Gordon Fulks and an anatomy of denial.

Fulks holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago, Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research and although a minor commentator and ‘skeptical scientist’ of AGW he does follow a certain mode of operation.

Fulks writes opinion pieces for newspapers although they tend to be restricted to Oregon. They follow a set pattern -

President Barack Obama’s “climate change” speech last month reiterated his assertions that the earth is warming dangerously, that human emissions of carbon dioxide are clearly responsible and that virtually all scientists agree with him. As 115 scientists from around the world told him several years ago: “With all due respect, Mr. President, that is not true.” One was Nobel laureate in physics Ivar Giaever, a Democrat. The president now calls those who dispute his hysteria the “Flat Earth Society.”

The conspiracy theory that AGW is a hoax or at the least a political vehicle is borne out in Fulks’ opinion pieces, and that the ‘consensus’ is challenged by hundreds of scientists- which includes himself.

Because the president knows that Congress and the American people will never support carbon reduction schemes that seriously harm our economy, he is pursuing a strategy involving rhetorical subterfuges while his Environmental Protection Agency quietly moves forward with regulations.

Consequently, 11 of us filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court recently asking it to overturn the EPA’s “endangerment finding” on carbon dioxide. This is the first time that the high court has been asked to consider purely scientific arguments rather than, for instance, the EPA’s failure to follow the recommendations of its inspector general.

We prove that the EPA’s “three lines of evidence” are fatally flawed, based on multiple robust data sets, not on “expert opinion” from those paid to support the president’s position. Honest data show no unusual warming in the latter half of the 20th century and none at all for the past 15 years, despite a slow increase in carbon dioxide. The “hot spot” that must exist in the tropical troposphere for the theory to work is missing. And the climate models, for which the taxpayer has paid so dearly, are epic failures. Without global warming, carbon dioxide is clearly “not guilty.” And hence the hysteria about extreme weather caused by carbon dioxide is likewise nonsense.

An Amicus Brief- ‘friend to the court’ is  information presented by experts to the court- in this case presented to challenge the EPA’s move to define CO2 as a pollutant. The amicus brief is available via the Heartland Institute- perhaps no surprise there and features ‘experts’ who are also Heartland Institute ‘experts’ including Joseph S. D’Aleo, Dr. Timothy F. Ball, Dr. Don J. Easterbrook et al. The legal challenge is a presentation of the usual skeptical arguments. No Hot Spot, AGW based on computer models that fail and current warming is not unprecedented.

As an expert ‘friend to the court’ Gordon Fulks is presenting himself as an expert in climate science. A search reveals that he has written two peered reviewed papers – his PhD thesis [1975] and Techniques for Remote Sensing of Ionospheric Electron Density from a Spacecraft- 1981 – as well as data from prior to 1981. There is a truism that university students upon seeking work are already out of date such is the speed that new information enters science, with a 30 year gap between research into atmospheric physics and today’s climate science it seems improbable that Gordon Fulks is an expert in climate science.

Gordon Fulks presents his full expert bio via his ‘expert’ status with the Oregon thinktank Cascade Policy Institute - a right leaning, free market lobby group with wider funding links to the right wing network of thinktanks. Gordon Fulks bio is in full here- some key sentences:

Dr. Fulks’s background is similar to that of scientists promoting AGW with notable exceptions: he has never accepted ANY money to promote or oppose any theory because that is unethical, and he is considerably more experienced than most who have.

If he has not been doing research and writing peer-reviewed papers as scientists promoting AGW what has he been doing?

Dr. Fulks later worked for a think-tank in Santa Barbara, California, supporting the US Defense Nuclear Agency on nuclear weapon effects. When that agency faded away at the end of the Cold War, he supported the Department of State designing new embassies and working at the US Embassy in Moscow. More recently, he has consulted for business and government clients seeking to better understand electromagnetic phenomena, related scientific scares, and the concept of ‘acceptable risk.’

30 years on from doing research he now is a consultant-as well as writing op-eds for [at least two] regional newspapers. A background very dis-similar to research climate scientists. Part of his consultancy is presentations to ‘thinktanks’ including this piece for the Science and Public Policy Institute which is a dedicated climate denial group that draws frequently on the wisdom of Lord Monckton. In Fulks’ – Environmental Issues: What’s Real and What’s nonsense [pdf] Feb 2011- he presents a gish gallop of themes that condemn environmentalists for bio fuels and palm plantations and the destruction of rain forest, banning DDT and causing 40 million deaths [DDT became ineffective- was banned in developed countries but is used for malaria control to this day but let's not allow facts to spoil a good polemic]- ozone depletion was natural and nothing to do with CFCs as indeed was acid rain.  All of which is a preamble to -

 brings us to the greatest environmental and scientific scam of our time: Global Warming.

With a brief mention to the letter signed by over a hundred scientists [including himself], presented as an advert by the Cato Institute to tell President  Obama how wrong he is about AGW the argument against AGW grinds to halt with ‘climategate emails’ and renewable energy.

More important, Climategate revealed that some scientists have been cheating in many different ways,
usually mixing a little truth with a whole lot of rubbish.
Because a detailed analysis is beyond what we have the time for today let me just say: Virtually
EVERYTHING Global Warming Alarmists say is wrong,  and NO ‘climate crisis’ exists.
Attempts to save the planet with bio-fuels, wind power, and solar cells are themselves substantial
scams.

To fully understand the expert opinion and detail of why Gordon Fulks believes AGW to be a hoax and scam requires reading a piece he did for the Australian No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics Party during the August 2013 election season. After 20 or so classic denial talking points [including those cheating scientists exposed by 'climategate'] he ends with-

Who denies that many prominent scientists oppose climate hysteria?

Gordon Fulks PhD who apparently takes no money for his opinion despite representing a couple of ‘thinktanks’ as an expert always leaves his email address with each publication- just in case, perhaps if one is being cynical, to able to accept any offer to get paid as an expert rather than doing it for free. Gordon Fulks has done little with his astrophysics PhD but is does notionally allow him to call himself an astrophysicist which he does on occasion.  Science has no political colour but scientists do and for conservative rightwing the threats and solutions to AGW can be seen as threats to the free market but the denial movement also offers a lucrative income for retired scientists especially if they can cite a PhD in a climate related subject.

The market for skeptical scientists to write op-eds, do speaking tours to the converted and making television appearances is crowded with several non scientists acting as a counter-point to Al Gore. However, Gordon Fulks PhD Astrophysicist has directed his passion in opposition to alternative energy, restrictions of the free market and the scam of AGW to defend those he thinks are victims of the dogma of Climate Change [Fulks is never shy in condemning the hysteria, hoax, religion or its high priests of ACC, especially the lying cheating ones featured in Climategate]

In an op-ed he “criticized Governor Kulongoski for forcing State Climatologist George Taylor out of his position at Oregon State University because he expressed doubts about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)” although the facts differed in reality with George Taylor being the State University Climatologist, and the whole issue being a lot murkier. In June 2012 he championed chemist Nickolas Drapela, PhD who lost his job as a lecturer at Oregon State University because of his bizarre conspiracy laden views of AGW which he put into a slide show 4 years earlier [ yes it features Nazis and the new world order]. Despite his AGW denial his rolling contract lasted ten years and along with around 100 temporary contract staff he was laid off. The subplot appears to be the need of OSU as a research university to seek funding for research rather than lecturers.

Professor Anastasios Tsonis, [Meteorologist] of the University of Wisconsin, said: “We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”

reference to  a recent email exchange from the blog whatsupwiththatwatts.

Dear Professor Anastasios Tsonis,
The internet is all a buzz with a quote that is being credited to you.
“We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped.”
Is that an accurate reflection of what you believe?
If it is, may I ask: Weren’t the 2000s the warmest decade on record? Where does that claim leave the matter of GHGs and the imbalance in Earth’s radiative budget? What about the heat that is being absorbed by the oceans?
Thank you for your time and hopefully interest

the reply

Dear Peter
Yes this my quote.
As for your question: at the end of the century we were sitting on the highest global temperature value of the modern record. Since then we have leveled off and we may in fact be cooling. “We have reached the top of the mountain”, therefore it’s not surprising that the last decade is one of the warmest on record. Think about it!  The important aspect is that the warming of the 80s and 90s has stopped and the models missed it completely! The important issue is that we have entered a new regime in global temperature tendency. In fact, I find it very misleading that scientists will present “the warmest decade” argument to justify their beliefs (or failures).
Regarding the oceans absorbing heat, it is another argument without solid proof.
Best
Prof. Tsonis
More detail at the blog whatsupwiththatwatts.
From that bastion of scientific truth the GWPF reports the latest science news from .. John Roberts, Fox News
[1st Oct 2013 - in response to the IPCC AR5 - with regard to the slowing in warming]

Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, believes the pause will last much longer than that. He points to repeated periods of warming and cooling in the 20th century.“Each one of those regimes lasts about 30 years … I would assume something like another 15 years of leveling off or cooling,” he told Fox News.

That goes well beyond the window the IPCC has acknowledged, which Tsonis and other scientists believe will significantly change the predictions for temperature rise over the next century.

“I know that the models are not adequate,” Tsonis told Fox News. “There are a lot of climate models out there. They don’t agree with each other – and they don’t agree with reality.”

In fact, the IPCC’s massive, complex new report acknowledges that none of the models predicted the hiatus. The authors write that it could be due to climate models over-predicting the response to increasing greenhouse gases, or a failure to account for water vapor in the upper atmosphere.

The bottom line – no one saw it coming.

“Almost all historical simulations do not reproduce the observed recent warming hiatus,” the report states.

The claim that we have entered a cooling phase dates back to 2009 as co author:- Swanson, K.L. and A.A. Tsonis, 2009: Has the climate recently shifted? Geophysical Research Letters, 36 the paper and explanation are available as a guest post by Kyle Swanson with the non sceptical realclimate blog

What we find is that when interannual modes of variability in the climate system have what I’ll refer to as an “episode,” shifts in the multi-decadal global mean temperature trend appear to occur. I’ll leave the details of these episodes to interested readers (here and here), as things get pretty technical. It’s sufficient to note that we have an objective criteria for what defines an episode; we aren’t just eyeballing curves. The climate system appears to have had three distinct “episodes” during the 20th century (during the 1910′s, 1940′s, and 1970′s), and all three marked shifts in the trend of the global mean temperature, along with changes in the qualitative character of ENSO variability. We have also found similar types of shifts in a number of model simulations (both forced and unforced) that were run in support of the IPCC AR4 report.

The contentious part of our paper is that the climate system appears to have had another “episode” around the turn of the 21st century, coinciding with the much discussed “halt” in global warming. Whether or not such a halt has really occurred is of course controversial (it appears quite marked in the HadCRUT3 data, less so in GISTEMP); only time will tell if it’s real. Regardless, it’s important to note that we are not talking about global cooling, just a pause in warming.

the article ends

What do our results have to do with Global Warming, i.e., the century-scale response to greenhouse gas emissions? VERY LITTLE, contrary to claims that others have made on our behalf. Nature (with hopefully some constructive input from humans) will decide the global warming question based upon climate sensitivity, net radiative forcing, and oceanic storage of heat, not on the type of multi-decadal time scale variability we are discussing here. However, this apparent impulsive behavior explicitly highlights the fact that humanity is poking a complex, nonlinear system with GHG forcing – and that there are no guarantees to how the climate may respond.

Back in 2009 A Tsonis was not predicting global cooling. In September 2013 he is quoted in David Rose article in the Mail

Professor Anastasios Tsonis, of the University of Wisconsin, was one of the first to investigate the ocean cycles. He said: ‘We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped. The IPCC claims its models show a pause of 15 years can be expected. But that means that after only a very few years more, they will have to admit they are wrong.

The article is copied in the Telegraph by Hayley Dixon a rebuttal to the ‘ice is recovering’ ‘it’s cooling’ can be found at Carbonbrief

The Mail article is recycled material by Rose from January 2010 where he quotes Tsonis

Prof Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, has recently shown that these MDOs move together in a synchronised way across the globe, abruptly flipping the world’s climate from a ‘warm mode’ to a ‘cold mode’ and back again in 20 to 30-year cycles.

‘They amount to massive rearrangements in the dominant patterns of the weather,’ he said yesterday, ‘and their shifts explain all the major changes in world temperatures during the 20th and 21st Centuries. ‘We have such a change now and can therefore expect 20 or 30 years of cooler temperatures.’ Prof Tsonis said that the period from 1915 to 1940 saw a strong warm mode, reflected in rising temperatures.

Prof Tsonis said, last week 56 per cent of the surface of the United States was covered by snow. ‘That hasn’t happened for several decades,’ he pointed out. ‘It just isn’t true to say this is a blip. We can expect colder winters for quite a while.’ He recalled that towards the end of the last cold mode, the world’s media were preoccupied by fears of freezing. For example, in 1974, a Time magazine cover story predicted ‘Another Ice Age’, saying: ‘Man may be somewhat responsible – as a result of farming and fuel burning [which is] blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the Earth.’

Prof Tsonis said: ‘Perhaps we will see talk of an ice age again by the early 2030s, just as the MDOs shift once more and temperatures begin to rise.’

…..Prof Tsonis is not a climate change ‘denier’. There is, he said, a measure of additional ‘background’ warming due to human activity and greenhouse gases that runs across the MDO cycles. But he added: ‘I do not believe in catastrophe theories. Man-made warming is balanced by the natural cycles, and I do not trust the computer models which state that if CO2 reaches a particular level then temperatures and sea levels will rise by a given amount.’These models cannot be trusted to predict the weather for a week, yet they are running them to give readings for 100 years.’ Prof Tsonis said that when he published his work in the highly respected journal Geophysical Research Letters, he was deluged with ‘hate emails’. He added: ‘People were accusing me of wanting to destroy the climate, yet all I’m interested in is the truth.’ He said he also received hate mail from climate change sceptics, accusing him of not going far enough to attack the theory of man-made warming.

Mediamatters following the most recent Mail article contacted Tsonis on the issue of entering a new ice age:-

The Mail on Sunday*, as well as many subsequent accounts, also cited the remarks of a meteorologist, Anastasios Tsonis, about a “cooling trend” as evidence that scientists are “forecast[ing] an imminent ice age.” But in emails to Media Matters, Tsonis said that he had “never made a statement that the long-term warming has stopped” and that some media claims “differ[ed] greatly” from his statements (typos edited for clarity):

The media print titles from statements that differ greatly from the statements. My statement was that the warming of the 80s and 90s has stopped and it is likely according to our research that the planet will be cooling for the next 10-15 years. This is far from going to ice ages!!!

He added that he feels climate change is “an important issue for now and the future but we need to understand it better.”

Willie Wei-Hock Soon (born 1966) is an astrophysicist at the Solar and Stellar Physics (SSP) Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering, University of Southern California (1991)

Soon has been at the forefront of contrarian views that have appeared both in his opinion and [unusually] in the papers he has authored.

“The evidence in my paper is consistent with the hypothesis that the Sun causes climatic change in the Arctic . . . It invalidates the hypothesis that CO2 is a major cause of observed climate change – and raises serious questions about the wisdom of imposing cap-and-trade or other policies that would cripple energy production and economic activity, in the name of ‘preventing catastrophic climate change’.”

From his Desmogblog entry.

Soon’s funding links for research with Exxon and Koch has courted controversy.

Willie Soon in his own words.

The Soon and Baliunas controversy - a review paper that set out to show natural warming and the MWP were not unusual. The study in Climate Research was in part underwritten by $53,000 from the American Petroleum Institute, the voice of the oil industry.

Following the Cook et al 2013 study suggesting 97% consensus concerning AGW Popular Technology website contacted ‘skeptics’ including Soon to demonstrate their work was mis – classified.

Soon: “I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake. Specifically, anyone can easily read the statements in our paper as quoted below:

For example, Soon et al. (2001) found that the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects that additional atmospheric carbon dioxide has on the climate. This is because of the uncertainty about the past and present climate and ignorance about relevant weather and climate processes.

Here is at least one of our positions on AGW by CO2: the main tool climate scientists used to confirm or reject their CO2-AGW hypothesis is largely not validated and hence has a very limited role for any diagnosis or even predicting real-world regional impacts for any changes in atmospheric CO2.

The paper in question – rated in the abstract as holding no opinion – reads.

Calls to list polar bears as a threatened species under the United States Endangered Species Act are based on forecasts of substantial long-term declines in their population. Nine government reports were written to help US Fish and Wildlife Service managers decide whether or not to list polar bears as a threatened species. We assessed these reports based on evidence-based (scientific) forecasting principles. None of the reports referred to sources of scientific forecasting methodology. Of the nine, Amstrup et al. [Amstrup, S. C., B. G. Marcot, D. C. Douglas. 2007. Forecasting the rangewide status of polar bears at selected times in the 21st century. Administrative Report, USGS Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, AK.] and Hunter et al. [Hunter, C. M., H. Caswell, M. C. Runge, S. C. Amstrup, E. V. Regehr, I. Stirling. 2007. Polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea II: Demography and population growth in relation to sea ice conditions. Administrative Report, USGS Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, AK.] were the most relevant to the listing decision, and we devoted our attention to them. Their forecasting procedures depended on a complex set of assumptions, including the erroneous assumption that general circulation models provide valid forecasts of summer sea ice in the regions that polar bears inhabit. Nevertheless, we audited their conditional forecasts of what would happen to the polar bear population assuming, as the authors did, that the extent of summer sea ice would decrease substantially during the coming decades. We found that Amstrup et al. properly applied 15 percent of relevant forecasting principles and Hunter et al. 10 percent. Averaging across the two papers, 46 percent of the principles were clearly contravened and 23 percent were apparently contravened. Consequently, their forecasts are unscientific and inconsequential to decision makers. We recommend that researchers apply all relevant principles properly when important public-policy decisions depend on their forecasts.

As to why an astrophysicist is able to write a paper on polar bear numbers is – in Soon’s own words-

“I don’t like to claim that I am an expert on anything, but I have enough knowledge about climate science and climate system to be able to write scientific papers and go to meetings and talk about monsoon systems and talk about any other things that you want to discuss about climate science issues. I’m as qualified as anybody that you know on this planet on this topic.”

A list of peer-reviewed papers that take a contrarian view of AGW are found here. It does not include the peculiar medical journal paper where he is the 3rd author to two physicians -

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF 5.6m download of complete paper)
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, pp. 79-90, Fall 2007  Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie H. Soon

concluding with

There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed. We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions. As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and  productivity of all people. The United States and other countries need to produce more energy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies. Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased. Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from be low ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 in crease. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed

As a peer-reviewed science paper it fails to be either novel or focused and is more an opinion piece with the usual denier talking points. It is also unusual for a scientist to put themselves in the firing line with such absolutes – other leading climate contrarians  may say one thing in public but don’t dare make such statements in their peer-reviewed work which is open to direct professional criticism. Soon’s latest studies have now extended into health and chemistry with newspaper opinion pieces-

SOON: Bad science behind Florida mercury phobia

Proposed rules could raise electricity costs while harming human health

Soon appears to be defending the coal electricity generating sector which is the main [non natural] source of mercury.

 

 

 

Dr. Rameshwar Bali
Associate Professor
Center of Advanced Study in Geology
Lucknow University

Dr. Rameshwar Bali received his Ph.D. in Structural Geology in 1988 from the Lucknow University. He has published Six papers in International and 14 papers in National Journals He has been Principal Investigator of DST sponsored three major projects on Landslide investigation in Himalayas. Dr. Bali is also Co- Principal Investigator of two DST sponsored projects. One on GANGOTRI GLACIER and the other dealing with the Structural and Neotectonic evolution of Northeast Himalaya. Presently Principal investigator of a major DST sponsored project on PINDARI GLACIER .

His current research interests includes:

1. Impact of Climate change on Himalayan Glaciers and Chronology of Glaciation in
Himalaya.

2. Morphotectonic and Neotectonic evolution of Himalayan region.

James Lawrence Powell study of science papers concerning AGW revealed 24 that rejected AGW which included 1 on glaciers by Bali.

Abstract

Bali et al. 2011Following the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report of 2001, a hype regarding the future of Himalayan glaciers, flooding of Indo-Gangetic plains and coastal areas and drying of glacially fed rivers has been created. However, the recent studies of some of the Himalayan glaciers indicate that the rate of recession of most of the glaciers in general is on decline. These observations are in contradiction to the widely popularized concept of anthropogenically induced global warming. It is believed that the rise of temperature of around 0.6A degrees C since mid-nineteenth century is a part of decadal to centennial-scale climatic fluctuations that have been taking place on this Earth for the past few thousands of years.

Other papers authored by Bali are less explicit.

We argue that the late Quaternary glaciations in the Pindar valley were modulated by changing insolation and summer monsoon intensity including the LIA, whereas the 20th century recessional trends can be attributed to post-LIA warming.

Qing-Bin Lu, Associate Professor Physics and Astronomy Department, University of Waterloo, Ontario

At Qing Bin Lu’s own webpage he offers this quote

“The younger participants in this Discussion should take note how vigorously science rejects novelty. This rejection mechanism is as necessary as the one that operates in living organisms; it prevents the birth of monsters. However, it has the additional effect of making us inherently conservative.” John C. Polanyi, Faraday Discuss., 1997, 108, page 467

Q B Lu is a man who offers a unique theory on global warming- it is manmade, it has been warming, it is not CO2 [that reached saturation some time ago, but it will start cooling because it is both solar activity and CFCs.

Dr. Lu’s newest paper “Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change” was published in International Journal of Modern Physics B Vol. 27 (2013) 1350073 (38 pages), available online at: www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979213500732 ; an earlier version was published at http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.6844 .

So is Q B Lu a victim of an inherent conservative scientific community or simply suffering a Galileo Complex?

Qing-Bin Lu Revives Debunked Claims About Cosmic Rays and CFCs

A new paper by Qing-Bin Lu in the International Journal of Modern Physics B is gaining coverage for its claim that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), not CO2, is causing global warming. This sensationalist headline is often repeated with little mention that Lu’s claims are not new, and have not held up to scientific scrutiny in the past. In fact, Lu has been promoting his theories about CFCs for years, and mainstream scientists have found no merit in them. Critics have said Lu makes a fundamental scientific error by confusing correlation with causation, and does not effectively challenge the physical evidence of the warming effects of CO2, a body of knowledge built up over 150 years.

For a detailed response to the criticism of the paper by QB Lu can be found here.

Peer reviewed paper dismissing the findings of QB Lu from his original version in 2011 [PDF]

Skeptical Science criticism  ending with the paragraph-

Frankly, the paper is a non-story.  It may seem like news due to the grandiose claims of overturning the vast body of scientific evidence supporting CO2-caused global warming, but it is very rare for a single paper to accomplish this type of feat.  More often the single paper claiming to overturn the body of established scientific research is wrong.  That is clearly the case for Lu (2013), which is based on assuming rather than proving the hypothesis, unphysical curve fitting, and misrepresenting the cited research.

Moreover, this study isn’t new.  It’s actually the third Lu has published about his CFC warming hypothesis.  The first two were addressed by RealClimate, two peer-reviewed published responses, Skeptical Science, and others.  Andrew Gilkson at The ConversationClimate Science Watch and Rabbett Run (here and here) are also good resources for debunking Lu’s latest effort.

 

Where did Q B Lu get his inspiration? CFCs and their replacements after the Montreal Protocol are GHGs and there was a sceptic theme some years ago that suggested the ozone hole was allowing more solar energy to enter the atmosphere. For a guide the Real Climate website did an article back in 2005  .  Curiously the concern about CFCs and the Ozone Hole and AGW ended up entwined in public opinion.

Smear tactics [from the BBC 2005]

All the delaying tactics, denials and obfuscations bring to mind what happened in 1974 to two American scientists, Professor Sherwood Rowland and Dr Mario Molina. They coolly set out the evidence that the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used in refrigeration, aerosols and air conditioning were eating at the ozone layer which protects mankind and plants from dangerous ultraviolet radiation

They were at once smeared as scaremongers. The manufacturers ran an all too successful campaign to fog the issue. A lazy media bought into it. The public got bored and bamboozled. And as they did so, millions more tons of the pollutant were added to the atmosphere.

Thirteen years later when the world finally woke up to an ozone hole bigger than anyone had predicted, there was a swift international agreement – led by the US – to find alternatives to the CFCs. In the meantime, great damage had been done.

Frank Sherwood Rowland best-known work was the discovery that chlorofluorocarbons contribute to ozone depletion. Rowland theorized that man made organic compound gases combine with solar radiation and decompose in the stratosphere, releasing atoms of chlorine and chlorine monoxide that are individually able to destroy large numbers of ozone molecules. It was obvious that Frank had a good idea of what was occurring at higher altitudes when he stated “…I knew that such a molecule could not remain inert in the atmosphere forever, if only because solar photochemistry at high altitudes would break it down.”[4] Rowland’s research, first published in Nature magazine in 1974, initiated a scientific investigation of the problem. The National Academy of Sciences concurred with the findings in 1976 and in 1978 CFC-based aerosols were banned in the United States.

The Denial Industry [Real Climate]

In the public debate, many of the climate contrarians (such as Fred Singer) got their start denying that CFCs were affecting ozone, using many of the same arguments they now use about climate change (CFCs are heavier than air! it’s all the sun! the science is uncertain! the scientists are KGB agents! any controls will cause untold misery in the developing world!), and for much the same reasons. But through this all, Sherry Rowland strode tall (literally – he was 6 ft 5 in), and played a large role in debunking some of the wild claims (such as the idea that it was all volcanoes).

S. Fred Singer still at the forefront of denying the dangers of CFCs in 2010 with a Heartland Institute policy document.

Yet in spite of the hardships caused by the hasty phaseout of CFCs and other suspected ozone-depleting halocarbons, the EPA has never questioned the adequacy of the science that forms the basis for its phaseout policy. The facts are that the scientific underpinnings are quite shaky: the data are suspect; the statistical analyses are faulty; and the theory has not been validated (3,4). The science simply does not support this premature and abrupt removal of widely used chemicals — at great cost to the economy.

Bob Carter

Robert Merlin “Bob” Carter is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and adjunct professorial research fellow in earth sciences at James Cook University, Queensland. Retired- now works as science advisor for Heartland Institute to cast doubt on AGW.

Carter is critical of the IPCC and believes “alarmist” statements about dangerous[12] human-caused global warming are unjustified.[13] In 2005, he argued against climate change being “man-made” by asserting that the global average temperature did not increase between 1998 and 2005, while the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased.[14] In 2007, Carter participated in an expert panel discussion after the airing of The Great Global Warming Swindle documentary on ABC.[15][16]

His position on global warming has been criticized by other scientists such as David Karoly,[17] James Renwick[18] and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg.[19]

Carter has published primary research in the related field of palaeoclimatology, investigating New Zealand’s climate extending back to 3.9 Ma.[20][20][21] He has also published several critiques of anthropogenic global warming in economics journals.[12][22] In 2009, he co-authored a paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research claiming the El Niño-Southern Oscillation can account for most of the global temperature variation of the last fifty years.[23] A comment on this paper was published by nine other scientists in the same journal.[24] Carter with co-authors John Mclean and Chris de Freitas submitted a response to this comment but claimed they were censored.[25][26]

He is a contributor and reviewer of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) 2009 report, Climate Change Reconsidered and lead author of the 2011 interim report.[27][28]

In 2012, documents stolen from The Heartland Institute revealed that Carter was paid a monthly fee of $1,667 (USD), “as part of a program to pay ‘high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist [anthropogenic global warming] message’.”[29] While Carter did not deny that the payments took place, he would not disclose what the payments were for.[29] Carter “emphatically denies” any suggestion that his scientific opinion on climate change can be bought or swayed by funding.[30] Other journalists have argued that Carter’s fee of $19,080 a year is insignificant compared to the billions of dollars those who support climate alarm receive.[31][32]

Carter has appeared as a witness in front of the Parliament of Australia,[33] and testified before the United States Senate[34] on the issue of climate change.    From his Wikipedia entry


Bob (at 5.00 min) earning his Heartland salary.

Bob Ward takes Bob Carter to task over climate in the Guardian 2010

Bob Carter waiting for the next ice-age- 2007

For the last three years, satellite-measured average global temperature has been declining. Given the occurrence also of record low winter temperatures and massive snowfalls across both hemispheres this year, IPCC members have now entered panic mode, the whites of their eyes being clearly visible as they seek to defend their now unsustainable hypothesis of dangerous, human-caused global warming.

Bob Carter waiting for the next ice-age – any day now – since 2009

Nonetheless, by coincidence, growing recognition of a threat of climatic cooling is correct, because since the turn of the 21st century all real world, long-term climate indicators have turned downwards. Global atmospheric temperature reached a peak in 1998, has not warmed since 1995 and, has been cooling since 2002. Some people, still under the thrall of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change’s disproved projections of warming, seem surprised by this cooling trend, even to the point of denying it.

ending the piece with-

Perhaps a reassessment will finally occur when two-metre thick ice develops again on Father Thames at London Bridge, or when cooling causes massive crop failure in the world’s granary belts.

Bob Carter is often critical of computer predictions of the IPCC being wrong- according to Bob his prediction of a coming little ice age will show who’s right. Time will tell.

 

Allan Savory

Allan Savory, Environmentalist [and NOT a denier of AGW]

He has said that the primary contributor to global warming is desertification rather than the consumption of fossil fuels and by regenerating habit through the re-introduction of the herd-predator type arrangement, we can do a lot to reduce global warming while improving the productivity land rendered useless.

The above is just one of many references that deniers attribute to be the opinion of Allan Savory- the above was randomly plucked from the internet.

Allan Savory is just the kind of expert deniers need, he is informed, intelligent and is an environmentalist. His wiki bio gives some background to his views and expertise.

Allan Savory does not deny AGW nor stated that desertification is the primary cause.  The issue derives from two different sources- in the first instance land use changes is recognised [even by the IPCC] to have an effect on climate change and this has been picked up on by some scientific deniers. In Allan Savory’s case his TED lecture was linked to by denier websites. His counter intuitive argument is that deserts need more cattle not less.

His arguments when taken completely within context have been criticised. This link is well worth reading. and you may want to read this for a fuller picture. For more research on the positive aspects  of Allan Savory’s approach search for ‘mob grazing’ which is a technique some farmers are adopting.

Piers Forster, Climate Change Professor at Leeds University, said:

‘The fact that global surface temperatures haven’t risen in the last 15 years, combined with good knowledge of the terms changing climate, make the high estimates unlikely.’ –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 17 March 2013

Dr [of sport] Benny Peiser would have us believe climate scientists are seeing the error of their ways and concede AGW isn’t actually CAGW. so what is Piers Forster’s stance on climate change? He certainly does not deny that AGW is happening and is serious but his comments can be interpreted by others for their agenda.

The BBC and the Guardian quote IAGP’s Prinicipal Investigator Piers Forster’s reaction to the leaked IPCC report. In his response to the recent posting by a blogger of the WG1 draft report Piers comments,

“Although this may seem like a ‘leak’, the draft IPCC reports are not kept secret and the review process is open…..I think we as scientists need to explore how we can best match the development of measured critical arguments with those of the Twitter generation.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20726355

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/14/ipcc-climate-change-report-leaked-online

On the United Bank For Carbon website dedicated to saving rainforest for which Piers is a trustee, it says

He was one of the principal authors of the 2007 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that was a co-recipient of the 2007  Nobel Peace Prize. He is also a lead author for the next IPCC assessment report, due in 2013. He currently leads a large research team, researching various aspects of climate change, principally investigating the multiple causes of climate change and possible climate mitigation strategies.

His research has convinced him that rainforest protection should be the first priority of any successful mitigation strategy. ["]Due to increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, rainforests around the world are actually growing more and more vigorously – this increasing growth rate actually removes around a quarter of the CO2 mankind emits every year. Yet we are still deforesting at an alarming rate. Research at Leeds has shown how this deforestation leads to both increased CO2 emissions and widespread climate effects, such as a reduction of rainfall in tropical regions.

Between 1990 and 2005 the world has lost over 10 million hectares of rainforest (an 8% reduction of rainforest area). And this deforestation itself emits more than a billion tonnes of a carbon annually, accounting for around 12% or more of current global carbon dioxide emissions. If we succeeded in stopping all deforestation tomorrow we would instantly cut our global emissions and make sure rainforests can continue protect us from the worst of climate change going into the future.["]

The statement that: Due to increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, rainforests around the world are actually growing more and more vigorously – this increasing growth rate actually removes around a quarter of the CO2 mankind emits every year. will delight deniers who constantly refer to CO2 as plant food.

Other references to Piers Foster such as the link of black carbon to warming are also seized on by deniers. From The Guardian

“There are exciting opportunities to cool climate by cutting soot emissions, but it is not straightforward.

“Reducing emissions from diesel engines and domestic wood and coal fires is a no-brainer, as there are tandem health and climate benefits.

“If we did everything we could to reduce these emissions, we could buy ourselves up to half a degree less warming – or a couple of decades of respite.”

However, curbing the impact of soot may not be a simple process, the researchers pointed out. Typically soot was emitted along with other particles and gases that may actually cool the climate.

Organic matter in the atmosphere produced by open vegetation burning may have an overall cooling effect, for instance. But other reduction targets are likely to have a clear benefit, say the experts.

“One great candidate is soot from diesel engines,” said Forster. “It may also be possible to look at wood and coal burning in some kinds of industry and in small household burners. In these cases, soot makes up a large fraction of their emissions, so removing these sources would likely cool the climate.”

Tackling soot would have an almost immediate effect, because of the short amount of time it stays in the atmosphere.

While the leading greenhouse gas carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for long periods, soot emissions are washed out within a few weeks and then replaced.

“Soot mitigation is an immediate effect but helps for a short time only,” said Forster. “We will always need to mitigate C02 to achieve long-term cooling.”

Rose also quoted Myles Allen -professor of geosystem science in the school of geography and the environment and department of physics, University of Oxford- “David quoting me in the Mail on Sunday as saying that “until recently he believed that the world might be on course for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than five degrees this century” and “adding that warming is likely to be significantly lower“.” Myles recounts his misquoting in The Guardian. The quote by Piers also seems to be from a direct conversation with Rose- so far Piers has not responded to the wording: however the terms of science- i.e. high estimates which would lead to near extinction of humanity in 100 years does not negate the seriousness of IPCC low estimates. 2c increase is just an unknown change as 5c!

Climate deniers will happily mis-quote, quote out of context, lie etc any apparent voice that supports their opinion. Climate change is complicated and will have genuine voices of descent with regards to process and conclusions, it is the true scepticism of science, denialism however, will seize on anything and polarizes any minor differences and uncertainties. Because of the nature of the internet the words of Piers Forster will be around for decades as will Myles Allen and will be quoted by those who share none of the other views of the scientists and will dispute CO2 as a GHG.

 

David Evans, Rocket Scientist.[desmogblog.com/david-evans] a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.[“and part-time 2008 to 2010, (it was disbanded in 2007 !) modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering”] Is married to Jo Nova – blogger of denial site jonova, has his own website sciencespeak has written 1 science peer-reviewed paper back in the 80s not related to climate change science.

The campaign to force people to accept that “the debate is over” and that man-made CO2 emissions are driving climate change is in deep trouble, with another top global warming advocate – rocket scientist and carbon accounting expert Dr. Richard Evans – completely reversing his position. [Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet, July 22, 2008]

Writing in the Australian he proclaimed his scepticism after years of being a warmist.

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I’ve been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

David Evans reasons are  1/ No Hot Spot 2/ no evidence that CO2 is causing increased warming 3/it stopped warming in 2001 4/co2 rise lags warming

Slight change in opinion in 2011 Carbon warming too minor to be worth worrying about

Let’s set a few things straight.

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.

Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

The disagreement comes about what happens next.

David Evans conclusions are challenged here. What is not dealt with is David Evans’ references to the AGW ‘gravy train’ and links to banking.

David Evans has written up a paper that describes just what kind of Octopus we are dealing with, and it’s bigger and more insidious than almost anything you can imagine. It’s a long paper, but if you are not aware of how our currencies are created out of thin air, backed by nothing, and why the Global Financial Crisis was not a surprise to those of us watching the money supply, then stand back, hold onto your hats and take a deep breath.

It’s like living in The Matrix. (Jo Nova)

Bankers and conspiracy theories have been around for centuries with ‘Protocols of Elders’ being key to New World Order paranoia. His language and insinuation is dealt with here, it makes for disturbing reading.

There are a small number of families who, over the centuries, have amassed wealth through financial rent seeking. They are leading members of the paper aristocracy. For example, the Rothschilds are the biggest banking family in Europe, and were reputed to own half of all western industry in 1900. That sort of wealth doesn’t just dissipate, because unless the managers are incompetent the wealth tends to concentrate. The banking families don’t work for a living in the normal sense, like the rest of us. They avoid scrutiny and envy by blending in and make themselves invisible. Since they own or influence all sorts of media organizations, it isn’t too hard. There are unsubstantiated rumors and conspiracy theories, but nobody can really credibly say how much wealth and influence they have. 

What are the paper aristocracy going to do in the aftermath of the current huge bubble? The course and end of the bubble are quite foreseeable, so they must have a plan. Manufacturing Money and Global Warming 2009

When did David Evans turn from warmist to sceptic?

As a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005 he seems to be a strong authority on the basis he has changed his mind given ‘new facts’ but when did this change happen, and did it happen at all?

Back in 2005 he wrote a paper claiming no hot spot for the The Lavoisier Group  an organisation based in Australia that promotes scepticism of current scientific consensus on global warming. In a presentation to the group [pdf 2007] he says he was in fact a contractor to do computer modelling. He goes on to say that he is not a climate modeller and was modelling carbon in the human and natural environment. Despite being a contractor he says he resigned in 2005 but not because of his scepticism, this he says developed after 2000 when new evidence emerged [he only started to work for the GH office in 1999].

Fritz Vahrenholt, the the grandfather of global warming who after he changed his position was shunned, or rather:- The believer who never was.

Fritz Vahrenholt (born May 8, 1949 in Gelsenkirchen-Buer) is a German politician (SPD), industrialist and environmentalist.[1]Biography

Varenholt had studied Chemistry in Münster and started his professional career at the federal Umweltbundesamt (environmental protection agency) in Berlin and the Ministry for Environment of Hesse. From 1984 till 1990 he was in a leading role in Hamburg, first as Staatsrat for environment, 1990 to 1991 for the administral Senatskanzlei, and the Umweltsenator (senator for the environment) in Hamburg from 1991 to 1997.In 1998 he entered the energy industry and until 2001 was on the Board of Deutsche Shell AG, a Shell subsidiary. In 2001 he moved to post of CEO of the wind turbine company REpower Systems AG and remained there until 2007. From February 2008 he was CEO of electric power company RWE subsidiary RWE Innogy, a post he will step down from in mid-2012. Prof. Dr. Varenholt has a doctorate in Chemistry. In 1999 he was made an Honorary Professor of chemistry at the University of Hamburg.[2][1][3]Global Warming Skepticism

Vahrenholt is skeptical of human-induced global warming. In 2012 Vahrenholt together with geologist Sebastian Lüning published Die kalte Sonne: warum die Klimakatastrophe nicht stattfindet[4] (The Cold Sun: Why the Climate Crisis Isn’t Happening), a book asserting that climate change is driven by variations in solar activity. They predict the Earth is entering a cooling phase due to periodic solar cycles, and will cool by 0.2 to 0.3 degrees C by 2035.[3] Other contributors are Nir Shaviv, Werner Weber, Henrik Svensmark and Nicola Scafetta.Vahrenholt’s claims have been met with criticism from Global Warming experts who have argued his arguments contain errors. He has also been criticized for misrepresenting the IPCC, and the evidence for Global Warming. [5] [6] [7]

The claim Vahrenholt was a believer and now sceptic is from notrickszone denial blog quoting the German media : SPIEGEL features a story on environment expert Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, author of the new book Die kalte Sonne” (The Cold Sun). Vahrenholt’s underlying message is “It’s also the sun, stupid!”

THE CLIMATE REBEL

With heretical claims, RWE ma­na­ger Fritz Vah­ren­holt is causing a commotion: ‘The climate catastrophe is not taking place’, the environment expert claims. The sun is being underestimated as a natural climate factor. ‘The sun has been weak since 2005′, Vahrenholt said in a DER SPIEGEL interview. ‘We can only expect cooling from it for the time being.’”

Article in English.

Fritz Vahrenholt, 62, who holds a doctorate in chemistry, has been a rebel throughout his life. “Perhaps it’s just part of my generation,” he says.

He is typical of someone who came of age during the student protest movement of the late 1960s, and who fought against the chemical industry’s toxic manufacturing plants in the 1970s. His party, Germany’s center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), chose him as environment senator in the city-state of Hamburg, where he incurred the wrath of the environmental lobby by building a waste incineration plant, earning him the nickname “Feuerfritze” (Fire Fritz). He worked in industry after that, first for oil multinational Shell and then for wind turbine maker RePower, which he helped develop. Now, as the outgoing CEO of the renewable energy group RWE Innogy, he is about to embark on his next major battle. “I’m going to make enemies in all camps,” he says.

………I don’t claim that I know precisely whether the sun is responsible for a 40, 50 or 60 percent share of global warming. But it’s nonsense for the IPCC to claim that the sun has nothing to do with it.

In the same interview Vahrenholt reveals himself to be more lukewarm rather than sceptical

SPIEGEL: If we take your book to its logical conclusion, it will be unnecessary to reduce CO2 emissions at all.

Vahrenholt: No. Even a temperature increase of only one degree would be a noticeable change. But I am indeed saying that climate change is manageable because the cooling effects of the sun and the ocean currents give us enough time to prepare. In any case, it will be easy for us in Germany to adjust.

Vahranholt admits he is doing no original research. His environmental qualifications are also suspect as the quote demonstrates as well as his association with Shell. As for the believer who became a sceptic:- this seems to have derived from his book launch where he is described as being the founder of the German Green movement, a statement that is not true, he was an SPD politician who had the office of environment minster whilst the SPD and Greens were in coalition government. Spoke at the GWPF 2012 conference and reiterated his ‘green’ credentials.

Next Page »



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 28 other followers