But while the upcoming United Nations climate negotiations strive to address what The Guardian in the UK calls a “record leap” in greenhouse gas emissions, a recent article by James M. Taylor at Forbes.com points out that there has been no corresponding rise in global temperatures over the last decade.
Most powerfully, global temperature trends during the twentieth century sharply defied atmospheric carbon dioxide trends. More than half of the warming during the twentieth century occurred prior to the post-World War II economic boom, yet atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions rose minimally during this time. Between 1945 and 1977, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels jumped rapidly, yet global temperatures declined. Only during the last quarter of the century was there an appreciable correlation between greenhouse gas trends and global temperature trends. But that brief correlation has clearly disappeared this century.
Taylor goes on to dispute a principal tenet of alarmist dogma — a reliance on the assertion that the Earth is highly sensitive to minute changes (like the amount of moist air) in atmospheric gases. This, the crux of the alarmist doctrine, is the subject of much dispute within the scientific community, not to mention its conflict with the climate conditions of the real-world.
Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey recently examined Taylor’s argument in concert with climate scientist and reformed “warmist” David Evans in The Financial Post, who suggests that the “science” in “climate science” has long since gone. The data gathered by thousands of weather balloons and satellites working for decades is hard evidence that alarmist climate models greatly overstate warming as a result of carbon dioxide changes.
The exaggeration of the models is nothing new. As Evans points out, the temperature estimates given to the US Congress in 1988, 1990, 1995, and 2001 have all proven to be significantly higher than actual temperatures. Rather than address possible flaws in the model, alarmists have attempted to blame variances in atmospheric factors independent of carbon dioxide.
For some, the truth is finally beginning to appear. According to The Guardian, Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, suggests that government acceptance of alarmist claims has greatly diminished in recently years.
The significance of climate change in international policy debate is much less pronounced than it was a few years ago. It’s difficult to say that the wind is blowing in the right direction.
Nevertheless, alarmists persist — with arguments riddled with logical fallacies. As Taylor points out: when in the scientific method a model or theory does not match the empirical evidence of reality, one should reexamine the model rather than try to validate the model by redefining the environment.
The high degree of governmental involvement in the research process remains a main problem in debunking alarmist theory. The conclusions reached through that government-led or sponsored research can lead to higher taxes, tighter regulation, or even, as Evans suggests, world government from efforts to solve an apocryphal problem.
Be frightened – be very frightened. This rise in emissions underlines the urgency [of tackling climate change]. The politicians had better come back on this very fast, or we are all in trouble.
But The Heartland Institute remains a bastion of sanity. The Sixth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC6) will be held in Washington, DC on June 30 – July 1. Not surprisingly, the theme of the conference is “Restoring the Scientific Method” and discusses the leaps in logic and claims of consensus that have comprised the integrity of American scientific efforts in the study of climate change and the impact of carbon emissions.
From “Climategate” to the grievous errors and abuses of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ICCC6 promises to serve as a venue for international dialogue and a starting point for additional scientific research and scholarship into the myth that is “global warming.”