2014 warmest year? Can't be measured say scientists.

Here, a number of scientists challenge 2014 claims.

A number of reputable scientists also immediately cast doubt on the federal government’s declaration Friday.

“Using the normal rules of science, is 58.46 degrees then distinguishable from 58.45 degrees? In a word, ‘No,’” wrote Patrick J. Michaels on the Cato Institute website.

Read more at  http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/scientists-undermine-hottest-year-claim-by-feds/#dfhXUbtgd7QKQ412.99

“There has not been any significant man-made global warming in the past, there is none now, and there is no reason to expect any in the future,” he said. “The computer models that predicted the warming have failed to verify. There has been no warming in 18 years. The ice at the poles is stable. The polar bears are increasing. The oceans are not rising.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/scientists-undermine-hottest-year-claim-by-feds/#arbJyYieRGTQtasD.99

“There are dueling global datasets – surface temperature records and satellite records – and they disagree. The satellites show an 18 year plus global warming ‘standstill’ and the satellite was set up to be ‘more accurate’ than the surface records.”
Read more at  http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/scientists-undermine-hottest-year-claim-by-feds/#dfhXUbtgd7QKQ412.99


“AP’s Borenstein can be trusted to shill for U.N.’s climate summit. … Borenstein ignores tide gauges on sea level showing deceleration of sea level rise and ignores satellite temperatures which show the earth in an 18 year ‘pause’ or ‘standstill’ of global warming.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/scientists-undermine-hottest-year-claim-by-feds/#dfhXUbtgd7QKQ412.99

This week we are told that 'warming is continuing'.

Ok I am not a climate scientist but I have read enough science on climate change to know that books must've been cooked for this week's media release by The Met. Office . 

There has already been enough eminent confirmation that there has been no global warming since 1997. Of course we know that we have been steadily climbing out of the Little Ice Age, when there used to be ice skating on the Thames, and that was the origin of our Christmas card scenes too. But that seems to have plateaued off since 1997 and by all accounts we are headed back down again too.

So yes climate has been getting warmer for some 200 years but contrary to it being anthropogenic, it is just one more wave in a cyclic history and warming seems to have stopped. So how does that square with this week's reports? Well this is the answer. Read here how the Warmists are still cooking the numbers! 

Polar Bears are doing well

Global Warming Policy Foundation

1) Polar bears are a conservation success story
Their numbers have rebounded remarkably since 1973 and we can say for sure that there are more polar bears now than there were 40 years ago. Although we cannot state the precise amount that populations have increased (which is true for many species – counts are usually undertaken only after a major decline is noticeable), polar bears join a long list of other marine mammals whose populations rebounded spectacularly after unregulated hunting stopped: sea otters, all eight species of fur seals, walrus, both species of elephant seal, and whales of all kinds (including grey, right, bowhead, humpback, sei, fin, blue and sperm whales). Once surveys have been completed for the four sub-populations of polar bears whose numbers are currently listed as zero, the total world population will almost certainly rise to well above the current official estimate of 20,000-25,000 (perhaps to 27,000-32,000?).

2) The only polar bear subpopulation that has had a statistically significant decline in recent years is the one in Western Hudson Bay. A few others have been presumed to be decreasing, based on suspicions of over-harvest- of over-harvest of over-harvesting, assumed repercussions of reduced sea ice and/or statistically insignificant declines in body condition – not actual population declines.

3) Polar bears in the US portion of the Chukchi Sea are in good condition and reproducing well, while sea ice in the Bering Sea has rebounded from record lows over the last ten years – good reasons not to be worried about polar bears in the Chukchi.

4) A survey by the Nunavut government in 2011 showed that polar bear numbers in Western Hudson Bay have not declined since 2004 as predicted and all available evidence indicates that Hudson Bay sea ice is not on a steadily precipitous decline – good reasons not to be worried about Hudson Bay bears.

Full report

Dr Susan Crockford
Dr Susan Crockford is an evolutionary biologist and an expert on polar bear evolution. She has been working for 35 years in archaeozoology, paleozoology and forensic zoology and is an adjunct professor at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. She is the author of Rhythms of Life: Thyroid Hormone and the Origin of Species.



Matt Ridley: We Should Be Listening To Susan Crockford
The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 13 March 2013

Foreword To Susan Crockford’s Ten Good Reasons Not To Worry About Polar Bears

In 1978 three friends and I spent six weeks camped in a valley in Spitsbergen. The possibility that we would meet a polar bear there, even in winter, let alone summer, was far-fetched and we slept soundly in our tents without taking any precautions. We used a nearby hut for shelter from the weather. Last year I enquired about using that hut again and was told that it was no longer habitable: ‘due to damages made by polar bears’.

The west coast of Spitsbergen is now thickly inhabited by bears in summer, as it was not then. In recent years they have killed all the eggs and goslings laid by barnacle geese on offshore islands: breeding success has been near zero. Something similar has been happening on Cooper Island off Alaska, where bears have predated black guillemot nests in recent years. In both cases, scientists are attempting to explain these changes in terms of bears being stranded on land by the loss of ice, but there never was summer sea ice (and rarely winter ice) on the west coast of Spitsbergen. Nobody with local experience is in any doubt that bear numbers have boomed in the region, thanks to the cessation of hunting in the 1970s, and that this rather than any change in ice cover locally is the chief reason for their more frequent encounters with bears. Yet the Polar Bear Specialist Group calls the trend in the Barents Sea bear sub-population ‘unknown’. Indeed, Dr. Susan Crockford has uncovered the astonishing fact that this entire population, which the Norwegian government has estimated as containing more than 2,000 animals, is officially listed as ‘data deficient’ on a new PBSG’s map, as is true for several Canadian ones that have also been counted.

The same organization claims that eight of the polar bear’s sub-populations are decreasing, but read its own website and you will find that this is based almost entirely on projections and mathematical models. The official data table and map says that two of these eight sub-populations are only ‘thought’ or ‘believed’ to be declining – entirely due to hunting; four are in decline only according to computer models, despite some claims by ‘traditional ecological knowledge’ (ie, locals) that they are thriving; one has more than doubled but is now said to be ‘currently declining’ because of crowding, not climate change; and only one showed a real decline. The latest data show that even that decline (in the West Hudson Bay population) has probably recently been reversed.

In other words, the claim that polar bear populations are declining at all, let alone due to climate change, is a manufactured myth, designed for media consumption and with

very little basis in fact. That it works all too well is demonstrated by an episode in 2011 involving Sir David Attenborough. In a television series the brilliant television presenter, unwisely diverging from neutral natural history, had asserted that the polar bear is already in trouble. When challenged by Lord Lawson that ‘the polar bear population has not been falling, but rising’, Sir David responded. He was quoted by The Daily Telegraph as saying ‘Most [polar bear populations] are in decline and just one is increasing – for a number of factors – one being they have stopped hunting…Lord Lawson is denying what the whole scientific community is accepting and working at and it is extraordinary thing for him to do’.

Much as I admire and like both men, I have to say that the evidence suggests that Lord Lawson’s account is closer to the truth. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature estimated in 1966 that there were 10,000 polar bears in the world; in 2006, the same source estimated that the population had risen to 20,000-25,000 bears. Had Sir David examined the text on the PBSG’s website he would have found that all but one of the eight sub-population declines he cited were in fact based on ‘beliefs’ or future projections. As demonstrated by another recent mistake in another television series, this time an exaggerated claim for temperature change in Africa, Sir David is not being well served by his BBC researchers these days.

Zac Unger documents in his recent book Never Look a Polar Bear in the Eye, how polar bear ‘decline’ is now a large and lucrative industry and in places like Churchill, Manitoba, organisations like Polar Bears International cynically use the imagined plight of the bears to raise money, and push propaganda at young people about changing their lifestyles and those of their parents.

We’re empowered to teach these kids how to make a difference. It’s an enormous responsibility. Saving the polar bear is in their hands,

an activist explains to Unger, having flown school children by helicopter to a bear-proof camp so they can emote by video-conference to schools across America. As Attenborough once said:

All these big issues need a mascot and that’s what the polar bear is.

Yet as Unger discovered and Susan Crockford confirms, increasingly the local people in places like Churchill look on the carnival of tourists, journalists and scientists with bemusement, knowing full well that even there – in one of the most southerly polar bear populations of all – the evidence of a decline in numbers, or of the health of the bears, is threadbare or non-existent. How much more threadbare that evidence is farther north, where the bears’ greatest problem is usually too much ice and therefore too few seals, is poorly known. The ideal habitat for polar bears is first-year ice that lasts well into summer, when they feed on fat young seals. The fact that this ice thins or breaks up enough to allow seals to feed during the autumn keeps the seal population healthy. Four to five months of ice-free fasting in early autumn is not exceptional for polar bears and two to three months is quite normal. The recent trend in most of the Arctic – no change in winter ice extent but a decline in late summer ice extent – has been towards exactly this ideal combination.

Many scientists have grown frustrated with the domination of the polar bear story by dogmatic propagandists and have begun to speak out. Susan Crockford is one of them: a zoologist who is independent of the alarm industry and therefore free to make up her own mind. In this valuable paper, she has done a fine job of documenting the actual facts of the case as far as they are known.

Matt Ridley

Global Warming Policy Foundation

 

New BBC DG on the spot over bias

From: The Global Warming Policy Foundation Date: 17/12/2012 10:49:52 To: *|FNAME|* Subject: GWPF Calls For New BBC Seminar On Global Warming And Climate Policy Coverage

Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. HOME WHO WE ARE LATEST POSTINGS GWPF REPORTS PRESS RELEASES VIDEOS CONTACT Press Release GWPF Calls For New BBC Seminar On Global Warming And Climate Policy Coverage London, 17 December: Lord Lawson (Conservative), Lord Donoughue (Labour) and Baroness Nicholson (Liberal Democrat), three Trustees of the all-Party and non-Party Global Warming Policy Foundation, have called upon the BBC’s new Director-General Designate to convene a new high-level seminar in order to re-assess the BBC’s treatment of global warming and climate policy issues. Over many years, the BBC’s treatment of climate change issues has been marked by bias, ignorance, credulity and – in the latest episode – unwarranted concealment. The behaviour of the Corporation throughout has failed to measure up to professional standards. In their letter to Lord Hall, the GWPF Trustees have asked the Director-General Designate also to reconsider the implications of the controversial global warming seminar held in 2006 which has shaped BBC policy on climate-related issues ever since. In their letter the Trustees write: “We refer to the now notorious seminar on global warming held in 2006, involving 28 senior BBC staff and 28 outsiders. As the BBC Trust subsequently explained, ‘The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus [on climate change and climate change policies]‘. Ever since then, the BBC has fought tooth and nail, at considerable public expense, to keep secret the identity of ‘the best scientific experts’. As you may be aware, it now emerges that, of the 28 present, there were only two (hand-picked) climate scientists; and the bulk of the rest were either green activists (including two from Greenpeace alone) or non-scientists with a vested interest in promoting renewable energy. So the BBC stands convicted not only of culpable imbalance, but also of rank dishonesty. We hope that, once you have grappled with the more immediate challenges facing the BBC, you will revisit this important issue. We suggest that you might start by convening a new high-level seminar, this time a more balanced one, whose non-BBC participants would be qualified climate scientists, energy and environmental economists, and experienced policy-makers – whose names, incidentally, would be made known. The Global Warming Policy Foundation would be happy to be represented in any such seminar.” LETTER TO LORD HALL FROM GWPF TRUSTEES The Global Warming Policy Foundation – 14 December 2012 Dear Lord Hall, As Trustees of the all-Party and non-Party Global Warming Policy Foundation, we would like to wish you every success in your new and important post of Director General of the BBC. It is clear that you have a number of urgent matters to attend to in your post. But when you have done that, we hope you will find time to turn your attention to a matter which, although not urgent, is of considerable importance: the BBC’s treatment of global warming and climate change issues. That the BBC recognises the importance of these issues is clear from the lecture given at Oxford University last month by your predecessor but one, Mark Thompson, who opened with an extensive quotation from the Director of this Foundation, Dr Benny Peiser, which he then proceeded to discuss at considerable length. While he was, of course, speaking in a personal capacity, it is reasonable to suppose that his lecture reflected the present view of the BBC on how it should treat climate change issues; and since it is the fullest statement of that view currently available it merits close attention. We wish to be fair to Mr Thompson. In places his discussion betrays a welcome acknowledgment that perhaps the BBC has not got its treatment of global warming and climate change issues quite right. And he does seem grudgingly to concede that the Global Warming Policy Foundation has a point when it insists that these issues need to be fully and openly debated. However, against this have to be set a number of less commendable aspects of the lecture. His account of what the Global Warming Policy Foundation is and does is a travesty, wholly ignoring the fact that (as our name clearly implies) our principal focus is the policy response rather than the science. He refers, in patronising terms, to the detailed analysis by Christopher Booker of the BBC’s coverage of climate change issues which we published last year, a fully-documented and peer-reviewed report, without deigning to address any of the serious charges it made. He also shows (as, it must be said, does the BBC as a whole) considerable ignorance of many of the issues he discusses. In particular, he seems to imagine that the issue is a simple yes-no question, namely, whether man-made carbon emissions are likely to warm the planet. He shows no awareness of the fact that there has been no recorded global warming for the past 15 years or so (despite an accelerated rise in carbon dioxide emissions), no awareness that climate scientists are deeply divided over how great or small any future warming is likely to be, and no awareness of the complexity of what the impact, for good or ill, of any such warming might be. Above all, he shows no awareness of the crucial question of what the most cost-effective response might be, a matter on which economists are divided and on which scientists have no expertise to bring to bear. Nor, incidentally, does he recognise that what might be a sensible policy for the world as a whole may not be sensible for the UK on its own. These are all distinct issues deserving the most careful scrutiny and debate; yet the BBC appears to maintain that there is one single issue which is no longer a matter for debate at all. The lamentable report to the BBC Trust, earlier this year, by Professor Steve Jones fell into precisely this error, arguing that the BBC should in future allow even less airtime to dissenters from the conventional wisdom, on the grounds that “For at least three years, the climate change deniers (sic) have been marginal to the scientific debate, but somehow they continued to find a place on the airwaves”. Curiously, since he was in post when the event occurred, but perhaps revealingly in the light of recent events, Mr Thompson fails to mention what has come to be known as ‘28gate’. We refer to the now notorious seminar on global warming held in 2006, involving 28 senior BBC staff and 28 outsiders. As the BBC Trust subsequently explained, “The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal [ie more than derisory] space being given to the opponents of the consensus [on climate change and climate change policies]“. Ever since then, the BBC has fought tooth and nail, at considerable public expense, to keep secret the identity of “the best scientific experts”. As you may be aware, it now emerges that, of the 28 present, there were only two (hand-picked) climate scientists; and the bulk of the rest were either green activists (including two from Greenpeace alone) or non-scientists with a vested interest in promoting renewable energy. So the BBC stands convicted not only of culpable imbalance, but also of rank dishonesty. We hope that, once you have grappled with the more immediate challenges facing the BBC, you will revisit this important issue. We suggest that you might start by convening a new high-level seminar, this time a more balanced one, whose non-BBC participants would be qualified climate scientists, energy and environmental economists, and experienced policy-makers – whose names, incidentally, would be made known. The Global Warming Policy Foundation would be happy to be represented in any such seminar. In the light of the public interest in this issue, we shall be posting this letter on the Foundation’s website. Signed Lord Lawson (Chairman) (Conservative) Lord Donoughue (Labour) Baroness Nicholson (Liberal Democrat) Follow on Twitter Forward to Friend Copyright © 2012 Global Warming Policy Foundation, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted into it with your subscription to the GWPF or through CCNet. Our mailing address is: Global Warming Policy Foundation 1 Carlton House Terrace Westminster, London SW1Y 5DB United Kingdom Add us to your address book unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences

Collapse of a Grand Narrative

(7) Philip Stott: Global Warming: The Collapse Of A Grand Narrative

The Clamour of The Times, 30 January 2010

For over a month now, since the farcical conclusion of the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, I have been silent, partly through family commitments abroad in the USA, but also because, in this noisy world, in ‘The Clamour Of The Times’, it is on occasion better to be quiet and contemplative, to observe rather than to comment. And, as an independent academic, it has been fascinating to witness the classical collapse of a Grand Narrative, in which social and philosophical theories are being played out before our gaze. It is like watching the Berlin Wall [pictured] being torn down, concrete slab by concrete slab, brick by brick, with cracks appearing and widening daily on every face - political, economic, and scientific. Likewise, the bloggers have been swift to cover the crumbling edifice with colourful graffiti, sometimes bitter, at others caustic and witty.

The Political And Economic Collapse

Moreover, the collapse has been quicker than any might have predicted. The humiliating exclusion of Britain and the EU at the end of the Copenhagen débâcle was partially to be expected, but it was brutal in its final execution. The swing of power to the BASIC group of countries (Brazil, South Africa, India, China) had likewise been signified for some time, but, again, it came with precipitate ease, leaving even the American President, Barack Obama, with no doubts as to where the political agenda on climate change was now heading, namely to the developing world, but especially to the East, and to the Pacific Rim. The dirigiste tropes of ‘Old Europe’, with its love of meaningless targets and carbon capping, will no longer carry weight, while Obama himself has been straitjacketed by the voters of Massachusetts, by the rust-belt Democrats, by a truculent Congress, by an increasingly-sceptical and disillusioned American public, but, above all, by the financial crisis. Nothing will now be effected that for a single moment curbs economic development, from China to Connecticut, from Africa to Alaska.

And, as ever, capitalism has read the runes, with carbon-trading posts quietly being shed, ‘Green’ jobs sidelined, and even big insurance companies starting to hedge their own bets against the future of the Global Warming Grand Narrative. These rats are leaving the sinking ship far faster than any politician, many of whom are going to be abandoned, left, still clinging to the masts, as the Good Ship ‘Global Warming’ founders on titanic icebergs in the raging oceans of doubt and delusion.

The Scientific Collapse

And what can one say about ‘the science’? ‘The ‘science’ is already paying dearly for its abuse of freedom of information, for unacceptable cronyism, for unwonted arrogance, and for the disgraceful misuse of data at every level, from temperature measurements to glaciers to the Amazon rain forest. What is worse, the usurping of the scientific method, and of justified scientific scepticism, by political policies and political propaganda could well damage science sensu lato - never mind just climate science - in the public eye for decades. The appalling pre-Copenhagen attacks by the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, and his climate-change henchman, Ed Miliband, on those who dared to be critical of the science of climate change were some of the most unforgivable I can recall.

It is further salutary that much of the trouble is now emanating from India. Indeed, the nonsense written about the Indian Sub-Continent has been a particular nadir in climate-change science, and it has long been judged so by many experts on the region. My ex-SOAS friend and colleague, Dr. Robert Bradnock, a world authority on the Sub-Continent, has been seething for years over the traducing of data and information relating to this key part of the world. In June, 2008, he wrote:

“However, in my own narrow area of research, I know that many of the claims about the impact of ‘global warming’ in Bangladesh, for example, are completely unfounded. There is no evidence that flooding has increased at all in recent years. Drought and excessive rainfall are the nature of the monsoon system. Agricultural production, far from being decimated by worsening floods over the last twenty years, has nearly doubled. In the early 1990s, Houghton published a map of the purported effects of sea-level rise on Bangladesh. Coming from a Fellow of the Royal Society, former Head of the Met Office and Chair of the IPCC, this was widely accepted, and frequently reproduced. Yet, it shows no understanding of the complex processes that form the Bengal delta, and it is seriously misleading. Moreover, despite the repeated claims of the World Wide Fund, Greenpeace, and, sadly, Christian Aid, the melting of the Himalayan glaciers is of completely marginal significance to the farmers of the plains in China, India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. One could go on!”

The Media Collapse

One could indeed! But we may not need to do so for much longer. Why? Because the biggest collapse is in the media, the very ‘mechanism’ through which the greedy Global Warming Grand Narrative has promulgated itself during the last ten to twenty years.

The break in the ‘Media Wall’ began in the tabloids and in the ‘red tops’, like The Daily Express and the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, but it is today spreading rapidly - yet once more as theory predicts - to the so-called ‘heavyweights’ and to the BBC. In the past, uncritical and apocalyptic stories and programmes were given the highest prominence, with any sceptical comment confined to the briefest of quotations from some benighted, and often snidely-mentioned, sceptic squeezed in at the very end of the piece (“For balance, you know”). Today, the reverse is becoming true, with the ‘global warming’ faithful firmly forced on to the back foot. Yet, in our post-modern world, it is the journalistic language being employed that is the true indicator of a new media order. Listening to good old Roger Harrabin this morning, reporting on BBC Radio 4’s flagship ‘Today’ programme, was a revelation in this respect; the language, and even the style, had altered radically.

Potential Losers

The collapse is now so precipitate that there will inevitably be some serious losers caught out by it all. The UK Met Office could well be one, with the BBC rightly reviewing its contract with them. At the moment, Met Office spokespersons sound extraordinary, bizarre even. They bleat out ‘global warming’ phrases like programmed robotic sheep, although they are finding it increasingly difficult to pull the wool over our eyes. It is terribly 1984, and rather chilling, so to speak. It is obvious that the organisation is suffering from another classical academic state, namely that known as ‘cognitive dissonance’ [see here and here]. This is experienced when belief in a Grand Narrative persists blindly, even when the facts in the real world begin to contradict what the narrative is saying. Sadly, many of our public and private organisations have allowed themselves to develop far too great a vested interest in ‘global warming’, as have too many politicians and activists. These are increasingly terrified, many having no idea how to react, or how to adjust, to the collapse. It will be particularly interesting to witness how, in the end, the Royal Society plays its cards, especially if competing scientific paradigms, such as the key role played by water vapour in climate change, start to displace the current paradigm in classic fashion.

Certain newspapers, like my own DNOC, The Times, have also been a tad slow to grasp the magnitude of the collapse (although Ben Webster has tried valiantly to counter this with some good pieces); yet, even such outlets at last appear to be fathoming the remarkable changes taking place. Today, for example, The Times carries a brief, but seminal, critique of the ‘science’ from Lord Leach of Fairford.

What Will It Mean?

I have long predicted, and in public too, that the Copenhagen Conference could prove to be the beginning of the end for the Global Warming Grand Narrative. It appears that I may well have been right, and, indeed, I may have considerably underestimated the speed, and the dramatic nature, of the demise.

Where this all leaves our politicians and political parties in the UK; where it leaves climate science, scientists more generally, and the Royal Society; where it leaves energy policy; where it leaves the ‘Green’ movement; and, where it leaves our media will have to be topics for many later comments and analyses.

For the moment, we must not underestimate the magnitude of the collapse. Academically, it is jaw-dropping to observe.

And, the political, economic, and scientific consequences will be profound.

What Consensus? Part 1 Precis.

In the following series of posts, we read the letters and denouncements of thousands of top scientist who openly challenge much of the case for man made climate change or the alleged effects of it. So much for the consensus. In Parts 2 to 7 their letters and all their names I publish in full.

However it is not these who are demanding that we all interfere with our lifestyles and impoverish ourselves to do it. These scientists are not demanding anything at all.

This is not just an argument one side against the other. This is one side demanding from the others: Us........!!

The problem is that, those that want to follow the AGW/ACC religion, expect us all to follow it too. They are free to take the hair shirt if they wish and like Canute, try to harness nature and Godlike, control the weather, but why must the rest be dragged down with them?

Here are just some examples from the letters of distinguished scientists.

67 Scientists and over 180 distinguished citizens signed this:'there's a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2's capability to absorb radiation is already exhausted by today's atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree. The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels.'

See Prof A Kellow a referee for one of the IPCC's main chapters he says: 'The Report(IPCC) persists in this nonsense in the face of at least this reviewer drawing it to their attention, so the persistence is quite wilful. It is, of course, such a fundamental criticism that it virtually renders the whole report invalid, so it was not likely to be well-received. I also added that the chapter exaggerated the hazards of climate change and almost totally ignored any benefits.' Part 7

The accredited climate experts who wrote this: 'Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts' and 'Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes' Part4

On abuse of scientific Integrity of the IPCC 5 PhDs wrote: 'A separate question is whether IPCC procedures on matters such as peer-review are in accord with accepted scientific standards. For example, a conscientious journal editor would not normally choose an author's colleague as a referee. The Nature article points out that "the integrity of the reviewing and approval process is ... an essential element in assuring the credibility of the resulting conclusions." The IPCC had assigned the role of convening lead author to Ben Santer, who then based much of the conclusion of Chapter 8 on two of his own papers that had not yet appeared in peer-reviewed journals.' and 'We detect here a serious misuse of science and of scientists for political purposes. We earnestly request that you respond to these concerns in order to protect the scientific integrity of the IPCC process.' Part5

What Consensus? Part 6/7

6. 500 (sample) peer reviewed scientific papers opposing manmade climate change

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Open Letter from IPCC AR4 (2007) Expert Reviewer Prof A Kellow

I was a referee for Chapter 19 in the Report on 'Key Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment', and made in essence the criticism...that the whole exercise fails to take account of the increases in wealth that give rise to the emissions that drive the climate models, that drive the impact models. It is nonsensical to suggest that vulnerabilities will be as they would be if the projected climates impacted upon present developing countries. The Report persists in this nonsense in the face of at least this reviewer drawing it to their attention, so the persistence is quite wilful. It is, of course, such a fundamental criticism that it virtually renders the whole report invalid, so it was not likely to be well-received. I also added that the chapter exaggerated the hazards of climate change and almost totally ignored any benefits. I put it that the First Order Draft read as if (in a warmer, and therefore wetter, world) no rain would fall in any form that would be in any way useful to anyone: there would be only floods and droughts. The Second Order Draft included some language to the effect that this was because the Committee had decided that it should be so, to which I responded that they should not then represent their analysis as a risk assessment, since any sensible risk assessment must include benefits as well as costs. I'm not holding my breath for this criticism to be taken on board either, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a Chapter ever being rejected for publication, no mattter how flawed it might be. But then I'll be counted as one of the 2,500 experts who agree with this nonsense!

What Consensus Part5 to IPCC past Chairman

5. Open Letter to former IPCC Chairman Bert Bolin on abuse of science and IPCC process

Letter to IPCC Chairman Bert BolinAugust 20, 1996 To Prof. Bert Bolin, IPCC ChairmanSir John Houghton, IPCC WGI Co-ChairmanDr. L. G. Meira Filho, IPCC WGI Co-Chairmanc/o IPCC Secretariat, WMO41, Av. Giuseppe-Motta1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland

Gentlemen:

We are enclosing a copy of our letter to Under Secretary Timothy Wirth and draw your attention to three specific items:

A November 15, 1995 letter to the IPCC WGI co-chairmen from the U.S. State Department complains about discrepancies between the Policymakers Summary (SPM) and the Scientific Assessment Report (SAR); and in the same paragraph it instructs them to "prevail upon" authors to make changes in the SAR chapters after the Madrid meeting. This letter seems to provide a plausible explanation for the alterations to Ch. 8 by lead authors Benjamin Santer and Tom Wigley. A report in Nature (June 20) confirms the existence of the letter, and a leading article in the June 13 issue assigns responsibility for the changes to IPCC officials and states that the changes were made to "conform" the chapter to the SPM. We have also learned from a direct quote in Nature (July 25) that "the [US] administration has been working on the policy [of quantified, legally-binding targets] for more than a year." It appears to us, therefore, that the IPCC conformed the SAR to the political agenda of ideologues who wish to set up international controls on energy use.

A separate question is whether IPCC procedures on matters such as peer-review are in accord with accepted scientific standards. For example, a conscientious journal editor would not normally choose an author's colleague as a referee. The Nature article points out that "the integrity of the reviewing and approval process is ... an essential element in assuring the credibility of the resulting conclusions." The IPCC had assigned the role of convening lead author to Ben Santer, who then based much of the conclusion of Chapter 8 on two of his own papers that had not yet appeared in peer-reviewed journals. [The comment deadline on Chapter 8 was July 1995; one paper appeared in Climate Dynamics in December 1995, his other paper in Nature in July 1996; Ch. 8 lists 19 references to either the (Dec 1995) Climate Dynamics paper (1995a), or the (July 1996) Nature paper (1995b) (sic).] Eight of Santer's co-authors are also listed as Chapter 8 contributors. We don't think that one can fairly expect authors to be critical of their own work. And indeed, we have now seen several scientific notes being submitted for publication, critiquing the two articles by Santer et al. and challenging their conclusions. Unfortunately, as a result of the procedure adopted, this scientific balance is missing from the IPCC report.

We note that a major conclusion in the SPM is the ambiguous phrase, taken from Ch. 8: "the balance of evidence suggest a discernible human influence on global climate." The existence of such presumed human influences does not by itself validate the climate models. In particular, it cannot be used to claim a substantial temperature rise in the next century--nor does the IPCC Summary make such a claim. The likely reason: IPCC scientists would never agree to this. What the Summary does is to report the outcome of climate model calculations (that have never been validated). It then implies--by juxtaposition--that the "human influences" somehow validate these models.

Thus while the IPCC phrase does not in any way confirm a future warming, it does convey such an impression to policymakers; and indeed, since we do not find any specific disclaimer in the Summary, this may have been the purpose. Judging from statements in Geneva by government officials, this purpose has been accomplished. The Ministerial Declaration of 18 July 1996, under paragraph 2, specifically--and improperly--links the IPCC phrase about "human influence" to a temperature increase of 2 C by 2100.

Our question is: Is the IPCC going to do something about this "misunderstanding?" Does not scientific integrity demand that you complain about the misuse of the IPCC report for political purposes and draw attention to the explicit sentence in the S.A.R. section 8.4.2.3 (p. 434): "To date, pattern-based studies have not been able to quantify the magnitude of a greenhouse gas or aerosol effect on climate."

We detect here a serious misuse of science and of scientists for political purposes. We earnestly request that you respond to these concerns in order to protect the scientific integrity of the IPCC process.

Henry R. Linden, Ph.D. (Max McGraw Professor, Illinois Institute of Technology; founding president and now exec. advisor, Gas Research Institute)

William A. Nierenberg, Ph.D. (director emeritus, Scripps Institute of Oceanography; member, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering)

Frederick Seitz, Ph.D. (president emeritus, Rockefeller University; former president: U.S. National Academy of Sciences; holder of the National Medal of Science)

S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. (professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; first director, US weather satellite service; former chief scientist, DOT)

Chauncey Starr, Ph.D. (founding president, Electrical Power Research Institute;National Medal of Technology; member, National Academy of Engineering)

What Consensus? Part4 Letter to Canada PM

4. Letter to Canadian PM

Thursday, April 06, 2006 Dear Prime Minister: As accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines, we are writing to propose that balanced, comprehensive public-consultation sessions be held so as to examine the scientific foundation of the federal government's climate-change plans. This would be entirely consistent with your recent commitment to conduct a review of the Kyoto Protocol. Although many of us made the same suggestion to then-prime ministers Martin and Chrétien, neither responded, and, to date, no formal, independent climate-science review has been conducted in Canada. Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science. Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action. While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary. We appreciate the difficulty any government has formulating sensible science-based policy when the loudest voices always seem to be pushing in the opposite direction. However, by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy. "Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise." The new Canadian government's commitment to reducing air, land and water pollution is commendable, but allocating funds to "stopping climate change" would be irrational. We need to continue intensive research into the real causes of climate change and help our most vulnerable citizens adapt to whatever nature throws at us next. We believe the Canadian public and government decision-makers need and deserve to hear the whole story concerning this very complex issue. It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas. We hope that you will examine our proposal carefully and we stand willing and able to furnish you with more information on this crucially important topic. CC: The Honourable Rona Ambrose, Minister of the Environment, and the Honourable Gary Lunn, Minister of Natural Resources Sincerely, Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont. Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont. Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant Dr. Andreas Prokocon, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont. Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont. Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K. Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont. Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C. Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont. Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z. Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J. Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif. Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn. Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health) Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z. Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K. Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K. Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000 Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass. Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant. Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore. Dr. Arthur Rörsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

What Consensus? Part3 Letter to Angela Merkel

3. 60+ Scientists Letter

VizerprasidentDipl. Ing. Michael Limburg14476 Grob GlienickeRichard-Wagner-Str. 5a
Grob Glienicke 26.07.09

To the attention of the Honorable Madam Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany

When one studies history, one learns that the development of societies is often determined by a zeitgeist, which at times had detrimental or even horrific results for humanity. History tells us time and again that political leaders often have made poor decisions because they followed the advice of advisors who were incompetent or ideologues and failed to recognize it in time. Moreover evolution also shows that natural development took a wide variety of paths with most of them leading to dead ends. No era is immune from repeating the mistakes of the past.

Politicians often launch their careers using a topic that allows them to stand out. Earlier as Minister of the Environment you legitimately did this as well by assigning a high priority to climate change. But in doing so you committed an error that has since led to much damage, something that should have never happened, especially given the fact you are a physicist. You confirmed that climate change is caused by human activity and have made it a primary objective to implement expensive strategies to reduce the so-called greenhouse gas CO2. You have done so without first having a real discussion to check whether early temperature measurements and a host of other climate related facts even justify it.

A real comprehensive study, whose value would have been absolutely essential, would have shown, even before the IPCC was founded, that humans have had no measurable effect on global warming through CO2 emissions. Instead the temperature fluctuations have been within normal ranges and are due to natural cycles. Indeed the atmosphere has not warmed since 1998 – more than 10 years, and the global temperature has even dropped significantly since 2003.

Not one of the many extremely expensive climate models predicted this. According to the IPCC, it was supposed to have gotten steadily warmer, but just the opposite has occurred.

More importantly, there's a growing body of evidence showing anthropogenic CO2 plays no measurable role. Indeed CO2's capability to absorb radiation is already exhausted by today's atmospheric concentrations. If CO2 did indeed have an effect and all fossil fuels were burned, then additional warming over the long term would in fact remain limited to only a few tenths of a degree.

The IPCC had to have been aware of this fact, but completely ignored it during its studies of 160 years of temperature measurements and 150 years of determined CO2 levels. As a result the IPCC has lost its scientific credibility. The main points on this subject are included in the accompanying addendum.

In the meantime, the belief of climate change, and that it is manmade, has become a pseudo-religion. Its proponents, without thought, pillory independent and fact-based analysts and experts, many of whom are the best and brightest of the international scientific community. Fortunately in the internet it is possible to find numerous scientific works that show in detail there is no anthropogenic CO2 caused climate change. If it was not for the internet, climate realists would hardly be able to make their voices heard. Rarely do their critical views get published.

The German media has sadly taken a leading position in refusing to publicize views that are critical of anthropogenic global warming. For example, at the second International Climate Realist Conference on Climate in New York last March, approximately 800 leading scientists attended, some of whom are among the world's best climatologists or specialists in related fields. While the US media and only the Wiener Zeitung (Vienna daily) covered the event, here in Germany the press, public television and radio shut it out. It is indeed unfortunate how our media have developed - under earlier dictatorships the media were told what was not worth reporting. But today they know it without getting instructions.

Do you not believe, Madam Chancellor, that science entails more than just confirming a hypothesis, but also involves testing to see if the opposite better explains reality? We strongly urge you to reconsider your position on this subject and to convene an impartial panel for the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, one that is free of ideology, and where controversial arguments can be openly debated. We the undersigned would very much like to offer support in this regard.

Respectfully yours,

Prof. Dr.rer.nat. Friedrich-Karl Ewert EIKE

Diplom-Geologe

Universität. - GH - Paderborn, Abt. Höxter (ret.)
Dr. Holger Thuß
EIKE President
European Institute for Climate and Energy

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/

Signed by
Scientists

1 Prof. Dr.Ing. Hans-Günter Appel
2 Prof. Dr. hab. Dorota Appenzeller Professor of Econometrics and Applied Mathematics, Vice Dean University Poznan, Poland
3 Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Bachmann Former Director of the Institute for Vibration Engineering, FH Düsseldorf
4 Prof. Dr. Hans Karl Barth Managing Director World Habitat Society GmbH - Environmental Services
5 Dipl. Biologist Ernst Georg Beck
6 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Borchert Physicist
7 Dipl. Biol. Helgo Bran Former BW parliamentarian Green Party
8 Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Gerhard Buse Bio-chemist
9 Dr.Ing Ivo Busko German Center for Aviation and Aeronautics e.V.
10 Dr.Ing Gottfried Class Nuclear Safety, Thermo-hydraulics
11 Dr.Ing Urban Cleve Nuclear physicist, thermodynamics energy specialist
12 Dr.-Ing Rudolf-Adolf Dietrich Energy expert
13 Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze IPCC Expert Reviewer TAR
14 Dr. rer. nat Siegfried Dittrich Physical chemist
15 Dr. Theo Eichten Physicist16 Ferroni Ferruccio Zurich President NIPCC-SUSSE
17 Dr. sc.agr. Albrecht Glatzle Agricultural bioloist, Director científico INTTAS, Paraguay
18 Dr. rer. nat. Klaus-Jürgen Goldmann Geologst
19 Dr. rer. nat. Josef Große-Wördem Physical chemist
20 Dipl. Geologist Heinisch Heinisch
21 Dr. rer.nat. Horst Herman Chemist
22 Prof. Dr. Hans-Jürgen Hinz Former University of Münster Institute for Physical Chemistry
23 Dipl. Geologist Andreas Hoemann Geologist24 Dipl. Geologist Siegfried Holle
25 Dr. rer.nat. Heinz Hug Chemier
26 Dr. rer. nat. Bernd Hüttner Theoretical Physicist
27 Prof. Dr. Werner Kirstein Institute for Geography University Leipzig
28 Dipl. Meteorologe Klaus Knüpffer METEO SERVICE weather research GmbH
29 Dr. rer. hort. Werner Köster
30 Dr. rer.nat. Albert Krause Chemist
31 Drs. Hans Labohm IPCC AR4 Expert Reviewer Dipl. Business / science journalist
32 Dr. Rainer Link Physicist33 Dipl. Physicist Alfred Loe
34 Prof. Dr. Physicist Horst-Joachim Lüdecke University for Engineering and business of Saarland
35 Prof. Dr. Horst Malberg University professor em. Meteorology and Climatology / Former Director of the Institute for Meteorology of the University of Berlin
36 Dr. rer.nat Wolfgang Monninger Geologist
37 Dipl. Meteorologist Dieter Niketta
38 Prof. Dr. Klemens Oekentorp Former director of the Geological-
Paleolontology Museum of the Westphalia Wilhelms-University Münster
39 Dr. Helmut Pöltelt Energy expert
40 Dipl. Meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls Meteorologist
41 Prof. Dr. Klaas Rathke Polytechnic OWL Dept. Höxter
42 rof. Dr.-Ing. Sc. D. Helmut Reihlen Director of the DIN German Institute for
Standards and Norms i.R.
43 Prof. Dr. Oliver Reiser University of Regensburg
44 Dipl. Physicist Wolfgang Riede Physicists ETH
45 Dipl.- Mineralogist Sabine Sauerberg Geoscientist
46 Prof. Jochen Schnetger Chemist
47 Prof. Dr. Sigurd Schulien University instructor48 Dr. rer.nat. Franz Stadtbäumer geologist
49 Dr. rer.nat. Gerhard Stehlik Physical chemist
50 Dipl. Ing. (BA) Norman Stoer System administrator
51 Dr. rer.nat.habil Lothar Suntheim Chemist
52 Dipl.-Ing. Heinz Thieme Technical assessor53 Dr. phil. Dipl. Wolfgang Thüne Mainz Ministry of Environment Meteorologist
54 Dr. rer. oec. Ing. Dietmar Ufer Energy economist, Institute for Energy
Leipzig
55 Prof. Dr. Detlef von Hofe Former managing director of the DVS56 Dipl Geographist Heiko Wiese Meteorologist
57 Dr.rer.nat. Erich Wiesner Euro Geologist
58 Dr.rer.nat. Ullrich Wöstmann Geologist
59 Prof. em. Dr. Heinz Zöttl Soil Sciences
60 Dr.rer.nat. Zucketto Chemist
61 Dr. rer.nat. Ludwig Laus Geologist
+ 6 others

Rise of Sea Levels "Greatest Lie ever told"

Rise of Sea Levels "Greatest Lie ever told"

'......as an expert reviewer on the IPCC's last two reports he discovered that not a single one of the 22 contributing authors was a sea level expert.......'

Dr Morner

For anyone living in London or Mablethorpe who has been considering buying a boat to cope with the imminent rise in sea levels that Al Gore has promised us: good news. London and Skegness are not about to be swept away by biblical floods. Nor are the seas going to rise up and swallow all those tiny Pacific islands; we are not going to suffer the same fate as Atlantis.

The revelation comes in Christopher Booker's Telegraph column focussing on the work of Nils-Axel Mörner, a physicist who has, for the last 35 years, been studying sea levels world-wide. Dr Mörner's conclusions? That "all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story."

He asserts that the sea level has not risen for the last 50 years, and that if any rise does occur this century "it will not be more than 10cm." And how can he be so sure? Well, unlike most sea level studies which are based on computer modelling, Dr Mörner has actually headed out into the field to conduct his research.

One of his most shocking discoveries was the way the IPCC was able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year: their experts had based the figure on a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a rise of 2.3mm. They then adjusted the entire global sea-level projection upwards by 2.3mm, creating an upward trend in the graphs. But we shouldn't really be surprised -- when Dr Mörner was asked to act as an expert reviewer on the IPCC's last two reports he discovered that not a single one of the 22 contributing authors was a sea level expert.