On Mar 6, 8:33 pm, "BZN00" wrote:
Fred Singer

Special For The Financial Post

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

http://www.nationalpost.com/life/Story.html?id=350842

The central problems for policymakers in the debate over global warming
are

(a) is the reported warming trend real and how significant is it?

(b) how much of the warming trend is due to natural causes and how much
is due to human-generated greenhouse gases? And

(c) would the effects of continued warming be harmful or beneficial to
plant and wildlife and to human civilization?


All answered by numerous scientific studies published in scientific
journals. Try reading those instead of blogs.

In this Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change report, we
have presented evidence that helps provide answers to all three
questions. The extent of the modern warming-- the subject of the first
question -- appears to be less than is claimed by the Intergovernmental
panel on Climate Change and in the popular media.

Yeah, sure. Scientists wrong, morons right -- that your answer to
everything?


We have documented
shortcomings of surface data, affected by urban heat islands and by the
poor distribution of land-based observing stations. Data from oceans,
covering 70% of the globe, are also subject to uncertainties. The only
truly global observations come from weather satellites, and these have
not shown any warming trend since 1998, for the past 10 years.


Lie #1

This report shows conclusively that the human greenhouse-gas
contribution to current warming is insignificant.

Lie #2

Our argument is based
on the well-established and generally agreed upon "fingerprint" method.

Lie #3

Using data published by the IPCC, we have shown that observed
temperature-trend patterns disagree sharply with those calculated from
green-house models.


Lie #4

It is significant that the IPCC has never made such a comparison, or it
would have discovered the same result: namely, that the current warming
is primarily of natural origin rather than anthropogenic.

Lie #5

Instead, the
IPCC relied for its conclusion on circumstantial "evidence" that does
not hold up under scrutiny.

Lie #6

We show that the 20th century is in no way
unusual and that warming periods of greater magnitude have occurred in
the historic past

Lie #7

-- without any catastrophic consequences. We also
discuss the many shortcomings of climate models in trying to simulate
what is happening in the real atmosphere.

If the human contribution to global warming due to increased levels of
greenhouse gases is insignificant, why do greenhouse-gas models
calculate large temperature increases, i.e., show high values of
"climate sensitivity"? The most likely explanation is that models ignore
the negative feedbacks that occur in the real atmosphere. New
observations from satellites suggest it is the distribution of water
vapour that could produce such strong negative feedbacks. If current
warming is not due to increasing greenhouse gases,

If pigs can fly...

what are the natural
causes that might be responsible for both warming and cooling
episodes -- as so amply demonstrated in the historic, pre-industrial
climate record? Empirical evidence suggests very strongly that the main
cause of warming and cooling on a decadal scale derives from solar
activity via its modulation of cosmic rays that in turn affect
atmospheric cloudiness.

Lie #9

According to published research, cosmic-ray
variations are also responsible for major climate changes observed in
the paleo-record going back 500 million years.

The third question concerns the effects of modest warming. A major scare
associated with a putative future warming is a rapid rise in sea level,
but even the IPCC has been scaling back its estimates. We show here that
there will be little, if any, acceleration, and therefore no additional
increase in the rate of ongoing sea-level rise. This holds true even if
there is a decades-long warming, whether natural or man-made.

Other effects of a putative increase in temperature and carbon dioxide
are likely to be benign, promoting not only the growth of crops and
forests but also benefitting human health.


Lie #10

Ocean acidification is not
judged to be a problem, as indicated by available data.


"Iraq judged to have WMD."

Our findings, if sustained, point to natural causes

Lie #11

and a moderate
warming trend with beneficial effects for humanity and wildlife.

Speculation.

This
has obvious policy implications: Schemes proposed for controlling CO2
emissions, including the Kyoto Protocol, proposals in the United States
for federal and state actions, and proposals for a successor
international treaty to Kyoto, are unnecessary,

Lie #12

would be ineffective if
implemented,

Lie #13

and would waste resources that can better be applied to
genuine societal problems.

Lie #14


Even if a substantial part of global warming were due to greenhouse
gases --and it is not -

Lie #15

-any control efforts currently contemplated would
give only feeble results. For example, the Kyoto Protocol--even if
punctiliously observed by all participating nations -- would decrease
calculated future temperatures by only 0.02C by 2050, an undetectable
amount.


Cite?

In conclusion, this NIPCC report falsifies the principal IPCC conclusion
that the reported warming (since 1979) is very likely caused by the
human emission of greenhouse gases.


Yeah, like creationists claim to falsify evolution.



--- - This an excerpt from a report issued yesterday by the
Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change. S. Fred Singer, a
professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of
Virginia, edited the report, available atwww.sepp.org/publications/
NIPCC-Feb%2020.pdf

--

Warmest Regards

Bonzo

The Fourth Report of the IPCC might just as well decree the
suppression of all climatology textbooks, and replace them in our
schools with press communiqués. ... Day after day, the same mantra -
that 'the Earth is warming up' - is churned out in all its forms. As
'the
ice melts' and 'sea level rises' the Apocalypse looms ever nearer!
Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average
citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, and lulled into mindless acceptance.
... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the
position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ...
Marcel Leroux

It should be abundantly clear by now that the AGW hypothesis is
contradicted by the facts/measurements/observations and should
therefore be abandoned and be substituted by a hypothesis which
better matches the facts.
- Hans Labohm