News24

'Climategate a smear campaign'

2009-11-26 09:11

New York - Three leading scientists who on Tuesday released a report documenting the accelerating pace of climate change said the scandal that erupted last week over hacked emails from climate scientists is nothing more than a "smear campaign" aimed at sabotaging December climate talks in Copenhagen.

"We're facing an effort by special interests who are trying to confuse the public," said Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Scripps Institution of Oceanography and a lead author of the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

Dissenters see action to slow global warming as "a threat", he said.

The comments were made in a conference call for reporters.

The scientists - Somerville, Michael Mann of Penn State and Eric Steig of University of Washington - were supposed to be discussing their new report, the Copenhagen Diagnosis, a dismal update of the UN IPCC's 2007 climate data by 26 scientists from eight nations.

Instead they spent much of the time diffusing the hacker controversy, known in the media as "Climategate".

The scandal began on November 20, when an unknown hacker stole at least 169 megabytes of emails from computers at the prominent Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia and put them online for the world to see.

CRU is considered one of the world's leading institutions concerned with human-caused global warming. The leaked e-mails contain private correspondence on climate science dating back to 1996.

Sceptics of global warming say these messages are filled with evidence of manipulated data from lead authors of the UN's highly influential IPCC reports.

US Sen James Inhofe, a climate skeptic, said he would launch an inquiry into UN climate change research in response.

Copenhagen Diagnosis

In an interview with the Washington Times radio show, Inhofe explained the investigation would look into "the way cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not".

CRU Vice-Chancellor of Research Trevor Davies responded in an official statement:

"There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest-quality of scientific investigation and interpretation."

Michael Mann, co-author of the Copenhagen Diagnosis and lead author of the UN IPCC Third Assessment Report, blamed sceptics for taking the personal emails out of context.

"What they've done is search through stolen personal e-mails - confidential between colleagues who often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world. Suddenly, all these are subject to cherry picking," he said.

They've turned "something innocent into something nefarious", Mann added.

'Smear campaign to distract the public'

The vital point being left out, he said, is that "regardless of how cherry-picked", there is "absolutely nothing in any of the e-mails that calls into the question the deep level of consensus of climate change".

This is a "smear campaign to distract the public", said Mann. "Those opposed to climate action, simply don't have the science on their side," he added.

Professor Davies called the stolen data "the latest example of a sustained and, in some instances, a vexatious campaign" designed "to distract from reasoned debate" about urgent action governments must take to reverse climate change.

According to Somerville, the comments in the e-mails "have nothing to do with the scientific case" for climate change.

It is "desperate" to launch this right before Copenhagen, Eric Steig, co-author of the Copenhagen Diagnosis, said on the call.

Sen Inhofe, meanwhile, lauded the timing of the incident.

"The interesting part of this is it's happening right before Copenhagen. And, so, the timing couldn't be better. Whoever is on the ball in Great Britain, their timing was good," he said.

Strong scientific evidence

The fallout from the scandal is putting some of the world's leading climate scientists on the defensive and underlining the influence of sceptics, even as the case for human-caused warming gets stronger.

According to the Copenhagen Diagnosis report, climate change has rapidly accelerated beyond all previous predictions and humans are to blame.

The findings are a synthesis of 200 peer-reviewed papers that continued to pour in from all over the world after the UN IPCC issued its 2007 analysis. Somerville described the report as an "authoritative assessment" of the newest climate change data.

The results reveal that global warming emissions in 2008 were nearly 40% higher than those in 1990. Further, sea level rise is 80% above past IPCC predictions.

If 2 degree Celsius warming is to be avoided - the point at which catastrophic damage is predicted to occur - fossil fuel emissions must peak between 2015 and 2020, "and then decline rapidly," the authors warn.

"There's an urgency to this that is not politically or ideological driven," said Somerville. This is "objective scientific reality," he added, and we're "running out of time", to stop the problem.

In a statement released on Tuesday, three of the UK's leading science organisations - the Met Office, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Royal Society - issued an unusually strong statement in advance of Copenhagen. They wrote:

The scientific evidence which underpins calls for action at Copenhagen is very strong. Without co-ordinated international action on greenhouse gas emissions, the impacts on climate and civilisation could be severe.

(By Stacy Feldman, SolveClimate)
 

Comments
  • Olavin - 2009-11-26 09:26

    I say hang the scientists! They are liars and fudging the data.

  • Vic - 2009-11-26 09:39

    hahaha I wish I was as stupid as Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Richard Somerville, think I am.

  • dRock - 2009-11-26 09:40

    Climate change is a natural process. Diamond mining along the Namibian and South African west coast has un-earthed ample evidence of dramatic sea-level and climate changes, occuring at regular intervals over the last few million years. In order to reduce the Wests reliance on Arab oil, American politicians have declared the climate change a result of burning fossil fuels. In this way, they will control both the future green technology and the nuclear alternative. In so doing, they regain the upper hand. What they dont say is that climate change is probably caused by below average volcanic activity. One major volcanic eruption can reduce earth surface temperature by 5 degrees C. Also, global warming naturally leads to an ice age. There is ample proof in the rock record. It is no coincidence that the leading voices in this debate are the Americans and their European allies.

  • Craig Stone - 2009-11-26 09:42

    It's patently obvious that the author (Stacy Feldman) has not actually bothered to read anything more than a few extracts (if any at all) of the leaked/stolen information. Hadley have openly ADMITTED that the data was stolen, and even the most ardent anthropogenic climate change supporters (eg George Monbiot) concur that the contents appear to be genuine.
    Anyone who actually bothers to read the contents of the leaked information does not need a scientific qualification to observe repeated deliberate intention on the part of the CRU scientists to silence any debate and undermine the peer-review process. Whether their findings are accurate is not really up for debate here - it's the fact that they DELIBERATELY deleted, withheld and modified the data and methods which they used to reach those findings. This is scientific fraud caried out using public money, no matter how one cuts it.
    If there's any smearing going on here, it's coming from Reuters, which is not surprising at all. EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELF, don't take the word of some government propaganda machine.

  • Ant - 2009-11-26 09:46

    50 years from now people will laugh at the false panic spread by the Climate Change Brigade.

    What I detest about the modern scientific community, is how dissenting voices are ostracized and consensus is obtained through bullying tactics. Exactly as these emails have exposed.

  • Zain - 2009-11-26 09:47

    Fortunately for us - yes, all of us - world leaders base thier decisions on IPCC findings. And the IPCC knows what it is doing. Dissenters can shout and scream all they want, no one really listens to them.

  • Oom Koosie - 2009-11-26 09:47

    Bad attempt at spin. Respond to the evidence of "cooking" the figures

  • Unconvinced - 2009-11-26 09:54

    Take a look at the files online, they are easy to find. Expect a lot more spin, the files are very very revealing.

  • ClimateSceptic - 2009-11-26 10:07

    Finally! ClimateGate gets covered. Shame about the spin though.

    Even George Monbiot (a fierce defender of human-caused climate change) admitted that the scandal is a 'serious blow' and called for the resignation of one of the scientists involved.

    For the real story (and what the e-mails actually say) check out:

    http://newsbusters.org/node/34595/print

  • Hetta - 2009-11-26 10:27

    This whole debate is about money. America doesn't have the trillions of dollars it needs to clean up their act, let alone pay retribution money to the poor countries, so they got "scientists" to say that global warming is not happening unnaturally fast and we can do nothing about it. This is dangerous because then we do do nothing about it.

  • Nostradamus - 2009-11-26 10:28

    "Climate change" is a delibirate attempt to tax the public for a natural process/occurance.

  • Read_the_Truth - 2009-11-26 10:40

    I suggest reading the discussion at RealClimate.org about the CRU hack. When I first read the cherry-picked emails I was shocked, but the reality is very different when the context is explained. Things that sound dodgy to the layman are not so when explained in scientific context. For example, the alarming term "hiding the decline" actually refers to a divergence between temperature readings and real temperatures in dendrochronology. Read the comments of people for yourself.

  • jason - 2009-11-26 10:43

    Skepticism is part of the scientific method. It validates current knowledge.

  • Vrye Denker - 2009-11-26 10:56

    Prepare for more intense "plight of the polar bear" type ads popping up all over. Global warming is just a charade to force countries into signing over their sovereignty or face being taxed to death. OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

  • Rodders - 2009-11-26 11:35

    @ Zain: "Dissenters can shout and scream all they want, no one really listens to them."

    Just as happened in the 1930s in Nazi Germany - the dissenters shouted and screamed, and no-one listened to them....

    ...and look how well that turned out in the end!!!

  • David Mooney - 2009-11-26 11:57

    Since when does "consensus" amongst scientists constitute proof of anything? Consensus has no place in scientific methodology. I hope someone will sue these pseudo-scientists into the stone age when they are shown to be wrong about climate change!

  • Climatechange - 2009-11-26 12:25

    What if we do drastically reduce greenhouse gases, etc etc, as the scientists want us to do, and the climate still changes? What will we blame then?

  • RAKKA - 2009-11-26 12:25

    Climate change dissidents are like HIV/Aids denialists, anti-evolutionists, biblical floodists, astrologers and flat-earthers. You ain't got any data to back your arguements, fellas! Meanwhile, the world is visibly warming, with the retreat of ice caps and glaciers everywhere, rising sea-levels and intensifying storms. None of you can show that it ain't so.

  • Vrye Denker - 2009-11-26 12:36

    But the Polar Bears!

  • Vrye Denker @ RAKKA - 2009-11-26 13:27

    The facts contradict the findings mate. We are actually in a cooling phase, we have seen less polar ice in the 20 century, 2009 saw less hurricanes than 2008 and 2007. On top of that, you have scientists admitting to fabricating data, a programmer's comments to the effect that he has to massage his algorithm to support the intended results and the fact that average global temperatures are actually decreasing. just pop a thermometer out your window for a few days of you don't believe me. You probably also believe that swine flu is going to kill millions.

  • ZION - 2009-11-26 13:43

    About 97% of the posts published do not believe in climate change. I do. I have an engineering and scientific Background. am not a scientist. How many of the authors of the posts are scientists and so enabled or empowered to make the call. It is easier for me to arrive at conclusions about stuff like medicine when I know sweet fanny adams about the subject. Why would billions be spent on a hoax or on bulldust. What is the aim behind all the balderdash and poppycock. Is it all for "spin" What the hell is spin anyway. By the way and in the way of science very many of us debunk relativity simply because it is classified as a theory yet we are too stupid to notice it everyday around us.

  • ClimateSceptic - 2009-11-26 14:19

    @RAKKA

    Actually no link has been found between "intensifying storms" and climate change, sea-levels aren't rising any more rapidly than they have been for the last couple of centuries and glaciers, though they are retreating in some places (as they have been since the end of the "little ice-age") are actually advancing in others.

    By the way, even if all you said were true, it still doesn't show that global warming is caused by CO2 (especially considering that CO2 adds relatively little to the overall greenhouse effect and that increases in levels of CO2 have historically lagged warming periods and could therefore have not been the cause of them).

  • ClimateSceptic - 2009-11-26 14:35

    @ZION

    Just to remind you that there are scientists on both sides of the human-caused global warming divide. So how do you choose which side to believe? Do you automatically go for the side with the most money? Oh yeah and why were millions spent on Y2K? The majority of experts couldn't be wrong, could they?

    P.S. Not being a climatologist is no excuse for remaining ignorant of the science of climat change. We may not be able to fully understand all the intricacies, but we can (and should) certainly become familiar with the basics so that we can make informed decisions.

  • Andy - 2009-11-26 14:44

    Let me see - the IPCC says that the global mean average tmeparature has increased by 0.6 C since 1850. Could we measure sufficient temperatures (and by this I mean in the arctic, antarctic, amazon, middle of the pacific etc.)to within 0.5 C in 1850 ?? Well we all know that we couldn't and so the confidence interval of this apparent 0.6 C warming is actually bigger than the observation itself - which means the observation is suspect in the extreme!. So what the global warming pundits have is a very compelling hypothesis, a mathematical model constructed around this hypothesis that predicts very scary consequences - but they have little verifiable data to validate this model. Unfortunately a compelling hypothesis is not sufficient to be called good science. The disturbing thing for me is the significant vested interests that the warming pundits have - just look at how jet setting Al Gore makes his money! So mr ZION - yes it is all spin and it's done by people who have vested interests in alternative energy technologies. Here's the rub --- these people are going to make us use Brazilian ethanol to run our cars - made from sugar cane grown on land cleared of rain forest - we must stop this nonsense or we will have single crops of soya, corn and no rain forest anywhere

  • Andy - 2009-11-26 14:46

    All of the vitriol that is spewn at global warming denialists (heretics) is very personal and none of it is ever backed by facts - why??

  • Breakdown Boy - 2009-11-26 14:49

    I can not believe the complete idiocy of the comments here. Natural global warming does not happen over decades but hundreds of years and even thousands of years. The previous ice age was the result of a uge meteor that hit the earth that resulted in dust hitting the atmosphere and decreasing tempretures on eart. It took thousands of years for the ice to melt. But let;s listen to the comments of every 'Jan, Piet en sy oom' thinking that the best scienctists in the world have got it wrong and it is one big conspiricy to what? What possible motivation would they have besides saving our stupid asses? Please people, wake up, our planet is not going to stay the way it is if we do not change. Anyway, if the world ends then so be it, then the time has finally come, then as the ice melts and the earths weather system cleans out the trash (us) those scientists wil say "Told you do!"

  • Bill Brewer - 2009-11-26 15:07

    Yeah "...too stupid to notice it everyday..." while record LOW temps and early snow are reported around the globe...who is the stupid one Mr. engineer / scientific background? BTW: there is plenty of stupid to be found across the board in your universities, governments, all sciences - and on the net. You cannot explain away manipulated data. It is junk science lower than grade school level. These people will be prosecuted.

  • RAKKA @ Vrye Denker - 2009-11-26 15:07

    We have seen the least polar ice in the Arctic in the 21st century. 2007 saw the lowest ever measured, 2008 2nd lowest and 2009 3rd lowest (ever measured). Check out the National Snow and Ice Data Center (http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html). The trend is one way, warmer. And yes, like any natural system, there are fluctuations. Show us where in the world ice caps are extending to lower altitudes and lower latitudes (warmer places).

  • Bill Nelson - 2009-11-26 15:32

    The scientists are a little late making that claim. Their initial claim shoul dhave been it was a smear campaign, but when they were confronted, and they said they didnt fudge the data, and they lawyered up, that was enough to disclose what the truth really is.

  • Bill Nelson - 2009-11-26 15:37

    "According to Somerville, the comments in the e-mails "have nothing to do with the scientific case" for climate change"
    Well then they should have nothing to fear, and should cooperate FULLY with the congressional investigastion, as well as any other investigations that come from law makers in Europe. The mere fact that they have LAWYERED UP is telling

  • Andy - 2009-11-26 15:37

    Of course it's a smear campaign - it's a last desparate attempt by those of us that want to retain some vague semblance of ecological diversity on the planet to stop these mad biofuel madmen. I we want to stop our species from destroying the planet, we need to reduce our population - we should spend these trillions these so called do-gooders are going to make us spend in Copenhagen on education and upliftment of the developing world. This will bring our population under control leading to a sustainable future for us on all fronts. We need to stop the biofuels debacle now!!!! It is the biggest threat to the planet at the moment!

  • Soapbox - 2009-11-26 15:55

    Like I always say, PAY a scientist to prove something (evolution, global warming, ozone layer, etc) and he will. PAY him to prove the contrary, and he will also prove that!!!

    Money Talks!!!!

  • ClimatSceptic - 2009-11-26 16:31

    Climategate IS a big deal, but it does not by itself invalidate human-caused global warming. See the following link for a layman's summary of the situation:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/climategate-men-bahaving-badly-a-short-summary-for-laymen/

  • ZION@CLIMATE SCEPTIC - 2009-11-26 16:46

    It would be a futile exercise to list every single bit of evidence in a single posting to prove that the climate is warming especially due to emissions, man made emissions. A counter would be sought for every bit of evidence anyway. and we get nowhere. Even in my wildest imaginations can I believe that scientists will be granted billions to bullsh*t us. What can politicians gain by it. Remember a lie like this will have repercussions that will pursue the liar for a long time to come. We will do well to remember that galileo had the same problem with the RC church so we must watch out that we dont fall off the edge of the world.

  • phine - 2009-11-26 17:19

    Go and broaden your minds:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/

  • John McHugh - 2009-11-26 17:39

    Please don't fall for this line. Here is a link which will give you direct access to the emails in question. A quick review of their content will demonstrate the deceptive nature of the goo goos. Many of those involved have already admitted the emails are accurate. Why do you think the Al Gore hasn't open his mouth.

  • R.G. Frano, NR-A-EMTP, ACLS, (Retired) - 2009-11-26 17:46

    I'm a 'mid 50's'. I have NO DOUBT that 'Impending Global Weather Instability', (a better label then 'G.W.'g'!), is a real disaster in the making, one that will reinforce Darwin: humans have fundamentally changed the earth's operating system...and humans will either adopt to this 'new earth', or experience the same bio-demise T-Rex's faced.
    When I was a child, the snow fall in this same area I have lived in all my life was 3-5 feet by 'Thanksgiving'; Now it's measured in a few inches here & there...if at all!
    Meanwhile, Sen. Imhoffe, Sarah Palin & similar 'sociopathics' (apparently) feel a christian fundamentalist model, demanding human childbaring patters descend into 'as many as possible, as soon as possible', to outreproduce 'them' before they outreproduce 'us', (which MIGHT be seen after Bush's wars go thermonuclear but is CERTAINLY NOT appropriate now!) IS commendanded by their crazy, 'ours is the only legitimate religious belief' logic! There are thousands of religious belief system's and they have conflicting demands which CANNOT (logically) be peacefully fulfilled!
    (I'm NOT knocking the dead horse of religion - just noting one cannot satisfy systems in direct oppisition to each other, as fundmentalist movements are!)...

  • j0nas - 2009-11-26 17:57

    The climate will change. That is what it does. Can we all agree? I have heard this blamed on man for years. Up into the 70's, the Earth was cooling. That was blamed on man. Then it started warming... The truth is that in most of Earth's history, there is no ice at the poles or glaciers on the continents. You can look it up. The question is whether it is wise to commit untold fortunes and sacrifice freedoms to prevent changes that have happened for millenia without dirty, rotten humans. Those who clamor for this cannot state when the debate happened, but insist the debate is over. They insist that the science is irrefutable, but will not release the methods used to show their conclusion. They only scream "concensus!". Concensus concluded that the world is flat. Concensus is not scienece.

  • jallen - 2009-11-26 19:51

    Consider - The emails were not a result of a hacker's activity. They were also not going to be produced under a FOIA request.

    Rather, they are the residual emails comprising those which had already been *sanitized* from the CRU systems to illegally prepare an incomplete response for a future (likely successful) FOIA request.
    Note that there is a very small percentage of personal chatter that typically make up close colleagues' communication. Therefore, it points to a previous culling.

    Theory: These are deleted emails from a sanitized batch which were foolishly or purposely archived and/or discovered by an insider (perhaps the sanitizer himself). The insider then had pangs of conscience or an axe to grind and released them surreptitiously.

    Also, data fabrication and algorithm manipulation are not at all the important issues here. The travesty is that they were peer-reviewing each other's work! They had control of their own process. It was a closed-loop system comprised of several dozen researchers in an incestuous, self-affirming academic relationship.

  • Hootie - 2009-11-27 04:29

    Breakdown Boy, you are a buffoon, much like that cretin Gore. You loonies have been busted. Crawl back into your holes.

  • JS - 2009-11-27 08:35

    @ RAKKA & ZION. Firstly, sea levels are NOT rising - get your facts straight before you comment. Do research, I did. Take note, 20million years ago there was a glacier where New Your is today -who is to blame that the glacier melted, you, me or the the cars that did not exsist at the time.This is a long debate and I have a lot of information. The ONLY reason for the climate change propaganda is so that the powers to be can TAX you and me to make money out of the biggest scam ever. The only real thread is over population and the spin-offs of that - so how many children do all the climate change supporters have. Stop breeding if you want to contribute and stop believing all the tripe you are fed - you are like sheep, if one runs in a direction, the rest will follow. Do your own research and make up your own minds, do not believe everything they FEED you.

  • JS - 2009-11-27 08:44

    If global warming is real, why don't they stop the destruction of rain forests all over the world, because if we do not have these we WILL have a problem - its all about the money. The new LCD pc screens and tv's are also big contributers to GW and more harmfull for the environment - but who try to stop the production of it. It is more harmfull to the environment to BUILD one hybrid than to keep the old gas gusler on the road - why don't the scientists rub that under your noses..... and I can just carry on for the whole day. Anything thing else the sheep need to know?

  • Ray - 2009-11-27 11:26

    Are all you GW'ers really so caught up in your own lies that you can't even consider the truth? It's right in front of you at every turn of propagansists' spins. Show me a photograph of the polar ice caps from 1850 compared to a photograph of them now. You can't. Show me photographs of a ten-year comparison. You can't. Well maybe some scientist can after photoshopping and a applying little HiSci recipe. You folks are all idiots or evil monsters.

  • teldoc - 2009-11-27 23:15

    it's over warmers. You don't realize how foolish you sound to those who have read the docs. They fabricated the data to achieve the desired result. Just read the "read me harry" file. Please spare yourself the shame of supporting these clowns! just read it

  • Jim - 2009-11-28 12:36

    Wow, this piece is such spin I'm getting dizzy.

    Folks, if you want to understand how science has been co-opted by special interests and perverted by money, take a gander at this article... http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/climate-change-and-the-death-of-science/

  • kelly - 2009-11-29 15:53

    but now they say they will release their long hidden, manipulated facts in their data.. which they also say "match other scientists data from around the world" because they were able to stay connected via email and the lies are published.. why would they announce that they will release this information now that we know it's been altered for years? we don't care about your so called facts.. why would anyone want to listen to these liars? because it's the club of rome's agenda. convincing the people they are the problem, "global warming would fit the bill" straight out of their book the first global revolution.. they want to convince us to pay billions to fix a problem that they created through falsification of data?? it's their religion now, it's earth worship.. it's eco terrorism at it's finest.. hurting people by taking their tax dollars to correct a fake problem.. please place these lying criminals in jail.

  • David - 2009-12-01 22:40

    Did anyone else notice that News24 seems to be also so "convinced" they are barely covering the "climategate". Where are the articles with the quotes. Biased Media for the loss!

  • Beetroot - 2009-12-01 22:41

    Man-made global warming is too politicized and too tied to big money that nobody sane can believe it's real any more. ANd for scientists who sold themselves - big shame.

  • Simon Sez - 2009-12-02 07:18

    MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX

    I used to accept the tennets of AGW (anthropogenic {man induced} global warming) as factual. However as a result of examining the evidence myself I have ceased giving credence to the CO2 Global warming hypothesis when I considered the following fundamental facts :-

    First: Water vapour accounts for 85-95% of the IR (Infra-Red) absorbtion "greenhouse effect" - is anyone seriously suggesting we control water emissions ?

    Second: The spectra absorbed by CO2 are fully saturated (this means that all the available energy is already absorbed) - doubling the CO2 level will hardly make any difference. (see note #2)

    Third: The effects of global warming have been observed by NASA on Mars, Jupiter and elsewhere in our solar system - the only logical cause can be solar output.(see note #3)

    Fourth: That solar output variations more closely correlate to global and polar air temperature variations than does CO2.

    Fifth: That historically CO2 increases after temperatures increase - it is a result not a cause - this is clear in the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change - under the auspices of the UN) report which disingenuously presents the data in reverse order so that it appears to be causal. (see note #4)
    Sixth: Studies written by numerous Emeritus Professors have stated that Planet Earth naturally puts out 196 BILLION tons of CO2 p.a.- human beings are responsible for approx 8 Billion tons.

    Seventh: Sea levels are not rising when measured by the sidereal rotation of the Earth (See notes on sea levels rising - later.)

    Eighth: The "Smoking Gun" of the global warming hypothesis is a predicted hot spot in the upper troposphere - has not been found despite intense and ongoing searching. (see note #5)

    Ninth: Of the two approaches "Theoretical Modelling" and "Observational Science" only the theoretical modelling supports the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. A model unsupported by observation should be discarded.

    See Clash of theories at this site http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=99

    Tenth: The "Greenhouse Effect" as applied to greenhouses relies on the prevention of convection rather than the "trapping" of Infra Red ( IR ) radiation. This IR trapping model is false and originated in some 19th century hypotheses which were debunked over 100 years ago. (see later)
    Many textbooks still ascribe this effect to IR trapping and it is often still taught this way.
    The "Greenhouse" is not a good analogue for the way our atmosphere behaves.

  • 2012 - 2009-12-02 08:06

    Climate change should be the least of our worries. Most "experts" are talking about the effects in 50 to 100 years time. Not in my lifetime. We should all be looking to the not to distant future when the polar shift will take place. The alignment of our solar system will cause a gravitational tug on the asteroid belt and send thousands of tons of space debris into our Earths orbit around the sun. NASA will continue to deny these events until it is too late. Throughout the Earths history there have been countless cycles of destruction and regeneration. That an ancient people chose to document the time it would happen does not mean it will not happen. You have been warned!!!

Report Comment