Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change

Update 1: I have added new posts below this because I wanted to leave this on the top. NJC

Update 2:

There was an excellent article by David Henderson (of www.cei.org) entitled "Save us from Rio" (National Post, May 19, 2005, FP 23, not available online). There are articles, though a quick search revealed none with that exact title on the cei website. However, there are many articles -- some of which you may download in PDF format; for example, Improving Capitalism: The Respective Roles of Business and Government -- Henderson Article in the February/March Issue of CEI's Monthly Planet David Henderson, April 1, 2005


Climate cover-up: A trumpeted consensus to the contrary is a global hoax -- The sun can't be ruled out as the principal driver of climate change Benny Peiser, May 17, 05, Financial Post

Benny Peiser is a social anthropologist at Liverpool JohnMoores University.

This is lengthy and worth reading.

Six eminent researchers from the Russian Academy of Science and the Israel Space Agency have just published a startling paper in one of the world's leading space science journals. The team of solar physicists claims to have come up with compelling evidence that changes in cosmic ray intensity and variations in solar activity have been driving much of the Earth's climate. They even provide a testable hypothesis, predicting that amplified cosmic ray intensity will lead to an increase of the global cloud cover which, according to their calculations, will result in "some small global cooling over the next couple of years."

[. . . . ] What the Russian, Israeli and Canadian researchers have in common is that they allocate much of the climate change to solar variability rather than human causes. They also publish their papers in some of the world's leading scientific journals. So why is it that a recent study published in the leading U.S. journal Science categorically claims that skeptical papers don't exist in the peer-reviewed literature?

[. . . . ] The stifling of dissent and the curtailing of scientific skepticism is bringing climate research into disrepute. Science is supposed to work by critical evaluation, open-mindedness and self-correction. There is a fear among climate alarmists that the very existence of scientific skepticism and doubts about their gloomy predictions will be used by politicians to delay action. But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it's all over for science.

Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change

Note: IPCC = United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

It is unlikely that you will find what follows advertised on CBC -- a badge of its value, perhaps, since questioning the International Panel on Climate Change of the UN would upset the status quo and current "received wisdom" being trumpeted in government and by those who love control . . . or who have some other reason.

Who benefits? A suggestion: follow the money.

Friends of Science: "We offer critical evidence that challenges the premises of the Kyoto Protocol and present alternative causes for climate change."

Friends of Science is a non-profit organization made up of active and retired geologists, engineers, earth scientists and other professionals, not to mention concerned Canadians, who believe the science behind the Kyoto Protocol is questionable. Friends of Science has assembled a scientific advisory board of esteemed climate scientists from around the world to offer a critical mass of current science on global climate and climate change to policy makers, and any interested parties.

We offer critical evidence that challenges the premises of the Kyoto Protocol and present alternative causes for climate change. . . . .

Check the Scientific Advisory Board and a link for contact.


A few quotations from the videos:

"The IPCC is a political organization set up by the United Nations to provide evidence to support the Framework Convention on Climate Change which has been signed by governments. It is entirely political. Where the governments have placed all their faith in the IPCC, the IPCC have put all their faith in the computer models."

"There are so many climate variables that it is impossible to use all of them--approximately 5 million at this point (check this in the video). Also, the climate models are imperfect."

"Climate policy must be set up so that it may be changeable as climate science advances."

Videos: Download, watch and judge for yourself.

All are at this site: "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change"

Part 1 (9.11MB) 4:20 minutes

Part 2 (16.3MB) 6:21 minutes

Part 3 (7.82MB) 3:26 minutes

Part 4 (12.4MB) 5:10 minutes

Part 5 (9.55MB) 5:16 minutes

Topics from another page of the website: The Science of Climate Change -- Assume [. . . . ] after each of the following.

The Emphasis on Man-made Global Warming
The CO2 - Global Warming Hypothesis
Problems with the CO2 - Global Warming Hypothesis -- Table
Possible Explanations For Global Climate Change
The Media and Perceptions of Climate Change
Weather Extremes?
Observations on Climate Change
Summary of Scientific Arguments: Why you should be sceptical of the Kyoto claims: [includes 9 items]
Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective From Four Billion Years Of The Carbon Cycle

SOLAR ACTIVITY MOST LIKELY THE PRINCIPAL DRIVER OF CLIMATE CHANGE

GEOSCIENCE CANADA, March 2005, Volume 32, Number 1 pp.13-30
http://www.esd.mun.ca/~gac/JOURNALS/TOC/GACgcV32No1Web.pdf

by Jan Veizer veizer@science.uottawa.ca. [GEOSCIENCE CANADA, March 2005, Volume 32, Number 1 pp.13-30 ]
Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, K1N 6N5 Canada & Institut fuer Geologie, Mineralogie und Geophysik, Ruhr-Universitaet Bochum, Bochum, Germany

CELESTIAL CLIMATE DRIVER
(A perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle)

Ján Veizer
Institut für Geologie, Mineralogie und Geophysik, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Germany and Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
ABSTRACT

1. Introduction
2. CELESTIAL CLIMATE DRIVER
(A perspective from four billion years of the carbon cycle)
3. LIFE, WATER, AND THE CARBON CYCLE ON BILLION YEARS TIME SCALES
4. CLIMATE ON MILLION YEAR TIME SCALES
5. CLIMATE ON MILLENIAL TIME SCALES
6. CLIMATE ON TIME SCALES OF CENTURIES
7. THE DECADAL TO ANNUAL RECORD OF THE LAST CENTURY -- "empirical observations on all time scales point to celestial phenomena as the principal driver of climate,"
8. SO WHAT IS THE SEQUENCE?
9. COUPLING OF THE WATER AND CARBON CYCLES
10. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

At this stage, two scenarios of potential human impact on climate appear feasible: (1) the standard IPCC model that advocates the leading role of greenhouse gases, particularly of CO2, and (2) the alternative model that argues for celestial phenomena as the principal climate driver. The two scenarios may not even be mutually exclusive, but they could differ in their relative impact. Models and empirical observations are both indispensable tools of science, yet when discrepancies arise, observations should carry greater weight than theory. If so, the multitude of empirical observations favors celestial phenomena as the most important driver of terrestrial climate, but time will be the final judge. Should this be the case, the chain of reasoning for potential human impact will deviate from that of the standard IPCC model. . . . .

11. LIST OF REFERENCES

Climate Experts Speak Out in New Video - Science underlying Kyoto Protocol seriously flawed

OTTAWA, April 13 /CNW Telbec/ - [. . . .]

At a news conference held in Ottawa, some of North America’s foremost climate experts provided evidence demonstrating that the science underlying the Kyoto Protocol is seriously flawed; a problem that continues to be ignored by the Canadian government. Scientists called on the Canadian government to delay implementation of the Kyoto Protocol until a thorough, public review of the current state of climate science has been conducted by climate experts. Such an analysis has never been organized in Canada despite repeated requests from independent, non-governmental climate scientists.

Carleton University Professor Tim Patterson (Paleoclimatologist) explains the crucial importance of properly evaluating the merit of Canada's climate change plans: “It is no exaggeration to say that in the eight years since the Kyoto Protocol was introduced there has been a revolution in climate science. If, back in the mid-nineties, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would not exist because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”

Contrary to claims that the science of climate change has been settled, the causes of the past century’s modest warming is highly contested in the climate science community. The climate experts presenting in the video demonstrate that science is quickly diverging away from the hypothesis that the human release of greenhouse gases, specifically carbon dioxide, is having a significant impact on global climate. “There is absolutely no convincing scientific evidence that human-produced greenhouse gases are driving global climate change”, stated climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball. He added that the Canadian government’s plan to designate carbon dioxide as a “toxic” under CEPA is irresponsible and without scientific merit. “Carbon dioxide is a staff of life, plain and simple. It makes up less than 4% of greenhouse gases and it is not a toxic.”

IPCC assertions about the unprecedented nature of the past century's warming, or the widespread beliefs that we are experiencing an increase in extreme weather, accelerated sea level rise and unusual warming in polar regions are also shown in the video to be wholly without merit.

The idea for the video was initiated by the Friends of Science Society, a registered not-for-profit group of geologists, environmental scientists and concerned citizens, “in an effort to make the science of climate change available and understandable to the general public”, stated Dr. Doug Leahey, President of Friends of Science Society. Commenting on his decision to get involved with the video project, University of Calgary’s Professor Barry Cooper stated, “Universities are in the education business. In a democracy like Canada, education and informed discussion of public policy are tightly linked. The public, media and government would benefit by hearing from all sides on this important issue in order to make as informed a decision as is possible.”
For further information:

Professor Barry Cooper, University of Calgary, 403-874-8314, mailto:bcooper@ucalgary.ca
Dr. Doug Leahey, Friends of Science Society, 403-620-4793, mailto:dmleahey@shaw.ca
Sheila Roy, Media Relations, 613-863-0127, mailto:sheilaroy@rogers.com
To book one-on-one interviews with climate science experts please contact Sheila Roy.

Comments: Just watch the videos.

The problem with a country like Canada is that, should research lead you to conclusions that go against what is currently the "acceptable"--in the political sense--interpretations of climate data (or just about anything), you will have a difficult time getting your position into the mainstream areas to be considered. Academic enquiry, in the sense of wide ranging and following where the data and analyses lead, play second fiddle to analysis of data that "fit" what government(s)--or powerful leaders--want. Truth and facts backed by excellence of research s not necessarily the salient factor in decision making.

What is it? Government? Elites? The ignorant in positions of power? Moneyed interests or those who stand to make money from focusing on incomplete data or incorrect analyses, even failed computer models? Academic enquiry in the traditional sense can be labelled politically incorrect . . . . which ends that avenue of enquiry in Canada, too often. It takes stern stuff to fight the system. Academia and academics have been losing academic excellence to the pressures of "correct thought" . . . or there goes the career. . . and much else. This is not limited to science, of course.

Think, for example, of the central planning and power tinkering with the market economy, equality, equalization, native affairs and the like . . . . possibly well-intentioned, but having quite opposite effects . . . . often reinforcing the wrong behaviours and, hence, not producing the positive change desired.



Which leads me to a digression:

As an example, at a level we have all experienced, it is rather akin to telling a child that, until the dishes are done, he/she can stop whining about going out. . . then giving in to the whining before the work is finished. It will only get worse, until the parent gives up control altogether, the child does not help with household chores and does as he/she pleases. The result is undisciplined children. . . and dirty dishes . . . until someone does them, but it won't be the child, and the family breaks down because some elements are not contributing positively. There is too much of that in evidence already.

The same happens as a result of governments' tinkering by monetarily supporting some unproductive sectors (the business, the company, the sector of the economy, the province, the identifiable group, the friends, the political supporters, et cetera ) thereby reinforcing the behaviours that produced their lack of productivity at the expense of the productive sector (the taxpayers, other businesses, companies, sectors, provinces, other groups not so favoured). Fill in your own actual examples here. After a while, the whole thing begins to break down; the productive sector cannot hold it all together any longer.



For the government's perspective see:

See also Greenfacts which leads to the United Nations Environment Programme

"The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), established in 1972, works to encourage sustainable development through sound environmental practices everywhere. Its activities cover (...) the promotion of environmental science and information, to an early warning and emergency response capacity to deal with environmental disasters and emergencies."

Where does Maurice Strong, mentor to our PM, fit into all the above, or does he?

---