According to the International Herald Tribune, the EU now urges religious leaders to do more to fight climate change.

European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said that churches, mosques and temples all have a role to play to help save the planet. “Climate change obliges all of us to take urgent action,” Barroso said.

The Archbishop of Church of Sweden, Anders Wejryd, has already made a false start by inviting a select group of internationally recognized opinion-makers from different faiths, cultures and continents to a climate summit to be held in Uppsala, Sweden, in November 2008.

Is this some desperate tactic to get us to finally succumb to the hypothesis of man-made global warming? If science doesn’t work, try faith. Faith does not need any evidence. And there truly is no evidence for AGW.

“It’s Getting Hot in Here” is an activist blog about AGW. In its latest entry, Phil Aroneanu writes:

Remember that number global warming deniers throw around — those 500 scientists that have supposedly signed onto a letter denying the existence of anthropogenic climate change? 500. It’s a number you hear on the nightly news near the end of many stories on climate change, and it’s also a number invented by the Heartland Institute, one of Washington’s most conservative thinktanks.

As it turns out, that the number is a fabrication. Our friends over at DeSmogBlog sent questionnaires to each signer, and received back some interesting quotes.

According to It’s Getting Hot in Here, a large number of the signers were shocked when told that their names were on the “deniers” list. A few scientists are quoted: Dr Ming Cai, Dr. Paul F. Schuster, Dr. David Sugden, Dr. Gregory Cutter.

Now I am sorry to say, but NONE of these names are on the list of those who signed the Manhattan Declaration. You can check for yourselves at the ICSC site.
New addition:

As stated in the 1st comment, the 500 are to be found on a list by Dennis T. Avery from September 2007. Not in the Manhattan Declaration, as I first thought. But since the latter also comprises of 500 + names and is related to Heartland Institute, I drew the wrong conclusion. I am sorry for that.

I will ask Dennis Avery about the document. Meanwhile, may I would only like to bring to your attention that there are more than 500 scientists who doubt in AGW. The Manhattan Declaration endorsers are to be found here. There is also a list by the US Senate, naming more than 400 scientists who do not agree with the AGW-hypothesis.

UK Telegraph reports: “Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have said. Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now expect a “lull” for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The average temperature of the sea around Europe and North America is expected to cool slightly over the decade while the tropical Pacific remains unchanged. This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature.”

The UK Telegraph article by reporter Charles Clover noted the significant deficiencies in UN climate models: “The IPCC currently does not include in its models actual records of such events as the strength of the Gulf Stream and the El Nino cyclical warming event in the Pacific, which are known to have been behind the warmest year ever recorded in 1998.”

However, the effect of rising fossil fuel emissions will mean that warming will accelerate again after 2015 when natural trends in the oceans veer back towards warming, according to the computer model.

But if natural variations are able to offset the man-made warming, is then our contribution to climate change significant? Also, if nature now (temporarily) cools the Earth, why shouldn’t the recent warming be natural as well?

I think that Al Gore should plan for an alternative occupation.

Here is another misconception. Australian The Age informs us that climate change is the latest threat to the world’s growing HIV epidemic.

“Climate change will lead to food scarcity and poorer nutrition, putting people with perilous immune systems at more risk of dying of HIV, as well as contracting and transmitting new and unusual infections,” said Professor David Cooper, director of the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research.

The specialist said the HIV landscape was grim, with 16,000 new infections worldwide each day and the failure of research to produce a much-needed cure or vaccine.

This got me thinking. Is the HIV situation really that bad? Let’s have a look at the UNAIDS 2007 Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic.

The estimated global adult HIV prevalence rates don’t seem to have increased since 2000. In Sub-Saharan Africa the rates started declining around 2000. The number of people newly infected also decreases. Yes, there are more people living with HIV, but the rate of deaths is also declining, implying that people with HIV now live longer. Before HAART, the time between infection and death was estimated to range from eight to 13 years. Today, patients can expect a life expectancy equivalent to that of the general population.

So what is this all about, now we’ve got HIV-alarmism on top of the AGW-propaganda?

According to Press TV, scientists from the University of Hawaii in Honolulu have discovered that the Earth’s climate was stabilized by a natural carbon thermostat regulating the carbon dioxide levels. Now, however, these slow cycles have been disrupted by man-made carbon dioxide emissions.

Scientists also found that the long-term change in the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been only 22 parts per million (ppm) over a period of 610,000 years, but two centuries of human industry have raised the levels by about 100 ppm.

Let me only say - what a load of bullshit!

1. Long term change of 22 ppm? Excuse me, if the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts? Use the 610,000 years that suit your purpose?

2. CO2 levels have been far higher in prehistoric periods than even the most pessemistic forecasts from the UN and had no greatly detrimental effects on the whole. Life thrived 200 million Paleozoic years above 3000 ppm and another 200 million Mesozoic years above 1000 ppm.

Incidentally, Earth’s temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward.

3. Research shows plants function best with CO2 levels between 1,000 and 1,200 parts per million (ppm). Greenhouses inject CO2 to reach these levels and achieve significantly higher yields as a result. This suggests that plants evolved to suit levels around 1,000 ppm and are CO2 starved at today’s 385 ppm. In fact, at 200 ppm plants begin to suffer and at 120 ppm they start to die.

4. 350- 1,000 ppm - typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange.

Fred Singer, one of the world’s renowned scientists, believes in Martians. At least, that’s what his Wikipedia page states, trying to trivialize his impressive CV. The same thing goes for other “deniers”. They are being disgraced, demeaned and belittled, while the proponents of AGW, on the contrary, are enthusiastically promoted.

Read Lawrence Solomon’s latest entry on National Post. Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud.

“Despite persistent efforts, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has never succeeded in the task set to it by the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), of supplying sound scientific evidence for the belief that human emissions of greenhouse gases are harming the climate. The evidence that has been supplied is based on unsound scientific methods and mathematics.”

This is the introduction to “Unsound Science by the IPCC”, a publication by Dr. Vincent Gray, which proves the main claims by the IPCC are scientifically unsound (the full report is available here). Dr. Gray is an expert reviewer for the IPCC and has submitted more than 1,800 comments on IPCC reports. I contacted Dr. Gray to get his view on global warming and here’s the exclusive interview.

Q: Dr Gray, you have stated that you consider IPCC as being corrupted. What is the basis for that criticism?

It is difficult to answer this in a few words. They were corrupt from the start, as they are a political organisation set up to provide evidence for “Climate Change”, defined by the Framework Convention on Climate Change as being exclusively caused by humans. The science is selected, distorted, and occasionally fabricated to support this view, and to downplay or marginalise any other climate influences. Their reports have to approved by the politicians who set them up and the Lead Authors are all chosen because they are willing to carry out their orders.

Q: I have read the comments to IPCC AR4. Your comments to the drafts have persistently been rejected. I imagine this is not the first time. Why do you continue to be Expert Reviewer? What is it that drives you?

It is immensely worthwhile. I consider that I have had a definite influence on them. For example, the first Report had a Chapter entitled “Validation of Climate Models”. When it appeared in the first draft of the next Report I commented that since no climate model has ever been validated the term was wrong. In the next draft they changed “validation” to “evaluation” no less than fifty times. They do not use the term or even discuss how it might be done.

The models are “evaluated” by seeking the opinions of those who are paid to produce the models. These are not “forecasts” but “projections” and they are no more than complete guesses from people with a conflict of interest, and thus worthless.

I have learned an unrivalled store of information about the climate while doing this and I know the attitude and activities of the IPCC scientists intimately. I am in a position to criticise them from the basis of this close knowledge.

It has been fascinating and immensely worthwhile.

Q: In your opinion, are we experiencing a global warming? What are your thoughts on the temperatures levelling off and even slightly falling since 1998? Has the warming trend stopped? Can we even anticipate a cooling?

The “climate” sometimes gets warmer and sometimes gets colder, and sometimes stays the same. I even believe it.

It is impossible to measure the average temperature of the Earth and even more difficult to find out whether it is increasing or decreasing. My studies, from all the data, indicate that the average temperature is passing through a cycle of about 65 years, and has reached the peak last seen in 1950. Since 1988 the average temperature has started to fall. 2007 was particularly cold and the IPCC people have even PREDICTED that 2008 will be cold. They are in deep trouble if it goes down much further for much longer. If the past trend continues it should continue to go down.

Q: Why do you believe that CO2 is not a major climate driver?

Because there is no evidence that it is. The models are worthless, as I have said. No model has successfully predicted any aspect of future climate. They completely failed to predict the measured temperature of the upper part of the atmosphere.

Q: Why don’t you believe in climate models?

The “weather” cannot be predicted more than a week or so ahead. If you call it “climate” the same applies; the system is too complex.

All the models are based on the “Flat Earth” theory of the climate where a quarter of the sunlight falls on all parts of the earth all the time and the temperature is constant. I regard this assumption as completely unrealistic. I might change my mind if they could show convincing predictions, but their “projections” are always so far ahead that they will have enjoyed their generous salaries and pensions before they are found out.

Q: What do you think is needed to turn the media and public opinion against climate alarmism?

A prolonged period of cold weather possibly combined with the economic downturn they have forced on the world.

Q: Some of the readers of my blog persist that there is no evidence that the current climate change is purely natural. Do you think that human activities affect the climate in any significant way?

I am a scientist and I like to be supplied with evidence. There is no question that humans influence the climate. Every city is warmer than the surrounding countryside. Shelter Belts modify the wind. Agriculture of all kinds has an influence. There is even such a thing as “pollution”. But I know of no evidence that it is, overall, harmful.

Q: In your opinion, what major environmental threats are we facing today?

The “Environment” has become a God who “threatens” us and demands constant sacrifice.

Humans, like other organisms have to work to set up surrounding circumstances, which are favourable to our prosperity, health and development. The greatest “threats” today are to the lives and existence of people in many countries, and response to these threats should have priority over the supposed threats to other creatures. Most of these are grossly exaggerated. Did you ever hear of an “Endangered Species” that actually became extinct?

I would like to thank Dr. Gray for answering my questions. It has been an honour.

Dr. Vincent Gray is a New Zealand-based climate scientist and an official expert reviewer of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientific reports.
Dr. Gray has a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry from Cambridge University, England and has had a long career as a research scientist in Britain, France, Canada, New Zealand and China. Dr. Gray has published over 100 scientific papers on energy and materials, plus a dozen in climate science.

Watch a brand new interview with Professor Bob Carter, shown in New Zealand TV on Friday, April 18.

Marc Morano, a climate skeptic from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee minority staff, says to OneNewsNow that the IPCC is scaling back on its previous dire predictions of catastrophic climate change. With each successive report, there is less cause for alarm than previously thought. Morano points out that in the recent 2007 report, man’s alleged impact on “global warming” was scaled back by 25 percent while ocean-level rise was also reduced.

At the same time on the other side of the Atlantic, Lord Nicholas Stern concludes that the situation is far worse than the assumptions that formed the basis of his Review on the Economics of Climate Change released in October 2006.

We badly underestimated the degree of damages and the risks of climate change. All of the links in the chain are on average worse than we thought a couple of years ago.

Now how’s that compatible? Don’t the AGW people talk to each other anymore? I though the IPCC and Stern were in consensus?