Christopher Monckton’s new paper analyzes the math of the IPCC model and 2007 climate report and finds it flawed. As many have asserted his math now proves that carbon forcing effects in the model are exagerated among other things such as:
• The IPCC’s 2007 climate summary overstated CO2’s impact on temperature by 500-2000%;
• CO2 enrichment will add little more than 1 °F (0.6 °C) to global mean surface temperature by 2100;
• Not one of the three key variables whose product is climate sensitivity can be measured directly;
• The IPCC’s values for these key variables are taken from only four published papers, not 2,500;
• The IPCC’s values for each of the three variables, and hence for climate sensitivity, are overstated;
• “Global warming” halted ten years ago, and surface temperature has been falling for seven years;
• Not one of the computer models relied upon by the IPCC predicted so long and rapid a cooling;
• The IPCC inserted a table into the scientists’ draft, overstating the effect of ice-melt by 1000%;
• It was proved 50 years ago that predicting climate more than two weeks ahead is impossible;
• Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth warmed;
• In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years.
The climate alarmists are sure to be out in force soon to attack these conclusions, watch for some major hysteria as this is a major scientific paper in a peer reviewed journal , the first among many to come. Now that we see demonstrable human suffering as outcome of misguided technocratic policy eyes are beginning to open. Scientists will be fully examining IPCC conclusion and basically fact checking their ass fully which is something the climate alarmists been given a pass on in the past. We undoubtably contribute some extra heat to the planet, to conclude that we must enact draconian measures before we know whether it matters or not is disastrously stupid.
Update: Charles points out that at American Thinker they outline what’s happened since, it appears that the paper might have been invited by APS, and then subsequently slammed due to the reaction that I said would occur.
More Updates: Tim Lambert submits that there might be flaws, Monckton asks for an apology and who reviewed his paper and their findings before the red label warning at APS was applied. It’s a full on science food fight folks.