Global Warming: The Skeptics Handbook

The following "handbook" is very well done and should be downloaded, read, and distributed to everyone. GP




Global Warming
The Skeptics Handbook
Rise above the mudslinging in the Global Warming debate. Here are the strategies and tools you need to cut through the red-herrings, and avoid the traps.

Click on the cover to download the latest 550kb pdf version.
To comment on theSkeptics Handbook,visit here.
Links to theoriginal sources are here
“Everything has changed since 2003″

To help the debate progress:
1. The sixth draft of the The Skeptics Handbook (pdf)
How to get past the pointless tit-for-tat swapping of ‘evidence’
What evidence is, what counts, and what doesn’t
Why new results have changed everything
How to steer out of details and get to the only point that matters.

2. Vostok ice core graphs are available for the entire last 420,000 years, as well as broken into 50,000 year divisions. Judge the lag for yourself.

3. Coming: resources, cartoons, graphs and information

4. Coming Articles:
“The five reasons the AGW story got so out of control”,
“How science communicators let us all down.”

Please email us: joanne AT joannenova.com.au (replace the ‘AT’ with ‘@’) if you would like access to copyright-free graphs, cartoons and updates. I’ll be happy to notify you as soon as they are available. (I promise, no spamming).
Joanne Nova

…There is only one question that matters: ‘will adding more CO2 to the atmosphere make the world much warmer now?’

From the handbook:
"Everything hinges on this one question. If carbon dioxide is not
a significant cause, then carbon sequestration, cap-and-trade,
emissions trading, and the Kyoto agreement are a waste of time and
money. All of them divert resources away from things that matter—
like finding a cure for cancer or feeding Somali babies. Having a
real debate IS the best thing for the environment."

Debates On Global Warming, Politics, The Environment And More

Visit this location on the internet: http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/board.aspx?BoardID=781

Here is a comment I just posted. Some of the discussions can become quite heated, so beware.
Peter

WeatherRusty,
Thanks for your honest and sincere attempt to answer my question about why there are so many global warming skeptics among meteorologists. And I knew you were a meteorologist. But I also wonder about so many other skeptical scientists who study other aspects of the Earth and the universe and understand the scientific process. What they see is the radical alarmism, the blatant phony hypocrisy of people like Al Gore, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and other what are called "limousine liberals".

All these other scientists know a great deal about science. They may not know the computer codes for the climate models that seem to be kept so secret, but secrecy and exaggeration have no place in science. That is salesmanship and politics. They see through the hype and it makes them skeptical and suspicious. Scientists are trained to be questioning and doubting.

For example, I recently asked a geologist acquaintance if he was "skeptical" of man-caused global warming. Take my word for it if you will, but he is one of the most experienced, well educated, and intelligent geologists, who are after all, "Earth Scientists" that I have known. He said he is "more than skeptical". He said he didn't believe a bit of it. The same holds true for every geologist I encounter and discuss this with.

And if you don't think these geologists don't know the "astoundingly simple" physics, or chemistry, or mathematics you talk about, I say you are wrong. In fact, I could make a case for many geologists knowing more and having a far more realistic grasp of Earth's climate changes than any so-called computer-modeling "climatologist".

To listen to Al Gore on this issue is totally absurd. To have him testify before a Congressional Committee on this issue is ludicrous; to have our politicians, or anyone for that matter, take him seriously is dangerous; and to pass laws costing billions based on his ideas is insanity.

Just The Beginning: The Global Warming Issue Getting Nasty

Actually, the process of bullying and intimidating global warming skeptics has been going on for a long time, with many examples, some published here on this blog. It is obvious to me that when those who claim man is causing global warming with his carbon dioxide emissions, can not support their theory with sound science, they resort to strong arm tactics.

This is always what tyrants do. They avoid open debate. They attack their opponents personally, question their motives, and affiliations. They use the tactics of mud-slinging politics at its worst. Read the following article and see what you think.
Peter

from: http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070727/NATION02/107270089

Inside the Beltway
John McCaslinJuly 27, 2007
Getting hotter

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency says he will investigate a threatening letter sent by the leader of an EPA-member group, vowing to "destroy" the career of a climate skeptic.
During a Capitol Hill hearing yesterday, Sen. James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma Republican and ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, confronted EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson about the strongly-worded letter written July 13 by Michael T. Eckhart, president of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) that was sent to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

"It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar," Mr. Eckhart wrote. "If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."

CEI does not dispute climate change, however it differs with certain environmental groups, including ACORE, on the causes. After Mr. Inhofe read Mr. Eckhart's comments, which were first reported by Inside the Beltway two weeks ago, the EPA chief promised to probe the matter.

"Statements like this are of concern to me. I am a believer in cooperation and collaboration across all sectors," Mr. Johnson assured. "This is an area I will look into for the record."
When Mr. Johnson confirmed that EPA is a member of ACORE, Mr. Inhofe asked if "it is appropriate to be a part of an organization that is headed up by a person who makes this statement."

Late yesterday, Mr. Inhofe announced he will send letters to the departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Energy, and EPA, urging them to "reconsider their membership of ACORE."

Based in Washington, ACORE's mission is to increase the use of renewable energy. Its 400-plus "paying" organizational members come from government, financial institutions, trade associations, academia, and other professional services.
Besides ACORE, Mr. Eckhart is co-chairman of the World Council for Renewable Energy and a member of the Clinton Global Initiative. Previously, he was CEO of United Power Systems; vice president of the venture capital firm Arete Ventures; a General Electric manager; and a principal of Booz Allen Hamilton's energy practice.

In a written response sent to Inside the Beltway last week, Mr. Eckhart apologized to "all the public who were offended" by his choice of words. He said he intended his letter to be a "private communication" in the context of "personal combat and jousting."

However, this column earlier this week published another letter Mr. Eckhart sent in September to CEI President Fred Smith, saying "my children will have a lesser life because you are being paid by oil companies to spread a false story."

He said he would give CEI, which advocates "sound science," 90 days to reverse its "position" on global warming, "or I will take every action I can think of to shut you down," including filing complaints with the Internal Revenue Service "on the basis that CEI is really a lobbyist for the energy industry."

NOVA & Frontline Examine Global Warming

Here is a very good online discussion and presentation on the subject of global warming and climate change. In the introduction they say:

"The overwhelming majority of scientists agree: earth's temperature has risen
during the past century. But is it due to man's use of fossil fuel energy? And
if so, how can we prevent the catastrophic results that some scientists predict
if global warming continues?
In "What's Up with the Weather?" NOVA and
FRONTLINE join forces to investigate the science and politics of one of the most
controversial issues of the 21st century: the truth about global warming."

It is interesting and informative to read the interviews with prominent scientists and gain an appreciation of the complexity of the issue. The interviews can be found here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/

"Scientists agree that the earth's temperature has risen. But how much worse
will it get? And, is human activity a factor in the warming?
Here are
interviews with leading proponents and skeptics of global warming's threat."
These interviews were conducted by FRONTLINE/NOVA producer Jon Palfreman.

The entire presentation can be found here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/

An Interview With Dr. S. Fred Singer

Here is a short quotation from a PBS interview with a well known Climate Scientist. He is also one of the leading global warming "skeptics". His years of experience gives him a view of the "big picture" on this issue and he should be taken very seriously. He's not trying to fool anyone.
I think he gives a partial answer to the question of why so many people believe this global warming nonsense:
Peter

"The federal government pumps about $2 billion a year into climate research. Now, this money has to be spent by someone. It supports a lot of jobs. It supports a lot of people. And inevitably, many of these people begin to feel that what they're doing is tremendously important and vital. Otherwise, they couldn't really live with themselves. They've talked themselves into the fact that the work they're doing is somehow helping humanity deal with some kind of a problem."

From an interview with Dr. S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist....see the entire interview at:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html

The French Climate Skeptic

Because global warming is.....well a global issue, it is interesting to read what scientists from countries other than America have to say. I've pulled some interesting statements by Marcel Leroux, a prominent French Professor of Climatology. He has been following and criticizing the IPCC for over twenty years. To see the entire article or click on this link: http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=091106F

It literally stuns me to realize how far out of hand this whole global warming/climate change issue has gotten. The people of the world are being so greatly misled I can barely comprehend it. There could not be greater disparity between what the world's top climate scientists, (not the climate modelers) and what the public is hearing from the media and politicians. Professor Leroux has more than a few ideas, based on data, facts and experience. I think he should be taken very seriously.
Peter

One of the most prominent French climate skeptics, Marcel Leroux, has recently published a magnum opus (more than 500 pages) on the subject: Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Erring Ways of Climatology. The author is no stranger in climate Jerusalem. He is professor of climatology at the University J. Moulin and director of the Laboratoire de Climatologie, Risques, Environnement, both in Lyon. He has already been criticizing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for some 20 years.

"Hardly a week goes by without some new 'scoop' ... filling our screens and the pages of our newspapers," he writes. "'Global warming' caused by the 'greenhouse effect' is our fault, just like everything else, and the message/slogan/ misinformation becomes even more simplistic, ever cruder! It could not be simpler: if the rain falls or draught strikes; if the wind blows a gale or there is none at all; whether it's heat or hard frost; it's all because of the 'greenhouse effect', and we are to blame. An easy argument, but stupid!"

"The Fourth Report of the IPCC might just as well decree the suppression of all climatology textbooks, and replace them in our schools with press communiqués. ... Day after day, the same mantra -- that 'the Earth is warming up' -- is churned out in all its forms. As 'the ice melts' and 'sea level rises' the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized' lulled into mindless acceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!"

In his book he also meticulously analyzes the development of climate science, focusing on the successive reports of the IPCC, which appeared in 1990, 1995, and 2001. According to Leroux, the first report already contains the core ideas of what is known as "global warming", but its tone is moderate and it makes no mention of human responsibility for it. The second report contributes nothing new from a scientific point of view, but suddenly and surprisingly, the human race is held responsible for global warming.

How was this turnaround achieved? New scientific insights? No, it was the result of a veritable scientific coup by sleight of hand.

The third report brought a second scientific coup. It increased the value of the predicted rise in temperature, and clinched the argument with the hockey stick diagram -- more recently exposed as a hoax -- stating that temperatures in recent times are higher than they have been for a thousand years. Moreover, the spectrum of the consequences of the greenhouse effect was considerably broadened, to the extent that it included every meteorological phenomenon.

Leroux also draws attention to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, of which article 6 on education and training, obliges participants to sensitize the public, at a national level, to climate change and its effects. States signatories to the Convention are thus bound to adopt the concept of "global warming" at the highest institutional level, to impose it as an incontrovertible dogma (i.e., a sort of state religion impervious to debate).

All in all, Leroux believes that climatology has gradually become distanced from the treatment of real facts, the dynamics of weather and climate, especially under the growing influence of modeling.

Science and Skepticism

This commentary about science and skepticism comes from Dr. Joe Sobel at accuweather.com
He is careful to not take sides in the global warming debate, but he expresses quite well the need for scientists to be skeptical.
Peter

Science and Skepticism
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Thank you for checking out the AccuWeather Global Warming Center. The purpose of this site is not to be an advocate for or against anthropogenic global warming, but rather to be a clearinghouse of ideas and to facilitate the exchange of information. We are very much opposed to any thoughts of suppressing discussion. We will present information that represents the consensus of the majority of the scientific community. But we will also present opposing points of view.

Remember, science is not a democracy; the majority is not always correct. Remember, the scientific consensus used to be that the Earth is flat and that the sun revolves around the Earth.
In these modern times of zero-second sound bites and rapid global communication, it has become standard for there to be two categories of people in the global warming debate: those who believe that humans are responsible for global warming and everyone else. If you are a skeptic and aren't quite convinced that we know all the answers, you are considered a heretic by the believers.

But, it can be argued that scientists must be skeptics. A scientist may have a theory; however, in order for the scientific method to be honored, the scientist needs to be emotionally unattached to the results. The data will prove whether the theory is correct. Scientists cannot start an experiment with the goal of reaching a particular conclusion. They cannot root for specific results. They cannot change the data to fit any preconceived idea of what the results should be. They need to analyze each piece of data in order to arrive at a conclusion.In other words, they need to be skeptics.

So, whether you are a believer, or a skeptic, we hope you will visit our web site frequently and we look forward to your comments and input in the future.

BRIT CHALLENGES GORE TO DEBATE

In a challenge unlikely to be met,
"A British skeptic of global warming "alarmism" on Tuesday challenged climate change activist and former Vice President Al Gore to a debate on the issue."Global warming is not a crisis," Viscount Christopher Monckton of Brenchley declared in an ad published in the Washington Post Tuesday. The ad, also scheduled to run in the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, directs readers to a website in which Monckton challenges Gore to a debate in Oxford, England at a date of the American's choosing."

"Al Gore has become the world's most recognized advocate of the theory that human greenhouse gas emissions are altering the world's climate and could cause catastrophic damage if not arrested and reduced," Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast said in a statement. "But Al Gore refuses to debate those who say global warming is not a crisis."

"In a recent statement, Monckton declared, "A careful study of the substantial corpus of peer-reviewed science reveals that Mr. Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, is a foofaraw [a fuss over a matter of little importance] of pseudo-science, exaggerations, and errors, now being peddled to innocent schoolchildren worldwide."

I haven't heard that word in a while, "FOOFARAW", but it fits Al Gore's Global Warming Crusade perfectly. Wouldn't you love to see such a debate, televised and broadcast around the world? Gore won't take the bait. At this point he would have nothing to gain and everything to lose. He has public opinion on his side and he's not going to let science, reason and logic get in his way.
Any ideas for how we can get Gore, or any human-induced global warming advocates to have an open and honest debate? I don't know how it is possible.
Peter

To read the entire article, go here.