevated greenhouse-gas
concentrations in the atmosphere. As will be seen, the implications for forward projections
of temperature increase are substantial.
Moreover, direct observations from the 20th century, from the last ice age and from the
atmosphere’s response to volcanic eruptions, all give estimates of the earth’s sensitivity
to extra CO2 that are exactly in line with model results (around a 3 degrees Celsius
warming for a doubling of the CO2 concentration).
The UN’s projection for the radiative forcing effect of CO2 is calculable from the following
equation:
dECO2 = z ln(C / C0) wm-2
(IPCC 2001).
For simplicity, we shall amend this equation to allow for all greenhouse gases, and for
climate feedbacks. Note that all other forcings in the UN’s table (IPCC, 2001), such as those
from black carbon, the Sun, reflective aerosols etc., are shown as minor, little-understood
and broadly self-cancelling. Thus -
dE = f g z ln(C / C0) wm-2 where -
dE is the change in radiance at the tropopause (IPCC 2001, ch.6), for all g.h.g. forcings and
feedbacks;
f is the UN’s “climate feedback factor” of 1.7 (implicit in IPCC 2001); raised to 2.7
(Houghton, 2006);
g is the UN’s “all-greenhouse-forcings” factor of 1.664, falling by 2100 to 1.25 (IPCC
2001);
z is the carbon-dioxide forcing coefficient of 6.3 (IPCC 1996); reduced to 5.35 (IPCC
2001).
C is the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1998, i.e. 365ppmv (Keeling & Whorf,
2004);
C0 is the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1900; i.e. 292ppmv (IPCC 2001).
Therefore the UN’s current best estimate of the additional radiant energy in the atmosphere
resulting from all radiative forcings caused by elevated concentrations of CO2 and all other
9
greenhouse gases, and fully taking account of all climate feedbacks resulting from the
forcings, may be calculated –
2.7 x 1.664 x 5.35 ln(365 / 292) = 5.36 wm-2
The UN gives observed centennial temperature change as 0.6C, equivalent to 1.98wm-2. So
projected figure of 5.36wm-2 derived from the UN’s model results using the UN’s own
formula and coefficients projects a sensitivity to extra CO2 that is not exactly or even
approximately in line with observation, but is in fact 2.7 times greater than what was
actually observed.
Interestingly, without the UN’s “climate feedback factor” there would be no over-projection
in the 20th-century calculation. Then the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 (assuming
the UN’s suggested fall in the all-forcings factor from 1.664 in 1998 to 1.25 by 2100) would
be:
1.0 x 1.250 x 5.35 ln(2) = 4.64 wm-2,
equivalent to 1.4C. This less than half the 3C mentioned by Gore as the “consensus” value.
However, if the UN’s current “climate feedback factor” of 2.7 is included, then the climate
sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is not the 3C mentioned by Gore but 3.75C. The UN’s new
projected climate sensitivity approaches three times the value which is correct both in
physical law and by reference to the observed increase in temperature over the 20th century.
Direct observations from the last ice age
Direct observations from the last ice age were not possible. We were not here. Temperatures
and CO2 concentrations have been indirectly deduced from samples of air from former ages
locked in the ice of Greenland or Antarctica. The results do not provide a basis for reliable
estimates of the earth’s sensitivity to extra CO2: they show that increases in CO2 do not
precede increases in temperature – they follow it.
Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration
profiles from Vostok ice core samples covering 420,000 years, concluding that during
glaciation “the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and
"the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination.”
Using sections of ice core records from the last three inter-glacial transitions, Fischer et al.
(1999) decided that “the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to
temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial
transitions.”
On the basis of atmospheric carbon dioxide data obtained from Antarctic Taylor Dome ice
core samples, and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al.
(2000) looked at the relationship between these two variables over the period 60,000-20,000
years ago. A statistical test on the data showed that movement in the air’s CO2 content
lagged behind shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second
statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years.
Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from high time resolution
samples at the Antarctic Concordia Dome site, for the period 22,000-9,000 ago, covering the
last glacial-to-interglacial transition, Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2
increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years.
10
In yet another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-cores, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that
variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged behind variations in air temperature by
1,300 to 5,000 years.
In a study using different methodology, Yokoyama et al. (2000) analyzed sediments in the
tectonically stable Bonaparte Gulf of Australia to determine the timing of the initial melting
phase of the last great ice age.
Commenting on the results of that study, Clark and Mix (2000) note that the rapid rise in
sea level caused by the melting of land-based ice that began approximately 19,000 years ago
preceded the post-glacial rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 3,000 years.
Caillon et al. (2003) focused on an isotope of argon (40Ar) that can be taken as a climate
proxy, thus providing constraints about the relative timing of CO2 shifts and climate change.
Air bubbles in the Vostok ice core over the period that comprises Glacial Termination III -
which occurred 240,000 years ago - were studied. They found that “the CO2 increase lagged
behind Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years.”
We conclude that there is plentiful evidence in the scientific literature that increases in
atmospheric CO2 have followed increases in temperature in former ages and cannot have
been the cause of those increases. In this respect, ice-core studies can tell us no more than
that there may be a small climate feedback from increased atmospheric CO2 in response to
temperature.
Direct observations of the atmosphere’s response to volcanic eruptions
The most recent major volcanic eruption to have been observed directly was that of Mount
Pinatubo, in the Philippines, in June 1991. Sassen (1992) reported that cirrus clouds were
produced during the eruption, Lindzen et al. (2001) proposed that cirrus clouds might
provide a possible negative feedback that might partially counteract the positive feedbacks
assumed in the UN’s climate feedback factor.
Douglass and Knox (2005) considered this negative climate feedback in some detail: “We
determined the volcano climate sensitivity and response time for the Mount Pinatubo
eruption, using observational measurements of the temperature anomalies of the lower
troposphere, measurements of the long wave outgoing radiation, and the aerosol optical
density.” They reported “a short atmospheric response time, of the order of several months,
leaving no volcano effect in the pipeline, and a negative feedback to its forcing.”
They also note that the short intrinsic climate response time they derived (6.8 ± 1.5 months)
“confirms suggestions of Lindzen and Giannitsis (1998, 2002) that a low sensitivity and small
lifetime are more appropriate” than the "long response times and positive feedback"
assumed in the UN’s models. They conclude that “Hansen et al.'s hope that the dramatic
Pinatubo climate event would provide an ‘acid test’ of climate models has been fulfilled,
although with an unexpected result.”
Conclusion
We conclude, on the basis of a study of the UN’s own reports and of the academic literature
in the peer-reviewed scientific journals, that the UN may have failed to take negative climate
feedbacks sufficiently into account, there is no consensus among climate scientists on any of
the three classes of evidence for the UN’s estimate of climate sensitivity cited by Gore, and
that in all three classes – 20th-century observation, palaeoclimatological reconstruction and
studies of volcanic eruption – there is recent, frequent and compelling evidence in the
11
scientific literature that raises serious questions about the validity of the “consensus”
position.
And, despite Viscount Monckton’s recycled claims about the so-called “hockey stick”
graph (an old and worn-out hobby horse of the pollution lobby in the U.S.), this faux
controversy has long since been thoroughly debunked. The global warming deniers in
the U.S. were so enthusiastic about this particular canard that our National Academy of
Sciences eventually put together a formal panel, comprised of a broad range of scientists
including some of the most skeptical, which vindicated the main findings embodied in the
“hockey stick” and definitely rejected the claims Monckton is now recycling for British
readers.
No. In fact the committee of the National Research Council, (North et al., 2006), which
answers to the National Academies of Sciences and of Engineering, while confident that
today’s temperatures are warmer than at any time in the past 400 years, was “less
confident” about the UN “hockey-stick” graph’s abolition of the mediaeval warm period,
because of a lack of data before 1600 AD. The committee’s report criticized the methodology
of the authors of the “hockey-stick”, The committee notes explicitly, on pages 91 and 111,
that the method used in compiling the UN’s “hockey-stick” temperature graph has no
validation skill significantly different from zero. Methods without a validation skill are
usually considered useless.
Similar grounds for concern were listed in a report by three independent statisticians for the
US House of Representatives (Wegman et al., 2005), who found that the calculations behind
the “hockey-stick” graph were “obscure and incomplete”. Criticisms of the hockey-stick
summarized in my article came from papers in the learned journals: e.g. McIntyre and
McKitrick (2005). Wegman et al. (2005) found these criticisms “valid and compelling”. It
found that the scientists who had compiled the graph had not used statistical techniques
properly, and found no evidence that they had “had significant interactions with mainstream
statisticians”. It found that the scientists’ “sharing of research material, data and results was
haphazardly and grudgingly done.” It found that the peer review process, by which other
scientists are supposed to verify learned papers before publication, “was not necessarily
independent”. Finally, it found that the “hockey-stick” scientists’ “assessments that the
decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest
year of the millennium cannot be supported by their analysis”. It recommended that Statefunded
scientific research should be more carefully and independently peer-reviewed in
future, not only by the learned journals but also by the UN’s climate change panel. It
recommended that authors of the UN’s scientific assessments should not be the same as the
authors of the learned papers on which the UN relies; that State-funded scientists should
make their data and calculations openly and promptly available; and that statistical results
by scientists who were not statisticians should be peer-reviewed by statisticians.
The NAS stated that the late 20th century warming in the Northern Hemisphere was
unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years and probably for much longer than
that. They also noted that the finding has “subsequently been supported by an array of
evidence.”
No. In fact, North et al. (2006) said this: “Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based
reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, although the available proxy
evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than
during any other 25-year period since 900. Very little confidence can be placed in
statements about average global surface temperatures prior to A.D. 900 because the proxy
data for that time frame are sparse.” These quotations, taken from an executive summary
12
signed by all members of the committee that prepared the report, bear no relation to what
Gore says they said.
As to the “array of evidence” supporting the “hockey-stick” graph’s conclusion that there
was no mediaeval warm period – a conclusion which could not be properly drawn from the
methodology used to produce the graph itself – Wegman et al. (2005) said: “In our further
exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found
that at least 43 authors have direct ties to [the graph’s lead author] by virtue of coauthored
papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of
paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as
independent as they might appear on the surface.”
So, no matter how many charts or graphs the Viscount might want to create, the basic
facts remain the same. What the models have shown, unequivocally, is that carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases mainly released from industrial activities are
warming the planet.
My first article said: “There are more greenhouse gases in the air than there were, so the
world should warm a bit, but that’s as far as the ‘consensus’ goes.” There is no consensus at
all on how much warming there will be, or about whether or when it will be dangerous.
Models are of theoretical interest, but they are not definitive. Until recently they contained
“flux adjustments” – or fudge-factors – many times larger than the very small changes in
tropospheric radiant energy that are at issue.
Computer models are not capable of showing anything “unequivocally”: they are suitable
only for making projections, which may or may not prove reliable. The models upon which
the UN so heavily relied failed to predict either the timing or the magnitude of the El Nino
Southern Oscillation event in 1998. More recently they have failed to predict the sharp
cooling of the climate-relevant surface layer of the ocean that has occurred in the past two
years (Lyman, 2006).
Sixty Canadian scientists expert in climate and related fields, writing to the Canadian Prime
Minister earlier this year (Canada, 2006) said: “Observational evidence does not support
today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the
future.”
Dr. Vincent Gray, a research scientist and a reviewer working on the UN’s 2001 report
(IPCC, 2001) has noted, “The effects of aerosols, and their uncertainties, are such as to
nullify completely the reliability of any of the climate models.”
Freeman Dyson, an eminent physicist, said this in a talk to the American Physical Society
(Dyson, 1999): “The bad news is that the climate models on which so much effort is
expended is unreliable. The models are unreliable because they still use fudge-factors rather
than physics to represent processes occurring on scales smaller than the grid-size. … The
models fail to predict the marine stratus clouds that often cover large areas of ocean. The
climate models do not take into account the anomalous absorption of radiation revealed by
the Atmospheric Radiation Measurements. This is not a small error. If the ARM are correct,
the error in the atmospheric absorption of sunlight calculated by the climate models is about
28 watts per square metre, averaged over the whole Earth, day and night, summer and
winter. The entire effect of doubling the present abundance of carbon dioxide is calculated to
be about four watts per square metre. So the error in the models is much larger than the
global warming effect that the models are supposed to predict. Until the ARM were done,
the error was not detected, because it was compensated by fudge-factors that forced the
models to agree with the existing climate. Other equally large errors may still be hiding in
the models, concealed by other fudge-factors. Until the fudge-factors are eliminated and the
13
computer programs are solidly based on local observations and on the laws of physics, we
have no good reason to believe the predictions of the models. … They are not yet adequate
tools for predicting climate. … We must continue to warn the politicians and the public,
‘Don’t believe the numbers just because they come out of a supercomputer.’”
Eugene Parker, a leading solar physicist, has said: “The inescapable conclusion is that we
will have to know a lot more about the Sun and the terrestrial atmosphere before we can
understand the nature of the contemporary changes in climate. … In our present state of
ignorance it is not possible to assess the importance of individual factors. The biggest
mistake that we could make would be to think that we know the answers when we do not”
(Parker, 1999).
Scientists have also carefully examined the real world evidence (temperature change as
measured by air balloons, ground and satellite measurements, proxies like ice cores and
tree rings, for example) and have found that the models do indeed match the
observations.
Until last year, the observations did not even match each other. NASA (2005) said the trend
in satellite measurements of the lower troposphere (from the surface to about 5 miles up)
was just 0.08C per decade since 1979, but the trend in surface temperature measured on the
ground (NCDC, 2006) is twice that, 0.16C per decade in the same period. NASA (2005)
commented: “These differences are the basis for discussions over whether our knowledge of
how the atmosphere works might be in error, since the warming aloft in the troposphere
should be at least as strong as that observed at the surface.” More recently, however, NASA
has found that its satellite sensors had been pointing in the wrong direction. Satellite
tropospheric temperature trends now accord with those at the surface. Balloon temperatures
were also out of alignment with both surface and satellite temperatures for many years.
Recently, however, a correction has been made to the handling of the data and they now
conform.
Furthermore, the fact of warming does not tell us its cause. Though carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases are likely to be a contributing factor, they are not likely to be the
only factor, and may not even be the main one. Even if greenhouse gases are the sole factor,
there is no consensus about the UN’s projected warming trend for the future. Besides, as we
have shown, the models do not match the observed change in temperature, the discrepancy
is large, and there is no consensus either about the reason for the discrepancy or about
whether the discrepancy is real.
It is important to understand that there is not just one single strand of evidence leading
us to believe that global warming is occurring, but rather that all of the peer-reviewed
evidence, from scientists around the world, points in the same direction.
Mr. Gore says that all of the peer-reviewed evidence points in the same direction. A very
large proportion of it points in the opposite direction, as the papers listed here make plain.
For instance, Soon and Baliunas (2003) listed some 240 scientific papers in which a period of
at least 50 years of anomalous drought, rainfall or temperature were indicated at some time
during the mediaeval warm period. The authors of the “hockey-stick” graph angrily
dismissed Soon and Baliunas (2003) as irrelevant, but – whatever the paper’s faults – it
demonstrates that the “consensus” repeatedly claimed by the UN and its supporters is far
from real.
To be sure, not all of the finest workings of the climate system are yet fully understood to
the finest grain. However, all of the basics are absolutely clear. Global warming is real,
14
human activities are causing the problem, many of the solutions are available to us now,
it is not too late to avoid the worst, and all we need to get started solving the crisis is the
political will to act.
“Global Warming Is Real”, says Gore. Sixty leading climatologists and scientists in related
fields wrote to the Canadian Prime Minister (Canada, 2006): “Climate Change Is Real” is a
meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate change
catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global
climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes, and the human impact still remains
impossible to distinguish from the natural ‘noise’.”
For the third time Gore recites the already-agreed fact of warming. However, there is no
consensus on whether or to what degree human activities are causing “the problem”, or even
whether there is a problem. Global cooling, widely predicted in the 1970s, would have been
much more dangerous than warming. The unusual hot weather in mainland Europe killed
3,000 elderly Frenchmen a couple of years ago. Like so many other events, it was blamed on
global warming but was not caused by manmade climate change. It arose from natural
climate variability. The most recent cold snap in the UK killed 25,000 people.
This is what prompted the national academies of science in the 11 most influential
nations on the planet to come together to jointly call on every nation to “acknowledge
that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing.” They added that the “scientific
understanding of climate changes is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking
prompt action.”
The “scientific understanding” is so crude that the central question – by how much can the
temperature be expected to rise as a result of a given additional amount of greenhouse gas in
the atmosphere – has not been definitively established either empirically or theoretically. It
has been established by laboratory experiment that increased CO2 concentrations can cause
additional scattering of outgoing longwave radiation at the tropopause, but not at or near
the surface, and only at the fringes of one of the three principal absorption bands of CO2. It
has been established that the stratosphere is cooling, suggesting that less outgoing radiation
is emerging from the tropopause. But it is insufficiently clear whether or to what extent the
temperature increase since 1900 is attributable to anthropogenic as opposed to natural
factors, and it is not even clear by how much the temperature rose between 1900 and 1998
(NCDC US global mean temperature anomaly 0.3C, AccuWeather from land-based stations
0.45C, NCDC global mean 0.53C; UN 0.6C).
Scientists will continue to pose questions and answer them in the peer-reviewed literature
-- and I urge the public and policymakers in the U.K. to rely upon the best advice from
your premiere institutions ranging from the outstanding British Antarctic Survey, to the
Royal Society, the Met Office and the Hadley and Tyndall Centres for the decisions that
must be made.
The Royal Society no longer has an independent mind on climate change. With other
national scientific bodies, it has declared its deference to the UN, which continues to use the
defective and discredited “hockey-stick” graph in its current publications, and has not yet
apologized for it. My first article referred to the Hadley centre’s division of its temperature
projections by three to make them conform to 20th-century observation (IPCC, 2001, cited in
Lindzen, 2006). We shall quote the Tyndall Centre later.
15
In a second line of argument, Viscount Monckton also is concerned about the findings of
the Stern report. But let’s explore its conclusions: The report suggests that it will cost
more to allow global warming to continue unabated than it will to begin to take
thoughtful actions now. In other words, the impact on living standards could be quite
small, if rational, thoughtful policies were put into place and if government were to work
with industry to exploit the economic opportunities than if we allow global warming to
run amok.
The 2.1% discount rate used by Stern (2006), though not explicitly stated in his report, is less
than half the absolute minimum which a commercial organization would use when deciding
to invest. Also, Stern’s calculations have not followed the rule of economics that, when
deciding not only whether but also when to invest, there should be no investment until the net
present value is shown to be double the outlay (ref). Stern also assumes far more rapid
climate change even than the UN. By all these means, he exaggerates the economic rewards
of acting now and the costs of waiting. Correcting for these and other factors, the case for
substantial, immediate investment vanishes. In any event, since the fast-developing
economies such as China, India, Indonesia and Brazil excluded themselves from the scope of
the Nairobi post-Kyoto agreement, just as they excluded themselves from Kyoto itself, no
action which we take in the UK would make any noticeable difference to global temperature.
Even if the UK were to close down completely, and were to cease altogether to use energy,
operate industries or drive cars, the reduction in global temperature by 2035 would amount
to 0.006C. This negligible temperature saving would be more than outweighed by just a few
years’ further economic growth in the Kyoto-exempted, Nairobi-excused China, which
already has 30,000 coal mines, opens a new coal-mine every week and will continue to open a
new coal-fired power station every five days until 2012. If global warming is a problem, the
West, even acting collectively, can do nothing without the co-operation of China, India,
Indonesia, Brazil and other fast-emerging, fast-polluting economies.
That is why it is important for the UN and its followers, such as Gore, not to try to maintain
that bad science like the “hockey-stick” has been “vindicated” when the very document he
quotes as having “vindicated” it had in effect condemned it as useless. China and the other
awakening tigers will not be convinced of the need for action to curb carbon emissions unless
and until the UN produces science that is not only properly peer-reviewed (unlike the
“hockey-stick”) but also both transparent and honest.
Some of the policies detailed in the report include: increasing global public energy
research and development funding, dramatically reducing waste through energy
efficiency measures, expanding and linking emissions trading systems and carbon
markets, multiplying programs to reduce deforestation of natural areas such as
Amazonia, and continuing to set aggressive domestic and global targets to reduce the
pollution that causes global warming. None of these policy measures should cause
alarm.
Reversal of 20th-century deforestation, which I recommended in my second article, would get
us a quarter of the way towards CO2 stabilization. All the other measures mentioned by
Gore would make practically no difference.
The EU emissions trading system trades more emissions rights than are currently emitted,
contributes nothing to reducing CO2 emissions, and actually encourages the increases which
are happening across Europe.
16
The UK climate change levy taxes all forms of energy production equally, regardless of
whether or how much they emit CO2, and hence has everything to do with increasing
revenue and nothing to do with preventing climate change.
Global targets cannot be set without China and other mega-polluters. Aside from
deforestation, therefore, all Stern’s proposed policy measures – none of which is properly or
clearly costed - are mere extravagant gestures that, like the existing measures in place in the
UK and Europe, would cost much and achieve nothing.
In fact, not only are they rational, but also they have substantial co-benefits which
include increased air quality, improved access to energy among the rural poor in
developed countries, further independence from foreign sources of energy in volatile and
unstable regions of the world, and, of course, the obvious opportunities in the new
markets developing for low carbon technologies.
Air quality is a good aim, but in the UK we already have some of the cleanest air among
industrialized countries. The quickest improvement we could make in air quality would be
to go nuclear, like the French (who have little more than half the UK’s carbon footprint as a
result), and to close down coal-fired power stations, which the EPA in the US has estimated
cause some 37,000 premature deaths a year.
More energy for the rural poor is a good aim, but energy in the UK is supplied by a national
grid to all parts, urban or rural. Independence from foreign energy sources is good, but, for
almost all countries (including the UK), impossible.
“Low-carbon technologies” are a good aim (if CO2 is really a problem), but unless they
involve nuclear power they won’t produce enough energy to replace fossil-fuelled power
stations. Gore lists several attractive-sounding wishes, few of which – even if realizable
affordably or at all – would make a significant contribution to cutting CO2 emissions.
And with regards to some of the financial implications suggested by the Stern report, one
need only look to the insurance industry for validation of the potential costs of global
warming. On Wednesday, the reinsurance giant Munich Re reported, “driven by climate
change, weather related disasters could cost as much as a trillion dollars in a single year
by 2040.”
Whenever a corporation makes a public pronouncement on policy, it speaks in the hope of
gaining a commercial advantage. Insurance companies are aware that if enough panic about
climate change can be engendered they can hike their premiums, tell their customers that
this is a responsible and prudent precaution, and get rich on the proceeds in the near-certain
knowledge that they won’t have to pay out. As we shall show later, the spread of human
populations and settlements into the path of pre-existing climatic patterns has caused – and
will continue to cause – many times more expense to the insurance industry than climate
change.
The Stern report will not be the last economic analysis of the issue, but it certainly
provides an important contribution to the literature and sheds light on some of the major
concerns that policymakers must address.
For the reasons enumerated above, many serious economists regard Stern (2006) as
valueless. To take one example, Stern contains a lengthy chapter on how to arrive at the
appropriate discount rate for carrying out the central investment appraisal: yet the rate he
17
chose (but somehow failed to state) is fully described in a single page in the UK Treasury’s
“Green Book”. The chosen rate is no more than half the 4% real risk-free interest rate,
which would normally be the absolute minimum discount rate for a commercial project. The
Labour Government has been using the 2% rate for some years so as artificially to justify
the recent rapid expansion of the UK State sector.
The Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, who sadly died last week at the age of
94, calculated that the State consumes at least twice as many resources in doing any given
thing as the private sector. Stern (2006) does not advocate transferring most of the State’s
activities – hospitals, schools and council houses, say – to the private sector, notwithstanding
the substantial environmental benefits that would follow from the consequent and large
reduction in inefficiency and waste.
Sir Winston Churchill said, “One ought never to turn one’s back on a threatened danger
and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it
promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.”
First one must assess whether there is a danger. At present there is merely a scare, which
is not the same thing. Sir Winston Churchill also said: “It is a mistake to try to look too far
ahead. The chain of destiny can only be grasped one link at a time.” Climate, in the
formal, mathematical sense, is a chaotic object. It is the proven characteristic of
mathematically-chaotic objects that neither the magnitude nor the timing of their phasetransitions
(in environmentalese, “tipping points”) can be predicted (IPCC, 2001; Lorenz,
1963). There is simply too little information to allow us to look as far ahead as 100 years
and say with any degree of confidence how little or how much the world will warm.
As Lorenz (1963) put it in his landmark paper: “When our results concerning the
instability of non-periodic flow are applied to the atmosphere, which is ostensibly nonperiodic,
they indicate that prediction of the sufficiently distant future is impossible by any
method, unless the present conditions are known exactly. In view of the inevitable
inaccuracy and incompleteness of weather observations, precise, very-long-range weather
forecasting would seem to be non-existent.”
We learned this lesson again the hard way in the U.S. when we were warned that the
levees were about to break in New Orleans because of Hurricane Katrina and those
warnings were ignored. Later, a bipartisan group of members of Congress, chaired by
Representative Tom Davis, a Republican from Virginia, said in an official report: “The
White House failed to act on the massive amounts of information at its disposal.” This
bipartisan group added that a “blinding lack of situational awareness and disjointed
decision-making needlessly compounded and prolonged Katrina’s horror.”
For many years the Democrat Mayors of New Orleans and the Democrat-controlled city
administration and state legislature had failed and failed again to make the necessary
investment in strengthening the levees, based on the massive amount of information which
had been put before them time and time again by the city engineers. New Orleans,
administered by the Democrats, was a disaster waiting to happen.
There is extensive scientific literature on the lack of connection between hurricanes and
climate change. A review article on hurricanes and climate change (Pielke et al., 2005), found
that “globally there has been no increase in tropical cyclone frequency over at least the past
several decades.” Papers by Lander and Guard (1998), Elsner and Kocher (2000) and
Webster et al. (2005) are cited.
18
Furthermore, Pielke et al. point out, research on possible future changes in hurricane
frequency due to global warming has produced studies that “give such contradictory results
as to suggest that the state of understanding of tropical cyclogenesis provides too poor a
foundation to base any projections about the future.”
With respect to hurricane intensity, Emanual (2005) had found “a very substantial upward
trend in power dissipation [i.e., the sum over the life-time of the storm of the maximum wind
speed cubed] in the North Atlantic and western North Pacific.” However, Pielke et al. (2005)
found that “other studies that have addressed tropical cyclone intensity variations (Landsea
et al., 1999; Chan and Liu, 2004) show no significant secular trends during the decades of
reliable records.”
Also, although early theoretical work by Emanuel (1987) “suggested an increase of about
10% in wind speed for a 2C increase in tropical sea surface temperature,” more recent work
by Knutson and Tuleya (2004) points to only a 5% increase in hurricane windspeeds by
2080. Michaels et al. (2005) conclude that even this projection may be twice as great as it
should be.
People are now living in more exposed coastal locations and tornado alleys than hitherto. By
2050, for example, Pielke et al. (2000) report that “for every additional dollar in damage that
the IPCC expects to result from the effects of global warming on tropical cyclones, we should
expect between $22 and $60 of increase in damage due to population growth and wealth.”
Pielke et al. (2005) conclude that “The primary factors that govern the magnitude and
patterns of future damages and causalities are how society develops and prepares for storms
rather than any presently conceivable future changes in the frequency and intensity of the
storms.”
By contrast, the U.K. has, for years, stood as a world leader on global warming. When I
served as Vice President, I had the good fortune to work with both Tory and Labour
leaders in negotiating the Kyoto Protocol. In the 1980’s, when I was a Senator, I had the
privilege of working with Prime Minister Thatcher as she led the world in helping to
solve the threat to the stratospheric ozone layer.
Senator James Inhofe (Republican, Oklahoma) has told the Senate that even if all signatories
were to comply with Kyoto in full (most won’t) world temperature in 2100 would be onetwenty-
fifth of a degree Celsius lower than it would be if Kyoto had never happened. We
should not fool ourselves that feel-good, gesture politics such as the irrelevant Kyoto
Protocol will make any difference to the reality of the problem – if there is a problem. The
US Senate – during the administration of Bill Clinton and Al Gore – rightly voted
unanimously, 97-0, to reject Kyoto or any suchlike treaty that did not bear down upon
carbon emissions from all the nations of the world, including fast-developing countries like
China.
We shall certainly not be able to demand that the awakening tigers of the Third World
should deny themselves the economic growth whose benefits we already enjoy unless and
until the UN admits and apologizes for mistakes like the “hockey-stick” temperature graph,
ceases to use them in its current publications, and desists from peddling the flagrant and
baseless exaggerations which my articles have quantified and exposed.
Sixty Canadian scientists (Canada, 2006) wrote to tell their Prime Minister: “If, back in the
mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not
exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”
19
And today, although there are differences between the platforms, both of the U.K.’s
largest parties have issued strong statements about the need for action -- and your nation
has largely avoided the partisan bickering and downright denial that has stymied action
in the United States. This bipartisan comity is essential to rise to the challenges presented
by such a complex problem as the climate crisis.
Almost all recent decisions supported by both major parties – such as the decision in 1990
that the UK should join the European exchange-rate mechanism – have proven expensively
disastrous. However, the profound economic collapse which followed the decision to join the
ERM caused a fall in UK emissions of CO2 for four years, unexpectedly helping the UK to
come closer to meeting its Kyoto emissions target than most EU countries. Of the preexpansion
15 EU members bound by Kyoto, 13 are expected not to meet their targets.
On the evidence to date, the decision of the Conservative party to abandon its constitutional
duty of opposition to the costly but futile gestures proposed by the Government in mitigation
of supposed anthropogenic climate change may well prove as expensive as its catastrophic
decision in Government to attempt to repeal the laws of arithmetic by bringing the UK into
the ERM, but less likely to reduce CO2 emissions.
As your Parliament moves forward to debate legislation this session, it is essential that
you imagine this not solely as a scientific discussion or even a political dialogue, but as a
moral moment where we decide who we are as human beings, and what obligation to the
future we feel is appropriate for us to accept as part of our responsibility in this
generation. At stake is nothing less than the survival of human civilization and the
habitability of the earth for our species.
We have the opportunity here to avoid needlessly bickering with one another on the
editorial pages, and instead join together to experience what very few generations in
history have had the privilege of knowing---a generational mission, a compelling moral
purpose, a shared and unifying cause, and an opportunity to work together to choose a
future for which our children will thank us instead of cursing our failure to protect them
against a clear and present danger with equally clear and devastating future
consequences. By rising to meet this historic planetary emergency, we have the
opportunity to become not the selfish and self-destructive generation, but the next
Greatest Generation.
Numberwatch (2006) gives a long and well-referenced list of the wars, plagues, diseases,
deaths and extinctions which have been blamed on “global warming” in a similarly
apocalyptic fashion to Gore.
Sir John Houghton, who produced the IPCC's first three reports in 1990, 1995 and 2001, has
written (Houghton, 1994) : "Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.”
One of the UK’s leading “consensus” scientists (Hulme, 2006) has this to say about
exaggerated rhetoric of the sort which Gore uses here:
“Over the last few years a new environmental phenomenon has been constructed … - the
phenomenon of ‘catastrophic’ climate change. It seems that mere ‘climate change’ was not
going to be bad enough, and so now it must be ‘catastrophic’ to be worthy of attention. The
increasing use of this pejorative term - and its bedfellow qualifiers ‘chaotic’, ‘irreversible’,
‘rapid’ - has altered the public discourse around climate change.
20
“This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as ‘climate change is worse than we
thought’, that we are approaching ‘irreversible tipping in the Earth's climate’, and that we
are ‘at the point of no return’. I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change
campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied
their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric. It seems that it is we, the
professional climate scientists, who are now the (catastrophe) sceptics. How the wheel
turns!”
References
BARNETT, T.P., D.W. Pierce, K.M. AchutaRao et al. 2005. Penetration of human-induced warming into
the world’s oceans. Science 309: 284-287.
BRAITHWAITE, R.J. and Raper, S.C.B. 2002. Glaciers and their contribution to sea level
change. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 27: 1445-1454.
CAILLON, N., Severinghaus, J.P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J.-M., Kang, J. and Lipenkov, V.Y. 2003. Timing
of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science 299: 1728-1731.
CANADA. 2006. Letter from 60 scientists to the Canadian Prime Minister. 6 April. Text and signatories
below, or at http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-
4db87559d605
CHAN, J.C.L. and Liu, S.L. 2004. Global warming and western North Pacific typhoon activity from an
observational perspective. Journal of Climate 17: 4590-4602.
CLARK, P.U. and Mix, A.C. 2000. Ice sheets by volume. Nature 406: 689-690.
DOUGLASS, D.H. and Knox, R.S. 2005. Climate forcing by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo.
Geophysical Research Letters 32: 10.1029/2004GL022119.
DYSON, Freeman J. 1999. The Science and Politics of Climate Change. Address to the Centennial
Meeting of the American Physical Society, Atlanta, Georgia, 25 March.
ELSNER, J.B. and Kocher, B. 2000. Global tropical cyclone activity: A link to the North Atlantic
Oscillation. Geophysical Research Letters 27: 129-132.
EMANUEL, K. 1987. The dependence of hurricane intensity on climate. Nature 326: 483-485.
EMANUEL, K. 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 436:
686-688.
FISCHER, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck, B. 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric
CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712-1714.
21
FOLEY, Jonathan A., and Coe, Michael T. 2001. Decline of Lake Chad. Journal of Physical Research
(Biogeosciences): http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/04/0426_lakechadshrinks.html (reported
in National Geographic News).
HANSEN, J., Lacis, A., Ruedy, R. and Sato, M. 1992. Potential climate impact of Mount Pinatubo
eruption. Geophysical Research Letters 19: 215-218.
HANSEN, J., Nazarenko, L., Ruedy, R., Sato, M., Willis, J, Del Genio, A., Koch, D., Lacis, A., Lo, K.,
Menon, S., Novakov, T., Perlwitz, J., Russell, G., Schmidt, G., and Tausnev, N. 2006. Earth’s energy
imbalance: confirmation and implications. Science 308: 1431-1434.
HOUGHTON, Sir John. 1994. Global Warming: The Complete Briefing. Cambridge University Press,
London.
HOUGHTON, Sir John. 2002. Overview of the climate change issue. Presentation to “Forum 2002” at St.
Anne’s College, Oxford. www.jri.org.uk/resource/climatechangeoverview.htm.
HOUGHTON, Sir John. 2006. Replies to questions from Lord Monckton, Royal Society, London, 27
October.
HULME, M. 2006. Chaotic world of climate truth. BBC News Viewpoint, 4 November 2006. Available
from the Internet at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6115644.stm.
INDERMUHLE, A., Monnin, E., Stauffer, B. and Stocker, T.F. 2000. Atmospheric CO2 concentration
from 60 to 20 kyr BP from the Taylor Dome ice core, Antarctica. Geophysical Research Letters 27: 735-
738.
INQUA. 2000. Sea Level Changes, News and Views, The Maldives Project. Homepage of the commission
on sea level changes and coastal evolution, http://www.pog.su.se/sea.
IPCC. 1996. The Science of Climate Change: Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment
Report of the IPCC (eds. J. T. Houghton et al.), Cambridge University Press, London, 1996.
IPCC. 2001. Climate Change, The Scientific Basis, Cambridge University Press, London, 2001.
KEELING, C.D., and Whorf, T.P. 2004. Trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa, Hawaii.
Carbon Dioxide Research Group, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla,
California 92093-0444, U.S.A.
KNUTSON, T.R. and Tuleya, R.E. 2004. Impact of CO2-induced warming on simulated hurricane
intensity and precipitation: Sensitivity to the choice of climate model and convective parameterization.
Journal of Climate 17: 3477-3495.
LANDER, M.A. and Guard, C.P. 1998. A look at global tropical cyclone activity during 1995:
Contrasting high Atlantic activity with low activity in other basins. Monthly Weather Review 126: 1163-
1173.
LANDSEA, C.W., Pielke Jr., R.A., Mestas-Nunez, A.M. and Knaff, J.A. 1999. Atlantic basin hurricanes:
Indices of climatic changes. Climatic Change 42: 89-129.
LEVITUS, S.J., Antonov, J, and Boyer, T. 2005. Warming of the world ocean 1955 – 2003. Geophysical
Research Letters 32: L02604, doi:10.1029/2004GL021592
22
LINDZEN, R.S. and Giannitsis, C. 1998. On the climatic implications of volcanic cooling. Journal of
Geophysical Research 103: 5929-5941.
LINDZEN, R.S., Chou, M.-D. and Hou, A.Y. 2001. Does the earth have an adaptive infrared
iris? Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 82: 417-432.
LINDZEN, R.S. and Giannitsis, C. 2002. Reconciling observations of global temperature change.
Geophysical Research Letters 29: 10.1029/2001GL014074.
LINDZEN, R. 2006. Article on climate change. Sunday Telegraph, London, 30 October.
LORENZ, Edward N. 1963. Deterministic nonperiodic flow. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 20:
130-141.
LYMAN, John M., Willis, J.K., and Johnson, G.C. 2006. Recent cooling of the upper ocean. Geophysical
Research Letters, 33: L18604, doi:10.1029/2006GL027033.
MANN, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K. 1998. Global-Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate
Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries. Nature 392: 779-787.
MANN, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K. 1999. Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past
Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations. Geophysical Research Letters 26: 759-762.
MANN, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K. 2004. Corrigendum. Nature, 1 July 2004, p. 105.
McINTYRE, Stephen and McKitrick, Ross. 2005. Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious
significance. Geophysical Research Letters, 32: L03710, doi: 10.1029/2004GL021750.
MICHAELS, P.J., Knappenberger, P.C. and Landsea, C.W. 2005. Comments on "Impacts of CO2-induced
warming on simulated hurricane intensity and precipitation”: Sensitivity to the choice of climate model
and convective scheme. Journal of Climate.
MOBERG, A., Sonechkin, D.M., Holmgren, K., Datsenko, N.M., Karlen, W., Lauritzen, S.E. 2005.
Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low and high-resolution proxy
data. Nature 433: 613-617.
MONNIN, E., Indermühle, A., Dällenbach, A., Flückiger, J, Stauffer, B., Stocker, T.F., Raynaud, D. and
Barnola, J.-M. 2001. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last glacial termination. Science 291:
112-114.
MORNER, N.-A. 1973. Eustatic changes during the last 300 years. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,
Palaeoecology 9: 153-181.
MORNER, N.-A. 1995. Recorded sea level variability in the Holocene and expected future changes. In:
Eisma, D. (Ed.), Climate Change: Impact on Coastal Habitation, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 17-28.
MORNER, N.-A. 2000. Sea level changes along Western Europe. In: Integrated Coastal Zone
Management, 2nd ed., IPC Publishing, London and Hong Kong, 33-37.
MORNER, N.-A. 2004. Estimating future sea level changes from past records. Global and Planetary
Change 40: 49-54.
23
MUDELSEE, M. 2001. The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice
volume over the past 420 ka. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 583-589.
MUNK, W. 2003. Ocean freshening, sea level rising. Science 300: 2041-2043.
NASA. 2006. Satellite-measured global mean stratospheric and lower-tropospheric air temperatures.
Updated monthly at http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html.
NCDC. 2006. Global annual land and ocean mean temperature anomalies. Data available for download
from the Internet at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-
2000mean.dat.
NORTH, Gerald R., Biondi, F., Bloomfield, P., Christy, J.R., Cuffey, K, Dickinson, R.E., Druffel, E.R.M.,
Nychka, D., Otto-Bliesner, B., Roberts, N., Turekian, K.K., and Wallace, J.M. 2006. Surface temperature
reconstructions for the last 2,000 years. National Research Council of the National Academies of Science
and Engineering, Division on Earth and Life Studies, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate,
Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years. National Academies Press,
Washington.
NUMBERWATCH. 2006. Referenced list of events blamed on global warming. Available for download
from the Internet at http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
PARKER, E.N. 1999. Climate change. Nature 399: 416.
PETIT, J.R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Barkov, N.I., Barnola, J.-M., Basile, I., Bender, M., Chappellaz, J.,
Davis, M., Delaygue, G., Delmotte, M., Kotlyakov, V.M., Legrand, M., Lipenkov, V.Y., Lorius, C., Pepin,
L., Ritz, C., Saltzman, E., and Stievenard, M. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000
years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436.
PIELKE Jr., R.A., Landsea, C., Mayfield, M., Laver, J. and Pasch, R. 2005. Hurricanes and global
warming. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 86: 1571-1575.
PIELKE Jr., R.A. and Pielke Sr., R.A. 1997. Hurricanes: Their Nature and Impacts on Society. John
Wiley and Sons.
PIELKE Jr., R.A., Pielke, Sr., R.A., Klein, R. and Sarewitz, D. 2000. Turning the big knob: Energy policy
as a means to reduce weather impacts. Energy and Environment 11: 255-276.
PIRAZZOLI, P.A., Grant, D.R. and Woodworth, P. 1989. Trends of relative sea-level changes: past,
present, future. Quaternary International 2: 63-71.
POLISSAR, P.J., Abbott, M.B., Wolfe, A.P., Bezada, M., Rull, V., and Bradley, R.S. 2006. Solar
modulation of Little Ice Age climate in the tropical Andes. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 10.1073/pnas.0603118103.
SASSEN, K. 1992. Evidence for liquid-phase cirrus cloud formation from volcanic aerosols: Climate
indications. Science 257: 516-519.
SOON, W. and Baliunas, S. 2003. Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years.
Climate Research 23: 80-110.
STERN, Sir Nicholas. 2006. Report of the Review on the Economics of Climate Change. HM Treasury,
London.
24
SVENSMARK, H., Pedersen, J, et al. 2006. Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle
nucleation under atmospheric conditions, Proceedings of the Royal Society A. London, October 2006:
www.spacecenter.dk
TAYLOR, Dr. Mitchell. 2006. Last stand of our wild polar bears. Government of Nunavut, Igloolik,
Nunavat, Canada, May 1.
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Taylor/last_stand_of_our_wild_polar_bears.html.
van der VEEN, C.J. 2002. Polar ice sheets and global sea level: how well can we predict the
future? Global and Planetary Change 32: 165-194.
WEBSTER, P.J., Holland, G.J., Curry, J.A. and Chang, H.-R. 2005. Changes in tropical cyclone number,
duration and intensity in a warming environment. Science 309: 1844-1846.
WEGMAN, Edward J., Scott, D.W., and Said, Yasmin H. 2005. Ad Hoc Committee Report to the
Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and to the Chairman of the House
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on the “Hockey-Stick” global climate reconstruction. US
House of Representatives. Available for download from the Internet at
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
YOKOYAMA, Y., Lambeck, K., Deckker, P.D., Johnston, P. and Fifield, L.K. 2000. Timing of the Last
Glacial Maximum from observed sea-level minima. Nature 406: 713-716.
60 climate scientists’ letter to the Canadian Prime
Minister
6 April 2006
* Sixty eminent scientists in climate and related fields disagree strongly with the “consensus” which Gore
and other supporters of the UN say is unanimous. This is the text of the strongly-worded letter which they
wrote to the Canadian Prime Minister on 6 April 2006.
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRIME MINISTER STEPHEN HARPER
cc. Hon. Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment; Hon. Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources
“Dear Prime Minister, - As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to
propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific
foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your
recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same
suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal,
independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars
earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of
recent developments in climate science.
25
“Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust
model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting
Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the
climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or
other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant.
Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most
prudent and responsible course of action.
“While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for
sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change
is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be
many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant
advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern
about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate,
Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.
“We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the
loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased
consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climatescience
community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate
scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will
be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the
economy.
“‘Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a
climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate
changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish
from this natural ‘noise.’ The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water
pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to ‘stopping climate change’ would be irrational. We need
to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens
adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.
“We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole
story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming
alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science
continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with
predetermined political agendas. We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand
willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.”
Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences,
University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of
Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently
adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University,
Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth
Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of
Climate Research and Natural Hazards
26
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury,
Ont.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics
and geology
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), FRMS, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO
Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in
Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member,
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London,
Ont.
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate
change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University,
Halifax
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World
Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta
Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ontario.
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants,
Surrey, B.C.
Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary.
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ontario.
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and
Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past
president, American Association of State Climatologists
27
Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of
Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville,
Australia
Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre,
Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization
Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience
Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University,
Stockholm, Sweden
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of
Alabama, Huntsville
Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State
University, St. Cloud, Minn.
Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of
Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert
reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for
Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy &
Environment
Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands
Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist,
Kansas Geological Survey
Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief
meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand
28
Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of
'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.
Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut
Dr. Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores
University, U.K.
Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.
Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University
of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural
Disasters, 1994-2000
Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director,
U.S. Weather Satellite Service
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht
University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal
Netherlands Geological & Mining Society
Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering,
The Ohio State University
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in
Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official
IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former
professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology,
Stockholm University, Sweden
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.
Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.
Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past
board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public
health
Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
29
Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley (born 14
February 1952) is a former British journalist.
The eldest son of the 2nd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Monckton was educated at
Harrow School, Churchill College, Cambridge and University College, Cardiff. He joined
the Yorkshire Post in 1974 and then worked as a press officer at the Conservative Central
Office from 1977–79. In 1979, he became the editor of the Catholic newspaper The
Universe, and the managing editor of The Sunday Telegraph's Magazine in 1981.
In 1983 he returned to the Conservative offices again, this time as Margaret Thatcher's
policy adviser. Three years later, he became assistant editor of the newly-formed
newspaper, Today. His final job in journalism was as a consulting editor of the Evening
Standard from 1987–92.
Monckton was a director of his own, namesake consultancy company, Christopher
Monckton Ltd., between 1987 and 2006, when he retired through ill health. He is also a
member of the Worshipful Company of Broderers, an Officer of the Order of St. John of
Jerusalem and a Knight of Honour and Devotion of the Sovereign Military Order of
Malta. Upon the death of his father in 2006, Monckton inherited his title.
Gore Gored
A Science-based response to Al Gore’s
Global Warming Commentary in London’s
Sunday Telegraph
19 November 2006
By
Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
CSPP Reprint series
The Center for Science and Public Policy
Washington, D.C.
Robert Ferguson, Exc. Dir.
202-454-5249
http://www.scienceandpolicy.org
bferguson@ff.org
November, 2006
2
Gentle reader,
In this commentary on Al Gore’s Sunday Telegraph article of 19
November 2006 responding to my articles of 5 and 12
November on climate change, Gore’s full text is full-out in
Roman face [italics]. Comments are indented in bold face.
Readers may check the elementary calculations with a
scientific calculator. The calculations use the simple formulae
provided by the UN as derivations from the complex
atmosphere-ocean general-circulation computer models upon
which it heavily relies in the absence of hard, climatic data.
References to scientific papers in support of the commentary
are listed at the end.
Monckton of Brenchley
monckton@mail.com
19 November 2006
3
Concluding Findings
ALL TEN of the propositions listed below must be proven
true if the climate-change “consensus” is to be regarded as
true. We conclude as follows:
A Note on References used herein
Mr. Gore says one should rely upon evidence from the scientific
journals, not from Viscounts. And not, one might add, from
films. Nearly all references are from the scientific journals. The
references to the UN’s assessment reports are among the few
from sources other than the learned journals. In particular, Mr.
Gore has recommended reliance upon Science, upon Nature and
upon Geophysical Research Letters. Many of the references
listed here are from those three journals.
Proposition Conclusion
1. That the debate is over and all credible climate scientists are agreed. Demonstrably false
2. That temperature has risen above millennial variability and is exceptional. Very unlikely
3. That changes in solar irradiance are an insignificant forcing mechanism. Demonstrably false
4. That the last century’s increases in temperature are correctly measured. Unlikely
5. That greenhouse-gas increase is the main forcing agent of temperature. Not proven
6. That temperature will rise far enough to do more harm than good. Very unlikely
7. That continuing greenhouse-gas emissions will be very harmful to life. Unlikely
8. That proposed carbon-emission limits would make a definite difference. Very unlikely
9. That the environmental benefits of remediation will be cost-effective. Very unlikely
10. That taking precautions, just in case, would be the responsible course. Demonstrably false
4
Gore: (italics throughout)
FORMER colleague of mine in the US Senate, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
once said, “Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to
their own facts.” I was reminded of this upon reading the Viscount Monckton of
Brenchley’s two submissions to the Sunday Telegraph.
Monckton: (bold, indented throughout)
That global warming is likely to cause harm rather than good is an opinion, to which Gore is
entitled. That there is no scientific consensus as to the rightness of that opinion is a fact, to
which all are entitled. I have received some 500 emails in response to my two articles, a large
response given that readers who wanted to contact me had to find my email address via the
Telegraph website. In addition, the posting of the article on the website received 127,000 hits
– a near record - before the link crashed. Of the emails, about one-third were from scientists
in climate physics and related fields, including tenured professors, solar physicists, forestry
specialists, government environmental scientists, and even a particle-physicist from CERN
reporting its upcoming research to test the theories of Svensmark et al. (2006) about cosmic
rays and cloud formation, suggesting a considerably larger role for the Sun in warming than
the UN allows. About 95% of the 500 emails I received, and very nearly all the emails from
scientists, were strongly supportive of the conclusions which I had reached: namely, that
global warming is probably harmless, and that, if not, even if we in the UK stopped using
energy altogether the effect on future temperature would be negligible.
To begin with, there is a reason why new scientific research is peer-reviewed and then
published in journals such as Science, Nature, and the Geophysical Research Letters,
rather than the broadsheets. The process is designed to ensure that trained scientists
review the framing of the questions that are asked, the research and methodologies used
to pursue the answers offered, and even, in some cases, to monitor the funding of the
laboratories – all in order to ensure that errors and biases are detected and corrected
before reaching the public.
There were some 90 references to learned papers in the scientific journals in the document
supporting my article on the science of climate change that was posted on the Telegraph’s
website. This commentary, too, is supported by a substantial list of some 60 references to
learned papers in journals including the three mentioned by Gore. The many journal
references (hundreds more could have been cited) demonstrate that there is no scientific
consensus that the effect of increased greenhouse-gas concentrations on the climate will be as
serious as the UN’s reports suggest. But I shall also take some references from the UN’s
assessment reports, with apologies that they are more political and less scientific than the
papers in the journals. The Summaries for Policymakers at the head of each of the UN’s
reports are written not by scientists at all but by the political representatives of
governments. There is repeated evidence of substantial and significant departures from the
science in these political Summaries. In every instance, the discrepancies move in the
direction of overstating and exaggerating the supposed problem even more than the
scientific sections.
A
5
That level of scrutiny is typically not applied to newspaper columns of course, but since
the stakes are so high in the debate over the climate crisis I would like to review here just
a few of the misleading claims in Viscount Monckton’s submissions to illustrate my belief
that readers of The Telegraph should rely upon more reliable and authoritative sources
than the Viscount for information on the latest climate science.
That level of scrutiny is typically not applied to books or films, of course, but since the stakes
are so high in the debate over the climate “crisis” I should like to review here just a few of
the misleading claims in Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth, to illustrate my belief that
cinema-goers should rely upon more reliable and authoritative sources than Gore for
information on the latest climate science. Here is Senator James Inhofe’s list of some of
Gore’s scientific errors:
· Gore promoted the now-debunked “hockey stick” temperature chart for the past 1,000
years in an attempt to prove man’s overwhelming impact on the climate, and attempted
to debunk the significance of the mediaeval warm period and little ice age (for discussion
and references, see below).
· Gore insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that
most sciences believe does not exist (for discussion and references, see below).
· Gore asserted that today’s Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring
that temperatures in the 1930’s were as warm or warmer (NCDC, 2006);
· Gore said the Antarctic was warming and losing ice but failed to note, that is only true
of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice (see my first article).
· Gore hyped unfounded fears that Greenland’s ice is in danger of disappearing (for
discussion and references, see below).
· Gore erroneously claimed that ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to global
warming, though satellite measurements show no temperature change at the summit,
and the peer-reviewed scientific literature suggests that desiccation of the atmosphere in
the region caused by post-colonial deforestation is the cause of the glacial recession (see
my first article).
· Gore made assertions of massive future sea level rise that is way out side of any
supposed scientific “consensus” and is not supported in even the most alarmist literature
(for discussion and references, see below).
· Gore incorrectly implied that a Peruvian glacier's retreat is due to global warming,
while ignoring the fact that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other
glaciers in South America are advancing (see Polissar et al., 2005, for an interesting
discussion of glaciers in the tropical Andes).
· Gore blamed global warming for water loss in Africa's Lake Chad, though NASA
scientists had concluded that local water-use and grazing patterns are probably to blame
(Foley and Coe, 2001).
· Gore inaccurately said polar bears are drowning in significant numbers due to melting
ice when in fact 11 of the 13 main groups in Canada are thriving, and there is evidence
that the only groups that are not thriving are in a region of the Arctic that has cooled
(Taylor, 2006).
6
· Gore did not tell viewers that the 48 scientists whom he quoted as having accused
President Bush of distorting science were part of a political advocacy group set up to
support the Democrat Presidential candidate, John Kerry, in 2004.
Gore is now an adviser to the UK Government on climate change.
First, Monckton claims that Dr. James Hansen of NASA said that the temperature would
rise by 0.3C and that the sea level would rise by several feet. But Hansen did not say that
at all, and the claim that he did is extremely misleading. In fact, Dr. Hansen presented
three scenarios to the U.S. Senate (high, medium, and low). He explained that the middle
scenario was “most plausible” and, as it turned out, the middle scenario was almost
exactly right.
Hansen’s three scenarios, presented to Congress during the very hot summer of 1988,
projected global mean temperature increases of 0.3C, 0.25C and 0.45C respectively in the 12
years to 2000: an average of 0.33C. But 0.06C was the actual increase (NCDC, 2006). I fairly
said 0.3C and 0.1C.
As to sea levels, I corrected this point in my second article. Mean sea level is difficult to
measure. It probably rose by less than 1 inch between 1988 and 2000; the rate of increase – 1
inch every 15 years – has not risen for a century; and there is little reason to suppose that the
rate of increase should accelerate. Morner (2004), who has spent a lifetime in the study of
sea levels, provides an “official evaluation of the sea-level changes that are to be expected in
the near future.” He finds that “sea level records are now dominated by the irregular
redistribution of water masses over the globe ... primarily driven by variations in ocean
current intensity and in the atmospheric circulation system and maybe even in some
deformation of the gravitational potential surface.”
Morner says: “The mean eustatic rise in sea level for the period 1850-1930 was in the order
of 1.0-1.1 mm/year,” but that “after 1930-40, this rise seems to have stopped (Pirazzoli et al.,
1989; Morner, 1973, 2000).” This stasis, in his words, “lasted, at least, up to the mid-
60s.” Thereafter, “the record can be divided into three parts: (1) 1993-1996 with a clear
trend of stability, (2) 1997-1998 with a high-amplitude rise and fall recording the ENSO
event of these years and (3) 1998-2000 with an irregular record of no clear tendency.” Most
important of all, in his words, “There is a total absence of any recent ‘acceleration in sea
level rise’ as often claimed by IPCC and related groups.”
He concludes: “When we consider past records, recorded variability, causational processes
involved and the last century’s data, our best estimate of possible future sea-level changes is
+10 +/- 10cm in a century, or, maybe, even +5 +/- 15cm.” See also Morner (1995); INQUA
(2000).
Van der Veen (2002) intended “to evaluate the applicability of accumulation and ablation
models on which predicted ice-sheet contributions to global sea level are based, and to assess
the level of uncertainty in these predictions arising from uncertain model parameters.” He
concluded that “the validity of the parameterizations used by glaciological modeling studies
to estimate changes in surface accumulation and ablation under changing climate conditions
has not been convincingly demonstrated.”
Munk (2003) says: “Surveys of glaciers, ice sheets, and other continental water storage can
place only very broad limits of -1 to +1 mm/year on sea level rise from freshwater export.” It
is not known how the cryosphere will respond to global warming.
7
Braithwaite and Raper (2002) analyze mountain glaciers and ice caps, excluding the
Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. They begin by saying: “The temperature sensitivity of
sea level rise depends upon the global distribution of glacier areas, the temperature
sensitivity of glacier mass balance in each region, the expected change of climate in each
region, and changes in glacier geometry resulting from climate change.” They end by
reporting that “None of these are particularly well known at present,” and they conclude
that “glacier areas, altitudes, shape characteristics and mass balance sensitivity are still not
known for many glacierized regions and ways must be found to fill gaps.”
Monckton goes on to level a serious accusation at all the scientists involved in the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, claiming that they have "repealed a
fundamental physical law" and as a result have misled the people of the world by
exaggerating the sensitivity of the Earth’s climate to extra carbon dioxide. If this were
true, the entire global scientific community would owe Monckton a deep debt of gratitude
for cleverly discovering a gross and elementary mistake that had somehow escaped the
attention of all the leading experts in the field.
Here and elsewhere, I shall not respond to ad hominem remarks, but shall comment only ad
rem. As will be shown below, the shortfall between the observed 20th-century temperature
increase of 0.45 to 0.6C and the 20th-century increase of 1.6 to 3.75C that would have been
expected from the projections made by the models upon which the UN relies is unwarranted
either in the laws of physics or in the 20th-century global mean surface air temperature
record. This shortfall between reality and the UN’s projections is well established in the
scientific literature (see, for instance, Hansen, 2006), though until my article was published it
was not known to the public. There is certainly no scientific consensus on the reason for the
very substantial discrepancy. Some, such as the Hadley Centre (IPCC 2001, quoted by
Lindzen, 2006) blame pollutant aerosols for reflecting some of the Sun’s radiance back to
space. Others (such as Barnett, 2005, or Levitus, 2005), say the oceans are acting as a heatsink.
If there is in fact no good reason for the discrepancy between reality and projection,
and if – as I am by no means alone in thinking - the UN’s models are simply over-projecting
the likely temperature effects of elevated greenhouse gas concentrations, then the UN’s
projections of future temperature increases may be around three times greater than they
should be.
But again, this charge is also completely wrong, and it appears in this case to spring
from the Viscount’s failure to understand that these complex, carefully constructed
supercomputer climate models not only have built into them the physical law he thinks he
has discovered is missing, but also many others that he doesn’t mention, including the
fundamentally important responses of water vapor, ice and clouds that act to increase the
effects of extra carbon dioxide.
The laws of physics say the increase in temperature is 0.3C for every additional watt per
square metre of temperature. The UN says 0.5C (IPCC 2001). Several physicists have
confirmed my result, which readers may like to check for themselves using a scientific
calculator. The necessary equation is –
T = [E / (ε.Ï)]1/4 – 273.15 (Stefan-Boltzmann equation).
Earth/troposphere emissivity ε is about 0.614. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant, Ï, is 5.67 x
10-8. Using these values, calculate T for successive values E0 = 236wm-2 (Houghton, 2002) and
E = 237wm-2. Since T0 = 13.79C and T = 14.09C, for a forcing of 1wm-2, the change in
temperature is T – T0 = 0.3C, as stated in my article, and not the 0.5C implicit in the UN’s
1996 report (IPCC, 1996) and stated in the 2001 report (IPCC, 2001).
8
Both in my article and in the supporting discussion document and calculations, I explicitly
mentioned climate feedbacks from water vapour and ice-melt. I did not mention climate
feedbacks from clouds because, as the UN itself says, even the direction of the change in
radiative forcing and hence in temperature caused by clouds is not known (IPCC 2001). I
explained that the UN’s reason for using a figure nearly twice what the laws of physics
mandate for the increase in temperature for each watt of additional forcing was to
incorporate an allowance for climate feedbacks.
However, I demonstrated that, if one assumed that the UN’s positive climate feedbacks were
matched by negative feedbacks, the observed climate response over the 98 years 1900-1998
was identical to the climate sensitivity projected by use of the UN’s greenhouse-gas forcing
equation. In short, there is no direct observational evidence in the 20th-century global mean
surface air temperature record that any allowance at all should be made for climate
feedbacks in response to temperature increases arising from elevated greenhouse-gas
concentrations in the atmosphere. As will be seen, the implications for forward projections
of temperature increase are substantial.
Moreover, direct observations from the 20th century, from the last ice age and from the
atmosphere’s response to volcanic eruptions, all give estimates of the earth’s sensitivity
to extra CO2 that are exactly in line with model results (around a 3 degrees Celsius
warming for a doubling of the CO2 concentration).
The UN’s projection for the radiative forcing effect of CO2 is calculable from the following
equation:
dECO2 = z ln(C / C0) wm-2
(IPCC 2001).
For simplicity, we shall amend this equation to allow for all greenhouse gases, and for
climate feedbacks. Note that all other forcings in the UN’s table (IPCC, 2001), such as those
from black carbon, the Sun, reflective aerosols etc., are shown as minor, little-understood
and broadly self-cancelling. Thus -
dE = f g z ln(C / C0) wm-2 where -
dE is the change in radiance at the tropopause (IPCC 2001, ch.6), for all g.h.g. forcings and
feedbacks;
f is the UN’s “climate feedback factor” of 1.7 (implicit in IPCC 2001); raised to 2.7
(Houghton, 2006);
g is the UN’s “all-greenhouse-forcings” factor of 1.664, falling by 2100 to 1.25 (IPCC
2001);
z is the carbon-dioxide forcing coefficient of 6.3 (IPCC 1996); reduced to 5.35 (IPCC
2001).
C is the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1998, i.e. 365ppmv (Keeling & Whorf,
2004);
C0 is the atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1900; i.e. 292ppmv (IPCC 2001).
Therefore the UN’s current best estimate of the additional radiant energy in the atmosphere
resulting from all radiative forcings caused by elevated concentrations of CO2 and all other
9
greenhouse gases, and fully taking account of all climate feedbacks resulting from the
forcings, may be calculated –
2.7 x 1.664 x 5.35 ln(365 / 292) = 5.36 wm-2
The UN gives observed centennial temperature change as 0.6C, equivalent to 1.98wm-2. So
projected figure of 5.36wm-2 derived from the UN’s model results using the UN’s own
formula and coefficients projects a sensitivity to extra CO2 that is not exactly or even
approximately in line with observation, but is in fact 2.7 times greater than what was
actually observed.
Interestingly, without the UN’s “climate feedback factor” there would be no over-projection
in the 20th-century calculation. Then the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 (assuming
the UN’s suggested fall in the all-forcings factor from 1.664 in 1998 to 1.25 by 2100) would
be:
1.0 x 1.250 x 5.35 ln(2) = 4.64 wm-2,
equivalent to 1.4C. This less than half the 3C mentioned by Gore as the “consensus” value.
However, if the UN’s current “climate feedback factor” of 2.7 is included, then the climate
sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is not the 3C mentioned by Gore but 3.75C. The UN’s new
projected climate sensitivity approaches three times the value which is correct both in
physical law and by reference to the observed increase in temperature over the 20th century.
Direct observations from the last ice age
Direct observations from the last ice age were not possible. We were not here. Temperatures
and CO2 concentrations have been indirectly deduced from samples of air from former ages
locked in the ice of Greenland or Antarctica. The results do not provide a basis for reliable
estimates of the earth’s sensitivity to extra CO2: they show that increases in CO2 do not
precede increases in temperature – they follow it.
Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration
profiles from Vostok ice core samples covering 420,000 years, concluding that during
glaciation “the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and
"the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination.”
Using sections of ice core records from the last three inter-glacial transitions, Fischer et al.
(1999) decided that “the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to
temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial
transitions.”
On the basis of atmospheric carbon dioxide data obtained from Antarctic Taylor Dome ice
core samples, and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al.
(2000) looked at the relationship between these two variables over the period 60,000-20,000
years ago. A statistical test on the data showed that movement in the air’s CO2 content
lagged behind shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second
statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years.
Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from high time resolution
samples at the Antarctic Concordia Dome site, for the period 22,000-9,000 ago, covering the
last glacial-to-interglacial transition, Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2
increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years.
10
In yet another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-cores, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that
variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged behind variations in air temperature by
1,300 to 5,000 years.
In a study using different methodology, Yokoyama et al. (2000) analyzed sediments in the
tectonically stable Bonaparte Gulf of Australia to determine the timing of the initial melting
phase of the last great ice age.
Commenting on the results of that study, Clark and Mix (2000) note that the rapid rise in
sea level caused by the melting of land-based ice that began approximately 19,000 years ago
preceded the post-glacial rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 3,000 years.
Caillon et al. (2003) focused on an isotope of argon (40Ar) that can be taken as a climate
proxy, thus providing constraints about the relative timing of CO2 shifts and climate change.
Air bubbles in the Vostok ice core over the period that comprises Glacial Termination III -
which occurred 240,000 years ago - were studied. They found that “the CO2 increase lagged
behind Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years.”
We conclude that there is plentiful evidence in the scientific literature that increases in
atmospheric CO2 have followed increases in temperature in former ages and cannot have
been the cause of those increases. In this respect, ice-core studies can tell us no more than
that there may be a small climate feedback from increased atmospheric CO2 in response to
temperature.
Direct observations of the atmosphere’s response to volcanic eruptions
The most recent major volcanic eruption to have been observed directly was that of Mount
Pinatubo, in the Philippines, in June 1991. Sassen (1992) reported that cirrus clouds were
produced during the eruption, Lindzen et al. (2001) proposed that cirrus clouds might
provide a possible negative feedback that might partially counteract the positive feedbacks
assumed in the UN’s climate feedback factor.
Douglass and Knox (2005) considered this negative climate feedback in some detail: “We
determined the volcano climate sensitivity and response time for the Mount Pinatubo
eruption, using observational measurements of the temperature anomalies of the lower
troposphere, measurements of the long wave outgoing radiation, and the aerosol optical
density.” They reported “a short atmospheric response time, of the order of several months,
leaving no volcano effect in the pipeline, and a negative feedback to its forcing.”
They also note that the short intrinsic climate response time they derived (6.8 ± 1.5 months)
“confirms suggestions of Lindzen and Giannitsis (1998, 2002) that a low sensitivity and small
lifetime are more appropriate” than the "long response times and positive feedback"
assumed in the UN’s models. They conclude that “Hansen et al.'s hope that the dramatic
Pinatubo climate event would provide an ‘acid test’ of climate models has been fulfilled,
although with an unexpected result.”
Conclusion
We conclude, on the basis of a study of the UN’s own reports and of the academic literature
in the peer-reviewed scientific journals, that the UN may have failed to take negative climate
feedbacks sufficiently into account, there is no consensus among climate scientists on any of
the three classes of evidence for the UN’s estimate of climate sensitivity cited by Gore, and
that in all three classes – 20th-century observation, palaeoclimatological reconstruction and
studies of volcanic eruption – there is recent, frequent and compelling evidence in the
11
scientific literature that raises serious questions about the validity of the “consensus”
position.
And, despite Viscount Monckton’s recycled claims about the so-called “hockey stick”
graph (an old and worn-out hobby horse of the pollution lobby in the U.S.), this faux
controversy has long since been thoroughly debunked. The global warming deniers in
the U.S. were so enthusiastic about this particular canard that our National Academy of
Sciences eventually put together a formal panel, comprised of a broad range of scientists
including some of the most skeptical, which vindicated the main findings embodied in the
“hockey stick” and definitely rejected the claims Monckton is now recycling for British
readers.
No. In fact the committee of the National Research Council, (North et al., 2006), which
answers to the National Academies of Sciences and of Engineering, while confident that
today’s temperatures are warmer than at any time in the past 400 years, was “less
confident” about the UN “hockey-stick” graph’s abolition of the mediaeval warm period,
because of a lack of data before 1600 AD. The committee’s report criticized the methodology
of the authors of the “hockey-stick”, The committee notes explicitly, on pages 91 and 111,
that the method used in compiling the UN’s “hockey-stick” temperature graph has no
validation skill significantly different from zero. Methods without a validation skill are
usually considered useless.
Similar grounds for concern were listed in a report by three independent statisticians for the
US House of Representatives (Wegman et al., 2005), who found that the calculations behind
the “hockey-stick” graph were “obscure and incomplete”. Criticisms of the hockey-stick
summarized in my article came from papers in the learned journals: e.g. McIntyre and
McKitrick (2005). Wegman et al. (2005) found these criticisms “valid and compelling”. It
found that the scientists who had compiled the graph had not used statistical techniques
properly, and found no evidence that they had “had significant interactions with mainstream
statisticians”. It found that the scientists’ “sharing of research material, data and results was
haphazardly and grudgingly done.” It found that the peer review process, by which other
scientists are supposed to verify learned papers before publication, “was not necessarily
independent”. Finally, it found that the “hockey-stick” scientists’ “assessments that the
decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest
year of the millennium cannot be supported by their analysis”. It recommended that Statefunded
scientific research should be more carefully and independently peer-reviewed in
future, not only by the learned journals but also by the UN’s climate change panel. It
recommended that authors of the UN’s scientific assessments should not be the same as the
authors of the learned papers on which the UN relies; that State-funded scientists should
make their data and calculations openly and promptly available; and that statistical results
by scientists who were not statisticians should be peer-reviewed by statisticians.
The NAS stated that the late 20th century warming in the Northern Hemisphere was
unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years and probably for much longer than
that. They also noted that the finding has “subsequently been supported by an array of
evidence.”
No. In fact, North et al. (2006) said this: “Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based
reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, although the available proxy
evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than
during any other 25-year period since 900. Very little confidence can be placed in
statements about average global surface temperatures prior to A.D. 900 because the proxy
data for that time frame are sparse.” These quotations, taken from an executive summary
12
signed by all members of the committee that prepared the report, bear no relation to what
Gore says they said.
As to the “array of evidence” supporting the “hockey-stick” graph’s conclusion that there
was no mediaeval warm period – a conclusion which could not be properly drawn from the
methodology used to produce the graph itself – Wegman et al. (2005) said: “In our further
exploration of the social network of authorships in temperature reconstruction, we found
that at least 43 authors have direct ties to [the graph’s lead author] by virtue of coauthored
papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of
paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as
independent as they might appear on the surface.”
So, no matter how many charts or graphs the Viscount might want to create, the basic
facts remain the same. What the models have shown, unequivocally, is that carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases mainly released from industrial activities are
warming the planet.
My first article said: “There are more greenhouse gases in the air than there were, so the
world should warm a bit, but that’s as far as the ‘consensus’ goes.” There is no consensus at
all on how much warming there will be, or about whether or when it will be dangerous.
Models are of theoretical interest, but they are not definitive. Until recently they contained
“flux adjustments” – or fudge-factors – many times larger than the very small changes in
tropospheric radiant energy that are at issue.
Computer models are not capable of showing anything “unequivocally”: they are suitable
only for making projections, which may or may not prove reliable. The models upon which
the UN so heavily relied failed to predict either the timing or the magnitude of the El Nino
Southern Oscillation event in 1998. More recently they have failed to predict the sharp
cooling of the climate-relevant surface layer of the ocean that has occurred in the past two
years (Lyman, 2006).
Sixty Canadian scientists expert in climate and related fields, writing to the Canadian Prime
Minister earlier this year (Canada, 2006) said: “Observational evidence does not support
today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the
future.”
Dr. Vincent Gray, a research scientist and a reviewer working on the UN’s 2001 report
(IPCC, 2001) has noted, “The effects of aerosols, and their uncertainties, are such as to
nullify completely the reliability of any of the climate models.”
Freeman Dyson, an eminent physicist, said this in a talk to the American Physical Society
(Dyson, 1999): “The bad news is that the climate models on which so much effort is
expended is unreliable. The models are unreliable because they still use fudge-factors rather
than physics to represent processes occurring on scales smaller than the grid-size. … The
models fail to predict the marine stratus clouds that often cover large areas of ocean. The
climate models do not take into account the anomalous absorption of radiation revealed by
the Atmospheric Radiation Measurements. This is not a small error. If the ARM are correct,
the error in the atmospheric absorption of sunlight calculated by the climate models is about
28 watts per square metre, averaged over the whole Earth, day and night, summer and
winter. The entire effect of doubling the present abundance of carbon dioxide is calculated to
be about four watts per square metre. So the error in the models is much larger than the
global warming effect that the models are supposed to predict. Until the ARM were done,
the error was not detected, because it was compensated by fudge-factors that forced the
models to agree with the existing climate. Other equally large errors may still be hiding in
the models, concealed by other fudge-factors. Until the fudge-factors are eliminated and the
13
computer programs are solidly based on local observations and on the laws of physics, we
have no good reason to believe the predictions of the models. … They are not yet adequate
tools for predicting climate. … We must continue to warn the politicians and the public,
‘Don’t believe the numbers just because they come out of a supercomputer.’”
Eugene Parker, a leading solar physicist, has said: “The inescapable conclusion is that we
will have to know a lot more about the Sun and the terrestrial atmosphere before we can
understand the nature of the contemporary changes in climate. … In our present state of
ignorance it is not possible to assess the importance of individual factors. The biggest
mistake that we could make would be to think that we know the answers when we do not”
(Parker, 1999).
Scientists have also carefully examined the real world evidence (temperature change as
measured by air balloons, ground and satellite measurements, proxies like ice cores and
tree rings, for example) and have found that the models do indeed match the
observations.
Until last year, the observations did not even match each other. NASA (2005) said the trend
in satellite measurements of the lower troposphere (from the surface to about 5 miles up)
was just 0.08C per decade since 1979, but the trend in surface temperature measured on the
ground (NCDC, 2006) is twice that, 0.16C per decade in the same period. NASA (2005)
commented: “These differences are the basis for discussions over whether our knowledge of
how the atmosphere works might be in error, since the warming aloft in the troposphere
should be at least as strong as that observed at the surface.” More recently, however, NASA
has found that its satellite sensors had been pointing in the wrong direction. Satellite
tropospheric temperature trends now accord with those at the surface. Balloon temperatures
were also out of alignment with both surface and satellite temperatures for many years.
Recently, however, a correction has been made to the handling of the data and they now
conform.
Furthermore, the fact of warming does not tell us its cause. Though carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases are likely to be a contributing factor, they are not likely to be the
only factor, and may not even be the main one. Even if greenhouse gases are the sole factor,
there is no consensus about the UN’s projected warming trend for the future. Besides, as we
have shown, the models do not match the observed change in temperature, the discrepancy
is large, and there is no consensus either about the reason for the discrepancy or about
whether the discrepancy is real.
It is important to understand that there is not just one single strand of evidence leading
us to believe that global warming is occurring, but rather that all of the peer-reviewed
evidence, from scientists around the world, points in the same direction.
Mr. Gore says that all of the peer-reviewed evidence points in the same direction. A very
large proportion of it points in the opposite direction, as the papers listed here make plain.
For instance, Soon and Baliunas (2003) listed some 240 scientific papers in which a period of
at least 50 years of anomalous drought, rainfall or temperature were indicated at some time
during the mediaeval warm period. The authors of the “hockey-stick” graph angrily
dismissed Soon and Baliunas (2003) as irrelevant, but – whatever the paper’s faults – it
demonstrates that the “consensus” repeatedly claimed by the UN and its supporters is far
from real.
To be sure, not all of the finest workings of the climate system are yet fully understood to
the finest grain. However, all of the basics are absolutely clear. Global warming is real,
14
human activities are causing the problem, many of the solutions are available to us now,
it is not too late to avoid the worst, and all we need to get started solving the crisis is the
political will to act.
“Global Warming Is Real”, says Gore. Sixty leading climatologists and scientists in related
fields wrote to the Canadian Prime Minister (Canada, 2006): “Climate Change Is Real” is a
meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate change
catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global
climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes, and the human impact still remains
impossible to distinguish from the natural ‘noise’.”
For the third time Gore recites the already-agreed fact of warming. However, there is no
consensus on whether or to what degree human activities are causing “the problem”, or even
whether there is a problem. Global cooling, widely predicted in the 1970s, would have been
much more dangerous than warming. The unusual hot weather in mainland Europe killed
3,000 elderly Frenchmen a couple of years ago. Like so many other events, it was blamed on
global warming but was not caused by manmade climate change. It arose from natural
climate variability. The most recent cold snap in the UK killed 25,000 people.
This is what prompted the national academies of science in the 11 most influential
nations on the planet to come together to jointly call on every nation to “acknowledge
that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing.” They added that the “scientific
understanding of climate changes is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking
prompt action.”
The “scientific understanding” is so crude that the central question – by how much can the
temperature be expected to rise as a result of a given additional amount of greenhouse gas in
the atmosphere – has not been definitively established either empirically or theoretically. It
has been established by laboratory experiment that increased CO2 concentrations can cause
additional scattering of outgoing longwave radiation at the tropopause, but not at or near
the surface, and only at the fringes of one of the three principal absorption bands of CO2. It
has been established that the stratosphere is cooling, suggesting that less outgoing radiation
is emerging from the tropopause. But it is insufficiently clear whether or to what extent the
temperature increase since 1900 is attributable to anthropogenic as opposed to natural
factors, and it is not even clear by how much the temperature rose between 1900 and 1998
(NCDC US global mean temperature anomaly 0.3C, AccuWeather from land-based stations
0.45C, NCDC global mean 0.53C; UN 0.6C).
Scientists will continue to pose questions and answer them in the peer-reviewed literature
-- and I urge the public and policymakers in the U.K. to rely upon the best advice from
your premiere institutions ranging from the outstanding British Antarctic Survey, to the
Royal Society, the Met Office and the Hadley and Tyndall Centres for the decisions that
must be made.
The Royal Society no longer has an independent mind on climate change. With other
national scientific bodies, it has declared its deference to the UN, which continues to use the
defective and discredited “hockey-stick” graph in its current publications, and has not yet
apologized for it. My first article referred to the Hadley centre’s division of its temperature
projections by three to make them conform to 20th-century observation (IPCC, 2001, cited in
Lindzen, 2006). We shall quote the Tyndall Centre later.
15
In a second line of argument, Viscount Monckton also is concerned about the findings of
the Stern report. But let’s explore its conclusions: The report suggests that it will cost
more to allow global warming to continue unabated than it will to begin to take
thoughtful actions now. In other words, the impact on living standards could be quite
small, if rational, thoughtful policies were put into place and if government were to work
with industry to exploit the economic opportunities than if we allow global warming to
run amok.
The 2.1% discount rate used by Stern (2006), though not explicitly stated in his report, is less
than half the absolute minimum which a commercial organization would use when deciding
to invest. Also, Stern’s calculations have not followed the rule of economics that, when
deciding not only whether but also when to invest, there should be no investment until the net
present value is shown to be double the outlay (ref). Stern also assumes far more rapid
climate change even than the UN. By all these means, he exaggerates the economic rewards
of acting now and the costs of waiting. Correcting for these and other factors, the case for
substantial, immediate investment vanishes. In any event, since the fast-developing
economies such as China, India, Indonesia and Brazil excluded themselves from the scope of
the Nairobi post-Kyoto agreement, just as they excluded themselves from Kyoto itself, no
action which we take in the UK would make any noticeable difference to global temperature.
Even if the UK were to close down completely, and were to cease altogether to use energy,
operate industries or drive cars, the reduction in global temperature by 2035 would amount
to 0.006C. This negligible temperature saving would be more than outweighed by just a few
years’ further economic growth in the Kyoto-exempted, Nairobi-excused China, which
already has 30,000 coal mines, opens a new coal-mine every week and will continue to open a
new coal-fired power station every five days until 2012. If global warming is a problem, the
West, even acting collectively, can do nothing without the co-operation of China, India,
Indonesia, Brazil and other fast-emerging, fast-polluting economies.
That is why it is important for the UN and its followers, such as Gore, not to try to maintain
that bad science like the “hockey-stick” has been “vindicated” when the very document he
quotes as having “vindicated” it had in effect condemned it as useless. China and the other
awakening tigers will not be convinced of the need for action to curb carbon emissions unless
and until the UN produces science that is not only properly peer-reviewed (unlike the
“hockey-stick”) but also both transparent and honest.
Some of the policies detailed in the report include: increasing global public energy
research and development funding, dramatically reducing waste through energy
efficiency measures, expanding and linking emissions trading systems and carbon
markets, multiplying programs to reduce deforestation of natural areas such as
Amazonia, and continuing to set aggressive domestic and global targets to reduce the
pollution that causes global warming. None of these policy measures should cause
alarm.
Reversal of 20th-century deforestation, which I recommended in my second article, would get
us a quarter of the way towards CO2 stabilization. All the other measures mentioned by
Gore would make practically no difference.
The EU emissions trading system trades more emissions rights than are currently emitted,
contributes nothing to reducing CO2 emissions, and actually encourages the increases which
are happening across Europe.
16
The UK climate change levy taxes all forms of energy production equally, regardless of
whether or how much they emit CO2, and hence has everything to do with increasing
revenue and nothing to do with preventing climate change.
Global targets cannot be set without China and other mega-polluters. Aside from
deforestation, therefore, all Stern’s proposed policy measures – none of which is properly or
clearly costed - are mere extravagant gestures that, like the existing measures in place in the
UK and Europe, would cost much and achieve nothing.
In fact, not only are they rational, but also they have substantial co-benefits which
include increased air quality, improved access to energy among the rural poor in
developed countries, further independence from foreign sources of energy in volatile and
unstable regions of the world, and, of course, the obvious opportunities in the new
markets developing for low carbon technologies.
Air quality is a good aim, but in the UK we already have some of the cleanest air among
industrialized countries. The quickest improvement we could make in air quality would be
to go nuclear, like the French (who have little more than half the UK’s carbon footprint as a
result), and to close down coal-fired power stations, which the EPA in the US has estimated
cause some 37,000 premature deaths a year.
More energy for the rural poor is a good aim, but energy in the UK is supplied by a national
grid to all parts, urban or rural. Independence from foreign energy sources is good, but, for
almost all countries (including the UK), impossible.
“Low-carbon technologies” are a good aim (if CO2 is really a problem), but unless they
involve nuclear power they won’t produce enough energy to replace fossil-fuelled power
stations. Gore lists several attractive-sounding wishes, few of which – even if realizable
affordably or at all – would make a significant contribution to cutting CO2 emissions.
And with regards to some of the financial implications suggested by the Stern report, one
need only look to the insurance industry for validation of the potential costs of global
warming. On Wednesday, the reinsurance giant Munich Re reported, “driven by climate
change, weather related disasters could cost as much as a trillion dollars in a single year
by 2040.”
Whenever a corporation makes a public pronouncement on policy, it speaks in the hope of
gaining a commercial advantage. Insurance companies are aware that if enough panic about
climate change can be engendered they can hike their premiums, tell their customers that
this is a responsible and prudent precaution, and get rich on the proceeds in the near-certain
knowledge that they won’t have to pay out. As we shall show later, the spread of human
populations and settlements into the path of pre-existing climatic patterns has caused – and
will continue to cause – many times more expense to the insurance industry than climate
change.
The Stern report will not be the last economic analysis of the issue, but it certainly
provides an important contribution to the literature and sheds light on some of the major
concerns that policymakers must address.
For the reasons enumerated above, many serious economists regard Stern (2006) as
valueless. To take one example, Stern contains a lengthy chapter on how to arrive at the
appropriate discount rate for carrying out the central investment appraisal: yet the rate he
17
chose (but somehow failed to state) is fully described in a single page in the UK Treasury’s
“Green Book”. The chosen rate is no more than half the 4% real risk-free interest rate,
which would normally be the absolute minimum discount rate for a commercial project. The
Labour Government has been using the 2% rate for some years so as artificially to justify
the recent rapid expansion of the UK State sector.
The Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman, who sadly died last week at the age of
94, calculated that the State consumes at least twice as many resources in doing any given
thing as the private sector. Stern (2006) does not advocate transferring most of the State’s
activities – hospitals, schools and council houses, say – to the private sector, notwithstanding
the substantial environmental benefits that would follow from the consequent and large
reduction in inefficiency and waste.
Sir Winston Churchill said, “One ought never to turn one’s back on a threatened danger
and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it
promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half.”
First one must assess whether there is a danger. At present there is merely a scare, which
is not the same thing. Sir Winston Churchill also said: “It is a mistake to try to look too far
ahead. The chain of destiny can only be grasped one link at a time.” Climate, in the
formal, mathematical sense, is a chaotic object. It is the proven characteristic of
mathematically-chaotic objects that neither the magnitude nor the timing of their phasetransitions
(in environmentalese, “tipping points”) can be predicted (IPCC, 2001; Lorenz,
1963). There is simply too little information to allow us to look as far ahead as 100 years
and say with any degree of confidence how little or how much the world will warm.
As Lorenz (1963) put it in his landmark paper: “When our results concerning the
instability of non-periodic flow are applied to the atmosphere, which is ostensibly nonperiodic,
they indicate that prediction of the sufficiently distant future is impossible by any
method, unless the present conditions are known exactly. In view of the inevitable
inaccuracy and incompleteness of weather observations, precise, very-long-range weather
forecasting would seem to be non-existent.”
We learned this lesson again the hard way in the U.S. when we were warned that the
levees were about to break in New Orleans because of Hurricane Katrina and those
warnings were ignored. Later, a bipartisan group of members of Congress, chaired by
Representative Tom Davis, a Republican from Virginia, said in an official report: “The
White House failed to act on the massive amounts of information at its disposal.” This
bipartisan group added that a “blinding lack of situational awareness and disjointed
decision-making needlessly compounded and prolonged Katrina’s horror.”
For many years the Democrat Mayors of New Orleans and the Democrat-controlled city
administration and state legislature had failed and failed again to make the necessary
investment in strengthening the levees, based on the massive amount of information which
had been put before them time and time again by the city engineers. New Orleans,
administered by the Democrats, was a disaster waiting to happen.
There is extensive scientific literature on the lack of connection between hurricanes and
climate change. A review article on hurricanes and climate change (Pielke et al., 2005), found
that “globally there has been no increase in tropical cyclone frequency over at least the past
several decades.” Papers by Lander and Guard (1998), Elsner and Kocher (2000) and
Webster et al. (2005) are cited.
18
Furthermore, Pielke et al. point out, research on possible future changes in hurricane
frequency due to global warming has produced studies that “give such contradictory results
as to suggest that the state of understanding of tropical cyclogenesis provides too poor a
foundation to base any projections about the future.”
With respect to hurricane intensity, Emanual (2005) had found “a very substantial upward
trend in power dissipation [i.e., the sum over the life-time of the storm of the maximum wind
speed cubed] in the North Atlantic and western North Pacific.” However, Pielke et al. (2005)
found that “other studies that have addressed tropical cyclone intensity variations (Landsea
et al., 1999; Chan and Liu, 2004) show no significant secular trends during the decades of
reliable records.”
Also, although early theoretical work by Emanuel (1987) “suggested an increase of about
10% in wind speed for a 2C increase in tropical sea surface temperature,” more recent work
by Knutson and Tuleya (2004) points to only a 5% increase in hurricane windspeeds by
2080. Michaels et al. (2005) conclude that even this projection may be twice as great as it
should be.
People are now living in more exposed coastal locations and tornado alleys than hitherto. By
2050, for example, Pielke et al. (2000) report that “for every additional dollar in damage that
the IPCC expects to result from the effects of global warming on tropical cyclones, we should
expect between $22 and $60 of increase in damage due to population growth and wealth.”
Pielke et al. (2005) conclude that “The primary factors that govern the magnitude and
patterns of future damages and causalities are how society develops and prepares for storms
rather than any presently conceivable future changes in the frequency and intensity of the
storms.”
By contrast, the U.K. has, for years, stood as a world leader on global warming. When I
served as Vice President, I had the good fortune to work with both Tory and Labour
leaders in negotiating the Kyoto Protocol. In the 1980’s, when I was a Senator, I had the
privilege of working with Prime Minister Thatcher as she led the world in helping to
solve the threat to the stratospheric ozone layer.
Senator James Inhofe (Republican, Oklahoma) has told the Senate that even if all signatories
were to comply with Kyoto in full (most won’t) world temperature in 2100 would be onetwenty-
fifth of a degree Celsius lower than it would be if Kyoto had never happened. We
should not fool ourselves that feel-good, gesture politics such as the irrelevant Kyoto
Protocol will make any difference to the reality of the problem – if there is a problem. The
US Senate – during the administration of Bill Clinton and Al Gore – rightly voted
unanimously, 97-0, to reject Kyoto or any suchlike treaty that did not bear down upon
carbon emissions from all the nations of the world, including fast-developing countries like
China.
We shall certainly not be able to demand that the awakening tigers of the Third World
should deny themselves the economic growth whose benefits we already enjoy unless and
until the UN admits and apologizes for mistakes like the “hockey-stick” temperature graph,
ceases to use them in its current publications, and desists from peddling the flagrant and
baseless exaggerations which my articles have quantified and exposed.
Sixty Canadian scientists (Canada, 2006) wrote to tell their Prime Minister: “If, back in the
mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not
exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”
19
And today, although there are differences between the platforms, both of the U.K.’s
largest parties have issued strong statements about the need for action -- and your nation
has largely avoided the partisan bickering and downright denial that has stymied action
in the United States. This bipartisan comity is essential to rise to the challenges presented
by such a complex problem as the climate crisis.
Almost all recent decisions supported by both major parties – such as the decision in 1990
that the UK should join the European exchange-rate mechanism – have proven expensively
disastrous. However, the profound economic collapse which followed the decision to join the
ERM caused a fall in UK emissions of CO2 for four years, unexpectedly helping the UK to
come closer to meeting its Kyoto emissions target than most EU countries. Of the preexpansion
15 EU members bound by Kyoto, 13 are expected not to meet their targets.
On the evidence to date, the decision of the Conservative party to abandon its constitutional
duty of opposition to the costly but futile gestures proposed by the Government in mitigation
of supposed anthropogenic climate change may well prove as expensive as its catastrophic
decision in Government to attempt to repeal the laws of arithmetic by bringing the UK into
the ERM, but less likely to reduce CO2 emissions.
As your Parliament moves forward to debate legislation this session, it is essential that
you imagine this not solely as a scientific discussion or even a political dialogue, but as a
moral moment where we decide who we are as human beings, and what obligation to the
future we feel is appropriate for us to accept as part of our responsibility in this
generation. At stake is nothing less than the survival of human civilization and the
habitability of the earth for our species.
We have the opportunity here to avoid needlessly bickering with one another on the
editorial pages, and instead join together to experience what very few generations in
history have had the privilege of knowing---a generational mission, a compelling moral
purpose, a shared and unifying cause, and an opportunity to work together to choose a
future for which our children will thank us instead of cursing our failure to protect them
against a clear and present danger with equally clear and devastating future
consequences. By rising to meet this historic planetary emergency, we have the
opportunity to become not the selfish and self-destructive generation, but the next
Greatest Generation.
Numberwatch (2006) gives a long and well-referenced list of the wars, plagues, diseases,
deaths and extinctions which have been blamed on “global warming” in a similarly
apocalyptic fashion to Gore.
Sir John Houghton, who produced the IPCC's first three reports in 1990, 1995 and 2001, has
written (Houghton, 1994) : "Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen.”
One of the UK’s leading “consensus” scientists (Hulme, 2006) has this to say about
exaggerated rhetoric of the sort which Gore uses here:
“Over the last few years a new environmental phenomenon has been constructed … - the
phenomenon of ‘catastrophic’ climate change. It seems that mere ‘climate change’ was not
going to be bad enough, and so now it must be ‘catastrophic’ to be worthy of attention. The
increasing use of this pejorative term - and its bedfellow qualifiers ‘chaotic’, ‘irreversible’,
‘rapid’ - has altered the public discourse around climate change.
20
“This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as ‘climate change is worse than we
thought’, that we are approaching ‘irreversible tipping in the Earth's climate’, and that we
are ‘at the point of no return’. I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change
campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied
their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric. It seems that it is we, the
professional climate scientists, who are now the (catastrophe) sceptics. How the wheel
turns!”
References
BARNETT, T.P., D.W. Pierce, K.M. AchutaRao et al. 2005. Penetration of human-induced warming into
the world’s oceans. Science 309: 284-287.
BRAITHWAITE, R.J. and Raper, S.C.B. 2002. Glaciers and their contribution to sea level
change. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 27: 1445-1454.
CAILLON, N., Severinghaus, J.P., Jouzel, J., Barnola, J.-M., Kang, J. and Lipenkov, V.Y. 2003. Timing
of atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic temperature changes across Termination III. Science 299: 1728-1731.
CANADA. 2006. Letter from 60 scientists to the Canadian Prime Minister. 6 April. Text and signatories
below, or at http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-
4db87559d605
CHAN, J.C.L. and Liu, S.L. 2004. Global warming and western North Pacific typhoon activity from an
observational perspective. Journal of Climate 17: 4590-4602.
CLARK, P.U. and Mix, A.C. 2000. Ice sheets by volume. Nature 406: 689-690.
DOUGLASS, D.H. and Knox, R.S. 2005. Climate forcing by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo.
Geophysical Research Letters 32: 10.1029/2004GL022119.
DYSON, Freeman J. 1999. The Science and Politics of Climate Change. Address to the Centennial
Meeting of the American Physical Society, Atlanta, Georgia, 25 March.
ELSNER, J.B. and Kocher, B. 2000. Global tropical cyclone activity: A link to the North Atlantic
Oscillation. Geophysical Research Letters 27: 129-132.
EMANUEL, K. 1987. The dependence of hurricane intensity on climate. Nature 326: 483-485.
EMANUEL, K. 2005. Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature 436:
686-688.
FISCHER, H., Wahlen, M., Smith, J., Mastroianni, D. and Deck, B. 1999. Ice core records of atmospheric
CO2 around the last three glacial terminations. Science 283: 1712-1714.
21
FOLEY, Jonathan A., and Coe, Michael T. 2001. Decline of Lake Chad. Journal of Physical Research
(Biogeosciences): http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/04/0426_lakechadshrinks.html (reported
in National Geographic News).
HANSEN, J., Lacis, A., Ruedy, R. and Sato, M. 1992. Potential climate impact of Mount Pinatubo
eruption. Geophysical Research Letters 19: 215-218.
HANSEN, J., Nazarenko, L., Ruedy, R., Sato, M., Willis, J, Del Genio, A., Koch, D., Lacis, A., Lo, K.,
Menon, S., Novakov, T., Perlwitz, J., Russell, G., Schmidt, G., and Tausnev, N. 2006. Earth’s energy
imbalance: confirmation and implications. Science 308: 1431-1434.
HOUGHTON, Sir John. 1994. Global Warming: The Complete Briefing. Cambridge University Press,
London.
HOUGHTON, Sir John. 2002. Overview of the climate change issue. Presentation to “Forum 2002” at St.
Anne’s College, Oxford. www.jri.org.uk/resource/climatechangeoverview.htm.
HOUGHTON, Sir John. 2006. Replies to questions from Lord Monckton, Royal Society, London, 27
October.
HULME, M. 2006. Chaotic world of climate truth. BBC News Viewpoint, 4 November 2006. Available
from the Internet at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6115644.stm.
INDERMUHLE, A., Monnin, E., Stauffer, B. and Stocker, T.F. 2000. Atmospheric CO2 concentration
from 60 to 20 kyr BP from the Taylor Dome ice core, Antarctica. Geophysical Research Letters 27: 735-
738.
INQUA. 2000. Sea Level Changes, News and Views, The Maldives Project. Homepage of the commission
on sea level changes and coastal evolution, http://www.pog.su.se/sea.
IPCC. 1996. The Science of Climate Change: Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment
Report of the IPCC (eds. J. T. Houghton et al.), Cambridge University Press, London, 1996.
IPCC. 2001. Climate Change, The Scientific Basis, Cambridge University Press, London, 2001.
KEELING, C.D., and Whorf, T.P. 2004. Trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa, Hawaii.
Carbon Dioxide Research Group, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla,
California 92093-0444, U.S.A.
KNUTSON, T.R. and Tuleya, R.E. 2004. Impact of CO2-induced warming on simulated hurricane
intensity and precipitation: Sensitivity to the choice of climate model and convective parameterization.
Journal of Climate 17: 3477-3495.
LANDER, M.A. and Guard, C.P. 1998. A look at global tropical cyclone activity during 1995:
Contrasting high Atlantic activity with low activity in other basins. Monthly Weather Review 126: 1163-
1173.
LANDSEA, C.W., Pielke Jr., R.A., Mestas-Nunez, A.M. and Knaff, J.A. 1999. Atlantic basin hurricanes:
Indices of climatic changes. Climatic Change 42: 89-129.
LEVITUS, S.J., Antonov, J, and Boyer, T. 2005. Warming of the world ocean 1955 – 2003. Geophysical
Research Letters 32: L02604, doi:10.1029/2004GL021592
22
LINDZEN, R.S. and Giannitsis, C. 1998. On the climatic implications of volcanic cooling. Journal of
Geophysical Research 103: 5929-5941.
LINDZEN, R.S., Chou, M.-D. and Hou, A.Y. 2001. Does the earth have an adaptive infrared
iris? Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 82: 417-432.
LINDZEN, R.S. and Giannitsis, C. 2002. Reconciling observations of global temperature change.
Geophysical Research Letters 29: 10.1029/2001GL014074.
LINDZEN, R. 2006. Article on climate change. Sunday Telegraph, London, 30 October.
LORENZ, Edward N. 1963. Deterministic nonperiodic flow. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 20:
130-141.
LYMAN, John M., Willis, J.K., and Johnson, G.C. 2006. Recent cooling of the upper ocean. Geophysical
Research Letters, 33: L18604, doi:10.1029/2006GL027033.
MANN, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K. 1998. Global-Scale Temperature Patterns and Climate
Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries. Nature 392: 779-787.
MANN, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K. 1999. Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past
Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations. Geophysical Research Letters 26: 759-762.
MANN, M.E., Bradley, R.S. and Hughes, M.K. 2004. Corrigendum. Nature, 1 July 2004, p. 105.
McINTYRE, Stephen and McKitrick, Ross. 2005. Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious
significance. Geophysical Research Letters, 32: L03710, doi: 10.1029/2004GL021750.
MICHAELS, P.J., Knappenberger, P.C. and Landsea, C.W. 2005. Comments on "Impacts of CO2-induced
warming on simulated hurricane intensity and precipitation”: Sensitivity to the choice of climate model
and convective scheme. Journal of Climate.
MOBERG, A., Sonechkin, D.M., Holmgren, K., Datsenko, N.M., Karlen, W., Lauritzen, S.E. 2005.
Highly variable Northern Hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low and high-resolution proxy
data. Nature 433: 613-617.
MONNIN, E., Indermühle, A., Dällenbach, A., Flückiger, J, Stauffer, B., Stocker, T.F., Raynaud, D. and
Barnola, J.-M. 2001. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last glacial termination. Science 291:
112-114.
MORNER, N.-A. 1973. Eustatic changes during the last 300 years. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,
Palaeoecology 9: 153-181.
MORNER, N.-A. 1995. Recorded sea level variability in the Holocene and expected future changes. In:
Eisma, D. (Ed.), Climate Change: Impact on Coastal Habitation, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 17-28.
MORNER, N.-A. 2000. Sea level changes along Western Europe. In: Integrated Coastal Zone
Management, 2nd ed., IPC Publishing, London and Hong Kong, 33-37.
MORNER, N.-A. 2004. Estimating future sea level changes from past records. Global and Planetary
Change 40: 49-54.
23
MUDELSEE, M. 2001. The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice
volume over the past 420 ka. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 583-589.
MUNK, W. 2003. Ocean freshening, sea level rising. Science 300: 2041-2043.
NASA. 2006. Satellite-measured global mean stratospheric and lower-tropospheric air temperatures.
Updated monthly at http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html.
NCDC. 2006. Global annual land and ocean mean temperature anomalies. Data available for download
from the Internet at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-
2000mean.dat.
NORTH, Gerald R., Biondi, F., Bloomfield, P., Christy, J.R., Cuffey, K, Dickinson, R.E., Druffel, E.R.M.,
Nychka, D., Otto-Bliesner, B., Roberts, N., Turekian, K.K., and Wallace, J.M. 2006. Surface temperature
reconstructions for the last 2,000 years. National Research Council of the National Academies of Science
and Engineering, Division on Earth and Life Studies, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate,
Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years. National Academies Press,
Washington.
NUMBERWATCH. 2006. Referenced list of events blamed on global warming. Available for download
from the Internet at http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
PARKER, E.N. 1999. Climate change. Nature 399: 416.
PETIT, J.R., Jouzel, J., Raynaud, D., Barkov, N.I., Barnola, J.-M., Basile, I., Bender, M., Chappellaz, J.,
Davis, M., Delaygue, G., Delmotte, M., Kotlyakov, V.M., Legrand, M., Lipenkov, V.Y., Lorius, C., Pepin,
L., Ritz, C., Saltzman, E., and Stievenard, M. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000
years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436.
PIELKE Jr., R.A., Landsea, C., Mayfield, M., Laver, J. and Pasch, R. 2005. Hurricanes and global
warming. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 86: 1571-1575.
PIELKE Jr., R.A. and Pielke Sr., R.A. 1997. Hurricanes: Their Nature and Impacts on Society. John
Wiley and Sons.
PIELKE Jr., R.A., Pielke, Sr., R.A., Klein, R. and Sarewitz, D. 2000. Turning the big knob: Energy policy
as a means to reduce weather impacts. Energy and Environment 11: 255-276.
PIRAZZOLI, P.A., Grant, D.R. and Woodworth, P. 1989. Trends of relative sea-level changes: past,
present, future. Quaternary International 2: 63-71.
POLISSAR, P.J., Abbott, M.B., Wolfe, A.P., Bezada, M., Rull, V., and Bradley, R.S. 2006. Solar
modulation of Little Ice Age climate in the tropical Andes. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 10.1073/pnas.0603118103.
SASSEN, K. 1992. Evidence for liquid-phase cirrus cloud formation from volcanic aerosols: Climate
indications. Science 257: 516-519.
SOON, W. and Baliunas, S. 2003. Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years.
Climate Research 23: 80-110.
STERN, Sir Nicholas. 2006. Report of the Review on the Economics of Climate Change. HM Treasury,
London.
24
SVENSMARK, H., Pedersen, J, et al. 2006. Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle
nucleation under atmospheric conditions, Proceedings of the Royal Society A. London, October 2006:
www.spacecenter.dk
TAYLOR, Dr. Mitchell. 2006. Last stand of our wild polar bears. Government of Nunavut, Igloolik,
Nunavat, Canada, May 1.
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Taylor/last_stand_of_our_wild_polar_bears.html.
van der VEEN, C.J. 2002. Polar ice sheets and global sea level: how well can we predict the
future? Global and Planetary Change 32: 165-194.
WEBSTER, P.J., Holland, G.J., Curry, J.A. and Chang, H.-R. 2005. Changes in tropical cyclone number,
duration and intensity in a warming environment. Science 309: 1844-1846.
WEGMAN, Edward J., Scott, D.W., and Said, Yasmin H. 2005. Ad Hoc Committee Report to the
Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and to the Chairman of the House
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations on the “Hockey-Stick” global climate reconstruction. US
House of Representatives. Available for download from the Internet at
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf
YOKOYAMA, Y., Lambeck, K., Deckker, P.D., Johnston, P. and Fifield, L.K. 2000. Timing of the Last
Glacial Maximum from observed sea-level minima. Nature 406: 713-716.
60 climate scientists’ letter to the Canadian Prime
Minister
6 April 2006
* Sixty eminent scientists in climate and related fields disagree strongly with the “consensus” which Gore
and other supporters of the UN say is unanimous. This is the text of the strongly-worded letter which they
wrote to the Canadian Prime Minister on 6 April 2006.
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRIME MINISTER STEPHEN HARPER
cc. Hon. Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment; Hon. Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources
“Dear Prime Minister, - As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to
propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific
foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your
recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same
suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal,
independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars
earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of
recent developments in climate science.
25
“Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust
model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting
Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the
climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or
other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant.
Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most
prudent and responsible course of action.
“While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for
sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change
is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be
many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant
advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern
about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate,
Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.
“We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the
loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased
consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climatescience
community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate
scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will
be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the
economy.
“‘Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a
climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate
changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish
from this natural ‘noise.’ The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water
pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to ‘stopping climate change’ would be irrational. We need
to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens
adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.
“We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole
story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming
alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science
continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with
predetermined political agendas. We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand
willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.”
Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences,
University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of
Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently
adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University,
Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth
Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of
Climate Research and Natural Hazards
26
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury,
Ont.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics
and geology
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), FRMS, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO
Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in
Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member,
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London,
Ont.
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate
change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University,
Halifax
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World
Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta
Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ontario.
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants,
Surrey, B.C.
Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary.
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ontario.
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and
Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past
president, American Association of State Climatologists
27
Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of
Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville,
Australia
Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre,
Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization
Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience
Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University,
Stockholm, Sweden
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of
Alabama, Huntsville
Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State
University, St. Cloud, Minn.
Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of
Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert
reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for
Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy &
Environment
Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands
Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist,
Kansas Geological Survey
Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief
meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand
28
Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of
'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.
Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut
Dr. Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores
University, U.K.
Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.
Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University
of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural
Disasters, 1994-2000
Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director,
U.S. Weather Satellite Service
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht
University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal
Netherlands Geological & Mining Society
Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering,
The Ohio State University
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in
Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official
IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former
professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology,
Stockholm University, Sweden
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.
Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.
Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past
board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public
health
Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
---------------------------------------------
Statement of Dr. William Gray
Department of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
The Role of Science in Environmental Policy-Making
________________________________________
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am William M. Gray, a Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado. I have been studying and forecasting weather and climate for over 50 years (see my attached Vitae). My specialty has been tropical meteorology and tropical cyclones. I have made Atlantic basin seasonal hurricane forecasts for the last 22 years.
Over the last 20 years, I have been dismayed over the bogus science and media-hype associated with the nuclear winter and the human-induced global warming hypotheses. My innate sense of how the atmosphere-ocean functions does not allow me to accept either of these scenarios. Observations and theory do not support these ideas. The nuclear winter hypothesis did not recognize that the globe's hydrologic cycle operates on a time scale of 8-10 days and that nuclear- spawned dust material would be quickly rained out of the atmosphere. The human-induced global warming scenarios have a major flaw in that they accept the view that an increase in the global hydrologic cycle will cause enhanced upper-tropospheric water vapor gain and a suppression of outgoing long wave radiation (OLR) to space. The opposite is true. Global Climate Models (GCMs) are also not able to realistically predict the ocean's deep water circulation which is fundamental to any understanding of global temperature change.
As a boy, growing up here in Washington, DC, I remember the many articles on the large global warming that had occurred between 1900 and 1940. No one understood or knew if this warming would continue. Then the warming abated, and a weak global cooling trend set in from the mid-1940s to the early 1970s. The global warming talk ceased and speculation about a coming ice age came into vogue. I anticipate that the trend of the last few decades of global warming will come to an end, and in a few years we will start to see a weak cooling trend similar to that which occurred from the mid-1940s to the early 1970s.
I would like to present a different view on the likelihood of human-induced global warming and also provide evidence that global hurricane activity has not increased as the globe has warmed in recent decades. There is no significant correlation between global warming and global hurricane activity.
HUMAN-INDUCED GLOBAL WARMING
Although initially generated by honest scientific questions, this topic has long ago advanced into the political arena and taken on a life of its own. It has been extended and grossly exaggerated and misused by those wishing to make gains from the exploitation of ignorance on this subject. This includes many governments of western countries, the media, and scientists who were willing to bend their objectivity to obtain government grants for research. It is unfortunate that most of the resources for climate research come from the federal government. When a national government takes a political position on a scientific topic, the wise meteorologist or climatologist either joins the crowd or keeps his/her mouth shut. Scientists can be punished if they do not accept the current views of their funding agents. An honest and objective scientific debate cannot be held in such a political environment.
I have closely followed the greenhouse gas warming arguments. From what I have learned of how the atmosphere functions in over 50 years of study and forecasting, I have been unable to convince myself that a doubling of human-induced greenhouse gases can lead to anything but quite small and likely insignificant amounts of global warming (~ 0.2-0.3 degree C).
Most geophysical systems react to forced imbalances by developing responses which oppose and weaken the initial forced imbalance; hence, a negative feedback response. Recently proposed human-induced global warming scenarios go counter to the foregoing in hypothesizing a positive feedback effect. They assume that a stronger hydrologic cycle (due to increased anthropogenic greenhouse gases) will cause additional upper-level atmospheric water vapor. This increased vapor results in a reduction of OLR loss to space and causes additional warming (Fig. 1). This positive water vapor feedback assumption allows the small initial warming due to human-induced greenhouse gases to be unrealistically multiplied 8-10 times. This is where much of the global modeling is in error. As anthropogenic greenhouse gases increase it does not follow that upper-level water vapor will increase. If it does not, little global warming will result. Observation of middle tropospheric water vapor over the last few decades shows that water vapor has in fact been undergoing a small decrease. The assumed positive water vapor feedback as programmed into the GCM models is not occurring. Energy budget studies indicate that if atmospheric water vapor and the rate of condensation were held fixed, a doubling of carbon dioxide would cause only a small (~ 0.2 - 0.3 degree C) global warming. This can be contrasted to the 2-5o C warming projected in the models.
The other primary physical limitations of the GCM simulations are their inability (as yet) to properly treat the global ocean deep circulation. This requires the need to model ocean salinity variations. Climate change cannot be objectively discussed without a realistic treatment of the ocean.
Figure 1. Illustration of the relative magnitude of the suppression of outgoing long-wave radiation (OLR) by water vapor and CO2. The global models assume that as CO2 doubles, water vapor increases and causes more suppression of OLR and warming. The opposite is true.
Skillful initial value GCM climate prediction is not possible and probably never will be. This is due to the complex nature of the atmosphere/ocean system and the inability of numerical models to realistically represent this physical complexity. Realistic features currently cannot be forecast more than a week or two into the future (see Figs. 2 and 3). Imperfect representations of the highly non-linear parameters of the atmosphere-ocean system tend to quickly degrade (the so-called butterfly influence) into unrealistic flow states upon long period integration. Short-range prediction is possible up to a week or 10 days into the future because there tends to be conservatism in the initial momentum fields which can be extrapolated for short periods. But beyond about 1-2 weeks, the multiple unknown and non-linear energy-moisture exchanges within the earth system become dominant. Model results soon decay in chaos. Numerical climate models cannot now and likely never will be able to be accurately forecast more than a few weeks into the future. If skillful GCM climate forecasts were possible, we would be eager to follow their predictions. Currently, GCMs do not make seasonal or yearly forecasts. How can we trust climate forecasts 50 and 100 years into the future (that can’t be verified in our lifetime) when they are not able to make shorter seasonal or yearly forecasts that could be verified? They know that they dare not issue shorter forecasts because they are aware that they have little or no skill.
Figure 2. Illustration of atmosphere-land ocean modeling complexity. It is impossible to write computer code to represent such complexity and then realistically integrate hundreds of thousands of time steps into the future.
Besides the physical uncertainty concerning how to represent the complexity of the atmosphere-ocean system in quantitative terms, climate models have become too complex for any one person or team to understand. Due to the great complexity of the GCM system, the true reasons for success or failure often cannot be determined. These models have been developed by teams of specialists who concentrate on different parts of their model. No one person is able to understand the whole GCM simulation. Most model developers are talented and skilled technicians. However, few have ever given real-world weather briefings or made operational weather forecasts.
Figure 3. Illustration of the two methods of climate prediction. The top diagram shows how numerical climate prediction is made and loses skill rapidly. It does not use past data. The bottom diagram shows how statistical prediction is based on past data and can utilize associations that are not physically understood.
The potential for climate modeling mischief and false scares from incorrect climate model scenarios is enormous. Numerical modeling output gives an air of authenticity which is not warranted by the input physics and long periods of integration. How many more climate scares are we to see from climate models which are not able to realistically predict past and future climate changes let alone future decadal or century changes?
Many of my older meteorological colleagues are very skeptical of these anthropogenic global warming scenarios. But we are seldom asked for any input. Despite my 50 years of meteorology experience and my many years of involvement in seasonal hurricane and climate prediction, I have never been asked for input on any of the International Panels on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. They know my views and do not wish to have to deal with them. Many other experienced but skeptical meteorologists and climatologists are also ignored. I find that the summary page conclusions of the IPCC reports frequently do not agree with the extensive factual material contained within them. In fact, the summary conclusions of many of the IPCC reports give the impression they were written before the research is done.
It is disappointing that more atmospheric scientists have not spoken out about the reality of human-induced global warming and the reliability of the GCM simulations. It is also mystifying to me how the global warming advocates are able to get away with the argument that extreme weather events have become more prevalent in recent years and that they likely have a human-induced component. Such assertions are factually wrong.
There is nothing we humans can do to prevent natural climate change, which I believe nearly all the recent global temperature rise is due too. We have no choice but to adapt to future climate changes. Restricting human-induced greenhouse gas emissions now, on the basis of their assumed influence on global warming, is not a viable economic option, even if it were politically possible. China and India would never restrict their growing fossil fuel usage. Restricting greenhouse gas emissions would have little or no effect on global temperature. We need to keep the western world economies vibrant if for no other reason than to be able to afford the needed large technical research funding that will be required to develop future non-fossil fuel energy sources.
I am convinced that in 15-20 years, we will look back on this period of global warming hysteria as we now look back on so many other popular, and trendy, scientific ideas -- such as the generally accepted Eugenic theories of the 1920s and 1930s that have now been discredited. There are so many other more important problems in the world which need our immediate attention. We should not be distracted by a false threat that is mostly just due to natural changes in climate.
GLOBAL WARMING INFLUENCE ON HURRICANES
The Atlantic has large multi-decadal variations in major (category 3-4-5) hurricane activity. These variations are observed to result from multi-decadal variations in the North Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (THC) - Fig. 4. When the THC is strong, it causes the North Atlantic to have warm or positive Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies (SSTA) and when the THC is weak, cold SSTAs prevail. Figure 5 shows these North Atlantic SSTAs over the last century with a projection for the next 15 years.
We observe that there are significantly more Atlantic basin major hurricanes when the THC is strong than when it is weak. Figure 6 shows the sum of tracks of Atlantic major hurricane tracks during a 20-year period when the THC was strong (left) versus an 18-year period when it was weak (right). Note the large differences. Figure 7 gives an illustration of how fortunate peninsula Florida was in terms of landfalling hurricanes during the period of 1966-2003 in comparison with the earlier period of 1932-1965. The varying strength of the Atlantic THC is partly responsible for these differences. Luck also played a role. There were many intense hurricanes just off the Florida coast during the later period that did not come ashore (i.e., Hurricane Floyd, 1999).
Figure 4. Idealized Atlantic Thermohaline Circulation (THC) that becomes stronger and weaker on multi-decadal time periods. More major hurricanes form in the Atlantic when it is stronger than when it is weaker.
Figure 5. Last century Sea Surface Temperature Anomaly (SSTA) in the North Atlantic showing multi-decadal periods of warm and cold anomalies and a projection of these SSTAs to 2020. More major hurricanes form when SSTAs are positive and fewer when they are negative.
Figure 6. Tracks of major hurricanes in 20 years (1950-1969) when the thermohaline circulation was strong and the North Atlantic had positive SSTAs (left) and in 18 years (1970-1987) when the thermohaline circulation was weak and the North Atlantic had negative SSTAs (right).
Figure 7. Comparison of Florida peninsula landfalling major hurricanes in a 33 year period (1933-1965 -- 11 landfalling major hurricanes) and in a later 38 year period (1966-2003 -- 1 landfalling major hurricane).
Recent major hurricanes Katrina and Rita and last year's four U.S. landfalling major hurricanes have spawned an abundance of questions concerning the role that global warming might be playing in these events. The ideas that global warming was the cause for these last two years of greater hurricane activity has been greatly enhanced by two recent papers presenting data to show that global tropical cyclones have become more intense in recent years. They tie this increased hurricane activity to global warming. These papers are:
a) Kerry Emanuel, 4 August 2005: Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years. Nature, 436, 686-688.
b) P.J. Webster, G.J. Holland, J. Currie and P. Chang, 16 September 2005: Changes in tropical cyclone number, duration, and intensity in a warming environment. Science, 309, 1844-1846.
The near universal reference to these two papers over the last two weeks by most major media outlets is helping to establish a belief among the general public and scientists not involved in tropical cyclone studies that global hurricane intensity has been rising and that global warming is primarily responsible. This conclusion is not valid. The authors have improperly handled their data sets and their findings should not be accepted. These papers require a response from a few of us who study hurricanes. I feel I have an obligation to make formal comments on these papers (to the editors of the journals), which I will do in another week or two.
DETERMINATION OF HURRICANE INTENSITY
There always has been, and there probably always will be, problems in assigning a representative maximum surface wind to a hurricane. As technology advances and the methods of determining a hurricane’s maximum winds change, different values of maximum winds will be assigned to hurricanes than would have been assigned in previous years.
With the availability of new aircraft deployed inertial dropwindsondes and the new step-frequency surface wind measurement instruments, it is being established that Atlantic hurricane surface winds are sometimes stronger than were previously determined from wind values extrapolated from aircraft altitude. Saffir/Simpson category numbers in the Atlantic due to these changes in measurement techniques have risen slightly in recent years. Although most of the comparative differences in the 38 major hurricanes of the last 10 years in the Atlantic basin (1995-2004) vs. the 14 major hurricanes of the prior 10 years (1985-1994) is thought to represent real variability, a small part of this difference may be due to the assignment of a Category 3 or Category 4 status to a hurricane which in earlier years might have received a one category lower designation.
THEORY
Despite what many in the atmospheric modeling community may believe, there is no physical basis for assuming that global tropical cyclone intensity or frequency is necessarily related to global temperature. As the ocean surface warms, so does the upper air to maintain conditionally unstable lapse-rates and global rainfall rates at their required values. Although there has been a general warming of the globe and an increase of SSTs in recent decades, observations do not show increases in tropical cyclone frequency or intensity.
VARIATION IN MAJOR HURRICANE NUMBERS DURING RECENT DECADES OF GLOBAL WARMING
The NOAA reanalysis of global mean temperature difference over the last two 10-year periods have shown that the mean annual global surface temperature has risen 0.39 degree C from the 10-year periods of 1985-1994 to 1995-2004. This is a substantial increase in global temperature (rate of 3.9 oC per century). Table 1 shows the number of measured major hurricanes around the globe (excluding the Atlantic). Major hurricanes have not gone up in the more recent 10-year period when SSTAs have warmed considerably.
Table 1. Comparison of observed major (Cat. 3-4-5) hurricanes-typhoons in all global basins (except the Atlantic) in the two most recent 10 year periods of 1985-94 and 1995-2004. The summertime sea surface temperature increases between these two 10-year periods are shown in the right column.
The Atlantic has seen a very large increase in major hurricanes during the last 10-year period in comparison to the previous 10-year period (38 between 1995-2004 vs. 11 during 1985-1994). The large last decade increase is a result of multi-decadal fluctuations in the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation (THC). Changes in salinity are believed to be the driving mechanism. These multi-decadal changes have also been termed the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO). Even when the large increase in Atlantic major hurricane activity is added to the non-Atlantic global total of major hurricanes, there is no significant global difference (208 vs. 218) in the numbers of major hurricanes between the two periods.
Comparison of Atlantic hurricane activity between the last 15-year active period (1990-2004) with the activity during the active 15-year period of 1950-1964.
There have been hurricane periods in the Atlantic in the past which have been just as active as the current period. A comparison of the last 15 years of hurricane activity with an earlier 15-year period from 1950-64 shows no significant difference in the more intense major hurricanes (Table 2). Note that there has actually been a slight decrease in major hurricane numbers in the most recent 15 years. The number of weak tropical Named Storms (NS) rose by over 50 percent, however. This is a reflection of the availability of the satellite in the later period. It would not have been possible that a hurricane, particularly a major hurricane, escaped detection in the earlier period. But many weaker systems far out in the Atlantic undoubtedly went undetected before satellite observations.
Table 2. Comparison of Atlantic tropical cyclones of various intensities between 1950-1964 and the recent 15 year period of 1990-2004.
Change in Intensity Measurement Technology of the Northwest (NW) Pacific and Comparison of Earlier and Later Periods
This most active of the tropical cyclone basins had aircraft reconnaissance flights during the period 1945-1986 but has not had aircraft reconnaissance since. The satellite has been the only tool to track NW Pacific typhoons since 1987.
There was an anomaly in the measurement of typhoon intensity in the 14-year period of 1973-1986 when the Atkinson-Holliday (1977) technique for typhoon maximum wind and minimum sea-level pressure (MSLP) was used. This technique is now known to have significantly underestimated the maximum winds of the typhoons in comparison with their central pressures. This has been verified by a combination of satellite-aircraft data from the Atlantic and pre-1973 NW Pacific aircraft-measured wind and MSLP. Table 3 shows the official average of the annual number of super typhoons in the West Pacific (equivalent to the number of category 3-4-5 or major hurricanes of the Atlantic). Note that between 1950-1972 and over the last 18 years, this number of super-typhoons has averaged about five per year while during the Atkinson-Holliday period of 1973-1986 it was less than half this number. Weaker storm numbers during the 1973-1986 period were the same. If we disregard this anomalous 1973-1986 period and compare annual frequency of super-typhoon activity between 1950-1972 versus 1987-2004 we see little difference despite the recent global warming trend.
Table 3. Comparison of the annual average of super- typhoon activity in three multi-decadal periods in the western North Pacific. The middle period (1973-1986) used the Atkinson-Holliday (1977) intensity scheme. This reported maximum wind values that were too low.
WHAT OTHERS SAY
I fully subscribe to the view expressed by Max Mayfield, Director of the NOAA National Hurricane Center when he stated last week before the Senate Committee of Commerce, Science and Transportation Sub-Committee: "We believe this heightened period of hurricane activity will continue due to multi-decadal variance, as tropical cyclone activity in the Atlantic is cyclical. The 1940s through the 1960s experienced an above average number of hurricanes, while the 1970s into the mid-1990s averaged fewer hurricanes. The current period of heightened activity could last another 10-20 years. The increased activity since 1995 is due to natural fluctuations/cycles of hurricane activity, driven by the Atlantic Ocean itself along with the atmosphere above it and not enhanced substantially by global warming. The natural cycles are quite large with an average 3-4 major hurricanes a year in active periods and only about 1-2 major hurricanes annually during quiet periods, with each period lasting 25-40 years".
I also subscribe to the views expressed in the new paper titled "Hurricanes and Global Warming" which will soon be published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. This paper is authored by [Roger Pielke, Jr., Director, Center for Science and Technology, U. of Colorado; Christopher Landsea, Director of Research, NOAA National Hurricane Center, Miami, FL; Max Mayfield, Director, National Hurricane Center, Miami, FL; James Laver, Director, NOAA National Climate Center, Washington, DC; and Richard Pasch, Hurricane Specialist, NOAA National Hurricane Center, Miami, FL] and makes the following statements: "Since 1995 there has been an increase in frequency and in particular the intensity of hurricanes in the Atlantic. But the changes of the past decade are not so large as to clearly indicate that anything is going on other than the multi-decadal variability that has been well documented since at least 1900 (Gray et al. 1997; Landsea et al. 1999; Goldenberg et al. 2001)"......
and
"Globally there has been no increase in tropical cyclone frequency over at least the past several decades (Lander and Guard 1998, Elsner and Kocher 2000). In addition to a lack of theory for future changes in storm frequencies, the few global modeling results are contradictory (Henderson-Sellers et al. 1998; IPCC 2001)"
SUMMARY
Analysis of global tropical cyclone activity of all intensities does not support the hypothesis that there has been a significant increase in tropical cyclone frequency-intensity associated with global temperature rise.
REFERENCES
Atkinson, G.D. and C.R. Holliday, 1977: Tropical cyclone minimum sea level pressure/maximum sustained wind relationship for the western North Pacific. Mon. Wea. Rev., 105, 421-427.
Elsner, J.B and B. Kocher, 2000: Global tropical cyclone activity: A link to the North Atlantic Oscillation. Geophysical Research Letters, 27, 129-132.
Goldenberg, S.B., C.W. Landsea, A.M. Mestas-Nunez and W.M. Gray, 2001: The recent increase in Atlantic hurricane activity: Causes and implications. Science, 293, 474-479.
Gray, W.M., J.D. Sheaffer and C.W. Landsea, 1997: Climate trends associated with multidecadal variability of Atlantic hurricane activity. “Hurricanes: Climate and Socioeconomic Impacts.” H.F. Diaz and R.S. Pulwarty, Eds., Springer-Verlag, New York, 15-53.
Henderson-Sellers, A., H. Zhang, G. Berz, K. Emanuel, W. Gray, C. Landsea, G. Holland, J. Lighthill, S-L. Shieh, P. Webster and K. McGuffie, 1998: Tropical cyclones and global climate change: a post-IPCC assessment. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 79, 9-38.
Lander, M.A. and C.P. Guard, 1998: A look at global tropical cyclone activity during 1995: Contrasting high Atlantic activity with low activity in other basins. Mon. Wea. Rev., 126, 1163-1173.
Landsea, C.W., R.A., Pielke, Jr., A.M. Mestas-Nunez and J.A. Knaff, 1999: Atlantic basin hurricanes: Indices of climate changes. Climate Change, 42, 89-129.
Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide
Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
By Timothy Ball
Monday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.
________________________________________
Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com
60 climate scientists’ letter to the Canadian Prime
Minister
6 April 2006
* Sixty eminent scientists in climate and related fields disagree strongly with the “consensus” which Gore
and other supporters of the UN say is unanimous. This is the text of the strongly-worded letter which they
wrote to the Canadian Prime Minister on 6 April 2006.
AN OPEN LETTER TO PRIME MINISTER STEPHEN HARPER
cc. Hon. Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment; Hon. Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources
“Dear Prime Minister, - As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to
propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific
foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your
recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same
suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chretien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal,
independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars
earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of
recent developments in climate science.
25
“Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust
model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting
Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the
climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or
other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant.
Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most
prudent and responsible course of action.
“While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for
sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change
is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be
many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant
advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern
about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate,
Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.
“We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the
loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased
consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climatescience
community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate
scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will
be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the
economy.
“‘Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a
climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate
changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish
from this natural ‘noise.’ The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water
pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to ‘stopping climate change’ would be irrational. We need
to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens
adapt to whatever nature throws at us next.
“We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole
story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming
alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science
continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with
predetermined political agendas. We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand
willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic.”
Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences,
University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of
Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently
adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University,
Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth
Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of
Climate Research and Natural Hazards
26
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury,
Ont.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics
and geology
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), FRMS, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO
Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in
Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member,
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London,
Ont.
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate
change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University,
Halifax
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World
Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta
Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ontario.
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants,
Surrey, B.C.
Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary.
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ontario.
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and
Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past
president, American Association of State Climatologists
27
Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of
Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville,
Australia
Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre,
Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization
Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience
Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University,
Stockholm, Sweden
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of
Alabama, Huntsville
Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State
University, St. Cloud, Minn.
Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of
Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert
reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for
Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy &
Environment
Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands
Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist,
Kansas Geological Survey
Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief
meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand
28
Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of
'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.
Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut
Dr. Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores
University, U.K.
Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.
Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University
of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural
Disasters, 1994-2000
Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director,
U.S. Weather Satellite Service
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht
University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal
Netherlands Geological & Mining Society
Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering,
The Ohio State University
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in
Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official
IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former
professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology,
Stockholm University, Sweden
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.
Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.
Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past
board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public
health
Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
-------------------------------------------------