Nick Ryan
2013-02-16 05:21:29 UTC
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/14426-un-report-
admits-solar-warming-may-be-greater-than-thought
Information leaked from a report compiled by the UNs Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicates that heat from the sun may play a
larger role in increasing the Earths temperatures than previously
thought.
Fox News, which released the story, identified the source as Alec Rawls,
who posts on a blog called StopGreenSuicide.com. Rawls told FoxNews.com,
Even after the IPCC acknowledges extensive evidence for ... solar forcing
beyond what they included in their models, they still make no attempt to
account for this omission in their predictions. ... It's insane.
Fox noted that Rawls blames the UN for burying its point about the effect
of the solar energy on climate change in Chapter 11 of its report.
A visit to StopGreenSuicide.com reveals a post that Rawls made last
December 13 in which he states that he participated in an expert review
of the IPCC report, called AR5, Working Group 1, and that he believes he
is fully justified in leaking the full draft of the report to the public.
Rawls weighed the ethical pros and cons of leaking the report carefully,
saying that The ethics of leaking tax-payer funded documents requires
weighing the public's right to know against any harm to the public
interest that may result.
In making his case, Rawls cited a statement from Christiana Figueres,
Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, that the UNs climate agency was exerting considerable influence
on national governments to engage in centralized transformation of their
societal infrastructures. Said Figueres:
We are inspiring government, private sector, and civil society to [make]
the biggest transformation that they have ever undertaken. The Industrial
Revolution was also a transformation, but it wasnt a guided
transformation from a centralized policy perspective. This is a
centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have
decided that they need to listen to science.
To which Rawls comments:
So may we please see this "science" on the basis of which our existing
energy infrastructure is to be ripped out in favor of non-existent "green"
energy? The only reason for secrecy in the first place is to enhance the
UN's political control over a scientific story line that is aimed
explicitly at policy makers. Thus the drafts ought to fall within the
reach of the Freedom of Information Act.
Rawls greatest point of contention with the UN report is the relative
weight it placed on two forces that may be held responsible for global
warming: natural or anthropogenic (caused by man). He noted that the
authors of Chapter 7 of the report admitted strong evidence for what is
described as enhanced solar forcing (forcing beyond total solar
irradiance, or TSI i.e., the amount of solar radiation received at the
top of the Earths atmosphere).
However, another group of authors in Chapter 8 of the report stated a
conclusion that contradicted the previous findings: There is very high
confidence that natural forcing is a small fraction of the anthropogenic
forcing. In refuting the Chapter 8 authors conclusions, Rawls wrote:
This analysis, where post-1980 warming gets attributed to the human
release of CO2 on the grounds that it cannot be attributed to solar
irradiance, cannot stand in the face of the Chapter 7 admission of
substantial evidence for solar forcing beyond solar irradiance. Once the
evidence for enhanced solar forcing is taken into account we can have no
confidence that natural forcing is small compared to anthropogenic
forcing. [Emphasis in original.]
Rawls continues:
The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes
everything. The climate alarmists can't continue to claim that warming was
almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming
effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final
draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but the
public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC
story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.
Rawls asked openly in his article: Will some press organization please
host the leaked report? While Fox News did not publish the entire report,
by providing a URL for his blog (which itself is linked to the report) it
did the next-best thing.
Fox presented a fairly balanced summary of the two arguments in its
report, devoting 306 words citing Rawls or others validating his position
and 424 words quoting those holding to the opposing position that most
global warming is caused by carbon dioxide attributed to human activities.
One expert quoted by Fox taking a stand opposing Rawls is Aaron Huertas
of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Said Huertas: I see climate
contrarians try this trick almost every time a big new solar study comes
out. They somehow tend to neglect mentioning that solar variation is
smaller than the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide.
Though he produced no evidence to prove his assertion, Huertas also
attempted to connect the coastal flooding in the Northeast caused by
Hurricane Sandy to climate change.
However, Fox also cited a NASA study attributing the Little Ice Age of
1650-1715 to an absence of solar activity (sunspots) during that period.
An earlier Fox News report published on January 28 indicated that claims
about global warming have been overestimated for 20 years, citing a chart
found in the IPCC report leaked by Rawls that compared four temperature
models. Fox interviewed Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of
Alabama at Huntsville, who said: Temperatures have not risen nearly as
much as almost all of the climate models predicted . Their predictions
have largely failed, four times in a row ... what that means is that it's
time for them to re-evaluate.
Spencer said of the information shown in the IPCC report charts, It is
evidence that CO2 is not nearly as strong a climate driver as the IPCC has
been assuming. This is the possibility they do not allow to be considered,
because it would end all of their policy-changing goals.
As we observed earlier in the quote from the UNs Christiana Figueres,
those attempting to exploit climate change to further their agendas
admittedly have policy-changing goals.
A February 1 editorial in Investors Business Daily stated that most global
warming models are hopelessly flawed. As evidence, IBD quoted Terje
Berntsen, project manager of The Research Council of Norway. By analyzing
temperature statistics, the Nowegian group refuted projections made by the
IPCC that global temperatures will rise by three degrees Celsius by 2050
if, by then, carbon dioxide levels double from levels of the pre-
industrialized world of 1750. The Research Council of Norway, after
plugging in real temperature data from 2000 to 2010 into its calculations,
determined that an increase in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 would
be only 1.9 degrees Celsius.
"Thus, when the researchers factor in the observations of temperature
trends from 2000 to 2010, they significantly reduce the probability of our
experiencing the most dramatic climate change forecast up to now," say the
Norwegians.
Berntsen said, "We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the
climate system changes that can occur over several decades and which
are coming on top of a long-term warming. The natural changes resulted in
a rapid global temperature rise in the 1990s, whereas the natural
variations between 2000 and 2010 may have resulted in the leveling off we
are observing now."
The IBD writer summarized the problem with notable candor:
Predictions of doom have turned out to be nothing more than madness and
there is no reason, none, to think that the fate we have allegedly
determined for ourselves will ever happen. As we've learned over the last
20 years, there are too many unknowns, too many variables. If there come
adverse effects of climate, humanity will adapt as needed, as it has for
many millennia.
The U.N.'s Global Warming War On Capitalism: An Important History
Lesson, an article published online by Forbes on January 22, quoted a
statement made by Christopher Monckton, the third viscount of Benchley and
advisor to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who is a skeptic
concerning the manmade causes of global warming. Monckton told a
somewhat startled audience at a UN-sponsored climate conference in Doha,
Qatar, last December that in the 16 years we have been coming to these
conferences, there has been no global warming at all.
Furthermore, said Monckton, If we are to take action [of the sort the
global-warming crowd proposes], the cost of that would be many times
greater than the cost of taking adaptive measures later. So our
recommendation, therefore, is that we should initiate very quickly a
review of the science to make sure we are all on the right track.
The article, which has much valuable insight too lengthy to review here,
featured an important quote from former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-
Colo.), who represented the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S.
Undersecretary of State for Global Issues at the first UN Earth Climate
Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. At that summit, Wirth made a
revealing statement:
We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global
warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic
policy and environmental policy.
As the IPCC report leaked by Alec Rawls, and a wealth of evidence supplied
by respected global warming skeptics such as Dr. S. Fred Singer, Bjorn
Lomborg, Richard Lindzen, and others strongly indicates, it is very likely
that the theory of human-caused global warming is wrong. If so, it seems
highly illogical that implementing policies based on a wrong theory can
benefit either our economy or the environment.
admits-solar-warming-may-be-greater-than-thought
Information leaked from a report compiled by the UNs Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicates that heat from the sun may play a
larger role in increasing the Earths temperatures than previously
thought.
Fox News, which released the story, identified the source as Alec Rawls,
who posts on a blog called StopGreenSuicide.com. Rawls told FoxNews.com,
Even after the IPCC acknowledges extensive evidence for ... solar forcing
beyond what they included in their models, they still make no attempt to
account for this omission in their predictions. ... It's insane.
Fox noted that Rawls blames the UN for burying its point about the effect
of the solar energy on climate change in Chapter 11 of its report.
A visit to StopGreenSuicide.com reveals a post that Rawls made last
December 13 in which he states that he participated in an expert review
of the IPCC report, called AR5, Working Group 1, and that he believes he
is fully justified in leaking the full draft of the report to the public.
Rawls weighed the ethical pros and cons of leaking the report carefully,
saying that The ethics of leaking tax-payer funded documents requires
weighing the public's right to know against any harm to the public
interest that may result.
In making his case, Rawls cited a statement from Christiana Figueres,
Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, that the UNs climate agency was exerting considerable influence
on national governments to engage in centralized transformation of their
societal infrastructures. Said Figueres:
We are inspiring government, private sector, and civil society to [make]
the biggest transformation that they have ever undertaken. The Industrial
Revolution was also a transformation, but it wasnt a guided
transformation from a centralized policy perspective. This is a
centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have
decided that they need to listen to science.
To which Rawls comments:
So may we please see this "science" on the basis of which our existing
energy infrastructure is to be ripped out in favor of non-existent "green"
energy? The only reason for secrecy in the first place is to enhance the
UN's political control over a scientific story line that is aimed
explicitly at policy makers. Thus the drafts ought to fall within the
reach of the Freedom of Information Act.
Rawls greatest point of contention with the UN report is the relative
weight it placed on two forces that may be held responsible for global
warming: natural or anthropogenic (caused by man). He noted that the
authors of Chapter 7 of the report admitted strong evidence for what is
described as enhanced solar forcing (forcing beyond total solar
irradiance, or TSI i.e., the amount of solar radiation received at the
top of the Earths atmosphere).
However, another group of authors in Chapter 8 of the report stated a
conclusion that contradicted the previous findings: There is very high
confidence that natural forcing is a small fraction of the anthropogenic
forcing. In refuting the Chapter 8 authors conclusions, Rawls wrote:
This analysis, where post-1980 warming gets attributed to the human
release of CO2 on the grounds that it cannot be attributed to solar
irradiance, cannot stand in the face of the Chapter 7 admission of
substantial evidence for solar forcing beyond solar irradiance. Once the
evidence for enhanced solar forcing is taken into account we can have no
confidence that natural forcing is small compared to anthropogenic
forcing. [Emphasis in original.]
Rawls continues:
The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes
everything. The climate alarmists can't continue to claim that warming was
almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming
effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final
draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but the
public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC
story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.
Rawls asked openly in his article: Will some press organization please
host the leaked report? While Fox News did not publish the entire report,
by providing a URL for his blog (which itself is linked to the report) it
did the next-best thing.
Fox presented a fairly balanced summary of the two arguments in its
report, devoting 306 words citing Rawls or others validating his position
and 424 words quoting those holding to the opposing position that most
global warming is caused by carbon dioxide attributed to human activities.
One expert quoted by Fox taking a stand opposing Rawls is Aaron Huertas
of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Said Huertas: I see climate
contrarians try this trick almost every time a big new solar study comes
out. They somehow tend to neglect mentioning that solar variation is
smaller than the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide.
Though he produced no evidence to prove his assertion, Huertas also
attempted to connect the coastal flooding in the Northeast caused by
Hurricane Sandy to climate change.
However, Fox also cited a NASA study attributing the Little Ice Age of
1650-1715 to an absence of solar activity (sunspots) during that period.
An earlier Fox News report published on January 28 indicated that claims
about global warming have been overestimated for 20 years, citing a chart
found in the IPCC report leaked by Rawls that compared four temperature
models. Fox interviewed Roy Spencer, a climatologist at the University of
Alabama at Huntsville, who said: Temperatures have not risen nearly as
much as almost all of the climate models predicted . Their predictions
have largely failed, four times in a row ... what that means is that it's
time for them to re-evaluate.
Spencer said of the information shown in the IPCC report charts, It is
evidence that CO2 is not nearly as strong a climate driver as the IPCC has
been assuming. This is the possibility they do not allow to be considered,
because it would end all of their policy-changing goals.
As we observed earlier in the quote from the UNs Christiana Figueres,
those attempting to exploit climate change to further their agendas
admittedly have policy-changing goals.
A February 1 editorial in Investors Business Daily stated that most global
warming models are hopelessly flawed. As evidence, IBD quoted Terje
Berntsen, project manager of The Research Council of Norway. By analyzing
temperature statistics, the Nowegian group refuted projections made by the
IPCC that global temperatures will rise by three degrees Celsius by 2050
if, by then, carbon dioxide levels double from levels of the pre-
industrialized world of 1750. The Research Council of Norway, after
plugging in real temperature data from 2000 to 2010 into its calculations,
determined that an increase in temperature due to a doubling of CO2 would
be only 1.9 degrees Celsius.
"Thus, when the researchers factor in the observations of temperature
trends from 2000 to 2010, they significantly reduce the probability of our
experiencing the most dramatic climate change forecast up to now," say the
Norwegians.
Berntsen said, "We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the
climate system changes that can occur over several decades and which
are coming on top of a long-term warming. The natural changes resulted in
a rapid global temperature rise in the 1990s, whereas the natural
variations between 2000 and 2010 may have resulted in the leveling off we
are observing now."
The IBD writer summarized the problem with notable candor:
Predictions of doom have turned out to be nothing more than madness and
there is no reason, none, to think that the fate we have allegedly
determined for ourselves will ever happen. As we've learned over the last
20 years, there are too many unknowns, too many variables. If there come
adverse effects of climate, humanity will adapt as needed, as it has for
many millennia.
The U.N.'s Global Warming War On Capitalism: An Important History
Lesson, an article published online by Forbes on January 22, quoted a
statement made by Christopher Monckton, the third viscount of Benchley and
advisor to former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who is a skeptic
concerning the manmade causes of global warming. Monckton told a
somewhat startled audience at a UN-sponsored climate conference in Doha,
Qatar, last December that in the 16 years we have been coming to these
conferences, there has been no global warming at all.
Furthermore, said Monckton, If we are to take action [of the sort the
global-warming crowd proposes], the cost of that would be many times
greater than the cost of taking adaptive measures later. So our
recommendation, therefore, is that we should initiate very quickly a
review of the science to make sure we are all on the right track.
The article, which has much valuable insight too lengthy to review here,
featured an important quote from former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-
Colo.), who represented the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S.
Undersecretary of State for Global Issues at the first UN Earth Climate
Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. At that summit, Wirth made a
revealing statement:
We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global
warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic
policy and environmental policy.
As the IPCC report leaked by Alec Rawls, and a wealth of evidence supplied
by respected global warming skeptics such as Dr. S. Fred Singer, Bjorn
Lomborg, Richard Lindzen, and others strongly indicates, it is very likely
that the theory of human-caused global warming is wrong. If so, it seems
highly illogical that implementing policies based on a wrong theory can
benefit either our economy or the environment.