, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Al Gore must be steamed, and I don’t think it’s from global warming.

Dr. Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist and author of Climate Confusion, argues in his influential blog the UN report due out later this month, shows scientists are being forced to “recognize reality”.

He said: “We are now at the point in the age of global warming hysteria where the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) global warming theory has crashed into the hard reality of observations.”

Spencer is not alone. After reviewing thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers, an international team of 47 scientists (what happened to “everyone in the scientific community knows…”) has concluded that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions caused by human activity had little measurable impact on the Earth’s climate during the 20th century, and that computer models predicting ever-rising temperatures as a result of greenhouse gas emissions are seriously flawed, so flawed that they are irrelevant. Imagine that – somebody looked at the garbage-in and concluded that the garbage-out was, in actual fact in scientific terms, refuse.

“None of the models have been validated against actual observations. [that statement alone should get the UN warming zealots put in chains in the bottom of a pit somewhere] They have not been able to explain why the climate hasn’t warmed in at least 15 years even though that’s what every model expects,” Dr. S. Fred Singer said during a conference call Tuesday. “Antarctic ice is growing steadily despite the models predicting the opposite.” In fact there is more Arctic ice than ever recorded, and Alaska had several 15° days this SUMMER! Add to that the fact that there have been far fewer hurricanes this season than in recorded history, and things for the doom and gloom climate crowd are looking like what many of us have been saying for years – “global warming” is man-made hot air in the form of speeches blaming humans for, well… being humans.

Dr. Singer, is Professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia, and too criticized the largely discredited U.N.’s IPCC, whose latest report is scheduled to be released on Sept. 27 in Stockholm…hey, no politics in a UN bodies results (sarc). In the report, they use CO2 “…to account for all temperature variations leaving no room for the Sun, and is contradicted by every other temperature record,” Singer said.

Singer is the lead author of “Climate Change Reconsidered,” which was released a week or so ago. It’s the next volume in a series published by the “Non-Governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)”. The “double peer-reviewed study” was sponsored by the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and the Heartland Institute.

Closer examination of the IPCC’s models revealed other problems, “Some models predict more cloud cover, some less, some no change,” agreed Dr. Willie Soon, an astrophysicist and geoscientist at the Solar and Stellar Physics (SSP) Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and a co-author of the NIPCC study. “So anything goes. That is not the way science works.”

Another co-author, Dr. Craig Idso, chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, noted “…claims that temperatures in the polar regions are rising is patently false,” and continued “empirical data for the past 1,000 years shows no evidence that CO2 levels cause droughts, floods, hurricanes or other severe weather, nor did storms in the 20th century increase in either intensity or frequency over previous centuries.”

“This new volume provides the scientific balance missing from IPCC,” Idso added. “Indeed global temperatures have risen slightly, most likely because the Earth is still coming out of the Little Ice Age (800-1100 A.D.)” – 1100 A.D. to now being a nanosecond in geological time, where the coldest temperatures recorded in the last 10,000 years happened. Idso noted. “But [even so] thousands of peer-reviewed scientific articles do not support, and often contradict the UN’s IPCC’s view on climate change.”

Contrary to the UN panel, the NIPCC study, backed by REAL science, concludes that “…the human effect (from CO2 emissions) is likely to be small relative to natural variability, and whatever small warming is likely to occur will produce benefits as well as costs.”

In fact the plants that have lived in the “dinosaur paleo-past,” which are now fueling our cars, heating our homes and being burned for our electricity were in a CO2 atmosphere some 8X more that we have now (ice cores with atmospheric bubbles from the Antarctic say so, not me) from a time when fern plants grew hundreds of feet tall and were literally everywhere on earth.

So with a little more CO2 out there, could be the possibility of real benefits, like plants doing better so there’s more food…perhaps more fuel being saved in “warming” moderate winters.

John Noland