“Global Warming/Climate Change”

South Windsor Rotary ClubSouth Windsor, CT

Wednesday, 13 May 2009

There continues to be an increasing number of scientists and public figures around the world who are challenging the dominant political- and media-driven claims, bolstered by so-called “consensus” scientific views, that dangerous "global warming/climate change" is caused primarily by human-produced carbon dioxide. This public talk will show that the weight of scientific evidence strongly contradicts the alarmist claims. It will also explain what are some likely scientific, educational, economic, and societal consequences resulting from the corruption of the scientific method.

Dissecting the Claims Exposing the Methods

Laurence I. Gould

Physics Department, University of Hartford

http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/LGOULD

http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/proceedings.html

Introduction

• Introduction to some issues about

Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmism (AGWA) • Possible Economic Consequences• Temperature• Some Major Climate Players affecting Temperatures• The Sun

• Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and Temperature

• Models• Polar Bears threatened?• Intensification of Climate Catastrophes?• Methodological Errors• Possible Consequences for Science• Possible Economic Consequences — Summary• Moral Issues• Summary• References

Disasters Video

There are enough!

A. Horn

A. Horn

A. Horn

A. Horn

A. Horn

A. Horn

A. Horn

A. Horn

A. Horn

Earth in a Frying Pan!

A. HornA. Horn

Earth on Fire!

A. Horn

Fire on Earth!

Possible

Economic Consequences

of AGWA-stimulated Policies

AGWA — Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmism(ist)

Petition Project

Figure 25: In 2006, the United States obtained 84.9% of its energy from hydrocarbons, 8.2% from nuclear fuels, 2.9% from hydroelectric dams, 2.1% from wood, 0.8% from biofuels, 0.4% from waste, 0.3% from geothermal, and 0.3% from wind and solar radiation. The U.S. uses 21 million barrels of oil per day 27% from OPEC, 17% from Canada and Mexico, 16% from others, and 40% produced in the U.S. (95). The cost of imported oil and gas at $60 per barrel and $7 per 1,000 ft3 in 2007 is about $300 billion per year. [Mention “Cap & Trade”]

85% from Hydrocarbons!U.S. Energy (2006)?

Figure 26: Delivered cost per kilowatt hour of electrical energy in Great Britain in 2006, without CO2 controls (126). These estimates include all capital and operational expenses for a period of 50 years. Micro wind or solar are units installed for individual homes.

Petition Project

A. Horn

George C. Marshall Institute: The Cost of Climate Regulation for American Households (Buckley & Mityakov, Clemson Univeristy)

cap-and-trade yields an equivalent of a permanent tax increase for the average American household, which was estimated to be $1,100 in 2008 $1,437 in 2015 $1,979 in 2030 $2,979 in 2050 

Increase of price paid for energy —

ELECTRICITY prices will increase 5 - 15% by 2015

NATURAL GAS prices increase 12 - 50% by 2015

GASOLINE price increase 9 - 145% by 2015 [increase of price per gallon: 16 cents - $2.58] (using the January 2009 reported retail price of $1.78 per

gallon).

BRIEF COMMENTS ABOUT

POPULAR PERCEPTIONS

1. Alternative energy sources would decrease our reliance on oil. TRUE

2. Pollution is damaging to the environment. Also TRUE, depending on what’s meant by “pollution” and considering the cost/benefit tradeoffs related to industrial emissions and standard of living.

3. Anthropogenic emission of CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. NOT SUPPORTED, regardless of the widespread claims, because of the scientific evidence and analysis which contradict such claims.

4. The existence of a range of climate-changes/disasters support the AGWA belief. NOT SUPPORTED, even though it is a prevalent non sequitur that continues to be widely propagated.

Global Mean Surface Temperature

(GMST)

Issues and Events Climate changes for peace prize winners The award of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize delighted scientists and the public but underscored the US government's lack of action to reduce global warming.Physics Today December 2007, page 22

“So I’d like to emphasize the fact that we’re at a stage where warming is taking place at a much faster rate. And, clearly, if we don’t bring about some changes, we would have much faster changes in the future.�”

— R.K. Pachauri, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

2008 Wallace Wurth Memorial Lecture; 23 October 2008; University of New South Wales (Sydney, Australia). Title: Our Vulnerable Earth: Climate Change, the IPCC and the role of Generation Green�

1940

1950

WHAT IF YOU LIVED IN 1940?!

WHAT IF YOU LIVED IN 1950?!

Two green arrows with their years added by me.

A. Horn

A. Horn

WARM is GOOD!

http://www.globalwarmingclassroom.info/index.htm

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

The Sun!

A. Horn

A. Horn

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Smokestacks and CO2 ?!AIT: The Earth’s atmosphere is so thin that we have the capacity to dramatically alter the concentration of some of its basic molecular components. In particular, we have vastly increased the amount of carbon dioxide—the most important of the so-

called greenhouse gases. (25)

Lewis: Over the past century and a half, atmospheric CO2 levels have risen from about 280 parts per million (ppm) to about 380 ppm—roughly a 35% increase

Similar to a two-page spread (pp. 24 - 25 of a 328 page book) in “An Inconvenient Truth” by Al Gore.

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

A. Horn

Cf.,A. Horn

Given a 100,000 person stadium. If each person stood for one molecule of the atmosphere…

then about 40 people stand for all the CO2 molecules! About how many people stand for the human contribution?

ONE !!

A. Horn

A. Horn

Nature versus Us

A. Horn

A. Horn

Figure 24: Calculated (1,2) growth rate enhancement of wheat, young orange trees, and very young pine trees already taking place as a result of atmospheric enrichment by CO2 at from 1885 to 2007 (a), and expected as result of atmospheric enrichment by CO2 to a level of 600 ppm (b).

Is

NOT

“Pollution”

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)and Temperature

Does the former “push” the latter?

Carbon Dioxide Increasing BUTWorld Temperature Falling!

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Correlation_Last_Decade.pdf

Reviewed by:

Spreading

False Ideas

To

Children

In “An Inconvenient Truth”(pp. 66-67 of the book; also film) similar curves are presented, but with the one for CO 2 above the one for Temperature. Gore, commenting on how they “fit together” says: “the most important part of it is this: When there is more CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperature increases because more heat from the Sun is trapped inside.” [Last sentence false: (1) no correlation and (2) convection not considered; cf., Lindzen E&E]

Models

50

A : Hansen's worst caseB : Hansen's likely outturnC : Hansen: CO2 stabilizedD : Observed (US NCDC)

C

A

B

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

-0.2-0.4

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

C

2020

o

Hansen (1988)

Prediction, 1988 …

The graph thatstarted thescare

C. Monckton

51

D

A : Hansen's worst caseB : Hansen's likely outturnC : Hansen: CO2 stabilizedD : Observed (US NCDC)

C

A

B

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

-0.2-0.4

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

C

2020

o

… and outturn, 2007

Hansen (1988);NCDC (2007)

C. Monckton

If it disagrees with experiment [scientific evidence] it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong.

— Richard Feynman

The Character of Physical Law, The MIT Press, 1965, p. 156.

“In climate research and modelling, weshould recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

“In climate research and modelling, weshould recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."

—IPCC Third Assessment Report

(TAR; 2001), Section 142.2.2, page 774

Christopher Essex <essex@uwo.ca

Sat, 09 Aug 2008

Polar Bears Threatened?

There are

20 significant populations of polar bears

around the top of the globe. Of the

13 in Canada, 11 are either stable or increasing in size.

"They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present,"

according to Taylor

In Canada, where a decade ago our Arctic had 12,000 bears,Taylor and other bear specialists estimate there are now 15,000

bears,an increase of 25 per cent in just 10 years.

Worldwide there are22,000 to 25,000 polar bears

whereas 50 years ago — 8,000 to 10,000 -- before the first

SUV, before Kyoto, before most people had even heard of the globalwarming theory -- there were just

Dr. Mitch Taylor, polar bear biologist for the government of Nunavut, and one of

the leading experts in the world on Ursus maritimus.

.

Intensification of Climate Catastrophes?

• Glaciers

• Tornados

• Hurricanes

• Sea Levels

The fact of something warming/melting

does not tell us the cause

Figure 11: Global sea level measured by surface gauges between 1807 and 2002 (24) and by satellite between 1993 and 2006 (25). Satellite measurements are shown in gray and agree with tide gauge measurements. The overall trend is an increase of 7 inches per century. Intermediate trends are 9, 0, 12, 0, and 12 inches per century, respectively. This trend lags the temperature increase, so it predates the increase in hydrocarbon use even more than is shown. It is unaffected by the very large increase in hydrocarbon use.

Petition Project

http://www.gocomics.com/feature_items/explore?page=1&tag=32454&tag_name=GlobalWarming

Methodological Errors

• Affirming the Consequent

• Appeal to Numbers — “Consensus”

• Appeal to Authority

• Post-normal Science

• Ad hominem

• Precautionary Principle

Lulled by “Logic”?IF it rained THEN the streets are wet.

The streets are wet THEREFORE it rained.

Error in Logic!

Fallacy of Affirming the Consequent

IF there is anthropogenic “global warming” THEN the Arctic ice will melt.

The Arctic ice is melting THEREFORE there is

anthropogenic “global warming.”

Same Error in Logic!

—sea ice coverage in Arctic & Antarctic: Compare

A complete[?*] list of things caused by global warming

Antarctic ice grows, Antarctic ice shrinks,

attack of the killer jellyfish (Laurie David),avalanches reduced, avalanches increased, 

Baghdad snow, …, bird visitors drop, birds

confused, birds return early, birds driven north, …, early marriages, early spring, earlier

pollen season, Earth biodiversity crisis, Earth dying, Earth even hotter,

Earth light dimming, Earth lopsided, Earth melting, Earth morbid fever,

Earth on fast track, Earth past point of no return,

Earth slowing down, Earth spins faster,

Earth to explode, earth upside down,  earthquakes, …,

extinctions (human, civilisation, logic, Inuit, smallest butterfly, cod, ladybirds, pikas,

polar bears, walrus, toads, plants, salmon, trout, wild flowers, woodlice, 

a million species, half of all animal and plant species, mountain species, not polar bears,

barrier reef, leaches, tropical insects), …, glacial earthquakes, glacial retreat,

glacial growth, …, kidney stones, killer cornflakes, …, water bills double,

…,weather patterns awry, Western aid cancelled out,  West Nile fever, whales lose weight,

whales move north, whales wiped out, …

* Recent plane crash in the Hudson River!

Qualifications of Signers Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.The current list of

31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD;

6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to

the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

CONSENSUS ?!

Consensus & Science

Einstein and Consensus

200 against his theory…

One valid refutation is sufficient.

“… the number of scientists is not important. The only [his stress] thing that’s important is if the scientists are correct [his stress]; that’s the important part.”

— Ivar Giaever, Nobel Laureate in Physics (panel at Lindau, 1 July 2008)

Or, pictorially…

Possible Consequences

for Science

of AGWA-stimulated Policies

ABOUT DANGERS TO SCIENCE

Science will get a black eye from the AGWA misrepresentations and distortions and suppression of information:

What will happen to the public’s support of science?

What will happen to the Funding of legitimate science?

And what is happening?

What is happening to the Funding of climate science at the expense of the other sciences?

Furthermore, what Message conveyed to students who would have gone into science?

And what will happen to Science education in the U.S.?

Further

Economic Consequences

of AGWA-stimulated Policies

Reduction of Mean Global Temperature if all Kyoto signatories had reduced emissions?

0.07 degrees Centigrade !!!

Is

NOT

“Pollution”

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

Petition Project

Figure 25: In 2006, the United States obtained 84.9% of its energy from hydrocarbons, 8.2% from nuclear fuels, 2.9% from hydroelectric dams, 2.1% from wood, 0.8% from biofuels, 0.4% from waste, 0.3% from geothermal, and 0.3% from wind and solar radiation. The U.S. uses 21 million barrels of oil per day 27% from OPEC, 17% from Canada and Mexico, 16% from others, and 40% produced in the U.S. (95). The cost of imported oil and gas at $60 per barrel and $7 per 1,000 ft3 in 2007 is about $300 billion per year. [Mention “Cap & Trade”]

85% from Hydrocarbons!U.S. Energy (2006)?

E.P.A. Expected to Regulate Carbon Dioxide

The decision, which most likely would play out in stages over a period of months, would have a

profound impact on transportation, manufacturing costs and how

utilities generate power.

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

February 18, 2009

John M. Broder

— quote from the NYT

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Moral Issues

76

“I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factualpresentationson howdangerous it is.”

AlGore

C. Monckton

77

Sea level up 20 ft Only after millenniaPacific atolls evacuated No evidence for itOcean conveyor to stop To slow, not stopCO2 drove temperature Other way roundKilimanjaro melting By natural causesLake Chad drying up Not global warmingKatrina anthropogenic No proven linkPolar bears drowning Storm killed 4 bearsCoral reefs bleaching Many causes

Gore Judge

A Skeptic’s Guide to An Inconvenient Truth(quoted/arranged from)

Marlo Lewis

and…

Marlo Lewis is a Senior Fellow in Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

AIT is

One Sided

Misleading

Exaggerated

Speculative

WRONG

Furthermore, it…

Never acknowledges the indispensable role of fossil fuels in ending serfdom and slavery, alleviating hunger and poverty, extending human life spans, and democratizing consumer goods, literacy, leisure, and personal mobility.

From the Inquisition (Galileo) to Lysenkoism through the 3rd Reich

to Hansen James Hansen’s National Press club speech (23 June 2008)

— The heads of major fossil-fuel companies who spread disinformation about global warming should be

"tried for high crimes against humanity and nature”

[i]n 1975 Yale University published a report on freedom of expression (PDF*) which was adopted as formal university policy and is often referred to as a authoritative statement in support of freedom of expression. Here is an excerpt of some of its eloquent and forceful prose (emphases added):

The primary function of a university is to discover and disseminate knowledge by means of research and teaching. To fulfill this function a free interchange of ideas is necessary

not only within its walls but with the world beyond as well. It follows that the university must do everything possible to ensure within it the fullest degree of intellectual freedom. The history of intellectual growth and discovery clearly demonstrates the need for unfettered freedom, the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable. To curtail free expression strikes twice at intellectual freedom, for whoever deprives another of

the right to state unpopular views necessarily also deprives others of the right to listen to those views.

On the obligations of academics (and I would argue that the responsibility extends to scientists at research institutions that are not universities, such as government labs), the report states:

We value freedom of expression precisely because it provides a forum for the new, the provocative, the disturbing, and the unorthodox.

Posted on July 22, 2008 07:30 AM http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_politics/001482the_swindle_ruling_.html

* http://www.yale.edu/yale300/collectiblesandpublications/specialdocuments/Freedom_Expression/freedom1975.pdf

Roger Pielke, Jr. (U. Colorado,Boulder

Free speech is a barrier to the tyranny of authoritarian or even majority opinion

as to the rightness or wrongness of particular doctrines or thoughts.

Yale University statement regarding

Freedom of Thought & Expression (1975)

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate: Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change [NIPCC]

— Science and Environmental Policy Project, Edited by S. Fred Singer

167 scientific references and a list of 41 books

http://heartland.temp.siteexecutive.com/pdf/22835.pdf

“Our concern about the environment, going back some 40 years, has taught us important lessons. It is one thing to impose drastic measures and harsh economic penalties when an environmental problem is clear-cut and severe. It is foolish to do so when the problem is largely hypothetical and not substantiated by observations. As NIPCC shows by offering an independent, non-governmental ‘second opinion’ on the ‘global warming’ issue, we do not currently have any convincing evidence or observations of significant climate change from other than natural causes.” [my stress]

Frederick SeitzPresident Emeritus, Rockefeller University

Past President, National Academy of Sciences

Past President, American Physical Society

Chairman, Science and Environmental Policy Project

Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Times, Washington Post, and the New York Times

— Monday, 30Mar2009

Summary

• Introduction to some issues about

Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmism

• Temperature• Some Major Climate Players affecting

Temperatures• The Sun

• Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and Temperature

• Models• Polar Bears threatened?• Intensification of Climate Catastrophes?• Methodological Errors• Possible Consequences for Science• Possible Economic Consequences• Moral Issues

FALLING

LACKING

THRIVING

RAMPANT

DISASTEROUS

SEVEREURGENT

Is NOT “Pollution”

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

To RESTRICT Carbon Dioxide —

(1) Will have an utterly NEGLIGIBLE effect on Climate

(2) Will DESTROY Human Lives

Emotion vs Reason

We are not free to escape the

— L.I. Gould 20 Oct. 2007

We are free to not think about any issue.

consequences resulting from not thinking.

References(small sample)

The Science & Public Policy Institute (SPPI) has a large number of scientific papers, as well as a listing of other sites, videos, and books devoted to a critical examination of AGWA claims:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/

Additional information is on:

http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/lgould

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You

Misinformed

A. Horn

… is a lesson in courage bequeathed by those who came before…

— Thanks for your attention. —

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Lives of great men all remind us We can make our lives sublime, And, departing, leave behind us Footprints on the sands of time;

[including the life-supporting“carbon footprints”]

— Longfellow, op cit

END NOTES

94

MWP appears …

From IPCC (1990)

Oafter C. Monckton

95

… MWP disappears!

From IPCC (2001)

Oafter C. Monckton

“Hockey Stick”

AIT: Those global warming skeptics…launched a fierce attack against another measurement of the 1,000-year correlation between CO2 and temperature known as “the hockey stick,” a graphic image representing the research of climate scientist Michael Mann and his colleagues [Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes]. But in fact, scientists have confirmed the same basic conclusions in multiple ways—with Thompson’s ice core record as one of the most definitive. (65)

The claim of last sentence in AIT is FALSE — see McIntyre & McKitrick; see Wegman report; see Monckton; see Marlo Lewis critique of the entire Gore film/book; and see McKitrick, “What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About?”

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

“The Science of Climate Change” by Dr. Michael Mann — Bruce Museum: September 21, 2008

Millennial Northern Hemisphere (NH) temperature reconstruction (blue – tree rings, corals, ice cores, and historical records) and instrumental data (red) from AD 1000 to 1999. Smoother version of NH series (black), and two standard error limits (gray shaded) are shown

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Net Incoming Solar Radiation (NISR) = 342 W/m2 - 105 W/m2 = 237 W/m2

The prevailing

“Authorities”

“In my opinion the Nobel prize in global warming and such has already been given last year by Gore; who got the Nobel Prize for global warming and what not. And I hate to say something bad about Norway, but in this case I sharply [his stress, based on his study of the AGW claims] disagree with that prize.”

— Ivar Giaever (Nobel Laureate, Physics)

58th Meeting of Nobel LaureatesPanel Discussion on "Climate Changes and Energy Challenges”

(Lindau; 1 July 2008)

Precautionary Principle

Seat Belts versus Tanks

and Other Examples

Past Disasters Caused by Mass Hysteria:

(1) DDT and

(2) Eugenics!

101

Before the DDT ban: 50,000After the DDT ban: 1,000,000

All excess deaths: 40,000,000

Global annualmalaria deaths

C. Monckton

August 2007

ad hominem

Errors of Method deflect attention from the science — An augmentation:: Robert M. Carter, “Public Misperceptions of Human-Caused Climate

Change: The Role of the Media”’ given in Testimony before the Committee on Environment and Public works (December 6, 2006); section titled “Playing the man and not the ball” illuminates techniques that have been used to convince the public of AGWA. Carter notes that: .

1. “The science is settled”; or, there is a “consensus” on the issue.

… science is about facts, experiments and testing hypotheses, notconsensus; and science is never “settled”. [Indeed,

Einstein’s relativity theories are still being tested; e.g., “Lorentz invariance”]

2. He is paid by the fossil fuel industry, and is merely repeating their desired story . [e.g., several anti-AGWA scientists had their credibility challenged in accusations by the Chairwoman of Senate Environment & Public Works Committee at hearing on 25 February 2009]

Science discussions are determined on their merits, by using tests against empirical or experimental data. Who paid

for the data to be gathered and assessed is simply irrelevant.

» She works for a left wing/right wing think tank, so her work is taintedThink tanks serve an invaluable function in our society. On all sides of politics they are the source of much excellent

policy analysis. They provide extended discussion and commentary on matters of public interest, and have made

many fine contributions towards balancing the public debate on climate change.

4. He is just a climate sceptic, a contrarian, a denialist. … all good scientists are skeptics: that is their professional job. To not be a skeptic of the hypothesis that you are

testing is the rudest of scientific errors, for it means that you are committed to a particular outcome: that’s

faith, not science.

5. “Six Nobel Prize winners, and seven members of the National Academy of Sciences say ……”.

Argument from authority is the antithesis of the scientific method.

6. The “precautionary principle” says that we should limit human carbon dioxide emissions because of the risk that the emissions will cause dangerous warming. Thus the science argument should be subservient to the risk argument

In order to take precautions, it is necessary to understand what one is taking them against. But at the moment global

average temperature is flat-lining, and empirical predictions are for cooling. As Dick Lindzen recently pointed out in

an article in the U.K. Telegraph: “After all, like hurricane frequency or the price of oil, global mean temperature is

as likely to go down as up”.

I am a physics teacher. Or, at least I used to be. My subject is still called physics.My pupils will sit an exam and earn a GCSE in physics, but that exam doesn’tcover anything I recognize as physics.

Over the past year the UK Department for Education and the AQA board changed the subject. They took the physics out of physics and replaced it with… something else, something nebulous and ill defined.

I worry about this change. I worry about my pupils, I worry about thestate of science education in this country, and I worry about the future physicsteachers — if there will be any.

……………The result is a fiasco that will destroy physics in England.The thing that attracts pupils to physics is its precision. Here, at last, is adiscipline that gives real answers that apply to the physical world. But thatprecision is now gone. Calculations — the very soul of physics — are absent fromthe new GCSE. Physics is a subject unpolluted by a torrent of malleable words,but …now everything must be described in words.

In this course, pupils debate topics like global warming and nuclear power.Debate drives science, but pupils do not learn meaningful information about thetopics they debate. Scientific argument is based on quantifiable evidence. Theperson with the better evidence, not the better rhetoric or talking points, wins. But my pupils now discuss the benefits and drawbacks of nuclear power plants,without any real understanding of how they work or what radiation is.

I want to teach my subject, to pass on my love of physics to those few who wouldappreciate it. But I can’t. There is nothing to love in the new course. I see noreason that anyone taking this new GCSE would want to pursue the subject.

This is the death of physics.

Wellington Grey --- Physics teacherhttp://www.WellingtonGrey.net/

A. Horn

A. Horn

107

Is the IPCC honest?

C. Monckton

108

BEFORE (#1)“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.” IPCC (1995)

C. MoncktonMonckton

109

BEFORE (#5)

“When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, ‘We do not know.’ IPCC (1995)

C. Monckton

110

AFTER:

“The body of … evidence now points to a discernible human influence on global climate.” IPCC (1995) rewrite

C. Monckton

111

“Unless we announce disasters,

no one will listen.”

Sir John Houghton

Cf., Monckton

Biofuels disaster

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

IPCC (1988) Chair for scientific assessment

“the poor people in the world, who stand to be very disadvantaged by things like climate change”

policy

“We need very large growth in renewable energy sources — … biomass …”

All quotes, except the first, are from Physics Today; September 2007, page 30

112

“The IPCC did not tell the truth.”Paul Reiter

IPCC bars scientistswho reject alarmism

C. Monckton

113

Al Gore says, “I believe this is a moral issue.” So it is. To announce disasters or scary scenarios; to over-represent factual presentations in place of adherence to the scientific truth – that is a moral issue.

To “announce disasters”unjustly is a moral issue

— Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

Censorship Issues

• Nature editorial (12 July 2001)

— Mentions the “mounting evidence that the consumption of fossil fuels is producing emissions that change the make-up of the atmosphere and may endanger the future of the planet. … industry groups in question … have championed specious scientific findings and worked to establish a bogus scientific debate… to confuse and delude the public on global warming.”

• Under the Veneer of legitimacy “Consensus” –— American Statistical Association [Wegman spelled out what happened]–— American Meteorological Society [11,000 member; Joe d’Aleo was on Council; Pielke attacked them]–— American Physical Society [over 30,000 members; as I mention in my Open Letter -- Spring 2008 NES APS NewsletterI am, therefore, particularly amazed and distressed to find the APS Council taking the stand (in their November 2007 meeting) that “The evidence is incontrovertible. Global warming is occurring” and then going on to urge “governments, universities, national laboratories and its [APS] membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.” (APS NEWS, Jan. 2008, Vol. 17, No. 1; front page)