Another Scientist Dissents! Fmr. NASA scientist Dr. Les Woodcock ‘Laughs’ at Global Warming – Top Prof. Declares: ‘Global warming is nonsense’
Emeritus Professor Chemical Thermodynamics Dr. Leslie Woodcock of the University of Manchester’s School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science and a former NASA researcher, dissented on man-made global warming. Woodcock declared there was “professional misconduct by Government advisors around the world” when it comes to man-made climate change claims. Woodcock, who received his PhD from the University of London, (Full Bio here – [email protected]) is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry, a founding editor of Molecular Simulation, and a recipient of a Max Planck Society Visiting Fellowship, has more than 70 published journal papers, explained: “The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis’ — water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04% — ‘Carbon dioxide has been made out to be some kind of toxic gas but the truth is it’s the gas of life. We breath it out, plants breath it in. The green lobby has created a do-good industry and it becomes a way of life, like a religion.”
Woodcock continued: “The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years, if there are extremes, it’s nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it’s not permanent and it’s not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense.”
“If you talk to real scientists who have no political interest, they will tell you there is nothing in global warming. It’s an industry which creates vast amounts of money for some people.
“The reason records seem to be being frequently broken is simply because we only started keeping them about 100 years ago. There will always be some record broken somewhere when we have another natural fluctuation in weather.
“Its absolutely stupid to blame floods on climate change.
“This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon, its not up to me to prove it does not exist, its up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory. Such evidence for the man-made climate change theory has not been forthcoming.”
Woodcock was profiled in the Yorkshire Evening Post. Full text below.
Excerpt via Yorkshire Evening Post – April 3, 2014:
He doesn’t believe in ‘global warming’ and says ‘climate change’ is a meaningless term used as a sop by big business to create money.
…
Emeritus Professor Les Woodcock is one of them. When I ask the former NASA scientist about ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’, he laughs.
“The term ‘climate change’ is meaningless. The Earth’s climate has been changing since time immemorial, that is since the Earth was formed 1,000 million years ago. The theory of ‘man-made climate change’ is an unsubstantiated hypothesis [about] our climate [which says it] has been adversely affected by the burning of fossil fuels in the last 100 years, causing the average temperature on the earth’s surface to increase very slightly but with disastrous environmental consequences.
“The theory is that the CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuel is the ‘greenhouse gas’ causes ‘global warming’ – in fact, water is a much more powerful greenhouse gas and there is is 20 time more of it in our atmosphere (around one per cent of the atmosphere) whereas CO2 is only 0.04 per cent.
“There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years.
“Anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean anything in science, its not significant.
“Events can happen with frequencies on all time scales in the physics of a chaotic system such as the weather. Any point on lowland can flood up to a certain level on all time scales from one month to millions of years and its completely unpredictable beyond around five days.
“We can go back to great floods and Noah’s Ark in the Middle East regions which are now desserts.
“The reason records seem to be being frequently broken is simply because we only started keeping them about 100 years ago. There will always be some record broken somewhere when we have another natural fluctuation in weather.
“Its absolutely stupid to blame floods on climate change, as I read the Prime Minister did recently. I don’t blame the politicians in this case, however, I blame his so-called scientific advisors.”
But surely most of the world’s leaders, scientific community and people in general can’t be wrong can they?
Prof Woodcock hits back: “This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon, its not up to me to prove it does not exist, its up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory.
“Such evidence for the man-made climate change theory has not been forthcoming.”
He adds: “It’s become almost an industry, as a consequence of this professional misconduct by Government advisors around the world, not just UK – you can’t blame ordinary people with little or no science education for wanting to be seen to be good citizens who care about their grandchildren’s future and the environment.
“In fact, the damage to our economy the climate change lobby is now costing us is infinitely more destructive to the livelihoods of our grand-children. Indeed, we grand-parents are finding it increasingly expensive just to keep warm as a consequence of the idiotic decisions our politicians have taken in recent years about the green production of electricity.
“Carbon dioxide has been made out to be some kind of toxic gas but the truth is it’s the gas of life. We breath it out, plants breath it in. The green lobby has created a do-good industry and it becomes a way of life, like a religion. I understand why people defend it when they have spent so long believing in it, people do not like to admit they have been wrong.
“If you talk to real scientists who have no political interest, they will tell you there is nothing in global warming. It’s an industry which creates vast amounts of money for some people.
“Even the term ‘global warming’ does not mean anything unless you give it a time scale. The temperature of the earth has been going up and down for millions of years, if there are extremes, it’s nothing to do with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, it’s not permanent and it’s not caused by us. Global warming is nonsense.”
He adds: “Light bulbs are a good example of the contradiction with the green movement. Europe has outlawed the tungsten lightbulb. Tungsten is a harmless metal, like gold, it does not react with anything and yet now, in the name of conserving energy, we have low energy light bulbs full of toxic chemicals, including mercury vapour, which is poisonous. If you smash a low energy lightbulb, the advice from the Department for the Environment is to vacate the room for 15 minutes.”
Related Links:
The global warming movement continues to lose scientists, many formerly with the UN IPCC.
Top Swedish Climate Scientist Says Warming Not Noticeable: ‘The warming we have had last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all’ – Award-Winning Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of UN IPCC: ‘We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified’
UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report – Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
‘Some of the most formidable opponents of climate hysteria include politically liberal physics Nobel laureate, Ivar Giaever; Freeman Dyson; father of the Gaia Hypothesis, James Lovelock — ‘Left-center chemist, Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the fathers of the German environmental movement’
34 Responses
Woodcock has nothing to lose at this point in his life. Bless him. I hope that more will do the same thing.
die?
The CAGW scam is in its death throes.
There hasn’t been a global warming trend in 18 yrs, despite 1/3rd of all CO2 emissions since 1750 were made over just the last 18 years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.5/plot/rss/from:1996.5/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.5/normalise/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.5/normalise
Under the rules of the Scientific Method, the CAGW scam should have been thrown on trash heap of failed ideas decades ago as the hypothetical projections simply don’t match the observed reality the CAGW hypothesis is supposed to explain/predict:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/models-vs-datasets.jpg
Even the IPCC freely admits there is no empirical evidence showing a correlation between rising CO2 levels and severe weather incidence as shown in the following direct quotes from IPCC’s AR5 report released last year:
“The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados”
“The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for floods”
losses”
“There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century.”
“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century”
“No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”
“In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.”
“In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms.”
“In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century.”
“Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated.”
“In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”
CAGW has become a joke.
Any science based solely on speculation and decided by a vote of the general public is called Political Science.
I agree. I don’t know of any such science though.
This is all music to my ears, except ‘There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years.’ I thought the notion that atmospheric levels of CO2 have increased was uncontroversial.
There is nothing in atmospheric science
that is “uncontroversial.”! There are too many
variables to use observations from the atmosphere. Lets look at CO2
in the atmosphere,it is my understanding that all the historical data
is measured at two locations,one location on the side of an
active volcano in Hawaii, the second is in the South Pole. What
happens in between and everywhere else? It is known that warm
water holds less CO2, thus the CO2 should be higher over the oceans
of the tropic and the CO2 concentration should be lower in the north
Pacific and the north Atlantic. Lets wait if it rains, CO2 is washed
out of the air, or if it snows CO2 is also scribed out of the air (
see the logic behind examining ice cores from a million years ago)
Now lets go to the middle of the industrial center of the US and
Europe and measure CO2 concentrations. We have to record “how
many days has it been since the last rain or snow storm? What is the
wind velocity or is it a quite day,
If we measure over the ocean
has there been a hurricane or typhoon, is it cloudy so the ocean does
not get as warm.
The very best way to hide the truth is to average
the data. The truth is in the details!
Science is never settled.
We need the supposed scientists of the
Cult of AGW to start doing some “critical thinking” and stop
doing day dreaming without testing of the Hypotheses.
it is…
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
It is completely uncontroversial, 270ppm before the industrial revolution 400ppm now easily measure and rising. This lot are are spreading half truths and outright lies, see link from Co2 Molecule above.
except Mother Earth is responsible for releasing 470 Gigatons of the annual 500 Gigatons of CO2 released into the atmosphere. All human activities only account for 6% (30 Gigatons) of CO2, of which the US is responsible for 6 Gigatons. So human activity being repsonsible for any climate activity is ridiculous, except for leaving the car windows open during a rain, ….. then man mad activities are definitely responsible – and there is scientific consensus – for the front and back seats getting soaked.
do you have the figures for the amount of CO2 absorbed by the oceans and the amount taken up by plants?
Where is there a credible experiment that proves that the HYPOTHESES of the greenhouse gas effect exists??
The true scientific method is to do an experiment that proves that the hypotheses is valid in all features of the hypotheses. If even one of the features can not be proved the Hypotheses has to be changed or declared a failure.
Not one of the IPCC climate models based on the Hypotheses of the greenhouse gas effect has been correct. What conclusion has to be reached.?
ALSO remember… there is method (cause) and effect. The only thing ever proved is effect. CO2 in high volumes (like 60% not 0.004%) can cause the build of thermal heat. But there is gaping huge holes and problems with this. Consider H2O predominately sits in things we call oceans. Water has a mass of about 16. CO2 is a mass of about 44. How is this miracle molecule becoming so buoyant and not getting cycled back into the earth?
YES high volumes won’t be able to saturate…. But beyond water? You have to take everything you learned about compounds and solutions throw it in the garbage just so you can believe the Global Warming religion.
I don’t think a serious scientist disputes the concept of green house gases, any more than they dispute the existence of green houses. Every molecules has certain frequencies which it reflects, absorbs and transmits. (Your micro wave works because the frequency of electromagnetic radiation it generates, is a frequency that is absorbed by water.). The solar spectrum has a very small component which is reflected by CO2. The Geospectrum, because of the existence of life, includes a larger percent of the same component. The CO2 reflects this component back to earth. This is the essence of the green house effect.
Yes, if one feature can not be proven you have to change the model, or hypothesis. That does not mean you abandon the basic laws of physics. This is why the models are constantly updated. All of the models of planetary motion are based on Newton’s laws. It turns out these laws are invalid. Force is not Mass times Acceleration. Force is the time derivative of momentum. You can still predict the position of the moon with high accuracy and precision.
The greenhouse effect is not a “hypothesis”. It’s just the laws of physics in action. The greenhouse effect has been known to science since the 1800s.
And your claim about the IPCC climate models is also false. The models have in fact been accurate.
I guess you don’t know how a greenhouse works.
If you think the models are accurate, you are just not paying attention.
I guess you don’t grasp that the greenhouse effect is not the same thing as a greenhouse. It simply refers to how concentrations of certain gases in the atmosphere (CO2 being one of them) have the same effect as a greenhouse.
Oh, I get it. Playing with words.
You might read about what Confucius had to say about the rectification of names. He felt that the misuse of words, to mean something they do not really mean and thus lead to miscommunication, either accidental or deliberate, leads to moral debasement. What did he know?
So, next time I heat water on my stove, I will call it a greenhouse effect.
Makes sense to me. Now, do I get a govt grant?
I see you’re resorting to the favorite conservative tactic of accusing others of doing what you’re doing.
‘desert’ not ‘dessert’… typo or wrong word in the original?
Leslie Woodcock:
“There is no reproducible scientific evidence CO2 has significantly increased in the last 100 years.”
You couldn’t find a better example of senility in action if you tried.
For the real story of atmospheric carbon dioxide, watch the animation. Each dot on the map and in the graph to the left is a station that has measured and reproduced the scientific evidence.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/history.html
That’s funny.
…and this is the same NOAA that has recently been documented as doctoring their reports…..
Deniers are almost cute when they wrinkle up their brows and toss out comic book science terms. In truth, they are helping geneticists find the repositories of Cro-Magnon genes.
Believers are also almost cute by their instantaneous manner exasperation and their automatic foaming at the mouth leading to the predictable reflexive accusation of those with opposing views must therefore be Fox News viewers ! They are far too narcissistic to glimpse themselves and how foolish they look hiding behind the President’s ‘this is settled science’ cat litter talking points.
Belief is for the religious crowd that holds onto childish fantasies.
The observation that no well known believer will debate a knowledgeable skeptic is extremely telling. Instead, they claim the science is settled.
You! Believer! Why won’t your people debate? Instead, you demean skeptics without confronting the facts. This is right out of the Communist play book. Read about the Lysenko affair, and you will see the same tactics employed. A criminal govt and a criminal scientific establishment. It set Russia back for years.
BTW, Cro-Magnon humans are modern humans like you, only they had a bigger brain case than you and were bigger and stronger than you.
But, don’t feel bad about abusing skeptics now. Your turn will come. We will certainly never confuse you with a Cro-Magnon.
You can’t deny something that is not happening. Climate change fanatics are the ones livening in a fantasy world. It is beyond me why anyone would create a boogeyman like this to tear humanity down. Climate change fanatics are truly evil, perverse people not concerned with facts or science.
Saudades Leslie.
This sounds like a big deal to the scientifically ignorant, which is what Woodcock is counting on. What he fails to mention is that water is not capable of accumulating in the atmosphere to the degree that CO2 can. Water stays at about 1% of the atmosphere, because it falls back down to the ground in the form of rain. CO2 levels, on the other hand, have been steadily increasing. Thus, it makes no difference that water is a more powerful greenhouse gas. The amount of water in the atmosphere is the same now as it was 200 years ago. The amount of CO2, on the other hand, is dramatically greater.
There is this thing called the carbon cycle. It is entirely natural and out of human control. Good thing, because all life on earth depends on it. CO2 enters the atmosphere by natural forces and is removed by natural forces. Do you know what percentage of the CO2 influx into the atmosphere is from human activities?
You don’t, because if you did you would realize how silly you sound. (Ans. is at the end of this post.)
BTW, you have no idea how much water vapor was in the atmosphere a century ago.
We do know that during a glacial period, water vapor is very low in the atmosphere.
BTW, Cavlinius, the only reason why you have the luxury of debating CO2 is because your civilization burns a lot of fossil fuel.
Ans. About 4%. I hope you call this number bogus and bought and paid for by the gas/oil lobby. It will just add to your credentials.
So that’s like 3 per thousand? Oh, wait, the good and compromised Soon was just exposed, so now we are back to 2.
I’m another ‘PhD Scientist’ who thinks antrhopogenic global warming is political rubbish
Sure you are.