More Scientists Dissent on Global Warming

December 11, 2010

11 Dec – CANCUN – Yesterday, my colleague David Rothbard reported on the tour CFACT conducted of a Mexican village minutes from the conference where people live without electricity.  While we heard tales of how hard it is to cook when you can’t afford fuel, Marc Morano, founder of CFACT’s award winning Climate Depot web site released a major new report which turns the idea of consensus science on its head.

By Craig Rucker
Executive Director
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow

Morano’s 321-page report lists 1,000 + scientists who dissent over man-made global warming.

“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today,” Swedish climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring is quoted as saying in the report:

The science community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ’science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed…Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.

At the press conference David Rothbard told those assembled that there is not now and never has been a scientific consensus supporting catastrophic man-made warming, nor is consensus an appropriate scientific approach. Science must be grounded in such inconvenient approaches as fact, openness and verification.

CFACT’s press conference featured Lord Christopher Monckton and Dr. Roy Spencer who co-developed NASA’s temperature measuring satellite service.

Dr. Spencer challenged a paper on cloud feedback released by Dr. Andrew Dessler in Science today. “Andy Dessler’s study will not stand hard scrutiny.” He told us. “COP16 delegates worried about the ongoing credibility problems of climate modeling will find no solace in Dessler’s work.” Dr. Spencer explained that prevailing climate models do not adequately account for feedbacks and are particularly weak in accounting for the effect of clouds which his research shows produce negative feedback. Prevailing climate models are not adequate to reliably predict future climate, overstate warming trends, and should not be used as a basis in which to undertake severe action.

Lord Monckton told us that policies being proposed at the conference pose a threat to national sovereignty and individual freedom. He released a statement which provides a peek into the massive bureaucracy proposed by climate campaigners. No one expects this bureaucracy to be effective at anything other than moving us another step towards ineffective world government, imposing massive burdens on working people and of course raking in cash.

COP16 has been marked by failure to advance a climate treaty with even UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon terming the negotiations “fruitless.” The climate debate, which started with bullying, name calling, fear and intimidation, is gradually becoming more balanced, despite the massive funds and resources available to promote alarmist views. Opinion polls show public acceptance of the case for catastrophic man-made global warming continuing to slide.

The best COP16 seems able to hope for at the moment is minor agreements, with a large transfer of wealth over deforestation the strongest prospect. No treaty appears possible at COP16 and no treaty is warranted. Both the science and proposed solutions to any warming are unsound. However, last-minute back room deals are always a possibility at these conferences. Anything arising from such a deal will be a negative and CFACT strongly warns against rushing in.

Absent a hail Mary pass it continues to look as if Kyoto will remain dead. With the warming scare subsiding and no new treaty likely, if your paycheck is dependent on the global warming industry, this would be a smart time to start seeking career counseling.