Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Proved: There is no climate crisis

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Adam West

unread,
Jul 16, 2008, 12:56:40 AM7/16/08
to
Science and Technology News
Proved: There is no climate crisis

Major paper shows CO2's effect on temperature was overstated 500-2000%

Washington, D.C. 7/15/2008 03:33 PM GMT (TransWorldNews)


WASHINGTON (7-15-08) - Mathematical proof that there is no "climate crisis"
appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a
learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI
reports.

Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via
30 equations that computer models used by the UN's climate panel (IPCC) were
pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product
is "climate sensitivity" (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas
increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2's effect on
temperature in the IPCC's latest climate assessment report, published in
2007.


Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered demonstrates that later this century a
doubling of the concentration of CO2 compared with pre-industrial levels
will increase global mean surface temperature not by the 6 °F predicted by
the IPCC but, harmlessly, by little more than 1 °F. Lord Monckton
concludes -


". Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC's
estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no 'climate crisis' at all. . The
correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do
nothing."


Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chair
(2004) of the New England Section of the American Physical Society (APS),
has been studying climate-change science for four years. He said:


"I was impressed by an hour-long academic lecture which criticized claims
about 'global warming' and explained the implications of the physics of
radiative transfer for climate change. I was pleased that the audience
responded to the informative presentation with a prolonged, standing
ovation. That is what happened when, at the invitation of the President of
our University, Christopher Monckton lectured here in Hartford this spring.
I am delighted that Physics and Society, an APS journal, has published his
detailed paper refining and reporting his important and revealing results.


"To me the value of this paper lies in its dispassionate but ruthlessly
clear exposition - or, rather, exposé - of the IPCC's method of evaluating
climate sensitivity. The detailed arguments in this paper, and, indeed, in
a large number of other scientific papers, point up extensive errors,
including numerous projection errors of climate models, as well as
misleading statements by the IPCC. Consequently, there are no rational
grounds for believing either the IPCC or any other claims of dangerous
anthropogenic 'global warming'."


Lord Monckton's paper reveals that -

The IPCC's 2007 climate summary overstated CO2's impact on temperature by
500-2000%;

CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean
surface temperature by 2100;

Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can
be measured directly;

The IPCC's values for these key variables are taken from only four published
papers, not 2,500;

The IPCC's values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate
sensitivity, are overstated;

"Global warming" halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been
falling for seven years;

Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and
rapid a cooling;

The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists' draft, overstating the effect
of ice-melt by 1000%;

It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead
is impossible;

Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as
Earth warmed;

In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time
in the past 11,400 years.

Contact: Robert Ferguson, Science and Public Policy Institute
http://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
202-288-5699
bfer...@sppinstitute.org


V for Vendicar

unread,
Jul 16, 2008, 1:36:18 AM7/16/08
to

"Adam West" <bat...@nospam.com> wrote ...

> Science and Technology News
> Proved: There is no climate crisis


Oh look. It's Apil Fools Day on Mars.

Lloyd

unread,
Jul 16, 2008, 1:38:13 PM7/16/08
to
On Jul 16, 12:56 am, "Adam West" <batt...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Science and Technology News
> Proved: There is no climate crisis
>
> Major paper shows CO2's effect on temperature was overstated 500-2000%
>
> Washington, D.C. 7/15/2008 03:33 PM GMT (TransWorldNews)
>
> WASHINGTON (7-15-08) - Mathematical proof that there is no "climate crisis"
> appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a
> learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI
> reports.
>
> Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via

He has no scientific degrees, education, background, training, or
experience.

And it's not a peer-reviewed paper. From the Physics & Society
website:

"Physics and Society is the quarterly of the Forum on Physics and
Society, a division of the American Physical Society. It presents
letters, commentary, book reviews, and reviewed articles on the
relations of physics and the physics community to government and
society. It also carries news of the Forum and provides a medium for
Forum members to exchange ideas. Opinions expressed are those of the
authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or
of the Forum."

So it's basically a "letters to the editor" or "op-ed" page.

Note in the same issue is another contributed piece arguing for the
other side.

Correction: Opines that.

>
> The IPCC's 2007 climate summary overstated CO2's impact on temperature by
> 500-2000%;
>
> CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean
> surface temperature by 2100;
>
> Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can
> be measured directly;
>
> The IPCC's values for these key variables are taken from only four published
> papers, not 2,500;
>
> The IPCC's values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate
> sensitivity, are overstated;
>
> "Global warming" halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been
> falling for seven years;
>
> Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and
> rapid a cooling;
>
> The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists' draft, overstating the effect
> of ice-melt by 1000%;
>
> It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead
> is impossible;
>
> Mars, Jupiter, Neptune's largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as
> Earth warmed;
>
> In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time
> in the past 11,400 years.
>
> Contact: Robert Ferguson, Science and Public Policy Institutehttp://www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
> 202-288-5699

> bfergu...@sppinstitute.org

Right-wing fringe group.

mcmor...@gmail.com

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 3:03:13 PM7/25/08
to
"Mathematical proof that there is no "climate crisis"
appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society,
a
learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI
reports. "

The paper has NOT been peer reviewed. The person who wrote the article
is in error. In fact, it states on the articles first page that it has
NOT been peer reviewed.


"The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review,
since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society
newsletters."

Its interesting how the anti-science crowd is so uninterested in facts
that they don't even bother to read the first page of articles they
claim to prove their case.


Its not a major paper, either. Its a newsletter article written by a
journalist with no formal scientific training.

V for Vendicar

unread,
Jul 25, 2008, 8:22:16 PM7/25/08
to

<mcmor...@gmail.com> wrote

> Its not a major paper, either. Its a newsletter article written by a
> journalist with no formal scientific training.

And the author makes several arithmetic errors along with several errors
in the analysis that even a high school student would catch.

Monkton has once again stepped into his own mile high pile of Dung.

What a public Humiliation.



0 new messages