The IPCC's 'evidence' For Anthropogenic Global Warming Deconstructed

Written by S. Fred Singer

May 17, 2009
by S. Fred Singer
The Week that Was ending May 18, 2009
First, this week:
This is a good time to revisit my ‘Fearless Forecast' (TWTW of Dec 27, 2008):  I predicted then that neither Congress nor EPA will achieve CO2 controls this year (or even in 2010) - and there would be some disappointed folks in the White House (and it still looks that way)
Cap & Trade (aka Cap & Tax); The Waxman-Markey (W-M) bill has been introduced as H. R. 2454, patriotically and misleadingly titled the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES)....all  932 pages.  It is a grab bag of goodies but overall configured to ruin the nation's economy and destroy jobs. 

It mandates unreliable and hugely expensive ‘renewable energy' (that does not include nuclear and hydro) for electric utilities. 
On C&T, instead of auctioning off all emission permits, it will give away 85%  -- hence little revenue to the Treasury.  Even after all kinds of ‘deals' and compromises, the bill may not survive in Committee.  Several moderate and conservative Democrats have not signed off on any final deals. One delay may have to do with House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), who expects to have jurisdiction over the revenue generation components of the climate debate.  It then faces the full House (where Speaker Nancy Pelosi's authority is dwindling as she becomes embroiled in the CIA-torture controversy).  And then there is the hurdle of the Senate 
EPA's Endangerment Finding (EF)  is in trouble on many fronts.  Its science is based on IPCC - which is based on models that are not validated by data from the real atmosphere.  [We will testify to this in open hearings on May 18.]

Its economic impact would be devastating - as was made abundantly clear in an internal OMB memo.  Rumor has it that the White House leaked the memo to undercut the EPA initiative.  But again, the WH may be using EPA as a club to force Congress to legislate.  Then again, in a bit of Machiavellianism, opponents of pointless and costly GH gas controls may prefer to see EPA impose full CO2 regulation.  Sometimes bad policies have unintended good consequences.

As we pointed out (TWTW April 18), Congress can step in at any time and amend the Clean Air Act - and probably will.  The W-M bill already preempts the CAA regulation of CO2 and makes the EPA's EF an exercise in futility and waste motion. 

SEPP Science Editorial #14-2009 (5/16/09)
The IPCC's 'evidence' For Anthropogenic Global Warming Deconstructed #3

In our SciEd #13-2009, we pointed to IPCC's omission of significant forcings when trying to compare model simulation with real atmospheric temperature data.  Here from http://www.scientific-alliance.org/:
Apart from the direct localised pollution caused by smoky fires, black carbon has a direct warming effect on the air when suspended in the atmosphere, and also contributes to melting of glaciers and polar ice by settling on the surface and changing its albedo. According to the article, recent research suggests that soot may be responsible for 18% of global warming, compared to 40% for carbon dioxide. And the effect on Arctic ice may be even more marked: black carbon could account for 40% of the loss.
Given the certainty of so many scientists that they understand the drivers of climate change, and that carbon dioxide dominates, it is sobering to note that the last IPCC Assessment Report, published just two years ago, makes no mention of the significant effect of soot. Moving from certainty that all drivers were accounted for to suddenly finding a basic 18% error is not calculated to build confidence in the state of knowledge. But the effect of black carbon now seems to be generally acknowledged, as witnessed by the recent unprecedented agreement of both climate activists and sceptics in the US Senate to instruct the Environmental Protection Agency to make a study of options to reduce levels of soot entering the atmosphere.
The problem is that, if climate modellers have completely left out a factor which appears to account for nearly one fifth of climate change, what else might they have overlooked or underestimated? The obvious answer is the role of the Sun, where most mainstream scientists dismiss the changes in total radiance as trivial in climate terms, while many sceptics insist that its effect is far more complex and significant than that. They also point to the well-established historical correlation between sunspot numbers and weather patterns. Periods of low activity correlate with poor harvests and high food prices due to cooler weather in mid-latitudes. Since the Sun is now entering a period of extremely low activity, we can expect to see its influence on the weather over the next decade or so if a causative correlation is valid.
*********************** ***************************************
  1. OMB memo throws doubt on EPA initiative
  2. EPA's Greenhouse Gas proposal critiqued
  3. Cap&Trade just shorthand for tax hikes
  4. Tax increases could kill the recovery
  5. Joint Statement from Greenpeace, FOE, and Public Citizen on the House Energy and Commerce Committee Climate and Energy Bill
  6. Canada warns U.S. over carbon-fee draft law and trade protectionism
  7. Penny-wise and Megawatt foolish
  8. The Thames wind-farm array
  9. The folly of Carbon Capture and Burial

Governor Daniels of Indiana Says 'No Thanks' to Cap and Trade: No honest person thinks this will make a dent in climate change.
Why Cap&Trade taxes will savage living standards: A realistic  appraisal of ‘renewable energy'  wind and solar  -- and of journalist Gelbspan   http://brookesnews.com/091105obamaenergy.html
For a good take on ‘sustainability,' see   http://www.scientific-alliance.org/    of May 1
Another heavily criticized Bush policy adopted by Obama [H/t WSJ-Best of the Web Today - May 13]
"In its closing months, the Bush administration is pulling out all the stops in its eight-year effort to undermine the Endangered Species Act. In mid-August, the administration proposed two dangerous regulatory changes. One would free the government from considering the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on polar bears and other imperiled wildlife."--editorial, New York Times, Oct. 25, 2008   "Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has upheld a Bush administration finding that the Endangered Species Act is not a suitable tool for restricting carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases threatening the polar bear and its habitat. We agree, with this codicil: . . ."--editorial, New York Times, May 13, 2009  
Environmentalists who had been pressing the White House to drop the Bush-era rule criticized the decision, predicting that the rule would ultimately be deemed illegal in the courts.
"The action taken by Salazar today, and the spin on that action, is every bit as cynical, abusive and antiscientific as the Bush administration," said Kierán Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity, one of several environmental groups that have sued to challenge the rule.
Well worth reading:  http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/the_coming_ice_age.html
"By reducing our production of carbon dioxide, we risk  hastening the advent of the next ice age."

Also:  http://lewrockwell.com/orig9/deming2.html       "Without the inexpensive and reliable energy provided by coal, oil, and gas, our civilization would quickly collapse."
Study seeks to link HIV to global warming   [H/t to ClimateDepot.com  May 14, 2009]
Ongoing research at the Kenya Meteorological Department seeks to correlate climate change and HIV. According to Africa Science News Service, while it is still coincidental that highest temperatures in 1998 also marked the peak of HIV prevalence, there was need for science to bring out the correlation. http://africasciencenews.org/asns/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1250&Itemid=1
You are now being logged in using your Facebook credentials