The ethanol scam

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote

Really ?

The more I look at alleged global warming the more cracks I see in the
flimsy IPCC case.

I don't think anyone disputes that the globe is getting warmer. It's the
allegation that human activity is the primary cause of global warming
that
is disputed, and rightly so.

I should have said anthropogenic global warming of course.

Graham

Thanks for clearing that up, I wasn't sure.

Here is something to chew on:


Climate Change Science? National Academy of Sciences Global Warming Report
Fails to Live Up to Its Billing

by Gerald Marsh

"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of
human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean
temperatures to rise."

Thus begins the summary of the June 2001 National Academy of Sciences report
"Climate Change Science," which made headlines across the world for
(supposedly) providing additional "proof" that mankind is causing global
warming.

But the headline writers didn't read the fine print.

This often quoted, categorical statement is not supported by the rest of the
NAS report - or the scientific report of Working Group I of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations body
frequently cited as a key authority on global warming.

Two sentences later in the NAS summary, readers are told that "The changes
observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human
activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these
changes are also a reflection of natural variability." "Likely mostly due to
human activities"? "Some significant part"? Given these qualifications, and
the very large uncertainties in the science, how could the National Research
Council (NRC) - the research arm of the NAS - approve such a categorical
opening sentence?

The NAS report is a summary rather than a critical review of the IPCC
reports. It was prepared and approved in less than a month after the White
House submitted its formal request. NRC reports, to quote Richard Lewontin
of Harvard University, "always speak with one voice. Such reports... can
produce only a slight rocking of the extremely well gyrostabilized ship of
state, no matter how high the winds and waves. Any member of the crew who
mutinies is put off at the first port of call."1 In other words, there is a
forced consensus, one that tends to provide an oversimplified picture of the
state of scientific research and of the uncertainties.

One must dig carefully through the report to discover that water vapor and
cloud droplets are in fact the dominant cause of greenhouse warming. We are
not told, however, what fraction of the greenhouse effect is due to water
vapor and clouds.2 Nor are we told that carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse
gas - one that accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect -
whose ability to absorb heat is quite limited.3 Adding more carbon dioxide
to the atmosphere only increases greenhouse warming very slowly. Similarly,
decreasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere only decreases
greenhouse warming very slowly.

Thus, the relatively small changes in the emission of carbon dioxide agreed
to in the Kyoto Protocol would have an insignificant impact on global
warming. The provisions of the Protocol seem singularly innocent of this
fact.

The NAS study also notes that increased radiation from the sun could be
responsible for a significant part of climate change during part of the
industrial era. But the study does not tell us that the warming due to the
increase in solar output4 is comparable to that alleged to be a consequence
of the 25% rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration since the end of
the 18th century. Because carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, and
increased carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere does not
proportionately increase its greenhouse effect, this rise has had only a
minimal impact on the earth's temperature.

Most people assume that the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide is due to
human activity. However, our understanding of the carbon cycle is so poor
that we cannot be certain this is the case.5 Nonetheless, deforestation and
the burning of fossil fuels (which, on a yearly basis, comprises only some
three-and-a-half percent of the two-way exchange of carbon between the earth
and its atmosphere), most likely does contribute to the increased
concentration of this gas.

In 1976, when the earth had been cooling for some three decades, "mainstream
scientists" believed that we were sliding into a new ice age. There has been
significant improvement in modeling the ocean and atmosphere since then, but
the predictions of these models still do not form a sound basis for public
policy decisions. As put by Ahilleas Maurellis of the Space Research
Organization Netherlands, "Until we understand the full picture, perhaps the
best reaction to global warming is for everybody to just keep their cool."6

# # #

Gerald Marsh, a physicist, is a member of the National Advisory Board of The
National Center for Public Policy Research. He served with the U.S. START
delegation and was a consultant to the Office of the Chief of Naval
Operations on strategic nuclear policy and technology for many years. He is
on the Editorial board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Comments
may be sent to .