- The Politics and Environment Blog

Main menu:


January 2012
« Dec   Feb »




Site search

Please visit


Nature Photographs


Disclaimer: The inclusion of a blog or website in this list should not be taken as an endorsement of its contents by me.

Consensus Against AGW Deception

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

So began a recent opinion piece by sixteen scientists published in the Wall Street Journal on January 27, 2011. It is republished here with permission from Bill Kininmonth…

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?”

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the “pollutant” carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 “Climategate” email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere’s life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.

This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.

Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word “incontrovertible” from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to “decarbonize” the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.

If elected officials feel compelled to “do something” about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of “incontrovertible” evidence.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Available online here:


91 Responses to “Consensus Against AGW Deception”

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

  1. Comment from: kuhnkat

    Little Lukey,

    “and hitherto unseen warming

    One incident is used?? Here and I thought you told us WEATHER wasn’t CLIMATE!!

    I would laugh but this is pathetic. Where is the warming trend in OHC??

    Your first link was pointless and the last one… GRL Little Lukey?? How the mighty, in their own minds, have fallen.

  2. Comment from: spangled drongo

    What he’s working round to Neville, is for govt subsidies for his airlines to permanently eco-engineer global temps.

    There he is, the world’s greatest “polluter”, in Antarctica with Al ‘n’ Jimmy, reporting on the “catastrophe” he’s causing with a straight face. Of course Al, at No. 2, is there to give him some pointers. Nobody plays the system better than our RB.

  3. Comment from: Neville

    Antarctica ice is increasing yet silly HIPPO Al Gore has started another scary report on his arrival.
    We’ll all be flooded out it seems, but I wonder why Al bought that property on the sea shore in San Francisco?

  4. Comment from: Luke

    Hey KookyKat – you didn’t read the Pacific paper did you.

    And as for your derision on my last link. Well I used to think you might know something but hey perhaps you’re just another flake ….

  5. Comment from: spangled drongo

    “The Team” have just made a rebuttal at WSJ full of the usual non-science:

  6. Comment from: spangled drongo

    So that’s why the warmers have gone to the South Pole:

  7. Comment from: Luke

    Well SD – face it – sceptics are a bunch of stupid drongos up against a list like that?

  8. Comment from: Neville

    Well Luke thinks that we’re stupid drongos, but how much further would he take that I wonder.

    Prof Clive Hamilton thinks that we’re worse than Nazis. Are we?

    Hamilton thinks that mitigation of CAGW is so important that perhaps democracy should be suspended.
    Should it?

    I’d just like to know where Luke stands on these two questions so we can understand and judge him more fairly or severely.

    Don’t forget that both Jennifer and Joanne for example claim to be libertarians, about as opposite to nazism or communism or totalitarianism as you can get.

    In other words they don’t believe in any type of groupthink at all. By comparison Hamilton etc gets extremely annoyed when we don’t agree with their point of view.

    In fact many of these extremists would suspend democracy tomorrow if they had the chance to do so.
    Then what would happen to anyone who complained or disagreed? I think the psychopaths Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot etc have already given us the answer.

  9. Comment from: Hasbeen

    From what I hear they could have just gone to the UK, & saved heaps of CO2. Apparently from yesterday, the UK, & much of Europe, are colder than the Antarctic.

    Must be global warming, in the land that was never going to see snow again.

  10. Comment from: spangled drongo

    “Well SD – face it – sceptics are a bunch of stupid drongos up against a list like that?”

    Well then Lovely Boy,why can’t this “list” come up with any science?

    Instead of crap like “Research shows 97% of scientists agree that CC is human caused.”

    and “Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter”.

    Even the warmist Met Office concedes there has been no warming for the last 15 years.

    I seem to remember an old song called THE WRECK OF THE 97.

  11. Comment from: spangled drongo


  12. Comment from: John Sayers

    The Australian has posted the same article today SD.

  13. Comment from: spangled drongo

    Yeah John, how much “expertise” do ya need to make a science-free comment like that?

    Luke would know, he makes them all the time.

  14. Comment from: Robert

    Looking at the WSJ rebuttal article, one has to ask: are these people slobs? Certainly they are pompous, evasive, snobbish, bullying, with an uncanny ability to shift between factoid and hyperbole. But are they out-and-out slobs?

    I’m no scientist, yet, even in casual talk about cricket, I would never refer to a “record” without an immediate explanation of time-frame and limitations of data. The deception is just too obvious, and an insult to the person one is trying to persuade.

    It’s all aimed, very successfully, at the Fairfax-perusing classes. Warmism, like environmentalism, plays on the urban elites’ mal-de-siecle and self-loathing. The strategy of these people is to exude an overpowering sense of hierarchy and authority while resorting to the cheapest intellectual stunts. No wonder GetUp loves ‘em.

  15. Comment from: Neville

    More on that pathetic rebuttal by the so called real scientists from Jo Nova.

  16. Comment from: kuhnkat

    Little Lukey,

    No, I do not pay for that stuff. Send me a copy if you want me to actually read something is most likely biased.

  17. Comment from: Schiller Thurkettle

    Lukey has fallen into the same trap many warmists, or maybe he’s just lying like the rest of them.

    “Research shows 97% of scientists agree that CC is human caused.” This mantra is endlessly repeated. You know how they got to that number? They tallied the results of a survey that got over 3,400 responses from scientists. Then they removed responses they deemed were of insufficient merit. That left them with about 70 responses, amongst whom 97 percent were warmists.

    The warmists concoct numbers all the time. Who is surprised?

  18. Comment from: Luke

    KuhnKat “for that stuff.” – yea sums it up for you – so much for awareness of relevant literature ROFL !

    SD – sideline – well I never – Copeton Dam almost full – red letter day ! rarely fills….

  19. Comment from: Luke

  20. Comment from: spangled drongo

    Yes Luke, the Copeton is like a lot of those western dams that were completed after the wet years that ended in 1976. They have had a limited and patchy water supply but are now coming into their own.

    Just shows to go that you have to build dams on these potentially great water supply areas in Australia with our unpredictable rainfall patterns.

    When it’s raining money you want a big bucket not an umbrella.

    Just listen to “our” ABC and the rest of the MSM spouting catastrophe with all this inland rainfall. As Fred Dagg says, “we don’t know how lucky we are”.

    Allah gives nuts to the toothless!

  21. Comment from: John Sayers

    January: -0.09 and falling.

  22. Comment from: Debbie

    Many of us know how to use modelling. It is an extremely useful tool. We use modelling to assist with our planning.
    But seriously, if we start with flawed assumptions and then refuse to recognise that, the answer is going to be flawed. If we input that a certain commodity is worth $600/tonne when it is really only worth $200 then we have a flawed result.
    If we then also assume that the expenses or other inputs are less than real figures, then the result is further skewed. Many of your links provide no justification for the assumptions that are used as inputs.
    The models look attractive but they are devoid of checks and balances that come from inputting real data. If they are not updated correctly they are flawed.
    It is an inescapable reality.
    Whether they are compiled by a scientist with a Phd or multiple degrees or not is completely irrelevant. If they’re not prepared to update the inputs correctly, the model is flawed.
    It’s time to move on. The projections need updating.

  23. Comment from: Luke

    “Many of us know how to use modelling” really?

    ” It is an extremely useful tool.” maybe — maybe not

    “If they’re not prepared to update the inputs correctly” – well of course? but that doesn’t help your model necessarily. I don’t really think you know how these models work….

    so how do you think they work Debs?

  24. Comment from: Schiller Thurkettle

    The map is not the territory. The same is true of models. But what’s the value of a map that’s made without looking at the territory, or a model that doesn’t look at real data?

  25. Comment from: Debbie

    Well of course the actual model could be deficient as well Luke.
    That was not my point however.
    Schiller supplies a good analogy.
    And Luke, why would we be helping a projective model? Isn’t the model supposed to be helping us to make realistic projections?
    I may not understand the highly complex calculations that have been used to construct a particular model but I do understand that inputs determine the outcome and that if a model is not updated correctly with real data then it will stray further and further from reality and its projective capabilities are compromised.
    So the actual point is valid. If we start with flawed assumptions and use those as inputs into ANY projective model, the projections will inevitably flawed. There can also be a wide range of projections depending on variable inputs.
    Real data and reality are the final judge of the success or failure of ANY projective model.
    So, if they are updated with real time data and they resemble reality then they remain useful. If not. . . .

  26. Comment from: Luke

    Schiller is a silly person

    Debbie you are a total modelling ignoramus

  27. Comment from: Schiller Thurkettle

    There’s another problem with computer models. Computers don’t do what you want, they do what they’re told.

    The output of a computer model is pre-determined.

  28. Comment from: Luke

    “The output of a computer model is pre-determined.” FAIL

  29. Comment from: cohenite

    luke, the gift that keeps giving; his Ashok paper discusses, their own words, “a hitherto-unseen anomalous basinwide warming from May 2009 through April 2010″ in the tropical pacific; fair enough; here is a chart noting the various increases and decreases in OHC in the various oceans of the world during the anomalous increase:

  30. Comment from: Luke

    hahhahahaha – I kacked – a few months and no tropical cut. gawd

    wiggle my woggle

  31. Comment from: Schiller Thurkettle

    Luke apparently does not understand the rudiments of how computer programs work. A well-constructed program works smoothly and does what it is told to do. Sort of like the computer model behind Mann’s hockey stick. It yields a hockey stick even when given random data.

  32. Comment from: Luke

    ” A well-constructed program works smoothly” FAIL – why should it

    “does what it is told to do” FAIL

    “Sort of like the computer model behind Mann’s hockey stick” FAIL – it was a statistical analysis.

    You know nothing.

  33. Comment from: kuhnkat

    Little Lukey,

    would you like to explain to statisticians, who tell us that doing an analysis requires developing a model first, that there was no model behind Michael Mann’s Schlockey Schtick?

    Maybe there wasn’t and that would be one more major strike against that piece of garbage. 8>)

  34. Comment from: kuhnkat

    Little Lukey,

    would you like to explain to statisticians, who tell us that doing an analysis requires developing a model first, that there was no model behind Michael Mann’s Schlockey Schtick?

    Maybe there wasn’t and that would be one more major strike against that piece of garbage. 8>)

    “KuhnKat “for that stuff.” – yea sums it up for you – so much for awareness of relevant literature”

    What is relevant about biased papers Little Lukey?? Especially when they don’t use all the data or misuse it or…? I gave up on YOUR science 5 years ago when it stopped being somewhat close to reality. You MUST stick with it or admit what a FOOL you have been!! Does it feel really good to wake up knowing how you have helped to damage so many people’s lives? Does it give you a sense of POWER Little Lukey? I am not laughing. Are you?

  35. Comment from: kuhnkat

    Little Lukey,

    I would point to the same issue others have. YOUR science told us that Australia would be subject to chronic drought. FAIL!!!!!

  36. Comment from: Luke

    ” Does it feel really good to wake up knowing how you have helped to damage so many people’s lives?” oh do bung it on mate – you’ve never had it so good.

    Australia IS subject to chronic drought – historical fact boofhead. However if you’re implying that there are journal articles saying it would never rain again in the future – well fess up. You are such a stupid little denier.

  37. Comment from: cohenite

    “However if you’re implying that there are journal articles saying it would never rain again in the future”

    Noone is saying that; what the official position has been is that there is likely to be increased droughts; some CSIRO people have not blamed AGW for this:

    While the majority have:


    cc: “Shoni Dawkins”
    date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 08:28:03 +100 ???
    from: “David Jones”
    subject: RE: African stations used in HadCRU global data set
    to: “Phil Jones”

    Thanks Phil for the input and paper. I will get back to you with comments next week.
    Fortunately in Australia our sceptics are rather scientifically incompetent. It is also
    easier for us in that we have a policy of providing any complainer with every single
    station observation when they question our data (this usually snows them) and the
    Australian data is in pretty good order anyway.
    Truth be know, climate change here is now running so rampant that we don’t need
    meteorological data to see it. Almost everyone of our cities is on the verge of running out
    of water and our largest irrigation system (the Murray Darling Basin is on the verge of
    collapse – across NSW farmer have received a 0% allocation of water for the coming summer
    and in Victoria they currently have 5% allocations – numbers that will just about see the
    death of our fruit, citrus, vine and dairy industries if we don’t get good spring rain).
    The odd things is that even when we see average rainfall our runoffs are far below average,
    which seems to be a direct result of warmer temperatures. Recent polls show that
    Australians now rate climate change as a greater threat than world terrorism.


    And, of course, who can forget the Drought Exceptional Circumstances report so well shafted by David Stockwell:

  38. Comment from: Luke

    Well so much for Cohenite’s reading ability – unable to actually accurately report what CSIRO and SEACI research says …

    And David Jones above was right on the science. And especially about “Fortunately in Australia our sceptics are rather scientifically incompetent. ” Let’s see … ENSO causes centennial climate change and solar cycles drivel galore. It’s embarrassing. Shall we remember those lamentable papers again….?

  39. Comment from: hunter

    Luke and the other rent seekers seem to be understandably up in arms over an academic and qualified challenge to their place at the public trough.

  40. Comment from: Schiller Thurkettle

    David’s triumphalism over “Australians now rate climate change as a greater threat than world terrorism” shows that it’s a publicity campaign, not real science.

    David’s comment that “climate change here is now running so rampant that we don’t need
    meteorological data to see it” is another telltale. Same as saying, ‘We don’t need data, let’s look at the weather.’ This is further evidence of a publicity campaign, not real science.

  41. Comment from: kuhnkat

    Australia may still have problems with Gorebull Warmers, but, it would appear that some sense is seeping back into Germany. Check out this esteemed Socialist and Environmentalist slamming Gorebull Warming with support from the most popular daily paper!!

    It may actually end before complete destruction of our world.

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All