The Guardian tells us today that world CO2 levels have reached a record high. Scientists at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii say that CO2 levels in the atmosphere now stand at 387 ppm, the highest for at least the last 650,000 years.

CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere faster than expected. The annual mean growth rate for 2007 was 2.14 ppm – the fourth year in the past six to see an annual rise greater than 2ppm. From 1970 to 2000, the concentration rose by about 1.5 ppm each year, but since 2000 the annual rise has leapt to an average 2.1ppm.

But now comes the big question. With the CO2 levels soaring, why won’t the temperatures rise? There is something rotten with this global warming…

“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.

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.

“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.

A group of four scientists has sent a letter to the UN’s IPCC asking them to “admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures.”

This is reprint of the letter sent to the IPCC on Monday, April 14

14 April 2008

Dear Dr. Pachauri and others associated with IPCC

We are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position – that man’s CO2 is a driver of global warming and climate change – to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current IPCC position [as in footnote 1] and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change.

If you believe there is evidence of the CO2 driver theory in the available data please present a graph of it.

We draw your attention to three observational refutations of the IPCC position (and note there are more). Ice-core data from the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) shows that temperatures have fallen since around 4,000 years ago (the Bronze Age Climate Optimum) while CO2 levels have risen, yet this graphical data was not included in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (Fig. SPM1 Feb07) which graphed the CO2 rise.

More recent data shows that in the opposite sense to IPCC predictions world temperatures have not risen and indeed have fallen over the past 10 years while CO2 levels have risen dramatically.
The up-dated temperature measurements have been released by the NASA’s Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) [1] as well as by the UK’s Hadley Climate Research Unit (Temperature v. 3, variance adjusted - Hadley CRUT3v) [2]. In parallel, readings of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been released by the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii [3]. They have been combined in graphical form by Joe D’Aleo [4], and are shown below.

These latest temperature readings represent averages of records obtained from standardized meteorological stations from around the planet, located in both urban as well as rural settings. They are augmented by satellite data, now generally accepted as ultimately authoritative, since they have a global footprint and are not easily vulnerable to manipulation nor observer error. What is also clear from the graphs is that average global temperatures have been in stasis for almost a decade, and may now even be falling.

A third important observation is that contrary to the CO2 driver theory, temperatures in the upper troposphere (where most jets fly) have fallen over the past two decades. [Footnote 2]

IPCC policy is already leading to economic and unintended environmental damage. Specifically the policy of burning food - maize as biofuel - has contributed to sharp rises in food prices which are causing great hardship in many countries and is also now leading to increased deforestation in Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Togo, Cambodia, Nigeria, Burundi, Sri Lanka, Benin and Uganda for cultivation of crops [5].

Given the economic devastation that is already happening and which is now widely recognised will continue to flow from this policy, what possible justification can there be for its retention?

We ask you and all those whose names are associated with IPCC policy to accept the scientific observations and renounce current IPCC policy.

Yours sincerely,

Hans Schreuder, Analytical Chemist, mMensa, hans@tech-know.eu

Piers Corbyn, Astrophysicist UK, Dir. WeatherAction.com, piers@weatheraction.com

Dr Don Parkes, Prof. Em. Human Ecology, Australia, dnp@networksmm.com.au

Svend Hendriksen, Nobel Peace Prize 1988 (shared), Greenland, hendriksen@greennet.gl

Cc: IPCC’s yu.izrael@g23.relcom.ru christy@nsstc.uah.edu spencer@nsstc.uah.edu dy.pitman@gmail.com

Tim Yeo MP (Chairman Environmental Audit Committee) Lord Martin Rees (President Royal Society)

Gordon Brown MP David Cameron MP Nick Glegg MP

Footnote 1: Two heavily publicised quotations which emerged from your organisation, respectively in February and December last year, are:

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4).{2.4} [6] and

The 2007 IPCC report, compiled by several hundred climate scientists, has unequivocally concluded that our climate is warming rapidly, and that we are now at least 90% certain that this is mostly due to human activities. The amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere now far exceeds the natural range of the past 650,000 years, and it is rising very quickly due to human activity. If this trend is not halted soon, many millions of people will be at risk from extreme events such as heat waves, drought, floods and storms, our coasts and cities will be threatened by rising sea levels, and many ecosystems, plants and animal species will be in serious danger of extinction. (Summary statement, Bali Conference.) [7].

Footnote 2: “Data over the past two decades indicates that temperatures have actually declined in the upper troposphere, even though there has been some minor upward trends in temperature at sea level and lower altitudes. This completely contradicts conventional global warming models. Before we radically rearrange the political economy of the world because some scientists claim anthropogenic CO2 is the cause of climate change, it might be worthwhile for anyone taking a position on the topic to consider whether or not this is indeed “well settled science.” Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT, March 2008.

References:

1. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/msu.html

2. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature

3. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

4. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts Joseph D’Aleo, Certified Consultant Meteorologist,

Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS), Executive Director Icecap.us

5. http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0801.htm

6. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf

7. http://www.climate.unsw.edu.au/bali/

While the “motive” behind climate skeptics questioning AGW is rather clear – they are being paid by the Oil Lobby – it is less obvious what the prophet of the Inconvenient Truth could possibly win by crushing his adversaries and imposing heavy mandatory restrictions on CO2.

Many consider him being the Good Guy. Just think about it, he donated all the proceeds of his Nobel Prize award. But here’s where it gets interesting. The money will be used not to fight climate change, or to develop new technologies, but to change public opinion, which is the main goal of the recipient - Alliance for Climate Protection. Need I mention that Al Gore chairs this foundation?

Now this politician slash environmental activist slash Nobel Prize winner is adding another title to his CV – venture capitalist. He has joined an old pal, John Doerr, as a hands-on partner in Doerr’s venture-capital firm Kleiner Perkins (Read the article in Fortune). Al is planning on making big bucks by driving something “bigger than the Industrial Revolution” and he looks forward to remaking the entire global energy sector – a 6 trillion dollar business.

Gore’s salary from Kleiner Perkins will go to the same organization as before – Alliance for Climate Protection. More money to swing public opinion in favor of banning CO2. But hey, what about the Kleiner Perkins profits? Where will that money end up? Could it be in Al’s pocket?

Al Gore is also the chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). This London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are becoming environmentally friendly. Little is known about this firm’s finances, where it gets its funding and what projects it supports.

As reported in the August 2007 issue of Foundation Watch (“Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade: The Money and Connections Behind It”), Gore has created a web of organizations to promote the so-called climate crisis. His battle against CO2 emissions could make him millions of dollars. How that’s for a motive?

Update:Have you seen the anti-Gore campaign just launched by The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)? If not, see it here.

or “Don’t Say I Didn’t Warn You”

The following excerpts come from an article called “Who gains from the green economy?” by Preeti Mangala Shekar and Tram Nguyen. It was recently published in COLORLINES - The national newsmagazine on race and politics.

The authors depict a New World, a just world of brotherhood and equal opportunities. A world that will emerge thanks to global warming.

Climate change is the 21st century’s wake-up call to not just rethink but to radically redo our economies. Ninety percent of scientists agree that we are headed toward a climate crisis, and that, indeed, it has already started. With the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions, the clean energy economy is poised to grow enormously.

Naturally, things will have to change.

“An authentic green economics system is one that would mark the end of capitalism,” notes B. Jess Clarke, editor of Race, Poverty and the Environment. And one that would ensure labor rights and organizing, collective ownership and equality are all at the heart of it, he adds. “The real green movement has not started yet.”

Getting scared yet? Just wait. There’s more.

We have to recognize that we are at a particular stage of history, where the choices are not capitalism versus socialism, but green/eco-capitalism versus gray/suicide capitalism. The first industrial revolution hurt both people and the planet, very badly. Today, we do have a chance to create a second ‘green’ industrial revolution, one that will produce much better ecological outcomes. Our task is to ensure that this green revolution succeeds-and to ensure that the new model also generates much better social outcomes. I don’t know what will replace eco-capitalism. But I do know that no one will be here to find out, if we don’t first replace gray capitalism.

So, in case you have wondered what all the climate fuss is about - here’s the answer. Is this the kind of world you want to live in?

Read the entire article in COLORLINES and weep.

A friend of mine got very upset at a recent news item in Wall Street Journal. Obviously, US bankers have just begun discussing development of lending guidelines similar to the new “carbon principles” that make it tougher to build coal-fired power plants. The carbon principles pledge the banks to investigate and analyze the risks associated with CO2 emissions and integrate that analysis into lending and underwriting decisions. The rise of global warming hysteria leads to one brainless decision after another. Perhaps all entrepreneurs will soon have to factor in climate change when seeking private funding.

Many seem to think that going back to the Stone Age is the only right resolution. In Minneapolis, for example, all lights in municipal buildings will be turned off for one hour on a Saturday evening as part of the Earth Hour, initiated by WWF. Earth Hour is an initiative “to finding solutions for climate change”. I tell you one thing - it will be damn hard to find any solution in complete darkness.

In Petaling Jaya, showing some extraordinary intelligence, the Malaysian Qualifications Agency shut down all electrical appliances in its premises for 2.5 hours as part of efforts to combat global warming. All computers, printers, scanners, lights and air-conditioners were switched off. As if prayer and contemplation rather than technology and invention would save the planet.

It is also amazing how global warming is overheating the brain. In an instantaneous poll, the Wall Street Journal asked the audience to select the most pressing societal problem from a list of five that included infectious disease, terrorism and global warming. Global warming was the most popular response, receiving 31 percent of the vote, while infectious disease came in last with only 3 percent of the vote.

My mother, a very wise woman by the way, can’t understand how we can speculate over what might happen in 50 years from now while 854 million people go to bed hungry every day. While every five seconds, one child dies from hunger related causes. The world today is more prosperous than it ever has been. New technological advances create opportunities to improve economies and reduce hunger and poverty. Why, oh why do we keep insisting on financial sacrifices that are a pointless waste of money?

Climate scientist Jimbo Hansen at NASA has just drafted a fresh paper urging us to return the CO2-levels back to those of 1988 (350ppm).

Humanity today, collectively, must face the uncomfortable fact that industrial civilization itself has become the principal driver of global climate. If we stay our present course, using fossil fuels to feed a growing appetite for energy-intensive life styles, we will soon leave the climate of the Holocene, the world of human history. The eventual response to doubling pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 likely would be a nearly ice-free planet.

The stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass those of any previous crisis. The greatest danger is continued ignorance and denial, which could make tragic consequences unavoidable.

Sounds to me more like sermon than science. I wonder if Hansen at all believes returning to 1988-levels of CO2 is possible with emissions pouring out of China and India. Someone should tell the guy to get a grip.