Thread: Climate Change Info from an IPCC Scientist

I have been a reviewer of the last two IPCC reports, one of the several thousand scientists who purportedly are supporters of the IPCC view that humans control global temperature. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of us try to bring better and more current science to the IPCC, but we usually fail. Recently we found out why. The whistleblower release of e-mails and files from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University has demonstrated scientific malfeasance and a sickening violation of scientific ethics.-- Lee C. Gerhard, IPCC Expert Reviewer

Interesting details at ICECAP

Some samples:

• Carbon dioxide concentration has been continually rising for nearly 100 years. It continues to rise, but carbon dioxide concentrations at present are near the lowest in geologic history.
• The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide logarithmically declines with increasing concentration. At present levels, any additional carbon dioxide can have very little effect.
• During the last 100 years, temperature has both risen and fallen, including the present cooling. All the changes in temperature of the last 100 years are in normal historic ranges, both in absolute value and, most importantly, rate of change.
• Voluminous historic records demonstrate the Medieval Climate Optimum (MCO) was real and that the “hockey stick” graphic that attempted to deny that fact was at best bad science. The MCO was considerably warmer than the end of the 20th century.
• Polar bears have survived and thrived over periods of extreme cold and extreme warmth over hundreds of thousands of years - extremes far in excess of modern temperature changes.
• The 2009 minimum Arctic ice extent was significantly larger than the previous two years. The 2009 Antarctic maximum ice extent was significantly above the 30-year average. There are only 30 years of records.

That paper was written by an oil industry lobbyist, just in case you didn't know. I don't actually have the data to argue it's points, but they look highly suspect, and given his conflict of interest, I'd seek verification from a source without these ties before I'd take any of his facts at face value.

Those points are well researched and I personally do not have access to the hard and software in addition to the time and knowledge to test for myself; however I do not believe that it renders man kind's impact 'invalid' to carbon contribution simply because of the 'facts' that it was naturally rising any way.

The world was so perfectly balanced that even if a single steel factory in Sheffield had been the only man made source of combustion giving off carbon, that would still be alot of co2.

Imagine how many cars, aeroplanes, homes and commercial buildings are burning fuel everyday? Millions and millions of litres of co2 daily. Thats a fairly significant amount to which I do not believe the world is able to absorb, as the only natural defence to rising co2 levels is ironically being depleted at an alarming rate..

Kyoto protocol, BREEAM, Eco Homes, Carbon offsetting, solar panels, ground sourced heat pumps, biomass, recycling, its all a little too late.

Originally Posted by IanS

I'd seek verification from a source without these ties before I'd take any of his facts at face value.

Oh, there's tons of that -- has been posted here many times. I just thought this was a nice summary.

As IAN S advises the OP 'fact' were written by a member within the oil industry, I would be extremely surprised if they were not heavily biased.

As Legislation that authorises construction of dwellings is rapidly changing and has formed BREEAM, ECO homes, and the Code for Sustainable Homes which is the UK equivalent for the assessment of residential dwelling in the UK, Oil use will have to decline and I suspect demand has already dropped considerably.

Homes in the UK and Europe that are new builds must use 10% less energy than 2006 levels, and by 2016 any new build in the UK that is residential will have to be completely renewably sourced although I do not yet know how this will be possible based on current social housing costs. This is fact (Local Communities and Govt: Code for sustainable homes technical guide 2007).

Anyway my point is, as this continues to happen - goodbye oil! Goodbye profits and a large increase in insulation so we do not need as much power for heating anyway, a large increase in solar panels, CHP, biomass, ground sourced heating pumps etc; in addition to higher efficiency light fittings and white goods, in addition to designing the buildings so that they make the most use of passive solar design.

Sorry to go off course, but I think the oil companies may have projected their losses which may make that comment about as biased as attempting to balance a Wapi in its original scales on its tang...

Originally Posted by Scipio

Those points are well researched and I personally do not have access to the hard and software in addition to the time and knowledge to test for myself; however I do not believe that it renders man kind's impact 'invalid' to carbon contribution simply because of the 'facts' that it was naturally rising any way.

The point is not that man has no contribution to atmospheric CO2. The point is that it is insignificant.

If CO2 is less than 5% of green house gases and man's contribution is some small fraction of that 5% and if increases in CO2 have a decreasing effect, and our efforts don't even pretend to make much difference what's the point of trying to manage that tiny little insignificant amount at the cost of driving first world economies into the ground, holding back the economies of the developing nations, and centralizing power over all the world's economies to a small group of socialists?.

Even 0.1 % increase in carbon dioxide on man's behalf can upset global temperatures.

I have read this on multiple occassions, and maybe ill find the actual facts, but what may seem very small in terms of co2 contribution can have an affect on the world.

Originally Posted by Scipio

As IAN S advises the OP 'fact' were written by a member within the oil industry, I would be extremely surprised if they were not heavily biased.

Well then, you should prepare to be surprised and acquaint yourself with the facts. Here are some starters...

Global Warming Petition Project

This is a single source that you have provided. There is lots of conflicting literature of which I could place hyperlinks for.

Why have Governments across the world evolved measures to attempt to control it, if it were not having a negative effect on the environment and it were not significant?

Originally Posted by Scipio

Even 0.1 % increase in carbon dioxide on man's behalf can upset global temperatures.

I have read this on multiple occassions, and maybe ill find the actual facts, but what may seem very small in terms of co2 contribution can have an affect on the world.

Look here for some perspective from a different angle... Climate during the Carboniferous Period