You are here: Journal » Science
Get syndicated feeds from our Journal!  Add to Technorati Favorites

Vertical Banner 1


Vertical Banner 2


Enter Title


The Dead Hand Journal



Christopher Monkton has a great article in the American Physical Society forum that provides a comprehensive summary of the failures of the anthropogenic climate change movement to come to grips with reality.

It's highly technical and somewhat obtuse, but worth the read and very hard to contradict if you have the background. Even if you don't, his conclusions are crystal clear:

Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible. Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century’s warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming. Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of anthropogenic “greenhouse-gas” warming is entirely absent from the observed record. Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking. Even if per impossibilethe models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines. Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue. Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate. Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, “just in case”, can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful.

In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.

 Of course, facts and solid arguments never swayed a religious zealot. APS was careful to preface Monkton's argument with this disclaimer:

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."

Is it worth asking why APS requires an official position on a question whose resolution depends entirely on the free exercise of scientific inquiry?

Post Rating


There are currently no comments, be the first to post one.

Post Comment

Only registered users may post comments.

Most Popular Articles

Cool Windows Resource Kit Utility: cleanspl.exe by Jason Williscroft (Tuesday, February 6, 2007)
v: 44338 | c: 5 Article Rating
They say things are big in Texas, but... by Robert Williscroft (Wednesday, March 7, 2007)
v: 28264 | c: 1 Article Rating
Sweet vindication – It really is climate cooling! by Robert Williscroft (Thursday, January 3, 2008)
v: 23180 | c: 11 Article Rating
E-Bomb: The Ultimate Terrorist Weapon by Robert Williscroft (Thursday, December 28, 2006)
v: 21612 | c: 5 Article Rating
Enumerated Types in JavaScript by Jason Williscroft (Saturday, October 13, 2007)
v: 17165 | c: 0 Article Rating


The Chicken Little Agenda: Debunking "Experts’" Lies

Block 1


Block 2