Following up on an earlier post on Lord Monckton’s anti-AGW campaign it turns out that he’s playing fast and loose with data, and apparently making things up. The sordid details can be found at RealClimate. What’s his defense going to be? That he was only trying to make the chart look good?
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.
Please also note that my statement is still firm: there is enough doubt about the extent of MMGW contribution that we should forestall policies based upon the IPCC findings. We should research more and actually fund some contrary studies. To enact more government policy before we know more would be scurrilious, and probably disastrous
UPDATE: It’s a year and six months later, Monckton’s paper has been debunked, and I’ve done much more digging into the data and studies. Anthropogenic Global Warming is something we must address this century, and if we wait until the second half to start it will be too late.
You know thing are bad when the UN calls for Capitalism. Ban Ki Moon called for the end to tariffs, protectionism, and trade barriers in face of mounting food inflation:
“We simply cannot afford to fail,” the UN secretary general told a news conference at the UN Food and Agriculture (FAO) summit on food security. “Hundreds of millions of people expect no less.”
That’s understatement. Millions are hungry right now, and it’s going to get worse before it gets better. The sustained high energy prices the past few years have caught up to food production, and while the lowering of trade barriers will help the problem of “food inflation” quite a bit, lowering barriers alone will not stop the steady creep of hunger and poverty. It takes high energy to farm abundantly and cleanly; a point which is easily proven.