The global climate is warming. This warming may be caused by human activity, but there is no evidence thus far that conclusively supports that claim. The primary documents advocating human activity and CO2 emissions as the primary cause of global warming are the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessments, of which several have been released since the organization was founded in 1988, with the most significant one being assessment 3, released in 2001. It was in this assessment that the now-famous “hockey stick” graph, as it now often called, which depicts global temperature as primarily flat since 1900 then spiking sharply toward the end of the 20th century, was first introduced and presented as clear evidence that human activity is forcing global warming. In offering a careful evaluation of this data, there are a few key tenets of this theory that must be called into question. First is the objectivity and level of consensus of the IPCC scientists. Second are the methods used to derive the “hockey stick” model. Third is the raw data on CO2 levels and temperature. Finally, the drastic predictions and policy recommendations made by the IPCC in order to deal with climate change.
The scientists that made up the IPCC during the drafting of assessment 3 were all appointed by their respective nations. Because the outcome of the IPCC report has such a weighty influence on environmental policy, it would be quite naïve to assume that neutrality was at the forefront of the selections process. It is this strong political influence in the IPCC, which is a political entity, not a scientific one (note that the IPCC did not conduct any research, but rather the participants selected which studies to give weight to), which undermines the scientific integrity of the organization. Regarding the claims made by the IPCC that their report has the strong consensus of many scientists, David Holland (2007) writes of the IPCC process when he states in a paper published in the Journal Energy and Environment:
“We are frequently assured, without further explanation, the WGI [working groups within the IPCC structure] view represents the consensus of a large number of experts. This claim needs to be treated with severe caution. Large numbers of persons were indeed involved, and may assent to the assessment as a whole, but individual chapters for each working group, each of which deals with many potentially controversial issues, and are written, reviewed and edited by much smaller groups (pg. 3-4).”
By remembering that the members of the IPCC were hand picked by politicians, and that even they individually had little direct input into most of the assessment, should draw one to question the consensus. Especially when one considers that outside of the IPCC within the scientific community, there is a strong air of skepticism regarding the theory of human-caused global warming.
With the understanding that the IPCC has strong political bias, be now review the “hockey stick” model. According to Dr. Holland (2007), the shaft of the hockey stick was derived almost exclusively by using the size of tree rings to estimate global temperature in past ages. This technique was principally authored my Dr. Michael Mann, who received his Ph. D. in 1998. This technique causes concern because it is “comparatively new and untested” (pg. 8). Dr. Holland (2007) continues to point out that the blade part of the “hockey stick” was derived using instrument data from 1902 to present. presenting a single, seamless, model using two very different data sources and splicing them together cannot depict an accurate model (pg. 8). The reliance on unproven techniques and blending data with different reliability rates without noting the change represents poor quality control, so why would the IPCC have done that? In an article published on 5 November, 2007 in the Sunday Telegraph, a reputable British newspaper, an article by Christopher Monckton quotes U.S. Geoscientist Dr. David Deming, who testified before The U.S. Senate that:
“With the publication of the article in Science [on borehole data], I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period’ (Monckton, 2007).”
The testimony of Dr. Deming reveals the political forces that drive the IPCC report, and it also reveals a significant adulteration from scientific principles in the development of the IPCC “hockey Stick.” Mr. Monckton (2007) says:
“Even after the "hockey stick" graph was exposed, scientific papers apparently confirming its abolition of the medieval warm period appeared. The US Senate asked independent statisticians to investigate. They found that the graph was meretricious, and that known associates of the scientists who had compiled it had written many of the papers supporting its conclusion (Monckton, 2007).”
Despite the fact that the science supporting the document has been proven erroneous and the intentional removal of a medieval period warming trend was confirmed, the IPCC continues to use the graph to support it’s stance on human caused climate change, further evidence of the political forces driving the report.
The conclusion drawn by the IPCC from analysis of the “hockey stick” is that as CO2 levels continue to rise, a greenhouse effect is forcing global temperature to rise as well. On an elementary level this seems to make sense, the problem is the fact that the science does not support that claim. There have been several studies on CO2 levels in Antarctic ice core samples, and the subsequent models all show the same data, Again, Mr. Monckton (2007) states:
“[T] he UN implies that carbon dioxide ended the last four ice ages. It displays two 450,000-year graphs: a sawtooth curve of temperature and a sawtooth of airborne CO2 that's scaled to look similar. Usually, similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The UN didn't do that. If it had, the truth would have shown: the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels.”
The fact that historically, CO2 levels follow temperature increases by several centuries proves problematic for the theory of human caused climate change, so as a political entity, the IPCC presented the data in a way that does not clearly show that fact. This intentional overlooking of the facts, just like eliminating from the models the fact that the medieval ages were warmer than today, casts serious doubts on the validity of the human-caused warming theory.
Taking the erroneous data and presenting inaccurate facts, the IPCC has propagated some apocalyptic predictions of what is to come. Some of these changes may in fact occur as the earth warms, but way they are presented look like fear mongering. Along with the predictions of severe drought, rising sea levels, and super storms, the IPCC and other UN entities have called for stronger international oversight and have presented ideals to be met by signatory countries, as is the case with the Kyoto Protocol. When the shoddy science is viewed with the strong political forces in the IPCC, the reasons for presenting an idea like human-caused global warming appear to be less motivated by environmental concern and more motivated by political expediency. Jacques Chirac, President of France, has been quoted in the Sunday Telegraph as saying that global warming is presented to “create world government” (Monckton, 2007). With so many doubts about the validity of human-caused global warming and with the idea being passed that the theory may be propagated to destroy national sovereignty, so far the U.S. has been wise to avoid signing the Kyoto Protocol, and as a matter of policy, it is vitally important that the U.S. not sign any treaty regarding climate change, because such treaties are based on erroneous science and dubious intentions. Human activities may in fact be causing climate change, but it is most wise to wait until some evidence is found to support that claim before any policy decisions are made.
References
Holland, D. (2007). Bias and Concealment in the IPCC Process: The “Hockey Stick” Affair and its Implications. Energy and Environment, 18. pgs. unk.
Monckton, C. (2007, November 5). Climate Chaos? Don’t Believe It. Telegraaph. Retrieved November 10, 2007 from http://www.telegraph.co.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment