Climate Science Primer: Curious Anomalies in Climate Science

Goracle

Introduction

Perusal of “obvious” evidence and “scientists’ reports” converted many people from being sceptical of Anthropogenic Global Warming, to believing it was true – this happened to me, watching Al Gore’s film. However, further perusal of “neglected” or “suppressed” evidence leads to a U-turn back to an informed scepticism. “Climategate”, the public exposure of emails confirming suspected malpractices in key areas of Climate Science, and the whitewash “reviews”, occurred after I first wrote this, and amplified the public disillusion with the official science. My Primer is a pretty unique “confessions of an ex-warmist” aimed at intelligent non-scientists as well as scientists from other disciplines, not too long/erudite nor too short/simplistic.

This is a personal story of awakening, as well as a primer in Climate Science. It is not officially “peer-reviewed”, but it has had excellent unofficial peer-reviewing from both supporters and critics. It works from a lot of muddy, confusing evidence, to gain clarity in the science, so that effectively one becomes a scientist as one progresses with reading this and thinking about it. Thus you can reach your own informed conclusions about the science as well as the politics. You are protected from hitting a brick wall of technical language, or paywalls, or contradictory reports without clues. It is vital to grasp the scientific basics, to see where orthodoxy fails on science that has been taken for granted and trusted. Checking contradictory sources, and continuing to question evidence, is essential to discovering the truth. The primer is loaded with references; but no amount of good references is good enough for someone whose mind is already made up. Nobody is sponsoring me.

If you cannot trust evidence unless it comes from a top scientist with whom you cannot pull rank, watch Professor Carter show how CO2 is not causing Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), parts one, two, three and four. This fairly short, fact-packed, crystal-clear science U-tube may be all you need. Back this up with more videos. Look at the evidence in Akasofu: Two Natural Components of the Recent Climate Change and Segalstad: Atmospheric CO2 and Global Warming (both large pdf files). Learn a overview of facts: Global Warming Science is a powerful resource: good science and good links. Discover IPCC’s scientific limitations with a top solar scientist. Study the 850 Peer-Reviewed Papers supporting scepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming alarmism. Friendly for non-scientists is a simple introduction. Read the short but forthright Skeptics’ Handbook that clarifies the key issues for debate. An introduction similar to this one but written by a trained scientist, is Great Global Warming Hoax. Statisticians show the predicted hotspot is missing, though it is essential to the CAGW hypothesis. A brilliant amateur disproves the two basic CAGW hypotheses with Cause and Effect. The NIPCC is written by experts to match the contents, and beat the expertise, of IPCC itself. Here is a whole list of introductions. More exist. Read our quotes from top scientists that include Nobel laureates. Take your pick.  Nobody can truthfully say that scientists sceptical of manmade global warming are kooks or crooks, or simply in the pay of Big Exxxx, or that there is a consensus – as Al Gore claimed.

I have, throughout, tried to judge the science on its own merits, not by whether it has been peer-reviewed and supported by official science. This is an important point. There’s a lot of evidence that crucial work in Climate Science has been refused publication in peer-reviewed science literature, not because it’s bad science but because it challenges “authority” and vested interests. Climate Science is not the only area of science to have this problem. The time for debate in Science is never over. Important ideas always bubble up to be explored, long before formal studies. Often even the experts disagree. It is quite normal for important new work to be rubbished at first. Since climate sceptics have been shut out of mainstream publication and acceptance so extensively and crucially (as Climategate shows), they have turned to websites and blogs, to share more and more evidence that contradicts “manmade global warming”. If you have evidence to query or improve anything here – please contact me. I’ve done my best, but I’m still learning and I still make silly mistakes sometimes.

Now we’ll turn the clock back to before Climategate 17 Nov 2009, to tell my story.

Read rest…

Continue Reading

The 70s Ice Age Scare

Global Cooling: The Coming Ice Age

This video gives background about the 70s ice age scare with an update about some the principal figures.

Newsweek, April 28, 1975
http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_cooli…

Time, June 24, 1974
http://www.junkscience.com/mar06/Time…

Damon and Kunen, Science August 6, 1976
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content…

Rasool and Schneider, Science July 9, 1971
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content…

Reid Bryson interview, The Why Files, Oct. 17, 2006
http://whyfiles.org/247sci_politics/i…

Fred Singer, Science, October 9 1970
“Will the World Come to a Horrible End?”
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/issue_p…

S. Fred Singer, Washington Times, May 5, 1998
http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/glwa…

The Missing Climate Forcing (1997)
J. Hansen, M. Sato, A. Lacis, and R. Ruedy
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1997/1…

Global Warming in the Twenty-First Century: An Alternative Scenario (2000)
James Hansen, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Andrew Lacis, and Valdar Oinas
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2000/2…

NOAA: Ice Age warnings lead to funding via
a letter from Kukla to Nixon
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/outr…

Geff Magazine April 24, 2007
George Kukla interview
http://www.gelfmagazine.com/archives/…

Additional Cooling papers:

Modeling the Climatic Response to Orbital Variations
John Imbrie and John Z. Imbrie
Science, February 29, 1980
“…this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years”
http://www.sciencemag.org:80/cgi/cont…

Oceanic Mechanisms for Amplification of the 23,000-Year Ice-Volume Cycle
William F. Ruddiman and Andrew McIntyre
Science, May 8, 1981
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content…

Variations in the Earth’s Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages
J. D. Hays, John Imbrie, and N. J. Shackleton
Science, December 10, 1976
“. . . the long-term trend over the next sevem thousand years is toward extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation”
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content…

Global warming: Will the Sun come to our rescue?
New Scientist, September 18, 2006
http://environment.newscientist.com/c…

Continue Reading

Medieval Warm Period

Medieval castle

What is it?
Our Medieval Warm Period Project is an ongoing effort to document the magnitude and spatial and temporal distributions of a significant period of warmth that occurred approximately one thousand years ago. Its purpose is to ultimately determine if the Medieval Warm Period (1) was or was not global in extent, (2) was less warm than, equally as warm as, or even warmer than the Current Warm Period, and (3) was longer or shorter than the Current Warm Period has been to date.

Why is it?
The project’s reason for being derives from the claim of many scientists — and essentially all of the world’s radical environmentalists — that earth’s near-surface air temperature over the last few decades was higher than it has been during any similar period of the past millennium or more. This claim is of utmost importance to these climate alarmists; for it allows them to further claim there is something unnatural about recent and possibly ongoing warming, which allows them to claim that the warming has its origins in anthropogenic CO2 emissions, which allows them to claim that if humanity will abandon the burning of fossil fuels, we can slow and ultimately stop the warming of the modern era and thereby save the planet’s fragile ecosystems from being destroyed by catastrophic climate changes that they claim will otherwise drive a goodly percentage of earth’s plants and animals to extinction. Since these are serious contentions, we feel that their underlying basis must be rigorously tested with real-world data.

How is the project conducted?
As we discover new peer-reviewed scientific journal articles pertaining to the Medieval Warm Period, we briefly describe their most pertinent findings in the Study Descriptions and Results section of the project. The locations of all such studies are then plotted on a map of the globe, and the intervals of time they associate with the Medieval Warm Period are incorporated into a graph of the frequency distribution of all such time intervals, which is located just beneath the map in the project’s Interactive Map and Time Domain Plot feature. In extremely rare cases where only a single year is specified for the MWP, we assign it a 100-year timespan centered on the year reported by the study’s authors. For studies that allow the determination of an actual temperature difference between the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Current Warm Period (CWP), this number is incorporated into the frequency distribution of all such differentials in the project’s MWP-CWP Quantitative Temperature Differentials section. For studies that allow only a qualitative determination of the temperature difference between the MWP and CWP to be made, results are presented in the project’s MWP-CWP Qualitative Temperature Differentials section. Last of all, the names of all scientists and research institutions associated with the MWP Project studies we cite are included in our List of Scientists Whose Work We Cite and List of Research Institutions Associated With the Work We Cite.

When will the project end?
We believe there are enough pertinent studies already published, in the pipeline to be published, currently in progress and yet to be conceived to enable us to continue to add to the project on a weekly basis for an indefinite period of time.

How can you help?
You can help by alerting us to new (and old) research papers documenting the Medieval Warm Period that have not yet been posted on our website. When doing so, please send us a copy of the paper either by email (preferably in pdf format) or by post. Our contact information can be found here.

Study Description and Results
Africa
Antarctica
Asia
Australia/New Zealand
Europe
North America
Northern Hemisphere
Oceans
South America

MWP-CWP Quantitative Temperature Differentials

MWP-CWP Qualitative Temperature Differentials

Interactive Map and Time Domain Plot
To view this feature, your computer must be configured to run applets that use Java technology.  To download and install free Java software, we recommend Sun Microsystems’ Java Runtime Environment, which is available at www.java.com.  Instructions on how to operate the map’s features are located under the map.  Scroll down after clicking on the link above to view them.

List of Scientists Whose Work We Cite

List of Research Institutions Associated With the Work We Cite

Continue Reading

NIPCC Report

nipccmediumfigure

The 2009 report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Climate Change Reconsidered, was released on Tuesday, June 2, 2009, at a press conference at the Washington Court Hotel in Washington, DC, in conjunction with the Third International Conference on Climate Change. Heartland President Joseph Bast, editor of Climate Change Reconsidered, and authors Craig D. Idso Ph.D. and S. Fred Singer Ph.D. spoke at the press conference.

Watch the press conference by [watching the videos here], or read the text of the report by selecting the Chapters below. The report may also be purchased from Amazon.com

 

 

2009 Report Contents

Full Report PDF (7.8 MB)

Front Matter PDF (0.4 MB)

Chapter 1
Global Climate Models   PDF (0.3 MB)

Chapter 2
Feedback Factors and Radiative Forcing   PDF (0.6 MB)

Chapter 3
Observations: Temperature Records   PDF (2.4 MB)

Chapter 4
Observations: Glaciers, Sea Ice, Precipitation, and Sea Level   PDF (0.8 MB)

Chapter 5
Solar Variability and Climate Cycles   PDF (1.1 MB)

Chapter 6
Observations: Extreme Weather   PDF (0.7 MB)

Chapter 7
Biological Effects of Carbon Dioxide Enrichment   PDF (1.6 MB)

Chapter 8
Species Extinction   PDF (0.7 MB)

Chapter 9
Human Health Effects   PDF (0.5 MB)

Appendicies
Appendix 1: Acronyms   PDF (0.1 MB)

Appendix 2: Table 7.1.1 – Plant Dry Weight (Biomass) Responses to Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment   PDF (0.2 MB)

Appendix 3: Table 7.1.2 – Plant Photosynthesis Responses to Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment   PDF (0.2 MB)

Appendix 4: The Petition Project   PDF (1.8 MB)

Reviews HTML

Continue Reading

Polar Bears Thrive, Contrary to WWF Claims

polar_bear_ice_sheet

You’ve probably seen the commercials; TV actor Noah Wyle (ER, The Librarian) somberly informs us of an impending grave catastrophe: “A tragedy is unfolding in the world today. Climate change is threatening one of the most magnificent wild animals on the planet. Polar bears. They’re struggling to survive.”

Heart-tugging violins accompany video footage of a mother polar bear and her cuddly cub on a small ice flow.

The ice is melting all around them and food is becoming harder to find as they lose their hunting grounds. Climate change. It’s happening right now and its leaving mothers weaker and unable to provide for their young and cubs dying without enough to eat. As the struggle and the search for food continues polar bears are hanging on for survival. Polar bears are on their way to extinction. If we don’t act now, most will die in our children’s lifetime. But you can change that. Call now and join the Wildlife Rescue Team. For just $16 a month you’ll be part of the most ambitious effort to save wildlife and wild places the world has ever seen…. If we don’t act now, it could be too late for the polar bear.

It is a fundraising appeal for the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), one of the wealthiest environmentalist groups on the planet. The implied message is that the mother bear and cub in the film have been caught by the camera crew in their last desperate gasps, victims of man-made global warming. We are supposed to believe from the images we see, based upon Wyle’s narration, that they are weak and starving and soon will be joining the other members of their rapidly dying species.

However, there are several big problems with this picture and message. First of all, there is no evidence provided in the commercial or by WWF in its literature or on its website that this particular polar bear and her cub are weak, starving, or in any distress whatsoever. For all we can tell they are healthy and happy, floating on their iceberg as polar bears do and have done since they’ve been around on this planet. It is only the narration and the music that suggest otherwise. But, more importantly, the main message of the commercial is a … big lie. No sense in mincing words. Completely contrary to the WWF’s maudlin claims that the cuddly predators are on “their way to extinction,” polar bear populations have been exploding. The number of polar bears in the world is four to five times greater than it was 50 years ago, increasing from around 5,000 to an estimated 25,000. 

Canadian biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor, one of the foremost authorities on polar bears, says: “We’re seeing an increase in bears that’s really unprecedented, and in places where we’re seeing a decrease in the population it’s from hunting, not from climate change.” Dr. Taylor is a real scientist who actually goes out into the field and tracks, observes, tags, and counts polar bears and other arctic mammals. He has been doing this for over two decades, unlike the computer modelers who are making their dire predictions based on their own theoretical climate scenarios.

More…

Continue Reading

The Dark Side of Solar Energy

sunoct08.jpg

Ed. note: With all the talk lately of solar panels being Earth’s salvation, especially at the G20 summit and China in particular, it seemed only appropriate to re-post the following article. Below is an excerpt from Sunburned: Solar’s Dirty Little Secrets from the May 2009 issue of Mac|Life.

Solar-powered gadgets have become de rigueur in our attempts at shrinking our carbon footprint. And utilizing the power of the sun is the one bright shining beacon of the alternative-energy movement. But there is a dark side to solar energy.

Materials used in solar panels are toxic.
Because solar is the hip, happening alt-energy trend du jour, the number of photovoltaic cells produced globally has increased dramatically in the past few years. But unfortunately, many of the solar panels manufactured today are made with cadmium, a highly toxic carcinogen that can cumulate in plant, animal, and human tissues. The Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition has recently published a 45-page report, “Toward a Just and Sustainable Solar Energy Industry,” claiming that many of the environmental risks associated with the production and disposal of solar panels are not currently being addressed by the industry.

And because solar panels have a shelf life of 20 to 30 years, the Coalition claims that the panels have the potential of creating the next wave of hazardous e-waste when they “die.” What to do? Clearly, as the solar industry grows, environmentalists and consumers must demand that manufacturers develop systems to ensure that solar panels are recycled and their hazardous toxins kept out of our ecosystem.

China is dumping hazardous waste from solar factories in fields.
According to the Washington Post, in the race to cash in on the world’s demand for solar products, China been leading the charge in producing polysilicon, a key component in sunlight-capturing wafers. Unfortunately, China is not enforcing environmental regulations, and many of the new factories are dumping toxic silicon tetrachloride (a byproduct of polysilicon production) directly into nearby farmlands. (Just for perspective, 4 tons of this toxic byproduct is produced for every ton of polysilicon.) Because it is expensive and time-consuming to set up systems to recycle the hazardous materials, companies are instead dumping indiscriminately, and people close to these sites are complaining of illness, crop failures, acrid air, and dead fields. How to proceed? Alt-energy companies around the globe need to make sure the factories from which they acquire their solar components are practicing environmentally responsible manufacturing.

We use fossil fuels to make green energy.
Yes, solar power produces clean energy, but it requires utilizing our current resources to produce it. For the green movement to be truly sustainable, we need to make sure we are not trading one environmental problem for another. Yes, the world needs renewable energy as our fossil fuels dwindle, but we need to make sure we are not polluting and depleting to acquire and perfect the new technology.

Read rest…

Continue Reading

Thank You!

Thanks!

Your contribution will be used to offset our server and hosting costs, as well as other administrative expenses. Thank you again and always feel free to contact us!

Sincerely,
Climate Change Dispatch

{jcomments off}

Continue Reading

Advertise With Us!

Thank you for considering the Climate Change Dispatch web site for your online advertising needs! We work hard to keep our site current, continually adding new content to enhance its effectiveness as an advertising vehicle. We received over 60,000 visitors each month from people locally, nationally, and from around the world! See here for most recent stats.

PRICING AND PLACEMENT: When you select the popular pages on which your banners will appear (see below), our rate is only $50 per month per banner ad type (see below). Total availability of this type of ad (as of 08/14/09) is unlimited ad views and clicks per day. Your ad will be rotated with no more than three other ad clients with equal rotation. Placement on secondary pages (tier two or higher), the price is $50 per month, which includes the homepage.

Banner ads above content and right beneath navigation bar (very prominent) is $75/month.

The Climate Change Dispatch web site currently delivers over 60,000 each month, or 5,000 daily page views. We can put your ad on the prime pages of your choice or second-tier pages. And you know that your ad is targeting the people you want: educated, well-informed, political, and intellectually curious. Please read our About Us page to learn more about this site.

Banner specifications:
Banner 1 – Leaderboard: 468W x 60H pixels, 335 x 80 pixels
Position: Top of page below navigation bar, bottom of page, top of content page, bottom of content page

Banner 2 – Tile Ad: 120W x 60H pixels, 125 x 125 pixels, 200 x 200 pixels, 250 x 250 pixels
Position: Right hand-side column

Banner 3 – Skyscraper: 160W x 600H pixels, 120 x 600 pixels, 728 x 60 pixels, (add $25 for these sizes)
Position: Right hand-side column

Site requirements for ads:

  • We accept GIF, JPG, PNG, and Flash.
  • Flash versions accepted 5, 6, 7, and 8 with click tag.
  • 30k maximum file size for non-Rich Media ads.
    30k initial load and 100k maximum load for Rich Media ads.
  • Max 3 loops of animation ‚Äì up to 7 seconds of duration.
  • 72 DPI for GIF, JPG, and PNG.
  • All ads with links must use target “_blank”.
  • 30-second maximum for any non-user initiated animation.
  • No sound, please.
  • Creative with a white background must have a border to differentiate ad from editorial content.
  • Advertising cannot be directly competitive with and/or disparaging to climatechangedispatch.com
  • Ads cannot directly solicit contributions or donations.
  • We do not pad creatives with white space to ensure they meet size specifications.
  • We reserve the right to reject any potential ad campaign or creative without explanation.

Qualified advertising agencies: Deduct 15% from the above rates.

These rates are valid through Jan. 1, 2011. Minimum ad buy is THREE months. Climate Change Dispatch is a blog site with occasional TV-14 humor and certain TV-MA (language) videos (clearly indicated). All ads and target URLs are subject to editorial review, and may be terminated at any time at the sole discretion of Climate Change Dispatch by refunding payment for all undelivered months. This site does not carry advertising for adult-oriented or gambling-related sites.

Contact Thomas RIchard using our contact page for more details. We look forward to working with you on your successful Internet marketing campaign.

 

 

Climate Change Dispatch reserves the right to not sell any business or organization ad space or a banner. We reserve the right to move your banner location at any time. We do not guarantee any amount of traffic, click-throughs, or impressions.  We only track click-thru’s received through your banners.  All statistics are variable.  Prices are subject to change. All monthly advertising rates require a six-month running time minimum purchase.  All banners can be linked to a website or email address.

Continue Reading

Why the IPCC models are wrong

Dr. Roy Spencer explains the IPCC models under estimate natural feedbacks plus have sensitivities far more than the natural system has & therefore they greatly exaggerate what effect CO2 has on global temperatures.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Continue Reading

The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam

Roger Revelle

Roger Revelle, who later apologized for sending the UN IPCC and Al Gore on this wild goose chase called global warming

The following article is reprinted with permission. Visit Coleman’s Corner for more articles, posts, and information.

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax us citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way: the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led to a rise in public awareness that there is no runaway global warming. A majority of American citizens are now becoming skeptical of the claim that our carbon footprints, resulting from our use of fossil fuels, are going to lead to climatic calamities. But governments are not yet listening to the citizens.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government to punish the citizens for living the good life that fossil fuels provide for us?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle obtained major funding from the Navy to do measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting post war atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago. Suess was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle co-authored a scientific paper with Suess in 1957—a paper that raised the possibility that the atmospheric carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. The thrust of the paper was a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1958 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels. These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures.

Back in the1950s, when this was going on, our cities were entrapped in a pall of pollution left by the crude internal combustion engines and poorly refined gasoline that powered cars and trucks back then, and from the uncontrolled emissions from power plants and factories. There was a valid and serious concern about the health consequences of this pollution. As a result a strong environmental movement was developing to demand action.

Government heard that outcry and set new environmental standards. Scientists and engineers came to the rescue. New reformulated fuels were developed, as were new high tech, computer controlled, fuel injection engines and catalytic converters. By the mid seventies cars were no longer significant polluters, emitting only some carbon dioxide and water vapor from their tail pipes. New fuel processing and smoke stack scrubbers were added to industrial and power plants and their emissions were greatly reduced as well.

But an environmental movement had been established and its funding and very existence depended on having a continuing crisis issue. Roger Revelle’s research at the Scripps Institute had tricked a wave of scientific inquiry. So the concept of uncontrollable atmospheric warming from the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels became the cornerstone issue of the environmental movement. Automobiles and power planets became the prime targets.

Revelle and Keeling used this new alarmism to keep their funding growing. Other researchers with environmental motivations and a hunger for funding saw this developing and climbed aboard as well. The research grants flowed and alarming hypotheses began to show up everywhere.

Continue Reading

35 Inconvenient Truths

The errors in Al Gore’s movie

A spokesman for Al Gore has issued a questionable response to the news that in October 2007 the High Court in London had identified nine “errors” in his movie An Inconvenient Truth. The judge had stated that, if the UK Government had not agreed to send to every secondary school in England a corrected guidance note making clear the mainstream scientific position on these nine “errors”, he would have made a finding that the Government’s distribution of the film and the first draft of the guidance note earlier in 2007 to all English secondary schools had been an unlawful contravention of an Act of Parliament prohibiting the political indoctrination of children.

ImageAl Gore’s spokesman and “environment advisor,” Ms. Kalee Kreider, begins by saying that the film presented “thousands and thousands of facts.” It did not: just 2,000 “facts” in 93 minutes would have been one fact every three seconds. The film contained only a few dozen points, most of which will be seen to have been substantially inaccurate. The judge concentrated only on nine points which even the UK Government, to which Gore is a climate-change advisor, had to admit did not represent mainstream scientific opinion.

Ms. Kreider then states, incorrectly, that the judge himself had never used the term “errors.” In fact, the judge used the term “errors,” in inverted commas, throughout his judgment.

Next, Ms. Kreider makes some unjustifiable ad hominem attacks on Mr. Stewart Dimmock, the lorry driver, school governor and father of two school-age children who was the plaintiff in the case. This memorandum, however, will eschew any ad hominem response, and will concentrate exclusively on the 35 scientific inaccuracies and exaggerations in Gore’s movie.

Ms. Kreider then says, “The process of creating a 90-minute documentary from the original peer-reviewed science for an audience of moviegoers in the U.S. and around the world is complex.” However, the single web-page entitled “The Science” on the movie’s official website contains only two references to articles in the peer-reviewed scientific journals. There is also a reference to a document of the IPCC, but its documents are not independently peer-reviewed in the usual understanding of the term.

Ms. Kreider then says, “The judge stated clearly that he was not attempting to perform an analysis of the scientific questions in his ruling.” He did not need to. Each of the nine “errors” which he identified had been admitted by the UK Government to be inconsistent with the mainstream of scientific opinion.

Ms. Kreider says the IPCC’s results are sometimes “conservative,” and continues: “Vice President Gore tried to convey in good faith those threats that he views as the most serious.” Readers of the long list of errors described in this memorandum will decide for themselves whether Mr. Gore was acting in good faith. However, in this connection it is significant that each of the 35 errors listed below misstates the conclusions of the scientific literature or states that there is a threat where there is none or exaggerates the threat where there may be one. All of the errors point in one direction ‚Äì towards undue alarmism. Not one of the errors falls in the direction of underestimating the degree of concern in the scientific community. The likelihood that all 35 of the errors listed below could have fallen in one direction purely by inadvertence is less than 1 in 34 billion. Read the rest…

Continue Reading