I received the following note,
“No one with any vestige of objectivity could read the following and still believe that Anthropogenic Global Warming remains the threat that is being proclaimed. Jennifer, you must comment on this in your blog. It will be most interesting to see how far the AGW faithful will go in the desperate desire to defend their faith. Based on advanced behavioural modeling I predict two forms of response. Some will just abandon any pretense of analysis and reject it entirely on the basis of its derivation from a source of which they disapprove. Others will simply ignore the evidence and cite IPCC scripture as irrefutable scientific proof.
I’m not going to comment – and I didn’t quite get through the three papers. But, anyway, following is the media release from the Washington-based Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP) and links to the papers.
“The release of these papers comes at an opportune time,” says Robert Ferguson, executive director. “The current issue of TIME offers a series of essays reputedly about climate science, carrying the ominous head line: ‘Be Worried, Be Very Worried’. If viewed through a prism of current science, it should read: ‘Be Skeptical, Be Very Skeptical’. The entire series is ill-informed, biased and unacceptable for serious public policy decisions. It is, in short, nearly hysterical advocacy designed to frighten readers toward supporting far-reaching policy decisions that would be both harmful and useless.”
Concludes Ferguson, “For too long, Scientists who challenge alarming claims are rarely given voice by the media, and are often labeled as “skeptics” and dishonest fronts for “corporate polluters.” TIME has an explicit policy not to print anything contrary to the ‘end-of-the-world’ warming orthodoxy. What is truly ironic is that the purveyors of alarm are the real skeptics who cling to virtual alarm against widely accepted empirical findings.”
The first paper, “Issues in the Current State of Climate Science” is a guide for policy makers and opinion leaders. It explores the constantly shifting scientific literature of climate change, discussing what is and what is not known about such issues as melting polar caps, species migration and extinction, coral reefs, mosquito-borne diseases, extreme weather events, sea level rise, polar bears, great white sharks and butterflies. The paper concludes with a reprint of MIT Professor Richard Lindzen’s recent testimony to the UK House of Lords on the nature of the present climate debate, what is trivial and what is not. (see: http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20060331_issues.pdf)
The second paper, “Wind Farms Provide Negligible Useful Electricity” by Richard Courtney explains why wind farms for power generation can only provide negligible electricity to grid supply systems, make no significant reduction in pollution, cause significant environmental damage, increase the costs of electricity and create risks of power failures.
The third paper, “An Assessment of Montreal COP/MOP 1” by Chris Horner explores the looking-glass legal world that is the Kyoto Protocol. It shows with pole-star clarity that Kyoto’s own long and tortured path toward approval manifests that enthusiastic support for its regime is not matched by a desire to codify it. (see: http://ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20060126_horner.pdf)
Explains Ferguson, “Sadly, alarmists exploit the observation that few laymen understand what global warming is all about. And most people (including scientists) can rarely follow 15 minute discussions of somewhat complex science; the conclusion of the listeners is that the objections are too obscure to challenge their basic prejudice. We trust that these papers will help develop an antidote to that malady.”
The journal Science has also been featuring articles on climate change. Last week I was sent copies of the latest papers. There was some discussion at the blog Real Climate.
When I read Real Climate it seems the modelers go it right, but then when I read the review paper by Richard Kerr (Science Vol 311 pgs. 1698 – 1701) it seems the models don’t accord with the observations?
The following blog post was not uploaded until 12.30pm on 4th April.