‘It Is Not Really About Science’

The most disturbing aspect I found in the New York Times article I wrote about yesterday was what seems to be a blind and ignorant activism by teachers not equipped with all the facts on the science of climate change.
Quoting from the article:"But it has been embraced by teachers eager to supplement textbooks that lag behind scientific findings on climate change and pollution."
and
"But many educators say the video is a boon to teachers as they struggle to address the gap in what textbooks say about the environment and what science has revealed in recent years." The article is replete with such premises from educators.

Really? Is the science and thus the knowledge of mankind on these difficult issues settled to the point that it can now become part of educational curriculums?
(My confusion based on the facts in the article as to the age group this video was targetted at by the teachers who choose to make it classroom material will have to be addressed in another posting -the age range per the article seemed to be all over the map from 5 year-olds to seniors in high schools.)

Let us hear about the facts of the science of "climate change" from leading scientist Dr S Fred Singer.



S. Fred Singer, PhD, made a brief presentation at the Heartland Institute hosted Third International Conference on Climate Change last week in Washington, DC.

Dr Singer summarized three key findings of the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) which I have transcribed below. (Please check with the original video for any errors).
1. “The main point is our result. We see no evidence whatsoever for the IPCC claim that the warming of the last 50 years is due to human activities. On the contrary, and to carry forward the presentation by Prof. Lindzen, we see evidence against man-made global warming. That is the main result of the NIPCC.”
2. “The second point. Once you recognize that we are dealing with natural forcings and not human forcings, then all the excitement, all the to do about this is nonsense, it makes no sense. All the activities about mitigating carbon dioxide, which is not a pollutant, are pointless, very expensive and completely ineffective. They will have no effect on the climate, in fact they will even have little effect on the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
3. “And finally the third point. And I am sorry I have to say this. But I think we all realize, this is not really about science. What is going on now not only in Washington, but in Europe and in other places in the world is money and power. That is what it is all about. There is no one who really believes that the legislative efforts that are now being carried forward in the Congress or the endangerment findings of the EPA will have the slightest impact on world climate or even on carbon dioxide levels.”

Dr Singer further went on to demonstrate that the science is not settled. He said, "I have identified about 8 different problems about which there is dispute and some of which are really unsolved.”
Disputed and unsolved problems
1. Climate sensitivity (3.0 or 0.3 degree Celsius?)
2. Feedback from WV and Clouds (positive or negative?)
3. Natural Forcing (Internal oscillation and/or Solar)
4. “Committed” warming “in the pipeline”? (If we stop emitting CO2 would the climate continue to warm or not according to the models?)
5. Surface temperature and SST. GH effect or artifact?
6. What is the residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere? Is it five years as some publications suggest or 3000+years as other publications suggest? Obviously it makes a big difference.
7. Why is abrupt climate change so prominent during the Ice Ages? Why don’t we see it now?
8. And finally: Sea Level rise -Is the rate constant or has it been accelerating? That is another important dispute.

Continuing his presentation Dr Singer said, “Now we are finished with science let us look at what is really going on here.”
“The battle over global warming and low-carbon will not be decided over scientific issues. It will be determined by government and law-makers on the basis of politics and special interests.”

Challenging the EPA’s holy grail that CO2 “is a danger to human health and welfare, at a:
Public Hearing on EPA Endangerment Finding, Oral Testimony by S. Fred Singer, PhD
May 18, 2009, Arlington, VA
“We reject the current climate models that have not been verified by observational data.”
“We reject the IPCC that human activity causes significant warming…and that CO2 is a pollutant.”
** “We urge you to reject the EPA Endangerment Finding as unscientific and fatally flawed.”

Dr Singer ended his presentation highlighting what is really going on with the Cap & Trade hoopla.
Cap & Trade: What’s it all about Alfie?
Waxman-Markey Bill: It’s not about climate; it’s about money. It is a huge tax!
The White House budget projects income from Cap & Trade revenues of $650 billion –it’s in the budget (Informed experts believe it will be three times as much, perhaps $2 trillion –that is a tax.).
But Waxman-Markey have already given away 85% of that to favored industries and other special interests and only 15% may go to the Treasury to be refunded, perhaps, to low-income consumers.
Dr Singer ended with the unsettling remark, "That is the sad truth".

There are more pdfs, powerpoint presentations and videos on other scientists' presentations at the same conference for those interested.