| on Jul 16, 2008, 11:09 AM E.S.T.
|
Is the scientific debate over on global warming? Not according to the American Physical Society* in this year's July's issue of Physics and Society .
"With
this issue of Physics & Society, we kick off a debate concerning
one of the main conclusions of the International Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), the UN body which, together with Al Gore, recently won
the Nobel Prize for its work concerning climate change research. There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2
emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the
global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.
Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense
implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we
thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S
concerning that conclusion. This editor invited several people to
contribute articles that were either pro or con. Christopher Monckton responded ..." [Emphasis added.]
And what did Lord Monckton say?
"Some
reasons why the IPCC's estimates may be excessive and unsafe are
explained. More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is
no "climate crisis", and that currently-fashionable efforts by
governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful."
He
examined specific assumptions of the IPCC cited computer models and
found that, even using the same models but with more justifiable
assumptions, carbon dioxide is not a critical threat to global
temperatures.
"Theoretically,
empirically, and in the literature that we have extensively cited, each
of the values we have chosen as our central estimate is arguably more
justifiable - and is certainly no less justifiable - than the
substantially higher value selected by the IPCC. Accordingly, it is
very likely that in response to a doubling of pre-industrial carbon
dioxide concentration TS will rise not by the 3.26 °K suggested by the IPCC, but by <1 °K."
He concluded with
"If the concluding equation in this analysis is
correct, the IPCC's estimates of climate sensitivity must have been
very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why,
contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies,
temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since
the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late
2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the
IPCC's estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no "climate crisis" at
all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing
anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the
courage to do nothing." [Emphasis added.]
*According to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Physical_Society,
the American Physical Society was founded in 1899 and is the second
largest association of physicists in the world, with over 40,000
members. Source
|
|
| Users' Comments |
|
Average user rating
|
|
|