Thursday, December 13, 2007
By Steven Milloy
Accepting his share of the Nobel Peace prize this week, Al Gore said that ". . . we have begun to
wage war on the Earth itself. It is time to make peace with the planet."
A new study published this week, however, provides more evidence that Mr. Gore is, in fact, at war with
reality and that he would do well to make peace with the science.
Climate scientists reported in the December issue of the International Journal of Climatology, published by
Britain's Royal Meteorological Society, that observed temperature changes measured over the last 30 years
don't match well with temperatures predicted by the mathematical climate models relied on by the U.N.'s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The global-warming hypothesis is based on climate models that suppose that temperature trends in the
troposphere, the lowest part of the atmosphere, should be 2-3 times greater than trends in surface
As noted in 2000 by the National Academy of Sciences, however, this notion conflicts with real-life
observations indicating that the Earth's surface is warming more quickly than the middle and upper parts of
the troposphere, defined as between 1 to 6 miles in altitude.
... continues below advertisement:
The new study — authored by David Douglass (University of Rochester), John Christy (University of
Alabama-Huntsville), Benjamin Pearson (also University of Rochester) and S. Fred Singer (University of
Virginia) — compared all 10 available observational data sets with the major models used by the IPCC.
Douglass et al. report in the new study that observational data are in drastic disagreement with the climate
The models predict significantly warmer atmospheric temperatures than have actually occurred, despite that
"the last 25 years constitute a period of more complete and accurate observations and more realistic
"We suggest, therefore, that projections of future climate based on these models be viewed with much
caution," they concluded.
Caution, unfortunately, is the last thing on the minds of Al Gore and co-Nobelist IPCC, who rely on their
suspect climate models to predict that average global temperature will rise anywhere from 2 degrees Fahrenheit
to 12 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, depending on the level of global greenhouse-gas emissions.
But it's tough to take such predictions seriously when the global-warming hypothesis and the models that rely
on it are flatly contradicted by 30 years of reality.
Another entity that needs to come to grips with what constitutes yet another fatal flaw in the global-warming
hypothesis is the U.S. Congress.
Just last week the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee voted 11-8, largely along party lines, to
send the so-called "Lieberman-Warner bill" for consideration by the full Senate.
The goal of Lieberman-Warner is to slash U.S .greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent by 2050. It would attempt
to achieve this goal through a so-called cap-and-trade
mechanism that would place increasingly stringent limits on industrial emissions of greenhouse gases.
Lieberman-Warner is a recipe for social and economic disaster, according to testimony offered in November by
Dr. Margo Thorning, chief economist for the American Council on Capital Formation.
While population and economic growth are projected to result in a 30 percent increase in U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions by 2030, Lieberman-Warner would require that the emissions level be 55 percent lower than the 2030
"Sharp cutbacks in energy use would be necessary to close the 55 percent gap," Thorning testified.
Thorning pointed out to the Senate that during 1990-2000, per capita U.S. greenhouse gas emissions fell by 0.8
percent and are projected to decline by 0.6 percent during 2000-2012, thanks primarily to increased a
long-term trend in energy efficiency.
But Lieberman-Warner would require per capita emissions to fall by 50 percent during 2000-2030.
"The technologies simply do not exist to reduce emissions over the next 17 years by the amounts mandated
in [Lieberman-Warner] without severely reducing the growth in the U.S. economy and in employment," said
Other Senate testimony by the consulting firm CRA International projected that Lieberman-Warner would
eventually cause an annual economic loss of $1 trillion. To provide context, current annual Social security
outlays are about $600 billion.
The bill was also projected to result in a net loss of 1.5 million to 3.4 million jobs by 2020, throttling the
fantasy that "going Green" will create more jobs.
The Congressional Budget Office and economists such as former Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan,
supply-sider Arthur Laffer and Harvard's Greg Mankiw have all condemned cap-and-trade as dangerous to the
economy — yet like Al Gore, Lieberman-Warner marches on, oblivious to reality.
One co-author of the new study, John Christy, said in a media release that, "We have good reason [based
on our study] to believe that the current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse
Co-author Fred Singer added, "Our research demonstrates that the ongoing rise of atmospheric carbon
dioxide has only a minor influence on climate change. We must conclude, therefore, that attempts to control
carbon dioxide emissions are ineffective and pointless — but very costly."
As the science continues to roll in against greenhouse-gas panic, Al Gore just keeps getting shriller in hopes
of pushing the Green-whipped, Democrat-controlled Congress toward economy-killing regulation.
Though it's hard to see how Gore will ever bring himself to make peace with the real inconvenient truth, we
must nevertheless demand a reality check from our elected representatives.
JunkScience.com is updated every weekday. Items from the main page are moved to the archives.
Links should be good for at least the date posted. After the posting date, link reliability depends on the
policy of the linked sites. Some sites require visitors to register before allowing access to articles.
Material presented on this page represents the opinion of JunkScience.com. Copyright -- 1996-2007
JunkScience.com, Inc. All rights reserved on original works. Material copyrighted by others is used either
with permission or under a claim of "fair use."