Climatologist: Time to Revisit Falsified Science of CO2

By Dr. Tim Ball Monday, December 28, 2009

Climate science is a productive pursuit with Nobel Prizes, an Oscar, billions in research funding, massive tax grabs and wealth for exploiters. Continuation of these activities partly validated the claim the disclosed files from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) are of small consequence.

As I wrote earlier the scandal at CRU (Climategate) is diverting from the real scandal, which is the claim CO2 is causing warming and climate change. Climategate is the greatest orchestrated fraud in scientific history, but claims about CO2 are the greatest fallacy. Climategate lets those who’ve known what was happening to avoid being ignored as conspiracy theorists.

Everyone incorrectly talks about carbon when they mean CO2, which was the original focus of the claim human industrial activity was causing global warming. Theory assumed CO2 was a greenhouse gas that slowed heat escaping to space. As it increases temperature rises and it would because of increased industrial activity. This became fact immediately and challenging scientists were pushed aside. Mostly by nasty attacks from those who falsified records, rewrote historic records, distorted and misused science and statistics as the leaked CRU emails attest. Now they, their supporters, and all those benefiting, work to perpetuate the massive deception.

Selected Data and False Findings

Some of this article was presented in a 2008 piece, but the CRU revelations make a revisit important. The summary of work the IPCC represents is only that chosen by the IPCC to achieve their goal. Remember the email comments about including or excluding articles that supported their objective.

Claims now proven false include;

  • an increase in CO2 precedes a temperature increase;
  • current atmospheric levels of CO2 are the highest on record;
  • and pre-industrial levels of CO2 were approximately 100 parts ppm lower than the present 385 ppm.

The last claim is basic to the argument that humans are causing warming and climate change by increasing the levels of atmospheric CO2.

In a paper submitted to a US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski explains,“The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false.” This means more when you know that Tom Wigley, who is the heart …

Wash. Times trashes AP’s Seth Borenstein over his reporting on Climategate — Cites Climate Depot


With trillions of dollars at stake in the battle over global warming, now would be the time for the press to closely scrutinize the claims of those who would reorganize the world’s economy from farm to factory and laboratory to living room. And the Climategate scandal – where leaked e-mails and dodgy computer programs from the University of East Anglia raise powerful new questions about the role of politics in climate science – would be the perfect opportunity to explore what is going on behind the scenes.

That’s not happening. To judge by recent coverage from Associated Press, the Fourth Estate watchdog has acted like a third-rate pocket pet. Case in point is an 1,800-word AP missive that appeared in hundreds of publications, many carrying it on the front page of their Sunday, Dec. 13 issue with the headline, “Science not faked, but not pretty.” AP gave three scientists copies of the controversial e-mails and then asked them about their conclusions. The wire service portrayed the trio of scientists as dismissing or minimizing allegations of scientific fraud when, in fact, the scientists believe no such thing.

The first scientist quoted in the article, Mark Frankel, is director of scientific freedom, responsibility and law at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. AP quotes him as concluding that there is, “no evidence of falsification or fabrication of data, although concerns could be raised about some instances of very ‘generous interpretations.'” While the article mentions that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and some Republican lawmakers are calling for independent investigations, AP doesn’t note the views of the scientists they interviewed.

When The Washington Times talked to Mr. Frankel, the scientist gave a quite different impression. The e-mails, he said, are not sufficient to reach any judgment at all on whether the data or science was faked or misleading. “You can’t do that on the e-mails alone, you can’t do it on the e-mails or the program,” he concluded. For that reason, Mr. Frankel supports investigation of East Anglia and related allegations of fraud at Pennsylvania State University.

There’s a big difference between saying that there isn’t sufficient evidence to determine if falsification of data occurred – and that there should be an investigation – and saying, as AP did: “Science not faked.”

Mr. Frankel also believes outsiders to the two schools should be asked to take part. …

Claim: ‘CO2 warming will be worse than feared’ Reality Check: ‘Oh, no it won’t’

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

And still the scare stories keep coming. A paper in Nature Geoscience, published “coincidentally” just before the collapsed Copenhagen climate change conference, suggests that long-term temperature feedbacks in response to warming induced by anthropogenic CO2 emissions will be 30-50% higher than the already enormous estimates of the UN’s climate panel.

The British authors said the “more-than-expected” warming would unfold over a matter of hundreds of years, rather than this century. The findings do not mean that the predictions for temperature rise by 2100, established notably by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), should be rewritten, they said.

One of the authors came out with the now rather tired argument that “CO2 hangs around a long time in the atmosphere”. Actually, direct measurement – rather than the modeling on which (as usual) the latest paper is entirely based – establishes that half of the CO2 we emit is taken up by plants and the oceans immediately, and dozens of papers in the peer-reviewed literature establish that the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 7 years.

The paper was based on a test of a widely-used climate model on the mid-Pleiocene warm period, 3 million years ago, when the Earth warmed in response to natural processes. Cores drilled from ocean sediment provide some evidence for atmospheric carbon levels and temperature at the time.

The team found that at that era, although CO2 levels were close to today’s 388 parts per million by volume, global temperature was 3 C° (5.5 F°) warmer than today. The paper assumes – without evidence – that the difference can only be fully explained by the long-term loss of ice sheets and changes in vegetation that caused the Earth’s surface to absorb more solar radiation. One of the authors said that today’s CO2 concentration of 388 ppmv might already be too high to prevent more than 2 C° (3.5 F°) of warming compared with pre-industrial times – the limit agreed as an aspiration by the recent Copenhagen accord.

Previously, says the report, a CO2 concentration of less than 450 ppmv had been thought necessary to keep the warming no greater than 2 C°. However, the author said: “Our work says that at 400 ppmv you are looking at more than 2 C°.” At the present growth rate of CO2 concentration, 400 ppmv will be reached in 2015.